Hans Riemer's Wife Works For Pfizer and they have more than $50,000 in stock

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The county should have a vaccine mandate for employees.

Hans Riemer should recuse from this bill, just like the should recuse from all landlord-tenant bills and many planning bills because he is a landlord.

In the federal government, this would probably be a criminal conflict of interest. We need stronger ethics laws in the county.

Respectfully, this is it. It's possible he's done things that are worse, but this is bad enough.

The county does have a vaccine mandate. Either show proof of vaccination or get tested weekly. That's what was bargained for the employees. Why impose an authoritarian mandate that overrides the bargained agreement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county should have a vaccine mandate for employees.

Hans Riemer should recuse from this bill, just like the should recuse from all landlord-tenant bills and many planning bills because he is a landlord.

In the federal government, this would probably be a criminal conflict of interest. We need stronger ethics laws in the county.

Respectfully, this is it. It's possible he's done things that are worse, but this is bad enough.

The county does have a vaccine mandate. Either show proof of vaccination or get tested weekly. That's what was bargained for the employees. Why impose an authoritarian mandate that overrides the bargained agreement?

That's not a vaccine mandate, it's a vaccine-or-get-tested mandate. Which is just as "authoritarian" as a vaccine mandate. I completely understand the idea of sticking with the bargained agreement, but this really really really really really is not the hill to make a stand on. Get vaccinated, or find a different employer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The county should have a vaccine mandate for employees.

Hans Riemer should recuse from this bill, just like the should recuse from all landlord-tenant bills and many planning bills because he is a landlord.

In the federal government, this would probably be a criminal conflict of interest. We need stronger ethics laws in the county.

Respectfully, this is it. It's possible he's done things that are worse, but this is bad enough.

No, it ain't it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure which is more cringe:
The fact that you think this nothingburger is a “scandal,” or the fact that you think $50K is a lot of money.

For normal people, not DCUM, it is.

Lets see. Hans support mandatory vaccines, supports the use of the Pfizer vaccine among other vaccinnes, and her Pfizer stock increases by 1% as a result, 1% being generous. Non-issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county should have a vaccine mandate for employees.

Hans Riemer should recuse from this bill, just like the should recuse from all landlord-tenant bills and many planning bills because he is a landlord.

In the federal government, this would probably be a criminal conflict of interest. We need stronger ethics laws in the county.

Respectfully, this is it. It's possible he's done things that are worse, but this is bad enough.

The county does have a vaccine mandate. Either show proof of vaccination or get tested weekly. That's what was bargained for the employees. Why impose an authoritarian mandate that overrides the bargained agreement?

That's not a vaccine mandate, it's a vaccine-or-get-tested mandate. Which is just as "authoritarian" as a vaccine mandate. I completely understand the idea of sticking with the bargained agreement, but this really really really really really is not the hill to make a stand on. Get vaccinated, or find a different employer.

A bargained agreement isn't authoritarian, by definition.

And what happens to county services like police and fire when several hundred quit? I mean, that's the reality of it. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[Anonymous]

The real scandal is that Hans Riemer is using his official government position and role as part of his campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow all the people thinking 50k is pocket change are welcome to wire that amount to my bank tomorrow! 50k is a ton to have tied up in one stock and yes, does present a conflict of interest.

But it’s not a question of $50k. It’s a question of how much an outside actor could move the value up or down. A massive move—10%—is $5k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county should have a vaccine mandate for employees.

Hans Riemer should recuse from this bill, just like the should recuse from all landlord-tenant bills and many planning bills because he is a landlord.

In the federal government, this would probably be a criminal conflict of interest. We need stronger ethics laws in the county.

Respectfully, this is it. It's possible he's done things that are worse, but this is bad enough.

The county does have a vaccine mandate. Either show proof of vaccination or get tested weekly. That's what was bargained for the employees. Why impose an authoritarian mandate that overrides the bargained agreement?

That's not a vaccine mandate, it's a vaccine-or-get-tested mandate. Which is just as "authoritarian" as a vaccine mandate. I completely understand the idea of sticking with the bargained agreement, but this really really really really really is not the hill to make a stand on. Get vaccinated, or find a different employer.

A bargained agreement isn't authoritarian, by definition.

And what happens to county services like police and fire when several hundred quit? I mean, that's the reality of it. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The county is better off without anybody in the police department or fire/rescue service who would quit their job rather than get vaccinated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow all the people thinking 50k is pocket change are welcome to wire that amount to my bank tomorrow! 50k is a ton to have tied up in one stock and yes, does present a conflict of interest.

