When Senator Patrick J. Hogan (D-39) of Montgomery County stepped down last year, he changed history. We are only now beginning to realize the magnitude of that decision.
Senator Hogan was Vice-Chairman of the Budget and Taxation Committee. Senator Ulysses Currie (D-25) of Prince George's County was the Chairman, so Hogan was next in line. When Hogan retired, a prominent Rockville politician told me, "It's devastating to lose P.J. We are going to get screwed." Shortly afterwards, the Special Session passed an income tax hike that relied disproportionately on revenue from Montgomery County because of its progressive nature. An even greater targeting of Montgomery County taxpayers was the reason much of the county's state delegation fought bitterly, and ultimately unsuccessfully, against the millionaire tax.
Hogan's departure resulted in the promotion of Senator Edward Kasemeyer (D-12) to the Vice Chairman position. Longtime Montgomery County Delegate Marilyn Goldwater (D-16) left around the same time, prompting this observation from the Gazette:The leadership changes leave Montgomery, the state’s largest jurisdiction, with a single committee chairman in each chamber and House Majority Leader Kumar P. Barve (D-Dist. 17) of Rockville. Baltimore city boasts three chairmen, three vice chairmen and the majority whips in each chamber; Prince George’s County has three chairmen and one vice chairman in the General Assembly.
Montgomery County's committee chairs include the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee (held by District 16 Senator Brian Frosh) and the House Ways and Means Committee (held by District 20 Delegate Sheila Hixson).
Senator Currie appears to be in some trouble. If he falls, Kasemeyer, who represents Baltimore and Howard Counties, will be in line to become the next Senate Budget and Taxation Committee Chairman. That is good news for a Governor who is targeting swing areas in Baltimore County for his re-election. But it is bad news for Montgomery County. With a Chairman Hogan, Montgomery would have been better able to resist humiliations like this. Instead, the county's politicians will be left to ponder what might have been.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
What Might Have Been...
Friday, May 30, 2008
A Better Way to Measure Traffic, Part Three
In Part Two, we listed four corridors with high volumes and low speeds. Today, we list four corridors with modest volumes and low speeds. While these corridors perform differently than the ones we listed yesterday, they may be even more clogged. Several of these roadways contain chains of gridlocked intersections that collectively cut down on auto movement.
The Worst Modest Volume, Low Speed Corridors
These corridors have very low speeds but do not have critical lane volumes that exceed policy area standards (at least not in the evening). The relatively modest volumes combined with the crawling speeds suggest that cars have an extremely difficult time squeezing through these gridlocked areas.
Colesville Road, 16th Street to Spring Street
Test Run #1
5/23/07 at 5:06 PM, Eastbound
0.77 Miles in 7.87 Minutes, 5.9 MPH
Test Run #2
5/23/07 at 7:34 PM, Eastbound
0.66 Miles in 5.57 Minutes, 7.1 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Colesville at East-West Highway: 1061 (Recorded on 6/2/04)
Colesville at Georgia: 1049 (Recorded on 9/26/06)
Colesville at Spring: 1248 (Recorded on 9/20/06)
Notes: This corridor is located in Downtown Silver Spring and runs past the Metro Station.
Frederick Road, Chestnut Street to Montgomery Village Avenue
Test Run #1
5/15/07 at 5:47 PM, Northbound
0.54 Miles in 4.97 Minutes, 6.5 MPH
Test Run #2
5/15/07 at 6:15 PM, Northbound
0.67 Miles in 5.85 Minutes, 7.1 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Frederick at Chestnut: 1204 (Recorded on 9/30/04)
Frederick at Odenhal: 1372 (Recorded on 11/10/04)
Frederick at Perry: 974 (Recorded on 3/10/04)
Frederick at Montgomery Village: 1427 (Recorded on 5/2/05)
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1450
Notes: This corridor runs near Lake Forest Mall and the I-270/Quince Orchard Road interchange.
Georgia Avenue, Prince Phillip Drive to Olney-Sandy Spring Road
Test Run
5/30/07 at 5:32 PM, Northbound
0.97 Miles in 5.17 Minutes, 11.3 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Georgia at Prince Phillip: 1145 (Recorded on 3/6/07)
Georgia at King William: 1095 (Recorded on 12/9/03)
Georgia at Olney-Sandy Spring: 1251 (Recorded on 3/15/07)
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1450
Notes: This corridor is just south of the Olney commercial district.
Georgia Avenue, Spring Street to Dennis Avenue
Test Run #1
6/4/07 at 5:15 PM, Northbound
0.46 Miles in 8.32 Minutes, 3.3 MPH
Test Run #2
6/4/07 at 5:15 PM, Northbound
1.46 Miles in 6.67 Minutes, 13.1 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Georgia at Spring: 1080 (Recorded on 11/17/05)
Georgia at Seminary: 1374 (Recorded on 4/7/05)
Georgia at Beltway: 1206 (Recorded on 11/20/03)
Georgia at Forest Glen: 1377 (Recorded on 6/6/07)
Georgia at Dennis: 1437 (Recorded on 6/7/07)
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1600
Notes: This corridor includes Montgomery Hills, the Beltway/Georgia Avenue interchange and the Intersection of Death. The Planning Department’s staff witnesses this congestion every day because their headquarters is at the southern tip of the corridor. A redesign of Georgia Avenue between 16th Street and Forest Glen Road is the top county priority for state projects requiring planning. The state announced it would undertake planning for this corridor back in January.
These four corridors, as well as the four listed yesterday, present the most urgent and intractable traffic problems in Montgomery County. The Planning Department should be able to dig into these corridors in great detail if they adopt the measurement system that I recommended in Part One. Some of the questions that need to be answered are:
1. Is some level of congestion actually desirable? Heavily populated down-county areas like Bethesda and Silver Spring have large numbers of pedestrians. Policies that speed cars may cause increases in pedestrian accidents.
2. Are there any transit improvements that could ease the congestion? Five of the eight corridors (Wisconsin, Rockville Pike, Colesville, and two on Georgia) are already near Metro stations. Could some of the traffic be headed to areas beyond Metro’s reach? If it is, Metro extensions (including bus rapid transit) may be warranted. US-29 would be a particularly good candidate.
3. What does this information mean for the Purple Line? Four of the eight corridors (Wisconsin, Connecticut, Colesville and Georgia) would be along or close to the route for the Purple Line. But the congestion measurements we have now apply to north-south traffic during evening rush. Would the Purple Line really be effective in alleviating north-south traffic? Perhaps a GPS test drive should be held on East-West Highway, which is the major auto connection between Bethesda and Silver Spring. If its congestion level matches that found in these eight bad corridors, that would strengthen the case for a direct transit connection.
Dear readers, never in the history of Maryland blogdom (or as far as I know, the mainstream media) has anyone suggested such a radical redesign of our traffic measurement system as I have. The Planning Department’s over-reliance on critical lane volumes without context has produced an incoherent, unreliable measurement system that is plagued with bad data. If we cannot correctly diagnose our problems, we will never arrive at a solution. Our current economic downturn will not last forever. When it ends, development will resume and traffic will get even worse. High gas prices will increase our cost of sitting in congestion. The time to re-evaluate, improve and plan for the inevitable is now.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
FBI Raids Home of Senator Ulysses Currie
The Post has details on the raid here. While we do not yet know the reasons for the raid, or even if Senator Currie is the target of of an investigation, this event is hugely significant. As Chairman of the Senate's Budget and Taxation Committee, Currie is one of the most powerful politicians in Annapolis. He has also been a rumored potential successor to Senate President Mike Miller. If Currie falls, many chairs will be rearranged in the State House.
A Better Way to Measure Traffic, Part Two
In Part One, we discussed how GPS-based traffic measurement could work on a county-wide basis. The Planning Department has already done test drives on several corridors, plotting out distances, times and speeds in evening rush hour. When combined with critical lane volume (CLV) measurements, we can get a sense of which corridors are really the worst rush hour drives in Montgomery County.
In general, there are two types of problematic corridors. First, there are stretches of major roads characterized by high volumes and low speeds. Second, there are stretches characterized by modest volumes and low speeds. The modest-volume corridors are no less troubled than the high-volume corridors. In fact, some corridors may record lower volumes because chains of clogged intersections prevent large numbers of cars from getting through.
Using Planning’s preliminary data, we have identified four high-volume and four modest-volume corridors that all recorded low travel speeds. These are the true problem areas in Montgomery County, not the “most-congested intersection” list that is based on flawed, one-day CLV estimates.
Today, we report the worst high-volume corridors and tomorrow we report the worse modest-volume corridors. Unlike the Planning staff, we do not rank them; I am sure Wisconsin Avenue drivers are just as miserable as Georgia Avenue drivers like myself. For each corridor, we report the date, time and results for the test drives as well as any CLV measurements taken in its component intersections. We also report the policy area standard CLV. Any intersections with CLVs measured above their policy area standard are rated as “failing” by the Planning Department.
The Worst High Volume, Low Speed Corridors
The following four corridors are characterized by high auto volume (often exceeding allowable policy area standards) and low speeds. Lots of cars can and do get through these areas, but the experience is agonizing.
Connecticut Avenue, Bradley Lane to the Beltway
Test Run
6/4/07 at 6:20 PM, Northbound
2.01 Miles in 19.6 Minutes, 6.1 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Connecticut at Bradley: 1577 (Recorded on 3/17/04)
Connecticut at East-West Highway: 1829 (Recorded on 3/29/06), Exceeds Standard
Connecticut at Jones Bridge: 2017 (Recorded on 6/6/07), Exceeds Standard
Connecticut at Beltway: 1245 North, 1100 South (Recorded on 3/9-3/10/04)
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1600
Notes: This is the major commuter route between Chevy Chase, Kensington and Downtown D.C.
Georgia Avenue, Arcola Avenue to Randolph Road
Test Run
6/4/07 at 5:15 PM, Northbound
0.69 Miles in 8.03 Minutes, 5.2 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Georgia at Arcola: 1471 (Recorded on 2/23/06)
Georgia at Randolph: 1910 (Recorded on 2/23/06), Exceeds Standard
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1600
Notes: Georgia at Randolph had the second-highest AM CLV in the county. A grade-separated interchange at this intersection is the county’s top priority among state construction projects. The state announced it would fund the project in January 2008. The Glenmont Metro Station is just to the north.
Rockville Pike, Congressional Lane to Edmonston Drive
Test Run #1
6/7/07 at 5:42 PM, Northbound
0.69 Miles in 4.62 Minutes, 9.0 MPH
Test Run #2
6/7/07 at 6:02 PM, Northbound
0.46 Miles in 2.93 Minutes, 9.4 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Rockville Pike at Congressional: 1538 (Recorded on 6/3/04), Exceeds Standard
Rockville Pike at Edmonston: 1590 (Recorded on 10/13/04), Exceeds Standard
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1500
Notes: This corridor is just north of the Twinbrook Metro Station and is adjacent to the Woodmont Country Club.
Wisconsin Avenue, Battery Lane to Cedar Lane
Test Run
5/12/05 at 4:52 PM, Northbound
1.24 Miles in 11.0 Minutes, 6.8 MPH
PM Critical Lane Volumes
Wisconsin at Battery: 1745 (Recorded on 2/8/07)
Wisconsin at Jones Bridge: 1536 (Recorded on 12/22/05)
Wisconsin at Cedar: 1996 (Recorded on 9/7/06), Exceeds Standard
Policy Area CLV Standard: 1600 (1800 at Battery)
Notes: This corridor extends from the northern edge of Downtown Bethesda through the National Naval Medical Center and is just south of the Beltway interchange. The extremely-congested, high-volume traffic provides a strong justification for BRAC-related transportation work.
Tomorrow, we will look at corridors with modest Critical Lane Volumes and slow speeds.
On Political Pulse
Maryland State Delegates Brian Feldman (from District 15, which is the Potomac Gaithersburg area) and Tom Hucker (from District 20, which is the Silver Spring, Takoma Park area) will be on the 'Political Pulse' TV Show on:
Thursday, May 29th at 9:00 p.m.; and
Tuesday, June 3rd at 9:30 p.m.
Issues that will be discussed include:
1. How the substantial raises given by Montgomery County to its employees are viewed by State Legislative leaders in Annapolis and what impact the raises might have during the process wherein it is determined how much in state funds is paid to Montgomery County and other Maryland counties;
2. The effect of the recently-passed 'millionaires tax' on Montgomery County residents;
3. Whether slots would be a less burdensome way to raise revenues from the perspective of Montgomery County residents (as compared to additional taxes); and
4. The Purple Line and the Corridor Cities Transit-way (proposed mass transit projects in Montgomery County) and whether there are enough funds to build either or both of the projects.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16 in Montgomery County.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
A Better Way to Measure Traffic, Part One
In our previous two posts, we outlined the county’s reliance on Critical Lane Volume (CLV) to measure traffic and identify problem intersections. We identified two problems with this system. First, the county’s measurement of CLV at each intersection only once every four years or so guaranteed the proliferation of fluky measurements. Second, CLV has different meanings under different circumstances. A low CLV could mean few cars or it could mean that few cars are able to move through an intersection due to excessive congestion.
There is a better way to measure traffic than this.
Any longitudinal data system must accomplish three things. First, the users must have reality-based data that actually measure what the users intend to measure. Second, there must be large numbers of observations to build an adequate sample size. Third, identical procedures must be applied over and over again in different conditions to isolate out their effects. The Planning Department’s current traffic measurement system has none of these characteristics.
But there is hope for something better that is buried deep within the planners’ own documents. In the appendix to the 2008 Highway Mobility Report, the staff has added something new: actual test runs by cars equipped with GPS devices on major corridors in rush hour. On pages 69-82, the staff shows the results of rush hour test drives on Wisconsin Avenue, Rockville Pike, Frederick Road, Georgia Avenue, Norbeck Road, Colesville Road, Columbia Pike, Connecticut Avenue, Clopper Road and Great Seneca Highway. Yes, these drives were only taken on one day each in May 2005, May 2007 or June 2007. But the results are very informative – you can actually see which intersections cause low speeds, and which stretches of these corridors have free flow.
Here is the kind of simulation that reflects reality. People do not drive through problem intersections once every four years, as the CLVs measure. They drive through long, clogged corridors every day, often during rush hour. The challenge is how to collect more of this data so it is not subject to outlier results determined by bad weather, accidents or other unusual conditions.
The solution is to draw on the hundreds of thousands of real live drivers who navigate this county every day. The Planning Department should offer county residents temporary GPS units for their cars in return for a payment of $100 per month. (That is the equivalent of one to two weeks of free gas!) These units would record all driving information and store them in internal memory for download upon return to the staff. Planning could rotate the units among different residents, perhaps 50-100 different people every month. After one year, Planning would have an unrivaled database of tens of thousands of actual drives under every condition imaginable. Planning would be able to judge the performance of any major roadway in the county under any weather condition, on any day, at any time of the day or night. Additionally, matching this traffic data with the police department’s online traffic accident database would enable planners to see the impact of auto collisions on roadway performance for every major route in the county.
How much would all of this cost? GPS units rent for as little as $5 per day and Planning could negotiate a better deal for lots of them. If Planning allocated them to 50 different residents each month and paid them $100 per month, the total rental and payment cost would be $151,250 per year. If Planning allocated them to 100 residents, the cost would be $302,500. Add on the cost of one full-time employee to monitor the program and the cost would be roughly $300,000 to $450,000 per year. The Planning Department’s total budget is approximately $19 million and it is currently suffering from cuts.
But Planning does not necessarily have to request lots of extra money. Why not pay for this, at least in part, by cutting back on CLV measurement? As we have seen, critical lane volume estimates taken in isolation do not by themselves provide reliable measurements of traffic. Do we really need 422 fluky, seldom-updated CLVs, many of which are taken at tertiary intersections with low volume? Why not reduce the number of intersections measured by CLVs and use the money for reality-based GPS measures instead?
Until the Planning Department moves to this sort of system, its existing test drive data provides a tantalizing peek at how a real traffic measurement system could work. In Part Two, we will begin looking at some of the new data Planning has already gathered.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Council Is Back To Full Strength
County Executive Ike Leggett looking on.
