Former Montgomery County Planning Board member Tina Patterson submitted written testimony on Senator Ben Kramer's local bill MC/PG 105-23 for the December 15, 2022, local bill hearing held on Zoom. Below is portion of her written testimony. The full testimony is reprinted below.
...Section 15-105 of the Land Use Article requires that before the County Council may remove any Planning Board Commissioner before the conclusion of his or her term, the Council must issue a written statement of the cause for such removal and hold a public hearing.
I did not receive, and the public was not informed by any written statement of the cause for my removal. The County Council said it had “lost faith in the Board.” But that is not a cause. Loss of faith is a result from some event or action. As stated in my requested letter of resignation, “I remain proud of the work that I have done as Planning Board member. I have not done anything to tarnish the Board’s work or undermine its public trust.”.
Instead, I was told that if I did not resign within 15 hours of the request, I would be given two minutes to make a statement, and regardless of what I presented the Council would thereafter vote to terminate me since the decision had already been made.
The media continues to report that the Planning Board resigned “amid a scandal” creating an implication that there was such a scandal involving all Planning Board members. There was not. The Inspector General Report regarding the alcohol make no mention of my name. While it would be expedient to dismiss the entire Planning Board to restore order to this body, I emphatically believe that requiring the resignations of those members who have not taken part in the misdeeds is not only be an unjust outcome but amount to guilt by association. I understand that some people may believe that the Board members who have not been implicated by the IG should have spoken out about the disconcerting conduct of others. I have reported disturbing conduct, but my concerns fell on deaf ears...
Full text of former Planning Board member Tina Patterson's statement is below on SCRIBD and in text at bottom of this post.
2022 Tina Patterson - Testimony for Bill MC/PG105-23 by Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland on Scribd
Testimony for Bill MC/PG105-23
1
December 14, 2022
Dear Senator Kramer and Legislators:
My name is Tina Patterson. I am resident of District 39. I am writing in support of the Montgomery
County Planning Trust and Transparency Act of 2023 in principle (later in this document I do have a few
recommendations for your consideration). I believe that the increased transparency and accountability
are part of a mechanism of checks and balances that are necessary for any entity, especially a public
agency.
I served on the Montgomery County Planning Board from 2017 to 2021. I was reappointed to the
Planning Board in 2021 to serve a second term and did so until I was forced to resign in October 2022. I
have also served on the Montgomery County Human Rights Commission from 2007 to 2014. In addition,
my leadership and community engagement include:
• (2021) Public Leaders for Inclusion Council (PLIC,)
• (2019) FBI Baltimore Citizens Academy,
• (2018) Project 500 / Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority Small Business University
• (2017) Walker’s Legacy,
• (2015) Montgomery County Community Emergency Response Training (CERT),
• (2012) Montgomery County Maryland Police Citizen’s Academy,
• (2011) Leadership Montgomery (Maryland),
• (2007) White House Project’s ‘Go Run’ program,
• (2004) Leadership Texas,
• (2003) Leadership America
In addition to my community engagement, I own a consulting firm based in Montgomery County. I share
these details with you because they shape my rationale for support of this legislation.
During the time which I served as a Planning Commissioner, I frequently explained that the Planning
Board reports to the County Council but is subject to State of Maryland ethics requirements and the
Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC) is a state agency. While the County
Council has been delegated the authority to appoint, and if appropriate to remove commissioners, both
actions are subject to compliance with specific processes established under state law - processes that
were designed to provide the public with transparency so that there is appropriate accountability.
From my perspective, as early as 2018 questionable events and activities were reported by Planning
Board members and the general public to the MNCPPC Inspector General (IG), County Council and the
County Executive. Memos of correspondence between the branches of government appeared on
Facebook for all to read and comment upon. As mentioned above, currently the Planning Board reports
to the County Council so adjudication of these concerns was the County Council’s responsibility. In early
2022 when Attorney General Frosh made inquiries to the County Council about complaints the
Testimony for Bill MC/PG105-23
2
Montgomery County Planning Board was tasked to take action. Publicly, the request was followed
upon. Internally, Planning Board members’ ability to make informed decisions were further impeded or
gaslighted in public session or when convening as the MNCPPC.
