Editorial Archive    

November 2003 - December 2004

Filling the Vacant Seats In our view, the special Council meeting on November 20, 2003 was a disaster. None of the interested candidates showed up for the meeting (one candidate intended to be there but was in an hospital emergency ward receiving treatment for injuries sustained in a car accident). Despite the fact that a quorum of the Council was present, they could not come to agreement on how to handle consideration of the applications. And they could not resist sniping at one another over personal differences.

We did not detect any attempt to come to some compromise on how to move on and get the job done. The Town desperately needs those seats filled. Councilman Ross wanted to interview the candidates and discuss them in open session. Mayor Nobel and Councilwomen Barnes and Beck wanted to go into a closed session and, presumably, make a selection.

How about if Councilman Ross backed off on his need to personally interview the candidates, and the others agreed to conduct the meeting in an open session? This may not be acceptable to a majority of the Council members, but it was not discussed nor was there an attempt to reach any other compromise. It seems all the Council members present came to the meeting with a fixed agenda and were unwilling to consider compromises. This is not democracy, it is stalemate.

As far as we can tell there is no legal reason why the discussion of candidates needs to be conducted in closed session. In fact, the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board in a footnote to an opinion (03-11) about a procedural error in closing part of a Forest Heights Council work shop meeting in June 2003, suggested that the discussion of the appointment of a public official of the Town ought to be conducted in an open meeting: "Mr. Ticer’s response also suggested that the meeting was permissibly closed under §10-508(a)(2), which allows a closed session to 'protect the privacy or reputation of individuals with respect to a matter that is not related to public business.' Because the appointment of a Treasurer is unquestionably a matter that is related to public business, it is difficult to see how this exception might have applied."

There are additional legal questions as to whether the Council, when meeting to select a candidate to fill a Council seat, is subject to the Open Meetings Act. We are considering asking the Compliance Board for an advisory opinion on that matter, but we feel the matter has been further confounded by the Council's vote on November 19, 2003, to suspend the section of the Charter regarding a quorum (see below). Our opinion is that anyone applying to fill an elected office position inherently gives up the right to privacy about factors that could be considered in Council's deliberations. That is the standard when a person runs for elective office in any general election and it should be no different when the Council elects a replacement.

Suspending the Quorum Four members of the current Council struggled since August to bring democracy back to Forest Heights. The previous Mayor had subverted the Town Charter and was refusing to follow the rules. Where the Charter required Council approval, the previous Mayor would unilaterally enter into contracts and grants without obtaining the necessary Council approval. She swore a person into Council membership without a vote of the Council. She dismissed a Treasurer even though the Charter reserves that power to the Council. She acted in conflict of interest under a Charter provision that prohibits the Mayor from serving as both Mayor and Treasurer. Council members, Mc Innis, Barnes, Beck and Noble stood their ground and Mayor McGinnis resigned. We applaud their bravery.

So far so good. But now the four members of the Council have to deal with the problem of a quorum. Their solution is to "suspend" the requirement for a quorum, so that three, or maybe two, or even one member of the Council can make a decision that Town's charter reserves for at least four members of the Town government. Their motion did not specify any minimum number of votes required to pass a measure. This is certainly not what the town citizens had in mind when they approved the current Charter in 1963.

First of all, there are potential legal ramifications. There is no provision in the Charter for the suspension of any part of it. Modifying a municipal charter is governed by Maryland State Article 23A §§ 11-18  (PDF Format) and the Council members voting to suspend the Charter asserted that they were not amending the Charter. The Town was recently embroiled in a lawsuit over a contract in which one of the issues was whether the contract was legal to begin with because it was not approved by the Town Council. It seems to us that the Council is embarking on repeating mistakes made in the past in the name of "progress" in conducting Town business.