Didn't beat WaPo on the news on Don Praisner's swearing-in. But we do have pictures, something they do not have.
with his signature in the official register.
Besides the normal list of Praisner supporters and his family, several other elected officials were in attendance: Council President Mike Knapp; Council Vice President Phil Andrews; Councilman George Leventhal; and former Delegate Adrienne Mandel.
Why the Delay?
The reason for not immediately swearing in Don Praisner after he defeated Mark Fennel in the general election on May 13 was the Board of Elections (BOE) had to certify the elections and they could not do that until the final absentees (those from overseas) were counted on Friday.
The final official tally was Praisner 6,123 (66.2%), Fennell 3,092 (33.4%) with 32 (0.3%) Write-Ins. The 9,247 votes were less than the combined votes in the two party primaries of 9,577 (GOP 1,919 and Dems 7,658).
While the BOE does not list precinct results by party the mid day counts by the MCDCC had under 7% of the voters being Non-affiliated (NA) with either party. NAs are around 20% of the district. Which would explain the turnout not being higher than the primary on April 15. For a detailed analysis of the Democratic primary look at Adam's post.
Only twenty-one days until our next special election, to replace Congressman Al Wynn with either Democratic nominee Donna Edwards or Republican nominee Peter James. Even for a political junkie, I look forward to have nothing to not having a campaign on the horizon. Hurry up June 18!!!
Defining Deviancy Down at the Intersection of Death, Part Two
In Part One, we described how Montgomery County’s Planning Department relies on Critical Lane Volume (CLV) to estimate congestion at intersections across the county. Any statistical system that relies on just one measure, taken very infrequently, with little collaborating information is prone to fluky data. And that has happened at the Georgia Avenue-Forest Glen Road intersection, lovingly referred to by its neighbors as the Intersection of Death.
According to the Planning Department, this intersection went from being the most congested in the county to falling below the county’s allowable congestion standard for its policy area. Why? Because its morning CLV declined by 26% between surveys taken on 8/28/03 and 6/6/07. They would like us to believe that one-quarter of our traffic congestion has magically disappeared even though there have been no major engineering changes at the intersection. Similarly, only four of the ten most-congested intersections reported in 2006 have returned to the current 2008 list. Have the six intersections that fell off the list been “fixed,” surpassed by others that have become worse or simply fallen victim to bad CLV measurements?
While the Gazette covered our objections to traffic measurement at Georgia and Forest Glen, they spent a bit more time discussing the intersection’s infamous nickname than exploring the underlying data issues. I presented the following case study of the intersection to the Planning Board two weeks ago. Just looking at this one intersection calls into question the statistical validity of how traffic is measured in this county.
*****
Testimony of Adam Pagnucco
Montgomery County Planning Board, 5/15/08
Item 8: Highway Mobility Report 2008
Good morning. My name is Adam Pagnucco. I am Chairman of the Forest Estates Community Association's Crossing Georgia Committee as well as my civic association's incoming county government liaison. Today I offer my observations on the planning staff's new Critical Lane Volume (CLV) estimates for the Georgia Avenue-Forest Glen Road intersection.
In the 2006 Highway Mobility Report, the Georgia-Forest Glen intersection was ranked as the most congested in the county with an AM CLV of 2106 and a PM CLV of 1643. Those counts were taken on 8/28/03. No one in the surrounding area was surprised. What was surprising were the new CLV counts taken on 6/6/07: an AM CLV of 1553 and a PM CLV of 1377. If those counts are to be believed, then congestion has decreased at this intersection by 26% in the morning and 16% in the evening in just four years.
Now let's remember the location of Georgia at Forest Glen. It is adjacent to the Forest Glen Metro station, one block away from the Beltway interchange and three blocks away from Holy Cross Hospital, the second-biggest hospital in the state. Any car coming from the north to the Beltway must pass through it. Most vehicles heading to Holy Cross, and all of them coming from the Beltway, must pass through it. And hundreds of pedestrians cross the street every day to use Metro. No other intersection in the county, and possibly the state, has this combination of characteristics.
The principal change in recent traffic conditions around the intersection was the 2005 expansion of Holy Cross Hospital. That expansion, the biggest in the hospital's history, added 210,000 square feet of new space to the facility. The hospital reports that it had 128,591 visitors in 2003 and 157,573 visitors in 2007, a 23% increase after the expansion was finished. But now the hospital claims that it is bursting at the seams and it intends to expand again. Its plan calls for a new parking garage that would hold 500-700 more cars, which the hospital says it needs because cars are stacking up in its existing garage. Given the phenomenal increases in patient visits and the hospital's need for another expansion so soon after its last one, how can anyone believe that traffic congestion at Georgia and Forest Glen has really declined by double digits in just four years?
But there is more. In 1995, the planning staff estimated CLV at Georgia and Forest Glen at 1511 in the morning and 1530 in the afternoon. If the 2007 CLV is to be believed, then current traffic congestion is only 3% worse in the morning and is actually 10% less in the evening than it was in 1995. That's right, we are told that evening rush has actually improved by 10% over the last 12 years. Considering the dramatic redevelopment of Downtown Silver Spring and the residential construction upcounty in that period of time, that is extremely difficult to believe.
Last December, I showed you our video of conditions at the intersection. Remember the sight of cars stacked up towards Wheaton as far as the eye can see? Remember the constant illegal left turns? Remember how the pedestrians had to maneuver past cars stopped in the crosswalk? Of course you remember and there is no need to show you that chaos again. As I recall, that video provoked quite a reaction in this room. Many things were said at the time, but I do not remember anyone saying, "Hmmm… now that intersection has great traffic flow!"
Perhaps the issue here is how CLVs are used for purposes of analysis. Critical Lane Volume is after all a volume measure. As the number of cars proceeding through an intersection goes up, the CLV goes up. Now imagine a perfectly gridlocked intersection. No cars can move. What would its CLV be? Exactly zero. After all, no cars would be able to get through. Is it possible that the Georgia-Forest Glen intersection's declining CLV indicates more congestion and not less?
Members of the Planning Board, it is highly unlikely that you will find anyone in my neighborhood who believes that the biggest expansion in the history of the state's second-biggest hospital has led to less traffic congestion over the last four years. It is equally unlikely that you will find anyone who believes that afternoon traffic flow on Georgia Avenue has actually improved since the mid-1990's. I hope that you will ask your staff to explain how their data contradicts the facts I have cited today along with plain common sense. I for one would like to hear their answer.
*****
Tomorrow, we will show you a better way to measure traffic.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Defining Deviancy Down at the Intersection of Death, Part One
Imagine if we measured the American economy by estimating Gross Domestic Product once every four years. Forget about measuring other things like employment, unemployment and inflation. And forget about taking monthly or quarterly measurements.
“That’s ridiculous!” you would yell. “How would we understand the different trends in the components of the economy? How would we track the ups and downs? How would we get a complete picture of what’s going on?”
And you’d be right. But guess what: that is how we measure traffic in Montgomery County.
Montgomery County’s Planning Department measures traffic by calculating Critical Lane Volume (CLV) at each of 422 intersections in the county. CLV is the maximum hourly sum of conflicting auto movements, both through traffic and turns, proceeding through an intersection. (You can see how the measurement is constructed on page 6-26 of the 2006 Edition of the Mass Highway Manual.) CLV is dependent on volume. An intersection without cars would have a CLV of zero. As traffic picks up, CLV rises. But in a perfectly gridlocked intersection, no cars would be able to move and CLV would go back down to zero.
The Planning Department measures CLVs at each intersection by sending out traffic surveyors to count cars in both the morning and evening rush. But since Planning has limited resources, the surveyors can only appear at each of the intersections every four years or so. What if the weather is bad? What if there’s an accident nearby? Too bad, the survey results are in. Whatever happened on that one day is assumed to be the case on every day for at least the next four years.
Some of these measurement days are a bit unusual. Of the 422 reported CLVs in the 2008 Highway Mobility Report, 22 were taken in December, 23 were taken in January, 30 were taken in February and 3 were taken in August. Are these representative months of the year for driving conditions? Also, 29 of the CLVs were taken in 2003, 14 were taken in 2002 and 6 were taken in 2001. Can these measurements really be compared to estimates made in 2006 and 2007?
Moreover, the Planning Department assumes that a high CLV means high congestion. In fact, a high CLV means an intersection is carrying a lot of traffic. Remember – it rises with volume. An extremely congested intersection is one where it takes a long time to get through. In that case, the CLV may actually be quite low. How about measuring average delay times or average speeds? The Planning Department reports average speeds in travel runs taken on MD-355, Georgia Avenue, US-29, Norbeck Road, Connecticut Avenue, Clopper Road and Great Seneca Highway in 2005 and 2007, but those runs were one-day spot-checks covering only a fraction of the county’s intersections. Nevertheless, these travel runs provided valuable data and we will cover them in more detail later this week.
So why should you care whether Planning measures traffic badly? For one thing, an intersection’s CLV plays a role in determining whether developers building nearby will have to pay for traffic mitigation measures. If your CLV was measured on a day in which traffic was abnormally low, it might fall below the allowable traffic standard in that policy area. That would make it easier for a developer to escape responsibility for mitigating the effects of any new traffic generated by additional construction.
In Part Two, we’ll look at how the county’s faulty traffic measures have played out at the intersection of Georgia Avenue and Forest Glen Road, also known as the Intersection of Death.
Traffic Week on Maryland Politics Watch
Dear readers, I am going to tell you something you already know: traffic congestion has reached catastrophic levels in Montgomery County. We measure it badly. We do not plan around it very well. But we can do better.
In a special five-part series, MPW offers an unprecedented look at our county's traffic measurement system. Today and tomorrow, we look at how we currently measure traffic and why we come up short. On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday we propose an alternative measurement system and preview its results. Our recommendations are radical. They are sure to be resisted by the county's Planning Department. But radical problems demand radical solutions. Our plight is truly dire. Let the timid flee, let the entrenched bureaucracy fossilize and let the naysayers be bound and gagged! None of them will be spared from Traffic Week on Maryland Politics Watch.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Montgomery County Planning Department Announces Cuts
For those who doubt that the County Council mandated actual cuts in its recently passed budget, the Montgomery County Planning Department is providing a sobering rebuttal. In a recent press release that we are reproducing below, Planning detailed the activities it will have to scale back to accommodate a 3% cut in its budget.
The Planning Department's work is vital for shaping the future of the county. They have an excellent, professional staff that struggles to keep up with the work load generated by servicing a county of nearly a million residents. If this year's cuts are followed by more in the future, their ability to update master plans, recommend traffic mitigation measures and assess the impacts of new developments will be severely impaired.
May 23, 2008
With Fewer Funds in 09, Montgomery County Planning Department Will Cut Traffic Relief Studies, Environmental Protection Analyses, Other Programs
SILVER SPRING, MD –The fiscal year 2009 budget approved yesterday by the Montgomery County Council includes $18.9 million for the Montgomery Planning Department, approximately a 3 percent cut from the previous year when factoring in mandatory spending increases.
Facing fewer funds, the Planning Board during budget discussions with the County Council identified services and programs that will be cut starting July 1.
On that list is the county’s oldest master plan – Westbard, on the western edge of the growing Bethesda area – that planners had targeted for an update. Master plans help guide development, set zoning, establish transportation improvements, lay out pedestrian routes and establish environmental protection measures. The Westbard community, surrounding River Road and Little Falls Parkway, will have to wait at least a year.
Another plan to be delayed is Battery Lane, a small neighborhood on Bethesda’s northern edge, where density, the expansion of the National Naval Medical Center and affordable housing are particularly important. The Council had asked the department to address those issues in a sector plan.
Last fall, the Council approved the 2007 Growth Policy, a biannual law that helps match transportation, schools and other public services to new development. At that time, the Council mandated aggressive new requirements for developers to mitigate traffic impacts in a number of innovative ways, including mass transit. That requires planners to even more carefully analyze every development plan for congestion relief strategies. With the funding cut, planners will not be able to fully carry out the Council’s intent, which they had hoped to achieve with additional transportation staff. Instead, for example, transportation planners might recommend that a developer fund construction of a new turning lane to alleviate traffic concerns posed by new growth rather than recommending more complex, long-term solutions like mass transit. In addition, planners will not be able to conduct much-needed analyses of countywide parking needs and traffic congestion.
Environmental protection initiatives also will be delayed or abandoned. A state-required plan to analyze the county’s long-term water supply and quality will be delayed by at least a year, while a proposal to study the county’s energy needs to recommend strategies to reduce demand and generate energy will be scrapped.
County residents used to visiting the department’s public information counter to learn about zoning, development plans and community master plans may find the counter closed. Planners expect to limit service hours given dwindling staff.
The fiscal shortfall mostly affects personnel, which makes up 90 percent of the Planning Department’s budget. The funding reduction forces the department to reduce staff. Unable to fund positions, the department will freeze vacancies resulting from retirements and resignations in hopes of shrinking the workforce and avoiding layoffs. In addition, for the first time in many years, the department will not offer paid summer internships to college students.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Bills in Honor of Jane Lawton Signed into Law
On Thursday morning, Gov. Martin O'Malley signed two bills passed in memory of Del. Jane Lawton. As Sen. Rich Madaleno explained:The Jane E. Lawton Loan Program will provide eligible homeowners with access to low interest loans to improve the energy efficiency of their homes through the installation of new windows, insulation, and heating equipment. The Jane Lawton Farm-to-School Program will provide public schools with the ability to buy local produce for school meals.
Both are excellent programs on issues Jane cared about and was working hard on before her death towards the end of last year.
Seated in the photo are Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, Senate President Mike Miller, Gov. Martin O'Malley, and House Speaker Mike Busch. Standing in the photo are Sen. Jennie Forehand, Del. Heather Mizeur, Karen McManus, Del. Anne Kaiser, Sen. Rich Madaleno, Steve Lawton, Lisa Jackson, Kathleen Lawton-Trask, Stephanie Lawton, and myself.
Katie Madaleno Hodge Signs Her First Bill
Governor Katie Madaleno Hodge Signs Her First Bill into LawSen. Rich Madaleno's daughter got some practice signing bills into law. Katie for Governor in 2034!
Is the Washington Post Credible on Labor Issues?
Last Sunday, a Washington Post editorial slammed Montgomery County’s recently-passed budget as full of “sweetheart deals” for the county’s public employee unions. The week before, the Post ran an article by Ann Marimow titled “Union Influence Sways Budget Talks” during the middle of the County Council’s budget deliberations. And when the Post endorsed labor-backed Nancy Navarro during the District 4 County Council special election, they offered one caveat:
Ms. Navarro makes no bones about her alliance with labor, but we hope she will be sufficiently independent-minded to see that annual pay increases of 8 percent are simply not sustainable in the current budgetary environment.These may not be disconnected events. In fact, they could be a product of the Washington Post’s long, contentious history with its own employees’ labor unions. Today we expose that history for our readers.
The Post’s labor difficulties date back at least to the early 1970s. At the time, two craft unions – the printers (who set type for the paper) and the pressmen (who ran the printing machines) – dominated the newspaper’s physical production. They occasionally abused their power with job actions, including a wildcat (unsanctioned) strike in 1973. The Post decided to fight back by introducing a new set of labor-saving photographic composition equipment, secretly training non-union workers to operate it in an Oklahoma City “scab school.” In 1975, the Post installed their new equipment in their headquarters, causing the printers and pressmen to walk out. But the pressmen sabotaged the new machines, set fire to one of them and viciously beat a manager on their way out, thus igniting a 139-day strike. Keeping the paper running with non-union labor, the Post eventually settled with the printers and permanently replaced the pressmen, crushing the latter union once and for all. Management’s experience with the violent, Luddite pressmen has shaped its labor philosophy ever since. (You can read accounts of this infamous strike here, here and here.)
Among the concessions secured by the Post from the rest of its now-intimidated unions was a two-tier wage scale. Current employees were given raises but the entry-level scale was not changed. As a result, new employees were often paid less than veterans even though they occupied the same positions and did the same work. Management made things worse by bumping up some new workers to veteran scale while not doing the same for others, a practice perceived by the workforce as reeking of favoritism. And the new, lower-paid workers were more likely to be minorities, adding a racial element to the tension.
