Testimony for Bill MC/P6105-23 December 14, 2022 Dear Senator Kramer and Legislators: My name is Tina Patterson. | am resident of District 39. | 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). | 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. | served on the Montgomery County Planning Board from 2017 to 2021. | was reappointed to the Planning Board in 2021 to serve a second term and did so until | was forced to resign in October 2022. | 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, | own a consulting firm based in Montgomery County. | share these details with you because they shape my rationale for support of this legislation During the time which | served as a Planning Commissioner, | 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 (MINCPPC) 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/P6105-23 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, | 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 thats 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 | have done as Planning Board member. | have not done anything to tarnish the Board's work or undermine its public trust.” Instead, | was told that if | did not resign within 15 hours of the request, I would be given two minutes to make a statement, and regardless of what | 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 implics 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, | 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. | 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. | have reported disturbing conduct, but my concerns fell on deaf ears. Separation from MNCPPC has resulted in loss of health insurance. | ar 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. 'm aware that in 2023 | 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. | 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 | could ultimately lose work, | have been advised that | should be prepared to explain my innocence for perpetuity Returning to the Montgomery County Planning Trust and Transparency Act of 2023, | 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, Ido have several suggestions:Testimony for Bill MC/P6105-23 ‘* 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. ‘© Lrecommend 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, | 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. | believe this Act is a catalyst in restoring public trust. Ifyou have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me Respectfully, Tina €. Patterson Tina €. Patterson, MCIArb