Jim Moran, The Developers’ Man

November 1st, 2014

In June of 2011, the Queen Anne’s County Board of Commissioners appointed Jim Moran to the county’s Planning Commission. Commissioners Steve Arentz, Phil Dumenil, and Dave Olds voted to appoint Mr. Moran while Commissioners Dave Dunmyer and Bob Simmons opposed the appointment.

Jim Moran was one of three who submitted applications for the position on the Planning Commission. Of the other two applicants, one was a professional planner and one an architect. Both had impressive resumes. As owner of a decorative concrete company on the other side of the bridge, it is no surprise to anyone that Mr. Moran yearns for more driveways, sidewalks and patios along with the houses and shopping centers that go with them. He endorses unfettered growth for Queen Anne’s County, and the bigger and faster, the better.

What stinks the most about Moran’s appointment was that it wasn’t conducted in the light of day. That’s right, Steve Arentz, Phil Dumenil, and Dave Olds voted to conduct their deliberations out of the citizens’ view over the objections ofDave Dunmyer and Bob Simmons. According to Arentz, Dumenil and Olds, they wanted to be able to discuss the applicants “candidly,” out of the public eye. And so they made their appointment, behind closed doors with the man that agreed with their ambitions, Jim Moran.

Who in the world did Arentz, Dumenil and Olds think they were to decide what the public did or did not need to know? Moran’s vision for our county was, and continues to be, crystal clear. Arentz, Dumenil and Olds were fully aware that he held a dim view of the comprehensive plan and would rubber stamp growth in any form. They knew that the vast majority of Queen Anne’s County citizens didn’t (and don’t) agree with Jim Moran’s beliefs. The law says the business of the people is to be conducted in front of the people to ensure trust in their government.

I infuriated Steve Arentz, Phil Dumenil, and Dave Olds when I came up with my website named “Pave Our County” as it was clear that it was directed at them. While running for office they took every opportunity to assure voters that they had no desire to pave the county, but what better way to do so, than to appoint a paver to the Planning Commission?

This leaves the obvious questions. Was Jim Moran proud of his appointment process? Did he ever advise Arentz, Dumenil and Olds to rethink their “closed session” vote? Has he ever stated that the people’s business should have taken place in the citizen’s view?

One more question. Would Suzanne Hogan, Moran’s challenger for Queen Anne’s County Commissioner, ever have been part of a process intent on concealing the commissioners’ conduct from the public? The answer is a resounding NO.


