By Marc Korman.
I have recently discussed good bills that passed during the legislative session and bad bills that thankfully died. Now it is time to review a few good bills that failed to become law, but should have. By no means is this a comprehensive list.
HB 1091/SB 1028 - Autism Insurance
Even with the new federal healthcare law, states are still the primary regulator of health insurance. Each state sets its own “mandates” that health insurance providers must follow in the state. Some examples include mental health parity or ambulance trips. This legislation, introduced by Delegate Reznik in the House, would mandate insurers cover diagnosis and treatment for autism spectrum disorders. The bill included what amounted to a safety valve, waiving the mandate if it led to high premium increases.
Autism diagnoses are on the rise. There are varying theories as to whether this is due to better diagnostics or an actual increase in prevalence perhaps as a result of some environmental factor. The point is, as more families need to deal with these issues it is important that their healthcare support them. Health insurance has no value if when you need it most, it does not cover what you need it for. The General Assembly should reconsider and pass this bill next session. Full disclosure, I am Delegate Reznik’s campaign chair.
HB 351/SB 462 - Bag Tax
Washington, DC’s bag tax raised a very low $150,000 in January. It turns out, this is great news as DC consumers cut their disposable bag usage from 22.5 million per month to just 3 million per month. Delegate Carr once again tried to lead Maryland in replicating that success. His legislation would put a five cent tax on any disposable bag used and required that disposal bags be made of recyclable material. The store can retain 1 or 2 cents of every fee, depending on if they establish a credit program for those using reusable bags. The remainder of the funds would go to the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bay Trust Fund.
For years bag taxes have been proposed across the country. They have usually been rejected due to lobbying by bag manufacturers and, in some cases, advocates for the poor. But they are finally being implemented and with great success as more and more people are choosing reusable bags. Washington, DC should be a model in this area for Maryland to follow in 2011.
HB 107/HB 344/SB 407 - Transparency Bills
At the beginning of the legislative session, there was great hope that legislation would be passed to open up state government. The varying proposals from Delegates Ali and Mizeur, Senator King, Common Cause, and others would have put committee votes online, required Board of Public Works agendas to be accessible in advance of meetings, webcast committee hearings, and made other sensible reforms. Happily, the General Assembly’s leadership began posting committee votes online without legislation. But the General Assembly needs to revisit the broader case for reform in 2011 and enter the 21st century when it comes to allowing people to access the General Assembly and their state government.
All of these bills should be reconsidered and passed in 2011. All of them would be a great step forward for the state.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Good Bills Make Good Laws…Someday…Maybe
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Bad Bills Make No Laws
By Marc Korman.
I recently wrote about good bills becoming good laws. Today I will take a look at a few bad bills that, thankfully, are not on their way to the Governor’s desk. The General Assembly wisely discarded these bills and should continue to do so if they arise again.
SB 140/HB 150-Clinic Restrictions in the Budget
As I previously wrote, the Senate version of the budget originally withheld funding for the University of Maryland until the law school’s clinic program reported on their cases and on how other law clinics select their cases. After many House members raised concerned, as well as outside advocates from both the law school and across the country, the House version was significantly improved. The fund withholding language was replaced with narrative reporting requirements limited to non-privileged information related to the Environmental Law Clinic. This was not a great result, but it was certainly better than the Senate version.
The law clinics should be a source of pride for the state, not a political football for the legislature. As I said in previous posts and comments, I view this issue as one of academic freedom. The law school is part of a public university, but I do not believe it is advisable for the legislature to get involved in its operations at that level of detail. That puts the university’s standing at risk and undermines its mission considerably. Full disclosure, I am a student at the law school.
HS 1/HB 1079/SB 1097 - Gay Marriage Ban/Attorney General Impeachment
I am grouping a pair of bills by Delegate Don Dwyer together. Dwyer introduced a blatantly unconstitutional bill to impeach the Attorney General because he disagreed with Gansler’s legal opinion on an issue. The issue was whether the state should recognize out of state marriages and regardless of how you come down on the issue, claiming impeachment powers that do not exist was not an appropriate response.
A more appropriate, yet still despicable in my view, response was the Marriage Protection Act. The proposal is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The Maryland Court of Appeals decision in Conaway v. Deane found that the state’s due process constitutional protections did not forbid the existing statute banning gay marriage. That makes this constitutional amendment largely superfluous for the time being. It is still a horrible idea that attempts to write discrimination into our Constitution and assign gay couples permanent second class status in our state.
SB 397/HB 603 - Health Care Freedom Act
This EJ Pipkin/Delegate Shank monstrosity came in response to the federal healthcare reform. The constitutional amendment they proposed sought to score political points by saying it was not constitutional in Maryland to mandate that people have health insurance. The purpose of the so called mandate is to ensure that everyone who uses the healthcare system, which at some point is literally everybody, is paying into the system.
A number of states have successfully enacted such laws, including Virginia. Of course, the federal supremacy of the clause of the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) pretty much ensures that such state laws or constitutional amendments would be invalid. A much more serious, though I believe doomed to fail, effort is to find a healthcare mandate invalid under the federal constitution. My view is that a federal mandate may be constitutional under the interstate commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), but is certainly constitutional under the taxation clause (Article 3, Section 9 and the 16th Amendment) because it is enforced solely through tax penalties.
These proposed bills, constitutional amendments, and legislative amendments were pretty awful. Happily, the General Assembly improved on them, defeated them, or ignored them.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Good Bills Become Good Laws
By Marc Korman.
With the legislative session safely behind us a host of new laws are being signed by the Governor. Here are a few that caught my eye this session that may not have made the Washington Post or the Gazette.
HB 217/SB 292 – Registering 16 Year Olds and Changing Registration Deadlines
This is a bill I have written about before which would allow 16 year olds to register to vote, though not actually vote until they are old enough. Importantly from my perspective, the bill also ends a voter registration deadline discrepancy allowing individuals who are changing party registration to do so up until three weeks before an election instead of the current three months.
The House defeated a proposed amendment to provide parental consent for registration, but the bill was stalled in the Senate where the chair of the Ethics & Election Law Subcommittee seems, oddly enough, to have almost no interest in election law legislation. Thanks to the work of Senators Raskin and Lenett, as well as Common Cause, the bill got out of committee and is on its way to the Governor’s desk.
HB 525/SB 279 – Medical False Claims Act
These were O’Malley bills which set up a state False Claims Act for medical fraud. Essentially, it will give the state new tools to pursue fraudulent billing claims under state funded health programs, such as Medicaid. It includes a so-called “qui tam” provision, which allows a private individual to bring the claim essentially on behalf of the government. The Federal False Claims Act has led to billions in recovery for false claims. The legislature should consider expanding the state False Claims Act to all areas of government next session.
