It is with mixed feelings that we are announcing that, after more than four years and four months of continuous existence, as of today Rockville Central will cease publishing.

We began Rockville Central in June 2007 and are proud that we have continually been on the forefront of local online community-building. We look around at the new online spaces devoted to aspects of Rockville and we are proud of the role we have played. Whether it is the coverage of Rockville’s elections that began with the 2007 election and continued through a groundbreaking candidate forum we produced, the many, many contributor opinions and notices of special events, or our recent shift to all-Facebook publishing -- we look back on our work with pride.

We view our move to Facebook as having been successful. We have appreciated the members of our community posting photos, questions and links on Rockville Central and seeing other people respond. We’ve also been pleased to have first-hand news accounts from the people with their cell phones. Our active users have increased by over 500%. We’ve gone from about 24,000 hits a month on the website to 100,000 post views a month on Facebook. A single post on Facebook typically gets over 2,000 views.

Even with all this interaction, comments have remained civil. People have participated with thoughtful and full opinions about the issues. We’ve been able to provide a place for public discussions about Rockville based on the many news sources in our region. All these outcomes are gratifying.

However, the simple fact is that it takes a great deal of energy and time to support the online community in the way we feel it deserves. We do not make money off of Rockville Central, and never intended to. It is a labor of love and devotion to Our Fair City. We don’t feel we can devote the kind of energy it deserves and so, rather than let it whither, we decided to make a clean end.

Thank you so very much to all of our readers -- both early adopters and new friends. If you are interested in following Cindy and Brad to see what else they are up to, please do so. You will see us all around Rockville and we will continue to be involved in the civic life of our City.

Farewell, friends. We’ll see you around.

~Brad Rourke and Cindy Cotte Griffiths

Nuts

These sort of looked like nuts to me.

~Brad

Worms

I have no idea what these plants are. They look like underwater creastures, or cartoon worms.

~Brad

Vista

I think this flower is lovely against the deep blue sky.

~Brad

Buds

As many of my friends know, my eye is drawn to dying blooms, like these. I guess, then, that they are not "buds," but whatever the opposite is.

~Brad

Basket

I like how this pile of sand looks like it spilled out of the hoop!

~Brad

Tom Moore has provided a report on the happenings at the Rockville Board of Supervisors of Elections meeting last night, Thursday, October 6, 2011, in response to his previous letter to the Board.

At its meeting last night, the Rockville Board of Supervisors of Elections discussed the issues raised by my October 3 letter, and voted to recommend the change to Rockville's Code I had suggested.  I thank the Board for its prompt attention to my letter and I am satisfied that the appropriate steps are being taken to fix Rockville's elections law.

 

My concern in raising this issue was the certainty of our laws and the transparency of our elections.

 

Transparency is still at issue here. Once this fix is made, unlimited contributions will be allowed from candidates' spouses during the 2011 election without any corresponding disclosure of their financial conflicts.  Changes are in the pipeline to require more extensive disclosure, but not in time for this election.

 

I am therefore calling for all candidates running for Rockville's Mayor and City Council this year to disclose their spouse's financial conflicts through filling out the standard Rockville "Statement of Financial Interests" form required of all candidates.  

 

I care deeply about keeping our elections honest and accountable. I strongly believe that if we allow unlimited contributions from spouses, we should also require full disclosure of their financial conflicts.

by Tom Moore

Tom Moore who is running for Rockville City Council and serves as the Chair of the Compensation Commission.

H2O

There is something that just jumps out about these water main covers when construction crews paint them blue. Well, I guess that's the point, isn't it?

~Brad

This letter to David Celeste, Chair of the Rockville Board of Supervisors of Elections,was submitted by Tom Moore who is running for Rockville City Council and serves as the Chair of the Compensation Commission.

I am writing to alert the Board to what appears to be a serious error in the Fair Election Practices section of the Rockville City Code.  Because of this error, candidates and their spouses run the risk of inadvertently violating the law.  Indeed, the law as presently written was violated during the 2009 election cycle. 

It is generally believed that candidates' spouses are exempt from Rockville's $1,000-per-campaign limit.  The City Clerk's office has given such guidance in the past.  A close reading of the Code, however, reveals that this is simply not the case.  Under current Rockville law, any contribution exceeding $1,000 from a candidate's spouse to his or her campaign is illegal. 

