Lost in the aftermath of yesterday's intense finish was an amazing event: the Washington Post actually re-endorsed Ben Kramer on the day of the election.
Here's the money statement from an editorial that reads almost like a public service announcement in other paragraphs:Ms. Navarro has been effective on the school board, but on tough fiscal calls she might offer little resistance to the labor leaders who have funneled contributions to her campaign. Mr. Kramer, whom we have endorsed, displayed an independent streak in Annapolis that would infuse the County Council with needed pragmatism.
"Funneled contributions?" Labor unions legally contributed to Navarro's campaign just as millionaire developer Josh Rales legally contributed to Kramer. When the Post uses a term like "funneled contributions," they are implying that labor is somehow behaving unethically, or even breaking the law, merely by contributing to a candidate.
We have examined the Post's anti-union editorials before. But the real truth behind their editorials will shock all of you regardless of whom you supported in the special election. And we will be exposing it soon enough.
Update: In last year's special election, the Post endorsed Navarro on Friday, April 11. The language of that endorsement contained no disparagement of Don Praisner and there was no "re-endorsement" prior to the April 15 election. This year, the Post endorsed Ben Kramer on Sunday, April 12, its biggest circulation day of the week and repeated it the day of the April 21 election. Both of the pro-Kramer editorials criticized Navarro and her labor support. Why did the Post treat Kramer and Navarro so differently between the two cycles?
Update 2: In 2006, the Post endorsed Ike Leggett for County Executive on 8/13/06. It never "re-endorsed" him. But on election day, 9/12/06, the Post issued a simple list of its endorsed candidates with no elaboration and no disparagement of opponents. Given that fact, the Post's re-endorsement of Kramer is not totally unprecedented. But that does not explain its disparate treatment of Kramer and Navarro in the 2008 and 2009 special elections.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Washington Post Gets Out the Vote for Kramer (Updated)
Absentee Ballot Update (Updated!)
Here's the latest on how the math is trending.
The following email was sent from the county Board of Elections to the County Council this morning:From: Mihill, Amanda
If 660 absentee ballots are really outstanding, then Kramer would need to outpoll Navarro by about 14 percentage points to win. But we hear that perhaps as few as 360 absentee ballots actually came back.
Sent: Wed 4/22/2009 7:15 AM
To: Andrews, Phil; Berliner, Roger; Elrich, Marc; Ervin, Valerie; Floreen, Nancy; Knapp, Mike; Leventhal, George; Trachtenberg, Duchy
Cc: #CCL.Confidential Aides; Greenberger, Neil; Farber, Steve; Orlin, Glenn; Faden, Michael; Drummer, Bob
Subject: FW: Election Day results are posted
Councilmembers, here is a bit of follow-up from yesterday's Special Election. Board staff report that the Absenteee Canvass will be held on Thursday, April 23. From the Board's website: The Montgomery County Board of Elections, sitting as the Board of Canvassers, will convene at 10:00 a.m. for the Absentee Canvass. The Board of Canvassers will then recess immediately until 12:30 p.m. The Board of Elections will hold its monthly meeting beginning at 11:00a.m. The Board of Canvassers will begin canvassing absentee ballots at 12:30 p.m.
According to Margaret, the Board expects to canvass about 660 ballots (see her message below).
Amanda
-----Original Message-----
From: Jurgensen, Margaret
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:32 PM
To: Street, Thomas; Mihill, AmandaCc: 'KevinKarpinski@aol.com'; Roher, Margie
Subject: Election Day results are posted
The Absentee Canvass will be held Thursday April 23 2009, please see website regarding time. The Board expects to canvass approximately 660 absentee Ballots.
Thank you.
So let's do some more math. If 360 absentee ballots come back and 36 (10%) go for other candidates, that means Kramer must beat Navarro by a 202-122 margin (56%-34%) to win the election. Can that happen?
The Navarro campaign has said, "Our campaign can confirm a large number of absentee ballot requests were submitted by our supporters." That could be election night woofing, though the Kramer campaign is silent for the moment. But consider this: who are more likely to need absentee ballots: retirees or people who work two or three jobs?
Advantage: Navarro.
Update: Now we hear the 660 number is the actual number of returned absentee ballots. That's probably a good thing for Kramer. The more additional votes are out there, the more opportunity he has to win.
Fire Fighter Decision Threatens Nationwide Public Labor Movement (Updated)
We published our post “A Heavy Blow to Public Collective Bargaining” on Wednesday, April 8. But exactly a week later, it received an avalanche of direct visits from all over the country. And the visitor roster is an ominous development for public employee unions all across the United States.
Our post concerned a decision by the county’s Labor Relations Administrator (LRA) on the issue of whether the County Executive was required to propose a budget that included the Fire Fighters’ cost of living increases. The union cited sections of the county code requiring the Executive to respect the results of collective bargaining agreements he negotiated. The County Executive’s position was that the code did not bind him in his role of proposing a budget since that was a “legislative” function. The LRA agreed with the County Executive and the Fire Fighters are mulling an appeal.
The matter remained local until yesterday. Suddenly, the post began to be emailed all across the country. At one point, direct visits to that post accounted for more than a quarter of our traffic, an unusual event for this blog. Here are just a few of the entities who accessed it:
State of Arkansas
State of Maryland
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Miami-Dade County, Florida
City of Milwaukee
State of Minnesota
New York State Office of Comptroller
Oakland County, Michigan
Prince George’s County, Maryland
Public Employees Retirement Systems of Ohio
Stanislaus County, California
City of Tallahassee
Vermont Public Schools
Wayne County, Michigan
Wisconsin Public Schools
Many state and county governments around the country are experiencing financial problems similar to Montgomery County. More than a few of them are looking for a mechanism to escape their collectively bargained obligations. The LRA’s decision gives them a possible model for doing that.
But it could be worse. The Fire Fighters are considering an appeal to the court system. If they appeal and lose, the resulting court decision will be even more dangerous. Governments all over the U.S. could mimic the court’s reasoning to bust contracts everywhere.
We hear that there may be a way to step back from the brink. Our informants tell us that the Leggett administration is ready to join the Fire Fighters in asking that the LRA’s decision be vacated. That would rob the decision of its value as a precedent and render court action moot. In return, the administration would ask the Fire Fighters to stop pursuit of their cost of living increases. The Fire Fighters do not have much to lose by doing so since the County Council will certainly refuse to fund their increases even if the Executive proposes them. Everyone gets something out of the deal: the Fire Fighters can erase a bad labor decision, Leggett can resolve the last union contract issue and the rest of the nation’s labor movement will have one less problem to confront.
The deal makes sense. Will it happen?
Update: The Gazette has more.
Navarro Declares Victory
Following is the press release from the campaign.
##FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE##
Tuesday, April 22, 2009
Contact: David Moon, Campaign Manager
Email: david@navarroforcouncil.com
Nancy Navarro Declares Victory for County Council
SILVER SPRING, MD – Tonight, Nancy Navarro declared victory in her second run for Montgomery County Council, District 4. In two consecutive special elections, Nancy Navarro has thrown her hat into the ring. In 2008, Navarro came roughly 350 votes short of victory, but only a year later pulled off a tough-fought victory by 78 votes, winning most precincts carried previously by the late Councilmember Don Praisner.
Mobilizing an aggressive get-out-the-vote operation from populations traditionally ignored by politicians, Navarro united environmentalists, women, Latinos, Asians, Africans, African Americans, youths, seniors and progressive activists. Despite the unfavorable demography of the special election population, Navarro pulled off a stunning victory in only eight weeks.
