GO Item 1
November 30,2015
Worksession
MEMORANDUM
November 24,2015
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee
,
Amanda Mihill, Legislative
Attome){.~
Worksession: Bill}7-15, Boards, Committees, and Commissions - Advocacy
Bill 37-15, Boards, Committees, and Commissions - Advocacy, sponsored by Lead Sponsors
Council President Leventhal and Council members Berliner and Rice, was introduced on
September 15, 2015. A public hearing was held on October 6.
Bi1l37-15 would allow certain boards, committees, or commissions
(B/CICs)
to advocate at the
State and federal levels if the advocacy is approved by the Office of Intergovernmental Relations.
County law is not consistent and provides for varying levels of advocacy authority for
B/CICs,
ranging from very broad authority to no authority. Some
B/CICs,
including the Commission on
People with Disabilities, have indicated a desire to advocate at the State and federal levels, but
current law prevents them from doing so. Bill 37-15 specifically provides this authority for the
following
B/CICs:
I
• Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board
• Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Advisory Council
• Cable and Communications Advisory Committee
• Commission on Child Care
• Commission on Children and Youth Generally
• Commission on Health
• Commission on Human Rights
• Commission on People with Disabilities
• Committee for Ethnic Affairs
• Committee on HateNiolence
• Energy and Air Quality Advisory Committee
• Fire and Emergency Services Commission
• Mental Health Advisory Committee
• Noise Control Advisory Board
• Rustic Roads Advisory Committee
• Solid Waste Advisory Committee
• Victim Services Advisory Board
• Water Quality Advisory Group
list is not exhaustive ofall the
B/C/Cs
that will ultimately have this authority - many
B/C/Cs
have this authority
under current law (some have even broader authority) and are therefore not included in this list.
1
This
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
This topic was the focus of a July 2 Health and Human Services (HHS) Committee as it related to
B/C/Cs within the HHS Committee's jurisdiction. A copy of the staff memorandum from Senior
Legislative Analyst Linda McMillan, without attachments, is on ©9-13. A copy of the entire
packet, including attachments is available from Council staff or online at:
http://www.montgomerycountymd. gov/counci IIResources/Files/m!endalcm/20]
5/150702/201507
02 HHSl.pdf
Correspondence received. The Council has heard from several
B/C/Cs
that are supportive of Bill
37-15, including the Mental Health Advisory Committee, the Community Action Board, the
Commission on People with Disabilities, and the Energy and Air Quality Advisory Committee.
The Council also received letters from an individual member of the Commission on Health and an
individual member of the Water Quality Advisory Group supporting Bill 37-15. The Council has
not received input from any
B/C/Cs
that are opposed to Bill 37-15. (See written correspondence
beginning at ©21.)
Executive comments. The County Executive submitted the statement on ©28-29 opposing Bill
37-15 and stating his belief that Bill 37-15 is "unnecessary and potentially disruptive". The
Executive's comments state that:
• A few boards were granted authority to advise State and federal governments "many years
ago" as a requirement of federal mandates.
• Decisions to support or oppose legislation and other issues before the State and federal
governments on behalf of the County belongs with the Executive and Council. Using the
Office of Intergovernmental Relations as a coordinator of positions would place greater
stress on the Office during the time-sensitive legislative session.
• The Bill could lead to disjointed or conflicting County positions on legislative issues,
which would weaken the likelihood of success on legislative initiatives.
• Adding major advocacy roles for
B/C/Cs
would require additional County staff and will
require
B/C/Cs
to choose between providing local advice and conducting State and federal
advocacy.
Council staff offers the following comments and observations:
Council staff concurs with the Executive's statement that decisions to support or oppose legislation
and policy issues at the State level should rest with the Executive and Council. Nothing in Bill
37-15 would change the Executive and Council's role of determining legislative priorities or
policies. To ensure that
B/C/C
positions would not conflict with Executive or Council positions,
the language requires approval by the Office of Intergovernmental Relations. Council staff
acknowledges that this would add workload to the Office, assuming that the
B/C/Cs
take advantage
of the advocacy authority, but also assumes (as the Fiscal Impact Statement seems to also do), that
other Department staff (such as Environmental Protection and Health and Human Services) would
also shoulder some of the workload. Council staff also assumes that if a
B/C/C
wants to advocate
on an issue for which the Executive and Council have not taken a position on, the Office of
Intergovernmental Relations could simply reach out to the Executive and Councilmembers, as the
Office does on many issues during the legislative session, to determine if there is a conflict.
Council staffhas heard no evidence of this being problematic with the
B/C/Cs
that currently have
this language.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
There are several
B/C/Cs
that currently have advocacy authority to some degree. Council staffhas
no reason to question whether some of those
B/C/Cs
received this authority many years ago
because of federal mandates. Council staff does note, however, that in more recent memory, nearly
every
B/C/C
that has been established in the Code within the last decade (indeed, perhaps all
B/C/Cs
that have been established within the last decade) have routinely included the advocacy
language proposed in Bill 37-15. This includes the Domestic Violence Coordinating Council (est.
2005), the Forest Conservation Advisory Committee (est. 2006), the Commission on Veterans
Affairs (est. 2008), the Agriculture Advisory Committee (est. in law in 2009),2 and the Interagency
Commission on Homelessness (est. 2014). The Sustainability Working Group, established in 2008
and repealed in 2014, also had this authority.
Finally, Council staff notes that the Fiscal Impact Statement
14-18) states that while there would
be a cost associated with Bill 37-15, this cost would be absorbed by the Departments. And
Bill
37-15 would not require
B/C/Cs
to choose between providing local advice and conducting
advocacy;
B/C/Cs
could simply do both.
This packet contains:
Bil137-15
Legislative Request Report
McMillan memorandum
Fiscal and Economic Impact statement
Berliner letter
Written testimony/correspondence
Executive statement
Circle
#
1
8
9
14
19
21
28
F:\LA w\BILLS\1537 BeaGO
Memo.Docx
being established in law in 2009, the Agriculture Advisory Committee was established via Council resolution.