SB 229/HB 710 – Transportation Commission
I am no fan of commissions, but the legislature has shown itself to be pretty incapable of addressing transportation funding in a fundamental way. In fact, the problem is getting worse with the budget cutting Highway User Revenue (the localities’ share of the state gas tax) severely. Under the final budget deal, it looks like just $10.7 million of funds will be distributed to localities outside of Baltimore City. Adam has done an excellent job of chronicling the long term solvency problems for the Transportation Trust Fund.
Senator Garagiola’s commission bill does not solve anything. But perhaps this Commission can help generate the political will necessary to tackle the problem in a comprehensive way. The final report is due in November of 2011. The good news for our region is that every Montgomery County and Prince George’s County Senator cosponsored the bill, showing some unified commitment to the issue. It will be our job to hold their feet to the fire to follow-up on it.
SB 336/HB 395 – Combined Reporting Commission
During the 2007 Special Session, one of the ideas on the table was combined reporting, which is a different way to tax corporations to try and capture more of the taxable income they generate in the state and prevent them from essentially transferring the tax burden to a state with a low rate, or no rate, of corporate income tax. Instead of taking an affirmative or negative position on the issue, the legislature set up a Commission to study Combined Reporting. Passed into law in 2007, the Commission was not due to report until the end of 2011.
Whether you support or oppose combined reporting, I cannot imagine why it would take four years to study an issue that 21 states have already enacted. Just to put that time in perspective, the 9/11 Commission was authorized by Congress on November 27, 2002 and issued its report on July 22, 2004, just a year and a half later. There is no excuse for a Combined Reporting Commission to take longer.
This legislation cuts a year off the Commission and requires it to report at the end of 2010. Frankly, I would have liked to have seen legislation requiring them to report even sooner. Three years is an absurd amount of time to study this.
SB 213/HB 33 – Bisphenol-A Ban
My own Senator, Brian Frosh, introduced this legislation to ban the use of Bisphenol-A, also known as BPA, in bottles and cups for children under the age of 4 by 2012. BPA is used in plastics. The FDA has raised concerns about the potential health effects of BPA exposure, which include neurological damage and certain types of cancer. Many manufacturers have started to remove BPA from child products on their own and Maryland is one of several states enacting a ban. The legislation originally included banning BPA in toys, but was watered down.
All of these bills have either already been signed into law or will be shortly. Our legislature is not perfect, but they do important work for us. These new laws are just a small sample of good bills they passed this year that are on the road to becoming good laws.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Rich Madaleno on Teacher Pensions
Over the past week, the Senate completed its work on the state budget for the fiscal year that starts July 1, 2010. The budget plan is now being deliberated by the House of Delegates. The plan adopted by the Senate includes $2 billion worth of cuts and transfers, including, as you know, a plan to revise the way the employer obligation for teacher pensions is funded beginning in Fiscal Year 2012. Under this plan, roughly one third of the obligation would be shifted to the counties. While this is a change in a longstanding policy, let me explain why I helped draft this compromise which will balance the needs of our county and our state.
As this point, most people are aware of the unprecedented impact the recession has had on our state's finances. Revenues are five percent lower this year than last year - easily the worst drop in revenues since the Depression. Even the state's current optimistic revenue projections – which anticipate a robust economic recovery happening sooner than what now seems likely – anticipate a gap of $2 billion, or 15% of planned expenditures, for each of the next four years.
During the next four years, state funding for teacher pensions will nearly double to $1.25 billion. That is a devastatingly large sum. That’s more than the entire amount the state will be spending for our public universities and colleges. In fact, that one expense will account for roughly one-quarter of our projected four year deficit.
Even if we were to raise taxes substantially – a political impossibility in Annapolis during the current political climate – we couldn’t cover these costs. We could raise the state sales tax by 1%, repeal the Glendening 10% income tax cuts, maintain the “millionaire’s tax,” and institute combined reporting for the corporate income tax - and we still wouldn’t have enough money to cover our forecast deficit.
Our current approach to spending is simply not sustainable.
For several years, some of my colleagues have been determined to change our approach to funding teacher pensions, and several proposals were floated again this year. Adoption of any one of them would have been disastrous for Montgomery County.
o The first would have transferred fully one half of the cost of pensions immediately - forcing the counties to instantly swallow $450 million in new costs, an untenable situation for any county including Montgomery.
o The second would have transferred to counties the responsibility of funding the pension contribution for all new hires and pay increases - a proposal that would have eventually shifted 100% of pension costs to the counties.
o The third proposal would have made the counties responsible for all contributions in excess of the FY07 salary base. While this option would have required a similar initial contribution from counties, costs to Montgomery County would balloon over time, placing severe, ongoing, and crippling limitations on county finances.
Some have argued that our county's delegation should refuse to accept any shifting of teacher retirement costs on to county governments. That sounds great, but unfortunately, recent history shows that this approach not only does not work, it has devastating results. During the much less painful 1992 recession, Montgomery County refused to accept any shifting of teacher retirement costs on to county governments. Not a single county legislator participated in crafting the final plan. Nor did any vote for it. But Montgomery County doesn’t control a majority of seats in the General Assembly – not even close. So against our county’s united opposition, the rest of the legislature and the governor simply ignored us: the state shifted the entire cost of social security as well as the pension cost for two years on to Montgomery County, effective immediately. Our county is still paying the price for taking what seemed to be a principled stand and not having a seat at the table.
It is essential for Montgomery County to have a seat at the table if we want to look after our interests. In fact, earlier this month, it became clear that the third of the above proposals – the one with severe negative long-term consequences for Montgomery County – had sufficient votes to pass this year. So I was determined to develop a counter-proposal that would reduce the unavoidable impact on Montgomery County.
The Senate Budget and Taxation Committee's proposed legislation, unlike the one in 1992, delays implementation of the cost-sharing by a year. It also phases the cost-sharing in gradually over three years, thus allowing time for counties to plan. In the end, the counties' contribution rate will be less than one-third of the total pension obligation. In addition, the county rate will adjust downward as the health of the pension trust fund improves. Under this plan, Montgomery County remains the largest beneficiary of state dollars for teacher pensions.
