By Marc Korman.
The new Congress convened earlier this month and they have their work cut out for them: the economy, healthcare costs, global warming, two wars, and the conflict in Gaza are just the tip of the iceberg. While Maryland is blessed with two Congressmen that are a part of the leadership in the House of Representatives and may deal with these issues at a high level, most of our House members will work in the trenches of Congress. Much of the substantial work is done in the House Committees each member is assigned to. What committees do our Maryland members serve on and what will they focus on this year?
The Committee assignments may still be modified in the opening days of the 111th Congress, but the information below reflects the most up to date assignments for each Maryland Congressmember.
Congressman Frank Kratovil
Maryland’s newest Congressman only has one committee assignment so far, the House Armed Services Committee. He will likely have one or two more assignments during the next few weeks.
Locally, the Armed Services Committee is important due to the changes that the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process is bringing to Maryland. Nationally, the Armed Services Committee has an oversight role for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and input into the funding decisions for the Department of Defense, which is the largest component of discretionary federal spending (as opposed to mandatory spending, such as Social Security or servicing debt).
Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger
Congressman Ruppersberger sits on two committees: Appropriations and Intelligence.
The Appropriations Committee is considered so powerful and important that Congressmembers cannot serve on another committee unless they get a special waiver. On Appropriations, Congressman Ruppersberger will have a role in crafting government spending, including the stimulus package.
The Intelligence Committee focuses primarily on oversight of the intelligence community, which includes the Director of National Intelligence and the sixteen US intelligence agencies. Some of these agencies, for example the National Security Agency (NSA), are based in Maryland.
Congressman John Sarbanes
Congressman Sarbanes sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which like the Appropriations Committee is considered so important that Congressmembers can only serve on additional committees with a waiver.
The Energy and Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction was built up over the years by Congressman John Dingell (D-MI), who has been the chair or ranking member of the committee since 1981. He recently lost his bid for two more years at the helm to California Congressman Henry Waxman.
The Committee’s agenda is vast, including a lead role on major Obama domestic priorities such as:
Global warming - will there be a cap and trade system or a carbon tax;
Energy independence - will there be a national requirement for renewable energy or increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) Standards;
Healthcare reform - will reform come through an expansion of existing federal programs such as Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) or a guarantee of insurance coverage for all.
Congresswoman Donna Edwards
Congresswoman Edwards sits on the Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. This year, the T&I Committee will have a major role in crafting the transportation section of the stimulus. T&I will also write a Transportation Authorization bill, legislation written every few years to authorize federal funding for highway and transit programs across the country. Locally, the changes made to federal funding for transit may effect potential federal funding for the Purple Line and the Corridor Cities Transitway.
The Science and Technology Committee has oversight over much of the nation’s science research and education programs. Relevant to Maryland, the Committee oversees NASA, which has a facility at Goddard and a number of partnerships with the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. Congress endorsed President Bush’s plans to return to the Moon and go to Mars, but a shift by Obama’s NASA could effect Congressional support.
Next time, we will take a look at the other four Maryland Congressmembers’ committee assignments.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Work of Our Congressional Delegation, Part One
Will the County Council Destroy Collective Bargaining in MoCo? (Updated)
Imagine you are buying a house. You offer $500,000 and demand a $5,000 rebate towards closing costs and an inspection contingency. The seller wants $600,000 and offers no rebate or contingency. After a week of negotiation, you give up the rebate and contingency and agree to a price of $540,000. On settlement day, you sign the contract and hand it to the seller. The seller changes the price to $580,000, signs and expects you to abide by the new deal – his deal. Is that fair?
Of course not. But that is how some on the County Council want to deal with public employees. And that would mean the end of public collective bargaining – and indeed public sector unionism – as we know it.
The issue that brought the council to this point is the county’s disability system. Last summer, the county’s Inspector General found that 62% of the police officers who retired between July 2004 and March 2008 were approved for disability benefits. One officer was approved after pleading guilty to theft. Another finished in second place in a fitness contest a year after being approved. Two more were approved after being cleared to return to work on full-duty status in workers compensation proceedings. In testimony to the County Council’s Public Safety Committee, the Inspector General described the program as having “insufficient internal controls and management oversight” to prevent abuse.
That prompted Council Members Phil Andrews and Duchy Trachtenberg to propose a bill that would overhaul the disability program. Their consternation with the program is understandable. The problem is that retiree benefits – including disability benefits – are a mandatory subject of bargaining under the law. That means if either labor or management wants to bargain it, the two parties are obligated to do so. The current disability program is the product of negotiations between the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35 and the county government going back many years. (In fact, the police and the County Executive are currently negotiating changes to the program to prevent the conduct that concerns Council Members Andrews and Trachtenberg.) A revision by the council would effectively involve rewriting a portion of the police union’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
In the private sector, it is illegal for management to unilaterally rewrite CBAs outside of bankruptcy court. Even there, any changes must be approved by a judge. But the council’s staff attorneys conclude that the County Council does indeed have the legal right to rewrite CBAs negotiated directly with public employee unions. The staff’s reasoning is that Maryland’s Constitution and the county’s charter both grant the council wide authority to enact and amend county legislation, including bills that involve mandatory subjects of bargaining. The County Executive, who negotiates agreements with the police, the firefighters and the government employees (MCGEO) may be bound by the terms of CBAs but the County Council is not. (The staff does not address CBAs negotiated by the school system, which is a state-chartered entity.)
Suppose the staff is right and the County Council has the legal authority to rewrite, in whole or in part, CBAs. Should it?
For decades, Montgomery County has recognized the right of its employees to collective representation and no politician would dare state otherwise. Part of that representation involves collective bargaining – real bargaining with give and take. Think about the negotiations you have undertaken in your life: buying a house, buying a car, making a business deal, even settling a conflict with your spouse. Each side likes some things in the resulting deal and dislikes others. The only way the deal gets approved is as a package, with each side giving as well as getting. If either side has the unilateral right to change the deal after the fact, then there is no bargaining – only domination. And that applies every bit to CBAs as it does to every other agreement.
The County Council already has more power in labor negotiations than most employers. Maryland public employee unions, unlike private sector unions, are forbidden to strike. The council, unlike private employers, can choose to “underfund” agreements, thereby cutting compensation obligations. And the council can vote down CBAs applying to the police, the fire fighters and the government employees outright. Those sources of leverage alone have produced voluntary agreements by the school employees to give up their cost of living adjustments. Nothing is stopping the council from pressuring the County Executive and the police union to fix the program and, if they are dissatisfied with the result, rejecting it and sending the parties back to the table.
But that is not enough for Council Members Andrews and Trachtenberg. Their bill envisions their having first, final and unilateral say on any and all conditions of work – line by line – regardless of any negotiations by the County Executive and the employees. That is a sweeping over-reaction to the problems in the disability program that are, after all, now being bargained. And the precedent they intend to establish would eventually destroy the ability of public employees to exercise any real voice in their workplace.
County employees are already giving up their pay increases. Now must they give up their collective bargaining rights as well?
Update: Maryland Moment reports that the Leggett administration is asking the County Council to hold off on legislation until negotiations are concluded. Separately, I hear there is very little support from the rest of the council for the Andrews/Trachtenberg bill.
Disclosure: The author is the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and has been employed in the labor movement since 1994.
Photos from the Equality Ball
I went to my first Inaugural Ball at the Mayflower Hotel. Jeffrey Slavin, the Mayor of Somerset, was the only local political luminary I ran into at the party. Like a true tourist, I brought my camera and here are the pictures.
Thelma Houston still has got it at 65. She choked up when she talked briefly about how she never thought she'd live to see the day when our country had an African-American President.
The crowd came for an Inaugural Ball and stuck around for a Cyndi Lauper concert. Remember when "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" was considered racy? Cyndi may think she belongs on the "Island of Misfit Toys" but the crowd just seemed glad she was there.
Sir Ian McKellen
One man spent much of the night waving his American flag in front of the stage. Because it's our country too.
Let's Not Do Lunch
On suggestion for the 2012 Inauguration: cancel the congressional lunch.