Sheriff Hofmann – True To Form

October 31st, 2014

Sheriff Gary Hofmann posted this response below to a post I put on facebook with a link to a piece I posted online. Staying true to form, the sheriff attempts to treat as insignificant those who dare criticize him.  One would think a law enforcement officer would know the significance of providing evidence of his claims. His narrative is consistent with his penchant for prevarication.
Sheriff Gary Hofmann state: So funny, Sveinn Storm, posts during an election year.., funny.. he always call me personally when he feels he is being attacked, stalked, scared, or traumatized by his or personal delusions, or needs a favor for “his own agenda” I will always be faithful to the community to serve and protect, even sveinn Storm, and our highly trained staff will always address his many calls for help, no matter his personal agenda…… But I ask him to call the office or state police for help, but hope he deletes my cell phone number . I ask him to use the official phone lines for his issues 410-758-0770 or MSP 410-758-1101… I never let his many phone calls for “help: go unanswered, no matter his slanted , one sided agenda, effect our dedicated professionals always helping him, even though he is / was a frequent caller! Funny he is my friend when he needs something….. He is extremely opinionated, and doesn’t know that everything we do is always backed by very qualified attorneys… Sad, he has an agenda… as always…. Let the voters decide on facts, not Storms one sided opinions, sad we live in a litigious society……
Sheriff Hofmann claims I have called him many times personally. Not true. Many years back at a County Fair, Gary Hofmann gave me his personal cell phone and said if I ever had a problem to feel free to call him directly. He does this with a lot of folks. I thought that was nice of him, but the sheriff is extremely pretentious if he thinks his number is in my speed dial.  It would be simple to substantiate his claim by producing his cell phone log of my “many calls for help”. It can’t be done as these phone calls did not occur.
The sheriff insinuates that I have called him when I felt I was being “attacked, stalked, scared, or traumatized by his or (sic) personal delusions.” Hofmann must be the only person in the county that would define me as a fearful individual.  As for Hofmann’s claim that I am delusional related to threats, one simply has to check the record. Twice have I had someone threaten to kill me and both times I went to the authorities to have them dealt with.  The second threat did involve the Sheriff’s Department, however, without contacting the sheriff.  The first threat was from a man named Greg Nizza, the second was Michael Hoffman (not related to the sheriff). They weren’t delusions. They were well documented and they were addressed. Click here to the Nizza Narrative. Click here to see the Hoffman Chain of Events.
Sheriff Hoffman claims “that everything we do is always backed by qualified attorneys.” I can’t imagine that any attorney would advise the sheriff’s brother to repeatedly sexually assault a female deputy or advise the sheriff to fire the deputy assaulted the day after his brother was convicted. Did a capable attorney okay the sexual harassment of a female deputy by Lieutenant Dale Patrick, and Detective Stephen Stouffer which was later substantiated? Did a respectable attorney advise the sheriff to bring false charges against two of his deputies, which were eventually thrown out? Did an excellent lawyer advise one of his deputies to “pretend” he found a weapon in a young man’s car when the weapon was the deputy’s own service revolver? Did a qualified attorney advise Sheriff Hofmann to to give his brother, after his brother’s conviction, his service weapon, which was a crime under Maryland law? Perhaps what sheriff Hofmann meant to say is that “I need qualified attorneys to defend me when we break the law or ignore proper procedure.”
I agree with only three points the sheriff made in his facebook reply.  1) There are many well trained deputies in the department who are dedicated professionals, and I am grateful for them.  2) I am extremely opinionated.  3) I do have an agenda, and it is to speak the truth, boldly.  Sheriff Hofmann should have a problem with that.

The Truth About Sheriff Hofmann

October 30th, 2014

“Show me evidence, Storm. I don’t believe it. The Sheriff Hofmann I know is a great guy.” I’ve heard this said quite a few times going back to the primary election when Livingston Banks almost won against our current sheriff. If you still vote for Gery Hofmann after reading the following and reviewing the supporting documents, then I have to conclude that the truth and integrity don’t much matter to you.
Back on June 26, 2007, Dennis Hofmann, the sheriff’s brother, sexually assaulted a female deputy with the Queen Anne’s County Sheriff’s department. The young woman fought him as best she could and combined with her screams, the attempted rape was unsuccessful. J.D. “Dennis” Hofmann was a Corporal in that same department. Ironically, this attack took place while both officers were attending a sex offenders training course in San Diego, California. The female officer, Kristy Lynn Murphy, reported the incident to Sheriff Hofmann. She was assured by the sheriff that it would be dealt with appropriately but that she should keep her mouth shut about the matter. No punishment was ever meted out. In fact, a few months later the sheriff rewarded his brother by promoting him to sergeant.
Two years later on August 25, 2009, while returning from court in Cecil County, Dennis Hofmann once again sexually assaulted Ms. Murphy. Once again, Gery Hofmann promised to investigate the incident and hold his brother accountable. He never did. Kristy Murphy was left no option but to press charges against the sheriff’s brother. Although Dennis Hofmann confessed to his crime, a plea deal was struck and his only conviction was for a lesser crime of second degree assault. He served no time for his crime. The very next day after his brother’s conviction, Sheriff Gery Hofmann fired Kristy Lynn Murphy, the deputy his brother sexually assaulted. Dennis Hofmann still had his job and was seen with his service weapon the following day, this in spite of the fact that his conviction forbid him to possess the weapon. The sheriff was fully knowledgeable of this fact.
It is important to note, that even after this second assault, Murphy’s sexual harassment continued within Gery Hofmann’s sheriff’s department from other officers close to the sheriff. In addition, further instances of sexual assault by the sheriff’s brother occurred. On February 15, 2010, Kristy Murphy filed charges of discrimination, detailing the instances of additional sexual assault by the sheriff’s brother as well as sexual harassment by Captain Curtis Benton, Lieutenant Dale Patrick, and Detective Stephen Stouffer. Prior to that filing, she had submitted a written complaint with Captain James Williams within the sheriff’s department. Sheriff Gery Hofmann and his office management substantiated Murphy’s complaints against his brother, Dale Patrick and Stephen Stouffer, yet took no action against them. Stephen Stouffer and Dennis Hofmann were promoted. They were all left in a position of authority over Ms. Murphy.
Some final notes. A few months after his conviction, J. D. “Dennis Hofmann’s conviction was reduced to “Probation Before Judgment” allowing him to have a clean record after his probation period. In November of 2011, the Maryland Police Training Commission conducted a hearing to evaluate whether the sheriff’s brother had the moral character to remain a Maryland police officer in light of his conviction for second-degree assault. The vote was 12-0, with one abstention, to decertify Dennis Hofmann, and his police license was revoked. Even after this finding, Sheriff Gery Hofmann and his command staff attempted to get Dennis Hofmann recertified. The review was denied. Nevertheless, after Hofmann was decertified, he continued to work for the Sheriff’s Office for a period of time.
Take the time to read the supporting documents listed below. I caution You. They are not suitable reading material for your children. The first document, the EEOC Charge of Discrimination, is definitely x rated. At the very least, please read carefully the “Factual Background” portion of Federal Opinion.

