Showing posts with label brian frosh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brian frosh. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Frosh Defends Forehand from Kagan's Negative Mail
Senator Brian Frosh (D-16), who is the Chair of the Judicial Proceedings Committee and has endorsed committee member Jennie Forehand, has released a statement defending Forehand from Cheryl Kagan's first negative mailer. In the mailer, Kagan criticized Forehand for missing a vote on a critical amendment to a bill repealing the death penalty that changed its purpose to restricting rather than ending it. Following is Frosh's statement, which was circulated by Forehand's campaign.
Setting the Record Straight
August 2010
Dear Friends:
I worked closely with Governor O'Malley to repeal the death penalty. Senator Jennie Forehand was a critical ally in our fight to end capital punishment in Maryland. Jennie voted with repeal advocates in each critical vote during the process.
Jennie voted for the repeal in the Judicial Proceedings Committee;
When the repeal fell short in committee, Jennie voted to bring the bill to the Senate floor over the objections of the Senate President;
When her vote was needed to start debate, Jennie was there - casting the deciding vote to move the debate forward;
When Senate Republicans tried to kill the bill by sending it back to Committee, Jennie voted to keep the issue on the Senate floor; and
Jennie voted for the final version of the bill, which dramatically restricted capital punishment in Maryland, limiting it to the rarest of situations.
We took a dozen tough votes on the issue, and Jennie voted with repeal advocates at each critical step. You can see the final Senate vote that passed the bill here and the full public record here.
I was there, and I know the important role that Jennie played. She was there when repeal advocates needed her, taking tough votes and standing up to the Senate President when she thought he was wrong.
Jennie Forehand takes her duties seriously. She's never backed away from a tough fight, and she works hard for the residents of District 17. Whether you vote early or on Election Day this year, I hope you vote to send Jennie back to the Maryland Senate.
Sincerely,
Brian E. Frosh
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Thursday, May 06, 2010
District 16’s Town Hall, Part Two: The Update Continues
By Marc Korman.
In Part Two we will take a look at Delegate Frick and Senator Frosh’s comments about the 2010 legislative session at the District 16 town hall.
Delegate Bill Frick
Delegate Frick discussed the work of his committee, Ways and Means, during the session. Ways and Means primary area of jurisdiction is taxes and with those essentially off the table in 2010, Delegate Frick said he expected a somewhat quiet session in committee. Despite his expectations, the Committee was very busy.
The effort to increase the state’s alcohol taxes, HB 832, to dedicate funds to substance abuse and developmental disabilities received a big push in 2010. Delegate Bronrott has long championed the bill but will not be in the legislature to see it passed. Frick supported the legislation and will push it again in the future.
Ways and Means was also busy with several education related bills. The Safe Schools Act was an initiative of the Speaker’s to encourage better information sharing to promote intervention into the lives of students heading into gangs, as opposed to just penalizing those already involved. The Education Reform Act is part of an almost nationwide effort to position states to compete for the “Race to the Top” education grant program. Although the Washington Post has given this bill a hard time, it makes several meaningful reforms including rewarding teachers for taking on tougher tasks, adding a year before teachers can earn tenure status, and replicating Montgomery County’s heralded mentoring program for struggling teachers around the state. Montgomery County also received a one year maintenance of effort waiver, basically undoing a penalty assessed by the state Board of Education, but longer term reform did not pass.
Frick then shifted to some of his own bills from the session. HB 1206 put in stiff disclosure requirements for Tax Refund Anticipation Loans. These are loans provided to individuals expecting a tax refund that fronts them the cash. The loans are troubling because IRS refunds come relatively quickly so they are somewhat unnecessary and there is zero risk to the lender, so the interest rate/payment structure should be much lower than it is. HB 1325 would have steered the state government’s banking and financial services business towards local banks, as opposed to those based on Wall Street. This is a great idea I am surprised is not already law. Surprisingly, the local banks were not comfortable with the change so more work will need to be done before this can become law.
One of the questioners asked was about Northrop Grumman and Maryland’s failure to attract the company. Frick said the details of the package Maryland offered were kept confidential, so competitors did not know the details, but he was assured it was an aggressive offer. We will probably never know for sure. Frick also personally lobbied a Northrop Grumman board member who confided that the company wanted to be close to where their jets parked. By that the board member meant being close to Dulles Airport where private aircraft can land. My own view is that Northrop Grumman was always going to relocate to be next to their biggest customer, the Pentagon, and we never had a chance. That’s not to say we should not work harder to attract businesses.
Senator Brian Frosh
At these town halls, Senator Frosh plays the emcee in introducing his colleagues and fielding most of the questions, so his comments tend to be a little shorter. He focused on the Judicial Proceedings Committee he chairs and the environment.
The Judicial Proceedings Committee passed several good and important bills this year. When the financial crisis began, Maryland had some of the worst foreclosure laws in the country. A major action in 2009 was extending the length of foreclosures so parties would have more time to work them out and, failing that, find alternative housing. HB 472 promotes one method of working out a foreclosure, mediation. The General Assembly also passed a medical False Claims Act, which I highlighted previously. Senator Frosh reminded me that the federal government actually promoted passage of state False Claims Acts by offering an increased award for any Medicaid fraud a state law uncovers, making what was already a great bill even better.
The General Assembly also passed sex offender laws which have gotten substantial media coverage. These bills increase penalties and extend the length of supervision and/or registration. Senator Frosh explained these bills in a bit more detail when he was questioned on them, explaining that he preferred the supervision/registry bills to just passing tougher mandatory minimum sentences because, surprisingly, no prosecutor has asked for the toughest sentence already allowed on the books, let alone one higher. Legislation was also passed to increase the child support guidelines, which affect 500,000 Maryland children who are current beneficiaries. The current numbers, not pegged to inflation, date from 1989. Finally, Frosh was praised by a member of the audience from the Fraternal Order of Police for helping to pass legislation on collective bargaining and arbitration for law enforcement.
On the environment, Frosh successfully steered through a ban on BPA in children’s bottles and cups, which I also previously discussed. Frosh also spent a good deal of time on legislation to improve the health of oysters in the Chesapeake Bay. The state pays for oyster sanctuaries to try and rebuild the oyster population, while allowing watermen to harvest from non-sanctuary areas if they are licensed and follow all the catch limits. Unfortunately, some have been caught harvesting from sanctuaries and received only a slap on the wrist. Frosh proposed that violators have their licenses permanently revoked instead. The legislation made some progress before an amendment was added limiting the state’s ability to add more oyster sanctuaries.
Next time, we will look at some of the other people in the room besides the sitting legislators.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
District 16 Delegation Slams SHA on Snow Removal, Pepco on Power
Senator Brian Frosh and Delegates Bill Bronrott, Susan Lee and Bill Frick sent the following sharply worded letters to the State Highway Administration on snow plowing and Pepco on power restoration. Additionally, Delegate Frick appeared on WTOP this afternoon calling for better coordination between state and county authorities on snow plowing.
Monday, January 18, 2010
District 16 Delegation Opposes Ride-On Cuts in Bethesda and Chevy Chase
The District 16 Delegation - Senator Brian Frosh and Delegates Bill Bronrott, Susan Lee and Bill Frick - has sent the following letter protesting the County Executive's planned Ride-On cuts in Bethesda and Chevy Chase.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Montgomery County’s Most Influential People, Part Three
Get ready for the big time, people! These six elected officials are the heaviest hitters in Montgomery County.
6. Brian Frosh, Senator (D-16)
31 Votes
Reader: Potential heir to Mike Miller. Has a lot of influence, but has been holding the use of it in check to make that potential a reality. Unfortunately, that's leaving a vacuum in progressive leadership in the Senate.
Reader: Montgomery County’s only Senate Chair and an important progressive voice in the county.
Reader: Although somewhat recalcitrant and in the shadows, Frosh has become the elder statesman of Montgomery politics.
Reader: He is widely acknowledged as one of the two or three smartest legislators in the General Assembly. At a time when political discourse has become coarse and lacking in civility, Brian Frosh remains one of the bright lights in our state.
Reader: As chair of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, Senator Frosh exercises a great deal of influence over extremely contentious, personal, and emotional legislation involving civil rights, criminal law, and criminal justice. His decision to delay or withhold a committee vote can break a bill. Because of the issues that his committee deals with, Senator Frosh is a key focus of attention for the most committed ideologues of both the left and the right. Another factor adds to his influence: Since he is in the running to succeed Mike Miller as Senate President, Senator Frosh is a legislator whose favor many other senators and activists are more likely to curry. Should Miller have another change of heart and announce his departure from leadership after 2010, look for Frosh’s influence to increase even more.
Reader: Great State Senator, hopefully he’ll replace Miller as Senate President if he can bring together the county delegation’s votes and score some votes from the Prince George’s delegation.
Reader: Because he is respected by nearly all for being smart, progressive and an utterly decent person. Possible future Senate President.
