Contributor Opinion By John Britton: The Tag Line, The Logo, Our Process

By Councilmember John Britton:

Click for full size

Rather than address each comment individually (and at the risk of inciting a new round of criticism), I submit this in response to comments by Rockville Central, the Communications Task Force and others who have expressed concern and dismay with the selection of the tag line (“Get Into It”) and logo (R) and the process for that selection. I fully understand and appreciate the comments and concerns as to whether the tag line and logo may or may not be representative, creative, inclusive, resonant, poignant (insert your adjective here). Such characteristics are hugely subjective with varying levels and intensity of acceptance or rejection. In fact, dare I suggest, the tag line and logo, as happens often in similar situations, may actually over time become an acquired taste. I appreciate too the expressions of consternation over the decision process and I am sorry there is a feeling that public opinion was summarily dismissed. It was not. I respectfully disagree with the characterization that in this process, public opinion was totally disregarded and the decision capriciously made. Specific to this characterization, I set out below my understanding of and involvement in the process that led to my favoring the selected tag line and logo. At the outset, let me make clear that I speak only for myself. The other Council members who voted for the tag line and logo – Piotr Gajewski and Mark Pierzchala – surely have their own bases for their processes and votes. Having said that, it is my observation that both have been deliberate and thoughtful in their analyses of all issues throughout this term (regardless of outcomes that may differ from my own), so I may safely hazard a guess that they did not act in blatant disregard of public opinion in this instance.

Keep in mind, this has been an ongoing process for more than a year; it is not just the citizen input survey that underlies its analysis. The previous Mayor and Council initiated the RFP and selecting the consultant who would ultimately submit the three tag line and logo options. It was early in this session that the current Mayor and Council, by a vote of 4 to 1, authorized the contract to proceed, i.e., the expenditure of $75,000 for the development of tag line and logo options. By the time these options were presented, the consultant’s work was nearly done and importantly the funds were already expended. The process publicly set last year was for the collection of demographic information and other data including interviews with select representatives of different stakeholder groups, the analysis of such data, a mechanism for random public input on tag line and logo options and the presentation of all of this information to the Mayor and Council for final selection. I do not dispute the benefits of an enhanced process that would have taken us into prolonged post analysis of the submitted options, including multiple focus groups, and likely the unending consideration of a myriad of additional options. We were constrained, however, by a limited project budget that was itself the subject of intense criticism. At no time throughout the process was there discussion of expanding the budget to include controlled, more representative surveys or focus groups. In fact, the opposition to the expenditure of any additional funds on this process was vehement and any discussion by the Mayor and Council of such additional funds was stillborn. Despite this, the rationality of the process we did engage in is not necessarily diminished nor is the decision making and its result any less reasonable. Based on my conversations with others, particularly in our public and business sectors, and my observations and research with respect to branding in other locales, I see a tremendous benefit to a branding infrastructure. I was sufficiently satisfied with the collection and analysis of data by the consultants and their identification of the lack of consensus among us (read broadly) of what kind of place Rockville should mean to all of us. I accepted the consultants’ options and felt the time was organically right to make a decision.

Let me explain then the how of my preferred choice. As a member of the previous Mayor and Council, I was privy to the extensive presentations by the RFP respondents on the benefits of branding, experiences with different municipalities and the approach each would take for branding in Rockville. I also reviewed the reports submitted by the consultant, discussed the results of the consultant’s research and analysis with others throughout the city and in different capacities in the city, participated in the presentations by the consultant before the Mayor and Council and conducted my own background research into the initiation and efficacy of branding processes and campaigns. This is all part of information gathering and analysis that I undertake for any issue before the Mayor and Council. Another component of information gathering for this was my review of the survey, in particular the comments submitted with many of the votes. I never understood our citizen input survey to have a mandated result. Rather, I used the survey and the comments therein to inform my decision but not be determinative of it. If we intended the latter, then we would have announced that the winner of the survey would be the absolute determining factor for selection of the tag line and logo, regardless of any other factor, and we would not have needed any further discussion of the survey. We made no such announcement. Nor could we. Nor do we operate in such manner in any other forum or for any other topic. As in other processes, I put the survey information in an analytical context and based my decision on a multiplicity of factors, including the survey and its comments.

