Tag Archives: Pete Fosselman

kensington

Incumbent turns aside former ally’s challenge in Kensington mayoral race

from a correspondent:

Tracey C. Furman won a third term as Kensington mayor on Monday, easily turning back a vigorous challenge from her immediate predecessor and onetime ally, Peter Fosselman.

In the town’s first contested mayoral election in eight years, Furman won 420 votes to Fosselman’s 368 – a six percent margin.

The race scrambled Kensington’s recent tradition of mostly sedate local politics. Campaign-related advocacy became intense enough on Kensington’s private listserv that Furman posted a call to participants to “find a way to stick to the more mundane topics like bears, plumbers and give aways on the listserv at least until” the election was over.

Running for local office, Furman added, “should not be a blood sport.”

Given the restrictions imposed to counter the Covid-19 pandemic, residents voted by mail with the option to deposit ballots at a drop-box at Town Hall. Participation soared by 42 percent over the contested mayoral election in 2012.

Most remarkable in this year’s voting was the electoral clout demonstrated by the winning candidates for Kensington’s part-time Town Council. Bridget Hill-Zayat, a first-term incumbent, rolled up 549 votes and her campaign ally, Nate Engle, a newcomer to Town politics, won 511 votes. They easily outdistanced the third candidate, Jon A. Gerson, a longtime Kensington resident and former Council member who received 356 votes.

Hill-Zayat and Engle were allied against the controversial Knowles Manor Senior Housing project, which was the subject of a neighbors’ lawsuit challenging parking plans and traffic patterns. The litigation has been settled.

Furman’s relatively easy victory came as a mild surprise, given Fosselman’s local prominence. He previously served 10 years as mayor before stepping down in 2016 — and encouraging Furman to seek the position. She ran, and won without opposition. She was unopposed for reelection in 2018.

Furman has lived in Kensington 40 years and her supporters include many townspeople who attend the local Methodist church, where she works as facilities manager. She also is popular with members of the K’town Ladies Guild, a social club for women.

Furman ran an aggressive campaign, sharply challenging Fosselman in their lone debate nine days before the election.

At one point during the debate, which was conducted on the Zoom video conferencing platform, Furman accused Fosselman of “making this stuff up” — a testy response to his criticism that incivility and disrespect had intruded into Kensington’s official life.

Also during the debate, Furman took issue with Fosselman’s call for close enforcement of regulations on graffiti, signage, and parking, saying he preferred “to live more in a gated-type community.”

For Fosselman, defeat may mark the close of a once-promising career in electoral politics. The loss was his second in row: In 2018, Fosselman sought the Democratic party nomination for the District One seat on the Montgomery County Council, finishing a distant fifth to Andrew Friedson.

Shortly before the mayoral election, unflattering material about Fosselman, a master plan ombudsman for the county, was circulated anonymously through the mail. Fosselman said in an email to supporters that he had been called a liar, anti-Semitic, racist, and unfit to run. He also said the County Attorney “was contacted by someone making the case I have too many conflicts of interest to run … If anyone believes this is coming from some crazy person outside of Town, as has been suggested, think again. I know who some of these people are and you would be shocked.”

He did not go into specific detail, however.

Furman’s call for restraint was posted at the listserv three days before the election. She said she was not intending “to infringe on anyones [sic] right to free speech” but added, “could we possibly find a way to stick to the more mundane topics like bears, plumbers and give aways on the listserv at least until Monday June 1 at 9 p.m.,” when voting closed.

Furman, who likes to be called “Mayor Tracey,” claimed during her campaign to have brought nearly 20 businesses to Kensington. She also noted that her terms in office coincided with movement on development projects, including two senior-living complexes, one of them Knowles Manor.

She characterized herself in campaign literature as an active and engaged mayor, which is a part-time position.

“Under my leadership,” she declared, “the Town has stepped up fast and furious providing information both on our website and through bi-weekly eblasts. The Town created a COVID-19 webpage with links to important resources, virtual classes, shopping and take-out dining guides. The Town also sponsored a webinar for our small businesses to help them in applying for SBA loans.

“Keeping the [town’s] Farmers Market open every Saturday has been a priority,” she said, adding that “I’ve worked with the county to ensure our market met the requirements of the health department in order to remain operating.”

