In a letter to members of the Columbia Country Club in Chevy Chase, club President J. Paul McNamara promises to launch a “grass roots campaign” to defeat the Purple Line.
Part of the Purple Line transit project is planned to run along an abandoned CSX right-of-way that stretches from Silver Spring to Bethesda. The right-of-way is currently used as a popular pedestrian and bicycle route known as the Capital Crescent Trail but was originally intended to be used at least partially for transit. The right-of-way runs through the country club’s golf course and thus defeat of a rail line is one of the club’s top priorities. Just Up the Pike ran an epic series on the issues surrounding the Purple Line and the trail last year and Silver Spring resident Wayne Phyillaier covers the trail-rail relationship regularly on his Finish the Trail blog.
In his letter, McNamara tells the country club members:Regarding the issue of the Purple Line and the proposed light rail connecting Bethesda, Silver Spring and New Carrollton, as I indicated at our annual meeting, this is a very critical issue for our Club. As a result, we have increased our community and government relations effort at both the state and federal level and will be working on several different fronts to promote the Club’s position and protect our long term interests. Specifically, we will be helping to launch a grassroots campaign to identify and organize a broad and diverse coalition of opponents to the current proposal for the Purple Line. Once organized, we will be partnering with neighborhood associations, citizens groups including those working to save the trail, as well as businesses and elected officials who will be impacted by this issue.
As you would expect, the implementation of this effort requires a commitment of financial resources. The Board of Governors believes that it is in the best interest of the Club to fund this effort. However, we are doing so within the context of a balanced budget for the fiscal year. We do not expect that this expenditure will have a material impact on the long term finances of the Club. We will keep a tight control on the spending for this effort and all funds will be allocated from our capital budget.
The Columbia Country Club has a long history of fighting the Purple Line. Between 2001 and 2006, four of the club’s current officers – President McNamara, First Vice President Joseph J. Brigati, Second Vice President Eugene A. Carlin and Secretary Martin Wiegand II – collectively contributed $4,600 to former Governor Robert Ehrlich and $550 to Senate Budget and Taxation Committee Chairman Ulysses Currie. (One can only imagine how much more was donated by the club’s full membership.) In September 2003, Ehrlich reciprocated, declaring that the Purple Line “will not go through the Country Club.” Robert Flanagan, his Transportation Secretary, explained, “The Governor happens to love golf.”
At the same time, then-District 18 Delegate and Chevy Chase resident John Hurson struck a deal with Ehrlich to route buses along Jones Bridge Road as a substitute for the Purple Line. In return, Hurson reversed his position on slots from opposition to support, matching Ehrlich’s agenda, and was promptly rewarded with a fundraiser by racetrack owner William Rickman Sr. Hurson and Ehrlich’s arrangement infuriated many Montgomery County politicians but no doubt delighted the country club’s members. The club’s announcement promises the potential for more events like the above.
To evaluate the club’s letter fairly, MPW readers need to remember three facts.
1. There is plenty of genuine grass-roots opposition to a Purple Line alignment on the trail. Whatever the country club’s membership, it is surely less than the 10,000 signatures collected by rail opponents.
2. Non-grass-roots interests exist on both sides. Ed Asher, President of the Chevy Chase Land Company, serves openly on the board of Purple Line Now. Asher is no mere train enthusiast – his company seeks to develop the land around a proposed Purple Line station on Connecticut Avenue. Asher is a prolific contributor to politicians, giving $12,000 to state and local candidates since 2000. The Chevy Chase Land Company gave $5,950 more.
3. The truth is that while the country club and Asher participate in Purple Line campaigns, neither controls them. Organizational leaders like the heads of the Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Coalition and Action Committee for Transit are the true strategists and seek suitable allies when they are available. This is a reasonable approach for anyone seeking to organize a civic (or labor) coalition.
But the universal rule of coalitions is this: you are judged based on your associations with other coalition members. If Purple Line opponents publicly (or even privately) embrace funding from the Columbia Country Club, they will damage their credibility in the long run. No Democratic Party or civic activist from outside Chevy Chase will harbor any sympathy for an effort they perceive to be connected to wealthy country club members – or through them, to former Republican Governor Robert Ehrlich.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Columbia Country Club Promises “Grass Roots Campaign” to Defeat Purple Line
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Are MoCo Public Employees Overpaid?
Yesterday, the Post reported on growing disagreements between Montgomery County leaders over compensation paid to county employees. Labor costs account for 80% of the county’s $4.3 billion budget and the county is facing a $297 million deficit. As a result, some county officials are scrutinizing employee contracts.
Council Member Phil Andrews told the Post that the county’s collective bargaining agreements were “unsustainable, unnecessary and unrelated to real-world economic conditions,” and said they should be rejected. Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg wants to know exactly what the county’s future obligations are under the contracts so the council can figure out how to pay for them. And the Post reported this tense exchange between Council President Mike Knapp and County Executive Ike Leggett:Council President Michael Knapp (D-Upcounty) said Leggett's approval of the contracts appears to run counter to his message about the need to slow down spending.
So are Montgomery County’s public employees overpaid? Let’s examine a range of issues connected to their compensation.
“One would have thought that a more conservative approach would have been taken,” Knapp said. “It looks like we're trying to play both sides. Do we have bad economic times, or do we need to have generous increases in our contracts?”
In a prepared statement, Leggett called the contracts “consistent with agreements throughout the region” and said Knapp does not fully understand collective bargaining. Leggett said he has limited flexibility because of past decisions by the council and the school system and because of the possibility of binding arbitration in the event of an impasse. He cited the council's approval in 2006 of a $13 million enhancement to pensions for school system employees.
“I believe the Council President voted in favor of additional pension enhancements and every collective bargaining agreement that has ever been placed before him, thereby establishing less than favorable conditions in which future executives must negotiate,” he said in the statement.
Wages
The Post points out that many wage increases in the county’s contracts are actually intended to catch up to higher pay levels in other jurisdictions. As an example, the Post looks at fire fighters:John Sparks, president of the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association, said the county is playing catch-up for its 1,050 firefighters and paramedics. Rookie firefighters are paid $39,997, compared with $44,301 in the District, $40,784 in Prince George's County and $47,472 in Fairfax County. Among jurisdictions such as Montgomery with more than 500,000 people, the average salary nationally is $44,275 for starting firefighters.
Consider the county’s teachers. The Washington Area Boards of Education (WABE) estimates the total compensation cost of a teacher paid $60,000 in salary in nine of the metro area’s jurisdictions. Montgomery compensates such a teacher $81,792, above only Prince George’s County ($78,720). Montgomery trails Arlington County, the leader, by 7.1%.
WABE also reports the starting salary of a step 1 teacher with a bachelors degree in Montgomery as $44,200. The average sale price of an existing townhouse in the county was $364,000 a year ago. A simple analysis with a mortgage calculator and a spreadsheet generates some interesting revelations. If this starting teacher put down 10% of the townhouse’s value, took out a 30-year mortgage at a 6% fixed rate and paid $2,500 per year in property taxes, he or she would owe 59% of pre-tax salary per month to make the payments. A step 9 teacher with a masters degree makes $64,498 and would owe 40% of his or her pretax monthly salary for the mortgage and property tax payments on the same townhouse.
How can this be considered excessive pay?
You can view a breakdown of county salary schedules here.
Pensions
Government jobs used to be known for having modest salaries but great retirement benefits. This is not the case in Montgomery County. Since 1994, the county’s Employees’ Retirement System, its defined benefit plan, has been closed to new employees other than public safety workers. Currently only 5,294 of the county’s workers have county-funded defined benefit pensions. The county’s 11,486 teachers are covered by Maryland’s State Retirement and Pension System. This means that half of the county’s total workforce of 38,000 must rely only on a defined contribution pension plan for retirement. Most of Montgomery’s neighbors continue to grant their employees defined benefits.
Health Care
The county is projecting payments of $80.7 million for group health insurance premiums for its workforce next year (and that does not include school employees). It also projects $2.6 billion in future liabilities for retiree health benefits and is phasing in annual contributions towards those liabilities which will rise to $259 million after the next five years. Montgomery is not the only county facing a large liability for retiree health care: Howard reports a $477 million liability, Anne Arundel reports a $1.3 billion liability and Prince George’s reports a $2.7 billion liability. None of them approach Los Angeles County, California, which will have to deal with a $20 billion liability. This is clearly a lot of money so why not cut health coverage for county employees?
