David Marks, in his second year on the job, finds himself at the center of some criticism from his County Council colleagues related to several recent votes.
At issue is how Marks told his colleagues he would vote on three bills in the last year—a , a , and a request for condemnation on a west side property—and how he ultimately voted.
Council members did not want to speak for attribution about Marks' recent voting but said it's causing some concern that the councilman is unreliable.
Marks, for his part, says he's heard the criticism from some of his colleagues. He criticized them in turn for speaking to a reporter but not allowing themselves to be identified.
The Perry Hall Republican acknowledged that he publicly stated intentions to vote for speed cameras and the transgender law before ultimately changing his mind. He said he never committed to a position on the condemnation request despite criticisms that he changed his mind several times before the final vote.
Marks called the speed camera contract and transgender bill "some of the most ideological legislation the council has discussed."
Marks initially said he could vote for the speed camera contract because it was not a vote to expand the program. Prior to the transgender vote, Marks said he could vote for the bill if certain amendments related to public accommodations were adopted.
But his district, which is now more Republican as a result of redistricting than it was when Marks was elected in 2010, opposed both bills, he said.
There may also have been some political pressure placed on Marks by his own party.
Marks acknowledges being asked to vote against the transgender bill by Rep. Andy Harris and told by other members of the Republican party that the issue could be used effectively against him in a primary challenge.
But Marks downplayed the politics and said the desires of his constituents ultimately influenced his final vote.
"It's more important for me to cast a vote based on what my constituents want and that's what my goal is at the end of the day," said Marks. "That's more important to me than swearing loyalty to any one member of the council.
"Each of the council members—none of us is perfect," Marks continued. "Some of us have volcanic tempers at times and some times there are frayed relationships. I'll measure my record on what I've gotten done for the people I represent."
Marks said that if the tables were turned and his party controlled the council and wanted to pass more conservative legislation, "Democrats would be voting a certain way based on their districts."
Marks, who is one of two Republicans on the council, said his desire to build consensus is some times interpreted as wanting to avoid conflict.
The lesson here, he said, is that he'll now be more cautious about discussing his stances on bills.
In the end, the councilman said he was not concerned that the votes in question have hurt his ability to work with his colleagues.
"I've been a very productive member of this council," said Marks. "I think I've been very effective in working with my colleagues."
I would say that Councilman Marks is, pardon the pun, head and shoulders above the rest of his colleagues by engaging in the democratic process with us mere mortals. A good photo-op as demonstrated by this link is one thing, but standing in front of the podium in these tiny boxes is far more valuable thank a Kodak moment. http://dundalk.patch.com/articles/eastern-baltimore-county-honors-jim-smith-1e7f6f4c There are those usual suspects that use this site to further their agenda by espousing to the formula of - hear me, but I don't hear you as illustrated by this link. http://dundalk.patch.com/articles/olszewski-hiking-boater-fees-not-the-answer
From Bueller: "This can be done the easy way or the hard way. Reference CC# number 12-040-0914, call CID Unit at Pct. 12, 410 887-7309 and ask for Det. Sgt. Gallaway. If he does not hear from you we go to the next step. Under the statute I warned you and you chose to ignore that warning. " I am getting ready to go on vacation so I wish Bueller would direct his bud Sgt Galloway to call
You would save time by calling and revealing to the Sgt. your identity. Otherwise during the course of an investigation, because of privacy acts a certain protocol must be followed. I gave you the opportunity to reveal your identity by making a phone call. I am assuming at this point you have not and the Sgt. will follow the proper guidelines in identifying you. The First Amendment does not cover the right to harass or maliciously engage in a course of conduct that alarms or seriously annoys the other. Read MD Criminal Law Article 3-803 under Harassment. Freedom of speech does not allow 27 full pages of remarks and 6,000 words similar the ones I will illustrate below. I apologize to the readers for the language being used. You have crossed a line between public discourse (free speech) and the crime of Harassment a long time ago with repeated remarks like the following: Robert Armstrong 10:58 pm on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 Buzz, read my comments You are a Stupid Asshole. Robert Armstrong 11:18 pm on Wednesday, December 7, 2011 LOL Bueller No difference??? One you are in the ring getting the shit kicked out of you and the other one you are just a poser. Kinda mimics your career. How did you manage to get a 4f to avoid Viet Nam when you were a bodybuilder???
I have been the subject of his vicious and slanderous attacks for a long time and I decided to take a stand so that others won't have to deal with this. This article just appeared in the Sun and is causing serious concern. http://soetalk.com/2012/03/05/school-bullying-on-you-tube/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment_by_computer Who will stand up for me if not myself. He's now involving Councilman Marks. Who's next? I must take a stand which hopefully will protect and prevent others from becoming such victims. This kind of conduct cannot be allowed in public discourse. There is a line, otherwise, God forbid what harm may some do to another's reputation. There are two legal issues here, one is slander, which I am addressing through council, and the other is criminal which is why I filed the report with the police. I was asked at the bequest of the authorities on who the person might be and if I could provide assistance in identifying him it would be helpful. I told them I was not sure. His true identity is unknown and I offered him a chance through a private message to come forward. He chose to make this a public matter now.
Suppose a person is married and someone begin to accuses them of adultery or committing crimes against children. Are you saying ignore that? Let it go on and on? I tried your way and it did not work. Do you think these people listen to reason? "It's on them", I don't think so, not when "them" are accusing me of crimes. Here are two examples of what I'm talking about. I think AdamBaum is one in the same as RA. http://dundalk.patch.com/articles/friends-family-hold-vigil-for-fallen-soldier http://dundalk.patch.com/blog_posts/lincoln-electric-acquires-local-firm-techalloy-70-million-in-sales-and-55-jobs-lost-to-area I don't mind buffoons but I do mind when that person accuses me of commenting crimes along with comments like this that never stop: Robert Armstrong 1:35 am on Sunday, February 5, 2012 ...and stay away from my kids you creepy fat pervert. I tell you what, if anyone out there wants to provide me an example of your advice I will take it. Until then I will stand up and fight. Americans are noted for that.
Think of it this way Buzz....Someone must first earn your respect before you will allow them to insult you in any way. I can understand the frustrations...
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32458#1 Here is the statute under MD law: Criminal Law Article 3-308 which states under HARASSMENT - Defined Penalties - ... or maliciously engage in a course of conduct that alarms or seriously annoys the other: (1) With the intent to harass, alarm, or annoy the other: (2) after receiving a reasonable warning or request to stop by or on behalf of the other. After a 28 complete pages and 6,000 words, that is enough. That is the law. I to have engaged in may acts of discourse on this site and have never had a problem, because most of us are adults and after a few barbs we shake hands and move on. Mike, how many cases involving crime figures or how man murders have been solved based on testimony from unscrupulous characters. Who put John Gotti away for life - Sammy the Bull. The impact of the words are more serious than the one speaking them. What I don't understand is why isn't there a concern from others who comment on this site over this kind of conduct. Is it because of the proverbial - it's not my problem, or have people become so jaded that anything goes.
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE ABOVE ARTICLE?
http://dundalk.patch.com/articles/friends-family-hold-vigil-for-fallen-soldier
" ... who are these people complaining that the media were there? Unless they were his students, his friends, his comrades in the National Guard ..." You were not any of the above.
To answer your question, no it does not bother me. I don't take everything personally; nor do I believe that everyone is out to get me. Especially those who might disagree with me from time to time. You should start taking your medication every day, as I'm sure it says on the label. Skipping doses is dangerous.