While the lunch sounds like a nice opportunity for the new administration and Members of Congress to get off on the right foot, it just doesn't seem real friendly to the ordinary people who already spent hours and hours waiting in the cold for the parade from the Capitol to the White House.
This year, the parade started so late that it didn't finish until after dark. Most of the observers left long before those very cold and very patriotic high school band got a chance to walk down Pennsylvania Ave. I think even Michelle Obama had to leave so she could go get ready for the evening. Barack Obama and Joe Biden were almost the only ones left by the end.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Presidential Approval Ratings
For more detail on each President, see this Wall Street Journal article.
Where MoCo’s State School Aid Went
As we reported last month, a state property assessment mistake overestimated Montgomery County’s relative wealth level, thereby sending $24 million in state school aid that should have gone to Montgomery to other school districts instead. In a letter to Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18) and Delegate Brian Feldman (D-15), the Department of Legislative Services reports where that funding went (plus an extra $6.7 million in school aid that Montgomery did not share). Here’s who was given MCPS’s money:
That’s not all. The mistake will generate overpayments to other counties in next year’s budget too unless it is corrected. Here’s who will benefit if nothing is done:
Governor O’Malley has promised to fix the errors. I sure am glad that I’m not the statistician who has to unravel this mess and figure out who’s getting what!
Monday, January 19, 2009
Good Vibrations from the Pre-Inaugural
I dipped my toe into the big Obamarama which began this weekend. Here are some random impressions:
Oddly in the middle of an economic crisis, everyone downtown seems optimistic about the future. Everyone apologizes even when you accidentally bump into them. Even most of the t-shirts and buttons are happy sporting messages like "Hope", "I Was There", and "One Love" (Is Bob Marley getting royalties?) with relatively few taking weak jabs at the Republicans like "I Love My Parents Even Though They're Republicans." I even saw a small pile of McCain magnets on sale. Yes, really.
My out-of-town visitors from Chicago didn't bite when I tried to introduce the new $1000 rates for use of the attic guest room. However, they did take us to the 9:30 Club to see Adele. She hails from England and mentioned that she was "really chuffed" about Obama's election to cheers. The crowd just laughed with amusement when she said "Yay England!" in response to someone in the crowd from London hurriedly followed by an "And America!" as an afterthought.
Washingtonians generally aren't as conversation-phobic on the Metro as Londoners are on the Underground. Nonetheless, it is striking that the spirit of good fellowship has gone so far that people who aren't drunk or students even talk to each other on the Metro. OK, it's mainly tourists swapping stories and looking eerily happy about the long ride back to Shady Grove. Even so, isn't it one of the harbingers of the Apocolypse?
A crowd dwarfing the size of the main event at most Inaugurations enjoyed the big concert (Obamapalooza?) on the Mall in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Obama and his family enjoyed it all--I loved watching Malia excitedly take pictures of the stars. The President-Elect seemed mildly annoyed for only one moment when one guest from way out of town insisted on injecting politics into it. (Earth to Bono: I think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was already on his radar.) I could've done without most of the Oscar-like stilted speeches--except when Jamie Foxx demanded that they scroll back the teleprompter--but I guess they had to do something between acts. My favorite was the high school choir which was clearly having a blast just being there.
The film scenes from previous Inaugurals and of Marian Anderson were inspiring. And "Ask not what your country can do for you" seems newly relevant in light of the President-Elect's call for public service. (Now, if he'd just stop sending those emails asking for more money.) Apparently, the General Assembly dispensed with the usual MLK Day activities so everyone could participate in the celebration and volunteer activities promoted by Barack Obama.
Oh, and if you see any of our state legislators on the Mall, they're playing hooky. The General Assembly will be in session tomorrow as required by the Maryland Constitution. I can't say I'd blame them if they strayed from Annapolis, however, I suppose extra kudos are also due to those keep the lights on at the State Capitol so there is a quorum and others can be in DC on the big day.
Latest on the State Budget
In a fiscal update given to the General Assembly, the Department of Legislative Services (DLS) lays out the scope of the state’s budget problem and the options for dealing with it. Would anyone like any arsenic, hemlock, mercury, snake venom or chloroform before reading further?
Here are the main points made by DLS.
1. Maryland’s economy is in trouble.
The state’s unemployment rate has increased from 3.5% in January 2008 to 5.0% in October. Initial unemployment insurance claims were up 62.6% in September 2008 from a year earlier. Existing home sales were down in ten of the first eleven months of 2008, sometimes by 30% or more from a year ago. Median home prices were 10.7% lower in November 2008 than November 2007. Vehicle sales were down 27.8% in October 2008 from a year earlier. And sales tax collections fell in seven of last year’s first ten months. All of these factors are responsible for driving state tax revenue forecasts down.
2. Maryland’s budget is primarily comprised of education, health and public safety.
Of the state’s $14.5 billion budget in FY08, 36% was accounted for by education aid, 15% was accounted for by Medicaid, 8% was accounted for by higher education and 32% was allocated to state agencies. Of the state agency spending, 29% went to health services and 26% went to public safety. There is no way to cut the budget without cutting education, health and public safety.
3. Aid to localities has driven long-run spending increases.
Between FY02 and FY09, the total general budget has grown from $10.6 billion to $14.8 billion, an increase of 40.3% Local aid has risen from $3.3 billion to $6.0 billion over the same period, an increase of 81.2% driven primarily by the state’s Thornton education program. Perhaps this accounts for Big Daddy’s now-infamous remark that the counties are “fat, dumb and happy.” This fact will put pressure on the counties to defend their aid.
4. Revenue forecasts are deteriorating.
In September, the Board of Revenue Estimates forecast receiving $14.7 billion in revenues for the general fund in FY10. Three months later, the board revised its forecast down by $963 million to $13.7 billion. The reason: the tanking economy.
5. Deficits are a long-term problem.
Despite the legislature’s effort to close the “structural deficit” during the 2007 special session, deficits have returned. DLS calls baseline spending increases “unsustainable” given its new revenue forecasts. Currently, DLS estimates general fund deficits of $391 million in FY09, $1.874 billion in FY10, $2.237 billion in FY11 and $1.844 billion in FY12. Slots revenues only have a serious impact starting in FY12 when they add $494 million to the state budget.
6. Transportation will be hit too.
DLS says that a “dramatic decline” in vehicle sales will reduce titling tax revenues by more than $1 billion over the next six-year capital planning period. Gas tax declines and increased operating expenses will also have an impact. The overall reduction to the state’s transportation program could total $2.5 billion. By FY14, the state may not be able to meet its system preservation needs, much less fund ANY new projects.
7. The options involve “hard decisions.”
DLS throws out a number of options for the legislature to consider, including:Reduce and rebase formula grants including GCEI and highway user distributions (which are used by counties for transportation projects).
The above leads me to believe that if President Obama sends infrastructure stimulus money to Maryland, there may be little or no increase in real transportation spending. Why? Because then the General Assembly will be very tempted to transfer the state’s transportation revenues to the general fund by an equal amount. That may make the general fund problem easier to deal with, but it will mean no net stimulus impact to Maryland’s economy. And the state’s downturn will continue.
Restructure employee and retiree benefits by extending vesting and making them “more comparable” to the private sector.
Restrain “recent costly initiatives” including the 2007 health care expansion, the Chesapeake Bay Fund and the university tuition freeze. All of these were major priorities for the Governor early in his term.
Freeze pay and provider rates.
Maximize use of the capital budget to support the general fund. In other words, divert transportation revenues to other spending. This is exactly what Democrats accused former Governor Robert Ehrlich of doing when he was in office. It will also exacerbate the state’s Crisis in Transportation.
Setting the Spending Affordability Committee limit, policies for positions and using the rainy day fund.
Further revenue opportunities, in other words, taxes. No state politician I talk to believes that will happen.
Keep an eye on this one, folks.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Progressive Working Group Holds Successful Forums
By Sharon Dooley.
Last week the newly formed Progressive Working Group (PWG) held two forums where its Legislative agenda was presented to local legislators. The first of the two events was held at the Silver Spring co-housing site and included a partnership with Progressive Neighbors, while the second was held at the Wheaton Library. Takoma Park activist Mike Tabor served as the moderator of both events.
