May 26, 2026 County Council

[a. Bill 26-009 (Charter Amendment Charter Section 207) ]

[00:00:07]

GOOD EVENING. CHAIR. CALLS TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARING FOR BILL 26-009. CHARTER AMENDMENT CHARTER, SECTION 207. MR. GINGER. THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT. GOOD EVENING. THANKS, EVERYBODY FOR COMING. GLAD TO SEE THERE'S SO MANY HERE PEOPLE HERE TONIGHT, WHETHER YOU'RE FOR THIS CHARTER AMENDMENT OR NOT, YOUR VOICES DESERVE TO BE HEARD. UNFORTUNATELY, EXCEPT FOR COUNCILMAN RILEY AND MYSELF, THE REST OF THE COUNCIL DID NOT WANT TO HAVE THIS ISSUE DISCUSSED PUBLICLY. PERIOD. SO AFTER I FORMALLY INTRODUCED THE BILL, IT WAS IMMEDIATELY MADE TO STOP THE INTRODUCTION AND TO PREVENT THE PUBLIC HEARING. THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MOMENT, FOLKS. THEY DID NOT WANT TO HEAR YOUR OPINION. THE PEOPLE'S CHAMBER, AS SOME CALL IT, WAS NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO SPEAK. LOOK IT UP. THE MEETING WAS RECORDED IN APRIL.

BASED ON PUBLICLY AVAILABLE COUNTY CHARTER LANGUAGE, THESE MARYLAND COUNTIES APPEAR TO HAVE CLEAR. PROHIBIT. PROHIBIT PROHIBITING PROHIBITIONS AGAINST COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBERS SIMULTANEOUSLY HOLDING ANOTHER GOVERNMENT PAID OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT WHILE SERVING ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, BALTIMORE COUNTY, HOWARD COUNTY, WHICH IS STRICTER THAN ALMOST ANYONE.

WAYNE COUNTY, DORCHESTER COUNTY, FREDERICK COUNTY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, FREDERICK COUNTY, CECIL COUNTY AND BALTIMORE CITY, WHICH ALSO HAS STRICTER PROHIBITIONS AGAINST THAT. SO I THINK INITIALLY THAT THIS IS A BILL THAT ONLY THEN GOES TO THE PUBLIC TO VOTE ON AT THE GENERAL ELECTION. SO LET THE PUBLIC WEIGH IN ON IT, NOT SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO SAY WHETHER THIS BILL IS GOING TO BE APPROVED OR NOT. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. THIS IS ABOUT WHETHER THE BILL GOES TO THE PUBLIC AND THE PUBLIC GETS TO LOOK AND VOTE ON THIS THING. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT HAVE SOMEBODY HERE SAYING THAT, NO, THAT SHOULDN'T BE. WELL, THE CHARTER WAS SET UP IN 1972. AND PEOPLE THIS CHARTER WAS NEVER CHALLENGED BEFORE. SO NOW IT WAS CHALLENGED. THE SUPREME COURT CAME BACK AND SAID THE WORDING WAS AMBIGUOUS. SO JACOB IS ON THERE. COUNCIL. COUNCILMAN PENMAN WAS ON HERE, BUT IT STILL SAID THE WORDING WAS AMBIGUOUS. YOU KNOW, LOOK, IF YOU'RE A POLICE OFFICER AND YOU'RE RETIRED, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SERVE ON HERE. SAME THING WITH A TEACHER OR SOMETHING ELSE. BUT YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE SERVED AS A COUNCIL PERSON AND GET A JOB PAY CHECK FROM THE COUNTY AND HAVE YOUR BOSS BEING THE SHERIFF AND THE PEOPLE. THAT'S THAT'S JUST THE SAME THING. SORRY. WITH THE TEACHERS, YOU KNOW, THE IF WE CHANGE, IF WE CUT ANY OF THE BUDGET, IT GOES TO THE SCHOOL. SO BOTTOM LINE IS THEN JACOB WILL VOTE ON THE SCHOOL BUDGET UNLESS HE RECUSES HIMSELF. WE GOT SOME AMENDMENTS THAT ARE COMING UP TONIGHT. SO IS HE GOING TO RECUSE HIMSELF BECAUSE THOSE BUDGETS GET CUT AND THEY GO TO THE SCHOOL, OR IS HE GOING TO VOTE ON IT? SO, YOU KNOW, HE'S VOTING ON HIS OWN BUDGET. SORRY, THAT SHOULDN'T BE THAT WAY. I'M SURE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME PEOPLE ON THE DAIS THAT ARE GOING TO DISAGREE, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS BRING IT TO BRING IT TO THE PEOPLE AND LET THE PEOPLE VOTE.

I SEE PEOPLE OUT HERE, ALL KIND OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO BE FOR IT AND AGAINST IT. IT IS WHAT IT IS. BUT, YOU KNOW, I'LL I'LL SAY THAT'S IT FOR RIGHT NOW, COUNCIL PRESIDENT. I'LL RESERVE THE RIGHT TO COME BACK. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU, MR. AND MRS. EMHOFF. GOOD EVENING. I JUST WANT SOME CLARIFICATION. IF THIS IS ABOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR IF IT'S ABOUT TWO PAYCHECKS FOR TWO JOBS. WELL, IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE GETTING IF THE FUNDS ARE COMING FROM THE COUNTY AND YOU'RE BEING PAID BY THE COUNTY, AND YOU'RE ALSO SITTING AND GETTING ANOTHER JOB, THEN THAT'S A THEN THEN YOU SHOULDN'T GET TWO PAYCHECKS FROM TWO SOURCES OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHETHER IT'S BEING. THE COUNTY IS FULLY FUNDING THE THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE OR DPW OR OR, YOU KNOW, THE SCHOOL, THEY SHOULDN'T BE SITTING ON THE COUNCIL AT THE SAME TIME. THEY'RE EMPLOYED BY THE COUNTY, WHETHER THEY'RE JUST A COUNTY EMPLOYEE OR WHETHER THEY'RE IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE OR THE SCHOOL. SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT CONFLICT. IT'S LIKE IF SOMEONE WERE TO BE APPOINTED TO THE COUNCIL AND THEY WERE TO RECUSE THEIR COUNCIL PAYCHECK. YOUR MENTIONED WORDS, YOU SHOULDN'T BE SITTING HERE BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST YOUR PAYCHECK, IT'S ANYTHING THAT YOU'RE VOTING ON. AND THEN YOU LOSE SOMEBODY'S VOTE, YOUR VOICE FOR SOMEBODY TO VOTE, YOU'RE TAKING AWAY PEOPLE'S VOTE AND WHATEVER THAT DISTRICT IS JUST BECAUSE THEY WANT TO RECUSE THEMSELVES. SO, RIGHT.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS NOT TWO PAYCHECKS, NOT TWO PAYCHECKS FROM GOVERNMENT FUNDED SOURCES. AND WHAT YOU WERE JUST SAYING IS IF THEY RECUSED THEMSELVES.

SO IF YOU'RE RECUSING YOURSELF, THEN YOU'RE TAKING AWAY SOMEBODY'S RIGHT AND THAT THOSE

[00:05:04]

YOU BRING UP BALTIMORE COUNTY AS AN EXAMPLE. COUNCILMAN MARX, WHO SERVES ON THE BALTIMORE COUNTY COUNCIL, TEACHES RIGHT HERE IN HARFORD COUNTY. NOW, OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S TWO DIFFERENT COUNTIES, BUT YOUR LEGISLATION, AS WRITTEN, WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR ANYONE WHO WORKS FOR AN ENTITY THAT RECEIVES STATE FUNDING, WHICH THE THE HARFORD COUNTY COUNCIL RECEIVES STATE FUNDING.

SO IF YOUR CHARTER AMENDMENT APPLIED IN BALTIMORE COUNTY, COUNCILMAN MARX WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE ON THE BALTIMORE COUNTY COUNCIL, EVEN THOUGH HE WORKS OUTSIDE THE COUNTY. IF A COUNCIL MEMBER WORKED IN CECIL COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ACCORDING TO YOUR CHARTER AMENDMENT, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SERVE ON THE HARFORD COUNTY COUNCIL.

ADDITIONALLY, YOUR CHARTER AMENDMENT TAKES OUT THE WORDS MARYLAND AND HARFORD AND CHANGES IT TO ANY STATE, ANY COUNTY BUDGET, WHICH MEANS I COULD OR ANY COUNCIL MEMBER COULD GO GET A JOB IN FAIRFAX COUNTY. SCHOOLS IN VIRGINIA, MAKE THAT COMMUTE EVERY DAY, AND WOULD BE INELIGIBLE TO SERVE ON THE HARFORD COUNTY COUNCIL. I COULD GO BE A FIREFIGHTER IN PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY AND SERVE AS A PAID FIREFIGHTER. BUT BECAUSE I WORK FOR AN ENTITY THAT RECEIVES COUNTY FUNDING FROM ANY COUNTY, I WOULD BE INELIGIBLE TO SERVE ON THE HARFORD COUNTY COUNCIL. THE PURPOSE OF CHARTER SECTION 207 IS TO PREVENT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IT IS NOT OUR RIGHT TO DIMINISH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS UNLESS THERE'S A EXPLICIT PURPOSE IN HELPING PREVENT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. SO THAT BEING SAID, I WANT TO READ A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE SUPREME COURT RULING BENNETT V HARFORD COUNTY, BECAUSE YOU'VE REFERENCED IT. I WAS KEY IN RESEARCHING THAT CASE, PRESENTING AN ARGUMENT IN THAT CASE, AND I HAVE READ THE RULING IN THAT CASE MANY, MANY TIMES. WE ULTIMATELY CONCLUDE THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 207, THE BOARD IS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY, NEITHER STATE NOR COUNTY, AND THAT SECTION 207, THEREFORE, DOES NOT PRECLUDE MR. BENNETT FROM SIMULTANEOUSLY SERVING AS A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL AND AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BOARD. SECOND, AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE ARGUMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THE DOCTRINE OF INCOMPATIBLE POSITIONS DOES NOT PRECLUDE MR. BENNETT'S SIMULTANEOUS SERVICE ON THE COUNCIL AND AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PRESENT OR PROSPECTIVE CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE POSITIONS. THERE IS NO PRESENT OR PROSPECTIVE CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE POSITIONS. NEITHER POSITION HAS THE LEVEL OF SUPERVISORY POWER OVER THE OTHER, OR THE ABILITY TO HIRE, FIRE OR SET THE SALARY OF THE OTHER. AND NONE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICES ARE INHERENTLY INCONSISTENT AND REPUGNANT. THE COUNCIL'S LIMITED ROLES WITH RESPECT TO THE BUDGET AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD ARE TWO. ATTENUATED FROM THE MR. BENNETT'S POSITION AS A TEACHER TO IMPLICATE THIS DOCTRINE. AGAIN, THAT'S A DIRECT QUOTE. THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE SIMPLY AS TO AMBIGUOUS. THEREFORE, LET HIM DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. THEY SAID. THERE'S NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

THEY SAID THE BOARD OF EDUCATION IS AN INDEPENDENT BODY. I RECEIVE ONE PAYCHECK FROM HARFORD COUNTY GOVERNMENT. I RECEIVE ANOTHER PAYCHECK FROM HARFORD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS THAT HAS ITS OWN HR, THAT SENDS OUT ITS OWN CHECKS. SO JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR ON THAT, CHIEF JUSTICE FADER EXPRESSED VERBALLY DURING ARGUMENT, WHICH I'VE ENCOURAGED YOU TO ACTUALLY WATCH IT. WHEN YOU ADMITTED TO ME THAT YOU HAD NOT WATCHED THIS CASE, CHIEF JUSTICE FADER EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT EVEN OUR CURRENT LANGUAGE OF THE CHARTER THAT BARS ANY MARYLAND STATE EMPLOYEE FROM SERVING ON THE COUNCIL MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF THE EXPRESS POWERS ACT OF

[00:10:05]

YOU'VE CHOSEN TO REMOVE THE WORD HARFORD FROM THIS SECTION OF THE CHARTER. SO NOW ANY STATE, ANY COUNTY, ANY ENTITY THAT RECEIVES COUNTY FUNDING, THAT'S TENS OF THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS WITHIN HARFORD COUNTY THAT YOU ARE SAYING CANNOT RUN AND SERVE OUR COMMUNITY. THIS BILL, AS WRITTEN, WOULD NOT JUST BAR A MEMBER FROM BEING ON THE PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER IN HARFORD COUNTY. IT ALSO PROHIBIT A COUNCIL MEMBER FROM WORKING IN CECIL COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE. IT WOULD PREVENT SOMEONE FROM BEING A PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY OR BALTIMORE CITY FIREFIGHTER. THERE IS NO LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT COULD BE MADE THAT THESE TYPES OF POSITIONS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH HARFORD COUNTY GOVERNMENT. THIS BILL IS SO POORLY DESIGNED AND THOUGHT THROUGH THAT THE AMOUNT OF AMENDMENTS IT WOULD TAKE TO MAKE IT BE IN A LEGALLY TENABLE POSITION WOULD REQUIRE US TO COMPLETELY REWRITE IT. AND FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND FOR THE REASON WE REJECTED THE PREVIOUS BILL, IT'S JUST NOT MOVABLE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. BENNETT. MR. JORDAN, THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT. SO, JACOB, YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE ON AMENDMENTS THAT AFFECT THE BUDGET. YOU'RE GOING TO MOVE MONEY FROM ONE AREA OF THE BUDGET TO ANOTHER, WHICH ONLY GOES TO THE SCHOOL. SO IS THAT NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON YOUR OWN BUDGET? WHEN WE MOVE 5 MILLION OR 7 MILLION AND THE NEXT IN THE NEXT COUPLE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PROCEEDING FORWARD. ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE ON THOSE AMENDMENTS, RHETORICAL QUESTION OR. WELL, NO, IT'S A IT'S A QUESTION. ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENTS WHEN THEY'RE BROUGHT FORWARD TO MOVE MONEY FROM ONE PART OF THE BUDGET THAT GOES THEN IS GOING TO GO TO THE SCHOOL? ARE YOU GOING TO RECUSE YOURSELF? BECAUSE IF NOT, THEN YOU'RE VOTING ON YOUR OWN, YOUR OWN INFORMATION THERE WITH THE SCHOOL. IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION. AGAIN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU, TONY, TO. JACOB, YES OR NO? IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO ANSWER IT, JUST SAY YOU DON'T WANT TO ANSWER IT.

I AM ANSWERING THE QUESTION, TONY. I'M ENCOURAGING YOU TO DO SOME READING. IF YOU READ THE ETHICS BOARD OPINION, IN MY CASE WITH THE PARK, YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE. YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENTS. EXCUSE ME, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, CAN I SECURE MY TIME WITHOUT BEING INTERRUPTED? ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. I WOULD NEVER INTERRUPT SOMEONE ELSE BEFORE. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT TO DO READING AND TO READ THE ETHICS RULING THAT HARFORD COUNTY'S ETHICS BOARD, APPOINTED BY OUR COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND AFFIRMED BY THE COUNCIL, RULED IN MY CASE, WHICH SAID IT IS NOT A ETHICS VIOLATION FOR ME TO VOTE ON THE COUNTY BUDGET. AND I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT ETHICS RULINGS FROM ACROSS THE STATE OF MARYLAND, WHICH HAS FOUND THAT THE BOARD OF EDUCATION HAS AN IMPACT SO BROAD ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTY THAT ANY SORT OF VOTE ON THE BUDGET IS NOT IMPACTING ME INDIVIDUALLY IN A WAY THAT SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE VOTE TO INCREASE FUNDING TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S GOING TO A SUBCATEGORY CALLED JACOB BENNETT'S PAYCHECK. IT'S GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT SCHOOLS THAT IMPACT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN. AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU ADD IN THEIR FAMILIES, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS ARE BETTER SERVED. AND SO THERE'S NO INDIVIDUAL IMPACT ON ME THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. AND THAT'S WHY I HAVE PERMISSION TO VOTE ON BUDGET ITEMS. MR. DAN? YEAH. FIRST OF ALL, JACOB, I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS AN ETHICS VIOLATION. YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. THE ONLY QUESTION I ASKED IF YOU WERE GOING TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENTS, THAT THE MONEY IS GOING TO GO TO THE SCHOOL, AND YOU ANSWERED THAT QUESTION. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I DO HAVE A LETTER HERE FROM THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE THAT'S IN SUPPORT OF BILL 2609, WHICH I'LL READ SAYS ALLOW VOTERS TO CLARIFY THE QUALIFICATION OF COUNCIL MEMBERS AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED BY THE HARFORD COUNTY CHARTER DRAFTERS OF OUR CHARTER, WISELY

[00:15:05]

JUST AS SOMEONE SEEKING A BANK LOAN SHOULD NOT SERVE ON THE LOAN REVIEW COMMITTEE, A GRANT APPLICANT SHOULD NOT BE SELECTING THE GRANTS RECIPIENTS, AND A JOB APPLICANT SHOULDN'T HELP DECIDE WHO GETS HIRED. BILL 29009 PREVENTS SUCH CONFLICTS AND HELPS TO ENSURE COUNCIL MEMBERS WORK FOR TAXPAYERS AND NOT ANY OTHER WAY AROUND. SO AGAIN, IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE BILL, THAT'S FINE. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT YOU DIDN'T LIKE THE FIRST BILL. YOU DIDN'T EVEN LET THE FIRST BILL COME ON THE FLOOR. SO YOU'RE ATTACKING THIS BILL. YOU DIDN'T EVEN LET THE OTHER BILL COME. COME ON THE FLOOR. THE ENTIRE COUNCIL, EXCEPT FOR ME AND MR. RILEY, WAS A IT WAS POORLY EXECUTED SABOTAGE. AND THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. SO UNFORTUNATELY. BUT STILL, IT'S THE PEOPLE THAT SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO TO THE BALLOT TO VOTE ON IT, NOT THE SEVEN OF US UP HERE. THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT. YOU'RE WELCOME, MISS ROBERT. YES.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT. SO SAYING THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, I AGREE, WHEN THE PEOPLE GO TO THE POLLS AND THEY VOTED FOR MR. BENNETT, MR. PENMAN, THEY KNEW ONE WAS A TEACHER. THEY KNEW ONE WAS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. THAT WAS THEIR CHOICE TO PUT THOSE INDIVIDUALS IN THIS SEAT. THE LANGUAGE THAT IS WRITTEN IN THIS BILL TAKES OUT EVERYBODY.