Secondly, the four Council members are concerned that "one person" could stop the Town's government from functioning by voting no or refusing to vote at a Council meeting.  There are currently five members on the Council, and the four named above have been voting as a bloc since last August. The fifth Council member, Worthington Ross, has been at odds with the four and has been noted for his absence at several Council meetings. This is not necessarily bad if all members of the Council are acting in good-faith as to what they believe are the best interests of the Town. It is democracy. Winston Churchill was noted as saying that democracy was the worst form of government, but all the others that have been tried are even worse. In a democracy, representatives of various interests are expected to debate, compromise and accommodate so that public decisions best represent the needs of all the people. What we don't need here is Council members acting on their personal piques rather than the interests of the people they represent.

Finally, we heatedly argued at the November 19th Town meeting that the Council was not pursuing finding replacements for the vacant Council seats quickly enough. One seat became vacant on October 1 and the other on October 15 (after a two week notice). Here we are in the third week of November. We applaud the Council's decision not to select someone behind closed doors and their decision to advertise for applicants to fill the seats, but we feel that  six weeks is too long. The case would be different if only one seat was vacant, but two are vacant and there is a good possibility of one of the four members who have been voting together may move from Forest Heights. Unless a new member or members are selected to serve on the Council soon, it could mean every Council decision will have to be unanimous.

The choices then for the four Council members are: (1) Bringing additional members onto the Council ASAP; (2) Risk delaying some important business or reaching a compromise or; (3) Throwing the rule of law out the door. We prefer option (1), the Council appears to have opted for (3). We are simply staggered by the argument that there are no qualified, interested citizens in Wards II and III who could be persuaded to fill the vacant seats.

Former Chief Brinkley We would like to express our gratitude for the dedication and personal commitment that Clifton K. Brinkley brought to the Town during his tenure as police chief. He took a lot of grief but stuck with us through Mayor McGinnis's "reign of terror" on the Town's civil servants when they were threatened with immediate dismissal if they spoke out. Mr. Brinkley's letter that describes some of his accomplishments appears on the news home page of this website. We knew him as an honest police officer who focused on the crime problems that frequently plague our neighborhoods. We also supported the red light camera program that he instituted at the Indian Head Highway/Livingston Road intersection. While we had some disagreement on the financing of the program, we believe that such programs reduce property damage and personal injuries, and save lives. The program made it safer for all of us to traverse that dangerous intersection. We believe we express the views of many of the Town's citizens in wishing Mr. Brinkley and his wife Godspeed in his retirement or whatever new adventures they choose.

With regard to Mayor Noble requesting his resignation, she had every right and authority as Mayor to do so. However, we are saddened that these two good public servants could not have come to a parting on more amicable terms. The Mayor needs to manage the Town efficiently and effectively, but we hope she recognizes that citizens consider the Town's employees as part of the Forest Heights family and they should be treated accordingly.

Town Meetings We feel it important to remark on an unfortunate tendency of some Council members to publicly criticize citizens at the Town meetings. Having been on the Council, we know that there are pressures on elected officials and that citizens are quick to complain and slow to acknowledge accomplishments. That "comes with the territory." However, when elected officials spend their time at public meetings arguing with citizens, complaining about their past grievances with the Town, or disrespecting citizens, they are not listening to the needs of the citizens. The Town needs elected officials who behave in a professional manner, listen to citizens respectfully, and get on with conducting the Council's business. That is our opinion.

Addendum: We were called to task by our good friend and neighbor, Councilwoman Lynn Barnes, regarding our behavior at the November 19, 2003 Town meeting. During a heated statement, we referred to the Council members as "those people." Some Council members and citizens present interpreted our statement and the manner in which it was delivered as a racial attack on the Council. Race, nor any other personal characteristic of the Council members was on our mind at the time, but on its face the statement was disrespectful of the Council. Members of the Council, regardless of their positions on issues facing the Town, serve in a tough job with inadequate compensation and are subject to constant criticism of their work, and are deserving of our respect. A better choice of words would have been to refer to the "esteemed members of the Council."

However we do not consider this explanation of our speech adequate. Unfortunately, despite gains made during my lifetime, racial, ethnic, gender and other discrimination and prejudices still continue in America, and sad to say, on occasion within the Town of Forest Heights. Dehumanizing individuals or ascribing demeaning group characteristics to individuals is wrong, regardless of whether it is done purposely, inadvertently or in any chauvinistic manner. Words can hurt. On that basis we extend our heartfelt apology to anyone who felt offended or diminished in any way by our comment. We accept fully the criticism we received from Council members and citizens attending the meeting for our inappropriate expression at the meeting, and the disruption stemming from it.