Click here to see the EEOC Charge of Discrimination

Click here to see the Murphy-Taylor Federal Opinion

The McQueeney Standard

October 27th, 2014

Many voters overlook the importance of their school board elections and we shouldn’t. These are the folks we entrust to set the policies of our most treasured institutions: our public elementary, middle and high schools. But another very important reason to pay attention to these elections is that it’s the rare school board candidate that isn’t actually seeking higher office.  Here’s a line from a primer on how to climb the political ladder:
“Become a member of your local school board as it is straightforward and relatively easy, and it will give you the opportunity to gain recognition and connect with important people in your region. Having this on your resume will allow you to more easily move up the ladder.”
This brings us to John McQueeney, Jr. Now why do you suppose a 67 year old man has a sudden interest in being a school board member? Perhaps he wants another crack at County Commissioner a position he was voted out of a long time ago. You might ask, “What’s the big deal?” Well, there’s that pesky “Character Counts” issue and it’s important to know the character of the man before you cast your vote. Read the rest of this entry »

Fred McNeil’s New Slogan

October 22nd, 2014

Several days a week Fred McNeil waves at folks approaching or leaving Centreville, perhaps hoping that it will convince people to vote for him as County Commissioner in the upcoming election. I can’t help but notice his campaign motto, “Yes, We Can” and I must admit my stomach churns a bit pondering the consequences from the last politician embracing that theme.
One morning, as we waved back, my children inquired if I was going to vote for Mr. McNeil . I told them I couldn’t and they asked why. I explained. Read the rest of this entry »

McCluskey’s Folly

February 4th, 2013

The commercial real estate market is in bad shape all over the country. Vacancy rates continue upward for both office and retail space and Centreville has not been spared.  A quick drive around town quickly verifies this.

There are currently ten empty storefronts in the heart of town with six of them right on the main street.  There are five empty storefronts in the Food Lion Shopping Center and three more vacant spots in the Acme shopping center.  These are all high visibility spots blessed with plenty of parking.

Entering Centreville from the south there’s a rather large office building on the left just off of 4-H Road which has remained significantly unrented since it was constructed several years ago.  However, by that point you have already passed numerous other empty office spaces.  Continue into town and you will find more vacant office space.

