Riemer (MoCo) charged taxpayers for private meetings with donors

[Anonymous]

It's too bad there's so little coverage of the local officials by the Washington Post and other news media...even County Councils can do a lot of damage when their members are "influenced" by local businesses/developers.

http://www.rockvillenights.com/2018/11/riemer-charged-taxpayers-for-private.html?m=1
Montgomery County Council President Hans Riemer has met privately with developers who donated to his Council campaigns, and charged taxpayers for his travel costs to those private meetings, according to Montgomery County Council reimbursement records. Riemer also did not disclose these private, ex parte communications at the next Council meeting, as he is required to do. Like all Council members, Riemer sits as a land-use commissioner when the Council votes on land-use and zoning issues as the "District Council."

It's no secret Hans Riemer is cozy with developers, as his voting record and campaign finance reports clearly show. But even an ethically-corrupt politician like Riemer cannot be allowed to charge taxpayers for private meetings with his campaign donors, nor to violate ex parte communications rules. Private meetings with donors can only be paid for with political campaign funds, not taxpayer funds.

[Anonymous]

I hope anyone still considering voting for him funds someone else to vote for.

[Anonymous]

I dislike Riemer as much or more than the next guy but this seems overblown.

It’s not at all surprising to me that Rimer meets with developers. I would expect he would meet with them, and with neighborhood associations and lots of other people as part of his job. And if he can meet with them I expect he can put in for mileage to go to the meetings.

The ex parte thing also sounds fishy. In general ex parte rules won’t apply to meetings council members have on community issues. Dyer seems to think that because the council meets sometimes as a land use district council that triggers ex parte obligations but I don’t know of thats true. Probably depends at best on what they discussed.

The Blairites are trying their hardest though on this board

[Anonymous]

Riemer voter here, I don't care. He still has my vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Riemer voter here, I don't care. He still has my vote.

His negative campaign and his poor treatment of MCPD is all I need to know about his poor character. People who approve of him aren’t going to change their minds. They’ve seen who he is and they’re okay with it. The PP is a good example of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I dislike Riemer as much or more than the next guy but this seems overblown.

It’s not at all surprising to me that Rimer meets with developers. I would expect he would meet with them, and with neighborhood associations and lots of other people as part of his job. And if he can meet with them I expect he can put in for mileage to go to the meetings.

The ex parte thing also sounds fishy. In general ex parte rules won’t apply to meetings council members have on community issues. Dyer seems to think that because the council meets sometimes as a land use district council that triggers ex parte obligations but I don’t know of thats true. Probably depends at best on what they discussed.

The Blairites are trying their hardest though on this board

It absolutely is not overblown. He failed basic ethics obligations, which is deeply concerning when it comes to land use decisions and developers. He needs to respond and explain himself.

First we had the unethical behavior of Planning Board Chair Casey Anderson and now his buddy Hans Riemer also cannot seem to interact with developers ethically. This is extremely concerning.

Just because someone thinks they are doing things for the right reasons does not absolve them of their ethical obligations. That should be obvious to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Riemer is not the massive meanie some of you want to portray him as. He's the best candidate for this job IMO and no, I'm not just saying that because I'm friendly with his wife.

[Anonymous]

Am I the only one noticing that the donations occurred after the meetings? Calling a meeting with someone who donated money over a year later a "meeting with a donor" doesn't feel honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Riemer is not the massive meanie some of you want to portray him as. He's the best candidate for this job IMO and no, I'm not just saying that because I'm friendly with his wife.

Who’s portraying him as a “meanie”? Nice strawman.

Everyone knows what he is, which is a massive liar and incompetent buffoon with a massively inflated ego. It would not surprise me if he personally believed that rules do not apply to him because he is personally above reproach, because that is exactly how he behaves.

When you work in government, there is no such thing as doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one noticing that the donations occurred after the meetings? Calling a meeting with someone who donated money over a year later a "meeting with a donor" doesn't feel honest.

Well that doesn’t sound good either? Met with some developers in private as “official” council business. Did not brief anyone on the meeting discussion. Then received a bunch of donations from same individuals? It may actually be worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one noticing that the donations occurred after the meetings? Calling a meeting with someone who donated money over a year later a "meeting with a donor" doesn't feel honest.

Well that doesn’t sound good either? Met with some developers in private as “official” council business. Did not brief anyone on the meeting discussion. Then received a bunch of donations from same individuals? It may actually be worse.

Reminiscent of Dick Cheney’s energy task force meetings from back in the day, which I am sure Riemer condemned at the time. He probably could not imaging then that a decade and a half later he would be having his own version.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riemer is not the massive meanie some of you want to portray him as. He's the best candidate for this job IMO and no, I'm not just saying that because I'm friendly with his wife.

Who’s portraying him as a “meanie”? Nice strawman.

Everyone knows what he is, which is a massive liar and incompetent buffoon with a massively inflated ego. It would not surprise me if he personally believed that rules do not apply to him because he is personally above reproach, because that is exactly how he behaves.

When you work in government, there is no such thing as doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.

+1. He’s a huge liar who ran a needlessly negative campaign. Fortunately he’s going to come in third. Unfortunately, votes for Riemer are votes for four more years of Elrich.

The expense reports don’t bother me. The handouts to developers and the dishonesty with which he pursued them do. Upzoning near metro (which he not only opposed but wouldn’t even discuss when there was a bill) is good. Subsidies for affordable housing are good. Riemer-style subsidies for market rate housing with nothing to prevent a developer from just using them to boost profits, are bad, especially when you pretend you’re trying to help people afford housing. That’s just cruel.

[Anonymous]

Was there ever any outcome from this or did Riemer evade accountability for his mistakes, as usual.