Mail voting was a departure from Kensington’s practice in local elections of voting at Town Hall during three hours in the evening on Election Day — and this year participation surged. In all, 790 votes were cast, not counting 27 ballots that were disqualified.

In the contested mayoral election in 2012, 556 ballots were submitted.

The winners begin their terms next month.

Share
kensington

Former allies spar in Kensington mayoral debate

from a correspondent:

Subdued it was not.

Candidates in Kensington’s June 1 mayoral election met in a virtual debate over the weekend and clashed about the quality of development in town, enforcement of town regulations, and civility in Town government.

The debate took place on the Zoom videoconferencing platform and revealed sharp differences between the two candidates — the two-term incumbent, Tracey Furman, and her immediate predecessor, Peter Fosselman.

They are erstwhile allies and both said at the outset of the 70-minute debate that they agreed on many subjects.

It didn’t take long for disagreements to become apparent, however.

The mayor was notably pointed in her criticism. At one point, she accused Fosselman of “making this stuff up” — a reference to his criticism about a lack of civility in Kensington’s official life. Furman also took issue with Fosselman’s emphasis on enforcing Town regulations on such matters as graffiti and illegal signage, saying she thought he “would like to live more in a gated-type community.”

The candidates disagreed at some length about the type and quality of development in Kensington, which has about 2,500 residents and a recent tradition of mostly sedate local politics.

Fosselman asserted that “we are on our way to becoming a senior center” for Montgomery County, noting that two housing projects for older people have been approved and another is under preliminary review (but may not be exclusively for seniors).

“We can do better than what we’re getting,” Fosselman said, adding that the Town should seek out developers and encourage them to take on attractive projects. He noted a section of town familiarly known as “Gasoline Alley,” behind the volunteer fire department on Connecticut Avenue, “is long overdue for redevelopment. It would be perfect place to establish a brewery, a distillery, a restaurant-incubator with condos on upper floors.”

Another prospective project he mentioned was a community center with a pool, perhaps with a secondary use such an education center. “We need to put a plan in place and make these things happen,” said Fosselman, who was Kensington mayor for 10 years until stepping down in 2016. He added it is essential that proposed projects be reviewed by the Town’s advisory development review board before they reach the mayor and council.

Furman, who is in her first competitive race for mayor, responded by saying Fosselman’s comments about Kensington’s becoming senior center for the county were “a little bit misleading.” She noted that one of the projects, the 135-unit Modena Reserve on Metropolitan Avenue, hard by CSX Transportation railway tracks, will be “a luxury senior facility” and that two 1930s buildings nearby will be rehabilitated as part of the project’s amenities.

Another, more controversial senior housing project on Knowles Avenue, near the congested intersection with Connecticut, will be for people aged 62 and older. “These will be vibrant people that move in,” Furman said, noting that a retail or mixed-use project at the site would create even more vehicular traffic than senior housing.

Furman said the Modena and Knowles projects “are just going to be great additions to our town and they will fit within our sector plan.”

She also noted the Town’s sector plan, which was revised and updated in 2012 after considerable controversy, imposes building-height restrictions that render some prospective projects “not economically viable.” She said she supports height limitations but noted they “make some of the projects that people want more difficult to get.”

Furman’s “gated-type community” remark came in response to Fosselman’s comments that enforcement of Town code provisions has been wanting. He said he advocates enforcing regulations, which Townspeople backed, to “make the town look better than ever. I don’t find cars parked on grass, overflowing trash cans, and graffiti a nice-looking place to live.”

To such criticism, Furman said, “I know from Pete’s perspective, he would like to live more in a gated-type community where you tell everybody what you should be doing and what you shouldn’t be doing. … I find our residents don’t want that type of code enforcement. They want things to look nice but they’re not interested in the heavy hand of government. And so I try to find that balance.”

She added: “Pete has definitely been my biggest critic. I hear it all the time. But I also hear that we’re doing a great job and that the town looks terrific.”

The candidates also disagreed whether discourtesy and incivility have intruded into Town government.

“I don’t think we have a civility issue,” Furman said. “I was kind of taken by surprise by that because I think our Council meetings have been quite polite. … I don’t see what Pete sees.”

In reply, Fosselman said, “Absolutely, we do” have a civility problem. “People are dismissed, they’re disregarded, they are cut off, interrupted — that’s apparent if you watch videos of Council meetings,” where the mayor presides.