WE HAVE THE STATE GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, WE HAVE MUNICIPALITIES, WE HAVE EVERYTHING. IF YOU WERE A DSS SOCIAL WORKER, YOU CAN'T BE A COUNTY COUNCIL PERSON. IF YOU WERE THE SCHOOL BUS DRIVER IN WHICH SOMEONE ADVISED THAT THE SCHOOL BUS DRIVER, BUT THE SCHOOL BUS DRIVER WORKS FOR THE SCHOOL SYSTEM TOO. SO HOW CAN THEY CHOOSE ON THE BUDGET? SO NO, THE SCHOOL BUS DRIVER CAN'T. EVERYBODY AT THIS POINT IN THIS WOULD NOT QUALIFY UNLESS YOU WERE A A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER. BE INDEPENDENTLY WEALTHY, SEE RETIRED, BUT YOU CAN'T BE RETIRED FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT, THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, LAW ENFORCEMENT, SCHOOL TEACHER, BECAUSE THE PENSIONS ARE ALL SUPPLEMENTALLY IN THE BUDGET. SO THEREFORE, YOU ARE CLOSING A DOOR THAT ANYBODY CAN BE ON THE COUNTY COUNCIL. AND SO WHERE YOU'RE SITTING AT IS A NON DIVERSE GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS SITTING ON THE COUNCIL. NOW, I DID MY RESEARCH, 46 STATES, 46 STATES ALLOW LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SCHOOL TEACHERS TO BE ON THE COUNTY COUNCIL. FOUR STATES DO NOT. THESE 46 STATES DO HAVE DIFFERENT LANGUAGES IN THEIR BILLS THAT SERVE AND SHOW HOW THAT CAN WORK. AND SO IT DOESN'T MAKE CONFLICT. THE CONFLICT, I FIND IS THAT. RULING ON THE BUDGET 15 MILLION, SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, MR. BENNETT'S NOT MAKING 15 MILLION, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, IN IN LOOKING AT LAW ENFORCEMENT BUDGET, WE'RE ONLY GOING SO FAR WITH THAT AS WELL. THE SCHOOL SYSTEM GETS FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL MONEY. IT IS UP TO THEM TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY WANT TO DISBURSE THAT. SOME MAY BE GOING TO SCHOOL BUSSES, SOME MAY BE GOING TO TEACHERS, SOME MAY BE GOING TO CLASSROOMS. BUT US MAKING THE DECISION ON THE BUDGET, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE OVER ARCHING ENVELOPE OF THE BUDGET AND SAYING, OKAY, THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO UTILIZE THIS MONEY FOR. BUT BECAUSE WE'RE MAKING THAT DECISION DOES NOT MEAN THAT MR. BENNETT OR MR. PENMAN ARE SAYING, OKAY, WELL, NOW THAT WE GOT AN EXTRA 5 MILLION, MY SALARY IS GOING TO GO UP AN EXTRA 5 MILLION. THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. HE IS

[00:20:01]

GIORDANO. SORRY, TONY. I CAN NEVER GET IT RIGHT. I HEAR WHAT HE IS TRYING TO DO. IT'S JUST NOT GOING ABOUT IT WITH THE RIGHT LANGUAGE, THE RIGHT WAY. I DON'T THINK EVERYONE SITTING UP HERE DOUBLE DIPPING, FOR EXAMPLE, AND I'M GOING TO SAY THIS TO YOU, I'M A PRIVATE PRACTITIONER, BUT IF THE SCHOOL CALLS ME TOMORROW AND SAYS, WE WANT YOU TO CONTRACT AND DO THERAPY IN OUR SCHOOLS, AM I DOUBLE DIPPING? AND THAT'S THE QUESTION. IF SOMEONE ASKS YOU TO ENSURE SOMETHING WITHIN THE SCHOOLS OR WITHIN LAW ENFORCEMENT, IS THAT DOUBLE DIPPING? I CAN'T DO THAT. SO THAT'S THEY GET THEIR OWN INSURANCE ELSEWHERE. SO THAT'S EXACTLY AND IT'S COVERED BY THE COUNTY. WHAT I'M SAYING. MR. GINGER. SO SERGEANT PENMAN RETIRED BEFORE HE SAT ON THE SEAT. HE KNEW IF HE WON, HE HAD TO RETIRE TO SIT ON THE SEAT.

SO TO, TO BRING THAT UP. AND THEN SECONDLY, THE FIRST BILL THAT I BROUGHT FORWARD THAT MEGAN LOOKED AT AND SAID WAS, OKAY, YOU GOT FOR YOU, YOU REFERENCED 47 EMAILS IN THE EGIS. THEY ASKED FOR A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT WITH WHICH THEY GOT. AND THEY FOUND THAT THE 47 EMAILS CAME MOSTLY FROM THE HARFORD COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION. IT WAS IT WAS A IT WAS MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT SENT AN EMAIL. SO FOR YOU TO SAY 47 PEOPLE TRUMP 240 000 PEOPLE THAT SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THIS THING WAS JUST INEXCUSABLE TO SAY 47 PEOPLE.

AND YOU WENT BY THE 47 PEOPLE. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I UNDERSTAND IT IS WHAT IT IS. I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS BILL. I'M JUST BRINGING IT FORWARD. SO AND THANK YOU FOR THE CONVERSATION.

I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE IT, MR. RILEY. OKAY. JUST SO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED LAST TIME TONY TRIED TO BRING THIS FORWARD AND IT GOT SQUASHED BY THE REST OF THE COUNCIL. I PERSONALLY THINK THIS DEBATE IS GOOD. THAT'S THE REASON WHY I SECOND IT LAST TIME. SO EVERYBODY COULD HEAR ALL SIDES OF WHAT'S GOING ON. SECOND, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH CONFLICT OF INTEREST. TWO PAY CHECKS, WHETHER IT'S A POLICE OFFICER, A TEACHER, A JANITOR. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT AT ALL. WHAT THE PROBLEM I DO HAVE IS WHY AREN'T WE TAKING IT TO THE VOTERS? TO ME, THAT'S THE ONLY POINT. LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. WE KNOW IN THE HISTORY OF HARFORD COUNTY, THERE'S NEVER BEEN A TEACHER THAT HAS SERVED ON THIS COUNCIL BECAUSE THE COURT ACROSS THE STREET, AND THEY EVEN DID IT IN IN JACOB'S CASE, THEY DECIDED THAT, HEY, HE COULD NOT SERVE. HE HAD TO TAKE IT DOWN TO ANNAPOLIS BEFORE HE COULD GET THAT OVERTURNED, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN JUST THOSE JUDGES OVER HERE. BREATHE LIVE WORK, HARFORD COUNTY, HARFORD COUNTY KNEW THAT'S THE REASON WHY SERGEANT PENMAN STEPPED OFF. THAT'S THE REASON WHY I STEPPED OFF. AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S ON THE ON THE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW IT GOT TO WHERE IT IS TODAY. WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS DEBATE IF TONY WOULD HAVE NOT BROUGHT THIS BACK. AND I DON'T KNOW WHY ANYBODY ON THIS DAIS WOULD NOT WANT THE PEOPLE TO DECIDE. I MEAN, WE'RE REPRESENTING PEOPLE, SO WHY NOT ALLOW THOSE THEN WE WON'T HAVE THIS. WELL, SHOULD THEY SHOULDN'T THEY LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE? THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT. AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD GO FORWARD WITH THIS BILL. THANK YOU, MR. RILEY. MISS. THANK YOU. I WILL SAY THAT WHEN THE VOTERS ELECT A PERSON FOR THIS POSITION, THEY ARE MAKING THE DECISION. THEY KNOW IF YOU'RE A TEACHER OR A COP OR REALTOR OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU ARE. SO I DO THINK THAT THE VOTERS ARE DECIDING.

AND AS FAR AS THE BILL GOES, IT'S EXTREMELY BROAD. AND IF COPS AND TEACHERS CAN SERVE IN OUR COMMUNITY, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SERVE ON THE COUNCIL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS SOTOS. MR. BENNETT, JUST A QUICK FACTUAL CLARIFICATION. THE INITIAL JUDGE IN MY CASE

[00:25:05]

IT'S A PART OF THE PROCESS. THE THING THAT I'D LIKE YOU TO DO FOR ME TONIGHT IS DEFINE DOUBLE DIPPING, BECAUSE YOU VOTED FOR RETIRED COUNTY EMPLOYEES TO COME BACK HERE AND WORK PART TIME. IS THAT DOUBLE DIPPING? THEY'RE GETTING TWO PAYCHECKS FROM THE COUNTY. THEY'RE GETTING A RETIREMENT AND A CHECK, NOT A RETIREMENT. THEY'RE NOT. I JUST SAID NOT RETIREMENT. OKAY, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT BACK IN 2021? I THINK THAT'S THE DATE. YES, SIR.

THAT A BILL WAS BROUGHT FORWARD AND SQUASHED BEFORE IT GOT OUT ON THE FLOOR. YES, SIR. MR. AM I CORRECT? IT WAS IT WAS COUNTY EXECUTIVE LAST TERM. YES. IT WAS A MOTION TO REJECT.

SECONDED. AND THEN IT PASSED WITH FIVE VOTES. AND YOU VOTED IN FAVOR OF IT? YEAH. I THINK MR. WOODS WAS WAS ABSENT AND I BELIEVE MR. JOHNSON VOTED NO ON THE MOTION TO ADJUST. YES. AND THEN AGAIN, FOR ME, I JUST THINK THE BILL IS TOO RESTRICTIVE. WE'VE SEEN THE INVOLVEMENT BY MR. BENNETT TIME AND TIME AGAIN, HOW HE STANDS UP FOR ALL KINDS OF LEGISLATION ACROSS THIS DAIS. DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S PARTY LINE, DOESN'T MATTER WHAT IT IS, IF IT'S FOR THOSE CITIZENS, THE BEST FOR THE CITIZENS. HE SUPPORTS IT. AND AND I AGREE WITH THAT, AND I SUPPORT THAT WITH ALL OF US. THIS DIVISION ON THIS COUNCIL STARTED DECEMBER 5TH, 2022. AND WE ALL KNOW WHY. AND I THINK IT'S TIME FOR THIS TO STOP. I HAVE NO PROBLEM BRINGING THIS TO A VOTE. YOU WANT THE CITIZENS TO HEAR AND VOTE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO TONIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT. WE HAVE, I THINK, 33 SPEAKERS SIGNED UP. I'M GOING TO LET EVERYBODY GO TO THE THREE MINUTES. WE'RE GOING TO SIT HERE TONIGHT, AND WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE SPEAKERS. WHAT'S DIFFERENT COUNCIL PRESIDENT ABOUT TONIGHT THAN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WHEN YOU DIDN'T WANT TO. YOU HAVE MADE A POINT TO SAY THAT YOU WANTED THE CITIZENS TO SPEAK. MR. RILEY JUST BACKED YOU UP ON THAT. SO TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THE CITIZENS SPEAK. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHY WOULDN'T YOU LET THAT HAPPEN? TWO WEEKS AGO, I JUST EXPLAINED IT. OKAY, I JUST EXPLAINED. SO TONIGHT YOU'RE GOOD WITH IT. BUT TWO WEEKS AGO YOU WEREN'T. I JUST EXPLAINED IT. OKAY? YOU'VE MADE A DIFFERENCE. YOU'VE MADE A ISSUE OUT OF THIS. MR. RILEY JUST BACKED YOU UP.

SO TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO GO THE THREE MINUTES, AND THAT IS MY CALL. GOOD. ACCORDING TO OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES, IT IS MY CALL AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MR. RILEY, LET'S NOT FOOL OURSELVES.

THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO SPEAK TONIGHT DO NOT REPRESENT ALL OF HARFORD COUNTY. SO AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO HAVE A PLAYING A FAIR PLAYING FIELD. ALL OF US REPRESENT PROBABLY SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 2020 5000 VOTERS. AND SO EVEN IF WE HAVE 2000 PEOPLE SPEAK TONIGHT, THAT IS NOT A REPRESENTATION OF THE VOTERS OF HARFORD COUNTY. AND SO ALL I'M SAYING IS, AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM IF IF YOU'RE A JANITOR, IF YOU'RE A POLICE OFFICER, IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME. I'M JUST SAYING, WHY DON'T WE LET THE VOTERS DECIDE? AND SO DON'T GIVE THIS.

WELL, WE'RE GOING TO LET THE VOTERS TALK TONIGHT. YES. YOU ARE GOING TO LET SOME OF THE VOTERS TALK TONIGHT, BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LET THE ENCOMPASS OF MOST OF THE VOTERS SPEAK TONIGHT. BUT IF YOU TAKE IT TO THE BALLOT BOX THERE, YOU WILL HAVE MOST OF THE VOTERS WHO WILL SPEAK, WHETHER PRO OR CON. SO YOU'RE RIGHT, THE PEOPLE THAT TOOK THE TIME TO SIGN UP TO SHOW UP ARE HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK, AND WE'RE GOING TO HEAR IT FROM THEM. WE ALSO HAVE HAD

[00:30:04]

WHICH IS A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE, BUT IT IS. BUT IS THE FACTUAL. EVERYONE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SIGN UP AND SPEAK HERE TONIGHT. EVERYBODY THESE ARE THE FOLKS TO VOTE.

THESE ARE THE FOLKS THAT HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? MR. BENNETT? AND FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. WE ALL HAVE DISTRICTS THAT PUT US HERE. WE DON'T HAVE A DIRECT DEMOCRACY WHERE EVERY BILL THAT COMES ACROSS US HAS TO GO TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE TRIED THAT IN THE PAST AT THE BEGINNING OF DEMOCRACY AND FOUND IT TO BE INCREDIBLY INEFFICIENT. WE HAVE A PROCESS WHERE THAT FIRST STEP IN THE PROCESS, SO THAT WE REPRESENT THE COMMUNITIES THAT WE REPRESENT WHEN WE CAST A VOTE, AND THEN IF THE COMMUNITIES DON'T LIKE THE VOTES THAT WE CAST, THEN THEY HAVE A PROCESS TO PUT SOMEONE ELSE IN OUR SEAT. MR. BENNETT, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE THIS ANYMORE, BUT YOU WERE ELECTED. SHE WAS ELECTED, I WAS ELECTED, SO WAS HE. BUT THERE'S TWO PEOPLE ON THIS DAIS THAT WEREN'T ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.

OKAY, BUT THEY ELECTED THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE THAT CHOSE WHO REPLACED THEM. WE DECIDED WHO REPLACED THEM. LET'S GET IT RIGHT. LET'S AGAIN HAVE A FAIR PLAYING FIELD. LET'S SPEAK TO THE PUBLIC SO THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS. WE DECIDED WHO SAT IN THOSE TWO SEATS, THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE ELECT THAT WAS ELECTED BY THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE THEN SENT US THREE CANDIDATES THAT WE CHOSE FROM. IS THERE THREE PEOPLE IN EACH ONE OF THOSE SEATS OVER THERE, MR. BENNETT? COME ON, LET'S JUST MOVE ON. YOUR POINT IS WELL MADE, I KNOW. MISS DIXON.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP? WE DO, MR. PRESIDENT. I BELIEVE WE ARE AT 32 THIS EVENING. OKAY, SO AGAIN, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL OF THE SPEAKERS. WE WANT TO HAVE THE RECOGNIZED SPEAKER SPEAKING. I DON'T REALLY WANT TO HEAR FROM ANYONE ELSE SO THAT WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. AND WE ARE GOING TO STAY AT THE THREE MINUTE LEVEL.

CALL YOUR FIRST SPEAKER, JERRY EATON, FOLLOWED BY CHRISTY CRAWFORD SMITH, CRYSTAL RUFFINO AND HUNTER BAKER. GOOD EVENING SIR. NAME AND ZIP. MY NAME IS JERRY EATON. ZIP CODE IS 21014.

WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL PRESIDENT VINCENTE, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. MY NAME IS JERRY EATON, AND I SERVE AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE HARFORD COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF'S UNION. I'M HERE TONIGHT IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO BILL 26-009. I WANT TO CALL THIS BILL EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. IT'S A TARGETED ATTEMPT TO SILENCE WORKING PUBLIC SERVANTS AND PREVENT CERTAIN PEOPLE FROM HAVING A VOICE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, BILL 26-009 SPECIFICALLY SINGLES OUT EMPLOYEES OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, WHILE ALSO BROADLY ATTEMPTING TO BLOCK COUNTY EMPLOYEES AND PUBLIC SERVANTS FROM SERVING ON THE COUNTY COUNCIL. THIS IS NOT REFORM. THIS IS EXCLUSION. THE COUNCILMAN SAYS THE BILL IS ABOUT ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. HARFORD COUNTY HAS ETHICS LAWS. THEY HAVE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. THEY HAVE PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY ALREADY BUILT INTO THE GOVERNMENT. IF THE CONFLICT EXISTS, THERE'S ALREADY LEGAL MECHANISMS TO ADDRESS IT. WHAT THIS BILL REALLY DOES IS IT TELLS OUR DEPUTIES, OUR CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, OUR TEACHERS, OUR SCHOOL EMPLOYEES AND OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS THAT ALL THEIR FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE SOMEHOW DISQUALIFIES THEM FROM PUBLIC OFFICE. AND FRANKLY, THAT MAKES NO SENSE. THE PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND PUBLIC SAFETY THE BEST, AND STAFFING SHORTAGES AND BUDGET REALITIES AND SCHOOL CONDITIONS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THE JOBS EVERY SINGLE DAY. THIS LEGISLATION WOULD REMOVE EXPERIENCED VOICES FROM THE BALLOT AND REPLACE THEM WITH CAREER POLITICIANS, BUSINESS INTERESTS, INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE FAR LESS UNDERSTANDING OF HOW GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY OPERATES.

AND I ALSO WANT TO BE HONEST ABOUT THE TIMING AND THE OPTICS HERE. THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE HAS BECOME AN EASY POLITICAL TARGET. ANYTIME THE BUDGET IS DISCUSSED, DEPUTIES ARE ASKED TO WORK LONGER HOURS, DEAL WITH STAFFING SHORTAGES, RESPOND TO PUBLIC DEMANDS, AND STILL, SOMEHOW THEY'RE PORTRAYED AS THE PROBLEM WHEN THEY CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC SERVICE OUTSIDE OF THEIR REGULAR DUTIES. SERVING YOUR COMMUNITY AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONAL SHOULD NOT STRIP YOUR RIGHTS AWAY TO SERVE AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. PUBLIC SERVICE SHOULD ENCOURAGE CIVIC PARTICIPATION, NOT RESTRICTED. NOBODY QUESTIONS BUSINESS OWNERS, INSURANCE EXECUTIVES, POLITICALLY CONNECTED INDIVIDUALS FROM SERVING IN OFFICE WHILE THEY MAINTAIN THEIR OWN OUTSIDE INTEREST. BUT SOMEHOW, DEPUTIES AND TEACHERS ARE THE PROBLEM.