Reader: Progressives who follow Annapolis have no love lost with Senator Frosh, who has moved to the center in a quest to be the next Senate President. His constituents don’t know the details of how he carries the water of Mike Miller - they only know him as an environmental champion and powerful committee chairman. Senator Frosh isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, and may even get his wish to become Senate President one day - maybe even without selling his soul out to Mike Miller and conservative Democrats in the process.
Reader: Doesn’t exercise much influence outside his own committee, but always could.
Reader: Central to state formation of legal public policy. Highly underrated. Possible future Senate President (in the year 2030 when Miller dies!)
Reader: Intelligent, honest. Brian is a very rare politician in that he is always true to his word. He truly believes in Constitutional rights, fairness, and a level playing field.
Adam: Brian Frosh proves nice guys can still go a long ways in politics. He gets lots of respect for being a squeaky-clean, honest liberal who doesn’t get in the faces of people who disagree. Not a MoCo partisan – pursues the state’s overall needs rather than focusing on the county’s narrow priorities.
4 (tie). Valerie Ervin, Montgomery County Council Member
33 Votes
Reader: Ervin is probably the standout candidate right now to succeed Ike in 2014.
Reader: One of the only Council Members with people skills to complement her policy and political abilities. A promotion is likely, but where? Exec? Congress? Annapolis?
Reader: I expect that her commitment to neighborhood causes and constituent services are gaining Valerie Ervin a district full of supportive voters. Because she was so quick to seek higher office from the School Board she’d just been elected to, I didn’t trust her when she first announced her candidacy for the 2006 County Council race. But in the time since then, she’s won me over. She has been an energetic advocate for community issues I care about, she has been an effective advocate in protecting the quality of life in residential neighborhoods, she has reached out to me and my neighbors, and she’s a joy to spend time with. Any politician who can change my opinion of her from mistrust to strong support in such a relatively short time is, in my opinion, a force to be reckoned with.
Reader: Former union member and proud of it (rare given the faux politics in this county). Comes from the working class and remembers her roots. Determined, courageous. Just compare with the hollow rhetoric of Duchy Trachtenberg.
Reader: I have personally observed her ability to get things done and see her dedication to issues that really affect neighborhoods, such as the recent controversy surrounding the Sligo Creek Golf Course.
Reader: Influence is not always positive and she plays politics big time. Nevertheless, she is a union darling and has a bully pulpit that she uses effectively. She is difficult to defeat on matters she takes a stand on. She also brings several votes with her on the big issues.
Reader: In a strong position on the Council and a shoo-in for re-election. Clear accomplishments and a good case for re-election. Almost everyone else on the Council has potential problems as they approach a surly electorate in 2010.
Reader: Common sense, takes risks, leads without fear, inspires a true cross-section of the county’s voters – keep an eye on her.
Reader: I rank Valerie above Ike Leggett because she’s the first person community members, unions, and other civic leaders turn to when they want to get things done. Her role in electing Donna Edwards in 2008 (she supported Donna in 06 and 08 when no one else did and was key to getting her local labor and political support) and now Nancy Navarro has positioned her as the strongest political player in the county and the region’s leading progressive voice. Navarro’s win was just as big a win for Valerie as Valerie now leads a majority coalition (Ervin, Navarro, Leventhal, Floreen, Knapp). Her base is strong – solid inside her diverse and liberal vote-rich district, popular among progressives, young activists, labor unions, civic leaders and the business community. Most importantly, Sonya Healy is the smartest, and probably hardest working, person in Rockville. One District 16 official recently told me, “Valerie and Sonya clearly carry the intellectual heft of the County Council.” Her relationship with the labor unions in a county and state heavily influenced by labor unions makes her even more influential, and she is well positioned to move up.
Reader: Valerie Ervin is a true rising star, not just in Montgomery County, but in the Maryland Democratic Party as well. In her few years at the County Council, she has proven to be a liberal but pragmatic operator who can maintain strong ties with interests ranging from business, labor, communities of color and progressive groups. More importantly, unlike our Executive, she is not afraid of taking potentially unpopular or controversial positions, and she is willing to expend capital for her allies. Given that this has been a successful endeavor (witness the election of Nancy Navarro to the Council), Valerie is now positioned as the true powerbroker in County politics. As a result, she is mentioned by many as a top tier candidate for County Executive, Lieutenant Governor, and maybe even Governor.
Adam: A force in county politics who has never forgotten where she came from. Whipped Ike Leggett in his backyard during the 2009 special election and is the person he fears the most. She is the subject of more speculation about her future than any other MoCo politician with the exceptions of Chris Van Hollen and Doug Gansler.
4 (tie). Sheila Hixson, Delegate (D-20)
33 Votes
Reader: The Chair of the Powerful House Ways and Means Committee knows how to work the corridors of power in Annapolis.
Reader: Knows where all the bodies are buried in Annapolis and MoCo.
Reader: As chair of the powerful Ways & Means Committee she can kill bills and also get bills through if she wants. She has the only real leadership position from MoCo in the House.
Reader: Because she will kill any bill in her committee.
Reader: Tradition, wisdom and influence – good to have some of that left in our delegation.
Reader: Feared more than respected or liked in Annapolis.
Reader: Her absolute power as chair of Ways and Means has blocked many good public policy initiatives from being considered (and possibly passed) by the House of Delegates.
Reader: Where would we be if her chairmanship were held by a Baltimore Delegate?
Reader: Potentially big role in tax policy over $30 billion, but most of it is not her call, but rather Busch’s and the Caucus.
Reader: Most experienced tax policy leader in the state (this includes the Senate). Don’t EVER think of crossing her! LBJ in heels!
Reader: Sheila Hixson continues to be one of the most powerful, yet underrated politicians in Montgomery County. Her position as Chair of the Ways and Means Committee means that little can get done in Annapolis without her support. Nevertheless, she represents a very liberal district where a chunk of single-issue voters seems to never forgive her for supporting the ICC, regardless of all the other work she does for the County and ignoring the fact that nothing more can be done about the ICC. Unfortunately, this means Delegate Hixson will likely have to work hard for reelection, but as long as her slate-mates are happy with her, she should be safe.
Adam: Our sources are divided on Hixson. Her supporters point to her Chair of Ways and Means, a position she has held since 1993. Her detractors claim that the Speaker makes most of the big decisions on taxes and Hixson must implement them to keep her Chair. Regardless of who is right, look at it this way. Ten years ago, the county’s most powerful women included Connie Morella, Marilyn Praisner, Betty Ann Krahnke, Nancy Dacek, Ida Ruben and Sheila Hixson. Today, Hixson is the only one of them who could still make that list.
3. Rich Madaleno, Senator (D-18)
42 Votes
Reader: Rich Madaleno is already highly influential on budget matters (not just on the key Committee but one of the “deciders” of that Committee) and chairs the Senate delegation in his first term.
Reader: Having the ear of the Senate President is an automatic path to power. Having it on budget issues gives Madaleno tremendous input into the course of the state.
Reader: When it comes to the state budget, Rich is always the most knowledgeable guy in the room. He’s a real asset for Montgomery County.
Reader: District 18 had an open senate seat in 2006, yet then-Delegate Rich Madaleno ran unopposed in the primary. That said a lot about Rich Madaleno’s political standing three years ago, and I see no evidence that it has diminished since then. People in Montgomery County and Annapolis respect him for understanding the complexities of budgets in ways that few other legislators do. He understands legislative politics, too: In the game of legislative chess, he can see 20 moves down the road. Few if any question his integrity. One indication of his standing in Annapolis is his interactions with Senate President Mike Miller: When Madaleno has crossed Miller, Miller has threatened but not punished him. (Contrast that with Budget and Taxation Committee-mate Rona Kramer, for instance). With regard to looking out for neighborhoods in his district, he has been a vocal advocate for Georgia Avenue issues since 2003, his freshman year in the House. This was three years before the area community association's pre-primary letter-writing campaign and Crossing Georgia website made everyone else sit up and take notice. For some politicos, the fear they engender in others gives them influence. People don’t fear Rich Madaleno, and that has cost him on occasion. But they like, respect, and trust him a great deal, and that gives him a different type of influence.
Reader: Has the smarts to be an effective legislator and the patience to work on issues important to him.
Reader: With unrivaled budget experience in county and state government as both a staffer and elected official, Madaleno is emerging in many people’s minds as a logical candidate for County Executive when Ike steps down.
Reader: Perhaps the most untouchable political figure in the county because his reputation alone is bigger than life.
Reader: I think that Rich is the only real leader in our delegation. He is always the go-to guy. He is highly regarded among all his peers. He is smart, he gets things done in Annapolis.
Reader: Extremely smart and knowledgeable on all issues. Annapolis insider and knows how to get things done - much like Chris Van Hollen when he was a State Senator. Very popular at home and can sell tough issues.
Reader: Senator Madaleno is one of the more respected members of our County’s Annapolis delegation, so it is no wonder his colleagues chose him to chair their Senate delegation. Whether you agree or disagree with his views, there is no doubt that he is a true district representative who channels the views and interests of his constituents well, whether on tax policy or the Purple Line.
