Showing posts with label Ike Leggett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ike Leggett. Show all posts
Friday, January 5, 2024
Wednesday, February 23, 2022
Maryland Senate Confirms Education Accountability Board Members. 4 out of 9 reside in Montgomery Co. including Ike Leggett and Joshua Starr. .
...But Hershey took issue with the fact that the nominating committee did not reconsider the nominees following letters from various groups — including the Maryland Latino Caucus and Prince George’s County Executive — asking them to do so. “It wasn’t just a few pissed-off rural county legislators,” Hershey said.
“What was the hurry that this could not be addressed?” he continued. “When letters go to the nominating committee about the makeup of this board, and they did absolutely nothing about it, they’re doing that because they say — we are not accountable to the General Assembly.”..
- Mara Doss, the associate vice president for teaching, learning and student success at Prince George’s Community College.
- Fagan Harris, chief executive officer of Baltimore Corps, a nonprofit that recruits talented professionals and connects them to leadership opportunities.
- William “Brit” Kirwan, the chair of the Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education, whose policy recommendations make up the foundation of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future.
- Isiah “Ike” Leggett, former Montgomery County executive and currently a member of the University System of Maryland Board of Regents.
- Jennifer Lynch, the director of educational partnerships for Baltimore County Executive John A. Olszewski Jr. (D) and previously an elementary school principal in Baltimore City Public Schools for five years.
- Joseph Manko, the education program officer for the Abell Foundation and previously an elementary school principal in Baltimore City Public Schools for ten years.
- Harry Preston V, a Baltimore City Public Schools teacher for the last 16 years.
- Laura Stapleton, the interim dean of the University of Maryland, College Park College of Education and a professor in human development and quantitative methodology.
- Joshua Starr, the chief executive officer of Phi Delta Kappa International, a nonprofit membership organization for K-12 educators, and previously the superintendent of Montgomery County Schools from 2011 to 2015
Thursday, September 16, 2021
Ike Leggett and Joshua Starr on List of Nominees to Accountability Board for Maryland Education Reforms
A nominating committee announced nine nominees to an accountability board tasked with ensuring the success of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future education reforms on Wednesday, but one lawmaker contends that they do not fully represent the state of Maryland...
...Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr. (R) will have until Oct. 1., to appoint seven of the nine candidates, who are also subject to Senate confirmation. The governor, Senate president and House speaker will jointly appoint a chair of the panel...
Each of the nine nominees were unanimously selected, Sauls said. They are:
- Mara Doss, the associate vice president for teaching, learning and student success at Prince George’s Community College.
- Fagan Harris, chief executive officer of Baltimore Corps, a nonprofit that recruits talented professionals and connects them to leadership opportunities.
- William “Brit” Kirwan, the chair of the Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education, whose policy recommendations make up the foundation of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future.
- Isiah “Ike” Leggett, former Montgomery County executive and currently a member of the University System of Maryland Board of Regents.
- Jennifer Lynch, the director of educational partnerships for Baltimore County Executive John A. Olszewski Jr. (D) and previously an elementary school principal in Baltimore City Public Schools for five years.
- Joseph Manko, the education program officer for the Abell Foundation and previously an elementary school principal in Baltimore City Public Schools for ten years.
- Harry Preston V, a Baltimore City Public Schools teacher for the last 16 years.
- Laura Stapleton, the interim dean of the University of Maryland, College Park College of Education and a professor in human development and quantitative methodology.
- Joshua Starr, the chief executive officer of Phi Delta Kappa International, a nonprofit membership organization for K-12 educators, and previously the superintendent of Montgomery County Schools from 2011 to 2015
Saturday, November 17, 2018
[Bang] spent six years diverting economic development funds to a sham company, getting caught only after federal tax authorities began investigating the massive cashier’s checks he brought to casinos
Montgomery official pleads guilty to charges related to embezzlement from county
...“He was always impeccably dressed. And he spoke with great precision. He projected an image that was very careful and credible,” Leventhal said. “Oh my God, it’s a Hollywood movie — it’s incredible. It’s impossible to believe. We’re all reeling.”