June - October 2003

Mayor McGinnis's September 15 Flyer to Forest Heights Citizens Mayor McGinnis is once again digging herself into a deeper hole. She says fired Eureka White, the Town Treasurer because "the Treasurer had issued many checks under her signature along [alone]."

We certainly don't endorse the Treasurer signing and issuing checks without the Mayor's countersignature as required by the Town Charter. However, the Mayor has not made a case for the seriousness of this violation that would constitute grounds for the extraordinary steps the Mayor has taken. How large and how many were these checks? Did the Mayor know beforehand and approve the Treasurer signing the checks without the Mayor's countersignature? Did the Treasurer have any personal gain from signing those checks by herself or was she simply trying to expedite Town business?

Mayor McGinnis herself acted in violation of the Town Charter's prohibition on conflict of interest from November 2002 until June 2003 by acting as both Mayor and Treasurer.

And what about this "emergency" business? The Town newspaper (Forest Heights News) lists the telephone number of every Council member. We are not convinced the Mayor could not have called every member of the Town Council within a couple of days to inform them of the Treasurer's alleged wrongdoing. The excuse that the Town Council does not meet in July and August does not hold water. The Charter provides for emergency meetings of the Council at any time, and in fact four members of the Town Council which constituted a quorum, held a special meeting of the Council on August 20. They discussed, among other issues, the Town budget, a pending lawsuit against the Town, and a grant application. The Mayor refused to attend that meeting.

The last paragraph of the Mayor's flyer raises the specter of the Town's financial solvency. Clearly, if anyone is jeopardizing the Town's solvency, it is Mayor McGinnis. In her first year in office she signed contracts without the required Council approval. In FY 2002, in violation of the Town Charter, she seriously overspent beyond the amounts appropriated by the Town Council. She had the temerity to falsify a letter from the Town's auditor to convince the Council that she did nothing wrong. She submitted an impossible FY2004 budget to the Town Council in May of this year that projected a surplus of $22,948. But the Council, after accepting a lower and more realistic projection of revenues and adjusting for the Mayor's miscalculation of trash pick-up costs, passed a budget with over a $43,000 deficit. Finally, the Mayor has embroiled the Town in one and possibly two lawsuits -- she unilaterally canceled a contract related to the red light camera program and the contractor is suing the Town for $88,000. Her illegal firing of the Town Treasurer may also result in a costly lawsuit against the Town. She has no realistic plan for maintaining the Town's roads which may cost over $1 million to repair.

Special Town Meeting of August 20 Wow!!! Where do we begin on this one. Four members of the Town Council, in open defiance of Mayor McGinnis, called an unprecedented Town meeting. In our view, the meeting was legitimate because the Charter provides for any three members to request the Town Clerk to call a special meeting, and in this case four members, representing a quorum requested the meeting. Four members made such a request to call a meeting. We understand that the Mayor directed the Town Clerk not to call or attend the meeting. The fact that the Town Attorney attended the meeting at four Council members' request lends credence to their contention that the meeting was legitimate.

Aside from the shenanigans on the part of the Mayor, such as changing the building's locks and possibly making a false report that the attendees were exceeding building capacity, what was the purpose and need of this meeting? Why did four Council members take such an extraordinary step?

Our interpretation of decisions leading up to the event is that the Mayor had been usurping the powers given to the Council to approve contracts, to apply for grants on behalf of the Town, illegally fired the Town Treasurer, and refused to give information to Council members about contracting by telling them its none of their business. These are serious charges for the Town Council to deal with. The obvious reason why the framers of the Town Charter assigned the Mayor as the Town Treasurer's supervisor, but reserved the authority to the Town Council for dismissing the Treasurer, was to avoid a conflict of interest. The Treasurer is charged under the Charter to assure that money is appropriated by the Council before it is spent. This is fundamental to democratic government. If the Mayor asks the Treasurer to write checks using unappropriated funds, and the Mayor can also dismiss the Treasurer without cause, there is no check and balance on the power of the Mayor to spend Town money. No President, no governor, no county executive in the United States has the power to use public funds without legislative oversight. But Mayor McGinnis has claimed unbridled power to spend Town money, and apply for and use grant money without Town Council oversight.

