10/07/2026
I have remained quiet through weeks of public statements and accusations because I did not want to contribute to the division in our community. But remaining quiet should not be mistaken for agreement, nor should it allow an incomplete account of events to go unanswered.
So, for the sake of accuracy, I would like to provide some facts.
Four budget workshops were held while the Commission worked through the FY 2026–27 budget. Those workshops were scheduled for 2:30 p.m. specifically at the Mayor’s request. The Mayor did not attend any of the four.
At the September 3 budget hearing, the Mayor spoke at length about his concerns with the budget. Approximately an hour and 45 minutes into the meeting, he left as we were approaching public comment on the budget. Vice Mayor McCutchen assumed the chair, the Commission heard public comment, continued its discussion and voted. The budget passed. Within minutes of the vote, the Mayor returned to his seat. The meeting video is available for anyone who would like to watch the proceedings in their entirety.
At the final budget hearing, the Mayor again made his objections clear. The Commission considered those objections, discussed the budget and ultimately approved it by a majority vote.
Following that vote, the City Clerk had the necessary documents prepared for signature and asked the Mayor to sign them. He declined to sign them that evening and indicated he would do so Monday. Monday came and the documents were not signed. Calls and emails seeking his signature went unanswered. On September 30, with the matter still unresolved, Vice Mayor McCutchen was contacted and came to City Hall to sign the documents so the City could complete the process.
I am not sharing that to reopen the debate over whether the Mayor agreed with the budget. We already knew he did not. Voting against something is one thing. Once a majority of the Commission has voted, however, the business of the City still has to move forward.
That is how a five-member governing body works. We will not always agree. We are not supposed to always agree. Each of us has a responsibility to ask questions, raise concerns and ultimately cast our own vote. Once those votes are cast, however, the decision belongs to the Commission as a body.
Regarding the recent data-center site visit, the City Manager emailed all five commissioners on September 13 asking who was interested in attending. The commissioners who responded participated in the trip.
The Mayor’s family suffered an unimaginable tragedy beginning September 24. I have absolutely no intention of minimizing that loss or questioning any decision he made regarding his family during that time. But those circumstances do not change the timeline. The invitation had been extended to all five commissioners eleven days earlier.
The City Manager’s statement that an email was sent to all commissioners and that those who attended had responded was simply a statement of what occurred. It did not mention the Mayor’s family, criticize his absence or speculate about why he did not attend.
I have remained quiet through weeks of public criticism of our City Manager, but I am tired of watching disagreements over City business become personal attacks.
Asking questions of the City Manager is appropriate. Holding him accountable is appropriate. If a commissioner believes he should be terminated, that commissioner has every right to make that argument and cast that vote.
But the City Manager works for the entire City Commission. He does not work for the Mayor individually, nor does he work for any one commissioner individually. At this time, a majority of the Commission has chosen to allow Mr. Bell to continue doing the job he was hired to do.
I also want to clarify something regarding statements issued on City of Fort Meade letterhead. The Mayor has previously explained that he includes the names of the entire Commission on his statements as a sign of respect for each office.
I acknowledge that explanation. However, regardless of the intent, I believe an important distinction needs to be made for the public:
My name appearing on the letterhead of an individually issued statement does not mean that I participated in writing it, approved it, or agree with its contents.
We are five independently elected officials. Each of us is entitled to speak for ourselves and express our own positions. When one member issues an individual statement, it represents that member’s position unless the Commission has formally authorized otherwise.
I respect the Mayor’s right to express his position. I simply ask that residents understand that my name appearing alongside an individual statement should not be interpreted as my endorsement of it.
Fort Meade has serious issues in front of us. We have infrastructure needs, financial decisions, development decisions and residents who deserve our attention. We can disagree (sometimes strongly) without turning City government into a running social-media campaign against one another or our employees.
I will continue asking questions. I will continue holding our City Manager accountable. If I reach the conclusion that he should no longer serve Fort Meade, I will say so publicly and cast my vote accordingly.
Until then, I am going to deal in facts, the public record and the business the residents of Fort Meade elected me to do.
This post is intended to provide information and clarify the public record, not to create another social media debate. For that reason, comments have been turned off. As always, residents are welcome to contact me directly with questions or concerns.
Enough.