Section 15-105 of the Land Use Article requires that before the County Council may remove any
Planning Board Commissioner before the conclusion of his or her term, the Council must issue a written
statement of the cause for such removal and hold a public hearing.
I did not receive, and the public was not informed by any written statement of the cause for my
removal. The County Council said it had “lost faith in the Board.” But that is not a cause. Loss of faith is a
result from some event or action. As stated in my requested letter of resignation, “I remain proud of the
work that I have done as Planning Board member. I have not done anything to tarnish the Board’s work
or undermine its public trust.”.
Instead, I was told that if I did not resign within 15 hours of the request, I would be given two minutes to
make a statement, and regardless of what I presented the Council would thereafter vote to terminate
me since the decision had already been made.
The media continues to report that the Planning Board resigned “amid a scandal” creating an implication
that there was such a scandal involving all Planning Board members. There was not. The Inspector
General Report regarding the alcohol make no mention of my name. While it would be expedient to
dismiss the entire Planning Board to restore order to this body, I emphatically believe that requiring the
resignations of those members who have not taken part in the misdeeds is not only be an unjust
outcome but amount to guilt by association. I understand that some people may believe that the Board
members who have not been implicated by the IG should have spoken out about the disconcerting
conduct of others. I have reported disturbing conduct, but my concerns fell on deaf ears.
Separation from MNCPPC has resulted in loss of health insurance. I am navigating that process as
expeditiously as possible (COBRA is not available until 2023) and exercising as much care as possible in
public. The larger concern since the forced resignation is the addressing and managing personal and
professional reputational risk and damage. I’m aware that in 2023 I will need to defend my suitability to
continue to do work as a federal contractor because the “scandal” raises questions about my character,
trustworthiness and reliability. I also realize that at any point a client using my company’s dispute
resolutions services may challenge my integrity, to serve in a neutral, judicious capacity because of the
alleged “scandal” and I could ultimately lose work. I have been advised that I should be prepared to
explain my innocence for perpetuity.
Returning to the Montgomery County Planning Trust and Transparency Act of 2023, I believe shifting
appointment of the Chair to the County Executive will treat that position as one similar to other
Department Heads, while leaving the appointment of other Commissioners to the County Council to
create a more robust partnership within the branches of government. The Chair of the Planning Board is
supposed to be the administrative manager of the Planning Board. Implementation of this Act will
enhance the relationship and encourage better coordination with the Executive branch.
Finally, I do have several suggestions:
Testimony for Bill MC/PG105-23
3
• There needs to be some parity in the appointments by adding to Section 15.103.1 that the
appointment of the Chair would require the approval of 8 members of the County Council within
30 days after the hearing on the appointment.
• I recommend adding a requirement for a Compliance Officer within the Office of General
Counsel to assure compliance with state laws, particularly Open Meetings and Maryland Public
Information Act.
• Section 15-105 dealing with discipline or removal of a commissioner should be allowed by either
the Council or the County Executive with approval of the other. The written reason for discipline
or removal should be published for public review and consideration at least 2 weeks before the
hearing.
• Instead of the proposal to exclude a commissioner from the ability to testify in his or her
defense as a matter of due process, I suggest, there should be a provision specifically allowing
for a commissioner be placed on Administrative Leave pending the outcome of the hearing.
The timeline of the previous configuration of the Montgomery County Planning Board serves as
cautionary tale and justification as to why the Montgomery County Planning Trust and Transparency Act
of 2023 is necessary and supports good governance. Whether elected or appointed, public servants are
supposed to serve the public. I believe this Act is a catalyst in restoring public trust.
If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
Respectfully,
Tina E. Patterson, MCIArb
