Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, GETTR, Truth Social, Twitter
Oxford citizen Russell Gray spoke at the September 24th Oxford Town Meeting and responded to comments from other citizens regarding how to handle public comment in meetings. Here's the transcript of what he said: (Bold is my emphasis and his words have been transcribed by TURBO SCRIBE which may account for some omissions, run on sentences, etc.)
In response to some of these comments, which I just thought of right here, this applies to the comment section I'd like to put in the record right now. Last Thursday, an email was forwarded to me from Commissioner Greer that was an invitation for an informal meeting the next day to discuss two items. I asked several people if they had received the invitation and some said yes but others said no. So I didn't understand how the audience was determined and selected. Not everyone received it. Because it was sent by Commissioner Greer, my first assumption was that it was sent to other commissioners as well.
I asked each of them and one individual said yes, he had received a copy of the invitation and the other individual said no. He'd only seen it later in the day because it had also been forwarded to him by another person in town. As I looked at the agenda I noticed that it included discussion and recommendations of at least one item that I understand was planned to be on the agenda for the next commissioners meeting tonight and it was and it was passed. I joined the meeting and counted approximately 35 to 38 people in attendance but the other two commissioners were absent.
Because so many of us have discussed the desire for transparency and openness, I questioned whether the approach to this meeting is out of sync with the Open Meeting Act requirements that needed to be followed. First, Supreme Court of Maryland, it does not matter if the meeting is declared to be an informal discussion and after studying the Open Meeting Act manual in case people question who am I in the process of being certified and that will be completed this weekend, intent and how a meeting is developed and conducted defines whether it is a public meeting.
Thirty-four hours in advance notice to a select public audience is insufficient time for a meeting to discuss the two topics around the agenda. We've seen how much conversation has been about advance notice. Without proper notice to all the public and the other uninvited elected official, there was no opportunity to observe conducting a public business during a public meeting. The intent suggests a violation of the OMA requirements.
More importantly, if the other commissioner who was invited had attended the meeting, that would have constituted a public body quorum and a public meeting that was outlining preferred legislative action for a resolution that was on the next town agenda. He and Commissioner Greer would have potentially been in violation of the Open Meetings Act so he made the right choice not to attend. We are better at this.
Various comments during the Friday meeting indicated that several participants felt that they were not heard. We have all felt that way at one time or another. However, being heard does not mean that our ideas are the only ones that can or will be considered. Another comment referred to meetings approximately seven years ago when many issues we are facing did not exist. It was mentioned that there were no rules then and why do we need rules now? Those are great observations for which dialogue should continue, but not in a way that fosters dysfunction in governance or animosity toward those that don't agree with our individual points of view.
The overwhelming majority of the town wants collaborative representatives for differing points of view can be heard to develop a plan going forward. In my pre-adult years working in construction, my first boss told me that demolition is much easier than the build-out. That counsel has stuck with me over the years as a metaphor for many of my experiences.
Today I keep asking, how much more demolition do we need? Isn't it time we start building? The first step in the process is to identify one's vision with others, not holding our own individual points of view. Once there is discussion and mutual agreement, which sometimes is not achievable, the plan can be developed and then implemented with collaboration from all. Demolition of our community functionality continues, but I don't see a vision from the demolition team of what the plan is. No one will ever feel that all their desires have been heard and implemented. However, I also think that we have a better chance of meeting the needs of our community if all three commissioners come together and work collaboratively instead of attempted governing by unilateral actions of a few, and in some cases, one. There is a reason why the windshield is bigger than the rear-view mirror. Let's look forward and identify where we are going before we get so lost we never reach our planned destination.
Let's examine his points:
Russell Gray's first item is that the informal meeting in the Town Park by Commissioner Greer to brainstorm with an invited group of citizens of Oxford could potentially be a violation of the Open Meetings Act. I call BS on that claim and I question Mr. Gray's intent.
Mr. Gray is obviously a supporter of Commissioner Bell since he had five, FIVE, signs in his yard for Bell during the election. He also installed Bell's signs throughout Oxford and on Oxford Road. I have no problem with that, that is his right. He should make that clear. He is a HUGE supporter of Commissioner Bell's. Mr. Gray's obvious intent with his recent comments is that anything or anyone that could possibly go against the acts of Commissioner Bell, and for that matter, Commissioner Costigan who is a dear friend of his, needs to be stopped. Commissioner Greer is standing in the way of Bell and Costigan fully implementing their agenda and the agenda of the people who influence them.
And, while Gray cites a Maryland Supreme Court decision, he never says that Greer's meeting violated the Open Meetings Act. He states that her informal meeting may be "out of sync" with the Open Meetings Act. He states that he is just "questioning" her actions. If one Commissioner meeting with citizens in the town park, in their home, or anywhere is "out of sync" with the Open Meetings Act, then we can cite and question many times when each of the current Commissioners has committed this lack of accordance.