Reader: The Budget expert of the General Assembly is also one of the smartest senators, well versed on all the important issues, the chair of the Montgomery County delegation, often quoted in the press, the hero of the gay community, and well-liked by his colleagues. He may again go unchallenged in the next primary election, and if he continues to fund-raise, will have the capacity to help his colleagues out, thus increasing his clout in Annapolis.
Adam: Terrible budget times amplify the importance of his skill set. Also effective as a crusader for civil rights who earns points with his civility. Indispensable to his county, his district and everyone who cares about equal rights.
2. Ike Leggett, Montgomery County Executive
50 Votes
Reader: I guess.
Reader: The County Executive almost has to be on the most influential list, although Ike seems to be doing his darndest to squander his influence. Increasingly unpopular and bordering on the sleep-inducing in speeches, and the purchase of helicopters is only the latest in a long saga of missteps. The Governor doesn’t listen to him, our state delegation doesn’t listen to him, and increasingly the County Council doesn’t listen to him. He may not be on the list for much longer.
Reader: A legislator by nature, clearly not an executive.
Reader: Some may not like Ike’s waffling style, but the Executive of Maryland’s largest jurisdiction is a high profile job and carries considerable weight here in the County and throughout the state.
Reader: I’ve been pleased with his fiscal restraint philosophy, or at least as much as one is capable of in Montgomery County.
Reader: He’s the County Executive, which de facto makes him one of the most influential people in Montgomery County politics. A look at the 2006 primary election results for County Executive shows Ike as more popular than he really is. Leggett won in a lopsided victory against Silverman because he represented change that he has not delivered, anti-development sentiment, and the lack of a State or Federal candidate pushing Montgomery County voters to turnout. Anti-development sentiment was particularly strong in 2006 because the press coverage of the Clarksburg development scandal made voters concerned that the county’s leaders were in the pockets of developers. Growth has since slowed, and now that the Purple Line seems more certain voters will be less angry about traffic congestion. Leggett’s stands on Latino and Labor rights issues show he is not on the side of working families, and he has not been a leader in the fight to dismantle the achievement gap in MCPS. He will always have a loyal following among the 60+ crowd, but as the MPW polls have showed, the wide-reaching progressive coalition of voters that elected him in 2006 is very dissatisfied. Ike doesn’t take stands on most hard issues, and his “professorial” style of leadership usually just equates to no leadership at all.
Reader: Ike Leggett is the consummate politician. He is a better legislator than he is at being the Executive. Being the Executive requires decision making skills and having a vision. People are willing to give him a pass because he is so likable. There is also the myth that he cannot be beaten. Many believe that the only competitive race against Ike would have to be by another African American.
Reader: Love him or hate him, he is still the County Executive.
Reader: He’s the County Executive and still wields a bit of influence - mostly with the voters, but that is waning. I almost didn’t put him on the list.
Reader: If you wanted to use reverse psychology to achieve your own ends, he’s someone you want on your side. It seems that by not doing anything until the last minute then deciding whether or not to take credit for the results (depending on how good or bad they are), he’s gotten many, many other people to do the heavy lifting of running the county for him.
Reader: Quietly uses the power of his office. Probably the only sane office holder at the county level.
Reader: Agree with him or not, he still controls the agenda and no effective opposition inside or outside party has arisen. He may not win every issue, but he wins most of them and he still sets the tone. His “smart growth initiative” is moving along and actually makes sense. Mike [Knapp] and his gang can’t hang together long enough to put up a coherent fight. Also, with the competition intense among Council Members for who succeeds Ike, none of them will do too much to make one of their own the leader because of the implications for the Executive race. It’s a weird world, but it leaves Ike dominant even when he’s not always on top of every issue.
Reader: Maybe should be dropped a few more pegs after his endorsement did little to help out Ben Kramer.
Reader: Is this high mostly due to the office itself. Would be less influential than the Council as a whole, except for their divisions. Not greatly respected by his peers, which is a problem.
Reader: Montgomery County’s Executive is one of the most influential people in local politics. Unfortunately, it is too bad that he has a negative impact on the County rather than a positive one. Time and again, the Executive has proven himself unwilling to take stands on many issues, thereby creating twice as many enemies than had he simply picked a side. This waffling style of politics might make sense for a member of the Council, but not for an Executive. This nice guy routine will only work so long as Ike doesn’t face a real opponent for reelection, but should that change, expect the many disaffected Ike supporters to line up against him. Oddly, the one time when Ike does take controversial positions is when he aligns himself with entrenched politicians like Al Wynn, Ida Ruben and the Kramer family. All of this smells like “old school” politics at its worst in an era when voters are seeking vision, competence, and a change from status quo politics. This is the era of Obama, yet Ike is still governing in the era of Dukakis.
Adam: You guys can complain all you want about Ike, but he does not have a credible challenger yet. Last time we checked, an incumbent without a challenger usually gets re-elected.
1. Chris Van Hollen, U.S House of Representatives
56 Votes
Reader: Mr. Democratic Party has national standing, a deep purse and perfect hair.
Reader: The fact that he came in number two last year is ridiculous. Van Hollen is now the partial architect of the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, a mover at the national level, and could give Hoyer a run for his money when Pelosi leaves the Speaker’s chair. He also went from insurgent challenger in 2002 to the elder statesman of Montgomery County now.
Reader: If he wants to exert himself, he is probably one of the few politicians who could convince another to run or not run for something. As his power in the House grows, so does his ability to influence events in the county.
Reader: Beloved by nearly a million Montgomery and Prince George’s constituents. Sky’s the limit for this guy.
Reader: Extremely ambitious but not transparently so. Much like Ike Leggett, Van Hollen managed to navigate his way up through the ranks, in large part, by avoiding contentious issues. As a result, he doesn’t have many political enemies. The lesson is that there is generally little or no upside in Montgomery County politics for taking an unambiguous stand on a difficult issue. After almost 20 years in elected office, can anyone really articulate with specificity where Van Hollen stands on the ICC or the Purple Line??
Reader: Chris Van Hollen has always impressed people with his brains, his energy, and his liberalism. Everyone knows he's going places. He is well respected among Montgomery County political figures and activists. If he wanted to, he could exercise a great deal of influence in local politics. However, he sees himself more as the Watcher than Galactus, generally choosing not to interfere.
Reader: Everyone loves Chris! A successful role as the Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and now the Assistant to the Speaker it appears everyone in congress also respects him. I can’t think of a more valuable endorsement from an elected official in Moco than Van Hollen. While he tends to stay out of Moco internal political fights, he is easily defined as the man from Montgomery County. Every time he is mentioned as running for the Senate, you get at least half a dozen people saying they would run for his seat. He’s got the top echelon of Moco leaders chomping at the bits waiting for his next “move.”
Reader: An obvious choice. If talent, hard work, and smarts were not enough, I’d give him an edge just on the decency factor. He’s probably the nicest person in elected office, at any level of government.
Reader: He is everybody’s favorite politician. He is smart, charismatic, does his homework, pays attention to his district and is building an incredible support base in Congress and around the country. He raises money like nobody else. I think that Chris can write his own ticket. I can’t think of anybody in elected office that is held in such high esteem.
Reader: Superstar. Viewed as progressive when he actually compromises quite a bit and is heavily involved in the sausage making of Congress behind the scenes. He was born to legislate and yields a lot of national influence as well as back home.
Reader: Huge potential influence, but not sure he uses it. As the only fed on the list, is in a different category than everyone else. Can potentially affect more dollars and more people than any of us, but I don’t believe he does that so often.
Reader: The 8th District representative is a true national player, given his role at the DCCC and with the Obama administration. He continues to maintain high popularity among constituents, and his strong national connections should make him a strong contender for a U.S. Senate bid. Nevertheless, at least at the local level, his absent voice during some of the more controversial local debates does not go unnoticed. Much of this is likely due to the attention he must give to helping run the national Democratic Party, but it is also at least partly due to his unwillingness to ruffle feathers and get his hands dirty. That might be a perfectly fine strategy for him, but it also makes him a bit boring and a bit like yesterday’s news, since it has been a long time since he had a competitive race. Of course, all that may change in the midst of a heated Senate bid, as we expect people to get energized once again.
Adam: I agree with the lavish compliments from most of the spies. In addition, let’s remember that MoCo residents care MUCH more about national politics than state and local politics. Van Hollen’s sky-high profile as the Democrats’ point man endears him to his constituents. Nothing makes a MoCo liberal happier than to see his or her local Congressman spanking Karl Rove and other Neanderthals on the Sunday talk shows.
We’ll start looking at the non-electeds tomorrow.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Brian Frosh and Rich Parsons Debate I-270
As we previously reported, Senator Brian Frosh (D-16) is attempting to organize a Montgomery County Senate Delegation letter opposing the I-270 project. That prompted an email exchange with former Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce CEO Rich Parsons, a project supporter, that was distributed to all of the county's Senators. We reproduce the emails in their entirety below.