The Town Charter assigns that oversight authority to the Town Council by giving it the authority to appropriate money before it is spent, to terminate the Town Treasurer's employment at the Council's (not the Mayor's) pleasure, and to approve contracts and grants. While Mayor McGinnis was not the person who signed the alleged illegal red light camera contract (it was former Mayor Cook) there were other contracts that McGinnis signed without approval of the Council. Town Attorney Ticer says Mayor McGinnis has agreed to seek Council approval for contracts, but where is the evidence that she has actually changed her behavior?

It is time that the Town Council get back to its fundamental job of representing the people of their wards and stop being "yes men" and "yes women" to a power hungry Mayor who refuses to listen to others. We thank and applaud those Council members who courageously took that first step on August 20, 2003.

Council President What is going on with Councilman Worthington Ross? Is he representing Ward III and providing leadership to the Council as its President or is he the Deputy Mayor? We assisted him by drafting a grant proposal, and admonished him that he should obtain input from other Council members before it was submitted on August 15. The four Council members attending the August 20, 2003, special town meeting all said that he did not seek their comments of views on the grant application.

We pointed out to Mr. Ross the conflict of interest section in the Town charter that prohibits any town official from holding more than one office at a time. Yet he was conducting performance evaluations of the Town Treasurer for Mayor McGinnis, in our view a clear conflict of interest with his role as a Council member. Some Town citizens have complained to us that Mr. Ross has been driving slowing around town peering into resident's back yards. He admitted to us that he was using binoculars while driving around to located unlicensed vehicles for the police department. Is Mr. Ross a Councilman representing his constituents or is he the Town's code enforcer? The Town Charter says he cannot do both jobs.

Dismissal of the Treasurer The news of Eureka White's dismissal from the Treasurer's post was especially disheartening to us because of our past efforts to have a Treasurer appointed. As noted in earlier editorials below, the Mayor had been acting in a conflict of interest when she performed both the duties of the Mayor and the Town Treasurer from November 2002 to June 2003. But the Mayor's dismissal of the Treasurer raises further questions about whether she is continuing to act in a conflict of the interest. Section 33-40 of the Town Charter (PDF format) clearly states that the Treasurer serves "at the pleasure of the Council," i.e. there must be four affirmative votes of the Council to dismiss her before she can be terminated from Town employment. This is a check and balance that the framers of the Charter specifically wanted to ensure that the Treasurer who reports to the Mayor cannot be pressured into corrupt practices by her supervisor. Other sections of the Charter, such as Section 33-18 (b), provide that department and agency heads serve at the pleasure of the Mayor, but courts usually interpret the more specific clause to hold in case of a conflict with a more general clause.

In our discussions with Council members we found no evidence that the Council was consulted as a whole, no less voted, on the dismissal of the Treasurer. As noted in the News Section, even if a vote to dismiss the Treasurer took place in a closed meeting, the fact that the Council was going to consider such action would have had to occur in a pre announced and open public meeting. In our view, the fact that the Mayor has attempted to dismiss the Treasurer without the Council's approval puts the Mayor in a conflict of interest again.

Election Special: As a matter of policy the Forest Heights News Report will not endorse candidates in the upcoming May 14, 2003, Town election. However, we will provide editorial commentary on the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates and the incumbents' performance while in office. Click here to view our special candidate analysis page.