Sometimes as a legislator, one is faced with a series of unattractive choices. This pension plan passed the budget committee by a vote of 12 to 3. By my estimation, it would not have been responsible to sit back and watch a far worse deal pass by a vote of 11-4, with Montgomery County’s senators united – and almost alone – in their opposition. I did not want to see us get rolled again. On this one, I decided to engage in the hope of shaping a more favorable outcome for Montgomery County.
The Senate President commented that he did not anticipate the House passing the pension plan. I expect this issue to be assigned to study during the interim, and I hope it will serve as a "ceiling" for what a cost sharing approach might look like. I will continue to look at ways we can protect our commitment to a dignified retirement for teachers while balancing the competing and equally compelling needs of our state. Difficult choices lie ahead, and I hope my actions show that I am willing to take whatever means are necessary to ensure that Montgomery County contributes to the discussion and is not left on the sidelines holding the bag.
Sincerely,
Richard S. Madaleno, Jr.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Gazette Begins Influence Survey
We intercepted the following email sent out to an undisclosed number of people by Gazette Annapolis reporter Doug Tallman.From: Politics [mailto:Politics@gazette.net]
Here's what the Gazette survey looks like:
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 5:20 PM
To: Politics
Cc: Tallman, Douglas
Subject: The List: Your take on influence in Annapolis
It’s that time again.
Every four years, The Gazette takes a non-scientific measurement of influence in Annapolis — which lawmakers have it, and which don’t. We’ve asked lobbyists, a few reporters and the lawmakers themselves to rate which legislators are the best, and worst, at exercising power.
Enclosed, you’ll find a link to a Web-based survey that will allow you to anonymously rank and comment on legislators. Your responses will not be tracked. For the senators, there are two pages: One for you to rank the top 10 in influence and one for you to rank the bottom 10 in influence. For the delegates, there are also two pages: One for you to rank the top 20 in influence and one for you to rank the bottom 20 in influence. In each, you’ll be able to add a comment on why you chose the person.
For example, let’s say you’re really high on Senator Johnson. For the survey of most influential senators, you might say something like: “1, She really knows her stuff.” And let’s say you think Delegate Smith is a real dingus. For the survey of the least influential delegates, you might say: “1, Not sure how this guy got elected.” Got it?
Voting will be open through March 11. We look forward to publishing your results. The survey can be found here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/thelist
-Douglas Tallman
Annapolis Bureau Chief
This blog has done surveys of the Most Influential People in Montgomery County in both 2008 and 2009. We admit that this is a VERY imperfect process. Our methodology is to ask people whom we know are plugged in to give their honest opinions directly. Those opinions show up as off-the-record comments on the blog, but we know our sources and can vouch that all of them know what they are talking about even when they disagree. Furthermore, we disclose affiliation, geographic and demographic features of our respondents to get at the question of sample balance. What emerges is a genuine, but rough, picture of how politicians, staffers, activists, lobbyists, labor and business people and other insiders view the county. And if you don't believe our results, at least we explain how we got them.
The Gazette's survey appears to be open to anyone. After all, anyone who gets this email can go in, vote and leave comments without any assurance that they know anything about Annapolis. Trust us - lots of people have circulated this email and it has already gone WAY beyond its intended distribution list. If the email is to be believed, not even the Gazette reporters know who is filling the survey out. Robin Ficker could conceivably be completing it twenty times in a row!
And now that he has the Survey Monkey address, he is probably doing just that.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Monday Session of General Assembly Cancelled
We received the following announcement from Speaker Mike Busch's office.
The Presiding Officers have decided that the 8pm session of the Maryland General Assembly is cancelled for Monday, February 8, 2010, due to potential icy conditions.
All Legislative Services and General Assembly employees are on liberal leave.
This announcement includes the cancellation of all meetings and hearings of General Assembly committees, task forces and workgroups.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Is There A Lawyer in the House (or Senate)?
By Marc Korman.
Every year before the legislative session, the Maryland State Bar Association Legislative Preview lists the lawyers in the General Assembly. Let’s have a look.
Based on the Bar Association’s numbers, just 22% of the General Assembly is made up of attorneys. There are 10 in the State Senate, with half of that total coming from Montgomery County: Rona Kramer, Rob Garagiola, Brian Frosh, Jamie Raskin, and Mike Lenett. In the House of Delegates, there are 31 attorneys with 8 coming from Montgomery County: Kathleen Dumais, Brian Feldman, Bill Frick, Susan Lee, Luiz Simmons, Jeff Waldstreicher, Roger Manno, and Kirill Reznik. However, the Bar Association does not distinguish between attorneys who have practiced or those who just have a J.D.
According to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Virginia’s total is much higher. 30% of Virginia legislators are attorneys. They are second among the percentage of lawyers in the state legislature only to Texas, where 33.3% of legislators are lawyers. Delaware has the lowest percentage of attorneys in their state legislature, just 3.2%. Nationwide, 15.2% of state legislators are attorneys according to NCSL (the data is from 2007 so might be slightly off due to intervening elections).
The percentage of lawyers in Congress is much higher, with 40% made up of attorneys according to the ABA. 55 Senators and 161 House Members are attorneys, including Senator Ben Cardin and all of Maryland’s Representatives except Roscoe Bartlett.
The low number of lawyers in the General Assembly is somewhat surprising. Lawyers are naturally associated with politicians in many minds. It is also a profession that, in many cases, allows the flexibility for a legislator to be in Annapolis three months of the year.
There are benefits to having lawyers in the legislature. One Maryland legislator/lawyer told me two reasons he thought having lawyers in the General Assembly was a good thing. First, he found lawyers better at honing in on the key, relevant issues in a bill and got less bogged down in extraneous issues. Second, he thought lawyers were more comfortable dealing with statutory language, making sure it is consistent with a bill’s intent, and avoiding unintended consequences of certain language.
This is not really surprising. Legislators deal with policy issues from across the spectrum, Thomas Jefferson said “there is no subject to which a member of Congress may not have occasion to refer.” But the way in which they interact with those issues is through statutory language.
Despite the need for attorneys who can speak, read, and understand the language of the law, at least four subcommittees in the State Senate and thirteen in the House of Delegates do not have a single attorney as a member. The House Appropriations Committee appears to have only one attorney among its 26 members. 15 of the House attorneys, a bit less than half, are stacked on the Judiciary Committee, accounting for the vast majority of its 22 members. The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee has 4 attorneys among its 11 members.
That said, there are also great benefits to diversity in the legislature of all kinds, including professional. According to the NCSL data, 10.6% of Maryland’s legislators are business owners, 4.8% are in the medical field, and 3.7% are K-12 educators. 11.7% were listed as full-time legislators, though there may be some overlap between this number and the 4.8% identified as retired. Nationally, 16.4% were identified as full-time legislators, 11.7% as retired, 3.9% as K-12 educators, and 3.6% as medical professionals.
