Following is a press release from the Montgomery County Board of Elections.
Contact: Marjorie Roher, 240-777-8525
For Immediate Release: March 31, 2009
ABSENTEE BALLOT DEADLINE NEARS FOR APRIL 21 PRIMARY ELECTION
The deadline for receipt of an absentee ballot application for the April 21 Special Primary Election is Tuesday, April 14. Written requests must reach the elections office by 4:30 p.m. or may be faxed to 240-777-8560 no later than midnight.
The absentee ballot application may be found online at the Board of Elections website at www.777vote.org or www.montgomerycountymd.gov/elections. Follow all instructions, and return the completed, signed application by mail or fax. Ballots will be mailed within three business days. The Board of Elections expects delivery of absentee ballots on or about April 1.
Requests must include the following information: name, date of birth, Montgomery County address, the address to which you want your ballot sent (if other than your Montgomery County address), daytime telephone number, and signature. The absence of any of this information could result in a delay in processing the application.
For anyone wishing to pick up a ballot in person, the elections office will be open weekdays through April 14 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., 8 a.m. – 8 p.m. April 15-17, and Saturday, April 18, from 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Applicants who wish to pick up their ballot must appear in person, and they must pick up their own ballot unless they have an agent. Call 240-777-8550 for details about serving as an agent. The elections office is located at 751 Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville.
For more information, call 240-777-8550, or e-mail absentee@montgomerycountymd.gov.
###
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Absentee Ballot Deadline Nears for D4 Primary
State Board of Elections Reports "Problems" with D4 Finance Reports
It has now been a week since the first wave of campaign finance reports was due in the District 4 special election. So far, the reports for Nancy Navarro, Chris Paladino, Robin Ficker, Rob Goldman and Lou August are not available on the State Board of Elections (SBE) website. We called SBE and were told that they had the reports but were facing "problems" posting them on the Internet. This is not the fault of the candidates and is an administrative issue at SBE. We urged SBE to get the reports online "ASAP" because of the short timeline of the election. Once they are all up, we will investigate the finance reports for each candidate.
Rob Goldman's Action Committee for Transit Questionnaire
Rob Goldman is running as a Democrat in the District 4 special election.
Duchy Trachtenberg's Endorsement of Ben Kramer for District 4
By County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg.
I am very pleased to announce my support for Ben Kramer for County Council from District 4 in the special election April 21.
Ben Kramer is running for the seat held for so many years by Marilyn Praisner, and then Don Praisner, and as their daughter Alison Praisner-Klumpp said in a letter to supporters, “Ben Kramer is the best candidate to fulfill Don and Marilyn Praisner’s vision and their legacy of leadership, independence and integrity.”
I support Ben because I know his record, his vision and his character, and how he will bring those qualities to bear on the urgent work ahead of us on the County Council. As a state Delegate, Ben Kramer has sponsored legislation to protect the health and safety rights of seniors; pushed to expand the use of hate crime protections to include women, seniors and people with disabilities, and been a guardian of programs that protect the most vulnerable in our community.
Ben has literally grown up in Montgomery County politics, and he has a deep-seated understanding of the way government works, and how to use the legislative process to bring about urgent, enduring change. When Ben tells you he’s going to do something, he doesn’t waver from that commitment. Ben will always tell you where he stands, even if he doesn’t agree with you. That’s the kind of independence and integrity we need on the County Council, and the qualities that set Ben apart among the candidates in this election.
During these times of economic uncertainty, and competing pressure on our county government over taxes and budget priorities, Ben Kramer will be a critical voice for fiscal responsibility, tax fairness and prevention of government waste, fraud and abuse. I know what Ben Kramer has done as Delegate, and I can’t wait to see him get to work as the Councilmember from District 4.
Editor's Note: Duchy Trachtenberg is a former President of Maryland NOW, a founding co-chair of the Women’s Leadership Network of the Maryland Democratic Party and has served as a Women’s Issues Advisor for Howard Dean’s Presidential Campaign. On the County Council, she has served as Chair of the Management and Fiscal Policy Committee since she took office in 2006.
Who I Support in District 4
By Kevin Gillogly.
I was a strong Don Praisner supporter in the last election. As an activist in District 4, I could not sit on the sidelines while our county is faced with a fiscal situation that grows with each passing week.
I have spent the past month talking with friends and colleagues about this race. I also listened to the candidates. I talked with most of them. In fact, I was sitting down with former candidate Chris Paladino in Rockville the day his mother-in-law fell ill. Our conversation was interrupted by calls from his wife from the hospital in Florida. I talked to union members. I talked to council members and staff. I spent time with folks that are active voters but not as involved as me (and you) are in this process. I went to last week’s Audubon Debate undecided. I did not want to make this decision lightly. This will be the fifth and possibly deciding vote on many key issues facing our County. So I wanted to be sure in my choice.
I am supporting Ben Kramer. When we recently spoke as well as when he spoke at the first debate, he held a strong command of the issues facing MoCo. He obviously understands the state issues. He showed depth on the county concerns as well. That link between state and county will be important.
But the primary reason I am supporting Ben Kramer is that we are faced with unprecedented fiscal issues in the county. The budget is now projected at $620 million. It was just over $400 million last fall when we elected Barack Obama as our next President. And it was just over $200 million when we had the special election a year ago. We need someone who has the independence, background and fiscal responsibility to deal with something county has never seen.
Ben Kramer is the fiscally responsible Democrat who is ready to make the tough choices. He is respected by his peers. He has deep roots in the community, having been born and raised in District 4. He also has an excellent working relationship with the County Executive. And as a supporter of Ike Leggett in 2006 I want to see Ike succeed.
I wish the other candidates well. I hope my civic friends who are supporting Cary Lamari will respect my choice as I respect theirs. The same goes for my labor and progressive friends that have gone for Nancy Navarro. It is a testament to quality of people we have in District 4 that we will have a fine successor to the Praisners. For me, the person who embodies finest qualities of Marilyn and Don – independence, deep roots in the community, hard working, constituent service, a voice for everyman (woman) and fiscal responsibility – is Ben Kramer.
I will be working for his election on Tuesday April 21, and I ask you to please come join me.
Ben Kramer’s Record in Annapolis, Part Two
Today, we look at Delegate Ben Kramer’s (D-19) record on environmental issues, GLBT rights and crime.
Environment
The Maryland League of Conservation Voters (LCV) gave Kramer an 86% score in 2007 and a 75% score in 2008. In his favor, Kramer voted for the clean cars bill, the stormwater management bill, an energy efficiency fund and against harmful hydraulic dredging in the Chesapeake Bay. But LCV knocked him for voting against a 2007 bill that limited industrial construction on land designated as Critical Areas near the bay and voting for a 2008 bill that delayed anti-phosphorus regulations. Kramer’s lifetime score of 79% is the lowest of any Montgomery County state legislator other than his sister, District 14 Senator Rona Kramer (who scores 68%). The average score for House Democrats was 85% in 2008 and 91% in 2007.
GLBT Rights
Equality Maryland gave Kramer a 60% score in 2008, tied for the lowest among Montgomery legislators with Senators Rob Garagiola (D-15), Brian Frosh (D-16) and Nancy King (D-39) and Delegates Luiz Simmons (D-17) and Herman Taylor (D-14). While all of the above legislators supported domestic partner rights, none of them co-sponsored HB 351, which would have allowed gay marriage. Kramer is co-sponsoring the 2009 gay marriage bill, the only legislator above to change his mind.
Crime
As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, crime has been Kramer’s top priority. Twelve of the twenty bills he has lead-sponsored have dealt with crime. This year, Kramer has lead-sponsored bills targeting hate crimes, crimes against the elderly, identity and credit fraud against the elderly and disabled and financial exploitation of the elderly. Kramer has lead-sponsored a bill mandating ignition interlocks on cars owned by convicted drunk drivers and two bills limiting “good-time credits” for violent inmates. Kramer’s bills often attract support from Republicans, including Delegates Don Dwyer (R-31), Susan McComas (R-35B), Christopher Shank (R-2B) and Michael Smigiel (R-36).
Two other bills merit comment.
Kramer co-sponsored a bill by Republican Delegate Tony McConkey (R-33A) that would have made it easier for domestic abuse victims to acquire firearms permits. The bill failed on an 86-51 vote. Kramer and District 17 Delegate Luiz Simmons were the only Montgomery legislators who voted for it. Lieutenant Governor Brown’s spokesman Mike Raia called it a “misguided measure.”
Kramer voted for Simmons’ abuser expungement bill three times - once in committee and twice on the floor. The bill, which would have allowed accused abusers whose petitions were denied or dismissed by a judge to expunge their records, was opposed by female legislators by a nearly 2-1 margin.
Tomorrow, we will conclude by assessing Kramer’s reputation in Annapolis.
Monday, March 30, 2009
One Step Forward for the Stadium, One Step Backward for Maryland (Updated)
By Marc Korman.
Maryland Moment has announced that the House Appropriations Committee has voted 17-7 in favor of a feasibility study for the proposed DC United stadium in Prince George’s County. The legislation does not authorize any bonds, just a study which of course does carry a cost of a few hundred thousand dollars.
The no votes and their party affiliation were: Gaines (D), Clagett (D), Stocksdale (R), Bates (R), Levy (D), Beitzel (R) and Eckardt (R).
Delegate Gaines is one of three Prince George’s county delegates on the panel. Delegate Proctor, also from Prince George’s County, was excused from the vote.
From Montgomery County, Delegates Heller, Gutierrez, and Bronrott all supported the legislation. Delegate Mizeur was absent.
Update: Now the bill has constitutional problems.
Andrew Padula's Action Committee for Transit Questionnaire
Andrew Padula is running as a Republican in the District 4 special election.
Action Committee for Transit Questionnaire for Candidates for County Council, District 4
1) How do we transform the auto-oriented suburbs of District 4 into livable and walkable communities?
This is not a simple question. This proposes a policy and blueprint of social engineering as a reaction to poor planning and development by the very body that created these now obsolete communities in the first place. The citizens that bought into these neighborhoods have a good deal both financially and emotionally invested in them. A compounding factor is that in many cases, this transformation requires people to restructure their communities wholesale well before they have turned a complete cycle that would warrant urban renewal. Regardless of the planning that goes into it, ultimately the livability of a community is up to it’s citizens. The best that planners can do is to set proper outlines for development and transportation. First, high density pure residential development, especially that buttresses arterial roads must be halted. Nonretail business or industry that can anchor communities must be established and then developed around. Patchwork, mixed method, mass transit must be replaced with a uniform and comprehensive system. Most importantly, citizens must approve of any self sustaining community projects because this proposes a radical change to everyones lifestyle.
2) Do you support building the light rail Inner Purple Line from Bethesda to New
Carrolton, as recommended by County Executive Leggett and the County Council?
I strongly support E/W mass transit projects as long as they are not piece meal.
I have seen various proposals and if you are referring to the one where it is nice light rail trains in the western districts and big nasty busses on the east side... no thanks! We would like some nice stuff too please!
3) All bridges over US 29 have been designed so that light rail could run in the
median of the highway. There are several possible routes for a connection from
White Oak to the Red Line or Purple Line. Would you support detailed study of
running a light rail line that connects White Oak to the Metro system and then
runs in the median of US 29 to Burnsville, as a future project after the Purple Line
and Corridor Cities Transit-way?
Bridges over rt.29 or running along rt. 29? No I would not support a study after the
Purple lines or Corridor Cities Transitway... I WANT IT NOW! There is a major problem
with the easements that I believe you are describing. They do not continue past Burnt
Mills. Four Corners is a transportation nightmare and that is an area that needs to be a priority.
4) What should the county do to increase transit rider-ship?
Put transit where the people are! It makes no sense that Metro stops train service in
Glenmont when there are thousands living in garden apartments and town-homes in
Aspen Hill and Olney- or in Silver Spring when White Oak and Burtonsville are
exploding. I don’t understand why all of the proposed light rail service projects are
located in western districts. Isn’t our tax money in District 4 deserving of equal services? We could also make getting onto transit a less trying ordeal. I was told by a community leader that they discontinued the buses from Four Corners to Forest Glen (a Metro stop designed primarily for buses) because of low rider-ship. There was low rider-ship because there WAS NO COVERED BUS STOP ON RT 29! I regularly see people standing out in the elements on Bel Pre rd. and Georgia Ave. because the bus shelters are too small. We could also try giving the rider a different experience than just sitting in the same traffic except with a crowd. Schedules could also be modified so that people who take transit to go somewhere will not have to take a cab from the nearest hub to get home.
5) County master plans have stated a policy of focusing development around mass
transit stations. Much development has occurred that has poor transit access, yet the
county’s planning also deserves much of the credit for the emergence of Bethesda and
the revival of Silver Spring as centers of activity.
A) What smart growth projects near Metro stations do you support even though they
have had opposition?
I wholly disagree with the premise of the question. Bethesda has been in the process of rebuilding for 25 years since the traffic re-alignments of the E/W highway. It has had the benefit of it’s zip-code, proximity to the district, proximity to mass transit (both inherent) as well as the economic engines of N.I.H. Uniformed Services hospital, and, Geico. Also, the Council has conveniently avoided zoning in MPDU housing therefor the area is not subject to the growing pains that usually come with economic integration. Silver Spring is heavily subsidized and is not truly self sustaining. Much of this is due to poor planning with having the anchor businesses and merchants bisected with major automobile arteries. Access is not as inviting as it should be. Having said that, if the Shady Grove tract can truly be developed in a economically and environmentally friendly way, it seems like a viable project. I see no other Metro accessible proposals that are currently being proffered.
B) Do you support a requirement that development described as “transit-oriented,” such as the proposed Germantown and Gaithersburg West master plans, may only be
constructed after rail transit access is built?
Not necessarily, They could be build concurrently but transit funds must be guaranteed.
5) Do you believe that the decision by Governors Ehrlich and O’Malley to build the
Inter-county Connector was wise or unwise?
The timing, alignment, awarding of service contracts, expense, etc. all point to a budget busting blunder of biblical proportion. If the true purpose of this road was to connect the I270 corridor with BWI, Annapolis, and Laurel, then someone needs a lesson in how to read a map. If this was intended as an asphalt string of political payoffs... good job guys! The simple upgrading of E/W arteries already in use, combined with better community planning and permitting, would have sufficed.
Name of Candidate ANDREW L. PADULA
Signature Date
3/23/09
Please return by March 24, 2009, to Action Committee for Transit, P. O. Box 7074, Silver Spring, MD 20907.
Transgender Anti-Discrimination Bill Going Down – Again
For the third year in a row, a bill banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity is headed to the abyss. Why? It cannot get a vote in the Senate Judicial Proceedings (JPR) Committee.
In 2007, an anti-discrimination bill had 25 House sponsors and 2 Senate sponsors. It received an unfavorable report by JPR. In 2008, another anti-discrimination bill had 2 House sponsors and 3 Senate sponsors. It did not come to a committee vote in either the Senate or the House. This year’s bill has 67 House sponsors and 14 Senate sponsors. Every Montgomery legislator except Senators Brian Frosh (D-16) – the JPR Chairman – and Rona Kramer (D-14) and Delegates Ben Kramer (D-19), Henry Heller (D-19) and Herman Taylor (D-14) is co-sponsoring the bill.
The House Judiciary Committee is not the problem since 13 of its 22 members are co-sponsors. But they are waiting for JPR to act. Only 3 of JPR’s 11 members (Senators Lisa Gladden, Jennie Forehand and Jamie Raskin) are co-sponsoring the bill. And there it sits, unwanted by most of the rest of the committee. We hear that some JPR Democrats are asking - half-jokingly - whether passage of the bill means that their female secretaries will be getting mustaches or beards.
The bill probably does not have enough support to pass JPR since the lineup is the same as in 2007, when the committee did not pass it. But now that the bill has attracted massive support in the House, shouldn’t JPR Chairman Frosh at least allow a vote?
Barve Announces Passage of Greenhouse Gas Bill
In the following email, House Majority Leader Kumar Barve announced the House's passage of his bill to limit greenhouse gas emissions. A different version of the bill has already passed the Senate by a 36-9 vote.
March 30, 2009
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACT PASSES HOUSE OF DELEGATES
Dear Friends,
The House of Delegates passed legislation I introduced that requires a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The bill, which also has Gov. O'Malley as a lead sponsor, requires a reduction of 25% from 2006 levels by 2020.
The passage is a culmination of three years of effort. As part of the workgroup that helped craft this proposal, I was very pleased that so many representatives of labor, industry, science, and environmental organizations testified in favor of the legislation. The companion Senate bill has also passed the Senate, so it seems likely that Maryland will again show its leadership in another area of environmental reform.
Maryland, with 3,100 miles of shoreline, is directly threatened by rising sea levels and flooding caused by global warming. We can no longer treat the atmosphere as though it were a big free garbage dump. We have the technological ability to clean up our air, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and move to a future free of foreign energy dependence. This measure goes a long way towards ensuring these goals.
Governor O'Malley's aggressive support of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act has been vital in the crafting of this compromise. His sponsorship of this bill helped ensure passage.
Best regards,
Kumar P. Barve, Majority Leader
Maryland House of Delegates
Kramer Endorsed by Leggett, Trachtenberg (Updated)
We hear that County Executive Ike Leggett and County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg endorsed Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) in the District 4 special election at an event in Leisure World today. Also in attendance were former County Executive Sid Kramer and District 14 Senator Rona Kramer (Ben Kramer's father and sister), Alison Klumpp (the Praisners' daughter), Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Vallario (D-27A).
Update: Check out Ann Marimow's coverage, in which Ben Kramer says he will be a "conduit" for Leggett on the council.
Update 2: The Gazette also reported on the event.
Will Reregulation Work?
One of the biggest issues before the General Assembly at the moment is an effort to “re-regulate” electricity provided by new power plants. The bill, as amended, would grant the Public Service Commission the authority to force utilities to build new power plants and end retail competition for electricity. The bill’s supporters claim it will lead to lower electricity rates. Will it?
For the majority of the twentieth century, electric power was provided by regulated monopolies. In most local areas, one company generated the power, transmitted it to substations and distributed it directly to residential and industrial customers. State and local regulatory bodies decided on the rates that were charged to consumers. In 1996, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission opened the door to electric power competition through its Order No. 888, which required owners of transmission lines to allow non-discriminatory access to other power providers. That kicked off a movement by 18 states plus the District of Columbia to set up competitive markets through which electric power could be bought or sold.
In Maryland, a 1999 bill required Pepco and Baltimore Gas & Electric (BG&E) to divest their in-state plants, freeze rates through 2006 and ultimately allow their customers to pick their energy suppliers. Pepco sold most of its plants to new merchant generator Mirant while BG&E formed a new parent company (Constellation) and transferred its plants to a different subsidiary. True competition never materialized in Maryland and electricity fuel input prices went up, so BG&E and Pepco sought colossal rate increases in 2006. Many politicians now describe deregulation as a failure and the issue has been a political football ever since.
SB 844 seeks to remedy the problem by giving the state’s Public Service Commission (PSC) the ability to force power suppliers to build new generating plants and directly regulate the rates those new plants can charge consumers. Will this bill lower electric prices over time? Probably not, for the following reasons:
1. Regulation does not automatically lower rates.
We obtained monthly year-on-year U.S. electricity retail price change data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 1953 through February 2009. We present the data in the graph below.
The biggest electricity price spikes since 1953 have occurred from December, 1972 through September, 1975 (when prices jumped by 42.5%) and December, 1978 through August, 1982 (when prices jumped by 65.2%). Those were periods in which almost all electric power in the U.S. was subject to regulation. The reason for electric power price increases was price hikes for fuel inputs, especially fossil fuels. Under cost-of-service regulations, the traditional method of price-setting used by regulating entities, utilities are allowed to charge rates that reflect their price of inputs along with a modest profit. Regulation may allow price increases to be spread out over time, but it does not shield consumers from input price hikes over the long term.
The data shows one additional fact. The greatest prolonged drops in retail electricity prices since 1953 occurred from July, 1997 through January, 1999 (down 13.0%) and July, 2001 through November, 2002 (down 11.3%). Both of those declines occurred during a time when many states were deregulating.
2. The bill does not address the root cause of rising electricity prices.
Below we illustrate the monthly levels of U.S. retail electricity prices and wholesale prices for crude petroleum, natural gas and coal from 1986 on from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. All price levels are indexes using 1984 as a base level of 100.
We ran a multiple regression predicting retail electricity prices on the basis of the above three fuel inputs. We found that 77% of the variation in retail electricity prices since 1986 was explained by variation in wholesale prices of crude petroleum, natural gas and coal. So for the most part, rising electric bills are a result of rising commodity prices.
The role of natural gas is especially crucial. Since 1998, 96% of all net generation capacity added in the U.S. has come from natural gas-fired plants. The reason for that is three-fold. First, natural gas is relatively abundant in North America and burns cleaner than coal, making it the fuel of choice for new plants in the 1990s and the early 2000s. Second, gas plants can be built quickly and relatively cheaply compared to new coal and nuclear facilities. For example, merchant generator Calpine used one plant design to build dozens of new facilities across the country. Third, gas plants can be quickly turned on and shut off, making them ideal for use during power spikes (like hot summer days) and in spot markets. But the sudden increase in demand for natural gas could not be met by existing exploration and the result was soaring, and volatile, natural gas prices. This pushed up retail electricity rates. Maryland’s reregulation bill does nothing about this.
3. The bill could have unintended consequences.
Astute utility managers hedge their exposure to commodity prices by diversifying their supplies among many fuel inputs, many suppliers and many contract intervals. But the reregulation bill could conceivably impede these strategies by emphasizing new construction over imports. Suppose PSC orders a Maryland generator to build a new natural gas plant and later the price of natural gas spikes. Under cost-of-service regulations (which are explicitly called for in the bill’s amendment), the plant owner would be entitled to call upon ratepayers to compensate it for the higher costs. That would mean that the bill might actually cause electric rates to increase.
4. Any positive impact will only affect a tiny share of the power market.
As of 2006, Maryland had 12,500 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity. (One MW is enough to power 600-1,000 single-family homes). The largest power plant in the state is Mirant’s Chalk Point coal plant, a 2,429-MW facility that produces about 19% of the state’s capacity. Coal plants produce a lot of energy but it is unlikely that PSC will permit any more of them. Gas-fired plants generate anywhere from a few dozen to a couple hundred megawatts each. So suppose PSC ordered a generator to build a 300-MW gas plant, a rather large facility for that fuel type. That plant would only account for 2% of the state’s capacity. Even if its rates were kept artificially low, they would have almost no impact on the rest of the market. Add to that the fact that new generating plants take many years to permit and build and – at its best – the reregulation bill offers almost no hope of any meaningful price relief.
Overall, the bill’s command-and-control approach to the dysfunction of the electricity market (a market that was created by the General Assembly) shows little promise of decreasing rates. That is why a giant coalition of industrial customers opposes it. But there are real steps the legislature can take to ease electricity rates over time. We will recommend three options in our next post on the issue.