There are two problems with that. First, county employees already pay 20% of their health costs. Raising that percentage would be effectively a wage cut. Second, cutting health benefits will not decrease illness among public employees. They will continue to seek care in local hospitals. And in Maryland, state law provides that hospitals are reimbursed for their cost of uncompensated care (which totaled $734 million in 2006). Where does this money come from? About 90% is covered by allowing hospitals to charge higher rates that are determined partially by their uncompensated care experience. The remaining 10% comes from an assessment imposed on hospitals equaling 0.75% of their net patient revenues. Virtually all of this money comes back to taxpayers because government entities (like Medicare and Medicaid), premium-charging insurance companies and patients wind up ultimately paying the higher rates charged by the hospitals. In the end, if county employees get less health coverage, we will all pay for their health costs anyway. The only difference is that, with less coverage, county employees would be less likely to seek preventative care and more likely to use emergency rooms, thus driving up health care costs for everyone.
Recruitment and Retention
Consider the view of a talented prospective job applicant pondering whether to accept employment with the Montgomery County government. Unless that applicant is seeking a public safety or teacher job, he or she will not get a defined benefit pension. Unless the person is qualified for a top management job, he or she will be unlikely to afford a home in the county without assistance. He or she will be able to make more money in the District, Arlington County, Fairfax County or perhaps even Prince George’s County. For this applicant to commit to Montgomery, he or she will have to believe that Montgomery will one day pay at least as much as its neighbors and the applicant will someday be able to afford in-county housing. Otherwise, it makes little financial sense to work for Montgomery County and the best applicants will go elsewhere.
Competitiveness
Finally, an important part of the economic bedrock of Montgomery County is its superior level of government services – especially its public schools. When the county invests in its schools, it provides a powerful reason for businesses and residents to want to live here and create jobs here. Without top-grade public services, we will increasingly be seen as merely a high-cost jurisdiction in the metropolitan Washington area – and what happens to our economic competitiveness then?
It’s in the best interest of county taxpayers to attract and retain the best public employees to work for them. We do have to figure out how to pay for them. But spreading the mythology that county employees are overpaid will not get us there.
Council District 4 Race -- The School Board and the Budget
This past Sunday the Sandy Spring Civic Association / Sherwood ES PTA held a debate at Sherwood ES. One of the first questions was on the three budget priorities for the school of the eight candidates (four Republicans and four Democrats).
This is a loaded question. Here's why: The school board takes over 50% of the entire MoCo Budget (about $2 billion annually) and we are facing a $297 million shortfall in the MoCo Budget. It is a critical question because it raises questions on how we can afford a 8% increase for school staff -- mostly union employees of MCEA (the teachers) and the SEIU (the support staff) -- during an economic downturn that was negotiated by the elected School Board, headed by Nancy Navarro. Personnel costs are 89% of the entire school budget and personnel costs are 80% of the entire MoCo Budget.
So answering this question of budget priorities for the school system gets to how we are going to fund our entire budget. Do we give the unions representing school employees an 8% increase (just under $100 million) during a recession? Or do we hold the line on increasing costs? If we agree to an 8% increase we need to find the money.
The revenue sources are limited. In MoCo we are at our tax cap on our local portion of the state income tax of 3.2% (generating $1.286 in FY08). That leaves us to find increases in property taxes (currently $12.07 million) or increases in transfer fees ($128 million) or Recordation Taxes ($72 million). The latter two (Transfer Fees and Recordation Taxes) are declining because of the downturn in the local real estate market. So if a candidate is for full funding of Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) then we have to either hack at the other 50% of the MoCo budget or increase our property taxes -- since the other revenue sources are capped (state income tax) or are declinding (Transfer Fees and Recordation Taxes). Source for all figures handout from Ike Leggett at a Town Hall Meeting on March 12, 2008.
So listen to the four Democrats and make up your own mind as how we should fully fund education in a recession.
As part of full disclosure here at Maryland Politics Watch (MPW), I am a District 4 Resident and I support Don Praisner. I came to that conclusion after sitting down with 2 of the candidates personally (Navarro and Ryan) and having brief conversations with the other two (Praisner and Kanstoroom). I come from a union household so pointing out the huge increases of the unions in MoCo: MCEA (the Apple Ballot) and the SEIU in a down market is something that I don't enjoy mentioning. But I see no other way to be fiscally responsible to all of us.
The question was what are the three budget priorities for the schools.
Three Republicans spoke first. The person immediately before Kanstoroom, John McKinnis, cited Council member Marc Elrich as saying that 45% of the incoming students to Montgomery College (MC) from the MCPS needed remedial training in reading and math. Another Republican Robert Patton claimed it cost $8,000 per year to educate a child in MoCo when the correct figure is just under $15,000 per pupil. Mr. Patton, it was $8k ten years ago.
The first Democrat to speak is Steve Kanstoroom. I failed to get the first minute of his speech but I have an audio recording of it. He said his first priorities were the addition at this location (Sherwood ES). Also he wanted accountability from the Superintendent of Schools, Jerry Weast. He said that there are no quarterly reviews of the school budget. He also talked about how the School Board (which was led by Nancy Navarro) went to the Attorney General to stop an Inspector General review of the school's budget during the Seven Locks ES debate of 2005-06. Now Steve speaks...
Next up is Don Praisner
Now let's hear from Pat Ryan.
And now here's Nancy Navarro.
Later in the debate a follow up question was asked to Nancy Navarro specifically, she was asked does she support going over the property tax limit to fund the budget. Her answer: "Yes". No rationale as to why. Now the question for her and the others is going over the property tax limit is this a blank check? Were is the oversight?
So we are faced with paying for an 8% increase in pay for education personnel during a recession without the funds to pay for it. Who were the people who worked on that agreement? The same people who meet at King Jerry's Castle for private meetings.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Lurching Rightward
In our state in 2006, a Democratic challenger managed to defeat a Republican incumbent governor, while Democrats enlarged their already ridiculously large legislative majorities. The partisan (im)balance in the Senate is 33-14, while in the House it is even more lopsided: 104-37.
So with a Democratic governor and huge Democratic majorities that give the party the best opportunity they will ever have to pass laws responsive to the ideals of the Democratic Party, what did they do this year?
Take a political right turn, of course!
During the 2008 session of the General Assembly, our state’s Democratic leaders repeatedly abandoned principle in a shameless attempt to woo the right wing. They left their liberal base — the party’s most fervent members and most active foot soldiers — wondering what it was we fought so hard for in 2006.
The DNA bill that David blogged about is a perfect example.
The suspension of the Fourth Amendment pushed by O’Malley and party leaders in both houses was a shameful betrayal of the United States Constitution. If the state can take DNA samples from a person simply because he was arrested, without waiting for a conviction, then where is the limit? After all, even someone who is arrested and awaiting trial is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Like David, I have to agree with Alex Mooney on this one.
Of course, the DNA collection system pushed by O’Malley and Democratic legislative leaders unquestionably makes it much easier to catch bad guys. But that’s really not the point. Our society made a fundamental decision when we ratified the Bill of Rights that we would limit the power of the state to intrude into our homes, our bodies, and our lives. Our freedom comes at a cost: some crimes won’t be prevented, and some crimes won’t get solved. On the other hand, we have privacy, and our liberties are much safer from a potentially oppressive government. Personally, I think that our nation’s founders made the right choice.
Clearly, O’Malley and other Democratic leaders disagree. For them, safety from crime trumps liberty. Or, perhaps more accurately, political pandering trumps the Constitution. Designed to appeal to the right and make people forget the tax increases of the special session, this bill was an anathema.
It’s not like this bill was a surprise. When the state’s liberal bloggers met with Senate President Mike Miller back in January, he told us outright that the Democratic Party was going to be pushing conservative bills in order to jack the governor’s sagging popularity back up. And this one was the first one he mentioned.
On the flip side of the coin, party leaders did what they could to squash much-needed progressive legislation. Marriage equality and even separate-and-unequal civil unions were met with hostility or, at best, stony indifference. Even bills granting very limited domestic partnership rights got little if any help from the governor.
In an overwhelmingly pro-choice state like Maryland, a bill to require “crisis pregnancy centers” (anti-abortion fronts that provide misinformation to vulnerable women who need help) to inform their clients that they are not medical facilities should have passed easily. But Democratic leaders kept it in committee, fearful of angering the Catholic Church.
And there are other examples. Of course, there’s always a lot to complain about when session is over. In that respect, this year is hardly unique. No one ever gets everything they want.
But what really angers me is how much of the bad stuff was planned at the top by a governor I voted for and volunteered for in 2006.
Like that DNA bill. It really takes the cake.
Speaking of which, the bill designating Smith Island cake as the official state dessert passed. We may not have our constitutional rights, but we have an official dessert.
More Union Busting at Montgomery College
I’ve seen quite a few union-busting tactics in my time but the latest one used by Montgomery College against its adjunct professors ranks as one of the most creative.