Progressive Working Group was formed last year as an umbrella organization. Its agenda was formulated after input from more than 30 groups from around the Prince George's and Montgomery County areas. By pooling resources and joining forces with smaller groups, some of whom are single issue, it was thought that the organization could streamline both message and marketing of the ideas and causes represented by its members. Meeting throughout the year, the members worked on multiple suggestions and agenda items after hearing presentations from associated advocates. This democratic process culminated in a large meeting where all topics were discussed, considered and voted upon. After this, member groups were solicited for support and again voiced suggestions. For these legislative discussions, turnout was heavy at both events which ended up being standing room only. All eight of the District 18 and District 20 elected officials were at the Silver Spring venue while the Wheaton event hosted 11 additional electeds from both counties. At both events, presentations were made by advocate members for the 14 selected agenda items. The elected officials were asked to support or indicate why they did not support, each particular agenda item at the Wheaton event and did so. All answers were tallied on a posted flip chart. In Silver Spring the format was a little different, but there was general support for the entire agenda by all of the elected officials with the main exception noted below.
One item that seemed more divisive was the effort to de-fund the ICC. Senator Madaleno reiterated his support for the continued expansion of this road that is despoiling upper portions of the county currently, while all of his down county colleagues indicated that they would take a stand against continuing the funding. This was also an area of disagreement in the Wheaton meeting with some of the PG legislators not being quite as familiar with the issue and others stating that there will not be a vote on the matter since it would never get out of committee and come to a floor vote; the majority, however did support de-funding.
Gender identity and open marriage bills were also problematic for some who wished to see a bill in final form before commitment. Some officials wanted to ignore the agenda and discuss their own particular education or local bills. However the rules of engagement prohibited that diversion; the moderator informed them that this was not the appropriate forum for that discussion. These sessions were set up to showcase the particular legislative agenda that all associated groups endorsed and this was what they wished to see answered. Members were also asked to address police spying, voting audits, combined reporting, high school student access by the military, limits on national guard deployment, single payer health care, real ID, in-state tuition for immigrant children, work-place fraud by contractor identity, public financing of state campaigns, and the Global Warming Solutions Act from last year. Many in the audience voiced hopes that there could be more types of these informative sessions in the future.
The particular measures, many of which already have promised sponsors for planned bills, are listed more specifically at the end of this article. Health care and Global Warming Solutions are both issues which came under great scrutiny last year and are back in improved format this year. Both promise to have passionate supporters and, perhaps detractors as well, since the lobbyists will again be out in force. The health care charge in particular hopes for added impetus from the expected Presidential push for better healthcare options. As all groups were aware of the necessary belt-tightening this year, many of these agenda items are revenue neutral or could even bring in more money to the state while others are considered more regulatory or civil rights oriented.
Is this the start of a trend toward more openness and transparency in our dialogue with those whom we elect? Can we now believe that everything that was said will be substantiated by an ultimate progressive outcome? Can a certain group of self-selected attendees push this agenda and ultimately the General Assembly toward a more liberal stance? Is there enough clout here to influence leadership support? Or as one skeptic asked – can we believe what we think we heard today? These questions will be answered in April after the session ends. The members of the Progressive Working Group have promised to keep watching and keep score and prepare a scorecard with results.
(Attention delegates and senators: If you were invited but could not attend for whatever reason – look in your inboxes for an email from the PWG – they have promised to give every local member a chance to answer the relevant issues mentioned above and be duly noted.)
Sharon Dooley is a member of the Progressive Working Group steering committee.
Attending the Silver Spring Co-Housing Site:
District 18 Senator Rich Madaleno, Delegates Ana Sol Guiterrez, Al Carr, Jeff Waldstreicher
District 20 Senator Jamie Raskin, Delegates Shelia Hixson, Heather Mizeur, Tom Hucker
Attending the Wheaton Library Site:
District 14 Delegate Karen Montgomery
District 17 Delegate Jim Gilchrist
District 19 Senator Mike Lennett, Delegates Ben Kramer, Roger Manno
District 39 Kirill Reznik
District 22 Senator Paul Pinsky,
District 24 Delegate Joanne Benson,
District 47 Senator David Harrington, Delegates Victor Ramirez, Jolene Ivy
Issues Presented –(non-ranked)
1. Health Security Act (single payer)
2. Global Warming Solutions Act
3. De-fund the ICC
4. In-state college tuition for non-citizen immigrant children
5. Opposition to Real ID in current form
6. ASVAB(Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery)-Protect Student Privacy
7. Bring MD National Guard Home from Iraq
8. Electoral Integrity - post-election audits; voting process transparency
9. Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act
10. Gender Identity and Expression Protections
11. No police spying on lawful activities
12. Public Financing of General Assembly Campaigns
13. Workforce Fraud Bill (Misclassification of workers as independent contractors)
14. Combined reporting
Friday, January 16, 2009
MCDCC Looking to Fill District 20, State Party Vacancies
If you want to join MCDCC or the State Democratic Central Committee, now is your chance. Following is a press release from MCDCC.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE
Press Release
January 16, 2009
For Immediate Release
Contact: Milt Minneman
Communications Director
301-299-2551
FAX: 301-299-4604
Cell: 301-910-4676 minnemmj@hotmail.com
County Democratic Central Committee to Vote on a Member from Legislative District 20 and a Member of the Maryland State Democratic Central Committee
The Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee will meet at its headquarters 3720 Farragut Ave., Kensington, MD and vote at 7:30PM, Tuesday, February 10, 2009, for a member of either gender from Legislative District 20 and for a female member of the Maryland State Democratic Central Committee. The District 20 vacancy is the result of the resignation from the County Central Committee of Karen Czapanskiy. The Maryland State Democratic Central Committee vacancy is the result of the resignation of Linda M. Plummer.
Candidates for the District 20 position must be registered Democrats residing in District 20. District 20 encompasses Takoma Park and part of Silver Spring. Candidates for the female member of the Maryland State Democratic Central Committee must be registered Democrats residing in Montgomery County.
Candidates should send a letter of application and a resume by Monday, February 9 at 5:00 pm by mail or in person to the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee 3720 Farragut Ave., Third floor, Kensington, MD 20895, by email to MontgomeryDems@msn.com or by Fax to 301-946-1002. Candidates are expected to attend the Tuesday, February 10 meeting, address the Committee, to be followed by a question-and-answer period and the votes.
For further information, call 301-946-1000.
MTA Declares War on Chevy Chase, Part Five
MTA’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) contains a set of facts that are extremely problematic for opponents of rail on the Capital Crescent Trail. But the bigger problem for rail opponents is the evolving political dynamic on the issue.
Purple Line rail foes have suffered a string of defeats. In November, the Washington Area Bicyclist Association endorsed rail. On November 16, the Post endorsed rail. In December, County Council Member Roger Berliner, who represents Chevy Chase, restated his support for rail. On December 10, the Gazette endorsed rail. On December 22, the Montgomery County planning staff endorsed rail. On December 28, Post columnist Marc Fisher endorsed rail. On January 4, the Post called for rail again. On January 8, County Executive Ike Leggett told the Post, "It's pretty clear there's overwhelming support for light rail," while saying he was undecided. Yesterday, the Montgomery County Planning Board endorsed medium-investment light rail by a 4-1 vote. The lone bright spot for rail opponents was the withdrawal of the Environmental Defense Fund from the pro-rail coalition.
But these recent events have reinforced, not changed, the basic political alignment on the Purple Line. Here is the order of battle.
The Combatants
Purple Line Now, the primary pro-rail organization, has assembled a giant coalition of civic, environmental, business and non-profit groups and has signed up dozens of state and county politicians. Rethinking the Purple Line, an anti-rail alliance, contains a number of civic groups and municipal governments located near the Capital Crescent Trail. The Chevy Chase opponents do not have close relations with opponents in East Silver Spring, who have different concerns and are themselves divided. The Jones Bridge BRT option has spawned new opposition to that proposal along Jones Bridge Road in North Chevy Chase. The Columbia Country Club, long opposed to transit through its grounds, is rumored to be in negotiations with MTA. Rail supporters are at least as well-organized, at least as well-financed and are much more numerous than opponents – a fact that is not lost on most politicians.