Navarro commented, “I am so proud that my broad coalition of supporters has created a powerful new electoral vehicle to stand up for seniors and working families. In these tough times, I am ready to roll up my sleeves and pick up where the Praisner family left off. I can only hope to live up to their high standards of dedication to their constituents.”
Our campaign can confirm a large number of absentee ballot requests were submitted by our supporters. Elections experts consulted by the campaign point out that often a exceedingly small percentage of requested absentee ballots are actually returned. Considering Delegate Kramer lost the vast majority of precincts on Tuesday night, and Board of Elections records show that the distribution of absentee ballot requests was far more even than Tuesday’s turnout rates, Delegate Kramer’s path to victory is insurmountably narrow.
###
D4 Election Results 3
We believe the two Leisure World precincts came in at the end. That's why Navarro's 652 vote lead with 37 precincts counted shrank to 78 votes with all 45 precincts reporting. Now the contest goes to absentee ballots.
Our spies are whispering that there may be up to 600 absentee and provisional votes outstanding at the maximum. So let's do a little math. If there are 600 more votes to be counted and if candidates other than Navarro and Kramer claim 10% of those votes, then Kramer could beat Navarro by outpolling her 310-230. That would mean he would need a 52%-38% edge over her among absentees and provisionals. If there were only 400 more votes to be counted and 10% went to other candidates, then Kramer would need to beat Navarro by a 20-point margin (55%-35%). The smaller the number of votes to be counted, the greater the percentage lead Kramer will need to defeat Navarro.
We know that both the Kramer and Navarro campaigns sent out preprinted absentee ballot applications. Kramer sent them far and wide while Navarro concentrated on supporters. Which strategy will prove more successful? We'll find out in a few days.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
D4 Election Results 2
The contest between Nancy Navarro and Ben Kramer certainly tightened as the night progressed. Navarro now leads with 3557 votes to 3479 for Kramer. Just 78 votes separate the candidates. I don't know how many, if any, ballots are still outstanding including absentee or provisional ballots. The Washington Post reports that absentees will be counted starting on Thursday.
Cary Lamari received 690 votes with 104 for Robert Goldman, 99 for Thomas Hardman, and 58 for Michael Bigler. On the Republican side, new D4 resident Robin Ficker got 1187 to 571 for Louis August and 292 for Andrew Padula.
Around four times as many people voted in the Democratic as Republican primary in the obviously light special election turnout which attracted 10 percent of registered votes, though that number is depressed somewhat by the inclusion of ineligible unaffiliated voters among registered voters.
D4 Election Results
With 37 of the district's 45 precincts counted, Navarro is up 2,689-2,037 over Kramer. That's a margin of 49.58%-37.56%. So far, 5,424 Democratic primary votes have been cast compared to 7,658 cast last year. If another 2,000 votes were cast and 10% of those votes went to candidates other than Kramer and Navarro, Kramer would need 61% of the remaining 1,800 votes to catch Navarro. That seems extremely unlikely.
Robin Ficker is blowing away the other two Republicans with 61% of the vote at the moment. He is a sure winner of the Republican nomination.
Negative Campaigning in Montgomery County, Part Two
Conventional wisdom holds that negative campaigning hardly ever happens in Montgomery County. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the county has a long and rancid history of political smackdowns. Consider the following contests.
1. In the 1998 District 5 County Council race, challenger Marc Elrich called incumbent Derick Berlage a “total hypocrite” for accepting developer contributions. Berlage responded that Elrich was using business as a “bogeyman” and was “the candidate of shrill rhetoric.” Berlage won.
2. In the 1998 District 3 County Council race, challenger Phil Andrews accused incumbent Bill Hanna of being “beholden to developers” because of the volume of developer contributions he received. Andrews won.
3. In the 1998 at-large County Council race, William O’Neil called incumbent County Council Member Mike Subin “an abusive, obnoxious, horrible politician.” Lawrence Rosenblum, a close friend of both Ike Leggett and Ben Kramer, said, “It’s a destructive way to campaign… and it’s usually a sign that you’re desperate to win.” O’Neil finished last out of eight candidates. Kramer, who took more developer money than any other candidate (40% of his contributions), finished seventh.
4. In 2000, Board of Education incumbent Mona Signer blamed a “vicious smear campaign” by MCEA for her defeat. MCEA President Mark Simon replied, “I don't think you can build a career on the board of education by attacking teachers.”
5. In 2002, District 20 Delegate Dana Dembrow, who had long feuded with the other members of his delegation, was arrested for hitting his wife. Two anti-Dembrow attack mailers went out right before the election, one of them financed by the other District 20 incumbents. Dembrow called the mailers “absolute garbage, absolute deceitful lies,” but he still lost.
6. Also in 2002, the Gazette described “extensive use of attack ads” and “a barrage of vicious mailings” in the County Council races, much of which was aimed at incumbents Blair Ewing and Phil Andrews.
7. In 2004, Board of Education candidates Valerie Ervin and Sheldon Fishman held a number of “bitter exchanges” over the school system’s gifted and talented program. Ervin told the Gazette, “Sheldon's philosophy – it’s old and I think it’s elitist.” Ervin won.
8. In 2006, Montgomery’s negative campaigning spread to the Internet. Neighborspac ran a cartoon on its website showing five County Council Members singing and dancing on strings pulled by developers. Two short-lived anonymous attack blogs, Quid Pro MoCo and MoCorruption, sprang up to spread dirt on Council Members Steve Silverman, Nancy Floreen and Mike Subin. But good old mail-and-bash negative campaigning was alive and well in District 20, as MPW founder David Lublin related in his two posts about the Ida Ruben-Jamie Raskin mudfest.
9. The 2008 Congress District 4 rematch between incumbent Al Wynn and challenger Donna Edwards was even meaner than the original. The low point came when Wynn robocalls alerted voters about Edwards’ long-since-paid tax liens. Edwards called the messages “a really desperate attack… for the Congressman to attack me personally like this, shame on him.” Edwards won.
10. In the 2008 District 4 special election, Nancy Navarro was slimed by illegal attack robocalls. The perpetrators have never been discovered. Navarro lost.
11. In the summer of 2008, another anonymous attack blog was spawned targeting County Council Member Mike Knapp in the belief that he might challenge Ike Leggett for County Executive. After Eric Luedtke, Dan Reed and I condemned it, it shut down.
There you go, folks. Every election cycle in this county over the last decade has seen at least one negative campaign. Let’s see what next year brings!
Blogs Dominate Online D4 Coverage
Imagine casual voters in District 4 investigating the candidates the new-fangled way: Googling their names. What would they find? You would think they would see a bunch of Washington Post and Gazette articles, right?
No way. They are seeing posts from Maryland Politics Watch and Just Up the Pike.
Check out these screen shots of Google searches from yesterday:
Yesterday, MPW had its fourth-most visited day in the blog's history. Six of our top ten most-visited days ever have occurred this month. (The other four occurred around the November 2008 general election.) Last month, MPW and Just Up the Pike set internal visit records. This month, MPW is on track to set another record.
Many voters still get their news from paper. But the online generation is increasingly adding blogs to their daily news diet. That's something to remember for 2010.
Battle of the Endorsers
Check out the last mailers from the Kramer and Navarro campaigns. Which supporter would you rather have: Ike Leggett or Donna Edwards?
Negative Campaigning in Montgomery County, Part One
There is a great hue and cry going up about negative campaigning in District 4. Ben Kramer sent out the flyer below featuring a protest by Alison Klumpp against Nancy Navarro’s mailers.
The irony here is delicious. After all, Mrs. Klumpp’s mother, Marilyn Praisner, won her first County Council election in part by criticizing her opponent.
