Because of the coming of Baby Olson-Pagnucco, we are thinking about baby-related merchandise quite a lot these days. Here is one item that has been suggested (click for a larger view):
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Baby Clothes
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thomas Hardman Announces for District 4
Thomas Hardman, who ran as a Republican in last year's District 4 special election, is announcing his candidacy this year as a Democrat. His statement follows below.
My name is Thomas Hardman, and I filed for candidacy Friday Feb 27 2009, evidently a few minutes behind Nancy Navarro, to judge from the visitors' log.
I had about 5 years on the board of the Aspen Hill Civic Association, Inc., from about 2002-2007. In about the same time frame, I was very active in the "Mid County Neighborhood Initiative", which has done quite a lot of promotion of anti-crime efforts in Aspen Hill, especially promoting the reclamation of North Gate Park, and the cleanup of a lot of local "trash woods" where overgrowth led to crime and nastiness.
I'm particularly focused on code-violation, home overcrowding, "McMansionism", tear-downs and "over-builds". I'm focused on how sensible Urban Planning can be completely obviated when code isn't enforced and everything deviates from the plan. I oppose seeing our neighborhoods being turned into something that looks a lot like an industrial park, and I oppose people buying up houses on speculation and paying their liar-loan APR mortgages by renting out single-family detached residental homes housing as many as 20 people being charged $500.00/month rent each, generating from $6000 to $10,000 to the slumlords. I've been fighting every aspect of that since Doug Duncan was County Executive.
For some years I have been seeking ways to have some influence, to demonstrate leadership, outside of the very narrow focus of these groups. So, I have run in the last two elections held in District 19/District 4 (state/county) and I am running in this one as of now.
I'm trying to step up and do the right thing, but I'm not a Party creature and so it's a struggle every step of the way.
Visit http://www.thomashardman.com as well as http://www.aspenhillnet.net/ and http://www.district4mc.org where I have done a lot of documentation about myself, Aspen Hill, and District 4.
Coming soon, the new http://www.thomashardman.NET which will be the political site, and the Facebook presence is under development.
I am a pagan tree-hugger and demand changes in policy toward "green", solar, and slow-growth/no-growth and I am on record on Channel 19/21 video from last Special Election as being for this, and furthermore my campaign was based all around expectation of economic calamity, and it wasn't even on the radar of any of my opponents. I was a Liberal Republican then, I am a Fiscally Conservative/Social Liberal Democrat now. I am GLBT tolerant and embrace the large and under-served community of the "differently abled", especially the "special needs" community in young adulthood and beyond, whether they're gifted/talented or intellectually-disabled.
MPW on the Radio
I was on Rockville Central Radio today talking about the District 4 special election, campaign filings and the paltry coverage of our county's politics by the MSM. Just prior to my appearance, former Delegate Cheryl Kagan (D-17) called in to talk about the Beall's Grant II affordable housing project. Listen in here and click on the play bar right above the left border of the orange box just to the left of RSS (around the middle of the show).
District 4 Council Race – Questions to Ponder
By Sharon Dooley.
There have been quite a few discussions about candidates running in District 4. I do not live in that District, so I will watch closely the evolution of the campaign. I have heard that the candidate list is not totally settled. Is there someone out there who is deeply involved in any portion of the District, someone who has made a particular community better? Who, in each neighborhood has spoken out for sidewalks or safe streets, worked for the school addition or neighborhood center? Who stood tall for the environment or cleaning up the local creek? Who, by being there for any area, has made a difference? Does this District have a community organizer?
The county has been the beneficiary of much wisdom and guidance from Marilyn and Don Praisner over the years, so I know their footsteps will be hard to follow. The library and recreation center in her community were named in honor of Marilyn – not some grand building – but rather, buildings that touch the people living there - every day. This Praisner example should be a map for future success. A council hearing is often perfunctory, but with Marilyn there, the petitioner knew that she had read the packet of materials prepared by staff and been briefed on the latest concerning the matter at hand – even though she might not agree with you or vote your way, one left feeling that their words had been fairly heard. A council member should want to work for you – the constituent.
Who will be elected that can step in ready to go? Who will be able to address issues knowledgeably? What about the split on the council, now fairly well divided 4-4 on philosophical issues of growth, social concerns and spending? From which direction will the newly elected council member come? Is there a progressive in the race? What role do development interests and labor forces have to play in this election? Where will the environmental community stand? Is a particular candidate a surrogate for special interests, if so – which ones? There is going to be a frantic period of activity between now and the April 21st Primary as candidates struggle to get the attention of the voters and the media. And – lest anyone forget, the Primary is the big battle in this most Democratic County. In the brief pre-primary period last year, there were multiple candidate forums as the voters struggled to learn about the candidates and while the candidates, in many cases, struggled to learn about the issues and nuanced concerns. To my way of thinking, this seat is not owed to any particular person or school of thought, but should rather go to the person who has been out there for this District in many ways, day after day. Who is that person of the people, the man or woman from the community who made things happen, who is ready to learn more? Who is the candidate who has listened to the voters?
Do I have a wish for a person who cares about development, affordable housing and the environment, who speaks up for safe streets, good schools, clean air, clear water and healthcare, who looks out for the mundane concerns such as jobs, so important to the neighborhoods in which we all live in? Absolutely!! If that person is out there – please come forward – you are my kind of candidate.
Personally, I hope that the person who is elected will work hard to assume the mantle that Don Praisner chose to wear, the one with social and community concerns, for fiscal responsibility, moderate growth and practical considerations of what can and should be done. I request that the person to be elected learns the entire District, which is developed and urban, forested and rural, dense with apartments and town houses and sparse with sprawling farmlands. (Note: Adam’s earlier posting and demographics). I advise learning about the people who range from retired and current government workers, mansion dwellers, entrepreneurs, and new immigrants to descendants of freed slaves and original settlers still living on family lands. The people are the vibrant mix seen in this diverse county and they bring the music, languages and foods of many cultures. I sincerely wish that the person elected cares more about this county than their own ambition. If so, we will all be served well. I know the residents of District 4 have a daunting task ahead of them. I hope, for the sake of our county, that their choice is well made.
For Prince George’s, State Aid is Never Enough
The Prince George’s County Delegation is making a lot of noise about wanting more state aid. Should they get it?
The issue is a very sensitive one in Annapolis, in part because of the parochial assertiveness of the Prince George’s delegation. Senator Nathaniel Exum (D-24) recently had this exchange with O’Malley aide Joe Brice over the issue:“It is clear Prince George's County has been hurt by these cuts,” [Exum] said. “We want to know what the governor is going to do to rectify this? Because next year is 2010. And who is the governor going to look for in his reelection campaign?”
And now Delegate Justin Ross (D-22) has introduced a bill to restructure the state’s aid formula to send more education money to Prince George’s. Ross told Maryland Moment, “As the federal stimulus package gets wrapped up and the money comes back to the state, we want this to be in consideration. We believe there's a fairness issue here.”
Brice responded that O'Malley would try to bring all lawmakers together and work with them on the budget.
“As long as he is aware,” Exum shot back.
In evaluating Prince George’s case for more aid, let’s consider the following facts:
1. Current Total Aid
In the Governor’s FY 2010 budget, Prince George’s is scheduled to receive $1,104,028,710 in total aid. That amount is second only to Baltimore City ($1,197,879,557) and accounts for 17% of the state’s entire aid budget.
In per capita terms, the state will grant Prince George’s County $1,332 per resident in FY 2010. That ranks ninth out of the state’s 24 jurisdictions and is 15% higher than the state average ($1,160).
In comparison, Montgomery County will receive $715 million ($768 per capita), Baltimore County will receive $701 million ($888 per capita), Anne Arundel County will receive $413 million ($807 per capita) and Baltimore City will receive $1.2 billion ($1,879 per capita).
2. Current Public Schools Aid
In the Governor’s FY 2010 budget, Prince George’s is scheduled to receive $871,833,382 in public school aid. That is first in the state and accounts for 19% of the state’s entire school aid budget. The state will also cover $114 million in Prince George’s teacher retirement payments, second to Montgomery ($150 million).
In per capita terms, the state will grant Prince George’s County $7,220 per pupil in FY 2010. That ranks sixth out of the state’s 24 jurisdictions and is 27% higher than the state average ($5,702).
In comparison, Montgomery County will receive $449 million ($3,287 per pupil), Baltimore County will receive $508 million ($5,123 per pupil), Anne Arundel County will receive $273 million ($3,794 per pupil) and Baltimore City will receive $811 million ($10,655 per pupil).
3. Local Contribution to Public Schools
The attached chart from the Maryland Department of Education’s 2007-2008 Fact Book shows federal, state and local per pupil contributions to education funding by county. The average per pupil local contribution in Maryland is about $5,600. Prince George’s County contributes about $4,300 per pupil in local funds, more than 20% below the state average. In contrast, Montgomery County taxpayers contribute nearly $10,000 per pupil, Howard County taxpayers contribute nearly $8,000 per pupil and Anne Arundel County taxpayers contribute roughly $6,500 per pupil.
According to the Washington Area Boards of Education, 54.9% of the Prince George’s County schools’ budget comes from the state. That is far higher than in Montgomery (19.9%) and is higher than any other school district in the Metro Washington area.
4. Other Aid
Maryland is helping Prince George’s County bail out its ailing hospital system, which has been victimized by feuds between the county government and the management firm. The state will be paying $12 million per year for the next two years while a buyer is found for the system. In addition, the state may be liable for tens, even hundreds of millions more to pay for upgrading and debt retirement.
And if this were not enough, the D.C. United soccer team has announced its intention to build a new stadium in Prince George’s County. Team management admits the state would be “on the hook” if stadium tax revenues needed to finance construction fell short of projections. Marc Korman blew the economics of this deal to smithereens yesterday.
5. Recent Developments in the Prince George’s Schools
The problems of Prince George’s schools deserves its own blog, but here is a sampling. Former Superintendent Andre Hornsby has been sentenced to six years in prison for corruption. Former Superintendent Iris Metts was driven out after an ugly power struggle. At one time, the county’s elected school board was so dysfunctional that it was replaced with appointees. The system has had five Superintendents in less than six years, but the crisis in the county’s schools goes back much further than that. The current priority of the county’s school board is its expensive headquarters relocation plan, which even the county’s statehouse delegation opposes.
By any measure, the state’s return on investment in the Prince George’s County schools has been poor. But that does not stop the push for more aid.
6. Anti-Tax Movements
Prince George’s voters are notoriously anti-tax. The county is the home of the infamous TRIM amendment, a property tax cap that has devastated county services over the last thirty years. In 1996, Prince George's voters chose not to repeal TRIM by a 61-39% vote and chose to subject a wide variety of tax measures to referendum by a 63-37% vote. Last year, voters rejected a puny $17 million telephone tax intended for the schools by a 71-29% margin. And angry citizens are opposing County Executive Jack Johnson’s request to allow homeowner tax assessments to rise from its current maximum rate of 5% per year to 10% (which is in effect in Montgomery). Residents of the county distrust their local government – with good reason – and are reluctant to fund it. The statehouse delegation, which is willing to accept police and teacher layoffs rather than support Johnson’s proposal, agrees with them.
And so Prince George’s County will not adequately invest in its own schools but expects the rest of the state to do it for them. As we mentioned above, Prince George’s Delegate Justin Ross has said, “We believe there's a fairness issue here.”
We agree.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
More District 4 Tidbits
Here’s what we have for all you D4 junkies today!
1. Nancy Navarro’s new website is up. She joins Cary Lamari, Chris Paladino and Republican Lou August in D4 cyberspace. Ben Kramer has a Delegate website up, but it contains no reference to the County Council race.
2. After nearly two weeks of harassment by this blog, the Washington Post has finally acknowledged the candidacy of Cary Lamari. Of course, that was buried in an article about Robin Ficker.
3. The Montgomery County Board of Elections has published its special election timeline. Among the key dates are:
March 5: Deadline to file candidacy for the primary
March 9: Deadline to withdraw from the primary
March 24: First campaign finance report due
March 30: Voter registration closes
April 10: Second campaign finance report due
April 14: Last day for primary absentee ballot application
April 21: Primary election
May 8: Third campaign finance report due
May 19: General election
June 9: Fourth campaign finance report due
4. We hear the precinct closure plan is dead. No word on Executive Director Margaret Jurgensen’s retention by the board. Former County Executive Doug Duncan called for her resignation more than two years ago.
5. This special election is not the first time Robin Ficker has changed his residence to run for office. Ficker, a resident of Boyds in District 15, moved to Montgomery Village in 2002 to challenge District 39 Senator P.J. Hogan. Hogan won the general election by a 19,099-9,689 vote.
6. We hear that some in the General Assembly are considering filing a bill to allow early voting in the District 4 special election. Maryland voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing early voting last year, but the legislature must pass implementing legislation. This idea is drawing a lot of interest, pro and con, from players in Montgomery County and we will have more on this soon.
7. For all the tumult about developer contributions in the last special election, none of the 2008 candidates had any record on development policy. This time around, two of them do. We will go all the way back to the 1990s next week to find out who they are, what they did and what happened. Don’t miss this one, junkies!
CCT Draws Bi-County Support
Members of both the Montgomery and Frederick County Delegations sent the following letter to Governor O'Malley in support of the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). The signers include one Frederick Republican (Senator Alex Mooney - R-3), one Frederick Democrat (Delegate Sue Hecht - D3A), one Frederick Independent (Delegate Richard Weldon, I-3B) and ten Montgomery Democrats.
The Maryland General Assembly
Annapolis, Maryland 21401-1991
February 6, 2009
The Honorable Martin O'Malley
Office of the Governor
State House
Annapolis, MD 21401-1991
Dear Governor O'Malley,
We are pleased you included $3.5 million in fiscal year 2010 funding for the planning phase for the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). We appreciate your continued support for the transitway, which will link many communities - Clarksburg, Germantown, Gaithersburg and Rockville - to the Shady Grove Metro Station.
In addition to benefitting commuters in some of the fastest growing communities in both Montgomery and Frederick Counties and alleviating traffic congestion in the I-270 corridor, the CCT will play a vital role in the continued economic development of this region of the state. We also see the CCT as a critical component of the development of the Belward property with John's Hopkins University, which will lead to positive economic development in life sciences and technology fields.
We respectfully urge you to continue your support of the CCT to keep this transit project moving forward. As you know, the right-of-way is largely set aside, the community is generally very supportive of the Transitway, and there is strong local business and government support for it. It is our hope that you will provide the necessary engineering and construction funds in subsequent fiscal years, because this transit project is ready to go.
Sincerely,
Rob Garagiola
State Senator - District 15
Charles E. Barkley
Delegate - District 39
Kumar P. Barve
Delegate - District 17
Kathleen M. Dumais
Delegate - District 15
Brian J. Feldman
Delegate - District 15
Jennie M. Forehand
State Senator - District 17
James W. Gilchrist
Delegate - District 17
Sue C. Hecht
Delegate - District 3A
Nancy J. King
State Senator - District 39
Alexander X. Mooney
State Senator - District 3
Kirill Reznik
Delegate - District 39
Craig L. Rice
Delegate - District 15
Richard B. Weldon, Jr.
Delegate - District 3B
cc: The Honorable John D. Porcari, Secretary, MDOT
Mr. Henry Kay, Deputy Administrator, Planning and Engineering, MTA
A Soccer Stadium?
By Marc Korman.
About seven years ago I was sitting at a College Democrats meeting listening to a speaker from the California Governor’s office. She was explaining all of the great programs the Governor was supporting on the ballot in California, including Proposition 40. Prop. 40 provided funding for local assistance grants for environmental programs and parks. It was a worthwhile proposition. But at the time, California was in the middle of a budgetary crisis (isn’t it always). I asked how the program was going to be paid for. The woman responded that we didn’t have to pay for it, because it was a bond bill. That probably sums up the current state of California pretty well. I was reminded of that discussion when I began hearing about the proposal to build a $195 million, 24,000 person soccer stadium in Prince George’s County.
At a time when government at all levels is in a fiscal crunch, our existing infrastructure is in need of massive repairs, and the state is considering cuts to education and healthcare (temporarily delayed by the stimulus), should Annapolis even be discussing a soccer stadium?
Elected officials and DC United have rushed to assure us that taxpayers will not be on the hook for the cost of the stadium. The argument is that the stadium DC United is looking to the state to fund will be paid for by a combination of rental payments by the team in future years (amounting to 25% of the total cost) and state issued bonds, which will be repaid by tax revenue generated by the stadium. Unfortunately, the plan does not take into account a few things:
1. Infrastructure
The $195 million cost does not include infrastructure improvements that may be needed. Roads and transit improvements are obvious, but a new stadium may also require utilities improvements. Proponents have said infrastructure costs will not be that high due to the presence of the Metro, but of course Metro itself is in need of a funding infusion. It is also not realistic to think everyone will take the Metro, unless we eliminate parking at the stadium which I am confident DC United is not ready to do.
2. Projections
We cannot assume the stadium will be full, even when the flagship team is playing. I have no idea what calculations they used to figure out the $195 million cost or the idea that the bonds could be repaid by taxes associated with the stadium. I do know that DC United’s average attendance in 2008 was 19,835 people, a drop of over 1,000 from 2007. Given the economy, we can probably safely predict a further decline in the coming years. Another question that should be studied is whether DC United’s audience will follow the team to the ‘burbs, or whether attendance will plummet. Marc Fisher’s recent Washington Post column discussed these issues in greater detail.
3. Bonds are Not Free
Government bonds are issued to provide the government a lot of money up front that it can pay back a little bit at a time over a period of years. The repayment is called debt service and it is a required part of annual government budgets.
The debt-service ratio indicates how much of the total budget goes towards servicing debt. At the federal level, the ratio is 9%. In Maryland is appears to be just 2%, a healthy number and part of why the state maintains its AAA bond rating. By comparison, California is projected to have a ratio of 6%, which partially accounts for its low bond rating and budgetary problems. All of these number projections will probably rise due to increased borrowing as a result of the current economic situation.
But the point is increasing Maryland’s debt obligation through bonds can have an adverse effect on its bond rating, which can make it difficult to borrow for other obligations. Also, given the credit crunch, how well will these bonds sell? In addition, Maryland must service those bonds, it is mandatory spending. If the stadium does not live up to its promise, Maryland must still pay its bills. In fact, Fisher’s column quotes Prince George’s County Executive Jack Johnson admitting it’s not “going to create a lot of revenue.” Well without that revenue, taxpayers will be footing the bill.
There is a big difference between state and federal borrowing. At the state level, bonds are used to finance major projects that the state cannot afford to pay for all at once. In the case of a stadium, it makes a particularly attractive target for bonds because of all the reports and studies explaining the direct economic benefits of these facilities. For example, sales tax revenue from the stadium can be specifically allocated to service the debt. Contrast that with a highway, assuming it is not tolled. The economic benefits are far less direct and there is no direct revenue stream with which to service the debt. Although we use bonds for highway funding in Maryland, we cannot directly link the taxes generated by the highway to paying off the bond because they are too ill defined. On the plus side, no one should be able to deceive us into thinking a highway project pays for itself as they can with a stadium. Similarly, transit projects offer an attractive target because of rider fees. But generally speaking, transit projects do not pay for themselves directly through fares. Those projects that have been originally billed as such, for example the DC Metro, have disappointed.
At the federal level, bonds are issued to fill the annual budget deficit. In some cases, deficit spending may be for a worthwhile expense (like the New Deal), but since 2001 the federal deficits have been as a result of unnecessary tax cuts and an ill advised war in the Middle East. That is not beneficial deficit spending.
And neither is building a stadium. Even if a stadium could generate enough funds to service all of the debt it creates, which is not guaranteed, it could still adversely affect Maryland’s bond rating. If we are going to borrow more money, let’s do it for public priorities and not a soccer stadium.
Over a year ago, I wrote about the proposed Germantown Arena and the flaws in that proposal. Back in October I proposed eliminating the Maryland Stadium Authority. I stand by those posts and add this one to my opposition to arena/stadium projects in Maryland during the current budget morass.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Hey! What About Our CCT? What Are We, Chopped Liver?!
By Jud Ashman, Gaithersburg City Council Member.
Can someone please come up with a serious argument against the Corridor Cities Transitway? Apparently all this “agreement” and lack of controversy has had the ironic effect of moving the CCT to the media and political backburner at exactly the time it makes the most sense.
If you don’t know - or can’t remember – what the Corridor Cities Transitway is, don’t blame yourself. It’s our fault! What gets news media attention - far more than any boring aspects of merit a project might boast - is a fight. If we just could have found someone out there among the citizenry, the business community, or the elected officials who opposed the project, you surely would’ve been inundated with stories in the Washington Post, the Gazette, NewsChannel 8, etc. Marc Fisher could’ve filed two columns a month on the subject and Adam, here at MPW, could’ve posted a 4 part statistical analysis!
But we obviously failed to find that opposition. “Why?” you ask. Because the CCT makes too much sense. Here are the facts:
• The concept for the CCT dates back to the 1964 General Plan for Montgomery County. It’s a 14-mile transitway that would link the Shady Grove Metro to Clarksburg. (Ultimately, the CCT could be extended to Frederick but that is not currently under consideration.) The project has earned the support of the cities of Gaithersburg and Rockville, as well as Montgomery County.
• The stated goals of the CCT are:
o Provide efficient, reliable transit enhancement
o Extend Metrorail Red Line and reduce demand for drive access to Shady Grove Station
o Support current and planned land uses in the corridor
o Relieve traffic congestion on area roads (particularly I270)
• The CCT is more than simple north-south transit. It links the existing Town Centers of King Farm and Kentlands – as well as similar communities in Germantown and Clarksburg - with the approved future Town Centers of Crown Farm/Washingtonian Rio and Watkins Mill, and potentially with a Johns Hopkins Shady Grove Life Sciences Center. Collectively, these town centers will provide countless opportunities to live, work, shop, learn, and play without getting in a car. (Note: With the Kentlands and the Lakelands, the City of Gaithersburg pioneered the sort of Transit Oriented Developments that most jurisdictions have been emulating for the past decade. Problem is, we’ve had no “Transit” and thus haven’t seen the full potential of the planning model)
• For the last 45 years, the City of Gaithersburg has taken the CCT into account when making all land use decisions related to its western sections. 100% of the right-of-way within the Gaithersburg city limits is available for construction at no cost to the public.
• Overall, 60% of the entire right-of-way for the CCT is available for construction at no cost to the public.
• Based on year 2030 population and employment forecasts, the CCT is projected to have an average daily boarding in the neighborhood of 30,000 riders.
• MTA is currently studying whether it’s best suited for Light Rail or Bus Rapid Transit. As a Bus Rapid Transit mode, the cost effectiveness ratio meets Federal “New Starts” criteria and is eligible to compete nationally for Federal funding.
It should be noted that, all things being equal, most people when asked would support a Light Rail (LRT) option over BRT. However, all things aren’t equal; LRT is probably 3 or 4 times more expensive. Careful readers of this blog will remember the estimates from Marc Elrich’s BRT plan: Light Rail costs about $75 to $102 million per mile vs. about $20 million per mile for BRT. (In fact, if the Purple Line is built as Light Rail, as is the preference of both Park and Planning and the County Council, and the CCT is built as BRT, then the CCT will probably come in at about ¼ of the cost, based on published estimates.)
All of this isn’t to argue that the Purple Line (as light rail) isn’t a worthy project. It certainly is. But let’s not allow it to suck all of the oxygen from the room. The CCT has enormous merit, and can be made into a reality at a fraction of the cost; both in terms of dollars and political capital.
The Corridor Cities Transitway is good to go!
The Money Chase: Maryland
Today, we examine the campaign funds of some of Maryland’s leading state and local politicians as well as those of a few potential challengers. All data pertains to the year ending 1/14/09.