Ben Kramer’s Record in Annapolis, Part One
Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) has compiled a significant record in Annapolis over the last three years. In this series, we examine his votes on six subject areas – budget and taxation, slots, labor issues, environmental issues, GLBT rights and crime. We also tap into our spy network to evaluate his reputation in the General Assembly. Is his record suitable for a County Council Member? That’s up to District 4 voters to decide.
Budget and Taxation
Kramer voted for the special session budget but against the special session tax package. He was one of 18 House Democrats to vote against the tax bill, joining Montgomery County legislators Kathleen Dumais (D-15), Brian Feldman (D-15) and Luiz Simmons (D-17). Kramer also voted against the millionaire tax. He was one of 13 House Democrats to do so, joining Charles Barkley (D-39), Al Carr (D-18), Kathleen Dumais (D-15), Brian Feldman (D-15), Bill Frick (D-16), Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18), Craig Rice (D-15), Luiz Simmons (D-17) and Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18).
Slots
In 2006, Kramer was asked about slots by the Gazette:Do you support slot machines for Maryland? Why or why not?
Kramer went on to vote against both the slots amendment and the authorizing bill during the special session. Last year, he said the following to the Montgomery Sentinel:
Slot machines are not a preferred source for raising revenue. However, the state will be facing a projected budget deficit of approximately 4 billion dollars in the next 2-3 years. If funding is not available to provide for the needs of those individuals who do not have the financial resources to pay for necessities (food, health care, housing, etc.), then I would be willing to consider slots at certain Maryland race tracks.Kramer voted against the referendum during the special session and said he has some difficulty understanding why many voted for the referendum last year and now claim they oppose it. “I question their rationale,” he said.
Kramer later told me he was referring to the 1997 Glendening income tax cut, a major contributor to the structural deficits that have been plaguing the state ever since.
Kramer said he would like to see, as an alternative to slots, a repeal of a tax cut that was disapproved.
Labor Issues
Progressive Maryland gave Kramer a 92% score in 2007 and a 63% score in 2008. On the positive side, Kramer voted in favor of living wage, re-enfranchising former felons, health care coverage expansion, extending children’s health insurance under their parents’ coverage for four years, flexible leave for employees to take care of sick family members, and foreclosure prevention. But Progressive Maryland’s major problem with Kramer was his vote against progressive income tax reform, which it called, “the most significant pro-working families tax reform in recent Maryland history.” Kramer’s opposition to progressive taxation accounted for the precipitous drop in his score in 2008. In fact, his 2008 score was the lowest of any Montgomery County state legislator other than his sister, District 14 Senator Rona Kramer, who scored 46%.
In Part Two, we’ll examine Kramer’s record on environmental issues, GLBT rights and crime.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Audubon Hosts a Horde of Candidates
By Sharon Dooley.
Last Sunday evening showcased the first outing for the Democratic candidates for the special primary for the County Council District 4 seat. This meeting was held at the historic mansion headquarters of the local advocacy group, which was joined by several local progressive groups in promoting this meeting. (The special Primary is less than one month away on April 21st.)
All announced Democratic candidates attended and were joined by the Green Candidate George Gluck. The Democratic candidates were: (in alpha order) Martin Bigler, (a Silver Spring funeral director), Robert Goldman (a Burtonsville attorney), Tom Hardman (an Aspen Hill IT professional), Ben Kramer (a businessman/current D19 delegate from Olney), Cary Lamari, (a Norbeck area businessman and former President of the Civic Federation) and Nancy Navarro (a Silver Spring resident and member of the Board of Education).
After brief opening remarks, each candidate was asked questions that were given to them and to the audience at the start of the meeting. Each candidate was given one minute to answer each question. The questions and summaries of their responses follow:
A. Police disability reform: Most respondents indicated that this agreement needs to be re-evaluated and re-worked by contract; Tom Hardman felt that there should be a case by case evaluation, Nancy Navarro thought that this should be brought back to the negotiating table.
B. Ambulance fees – yes or no – Those in favor of imposing ambulance fees are Bigler, Goldman, Hardman, and Gluck; those opposed are: Kramer, Lamari and Navarro.
C. All candidates voiced support for campaign finance reform and were in favor of allowing Montgomery County to institute its own transparent process.
D. Knapp proposal concerning Historic preservation restrictions: Navarro was in favor if it would improve options for public housing, Goldman and Hardman wanted more information about it; Kramer, Lamari, Gluck and Bigler were opposed.
E. The questions about the Agricultural Reserve were divided into sand mounds, Child lots and BLT’s (should you explain these concepts in a sentence or two).
a) Sand mounds were not to be used for development and should be used only when systems failed according to Hardman, Kramer, Lamari, and Navarro; Bigler was undecided and Gluck and Goldman wanted more information.
b) All candidates deemed Child lots in need of monitoring and vigilant enforcement.
c) How to fund the Building Lot Termination (BLT) program – most candidates felt that this was a problem to be decided, perhaps by legislation in the future.
F. Master Plans to be decided for Germantown, Gaithersburg West and White Flint – none in District 4 - but all in need of infrastructure and to be decided by the council – how would you vote on these concerns?
Gluck – delay building until county can afford infrastructure
Navarro – there is a disconnect between the planning process and the follow through this must improve
Lamari – Process of development needs to be measurable and quantifiable; there should be no development districts
Kramer – First for the areas of the upcounty, the CCT needs to be built; need to have the transit hub in place before the JHU center is developed.
Hardman – need to ensure we have adequate water stores before we allow development; no Pay/Go.
Goldman – Need infrastructure first – District 4 has been neglected – Burtonsville has not been well planned.
Bigler – We need to have the roads in place first.
G. Budget/Education – How to find savings with large shortfall?
Bigler – don’t spend wildly – closer audits
Goldman – Don’t touch schools, keep COLAS
Hardman – Stop using Microsoft software and switch to Open Source software
Kramer – The cuts being made now by Ike are unsustainable; We must continue to find savings
Lamari – Cuts being made now are symptoms of a bigger problems; our culture is wrong – electronic boards too expensive
Navarro - Under my leadership as President of the Board of Education for 2 years, we worked with the unions, cur COLAS and found $50 millions in savings
Gluck - My wife and daughter are both teachers and find those electronic boards very helpful in their teaching – they have to learn how to use them but they are good for the students
H. 20% of the County budget is allowed for non-education/non-salary spending; what is your sacred cow that you would protect in the budget?
Gluck – No answer
Navarro – We need to have a safety net for HHS
Lamari - Need to protect the most vulnerable; care for mental health needs of those in jail
Kramer – HHS would be my first priority; Council member Trachtenberg has noted the needs for supplemental food and medication; we cannot forget the disadvantaged and those with mental health needs.
Hardman – We must prepare for the common defense and make certain we have supplies for our emergency responders and follow the Boy Scouts by being prepared. We also need to care for mental health.
Goldman - Must take care of public transit, not discontinue needed routes – cannot isolate Burtonsville from access to the rest of the county.
Bigler – need to protect Mental health and public safety
I. Affordable Housing needs are not met – how to address 10 year backlog?
Bigler - Needed at the Metro
Goldman - Developers need incentives offer at below market rates – subsidies for county employees
Hardman - cannot plan, too many foreclosures need to intersperse affordable housing
Kramer - Provide rent subsidies – currently no state or county monies
Lamari - need a tenants bill of rights; do not allow builders to buy out of requirement for MPDU’s, need funds for land trusts and to help first time home buyers
Navarro – We need a safety net, help those faced with foreclosures increase densities have rent stabilizations for condos
Gluck – need to put all of this on hold until we can provide the supportive infrastructure on hold
J. Undocumented felons who have committed violent crimes – do you approve of the compromise worked out by County Executive Leggett and Police Chief Manger? Yes or No answers – Yes – Navarro, (within limits) Lamari, Kramer – ( careful compromise) Hardman, Goldman, Bigler No – Gluck
K. Should the Council act on health matters such as Trans fats?
All responded Yes.
L. The ICC is costing a lot of money. Would you support a scaled down version, perhaps along Rt. 198 and dropping section B?
All responded No.
There were also questions from the audience – all stated they supported the Purple line and answered additional questions about the environment, the ICC, the Patuxent watershed and public financing.
So generally, there was little controversy or conflict voiced during these discussions. The audience appeared engaged and the candidates seemed, for the most part, to follow the announced format. There were no startling admissions or surprising stances taken by any candidate. Most seemed knowledgeable concerning county issues and made few gaffes. Some astute listeners found slight errors or minor misstatements, but nothing occurred that was shattering to a campaign. Obviously the front-runners are Kramer and Navarro – they have gathered the most endorsements, (Kramer won the endorsements from the volunteer firefighters, a chamber PAC and Alison Praisner Klumpp, while Navarro touts her union endorsements and support from the same 4 council members who stood with her in 08). Past council members Ewing and Crenca have favored Lamari.
Where this race will go depends upon which candidate can turn out the voters, who have not exactly been excited by the race so far – but the debates, forums and discussions are just starting. The big precincts of Leisure World (LW) went for Don Praisner in 08. Many LW residents fondly remember Ben Kramer’s father, former County Executive Sid Kramer, who was said to be among the supporters of Nancy Navarro in the last race; that is not likely to be the case this year!
What a difference a year makes. Turnout was just a few thousand voters in the primary last year and Nancy Navarro lost by only a few hundred votes. In the District 19 race in 06, Ben Kramer came in third and narrowly beat the fourth place finisher in the 3 person Delegate race. Navarro has been said to be the candidate of the developers, based on her previous contributions, while Kramer - who self funded before and will probably do so again, for the most part - has stated he will accept no developer contributions. Many politicos in the know are awaiting the first required finance reports of the pre-primary period, since there were many accusations of hidden or delayed reporting in 08. Navarro is thought to have several thousands unspent from the previous race, but several contributing groups were noted to have maxed out then.
So message, turnout and money – all turns on how well these are delivered. District 4 voters need to listen, learn, do their homework and show up on Election Day! (And then there is the added Ficker Factor!)
Stay posted!
District 4 Candidate Forums
Following are all the candidate forums we know of at this point.
Paint Branch HS PTA Forum: Monday, March 30, 2009 at 7PM
Paint Branch High School, Burtonsville, MD
Sierra Club and Action Committee for Transit Debate: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 7:30PM
John F. Kennedy High School, Silver Spring
Young Democrats of Montgomery County Debate: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 at 7:30PM
AFI Silver Theater, Silver Spring, MD
Committee for Montgomery Candidate Forum, April 6, 2009, 8AM. Introduction only, no Q&A.
9630 Gudelsky Drive Rockville, MD
Northwood Four Corners Civic Association (NFCCA) Candidate Forum: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 at 8PM
211 Southwood Avenue, Silver Spring
INFORCE Club Leisure World Candidate Forum, April 13, 2009, Clubhouse 1, Leisure World. Doors open at 3PM, candidates introduction and Q&A at 4:00 PM.
Aspen Hill Civic Association Forum: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 at 6:30PM
Aspen Hill Library: 4407 Aspen Hill Rd
Riderwood & LWV Forum: Thursday, April 16, 2009 at 2PM
Montgomery Asian Performance Center
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Just Up the Pike D4 Interviews Continue
Just Up the Pike's Dan Reed is steadily interviewing every Council District 4 candidate. So far, he has talked to Cary Lamari, former candidate Chris Paladino, Rob Goldman, Robin Ficker, Nancy Navarro and Andrew Padula.
Former USA Today Editor on Dying Newspapers
This essay by founding USA Today Editor John Walter is a must-read.
Progressive Maryland Endorses Navarro
Following is their press release.
News Release
March 27, 2009
Contact: Sean Dobson
Progressive Maryland Endorses Nancy Navarro in the Montgomery County Council District 4 Special Democratic Primary Election
Silver Spring, MD. Progressive Maryland today endorsed Nancy Navarro for Montgomery County Council in the District 4 Special Democratic Primary Election.
"Nancy Navarro was the overwhelming choice of the Progressive Maryland board of directors because of her superb qualifications and stellar record on the County School Board,” said Sean Dobson, the organization’s Executive Director. “She is a proven and successful advocate for working families and on the County Council would lead the fight to create and maintain high-quality, living wage jobs and protect the safety-net for our most vulnerable residents. She will make an outstanding addition to the Montgomery County Council."
"Progressive Maryland fights for working families across the state and I am so proud to have their endorsement," says Navarro. "As a council member, I will work with Progressive Maryland to protect working families and seniors and ensure a better future for all residents of District 4."
Progressive Maryland is a statewide, nonprofit organization that advocates for working families. It has 15,000 individual members and supporters as well as 35 organizations represented on its board of directors, including some of the strongest labor unions, civil rights groups, and faith communities in the state.
# # #
Friday, March 27, 2009
Kramer's Chamber of Commerce Questionnaire
Recently, District 4 candidate Cary Lamari released his Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce questionnaire. At the time, he said, "I challenge my opponents to be as open, transparent and accountable as I am being, and also allow you to publicize their Chamber Questionnaires. I want people to hold me accountable, read what I am about. If I say one thing and do another I want you and your readers to hold my feet to the fire."
Since then, Nancy Navarro and Rob Goldman sent their questionnaires to MPW. Ben Kramer's campaign did not respond to Lamari's challenge. But the Chamber itself has posted all four candidates' questionnaires on its website. We reproduce Kramer's questionnaire below.
MoCo's New Criminal Justice Policy
Recently, the Gazette reported confusion among people on the street about Montgomery County's new policy providing for immigration status checks on violent criminals. Courtesy of the County Executive's office, we reproduce a memo from Ike Leggett to MCPD Chief Tom Manger outlining exactly what the new policy will do.
M E M O R A N D U M
February 10, 2009
TO: J. Thomas Manger, Police Chief
FROM: Isiah Leggett, County Executive
SUBJECT: Criminal Justice Policy Changes
One of the most important responsibilities that I have as County Executive is to ensure the safety of our community. I appreciate your outstanding leadership and the exceptional work of the Montgomery County Police Department in helping us to achieve this objective.
I have evaluated your recommendation for a change in our current policy regarding the manner in which we handle violent offenders in the county, some of whom may be undocumented residents. I have also received valuable input from State’s Attorney John McCarthy, County Attorney Leon Rodriguez, Correction & Rehabilitation Director Arthur Wallenstein and many others throughout the criminal justice system – on the local, state, and federal levels. In addition, I received considerable feedback and information from a broad range of County residents and organizations reflecting a variety of perspectives on this important recommendation.
After careful consideration, I have concluded that the following should reflect our new approach on this matter. The names of all persons arrested and charged in Montgomery County for crimes of violence, as defined in the Maryland Criminal Law Code Section 14-101, or for wearing, carrying or transporting a handgun (Maryland Criminal Law Code Section 4-203) will be forwarded to the Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As has been our practice, Montgomery County police will not conduct immigration status investigations.
Montgomery County police’s role under these circumstances is to simply notify ICE of arrestees charged with violent crimes and the specific handgun violation in our custody and allow ICE to perform their duty from that point forward. Our police will not differentiate among the violent offenders falling into this new policy when charged. They would report the names of all those arrested and charged for these offenses to ICE. My understanding is that this new procedure would forward, on average, about three names per day.
Among the violent offenses included under this policy are murder, rape, carjacking, and defined classes of assaults, sexual offenses, arson, and robbery. The handgun provision would broadly cover those persons in illegal possession of a handgun. The list of offenses covered is attached.
This new policy can assist the county in helping to keep violent offenders off the streets. We can accomplish this without our officers becoming federal immigration police or crossing the line into “profiling” individuals based on their race or ethnicity. I strongly believe that local jurisdictions such as Montgomery County should not substitute their law enforcement efforts for what can only be described as a failure of the federal government to achieve a workable immigration policy.
As you know, currently, if a person is arrested or questioned by county police officers, the individual’s name is checked with the National Crime Information Center for any warrant. If there is an outstanding warrant, we detain that person and notify the appropriate law enforcement agency, including ICE. The changes we are adopting in this new procedure will not alter our current policy of checking for outstanding warrants through the National Crime Information Center.
I recognize that some in our community may think that the approach outlined in this response to you goes too far; others may conclude that it does not go far enough. I believe this approach is balanced and realistic for our highly diverse community of nearly one million residents.
Let me share with you what influenced my decision on this matter. First and foremost it is a priority of this administration that our police department facilitates safe and sustainable communities where every resident is encouraged to interact positively with the police. The men and women of our police department have made great strides in earning the trust of the community and we need to ensure that they continue to operate in such a manner that maintains that trust and confidence of all of our residents.
I have heard from those who have so thoughtfully and passionately advocated that we totally remove our county’s law enforcement from issues involving immigration. I do not believe it is a good use of our county police resources to enforce federal immigration law. I remain opposed to the 287(g) training for our police.
Frankly, no one wants violent criminals preying on the community, including the residents of our neighborhoods most heavily populated by immigrants.
I have heard as well from those who feel that this change does not go far enough. I carefully considered even stricter options that were recommended to me from a variety of parties who believe a broader number of crimes should be included in the list of offenses. In addition, others have asked me to consider more questionable policies and legal procedures to reduce violent criminal activity in the county. However, I have concluded that this new approach is a balanced and useful tool that could help us keep some of the more dangerous criminals out of our neighborhoods. I do not believe it is reasonable or would be effective for our county to go further by adopting some of the more restrictive measures found in other communities.
In addition, I also support an effort led by Montgomery County State’s Attorney John McCarthy to amend the criteria used by the State Department of Juvenile Justice in making detention decisions on juvenile offenders committing serious crimes.
We have seen, over and over, 16 and 17-year olds who are committing serious felonies being released back into the community while awaiting trial, only to engage in continued criminal activity. Other communities have been able to amend the State’s criteria to keep the worst juvenile offenders detained while awaiting trail, and we need to do the same. John McCarthy has also led the way, meeting with State officials to craft a policy that balances the welfare of these young offenders with the safety of the community. I am currently working through our Criminal Justice Coordinating Commission to amend what is called the Risk-Assessment Instrument (RAI), used by the State Department of Juvenile Services (DJS). It is our intention to have an RAI in place that mirrors what Baltimore County is using. This change will help remove some of the most dangerous juvenile offenders from our community.
There is no doubt that the immigration issue is a thorny one on many fronts. The immigration system is broken, and we need common-sense solutions from Congress that are fair and realistic. Until that happens, communities such as Montgomery County find themselves in a difficult situation on a range of issues.
Based on all of the aforementioned factors, I believe adoption of the new procedure you recommended for crimes of violence and illegal handgun possession is warranted.
It is my responsibility to keep our diverse communities as safe as they can be for all of our residents. These changes, taken together, will help us advance that goal.
Pass the Garagiola Task Force Bill
Traditionally, sending an issue to a commission or task force is merely a convenient way to study it to death. As MPW contributor Marc Korman has written, many state commissions issue reports that “usually just gather dust and do nothing to fight chronic inaction on intractable issues.” Senate President Mike Miller asked his chamber to refrain from creating new commissions “during these times of fiscal austerity.” In general, both are right. But there is one gigantic exception to this rule: transportation.
The General Assembly’s recent record on transportation leaves a lot to be desired. Prior to the 2007 special session, Governor O’Malley recommended indexing the gas tax to fund transportation projects. Instead, the legislature increased the titling tax from 5% to 6% and devoted a portion of the sales tax and corporate income tax increases to the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF), thereby raising a projected $400 million a year. Of that amount, $250 million was destined for system preservation and $150 million was intended for new projects. The latter figure roughly equals the cost of one interchange.
Soon enough, the new transportation revenues began to disappear. In 2008, Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18) floated a plan to cut $150 million from the annual increase as an alternative to the millionaire tax. Ultimately, the legislature chose to cut $50 million a year from transportation instead. At the same time, rising prices for construction materials steadily eroded the purchasing power of the extra revenues. By November, MDOT Secretary John Porcari said that the special session increase was only generating $265 million a year in new money – barely enough to cover extra system maintenance needs. By then, the shrinking economy had forced Porcari to cut Maryland’s six-year transportation spending plan by $1.1 billion with more cuts to come. The legislature’s reaction was to cut transportation aid to the counties, a move that would have pleased former Governor (and TTF raider) Bob Ehrlich. The situation has become so dire that the Montgomery County Council has decided to use county money to jumpstart state projects.
No state politician I talk to is satisfied with the current condition of transportation funding. Many admit privately that the state will have great difficulty in meeting its obligations for any of its three transit projects as well as the challenges of dealing with BRAC. But the vast majority of state politicians simply will not tolerate any tax increases for transportation. Delegate Bill Bronrott (D-16), whose constituents are about to be swamped by traffic from the Walter Reed BRAC expansion, introduced a bill to index gas taxes (as the Governor originally proposed). It attracted no co-sponsors and has not moved out of committee. Senator Madaleno’s bill increasing the gas tax by 5 cents has also attracted no co-sponsors and has not moved. The same fate has befallen Delegate Charles Barkley’s (D-39) bill raising the gas tax by 10 cents. Delegate Sheila Hixson’s (D-20) bill raising the gas tax by 5 cents drew two co-sponsors (District 16 Delegate Bill Frick and District 11 Delegate Jon Cardin) but has not moved in Ways and Means despite the fact that Hixson chairs the committee. And a Republican bill to suspend gas taxes for new vehicles has attracted more sponsors (five) than any of the increase bills.
Since the special session, the state’s political leadership has demonstrated no will, no strategy and no interest in meeting the transportation needs of its citizens. The reason for this is that while state politicians have correctly diagnosed voter resistance to new taxes, they do not perceive overwhelming support for new transportation spending. But that is a miscalculation. The business community has called for new transportation revenues over and over and over again. Building trades unions and contractor associations would celebrate the opportunity to go to work. Groups like Action Committee for Transit and Purple Line Now would embrace any opportunity to steer money to transit. And many ordinary voters are fed up with traffic congestion, a problem beyond the ability of county governments to fix by themselves. By bringing in stakeholders like these, the state can build political support and formulate a strategy for moving new projects forward.
And that is exactly what Senator Rob Garagiola (D-15) proposes to accomplish with his bill calling for the creation of a transportation infrastructure funding task force. The task force will be comprised of 15 individuals, including four state legislators, four Cabinet secretaries, a representative from WMATA and 6 individuals from the private sector who will examine revenues, public/private partnerships, economic development and infrastructure maintenance. Oregon started its new push on transportation with a similar task force. Their report has formed the basis for a strategic approach to dealing with the state’s problems that is now working its way through the legislature. There is no reason why Maryland cannot do the same.
Finally, there are significant political benefits for state leadership in creating the Garagiola Task Force. The measure will please business, labor and transportation advocates. Because the final report is not due until January 2011, it gives state politicians a way to park the issue until after the next election. Transportation stakeholders will provide lots of political cover for any solution based on the task force’s report. And all of this can be bought for a paltry cost of MDOT and DLS staff time.