Flash back to 1990. Michael Gudis was a man with problems. The three-term County Council Member had been pilloried by the media for employing his girlfriend in his council office. An impending reorganization of the council transforming it from a seven-member at-large body to a council with four at-large members and five district members herded him into a district race. He was a developer-supported candidate in a slow-growth year. (This was the year that anti-development Council Member Neal Potter defeated incumbent County Executive and businessman Sid Kramer.) But worst of all, Gudis had a formidable challenger: two-term Board of Education Member and former CIA analyst Marilyn Praisner.
Mrs. Praisner had very little money; Gudis outraised her by at least six to one. But she announced her challenge in the summer of 1989 and spent a year working the district. Some of the qualities that made her a legend were already manifest in her first council race: toughness, hard work and attention to detail. And she laid a clever trap for the incumbent.
One of our spies recounts what happened:At a candidate forum, Mrs. Praisner made a statement to the effect that campaign accounts should not be used for personal benefit.
Gudis later accused Mrs. Praisner of using “CIA tactics” in the pages of the Post but it made no difference. Mrs. Praisner won and so began the ascendancy of one of the county’s greatest public servants. Was her use of the JCC issue negative campaigning or merely seizure of opportunity? In any event, it was criticism of an opponent based on his record. And it worked.
Mr. Gudis responded that he agreed.
Mrs. Praisner then turned to Mr. Gudis and asked why, if he agreed, he had used $700 of campaign funds to pay dues to the Jewish Community Center.
Mr. Gudis turned redder than a ripe tomato and responded – jabbered, actually – that he is on the Board of the JCC and that it was therefore an appropriate use of campaign funds.
The Montgomery Journal ran an editorial – I think it was called “Mr. Gudis, Pay Back the Money” – saying that it wasn’t an appropriate use of campaign funds and he should pay it back. His response – a letter to the Editor defending the expenditure.
When letters started to appear in the Washington Jewish Week, I knew the election was over. Jewish voters were writing that “they work hard and struggle to pay their dues to the JCC,” and who does this guy think he is.
Mrs. Klumpp’s allegation that Marilyn Praisner supported Ben Kramer’s Delegate candidacy strikes us as odd. We cannot locate any verification for it. Furthermore, Sid Kramer, Ben Kramer’s father, endorsed Nancy Navarro in 2008 when she ran against Don Praisner. If the Kramers and Praisners were so close, why did the Kramer family patriarch oppose Don Praisner?
This is just one story in Montgomery County’s long history of contentious campaigns. We’ll recount that history in Part Two.
Five Ways to Ensure Your Voting Rights
From the Montgomery County Board of Elections.
Contact: Marjorie Roher, 240-777-8525
For Immediate Release: April 9, 2009
Five Ways to Ensure Your Voting Rights
Montgomery County Election Director, Margaret Jurgensen, encourages registered voters to vote and offers assurances that voters’ rights will be protected. To help make the voting process smoother on April 21, 2009, Jurgensen suggests that voters follow instructions and allow enough time to cast a ballot, especially during the peak voting hours immediately before and after the workday.
Jurgensen offers these Election Day reminders:
1. BE ON TIME – Polling hours for all precincts are 7 a.m. until 8 p.m.
2. VOTE IN THE CORRECT PRECINCT – It is important for voters to go to the polling site for the precinct in which they are registered to vote. The correct polling location is listed above the mailing address on the sample ballot or you may contact the Montgomery County Board of Elections office at 240-777-VOTE or visit www.777vote.org or www.montgomerycountymd.gov/elections (select Polling Place Locator on our home page).
3. ID MAY BE REQUIRED – First-time voters in Montgomery County may be required to show proper identification. A driver’s license or official document including the voter’s name and address are acceptable. It is also helpful to bring voter registration cards, however, it is not required to vote.
4. FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THE VOTING DEVICE - Citizens are encouraged to visit http://www.mdvotes.org/demo.php for a live demonstration of the Touchscreen Voting machine. Becoming familiar with the voting machine prior to arriving at the polling place will help make the voting experience as seamless as possible.
5. FILL OUT SAMPLE BALLOT AND TAKE TO THE POLLING PLACE – Sample ballots contain important information on which candidates will appear on a ballot, how to operate the voting machines, and where voters are assigned to vote. Voters should read it carefully, make selections, and take it to the polling place to use as a guide – the voting process will be easier as a result.
Voters should not hesitate to ask for assistance. Election officials are trained to assist voters with physical disabilities and answer questions about the voting process. The ballot is available in both English and Spanish. Voters for whom English is a second language are encouraged to bring an interpreter to the polling place to help them with the voting process. In addition, if a mistake is made on a ballot, the voter should notify the election official immediately and corrective measures will be taken.
For clarification of these, or other voting questions, contact the Montgomery County Board of Elections at 240-777-VOTE.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Special Interest Contributions in the District 4 Election: Update
By Drew Powell.
Posting today around 11:00 AM, finally in is Nancy Navarro’s April 10th filing with the Maryland State Board of Elections. The BOE confirmed that the Navarro campaign accrued $100.00 in fines for this late filing. It is true that the BOE makes lots of mistakes (like Kramer’s loans), but one has to wonder, in which category does this most recent late filing fall? The possibilities are: 1.) the BOE messed up, 2.) the Navarro campaign filed late.
Consider the first possibility: The BOE makes lots of mistakes; it’s no secret that they are understaffed and asked to do a lot with a little bit of funding. They are reliant on the campaigns to do their jobs right and to preferably file using the ELECTrack system, which makes things much easier on BOE officials. It’s a big job, with lots of room for error. During the past week, I spoke with at least three different staffers in the BOE’s campaign finance division. They assured me that the problem with the late Navarro filing was not on their end. If indeed, there was some kind of ELECTrack issue, why then did the Navarro campaign not express mail or hand deliver the data on a disc? All other District 4 candidates filed on time.
Possibility two, it was the fault of the Navarro campaign: First, let’s look at history; has Navarro ever filed late? Yes. Since her first filing with the BOE in August 2006, Navarro has filed late 17 times out of 31 (inclusive of reports and audits). She has received a total of $3,120.00 of fines and penalties. On five occasions the Navarro campaign requested a BOE waiver and was denied all five times. Additionally, the BOE has requested amendments for 19 of her reports… all of this in fewer than three years.
One might ask that if Navarro can’t manage a $100K campaign, is she capable of handling a $4B county budget? One thing is for certain, when you file your campaign finance report (late) on the Friday before the primary, it can’t possibly post on the BOE/UMD web site any sooner then the Monday before the election. This means it can’t be seen by concerned voters or receive the scrutiny of the press. This looks like it was taken out of the City of Rockville’s play book, where the mayor and council recently voted to obfuscate most campaign finance data until after the City Election.
Using the data in the just-filed report, an update has been performed for the “Nancy Navarro Campaign Finance Analysis 2009 Special Election” spread sheet. In the 2008 District 4 Special Election Navarro accepted $75,000.00 (67% of her total contributions) from development related sources. During this same period last year, she garnered 15% of those development related dollars and went on to declare the remaining 85% after the primary. Between TWO groups, development related interests and unions, Navarro received 84% of all her 2008 funding. This year Navarro’s development related take is 28% thus far. I look forward to her “Pre-General and “Post-General” campaign finance reports.