Election Board Replacement: When Mayor McGinnis presented Bessie Smith to the Council to be sworn in as a replacement on the Forest Heights Election Board, she told the Council "for the record" that she had the authority to appoint Ms. Smith without Council approval. However, Councilwoman Sharon Mc Innis challenged her on the matter and pointed out that Section 33-24 of the Town Charter required Council approval. Perhaps the mayor didn't know what her duties are under the Charter. To quote Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." But we are not so sure. The Mayor has been reminded many times that appointments to Town Charter defined positions require confirmation by the Council. Her most egregious usurpation of Council prerogatives was when she "appointed" Thomas Casey to fill a vacancy on the Town Council. (The mayor does not have appointment power to fill a vacancy on the Council, but the Council "elects" an eligible Town citizen to the position.) Perhaps because the Council let her get away with it....

Treasurer Replacement: The Town has not had a Treasurer approved by the Council since January 2002 when José González resigned as Town Manager. The Council refused to approve Michele Dyer as Town Treasurer so she remained in an acting capacity until Ms. Dyer abruptly resigned in November 2002. Since then, Mayor McGinnis assumed for herself the office of Town Treasurer. In doing so, she ignored the Charter's conflict of interest section 33-71 which prohibits officials from serving in more than one office at the same time. Why is it taking Mayor McGinnis so long to fill this crucial position in the Town government? At the April 7, 2003, Workshop Meeting, she announced that she was about to hire a Treasurer, but at the April 16, 2003, town meeting she said that a Treasurer would not be hired until June.

Letter from Town Auditor:  At the March 3, 2003, Workshop meeting, Mayor McGinnis distributed a memorandum with the subject "Letter From Town's CPA, Mr. Russell Scott." She presented this letter as the actual letter from Mr. Scott, despite the fact that it was a memorandum signed by herself. When Council members approached her later, she insisted it was the letter from Russell Scott. At the March 19, 2003, Town meeting, we confronted Mayor McGinnis during the public period with her memo and she again insisted that it was the letter from Russell Scott.

When we filed a Public Information Act request with the Town for all correspondence received from the Town's auditor, Russell Scott, she informed us that she was not going to provide any copies and, when reminded that the law requires she provide that statement in writing, she responded that she did not care what the law required, she was not going to provide the information.

We then hired an attorney to pursue the matter in Court, but as a courtesy the attorney first contacted the Town Attorney, Wilmer Ticer, about the matter. Mr. Ticer convinced the Mayor that she needed to comply with the law, even though the 30-day deadline for complying had already passed. Mr. Ticer than faxed a copy of Mr. Scott's letter to our attorney.

Because of the serious nature of this issue, we have reproduced the faxed copy of Mr. Scott's letter of February 24, 2003, and the Mayor's March 3, 2003, memorandum. Because Mr. Scott's letter was in poor quality as we received it, we also retyped it and added annotations to assist readers in understanding what Mayor McGinnis did to the letter. Mr. Scott's original letter, the annotated retyped letter, and the Mayor's memorandum can be downloaded in Adobe Acrobat format (525 KB) for your inspection by clicking here.

In comparing the Mayor's memorandum with the letter from Russell Scott we find that Mayor McGinnis lied to the Council, she lied to us, and she lied to the citizens of Forest Heights. The two documents are not the same, but differ in two substantial ways. She left out the fourth paragraph of Mr. Scott's letter, "Directly relating to expenditures in excess of budgeted figures on the audit report, it appears that in many instances the lack of experience in preparation of the initial budget created the variances." Perhaps Mayor McGinnis was embarrassed by the auditor noting her inexperience.

But that omission pales in comparison to what Mayor McGinnis did to the last paragraph. The paragraph in Scott's letter simply said: "If I can be of any additional assistance, please contact me and I will give the matter my immediate attention." Mayor McGinnis perverted that sentence to read: "I will continue to support Mayor Sue McGinns, Town Council and the Citizens of the Town of Forest Heights," implying an endorsement of the Mayor by the Town's auditor. The auditor is supposed to be a neutral person who provides unbiased professional opinions about the Town's finances for the citizens, not someone who engages in partisan politics on behalf of the Mayor.