Rightly or wrongly, the survey was a random sampling, hardly the appropriate mechanism on which to solely rely in making a decision. With this random survey, there is no geographic, racial, ethnic, age, gender, education or income break-down. I do not submit that all of these categories must be known in a survey, but it is impossible to know how representative of your population your respondents are if at least some of these categories are not present. The Rockville Central Opinion titled “I Feel Branded” stated that the “will of the people” should not necessarily be followed, but focused its criticism of the process for not doing just that – blithely making a decision based solely on a random numbers game. With this as a mantra, Rockville Central and others made the audacious assumption, without ever attempting to validate such assumption, that, in this process, the will of the power was “summarily” rejected by those of us who voted for the selected tag line and logo. So sure of the arbitrary dismissal of the “will of the people”, not one person contacted me or even undertook the slightest of inquiry to determine if there might be a countervailing rationale on my part.

Even apart from the randomness of the survey, the simply stated tally warrants stricter scrutiny and statistical parsing. The tag line and logos were rated 1,2 and 3 in a dancing-with-the-stars-like vote tally. But the reality of the preferences is murkier. For example, a number of the none of the above vote actually intended to reject the process altogether either because branding itself was an unacceptable activity or the expenditure of funds on this activity was wasteful. There were a number of “hybrid” selections, i.e., one of the tag lines mixed with another of the logos or modifications to the submitted option. For example, approximately 15 comments selected either tag line #1 or tag line #2 (thus, the “winner” for that vote), but with attachment to logo #3. I am not suggesting that further scrutiny in this way necessarily changes the finish line position of the options. But categorizing the votes in non-permeable categories was a disservice to the overall sentiment. Put differently, it was not as clear cut as the vote tally suggests. I also carefully reviewed the survey comments which I found more telling of sentiment. (I wonder how many of those who bemoan my vote as egregious actually read, as I did, the comments in the survey as well as all of the demographic and stakeholder interview reports and other pertinent and relevant materials.) Some of the comments rejected option number 3 because the tag line did not resonate with some easily identifiable component of Rockville. As one comment suggested, it is no good if it has to be explained. I considered this seriously, but in light of the varying concepts in all of the materials, including the survey, about what is the primary component of Rockville, I personally thought a more interpretative tag line would be appropriate. It has a breadth of interpretation and an elasticity in its application or, following other survey comments, it is both an invitation and a recommendation to find out more about Rockville.

The characteristics of my process and vote are as varied as our citizens’ concepts of Rockville. Are you colorblind? (No, I am not.) Any child could come up with a better tag line. (I am struck by the inordinate number of 5 and 7 year olds in Rockville who are purported to be proficient in marketing and graphic arts.) Midlife crisis? (Maybe, but I think I addressed that with my recent skydiving.) Result of beer drinking frat boys? (No quip here – this unfortunate comment does a disservice to intelligent, substantive public dialogue.) Also, the charge that we are the laughing stock of the entire region is hyperbolic. To prove the point of ubiquitous ridicule, Rockville Central refers us to the “dcist” blog. But, even a cursory review of the blog comments reveals that it’s not really this process that is being ridiculed; rather, it’s outdated stereotypes of Rockville being parodied, with an unflattering picture of Rockville Pike signage and faux tag lines such as “The World Class City That Nobody Cares About”; “Rockville: It Probably Isn’t Getting Any Better Than This”; “Rockville: We [heart] Strip Malls” “Rockville-Because I Didn’t Know Any Better”; “Rockville: Home of Hank Dietle’s Tavern!” (which it technically was not); “Rockville: On The Way To Somewhere Nice”; and on and on. And by the way, the blog author states that the selected tag line is the least ridiculous of the three options. (Well, not the endorsement one typically solicits but an endorsement nonetheless!) If you really want to read some ridicule of Rockville process and policy, try some of the local and national transportation blogs on our recent CCT decision.

