Benefits District

Per the Membership Vote taken at the Regular Monthly Membership Meeting held on Tuesday, February 21, 2006, he following Resolution was passed unanimously by the full Board of Directors of the Peabody Heights Resident Homeowners Alliance, Inc.

of the Peabody Heights Resident Homeowners Alliance, Inc., c/o 9 East 27^th Street, Baltimore, MD 21218

We, the Board of Directors of the Peabody Heights Resident Homeowners Alliance, Inc., resolve to oppose the 2006 reauthorization by the Mayor and City Council of the governmental entity named the Charles Village Community Benefits District and Management Authority, (the CVCBD and MA) based on the following:

As outlined in the City Charter and City Code: “This purpose of the Authority is to promote and market the District; provide supplemental security and maintenance services, provide amenities in public areas, provide park and recreation programs and functions and after its establishment, other services and functions as requested by the Authority and approved by an ordinance of the Mayor and City Council.” (City Charter, Art. II, Section 63 (a) “In general” (2) and City Code Art. 14, Subtitle 6 – Section 6-3 (b) “Purpose”)

The legal and fiduciary responsibilities stemming from the levying of a surtax to support the Authority’s Purpose have not been met. There has been ample time in the twelve years of its existence and from reauthorization to reauthorization for the Authority to make itself a respected and viable entity. But each time the promises to improve have rung false. There should be no more excuses but an end put to this surtax-subsidized non-performing “pilot program”.

The following is a report on the April 6th, 2006 Planning Commission
Hearing on the City Council Bill for the 2006 Reauthorization of the
Charles Village Community Benefits District from Peabody Heights member
Steven Gewirtz:

There were quite a number of supporters of CVCBD present. With perhaps two exceptions, all were employees (yes, they have the free time from working for our community to come there to push to save their jobs, but Tolbert was not there) or board members or former employees or former board members of CVCBD or associated with CVCF. And there were four opponents present including Pam Wilson, Joan Floyd, and myself. And Odette Ramos was there (as President of the Abell Improvement Association, to say that AIA has historically been neutral and would discuss reauthorization at its quarterly meeting -- she did not give the date, but it is 4/27).

The Planning Commission is charged with giving a recommendation to the City Council. The staff of the Planning Commission presented its recommendation that the Commission recommend reauthorization. It presented its recommendation based on letters of support from some community organizations and JHU and based on what CVCBD has said in its quarterly reports (written, by the way, by Janet Levine) and on its web site.

A number of people spoke for reauthorization including (not listed in the order in which they spoke) Jennifer Martin as President of CVCBD, her husband Frank Jannuzi as President of CVCF, Janet Levine as one there to answer questions, Sandy Sparks, Delano Bailey, Salem Reiner as board member for JHU.

Then we opponents spoke. First came Pam Wilson who spoke on behalf of Peabody Heights Resident Homeowners Alliance. She said that their statement of opposition to reauthorization had been e-mailed to the Commission. They had no record of it, but they did find it later. She was really grilled, including asking her how she had been harmed by CVCBD other than the roughly $160 in surtax that she and her husband had paid for the current fiscal year. Everything that she said was questioned, but I am happy to report that she handled it very well.

Next, I spoke about the fact that the Chairman of the Commission had urged then CVCBD President Morgan Allyn three years ago to reach out to the opponents, but she had merely reduced the time allowed at the end of CVCBD board meetings for public comment. I detailed how at the August, 2004 AIA meeting, I had been refused an answer from Wesley Tolbert to what were the hours of escorts offered by CVCBD, thus confirming my belief that as an opponent, I will not receive safety and sanitation services from CVCBD, and I noted that some board members have promised a customer service policy to end such discrimination but that such a policy still does not exist, and that evening escorts had been offered briefly a year earlier but had not been well advertised, thus making them effectively available only to CVCBD insiders. I mentioned that the proponents had promised that all CVCBD employees would be Charles Village residents if possible but in any case Baltimore City residents and had had that written into both the Baltimore City Charter and the Baltimore City enabling ordinance, but that Tolbert is a resident of Howard County. I said that every salaried and better paid employee of CVCBD is white, while every hourly employee (the safety and sanitation people who work under Tolbert) is black. I said that we had been promised 12 safety employees working 24/7 but have 8.75 full time equivalent doing safety and sanitation combined and working from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. I mentioned the farewell party for Winkie Campbell-Notar on Yom Kippur from which Jews were effectively excluded. And finally, I spoke of the promise of a referendum (which Mary Pat Clarke has said she remembers), told to us with the $30,000 of public funds expended by Sandy Sparks and her group. I ended by saying that CVCBD should not be reauthorized, but if it is, we should get the second referendum we had been promised. There was not one question for me.

