C4
S
KLMNO
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2010
Montgomery race is about politics — and a lot of money
Assembly spots in Chevy Chase, Bethesda prove to be costly
by Miranda S. Spivack and Meg Smith
The race to represent Bethesda
and Chevy Chase in Maryland’s General Assembly has become one of the costliest in the region, recent campaign finance reports show, as 13 Democratic candi- dates competing in Tuesday’s pri- mary vie for three spots on the Democratic ticket. The spending in the Mont-
JUANA ARIAS FOR THE WASHINGTON POST
Silver Spring resident Rick Stack has been a victim of a sign vigilante. Stack stands next to his campaign signs in front of his house earlier this month. His signs had been plucked from his front yard and tossed away more than once.
Sign bandit’s true motive is a mystery signs from C1
lante’s narrow geographic focus and persistence has set him — or her — apart from your run-of-the- mill mischief-maker. Residents find it unsettling that the culprit probably lives among them. In May, Kit Bonson of Gist Av- enue found on her doorstep a three-page, single-spaced letter written in response to a “War is not the answer” sign she has had in her yard since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
“I pass by the sign every morn-
ing,” the letter reads. “If war is not the answer, what is? I’ve had many thoughts on why your sign is incorrect; war has solved some things and provided an- swers to certain questions — such as whether, for example, there would be a 1000-Year Reich.”
Bonson said in an e-mail, “I was perplexed why someone would write such a long and bi- zarre letter about my antiwar sign, but then not put a name to it.”
A few weeks later, Bonson re- ceived a copy of the county rules about campaign signs. “It was hard not to presume it was the same person,” she said.
But who could the vigilante be? One woman suspected her ex- husband but ruled him out after a Washington Post reporter showed her a copy of the sign- ripper’s handwriting. One victim suspected a man who has posted critical com- ments about the neighborhood civic association on a local Inter- net mailing list. (He did not re- spond to e-mails seeking com-
ment.)
Another homeowner suspect- ed Dale Barnhard, a longtime res- ident who has removed signs be- fore, mainly from telephone poles. (“I’m a dedicated sign tak- er-downer, but they are all illegal- ly posted,” Barnhard said. “I know the difference.”)
Another neighbor said his
“deep, dark suspicion” is that the sign bandit is Bob Colvin, presi- dent of the East Silver Spring Civ- ic Association, who is known to take walks late at night. Colvin said that he is often out late but that it’s because he is a
ting department. “They’re help- ing us, though I’m sure the citi- zens who are getting them don’t think that.” The sign bandit is clearly on a crusade. Just what that crusade is, no one is quite sure. Several victims believe the per-
petrator has an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal bias because almost all the affected signs support lo- cal politicians, most of them in- cumbents and all of them Demo- crats. The flaw in that theory is that there are hardly any signs sup- porting Republicans in the first
“We got some deranged person out
there. . . . It’s a frustrating thing.” — Bob Colvin, president of the East Silver Spring Civic Association
volunteer patrolman for the Maryland-National Capital Park Police. “I just don’t have any idea who is doing it,” he said. “We got some deranged person out there. No one is able to catch a glimpse of him. It’s a frustrating thing. I know everybody wants to kick his” behind. Colvin and several others have
reported the incidents to Mont- gomery County Council mem- bers, police and permitting offi- cials — not all of whom agree that the vigilante’s actions are sinister. The surreptitiously delivered copies of sign regulations, for in- stance, are “a good way to get the information out to people,” said Susan Scala-Demby, zoning man- ager for Montgomery’s permit-
place; the neighborhoods in question are overwhelmingly Democratic. (The area is also home to many of the politicians whose signs were targeted, in- cluding state Sen. Jamie B. Ras- kin, Del. Heather R. Mizeur, and County Council member George L. Leventhal (D-At Large). The Montgomery County Re- publican Party and the campaign of Republican gubernatorial can- didate Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. had no evidence of similar acts against signs promoting their candidates. The other theory about the sign vigilante is that he or she is driven not by ideology but by a compulsion for order. “I don’t think it’s political at all,” said
Hans Riemer, a Democratic can- didate for County Council whose stretch of Ritchie Avenue was hit by the sign bandit several weeks ago.
But for the most part, non- campaign yard signs, such as one advertising music classes for pre- schoolers, have been left alone. Riemer’s theory is that the per-
petrator is a code enforcement zealot.