Prince George’s County
The Town of Chevy Chase’s push for buses sets up a dream scenario for Prince George’s politicians. The notion that opposition to rail from one of the state’s wealthiest neighborhoods might condemn Prince George’s residents to further rides on buses provides irresistible propaganda opportunities for many politicians. Senator Paul Pinsky (D-22), who said of the town and the country club, “They seem to live in Alice in Wonderland,” provides just one example. There is zero support for BRT in Prince George’s County (and Town consultant Sam Schwartz did not study it east of Silver Spring). That lack of support will factor into the state’s political decision-making.
Montgomery County
Only Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18) and Delegate Al Carr (D-18) are known to oppose rail for the Purple Line. County Executive Ike Leggett, every County Council Member and every other state legislator in Montgomery except Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18) is a listed supporter of rail. The inability of rail opponents to break out of their home district exposes a major liability. The anti-ICC coalition was much, much larger and it still lost.
The Administration
The calculus of the administration looks fairly simple. From a policy perspective, if MDOT Secretary John Porcari believes MTA’s data, the only conceivable reason he would not recommend rail is pure cost. The numbers indicate rail superiority in almost every other area. But if he did choose BRT, the data argues for running buses directly on the trail. The on-trail bus options beat Jones Bridge BRT on travel time, speed, ridership, reduction in vehicle miles traveled, reduction in carbon dioxide and cost effectiveness. Medium-investment BRT, which runs buses on the trail, costs $14.01 per hour of user benefit compared to $18.24 for Jones Bridge.
From a political perspective, the Purple Line is a high-profile, high-cost project that could use up a significant percentage of the state's transportation budget. Any rational politician would embark on such an endeavor only if he or she was sure to receive substantial credit for it. (The unpopularity of the $2.4 billion ICC must be galling to the Governor.) If the administration chooses BRT, they would disappoint the entire Prince George’s establishment, most of the Montgomery establishment and the colossal number of groups in the pro-rail coalition. If the administration chooses rail, they would antagonize a few neighborhoods near the trail and receive praise from almost every power player in the Washington suburbs.
So what do you think the state will do?
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The Inside Story Behind Charles Barkley’s Ouster
The Gazette reported yesterday that Delegate Charles Barkley (D-39) was stripped of his Public Safety and Administration Subcommittee chair (a subcommittee of House Appropriations) because of his opposition to last year’s millionaire tax proposal. Barkley told the Gazette, “I thought it hit Montgomery County too hard, and we just increased taxes back in November. Another tax increase that quick wasn’t right.” County Executive Ike Leggett said he was “disappointed,” noting, “It comes at a crucial time when we are leaning very heavily on Annapolis that the county's interests are protected.” So is this a case of a Montgomery legislator being punished because he stood up for the economic interest of the county?
The vast majority of our spies say no. They claim the real reason for Barkley’s demotion, and his impending departure from House Appropriations altogether, is his repeated public battles with leadership. The protocol of Annapolis is to keep conflicts in the backroom. If you are a subcommittee chair and you lose an internal committee battle, you may vote against the resulting bill on the floor but you may not publicly attack the committee’s work product.
Barkley ran afoul of House Appropriations Committee Chairman Norman Conway (D-38B) twice, blindsiding him with amendments on the floor after losing in committee. The more recent of the two incidents involved the millionaire tax. Barkley was unable to stop the tax in committee, so he offered an amendment against it on the floor and criticized Chairman Conway (and the committee) for insufficiently restraining spending. Barkley’s open defiance was too much for leadership, who took away his subcommittee chair and arranged for him to move to the Economic Matters Committee.
One spy sighed, “When you’re in leadership, you work with leadership. But he won’t play with the team. He’s just very, very stubborn. He wouldn’t change his mind to save his soul. No one did this to him – he did it to himself.” Multiple informants pointed out that none of the other millionaire tax rebels were punished.
Will the loss of Barkley’s seat on Appropriations hurt Montgomery County? No. We hear that Delegate Bill Bronrott (D-16), already an Appropriations member, will be given a subcommittee chair. And Barkley's replacement on Appropriations will be Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20). So Montgomery will neither lose its total number of seats on Appropriations nor its number of subcommittee chairs.
A minority of our informants takes a different view. They acknowledge Barkley’s “hacksaw” approach in defying the millionaire tax. But they praise him for standing up for the county’s interest and note that there is no comfortable way to challenge leadership. They worry that excessive reliance on protocol and deference to leadership will discourage Montgomery’s delegation from aggressively challenging budget cuts that disproportionately impact the county.
One informant comments:Here’s the deal in Annapolis. We get screwed if we don’t speak up, and we get screwed if we do. Why? Because we don’t stand up as a group. For every Charles Barkley there are five others who cower and fear losing their positions, so they go along to get along. At some point, those five need to stand with Charlie and tell leadership that they can’t keep screwing us, they can’t do it without us, and they need to play ball with us.
That view is typical of the way many county officials see the Montgomery delegation.
A pipedream, I know. Because it takes courage. And it seems many in our delegation would rather be the “deputy assistant to the senior advisor to the true insider with an ear to the ground” than an effective Montgomery County representative.
Regardless of Barkley’s fate, this episode should cause our delegation to think long and hard. With both GCEI and teacher pensions at risk of being cut, Montgomery’s head is inside the state’s guillotine. How can the delegation work together to protect Montgomery from bearing the lion’s share of the upcoming budget debacle? Our advice last summer was to devise a common strategy, stick together and punish defectors from the county's team.
The alternative will create a couple more Barkleys and a whole lot of lost money for Montgomery County.
MTA Declares War on Chevy Chase, Part Four (Updated)
More data from the Purple Line DEIS details the staggering scope of MTA’s rejection of a Jones Bridge BRT alignment for the Purple Line.
CO2 Emission Burden, Percent Change from No-Build Option
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): 0.00%
Medium-Investment BRT: -0.02%
High-Investment BRT: -0.05%
Low-Investment LRT: 0.04%
Medium Investment LRT: 0.04%
High Investment LRT: 0.04%
Bottom Line: Light rail actually produces slight increases in carbon dioxide emissions because of the power necessary to operate the system. High-investment BRT, which runs buses down the trail, performs best on this measure. But none of the options would deliver any significant changes in carbon dioxide.
Noise
Jones Bridge BRT would have a “modest impact” on Leonard Drive, Wayne Avenue between Cedar Street and Cloverfield Road and Wayne Avenue between Mansfield Road and Sligo Creek Parkway. The other two BRT options would have “modest impact” on Leonard Drive, 16th Street between East-West Highway and Spring Street, Wayne Avenue between Cedar Street and Cloverfield Road, Wayne Avenue between Dartmouth Avenue and Dale Drive, Wayne Avenue between Mansfield Road and Sligo Creek Parkway and Arliss Street between Flower Avenue and Walden Road. All of the light rail options would have “no impact” on noise.
Bottom Line: Light rail is less noisy than buses because of vehicle "skirts" (panels covering the train wheels) and walls on some parts of the alignment.
Capital Cost, 2007 Dollars
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): $386,390,000
Medium-Investment BRT: $579,820,000
High-Investment BRT: $1,088,480,000
Low-Investment LRT: $1,206,150,000
Medium Investment LRT: $1,220,150
High Investment LRT: $1,634,840,000
Bottom Line: All bus options are cheaper than the rail options. Jones Bridge BRT would cost about one-third of the cheapest rail option and one-quarter of the most expensive rail option.
Annual Operating and Maintenance Subsidy, 2007 Dollars
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): $14.0 million
Medium-Investment BRT: $12.8 million
High-Investment BRT: $10.6 million
Low-Investment LRT: $21.1 million
Medium Investment LRT: $19.4 million
High Investment LRT: $16.0 million
Bottom Line: The least costly system to operate is high-investment BRT, which runs buses down the trail. The subsidy difference between Jones Bridge BRT (the most costly of the bus options) and high-investment rail is only $2 million per year.
