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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

No, it doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

No, it doesn't.

I can tell that Pfizer robots are on this thread trying to drown out real people.

[Anonymous]

A lot of jurisdictions are making this requirement, it's not because of financial gain. Y'all are being disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of jurisdictions are making this requirement, it's not because of financial gain. Y'all are being disingenuous.

Even if true, should they be allowed to make a material gain from something which they stand to gain a benefit? No, there is a duty to disclose to the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of jurisdictions are making this requirement, it's not because of financial gain. Y'all are being disingenuous.

CORRECTION Even if true, should they be allowed to make a MANDATE from something which they stand to gain a benefit? No, there is a duty to disclose to the public.

[Anonymous]

CORRECTION Even if true, should they be allowed to make a MANDATE from something which they stand to gain a benefit? No, there is a duty to disclose to the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
CORRECTION Even if true, should they be allowed to make a MANDATE from something which they stand to gain a benefit? No, there is a duty to disclose to the public.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. This is sound public health policy, and has a negligible impact on Pfizer's stock, if it even has one at all. Insider trading this ain't, and your criticism comes off as motivated by something other than public health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where is your data showing county employees are spreading covid? Or are you supporting legislation based on an unproven hypothesis? Fire, in particular, is used to wearing personal protective equipment due to contagions that have been around forever, like tuberculosis. If any county employee knows how to do it right, it's Fire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Where is your data showing county employees are spreading covid? Or are you supporting legislation based on an unproven hypothesis? Fire, in particular, is used to wearing personal protective equipment due to contagions that have been around forever, like tuberculosis. If any county employee knows how to do it right, it's Fire.

Well, then they don't have to worry about a a requirement to get vaccinated, because they're already vaccinated. Hooray.

[Anonymous]

Does someone sincerely believe that Pfizer stock is going to go up if Montgomery County, Maryland, requires 2,000 unvaccinated county employees to get vaccinated?

Incidentally, Fire and Rescue Services is the department with the lowest percentage of employees reporting receipt of at least one dose of vaccine - 63.4%. Very embarrassing for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does someone sincerely believe that Pfizer stock is going to go up if Montgomery County, Maryland, requires 2,000 unvaccinated county employees to get vaccinated?

Incidentally, Fire and Rescue Services is the department with the lowest percentage of employees reporting receipt of at least one dose of vaccine - 63.4%. Very embarrassing for them.

Right. because most live out of county and many live out of state.

Another reason they have incentive to quit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Typical Riemer bro. Your only argumentation style is to take things to illogical extremes in an effort to distract from bad facts.

No, not all council members should recuse if they own their houses. But there’s a difference between merely owning your house and being a real estate investor and landlord as Riemer is. Nor should they recuse from MCPS budget deliberations if they have kids in school. But they should recuse if their spouse works for MCPS and the budget would affect their income or continued employment.

This is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Riemer.

He votes on landlord-tenant bills even though he’s a landlord.

He rushed through a big tax break for Mitch Rales, who was a big campaign donor.

He rushed through a loophole-laden tax break for Grosvenor that doesn’t even require the developer to build the thing that was the stated purpose of the tax break.

He rushed through an undemocratic BID for Silver Spring even after council staff found it would hurt small businesses to the benefit of big landlords.

He’s now rushing through another loophole-laden tax break for developers countywide.

Finally, everyone here is fixated on the stock. The stock isn’t that much money. His spouse, though, is the breadwinner in that household. Is it helpful to Pfizer when a local government mandates vaccination? It unquestionably is, even if no particular local government represents a large amount of potential revenue for Pfizer. Mandates generate momentum for more mandates. Private employers on the fence can take comfort when governments mandate the vaccine for their employees. Riemer should not participate in matters that benefit his spouse’s employer, and this mandate very clearly does.

It’s good policy to mandate the vaccine. It’s bad government for Riemer to participate in that decision.

[Anonymous]

Meh.

And I'm not a Reimer fan.

Doesn't Reimer generate income from things like rental properties? That's something I'd be more concerned about, given that he's hell-bent on jamming Thrive down our throats. It'd potentially make his properties for renting worth more.

[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.

Is the vaccine mandate for Pfizer only? Because you know there are three vaccines right?

[Anonymous]

Hey, I have an idea. What if the unvaccinated county employees went and got vaccinated? Then there would be no need for a mandate, AND they'd be less likely to become infected with the coronavirus and far less likely to be hospitalized or die from covid! Win-win!