Wednesday, June 02, 2010

The Fog of COG

In the comment section of this post, Marc Norman, the spokesperson for Citizens for Open Government, made the following statement in response to my conjecture that the food workers union was funding his continuing legal challenges:

“FOR THE RECORD, we have not accepted ANY funding from organizations with a financial interest in the Turf Valley referendum.”

I found this statement intriguing. I happen to think that the union most certainly does have a financial interest in keeping a non union store out of HoCo. I then suggested he was attempting to obscure or “turn a phrase” instead of acknowledging whether the union was his benefactor, so I asked point blank if he was being supported by the food workers union or their PAC.

His response was somewhat less than forthcoming.

“As our publicly available election filings will support, there isn't any "turning of a phrase".”

I am told that such a form does exist and I am attempting to get a copy of it. Still, it would have been nice if he had just answered the question.


PZGURU said...

WB - it would be nice, and show some consistency on your part, if you were as thorough in scrutinizing the politicos and groups that YOU pander to, I mean support.

I wonder, for example, just how much money GGP has donated to ratboy Ulman's campaign.

And - I don't care one way or another about the Turf Valley referendum. I'm just sick of your constant attacks on groups that have every right to do what they are doing.

Or how much money Sang Oh and Bethel Korean Church gave to Ulman in return for the unethical, improper re-zoning that they got from ulman.

Why don't research the BIG problems in the Count instead of constantly harassing, badmouthing, and berating groups that take a different position than you.


HHI BeachGuy said...

WB - In your zeal to uncover the truth, you forgot to mention MD state election filings which completely document how the County Executive and 4 out of 5 Councilmembers received contributions from the Turf Valley developers before approving the rezoning that is currently being challenged by referendum petition.

Bob O said...

I think they have several points. Your rejoinder?

I'm off to type a lot...eventually my comment will appear....

Trevor said...


Don't get discouraged. Keep up the Muckraking. You are doing a great public service that our local newspapers don't bother with by looking into the comments made by various groups. It is your blog, and your prerogative to focus on any issue and group you deem interesting.

Gimme said...

Good call HHI. The most egregious part of this story is that the developer wrote N/A on their ZRA-100/CB58-2008 application when asked to identify their contributions to government officials. This is the definition of less than forthcoming.

Wanna guess who introduced the Bill? Council Chairperson Courtney Watson.

Hey Ann Landers (aka Anon May 29, 11:30pm), does that show enough irreverance?

Gimme A Break