“It has to do with the way people are treated,” Fosselman added, “and there are a number of people who can attest to being treated very poorly, either at Council meetings, [in] making calls to the Town staff, or in any number of situations where they’ve requested things and have been dismissed. And that’s not something I can make up.” He said he often heard such complaints when he went door-to-door early in the year, informing Townspeople he was planning another run for mayor.

Furman disputed Fosselman’s complaints.

“When Pete says, ‘I’m not making this stuff up,’ he is making this stuff up because I have not received those calls. People are not treated that way,” she said and cited complaints about graffiti on a county bridge in town.

“I have seen the graffiti on the bridge and it has been reported to the county, and the county will get to it. We are in a pandemic where it is difficult to get people out to do things right now. And that’s one thing that Pete doesn’t have, is patience. He doesn’t understand when other people have other work that they have to do. And it will get done. But I, for so long, I’ve heard ‘a lot of people are saying.’ Well those people are not saying it to me. And I have suggested that he refer them to me and he never does. Those people don’t exist.”

The debate was moderated by Sean McMullen, a former Town Council member who posed questions based on queries townspeople submitted in advance. On most questions, the candidates were permitted no more than 60 seconds to reply.

Not counting Town staff and others associated with producing the debate, about 65 people logged in to follow the encounter on Zoom. The mayoral debate was followed by a virtual forum for the three candidates for two seats on Kensington’s Town Council. They are: Brigid Hill-Zayat, a one-term incumbent; Nate Engle, a newcomer to Town politics, and Jon Gerson, who served a term on the council in the 1980s.

The elected positions are part-time and non-partisan. Kensington’s day-to-day activities are overseen by a town manager and his staff.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Ana Sol Gutierrez, campaign finance, Council District 1, Council District 3, Craig Rice, Nancy Navarro, Pete Fosselman

Campaign Finance Reports: Council Districts, May 2018

By Adam Pagnucco.

Today we look at fundraising by the Council District candidates.  As with our prior posts on the County Executive and Council At-Large races, we start with a note on methodology.  First, we calculate total raised and total spent across the entire cycle and not just over the course of one report period.  Second, we separate self-funding from funds raised from others.  Self-funding includes money from spouses.  Third, for publicly financed candidates, we include public matching fund distributions that have been requested but not deposited in raised money and in the column entitled “Cash Balance With Requested Public Contributions.”  That gives you a better idea of the true financial position of publicly financed campaigns.

Let’s start with the Council District 1 candidates.

Former Comptroller staffer Andrew Friedson is easily the fundraising leader.  His total raised for the cycle ($333,081) exceeds any of the Council At-Large candidates and his cash on hand ($245,290) almost equals the cash on hand of the next three candidates combined ($251,205).  Friedson has raised $159,257 from individuals in Bethesda, Chevy Chase, Glen Echo, Cabin John, Kensington, Potomac and Poolesville, which represents 48% of his take.  That amount is not very different from the TOTAL fundraising from others reported by former Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman ($174,996) and former Planning Board Member Meredith Wellington ($138,820).  Of Friedson’s 1,074 contributions, 702 were for $150 or less.

The endorsement leader in District 1 is Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez, who has the support of MCEA, Casa in Action, SEIU Locals 500 and 32BJ, Progressive Maryland and MCGEO.  But Gutierrez’s main base of voters is Wheaton, which is not in the district, and she does not have a lot of money for mail.  Friedson got a big boost when the Post endorsed him.

Reggie Oldak faces a cash crunch at the end because of her decision to participate in public financing.  Unlike Friedson, Fosselman or Wellington, she can’t get big corporate or self-financed checks to catch up late and she has already received the maximum public matching funds available ($125,000).  District 1 has by far more Democratic voters than any other district and past candidates, like incumbent Roger Berliner and former incumbent Howie Denis, raised comparable amounts to the at-large candidates.  The next County Council should consider whether to adjust the matching funds cap to avoid handicapping future District 1 candidates who enroll in public financing.

Now let’s look at the Council District 3 candidates.

Incumbent Sidney Katz and challenger Ben Shnider have raised comparable amounts for the cycle.  But Shnider’s burn rate has been much higher (partly driven by early mail) and Katz has more than twice his cash on hand.

