This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Time to Complete a Report Card for the Montgomery Village Foundation (MVF) Board

It’s time to go back to school, and our attention is shifting from summer fun to school supplies, books, tests, and report cards. Perhaps it’s time to begin the  school year with a report card... for the Montgomery Village Foundation (MVF) Board.

Unlike school where students are inundated with facts and figures, when it comes to MVF, facts and figures are difficult to come by. When it comes to facts, the Montgomery Village Foundation (MVF) Board members are like squirrels who collect and bury nuts for the winter. No one else can find them and the squirrels often forget where they buried them.

All this highlights the demand for effective leaders who can be both convincing and persistent. Recent events are demonstrating that those representing the interests of Village residents have not been convincing  on issues that matter to Villagers. To what extent have MVF Board members been convincing with the Department of Transportation, City of Gaithersburg, Montgomery County Planning Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, Montgomery County Council, County Executive, MDE Water Management Field Office, and the Maryland Delegation? It remains to be seen whether these representatives will be persistent in the face of the recent unsettling setbacks... tick tock.

The criteria to be considered in scoring the MVF Report Card may lie in these setbacks including the following:

Find out what's happening in Montgomery Villagewith free, real-time updates from Patch.

  • Fostering a democratic Montgomery Village through a dignified, civil, and respectful culture of citizen expression,
  • Management and coordination of M83 Mid-County Corridor Study Alternative Selection,
  • Management and coordination of Montgomery County take over of the Webb Tract,
  • Management and coordination of South Valley Restroom and Concession stand project,
  • Management and coordination of Goshen Road widening,
  • Management and coordination of Nike Site plans,
  • Management and coordination of Vision 2030 Plan to build a four-story parking garage at the Professional Center and to relocate MVF offices from Apple Ridge Road to Montgomery Village Shopping Center,
  • Conduct and management of MVF finances, operations, investments, and fiduciary responsibility to residents, and 
  • Conduct and management of the 2013 MVF Board election process.

Let’s explore some of the nuts these squirrels have hidden:

  • Bob Hydorn's MVF Testimony Regarding M83 reads more like an application for failure. Following much dithering by the MVF Board on various M83 Alternatives, MVF continues to lack a clear voiced strategy to protect the Village from the effects of M83. Why wasn't Alternative 2 selected coupled with a concerted effort to collaborate with the City of Gaithersburg and the Maryland Delegation in an effort to inform the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, the Montgomery County Department of Transportation, and the Maryland Department of Transportation?
  • Any responsible and complete discussion of the M83 MidCounty Corridor Study must include a discussion of the State of Maryland imposed projects that interact with the M83 Alternatives under consideration. First is the position of the MVF responsible? A responsible position would have stopped at Alternatives 1 and 2. The State of Maryland imposed projects include the infusion of $125M in state funds for the Watkins Mill Interchange and Senator Nancy King's $250,000 sports toilet approved despite opposition.
  • Bob Hydorn stated that he was very disappointed in the vote by the City Council of Gaithersburg supporting the master plan alternate 9 for M83. United we stand, divided we fall. Once part of the same ZIP Code, Montgomery Village and Gaithersburg have gone their separate ways… to the benefit of none. Why can't Bob Hydorn and Sid Katz just get along for the benefit of all?
  • With the second community meeting on the Montgomery Village golf course development project just held and a third one planned for September, the developer is moving forward towards his goal. But what about the goals of the Montgomery Village Foundation? At the meeting, Montgomery Village residents suggested a dog park, cemetery or community gardens as ideas for common areas within the Montgomery Village golf course development project. The developer and MVF leaders need to think out of the box and not settle for a dog park, cemetery or community gardens. 
  • It is time to receive an authoritative report on the status of Senator Nancy King's sports toilet at South Valley Park. What are the issues associated with growing cost pressure stemming from sewer/water and electrical connections and permit costs along with a plat requirement for a natural resource inventory and forest conservation plan? Also is there pressure on MVF timely performance of the project milestones needed to actually receive the $125,000 state grant? 
  • Residents continue to object to the design and planning decisions of the South Valley Restroom and Concession Stand project including the disclosure and location of a second restroom near the lawn theatre. This location is tied to the need for a sewer line and further complicated by a nearby transformer, grading issues, inadequate facility size, proximity to convenient use by the audience and performers, and unsightly aesthetics as viewed by nearby residents. A year and a half into the project, these issues call into question the MVF capability to manage and coordinate the project and threaten MVF timely performance of the project milestones needed to actually receive the $125,000 state grant? The clock is running, and the project is stalled.
  • One unsettling and unsettled outcome of the South Valley Restroom and Concession Stand project events is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between MVF and MVSA. This MOU improperly places the interests of the MVSA above those of Village residents. This occurs in the MOU indemnity clause which violates the MVF Board member fiduciary responsibility. Board members have an obligation to act in good faith on behalf of the residents of the Village. Instead, the MOU improperly places the interests of MVSA above those of Village residents.
  • In a search for facts, is it true that Elena Peterson remains on the South Valley Board of Directors as its Treasurer and MVF Alternate? This is  according to the Montgomery Village web page under Communities. What is going here? What are the real facts? Bob Hydorn stated that he was proud of the MVF election process. He also stated that he and others didn't know whether Elena Peterson "was in fact set on moving." Why then is Elena Peterson the author of the South Valley Homes Corporation article in the August 9, 2013 MV News?

What grade would you give the Montgomery Village Foundation (MVF) on the conduct, management, and coordination of Village affairs? Use A through F. 

Find out what's happening in Montgomery Villagewith free, real-time updates from Patch.


We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?

More from Montgomery Village