A couple weeks ago, we ran a four-part series on Montgomery College’s efforts to break a union organizing campaign by its adjunct professors. The college’s adjuncts earn maximum pay of $10,560 per semester and do not have health insurance. When they told the college they wanted to vote on representation by SEIU Local 500, the college reacted by hiring an expensive “union-avoidance” attorney and sending out misleading propaganda to the adjuncts. But as we predicted, Montgomery College’s union-busting campaign had only begun.
It’s common practice for a union-busting employer to argue about the definition of the bargaining unit – that is, the group of workers who would be covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Some employers want to shrink the unit. Others want to subtract employees that they believe to be pro-union or add employees that they think are anti-union. But Montgomery College’s definition of the bargaining unit is simple: there isn’t one.
In a letter to SEIU shown below, Montgomery College’s union-avoidance lawyer Darrell VanDeusen states, “The College has determined that the employees named in the SEIU’s petition are not considered public employees for the purposes of collective bargaining.” So since there are no eligible employees, there should be no election.
Section 16-412(a)(14) of Maryland law states, “Public employee means an employee employed by the public employer except: (i) Employees involved directly in the determination of policy; (ii) Supervisory or confidential employees; and (iii) Student assistants.” Which one of these exceptions applies to the adjunct professors? Conveniently, VanDeusen does not say. Perhaps a further exchange of letters will smoke him out.
But that would play into the college’s hands because the clock is ticking. SEIU Local 500 wants to hold an election before the semester ends and the adjuncts leave campus. And who knows if the college will allow the pro-union rank-and-file leaders among the adjuncts to return next year? After all, it’s hardly unknown for union supporters to suddenly receive unfavorable performance evaluations after many years of sterling service.
Now that its public employees are not really public employees, we should expect Montgomery College to say that it’s not a college. Or maybe that Montgomery County is not a county. Or maybe even that the institution does not actually exist on Planet Earth in contrast to the mistaken beliefs of some. Clearly, they will say anything to avoid a free and fair election for their adjunct professors.
So here’s our question for the County Executive and County Council: why are you allowing this deplorable farce to continue? And how much of our property tax increase will go to pay for all this union busting?
Monday, April 07, 2008
Hell Has Frozen Over: I Agree with Alex Mooney
Yes, that Mooney--the right-wing kook state senator who hopes to ride his way to Congress on a potpourri of demagoguery and self-righteousness. More specifically, I share his concern regarding the Governor's DNA proposal. From the Washington Post:Even O'Malley's leading public safety proposal -- an expansion of the state's DNA database to include samples taken during arrests for violent crimes and burglaries -- has a relatively small fiscal effect: about $1 million a year in state funds. Lawmakers reached a compromise on that bill yesterday afternoon and sent it to O'Malley.
Maybe it's because it is late and I think I am coming down with something but I think it is a bad idea to permanently add someone's DNA to a database when they haven't been found guilty of any crime. It is one thing to check DNA after an arrest but shouldn't one have to be found guilty of a crime of some threshold before getting added to the database?
The DNA legislation cleared both chambers by large margins but continued to draw objections from some lawmakers, who questioned why the state would move away from its policy of taking samples at the time of conviction.
"We're taking DNA from people who are innocent under law," said Sen. Alex X. Mooney (R-Frederick).
Andy Harris: Wrong Again
As the Senate headed toward the witching hour (that is, tonight's midnight end of the 2008 session), they were again debating the bill to give domestic partners the same exemption as other family members get from the taxes associated with modifying the title of their home. Sen. Andy Harris was spouting his usual nonsense to block gays and lesbians from equality, and the basic factual premise of his argument against this bill was just plain wrong.
As he did when the Senate debated the bill a couple of weeks ago, Harris expressed concern about how easy it would be to pretend to be DPs just to avoid tax payments. According to Harris, all the other family relationships protected by the existing exemption are based on a public government document: a marriage license that is a matter of public record. Because DPs have no such public document (a problem, by the way, that persists because of people like Harris), it would be easy to fake the relationship just to get the tax exemption.
But Harris is wrong on that score. Although spouses and ex-spouses have family relationships that have such a publicly available document, the other family relationships do not. The only government documents to prove generational relationships (parental or grandparental) are birth certificates, which are not open to the public. How exactly would a grandparent and grandchild go about proving their relationship with marriage documents, as Harris claims they can?
Of course, were someone to point out that Harris is wrong, he would not change his mind on the issue. He is simply grasping for excuses to hurt innocent gay and lesbian people.
Fortunately, tonight Harris failed. The Senate passed the bill, and it is headed toward the governor's office for a signature. Kudos to House sponsor Ann Kaiser and Senate sponsor Rona Kramer for getting the bill passed this year.
MoCo Property Tax Increase in Doubt
Last Friday, Montgomery County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg flatly told the Gazette, "I do not support going over the charter limit." This is a serious blow against passage of a county property tax increase.
Article 3, Section 305 of Montgomery County's charter restricts property tax increases to the change in the Consumer Price Index with exceptions for "(1) newly constructed property, (2) newly rezoned property, (3) property that, because of a change in state law, is assessed differently than it was assessed in the previous tax year, (4) property that has undergone a change in use, and (5) any development district tax used to fund capital improvement projects." Seven out of the nine County Council Members must vote to override this limit and raise the property tax by a higher amount.
To close a $297 million county budget deficit, County Executive Ike Leggett offered a budget that combined spending cuts with a $128 million property tax increase. Leggett's property tax proposal combines a 7.5% rate increase with a hike in the property tax credit for homeowners from $613 to $1,014, thereby making the tax over-weighted towards commercial properties and higher-value homes.
Council Member Trachtenberg was the first member of the council to openly oppose the property tax increase. Instead, she favors scrutinizing the county's labor costs. According to the Gazette:Montgomery County needs a "good black and white description" of how much employee salaries, health benefits and pay raises are going to cost the county as it faces a budget crisis, the chairwoman of the Management and Fiscal Policy committee said Thursday.
Council Member Nancy Floreen has also been skeptical of the tax hike, telling the Gazette, "My basic reaction is that I have to be persuaded that we need to expand the property tax rate as much as [Leggett] is proposing... Those are big dollars they are counting on to pull them through and I’m just not there yet." Last Friday, Floreen said on her blog, "Given that these [property tax] increases would be in addition to the State’s bump in income taxes and the sales tax, I’m not convinced the community can bear them. On the other hand, the alternative would be significant cuts in service, which I’m not sure folks are willing to do either."
"It’s very important that we have the bottom line and we have a sense of how we’re going to pay for the wages and the cost of living increases over the next few years," said Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At large) of North Bethesda. "The problems we’re going to face are not for one year only."
Trachtenberg said the contracts with county employees should be honored.
"But I’m suggesting we need to identify what we’re going to pay in these contracts and how we’re going to pay for them," she said.
If Council Members Trachtenberg and Floreen both oppose the property tax increase, it will fail. Because the winner of the District 4 vacancy will not be certified until May 23, after the budget has been passed, there will be only six other sitting members on the County Council when the tax's fate is decided. Seven votes are needed to break the charter limit.
Where the Sidewalk Ends
There is going to be a public hearing on the proposed sidewalks for Thornapple St. and Oakridge Ave. on Wednesday night at the during the regularly scheduled Town Council meeting of the Town of Chevy Chase beginning at 7PM at the Leland Center. I live on one of the affected streets and here are my thoughts on the proposal which I've also sent directly to the Councilmembers:
Like my neighbors, I recently received a copy of the plan for the proposed new sidewalks on Thornapple St. and Oakridge Ave. The new sidewalks would run between Curtis and Thornapple on Oakridge Ave. and between Oakridge and Maple on Thornapple.
I support the idea of installing new sidewalks. A number of our neighbors have expressed concerns through petitions and statements during the public comments period of Town Council meetings that sidewalks are needed to increase safety on both streets. Kids walk to Chevy Chase Elementary and to the bus stop to Rosemary Hills located at the intersection of Maple and Thornapple. Unfortunately, some drivers add to the problem by going too quickly around the curve on Thornapple or over the hill on Oakridge even though they can't see the other side.
The proposed sidewalks on the north side of Thornapple have been the subject of much discussion on my block of Thornapple. While some families on Thornapple would prefer not to have the sidewalks go through the right-of-way adjacent to their property, most appear willing to accommodate new sidewalks in some form in order to address safety concerns by neighbors living in other parts of our community.
At the same time, the sidewalk plan for Thornapple St. needs refinement. A number of my neighbors on my block have interesting ideas for improvements which would reduce the degree to which the new sidewalks would impinge on the enjoyment of their homes. I strongly urge you to consult closely with them and to listen to their ideas. Just as we asked the developers at Woodmont East to improve their plan, I know you'll be willing to work with the residents of my block to accommodate the sidewalks in the least painful way possible.