In 1987, the Post declared a bargaining impasse with their reporters in the Newspaper Guild after 16 months of negotiation over this issue and others. Guild members retaliated with a “byline strike” during which they refused to allow their bylines to be used in their articles. The Post ignored the tactic and unilaterally imposed its terms on the union. The Newspaper Guild launched two more byline strikes in 2002 and was able to slightly improve the Post’s offer in that bargaining round.
The Post’s latest labor dispute involves its production workers, who are represented by the Communications Workers of America (CWA). When CWA’s contract expired in May 2003, the Post insisted on withdrawing from the union’s defined benefit pension plan. After five years of stalled bargaining and no pay increases, CWA struck back with a publicity campaign. The Post has also not renewed a labor agreement covering 26 electricians that expired last December.
Do the Post’s recurring labor problems affect its coverage? Ann Marimow’s article describing union influence over the county’s budget may have appeared during the critical final week of the County Council’s deliberations, but a few of her sources tell me that it was being prepared for at least two weeks prior. Some political actors in Rockville suspect that the timing of the article’s release (which is not controlled by Ms. Marimow) was deliberately designed to shape the outcome of the County Council’s budget decisions. That suspicion may not be justified but the very fact that it is regarded as credible at all is a big problem for the Post.
The Post’s tempestuous union history calls into question its impartiality on labor reporting, especially with regards to local labor issues. I am not an impartial source on labor myself. As a result, I frequently disclose to MPW readers: “The author is the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters.” Our readers should consider that fact when they read my reporting and opinion. Perhaps the Washington Post should issue a disclosure statement after every one of its articles on labor issues such as, “The Post is a unionized employer and has been party to numerous labor disputes over the years.” MPW readers have a right to disclosure. So too do readers of the Washington Post.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
TO PLAN - or not to plan?
By Sharon Dooley. Ms Dooley is the legislative Director of Upcounty Action and is looking closely at the selection process here.
The new line up of planning board interviewees shows a diversity of ideas, sexes, races and planning orientations. The council has whittled the original list of 29 – down to a round dozen. One (Wendell Holloway) has already withdrawn his name, but the others wait their turn for public and -council - scrutiny. It appears that each applicant has been an active participant in the concerns of this county for many years; in this we are fortunate.
The county, in my opinion, has an opportunity to take a giant step into an innovative future if it takes the bold leap forward that some of these applicants might provide. Few are professional planners, many are citizen activists, and more than a few are lawyers. Five are women, only two are Republicans (the board make up must include one Republican and one non Republican to balance the vacancies for the commissioners by party). I think, although I am not absolutely positive - as I could not find photos of each applicant, that three are African Americans (the soon to be open seat is currently held by an African American – Alistair Bryant). There appear to be neither Hispanic nor, Asian contenders for these positions.
Fewer members of this group are tied tightly to developers, few are known as environmentalists, one has been with the Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC), and a others have worked for local organizations, such as the WSSC, the PG Parks and Planning Board and Montgomery County Planning Board and the Smart Growth concept. Another is known as a developer, but he is linked with the new urbanism concept, which is conserving of urban areas, encouraging of the streetscape model and green spaces.
I think that there are great opportunities to find commissioners that will step up to the plate here and be ready to start without a steep learning curve. That should be one of the criteria, I think. We have for too long only looked at re-cycling residents from one agency to another in this county, and I am reluctant to advocate this narrowing of our scope. In a county of almost one million residents, we should look for diversity of ideas as well as gender and race.
I encourage the council to ask the tough questions about the future as they proceed with these interviews:
· What is their vision for the 21st Century in the county?
· What will they sacrifice to save our forests and agricultural reserve?
· How much density is tolerable; how much gridlock can we bear before insanity sets in?
· When will we create a real plan for affordable housing that offers more than a few hundred options each year? (We are currently more than ten years in arrears from previous schemes.)
· When will we seriously look at transit and create a realistic plan that funds it instead of more roads?
· What are their ideas for keeping clean air, increasing the green buildings in the county and reducing our dependence on traditional fuel sources in buildings here?
· When will the council ask more of the planners? Master plans are a way of life here – how can they be kept from becoming routine rote reviews that are retooled every twenty years or so? Hopefully, this new commission will deep six the mini-masters that were proposed as a way to circumvent the current schedules.
· When will the planning board step up itself to direct staff to create traffic studies and capacity measures that adequately address these issues using national norms and standards?
For quite a while Montgomery county planners have rested on their laurels using the standards that they set in place a generation ago. Quite properly, the county received many honors for these innovative practices; but in my opinion we have stagnated, while other parts of the country have taken our initial ideas and brought them to new levels and tried pilots with citizen input, development, housing and transit that we are not even considering. The cities of Portland and Minneapolis are among the new leaders in urban development. We have an opportunity to send a strong signal by starting down new paths and opening new doors – let’s take them and move toward real innovation and increased integrity in our planning process by selecting new commissioners who have a vision for tomorrow and for the tomorrows future generations can enjoy.
Governor, Leave it Alone (Updated)
One month ago, I criticized Governor O’Malley for allocating $46.3 million for school construction in Montgomery County instead of the $55 million he promised our state delegation in the special session. After that, I was willing to let it lie. I know how tight the state budget is. But the Governor will just not let this go.
According to Maryland Moment’s John Wagner, the Governor went after Montgomery County school construction director Joe Lavorgna at a recent Board of Public Works meeting. The Governor claimed, correctly, that his administration had allocated $98 million for school construction in its first two years – much more than Governor Ehrlich’s $19.6 million. Wagner reports this exchange:“Was there another county that got as much as $98 million?” O’Malley asked Joe Lavorgna, who oversees school construction in Montgomery County and attended the board’s meeting.
The Governor should have let this drop. Instead, he is putting this issue back in our faces. And he is badly misreading the political mood in this county.
Lavorgna had been invited to the lectern by Franchot, a former Montgomery delegate, to explain the ramifications of receiving less funding than Montgomery officials had anticipated based on closed-door conversations during the special session. During that session, lawmakers took tough votes on tax increases and slot machines.
Lavorgna said that some local money would be used to close the shortfall in construction funding and that some projects could be pushed back.
O’Malley asked Lavorgna to give a copy of a chart showing a comparison to the Ehrlich years to his boss, Montgomery Schools Superintendent Jerry D. Weast. O’Malley said spoke recently with Weast by phone.
Lavorgna appeared taken aback by the exchange.
“I’m not here to complain about the state aid,” he said.
1. Montgomery County residents have just suffered twin hits from state and county tax hikes. No one, not the richest nor the poorest, has escaped them. And on top of that, we are being reminded that our state aid is less than our legislators were promised.
2. The school construction fight exacerbates a long-held perception that the county does not get its fair due from the state. In last week’s apocalyptic budget sessions, County Council President Mike Knapp said from the dais that the state regarded Montgomery County as its “piggy bank.” None of his colleagues disagreed with him. More people are beginning to remark on the statistic that Montgomery gets only 15 cents of every dollar it pays in state taxes back in the form of direct state grants. The state average is 35 cents.
3. School construction is a big issue in this county. Frustration about over-crowded schools was a factor in electing several slow-growth County Council Members in 2006. Last year’s growth policy doubled development impact taxes in an effort to pay for more school capacity. And delays on school improvements have been a hot topic for many county parents over the last several months.
4. Opposition to disparate impacts on Montgomery County drove many of our state legislators to vote against the Governor’s proposed millionaire tax. Now that the Governor is resurrecting the school construction dispute, he is encouraging our delegation to act more parochially. This is unhealthy for his remaining agenda.
Politicians, of all people, are hardly surprised when other politicians break their promises. (It is always entertaining to hear one of them complain about how politicians in general can't be trusted!) The wise thing for the Governor to do would have been to let this lie and move on to other matters likely to attract our state legislators’ support. But instead he is throwing the school issue back at us and inviting discontent. Governor, for your own sake, leave it alone.
Update: The Baltimore Sun has more here. It seems the event was instigated by Comptroller Peter Franchot and that makes the Governor's reaction slightly more understandable. However, the Governor should have known better than to fall into the Comptroller's trap.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
On Political Pulse
Sam Schwartz, a nationally recognized traffic engineer and planner who has been retained by the Town of Chevy Chase, will be on the 'Political Pulse' TV Show on:
-Thursday, May 22nd at 9:00 p.m.; and
-Tuesday, May 27th at 9:30 p.m.
Mr. Schwartz has analyzed the ridership and other information compiled thus far by the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) regarding the different alternatives and routes that are being studied for the Purple Line.
Other guests that have appeared in the past on 'Political Pulse' regarding the Purple Line include Mike Madden, the MTA's Project Manager for the Purple Line, Ben Ross from the Action Community for Transit (ACT) and community activist Pat Baptiste.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
What Do Duct Tape & Kraft Mac and Cheese Have In Common?
You can also include the zip code, Barack Obama's parents, the Minimum Wage, the Golden Gate Bridge and the Lincoln Tunnel. If you don't know and are dying to find out their connection then just click here.
This has nothing to do with our normal focus of MoCo Politics. But it is still fun to think about.
Income Inequality in Montgomery County
In Part One of our two-part series on income inequality, we reported that growing labor market inequality was fueling rising income disparities in Maryland. Today, we look at what is happening in Montgomery County.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment Survey produces data at the metropolitan area level, including a series combining Montgomery and Frederick Counties. But small sample sizes at this geographic level handicap some of the individual occupational observations with unacceptably large standard errors. So we turned to a rich source of locality data that is less burdened with sample size issues: the decennial census.
The Census Bureau reports detailed demographic, economic and real estate data down to the census tract level (and even further) every ten years. We identified the five wealthiest neighborhoods and the five poorest neighborhoods, defined as census tracts and using per capita income, in Montgomery County in 2000. We then compared real per capita income, measured in 2007 dollars, in each of these census tracts between 1989 and 1999. We also looked up black and Hispanic population percentages for each census tract. In Potomac, we had to merge two census tracts to obtain comparable data for 1989 and 1999 because of changes in the area’s census tract definitions in the 1990s. We report our results below.
Measured by per capita income, the five wealthiest neighborhoods in Montgomery County are Chevy Chase Village, Potomac, the section of Bethesda west of its Central Business District, the Bethesda neighborhoods on either side of Democracy Boulevard and the Martin’s Addition and Rollingwood sections of Chevy Chase. The five poorest neighborhoods are Langley Park (separated into two census tracts), the section of Rockville east of the CSX tracks, the section of Wheaton west of Veirs Mill Road reaching up to Rockville, and the Oakview neighborhood in Silver Spring (southwest of the intersection of the Beltway and New Hampshire Avenue). On average, the percentage of black and Hispanic people living in the poorest neighborhoods is ten times their percentage in the richest neighborhoods.
Between 1989 and 1999, four of the five richest neighborhoods saw double-digit gains in real per capita income. Over the same period, every one of the poorest neighborhoods saw real losses. Together, the richest neighborhoods enjoyed a 15% real per capita income gain while the poorest neighborhoods suffered a 12% drop. The county as a whole saw a 4% real per capita income increase over this decade.
The 1990s was a relatively decent decade for America’s middle and working classes. Real wages ceased their two-decade drop and rose a little bit in many occupations. If Montgomery County’s poorest neighborhoods saw a double-digit real income drop in the 1990s, what is happening to them now?
Rising income inequality is a national, indeed a global, trend. Can Maryland’s state or county policymakers truly reverse it? Measures that might help thwart inequality include:
1. Encouraging unionization.
2. Funding public employee contracts, especially for the lowest-paid workers.
3. Investing in public education, the state university system, vocational training, apprenticeship programs and ESOL instruction.
4. Supporting minimum wage, living wage and prevailing wage laws as well as other worker protections (like Montgomery County’s domestic worker bill).
5. Cracking down on unscrupulous employers who cheat workers.
Will all of the above, if implemented with gusto, really make a difference? Possibly. But one thing is certain:
Every state legislator who voted to pass the regressive special session tax package and then opposed the millionaire tax effectively voted to make Maryland’s – and Montgomery County’s – income inequality worse.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Income Inequality in Maryland
Last month, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) and the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) released a study on income inequality in all 50 states. We reproduce their results for Maryland below and add some new research of our own in Part One of a two-part series.
The above analysis shows that income inequality has been growing steadily in Maryland since at least the 1980s, as it has been in the rest of the country. Why is that? There are many potential explanations, but as a union researcher, my natural inclination is to look at the labor market. What is happening to pay for Marylanders?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment Survey program releases occupational employment and wage data from surveys of employers at the national, state and metropolitan area levels. The program has produced methodologically consistent longitudinal data going back to 1999. While some of the data is handicapped by small sample sizes and resulting large standard errors, many occupations report wage levels within 95% confidence intervals even at the state level.
We picked a list of 15 of the highest-paying occupations and 15 of the lowest-paying occupations in Maryland. The high-paying occupations all paid at least $35 per hour in 2007 dollars and the low-paying occupations paid $14 per hour or less. All of these occupations reported standard errors associated with their wage estimates of 6% or less. Together, these occupations accounted for 28% of all employment in the state in 2006 and they accounted for most of the employment at the upper and lower ends of the wage distribution.
For each occupation, we report employment and mean hourly earnings in 1999 and 2006, deflated with the CPI-W into 2007 dollars. We then compute weighted averages (by employment) for each occupational group and compare it to the state average. Below are our results.
As you can see, the 15 high-paying occupations saw a weighted average hourly earnings gain of 19.2% in real dollars. The 15 low-paying occupations saw a gain of just 0.4%, a statistically insignificant difference from zero. Six of these occupations saw real earnings losses. On average, Maryland workers saw a gain of 7.2% in real dollars, or about 1% per year over the period.
But the employment data is also instructive. The fifteen high-paying occupations saw a combined employment drop of 11%. The fifteen low-paying occupations saw employment grow by 18%. This change in employment patterns may be just as meaningful in driving labor market inequality as the change in the wage structure.
The above data applies to only 30 occupations over just one seven-year period. It cannot be considered as comprehensive as EPI’s work or a true peer-reviewed academic study. But the behavior of the upper and lower ends of Maryland’s occupational earnings distribution strongly suggests one source of the state’s growing income inequality.
Maryland’s labor market is rewarding a smaller and smaller number of people at the top with above-average real earnings gains. At the same time, it is punishing a larger and larger number of people at the bottom with no real earnings gains at all. And there is no reason to believe that this trend will end anytime soon.
In Part Two, we will use a very different methodology to examine income inequality in Montgomery County.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Local First Wheaton!
At yesterday’s rainy Taste of Wheaton event, the county’s newest and most unique business alliance was unveiled.
The seeds of this alliance were planted in last summer’s joint business/resident revolt against the county’s disastrous plan to extend parking meter hours. No one remembered the last time Wheaton’s businesses and its customers joined together to successfully change county policy. Everyone knew that if we did not build on that effort, the community spirit created by the revolt would fade.
So the rebel leaders met at Caramelo Bakery to plot what to do next. It was an unusual gathering. Attendees included a Cuban non-profit director, a Scottish pub owner, a Venezuelan baker, an Asian tea shop owner, a Salvadoran restaurant owner, an African-American County Council Member, a federal government economist and a trouble-making union hell-raiser from New Yawk. We decided to build a new business association, but not merely an extension of the Wheaton-Kensington Chamber of Commerce. The new group would focus on the small businesses that make Wheaton special, as well as their customers.
From left: Caramelo Bakery owner Freddy Real, Denise Isaac of Telemundo, Hall-of-Fame activist and business owner Marian Fryer and LEDC’s Daniel Parra announce the formation of the new association.
The alliance, eventually known as Local First Wheaton, would be open to small, local and independent businesses. The firms would cross-market each other’s products, do business among themselves, attempt to pool resources to get better deals on clean electric power and, most importantly, appeal to the residents of nearby neighborhoods to shop locally. When customers direct their shopping habits to nearby small businesses, they build job creation and investment in their local economy and minimize carbon emissions by driving less. Civic associations and even individuals would also be welcomed as associate members. Our model borrowed liberally from the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE), a national organization which had created similar local business alliances in Denver, Chicago, Seattle, Cambridge, Buffalo and other cities. The Latino Economic Development Corporation (LEDC), a non-profit providing aid to small businesses, had already started a Local First group in Washington, DC. Now that LEDC had established a Wheaton office in the Gilchrist Center, its leaders, along with the businesses and residents who triumphed in the parking meter revolt, judged that now was the time to create Local First Wheaton.