Section 8-78(d) of the Rockville City Code forbids contributions totaling more than $1,000 from any individual to any single candidate:  

 

(d) Limit of contributions. It is unlawful for any individual, association, unincorporated association, corporation, or any other entity, either directly or indirectly, to contribute in any election cycle any money or thing of value greater than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) to any single candidate or campaign committee or to contribute money in excess of one hundred dollars ($100.00) except by check, except that contributions may be made by any electronic method provided said contribution is recorded by the Treasurer and a receipt is provided to the contributor and a copy of the receipt is maintained by the Treasurer. Total contributions by a contributor to various campaign committees and candidates in any election cycle under this subsection shall not exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000.00). (Emphasis added) 

The immediately previous section, 8-77, contains an exception for a candidate and "his" [sic] spouse: 

 

(a) Contributions and expenses. The contributions of a candidate or his spouse to the candidate's own campaign are not subject to the limitations of subsection 8-78(b), but must pass through the hands of the candidate's treasurer and be reported as required in other provisions in this article. Personal expenses of the candidate for filing fees, telegrams, telephoning, travel, and board, shall not be considered contributions if paid for by the candidate or his spouse. (Emphasis added) 

The problem is that this exception by its terms only applies to Section 8-78(b), not (d).  Section 8-78(b) reads:  

 

(b) Exception for volunteering time and personal vehicle. Nothing contained in this section shall limit or affect the right of any person to volunteer his time or personal vehicle for transportation incident to any election or to expend money for proper legal expenses in maintaining or contesting the results of any such elections.  

Clearly, this is an error in the Code.  Section 8-78(b) is itself an exception and contains no "limitations" from which 8-77(a) could exempt a candidate or spouse.  Section 8-78(d) is the section that contains contribution limits, and is the section that would require exceptions if the City wanted to make such exceptions.  

This is not a theoretical problem.  During the 2009 Rockville election cycle, now-Councilmember Bridget Newton reported total campaign receipts of $12,105.91. Of that, a total of $4,120.50 was provided by her husband, Fred Newton, in the form of what Councilmember Newton reported as “in-kind” contributions to her campaign for items such as postage and campaign materials.   

Simply put, Fred Newton's $4,120.50 in contributions to Bridget Newton's 2009 city council campaign violated Rockville City law.  Perhaps this was not meant to be the case, nor perhaps should it be the case.  But as the law stands right now, it is the case.  The violation was almost certainly inadvertent, but is a violation nonetheless. 

Regardless of the state of Rockville's City Code, a candidate's contributions to his or her own campaign are not limited under the U.S. Constitution.  In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the Supreme Court held that limits on a candidate’s contributions to his or her own campaign were unconstitutional. However, no such constitutional exception applies to campaign contributions from spouses of candidates.  

I am making somewhat of a leap of faith here, assuming that Section 8-77(a) should reference 8-78(d) instead of some other section, and that the City wishes to totally exempt spouses from contribution limits.  This is not the case everywhere – federal election law does not allow a candidate's spouse's assets to be considered the candidate's "personal funds" and thus exempt from contribution limits (2 U.S.C. 431.26).  

If it is the case that the City wishes to exempt spousal campaign contributions from limits, the Board of Supervisors of Elections should immediately redraft 8-77(a) to reflect this desire and recommend the change to the Mayor and Council. 

If it does so, I would recommend that the Board also carefully consider Section 16-61 of the Code regarding candidates' financial disclosure.  The section now reads:  

 

All elected officials or those appointed to fill the vacant office of an elected official, all candidates for elective office, and all applicants for appointment to the Board of Appeals, the Planning Commission, and the Historic District Commission are required to file the statements provided for in this division. 

One of the major justifications for requiring candidates for elective office to submit a detailed personal financial disclosure is that because their contributions to their own campaigns are unlimited, it is especially important to know whether they have financial conflicts of interest with the City.    

If the Board were to recommend that City law be changed to remove any limits from spousal contributions, this rationale would apply with equal strength to candidates' spouses' financial activities and their actual or potential conflicts of interest.  Allowing unlimited campaign contributions from any source that does not have to disclose their origins – or disclose any conflicts of interest with the City – would create a gaping loophole in the Fair Election Practices laws of the City and gut their effectiveness. 

For example, if I were running for City Council and my wife were working for a developer bidding on a contract to build a new city building, my wife could quite legally make a $50,000 contribution to my campaign from her salary.  The only thing that would have to be disclosed is my wife's $50,000 contribution to my campaign; the public would be entirely in the dark as to the original source of the money and the overwhelming conflict of interest borne by my wife.  This would represent a legal and complete laundering of that developer's money, and it is completely unacceptable.

It has been suggested to me that given my own status as a candidate for Rockville City Council this year, I should perhaps leave this issue for others to bring to the Board's attention.  I disagree.  It is I, my wife, and my fellow candidates and their spouses who are at risk until this statute is corrected. I therefore believe it is properly my role to highlight this problem with Rockville's code.  

I urge the Board to act as quickly as possible on these matters. 

Thank you. 

Tom Moore

Red Light, Green Light

I wish I knew what these little dots are for. In any event, I thought they were cool.

~Brad