For those still awake at this point, I do not pretend that any of this will convert you to disciples of “Get Into It”. You may still consider the tag line and logo “astonishingly unimaginative”. Just know that I based my decision on an analysis of all the data and information presented, including the survey and its comments, my own research and observations of branding campaigns and my own emotive response, the latter obviously to the chagrin of the opponents of the tag line and logo. Anyone has the right to criticize my analytical process on a substantive basis and my artistic pretensions on even a WTF basis. I believe, however, the sweeping generalization of my summary disregard of the public will is misplaced and unwarranted. The roll-out of the tag line and logo is not immediate but gradual, an approach determined wholly by fiscal considerations. Only time will tell if this works to the city’s advantage or is inherently destructive of the branding attempt. A small irony of this public dialogue is that a number of people are using the tag line, albeit not necessarily in the preferred way, either in the context of this process issue or related to another concern or issue. What’s the usage count before we can say it is now in common parlance?! In the meantime, I encourage you to “get into it” with respect to any aspect of the good life in Rockville!

John Britton

This is a Contributor Opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such pieces for consideration — the more voices the better. Simply send them to [email protected]. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!

Contributor Opinion By John Britton: My Preference For Cheryl Kagan

This Contributor Opinion is by John Britton.

Just a brief note to express my preference for candidate Cheryl Kagan in next Tuesday’s primary election. Consistent with many of the pro-Kagan comments that appear on these pages, I look for a more proactive, dynamic and even aggressive representation for our District. I do believe Jennie Forehand has ably and competently served the District throughout her many years in both the House and the Senate. I respect her immensely for her work and commitment. With such long-term tenure, however, the District and the municipalities therein (a major focus for me) should have significant clout and power in Annapolis. We do not.

The longevity factor in this race is overplayed. In today’s Post, Jennie Forehand is quoted on her seniority invoking for comparison the late Sen. Byrd of West Virginia who as we all know was quite adept at steering funds and projects to his little state. The comparison is woefully misplaced. I recall vividly a past election in which this same reason was given in opposition to another young, articulate and dynamic contender whom I was promoting - Chris VanHollen - over a seemingly entrenched encumbent. Without apology, I rejected the longevity argument then and, in casting my vote for Cheryl Kagan, I intend to reject it again. Cheryl Kagan has the smarts, experience, contacts and requisite energy to hit the ground running.

Councilmember John Britton

Rockville City Council

This is a Contributor Opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such pieces for consideration — the more voices the better. Simply send them to [email protected]. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!

Please also note that Rockville Central does not endorse candidates in election campaigns. Supporters of all candidates are encouraged to submit opinion pieces for consideration.

Contributor Opinion By John Britton: Post-Election Comments

>I have thoroughly enjoyed reading everyone’s contributions, presented in numerous opinion articles and comments on this blog and in other sources, to the analyses of the election results and speculation on voting influences and patterns in our recent election. I think we are fortunate to have seasoned issues- and election-watchers such as Roald Shrack to offer perspectives and analyses within the context of elections and voting trends over a period of time. I appreciate Roald’s excellent work in compiling election data and information and presenting his compilation and analysis to the community at large. We will soon inaugurate the members of our new mayor and council (including yours truly) who will immediately set to rolling up the sleeves for a new term of work (well, if you view tapes of the M&C meetings, you rarely see rolled-up sleeves, but you know what I mean!). Post-election analyses will quickly fade in favor of old and new issues that will demand the M&C’s and the community’s attention. So I offer a few comments here to cap my own review of the election results.

It has been fun to review Roald’s analysis and the raw election data to find some quirky items or an event/trend that may warrant further analysis. For example, with respect to quirky, the stats show that in both 2007 and 2009, I led the pack in the number of absentee ballots received. Interesting. Now what does that say about me that voters may cast their votes for me only when comfortably out of town?! (Memo to self: develop new campaign strategy to encourage more voters to vacation out of town the first week of November.)