What you can do? As I have mentioned, it costs a lot of money to run a successful campaign. Don’t complain if candidates take too much money from special interests, if you’re not willing to give some yourself. If only a tiny percentage of the electorate gave $10, $20 or $50 to the candidates of their choice, those candidates would not have to turn to special interests to fund their campaigns. As an over simplified estimate, every mailing piece costs about $1. If you give $50, that’s about 50 more people, who will hear that candidate’s message. What difference can that make? The 2006 District 15 race for Maryland State House was won by 152 votes. If you can’t give money, give your time. Help with phone banks, stuffing envelopes, leafleting, working the polls, etc. Remember, Democracy is a participatory sport for all citizens.
Absentee and Provisional Ballots Counted Following Election
Following is the press release from the Montgomery County Board of Elections.
Contact: Marjorie Roher, 240-777-8525
For Immediate Release: April 20, 2009
Absentee and Provisional Ballots Counted Following Election
Voters who are unable to vote in person on Election Day and have requested an absentee ballot, as well as those voters who vote a provisional ballot on Election Day, will have their votes counted in the days following the election. The unofficial results released on election night contain only those votes cast on voting machines in the polling place.
The absentee and provisional ballots are counted during special canvass sessions held during the weeks following the election. The results of the canvasses are then included with the Election Day totals and released as the official election results. The canvasses, which are open to the public, begin at 10 a.m. and are held at the Montgomery County Board of Elections, 751 Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville. Canvasses for the 2009 Special Primary Election begin on: Domestic Absentee Canvass, April 23; Provisional Canvass, April 27; and Absentee 2 Canvass, May 1.
###
Fact Check: Kramer’s Challenge to Navarro on Guns
Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) has shown his displeasure with Nancy Navarro’s negative mailers in recent debates. But one reference to a gun vote has attracted special ire and caused Kramer to issue a dramatic challenge. At stake is Kramer’s entire candidacy – and that’s according to Kramer himself.
Kramer disputes this statement from one of Navarro’s mailers:NRA & the Gun Lobby: Ben Kramer sponsored pro-gun legislation, making it easier to buy handguns in Maryland, that was touted by a Republican blog as a “step in the right direction.” The Washington Post noted “adding guns to an already combustible situation is likely to lead to more violence.”
By the Riderwood forum last Thursday, Kramer began pushing back against this allegation. One of his volunteers quoted him as making the following challenge:If Nancy Navarro can find one bill that I sponsored or voted for that weakens gun control protections, I will resign from this race. But if she can’t, I want her to stand up on Election Day with a sign that says, “I apologize to Ben Kramer.”
I heard Kramer state the challenge in a slightly different way at Friday’s Leisure World debate:If Nancy Navarro can point to a single vote by me to make handguns easier to buy in Maryland, I’ll withdraw from the race. Otherwise, she should apologize with a sign on the street on Election Day saying that “I was wrong about Ben Kramer.”
So did Ben Kramer support weakening gun control protections or making it easier to buy handguns? What are we going to see on Election Day: a big withdrawal or a big sign?
The focus of the dispute is HB 359, a bill that was lead-sponsored by Republican Delegate Tony McConkey (R-33A) and co-sponsored by Kramer and three others. The bill’s fiscal and policy note summarizes its purpose this way:This bill requires the Secretary of State Police to issue a handgun permit to a victim of domestic violence who has been issued a temporary or final protective order, assuming the individual meets other statutory handgun permit requirements. Specifically, the bill adds an individual who has been issued a temporary or final protective order to those individuals who, after meeting other statutory handgun permit requirements, are deemed to have a “good and substantial reason” to wear, carry, or transport a handgun.
The bill was extremely controversial. Advocates claimed it would help abuse victims defend themselves. Opponents claimed it would have unintended consequences. Consider these statements from one Baltimore City Delegate:Del. Cheryl D. Glenn (D-Baltimore), who last week rose on the floor to passionately recount her own experiences as the victim of violent beatings by an ex-husband in the 1970s, urged the bill’s defeat.
The Washington Post had these reservations about a similar Senate amendment:
“I can tell you as a victim, if I had had access to a gun at my most serious instances of domestic violence, I would have used it,” Glenn said. “Killing someone would have changed who I am today.”Victims’ advocates and law enforcement officers have serious concerns about the amendment. They worry that an abuser could discover a firearm hidden by a victim or wrestle away a gun during a dispute. It takes considerable training, police officials note, to be able to effectively wield a gun in self-defense. There’s another wrinkle: An abuser could misleadingly claim to be a victim of domestic violence and file for a protective order. This would rush a gun into the hands of someone capable of violence. And police officers called to domestic disputes could find themselves in greater danger.
In the end, the House bill was defeated 86-51. Kramer and Luiz Simmons (D-17) were the only Montgomery Delegates who voted for it.
Let’s evaluate Kramer’s challenge.
1. Does the bill make it easier to buy guns?
The bill never uses the term “buy.” It does require the Secretary of State Police to issue a permit to “carry, wear or transport a handgun” to applicants who have received a protective order from a judge. (An amendment changed the language to allow the Secretary to “consider” those protective orders as criteria for the permits.)
The bill’s fiscal and policy note states that 17,427 temporary protective orders and 9,104 final protective orders were granted by Maryland judges in fiscal year 2007. The note assumes that 10% of eligible individuals would apply for permits if the bill was passed, resulting in 1,700 to 1,800 additional applications per year. The bill estimates that the state would earn $130,500 more per year in permit application fees but would pay out an extra $240,600-$306,800 annually for the hire of two additional state troopers to process the applications.
Guns can only be obtained in one of two ways: by purchase or by theft. Most abuse victims are incapable of conjuring guns out of thin air. (If they could do that, there would be a lot less abuse!) Furthermore, individuals who steal guns rarely apply for permits for them. It defies common sense that a bill allowing thousands of people to more easily obtain permits would not result in more gun purchases.
Kramer is splitting hairs. Plain and simple, this bill would have allowed more people to legally buy guns – 1,700-1,800 in all per year. Whether those guns would have served a good purpose is a legitimate subject of debate.
2. Does the bill weaken gun control regulations?
Buried in the fiscal and policy note is this statement:DSP [Department of State Police] has questioned whether, after an order has expired, a handgun permit properly issued under the bill would still be valid. If not, the permit and the weapon might have to be forfeited. Because it takes about 120 days for the actual issuance of a printed permit, and because temporary protective orders can only be issued for 30 days, it would seem likely that those persons not issued a subsequent final order will have had the basis for issuance expire.
This is an important point that received no attention during the debate over the bill. A temporary protective order only lasts 30 days, but a gun permit takes 120 days to process. What happens if a temporary protective order expires but the gun permit is issued anyway? The individual who receives the permit would no longer have a legal basis for possessing it. The prospect of hundreds, maybe thousands of individuals obtaining gun permits without a current legal basis for having them is definitely a weakening of gun control regulations.
Kramer’s challenge fails. Will he withdraw?
Update: Ann Marimow really fell down on the job this time. Her rushed Washington Post article makes no reference to the above facts. She did not bother to read the bill or its fiscal and policy note, a serious disservice to her readers.
Navarro Opposes Wheaton Library Move
Nancy Navarro's campaign has been sending this postcard into precincts near Wheaton.
The Strange Case of Kramer’s Mystery Money Loans… Solved
By Drew Powell.
In the April 17th post, “Special Interest Contributions in the District 4 Election” I reported that I was unable to find $42,000 in loans Ben Kramer made to himself during the 2009 District 4 Special Election.