Senate President Mike Miller has called for a new commission to examine the state song. What is more worthy of consideration: the state song or state transportation?
Thursday, March 26, 2009
O'Malley Comments on DNA Collection
The Economist magazine is holding a debate on the ethics of DNA databasing. Following is Governor Martin O'Malley's comment on the subject from 3/27/09.
In January 2007 I was sworn in as Governor of the State of Maryland. I inherited a shameful backlog of 24,000 convicted offender samples that had not been tested for DNA. These samples were keys to convictions, justice, exoneration and, to the extent possible, closure for victims of violent crime.
In my first year of office, we eliminated that backlog. In my second year, in collaboration with the Maryland General Assembly, our state took the courageous next step of expanding our DNA testing from convicted offenders to those charged with crimes of violence. And as a direct result of these actions, in just two years more than 130 murderers, rapists, robbers and burglars were behind bars in Maryland, thanks to DNA. Simply put, when we increase the library of DNA samples in our state against which evidence can be matched from the scenes of crimes, we solve more crimes.
Every day that we fail to recognise our ability to collect DNA fingerprints and match them against crime scene evidence to solve crimes, is another day when Marylanders are unnecessarily made vulnerable to repeat violent offenders.
Thirteen states have enacted legislation to require DNA samples to be taken from certain felony arrestees. The practice is legal, constitutional and has withstood judicial scrutiny.
Both the high courts in Maryland and Virginia have found that requiring a DNA sample after arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment (Anderson v Commonwealth of Virginia 634 S.E.2d 372 (2006) and State v Raines 844 A.2d 427 (2004)).
In Anderson, the court held that the taking of a DNA sample at the time of arrest "is permissible as a part of routine booking procedures. As such, no 'additional finding of individualized suspicion' much less probable cause, must be established before the sample may be obtained." The court cited Raines for the proposition that the DNA profile "is akin to that of a fingerprint. As such, appellees and other incarcerated individuals have little if any expectation of privacy in their identity."
Anderson goes on to state that "the analogous treatment of the taking of DNA samples to the taking of fingerprints has been widely accepted." The opinion cites federal courts in the Fourth Circuit, the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit which support this premise. Anderson also cites state appellate courts in New Jersey and Oregon which have held that buccal cheek swabs are not more intrusive than fingerprinting and thus an additional finding of individualised suspicion is not required before a sample can be taken.
Forensic DNA samples are not used for genetic predisposition, medical or familial purposes. The genetic markers used in law enforcement databases, often characterised as junk DNA or non-coding DNA, do not constitute a threat to privacy. DNA profiles simply list the number of repeats found in 13 non loci or STRs (Short Tandem Repeats) These loci have little if any medical predictive value or significance and thecurrent understanding of the selected 13 loci is that they lack a biological function. The 13 loci have not been determined to cause a physical trait, but are accurate in establishing identity.
Crime labs do not have the expertise, equipment or capability to delve into all the medical possibilities or fingerprints or DNA. Simply put, the DNA analysed in our criminal justice process does not contain genetic information on individuals or their families. It is not the same DNA sampling that is performed by medical doctors. The DNA loci analysed yields purely identification data. The DNA data do not supply codes for cancer, genetic diseases, birth defects or other medical information. DNA sampling upon arrest is an entirely different process from DNA research that is conducted in the medical field.
There are existing laws in place to protect the DNA collection and storage process, and there have been no proven cases of the misuse of DNA samples. At the Federal level, harsh penalties for misuse of DNA are already in place. Under the Federal Justice for All Act (2004), the penalties for misuse of DNA increased. That law provides that anyone who misuses DNA analyses under 42 U.S.C. §14133(c)(2) or who violates the privacy protection standards under 42 U.S.C. §14135e, is subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. Prior to this amendment, the penalty was a fine of not more than $100,000.
Additionally, misuse of DNA information is also prohibited by Maryland law (Section 2-512 of the Public Safety Article, Maryland Code).
Collecting DNA samples at the time of arrest can prevent a certain number of violent crimes from occurring. Providing for the public safety of Maryland's residents is the government's highest obligation. In Chicago's Study on Preventable Crimes, the city determined that waiting to collect DNA until conviction can cost lives. Their examination of the criminal timeline of eight individuals demonstrated that 60 violent crimes, including 53 murders and rapes, could have been prevented if DNA had been taken during the booking process of suspects of violent crime. In Maryland's Study on Preventable Crimes, if DNA samples had been required upon arrest for three individuals in the study, 20 crimes could have been prevented.
Maryland's study cites the case of Alphonso Hill. During the past 30 years, Mr Hill was arrested over 30 times for rape, sex offences, kidnapping, assault and burglary. If Maryland had required him to give a DNA sample during his first felony arrest for assault with intent to rob in June 1979, a DNA match could have been obtained with the DNA evidence recovered from his first rape in July 1978. Upon conviction for that July 1978 rape, seven future victims could have been saved from subsequent rapes, sex offences, kidnapping, assault, burglary and sodomy, all committed by Mr Hill.
Collecting DNA samples at the time of arrest helps solve crimes and exonerate innocent people.
The comparison of crime scene DNA with the DNA of suspected offenders provides increased opportunities for conviction and exoneration. Since 1989, there have been more than 213 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States. Countless potential suspects have been cleared prior to arrest as the result of comparing DNA crime scene evidence with a suspect's stored DNA sample.
DNA databases also help purge racial bias from the criminal justice process. The science of DNA is blind to race and, unlike some eyewitness testimony, is not more likely to misidentify a minority suspect.
Maryland's pre-trial DNA collection law has extensive expungement and destruction provisions in it for instances when cases never make it to trial. This is an additional check and balance to ensure our law is respectful of privacy rights while focused on the ultimate goal of a safer Maryland.
In conclusion, the use of DNA technology to identify offenders and solve criminal cases quickly is a vital instrument in Maryland's mission to provide safe and sustainable communities for every Maryland resident. DNA provides vital identification information for us to rule out suspects and focus our scarce resources on those offenders who prey on our citizens. DNA is almost required by today's modern juries in their decision to convict the guilty. We have vowed to fight back against violent crime whenever and wherever it occurs in our state. This is not some pervasive enemy that remains beyond our reach, the constant scourge of civil society. By bringing together our innovation and technology against crimes of violence, we can better protect not only the rights of the accused, but our communities and neighbourhoods while we save lives.
Leggett and Trachtenberg to Endorse Kramer, but Not Elrich (Updated)
Citing sources close to the Kramer campaign, the Post's Ann Marimow originally reported that County Executive Ike Leggett and County Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg and Marc Elrich were set to endorse Ben Kramer on Monday. But minutes later, Marimow removed any mention of Elrich from her article. No explanation of the change appears. Did Kramer's people jump the gun?
Update: The Gazette has more.
Career Fire Fighters Endorse Kramer
Following is their press release.
March 26, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONCTACT: John Sparks (240-876-1920)
Montgomery County Fire Fighters Endorse Ben Kramer for District 4 Seat
(Rockville, MD) The Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association ("MCCFFA") announced today its endorsement of Delegate Ben Kramer to fill the vacant District 4 seat on the Montgomery County Council. The special primary election will be held on April 21, 2009.
"Ben Kramer is the only candidate in this race with a proven record of supporting issues that are important to all of us," said John Sparks, President of MCCFFA. "He is a strong advocate on public safety issues, a defender of working families, and an independent legislator who is not beholden to special interests."
"We won't agree with Ben all the time, but we know he is honest, he keeps his word, and he is fair. Those are characteristics we all want in our Council representative, and that's why we are proud to support him," Sparks added.
Sparks noted that "MCCFFA goes back more than 20 years with Ben and his family. The Kramer name is synonymous with public service and a commitment to public safety. Ben has been working hard for us as a member of the House of Delegates, and we want to bring him - and that commitment and dedication - to Rockville."
MCCFFA represents more than 1,000 fire fighter/paramedics employed by the Montgomery County Government.
###
Council Members Urge Action on Economic Development
In a tart letter to County Executive Ike Leggett, County Council Members George Leventhal, Nancy Floreen, Valerie Ervin and Mike Knapp refer to a “leadership crisis” in the Department of Economic Development and urge the appointment of a new Director “at the earliest possible date.” Former Director Pradeep Ganguly has resigned due to a conflict of interest. Chief Administrative Officer Tim Firestine told the Post that there will be no national search to replace him.
Montgomery County Council
Rockville, Maryland
March 24, 2009
County Executive Isiah Leggett
Executive Office Building
101 Monroe Street, 2nd Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
Dear Ike,
As you know, Montgomery County has historically enjoyed its reputation as a leader and innovator in the regional business community. This reputation currently hangs in the balance, and we are deeply concerned about the future of the Department of Economic Development.
The recent departure of former Economic Development Director Pradeep Ganguly, who you appointed, heightens our apprehension about this important office being rudderless during the current economic storm. While this current leadership crisis is troubling, it creates a new opportunity for Montgomery County. This department needs a leader who has a comprehensive vision for the county’s economic future and realistic strategies that will enable the county to navigate these troubled economic waters and reclaim the county’s competitive advantage among neighboring jurisdictions. The county needs you to appoint a new economic development director at the earliest possible date.
Now more than ever before, economic development issues need to take priority. The Department of Economic Development needs to aggressively attract, create, expand and retain businesses in Montgomery County. As you know, employment has stalled and is now declining. Since December 2007, Montgomery County’s unemployment rate has increased by 84 percent to 4.6 percent in January 2009. This is the highest level of unemployment in the county since 1990. Home sales, which were down 20.5 percent in 2006 and 23.4 percent in 2007, fell another 17.8 percent in 2008. Average home sale prices have fallen 11.9 percent in 2008 and the most recent residential assessments plummeted 16.3 percent and commercial property assessments declined by 6 percent. Taken together, these indicators suggest continued weakness in county income, property, and transfer and recordation tax revenue.
Memoranda of understanding with China are intriguing; however at this time, we are focused closer to home and believe the county should be directing resources to bioscience, technology, green jobs and business innovation. We also need to support and promote minority and local small businesses. The county should be reaching out to other countries only after we are assured that existing businesses will be able to ride out the current economic crisis. These businesses have helped spur the economic engine of the county, and we can not turn our backs on them during this time of unprecedented need.
In summary, we are looking to you to appoint an economic development leader, who will undertake aggressive strategies for enlarging the county’s economic tax base by attracting new, forward thinking companies and enhancing the competitiveness of the businesses located in the county. This person needs to have a mandate to act as your representative to swiftly address our current business crisis and to carry out your economic directives.
We would be happy to provide you with our input as you go through the selection process. We also hope that your staff will engage in due diligence investigation of leading candidates so that policy makers can take into consideration any and all matters that might detract from a potential appointee’s ability to gain the confidence of the County Council, the staff of the Department of Economic Development, the business community and county residents. Again, we respectfully request that you appoint a new economic development director as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
George Leventhal
Nancy Floreen
Valerie Ervin
Mike Knapp
Campaign Finance Loophole Case Study: William Rickman
Maryland is notorious for its lax campaign finance laws. The state’s infamous “LLC loophole” allows a business owner to found an unlimited number of limited liability companies and have them direct huge amounts of money to candidate accounts. Today we look at one individual who has made good use of that loophole: race track owner William Rickman.
William M. Rickman, Jr. owns Ocean Downs Racetrack in Berlin, MD and Delaware Park in Wilmington, DE. Both tracks feature horse racing; the latter track has slots. Rickman also owns W. M. Rickman Construction Company LLC, a family construction business based in Shady Grove, MD.
Rickman has been working for many years to gain permission to operate slot machines at his Ocean Downs site. He has been a prolific campaign contributor. But he does not contribute merely as an individual – he has an array of business entities that steer cash to politicians. We have identified three individuals and eight firms operating from his business and home addresses that have collectively given $344,320 to state and local politicians since 1999:
The state’s contribution limit for individuals is $4,000 per cycle. But Rickman’s use of multiple corporate entities for campaign contributions is perfectly legal under state law. Below are all candidate accounts that have received at least $4,000 from Rickman’s network since 1999:
In the 2007 Special Session, the General Assembly passed HB 4, the constitutional amendment for slots that was later approved by voters. The amendment authorizes a “video lottery operation license” at five sites, including “Worcester County, within 1 mile of the intersection of Route 50 and Route 589.” Below is a satellite map of that area roughly corresponding to a 1-mile range:
See the rounded object to the northeast of the intersection? That’s Ocean Downs racetrack. How fortunate for Rickman!
William Rickman is no better or worse than any other business or special interest in Maryland. Everyone with an issue before state or local governments has an irresistible incentive to use every legal measure possible to gain maximum political leverage. The politicians may never get rid of the LLC loophole because incumbents and parties receive so much money from it. But unless they take action against it, the above history will repeat itself... forever.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Reining in the Credit Card Industry
By Marc Korman.
I have only been married ten months and I am not used to paying bills for two yet. So a few months ago I was a few days late in paying one of the bills for a credit card my wife and I share. A BA, Masters, and half complete law degree had not prepared me for the ensuing fees, interest payments, and balance adjustments. I am not alone, as two articles in the Sunday Washington Post made clear.
In the Sunday Business section, the paper discussed the national changes coming to credit card rules. The Federal Reserve recently required credit card companies to make some changes that will begin to take effect in mid 2010. Among the highlights of the rules, credit companies will no longer be able to allocate payments to the balances with the lowest interest rates first, allowing balances with higher interest rates to continue accruing. The rules will also impose new notice requirements for interest rate increases. More information is available here.
Happily, my own state Delegate and the rest of the General Assembly are not just waiting for the feds, as discussed in the Metro section. The House of Delegates recently passed Delegate Bill Frick’s HB 1048. The legislation amends state contract law to limit the ability of credit card companies to:
1. Reserve the right to change material terms. Under current law, if a credit card company reserves the right to change material terms of the agreement, they can increase the interest rate on an existing credit card balance without an explicit provision allowing them to do so. If a cardholder cannot pay off the balance immediately, they are stuck with the new interest rate on the existing balance. HB 1048 would require the credit card companies to be more explicit if they are reserving the right to alter the rate on existing balances.
2. Trigger a default penalty based on another obligation. Currently, credit card companies can apply penalties to one credit card bill based on problems you have with other credit cards. So even if you pay your Visa bill each month, if you default on your American Express bill Visa can apply a default penalty.
Delegate Frick’s bill passed the House of Delegates 136-1 and now heads to the Senate for action. But it is not without controversy. There are questions about whether state action is preempted by the federal government in this area. But some legal uncertainty is no reason to oppose the bill. In 2006, Maryland passed breakthrough healthcare legislation requiring employers with more than 10,000 employees in the state to demonstrate that 8% of wages be applied towards employee healthcare. Courts found that the law was preempted by the federal government, but it helped advance the issue. One of the companies affected, Wal-Mart, has since revamped its employee healthcare practices. Although not perfect, their current policies are a major improvement of their old policies.
Similarly, even if Delegate Frick’s bill is later struck down by a court, credit card companies need to feel the pressure that their customers are tired of practices that abuse and confuse us. The new Federal Reserve rules and HB 1048 will increase the pressure on credit card companies and convince them to rein in their practices.
Ike Leggett, Fiscal Conservative
Budget documents are not merely financial statements. They are also political statements. And County Executive Ike Leggett’s FY 2010 budget recommendation states quite clearly that he is running for re-election as a fiscal conservative.
Most politicians hate tight budgets. They tend to interfere with one of their highest priorities: handing out goodies to supporters and contributors. So when tough times come, many politicians become cranky and defensive. They will claim that they cannot be held responsible for the poor state of the economy and their opponents could not do better anyway.
Ike Leggett has done no such thing. The wily old pro has been around a long time and knows how to convert challenges into political opportunities. By law, he is required to submit balanced budget recommendations to the County Council. But he has done much better than that: he has wrapped himself in the flag of fiscal conservatism because he has calculated that that is what the voters want.
Consider this excerpt from his press release on the budget:Leggett’s budget brings the County government’s tax-supported growth rate down from a 14.1 percent increase in FY07, the year before he took office, to less than zero – an actual decrease of 0.4 percent for the coming fiscal year – the lowest level in18 years.
Consider these charts in his transmittal letter to County Council President Phil Andrews:
In the three budgets Leggett has prepared, he has closed nearly $1.2 billion in shortfalls, which is unprecedented in County history.
“When I first took office, Montgomery County’s spending was out of control and unsustainable,” said Leggett. “And that was before the economic downturn.
“It was clear that we had been living beyond our means. Over the last three years, I have been aggressively working to restore fiscal prudence to our County government by dramatically slowing the rate of growth of both the operating and capital budgets. As the economic news has worsened, I have continued to press ahead on long-term cost savings that minimize the future burden on taxpayers while preserving public safety, education, and our safety net for the most vulnerable.
“In my first budget as County Executive in FY08, we faced a $200 million budget shortfall, so I reduced the tax supported rate of increase in spending by the County government from 14.1 percent to 6.9 percent. In FY09, the projected shortfall increased to $401 million, so we imposed a hiring freeze, produced mid-year savings of more than $30 million, abolished over 225 positions, implemented a retirement incentive program, and slowed the rate of growth to 1.6 percent. This year, we face a daunting gap of $587 million that my recommended FY10 budget successfully closes.”
Leggett is constructing a political narrative that fits with his emerging record, a record that has been largely imposed on him by a failing economy. He is claiming that his budget restraint is not a necessary evil, but a positive good. His administration represents a sober, prudent break with the free-spending past. Ike Leggett, a responsible and trustworthy leader, is a careful custodian of the people’s money.
Let’s put aside the fact that Leggett recommended breaking the property tax charter limit last year. And let’s also forget that Leggett himself voted in favor of several much more generous budgets while he was on the County Council in the 1990s. Leggett is developing his message for an electorate that sent thousands of angry emails over last year’s tax hikes, voted for the Ficker Amendment and voted for slots (an issue on which Leggett changed his position). No sitting county politician has a better instinctual sense for where the voters are headed than Ike Leggett. Past records do not count for much compared to future positioning. After all, Leggett is a politician who voted for the pro-development Pay and Go policy in 1997, was embraced by both pro-growth and anti-development at-large County Council candidates in 1998 and ran as a slow-growth County Executive candidate against Steve Silverman in 2006. Ike Leggett is a master of the political black arts.
In addition, it’s difficult to look at the above rhetoric and charts and not think of former County Executive Doug Duncan. Ever since Duncan released a blistering Op-Ed criticizing Maryland’s leaders for their lack of vision and failure to embrace “zero-based budgeting” (which Duncan himself never did), speculation has swirled around his possible return to politics. Leggett is sending a signal to Duncan or any Duncan ally that is thinking of challenging him in 2010: I know where the voters are and I am closer to them than you are.
Last summer, we christened Ike Leggett “the great chess master” and quoted a politician who said, “He’s over in his office, moving his pieces around the board. He’s one step ahead of everyone else and only he knows where he’s going.” Indeed, the cunning old player has begun to set up the board for next year.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce Endorses Kramer
Following is their press release.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
B-CC Chamber PAC Supports Ben Kramer for Montgomery County Council’s 4th District
Bethesda, Maryland – March 23, 2009 – The Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber Political Action Committee (B-CC Chamber PAC) today announced its endorsement of Ben Kramer for the Montgomery County Council, representing District 4. The B-CC Chamber PAC represents the political interests of the business community in Bethesda, Friendship Heights, Chevy Chase, North Bethesda, Montgomery Mall/Wildwood and Rock Spring. Prior to making its decision to endorse Kramer, the PAC distributed questionnaires to each of the candidates and reviewed each of the candidates’ priorities in relation to the Chamber’s legislative agenda.
“It’s an important election for the business community as economic development, transportation and the economy are issues of primary importance to the continued success of the County,” says B-CC Chamber PAC Chairman John P. Chaplin. “We are confident that Mr. Kramer will provide strong leadership and will listen to all sides of every issue that comes before the County Council in the months and years ahead. He realizes the importance of a strong government that supports economic development as one of the County’s top priorities. He also realizes the need to maintain a more stable tax and regulatory climate that will help local entrepreneurs thrive.”
Chaplin adds, “This is especially important in Bethesda-Chevy Chase, the county’s economic engine. We’ve selected a candidate who has first-hand experience in running a small business and understands the challenges businesses face every day. He has already proven his understanding of business issues and has demonstrated the ability and willingness to see business as part of, and partner with, the community through his public service in Annapolis. We believe that Ben Kramer will make an excellent member of the County Council.”
Media Contact:
John Chaplin, 301-683-5473
# # #
County Council Coalition Backs Navarro
The even split on the Montgomery County Council hardened yesterday as Nancy Navarro wrapped up four Council endorsements. As Peyton Manning once said, "It's on like Donkey Kong!"
Left to right: Mike Knapp, George Leventhal, Nancy Navarro, Nancy Floreen and Valerie Ervin.
Last year, four County Council Members (Phil Andrews, Duchy Trachtenberg, Marc Elrich and Roger Berliner) and County Executive Ike Leggett endorsed Don Praisner in the District 4 special election. Yesterday, the other four County Council Members (Valerie Ervin, George Leventhal, Nancy Floreen and Mike Knapp) endorsed Nancy Navarro. That suggests clarification of two issues:
Mike Knapp, Nancy Navarro, Leisure World Democratic Club President Jay Harding, Nancy Floreen.
1. The composition of a working majority.
The existing 4-4 split may have originally been based around views on development policy, but that has not always held. (Witness the odd alignment on the most recent vote on Planning Board Members.) At the moment, these two alliances may be based on personal relationships and convenience as much as anything since each side has its internal differences. But whatever the case, mathematics rules: it is better to be one of five than one of four.
District 18 Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez endorses Navarro.
2. Future governance.
It is no accident that three of the last four County Council officers (Marilyn Praisner, Phil Andrews and Roger Berliner) have come from one side of the split. Rumor has it that Duchy Trachtenberg is slated to become Council Vice-President next year, meaning that she is the presumptive President in 2011 (assuming she is re-elected). A victory by the other side endangers this line of succession.
Yesterday's event now puts significant pressure on Council Members Andrews, Elrich, Trachtenberg and Berliner - as well as County Executive Ike Leggett - to endorse one of Navarro's rivals. Former Montgomery County Civic Federation President Cary Lamari is a veteran activist who has long opposed overdevelopment. He is a natural fit with their publicly-expressed views on growth. Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) is a commercial property owner who supported Pay-and-Go in 1998, a pro-development policy labeled by Marc Elrich as "possibly the worst legislation in 50 years." The Kramer family is an old ally of Leggett's and Ben Kramer's self-financing makes him a formidable contender. Will the County Executive and the other four Council Members choose philosophical consistency (Lamari), expediency (Kramer) or neutrality?
We'll see!
Maybe We Can Save The Orioles?
By Marc Korman.
