Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for posting the link to the ethics law. The section of the law you’re looking for is 19A-11(a)(1)(c). In relevant part, it states “Unless permitted by a waiver, a public employee must not participate in … any matter that affects, in a manner distinct from its effect on the public generally, … any property or business in which a relative has an economic interest, if the public employee knows about the relative's interest.”

Oh good grief.

Seriously, there are plenty of things to yell at Riemer about. This isn't one of them.

What's funny is the Riemer bro challenged PP to cite the law and even posted a link to it only to have the PP provide a pincite that was directly on point. The Riemer bros never disappoint. You can always count on the Riemer bros to deliver rarified levels of stupidity and arrogance, not unlike Riemer himself.

But it isn't.

Also, I'm not a Riemer supporter, and I'm not a bro.

Where does it miss in your opinion?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for posting the link to the ethics law. The section of the law you’re looking for is 19A-11(a)(1)(c). In relevant part, it states “Unless permitted by a waiver, a public employee must not participate in … any matter that affects, in a manner distinct from its effect on the public generally, … any property or business in which a relative has an economic interest, if the public employee knows about the relative's interest.”

Oh good grief.

Seriously, there are plenty of things to yell at Riemer about. This isn't one of them.

What's funny is the Riemer bro challenged PP to cite the law and even posted a link to it only to have the PP provide a pincite that was directly on point. The Riemer bros never disappoint. You can always count on the Riemer bros to deliver rarified levels of stupidity and arrogance, not unlike Riemer himself.

But it isn't.

Also, I'm not a Riemer supporter, and I'm not a bro.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for posting the link to the ethics law. The section of the law you’re looking for is 19A-11(a)(1)(c). In relevant part, it states “Unless permitted by a waiver, a public employee must not participate in … any matter that affects, in a manner distinct from its effect on the public generally, … any property or business in which a relative has an economic interest, if the public employee knows about the relative's interest.”

Oh good grief.

Seriously, there are plenty of things to yell at Riemer about. This isn't one of them.

What's funny is the Riemer bro challenged PP to cite the law and even posted a link to it only to have the PP provide a pincite that was directly on point. The Riemer bros never disappoint. You can always count on the Riemer bros to deliver rarified levels of stupidity and arrogance, not unlike Riemer himself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for posting the link to the ethics law. The section of the law you’re looking for is 19A-11(a)(1)(c). In relevant part, it states “Unless permitted by a waiver, a public employee must not participate in … any matter that affects, in a manner distinct from its effect on the public generally, … any property or business in which a relative has an economic interest, if the public employee knows about the relative's interest.”

Oh good grief.

Seriously, there are plenty of things to yell at Riemer about. This isn't one of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for posting the link to the ethics law. The section of the law you’re looking for is 19A-11(a)(1)(c). In relevant part, it states “Unless permitted by a waiver, a public employee must not participate in … any matter that affects, in a manner distinct from its effect on the public generally, … any property or business in which a relative has an economic interest, if the public employee knows about the relative's interest.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The County law is clear on what constitutes a conflict of interest. We'll see what the Ethics Commission says about it.

It is? Could you please cite the part of the law that (according to you) Riemer's support for a vaccine requirement is violating?

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/HR/Resources/Files/Regulation/APPENDIX%20C.pdf

What if the county vaccine requirement only accepted the Moderna and J&J vaccines to satisfy the requirement for county employees who have not yet been vaccinated - then would you support the vaccine requirement?

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Just for anyone else who may be reading, Hans's wife worked began working for Pfizer long before covid, after working in state-level politics for years. Pfizer didn't "buy" Hans or his wife - a competent adult professional took a job a long time ago that turned out to be tangentially related to something her elected official husband is working on.

Anonymous wrote:The County law is clear on what constitutes a conflict of interest. We'll see what the Ethics Commission says about it.

Anonymous wrote:

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

THIS +100

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.

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

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.