GO Item 4
April 14, 2016
Worksession 2
MEMORANDUM
April 12, 2016
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee
Amanda Mihill, Legislative
Attomey(*,,~
Worksession 2: Bill 37-15, Boards, Cornmittees, and Commissions - Advocacy
Bill 37-15, Boards, Committees, and Commissions - Advocacy, sponsored by Lead Sponsors
Council President Leventhal and Counci1members Berliner and Rice, was introduced on
September 15,2015. A public hearing was held on October 6 and a Government Operations and
Fiscal Policy Committee worksession was held on November 30, 2015.
Bill 37-15 would allow certain boards, committees, or commissions
(B/C/Cs)
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/C/Cs,
ranging from very broad authority to no authority. Some
B/C/Cs,
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/C/Cs:
1
• 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
This list is not exhaustive of all 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
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Water Quality Advisory Group
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. !!ov/council/Resources/Files/agendalcm/20
151150702/20 1507
02 HHSl.pdf
Public Testimony
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.)
OIR Guidelines
At the Committee worksession on November 30, the Committee discussed with Executive staff
and the Director of the Office of Intergovernmental Relations the Executive's concerns regarding
Bill 37-15. (The Executive's comments are on ©28 and the November 30 Council staff packet
cover memorandum summarizing the comments and providing staff observations is on ©30-32).
At the worksession, the Committee asked Executive staff to provide the Committee with a process
and/or guidelines for how the Office of Intergovernmental Relations would handle requests from
B/C/Cs
that wish to advocate on the State or federal level. OIR submitted a
draft
process, which is
attached on ©33-36.
Committee members should note that notwithstanding these proposed
guidelines, enacting legislation is still required in order to provide these
B/C/Cs
with the
ability to advocate at the State and/or
federal level.
If legislation is not enacted, these
B/C/Cs
will continue to be prohibited from advocating at the State and/or federal level.
This packet contains:
Bill 37-15
Legislative Request Report
McMillan memorandum
Fiscal and Economic Impact statement
Berliner letter
Written testimony/correspondence
Executive statement
Council staff November 30 worksession cover memorandum
o
IR proposed process
F:\LAW\BILLS\1537 Bcaoo
Memo 2.Docx
Circle
#
1
8
9
14
19
21
28
30
33
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
37-15
Concerning: Boards, Committees, and
Commissions - Advocacy
Revised:
8125/2015
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 ofIntergovernmental 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 8A, Cable Communications
Section 8A-30
Chapter lOA, Child Care
Section lOA-4
Chapter 18A, Environmental Sustainability
Section 18A-8A
Chapter 19, Erosion, Sediment Control and Stonnwater Management
Section 19-49
Chapter 21, Fire and Rescue Services
Section 21-2
Chapter 24, Health and Sanitation
Sections 24-7, 24-8, 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 31B-4
Chapter 48, Solid Waste (frash)
Sections and 48-42
Chapter 49, Streets and Roads
Section 49-80
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double undedining
[[Double boldface bracketsD
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Addedto 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:lJaw\bills\1537 bcc\biIl2.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
*
*
*
Advocacy.
The Board must not engage in any advocacy activity at the
7
8
9
State or federal levels unless that activity is approved
Qy
the Office of
Intergovernmental Relations.
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
Qy
the Office of Intergovernmental Relations.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
*
10A-4. Commission on Child Care.
*
*
18
19
*
(i)
*
*
20
21
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.
22
23
24
ill
(0)]00
*
*
*
*
*
*
25
18A-8A. Advocacy.
[Energy and Air Quality Advisory Committee]
f:\law\bills\1537 bcc\biIl2.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 37-15
26
27
28
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.
19-49. Administration.
...
...
29
30
...
31
32
33
(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 fmds necessary. The Group
must not engage in any advocacy activity at the State or federal levels
unless that activity is approved
by
the Office of Intergovernmental
Relations.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
21-2. Fire and Emergency Services Commission.
...
...
...
(g)
Advocacy.
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.
48
49
50
24-27. Advocacy.
{Commission on Health]
f:\law\bills\1537 bcc\biI12.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 37-15
51
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.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
*
[24-28] 24-29-24-33. Reserved.