One universal concern on our block of Thornapple was the issue of storm drainage. It's well-known that our block is the drainage center for a large area. The County just invested large sums in improving the drainage and we're grateful for the improvements. Naturally, we're concerned that the proposed sidewalk bump out on Thornapple might undermine the operation of the new drains by diverting water away from them.
If the bump out is constructed, we could well need an additional drain at the location of the bump out to prevent the recurrence of a problem much money has just been spent to address. Alternatively, some of my neighbors have creative ideas about how to install a sidewalk without a bump out, or at least with a smaller one. Again, I urge you to speak with them since they are affected most directly by the proposal since their homes adjoin the proposed sidewalks.
Some of the ideas for improvements to the original plan may add to the cost. However, Chevy Chase is a fortunate community. It should be willing to spend more to accommodate neighbors who are working hard to take into account overall community needs even though they have serious concerns about how they will affect their property.
While I haven't yet had a chance to speak with our neighbors on Oakridge, I similarly urge you to consult with them. The proposed plan eliminates one-half of the parking on their block with potential for spillover on to our block. Nonetheless, the proposal outlined by the Town may be the least bad option due to the presence of heritage trees and hilly terrain but I hope the Town will consult with our friends around the corner to see how they feel about it before proceeding further.
On Thornapple, we think it makes sense to move the crosswalk closer to its natural position near the intersection than indicated in the plan, and we're pleased to hear from the Town Manager that this change will incorporated into the design. Again, however, we think it makes sense to consult with residents on Oakridge as to the overall scope of the plan on that block.
Thanks for your concern. We look forward to working closely with you on this question.
The Trent Lott Effect Strikes Again
From Marc Korman.
As everyone knows by now, the Trent Lott Effect struck again last week when Al Wynn announced his early retirement from Congress. As I discussed in a previous post, the Trent Lott Effect is named after the former Mississippi Senator who decided to leave the Senate less than a year into his six year term to go lobby. Other recent examples of the Trent Lott Effect are Congressman Richard Baker leaving Congress halfway through his term to lobby for the hedge fund industry.
On the one hand, Al Wynn’s move was understandable. He was handily defeated in the February Democratic primary and needs a new job. I do not think anyone is surprised anymore by a legislator choosing to lobby in their post-elected office career.
On the other hand, Wynn could have handled the situation much differently. One approach would be to resign immediately upon lining up a new job, not waiting three more months. Those three months will be filled with conflicts of interest and raise the question of what Wynn is still doing in Congress, representing his new firm or his constituents.
But even better, Wynn could have followed the example set so far by the other losing Maryland incumbent. Like Wynn, Wayne Gilchrest lost his primary yet he shows no sign of abandoning his job before it is done, in January of 2009. It is not as though job opportunities will not be available to Al Wynn then. Democrats are heavily favored to still control Congress, could control the White House, and Wynn will still be a former member of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee. The best course would have been for Wynn to hold off on the job hunt until his current job was done.
Wynn’s move has opened a new front in the legislator to lobbyist migration. First, we had legislators who went into lobbying after their terms ended, either due to electoral defeat or retirement. Two examples of that type of migration are former District 16 Delegate Gil Genn and former Louisiana Senator John Breaux. Second, we had legislators retiring during their terms for the specific purpose of lobbying, for example former District 18 Delegate John Hurson and Trent Lott. Now, Al Wynn has presented a case of a legislator who loses reelection but still has significant time remaining in his term, and resigns to lobby.
There are plenty of ethical issues presented by what Wynn has chosen to do. But there are also issues of district representation. When a vacancy requires a special election, as all House of Representatives vacancies do, a district can be without a voice for extended periods of time. When a legislator dies in office, that problem is unavoidable. In the case of Al Wynn or Richard Baker, it is easily avoidable and a disservice to their constituents to leave their district’s without a representative.
Al Wynn may have lost the 2008 Democratic primary, but he won the 2006 general election. Winning that election did not only give Wynn the privilege of representing the 4th Congressional District in Congress until January of 2009, it also gave him the obligation to do so. Legislators at all levels should be wary of following his example. If the people give you the honor of their vote, you should give them the honor of your full service.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Navarro, Praisner Campaign Contributions Provide Ammo for Both Sides
Last Friday was the deadline for the final campaign finance reports before the County Council District 4 special election primary. Both the Navarro and Praisner camps will find them useful.
Nancy Navarro reported contributions from individuals of $12,196, the Hispanic Democratic club of $250 and Maryland PACs of $22,000 for total receipts of $34,446. Her campaign reported $28,380.81 on hand. Sixty-four percent of her contributions came from labor unions, including the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters ($6,000), the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters ($6,000), UFCW Local 1994, also known as MCGEO or the government employees ($5,000), SEIU Maryland/DC State Council ($3,000), SEIU Local 500 ($1,000) and the Metropolitan Washington AFL-CIO ($1,000). The fact that Navarro received nearly two-thirds of her contributions from labor rebuts the allegation that she is “developer-controlled.”
However, one name on her individual contributor list truly stands out: Aris Mardirossian, who gave her the maximum contribution of $4,000. Mardirossian is the developer of Crown Farm in Gaithersburg. He is notorious for once suing Montgomery County Civic Federation President Wayne Goldstein when Goldstein wrote him a letter inquiring about tree removal on his property. The lawsuit, widely viewed as a frivolous slap suit in MoCo’s civic community, still causes many anti-growth activists to make the sign of the cross whenever Mardirossian’s name is uttered in their presence. Navarro’s campaign made a mistake by accepting this contribution. Her opponents are sure to jump all over it despite the fact that Mardirossian also once gave $3,000 to Marilyn Praisner.
Donald Praisner has also filed an interesting finance report. His campaign reported contributions from individuals of $16,280, Council Member Phil Andrews’ campaign account of $750, and a loan from Mr. Praisner himself of $5,000 for total receipts of $22,030. His campaign reported $17,551.67 on hand. Mr. Praisner’s biggest contributors are Council Member Marc Elrich’s chief of staff Dale Tibbitts ($2,000), County Executive spouse Catherine Leggett ($1,000), former Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg staffer Bobbie Walton ($1,000) and Nicholas Miller of Bethesda ($1,000). (Geez, Dale, how much is Marc paying you?) Tibbitts, Leggett, Walton, Andrews, County Executive spokesman Patrick Lacefield ($200) and former Marilyn Praisner staffers Claire Iseli ($150) and Sherry Kinikin ($100), along with Mr. Praisner, comprised a core group of contributors who together accounted for 46% of his campaign’s funding.
Mr. Praisner told the Gazette last week that Navarro was the only candidate taking money from developers. His supporters have lambasted Navarro on this blog for failing to abstain from development money despite Marilyn Praisner’s ready acceptance of it. But two of Mr. Praisner’s contributors are connected to the real estate industry.
Nicholas Miller of Bethesda, who gave $1,000 to Mr. Praisner on 3/26/08, is a telecommunications lawyer with Miller and Van Eaton PLLC. According to its website, the firm’s clients include the “Building Owners and Managers Association, International, the Institute of Real Estate Management, the International Council of Shopping Centers, the National Apartment Association, the National Multi-Housing Council, the National Realty Committee, and the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts.” Now this has nothing to do with development, right?
Gregory Eisenstadt of Brookeville gave $100 to Mr. Praisner on 3/24/08. Eisenstadt has been a steady supporter of Marilyn Praisner over the years, giving $314 to her campaigns between 2001 and 2005. Eisenstadt is the owner of Privacy World, a housing complex just north of the Glenmont Metro station due to be redeveloped by JBG Companies. The Privacy World redevelopment will be one of the bigger projects in District 4 if the County Council allows it to proceed. Eisenstadt’s relationship with the Praisners makes sense for him although his contribution runs afoul of Mr. Praisner’s pledge to avoid development money.
Let this be a lesson for all the aspiring politicians who read this blog: the worst thing about making a pledge is actually having to keep it!
Democrat Pat Ryan has raised a total of $10,825, of which $4,000 came from the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association. (Yes, this is the same union that gave $6,000 to Navarro.) Ryan is his own biggest individual contributor and gave his campaign $2,000 in seed money on 3/10/08. Ryan had $9,632.52 on hand, slightly more than half Mr. Praisner’s total and over one-third of Navarro’s holdings. Republican Mark Fennel has raised $1,705 with all but $300 coming from the candidate. Republican Thomas Hardman gave himself $100, the sole contribution to his campaign. Financial reports for Democrat Steve Kanstoroom and Republican John McKinnis are not yet available.