Yet the county’s economic development system also had been without tight transparency and rules that allowed Bang, who lived in Germantown, freedom from scrutiny.
“There should have been clearly more oversight, a combination of it, that’s clear,” County Executive Isiah Leggett (D), who took office in 2006, said Friday...
Monday, April 30, 2018
Leggett wants Cell Tower on Blair HS Field, No Review or Approval from Board of Education (BOE holds Easement for all of field)
 |
| Deed of Easement |
 |
| Deed of Easement |
Program Open Space funding is pretty clear on its purpose as providing funding for recreational or open space land.
Giving the Board of Education an easement for all of the recreation area is also pretty clear.
Yet, the Montgomery County government run by County Executive Ike Leggett has decided to come on to the Blair High School "play fields" and build a cell tower for public and private (commercial) use without any approval from the easement holder the Montgomery County Board of Education.
County Executive Ike Leggett's staff will present their plans at a meeting this evening at Blair High School.
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Kojo Nnamdi Show Discusses High Profile Scandals involving Sexual Abuse of MCPS Kids
Guests
- Michele Booth Cole Executive Director, Safe Shores: The DC Children's Advocacy Center; @Mboothcole
- Jennifer Alvaro Clinical Social Worker; Certified Sex Offender Treatment Provider; Montgomery County Public Schools Parent; @jennifermalvaro
- LaTonsha Pridgen Founder, Stomp Out the Silence; @LTPridgen
Discussion includes:
- Erin's Law passed, but not being implemented in Maryland
- County Executive Ike Leggett has no oversight over MCPS
Listen to the show at this link:
https://thekojonnamdishow.org/audio/#/shows/2018-04-17/stopping-sexual-abuse-before-it-starts-what-local-schools-are-doing-to-keep-kids-safe/111699/@00:00
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
Request for MoCo Tower Committee to Table Inaccurate, Incomplete Applications (Including Blair HS) and to Include Public Comment in Process as Per MoCo Regulation COMCOR 02.58E.01.05(b)
These applications appear to be going before the Tower Committee without public notice, review or input. The Parents' Coalition made these applications public just yesterday. Why didn't Montgomery County make these applications public?
In reviewing these applications we have discovered that one of these new very tall towers is slated to be constructed on the Montgomery Blair High School baseball field. To date, no school communities have supported the construction of a cell tower on public school land. Many MCPS schools have been very vocal about their opposition to these commercial construction projects on school land. What is the position of the Blair High School parents? What is the position of the neighbors of Blair High School?
Below is an e-mail sent today from Sue Present to the Tower Committee asking that these applications be tabled due to inaccurate information, incomplete information, and due to the absence of community notice and opportunity to comment as per Montgomery County Regulations.
From: suepresent
Date: Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:06 AM
Subject: PLEASE POSTPONE REVIEW OF ALL MCRCS APPLICATIONS FOR NEW TOWERS/MONOPOLES
To: "Williams, Marjorie"
Cc: "Schaeffer, Matt"
Dear Margie,
Please POSTPONE THE REVIEW OF ALL MCRCS APPLICATIONS FOR NEW TOWERS AND MONOPOLES.
I appreciate your having released the applications for the new radio communications towers, yesterday. There has been woefully insufficient time to thoroughly examine these applications, which are on today’s agenda. However, in focusing my attention on TFCG application 201712-05, the one that is identified for Fire Station 16, I have already discovered significant flaws/concerns.
1) Co-location Opportunity. The applicants identify the co-location alternatives that they dismissed within a 2-mile radius, and explain their rationale. They identify a lattice tower registered to MNCPPC, which the application says is 265’ in height, and explain that they dismiss it because as a radio broadcast tower it is “hot.”
Presumably, this is the 247’-high (not 265’ high) radio broadcast tower that is located at Sligo Creek Golf Course. It is the tower at which Verizon received the TFCG’s “recommendation of application 201612-05 to attach twelve 72'-high panel antennas at the 120' level, and the Planning Board subsequently approved the installation. Thus, for Verizon, the radio tower being “hot” was not an issue.