Riemer says the signs ripped out on his street were potentially in violation of a county regula- tion that all yard signs be five feet inside the owner’s property line. He believes his yard signs were untouched because they were well inside that limit. Other evidence in support of the non-political theory comes from Ernest Bland on Sligo Av- enue. He said he thinks the same person who wrote the note to Bonson left him an anonymous note in June, threatening to re- port him to the county for failure to control vegetation growing just outside his property line. He says the handwriting on that note is similar to that on Bonson’s. “I don’t think it’s a political
statement,” said Gist Avenue resi- dent Richard Stack, who has had his yard signs uprooted twice, most recently on Aug. 26. He moved his signs to a different spot, where, so far, they have been left undisturbed. He also added a “Repeal the Death Penal- ty” sign.
Which the sign vigilante might interpret as something of a peace offering. “They should be happy I’m soft on punishment,” Stack said.
shina@washpost.com
gomery County contest, where one of three incumbents, Bill Bronrott, resigned earlier this year to take a job in the Obama administration, is outstripping many other delegate contests around the state, where contend- ers frequently spend a few thou- sand dollars to win a seat. And the high finance in Dis-
trict 16 has prompted many of the 10 other challengers to conduct extensive fundraising and bor- row money to try to compete. The two incumbents, Bill Frick and Susan Lee, amassed robust war chests before the political season began this year, and have money in the bank if they need it in the final days before Tuesday’s primary. The Democratic primary in
Montgomery usually serves as the de facto general election be- cause of the county’s heavy Dem- ocratic registration. The part- time post as a Maryland delegate pays $43,500. Nipping at the incumbents’ heels in the money race is 23- year-old Kyle Lierman, a recent college graduate and the young- est candidate in the field, whose father, Terry Lierman, formerly chaired the Maryland Democrat- ic Party and is chief of staff to House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). Lierman’s campaign finance
reports show that as of Sept. 3, he had tapped deeply into his fami- ly’s network of friends and prom- inent politicians to round up more than $100,000 in contribu- tions. Lierman also reported he had spent nearly all that he had raised — $99,892.87 — as he tries to blanket the district with signs and direct mail. The two incumbents also are spending heavily. Frick of Beth- esda had spent about $47,000 of $136,000. Lee of Bethesda has spent around $64,000 of $123,335 in contributions. Both benefit from their pres- ence on the District 16 Demo- cratic slate, with State Sen. Brian Frosh (D) at the top of the ticket and signs urging a vote for the trio visible throughout the dis- trict. The spending has raised eye-
brows. “This puts a price tag on politi-
cal office that increasingly is get- ting out of reach of the average, prospective candidate,” said Charles Maier, who runs a mar- keting and public relations firm in Rockville, and served as press secretary to two of Montgomery’s previous county executives. Other top spenders and fund-
raisers among challengers are: Ariana Kelly of Bethesda, for- mer head of NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland and national campaign director for MomsRising, an on- line advocacy group, is backed by the teachers’ union, several envi- ronmental and women’s groups, a local of the Service Employees International Union and some lo- cal legislators. She has spent about $52,000, raised about $38,000 and has loaned her cam- paign $75,000. Mark Winston, a lawyer from Potomac, supported by Mont- gomery County Executive Isiah Leggett and former Gov. Parris Glendening, has spent nearly $50,000, raised about $62,600 and loaned his campaign $10,000. Hrant Jamgochian of Beth- esda, United Way director of health policy analysis, whose campaign honorary co-chair is Montgomery developer Aris Mar- dirossian, has spent about $48,000, has raised about $33,000 and loaned his cam- paign $25,000. Michael Sriqui of Bethesda, vice president of Common Cause Maryland, has spent about $30,000, raised about $33,000 and loaned his campaign $5,000. Scott Goldberg of Bethesda, president of the Montgomery County Young Democrats, was endorsed by the county’s fire- fighters and police unions. He has spent about $18,600, raised about $31,000 and loaned his campaign $10,000. Bill Farley of Chevy Chase, a member of the Somerset Town Council, who has been endorsed by some local mayors, has spent about $3,000, raised about $11,200 and loaned his campaign $20,600. Charles Chester of North Beth- esda, an attorney and activist, who has been endorsed by Del. Luiz Simmons (D-Md.), has spent about $18,000, raised $430 and loaned his campaign $50,130. Three other challengers, John Adams, a Potomac lawyer; Peter Dennis of Potomac, who has run Web sites for campaigns; and Craig Herskowitz, a lawyer from North Bethesda, reported raising less than $5,000 and spending less than $5,000.