*
*
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.
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
*
[24-40. Reserved.]
*
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 ofIntergovernmental Relations.
[24-44] 24-45-24-46. Reserved.
24-60. Advocacy.
[Victim Services Advisory Board]
67
68
69
70
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.
71
72
*
*
*
*
*
73
27-5. Duties generally.
[Commission on Human Rights]
74
75
*
Advocacy.
The Commission must not engage
in
any advocacy activity
at the State or federal levels unless that activity is approved
Office ofIntergovernmental Relations.
76
77
2Y
the
f:\Iaw\bills\1537 bcc\bill2.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 37-15
78
79
27-48. Commission on Children and Youth Generally.
(e)
Advocacy.
The Commission must not engage
in
any advocacy activity
80
81
82
83
at the State or federal levels unless that activity is approved by the
Office of Intergovernmental Relations.
*
*
*
27-52A. Advocacy.
[Commission on People with Disabilities]
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
The Commission must not engage
in
any advocacy activity at the State or
federal levels unless that activity is approved
!2y
the Office of Intergovernmental
Relations.
27-61. [Reserved] Advocacy.
[Committeefor Ethnic Affairs]
The Committee must not engage
in
any advocacy activity at the State or
federal levels unless that activity is approved
!2y
the Office of Intergovernmental
Relations.
27-63. Committee on HateNiolence.
*
(g)
*
*
Advocacy.
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.
31B-4. Noise control advisory board.
*
*
*
ill
Advocacy.
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.
48-41. Advocacy.
[Solid Waste Advisory Committee]
100
101
102
103
104
The Committee must not engage
in
any advocacy activity at the State or
federal levels unless that activity is approved
!2y
the Office of Intergovernmental
Relations.
f:\Iaw\bills\1537 bcc\bill 2.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 37-15
105
106
107
108
48-42. Administrative and staff support.
*
[48-42. Reserved.]
49-80. Rustic Roads Advisory Committee.
*
*
109
110
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
J2y
the
Office of Intergovernmental Relations.
(g)
Approved:
*
*
*
115
116
George Leventhal, President, County Council
117
118
Date
Approved:
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
119
120
Date
This is a correct copy o/Council action.
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk ofthe Council
Date
f:\Iawlbills\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:
NI
A
F:\LAW\BIL.LS\1537 BCC\L.RR.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
IffiS COMMITIEE #1
July 2, 2015
MEMORANDUM
July 1,2015
TO:
FROM:
Health and Human Services (HHS) Committee
Linda McMillan. Senior Legislative Analyst
~i\kJ/
SUBJECT: 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 of Intergovernmental Relations
Edward Lattner, Division Chief of Government Operation, Office of the 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 tbeHHS 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 ofHealth 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 oftbe broad issues around different levels of authority and the
need to coordinate with the Office of Intergovernmental Relations any advocacy that goes
beyond the Executive, Council, and DHHS.
Council staffhas informed the Chairs of the 15 Boards, Committees, and Commissions
about this session, that this is an infonnation 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
©
K-P is a summary table prepared by Council staff that provides excerpts
from the authorizing laws for each Board, Committee, or Commission. The laws are also
attached to this memo
at ©
1-52.
In addition, attached
at
©
A-D is a 2007 memo from County Attorney (then Deputy
County Attorney) Hansen regarding
the
authority of Boards, 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-detennined 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 of action 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 ofa 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 government 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
of sizes
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
ofanother. (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 cotmSel the resident ofthe 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, DHHS, and the Board ofEducation.
• The Commission on Juvenile Justice is to advise the Circuit Court, the Council and
the
Executive and inform 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 of Health 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 of their membership. For example, the Commission
on Child Care
has
representatives from
the
Superintendent of Schools, Chairman 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 of the 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 pUIpOses. 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
C
E-F are comments from Dr. Morgan and at
C G-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 of State and federal programs, such
as
Medicaid.
Dr.
Morgan notes
the variety of provisions 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 ofMaryland'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
aIR).
