Interview with Steven Showe, Chairman of the Washington County [MD] Republican Central Committee

 

    Transparency regarding the appointment process for all of the recent Washington County Republican Central Committee (WCRCC) appointments has been a major concern and sometimes heated topic of discussion on social media. So in the spirit of transparency, let me begin by stating:

I wanted to interview Steven Showe, Chairman of the WCRCC, for no other reason than to attempt to clear up the suspicion regarding the integrity of this committee that has been sown into the community via social media and the local newspaper, IMO for either personal attention or to further a political agenda.  I write this as a Conservative political activist and blogger that has nothing personal to gain or to lose by this interview. Although I had been a loyal Republican for 30 years, I now identify strictly as a Conservative. I have no influence in the Washington County Republican Party or the Washington County Republican Central Committee, and I am not even a member of the Washington County Republican Club any longer. In fact, although I still own a  home in Washington County, due to a personal family situation,  I have been "temporarily" living in Baltimore County for nearly two years. I have no personal friendships on the WCRCC. I do have three acquaintances out of the six who voted to fill these positions, having briefly served on one Board with one member and having occasionally attended the same political events as two others. I had no prior connection to Steven Showe. Full disclosure: Even though it has no connection to the WCRCC appointment of Commissioner Spong, which is the appointment that has created the most stir,  I am currently a contracted employee for Delegate William Wivell in a politically benign position as a social media consultant. I also compile data into document form, one day a week working from home.

    I met with Mr. Showe the night of the Republican Club meeting where the Washington County delegation gave their annual legislative update. He was willing to give me all of the time that  I needed and willing to discuss any topic. I found him to be very open and forthright, and his demeanor when asked about his leadership was somewhat humble yet firm.  He answered every question, although some were "off the record." Those particular answers were sometimes disarmingly honest, and in most cases would be to his benefit to share. I simply asked him the questions that many have asked, repeatedly, regarding the process. When not in quotes, his answers have been paraphrased.

1. How transparent is the committee legally obligated to be regarding the appointment process? "Legally, there is nothing written. Transparency is a term that might have multiple meanings. We viewed the process as if we were interviewing somebody for a job. We ran background checks and they were guarded as private." Sometimes privacy trumps transparency.

2. Did the background checks disqualify anyone? "I can't answer that."  Showe went on to say, "We didn't record minutes at our meetings because they weren't regularly-scheduled meetings and because they would have become public, and we had to protect mainly the privacy of the individuals, but also ourselves."

3. Did the committee research and abide strictly to the state constitution? "Definitely. We did not bend to the Appointments Office, we strictly read the Constitution [and sought the advice of lawyers]. We were advised that we may send more than one name, but with the recent concern for how the U.S. Constitution is being ignored and attacked, we decided to strictly follow the state constitution. The Appointments Office in Annapolis requested that we submit more than one name, and so did the Maryland State [Republican] Party.

4. The requests for three names for the Delegate and Commissioner appointments were reported to have come straight from Governor Hogan. Is that true? "I don't think it came from Hogan. It came from the Appointments Office and I don't think that Larry Hogan knew anything about it."

5. Not all applicants were interviewed for Commissioner. Were all applicants for the other positions interviewed? "Yes."

6. What were the criteria for deciding who would be interviewed? "We developed the process for each position as a committee. The process was different for each position. Completely different."

• "As for the position for Senator, we decided to keep it within the delegation and interviewed everyone except Brett Wilson. He declined an interview because he felt that he was elected to represent Hagerstown."
• "For the position of Delegate we decided to interview every applicant."
• "For the commissioner position we thoroughly read every resume, cover letter, form, and essay (Top Three Priorities) submitted by every applicant to decide who we would interview. We interviewed every elected official."

Mr. Spong was not an elected official yet he was interviewed? The rest were interviewed based on their background checks and paperwork.