More attorneys might be useful for the General Assembly. But even without that, they could also be distributed a bit more evenly among the committees. Lawyers have skills that apply across the committees, not just those most closely aligned with their profession.
Disclosure: With any luck, I will be graduating law school in May and taking the Maryland Bar Exam in July.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
MdTA Releases More Documents on Free E-ZPasses for Legislators
The one lingering mystery from the now-cancelled free E-ZPass program for state legislators concerns the number of Senators and Delegates who had them. In August 2009, the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) told us that 128 state legislators had free E-ZPasses but refused to release their names. On September 30, MdTA responded to our Public Information Act (PIA) request seeking those names and told us that only 71 had them. What happened to the other 57 legislators? We found out that MdTA tipped off the General Assembly about our PIA request in a September 23 letter, but we had no further details. So we sent another information request and MdTA has sent us its response.
Specifically, we asked MdTA for:1. A list of legislators who held non-revenue E-ZPass accounts for any period of time between January 1, 2009 and September 30, 2009.
MdTA responded to each of these questions as follows:
2. A list of the dates on which any of these accounts were canceled from January 1, 2009 through September 30, 2009.
3. Copies of any records of communication between MdTA and any member of the General Assembly about these non-revenue accounts from August 1, 2009 on.l. A list of legislators who held non-revenue E-ZPass accounts between January 1 ,2009 and September 30, 2009 does not exist. The September 30, 2009, list was provided to you as a courtesy, although the Authority was not required to do so by the Maryland Public Information Act. Under the P IA, you may only obtain an agency's existing records.
So the agency does not have any historical records on free E-ZPass use, does not know when they were cancelled prior to the program’s termination and – incredibly – claims to not be covered by the state’s Public Information Act. Moreover, the agency says that some documents are protected by attorney-client privilege. Did the agency consult an attorney in determining how to respond to our PIA request?
2. A list of dates on which any accounts were cancelled for Maryland General Assembly Members does not exist.
3. Correspondence responsive to this request regarding legislators and the E-ZPass nonrevenue account program, which is not privileged or otherwise not subject to disclosure, is enclosed. Some correspondence responsive to your request has been withheld pursuant to SG § 10-615(l) because it is subject to attorney-client privilege. Portions of documents have been redacted or withheld because they contain personal data provided to the Authority in connection with an electronic toll collection system that shall not be disclosed pursuant to SG § 10-616(m).
MdTA did send some documents that should be considered in a timeline of this matter’s development. It is clear from the correspondence that the agency, this blog and the General Assembly’s leadership interacted in a way that ultimately terminated the program. Here is how the issue progressed.
1. On August 24, we reported that 128 state legislators carried free E-ZPasses but MdTA refused to name them because of “privacy and security issues.” Two days later, we drafted a PIA request to get the names of the legislators who had them. MdTA received the request on September 1.
2. MdTA began its effort to respond to our PIA on September 2 by assembling data on legislators’ license plates that were associated with free E-ZPasses.
3. On September 23, MdTA wrote to members of the General Assembly who had free E-ZPasses alerting them about our PIA request. We obtained a copy of MdTA’s letter on our own and MdTA sent it to us in their latest PIA response.
4. On September 25, Senate President Mike Miller and Speaker of the House Mike Busch announced that they were asking MdTA to cancel the program. We posted a copy of their letter and mass press coverage ensued, including on NBC4. 
5. On September 28, MdTA faxed Senators and Delegates a request seeking information about the vehicles covered by their free E-ZPasses. It is unclear why MdTA was requesting this information because the General Assembly’s presiding officers had announced the end of the program three days earlier. Below is a faxed letter sent to Senator David Harrington (D-47), one of many that were sent out.
6. Several members of the General Assembly began communicating with MdTA about this issue during this period. Here is an aide to Senator Rona Kramer (D-14) asking MdTA to make clear that the Senator never had a free E-ZPass.
Here is Delegate Rick Weldon (I-3B), who represents parts of Frederick and Washington Counties, responding that he does not have a free E-ZPass because he does not have to use toll roads to commute to Annapolis.
And here is Senator Mike Lenett (D-19) making it crystal clear that he has no free E-ZPass and pays his tolls like any other citizen of the state.
7. The thirty-day deadline for MdTA to answer our PIA request seeking the names of free E-ZPass holders was rapidly approaching by the end of September. MdTA knew it was under scrutiny by the press, and especially this blog. So did the General Assembly and its leadership. On September 28 – just two days before responding to our PIA seeking the names of legislators with free E-ZPasses – MdTA sent this letter to a state legislator allowing that person to cancel his or her free account. Who was this individual? Why is this person’s name redacted? Were any other similar letters sent? We will never know because the list of legislators with free E-ZPasses we obtained from MdTA was dated September 30. This letter is hard evidence that MdTA allowed at least one state legislator with a free E-ZPass to escape being outed on this blog.
MdTA was also in direct communication with the Speaker’s office on this issue. Here is an email from Gail Moran, MdTA’s Manager of Government and Community Relations, to Kristin Jones, the Speaker’s Chief of Staff, pointing out our blog post about the program’s cancellation.
And here is a second email on the same day from Moran asking Jones to “please call me NOW.”
8. MdTA responded to our PIA request and named 72 state legislators who had free E-ZPasses on September 30. But MdTA almost immediately contacted us to remove one name from the list: Senator Jim Rosapepe (D-21). MdTA told Rosapepe of its effort to clear his name from the list.
9. At the request of the Senate President and Speaker, MdTA terminated the free E-ZPass program effective November 1.
So what are we to make of all this?
First, we are unable to solve the mystery of why MdTA said that 128 legislators had free E-ZPasses in August and a month later claimed only 71 had them. The fact that MdTA tipped off the General Assembly to our PIA request – a step that was not required to answer us – may have something to do with it.
Second, the fact that MdTA was in contact with the General Assembly’s leadership suggests that damage control was one of its priorities. The public image of the state legislature should not be an appropriate topic of concern for the state’s toll authority.
Third, MdTA’s lack of historical records on free E-ZPasses means that the program was subject to abuse. The agency had no way to make sure that the passes were used only for official business and, more importantly, had no way to make sure that former state legislators did not have them.
