In Part One of our two-part series on income inequality, we reported that growing labor market inequality was fueling rising income disparities in Maryland. Today, we look at what is happening in Montgomery County.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment Survey produces data at the metropolitan area level, including a series combining Montgomery and Frederick Counties. But small sample sizes at this geographic level handicap some of the individual occupational observations with unacceptably large standard errors. So we turned to a rich source of locality data that is less burdened with sample size issues: the decennial census.
The Census Bureau reports detailed demographic, economic and real estate data down to the census tract level (and even further) every ten years. We identified the five wealthiest neighborhoods and the five poorest neighborhoods, defined as census tracts and using per capita income, in Montgomery County in 2000. We then compared real per capita income, measured in 2007 dollars, in each of these census tracts between 1989 and 1999. We also looked up black and Hispanic population percentages for each census tract. In Potomac, we had to merge two census tracts to obtain comparable data for 1989 and 1999 because of changes in the area’s census tract definitions in the 1990s. We report our results below.
Measured by per capita income, the five wealthiest neighborhoods in Montgomery County are Chevy Chase Village, Potomac, the section of Bethesda west of its Central Business District, the Bethesda neighborhoods on either side of Democracy Boulevard and the Martin’s Addition and Rollingwood sections of Chevy Chase. The five poorest neighborhoods are Langley Park (separated into two census tracts), the section of Rockville east of the CSX tracks, the section of Wheaton west of Veirs Mill Road reaching up to Rockville, and the Oakview neighborhood in Silver Spring (southwest of the intersection of the Beltway and New Hampshire Avenue). On average, the percentage of black and Hispanic people living in the poorest neighborhoods is ten times their percentage in the richest neighborhoods.
Between 1989 and 1999, four of the five richest neighborhoods saw double-digit gains in real per capita income. Over the same period, every one of the poorest neighborhoods saw real losses. Together, the richest neighborhoods enjoyed a 15% real per capita income gain while the poorest neighborhoods suffered a 12% drop. The county as a whole saw a 4% real per capita income increase over this decade.
The 1990s was a relatively decent decade for America’s middle and working classes. Real wages ceased their two-decade drop and rose a little bit in many occupations. If Montgomery County’s poorest neighborhoods saw a double-digit real income drop in the 1990s, what is happening to them now?
Rising income inequality is a national, indeed a global, trend. Can Maryland’s state or county policymakers truly reverse it? Measures that might help thwart inequality include:
1. Encouraging unionization.
2. Funding public employee contracts, especially for the lowest-paid workers.
3. Investing in public education, the state university system, vocational training, apprenticeship programs and ESOL instruction.
4. Supporting minimum wage, living wage and prevailing wage laws as well as other worker protections (like Montgomery County’s domestic worker bill).
5. Cracking down on unscrupulous employers who cheat workers.
Will all of the above, if implemented with gusto, really make a difference? Possibly. But one thing is certain:
Every state legislator who voted to pass the regressive special session tax package and then opposed the millionaire tax effectively voted to make Maryland’s – and Montgomery County’s – income inequality worse.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Income Inequality in Montgomery County
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Income Inequality in Maryland
Last month, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) and the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) released a study on income inequality in all 50 states. We reproduce their results for Maryland below and add some new research of our own in Part One of a two-part series.
The above analysis shows that income inequality has been growing steadily in Maryland since at least the 1980s, as it has been in the rest of the country. Why is that? There are many potential explanations, but as a union researcher, my natural inclination is to look at the labor market. What is happening to pay for Marylanders?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employment Survey program releases occupational employment and wage data from surveys of employers at the national, state and metropolitan area levels. The program has produced methodologically consistent longitudinal data going back to 1999. While some of the data is handicapped by small sample sizes and resulting large standard errors, many occupations report wage levels within 95% confidence intervals even at the state level.
We picked a list of 15 of the highest-paying occupations and 15 of the lowest-paying occupations in Maryland. The high-paying occupations all paid at least $35 per hour in 2007 dollars and the low-paying occupations paid $14 per hour or less. All of these occupations reported standard errors associated with their wage estimates of 6% or less. Together, these occupations accounted for 28% of all employment in the state in 2006 and they accounted for most of the employment at the upper and lower ends of the wage distribution.