But it’s not a question of $50k. It’s a question of how much an outside actor could move the value up or down. A massive move—10%—is $5k.

It’s not just the stock. He also has an imputed interest arising from his spouse’s employment. And it’s not about the amount of money but about an appearance of impropriety. If this is his standard for public conduct, what does that say about what he does behind closed doors? This is corrupt behavior. A little corruption isn’t ok. It’s all rotten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow all the people thinking 50k is pocket change are welcome to wire that amount to my bank tomorrow! 50k is a ton to have tied up in one stock and yes, does present a conflict of interest.

But it’s not a question of $50k. It’s a question of how much an outside actor could move the value up or down. A massive move—10%—is $5k.

It’s not just the stock. He also has an imputed interest arising from his spouse’s employment. And it’s not about the amount of money but about an appearance of impropriety. If this is his standard for public conduct, what does that say about what he does behind closed doors? This is corrupt behavior. A little corruption isn’t ok. It’s all rotten.

Similarly, all of the County Council members who own property in Montgomery County should recuse themselves from voting on the general plan update, and all of the County Council members who have children under 18 should recuse themselves from voting on the school budget. They have an imputed interest arising from their property ownership/children. It's about the appearance of impropriety! A little corruption isn't ok!

Wait, what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county should have a vaccine mandate for employees.

Hans Riemer should recuse from this bill, just like the should recuse from all landlord-tenant bills and many planning bills because he is a landlord.

In the federal government, this would probably be a criminal conflict of interest. We need stronger ethics laws in the county.

Respectfully, this is it. It's possible he's done things that are worse, but this is bad enough.

The county does have a vaccine mandate. Either show proof of vaccination or get tested weekly. That's what was bargained for the employees. Why impose an authoritarian mandate that overrides the bargained agreement?

That's not a vaccine mandate, it's a vaccine-or-get-tested mandate. Which is just as "authoritarian" as a vaccine mandate. I completely understand the idea of sticking with the bargained agreement, but this really really really really really is not the hill to make a stand on. Get vaccinated, or find a different employer.

A bargained agreement isn't authoritarian, by definition.

And what happens to county services like police and fire when several hundred quit? I mean, that's the reality of it. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The county is better off without anybody in the police department or fire/rescue service who would quit their job rather than get vaccinated.

If you say so. That means longer call response times to heart attacks and shootings, but OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county should have a vaccine mandate for employees.

Hans Riemer should recuse from this bill, just like the should recuse from all landlord-tenant bills and many planning bills because he is a landlord.

In the federal government, this would probably be a criminal conflict of interest. We need stronger ethics laws in the county.

Respectfully, this is it. It's possible he's done things that are worse, but this is bad enough.

The county does have a vaccine mandate. Either show proof of vaccination or get tested weekly. That's what was bargained for the employees. Why impose an authoritarian mandate that overrides the bargained agreement?

That's not a vaccine mandate, it's a vaccine-or-get-tested mandate. Which is just as "authoritarian" as a vaccine mandate. I completely understand the idea of sticking with the bargained agreement, but this really really really really really is not the hill to make a stand on. Get vaccinated, or find a different employer.

A bargained agreement isn't authoritarian, by definition.

And what happens to county services like police and fire when several hundred quit? I mean, that's the reality of it. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The county is better off without anybody in the police department or fire/rescue service who would quit their job rather than get vaccinated.

If you say so. That means longer call response times to heart attacks and shootings, but OK.

It also means that the first response will come from people who are less likely to spread covid and are more likely to be people who accurately assess risks, understand basic medical facts, and prioritize public health over a self-harming stand on a stupid principle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow all the people thinking 50k is pocket change are welcome to wire that amount to my bank tomorrow! 50k is a ton to have tied up in one stock and yes, does present a conflict of interest.

It isn't unusual when your compensation package is stock in the company and you are restricted from trading it at various times. A lot of people hold their compensation stock. DH still has stock from a company he hasn't worked for in over a decade.

[Anonymous]

This is concerning because that means BIG PHARMA is purchasing politicians. I miss the old Democratic party that went after Monsanto and other big companies.

BIG Pharma's only interest is $$$$ not people and safe and healthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The real scandal is that Hans Riemer is using his official government position and role as part of his campaign.

THIS +100