7. A second interview for one applicant who had applied for the delegate position and then also applied later for the commissioner position was deemed unnecessary. Why? "We had very recently interviewed this person, but if the individual comes to me I will give him more details." [Privacy]

8. Do you think that the committee could have been more considerate towards the applicants, especially in keeping them informed throughout the process? "We notified people as their applications came in. If they sent them by email there could have been those who slipped through the cracks because at first people were sending them directly to me, some to other members of the committee, until we did get a Google number that went to all of us. The applicants could have called to follow up to see if their applications were received. Those who where going to be interviewed were called, and everyone was notified the night that the interview process was over."

So, those who were not going to be interviewed were not told until the interview process was over? "Yes. Large companies [typically] do not call people to tell them that they are not going to be interviewed. That's the way we worked it. Will a company even read your resume? No, [often] they may read the cover letter and you may be disqualified or you may have the job [by the cover letter alone]. We thoroughly read everything that each applicant submitted, but we were not going to inform them that they would not be interviewed until the end of the process."

9. Would you do anything differently regarding the interviewing process? "My main goals were to keep the committee intact and not split like Carroll County, and to protect the privacy of the applicants...so no."

Regarding Mr. Spong's appointment as Commissioner:

10. Was it unanimous? What did the numbers have to be? "No. It only had to be a majority."

11. Was there a 2nd choice? "Yes." Showe stated that it had been narrowed down to four choices, and there was one with the next highest amount of votes. He did not want those names to be published. He believes that the privacy regarding the vote is necessary to keep the committee united. "United we stand. Divided we fall."

12. Why do you think Spong's appointment created more of an outcry for transparency than the other appointments? "That, I don't have a clue because during the public comment phase he was the most strongly supported applicant."

13. How does Spong compare to Wivell (the voters' choice)? Was that important? "Mr. Spong is pretty intelligent and so is Mr. Wivell. Wivell has the financial skills. There was not another Wivell there, except for maybe one." He was referring to the individual with the second highest votes for the appointment.

14. Spong has no record on issues, and has never campaigned or held an office. How do you know he will represent the voters on important local issues, and also be as conservative as Wivell who the voters elected? "At his interview he gave good solid Conservative answers."

15. Do you know where Spong stands on:

• Improving economic conditions? His opening statement showed knowledge of what has already been attempted and what we still need to do. "He was very well-versed."
• Attracting businesses and jobs to the area? "All of them said that there have been a lot of bad decisions made over the years. He said, Hey let's learn by our mistakes."
• Education? "He said there is room to cut the budget for education in the department itself. He would not approve anything to increase the education budget whatsoever unless it was absolutely needed. [I think] that is one budget that is not very transparent. I'd rather not quote [Spong] regarding the BOE. You should ask him directly."
• Possible funding for a new stadium for Hagerstown? "This was a question to all of those who were interviewed. He said no funding. He thought it was better to be located outside of the community and not funded by the county. He said that if they want to have baseball let the fans pay for it."

Mr. Showe stated: "It has been several weeks now since his interview, and I don't have his paperwork in front of me. I think you should interview Mr. Spong on where he stands on the issues. I will give you his number."  I was introduced to Mr. Spong at the meeting that evening, and he agreed to give me an interview, but only if I could meet him in-person. He said that he wanted me "to be able to look him in the eye."

16. Did Spong have an issue that he was most passionate about? "He was well-rounded on every issue. My question to him was: Do you support code rule, home rule, or a commissioner-style of government? He said commissioner-style was best and most efficient. I asked, efficient in what way? He said that it doesn't cost as much. To me that was spot on."

17. Does Spong have something that qualifies him to serve?  For example, Wivell is a CPA and MBA that is passionate about budget issues. Mr. Spong's area of expertise is in education. He was a principal at a local school for 16 years.

18. Should his past affiliation as a Democrat be a concern, especially since he has no public record on issues? Why or why not? "I didn't let it influence my judgment. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat. I can't speak for the other members."

19. Did his connection to Terry Baker influence his appointment? "No, because I didn't even know until two days before [the vote] that he had anything to do with Terry Baker." Showe said that he couldn't speak for the other committee members, but said that he did not see or hear anything that would indicate influence.

20. Is there any truth to the rumor that the "Good Ol' Boys" were pushing for McKinley? "No comment. I will say that he got the most negative comments during the public comment phase."

