Although he spent 14 months collecting input and drafting a series of position papers on economic development, neighborhood revitalization and other issues, Baltimore County Executive-elect James T. Smith Jr. said yesterday that he isn't ready to propose major changes or push an agenda.
Back in the Reisterstown house that served as his campaign headquarters, Smith spent the day organizing a transition team to study county departments and offices to determine how they accomplish their missions and how they would fit in his administration.
Key decisions, such as whether he will keep or replace department heads, will wait until he reviews county government more thoroughly and has a chance to see how well they work together, Smith said.
"I'll be taking my time with that," Smith said. "It won't be a dramatic event."
The town hall meetings Smith promised during the campaign to solicit input from community members will likely begin in January, he said.
Smith, 60, a former Circuit Court judge, defeated Republican Douglas B. Riley, a former county councilman from Towson, in Tuesday's election with 56 percent of the vote. He will take office Dec. 2.
Smith said he has not made any decisions about his executive office staff. Many of his campaign staff were family and longtime friends - including his son, who was his campaign manager - so he does not have a built-in circle of advisers who will go with him to Towson.
Robert J. Barrett, departing County Executive C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger's chief aide, said he anticipates a smooth transition to the Smith administration.
Ruppersberger, a Democrat who won the 2nd Congressional District seat in Tuesday's election, has asked his department heads to critique their departments and make the information available to the new county executive, Barrett said. Work on the ceremonial details of the changeover should begin soon, he said.
"I know how Dutch operates, and he'll make every effort to sit down with Jim and his team and cooperate," Barrett said. "They've been friends for a long time, and I think the transition with Dutch and Jim Smith is going to be very amicable."
The new county executive will also have to work to build a relationship with an experienced County Council. Only one person on the seven-member body will be new - Democrat Kenneth N. Oliver, who represents the newly configured 4th District. One member will be on his second term, and the rest will begin their third or fourth.
Some of council members worked extensively on the Smith campaign, others did not.
Council Chairman John A. Olszewski Sr., a Dundalk Democrat, said Smith's experience on the council from 1978 to 1985 will help ensure a good relationship.
"We have an experienced council, and we also have a county executive who has been on the council, so I think that we'll work closely with the county executive, particularly in a time when the state is in a deficit and a lot of the money coming from the state is probably going to be drying up," Olszewski said.
The council's public relationship with Ruppersberger was generally smooth - his budgets in recent years were approved with few changes, and most of the legislation he requested passed without difficulty.
The reason for that, said Councilman Stephen G. Samuel Moxley, a Catonsville Democrat, was that council members and Ruppersberger were able to work out their disagreements quietly, a dynamic he expects to stay in place in the Smith administration.
The dynamic will be challenged during the transition, though, by a charter amendment championed by council members and approved by voters Tuesday. The amendment allows the council to confirm the executive's appointments for the heads of all departments. Council members said they anticipate the measure will encourage the executive to consult them ahead of time about whom he intends to appoint.
Smith opposed the amendment.
Baltimore County
208 of 208 precincts reporting
County Executive
James "Jim" T. Smith Jr., Dem. 145,455..............56
Douglas B. Riley, GOP 114,460............... 44
1st Council District
Stephen G. Samuel Moxley, Dem. 21,344...............65
Berchie L. Manley, GOP 11,334............35
2nd Council District
Kevin Kamenetz, Dem. (i) 31,649
3rd Council District
T. Bryan McIntire, GOP (i) 38,219
4th Council District
(new district)
Kenneth N. Oliver, Dem. 25,810........80
Gail M. Thies, GOP 6,280.......20
5th Council District
Vince Gardina, Dem. (i) 20,816..............51
James F. Ports Jr., GOP 19,896............49
6th Council District
Joseph Bartenfelder, Dem. (i) 25,159
7th Council District
John A. Olszewski Sr., Dem. (i) 24,797
Clerk of Court
Suzanne Mensh, Dem. (i) 146,711.........61
William T. Hill, GOP 94,113...........39
Circuit Court Judge
(3 seats; nonpartisan)
Ruth A. Jakubowski (i) 153,392...........27
Patrick Cavanaugh..........142,832............25
Michael J. Finifter (i).........138,281...........25
Alexander Wright Jr. (i)....128,621...........23
State's Attorney
Sandra A. O'Connor, GOP (i) 206,670
Register of Wills
Grace G. Connolly, Dem. 144,898 61
George W. McCarter, GOP 94,414 39
Orphans' Court Judge
(3 seats)
Julie L. Ensor, Dem. ................136,477........21
Gloria J. Butta, Dem. ...............133,284........20
Theresa A. Lawler, Dem. ........128,706........19
Ray Allen, GOP ............................91,491.......14
John Bunch, GOP........................87,159......13
Louis M. Luperini, GOP...............85,885......13
Sheriff
R. Jay Fisher, Dem. 128,419 52
Norman M. Pepersack Jr., GOP 120,305 48
(i) = incumbent
Questions
A: Creating a redistricting commission.
For 114,876 59
Against 81,481 41
B: Giving County Council power to approve appointments made by the county executive.
For 141,075 70
Against 59,583 30
C: Establishing binding arbitration for police, paramedics and firefighters.
For 192,148 83
Against 38,980 17
D: Authorizing $72 million in bonds for schools.
For 173,574 77
Against 50,673 23
E: Authorizing $5.6 million in bonds for parks.
For 164,952 75
Against 55,477 25
F: Authorizing $6.8 million in bonds for public works.
For 169,204 78
Against 48,741 22
G: Authorizing $29 million in bonds for buildings.
For 149,585 70
Against 64,420 30
H: Authorizing $2.3 million in bonds for refuse disposal.
For 157,861 73
Against 57,622 27
I: Authorizing $15 million in bonds for community colleges.
For 147,576 68
Against 70,478 32
J: Authorizing $4.5 million in bonds for land preservation.
For 158,203 73
Against 58,696 27
K: Authorizing $2.5 million in bonds for waterway improvements.
For 168,690 77
Against 50,005 23
L: Authorizing $2 million in bonds for community and economic development.
For 141,843 66
Against 73,316 34