[00:35:01]

LET'S LET'S. NO APPLAUSE, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. CHRISTY CRAWFORD SMITH 21132. I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF BILL 26009, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED DOUBLE DIP BILL. THIS BILL IS EXTREMELY DISCRIMINATORY AND CHOOSES WHO CAN AND CANNOT SERVE THE COMMUNITY BASED ON THEIR CHOSEN CAREER PATH. SOME LEGAL EXPERTS HAVE ALREADY INDICATED THAT THIS BILL ALONE WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO IF PASSED, I THINK IT'S SAFE TO ASSUME THE COUNTY WILL SPEND YEARS IN COURT TRYING TO SETTLE THIS OUT. THIS BILL IS SO POORLY WORDED THAT I'M NOT EVEN SURE THE MAKER REALIZES WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED. WITH THAT SAID, PICTURE IT. HARFORD COUNTY, 30 YEARS FROM NOW, OUR RESIDENT DECIDES, AFTER A LONG CAREER IN PUBLIC SERVICE, THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN A NEW WAY, ONLY TO LEARN THAT THEY ARE BARRED FROM SERVING ON THE COUNCIL BECAUSE OF A BILL THAT WAS DRAFTED IN 2026 WITHOUT ANY FORETHOUGHT ABOUT EXCLUDING PEOPLE WHO ARE COLLECTING A PENSION AFTER A CAREER IN PUBLIC SERVICE. ANOTHER PROBLEMATIC EXAMPLE IS USING THE TERM ANY COUNTY OR STATE ENTITY. SO THAT MEANS A SOCIAL WORKER WHO IS EMPLOYED BY DSS AND LET'S SAY BALTIMORE COUNTY, BUT ALSO RESIDES IN HARFORD COUNTY, CANNOT SERVE ON THIS COUNCIL OR A TEACHER WHO WORKS FOR CECIL COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BUT RESIDES IN BEL AIR WOULD ALSO BE BARRED. HERE WE ARE ONCE AGAIN WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME DECIDING ON AN UNNECESSARY BILL THAT HAS BEEN DECIDED IN THE COURTS. TWICE. BOTH MR. BENNETT AND SERGEANT PENMAN PREVAILED IN THEIR SUITS.

BUT WE KNOW WHY WE ARE HERE TONIGHT, BECAUSE THOSE TWO PEOPLE ARE NOT VERY WELL LIKED BY OUR COUNTY EXECUTIVE, AND HE HAS SENT SOMEONE ELSE TO DO HIS BIDDING. THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IT IS A TARGET. CONFLICT IS VIRTUALLY UNAVOIDABLE. IT EXISTS FOR EVERYONE WHO IS A BUSINESS OR PROPERTY OWNER. ALSO THOSE WITH IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS OR SPOUSES WHO WORK FOR A COUNTY GOVERNMENT AGENCY, THE LIBRARY OR ANY PART OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

HAVING A CHILD WHO ATTENDS CPS COULD BE VIEWED AS A CONFLICT. PERHAPS HOLDING INSURANCE CONTRACTS FOR CPS BUS CONTRACTORS WHOSE FUNDS ARE INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET MAY BE VIEWED AS A CONTRACT OR CONFLICT AS WELL. EVEN THE TERM DOUBLE DIPPING IS INACCURATE.

HAVING TWO JOBS ACTUALLY SHOULD RESULT IN TWO SALARIES. SOMEONE WHO DEDICATES THEIR CAREER TO PUBLIC SERVICE HAS A SALARY NEGOTIATED AND RATIFIED LONG BEFORE THIS BUDGET EVER IS RELEASED. IF SOMEONE HAS A PROBLEM VOTING ON INDIVIDUAL SALARIES, WHY DOES THE COUNCIL GET TO VOTE ON A BUDGET THAT INCLUDES THEIR OWN SALARIES EVERY SINGLE YEAR? AND PREVIOUS COUNCILS HAVE EVEN VOTED TO ON AMENDMENTS TO INCREASE THEIR SALARIES? SO WHAT'S NEXT? WILL WE SEE SIMILAR LEGISLATION DRAFTED THAT EXCLUDES PEOPLE BASED ON THEIR RELIGION, RACE, GENDER OR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN? IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE VOTERS TO DECIDE WHO THEY WANT TO REPRESENT THEM, NOT SOME HALF WIT BILL THAT WAS DRAFTED OUT OF VENGEANCE THE LAST TIME A SIMILAR BILL WAS SUBMITTED. YOU VOTED NO, MOST OF YOU AT LEAST. AND WE ARE STILL HERE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME TIRED ISSUE, ONLY THIS TIME IT'S WORSE BECAUSE THIS BILL WAS SO POORLY WRITTEN THAT IT'S EXCLUDING THE MAJORITY OF WORKING PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY.

SO I'M URGING YOU TO VOTE NO ONCE AGAIN. AND LET'S PUT THIS ISSUE TO REST SO HARFORD COUNTY CAN FINALLY MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING MA'AM. NAME? IS IT CRYSTAL 21014. I AM A THIRD GENERATION RESIDENT AND EDUCATOR OF HARFORD COUNTY. I WANT TO START BY SAYING THANK YOU TO ALL OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO VOTED AGAINST THIS BILL UNDER ITS FIRST INTRODUCTION. I FIRST WANT TO SPEAK FROM THE EDUCATOR PERSPECTIVE. EDUCATORS ARE PROFESSIONAL, HARDWORKING AND COMMITTED TO SOMETHING GREATER THAN OURSELVES. WE MUST WORK WELL WITH OTHERS TO BE SUCCESSFUL. WE ARE OFTEN REQUIRED TO LEARN NEW THINGS AT A MOMENT'S NOTICE AND SACRIFICE, BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE TIME OR THE RESOURCES NEEDED.

COUNCILMAN BENNETT HAS DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB IN HIS ROLE AS HAVE EDUCATORS ACROSS THE 46 STATES AND OUR GREAT COUNTRY THAT SEE THE VALUE IN OUR SERVICE. THIS BILL ALSO ELIMINATES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THOUSANDS OF OTHERS TO SERVE THOSE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, THOSE WHO WORK FOR A NONPROFIT, OR THOSE WHO WORK FOR A GOVERNMENT FUNDED ENTITY OR NONPROFIT IN ANOTHER COUNTY. THIS BILL UNFAIRLY TARGETS THOUSANDS OF CITIZENS, AND IT ISN'T ABOUT DOUBLE DIPPING. THIS BILL IS PART OF A MOVEMENT TO SOW DIVISION AMONGST THE CITIZENS OF HARFORD COUNTY COUNCILMAN JAN GIORDANO. YOU CAN'T EVEN BE RESPECTFUL TO YOUR FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS. I STRONGLY DISAGREE. THE MAJORITY OF HARFORD CITIZENS ARE DISHONEST

[00:40:02]

YOU WANT CITIZENS TO DIVE INTO THIS WITHOUT THE LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE RESOURCES THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE, EVEN IF IT WAS WRITTEN WELL, WE DON'T HAVE THE TIME AND THE RESOURCES YOU DO. THIS IS PART OF WHAT WE ELECTED YOU TO DO. I WANT MY COUNCIL MEMBER TO BE IMPACTED BY THE DECISIONS THAT THEY MAKE. I VALUE HAVING A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO DIRECTLY SERVES CONSTITUENTS IN THEIR 9 TO 5 MOST RUN FOR OFFICE OFFICE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I ALSO REJECT THE IDEA AN EDUCATOR CAN'T CARE ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY, OR THAT A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WOULDN'T WANT FUNDED SCHOOLS. I BELIEVE THE GREATEST THREAT IS IN A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. BUT ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE EXPERIENCE AND THE NEEDS OF THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY THEY SERVE. ELECTIONS REVEAL WHAT ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE WILLING TO COMPROMISE. YOU CAN'T BUILD A GOVERNMENT OR LEGISLATION ON THE PREMISE. YOU'RE SERVING CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE SELF SERVING AND DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR COMMUNITY. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE THAT, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE THERE'S BETTER PEOPLE AND GO LIVE AND RUN FOR OFFICE THERE. I BELIEVE THE SPIRIT OF THIS BILL REFLECTS THE VALUES OF ITS MAKER AND NOT THOSE OF DISTRICT C OR HARFORD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MA'AM. SIR. HUNTER BAKER 21001. GOOD EVENING. COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND COUNTY COUNCIL AS A CANDIDATE FOR COUNTY COUNCIL, DISTRICT D AND A TEACHER FOR A NONPUBLIC SCHOOL. THIS BILL LIKELY WOULD NOT PREVENT MY CANDIDACY, BUT STILL, I DON'T SUPPORT THE BILL. WHILE THE INTENT APPEARS TO BE TO CLEAR UP CONFUSION IN THE CHARTER, THE OUTCOME IS DISENFRANCHISEMENT. IT IS ALSO A POLITICAL ATTACK ON A SITTING COUNCILMAN THAT WOULD FORCE HIM TO CHOOSE BETWEEN HIS CAREER AND PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE COUNCIL AND HIS CAREER AS A TEACHER. IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE A SEPARATION OF POWERS WITHIN LOCAL GOVERNMENT. BUT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS BILL ASSUMES, THOUGH, THAT A COUNTY COUNCIL PERSON WHO IS A DEPUTY OR A TEACHER IS VOTING ON THEIR OWN PAY. IN THE CASE OF BOTH, THAT IS NOT THE CASE. SETTING A DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET IS NOT THE SAME AS GIVING ONESELF A RAISE.

BOTH POSITIONS HAVE THEIR OWN INTERNAL PAY SCALES, DETERMINED BY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS. IN BOTH THE BENNETT AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT CASES, THE COURTS DETERMINED THAT IN THE CURRENT CHARTER, THESE TYPES OF EMPLOYEES ARE ABLE TO HOLD ELECTED OFFICE CONCURRENTLY WITH THEIR DAY JOBS, PREVENTING WORKING CLASS PEOPLE FROM BEING ABLE TO HOLD ELECTED OFFICE IS THE WRONG DIRECTION FOR OUR COUNTY TO GO IN. AFTER RESEARCHING BILLS AND POLICIES LIKE THIS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THIS ONE STANDS OUT AS UNCOMMON.

MANY LOCAL CHARTERS LEAVE CARVE OUTS FOR EDUCATORS, EVEN IF THEY ARE A BIT MORE RESTRICTIVE SOMETIMES ABOUT DEPUTIES AND POLICE OFFICERS. AND SOMETIMES THEY COME WITH A CLEAR LIST OF TOPICS THAT EDUCATORS SHOULD RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM VOTING ON. IF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST STEM FROM THE COUNCIL'S PRIMARY EMPLOYMENT, PERHAPS THE COUNCIL SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO HAVE OTHER JOBS OR INCOME STREAMS WHILE ON THE COUNCIL, WITH SALARIES SET TO THE MEDIAN INCOME OF THE COUNTY. PUBLIC SERVICE SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED TO INDEPENDENTLY WEALTHY CITIZENS WITH FLEXIBLE SCHEDULES, PERHAPS THERE SHOULD BE GREATER FOCUS ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST MOVING FORWARD. THERE IS ROOM FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR INSURANCE SALESMEN, REAL ESTATE AGENTS, RETIREES WITH PENSIONS, CONTRACTORS, BUSINESS OWNERS, HOMEOWNERS AND MORE. THIS BILL MISUNDERSTANDS DOUBLE DIPPING. TYPICALLY, THIS REFERS TO SOMEONE GETTING PAID TWICE FOR THE SAME WORK THROUGH HOLDING DUAL OFFICES OR COLLECTING A PENSION AND A SALARY FROM THE SAME SOURCE. YET SOMEONE WORKING AND GETTING PAID FOR WORKING TWO JOBS IS WHERE THE ISSUE IS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU SIR NOAH HUTTON, FOLLOWED BY CANDACE HART, RON STUCZYNSKI AND TERRENCE ROGERS. GOOD EVENING SIR. NAME AND ZIP. NOAH HUTTON 21227. HELLO, MY NAME IS NOAH HUTTON. I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN HARFORD COUNTY AND HAVE NOW MADE AN INTENTIONAL DECISION TO TEACH AT EDGEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE LAST 11 YEARS. I'M HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST BILL 26009. I'M PLEADING THE COUNTY COUNCIL HONORS THE COURT'S RULING AND STOPS TRYING TO PREVENT ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM RUNNING DUE TO THEIR PUBLIC SERVICE POSITIONS, SUCH AS EDUCATOR AND POLICE FORCE. INDIVIDUALS IN THESE POSITIONS HAVE DAILY EXPERIENCES THAT INFORM THEM OF THE SUPPORTS THAT ARE NEEDED THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTY. IF THEY ARE FAIRLY ELECTED, THEIR VOICE AND POSITION SHOULD BE RESPECTED AND HONORED. THESE INDIVIDUALS SHOULD NOT BE PREVENTED FROM COMPLETING THEIR ELECTED DUTY AND SPEAKING UP FOR WHO THEY REPRESENT. THEY SHOULD NOT NEED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES REPEATEDLY. AFTER BEING FAIRLY ELECTED, WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON ACTUAL PROBLEMS THE COUNTY IS FACING. LIKE THE BUDGET CHALLENGES, MANY COUNTY INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS HCC, HC AND HCPL HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH FOR YEARS. WHY SHOULD A FEW ELECTED OFFICIALS BE ABLE TO SILENCE THE VOICES OF CITIZENS BY PREVENTING AND REMOVING ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM THE OFFICE THAT SPEAK FOR THOSE

[00:45:03]

[00:50:04]

AGAIN, IT TARGETS THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN PULLING US OUT OF CRISIS. THEY DESERVE MORE HONOR AND RESPECT THAN THAT. THEY STAND IN THE GAP IN BETWEEN WHERE POLICY IS MADE AND WHERE POLICY IS EXPERIENCED. AND SO WE HAVE TO ALLOW THEIR EXPERIENCE TO BE PUT TO USE. I HAD THREE MINUTES, BUT I'LL ONLY USE A MINUTE AND 30. I WOULD ASK THAT WE WOULD REFLECT AND ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS RHETORICALLY, BUT REFLECTIVELY. HOW MANY LIVES HAVE YOU SAVED? HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE STILL ALIVE BECAUSE YOU PERFORMED LIFE SAVING MEASURES? HOW MANY MISSING KIDS ARE VULNERABLE ADULTS? HAVE YOU RECOVERED? LET'S ASK THE QUESTION HOW MANY SCREAMING MOTHERS HAVE YOU CONSOLED AFTER LETTING THEM KNOW THAT THEIR CHILDREN ARE DEAD AND NO LONGER COMING HOME? HOW MANY KIDS HAVE YOU FED BREAKFAST BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE FOOD AT HOME? HOW MANY KIDS HAVE YOU HAD TO REDIRECT? PULL THEIR ATTENTION BACK INTO THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE THEY STAYED UP ALL NIGHT LISTENING TO THEIR MOTHER AND FATHER FIGHT AT HOME? HOW MUCH MONEY HAVE YOU HAD TO TAKE OUT OF YOUR POCKET AND DECORATE YOUR CLASSROOM TO MAKE SURE KIDS HAVE A SHOT AT SUCCESS? THESE PEOPLE DESERVE A SEAT ON THE DAIS. AND SO I ASK THAT YOU TAKE YOUR HANDS OFF OF THEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR MADAM.

MONICA MCHALE, FOLLOWED BY RONNIE DAVIS, MICHELLE CHRISMAN, AND CHARLES HAGEN. GOOD EVENING MA'AM. NAME AND ZIP. MONICA MCHALE 21015. AT FIRST WHEN I HEARD THIS BILL, THE IDEA OF NO DOUBLE DIPPING SOUNDED GOOD IN THEORY. BUT AFTER LISTENING TO TONIGHT'S ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION ON MY WAY HERE, I DECIDE TO NOT SUPPORT THIS BILL. AS A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE, THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED THE HATCH ACT IN WHICH WE ARE NOT ABLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE WHILE HOLDING A POSITION, A PART YOU CANNOT RUN FOR A PARTIZAN PARTIZAN POLITICAL POSITION WHILE BEING A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE. AND I BELIEVE THE SAME GOES FOR THE STATE. BUT AS FOR THE COUNTY, THIS CASE HAS BEEN DECIDED ON TWICE BY THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, WHICH IS A BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE THREE LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL. WE AS A COUNTY, EVEN IF WE REVISED OUR CHARTER, ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO SUPERSEDE THE STATE OF MARYLAND. IT'S NOT AUTHORIZED. THIS DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE HAVING TODAY SHOULD REALLY BE SENT TO. YOUR DELEGATE SHOULD BE TAKEN UP IN A STATE LEGISLATURE, NOT REALLY THE COUNTY AND. AND IT HAS BEEN DECIDED ON TWICE BY JUDGES WHO ARE NOT IGNORANT PEOPLE WHO HAVE A LAW EDUCATION, WHO GET

[00:55:06]

OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE CONSTANTLY FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER, AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, YOU MAY SEE IT AS, YOU KNOW, THE PRIVATE ENTITY OR THE BIGGER FISH MIGHT BE TRYING TO TO SHOO OUT THE SMALLER FISH, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT AND DO YOUR HOMEWORK. WE ARE CITIZENS. WE NEED TO DO OUR JOBS. AND WE NEED TO KNOW WHO OUR COUNCIL PEOPLE ARE THAT REPRESENT US. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MA'AM. NAME AND ZIP, PLEASE. RONNIE DAVIS TWO 1014. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. I STAND HERE TONIGHT TO SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF TEACHERS, PUBLIC OFFICERS, POLICE OFFICERS, FIREFIGHTERS AND OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS TO SERVE ON OUR COUNTY COUNCIL. A COUNCIL SHOULD REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTY, AND THAT MEANS HAVING VOICES AT THE TABLE FROM EVERY PART OF OUR COMMUNITY. AS A ROTARIAN, I OFTEN THINK ABOUT THE ROTARY FOUR WAY TEST. IS IT THE TRUTH? IS IT FAIR TO ALL CONCERNED? BUT TWO PARTS REALLY STICK HERE.

