As Moderator of the Montgomery Village Foundation Board of Directors' Candidates Forum this year, my continued thanks to the residents who attended, including those who submitted questions for the candidates. Also, a special thanks to The Patch for highlighting this important election. A full transcript of the Forum, as well as the full video of the entire Forum, will be posted on the Montgomery Village Foundation website: http://www.mvf.org . I also encourage residents to participate in another opportunity to meet the candidates, 7pm-7:30pm, on Thursday, January 26th, at the North Creek Community Center in Montgomery Village (this will occur prior to the regularly scheduled monthly MVF Board of Directors meeting at 7:30pm at this location, which is also open to all residents and public to participate). Every vote matters in this election, so please take the time to learn about the candidates and where they stand on the issues important to you and the future of Montgomery Village. Thank you and I look forward to seeing you on Thursday, as well as in the community.

As an MVF BOD candidate I will urge the board to adopt the following citizen centric goals and anchor its Strategic Vision through a stakeholder commitment to these citizen centric goals, thereby, providing the operating frame of reference for all stakeholders including residents, local HOA’s, MVF Committees, MVF staff, and the MVF BOD.
1. Promote the quality of life for all MV residents.
2. Ensure the safety and security of the residents of MV and their property.
3. Promote an economic development environment for the community businesses that serve the residents of MV.
4. Position MV with the County Executive, County Council, and the Maryland delegation to ensure the recognition we deserve and the protection against government overreach and interference we need.
5. Encourage the pride of MV residents in maintaining the aesthetic appearance of the community needed to boost property values.
6. Encourage the role and responsibility of the MVF Board in fostering the democratic process, encouraging free expression, and combating apathy among its residents and staff.

As an MVF BOD candidate I will urge the board to provide responsive, two-way communications between the Board and Village residents.

I will advocate for a more democratic Montgomery Village including a more open, encouraging, dignified, and respectful culture of citizen expression especially in resident Letters to the Editor and Residents Time. Building on this culture, the key then is to establish and sustain smart and trusted two-way communications among all stakeholders.

1. MV News Letters to the Editor should be acknowledged by MVF feedback.
2. Similarly, Residents Time participation should be acknowledged by MVF feedback, and issues raised at Residents Time should be recorded in the MVF Issues database.
3. Each month a summary report derived from the MVF Issues database should be provided to the MVF BOD for information and possible action.
4. Letter to the Editor authors and Residents Time speakers will receive status updates on the issues they raised.
5. While technology should be used to improve communications, there must be the assurance that every resident can readily access the information including televised meetings and web-based MVF files.
6. Resident access will be assured through an information kiosk at the MVF offices on Apple Ridge Road and compatibility with public library facilities.
7. More advanced technology should be employed using social networking connections and discussion groups.

People engage the community in a variety of ways.

Beyond the community activism well chronicled in my candidate profile, my collegiate and professional backgrounds contain significant achievements that prepare me for board challenges.

When it comes to teamwork and leadership, I would like to highlight:
1. I captained both the Dickinson College National Championship lacrosse team and its undefeated swimming team.
2. At IBM’s Federal Systems Division, I had senior management assignments on the Trident Submarine program and the GPS project.
3. I served as the President of the Center for National Software Studies providing objective advice on software issues of national importance.
4. As an independent consultant, I traveled the world teaching strategic management and process improvement.
5. As an expert witness, I testify in Court on the state of the practice in developing and fielding large-scale systems and the complex factors that govern their outcome with respect to competitiveness, security, and trustworthiness.

I am well qualified to serve on the board and to make a contribution that no one else is prepared to make.

As a candidate for Montgomery Village Foundation Board of Directors (MVF BOD), the choice before voters could not be clearer.
1. On the one hand, there is the Kettler Vision of the Village as a comfortable residential environment wonderfully portrayed in “Images of America Montgomery Village” produced by the Montgomery Village Historical Book Committee and available at the MVF offices on Apple Ridge Road.
2. On the other hand, there is the 2030 Vision, the product of architects, consultants, County planners, and professional agents of change conjuring up a faux urban streetscape of concepts that even its originators are unwilling to defend ... nor will they permit others to critique.