For each occupation, we report employment and mean hourly earnings in 1999 and 2006, deflated with the CPI-W into 2007 dollars. We then compute weighted averages (by employment) for each occupational group and compare it to the state average. Below are our results.
As you can see, the 15 high-paying occupations saw a weighted average hourly earnings gain of 19.2% in real dollars. The 15 low-paying occupations saw a gain of just 0.4%, a statistically insignificant difference from zero. Six of these occupations saw real earnings losses. On average, Maryland workers saw a gain of 7.2% in real dollars, or about 1% per year over the period.
But the employment data is also instructive. The fifteen high-paying occupations saw a combined employment drop of 11%. The fifteen low-paying occupations saw employment grow by 18%. This change in employment patterns may be just as meaningful in driving labor market inequality as the change in the wage structure.
The above data applies to only 30 occupations over just one seven-year period. It cannot be considered as comprehensive as EPI’s work or a true peer-reviewed academic study. But the behavior of the upper and lower ends of Maryland’s occupational earnings distribution strongly suggests one source of the state’s growing income inequality.
Maryland’s labor market is rewarding a smaller and smaller number of people at the top with above-average real earnings gains. At the same time, it is punishing a larger and larger number of people at the bottom with no real earnings gains at all. And there is no reason to believe that this trend will end anytime soon.
In Part Two, we will use a very different methodology to examine income inequality in Montgomery County.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Local First Wheaton!
At yesterday’s rainy Taste of Wheaton event, the county’s newest and most unique business alliance was unveiled.
The seeds of this alliance were planted in last summer’s joint business/resident revolt against the county’s disastrous plan to extend parking meter hours. No one remembered the last time Wheaton’s businesses and its customers joined together to successfully change county policy. Everyone knew that if we did not build on that effort, the community spirit created by the revolt would fade.
So the rebel leaders met at Caramelo Bakery to plot what to do next. It was an unusual gathering. Attendees included a Cuban non-profit director, a Scottish pub owner, a Venezuelan baker, an Asian tea shop owner, a Salvadoran restaurant owner, an African-American County Council Member, a federal government economist and a trouble-making union hell-raiser from New Yawk. We decided to build a new business association, but not merely an extension of the Wheaton-Kensington Chamber of Commerce. The new group would focus on the small businesses that make Wheaton special, as well as their customers.
From left: Caramelo Bakery owner Freddy Real, Denise Isaac of Telemundo, Hall-of-Fame activist and business owner Marian Fryer and LEDC’s Daniel Parra announce the formation of the new association.
The alliance, eventually known as Local First Wheaton, would be open to small, local and independent businesses. The firms would cross-market each other’s products, do business among themselves, attempt to pool resources to get better deals on clean electric power and, most importantly, appeal to the residents of nearby neighborhoods to shop locally. When customers direct their shopping habits to nearby small businesses, they build job creation and investment in their local economy and minimize carbon emissions by driving less. Civic associations and even individuals would also be welcomed as associate members. Our model borrowed liberally from the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies (BALLE), a national organization which had created similar local business alliances in Denver, Chicago, Seattle, Cambridge, Buffalo and other cities. The Latino Economic Development Corporation (LEDC), a non-profit providing aid to small businesses, had already started a Local First group in Washington, DC. Now that LEDC had established a Wheaton office in the Gilchrist Center, its leaders, along with the businesses and residents who triumphed in the parking meter revolt, judged that now was the time to create Local First Wheaton.
From left: LEDC Executive Director Manny Hidalgo, District 18 State Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez and LEDC Maryland Business Director Daniel Parra.
Local First Wheaton has just launched its website and has signed up its first batch of members. Its logo and its membership directory will soon begin appearing all over Wheaton’s Central Business District. Soon after, we will market the alliance to the residents of nearby civic associations. Gasoline prices of $4 or more per gallon may be challenging to our members’ finances but they will provide an incentive for nearby customers to stay close to home. And once Local First Wheaton is established, we will export the model to other business districts in the Downcounty.
So come to Wheaton and check us out! Our members will make sure you’ll be back.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Just How Dominant are the Democrats in Montgomery County?
From Marc Korman:
We all know that Democrats are dominant in Montgomery County. But have you ever thought about what that really means?