A different example and an item of peculiar interest is the chart shown in Roald’s report titled “Comparison of Council Missing Ballot Fraction.” This illustrates, I believe, the so-called “bullet voting” syndrome, allegations of which have surfaced, as Roald suggests, in past elections. In concert with such allegations, the chart reflects in both 2007 and 2009 certain levels of presumed “bullet voting” in perennially suspect districts, relative constants in the two elections. One statistic that leaps from the page, however, is the disconnect between the level of missing ballots in District 2 for 2007 and that in 2009. District 2 has the most significant increase of all the districts in missing ballots (“bullet voting”?) from the last election to our recent election. As Roald suggests, the missing ballot curve does not so much resemble the vote pattern for any one candidate but may represent a certain strategy in specific districts. And I don’t know if the aberrant year is 2007 or 2009. But what could have caused such a rise in missing ballots in one election cycle in District 2, a district that prides itself on civic knowledge, awareness and involvement? In philosophical terms, “bullet voting” begs certain questions whether in District 2 or elsewhere. Is such voting practice, usually encouraged only discretely, illegal? Well, of course not. Is it unethical? I suspect there are varying answer to this based on one’s emotional attachment to a certain candidate or contentious issue. Is it disruptive? Herein lies the dilemma for the civics education and involvement purists. It certainly does not affect the mayor’s race since you only have one vote anyway. On a personal level, it’s obvious that it was not a negative factor as my vote counts increased since the last election in most districts and remained fairly constant in District 2. Nay, I fear the impact may be on other candidates whose substantive positions and proposals may have been given short thrift in deference to the one note vote instruction. In addition, on a systemic level, others may fear some kind of insidious impact as we push the edges of the envelope further to encourage, and for all practical purposes make it de rigueur, ever more strategic tricks and maneuverings to the detriment of a full public dialogue on the issues.

Following on this and relevant to the numerous comments of the past week, I read with interest everyone’s take on the influential factors for the successful candidates. These ranged from home district advantage to civic association activism to incumbency to spin-off impact in association with another candidate. I suspect a look at successful candidates will reveal a combination of such factors. What was striking to me was the absence in the dialogue and in the public expressed analysis of such factors as a candidate’s level of knowledge of facts and issues, analytical skills, ability to respond to tough questions extemporaneously, yada, yada, yada. Maybe these attributes were all assumed in the identification of the other factors. Of course, they should be. Maybe we won’t know this to be true until that day when we have a successful candidate who hails from District 6 (small voting population; weak civic association), is new to elected politics (non-incumbent) and is not on a slate, formal or otherwise, but is really, really smart. Yeah, you’re right, probably never happen. Too bad, that recurrent Adlai Stevenson syndrome that seems to permeate American and, alas, Rockville politics.

John Britton
City Councilmember

This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!

Contributor Opinion By John Britton: City Staff Compensation Increases Proper

>The arguments whether the recently approved compensation increases for Rockville staff are a “slap in the face to [City] residents” or, if not approved, a balancing of the budget through “punishing our hard working staff” are straw man arguments. They woefully miss the mark. As so often happens, substantive discourse inexorably slips into the polemics of histrionics, soundbites and headlines. I relied on none of these in determining my support for the compensation increases. To the contrary, I found compelling certain facts and circumstances that for me informed the decisionmaking on this issue.

As in other jurisdictions, Rockville is confronted with a decline in revenue as a result of the overall economic situation and we will face a further decline in the next budget year. Consequently, for the fiscal year 2010 budget, the Mayor and Council had to make certain choices as to what budget items to maintain and what items to reduce or jettison from the originally proposed budget which had been presented prior to a definitive understanding of the revenue situation.

Being pro-labor (working class roots and strong family labor and union ties), I viewed as important maintaining our commitments for compensation increases, if at all practicable, to the 555 full time City staff. There were other reasons to take this view. The increases were an integral component of a union contract that extended to 113 regular employees and 56 full time police officers, a contract that was negotiated in good faith and agreed to by the City and the unions. The contract set out cost of living adjustments of 3.25% and step increases of 3.25% and 3.50% for union employees and police officers, respectively. In fact, the previous Mayor and Council endorsed this contract in great part as an effort to bring the compensation of Rockville’s employees into greater parity with that of employees in other jurisdictions. The City’s breach of this contract is warranted only with a showing of dire economic circumstances. I did not believe we could make such a showing and, therefore, I was reluctant to jeopardize the City’s contractual integrity.