Strongest Position
1. Attorney General Doug Gansler (Balance $1,255,115.52, Net Gain $609,184.48)
No statewide, state-level politician has had a better two years than Doug Gansler. He has no association with the special session’s tax package, the following spending cuts or the impending slots debacle. His job gives him priceless opportunities to go after crooks and polluters. He bet correctly on the Presidential race and has consequently made friends all over the state. And he raked in more cash than any state-level politician in Maryland last year. Gansler is the early favorite for Governor in 2014.
2. Governor Martin O’Malley (Balance $1,004,836.66, Net Gain $95,083.49)
O’Malley did not raise a lot of money last year for a sitting Governor but he may not need it. The state is more Democratic than it was in 2006 and a primary challenge is looking increasingly unlikely.
3. Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith (Balance $956,583.09, Net Gain $460,657.24)
Term-limited Jim Smith is raising tons of cash, a sign that he may very well challenge Comptroller Peter Franchot.
4. Howard County Executive Ken Ulman (Balance $303,609.91, Net Gain $172,350.89)
The 34-year old Ulman is raising more money than any Executive in the state other than Jim Smith. He will face an interesting decision when his term limit takes effect in 2014.
5. Prince George’s County State’s Attorney Glenn Ivey (Balance $113,678.87, Net Gain $28,979.77)
Highly-regarded prosecutor has a leg up on his rivals to be the next Prince George’s County Executive. If Ivey can succeed in that office, he can go a long ways in state politics.
Needs to Do More
1. Senator C. Anthony Muse, D-26 (Balance -$4,063.83, Net Gain -$26,544.37)
Muse ran for Prince George’s County Executive unsuccessfully in 2002 and some believe he may run again. The problem is that his finances are an absolute mess – especially given his status as Prince George’s Senate Delegation Chair. If he cannot gain control of his campaign account, that may encourage another primary challenge even if he stays in the Senate.
2. Rushern Baker, Prince George’s County Executive Candidate (Balance $39,459.73, Net Gain -$188,938.53)
Baker raised $210,153.05 last year but spent $399,091.58. Of that amount, he directed $317,895 to loan repayments, including $310,000 to Renter’s Finance Corporation of Silver Spring. A 2006 Washington Post article identified that entity as a subsidiary of Southern Management, a large apartment building owner in Prince George’s County that has feuded with County Executive Jack Johnson. Baker still owes himself $196,000. None of this will help him run against Glenn Ivey or Anthony Muse.
3. Comptroller Peter Franchot (Balance $283,597.94, Net Gain $190,462.79)
Franchot’s fund-raising numbers are well below those of potential rival Jim Smith. He may need to take out another $750,000 mortgage on his home to survive.
4. County Executive John Leopold (Balance $544,763.38, Net Gain $26,125)
Leopold has a decent war chest. But in the wake of his recent mini-scandal, he may face challenges from both the left and the right.
5. Former Governor Robert Ehrlich (Balance $151,529, Net Gain $29,080.90)
Low fund-raising totals suggest that he is not running for Governor again.
The Wild Card
Senate President Mike Miller (Balance $644,233.77, Net Gain $264,350.45)
Big Daddy is capable of raising a whole lot more money than this and he certainly will. Miller does not need the money for himself. Instead, he will send it to tight Senate races across the state. Where will he invest? Where will he direct his donors? And how hard will Big Daddy try to get rid of his mortal enemy, Peter Franchot? Miller’s decisions will affect a lot of races in 2010.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Obama Means Less Drama for Maryland’s Budget (Updated)
The recently passed federal stimulus package will help Maryland balance its FY 2010 budget with fewer program and aid cuts than originally proposed by the Governor. But as of right now, the FY 2011 budget is projected to have a deficit of $630 million.
We reproduce the summary documents from the Governor’s revised budget plan below:
A few notes:
1. Federal dollars free up state money
The state is applying net federal additions in the amounts of $382 million in FY 2009, $435 million in FY 2010 and $392 million in FY 2011 to its operating budget. These include writing off assumed federal stimulus of $350 million in both FY 2010 and FY 2011. The actual federal funds proved to be much larger than the Governor originally assumed. The extra federal money enables the state to avoid layoffs, support community colleges and bolster some of its departments (including the state police).
2. Medicaid and education
These are the two biggest uses of federal non-transportation money. The state received increased Medicaid assistance of $420 million in FY 2009, $560 million in FY 2010 and $300 million in FY 2011. On education, the state using $721 million of federal assistance to fully fund the Geographic Cost of Education Index, growth in broader Thornton education spending and growth in teachers retirement costs. This is a boon to the Montgomery, Prince George’s and Baltimore City governments and is greatly damaging to Senate President Mike Miller’s efforts to pass teacher pensions down to the counties.
3. More aid to the counties
All counties except Worcester and Somerset will receive more education aid. The leaders in terms of aid increases will be Prince George’s ($41.5 million), Baltimore City ($30 million), Montgomery ($26.8 million), Anne Arundel ($10 million) and Baltimore County ($9.5 million).
The budget problems may be eased for the moment, but they are hardly solved. The Comptroller is due to release more revenue estimates next month. The Governor assumes revenue writedowns of $300 million in FY 2009 and FY 2010 and $200 million in FY 2011, but the actual losses could be greater. The Governor projects a $630 million deficit in FY 2011 and outyear deficits could be exacerbated by the disastrous results of the slots bids. And the counties still have major problems. Montgomery’s $26.8 million education aid increase is nice, but it is still facing a half-billion dollar deficit.
I am sure the politicians will have great fun dealing with next year’s budget problems as they are running for re-election!
Update: Montgomery County's FY 2010 budget deficit is now $520 million.
The Money Chase: Montgomery County Offices
Today, we examine the campaign funds of Montgomery’s county-level office holders. All data pertains to the year ending 1/14/09.
Strongest Position
1. George Leventhal, At-Large (Balance $59,677.53, Net Gain $366.03)
Leventhal is the strongest of the at-large members. He has a broad base that reaches into every important group and every corner of the county. He finished first in the 2006 Democratic primary and is the early favorite to do it again. If Leventhal dominates in 2010, he will be a prominent mention for higher office in 2014.
2. Nancy Floreen, At-Large (Balance $33,206.64, Net Gain $11,188.95)
Floreen is the only at-large member to survive 2006 without getting on the Apple Ballot. She always raises money and works hard at election time. A supporter of union contracts in 2008 and the county’s prevailing wage law, she should have more labor backing in 2010. Floreen is a shrewd survivor who can never be underestimated.
3. Phil Andrews, District 3 (Balance $45,646.22, Net Gain $11,211.99)
Andrews refuses developer and PAC contributions but still has enough money to win. He is the most aggressive door-knocker on the County Council. Most labor unions despise Andrews, but their disastrous foray into Gaithersburg’s 2007 city elections may weaken their influence in District 3.
4. Valerie Ervin, District 5 (Balance $3,193.10, Net Gain $386.12)
District 5 has a history of close races. Derick Berlage won a five-candidate Democratic primary when the seat was created in 1990. Eight years later, Berlage won a hard-fought contest against Marc Elrich. Tom Perez triumphed in a four-way primary in 2002. But Valerie Ervin won the open seat by 24 points in 2006 and may not have a primary challenge next time.
Needs to Do More
1. Duchy Trachtenberg, At-Large (Balance $1,016.16, Net Gain -$2,475)
The county’s public employee unions endorsed Trachtenberg in 2006, but they are now very upset with her over her advocacy for a 2-point COLA cut in 2008 and her recent support of a bill that threatens collective bargaining. Other than the GLBT community and a few parts of the civic community, not many influential groups inside the county are making Trachtenberg’s re-election a top priority. Added to all this is that only 33.7% of Trachtenberg’s campaign contributions have come from Maryland sources since she began her political career in 2002.
2. Marc Elrich, At-Large (Balance $1,392.79, Net Gain -$100)
Elrich, who refuses developer contributions, always has money problems. He depends on a large grassroots network that agrees with his positions on growth and fiscal restraint. Unlike many politicians, Elrich is more focused on pursuing his policy proposals than doing political chores like schmoozing and fundraising. Labor support will be key for his re-election.
3. At-Large Challengers
No at-large contenders that we are hearing about have county-wide name recognition. The cost of building that name ID will be at least $300,000. Any challengers must start raising large amounts of money NOW.
4. Mike Knapp, District 2 (Balance $2,638.53, Net Gain -$7,690.32)
If Knapp is thinking of challenging County Executive Ike Leggett, he is not raising the money for it. If he remains in District 2, his combination of business and labor support should make him as strong an incumbent as last time. Knapp paid out $6,968.25 in rent and office expenses last year, an amount that exceeded any other Council Member.
The Wild Card
Doug Duncan, Former County Executive (Balance $331,545.46, Net Gain -$1,352.66)
We have heard no credible rumors that Duncan will be running for office in 2010, although he is certainly unhappy with the state’s political leadership. So what will he do with all that money? Duncan can still be an effective behind-the-scenes player in Montgomery County if that’s what he wants to do. Even another run for County Executive is not totally out of the question.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Ficker Moves to District 4 to Run in Special Election
Nancy Navarro Announces for District 4
We post Navarro's press release below.
##FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE##
Tuesday, February 23, 2009
Nancy Navarro Launches Online Announcement for
Montgomery County Council Candidacy
Campaign Promises to Build Broad Coalition of New Generation Democrats
SILVER SPRING, MD - Board of Education Member, Nancy Navarro, today formally launched her campaign for Montgomery County Council, through an online video announcement. The biographical video is posted simultaneously on: Maryland Politics Watch blog (http://maryland-politics.blogspot.com), as well as Navarro's Facebook Group, "New Generation Democrats Supporting Nancy Navarro for County Council."
View the video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgj_Sl3uYZA
Navarro commented, "When I ran for County Council this time last year, I talked about promoting the politics of possibilities and trying to seek common ground between the often divergent viewpoints of residents in Montgomery County. But with our local and national economy at a crisis point, it is more important now than ever that we embrace President Obama’s call for renewed involvement at the local level and for a unified voice for positive change.”
Promising to transcend the past disputes that have divided County residents, Navarro hopes to build bridges between the traditional constituencies of civic activists, environmentalists, business and labor - but to also reach out to the seniors, young voters, working families and communities of color too often ignored in local politics. "The challenges facing Montgomery County are too serious and pressing for us to focus on what divides us. My campaign will be driven by a solution-oriented approach that seeks common ground to create jobs and protect services for seniors and working families."
Navarro's campaign team includes:
• Campaign Manager David Moon (Former Manager for Sen. Jamie Raskin, Purple Line NOW!, & Navarro's past Council bid)
• Deputy Manager Jackie Lichter (Former State Director for SEIU's Obama Virginia Effort, SEIU Local 500 Political Director)
• Field Director Ken Silverman (Former Iowa Field Organizer, John Edwards for President)
• Outreach Coordinator Patti Devlin (President, Flower Valley Citizens' Association, Consultant on Working Families Issues)
• Campaign Chair Oscar Ramirez (Former Virginia Policy Director for Obama for America, Chief of Staff to Congresswoman Hilda Solis)
For more information on Nancy Navarro, visit: http://www.NancyNavarro.org.
###
Five Reasons Why the MSM Should Cover the District 4 Race
Like many of you, I am mystified about why the mainstream media (MSM) is virtually ignoring the District 4 special election. As I understand that many representatives from the MSM read this blog, I’d like to offer my pitch for why this race is worth covering.
1. A compelling list of candidates
The four declared Democratic candidates are all archetypal Montgomery politicians. Ben Kramer is a businessman who comes from one of the county’s great political families. Nancy Navarro grew up in Venezuela, worked her way up from the PTAs to the School Board and enjoys a broad base of support in the labor, business, immigrant and progressive communities. Cary Lamari is a classic civic activist who has been a pugnacious political player for more than a decade. And Chris Paladino is a fresh face with good experience in the non-profit and business worlds. How could it be any better than this?
2. A wild race
Kramer, Navarro and Paladino will all have the monetary resources necessary to compete and Lamari should be able to put together a good volunteer base. That will give every candidate (and their supporters) enough ammo to go after each other, a fight that has already started on this blog. Throw in the shenanigans at the Board of Elections and this race could be wilder than the last one.
3. Balance of power on County Council
With Mr. Praisner’s passing, the council has returned to an informal 4-4 split. The District 4 winner will break the tie just as the council is heading into its 2009 Annual Growth Policy review.
4. Testing ground for 2010
Which issue will matter most in the special election? Growth? Traffic? Developer contributions? Jobs? Education? Rightly or wrongly, the course of this contest will be seen as a preview for the county elections in 2010.
5. It’s yer frickin job!
Come on now, I’m an MSM reader just like everybody else here. Unlike me, you MSM reporters are actually paid for your work. Is it too much to ask to get some backup on our reporting? Please? Pretty please?
OK readers, let’s see if there will be any MSM articles on District 4 this week.
The Money Chase: Montgomery County Delegation
Once again, it’s time to look at the mother’s milk of politics: cold, hard cash. Today, we examine the campaign funds of Montgomery’s statehouse delegation, as well as those of a few potential challengers. All data pertains to the year ending 1/14/09. We then weed through the data (with a little help from our informants) to determine who is in the strongest position and who needs to do more.
Strongest Position
1. Senator Rob Garagiola, D-15 (Balance $139,291.38, Net Gain $65,413.67)
Garagiola has far more money than he needs to win re-election, so he has the luxury of spreading his money to other Democrats around the state. That’s a sure way to build alliances, move up in leadership and keep Big Daddy happy.
2. Senator Brian Frosh, D-16 (Balance $138,876.99, Net Gain $30,400.42)
Frosh is invulnerable in his home district but must spread money around to other Democratic Senators to have a shot at succeeding Mike Miller. Fellow Senate President contender Mac Middleton has more money ($164,747.09) and may be better at playing this game than Frosh.
3. Senator Rich Madaleno, D-18 (Balance $10,726.87, Net Gain $2,514.58)
The money is irrelevant; Madaleno is immune to challenge in his district. If he ever tapped into the GLBT community and the connections associated with his seat on the Senate’s Budget and Taxation Committee, he would be a formidable fundraiser.
4. Delegate Brian Feldman, D-15 (Balance $60,168.93, Net Gain $29,348.62)
Feldman receives near-universal respect from our spies for his position in his district and his rapidly growing stature as Chair of Montgomery’s House Delegation. His fundraising total strongly suggests that he is not running against Comptroller Peter Franchot.
5. Senator Jamie Raskin, D-20 (Balance $50,761.48, Net Gain $23,776.80)
Liberal hero will be unchallenged in 2010. He would be raising even more money if it were not for his massive fundraising expenses ($37,092.58 last year).
6. Delegate Anne Kaiser, D-14 (Balance $30,394.02, Net Gain $8,349.39)
Smart steady Eddie has lots of fans among our spies. One of Montgomery’s best hopes for a rare high-ranking Committee Chair.
7. Tie between Delegate Tom Hucker, D-20 (Balance $62,703.49, Net Gain $35,402.91) and Delegate Heather Mizeur, D-20 (Balance $67,000, Net Gain $13,695)
Both freshmen have locked down their seats. Mizeur was the only freshman picked by our readers as one of the most influential elected leaders in Montgomery County last year. Hucker has raised 66% of his total contributions from businesses, PACs and political clubs. Many of our informants believe these two are destined to one day run against each other for Senate.
9. Delegate Saqib Ali, D-39 (Balance $87,423.54, Net Gain $63,631.29)
The King of Facebook is also the King of the Cash Drawer. Ali’s net gain far exceeded any other Montgomery Delegate. He is constantly rumored to be thinking of a challenge to Senator Nancy King (D-39).
10. Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher, D-18 (Balance $53,824.73, Net Gain $23,619.16)
Waldstreicher is the top fundraiser on a united slate. He put on a campaign clinic in 2006 and is ready to do it again next year.
11. Delegate Roger Manno, D-19 (Balance $48,474.03, Net Gain $24,836.74)
Only one thing seems certain in ultra-chaotic District 19: Manno is the most popular office-holder and will be back in 2010.
12. Delegate Bill Frick, D-16 (Balance $35,413.93, Net Gain $5,238.40)
Our informants name Frick as one of the delegation’s brightest people with the most potential to move up. He has raised money and consolidated his hold on his seat amazingly fast given his status as a 2007 appointee.
Needs to Do More
1. Senator Jennie Forehand, D-17 (Balance $71,044.34, Net Gain $4,705.66)
Forehand is already facing a challenge from former Delegate Cheryl Kagan, who raised $20,634.69 last year and has $44,224.76 in the bank. Kagan is smart, aggressive, highly-motivated and knows how to win in District 17. Some spies are comparing this contest to the Jamie Raskin – Ida Ruben Senate race in 2006.
2. Delegate Kirill Reznik, D-39 (Balance $11,725.30, Net Gain -$1,134.85)
Reznik, who is an appointee and has never run for office, is not raising enough money. If Saqib Ali challenges Nancy King, Reznik will not benefit from a unified slate. Will Hugh Bailey, who vied with Reznik for the appointment, challenge him in 2010?
3. Delegate Jim Gilchrist, D-17 (Balance $9,577.60, Net Gain $6,970.00)
Gilchrist defeated Ryan Spiegel by just 519 votes in 2006. Spiegel is now a Gaithersburg City Council Member after winning endorsements from Mayor Sidney Katz and several labor unions. If Gilchrist does not look stronger, Spiegel may be tempted to try again. Also complicating the situation is a possible open seat if Delegate Luiz Simmons joins Cheryl Kagan in running against Senator Jennie Forehand.
4. Senator Nancy King, D-39 (Balance $40,217.23, Net Gain $21,713.61)
King is facing a potential challenge from Delegate Saqib Ali, who has more than double her campaign balance ($87,423.54). A King-Ali race will not turn on money alone but King needs to make sure she has enough cash to compete.
5. Delegate Craig Rice, D-15 (Balance $23,626.28, Net Gain $16,831.15)
District 15 is home to some of Maryland’s wealthiest communities and Rice won by just 152 votes last time. Those two facts together mean that Rice needs to be raising more money than he is.
6. Delegate Henry Heller, D-19 (Balance $2,785.65, Net Gain -$684.90)
Most of our informants do not expect Heller to run again.
Challengers
As we discussed above, former Delegate Cheryl Kagan is mounting an energetic insurgency against Senator Jennie Forehand (D-17). This will be one of the marquee races in 2010 and we will give it more attention in a future post. District 18 Delegate candidate Dana Beyer (Balance $1,764.67, Net Gain $1,503.16) has never stopped running since her fifth-place finish in 2006. She has been making some noise on this blog and on her website, but she is not raising enough money to compete against a full slate. After loaning herself $75,000 in 2006, she may be looking at self-funding again. Former Delegate candidates Regina Oldak (D-16) and Ryan Spiegel (D-17) are not raising money or declaring their intentions - yet. Hank Heller’s possible retirement could set off another free-for-all in District 19. That is the same district in which two incumbent Delegates ran for Senate in 2006 - and lost.
Special Mention
Delegate Kumar Barve, D-17 (Balance $53,250.61, Net Gain -$2,562.21)
Despite his recent escapades, we do not see Barve as vulnerable. But as the House Majority Leader, he should have a bigger campaign account. We believe Barve should exploit his status as the funniest man in Annapolis to hold a ticketed event: “Bad Boy Comedy Hour with Kumar and Friends.” On warm-up: salty-tongued Senate President Mike Miller and a special reading of Saqib Ali’s latest Facebook updates.
Disclosure: I am the Treasurer of the District 18 Democratic Team.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Down With the Fairness Doctrine – Again
The Fairness Doctrine, which holds that the government has a right to mandate “balance” in broadcast media, is an oozing pimple on the face of liberalism. And like most pimples, it is difficult to get rid of and grows uglier the longer it is present.
Last summer, we wrote the following against the Fairness Doctrine:From a policy perspective, the government should regulate speech – especially political speech – as sparingly as possible. (Some consider campaign contributions to be speech, but I consider them to be exercises of influence – a different thing entirely.) Free speech is the ultimate weapon owned by the citizens to exercise their sovereignty over the government. The content of that speech should be their decision alone.
Unfortunately, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow must not read this blog. The Politico reported this exchange between Stabenow and liberal radio host Bill Press:
From a tactical perspective, liberals look intolerant and fearful when they push the Fairness Doctrine. An independent observer would look at their efforts to use government power to muzzle the other side and think, “What are you afraid of?” There is nothing to fear from conservative ideas. Learn from them, steal any of the good ones and oppose the rest of them. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan forged a great career from doing exactly that…
I have several fairness doctrines. They’re called the remote control, the radio dial, the mouse and the off button. When I use them, no one’s free speech rights are abridged. Alternatively, if you don’t like speech from the other side, there are three constitutional things you can do about it:
1. Ignore it.
2. Debate it.
3. Defeat it at the ballot box.
But to use government power to censor it? Restrict it? Shut it down? That may work in Communist China, but not in the land of the free and the home of the brave.BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?
Those who favor the Orwellian-titled “Fairness Doctrine” have a backwards understanding of our First Amendment. Citizens who exercise their right of free speech are not accountable to the government. It is the government that is accountable to citizens exercising their right of free speech. Down with the Fairness Doctrine!
SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.
BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?
SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Board of Elections Plan Targets Navarro Precincts for Closure (Updated)
If implemented, the precinct closure plan recommended by Montgomery County Board of Elections Executive Director Margaret Jurgensen would disproportionately close precincts that voted for Nancy Navarro in 2008. That fact is abundantly clear from publicly-available information that is easily available to the board.
Below is a list of all District 4 precincts, their planned diversions to other precincts, and their turnout and winner in the 2008 District 4 special election. Click on the image for a larger view.
Of the 22 precincts won by Don Praisner, 8 will be closed and diverted to other precincts while 14 will remain undisturbed. Of the 21 precincts won by Nancy Navarro, 13 will be closed and diverted to other precincts, 7 will be undisturbed and 1 will have its voting location changed (to the Marilyn J. Praisner Community Recreation Center).
But there is more. Of the 5 precincts that had the highest turnout rates for Don Praisner, none will be diverted. Of the 5 precincts that had the highest turnout rates for Nancy Navarro, 4 will be diverted. The two precincts in Leisure World, which went for Mr. Praisner by 15 points and gave him 44% of his margin, will be left undisturbed even though they were split in two less than two years ago.
Furthermore, Navarro won a disproportionately large share of precincts with high black and Latino populations. By targeting Navarro’s precincts for shutdown, the Board of Elections plan may very well inconvenience black and Latino voters at greater rates than white voters.
This is the second major blunder by the Board of Elections’ Executive Director in less than a year. Just two months ago, Maryland’s Court of Appeals ruled the board made two major mistakes in its rulings on a referendum proposed by opponents of Montgomery County’s new transgender anti-discrimination law. First, the court found the board inaccurately calculated the signature threshold for getting the referendum on the ballot. Second, the court found the board should have checked the validity of petition signatures rather than merely count them. The board’s mistakes cost the county untold thousands of dollars in unsuccessfully defending a lawsuit against the referendum by supporters of the anti-discrimination law.
And now the Board of Elections’ Executive Director is proposing a precinct shutdown plan that could very well swing the District 4 election against one of the candidates and potentially disadvantage black and Latino voters.
The Board of Elections must pre-empt another debacle in the making and kill this plan. And perhaps it should reconsider the continued employment of its Executive Director as well.
Update: One reader pointed out that former County Executive Doug Duncan called for the resignation of the Executive Director over two years ago.
MoCo’s Least Liberal Senator? (Updated)
Montgomery County is known for sending liberal Senators to Annapolis. But we may have found an exception to the rule.
Six Montgomery Senators are co-sponsoring a bill allowing employees to sue employers for violations of the state prevailing wage law: Jennie Forehand (D-17), Brian Frosh (D-16), Nancy King (D-39), Mike Lenett (D-19), Rich Madaleno (D-18) and Jamie Raskin (D-20).
Five Montgomery Senators are co-sponsoring a bill to repeal the death penalty: Brian Frosh (D-16), Nancy King (D-39), Mike Lenett (D-19), Rich Madaleno (D-18) and Jamie Raskin (D-20).