Katz’s strength is not simply his incumbency but the fact that he has been a county or municipal elected official in the district longer than Shnider has been alive.  That shows up in their fundraising.  Katz is in public financing and recently announced that he will receive the maximum public matching funds contribution of $125,000.  Of Shnider’s $199,454 total raised, just $14,639 (7%) came from individuals in Rockville, Gaithersburg, Washington Grove, Derwood and zip codes 20878 and 20906.  That is a huge gap in starting indigenous support that Shnider has to close.

Here are the summaries for Council Districts 2, 4 and 5.

Council District 5 challenger Kevin Harris qualified for public matching funds so he can send mail against incumbent Tom Hucker.  But we expect Hucker and his fellow council incumbents, Craig Rice and Nancy Navarro, to be reelected.

Share
Ariana Kelly, Ben Cardin, Hans Riemer, Hoan Dang, Jamie Raskin, Marc Korman, Pete Fosselman, Rich Madaleno, Roger Berliner

Josh Starr’s Picks

By Adam Pagnucco.

Josh Starr was Superintendent of MCPS from 2011 through 2015 and still lives in MoCo.  He announced the candidates whom he supports on Facebook yesterday.  Agree with Starr or not, his personal experience of working with state and county elected officials gives him a unique perspective on those running for office.  With his permission, we reprint his post below.

*****

Very long post for my MoCo friends about my choices for the primaries, with notes/comments where I feel it’s appropriate. Please note that my choices and/or comments are based on my personal knowledge and experience with these folks, not any deep analysis of every statement/position/vote they’ve made. I definitely have biases.

Governor – Rich Madaleno; Baker would be my #2. When I was super, I found Rich to be one of the smartest, most thoughtful and most knowledgeable elected officials, esp. around budget. He was also one of the first Dems to push back against Hogan. Experienced, smart, progressive, would be a great governor. I’d also love to see an open member of the LGBTQ community elected governor, although that’s in no way the primary (pun intended) reason I’m supporting him.

Senator – Ben Cardin

Congress – Jamie Raskin, because he is, after all, The Jamie Raskin.

House of Delegates – 3 candidates:

Ariana Kelly – solid, speaks out on issues re: women, no reason for her not to continue in Annapolis.

Marc Korman – smart, thoughtful (in my LM class so I got to know him well), definitely a bright future.

Samir Paul – have had a few conversations with him, very sharp and we need more teachers in office.

County Executive (wherein I get a little snarky based on my experiences with many of these candidates). I also think the next CE might be a transitional leader, as we move from 12 years of Ike during an economic downturn towards a new vision that supports bold economic development with progressive politics.

I’m supporting Roger Berliner as I’ve always found him to be thoughtful, a really good listener/learner, consistent and progressive. I’ve always felt Roger tries to do the right thing in an inclusive and reasonable way and will work hard to bring people together around his vision.

A few comments on other CE candidates:

Blair – don’t know much about him, not a huge fan of business leaders assuming they can “save” public entities. I’m pretty agnostic.

Elrich – have always appreciated his progressive politics, always had a solid working relationship, sometimes I appreciate his willingness to take strong positions, sometimes I think they’re unforced errors; major concern is the big hill he’ll have to climb to convince a wide swath of the county that he can do economic development and enact a very progressive agenda.

Frick – there are some things I like about him, personally and professionally, but my experience with Roger Berliner outweighs any support for Frick.

Krasnow – don’t know her, but I hear good things, sounds like a solid choice.

Leventhal – based on personal/professional experience, I’m in the anyone-but-Leventhal camp. He doesn’t have the temperament or leadership skills to be CE, despite his sometimes-engaging personal style and progressive politics. Please, trust me on this one.

Council At-Large (4)

Gabe Albornoz – smart, engaging, thoughtful, has a very bright future; very supportive of kids and MCPS.

Hoan Dang – what I know, I like.

Will Jawando – he deserves a shot.

Hans Riemer – very education focused, solid on economy and progressive issues, always had a good working relationship, we need someone with experience and we need a degree of stability.

I am also in the anyone-but-Jill Ortman Fouse category, based on my experience with her as a board of education member while I was superintendent. Trust me.

Council – D1

Peter Fosselman – solid, good record in Kensington, deserves a shot at council.

BoE (always at the end of the ballot)

At-Large- Karla Silvestre, glad to see her running, great community leader, smart, thoughtful, will be a great BoE member.

D3 – Pat O’Neill, because she deserves a shot at the MD record for longest serving board member. On a serious note, she knows what the role of a board member is and provides an essential balance to other board members who think their job is to run the school system.