I urge voters to reverse the wrong-headed, heavy-handed overreach of a board that favors a public amusement park of amenities selected to attract non-residents.

Why are John Horton and Don O’Neill running for the MVF Board of Directors?
Mr. Horton doesn’t seem to know much about the community. It looks like he’s mad about a picnic pavilion that was never built in his community. I understand he is a member of the Eastgate board yet is a frequent no-show. So much for commitment! Mr.O'Neill makes no sense, all he does is verbalize his same old centric ideas. There is no way I would vote for either one of these gentlemen. I will cast my votes for Mr. Hydorn, Mr. Driscoll and Ms. Bort . They can talk coherently about Montgomery Village and the issues.

I would hope that whoever ends up being elected focuses more resources on crime prevention. The security service that we spend so much money on does nothing more then drive in circles, never checking on the areas away from the road where most of the crime and loitering happens. If you want to improve Montgomery Village, making for a more attractive community, start by improving security and reducing crime. When we began our home search we were told by numerous real estate agents to stay away from 75% of the village. We ended up purchasing in Patton Ridge which we were informed was in the better section of the village. While we have had no major problems there have been plenty of less desirable events that have taken place over the past couple years that could be easily taken care of by an improved security/police presence in the areas away from the main roadways. At one point there were discussions about removing a play ground strictly due to the fact that it attracts loitering at night. I just didn't understand the thought process behind removing an important community amenity instead of increase security presence to reduce the loitering. While they did not follow through with the removal, even considering such an act is an example of the poor judgement and priorities of the board recently. Good luck to candidates and please look into the less obvious improvements rather then grandiose "attractions" as you have in the past.

David,

What kind of question is this?

I'm running for the board because I live here and have a vested interest in our community.

Matt,

I appreciate the time you spent writing your comment. We are both on the same page on safety and security and project scale.

1. Ensuring the safety and security of the residents of MV and their property is essential to promoting the quality of life for all MV residents. These are the top two citizen centric goals I advocate.

• Last year the priority of the Montgomery Village Foundation was economic development featuring the Vision 2030 committee with its architects, consultants, and County planners conjuring up a faux urban streetscape.
• This year the priority goal must be safety and security to combat the escalation in crime evidenced by brazen attacks on CVS, Denny’s, Giant, Safeway, and 7-11 and vicious vandalism that has descended on East Village and the type of extreme disorderly conduct that prompted to board’s decision to remove the playground in your neighborhood. We can’t save the Village by destroying it.

2. Instead of inventing projects better suited to a public amusement park, the board needs to stick to projects that foster a comfortable residential community. The board needs to stick to projects like the pool Sunbrellas and the Farmers’ Market, examples of just the right type of Montgomery Village improvements we need. They are perfect for two reasons.
• They meet the citizen centric goal for quality of life.
• They are consistent with the austerity of the times.

South Valley Restroom and Concession

1. The many sides of the South Valley Restroom and Concession issue surfaced at the public meeting on January 28, 2012 at Lake Marion Community Center in East Village.
2. Consequently, there are now numerous open issues, many unanswered questions, evidence of lack of planning, and incomplete staff work.
3. The issues and competing interests demand more time to consider and reconcile in order for the democratic process to be played out.
4. We can’t allow the State Senator’s Annapolis schedule for a Bond Bill earmark to stampede the MVF BOD into a premature decision on an immature South Valley Restroom and Concession proposal with so much commotion associated with it.
5. I recommend postponing the scheduled February 23, 2012 MVF BOD meeting decision milestone.
6. Instead, I recommend that the MVF BOD convene an ad hoc South Valley Facilities Committee to study the issues, reconcile the conflicting and competing interests, and identify alternatives for action to the MVF BOD.
7. The ad hoc South Valley Facilities Committee will be asked to thoroughly consider, identify, and report on an agenda of considerations including competing interests, location drivers, usage considerations and capacity, security planning, design alternatives, acquisition costs, maintenance costs, and operations costs.