The Maryland State Board of Elections (BOE) shows Kramer receiving $23,000.00 in loans as reported in his “Montgomery Special 2009 Pre-Primary 1 Filing” (03/24/2009) and $27,000.00 as noted in his “Montgomery Special 2009 Pre-Primary 2 Filing” (04/10/2009). The BOE also shows Kramer going from $130,450.00 in “Total Outstanding Obligations” to $180,450.00 during that same period. If you click on the “23,000.00” or “27,000.00” loan figures on either “Montgomery Special 2009 Pre-Primary Report” page it takes you to the same loan summery page 1 of 2. So far so good. This page shows loans made by Kramer to himself since March 2006 and shows ONE loan in the amount of $8,000.00 on February 11, 2009 (part of the 2009 District 4 Special Election cycle).
Now it gets interesting, at the bottom of the loan summary page, you then click on the “page 2” link. What you get is another summary page for Mr. Kramer’s contributions, NOT page 2 of the loan summary page. Try as you may, when it comes to page 2, ‘you can’t get there from here.” The link simply does not exist on the State Board of Elections web site. This leaves a difference of $42,000.00. Where are those loans? When did Kramer receive them? How many separate loans were there and in what amounts? In the April 17th post, I referred to the missing loan data as “mystery money loans.” I was told by a few folks in the know (including the BOE), that since Kramer ran for delegate, the loans could be in “other accounts.” However, there is only ONE “Friends of Ben Kramer” account and if Kramer loaned himself money, that’s where it would appear.
Finally, I started to think; what if this was a BOE database or University of Maryland web error. Don’t ask me why, but the State Board of elections commissioned the University of Maryland to provide all its web services starting in August 2006. It may have reduced the BOE’s costs and/or liability, but it certainly has increased the time it takes to get data posted by at least one to two business days (take Navarro’s late filing for example, which just posted late this morning, even though it was received by the BOE around noon Friday) and has increased the time it takes to correct errors.
After examining the link structures, I tried a manually correct link to try and pull up the missing page 2… and it worked! You can’t get to page two on the BOE/UMD campaign finance web site, but you CAN on “Maryland Politics Watch.” Click on MPW Page 2 to view. Up pops the missing $42,000.00.
The loans reported are as follows:
It looks like Mr. Kramer has a very handy checkbook. How did he make all his money again?
Final Campaign Forum Draws a Crowd
By Sharon Dooley.
It was standing room only at the Marilyn J. Praisner Library in the Fairland area Saturday as the District 4 candidates squared off in the final event of the primary campaign. Co-sponsored by the African American Democratic club and the District 14 Democratic cubs, the event allowed the candidates to hone their messages before the partisan crowd. In alpha order, those attending were Robert Goldman, Ben Kramer, Cary Lamari and Nancy Navarro; Tom Hardman arrived more than one hour late, apologized without explanation and sat down.
All candidates stuck to the themes and messages that they have brandished throughout the campaign and there were few news items or jabs across the table.
Lamari kept to his populist message and was clearly the most animated and demonstrably passionate of the group. His speaking about the 14th amendment in an attempt to tie it to the ambulance fees and equal protection seemed to be off base. His anti- ICC message was an audience favorite. He also mentioned that he was mostly self-funding his campaign, although with significantly fewer dollars than his two main opponents.
Goldman talked about his neighborhood and his wife and children who were present and still seems to be running to govern Burtonsville. (Too bad it isn’t a municipality.) He did speak also about volunteerism, minorities and juvenile justice – where he volunteers.
Hardman had short, somewhat rambling responses and when given a chance to ask his audience a question, tried to determine which topics ranked highest on their list of concerns. He seemed surprised that taxes were not picked as a primary issue and that jobs, healthcare and housing were ranked higher.
School Board member Navarro was better and more confident in her answers, which seemed less tentative than they had been at the first forum; she smiled more and seemed to relate well to the audience, many of whom were persons of color. She spoke frequently of the majority minority designation of District 4. Several of her answers were brought back to her strong point – matters before the board of education, although this was not always relevant. Oddly, she did not forcefully ask the audience for their vote.
Delegate Kramer had an up and down day. Knowledgeable and succinct, his answers were generally to the direction of the questions asked, but at times, he did not seem to reach out well to the audience, smiling infrequently. Discussions of race were minimal in his answers in a room that called out for such a dialogue. Despite this, he was clearly informed and informative in his responses, speaking well about the foreclosure issue, for example.
All candidates had partisans in the audience: Lamari stickers were noted across the room, Eric Bernard of the Volunteer Firefighters was called out by Lamari for not supporting him when they had in the past – this group endorsed Kramer this time. Council member Valerie Ervin was in attendance – her support for Navarro is well known. (I am unsure if Council member Leventhal – a Navarro supporter - was in the crowd; someone said they saw him, but I did not.) Senator Rona Kramer was there in support of her brother, as was Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg who also supports him.
So it is about all over now except for the shouting. Several friends who live in District 4 have mentioned that the mailings, phone calls and voice mails have been pretty heavy. Negative campaigning is said to be getting worse, with many, in my informal survey, indicating that Navarro’s mailings were the most misleading. I have not seen them apart from the postings done by MPW, but it has been seen that negative ads work, even while being decried by the voters. Turnout is likely to be the key and a repeat of the low approximately 8% or so seen last year is not unlikely. So – it seems that the voters will speak on Tuesday – I expect a close race between Navarro and Kramer and would not venture a guess as to the winner, but I believe that the winner will take Leisure World, where turnout is expected to be larger than elsewhere. Leisure World might then control the deciding precincts.
My message to District 4 voters is – get out and vote on Tuesday. Make a difference in this county by casting a ballot for the candidate that can best represent you and will work hard for Montgomery County’s future.
Sharon Dooley
District 18 End of Session Letter
Following is the letter sent by Senator Rich Madaleno and Delegates Ana Sol Gutierrez, Jeff Waldstreicher and Al Carr.
April 14, 2009
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
This week marked the end of the 426th legislative session of the Maryland General Assembly. In prior years, we have each prepared individual end-of-session letters. This year, we decided to conserve resources by forgoing our four letters and instead prepared this single, joint letter.
It is an honor and privilege to represent the people of District 18 in the State House. The four of us work hard as a team to advance your interests. During the past 90 days, we have benefited from your advice and counsel during our deliberations on a wide range of issues. We appreciate the thousands of e-mails, postcards, letters, phone calls, and office visits we received.
With state revenues suffering from the effects of the global economic downturn, the state budget was a focal point of discussion this session. In the face of a billion dollar budget deficit, we passed a $13.8 billion balanced 2010 budget, 3.3% smaller than 2009. In doing so, we worked hard to protect Maryland’s critical support of public education and its commitment to our most vulnerable citizens. Two of us -- Sen. Rich Madaleno and Del. Ana Sol Gutiérrez -- serve on the budget committees in our respective chambers. We reined in future spending, cutting more than $825 million from the budget overall while leaving an ample Rainy Day Fund. We were also able to secure a record level of state investment for the Montgomery County Public Schools ($624.4 million). In addition, we blocked attempts to transfer responsibility of the state-controlled teacher retirement system to the county.
We successfully fought to defend Gov. O’Malley’s tuition freeze at our state universities and increase funding for community colleges. Maryland is one of only a few states nationally that balanced its budget without significant tuition increases. We also worked to protect our investment in community services for Marylanders with physical and developmental disabilities.
Your District 18 Team also championed a number of issues related to energy and the environment. Del. Al Carr serves as a strong voice for our community on these issues on the Environmental Matters Committee. The District 18 Team championed bills to strengthen forest conservation laws, increase community participation in environmental decisions, and accelerate Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts. These new laws will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the discharge of harmful phosphorus into the Bay. We passed a bill to improve septic systems located near our vulnerable tidal wetlands.