spivackm@washpost.com smithm@washpost.com
Montgomery County council spending comes back to haunt race from C1
stretching our dollars as far as they will go — but the increase in utilities, gasoline and health care (up 26%) is eating away at our low administrative overhead cost of 4%,” Wagner wrote the council in 2006. As executive director of a coalition of congregations that provides help to the poor, Wagner sought money for home aides for the elderly, case workers for the homeless, and a furniture ex- change. As her group worked to meet growing needs, she wrote, “we look to you for additional rev- enues to make that happen.” In 2008, Wagner warned of an impending drop-off in donations and rising infrastructure costs. “We are having problems ‘keep- ing the lights on,’ ” she wrote to county officials. And last year, Wagner sought funds to prevent evictions and utility cutoffs for clients, among other things. Council member George Le- venthal (D-At Large), who ap- peared at an early fundraiser for Wagner and has been an ideologi- cal ally in seeking funds for the
poor, bristled at the challengers’ austerity messages. “When you hear candidates
say, ‘You should have known the shock was coming,’ ask them where they were,” Leventhal said. “Was she telling us, ‘I know it’s coming. You’ve got to spend less on social workers and nurses?’ No, she wasn’t.” “Ask Jane de Winter, president of the county council of parent- teacher associations for years: Was she asking us to spend less on the schools, less on compensa- tion for teachers? No, she wasn’t,” Leventhal said. Wagner has argued that her ex- perience making payroll for more than 100 employees and going line by line through her $4 mil- lion budget give her insights. “It is my fiduciary responsibili-
ty representing my organization to advocate if funds are being giv- en out by the county,” Wagner said. “It is the county council’s re- sponsibility to be the fiduciary agent for the taxpayer.” Wagner took a leave of absence from the group, now called In- terfaith Works, in June to cam- paign. It has received hundreds
of thousands of dollars in council grants since she took over in 1999, and millions of dollars in county contracts through the county’s procurement depart- ment, she said. “They try to say we strong ad-
vocates are there making them give money,” she added of the council. “The devil didn’t make them do anything. They say the unions make them do stuff, the advocates make them do stuff. No one made them do anything.” As past president of the Mont-
gomery County Council of Parent- Teacher Associations, de Winter has a long history of lobbying for school spending. In past years, she pushed the council to fund school health aides and millions of dollars in school maintenance projects as part of vast budget increases. “We will not go backwards,” she testi- fied in 2008.
De Winter said the hypocrisy
charge seeks to mask an “ab- dication” of responsibility. “It’s the role of an advocate to ask for what you think your peo- ple need,” she said.
De Winter said she was forbid-
den by PTA rules from revealing her own views on costly salary and benefits packages for teach- ers and other county employees, which she believes are not sus- tainable. Such increases have been a key driver of Montgom- ery’s $4.27 billion budget. De Winter had unspoken con- cerns about a teachers contract approved in 2007, she said. “My thought now is the same as my own private thought then,” she said. “I did not believe we were going to have the money to fund all three years, which in fact was the case.” Hopkins has been tough on the
fiscal management of Berliner, the incumbent in Bethesda’s Dis- trict 1. In 2008, as head of a local citizens association, she lobbied the council for expanding a prop- erty tax credit that would benefit local businesses — and forgo fu- ture revenues. The credit covered an arts and entertainment dis- trict. “Everyone’s going to come to them with requests. It’s up to the council to decide which to grant and which not to grant, and to learn to say ‘no,’ ” Hopkins said.
Berliner said Hopkins has been
“critical without being construc- tive . . . We are paid to make tough decisions and I feel like we have.” In the two terms that at-large
incumbents Leventhal and Coun- cil President Nancy Floreen have been in office, they voted to in- crease spending by more than $1.3 billion, or about 45 percent. In the four years since Berliner,
Marc Elrich, and Duchy Trach- tenberg joined them on the coun- cil, spending is up 10 percent. Their four budgets varied sharp- ly, from a large increase in 2007 to more constrained efforts in re- cent years.
Over the past year, with the af-
ter effects of recession savaging county revenues, the council vot- ed to cut total spending for the first time in more than 40 years. In their scramble to close a budg- et gap that reached into the hun- dreds of millions of dollars, they also sharply raised energy and cellphone taxes. Trachtenberg had argued for limits on government salary in- creases earlier in her term, pro- voking a “Wanted” poster from
public employees, but most coun- cil members balked at pulling back from more generous union contracts until the past couple of years.
At an August forum, at-large challenger Hans Riemer knocked incumbents for raising “the prop- erty tax when times were good” to fund years of soaring budgets. “I will remind people, that’s when we added all-day kinder- garten,” Floreen responded. “If you think that’s a bad idea, be that way.” In an environment in which in-
cumbents tend to have an easier time fundraising, Riemer has loaned his campaign $50,000. “I did that because I needed to
make my budget, and I thought that was a reasonable number to put on the table,” Riemer said. Wagner’s $95,000 loan came from her retirement fund, she said. “You better be prepared to
mortgage your house,” she said. “If you’re not in it for that much, then step out. Don’t waste your energy.”
larism@washpost.com
202-334-6200 Buy it. Sell it.
GHI
washingtonpost.com CLASSIFIEDS
C304 MC 6x1.5
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166