This resolution did not include the proposed advocacy language. In 2009, when the Committee was established in
law, this language was included in the enacted bill.
2
Before
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
37-15
Concerning: Boards, Committees, and
Commissions - Advocacy
Revised:
812512015
Draft No.
~
Introduced:
September 15, 2015
Expires:
March 15, 2017
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _---:-:_ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
~No>!!.n~e~
_ _ _ __
Ch. _ _• Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Lead Sponsor: Council President George Leventhal and Councilmembers Berliner and Rice
AN ACT
to:
(1) allow certain boards, committees, or commissions to advocate at the State and federal
levels if the advocacy is approved by the Office of Intergovernmental Relations; and
(2) generally amend County law regarding boards, committees, and commissions.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 2B, Agricultural Land Preservation
Section 2B-2
Chapter
SA,
Cable Communications
Section SA-30
Chapter lOA, Child Care
Section lOA-4
Chapter
ISA,
Environmental Sustainability
Section 1
SA-SA
Chapter 19, Erosion, Sediment Control and Stormwater Management
Section 19-49
Chapter 21, Fire and Rescue Services
Section 21-2
Chapter 24, Health and Sanitation
Sections 24-7,
24-S,
24-39, 24-40,24-44,24-60, and 24-60A
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
37-15
Chapter 27, Human Rights and Civil Liberties
Sections 27-5,27-48, 27-52A, 27-61, and 27-63
Chapter 31B. Noise Control
Section 31 B-4
Chapter 48, Solid Waste (Trash)
Sections and 48-42
Chapter 49, Streets and Roads
Section 49-80
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
([Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
f:\Iaw\bills\1537 bcc\bill2.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
37-15
1
Sec. 1. Sections 2B-2, 8A-30, 10A-4, 18A-8A, 19-49, 21-2, 24-27, 24-28,
24-39, 24-40, 24-44, 24-60, 24-6A, 27-5, 27-48, 27-52A, 27-61, 27-63, 31B-4,
48-41,48-42, and 49-80 are amended as follows:
2B-2. Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board.
2
3
4
5
6
7
*
*
*
Advocacy.
The Board must not engage in any advocacy activity at the
State or federal levels unless that activity is approved
J2y
the Office of
Intergovernmental Relations.
8
9
10
11
8A-30. Cable and Communications Advisory Committee.
(a)
Established.
The Cable and Communications Advisory Committee may
provide advice and recommendations to the County Executive, County
Council, and the Department of Technology Services on all
telecommunications issues, including the administration of this Chapter
and any franchise agreement or application. The Committee must not
engage in any advocacy activity at the State or federal levels unless that
activity is approved
J2y
the Office of Intergovernmental Relations.
>I<
>I<
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
*
*
10A-4. Commission on Child Care.
*
(i)
*
Advocacy.
The Commission must not engage in any advocacy activity
21
22
23
24
at the State or federal levels unless that activity is approved
J2y
the
Office of Intergovernmental Relations.
ill
(0)] (k)
*
*
*
*
*
>I<
25
18A-8A. Advocacy.
[Energy and Air Quality Advisory Committee]
f:\Iaw\bills\1537 bcc\bill 2.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 37-15
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
The Committee must not engage in any advocacy activity at the State or
federal levels unless that activity is approved
Qy
the Office of Intergovernmental
Relations.
19-49. Administration.
'"
(b)
'"
'"
The County Executive, subject to confirmation by the Council, must
appoint a Water Quality Advisory Group, composed of up to 3 non­
voting representatives of government agencies and 15 voting members.
The voting members should consist of up to 3 representatives each of
academic and scientific experts, environmental groups, the agricultural
community, and the business community, with the rest from the public
at large. The Group must recommend to the Executive and the Council
by March 1 each year water quality goals, objectives, policies, and
programs. Each member must be appointed for a 3-year term unless
appointed to fill the balance of an unexpired term. The Group each year
must select a chair and any other officer it finds necessary. The Group
must not engage in any advocacy activity at the State or federal levels
unless that activity is approved
Qy
the Office of Intergovernmental
Relations.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
21-2. Fire and Emergency Senrices Commission.
'"
(g)
'"
'"
47
48
49
50
Advocacy.
The Commission must not engage in any advocacy activity
at the State or federal levels unless that activity is approved
Qy
the
Office of Intergovernmental Relations.
24M27. Advocacy.
[Commission on Health]
f:\law\bills\1537 bcc\bill2.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 37-15
51
52
53
54
55
56
The Commission must not engage
in
any advocacy activity at the State or
federal levels unless that activity is approved .by the Office of Intergovernmental
Relations.
24-28. Staff support.
*
[24-28] 24-29-24-33. Reserved.
*
*
57
58
24-39. Advocacy.
[Mental Health Advisory Committee]
The Committee must not engage in any advocacy activity at the State or
federal levels unless that activity is approved .by the Office of Intergovernmental
Relations.
24-40. Staff support.
59
60
61
62
63
*
[24-40. Reserved.]
*
*
64
65
66
67
24-44. Advocacy.
[Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Advisory Council]
The Council must not engage in any advocacy activity at the State or federal
levels unless that activity is approved .by the Office of Intergovernmental Relations.
[24-44] 24-45-24-46. Reserved.
24-60. Advocacy.
[Victim Services Advisory Board]
The Board must not engage in any advocacy activity at the State or federal
levels unless that activity is approved.by the Office of Intergovernmental Relations.
24-60A. Staff support.
68
69
70
71
72
73
*
*
*
*
*
*
27-5. Duties generally.
[Commission on Human Rights]
Advocacy.
The Commission must not engage in any advocacy activity
74
75
76
at the State or federal levels unless that activity is approved .by the
Office of Intergovernmental Relations.
77
f:\law\bills\1537 bcc\biIl2.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
37-15
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
27-48. Commission on Children and Youth Generally.