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
• If
a 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:mcmiIlanJHHSlDHHS
ocx::
Advocacy
Memo
5
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
.
ro"
1/
·,{
ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND
MEMORANDUM
October 5, 2015
TO:
FROM:
.-to"
Jennifer
A.
Hughes, Di
Joseph F. Beach, Direct
r, ffice of Management and Budget
Department of Finance
/'t:-
""l......:-­
SUBJECT:
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 Nurmi, Special Assistant to the County Executive
Patrick Lacefield. Director, Public Information Office
Joseph F. Beach, Director, Department of Finance
Vma 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
C)
:::L:
L::;
I~""
~
",'3
""")0fT!
Ci:::o
,,,3:0
: fT1
fT!
:::::;0_
·7
-t
»
I
~:;...
2-«
- (") fT!
00
c::;
-
::z:
-<
\-9
.::::
0..
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
Council 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 if the advocacy is approved by the
Office
ofIntergovemmental Relations
(OIR).
2. An estimate of changes in County revenues and expenditures regardless of whether the revenues
or expenditures are assumed in the recommended or approved budget. Includes 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 t!stimate of expenditures related to County's information technology (IT) systems, including.
Entelprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems.
Not applicable.
6. Later actions that may affect future revenue and expenditures ifthe bH1 authorizes future
spending.
Not applicable, Bill 37-15 does not authorize future spending.
7.
An
estimate ofthe staff time needed to implement the bill.
Bill 37-15 provides authority to 18
B/C/Cs
to advocate at the State and federal levels if approved
by the Office of Intergovemmental 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
BICIC
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 Environmental
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. IllIS estimates that each of its' six
B/C/Cs
would generate two advocacy issues per year, each requiring 20 hours ofstaff 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
#of8/C/C
2
#
of Issues per year
20
#
of hours per issue
$52
Staff average hourly rate (S&F)
Total estimate cost per year
$12,480
Assumptions ­
Staffing for the DHHS B/C/C ranges from Program SpeCialist II {Grade 21} through
Manager
11\
(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 IllIS, DEP anticipates a range of grade levels would
perform the work associated with supporting the
BICIC
advocacy. The estimated cost
associated with the DEP staff time
is
approximately $8,320 (=4
BIClCs
x 2 issues x 20
hours/issue x $52/hourly 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 of new 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 of any 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 could vary
significantly based on the number and complexity ofissues that the
BIClCs
choose to advocate
for
at
the State and/or 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 of advocacy 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. If a 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.
If
the volume of staffworkload
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 ofHea1th and Human Services
. Patricia Brennan, Department. of
lI~th
and Human Services
. Melanie Wenger, Office oflntergoveromental Relations·· "
Jeremy Criss,
De~ent
ofEconomic Development
Stan Edwards, Department of Environment Protection
Pofen Salem, Office of Management and Budget
Rachel Silberman, Office of Management and Budget
Matt Schaeffer, Office of Management and Budget
/OI51rS­
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Bill 37-15, 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 ofadvocacy currently experienced by certain boards,
committees,
or
commissions. The legislation provides authority to eighteen
(18)
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 affect
~he
economic impact estimates.
Not applicable
.1
./'
3. The BiU's positive or negative effect,
if
any on employment, spending, savings,
investment, incomes, and property values
in
the County.
While Bill 37-15 may enable specific boards.
co~ittees.
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 ofl
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL
ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND
ROGER BERLINER
COUNCILMEMBER
DISTRICT I
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 ofthe 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 ofIntergovernmental
Relations.
The impetus for this bill came from a discussion that the HHS Committee had earlier this
summer about the current advocacy status of the BCCs that fall under the oversight ofthe 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
OFACE
BUILDING'
100
MARYLAND AVENUE,
6
TH
FLOOR, ROCKVILLE, MARYlAND
20850
240-777-7828
OR
240-777-7900, TTY 240-777-7914,
FAX
240-777-7989
WWW.MONTGOMERYCOUN1l.MD.GOV
V'
1~lq
 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 Berliner
Council member, 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 Councilmember 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 (BeCs). 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 BCes and the county if positions differ.