With respect to the other, non-union employees, the City has traditionally treated them in the same manner as the negotiated positions of the union employees. I think this is a reasonable and prudent position for the City to have. As a manager of an office, I know to avoid the insidious dysfunction that can result from disparate treatment of employees. There probably is no surer way to accelerate the unionization of the remainder of Rockville’s employees than to treat similarly situated staff in a different manner. Accordingly, the COLA applied to all city staff, including the non-union employees, with the non-union employees eligible for a merit-based increase ranging from 0 to 3.25% . Thus, the total approved compensation increase resulted in a budget item that could reach $1.7 million.

In public pronouncements, Councilmember Anne Robbins and Mr. Randy Alton have put those of us who voted for these compensation increases to task for ignoring the economic hardships of residents and failing to apply some unwritten rule to replicate the County’s budget decisions. In a disingenuous sleight-of-hand, Ms. Robbins pledges fidelity to the union contracts but denounces the $1.7 million, of which the union contracts are a significant part.

The argument that we should have acted in strict solidarity with the County is curious. With no scrutiny whatsoever over the County budget process, Ms. Robbins and Mr. Alton herald its results as the model for Rockville. Not being privy to that decisionmaking process, however, I could not impose its results on Rockville. I do know that the County had instituted high compensation increases in past years which proved to be unsustainable in this economic environment, a primary reason that increases in the County had to be curtailed. Rockville did not show solidarity with the County then either (nor was there any call for such solidarity), preferring to maintain moderate increases. For these reasons, I preferred to maintain compensation and allow certain capital projects to be deferred to reach a balanced budget.

Most troubling and disquieting is Ms. Robbins’ and Mr. Alton’s seeming willingness to incite retaliation from the County and the State to punish Rockville for its independent decisionmaking.

With respect to economic hardship, there is no question that certain of our friends and neighbors are adversely impacted in this downturn. To alleviate economic dislocations, however, an across the board property tax rate reduction would not be the most productive use of City funds, nor would it necessarily achieve its intended goal. Because it would be applied to all taxpayers on a proportionate basis, the unintended consequence would be to provide a greater benefit to those with high real estate value. Put differently, strained City resources would be used to benefit those who probably need such benefit the least. Better to focus resources on the populations who are most affected by the economic situation. For this reason, the approved budget (i) expands the income (up to $85,000) and assessed value (up to $400,000) parameters for eligibility for the Homeowners Tax Credit program, (ii) maintain the additional tax credit relief for seniors, (iii) provides a $100 rebate to residential property owners, and (iv) significantly increases the allocated funds for nonprofit organizations providing much-needed social services to Rockville citizens.

Ms. Robbins and Mr. Alton focus on the issue of six-figure salaries as if all City staff earn $100,000 or more. Even a cursory look at the data shows that their focus is misplaced. Of the 555 full time employees, 35 receive a regular salary of $100,000 or more in the current fiscal year. In fact, the median salary for City employees is $54,400 – obviously, most are not the top managers who are the favored targets to excoriate and well more than half fall below the income criterion of $85,000 that the Mayor and Council have deemed warrants financial assistance. Our staff are the people who run our offices, work for our parks and recreation programs, collect the trash from our homes, operate our computer systems, coordinate our community planning, provide the engineering services that maintain our water and environmental systems, and respond to our calls for help ranging from animal control services to public safety. I am always troubled that municipalities’ first reaction to economic stress is to cut salaries and positions — the low-hanging fruit of any budget process.

I ask voters not to succumb to the falsely alluring refrains of those who stir the pot of civic discord. Mr. Alton’s mantra is to “Remember in November” and send those of us who supported the compensation increase “packing”. This is unfortunate. Single issue campaigns limit valuable and diverse public discourse and rarely contribute positively to the public weal.

I will adopt Mr. Alton’s refrain for November, albeit slightly modified — when you vote, and I hope many do so, REMEMBER to rely on all the facts and circumstances of an issue, REMEMBER the context of certain votes and positions, REMEMBER the analyses and consequences of alternative action, and REMEMBER the overall contributions to the community of the elected official and not just focus on a certain incident. If, in the end, a voter feels the need to “send someone packing,” so be it, and I will take solace in the fact that such voter did so in an informed manner. This is after all a democracy – a system that can only thrive through a continuously involved and fully informed citizenry.