Joan Floyd said that the Commission had been rude in grilling (not a word that Joan used) Pam. The Commission somewhat apologized, saying that they had wanted to clarify the issues.

The Commission then announced a 5 minute break to read some documents, but the break actually was much longer.

The Chairman of the Commission then announced that they had found the e-mail from Peabody Heights. It was now clear that the mood of the hearing had changed totally. The Chairman noted that there must be a lot more than 3 opponents of CVCBD since none of the three City Council members was present (Jack Young came later but did not speak). The proponents were asked to have a spokesperson go to the podium to answer more questions; Jennifer Martin and Janet Levine went. After that, Joan Floyd went to the podium to represent our side. The letter from the three Council members asking that a bill be drafted for a referendum was discussed. The issue of having Presidents of CVCBD and CVCF who are married was mentioned.

When the board discussed how they would vote on recommending reauthorization to the City Council, much of the discussion was about how a referendum would work. Council member Spector said that the vote does not have to be in November as advocated by our Council members (Clarke, Conaway and Young). The possibility of a mail ballot was mentioned.

Chairman Auchincloss said that he was very upset that there had been no performance audit of CVCBD; three years earlier, he had wanted such audits of all the benefits districts.

It was said that the bill before the Commission was an Administration bill, introduced by Sheila Dixon as a courtesy to CVCBD.

The discussion was that if the Commission voted to recommend not reauthorizing CVCBD, and if the City Council followed the recommendation, then CVCBD would die. They saw no way to include a referendum, but hoped that the City Council would add it as an amendment to the bill after the City Law Department works out some details. When each member said how he would vote, Chairman Auchincloss said that he would vote no because the City Council would take note of a non-unanimous vote. The others all voted yes.

My own view is that everyone is really scared of the civil rights issues. People outside of Charles Village know that CVCBD is messed up (I have heard that when Midtown appeared there, they said: "We're not Charles Village."), and I really think that City Hall is afraid that CVCBD will blow up in somebody's face. As we all left the hearing room, the CVCBD people had a blank expression; maybe they were in shock. I left optimistic. It had been a long and productive afternoon.

Obviously, we will have to get our people to the hearing before the Urban Affairs Committee of the City Council. Even though the mayor wants CVCBD as does JHU, I do not think that our three Council members will support it without a referendum, and there is a rule of councilmen's courtesy. I think that we can win a referendum. I sense that a lot of opinion, at least here in the north of Charles Village, has shifted heavily against CVCBD. People do not see the service that we are paying for.

By the way, the issue has come up in the past of changing the City residency requirement for CVCBD employees, but it has occurred to me that the State enabling legislation (a section of the City Charter) can only be changed by the General Assembly or by a City-wide referendum in November. It is now too late to introduce a bill in Annapolis, and I doubt that there will be support in the City Council for a City-wide vote. So whatever happens, Tolbert's employment will continue to be illegal. It is time for CVCBD to start obeying the law.

Steve Gewirtz provides a much needed service by reporting on meetings held by or about the CVCBD and we will put these on our website in the future for a broader audience. I would, however, like to add some things to this particular report as I was also present and spoke as he mentioned.

Please note that I did testify at the above referenced hearing as Vice Chair of Peabody Heights Alliance on behalf of the board and membership vote to oppose the CVCBD but only on the wording of the formal position of the Peabody Heights Alliance, specifically on the "Purpose" of the CVCBD and lack of performance of same and of the lack of adherence to the law. The Commission was concerned about the "Purpose" of the CVCBD as outlined in the City Charter and City Code and confirmed the wording of this legislation.

In addition, I announced that I was also speaking personally and, as such, expanded my testimony to include other issues such as the lack of an independent performance audit as the Planning Commission Chair had requested be accomplished at the last reauthorization hearing. I stated that an in-house audit was merely self-serving and would not pick up deficiencies that might allow the CVCBD to improve. I also spoke about the undemocratic manner in which the board is seated. With few exceptions, the seats are not directly elected so that the community has little or no control over this governmental body or its actions.

As Steve pointed out, I was literally grilled by the Planning Commission Chair, starting as soon as I had introduced myself. He acted as if he were a prosecutor and I a defendant. His behavior was inexcusable and showed a definite bias against my position. Other members of the commission politely asked questions as, and after, I was finally allowed to have my say. Although the Chair did apologize afterward, Joan Floyd objected to the treatment I received, a public hearing should not be conducted in such a manner. Despite this treatment, I left feeling that it had worked to my benefit in that I had been given the opportunity to say much more than I would have had I just been allowed to speak my piece. Each accusation thrown at me allowed me to explain the truths behind what was said and to detail the problems of the CVCBD in more depth than I had anticipated doing. I believe that for the first time the Planning Commission had actually learned of what was being done by the CVCBD, versus the limits of the powers the CVCBD was granted by the legislation.

-Pamela