(e)
Advocacy.
The Commission must not engage in any advocacy activity
at the State or federal levels unless that activity is approved
Office of Intergovernmental Relations.
ill:
the
ill
*
*
*
27-S2A. Advocacy.
[Commission on People with Disabilities]
The Commission must not engage in any advocacy activity at the State or
federal levels unless that activity is approved
Relations.
27-61. [Reserved] Advocacy.
[Committee for Ethnic Affairs]
85
86
87
88
89
90
ill:
the Office of Intergovernmental
The Committee must not engage in any advocacy activity at the State or
federal levels unless that activity is approved
Relations.
27-63. Committee on HateNiolence.
ill:
the Office of Intergovernmental
91
92
93
94
*
{g}
*
*
Advocacy.
The Commission must not engage in any advocacy activity
at the State or federal levels unless that activity is approved
Office of Intergovernmental Relations.
31B-4. Noise control advisory board.
ill:
the
95
96
97
98
99
100
*
*
*
ill
Advocacy.
The Commission must not engage in any advocacy activity
at the State or federal levels unless that activity is approved
Office of Intergovernmental Relations.
48-41. Advocacy.
[Solid Waste Advisory Committee]
ill:
the
101
102
103
104
The Committee must not engage in any advocacy activity at the State or
federal levels unless that activity is approved
Relations.
ill:
the Office of Intergovernmental
f:\law\bills\1537 bcc\bill2.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 37-15
105
106
107
108
109
110
48-42. Administrative and staff support.
...
...
...
[48-42. Reserved.]
49-80. Rustic Roads Advisory Committee.
...
...
...
111
112
113
114
(f)
Advocacy.
The Commission must not engage in any advocacy activity
at the State or federal levels unless that activity is approved
Qy
the
Office of Intergovernmental Relations.
...
...
...
115
Approved:
116
George Leventhal, President, County Council
117
Approved:
Date
118
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
119
This
is
a correct copy ofCouncil action.
Date
120
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
f:\law\bills\1537 bcc\bill2.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 37-15
Boards, Committees, and Commissions
-
Advocacy
DESCRIPTION:
Bill 37-15 would allow certain boards, committees, or commissions to
advocate at the State and federal levels if the advocacy is approved by
the Office of Intergovernmental Relations.
County law is not consistent and provides for varying levels of
advocacy authority for boards, committees, and commissions. Several
boards, committees, and commissions have indicated a desire to
advocate at the State and federal levels, but current law prevents them
from doing so.
To make County law more constituent regarding the advocacy
authority of boards, committees, and commissions.
Council and Executive staff; Chief Administrative Officer; Office of
Intergovernmental Relations
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
Amanda Mihill, Legislative Attorney, 240-777-7815
Not applicable.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
N/A
F:\LAW\BILLS\ 1537 BCc\LRR.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
HHS COMMITTEE #1
July 2, 2015
MEMORANDUM
July 1,2015
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Health and Human Services (HHS) Committee
Linda McMillan, Senior Legislative Analyst
~l\~
Advocacy by Boards, Committees, and Commissions in the Department of
Health and Human Services
Expectedfor this session:
Uma Ahluwalia, Director, Department of Health and Human Services
Melanie Wenger, Director, Office ofIntergovenunental Relations
Edward Lattner, Division Chief of Govenunent Operation, Office ofthe County Attorney
Dr. Seth Morgan. Chair. Commission on People with Disabilities
Susan Hartung. Commission on People with Disabilities and Chair of its Developmental
Disabilities Advisory Committee
On October 2, 2014 theHHS Committee met to receive an update on Resource
Coordination and to discuss the recommendations of the Developmental Disability Transition
Advisory Workgroup. While the major recommendations from the Workgroup were about the
County's role in providing resource coordination services
to
Developmentally Disabled adults
and transition aged youth; the Workgroup also recommended that the Montgomery County
Commission on People with Disabilities should be able to advocate within the County and at the
State and federal level.
The HHS Committee agreed that it would like to understand more about the authority of
all Boards, Committees, and Commission
in
the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS).
This
is a subset of all County Boards, Committees and Commissions.
At this session, the Committee will have an opportunity
to
review information on
different provisions in the laws creating 15 Boards, Committees, and Commissions that are
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
housed in DHHS. The Committee will hear from the Commission on People with Disabilities
about its specific request The Committee will be able to discuss with Ms. Ahluwalia,
Ms.
Wenger, and
Mr.
Lattner some ofthe broad issues around different levels ofauthority and the
need to coordinate with the Office oflntergovemmental Relations any advocacy that goes
beyond the Executive, Council, and DHHS.
Council staffhas infonned the Chairs of the 15 Boards, Committees, and Commissions
about this session, that this is an information and discussion session, and that they may follow-up
in writing if they have comments (this will allow the other Boards, Committees, or Commissions
to have an opportunity to discuss these issues
if
they wish.)
Overview Materials
Attached at
e
K-P is a summary table prepared by Council stafftha1 provides excerpts
from the authorizing laws for each Board, Committee, or Commission. The laws are
also
attached to this memo at
e
1-52.
In addition, attached at
e
A-D is a
2007
memo from County Attorney (then Deputy
County Attorney) Hansen regarding the authority ofBoards, Committees, and Commissions to
lobby, advise, and educate. Some points included in the memo:
• A committee must look to the document creating the committee to determine if the
committee's mission includes the authority to lobby, educate, or advise.
• "Lobbying means any attempt to influence any legislative, executive, or administrative
action by a County agency." (County public ethics law) Education is intended to develop
knowledge through a systemic study of a matter. Unlike lobbying, education contains no
specific intent
to
persuade a decision maker
to
undertake a certain course ofaction.