We also successfully advocated for and passed all of the Governor's Smart, Green, & Growing initiative, an effort to curb sprawl by directing growth toward priority areas that have existing infrastructure. In addition, we passed legislation that improves the counties’ ability to invest in revitalization and transit-oriented development. After much debate, we were unfortunately unable to pass legislation to re-regulate the electric utility market.
We also worked hard this year to ensure the safety of our community and preserve our civil rights and liberties. A member of the Judiciary Committee, Del. Jeff Waldstreicher championed these issues. As you may know, in a widespread scandal, the Maryland State Police were found spying on peaceful activists such as antiwar protesters. The District 18 Team worked extensively to pass legislation to end this unconstitutional practice. He also led the effort to ban texting while driving, an extremely dangerous and distracting practice. In the area of child protection, the General Assembly passed two bills, authored by Del. Waldstreicher, making possession of child pornography a felony and allowing social service agencies to share crucial information to protect our most vulnerable children. These bills will be signed into law by Gov. O’Malley.
Driver’s licenses for undocumented residents and federal Real ID compliance became the dominant, controversial issue at the end of session. The final compromise, reached minutes before adjournment, changes the law to require proof of lawful presence for all new licenses issued after June 1, 2009. Current foreign-born license holders who cannot prove lawful status are permitted to keep their licenses until July 1, 2015. All license renewals will require proof of legal status and full compliance with Real ID after that date. We worked with our Montgomery County colleagues to reject more extreme measures that would have negatively impacted public safety and led to a significant increase in unlicensed and uninsured drivers on our roads.
Working together, we passed several bills aimed at improving local services, including one authored by Del. Carr to increase the transparency of procurement decisions made by the county school system. The delegation also secured $675,000 to renovate the MacDonald Knolls Center, a service center for the developmentally disabled in Silver Spring, and $175,000 to help complete the LEDC’s small business center in Wheaton.
Over the next few weeks, we will be preparing individual responses to many of the letters and e-mails we received during the session. We will also be posting items to our blog, Generally Assembled (Maryland18.blogspot.com). In addition, the General Assembly’s website (mlis.state.md.us) contains a great deal of information about our work, including the soon-to-be-released 90 Day Report. We hope you will continue to share your thoughts and concerns with us. Our individual contact information is listed below if you are interested in our individual positions on specific issues.
Thank you again for your comments and support this year.
Senator Rich Madaleno
richard.madaleno@senate.state.md.us
301.858.3137
Delegate Ana Sol Gutiérrez
ana.gutierrez@house.state.md.us
301.858.3181
Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher
jeff.waldstreicher@house.state.md.us
301.858.3130
Delegate Al Carr
alfred.carr@house.state.md.us
301.858.3110
Ben Kramer Repeats Broken Pledge at Leisure World
In Friday’s District 4 debate at Leisure World, Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) said, “I have not taken and agreed that I would not take money from developers in this campaign.”
That’s a nice line. But it’s not true.
Kramer originally pledged not to take developer contributions to Alison Klumpp according to Maryland Moment. Let’s put aside the issue of whether Kramer is himself a developer (although he admitted to building two commercial projects to Just Up the Pike’s Dan Reed). In a post on April 7, we identified a former part-owner of Home Properties Inc. and a commercial leasing lawyer as Kramer contributors. In yesterday’s post, we identified another contributor who was an officer of a medical office building owner. Whether they are “development interests” as Drew Powell might refer to them can be argued. But there can be no dispute about another Kramer contributor: Josh Rales, who gave him $1,000 on 2/25/09.
Josh Rales is a Republican-turned-Democrat from Potomac who ran for U.S. Senate in 2006. The corporate stub for his company, RFI Associates, classifies it is an “apartment operator,” one of many in Bethesda. Yellowbot says the company is in “real estate investments.”
On his YouTube site, Rales said, “In 1984, I founded RFI Associates, and over the last 21 years, I have built RFI into one of the leading investment companies in the area, specializing in acquiring, renovating, and overseeing real estate projects.” A Maryland Moment article from 7/26/06 refers to him as “a Montgomery County real estate developer and philanthropist” who poured over $1.4 million into his own campaign. An 8/11/06 Washington Post article says this:For more than a decade, Rales made millions of dollars in real estate development and investments in the Maryland suburbs. In the past few years, he said, he has sold all of his investments in preparation for a run for public office.
But a 4/20/07 Gazette article refers to him as a “real estate investor.” And in his federal contribution filings, he repeatedly refers to himself as a “real estate investor” as recently as 9/2/08. By his own filings, Rales himself states that he is still in the industry that made him a fortune – ownership and development of property.
Furthermore, Kramer says nothing about independent expenditures made on his behalf by the Maryland Realtors PAC. Check the authority line at the bottom of these two mailers.
When Kramer tells a large group of seniors that he rejects developer money while the real estate industry is sending independent mailings promoting his candidacy all over the district, he may not be violating the letter of his pledge. But he is being deliberately duplicitous.
We are not naïve about statements made by politicians. Navarro’s negative mailers have become an issue during the campaign. Some believe they state unfair characterizations of Kramer’s voting record in the General Assembly. They are a legitimate subject of debate.
But unlike Navarro, Kramer made a pledge and still makes it even though he broke it weeks ago. Ever since we exposed Kramer’s reliance on the real estate industry (a contention backed up by neutral former Neighborspac Executive Director Drew Powell, who estimated Kramer’s development-related contribution percentage at 97%), his campaign has gone silent on the issue. And Kramer still repeats his broken pledge, even standing 20 feet away from me and looking into my camera at the Leisure World debate. Development contributions are an issue for some in the county but basic integrity is an issue for us all. And now I am calling out Ben Kramer’s campaign.
Return Josh Rales’ money and repudiate the mailings of the Maryland Realtors PAC.
Or retract your pledge.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Phil Andrews Meets Bernadette Peters
Montgomery County's Council President met the world-famous Bernadette Peters at the Strathmore last night. In an MPW exclusive, Phil Andrews confesses all!
Adam,
I was the luckiest guy at Strathmore last night. I was sitting with my wife, Staci, watching the effervescent Bernadette Peters sing, "There is Nothing Like a Dame" from the musical South Pacific, when she approached the steps to the stage and started down. Since I was sitting in the seat closest to the steps, Ms. Peters would have had to consciously pass me by to serenade someone else. Demonstrating great kindness, she stopped in front of me, leaned over and sung to me from inches away for at least a couple of stanzas -- at which point she turned to Staci, asked "Is he with you?" and then said something very kind about me.
Although, as far as I know, there are no photographs, video or sound recordings of the event, none could match the experience of the moment.
Phil
Nancy King's End of Session Letter
Following is the letter from District 39's Senator.
April 18, 2009
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
The 2009 Legislative Session has come to a close and I would like to share with you news about the issues and initiatives in which I have been involved. I would also like to thank you for contacting my office with your thoughts and concerns about the budget and bills that were introduced. I am pleased that over one thousand residents of District 39 contacted me, as it is your thoughts on legislative issues that guide my decisions.
The Budget
As a member of the Budget & Taxation Committee, this 2009 Session presented us with very difficult decisions as we worked through the process of passing a balanced budget in this economic downturn. The process was further challenged this year as revenue estimates continued to tumble during the 90 days we were in session. It was my position throughout that we not raise any taxes which would place a further burden on our citizens who were already feeling the pinch of a global economic crisis. We were successful in accomplishing that goal. And while we cut over $850 million from the budget, we were able to protect core priorities like K-12 education.