Sharon,

I have to ask you a pointed question.

You stated that for over 20+ years you have been dissatisfied with the community, to the point where your daughter’s real estate agent even pointed out the “squalor conditions” and you have continually been upset at the lack of oversight and enforcement of housing maintenance in SVHC and MVF overall.

Look down. You have two feet. You could move.

Derek, typical male response! "House is dirty, Hon! The hell with cleaning. Let's move!". Tis wonderful that you can simplify (sitting where you are) & assume that one can just pack up & move when dissatisfied. Are you offering to be my Sugar Daddy, Mr Hale? I don't rent & am not a nomad! And, again, someone (you in your almost always hard-butt sarcasm) has been added to the list of those who evade the REAL ISSUE. My home was not only bought as roof over my head as single parent but as investment hopefully for my retirement years. The issue is paying mandated fees for promises made to me when I bought my home & promises MVF & HOA's continue to make to perspective homeowners...overseeing & protecting the market value of our homes. And such promises have not been met! I would love to sell now & get out of Dodge. But the loss would be tremendous! I'd be giving my home away! It's also a shame that you could not come up with a more intelligent & helpful suggestion than one running with tail between their legs because HOA's are failing in the responsibilities for which they were established & granted corporate status to legally dip into my pocketbook (and pension) further. I have voted every year in MVF & HOA elections (the political BS platforms of candidates) since I bought INTO Montgomery Village. But this year will be the 1st time that I will consider holding onto ballots in case I run out of Charmin. I'll just have to be extra careful of paper cuts. Hummm!

RECOMMENDED AD HOC SOUTH VALLEY COMMITTEE AGENDA AND STUDY PLAN
1. Guidance on reconciling competing stakeholder interests
2. Guidance on reconciling location drivers
3. Guidance on type, frequency, and duration of use, number of residents and nonresidents, expected demand for restroom facilities
4. Guidance on selecting design alternatives with respect to stakeholders satisfaction and cost
5. Guidance on interpreting police expert opinion and blending security plans based on usage
6. Guidance on reconciling and allocating acquisition costs among funding sources
7. Guidance on reconciling and allocating maintenance costs among funding sources
8. Guidance on reconciling and allocating operating cost among funding sources
9. Guidance on Design Alternatives by Cost (5-year projection) and Stakeholder Satisfaction by Design Alternative

Mr Hale, I was born, raised in MC! Once proud native of the County & retiree, I know the history. History was once where one could boast of the 'beauty' of communities where residents worked together. But w/the attitude that has become so prevalent & one even you basically expressed.... When things begin to deteriorate (below quality-of-life standards for man OR beast), the solution is just to move; not make neighborhoods better or, at best, on even keel of decent living standards. Ergo, we have become a County of transients who just keep moving 'farther north' to get away from communities (that began w/hope/potential) that turned into slums while sadly watching the demise of departed areas behind us! That is not a solution! That is just community & environmental collapse! I see that e.g. occurring in Wheaton & Kensington. Since transients, even some actual homeowners & the increase in investors/slum lords lack interest, HOA's (at least that is my understanding & interpretation of HOA's responsibilities) were created to balance & protect that disinterest & indifference. If they, HOA's, can not do such, then it is they (HOA's) who should be run out of Dodge/hoofing it; not good homeowners who give a damn about the maintenance of their homes (& who have lived up to their end of bargain) & the environment around them. Otherwise, do explain to me why in the hell I am paying MANDATED quarterly fees 2 non-existent representatives 2 witness slum conditions! Rhetorical!

Au contraire! Facts do matter.

Bob Hydorn asserted that only his slate has supported the pool Sunbrellas and the Farmers’ Market. I stated at the Candidate’s Forum whose transcript appears in the February 3 issue of the MV News that I applaud the pool Sunbrellas and the Farmers’ Market as examples of just the right type of Montgomery Village improvements we need. They are perfect for two reasons.
1. They meet the citizen centric goal for quality of life.
2. They are consistent with the austerity of the times.