So why did the Centreville Town Council go into the commercial real estate business by purchasing the Cornell Maritime Press/Tidewater Publishers property at 101 Watson Road down by the Wharf?  In addition, how did the Town know to raise their initial bid by 66% from $400,000 to $655,000 to outbid a respected local businessman by only $5,000?

How could three council members with no commercial renting experience believe that they would be more successful with an out of the way property than qualified professionals owning prime, high traffic properties?  They were either extremely pretentious or they didn’t care.  Former Centreville Town Manager, Bob McGrory, along with his close friend, councilman Tim McCluskey, easily convinced the other council members to buy the Wharf buildings.  (Did I happen to mention that the closest home to the property is Tim McCluskey’s?)

Our town council members are the citizens’ representatives and they have not just let us down, their purchase of the Wharf buildings has shown a complete disregard for the impact on Centreville taxpayers.

Our town council has spent us into $12,000,000 in debt.  That’s over $7,650 in debt for each household in Centreville.  Almost every question asked by citizens in our town meetings are met with blank stares or condescending smiles, but never an answer.  More than ever we must persist in asking tough questions and not rest until we have answers to those questions. We deserve a full accounting of the purchase of the wharf buildings.

When difficult financial times strike businesses and families, we have to take cost saving steps to survive. Businesses and families (as well as towns) have been faced with cost impacts outside of our control (recession, declining property values, increased fuel and electricity costs) and we have to respond responsibly.  Why doesn’t our town council have to do the same?  They don’t because we don’t demand it.

Searching for the Truth, Answering Lance Richardson

January 29th, 2013

This article is in response to Lance Richardson’s recent explanation which you can read at the bottom of this page.

You can easily find this Blood Alcohol Level information on the internet:
At .15 the person is obviously drunk. Staggering, weaving, irrational behavior begins at this level. The equivalent of a half pint of whiskey is circulating in the bloodstream.
At .25 – .50 The person is very drunk and may lose consciousness.

Mr. Gray admitted to the police to consuming three glasses of wine in forty five minutes. According to bloodalcoholcalculator.org/ that would have put him at .058 for his size. His preliminary test was in the “very drunk and could lose consciousness” level. Could he have been lying to the officers? Do you think, at a BAC (blood alcohol content) of .25, trained officers were uncertain of Gray’s sobriety?

Mr. Richardson states that most drunk driving cases typically have three main components. These include the manner of driving, field sobriety tests, and a breath or blood test. Richardson’s use of the word “most” is significant because he knows full well that you don’t need all three factors to get a conviction. A large number of drunk drivers in accidents have been convicted of DWI that were too stinking drunk to comprehend any field sobriety test. There are many more scenarios resulting in convictions without satisfying all three of his criteria.

But let’s deal with the first of Lance Richardson’s criteria, manner of driving. The negligent driving charge was not the result  of Gray running the stop sign. As I understand, it was the result of Gray almost sideswiping the officer’s patrol car which initiated the officer’s pursuit. Mr. Richardson would have known this had he cared enough to interview the officer.  The second violation was running the stop sign.

Richardson’s standard number two is field sobriety tests.  Having a steel plate in your leg didn’t affect the following observations of the well trained officers (Did I mention that there were three of them on the scene?): “strong odor of alcohol, eyes blood shot, showed a nystagmus at 45 degrees, eyes lacked smooth pursuit, took thirteen steps instead of nine, stated that he had been drinking, blew a .25 which is over three times the legal limit.”  Sorry Mr. Richardson, these observations “would have carried the day” and you know it.

Richardson’s third condition is the breath or blood test. At the State Police Barracks Mr. Gray was given three chances to give an adequate sample for the alcohol concentration test. He was informed that if he did not blow hard enough it would result in a refusal to blow.  He failed.  At no time during this process was it  indicated that Gray had any respiratory problems.  Perhaps at .25, which is considered “very drunk” and “in danger of losing consciousness” it was just too difficult to do.

Now after stating that “this case wasn’t even close”, Mr. Richardson makes the declaration that it was Mr. Gray’s first offense as if that matters.  If Lance drops every first offense, then there’s never a second offense, is there? But Lance goes on to provide another defense for Mr. Gray because the road on which Gray was ultimately stopped “had never been dedicated to the Town of Centreville”.  I refer you to the following:

Maryland Transportation Section § 21-101.1.
(a)      The provisions of this title relating to the driving of vehicles refer only to the driving of vehicles on highways, except:
(1)      As provided in subsection (b) of this section; and
(2)      Where a different or additional place specifically is provided for.
(b)   (1)      A person may not drive a motor vehicle in violation of any provision of this title on any private property that is used by the public in general, or, in Calvert County, on any private road located within a residential subdivision or community.
(2)      A person may not drive a motor vehicle in violation of any provision of this title on any property that is owned by or under the control of this State or any of its political subdivisions, county boards of education, or community colleges and that is open to vehicular traffic and used by the public in general.
(3)      Any person who violates any provision of this subsection is in violation of the law to the same extent and is subject to the same penalty as if the motor vehicle were driven on a highway.

Brilliant defense, Mr. Richardson.  Shouldn’t you know the law? I believe that you do but choose to forget it when you’re giving lame explanations to the public.
As to treating everyone fairly, not so fast Mr. Richardson.  I did a little research and just last February a seventy year old man was stopped for speeding on Rt. 50. No erratic driving at all. He had bad knees, asthma and emphysema and when he tried to take the breath test, he medically could not. Two months later you introduced field sobriety tests and tried to convict him.  Did I mention that he too was a first offender? He most certainly was not wealthy, unlike Cal Gray.

I will conclude with this.  On December 17, 2012 you were asked under oath if you were involved in a nol pros involving Mr. Gray.  Under oath you asserted, “No.” You were also asked if you authorized a stet docket for Mr. Gray to which you replied, “I don’t know if I authorized it.”  But you knew that “the accused submitted to an alcohol evaluation”, that “he truly is a good man and a gentleman”, and that he “agreed to pay the negligent driving citation because he rolled the stop sign”.

In fact, you did sign Gray’s stet, you did speak with his attorney, and you did have full knowledge of the case as this recent explanation of yours bears out. If you felt that Mr. Gray was indeed innocent why didn’t you just drop the charges rather than put them on the stet docket where you could bring them back at any time?  You took Mr. Gray’s gift and contribution.  Do you really think that anyone believes there’s a  chance you would ever bring those charges back?

Is your integrity in question?  Yea, I’d say so and so have a lot of others!

Richardson’s response to last week’s post
As a prosecutor my job is to prosecute matters in the interest of justice. A trial is a search for the truth for me, for the State. The truth requires me to evaluate all evidence and information-something that the individuals attacking me have no interest in doing. The blogs and attacks on me really don’t warrant a response but I figured I would tell you the truth. The gentleman in question, and he truly is a good man and a gentleman, doesn’t deserve to have his good name besmirched. Yes he was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. The important fact that the individuals who are rushing to judgment fail to understand is the nuances of the admissibility of evidence. Lay people often believe that they know much more than they truly understand about the rules of evidence and trial work. Most drunk driving cases typically have three main components. These include the manner of driving, field sobriety tests, and a breath or blood test. In the matter in question there was no breath test. The individual attempted to submit to a breath test to determine blood alcohol concentration but he was unable to give a sufficient breath sample because of a medical condition. The driving was also inconsequential- the accused rolled a stop sign. He wasn’t weaving or driving erratically. The best evidence in the case was the battery of field sobriety exercises. What the general public fails to appreciate or understand is that field sobriety exercises are NOT recommended for individuals over the age of 65, or obese people or people with physical disabilities, just to name some of the factors to consider. The field sobriety manual that law enforcement training is mandated by is from NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). The accused in this case was 70 years of age. I am leary to divulge this information but in an attempt at complete disclosure the accused had a variety of back, knee and other physical impairments that precluded him from being able to successfully complete such tests. He attempted the FST exercises but the probative value of said exercises was greatly outweighed by the physical limitations of the accused. Thus, forget the FSTs- they would not carry the day. A trier of fact would not be able to differentiate poor performance due to impairment by alcohol versus physical limitations. Criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This case wasn’t even close. The gentleman would have been acquitted. Additionally it was a first offense- if it had not been then it would have most likely been a trial and a not guilty verdict. Regardless, the accused submitted to an alcohol evaluation which revealed that he did not have an alcohol problem. This gave my office peace of mind that this gentleman did not have an alcohol problem which translated to a low risk of possibility of being charged again in the future. He still agreed to pay the negligent driving citation because he rolled the stop sign. Ultimately if the matter had proceeded to trial I was also faced with yet an additional challenge to the initial stop- the road in question had never been dedicated to the Town of Centreville. If the initial stop had been ruled unlawful the trial would have been over at that juncture. I simply wanted to set the record straight for those who have only heard one side of the story which is replete with half truths. Yes this gentleman had contributed to my campaign. That wasn’t a consideration. I couldn’t prove the case. Whether I respect a person or dislike them, I treat them the same- fairly. If the people attacking me are alleging some bribe then logically shouldn’t that have come before the trial, not after? Sure I like the Ravens. My dad has season tickets so I go to games all the time. There was nothing improper with my financial disclosure statement either, as alleged. If there had been then I would be answering to the State Ethics Commission. I assure you I won’t be. Feel free to share this message with anyone else who questions my integrity.

Lance Richardson’s Fraudulent Fix

January 17th, 2013

Here’s some bad news. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention the average drunk driver in the United States drives drunk 80 times before first arrest.  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the following is true: (1) Almost every 90 seconds, a person is injured in a drunk driving collision. (2) On average, one in three people will be involved in a drunk driving crash in their lifetime. (3) In 2011, 9,878 people died in drunk driving crashes, which was one death every 53 minutes. (4) Thirty one percent of all traffic deaths are the result of a drunk driver.

Here’s some good news. Since the NHTSA began recording alcohol-related statistics in 1982, drunk driving fatalities have decreased 53% from 21,113 in 1982. The universally accepted reason given for this dramatic reduction, is the active enforcement of existing 0.08% blood alcohol laws.

On May 6, 2011 an affluent Queen Anne’s County citizen, Cal Gray, Jr., was arrested by Centreville police officers and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, Driving While Impaired by Alcohol, Failure to Stop at a Stop Sign, and Negligent Driving.  His preliminary breath test at the scene resulted in a 0.25 reading, which is over three times the legal limit of 0.08.  The officers followed the letter of the law and there was every reason to believe the suspect would be convicted. (Click here to see the police report.)  However, the three police officers’ testimony was never required as our Queen Anne’s County State’s Attorney, Lance Richardson, worked out a sweet deal for Mr. Gray.  After meeting with Gray’s attorney, Richardson made an arrangement to have the suspect simply pay the $140.00 fine for the negligent driving charge which he did on July 7, 2011.  Eight days later the DWI, DUI and stop sign charges vanished with the suspect never even having to show up in court.

Our State’s Attorney ended up with a sweet deal as well.  Months later Lance Richardson received four tickets from Mr. Gray to a Baltimore Ravens football game, purportedly club level seats, which Mr. Richardson thoroughly enjoyed with his family.  If they were indeed club level seats, each ticket would have had a face value of between $135-335. (My lower level seats have a face value of $110.00 each.)  A principled and honest prosecutor would have immediately refused Mr. Gray’s reward.

Ravens Tickets, Gray to Richardson

“Enjoying the Game” From Mrs. Richardson’s Facebook page

However, the Ravens tickets weren’t the only “donation” Lance Richardson received.   At the beginning of 2012 Mr. Gray and his son donated $250.00 each to Richardson’s re-election campaign. (Click here to see that report. Scroll down to page 4.)

