The Montgomery County Council met in closed session yesterday, to discuss recent revelations in a Maryland-National Capital Park And Planning Commission's Office of the Inspector General report that Montgomery County Planning Board Chair Casey Anderson had kept a full bar in his government office. A whistleblower told the OIG that Anderson had pressured others to drink in his office after working hours, a charge Anderson strongly denied. The OIG investigation determined that some commissioners on the Planning Board had also consumed alcohol on the premises. This morning, the Council announced it would be taking a light touch in addressing the alleged behavior, which occurred in a department that has terminated rank-and-file employees in the past for alcohol policy offenses.
A Council press release states that it has chosen to reprimand Anderson, and Planning Board commissioners Carol Rubin and Partap Verma. The Council statement vaguely refers to the OIG report, but does not explicitly mention alcohol, or what the officials are being specifically penalized for. Anderson has previously issued an apology for his actions, stating that he has disposed of the alcohol in his office, and that he only drank after business hours.
This morning's press release states that "the Council has issued reprimands that will result in Chair Anderson losing four weeks of his salary and Vice Chair Verma and Commissioner Rubin each losing one day of their respective salaries. The three commissioners also must attend Employee Assistance Program counseling which is consistent with the Commission’s protocol.”
The press release goes on to say that the “Council is extremely disappointed in the violations of Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) policy by Planning Board Chair Casey Anderson, as detailed in an advisory memorandum from M-NCPPC’s inspector general. The memorandum also found violations of Commission policy by Vice Chair Partap Verma and Planning Board Commissioner Carol Rubin."
Anderson is one of the most powerful public figures in the county, and serves at the pleasure of the Council. Extraordinary legislative steps were taken to allow Anderson to serve an unprecedented third term as chair, at a record salary for the position. Planning Board commissioners also are appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the County Council.
The Council has stated that it will not say anything publicly about the case because it is a personnel matter. That assertion is patently false, because the individuals involved are political appointees holding public offices, not career employees.
So, it's not a personnel matter because the aforementioned employee was hired via political appointment? Interesting take.
ReplyDeletePolitical appointees are very different from career employees. It's more difficult to fire personnel of the Planning Department, while the commissioners and chair serve at the pleasure of the Council.
Delete