• A committee is lobbying ifit is engaged in an activity that is intended to influence a
decision maker
to
take a pre-determined course of action. A committee that is authorized
to advise or educate should stop short ofengaging
in
a campaign
to
pressure the decision
maker into undertaking a course ofaction
advocated
by the committee. The line between
advice and lobbying may be difficult
to
discern ... A committee
that
engages in an
advisory role should respect the right of a decision maker to arrive at a different
conclusion.
• As long as it is clear that a committee member is acting in their personal capacity, no
committee member is precluded from contacting
governm~nt
officials to urge action on a
.
matter ofpublic importance.
• Even committees
that
have been authorized to lobby the State and federal government
must coordinate
their
efforts through the Office of Intergovernmental Relations (OIR).
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
There Are Many Differences
in
the Laws Creating Boards, Committees, and Commissions
The HHS Committee will see that there are many differences in the authorizing language
for the DHHS Boards, Committees, and Commissions. Regarding membership. there are a range
ofsizes and rules about whether ex-officio members are voting or non-voting. There are
differences
in
the minimum number of meetings that must be held in a year, some 6, some 8, and
some 9. The Commission on Juvenile Justice specifies there must be one meeting held within 60
days of another.
(It
is a common practice for DHHS Board, Committees, and Commissions to
not meet in August or December.) There are some unique provisions such one for the
Community Action Agency that says it must not participate in partisan political activities or
sectarian activities. However. the Community Action Agency, unlike other boards, is a conduit
for funding for programming.
With regard to lobbying. advocacy. and education the differences can most often be seen
in the duties and with regard to whom the
Board,
Committee, or Commission distributes its
annual report.
For example:
• The Commission on Aging is to advise and counsel the resident of the County, County
Council, County Executive, and various department of the County, State. and federal
governments.
This
is perhaps the broadest authority.
• The Commission on Children and Youth is to advise the County Council, County
Executive, DEllIS, and the Board of Education.
• The Commission on Juvenile Justice is to advise the Circuit Court, the Council and the
Executive and infonn State legislators about juvenile needs.
• The Mental Health Advisory Committee cannot lobby or advocate beyond the Council
and Executive, but the law specifies that its annual report is to
be
disseminated to the
Secretary of the Department ofHealth
and
Mental Hygiene, the Mental Hygiene
Administration's Regional Director, and the Maryland Advisory Council on Mental
Hygiene.
In reality, there is often communication with
staff
from other County and State agencies
as most boards have representatives as a part oftheir membership. For example, the Commission
on Child Care has representatives from the Superintendent of Schools, Chainnan of the
Montgomery County Planning Board, and the President of Montgomery College. However, this
does not allow direct communication between the board and the elected officials ofthe outside
agencies or the members of the General Assembly.
Two of the most recent commissions, the Commission on Veterans Affairs (2008) and
Interagency Commission on Homelessness (2014) have very specific language saying they must
3
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
not engage in any advocacy activity at the state or federal levels unless
that
activity is approved
by OIR. This language is stricter than a requirement
to
coordinate with OIR.
Some boards serve dual purposes. The Commission on Children and Youth is Children's
Council required in Maryland Code. The Interagency Commission on Homelessness is the
ExecutivelPolicy Committee ofthe Continuum of Care, as required by federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development. The Citizen Review Panel implements State law regarding
local citizen review boards.
Request and Comments from Commission on People with Disabilities
Attached at
©
E-F are comments from Dr. Morgan and at
©
O-J from Ms. Hartung. Dr.
Morgan, is requesting the Commission's law be changed to allow advocacy at the State and
federal level because the issues facing the disabled are not limited
to
the County level and are
more and more a function ofState and federal programs, such as Medicaid. Dr. Morgan notes
the variety ofprovisions for different Boards, Committees. and Commissions. Ms. Hartung
notes that the resolution regarding Resource Coordination (now Coordination ofCommunity
Resources) was successful due
to
informal work with members from the Developmental
Disabilities Administration and that primary funding for this population is from the Community
Pathways Waiver. She also notes the need
to
address the State of Maryland's waiting list for
services.
Council staff respectfully disagrees with Dr. Morgan's comment that there seems to be a
pattern that those groups unable
to
self-advocate are represented by Boards, Committees. and
Commissions, that are not allowed
to
lobby on their own behalf. Council staff believes it is more
a function of when the group was created and the specific circumstances being discussed at the
time.
As
previously noted, two ofthe most recently created groups, the Commission on Veterans
Affairs and
the
Interagency Commission on Homelessness, have the same language (no
advocacy at State or federal level unless approved by OIR). Homeless people, particularly the
chronically homeless, are not a
group
that is generally successful at self-advocacy.
Questions to Consider
As
the HHS Committee considers the request from the Commission on People with
Disabilities or any other changes to authorizing law, it may want to consider the following.
• How does coordination with the Office of Intergovernmental Relations generally occur?
Is it different when there is a request to advocate at
the
State level and the federal level?
• What happens if a commission with the authority to advocate wants
to
testify with a
position or concern that is different
than
the position taken by the County?
• What
happens if a commission with authority to advocate wants to testify on legislation
where the County is taking no position?
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
• Ifa
commission does not have
the
authority to advocate
at
the State or federal level
and '
the County thinks there would be a benefit to having the Commission
testify.
is it allowed
to?
• Is
the most recent language that prohibits advocacy
at
the State or Federal level unless it
is approved by OIR a reasonable standard? Would this include being able to meet with
individual elected officials or their staff'?
• Many commissions also have duties
to
make recommendations on budget, policies, or
programs. This could be considered something stronger than advising. Could a
commission correspond with an elected official at the State or federal level to "explain"
its recommendation?
F:mcmillanlIDiS/DHHS BCC
Advocacy
Memo
5
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND
MEMORANDUM
October 5, 2015
TO:
George Leventhal, Presi ent, ounty Council
FROM:
'''tot<..
SUBJECT:
Jennifer A. Hughes, Di
Joseph F. Beach, Direct
r, ffice of Management and Budget
Department of Finance
/Ic!!:..""""'==­
FEIS for Bill 37-15. Boards. Committees, and Commissions - Advocacy
Please find attached the fiscal and economic impact statements for the above­
referenced legislation.