WILL IT BUILD GOODWILL, HAVE BEEN BETTER FRIENDSHIPS, AND WILL IT BE BENEFICIAL TO ALL CONCERNED, EXCLUDING OR DISCOURAGING PUBLIC SERVANTS FROM SERVING ON THE COUNCIL DOES NOT BUILD GOODWILL. IT CREATES DIVISION AND SENDS THE MESSAGE THAT THE VERY PEOPLE WHO DEDICATE THEIR LIVES TO SERVING THIS COMMUNITY SOMEHOW SHOULD NOT HAVE A VOICE IN LEADING IT. AND IT IS. IS IT BENEFICIAL TO ALL CONCERNED? I WOULD ARGUE NO. TEACHERS, POLICE OFFICERS, FIREFIGHTERS AND OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE AMONG THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW THIS COUNTY BEST BECAUSE THEY SPEAK WITH THE RESIDENTS EVERY SINGLE DAY. TEACHERS HEAR DIRECTLY FROM FAMILIES ABOUT THE STRUGGLES THEY FACE. POLICE OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS SEE FIRSTHAND WHERE COMMUNITIES NEED SUPPORT AND RESOURCES. THESE PROFESSIONS ARE BUILT AROUND LISTENING TO AND SERVING CITIZENS, NOT SELLING SOMETHING TO THEM. BUSINESS LEADERS ABSOLUTELY DESERVE REPRESENTATION AS WELL, BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE THE ONLY PERSPECTIVE REPRESENTED, AS WE MAY NOT REALLY KNOW HOW AND WHAT THEIR BUSINESS IS AND IF THERE'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. A STRONG COUNSEL COMES FROM BALANCE, DIVERSITY OF EXPERIENCE AND REAL COMMUNITY CONNECTION. AND FRANKLY, THE ARGUMENT ABOUT DOUBLE DIPPING IS RIDICULOUS. PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE TAXPAYERS, RESIDENTS, PARENTS, VOLUNTEERS AND CITIZENS OF HARFORD COUNTY, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. SERVING ON A COUNCIL IS NOT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. IT REALLY IS A PUBLIC SERVICE. WE SHOULD WANT EXPERIENCED, COMMUNITY MINDED PEOPLE STEPPING UP TO SERVE, NOT CREATING BARRIERS TO KEEP THEM OUT. IF WE TRULY WANT REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, THEN WE NEED COUNCILS MADE UP OF PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THE DAILY REALITIES AND NEEDS OF OUR CITIZENS FROM MULTIPLE. AND AS FAR AS TAKING THIS TO THE BALLOT BOX, I'VE SEEN MANY OF THESE TYPES OF ISSUES TAKEN TO THE BALLOT BOX, AND THEY'RE WRITTEN IN LANGUAGE THAT MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND AS IT'S LEGALESE. SO PEOPLE MANY TIMES IGNORE THE QUESTION AT THE BALLOT BOX OR UPSET AFTER, AS IT WASN'T WHAT THEY THOUGHT IT WAS. A BALLOT IS A BALLOT DECISION THE WAY TO REALLY GO? THIS SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT POLITICS. IT SHOULD BE ABOUT FAIRNESS, INCLUSION AND BUILDING A COUNCIL THAT TRULY REFLECTS THE PEOPLE OF HARFORD COUNTY. AND THAT IS WHY I'M AGAINST BILL 2609, THE DOUBLE DIP BILL. PLEASE VOTE NO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MA'AM. GOOD NAME AND ZIP. HI, I'M MICHELLE CHRISTMANN 21132. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME THIS EVENING. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. I AM RUNNING FOR MARYLAND HOUSE OF DELEGATES, 35, A HARFORD AND CECIL COUNTY, MARYLAND. I'M ALSO THE LEGISLATIVE CHAIR FOR HARFORD COUNTY REPUBLICAN WOMEN. TODAY, MARYLAND RECEIVED A

[01:00:05]

CHARLES HAGEN TWO 1014. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. I'M A RETIRED CPS EMPLOYEE AND WORKED IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM FOR 28 YEARS. 18 IS PRINCIPAL OF HARTFORD TECH AND SOUTH HAMPTON MIDDLE SCHOOL, AND I'VE CONTINUED TO WORK AS A SUBSTITUTE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM. I'M WORKING TOMORROW. IN ADDITION, I'M RUNNING FOR COUNTY COUNCIL SEAT THAT MR. GIORDANO JIAN JORDAN. I SAID THAT RIGHT EVERY TIME I PRACTICED IT TODAY, BUT BUT NOT NOW THAT HE'S GIVING UP TO RUN FOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT. TO THE POINT I DO NOT SUPPORT THE DOUBLE DIPPING BILL. I ACTUALLY DON'T EVEN LIKE THE TERM BECAUSE IT CARRIES A NEGATIVE CONNOTATION, EXCEPT WHEN APPLIED TO ICE CREAM CONES. THEN I ACTUALLY PREFER IT. SO I'LL USE THE TERM DUAL EMPLOYMENT. THERE SHOULD NOT BE A PENALTY FOR WORKING FOR THE COUNTY. OVER 7200 PEOPLE WORK FOR THE COUNTY AND THE SCHOOL SYSTEM COMBINED. THAT'S 4.5% OF THE VOTING POPULATION AND 5.4% OF THE WORKING POPULATION IN THE COUNTY. SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO ELIMINATE THEM AS POSSIBLE.

COUNCIL MEMBERS, NO CUSTODIANS, WATER AND SEWER WORKERS, TEACHERS, SECRETARIES, PERMITS AND LICENSES, PARKS AND REC EMPLOYEES, DEPUTIES. SO WHAT NEXT? IF YOU'RE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL REC COUNCIL OR ANY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION THAT RECEIVES MONEY AND OR CONSIDERATION FROM THE COUNTY, WOULD THEY BE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE ON ANYTHING? I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN IS GREAT RELATIVE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THAT IS WHY WE NEED TO ELECT TRUSTWORTHY PEOPLE. AND AGAIN, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE BILL. MY SECOND POINT KIND OF GOES TO WHAT MR. GIAN GIORDANO SAID. WHEN HE BROUGHT THIS UP. HE WAS SHUT DOWN IMMEDIATELY. AND I'LL TELL YOU, IT WAS A LITTLE WATCHING. IT WAS A LITTLE UPSETTING. IT LOOKED ORCHESTRATED. IT LOOKED ORCHESTRATED BY THE REST OF THE COUNCIL. WHEN HE WAS TRYING TO BRING THIS ISSUE FORWARD. THE VOTE WENT DOWN QUICKLY DOWN THE LINE TO THE COUNCILMAN, WHO

[01:05:02]

SECOND, I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS SHOULD GO ON THE BALLOT FOR VOTERS TO DECIDE, BUT VOTERS HAVE ALREADY DECIDED. THEY DECIDED WHEN THEY ELECTED THESE INDIVIDUALS TO OFFICE, CONSTITUENTS KNEW WHO THESE CANDIDATES WERE, WHAT CAREERS THEY HELD, AND THEY VOTED FOR THEM ANYWAY. IF SOMEONE BELIEVES THAT PRESENTS A CONFLICT, THEY ARE FREE TO VOTE DIFFERENTLY. BUT THE VOTERS HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN. THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN LITIGATED MULTIPLE TIMES AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE, AND THE COURTS HAVE RULED THESE RULED. THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE. IF THIS AMENDMENT PASSES, THERE IS A VERY REAL CHANCE TAXPAYERS WILL ONCE AGAIN BE PAYING TO RELITIGATE THE ISSUE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED, SIMPLY BECAUSE SOME DID NOT LIKE THE OUTCOME. AND I'LL SAY THIS I FIND THIS BILL TO BE THE OPPOSITE OF CONSERVATIVE. IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONSERVATIVE VALUES, THOSE ARE USUALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND TRUSTING PEOPLE TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS. THIS BILL DOES THE OPPOSITE. IT CREATES MORE GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT AND REVISITING WHO IS WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AFTER VOTERS HAVE ALREADY MADE THEIR CHOICE.

IT MAY COST TAXPAYERS MORE MONEY TO DEFEND IN COURT, AND THE LANGUAGE IN THIS AMENDMENT IS BROAD AND VAGUE, LEAVING FAR TOO MUCH OPEN TO INTERPRETATION ABOUT WHO IT COULD IMPACT NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. THE VOTERS HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN, AND THE COURTS HAVE ALREADY RULED.

CONTINUING TO REVISIT THIS ISSUE FEELS LESS ABOUT ADDRESSING A CONFLICT AND MORE ABOUT MORE PERSONAL THAN PRINCIPLED. AT SOME POINT, WE HAVE TO RESPECT THE DECISIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE. I TRUST THE PEOPLE OF HARFORD COUNTY TO CHOOSE THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, AND I BELIEVE THOSE CHOICES SHOULD BE RESPECTED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MA'AM. CALL YOUR NEXT SPEAKER, DION GUTHRIE, FOLLOWED BY DOMINIC HEATH. NAME AND ZIP CODE, PLEASE. DION GUTHRIE 21085. I RISE ALSO TO THE CITIZENS OF OUR COUNTY TO HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE. THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE, AND I'M LISTENING TO BOTH SIDES. AND BOTH SIDES HAVE SOME VERY GOOD ARGUMENTS. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THIS THING HAS BEEN LITIGATED.

IT'S BEEN IN ANNAPOLIS. IT'S BEEN UNDER THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE COURT, EVERYTHING ELSE. IF WE IF WE REMEMBER FOR, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS, THIS WAS ACTUALLY A LAW IN HARFORD COUNTY. I REMEMBER SLUTSKY WHEN HE GOT ELECTED TO THE COUNCIL, HE HAD TO GIVE UP HIS JOB AS A AS A TEACHER. AND WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HAPPEN TO. AND THIS HAS BEEN RESURRECTED NOW AND. AND THEY JUST FOCUS ON. FOR THE MOST PART, IT COMES UP. IT'S THE TEACHERS AND THE DEPUTIES. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A THERE'S, THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF

[01:10:03]

JUST LIKE. WELL, THE OTHER GENTLEMAN SAID, I MEAN, THE, THE, THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE HERE IS A, IS AN EYE DROP COMPARED TO THE ENTIRE COUNTY. ENTIRE COUNTY IS 260 000 PEOPLE. YOU HAVE YOU HAVE APPROXIMATELY 86000 REPUBLICANS. YOU GOT 60, 68,000 DEMOCRATS. AND YOU HAVE.

DON'T FORGET THE 45,000 INDEPENDENTS. NOW, DO WE WANT TO TURN OUR BACK ON THEM? SHOULD ONE COUNCIL MEMBER SITTING UP THERE HAVE A. RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED THE LAST TIME. I ONLY TOOK ONE, THOUGH IT TOOK FIVE. ANY ONE OF THEM FIVE THAT CHANGED THEIR MIND. THE THING WOULD HAVE WENT FORWARD. SO WHY DOES ONE COUNCIL MEMBER HAVE THE RIGHT TO DENY OVER 100,000 PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO VOTE? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING. THINK ABOUT THAT.

AND I'M I'M NOT DOING THIS BILL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I'M STANDING FOR IT OR AGAINST IT.

WHAT I'M STANDING FOR IS THE IS THE CITIZENS OF OUR COUNTY. ONE COUNCIL MEMBER SHOULD NOT HAVE AUTHORITY AND A RIGHT TO TELL 100,000 VOTERS OUT THERE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE. SO GIVE THEM THAT RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND EVERYBODY'S ARGUMENT. AND AND YOU ALWAYS HEAR IT. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE AFRAID THAT THE PUBLIC IS NOT GOING TO VOTE THEIR WAY. WELL, THIS IS A THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION. IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN ACTUALLY IN THE COUNTY FOR UMPTEEN YEARS. AND I'M THROUGH. I THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD EVENING SIR. NAME AND ZIP.

DOMINIC HEATH 21047. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND FELLOW COMMUNITY MEMBERS. I AM HERE IN OPPOSITION OF THIS BILL. I HAVE SPENT THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BROACH THIS SUBJECT WITH ALL OF YOU. FIRST, I THOUGHT ABOUT THE EMOTIONAL ROUTE FIRST, FOCUSING ON WHAT I BELIEVE THE COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIST OF. TO ME, THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE A GOVERNING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY. THEY ARE THE GOVERNING BODY OF OUR COMMUNITY. AFTER ALL, WHY SHOULD IT NOT BE MADE UP OF ALL TYPES OF PEOPLE? WHY WOULD WE SEEK TO EXCLUDE VALUED MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY FROM SERVING ON THE COUNCIL? THAT HAS A LARGE IMPACT ON THEIR LIFE? SO THEN I FOCUS ON THE FACTS. FACT IS, TEACHERS ARE NOT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. ANOTHER FACT IS THAT THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN RULED ON BY THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND. THEY SAID, QUOTE, THE DOCTRINE OF INCOMPATIBLE POSITIONS DOES NOT PRECLUDE A TEACHER EMPLOYED BY THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION FROM SIMULTANEOUSLY SERVING AS A MEMBER OF THE HARFORD COUNTY COUNCIL. THE COURT THEN, IN FACT APPLIED A CANON OF CONSTRUCTION, FAVORING CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY TO RESOLVE THE AMBIGUITY. THE COURT ITSELF HAS SAID THAT THE AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE SHOULD BE CORRECTED, BUT AS THEIR INTERPRETATION WAS FAVORABLE, WHY WOULD OUR CORRECTION OF THIS AMBIGUITY NOT BE AS SUCH? THEY DID NOT SEE THIS AS AN ISSUE, OR THEY WOULD HAVE RULED UNFAVORABLY. AS THE COURT SAID, QUOTE, THERE IS NO PRESENT OR PROSPECTIVE CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE POSITIONS.

THE COUNCILMAN HAS SAID THIS IS ABOUT DOUBLE DIPPING, BUT THAT'S IMPLYING THAT SOMETHING ILLEGAL, IMPROPER OR SINISTER IS HAPPENING WHEN IN REALITY, THE COURTS HAVE ALREADY RULED THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. NOW I HAVE READ THIS BILL. THIS WOULD EXCLUDE NOT ONLY CURRENT POSITIONS PERSONS FROM SERVING ON THE COUNCIL, BUT WOULD ALSO EXCLUDE ANY FUTURE PERSONS STILL COLLECTING A PAYCHECK OR PENSION FROM ANY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. YOU MADE SURE TO CALL OUT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND BOARD OF EDUCATION. WHY DO YOU WANT TO EXCLUDE IMPORTANT MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY? I CONSTANTLY HEAR CRITICISM FROM OLDER GENERATIONS THAT NO ONE WANTS TO WORK ANYMORE. WHY ARE WE GOING AFTER FOLKS THAT WANT TO WORK TWO JOBS FOR OUR BENEFIT? WHO CARES IF IT GOES TO ONE PERSON? THE COUNTY STILL HAS TO PAY TWO POSITIONS. THIS IS NOT A COST SAVING EFFORT. AT THE END OF ALL THIS. THE FACT IS THIS THIS IS VOTER SUPPRESSION. WHY DO YOU FEEL THE NEED TO

[01:15:03]

WHEN AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE IS INTERPRETED IN A NARROWING FASHION TO REMOVE A SUBSET OF PEOPLE FROM ELIGIBILITY TO EVEN RUN, YOU ARE REMOVING OUR CHOICES AS VOTERS. AND THAT FACT IS VOTER SUPPRESSION. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING MA'AM. NAME AND ZIP. HI.

MY NAME IS ANNE HARTIG AT TWO 1015. I'M HERE TO PROVIDE INPUT ON THE PROPOSED DOUBLE DIP CHARTER AMENDMENT. AT FIRST GLANCE, THE AMENDMENT SEEMS TO HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS TO PROTECT RESIDENTS INTERESTS ON COUNCIL DECISIONS. WITH REFLECTION AND FURTHER REVIEW, I CAN'T HELP BUT ALSO LOOK AT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS AMENDMENT IF APPROVED. FIRST, MANY PEOPLE WORK TWO OR MORE JOBS TO MAKE ENDS MEET OR TO SUPPLEMENT THEIR INCOME, SO SAYING IT'S WRONG OR PROHIBITING COUNTY RESIDENTS TO HOLD TWO COUNTY JOBS AND REAP THE REWARDS SEEMS UNREASONABLE AND WRONG TO ME. IF THEY DO WORK, THEY SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE PAY. SECOND, LIMITING THE SCOPE OF QUALIFIED CANDIDATES WHO APPLY AND WANT TO SERVE IN THE COUNTY DENIES MANY EMPLOYED RESIDENTS WHO ASPIRE TO SERVE FROM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DIRECTLY AFFECT THE DECISIONS WHICH IMPACT THEIR OWN COMMUNITY, TIME CONSTRAINTS AND INTERSECTING INTERESTS OF WORKING PEOPLE ALREADY REDUCED REDUCES THE APPLICANT POOL OF PEOPLE SEEKING TO ENGAGE TO MOSTLY SELECTED, RETIRED AND INDEPENDENTLY FINANCED PERSONS, DESPITE THEIR BEST OF INTENTIONS TO SERVE, THESE SAME FOLKS CANNOT BE AS INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH THE NITTY GRITTY OF MANY ISSUES COMING BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, DIFFERENT FROM ALL DIFFERENT PEOPLE, FROM ALL TYPES OF PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT. BRING DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES AND IDEAS TO THE DISCUSSION TABLE. ALL ARE VALUABLE TO MAKING INFORMED DECISIONS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF HARFORD COUNTY. WHY WOULD WE WANT TO FURTHER LIMIT THE PEOPLE VARYING EXPERTISE FROM CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY? WHILE CONCERNS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ARE VALID, PERHAPS THE ANSWER IS NOT TO BAR THESE FROM PARTICIPATING, BUT TO SHARE THEIR KNOWLEDGE, ENCOURAGE THEM TO SHARE THEIR KNOWLEDGE BY RUNNING FOR COUNCIL MEMBER POSITIONS, BUT ALSO HOLD THEM PROCEDURALLY ACCOUNTABLE TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM VOTES THAT DIRECTLY IMPACT THEIR PROFESSION AND RIGOROUSLY APPLY SANCTIONS OR PUNITIVE REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF ETHICS AND PROCEDURE. PLEASE JOIN ME IN SUPPORTING PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SERVE THIS COUNTY BY OPPOSING THE DOUBLE DIP AMENDMENT AND INSTALLING PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS WHICH ENCOURAGE COMPLIANCE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MA'AM. MATTHEW BROWN, FOLLOWED BY JEFFREY BECK AND TINA GRAF. GOOD EVENING, SIR MATTHEW BROWN 21015. HELLO, EVERYBODY. I'M SURE YOU USED TO HEAR ME, SOMEONE WHO'S BEING A COUNTY EXECUTIVE CANDIDATE. BUT ALSO LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS DOUBLE DIP BILL FOR WHAT IT IS, THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY, DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN, EXPECTING THINGS TO CHANGE. THAT MAKES YOU CRAZY. AND THE WORST PART ABOUT THIS IS I'VE ALREADY SET UP HERE AND HAD TO REEDUCATE THE IDEA OF GOVERNMENT. HERE'S A FUN FACT EVEN WITH THE 260,000 PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE, THE 220,000 WHO ACTUALLY CAN VOTE, THEY VOTED FOR REPRESENTATIVES TO REPRESENT THEM IN LEGISLATION THAT THEY CRAFT BASED ON THE PEOPLE WHO PUT THEM IN POSITIONS OF POWER. SO THEY ARE SPEAKING FOR THE PEOPLE WHO PUT THEM THERE. BUT LET'S SPEAK TO SOMETHING ELSE. WHEN IT COMES TO THE IDEA OF DOUBLE DIPPING, AS SOMEONE SAID EARLIER, THIS IS ALL MY PREDECESSOR'S ATTEMPT TO COME DOWN ONTO DIFFERENT BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. DOUBLE DIPPING, A LEGISLATION BASED AROUND A LOSS FEUD BY USING A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL TO DO IT. THAT'S DOUBLE DIPPING, HAVING ISSUES WITHIN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE SHERIFF INVITING THEM AND COMING DOWN ON ONE OF THEIR WORKERS. THAT'S DOUBLE DIPPING WHEN IT COMES TO THE FACT THAT THIS HAS BEEN LITIGATED INTO COURT NOW 2 TO 3 TIMES, THAT'S TRIPLE DIPPING. I DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF MIXED MATCH OF FOOD YOU GET WHEN YOU TRIPLE DIP. IN RELATION TO THAT. LET'S LOOK AT ALL THE ATTEMPTS TO TALK ABOUT THIS. AND I ASKED THOSE WHO ARE MEMBERS OF DISTRICT C, THERE'S A LOT OF STAUNCH REGULARS IN THIS ROOM.