Thank you for looking further into the current laws governing the Bee'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 ofthe 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 37-15, Boards,
Committees, and Commissions - Advocacy. This bill would allow 18 additional
B/CICs
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/CICs
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/CICs
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 37­
15, which will strengthen the role
ofB/CICs
iri
the County and allow for more community involvement in
issues impacting County residents.
.
Sincerely,
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 (Voice or via MD Relay@ 711) • 240-777-3295 FAX
www.montgomerycountymd.govlhhs
montgomerycountymd.gov/311
R31'1/.
i.
....B"..
;!!,'........
301-251-4850
TTY
"
 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
05,2015 1:16
PM
To: Hansen, Warren <Warren.Hansen@montgomerycountymd.gov>
Cc: Vigen, Michelle <Michelle.Vigen@montgomerycountymd.gov>; Shaw, Lindsey (DEP)
<Lindsey.Shaw@montgomerycountymd.gov>; Edwards, Stan <Stan.Edwards@montgomerycountymd.gov>;
boylemdoffice@comcast.net; Christina.England@nrc.gov; dkathan@gmaiLcom; Jamie.Pierce@chenega.com; 'linda
Tsang' <tsang.linda@gmail.com>; 'Reuven Walder' <reuven@ecobeco.com>; 'Vaidyanathan, Kavita'
<Kavipatel77 @gmaiLcom>; Berliner's Office, Councilmember <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: 301-928-2888
F: 301-560-3408IW:
NEWR-Energy.com
THIS E-MAIL CONTAINS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, COPYRIGHTED, OR OTHER LEGALLY PROTECTED INFORMATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE
INTENDED RECIPIENT (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 NOTlFY US BY RETURN E-MAIL(info@ne\\eT-energy.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.Enqland@nrc.gov; dkathan@gmail.com;
Jamie.Pierce@chenega.com; Unda Tsang; Reuven Walder; 'Vaidyanathan, Kavita'
Cc: Vigen, Michelle; Shaw, Undsey (DEP); Berliner's
Office,
Councilmember
Subject: FW: Information on Public Hearing for Bill
37-15
Members of EAOAC,
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
I
Message
'l
Detai!~.J
L
A~tachmen~ ~,~de'!J
L
Source
I
'--""""'-"-'-'~ r'---'~-'-'
, ''''''''''''---''-1---'-''''''''-'''''--''-''-
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
ofthe 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 oflntergovemmental 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 ofBi1l37-l5.
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 pennit 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 ofthe Water Quality Discharge Law. Our website states
that "The WQAG provides recOlmnendations 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
Derwood,~
20855
(301) 642-3108
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
'_"C_,_I
,-:
--I
,..
~
Statement on behalf
of
County Executive Islah 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,ederallevels ifthe 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 BCes.
Decisions to support,or oppose legislation and other issues before State and federal
government on behalf of the 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 IG RDirector 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 Bees 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 BCes 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.
I
,
i,
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
GO Item 1
November 30, 2015
Worksession
MEMORANDUM
November 24,2015
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee
Amanda Mihill, Legislative Attorney
Worksession:
Bill 37-15, Boards, Committees, and Commissions - Advocacy
Bill 37-15, Boards, Committees, and Commissions - Advocacy, sponsored by Lead Sponsors
Council President Leventhal and Councilmembers Berliner and Rice, was introduced on
September 15,2015. A public hearing was held on October 6.
Bill 37-15 would allow certain boards, committees, or commissions
(B/C/Cs)
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/C/Cs,
ranging from very broad authority to no authority. Some
B/C/Cs,
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/C/Cs:
1
• 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 of all the
BIClCs
that will ultimately have this authority - many
BIClCs
have this authority
under current law (some have even broader authority) and are therefore not included in this list.
1
This
tJO"
\.::.V
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
This topic was the focus ofa July 2 Health and Human Services (HHS) Committee as it related to
B/C/Cs within the HHS Committee'sjurisdiction. 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/council/ResourcesiFiles/agendaicm/20 151150702/20 1507
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 ofthe 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 ©2 L)
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 staffconcurs 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 staff has 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 offederal 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 staffnotes 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:
Bill 37-15
Legislative Request Report
McMillan memorandum
Fiscal and Economic Impact statement
Berliner letter
Written testimony/correspondence
Executive statement
Circ1e#
1
8
9
14
19
21
28
F:\LAW\BILLS\1537 BeaGO
Memo.Docx
Before 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
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Process for
C~:msidering
Requests of Boards and Commissions
If Authorized
to
Advocate at the State and Federal Levels
as Proposed Under Bill 37-15­
Boards, Committees and Commissions
-
Advocacy
The following draft process is based on the understanding that:
1.
