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