Bob Hydorn asserted that only his slate has opposed M-83 and widening Goshen and Wightman Roads. I have opposed these projects and more through numerous letters to the editor and regular board, council, and commission appearances including:
1. Watkins Mill Middle School at Centerway Park
2. Webb Tract County takeover
3. Eastgate Picnic Pavilion
4. Picnic Pavilion on other to be determined sites
5. South Valley Restroom and Concession
6. Four-story parking garage at the Professional Center (2030 Vision)
7. Relocation of MVF offices from Apple Ridge Road to Montgomery Village Shopping Center (2030 Vision)
8. M83 Option 4
9. Watkins Mill Development traffic increases

This board chose to trample on the rights of local Village HOA’s in its most recent and unpopular project, the Picnic Pavilion, and appears ready to do so again with the South Valley Restroom and Concession.

Bob,

How can the MVF BOD be asked to vote on the South Valley Facility on February 23?

The many sides of the South Valley Restroom and Concession issue surfaced at the public meeting on January 28, 2012 at Lake Marion Community Center in East Village. Consequently, there are now numerous open issues, many unanswered questions, evidence of lack of planning, and incomplete staff work.

The issues and competing interests demand more time to consider and reconcile in order for the democratic process to be played out. I recommend postponing the scheduled February 23, 2012 MVF BOD meeting decision milestone.

Instead, I recommend that the MVF BOD convene an ad hoc South Valley Facilities Committee to study the issues, reconcile the conflicting and competing interests, and identify alternatives for action to the MVF BOD. The ad hoc South Valley Facilities Committee will be asked to thoroughly consider, identify, and report on an agenda of considerations including competing stakeholder interests, location drivers, usage considerations and capacity, security planning, design alternatives, funding sources, acquisition costs, maintenance costs, and operations costs.

Bob,

The question here is what stakeholder group should have priority and how can all stakeholders be accommodated so that no one group is thrown under the bus. The benefits and impacts of neighboring residents, MVSA Sports, and Lawn Theatre patrons are closely tied to where the facility is located.
1. If close to the MVSA Sports fields, the biggest user by far with 1000 participants and spectators on game day, how will Lawn Theatre patrons benefit, especially the elderly people spoken about in the public meeting?
2. If it is close to the Lawn Theatre, isn’t this going to a considerable inconvenience to the 1000 potential users from MVSA Sports, and won’t the girls coaches need to continue to make the long hike to escort players, a practice that was attested to by the girls baseball coach at the public meeting?
3. If the facility is located midway between the MVSA Sports fields and the Lawn Theatre, won’t this impact the quality of life of the neighboring residents as was testified to in the public meeting?

You stated in the Candidates Forum that the police would be present at the public meeting. This was not true. There was no police testimony at the meeting despite the many comments of concern about crime and the need for empirical crime data.

Again the issue has not been fully worked out making a vote on funding the project premature and the need for an ad hoc committee acute.

Bob Hydorn’s demand for a police station in Montgomery Village has suddenly erupted as an issue in the 2012 Montgomery Village Foundation Board of Directions (MVF BOD) election. The means to ensuring safety and security lies not in the location of the police station but in the number of officers on patrol.

It matters less where the police station is located. It matters more whether police arrive quickly when called. Responsiveness is based on the number of officers continuously on patrol not the location of the dispatcher.

If the police station is moved as has been suggested to the Montgomery Village Shopping Center, how many prisoners will need to be housed there and how many visitors will that attract to the Village? This is not what people want in a comfortable residential neighborhood.

I have great respect for Police Chief Manger, and I believe his expert opinion when he asserts that the police on patrol respond to calls and not the police sitting in the administrative office of the police station regardless of where it is located.

We would have more police on patrol if we had less funding for state of Maryland earmarks for unnecessary projects like a Picnic Pavilion and the South Valley Restroom and Concession. These two projects alone are seeking $155,000 in state earmarks. This money could pay for the increased police patrols that would ensure the safety and security of the residents of the Village and their property.

Don,
I will once again quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan -
"You are entitled to your own opinion, just not your own facts".