Newly apPointed boards and commissions members are informed verbally
and/or in writing about their rights as individuals and authority as
board/commission members to advocate on behalf of their
board/commission at the State and/or Federal levels; and, if appropriate,
the process for gaining approval as a board/commission member of any
relevant requests to advocate on behalf of their board/commission; and
Staff to boards and commissions receive the same information so they
may help facilitate the work of the board/commission, including requests
for a board/commission member(s) to advocate on behalf of the
board/commission at the State and/or Federal levels.
2.
Before OIR considers a request, it will confirm that the following steps have been taken:
1.
That the board/commission decision to request the authority to advocate
on an issue at the State and/or Federal level reflects the position of the
majority of the board/commission membership and is memorialized in the
minutes of the board/commission;
That the County agency that the board/commission is affiliated with
(assuming there is one) is aware that a request is going to be made; and
That if the board/commission in its charter is charged with advising the
County Executive and/or County Council, the chair of the
board/commission or staff on behalf of the chair advised the County
Executive/County Council of the board's/commission's desire to advocate
on an issue, what the issue is, what the board's/commission's position on
that issue is, and why - and that advisory correspondence is carbon
copied to the Office of Intergovernmental Relations (OIR) and the agency
with which the board/commission is affiliated.
2.
3.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Consideration of Requests:
1.
Not deemed by OIR to be controversial:
A.
If the request pertains to pending State or Federal legislation, is
OIR taking a position on behalf of the County?
i.
If yes:
Is the board's/commission's position consistent with
the County's?
- If yes, approve.
-If no, deny.
ii.
If no:
Review why the County is not taking a position.
If after that review the County decides to take a
position, follow the steps above.
If after that review the County still decides not to take
a position, determine whether recommending
approval furthers another goal or objective of the
County's.
-If yes, approve.
- If no, deny.
B.
If the request does not pertain to pending State or Federal
Legislation, is the request consistent with a County priority or goal?
i.
If yes:
Would the additional perspective complement the
County's efforts to advance the priority or goal?
- If yes, approve.
- If no, deny.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ii.
If no:
Is there another objective that would be advanced by
allowing the board/commission to engage in
advocacy?
- If yes, approve.
- If no, deny_
*Notification of decision for requests not deemed to be controversial: OIR will notify the
appropriate agency, the County Executive or designee and/or County Council President
or designee of its recommendation (depending on who the board/commission is
advisory to if applicable) at the same time it notifies the board/commission.
2.
Deemed by OIR to be controversial:
OIR will follow the steps for considering both types of requests outlined
above; however, it will consult with the appropriate agency, the County
Executive or designee and/or County Council president or designee
(depending on who the board/commission is advisory to if applicable)
before finalizing a recommendation.
*Notification of decision for a request deemed to be controversial: OIR will notify the
appropriate agency, the County Executive or designee and/or County Council President
or designee of its recommendation (depending on who the board/commission is
advisory to if applicable) before it notifies the board/commission.
If the request is approved, OIR will ask the following of the board/commission:
1.
In the event of a public hearing, that the board/commission provide OIR 24
hours in advance its written comments or verbal remarks it plans to place
on the public record
That the member(s) of the board/commission make clear that the
member(s) are not representing the County, but, instead, the respective
board/commission, which was created by Montgomery County local law.
2.
If the request is approved, OIR will do the following for the board/commission:
1.
Copy and distribute the board's/commission's written comments to the
appropriate committee, commission, task force, etc.
Sign up the speaker(s) for the board/commission ifthey intend to provide
verbal testimony.
2.
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
3.
If possible, attend the hearing with the board/commission member/so
Montgomery County Office of Intergovernmental Relations
4/12/2016
4