Orioles owner Peter Angelos has been meeting with the Governor and other Maryland officials about the Preakness. Angelos’ meeting is the latest twist in the Maryland government’s renewed desire to get more involved in sports. But perhaps the latest chapter could at least save the Baltimore Orioles from Angelos’ disastrous leadership.
During the past few weeks, skepticism has grown regarding DC United’s plan to have the state build it a new stadium in Prince George’s County. After finding some resistance in Annapolis, DC United and their co-conspirators at the Maryland Stadium Authority began reworking their proposal for the state to float almost $200 million in bonds to include bond financing from Prince George’s County as well. The latest iteration of the plan I have seen calls for the state to float $90 million in bonds and the county to put forward $51 million. How the remaining funds, originally slated to be fronted by the state but paid back by DC United in the form of rent, would be covered is not clear. Happily, skepticism abounds at the county and state level for such a proposal.
But just as the soccer stadium plan began losing steam, Senate President Mike Miller announced the possibility of the state purchasing the Preakness and building a new race track. He has even floated the possibility of a special session to move legislation through. Mind you, Miller has not asked for a special session to deal with Maryland’s 800,000 to 900,000 uninsured, transportation funding crisis, or projected energy shortage problems. But, he is revved up for a special session so Maryland can buy a horse race. Miller is on firm legal ground. As the Washington Post recently discussed, Maryland has a law giving it the right of first refusal if the race is put up for sale. If the current owner, Magna Entertainment, moves Preakness out of the state, they will also face a heavy tax penalty (though I’m not sure how much you can tax a bankrupt company).
In fairness, I actually see some limited value of state involvement in the Preakness over DC United. The Preakness has a long history in Maryland. Named after one of the winners of Maryland’s previous flagship horserace, it kicked off in 1873 and ran until 1889. For the next nineteen years it ran on and off in New York. Since 1909, Preakness has been back in Maryland and run each year. I understand why many Marylanders do not want to see its 100th consecutive race be its last. Horseracing, and the Preakness, unlike soccer, are a part of Maryland history and lore. We also know the Maryland horseracing lobby is a lot stronger than its soccer lobby.
Am I the only one that believes that Maryland’s future is biotechnology, clean energy, a better transportation system, universal healthcare, and world class education? How much money do we need to spend on sporting events, especially during tough budget times?
Luckily, the Preakness may have a savior in Peter Angelos. If you live in Montgomery County, you may have forgotten who Angelos is since the Washington Post discontinued its coverage of the Orioles. Angelos is the team’s owner, a major Democratic donor (though a foe of Martin O’Malley), and is now interested in purchasing the Preakness. Unfortunately, I am certain he is expecting massive state support for his purchase, probably through some combination of direct subsidies, bond financing for a new track, and tax benefits.
The devil is in the details, but perhaps we can make one of our conditions for state support that Angelos cede the Orioles to the state of Maryland. I don’t know if Maryland needs a soccer stadium, we may not deserve a leg of the Triple Crown, but we sure deserve a winning Major League Baseball team. Since Angelos purchased the team in 1993, they have only been to the playoffs twice and have not had a winning season since 1997. There has also been general dissatisfaction with Angelos’ stewardship, with some players even reportedly taking less money to play elsewhere. Maybe O’Malley can do better as a team owner.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Navarro Works Leisure World
In last year’s District 4 special election, Nancy Navarro lost to Don Praisner in part because of her failure to carry Leisure World. Her campaign seems intent on improving that performance.
In 2008, Nancy Navarro lost to Mr. Praisner by 4.8 points (44.3%-39.5%), but she lost to him in the two Leisure World precincts by 15 points (47%-32%). Those precincts had a combined turnout rate of 20.5% - 9.3 points ahead of the district as a whole – and gave Mr. Praisner 44% of his victory margin.
A month ago, I wrote that Navarro was the only candidate who could afford to lose Leisure World, but she needed to maintain her foothold there. I justified that statement by noting that Navarro won almost as many precincts as Mr. Praisner (21 vs. 22) and thereby started with a decent level of support and name recognition around the district. I also wrote that Ben Kramer and Cary Lamari each needed to win Leisure World to win the race. So far, none of my informants have disagreed with me about the critical position of Leisure World in this election.
On Thursday March 19, Navarro turned up the heat on her rivals by participating in a “Celebration of Women’s History Month” event at Leisure World. The event, which was also attended by County Council Members Valerie Ervin and Nancy Floreen and School Board members Judy Docca and Shirley Brandman, drew more than 40 Leisure World residents. The Navarro campaign posted photos on their Facebook page and we reprint them below. Note the last photo, which shows campaign volunteers signing up supporters.
Will House Democrats Follow Ehrlich’s Lead on Transportation? (Updated)
When former Governor Bob Ehrlich (R) diverted transportation money to the state’s operating budget, Democrats pounced. But now some of them are poised to do much the same thing.
Last week, the Baltimore Sun reported that a House Appropriations Subcommittee voted to cut highway user revenue distributions to the counties by $102 million a year for the next two years. The distributions would instead be redirected to the general fund as a buffer against deficits.
Highway user revenues (HUR) are composed of gas taxes, vehicle titling taxes, vehicle registration fees, short-term vehicle rental taxes and a small portion of corporate income taxes. Currently, 70% of HUR is dedicated to the state’s Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) and the remaining 30% is distributed to counties and municipalities. Baltimore City, which does not have state highways inside its borders, is guaranteed at least 11.5% of the local distribution. The remaining local distribution is divided among the jurisdictions according to a formula which relies on county shares of road miles and county shares of registered vehicles. Below is the planned distribution of HUR by county from the Governor’s original FY 2010 budget proposal: 
HUR distributions are an important revenue source for the counties because they can directly control how that money is spent. They have no control over money spent by MDOT. HUR accounts for about a fifth of Montgomery County’s transportation budget and about a third of Prince George’s County’s transportation budget. Redirecting HUR away from the counties and towards the state’s general fund will slow transportation spending all around the state.
The General Assembly leadership will no doubt cite the state’s budget difficulties as a reason for the diversion. But when Governor Ehrlich did something similar, Democrats slammed him. In January 2003, Ehrlich proposed his first budget as the state emerged from a downturn. That budget included a $300 million transfer of planned transportation spending to the general fund. The state Democratic Party later said the TTF was “dangerously depleted” and claimed that Ehrlich “raided the transportation trust fund to the tune of $250 million but only put $165.5 million back by imposing a ‘car tax’ on all Marylanders.”
Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan said this during his run for Governor:The Ehrlich Administration has failed to provide the leadership needed to keeping our region and State moving forward, taking one step forward and two steps backwards with its raid on the State’s Transportation Trust Fund. The Fund took a financial hit that was never paid back and has left commuters sitting in even more traffic congestion.
Then-Mayor Martin O’Malley said this during the campaign:Martin O’Malley will end the raiding of Maryland’s Transportation Trust Fund, ensuring that money meant for transportation will be used on our highest transportation priorities, instead of being diverted away. O’Malley will also ensure localities have the ability to make their own smart transportation investments.
O’Malley also made this claim on his website:
Ehrlich has raided $500 million from Maryland’s transportation trust fund. Other than supporting the ICC, Ehrlich has no vision or strategy for adding the roads and transit needed to serve new growth. He does not believe the state government should play a meaningful role in managing growth.
The Maryland Senate Caucus and Red Maryland are now climbing all over the Democrats’ about-face. And you know what?
They have a point.
Update: The Gazette reports that the full House Appropriations Committee passed these cuts, which will cost Montgomery County $11.2 million in transportation money.
Update 2: The Sun has a list of county transportation cuts passed by the House.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
County Council Forum
By Sharon Dooley.
Sunday evening will see the first of several get togethers for the District 4 County Council Special Primary hopefuls.
This first foray will showcase the Democrats and the Green Party Candidate in an open forum at the lovely mansion headquarters of the Audubon Society, "Woodend", at their sanctuary at 8940 Jones Mill Road just South of the Beltway in Chevy Chase. All candidates have been confirmed as attending and there is expected to be a lively discussion on several compelling topics such as the ICC, the environment, the county and state budget as well as education and unions. Several progressive groups and the Audubon Society are sponsoring this first outing. There will also be a corresponding Republican forum at a later date.
For the uninformed, there is a vast field already in place for this special primary scheduled for Tuesday April 21st - with a general election set for May 18th between the winners of the primary.
The candidates are: in alpha order by party -
Democrats:
Michael Bigler, funeral director
Robert Goldman, attorney
Thomas Hardman (Republican candidate in 08) IT developer
Ben Kramer - State Delegate D19
Cary Lamari - Former Civic Fed President
Nancy Navarro - Board of Education member
Green Party - unopposed
George Gluck - consultant
Republicans
Lou August Non profit executive, entrepreneur
Robin Ficker - real estate broker - attorney
Andrew Padula - Artist/activist
Each candidate is expected to stake ground on what each considers his or her strong suit - Navarro will probably stress her background in education, Kramer is expected to address his business strengths, Lamari will review land use and planning board concerns, and Hardman may mention his views on immigration, just to mention a few areas of possible discussion.
But hopefully this forum will elicit some new information that the voting public can carry with them to the polls. When there were multiple forums in a short period of time as happened last year, the discussions quickly became unexciting, repetitive and predictable as no one wished to say the wrong thing that could become tomorrows headlined misstep.
Since this is the first forum of this new primary season - let's hope new ground is plowed, new questions are proposed and straightforward answers fall from the lips of the assembled candidates. Wouldn't that be a refreshing change? Since I may be among the questioners tomorrow - I wonder what MPW readers think should be the most important question we ask tomorrow evening? I don't mean a curve ball for some and a fast ball for others; I genuinely want to hear - what is the most pressing issue in the county today that an incoming council person should be prepared to address on this Sunday evening? No on the job training - hit the ground running, people - be ready to deal with this on your first council day - (given that the current council will have the tough budget decisions wrapped up by then).
So comment away folks, - let me know what you think - ASAP - soon we will get in to the options about what next steps might be should either Navarro (empty seat on the BOE) or Kramer -(empty seat in D19 Delegation) win this one. Who do you hear is lining up for any vacancy - should it occur? And with choices for the Planning board to be decided almost as soon as the signing ink on the election certificate is dry, the newly elected council person will need to be ready. Are there still surrogate battles to be fought as current council members step up on either one side or the other of the fences here? Who is staying out or who is truly on the fence - what is it they say, never a dull moment in an off election year?
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Four County Council Members to Endorse Navarro
Following is the press release from the Navarro campaign.
##FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE##
March 20, 2009
Contact: David Moon, Campaign Manager
Email: david@navarroforcouncil.com
Elected Officials to Announce Endorsement of Nancy Navarro for County Council
Monday Press Conference to Feature Diverse Coalition of Support for Navarro
ROCKVILLE, MD – This Monday, March 23rd, Nancy Navarro will host a press conference with a diverse group of supporters who will announce their endorsement of her candidacy for Montgomery County Council, District 4.
Tentative speakers list will include Councilmembers Valerie Ervin, Nancy Floreen, Mike Knapp, and George Leventhal, as well as key community leaders representing various organizations and neighborhoods.
For more information on Nancy Navarro, visit: http://www.NancyNavarro.org.
###
Friday, March 20, 2009
Apartment & Office Building Association Endorses Kramer
From the Apartment and Office Building Association (AOBA) of Metropolitan Washington's website.
AOBA Endorses Kramer for Montgomery County Council Seat
Montgomery County Councilmember Donald Praisner (D – District 4), elected last May to the County Council seat left vacant by the death of his wife, Marilyn, passed away on Jan.30, 2009. To fill this position, the Montgomery County Council recently voted to hold special primaries on Tuesday, April 21, and a special general election on Tuesday, May 19. The Council is required to hold a special election to fill any Council seat vacated more than a year before the next election. The Councilmember who is elected at the special election will serve for the remainder of Praisner’s term.
AOBA members have decided to endorse State Delegate Ben Kramer (D - District 19) in his bid for the seat. Delegate Kramer is a long- time AOBA ally who represents a strong voice for the real estate and business communities. Kramer’s support and strong leadership have been instrumental in the defeat of several high profile bills threatening to erode property rights and adopt inequitable tax proposals.
Hijacking of Planning Underway
By Jim Humphrey, Chair, Montgomery County Civic Federation Planning and Land Use Committee.
In 1973, under authority granted by the State of Maryland, Montgomery County enacted its Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO). This law requires that before new development or redevelopment is approved in an area of the county, the Planning Board must find that public schools in the area have the capacity to accommodate students who will move into any new housing, and that the roads, transit and public health and safety services in the area are sufficient to serve the jobs and housing which would be created.
Admittedly, this system has its flaws because it allows new development to be approved based on a five to six year projection of capital improvements--added schools, roads and transit capacity, and new or expanded police and fire/rescue facilities--which the county intends to fund. In some cases officials have misjudged the amount of additional infrastructure needed to support planned growth. And sometimes county budget cutbacks have dictated that infrastructure projects could not be funded and built on the proposed timetable.
But rather than fix these flaws in the current system, the Planning Department is proposing doing away with the capacity concept. In a January 30, 2009 memo to the Planning Board, Department Director Rollin Stanley recommends that we change the direction of the Growth Policy from "what you cannot do" (his words for the current system of matching development approval to infrastructure capacity) to "where and how we should be building, adding sustainability to the evaluation." Stanley proposes the four key elements of a new "sustainable" Growth Policy should be Connectivity, Diversity, Design and Environment.
These concepts may be worthy goals when updating our community master plans, which are the agreed-upon blueprints for WHAT elements we want to see in our communities as they are built out or redeveloped, and WHERE and HOW those elements are sited in relation to each other. But the Growth Policy must address HOW MUCH more density should be allowed--how many more dwelling units and how many more jobs--and WHEN that density should be approved to be built.
Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson is making the rounds, too, addressing community groups and peddling this misapplied design jargon as the newest fad in growth planning. This sounds like the development industry slogan "It's not how dense you make it, it's how you make it dense," which is nonsense. The crucial element of a Growth Policy is its control over how much new development is allowed.
Montgomery County now has close to a million people. And 160,000 more jobs could be created, and another 80,000 to 90,000 more housing units could be built, under existing zoning--enough to accommodate another 210,000 population. In addition, the three master plans the Planning Department is now revising for Council approval--White Flint, Germantown, and a new "Science City" west of Gaithersburg--would add another 33,000 housing units and 121,000 jobs to the numbers already allowed. But since our county policy has not established a limit for growth, also referred to as optimum scale, our planners are basically throwing darts at a blank wall and telling everyone they're hitting the target.
So why are Stanley and Hanson pushing so hard to steer us away from a Growth Policy that uses concrete formulas to calculate infrastructure needs? The answer is partly related to the Planning Department project to rewrite the county Zoning Ordinance. This effort proposes replacing all solely commercial or industrial zone categories with mixed-use zoning, relying on master plans to guide the mix of uses and density targeted for any given area. But as any resident knows, if they have tried to insure that development of a property in their community adhere to the master plan guidance for the site, a master plan is just a set of recommendations with only the zoning applied to properties being legally enforceable.
If only the standards imposed by the zoning are enforceable, then how can the county plan for adequate public facilities and services to support development if no one knows what will be built under flexible zoning? We won't have long to wait to find out because the revised Twinbrook Sector Plan, approved by the County Council in December 2008, applied just such flexible zoning to 491 acres of property.
In a December 2007 memo to the Planning Board regarding the Twinbrook Sector Plan revision then underway, Planning Department staff wrote "the estimate of (housing) units is a moving target because it is hard to judge future market demand, and this is compounded in the flexible environment of a mixed-use zone." Staffers in what might more appropriately be called the "Guessing Department" have decided that up to 3,777 housing units might be built in mixed-use projects in a part of the Twinbrook area that currently has no housing, enough to generate up to 430 school-age children. But, should the market be better for residential development than office and retail space, developers could seek approval of 3 to 4 times more housing. The county won't know what will be built in Twinbrook until the projects are approved by the Planning Board, and will then scramble to provide the needed infrastructure.
A related problem is being created by the Planning Department as it undertakes the revision of the master plans for Germantown and "Science City." Planners are proposing increased density in these two areas due to "proximity to transit," but the Corridor Cities Transitway stations in these communities may not be built for 15 to 20 years. Still, the development approvals could start right away, if these master plan revisions are approved by Council. Transit-oriented levels of density being proposed by so-called expert planners for areas where there is no significant mass transit system, nor will be for some time? Nothing about this scheme deserves to be called good planning. No wonder Stanley and Hanson want to dump the current Growth Policy which insists on adequate public facilities before development can proceed. They can't show off their superior planning skills if constrained by a little thing like the APFO.
No county resident should be lulled into complacency by thinking that this is happening somewhere else, not to them and not in their community. As Director Stanley wrote in his January 30 memo, "Every strip mall in the County, or large surface parking lot, should be considered a potential site for mixed use development of appropriate scale." Planning staff are already plotting the revision of the Wheaton and Kensington master plans; and, White Oak, Glenmont, Westbard, Ashton, Langley Park and even the undeveloped 204 acre Mess property northeast of Olney have been targeted as growth areas. The 400 to 500 foot tall buildings which could soon be built at the White Flint Metro Station might be proposed for these communities next.
This year, as it does every two years, the County Council will consider possible revision of the County Growth Policy as part of the re-approval process. We must hope that our representatives understand the importance of a land use process that lets the county government decide what growth will occur and when, not one that forces it to respond to the shifting trends of a profit-driven development industry. It's just good planning.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
What the Montgomery County Delegation Can Do on Transportation Funding
By Lisa Fadden, Vice President for Public Affairs, Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce.
There aren’t many issues that all 32 Senators and Delegates in the Montgomery County Delegation can agree upon. Better yet, there are even fewer issues that both the Montgomery and Prince George’s Delegation can agree on. Ironically, the one issue that falls into that category – the issue with near unanimous support - is also one that has had no solution for decades – transportation funding.
This session – amidst budget cuts and ugly revenue estimates, there actually are some opportunities for the Montgomery County Delegation to have an impact, albeit small, on the issue of transportation funding.
Problem 1: Plummeting Revenues
Revenues in the transportation trust fund have plummeted rapidly, even more so than revenues in the general fund. The Maryland Department of Transportation has cut over $2 billion in revenues to projects over the past six months. These cuts have meant delays or deferrals of projects critical to Montgomery County, including the Georgia Avenue/Randolph Rd. interchange, the County’s top highway priority for years, along with cuts to the State commitment to both the Purple Line and the Corridor Cities Transitway.
Problem 2: An Unsustainable Trust Fund
Our model of funding transportation at the State level in Maryland is totally unsustainable. The Trust Fund’s top source of funding still remains the gas tax, in addition to the titling tax and driver registration fees. The gas tax has not been raised since the early 90’s, and has not even been indexed to the rate of inflation in those nearly two decades.
While we applaud efforts to encourage transit oriented development and believe it is imperative that the automakers design more fuel efficient cars, this has already had an impact on gas tax revenues, an impact that will grow staggering over the coming decades. If we don’t find alternate methods of funding transportation, the infrastructure hole that we have dug ourselves into will only continue to grow larger, until we literally cannot dig ourselves out of it.
Problem 3: Vulnerability from the General Fund
In these difficult times, the Transportation Trust Fund has a huge target on its back. In thirty years, the trust fund has been raided ten times in order to fill budget gaps in the general fund. While it was the right thing to do for the General Assembly to place sales tax revenues in the Trust Fund during the special session, these revenues are particularly vulnerable given the historic perspective of these revenues as General Fund revenues.
The bottom line: If we cannot demonstrate to the Federal government in the next few years that we have enough revenue in the Transportation Trust Fund to pay for our State share of our Federal New Starts projects, the Purple Line and the Corridor Cities Transitway, these projects have no chance of survival – and we only get one shot at it.
Some solutions:
TTF Protection Bill – House Bill 140, sponsored by Delegate Brian Feldman (D-15), would protect the Trust Fund from being raided by the general fund for the purposes of filling general fund deficits. The bill requires that before the governor removes money from the trust fund, he must have the approval of the legislature, and must demonstrate a repayment plan. This is a very modest proposal to protect the trust fund.
Transportation Infrastructure Task Force Bill – Senate Bill 853, sponsored by Senator Rob Garagiola (D-15), would establish a commission to report back to the General Assembly in January of 2011 that would identify the most appropriate sources of revenue to fund the future of the trust fund. While many people shrug or sigh at the idea of another task force, this bill would take into account climate change and environmental factors that are much more prevalent in our reality today than they were even five years ago. In addition, this task force could serve as a vehicle for the movement of a revenue bill during the 2011 session, safely after the 2010 election.
NOTE: While there are many gas tax increase and inflationary adjustment bills that merit passage, I don’t mention them here given that they are highly unlikely to pass this session.
Traffic relief still remains amongst the top two issues for voters. If the Montgomery County Delegation could unite on the two bills above, and unite with their colleagues around the State, we could take a modest step towards ensuring the future of the transportation trust fund.
Maryland Blogosphere Takes Off
The mainstream media (MSM) may be struggling but our data shows massive growth in Maryland’s blogosphere. Whether Post columnist Marc Fisher likes it or not, bloggers are running amok across the Free State.
In our previous work on Maryland blogs, we divided them into three categories: liberal blogs, conservative blogs and local blogs that cover specific geographic areas without an emphasis on political ideology. We track 35 blogs that publicly release their visit counts from Sitemeter or Statcounter: 5 liberal, 16 conservative and 14 local. Here are the combined visit counts for all 35 blogs and for each of the 3 categories:
In the four-month period from June through September 2007, the 35 Maryland blogs for which we have data averaged 60,258 visits per month. In the four-month period from November 2008 through February 2009, those same blogs averaged 98,807 visits per month – a 64% increase in traffic. The 16 conservative blogs for which we have data went from a combined 23,438 visits per month to 36,973 visits over the same time period – a 58% increase. The 5 liberal blogs went from an 11,988 combined monthly average to 19,335 (up 61%). The biggest increase was recorded by local blogs. The 14 local blogs for which we have data went from 22,825 combined monthly visits to 42,499 – an 86% gain. None of these counts include blog content access through other means, like Google Reader.
MPW averaged 1,718 monthly visits from June through September 2007. We averaged 11,934 monthly visits from November 2008 through February 2009 - an increase of 595%. Rockville Central went from an average 1,087 visits per month to 5,415 over the same time interval - a growth rate of 398%. Annapolis Capital Punishment went from 1,042 average monthly visits to 4,732 (up 354%). PG Politics climbed from 1,438 to 4,400 (up 206%). Red Maryland was founded in July 2007. They have received at least 10,000 visits in seven of the last eight months.
These are explosive increases in site traffic by any measure.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Maryland Democratic Women's PAC Endorses Nancy Navarro
Following is a press release from the Navarro campaign.
##FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE##
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Contact: David Moon, Campaign Manager
Email: david@navarroforcouncil.com
Maryland Democratic Women's PAC Endorses Nancy Navarro for Montgomery County Council
Navarro Calls on Rivals to Support Legislation Aimed at Curbing Domestic Violence
SILVER SPRING, MD – Nancy Navarro, this week, won the endorsement of the Maryland Democratic Women's PAC in her bid for Montgomery Councy Council. Founded with the goal of electing "dynamic Democratic women to local and state office in Maryland," the organization endorses Democratic, pro-choice women who support smart growth, universal health care, quality public education and environmental protections. The endorsement comes on the heels of The Daily Record's recent naming of Nancy Navarro as one of "Maryland's Top 100 Women."
Navarro stated, "I am thrilled to have the support of Maryland's women, who have been such a key part of electing Democrats from the county level, all the way on up to the presidency. But as we stand in the middle of Women's History Month, we must not forget the many struggles that our grandmothers, mothers and sisters have endured to become who they are today. I applaud Governor O'Malley's efforts to take guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, but I want to be clear that this is just the first step in securing the safety of Maryland's women."
Navarro called on her fellow County Council candidates to join her in urging the defeat of HB 1181 (2009). The legislation would grant accused domestic abusers the special privilege to expunge their court records, a luxury not afforded those accused of other misdeeds. The bill was recently defeated on the House floor, but supporters revived the bill in committee. Navarro noted, "the public safety of Montgomery County's residents must always be the primary concern of policymakers. HB 1181 is a gift to the special interest defense attorney lobby and would deter victims of abuse from seeking protection from our courts and the police."
Navarro will host a Women's History Month celebration at Leisure World tomorrow (THU 3/19).
###
Two County Executives, Two Budgets
Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett and Prince George’s County Executive Jack Johnson both submitted tight FY 2010 budget recommendations to their County Councils. Both men had formidable challenges and dealt with them differently.
At first glance, Leggett’s job seems harder because he has to close a $587 million deficit while Johnson confronts a $113 million gap. But Montgomery County is projecting a slight revenue increase from $4.385 billion in FY 09 to $4.436 billion in FY 10 (up 1.2%) while Prince George’s is projecting a revenue drop from $3.182 billion to $3.068 billion (down 3.6%). This enables Leggett to close his deficit with a small increase in spending while Johnson has no choice but to impose absolute cuts.
We looked at thirteen line items in the two counties’ budgets that were roughly comparable to examine the choices made by the County Executives. (We also included debt service, which is a significant cost but not one over which the counties have much discretion.) These items comprise more than three-quarters of each county’s budget. Here are the changes from FY 09’s budget recommended by the County Executives:
Johnson’s greater difficulty can be seen right away: he has recommended an absolute decrease for every one of the above items except debt service. Leggett cut six items and was also able to cut debt service. But the difference in their relative priorities for targeting and protection is even more interesting.
Johnson’s cuts concentrate on health & human services (-11.5%), environmental protection (-8.8%), the sheriff’s office (-8.2%) and the corrections department (-6.7%). He spared (relatively speaking) the circuit court (-0.9%), the community college (-2.0%), fire & rescue (-3.1%) and libraries (-3.4%). Leggett’s targets are libraries (-6.1%), the state’s attorney (-1.8%), the circuit court (-1.3%) and health & human services (-0.7%). He spared the public schools (+3.0%), fire & rescue (+2.7%), Montgomery College (+2.7%) and the police (+2.7%). Leggett’s funding for fire & rescue depends on the County Council’s approval of an ambulance fee, a tactic he was warned not to employ by seven council members. Both County Executives cut their own budgets as well as their County Councils’ funding.
The two County Councils will, of course, have the final word on the budgets. But these sets of recommendations say a lot about what is really important to both Ike Leggett and Jack Johnson.
Oregon Schools Maryland on Transportation
Last year, I wrote a series called “Crisis in Transportation” contrasting Maryland’s inability to finance its transportation infrastructure with Oregon’s plan to boost spending by a half-billion dollars per year. Months later, those two states have continued to diverge.
Maryland has happily accepted transportation money from the federal government (most of which is going to the Baltimore area) but has done little else. Delegate Bill Bronrott’s (D-16) bill to index the gas tax has attracted zero co-sponsors and is in limbo. Senator Rich Madaleno’s (D-18) bill to raise the gas tax by five cents has also attracted zero co-sponsors and has joined Bronrott’s bill in the abyss. Oregon jumpstarted its transportation plan by convening a large stakeholder taskforce (including many representatives from the business community) which issued a report outlining the state’s needs. Maryland has done no such thing. Instead, the state cut its transportation budget by $1.1 billion last fall (including double-digit cuts to the Purple Line and CCT), is cutting MARC service and is projecting another $2.5 billion in cuts. The state has no plan for financing its BRAC needs or finding money for its share of one of its three proposed transit lines. Montgomery County is now spending county money on state projects and other counties could well follow suit.
In Oregon, Governor Ted Kulongoski sent his Jobs and Transportation Act of 2009 to the state legislature. The act, based on the earlier stakeholder report, would raise a half-billion dollars every year for transportation, create a dedicated fund for transit and implement a pilot congestion fee project and other measures. It is projected to create 2,100 construction jobs annually. The Governor is also asking the legislature to consider a “mileage tax” as an eventual replacement for the gas tax. Under this tax, a GPS device installed in cars would calculate in-state miles traveled and charge a fee based on those miles at the gas pump. Representative Terry Beyer (D-12), Chair of the House Transportation Committee, predicted the legislature would pass an even larger gas tax increase than the Governor’s proposal of two cents.
Oregon’s efforts could yet fail. The legislature could disagree on both the financing composition and the amounts. But even Republicans acknowledge the need; House Republican Leader Bruce Hanna said, “I’m not absolutely saying no.” In Oregon, the Democrats have an 18-12 advantage in the Senate and a 36-24 advantage in the House. These are tighter margins than in Maryland (33-14 in the Senate and 104-36 in the House).
The point is that Oregon’s leadership recognizes their transportation problems and is trying hard to come up with a solution. Can anyone say the same of the state leadership in Maryland?
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Montgomery County Business PAC Endorses Ben Kramer
Following is their press release.
News from the Montgomery County Business PAC
51 Monroe Street, Suite 1800
Rockville, MD 20855
March 17, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Mark Scott, Board of Directors, MC Business PAC
240-395-0400 or mark@markivbuilders.com
Montgomery County Business PAC Endorses Delegate Ben Kramer in District 4 Primary
Today, the Montgomery County Business Political Action Committee (PAC) announced its endorsement in the Montgomery County Council District 4 special election primary. The primary will be held on April 26th, 2009, to fill the seat left vacant by the death of former Councilman Don Praisner.
The PAC Board reached its decision after participating in candidate interviews and reviewing the candidates’ positions and responses on various business and quality of life issues. Delegate Kramer’s leadership in Annapolis was a key factor in the decision, as was his opposition to unpopular tax proposals that shifted a disproportionate share of the burden for balancing the state’s budget onto Montgomery County residents.
“Ben Kramer has been a consistent voice for small business in Annapolis, and especially in times like these, his fiscal restraint and independence from special interests would be a welcome addition to the Council,” said Mark Scott, a small business owner and member of the PAC Board.
The Montgomery County Business PAC’s mission is to encourage greater focus by Montgomery County officials on the key economic and quality-of-life issues that provide for the betterment of our community; engage more local business leaders in the political process; and improve public understanding of the important role businesses play in the life and prosperity of our community.
# # #
A Sorry Moment for the Slow Growth Movement
Dear readers: those of you who read this blog know that nothing ticks us off more than double-talk. We can deal with differences in policy or ideology. Indeed, we have had a few such debates here over the years. But dodging, ducking and dissembling can really get our juices flowing. And we already have seen the reek of some of it in this year’s District 4 special election.
As usual, the issue is developer contributions. It’s an ancient issue in Montgomery County politics; witness its use back in 1998. In last year’s special election, Don Praisner vowed not to accept developer money and his supporters demanded that Nancy Navarro adhere to the same standard. But there were two problems. First, 42% of Marilyn Praisner’s contributions from 2001 through 2008 came from business interests, including developers like Bryant Foulger and Aris Mardirossian. Second, Don Praisner himself accepted a contribution from a co-owner of the Privacy World complex, which is seeking redevelopment to higher density. And so Nancy Navarro was required to hold to an anti-developer-contribution pledge that Marilyn Praisner never made and Don Praisner made but did not keep.
But it does not end there. Now the Praisners’ daughter, Alison Klumpp, is supporting Ben Kramer – a commercial property owner and manager by trade. She informed Maryland Moment that part of her reason for backing Kramer was that he told her he had “no intention of taking developer money.” When I pointed out that Kramer had already taken money from two real estate PACs, Mrs. Klumpp replied, “Let's keep in mind that the reports Adam are quoting are from 2006 and 2007.” So now the prohibition on accepting developer contributions has a statute of limitations attached.
There are many legitimate reasons to support Ben Kramer. He is a very intelligent man, has served in three general sessions and one special session in the state legislature and has been active in county politics for a long time. He could easily assume the demands of county office immediately after winning an election. Labor people should respect the fact that he was supported by both MCEA and MCGEO in his prior council races. As a businessman, he brings a perspective that is not shared by many of his potential colleagues on the County Council. And pro-growth voters should be delighted with Kramer’s support of Pay and Go and his 2006 endorsements by the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Washington Board of Trade. My problem is not with Ben Kramer himself, a serious candidate and a plausible office holder.
But to support Kramer because of his sudden apparent willingness to turn away developer contributions is a bizarre mutation of logic. Mrs. Klumpp herself describes him as a “commercial developer” and says that he “builds and owns shopping centers.” So a candidate who accepts developer contributions (as our County Executive and many County Council Members do) is bad, but a self-financing candidate who happens to BE a “commercial developer” is just fine. Let’s remember that if Kramer is indeed a developer, every penny he contributes to his own campaign is a developer contribution.
Given the brain-bending mental gymnastics around this issue, people who care about this are now facing an unappetizing choice: either accept a definition of “developer contributions” that is so elastic that it vaporizes on contact or abandon the issue altogether. This is a sorry moment for the county’s slow-growth movement.
Leggett and Johnson Recommend New WSSC General Manager
Following is the press release from the two County Executives. The candidate must be confirmed by WSSC's Board of Commissioners.
For Immediate Release: March 17, 2009
LEGGETT, JOHNSON RECOMMEND WSSC GM
UPPER MARLBORO, MD - Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett and Prince George’s County Executive Jack Johnson today announced their recommendation of David E. Chardavoyne to be the new Chief Executive Officer/General Manager of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC).
Chardavoyne, 61, comes from San Antonio, Texas, where he served as president/chief executive officer of the San Antonio Water System (SAWS), the city-owned utility that provides water, wastewater, chilled water and steam utility services to the seventh largest city in the country. During his tenure with SAWS, he achieved successes in the areas of strategic growth, corporate reorganization, legislative involvement and finance.
His prior experience includes five years as president and director of Thames Water Holdings Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of the third largest global water, product and services provider. He also held top-level posts with United Waterworks Inc. in New Jersey, Jamaica Water Securities Corporation of New York and Citizens Utilities Company in Connecticut.
Chardavoyne’s career has provided him with extensive experience in transforming company cultures, resulting in improved performance, profitability, and operational and organizational efficiency. His experience also reflects a sensitivity to the needs of employees, including finding ways to enhance employee relations and increasing employee morale.
The candidate was introduced by Johnson and Leggett during a morning news conference at the offices of the County Executive in Upper Marlboro.
“County Executive Leggett and I felt it was necessary to bring a true leader and professional to lead WSSC,” Johnson said. “This important agency that has a history of delivering high quality services to both Prince George’s and Montgomery counties and I am confident David Chardavoyne will improve on that tradition.”
“I’m pleased to announce that, working in concert with Jack Johnson, we have found someone who is an ideal fit for this very important position,” Leggett said. “David Chardavoyne has broad-based managerial experience which involves all levels of corporate structure and government. With his knowledge of water management issues and communication skills, David Chardavoyne would be a strong, energetic general manager for WSSC.”
Leggett and Johnson emphasized the importance of having a strong leader in the position at a time when problems caused by aging infrastructure – as evidenced by the increasing number of major water main breaks within the past months – and an economic downturn are plaguing both counties and affecting thousands of residents.
“Residents of Montgomery and Prince George’s counties have experienced first-hand, the major disruptions and, in some instances, life-threatening situations that have come about as a result of aging water and wastewater infrastructures,” Leggett said.
“I want to thank County Executive Jack Johnson and County Executive Isiah Leggett for their kind words and for giving me the opportunity to serve in this challenging position at this critical time,” said Chardavoyne. “I am looking forward to the challenge of heading this very important organization, and to contributing to its success in serving customers within the two-county area.”
A native of upstate New York, Chardavoyne studied civil engineering at the University of Wisconsin. He was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force and received an educational delay to attend Cornell, where he received a Traineeship from the federal Water Pollution Control Administration, the forerunner of the Environmental Protection Agency. He received an MS in Environmental Engineering with a minor in Operations Research and an MBA in Finance from the University of Connecticut.
During his active duty with the Air Force, he was stationed in Italy as part of the USAF Security Service (Air Intelligence Agency). Chardavoyne is a registered Professional Engineer in Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, New York and Ohio.
The WSSC is the eighth largest water and wastewater utility in the country, providing water and sewer services to nearly 1.8 million residents of Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. The agency operates and maintains nearly 5,500 miles of freshwater pipe lines and more than 5,300 miles of sewer main lines.
There are about 1,500 employees, and the commission’s budget totals approximately $757.1 million.
# # #
Maryland’s $10 Billion Black Hole
Lost in the debate about teacher pensions is one central fact that deserves discussion: the State Retirement and Pension System (SRPS) of Maryland is seriously ill. That should concern state leaders, pension recipients and taxpayers alike.
SRPS is a defined benefit pension fund covering state employees, teachers, school support staff, law enforcement officers and some employees of counties and municipalities that participate in the system. Like any defined benefit fund, SRPS draws on a portfolio of assets (currently close to $40 billion) to meet a stream of long-term benefit obligations to retirees and beneficiaries. The ratio of the fund’s assets divided by the present value of its promised benefits to participants is called its “funding ratio.” The funding ratio is the fundamental measure of any defined benefit plan’s health. The closer it is to 100%, the more likely the plan will be able to cover its promised benefits. On the other hand, a low ratio means the plan may not be able to meet its benefits without significant new contributions. Private sector plans with low funding ratios are sometimes taken over by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which often terminates them and pays out less-than-promised benefits.
As recently as 6/30/00, SRPS was 101.2% funded. But three things have changed since then to damage the pension plan’s health:
1. Increasing Numbers of Recipients
Since 2000, the number of recipients and beneficiaries has increased from 80,773 to 112,422 (up 39%).
2. Benefit Improvements in 2006
State workers and teachers won a major benefit increase in 2006 after complaining of inadequate benefits for years. That increase should have been funded, but...
3. Chronic Underfunding
Starting in FY 2003, the state and the other plan employers began contributing less than the full amount required to maintain the pension plan’s funding ratio. This practice hit bottom in FY 2007, when the employers owed $1.03 billion and only contributed $834 million, a bare 81% contribution percentage.
As a result of the above three factors, SRPS’s liabilities have increased by 66% while its assets have increased by just 29% since 2000. The funding ratio has fallen every year from 101.2% at 6/30/00 to 78.6% at 6/30/08. Most of the years between 2002 and 2006 were very good years for the stock market. Any well-run plan would have increased its funding ratio in those years, not decreased it. And now our informants tell us that the recent stock market crash has driven the funding ratio below 70%. The data below illustrates the sorry tale.
The state now faces a $10.7 billion unfunded pension liability – an amount sure to soar by next year’s annual report. While the dollar amount is high, the funding ratio is not that different from the early 1990s. The state was able to grow its way out of the problem with significant help from the national economic boom of that decade. But no one expects renewed boom times in the near future.
It is understandable that some in state government – like Senate President Mike Miller – would like to pass off this debacle to the counties. But since the state presided over this calamity, it is the state’s responsibility to fix it. Will the state cut benefits? Will it raise taxes? Will it shift spending from other areas to cover contribution increases? Will the state’s credit rating be affected? Or will Santa Claus come roaring back from the 1990s to bail out Annapolis?
It will take years to find out.
Update: We originally wrote this post a couple weeks ago. Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that Maryland's pension plan has lost an additional $10.3 billion in value since last July.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Details on Big Daddy’s Teacher Pensions Bill Revealed
As we have previously chronicled, Senate President Mike Miller is determined to unload the obligation of paying for teacher pensions on Maryland’s counties. On February 6, Big Daddy introduced SB 710, a bill that would pass on those costs to the counties over a four-year period. The fiscal note is now in, and it shows that the counties would bear more than a billion dollars in costs from Miller’s proposal.
Currently, Maryland’s defined benefit plan, the State Retirement and Pension System (SRPS), covers over 350,000 active and former state employees, teachers, state police, judges, law enforcement officers, correctional officers and legislators. School employees, who are employed by state-chartered Boards of Education, have their pension costs covered by state contributions. Some local governments also cover their direct employees but contribute payments towards their pensions.
Miller would like counties to pay for the costs of funding their teachers’ pensions for two reasons. First, as the fiscal note states, only two other states (Texas and Kansas) cover all teacher pension costs on behalf of their counties out of 34 who responded to a survey for that information. Second, Miller contends that since pension benefits are tied to compensation, which is currently set by local school boards and funded by county governments, the counties are essentially passing on an unfunded mandate to the state. (This may be the first unfunded mandate your author has encountered that is actually passed upwards!)
The fiscal note shows the following distribution of costs to the counties in fiscal years 2011-2014 if Miller’s bill were adopted:
In terms of total costs, the counties would collectively owe $100.2 million in FY 2011, a figure that would rise to $452.7 million in FY 2014. Montgomery would owe the highest amounts ($88.9 million by FY 2014), followed by Prince George’s County ($67.4 million in FY 2014), Baltimore County ($52.3 million) and Baltimore City ($42.7 million).
But these figures need to be adjusted by population since pension costs depend partially on average salaries. Following is our calculation of per capita costs in each county for the four-year period using 2007 population estimates from the Census Bureau:
On a per capita basis, Howard County taxpayers would owe the most: $268.76 per resident over the FY 2011-2014 period. Following are Calvert County ($240.87), Montgomery County ($228.25), Charles County ($218.31) and Frederick County ($208.45). These counties possess many of the state’s best-performing schools, and under Miller’s bill, they would face the highest per capita liabilities for pensions. Big Daddy’s proposal thus contains a perverse incentive: counties can escape liability for pension obligations by shorting teacher compensation and passing pension costs onto other counties. Those counties that try to attract the best teachers would face added financial consequences from doing so.
Mike Miller has a point when he claims that counties have less incentive to control pension costs when they do not pay for them (although they certainly pay significant amounts in salaries). But Miller has conveniently left out a salient fact that operates in the opposite direction: the state’s retirement system is in poor financial condition because of prior decisions made by the state government.
We will investigate that issue tomorrow.
Chaos in Collective Bargaining (Updated)
Facing a half-billion dollar deficit, the Montgomery County government has no choice other than to seek savings through renegotiating its contracts with its public employee unions. But a chaotic endgame with the Fire Fighters union has exacerbated a painful process and led to a potential violation of county law.
Montgomery County has six public employee unions with collective bargaining agreements. The Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA), Service Employees Local 500 and the Montgomery County Association of Administrative and Supervisory Personnel (MCAASP) negotiate with MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast. Their contracts are approved by the Board of Education and the County Council determines the overall funding level for the school system. The Fire Fighters, Police and the Municipal & County Government Employees Organization (UFCW Local 1994, MCGEO) negotiate their agreements with the County Executive. Those agreements must be approved and funded by the County Council.
The county’s FY 2010 budget problems were apparent last summer. By November, deficit estimates approached $500 million. In December, Dr. Weast renegotiated agreements with the three school unions eliminating their cost-of-living increases and providing for savings of $89 million. But the new deals also contained a “me-too” clause stating:If the County Government negotiates higher compensation improvements for any of its employee organizations during FY10, FY11, or FY12; those higher increases will be matched for school system employees.
County Executive Ike Leggett’s task was crystal clear from that time on. He had to obtain cost savings from the three non-school unions without activating the me-too clause. If the me-too clause was invoked, an arbitrator had to evaluate the claim and if it was upheld, millions of dollars would be put back into the budget.
In January, the Fire Fighters announced a tentative deal with Leggett’s team providing for $7 million in savings. The total savings amount was proportionately in line with the concessions made by the school unions. But since some of the savings came from deferring, and not foregoing, pay increases (as the school unions had done), some in the Executive branch became concerned about risking activation of the me-too clause. Leggett spokesman Patrick Lacefield promptly disavowed the deal because of “outstanding legal issues.” This points to internal disagreements on the management side of the table.
Normally, when one side rejects a proposal during a collective bargaining process, it responds with a counter offer. But management made no such counter to the Fire Fighters and no further formal bargaining sessions were held. Instead, management complained to the Post, and the Editorial Board obliged by penning a stinging critique of the Fire Fighters. That provoked this response from Fire Fighters President John Sparks and further increased tensions around the issue.
Last week, as the County Executive’s budget approached its release deadline, there were still no negotiations with the Fire Fighters. Top managers said that Leggett remained undecided on the Fire Fighters’ contract as the clock ticked to zero. By that time, MCGEO and the Police had given up their cost-of-living increases in line with the school employees. They also bargained me-too clauses. Finally, the Post reported that Leggett’s budget would not fund any increases for any of the three county unions even though management had not reached a deal with the Fire Fighters.
The problem? That’s illegal.
Section 33, 153(l) of the County Code states:In each proposed annual operating budget, the County Executive must describe any collective bargaining agreement or amendment to an agreement that is scheduled to take effect in the next fiscal year and estimate the cost of implementing that agreement. The annual operating budget must include sufficient funds to pay for the items in the parties' final agreement. The employer must expressly identify to the Council by April 1, unless extenuating circumstances require a later date, all terms and conditions in the agreement that:
And Section 33, 154(a)(8) states:
(1) require an appropriation of funds, or
(2) are inconsistent with any County law or regulation, or
(3) require the enactment or adoption of any County law or regulation, or
(4) which have or may have a present or future fiscal impact.
If a later submission is necessary, the employer must specify the submission date and the reasons for delay to the Council President by April 1. The employer must make a good faith effort to have the Council take action to implement all terms and conditions in the parties' final agreement.(a) The employer and its agents or representatives must not:
Former County Executive Neal Potter tried a similar maneuver in the early 1990s and was turned back. Ike Leggett was a member of the County Council at the time.
(8) directly or indirectly oppose the appropriation of funds or the enactment of legislation by the County Council to implement an agreement reached under this Article...
So now there is no renegotiated agreement with the Fire Fighters, a potential violation of county law by the Executive Branch and a giant mess for the County Council to clean up. How did we get to this point?
