Browner: The rest of the story regarding ballot Question A

In his recent discussion of the decision to have a Wicomico County Executive, Mr. Gains Hawkins recited statements made twenty or so years ago by certain former members of the County Council. When these sound bites were uttered, neither they nor those who voted in 2004 to establish the executive position had any experience with that form of government or the consequences of that decision. Based on what had been happening in the much larger counties across the Bay with an elected executive, many local voters believed that an executive would be the catalyst to much greater growth in population and income.

For example, both Wicomico County and Howard County had adopted the “charter” form of county home rule in the 1960s; the latter with a county executive. Back then, the two counties were about equal in population. By 2000 Howard County had more than twice the population of Wicomico County, much greater economic growth, and significantly higher per capita income. Howard and other counties on the “western shore” with an executive appeared as so-called shiny pennies.

Another factor was the large (more than 20% ) property tax increase that occurred here a few years earlier and resulted in the property tax revenue cap. The persons and group (“VOICE”) that spearheaded the tax cap measure continued by pushing for the executive to make absolutely certain that county taxes would not skyrocket again.

Rather than ruminate regarding the past, which is prologue, we now have very substantial experience upon which to reevaluate whether the County Executive system is appropriate in Wicomico County; since 2006, there have been several elected executives. The first, Richard Pollitt, was reelected in 2010 but defeated in 2014 by Robert Culver, who was reelected in 2018 and died in July, 2020. Then, John Psota was appointed acting County Executive and served until defeated in the 2022 primary by the current executive, Julie Giordano.

Because of their conduct during the past 18 years, the elected executives have been in nearly constant tension with the County Council. Much has resulted from matters for which there was little or no prior discussion with the Council or public notice. A few years ago, Mr. Culver met with State officials about converting (at county expense) the former and derelict Poplar Hill pre-release facility to a drug treatment center to be run by the County – that died on the vine after coming to the Council’s (and public) attention. He also retained a lobbyist, again without informing the Council, which became aware when the lobbyist spoke at a local event. The Council was not informed in advance or fully about the positions that the lobbyist was promoting in Annapolis as the County’s mouthpiece.

The lack of transparency has continued. Last year, the current executive made a secret deal with another pal for off-road events to be held on County property adjacent to a residential neighborhood and hired personnel without formal confirmation by the Council. Without meaningful discussion with the Council, she has tried and continues to attempt to discontinue the County’s liquor dispensary system that generates substantial revenue for the County each year to appease her supporters that want to have liquor stores.

More