As is explained in the applicant response dated December 13, 2017, to meet the applicant’s need for this proposed radio communications, the attachments are needed at a height on the structure of 180’. Under the circumstances, this applicant provides inadequate clarification as to why it cannot attach at the equivalent height (which I presume to be approximately 197’ on the nearby 247’ Sligo Creek Golf Course radio tower) when Verizon has already demonstrated its ability to attach to the Sligo Golf Course radio tower.
2) Land Authorizations. In my previous communication to the Tower Committee, dated December 29, 2017, I alerted the Committee to the restrictive covenant governing Blair Local Park (and attached a copy). At the time of that message I was uncertain of the proposed location. It now seems evident that the plan is to locate the very large monopole on Blair Local Park. But, as previously explained, the restrictive covenant prohibits the use of the Blair Local Park land for any use other than Public Open Space. The proposed radio tower use is thus prohibited without modifications to the restrictive covenant.
In addition, I raised concerns about easements. The application (overall site plan C-2) references “existing easement.” The easements, which of course were improperly conferred with the original Nextel/Sprint lease, indicated that they would cease when the telecommunications facilities became “obsolete.” The telecommunications facilities became obsolete when the lease was terminated and all telecommunications facilities were removed from the property, and the structure took on the sole purpose of a light standard, in 2015. There are no current easements in the County Land Records. I assert that without proper State authorization, any easements that would facilitate a communications tower would contravene the restrictive covenant.
3) Monopole Height. The applicant’s justification – identifying other prospective users and the wishes of the manager of the land (for whom there would be greater revenue generated from the higher tower) – is inadequate for the monopole height of 195’. The facts demonstrate that the applicant’s needs can be met with a structure no higher than 180’ in height.
Although speculative, the additional information provided in this application that supports the State Highway Administration’s interest in communication space at this approximate location should bolster further exploration of siting on the substantial SHA parcel that abuts Fire Station 16 and Blair Local Park, between University Blvd. E. and the beltway, or upon other even more appropriate State Highway land.
Based upon these comments and those that you have received from a few other members of the public, it appears that the Tower Coordinator did not adhere to COMCOR 02.58E.01.05 in “recommending” to the TFCG the location of Blair Local Park for this monopole. Adequate consideration has not been given, per that regulation, for:
· zoning standards for siting a telecommunications transmission facility;
· effect of the telecommunications transmission facility on the land owning agency;
· co-location options; and
· potential impacts on the surrounding area(s).
And, you have received direct comments from only a few members of the public. That is because there has been no public process of notification and public input for almost all of these proposed facilities)as noted in my previous message, the land owner(s) failed to follow COMCOR 02.58E.01.05(b).
So, I urge the Tower Committee to POSTPONE the review of TFCG application 201612-05 and of all the applications on today’s agenda for NEW MCRCS Telecommunications Towers/Monopoles to provide for the Land Owning Agencies, the Tower Coordinator, and the Tower Committee to adhere to all regulations articulated in COMCOR 02.58E. Postponing these applications would provide the applicant a necessary do-over. The County needs to provide the surrounding communities where these facilities are proposed with appropriate due process, and to treat them with respect, too.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sue Present
Friday, November 3, 2017
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
California: Gov. Jerry Brown vetoes bill easing permits on cell phone towers
Gov. Jerry Brown late Sunday vetoed a bill backed by the cell phone industry that would have made it easier to install microwave radiation antennas.
Senate Bill 649, authored by Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego and co-authored by Assemblyman Bill Quirk, D-Hayward, proposed to scale back the permitting process for antennas and other equipment in an effort to meet demand for wireless services.
In a signing statement, Brown wrote that while he saw the value in “extending this innovative technology rapidly and efficiently,” the bill took too much control away from cities and counties.
The bill was primarily supported by the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, the main trade group for the U.S. wireless telecommunications industry. The group said SB 649 would help boost the economy.
