This article was republished with permission from 蜜桃视频app’s news partners at .聽Sign up for today.
This content was republished with permission from 蜜桃视频app鈥檚 news partners at Maryland Matters. Sign up for聽听迟辞诲补测.
When Barbara Sollner-Webb first heard about a proposed senior living center in Howard County that could undermine the health of the Patuxent River, she quickly notified the Patuxent River Commission, where she had been a member for 19 years, and urged them to oppose the project.
The living center would be built on steep slopes and the creation of new impervious surfaces would generate runoff into the headwaters of the Middle Patuxent 鈥� the longest and only river entirely within Maryland 鈥� she told the 34-member commission. This project also included a land swap with land previously protected by the state鈥檚 agricultural reserve, or designated land to preserve farmland and rural space.
For these reasons, Sollner-Webb made a motion to oppose the Erickson Senior Living at Limestone Valley last spring, but most commission members who represent government agencies abstained. The Maryland Department of Planning staff contended that abstentions counted as 鈥渘o鈥� votes, and so the motion lacked a majority to pass.
Unwilling to give up, Sollner-Webb returned to the next meeting and made another motion 鈥� this time to support the project, which received seven 鈥渘o鈥� votes, three 鈥測es鈥� votes and 12 abstentions. Later that month, Sollner-Webb wrote to the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning, stating that the Patuxent River Commission voted against supporting the Erickson project.
To her surprise four months later, Sollner-Webb received a pink slip in the mail stating that she had been replaced. Fred Tutman, the Patuxent Riverkeeper who has been a part of the commission for 23 years and voted to oppose the project, was confounded when he received a pink slip a month later. Sollner-Webb and Tutman were the longest-serving members and both had affirmed they wanted to be reappointed when a Department of Planning staffer had asked a few months earlier.
鈥淢y initial reaction was 鈥� this is because Barbara has been very outspoken against certain development projects in Howard County,鈥� said Christopher Perry, the vice chair of the commission. 鈥淚t seemed very connected.鈥�
Tutman said the dismissals send a clear message to commissioners that if they disagree with the administration, they risk getting kicked off.
The Department of Planning 鈥渉as hobbled the ability of the commission to speak with an independent voice 鈥� it鈥檚 a voice that clearly is being closely monitored and controlled by people the governor controls,鈥� Tutman said.
Secretary of Planning Robert McCord wrote in a letter to Waterkeepers Chesapeake in February that he 鈥渄ecided that the Commission was due for fresh ideas and new perspectives.鈥�
McCord did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
The Patuxent River Commission was created by the General Assembly in 1980 following a series of lawsuits involving concerns with the northern parts of the Patuxent River sending nutrientwater pollu pollution downriver into Southern Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay. The commission has no regulatory powers but has the ability to 鈥渞eview and comment on plans and reports related to the Patuxent River and its watershed,鈥� according to its enabling legislation.
The Department of Planning provides staff support for the commission but does not have the discretion to choose who serves on the commission.
Rather, the governor appoints members, and more independent members representing farmers, business and environmental interests, must also be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Commissioners serve four-year terms and are not paid.
鈥淚 think development is just another land-use practice, and if that land-use practice is causing harm or making an impact to the river, that鈥檚 something the commission should be well aware of and discuss,鈥� Perry said.
鈥淭he only thing the commission can do is comment 鈥� it doesn鈥檛 have any regulatory power to approve or disapprove of a permit,鈥� said Tutman, who called the dismissals a 鈥渃oup d鈥檈tat鈥� by the secretary of planning. 鈥淭he only tool the commission has is to comment 鈥� so why shouldn鈥檛 we at least comment?鈥�
Earlier this month, the General Assembly unanimously passed a聽聽that would make the Patuxent Riverkeeper a permanent voting member of the commission. Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr. (R) has about a month to sign the legislation, veto it or let it take effect without his signature.
Sen. Paul Pinsky (D-Prince George鈥檚), chair of the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee, sponsored the Senate version of the bill; the House bill sponsored by Dels. Mary Lehman (D-Prince George鈥檚), Joseline Pe帽a-Melnyk and more than two dozen others passed both chambers.
鈥淪ome people who were active, engaged members were not reappointed, one of whom was one of the few if not only African American, and I thought that was an abomination,鈥� Pinsky said recently.
Michael Ricci, spokesman for Hogan, said the governor is in the process of reviewing hundreds of bills and has not yet decided how to act on this measure.
He also responded to the criticism about the removal of Tutman and Sollner-Webb.
鈥淚t is not uncommon for agencies and commissions to seek new ideas and perspectives. I鈥檓 familiar with those contentions, but they don鈥檛 square with the fact that folks who took similar positions on those projects remain on the commission,鈥� Ricci wrote in an email.
Other commission members that were dismissed are Albert Tucker, Andrew Der, and John McCoy, the watershed manager for the Columbia Association.
But Perry, the vice-chair of the commission, said Tutman was 鈥渟o, so active in the commission and to lose him was a pretty big blow. I鈥檓 happy that we鈥檙e fixing it with legislation.鈥�
Perry said while he understands that having new perspectives can be a positive, keeping viewpoints of those directly engaged with the watershed is also critical.
Tutman himself is still doing work for the commission 鈥� which has no budget and three staff members 鈥� such as managing the commission鈥檚 Patuxent Water Trail website and writing report cards for the river. 鈥淚 think [the Department of Planning] has no problem with us doing their work for free, but they want us very much in the audience and not at the discussion table,鈥� Tutman said.
