Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The treatment of Gwen Wright is despicable.

Any chance she’ll sue for being fired 3 months before retiring?

She was at will and fired without cause so she has zero standing to sue unless she can prove that her termination was explicitly discriminatory, nor does she deserve to get her job back. Although, I expect they will work something out for her in the end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The treatment of Gwen Wright is despicable.

What Gwen Wright did was despicable. She commented publicly on an open EEO complaint in a manner that could have chilled further reporting. Have we learned nothing about power imbalance and the need for executives to make people feel comfortable coming forward? If she worked in my organization, I would have fired her too.

If she worked for a private company, she would have been fired because her behavior was unethical and would have exposed the organization to significant litigation risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The treatment of Gwen Wright is despicable.

What Gwen Wright did was despicable. She commented publicly on an open EEO complaint in a manner that could have chilled further reporting. Have we learned nothing about power imbalance and the need for executives to make people feel comfortable coming forward? If she worked in my organization, I would have fired her too.

If she worked for a private company, she would have been fired because her behavior was unethical and would have exposed the organization to significant litigation risk.

Terminating her was the only way to manage the litigation exposure.

What this whole episode exposes is how much the county government is used to operating in an environment without significant concern for accountability. Not too long ago an EDC employee stole millions and no one batted and eyelid and no one lost a job. I have a strong sense that Montgomery County is just one miffed developer and a Republican AUSA away from major corruption prosecutions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The treatment of Gwen Wright is despicable.

What Gwen Wright did was despicable. She commented publicly on an open EEO complaint in a manner that could have chilled further reporting. Have we learned nothing about power imbalance and the need for executives to make people feel comfortable coming forward? If she worked in my organization, I would have fired her too.

If she worked for a private company, she would have been fired because her behavior was unethical and would have exposed the organization to significant litigation risk.

Terminating her was the only way to manage the litigation exposure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The treatment of Gwen Wright is despicable.

Any chance she’ll sue for being fired 3 months before retiring?

Anonymous wrote:The treatment of Gwen Wright is despicable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The treatment of Gwen Wright is despicable.

What Gwen Wright did was despicable. She commented publicly on an open EEO complaint in a manner that could have chilled further reporting. Have we learned nothing about power imbalance and the need for executives to make people feel comfortable coming forward? If she worked in my organization, I would have fired her too.

If she worked for a private company, she would have been fired because her behavior was unethical and would have exposed the organization to significant litigation risk.

Terminating her was the only way to manage the litigation exposure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The treatment of Gwen Wright is despicable.

What Gwen Wright did was despicable. She commented publicly on an open EEO complaint in a manner that could have chilled further reporting. Have we learned nothing about power imbalance and the need for executives to make people feel comfortable coming forward? If she worked in my organization, I would have fired her too.

If she worked for a private company, she would have been fired because her behavior was unethical and would have exposed the organization to significant litigation risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I am hearing that several former Council staffers are interested in the temporary spots. They may or may not be good choices, but the optics suck.

More of the same, more of the same.

Every council staffer, Planning Board member and Planning Department staffer fancies themselves a politician.

A lot of these people, like Jill Ortman-Fouse and Aaron Kraut, don’t know their *ss from their elbow.

That’s assuming the council can even make “temporary” appointments to the board. The law has procedures for filling vacancies that occur during a commissioner’s term, and those procedures only allow for filling a seat for the remainder of a term. The law also requires a lengthier process than the one the council has announced. There’s no exception for when the whole board implodes because the council failed to provide any oversight whatsoever and tried to sweep misconduct under the rug.

When has law or policy ever stopped them?

Sad but true. It would be very on-brand for the council to create another mess and more uncertainty by not following the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The treatment of Gwen Wright is despicable.

What Gwen Wright did was despicable. She commented publicly on an open EEO complaint in a manner that could have chilled further reporting. Have we learned nothing about power imbalance and the need for executives to make people feel comfortable coming forward? If she worked in my organization, I would have fired her too.

Anonymous wrote:The treatment of Gwen Wright is despicable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I am hearing that several former Council staffers are interested in the temporary spots. They may or may not be good choices, but the optics suck.

More of the same, more of the same.

Every council staffer, Planning Board member and Planning Department staffer fancies themselves a politician.

A lot of these people, like Jill Ortman-Fouse and Aaron Kraut, don’t know their *ss from their elbow.

That’s assuming the council can even make “temporary” appointments to the board. The law has procedures for filling vacancies that occur during a commissioner’s term, and those procedures only allow for filling a seat for the remainder of a term. The law also requires a lengthier process than the one the council has announced. There’s no exception for when the whole board implodes because the council failed to provide any oversight whatsoever and tried to sweep misconduct under the rug.

When has law or policy ever stopped them?

Sad but true. It would be very on-brand for the council to create another mess and more uncertainty by not following the law.

In order to stop them two things would need to happen. First, someone would need to care enough to challenge these temporary appointments in county. And second, that person would need to have standing to sue. However, these people are super sleazy.

Glass is tweeting that there is some overarching State law that provides for temporary appointments in general to ensure government operations continue to function? I don't see it in the Land Use Article but I don't know where else to look in Maryland law for that.

I saw his tweet and he seem to imply that they are using post-911 continuity of operations legislation designed for terrorism attacks in order to claim legal basis for their decision to recruit a temporary Board by firing the current Board by their own decision.

If everything is terrorism, nothing is terrorism.

It’s comical that they would use legislation designed for terrorism and natural disasters to address a disaster of their own making.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I am hearing that several former Council staffers are interested in the temporary spots. They may or may not be good choices, but the optics suck.

More of the same, more of the same.

Every council staffer, Planning Board member and Planning Department staffer fancies themselves a politician.

A lot of these people, like Jill Ortman-Fouse and Aaron Kraut, don’t know their *ss from their elbow.

That’s assuming the council can even make “temporary” appointments to the board. The law has procedures for filling vacancies that occur during a commissioner’s term, and those procedures only allow for filling a seat for the remainder of a term. The law also requires a lengthier process than the one the council has announced. There’s no exception for when the whole board implodes because the council failed to provide any oversight whatsoever and tried to sweep misconduct under the rug.

When has law or policy ever stopped them?

Sad but true. It would be very on-brand for the council to create another mess and more uncertainty by not following the law.

In order to stop them two things would need to happen. First, someone would need to care enough to challenge these temporary appointments in county. And second, that person would need to have standing to sue. However, these people are super sleazy.

Glass is tweeting that there is some overarching State law that provides for temporary appointments in general to ensure government operations continue to function? I don't see it in the Land Use Article but I don't know where else to look in Maryland law for that.

I saw his tweet and he seem to imply that they are using post-911 continuity of operations legislation designed for terrorism attacks in order to claim legal basis for their decision to recruit a temporary Board by firing the current Board by their own decision.

If everything is terrorism, nothing is terrorism.

Anonymous wrote:The treatment of Gwen Wright is despicable.