NAME ME ONE THING OR RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU RECALL ANY LEGISLATION. TONY G HAS CHAMPIONED MORE. CAN YOU THINK OF ONE BEFORE THIS ONE AND THINK ABOUT WHY YOU CAN'T? JACOB BENNETT IN JUST FOUR YEARS AND THE FIRST TIME RUNNING, YOU COULD NAME LIKE 4 OR 5 MAN IN THE FOREFRONT. THE DOUBLE DIP EFFORT CLEARLY CAN BEAT THE SINGLE DIP OR LACK THEREOF, OF TONY G. AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE REAL PEOPLE BEHIND THIS, YOU CAN LOOK AT IT ACROSS SOCIAL MEDIA. YOU'VE GOT SILLY PAY, YOU'VE GOT CITIZEN AGAINST JACOB BENNETT, CITIZENS AGAINST JOSEPH BASIL, YOU'VE GOT THOMAS AUDIT AND EVERYONE'S FAVORITE GROUP, TURNBULL BROCKMEIER LAW GROUP, WHO IN THIS ENTIRE TIME OF INFECTING OUR COUNTY, HAVE MADE OVER 120 POSTS OVER THE

[01:20:07]

I'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS. I'VE SEEN A LOT OF COMMENTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA. ONE OF THOSE COMMENTS FOCUSED ON, EXCUSE ME, BARRING ANY COUNTY EMPLOYEE FROM ANY COUNTY, FROM SERVING ON THE COUNTY COUNCIL. THAT'S NOT HOW I READ THE LANGUAGE OF THE BILL. BUT BY ALL MEANS, THERE'S SIX OTHER PEOPLE UP THERE BESIDES MR. G OFFER AN AMENDMENT. LET'S LET'S FIX WHAT WE SEE AS A PROBLEM. I'VE SEEN MANY PEOPLE SAY THAT MANY PROFESSIONALS PARTICIPATE IN DECISIONS THAT AFFECT THEIR FIELDS. AND WHERE SHOULD WE DRAW THE LINE? WHAT'S DOUBLE DIPPING? WHERE DOES THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST END? THE CONFLICT, I BELIEVE, AS FAR AS THIS BILL IS CONCERNED, ENDS IT ONE TAXPAYER FUNDED PAYCHECK. THAT SHOULD BE THE LINE. IT MAKES SENSE TO ME. MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE'VE SEEN COMMENTS ABOUT THE WILL OF THE VOTERS. THE WILL OF THE VOTERS HAPPENS AT THE BALLOT BOX. YES, IT HAPPENED IN 2022 WHEN FIVE OF YOU WERE ELECTED. WE SAW WHAT HAPPENED TO ONE OF YOU. THIS BILL, AS FAR AS I READ IT, WOULDN'T UNSEAT ANYBODY CURRENTLY HOLDING OFFICE. IT WOULDN'T PRECLUDE ANYBODY ELSE IN THIS AUDIENCE OR ANYWHERE IN THIS COUNTY FROM RUNNING FOR OFFICE. IT WOULD PRECLUDE THEM FROM SERVING IF ELECTED, OR THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAUSE THEIR OTHER JOB, WHATEVER THAT JOB MAY BE, THAT GETS A TAXPAYER FUNDED PAYCHECK. IF WE CARE ABOUT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, WE SHOULD LET THEM DECIDE AT THE BALLOT BOX. THERE'S BEEN ENOUGH CONVERSATION PRO AND AGAINST FOR THIS TOPIC, WHETHER YOU WANT TO CALL IT DOUBLE DIPPING, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, I DON'T CARE WHAT WE CALL IT. THERE'S BEEN ENOUGH CONVERSATION AND ENOUGH ARGUMENTS MADE ON BOTH SIDES. GOOD ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES. SEND IT TO THE BALLOT BOX. PUT AN AMENDMENT IN TO CLARIFIES THE LANGUAGE, KEEP EVERYBODY HAPPY AND SEND IT TO THE BALLOT BOX AND LET THE PEOPLE CHOOSE. THIS CHARTER. THIS, THIS BILL DOESN'T AMEND THE CHARTER JUST BY VIRTUE OF INTRODUCTION. IT'S GOT TO BE VOTED ON BY THE DAIS FAVORABLY, 4 TO 3 AT A MINIMUM, TO THEN GO TO THE BALLOT. DOING SO IS LEADERSHIP. WHAT HAPPENED THE LAST TIME THAT THIS BILL WAS ATTEMPTED AT 2604 WAS NOT LEADERSHIP? SOMEONE ASKED ABOUT FORGOING A PAYCHECK. YOU'RE STILL, YOU KNOW, THAT PERSON WOULD STILL BE VOTING ON THINGS THAT AFFECT THEIR AGENCY. TO THE POINT OF, YOU KNOW, TEACHERS, YOU KNOW, NO, THEY DON'T CONTROL THE TEACHER BUDGET. BUT WE HEAR EVERY YEAR THAT THE THAT THE SCHOOL DOESN'T GET ENOUGH MONEY.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ELIMINATE TEACHER POSITIONS. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ONE OF THOSE POSITIONS IS SOMEONE SERVING ON THE COUNCIL AS WELL? THAT IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING MA'AM. NAME IS TINA GRAF 21050. MY NAME IS TINA GRAF, AND I'M HERE TONIGHT

[01:25:05]

DANNY PAEZ TWO 1040. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING COUNCIL. I WANT I WANT TO LOUDLY ANNOUNCE MY DISAPPROVAL OF BILL 26-009. I'M ASKING YOU AS A COUNCIL TO VOTE NO. OUR CONSTITUTION STARTS WITH WE THE PEOPLE. AND THAT PRINCIPLE SHOULD GUIDE HOW WE MAKE THE DECISIONS THAT AFFECT OUR COMMUNITY. THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER THREATENS TO RESTRICT THE VERY PEOPLE WHO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY BY LIMITING THEIR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL GOVERNMENT. MANY OF OUR HARFORD COUNTY RESIDENTS TRAVEL OUTSIDE OUR BORDERS TO WORK, TO PURSUE CAREERS AND TO SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES. THEY CHOOSE HERE TO LIVE BECAUSE THEY LOVE THIS COUNTY, THIS COMMUNITY AND ITS WAY OF LIFE. THIS WILL. THIS BILL, BY PROHIBITING COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM RECEIVING MONETARY BENEFITS FROM ANY OTHER COUNTY GOVERNMENT POSITION, UNFAIRLY RESTRICTS THE FREEDOM OF INDIVIDUALS TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT AND SERVE IN MULTIPLE CAPACITIES. IT COULD DISCOURAGE TALENTED, DEDICATED PEOPLE FROM RUNNING FOR OFFICE, KNOWING THAT THEIR OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT MIGHT DIRECTLY DISQUALIFY THEM OR LEAD TO CONFLICTS. MOREOVER, THIS UNDERMINES THE VERY SPIRIT OF PUBLIC SERVICE. MANY OF OUR LEADERS ARE HARD WORKING INDIVIDUALS WHO JUGGLE MULTIPLE ROLES TO SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES AND CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY. THIS RESTRICTION COULD LIMIT THE POOL OF QUALIFIED CANDIDATES, REDUCED DIVERSITY OF EXPERIENCE, AND ULTIMATELY WEAKEN THE REPRESENTATION AND GOVERNANCE OF OUR COMMUNITIES. WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS, NOT CREATING BARRIERS THAT EXCLUDE CAPABLE INDIVIDUALS. LET US REMEMBER THAT PUBLIC SERVICE SERVICE THRIVES ON OPENNESS AND OPPORTUNITY, NOT RESTRICTIONS THAT COULD DIMINISH THE RICHNESS OF OUR LEADERSHIP. I URGE YOU, MY FELLOW RESIDENTS AND DECISION MAKERS, TO CONSIDER THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS BILL CAREFULLY. WE MUST PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF OUR

[01:30:05]

IT'S DOUGLAS PHILLIPS, IT'S 21028, CHURCHVILLE, MARYLAND. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND FELLOW CITIZENS, I'M GOING TO REALLY TRY HARD NOT TO REPEAT SOME THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID, BUT I DO WANT TO PICK UP WHERE THE LAST SPEAKER TALKING ABOUT WE THE PEOPLE. SO THE CONSTITUTION, OF COURSE, WAS FRAMED. OUR CONSTITUTION WAS RADICAL SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT LIMITED THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT. IN ARTICLE ONE, SECTION SIX, JAMES MADISON, WHO WROTE IT, ACTUALLY PREVENTED PEOPLE FROM HOLDING DUAL OFFICES AND HAVING DUE EMPLOYMENT, SOMETHING CALLED THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE. I DON'T WANT TO GO TOO FAR INTO THAT, BUT IT WAS A FUNDAMENTAL PART. IT IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT THE CONSTITUTION INCLUDES IT. NOW WE TALK ABOUT MARYLAND HERE, SO I SHUDDER TO THINK WHAT ANNAPOLIS OR THE DEMOCRATS IN ANNAPOLIS WOULD WANT TO DO TO A COUNTY LIKE HARFORD COUNTY, IF WE TRUSTED THEM TO HAVE TO PROVIDE OUR ETHICS LAWS AND TELL US WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO. GOING BACK TO THE MARYLAND SUPREME COURT, WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY DO? I DO APPRECIATE I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THAT MR. BENNETT IS WELL VERSED ON IT. IT SHOWS A LOT, SIR, THAT YOU READ THAT AND YOUR QUOTES ARE ACCURATE. BUT THE OVERARCHING PICTURE WAS THAT THEY WERE SAYING THAT WE NEED TO CLARIFY AND, YOU KNOW, LAY OUT EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT, WHO CAN SERVE.

THEY TOLD US TO GO AHEAD AND CLARIFY IT. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO. THE ROLE OF A SUPREME COURT OR ANY APPELLATE COURT IS NOT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. IT'S MORE SO TO POINT OUT WHERE THE WEAKNESSES MAY BE AND KICK IT BACK. SO I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE SHOULD BE GOING AND ADDRESSING THAT AMBIGUITY. NOW, WHO SHOULD DO THAT? SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. IT'S IT'S GREAT. THE LOOK LAST TIME WAS NOT SO GOOD. I DON'T WANT TO BEAT THAT OUT. I THINK THE POINT WAS MADE.

REJECTING IT UPON INTRODUCTION REALLY LIMITED THE ABILITY TO HAVE A DEBATE AND HAVE WHAT WE'RE HAVING HERE TODAY, WHICH I CONSIDER TO BE PRETTY VALUABLE. THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION, HEARING ALL SIDES. AND LASTLY, I WOULD SAY THAT ALLOWING THE VOTERS TO DECIDE THIS GETS TO THE MOST PURE AND BEST WAY TO DECIDE THIS. WE CAN EDUCATE THEM. THERE CAN BE A ROBUST DEBATE, AND THE VOTERS THEMSELVES ARE THE TAXPAYERS. THEY ARE FUNDING OUR GOVERNMENT.

IT TAKES A LOT TO TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM THEM WOULD BE A BIG MISTAKE. SO I DO ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS BILL. AND IF YOU WANTED TO OFFER AMENDMENTS TO IT, I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT WOULD TAKE A LOT OF AMENDMENTS, PERHAPS, BUT IF YOU WANTED TO DO SO, AT LEAST PUT IT IN FRONT OF THE PEOPLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU SIR. GOOD EVENING SIR. NAME IS IT? GOOD EVENING, FRED SERKIS TWO 1047. I'M IN FAVOR OF THE DOUBLE DIP BILL. I'VE SEEN SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTE ON ISSUES IN THE PAST THAT DIRECTLY AFFECTS THEIR OTHER JOBS. THEY HAVE NOT RECUSED THEMSELVES AS THE PREVIOUS CANDIDATE JUST MENTIONED, JACOB BENNETT VOTED AND DID NOT RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THE PRIOR ISSUE. THAT'S AN EXAMPLE. I'M NOT AGAINST TEACHERS OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. I AM A LAW ENFORCEMENT FAMILY. I FEEL THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. I FEEL THAT EMPLOYEES THAT WORK FOR THE STATE OR COUNTY SHOULD NOT BE SERVING WHEN THE COUNTY COUNCIL, SINCE THEY COULD BE VOTING ON ISSUES THAT DIRECTLY AFFECTS THEIR PRIMARY JOB. I DON'T FEEL THAT THE CONSTITUENTS ARE GOING TO BE FAIRLY REPRESENTATIVE IF WE ALLOW THIS TO OCCUR. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU SIR. REGINA MCCARTIN, FOLLOWED BY JASON KING AND HENRY GIBBONS. WHAT WAS THE FIRST NAME AGAIN? REGINA MCCARTIN. JASON KING, FOLLOWED BY HENRY GIBBONS. GOOD EVENING SIR. NAME AND ZIP. JASON KING 21014. 250 YEARS AGO, OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SET IN MOTION A SERIES OF EVENTS THAT WOULD FOREVER CHANGE THE COURSE OF HUMAN HISTORY. THESE GREAT MEN FORGED THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, SEPARATING US FROM GREAT BRITAIN. MOST, IF NOT ALL, OF THESE MEN WERE COMMON PEOPLE WITH REGULAR JOBS WHO WOULD EVENTUALLY SERVE AS LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. HERE ARE A FEW. BENJAMIN RUSH, CONTINENTAL CONGRESS EDUCATOR. JOHN WITHERSPOON, CONTINENTAL CONGRESS TWO TERMS NEW JERSEY STATE LEGISLATURE EDUCATOR. GEORGE WYTHE, CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, VIRGINIA HOUSE OF

[01:35:01]

MIND YOU, THESE ARE SOME OF OUR MOST SERVICE MINDED, ENGAGED AND ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPETENT CITIZENS ARE ALREADY RESTRICTED FROM RUNNING AND HOLDING PARTIZAN POLITICAL OFFICE DUE TO THE HATCH ACT'S PROHIBITION ON SUCH ACTIVITIES BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. IS IT REALLY A GOOD IDEA TO FURTHER NARROW THAT TALENT POOL BY EXCLUDING AN ADDITIONAL CLASS OF MOTIVATED AND QUALIFIED CANDIDATES? BETWEEN ALL OF THE NEW AND UNAMBIGUOUS CASES OF HCP INVOLVING HCP? S HARFORD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND EXPLICITLY SPELLED OUT IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, NOT EVEN COUNTING THE MORE EGREGIOUS CASES THAT MR. BENNETT AND MISS ROBERTS CITED EARLIER, THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF CITIZENS RESTRICTED FROM RUNNING WOULD RISE FROM ABOUT 6% TO ALMOST 10% OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE COUNTY WHO WOULD BE INELIGIBLE, WHO WOULD BE UNABLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE. THAT'S NOT A NARROWLY TAILORED RESTRICTION.

THAT IS A HATCHET TAKEN TO SOME OF OUR MOST ENGAGED CITIZENRY'S ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE FULLY IN THE MACHINE OF OUR REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. I URGE THIS COUNCIL TO REJECT THIS WOEFULLY CRAFTED BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR PAM DEEMER, FOLLOWED BY KATIE BAUSERMAN. ARAVINDA PILLALAMARRI AND BILL MONTANARI. GOOD EVENING MA'AM. GOOD EVENING. PAM DEEMER TWO 1014. I OPPOSE BILL 2609 AND URGE THE COUNCIL TO REJECT THIS BILL. I BELIEVE THE VOTERS SHOULD DECIDE WHO THEY WANT TO REPRESENT THEM. THE VOTERS SPOKE WHEN THEY VOTED FOR MR. PENMAN AND MR. BENNETT RECENTLY, AND MR. SLUTSKY AND MR. CRAIG IN THE PAST. THIS BILL WILL ELIMINATE ANY PERSON WITH A STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE. BACKGROUND AS WRITTEN. THIS BILL EXPANDS PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE BLOCKED FROM RUNNING FOR OFFICE FAR BEYOND WHAT ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD WANT, AND WOULD LEAD TO LAWSUITS.

STOP WASTING TIME AND TAXPAYER MONEY ON ISSUES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE COURTS AND THE VOTERS. THIS ATTEMPT TO LIMIT THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE OF HARFORD COUNTY IN CHOOSING WHO THEY WILL REPRESENT, IS UNDEMOCRATIC AND UNNECESSARY. PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MA'AM. GOOD EVENING MA'AM. NAME IS KATIE BAUSERMAN 21014. SORRY.

[01:40:15]

WHILE INTRODUCING THIS BILL, COUNCILMAN JOHN GIORDANO IMPLIED THAT SOMEONE WORKING IN PUBLIC SERVICE WOULD HAVE A BIAS TOWARDS FUNDING THESE SERVICES, AND THAT THAT WOULD BURDEN THE TAXPAYERS. THAT, HOWEVER, REVEALS A BIAS AGAINST PUBLIC SERVICES IN LINE WITH A BIAS AGAINST PUBLIC EDUCATION, WHICH HAS BEEN REARING ITS HEAD TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. ONE COULD AS WELL ARGUE THAT WELL-FUNDED PUBLIC SERVICES, BEYOND FULFILLING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR SOCIETY TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, REGARDLESS OF THEIR OWN WEALTH OR INCOME OR THE AMOUNT OF TAXES THEY PAY. BUT IT ALSO SAVES PEOPLE MONEY THEY WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TO SPEND OUT OF POCKET. THEREFORE, RAISING THE BUDGET FOR PUBLIC SERVICES IS ONLY A BURDEN IF THOSE SERVICES ARE NOT UP TO PAR. WHEN THEY ARE DELIVERED AT HIGH QUALITY, FULLY FUNDED SERVICES BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY AND THEREFORE DECISIONS SHOULD DEPEND ON THE MERITS OF THE SERVICES AND THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH THOSE WORKING IN THOSE SERVICES WOULD AND SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN. THEREFORE, I OPPOSE BILL 26-009.

COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBERS LIVE IN HARFORD COUNTY AND ARE THUS IMPACTED BY EVERY DECISION THE COUNCIL MAKES. ANY LINE OF WORK COMES WITH SKILLS, PERSPECTIVE AND BIASES. COUNCIL DECISIONS ON THE BUDGET IMPACT VARIOUS PEOPLE AND UNLESS THERE IS A SPECIFIC CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THERE IS NO REASON FOR THAT PERSON TO RECUSE HIMSELF OR HERSELF, AND CERTAINLY NOT A DISQUALIFICATION FOR THE OFFICE. WHEN HARFORD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BUDGET IS BEING VOTED ON, THIS BENEFITS TEACHERS, STUDENTS, STAFF AND THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. THE IMPACT ON A SPECIFIC TEACHER IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM THE IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE, AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IF ANYTHING, THE EXPERTISE IN EDUCATION BRINGS A VALUABLE PERSPECTIVE. IF VOTERS FELT OTHERWISE, THEY WOULD SAY SO AT THE TIME OF VOTING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MA'AM. GOOD EVENING SIR. NAME AND ZIP. BILL MONTANARI 21015. I DID NOT READ THE BILL. SO WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY, I THINK IS PRETTY. WELL, I'LL BE PRETTY CLEAR. AND EXCUSE ME IF I'M NOT MAKING A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE. I'VE BEEN SICK FOR FOUR DAYS. NOTHING YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO GET. IT WAS FOOD POISONING, SO DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT. YEAH, I WOULDN'T WANT TO. I WOULD WANT TO KIND OF POINT OUT ONE THING REALLY, REALLY QUICKLY. SOMEBODY JUMPED UP HERE AND SAID, SOME OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS, I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE TEACHERS AND THEY WERE HELPING FOUND THE COUNTRY AND THEY WERE WORKING WITH THE GOVERNMENT. JUST TO CLARIFY, CLARIFY A SMALL POINT. THEY WERE NOT GETTING PAID. THEY VOLUNTEERED TO DO THAT. A STUDENT OF AMERICAN HISTORY, A STUDENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, REVOLUTION, EVERYTHING ELSE.