Yet the bill had alarmed many local government officials around the state. They worried if SB 649 became law, it would cap how much they could charge phone companies for leases to $250 a year. Others raised concerns about the risk to public health from cell towers.
Grass-roots activists and scientists said that if SB 649 became law, a projected 50,000 new cellular antennas would be installed on public buildings and utility poles in California neighborhoods, creating a risk to public health because of the dangers of radiation and electromagnetic frequencies emitted by cell towers...
Thursday, September 21, 2017
"There is something sneaky going on here."
There is a Community Meeting tonight from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm at Montgomery College in Germantown about Montgomery County and wireless companies’ controversial plans to install small cell antennas on utility poles in residential neighborhoods.
There was another meeting last night in Silver Spring. Did you hear about it? Neither did the Germantown Pulse, which is odd. The Pulse receives hundreds of press releases from Montgomery County about various events, meetings, and happenings in the County. Admittedly, we don’t report on all of them. Our rule is that if it isn’t taking place in the Germantown/Clarksburg/ Up-County area, we don’t include it in our coverage unless there is an extenuating circumstance. While some Germantown residents may be interested in the Planning Board’s decision on the White Oak Project, we don’t believe it is Germantown news.
However, a Community Meeting about a plan to put more than 45 cell towers in the Waters Landing neighborhood. That is news. We’d report that. Folks in Germantown, especially those in the Waters Landing neighborhood are going to want to know about it that meeting.
Especially, when the last time the County and wireless companies held such a meeting, it was broadly contentious and very well attended. That meeting was held in October 2016 at Ridgeview Middle School in Gaithersburg. There were over a hundred people at that meeting. As one attendee of that meeting said, “Nobody wants it.”...
Monday, August 14, 2017
Montgomery County settles with family of man who died after being shot by Taser - $1.75 Million
Montgomery County officials have settled a civil rights violation claim with the family of a Gaithersburg man who died after county police officers shot him with a Taser during a 2013 arrest.
The county paid the family $1.75 million but admitted no liability, the county’s chief of litigation, Patricia Via, said Thursday. The amount was approved by the finance director and covered by the county’s self-insurance program. It does not require approval by the County Council, she said.
The settlement was reached in June.
The family alleged in a recent letter written to county officials that officers violated Anthony Howard Sr.’s civil rights during the April 19, 2013, arrest...
Friday, May 5, 2017
County Continues to Ban Public From Cell Tower Approval Process: "members of the public – even affected property owners/residents – are barred from speaking at Tower Committee meetings."
Below is Sue Presents' letter to County officials that continue to block public participation in the cell tower approval process.
From: suepresent
Date: Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 1:13 PM
Subject: RE: Telecommunications Facilities Coordinating Group Open Meetings
To: "Segal, Sonny"
Cc: county.council@mccouncilmd.lmhostediq.com, County.Council@montgomerycountymd.gov, ike.leggett@montgomerycountymd.gov, Edward.Lattner@montgomerycountymd.gov, "Williams, Marjorie"
Dear Director Segal,
I received your response on behalf of Ms. Williams and Mr. Royalty to my inquiries about the Tower Committee’s practices that prohibit members of the public from speaking at Tower Committee meetings, but which permit industry representatives to freely speak at these meetings. Your response mischaracterizes and distorts the facts.
COMAR 2.58E.01.05 requires the Tower Coordinator to develop a siting recommendation for each TFCG application that must be, in part, “based on: (a) zoning standards for siting a telecommunications transmission facility.” And yes, as you indicate in your response to me, “TFCG members decide whether to recommend or not recommend an application (MCC 2-58E.d) for processing further.” What your response ignores, however, is that whether the application for a proposed facility is recommended to the TFCG as a conditional zoning use, a limited zoning use, or a permitted zoning use can be at the Tower Coordinator’s discretion. Discretion then falls to the Tower Committee to recognize zoning status when the Committee votes on the disposition of the TFCG application. Per MCC 2-58E.d, the Tower Committee is composed of members that represent government agencies, including those involved in the further processing of these facility requests. Tower Committee members who may comment on and/or vote on a TFCG application and its zoning status include representatives from the Planning Board and the Department of Permitting Services (DPS). During further processing of a proposed facility, Planning Board staff will engage in a land use review and provide advice and other quasi-judicial staff support to the Office of Zoning and Administrative Hearings (OZAH), the Board of Appeals, and/or DPS, as needed; DPS will make administrative zoning determinations concerning the proposed facility. You therefore significantly downplay the Tower Committee’s sphere of influence.