From: Rich Parsons
Date: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Subject: I 270 transit options - letter request from Senator Frosh
To: Forehand, Jennie Senator; Garagiola, Rob Senator; King, Nancy
Senator; Kramer, Rona Senator; Lenett, Mike Senator; Madaleno, Richard
Senator; Raskin, Jamie Senator
A quick personal plea:
I understand Senator Frosh is sending around a letter to the Governor for his colleagues to sign on the pending I-270 study. I am writing to ask that you please hold off on signing onto this letter, at least until we have a chance to talk. The letter is way off-base for a couple of key reasons. The main problem is that what he is asking for – reasonable as it may sound on the surface -- has already been done many times: namely studying non-road alternatives to reduce traffic in the 270 corridor. Been there, done that, folks, more than once too. The current study, in fact, has identified the most effective transit alternatives, which are highly effective indeed. Following the course this letter advocates would be a big step backwards, and the letter displays a lack of basic familiarity with the issue with which I am not sure you want to be associated.
This effort comes across to many of us who have been involved in these studies as yet another delay tactic on a major corridor study that is more than a decade in the making. Now that we are nearing the Final Environmental Impact Study stage, further delays could be very costly indeed. Haven’t we learned this lesson enough?
I would strongly urge you not to sign on, or at least do your own independent fact checking into this issue first. The so-called alternatives ACT is pushing here are wildly unrealistic and have already been studied and rejected both by the State and by the Montgomery County Planning Board in its TPR report in 2002. And ACT has shown itself previously not to be a reliable source for information on transportation issues. This is just more of the same. I know what they are pushing here may sound attractive on the surface, at least to the uninformed, but not all is as it seems. In short, please look before you leap on this one.
If you want more detail, I am out of town now but will be back next week. In the meantime, I am available by cell phone if you have questions.
Thanks. I hope you are enjoying your summer.
Warm regards,
Rich Parsons
*****
From: Frosh, Brian Senator
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 3:25 PM
To: Forehand, Jennie Senator; Garagiola, Rob Senator; King, Nancy
Senator; Kramer, Rona Senator; Lenett, Mike Senator; Madaleno, Richard
Senator; Raskin, Jamie Senator
Subject: More on I-270
Dear Colleague,
I understand you've received an email from Rich Parsons urging you not to endorse the letter relating to I-270 that I circulated last week. Rich is right about one thing: People have been analyzing ways to improve transportation in the for I-270 corridor for years.
What's different now is a proposal for an aggressive, expensive expansion of I-270 that's been added to the SHA's corridor study. SHA estimates the option's cost at over $4 billion. The price tag alone should have killed it.
If we're seriously thinking about spending that kind of money, we need a study of all-transit alternatives, not just roads. Options previously rejected because of their cost become viable--Metro to Germantown, for instance, 15-minute rush-hour MARC service, commuter service to Hagerstown, a range of possibilities that could spell a permanent cure to the I-270 mess instead of a temporary fix.
Will analyzing those alternatives slow down the process? Not likely. Some of the work has already been done, as Rich pointed out. A $4 billion project--road or otherwise--won't be leaping out of the starting blocks any time soon. And even if the money is there, the folks who support the build option know that a lot more research is needed: the County Planning Board identified a page-full of items that need to be analyzed in connection with the build option.
So talk to Rich if he calls; he's a good lobbyist for his client. But don't let him fool you into thinking that all-transit alternatives have been analyzed to death. Or that there's not enough time to do this right.
Regards,
Brian
*****
From: Rich Parsons
Sent: 8/25/2009 3:18:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
To: Forehand, Jennie Senator; Garagiola, Rob Senator; King, Nancy
Senator; Kramer, Rona Senator; Lenett, Mike Senator; Madaleno, Richard
Senator; Raskin, Jamie Senator
Subj: RE: More on I-270
I would like to respond to Senator Frosh's recent email regarding I-270.
First, I appreciate Senator Frosh's response to my email last week urging you not to sign the letter he is distributing on the I-270 project. This is a subject that is of such critical importance to our future that it needs and deserves exactly this kind of dialog before anyone makes any hasty decisions that might lock you in to a position you might later regret, or that is not supported by the available study data, so his comments are welcome.
To Brian's points (his message is attached below):
1. He is incorrect in asserting that the expansion of I-270 is anything new in this corridor study. Both expanded lane capacity and transit options have always been included, for over a decade. In fact, widening I-270 north of Shady Grove Road is already part of Montgomery County's officially adopted 10-year transportation plan (and has been for many years, since around 2002, I believe). It was one of the most effective and important traffic-relief measures found in the 2002 TPR Report and was endorsed by both the Montgomery County Planning Board and the County Council.
2. As to the cost, please keep in mind that the highway portion of this project is likely to be paid for largely with the added toll revenues that the new managed toll lanes will generate. This is "new money" that would not be there if the lanes are not added. In the case of the ICC, tolls provided well more than half the total project cost and 270 could be even more. Also, if you look at this corridor study from a regional perspective, it is a good candidate for private-sector investment, which would not cost taxpayers much if anything (Dulles Greenway was built with private-sector funds). Especially if it is looked at in conjunction with the ongoing SHA study on adding managed toll lanes between lower I-270 and the Western end of the Beltway at the American Legion Bridge (to connect with Virginia's HOT lanes already in construction), its potential for public-private or full private-sector funding is much greater and very much worth exploring. This is why the cost alone should not be any reason to kill this project. The dramatic traffic relief it provides -- 61% reduction in congestion, 60% reduction in travel times, and up to 84% improvement in peak-hour speeds -- and the lack of any effective alternatives, which is well documented – are among the other reasons we cannot afford to kill it. Finally, keep in mind, this corridor study is meant to lay out the long-term vision for this corridor over the next many decades. I would expect the project would be broken up into smaller segments that would be manageable within any given capital budget cycle for whatever public funding may be needed. But the guiding vision needs to be there to ensure a coherent, well-designed, multi-modal system in this corridor -- which remains MD's and Montgomery County's number-one job creation engine -- and this is exactly what the current study is doing.
3. As to the claim that transit options have not been studied, or that this study looked at "just roads," this simply isn't true. One needs only to check the I-270 corridor study or the Planning Board's TPR study documents to see who is right on this one.
4. I have serious doubts whether any of the specific transit options Brian mentioned, most of which have been previously studied and rejected, would ever be viable. For example, Metro to Germantown (already studied and rejected) is not viable for a host of reasons, including that it will never have sufficient ridership to qualify for federal funding. The TPR study looked at Metro extension in detail, all the way out to 2050, and still we were not even close to hitting the minimum thresholds required from Shady Grove to Metropolitan Grove, let alone Germantown (the TPR Task Force, which included many of the County's leading transit advocates, dropped this proposal by consensus -- which was a rare commodity in that task force). As for 15-minute rush-hour MARC service, studies do not indicate enough ridership to justify the cost, and there continue to be significant issues with competing freight traffic on the CSX lines (which may require adding a third track through a big part of the County, taking out homes and businesses in places like Kensington, Garrett Park Silver Spring, Rockville and Gaithersburg). Besides, last time I looked at the current MARC ridership, it was underperforming estimates and the current rush hour service was underutilized. This may still be the case and needs checking. As for commuter rail service to Hagerstown, this is not something many transit experts would take very seriously. The distance, travel times, and lack of density along the route -- along with far more cost-effective express bus options using the new lanes on I-270 -- are all serious issues that I do not think can ever be overcome. This is a non-starter. To say that any of these, or even a combination of all, would offer "a permanent cure to the I-270 mess" flies in the face of every transit study ever done in this corridor. All previous studies have found that even the most ambitious rail transit options will have a minimal impact on 270 traffic (we are talking less than 1% reductions typically).
There are reasons for this that no amount of wishful thinking can change: (a) the vast majority of trips on 270 are NOT commuting trips, and rail transit does absolutely nothing to accommodate the movement of freight, or interstate auto travel through our region, and virtually nothing for the majority of local trips that are non-commuting; (b) This is a key interstate highway segment that connects the nation's capital to most of the Midwest, in addition to serving as the lifeblood of our local employment base, so the projected "Level F" congestion we know we will face here without the widening is something we have to address, and no amount of rail transit has ever been shown to change this by itself; and (c) Heavy rail transit options like Brian is suggesting (i.e. extension of Metro service) tend to serve commuters in urban areas very well, where high densities of jobs, housing, and high-rise urban streetscapes allow for high ridership and lots of walkable destinations on either end of the trip. However, heavy rail transit is generally not cost-effective in any suburban setting once the level of density falls below say a Bethesda, Silver Spring, or Rockville; so light-rail and Bus-Rapid-Transit systems are really the only viable options for mass transit in the 270 corridor. Once you get north of Clarksburg, studies consistently show the only viable transit option is Bus-Rapid-Transit using I-270, although light rail could be viable from Shady Grove to Clarksburg in the future if the densities are there but certainly not heavy rail. Given all of this, no matter what we do on the transit side, we will need to add new capacity to I-270 to have any measurable impact on congestion and to allow for the one viable mode of mass transit that previous studies have found in the northern part of this corridor, which is express-bus. All of this is right there in the study data.