Share
District 1, Montgomery County Council

Clash on the Issues, Part III: Blame It on the Alcohol

This is the third in a series about the issue positions of candidates in District 1 based on the debate hosted by Friends of White Flint. Today’s topic: what do the candidates think about the Montgomery County Department of Liquor Control’s alcohol monopoly?

Time to Get Off the Sauce: Candidates for Privatization

Bringing levity to the debate on several occasions, Pete Fosselman started by bluntly stating “I like my liquor” to laughter from the crowd. He proposes letting the county retain control of hard liquor but privatizing the sale of beer and wine, arguing that the change would boost in Montgomery restaurants. As an industry that makes most of their money on alcohol sales, they watch this aspect of the business carefully.

Andrew Friedson spoke passionately in favor of privatization. Fighting back against those concerned about the loss of revenue generated by the monopoly, Friedson stated “I believe government should be judged on how well it serves people, not how well it makes money.” Moreover, he argued that the monopoly costs Montgomery revenue, as it is hard to explain why alcohol sales are 41% lower here than elsewhere in the region unless you think Montgomery has “a secret temperance movement.”

Meredith Wellington agreed with Friedson, saying thoughtfully that the monopoly is a symptom of the county’s problematic approach. Arguing that government can’t do everything, Wellington said that we want entrepreneurial people in the county and need to work with them to help us market the county to businesses.

Though concerned about losing the union jobs, Reggie Oldak also thinks the county should not be in the liquor business, pointing out that $30 million is not much in a $5.5 billion budget. She shouldn’t worry so much. Private liquor distributors are also unionized. Why should the county should favor jobs with one union over another?

They Tried to Make Me Go to Rehab, I Said No, No, No: Candidates against Privatization

Bill Cook believes that privatizing the liquor industry would be a huge loss for the county because we’d lose $30 million and those “great paying union jobs.” Taking perhaps an unusual tack, he then proceeded to attack of his own potential constituents, Total Wine Co-Owner David Trone, who lives and has located the headquarters of his business in District 1.

Stating that there is “nothing wrong” with the county selling liquor and endorsed by UFCW 1994 MCGEO, Ana Sol Gutiérrez favors modernization, not privatization. She says that “significant steps have been taken” in terms of improvements. I wonder if she also thinks Metro escalators rarely break down. Gutiérrez likes that we can take on new debt by bonding the revenue stream. In other words, the county is fiscally hooked on alcohol.

Jim McGee opposes privatization but favors modernization. Unfortunately, that has been promised for years but is much like waiting for Godot. They say that it’s coming. But when is it coming? At the same time, McGee thinks it is too hard for microbreweries to distribute their product.

Share
District 1, Montgomery County Council

Clash on the Issues, Part II: is Ballooning Debt a Problem?

This is the second in a series about the issue positions of candidates in District 1 based on the debate hosted by Friends of White Flint. Today’s post looks at whether the candidates are concerned about the share of the county budget going to service debt, which is approaching 20% according to the question.

Ana Sol Gutiérrez doesn’t see County debt as a problem and views it is analogous to a home mortgage, leaving me hoping that we don’t end up under water like so many home owners. She has confidence in analyses showing the county is financially stable but also expressed interest in finding “other funding streams,” which sounds like taxes. Throughout the debate, however, she referred to mysterious state-level funds that the county had left untapped, a perplexing claim from a this long-time delegate on the appropriations committee who should be well placed to direct funds to the County.

In a similar vein, Bill Cook commended the Council for its balanced budget and well-funded rainy day fund, and blamed “reckless” development without appropriate impact taxes for placing additional burdens on county residents.

Reggie Oldak took a more centrist position, arguing that too much debt is a burden and Montgomery needs to preserve its AAA bond rating. At the same time, she agreed it is shortsighted not to spend on the safety net, leaving me a bit concerned as debt should go to capital, not operating, expenses.

Noting a lot of agreement among the candidates, Jim McGee took a similar position. He views debt as an “investment in the future” but also says we need to see the return on the investment. He also noted aptly that interest rates are rising, so debt will cost more in the future. Economic growth is the real solution to this problem.