John Britton
Rockville City Council

This contributor opinion is by Council Member John Britton.

This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!

Contributor Opinion By John Britton: State Of The City Reprise

>[Note: a draft version of this article was inadvertently published. Its content was the same, but formatting was not included. Here it is properly set-up. Sorry for the confusion.]

The following Contributor Opinion is by City Councilmember John Britton:

I am reminded of the old adage: “Never a dull moment in local politics.” Well maybe not so old and maybe not an adage just yet, but ever so true.

As you may have heard, Mayor Susan Hoffmann will not be in attendance at the public gathering scheduled for Wednesday, February 11th. Alas, I think it unfortunate as we will miss her contributions to the public dialogue and other musings that may occur; one less perspective for the mix. The public will have to corner her another time! But, as they say (a la Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland), the show will go on. Councilmember Marcuccio and I still intend to carry on and present our perspectives on all things past, present and future, well at least those things that may be within City jurisdiction and reflect on the state of the city. And we hope our discourse can have some positive effect on the public weal. So, same place – first floor meeting room, Rockville Library; same time – February 11th, 7 p.m.; same issues – anything. All are welcome.

Remember: Buy Rockville! Save your appetites that evening for dining in Rockville Town Center either before or after the public gathering. Think of shopping a bit as well. And by all means, just don’t stop at the first floor of the library. Go inside and take advantage of our beautiful flagship library and check out a book, CD or DVD, or just enjoy the people and the surroundings.

Councilmember John Britton

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.

Contributor Opinion by John Britton: State Of The City And The Open Meetings Act

>The following Contributor Opinion is by City Councilmember John Britton:

A few points on the planned February 11, 2009 gathering and the Open Meetings Act:

1. As you may know, Mayor Hoffmann, Councilmember Marcuccio and I are proposing an open and public gathering on Wednesday, February 11th for a discussion of issues. This is not an official mayor and council meeting as there will be no business conducted nor will there be votes taken on any matter. Rather it is an open, public gathering to hear three perspectives (varying and probably divergent depending on the issue!) on the accomplishments (or lack thereof?!) of this mayor and council of the past year and of issues that the community members think the mayor and council may address in the next year. Although we may have brief introductory comments, the bulk of the time will be devoted to questions from the community members and, hopefully, thoughtful, relevant and insightful answers from us.

2. I stress that this is not an official meeting of the mayor and council. However, since at least a quorum of the mayor and council may be present, special rules and safeguards apply to the gathering as set out in the Maryland Open Meetings Act. These rules and safeguards implement public policy of the State and ensure public access to any gathering of a quorum. The Open Meetings Act requires that the public be provided with adequate notice of the time and location of the public gathering, that the location be reasonably accessible to individuals who would like to attend, and that minutes be prepared as soon as practicable after the public gathering.

3. Rather than make up rules as we went along, as has been alleged, we were constrained by a rigid set of existing rules under the Open Meetings Act. Prior to initiating the process for this public gathering, a thorough review of the Open Meetings statute (State Government Article, Title 10, Subtitle 5) and the Open Meeting Acts Manual (Sixth Edition, October 2006) was warranted. This review established the framework for the public gathering. I also confirmed the requirements of the law and compliance thereto with the City Attorney. Our recognition of and adherence to the rules set out in the Open Meetings Act resulted in the following to ensure compliance with the law:

(a) Notice of the time, date, place, participants and agenda was sent to the Gazette for publication this week and placed on the RockvilleCentral and RockvilleLiving blogs. The City also distributed a press release with the same information. This notice also was copied to the City Attorney.

Contributor Opinion By John Britton: Collective Action Can Help Achieve Environmental Goals

>The following contributor opinion is by Rockville City Council member John Britton. (Hyperlinks have been added.) This Friday’s Rockville Central Radio show will focus on sustainability and the environment, so this piece is particularly timely!