Some point to stubbornness by the Fire Fighters. It’s true that Fire Fighters President John Sparks has a reputation for being a bit difficult at times. But he did offer concessions approaching a similar economic value to what was offered by the other unions. And at least some parts of the management team found them to be acceptable; otherwise there would have been no tentative deal.
But this is really a story of confusion, delay and indecision. The county’s budget problems have been obvious for many months. And the management team had enormous leverage over the Fire Fighters. Public opinion has been leaning against substantial public employee raises for at least a year. The voters sent a strong message against further tax increases by their approval of the Ficker Amendment. The gargantuan size of the budget deficit guaranteed work hour reductions of some kind, especially if pay increases were maintained. Sensing these factors, the other five unions gave up their cost-of-living increases. But despite all of the above, management convened no negotiations and did not press its advantage against the Fire Fighters. Our advice to any party in a collective bargaining process is: if you have leverage, use it.
Now the County Council will have to do the dirty work of eliminating funds for the Fire Fighters’ raises. They already have their hands full dealing with the worst budget in decades. And they have another labor issue to deal with: the disability bill proposed by Council Members Phil Andrews and Duchy Trachtenberg. Here is another issue that has dragged on since last summer. Disability benefits are normally decided by collective bargaining, but because this process has taken so long, Council Members Andrews and Trachtenberg can reinforce their argument that the matter should be taken away from the Executive and the unions. Former County Executive Doug Duncan probably would have vetoed this bill because it infringes on the Executive Branch’s authority, but Ike Leggett did not send a representative to testify at the bill hearing.
Concessionary bargaining is never easy. It always tests the relationship between management and labor. The best way to deal with it is to muster your leverage, exert maximum pressure on the other side and strike an agreement quickly, as MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast demonstrated. But for unknown reasons, Leggett’s team was unable to follow suit with the Fire Fighters. And that has generated both chaos in collective bargaining and increasing questions about the County Executive’s leadership.
Update: The Fire Fighters have now filed a complaint against the Leggett administration.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Sierra Club and ACT Sponsor District 4 Debate
From Cavan Wilk of Greater Greater Washington.
In order to raise voters' awareness on transportation, land use, livable/walkable communities, climate change, habitat protection/restoration, and other key environmental and quality-of-life issues, you are invited to participate in a Candidates' Forum on these issues. The Sierra Club of Montgomery County and the Action Committee for Transit (ACT) are co-sponsoring this Forum on Tuesday March 31 at 7:30 pm at John F. Kennedy High School. Kennedy HS is a 15 minute walk from the Glenmont Metro and is served by the C7, C8, and C9 Metrobus routes.
The parameters of this Candidates' Forum are as follows:
* The forum will start promptly at 7:30 pm and will end promptly at 9:30 pm.
* All Democratic and Republican candidates have been invited.
* Approximately two-thirds of the questions will be chosen by the Sierra Club and ACT; approximately one-third of the questions will come from the audience.
* Each candidate will be allowed two minutes to respond to each question.
* The moderator will ask follow-up questions to one or more candidates when appropriate.
* We will allow each candidate to make a final one-minute statement during the closing minutes of the Forum.
* The moderator will enforce all time limits.
* We will invite the voters of District 4 and the general public and the press to attend this event.
Thank you for your willingness to support the democratic process in Montgomery County's District 4. The Action Committee for Transit and the Sierra Club of Montgomery County hope that you will attend and embrace the March 31 Candidates' Forum as an important element of the political process.
Earlier this month, David [Alpert] posted a list of candidates. During the post, David also described an underlying issue that will be discussed at this forum:The county is struggling with the same debates over the future of our communities as in many other parts of the nation. Does it want to strengthen and increase its walkable neighborhoods and transit options? Or should it restrict all growth inside the Beltway to keep existing suburban communities just as they are? On Greater Greater Washington, we have our opinions. East County voters have to make their decision, and that seat on the Council could tip an important balance for the entire county.
A thorough Greater Greater Washington post about the issues surrounding land use planning in Montgomery County can be found here.
I look forward to seeing everyone there.
Cavan Wilk
Upcoming Events
From Marc Korman.
Upcoming Events
MCDCC Training for New Precinct Officials
Tuesday, March 24th at 7:00pm
MCDCC Headquarters
3720 Farragut Avenue, 3rd Floor in Kensington
If you are a new Precinct Chair or Vice Chair, then this training is for YOU! Email Vivian Malloy at vivmalloy@aol.com for more information.
Senator Ben Cardin in Montgomery County
Hosted by the Silver Spring Democratic Club
He will be discussing the topic “The Nation’s Economic Crisis – A Congressional Perspective.”
Wednesday, March 25th at 7:00pm
White Oak Middle School
12201 New Hampshire Avenue
Council District 4 Candidates’ Forum
Hosted by Sierra Club and Action Committee for Transit
Tuesday, March 31st at 7:30pm
Kennedy High School
1901 Randolph Road in Silver Spring
Council District 4 Debate
Hosted by the Montgomery County Young Democrats
Wednesday, April 1st at 7:30pm (Doors open at 7:00pm)
AFI Silver
8633 Colesville Road in Silver Spring
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Exum’s Billionaire Protection Bill
We all know Senator Nathaniel Exum (D-24) is a busy man. He is a target of an FBI probe. And he is trying to repeal Prince George’s County’s prohibition on political contributions from developers with pending land use applications (which benefits his daughter). But that’s not enough. Now he wants to make sure that billionaires are classified as “economically disadvantaged” by the state government.
Say what? You read that correctly. SB 355, sponsored by Exum and co-sponsored by Senators Lisa Gladden (D-41), David Harrington (D-47), Verna Jones (D-44), Nathaniel McFadden (D-45), Catherine Pugh (D-40) and scandal-plagued Ulysses Currie (D-25), rewrites the state’s minority business certification requirements. Under current law, a minority business enterprise is considered to be economically disadvantaged only if the owner’s personal net worth is $1.5 million or less. Exum’s bill removes that test entirely.
That’s right, Senator Exum believes that billionaires Robert Johnson, Oprah Winfrey, Jerry Yang and Sanjiv Sidhu are “economically disadvantaged” and deserve to participate in Maryland’s minority business program. It’s worth noting that the U.S. Small Business Administration’s definition of economically disadvantaged firms excludes companies owned by individuals with more than $250,000 in net worth (aside from business and home equity).
Montgomery County legislators were excoriated for opposing the millionaire tax. Fair enough. But why are those same critics silent about Senator Exum’s billionaire protection bill?
Either People Read This Blog or The World Is Full of Great Ideas
By Marc Korman.
I woke up this past Saturday morning to two good pieces of news on the policy front. Either folks in Annapolis are reading this blog or they have had some of the same great ideas we have discussed here. Either way, these two developments left me smiling.
Party Change Deadline
On Friday, the Maryland House of Delegates passed HB 589, Delegate Jolene Ivey’s bill harmonizing voter registration deadlines for new registrants and those changing parties. We raised the same issue in a post last September, which discussed the problem in the law which requires current registrants changing or selecting a party for the first time to do so three months before the election, while the deadline for entirely new registrants is just three weeks before the election.
The Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee endorsed Ivey’s bill and one of our members, Karla Walker from District 20, testified on its behalf. Common Cause also testified in support. The bill passed the House unanimously and now heads over to the Senate. The bill was not cross-filed, but hopefully its broad support in the House will mean a smooth ride in the other chamber.
Prince George’s Soccer Stadium
Even better, the Washington Post ran an article on the ill conceived plan to bring DC United to Prince George’s County. We discussed the plan, which uses state money to fund stadium construction, in a previous post. The Post article demonstrated some reluctance in the plan by its most likely supporters, Prince George’s legislators. Delegates Dereck Davis and Joanna Benson both expressed concern with the cost. The Gazette also recently covered the “tepid reception” for the proposal from the Prince George’s County Council. Hopefully, others share their good sense and the General Assembly will not approve the financing.
Compared to some of the major issues before the General Assembly such as the budget, gay rights, and the death penalty, the two issues above are small ball. But a lot of the legislature’s impact comes from the cumulative effect of the small actions, or in some cases inaction, as discussed above.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Michael Steele: The View From Maryland
By Marc Korman. Cross-posted from Progress for a New Generation.
“Bobby Jindal is doing a friggin’ awesome job in his state.” - ABC Radio InterviewThanks to quotes like these, the rest of the nation now knows what we in Maryland have already figured out. Michael Steele is not ready for prime time.
“Oh, yes, I’m always open to everything, baby, absolutely.” - Fox News Interview
“Drill, baby, drill.” - Republican National Convention Speech
Steele’s speaking style makes George W. Bush look like Barack Obama. Maybe he is just trying to appeal to us crazy kids and our slang, but am I the only one who is put off when I see a man in his fifties regularly call people baby? Is he hoping to take over the role of Austin Powers?
Although we could argue that Steele’s speaking style is enough to disqualify him as a serious political player (if only that argument had worked with W), Steele has other failings too. Nationwide, Steele is often referred to as the former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland. Commentators talk about the accomplishment of a Republican being elected in a blue state. But unlike California or Texas, Maryland’s LG is not an independently elected office, but is elected on a ticket with the governor. Steele’s victory was not really his, but rather a victory for Republican Bob Ehrlich, who positioned himself as a moderate problem solver. It was also the result of a poorly run campaign by the Democratic nominee in a big year for Republicans across the country, 2002.
In fact, Steele has never won an election on his own. He ran for a statewide office in Maryland in 1998 and lost. He came in third in a three way Republican primary. He also ran for the US Senate in 2006 and was a highly touted prospect. This time the primary field was clear for him, but he lost a lackluster campaign that had more to do with whether he liked puppies than his views on Iraq, healthcare, or other issues.
Steele was also the chairman of the Maryland Republican Party, likely his best qualification for running the RNC. He chaired from 2000 to 2002, which was when he was conveniently picked to be Bob Ehrlich’s running mate. While Steele found some success, he left the rest of his fellow Republicans behind. That same year long serving Republican Congresswoman Connie Morella was defeated and no infrastructure was built for state legislative candidates. Although Ehrlich’s win was impressive, it was an isolated victory in a big Republican year nationwide with no lasting impact. Four short years later Ehrlich was defeated, the same year as Steele’s Senate defeat, and Democrats picked up seats in the state legislature.
Steele’s organizational failings go beyond his party failures. He also had financial problems with his business consulting group, leading to liens being placed on his home. That probably qualifies him to serve in the Cabinet, but does not speak well of his financial skills.
So if Michael Steele is the future of the Republican Party, then progressives should be smiling.
Pipkin’s ICC Gambit
Why is Republican Senator E.J. Pipkin (R-36) sponsoring a bill to stop further spending on the Intercounty Connnector, a high-profile project that is a top priority of the business community? We can think of several reasons, all relevant to the next Congressional District 1 race – a contest in which Pipkin may very well run again.
1. Opposition to “Government Waste”
Like ICC opponents in Montgomery County, Pipkin can claim that the ICC is a “wasteful” expenditure given the state’s recent cutbacks in transportation projects. Many Montgomery ICC enemies say that the project’s money should be spent on transit instead, but Pipkin would have a different goal in mind.
2. Against Montgomery County, for the Eastern Shore
Pipkin can make an argument that many outside Montgomery County embrace: Montgomery gets too much transportation money. It is getting the $2.4 billion ICC, plus two out of three of the state’s major new transit lines, plus a large annual subsidy to WMATA. Pipkin can say that other projects in the “neglected” Eastern Shore are due for financing. This will be a popular argument in District 1. It also adds a touch of populism to go against the state’s biggest, and supposedly wealthiest, jurisdiction.
3. Pro-environment
If Pipkin makes it out of the Republican primary, his anti-ICC bill will form part of a nice pitch to the environmental movement. Maryland environmentalists are convinced that the ICC will promote global warming and increase stormwater runoff. In fact, Governor O’Malley’s support for the ICC was the biggest black mark on his mid-term evaluation by the Maryland League of Conservation Voters. This fits with Pipkin’s past efforts to depict himself as a pro-environment, pro-Bay Republican and will make him more competitive against Frank Kratovil in a general election.
The bill’s co-sponsor list is interesting. It includes Democrats James Brochin (D-42), George Della (D-46), Brian Frosh (D-16), David Harrington (D-47), Paul Pinsky (D-22), and Jamie Raskin (D-20) and Republicans Richard Colburn (R-37) and Nancy Jacobs (R-34). Frosh, Pinsky and Raskin are three of the most liberal Senators in Maryland and Jacobs is one of the most conservative Senators. Democratic Delegate Barbara Frush (D-21) is the sponsor of the House version of the bill.
Regardless of the policy implications of stopping the ICC, this bill is a very astute move for Senator Pipkin. Have the Democratic co-sponsors considered whether they should be helping Pipkin - and perhaps even strengthening him - for a possible 2010 showdown against Frank Kratovil?
Goldman Releases Chamber of Commerce Questionnaire
District 4 County Council candidate Rob Goldman has released his Chamber of Commerce Questionnaire to MPW.
1) What is your vision for the role that Montgomery County will play in our future global economy?
With the growth of green businesses, montgomery county certainly has a role in the global community, promoting companies that solve environmental and social problems, starting on the local level. Montgomery County can make a greater contribution to the preservation of the environment and practices that improve the quality of life for employees and customers.
a. What would you do as a member of the County Council to reach this Vision?
I will ensure economic impact studies are performed to analyze the growth of various industries, I will work to ensure business retention and expansion, I will work with local colleges and universities to produce skilled workers in Montgomery County’s various industries.
2) Do you believe that providing incentives for companies to locate in Montgomery County is an important part of economic development strategy?
Certainly, in order to be competitive and ensure that companies and businesses will relocate and thrive here we need to provide some incentives. At a time when so many businesses are closing, these incentives will enable our citizens to go back to work and our local economy to rebound.
3) Economic downturn has resulted in decreased revenues for Montgomery County. What do you believe are the best methods for boosting County revenues? What should be trimmed from the County’s budget in these difficult times?
As explained on my website, www.goldman4montgomery.com, my position has been to take a long look at the budget and re-evaluate where our tax money is going. With foreclosures out of control and the number of citizens who are unemployed, we cannot raise taxes right now to increase revenues. That is financially irresponsible. We need to refocus our spending. The county’s risk management budget for this fiscal year is in excess of $9 million. The county council should look at private insurance for some or all of the risk management, with the hopes of decreasing this budgeted item. Second, almost ¾ of the county’s grant money goes to programs that have been in place since before 2000. Our needs have changed since then and we should not be tied to outdated programs. We can re-direct our grant money elsewhere. We should abolish stipends for volunteers to county committees and boards. This work should be voluntary. These are but a few examples that would give us some flexible economic flexibility.
4) Given that Maryland’s investment in transportation continues to decline and traffic congestion remains a huge concern for voters in Montgomery County, how do you believe that the County Council should address our traffic relief?
As somebody who has an 18 mile commute from home to work but is in the car for 1 ½ to 2 hours everyday, I know about traffic congestion. We need to promote public transportation—get moving on the purple line, reinstate bus routes that have been changed or terminated and remove aging-diesel fueled buses from service and replace them with environmentally friendly, cng or hybrid buses. The Intercounty Connector should help in the future, but in the interim, alternative means to cars and private transportation should be addressed with promoting public transportation. Also, riders of public transportation should be entitled to better financial incentives/rates for riding public transportation.
5) What is your position on some of our key traffic relief projects including the Purple Line, Corridor Cities Transitway and the widening of I-270?
I am and will continue to be in favor of anything that makes our lives and commutes easier. For too long, the infrastructure has not matched our growth. Failure to do anything now will ultimately make the traffic problems worse later and lead to a decline in our population and quality of life. Nobody wants to spend their lives in their cars, angry and frustrated. Responding to growth and preparing ourselves for future growth is necessary through these projects.
6) Please discuss your thoughts on the Master Plans that will come before the County Council in 2008 including: Gaithersburg West, Germantown and White Flint, as these areas are all opportunities for important economic development.
I think that it is terrific to focus on Germantown, as a possible hub for culture and employment. People tend to focus on only certain areas closer to the district as areas of employment and activity in montgomery county. Germantown is a good locale in the county for this development. Gaithersburg west is a prime location for life science growth to serve as the county’s hub for science. White flint will create more greenspace. Each of these ideas for the master plan will give the various areas of montgomery county a uniqueness, a reason to visit and explore the various diverse areas of the county and will centralize the various industries/activities/opportunities in that particular region of the county.
7) Why would you like to be a member of the Montgomery County Council and what do you hope to accomplish?
As a parent, resident of montgomery county, member of the legal community and volunteer, I see my neighbors in district 4 and my friends in the county suffering through economic difficulties, paying their mortgages, keeping their homes and jobs, and their children’s educations. I also see their concerns for safety and their retirements. These are not atypical concerns or concerns that are new. However, my career has been about helping people, making their lives better and protecting their interests. I want to continue to do that for all of the citizens of my county, to make my children’s lives better and easier and to help others make their lives better and easier.
Kramer’s Committee Votes: Context Matters
Committee votes in Annapolis are fair game in assessing any legislator’s performance. But after investigating Delegate Ben Kramer’s (D-19) House Judiciary Committee votes further, we believe that the context of some of these votes must be considered.
1. Hate Crimes
Kramer voted against HB 80 2008 in committee, the “No Nooses Act,” a bill sponsored by Delegates Saqib Ali (D-39) and Herman Taylor (D-14) that would have prohibited the placement of nooses on another person’s property because of their race or other demographic characteristics. But Kramer voted in favor of HB 41 2008, a bill that would have outlawed both nooses and swastikas, on the House floor. Kramer is also the lead sponsor of a bill that would prohibit hate crimes on the basis of age, gender and disability.
2. Inmate Diminution of Credits
Kramer voted against three 2008 bills that prohibited child rapists, child sex offenders and violent criminals from earning “diminution credits” (which are awarded for good behavior while in prison and used to reduce sentences). But he did vote for a 2008 bill establishing minimum sentences for second-time child sex offenders. And this year, Kramer is the lead sponsor of two bills that limit diminution credits for primary drug, violent and sexual offenders and violent criminals.
3. Reporting Lost or Stolen Firearms
Kramer voted against HB 880 2008 in committee, a bill that requires gun owners who have their weapons stolen to report the thefts or go to jail. The bill was requested by the Baltimore City Government. In fact, the bill was voted down overwhelmingly in committee because it imposed threats of jail time against crime victims – in other words, people whose guns were stolen. Members in both parties agreed the bill imposed an unreasonable burden on victims, especially some who may not even know of the thefts for long periods of time.
Committee votes matter and should be posted on the Internet. State legislators should not get passes on them. They should expect scrutiny on committee votes just as they receive on floor votes. But context matters too, as the above analysis demonstrates.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Abuser Expungement Bill Rises From the Grave
Yesterday, we reported that a bill sponsored by Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) allowing accused domestic abusers to expunge their records was defeated. But we spoke too soon: the House of Delegates acted today to revive the bill and send it back to the Judiciary Committee to be re-worked.
Simmons’ bill would allow people accused of abuse who had their civil protective orders dismissed or denied by a judge to get those records expunged. Simmons and other bill supporters claim that the existence of these records caused problems for the accused in seeking employment and housing even though they were not upheld in court. Opponents responded that nearly all other civil defendants do not have the right of expungement and questioned why that right should be given to accused abusers alone. Others, including Delegate Cheryl Glenn (D-45), claimed that abused spouses are often reluctant to press charges in court, so their abusers should not be rewarded with expungement rights.
The expungement bill’s 64-69-8 defeat attracted substantial coverage from the Post and the Sun yesterday. But in a startling reversal, the House of Delegates reconsidered its vote on the bill today by a 76-63-2 margin, sending it back to the Judiciary Committee for revamping. The bill’s resurrection is due to the following group of 16 Delegates who voted against it yesterday but then voted to revive it today:
Saqib Ali (D-39)
John Bohanan (D-29B)
Rudolph Cane (D-37A)
Virginia Clagett (D-30)
Steven DeBoy (D-12A)
Adelaide Eckardt (R-37B)
Donald Elliott (R-4B)
James Gilchrist (D-17)
Guy Guzzone (D-13)
Marvin Holmes (D-23B)
Stephen Lafferty (D-42)
Murray Levy (D-28)
James Malone (D-12A)
Shane Pendergrass (D-13)
Justin Ross (D-22)
Frank Turner (D-13)
How could these legislators change their opinion on one bill that was not amended in just 24 hours?
Another fact worth noting is that support for the bill split partially along gender lines. On the first vote, female legislators voted against the bill 15-29-4 while male legislators voted for it 49-40-4. On the second vote, female legislators voted against the bill 17-30-1 while male legislators voted to reconsider it 59-33-1.
Among Montgomery Delegates, Luiz Simmons (D-17), Brian Feldman (D-15), Ben Kramer (D-19) and Henry Heller (D-19) voted for the bill both times, Kumar Barve (D-17) voted for the bill the first time but voted against reconsideration, Saqib Ali (D-39) and James Gilchrist (D-17) voted against the bill but then voted to revive it and the rest of the delegation opposed it consistently.
Cheryl Kagan Edges Closer to District 17 Senate Race
Former Delegate Cheryl Kagan has updated her website and may be getting closer to a campaign announcement for District 17 Senate.
Kagan's website, updated on February 8, contains lots of biographical information and press accounts from her tenure as a Delegate but does not formally list the office she is seeking. The site's Google header describes her as "a Democrat exploring a run for State Senate from District 17, Montgomery County, Maryland." As we noted last month, Kagan raised $20,634.69 last year and has $44,224.76 in the bank. Jennie Forehand, the incumbent, raised $4,705.66 and has a balance of $71,044.34.
A Google search on Cheryl Kagan yields this June 2008 video as the fifth search result, part of an oral history on Vassar College alumni. In it, Kagan recounts why she got involved in politics and says she "may be" running for Senate in 2010.
This race could be the premier state legislative contest in Montgomery County next year. We will have more on it in the near future.
Navarro Releases Chamber of Commerce Questionnaire
In response to Cary Lamari's challenge, Nancy Navarro has released her questionnaire from the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce.
Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce
The Voice of Montgomery County Business
Candidate Questionnaire - District 4 Special Election
Name: Nancy Navarro
Party Affiliation: Democrat
1) WHAT IS YOUR VISION FOR THE ROLE THAT MONTGOMERY COUNTY WILL PLAY IN OUR FUTURE GLOBAL ECONOMY?
It is a great question. Montgomery County is already playing a significant role in what I call the new economy. This economy is fueled by globalization thanks to advances in Internet connectivity and the collaboration that the new tools allow in the areas of scientific research, product design, development and marketing. We are blessed with an abundance of knowledge workers in companies and institutions in and beyond the I-270 corridor. We need to do more, to harness these resources and attract and retain new businesses to our county. I envision a business-friendly Montgomery County that is able to leverage its formidable financial muscle to attract 21st century businesses into our communities.
a. WHAT WOULD YOU DO AS A MEMBER OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL TO REACH THIS VISION?