Now that the finance reporting deadline has passed and the special primary is fast closing in, District 4 voters will be treated to their most intense week of politicking since Marilyn Praisner defeated Mike Gudis way back in 1990. Lock your doors and let the answering machine fend off those robocalls!
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Electric Schemes, Nuke Dreams
On Thursday, the Maryland Senate endangered the Governor’s settlement with Constellation Energy by voting to amend it. Here’s why the Governor’s deal is worth passing.
When the administration and Constellation, parent company of electric utility BGE, settled their lawsuits against each other, the deal had several components. First, BGE’s residential customers would receive $187 million in one-time rebates, or $170 each. Second, individual Constellation investors would be permitted to own up to 20% of the company each. Third, BGE customers would see limits on electricity distribution charges in the future. Fourth, BGE agreed to add two independent seats to its board. Fifth, the deal cut the liability faced by ratepayers for eventually decommissioning the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant from $5.2 billion (which Constellation is permitted to collect by the 1999 deregulation law) to $3.7 billion (the current estimated shutdown cost). This will save Marylanders $1.5 billion. There are additional smaller components but these are the most important parts of the deal.
The Governor’s settlement was contingent on passage by the legislature. Constellation’s position was that the deal had to pass without changes. But the Senate thought better. On a 27-18 vote, the Senate added an amendment to regulate the sale of electricity from any new plants built in the state, essentially a limited rollback of deregulation. Senate President Mike Miller and the Governor claim that this vote endangers the deal because it changes its terms. Now it’s hard to blame the Senators who voted for the amendment. Deregulation has been a disaster for Maryland ratepayers and has created shocking wealth for the power companies and their CEOs. But the best reason for sticking with the Governor’s deal is its least-mentioned and most-important provision: the $1.5 billion reduction in the Calvert Cliffs decommissioning liability.
As someone who works for a union that gets carpenters and millwrights hired onto nuke jobs, I can tell you that these jobs are really, really expensive. All trades workers that set foot into a nuke plant must pass background checks and drug tests. And those checks and tests are repeated over and over. All of the workers have completed or are enrolled in four-year apprenticeship programs and numerous journey upgrade and safety courses. (We actually own a gas turbine at our international training center that our instructors practice dismantling and assembling.) Many workers also need to get haz-mat (hazardous materials) certifications. Often, there’s not enough qualified workers in the local area so out-of-state people are flown in. Those guys get per diems and sometimes even signing, retention and head-hunting bonuses. Everybody gets top scale and massive amounts of overtime. Even the laborers are rolling in dough. And part of the decommissioning will include clean-up and storage of radioactive waste. You don’t want to know how much that costs. All of this will go on for years at a decommissioning site.
I can’t tell you how much my guys like this kind of work. These jobs are an apprentice’s fancy, a journeyman’s love and a local union business manager’s dream. The last remnant of America’s working-class aristocracy may be the tens of thousands of “boomers” – traveling super-skilled electricians, pipefitters, boilermakers and millwrights – who fan out across the country to work nuke shutdowns and turnarounds. The boomers can make six-digit annual incomes and set themselves up for fat pension checks and lakeside retirement cabins.
So Constellation says the Calvert Cliffs decommissioning will cost $3.7 billion? Horsepuckey. It will cost four billion, five billion… aw, who cares how many billions as long as my members get the work!! (If you were wondering what “bread-and-butter unionism” is, that statement is a good example.)
But enough about my nuke-worshipping hardhats. My point is that if you are a Constellation/BGE customer, you do not want to be on the hook for all of these costs. Let Constellation’s shareholders and/or its merchant generation division pay some of them. The decommissioning liability reduction is a far more valuable asset to BGE ratepayers than the rebate and it is worth protecting.
So my advice to the General Assembly is to approve the Governor’s deal as-is and come back to re-regulate the power industry next year. That way the ratepayers will get their rebates, the residents will get the protections of regulation and BGE customers won’t have to pay $1.5 billion in extra billings. And what about my boomers? We’re all going to strap on our toolbelts and head down to Calvert Cliffs for some of that overtime!
The author is the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. He wishes he was as well-paid as the boomers.
Friday, April 04, 2008
The King Jerry Treatment
There have numerous stories about getting the Johnson treatment when officials were brought to a meeting with LBJ. He would call you into the room and you would not be able to leave until he got what he wanted. The smoke usually was blown straight into your face.
Well dear readers we have a MoCo version of the Johnson Treatment. It seems we have a public official who wants to be a political kingmaker: School Superintendent Jerry Weast.
The only problem is King Jerry has been elected to nothing. He is appointed to run the School System. Not content with that running half of the MoCo Budget he is now seeking to control all of it. He wants to run the County Council as well. King Jerry wants to select the key fifth vote on the nine member County Council to protect his kingdom, not yours. Weast's candidate: Nancy Navarro. His target the two biggest unions in the MoCo: MCEA and SEIU. MCEA has the coveted "Apple Ballot". SEIU brings money and manpower almost the equal of MCEA.
As Merle Cuttita, president of Service Employees International Union Local 500 was quoted in the story said "He (Weast) let us know that she would be a good candidate for county council ... that Nancy Navarro would be a good candidate for the council."
Before I go any further I should tell you that I am a supporter of Don Praisner. I came to that conclusion after sitting down with Nancy Navarro, Pat Ryan and Cary Lamair (while he was still in the race). I also talked with Don Praisner and very briefly with Steve Kanstoroom. I live in the District 4 and I come from a union household. Now you know where I am coming from. But listen to the rest of this story and you dear reader make up your own mind.
When contacted about these two backroom meetings, King Jerry who is never shy about talking to the press about the school system, finds the perfect time to hide behind his Chief of Staff, Brian Edwards, who says on the King's behalf "of course Nancy Navarro would be good candidate for the county council".
My question is why is an appointed person even offering an opinion about an election? Why is an appointed official calling key unions to his home to make a command such as this?
Let's Go To The Video Tape
So now everyone who was there is trying to say that would have no influence on their own decision. That the meeting was only 30 minutes about the special election and mostly about the budget. Ok as Warner Wolfe used to say let's go to the video tape and see if the school budget and this election are in any way connected.
We have a $296 million shortfall. You have union contracts that make up the bulk of the School System's budget -- 89% of the entire school budget is for personnel costs. Most of whom are union members. BTW, the school system is just over 50% of the MoCo budget. And 80% of the entire MoCo budget is for personnel, union and non-union.
MoCo has maxed out on what state allows for each county to take from its residents via a local income tax surcharge of 3.2% (generating $1.29b last year). We have declining numbers of recordation taxes and transfer fees which occur when one sells or transfers property because of the downturn the real estate market. That leaves two places to get more money: higher property taxes and red light cameras. As Ike Leggett mentioned at a recent town meeting the only part of the budget that is growing is from red-light cameras. So if you want to save your fellow residents help out by collecting a few extra red light tickets. ;)
Even Kings Have Their Limits
King Jerry is not so powerful as to get more revenue. Even Kings have their earthly limits. Our School Board Superintendent may not look it but he is mortal. But he does control contracts, union contracts. So if you are an union representative of school employees and the call comes from School Superintendent Jerry Weast to meet to talk about the budget. You go obviously. So what if the meeting is after hours (Friday night and Sunday). So what that the meeting is not at MCPS HQ rather at King Jerry's North Potomac castle. You go.
So here are the folks sitting in Superintendent's living room for one or both of the meetings: Merle Cuttita, president of local SEIU, a MCEA member or two, School Board President and candidate Nancy Navarro, former School Board member and County Council member Valerie Ervin. There might have been others but since the Gazette story I doubt we will find out who else was there. Still that is an impressive lot.
King Jerry knows what MoCo is facing. So do the unions. So do Ervin and Navarro both elected officials. Now you do too. Here is what King Jerry wants if you want him to protect your union contracts. Endorse Jerry Weast's candidate. If you don't follow King Jerry you get larger classroom sizes and/or The King will be forced to re-open the contracts and the gravy train is going to be stopped. King Jerry probably did it with a large smile on his face.
So ask yourself you are in a secret meeting with the King and you are talking about the budget with a known candidate in the room, his Kingship starts to talk about the special election but only for 30 minutes. Now go back to portion of the Gazette article that says the conversation about who King Jerry wants as the next member from District 4 is not connected to the budget discussions.
Just remember the Johnson Treatment. You are at the King's house eating the King's food and he is talking about what he needs done to avoid reopening your union contracts that he controls as part of the school system. He wants someone who will protect the school system from anymore cuts. Who cares if it will mean higher taxes. That's not his problem. That's for the County Executive and the Council.
Ask yourself one question
Q: What would you do if you are a union rep when faced with the King's Treatment?
A #1: Endorse someone who will protect our contracts all the way; and
A #2: If the story of this meeting ever gets out just say "it had no influence whatsoever in our decision making."