Get your facts straight, Mr. O'Neill. Mr. Hydorn is not advocating for a police station in the Village. Mr. Hydorn is advocating for the police station on the East side of I-270 that was long-ago promised by the "short-memoried" County Executive. You continue to twist words to create your own facts... Remember the glass house, Mr. O'Neill.

Bob,

Let’s separate opinion from fact.

1. Opinion: You state that police depart from the police station and come running out to their cars when the call comes in.
2. Fact: Chief Manger’s testimony states that police are dispatched while on patrol and proceed directly to the location of the incident.

The focus should be on more officers on patrol, not the location of a building.

Don,

I do not plan to respond to all, of your false statements and opinions, however, if you are going to quote me, please be correct.

I have not once said they run out of the station to their cars to go on a call. I have said that the concern is that the station being on the other side of I270 is the wrong location and not close enough to the Village. The volume of traffic on Quince Orchard Road/Montgomery Village Avenue makes it difficult to get into the area easily. As well people wish and need to go to the station at all hours of the day and night, it is not easy to get back into that warehouse area, especially late at night.

The community was told that this would be a temporary location, and until such time as the new 6th District station would be built the county would place a sub-station in the Village.

The County Executives senior staff has now told me that 1) there will be NO sub-station, 2) in next years operating budget there will be 2 classes for new police recruits. This is a good start but what about today. As well the School Officers will be taken out of the operating budget this year and they will be placed back on the street.

If you wish to keep using the fear factor on all issues, that is your choice. I would rather state the cold hard facts as they really are.

Bob,

Here is the exact quote in your WUASA9 interview article, “Bob Hydorn Of Montgomery Village, Md., Bemoans Lack Of Area Police Station”, which quotes you as follows:
• Fact: "We look at the number of cars that are sitting at the base with the number of officers that are in there that leave to go on calls, I would have to disagree with that. A lot of them run out of the station".

Again here is my opinion based on your quote in the article.
• Opinion: “You state that police depart from the police station and come running out to their cars when the call comes in.”

a farris,

Sharon Cranford is supporter Hydorn slate and has posted signs on her lawn advocating for it.

In discussing the “need for new 6th district police station” on WhetstoneNeighborhoodWatch, Sharon Cranford responded to a suggestion from someone that there was space in the Montgomery Village Shopping Center, specifically, the old CVS location when she said, "Not a bad thought but they need a ton of space. It's not just desks for officers. They need meeting rooms, a lobby, holding areas for prisoners, parking. I toured the temporary space off Clopper Road and was surprised at how much went into running a modern police station."

And so was born the notion of prisoners and their visitors.

What is needed on the police facility is a Committee task to research the issue, assemble the facts, assess both the upsides and downsides for the community, and conduct and public meeting to present the results and hear resident opinion.

I did not say they coming running out to their cars. I stated they run from the station. Shall I define that for you? Run – as in cars - as in drive from the station. I said nothing about any officer physically running to their car. Big Difference here Don.
Why don’t you ever support anything positive in the community and don’t tell me opposing things are positive, Look to the future my friend, the future.

Bob,

In attempting to score debating points in any way you can thing of, you are being distracted from the crux of the issue... how to ensure safety and security for the citizens of the Village. Being dispatched from the police station either by foot or by car is not the current practice nor the solution to effective and responsive deployment of police officers.

1. Your Opinion: the police depart from the police station.
2. Chief Manger Fact: the police are dispatched while on patrol.

The means to ensuring safety and security lies not in the location of the police station but in the number of officers on patrol. This should be the focus of MVF advocacy to the County Executive, County Council, and the Chief of Police.

Don,
it is not about debating points, it is about how you spin the facts.
My final comment to you here on the Patch.
1, not my opinion, ask some of the officers, I have and no they don’t leave from the station on all calls, but some. That hurts timing to our area.
2, I have talked with the Chief and Commander as well, I know and did not say that officers aren't dispatched from where ever they be at the time the call goes out. I monitor the police channel at home.
The focus clearly is on the police being in the community.
So why not assist the community in a truly positive manor.