From left: LEDC Executive Director Manny Hidalgo, District 18 State Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez and LEDC Maryland Business Director Daniel Parra.
Local First Wheaton has just launched its website and has signed up its first batch of members. Its logo and its membership directory will soon begin appearing all over Wheaton’s Central Business District. Soon after, we will market the alliance to the residents of nearby civic associations. Gasoline prices of $4 or more per gallon may be challenging to our members’ finances but they will provide an incentive for nearby customers to stay close to home. And once Local First Wheaton is established, we will export the model to other business districts in the Downcounty.
So come to Wheaton and check us out! Our members will make sure you’ll be back.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Just How Dominant are the Democrats in Montgomery County?
From Marc Korman:
We all know that Democrats are dominant in Montgomery County. But have you ever thought about what that really means?
Don Praisner’s election earlier this week to the County Council ensures that the Council will remain 100% Democratic, with 9 out of 9 members as Democrats.
Since Jean Cryor’s defeat in 2006, 24 out of 24 State Delegates from Montgomery County have been Democrats.
Since 2002, 8 out of 8 State Senators from Montgomery County have been Democrats.
As of April 2008, there are 288,414 registered Democrats in Montgomery County, compared to 121,265 Republicans. Unaffiliated voters are close behind with 102,864. Back in April of 2004, there were only 257,825 registered Democrats, compared to 126,894 registered Republicans and 92,659 unaffiliated voters. That means Republican numbers have declined over the past four years while total registration has increased by over 35,000.
There are 19 municipalities in Montgomery County. Although their elections tend to be non-partisan, at least 15 are headed by registered Democrats. The Chairman of Chevy Chase View is unaffiliated, the Chairman of the Village of Chevy Chase Section 5 and the Laytonsville Mayor are Republicans, and no information was available about the head of the Martin’s Additions Village Council.
So is this type of political dominance healthy? It depends. As long as Democrats are not walking in lock step with one another and continuing to have healthy debates and providing good government, then there really is not much of a problem.
Take the County Council’s budget debates for example, heavily covered by Adam and David here at MPW. The members of the Council have different positions on what the next budget should look like, but they are all rooted in the idea that government should provide good services to the people, helping to lift everyone’s quality of life. This is a Democratic idea that the various Councilmembers have different paths to achieve.
As a member of the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee, I must admit I am biased in favor of the Democrats. But as long as our elected officials remain responsive to their constituents and responsible in their leadership, I think residents will continue to reward the Democratic Party.
Friday, May 16, 2008
It’s Over – For Now
After a torturous few months, the Montgomery County Council finally reached a unanimous budget agreement today. But while the bleary-eyed Council Members are no doubt working their way through their liquor cabinets as we write this, the fiscal hangover will arrive all too soon.
Yesterday’s cliffhanger boiled down to this: three Council Members (Duchy Trachtenberg, Phil Andrews and Roger Berliner) wanted $20 million in “labor savings” gained by a 2-day furlough, while two Council Members (Valerie Ervin and George Leventhal) said they would not violate the public employees’ contracts. Marc Elrich expressed dissatisfaction with the structure of the property tax while Nancy Floreen argued for more cuts not connected to the labor agreements. The final solution announced this morning by Council President Mike Knapp contained elements of every one of these ideas. We present the text of his proposal to our readers:Statement by Council President Mike Knapp
After a long night of yelling, negotiating, coffee-swilling and perhaps coffee-throwing, none of the Council Members had any fight left in them to repeat the political theater of prior days. All praised the placid Mike Knapp and none claimed victory over the others for their priorities. Apparently they have tired of providing fodder for loose-tongued bloggers and I do not blame them.
To enable the Council to reach common ground and complete action on the FY09 operating budget, I propose the following final steps in the budget process:
1. Reduce the amount of property tax proposed by the County Executive by $20 million.
2. Keep property tax rates at the current level and provide a credit to owner-occupied homes of $579.
3. Reduce expenditures and change resources as follows:
$8.0 million from County Government and MCPS, to be achieved by reducing employee/personnel costs and securing productivity improvements and increased efficiencies. Each will report back to the Council about how these reductions will be achieved.
$1 million in fund balance from Montgomery College.
$3.5 million from the Council’s changes on May 15 to PAYGO (cash) in the FY09 capital budget and resources for Park and Planning.
But everyone on all sides of the debate – the Council Members, their staff, the Executive Branch, the union leaders and all other observers – expect that the approval of this budget is only the first round in a bruising match. That is because FY10’s budget will most likely also have a deficit in the hundreds of millions and similar debates will no doubt erupt. Drink up, Council Members, because here is what the morning after will look like:
1. The public employee unions preserved their contracts this time. But two Council Members (Phil Andrews and Duchy Trachtenberg) openly favored two-point reductions in their cost of living adjustments (COLAs). One more, Roger Berliner, favored a two-day furlough proposed by Mr. Andrews. Another one, incoming Council Member Donald Praisner, suggested a need to “review” union contracts during his special election campaign. That leaves the County Council only one vote away from approving “labor savings” next year. The unions are well aware of this situation and must work out a strategy to respond. They would be well-served to stick together.
2. All sides must watch the real estate market, which drives the county’s volatile recordation and transfer taxes. In an earlier post, I stated:According to the county’s Department of Finance, residential real estate sales volume averaged over $500 million per month from 2006 through the first eight months of 2007. Since then, residential real estate sales volume has averaged between $200 and $300 million per month. It is this collapse in residential real estate transactions that has caused many of the county’s current budget problems. All policymakers – both inside the government and inside the unions – should watch this figure in the Finance Department’s monthly economic updates. If it rises back up to $400 million per month or more, the county’s real property transfer and recordation taxes will begin to recover. If it falls further, tougher times are ahead.
If the real estate market does not turn up by the end of this year, projected revenue growth for FY10 may be even slower than the anemic rates that constrained the FY09 budget.
3. The county is getting hit badly by rising fuel costs. The agencies’ budget requests did not adequately predict the meteoric recent rise in gas and diesel prices. If the County Executive submits a supplemental budget request to cover higher fuel costs, will the County Council be able to locate the money without offsetting spending cuts?
4. As we documented a month ago, the state budget continues to deteriorate. Rumors are flying that the state will have to cut aid to the counties next spring, perhaps even passing down the burden of paying teacher pension contributions. This would add MANY millions more to any county budget deficit next year.
The County Council, and especially its ever-smiling (but seldom-blogging) President Mike Knapp, performed very well this year under heavy pressure. They will need to rise to the occasion at least one more time before the current economic downtown is over.
Unions, Contracts, and the Political Calculus of the Budget Debate
A guest post from Eric Luedtke, who is a teacher and a member of the board of the Montgomery County Education Association, as well as a past board member of the Montgomery County Sierra Club. He writes here as an individual, not representing the views of any organization.
For the people involved directly in the current discussion about the county budget, the debate is an emotional one. County employees don't see the contracts as a budget item, or the proposed cuts to those contracts as an 'employee contribution', as they were euphemistically referred to in the budget documents the County Council looked at today. To us, it's about the money we need to survive in a county where the cost of living significantly outpaces what county employees make. It's gas money, or rent and mortgage money, or, in my case, the money I need to cover day care costs for my son. For those who style themselves as taxpayer advocates, it's about limiting tax increases. Then there are those few who see this as a way to stick it to the unions, based on whatever personal vendettas they may have.
But there is another angle to this debate as well, one that has serious repercussions for the 2010 elections. And it can all be summed up in a question a friend of mine asked me a couple weeks ago, "When did being slow growth make you anti-union?"
There are three significant bases of power in county-level elections in Montgomery County. Two of them are at opposite ends of a spectrum, the slow-growth and no-growth advocates who are interested in making sure our county's growth is sustainable, both environmentally and in terms of the services we receive, and the pro-development crowd who see growth as an opportunity to build Montgomery County's economic base or, in some cases, an opportunity to line their own pockets. There is little if any middle ground between these two groups. Which is one reason why the third power base, the public employee unions, often have significant influence on who gets elected in the county.
When George Leventhal beat Blair Ewing in 2002 by a little more than a thousand votes, he did it with support from the developers' Go Montgomery slate. When Duchy Trachtenberg and Marc Elrich beat out Mike Subin in 2006 by less than 10,000 votes, they had both the slow growth community and the unions on their side. For comparison, note that the MCEA, the union to which I belong, has around 12,000 members. That's more than the margin of victory in both those races. And MCEA is only one of the public employee unions in the county.
So for either side in the growth debate, having the support of public employees can provide the boost needed to win election. And alienating those public employees can seriously undermine their electoral potential. As a number of prominent members of the slow growth community have recently been calling for cuts to employee salaries, salaries which are sustainable in the current budget situation, a sense has developed among many public employees that the slow-growth community is anti-union. I personally don't believe this is true, as I know a number of leaders of the slow-growth movement who are passionately pro-union. But the debate in the recent Council District 4 election, statements circulating by e-mail from Civic Federation activists, and comments made by a number of slow-growth members of the council make that argument a difficult one to maintain.
Adam's right - unions don't forget. And they have especially long memories when it comes to broken contracts. At the MCEA Representative Assembly, people still angrily bring up the broken contracts of the early 1990's, mentioning that public employees have never made up for those losses in salary, and never will. Those who vote to violate negotiated contracts, to damage the county's public services by undemining its workforce, will have little to no chance of support from these unions in the next election cycle. So it's entirely possible that this will be the political landscape of the 2010 elections:
In District 4, with Don Praisner sticking to his promise not to run for re-election, School Board President Nancy Navarro would be the heavy favorite to win. In District 3, if a credible challenger to Phil Andrews materializes, there will be massive support for someone perceived as an enemy by both developers and by unions. In the at-large races, incumbents who vote to break contracts will, as was the case with Mike Subin in 2006, see serious challenges from people with union support. Meanwhile, Valerie Ervin, George Leventhal, and Mike Knapp, all of whom are friendly to the unions, will almost certainly have massive union support. So the razor-thin slow growth majority on the council could shift easily.
I would argue that it's a bad idea on the merits to cut the salaries of those employees who teach this county's children, protect its citizens from crime and fire, maintain its roads, and staff its libraries. But leaving aside the merits of the arguments, the slow growth coalition in the county is courting disaster right now. And given that, 2010 looks to be a very different election year than 2006 was.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Deadlock
The County Council gathered today to pass its budget for next year. Because that budget calls for a property tax hike in excess of the rate of inflation, the county’s charter requires seven votes for it to pass. Instead, the County Council split on a 4-4 vote. Deadlock.
First the preliminaries. The council voted unanimously to divert $25 million from the PAYGO program to the operating budget. As we reported yesterday, PAYGO is a cash contribution made by the county to its capital program, which is otherwise financed by bonds. Council Member Marc Elrich recommended this measure yesterday and the rest of the council agreed. The council also voted to cut its “reconciliation list,” or the new spending it intends to add to the County Executive’s proposal, from $40 million to $25 million. The two measures combined freed up $40 million for the budget, equal to the amount of “labor savings” proposed by Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg and Phil Andrews last week.
And then came the vote on Council President Mike Knapp’s proposed budget. That budget included a property tax hike of $138 million – equal to the amount proposed by the County Executive, but structured differently. The budget also did not alter the county’s labor contracts. Council Members Knapp, Valerie Ervin, George Leventhal and Nancy Floreen voted in favor. Council Members Elrich, Trachtenberg, Andrews and Roger Berliner voted against. Deadlock.
During the campaign season, many of these council members – all Democrats – tend to sound alike. All favor labor rights, helping poor people, fiscal responsibility, “smart” growth policy and high-quality services. The way to truly evaluate the differences between these council members is how they deal with the gritty specifics of governing. Ms. Floreen loves to say, “The devil is in the details.” (Spend a half-hour with her and she will say it twice.) She is absolutely correct and, in this budget season, there is plenty of hell to go around.
Valerie Ervin and George Leventhal stand on a principle: labor agreements must be honored. Ms. Ervin credits her former membership in the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (parent union of MCGEO) with helping her survive her days as a low-income single mother. Mr. Leventhal believes that high-quality services, especially the schools and public safety, are the reason why people move into Montgomery County. While many residents may be angry about taxation, he asserts that they are not angry at the public employees who serve and protect them. For both Ms. Ervin and Mr. Leventhal, any violation of the public employees’ agreements will erode the county’s ability to provide effective services and damage its value to residents over the long run.
Duchy Trachtenberg, Phil Andrews and Roger Berliner also stand on a principle: taxpayers and employees must both share the pain of reaching a budget in tough times. Ms. Trachtenberg believes that there are people in the county who are more vulnerable than public employees, including the poor, the homeless, seniors and the mentally ill. Mr. Andrews believes that it is only fair to ask county workers to accept pay reductions if residents are paying higher taxes. Whereas before he favored a two percent cost of living [COLA] reduction and “labor savings” in the amount of $40 million, he proposed today that public employees be furloughed without pay for two days. He expects that measure to save $20.5 million, which he would use to reduce the property tax hike. Mr. Berliner agreed with Mr. Andrews and declared that his furlough proposal did not “break the contracts.”
Marc Elrich did not vote against the budget because of the labor agreements, but because he disagrees with the structure of the property tax. As originally proposed by County Executive Ike Leggett, the property tax hike would have contained a significant rate increase but also a large increase in the tax credit. This would have been a rather progressive tax. The County Council voted 7-1 to decrease both the rate and the credit, effectively shifting the burden away from business and apartment buildings and onto homeowners. The council’s rationale was to lower the tax burden on renters by limiting its impact on rental buildings. Mr. Elrich would like a return to something resembling the County Executive’s proposal and is trying to leverage his vote accordingly. Since the property tax formula can be changed in multiple ways, perhaps Mr. Elrich can gain some movement in his desired direction.
Nancy Floreen said, “I don’t see the crisis particularly because we just added $20 million to the budget. I am bewildered by what the ‘crisis’ is.” Ms. Floreen has a point: the council added $40 million to the County Executive’s original spending proposal before cutting it back to $25 million today. These are hardly the acts of desperate times. She further advised against a “last minute reduction taken out of the backs of the people who provide the services.”
The council is now debating the disposition of $20 million out of a $4.3 billion budget. In almost any business or labor-management context, this relatively small sum could be worked out. But the issue has been hardened by the fact that both sides have adopted a position based on principle. Mr. Leventhal and Ms. Ervin will not bend on the labor agreements; Ms. Trachtenberg, Mr. Andrews and Mr. Berliner insist that tax increases must be accompanied by “labor savings.” Either side can block the budget because it requires seven of the sitting eight votes to pass.
And what of Council President Mike Knapp? Pity upcounty’s gentle giant. He is the man in the middle. The District of Columbia elects its Council President for a full term. The holder of that office possesses many carrots and sticks to cajole colleagues into line. But under Montgomery County's rotating Presidency, Mr. Knapp holds his office for only one year. He has much responsibility and little commensurate authority. He faces a badly divided County Council and is struggling to get them past their differences. But he must get them to agree. Because for a county government that is required by law to balance its budget, deadlock is not an option.
New Chevy Chase Town Council's First Meeting
The Chevy Chase Town Council met last night. Mayor Linna Barnes called the meeting to order at 7pm. Here is a totally unofficial account of what happened.
Public Comments
Strongly opposed to the tearing down of the home next door at 44th and Willow, Deborah Vollmer called for a new moratorium on teardowns, asked that the Council figure out something to do about private sales to builders, and closed by raising the specter of rats.
Rose Miller spoke about the regulation of traffic at Chevy Chase Elementary and handed in extensive written comments. Diane Dorfman said she sighted a fox on Walsh Street. Willie Blacklow asked about the status of the left-turn arrow at the traffic light on Connecticut at Rosemary. (Thanks to everyone who congratulated Al and myself on our election during their comments.)