Real ID and Driver's Licenses
The House of Delegates voted out a bill which would allow those without documentation of legal presence to be able to renew their license but that license could not be used for identification purposes to board a plane or enter a federal building. The Senate amended that bill and passed a version which would end the issuance of licenses to undocumented immigrants and removed the proposed "two-tiered" system of licensure. Members of the Senate and House met to work out a compromise bill. I voted in favor of that compromise which does the following: prohibits the issuance of a driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants after June 1, 2009; allows a window for undocumented immigrants who hold current licenses to prove legal presence; voids all licenses issued to undocumented immigrants by July 1, 2015. While I preferred the bill that was originally amended and passed by the Senate, I feel the worst alternative would have been no bill at all.
Speed Cameras
The experience of speed cameras in Montgomery County has been varied. Since there are areas in our community where the cameras have caused traffic problems and have not increased safety, I voted against the speed cameras bill. The Senate reconsidered the issue and limited speed cameras to work zones and school zones. Based on assurances that the county would re-visit those cameras which are not in work and school zones, I agreed to vote for the bill.
The Death Penalty
I have been contacted by District 39 residents on this issue more than any other this session and the overwhelming majority are in favor of repeal. I have struggled with this difficult issue for many years; but after hearing enough evidence of the chance of executing an innocent person, I supported the repeal efforts this year. While a full repeal did not pass in the Senate, we did require more stringent evidentiary standards which will make the imposition of the death penalty more difficult and this version of the bill did pass. While disappointing to those in favor of repeal, these limitations are a step forward.
Re-regulation
I have heard from so many people about the increases in their energy bills and I have experienced the same at my home. The Senate passed a bill which would re-instate energy regulation in the state, but I voted against it and here is why: first, I felt the bill was hastily drafted and came to us late in the session. There were many questions about the bill that could not be answered and many concerns about what re-regulation would do to emerging energy production sources like solar, geothermal and wind power. Even the proponents of the bill were quick to point out that this would not save consumers any money in the short term and in fact the bill required the imposition of new fees to all state consumers. The House of Delegates voted unfavorably on this bill so it did not pass this session. Re-regulation may be the best way for the state to proceed, but I think an issue as important and complex as this one should be studied over the interim for the best possible outcome for Maryland's citizens.
Bills that I sponsored in this 2009 Session which have been passed by the Legislature and are headed to Governor O'Malley for his signature:
SB550 - Child Online Safety Act of 2009 will require Internet access providers to make available to their subscribers a product or service which enables the subscriber to restrict, monitor or completely block their child's use of the Internet. The United States courts have continued to uphold the right to free speech on the Internet but have been vocal in their support of tools such as filtering and blocking technologies. Senate Bill 550 will empower parents to allow their children to benefit from all the Internet has to offer while protecting them from those sites that may cause them harm.
SB800 - Biotechnology Investment Incentive Tax Credit Program - In 2005, the Biotechnology Investment Incentive Tax Credit Program was established to encourage investment in the growing biotechnology industry. Senate Bill 800 simply clarifies two aspects of the program by defining language and timeframes for credits. The biotech industry is critical to the economic growth of the state and the I-270 corridor in particular. These clarifications will allow the Biotechnology Investment Incentive Tax Credit program to move forward and help build an industry which has the capacity for significant job growth in Maryland.
SB 413 - Committee on Children, Youth, and Families - Repeal of Sunset - In 1999, the Joint Committee on Children, Youth and Families was created to focus on issues related to the education, health, safety and economic well-being of children in Maryland. This Committee, of which I am the current Chair, continues to provide a forum for collaboration and coordination among all agencies and groups concerned with child welfare. In these times of economic crisis, it is as important as ever for state agencies, legislators and children's advocates to have a forum to explore new and cost effective ways to meet the needs of our children. The authorization for the Committee is set to expire on June 20, 2009; this bill will remove the sunset clause and allow the Joint Committee on Children, Youth and Families to continue its work.
SB234 - Education - Maryland's Preschool for All Business Plan - Final Report Requirements - Studies clearly show several educational benefits for children who attend high-quality preschool programs including greater academic achievement, lower rates of grade retention and higher rates of high school graduation. A 2007 Task Force on Universal Preschool Education report to the Governor recommended a program called Preschool for All. The Task Force charged Maryland State Department of Education to develop a business plan, including cost estimates for expanding the program. Senate Bill 234 requires MSDE to finalize that report with input from county school superintendents and local governing bodies. The report would include, among other things, a cost projection for the staged implementation of the finalized business plan, allowing us to look at the feasibility of implementing such a plan in Maryland.
SB305 - Mortality and Quality Review Committee - Sunset Extension and Membership - In 2006, legislation was enacted which required that incidents of injury or fatality that occur in a facility or program licensed or operated by the Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA) must be reported to the Mortality and Quality Review Committee. This committee takes that information and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) and the Secretary of Disabilities to prevent future avoidable injuries and deaths and improve quality care. The requirement to report certain data to that committee is set to expire in 2009. The new legislation will extend the reporting requirements for three more years and provide a continued commitment to the safety of a very vulnerable segment of our citizens.
SB621 - Sales and Use and Property Tax - Exemptions - Solar Energy Equipment and Property - During the 2008 Session, the Legislature passed a bill that exempted the purchase of specified solar energy and geothermal equipment from sales and use tax and exempted specific solar energy equipment from property tax. The Maryland Energy Administration determined that the language in that legislation could impose an unintended limitation. Electricity generated by a solar panel, along with use in a structure, can also be used to send electricity back to the power grid through net-metering. Senate Bill 621 makes a technical change to the current legislation which will accomplish the original intent of the legislation by including in the exemption equipment which supplies energy to the grid. The legislation passed last year with bipartisan support will encourage the use of renewable energy sources and help to create "green collar" jobs. The technical changes in Senate Bill 621 will allow Maryland to continue moving forward with its commitment to renewable energy.
Bond Bills
Along with passing state-wide legislation, I was successful in securing funding for three important District 39 projects. The first provides $40,000 for the addition and upgrading of lighting in the Northgate Homes Corp. Upgrading and adding equipment will improve the lighting levels in the community to ensure the residents' nighttime safety, security and productivity, and provide for safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians. The second provides $80,000 for repairs which will bring areas of the Lake Whetstone facility up to current code as well as extending the building and adding new windows. Lighting will be added for improved safety. The Lake Whetstone Facilities are enjoyed year round by the residents of Montgomery Village. These improvements will allow the residents to safely enjoy the facility for years to come. The final bond bill will provide $30,000 to upgrade group homes dedicated to adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Funding will provide for the necessary repairs in these homes and allow their tenants to continue living independent lives.
Bills I sponsored that did not get passed this session:
SB354 - Correctional Services - Crimes of Violence - Diminution Credits - Under current law, offenders convicted of crimes of violence (as defined in Title 14-101(a)), are eligible for parole upon completion of 50% of their sentence. If the parole board refuses parole for the offender, then the offender may use diminution (good behavior) credits to reduce their sentence. Senate Bill 354 would require those offenders convicted of crimes of violence, who have been denied parole, to continue to serve at least 85% of their sentence, no matter how many diminution credits they have earned. Unfortunately, this bill, which was heard in the Judicial Proceedings Committee, did not come out for a vote. I believe very strongly in the importance of this legislation and will work over the interim with public safety officials, Maryland prison system officials and the Judicial Proceedings Committee members to see how we can move this legislation forward.