As a county council member, I will reach out to the leaders of the business community to hear from them what it would take for Montgomery County to be able to attract and retain new and leading edge businesses. I would work with my colleagues on the council to explore responsible and sustainable business incentives to keep our businesses here and thriving. I would also explore the establishment of a think tank in partnership with our business community and the county executive that keeps a pulse on current and future trends in business. We have to stay ahead of the curve in the new business dispensation.
2) DO YOU BELIEVE THAT PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR COMPANIES TO LOCATE IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY?
Absolutely I do. Research has shown that these incentives, once they attract the right businesses, pay for themselves many times over. We must have a strategic plan that guides the selection of companies and ensures a fit with our overall economic development vision.
3) ECONOMIC DOWNTURN HAS RESULTED IN DECREASED REVENUES FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE ARE THE BEST METHODS FOR BOOSTING COUNTY REVENUES? WHAT SHOULD BE TRIMMED FROM THE COUNTY’S BUDGET IN THESE DIFFICULT TIMES?
As the immediate past president of the Montgomery County Board of Education that oversees half of the county’s $4 billion budget, I can say unequivocally that maintaining consumer confidence is key to boosting revenues. For the past several years I have been part of a leadership team ensuring that Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) remains an institution of excellence that workers want to keep their children in. We have been very successful at that and businesses know that. MCPS is regarded as the crown jewel of the county and for good reason. We need to look at ways of generating our own local stimulus package to jump start spending. In the past few months, I am glad to have been a part of the team that convinced our school system’s employee unions about forgoing pay raises for the good of the county. The conduct of our unions sent a strong message to the community that we were all prepared to do what it takes to keep the economy going.
4) GIVEN THAT MARYLAND’S INVESTMENT IN TRANSPORTATION CONTINUES TO DECLINE AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION REMAINS A HUGE CONCERN FOR VOTERS IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, HOW DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE COUNTY COUNCIL SHOULD ADDRESS OUR TRAFFIC RELIEF?
We need to implement the transit, road and intersection improvements that are already identified in the county’s 10-year transportation plan. I would keep key transit projects like the purple line and corridor cities transitway at the top of our priority list, and work with our state delegation to secure more funding for transportation. I would also invest in other initiatives that provide relief like telecommuting.
5) WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON SOME OF OUR KEY TRAFFIC RELIEF PROJECTS INCLUDING THE PURPLE LINE, CORRIDOR CITIES TRANSITWAY AND THE WIDENING OF I-270
Montgomery County needs significant transportation relief. I am a transit advocate who has testified on behalf of the Purple Line, and has expressed support for the Corridor Cities Transitway. I believe that we need to have a futuristic approach towards transportation that gets people out of cars and into mass transit as much as possible. We should also increase the use of telecommuting by our workers.
6) PLEASE DISCUSS YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE MASTER PLANS THAT WILL COME BEFORE THE COUNTY COUNCIL IN 2008 INCLUDING: GAITHERSBURG WEST, GERMANTOWN AND WHITE FLINT, AS THESE AREAS ARE ALL OPPORTUNITES FOR IMPORTANT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
I am generally pleased with the plans. The Germantown plan emphasizes its continuing development as a county employment hub, improves upon transportation through interconnectedness of neighborhoods and proposes to establish Germantown as a cultural center for Northern Montgomery.
A similar theme runs through the planning for the White Flint master plan as North Bethesda’s urban center. I like the emphasis on neighborhoods, sustainable businesses and improved transportation including the pedestrian and biking environment.
The Gaithersburg West master plan’s emphasis on creating a vibrant life services center for business, health care, and academic uses is appealing to me from a business perspective. This plan seeks to create a campus that would bring prominent institutions of higher learning, like John Hopkins University, Universities at Shady Grove, and possibly connect them with agencies like the FDA and NIH to create a knowledge-based 21st Century hub right here in our County. We can also establish a connection to the public school system in order to begin the process of innovation early on. There are entire cities in China and areas in India that have establish similar centers, we are fortunate to have this opportunity in our County. I look forward to engaging in dialogue with council members and the business community on these plans.
7) WHY WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL AND WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH?
I welcome the opportunity to join a team of councilmembers and engage in a meaningful conversation about the state of Montgomery County today and fashion a vision for a desired state. Joining the county council would give me a great opportunity to give back to District 4 and a county that I happily call home. Montgomery County has changed in profound ways and I would like my leadership perspective to give voice to the yearnings of all our citizens.
Kramer Hit on Committee Votes
A prominent local activist has distributed records of many of Delegate Ben Kramer’s (D-19) votes inside the House Judiciary Committee to rival campaigns. The revelations are sure to stir up the District 4 race.
Jonathan Shurberg, a Silver Spring Democratic activist and a lawyer who is locally famous for winning Equality Maryland’s transgender bill lawsuit, has obtained House Judiciary Committee votes by Kramer on seven bills. Committee votes are not available on the Internet and must be physically gathered in Annapolis. Shurberg emailed the votes to Democratic candidates other than Kramer and that information is circulating rapidly through the county’s political community. Following is Shurberg’s email:
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Shurberg
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:08:07
To: [Democratic Candidate Emails]
Subject: Ben Kramer Voting Record
I am a Democratic activist who is very concerned about the potential election of Ben Kramer to the County Council. I have compiled a list of what I consider to be very problematic and politically indefensible committee votes by Delegate Kramer in 2007 and 2008. See attached. I am sending this list to all Democratic candidates because I think this information needs to be publicly disseminated and discussed prior to the primary election on April 21. All of this information is from public sources in Annapolis.
Kramer’s Judiciary Committee Votes (partial):
Anti-Consumer: HB606 2008 – Kramer voted to limit amount of money an injured person could recover when harmed through medical malpractice. Repealing a $15,000 annual increase in a specified limitation on noneconomic damages in a health care malpractice claim or action for a cause of action arising on or after January 1, 2009.
Pro-Criminal: HB619 2008 – Kramer voted to kill a bill that would’ve stopped the early release of child rapists: “Prohibiting the earning of diminution credits to reduce the term of confinement of an inmate who is serving a sentence in a State or local correctional facility for committing first degree rape, second degree rape, first degree sexual offense, or second degree sexual offense against a child under the age of 13 years; etc.”
Pro-Criminal: HB252 2008 – Kramer voted to kill a bill that would’ve stopped the early release of child sex offenders: “Prohibiting the earning of diminution credits to reduce the term of confinement of a specified offender or a child sexual offender committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Correction or sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a local correctional facility; etc.”
Pro-Criminal: HB22 2008 – Kramer voted to kill a bill that would’ve increased penalties for carrying firearms while possessing drugs: “Prohibiting a person from knowingly and intentionally possessing, carrying, or transporting a firearm while simultaneously possessing specified controlled dangerous substances; providing penalties for a violation of the Act; providing that a sentence imposed under the Act shall be consecutive and not concurrent with another sentence imposed for a crime based on the Act; establishing the violation of the Act; etc.”
Pro-Criminal: HB621 2008 – Kramer voted to kill a bill that would’ve stopped the early release of those convicted of murder, rape, or other violent crimes: “Prohibiting the earning of diminution credits to reduce the term of confinement of an inmate committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Correction or sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a local correctional facility if the inmate has been convicted of murder, rape, or a second or subsequent commission of specified crimes of violence.”
Hate-Crimes: HB80 2008 – Kramer voted to kill a bill that would’ve prohibited hate speech from those who hang nooses on the property of others, because of their race/religion, etc.: “Prohibiting a person from placing or displaying a noose on the property of another person because of the person’s race, color, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or national origin, etc.”
Anti-Gun Control: HB880 2008 – Kramer voted against a bill that would’ve required gun dealers to let customers know they should notify the authorities if their gun is lost or stolen: “Requiring a dealer or other person who sells or transfers a regulated firearm to notify the purchaser or recipient at the time of purchase or transfer that the purchaser or recipient is required to report a lost of stolen regulated firearm to the local law enforcement agency; requiring the owner of a regulated firearm to report the loss or theft of the regulated firearm to the local law enforcement agency within 72 hours after the owner discovers the loss or theft; etc.”
Note from Adam:
All of these bills were defeated in the House Judiciary Committee. The Washington Post has noted “the power of the defense lawyers who dominate the committee.”
In the past, state legislators have wandered a bit in committee more than on the floor because committee votes are not listed on the General Assembly’s website. Our prediction is that in the wake of this post and our previous post on Delegate Luiz Simmons’ expungement bill, committee votes will be subject to more scrutiny in 2010.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Lamari Releases Questionnaire, Challenges Rivals on Transparency
District 4 candidate Cary Lamari is publicly releasing his questionnaire from the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce. In the following statement to Maryland Politics Watch, Lamari challenges the other candidates to do the same.
Adam,
As promised, I am enclosing my Chamber of Commerce Questionnaire.
I do not expect to get the chamber endorsement; there are many developers that are members of the Chamber of Commerce. I support a quantifiable and measurable growth policy that would require growth be balanced with infrastructure investment and there should be a prioritization where Montgomery County targets investment where they want to grow in a responsible fashion in cooperation with developer contributions. It worked in Silver Spring and makes sense.
I appreciated the opportunity to be able to speak to the members of the Chamber of Commerce. Whoever is elected will have to work with and be a partner in the endeavor to encourage both a quality of life that we all can enjoy and a business environment rich with opportunity.
I challenge my opponents to be as open, transparent and accountable as I am being, and also allow you to publicize their Chamber Questionnaires. I want people to hold me accountable, read what I am about. If I say one thing and do another I want you and your readers to hold my feet to the fire.
Thank You,
Cary Lamari
*****
Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce
The Voice of Montgomery County Business
Candidate Questionnaire - District 4 Special Election
Name: Cary Lamari
Party Affiliation: Democrat
1) WHAT IS YOUR VISION FOR THE ROLE THAT MONTGOMERY COUNTY WILL PLAY IN OUR FUTURE GLOBAL ECONOMY?
We are the suburbs of the Nations Capitol; we host much of our Nations intellectual elite. We are the home to many federal agencies. Having these federal agencies in Montgomery County has had both beneficial and a negative attribute as we also bear the infrastructure demand that accompanies hosting these agencies, however we do not benefit from property tax income from these facilities. We have traditionally done well with this exchange, because as a result we also host much of the worlds support industries to these Federal agencies. We must continue to leverage opportunities that may be by products of our federal residents. (Biotech, high-tech, and the New Green industries along with the accompanying hospitality industries)
a. WHAT WOULD YOU DO AS A MEMBER OF THE COUNTY COUNCIL TO REACH THIS VISION?
As a member of the Montgomery County Council, I would work to promote the wonderful attributes of our county: the high-tech/biotech industry which is located here; our commitment to the arts, such as A.F.I., Strathmore, Blackrock, et cetera; & I would also use my seat to support good business legislation which has a comprehensive vision which demonstrates a strong economic return and takes into account the high standards that we place on the quality of life in Montgomery County.
2) DO YOU BELIEVE THAT PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR COMPANIES TO LOCATE IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY?
The simple answer is yes. I believe that we need to continue our history of creating an environment, which attracts business here. Additionally, I believe that we need to compete in order to retain those businesses, which have demonstrated significant returns to our County. To these ends, I believe that it is necessary to invest in business in order to achieve those goals.
3) ECONOMIC DOWNTURN HAS RESULTED IN DECREASED REVENUES FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE ARE THE BEST METHODS FOR BOOSTING COUNTY REVENUES? WHAT SHOULD BE TRIMMED FROM THE COUNTY’S BUDGET IN THESE DIFFICULT TIMES?
I believe that during a time of fiscal crisis, we must ferret-out waste and fraud in our government spending, demand accountability when we find waste and fraud, which is a point that I can elaborate more on in our interview. We should reconsider how we redevelop public facilities and reduce architectural attributes in favor of more utilization. And we must work with County employees through hot lines to be able to understand other options in which we may either reduce spending or address poor management practices which has the potential to cost government significantly each year. I also believe that we must reduce the level of bureaucracy in our government, review and restructure programs based on performance, and enforce our laws in order to promote legal businesses in Montgomery County. By supporting business we may be able to increase Capitol gain revenues. Additionally, we must promote and encourage new niche markets such as in green industries. This includes encouraging innovation in the realms of green construction, energy reduction, and research and development. I believe as our global climate changes and air quality declines, green technology will be the next frontier in a global economy.
4) GIVEN THAT MARYLAND’S INVESTMENT IN TRANSPORTATION CONTINUES TO DECLINE AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION REMAINS A HUGE CONCERN FOR VOTERS IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, HOW DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE COUNTY COUNCIL SHOULD ADDRESS OUR TRAFFIC RELIEF?
I have always maintained that traffic isn’t only addressed through new transportation projects, but also needs to be addressed through land-use. I believe that we must develop a comprehensive growth policy, which balances growth with infrastructural demands. Furthermore, we must develop a prioritization system, whereby government and developers will work together in order to address growth in a responsible fashion by placing dollars, investment as funds become available with developer contribution, directing that investment to the priority projects. I also believe that we must promote a balanced transportation strategy, encourage transit, increase Metro and MARC services, promote the purple line/ Corridor Cities Transit-way, and study the benefits of Bus Rapid Transit. These initiatives should be studied from a cost/benefit perspective, and should be implemented if they are cost effective, in order to create the most benefit for the taxpayers of this county at the cheapest cost, and in the quickest fashion possible. I also believe that, especially in District 4, we must promote grade separated intersections at the intersections of Randolph Road & Georgia Avenue Norbeck Road & Georgia Avenue. Additionally, we must promote some road widening on Muncaster Road and Norbeck road east of Georgia Avenue.
5) WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON SOME OF OUR KEY TRAFFIC RELIEF PROJECTS INCLUDING THE PURPLE LINE, CORRIDOR CITIES TRANSIT WAY AND THE WIDENING OF I-270?
I support both The Purple Line and the Corridor Cities Transit-way. I see the Purple line as a project that is ready for implementation, and I feel that the C.C.T. is probably one of the most important projects today, given that there are no transit options other than the MARC train from the termination of the Metrorail at the Shady Grove Road Metro station to the city of Clarksburg. Given this deficiency, I see the potential for a significant increase in ridership. I suggest considering a potential alignment that connects the Metrorail, Rio Mall, Crown Farm, Kentlands, Germantown, and ultimately Clarksburg. I would look at potentially using Bus Rapid Transit as a quick and affordable mode of transportation that can be implemented in an expedited fashion.
Regarding the widening of I-270, I would have to see studies showing that it would result in an improvement in traffic congestion. To my understanding, it could be argued that widening I-270 perpetuates more congestion on certain segments of roadways. From my perspective, the action that would result in the most benefit to Montgomery County would be to green-light immediate spending on the widening of the Beltway, south of the I-270 spur. I support this course of action because I feel that it will reduce the bottleneck effect that currently exists today in that area.
6) PLEASE DISCUSS YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE MASTER PLANS THAT WILL COME BEFORE THE COUNTY COUNCIL IN 2008 INCLUDING: GAITHERSBURG WEST, GERMANTOWN AND WHITE FLINT, AS THESE AREAS ARE ALL OPPORTUNITES FOR IMPORTANT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
We must work with community input in order to achieve a comprehensive Master-Plan. The county government must allow an open and transparent process, whereby residents, the business community, and non-profit organizations sit down to discuss the dynamics of their individual communities, and develop a targeted, strategic plan for their neighborhoods. Following these conferences, the Montgomery County Council must review any consensus that the various groups came up with and integrate that strategy with the overarching plans of the county. The council must develop a prioritization of growth areas in the county and commit funds to working with developers in order to bring this vision to fruition. The history of Montgomery County and its disjointed development patterns must stop. For example, the I-270 Corridor was designed as a transit-oriented corridor with attributes that promoted a high quality of life and enticed successful businesses to Montgomery County. Instead, we have created very many lovely communities with very few transit options. Thus, the county is in need of significant infrastructure investment, which includes Police, fire/Rescue, and educational facilities and strained road networks. If Montgomery County desires to flourish in the decades to come, we must develop a measurable, quantifiable growth policy. We need to identify where and how Montgomery County wants to grow and target that growth in a fashion that balances the need of infrastructure with available funding from the government and the developer community.
7) WHY WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL AND WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH?
I feel Montgomery County is at the crossroads. There are two directions and two different visions that our County may implement. One is to become a community with poor infrastructure and lacking amenities to promote both business and a reasonable quality of life. On the other hand, Montgomery County could strive to create a more balanced, flourishing community, which possesses an improved transit network and a combination of urban, suburban, and rural attributes keeping with the historical values that we all enjoy. I also value community participation and a government whose primary goal is to work for the people and to take their interests at heart first. I believe that we have a delicate balance on the County Council. I truly believe that my candidacy represents a more balanced council, as I would take a path similar to that of former Councilwoman Marilyn Praisner. I believe that I am more in touch with the residents of District 4 than my opponents, and for this reason I wish to represent the residents of District 4 on the Montgomery County Council.
Election Law Broken in District 4?
Flyers advocating for Robin Ficker that have been recently distributed in District 4 indicate a possible violation of Maryland's election law.
Following are both sides of these flyers:
Section 13-401 of Maryland election law explicitly calls for an authorization line on all campaign literature:§ 13-401. Authority line.
These flyers, which explicitly urge recipients to vote in the special election, look like campaign materials and not exclusively advertisements for Ficker's realty business. Therefore, they must contain an authorization line. And as of this writing, Robin Ficker's website - which contains copies of the flyer in question - also lacks an authorization line. See the four screenshots of the website below.
(a) Requirement - In general.-
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, each item of campaign material shall contain, set apart from any other message, an authority line that states:
(i) as to campaign material published or distributed by a campaign finance entity:
1. the name and address of the treasurer of each campaign finance entity responsible for the campaign material; and
2. as to each treasurer named under item 1 of this item, the name of each campaign finance entity for which the treasurer is acting; and
(ii) as to campaign material published or distributed by any other person, the name and address of the person responsible for the campaign material.
(2) The authority line may omit an address that is on file with the State Board or a local board.
(3) If the campaign material is too small to include all the information specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection in a legible manner, the authority line need only contain the name and title of the treasurer or other person responsible for it.
(4) The authority line for campaign material that is a commercial advertisement need only contain the information specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection for one campaign finance entity or other person responsible for the advertisement.
(b) Same - Campaign material not authorized by candidate.- Campaign material that is published or distributed in support of or in opposition to a candidate, but is not authorized by the candidate, shall include the following statement:
"This message has been authorized and paid for by (name of payor or any organization affiliated with the payor), (name and title of treasurer or president). This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate."
As a lawyer and someone who has run for office numerous times, Robin Ficker should know better.
Chris Paladino Endorses Ben Kramer
The following statement appears on former District 4 candidate Chris Paladino's website.
March 9, 2009
Over the past week I’ve been reaching out to my supporters and others I’ve met to let them know the news about my family and my dropping out of this special election. Many people have asked whom I would support in my place.
As you can imagine, I’ve looked long and hard at the other Democratic candidates over the past few weeks and I believe that Ben Kramer is the best choice for the District 4 seat. I hope you will take some time to learn more about Ben and join me in supporting him for this critical position. His fiscal responsibility, independence and desire to preserve our quality of life will make him a great voice on the council and for our district.
I’ve talked with Ben and he has assured me of his commitment to constituent service. I look forward to working with him in that regard when his is our next councilmember. You can learn more about Ben at www.BenKramer.org.
Chris Paladino
Luiz Simmons’ Abuser Expungement Bill (Updated)
Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17), who is a trial attorney, has introduced a bill enabling accused domestic abusers to expunge their court records. No, folks, we are not making this up.
HB 1181, sponsored by Simmons, states the following in its header:For the purpose of authorizing a respondent in a certain domestic violence proceeding to file a written request to expunge court records relating to the proceeding under certain circumstances; providing that a certain request for expungement may not be filed within a certain time except under certain circumstances; requiring the court to order the expungement of all court records relating to the proceeding under certain circumstances; providing a certain exception; requiring certain custodians to notify the court and the respondent of compliance with the order; defining certain terms; and generally relating to domestic violence and the expungement of certain court records.
According to this bill, if an abused spouse petitions a court for a protective order and that petition is dismissed or denied, the accused abuser can have the records expunged after three years. This is a rare protection under civil law. If a defendant is sued for fraud, breach of contract, negligence, defamation or just about anything else, the court records are preserved even if the case is settled or thrown out. But this bill would give accused abusers a special ability to expunge denied to almost all other civil defendants.
This bill also gives tremendous leverage to abusers over victims. Suppose a victim tells an abuser she wants to seek court protection. The abuser can say he will hire a lawyer, get the court to deny the petition and expunge his records. The abuser can then claim that any action by the victim to pursue court protection will be futile and produce zero consequence to the abuser. The victim could then very well be deterred from seeking a court order.
On February 27, the House Judiciary Committee voted 18-3 to approve the bill. Among Montgomery's Delegates, Simmons and Ben Kramer (D-19) voted in favor and Kathleen Dumais (D-15), Susan Lee (D-16) and Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18) voted against.
The bill is now moving along with the Governor’s two bills protecting domestic violence victims. If the House passes this bill but stalls the Governor’s efforts to prevent domestic abuse, the chamber will be drenched in shame.
Update: The expungement bill was defeated today on a 64-69 vote. Four Delegates were present but did not vote and four were excused.
Monday, March 09, 2009
WBAL TV Investigates Steele Finances
The following excerpt from the Rachel Maddow Show includes an interview with WBAL TV investigative reporter Jayne Miller, who has more information on questionable spending by Michael Steele's 2006 Senate campaign. Notice the links to the deceptive flyers distributed by Steele campaign workers in Prince George's County.
The original report from WBAL TV appears here.
Klumpp Endorses Kramer
Maryland Moment is reporting that Marilyn and Don Praisner's daughter, Alison Klumpp, is endorsing Ben Kramer.
According to Maryland Moment:Alison Praisner-Klumpp, one of the Praisners' three children and the only one who lives in Montgomery County, said she made her decision after talking with many of her parents' friends and meeting Sunday with Kramer for coffee.
Just a note: Kramer has already accepted money from the real estate industry. On 8/22/06, the Apartment and Office Building Association's Maryland State PAC gave him $500. And on 1/8/07, the Realtors Political Action Committee gave him $200.
She was impressed, she said, by his grasp of the issues and how he answered her concerns about his work as a commercial developer. Marilyn Praisner was a leading voice on the council for tightening the county's development rules. As a candidate, Don Praisner declined to accept donations from the development industry.
"I had heard that he was a big, bad developer," Praisner-Kumpp said of Kramer. "Yes, he builds and owns shopping centers, but he always looks closely at infrastructure before building."
Praisner-Klumpp added that Kramer said he had "no intention of taking developer money" and that he was committed to running again in 2010 if he prevails in the special election.
More District 4 Tidbits
OK D4 junkies, it’s time for a few more bits.