May 2003

Comanche & Livingston Road Intersection:  At the April 16, 2003, town meeting, a citizen asked if a traffic light could be installed at the Comanche Drive and Livingston Road intersection. Because the Town's boundaries extend across Livingston Road in that area and the entire intersection is within the Town boundaries, the Mayor should become more personally involved in working with the County to install a light at the intersection. Asking citizens to circulate a petition, as Mayor McGinnis did at the April Town meeting, will not change the County's mind on the matter. She was successful in having a light installed on Indian Head Highway near Talbert Drive, even though that section of Route 210 is outside the Town's boundaries. She should do the same for the east side of Forest Heights.

Signs & Posters: On page 3 of the April 2003 Edition of the Forest Heights News there is an article entitled "Guidelines for Display of Signs and Posters." Reading that article, a citizen might get the impression that they need to get the Mayor's permission to post a sign in their yard. People post such signs for many reasons, including running for office, selling a house, and having a yard sale. The Mayor has no authority to make such a request of the citizens and no ordinance has been passed to enforce compliance.

The need for some rules on posting signs came about when former Council member Thomas Casey began tacking rather poorly drawn signs about Town events on utility poles in his neighborhood. We complained about his practice at a Town meeting, pointing out that tacking signs to utility poles was against the law. The reason it's illegal is because the posters endanger workers who must climb the poles. If the Town wants to control citizens putting up signs on their own property (off the easement), they should pass an ordinance. The Town can establish policy for signs placed by its employees, but is that the intent of the Forest Heights News article?

Hopefully, the Town will clarify its policy on signs and posters in a future edition of the Forest Heights News.

April 2003

At he March 19, 2003 Town meeting, Mayor McGinnis we asked about the status of a letter she claims was from the Town's auditor, Scott Russell. The document provided by Mayor McGinnis to the Town Council was in the form of a memorandum from the Mayor to the Town Council and signed by the Mayor. Despite the obvious inconsistency, Mayor McGinnis again insisted at the Town meeting that the document is a letter from the auditor. When pressed about the letter, Mayor McGinnis demanded that the request be put in writing and submitted to her.

We then submitted a formal Public Information Act (PIA) to the Town Clerk for copies of correspondence from the Town's auditor. Mayor McGinnis called and said that the requested information would not be provided. When we reminded her that the PIA requires that any denial for information under the law be made in writing, Mayor McGinnis responded that she did not care what the law required and she was not going to provide any information.

Her response is very troubling. She is the Chief Executive Officer of the town of Forest Heights and has oversight over the enforcement of laws by the Forest Heights Police Department. Furthermore, her oath of office affirmed that she would uphold the constitution and laws of the State of Maryland.

March 2003

At the February 26, 2002 Town Meeting, Mayor McGinnis announced that she favored a tax increase in response to a citizen's comments on the need for better Town services. Hopefully the Mayor will conduct a more thorough examination of the options for providing and financing services before seriously proposing such a step to the Town Council in May and June when the budget for FY2004 is formulated. For example, instead of buying an expensive snowplow which would be needed once every ten years for a major blizzard, such as recently experienced, she should look into contracting for such services on a contingency basis.  Her track record so far in managing the Town's financial affairs and supervising the Town's Treasurer in meeting financial obligations is dismal.

The Mayor also announced that she intends to appoint Ms Wilhelmina Gray as the Town Treasurer. She incorrectly identified Ms. Gray as the Town Clerk until corrected by Council President Reifsneider that Ms. Gray was not the Town Clerk, but an administrative assistant.  Hopefully the Town Council will carefully consider Ms Gray's qualifications for these positions before approving her for either position. The last person the Mayor hired for Town Clerk and who was acting Treasurer for almost a year was unable to perform those functions and resigned under strange circumstances.

In addition to the debacle with the FY2002 auditor's report, Mayor McGinnis did not seem to have a grasp of the funding sources for the Town. She insisted that the funding for the Talbert Drive reconstruction project came from the State of Maryland. In fact, the bulk of the funding, $250,000, came from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, with a smaller amount of $25,000 from Prince George's County.

When pressed about improvements that current administration has made, Mayor McGinnis was able to cite only the installation of a new stove and electrical panel in the municipal building. She did not address the poor condition of the Town's roads and how the Town will undertake the $1.5 million in road repairs estimated to be needed by a consultant two years ago.