I'VE BEEN STUDYING THAT SINCE I'VE BEEN THE AGE OF 12. AND YEAH, THEY DIDN'T GET PAID.

THEY VOLUNTEERED ANYWAY. A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I KIND OF JOT THIS DOWN WHILE I WAS SITTING HERE. EVEN IF YOU GIVE UP A COUNCIL PAYCHECK, YOU ARE STILL IN CONFLICT DUE TO THE EMPLOYMENT BY THAT COUNTY'S GOVERNMENTAL DEPARTMENT.

[01:45:05]

THAT'S ALL YOU GOT TO DO. EVERYTHING ELSE DOESN'T MATTER. PUT IT TO A VOTE BY THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY. FULL STOP. END OF DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. THE LAST SPEAKER THIS EVENING IS MEGAN FITZGERALD. GOOD EVENING MA'AM. MEGAN FITZGERALD 21009. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND AGAIN THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OF BILL 26009. IT'S TRULY ABOUT HAVING DIVERSE REPRESENTATION ON THE DAIS. THE WAY THE BILL IS WRITTEN SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES THE TYPE OF PEOPLE THAT CAN RUN FOR OFFICE AND THUS WEAKENS CITIZEN REPRESENTATION. IF BUSINESS OWNERS WHOSE LIVELIHOOD IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE DECISIONS THE COUNCIL MAKES TO SERVE ON THE COUNTY IS, I'M SORRY, IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE DECISIONS THE COUNCIL MAKES AND SERVE ON THE COUNTY COUNCIL.

HOW IS THAT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? HOW IS THAT NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? THE COUNCIL ALSO MAKES DECISIONS ABOUT PROPERTY TAXES. SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT PROPERTY OWNERS CANNOT SERVE AS WELL? THE ANNUAL BUDGET THE COUNCIL VOTES ON INCLUDES THEIR OWN SALARIES.

THAT'S OKAY, BUT AN EDUCATOR OR A POLICE OFFICER CAN'T VOTE ON A BUDGET THAT INCLUDES THE SALARY FROM THEIR ACTUAL CAREER. THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO THE QUESTION WHY SHOULDN'T THIS BILL GO TO THE GENERAL ELECTION? IT'S A GREAT QUESTION BECAUSE, FRANKLY, HARFORD COUNTY CONTINUES TO HAVE A GROWING HOMELESS POPULATION THAT CONTINUES TO BE CRIMINALLY UNDERSERVED AND A PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM THAT CAN ONLY CLAIM ITS SUCCESS THROUGH THE SELFLESS HOURS, RESOURCES, AND ENERGY PROVIDED BY OUR EDUCATION STAFF, AND CERTAINLY WELL BEYOND THE COMPENSATION PROVIDED BY OUR REPEATEDLY UNDERFUNDED BUDGET. MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS HOW DOES THIS BILL SERVE OUR MOST NEEDY AND MOST VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN HARFORD COUNTY? THE ANSWER IS IT DOESN'T. HOW CAN YOU SIT UP THERE KNOWING HOW SO SO MANY OF OUR CITIZENS ARE HUNGRY OR HOMELESS AND NEED REPRESENTATION THAT SUPPORTS THEIR EFFORTS TO GET OUT OF POVERTY AND NOT BE COMPELLED TO REDIRECT THE FOCUS TO EFFORTS THAT UPLIFT VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES IN HARFORD COUNTY? YOU KNOW, EACH OF US HERE TONIGHT HAS THE LUXURY OF BEING HERE. HOW MANY OF US ARE GOING TO SLEEP IN OUR CAR TONIGHT? BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE WE HAVE TO SLEEP. SERIOUSLY, ALL THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE DISTRACTS FROM THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO STAY FOCUSED ON THE NEEDS OF OUR NEEDIEST AS CITIZENS.

PLEASE GIVE US THE RESPECT AND CREDIT FOR BEING INFORMED WHEN WE GO TO THE POLLS. I DESPERATELY, DESPERATELY WANT TO LOOK UP THERE AND SEE PEOPLE OF WORTH AND HUMILITY AND DIGNITY AND LIKE PERSONAL FORTITUDE AND, YOU KNOW, PUSHING THIS AS FAR AS YOU ARE.

THIS DOESN'T INSPIRE ME WITH THAT. AND THAT'S SO UNFORTUNATE. OKAY. IS THAT THE LAST SPEAKER? THAT IS IT, MR. PRESIDENT. ALL RIGHT. THIS WILL CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON BILL 26009.

IT WILL BE TAKEN UP AT OUR NEXT MEETING. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A . FOUR. THREE. TWO. GOOD EVENING.

[1. CALL TO ORDER ]

[01:50:03]

COUNCIL. MAY I HAVE GENERAL CONSENT TO MOVE FROM ITEM FIVE, MOVE ITEM FIVE ON THE AGENDA AND RETURN TO FOUR THEREAFTER. YEP. THANK YOU. FIVE CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONS,

[5. CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONS, APPLICATIONS, APPOINTMENTS AND NOMINATIONS ]

AND I'M GLAD TO MAKE THIS MOTION TO TO APPOINT BRAD AS THE AUDITOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. BENNETT. YEAH. I WANT TO ECHO THAT. YOU KNOW, WE HAD SOME VERY IMPRESSIVE RESUMES COME TO US WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE EXPERIENCE AUDITING VERY LARGE AGENCIES. BUT NOT ONLY DO YOU BRING INTERNAL EXPERIENCE, THAT IS GREAT FOR US BECAUSE WE KNOW YOUR SKILL SET AND NOT ONLY YOUR OR YOUR TECHNICAL SKILLS SOUND, BUT YOUR COMMUNICATION. YOUR WRITING IS ALL AMAZING.

YOU'RE SO COLLABORATIVE WITH US AS A COUNCIL EVERY YEAR, SETTING UP MEETINGS AND ASKING US WHERE DO WE SEE POTENTIAL RISKS OR SECURITY CONCERNS THAT WE WANT YOU TO BE WORKING ON? AND I LOOK FORWARD TO YOU BEING THE ONE WHO COMES BEFORE US EACH YEAR, THROUGHOUT THE YEAR TO GIVE US UPDATES. SO AGAIN, I'M REALLY HAPPY THAT YOU'RE STEPPING FORWARD IN THIS. I SAY IT ALL THE TIME, BUT IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THE OFFICE WHO ARE GOING TO STAY AFTER WE ALL LEAVE. AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE GOOD WORKERS HERE IN THE COUNCIL BUILDING TO HELP SET OUR COUNTY IN A GOOD DIRECTION, AND I'M CONFIDENT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT. ANYONE ELSE? AND YOUR EFFECTIVE START DATE IS GOING TO BE JULY 3RD? THAT'S CORRECT.

YES, YES. ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD BEFORE WE DETERMINE YOUR FUTURE? I

[01:55:05]

AND I THINK CRYSTAL'S BEEN HERE, WHAT, 14 YEARS? SO YOU'VE BEEN HERE ALMOST AS LONG, SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO IT. AND, MISS DIXON. MR. PRESIDENT, I MISS ROBERT I. MRS. EMHOFF, MR. GIORDANO, I MR. RILEY, I MRS. I MR. BENNETT I THERE BEING SEVEN VOTES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ZERO AND A NEGATIVE. THE APPOINTMENT IS HEREBY APPROVED. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. YOU CAN GO BACK IN THE CORNER. BACK TO THE CORNER. HARTFORD LIVING TREASURE. MAY I HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE? COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I MOVE TO APPROVE HENRY PEDEN AS A HARTFORD LIVING TREASURER.

MAY I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? THANK YOU, MR. RILEY. IT'S BEEN MOVED IN SECOND TO APPROVE MR. PUTIN AS A HARVARD LIVING TREASURE. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I GUESS NOT, MISS DIXON. MR. PRESIDENT, I MRS. ROBERTS, I MRS. EMHOFF, MR. GIORDANO, I MR. RILEY, MRS. I MR. BENNETT I THERE BEING SEVEN VOTES IN AFFIRMATIVE ZERO NEGATIVE. THE APPOINTMENT IS

[4. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATIONS ]

THEREFORE, WE. THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND. ON THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY 2026 TO HEREBY SALUTE HENRY C PETE AND JUNIOR A HARFORD LIVING TREASURE AND BE IT FURTHER KNOWN THAT HIS LIFETIME EXPERIENCE AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HARFORD COUNTY COMMUNITY WILL PROVIDE A PERMANENT RECORD WHICH WILL RECALL THE PAST, INFORM THE PRESENT AND GUIDE THE FUTURE OF HARFORD COUNTY AND THAT HIS MEMORIES AND HISTORY WILL BE RECORDED FOR HARFORD COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY ORAL HISTORIAN, AND WILL BECOME PART OF THE ORAL HISTORY COLLECTION OF THE LIBRARY. NOW, NOW IT'S YOUR TURN. YOU GET TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THIS. YEAH, JUST CLOSER TO YOUR MOUTH. IT'S ON, IT'S ON. OKAY. HOW'S THAT? THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU INDEED.

FOR THIS HIGH HONOR. I WANT TO THANK JIM KRISMER FOR NOMINATING ME AND FOR THE CULTURAL ARTS BOARD FOR APPROVING THE NOMINATION. I WANT TO THANK MY WIFE, VERONICA, MY SON CLINT, FOR THEIR LOVE AND SUPPORT. AND TO MY GOOD FRIEND JACK SAGNA AND HIS WIFE SYDNEY FOR THEIR SUPPORT AS WELL. I'VE ALWAYS SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GETTING OLD WHEN

[02:00:03]

[ 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

LEGISLATIVE DAY 26-016 MAY 19TH, 2026. ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? THERE BEING NO CORRECTIONS, THE MINUTES STAND APPROVED. EIGHT INTRODUCTION CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS.

WE HAVE NONE. NINE. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS WE HAVE NONE. TEN. INTRODUCTION AND

[10. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS ]

26006 AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR ON PAGE EIGHT, LINE 18, STRIKE 2,642,035 035 AND SUBSTITUTE 2,142,035. THANK YOU. DUE TO TIMING, ALL FOUR OF THESE AMENDMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED THIS EVENING. AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE ANNUAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE MAY HAVE A MOTION.

PLEASE MISS COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I MOVE TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE. MAY I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. THANK YOU, MISS EMHOFF. IT'S BEEN MOVED. AND SECOND, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? MISS DIXON? MR. PRESIDENT, I MRS. ROBERT I MRS. EMHOFF, I MR. GIORDANO NO. MR. RILEY NO. MRS. SADDLES I MR. BENNETT I BEING FIVE VOTES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE TWO IN THE NEGATIVE AMENDMENT ONE TO BILL 26006 IS HEREBY APPROVED. MISS SADDLES, PLEASE READ AMENDMENT TWO TO BILL 26006. COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I MOVE TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. THANK YOU. I HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. THANK YOU, MISS ROBERT. IS SECONDED TO APPROVE. AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? MISS DIXON? MR. PRESIDENT, I MRS. ROBERT I MRS. EMHOFF I MR. JOHN GIORDANO. NO.

MR. RILEY NO. MRS. I MR. BENNETT I THERE BEING FIVE VOTES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ZERO AND OR EXCUSE ME TWO IN THE NEGATIVE AMENDMENT BILL, AMENDMENT TWO TO BILL 26006 IS HEREBY APPROVED. MISS ROBERT. AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE, MOVE TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE TO BILL NUMBER 26-006. THANK YOU. MAY HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. THANK YOU. MR. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MR. GIORDANO? DID YOU HAVE ONE? GO AHEAD. OKAY. YES. THE REASON BEHIND IT IS IN LOOKING AT THIS BUDGET AND GETTING SOME INFORMATION FROM OUR AUDITOR IN FY 24, IT WAS BUDGET. THAT LINE ITEM WAS BUDGETED FOR 7,000,738 627. AND IT WAS ONLY EXPENDITURES OF 4,000,522 985 IN FY 25, 9,000,967 634 WAS BUDGETED AND ONLY 5,000,062 961 WAS SPENT. AND THEN IN FY 26

[02:05:02]

THANK YOU, MISS ROBERT, MR. GIORDANO, I WILL PASS. OKAY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MR. BENNETT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS A GREAT. THIS AMENDMENT IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE LOOKED AT BUDGETED VERSUS ACTUALS DURING OUR FOUR DAYS OF BUDGET WORK SESSIONS, IT CAME TO LIGHT THAT IN JUST THE PORTION OF THE BUDGET THAT IS DIRECTLY MONITORED AND CONTROLLED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, WE OVER BUDGETED BY ROUGHLY 10% OF THE $300 MILLION THAT'S SET ASIDE FOR THOSE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH MEANS $30 MILLION IS SAID TO BE SPENT ON THINGS THAT NEVER GET SPENT ON.

AND THAT'S BEEN CONSISTENT OVER THE YEARS. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT OUR TAXPAYERS DON'T HAVE THEIR MONEY STORED AWAY REPEATEDLY IN OVERFUNDED ACCOUNTS. BUT THAT MONEY GOES TO ACTION TO SUPPORT THE SERVICES COMMUNITY MEMBERS RELY ON AND EXPECT WHEN THEY PAY THEIR PROPERTY AND INCOME TAXES. THANK YOU, MR. BENNETT. MISS IMHOFF. WE HAVE TO VOTE. WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING. OH, I'M SORRY, I'M MOVING ON. I'M GONNA DO THEM ALL TOGETHER. I KNOW, I KNOW, ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, MISS DIXON. MR. PRESIDENT, I MRS. ROBERTS, I MRS. EMHOFF, MR. GIORDANO. NO. MR. RILEY, NO. MRS. SADDLES, I MR. BENNETT, I YOU'RE BEING FIVE VOTES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, ZERO NEGATIVE AMENDMENTS. THREE TO BILL 2606 IS HEREBY APPROVED.

MISS EMHOFF, PLEASE READ AN AMENDMENT OR. EXCUSE ME. GIVE ME A MOTION ON NUMBER FOUR. I MOVE TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR TO BILL 26-006. THANK YOU, MADAM. SECOND.

SECOND. THANK YOU, MR. ROBERT. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR TO BILL 26006. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, MISS EMHOFF, THIS AMENDMENT IS TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT BUDGET TO REDUCE LEGAL SERVICES BY 500 000, WHICH INCLUDES 150 OF CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AND 350 000, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY WHAT THE COUNCIL CUT LAST YEAR.

THANK YOU. AND ALSO ONE OF OUR AMENDMENTS, OUR FIRST AMENDMENT WAS TO CUT OUR COUNCIL ATTORNEYS AND PEOPLE'S COUNCIL BUDGET BY A QUARTER OF A MILLION AS WELL. SO ANY OTHER COMMENTS, MR. BENNETT? AGAIN, THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE WHEN WE MADE THIS CUT LAST YEAR, THERE WAS NO REDUCTION IN SERVICES, NO CUT IN PAY TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT, NO CUT TO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WORKING IN THE LAW DEPARTMENT. AND THIS YEAR, WHEN THE LAW DEPARTMENT WAS SCHEDULED TO COME BEFORE US AS A COUNCIL, THE DIRECTOR OF THE LAW DEPARTMENT DID NOT SHOW UP.

IT'S THE FIRST TIME ANY OF US KNOW IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTY THAT A DIRECTOR FOR A DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL AND TALK TO US ABOUT THEIR BUDGET. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, THERE'S NO JUSTIFICATION TO INCREASE THAT DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET WHEN THEY CAN'T EVEN COME AND PRESENT A RATIONALE TO US. SO I THINK IT'S, AGAIN, FINANCIALLY GOOD STEWARDSHIP TO SAY, LET'S KEEP IT AT WHERE IT WAS THIS PAST YEAR BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO WORK JUST FINE. THANK YOU, MR. BENNETT. ANYONE ELSE? YES, MR. RILEY, AGAIN, I GOT TO CORRECT THE RECORD. THE DIRECTOR DID NOT COME. IN FACT, WE GOT THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE THAT CAME HERE TO JUSTIFY THIS BUDGET. YOU CAN'T GET ANY HIGHER THAN THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE. AGAIN, YOU CAN TELL IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR. LET'S JUST KEEP EVERYTHING SO THAT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE, MISS DIXON, MR. PRESIDENT, I, MRS. OR MRS. ROBERT I, MRS. EMHOFF, I MR. GIORDANO NO. MR. RILEY NO. MRS. I MR. BENNETT I YOU'RE BEING FIVE VOTES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, TWO IN THE NEGATIVE. AMENDMENT FOUR TO BILL 2606 IS HEREBY APPROVED. 11 CALL FOR FINAL READING OF BILLS. WE HAVE NONE. 12 ENROLLMENT OF BILLS NONE. 13.

[14. NEW BUSINESS ]

[02:10:04]

HE'S A BIG LIBERAL DOWN THERE IN ANNAPOLIS. HE'S NOW ON THIS AS THE CHAIR. HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET SOME MOVEMENT ON THIS, BUT THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS, AND I APPRECIATE THE WHOLE COUNCIL COMING TOGETHER WITH THIS LETTER. AND IF I MAY, MR. GIOVANNA, BEFORE I GO TO YOU, I DID RECEIVE A CALL FROM PATTY HANKINS ASKING US TO CONSIDER A FULL LETTER PRIOR TO THE MEETING, BUT I WAS AT A GOOD SCOUT EVENT, SO I COULD NOT GO TO THAT THAT NIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE SENT A LETTER AS WELL. SO THIS WILL BE A UNIFIED FRONT OPPOSING THIS. SO DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF THE FULL LETTER. BUT AS WHAT'S HAPPENED BEFORE WE TURNED DOWN A SOLAR FARM A COUPLE YEARS AGO IN THE PSC COMMISSION OVERRODE US. SO IF THEY DON'T CHANGE THE LAWS DOWN IN ANNAPOLIS AND THE THE DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED BODY OF ANNAPOLIS DOESN'T STOP SHOVING SOLAR FARMS DOWN OUR THROATS.

THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO PUT THESE ON. THERE'S A COUPLE MORE THAT ARE THAT ARE FILED, THAT ARE ON THE WAY IN HARFORD COUNTY. THAT FEDERAL TAX CREDITS EXPIRE ON JULY 4TH. I HOPE THIS LETTER CAN DO SOMETHING. UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T KNOW HOW POWERFUL IT'S GOING TO BE UNLESS WE GET SOME HELP ON GETTING THIS CHANGED IN ANNAPOLIS. THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP PUSHING UNTIL THEY HAVE SOLAR FARMS TAKE OVER ALL OF OUR GREEN LAND AND PAY THE FARMERS A LOT OF MONEY. IT'S THE SAME THING, HOPEFULLY, THAT THEY DON'T TRY TO DO WITH WITH DATA CENTERS WHERE THEY, YOU KNOW, TRY TO DO THE SAME THING, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE GOING TO WIND UP PUTTING A BAN IN, THEY THEY MIGHT COME BACK WITH SOMETHING ELSE. AND THAT JUST SCARES THE HELL OUT OF ME. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE, MR. BENNETT? MR. PRESIDENT, I JUST WANT TO YOU KNOW, AS I LISTEN TO THIS CONVERSATION, IT REMINDS ME ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO WHEN WE HAD OUR WAREHOUSE LEGISLATION, AND I PREPARED A MOMENT, AN AMENDMENT TO THAT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED INDUSTRIAL ROOFTOPS OF THESE LONG, LARGE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TO BE SOLAR READY SO THAT SOLAR COULD BE PLACED OVER TOP OF THAT GRAY SPACE INSTEAD OF GREEN SPACE. AND I ADVOCATED THEN THAT IF WE DID NOT TAKE SUCH ACTION AND EMPHASIZE THE USE OF INDUSTRIAL SPACE FOR SOLAR PRODUCTION, THAT WE WERE LEAVING OUR GREEN SPACE VULNERABLE TO THESE PRESSURES, BECAUSE ANNAPOLIS IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR US TO BUILD UP OUR ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND TO EMPHASIZE RENEWABLE ENERGY. BUT WE, AS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT, CAN DO OUR PART TO EMPHASIZE THAT THAT BELONGS OVER TOP OF GRACE GRAY SPACE, OVER GREEN SPACE. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT AMENDMENT THAT I PUT FORWARD THREE YEARS AGO FAILED 3 TO 4. AND SO INSTEAD OF EMPHASIZING THE USE OF INDUSTRIAL SPACE FOR SOLAR PANELS AND ROOFTOPS FOR SOLAR PANELS, WE'RE CONTINUING TO SEE THIS PRESSURE FOR GREEN SPACE TO BE USED. AND THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. THANK YOU, MR. BENNETT. MR. JIM JORDAN SO I TALKED TO RICH TRUITT, WHO GOT ANNAPOLIS NOT TO INCLUDE PUTTING SOLAR ON ROOFS MOVING FORWARD, WHICH ALLOWS US TO MAKE A STRONGER CASE FOR GOING BACK TO REVISIT THAT. ANY ANY BUILDING MAY BE BUILT AT 250,000FT■!S OR MORE. WE COULD PUT SOMETHING ON THERE THAT SAYS THEY HAVE TO PUT SOLAR ON THEIR ROOFTOPS. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE WE'LL INTRODUCE DOWN THE ROAD. THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? MAY I HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE? COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE COUNCIL LETTER OF

[02:15:01]

[15. COMMENTS AND INPUT FROM ATTENDING CITIZENS ]

YES. JOHN VARVARIS 21084. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING THIS FORUM. COUNCIL PRESIDENT VINCENTE AND ALSO ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNANIMOUS VOTE. I COME HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE SOLAR PROJECT, CHROME HILL SOLAR IN OPPOSITION TO IT. AND OBVIOUSLY YOU ALL ARE WELL ALONG WITH THAT, I'VE SENT EACH OF YOU AN EMAIL. SEVERAL OF OUR COMMUNITY HAVE SENT YOU A NUMBER OF LETTERS AND THINGS, AND I RESPECT THAT YOU'VE BEEN RESPONSIVE. SOME OF YOU HAVE SENT YOUR OWN LETTERS INTO PUBLIC COMMENTS. OTHER YOU'VE RESPONDED TO MY EMAILS AND OTHERS HAVE SPOKEN PUBLICLY AT THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD MEETINGS. SO AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT. I WANTED TO I WAS GOING TO CALL TO ACTION THREE THINGS FOR YOU. ONE WAS A UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF THIS LETTER. SO THAT'S ONE ONE DONE.

THE OTHER IS TO STRONGLY WORD THE OPPOSITION LETTER. OBVIOUSLY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LETTER LOOKS LIKE. WE ALL KNOW THAT THAT THERE'S ALREADY BEEN AN ACT THAT THE STATE HAS USURPED YOUR AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO PLANNING AND ZONING, THAT THEY CAN STEP INTO WHAT YOU ALL HAVE DECLARED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND. SO TO JUST MENTION THAT AGAIN AS THE ONLY ITEM IS NOT ENOUGH. WE'VE BEEN FIGHTING HARD TO TRY TO MAKE 47 PUBLIC COMMENTS. WE'VE HAD 1600 PEOPLE OVER 1600 ON OUR PETITION. WE'VE HELD TWO COMMUNITY MEETINGS WITH OVER 240 PEOPLE IN DIRECT OPPOSITION IN OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY. SO WE HAVE BEEN DOING A LOT OF WORK, BUT THERE ARE 16 ITEMS. MY LAST REQUEST IS THERE ARE 16 ITEMS MENTIONED IN THE PSC APPLICATION FOR HARFORD COUNTY TO RESPOND TO AND TO MANAGE OR APPROVE VARIOUS FORMS OF A ROLE.

THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU ALL CAN. ADDITIONALLY, ATTACK IS, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A CARROLL COUNTY CASE, AND I'LL GIVE YOU THE CASE NUMBER IS 9735, WHERE THEY ACTUALLY WON IN OPPOSITION TO A SOLAR FACILITY OUT THERE. AND WHAT IT WHAT HELPED WIN IT WAS IT'S A VIEWSHED AND GLARE STUDY PROBLEM. SO JUST LIKE MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS, MYSELF INCLUDED, WE SIT UP ON A HILL AT A HIGHER ELEVATION OR IN THIS FARMER'S SOLAR FARM FACILITY IS GOING.

SO WE WILL HAVE FULL VIEW OF THIS NO MATTER WHAT BUFFERS THEY PUT IN AND HOW TALL THE TREES THEY PUT IN. MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS ARE IN THE SAME SITUATION. THE VIEW SHED ANALYSIS IN THE DOCUMENT IS WOEFULLY SHORT. DOESN'T EVEN CONSIDER ANYBODY DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY THAT HAS AN ELEVATION ISSUE. SO THERE ARE THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE APPLICATION. WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING A TWO TIER DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DELAYED AND THROWN OUT AS NOT BEING VALID. SO WE'VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF WORK.

AGAIN, THERE'S 16 THINGS MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION THAT YOU ALL COULD HELP ASSURE GET ADDRESSED. AND THE EARLIER YOU DO IT, WE'RE OUR GOAL IS TO GET THE APPLICATION DELAYED AS LONG AS POSSIBLE SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO FIGHT WITH THE STATE LEVEL, THE POSITIONS AT THE STATE LEVEL. SO ONE THING, LAST THING I WOULD REQUEST IS THAT IN THE CASE THAT WAS 19735 IN CARROLL COUNTY, THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ATTENDED HEARINGS. THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HAD AN ACTIVE ROLE IN THESE HEARINGS AND RESPONSES, AND THE COUNTY ACTUALLY HIRED AN EXTERNAL LITIGATOR TO HELP THEM. SIR, YOUR TIME IS UP. SO MR. RILEY WILL TAKE THE LEAD ON YOUR OTHER REQUEST. THIS IS A COPY OF THE LETTER THAT WE JUST SUPPORTED TONIGHT. MISS BERRY, WILL YOU GIVE HIM THAT LETTER, PLEASE? THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MA'AM. NAME AND ZIP CODE, PLEASE. DEBBIE RAYNOR 21050. I HAVE A 72 ACRE FARM. I'VE LIVED THERE 45 YEARS. WE HAVE THE CHAMPION WHITE HOUSE TREE OF HARFORD COUNTY ON THAT PROPERTY. AND WE ARE FACING THE SAME NIGHTMARE. HOWEVER, OURS IS DIVIDED INTO THREE SMALLER SECTIONS, SO WE MAY NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO GET TO THE PSC. IT MAY GO STRAIGHT THROUGH. SO YOU MAY BE HEARING A LOT FROM US FOR

[02:20:03]

LOGAN TOLSON. OKAY. CALL YOUR NEXT ONE, MONICA MCHALE, FOLLOWED BY TOM RAYNER AND VERNA WHITE. GOOD EVENING MA'AM. NAME AND ZIP AGAIN, PLEASE. MONICA MCHALE 21015. I WANTED TO START OFF BY THANKING SOME OF OUR COUNCIL PEOPLE FOR THEIR INTEGRITY. THIS RELATES TO MRS. EMHOFF. I SAW THAT SHE POSTED THAT SHE HAD ACCEPTED A $2,000 SPONSORSHIP FROM MOUNTAIN BRANCH, WHICH SHE RETURNED, I GUESS BECAUSE SHE SAID, WHEN YOU KNOW BETTER, YOU DO BETTER AS IT CAN CAUSE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE DATA CENTER CONTROVERSY. AND I'M LOOKING FOR OUR COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR. SO THAT WAY HE CAN. ADJUST HIS INTEGRITY AND CREDIBILITY BACK TO THE COUNTY AND ITS MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY. THE THE TENTATIVE AMOUNT, I BELIEVE OR ALLEGED AMOUNT THAT I SAW ON ON SOCIAL MEDIA IS ABOUT 5000, BUT I'VE HEARD 5500. AND I'M LOOKING FOR INTEGRITY TO BE RESTORED. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS RETURNING MONETARY DONATION AND NOT ACCEPTING IT ON BEHALF OF SOMEONE. THAT COULD BE POSING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR THE DATA CENTERS. I'D ALSO LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THE ENTIRE COUNTY COUNCIL SEEMS TO BE INTERNALLY FIGHTING, AND IT'S REALLY FRUSTRATING TO TO ME TO WITNESS THAT. AND I EXPECT MY COUNCIL TO DO A LITTLE BETTER, JUST DO A LITTLE BETTER FOR THE PUBLIC. KEEP YOUR PUBLIC AND YOUR CONSTITUENTS AS YOUR KEY FOCUS, NOT PERSONAL AGENDAS. I ORIGINALLY CAME HERE OVER COSTCO, AND THAT WAS ONE OF MY FIRST MEETINGS FOR COMING HERE, AND I WAS REALLY ADAMANT ALSO ABOUT ABINGDON WOODS AT THE TIME, WHICH WAS REALLY BIG. AND I'M REALLY GLAD OF WHAT'S HAPPENED WITH ABINGDON WOODS AND HOW WE'VE SLOWED DOWN THE DESTRUCTION. BUT DESTRUCTION WAS DONE AND TREES WERE PUT BACK AS PART OF A SETTLEMENT.

I'D LIKE US TO CONSIDER PUTTING COSTCO NOT ON THAT 34 ACRES ACROSS FROM PALM TREE. STILL, IT REALLY, TRULY BOTHERS ME WHEN I DRIVE FROM BEL AIR TO BETHESDA FOR MY JOB EVERY DAY.

AND I CAN TELL YOU WHERE ALL THE POTHOLES ARE, THE BIG ONES, ALL THE ROADKILL THAT'S FRESH DAILY THAT I KNOW IS ON THE ROADS. AND WHEN I CALL DPW, THE RESPONSE AND THE TURNAROUND TIME IS NOT ALWAYS GREAT BECAUSE I'LL SEE THEM FOR A FEW DAYS ON THE ROAD BEFORE THEY CAN SOMETIMES GET TO THEM IF THEY EVER GET TO THEM AT ALL. BUT I'D REALLY LIKE US TO CONSIDER, INSTEAD OF PUTTING IT THERE, REALLY CONSIDER MAYBE PUTTING IT WHERE THE MALL IS, MAYBE WHERE THE MACY'S WAS, WHERE THERE'S ALREADY AN INFRASTRUCTURE AND IT'S GOING OUT OF THE COUNTY'S LINE TO WORK WITH THE CITY OF BEL AIR. BUT I REALLY DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT 326 ACRES REALLY EVER DEVELOPED. AND TO HEAR THAT IT MIGHT BE A BETTER LOCATION FOR SOME PEOPLE, BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT OFF THE EXIT. AND IN FACT, ONE OF THE COUNCIL PEOPLE, I'M REALLY DISAPPOINTED WITH THAT. SO I'M HOPING THAT THAT WE KEEP OUR GREEN SPACE, THAT YOU HOLD

[02:25:03]

JUST ONE PIECE OF CLARITY HERE. THIS COUNCIL IS NOT FIGHTING WITH ONE ANOTHER. THIS COUNCIL HAS OPEN DISCUSSIONS AND SOMETIMES THEY GET HEATED, BUT WE ALL WORK TOGETHER EVERY DAY.

SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT FOR YOU AND THE CITIZENS. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING SIR. NAME IS TOM RAYNOR TWO 1050. GOOD EVENING TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL AND EVERYONE HERE TONIGHT. THANKS FOR GIVING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE MY OPINION. I ALSO LIVE ON THAT 72 ACRE PARCEL WITH MY WIFE, DEBBIE, AND I AM VEHEMENTLY AGAINST INSTALLING COMMERCIAL SOLAR ARRAYS WITH FENCED PERIMETERS ON AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR MANY COMMON SENSE REASONS. FIRST OFF, WE CAN'T EAT SOLAR PANELS, SO WHY DON'T WE PUT THEM ON COMMERCIAL AREAS WHERE THEY BELONG? NUMBER TWO, SOLAR PANELS ARE VERY INEFFICIENT AT THIS TIME. THEY CAPTURE ABOUT 20% OF THE SOLAR ENERGY THEY'RE EXPOSED TO, AND REQUIRE A LOT OF SPACE TO GENERATE MINIMAL ELECTRICITY, WHICH WILL MAKE LARGE SOLAR ARRAYS ON AGRICULTURAL LAND ACTUALLY OBSOLETE IN THE NEW IN THE NEAR FUTURE. AT THAT TIME, IN THE NEAR FUTURE, SOLAR COLLECTION EFFICIENCY WILL IMPROVE TO THE EXTENT THAT MOST RESIDENTIAL HOMES WILL PRODUCE ALL THE ENERGY THEY NEED. WITH A MINIMUM NUMBER OF SOLAR COLLECTING DEVICES, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE SOLAR PANELS. NUMBER THREE COMMERCIAL SOLAR ARRAYS WITH FENCED PERIMETERS ON AGRICULTURAL LAND DECREASED THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES WHERE THEY ARE OR WHERE THEY ARE INSTALLED. COMMERCIAL SOLAR ARRAYS WITH FENCED PERIMETER DISRUPT THE ECOLOGICAL BALANCE WHERE THEY ARE INSTALLED. COMMERCIAL NUMBER FIVE COMMERCIAL SOLAR ARRAYS WITH FENCED PERIMETER ON AGRICULTURAL LAND DESTROY THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THE VIEWSCAPE. DURING THE LIFE SPAN. THIS IS NUMBER SIX DURING THE LIFESPAN OF THE SOLAR ARRAY, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 25 YEARS. THERE IS A STRONG POSSIBILITY THE CHEMICAL COMPONENTS OF THE SOLAR PANELS WILL POLLUTE THE GROUND AND WATERSHED WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED. ESPECIALLY DURING DECOMMISSION AND REMOVAL OF THE SOLAR ARRAY. ALL THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD ASK THE COUNTY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER TEAMING UP WITH OTHER COUNTIES IN MARYLAND TO FORM A COALITION OF COUNTIES TO KEEP THE STATE FROM STEAMROLLING OVER THE COUNTY'S ZONING REGULATIONS, AND FORCING THE COUNTIES TO ACCEPT COMMERCIAL SOLAR ARRAYS ON AGRICULTURAL LAND. THERE IS STRENGTH IN NUMBERS, AND WHERE THERE IS A STRONG WILL, THERE SHOULD BE A STRONG WAY TO STOP THIS, AND I BELIEVE THE MAJORITY OF MARYLANDERS WOULD SUPPORT PROHIBITING COMMERCIAL SOLAR ARRAYS WITH THE FENCING ON AGRICULTURAL LAND. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE, THE PEOPLE, HAVE TO DO OUR PART TO SUPPORT THE COUNTIES BY BRINGING THIS OVERREACH OF AUTHORITY BY THE STATE OF MARYLAND TO THE ATTENTION OF OUR FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS AND ACQUAINTANCES TO PUT PRESSURE ON THE STATE TO RESCIND THIS FLAWED POLICY. I DO APPRECIATE WHAT THE COUNTY IS DOING SO FAR WITH THE COUNCIL'S DOING SO FAR WITH WRITING THE LETTER. EVERYBODY HELPS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. THANK YOU SIR.

VERNA WHITE, FOLLOWED BY CHRISSY FLATAU. BILL COPOULOS, AND RYAN BURBY. YOU'RE NEXT MA'AM. NAME AND ZIP, PLEASE. CHRISSY FLATO TWO 1085. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CHRISSY FLATO AND I STAND HERE AS A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF HARFORD COUNTY AND AS SOMEONE WHO LOVES THIS LAND DEEPLY, MANY OF US GREW UP READING THE GIVING TREE, A STORY OF A TREE THAT GIVES AND GIVES UNTIL THERE IS ALMOST NOTHING LEFT. AT FIRST THE BOY TAKES APPLES, THEN BRANCHES, THEN THE TRUNK. EACH TIME THE TREE SAYS, AND THE TREE WAS HAPPY. BUT BY THE END THE TREE IS ONLY A STUMP, STILL WILLING TO GIVE. BUT WITH NOTHING LEFT TO OFFER. TONIGHT I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER HOW MUCH MORE CAN HARFORD COUNTY GIVE BETWEEN DATA CENTERS, BEST FACILITIES AND INDUSTRIAL SCALE SOLAR? HOW MUCH MORE CAN OUR LAND AND OUR PEOPLE BE ASKED TO SACRIFICE BEFORE THE DAMAGE BECOMES PERMANENT? OUR RURAL COMMUNITIES ARE NOT AN ENDLESS RESOURCE. OUR FARMLAND IS NOT A BLANK CANVAS FOR INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION. OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ARE NOT BUFFERS FOR CORPORATE INFRASTRUCTURE. AND WE ALL KNOW THIS TRUTH. INDUSTRIAL

[02:30:06]

THE LAND AROUND IT, AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL. YET WE ARE BEING ASKED TO TRANSFORM PEACEFUL RURAL COMMUNITIES INTO INDUSTRIAL CORRIDORS, AS IF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE AND THE LAND ITSELF CAN ABSORB ENDLESS IMPACT WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE. IN THE GIVING TREE, THE BOY NEVER STOPS TO ASK WHAT THE TREE NEEDS. HE ONLY ASKED WHAT MORE HE CAN TAKE. AND. AND THAT IS THE MOMENT WE ARE LIVING IN NOW. OUR LAND HAS GIVEN ITS APPLES, OUR FARMS, OUR OPEN SPACES, OUR CLEAN AIR. IT HAS GIVEN OUR ITS BRANCHES, OUR ROADS, OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, OUR COMMUNITY STABILITY. AND NOW WE ARE BEING ASKED FOR THE TRUNK. BUT UNLIKE THE TREE IN THE STORY, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO SAY ENOUGH. WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT WHAT REMAINS BEFORE WE ARE LEFT WITH ONLY A STUMP, BEFORE OUR RURAL CHARACTER, OUR AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE AND OUR COMMUNITY WELL-BEING ARE CUT DOWN IN THE NAME OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. HARFORD COUNTY IS GENEROUS, HARFORD COUNTY IS RESILIENT, BUT HARFORD COUNTY IS NOT INEXHAUSTIBLE. I URGE YOU HONOR THE ZONING, HONOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE AND HONOR THE LAND THAT HAS ALREADY GIVEN SO MUCH. PLEASE PROTECT OUR AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES FROM INDUSTRIAL ENCROACHMENT BEFORE THE GIVING BECOMES TAKING, BEFORE THE STUMP IS ALL THAT'S LEFT. THANK YOU. AND I HAVE COPIES OF THIS BOOK FOR EACH OF YOU. THANK YOU MA'AM. YOU CAN GIVE THE BOOKS TO MISS DIXON. THANK YOU. HOW MUCH ARE THE BOOKS? YEAH, WE'RE.