Don Praisner’s election earlier this week to the County Council ensures that the Council will remain 100% Democratic, with 9 out of 9 members as Democrats.
Since Jean Cryor’s defeat in 2006, 24 out of 24 State Delegates from Montgomery County have been Democrats.
Since 2002, 8 out of 8 State Senators from Montgomery County have been Democrats.
As of April 2008, there are 288,414 registered Democrats in Montgomery County, compared to 121,265 Republicans. Unaffiliated voters are close behind with 102,864. Back in April of 2004, there were only 257,825 registered Democrats, compared to 126,894 registered Republicans and 92,659 unaffiliated voters. That means Republican numbers have declined over the past four years while total registration has increased by over 35,000.
There are 19 municipalities in Montgomery County. Although their elections tend to be non-partisan, at least 15 are headed by registered Democrats. The Chairman of Chevy Chase View is unaffiliated, the Chairman of the Village of Chevy Chase Section 5 and the Laytonsville Mayor are Republicans, and no information was available about the head of the Martin’s Additions Village Council.
So is this type of political dominance healthy? It depends. As long as Democrats are not walking in lock step with one another and continuing to have healthy debates and providing good government, then there really is not much of a problem.
Take the County Council’s budget debates for example, heavily covered by Adam and David here at MPW. The members of the Council have different positions on what the next budget should look like, but they are all rooted in the idea that government should provide good services to the people, helping to lift everyone’s quality of life. This is a Democratic idea that the various Councilmembers have different paths to achieve.
As a member of the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee, I must admit I am biased in favor of the Democrats. But as long as our elected officials remain responsive to their constituents and responsible in their leadership, I think residents will continue to reward the Democratic Party.
Friday, May 16, 2008
It’s Over – For Now
After a torturous few months, the Montgomery County Council finally reached a unanimous budget agreement today. But while the bleary-eyed Council Members are no doubt working their way through their liquor cabinets as we write this, the fiscal hangover will arrive all too soon.
Yesterday’s cliffhanger boiled down to this: three Council Members (Duchy Trachtenberg, Phil Andrews and Roger Berliner) wanted $20 million in “labor savings” gained by a 2-day furlough, while two Council Members (Valerie Ervin and George Leventhal) said they would not violate the public employees’ contracts. Marc Elrich expressed dissatisfaction with the structure of the property tax while Nancy Floreen argued for more cuts not connected to the labor agreements. The final solution announced this morning by Council President Mike Knapp contained elements of every one of these ideas. We present the text of his proposal to our readers:Statement by Council President Mike Knapp
After a long night of yelling, negotiating, coffee-swilling and perhaps coffee-throwing, none of the Council Members had any fight left in them to repeat the political theater of prior days. All praised the placid Mike Knapp and none claimed victory over the others for their priorities. Apparently they have tired of providing fodder for loose-tongued bloggers and I do not blame them.
To enable the Council to reach common ground and complete action on the FY09 operating budget, I propose the following final steps in the budget process:
1. Reduce the amount of property tax proposed by the County Executive by $20 million.
2. Keep property tax rates at the current level and provide a credit to owner-occupied homes of $579.
3. Reduce expenditures and change resources as follows:
$8.0 million from County Government and MCPS, to be achieved by reducing employee/personnel costs and securing productivity improvements and increased efficiencies. Each will report back to the Council about how these reductions will be achieved.
$1 million in fund balance from Montgomery College.
$3.5 million from the Council’s changes on May 15 to PAYGO (cash) in the FY09 capital budget and resources for Park and Planning.
But everyone on all sides of the debate – the Council Members, their staff, the Executive Branch, the union leaders and all other observers – expect that the approval of this budget is only the first round in a bruising match. That is because FY10’s budget will most likely also have a deficit in the hundreds of millions and similar debates will no doubt erupt. Drink up, Council Members, because here is what the morning after will look like:
1. The public employee unions preserved their contracts this time. But two Council Members (Phil Andrews and Duchy Trachtenberg) openly favored two-point reductions in their cost of living adjustments (COLAs). One more, Roger Berliner, favored a two-day furlough proposed by Mr. Andrews. Another one, incoming Council Member Donald Praisner, suggested a need to “review” union contracts during his special election campaign. That leaves the County Council only one vote away from approving “labor savings” next year. The unions are well aware of this situation and must work out a strategy to respond. They would be well-served to stick together.