Mr. Showe let me know that he himself had recently been called a Good Ol’ Boy by someone from the TEA Party.

21. Ryan Miner has said publicly on social media that he has called for your resignation? "Yes."

• Was he the only one? "Yes."
• Did you consider resigning? "No, not for s second." 
• Did any of the other committee members get any personal blowback? Maybe one, but I'm not aware of any specifics.

22. Did you deny Ryan Miner, Ken Buckler [WashCo Chronicle],  the Herald Mail, or any other request for an interview? "No. Ryan Miner did not ask me for an interview. I have never heard of Ken Buckler. I was interviewed by the Herald Mail by telephone about 6 or 7 times...whenever they asked for one. Sometimes I had to tell them that I would get back to them when I knew something. Sometimes they held information from my interviews until they had more information. I only declined to do a video interview with the Herald Mail."
   
    In summary, I normally write opinion pieces, so many would be shocked if I didn't end this post with my own thoughts about the process, the integrity of the committee, the leadership of Mr. Showe, and the appointment of Mr. Spong.  
    Before the interview, I had nothing that would lead me to question the integrity of the committee that was elected by the voters to fulfill this duty or the process that they employed, even when my first choice for delegate was not chosen. I read a lot on social media from some that seemed to want to cast doubt and suspicion on this committee. I approached it with the innocent-until-proven-guilty perspective. After the interview, I remain convinced that the committee fulfilled their duty to the voters with integrity using all available knowledge and a fair process. I do believe that in the future voters will give  more consideration to their votes for this committee having had this experience.
   I believe that as chairman of the committee, Mr. Showe's leadership was strong and honest, with an understanding of the weight of these appointments, but also for the importance of keeping the committee and the party united.
    As for the appointment of Mr. Spong, I think that remains to be seen. I still don't know where he stands on issues. I could and may interview him, but we all know that what is said in an interview is not always a clear picture of how a person will vote. Sometimes the voting official doesn't even know for sure how they will vote until they are sitting in that seat and asked to push that button or raise that hand. I have no reason to believe that he won't serve honorably. I will not speculate that he is a RINO or a Democrat posing as a Republican. I will not speculate that he presented himself as something that he is not.  I just don't know. Nobody can predict or pre-judge. All we can do at this point is wait and see. If there was one single thing that I could do or ask others to do to guarantee that he is a Conservative Republican and will vote accordingly, I think most people know that I would do it. I choose my battles. Just because I can't affect a different outcome at this point does not mean that I will resort to sowing suspicion and strife into the community. But I will be watching...

WILL THE REAL MAYOR GYSBERTS PLEASE SIT DOWN?

"Hagerstown Mayor David S. Gysberts said Monday night that he is open to other projects at the downtown site, and that he would consider using eminent domain to acquire or speed up negotiations for any properties needed for redevelopment. Those projects could include other athletic facilities or a community or convention center, Gysberts said."

The Herald Mail

September 23, 2013

It turns out that all is not what it seemed with this candidate-now-mayor.

   I have supported Mayor Gysberts since he began campaigning for mayor in the last election. I know that a referendum was passed during that election to run non-partisan city elections in the future. In a perfect world that sounds like a good and noble idea, but voters will probably still tend to lean toward the candidate who leans towards their political ideals, and the candidates will probably still discreetly tow their party line. So with that said, I am an unlikely supporter of Mayor Gysberts, myself being a true blue Republican for most of my adult life (although not so much now), and having been very involved in the TEA Party movement. Why? Well he seemed so...non-partisan back then. He also seemed to be against building a stadium at the downtown site. He seemed to be against the use of tax payer money without at least equal private funds. It turns out that all is not what it seemed with this candidate-now-mayor. 

    

Skillfully played!

    Candidate Gysberts attended a meeting led by those in opposition to the downtown site. Those hosting the meeting said that the then-current mayor and council had refused to meet with them (although they had not been invited to this particular meeting). Candidate Gysberts skillfully appeared to be in agreement with this group without ever making a definitive statement about it. At least that is what he said after the election when those at the meeting were stunned to find out that he indeed was for the downtown site. Of course there were no audio or video recordings of the meeting. I was there and I can not without a doubt remember if he made a statement against it, but I do remember without a doubt that he did not make a statement for it. I do remember that the implication was that he was against it. It was implied by his very presence, by there not being any definite statement for it, by his commiseration about the incumbents and their lack of consideration for the citizens that were against it, and for his statements against the process. I have to give it to him. It was skillfully played. 