Swearing In, Election of Officers, and Committees
Town Clerk Andi Silverstone swore in myself and Al Lang as new councilmembers, and Kathy Strom for a second term. The Council then unanimously elected Kathy Strom as mayor, Rob Enelow as vice mayor, Linna Barnes as treasurer, myself as secretary, and Al Lang as community liaison. Each councilmember will also serve as a liaison to one Town committee: Kathy to Community Relations, Rob to Environment, Linna to Land Use, myself to Long-Range Planning, and Al to Public Services.
Recognition of Former Council Members
Members of the Council spoke about Mier Wolf and Lance Hoffman. Lance was lauded for his efforts on the water ordinance and other areas. Linna proposed that Mier's long service be recognized by naming a Town park after him in the near future. Rob said that Mier had gotten him to run for the Council and spoke about how much Mier has down for the Town. I mentioned that I hoped the civility and respect with which Mier treats everyone would continue on the new Council. Kathy said she had spoken with Mier and hoped that he would stay active in the Town. Al talked about how he had gotten to know both Lance and Mier during the recent election and respected both men.
Finances
The Council approved the new tax rate. The property tax rate for FY09 was set at a level to collect the same amount as money as FY08, a gentle decline in taxes if one takes into account inflation. The budget was also approved quickly with no changes. The Town Manager posted the budget narrative online, a practice I hope will continue. The Council discussed revisions to the permit fee and performance bond schedule and will hold a public hearing on them at the next Town Council meeting.
Sidewalks
After presentation of current sidewalk options for Thornapple and Oakridge, Town Manager Todd Hoffman agreed to see if 3.5 foot sidewalks met ADA and other legal requirements. He also will get the engineer to draft a plan for a new option for Oakridge which will take the space required for a sidewalk partially from the street and partly from the right-of-way.
The existing options take all the space from the street resulting in the elimination of parking on one side of the street, or from the right-of-way requiring the construction of retaining walls. Public Service Liaison Al Lang will hold meetings with residents on Thornapple and Oakridge on the various options for the proposed sidewalks. The Council agreed to move (or remove) trees in the path of the proposed sidewalk on Thornapple now since trees are more likely to survive replanting in spring than in summer.
Speed Humps
Like many other Councils before us, we foundered on the issue of speed humps. Public Services Chair Bill Pritchard presented the proposed new speed hump policy which suggests data-driven guidelines for the new speed humps. Al and Rob worried that the guidelines might exclude speed humps from areas where they were needed. Linna and I thought the guidelines were useful because the Council would have more data (e.g. how many cars are speeding and by how much) before choosing to install a speed hump, though their installation would ultimately remain a Council decision (read: political question) and the Council could override the guidelines. After much debate, it was discovered that Bill's version was slightly different than the version being examined by the Council, so it was thought wise to hold off on a final decision until we are all literally reading from the same page.
Time Limits on Variance Approvals
After discussion, four members of the Council agreed that variances should expire after a certain point unless the work was carried out. Al Lang opposed the change as unneeded since the problem had only occurred on a few homes. Homeowners will have one year to pull the permit and begin the work envisioned under the variance and then another year once the permit is issued to complete the work with the Town Manager and Mayor able to grant extensions administratively for good cause. The Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed code changes.
Jane Lawton Memorial
I was pleased that my first formal motion on the Council was to embody the unanimously expressed sentiment that the Town Hall should be named in honor of Jane Lawton--Kathy and Linna seconded the motion simultaneouly. Mier Wolf had first proposed this idea on the previous Council. The Town Hall is rented from the County, and County Councilwoman Nancy Floreen has promised to lead the effort at the County level to make the change.
The Council then adjourned (five minutes early!) into executive session.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Council Votes 6-2 to Preserve Labor Agreements (Updated)
Last Friday, Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg and Phil Andrews voted in the council’s Management and Fiscal Policy (MFP) Committee to recommend $40 million in “labor savings” or “employee participation,” alternative terms for under-funding the county’s collective bargaining agreements with its employees. Today, they sought support for their proposal from the full County Council. They found none.
Labor contracts were not the only budget item considered by the Council. They also discussed the nature of the proposed property tax hike. The MFP Committee recommended that the County Executive’s proposed rate and his proposed credit be cut. The effect of that structural change would be to channel the tax burden onto homeowners and away from commercial properties, including apartment buildings occupied by renters. That proposal was approved by the Council by a 7-1 vote, with Council Member Marc Elrich dissenting. Council Members Trachtenberg and Andrews also recommended lowering the amount by which the property tax would exceed the charter limit from $138 million (which was the County Executive’s proposal) to $118 million. Ms. Trachtenberg and Mr. Andrews were joined by Mike Knapp and Roger Berliner, but Valerie Ervin, Marc Elrich, George Leventhal and Nancy Floreen voted against it. And so the property tax reduction failed on a 4-4 vote. Interestingly, Ms. Floreen commented that she voted against the reduction because she wanted to see a larger one.
But the main action of the day concerned “labor savings.” The 300+ people who mobbed the room were not there to lobby for a $20 million reduction in a tax hike. The vast majority were public employees present to defend their livelihoods. And at least from the perspective of political theater, the County Council did not disappoint.
Former union organizer Valerie Ervin hurled the first thunderbolt. “We could fund this budget right now and not go into the COLAs [cost of living adjustments],” she said. “A lot of this other stuff is just subterfuge.”
George Leventhal objected to any hint of “subterfuge,” defending the county government’s record of clean government. But he agreed with Ms. Ervin on the COLAs, saying, “I don’t really appreciate the term ‘employee participation.’ That’s a euphemism for busting contracts.”
Phil Andrews would not back down. He looked the 300+ public employees in the eye and told them, “Employees need to do their part… It would be unfair to expect taxpayers to pay a tax increase to fully fund employee contracts that would be 8% next year.” He praised MFP Chairwoman Trachtenberg, who had joined with him in recommending labor savings, for her “intelligence, diligence and guts.”
Duchy Trachtenberg also stuck to her guns. “I have stood with labor on a number of issues,” she said, citing her support for living wage legislation and the SEIU’s organizing campaign at Montgomery College. “I represent a million residents. Most of them don’t have an opportunity to join a union and benefit from collective bargaining agreements… I don’t disrespect you, but I respect the unrepresented, the seniors, the disabled and the homeless.” She told the crowd, “I have been the object of a lot of vilification. It doesn’t do any good to attack another person on a policy difference.”
But the other Council Members did not seem convinced that reducing the COLAs was the only alternative. Council Member Marc Elrich brought up possible savings from the county’s annual PAYGO expenditure. PAYGO is a cash contribution made by the county towards capital projects, which are mostly financed by bonds. Council staff told Mr. Elrich that next year’s capital budget would be paid for by $330 million in bond issuances and $30 million in a cash PAYGO contribution. If the county did not make its cash contribution this year, it would not necessarily delay any capital projects which would be mostly covered by bonds. In fact, the unions recommended reducing PAYGO by $10 million last week, just one part of their suggested $67 million package of cuts and alternate revenues. Mr. Elrich’s idea received support from several other Council Members, though Ms. Trachtenberg opposed it.
And then Mr. Leventhal pointed out the real role played by the council in labor contract decisions. For non-schools government employees, the council does indeed set funding levels for contracts. But with regard to the public school system, the council only approves its budget as a whole. Contract funding is decided by the school board. Mr. Leventhal called Board of Education President (and former County Council candidate) Nancy Navarro to the witness table. He asked her whether the school system, if handed a budget cut by the council, would respond by cutting employee raises. She replied, “The board feels very strongly that its strategic investment is in the compensation of our employees.” And then she said that while she could not speak for the rest of the board, she personally would not vote to underfund contracts. Mr. Leventhal concluded that if the council cuts contracts for non-school employees but the school board preserved its employees’ pay, significant inequities in pay scales would result.
After Ms. Ervin recognized several exceptional county employees in the room – including one fire fighter who had heroically raced into a burning building to rescue victims inside – the County Council took its vote on the contracts. Ms. Trachtenberg and Mr. Andrews were the only Council Members on the short end of a 6-2 vote. While some of their colleagues defended their good faith, none were willing to break the county’s commitment to its employees.
But the issue is far from decided. In order to fund the contracts, the council must approve a property tax hike that exceeds the rate of inflation tomorrow. The county’s charter states that seven votes are necessary to do that. Both Mr. Andrews and Ms. Trachtenberg have publicly opposed breaking the limit, which would be sufficient to block it. One of them must budge. If they do not, there is no obvious alternative and catastrophe would result.
And so the lights will be on in the County Council building very, very late tonight.
Update: The Gazette and the Post have also covered the story.
Town of Chevy Chase Budget
Town Manager Todd Hoffman has posted a copy of the Town's budget narrative to the Town website at:
http://www.townofchevychase.org/assets/documents/pdfs/financials/09text.pdf
The document gives a line-by-line explanation for the budget. I found it very helpful. For each item, the narrative also states how much was budgeted and actually spent for FY08, and how much is proposed for FY09. One caution as you look through this and the actual budget is that the Town tends to take a conservative approach. Revenues are estimated on the low end and spending on the high end. Just because a budget item for FY09 is higher than spent for FY08 does not mean that spending will actually rise. It is quite common for the Town to spend less than budgeted.
The proposed FY09 budget itself can be found at:
http://www.townofchevychase.org/assets/documents/pdfs/financials/fy09budget.pdf
You'll see that budgeted (but not actual) revenues and expenditures balance. Town Clerk Andi Silverstone tells me that this is required by law. In reality, as you can see, we had healthy surpluses in FY07 and FY08. This money does not disappear but goes into the general fund and remains available to the Town.
WaPo writer complains about turnout; does not look in mirror
Boy this one rates as dumb. Today's Maryland Moment (WaPo blog on MD politics) has writer Ann Marimow with a headline of How Low Can They Go in MoCo that highlights the 8% turnout in yesterday's election.
Ms. Marimow mentions that the turnout was around 8%, true. But my question is how can a reporter for WaPo point a finger at the low turnout when her paper did next to nothing to promote the race. Too busy letting us know what is going on in Iraq and on the Presidential campaign trail but consistently fails to cover local events.
Another Round of Being Punked by the Post
I mentioned this during the primary race between Al Wynn and Donna Edwards. There they have the most important test of mainstream Democrats and left Democrats as any race in the country and we got third rate coverage.
This time the race to replace Marilyn Praisner was decidedly smaller than the Wynn-Edwards race and the coverage reflected that. But the real complaint is the WaPo did next to nothing to cover the special election (the time between the primary and yesterday) and much of anything. I never saw an editorial from them. The Gazette had an editorial and it was less than three column inches buried in the lower right hand corner of the editorial page.
The WaPo was even worse. Tuesday's paper had a mention of the race in the Metro section on page 2 in the upper right hand side. It was not the lead story. Total length was two paragraphs.
So for Ms. Marimow to put a headline on her blog about how low the turnout can go in MoCo when her paper did next to nothing in covering the race I have to laugh. Then I wrote a blog piece how stupid the Maryland Moment blog post she wrote is.
Next time look in the mirror WaPo. I think we have be in Iraq or someplace in Europe for the Post to care about us.
Mike Miller is Not Going Anywhere
Recently, there has been a lot of speculation as to whether Senate President Mike Miller would stick to his earlier pledge to retire. We are putting this conjecture to rest with one bold prediction: Mike Miller is not going anywhere.
Have you ever met the Senate President? We did, back in January. The white-maned, snorting old bull stomps into any room he enters and instantly dominates it. But he does not radiate pomp or arrogance like many politicians. He instead relies on good-old-boy, Free State charm, delivered with a bellowing laugh and a rough handshake. Miller would be equally at home entertaining foreign dignitaries at the statehouse or slamming boilermakers down at the shipyard.
The Senate President regaled our group with tales of his dealings with the media. He expressed hope that the blogs could provide a bit of balance to right-wing radio “even though I know some of you are with me and some of you are against me.” And then he cast a long, baleful look around the room. Now I have heard from multiple sources that Miller is a blog reader. “Hmmm,” I thought, “Is he trying to figure out who wrote this?” Miller seemed a wee bit hurt, perhaps let down, that he could be so misunderstood by any of us. And that’s when it hit me: this is part of his bag of tricks.
Better than anyone, Mike Miller understands the volatile and fragile mix of ego, fear, hope, insecurity and the needy desire to be loved that defines most politicians. He knows how to push every one of those buttons. He praises obedient Senators as courageous. He predicts dire consequences for the wayward. He shuffles subcomittee chairmanships and vice-chairmanships like cards in an ever-winning hand. He elevates junior Senators above senior ones when they stick with the boss. A longtime Annapolis player told me, “We call him Big Daddy. When people screw up, he doesn’t get mad at them. Instead, he tells them he's ‘disappointed.’ No one wants to let Dad down.”
Miller is resented by many Montgomery County liberals because he is rabidly pro-slots and lukewarm at best on gay rights. But Miller is actually to the left of most of the county’s allegedly liberal delegation on progressive taxation. He also expressed his opposition to Virginia’s harsh immigration measures in our interview. Many liberals tend to forget that Miller has to balance a diverse group ranging from anti-tax Baltimore County Senator (and former Miller aide) James Brochin to left-wingers like Senators Paul Pinsky, Jamie Raskin and Rich Madaleno. Brochin and Madaleno are both in Miller’s doghouse now for different reasons, but they will get out eventually if they stop making trouble for the boss. That is part of Miller’s way.
What would a Miller-less Senate look like? For a preview, look at the Montgomery County Council’s current deliberations on its budget. Only a few days out from the first vote on the next budget’s outline, there was still no public agreement on how to cut the county’s $297 million deficit. The late Marilyn Praisner, the most feared head-breaker in Rockville, would have had none of that. Would this sort of thing happen to Maryland’s Senate without its fearsome overlord?
Mike Miller is surrounded by a huge group of Senate allies, aides, former aides, lobbyists, former aides who are now lobbyists and many others who are commonly referred to as his “family.” They depend on him and cannot imagine Annapolis without him. They are undoubtedly urging him to stay on because, after all, no one can do the job of Senate President as well as their Dad (or Grand-dad) can. If you were in Miller’s position, how could you say no to your entire family?
The fact is that Big Daddy is the most powerful politician in Maryland's nearly 400-year history to never occupy the Governor's chair. And whatever you may think of him, Mike Miller is not going anywhere.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Trifecta for Chris and DCCC
Hillary's win in West Virginia has dominated press coverage tonight but the story that should have Republicans quaking is that Democrats won the special election runoff for Mississippi's First District. Chris Van Hollen's DCCC has now won three special elections in Republican territory:
Illinois 14. Former Speaker Denny Hastert's district went 55% for Bush in 2004 and is now held by Democrat Bill Foster.
Louisiana 6. Democrats didn't even field a candidate against the incumbent in 2002, 2004, or 2006, but Democrat Donald Cazayoux now holds this district where Bush scored 59% of the vote in 2004.
Mississippi 1. Republican Roger Wicker never won less than two-thirds of the vote since his first election in 1994. Bush won 62% of the vote in 2004 here but Democrat Travis Childers won the seat tonight with 52% of the vote.
Update: The Washington Post stole my, admittedly not that original, headline.
Council Election Update
Update 2: 10:00 PM The BOE has 43 of the 45 precincts reporting and the figures are holding at 66% to 33%.
The victory garden in the front yard of Alison Praisner Klumpp's house.
Alison Praisner Klumpp and her dad and new Council member, Don Praisner, outside of her home.
Update 9:32 PM: With 26 out of 45 precincts reporting and Praisner leading 66% to 33% over Fennel, Mark called to concede to Don. Picture is below. More information to follow as I get it.
Long time no post. But I tried to get you some mid-day reports on turnout. This should hold you over until the results comes over at the MoCo BOE.
The 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM counts are listed below:
What this table points out is that the Others (Non-Affiliated) voters were not voting. And that the turnout by party is matching the turnout by party that is in the district.
In short, unless Mark Fennel can take 27% of the Democratic vote our next Council member will be Don Praisner.
More to follow....
The Limits of Labor
Ann Marimow is a good reporter and I respect her work. But in her Sunday Post article, “Union Influence Sways Montgomery Budget Talks,” I believe she overstates her case. Montgomery County labor has power, but that power has its limits.