On November 12, 2008, the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) adopted the National Capital Region Climate Change Report. The Report offers recommendations and voluntary commitments for the local, county and state jurisdictions in the metropolitan Washington region for the reduction of our region’s carbon footprint and greenhouse gases. It is a Report that focuses on the macro trends of housing, land use, transportation and energy generation and their profound impacts on the environment and, by extension, our public health. The COG staff presented a few weeks ago a briefing on the Report to a joint meeting of the Rockville and Gaithersburg mayors and councils.

The Report is a worthwhile, albeit possibly daunting, read. There is one section in the Report that should be of particular interest to our residents and businesses — Table 5 “Household/Business Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” It identifies no cost, low cost, medium cost and high cost activities that we can undertake to achieve certain greenhouse gas reduction benefits.

The no cost activities include such things as: recycling; change thermostat settings in both winter and summer; set computers to energy-saving setting; drive 10 fewer miles per week; set water heater thermostat no higher than 120 degrees; wash clothes in cold water. A low cost suggestion: change incandescent lighting to compact fluorescent (maybe Rockville should sponsor a change-your-light bulb day). A medium cost activity is to conduct an energy audit of your home. Such an audit could reduce greenhouse gases, create green jobs and, in the long term, put dollars back into the pockets of our homeowners.

The above may seem like trivial activities but if you believe, as I do, in the efficacy of collective action, then they become a significant contribution to our environmental goals.

Councilmember John Britton

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.

Contributor Opinion by John Britton: Thoughts On The District Court House (Redux)

>The following contributor opinion about the new District Court House is by Rockville City Council member John Britton. (Hyperlinks have been added.)

This past Monday evening, as reported in the Gazette, a number of residents came before the mayor and council to express their support for the proposed district courthouse on the site of the old library. Many of these residents characterized the mayor and council’s unanimous decision to oppose the current proposal as “hurried,” “ill-advised,” “unseemly,” and “pandering to a small group of activists.” I take exception to these characterizations. With respect to the action by my colleagues, suffice it to say, each based his or her decision on a review of the issues and a considered and thoughtful analysis of their impacts on the community.

With respect to my own decision-making process, these characterizations wholly miss the mark. Rather than react hurriedly to a so-called small group of activists (NOTE: I believe that close to 200 residents have signed the petition to oppose the courthouse), I based my conclusions on a thorough review and analysis over the past few months of the facts and history of the district court proposal. This included a review of the correspondence and the official documents submitted by the State, an analysis of the project description and architectural plans, a viewing of the presentation of the concept plan by the State representatives at the May 2005 mayor and council public meeting, and various public and private discussions on this matter. One may substantively disagree with the results of my review and analysis, but hurried and ill-advised they are not. Furthermore, having identified and, in my mind, verified legitimate community concerns as a result of the adverse impacts of the courthouse, I do not consider opposition to the current courthouse proposal “unseemly.”

I reiterate my public statement that the proposed district courthouse as currently configured on the library site is inappropriate. This does not detract from the comments submitted by Mayor Rose Krasnow who informed us that the State, County and City officials initially agreed to the use of the library site for the courthouse. I respect and defer to Mayor Krasnow’s recollection and interpretation of the events at that time. I respectfully disagree, however, on the consequences of such agreement. First, there is no legal document that binds the City to any course of action; there could not be such a document since the property at issue was not in the City’s control. Second, there could not be any agreement at that time to a particular project because the concept plan was not submitted until 2005. At the time of the earlier concurrence for the use of the library site, there were no plans and designs for the proposed courthouse on which to rely to understand the impacts of the building and its activities on adjacent neighborhoods and the community at large. Finally, despite the fact that the library use was classified as institutional and the courthouse would be similarly classified, the current courthouse proposal significantly increases the scope of such use to an unacceptable level. In fact, the early design of the courthouse appeared to pay more respect to neighborhood impacts and the city’s zoning requirements than the current proposal.