Past Disputes
The disagreement about the Howard County senior facility was not the only time Sollner-Webb and Tutman butted heads with the Department of Planning. Four years ago when some commission members wanted to send a letter of concern about a proposed 35-unit housing project in Savage, the commission was told they could not comment on private development projects.
McCord released a policy memo in 2018, stipulating the statutory authority of the commission to discuss operations of local government. In it, he contended that the commission has no authority to advocate for or against specific private development projects.
The commission鈥檚 authority to review projects 鈥渕ay also not impinge on the authority of any other principal department of State government,鈥� McCord wrote. He also made clear that commissioners must act individually or as a member of an entity other than the Commission when outside of official duties.
Tutman said he and other commissioners found the memo offensive.
鈥淢cCord showed up flanked with his lawyer and presented us with his bombshell 鈥� we didn鈥檛 know who this guy was, we鈥檝e never seen him and the first meeting he shows up at, he starts giving us orders,鈥� Tutman said.
Sen. Jim Rosapepe (D-Prince George鈥檚) and Del. Anne Healey (D-Prince George鈥檚) requested opinions on the behalf of some commissioners from the Office of the Attorney General, seeking clarification on what the Patuxent River Commission could and could not do.
According to the Office of the Attorney General鈥檚 Chief Counsel of Opinions and Advice Patrick Hughes, the Patuxent River Commission has the power 鈥渢o comment on proposed local private development projects that may affect the Patuxent River or its watershed and are under consideration by a unit of local government.鈥� The commission also has independent authority to comment on particular plans or reports, despite the secretary鈥檚 contrary guidance, he continued.
Tutman thought that settled the issue and continued to comment on other projects he and other commissioners found troublesome, including the senior living facility three years later.
Unprecedented move
Former officials who have worked with the Patuxent River Commission say the recent turnover is exceptional, as there had never been a question over what the commission could talk about.
Richard Hall, the secretary of planning under former Gov. Martin O鈥橫alley (D) who worked with the commission from 1992 to 2015, said that telling commissioners that they cannot confer or make recommendations on growth issues around the Patuxent is 鈥渘ot even remotely truthful.鈥�
鈥淭hat just doesn鈥檛 make sense 鈥� if your mission is to protect the Patuxent, why would you eliminate one of the major factors in the health of the watershed?鈥� he asked.
鈥淚 was surprised [the Department of Planning] would take it that far. These are long-serving people who are volunteering their time and very dedicated Maryland citizens,鈥� he continued.
Hall recalled the commission sending a letter in the late 1990s, without a hitch, opposing a proposal to build FedEx Field in Anne Arundel County near streams connected to the Patuxent River.
Plans for the stadium eventually changed to be built in Prince George鈥檚 County and although Hall doubts the Patuxent River Commission was the single force that influenced this decision, 鈥渢here鈥檚 rarely just one thing that stops development issues like that,鈥� he said.
To Hall, the recent dismissals are just a 鈥渕icrocosm of the Hogan administration鈥檚 attitude towards development鈥� and what he views as a failure on environmental issues.
And it was not easy to find interested, active, consistently participating members on the commission, let alone a Black riverkeeper, he added.
Marc Lieber, who served on the commission from 1997 to 2005 under former Governors Parris Glendening (D) and Robert Ehrlich (R), said he does not recall any time when a commissioner was replaced because of a difference in political or environmental views, even when administrations changed.
Lieber said he thinks it is well within the governor鈥檚 power to change commissioners at the end of their terms, but what struck him as unusual is why the administration didn鈥檛 simply disregard the commission鈥檚 advocacy on certain issues.
鈥淭he Patuxent River Commission is a thinking and talking commission. If [the commission] refuses something, it鈥檚 not an act that has consequences,鈥� Lieber said. 鈥淚f [past governors] didn鈥檛 like what the commission was saying, they would ignore it.鈥�
Rarely has an administration cared so much about what the commission had to say, Tutman said.
Awaiting a Larger Reform
Tutman said he is pleased that reform legislation passed both chambers with overwhelming support, but feels unsettled about the commission he would return to if the Department of Planning still hovers over commissioners鈥� shoulders.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a bad set up to go back to a commission that really can鈥檛 speak its own mind,鈥� Tutman said.
He said plans to go back to relying on opinions from the Office of the Attorney General that lay out the commission鈥檚 authority. The Department of Planning 鈥渨ill absolutely control the agenda, so I need back up,鈥� he said.
The commission鈥檚 first agenda after the dismissals didn鈥檛 include anything related to the Patuxent River, Tutman said. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 the new direction that McCord must be referring to 鈥� we鈥檙e now a commission that doesn鈥檛 really talk about the Patuxent,鈥� he said.
Tutman said he thinks the commission needs to have more citizen seats 鈥渢o counterbalance the bureaucrats.鈥�
鈥淲e really cannot rely on the employees of various municipalities and state agencies to be independent voices for the Patuxent River,鈥� he said.
The bill passed this year could 鈥渃hange everything,鈥� Tutman said. 鈥淚 have a different mandate 鈥� before I was appointed by the governor, now I [would be] appointed by 99.99% of the General Assembly and doggone it, I鈥檓 going to take that to the bank.鈥�
But what Sollner-Webb thinks would really get the commission back on track is to move the panel away from the Department of Planning and place it under the State Department of Natural Resources or the Maryland Department of the Environment.
鈥淭he whole mission of the Department of Planning is to plan for future development, and the most economically expeditious way to get future development is to put it in one of these unused green areas that we happen to think of as the lungs of the area,鈥� Sollner-Webb said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a conflict of interest.鈥�
