More News

A transit group claims state Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. has swerved away from his opposition of the Purple Line because he arranged and participated in a private meeting between Gov. Martin O'Malley and Town of Chevy Chase Council members.

The group, Action Committee for Transit, favors the light rail option for the Purple Line, which would follow the Capital Crescent Trail. The council members favor a rapid bus link, which would follow Jones Bridge Road. Madaleno has opposed both options because the state lacks funding for either.

Madaleno said he hasn't changed his position. He said he arranged the June 1 meeting to ensure his constituents were represented fairly in the debate. Town Council members Pat Burda, David Lublin and Mayor Kathy Strom met with O'Malley (D).

And, even though a quorum of the council met with O'Malley, legal advice said the private meeting did not violate Maryland's open meetings law, according to Madaleno and Strom.

"There was no new position being articulated or developed," Burda said. "I do not think that there was anything different in what we've been saying with the public."

The Purple Line is a $1.68 billion, 16-mile transit project that would connect Bethesda to New Carrollton via Silver Spring. O'Malley is expected to decide soon on the state's preferred Purple Line option. The town is one of the most vocal public bodies supporting the rapid bus option. The Montgomery and Prince George's county councils support light rail.

The governor's decision would then be sent to the federal government. The town has argued that the Maryland Transit Administration's study of the project is deeply flawed, and is weighing a possible lawsuit to stop light rail.

Ben Ross of Action Committee for Transit argued Madaleno showed implicit support for the town's position by sitting with them in the meeting with O'Malley, contradicting his previous statements.

"He certainly would not accompany a pro-Purple Line delegation from his district," Ross said.

But Madaleno argued he wanted to make sure his constituents were represented fairly in the Purple Line debate.

"It's the people of the Department of Transportation who want to build the project and want to go into the governor and want to explain the opposition," said Madaleno (D-Dist.18) of Kensington. "It would be like going into a criminal case where the prosecutor is also telling you, ‘Oh don't worry, we'll be your defense.'"

Madaleno also rebutted charges from Ross that he deliberately kept the meeting secret, saying he doesn't feel the need to publicize every meeting he has with O'Malley.

Burda also said she did not feel Madaleno was on the town's side in the debate.

"I would say that he has helped us get in to see the governor as our representative, but I would not say that he's sitting there saying that the Jones Bridge Road alternative is the way we should go," she said.

Burda said O'Malley gave no assurances about a decision on the Purple Line, and that no negotiations with O'Malley concerning his decision took place. Madaleno said O'Malley "knew an enormous amount" about the project.

Since May 2008, both Lublin and Strom have given $100 each to Marylanders for Richard Madaleno, a fundraising group for the senator. Burda said fellow council members Al Lang and Linna Barnes were not informed of the meeting. Burda also indicated that before she was elected to the council in May, she, Lublin and Strom had become comfortable together discussing the project in prior meetings with O'Malley's staff.

Under Maryland law, the public has the right to witness the deliberations of legislative bodies like town councils. The law does allow some exceptions, which include personnel matters and land negotiation. When the body meets privately, it must publicly state why and take a public vote on the closure.

Madaleno said a legal opinion from 1999 involving Takoma Park and the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority provided by Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler's office indicated the meeting was not subject to open meetings law. The Takoma Park case involved "propriety material" from a developer, and city officials did not vote on the matter.

Alice Lucan, a Washington, D.C. attorney specializing in news law, said while the town did not violate open meetings law, nothing compelled the town not to disclose the meeting was taking place.

"There is no reason for them to close this meeting. Nothing in the law requires it. It seems to me that they ought to have nothing to hide," she said.