Five Montgomery Senators are co-sponsoring a bill that provides for marriage equality: Rich Madaleno (D-18), Jamie Raskin (D-20), Jennie Forehand (D-17), Rona Kramer (D-14) and Mike Lenett (D-19).
Four Montgomery Senators are co-sponsoring a bill denying corporations the ability to deduct executive compensation exceeding 25 times the pay of their lowest employees from their taxable income: Brian Frosh (D-20), Mike Lenett (D-19), Rich Madaleno (D-18) and Jamie Raskin (D-20).
Three Montgomery Senators are co-sponsoring a bill that authorizes judges to order people subject to temporary protective orders to give up their firearms: Brian Frosh (D-16), Jennie Forehand (D-17) and Jamie Raskin (D-20).
The one name missing from the above lists is Rob Garagiola (D-15). In addition, the Sun lists him as the only Montgomery opponent of death penalty repeal in the Senate. Rona Kramer declined to answer the question.
Update: The Gazette has more on Garagiola, Kramer and the death penalty.
Free Wine for Lobbying
A group advocating for liberalization of Maryland's archaic restrictions on beer and wine imports is trying a new tactic: giving away expensive wine to whoever can bring the most people to testify at a hearing on their bill. Just be sure to drink it after you testify! Following is the blast email from Marylanders for Better Beer and Wine Laws.
From: Marylanders_for_Better_Beer__Win@mail.vresp.com
To: X
Subject: Free Bottle of '03 Opus One on 2/23?
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:48:28 +0000
Dear [X],
Our opposition, the wholesalers and select retailers, would like you to believe that massive underage drinking will occur if SB338 and HB1262 will occur. Every minor from Ocean City to Deep Creek will be ordering Boon's Farm - I kid you not, one retailer actually brought in a bottle to the senate hearing on Wednesday - to be delivered to their door, and the unwitting FedEx or UPS drivers will gladly turn it over to them. The Chancellor for the University of Maryland actually wrote in a letter expressing his concern that their students could have over-21 resident advisors sign for their packages. If the retailers are so good at checking ID, then why were there 130 underage drinking violations in Anne Arundel County in 2007 and none reported via direct shipment in the 35 states that allow it? Oh yeah, and Senator Raskin pointed out that those states cover 80% of our ~300 million citizens.
To deal with this ludicrousness, I am offering a bottle of '03 Mondavi Opus One (value: ~$200) to whomever brings the most friends to the House of Delegates hearing on Monday 2/23 (must be 5 or greater including you in your party). Here are the specifics:
Monday, February 23rd
1PM
Economic Matters Committee (ECM)
Room 231, House Office Building
6 Bladen St.
Annapolis, MD 21401
The Committee will be hearing 47 bills that day, so you must register in advance with Delegate Tom Hucker's office (Tom.Hucker@house.state.md.us, 301-858-3474) to appear on the docket. Please let Maria Topper there know your cell number as the bill itself will most likely not be heard until 3PM or later so she can be in touch with you about timing. I will plan to be there in person, and whomever shows up with the most friends will win the bottle of wine. We spent a lot of time talking about why we want the bill to pass at the MD Senate hearing but would better like to coordinate our testimony at this one. Once you let Maria know your and your friends' information, I can be in touch with you individually about the testimony.
Please let me know if you have any questions and make sure to send as many of your friends to our Facebook page as possible:
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/219249
Lastly, we have received some generous donations thus far but are always in search of more. As the fight seems so close, we need additional resources to get out the consumer voice, so please consider sending a few bucks our way:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=2184279
Hope to see you there!
Best,
Adam
Executive Director
Marylanders for Better Beer & Wine Laws
4315 Underwood Road
Baltimore, MD 21218
Tel: (443) 570-8102
http://www.mbbwl.org
Just Up the Pike Interviews Cary Lamari
As with all of Dan Reed's interviews, this one is a must-read.
The New E-Z Tax
By Rocky Lopes.
The Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) governing board voted on January 29, 2009, to impose cost-recovery fees for the Maryland E-ZPass system and increased tolls for certain classes of vehicles. As a casual user of E-ZPass, this caused me and many other Marylanders to become upset. The main issue that bothered many of us is that Maryland has now imposed the highest fees of any state that participates in the E-ZPass compact: $1.50 “account maintenance charge” assessed each month ($18/year), whether or not you use it, starting on July 1. (A state-by-state comparison is here).
The themes that many who are angry about this decision seem to agree on include:
1) The MdTA is an independent agency, governed by nine people appointed by the Governor; the Maryland General Assembly has no authority over any decisions made.
2) The MdTA had a comment period open about the new fee structure, but it was not widely publicized and seemed already to be a “done-deal” since I received a pre-written email defending their decision before the governing body met to formally consider it.
3) The word “fee” is just the same as another three-letter word, “tax.” Charge a fee or charge a tax; regardless, it comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers. But because it is a “fee,” the MdTA can impose it without legislative review. To many, this is a sneaky way to impose a tax.
Comments on articles written in several newspapers in the Baltimore and Washington Metro areas, as well as Red Maryland, indicate many Marylanders feel the same way.
E-ZPass offers a convenient way to bypass lines to pay tolls by cash in 13 states. Quoting from the Maryland’s EZ-Pass page, “with E-ZPass, you don’t need to worry about finding correct change for tolls or waiting in traffic! This convenient technology lets drivers pay their fees in advance and bypass toll station bottlenecks.”
Not only does E-ZPass offer a convenient method to get through toll plazas quickly, I have heard many elected officials in our state extol the virtues that using electronic toll collection methods reduces air pollution because cars aren’t idling in long lines wasting fuel.
The MdTA states on its website that the Chairman and eight Members of the Authority approved a cost-recovery initiative expected to generate approximately $60 million annually. It does not seem to be that the MdTA’s Governing Board really had a clue about how many of us will return our E-ZPass transponders to the state and close our accounts to avoid paying a nuisance tax, when we can get the same service from another participating state for free or for a far lower cost. I firmly believe this decision will backfire on them and our state, and not produce the projected revenues that they envisioned. I know that I am not alone in planning to return my Maryland E-ZPasses before the fees kick in on July 1.
The following is from an email that I received from someone at the MdTA writing for Ron Freeland, the MdTA’s Executive Secretary:You should know that monthly costs must still be paid by the Authority to the contractor who administers our E-ZPass system for each account, whether or not the account holder makes any trips. Even if the $1.50 charge per account is approved, we still will pay our contractor about $.25 more per account monthly that will not be passed along to our customers. Please be assured that we are not making money on this proposal, but rather attempting to recover the costs of operating the E-ZPass system.
It seems to me that the MdTA got itself into a rotten contract that is bilking them for a lot of money to operate the Maryland portion of the E-ZPass System, and that is why they are imposing the $1.50 monthly account maintenance charge.
My counter-proposal: since the Maryland General Assembly has not yet passed this year’s state budget, ask them to cut the budget for the Maryland Department of Transportation by a like amount - $60 Million. I suggest that they direct the funds be placed into a reserve to fund costs that the entire State of Maryland will incur from the Obama Administration's Environmental Protection Agency, which will get on our state's case about air pollution. We're already not doing so well in that regard – and many anticipate that the new Administration will be much more regulatory than the last one. Thus, I anticipate that our state will incur greater costs to combat pollution from vehicles - which E-ZPass decreases simply because vehicles don’t have to wait in long lines.
Mr. Freeland stated in an additional email message to me, “E-ZPass will still continue to offer convenient pre-paid tolling, significant time savings … and vehicle emissions reductions.” The irony here is incredible.
I offer my counter-proposal because I seriously think that the MdTA’s Governing Board, chaired by Transportation Secretary John Pocari, is being penny-wise and pound foolish – setting our state up for yet another disaster compounded by poor decision-making with anticipated revenues that will not nearly be met. When that happens, I’m certain we will see more “fees” imposed or increased, thus spiraling the problem into worse conditions.
Rocky Lopes is President of the Layhill Alliance and is a long-term civic activist in Montgomery County.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
MoCo Board of Elections: Close the Precincts
Montgomery County Board of Elections Executive Director Margaret Jurgensen is recommending that the county consolidate its polling places from 45 precincts to 22 for the upcoming special election. She cites potential savings of $47,000 in Election Judge payments and $7,000 in training costs. She believes the precinct closings are justified by low turnouts, but omits the fact that precinct closings are likely to further deter turnouts. Jurgensen's recommendation comes despite the fact that the County Council has already voted to oppose precinct closings. We reprint her memo below.
February 19, 2009
To: Montgomery County Board of Elections
From: Margaret Jurgensen, Election Director
Re: Polling places for the Special Elections for Council District 4
I am attached for your consideration the following items:
Calendar for the upcoming election
Polling place list representing two plans;
1. Consolidate precincts
2. Precincts available to the Board for use in special elections.
The staff of the Board of Elections recommends that the Board permit the consolidation of polling places for the County Council District 4 Special Election. It is our belief that with historically low voter turnouts for Special Elections, concerns of the school officials related to student safety and lack of parking at certain school facilities and the county administrations expressed request to contain costs related to the conduct of elections. the proposed solution of consolidating voting precincts to 22 locations is a reasonable response to cost containment. Additionally, the Election Judges have contacted the office to voice their opinion that precincts could be combined because the day is very slow due to a low turnout. Savings from consolidation of precincts would be around $47,000 in Election Judge payments and $7,000 in training costs. Board of Elections staff will be required to send postcards to notify the voters of these polling place changes. The sample ballot will be mailed with the ballot face and information regarding the polling place address, as always. Election Day will be easier to manage with internal staff as it will reduce locations in one half to verify compliance to the conduct of the election.
The County Council requested in their Resolution to the Board of Elections to use the same polling places as in the November 2008 election. If the Board directs the staff to return to all precincts used last fall, the Board will be allowed back into all locations but four. The three churches and Wheaton Moose Lodge have indicated that we should locate elsewhere this year. The advantage to this plan is voters will not be confused as to the location of their precinct to vote.
The County Council expressed their concern that moving voting sites will depress voter turnout and if the polling place is moved, additional signage will not motivate voters to vote at the temporary site. The disadvantage to this plan is parking at the schools remains a problem, some parents will complain about strangers allowed into the school for voting and Election Judges will again face a slow day with few voters. Chief Tom Manger from Montgomery County Police did attend the Council meeting and promised that the parking issues on the street and in the parking lots would be managed successfully Board staff will mail to the four precincts the location of the new voting centers. Staff will mail the sample ballot and have included a statement to encourage voting during those hours not associated with school start and dismissal times.
Staff will need a decision at the Board meeting on Monday. We will need to begin meeting with each school principal and building services manager to determine the location of the voting area in the building and install phone lines for communication links for all polling places.. We will not have the same location in the buildings as used in November in most cases but will be directed to sites used in the Special Elections. The school system will accommodate either decision
Saqib Stimulates the MoCo Delegation
MPW readers have seen before that Delegate Saqib Ali (D-39) is a vigorous man. Accordingly, his efforts to advocate for his local bill banning the sale of sexual stimulants to minors have gotten some members of Montgomery’s statehouse delegation aroused. But not in a good way!
Delegate Ali sent the following email to constituents of other Montgomery legislators urging them to tell their Delegates to vote for his bill:Subject: Ask Delegate X to Protect Kids From Dangerous Chemicals!
Several of Delegate Ali’s colleagues received emails citing this one. As a result, a few of them got pretty hot and bothered – and without any chemical aid whatsoever. The bill was put on hold at a County Affairs Committee meeting on 2/5/09. (One shameless Delegate actually wondered aloud whether the penalties were “stiff enough.”) Delegate Ali withdrew the bill six days later.
Dear Friend,
Today I'm writing to you with an urgent request like none I have ever asked of you before. I need your help in passing some very important legislation currently being considered by the Maryland General Assembly. I hope you can spare 5 minutes reading this email and taking some quick action to help a very good cause.
I have recently proposed legislation to protect children in Montgomery County from having access to certain “herbal supplement” products. If you visit a few area gas-stations or convenience stores, you may be surprised (as I was) to find Herbal Sexual Stimulant pills being sold next to the candy-bars. This sounds like a joke, but it is absolutely true. They are sold under sleazy names such as “Horny Goat Weed” and “Stamina-Rx”. These pills are sold over-the-counter without restriction for $6 - $8 each to anyone who wants them. Next time you fill up your gas tank, go inside and ask the store clerk.
There are numerous risks to public safety caused by the unrestricted sale of such pills:
These pills are not approved by the FDA. So there are very little safety standards in place.
These pills are sold over-the-counter but contain prescription drugs
Each packet is labeled with a warning that children under 18 should not use them. Yet they are sold to people of all ages.
There are numerous reports of teenagers abusing these pills for recreational and experimental purposes.
These pills are known to cause the medical condition priapism which is very dangerous and potentially lethal.
These pills can cause lethal reactions if mixed with other medications.
The age of sexual consent in Maryland is 16. So children under that age really shouldn't be buying sexual products.
I have laid out the case against selling these pills in painstaking detail with footnotes and references to scientific journals. You can see that entire case by clicking here.
For this reason, I have introduced “MC-908/09: The No So-Called Sexual Stimulants For Kids Act”. This bill would ban the sale of sexual stimulant pills to anyone under 18 years old. This bill will face its first vote sometime later this week.
However, I need your help. You see, I'm not sure if there are enough votes to pass this bill. I need every vote I can get. However, your representative -- Delegate X -- hasn't committed to voting for this bill. Could you pick up the phone and call Delegate X’s office right now? And could you send Delegate X an email too? I hope your call might help convince Delegate X to vote for this common-sense public safety measure.
Here is the contact information:
Tel #: (410) 841-XXXX
Email: [delegate.x]@house.state.md.us
Please make sure to:
Use your full legal name
Include your residential address
CC: Delegate@SaqibAli.org on any email you send.
Ask that a written response be provided to you
Be polite and respectful but clear in your request. Here is what you can say and write:
“Dear Delegate X,
As your constituent and a faithful voter, I earnestly ask you to vote for MC-908/09: The No So-Called Sexual Stimulants For Kids Act. This is a common-sense public safety measure that will keep dangerous chemicals out of the hands of our children.
Please let me know at the earliest if I can count on you to vote for MC-908/09 later this week.
Sincerely
Your Name Here
Your Address Here”
Please make the call, and send the email right now, before it gets too late!
Please let me know the response you get.
Delegate Saqib Ali
www.SaqibAli.org
(301) 685-3409
Friends of Saqib Ali, Authority Christopher Wilhelm, Treasurer
Expect more stimulation next year.
Doug Duncan’s Budget Record
Former County Executive Doug Duncan’s call for zero-based budgeting reminds us that he had a substantial role in formulating county budget policy for a long time. From the county’s FY07 and FY09 budget reports, here is a history of government spending and employee work years from FY98 on. (Click on the images for larger views.)
The county’s property tax charter limit was broken in FY 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2009. The first three breaks occurred during the Duncan administration.
Council District 4 Special Election Preview, Part Four
In Part Three, I gave my take on this race. Now we consult a group of our spies who have knowledge of this district. None of them have committed to support any of the candidates at this point. Here’s what they had to say.
Spy #1:The race will effectively be between Navarro and Kramer, the other two won't have the name recognition or campaign experience to put together a serious campaign over the short term. Anecdotally, a lot of people seem to think Kramer has an edge because of name recognition, money, and the large concentration of Jewish voters on the western side of District 4. But I think Navarro has the edge right now for a couple of reasons:
Spy #2:
1. Last year, she came within 350 votes of beating the widower of the beloved former councilmember, quite a feat given the sympathy Marilyn's death elicited in the electorate and the institutional power that had lined up behind Don.
2. Kramer has never run a great campaign, he squeaked in to his delegate seat after running a lackluster race and his performance in the precincts that overlap D19 and Council 4 was unimpressive.
3. In a special election with a short timeline money only helps so much and at some point you experience diminishing returns on your 10th or 12th mailing - and anyway Navarro is starting with 40k in the bank.
4. Navarro at least right now has the better team of organizers. David Moon is very good at what he does.
So I'd put my money on Navarro, but, in politics, there's never a sure thing.As I see this race shaping up, it will come down to two candidates: Ben Kramer and Nancy Navarro. Chris Paladino is impressive, earnest and well motivated, and he will be able to self-fund, but for a first time candidate, a special election with very low turnout is going to favor those with name-ID going in, so unless lightning strikes, I don’t see him making it. No one else has a shot.
Spy #3:
Ben Kramer will run well in his part of the district, including Leisure World, where he and his dad are very popular, and this alone might be enough to take it. He has deep ties in the district and most of the local business community will line up behind him, given his longstanding ties there, and Ben is a likeable guy with a record of supporting job creation that will resonate well in this economy. A candidate with real business experience may be more attractive than ever now as voters look for leadership to help chart our way out of this fiscal mess. Also, he reportedly did some polling before the last race and the numbers looked very good for him for what that’s worth. He will be a real contender and is probably the front-runner going in.
Nancy Navarro is the other candidate with a real chance of winning this thing. She can pull together the broadest coalition, labor, minority groups, some business leaders, and she has the right inclusive message about expanding economic opportunity, a good theme in a time like this, and a balanced view on growth and transportation issues, plus she has positive name ID from last time. But her chances depend on running a highly disciplined and focused campaign and we will see if she does a better job this time at turning her supporters out in a low-turnout special election. If she does, she might overcome Ben’s advantage in Leisure World. Last time there was a great “sympathy” factor that worked to Mr. Praisner’s advantage but I don’t see that happening this time. District 4 voters have gone down that road, and many who did not support Nancy last time have commented recently that they regretted backing Don. They won’t do that again, even if another Praisner family member jumps in. Some of that potential support may be more comfortable with Nancy than with Ben on issues, and some may go with Ben because the civic crowd so harshly and unfairly demonized Nancy last time. We’ll see, but I think some of that vote will break her way and that makes her a contender.
As for Cary Lamari, let’s face it, the guy is a shallow, hypocritical windbag who loves to hear himself talk, but he is well outside the mainstream and his appeal is very narrow. He has been preaching his Johnny-one-note anti-growth message (anti-jobs, anti-housing, etc.) for years. This may resonate with some in the militant civic crowd, but I don’t see that message resonating at all with voters in the midst of a deepening economic crisis, and he will not be able to win over labor, teachers and other public employees, minorities or local businesses – all of whom pay the price for his “let’s all go back to the ‘60s” stance. If he were elected, you could count on a declining tax base and lots more furloughs and layoffs for public employees, teachers, firefighters, etc. for years to come. I think people get that connection now, and understand the “no-growth=no-jobs” equation: We need some job growth, some new roads and transit, and some new home construction to keep our economy alive. He talks a “smart growth” game, but his record is anti, anti, anti. Now we’ve seen what happens to our budgets when we bring everything to a grinding halt and it’s not pretty. It is interesting that he continues to blast away at the building and development industry, when he has dabbled in those industries himself as a small-time would-be builder and developer. Anyway, the good news is, he’s got about as much chance of winning as George W. Bush has of beating Martin O’Malley in the 2010 Democratic Party Primary in Maryland. That would be zero, zip, nada, and that is a good thing for you and me.
Ike has got to be smarting from his role last time too. What a mistake he made. He is the main reason Don won the seat, and how many times could Ike count on Don’s vote these last few months? Now District 4 is again deprived of leadership at a critical time, plus Ike took a lot of heat from the minority community that he is still paying for. Don’t look for him to get as visibly involved this time.I believe the only candidate in the race thus far deserving of support is Cary Lamari. Mr. Kramer is beholden to the business and developer community and this county needs an advocate for neighborhoods. Ms. Navarro too has taken an inordinate amount of money from developers and Supt. Weast's support of her against Don Praisner shows that as a Board of Ed member she showed no independence and served as a rubber stamp for him. Weast's record is an extremely tainted one and his arrogance about relating to the communities he is supposed to serve has reached epic proportions. As to Mr. Paladino, nothing is known about him for the reason he has done nothing in and for our communities and it is the height of egotism and arrogance for him to come forward to desire to represent one fifth of the county with absolutely no record of activism at anything.
Spy #4:
No one in this race is more knowledgable on county issues nor more concerned for our communities than Cary Lamari. His service as President, of his Civic Association and of the Montgomery County Civic Federation is only a small reason why his experience is head and shoulders above the rest.
It is my opinion that Kramer will attempt to buy this election as he did the delegate seat he now holds. A family name is no qualification for the office he seeks.The only candidate who would genuinely reflect what the voters have gotten from Marilyn is probably Cary and he'll never get the resources to mount a credible campaign. Cary would most likely vote like Marilyn 95% of the time. The unions probably wouldn't find him more friendly than Marilyn or Don, and he's not going to lie down and play dead for Weast. I think Paladino will have a ton of money from the developers and business folks who gave a lot to Nancy, but he has almost no community connections. Debates are sparsely attended and it will be hard to get to know him via a mail campaign. They'll try to do with him what they did with Nancy - paint the landscape with his flyers and try to buy it. It's hard to say where he is because he hasn't answered any hard questions, but you got to figure that the Chamber and business interests don't line up behind a candidate that they don't think/know will take care of them. I don't think Nancy can win - the unions are tapped out for money and a bunch of her $$$ supporters have gone to Paladino. The power play for an election during vacation failed, nice try though, so her road gets harder. There are also one, possibly two, more minority candidates in the race who won't have much money or ground game, but they could sap some of her vote.
Spy #5:
All that said, I think Ben likely wins and he'll eschew taking any developer money, so I heard, and then play that against Nancy. He's less of a developer, in the actual world, than he's perceived to be - he owns a couple of shopping centers but he's not out there building housing or office buildings. He's going to have to fight off the perception, but like Paladino he'll have enough money to paint himself any way he wants to. He's very pro-business and he played a big role in fighting the millionaires tax. Not sure how that plays in a district without many millionaires. He has a base in Leisure World and Kemp Mill, the precincts that vote are very favorable to him and I heard an interesting number - 63% of the voters in the last special election were over 65.
It will be interesting.This is a tough one.
Last time, Nancy nearly upset the sentimental favorite Don Praisner with a combination of labor, business and the teachers, and by running a smart campaign where she raised a lot of money in a short time. Ben Kramer will take much of the business support away from Nancy. I see Leisure World as the issue here. Ben likely will have the support of Ike, and with his dad helping him work Leisure World, he will get a lot of votes there. Nancy has a strong coalition with minorities, teachers and unions. If she can take just enough of the vote from Leisure World, she may be able to pull it out. The question is, how much of the Leisure World vote does she need?
At this point, I would give Nancy a slight edge.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Where is MoCo's Transportation Stimulus? (Updated)
The recent stimulus transportation project list contains no projects exclusively located in Montgomery County. That is an interesting choice for the O'Malley administration.
The distribution of the Governor's project list is:
Statewide Safety, Resurfacing and Local Transit Vehicles: $203.8 million (55.8%)
Baltimore Region: $70.9 million (19.4%)
Baltimore City and Baltimore County: $39.3 million (10.8%)
Baltimore City: $30.4 million (8.3%)
Prince George's County: $6.3 million (1.7%)
Annapolis and Anne Arundel, Howard, MoCo and Prince George's: $5 million (1.4%)
Allegany, Charles, Frederick, Harford, Wicomico and Washington: $5 million (1.4%)
Anne Arundel: $3 million (0.8%)
Prince George's, Howard and Upper Shore Environmental: $0.7 million (0.2%)
Baltimore County: $0.4 million (0.1%)
Cecil County: $0.4 million (0.1%)
Total: $365.2 million
Montgomery will get a share of some of the safety, resurfacing and local transit vehicle purchase projects. But the Baltimore Region, Baltimore City and Baltimore County were targeted for a combined $141 million (or 38.6% of the stimulus total) in exclusive projects. Montgomery's percentage of exclusives? ZERO.
Update: In a new press release, MDOT reports that $33 million of the $203.8 million in safety, resurfacing and transit vehicle projects will be spent in Montgomery. The release states:Phase I projects in Montgomery County include road, safety and transit investments totaling nearly $33 million dollars. The projects include resurfacing portions of:
Our sources also tell us that the state may be counting federal investments in WMATA as targeted funds for Montgomery and Prince George's Counties.
- The Capital Beltway Between I-270 and the American Legion Bridge
- New Hampshire Avenue in White Oak;
- Old Georgetown Road near Bethesda; and
- University Boulevard in Wheaton.
Transit grant funding will be provided to the county for “Ride On” bus replacement or facility upgrades – the specifics of which will be determined with the county. Phase I projects in Montgomery County also will deliver everything from: new ADA compliant sidewalks and safety guardrails to traffic signal upgrades at key intersections.
Of course, if the state was really interested in making Montgomery whole, it could reimburse the county for the $73 million it is spending on jump-starting state projects. But there is no talk of that in Annapolis.
Marylanders Changing Their Minds on the Death Penalty
The conventional wisdom that Maryland is a pro-death penalty state is becoming less true by the day. New data from Gonzales Research paints a more complicated picture.
Gonzales Research has polled Marylanders on the death penalty in January 2009, March 2007 and May 2001. Respondents favoring the death penalty have fallen from 62% in 2001 to 57% in 2007 to 53% in 2009. Respondents opposing the death penalty have risen from 33% in 2001 to 37% in 2007 to 41% in 2009. The standard error of the three total samples is 3.5 points, meaning the changes (down 9 points in favor, up 8 points in oppose) are statistically significant. Below are breakdowns by sub-sample (click on the image for a larger view):
The sub-samples have higher standard errors because they have smaller sample sizes. Even so, the data suggests that the principal drivers of shifts in opinion come from changing attitudes among independents (favor down 16, oppose up 14), whites (favor down 11, oppose up 11) and men (favor down 13, oppose up 9). Independents are probably the fastest-growing political group in the state.
Gonzales also asked two questions comparing the death penalty to life without parole in 2009 and 2007. Below are the responses to those questions (click on the image for a larger view):
While the two questions may go to a similar intent, they are not identical. But together, they suggest that Marylanders lean towards life without parole as a superior option to the death penalty by a small-to-significant, and possibly growing, margin.
Maryland residents are changing their minds fast on the death penalty. But does the Maryland Senate hear them?
Fixing Senate Vacancies, Part Three
By Marc Korman.
In Parts 1 and 2 we reviewed previous Senate appointments and the current efforts to reform the process. Ending uninhibited gubernatorial appointments is a good idea. But it has to be done right. There are two important issues that need to be factored into any change: continuity of representation and continuity of Congress.
Continuity of representation means the ability of a state or district to have a continuous voice in Congress. One of the strengths of the current Senate appointment process is that vacancies in the 45 states allowing appointments are short-lived. So the residents of a state with a vacancy are not at a disadvantage in Congress.
In the case of Senators of course, two individuals represent each voter in each state, so more often than not they will at least have some representation. Contrast that with the House of Representatives, where each voter only has one representative. There are no appointments to fill House seats, only special elections. That can leave extended periods of time with unrepresented Congressional districts. For example, when Bob Menendez was appointed New Jersey’s US Senator in 2006, his House seat was vacant for nine months.
The point is that any vacancy should be as short as possible so that residents are almost always represented in both Houses of Congress without significant disruption. Delegate Ali’s state bill ensures that by allowing temporary appointments until the results of a special election are certified. The federal reform proposals do not address the issue. The downside to temporary appointments is that they could give whoever is appointed a leg up in a special election. If that creates opposition, then perhaps temporary appointees ability to run could be limited, either by a law or an unofficial agreement as is the current case with the Senate appointee from Delaware.
Continuity of Congress is a more esoteric issue and one we will hopefully never have to deal with. The issue is how the legislative branch recovers from a catastrophic terrorist attack, for example if Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11, had crashed into the Capitol and created mass vacancies. For a while after 9/11, the issue received a lot of attention. A Congressional task force examined the issue, Congress actually passed legislation calling for expedited House elections, and a joint Brookings Institute/American Enterprise Institute Commission issued a report.
All of the continuity discussions focused on the House because Senate appointments made that body much easier to reestablish after an attack. But as more states pass Special Election laws or a Constitutional amendment is ratified, that ability becomes less certain.
Again, Delegate Ali’s bill addresses that issue by allowing temporary appointments. If temporary appointments are found to be unacceptable in all circumstances, then perhaps they can be used only in the case of mass vacancies, say if a quarter or more of the Senate is vacant.
There are two main objections I have heard to special elections: lack of participation and cost. It is true that special elections have a much lower turnout than regularly scheduled elections, but in the case of a US Senator the race is high profile enough that the problem is somewhat mitigated. As for cost, it is true that democracy is expensive.
It is time to reform the Gubernatorial process for replacing US senators and move to special elections. But as needed reform moves forward, legislators should remember that continuity of representation and continuity of Congress are important issues too.
Council District 4 Special Election Preview, Part Three
At this moment, four candidates have declared their intention to run in the District 4 special election: Board of Education Member Nancy Navarro, Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19), former Montgomery County Civic Federation President Cary Lamari and former Red Cross official Chris Paladino.
Nancy Navarro
Last year, Navarro was the favorite until Don Praisner got in. Her campaign attracted more endorsements than the other campaigns combined. She raised more money ($104,221) than the other campaigns combined and starts this race with roughly $40,000 in the bank.
After coming within five points of a quasi-incumbent, Navarro is a battle-hardened candidate who knows what to expect from her opponents. Ben Kramer may peel away a substantial chunk of the business community, but Navarro will still enjoy support from labor, the immigrant and civil rights communities, and large parts of the district’s left. Best of all, her crack campaign operation is easily rebuilt (including the return of super-smart campaign manager David Moon) and she can rely on many of her friends from last year.
What Navarro must do to win
Even though Navarro won almost as many precincts (21) as Mr. Praisner (22), she lost because her precincts had lower turnout rates. Navarro must boost those rates a few points. That means contacting all of the elements of her base multiple times and getting them to come out strong. Navarro is the only candidate who can afford to lose Leisure World and still win, but she must retain the foothold she established there last time.
Ben Kramer
Kramer has run for office three times. He lost a District 2 County Council race to a Republican in 1994, lost an at-large County Council race in 1998 and won the third slot in the District 19 Delegate race by 307 votes.
There are 23 precincts in both State District 19 and County District 4. In 2006, here is how Ben Kramer fared in those precincts:
3rd place: 4 precincts
4th place: 8 precincts
5th place: 8 precincts
6th place: 1 precinct
7th place: 2 precincts
His mean finish was 4.5. He finished 3rd in Leisure World. This is not an encouraging performance, but he is not facing veteran Delegate Hank Heller (D-19) or hyperactive doorknocker Delegate Roger Manno (D-19) in this race. The Kramer family name (also held by former County Executive Sid Kramer and current District 14 Senator Rona Kramer, Ben’s father and sister) provides better name recognition than any other candidate except Navarro.
What Kramer must do to win
Kramer must dominate Leisure World and the Jewish precincts in the Kemp Mill neighborhood. He must then pick up as much support from older voters in other areas who remember his father as well as draw on his sister’s supporters in the eastern side of the district. Kramer will have to rebut charges connected to his commercial property ownership as well as his record in the General Assembly. Money won’t be a problem: Kramer has loaned his campaign fund $130,450 since 2006.
Cary Lamari
Lamari, a former Montgomery County Civic Federation President, ran for an at-large County Council seat in 2006. He finished 11th out of 13 candidates. Lamari stepped down from the last District 4 special election in favor of Mr. Praisner and worked extensively for him at Leisure World. Lamari will be the slow-growth candidate in the race.
What Lamari must do to win
Lamari must re-assemble the Praisner coalition. That means drawing out the slow-growth vote, making the case that he is the best candidate to implement the Praisners’ agenda of constituent service and fiscal austerity, and winning Leisure World. He faces two challenges. First, he must raise enough money to get his message out; the state campaign finance website does not list ANY contributions to him in 2006. Second, winning Leisure World will require significant effort with Kramer in the race. Leisure World gave Mr. Praisner 44% of its margin. If Lamari loses there, he cannot win.
Chris Paladino
Paladino is a former Red Cross official who now runs businesses in the private sector. Your author finds him to be smart and motivated. But he will have to be a quick study to best three better-known candidates who have all run before.
What Paladino must do to win
This is a difficult question to answer without knowing what Paladino thinks about the issues and what targeting he plans to do. He has a very substantial challenge. If Kramer locks up the senior and Jewish vote, Lamari gets the slow-growth vote, and Navarro gets the union member, non-white and liberal vote, there may not be enough votes left to give Paladino a victory. One plus for Paladino is that he plans to put as much of his own money into his campaign to be competitive, but then again, so did Steve Kanstoroom.
Tomorrow, we will ask our spies to size up this race.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
District 4 Tidbits (Updated)
Here's a few bits for all you D4 junkies!
1. Cary Lamari vs. the Post
Lamari is challenging his exclusion from the Post's election coverage with this comment on Maryland Moment:I would like to thank the Post for covering the Special Election, however just in case you didn't get my emails, I plan on running for the District 4 County Council Seat, I worked with Marilyn for 17 years as a Civic Activist and then worked to get Don Praisner elected last year. I will strive to promote the ideals and values both Marilyn and Don stood for. Please visit my wesite at: www.carylamari.net.
Lamari is a former President of the Montgomery County Civic Federation, a position of considerable importance in the county. The Post's decision not to mention him after the coverage of this blog - and more importantly, its decision not to correct its article - is an arrogant disservice to Montgomery County voters.
2. Crenca Endores Lamari
Former County Council Member Rose Crenca, who served three terms from 1978-1990, has released a statement supporting Lamari.
3. Ben Kramer's Website
Kramer's website is online. Its current banner says "Democrat for House of Delegates," but it mentions the April 21 primary date. His staff needs to take care of this.
4. Kramer Hires Eric Hensal
Speaking of staff... Eric Hensal, Don Praisner's campaign manager in 2008, has joined the Kramer campaign. Hensal is a political consultant who was once employed by the Painters Union and has represented the Washington DC Building Trades Council and the American Federation of Teachers.
Hensal has made some unusual choices for someone with a labor background. This election will mark the second time in a row he has opposed labor's favored candidate, Nancy Navarro. Hensal's last candidate, Mr. Praisner, voted with Phil Andrews against the county's prevailing wage law. Hensal also served as a consultant to Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg in her effort to obtain concessions from the public employee unions. These facts are attracting attention inside the county's labor movement.
5. Brenneman Advocating for Kramer
We hear that Fran Brenneman, a former Board of Education member who served as Ike Leggett's campaign manager, has been calling some influential people inside District 4 urging support for Ben Kramer. That raises some interesting questions about Leggett.
Back in 1998, Brenneman ran for an at-large County Council seat in the same election as Ben Kramer. The Gazette described the two as members of the "pro-growth camp." In 2006, Ben Kramer's father, former County Executive Sid Kramer, supported Ike Leggett and was named his honorary transition co-chair. This points to a mutually cooperative history between Leggett, Brenneman and the Kramers.
The problem for Leggett is that he ran on a slow-growth platform against Steve Silverman last time. Ben Kramer and his family are commercial property owners and are not known to favor growth restrictions. If Leggett endorses Kramer, he will risk losing some of the civic base that worked hard for him in 2006.
Something to keep an eye on, folks!
Update: We hear that Ike Leggett's campaign treasurer, Larry Rosenblum, is also supporting Ben Kramer.
Fixing Senate Vacancies, Part Two
By Marc Korman.
In Part 1, we reviewed some historical Senate vacancy appointments, including the recent appointments that have stirred interest in the topic of reform. In Part 2, we will look at state and federal efforts to reform the process.
The 17th Amendment, effective since 1913, says about vacancies:When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
All but the five states of Alaska, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Massachusetts allow their Governor to fill a Senate vacancy. Interestingly, Massachusetts allowed appointments until 2004. In that year, the Democratic legislature was concerned that Republican Governor Mitt Romney would appoint a Republican to replace John Kerry if he was elected president. The three states of Arizona, Hawaii, and Wyoming limit their Governor’s appointment power to the same political party as the outgoing senator.
Here in Maryland, Delegate Saqib Ali has introduced House Bill 369. The legislation would require Senate vacancies to be filled by Special Election. But until the Special Election, the Governor could make a temporary appointment. The legislation would not be enacted until 2015, after the current Governor will have an opportunity to serve two full terms.
At the Federal level, Senator Russ Feingold from Wisconsin has introduced a Constitutional amendment requiring elections to fill Senate vacancies. In the House, freshman Congressman Aaron Schock of Illinois has introduced a bill to require special elections, with the cost of conducting one being split between the state and the federal government. Since the 17th amendment specifically authorizes the state legislatures to empower governors to appoint, Congressman Schock’s proposal may not be enough to change the status quo.
So far, there has not been much legislative momentum for any of these proposals. Delegate Ali’s proposal has eleven cosponsors, five from Montgomery County. Senator Feingold and Congressman Schock both have two cosponsors. But there is interest outside of legislative bodies including from editorial boards and individual voters. Fighting for these changes may take years, but they are worth the effort to reform the process and give citizens a voice in electing their Senators. In Part 3, we will discuss some of the safeguards that should be included in the needed reform.
Council District 4 Special Election Preview, Part Two
The last election was tough but instructive. Here's a brief summary of what happened.
After Council Member Marilyn Praisner’s unfortunate passing, the first three candidates got into the race by the third week of February: Board of Education President Nancy Navarro, civic activist Steve Kanstoroom and Action in Montgomery co-founder Pat Ryan. Don Praisner got in at the end of the month and quickly consolidated support from four County Council Members and County Executive Ike Leggett. Navarro wrapped up the endorsements of nearly all the county’s unions, the Chamber of Commerce and progressive hero Donna Edwards. After Navarro’s splashy campaign kickoff and Mr. Praisner’s entry announcement with Ike Leggett at his side, the race effectively became a two-way contest.
Mr. Praisner was a grieving widower for a popular former County Council Member. That conferred on him a critical advantage: immunity to attack from the other candidates. Navarro, on the other hand, was criticized by her competitors for her association with school union contracts, campaign contributions from developers and a disastrous attempt by Superintendent Jerry Weast to line up union support on her behalf. She was also the only candidate to be attacked by illegal negative robocalls. Navarro had a superior campaign operation, more door knockers and much more money than Mr. Praisner but the above problems along with the Praisner name proved difficult to overcome.
In our wrap-up post last year, we summarized the geographic distribution of Mr. Praisner’s narrow victory this way:Council District 4 has 45 precincts. Of that number, Mr. Praisner won 22, Navarro won 21, Praisner and Navarro tied in 1 and Steve Kanstoroom won 1. (We predicted Kanstoroom’s win in Precinct 13-11 a week ago. Keep reading this blog, people!)
This time around, the issue matrix may be different. The school unions have already given up their cost of living adjustments after Navarro said they could not be afforded. Developer contributions may not be as easy to lay at Navarro’s feet if Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19), a long-time commercial property owner, claims an endorsement from the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce. And the poor state of the county’s economy may just swamp all other issues.
The precincts won by Mr. Praisner reported a combined turnout of 12.9%. Navarro’s precincts reported a combined turnout of 9.1%. That difference of 3.8 points contributed to Mr. Praisner’s margin of 348 votes.
But there’s more. Mr. Praisner won all five precincts reporting the highest turnouts, including Precincts 13-54 and 13-69 in Leisure World. Of the eight precincts reporting the lowest turnouts, Navarro won seven and tied with Praisner in the eighth.
The two Leisure World precincts had combined turnout of 20.5%, 9.3 points ahead of the district total. They reported 476 votes for Mr. Praisner (47% of their total), 323 votes for Navarro (32%), 166 votes for Kanstoroom (16%) and 45 votes for Ryan (4%). Leisure World by itself gave Mr. Praisner 44% of his victory margin.
Turnout was correlated with demographics. District 4 has seven precincts in which the Hispanic population topped 20% in the 2000 Census. Navarro won all seven. These precincts cast 267 votes for Navarro (50% of their Democratic total) and 179 for Mr. Praisner (34%). However, their turnout was only 7.6% - a full 3.6 points below the district’s total turnout.
District 4 has eleven precincts in which the black population topped 30% in the 2000 Census. Navarro won seven of these and Mr. Praisner won four. These precincts cast 583 votes for Navarro (47% of their total) and 509 for Mr. Praisner (41%). Navarro’s victory here is notable since Mr. Praisner’s biggest endorsement came from County Executive Ike Leggett, Montgomery County’s most prominent African American resident. These precincts reported a turnout of 8.4% - 2.8 points below the district’s total turnout.
District 4 has fifteen precincts outside of Leisure World in which the white population was at least 60% in 2000. Mr. Praisner won eight of these, Navarro won six and they tied in one. These precincts cast 1,016 votes for Mr. Praisner (44% of their total) and 936 votes for Navarro (40%). Turnout was 10.9%, almost equal to the district’s total turnout (11.2%). In the end, these precincts plus Leisure World accounted for 233 votes of Mr. Praisner’s 348 vote lead, or two-thirds of his margin.
Most importantly, the candidate lineup is different this time. We’ll look at the candidates and assess their chances of winning in Part Three.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Fixing Senate Vacancies, Part One
By Marc Korman.
The four US Senate vacancies as a result of the election of President Obama have created lots of headlines. As a result, there are federal and state efforts for reforming the process whereby vacancies are filled by gubernatorial appointments. These reforms are necessary, but safeguards should be included as well. In Part 1, we will review some historical and recent Senate vacancy issues. In Part 2, we will examine the proposed reforms at the state and federal level. In Part 3, we will discuss some of the needed safeguards to ensure that Senate vacancy reform is done properly.
Since the 17th amendment established direct election of senators in 1913, 184 individuals have been appointed to the US Senate. Maryland is one of four states to have never had a Senate vacancy filled by appointment since the 17th amendment. Of the185 appointees, 63 did not seek reelection in the next election, excluding Ted Kaufman of Delaware who is not expected to seek election in his own right. 54 other appointees were defeated in their reelection efforts.
Some of these appointments have been monumental. For example, New Mexico appointee Dennis Chavez was the first Hispanic-American to win election in his own right, running as an incumbent. Georgia appointee Rebecca Felton was the first woman to serve in the Senate, though her appointment only lasted one day. Hattie Caraway of Arkansas became the second woman senator by appointment. She was then reelected the following year.
Several well known and impactful Senators also began their legislative careers as appointees, including: Former Vice President and 1984 Democratic nominee Walter Mondale (D-MN); former Senator President Pro Tempore and now disgraced Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK); Senator Arthur Vandenberg (R-MI), known for his 180 degree repositioning on American internationalism after World War II; Senator Harry Byrd (D-VA), a long serving and active segregationist; Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC), who led the Watergate investigation in the Senate; and Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH), a well known progressive and former boss of County Councilman Roger Berliner.
The most recent Senate vacancies have been something of a train wreck. Although the appointees may yet go on to careers of distinction, the messy path that brought them to Washington will linger. In Illinois, the vacancy led to the impeachment of a Governor and days of uncertainty as to whether appointee Roland Burris would be seated. In Delaware, a Biden loyalist has been appointed to hold the seat until the Vice President’s son is prepared to run. In Colorado, appointee Michael Bennet was an official little known outside of Denver who has never run for elective office. Finally, the soap opera of the New York senate vacancy left much to be desired.
These are not the first questionable US Senate appointments. In 2002, Senator Frank Murkowski was elected Alaska’s governor and had the opportunity to fill his own seat. He did so by appointing his daughter, current Senator Lisa Murkowski. That led to outcry in the state and a new statute requiring special elections for US Senate vacancies. When John F. Kennedy moved to the White House in 1961, Kennedy loyalist Benjamin Smith was appointed to JFK’s former Senate seat as a placeholder until younger brother Ted Kennedy was constitutionally old enough to run.
In Part 2, we will look at the state and federal efforts to clean up the Senate appointment process.
Council District 4 Special Election Preview, Part One
As we did last year, MPW presents its exclusive preview of the District 4 special election. Today, we discuss the district itself.
Geography
From last year’s post: District 4’s boundaries are (roughly) the county line on the northeast and east, the outskirts of Olney and Brookeville on the north, Rock Creek and Veirs Mill Road on the west and Randolph Road, Four Corners and US-29 on the south. We reproduce the official district map below.
The district contains two distinct sub-sectors. The western sector includes the neighborhoods between the northern reaches of Wheaton and the southern outskirts of Olney. Much of this sector is accounted for by Aspen Hill. The eastern sector includes the US-29 corridor from White Oak to Burtonsville as well as the areas near the Howard County border. The dividing line between the sectors is New Hampshire Avenue. We make this distinction because these two sectors have very different demographics, as we shall see below.
There are no urbanized downtowns in District 4. The vast majority of the district is covered by single-family neighborhoods with only one Metro station (Glenmont) that is very close to the District 5 border. There are a few commercial strips along Georgia Avenue and Layhill Road in the west, US-29 and Cherry Hill Road in the east, and New Hampshire Avenue. But the lack of density robs the district of any centrally-recognized locations of social, political or civic activity.
Demographics
The Census Bureau’s 2005-2007 American Community Survey contains data on two Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) that correspond roughly to the western and eastern parts of District 4. We illustrate the demographics of those areas in comparison to the county below:
While Montgomery County is on the verge of becoming a “majority-minority” jurisdiction, District 4 is already there. It contains 41% of the county’s black population and 33% of its Hispanic population. It has slightly larger proportions of people who were born in other countries and speak a language other than English at home than the county as a whole. It has a lower median household income than the county average (especially in the western part of the district). But none of this diversity has yet reached its political representation. Seven of its eight state legislators are white and its County Council Member has been white since the district was created in 1990.
The 2008 Presidential Election
On a number of key measures, District 4 did not differ substantially from the county as a whole in the last general election.
On the presidential level, Montgomery County’s precincts voted for Barack Obama over John McCain by 71.0%-27.5%. District 4’s precincts voted for Obama by 71.2%-27.5%.
On the slots vote, Montgomery County voted in favor by 52.3%-47.7%. District 4 voted in favor by 54.2%-45.8%.
On the Ficker Amendment, Montgomery County voted in favor by 50.1%-49.9%. District 4 voted in favor by 51.3%-48.7%.
There are some important differences inside District 4. Rural areas in the northern part of the district were less likely to vote for Obama and more likely to vote for the Ficker Amendment than more liberal areas in Silver Spring. But District 4 is not as much of a political outlier in the county as is right-leaning District 2 or super-liberal District 5.
Tomorrow, we will discuss the last special election.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Doug Duncan on Vision in Maryland
Former County Executive Doug Duncan has written a sharply-worded Op-Ed in the Post criticizing state and local leadership. This is sure to make tongues wag. We reprint the piece below.
Where Has All the Vision Gone in Maryland?
Sunday, February 15, 2009; B08
Pity the poor Maryland state or local elected officials facing reelection in 2010. Their response to the fiscal crisis has been reactive and uninspired, and voters are getting angrier by the day. Montgomery County voters recently passed the Ficker amendment, a tax cap measure, as their first salvo.
No one in office today has ever seen anything like the current crisis. The economy is collapsing, tax revenue is in free fall, services must be slashed, job losses are accelerating, and home foreclosures are skyrocketing, and yet our state and local elected officials act as if they've been there and done that. Based on their response so far, we are in a run-of-the-mill recession with recovery just around the corner. So they do what they've always done: Raise taxes here, cut around the edges there, raid reserves everywhere, repeat every few months and pray that they get through their next election. No thought is given to rethinking, just going through the familiar drills.
Their one concession to how different these times are is to climb aboard the federal bailout bandwagon and cry "Feds to the rescue, Feds to the rescue!" Difficult decisions don't have to be made in Annapolis because the federal stimulus will plug all the holes in the budget that gambling revenue won't. River Road is washed away by a broken water main, and a Montgomery County Council member blames the federal government because the feds haven't given the county money for WSSC infrastructure maintenance. Far too much faith is being placed in the Obama stimulus package as the solution to every problem, rather than the stopgap measure that it is.
The federal stimulus does give our state and local elected officials more time to adjust to the economic changes, but after the stimulus is gone a very slowly recovering economy will still be there. Fundamental changes must be made at the state and local level to respond to the worst economy since the Great Depression, and the public must be involved in the decisions that are made. First, though, the public has to be informed, honestly and courageously.
Trust and confidence in government need to be restored, and it has to start with an honest accounting about the challenges we face along with a vision of where we want to go. It's time to be truthful to the public and acknowledge that government's capabilities must be reshaped for some time to come. Can state and local elected officials get back to basics by adopting zero-based budgeting and conducting a healthy review of government's core missions and competencies? Can they decide a program is no longer affordable and then cut it entirely out of the budget? Can they get ahead of the revenue forecasts and stop changing budgets every few months? Can they redesign services to face a new economic reality?
For their reelection's sake, they better hope they can, because if they can't, the voters will replace them with others who will.
-- Doug Duncan
Rockville
The writer is former county executive of Montgomery County.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Chris Paladino's Biography
Attached is Chris Paladino's bio courtesy of the candidate.
*****
I was born in New York City to two young parents who struggled every day to make ends meet. Mom worked long hours at whatever job she could, while Dad worked and went to school at night to try to earn a degree.
I remember what it was like to be a kid during the recession of the 1970s. My brothers and I may not have understood everything, but it was hard to miss both parents losing their jobs and worrying about paying the rent and putting food on the table. I didn’t know it then, but that was my first experience with the government safety net that was set up to help families like ours through the toughest times.
My parents always believed education was the key to success. I’ll never forget how proud they were the day I graduated from Rutgers University – the first in my family to earn a college degree. After losing our home to a gas explosion in 1986 while I was a freshman at Rutgers and being helped through the recovery by the American Red Cross, I was thrilled to find a job with the Red Cross after graduation and began what would be a twelve-year career with the organization.
I lost my Dad at the very young age of 50 to cancer, and Mom at 59 to various causes that left her disabled and unable to work during the last three years of her life. The struggle with Social Security and the disability system was eye-opening.
My Red Cross career focused on improving operations and helping local leaders create lasting plans for growth and community impact. I was also lucky enough to be a member of the Red Cross emergency response team and had the opportunity to be part of major relief operations throughout the country and around the world. Each and every crisis presented its own unique challenges, and I learned to think on my feet, solicit input from people I agreed with and people I didn’t, and to act decisively.
I also learned how important it is, when additional facts come to light, to re-think a position and change my mind. In life, that can be called leadership. In politics, it’s seen as weak. I think we need to work together to change that perspective.
After moving for the Red Cross four times in eight years, I spent the last four years of my Red Cross career at the executive director of the Montgomery County office. I worked with public safety, health and human services and other County government departments and learned a good deal about what works, and some about what doesn’t.
Together with my wife Pam, son Nicholas (now 10), and grandmother Sophie (91), we live in the northern part of Silver Spring just north of the old Indian Springs Country Club. Beside my work with the Red Cross, I’ve worked to give back to the community by serving as president of my homeowners’ association and a member of the Layhill Alliance, on the board of the Montgomery Alliance for Community Giving, as a loaned executive to the United Way, and on various school and community projects.
These experiences left me with a few clear beliefs:
• Education, if valued by both the student and parents, can completely change a life;
• Government has and should play a role in supporting families through hard times, but the programs must be effective and help change the person’s future. The old adage, “if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day – teach a man to fish, and you feed him for life,” is still true.
• Fiscal responsibility – at home, at work, and in government – is the way to prosperity. My wife and I have earned non-profit salaries for much of our careers and had to learn to budget and live within our means. Sometimes that meant hard choices. Countless families, businesses and governments are facing similar choices today. While the federal government may be able to spend us out of this recession, Montgomery County must balance the budget and make difficult choices.
Almost four years ago, I left the Red Cross and was invited to join the executive team of a local distribution company. It was a big change for someone who spent his entire career to that point in social services – and it was an eye-opener to realize that my skills were so transferrable. Every organization – for-profit or not-for-profit – has to perform the same basic functions. Bring in more money than you spend. Provide goods and services that your clients or donors want and are willing to pay for. Create jobs that are challenging, rewarding and pay well enough to attract and keep the best people.
We sold the company in 2008, and (knowing Don Praisner did not intend to run for re-election) about eight months ago I decided to explore a run for the County Council in District 4. I’ve spent that time gradually reaching out to opinion leaders, government leaders, district residents and neighbors about what they want from their next Council representative.
People are worried, and they are frustrated that our great standard of living is threatened – and even more frustrated that it costs so much to provide. Income tax, property tax, sales tax, and a host of other taxes and fees have added a lot to the burden of affordability in the County and our district.
People are telling me that we have to look at how we spend our tax dollars, and act as if it were our own money – not a gift from some generous taxpayers who now trust US to do the right thing. If we look at the current fiscal crisis as something temporary – something we “just have to work through until times get better” – then all of the pain will have taught us nothing. It’s time to reset, not just recover. It’s time to hold government accountable for responsible and effective services.
I believe my background in social service and in business proves that caring, compassion and fiscal responsibility are NOT contradictions in terms. In fact, I’ve often been called upon to serve in a role that “bridges” what people too often incorrectly see as disparate interests. My life has been one terrific learning experience, and I hope to learn even more as your Councilmember while I work to protect the quality of life we have and to keep it affordable for all of us.
Friday, February 13, 2009
DC Voting Rights Marches Onward?
The bill to give D.C. a U.S. House member is headed to the floor of the Senate. Read Rick Hasen's piece in Slate about why he thinks the bill is unconstitutional but Congress should pass it anyway.
Rich Madaleno on Gas Tax Indexing in Maryland
By Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18).
One of the important issues facing the General Assembly this year is the declining solvency of our transportation trust fund. We will be discussing various ways to increase transportation revenues. To that end, I introduced a five cent increase in the current $0.235 per gallon gas tax (SB 722) earlier this week. Last week, Delegate Bill Bronrott introduced HB 423 to index the gas tax. His proposal is similar to the one offered by Governor O’Malley during the 2007 Special Session. Former Senator Larry Levitan recently informed me that the state at one time actually had an index component as part of the gas tax. I asked our staff to review the legislative history of this issue, which is summarized below. I thought you would find it interesting.
In 1982, the General Assembly indexed the gas tax to the wholesale price of motor fuel so that as the price went up, so would the tax. As enacted, the bill set the base tax rate at $0.135 per gallon and established a mechanism for the Comptroller to determine semiannually the average wholesale value per gallon of motor vehicle fuel. If the wholesale value exceeded $1.35, the tax rate would be increased annually on July 1, so that the tax yield would equal 10 percent of the wholesale value per gallon. Since the price never exceeded $1.35, as had been expected, the index was never triggered.
The General Assembly revisited this issue in 1987. A new index was proposed tied to consumption with a base rate of 18.5 cents per gallon. Changes would be calculated using (1) the National Highway Maintenance and Operations Cost Index developed by the Federal Highway Administration and (2) fuel consumption as reported by the Comptroller’s Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Division and could not exceed one cent in any year. A similar fuel index was being used at the time in Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan. In Wisconsin, these automatic increases in the tax amounted to about 1 cent a year, or about $30 million statewide at the time.
Under the initial proposal, the tax rate would have been modified annually on July 1 based on changes in inflation and consumption as follows:
· The rate would increase whenever the cost index increased faster than consumption;
· The rate would decrease, but never below the floor of 18.5 cents, whenever the cost index increased slower than consumption;
· The rate would stay the same whenever consumption and the cost index changed at the same rate.
At the time it was projected that indexing the gasoline tax in this fashion would have produced $127 million in revenues between FY 1988 and FY 1992.
However, concerns over the tax increasing annually without any action taken by the General Assembly led the proposed form of indexing to be struck from the bill and all motor fuel tax indexing to be removed from the law.
During the 2007 Special Session, the governor proposed a bill increasing the gas tax to $0.240 per gallon. The motor fuel tax rates on aviation gasoline and turbine fuel were not affected by the bill. The bill also proposed another index. Beginning January 1, 2009, and every January 1 thereafter, motor fuel tax rates would have increased based on the annual Construction Cost Index (CCI) increase, a general measure of inflation associated with construction commodities. Under the bill, the motor fuel tax rate would not have increased by more than one cent per gallon for any calendar year. If there was no annual increase in the CCI, the motor fuel tax rates would not change for the following year.
Had we adopted this change the tax rates for gasoline was projected to increase to $0.2694 per gallon by 2012. Total motor fuel tax revenues were projected to increase from $8.1 million in fiscal 2008 to $104.9 million by fiscal 2012. Of the revenue generated by the new motor fuel tax rates, 70% would have been retained by the State and 30% would have gone to local governments through the Highway User Formula. Of course, the 2007 estimates were based on a level of consumption that has since declined. Currently, a one cent increase in the gas tax should generate $31 million in additional revenue.
MoCo House Delegation Votes Down CARR Bill
By a 17-6 vote, the Montgomery County Delegation defeated the CARR bill, which would have given the Montgomery County government the ability to levy different property tax rates on residential and commercial property. Because the county delegation defeated it, the bill will not pass the General Assembly.
Supporters of the bill cite the historical shift of property taxes towards homeowners, the fact that the bill would only grant tax-raising authority and would not itself directly raise taxes, and the desperate condition of county revenues. Opponents question the wisdom of raising taxes on businesses that create jobs in the middle of a recession. The bill enjoyed support from many labor organizations but not the County Council, which took no position on it.
Voting in Favor:
Al Carr (D-18), the lead sponsor
Karen Montgomery (D-14), a co-sponsor
Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18), a co-sponsor
Saqib Ali (D-39)
Susan Lee (D-16)
Herman Taylor (D-14)
Voting Against:
Charles Barkley (D-39)
Kumar Barve (D-17)
Bill Bronrott (D-16)
Kathleen Dumais (D-15)
Brian Feldman (D-15)
Bill Frick (D-16)
Jim Gilchrist (D-17)
Henry Heller (D-19)
Sheila Hixson (D-20)
Tom Hucker (D-20)
Anne Kaiser (D-14)
Ben Kramer (D-19)
Heather Mizeur (D-20)
Roger Manno (D-19)
Kirill Reznik (D-39)
Craig Rice (D-15)
Luiz Simmons (D-17)
Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18), a co-sponsor, did not vote.
Many of the Delegates who voted against the bill have outstanding labor records, especially Hucker, Manno, Mizeur, Kaiser and Hixson. Manno was a former co-sponsor of the bill.
Growth? What Growth?
For those who are still worried about growth, we have a message for you: there’s nothing to worry about.
That’s right, there is little to no growth in Montgomery County at the moment. That fact is loud and clear from the County Council’s Management and Fiscal Policy Committee’s briefing document on the local economy. Here are a few of the low-lights.
1. Employment
Comparing the first eleven months in 2007 and 2008, Montgomery County’s employment base grew by less than 420 jobs (up 0.08%). The county’s job count was down from a year ago in 10 of the last 16 months, with November 2008 turning out the worst performance in many years. As for unemployment, the county’s rate was 3.7% in November 2008, up from 2.5% from November 2007.
2. Home Sales
Home sales fell 20.5% in 2006, 23.4% in 2007 and 20.6% in 2008. Sales are now at their lowest level in at least 10 years.
3. Home Prices
Home prices fell 7.9% in 2008 and are now lower than in 2005.
4. Residential Property Assessments
For the first time since 1994, the state found that one of the three rotating groups of assessments actually lost value. That is going to hit the county’s budget soon enough.
5. Residential Construction
The number of annual new units built has fallen from nearly 7,500 in 2001 to around 2,200 in 2008. The value of new construction is at its lowest level since 1999.
All of the above explains the county’s calamitous budget deficit, which will have to be closed by eliminating raises for public employees and reducing school and police services.
We finally have a zero-growth economy. Let’s enjoy it while it lasts, everybody!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Special Election Dates: April 21 and May 19
Janel Davis has the story. The County Council also voted not to close precinct locations for the special election - a good decision. We reproduce the press release below.
Montgomery County Council Unanimously Sets Dates for District 4 Special Elections
Special Primaries Will Be April 21, General Election To Be Held May 19 to Fill Seat of Late Councilmember Don Praisner
ROCKVILLE, February 12, 2009 - The Montgomery County Council voted unanimously today to hold special primaries on Tuesday, April 21, and a special general election on Tuesday, May 19, to fill the District 4 seat left vacant by the recent passing of Councilmember Don Praisner.
The Council also voted to urge the County's Board of Elections to use the same number of polling places (46) as were used in the 2008 special elections last spring in which Councilmember Praisner was elected.
The special elections will determine who will fill the remainder of the term of Councilmember Praisner, who died on Jan. 30 following surgery for colon cancer. Councilmember Praisner served less than a year after winning a special election in May 2008 to fill the seat of his wife, Marilyn, who died on Feb. 1, 2008, while in her fifth term as a Councilmember.
Earlier this week, at a Council meeting on Feb. 10, Councilmember Valerie Ervin had suggested that holding the special primaries on April 7-when schools would be closed for spring break-would alleviate some problems reported during the 2008 special elections. There were reported problems that at some schools used as polling places, parking for voters was difficult because the already limited number of spaces were mostly filled for regular school use. However, other Councilmembers were concerned that holding the primaries during a school break could mean that some potential voters would be away on vacation.
On Feb. 10, the Council also discussed the possibility of reducing the number of polling places for the special election since voter turnout is generally light for special elections. Reducing the number of polling places could reduce the special election cost, which was approximately $1.3 million for the 2008 special election. In the 2008 special election, only 11.5 percent of eligible voters participated in the primaries and only 8.9 percent voted in the general election.
However, the Council overall believed reducing the number of polling places could leave some voters confused. "The goal of all Councilmembers was to select dates that could lead to good voter turnout," said Councilmember Phil Andrews. "The dates the Council unanimously selected today will do that."
Foolonomics 101
Last week, the Washington Post reported that Fairfax County beat out Montgomery County to become the new headquarters location of Hilton Hotels. But the Post did not report Montgomery’s miserly contribution to Hilton’s incentive package, a fact that came out in Monday’s County Council Planning, Housing and Economic Development (PHED) Committee meeting.
The Virginia and Maryland state governments offered competing incentive packages to Hilton, which is relocating from Beverly Hills to the Washington area. At stake are more than 325 jobs, many of which will be high-income since they are associated with a headquarters facility. Virginia’s package totaled $4.6 million in grants, including a $1 million grant from Fairfax County. Maryland’s package totaled $2.4 million, of which $1.4 million was a tax credit and $1 million was a loan to be converted into a grant if Hilton created at least 325 jobs. What was Montgomery’s contribution to the state’s incentive package?
Montgomery bureaucrats admitted to the amount on Monday: $150,000. That’s right, about $850,000 less than Fairfax. That’s less than the value of one middle management job at Hilton. How is Maryland’s Department of Business and Economic Development supposed to take Montgomery seriously the next time its county government says it wants jobs?
People can have a good faith debate over whether tax incentive competition between states actually creates jobs or merely enriches corporate bosses. But it makes no sense for Montgomery to try to play this game if it does it so badly, and loses in such humiliating fashion to Virginia.
Perhaps we’re being unfair. The county government does have a job creation proposal on the table: its “stimulus plan.” The plan delays a variety of fees and relaxes approval standards for development. It could cost anywhere from zero to $50 million in deferred revenues (no one knows the real cost) at a time when the county really needs money, but it may not create a single job.
So let’s see: the county won’t spend more than $150,000 to get 300+ high-paying international headquarters jobs. But it will delay up to $50 million in badly-needed revenues to get zero jobs.
Foolonomics, people. One-oh-one.
What O'Malley is Asking of Congress
In the following press release from yesterday, Governor O'Malley announced six priorities for federal aid: transportation, environment, homeland security, health care, education and BRAC funding.
GOVERNOR O’MALLEY OUTLINES FISCAL YEAR 2010 FEDERAL PRIORITIES BEFORE MARYLAND’S CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION
Governor urges delegation to deliver American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to President Obama
WASHINGTON, DC (February 11, 2009) – Governor Martin O’Malley, joined by Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown and members of Maryland’s Cabinet, today formally presented Maryland’s FY2010 federal priorities to the State’s Congressional delegation in Washington, DC. The Maryland priorities include transportation and infrastructure projects, funding to protect Maryland’s environment and water quality, homeland security and public safety funding, healthcare and education projects, and stimulating the State’s economy through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.
“With yesterday’s passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan in the Senate, it is our hope that the final conference report allows Maryland to restore critical cuts to healthcare, education, and public safety and to fund important school construction projects throughout our State,” said Governor O’Malley to the delegation. “The funding that would flow to Maryland from this plan will create jobs, expand the safety net for our working families, and help our State come through this national recession quickly.”
Governor O’Malley was joined by members of his Cabinet during the hour-long presentation to the delegation, an audience that included Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, House Majority Leader Congressman Steny H. Hoyer, and others.
“Governor O’Malley and I applaud Senator Mikulski, Leader Hoyer and the rest of Team Maryland for fighting on our behalf,” Lt. Governor Brown said. “During these tough times, we are strengthened by the partnerships we've forged with our federal representatives.”
Governor O’Malley outlined specific priority areas for Maryland:
Transportation Infrastructure
Governor O’Malley highlighted several infrastructure projects for federal funding, including a new rail tunnel alignment in Baltimore, Intelligent Closed Circuit Television integration, and funding under the Interstate Maintenance program for I-70 and I-68 as well as under the Public Lands Highway program for BRAC related improvements in Harford, Anne Arundel, Montgomery, and Prince George’s counties. Funding under the Transportation Community and System Preservation program includes bridge rehabilitation and replacement, system preservation, safety, and storm water management. Transportation infrastructure project requests total $328 million.
Environment & Water Quality
To protect the health of Maryland’s children, Governor O’Malley requested funding for a number of projects to improve and protect the environment and water quality, including an upgrade of major waste water treatment facilities, restoration of the Patuxent River, modernization of the Cooperative Oxford Lab to facility biomolecular research, and the continued success of the lead poisoning prevention program. Project requests for environmental and water quality protection total $1.1 million.
Homeland Security & Public Safety
To protect Marylanders and their quality of life, Governor O’Malley outlined ways federal funding would initiate and continue homeland security and public safety projects including the recapitalizing and development of the Prince George’s Hospital Center, communications interoperability among State and local law enforcement agencies, broadband access connecting key public safety operations centers, automated equipment for Maryland’s Bomb Squad, enhanced fingerprint technology for booking facilities and State police, and an extension of the in-car camera project to include all patrol vehicles. In addition, Governor O’Malley requested funding to expand the State’s successful Violence Prevention Initiative, create a pre-apprenticeship workforce development program, expand summer job programs for at-risk youth, and create a mentorship program for at-risk youth across the State. Homeland security and public safety project requests total $212 million.
Healthcare
Governor O’Malley outlined healthcare priorities aimed at protecting indigent communities and educating Marylanders to effectuate preventive service. These include passing a moratorium on seven Medicaid regulations, six of which already exist in the House version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, establishing a statewide health IT exchange, creating a statewide unified oral health education message initiative, and providing behavioral health care services to our veterans. Healthcare project requests total $4.5 million.
Education
Governor O’Malley asked the delegation’s help in developing the Judith P. Hoyer Center for Early Childhood Learning and Innovation at the Children’s Museum at National Harbor, which will be a world-class cultural and educational center dedicated to engaging children and empowering them to make a difference and become the leaders of tomorrow. This project request totals $5 million.
Federal Procurement
As part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, the Governor’s Office of Minority Affairs has put forth a request for assistance for Maryland’s Procurement Technical Assistance Program, which will help translate to more technical assistance to Maryland minority firms to increase capacity to compete. The total request for this project is $300,000.
Washington Post Ignores Cary Lamari (Updated)
In its brief coverage of the District 4 special election, the Washington Post made an inexplicable mistake: ignoring the campaign of former Montgomery County Civic Federation President Cary Lamari.
Lamari ran for an at-large seat on the County Council in 2006. He considered entering last year's special election, but dropped out to support Don Praisner.
We reported Lamari's candidacy six days ago after talking to him directly. We also covered his relaunched website and his announcement statement earlier this week. Given the abundant direct evidence of Lamari's candidacy from this blog, the Post has no excuse for omitting him from their election coverage.
The Post owes Cary Lamari an immediate correction and an apology.
Update: The Gazette's Janel Davis did not make the Post's mistake.
Who are the Real MoCo Progressives? Part Four
So you want to protect your neighborhood from overdevelopment? And you want strong schools and good jobs? Those are mutually compatible goals, right? Not in Montgomery County.
As we have seen in Parts One, Two and Three, two groups claim to be Montgomery County’s “real progressives.” The neighborhood progressives believe that the county’s problems stem from a voracious, corrupting and polluting development class. The new progressives believe that the county’s most serious problems are caused by a lack of equality of opportunity in education and jobs. These two groups disagree on their diagnosis of the county’s ills and their proposals for improvement. And that disagreement has boiled over into open conflict.
Some of these battles are small but reveal the larger struggle in the background. The Hillmead dispute pitting neighbors wanting to enlarge their park against affordable housing advocates is one example. Another is the conflict over whether to preserve the Falklands apartments or replace them with a larger housing project that has set the Montgomery County Civic Federation against Action in Montgomery. A disagreement between Just Up the Pike blogger Dan Reed and East County civic activist Stuart Rochester over the proper course of revitalization in Burtonsville erupted on Just Up the Pike a few months ago. Even the Purple Line dispute contains hints of this struggle, pitting people protecting their neighborhoods against people seeking to improve the quality of life for working-class commuters. There will be many more of these small but intense conflicts over the next few years.
More serious is a rupture between the unions and the civic federation. We covered the debate over whether to reduce the public employees’ FY 2009 cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to close the county budget deficit extensively on this blog. Much of the support for the COLA cut came from tax-weary civic activists who had previously backed limits on development. Montgomery County Education Association board member Eric Luedtke cautioned the civics on this guest blog post: 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…
Former Montgomery County Civic Federation President Wayne Goldstein did not heed Luedtke’s warning. After the FY 2009 budget debate was resolved without reducing the COLAs, Goldstein offered the following opinion:
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.In what could perhaps be described as the most complete abandonment of its budget responsibility in the 58 years that the Montgomery County Council has existed, Councilmembers voted unanimously last Friday to close much of the largest operating budget gap ever by balancing it on the backs of property owners. This Council did not require that even one cent be contributed by the county's unionized employees to help close the gap. Instead, these well-paid workers will receive generous wage and benefit increases equal to 8 to 10% of their current earnings…
These two sides are now significantly suspicious of each other: “the civics” vs. “the unions,” as if each was somehow monolithic. Nonsense. I, for example, am a career trade unionist who is also active in my civic association (which did not take a position on the COLAs). But no matter – we are led to believe that the two and their allies are now fundamentally opposed, each holding the only key to the palace of progressivism.
Despite the effort of 2 Councilmembers to stand their ground by insisting on a reduction in the union COLAs, in the end, they too abandoned any effort to say no to the unions. By initially saying no and then surrendering their high ground of shared sacrifice by joining in a so-called compromise, these Councilmembers look even weaker than if they had just given the unions what they demanded in the first place. There was much posturing by all of the Councilmembers last Friday as they tried to rationalize and even conceal their failure to set limits for the unions for the future. There was self-serving talk about honoring current contracts, either because it was a noble and just thing to do, or because Montgomery County has the best, hardest working employees of all, or because the Council had already accepted and paid for the first year of the current union contract last year.
There was wishful talking about the Council telling the unions ahead of time what they would accept for the next union contract. This was said as if such a statement could possibly constrain unions from relentlessly demanding ever-expanding wages and benefits in the secret negotiations of collective bargaining where the county negotiators are also unable to stand up to hardened union negotiators…
This Council has begun to vigorously dig a hole of fiscal irresponsibility. It needs to stop digging and to climb out of this hole while it still can. Otherwise, things will end up badly for all of us.