And fourth, the fact that MdTA had to respond to two PIA requests to release the names of state legislators with free E-ZPasses when it could have easily emailed the information back in August says something about the agency’s regard for disclosure. So does its claim that it is not covered by the state’s Public Information Act and was responding out of courtesy. Agencies that depend on public funds, including taxes and tolls, are subordinate to the citizenry. Responding to our requests for data about the use of our resources is a basic part of any state agency’s duties.
But things could be worse. Other public officials have far less respect for the concept of open government than does MdTA. If Duchy Trachtenberg was in charge of MdTA, we would have received no response to our information request other than a press conference accusing us of having joined the KGB!
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Real Scandal of Legislative Pay
The recent talk about which state legislators are giving up part of their salaries to match state employee furlough days obscures a much, much larger issue with legislative pay. The real scandal of legislative pay is:
It’s way too low.
During this term, state legislators are paid $43,500 while the presiding officers (the Senate President and Speaker of the House) make $56,500. Here is how those salaries compare to a few other occupations in Maryland as of 2008 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Dentists: $145,060
Lawyers: $125,980
Management Occupations: $105,450
Civil Engineers: $80,540
Architects: $79,800
Registered Nurses: $74,370
Senate President/Speaker: $56,500
Electricians: $50,040
Paralegals: $48,490
Chefs and Head Cooks: $44,130
Correctional Officers: $43,890
State Legislators: $43,500
Truck Drivers, Heavy: $39,770
Hairdressers: $30,690
Security Guards: $30,430
Construction Laborers: $30,290
Retail Salespersons: $25,140
Janitors: $23,130
So state legislators are paid about as much as prison guards. And paralegals are actually paid more than the people who pass the state’s laws!
But wait – aren’t legislators part-time officials? Not really. While it’s true that the General Assembly is only in session for three months every year, many legislators spend lots of time answering emails, attending community events and holding large and small meetings all year round. Maryland’s legislators estimate that they spend 70% of the time they would devote to a full-time job to their state duties, about 30 hours per week. But because they earn pennies from the state, many of them are forced to seek outside employment to pay the bills. Those legislators have to hold down two jobs, not an easy feat when an employer has to give up three months to satisfy the demands of the General Assembly. Many bosses will not give up those months, further shrinking the employment options of legislators.
And so smart people with families and successful careers are actually deterred from seeking office. Who has the time to raise staggering amounts of political contributions, perform two demanding jobs at a high level and deal with the spouse and kids? Think about the pool of people who don’t face those sorts of constraints: the independently wealthy, the self-employed, retirees, the unemployable and the self-obsessed. Is it in our interest to give these folks an advantage over everyone else?
We do not write this essay from the perspective of coddling the politicians. Lord knows we have zapped them many, many times on this blog. But legislative pay is important for citizens who require high quality public service. It is high time that we act like employers, which is exactly what we are in relationship to our elected officials. Smart employers pay competitive salaries, have high expectations, give their workers the tools they need to perform their jobs and fire them when they don’t work out. Our current system for employing state legislators, which features low pay, low expectations and low accountability, bears no resemblance to that model.
Take it from a building trades guy: when it comes to labor, you get what you pay for. If you underpay the roofers, you’ll get a wet attic. If you underpay the plumbers, you’ll get a wet basement. If you underpay the electricians, you might get an electrical fire. And if you underpay state legislators, you will get a statehouse dominated by leadership, lobbyists and bureaucrats, which is pretty much what we have in Maryland.
And so we have not previously pressed the issue of legislators’ giving up pay to match the state employees’ furlough days. When people who are expected to sort out complicated issues, write legislation, debate it, cast informed votes, perform constituent service and put up with rogue bloggers are paid as much as prison guards, they are clearly not compensated in line with their job duties. But we are not going to let them all off the hook.
You see, there is a sub-class of legislators who are independently wealthy and don’t need their state pay at all. Three of them have spent over $50,000 of their own money on their political campaigns but don’t see fit to give back any part of their state salaries when the budget, and the state’s workforce, are in dire trouble. If anyone can afford to give up some pay, it’s these people. Tomorrow, we will reveal who they are.
Friday, October 02, 2009
E-ZAnswers, Part Two
The Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) tried to protect the state legislators who carry the free E-ZPasses. They warned us of “privacy and security issues” when they refused to release the names back in August. But they have honored our Public Information Act request and have allowed the sunlight to shine through on one of the statehouse’s biggest perks.
Here is the List!
And here is an update from MdTA removing one Senator:
Geez Louise! Where do we begin? Here’s what jumps out at us.
Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19)
Kramer is a millionaire developer who has dumped $220,450 of his own money into his last two political campaigns. Does he really need a free E-ZPass?
Labor Delegates
Six Delegates are union members or have worked for unions: Cheryl Glenn (D-45), who works for a regional council of the Carpenters; Tom Hucker (D-20), who founded Progressive Maryland and has worked for the Laborers; Kris Valderrama (D-26), who works for AFSCME; Veronica Turner (D-26), who is President of SEIU local 63; Gerron Levi (D-23A), who works for the AFL-CIO; and Brian McHale (D-46), who is an International Longshoreman’s Association member. All except Turner have free E-ZPasses. (Disclosure: your author has worked in the labor movement for 15 years and does not have a free E-ZPass.)
“Champions” of the Poor
According to data from the 2000 Census, only two state legislative districts in Maryland had 1999 median household incomes lower than $30,000: District 44 ($21,378) and District 40 ($25,641), both in Baltimore. These districts were the hardest hit by the state sales tax increase of two years ago. Four of their eight state legislators carry free E-ZPasses: Senator Verna Jones (D-44) and Delegates Frank Conaway (D-40), Ruth Kirk (D-44) and Shawn Tarrant (D-40). How can they justify their perks to the state’s poorest residents?
MoCo
One of our Senators and thirteen of our twenty-four Delegates drive toll-free, including some of our most liberal members. We get no moral high ground this time.
Republicans
Fifteen of the fifty Republicans in the General Assembly carry free E-ZPasses: Senator J. Lowell Stoltzfus (R-38) and Delegates Joe Boteler (R-8), Don Dwyer (R-31), Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio (R-37B), Richard Impallaria (R-7), Susan Krebs (R-9B), Susan McComas (R-35B), Patrick McDonough (R-7), Wayne Norman (R-35A), Donna Stifler (R-35A), Nancy Stocksdale (R-5A), Paul Stull (R-4A), Tanya Thornton Shewell (R-5A), Mary Roe Walkup (R-36) and the House Minority Leader, Tony O’Donnell (R-29C).
