These are the same elected officials and lawyers who continue to support the Board of Education and Superintendent in the charging of illegal fees to students. Is it time for some new legal counsel for Montgomery County?
The Washington Post: Court says Montgomery County violated law in campaign to roll back police union rights
Montgomery County officials violated Maryland election law by using public funds and employees on county time to campaign in support of the 2012 ballot proposition that eliminated certain collective bargaining rights for police, a state circuit court judge has ruled...
...Circuit Court Judge Ronald B. Rubin said in a March 19 decision that the union’s claim may have validity. But he ruled that the two officials are entitled to at least “qualified immunity” because they acted in good faith on the advice of county and state attorneys...
...The county launched an aggressive campaign in favor of the measure. Leggett authorized Lacefield to spend up to $200,000 in county funds for mailings, bus advertisements and bumper stickers. County employees campaigned actively during work hours, according to testimony.
The FOP sought to purchase the same kind of advertising for Ride-On buses but was denied by the county because the ads were deemed “political.” Leggett eventually allowed the ads, but it was too late to place them on buses before the election.
Leggett and Lacefield said they were advised by attorneys for the state and county that they were exempt from requirements in Maryland election law to create a campaign committee and file reports disclosing the sources of funding. The county also argued in court that under home rule it had the authority to conduct the campaign.
But Rubin called this “a bold presumption of power.” He said the county’s fight for Question B went far beyond the bounds of merely informing Montgomery citizens about a matter of public interest and became partisan electioneering.
“No court has suggested that a government may not spend money to inform the public about its initiatives or legislative enactments. Of course it can,” Rubin wrote. “But there is a world of difference between communications that inform, and communications that proselytize and try to influence the outcome of an election contest.”
Rubin added: “In this case, based on the court’s findings, the question is not even a close call.”
This was Councilmember Hans Riemer's response to this incident on his Facebook page back in 2012:
ReplyDelete9/22/12
Hans Riemer: Janis its not electioneering. Its legislative advocacy. There is a very real legal difference. We are not trying to influence the outcome of an election for political office, but rather the outcome of a legislative process. It is not only legal but necessary for governments to advocate for their interests in this manner to protect against special interest manipulation of the process. Unfortunately it is all to easy to write a check and try to overturn a law via referendum.
Here was the response from the County Attorney when questioned about this incident back in September of 2012:
ReplyDelete9/24/12
The short answer is that government is entitled to engage in speech to advocate in favor of policies adopted by the elected representatives of the government. Bill 18-11 (Question B) was enacted by a unanimous Council and signed into law by the County Executive. The County Government is, therefore, entitled to defend that policy decision.
Marc P. Hansen
County Attorney
Montgomery County, Maryland
240-777-6740
Please see: Page v. Lexington County School District One, 531 F.3d 275, 281 (4th Circ. 2008). See also Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass’n., 544 U.S. 550, 553 (2005); Kidwell v. City of Union, 462 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2006); Alabama Libertarian Party v. City of Birmingham, 694 F.Supp. 814 (N.D. Ala. 1988).
Marc P. Hansen
County Attorney
Montgomery County, Maryland
240-777-6740
Short answer per judge: No.
DeleteUsing laser precision hair-splitting.
ReplyDeleteThere is a long history of MoCo politicians using taxpayer resources to defeat referendums...think Ambulance Fee...think Robin Ficker's tax-related referendums. With that being said, the police used some paid folks to get the signatures for this particular referendum, and I can say that they were absolutely not telling the truth as they asked MoCo voters to sign the petition.
ReplyDeleteNote that Mr. Hans Riemer is a self-described "progressive politician!" After all, what could be more "progressive" than calling a labor union a "special interest?" Except maybe opposing that labor union with the full power of the government?
ReplyDelete