In the next round of county elections in 2010, neighborhood progressives and new progressives will come together around very different candidates. That will create demands on all the leaders, all the activists and even the bystanders to choose sides. Be a progressive or be with “the others.” There will be no middle ground.
One day, whites, blacks, Latinos, Asians and everyone else will live in rough economic and demographic parity. The county’s downtowns will be dense and walkable centers of culture, residence and industry. Sky-high gas prices will discourage auto use and spur the creation of a much more elaborate bus and rail network than we have today. And the battle over the ICC will recede into dim memory just as the conflict over the North Central Freeway has. But it is clear we will not get to this future without a fight.
Will the next generation of county leaders really be able to get past today’s conflicts? Maybe, maybe not, but one thing is certain. They will all be calling themselves progressives.
Clean Energy Town Hall Meeting with Congressman Kratovil
From the Chesapeake Climate Action Network:
Clean Energy Town Hall Meeting with Congressman Kratovil
Join concerned citizens, community organizations, and advocates to discuss clean energy, global warming, and other environmental issues with newly elected Congressman Frank Kratovil (1st district) and guests:
Dr. Kevin Sellner (Executive Director of the Chesapeake Research Consortium)
Bracken Hendricks (Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress)
Rep. Steny Hoyer (5th District), Majority Leader of the House of Representatives (invited).
Contact: Keith Harrington, 240-396-1985 keith@chesapeakeclimate.org
Date: 2/18/2009
Time: 7 pm - 8:30 pm
Location: Broadneck High School
1265 Green Holly Dr
Annapolis, MD
21409
Register: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/423/t/8191/event/index.jsp?event_KEY=47347
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Alison Klumpp on Don Praisner
Yesterday, Alison Klumpp, daughter of Marilyn and Don Praisner, made the following comments at a tribute to Don Praisner at the County Council.
From the family and from myself, I would like to thank you for the support that you’ve given us, not just in the last few weeks, but in the last year and for your kind words here today. It’s interesting to hear you all say my father had a quiet voice because when you were in trouble as a kid, it was not a quiet voice! Every time one of you said that I had to kind of chuckle inside. I remember those times of breaking curfew or not doing chores, and definitely did not have a quiet voice from Dad.
But my father did care for this county very deeply. A year ago he said that the only argument he ever won with my Mom was where they were going to live when they got married and it was Montgomery County. He truly cared for Montgomery County. He truly cared for the residents and for the way of life that he thought people should be allowed to live in Montgomery County.
He loved what he did. And while, yes, he missed those golf days when he was here instead, this is where he wanted to be. He wanted to be here doing what my Mom started and doing what the two of them felt were the right things to do: taking care of education, taking care of transportation and all the many other facets that you all do. And that’s why he did it. He did it because he cared. And he did it because he wanted to preserve the life that he has been living in Montgomery County for all those decades.
When we were here a year ago at his tribute for my mother, he kind of saw it as a finality to my life as well. I mean, I grew up at the Board of Education office, I grew up at the County Council office. My daughters have definitely grown up at this office. And I kind of saw it as my last time here as well. And then Dad won. It was kind of like a homecoming a little bit to come back here. And today walking through these doors I realized the finality of it all really does exist. There won’t be another Praisner on the dais. There won’t be another Praisner office. And it hurts. But I am proud of what my parents have accomplished and I hope that their legacy will live on for many years to come.
I would most especially like to thank Joy and Sherri and Claire and Pat and Jackie because to me this is kind of a finality with you all as well. And I want to thank you for everything you have done for my mother, for my father and for us. I’m not sure how we could have gotten through the last year without you all. Thank you very much.
WSSC Commissioner Raises Money – and Eyebrows (Updated)
WSSC Commissioner Juanita Miller has opened a new campaign fund to run for office. That’s not unusual – the former Delegate has run unsuccessfully for County Council and State Senate before. But the identities of some her contributors are sure to make tongues wag.
First, let’s remember some of the highlights of Miller’s service on the Commission. In our prior post, we described how Miller intervened on behalf of the third-highest bidder – a minority contractor – on a 1997 WSSC job that it lost by $2 million. The revelation that the contractor had been a campaign contributor to a prior Miller campaign prompted an ethics investigation. Miller then alleged widespread racism in the agency, a charge that was rebutted by WSSC’s black general manager. And just prior to her 2002 race against Senate President Mike Miller, she revived more charges of racism against minority contractors that were not upheld by the U.S. Justice Department.
Minority contracting is a big priority for the three WSSC members appointed by Prince George’s County Executive Jack Johnson. In 2004, the Commission unsuccessfully tried to seize direct control of minority contracting from the agency’s General Manager in a closed-door meeting that violated the agency’s bylaws. WSSC Commisioner Prem Agarwal is himself a minority contractor who performed $1.46 million of WSSC work within nine months of his appointment to the Commission after contributing $12,000 to Jack Johnson’s campaign. And minority contracting dominated the Commission's 12-hour January meeting - a meeting that had no discussion of recent pipe breaks.
Now Juanita Miller has established a new campaign fund and is soliciting contributions. (The State Board of Elections does not list the office she is seeking.) Miller has received a total $4,840 through 1/21/09. Among her contributors are:
Friends of Andrea Harrison, Springdale, MD ($300), the campaign fund of the newest member of the Prince George’s County Council and Montgomery Delegate Herman Taylor ($40) of District 14.
Prem Agarwal of Mitchellville, MD ($100), Miller’s fellow WSSC Commissioner.
The Law Offices of Dana Stebbins, Washington, DC ($100). Stebbins is a lawyer who represents minority contractors and is a Prince George’s County resident. She has contributed $9,249.55 to Maryland politicians over the last decade, including $1,750 to Senate President Mike Miller. Longtime Washington, D.C. columnist Jonetta Rose Barras reports that Stebbins convinced Mayor Anthony Williams to fire a D.C. government manager because he demanded that the city’s Community Development Corporations “perform for the hundreds of millions of dollars they receive from the local and federal governments.”
LLP Management LLC of Temple Hills, MD ($50). LLP Management is an MDOT-certified female contractor and a Prince George’s County-listed minority contractor owned by Larhonde L. Patterson. Patterson is a real estate agent who was fined $200 by the state’s Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation for “failing to include the Homeowner’s Warranty in the terms of the purchase contract.”
Major F. Riddick of Fort Washington, MD ($200). Riddick is a minority contractor who runs food concessions at BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport.
Rajan Natarajan of Burtonsville, MD ($100). Natarajan is the Director of Government Initiatives for Gantech, a minority-owned IT contractor that has done business with many state agencies.
Juanita Miller clearly has admirers in the minority contracting community. At the moment, we do not have evidence that any of the above contributors (other than Agarwal) have performed work for WSSC. If Miller was indeed receiving campaign funding from WSSC contractors, that would be a worthy subject for investigation by the authorities.
Below is a complete list of Juanita Miller’s campaign contributors as of 1/21/09. (Click on the graphic for a larger version.) If any readers can enlighten us about any of them, please contact me through my Blogger profile or leave a comment.
Update: One of our informants claims:
Dorothy F. Bailey is the immediate past district 7 council member in whose district Miller lived. Bailey was replaced (because of term limits) by Camille Exum, daughter of Sen. Exum.
Major Riddick was an aide to a former county executive and has run for county office as recently as 2006.
Sandra Pruitt is an "activist." She led the effort to force out school board member Nate Thomas who was charged with some kind of sexual misconduct with a minor, but never brought to trial or convicted. She is also the driving force behind setting up a second NAACP chapter in the county. She feels the original chapter's president isn't doing the job. Earl Adams (Lt. Gov. Brown's aide) is or was vice president of the original chapter.
Cereta Lee is the PG Register of Deeds. She got the job, despite her lack of qualifications, because Sen. Exum drove out the former incumbent, a well qualified white female attorney doing a good job and demanded that the job go to an African American.
Hate Email Circulates in Annapolis
The following email has been sent to several state delegates. We have had to censor some of the most objectionable phrases but the intent should be clearly visible to readers.Subject: FW: Montgomery Steps Up Reporting in ICE Efforts
From: [Name Withheld]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 1:54 PM
To: Vallario, Joseph Delegate; Ivey, Jolene Delegate; Gutierrez, Ana Sol Delegate; Ramirez, Victor Delegate; Hixson, Sheila Delegate
Subject: Montgomery Steps Up Reporting in ICE Efforts
By Dan Morse and Nick Miroff
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 10, 2009; Page B01
You ***holes are about to learn a valuable lesson in majority rule. Want to know what the residents think about your pro-illegal stance? Try reading the comments on Washingtonpost.com sometime. This is just the beginning, Leggett was forced to back-peddle from his position by the residents of this state who have had it with the lawlessness and now we're going to build on this momentum. This backlash is only going to grow stronger. How did you think people would react in the face of a recession when they see their jobs either dissapearing or stolen by illegals, their taxdollars used to support the parasites that shouldn't even be here to begin with and then read about those same illegals murdering innocent residents?? ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!! For most citizens, the rule of law still means something and now you're going to shut the f*ck up and listen to what we have to say. The driver's licenses are next bitches. Time for the illegal parasites to hit the trail and those who support them will be soon to follow, HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Who are the Real MoCo Progressives? Part Three
Last year’s special election in Council District 4 demonstrated the differences between the two groups of “progressives” in Montgomery County as well as any other event in recent history. Each group saw it in a completely different way.
For neighborhood progressives, the election was about development – and only development. They viewed the 2006 county elections as a referendum on growth that they had won at the ballot box. Five winning County Council candidates had promised to slow the rate of development in the county and had partially accomplished that goal in the 2007 growth policy. But now Marilyn Praisner’s unfortunate passing had created an opening that the developers were scheming to take over. They had to be stopped.
For new progressives, Mrs. Praisner’s departure created an opportunity to boost Montgomery’s most prominent county-level Latina politician – School Board President Nancy Navarro – onto the council. Ms. Navarro’s agenda focused on maintaining the quality of the schools, one of the most important desires of the newer communities in the county.
The campaign was tough and bitter, as we chronicled at length on this blog. But it was not just Don Praisner and the other Democrats vs. Nancy Navarro. It was an all-out Civil War between the county’s progressives. After Mr. Praisner won, neighborhood progressives celebrated. Sharon Dooley, a former County Council candidate, stated on this blog: Many of us who live in the Olney area and others across the upper Montgomery County regions who could not vote in the District 4 Council race are now breathing freely again. With the Democratic primary won by Don Praisner, we are confident that the prudent fiscal and moderate growth policies voiced by Marilyn Praisner will continue to be heard in the council chambers, if he defeats the challenger, as expected in May.
Stuart Rochester, another Praisner supporter, went further in a Gazette column: The lesson for Navarro — and for other aspirants in the future — is that there has emerged also an increasingly vociferous middle class anxious over the effects of congestion on the county’s roads and streets, proliferating crime, environmental degradation, the threat to established communities from accessory apartments and other relaxation of building codes to accommodate affordable housing needs, and mounting infrastructure requirements and social demands that appear to be overtaking the county’s ability to pay for them. Don Praisner’s triumph, whether it amounts to a validation of the slow-growth, fiscal responsibility mandate or not, clearly tapped into that sentiment.
These statements revealed the anxiety of neighborhood progressives about this election. A victory by a developer-backed candidate meant a return to the pro-growth policies of the past that they had worked so hard to turn back.
The new progressives were mostly quiet in defeat, but their anger is still seething. They are appalled at the closing of ranks in the establishment (the County Executive plus four County Council Members) against a promising, pro-education young Latina politician. That is not mere racial and ethnic tension; it occurs in a context.
There have been 75 County Council Members since the council was created in 1949. Only three Council Members have been black – Ike Leggett (1986-2002), Valerie Ervin (2006-present) and Donnell Peterman, who was appointed to serve out the last few months of Derick Berlage’s term in 2002. One Council Member has been a Latino (Tom Perez, 2002-2006) and none have been Asian. The other 71 Council Members were white, including seven of the current eight. During the special election, one of Nancy Navarro’s immigrant supporters told me, “We want one person on the council – just one – who is one of us. Is that too much to ask?”
For new progressives, developers are not always the enemy. How can jobs be created without a healthy real estate industry? How can the tax base grow at a sufficient rate to support the county’s schools, which are increasingly populated by students who do not speak English as a first language, if economic growth is shut down? Developers are neither inherently good nor inherently evil. If they are willing to make common cause with new progressives on creating jobs and expanding opportunities, then there is nothing wrong with working with them.
Neighborhood progressives view this attitude as hopelessly naïve. Through their infinite avarice, the developers overbuilt the county well past its capacity to house people and jobs. The result was higher costs for the government, more traffic and more pollution which oppresses everyone, newer people as well as old. If the developers truly cared about the poor and the working class, they would voluntarily build affordable housing without being forced to do it by the county’s Moderately-Priced Dwelling Unit program and they would submit to rent control. All the new progressives are accomplishing is to make themselves the latest generation to be co-opted by the county’s greedy development industry.
Can these two groups of progressives ever resolve their differences? We’ll see in Part Four.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Team of Rivals Unites to Fight Facebook Ban
The most unusual political coalition in Maryland’s recent memory has joined forces to battle the General Assembly’s deplorable prohibition of Facebook. Check out the lineups from both the Right and the Left on the anti-ban campaign site:
The Right
Delegate Gail Bates (R-9A)
Soundtrack blogger Kevin Dayhoff
Delegate Don Dwyer (R-31)
WBAL Radio host Bruce Elliott
Maryland GOP 2nd Vice-Chairman Chuck Gast
Red Maryland blogger Brian Griffiths
Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio (R-37B)
Senator Nancy Jacobs (R-34)
Delegate J.B. Jennings (R-7)
Senate Minority Leader Allan Kittleman (R-9)
Conservative Refuge blogger Greg Kline
Delegate Tony McConkey (R-33A)
Delegate Warren Miller (R-9A)
House Minority Leader Anthony O’Donnell (R-29C)
Red Maryland blogger Chester Peake
Republican political consultant Ted Pibil
Inside Charm City blogger Jeff Quinton
Maryland GOP Executive Director Justin Ready
PG Politics blogger Diane C. Russell
Delegate Christopher Shank (R-2B)
Former Ehrlich staffer Joe “Prince of Darkness” Steffen
Delegate Richard Weldon (I-3B) – yes, we know he’s a former Republican
The Left
Delegate Saqib Ali (D-39)
MCDCC Vice-Chairman Alan Banov
Delegate Eric Bromwell (D-8)
Delegate Bill Bronrott (D-16)
Delegate Al Carr (D-18)
Delegate Jill Carter (D-41)
Montgomery County Council Member Valerie Ervin
Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman
Former MPW blogger Kevin Gillogly
Delegate Guy Guzzone (D-13)
Delegate Jolene Ivey (D-47)
Delegate Anne Kaiser (D-14)
MPW blogger and MCDCC Member Marc Korman
Former Free State Politics blogger Eric Luedtke
MoCo Democratic Political Consultant David Moon
MPW blogger Adam Pagnucco
SEIU Local 500 Director of Organizing Tony Passarelli
UFCW Local 400 Government Affairs Director Tony Perez
Casa de Maryland Director of Community Organizing Kim Propeack
Delegate Kirill Reznik (D-39)
Maryland College Democrats President Jonathan Sachs
Former Free State Politics blogger Isaac Smith
District 18 Super-Activist Beverly Sobel
Any matter on which Brian Griffiths, Eric Luedtke, Joe Steffen and Saqib Ali agree is NEWS. I’m sure I failed to spot a few luminaries, so help me out, readers! The campaign now has 311 members and is growing by the hour.
And so we appeal to the one individual who can put a stop to this great crime: Senate President Mike Miller. Come on now, Big Daddy, we know you read blogs. We know you understand the importance of online communication with constituents. It is time to finally use your powers for good. Free Facebook!
First Cheap Shot of the Special Election
Former District 4 Republican candidate Mark Fennel had this to say about the upcoming special election in a comment on Maryland Moment:I've called an emergency meeting of my closest political advisors in my "War Room" to develope a detailed battle plan of attack. Indeed, the "Dogs of War" have been summoned.
Maybe Fennel is right. What if this is part of a scheme by Hugo Chavez to build a Citgo refinery in Burtonsville? Or perhaps Navarro is plotting to declare martial law and force East County residents to dig a tunnel all the way to Latin America. Or maybe Navarro and Vladimir Putin have signed a secret agreement to build a Russian missile silo under Fennel’s house.
Is this the same Nancy Navarro who negotiated, and placed an over-the-top teachers contract at the feet of the Council to deal with, when faced with unsustainable budgets, and massive budget deficits?
Is the the same Nancy Navarro who highlighted Gustavo Torres's praise of her in a press release, the same Torres who is the Executive Director of the illegal immigrant lobby group, Casa of Maryland. The same Torres who recently flew to Hugo Chavez's Venezuala, where Navarro was born, to acquire a $1.5 Million grant for CASA of Maryland. Venezuala, who just expelled our ambasaddors, had military maneuvers with Russia, and constantly threatens to cut off our oil.
And she highlighted Gustavo Torres's endorsement of her in her last campaign for this seat!
Anyone but Navarro!!!!!!!!!!!
Mark D. Fennel
Or maybe Mark Fennel needs to see Robin Ficker for lessons on how to temper his rhetoric.
Of course, all of this comes on the heels of last year’s illegal anti-Navarro robocalls. Why is it that the cheapest, lowest, dirtiest shots are always directed at Navarro?
Who are the Real MoCo Progressives? Part Two
Through the 1970s, there were relatively few non-white or Latino people in Montgomery County. That began to change in the 1980s. Nearly thirty years later, our political system is only now beginning to catch up.
As we related in Part One, the 1980s saw extraordinary growth in Montgomery County. In that decade, the population grew from 578,807 to 756,848. The number of housing units grew from 215,960 to 295,617. And 22.5 million square feet of office space were built, more than the cumulative total from the entire earlier history of the county. In the 1980s, the county experienced its second great boom since the post-war period, but for the first time, it began to draw large numbers of blacks, Latinos, Asians and immigrants.
The reasons for this are varied. The District had been losing its middle class for some time and many of its residents were moving to the inner suburbs. Steady gains in education and income among area non-white residents led to a greater ability to afford housing in Montgomery County. Immigration picked up nationwide and the Washington area, rich in jobs and opportunity, became an important settlement area. All of these factors caused Montgomery’s demographic mix to get a little younger, to get a little browner.
But this change did not touch all areas of the county equally. Certainly due to economics, possibly due to housing policy and perhaps even due to prejudice, the newer communities tended to concentrate in Silver Spring, Takoma Park, Gaithersburg, Germantown, Wheaton, Aspen Hill and the neighborhoods east of US-29. The wealthier areas, such as Bethesda, Chevy Chase and Potomac remained nearly all-white.
This concentration has consequences. In an earlier post, we studied income inequality in Montgomery County. We found that between 1989 and 1999, the five richest neighborhoods in Montgomery enjoyed a 15.4% gain in real per capita income. During that same period, the five poorest neighborhoods suffered a 12.1% loss. In the five richest neighborhoods, only 2.6% of the population was black and 3.3% was Hispanic in 2000. In the five poorest neighborhoods, 26.7% of the population was black and 34.9% was Hispanic. One can only imagine what is happening to income inequality between these neighborhoods and the demographic groups that inhabit them in today’s economy.
And as we have previously found, race tends to be correlated with income. In 1999, white non-Hispanic Montgomery County residents had an average per capita income of $55,533 in 2007 dollars. Black residents had an average per capita income of $29,717 (54% of whites) and Hispanic residents received $21,190 (38%).
The newer groups in the county are well aware of these disparities and they have a two-fold agenda for dealing with them. First, they have a strong desire to capitalize on the county’s excellent school system. This is driven by the fact that they tend to be younger than white residents and have more children. In 2005-2007, the county’s population was 55% white, 16% black, 14% Hispanic and 13% Asian. But the currently enrolled student body in the public schools is 40% white, 23% black, 22% Hispanic and 15% Asian – a harbinger of the county’s future. Because of their dependence on the schools, these groups have a strong incentive to lobby for them. They did exactly that in April 2007 when a rainbow nation of parents, children and school employees held a massive rally to support the school budget. They then marched into the County Council building to confront a nearly all-white, middle-aged council. Here is a key fact that many miss: school funding is not merely a budget issue. It is also a cultural and racial issue loaded with the hopes and ambitions of a growing part of the county’s population.
The second desire of the newer residents is for jobs. The older, whiter population is mostly settled into high-paying employment suited for people holding masters and doctorate degrees. Newer residents want additional employment in those categories but also more jobs in government, construction, real estate and, most importantly, opportunities to create their own businesses. Only through a combination of education and job creation can they move up to parity with the older population.
These sentiments are not merely shared by many blacks, Latinos, Asians and immigrants – they are also embraced by young people of all races. They do not remember the Montgomery County of the 1950s. They enjoy the county the way it is and want continued improvement. They like living in an urban environment. They are burdened by college debt and hungry for more high-paying jobs to help them buy the county’s expensive houses. And all of the above groups – these new progressives – are becoming more politically aware and are making their preferences increasingly known to the county’s leaders.
These people are pursuing the American dream. They are progressives and this is their creed.
And so Montgomery County is full of people calling themselves progressives, but defining the term in strikingly different ways. We will learn what happens when the two meet in Part Three.
Monday, February 09, 2009
Battle Over the Special Election Dates (Updated)
At this moment, the County Council, the Montgomery County Board of Elections (BOE) and the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) are locked in a struggle over the dates of the District 4 special election. At stake is how easy it will be for District 4 residents to cast their votes.
County Council staff first proposed setting the special election dates as April 14 for the primary and May 12 for the general. The reason is that those dates most closely resemble the dates from last year (April 15 and May 13). But in asking for those dates, the staff ran afoul of requests by both BOE and MCPS to set the primary for April 7.
The relevant fact for the primary is that 33 of District 4’s 45 precinct voting locations are public schools. MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast notes:April 7 falls during the school system’s spring break and would be the least disruptive time for the schools. April 14 is the day students return from spring break. April 10 or 13 (Good Friday and Easter Monday) are holidays, and all school buildings are closed and all system staff is on leave. Therefore, no staff will be in the buildings on these two days for the delivery of polling equipment. It may be difficult to get staff to work in some of the polling sites on these two dates. The hourly cost will be one- and one-half times the normal rate of pay for the building services staff because of the holidays, or between $40 and $50 per hour. I am sure that you would agree that this is not the time to incur additional expenses.
BOE concurs with MCPS:The MCBOE initially proposed April 7, 2009 for the Primary Election and May 12, 2009 for the General Election. It is our understanding that some felt April 7, 2009 was not a good date because public school students were on spring break. The MCBOE respectfully disagrees that it is problematic to hold the election during spring break, particularly given the fact that voters can vote absentee if they are indeed going to be out of town.
The council staff memo reveals that Council President Phil Andrews agreed with the objections to April 14 for the primary but did not heed the recommendation by MCPS and BOE for April 7. Instead, he prefers April 21 for the primary and May 19 for the general. BOE specifically requested five weeks between the primary and general but Andrews did not agree.
Moreover, there are a number of problems with setting the Special Primary Election for April 14, 2009. Last year, when the Council District 4 Special Election was held while school was in session, MCBOE received complaints from parents that strangers were walking around the school. Additionally, some voters complained about excessive noise while voting in multi-purpose rooms. MCBOE respectfully submits that it is less disruptive to the schools and is in fact a better voting experience for voters, if the Council scheduled the Special Primary Election to occur on a date when students were off. Additionally, the Board of Elections will consolidate polling places for this election to contain the cost of the elections. If that occurs, we are concerned about the amount of parking available to voters on election days. If the election was held on April 7, as opposed to April 14, there would be no issue regarding parking, an issue that is important to the voters.
There are two (2) additional problems with conducting the Special Primary Election on April 14, 2009. First, MCBOE will need to be able to access each school used as a polling place on April 13, 2009 to deliver and secure equipment and to enable election judges to meet at the facility in the evening of April 13, 2009, for election preparation. In reviewing the Board of Education’s calendar, building facilities are scheduled to be closed on April 13, 2009. We have been advised that April 13, 2009 is a State wide holiday requiring employees to be paid two and half times (2 ½) compensation if they are required to work on April 13, 2009.