     

Disappointing

     I got over that disappointment pretty quickly because I still considered him to be a thoughtful man who would care about the will of the voters. Even the most liberal of the city council, Council Member Metzner, said that "the voters have spoken and they do not want a stadium at the downtown site." I hate to even have to mention that Council Member Munson, who has since reneged on his promise to oppose the site, claimed to have personally talked to thousands and that no more than 45 people were for that stadium site. So there was no question that the citizens of this town did not and do not want it. Certainly a thoughtful young man like Mayor Gysberts would represent the voters. Not so. Instead, he came out strongly for the site and promised to vote for it if there should be a tied vote. He was quoted many times in the newspaper in support of it, and even wrote a letter to the governor asking for taxpayer funds. Disappointing. 

   

Incredulous!

    Disappointing went to incredulous upon reading that not only would this mayor continue to consider other athletic facilities for that site, but he went so far as to say that he would also consider using eminent domain! In short, eminent domain is the right of a government to take private property for public use, against the will of the property owner, with payment of compensation. He is willing to steal private property away from an individual or business to build a ridiculous baseball field at a site that the voters overwhelmingly do not want. This seemingly non-partisan candidate just revealed himself to be a  Progressive Liberal politician. 

   

So the mayor of this town, in essence, publicly threatens to take the property of a successful business for a venture that no respectable investor would touch?

    
    He made this statement about eminent domain just as a the Zoning Appeals Board voted unanimously to allow a private investor to expand and improve a property that would have been needed for the stadium or a similar project. The stadium project was unable to get the private investment needed to proceed. So the mayor of this town, in essence, threatens to take the property of a successful business for a venture that no respectable investor would touch? In the newspaper? How many would-be small business owners would locate in a town where the mayor publicly makes such a statement? 

     

He was against the process! Right...I mean Left!

     There is a closed-door city council meeting scheduled for October 1st. Council Member Alshire has stated that he would prefer the discussion to be held publicly. Candidate Gysberts raked ex-Mayor Bruchey over the coals for his lack of transparency during the deliberation and planning process concerning the proposed stadium. I don't hear him asking for a public meeting. Why doesn't he govern as openly as he expected and demanded from Mayor Bruchey? It appears that he is quite agreeable to closed doors now that he is at the helm of the process. 

Lets not be naive or dishonest about our expectations for non-partisan politics 

in city elections. 

   

     It also turns out that Mayor Gysberts is not as non-partisan as Candidate Gysberts seemed. He has been active in Democratic politics since being elected. For instance, he has endorsed Democratic candidate for governor Anthony Brown and he belongs to Mayors Against Illegal Guns. MAIG claim to be non-partisan, but one of the stated principles of this group is to "Keep lethal, military-style weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines off our streets." That is the kind of Liberal lingo that was used to pass a mostly Democratic supported, some would say unconstitutional, gun control law (SB-281) in the last legislative session. He is free to do so, but lets not be naive or dishonest about our expectations for non-partisan politics in city elections. Although I voted non-partisan, actually voting for the mayor and three Democrats for council members, I fully expect that politicians will be partisan no matter how they seem during campaign mode. 

KNOW YOUR CANDIDATE!

    I admit it. I was played like a piano. Nothing about Candidate Gysberts was as it seemed. He may be a very nice man, but he is clearly a politician. I learned a valuable lesson. I will be more diligent about getting to know the person and his/her politics before voting for them. I will not go along to get along. I will be more aware of what the candidate did not say, not only what they said. I will ask more direct questions in order to get direct answers. I hope every voter that is reading this vows to do the same. And Hagerstown, for God's sake please don't let this mayor run amok promoting projects and acting against the will of the voters...even to the point of taking private property to do so. This mayor isn't what he seemed. You need to keep your eye on this one.