Annual Cost per Hour of User Benefit, 2007 Dollars (FTA Cost Effectiveness)
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): $18.24
Medium-Investment BRT: $14.01
High-Investment BRT: $19.34
Low-Investment LRT: $26.51
Medium Investment LRT: $22.82
High Investment LRT: $23.71
Bottom Line: The BRT options are more cost effective than the rail options. But the most cost effective option is medium-investment BRT, which would run buses on the trail.
My Take on the DEIS
The DEIS is a sweeping rejection of the arguments for a Jones Bridge BRT alignment. Some of its conclusions are supportable but others are not. Its two most problematic components are:
1. Failure to account for more ridership with extra stops
According to the DEIS, the Jones Bridge alignment would have 40,000 daily boardings while high-investment BRT and all rail options would have 60,000 or more. Yet, the Jones Bridge alignment evaluated by the state has an extra station at the Medical Center. And the state never evaluated the impact of a second station at North Woodmont in Bethesda as suggested by the Town. The state's reasoning is that the greater speed of the other alignments drives up ridership compared to Jones Bridge BRT. But does that completely swamp the ridership increase of one (or two) extra stations to the extent alleged in the DEIS? That may not be likely, especially when one of the extra stops is at the exploding National Naval Medical Center.
2. Failure to study tree impacts
The loss of mature trees on the Capital Crescent Trail is a powerful argument made by the Town. The state's reaction was to ignore it and promise to count destroyed trees only after the alignment was chosen. This more than anything is evidence of bureaucratic warfare.
On the above two issues, MTA has not fairly evaluated the Town's arguments. Town residents have reason to feel aggrieved on those grounds.
But the state has one very powerful argument in its favor that rail opponents cannot effectively rebut: a trail-based, grade-separated alignment will inevitably be faster. The Connecticut-Jones Bridge intersection is one of the most congested intersections in the county. Park and Planning found that northbound evening rush-hour traffic moved at 6.1 miles per hour on Connecticut in the vicinity of the intersection. This horrendous intersection is effectively quicksand for buses.
Town consultant Sam Schwartz recommends prioritizing buses at traffic signals to move them through the intersection as a solution. But that will not help buses stuck in long queues on Jones Bridge Road and it may further congest north-south traffic (causing a disaster for Kensington commuters). The ultimate solution would be to grade-separate the intersection, but that would dramatically increase the Jones Bridge alignment's cost.
The speed advantage of lane-dedicated, grade-separated trains based on the trail alignment has a ripple effect on many other numbers, including ridership, reductions in traffic, user benefits and cost effectiveness. That alone makes a compelling case for MTA's evidently preferred options without engaging in bureaucratic games over the extra Jones Bridge stations and tree loss. The speed and performance superiority of rail make it the better option for the Purple Line provided that the politicians will pay for it. After all, while many politicians have signed a pledge to support light rail, few in the state delegation have publicly stated their willingness to raise taxes to fund it.
Rail opponents disagree with the facts contained in the DEIS (and have done so on this blog). But the DEIS has reinforced the most important set of facts concerning the Purple Line: the overarching political climate. More in Part Five.
Update: The Planning Board voted 4-1 today to endorse medium-investment light rail.
Major Fire in Chevy Chase
A house went up in flames on Oakridge Ave. around the corner from my home sometime around midnight. When I first looked, the entire home was on fire with flames shooting up to the sky. Thank G-d the house was under construction so no one lives there. At one point, there was a major explosion heard as far away as Lynn Dr. and Ridgewood Ave. At this time, it appears to be under control though there are still flames visible in the now completely destroyed structure. More, including bad photos, below the fold.
Update: The 7200 block of Oakridge is currently closed while the Fire Marshall investigates.
I called the Fire Department around the time of the explosion--maybe one minute after I first saw the flames--and they said they were already on the scene. The response by the Fire Department appears incredible and very aggressive from my layman's perspective. There are many, many firemen, trucks and ambulances as well as police here. The Department has concentrated water from many hoses, including one connected to a hydrant in front of my home. Fire trucks have come from as far away as Wheaton, Walter Reed, and Kensington. Thank you.
No photos of the fire itself as I was calling neighbors and didn't think of getting my camera until I saw a neighbor with his. By the time I got mine, the fire was fortunately not very photogenic in the dark though lots of smoke was still coming out and the firemen will still spraying several hoses on the remaining flames.
Fire Truck Ladder on Oakridge Ave.
Fire Truck on Maple Ave. at Thornapple St.
Fire Truck and Ambulance in front of my home
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Senators Write to Governor About Education Spending
Yesterday, sixteen Senators wrote the following letter to Governor O'Malley about education spending in next year's budget.
January 13, 2009
Governor Martin O'Malley
State House
100 State Circle
Annapolis, MD 21401
Dear Governor O'Malley:
We write to support your efforts to preserve progress for Maryland's families in the midst of America's worst economic crisis since the great depression of the 1930's.
In recent years, Maryland has improved our public schools and made college more affordable by investing in our young people. Since the state committed to the Thornton formula, student test scores are up by double digits. In response to a recent Education Week report moving Maryland up from number three to number one in student achievement, the Baltimore Sun noted "efforts to improve are beginning to pay off." The results are in -- investment in public education works. And, since 2006, your freeze on tuition increases at our public four year colleges has reduced Maryland tuition from the 6th highest in the nation down to 16th.
This progress is threatened by the national recession. Indeed, some have proposed slashing our successful investment in public education -- by cutting the Geographic Cost of Education and state payment of teachers' pensions, in particular -- in a misguided attempt to get the state through these difficult times. Such an approach certainly won't help Maryland families survive these tough times and would do long term damage to our state's economic competitiveness.
Raising college tuition and laying off public school teachers would make the recession worse by reducing consumer aggregate demand in the economy, thus hurting the private sector as well. Reducing our investment in public education now would make working families double victims -- first of Wall Street and then of their own government.
The alternative -- and the right answer -- is clear. As President-elect Barack Obama has said, the federal government needs to act on the lessons of the great depression. In a deep national economic downturn, it must promptly launch a major stimulus plan, including substantial investment in the core functions of state and local government -- education, health, public safety, and transportation.
To get America's economy moving again, now is the time to accelerate investment in Maryland's successful education efforts, not cut them. We must not roll back basic commitments we have made to students, teachers and communities in pursuit of educational excellence.
Thus, we urge you to identify the federal stimulus aid Maryland needs immediately to avoid cuts in education investment. Specifically, that means providing enough investment in Maryland's public schools and colleges to hold down tuition, block cuts in state aid to local schools, and accelerate expansion of successful improvements.
Federal capital investment should focus on public schools and colleges, as well as transportation, the environment, and technology. With Maryland's recently increased debt capacity, the state can be a strong partner in such job-creating efforts.
We look forward to working with you, our colleagues, local officials, and our congressional delegation to assure that the federal economic stimulus package puts the priority on our families' needs.
Best wishes,
Joan Carter Conway
George Della
Jennie Forehand
Brian Frosh
Rob Garagiola
Lisa Gladden
David Harrington
Nancy King
Rona Kramer
Mike Lenett
Rich Madaleno
Anthony Muse
Paul G. Pinsky
Jamie Raskin
Jim Robey
Jim Rosapepe
Chevy Chase Comments on the DEIS
In light of Adam's series, I thought I'd post the link to Chevy Chase's comments on the DEIS (warning, really big .pdf file).
MTA Declares War on Chevy Chase, Part Three
The Purple Line Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) contains a set of facts that is devastating to the Town of Chevy Chase’s case against use of the Capital Crescent Trail for transit. Of the arguments made by Town consultant Sam Schwartz for bus rapid transit on Jones Bridge Road, MTA agreed with almost none.
Following are statistics directly from the DEIS comparing the six options for the Purple Line.
Travel Time, End-to-End
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): 96 Minutes
Medium-Investment BRT: 73 Minutes
High-Investment BRT: 59 Minutes
Low-Investment LRT: 62 Minutes
Medium Investment LRT: 59 Minutes
High Investment LRT: 50 Minutes
Bottom Line: Compared to the alternatives, the off-trail alignment is slower because it has to navigate the Connecticut-Jones Bridge and Wisconsin-Jones Bridge intersections, two of the most congested intersections in the county. The fastest options have grade-separated alignments over Connecticut Avenue. Town consultant Sam Schwartz believes some of the Jones Bridge alignment's longer travel times can be mitigated by prioritizing buses at traffic signals, but the gap with rail is a very large gap to make up.