Consider the example of TFCG application 201704-13, which was reviewed by the Tower Committee at its April 2017 meeting. That application was “conditionally recommended” by the Coordinator because the application was found to not satisfy the zoning standards for height. At the meeting, the applicant argued that there could be an interpretation that the zoning standards could be met for the limited use zoning standards (and thus not require a conditional review/permit). But the Committee sided with the Coordinator’s interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, and thus determined that the proposed facility required a conditional use review and permit.
Past zoning interpretations have gone the other way, however. The Tower Committee has signaled that the industry can circumvent the conditional use zoning regulations that are required for new cell towers by conspiring with PEPCO or other legacy utility pole owners. For example, when PEPCO lacked capacity for Crown Castle to attach facilities to existing utility poles, even though PEPCO had demonstrated no need for additional new wooden poles to support its electric distribution lines, the Tower Committee recommended/approved the installation of new wooden poles for the exclusive (or at least the primary and sole necessary) purpose of attaching Crown Castle’s DAS facilities in the public rights-of-way. The TFCG suggested that if the poles would, in the end, be owned by PEPCO then no conditional use standards for new cell towers would apply. See, for example, TFCG application 201601-15 and the corresponding minutes of March 2, 2016. Highway studies and recent comments to the FCC submitted by local governments (including Montgomery County) demonstrate that additional utility poles in public rights-of-way present unnecessary roadway hazards for vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. See, for example, the Comments of The Smart Communities Siting Coalition, Ex.4, Report and Declaration of Steven M. Puuri (https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/
The CTC contract requires that Tower Coordinator recommendations to the TFCG be based on “zoning standards, effect on land-owning agencies, and effect on present and future public safety telecommunication facilities and plans.” Nevertheless, COMAR 2.58E.01.05 also requires the Tower Coordinator’s recommendation to the Tower Committee to “be based on: “(e) potential impacts on the surrounding area.” You are no doubt aware that these procedures, which were originally passed as 21-02AM, were established for several purposes, including “minimizing impact to citizens.” Arguably, the impacts upon surrounding areas and on the County’s citizens have been overlooked or drowned out by those interests that are represented and have a voice at Tower Committee meetings. Furthermore, by intentionally and pre-emptively excluding potentially relevant information provided by members of the public, the Tower Committee is undermining COMAR 02.58E.01.06.c.3. This part of the regulation, which discusses the TFCG’s application review, states that “Group review of an application may include… [a]ny other relevant information concerning the proposed siting of the telecommunications transmission facility.”
As stated in my article in this month’s Civic Federation News, “[a]ttendees representing the industry participate in the (TFCG) meetings. Industry representatives speak in favor of their own and each other’s applications, and they may share information – even a slideshow – to promote upcoming applications. Members of the industry also provide their opinions on policies.” But, as the article explains, members of the public – even affected property owners/residents – are barred from speaking at Tower Committee meetings.
To tell residents that their concerns may not be aired at Tower Committee meetings, and may only be aired in a land use review or may not be aired at all, is likely a violation of their rights, and it is certainly an insult, especially when:
· The Tower Coordinator’s and Tower Committee’s reviews render determinations on and influence whether a proposed wireless facility requires a conditional use zoning review/permit;
· Industry’s representatives have been given free-access to air concerns at Tower Committee meetings;
· The Tower Coordinator, rather than conducting independent analyses, relies upon applicant analyses and opinions;
· The TFCG regulation articulates the intent of “minimizing impact to citizens”; and, the regulation provides the opportunity for the Tower Committee to review each application by considering “[a]ny other relevant information concerning the proposed siting of the telecommunications transmission facility.”