Addendum for the March 3, 2003 Workshop Meeting:  The Mayor handed out a memo to the Council (see Budget & Finances page) about a letter from the Town's auditor, Russell Scott.  The memo is poorly written and confusing, and includes statements which are not true. For example, in the third paragraph it would appear that the request for an extension of the audit filing date with the Department of Legislative Services (DSL) occurred after Ms. Dyer resigned her position. Ms. Dyer sent a letter requesting an extension to DSL on or about October 4, 2002, and she did not resign until November 15, 2002.  Another statement which is not true is in the next to last paragraph on the second page. The Council did not approve the paving contract for North Huron Drive as required by the Town Charter, and therefore the work was done illegally. Finally, on the last page the Mayor's memo implies that Ms. Gray will be appointed to the position of Town Treasurer. The Town Council has rejected this proposal.

The big question is: Why did Mayor McGinnis give the Council a poorly worded summary of the letter from the Town's auditor, rather than providing a copy of the letter itself to the Council? What is the Mayor trying to hide?

On a lighter note, at the workshop meeting Councilman Jerry Corrigan suggested the Town could save money by incorporating several memos on a single sheet of paper, rather than each memo being printed on a separate page. This may cut down the nuisance paper in the inbox, but the last time we bought a ream of paper at Staples, we paid about $0.006 per sheet. To save $1 per month, the Mayor would have to consolidate over 150 memo copies.  We doubt that the Mayor produces that many memos each month. C'mon Jerry, you can do better than that to save money for the Town.

February 2003

The news about the FY2002 audit report is not good.  It appears that the Town's government is unaware of the most fundamental control over government finance in a representative democracy: The Legislature (the Town Council) must appropriate money before it is spent by the Executive (the Mayor).  This requirement is spelled out in the Town's charter as well as the Federal and State Constitutions.  This is not a trivial bit of red tape, but it speaks to the integrity of the government and the trust placed in it by the public.

It is also of great importance to the property owners in the Town. A financial collapse of the Town could lead to increased property taxes, loss of property values or a cutback in services provided by the Town.  The real property in Forest Heights has been assessed at over $103 million, so there is a lot at stake.  Furthermore, it represents a break in trust between the government and the people when a budget is passed after a public hearing, and the government then ignores the budget without informing the public about the need for changing it.  In the case reported above, the Town's government did not even bother to change the budget, no less inform citizens about the changed financial situation.

Addendum for the workshop meeting.  The Mayor and Town Council members are still confused over the financing of the Red Light Camera Program, and no one is willing to take responsibility for the mess.  True, the program was started under the Cook Administration, but Mayor McGinnis was in charge of it for over a year before she sought a supplemental appropriation in FY2003 to cover the overruns.  She said "Three months after I came in I finally accepted José's resignation because he did not know what he was doing," but in fact he resigned late in December 2001, over seven months after Mayor McGinnis took office.  During that time, Mayor McGinnis promoted Mr. González from Town Clerk/Treasurer to Town Manager.

Under the Town Charter, Mayor McGinnis is the Chief Executive for the Town and is responsible for assuring that appropriations are not exceeded.  In fact, she herself, authorized the paving contract for North Huron Drive (the sign declaring it has her project still stands at the corner of North Huron and Seneca) although there were insufficient funds to cover the contract and meet other Public Works obligations for FY2002.  That contract was never submitted to the Council for approval, and was therefore illegal.  The Mayor also promoted the hiring and promotion of Ms. Dyer to the position of Town Clerk and Acting Treasurer prior to denouncing her as being unfit for the job.  Whatever happened to the sign on Harry Truman's desk, "THE BUCK STOPS HERE."

With regard to the appointment of Stoner, Peters and Smith's appointment to the Election Board, not only was Mayor McGinnis oblivious to the Town Charter's requirement that the appointments need to be approved by the Town Council, but she seems unaware that the Maryland Open Meetings Act requires not only the swearing-in, but that a formal vote of confirmation be made at the Town meeting in front of the public.  Perhaps some day she will take the time to read the Charter which is available for free on this website.