SB799 - Health Care Facilities - Certificates of Need - Hospitals - Under current law, the Maryland Health Care Commission may only consider one application at a time for a new health care facility. Montgomery County has found itself in a unique position where two health care providers are looking to build new facilities in the upcounty. The legislation I proposed would have allowed the Health Care Commission to review the two applications simultaneously thus ensuring a more efficient process with the best outcome for the county. While the legislation did not pass, it did bring this issue to light and we have received assurances from the health care commission that they will do their best to review both applications before making any decisions. Go to the following link to read an op-ed which I wrote with Delegate Barkley on this issue: http://www.gazette.net/stories/02182009/montcol174835_32471.shtml
During the interim
I can be reached during the interim at my Annapolis office number - 301-858-3686 as well as by e-mail at nancy.king@senate.state.md.us. As always, I am honored to serve you here in Annapolis and I look forward to hearing from you on any issues or concerns you may have.
Sincerely,
Senator Nancy J. King
Paid for by Friends of Nancy King; Joli McCathran, Treasurer
District 4 Campaign Finance Reports, Part Two (Updated)
The second and last pre-primary reports due on April 10 are now mostly online. Nancy Navarro’s filing is not online but we obtained it directly from her campaign. Following are the cumulative receipts and spending totals for the candidates for both reports, as well as items of interest.
Ben Kramer
Beginning Balance: $316.44
Contributions: $2,875
Loans: $50,000
Expenditures: $50,118.54
End Balance: $3,072.90
Kramer has consistently led all candidates in receipts by loaning himself 95% of his campaign’s funding. His spending total is close to Nancy Navarro’s, but lags because she started with more than $40,000 left over from last year.
Kramer had five individual contributors since March 24 who gave him a combined $675, three of whom are newsworthy. Hilde Alter of Rockville gave him $100. Alter is the Chief Accounting Officer of Medical Office Properties Inc., a real estate manager based in Chevy Chase that once owned a portfolio of medical office buildings. Board of Education Member Laura Berthiaume defeated incumbent Steve Abrams in large part because of help from MCEA. That did not stop her from giving $100 to Kramer, who is running against MCEA-endorsed Nancy Navarro. And Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman, who endorsed Navarro in 2008, gave $200 to Kramer. That’s an interesting decision because the Town of Kensington is dependent on the District 5 County Council Member for constituent services. Unfortunately for Kensington residents, that Council Member is Valerie Ervin – Navarro’s strongest ally.
Kramer paid staffer Tom Smith (who used to work for Martin O’Malley and Marylanders United to Stop Slots) $4,000 this period. That makes Smith’s total take $8,000, more than what Kramer has paid former Praisner campaign manager Eric Hensal ($6,000). Kramer spent $21,030.52 this period on mailings and postage and $1,568.80 on printing and campaign materials. His biggest ad buy was a $675 purchase in Washington Jewish Week.
Cary Lamari
Beginning Balance: $0
Contributions: $4,432.24
Loans: $10,000
Expenditures: $4,260.54
End Balance: $10,171.70
Lamari led all candidates in contributions with $3,592.24 last time but only collected $840 in this period. Three contributors stand out. DiSalvatore Realty gave him $100. John DiSalvatore owns the shopping center property on the northwest corner of Georgia and Norbeck, right next to one of Ben Kramer’s properties. Dale Tibbitts, Council Member Marc Elrich’s Chief of Staff, gave him $100. And George Leventhal, one of four County Council Members who endorsed Navarro, contributed $100 to Lamari. When I asked Leventhal about that, he wrote me, “Cary Lamari asked me for a contribution and I was happy to respond. He is a dedicated and sincere advocate for Montgomery County neighborhoods.”
Lamari spent $2,361.46 on postage and $166.21 on printing and campaign materials in the most recent period. Lamari is known by many in Leisure World because of his activism on Georgia at Norbeck and on the ICC, but his total spending is likely not enough to build his name recognition in other parts of the district.
Nancy Navarro
Beginning Balance: $43,220.69
Contributions: $28,645
Loans: $0
Expenditures: $66,573.63
End Balance: $5,576.95
Navarro has received more in contributions (not including loans) than the rest of the candidates combined. Nineteen individuals and entities have given her $500 or more during this election so far. Collectively, they account for 76% of her receipts. They are:
SEIU MD/DC State Council: $3,000
BUILD-PAC of Maryland: $3,000
Mid-Atlantic Laborers Political Education Fund: $2,500
Friends of George Leventhal: $2,000
Democratic Women’s PAC of Maryland: $2,000
United Food & Commercial Workers Union: $1,000
Sheet Metal Workers Local 100: $1,000
MCGEO Local 1994: $1,000
James Soltesz, Potomac, MD: $1,000
Artery Development LLC: $750
Amalgamated Transit Union COPE Account: $500
Milagros McGuire, Bethesda, MD: $500
Hispanic Democratic Club: $500
Jeffrey Zane Slavin, Chevy Chase, MD: $500
David Weiss, Chevy Chase, MD: $500
Bethesda Center LLC, Washington, DC: $500
David D. Flanagan, McLean, VA: $500
R. William Hard, Potomac, MD: $500
Shirley Brandman, Bethesda, MD: $500
Soltesz is the CEO of Loiederman Soltesz Associates, a land development firm. Milagros McGuire and her husband, Dennis McGuire, are retirees who frequently contribute to Democratic candidates. Slavin is the President of C.J. O'Shaughnessy, Inc., a real estate firm, and is the Mayor of the Town of Somerset. Weiss is a member of the Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce. His company, Monty LLC, is a Montgomery County developer. Bethesda Center LLC’s address (3299 K St. NW Ste. 700) matches The Bernstein Companies, a major metropolitan development firm. Flanagan is President of Elm Street Development, a residential developer that built Clarksburg Village. Hard is the Executive Vice-President of LCOR, a development firm. Brandman is the current President of the Board of Education.
Other contributors of interest include Board of Education Member Chris Barclay ($175), District 20 Delegate Heather Mizeur ($150), former District 5 County Council candidate Hans Riemer ($150), Verizon Communications ($125) and Board of Education Member Judith Docca ($100).
During the 2009 special election, we estimate that labor unions supplied 31% of Navarro’s funding. In the first pre-primary report, SEIU Local 500 reported a $2,500 in-kind contribution for the services of Jackie Lichter, their political director who is now working as Navarro’s deputy campaign manager. No in-kind contribution appeared on the second report. We do not know of any union contributions to any other candidate besides Navarro.
Navarro spent $23,430 on media this period, an amount that far exceeded Kramer ($965.44) and every other candidate. Almost all of it went to TruPolitics LLC, a consulting firm based in Ellicott City. She paid salaries to three staffers: campaign manager David Moon ($3,500), Ken Silverman ($1,015) and Alexis Reed ($1,000). She has advertised on both CBS Radio ($900) and Radio America ($450). She is the only candidate to rent a campaign office.
Incidentally, while the State Board of Elections (SBE) does not have Navarro’s report, it was compiled one day before the April 10 deadline. That fits with her campaign’s claims that a transmission error prevented it from getting to SBE. As a campaign treasurer myself, I can attest to the problems with its atrocious ELECTrack software. See the date report on her submission below.
During the latest period, Republican Andrew Padula received $475, Green Party candidate George Gluck collected $230 and Democrat Thomas Hardman received $80. The other candidates do not have reports listed on the State Board of Elections website. These totals are simply not enough to mount a competitive campaign. In last year’s special election, Steve Kanstoroom loaned himself $47,573.96 and finished third in the Democratic primary with 10.76% of the vote. A candidate with no money and no name recognition has no chance.
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our Mid-Atlantic Regional Council gave Navarro $6,000 last year, the maximum amount allowed by the state. I have not donated any money to any District 4 candidate and am not volunteering for any of them.
Update: An informant points out that Elm Street and LCOR, two of Navarro’s contributors, specialize in projects near Metro stations. That fits with Navarro’s views on transit-oriented development.
