Citizens Should Get What They Want, Not What County Decides Citizens Should Get

In Adam Pagnucco's article on "Pay and Go" -- a discredited County policy which allowed developers to pay a fee up front which was supposed to offset infrastructure upgrade costs such as roads and schools that would result from more houses with more traffic and more students -- we hear the tale of how Cary Lamari, a current candidate in the District 4 Special Elections, resigned from the Mid-County Advisory Board in 1999 because of pressure to never dissent from official County policy.

As reported in the Gazette ("Advisory board's resignations prompt debate over free speech", Curreri, FrankMontgomery Gazette, Jan 13, 1999):

In his resignation letter to Duncan and the board, [Cary ]Lamari said he was departing prematurely because the board's chairman, Henry Lee, told him that board members should not publicly express any position conflicting with Duncan's or adopted county policy.

"I truly have a moral conflict with this philosophy," Lamari stated in the letter. "To me, silencing dissenting opinions is counter to the purpose of an Advisory Board. I fundamentally believe you are a good Executive for Montgomery County, but there are times when citizens will honestly, sincerely and legitimately have opinions that conflict with yours."

In a recent interview, [Steve] Mann said that before resigning, he was interested in running for vice chair of the board, which would have required a majority vote from the board's membership. But Mann said that Lee told him in a phone conversation: "If I was vice chair, I would have to agree with everything Doug Duncan said."

"Henry [Lee] told me there were concerns about my being vice chair," Mann continued. "And that [the vice chair] should be more judicious. I'm not just going to blindly follow what Doug Duncan says, even though I agree with 90-95 percent of the things."

This is a really fascinating article and gives a lot of detail on both the finer points of the "Pay and Go" debate, and it also gives some fascinating insight into the (alleged) personalities and actions -- as well as the stated opinions -- of all involved with this particular incident.

I gave a rather lengthy comment on this debate and on related subjects which you should probably read.

---

There is something fundamentally wrong with applying governmental pressure to citizens who are seeking to represent other citizens through law-abiding dissent. It's one thing to ask someone to maintain good order in a meeting called and run under specific procedure, such as a Civic Association meeting called under Robert's Rules of Order (parliamentary procedure), but Lamari's resignation points up a sad tendency in Montgomery County to try to run everything from the top down. Everyone is apparently expected to get in line, even when their specific position inherently mandates dissent where conscience might dictate.

I've been to meetings where representatives of the County pretty much come in and tell you how they do things, and then they just pass the microphone to other folks. If they are asked any pointed or complex questions, they give answers which probably border on incomprehensibility or irrelevance, and allow no opportunity to call them on the incomprehensibility or irrelevance. And rest assured, somehow whoever is running that meeting will never again allow that questioning person to speak again. They might, after all, spawn dissent by asking a question that the agency representative is unwilling to answer, or -- heavens forbid -- actually utter a criticism.

If elected, I will do my best to foster a healthy culture of dissent, of loyal opposition, and I will try to always remember that there are people out there with ideas we haven't yet heard or considered, and there are always people out there whose opinions we need to hear.

And we don't just need to hear these people...

We need to listen.