This is piece builds on a three-part series on The Rouse Project. to pose some questions that the entity has declined to answer.

The reader may download the entire pdf version HERE. Check out Part 1 , Part 2, and Part 3.

It has been a few days since the series of reports detailing the undisclosed motives of The Rouse Project were published. This entity has devised a plan to take over the Columbia Association and help facilitate public dollars for private gain, by using diversity as a wedge issue.

If there is one thing the establishment excels at, it is creating wedge issues using diversity, equity and inclusion to rile people up. Volunteerism is used as a shield and a sword, to further attack critics and cover terrible behavior.

For example, the new cultural center project was framed as an affordable housing project, even though the funding for the cultural center was separate for the affordable housing project. One of the beneficiaries of this project also happen to be on this steering committee.

Despite all the bullying, veiled threats, insults, and attempts to discredit, not a single individual has refuted the details in the report. On the other hand, several have confirmed the accounts detailed using original documentation, one of them publicly.

Former County Executive Liz Bobo shared her suspicions using here email newsletter “Reflections on Life” who says, “get in touch with your Village’s Columbia Association representative and ask him/her if they know what’s going on.”

There are others who need to answer some questions too and here are some some of the questions that have not been answered by any of the key players.

To other members of the steering committee?

1. Who got the ball rolling? Who recruited them?

2. Who came up with the seed money?

3. Who hired the law firm and PR agency? Who gave the PR agency its directions?

4. What took place in the initial meetings? Was there an agenda? Who attended? Were minutes taken? If minutes were taken, will they be published?

5. What's with the LLC status? Was the structure chosen to hide the organization's true purpose? Who are the officers of the LLC?

6. How will the members of this steering committee ensure their efforts will not lead to what happened in 2013?

7. What does success look like to them? Is it based on the number of people of color being elected?

8. How many people of color? One, two, three? Are these members expected to vote a certain way once elected? Will they receive undue influence?

To the County Executive:

1. Did he ask DPZ to allow IMA to access CA land without CA’s permission?

2. Will any meetings held with IMA and its lobbyist be made public?

To the registered lobbyist for IMA who was also on the CA Board in 2013:

1. Which elected officials did he meet with to discuss IMA over the past few years?

2. What were the topics of discussion? Was the DPZ permit discussed?

To the Members of the Steering Committee who were CA Board members in 2013:

1. What did they know about the plans to create IAT and DCACC?

To the DCACC Executive Director who was also part of the Ulman Staff:

1. As the former chief of staff of former County Executive Ken Ulman, who helped facilitate the creation of these entities, how did he overcome any potential conflicts of interest and county ethics rules before he accepted the role of ED of DCACC?

2. With respect to the former IAT president, Mr. McCall, who received $1.03 million from a $6.4 million budget, what if anything did he do as part of the Ulman administration to speak out against something so egregiously self-dealing?

3. What role did he play in facilitating the Howard County DPZ permitting for the 2019 and 2020 SOL, which clearly violate basic land-use laws as it was not DPZ's right to grant rights to the CA easement?