The Bowie City Council members were merely supposed to certify the results of the Dec. 19 District 2 recall election. However, the tension that has characterized much of the city’s political discourse in recent months bubbled up again on Tuesday night.
For the record, the council approved the report of the city’s elections committee at the meeting. That means that District 2 council member Diane Polangin – absent from the meeting – has been recalled and her seat is now vacant.
Sometime between Feb. 19 and March 19 – 60 to 90 days from the recall election – the city will hold a special election to fill the seat. Polangin can run again, although her plans at this point remain unclear. City officials expect to have a date for the special election finalized by the end of the week.
But the discussion of the recall election turned contentious, even as the results were certified.
Fiona Moodie, a member of the citizens group behind the recall effort, used the public comment portion of the meeting to describe her difficulties in trying to act as a poll-watcher to monitor in the Dec. 19 recall election.
Moodie said she had obtained the requisite paperwork to act as a poll-watcher. But she was told at Christian Community Presbyterian Church (one of two election sites in District 2) that election officials there were unaware of any provision for poll-watchers.
At Kenhill Center, the other voting site, Moodie said she was told “she was not welcome.” When she left the building and came back later, two Bowie police officers threatened her with arrest for trespassing if she attempted to re-enter the building and that they were acting “under directive from the city.”
Yolanda Jones, the chair of the city’s board of elections, said at the meeting that it was her understanding that because there were no candidates involved in the election, that there would be no poll-watchers.
“In this upcoming (special) election, obviously we’ll have candidates, so poll-watchers will be welcome as long as they’re certified,” she told the council. “That’s not an issue. But for this one, there wasn’t a candidate.”
“Our board of elections interpreted the situation and the rules and concluded that there was no authorization for (poll-watchers),” said Bowie City Manager Al Lott.
As for the use of the police to warn Moodie about entering the polling place, Lott said that “evidence indicated that the persons attempting to poll-watch were interfering with the proper conduction of the recall election. That’s why we asked all parties to leave that area and go outside. We did that and we used the Bowie police officers to help us with that. Then we finished and had a successful election.”
Council member Michael Esteve, who’d heard about the confusion regarding poll-watchers, said he was frustrated in trying to get answers from the city staff regarding what was and wasn’t allowed in the unique circumstance of a recall election – the first that anyone could remember in the city’s history.
“No one at any point said the rules were unclear,” Esteve said. “Instead I got a litany of different explanations that did not make sense based on the rules.
“I’m a little bit concerned because I just want a clear answer as to why poll-watchers weren’t allowed in. I want to make sure we have this clear moving forward and we know what the rules are. That’s it.”
Moodie said the problems she encountered reinforce her belief that there needs to be some kind of disinterested third party to run city elections.
Members of the city’s election committee are volunteers and are appointed by council members. In this particular case, the committee was charged with running an election that would remove one of those council members, creating a potential conflict of interest, she said.
“This just re-affirms my certainty that we do need a separate body that is independent, that is not under the jurisdiction of the city council, monitoring elections,” she said.
In other action Tuesday night:
The council approved the annexation of 73 acres of land near where Church Road crosses over Route 50 – the site of the city’s new two-rink ice arena.
City officials scaled back the initial plans for the facility, which were to include additional indoor court space as well, when the cost of such a project became prohibitive. They are hopeful that someday the courts can be added on to the ice arena.
Michelle Jackson, a resident of the Fairwood community that sits next to where the ice arena will be built, expressed concerns about the potential traffic and noise impacts of the facility. She also said that questions she raised at a recent stakeholders meeting haven’t been addressed to her satisfaction.
“It’s as though they’re putting it here and they don’t want the residents … to question what they’re doing,” she said. “That’s not reasonable.”