Bob,

If the police facility in the Montgomery Village Shopping Center is such a “must have” amenity for the Village and warranted a knock down drag out battle with the County Executive and County Council, why was it not even mentioned in the Vision 2030 Report?

Could it be that residents envision a quiet residential environment that does not include a police facility in the neighborhood?

The 2030 Vision report is just that a VISION for the future not the past or present. .
Very much like the vision for the redevelopment of the medical center.
If you call my comments a knock down drag out battle, then you clearly do not understand working with elected officals. We may disagree all day, but at the end of the day we are still friends. Rather than being arbitrary and saying NO to everything as most all of us look to the future.
The sub-station is even being supported by the 6th District officers and Commander

Mr. Hydorn, it is more than obvious that Mr. O'Neill wants no change in Montgomery Village. A sad state of mind, there go the home values down the drain. Keep up the great work you and the MVF continue working on. Improvements such as pavillions, restrooms and yes even a police station will help the value of all of our homes rise.
Mr. O'Neill, maybe you need to reside in a community of only elderly, try Leisure World or Asbury.

Bob,

So I take it that the Vision 2030 ends in 2030, but it has no definite starting point. The Vision 2030 Report was issued in 2011; it is now 2012. Just when do the Vision 2030 proposals begin?

Also I take it that despite the citizen’s rating of safety and security as high in the 2030 Vision word cloud, there was not mention of a police facility in the shopping center.

As far as a knock down drag out battle with the County Executive and County Council, I began to get that idea in your testimony at the Candidate’s Forum on January 24 when you said, “... I was on the phone with our District 2 County Councilmember Craig Rice to the point that we were literally at one point screaming at each other on the telephone over the withdrawal of the 6th District police station from the CIP budget”. This sounds pretty intense to me. I would only say that it is unwise to engage our County officials in this way because we need to foster the best possible relationships in our government affairs with the leaders of the County and State.

What good does it do to engage the Commander when the deciders are the Police Chief Manger, the County Executive, and the County Council?

Pals forever,

Don O’Neill

LenGray,

Au contraire!

I envision a different kind of Village, one that is quiet residential community not a public amusement park of amenities as outline in the Vision 2030 report with no definite start date.

This election represents an opportunity to introduce a fresh Strategic Vision that will bring the board in line with the citizen’s vision for Montgomery Village including:
1. Adopting the set of citizen centric goals I have recommended.
2. Implementing two-way communications among citizens, committees, the foundation, and the board itself.
3. Operating consistent with the austerity of the times.
4. Making a concerted effort to introduce democratic processes throughout its operation.

The citizen centric goals include:
1. Promote the quality of life for all MV residents.
2. Ensure the safety and security of the residents of MV and their property.
3. Promote an economic development environment for the community businesses that serve the residents of MV.
4. Position MV with the County Executive, County Council, and the Maryland delegation to ensure the recognition we deserve and the protection against government overreach and interference we need.
5. Encourage the pride of MV residents in maintaining the aesthetic appearance of the community needed to boost property values.
6. Encourage the role and responsibility of the MVF Board in fostering the democratic process, encouraging free expression, and combating apathy among its residents and staff.

Sadly realized, after reading comments on PATCH from candidates running for MVF Board & those making comments (most I feel or get impression are solicited to attack opposing candidates) that we need not watch e.g. Republican debates on TV...negative campaigning. We can get that merely by reading (& sensing animosity among candidates) by simply clicking on PATCH. God forbid, 2 certain individuals end up on the Board together 'cause we will get absolutely nowhere in MV improvements or goals. More time & effort will be spent watching those two go at each others throats (though feigning 'diplomacy) like two rabid pit bulls.

a farrris,

Alice, give it a rest. Let Bob do his own dirty work.

And, by the way, A Ferris (real name or cowardly pen name), I prefer the drums to a violin. There is nothing more exciting than someone who has the wherewithal to at least be honest & upfront and 'march to the beat of a different drummer' when they see wrongs (or neglectfulness or continued preferential treatment) that need to be righted.

Don and Sharon, excuse me?