Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1959-04-30
View of the Cow

- ~
Now that the sound and fury
of the two hearings on the pro-
posed milk ordinance are over,
one can reflect that they showed
democracy at its best and at its
worst.
The Council patiently stayed
one night until u o'clock, and
the other night until after II
o'clock to hear those who wished
to speak. No time limits were
imposed upon speakers and
with the exception of a few re-
grettable, although understand
able, instances, all who wanted
to speak were heard. There was
a large turnout on each night
larger on the first, which was
the more Informative. 1t was un-
fortunate that two members of
the Council were not present the
first night Farmers, Milk AS.
ISOLATION representatives, dairy
representatives, organic a t o n
representatives, State and Fed
eral representatives, experts
and consumers spoke. Some
were there to give information,
some to state opinion, and some
to express emotion. 1t number
appearing at the hearing, as well
as IN number of persons they
represented, the opponents of
the proposed ordinance substan-
tally outnumbered the propo-
nents.
So much for the good; now
for the bad.
There was Grover Walker, a
member Of the Maryland.Vir-
ginia Milk Producers Associa.
ton, sitting as a member Of the
Council, apparently insensitive
to the conflict of interest situa.
ton this raises at the very time
the Councils Committee on Con-
flicts had been created because
of concern over conflicts Of in.
terest on the part of public Of.
ficials.
There was Mrs. Werner, early
in the hearing expressing re-
sentiment at the idea that any.
one on the Council had spon.
sored the proposed ordinance.
Somehow, we were supposed to
believe that it had been drawn
at no ones direction. This In the
face of the incontrovertible fact
that 1t was the Council which
had asked that the ordinance be
drawn. Surely, at least one of
the seven members of the Coun.
Gil should have had the cour.
age and honesty to state the
Council, at that time, thought
for some reason that such an
ordinance was needed and these
hearings were being held to ac.
quaint them with the facts and
opinions as to such a need. None
had the moral fiber to make
such a statement. On the con.
trary, Mrs. Werner's bias was
regrettably obvious as ex.
pressed in her consistent heck.
ling of opponents of the pro-
posed ordinance and her many
statements in support of it dur.
ing the hearing. She and Mr..
Hickey, at the outset, said that
economics had nothing to do
with the matter; that the sole
issue was health. This incred.
ible statement was made in the
face of Mrs. Werner's own quot
ed comments at the time the
Council directed the ordinance
to be drawn. How incredible that
statement was is seen from the
fact that most of the speakers
at the hearing alluded to the
economic issue. Mrs. Werner
notably tipped her own hand, as
soon as the spokesman for
Chestnut Farms began to speak,
she asked him, who owns
Chestnut Farms?"
The introduction of this ordi.
nance without a prior hearing
as to its need; the surprise ex.
pressed by the Council at letters
opposing 1t and asking for a
hearing; the setting it down for
hearing before many citizens as.
sociations could have time to
act; and the astonishing fact
that an ordinance purporting to
be for the benefit of the consum.
er was almost unanimously op.
posed by consumers and con.
sumer organizations. suggests
that the Council has allowed its