Lastly, April 14, 2009, falls on a Jewish holiday, starting at sunset, and will impact the orthodox Jewish voters residing in Kemp Mill and Leisure World communities. This not only limits the hours which voters can vote but further curtails who can and will serve as an election judge.
The full County Council must now decide the special election schedule. Whatever they do, they must focus on encouraging turnout. In last year’s special primary, overall turnout was 11%, Democratic turnout was 16% and Republican turnout was close to 10%. (Independents do not vote in Maryland primaries.) Whoever is elected this time will presumably be running as an incumbent in 2010. It is very important that that individual receive as much of a mandate from as large a part of the electorate as possible before assuming the mantle of incumbency.
Furthermore, BOE’s announcement of its intention to consolidate voting precincts bodes ill for turnout. If voters are confused because their regular polling places turn them away, they will be less likely to cast ballots. Any attempts by BOE to adequately educate the public about precinct changes will cost money – perhaps as much money as will be saved by closing precinct locations.
We call on all District 4 special election candidates to OPPOSE any measures that damage turnout.
Update: County Council Member Valerie Ervin is calling for April 7 and May 12.
Below is the letter from MCPS. Click on the images for larger views.
Below is the letter from BOE. Click on the images for larger views.
Barbara Mikulski and the MoCo Dominoes
Rumors are swirling that President Obama is considering Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski to be the next Health and Human Services Secretary. So let’s play a game, shall we? What if the President asked Senator Mikulski to take the job? And what if Governor O’Malley picked Maryland’s most formidable Congressman, Chris Van Hollen, to be the next U.S. Senator? Then who in Montgomery County would run in a special election for the District 8 seat? And who would win? Let’s find out what the spies had to say!
First of all, several informants spanked me for even bringing up the scenario. “Don’t be silly!” one of them scolded. Many sources believe that the Governor would face irresistible political pressure to create Maryland’s first African-American Senator – probably Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown or Congressman Elijah Cummings. One spy said this:As much as we might like to see Van Hollen in the seat, the racial politics of the state will be too much to bear for O'Malley. Anthony Brown is too young for the Senate seat and would only continue the tradition of creating political backlog. Elijah Cummings in the more attractive pick for all involved because of his race and age.
Others believe that Van Hollen may want to stay where he is. But our sources were willing to play the game just for fun. After all, Van Hollen’s seat will open up someday and it’s never too early to stir the pot!
Our informants collectively named the following people as most likely to run for Van Hollen’s seat if he leaves: Senator Jamie Raskin (D-20), Senator Rob Garagiola (D-15), DNC Member Susan Turnbull, Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18) and Montgomery County Council Member Phil Andrews. Garagiola lives in Congressional District 4 at the moment but that's something a real estate agent could easily fix. Many sources also speculated that Senator Brian Frosh (D-16), Delegates Saqib Ali (D-39), Heather Mizeur (D-20) and Brian Feldman (D-15) and County Council Members Nancy Floreen and Valerie Ervin might consider a race.
Our informants had no consensus on who would be most likely to win. Four spies picked Raskin, three picked Madaleno and two each picked Garagiola and Mizeur. One source makes this case for a Raskin victory:I think Raskin would be the odds on favorite to win this seat for two reasons – none of the other candidates have had to run serious races recently, so they haven't been forced to stay visible and build a current crop of activists. Plus, Raskin’s followers are Kool-Aid drinkers – ie: they really believe in him (and with good reason, I would add). People sometimes laugh at D-20’s activists, but I have to say, if you’re trying to get something done, there's no other District I’d rather represent – the constituents are progressive workhorses, and Raskin’s a real motivator. He could run a campaign that would be more impassioned than Van Hollen’s... The big question for him would be whether he sits this out, lets the bloodbath happen, and then waits for Gansler to leave the AG’s post in 2014.
Raskin supporters do need to remember an important fact listed by another of my informants: 14 of District 20’s 24 precincts are located in Congressional District 4. Only 2 of District 18’s 37 precincts and 9 of District 15’s 32 precincts are located outside Congressional District 8. That gives Madaleno and Garagiola a leg up.
Haven’t heard enough rumors? Check out these tidbits from our informants:
Spy #1:If for whatever reason Van Hollen leaves his safe, 8th district Congressional seat, Montgomery County politics will never be the same. My crystal ball says watch for two scenarios – either a realization that a battering primary (in which many current state elected and county politicians would have to give up their seats) would be bad for the County in the big picture, especially in Annapolis, and people start to get behind a consensus pick. Or the second scenario – all out political warfare that will shape county politics for a decade.
Spy #2If it winds up being a donnybrook, it may break down according to demographics and how many candidates are from the same base. So if there are 2-3 Takoma / Silver Spring people, that could open the door for upcounty or western county people, or allow Josh Rales to parachute in with all his money.
Spy #3:Say Garagiola, Raskin, and Madaleno run during a regular election (not a special election to fill the seat) and leave their Senate seats open. In D-15, Feldman likely wins that seat in a cakewalk. Heather and Tom run like hell to take Raskin’s office. District 18 is a different story. Ana Sol would give it thought, I think, but D-18 is used to having someone on B&T with a wealth of knowledge on budget issues. Also, the GLBT community would want to keep a seat in the Senate. Mizeur can fill that slot in D-20, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see some lobbying and support behind Pete Fosselman (Kensington mayor). Pete’s an ally of Governor O’Malley and the only elected Democrat in Montgomery County to have endorsed MOM’s campaign during the primaries. If it went to the Central Committee, which it likely will, Pete’s stock should rise.
Spy #4:Who would win? The one with the most money.
Well now. I think that’s enough gossip for one day, don’t you?
Cary Lamari Updates Website, Announces Run in District 4
The following is from Cary Lamari's relaunched website.
We are all saddened by the loss of Don Praisner coming so soon after Marilyn's death. It is disheartening to think of facing yet another campaign - but we must.
I had known Mrs. Praisner since the beginning of my civic involvement in the early to mid 1980s. Marilyn as she liked to be called, worked tirelessly with residents throughout the County to forge good, solid County policy and legislation. She was always totally prepared on the subjects and always thoughtful about all sides of an issue. Most of all, she was dedicated to residents of the county in the way reminiscent of Betty Ann Kranke and Ida Mae Garrott, staying above the politics of special interests.
Marilyn worked with me on many initiatives throughout my years of activism. We worked to create the first affordable housing MPDU’s in Leisure World. She nominated me to sit on the Norbeck/198 widening Focus group and the Norbeck and Georgia Ave interchange focus group both conducted by The State Highway administration. She worked with me throughout my years on the Mid-County Advisory Board and as President of the Montgomery County Civic Federation. I always knew where I stood with Marilyn Praisner. And I always felt I could count on her to listen, review and act on whatever was of Concern, whether it was the Glenmont Sector Plan, the widening of Norbeck Road the ICC, or affordable housing, or education.
To me, Marilyn was someone I both admired and respected. She was a friend. There are few County Council members in my recollection that had the humility, integrity and genuine desire to work on behalf of county residents. Marilyn’s guiding principle was not the politics of special interests but rather a sincere desire to improve the quality of life for her constituents. There is not another person on this Council that has the historical memory, the insight and ability to garner community cooperation and support on many significant concerns that we now face.
This is why last year, I stepped down from the special election and supported and worked to get Don Praisner elected so that he could carry-on the dream, Marilyn's dream, of Good Government, Constituent service, fiscal responsibility and a managed growth with adequate infrastructure so that our quality of life would not further erode here in Montgomery County Maryland.
I have been asked by many people to carry on this mission and to defend District 4 from special interest influence and control. I have decided to enter the Special Election to win Dons seat on the County Council. I hope to carry on the commitment and dedication that my friends Marilyn and Don Praisner had. I pray the dream survives.
Who are the Real MoCo Progressives? Part One
Many people believe that Montgomery County is a one-party jurisdiction. They are wrong. Montgomery has two parties. One party calls itself the progressives. The other party calls itself the progressives. These two parties are radically different and, on some issues, diametrically opposed. This series explores both of them.
Prior to World War II, Montgomery County was primarily agricultural with a few pockets of commuters to the District of Columbia. But the war changed everything. David Brinkley’s Washington Goes to War tells the story of how America’s great military-industrial triumph over Germany and Japan permanently transformed Washington into a large city. The return of the veterans and the establishment of the national capital bureaucracy immediately spilled over into Montgomery County. The county’s population doubled between 1946 and 1950 and doubled again in the following decade to 341,000. The inner suburbs were developed with red-brick capes, colonials and ramblers while most of the outer towns remained quiet hamlets.
Many residents in their 50s and 60s who grew up here remember this period as a golden age. I often ask them about what the county was like back then and most are very nostalgic. I am amazed by the stories they tell of my own neighborhood, Forest Glen. The land that would later become the Beltway was a large forest. Georgia Avenue north of Forest Glen Road had just two lanes. And the area around what is now known as the Intersection of Death was occupied by cattle pastures and sage fields. It is impossible for a person my age to imagine this. And then, after finishing their reminiscences, many of the long-timers will sigh and say something like, “And look at it now...”
No matter how much of the county was developed, it seemed to never be enough. The ever-increasing growth of the federal government, the flight of the middle class out of Washington, repeated real estate booms and, eventually, the establishment of a native business community produced steep increases in population and density. In 1960, the county had 689 residents per square mile; by 1980, it had 1,170. (Today it has 1,885.) In 1980, the county established its Agricultural Reserve to protect farm land in the northern third of its acreage. But while the reserve has, for the most part, achieved its purpose of land preservation, it has also channeled population density to Downcounty and the I-270 corridor.
Office space construction shows change in the county even more dramatically than population. Prior to 1950, the county had only 98,126 square feet of commercial rentable office space. In the 1950s, 1.6 million square feet were constructed, followed by 5.7 million in the 1960s, 12.1 million in the 1970s and 22.5 million in the 1980s. (Only about 11 million additional square feet have been built through 2002.) Rising population, rising employment and more accompanying development, all driven by broader economic forces outside the county’s control, banished the golden age of the 1950s and 1960s forever.
But many in the county do not believe that this change was driven by economics alone. Adam Smith’s invisible hand does not apply for building permits or obtain rezonings. For decades, Montgomery County’s dominant homegrown industry has been development. The hundreds of thousands of new housing units and millions of square feet of new commercial space have made some in the county’s real estate industry fabulously rich. And the greatest urge of new money is to create more money, and that means more development. But this is impossible without the cooperation of the government. And so, in the view of some, the development industry set out to conquer the county’s political life through a combination of political contributions, establishment support and grooming their favorites to rule.
Soon enough, a backlash began. One of the earliest campaigns was not against a developer, but against the government. In 1968, the State Roads Commission announced plans for a “North Central Freeway” that would run through Takoma Park and alongside Sligo Creek, connecting the new Beltway with I-70. The freeway would have destroyed Sligo Creek Park and displaced 1,300 families. Led by firebrand Takoma Park mayor Sam Abbott, hundreds of activists in Maryland and the District united to stop the road.
Revolt against the government fell in line with war against the developers because they were linked. Developers influenced the politicians with contributions and cultivated support inside the local government bureaucracy. Road projects were designed to promote development, which created profit, which in turn led to more political donations and a perpetuation of the system. Abbott and his modern-day successors saw themselves as progressives because they were “little guys” fighting the business/government establishment. For the first time, Montgomery County had an indigenous left – the neighborhood progressives.
These progressives have an ideology built around an opponent: the development industry. Capitalism is fueled by greed. That greed promotes endless development, endless traffic and endless pollution by corrupting the local political system in a quest for endless profit. The only solution is for neighborhood activists to stand together, perceive their individual struggles as skirmishes in a larger conflict and reject political candidates supported by the enemy. Only when the people triumph over the developers and establish accountability over the government will they be able to control their destiny and create a less polluted, less congested, more livable county. These people are neighborhood patriots. They are progressives and this is their creed.
But these progressives are only one group laying claim to the name. We will meet their rivals in Part Two.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Chris Paladino Announces for District 4
Following is Chris Paladino's announcement of candidacy in the upcoming County Council District 4 special election.
FRIENDS OF CHRIS PALADINO
13904 FOGGY GLEN DRIVE, SILVER SPRING, MD 20906
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Chris Paladino (301) 910-6199
chris@chrispaladino.org
CHRIS PALADINO ENTERS RACE FOR
MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL DISTRICT 4 SEAT
Cites unique mix of social service and business backgrounds,
and strong record of fiscal responsibility and improving efficiencies.
SILVER SPRING, MD (February 9, 2009) – Chris Paladino, a non-profit leader and successful businessman, announced today that he is entering the special election in the Democratic race to fill the District 4 County Council seat recently vacated by the very sad passing of Don Praisner.
“Our community has been blessed with strong leadership, but I believe the desire for change runs from our national offices all the way down to local races. I want to bring a new way of looking at issues to the Council,” Chris said.
“Our county is facing a once-in-a-generation economic crisis. In times like this, we have to focus on making sure our local government is operating at peak performance.”
Chris says that he knows this will be a hard fought election, but the people of District 4 deserve a spirited contest. “This campaign will be about listening to the voters in our community, focusing on constituent service, and making sure their interests are represented on the Council. I promise to work hard every day to earn the support of District 4’s residents.”
Chris served as the executive director of the Montgomery County office of the Red Cross from 2002 to 2005, where he learned firsthand about many of the needs of County residents. His tenure at the Red Cross was focused on a strong desire for outcomes.
“Too often we see charities, businesses – even government – talk about service in terms of numbers. The number of calls answered, or people fed today, or widgets sold. We need to focus on whether our programs are effective, what we can do to improve them, and how we can streamline them to be as efficient as possible. I plan to press this conversation on the Council.”
After his tenure at the Red Cross, Chris joined the executive team of the Marjack Company, a local distribution firm. At Marjack, he worked for increased efficiency and fiscal responsibility. This mix of successful business and social service backgrounds will bring unique experience and perspective to the Council.
Chris is supported by his wonderful wife Pam, his son Nicholas (10), and his grandmother Sophie (91) who lives with and is cared for by the family. The family lives in Layhill Village. A Web site will be launched soon at www.ChrisPaladino.org.
###
By Authority: Pam Paladino, Treasurer.
More on Steele's "Base"
Just like anyone else, I enjoy a good Sunday morning laugh. And I sure got one when David Lublin skewered Post columnist David Broder for referring to Michael Steele's Maryland "base." Here's a few details on Steele's "base" from the only election he ever ran on his own: the 2006 Senate contest against Ben Cardin.
1. Steele lost to Cardin by 10 points (54.2%-44.2%) overall.
2. He lost majority-black Baltimore City 112,805 to 35,185 (74.5%-23.2%).
3. He lost majority-black Prince George's County 154,798 to 49,484 (75.0%-24.0%).
4. He lost Montgomery County, the state's most diverse jurisdiction, 205,264 to 96,616 (67.2%-31.6%).
5. His biggest margins came from small counties with heavily white populations that usually vote Republican (unless Frank Kratovil is on the ballot): Garrett (+44.0%), Carroll (+37.8%), Caroline (+34.4%) and Queen Anne's (+32.1%).
Yeah, this is a guy with a proven track record on reaching out to non-white voters. Too bad it's not the track record the national GOP thought it was getting!
Saturday, February 07, 2009
David Broder, Michael Steele, and Maryland
David Broder's column in the Washington Post touched on a regular theme for Broder: the need for the two major parties to move towards the center. This one focused on the current Republican wander in the wilderness. But it didn't really capture my attention until he dropped the seemingly innocuous but nonetheless jaw-dropping phrase: "Maryland, where Steele built his political base. . ."
Stop the presses. Michael Steele has a political base??!!
It's true that he was elected our lite gov but on a ticket with Robert Ehrlich. Unlike his successor, Anthony Brown, Steele has never held elective office in his own right. Steele ran for the Senate in 2006 but was decisively beat by Ben Cardin. Steele hails from Prince George's but has never carried this Democratic bastion.
Of course, Steele's real base are the party insiders who elected him party chairman. Indeed, running for office has been a career for Steele--literally in that he paid himself a salary out of campaign funds. Apparently, he also employed relations in running for office. It's part of his long career of falling upward despite past failures.
David Broder no doubt knows all of this. Perhaps it is an excess of politeness by a man well known for his courtesy. Even so, Steele's failure in Blue Maryland only underscores how little chance it is that he will develop new ways of turning his party back towards the center or figuring out how to win Blue America as called for by Mr. Broder.
All the better for Democrats.
David Broder's conclusion that the selection of Steele shows that the Republicans realize that they need to move beyond their southern redoubt may or may not be correct. However, Steele's past shows little ability to get the GOP where they need to be or even that he knows the way. That--rather than the idea that Republicans now realize they need to move beyond the South--would have been a more unvarnished conclusion for the article.
Facebook Campaign Aims to Overturn Ban
As first reported by MPW reader Christopher Cielo, a new Facebook campaign has been founded to overturn the General Assembly's ridiculous prohibition.
The group is led by Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs (R-34), Republican Delegate J.B. Jennings (R-7), Democratic Delegate Al Carr (D-18) and Facebook hero Delegate Saqib Ali (D-39). The campaign's bipartisan nature puts the lie to allegations that the ban is directed at Republicans. Red Maryland leader Brian Griffiths criticizes the ban as "brain-dead" and I agree.
Below is a screenshot of the site. If you are on Facebook, we encourage you to join the campaign!
Steele Wins, Investigation Begins
Put this in the category of things that were bound to happen. Barely a week after he was elected Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele is under investigation by federal prosecutors for questionable campaign expenditures. The spending, which included a $37,000 payment to a then-dissolved company owned by Steele’s sister, annoyed even Bob Ehrlich.
I almost feel sorry for self-proclaimed “Steele Republicans.” But all of this could have been avoided if RNC members had known of Steele’s past behavior. After all, who could trust a guy who put out this?
Harford County GOP War Escalates (Updated)
As first reported by Judd Legum and the Baltimore Sun's blog, the Harford County Republican House Delegation is now in the midst of a savage civil war. That war is escalating. Delegate Rick Impallaria (R-7) is filing an ethics complaint against fellow Republicans Donna Stifler (R-35A) and J.B. Jennings (R-7), which we reproduce in full below. Among other things, Impallaria calls Stifler a "kook" and says, "I stand by that statement and still believe it to be solid and true."
Click on each of the below images for a larger view.
Update: The Dagger has more on this amazing feud.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Who's Running in District 4
We have confirmed the following four Democratic candidates who are entering the Special Election in Council District 4.
Former Board of Education President Nancy Navarro
Navarro lost to Don Praisner last year in a tight race. We recommend Dan Reed's interview from a year ago.
Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19)
Kramer's father is former County Executive Sid Kramer. His sister is District 14 Senator Rona Kramer. Ben Kramer has run for County Council twice before. In 1994, he won the Democratic nomination in District 2 and was defeated by Nancy Dacek. In 1998, he finished 7th of 8 candidates in the Democratic at-large primary.
Former Montgomery County Civic Federation President Cary Lamari
Lamari considered running last year but dropped out to support Don Praisner.
Former Montgomery County Red Cross Executive Director Chris Paladino
A first-time candidate, Paladino has international disaster relief experience working with the National Red Cross.
Maryland Moment carried the news on Navarro and Kramer. We confirmed the intentions of Lamari and Paladino directly with the candidates themselves.
We will have much more on this race in coming weeks.
Legislating Around The Constitution, Part Two
By Marc Korman.
In Part One we talked about Maryland’s participation in the National Popular Vote effort. But Maryland is also heavily involved with another effort to legislate around the Constitution, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009.
Students in Poli Sci 101 can tell you that the House has 435 members. But in truth, it has 435 voting members. Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Washington, DC all have a representative, though not a full Congressmember, in the House. While these representatives can introduce legislation and serve and vote on committees, they cannot vote on final passage of legislation on the House floor. Thus, the DC license plate phrase “Taxation Without Representation.”
DC has a long history of being treated as a step child. It did not receive electoral votes until the 1960s and the major home rule reforms providing for self government did not pass until the 1970s. There have been varied failed efforts to give DC voting rights in Congress. Congress even passed a constitutional amendment granting DC House and Senate representation in 1978, but it expired without being ratified by the requisite number of states.
The latest effort would use a statute to give Washington, DC a single voting seat in the House of Representatives, but no representation in the Senate. The legislation is supported by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who testified in favor of the bill recently, giving it bright prospects for passage.
The bill would increase the House from 435 to 437 members. One seat would go to DC and the other would go to the next state eligible for a seat based on population, which is currently projected to be Utah. Utah’s involvement is the key to the bill. Republicans know that DC is overwhelmingly Democratic, with President Obama winning 93% of the vote there. But the almost inevitable gain of a Democratic House vote would be offset by the likely gain of a Republican vote from conservative Utah, a state John McCain won with 63% of the vote.
But there are those who oppose the bill. For example, some Members of Congress support returning DC to Maryland and Virginia, the two states that originally provided the land for the national capital. I’m not sure Maryland would be crazy about that, but there is some precedence for retrocession, as Virginia had 31 square miles of land ceded to DC returned in 1847.
Although the statute offers the path of least resistance to House representation for DC, there are those who question its constitutionality. The Constitution says that states shall have representatives in Congress, but DC is not a state. Proponents of the bill say that is a matter for the courts, not Congress to settle. But ideally, Congress would not spend a lot of time passing unconstitutional legislation.
Personally, I support both elimination of the antiquated Electoral College and full voting rights for DC. Were anyone to ask me how to vote on these bills, I would say vote for them. But my hope would be that these statutes would spur action for Constitutional amendments. Amending the Constitution for these two noble goals is much safer ground.
General Assembly Bans Facebook
Judd Legum has the story.
Come on, Saqib! As the reigning King of Facebook, now is the time for you to defend your realm!
Al Carr Wants You to Know How Your Schools Are Spending Your Money
Last year, the General Assembly unanimously passed a bill that created a searchable online database of vendor payments by state agencies exceeding $25,000. Montgomery County Council Members Phil Andrews and Roger Berliner have introduced a bill that would create a comparable county database. The problem is that neither law would cover Maryland’s public school districts. Delegate Al Carr (D-18) has introduced a local bill requiring the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to establish its own online database for payments over $10,000. Sounds like a good idea, right?
Not if you’re Superintendent Jerry Weast!
At the January 13 meeting of the Montgomery County Board of Education, school officials listed several objections to Delegate Carr’s bill, including its sole application to MCPS, its lower payment threshold and its $50,000-60,000 cost. Dr. Weast offered these remarks to the Board after a discussion about possible state funding:I’m very interested in that because here it is a fact that we didn’t get funding and it is a fact that we are losing construction funding and it is a fact that the state has got enormous financial problems. So while there are a lot of wonderful things, one has to do a return on investment and a cost-benefit ratio. What this will do is it causes you ongoing expense and labor cost to maintain, which means that takes away from another area because your budget isn’t going up that much. So I think it’s incumbent upon us to ask – because they just turn to us and say, “take it out of your Bridge to Excellence” or “take it out of your…”
The Board approved a resolution to support Delegate Carr’s bill contingent on receiving state funding for the database’s cost and setting the payment threshold at $25,000. But that was not good enough for Dr. Weast, who went on:
You know, I mean, I try to be very transparent with you about where your money’s at, where it’s going and what it’s tied up with and how it drives our education and construction programs. So I would be very interested to know… It’s important, I’m sure for Mr. Carr to get a bill passed, you know. It’s very early in his legislative career and it must be important to one of his constituents. But who will this benefit? And what level of benefit and who will pay for it are issues I think you have to… We’re going to have to take a more definitive stance than we ever had before because we’ve got less money than we’ve ever had before.I assume on the last one that you will oppose if the money is not there? Because I’ve seen these bills get through without…
“Your leader!” Now that’s classic Jerry Weast! And you’ve gotta love the fact that no one on the Board corrected him.