This may seem a curious statement coming from me. After all, my now-notorious 2006 guest post in which I christened the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA) the county’s 800-pound gorilla has contributed to the image of labor power in Montgomery. The story behind that long-ago essay is that I was running a petition drive at my precinct and witnessed the extraordinary attention given by voters to MCEA’s Apple Ballot. I then calculated the 90% win percentage earned by Apple Ballot candidates in the Democratic primary and concluded that MCEA had played an important role in the election. That essay was originally intended only for my own union people and a few friends but found its way onto the Internet through third parties as a guest blog. And so began my descent into online infamy, an unhappy event lamented by many who have been spoofed here. While the point of that original post may be true, it presents only one side of the story.
Consider the following facts in assessing the limits of public union power:
1. Public employees in Montgomery County are not uniformly better paid than in other jurisdictions. I compared wages and benefits across jurisdictions in a post last month and found no systemic advantage for workers in Montgomery. In fact, firefighters and teachers lagged many other nearby counties, many Montgomery workers are not eligible for a defined benefit pension and even teachers with Masters degrees cannot afford to buy the average county townhouse. Is this a result you would expect from “Big Labor?”
2. In my 800-pound gorilla post, I wrote:With property tax growth slowing down, the next county council will face tough budgetary decisions. Public schools account for half of the county’s budget and would be an obvious location for cuts. But don’t expect any action there: the county’s politicians have learned that those who cross the Teachers Union once are unlikely to be given a second opportunity.
How wrong can a man be and still be allowed to blog? The fact is that County Executive Leggett has not recommended full funding for the public schools’ budget request in either of his first two years in office. Last year, the County Executive proposed $19.7 million less for the school budget than requested by the Superintendent. The County Council ultimately approved $6 million less than the school request. This year, the County Executive recommended $51 million less than the Superintendent’s request, of which $26 million has so far been restored by the County Council. The school unions have performed well in defending their budget but they are hardly untouchable.
3. SEIU Local 500 has so far been unsuccessful in persuading Montgomery College to terminate its “union avoidance” attorney. If the unions were truly all-powerful, the college’s actions would have been unthinkable.
4. Union-backed candidates do not automatically win. Many have noted the losses of school board candidate Alies Muskin and County Council candidate Nancy Navarro. But look back on 2006. Progressive Maryland President Elbridge James and teacher Melodye Berry were badly outraised and finished next-to-last in their delegate races despite being Apple-approved. MCEA could not save Ida Ruben from Jamie Raskin in the District 20 Senate race. And Apple Republican incumbents Howard Denis (County Council) and Jean Cryor (State Delegate) fell to Democratic challengers. Apparently George W. Bush had more sway with MoCo voters than did MCEA!
Pure union-only candidates struggle. Labor tends to do best when it backs candidates in concert with others. For example, a combination of union and civic support helped to elect County Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg and Marc Elrich and resulted in the eviction of Mike Subin. The real genius of the county’s labor strategists has been to pick candidates who are strong on their own merits and (hopefully) agree on union priorities. But even union-supported candidates sometimes stray, as has Council Member Trachtenberg – further evidence of the limits of labor power.
I will bet that most of our readers are not union members. “Why should I care about this?” you ask. Montgomery has always been a “you-get-what-you-pay-for” county. Our citizens have been willing to pay higher taxes than in other jurisdictions in a belief that higher service quality would result. Many Montgomery residents are employees or contractors of the federal government and easily see the relationship between funding and performance. Sometimes residents make common cause with unions in seeking county funding, as PTA members occasionally do with MCEA. By pressing for good compensation and adequate budgets, the unions help the county maintain its service level and recruit superior talent. Without strong unions, Montgomery’s politics might resemble those of infighting, school-challenged, crony-infested Prince George’s, or perhaps developer-, business- and tax-activist-dominated Northern Virginia.
Look into the eyes of this woman and read her sign. Labor is at its best when it presents her message to both the politicians and the public at large. Labor has power. Labor has limits. But labor, and the rest of the county, can only succeed if our citizens agree with the woman above.
Disclosure: The author is the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, which does not represent government employees in Maryland.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
REVOLT!
In a moment that defined their political careers, Montgomery County Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg, Phil Andrews and Valerie Ervin put the fate of the public employees’ cost of living adjustments on the table last Friday. Present to greet them were over 300 chanting, stomping, clapping and occasionally yelling union members.
Council Members Trachtenberg, Andrews and Ervin are members of the council’s Management and Fiscal Policy (MFP) Committee. The committee’s charge on Friday was to discuss the extent to which savings on the county’s labor costs should be applied to fix its $297 million budget deficit. “Labor savings” ultimately means funding less for personnel costs than is called for in the county’s collective bargaining agreements: a practice derisively labeled by the unions as “contract busting.”
A word about the union members in the pictures. Assembled by pugnacious MCGEO President Gino Renne in the nearby County Executive Office Building, they were in no mood for “contract busting” and marched across a rain-soaked street to confront their council overseers. Their radioactive yellow battle color is not intended to please the eye and it certainly does not. It is designed to attract attention. They certainly received plenty of it on Friday.
Council Member Trachtenberg, chairwoman of the MFP Committee, opened the meeting with new transfer and recordation tax receipt numbers for April. Transfer and recordation taxes depend on property sales and they have been devastated by the recent collapse in the county’s real estate and construction market. According to Ms. Trachtenberg, the county received $13 million in transfer and recordation taxes in April 2008, down from $18 million in April 2007. For the year to date, transfer and recordation taxes totaled $138 million, down from $180 million the year prior. “Taxpayers are reaching a breaking point,” declared Ms. Trachtenberg and that justified a 2% reduction in the unions’ negotiated COLAs.
Council Member Andrews agreed. Citing the fact that personnel costs accounted for 80% of the county’s budget, he told the ornery union members, “What’s fair is to ask everyone to help.” As he has for months, he criticized the unions’ agreements as “unaffordable” and stated flatly, “I would not have negotiated the contracts that came over to us.” Supporting Ms. Trachtenberg, he said, “I believe that the 2% COLA reduction is a fair way to go.”
Pictures cannot do justice to the unholy din created by the roaring public employees. Hundreds of police officers, bus drivers, librarians, deputy sheriffs, correctional officers and park and planning workers rose to their feet to challenge Council Members Trachtenberg and Andrews. “What are you giving back?” one cried. “We are the taxpayers!” another yelled. “You’re hitting us twice!” pointed out one employee who was also a county resident. Worker after worker decried simultaneous increases in fuel and food costs, cuts in county services and proposed cuts in COLAs as a squeeze on their standard of living from multiple sides.
And then Ms. Ervin took the mike. She is a 25-year veteran organizer and trainer in the labor movement and everyone knew what she would say. “I was a proud member of the UFCW union,” she announced to the crowd. “We do not have to balance this budget on the backs of working people.” She recounted a bookful of statistics on poverty and income inequality to the groans of the audience (some of which we will examine on this blog) and concluded with, “Montgomery County is affluent for only some people.” “I believe that cutting salaries will hurt our local economy,” she said, “and I will not support a 2% COLA reduction.” We present the crowd’s reaction below.
In the end, the MFP Committee did not recommend a 2% COLA reduction. Instead, Ms. Trachtenberg introduced a motion calling for $40 million in “labor savings” with the exact mechanism to be decided later by the rest of the County Council. Mr. Andrews concurred and Ms. Ervin ferociously dissented. Neither the council members nor the staff justified this particular number against a lesser or greater amount. No mention was made by anyone of the unions’ identification of $67 million in additional revenues and savings as reported on this blog. The Post and the Gazette also omitted that fact from their coverage.
So what will become of the committee’s proposal for “labor savings,” a euphemism for underfunding the contracts? There do not appear to be any other votes on the council for the MFP Committee’s proposal, especially considering the fact that the union contracts are affordable in the next fiscal year. Instead, a rough consensus is forming in favor of a slightly lower property tax increase than that proposed by the County Executive along with a carbon tax proposed by Council Member Nancy Floreen. 
But even that plan involves breaking the county’s charter limit on property tax increases, which generally holds tax receipt gains to a level equaling the increase in the consumer price index. Seven of the eight County Council Members must vote to exceed that limit. Both Council Members Trachtenberg and Andrews oppose breaking the charter limit, enough to kill any property tax hike. Will either of them budge on that position, thus enabling the union contracts to be preserved? That is the big question. We will have an answer by Thursday.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Labor Between the Hammer and the Anvil
As Montgomery County's budget battle draws to a clamorous climax, a new bomb has been dropped.
Yesterday, Council Member Trachtenberg sent the following letter calling for a 2 percent cost of living reduction to each of the county's public sector unions:
The unions countered in two ways.
1. In a letter to Ms. Trachtenberg sent today, MCEA, SEIU Local 500 and the school supervisors listed $67 million in new revenues available to the council next year. Those revenues include:
$14 Million
Adjustments in OPEB [contributions to future retiree healthcare liabilities]; would allow for 8 year payout, but does not assume the same level of increase; $11 million in savings from MCPS and $3 million from other agencies.
$9 Million
Net gain from increases in energy tax [as proposed by Council Member Floreen].
$10 Million
Could be taken from PAYGO.
$19 Million
Reduction of .5% into the reserve [maintained by the county to protect its AAA credit rating].
$15 Million
Potential carry-over carry over funds that were set aside in the FY 08 budget for emergencies, such as snow removal that were not needed.
2. In their letter to Ms. Trachtenberg, the unions state, "An additional source of revenue is to take into account any revenues in excess of projections in the current budget. We have no knowledge of what that figure is since it has not been shared by the County Executive’s office." Indeed, rumors are flying that the county's income tax receipts may be higher than first thought. The unions have sent a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request to the County Executive's office seeking a monthly tabulation of new income tax revenues received from the state. They hope to discover evidence that income tax receipts are higher than projected, thus relieving the pressure on their contracts.
One of the sad aspects of this showdown is that it may not be necessary. A week ago, we demonstrated to our readers that the County Executive's budget projects $301 million in new revenues for FY09 against $154 million in added union labor costs. At least for next year, labor's cost of living adjustment is easily affordable. Nevertheless, the hammer is falling.
In the private sector, an employer could not do what the county is considering. If a private company attempted to unilaterally change a labor agreement, the union could strike, file unfair labor practice charges, get enforcement orders from the National Labor Relations Board and the courts and file suit to collect benefit contributions. Only employers under bankruptcy protection could unilaterally alter wage levels. Montgomery County may be in a recession, but it is not under the supervision of a bankruptcy judge!
The fate of the unions' COLAs is far from certain. Council Members Trachtenberg and Phil Andrews can block the County Executive's proposed property tax increase, which requires seven of the eight sitting council members to pass. But altering the union contracts would require five votes. It may be difficult for Ms. Trachtenberg and Mr. Andrews to find three more council members willing to cut the COLAs when there are less electorally-threatening alternatives available.
And if the council simultaneously rejects the property tax hike and rejects COLA reductions, what then? No one knows. But the choice must be made in less than a week.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
MCDCC to the Rescue
Folks, this is why we need a strong Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee. In addition to mailing out a sample ballot for Don Praisner in the County Council District 4 special election, MCDCC is putting out this call for volunteers on poll coverage.May 8, 2008
If you want to prevent Robin Ficker from joining the County Council staff, call MCDCC at 301-946-1000.
MCDCC Members:
We are approaching the Special General Election on Tuesday, May 13, 2008. It is vital that we have coverage for all precincts in this election.
I am asking the MCDCC members to support this effort by volunteering their time to help with poll coverage.
Please let us know the duration of time that you will be available. I understand that we all have a busy schedule, but we can give a portion of our time when the stakes are so high and the Republicans are running a very aggressive Get-Out-the-Vote operation.
The staff at the MCDCC office will be maintaining a precinct coverage spreadsheet that will have information regarding which precincts require coverage and the time frame for coverage needed.
By responding quickly, we can effectively make timely decisions to fill those precincts that are pending coverage.
You can help make this election run smoothly and demonstrate your support for the Council District 4 Democratic candidate, Don Praisner.
Please forward this email to your local Democratic District Clubs and ask them to send it to their databases.
Your continued commitment to supporting our Democratic Candidates is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Vivian
Governor, It’s Up to You
In a comment on my previous post calling for Maryland’s uncommitted super delegates to jointly announce their support for Senator Barack Obama, District 39 Delegate Saqib Ali said the following:Adam, Why do you only put the responsibility on the 9 unpledged Super-Delegates?
Delegate Ali makes a fair point. Maryland’s pro-Clinton super delegates are:
I agree that all the uncommitted Super Delegates should immediately endorse Senator Obama.
However the 11 Super Delegates who have previously pledged to Senator Clinton should also SWITCH to Senator Obama post-haste. It is their responsibility to heal the party every bit as much as the uncommitted SuperDs.
In fact if "The Clinton 11" switch, it would have a net effect of +22 for Obama. It would be a crushing blow. It would have a huge mathematical and psychological effect. It might end the nomination battle today.
So yes, the 9 uncommitted should join the Obama train. But even more important, The Clinton 11 should join too!
Governor Martin O’Malley
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger
State Treasurer Nancy Kopp
Former Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend
Alvaro Cifuentes, Former Chair, DNC Hispanic Caucus
Maria Cordone, Director of Community Services, International Association of Machinists
Richard Michalski, Vice President, International Association of Machinists
Glenard Middleton, President, AFSCME Council 67
Carol Pensky, Founder, DNC Women’s Forum
Michael Steed, Managing Director, Paladin Capital Group
We should note that both AFSCME and the Machinists have endorsed Senator Clinton. Since the Clinton Administration fought hard to pass NAFTA, which has devastated the Machinists, many of the rest of us in labor have been scratching our heads over their endorsement for many months.
The key figure in the above list is Governor O’Malley. He alone has the power to deliver most if not all of Maryland’s super delegates as a group, as Delegate Ali suggests. Some believe that the Governor has national ambitions. What better way to enter the national stage as a bold deliverer of the party from a continuing bloody primary fight?
There are more parochial reasons for the Governor to intervene. Maryland badly needs federal funding for its BRAC transportation projects, its three proposed transit projects (Baltimore’s Red Line and the Washington suburbs’ Purple Line and Corridor Cities Transitway) and further cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay. How would the Governor be better positioned in pursuing those funds? By sticking with a furious, increasingly ugly Clinton campaign to the bitter, losing end? Or by delivering victory in the primary to future President Obama?
Governor, it’s up to you. We are watching.
On Political Pulse
Washington Post writer Ann Marimow, who has written a series of articles on Montgomery County budget issues such as the $300 million deficit, will be on the 'Political Pulse' TV Show on Thursday, May 8th at 9 p.m. and Tuesday, May 13th at 9:30 p.m. Among other things, Ann will discuss the important votes that the County Council will take on the budget in the next 2 weeks.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
Death Sciences versus Life Sciences
From Marc Korman: A few weeks ago, I heard District 18 Senator Rich Madaleno refer to the difference between Maryland’s and Virginia’s reliance on federal government spending as the difference between life sciences and death sciences. Maryland benefits when the government is investing in healthcare and scientific research, while Virginia benefits when the government invests in war and defense.
I thought it was an astute, and somewhat humorous observation. The question is, is it true?
Broadly speaking, it’s easy to look around and say yes. After all, Virginia has the Pentagon and we have the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute of Science and Technology. Looking at non-defense science more broadly, Maryland is also home to the Goddard Space Center. But how about if we take a closer look at some other measures of Maryland versus Virginia. Below are three categories to help us examine the issue.
First, we look at the value of government procurement contracts for the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services, and NASA.
Second, we look at the location of the corporate headquarters for the top government contractors for those same government agencies.
Third, we examine how many military installations there are in Maryland and Virginia.
2006 Government Procurement Contract Dollars
Agency Maryland Virginia
Department of Defense 21,803,858 41,915,022
Homeland Security 1,000,833 3,002,026
Department of Health and
Human Services 3,634,797 556,061
NASA 1,314,526 79,506
Government Contractors
Of the top five defense contractors in 2007, one was based in Maryland and two were based in Virginia.