WE'RE ALREADY QUESTIONING HOW MUCH THE BOOKS ARE WORTH. CALL YOUR NEXT SPEAKER. BILL. I'M GOING TO LET YOU SAY THAT. HELLO. GOOD EVENING, SIR. NAME AND ZIP. BILL VASSILAKOPOULOS 21085. SO I'M HERE TONIGHT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT A COUPLE OF FACTS. THERE ARE 3100 COUNTIES IN THE UNITED STATES. THERE IS ONE COUNTY IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES THAT HAS A TOTAL BAN ON DATA CENTERS, AND THAT COUNTY IS MARSHALL COUNTY, MARSHALL COUNTY, INDIANA, WITH A POPULATION OF 46,000. HARFORD COUNTY HAS A POPULATION OF 266,000. MARSHALL COUNTY HAS 70% OF THE LAND MASS AS FARMLAND. HARFORD COUNTY IS 23%. THE GENERAL FUND OF MARSHALL COUNTY IS $46 MILLION PER YEAR. THE GENERAL FUND HERE IN HARFORD COUNTY IS $816 MILLION A YEAR. THE 75 MILE RADIUS POPULATION FROM MARSHALL COUNTY, INDIANA, IS FOR 4.5 MILLION PEOPLE. THE 75 MILE RADIUS FROM HARFORD COUNTY IS 14 MILLION PEOPLE. BY CREATING A BAND, YOU'RE NOT CREATING A BAN ON DATA CENTERS. YOU ARE CREATING A BAN ON INFRASTRUCTURE, TECHNOLOGY AND GROWTH FOR THE ECONOMY AND NATIONAL SECURITY AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S INVOLVED HERE. YOU'RE CREATING A BAN AND A HINDRANCE ON THE EMERGING TECH SECTOR THAT'S HERE IN HARFORD COUNTY, AND HOPEFULLY GROWING EVEN MORE. WELL, WE'VE PROPOSED INSTEAD OF A BAN IS SET STANDARDS FOR THIS COUNTY THAT WILL PROTECT THE CITIZENS, PROTECT EVERYONE INVOLVED, SET THE STANDARDS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND YOU HAVE THEM, AND I WILL REISSUE THEM AGAIN TO YOU TOMORROW MORNING, ALONG WITH OUR COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT THAT WE PROPOSE BEHIND THE METER POWER GENERATION GENERATION THAT HAS THE CAPABILITY OF PUTTING ENERGY BACK INTO THE GRID. ZERO POWER, ZERO PUBLIC WATER USE, STRICT NOISE, NOISE LIMITS, GENEROUS SETBACKS, NO PFAS CHEMICALS IN ANY, ANY, ANY PART OF THE DATA CENTER AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS OR SETBACKS OR LEGISLATION THAT YOU WOULD REQUIRE. NOW, AS FAR AS THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT, THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPER MAY WOULD GIVE BACK TO THE COUNTY GUARANTEE UNION JOBS GROWTH IN IN THE COLLEGE AS WELL AS OTHER THINGS.

[02:35:03]

UNFORTUNATELY, COUNCIL, MANY PEOPLE DO. OR MAYBE. FORTUNATELY, I'D LIKE TO THANK MR. BILL FOR HIS COURAGE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE HATES IS TRULY A COURAGEOUS THING. AND NAME AND ADDRESS. OH, MY NAME IS RYAN BURBY AND I LIVE AT 1701 MOUNTAIN ROAD IN JOPPA, 285. I GOTTA TELL YOU GUYS, THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT IN THIS COUNTY. THE CONSTANT ATTACKS ON WORKING PEOPLE ARE REALLY GETTING DISGUSTING. ALL RIGHT, SO YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF CHOICES. YOU CAN CONTINUE DOWN THAT LANE.

LET'S EXPLORE THAT. LET'S JUST GET RID OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL. LET'S JUST POINT MR. BILL COUNTY REGION. I'M SURE HE WILL LOOK OUT FOR ALL OF US. LET'S GET RID OF THE SCHOOL BOARD. WE CAN HAVE THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE APPOINT A SUPERINTENDENT WHO CAN LOOK OUT FOR ALL OF US.

LET'S GET RID OF ALL THE ZONING. LET'S GET RID OF EVERY SINGLE REGULATION, EVERY SINGLE BLOCK TO ANYONE MAKING MONEY AT THEIR OWN BENEFIT, AT OUR LOSS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S KIND OF GOING ON. OKAY. THE PROBLEM WITH THE DATA CENTER THING IS THE WATER. YOU HAVE TO PROTECT FOLKS, WATER. IT'S NOT HAPPENING. AND IT'S NOT JUST THE DATA CENTER YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT. IT'S EVERYTHING THAT COMES AFTERWARDS. YOU HAVE TO PROTECT PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION. LOOK AT THE COUNCIL. YOU SHOULD SEE SOME ALARMING DETAILS. NUMBER ONE, THE TWO LARGEST POPULATION CENTERS ARE NOT EXCLUSIVELY REPRESENTED. THEIR VOTES HAVE BEEN DILUTED SO THAT BASICALLY NO ONE FROM ABERDEEN WILL EVER GET ELECTED TO COUNCIL AGAIN UNLESS THEY'RE A REPUBLICAN. THE FOLKS FROM EDGEWOOD AREN'T EVEN INCORPORATED. THEY GET STEPPED ON EVERY SINGLE BUDGET YEAR, AND THE FOLKS FROM HAVRE DE GRACE THEIR VOTES DILUTED TO.

FORTUNATELY, MR. BENNETT IS POPULAR ENOUGH THAT HE CAN RISE ABOVE. BUT HEY, WE GOT AN MP WHO WANTS TO REMOVE THAT FROM THE VOTERS HANDS. THE SECOND THING THAT YOU CAN DO, SOMETHING YOU CAN DO TO CORRECT ALL THIS IS NUMBER ONE. DON'T EVEN CONSIDER THE BILL.

POSTPONE IT INDEFINITELY. TABLE IT OBJECT TO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE I ASSURE YOU, I ASSURE YOU, JUST AS I'M TELLING THE VOTERS IN DISTRICT C, IF BY SOME MIRACLE, TONY G HAPPENS TO WIN THE PRIMARY, PLEASE, SOMEONE WHO WORKS FOR THE SCHOOLS, MR. BERMAN. ANYONE? MR. BURBY, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT BILL AND THAT BILL JUST HAD A PUBLIC HEARING. I'M SORRY.

PLEASE, FOLKS, CONSIDER AFTER THE PRIMARIES, RUNNING A PETITION CAMPAIGN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO RUN IN THE PRIMARIES. IF YOU RUN A PETITION CAMPAIGN, YOU JUST HAVE TO GET ENOUGH PEOPLE TO SIGN YOUR PETITION. IT HAS TO END. OKAY. WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO JUST HONOR SPECIAL INTERESTS AND WHOEVER'S COUNTY EXECUTIVE, THEIR CRONIES GET IT. AND WHOEVER'S ON THE COUNCIL, THEIR CRONIES GET IT. YOU GOT TO RISE ABOVE FOLKS, AND YOU ALL ARE GOOD PEOPLE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THERE ARE NO MORE SPEAKERS, MR. PRESIDENT. THANK YOU. 16 BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL

[16. BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS ]

[02:40:06]

GOOD TO BE WITH YOU ALL THIS EVENING. I WAS HONORED TO ATTEND PARIS MILL HIGH SCHOOL'S GRADUATION EARLIER TODAY, ALONG WITH MANY OF OUR COUNCIL COLLEAGUES. THAT'S A SCHOOL THAT REALLY TOUCHES MANY DISTRICTS I GRADUATE. I WAS IN THE FOURTH GRADUATING CLASS AT PARIS MILL. MY BROTHER WAS IN THE FIRST GRADUATING CLASS, AND SO IT WAS REALLY FUN TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE 17TH GRADUATING CLASS. TODAY. I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY WHO CAME OUT TONIGHT, BOTH FOR THE HEARING AND FOR THE MEETING ITSELF. I ALSO THINK THOSE WHO EMAIL AND CALL, I ALWAYS SAY, YOU KNOW, YOUR GOVERNMENT WORKS AS WELL AS YOU MAKE IT WORK. AND SO HAVING PEOPLE ENGAGED, HAVING PEOPLE HOLDING US ACCOUNTABLE MAKES THE BEST OUTCOME FOR THE COMMUNITY. SO AGAIN, JUST THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. BENNETT.

MISS ROBERT. YES, GOOD EVENING AND CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL THE GRADUATES. I WILL SAY SPECIFICALLY, ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 20TH, I ATTENDED THE P-TECH AND HOMELAND SECURITY ASSEMBLY AND AWARDS AT JOPPATOWNE, AND THEY HAD 23 GRADUATES IN THE CYBERSECURITY AND HOMELAND. BUT WHAT'S EVEN BETTER IS THE NEXT DAY, ON MAY 21ST, I GOT TO WATCH THEM ALL ACCEPT AN AA DEGREE AT THE HARFORD COMMUNITY COLLEGE. AND SO WHAT A GREAT EXPERIENCE TO WATCH THEM GO THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL AND COME OUT WITH AN AA DEGREE. AND. THURSDAY, MAY 21ST, I ALSO ATTENDED THE INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE CEREMONY AT EDGEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL. THERE WERE 37 STUDENTS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THAT PROGRAM, AND I'M AMAZED. LAST YEAR I THOUGHT THEY COULDN'T TOP IT, BUT THIS YEAR THEY DID. THEY RECEIVED OVER $30 MILLION IN MERIT SCHOLARSHIPS TO GO TO COLLEGE. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY AMAZING. AND THEN TODAY I ATTENDED SWAN CREEK GRADUATION AND PATTERSON MILL HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION THIS AFTERNOON. JUST A REMINDER, ON MONDAY, JUNE 1ST IS THE EDGEWOOD JOPPATOWNE CAB MEETING, WHICH WILL BE AT THE SOUTHERN PRECINCT AT 6:30 P.M. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS ROBERT. MISS EMHOFF, GOOD EVENING. SO I OBVIOUSLY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND THE JARRETTSVILLE MORRISVILLE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD ON MAY 20TH. ON MAY 21ST, I HAD THE HONOR OF CELEBRATING THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE STUDENTS AT HARVARD COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMMENCEMENT CEREMONY. I WAS ACTUALLY ABLE TO ATTEND BOTH CEREMONIES ON MAY 22ND. I ATTENDED THE HARFORD COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY BOARD MEETING AND ALSO HAD THE PLEASURE OF CELEBRATING AND THE GRADUATES OF BOTH C MILTON WRIGHT AND HARFORD TECH. AND THEN EARLIER TODAY, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND THE PATTERSON MILL HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION. THE GRADUATION SEASON IS NOT OVER YET, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO ATTENDING SEVERAL ADDITIONAL CEREMONIES THIS COMING WEEK.

GRADUATION SEASON IS AN EXCITING TIME AS WE RECOGNIZE THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF OUR STUDENTS AND SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES AND TEACHERS. TO ALL OF OUR YOUNG GRADUATES, CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR INCREDIBLE ACHIEVEMENT. YOUR HARD WORK AND COMMITMENT HAVE BROUGHT YOU TO THIS MILESTONE, AND I WISH EACH OF YOU CONTINUED SUCCESS AS YOU PURSUE YOUR FUTURE GOALS AND OPPORTUNITIES. AS FAR AS UPCOMING EVENTS, THE TOMORROW IS A FALSE AND COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD MEETING AT 630 AT THE VERONICA CHENOWETH CENTER ON SATURDAY, MAY 30TH. THE MAGIC OF SCIENCE FAIR AND FAMILY FESTIVAL WILL TAKE PLACE AT THE DISCOVERY CENTER AT WATER'S EDGE FROM 8 A.M. TO 3 P.M. FOR ANYONE WHO'S NEVER ATTENDED, IT'S A REALLY GREAT EVENT. IT BRINGS IN ALL OF OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS FROM THE TOWN CENTER OF TOWSON UNIVERSITY AND HARVARD COMMUNITY COLLEGE TO OUR PARTNERS AT APG AND VARIOUS OTHER COMMUNITY PARTNERS TO REALLY KIND OF INSTILL THE INTEREST IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING AND THINGS LIKE THAT FOR OUR YOUNG, OUR YOUNG STUDENTS. ADDITIONALLY, ON JUNE 3RD, ON JUNE 3RD AT 9 A.M. THE DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE WILL MEET AT 220 SOUTH MAIN STREET HERE IN BEL AIR. ONE OF THE AGENDA ITEMS IS A PROPERTY LOCATED IN DISTRICT B AT 1803 HARFORD ROAD IN FALLSTON. THE EXISTING OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS TRYING TO TRANSITION THEIR CURRENT FACILITY FROM A BUILDING THAT IS USED FOR TO PROVIDE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR PEOPLE IN RECOVERY, AND THEY ARE ASKING THE COUNTY AT THIS DAC MEETING TO GIVE THEM PERMISSION TO TURN IT INTO A RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTER.

SO ANYONE WHO'S OF INTEREST, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO PLEASE LOOK IT UP. THE DAC MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO GIVE COMMENTARY THERE AS WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS IMHOFF. MR. GINGER. THANKS. COUNCIL PRESIDENT. SO WAS THAT THE CAB MEETING UP IN

[02:45:06]

WE WE APPROVED IT. THEN NEXT THING YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY CAME AROUND AND SAID IT WAS A POSSIBILITY OF BEING COSTCO. I'VE TALKED TO COSTCO IN LENGTH, TOLD THEM THAT THERE WAS OTHER LOCATIONS OUT IN THE COUNTY. THE BEL AIR LOCATION THEY DO NOT OWN, THAT'S OWNED BY ANOTHER. SOMEBODY ELSE OWNS THAT. THAT'S NOT BIG ENOUGH. THEY DON'T WANT TO GO THERE.

THEY DO WANT TO GO IN BEL AIR. I DON'T WANT THEM. SO I'VE I'VE TOLD THEM THAT ON THE NEW TRAFFIC STUDY THEY HAD TO DO NEW TRAFFIC STUDY BECAUSE THE OLD TRAFFIC STUDY WASN'T ANY GOOD. I BROUGHT UP TO THE COUNTY ABOUT THE WIDENING OF THE LANES, THE TRUCK TRAFFIC AT NIGHT TIME, ANYTHING TO LOOK AT THAT. I EVEN TOLD COSTCO, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT MONEY. I SAID, LOOK, IF YOU COME AND YOU BUILD IT, I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE ANY SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FINISH EVERY INTERCHANGE. AND I THINK THAT'S TO THE TUNE OF 20, $20 MILLION.

I THINK THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE HORRENDOUS THERE. I DON'T AGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE THERE, MAYBE SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTY. AND THE GUY SAID, LOOK, IF THEY DON'T COME HERE, THEN THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COME HERE. I'M FINE WITH THAT. THERE'S A COSTCO IN WHITE MARSH AND THERE'S A COSTCO IN DELAWARE. I KNOW THEY BRING A LOT OF JOBS AND A LOT OF INCOME, BUT THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BRING IS JUST HORRENDOUS. SO JUST TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON THAT, I'VE TAUGHT, YOU KNOW, EVERY NOW AND THEN I'LL FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT AND WHERE THAT'S AT. SO. RIGHT. PARDON. I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO DO THEY DON'T THEY DON'T WANT THAT. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT. BUT YOU KNOW SO AT THAT POINT FURTHERMORE I INTRODUCED THIS BILL BECAUSE THE FIRST BILL THAT I INTRODUCED WAS LESS RESTRICTIVE. BUT IN ORDER FOR THIS BILL TO BE HEARD IN A PUBLIC HEARING, IT HAD TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. SO, YOU KNOW, ALL YOU PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT ARE GOING TO COMPLAIN THAT YOU DID COMPLAIN, IT HAD TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. SO WE CAN HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BILL. THAT'S WHAT MY INTENTION WAS TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. I'M GLAD WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN I CAN'T GO BACK AND AMEND IT TO THE ORIGINAL BILL. BUT THIS IS THE ISSUE. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD. WE SHOULD HAVE NOT SHOT IT DOWN. SEVEN PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT. I'M SORRY. I YOU KNOW, YOU'VE HEARD OTHER PEOPLE OUT HERE. THE CITIZENS HAD THE RIGHT. JUST BECAUSE AARON PENMAN WON HIS ELECTION.

HE RETIRED FROM THE POLICE. HE DIDN'T STAY ON THE POLICE. WHEN HE CAME ON HERE, HE RETIRED ON THE POLICE. JACOB DIDN'T RETIRE. HE WAS STILL A TEACHER AND WENT TO THE COURT, THE SUPREME COURT AND WHATEVER. AND HE AND HE WOUND UP FINALLY GETTING SEATED. BUT COACH SLUTSKY ALSO RETIRED BEFORE HE GOT ON THE SEAT. OKAY, SO NOBODY SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, A TEACHER'S NOT GOOD OR A POLICE OFFICER IS NOT GOOD. IT'S JUST THAT IF YOUR GOVERNMENT GETTING TWO GOVERNMENT PAYCHECKS AT THE SAME TIME, THAT'S WHAT OUR CHARTER SAID IN 1972, AND IT'S NEVER BEEN CHALLENGED UNTIL NOW. SO OTHER COUNTIES ARE GOING TO LOOK AT CHALLENGING THAT AS WELL. AND THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT CHANGING THAT. SO I HAD TO BRING SOMETHING FORWARD THAT WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION AND IT HAD TO BE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT. SO WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR YOU DON'T, WE HAD TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AND I'M GLAD WE DID. SO THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. 17 BUSINESS FROM THE PRESIDENT. I HAVE TO ADVERTISE

[17. BUSINESS FROM THE PRESIDENT ]

[02:50:03]

AND THEN FINALLY A MEMORIAL DAY CEREMONIES. I HAD THE GREAT HONOR TO WORK WITH THE MEMBERS OF POST 128 IN THE FLAG PLACING CEREMONIES, AND THEN PARTICIPATED AT HAVRE DE GRACE AS WELL. SO WITH THAT, WE'LL

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.