Average Speed
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): 10 MPH
Medium-Investment BRT: 13 MPH
High-Investment BRT: 16 MPH
Low-Investment LRT: 15 MPH
Medium Investment LRT: 16 MPH
High Investment LRT: 19 MPH
Bottom Line: For the sake of comparison, the Planning Department found evening rush hour speeds on Connecticut Avenue northbound of 6.1 miles per hour and Wisconsin Avenue northbound of 6.8 miles per hour. Since the Jones Bridge alignment is not grade-separated, it has to contend with that traffic. And remember - the DEIS is assessing projected traffic conditions in 2030, which will presumably be worse than the awful traffic we see today.
Daily Purple Line Ridership in 2030
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): 40,000
Medium-Investment BRT: 51,800
High-Investment BRT: 58,800
Low-Investment LRT: 59,300
Medium Investment LRT: 62,600
High Investment LRT: 68,100
Bottom Line: According to the DEIS, high-investment BRT (which runs buses on the trail) can compete with light rail in ridership, but off-trail BRT can not. The state does not believe the Jones Bridge alignment picks up net ridership by going past the Medical Center - instead, it believes there will be fewer riders because of its slow speed. That is a major disagreement with the Town, which would like to have stations at both the Medical Center and North Woodmont in Bethesda. The state did not examine a Jones Bridge alignment with a North Woodmont station.
User Minutes Saved Per Day in 2030
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): 623,700
Medium-Investment BRT: 851,200
High-Investment BRT: 994,200
Low-Investment LRT: 1,033,700
Medium Investment LRT: 1,098,200
High Investment LRT: 1,211,800
Bottom Line: Higher speeds for light rail translate into more time saved for users. Only high-investment BRT on the trail can compare.
Change in Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled, 2030
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): -0.02%
Medium-Investment BRT: -0.044%
High-Investment BRT: -0.067%
Low-Investment LRT: -0.064%
Medium Investment LRT: -0.07%
High Investment LRT: -0.071%
Bottom Line: Higher speeds and more time saved for high-investment BRT and the light-rail options lead to at least three times the reduction in trips of off-trail BRT.
Potential Impact on Public Park Lands
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): 2.09 acres
Medium-Investment BRT: 3.02 acres
High-Investment BRT: 2.09 acres
Low-Investment LRT: 1.98 acres
Medium Investment LRT: 2.38 acres
High Investment LRT: 1.51 acres
Bottom Line: High-investment light rail has a lower impact on public park land than any of the BRT options.
Potential Impact on Open Space at Public Schools
Low-Investment BRT (Jones Bridge): 14.46 acres
Medium-Investment BRT: 10.98 acres
High-Investment BRT: 9.58 acres
Low-Investment LRT: 11.46 acres
Medium Investment LRT: 11.40 acres
High Investment LRT: 9.96 acres
Bottom Line: Most options have a similar impact on open space at public schools, except for Jones Bridge BRT, which is significantly greater. One reason for the Jones Bridge alignment's bigger impact on open space is its seizure of acreage near North Chevy Chase Elementary School - a sore point in the surrounding neighborhood.
Tree Destruction
The DEIS does not compare the number of trees removed under each option. Instead, it says this on page 168:Significant trees with a diameter breast height size of 30 inches or greater or with a diameter that is at least 75 percent of the state champion tree of a given species were not specifically identified within the corridor during this stage of the planning process. However, forested areas and neighborhoods with street trees that appeared to contain a number of significant trees were mapped for identification. The delineation and surveying of these significant trees will occur following the selection of a preferred alternative.
Bottom Line: Tree destruction is one of the Town's central arguments against using the trail for transit, but the DEIS does not deal with it. That is ironic for an analysis that is titled an environmental impact statement. This is classic bureaucratic warfare: dismissing an argument by refusing to acknowledge its existence.
We will continue examining the data in Part Four.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Inaugural Laugh for the Day
From the Onion: Vice Presidential Handlers Lure Cheney Into Traveling Crate
MTA Declares War on Chevy Chase, Part Two
To understand the scope of MTA’s conflict with the Town of Chevy Chase, we need to examine the alternative options for the Purple Line in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). One is favored by the Town and the other five are not.
Three options use bus-rapid-transit, a high-speed bus system that is often cheaper and more flexible than rail lines. The “Low Investment BRT” option would run buses on existing streets in lanes shared with other traffic. Use of dedicated (or bus-only) lanes would be minimal. This is the only option that would run buses on Jones Bridge Road to the Medical Center and would stay out of the Town limits, and is therefore closest to the alignment recommended by the Town’s consultant. The “Medium Investment BRT” option would run buses along the Capital Crescent Trail, inside the Town limits, and use a mix of shared lanes and dedicated lanes. The “High Investment BRT” option would also run along the Capital Crescent Trail inside the town limits. It would use dedicated lanes and grade-separated pathways (like tunnels and bridges) wherever possible.
Three options use light rail (LRT), all on the Capital Crescent Trail. “Low Investment LRT” would run trains at ground level, often sharing lanes with traffic. “Medium Investment LRT” would run trains in a mix of shared and dedicated lanes at ground level with a bridge across Connecticut Avenue. “High Investment LRT” would operate exclusively in dedicated lanes at ground level with frequent use of bridges and tunnels.
All trail-based options would preserve part of the right-of-way for pedestrian and bike usage with transit alongside, with the two uses separated by grade and a fence. But none of the proposals for transit co-existing with the trail are likely to satisfy those who believe that transit is an inherent threat to the trail and the nearby communities.
The purpose of the DEIS is to evaluate the impact of each of these six options on a variety of criteria, including travel time, speed, ridership, vehicle miles traveled, impact on open space, noise, carbon dioxide emissions and cost. The Town contends that BRT outside of its limits, as represented by a Jones Bridge alignment, is a superior alternative on multiple counts. We will examine the contents of the DEIS in Part Three.
But before we do, readers need to be aware of two elements of context.
1. The long-term momentum behind rail.
The Bethesda-Chevy Chase Master Plan of 1990 refers to a "transit" use for the Georgetown Branch, but Washington Post articles from the late 1980s and early 1990s often refer to a "trolley" line. So in the earliest days of this debate - long before the project was referred to as the Purple Line - rail was the most discussed use. Bus proposals for Jones Bridge Road began receiving serious consideration only in 2003, when then-District 18 Delegate John Hurson received a favorable hearing from the Ehrlich administration. Several politicians alleged that Hurson won the support of Governor Ehrlich for buses by agreeing to support slots, an allegation Hurson denied. The Columbia Country Club also lined up behind buses since the trail cuts through its grounds (and the club encroaches on the right-of-way with fences). The association of buses on Jones Bridge Road with Governor Ehrlich, the country club and a possible connection to slots has negatively affected perceptions about the proposal for years.
The above history illustrates a long-term momentum in favor of rail, with buses viewed by some as a concession to the country club and a distraction rather than as a serious proposal. Has this affected MTA's analysis of the project?
2. Bureaucratic warfare
Many people will question my use of the term "war." Have you ever been in a long-term conflict with a bureaucracy? I have. Bureaucracies do not wage war with weapons or polemics. They do so by controlling information. They emphasize the arguments in their favor, de-emphasize other arguments and sometimes even refuse to acknowledge some data opposing their view. These tactics may not make the bureaucracy's positions wrong, but they do affect its dealings with opposition. There are a few signs of this in the DEIS that warrant examination.
We will begin in Part Three.
Monday, January 12, 2009
MCEA Sets its Annapolis Agenda
Following are the remarks of MCEA President Bonnie Cullison at the union's legislative breakfast this past Saturday. In attendance was the vast majority of Montgomery's statehouse delegation. Note the union's positions on the state school aid miscalculation, GCEI and teacher pensions.