This is the worst hypocrisy of all. Over and over again, the Republicans have called for big spending cuts while jealously guarding their E-ZPerks. Here is O’Donnell on the House GOP website thundering, “There are some simple, obvious places to look for the true reductions in state spending that we have repeatedly called for…” Oh yeah? Like how about your own taxpayer-funded goodies? And if that’s not enough, O’Donnell had the gall to complain about toll hikes last January. Why complain if you don’t have to pay them?
This perk reflects poorly on state legislators of both parties and we commend the Senate President and Speaker for ending it. But at a time when budget cutters are hacking through the bones of the state’s general fund and our most vulnerable people are suffering, the Lords of Annapolis should be re-examining all of the creature comforts of their thrones.
Monday, August 24, 2009
State Legislators Get Free E-ZPasses
Yesterday, the Post reported that 4,990 Maryland E-ZPass holders canceled their accounts due to the new fees levied by the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA). We’ll bet that none of the canceled accounts belong to members of the General Assembly. Why?
Because they can get E-ZPasses for free.
We confirmed with MdTA spokeswoman Teri Moss last week that 128 of the 188 state legislators in Maryland have “non-revenue accounts,” or free E-ZPasses. She told us, “They are allowed per our trust agreement to have non-revenue accounts to provide free passage while they are on official business.” However, she refused to provide the names of the state legislators who had the free passes due to “privacy and security issues.” We were unable to obtain any information on the legal authority by which the legislators are entitled to the free passes, the total amount in toll revenues lost as a result of their use, or the accounting controls, if any, employed on the passes.
Do the state legislators really need free E-ZPasses for official business? Of course not, for the following reasons:
1. Members of the General Assembly already receive mileage reimbursements plus a $600 annual lump-sum distribution for official travel.
2. If the above expenses were not enough, consider the locations of Maryland’s primary in-state toll facilities: I-95 between the Baltimore Beltway and the Delaware state border, the Baltimore interstate tunnels and the Bay Bridge. Only commuters from seven legislative districts (7, 8, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38) would have to travel through those routes to get to Annapolis. So twenty-eight legislators might have a plausible claim to free E-ZPasses. What about the one hundred others who have them?
3. Many state legislators expense hotel rooms in Annapolis during session, including at least one Delegate from Anne Arundel County. Why should taxpayers subsidize both prospective commuting costs and capital hotel rooms?
4. The principal reasons many legislators travel around the state are private business trips, vacations and attendance at fundraisers. The latter is especially true for leadership and committee chairs, who are expected to criss-cross the state to help backbenchers raise money. We have no evidence that E-ZPass technology can differentiate between official business and these private trips. That’s why legislators should fill out expense reports rather than assume that all their travel should be free.
A bigger issue than the free E-ZPasses themselves is MdTA’s refusal to release information about them. We find no merit in their “privacy and security issues.” Elected officials are not entitled to any privacy when they spend public funds. As for security, we hardly believe that Osama bin Laden will launch a terror attack once he learns that Delegates X, Y and Z have free E-ZPasses. Legislators’ office expenses are available for public inspection in Annapolis (although they are unfortunately not online). Why should the use of free E-ZPasses be any different from other expenses? We also wonder if any former state legislators continue to benefit from free passes after leaving office. MdTA is begging for a Public Information request, which - of course - we are in the process of drafting.
This is just one more legislative perk to join the others, some of which include:
1. Special General Assembly license plates designed to deter speeding and parking tickets.
2. Lobbyist parties, including events held on state property.
3. Lobbyist-provided meals for General Assembly committees and county delegations.
Last year, we related an old legend about a state legislator who gained 100 pounds during a single session due to gorging and gluttony. Insiders (including some in the mainstream media) mostly shrugged off the MACO Moment because they regarded it as typical of the capital’s ancient booze-drenched culture. And the truth is that any legislator can receive a lobbyist-purchased lobster no matter how incompetent or disinterested he or she is because, after all, a vote is a vote.
And so taxes are up. Spending will be cut again and again. Budgets tighten and pain spreads. The vulnerable have taken to the streets.
Why should the perks of the powerful alone be spared?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Star Chambers of Annapolis
Maryland’s Open Meetings Act, originally passed in 1977, is one of the state’s greatest laws. The act requires multi-member public bodies with a quorum to open their meetings to the citizenry and give them reasonable advance notice of their date, location and time. The statute is generally observed at the state, county and municipal levels with occasional violations subject to investigation by a compliance board. But there is at least one institution in the state that often violates the spirit of the law with no consequence:
The committees of the General Assembly.
Maryland’s General Assembly operates under a strong committee system. Every state legislator is assigned to one committee. That committee’s Chair runs the meetings and schedules consideration and votes on bills. Some committees have sub-committees with their own Chairs. The committees are the location of much of the action in the legislature. They are where the bills are studied and debated, testimony is heard and amendments are usually considered (although floor amendments are also possible). Bills pass, change and fail in committee. If a bill cannot emerge from its committee with a favorable report, it almost always dies.
Technically speaking, committee meetings are open to the public. But some committees discourage attendance at their work sessions, especially by bill advocates. It is common knowledge in the capital’s lobbying community that some Chairs will not hold votes or discussion on bills if their advocates are watching. There is never any official admonition, but merely a long-standing culture that direct observation of the legislative process is discouraged. One lobbyist tells us, “Anyone who operates in Annapolis does not recognize the difference between discouraged and forbidden.”
Those who violate the informal rule are sometimes met with an angry stare, a refusal to consider the bill in front of the violator or even a dead bill. One legislator laughs, “You can come, but you’ll be punished. They will exact street justice on you! It’s a control mechanism they use to allow bills to be killed without paying a political price.” Two old Annapolis veterans tell us it has been this way “forever.”
Another tactic used to discourage observers is snap meetings. Some committee Chairs announce their meetings on the floor, which is open to the public, but do it on short notice. Others just do it on the fly. Out-of-the-way rooms may be picked and agendas may or may not be released. Bill advocates sometimes do not know when their bills are considered and discover their fate after the fact. Subcommittee details can be even harder to discover. While committee votes are recorded (but not released on the Internet), subcommittee votes are not. Part of the lack of notice is due to the madhouse quality of some periods of the General Session, especially near the end. But some Chairs make no effort to inform the public of their committees’ activities ahead of time.
The consequences of access problems are significant. Committee votes may be recorded but deliberations are not. Lobbyists and advocates cannot witness the give and take between legislators as they discuss a bill. As one lobbyist puts it, “You don’t know who screwed you.” One legislator refers to the Chair’s “drawer,” a black hole in which doomed bills are deposited without the knowledge of their advocates. Another legislator tells us, “We have an open meetings act in Maryland for a reason and the committees should comply with its provisions. The unwritten policy of discouraging members of the public from watching voting sessions is more about protecting weak, spineless committee members than it is about serving any legitimate public interest.”