5. As Brian indicated, there is more research needed, and as this project moves to the Final Environmental Impact Statement stage, that is exactly what will happen. If there are any truly viable alternatives out there, beyond what the professionals at MTA and SHA have already analyzed, they should be considered -- but I haven't seen any yet. The latest PR fluff from ACT certainly doesn't meet that standard. Anyone can draw a bunch of lines on the back of napkin and call it a plan, but that doesn't make it worth our tax dollars to study. The last thing we need is to do is repeat the past mistakes of the ICC study, which was halted twice due to blatant political interference in the study process. The result: A project that could have been delivered in 20 years was delivered some 30 years late, during which time the total costs escalated from around $400 million to around $2.4 billion, if I recall. Delaying the already glacial EIS process any further is probably the single most expensive and least effective approach you could possibly take to transportation policy. I thought maybe we'd learned that.
This is why I thought Brian's letter was a little off base and asked you not to sign on. No offense to Senator Frosh, who I think is sincere in his efforts though we obviously disagree.
Finally, and just to clarify a point of disclosure Brian raised, I am communicating with you on this on my own behalf, as a citizen of this County who has participated in most of the major transportation studies done here over the last dozen years or so, not on behalf of any client, just to set the record straight. As you all know, I was a lobbyist on transportation issues with the Greater Washington Board of Trade many years ago, and as CEO of the County Chamber we worked with you on those issues too, both major transit projects and roads, but I have not been a lobbyist for some time now. I currently run a public relations firm and am not being compensated at all for this by anyone.
I simply care about finding real solutions to our transportation crisis that work, and am not convinced that any amount of politically correct wishful thinking, no matter how desirable it may seem, will get us where we need to be. I do not care if those solutions are roads or transit, but the data need to demonstrate they will work, as clearly is the case for the CCT, the Purple Line, the widening of 270 and addition of express bus service to Frederick, and the Western Beltway connection to Virginia's HOT lanes – all of which ought to be among your top priorities over the next decade as you work in Annapolis to secure the dedicated funding we will need to do any of this. This last point, I would humbly suggest, is where we really need your leadership the most. If you want to get serious about congestion relief, we have all the data we need to make a real difference, right now, just act on it. Anything else is just posturing.
Thanks for listening. I am always available if you need any more information on this.
Richard Parsons
President
Parsons & Associates
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Senator Frosh Proposes Anti-I-270 Letter
Senator Brian Frosh (D-16) is circulating a proposed Montgomery Senate Delegation letter calling for alternatives to the I-270 project.
Senator Frosh is not a member of the Senate's Budget and Taxation Committee. If he was, he might understand that transit and highway projects are financed by different federal agencies and that money does not transfer dollar-for-dollar from one mode to the other. Furthermore, let's put aside the merits - or demerits - of the I-270 project for a moment. Why would we be daft enough to even hint to the state that we don't want a big transportation project?
Following is the text of the letter. We do not yet know who, if anyone, has agreed to sign it.
The Honorable Martin O’Malley
The State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Dear Gov. O'Malley:
Your administration identified an important priority for Maryland by setting the goal of a substantial increase in transit ridership. New transit lines will remove traffic from our congested highways, improving the environment while they give harried commuters more time with their families. Transit also opens the door for economic progress; existing stations are rare bright spots in the current collapse of construction activity, and in the future transit lines can help revitalize our older urban centers.
The Department of Transportation's current I-270 Corridor Study may offer a valuable opportunity for progress toward the objective of more effective transit. The I-270 corridor has been a center of both economic growth and traffic congestion, and MDOT is evaluating options for relieving the congestion. To date, all options evaluated in this study have devoted well over two-thirds of projected construction funding to road capacity expansion. The Action Committee for Transit has developed the attached alternative, comparable in cost, that consists entirely of transit improvements.
The large transportation investments proposed along I-270 will take years to implement, and they will shape the development of the corridor for decades. There is time to decide carefully and wisely. We request that you ask MDOT to add the all-transit alternative to this study. After a complete range of options is evaluated, policy-makers and the public will be able to choose the solutions that are best for our communities, our economy, and our environment.
Sincerely,
Thursday, May 14, 2009
A Tale of Five Sessions, Part Two
By Marc Korman.
Last time, we reviewed each D16 legislator’s view on the 2009 legislative session. Today we will see what their constituents had to say during the event’s Q&A.
Before diving into the questions asked, it is worth noting what was not asked. Unlike the last two years, no one asked about the Purple Line or the effect of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process on Bethesda.
The D16 team took thirteen questions. I will divide them into the categories of civil rights and liberties, environment, taxes, and miscellaneous.
Civil Rights and Liberties
Two questions were asked of Senator Frosh on these issues. The first was whether the General Assembly had determined the genesis of the police spying. Senator Frosh said it was not entirely clear, but the Police Superintendent took responsibility, saying it was a decision made by him.
The second question was much more rigorous. Scott Davenport, a D16 constituent and president of Equality Maryland’s Board, asked Senator Frosh why he would not let SB 566 out of committee. The legislation would prohibit discrimination based on gender identity, explicitly adding transgendered individuals to the state civil rights law.
Senator Frosh gave a vigorous defense of his actions regarding the bill and went on the offense against Equality Maryland. According to Senator Frosh, he has now brought the transgender bill to a vote three times. The first time was two years ago, when it failed. The other two times were this year, when both times the committee voted to table the bill. Equality Maryland’s position is that this year’s votes were procedural and not substantive votes on the bill. If Senator Frosh would force that vote, Equality Maryland says the bill would move out of committee and to the full Senate. The House of Delegates will not consider the bill until the Senate does.
Senator Frosh also questioned Equality Maryland’s singular focus on the transgender bill, at the expense of other issues like civil unions. Although he said he supports marriage equality and has told Senator Rich Madaleno he would cosponsor a constitutional amendment to that effect next session, he felt that civil unions were more achievable and would make a real difference.
A recent court decision, Schroer v. Billington, may have also changed the equation on transgender issues. That case found that the prohibition on gender discrimination in the federal Civil Rights Act included transgendered individuals. Senator Frosh indicated his belief that state civil rights law may do the same and thought Equality Maryland should work to test the law in court. Of course, the federal case is likely to work its way through the appeals process and could still be reversed.
Environment
Most of the questions asked were about the environment.
One D16 constituent asked how the new Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act would actually be executed. Senator Frosh conceded that no one quite knew how the full 25% cut by 2020, but that there would be a combination of efficiency improvements and other incremental steps to eventually reach the goal.
Another constituent raised the idea of connecting the growing green economy to workers with special needs, who often have good vocational education skills.
The next environmental questions were about the Chesapeake Bay and whether anything could be done to really improve the situation and if there were ways to increase education on the issue. Senator Frosh said that the lack of progress was not for lack of trying. Throughout his entire legislative career he had been working on the issue, and there had been no measurable improvement. What there has been is an increase in the Bay’s basin population of 1.5 million people, bringing with them new impervious surfaces and run-off that add to the damaging nutrients in the bay. But there is new hope on the horizon with the appointment of Chuck Fox to head the EPA’s national effort to save the bay.
Another set of environmental questions concerned improved efficiencies. One constituent asked about gas furnace efficiency, which Delegate Bronrott said he hoped to see improved in future years. The other question asked why the legislature had chosen to apply the International Building Code to schools and government buildings and not the well known LEED (Leadership in Environment and Energy Design) Code. Senator Frosh said Republicans in Annapolis had an extreme distaste for LEED and wanted to advance the Green Globe standard, but the legislature adopted the more efficient International Building Code standard as a compromise.
The final environmental question was on Maryland’s air and water pollution. The legislators said much progress had been made, but there were limits to what Maryland could do alone due to federal regulatory constraints.
Taxes
The two tax questions involved income tax skimming and home buyer tax credits. On income tax skimming, there was concern by one constituent that the same proposal could come again in the future. Delegate Frick acknowledged that was true, but felt the County delegation’s unity on the issue would endure in the future and be able to fight off future attempts.
The second question was posed by Matt Herrmann, president of the District 16 Democratic Club. Mr. Herrmann asked if the state had considered adding a first time home buyer tax credit, similar to recent federal legislation which allows a $8,000 tax credit for first time home buyers. Delegate Frick explained that Maryland already had a recordation tax credit and stressed that tax credits were hard hitting to the budget.
Miscellaneous
There were three other questions that were not as easily categorized.
The first question was about what strings might be attached to stimulus funds the state receives. Delegates Bronrott and Frick discussed the various programs funding was going towards. While the funds do not need to be repaid, each individual program has certain requirements. For example, if a state accepts funds for unemployment payments, they must provide benefits to part time workers. Maryland now does this, but several states refused to make the change because of concerns about the long term cost after the two years of stimulus funding ended.
The second question was about the 2010 Census and the changes it might bring to District 16. It was too early for any definitive answers, but Senator Frosh doubted D16 was growing as fast as other parts of the state.