1. Ten candidates
The Gazette has the full roster of candidates in the race. The Democrats are Nancy Navarro, Ben Kramer, Cary Lamari, Robert Goldman, Thomas Hardman and Michael Bigler. The Republicans are Robin Ficker, Lou August and Andrew Padula. The Green candidate, who will not have to face a primary, is George Gluck.
2. Early voting
Rich Madaleno’s (D-18) early voting bill is now on-line. It would allow voters in all special elections prior to June 30, 2009 to receive and submit absentee ballots at the county Board of Elections building on these days prior to the Tuesday vote: Wednesday through Friday, 8 AM to 8 PM; Saturday, 10 AM to 4:30 PM; and Sunday noon to 3 PM.
3. Kramer, Gordon and Lamari
When Montgomery County Civic Federation President Arnold Gordon was honored at the March 1 Greater Olney Civic Association awards, Ben Kramer presented the award. That did not stop Gordon from praising his predecessor as civic federation President – and Kramer rival – Cary Lamari with Kramer standing at his side. Ouch!
Ben Kramer (left) with Arnold Gordon at the GOCA Awards. Photo by Richard Turner.
4. Reed vs. Goldman
When Just Up the Pike author (and East County chronicler) Dan Reed called out attorney Robert Goldman’s use of a Bethesda address for his campaign, commenter “MD_Lawyer” replied:For the record, Rob Goldman has lived in Burtonsville for some time. He only works in Bethesda. It seems reasonable to receive mail at a work address.
MD_Lawyer previously announced Goldman’s candidacy in our comments section.
So let’s see: we have a candidate who uses a Bethesda address, debates East County’s top blogger and uses an anonymous Google account. And you thought this race was interesting last year!
5. Alison Klumpp
Ever since Marilyn and Don Praisner’s daughter, Alison Klumpp, announced that she is not seeking her parents’ seat, political junkies have been speculating on whether she will endorse any candidates in the field. Her endorsement would be incredibly valuable to anyone. Mrs. Klumpp, if you do have a statement, please keep our blog in mind!
6. MCEA
We hear MCEA has begun candidate interviews. MCEA supported Nancy Navarro in last year’s special election, but they also supported Ben Kramer in his 1994 and 1998 County Council races. They did not support Kramer in his 2006 race for Delegate.
7. Gillogly vs. Greater Greater Washington
Last week, Greater Greater Washington, a transit-focused blog based in D.C., wrote a post called, “Who’s Our Candidate for Montgomery District 4?” The original version of the post read like an endorsement for Nancy Navarro, but the DuPont Circle-based author quickly rewrote it in more neutral language. That did not stop Montgomery Democratic super-activist (and District 4 resident) Kevin Gillogly from pouncing. Kevin pointed out that GGW had done no prior reporting on the D4 race and questioned why an out-of-state blog would do endorsements in local Montgomery races.
I’ll make GGW a deal: I won’t be foolish enough to endorse any D.C. candidates (even though I lived there for nine years) if you don’t endorse any Maryland candidates. As a bonus, Kevin won’t go back to your blog. Deal?
8. Facebook
Two candidates have Facebook support pages: Nancy Navarro (with 140 members) and Cary Lamari (with 56 members). Thank heavens that our state legislators can now access them.
9. First Debate Scheduled
The Montgomery County Young Democrats have announced the first D4 candidates’ debate. It is scheduled for Wednesday, April 1, 7-9 PM at the AFI Silver Theatre, 8633 Colesville Road in Silver Spring. They issued this statement:Have you ever wanted a politician to answer YOUR questions? Now's your chance!
Are bloggers allowed in? We hope so!
The Montgomery County Young Democrats are sponsoring a town hall debate of the Democratic candidates in the District 4 Special Election using questions submitted by the audience. You can even ask them yourself if you'd like.
It's your $4 billion... you should know the person we're choosing to spend it.
Please submit questions to District4Debate@gmail.com and indicate if you'd like to ask the question yourself and if you'd like the question to be directed at any specific candidate.
Doors open at 7pm & the debate starts at 7:30.
Any tips, bits, juice, gripes or gossip? Send them to me for our next installment!
Goodbye, Anonymous Comments
We've made a joint decision to no longer allow - or, more accurately, to start enforcing our previously stated ban on anonymous comments. In the future, anyone who wants to post a comment will need to sign with a first and last name so they're identifiable.
Why don't we like anonymous comments?
1. Civility. Anonymous comments encourage nasty snark-fests of the worst kind. People write comments behind a computer screen which they would never make if they had to sign their name. It's one of the worst aspects of the internet and helps destroy the potential of this medium for communication. It can also have a chilling effect on people who want to engage but would like to disagree agreeably. While some blogs enjoy controversy generated by flame wars as it attracts readers, we've tried to get you to stop by for other reasons.
2. Responsibility. If you're going to write something, you should own it. We sign our names to every single post on this blog. Some have pleaded that they need anonymous comments because they have a job. Guess what? We have employers too. And politicians often annoy a section of their employers - known as the electorate - when they take a position on an issue. Ironically, speculation over who wrote a nasty comment creates suspicion and often hurts the reputation of several people who didn't write it as people try to guess who did.
3. Elections. Politics isn't always pretty but we don't need to help out with the mudslinging. The level of snark always seems to rise exponentially when there is an election. Interestingly, when we posted comments from supporters of various candidates during the appointment process to fill the vacancy in District 18, the opposite seemed to occur precisely because people had to attach their names to any statements they wanted to make. As 2010 is around the corner and the District 4 Council special election is in full swing, it seemed a good time to make the change.
4. Multiple Handles. Some people create multiple personas to try and give the impression that they have more support. Stick to your own name please.
So, goodbye anonymous posters. We didn't really get to know you but we look forward to meeting some of you out in the open.
David Lublin and Adam Pagnucco
District 4 Voter Registration Deadline Nears
From the Montgomery County Board of Elections.
Board of Elections
Montgomery County, Maryland
Corrected Press Release
Contact: Marjorie Roher, 240-777-8525
For Immediate Release: March 9, 2009
VOTER REGISTRATION DEADLINE NEARS
Montgomery County residents who wish to vote in the 2009 Special Primary Election are reminded that the deadline for voter registration is 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 30, 2009.
In order to become a registered voter, individuals must be a U.S. citizen, live in Montgomery County, and be at least 18 years of age on or before May 19, 2009.
Applications for the Primary Election may be obtained by calling the Voter Information Service at 240-777-VOTE until Tuesday, March 24. Applications are also available in county libraries, regional services centers, all offices of the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services, the Motor Vehicle Administration, and all U.S. Post Offices or may be downloaded at www.777vote.org or www.montgomerycountymd.gov/elections.
Individuals may also register at the Board of Elections, 751 Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville, on the following dates: Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Tuesday, March 30, from 8:30 a.m. – 9:00 p.m.
For more information on voter registration, call the Voter Information Service at 240-777-VOTE, or visit the website at: www.777vote.org or www.montgomerycountymd.gov/elections.
# # #
Five Senators and the Death Penalty
The failure of death penalty repeal in Maryland came down to the actions of five Senators. Here is their story.
To understand the part played by these five, we must first understand the sequence of the major floor votes on the death penalty. First, Senate President Mike Miller allowed the chamber to vote on whether to substitute the repeal bill for an unfavorable report from the Judiciary Proceedings Committee. This vote succeeded by a 25-22 margin and started full Senate debate on the bill.
Next, Senator James Brochin (D-42) proposed an amendment that forbade use of the death penalty in cases relying solely on eyewitness testimony. That amendment effectively changed the purpose of the bill from repeal to restrictions on the use of the death penalty. The amendment passed by a 25-21 margin, with one Senator later changing his vote to produce a 24-22 outcome.
After another amendment by Senator Robert Zirkin (D-11), Senator E.J. Pipkin (R-36) moved to send the bill back to the Judiciary Proceedings Committee. His motion would have preserved the status quo: the death penalty would have been left unchanged. It failed 23-23, keeping restrictions on the death penalty alive.
These five Senators played key roles:
Alex Mooney (R-3)
Mooney, a social conservative on most issues, was considered a swing vote on death penalty repeal. He voted to send repeal to the floor, voted for the Brochin amendment and voted to send it back to committee. Mooney was the only GOP Senator to support a floor vote. He favored amending the bill and then killing it.
John Astle (D-30)
Astle, an Anne Arundel Democrat who often has close general elections, refused to answer the Sun’s question on his death penalty position. He voted with death penalty opponents against sending repeal to the floor and initially voted for the Brochin amendment, which would have preserved the death penalty. But Astle, who said he was “wrestling” with repeal, later changed his vote to oppose the Brochin amendment. His vote change would not have defeated the Brochin amendment because it merely altered the margin from 25-21 to 24-22. Astle then voted against recommitting the bill, effectively preserving it in its amended form. He is sure to face questions about his decision-making.
Jennie Forehand (D-17)
The Sun listed Forehand as favoring repeal but she did not co-sponsor the 2009, 2008 or 2007 repeal bills. Forehand voted along with repeal supporters to send the bill to the floor. But she missed the Brochin amendment vote (which initially passed by 25-21 but later had a 24-22 margin after Astle’s vote change). Forehand told the Sun that she was in the amendment room during the Brochin vote. She later voted against recommitting the bill to committee.
Our sources cannot explain why Forehand missed the Brochin amendment vote. When Senators wish to introduce floor amendments, they do not have to physically visit the amendment room – they can just place phone calls. Furthermore, on high-profile votes, legislators who are interested in having their votes recorded rarely leave during those votes. Forehand’s departure was inexplicable, especially considering the fact that she never introduced an amendment.
Nevertheless, even if she had stayed and voted against the Brochin amendment, it would still have passed 24-23 (assuming Astle had voted against it as well). Forehand’s action by itself did not determine the bill’s fate.
Rona Kramer (D-14)
Kramer did not answer the Sun’s question on her repeal position. She voted to send the bill to the floor, voted for the Brochin amendment and voted against recommitting it. Effectively, she acted to restrict but not kill the death penalty. If both Astle and Kramer had voted against the Brochin amendment, it would have failed by a 23-23 vote. Kramer was therefore a critical player in stopping outright repeal.
Andy Harris (R-7)
As conservative blogger Brian Griffiths originally pointed out, Harris missed the recommit vote, which failed 23-23. If Harris had been present to vote in favor of recommitting, the death penalty restrictions in the Brochin amendment would have been struck down and the status quo would have been preserved. Recommit sponsor E. J. Pipkin will be sure to use this against Harris if the two run against each again for Congress.
As for Mike Miller, he is the ultimate winner. Miller gave the Governor and the many repeal supporters in his chamber the courtesy of a floor vote. The ultimate outcome was to preserve the death penalty (as Miller favors), even in a restricted form. Miller kept the debate to a couple days, thereby retaining control over the Senate’s business. And if the House passes anything different, both proposals will fail because the Senate will not go to conference.
Mike Miller was able to pull this off because he knows every one of his Senators – and just as importantly, their districts – better than anyone in Annapolis. He was probably able to forecast every single one of the above events within one or two votes. He knew repeal supporters did not have enough votes to prevail and let them have their day. His acumen is the product of twenty years experience in his position, thorough knowledge of Senate history and constant study of three generations of his colleagues.
And as for Senators Mooney, Astle, Forehand, Kramer and Harris? They will now have to face the consequences, for better or worse, of their actions in the Great Maryland Death Penalty Debate of 2009.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Navarro Named One of Maryland's Top 100 Women
Following is a press release from Nancy Navarro's campaign as well as an editor's note.
##FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE##
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Contact: David Moon, Campaign Manager
Email: david@navarroforcouncil.com
NAMED AMONG “MARYLAND’S TOP 100 WOMEN” OF 2009, NAVARRO URGES PASSAGE OF BILL TO PROTECT MARYLAND'S WOMEN
District 4 County Council Candidate Nancy Navarro Calls for Passage of Governor O’Malley’s Common Sense Domestic Violence Legislation
SILVER SPRING, MD – The Daily Record named Montgomery County Council candidate, Nancy Navarro, among the state’s Top 100 Women. Navarro took the opportunity to lament the shrinking number of women in elected office in Montgomery County, in spite of the numerous and growing challenges unique to women. In particular, Navarro voiced her support for legislation proposed by Governor O’Malley that would protect victims of domestic violence.
“I’m humbled to be recognized along with so many accomplished women dedicated to serving our community,” Navarro said. “Our stories reflect how far women have come in the public sphere and professionally. But along with this honor comes responsibility. Right now, our state legislature has a real opportunity to make Maryland a safer place for women and families. Taking guns out of the hands of domestic abusers is common sense and an important protection for victims and their families. That’s why I urge our lawmakers to pass Senate Bill 267.”
Senate Bill 267, currently awaiting a vote in the Maryland legislature, would take away all firearms from persons against whom a judge has issued a protective order. The bill enjoys support from a wide range of leaders and community stakeholders, including the Washington Post editorial board.
The Daily Record has honored “outstanding achievement by women as demonstrated through professional accomplishment, community leadership and mentoring" in 1996. Past honorees include former State Senator Sharon Grosfeld, County Councilmember Valerie Ervin and District 18 Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez.
###
Editor's Note: Other honorees include Congresswoman Donna Edwards, Senator Nancy Jacobs (R-34), Delegates Sheila Hixson (D-20) and Kathleen Dumais (D-15) and Rockville Mayor Susan Hoffmann.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Massachusetts Considering Slots Parlors
The Boston Globe is reporting a push by Massachusetts Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill to open slots parlors in his state. According to the Globe:
Cahill has argued that slot machine parlors would not generate any more social problems than the resort casinos proposed last year by Governor Deval Patrick; both have a revenue model that relies heavily on slot machines. And, he says, people are gambling in other states anyway - Rhode Island has slots emporiums, and Connecticut has casinos - and bringing slots to Massachusetts would allow the state to establish a fund to treat gambling addictions.Sound familiar?
"All we're saying is to let Massachusetts people do what they want with their money in their state, as opposed to having to drive out of state," Cahill told reporters this week. "We're not looking to exacerbate the problem, just try to capture it here in the state."
Friday, March 06, 2009
Council to Leggett: Don't Count on Ambulance Fees
In the following letter to the County Executive, seven members of the County Council asked him not to include ambulance fee revenues in his forthcoming FY 2010 budget. Leggett's ambulance fee proposal has met with heavy opposition and the council has not yet decided its fate.
March 5, 2009
County Executive Isiah Leggett
101 Monroe St., 2nd Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
Dear County Executive Leggett:
The County Council will continue to work closely with you, Executive Branch staff, and agency leaders to best address the extraordinarily challenging FY '10 Operating Budget. To accomplish this, it is crucial that the Council and the Executive Branch work from the same revenue assumptions in the budget - and that those assumptions are grounded in reality.
Last year, you assumed revenues from ambulance fees in your proposed FY '09 Operating Budget. The Council removed those assumed revenues because the Council had not yet considered the legislation proposed by you to establish ambulance fees. In November, 2008, the Chief Administrative Officer communicated to the Council President that unless the Council passed an ambulance fee prior to your budget submittal, this fee would not be included in your FY '10 Operating Budget. Given that the Council has not approved ambulance fees and is not likely to do so prior to final action on the budget it would be unwise to assume such revenues in the FY '10 Operating Budget. We therefore assume, given the prior communication, that this will not be included in your FY '10 Operating Budget.
Working closely together, we will develop and approve and FY '10 Operating Budget that protects essential services and the safety net, while balancing the budget by reducing spending in the wisest and fairest ways possible.
Sincerely,
Phil Andrews
Roger Berliner
Valerie Ervin
Nancy Floreen
Mike Knapp
George Leventhal
Duchy Trachtenberg
Wheaton Library: What's the 411? Part Three
By Holly Olson.
In Part Three of my series, I discuss the benefits of relocating the library to downtown Wheaton, both in terms of the redevelopment effort as well as the community. But first, some background information on how we got to this point.
In 2008, the International Downtown Association put together an advisory panel of redevelopment experts to assess redevelopment prospects in Wheaton. The focus of their review was to identify how County assets might be used as an impetus for Wheaton’s redevelopment.
One of the key recommendations of the report was to relocate the library to Wheaton’s Central Business District (CBD). The report states: Building an outstanding library in a signature building located in the heart of the business district will signal to potential investors that downtown Wheaton is moving in the right direction. This is particularly important in terms of office tenants, as the County seeks to expand the tax base in downtown Wheaton through the construction of new office buildings.
Furthermore, the panel recommended that the library should be relocated to the southern end of Lot 13 (currently the site of the Mid-County Services Center) and would be part of a mixed-use facility that would also include an arts and cultural center, offices, residential, retail, restaurants, and parking. This facility, combined with Lot 13 (designated for open space) and the Bozzuto and Metro air rights sites, would create a sizable area for the start of a “town square” environment.
So of all the County facilities, why is a library so important to jumpstarting redevelopment? First, the libraries of today are not your grandmother’s library. Libraries are no longer just a place to check out books. They serve as anchors - creating a sense of place and strengthening our community. They function as community centers, providing meeting space and the opportunity for any number of cultural activities and community programming.
Second, libraries can help to stimulate local economic activity. In a report by the Urban Libraries Council entitled, “Making Cities Stronger: Public Library Contributions to Local Economic Development,” they note that Center City library developments have “created vibrant public spaces that attract a steady stream of visitors to areas that often lie dormant after business hours and during weekends.” One of the big issues in Wheaton is a lack of foot traffic during the weekday. Many of the restaurants are dead during this period, and some have stopped serving lunch during the week. The report tells the story of how a Memphis library relocated from a quiet residential neighborhood on the Southside to a retail strip in an economically depressed industrial section of the town. (Sound familiar?) Initially, six of eight storefronts in the retail strip were vacant. After 4 years, there were no longer any vacancies.
Third, the increase in foot traffic generated by a downtown library has the benefit of adding “eyes on the street.” As I mentioned in Part Two, this is an important concept in urban planning popularized by Jane Jacobs. The idea is that increased activity deters crime and enhances the public’s perception of safety. It is a simple, but powerful concept. Given that many members of the community feel that Wheaton is an unsafe place to be, a well-used public library could go along way in helping to combat this image.
Fourth, relocating a library to the CBD would send a powerful message to developers that the County is serious about investing in Wheaton. If the library does move to the CBD, it will likely be part of a mixed-use development. Because libraries are long-term tenants, this reduces the financial risk associated with building such a development. In addition, as anchor tenants, libraries bring in foot traffic without competing directly for commercial sales - another benefit to potential tenants that might consider leasing space in such a development.
OK, but what about the community? How does it help us? First, relocating the library to the CBD will improve accessibility. At its current location, the primary way to get to the library is by auto (unless you live in the immediate neighborhood). By positioning itself in the heart of the downtown, the community can now access the library by metro, bus, foot, and auto. And given that libraries are built for the people, by the people (with our tax dollars), one of the main priorities of a library should be making itself as accessible as possible.
Second, relocating the library to the downtown would minimize the time the library is closed. If the library is renovated at its current site, the library would be closed for up to two years. If the library is relocated, the closure time would be limited to a matter of weeks to allow for the transport of books and equipment.
Third, moving the library to the CBD enhances the urban experience. Many County residents enjoy being able to park their car and do multiple things in one trip. If the library moves to downtown, it would mean that individuals could combine a trip to the library with other things in the downtown - a lunch, a shopping trip, a coffee break etc. At its current location, the library is almost an out of the way destination - something that deserves its own trip. By moving it to a more central location, individuals may be more likely to patronize both the library and the businesses of Wheaton. In short, the CBD becomes a destination location — and this helps not only consumers, but many of our small business owners who are also part of the Wheaton community.
The times that we currently live in aren’t so good. As a result, I think our natural instinct is to close in on things that feel safe and familiar. We are less likely to take risks and to think outside of the box. So for many, it can be hard to see how the library fits in to the big picture of redevelopment in Wheaton, particularly when Wheaton isn’t looking so hot these days. But it is important to remember that the library is only one part of the redevelopment vision. There are lots of other pieces - and together, they form a beautiful mosaic of a new and vibrant downtown.
So if you will indulge me for a moment, I would to share with you my vision for the future. Picture a Wheaton that looks like this:
It is a beautiful, sunny Saturday afternoon in early June. Adam and I take our young son out to one of Wheaton’s great restaurants - maybe some Vietnamese, Thai, or Salvadoran, and dine at one of the outdoor tables. After we finish with lunch, we head over to the library, which is known throughout the County for its children’s section. After our son picks out a few books, we head over to Marchone’s Italian Deli to buy a cookie or two. We finish out the afternoon by enjoying our cookies on the new public plaza while we watch a pick-up game of soccer on the grassy area.
I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a pretty nice day to me.
Holly Olson is a former Chair of the Wheaton Redevelopment Advisory Committee.
Craig Rice, Rona Kramer and the Death Penalty
The Baltimore Sun and Maryland Moment of the Washington Post both provide interesting profiles of Del. Craig Rice (D 15) and the very personal reasons for why he supports retention of the death penalty. Del. Rice supports the bill which emerged from the Senate which keeps the death penalty but raises the standard of evidence required for it.
The quote from Senator Rona Kramer (D 14) from one of the articles is particularly telling as Sen. Kramer was apparently the key vote for the amendment offered by Sen. James Brochin (D 42) which passed and made clear that repeal was not going to pass the Senate:Sen. Rona E. Kramer, a fellow Montgomery County Democrat, said the delegate raised "an extremely important argument."
"Sometimes, the death penalty goes beyond wanting to make the family feel better," Kramer said in an interview yesterday. "It can be about making them feel safe and secure. The safety and security of witnesses - that hadn't really been raised before."
Meeting the New Chair of the Maryland Democratic Party
By Marc Korman.
This past weekend I attended the Young Democrats of Maryland Convention. Among the speakers was the Maryland Democratic Party’s new chair, Susie Turnbull.
A few ill informed pundits said the selection of Susie indicated a power shift from Baltimore to Montgomery County. But as local political junkies know, the two chairs preceding Cryor were from Montgomery County: Terry Lierman and Ike Leggett. So while it is nice that Governor O’Malley selected Susie, it is no replacement for giving the county a bigger voice in his Cabinet or some more attention on policy issues.
Full disclosure, Susie and I live nearby one another in Bethesda and I consider her a personal friend. Susie most recently served as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, where she tirelessly traveled the country helping to elect Democrats. Her local political activism dates back to 1982, when she volunteered for Congressman Mike Barnes reelection campaign. She later served on, and then chaired, the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee. She has also championed young people, which her attendance at the Young Democrats of Maryland convention demonstrates.
But Susie has a tough job ahead of her. Sure, there’s little risk that Democratic dominance will decline on her watch, but stagnation may be a problem. Last year, the Party raised $2.9 million, the most ever. Given the economy it will be hard to match that feat, especially without a presidential election. Although, I suspect the reason there have been so many Montgomery County Party Chairs lately is to support the massive fundraising efforts.