Not all committees operate in this way. We hear that some of the more open ones include Senate Finance (chaired by Senator Mac Middleton), Senate Budget and Taxation (chaired by Senator Ulysses Currie) and House Ways and Means (chaired by Delegate Sheila Hixson). Montgomery County Delegation meetings are open to the public and can be well-attended. The press go wherever they want, assuming they can find out where the committee meetings are and what they are working on.
Delegate Saqib Ali (D-39) was the only legislator to comment on these practices on-the-record. When I asked him whether some committees discouraged public attendance, he replied:It is true. It is one of the irksome things about Annapolis. At least now the House (but not the Senate) make videos of bill hearings available over the Intranet. But still, voting sessions are not available. And the presence of advocates or interested parties during voting sessions can often get a bill killed.
Another example for the legislature is the Montgomery County Council. All council and committee meeting agendas are posted on the council’s website, often a week or more in advance. All staff memos and documents are also posted on the website. Members of the public are never discouraged from attending. A bill advocate can follow legislation through committee all the way to the final vote with no pushback. It is simply the culture of the place.
We ought to be encouraging transparency and accountability, not discouraging it. The New York State Senate just launched a state-of-the-art new website that allows unprecedented public participation in the legislative process. We would do well to emulate them in this regard.... and that's about the ONLY thing we should copy about the New York State Senate!!
Ultimately, this issue comes down to whether the General Assembly will obey the spirit of Maryland’s Open Meetings Act and adhere to the values of free and fair democracy. Running a committee is a challenging job, especially in the last chaotic weeks of a General Session. Last-minute changes and quick meetings are inevitable. But the committee Chairs, and their supervisors in leadership, must make every effort to protect the right of the public to watch them deliberate at every level.
Dear readers, we are going to stay on this issue until we see some improvement. The state legislators should learn to enjoy the sunshine because, ray by ray, it will come in.
Monday, November 03, 2008
A Comment On Politicians and Slots
We have devoted a great deal of attention to the slots referendum in recent weeks. And it is a compelling issue regardless of which side you take. But even more compelling is the rank hypocrisy surrounding it – a stink of political flatulence that has become so toxic that it is impossible to ignore.
Washington Post columnist Mark Fisher skewered our two recent Governors, noting that Bob Ehrlich was for slots before he was against them, and that Martin O’Malley was against them before he was for them. Their actions may be understandable given the inherent tensions between campaigning and governing. Less understandable is the overnight metamorphosis of slots apologist-turned anti-slots jihadi Peter Franchot. Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett looks better than any of the above, changing his position out of fear of budget cuts despite the unpopularity of slots in the county’s Democratic base.
But so far, the vast majority of our state legislators have gotten a pass. No more. We have chronicled their statements on slots to the Sentinel in recent weeks. We have also noted a general trend of how some of them claim to oppose slots while not signing on or donating money to the anti-slots campaign. Those posts have generated some pushback.
One annoyed legislator complained about an “anti-Democratic” email sent by Marylanders United to Stop Slots, the primary anti-slots group. The email began:Annapolis is a mess. A scathing new report recently concluded that Annapolis bureaucrats can't account for horse racing revenues and that the potential for fraud is high. And guess what, this is the same bureaucratic department that will be in charge of collecting and administering potentially millions in slots receipts.
This legislator said the email “could come right out of a Bob Ehrlich campaign ad” and objected to the implication that sharing money with such a group was necessary to prove anti-slots bona fides. This legislator's view was amply supported by the anti-Annapolis TV ad run by the anti-slots group. Fair enough.
Further, the fact that the group relies heavily on staffers of former (and perhaps future) O’Malley rival Doug Duncan is probably an additional source of sensitivity. Who wants to risk the Governor’s wrath by working with his opponents?
Another legislator reported rumors that Big Daddy, a long-time slots supporter, was constructing a list of slots opponents who would be subject to a “bill moratorium.” In other words, those who actively opposed slots would get no bills through the Senate next year. “Mike Miller doesn’t care about many issues, but slots is one of them,” this individual whispered apprehensively. Whether such a list exists is beside the point – it is in Big Daddy’s interest that everyone believes the rumor to be true. Even a denial from his office (which is unlikely) would not quell the speculation.
These are the kinds of factors that drive many legislators’ decisions in Annapolis, and most of the time, this would be entirely appropriate. Relationships with the Governor, with Big Daddy, with leadership and with other legislators are vital to the success of any state officeholder.
But slots opponents have always cast the issue as, at least partially, a moral one. Gambling is wrong, they say. It creates addiction and crime. It preys on the weak, the poor and the helpless. It debases society. If all of this is true, then what is mere politics in the face of such an immoral scourge as slots?
Nevertheless, a rather large number of state legislators have engaged in the following four acts.
1. They have said they oppose slots in part because they are regressive.
2. They voted to approve a $700+ million regressive sales tax increase during the special session.
3. They held their noses and voted in favor of the slots referendum, vowing to defeat it later at the ballot box. (I defended this position a year ago, but promptly laid out a plan for how to beat the referendum.)
4. They then contributed no measurable or documentable aid to the anti-slots campaign.
No one who has engaged in all four of the actions above can credibly claim to be anti-slots. It defies logic. It defies common sense. It defies the intelligence of the voters. But it does follow the oily laws of politics.
Friday, July 11, 2008
On Senator Currie and the Ethics of Office
The recent revelations of Senator Ulysses Currie’s relationship with Shoppers Food and Pharmacy may be the beginning of the fall of a man once widely thought to be an admirable public servant. But it is more than that: it is a warning about the kinds of conflicts that can happen in a citizen legislature.
Maryland, like most states, allows state legislators to hold outside employment. The General Assembly meets for three months each year (not including special sessions) and pays its members over $40,000 annually. Nevertheless, members of legislatures with similar configurations to Maryland’s report that they spend 70% of the equivalent of a full-time job on their legislative work. These positions are clearly time-consuming, even for rank-and-file members lacking Senator Currie’s responsibilities.
The benefit of a citizen legislature is that it allows members to bring significant expertise to their jobs. But there is a price: the potential for conflicts between a legislator’s public and private roles.
The Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics Guide lays out general rules for dealing with conflicts of interest. Legislators must disclose their financial dealings, including employment, contracts and corporate ownership; refrain from voting on matters of direct and personal financial interest to themselves, their relatives and their employers; and file disclaimers before voting on other matters with more indirect conflicts of interest.
