Village Elections

CONTROVERSY can be a positive force. It can define what's at stake and become a lever for moving citizens to wake up. A handfull of concerned Columbians rallied 125 activists overnight to a get-out-the-vote meeting Wednesday -- using e-mail and widespread embarrassment over recent Columbia Council actions. Village elections are scheduled for April 14 and 15. Many of those at The Other Barn meeting in Oakland Mills Wednesday night said they were appalled at the recent and continuing appearance of turmoil and confusion on the Columbia Council and in the offices of the Columbia Association.

David Hlass says he is running for another two-year term on the Columbia Council, which also serves as the Columbia Association board, portraying himself as a crusader for residents' rights and open government. Hlass, 50, a controversial figure in his first two-year term, is being opposed by former Long Reach Village Board Chairman Henry F. "Hank" Dagenais, 73, who served from May 1997 through February 2002, when he resigned. Village elections are scheduled for April 30. Dagenais said he is running to restore amicable relations with other council members and to stop the disputes swirling around Hlass, who does not see it that way. "We do pay fees to the Columbia Association to live in Columbia, and I want to strive to get the best for each and every dollar we pay," Hlass said.

Once on the cutting edge of city planning and social idealism, Columbia has grown into a respectable and successful community.To their credit, some residents are taking advantage of the fact that the city marks its 25th anniversary this year by dusting off the old goals and taking a hard look at the future.Toward that end, a forum examining the way Columbia is governed drew 150 people last week -- an impressive number for a Saturday morning. While final recommendations won't be aired until fall, the forum uncapped a clear desire for change in the way the city is governed.

Having just celebrated its 25th birthday, Columbia now has a town hall. Or does it?The Columbia Association, the quasi-governmental agency that provides services to residents, moved to the city's downtown last week. Officials hope the move, which included putting the association's name outside the new building, will improve visibility for the organization and make its new location tantamount to a town hall.Unfortunately, what the move really amounts to is symbolism with little substance. Try as they might, those at the association are going to have a tough time selling their agency as town government the way most people envision it.A non-profit corporation, the association operates in a twilight zone, neither public nor private.

Columbia Council member Joseph Merke deserves a note of praise for his decision to resign last week after being embroiled in a controversy over whether he should vote on a proposed golf course adjacent to his property.In announcing his departure, Mr. Merke acted with the dignity and scrupulousness that his council colleagues maintained were always present. But as he said himself, the controversy over the vote had "tainted the [Columbia] association, the council, the budget process and my integrity."

In an effort to breath life into the quest for one-person, one-vote, some residents of Wilde Lake village in Columbia are returning to some old political traditions to build grassroots support for a change in the city's election laws. A flurry of activity aimed at getting 90 percent of the village's residents to support the change began Saturday with vintage political events, including a rally and mock protest.Residents marched from the Wilde Lake Interfaith Center to the village's nearby lake, where they tossed tea into the water, a la Boston Tea Party.

IF THE grass gets cut and the swimming pools open on time, it is said, Columbians don't think about city government. But suppose the city can't afford to run the mowers or pay the lifeguards? What then? Unrest? Massive letter writing? Or something really radical: turning out to vote in village elections! As far as we know, the grass will be mowed and the pools attended. As far as we know. Big change could be in store for Columbia -- but few could say what that change might be. A leadership struggle between some members of the Columbia Council and questions about the stewardship of Columbia Association President Deborah O. McCarty obscures almost everything -- including, apparently, changes in policy directed by Ms. McCarty.

The Columbia Council is sponsoring a meeting tonight with Columbia village associations to explain a recent court decision clarifying the unincorporated city's unusual voting rules and to find out whether residents want to change them.The council wants to know if residents favor including money in the 1993-1994 Columbia Association budget for a Columbia-wide campaign to begin a one-person, one-vote system in village elections. Current voting rules in eight of 10 villages are based on property ownership, with one vote per property or condominium.

At last, there is some real dissension within the Columbia Council. The body that runs the non-profit association which oversees Columbia's recreational facilities, its social programs and common grounds is not known for harboring rabble-rousers. But that has changed with the election of Norma Rose and Chuck Rees.With a refreshing inquisitiveness, they have dared to question the seemingly knee-jerk, affirmative response the council brings to nearly every proposal floated by the association's staff.

Sixty-four percent of Columbia residents see no need for radical change now in the way the unincorporated city is governed, but 65 percent would support some changes in the future, according to a survey released yesterday.The survey of 429 adults was commissioned by a citizens' group that is considering alternatives to the Columbia Association, the structure that governs the 25-year-old city of 75,000. An elected Columbia Council makes policy for the city and appoints the association's president.