The third question was about what limits were placed on nanobiology funding, specifically whether there could be weapons funded through the state. Delegate Lee said she had not thought of the issue and would look at it further.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Tale of Five Sessions, Part One
By Marc Korman.
The recent District 16 town hall reminded me of the old Kurosawa film, Rashomon. The Japanese classic shows the same series of events from four different perspectives. Others may think of this as the Quentin Tarantino method. In Part One, we will look at what all four District 16 legislators had to say about the 2009 legislative session. In Part Two, we will examine the fifth perspective on the legislative session, that of the District 16 constituents who asked questions at the May 11th town hall.
Delegate Susan Lee
Delegate Lee’s primary focus was on education and her own legislative accomplishments and initiatives. Despite the financial crisis, Delegate Lee was proud that Maryland had maintained its education commitment, including funding for the Geographic Cost of Education Index for the first time. Delegate Lee linked the legislature’s commitment to education to Maryland’s recent ranking by Education Week as the top state for education. She also heralded the legislature for not shifting the cost of teacher’s pensions to the counties and keeping public university tuition frozen for a fourth straight year.
Shifting to her own agenda, Delegate Lee departed this year from her signature identity theft issue and focused on biotechnology and nanotechnology. She was happy to have helped champion the biotech investment tax credit, preserving it at a $6 million value. Governor O’Malley also signed Delegate Lee’s legislation, HB 1124. The legislation adds to the mission of the already existing nanobiotechnology program within the Maryland Technology Development Corporation, pushing investment in public private partnerships for nanobiotech. Nanobiotechnology is the specialized field of nanotechnology focused on the human body, essentially seeking improved medical treatments.
Delegate Lee also heavily pushed HB 1117 during the session. The legislation would expand the liability shield for the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs), protecting users from civil suits. There is already immunity for the use of the devices, but the legislation would have eliminated the requirement that assistance or aid be provided in a reasonable manner for immunity to apply. That vast expansion of immunity brought concerns from trial lawyers and the bill died in the Senate.
Delegate Bill Frick
Delegate Frick discussed the session from the angle of existing and potential conflicts among the counties. Maryland has twenty-three counties and the City of Baltimore, and each one is different. But they can also be divided into a few broad categories. For example, ten Maryland counties operate under a Charter form of government, meaning they have home rule and do not general require General Assembly approval of their local legislation. Some counties are also more reliant than others on the local income tax. Montgomery and Howard Counties have the highest tax rate, 3.2%. The lowest is Worchester County, with 1.25%. As Adam Pagnucco has explored on this blog, there are also differences in the size of the teacher pension obligation in each county.
Both teacher pensions and skimming the local income tax were considered by the General Assembly to balance the state budget, as required by the state Constitution. But Montgomery County’s legislators stayed united against both of those efforts and neither were used. The budget did rely on a one time use of a reserve fund available for local income tax refunds if the collected taxes are not sufficient to cover the refund needs. The now exhausted fund will need to be repaid in the future.
Delegate Frick also discussed the Senate Finance Committee’s defeat of his credit card legislation, chronicled on this blog. However, there may soon be federal action to address the issue, as discussed at a recent press event with Congressman Van Hollen and Delegate Frick.
Delegate Bill Bronrott
Delegate Bronrott reviewed the session primarily through the scope of transportation. Some type of cut was necessary in order to balance the budget and maintain the state’s AAA bond rating, which Delegate Bronrott said sounded like “pocket protector talk” but was extremely important. Local governments took a transportation funding hit, but according to Delegate Bronrott the county government told the legislature this was their performed form of pain compared to the pension shifting or income tax skimming discussed by Delegate Frick. But stimulus funding is helping to pay for some local transportation programs, such as new hybrid buses and road and bridge maintenance.
Delegate Bronrott also highlighted his work on highway safety, which is something he labors on each session. One of the new laws going into effect on the road safety issue is SB 265, raising the driving age by six months.
Senator Brian Frosh
Given his chairmanship of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, it is not surprising that Senator Frosh viewed the session from the perspective of that committee. After hearing his colleagues complain about legislation that died in the Senate, he started off with an old joke about a young member of the US House of Representatives who told his senior Democratic colleague ‘I can’t wait to debate the enemy, those darn Republicans.’ To which the senior Democrat responded ‘The Republicans are not the enemy, they are the loyal opposition. The Senate is the enemy.’
The highlight of the Senator’s session appears to have been overturning the Supreme Court. In 2007, the Supreme Court reversed years of precedent and decided that manufacturer imposed minimum prices on retailers no longer violated federal anti-trust law. State law in this regard usually mirrors federal law, but SB 239 divorces the two on this specific issue and makes minimum price requirements by manufacturers a violation of anti-trust. This will allow retailers to, if they choose, set lower prices which is good for consumers.
Senator Frosh was also happy to see the two domestic violence bills involving guns pass, as well as the legislature’s step in the right direction on the death penalty. All of these initiatives flowed through the Judicial Proceedings Committee.
Conclusion
Each legislator discussed the legislative session in a different light. Next time, we will look at what their constituents had to say.
Monday, March 30, 2009
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?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Anti-Spying Bill Introduced
Senators Jamie Raskin (D-20) and Brian Frosh (D-16) and Delegates Sheila Hixson (D-20), Sandy Rosenberg (D-41), Heather Mizeur (D-20) and Tom Hucker (D-20) introduced a comprehensive bill today to prevent improper spying by the state police. Following is a press release from their offices.
Legislative Leaders Introduce Comprehensive Bill to Ensure Police Spying on Peaceful Activists Never Happens Again
January 22, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
On behalf of Senators Jamie Raskin; Brian Frosh, Delegates Sheila Hixson; Sandy Rosenberg; Tom Hucker, and Heather Mizeur
ANNAPOLIS – Calling for swift passage for a bill to ban police spying on political activists in Maryland, state legislative leaders today held a press conference to announce their introduction of The Freedom of Association and Assembly Protection Act of 2009. The leaders believe that the First Amendment protects the rights of all Marylanders to organize to advance their political and social views free of the chilling specter of government surveillance and dossiers. However, Maryland now has no law that protects these most basic of rights to organize, peacefully assemble, and petition our government. Lead bill sponsors are Senators Jamie Raskin and Brian Frosh; and Delegates Sheila Hixson, Sandy Rosenberg, Heather Mizeur and Tom Hucker.
The legislation seeks to codify the recommendations of the report issued in October by former Attorney General Stephen Sachs. Specifically, the bill will mandate that law enforcement use of covert techniques and compiling of criminal intelligence dossiers about Marylanders’ political views and activities be based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
State Senator Jamie Raskin (D-20): “The State Police are not Maryland's thought police. Marylanders have a right to work for environmental protection, an end to the death penalty, marriage equality, peace, and bike lanes without being spied upon and called terrorists by law enforcement officials. Our bill will forbid covert tactics against our citizens unless there is specific reasonable suspicion that they are engaged in criminal activity. It will also forbid the Orwellian practice of keeping political dossiers on citizens that are not part of actual criminal investigations. At a time of staggering financial crisis, let's stop wasting our money spying on people nonviolently exercising their political freedom.”
State Senator Brian E. Frosh (D-16): "Obviously, we've got to make sure that this kind of surveillance doesn't happen again. Police need the tools to do their jobs in cases of criminal wrongdoing. But surveillance of law-abiding citizens shouldn't be an option."
Delegate Sheila Hixson (D-20): “My colleagues and I were shocked and appalled to learn of the covert police surveillance of our neighbors who were simply expressing their beliefs regarding the death penalty, the war in Iraq and environmental concerns. Still further and inconceivably, we learned that their names were entered on a ‘terrorist’ list. We ask: what has happened to our freedom to express ourselves? For that reason we have crafted legislation to prohibit inappropriate law enforcement that interferes with First Amendment rights.”
Delegate Tom Hucker (D-20): “At a time when the state is cutting health care, transportation, and environmental protection, it boggles the mind to learn our state police were using precious tax dollars to spy on our constituents. We wrote this bill to make sure state tax dollars are never again used for surveillance of peaceful activists. We have a constitutional right to assemble, and we will fight to protect it.”
Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20): “Takoma Park residents share a proud history of civic engagement and issue advocacy. Sometimes we have to fight to be heard. At other times, we’re being listened to when we least expect it. State sponsored spying on peace activists and death penalty advocates is a mark of shame on Maryland. We are here today to reaffirm the most basic of our rights granted by the First Amendment – that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Here and now, we make our petition: Never again will this be allowed to happen in Maryland.”
Delegate Samuel I. (Sandy) Rosenberg (D-41): “People exercising their First Amendment rights should not be subjected to the chilling presence of undercover police officers.”
