Pittman should explain use of powers to council Our Say

When should the coronavirus state of emergency in Maryland and Anne Arundel County end?

Not yet, is the pretty clear answer.

Nevertheless, Amanda Fielder and her Republican colleagues on the County Council are right to be asking that question. It is one that County Executive Steuart Pittman, who has extraordinary powers under the coronavirus state of emergency granted him by the state and the council, should be answering.

As proposed, legislation by councilwoman from Arnold would require the executive to seek renewal of emergency authorization by the council once every 45 days.

Her bill has been amended so that it will only affect future states of emergency.

By and large, Pittman has done a good job in an unprecedented situation, wielding the authority granted him by the governor and the council last year. There is clearly personal and economic fallout to the sweep of COVID-19 over this community, this state and this nation. There has been illness and death.

There is continuing frustration over vaccinations, difficulties likely to fade once more does arrive.

Of course, there has been disagreement over the best response. But the most strident riticism of Pittman's actions sounds like political maneuvering from would-be executives and their surrogates, or covidiots unwilling to acknowledge the mortal reality of the situation.

Fiedler is not among those voices and is right to propose limits. Under the charter, the executive's emergency powers are open-ended. At some point, Pittman will have to lay down his expanded authority. What might that look like?

Certainly, they would vanish when the governor to ends the Maryland state of emergency. If Gov. Larry Hogan were to say this afternoon that he no longer required powers plenipotentiary to deal with the pandemic, Anne Arundel's state of emergency should evaporate as well. We should note here the lack of corresponding calls to end those powers at the state level, although Hogan certainly is the target of partisan criticism.

The council could end it with a majority vote, an idea it has repeatedly rejected.

Pittman, however, doesn't need either of these circumstances to occur to act on the reason in Feidler's proposal.

Let's be clear; we are not suggesting now is the time to end the state of emergency. Pittman, however, should discuss with the council what the end might look like.

Is the standard on which this should be judged case rates or a percentage of the county population that has vaccines or something else?

Previous states of emergency have been limited to weather events, and none lasted longer than seven days. No other figure in Anne Arundel County history has held such powers for so long. We dearly hope that no future executive will be compelled to take them up again.

Telling church congregations not to gather in groups of more than a few is something that no one in public office should take lightly, and we know Pittman understands the burden of his authority to limit freedom of worship and assembly.

Perhaps if Pittman had been required to occasionally come back to the council to explain his actions and explain the need for continuing his emergency authority, there might have been fewer strains of acrimonious fingerpointing that are a hallmark of this pandemic.

We are not so naive to think that by appearing before the council and facing questions, Pittman will end all such criticism.

By engaging in a dialogue with the council, though, he might just learn something. At the very least, he would build a greater case for the pandemic credo that we are all in this together.