Meredith Wellington was the first to express directly that she is very concerned about the debt gobbling up more of our budget even as revenues have not bounced back and we’ve raised taxes. She supports the affordability guidelines, even though they constrain the county’s ability to borrow, and said we need to set priorities. In short, Wellington was the first to identify rightly that growing debt and flat revenues is not a sustainable fiscal path, and that the county will have to make real choices as a result.

Andrew Friedson concurred with Wellington. He countered Gutiérrez’s home mortgage analogy directly, arguing cogently that we cannot do the equivalent of taking out a bigger mortgage or taxing our way out of it. There is certainly little appetite for increased property or income taxes in Montgomery, especially in the wake of the County’s big tax hike.

Showing his expertise on the topic, Pete Fosselman noted the $375 million paid in interest last year and the $120 million hole in the current budget. He’s concerned about the County’s AAA bond rating, arguing that we need fiscal discipline and to work better to provide services through nonprofits even as we stop funding politically connected “sock puppet nonprofits.”

Once again, voters appear to have a real choice, as candidates expressed broad differences on both debt as a problem and the solutions. All should be concerned with the county bond rating because lower bond ratings mean we pay more in interest and can afford less. As Wellington identified, and Friedson and Fosselman agreed, we are not on a sustainable fiscal path, so debt should be a real concern. The era of difficult choices is far from over.

Share
District 1, Montgomery County Council

Clash on the Issues, Part I: Recruiting Amazon

This is the first in a series about the issue positions of candidates in District 1 based on the debate hosted by Friends of White Flint. Candidates clashed greatly on whether and how to pitch White Flint as Amazon’s future location. While all touted Montgomery County’s assets, there was enormous disagreement on providing tax incentives.

Jim McGee argued against doing anything to recruit Amazon to Montgomery. He’s outraged that Jeff Bezos makes “$35 billion per year” and opposes the siting of the equivalent of “two Pentagons” here. While correct that Bezos is wealthy, though missing that it’s for creating a world-beating company, this analysis ignores both Amazon’s duty to its shareholders or the reality of its economic power to command incentives. McGee admitted candidly that he was “probably not the right guy” to make the pitch to Amazon.

Bill Cook wants the jobs but is “not willing to prostrate” before Amazon. He’d tell Jeff Bezos that he doesn’t need the money and you already have a mansion in Kalorama. Cook says he knows that Amazon is coming to Washington but won’t be going to DC or Fairfax because “the schools suck are terrible.” Neither true nor the way I’d put it. The Washington area provides three excellent candidates but Cook’s attitude would assure that Amazon doesn’t come to Maryland.

In contrast to these wildly unrealistic, populist views of the world, Reggie Oldak countered that it would be great if Amazon came, pointing out astutely that we are giving tax breaks, not subsidies, and that collecting 90% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Additionally, we’d receive transit funding from the State. Indeed, the tax breaks are spaced over many decades based on Amazon spending many times more in salaries.

Several candidates, such as Andrew Friedson, pointed out the attractiveness of our location near DC and three airports along with our transit system, educated workforce and excellent school system. Citing Montgomery as a diverse and welcoming community, Pete Fosselman argued emphatically that the tax breaks don’t outweigh the “phenomenal” long-term benefits. Fosselman also pointed out the State’s new funding for Metro along our planned BRT system as real positives in our recruitment pitch.

Demonstrating her planning skills, Wellington also emphasized our great location and said agreed with Pete Fosselman’s support for the Council’s recent zoning changes shortening the comment period for the site, perceptively pointing out the most important discussions occur before the submission of the plan. She’d work to make sure that Amazon’s new building integrate well into the community.

Ana Sol Gutiérrez said “Let’s make a deal. We can both win” but did not outline the sort of deal she’d expect or support. Gutiérrez said that the Governor is enticing Amazon with tax credits but wanted to know what we would gain from Amazon, saying that it’s not about the jobs but the diversity. I suspect most would disagree with Gutiérrez and say that it is, in fact, about the jobs, pointing out that Amazon’s arrival here would provide opportunities for our diverse workforce and assure that all people hired by Amazon, or the many businesses its arrival would spawn, would be covered by Montgomery’s protections for employees.

Unfortunately, Dalbin Osorio was ill and unable to attend the debate, which was too bad as he was a lively and interesting candidate at the first debate.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Council District 1, Council District 3, Pete Fosselman

Campaign Finance Reports: District County Council, January 2018

By Adam Pagnucco.

