Danger in the proposal before the Montgomery County Charter Review Commission to change the structure of the County Council

Sometimes seemingly benign proposals can be very dangerous if implemented.

To: <charterreview.commission@montgomerycountymd.gov>

February 21, 2020

To:               County Charter Review Commission

From:          David S. Fishback, Olney MD

Re:              Proposal to alter the structure of the County Council

I have lived nearly my entire adult life in Montgomery County, and have lived in Olney since 1986.

I believe it would be a big mistake to move to a nine District Council, eliminating the At-Large seats.

The advantage of the current five District/four At-Large system is that it is more likely to reflect majority sentiment in the County.  The four at-large members are responsible to the entire electorate; the five district members are responsible only to the people in their districts.  The more districts and the fewer at-large districts, the more likely we could get a Council that would not reflect majority views on significant policy matters.  I recognize that smaller districts might lead to more responsiveness with respect to constituent service and might yield a greater diversity of ideas in the course of Council deliberations.  But for the reason explained below, I think that that argument is far outweighed by the impact of the current requirement of the “Ficker Amendment."

Under the  "Ficker Amendment" to the Charter, property tax rates may not be increased beyond inflation unless the Council unanimously approves such an increase.  Several years ago, County Executive Leggett correctly concluded that such an increase was absolutely necessary for the County to continue to be the kind of place we want to live in. After considerable discussion, the Council unanimously voted to approve the necessary tax package.

But if the Council had been splintered into nine districts, it would have been much more difficult, if not impossible, to secure that unanimity.  With more, and smaller, districts, it would have been more likely that a single Council member could have vetoed the overwhelming majority of sentiment in the County. 

A better case could be made for more, smaller district seats if the "Ficker Amendment" had not been passed. Indeed, one could make an argument that the Amendment it might not have passed if the Council structure had then consisted of nine smaller districts.  But unless and until the "Ficker Amendment" is repealed, splintering the Council into smaller districts would be a ticking, fundamentally undemocratic time-bomb, which could result in tragic consequences for our community.