Defense Contractor Corporate Headquarters
Lockheed Martin Maryland
Boeing Illinois
Northrop Grumman California
General Dynamics Virginia
Raytheon Massachusetts
Of the top five homeland security contractors in 2007, one is located in Virginia and none are located in Maryland.
Homeland Security Contractor Corporate Headquarters
Integrated Coast Guard Systems Virginia (Note, this is a Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman Partnership)
IBM New York
L-3 Communications Holdings New York
Unisys Pennsylvania
SAIC California
Of the top five Department of Health and Human Services contractors in 2007, none were based in Maryland or Virginia.
Health and Human Services Contractor Corporate Headquarters
Merck New Jersey
Sanofi Pasteur Pennsylvania
GlaxoSmithKline Pennsylvania (US HQ)
Wyeth Pennsylvania
Bavarian Nordic No US HQ Listed
Of the top five NASA contractors in 2007, one is in Maryland and none are in Virginia.
NASA Contractor Corporate Headquarters
California Institute of Technology California
United Space Alliance Texas (Note, this is a Lockheed Martin and Boeing Partnership)
Lockheed Martin Maryland
Boeing Illinois
Jacobs Engineering Group California
Military Installations
There are seven active military bases in Maryland:
Bethesda Naval Center
Naval Station Annapolis
Naval Air Station Patuxent River
US Naval Academy
Andrews Air Force Base
Fort Meade
Fort Detrick
Aberdeen Proving Ground
There are fifteen active military bases in Virginia (does not include the Pentgon):
Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base
Norfolk Naval Shipyard
Norfolk Naval Station
Oceana Naval Air Station
Portsmouth Naval Medical Center
Yorktown Naval Weapons Station
Langley Air Force Base
Fort A.P. Hill
Fort Belvoir
Fort Eustis
Fort Lee
Fort Monroe
Fort Myer
Fort Story
Quantico Marine Base
Coast Guard Atlantic Area – Portsmouth
Cost Guard Integrated Support Center – Portsmouth
Coast Guard Reserve Training Center Yorktown
Cape Henry Inn and Beach Club
So what do these categories demonstrate? That the facts back up Senator Madaleno’s observation. Virginia receives far more in defense contract dollars than Maryland, and that category far outweighs other federal spending. Virginia also has more military installations, beginning with the Pentagon. However, Maryland does receive some benefit from increased security dollars, including the contribution from Lockheed Martin, one of the state’s largest employers with almost 10,000 people.
Overall, Maryland would benefit much more from increased investment in science, which will hopefully come with a Democratic Administration, while Virginia benefits far more from the military-industrial complex.
Robin Ficker Joins the County Council Staff
Of course this has not happened, but it might. Here’s how the Stella Werner building’s worst nightmare could come true.
Let’s put aside the ideological differences between County District 4 special election candidates Don Praisner and his Ficker-backed opponent, Mark Fennel. All elections boil down to mathematics in the end. And it is mathematically possible for Fennel to beat Mr. Praisner.
Consider the following statistics. In the District 4 special primary, 7,658 Democrats voted, of whom 3,391 voted for Mr. Praisner. The Republicans attracted 1,919 primary voters, of whom 926 voted for Fennel. That means Fennel has a chance if three things happen:
1. Democrats who voted for one of Mr. Praisner’s opponents do not show up for the general election.
Nancy Navarro’s supporters are still fuming about the negative attacks against their candidate. Steve Kanstoroom and Pat Ryan were both asked to leave early in the race by Mr. Praisner’s allies. None of these three has much incentive to encourage their people to vote for Mr. Praisner unless they hope to earn his endorsement in 2010 (and that will not happen for Navarro).
2. Only half of Mr. Praisner’s primary voters show up for the general election.
One of the things that stood out from both the phone banking and door knocking was that the vast majority of District 4 Democrats did not know there was a special primary. Who is reminding them that there is a special general on May 13th? MCDCC is stepping up with a mailing on behalf of Mr. Praisner. But we see less activity from his organization now than we did a month ago aside from a recent ice cream fundraiser. One anonymous but influential Praisner supporter told me, “Dem complacency now is very dangerous.”
3. Every Republican shows up again to vote for Fennel.
This possibility cannot be dismissed. Fennel’s de facto campaign manager, Robin Ficker, is the all-time MoCo champion of sign-planting and petition-gathering. Love him or hate him, no one has more energy than the maniacal Ficker. And the Republicans were never as divided as the Democrats in this race. Anti-tax Republicans would love to grab any elected office in the county regardless of whether the candidate is Fennel or someone else. A low-turnout special election may be their best opportunity.
If every one of the above events occurred, Fennel would defeat Mr. Praisner by a 1,919 to 1,696 vote, or a 53-47% spread. It would be the ultimate royal flush in MoCo political history.
So could it actually happen? The chances are extremely low, but they are greater than zero. It’s time for the Democrats to get back to work.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
The Mayor of Chevy Chase
Mier Wolf will not be returning to the Chevy Chase Town Council after an twelve terms of service to the Town. Mier and his wife, Cathy, always encouraged me and made me feel like a friend even when we were both running for the Council. I've always appreciated how his calm demeanor could deftly turn down the temperature in the most heated debates. His experience, knowledge, and warmth will be sorely missed on the Council.
Mier has had many, many accomplishments on the Council--too many to detail here--including serving as mayor of Chevy Chase for nine years. I know Mier is particularly proud of tenacious effort to protect the Capital Crescent Trail on the north side of Town. The Town Hall was constructed while he served on the Council. Although his children have graduated (and he just became a proud grandfather for the first time), Mier is still an active and engaged supporter of Rosemary Hills, Chevy Chase Elementary, and B-CC High School.
A class act and a role model even after a very tough election night when around twenty votes kept him from reelection, I received an extremely gracious call from Mier and Cathy this morning. Both congratulated me on my election to the Council, expressed their confidence in me, and wished me nothing but the best.
I hope the Town will continue to benefit from Mier's experience and knowledge in the years ahead. Even more, I hope the Council forges ahead in the same spirit of neighborliness, even temper, and love of the Town that characterized Mier's long service. I'm glad that Mier will remain active in the County.
And I'm sure the residents of the Town of Chevy Chase will continue to refer to him affectionately as "the Mayor of Chevy Chase" just as they have since he relinquished that title in 2004.
Enough is Enough
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is tough, smart and a hell of a campaigner. But after her crushing loss in North Carolina and narrow win in Indiana yesterday, it is clear that she will not be the Democratic nominee for President. To maximize the chances of beating Senator John McCain, it is time for the Democratic race to end. And the following nine Maryland residents can make that happen.
Now that 93% of the pledged delegates have been selected in the state primaries, the winner will be decided by the party’s super delegates. For the most part, they are sitting or former Senators, Congressmen, state and local elected leaders and state and national Democratic National Committee members. As of this writing, there are 795 super-delegates, of whom 271 are pledged to Hillary Clinton and 257 are pledged to Barack Obama. If the super delegates decide to support Senator Clinton, they will be overturning their own party’s popular vote. That is incomprehensible for a party that calls itself “Democratic.” Out of respect for their own voters and in the interest of taking the fight to the formidable Senator McCain, the party’s super delegates must state their support for Senator Obama. And they must do it now, before another Democrat-on-Democrat attack ad is broadcast or another self-inflicted wound to the party appears in the papers, the cable channels or YouTube.
Maryland has 29 super delegates, of whom 11 are pledged to Senator Clinton, 8 are pledged to Senator Obama and 10 are undecided. The 10 undecided super delegates are:
Senator Ben Cardin
Congressman John Sarbanes
Congressman Steny Hoyer
Congressman Chris Van Hollen
Susan Turnbull, Vice Chairwoman of the National DNC, Bethesda
John Gage, President, American Federation of Government Employees
Belkis Leong-Hong, President, Knowledge Advantage Inc., Gaithersburg
Heather Mizeur, State Delegate from District 20, Takoma Park
Gregory Pecoraro, City Council Member in Westminster
John Sweeney, President, AFL-CIO
Ms. Turnbull is unable to commit to a candidate because she is an officer of the national DNC, but the other nine are free to vote their conscience. It should not be a difficult choice. Maryland Democrats voted for Senator Obama by 60-36.5%. Senator Obama won 55% of the vote in both Congressman Sarbanes’ and Congressman Van Hollen’s districts and claimed a whopping 66% in Congressman Hoyer’s district. Delegate Mizeur’s State District 20 voted for Senator Obama by 64-35%.
Senator Clinton cannot win unless she convinces the party establishment to ignore its own rank and file – an unthinkable prospect that reminds us of George W. Bush’s “victory” in 2000. How many more attack ads, pot shots, innuendos and whisperings must we endure before marching into the real battle against the Republicans?
If the nine uncommitted Maryland super delegates above declare for Senator Obama on the same day, that could strike the final blow in the Democratic contest. Ladies and gentlemen, please do it – NOW. And then onward to victory in November.
Chevy Chase Election Results
The Town of Chevy Chase held its annual elections for the Town Council yesterday. It was a hotly contested election with record turnout in which the Town's new land-use ordinance was a major focus. Six candidates, including all three incumbents, ran for the three seats up for election.
I'm afraid I can't report on this one in a particularly unbiased way, since I was one of the candidates. The results came in after all of the (one) precincts were counted. I was pleased and honored to be one of the three people elected to the Council along with incumbent Kathy Strom and newcomer Al Lang.
This isn't really the place but I am thankful not just to all the many people in Town who supported and worked so hard for my election but to all of the people in Chevy Chase who took time to say hello and even invited me into their homes when I knocked unannounced, often in the middle of dinner or taking care of the kids.
I should give a special thanks to Jane Lawton, who is still enormously missed in the Town since her untimely death not long ago, and to Rich Madaleno. I learned a lot about running for office--mainly the importance of listening and treating people with respect even as you stand up for your beliefs--from both of them while working on their campaigns in 2006.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Who Really Opposes Slots? (Updated)
Marylanders United to Stop Slots recently released a list of 102 state leaders serving on its steering committee. Of the 15 State Senators and 52 Delegates who voted against last year’s slots referendum, only 12 have signed on for the anti-slots campaign.
The elected leaders on the steering committee are:
Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R MD-1)
Comptroller Peter Franchot
Senator C. Anthony Muse (D-26, Prince George’s)
Senator Paul Pinsky (D-22, Prince George’s)
Delegate Curt Anderson (D-43, Baltimore City)
Delegate Joanne Benson (D-24, Prince George’s)
Delegate Elizabeth Bobo (D-12B, Howard)
Delegate Aisha Braveboy (D-25, Prince George’s)
Delegate Bill Bronrott (D-16, Montgomery)
Delegate Jill Carter (D-41, Baltimore City)
Delegate Marvin Holmes (D-23B, Prince George’s)
Delegate James Hubbard (D-23A, Prince George’s)
Delegate Tom Hucker (D-20, Montgomery)
Delegate Jolene Ivey (D-47, Prince George’s)
Delegate Gerron Levi (D-23A, Prince George’s)
Delegate Anthony McConkey (R-33A, Anne Arundel)
Delegate Karen Montgomery (D-14, Montgomery)
Delegate Victor Ramirez (D-47, Prince George’s)
Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17, Montgomery)
Delegate Herman Taylor (D-14, Montgomery)
Delegate Michael Vaughn (D-24, Prince George’s)
G. James Benoit, Anne Arundel County Council Member
Will Campos, Prince George’s County Council Member
Joshua Cohen, Anne Arundel County Council Member
Nancy Howard, Ocean City Councilwoman
Glenn Ivey, State’s Attorney, Prince George’s County
George Leventhal, Montgomery County Council Member
Eric Olson, Prince George’s County Council Member
Ryan Spiegel, Gaithersburg City Councilmember
Bruce Williams, Takoma Park Mayor
Of the above state legislators, Delegates Bronrott, Hubbard, Hucker, Ivey, Ramirez and Vaughn voted in favor of the referendum and Delegate Montgomery was excused from the vote. That means that only 12 of 67 legislators who voted against the referendum, or 18% of the no-votes, have joined the anti-slots coalition.
Also notable is the fact that 13 of the 30 elected steering committee members are from Prince George’s County. Montgomery County, which is often described as a stronghold of slots opposition, only has nine members (counting the Comptroller). Absent from the list are all of the state’s County Executives.
The following state legislators voted against the slots referendum but have not joined the anti-slots campaign:
Senator David Brinkley (R-4, Frederick/Carroll)
Senator George Della (D-46, Baltimore City)
Senator Brian Frosh (D-16, Montgomery)
Senator Barry Glassman (R-35, Harford – a delegate at the time of the vote)
Senator Janet Greenip (R-33, Anne Arundel)
Senator Larry Haines (R-5, Baltimore County/Carroll)
Senator Andrew Harris (R-Baltimore County/Harford)
Senator Nancy Jacobs (R-34, Cecil/Harford)
Senator Allan Kittleman (R-9, Carroll/Howard)
Senator Alex Mooney (R-3, Frederick/Washington)
Senator E.J. Pipkin (R-36, Eastern Shore)
Senator Jamie Raskin (D-20, Montgomery)
Senator Bryan Simonaire (R-31, Anne Arundel)
Senator J. Lowell Stoltzfus (R-38, Eastern Shore)
Delegate Saqib Ali (D-39, Montgomery)
Delegate Susan Aumann (R-42, Baltimore County)
Delegate Charles Barkley (D-39, Montgomery)
Delegate Joseph Bartlett (R-4A, Frederick)
Delegate Gail Bates (R-9A, Howard)
Delegate Wendell Beitzel (R-1A, Garrett/Allegany)
Delegate Joseph Boteler III (R-8, Baltimore County)
Delegate Emmett Burns Jr. (D-10, Baltimore County)
Delegate Rudolph Cane (D-37A, Eastern Shore)
Delegate Robert Costa (R-33B, Anne Arundel)
Delegate Don Dwyer (R-31, Anne Arundel)
Delegate Adelaide Eckardt (R-37B, Eastern Shore)
Delegate Donald Elliott (R-4B, Carroll/Frederick)
Delegate William Frank (R-42, Baltimore County)
Delegate Ron George (R-30, Anne Arundel)
Delegate Jeannie Haddaway (R-37B, Eastern Shore)
Delegate J.B. Jennings (R-7, Baltimore/Harford)
Delegate Kevin Kelly (D-1B, Allegany)
Delegate Nicholas Kipke (R-31, Anne Arundel)
Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19, Montgomery)
Delegate Susan Krebs (R-9B, Carroll)
Delegate James Mathias Jr. (D-38B, Eastern Shore)
Delegate Susan McComas (R-35B, Harford)
Delegate Patrick McDonough (R-7, Baltimore/Harford)
Delegate Robert McKee (R-2A, Washington, since resigned)
Delegate Warren Miller (R-9A, Howard)
Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20, Montgomery)
Delegate Peter Murphy (D-28, Charles)
Delegate LeRoy Myers Jr. (R-1C, Allegany/Washington)
Delegate Anthony O’Donnell (R-29C, Calvert/St. Mary’s)
Delegate Joseline Pena-Melnyk (D-21, Anne Arundel/Prince George’s)
Delegate Steve Schuh (R-31, Anne Arundel)
Delegate Christopher Shank (R-2B, Washington)
Delegate Tanya Thornton Shewell (R-5A, Carroll)
Delegate Michael Smigiel Sr. (R-36, Eastern Shore)
Delegate Richard Sossi (R-36, Eastern Shore)
Delegate Donna Stifler (R-35A, Harford)
Delegate Nancy Stocksdale (R-5A, Carroll)
Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18, Montgomery)
Delegate Mary Roe Walkup (R-36, Eastern Shore)
Delegate John Wood (D-29A, Charles/St. Mary’s)
Update:
In an interview on a Cumberland radio station, the Governor renewed his push for slots. According to the Sun:Gov. Martin O'Malley said today that if a referendum on slot machine gambling fails in November, "it'll be back to the drawing board with a lot of unpopular choices, and I don't think any of us wants to go there."
Monday, May 05, 2008
Nancy Floreen Calls for Across-the-Board Spending Cuts
Montgomery County Council Member Nancy Floreen challenged all county agencies to present a plan to cut their budgets by 2% below the County Executive's proposal on her blog today.
