More News

I must say that I was disappointed in The Gazette's recent coverage of the Board of Elections decision to not attend closed-door meetings ["Open meeting squabble in county leads to new policy," Oct. 28]. Far from being a pitched political battle waged between two political parties, as your paper portrayed it, the issue at stake was one of good policy: Should the body that is charged with ensuring basic equity and fairness in our election process be caucusing with the Democratic Party?

Let me set the record straight. First off, Mr. [Terry ] Speigner is the chairman of the county Democratic Party, not some elected official. For him to be meeting with any public body behind closed doors sets a bad precedent, which I'm sure he'd point out if the situations were reversed! Second, the idea that the Prince George's County Senate delegation is not a public body just because the General Assembly is not in session is ludicrous. If it looks a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, even if it calls itself a chicken!

I don't know where Mr. Speigner's engraved invitation to attend the board meeting went. It's obvious, however, that he was a little upset about not receiving one. Seriously, is this what is expected? An invitation?

Mr. Speigner, despite his title, is not an elected official. Outside of the Democratic Party, he is merely a private citizen and, as such, is entitled to no special treatment. The information regarding the board's meeting was available on its Web site, which is where I found it. Furthermore, in an e-mail that I wrote to state Sen. Jim Rosapepe on Oct. 24, I personally invited him to attend the meeting. I felt that it was important to reach across party lines to resolve this situation in an amicable way, which the county Democrats are apparently unwilling to do! Finally, a member of the general public also attended the meeting. I wonder how he found out about it. The charge made by Mr. Speigner and repeated by The Gazette that we Republicans somehow had a closed-door meeting with the Board of Elections is preposterous!

As for the meeting itself, during its deliberations, more than one board member stressed they had problems with the idea of attending a closed-door meeting! Furthermore, the board's counsel believed that even if the Senate delegation didn't violate the law, it might be possible for the board to do so by attending the meeting. All of the participants at the meeting agreed that, regardless of the legality of meeting with Mr. Speigner and the delegation, they had a special obligation to ensure they remain neutral in their dealings with the public and with all political parties in the county. This was the basis for the board's decision to create an explicit policy regarding closed-door meetings. I, for one, thought it to be good policy and was, frankly, shocked that such a policy did not already exist!

Shame on Mr. Speigner for his outright lies! Shame on the county delegation for meeting behind closed doors and for hiding behind a loophole! Finally, shame on The Gazette for not having their facts in order before publishing!

What I witnessed Oct. 26 was an exercise in good public policy. Instead of condemning the Board of Elections as Mr. Speigner has, we should stand up and cheer. Honesty and integrity won out over cloak and daggers! That is something to be proud of, no matter what your political persuasion is.

Jason W. Papanikolas, Laurel