ACLU of Maryland Legislative Director Cynthia Boersma: “The ACLU of Maryland applauds the bill’s sponsors for answering the call of Mr. Sachs’ report, which condemned the police surveillance that has taken place as ‘inconsistent with an overarching value in our democratic society—the free and unfettered debate of important public questions.’” Mr. Sachs believes such police conducted ‘ought to be prohibited,’ and we believe that legislation is necessary to ensure that the protection of our most basic rights do not change with changing administrations. This bill establishes clear standards to protect both our First Amendment rights and our public safety by directing that criminal intelligence and counter-terrorism resources are used to respond to suspected criminal activity rather than spying on legitimate political activity.”
Since July 17, 2008, when the ACLU of Maryland uncovered that the MSP engaged in covert surveillance of local peace and anti-death penalty groups for over a year from 2005-2006, we have learned that the Maryland State Police has engaged in a far-reaching program of covert surveillance of political groups in Maryland. Dozens of individuals and organizations have been targeted by the Maryland State Police which maintained criminal intelligence files on their political beliefs and activities, labeling them as suspected terrorists and security threats. According to their own files, the MSP had no evidence or suspicion that any identified target was engaged in criminal activity of any kind.
Go online to learn more about MSP spying on political activists:
http://www.aclu-md.org/Index%20content/NoSpying/NoSpying.html
Monday, November 10, 2008
Frosh Raising Money for Muse
We don’t normally quote fundraiser announcements here, but this one is bound to raise some eyebrows in the GLBT community.Governor Martin O’Malley
So what’s the big deal? Political muckety-mucks always raise money for other muck-mucks. But in the eyes of the GLBT community, Senator Muse (D-26) is no ordinary muck.
Lt. Governor Anthony Brown
Senate President Thomas. V. “Mike” Miller, Jr.
House Speaker Michael E. Busch
Senator Brian Frosh, Judicial Proceedings Committee Chair
Prince George’s County Executive Jack B. Johnson
Prince George’s County Council Chair Samuel H. Dean
Invite you to a breakfast honoring
Senator C. Anthony Muse
Wednesday, November 19th
7:30am-9:00am at
The Country Club at Woodmore
12320 Pleasant Prospect Road
Mitchellville, MD 20721
Sponsors: $1,000, Hosts: $500, Guests: $250
Checks should be made payable to:
Friends of C. Anthony Muse
1509 Light Street
Baltimore, MD 21230
For more information or to RSVP please contact
410-727-0501 or stephaniemellinger@rcn.com
By authority of Friends of C. Anthony Muse
Sharon Brandon, Treasurer
Senator Muse is a swing vote on GLBT issues in the Senate’s Judiciary Proceedings Committee. But he mostly swings against them. In the 2007 session, Senator Muse helped kill a bill banning discrimination against transgendered people in committee despite promising to support it. Equality Maryland Executive Director Dan Furmansky told the Blade, “We had the vote count on the floor of the House and the floor of the Senate... We had the votes.” In 2008, Senator Muse refused to support marriage equality in committee, causing it to die without a floor vote. At the time, he told a Baltimore radio station, “Unequivocally, I stand for Christian marriage and have no intentions of tampering with that at all.”
Senator Muse is not the only Democrat who is uncomfortable with the notion of granting full civil rights to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, but his committee position gives him a unique opportunity to block these initiatives. And who is the Chairman of the Judicial Proceedings Committee? None other than Senator Brian Frosh (D-16), who is listed prominently as a co-sponsor of Senator Muse’s fundraiser.
Senator Frosh is considered one of the legislature’s most prominent progressives, especially on environmental and civil rights issues. But he is also interested in succeeding Big Daddy as the next Senate President. To do that, he needs support from Prince George’s County Senators like C. Anthony Muse.
One old Annapolis hand virtually yawned when I pointed this out. This individual told me, “It is common practice for committee chairs to attend and support the fundraisers of their committee members. I have even seen the Republicans publicize their Democratic chairs for fundraisers. There is nothing out of the ordinary for Annapolis. Maybe it should be but it is common in our culture.”
And so this is business as usual. That’s fine for the Lords of Annapolis. But how does any of this help gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people who are seeking their civil rights?
Update: Three different politicians have weighed in on this off-blog. None of them see a problem here. All say it would be very unusual for Senator Frosh, as Senator Muse's committee chair, to not co-sponsor the fundraiser. That shows how important protocol is in Annapolis.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
MoCo Delegation Speaks Out on Slots, Part Two
The Montgomery County Sentinel's series on the MoCo delegation's positions on slots continues. This week, legislators from Districts 16, 17 and 18 reveal their views on the subject. However, only Senators Brian Frosh (D-16) and Jennie Forehand (D-17) and Delegates Susan Lee (D-16), Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18), and Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18) responded to the Sentinel's questioning. The other legislators went AWOL (although who can doubt Delegate Luiz Simmons' position?). Of the ones who responded, Senator Forehand and Delegates Lee and Gutierrez voted for the referendum while Senator Frosh and Delegate Waldstreicher voted against it.
Senator Brian Frosh (Against):From 2001 to 2003, Frosh served as co-chair of the Senate Special Committee on Gaming. He says his experience at that position convinced him that slots will burden a community. "These burdens will add to the expense of building new infrastructure to accommodate the crowds, the potential for higher crime rates, bigger crime prevention budgets and beefed up social service programs to address the problems attendant to gambling addiction," he said.
Delegate Susan Lee (Against):
He is also concerned about the argument that the slots amendment will raise money for schools. $660 million of the revenue from slots is earmarked for education. "The state's education budget, currently $5.5 billion, is set according to formulas based on enrollment and other factors," Frosh said. "The budget won't go up because another $660 million is available. Instead, the slots money will shift existing education dollars to be spent in other areas."
"The bottom line is that we're going to have to balance the budget and pay for our schools the old fashioned way: by finding economies and making hard choices," he said. "Slots aren't the answer."Lee said gambling is an unstable source of revenue for the state. Her biggest concern is the social burden annd costs that slots bring.
Senator Jennie Forehand (Against):
"The problems it creates, such as addiction, domestic violence, burden on the criminal justice system, and damage to neighborhoods far outweigh any possible short term revenue to the state," she said.
She said the state needs to do what it has done before to help fix the current budget problem and that it has to come up with more responsible ways to raise revenue, prioritize and make cuts where there are inefficiencies. "We will have to make some very hard choices," she said. "However, slots are not the answer.""I know the state needs money, but I plan to vote against the referendum," Forehand said.
Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez (Against):
Forehand's concern is that a lot of the revenue will go to Maryland's racing industry. "I think the public is better served and comfortable if the money goes to education and other state priorities and not the racing industry," she said. Forehand said that the racing industry does not need the $100 million that is promised to it.Gutierrez says she is 100 percent against allowing slots in Maryland and is doing everything that she can to not let the referendum pass.
Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher (Against):
"I am very concerned of the social damages that come with slots," she said. "We should be finding better ways to increase a better economic base."
She said that Montgomery County is a good example of economic development and does not want to see it go in the opposing direction. "We should not be selling our soul to the devil."Waldstreicher said slots are the wrong way to go. He also said that the revenue will not show up for several years. "Fiscal year 2009-2010 will not be affected so we will have to address the problem now," he said.
We are grateful that no one imitated Delegate Craig Rice's infamous response from last week. But we do wonder what "political agenda" were referenced by Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher. Would you care to elaborate, sir?
The social costs that slots bring are another of his concerns. "Crime, addiction and other social burdens will affect the state and could possibly add insult to injury," he said.
"We need to focus on the right thing to do for Maryland," he said. "We should not be making a decision on the issue based on political agenda."
Monday, March 10, 2008
What Are Our State Senators Doing?
From Marc Korman.
With approximately a month left in the state legislative session, are you wondering what Montgomery County’s Senators are working on? To save you the trouble, I have assembled a list below of each Montgomery County State Senator’s sponsored bills.
The list includes the total number of sponsored bills, how many are bond bills authorizing state debt for a particular local spending project, how many are substantive bills, a brief description of the substantive bills, and what the legislator’s major theme appears to be.
The list tries to capture the bills’ major purpose and includes a link to media where possible, but I encourage you to visit the General Assembly website for detailed information about the legislation and its status.
Sponsored legislation is not the only indicator of what our legislators are doing, but it should demonstrate what their priorities are during the 2008 session.
Rona Kramer
District 14
Total Bills Sponsored: 13
Bond Bills: 7
Substantive Bills: 6
Major Theme: Senior Citizen Protection
SB 333-Requiring collection of DNA from arrested violent crime suspects.
SB 498-Requires the creation of an “Amber Alert” type program for missing senior citizens with cognitive impairment like Alzheimer’s.
SB 499-Establishes a task force to study off shore wind farms.
SB 500-Criminalizes obtaining the property of a senior by deception, intimidation, or undue influence.
SB 501-Criminalizes offenses against a senior with a disability.
SB 597-Exempts domestic partners from paying recordation taxes when transferring property between them.
Rob Garagiola
District 15
Total Bills Sponsored: 19
Bond Bills: 5
Substantive Bills: 19
Major Theme: Energy
SB 294-Expands the definition of law enforcement official for crimes committed against law enforcement officials.
SB 342-Mandates that 50% of the state’s flexible fuel fleet run exclusively on E85 (ethanol and gasoline mix) by 2012.