JAH:fz
cc: Bonnie Kirkland, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Lisa Austin, Offices of the County Executive
Joy Nunni, Special Assistant to the County Executive
Patrick Lacefield, Director, Public Infomlation Office
Joseph F. Beach, Director, Department of Finance
Uma Ahluwalia, Director, Department of Human Health Service
David Platt, Department of Finance
Pofen Salem, Office of Management and Budget
Alex Espinosa, Office of Management and Budget
Naeem Mia, Office of Management and Budget
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
·
Fiscallmpact Statement
CouDcil Bill 37-15, Boards, Committees, and Commissions Advocacy
1. Legislative
Summary.
Bill 37·15 would allow certain
boards,
committees. or commissions
(B/C/Cs)
to
advocate at the State
and federal levels ifthe advocacy is approved by the Office oflntergovemmental Relations (OIR).
2.
An
estimate ofchanges in County revenues and expenditw-es regardless of whether the revenues
or expenditures are assumed in the recommended or approved budget. fncludes source of
information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
Bill 37-15 would not result in changes to revenues or expenditures.
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next 6 fiscal years.
Not applicable.
4.
An
actuarial analysis through the entire amortization period for each bill that would affect retiree
pension or group insurance costs.
Not applicable.
5. An
~stimate
ofexpenditures related to County's infonnation technology (IT) systems, including.
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems.
Not applicable.
6. Later actions
that
may affect future revenue and expenditures ifthe bill authorizes future
spending.
Not applicable, Bill 37-15 does not authorize future spending.
7. An estimate ofthe staff time needed to implement the bill.
BiIl37~15
provides authority to 18
B/C/Cs
to advocate at the State and federal levels if approved
by the Office of Intergovernmental Relations (OIR). Actual staff time required ofOIR and
departments to assess and support advocacy requests may vary significantly from year to year
based on the number and complexity of issues that the
B/C/Cs
choose to advocate for in a given
fiscal year. State advocacy is expected to be the focus ofmost
B/C/C
requests.
In
OIR, the Director will spend time during the 90 day State legislative session and preceding
weeks detennining whether requested
B/C/C
advocacy is consistent with County priorities and
approving related documents. Though actual staff time is expected to vary significantly year to
year, OIR estimates the Director would spend 5 to 10 hours assessing and managing each
request. Assuming two advocacy requests or issues presented by each
B/C/C,
a workload impact
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
of 180 to 360 hours per year is likely to
be
expected. The estimated cost associated with the OIR
staff time is approximately between $20,000 and $40,000 per year.
B/C/Cs
in the areas of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department of EnvironmentaI
Protection (DEP) are expected to
be
more active, with departments oversight of the remaining
B/C/Cs
expecting no or limited impact on staff workload. HHS estimates that each of its' six
BlC/Cs
would generate two advocacy issues per year, each requiring 20 hours of staff research
and support or 240 hours total. Based on the average hourly rate of the staffperfonning this
work, HHS estimates a total cost per year of$12,480.
Personnel Costs ­ for Research and support to Boards, Committees and
Commissions
(B/C/c)
for advocacy Issues.
6
#of
B/CIC
# of Issues per year
2
# of hours per issue
20
Staff average hourly rate (S&F)
$52
Total estimate cost per year
$12,480
Assumptions ­
Staffing for the DH HS B/CIC ranges from Program Specialist II (Grade 21) through
Manager III (MLS M3)i for this estimate we used the average FY16 salary
&
fringe
for FT Program Manager lis
&
Program Manager Is in HHS.
Assumes 20 hours of research and support to prepare the boards for advocacy
testimony.
Assumes each of the 6 DHHS
S/C/C
listed in the Council Staff introduction memo
on 9/15/15 will advocate for 2 Issues per year with our State and or Federal
representatives.
Additional hours estimated to support advocacy 6*2"'20=240.
DEP anticipates similar costs related to hourly use of staff time based on the four
BIClCs
associated with the department. Like HHS, DEP anticipates a range ofgrade levels would
perform the work associated with supporting the
B/C/C
advocacy. The estimated cost
associated with the DEP staff time is approximately $8,320 (=4
BIClCs
x 2 issues x 20
hours/issue x $52lhourly rate). Additional workload created by bill 37-15 in OIR and other
departments would be absorbed within existing resources.
8.
An
explanation of how the addition ofnew staff responsibilities would affect other duties.
The additional workload created by Bill 37-15 would be absorbed within existing resources.
9. An estimate of costs when an additional appropriation is needed.
Not applicable.
10. A description ofany variable
that
could affect revenue and cost estimates.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The cost estimates are based on assumptions included in the table in #7 above and couJd vary
significantly based on the nwnber and complexity of issues that the
B/C/Cs
choose to advocate
for
at
the State andlor Federal level during the fiscal year.
11. Ranges of revenue or expenditures
that
are uncertain or difficult to project.
Due to uncertainty regarding the number or complexity ofadvocacy issues raised in a given year,
the
number of hours spent by department and OIR staff to assess
and
support advocacy requests
is expected to vary significantly from year to year.
12. Ifa bill is
likely
to have no fiscal impact,
why
that is the case.
Not applicable.
13. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
The fiscal impact is based on the assumptions depicted in #7. Ifthe volwne ofstaffworldoad
becomes significantly higher, the actual fiscal impact would
be
greater than the estimate.
14. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis:
Uma S. S Ahluwalia, Department of Health and Human Services
Patricia Stromberg, Department ofHealth and Human Services
. Patricia Brennan, Department. of
ij~th
and Human
SeIVic~s
Melanie Wenger, Office of Intergoverwnental Relations
Jeremy Criss, Department ofEconomic Development
Stan Edwards, Department of Environment Protection
Pofen Salem, Office of Management and Budget
Rachel Silbennan, Office of Management and Budget
Matt Schaeffer, Office of Management and Budget
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
EcoDomic Impact Statement
Bill 31-15, Boards, Committees, and Commissions - Advocacy
Background:
This
legislation would allow certain boards, committees, or commissions to advocate at
the State and federal levels if the advocacy is approved by the Office of
Intergovernmental Relations. Bill 37-15 amends County law to provide consistency and
eliminates varying levels of advocacy currently experienced by certain boards,
committees, or commissions. The legislation provides authority to eighteen
(I8)
boards,
committees, and commissions to advocate at State and federal levels.
1.
The sources of Information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
Not applicable
2.
A description of any variable that could affed the economic impact estimates.
Not applicable
,I
.J
:
3.
The
Bill's
positive or negative effect,
if
any on employment, spending, savings,
investment, incomes, and propertyvaJues in the County.
While Bill 37·15 may enable specific boards, cOmplittees, and commissions, the
authority to advocate at the State and federal levels,
it
would have no direct effect on
employment, private-sector spending, savings, investment, incomes, and property
values.
4.
If a
Bill
is
likely to have no economic impact, why
is
that the case?
See paragraph
3.
.'
5.
The following contributed to or concurred with this analysis: David Platt and Rob
Hagedoom, Finance.
I:·
Date
Page
1
of]
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL
ROCKVILLE.
MARYLAND
ROGER BERLINER
COUNCILMEMBER
DISTRICT
1
CHAIRMAN
TRANSPORTATION, INFRASTRUCTURE
ENERGY
&
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
September 30, 2015
Dear Montgomery County Board, Committee, and Commission Members,
I hope this note finds you doing well and rested after your summer. The County Council is
back from our summer recess and has begun our fall legislative session. As part of the agenda in the
coming weeks, we will be considering a bill that I recently introduced with my two colleagues on the
Health and Human Services (HHS) Committee, Council President George Leventhal and
Councilmember Craig Rice.
The premise of the bill (Bill 37-15) is straight-forward. Currently, county law is not consistent
with respect to the authority that each of our boards, committees, or commissions (BCCs) have to
advocate. Some BCCs have very broad authority to advocate, while others have no authority at
all.
This bill would permit certain BCCs that currently do not have the authority to advocate at the state
and federal levels to do so, if the advocacy is approved by the County's Office of Intergovernmental
Relations.
The impetus for this bill came from a discussion that the HHS Committee had earlier this
summer about the current advocacy status ofthe BCCs that fall under the oversight of the County's
Department of Health and Human Services. During the discussion, we learned that some of those
BCCs, including the Commission on People with Disabilities, indicated a desire to advocate at the
state and federal levels, but current law prevents them from doing so.
I believe that the status-quo is doing a disservice to those BCCs that do not currently have the
authority to advocate, but wish to do so. We must be able to tap into the energy and expertise of our
BCCs when advocacy at the state and federal level is necessary, but we must do so in a responsible
manner that coordinates with our county leadership. In my judgement, this bill strikes that proper
balance.
The public hearing for Bill 37-15 will be this coming Tuesday, October 6 at 1:30 pm at the
Council Office Building, 3
rd
Floor Hearing Room, 100 Maryland Avenue in Rockville. To sign up to
testify, you can do so online or call to 240-777-7803. If you cannot attend the public hearing, but
wish to submit comments, you can do so by emailing them to
Council.President@montgomerycountymd.gov. In addition, the Government Operations Committee
is scheduled to take up Bill 37-15 on November 5. If you wish to attend that committee session,
please feel free to do so.
STELLA B. WERNER OFFICE BUILDING • 100 MARYLAND AVENUE, 6
TH
FLOOR, ROCKVILLE, MARYlAND 20850
240-777-7828 OR 240-777-7900, TIY 240-777-7914, FAX
2 4 0 - 7 7 7 - 7 9 8 9 @ q "
WWW.MONTGOMERYCOUNTYMD.GOV
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
If you have any additional questions about the bill. please do not hesitate to reach out to me
directly. I look forward to hearing from you and thank you for everything you do on behalf of our
county.
Best regards.
Roger BerHner
Counci1member. District 1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Montgomery County Commission on People with Disabilities
Bill 37-15, Boards, Committees and Commissions - Advocacy
Dr. Seth Morgan, Chairman
On behalf of the entire membership of the Commission on People with Disabilities, I wish to
thank Council Members Leventhal, Berliner and Rice for the introduction of
Bill 37-15, Boards,
Committees and Commissions - Advocacy.
We are, needless to say, in strong support of this
bill which gives County commissions equitable authority.
Thanks to this bill, members of boards, committees and commissions will be able to support the
County Government's interests and initiatives at the State and Federal levels, as appropriate
land
or requested, with oversight and approval of the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to
advance the issues of interest to the County. The understanding that in unison we can be more
effective in advancing our common interests codifies the relationship we enjoy.
This collaborative approach reflects how more and more we are all faced with issues that
transcend the local level and must be addressed in the State and Federal arenas. This Bill
allows for that.
Thank you
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Montgomery County Department
of
Health and Human Services
Mental Health Advisory Committee (MHAC)
Dear Council President Leventhal, Councilmember Berliner, and Council member Rice,
The Mental Health Advisory Committee (MHAC) supports Bill 37·15.
We appreciate the issue of consistency regarding advocacy being raised by the Commission on
People with Disabilities. We would like to thank Council President Leventhal and Councilmembers
Berliner and Rice for co·sponsoring the bill.
In addition to creating equitable advocacy parameters among the Boards, Commissions, and
Committees (BCCs), the bill creates more opportunities for the BCCs to represent the interests of the
people for whom they advocate since funding for services is often driven by state or federal grants.
Although the purpose of the BCCs is to be an independent voice, approval of any activity by the
Office of Intergovernmental Relations is necessary and reasonable and ensures that the county will
be informed of all state and federal advocacy positions. This caveat may, in fact, encourage more
dialogue between the BCCs and the county if positions differ.