#1 is obvious. And if faced with the story getting out don't you think #2 is the answer? If you say "no" to #2 then I got a piece of the Cabin John Bridge I can sell you.
Beware of the Non-Denial Denial
What is also interesting is the responses from those in attendance seems they can't all agree on what was said and by whom? It hearkens but to The Mother of All Political Intrigue: Watergate. Everyone was issuing non-denial denials. Have you heard anyone who got the invitation to the King's castle say the facts of the Gazette article were incorrect? I haven't. And I doubt you will.
If those that are there have only non-denial denials then you know that they have been caught trying to rig the election to protect themselves and to fatten King Jerry's turf.
All of the King's Men (and Women)
Anyone who was there should do the honorable thing tell us the exact details of these two backroom meetings. As Howard Baker would have asked "what did you know and when did you know it?"
Again I ask why is the School Superintendent sticking his nose into who should be the next candidate from District 4??? He is an appointed official. If Weast wants to become a political Kingmaker than resign from his $300k taxpayer salary and become an elected official like the rest of them.
You Can Do Something About It
Special elections are new to MoCo. We had one in 2000 and the one now, both for County Council. Seems as though our School Superintendent, Jerry Weast, felt he should have a greater say than the 185,000 residents of District 4. Did you get the notice to come to his living room. But if you are a District 4 resident then take this information along with all other resources you would use to select the next candidate for District 4.
My question for King Jerry is: did you allow your guests to smoke inside or did I have to go outside?
County Council District 4 Round-Up
OK everybody, with less than two weeks to go, here’s the latest.
1. The Prince George’s County Council District 5 special election has MoCo campaign operatives’ tongues wagging. In that seven-candidate election, Theresa Dudley defeated Adam Ortiz by 171 votes at last count with a turnout of 8.2% of registered voters. If that turnout holds in MoCo District 4, roughly 8,400 voters will show up. So a competitive D4 candidate will have 3,000 votes and a sure winner will cross the 4,000 mark. These are small, small numbers folks, and anything could happen.
2. The Post and the Gazette have churned out quite a few articles in the last week. Among them are reports of County Council staffers getting cozy with Don Praisner’s campaign manager, a recounting of last Saturday’s candidate forum and a discussion of the challenges of time and name recognition. Additionally, this blog has made MCDCC Vice-Chairman Alan Banov a multi-media star as he has been interviewed by the Gazette about the illegal robo-calls first reported here. Hopefully Mr. Banov will remember who launched his ride to fame when one of us runs for a state legislative appointment!
But the biggest story of the week is the Gazette’s report on two meetings at the home of MoCo Superintendent of Schools Jerry Weast attended by education union leaders a month ago. The Gazette reports, “At the first meeting, Weast said that the unions should endorse Navarro for the County Council, according to a person who talked about what happened on the condition of not being identified.” The Gazette quoted Merle Cuttita, President of SEIU Local 500, as saying that the meeting was primarily about budget issues but she added, “He let us know that she would be a good candidate for county council ... that Nancy Navarro would be a good candidate for the council.” Nancy Navarro and County Council Member Valerie Ervin attended the second meeting, but Navarro denied that any endorsement was discussed there.
My father was a special education teacher, an assistant principal, a principal, an Assistant Superintendent of Schools and a school system controller in upstate New York. He never endorsed politicians or asked his unions to support any of them. He had a sound reason for that policy. In my rural county, voters directly approved school budgets. If my father had ever gotten too close to a politician, it would have made the local paper and his budget would have been killed. So he never, ever went there.
It is perfectly natural for the Superintendent to meet with the President of the Board of Education (Navarro), a County Council Member on the Education Committee (Ervin) and the leaders of the unions to discuss the schools budget. But Jerry Weast is playing with fire if he indeed asked the unions to support Navarro. First, he will run afoul of the County Executive, who is supporting Don Praisner. Second, Navarro’s opponents will be sure to remember Weast’s political apostasy if one of them wins. Third, he is giving Navarro’s rivals a good issue and Steve Kanstoroom raised it at Wednesday night’s debate. (And check out my blog-brother Kevin Gillogly's searing rant about this, which is forthcoming.) Mr. Weast, take it from the son of a career public school administrator: stay out of politics.
3. District 4 resident Dan Reed of Just Up the Pike is the best interviewer in MoCo blogdom. He has a talent for picking up on the little things that tell you a lot about a person. Check out Rockville mayoral candidate Drew Powell’s relentless hunt for a security guard, Steve Kanstoroom’s making change for a homeless guy and former County Council candidate Hans Riemer’s pho-drenched denunciations of limousine liberals. Dan has posted interviews with Navarro, Kanstoroom and Republicans Mark Fennel and Thomas Hardman with more on the way. Do yourself a favor and bookmark Just Up the Pike.
4. Nancy Navarro and Don Praisner are getting most of the attention but Steve Kanstoroom and Pat Ryan deserve mention. Both are strong and attractive candidates. Kanstoroom is crazy-earnest and combines green eye-shades with a warm heart. He is a beloved figure among the Sandy Spring activists he is helping. Would he really wring greater efficiencies from MoCo government as he claims? I don’t know, but speaking as a fellow dirt-digging researcher, it would be fun to watch him try.
As for Ryan, he may be the true heir to Marilyn Praisner from a policy perspective. I have seen him at two debates and he espouses the Praisner position package: fiscal restraint and caution on growth. After picking up the Gazette’s endorsement, Ryan glowed with confidence at Wednesday night’s debate. If you are a District 4 voter who agreed with Marilyn Praisner’s agenda and would like to see an advocate carry it out for the long run, you should seriously consider Pat Ryan.
5. Don Praisner did not show up at Wednesday night’s debate. County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg told the audience that he was sick and had gone to the hospital. The Gazette is reporting that Mr. Praisner will not be attending tonight’s taped debate.
6. And if you guys really need more of this, here’s the schedule for the remaining debates:
FRI 4/4: 6:00 Montgomery Community Television/LWV Televised Forum @ MCT Studios, 7548 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855
SUN 4/6: 3:00 Sandy Spring Forum, Sherwood Elemenatary School, 1401 Olney-Sandy Spring Road (Rte 108), Sandy Spring, MD
TUE 4/8: 7:00 LWV Debate @ Sandy Spring Friends School 16923 Norwood Rd, Sandy Spring, MD 20860
WED 4/9: 7:00 Burtonsville Debate @ Paint Branch High School, 14121 Old Columbia Pike, Burtonsville, MD 20866
WED 4/9: 7:00 Northwood-Four Corners Forum @ North Four Corners Park Recreation Center, 211 Southwood Ave, Silver Spring, MD
THU 4/10: 2:00 Riderwood Debate @ Performance Hall of Lakeside Commons at Riderwood Village, 3150 Gracefield Rd, Silver Spring, MD
THU 4/10: 7:30 Leisureworld Debate @ Club House 1, 14901 Pennfield Circle, Silver Spring, MD
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.
Madaleno Surprises Many (Part II)
(See here for Part I). How are Senator Madaleno’s votes and statements playing in District 18? Is he in serious trouble at home?
As a constituent of Madaleno’s, I have been completely surprised by his votes and his statements on this issue. Like many others in District 18, I am a strong supporter of progressive taxation and of paying the taxes that are necessary to meet our societal needs (including transportation). I imagine that if I were in Annapolis, I would have been pushing hard for the millionaire-tax increase.
Not only that, but I am past president of the Forest Estates Community Association, whose Crossing Georgia committee has been lobbying hard for our own little transportation project at the Intersection of Death (formerly known as the intersection of Georgia Avenue and Forest Glen Road). We’ve been pushing that since 2003. The governor’s budget did not fund this project, but Madaleno got the Department of Transportation to cover it as part of another project. But a massive cut in transportation funding doesn’t exactly bode well for our project, at least in the short term.
So I’m none too pleased at this turn of events. And I’m probably not the only one in District 18 feeling this way.
Nevertheless, I seriously doubt that Madaleno is in serious political trouble at home. He certainly isn’t in trouble in my home.
In the five years that I’ve known him, I have seen that Sen. Madaleno is one of the strongest advocates Annapolis has for progressive taxation. During the months leading up to the special session, he pored over the budget numbers and tried to come up with a tax package that didn’t rely so much on raising the sales tax. He worked with a small group of other liberal Democrats in the legislature to push a far more progressive program long before the special session began. Unfortunately, the rest of Maryland isn’t like District 18, and his efforts were not successful.
But they were noticed - by me, and by other people who want a more progressive tax structure. I have no doubt as to his commitment to progressive taxes. His entire political history is one of someone who is in government not to help the wealthiest who need it the least, but to help those who need it the most.