Gray then conjectures that if another Oxford Commissioner had attended Greer's gathering in the park that day, it would have violated the Open Meetings Act. One cannot make allegations on something that might have happened. If that is the case, we should put ankle monitors on ALL of our Commissioners to assure they don't get too close to each other while they live in our small town. Plus, his argument is disingenuous as many citizens report that two of the current Commissioners have been seen gathering with certain citizens in various locations in the Oxford area on a regular basis.
However, Mr. Gray references his "training" on the Open Meetings Act as an implication that the meeting in the park was a violation. He also cites provisions of the act that have nothing to do with a meeting of one Commissioner in the park with people to brainstorm ideas. It is false logic used to put the suggestion of wrongdoing in people's minds, even if that wrongdoing is not substantiated. That's why he takes the argument no further. There was no infraction.
He then goes on to belittle those who attended the gathering.
He talks about how the citizens at that meeting in the park feel "unheard." He is somewhat dismissive of their ideas and their frustration saying that "we have all felt that way at one time or another." He's not wrong, but he doesn't seem to respect or empathize with these people. Why should he? He has what many of us don't have, the friendly ear of two commissioners and a convenient recent appointment to a powerful town commission. He was appointed to that position shortly after the last election and his support of Mr. Bell.
Gray says that people in the park that day didn't realize that their ideas can be heard without being adopted. This is again an arrogant and dismissive statement implying that this group of people in town are too stupid to understand the processes of town governance. It must be nice to look at other citizens as intellectual inferiors. Most of Oxford's citizens understand that not all their ideas will be implemented, but they also understand that if their idea is not officially heard, it can NEVER be implemented no matter its merit. That is not something they support.
Finally, Gray talks about the desire of some in Oxford for the demolition of the town. His proof? A person in the town park crowd said that the town functioned for years without all these meeting rules. The point the person was making was that meetings were held for years without all these arbitrary rules that violate the town charter. It was not an argument for the "demolition" of the town, but an argument to return to how the town used to be run with openness and frank discussions between citizens and commissioners. It harkens back to a time when the town had Commissioners like Phil Greenhawk, Pete Dunbar, Duck Bradley, to name a few. They weren't afraid of spirited discussion. They weren't afraid to disagree and question. They weren't worried about decorum because they were strong commissioners who knew how to manage discussion effectively. Plus, people in the town KNEW they would listen, which often eased tensions even if the Commissioners didn't agree with the citizen's points. These former Commissioners were not afraid of citizen ideas, they solicited and listened to them. They didn't set themselves apart and above citizens of Oxford, they viewed themselves as citizens of Oxford, one of us.
That viewpoint no longer exists among many in our town government. They fear public comment, public ideas, and the questions of the public. They relish the power of being able to say "no" to people they don't like and "yes" to those they do. They like pointing the gavel at people and shouting, "Sit down. Don't talk back."
Finally, Gray talks about "unilateral' actions of a "few." I wonder if that would actually include those favored few who sit on commissions and committees, people appointed by TWO Commissioners in order to grant influence to their friends. Conflict of interest, personal biases, and long-standing power grabs are the M.O. of these groups. All one needs to do is examine some of the recent decisions of the Historic and Planning Commissions to see how the power structure in town really works.*
It's laughable when Gray talks about ONE commissioner (Greer) running things since that she is outnumbered at every turn by the other two Commissioners. It's hardly the collaboration that Gray lauds, since Bell and Costigan shut out fellow Commissioner Greer at almost every opportunity. They oppose her, cut her off, and based on their reactions to her in public meetings, display active disregard for her. Hardly an atmosphere of cooperative "coming together."
So, the following is for you, Mr. Gray, since you are concerned that those of us who speak up and are not heard have NO PLAN to go forward, is the plan to rebuild the town you claim some of us wish to demolish:
The Town Administration Should:
1. Answer any and all questions of citizens in the public venue. Answer them honestly and quickly. If they don't know the answer, promise to find the answer and give the answer in public.
2. Accept public comment and ideas and solicit more of them.
3. Clean out the committees and commissions of those members who have a conflict of interest, are not qualified, or who are there to implement personal biases or the will of a few people in Oxford rather than the overall good. Encourage turn over in these groups instead of re-appointing the same people over and over, particularly when some of those people have imposed their will on their committee for years instead of following the rules, Charter, Code, etc. They take care of their friends and deny others. They need to go.
4. Hire an ethical, professional, competent town manager and then let that town manager hire ethical, professional, and competent staff for the town office.
5. Do a forensic audit.
Most of all, stop creating rumors of open meetings act violations when ONE commissioner meets with people to hear their ideas and do what GOOD commissioners SHOULD do.
Gray ends with an analogy, that there is a reason why windshields are larger than rear view mirrors. He implies we don't want to move forward. We do want to move forward. But, as any good driver knows, before one can start their car and move forward, they must make sure they clean their windshield of the dirt, mud and grime that blocks their vision. They need full transparency to see the way forward.
Oxford has to clear a lot of the "dirt" and "grime" of corruption and cronyism in our town before we move forward. Mr. Gray knows that. He just doesn't want others to realize that.
*Sometimes, for the sake of appearances, someone who is not a crony of the "powers that be" will be appointed to a commission. But, they will be so outnumbered their appointment won't matter.