Thank you for looking further into the current laws governing the BCC's and creating a bill which
allows for consistency and expanded advocacy.
David Brophy, Chair
Mental Health Advisory Committee
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
COMMUNITY ACTION BOARD
October 12,2015
Montgomery County Council
Attn: Members of the Government Operations
&
Fiscal Policy Committee
Council Office Building
100 Maryland Avenue, 5th Floor
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Dear Committee Members:
On behalf of the Community Action Board, I am writing to express our support for Bill 3 7-15, Boards,
Committees, and Commissions Advocacy. This bill would allow 18 additional
B/C/Cs
to advocate
following approval by the Office of Intergovernmental Relations. Our Board believes that allowing these
groups to advocate will strengthen their voices and make them more effective representatives of the
community.
B/C/Cs
aim to give residents a stronger voice in local issues and Bill 37-15 will help to
achieve this goaL
The Community Action Board has depended on its ability to advocate in order to support policies that
help low-income residents become self-sufficient. This ability has allowed the Board to support critical
legislation on such important issues as increasing the minimum wage, funding for child care subsidies and
the Working Parents Income Supplement, and paid sick leave. The 18
B/C/Cs
impacted by this bill will
likewise be able to advocate for legislation impacting the residents and interests they have been charged
with representing.
Thank you for your commitment to giving residents the opportunity to be active and engaged in local
issues through participation in Boards, Committees, and Commissions. We ask that you support Bill 3 7­
15, which will strengthen the role
ofB/C/Cs
in the County and al10w for more community involvement in
issues impacting County residents.
Sincerely,
Community Action Board
Copied: County Councilmembers
Department of Health and Human Services • Office of Community Affairs • Community Action Agency
2424 Reedie Drive, 2nd Floor, Suite 238 • Wheaton, Maryland 20902
240-777-1697 (VoiceorviaMDRelay@711)· 240-777-3295 FAX
www.montgomerycountymd.govlhhs
montgomerycountymd. gOY
/311
'R31'J,
r,j{ti~ljiliti.i"',ili
301-251-4850 TIY
)/,,/
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Mihill, Amanda
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hansen, Warren
Tuesday, October 06, 2015 3:20 PM
Mihill, Amanda
FW: EAQAC support for the proposed Bill 37-15
From: Foroud Arsanjani [mailto:farsanjani@newr-energy.com]
Sent: Monday, October
OS, 2015 1:16
PM
To: Hansen, Warren <Warren.Hansen@montgomerycountymd.gov>
Cc: Vigen, Michelle <Michelle.Vigen@montgomerycountymd.gov>; Shaw, Lindsey (DEP)
<Undsey.Shaw@montgomerycountymd.gov>; Edwards, Stan <Stan.Edwards@montgomerycountymd.gov>;
boylemdoffice@comcast.net; Ch ristina. England@nrc.gov; dkathan@gmail.com; Ja mie.Pierce@chenega.com; 'Unda
Tsang' <tsang.linda@gmail.com>; 'Reuven Walder' <reuven@ecobeco.com>; 'Vaidyanathan, Kavita'
<Kavipatel77@gmail.com>; Berliner's Office, Couneilmember <Councilmember.Berliner@montgomerycountymd.gov>
Subject: EAQAC support for the proposed Bill
37-15
Dear Warren,
The Energy and Air Quality Advisory committee, supports Councilmember Berliner's proposed Bill 37-15. If we can be of
further assistance to move this bill forward please let me know.
Sincerely,
Foroud Arsanjani, Chair
Energy and Air Quality Advisory Committee
P: 301-941-18041 M: 301-92S-2888
F: 301-560-340sl W:
NEWR-Energy.com
THIS E-MAIL CONTAINS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, COPYRIGHTED. OR OTHER LEGALLY PROTECTED INFORMATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE
INTENDED RECIPrENT (EVEN IF THE E-MAIL ADDRESS ABOVE IS YOURS), YOU MAY NOT USE, COPY, OR RETRANSMIT IT. IF YOU HAVE
RECEIVED THIS EMAIL BY MISTAKE PLEASE NOTIFY US BY RETURN E-MAIL(info@.ne.WT-energv.com ) THEN DELETE THE ORIGINAL. THANK
YOU.
From:
Edwards, Stan [mailto:Stan.Edwards@montgomerycountymd.gov]
Sent: Friday, October
02, .2015 4:51
PM
To: 'Arsanjani, Foroud'; boylemdoffice@comcast.net; Christina.England@nrc.gov; dkathan@qmail.com;
Jamie.Pierce@chenega.com; Linda Tsang; Reuven Walder; 'Vaidyanathan, Kavita'
Cc: Vigen, Michelle; Shaw, Lindsey (DEP); Berliner's Office, Councilmember
Subject: FW:
Information on Public Hearing for Bill
37-15
Members of EAQAC,
Please see the attached memo from Councilmember Roger Berliner on proposed Bill 37-15.
Stan Edwards
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Email Viewer
HTML
From: "Daniel Russ" <danrussOO@netscape.net>
Date:
10/5/2015
10:27:07 PM
To: "county .council@montgomerycountymd.gov" <county .council@montgomerycountymd.gov>
Cc:
Subject: Bill 37-15
Dear Mr. Leventhal,
My name·is Daniel Russ. Although I am the current chair of the Montgomery County Commission on
Health (CO H), I am writing to you as a private citizen and not for the Commission as a whole. I
believe that Bill 37-15, allowing certain boards, committees, or commissions
(B/C/C)
to advocate at
the state or federal levels if approved by the Office of Intergovernmental Relations, is a fair and
rational compromise. The bill allows
B/C/Cs
greater flexibility to effect change, while allowing the
county to maintain a unified list of priorities at the state and federal leveL
When a
B/C/C
and the County agree that change is needed at a state level, currently legislation
prevents the
B/C/C
from lobbying state agencies. This limits the
B/C/C's
ability to support the needs
of the County. In our case, the COH provides advice to the County Council, County Executive, and
County Department of Health and Human Services. I don't see the COH using this new authority
often. In the rare cases that this authority is needed, it is a reasonable expectation that the COH would
be required to seek approval from the Office of Intergovernmental Relations. However, other
commissions may need to use this authority more often. My only concern is that the Office of
Intergovernmental Relations may become overburdened by the additional work involved in
addressing all the
B/C/C
approval requests to lobby state agencies. Even with this concern, I
recommend passage of Bill 37-15.