And on the Intersection of Death, Madaleno has been an amazing advocate on this issue since 2003, when I first met him and my community association first proposed the idea. He regularly raised the issue with officials in the Ehrlich administration when no one else was paying attention to this issue. Many other pols have joined this cause in the last 18 months, but Madaleno was there at the beginning.
For this and many other reasons, I have no doubt at all to Madaleno’s commitment to the Forest Glen project specifically, and to transportation funding in general.
So when a legislator who is so clearly in agreement with me on these basic issues and who has such a sterling record of service takes a turn I don’t expect, I highly doubt that he’s doing this to protect millionaires. And he’s not doing this out of hostility to transportation (or any other) government spending. This isn’t some 60s sitcom where someone gets hit on the head and suddenly changes personality. Rich Madaleno has not gone over to the political dark side any more than he thinks he’s King Tut out to kill Batman.
More than any other legislator I've ever had, Rich Madaleno has earned the right not to be accused of bad motives, but to instead be given the benefit of the doubt.
One of the other things I know about Madaleno is that he is one smart cookie. He understands budget and tax issues in a way that I know I never will. So that, combined with the things I know about his politics, makes me feel quite comfortable that he knows what he’s doing. He has the same goals that I do, and he feels that the position he is taking is the best way to reach those goals.
After the session is over, I plan to sit down with him and ask him to explain it all to me. Maybe I’ll agree with him. Maybe I won’t. And maybe I won’t even understand. But whatever the case, I know that he is honestly doing what he thinks is best to achieve the goals that we both share. I find myself in much the same situation as when he voted for slots in the fall.
It’s a rare politician who can earn that kind of respect from me. And I have seen evidence that others feel the same way. After all, it’s not every politician who could have run unopposed in a primary for an open senate seat.
So I expect that most of the constituents who are upset by Madaleno’s actions this week will nevertheless judge him not by the actions of one week, but by the greater backdrop of five years.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Madaleno Surprises Many (Part I)
Among the tiny slice of people living in District 18 who follow the politics of the General Assembly, the big news this week has been Rich Madaleno’s position relating to the much-hated computer services tax. Under a plan pushed hard by Gov. O’Malley and Sen. President Miller, that tax would be replaced by (1) an increase in the income tax rate for millionaires, and (2) a cut in the transportation budget. Madaleno would prefer ditching the millionaire-tax increase and cutting the budget even more - not a position one might have expected, and one that has clearly displeased the powers that be in Annapolis.
Madaleno bucked the governor, the president, and possibly a number of people in his district by opposing the plan. As reported in places such as the Baltimore Sun:Some members of the Senate's tax committee argued for using budget cuts alone to compensate for its repeal, saying that the millionaires levy was effectively a tax against hundreds of small business owners who file personal income taxes rather than corporate income taxes.
"I just don't see how, at a time when we're unwilling or unable to move forward with the computer services tax, that we should move forward with another tax on small businesses," said Sen. Richard Madaleno, a Montgomery County Democrat who voted against the bill.
So, with his typical “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature” attitude, Miller was quick to publicly threaten Madaleno. According to the Washington Times, “Miller said Mr. Madaleno endangered his political future by voting against the tax increase.”
Lest there be any doubt as to Miller's intentions, the Sun makes it clear:After the hearing, Miller said he was "disappointed" in Madaleno and attributed the freshman senator's refusal to fall in line with the governor's proposal to being "young" and "probably nervous."
Miller hinted darkly that Madaleno, a freshman senator and fiscal expert, was "pegged for leadership" but had let down the boss, who is known for rewarding loyal senators with coveted committee leadership slots.
Let’s not forget that Miller only recently promoted Madaleno, a freshman senator, to a subcommittee vice-chairmanship. He is quite comfortable using his position to reward his allies and to punish others.
But is Madaleno really in trouble with Miller and O’Malley? While I don’t know for certain, I suspect not. First, the committee vote that Madaleno lost was 10-5; this was going to easily pass out of committee with or without Madaleno’s support.
Second, Madaleno worked long and hard during the special session to push reluctant colleagues on Miller and O’Malley’s tax package. The bill passed the Senate with zero votes to spare; Madaleno made the difference, and both Miller and O’Malley knew it. With his encyclopedic knowledge of budget and tax issues, he was able to make very persuasive arguments to nervous colleagues. Were it not for Madaleno, the special session could very easily have failed, making the governor look foolish for having called it.
In return, both Democratic leaders gave Madaleno the back of their hands on the gay-rights issues that are so important to him. Miller, in fact, was actively hostile not only to marriage but even to civil unions, and he even voted against a small bill to give domestic partners the same tax exemption rights as other families when they make changes to the title of their homes.
And when it came time to directly fund research into the transportation project at the Intersection of Death, a project that Madaleno has said is one of his top priorities, O'Malley's Department of Transportation said no.
Also, as Madaleno told the Sun, this is the first tax increase he hasn't supported in the six years he’s been in the General Assembly (the first four as a delegate). We’re not talking about someone who routinely defies senior members of his party when tax increases are on the table.
I have no doubt that Mike Miller is mad. O’Malley may be, as well. But Madaleno's actions this week have not done them any harm, and he has helped them immensely in his short time in the Senate. I suspect they know that they’re stronger with him than without him.
Only time will tell if I’m right on this score.
And what about outside of Annapolis? How are Madaleno’s votes and statements playing in District 18? Is he in serious trouble at home?
That is the subject of part II of this post.
(Hey, if I don't break it up, then no one will read it all the way through)
The Politics of Paranoia
One charge made with increasing ferocity against County Council District 4 candidate Nancy Navarro is that she is allegedly a “tool of the developers.”
Stuart Rochester, a District 4 resident supporting Don Praisner, told the Gazette: “I’m finding that although there is a good deal of respect for Navarro, there is a concern that she is identified, fairly or not, with the pro-business and pro-development forces in the county,” Rochester said. “For that reason she may not be relied on to carry on the positions that Marilyn had.”
Takoma Park activist Mike Tabor, who does not live in the district, wrote the following to the Gazette in endorsing Mr. Praisner: The problem that many have with this election is the quiet support of the fast, uncontrolled growth activists for Navarro. She openly accepts contributions from developers, PACs, special interests and land use attorneys. She is not willing to place limits on those contributions.
The issue erupted at the People’s Community Baptist Church forum last weekend. The Gazette reports:
My belief is that this could lead to a conflict of interest any elected politician making decisions regarding land use issues.
The fear of many of us is that if Navarro is elected, the faster, uncontrolled growth advocates will have a majority on the council once again. Furthermore, a Navarro victory might enable a more developer and business-friendly majority on the council to fill the two vacant positions on the Park and Planning Board.During the only negative exchange in the meeting, Praisner took issue with a Navarro comment in response to a moderator’s question about campaign financing and avoiding undue influence. Navarro had said she was financing her campaign as Marilyn Praisner had, with contributions from many sources, including business interests.
Neighborspac, a MoCo activist group that opposed overdevelopment, raised the issue of politicians and development contributions starting in the 2002 county races. Neighborspac began tabulating contributions from development-connected people or entities and reporting them as a percentage of the total receipts for each candidate. Neighborspac had a point: if a politician received an overwhelming percentage of his or her support from one industry, like real estate, voters had a right to know that. I certainly looked at Neighborspac’s data in 2006 before casting my votes.
“I resent how you represent Marilyn Praisner and her influence,” Donald Praisner said. “In her last year, she was disappointed with you because you were not an independent voice.”
After the meeting, Navarro said she only meant to show she was financing her campaign in the same spirit as Marilyn Praisner had. “I’m not sure why he took my comment negatively,” she said. “I was only referring to public campaign information. If we’re going to talk about financing campaigns, this is what the record shows.”
On Monday, Donald Praisner said that only Navarro is taking money from developers and that Navarro may “undo some of the work my wife did,” referring to provisions supported by Marilyn Praisner and passed by the County Council designed to slow the pace of growth.
But since then, the issue has mutated. Now the standard is not whether a politician accepts an overwhelming majority of his or her contributions from business, but whether a politician accepts any contributions from business at all. Because Navarro has refused to rule out any business contributions, she is accused of being controlled by them. This is a difficult test for any politician to pass, including a very prominent one who is relevant to this race: the late Marilyn J. Praisner.
According to state board of elections data, Mrs. Praisner raised a total $78,056 between 2001 and 2008. Of that total, $32,769 – a full 42% – came from businesses, business owners or corporate lawyers. See the graphic below for the specific contributions.