SB 343-Mandates that 50% of the diesel vehicles in the state’s fleet use a diesel blend that is at least 10% biodiesel.
SB 344-Allows flexible use of leave with pay to care for sick, immediate family members.
SB 473-Requires parental consent forms before schools can administer a Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey.
SB 474-Exempts county and municipality biodiesel vehicles from the state motor fuel tax.
SB 565-Provides a state income tax credit for the purchase of home heating oil with biodisesal.
SB 566-Provides visitation and other medical rights to domestic partners.
SB 567-Repeals the computer sales tax and increases the state gas tax from 23.5 to 27.5 cents a gallon.
SB 570-Alters the state program for automated external defibrillators.
SB 608-Extends the ‘Veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq Conflicts’ scholarship program.
SB 677-Reforms the state’s nursing facilities program including developing a plan for pay-for-performance.
SB 884-Allows certain uses of alternative medical treatments.
SB 991-Requires consideration of energy alternatives before electric companies can enter into long term contracts.
Brian Frosh
District 16
Total Bills Sponsored: 17
Bond Bills: 3
Substantive Bills: 14
Major Theme: Judiciary Bills
SB 42-Allows judge’s to require persons subject to temporary protective orders to surrender their firearms.
SB 103-Alters Maryland’s procedures for depositions and discovery in legal cases.
SB 245-Business subsidiaries or businesses with substantial overlapping ownership are subject to the campaign finance limits of one business.
SB 246-Requiring a phase out of phosphate content in fertilizer.
SB 293-A constitutional amendment authorizing some counties and the City of Baltimore to request additional qualifications for orphan court judges.
SB 389-Limits trustee commissions and attorney’s fees on foreclosure actions.
SB 441-Makes changes to the offender registry as it relates to juvenile offenders.
SB 442-Increases the fees for clean air permits.
SB 443-Sets requirements for subpoenaing mental health records.
SB 492-Allows the Maryland Transportation Authority to designate vehicular crossings for bikes and pedestrians.
SB 493-Alters the requirements for lawyers paying taxes and unemployment insurance.
SB 610-Requires license suspension for children who violate alcohol prohibitions.
SB 654-Requires public utilities to do more to protect and preserve trees.
SB 771-Makes technical changes to laws governing personal representatives and fiduciaries.
Jennie Forehand
District 17
Total Bills Sponsored: 25
Bond Bills: 3
Substantive Bills: 22
Major Theme: Domestic Violence
SB 28-Creates a task force to study All Terrain Vehicle Safety
SB 46-Repeals the computer services sales tax.
SB 232-Increases the alcohol tax by $3.00/gallon of distilled spirits, $.80/gallon of wine, $.45/gallon of beer.
SB 392-Authorizes judges to use law enforcement to return a minor child to a custodial parent if a protective order has been issued.
SB 393-Makes protective orders permanent if the party subject to the order is convicted and sentenced.
SB 394-Makes it a misdemeanor for a suspect to violate an order of “no contact” with the alleged victim.
SB 412-Establishes a task force for automotive warranty enforcement.
SB 546-Requires the Governor to declare June 20th as Maryland Charter Day, the day the British granted the initial charter for the Maryland colony.
SB 575-Requiring collection of DNA from arrested violent crime suspects.
SB 576-Prohibits the state from implementing the federal REAL ID Act involving uniform identification.
SB 577-Providing further protections and services for animals assisting the disabled.
SB 578-Allows the use of state collected statistical medical information for research purposes.
SB 579-Creates an immunity from liability for the use of automated external defibrillators.
SB 700-Authorizes the use of GPS electronic monitoring of domestic violence offenders.
SB 789-Strengthens the requirements that any child under eight years old be secured in a car seat.
SB 790-Requires the titling of off-highway recreational vehicles.
SB 791-Authorizes municipal corporations to impose building excise taxes.
SB 917-Authorizes arrests for violating health quarantines.
SB 918-Makes long term care insurance subject to genetic non-discrimination requirements.
SB 942-Makes changes to the “Master Settlement Agreement,” the 1990s tobacco company settlement with states.
SB 943-Regulates the relationship between auto manufacturers and distributors and dealers.
SB 972-Allows for government seizure of instruments used in support of identity theft.
Rich Madaleno
District 18
Total Bills Sponsored: 22
Bond Bills: 4
Substantive Bills: 18
Major Theme: Budget and Tax Issues.
SB 290-Legalizes gay marriage.
SB 423-Requires increased campaign finance disclosure for committees supporting or opposing the slots referendum.
SB 424-Establishes a task force to study the notary commission process.
SB 475-Establishes a commission to study the impact of immigration in Maryland.
SB 476-Provides for information sharing between health insurance companies and the state Department of Budget and Management.
SB 477-Establishes May as “Dandy-Walker Syndrome and Hydrocephalus Awareness Month.”
SB 478-Makes technical changes to the state property tax law
SB 559-Applies the state recordation tax to different types of mortgages.
SB 560-Allows state employee health insurance to be extended to other members of a family.
SB 561-Authorizes counties to impose different levels of property tax on different classes of property.
SB 562-Increases the alcohol tax to pay for addiction treatment and prevention services.
SB 690-Requires “Limited Service Pregnancy Centers” to disclose that they are not medical centers.
SB 691-Establishes a task force to study the budget needs and expenditures of state programs.
SB 692-Makes technical changes to line items presented in the state budget.
SB 693-Requires some state legislative vacancies to be filled by special election.
SB 728-Allows non-State employees to contribute to tax-deferred retirement plan accounts under the state retirement program.
SB 885-Consoldiates existing Maryland energy and conservation programs as the Jane E. Lawton Conservation Loan Program.
SB 976-Prohibits transgender discrimination.
Mike Lenett
District 19
Total Bills Sponsored: 16
Bond Bills: 0
Substantive Bills: 16
Major Theme: End of Life Care
SB 2-Prohibits text messaging while driving.
SB 45-Alters the membership of the State Advisory Council on Quality Care at the End of Life.
SB 289-Increases the tax deduction for seniors.
SB 315-Expands the tax benefit for members of the military.
SB 355-Requires disclosure by medical facilities of their practices involving life sustaining care.
SB 612-Sets state procurement preference programs to include businesses owned by disabled individuals.
SB 709-Authorizes optometrists to prescribe and dispense contact lenses.
SB 710-Extends by six months the date a ban on phosphate in dish washing detergent begins.
SB 711-Prohibits the advertising of live musical performances without appropriate copyright disclosure.
SB 785-Prohibits smoking in vehicles with minor passengers.
SB 792-Alters the Maryland Building Performance standards for residential homes.
SB 845-Establishes a state false claims act to punish contractor fraud.
SB 851-Limits the issuance of fire arm dealer licenses to ensure that someone prohibited from holding one is in no way involved in a new license application.
SB 857-Allows other state’s licensed health practitioners to volunteer in Maryland during an emergency.
SB 888-Establishes a biotechnology scholarship program.
SB 995-Authorizes increased disclosure to improve minority owned business participation in state procurement.
Jamie Raskin
District 20
Total Bills Sponsored: 19
Bond Bills: 5
Substantive Bills: 14
Theme: Legal Issues
SB 92-Authorizes those under 18 to vote in primaries if they will be 18 by the general election.
SB 158-Establishes a farm to school program to bring local farm products into local schools.
SB 336-Establishes a task force to study required deposits on returnable beverage containers.
SB 337-Altering the definition of legal newspapers.
SB 515-Requires the Public Services Commission to collect increase data on the deployment of broadband services from broadband providers.
SB 516-Providing a procedure to end a father’s parental rights if he rapes his child.
SB 528-Makes changes to the Maryland Human Relations Commission in cases involving employment discrimination cases.
SB 529-Allows defendants to remove state constitutional claims to the Anne Arundel Circuit Court.
SB 563-Extends the length of time back pay can be recovered in unlawful employment practice cases.
SB 614-Establishes the Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment.
SB 615-Extends stalking laws to protect animals.
SB 616-Authorizes direct wine selling, removing wholesalers from wine sales.
SB 617-Extends collective bargaining rights to adjunct faculty and graduate students at the University of Maryland. (Disclosure: As a graduate student employee at the University of Maryland this legislation may have affected me).
SB 689-Repeals all references to marriage in Maryland law and replaces with domestic partnerships.
Nancy King
District 39
Total Bills Sponsored: 10
Bond Bills: 3
Major Theme: Adult Education and Horse Industry.
SB 131-Authorizes municipalities to levy a hotel tax not to exceed 2%.
SB 257-Exempting computer services used in fulfilling government contracts from the computer services sales tax.
SB 297-Authorizes a state income tax credit for work based education programs.
SB 298-Authorizes a state income tax credit for adult literacy programs.
SB 444-Alters corporate tax reporting to the Comptroller.
SB 658-Allocates certain state lottery funds for horse racing purses and bred funds.
SB 784-Alters the horse racing and bred funds allocation of slots revenue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