Thank you for you consideration,
Daniel Russ
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
October 30,2015
The Honorable Isiah Leggett
County Executive
101 Monroe
st.
Rockville, MD 20850
The Honorable George Leventhal
President, Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Ave, 5th Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
Dear Messrs. Leggett and Leventhal:
As a member (public-at-Iarge) of the Water Quality Advisory Group (WQAG), I strongly
support Councilman Berliner's Bill 37-15 which would permit boards, committees, or
commissions (BCCs) to advocate at the state and federal levels, if approved by the
County's Office of Intergovernmental Relations. The WQAG is one of the listed
committees in the proposed legislation. This letter represents my views only and does
not reflect the position of the WQAG.
The WQAG has been discussing its ability to comment and/or make recommendations to
organizations involved with water quality in the Chesapeake Bay region. The WQAG
has been informed by the County Executive's Office speaking for the County Attorney's
Office that it was not pennitted to comment or make any recommendations regarding
coordination of state and county water quality monitoring to any organization or
governmental office other than the County Executive and the County CounciL The
WQAG had hoped to send a letter to both the County and the Maryland Department of
the Environment. Based on the above interpretation, the letter was sent only to the
County Executive and County Council on January 4,2015.
The Montgomery County Water Quality Advisory Group (WQAG) was established
through Chapter 19, Article IV of the Water Quality Discharge Law. Our website states
that "The WQAG provides recommendations to the County Executive and the County
Council on water quality management goals and policies, program priorities, and
funding. WQAG also provides input primarily by transmitting letters and an annual
report. Recommendations may also be directed to other organizations in and around
the Chesapeake Bay region, or be requested in development of watershed plans
(emphasis added)." This statement has been on the website for years.
I support the bill that will enable BCCs, that do not currently have the authority to
advocate, to do so in a manner that coordinates with county leadership.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Sincerely,
Keith M. Brooks
Member, Public-at-Iarge
Water Quality Advisory Group
7338 Oskaloosa Drive
DenNood,MD 20855
(301)642-3108
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
-,,-,--:1
,.
-I
Statement on behalf of County Executive Isiah Leggett
Bill 37-15, Boards, Committees and COmmissions - Advocacy
Bill 37-15 would give County Boards, Committees and Commissions (BCCs) the authority to
advocate at the State and F,ederal levels if the advocacy is approved by the Office of
Intergovernmental Relations {lGR). The County Executive believes the legislation is unnecessary
and potentially disruptive.
Montgomery County's many advisory boards and commissions have a rich tradition of assisting
County agencies in developing local laws, policies and budgets that enhance our County. The
County Executive has served on one as a citizen and worked with many others since 1986, as a
Councilmember and as County Executive and has always valued their advice.
In creating most boards and commissions, the Council's intent was to seek the best thinking and
broadest representation of Montgomery County residents in the matters of County
government. The vast majority of BCes have been created to review Issues facing Montgomery
County and provide advice to the County Executive and/or the County Council.
A few boards and commissions have been granted authority to advise State and federal
governments as well as County government. They were granted that authority many years ago,
in most part, as a requirement of federal mandates for categorical funding, ego aging and
workforce programs. Bill 37-15 substantially expands the originally intended role of local BCCs
to include the vast arena of advice and advocacy at the' State and federal governments, perhaps
even including the agencies of each. It Is the County Executive's view this is an unwise addition
to the current function and workload of local BCCs.
Decisions to support_or oppose legislation and other iss\Jes before State and federal
government on behalf ofthe County should rest with the County Executive and the County
Council. The proposed law would grant the responsibility to approve the testimony or advice of
local boards and commissions to the IGR Director. In the County Executive's view, this would
substitute the IGR Director for the County Executive and Council in determining County
legislative strategy and, as a result, place the IGR Director in an untenable position. Even if the
intent of the
Bill
is to have the IGR Director coordinate pOSitions with the County Executive and
County Council, and not leave the IGR Director to make the decision, it will place greater stress
on an already stressed and very time-sensitive process involving a complexity of issues during
the State legislative session. Adding this function to the 90 day session would likely reduce the
­
effectiveness of the County's legislative strategy.
Bill 37-15 does not define advocacy. Most of the time people think advocacy revolves primarily
around legislation. Often it revolves around the distribution of resources and around budget
and often requires "behind the scenes" strategies for which there would be no control or
coordination.
The County Executive is also concerned that the Bill may lead to disjointed or conflicting County
pOSitions on legislative issues. Especially in Annapolis, the perception of a divided position often
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
leads to failure in the process. The County Executive and Council have made strides in recent
years to promote a single, credible and effective County position. This bill unnecessarily
Increases the risk of confusing the County's position on an issue not only with our own elected
officials, but with those representing other jurisdictions. A divided legislative agenda weakens
our likelihood of success in the General Assembly.
Finally, adding major advocacy roles for the BCes at the State and federal levels will require
additional County staff and will require the BCes to choose between providing local advice and
conducting State and federal advocacy. There are other opportunities available to BCes and
their members to advocate for issues. There are many existing advocacy organizations whose
missions are to advocate at the State and federal levels. The BCCs may collaborate with these
other advocacy organizations, and, of course, members may advocate as individuals.
The County Executive offers these recommendations in the spirit of good local government,
maintaining the excellence we have in local advisory bodies, and in order to promote an
effective legislative agenda at the State and federal levels.