Montgomery County Education Association, msta/nea
Annual Legislative Breakfast
Saturday January 10, 2009
MCEA Conference Center
Remarks of
Bonnie Cullison, MCEA President
Good morning, and welcome to MCEA’s Annual Legislative Breakfast. This is the time for frontline educators to talk with our elected representatives about the needs in our classrooms and our schools. We can share our collective priorities for education in the upcoming legislative session. It is the time for us to reflect together on the state of public education here in Montgomery County and on what we must do to provide the best possible education for our more than 139,000 students.
Looking Back
As the outgoing president of MCEA, this is the last year I will be giving these remarks. With your indulgence I will take a moment of personal privilege to reflect on our accomplishments together.
We have achieved a great deal both for MCEA members and for our students. On the bread and butter issues, we have increased salaries, won major improvements in our pension plans, both at the state and county levels and we have protected our health insurance premium cost-sharing formulas.
But equally important we have made significant strides towards empowering educators and building effective relationships to transform policies and programs for our schools in order to meet the needs of our students in the 21st century. We have designed leadership opportunities for our members so they can engage with their principals and program managers to shape program planning and implementation. At the system level, the leaders of the three unions (MCEA, SEIU and MCAASP) are full participating members on the MCPS Executive Leadership Team and sit at the table in the Budget Review Process to prepare a recommended budget for the Superintendent every year. I do not believe there is another school district in the nation where educators and their union have this level of shared leadership for strong schools. I want to thank the members of the Board of Education and the administration for their continued support for this collaboration. We have all learned that collectively our students benefit most when we sit down together, listen effectively to one another, problem-solve, and ultimately come out with decisions that are jointly owned. But most importantly, I want to thank the hundreds of MCEA members who put in untold hours beyond their regular duties to take on responsibility for joint problem-solving and leadership. They are the real power behind MCEA.
With these improvements over the past six years we have also seen tremendous progress in terms of student achievement. The demographics of our student body have continued to shift. MCPS is a “majority-minority” district, and the number (and percentage) of our students who are English language learners and/or come from disadvantaged homes continues to grow. But our investments in early childhood education, class sizes, especially in high needs schools and professional development are paying off. At the secondary level, we have seen a significant increase in the number of students taking Advanced Placement classes--and we have seen that increase in the numbers scoring three or higher on their AP tests--especially among African-American and Hispanic students. All students are achieving at higher levels and the achievement gap is shrinking.
Just this past week, two national studies ranked Maryland schools as the best in the nation. Is there anyone here who does not recognize that it is the success of Montgomery County Public Schools which makes that possible?
The Problem with High Stakes Testing
When talking about the state of public education one has to say something about testing. At the state level, MCEA worked hard with several members of the State Board of Education to change the implementation of the High School Assessments. I want to publicly thank both Blair Ewing and Rosa Garcia for their efforts as members of the State Board to make the HSAs less punitive and more equitable for students. Unfortunately, we have not yet convinced a majority of the State Board. We still face a state system where thousands of primarily minority students will either be denied a diploma this spring, or they will have jumped through enough hoops to qualify for the State’s “alternative” HSA routes to graduation. Neither does those students or our schools any good. The proposal we had crafted with Blair and Rosa and others would have simply shifted the HSA test results inside of the relevant course to be part of the final grade. Most research across the country argues strongly against having ‘high stakes,” like graduation, dependent on a single standardized test. Yet that continues to be the policy in Maryland. Under the option we proposed, the HSAs would still count towards students’ academic success, and could still be used as a measure of overall school accountability, but they would no longer be stand-alone hurdles blocking large numbers of students from graduation.
The Budget Crisis
It is clear to everyone that the biggest issue facing our public schools today is the unfolding economic recession and its impact on funding. In Montgomery County, virtually everyone professes to be a friend of public education. Such promises are easy to make in good times. However, the true measure of one’s support for public education comes in the tough times, not in the easy times. The teachers and students in classrooms in every school and in every neighborhood in Montgomery County are counting on our elected officials to be vociferous and passionate advocates for protecting funding for public education.
This past week, the MGT Study cited Maryland as having the most effective public schools in the nation. They found a direct link between the improvements in student achievement and the increased education funding from the Thornton Plan. For every $1,000 of additional funds invested in education, student proficiency rates increased by 4% (elementary) to 8% (middle). The Thornton money has gone a very long way to recruit and retain high quality teachers and to reduce class size. The evidence is now clear: if we cut back on our investment in education, our students will suffer.
We are sensitive to the fiscal bind that lawmakers are in. But we are asking the state to do all it can to protect the progress we have made with our students.
The State’s Error in School Aid for FY09
It is critical to begin the funding conversation with an understanding of what our schools are entitled to under existing state aid formulas. Late last month, we all learned that the state government made a serious error in calculating state aid for education, shortchanging MCPS by an estimated $24 million this year. The state has admitted the error; however there are several serious questions and issues remaining and we are counting on our delegation to get the answers.
First, there must be full disclosure of the calculations and the true amount owed to MCPS. We applaud those members of our delegation who have already called for an independent audit to determine the correct amount.
Second, the effort to determine the exact amount of the errors in the FY09 payments must also include an examination of prior years to determine the full extent of the mistake.
Third, whatever the exact sum, these funds are owed to the Montgomery County Public Schools. When the state makes good on the debt – as the Governor has promised – those funds by right should go to our schools. It has been suggested by some that the county government should get the money instead. To do so would amount to supplanting local funding with state funding – a practice that the state government has always strongly opposed. The county government determined its contribution of local tax dollars to the MCPS FY09 budget last spring. Giving this money to the county could mean that its allocation of funds to this year’s budget was decreased by that amount. That is neither fair, appropriate, nor in keeping with the long past practice of state aid.
Fourth, we cannot allow repayment of this legitimate debt owed to MCPS to be wiped away through some shell game. The state cannot and should not be able to “repay” the estimated $24 million while taking away $24 million in other state aid to education.
State Education Aid for FY10
According to the preliminary estimates provided by the Maryland State Department of Education, MCPS is projected to receive $71 million in additional state aid for education in FY10 (over the amount funded for FY09). This amount includes $59 million due to us under the existing, enrollment-based state funding formulas, as well as an additional $12 million due to MCPS under the legislature’s action to phase in GCEI (the Geographic Cost of Education Index) over two years (FY09 and FY10).
It is important to remember the history of GCEI. Recognizing that most of the increase in funding called for under Thornton was going to go to poorer districts in the state, our delegation successfully argued that it was important to “raise all boats” and not draw resources away from Montgomery County in order to provide increases to other school districts. Now, almost ten years later, GCEI has not been fully funded by state. However the original rationale still applies.
Consider this proposal: combine the estimated $63 million due for full statewide funding of GCEI in FY10 to the estimated $91 million in statewide increases in other state education funding formulas for a total of $154 million. Begin with that number before taking whatever reduction is necessary due to budget restraints and apply the cuts proportionately.
Whatever the ultimate calculations, we are counting on our delegation to ensure that Montgomery County does not bear a disproportionate share of whatever budget cuts are ultimately necessary. The principle must be one of shared sacrifice.
We have worked intensively in shaping the recommended budget which the Superintendent has presented to the Board of Education. Not only have we sacrificed our cost-of-living increases, but the recommended budget also includes more than $35 million in cuts to the base budget, including the elimination of 280 positions. If MCPS does not receive enough state aid, the only thing left to do is increase class size. We do not want to see that happen.
The Issue of Teacher Pension Plan Funding
The single most important issue for us in the upcoming legislative session is funding for the statewide teacher pension plan. There are some in the legislature who want to shift future increases in the cost of teacher pensions away from the state government onto the backs of local governments. For them, this is the answer regardless of what the question is. It’s like a broken record.
This is completely unacceptable. We fully concur with the bold statement made by our county executive, Ike Leggett, that this is a “line in the sand” that should not be crossed. In fact, we would consider it a “line in cement” and one that cannot be rubbed out or washed away.
If you are asked to consider this shifting, we would give you six things to think about:
First, state funding of teacher pensions is one of the only state aid formulas that favors Montgomery County. So our delegation has a special interest in protecting this program.
