Prince George’s County Quietly Installs Felon as Senior Affairs Director as Former Planning Leaders Sound Alarm on SB 1005
Prince George’s County government made two moves this week that deserve more public scrutiny than they’ve received.
The first happened quietly at a county‑sponsored Senior Health Expo in Landover. Attendees arriving at the Kentland Community Center found brochures from County Executive Aisha Braveboy’ office welcoming them to the event. Listed prominently on the handout: Lesley Johnson, Esq., Director of Senior Affairs.
Johnson, who has a felony conviction on her record, appeared in her new role, spoke from the podium, and was introduced as the county’s point person for senior services. The appointment has not been publicly announced by the administration, nor has the county explained the vetting process for placing a convicted felon in a high‑trust position overseeing programs for one of the county’s most vulnerable populations.
The second development came from outside the event but inside the same government ecosystem. Ten former members of the Prince George’s County Planning Board, including multiple former chairs and vice‑chairs, issued a sharply worded letter to the Montgomery and Prince George’s delegations opposing SB 1005, the bill that would break apart core functions of the Maryland–National Capital Park and Planning Commission.
Their language was unusually blunt for former commissioners:
- “A shocking reorganization.”
- “A duplicative bureaucracy.”
- “Millions of dollars in waste.”
- “A misguided attempt to fix something that isn’t broken.”
They warn that the bill would fracture the agency’s unified legal, HR, finance, procurement, and inspector general functions—systems that have earned national awards and that support more than 5,000 employees and retirees. They also caution that destabilizing the Commission’s pension system could expose taxpayers to long‑term liabilities.
The Montgomery County Planning Board has already voted to oppose the bill. The Prince George’s Planning Board has not yet taken a position.
Taken together, the two developments paint a picture of a county government making significant structural and personnel decisions with minimal public explanation. One involves the future of a century‑old bi‑county institution. The other involves the quiet installation of a politically connected but legally complicated figure into a sensitive leadership role.
Both deserve daylight.
Whether the County Executive’s office or the Prince George’s delegation will provide it remains to be seen.