Baltimore County Councilman David Marks began driving a county-owned vehicle in January much like five of his colleagues on the council.
The councilman's "reluctant" decision to accept the car came after after logging what he said was "thousands" of job-related miles on an eight-year old car that eventually broke down.
And a 2010 campaign promise to voters that he would not accept such perks.
"I should have talked to Mrs. Marks before making that promise," the councilman said.
Marks discussed his decision in an interview on Tuesday, nearly a day before he wrote about the decision on his blog.
During the campaign, Marks also promised to be very visible in the district and attend as many community meetings as he could. He also does not have other employment outside the council—more of a trend this term than in the recent past.
"I know it's supposed to be a part-time job but it really is a full-time job," Marks said of the $54,000 a year job.
Marks sought reimbursement for the mileage put on his personal car while doing county business. Under the terms of use, he and other councilmembers reimburse the county through payroll deduction for personal mileage they put on county cars.
In addition to the access to a car, county councilmembers also have the ability to re-fuel the cars at county fuel depots.
The use of the cars has come under scrutiny again following the arrest of Councilman Todd Huff, who was pulled over and charged with drunken driving while in his county-owned silver Jeep Grand Cherokee. During that stop, he attempted to talk the police out of charging him and left a voice mail for county police Chief Jim Johnson in which he admitted drinking before driving his vehicle.
The councilman failed field sobriety tests and an intoximeter test measured his blood alcohol level at .20–more than twice the legal limit. The councilman drove his vehicle that night apparently despite the fact that his wife, who was a passenger in the car, was sober.
Huff's arrest was the latest incident involving a county-owned vehicle driven by members of the council. In 2005, then-Councilman Sam Moxley was involved in an accident and was subsequently charged with drunken driving.
Huff Monday announced he was voluntarily giving up his county car just as Moxley did immediately following the 2005 accident.
Former Councilman Bryan McIntire, Huff's Republican predecessor, was involved in five accidents in seven years. The accidents all involved his county-owned vehicle. Four of them were determined to be his fault and cost county taxpayers more than $40,000.
Marks said he'd like the council to tighten the rules regarding the use of the cars.
First, Marks would like to see the council adopt a rule requiring councilmembers to turn in the keys to their county-owned vehicles when they are involved in an incident such as the one Huff was charged with.
"I think it should be required until the investigation is over and the court case is resolved," Marks said.
Second, Marks said he would like to the council adopt a rule where the cars are not used to transport the members of the council to campaign events.
"I had a campaign event earlier in the month and I was driven to it in a non-county car," Marks said.
Councilmembers in the past have used the cars to travel to such events and some, like former Councilman Vince Gardina, have been chastised for placing political bumper stickers on the vehicles—a violation of county rules regarding the use of the cars.
"I'm really concerned about the potential for abuse," Marks said.
Marks vowed not to use the vehicle for campaign events and said he's not planning on making a lot of personal trips.
"I'm going to use the car very sparingly," Marks said.
Slander is akin to stating that several of Marks "constituents are perfect and have Messiah complexes" when perhaps few do. The child issue is also tricky. One can argue that a political decision such as relocating a firehouse might impact property values that subsequently affect the children of the homeowners who now must maintain a diminished asset. With most American's largest nest egg being their home it impacts its resale. Perhaps a elderly couple must now rely on their children to cover the gap from an anticipated sale of their home to fund medical care. Ergo the grandchildren now suffer. In a community it would be nice to insulate our children from the actions of politicians. Sadly that isn't a reality.
Anyone agree? Disagree?
Seriously? He is about to destroy a neighborhood. But besides that. Did you see what Patch user Stephanie Marks posted today? And then deleted when called on it.
Commenters and comments like these are why I infrequently read or contribute to this community. The editors of Patch would do well with eliminating anonymous accounts, much like Facebook tries, for example, to require users to be real people. I simply can't believe that commenters like JDStuts and TT McBean are actually as angry and hateful as the anonymous comments they share and I suspect the acrimony would go away when the shroud of anonymity is removed.
And the impact of 140db air horns on my newborn in a neighborhood that was never considered a spot for the most active fire house in the county until Marks signed off on selling the existing spot with no plan for a relocation or cost assessment is okay? Then when we approached him with the issue he dismissed us outright and ignored any follow up. And we are the ones who assaulted his family? Did you catch the quote today about us suffering from mental illness and yet Marks has yet to produce any numbers that justify this idea will: 1. cover the cost of new construction 2. cover the cost of A/C 3. engage the neighborhoods on relocation of the new station 4. address the impact of noise and light on the property values or West Towson Steve Kolbe, I assume you are decent man. But this idea is a dream killer for the rest of us.
"Under common law employers are responsible for the actions of their employees. Employers must be sure that their policies provide coverage for "non-owned" and "hired" autos. The company is then protected if an employee causes and accident. If an employer does not own any vehicles "hired and non-owned" auto liability insurance is needed to provide the coverage outlined above. " http://www.scottsimmonds.com/article-employee-auto/index.php?PHPSESSID=1b5fa46f8a2ac02fc966d11ac441fb1b You stand corrected.
David Marks will not abuse the car the way others have. Be glad you have this guy doing the county business.
Dale Anderson. At least he kept the long arm of the federal government out of baltimore county