In addition to the wild and woolly Executive and Council At-Large races, MoCo has two competitive District County Council elections.  Let’s have a look.

Council District 1

In District 1, which stretches from Kensington in the east to Poolesville in the west, nine candidates are vying to succeed incumbent Roger Berliner, who is term limited and is running for Executive.  But of these nine, only four look competitive at the moment and one stands out: former aide to the Comptroller Andrew Friedson.

Friedson’s lead in total raised and cash balance is as obvious as it is staggering.  But consider these three facts.  First, if Friedson were running in the Council At-Large race, his total raised for the cycle ($218,903) would be second only to Hans Riemer ($219,103), who is the only at-large incumbent running.  Friedson’s cash on hand ($200,622) would be second only to Delegate Charles Barkley ($232,428).  Second, Friedson’s lead is not in money alone.  We added up the number of individual contributors each of the top four fundraising candidates had in Bethesda, Chevy Chase, Potomac, Kensington, Cabin John, Glen Echo, Poolesville and zip codes 20852 (Rockville) and 20878 (Gaithersburg/North Potomac)  to approximate in-district contributors.  Friedson had 289 contributors in these locations, followed by Reggie Oldak (217), former Town of Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman (195) and Meredith Wellington (92).  Third, Friedson has accomplished this in just five months.  Fosselman has been running for ten months, followed by Oldak (nine months) and Wellington (eight months).  We wonder how much Friedson would have raised if he had been campaigning longer.

The good news for Reggie Oldak is that she has done well in public financing and should have no problem hitting the $125,000 cap for public matching funds.  The bad news is that it’s probably impossible for her to catch Friedson because once she hits the cap, she will be limited to $150 individual checks.  Wellington has relied on self-financing more than the other candidates and has a high burn rate (41%).  Fosselman should have been the fundraising leader in this race.  He was Mayor of the Town of Kensington for a decade and is plugged into Ike Leggett’s network, the county developer network (he once worked for Rodgers Consulting) and what is left of the network of former Governor Martin O’Malley, who endorsed him and had his PAC max out to him.  But Fosselman is fourth in cash on hand and faces the risk that the business community will turn to Friedson as a better prospect to win.

Council District 3

In District 3, which is mostly comprised of Rockville, Gaithersburg, Aspen Hill, Leisure World, part of Norbeck and Washington Grove, former J Street Political Director Ben Shnider is taking on incumbent Council Member and former Gaithersburg Mayor Sidney Katz.  Shnider, who is in the traditional financing system, outraised the incumbent, who is taking public financing.

Shnider’s fundraising edge, along with his endorsement by SEIU Local 32BJ, gives his campaign credibility against Katz, who has been in county and municipal politics for decades.  A further look at the fundraising numbers reveals two things.  First, 76% of Shnider’s fundraising has come from out of state.  (Katz’s percentage is just 2%).  But second, and more worrisome for Katz, Shnider is starting to catch on in the district.  When we added up the number of individual contributors from Rockville, Gaithersburg, Washington Grove and zip code 20906 (Leisure World/Norbeck) to approximate in-district contributors, Katz had 99 and Shnider had 75.  Shnider is the underdog in this race, but Katz needs to start working harder to hold him off.

The other districts lack competition.  District 2 incumbent Craig Rice has not been raising money and is apparently unworried about his Republican rivals in the age of Trump.  District 4 Council Member Nancy Navarro and District 5 Council Member Tom Hucker have no opponents and are headed to reelection.

We will get to state legislative races soon, folks!

Share
District 1, Montgomery County

O’Malley Endorses Fosselman

Former Gov. Martin O’Malley has endorsed former Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman in the District 1 Council race:

Pete Fosselman is a results-driven leader who has the know-how and experience to accomplish big things for the people of Montgomery County, Throughout his distinguished career in public service, Pete developed a reputation as a consensus builder who knows how to get things done on important issues like economic development, education, smart growth, and a better quality of life for Maryland’s seniors.

It’s a nice signifier that Pete Fosselman is a major contender for the  seat being vacated by Roger Berliner. It’s not a complete bolt from the blue as Fosselman and O’Malley have long been friends.

Fosselman also served in O’Malley’s administration as Deputy Secretary of State–a position to which Gov. Larry Hogan reappointed him. Currently, he works as the planning coordinator for the White Oak Science Gateway project for County Executive Ike Leggett.

Share