Board Member Chris Barclay: I think given what we raised earlier when we dealt with our legislative position generally that we would oppose anything that’s an unfunded mandate. So thank you for saying that because we do need to be clear the issue here is if we are faced with an unfunded mandate I believe that we have an obligation to oppose it.
Board President Shirley Brandman: I think we’re trying to balance a recognition that it’s not that we oppose accountability, it’s not that we oppose transparency, it’s that we could not do this…
Dr. Weast: I understand, but I, you know… look… you just listened to Highland, you listened to all the efforts we put forth, we’ve cut twenty million… There becomes a law of diminished… I have to advise you as your leader, while it is nice to be kind to everybody, I think kindness is always important, when you get it down to it’s only on us and it’s a much more stringent level than anyplace else, it will cost you more employee time and I haven’t heard any of the benefits that you’re going to reap from this, you know, other than being helpful to somebody that wants to get a bill through.
So oppose unless money is attached sends a completely different signal than support unless money is attached because money is not going to be attached to this. He is not going to get state dollars. I’m not aware of any… I mean, let’s be realistic. If you think they’re going to give a junior Delegate from our county a funding stream for a bill for a particular county… I’ve yet to see that occur. But they will give that Delegate support for a bill so that Delegate gets the bill through but you won’t get the funding stream.
Dr. Weast has a good question about how to pay for the database. After all, in a $2 billion+ school budget, it is impossible to find $50,000-60,000. So here are two suggestions:
1. Perhaps citizen activists using the new database could spot questionable practices by the likes of former administrator John Q. Porter, thereby saving the district oodles of money.
2. Or maybe MCPS could crack down on sloppy uses of system credit cards.
But Dr. Weast asks another good question: who benefits from all of this? How about we the taxpayers?
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Legislating Around The Constitution, Part One
By Marc Korman.
Maryland is at the forefront of two pieces of legislation, one state and one federal, which creatively use statutes to deal with issues that are arguably constitutional. Maryland is one of four states to have adopted the National Popular Vote legislation into law, part of a reform effort to eliminate the Electoral College. Nationally, Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer is leading the effort to give Washington, DC a voting member of the House of Representatives. In Part 1, we will examine the National Popular Vote. In Part 2, we will take a look at the DC House member reform effort. While I support both statutory efforts because of their noble goals, I hope they launch a constitutional amendment process that settles these issues more decisively.
The National Popular Vote would effectively eliminate the Electoral College without amending the Constitution. Four times in US history the winner of the popular vote did not win the Electoral College, most recently in 2000. That election has led to sustained efforts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. Many, including myself, view the Electoral College as an anachronistic institution that can subvert the democratic result of the only national election we hold. Of course, there are forceful arguments on the other side that the Electoral College ensures small states get a voice in presidential elections. I’m not sure Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Montana, and Maine, nine of the ten smallest states by population, would agree. I’m not sure a presidential candidate has visited those states during a general election in my lifetime.
Constitutional Amendments have been proposed in Congress to move to a national vote. But an amendment requires 2/3 of both the House and the Senate (or 2/3 of special state conventions that have never been used) to pass it and then three quarters of the states must ratify it. No Electoral College amendment has ever come close to that threshold.
The National Popular Vote proposal provides that states pledge their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. It does not require every state to join, but rather becomes effective once states with electoral votes totaling 270 sign on. Of course, 270 is a majority of the electoral votes, the amount needed to win the Electoral College. That ensures that the participating states would be able to swing the election. To explain how this would work in practice, if the agreement had been in force in 2004, the electoral votes of Maryland would have gone to President Bush since he won the popular vote. That would happen regardless of how President Bush did in Maryland.
Thus far, Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, and Hawaii have put the proposal into law. But it has also passed through twenty-two different legislative chambers and received the endorsement of 1,246 state legislators. In Maryland, the legislation passed the Senate 29-17 and the House 85-36 before being signed by the Governor. In Montgomery County, Senator Mike Lennett and Delegate Luiz Simmons were the only nay votes. Then Delegate Marilyn Goldwater was absent from the vote.
The proposal is clever and provides a method to eliminate the Electoral College while avoiding the timely, and possibly futile, Constitutional amendment process. Of course, a court could potentially find the law unconstitutional. The Constitution does give states lots of leeway in how it chooses its electors, but there is also a substantial body of voting rights law that may clash with state electoral votes going for a candidate the state did not vote for. There is also an open constitutional question as to whether states can bind those chosen as electors by law, or whether they can act independently.
But even if the law is constitutional, as legal scholar and State Senator Jamie Raskin has argued, what type of precedent does it set? Does it make sense to legislate around entire sections of the Constitution? What other creative ways will state legislature’s find to ignore Constitutional provisions?
Special Elections and the Legacy of Marilyn Praisner
It is ironic that the final thoughts of Don Praisner included a recommendation to appoint his successor. That goes against one of the greatest achievements of his predecessor, the great former County Council Member Marilyn Praisner.
Section 106 of Montgomery County’s charter provides that the County Council will appoint new members to fill vacancies. In 1997, Republican County Council Member Betty Ann Krahnke (R-1) called for a charter amendment (Question C) to allow special elections for Council Members. Mrs. Praisner, then in her second term, supported the idea. The voters passed Question C in 1998 by a 190,283-21,615 (90%-10%) vote.
It now fell to the council to draft implementing legislation. The task became urgent as Krahnke was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s disease in 1998 and was having trouble performing her job by early 1999. Krahnke and Mrs. Praisner then began to draft the special election process. One item of contention was whether to have one election or two (a primary and a general). The Washington Post reported the following on 3/17/99:Krahnke has argued that primaries should be eliminated in a special election, saving the county as much as $400,000. But a council majority intends to keep the primary because that is the way Montgomery elections have always been staged.
Mrs. Praisner agreed with Leggett and her implementation bill called for two elections. It passed by a 7-2 vote, with Krahnke and Republican Nancy Dacek (R-2) voting against it. Leggett (who now wants an appointment), freshman Phil Andrews and Mrs. Praisner voted in favor.
Council President Isiah Leggett (D-At Large) yesterday called the single-ballot system the “David Duke ballot,” after the former Ku Klux Klan official who has done well in Louisiana elections run that way. When a council colleague noted that Duke is not planning to run in Montgomery, Leggett shot back:
“But we have Robin Ficker.”
In January 2000, Krahnke announced she was leaving the council. Republican Howard Denis then defeated Democratic primary winner Pat Baptiste in the special general election. One of Krahnke’s aides, Joy Nurmi, later became Chief of Staff to both Marilyn and Don Praisner. Montgomery would not go on to have another special election until the 2008 District 4 race.
Mrs. Praisner was the champion of special elections in Montgomery County. She designed the system that operates today. And the concept of special elections was approved by 90% of the county’s electorate. Any call for appointments goes against the legacy of Marilyn Praisner – and the will of the voters.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
David Paulson’s Career of Evil Comes to an End (Updated)
The classic criticism of Democrats is that they are too nice to take on the Republicans. But no one ever said that about departing state Democratic Press Secretary David Paulson.
If you wanted to see Paulson, you had to go to the state Democratic headquarters on Main Street in Annapolis. Then you had to descend into the deepest recesses of the building, navigating twisting hallways and following the snickering, “Heh, heh, heh.” And there in the dankest, darkest, most trash-strewn hole is where the Democrats kept Paulson.
A scheming hermit crab of a man, Paulson dutifully performed his nominal job: press contact for the state Democrats. But he was much more interested in performing his real job: causing chaos in the ranks of the enemy. He was bored by defense; he lived for offense. Paulson was not distinguished merely by his verbal brutality, but rather by his creativity and glee. Consider the following examples from his body of work:
Andy Harris: Big Oil’s Best Friend and Hired Gun
Are Ehrlich and his Lawyer Hiding in Fear?
Democratic Party Chair Urges Governor Ehrlich to End “Unacceptable” Hiring of Felons for Department of Juvenile Services
Ehrlich Crushes Free Speech
Ehrlich Declares War on Maryland Doctors and Patients
Ehrlich Raised More Taxes in 16 Months than Democrats did in 16 Years
Ehrlich Still Hiding Slush Fund Contributions
Help Maryland’s Economy: Ask Ehrlich to Resign
Steele’s Top Ten Lies, Ducks, Flip Flops, No-Shows and Empty Promises
Steele Should Return Money Raised with Producer of “Willie Horton” Ad
Paulson’s best work may have been invisible. He had an extensive network of informants. He was even rumored to have double agents planted inside the GOP. If a Republican stiffed a waitress, failed to shovel his sidewalk or kicked the neighbor’s dog, Paulson would find out. The bloggers of Red Maryland once tried to figure out if he was spying on their site. They finally banned anonymous comments for fear of being targeted by Paulson and/or his minions. The true scope of Paulson’s counter-intel operations will never be known; he isn’t talking.
A long time ago, I had a cat who would bring home animals he hunted. Live animals. Dead animals. Half-dead animals. Pieces of animals: feet, tails, even whiskers. One day I caught him playing with a shredded half-mouse on the kitchen floor. He looked up at me and said with his eyes, “Hey, don't stop me yet. It's still twitching.”
David Paulson can relate.
Update: Paulson's lingering menace casts such a long shadow over Red Maryland that they are frantically denying their decision to ban anonymous comments had anything to do with him. Riiight.
A Deal Between Big Daddy and the GOP on Pensions?
The majority of our informants thought we got it mostly right on our post about Senate President Mike Miller’s effort to force the counties to eat teacher pensions. But one of our best-connected spies said I was wrong about one important item – and that points to an unthinkable deal between Big Daddy and the Republicans.
In our earlier post, we said the Republicans might resist a pension handoff. We based that on this remark by House Minority Leader Anthony O’Donnell (R-29C):Shifting pension costs “almost guarantees the locals are going to raise your taxes,” O’Donnell said. “The onus will be on the locals to cut spending and the states will continue spending on their merry way.”
Apparently, Senate Republicans may feel differently about the issue than House Republicans – one of many items of disagreement between them. Back in 2007, the Senate GOP introduced an amendment to HB 50, the FY 2008 budget bill. Amendment 993627/1 would have instituted a series of budget cuts, including a cap of $555 million on state contributions to the teachers’ pension fund. (If that amendment had passed, the counties would now be liable for hundreds of millions of dollars a year.) The amendment failed on a strict party-line vote, with all 14 Senate Republicans voting in favor.
That creates an opportunity for a deal between Big Daddy and the Republicans. If Miller can win the votes of the GOP, he would need only nine more (in addition to himself) to get a majority and just fourteen more to get 29 votes, the number needed to break a filibuster. Surely Big Daddy can bully fourteen votes from his 33-vote caucus, right?
Anything is possible coming from Mike Miller, but we believe a deal of this kind is unlikely for two reasons.
1. Federal Aid
The Governor’s estimate of $350 million in federal aid in his original budget is very conservative. The ultimate total could be as much as $3.9 billion over 27 months. In fact, the Governor is so optimistic about federal aid that he is delaying cuts in local aid. All of this weakens Miller’s case for a pension handoff.
2. Caucus Politics
The prospect of Big Daddy cooperating with Republicans and a minority of the Democratic Caucus to push an initiative hated by the big counties would cause significant conflict among his troops. Miller’s true objective has always been to expand the size of his majority as much as possible. That means not endangering fragile incumbents and raising lots of money for competitive races.
One of Big Daddy’s vehicles for steering money has been his Democratic Senatorial Committee Slate fund. Since 1999, this fund has received $1.5 million, much of it coming from individual Senators’ campaign accounts (including Miller’s). The fund has helped Democrats in tight races several times. For example, the fund contributed $45,000 to Baltimore County Senator Kathy Klausmeier (D-8) on 11/1/06 to help her hold off Republican challenger Craig Borne. And then-challenger Rob Garagiola received $9,500 from the fund on 10/26/02 towards his ouster of Senator Jean Roesser (R-15), which succeeded by just 755 votes. Garagiola has sworn loyalty to Big Daddy ever since. Miller’s ability to wield this sort of power depends on the enthusiasm of his caucus to contribute to this fund and others at his direction.
Big Daddy loves to float trial balloons in the press and keep people guessing, but he is one of the most pragmatic politicians in Annapolis. It is highly improbable that he would endanger the ability of his caucus to work together to expand his majority – and therefore his personal power – in service of a battle he is unlikely to win.
We still believe Mike Miller will stand down. County leaders everywhere are praying we are right!
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
MPW: Most-Visited State Political Blog in Maryland (Updated)
For the first time in its history, Maryland Politics Watch has been the most-visited state political blog in Maryland over a four-month period.
From October 2008 through January 2009, here are the most-visited political blogs in the Free State according to Sitemeter:
1. Maryland Politics Watch: 45,654
2. Red Maryland: 43,022
3. Baltimore Reporter: 19,570
4. Annapolis Capital Punishment: 18,988
5. Pillage Idiot: 17,376
6. Monoblogue: 15,162
7. PG Politics: 14,988
8. Howard County: 14,928
9. Free State Politics: 12,547
10. Annapolis Politics: 7,367
11. Brian Griffiths: 6,387
A few notes:
1. The above list only includes blogs that are focused on state and local politics. We do not include local blogs that are not primarily political in content. We examined them here. We also do not include national blogs or MSM sites.
2. Many blogs do not reveal their Sitemeter statistics. O'Malley Watch would almost certainly be one of the leaders if the anonymous author released its visit counts.
3. Pillage Idiot and Free State Politics have stopped publishing.
4. Brian Griffiths and Michael Swartz of Monoblogue cross-post on Red Maryland.
5. Kenny Burns of Maryland Politics Today stopped disclosing his Sitemeter counts after we revealed that his blog was one of the least-read political blogs last summer. His statistics cannot be verified without publicly-available, third-party verification from Sitemeter or a similar service.
6. Sitemeter counts do not include Google Reader subscribers. The leading state political sites on that measure are MPW (112), Red Maryland (68), Free State Politics (63), O'Malley Watch (50), Howard County (49) and Maryland Politics Today (22).
7. MPW ranked number one in November, December and January, breaking a 12-month leader streak by Red Maryland.
8. We expect Red Maryland to resume its top rank in the near future because it has a large number of bloggers from all over the state and is the last refuge for Maryland conservatives. But the gap between the top two political blogs and the rest is significant.
Update: PG Politics blog now discloses its visit counts and we include them above.
Update 2: Kenny Burns of Maryland Politics Today is protesting his exclusion from this list even though he admits deleting Sitemeter. Burns says the following about my attempt to verify his counts:More importantly, his claim of revelation from last summer was more than likely based on an email he sent me in August, shortly after my site's relaunch, which said:
When Burns employed Sitemeter, it reported a combined visit count of 8,133 from February through June of 2008. His new statistics report a combined visit count of 68,365 for those months. None of this passes the smell test. Or the laugh test.
“Mr. Burns, I don’t see Sitemeter up on your blog anymore. Did you disconnect it? I am collecting data for a possible update to my Maryland Blogdom series on Maryland Politics Watch.”
More than likely, I did not reply to this email, not because I didn't want to, it's due to the fact I get dozens of emails a day and I cannot keep up with them all.
Who Will Call the Question on WSSC?
It has been more than a month since the life-threatening water pipe break on River Road. And while Montgomery County Council Members have begun to raise questions, a solution to WSSC’s problems does not appear in sight.
The basic cause of dysfunction at WSSC is its paralyzed six-member commission. With three members each appointed by the County Executives of Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, the commission has been unable to agree on the selection of a new general manager or on a financing plan for capital improvements. The commission’s failures continue despite the fact that WSSC’s former general manager warned in 2007 that catastrophic pipe failures could explode “like a missile.”
We have already documented the unbelievable behavior of the Prince George's County commissioners. But even if they are someday replaced by competent successors, the counties’ divergent economic interests are a factor in the dispute over capital financing. In February 2008, Montgomery’s commissioners preferred a plan that would charge all customers the same fee, while Prince George’s commissioners wanted to tie capital fees to property values. Each jurisdiction feels the other wants to burden it with an unfair share of capital costs. If a compromise is ever reached, it seems inevitable that the capital plan will be underfunded because of these different points of view.
Since WSSC is a state-chartered, bi-county entity, any changes to the agency’s governance must result from state action. Delegate Brian Feldman (D-15) and Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18), the two chairs of Montgomery’s delegation, are interested in having the Governor appoint a tie-breaking vote to the commission. Delegate Al Carr (D-18) would like to see a seventh commissioner appointed from one of the municipalities in the two counties. Either proposal may break the short-term stalemate over capital financing and perhaps even result in the appointment of a new general manager. But that does not deal with the long-run disagreement between the counties. As the wealthier jurisdiction, Montgomery may be better able to invest more resources in the system than Prince George’s. But because WSSC governance is shared, only two outcomes are possible:
1. The two sides will meet somewhere in the middle on financing rates, thereby shorting capital improvements systemwide.
2. Montgomery will have to pay a greater burden and effectively subsidize improvements in Prince George’s.
Neither of the above outcomes are acceptable to Montgomery residents. And Prince George’s County politicians are already resisting proposals to allow Montgomery to spend more of its own money on its own pipes.
Over the long run, there are three reform options.
1. Bifurcate the system as is the case with M-NCPPC. Some core functions will be shared, but the two counties will finance their pieces of the system separately.
2. Total divorce, with the assets split between the two counties.
3. Sell the system to a private entity.
Privatization should at least be explored, but given Maryland’s political leanings, it almost certainly will not happen. That leaves the two separation options. Either of them would require significant study time by the state and action by the General Assembly. But this issue cannot simply be left to the state. The elected leaders at the county level have an obligation to state their view on what should be done.
And what have they said so far? The Post described County Executive Ike Leggett’s reaction to the River Road pipe break this way:Last month's water main break, which was shown extensively on national television, was the third major disruption to a WSSC pipeline in the past six months. In the days after the River Road flood, Leggett and [Prince George’s County Executive Jack] Johnson pledged to work together.
Attempting cooperation with Jack Johnson is exactly what Ike Leggett did after the last pipe break in Derwood. That effort failed. No general manager was hired. No capital plan was approved. Jack Johnson would rather go on secret trips to Africa than ensure safe water service for his constituents. The only thing worse than failure is repeating failure.
Leggett cautioned against a legislative effort, saying this week that any changes would require a partnership with Prince George's leaders. “You’re not going to change the governance unless you have a collaborative approach,” he said.
The Montgomery County Council has reacted more strongly. Consider these statements from the following Council Members:
Nancy Floreen, Chairwoman of the council’s Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee:Montgomery Councilwoman Nancy Floreen, who leads a County Council panel that oversees water infrastructure, said it may be time for the counties to divide the system.
Council President Phil Andrews:
“It’s long been an issue,” Floreen said. “Maybe this is the time to take a long, hard look at going our separate ways.”There is now a real safety threat because of the lack of sufficient infrastructure replacement... It's partly money [but] there also has to be a way to get decisions made by the commission.
Valerie Ervin:The WSSC has been an issue for many years in terms of the governance of this bi-county agency because there are even numbers of representation from Prince George's County and our county -- and there always seems to be a deadlock.
George Leventhal:I do think it’s true that this marriage is not working and we need a divorce.
Marc Elrich:Councilman Marc Elrich (D-At large) of Takoma Park said that he’s interested in splitting the regional water and sewer system between the two counties as soon as possible. “Seems to me we shouldn't be held hostage to their desires on the other side,” he said.
Duchy Trachtenberg:It's time to play some hardball and to legislate or litigate... We are going to have to force a conversation about responsibility.
This is a matter of leadership. And given the explosive nature of the pipe breaks, it is also potentially a matter of life and death. The County Executive must push for dramatic long-term change and not settle for mere “cooperation.” But if he does not take a stand, then the County Council must step up with a common position on long-term structural reform and make their preference known to the state. The clock is ticking until the next giant break. And we the voters are watching.
Monday, February 02, 2009
A Tribute to Don Praisner
By Rocky Lopes.
Don Praisner always said, “I'm not a politician” followed closely with, “but I have some ideas.” Don shared a vision of pragmatism and being fiscally conservative with his beloved wife, Marilyn. He also was keenly aware of the concerns that many in District 4 shared about the county Growth Policy as led by Marilyn during her term as Council President in 2007. He listened to many of us about matters related to development and pressures on infrastructure. He regarded our concerns seriously, and voiced them appropriately where it mattered.
Those of us who befriended Don really grew to like him. He was always gentle, thoughtful, and caring. He was easy to talk to, and would listen to your concerns with rapt attention, as if you were the only one in the room, despite the fact that often times that room was filled with many others.
I couldn't help but smile when I got him on my Harley for a photo op at his July '08 party that he organized to thank his legion of volunteers. Don had the biggest grin on his face. I think if he weren't otherwise occupied, he would have settled back on the passenger seat and gone for a ride with me that day. Don said that the party wasn't to be a celebration for his special election win, but rather to give thanks to everyone who worked hard to get him elected, and to help him carry through the vision we shared and to protect Marilyn's legacy of leadership, integrity, and independence. Don was always thinking about others, never himself.
A quiet, humble man, Don worked hard at whatever he did with a firm and respectable work ethic. I didn't know him as well as I knew his wife, Marilyn, who I had known for some 29 years. But when I dropped by their home, or when I was working on one of Marilyn's campaigns, Don was always there, organizing things. And you could always see how he loved and cared for his loving wife, children, and grandchildren. You truly felt the sense of “family” every time you were around Don. He would just glow when his grandchildren asked “Pop-Pop” a question.
As I grew to know him better during his special election campaign and after he took his seat on the County Council, my respect and admiration grew even deeper. Don was a very special man, who served our country, our state, and our county with distinction and honor.
His service on our County Council, though brief, brought stability and meaning to District 4. His sense of humor and calm reserve helped the Council deal with some tough issues from his first Council session to the last, and also during committee meetings.
Those of us who had the opportunity to get to know Don and his family cherish the time we spent with him and appreciate the chance to help him carry out his vision, explore ideas, and continue the work he had planned.
What a sad loss for District 4, and for our county as a whole. But more importantly, the Praisner family. Our warmest and most heart-felt prayers are extended to them.
Details about the celebration Don's life and arrangements to pay respects can be found on his website, one of my last duties as his “Loyal Webmaster.”
Editor's Note: Rocky Lopes is the President of the Layhill Alliance and is a long-time civic activist in District 4.
Rail Advocates Respond to Delegate Waldstreicher
Following are responses to Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher's (D-18) position on the Purple Line from Ben Ross, President of Action Committee for Transit and Wayne Phyillaier, former Chairman and current Treasurer of the Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail.
Ben Ross
Del. Jeff Waldstreicher comes up short on the facts about transit.
He says he prefers the same Purple Line alignment as Del. Al Carr and Sen. Rich Madaleno. But these two legislators have endorsed different alternatives. Del. Carr supports a bus rapid transit line on Jones Bridge Road. Sen. Madaleno opposes both BRT and light rail and supports the “Transportation Systems Management” (TSM) alternative. Neither of these alternatives would provide the fast east-west transit connection that we need and that is supported by the vast majority of elected officials in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties.
The rationale offered for Del. Waldstreicher's position – whichever position it is – is that the Corridor Cities Transitway will remove more cars from the roads than the Purple Line. This simply isn't so.
The Purple Line, because very few of its riders will arrive by car, will remove about 14,000 daily trips from the highways. (This compares medium LRT to TSM.) Unfortunately, the corresponding figure has not been calculated for Corridor Cities, but the number will clearly be much smaller. The most recent state study of Corridor Cities, a 2002 DEIS, says that Corridor Cities LRT will only carry about 36,000 riders per day, and nearly half of them will arrive at the transitway by car. Many of the others will be people who will be on buses even if the transitway isn't built.
Del. Waldstreicher claims that almost 90% of Corridor Cities riders will be new to transit (including people who take the transitway instead of driving to Shady Grove). Wrong. Out of 14,000 morning rush-hour LRT riders, 5,000 will be people who otherwise would take MARC to work. Only 8% of Corridor Cities passengers will be ne