Floreen contends that a 2% across-the-board cut would enable the council to chop the County Executive's property tax increase in half. However, because she would still break the charter limit, her proposal would require seven votes to pass. Floreen argues:As far as I am concerned, the proposed tax burden is untenable, particularly for the average homeowner facing increased fuel, food and health care costs. I am afraid that this budget is way out of line. In today’s economy, it is unaffordable... I know my colleagues have put their hearts into trying to limit spending. But I don’t believe we have gone far enough. Our neighbors in Fairfax County, the District of Columbia, and Prince George’s County are looking at budget increases of no more than 1.3%. We in Montgomery County need to join the rest of the region in looking toward a more sustainable budget.
It is impossible to overstate the turmoil going on in Rockville right now over the budget. Two council members - Duchy Trachtenberg and Phil Andrews - oppose a property tax increase, enough votes to kill it. Council Member Trachtenberg is eyeing the county's labor contracts for savings. The County Council's Education Committee voted to restore $26 million for public schools and $9.1 million for Montgomery College last week. How can resistance to the property tax hike, increases for education, adherence to union contracts and Floreen's call for across-the-board cuts be reconciled?
We'll find out soon enough. Zero hour for the budget is next week.
Gays vs. the Governor
The Sun reported yesterday on growing dissatisfaction among gays against Governor O’Malley. But in fact, resentment towards the Governor has been building inside the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community for at least eight months.
Last September, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that state law forbids same-sex marriage. While the Governor did not have a hand in the ruling itself, he released this statement to the Washington Blade: I look forward to reading the Court's full opinion, but as we move forward, those of us with the responsibility of passing and enforcing laws have an obligation to protect the rights of all individuals equally, without telling any faith how to define its sacraments… I respect the Court's decision.
Gays across the state immediately took this as a betrayal. What did the court’s decision on civil marriage have to do with any religion’s sacraments? And why did the Governor fail to include a right to marriage as one of the rights that should be protected for “all individuals equally?” The plaintiffs in the marriage lawsuit immediately unveiled emails sent to them by the Governor expressing his support for marriage rights as recently as August 2005. Blade editor and blogger Kevin Naff fumed: As gay Marylanders were reeling from the high court decision upholding the state’s marriage ban – shedding tears and canceling wedding plans – the governor released a statement that didn’t offer sympathy or condolences. Instead, he said he respected the court’s decision – an opinion unparalleled in its gratuitously offensive language – and that lawmakers shouldn’t tell religions how to define the sacraments.
Neither marriage nor civil unions passed in the 2008 general session, but bills providing gay partners the right to visit each other in the hospital and limited exemptions from some property taxes did pass. One sticking point was on partnership benefits for state employees. The Governor says the state cannot afford them despite the fact that their cost – about $3 million per year – equals approximately 0.02% of the state’s general fund. That helped to prompt this comment from one of the state’s most prominent gay rights leaders:
With that statement, O’Malley kicked us all at a time when we were down and we should not forget it. No more gay money. No more gay votes. No more door-to-door gay support or green bumper stickers or yard signs. After distinguishing himself as a brash young politician of a new generation, he has revealed himself to be a typical climber, so blinded by national ambition that he would break any promise to pad his resume and preserve his power.“There's just not a lot to be enthusiastic about, because the governor hasn't done much to help us move forward,” said Dan Furmansky, director of Equality Maryland, a leading gay rights group. “Why did the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community work so hard to elect this person? What do we have to show for it at this point?”
Make no mistake: marriage equality is inevitable, regardless of O’Malley’s calculations and vacillations. Perhaps it will come to pass under Governor Doug Gansler.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Wanted: Democrat for Board of Elections
MCDCC Vice Chairman Alan Banov sent us this announcement. Time is of the essence on this one!
Vacancy on the County Board of Elections
The Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee requests applications to fill a vacancy in the Montgomery County Board of Elections, which was created by the resignation of Mary Carter-Williams as a member of that Board on April 24.
The County Board of Elections consists of five regular members (3 Democrats and 2 Republicans) and two substitute members (1 Democrat and 1 Republican). The Chair is Sam Statland, and the other Democrats are John Sullivan and Jerry Garson. Mr. Garson was the substitute member and has become a voting member of the board by virtue of Ms. Carter-Williams's resignation.
At its regular meeting on May 13, 2008, the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee will vote to nominate a candidate to be the new Democratic substitute member. The Members of the Board of Elections serve for a four-year term and oversee the operations of the Board. Their work requires attendance at regular monthly meetings and considerable work, day and night, in the periods before, during, and after primaries and general elections.
MCDCC is soliciting applications from registered Democrats who wish to serve as substitute Election Board member.
To Apply: Please send a letter of interest and a resume or biographical sketch to the MCDCC at 3720 Farragut Avenue, Suite 303, Kensington, MD 20895-2195, or e-mail or fax them to MontgomeryDems@msn.com or 301-946-1002. The deadline to apply is 12:00 noon, Friday, May 9. Applicants will be interviewed by a committee of the MCDCC, starting at 7:30 p.m., May 12, in the order in which applications are received. Applicants will be notified on the afternoon of May 9 about the times of the interviews. Minorities, as well as women, are encouraged to apply.
Alan Banov (Legalrun@aol.com) and Karen Czapanskiy (KarenSyma@yahoo.com), are the chair and co-chair, respectively, of MCDCC Board of Elections Review Committee. Also serving on the committee are MCDCC Secretary Elliot Chabot and MCDCC Member Milt Minneman. The committee will make its recommendations at the May 13 MCDCC meeting. Applicants will be invited to appear at that meeting, but will not be expected to say anything more than to introduce themselves. The MCDCC will recommend that Governor Martin O'Malley appoint its selected candidate to the vacancy.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Maryland AFL-CIO Backs Slots
In a development that surprised no one, both the Maryland/District of Columbia AFL-CIO and the Metropolitan Baltimore AFL-CIO announced their backing of slots today.
The Sun carried this classic quote:"The main reason we're doing this is because of jobs, and that's what the hell we're supposed to do," said Ernie Grecco, president of the Metropolitan Baltimore Council AFL-CIO. He noted that racetracks such as Pimlico are "wall to wall" union facilities. "We're going to be contacting our members and asking them in November to get out there and vote for slot machines."
Jobs, jobs, jobs! Now that's a union guy talking!
The pro-slots side has been picking up momentum in the last couple months by earning support from the Maryland State Teachers Association, the Maryland Association of Counties and the Maryland Chamber of Commerce. But the AFL-CIO's endorsement does not mean that labor is monolithically pro-slots. MCEA resisted the state teachers board's pro-slots vote and one of the leaders of the anti-slots campaign is Chuck Graham, business manager of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 26.
As a fellow building trades guy, I cannot resist asking this question. If the IBEW is opposed to the casinos, do the other trades get to perform the electrical work if the casinos go up?
Challenge to the Unions, Part Two
In Part One, we reported on County Council Member and Management and Fiscal Policy Chairwoman Duchy Trachtenberg’s letter to public employee union MCGEO offering a choice between layoffs and COLA reductions. Today we examine whether those measures are justified by the county’s dire budget situation.
Concerned over the county’s long-run finances, Council Member Trachtenberg asked council staff for an estimate of the future obligations to the county imposed by its public employee union contracts. Two weeks later, the County Council’s merit staff director responded with a 129-page memo outlining those costs. Page 2 of the memo contained this statement:Councilmember Trachtenberg has requested information on agency compensation costs over time. One measure of these costs is the cumulative fiscal impact of the current or pending three-year negotiated agreements with the six County and MCPS unions, starting with the base year. See the fiscal impact statements on pages 37-39 and 111-113. The cumulative fiscal impacts are $117.9 million for MCGEO [government employees], $45.4 million for the FOP [police], $37.2 million for the IAFF [fire fighters], $61.9 million for non-represented employees in County Government, and $577.7 million for MCPS.
Are these marginal costs really accurate? We looked up the supporting data on pages 37-39 and 111-113, which correspond to pages 53-55 and 127-129 in the pdf document. Following is our tabulation of all marginal costs reported.
The total of these amounts, $840.1 million, does not include higher ongoing costs for health benefits for active and retired employees, nor does it include the $1.2 billion cost of the proposed eight-year pre-funding schedule for future retiree health benefits.
The marginal costs for each of the employee categories amount to $134 million in FY08, $176 million in FY09, $225 million in FY10 and $21 million in FY11 for a total of $557 million over the four years. (The estimate is low for FY11 because only the fire fighters’ agreements cover that year.) This total is much lower than the $840 million reported on the second page of the staff report, even though that summary refers to the pages tabulated above. There is simply no data in those pages to justify the $840 million estimate.
Furthermore, marginal cost data for FY08 should not be construed as a future obligation faced by the county. FY08, the current fiscal year, expires on 6/30/08. Those costs have mostly been paid already.
Finally, the analysis includes marginal costs due to fire and rescue management and non-represented employees. Why should the unions be held responsible for additional spending on employees they do not represent?
Subtracting out costs for the almost-expired FY08, the fire and rescue management and the non-represented employees, the remaining future obligations faced by the county total $154 million in FY09, $193 million in FY10 and $20 million in FY11, or a combined $368 million. This is a far cry from the $840 million cited at the beginning of the staff report.
Are added salary costs of $150-200 million per year sustainable? The answer depends on the county’s economic performance and the county government’s revenue collections. According to revenue statistics released by the County Executive, revenues collected by the county are projected to rise by $109 million in the current fiscal year (between 7/1/07 and 6/30/08). That overall rise in receipts occurred despite the facts that a) county receipts from the real property transfer tax dropped from $107 million to $80 million (down 25%), b) receipts from the recordation tax dropped from $73 million to $53 million (down 27%) and c) the county may have entered a recession. The above means that even in a really bad year, the county’s revenues continued to rise.
The County Executive’s proposal projects a further rise in receipts in FY09 of $301 million, partially due to his property tax increase. This would be more than enough to pay the $154 million in extra costs associated with the union contracts. At least for next year, the county should be able to meet its labor obligations if it adopts a budget similar to the County Executive’s recommendation.
As for the future, the most volatile components of the county’s revenues are the two tied to real estate sales: the real property transfer tax and the recordation tax. According to the county’s Department of Finance, residential real estate sales volume averaged over $500 million per month from 2006 through the first eight months of 2007. Since then, residential real estate sales volume has averaged between $200 and $300 million per month. It is this collapse in residential real estate transactions that has caused many of the county’s current budget problems. All policymakers – both inside the government and inside the unions – should watch this figure in the Finance Department’s monthly economic updates. If it rises back up to $400 million per month or more, the county’s real property transfer and recordation taxes will begin to recover. If it falls further, tougher times are ahead.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Challenge to the Unions, Part One
In a story first reported by the Washington Post’s Ann Marimow, Montgomery County Council Member and Management and Fiscal Policy Committee Chairwoman Duchy Trachtenberg has written to UFCW Local 1994 (MCGEO), one of the county’s public employee unions, offering a choice between layoffs or smaller pay increases. We reproduce the letter and discuss its importance below.April 29, 2008
The letter is a dramatic development in the county’s budget crisis for several reasons.
Gino Renne, President
UFCW Local 1994 MCGEO
600 S. Frederick Ave., Ste. 200
Gaithersburg, MD 20877
Dear Mr. Renne:
In light of the difficult decisions County Council faces for the upcoming budget, I am turning to elected union leadership for counsel during this process.
The strong advantage of having union represented county employees is that the union structure, through its elected leadership, is an excellent conduit to reach out to the rank and file. It is important to each councilmember to hear and respect what options county and school employees would prefer as the Council balances the interests of residents across Montgomery County while making our final budget decisions. Without unions in place, this process would be much more difficult.
With the uncertainty of the County Council’s willingness to break the charter limits and concerns over jeopardizing our AAA credit rating, we may well not have the revenue needed to execute the current CBAs [collective bargaining agreements] without invoking their provisions for Reductions in Force. In an abundance of caution, I want to begin a conversation about all available options that might come forward to avoid force reductions as we face the budget deficit.
I am reaching out for an honest and open discussion of options to address our budget deficit. This invitation is extended to MCGEO, SEIU 500, FOP [police], IAFF [fire fighters] and MCEA [teachers]. To facilitate our discussion, below is a list of ideas that have come to my attention that warrant a response from organized labor. You are all invited to submit a memo outlining your concerns and options you feel will be acceptable to the county and school system employees you all represent.
1. If your members were given a choice between a reduction in COLA [cost of living adjustment] or involuntary layoffs through each contract’s provisions for Reduction in Force, which option do you think your rank and file would find most acceptable?
2. The County Executive projects only 58 employees will take an early retirement buyout option. Do you concur with this position, or do you believe there is more demand for this option? What are the best ways to structure these offers to make them more appealing to your members?
3. Would you have members interested and able to participate in a voluntary layoff program that would protect their seniority and health insurance while they drew unemployment for six months? Would there be more interest if this option could be used as a way to bridge a member to retirement?
4. During the District 4 Special Democratic Primary, Don Praisner proposed an extensive labor management cooperation program to help identify savings, much in the same manner as MCGEO’s letter to council. Would your members be interested in such a program?
These questions by no means limit our conversation. For further clarification of this request and any other questions you may have, please contact Eric Hensal through my office. Eric is a former union organizer with a depth of experience in labor issues and a Masters of Public Administration earned through the National Labor College. I am sure you will find Eric an excellent resource as we all chart a course through the current budget crisis.
Cordially,
Duchy Trachtenberg
Chair, Management and Fiscal Policy Committee
cc: Honorable Ike Leggett, County Executive
Honorable Mike Knapp, Council President
Honorable Phil Andrews, Council Vice-President
Steve Farber, Council Staff Director
1. There are only about two weeks to go before the County Council begins voting on the FY09 budget. This letter to the unions comes late in the game. As recently as April 9, the Gazette reported that Council Member Trachtenberg “said the contracts with county employees should be honored.”
2. When Ms. Trachtenberg refers to “the uncertainty of the County Council’s willingness to break the [property tax] charter limits,” she is referring to a situation over which she has some control. After all, Ms. Trachtenberg told the Gazette, “I do not support going over the charter limit.” Added to Council Member Phil Andrews’ opposition to the property tax increase, the tax hike is in real danger of not passing because it requires seven of the current eight council votes. Ms. Trachtenberg’s opposition to the property tax hike may in fact be creating a need for the sort of choices she is now offering the unions.
3. The reference to Eric Hensal is noteworthy. Hensal lost a special election in Takoma Park to fill Marc Elrich’s vacant city council seat and went on to manage Don Praisner’s District 4 County Council campaign. During the District 4 campaign, the Post reported that Hensal was seen entering the County Council building for lunch appointments with staffers for Marilyn Praisner and Ms. Trachtenberg. Has he now been hired as council staff or as a consultant by Ms. Trachtenberg? If he is a consultant, a reference to him in the letter is very unusual. Why would a sitting council member allow a third-party consultant to speak for her on such a vital matter as employee layoffs or COLA reductions?
But there is more. The public sector unions have not forgotten Don Praisner’s frequent criticism of their contracts during the special election. Nor have they forgotten how the Praisner campaign branded union-backed Nancy Navarro as a “special interest” candidate. Are any of the unions likely to view Mr. Praisner’s campaign manager as a desirable interlocutor for labor relations issues?
4. Ms. Trachtenberg gained a famous fan through her letter: none other than Robin Ficker. On Maryland Moment, Ficker squealed with delight:Trachtenberg is just the kind of person I like---one tough cookie when she wants to be. Continue asking the tough questions Duchy. Social security recipients get a 2.3% increase in 2008 with NO step increases. I loved Charles Barkley. I would ask him, “Charles I know you want to run for Governor of Alabama, but before I vote for you I want to know your views on the economy, NAFTA and healthcare.” He would reply, “Well, I do have a view on the death penalty----they should use it on you!” Trachtenberg reminds me of Barkley.
All of the above is subject to one awful truth: the county is facing a $297 million budget deficit and the County Council has two weeks to go before the tough votes come. Ms. Trachtenberg did not create this deficit and the problems are real. In Part Two, we will examine whether the county can meet its contractual obligations to the unions in the current budget environment.