The Tower Committee initiated some new practices at its April 2017 meeting. Industry representatives are now only supposed to respond to questions regarding their applications, which is different than what minutes show has happened at previous Tower Committee meetings. Yet the outcome for applications at April’s meeting was no different. This was clearly demonstrated with Mobilitie application 201609-12. The Tower Coordinator “recommended” the application, even though the application was flawed. In his presentation to the Committee, the Tower Coordinator tempered his recommendation, explaining that he was really “not a fan” of approving an application, such as this one, where the applicant had not received the structure owner’s authorization granting rights for the attachments. There were also Committee questions and concerns that the applicant was unable to answer. Nevertheless, the Tower Committee, as usual, unanimously “rubber stamped” the application as “recommended” (approved).
My Civic Federation News article explains that the Tower Committee lacks balance, fairness, and accountability to County residents. These failings are by design; the failings of the Tower Committee are by your design. You, as the Director, select the member agencies of the Tower Committee. You also supervise the TFCG administrative staff, and the staff is responsible for overseeing the CTC contract. You are responsible for having greased the skids for the wireless industry at County residents’ peril. But it is within your authority to correct these problems. I urge you to institute corrections that make all TFCG processes balanced, fair, and accountable to County residents, posthaste!
Sincerely,
Sue Present
Wednesday, May 3, 2017
Shady Grove Bus Depot Not Moving Anytime Soon
The decision to step back from relocating the buses at the Shady Grove Depot emerged during internal meetings with County Executive Ike Leggett, said Dise.
According to Dise, with the district’s incredible rate of growth there are challenges parking buses at all of the depots.
“They have significant overcrowding challenges that affect their ability to move them around,” Dise said.
He said there has been no timetable for the new study, which will look at transportation funding and infrastructure.
While the comprehensive analysis is underway, he said, the county will help MCPS anyway it can with maintenance.
Dise said he has notified several County Councilmembers about the county’s new study, as well as the chief operating officer at the school district and the county’s regional services centers, which deal directly with residents. He said no community meetings are planned at this time...
http://www.mymcmedia.org/county-to-now-study-school-bus-parking-districtwide-shady-grove-bus-depot-not-moving-anytime-soon/
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Meeting Scheduled, Document Not Released. What is a "week" in Montgomery County? #celltower #DAS #smalllcells
 |
| Small cell tower in MoCo |
4/20/2017 UPDATE: Montgomery County has deleted the statement that the proposed zoning change will be released one week before the public meeting. The public does not need to read the proposal to be able to comment on it, right? Just "trust" that Montgomery County is "good" and agree to any proposals. No need for notice.
------
It is important that Montgomery County residents have good imaginations.
The Montgomery County Government has scheduled a meeting to discuss proposed changes to the zoning ordinance that concerns cell towers. The County said that the proposed changes would be made public one week prior to the meeting. The meeting is April 26th. Today is April 19th, the Wednesday before the meeting, yet the proposed changes are nowhere to be found.
Just imagine what the County might be up to and mark your calendar to attend the April 26th meeting.
--------------
Attn: Montgomery County residents Montgomery County will host a Wireless Telecommunications Community Meeting to discuss proposed changes to the County zoning ordinance and process for regulatory review of wireless telecommunications structures, to address new deployment and densification of lower-height (17’ to 30’) wireless technology in residential and commercial areas.
The Community Meeting is planned for April 26, 2017 at the Executive Office Building in the Cafeteria and Outdoor Plaza, 101 Monroe St, Rockville, MD 20850.
The County has invited equipment manufacturers to display so-called “stealth” equipment that disguises wireless antennas as streetlights and similar fixtures from 6 pm to 7 pm in the Outdoor Plaza.
From 7 pm to 8:30 pm, the County will host a discussion regarding potential changes to the zoning ordinance and regulatory review process. A summary and text of the potential changes will be made available here at www.montgomerycountymd.gov/towers one week prior to the Community meeting.
http://montgomerycountymd.gov/cable/towers/home.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)