Implicit in everyone’s agreement to utilize the library site should have been an understanding of an appropriateness of the scale and scope of the project vis-a-vis our neighborhoods. Put differently, such agreement should not have been carte blanche for the State to do whatever it desired in total disregard for the impacts on the community. Unfortunately, the project as proposed violates contemporary norms of how a high density structure should approach a low density one and implicates serious parking, traffic flow, pedestrian safety and neighborhood encroachment issues that are unique to this site. Furthermore, in response to the City’s and the community’s concerns, the State committed to work with the community to resolve these issues, a commitment that was more potemkin than sincere in nature.

Put simply, there was a dearth of analyses of the impacts of the courthouse proposal and a myopic focus on the judiciary’s internal needs and agenda – all to the detriment of our community. For these and other reasons that I have previously expressed publicly and despite State expenses already incurred, I continue to find that it is not prudent to invest $70 million in a flawed project.

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.

Contributor Opinion by John Britton: Thoughts On The District Court House

>The following contributor opinion about the new District Court House is by Rockville City Council member John Britton. The original is more lengthy and is posted in full here. The article below is an edited excerpt:

THOUGHTS ON THE DISTRICT COURT HOUSE

I thought it time to contribute to the extensive and growing public discourse concerning the proposed district courthouse to be located at the former library site. I come to this discussion late, focusing on the issues only recently. I have read with great interest the e-mail traffic on the matter, listened to discussions at public meetings, held private conversations on specific issues and reviewed documents related to the project. Others may have a greater familiarity with the history and politics of this proposal. With this in mind, I set out below some of the pertinent facts and my take on the controversy based on these facts at hand.

Pertinent Facts

There seems to be no dispute that the current district court is overcrowded and dilapidated and no longer adequately serves its intended purposes. Given this, the proponents of moving the courthouse to the former library site – I’ll refer to them as the judiciaries – seem to rely on two other factors to further their proposal: (i) the proposed location and its proximity to the circuit court serve the convenience of the judicial system and (ii) a significant amount of money (millions of dollars) has already been expended on design and other costs related to the proposed site. It appears that these factors are the basis for the fait accompli character of the library site proposal.

The pro-community group – those who oppose the use of the library site – raise certain public welfare and safety issues, including lack of adequate parking, pedestrian safety, proximity to a school and intrusiveness on a residential neighborhood and historic district. I think the judiciaries’ response is that such concerns have already been addressed although I have not heard any response couched in terms of the welfare and safety of the local community. Regardless, I have yet to see an analysis of traffic, pedestrian safety, impacts on neighborhoods and the school and environmental effects. Nor have I seen a document pertaining to mitigation of any adverse effects of building at the library site. If such analyses exist, they may be old and need to be updated. The judiciaries also state that the community did not raise these issues previously and are, in effect, johnnies-come-lately on these matters. The documentary evidence suggests, however, that community members have been consistent on these issues since the library site proposal was first put forth a number of years ago.

A more troubling comment confirmed recently at a meeting on this proposal is the fact that the proposed new courthouse will not satisfy the needs of the district court in the very near future. Is it possible that we are debating the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars on a building that is already obsolete? Furthermore, there may be a violation of state environmental law. Pursuant to the Maryland Environmental Policy Act and prior to any request for funding from the legislature, an environmental effects report may be required for certain state proposals.

Conclusions

Based on the information at hand, I find the arguments of judicial efficiency and monies expended in support of the library site not compelling. More important, the public welfare and safety factors must be balanced more thoroughly. Our community will be stuck with the consequences of bad decision-making in this case for 50 or more years. Although the state may not have a legal obligation to follow our zoning rules, it certainly has a moral obligation to its citizens to do the right thing. This should not be an exercise of gotcha simply because the city negligently missed a deadline. In light of the significant public interests at stake and other orderly land use principles, I have to agree at this time with the oft-used statement that putting the district courthouse on the former library site would be an act of urban malfeasance.

I am sure there is much more that can be added to this public discourse. For this reason, I would like to see a public forum with representatives of the main stakeholders in this project – state, legislative delegation, city, judges, community and civic associations, neighbors – to discuss candidly and fully these issues and the impacts on all. I will encourage the city and the civic groups to facilitate such a forum.

John Britton
Rockville City Council Member

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.