2. All sides must watch the real estate market, which drives the county’s volatile recordation and transfer taxes. In an earlier post, I stated:According to the county’s Department of Finance, residential real estate sales volume averaged over $500 million per month from 2006 through the first eight months of 2007. Since then, residential real estate sales volume has averaged between $200 and $300 million per month. It is this collapse in residential real estate transactions that has caused many of the county’s current budget problems. All policymakers – both inside the government and inside the unions – should watch this figure in the Finance Department’s monthly economic updates. If it rises back up to $400 million per month or more, the county’s real property transfer and recordation taxes will begin to recover. If it falls further, tougher times are ahead.
If the real estate market does not turn up by the end of this year, projected revenue growth for FY10 may be even slower than the anemic rates that constrained the FY09 budget.
3. The county is getting hit badly by rising fuel costs. The agencies’ budget requests did not adequately predict the meteoric recent rise in gas and diesel prices. If the County Executive submits a supplemental budget request to cover higher fuel costs, will the County Council be able to locate the money without offsetting spending cuts?
4. As we documented a month ago, the state budget continues to deteriorate. Rumors are flying that the state will have to cut aid to the counties next spring, perhaps even passing down the burden of paying teacher pension contributions. This would add MANY millions more to any county budget deficit next year.
The County Council, and especially its ever-smiling (but seldom-blogging) President Mike Knapp, performed very well this year under heavy pressure. They will need to rise to the occasion at least one more time before the current economic downtown is over.
Unions, Contracts, and the Political Calculus of the Budget Debate
A guest post from Eric Luedtke, who is a teacher and a member of the board of the Montgomery County Education Association, as well as a past board member of the Montgomery County Sierra Club. He writes here as an individual, not representing the views of any organization.
For the people involved directly in the current discussion about the county budget, the debate is an emotional one. County employees don't see the contracts as a budget item, or the proposed cuts to those contracts as an 'employee contribution', as they were euphemistically referred to in the budget documents the County Council looked at today. To us, it's about the money we need to survive in a county where the cost of living significantly outpaces what county employees make. It's gas money, or rent and mortgage money, or, in my case, the money I need to cover day care costs for my son. For those who style themselves as taxpayer advocates, it's about limiting tax increases. Then there are those few who see this as a way to stick it to the unions, based on whatever personal vendettas they may have.
But there is another angle to this debate as well, one that has serious repercussions for the 2010 elections. And it can all be summed up in a question a friend of mine asked me a couple weeks ago, "When did being slow growth make you anti-union?"
There are three significant bases of power in county-level elections in Montgomery County. Two of them are at opposite ends of a spectrum, the slow-growth and no-growth advocates who are interested in making sure our county's growth is sustainable, both environmentally and in terms of the services we receive, and the pro-development crowd who see growth as an opportunity to build Montgomery County's economic base or, in some cases, an opportunity to line their own pockets. There is little if any middle ground between these two groups. Which is one reason why the third power base, the public employee unions, often have significant influence on who gets elected in the county.
When George Leventhal beat Blair Ewing in 2002 by a little more than a thousand votes, he did it with support from the developers' Go Montgomery slate. When Duchy Trachtenberg and Marc Elrich beat out Mike Subin in 2006 by less than 10,000 votes, they had both the slow growth community and the unions on their side. For comparison, note that the MCEA, the union to which I belong, has around 12,000 members. That's more than the margin of victory in both those races. And MCEA is only one of the public employee unions in the county.
So for either side in the growth debate, having the support of public employees can provide the boost needed to win election. And alienating those public employees can seriously undermine their electoral potential. As a number of prominent members of the slow growth community have recently been calling for cuts to employee salaries, salaries which are sustainable in the current budget situation, a sense has developed among many public employees that the slow-growth community is anti-union. I personally don't believe this is true, as I know a number of leaders of the slow-growth movement who are passionately pro-union. But the debate in the recent Council District 4 election, statements circulating by e-mail from Civic Federation activists, and comments made by a number of slow-growth members of the council make that argument a difficult one to maintain.