But there’s still more to this narrative.  Lance Richardson, as a state elected official, is required by law to file a yearly Financial Disclosure Statement.  This report must be filed with the Maryland State Ethics Commission and include any and all gifts valued over $20.00.  Mr. Richardson filed his Disclosure Statement for 2011, but chose not to report  Mr. Gray’s gift of the Raven’s tickets. (Click here to see that report. Scroll down to page 4, Schedule D- Gifts.)

What I found most interesting in researching this matter were answers Lance Richardson has given under oath. He was asked if he authorized the stet docket for Mr. Gray’s charges to which he replied “I don’t know if I authorized it…. It was a case we could not prove.”

Really?  Richardson had not just one, but three police officers as witnesses for the case against Mr. Gray.  Upon reading the police report, it was clear that proper procedure was followed and that the drunk driving charges were strongly supported.  This was a case most prosecutors would have considered a slam dunk yet it’s my understanding that Richardson never even questioned the officers about their arrest.

Mr. Richardson was also asked under oath, “Did you report the gift?” to which he answered, “No sir”.   “Why not?” he was asked.  “The way the Ravens were playing, I didn’t know they had any value” was Richardson’s reply.

Lance Richardson admitted he broke the law when he said, “No sir”.  His sarcastic retort about the Raven’s play does not lessen that fact.  The Maryland Public Ethics Law states that the reason for the Financial Disclosure Statement is to provide “the public access to documents disclosing possible conflicts of interests” and “to assist voters in evaluating the suitability of candidates for the office they are seeking.”  Lance Richardson had at least two good reasons for not reporting his “fraudulent fix.”

Stay tuned.  There’s much more.

Sveinn C. Storm

Robert McGrory’s Drunk Driving Arrest Report

January 7th, 2013

I obtained the official arrest report of Robert McGrory, Centreville’s town manager (recently resigned), and you can read it for yourself.  Its content is quite sad, yet at the same time enlightening.  I don’t suggest leaving it on the screen for the kids to read.

Before being tempted to feel sorry  for McGrory, re-read the portion where he tells the officer that he knew he was drinking and should not have been driving.  This obviously shows that he knew he was breaking the law and chose to do so.

The second portion I would ask you to re-read is where he repeatedly points out to the officer that he is the Town Manager of Centreville and requests to know “if there is something he could do to get out of this.”   Clearly, McGrory felt that his position should somehow put him above the laws the rest of us must follow.

I ask you to remember these two points as I will elaborate on them soon in an upcoming story.  This is certainly not the only time Bob McGrory has knowingly broken the law or put himself above the laws he was required to follow related to his position as town manager.

But for now, click here to read the arrest report.

Click here to read another crime McGrory committed while intoxicated.

Click here to discover the redacted passenger’s name in the report.

Cheating Doctor Rice?

January 6th, 2013

Last April, Tim McClusky won re-election to the Centreville town council.  During his campaign he was asked by citizens at a meet and greet in Symphony Village about rumors of the Town Council’s plans to buy buildings near the town’s wharf.  They expressed concern about increasing Centreville’s already huge debt to achieve such a purchase.  Mr. McClusky reassured them that he had no knowledge of this possible purchase.  (See http://cta.centreville-md.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Document-55.pdf for the full report of this meeting at Symphony Village) This was a blatant falsehood, as just a month before, with his strong support, the Centreville Town Council had authorized a “contingency” contract to “explore” the purchase.

On June 20, 2012, the Centreville Town Council, under the direction of Bob McGrory, their town manager, purchased the buildings.  But the way the deal was done smelled horribly to those following the process.  You see, there was another buyer for the property.  Dr. Rice, wanted it for his growing veterinary practice.

In February of 2012 Dr. Rice took his staff to see the property.  In less than two hours of his visit, Bob McGrory showed up at his veterinary office demanding to speak ASAP with Dr. Rice.  When they spoke, McGrory instructed Rice that the Wharf property was not the appropriate location for his veterinary business and that his current location was where he should stay.  McGrory tried repeatedly to convince Rice that the property would not work out for him as the town had intentions of acquiring the property. Read the rest of this entry »