Among Mrs. Praisner’s contributors was Bryant Foulger, head of construction and real estate giant Foulger Pratt, who gave her $200. That firm is a partner in Downtown Silver Spring developer PFA, against whom a First Amendment demonstration was launched last summer. Companies and relatives of Aris Mardirossian contributed $3,000 to Mrs. Praisner. Mardirossian, developer of Crown Farm in Gaithersburg, is infamous in MoCo for suing civic grand-daddy Wayne Goldstein for the mere act of writing him a letter. Three Linowes and Blocher lawyers contributed a total of $975. And four limited liability companies from Colorado gave Mrs. Praisner a combined total of $2,000 in 2006.
Does any of the above make Marilyn Praisner a “tool of the developers?” Hell no. As I wrote in my tribute to her, “She was a woman of incredible intelligence, great fairness, and most of all, unquestioned honor. Nobody was smarter, tougher, harder-working or more honest.” Mrs. Praisner was a fearless crusader for her constituents and nobody was stupid enough to accuse her of being anything different. She could have taken a million dollars from Mardirossian and she would still have told him “NO.”
So what has Nancy Navarro done to justify treating her differently? Why is she the only candidate to be attacked by illegal, anonymous robo-calls? Why is she the only one accused of being controlled by “special interests?” Why are her critics making an issue of this before she has filed a single campaign finance report?
What we have here is the Politics of Paranoia. Taking a single dollar from a business buys off your integrity and makes you their slave. Or at least that’s what Navarro’s enemies would have you believe.
My advice is to vote the old-fashioned way. Grab the politicians by the lapels. Determine whether they agree with you on the majority of things that you care about, whether they are capable enough to deliver on those priorities and whether you think they are people of good values. If they pass those tests, vote for them. If they don’t, find someone else to vote for. No political jihads. No illegal robo-calls. Just you, your brain, your heart and your vote.
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.
Computer Tax at Death's Door
Yesterday the Senate's Budget and Taxation Committee voted to replace the computer tax with a package combining a surcharge on residents earning at least $1 million a year, transportation cuts and budget cuts. The Post and the Sun have the details. The package is very close to the Governor's proposal and so these predictions may be coming true.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Special Election to Replace Al Wynn
The Post is reporting that there will be a special election to fill the seat that will be vacated when Rep. Al Wynn steps down in a couple of months.
To save money, there will be only a general election, without a primary. This will require the passage of a law to allow a primariless congressional election - a statute that will have to be introduced and go through the entire legisltive process between now and midnight Monday, when the 2008 session of the General Assembly ends.
Should Donna Edwards win the special election and then subsequent November election, she will have higher seniority next year than other freshmen representatives in the House.
While this is an unusual situation, I think it can serve as a precedent for filling state legislative vacancies. One of the arguments made against midterm elections to fill vacancies in the General Assembly is that the primary would be held early in the election year, while the General Assembly is in session and the appointed replacement (who would presumably be running in the midterm election) would be both too busy to campaign and prohibited by law from fundraising.
While the current situation is not identical, it does create a precedent for bypassing the primary to fill a legislative vacancy.
On Political Pulse
Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith (Democrat) will be on the 'Political Pulse' political talk show on Thursday, April 3rd at 9:00 p.m. and Tuesday, April 8th at 9:30 p.m. Topics that will be discussed include:
1. Mr. Smith is also the President of the Maryland Association of Counties ('MACO') and he discusses the decision by MACO to endorse the slots referendum that will be on the ballot in November, 2008 mainly because the revenues therefrom will help fund the education needs of the State;
2. There have been published reports that Mr. Smith, who is in his 2nd term as County Executive and cannot run for a 3rd term, may run for statewide office in 2010 and he comments on that possibility; and
3. Mr. Smith was a Judge for 16 years before he stepped-down to run for County Executive.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
Mike Knapp, Just Say No to Bloggers
Poor Mike Knapp. Montgomery County’s current Council President really stepped in it this time. He did the worst thing imaginable with another blogger: he acknowledged his existence and did what he wanted. Oh boy, now it’s never going to end.
Do you remember the annoying kid in the back of the class who wouldn’t shut up? You know, the one who made faces, sat on top of his desk and wouldn’t stay put? Now I’m not admitting that that was me, but I understand the mentality. The purpose is to get attention. And if you acknowledge the foolishness, you’ll get more of it. (Just ask my wife.)
So a Germantown blogger, a constituent of Mr. Knapp’s, challenged the Council President about his blog. “Johno95” said:Mike Knapp, county council member for District 2, has a blog now. (His district includes Germantown and surrounding areas.) But he likes Germantown best, I suppose.
So what does Mr. Knapp do? He tells him what he wants to know! The Council President begins his latest blog post by saying:
You would think he’d be busy doing his 9-5 job, but instead he’s busy blogging. I am going to list him in my blogroll. But I am not above trying blackmail. Unless he mentions what he had to eat for breakfast (a typical David Burd question) in his next blog entry, I am removing this link. I want his blog to be casual. I want Mike to let his hair down. After all, he’s a Democrat.
Mike, go ahead and blog to this blog, if you want to answer my breakfast question.Well. I've been called out by some bloggers for not being informal enough. It would seem that some in the blogsphere want to really know what's really going on behind the scenes -- so far behind the scenes, in fact, that apparently my breakfast choices are of interest to some. So, here goes...
And then he tells us just about everything. Every detail of each day of the week, except for a few related to basic bodily functions. Now I know quite a few of our readers might want to be on the County Council someday. Well, read this poor guy’s schedule and then see if you really want to do it. When does he have time to swill beers with the guys? How about watching a Redskins game? Or chasing away transgender opponents from grocery stores? Nope, fuhgeddaboutit. Mr. Knapp doesn’t even have time to post; he averages one or two posts a month.
So remember the kid who shot a spitball at you from behind? If you turned around and gave him a look, you knew what you were going to get: another spitball. It won’t end here. Next they’ll want to know his waist size. Or his 40-yard-dash time. Or his vertical leap. I could throw in a few other things, but this is a family blog.
Mr. Knapp, we know you were trying to be a good guy. But take some advice from a former classroom troublemaker. Don’t respond to the bloggers. After all, it’s not like anyone reads these blogs, right?
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
General Assembly Announces Blogger Tax
Following is the exclusive transcript of the press conference called by Senate President Mike Miller.
Senate President Miller: Ladies and gentlemen of the press – the real press – I am announcing today a solution for the state’s financial crisis. Delegates Bill Frick and Kirill Reznik are introducing The Blogger Taxation Act of 2008. For too long, a growing group of rogue bloggers have been enriching themselves by impugning the integrity of your state’s noble public servants. It’s time that the people received a share of their ill-gotten gains!
Under the provisions of the bill, each blog post would be taxed $1,000. Any post mentioning a state legislator would be taxed $5,000. And any post that mentions me – well, don’t bother, because you don’t have the money!
Reporter: What about a companion bill in the Senate?
Senator Rich Madaleno: I will introduce the Senate version of the bill. It will of course be amended to exempt sitting office-holders.
Miller: I can’t stress enough what a high priority this is for the state. Your legislators work hard every day and these bloggers don’t understand that. Our folks get more emails than God, have to put up with crazy constituents at home and are forced to stay up until 2 in the morning listening to boring speeches by assembly leadership!
Reporter: But Mr. Miller, you are the Senate President.
Miller: Errr, well yes, strike that remark from the record. Anyway, support for the legislation is coming in faster than we can track it. Already, we have letters from the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee, Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett, Montgomery County Council Members Nancy Floreen, George Leventhal and Marc Elrich and famous television personalities Itchy & Scratchy complaining of defamation on these blogs. Even one of the bloggers themselves is calling for a halt to the nonsense! And poor Don Dwyer is still apologizing to his constituents after those bloggers caught him raising money for Dana Beyer!
[Unidentified delegate shouting from back]: Why are you blogging about the CARR bill? I’ve got five bills that are better. Where’s my blog coverage you little punks?!
Miller: Enough of that! These bloggers are getting rich – I mean, some of them live in Chevy Chase for heaven’s sake! It’s time for them to pay up!
[Just then, a stretch limo arrives with a license plate number of “CH CH 1.” Preceded by four tuxedo-wearing servants, world-famous blogger David Lublin steps out carrying his chihuahua, Muffitt.]
Lublin: This blogger tax is unfair, Mr. President! The Blogger.com fees are already killing me, my advertisers are asking for lower rates and now you want to tax me. I might have to move to Virginia! As it is, I can only afford to feed caviar to Muffitt three times a week. [Yap! Yap!] Look, you’re disturbing Muffitt! [Yap-yap! Yap!]
Miller: Now now, Muffitt, I meant no offense. [Kisses chihuahua on head] We certainly can’t have you rich people moving to Virginia. After all, we need the campaign contributions! So maybe we can work something out. But can you bloggers at least just tell the truth the way your public servants do?