Second, state funding of teacher pensions is a long-standing part of the complex balance between the state and local jurisdictions on both revenue and expenditures. It is simply unfair to pass these expenses back to the counties without also passing back revenue sources as well.
Third, this isn’t a strategy for balancing the budget; it’s a strategy for passing the buck. Every single county in the state would suffer. When there is a budget deficit, you have to either increase revenues, decrease expenditures, or both. Shifting the costs to somebody else doesn’t solve the problem.
Fourth, some may draw an analogy to the shift in responsibility for Social Security payments in the early nineties. However when that happened, the state also gave the counties greater taxing authority. Now the proposal would shift responsibility for funding with no increase in taxing authority and at a time when local counties cannot increase taxes.
Fifth, this is a long-term change in response to a short-term problem. We all recognize that our state – and our nation – face a serious recession. But like all recessions, we will get through it and the economy will recover. It is disingenuous to advocate for a long-term change in the relationship between the state and the counties as a solution to a short-term budget shortfall.
Finally, it is simply unfair to force the counties to pay for a pension system that is controlled by the state. The state legislature determines the benefit formulas. The state pension board oversees both the administration of the plan and the investment of its assets. How can anyone argue that the counties should be expected to pay for a state-run program over which the counties have no control? The next thing you know, the president of the state senate will be telling the counties they have to pay for the state police as well; after all – the crime occurs in the counties.
For the legislators here today, here is the bottom line for us-- preventing a shift in funding for the state teacher pension plan is MCEA’s single most important priority in the upcoming legislative session. Nothing will be more important in our assessment of the success of the session – and the success of our delegation – than this. United, our delegation has the size, strength, and sophistication to block any budget that that deeply harms our county. Now you have the opportunity to show your true mettle. I would encourage each and every member of the delegation to go on record stating that they will not vote for any budget that includes any shift in funding for teacher pensions. Only then will the leadership understand that this cannot be a part of the package.
While the budget issues are foremost on everyone’s mind, there are three other, non-economic issues before the legislature this year that I would like to mention.
Labor Bill
For several years, we and the Maryland State Teachers Association have advocated for reform of the collective bargaining law that was first created 40 years ago for school employees. It is antiquated and needs to be updated to meet the challenges of today’s environment. The proposal being drafted this year is different from before. The bill simply establishes a neutral third party to resolve differences between the public school employer and the employee representative within an established timeline with the arbitrator’s decision binding on both parties.
We urge all the members of our delegation to support this fair and balanced reform to our state collective bargaining law.
BOAST Bill
The so-called Building Opportunities for All Students and Teachers (BOAST) Maryland Tax Credit bill is nothing more than a tax credit scheme that is a backdoor approach to providing vouchers to parents of students in nonpublic schools.
The research in Arizona, Illinois, and Pennsylvania shows that the greatest beneficiaries of tax credit programs are wealthier tax payers and schools in middle and upper income neighborhoods. A study by the non-partisan RAND Corporation concluded that tuition tax subsidies rarely benefit poor children. It is families already attending private or religious schools that benefit the most. And as with vouchers, tuition tax credits provide funds to nonpublic schools without regard to the schools’ entrance policies. Some private schools do and would continue to deny entrance to certain students.
When facing a budget shortfall the state cannot afford to lose revenue through a tuition tax credit that subsidizes private school tuition.
Montgomery County Split Rate Property Tax Bill
I want to thank Delegate Al Carr for his work on local bill 906-09. The proposal gives the County Council the flexibility to delink residential and commercial property tax rates. There is no reason these two different kinds of property should be treated identically.
This bill does not raise anybody’s taxes. Every spring, the County Council sets property tax rates, and this bill doesn’t change that. The County Council is the forum where the needs of competing constituencies are balanced and decisions are made.
By providing the County Council with the flexibility to set different tax rates for commercial and residential property, the Council will have the ability to raise more revenue for education and other public services, without increasing residential property tax rates as much.
Conclusion
As I wrap up my final term as president of MCEA, I can only say how proud I am both of our members and of the incredible support our community and our elected officials provide for our schools. Every day, our members work miracles with children and change lives. There is no more honorable calling. But we are also grateful to work in a community that places such a high value on public education and which has shown repeatedly over time the willingness to pay more to provide the best possible education for our students. It is this collaborative approach that has been essential to our continuing success.
We are counting on our state delegation to do their part to protect the funding our schools need. We know the tight budget times will require shared sacrifice. But your charge is to ensure that the cuts do not fall disproportionately on Montgomery County. Our students deserve their fair share of support from the state government.
And finally, let me reiterate our fundamental issue this year: nothing will be more important in our assessment of the success of the session – and the success of our delegation – than protecting the current teacher pension funding system. MCEA has always been known for standing by those elected officials who stand by teachers during tough times. Our decisions in 2010 about who to recommend for support will be driven by the critical votes this year on the teacher pension funding system.
Thank you all for coming out this morning, and for everything you do on behalf of our schools and our students.
MTA Declares War on Chevy Chase, Part One
Late last year, the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the Purple Line. The DEIS is many things. It is a description of multiple alignments and modes proposed for the Purple Line. It is an analysis of costs and benefits for the project. And it is also a Declaration of War on rail opponents in the Town of Chevy Chase.
But first, a bit of background on the project. The Purple Line is a transit project intended to connect Bethesda and New Carrollton. It has gone through various iterations over the years. One of the earliest versions of the line was envisioned as a trolley between Bethesda and Silver Spring. In 1988, the county purchased a rail right-of-way that had been abandoned by CSX for $10.5 million for the purpose of building both a transit line and a hiker-biker trail. The Bethesda-Chevy Chase Master Plan of 1990 stated:Use of the route for transit would provide an alternative to driving on East-West Highway and Jones Bridge Road. It would assist those people who rely primarily on local public transit. The key to attractive, successful transit service is providing reliable, speedy service. The Georgetown Branch provides an existing travel corridor that could readily be adapted for transit use.
Over time, part of the right-of-way evolved into the very popular Capital Crescent Trail. The trail functions as a continuous pedestrian and bike corridor from the Jones Mill Road/Jones Bridge Road intersection through the grounds of the Columbia Country Club, the boundaries of the Town of Chevy Chase, west into Bethesda and beyond. The portion of the right-of-way east of Jones Mill Road has never been finished as a trail and winds through neighborhood streets in Silver Spring. But the finished part of the trail is a treasured community amenity in the areas around Chevy Chase and has created a large, active constituency to protect it.
What does the trail need protecting from? Some see any rail alignment on the trail as a threat to the trail’s viability. As proposals have surfaced over the years to use the right-of-way for both of its original purposes – a rail line with a trail alongside it – some of the trail’s defenders have mobilized in opposition. The Columbia Country Club sees any rail through its grounds as a threat to its golf course and has cooperated with the Ehrlich administration to promote a bus-rapid-transit (BRT) route along Jones Bridge Road as an alternative. Under the O’Malley administration, light rail and bus alignments on the trail and a bus alignment along Jones Bridge Road are being evaluated for the Purple Line.
As the state advanced its planning for the Purple Line, the Town of Chevy Chase financed a study by transportation consultant Sam Schwartz calling for a BRT route on Jones Bridge Road. Many residents of the Town believe a Jones Bridge Road alignment is superior to a trail alignment for the following reasons:
1. In a few places, they believe the right-of-way would be too narrow to safely house both a light rail line and a hiker/biker trail.
2. Construction of a rail line on the trail would involve substantial loss of mature trees and have other negative environmental consequences.
3. Bus lines are cheaper than rail lines.
4. A Jones Bridge Road alignment would connect directly to the Medical Center on Wisconsin Avenue, a facility about to undergo a significant expansion due to the federal government’s BRAC plans.
But as vigorous as Town residents have been in their advocacy, MTA’s DEIS has rejected almost every one of their arguments. While the DEIS does not make an alignment recommendation, MTA’s data stacks up so overwhelmingly against a Jones Bridge BRT alignment that it is difficult to imagine that they will pick the Town’s favored alternative. To illustrate our point, MPW has summoned its crack bureaucratese translation team to reveal the extent to which MTA has shot down the Town’s proposal.
Translation begins in Part Two.