The following statement on page 13 of the guide is relevant to Senator Currie’s case:The Ethics Law states that a member of the General Assembly is prohibited from assisting or representing another party, for compensation, in a matter before or involving any unit of the State government or a local subdivision of the State, unless covered by one of the exemptions to the prohibition. The prohibition relates to representation in the course of any type of employment relationship, including regular salaried employment, contractual consultant work, and representation in a professional capacity (e.g., attorney-client.)
None of the exemptions to this rule apply to the allegations against Senator Currie. This is a clear problem for him as he was a paid consultant to Shoppers – a relationship that he did not disclose.
But there is more. Consider this account of the evidence of Senator Currie’s lobbying for Shoppers reported in the Post: The documents, released by several state transportation agencies, show a pattern of interventions by the Prince George's Democrat dating to at least 2003, not long after he became chairman of the powerful Budget and Taxation Committee.
Neil Pedersen has been the State Highway Administrator since 2003. He is not regarded as a political player but rather as a highly-respected professional. He is one of only a handful of powerful officials to survive the transition between the Ehrlich and O’Malley administrations. The State Highway Administration oversees more than a billion dollars a year in capital projects across the state. This agency is not a minor organization and any legislator can only harass it so much.
Currie held meetings with state officials and made phone calls about traffic lights at Shoppers stores in Owings Mills and Laurel and about road changes at a store in Anne Arundel County.
“Senator Currie asks me every time he sees me whether we have resolved the Reisterstown Road Shoppers Food Warehouse issue,” Neil J. Pedersen, the head of the State Highway Administration, wrote in a 2004 e-mail to a staffer. “How close are we to resolving it?”
It is a matter of political capital, that intangible stock of favors, influence and goodwill that is vital to the fortunes of any politician. It must be raised energetically and spent carefully. Even Senate President Mike Miller, the most feared politician in the state, does not wantonly bully his Senators on every single issue but only on what he views as the most important ones. If Senator Currie spent as much political capital on the needs of Shoppers as the Post suggests, what was left over for his constituents?
The most typical comment by state legislators I have spoken with about Senator Currie has been some version of, “He was the last person I expected to be involved with something like this.” If the Senator hid his conduct behind a cloak of propriety, then everyone in Annapolis should look around carefully at everyone else. There may very well be others like Senator Currie who have yet to be revealed, at least for now.
The bottom line is this: when state legislators set foot into the statehouse, they work for us – the people – not for their employers or their extracurricular paymasters. The politicians need to remember that. So too do the voters.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Annapolis Fit Club
Last week’s Post article on lobbyists purchasing dinners for groups of state legislators illustrates two growing threats. The first is a threat to our democracy. The second is a threat to the health of our beloved politicians. Fear not, dear readers – we at MPW have the answer to both of these problems! But I am afraid our legislators may not like it.
Let’s deal with the health threat first. Our state legislators are only human. They often have to work late, confront hordes of militant constituents and put up with unfair harassment from bloggers. The conditions are so terrible that even aspiring state legislators are driven over the edge. And on top of all that, overfeeding from eager lobbyists raises the awful specter of obesity.
Now our state legislators understand the scourge of obesity. That is why they chose to protect the rest of us from it by designating walking as the state exercise. But along come these crabcake-toting lobbyists eager to fatten them into bill-passing complacency. What would you do if you could have free lobsters, steaks, desserts and booze every single night? Come on, be honest!
A state delegate who shall remain nameless admits that obesity is running amok in Annapolis. One legendary story holds that a legislator once gained 100 pounds in a 90-day session. Some legislators keep desk drawers full of munchables to ward off boring committee sessions. And any legislator who resists eating until committee work is over can become a starving, easy mark for steak-bearing lobbyists.
Weight control is therefore mandatory for protecting our legislators’ health. We suggest that prior to every session, each legislator report for a weigh-in. Results will be publicly disclosed, perhaps even including a picture like this one of Brian Dunkleman from Celebrity Fit Club:
A similar weigh-in will be conducted after the session ends and all gains in weight and body fat will be reported. Any legislator who gains 20 pounds or more must report to Drill Sergeant Harvey Walden for immediate weight loss boot camp!
Now let’s return to the health of our democracy. Our legislators are regulated enough. They are already told too much how to behave and what to do (sometimes by the lobbyists). The answer is disclosure. We will accomplish that in two nifty steps.
First, lobbyists will once again be allowed to serve individual dinners to legislators, but they must pay for the privilege. Lobbyists must win the right to entertain these legislators by winning bids at auction. Each legislator will only be able to attend five of these dinners or they will answer to Drill Sergeant Harvey. Every dinner will be recorded and made available for download. (How many of them will resemble the infamous Bromwell dinner?) After a suitable cut is taken out for Senate President Mike Miller’s campaign account, the auction proceeds will go to purchase and maintain a fleet of personal GPS devices.
Second, these GPS devices will be ankle-shackled to all legislators, their staff and all registered lobbyists. Any time a GPS device belonging to a legislator or staffer comes within 10 feet of a device belonging to a lobbyist, that contact will be logged and disclosed on the state’s website. Every citizen will know exactly how much time each legislator spends with each and every lobbyist.
And if the GPS devices record contact between a legislator and a lobbyist between the hours of 10 PM and 5 AM, an immediate phone call and email will be sent to the legislator’s significant other!
Monday, April 07, 2008
Hell Has Frozen Over: I Agree with Alex Mooney
Yes, that Mooney--the right-wing kook state senator who hopes to ride his way to Congress on a potpourri of demagoguery and self-righteousness. More specifically, I share his concern regarding the Governor's DNA proposal. From the Washington Post:Even O'Malley's leading public safety proposal -- an expansion of the state's DNA database to include samples taken during arrests for violent crimes and burglaries -- has a relatively small fiscal effect: about $1 million a year in state funds. Lawmakers reached a compromise on that bill yesterday afternoon and sent it to O'Malley.
Maybe it's because it is late and I think I am coming down with something but I think it is a bad idea to permanently add someone's DNA to a database when they haven't been found guilty of any crime. It is one thing to check DNA after an arrest but shouldn't one have to be found guilty of a crime of some threshold before getting added to the database?
The DNA legislation cleared both chambers by large margins but continued to draw objections from some lawmakers, who questioned why the state would move away from its policy of taking samples at the time of conviction.
"We're taking DNA from people who are innocent under law," said Sen. Alex X. Mooney (R-Frederick).
