Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1960-11-03

In the general whoopla go
ing on over presidential con-
gressional and school board
candidates, voters here may
want to pause and consider
three County questions on the
ballot and 16 on the State level.
The questions require yes or
no response if final answers
are to be indicative of major
ity preferences.
The three County questions
will be numbered II, IS and
10. An affirmative answer on
No. IL will amend the Charter
so that in emergencies" the
County can make expenditures
of more than $1,000 without
competitive bidding. At this
time, public notice, sealed bids
and performance bonds are re-
quired for all expenditures for
goods and services over 81, 900.
While it is true elimination
of these procedures will speed
up some phases of County
business, this column stands
opposed to eyes" on the ques-
ton. To make the change
even palatable, emergencies"
should have been defined, how
ever loosely, and limit should
have been set for amounts to
be spent without notice and
competitive bidding. Eyes" on
the question, in the opinion of
this column, opens the door to
many things from which the
County has been free. Spend
ing public money behind a
closed door may not always
be in the public interest. Pub
lie notice and competitive bid
ding are safeguards not to be
lost sight of in sudden flurries
to get on with the job.
County question 18, if an af-
firmative vote is forthcoming,
will bury the present require
ment of a 5 to 2 vote of the
County Council if it wants to
increase dollar recommended
tons in the County Managers
annual budget or add new
items of expense. A simple
majority then would prevail.
The question of a 5 to 2
vote as opposed to simple ma
jority in the matter of increas-
ing the budget came to a boil
last year in connection with
the school budget. In 1859,
the Council had said the school
budget should be submitted
first to it and not to the Coun-
ty Manager. A State law was
cited to back up the stand.
Two members of the Coun-
Gil for Better Education took
the matter to the Circuit
Court. The Court ruled for
the plaintiffs, upholding a pro-
vision of the County Charter,
and the school boards request
for funds went to former
County Manager Reese. Reese
promptly pared off So million
and the big howl was on.
Council members marshalled a
S to 2 vote to restore the Reese
cuts but appealed the Circuit
Courts decision. The Court
of Appeals reversed the Cir
cult Court.
Simple majority rule In
budgetary matters now applies
to the school budget. Question
Is extends the rule to all other
sections of the annual budget
now subject to the County
Managers review. Opponents
to voting Eyes" believe a sim
pie majority Council vote to
increase and add to the budg-
ct will serve to encourage big
spenders.
Question 10 asks voters to
approve or disapprove a pro-
posal to hike per diem pay of
County Council members from
$50 to $50 day, and to ex-
tend the pay to cover official
meetings other than regular
Council sessions. 1t is point
ed out here, the pay hike
would not apply to present
members and would go into eff
feet with the council to be
elected in 1862.
Fifty dollars a day is not ex-
cessive pay for a member of
the County's governing body.