Duncan strikes a deal after snuffing out the light

The recent County Council 8-1 vote on a smoking ban in Montgomery County restaurants left a bittersweet taste lingering among substance abuse prevention advocates.

The strong, veto-proof vote, which goes into effect October 9, was a strong victory for public health advocates and county taxpayers and includes Councilmembers Phil Andrews and Tom Perez’s successful move to stop a 2-year delay of the law. The poetic irony and injustice, however, was dealt out by County Executive Doug Duncan, who eliminated the budget of the group that laid the groundwork for the law.

The Montgomery County Community Partnership was created by former County Executive Neal Potter back in 1990 to address the issue of substance abuse. Since 1995, it has received a yearly grant of $174,000 from the county to act as a clearinghouse and offer technical assistance, referrals, and other guidance on substance abuse and smoking issues.

The Partnership employed two creative activists committed to their work and purpose. And that was probably their undoing. Doug Tipperman had been the Executive Director of the Partnership, and Larry Couch has been coordinator of the Smoke-Free Montgomery County Coalition. Plus the group attracted dozens of tobacco-control advocates, such as the recently deceased Alice Helm, a non-smoker who died of lung cancer, apparently from the effects of second-hand smoke.

By eliminating the funding for the group, Duncan was just "taking his vengeance," remarked one county insider. It’s generally perceived that the County Executive can’t tolerate the presence of employees or community volunteers who would openly challenge him before the public.

"Nobody says ‘boo!’ without his approval," remarked another experienced observer, when commenting on Duncan’s county employees.

Although this sort of behavior is not unusual among rising and aspiring insecure politicians, the inevitable outcome is a bureaucracy laden with uncreative and unimaginative yes-men (and women). Voters need to keep this in mind when Duncan makes his run for governor or comptroller.

Other interesting examples of Duncan’s vindictiveness are his behavior towards Gene Counihan and Doug Gansler. Counihan, the former Chair of the Board of Olney Theatre and very much a political player as the President of Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce, and Gansler, Montomery County State’s Attorney, both failed to support Duncan in his re-election bid. As a result, Duncan sought to cut funding for the State’s Attorney’s Office, and the Olney Theatre lost its county funds. (And this came in 2001 at a time when the county was increasing its funding for the arts!)

In the case of the Partnership, Executive Director Tipperman recalls that in the fall of 2001, he was summoned to the office of Lynn Frank, a section chief of the Montgomery County Health Department, and reminded that the Partnership was dependent on county funds and they were targeting "very sensitive issues."

Next thing they knew, the Partnership’s county contract, which had been funded since 1995, was eliminated from the budget. Despite their best efforts, with no funds from the county, the Partnership may be forced to go out of existence during the coming year.

So, what was the problem? Part of it concerned the presence of Duncan critics, such as Alice Helm. Another is that, next to developer money, the restaurant lobby is a significant contributor to Duncan’s campaigns, and he’ll look to them for funding for his run for governor.

Back in 1999, when the County Council passed its initial smoke-free restaurant law, it had to constitute itself as the "Board of Health" to avoid a veto from Duncan, who needed to protect his restaurant owners’ interests. The restaurant owners sued, and when it reached the Maryland Court of Appeals, they ruled that the County Council acted improperly by voting as a Board of Health without Duncan’s participation.

When the county passed its recent initiative, Duncan signed the legislation, thus reversing his earlier position. Officially, he said he did so because other jurisdictions have successfully passed similar smoke-free laws. Unofficially, it was thought that the veto-proof 8-1 council vote, along with voter approval of smoke-free restaurant legislation, made him rethink his earlier position.

But his rethinking was done at great cost to Montgomery County taxpayers. The cost was the elimination of employees who were really just doing their job effectively. Kari Appler, State Director of the Smoke-Free Maryland Coalition, described the Partnership in this way: "[it] was the model of an effective campaign. They did everything right–mobilized the grassroots, worked with the County Council, got citizens to write letters, and in general raised community consciousness. But if you are doing your job right, you’ll piss some people off. The point is not to get along with everyone, but to be effective."

In the case of the Partnership, its effectiveness collided with the interests of an ambitious politician who needs to keep his contributors happy and campaign coffers full.