Adam's right - unions don't forget. And they have especially long memories when it comes to broken contracts. At the MCEA Representative Assembly, people still angrily bring up the broken contracts of the early 1990's, mentioning that public employees have never made up for those losses in salary, and never will. Those who vote to violate negotiated contracts, to damage the county's public services by undemining its workforce, will have little to no chance of support from these unions in the next election cycle. So it's entirely possible that this will be the political landscape of the 2010 elections:
In District 4, with Don Praisner sticking to his promise not to run for re-election, School Board President Nancy Navarro would be the heavy favorite to win. In District 3, if a credible challenger to Phil Andrews materializes, there will be massive support for someone perceived as an enemy by both developers and by unions. In the at-large races, incumbents who vote to break contracts will, as was the case with Mike Subin in 2006, see serious challenges from people with union support. Meanwhile, Valerie Ervin, George Leventhal, and Mike Knapp, all of whom are friendly to the unions, will almost certainly have massive union support. So the razor-thin slow growth majority on the council could shift easily.
I would argue that it's a bad idea on the merits to cut the salaries of those employees who teach this county's children, protect its citizens from crime and fire, maintain its roads, and staff its libraries. But leaving aside the merits of the arguments, the slow growth coalition in the county is courting disaster right now. And given that, 2010 looks to be a very different election year than 2006 was.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Deadlock
The County Council gathered today to pass its budget for next year. Because that budget calls for a property tax hike in excess of the rate of inflation, the county’s charter requires seven votes for it to pass. Instead, the County Council split on a 4-4 vote. Deadlock.
First the preliminaries. The council voted unanimously to divert $25 million from the PAYGO program to the operating budget. As we reported yesterday, PAYGO is a cash contribution made by the county to its capital program, which is otherwise financed by bonds. Council Member Marc Elrich recommended this measure yesterday and the rest of the council agreed. The council also voted to cut its “reconciliation list,” or the new spending it intends to add to the County Executive’s proposal, from $40 million to $25 million. The two measures combined freed up $40 million for the budget, equal to the amount of “labor savings” proposed by Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg and Phil Andrews last week.
And then came the vote on Council President Mike Knapp’s proposed budget. That budget included a property tax hike of $138 million – equal to the amount proposed by the County Executive, but structured differently. The budget also did not alter the county’s labor contracts. Council Members Knapp, Valerie Ervin, George Leventhal and Nancy Floreen voted in favor. Council Members Elrich, Trachtenberg, Andrews and Roger Berliner voted against. Deadlock.
During the campaign season, many of these council members – all Democrats – tend to sound alike. All favor labor rights, helping poor people, fiscal responsibility, “smart” growth policy and high-quality services. The way to truly evaluate the differences between these council members is how they deal with the gritty specifics of governing. Ms. Floreen loves to say, “The devil is in the details.” (Spend a half-hour with her and she will say it twice.) She is absolutely correct and, in this budget season, there is plenty of hell to go around.
Valerie Ervin and George Leventhal stand on a principle: labor agreements must be honored. Ms. Ervin credits her former membership in the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (parent union of MCGEO) with helping her survive her days as a low-income single mother. Mr. Leventhal believes that high-quality services, especially the schools and public safety, are the reason why people move into Montgomery County. While many residents may be angry about taxation, he asserts that they are not angry at the public employees who serve and protect them. For both Ms. Ervin and Mr. Leventhal, any violation of the public employees’ agreements will erode the county’s ability to provide effective services and damage its value to residents over the long run.
Duchy Trachtenberg, Phil Andrews and Roger Berliner also stand on a principle: taxpayers and employees must both share the pain of reaching a budget in tough times. Ms. Trachtenberg believes that there are people in the county who are more vulnerable than public employees, including the poor, the homeless, seniors and the mentally ill. Mr. Andrews believes that it is only fair to ask county workers to accept pay reductions if residents are paying higher taxes. Whereas before he favored a two percent cost of living [COLA] reduction and “labor savings” in the amount of $40 million, he proposed today that public employees be furloughed without pay for two days. He expects that measure to save $20.5 million, which he would use to reduce the property tax hike. Mr. Berliner agreed with Mr. Andrews and declared that his furlough proposal did not “break the contracts.”
Marc Elrich did not vote against the budget because of the labor agreements, but because he disagrees with the structure of the property tax. As originally proposed by County Executive Ike Leggett, the property tax hike would have contained a significant rate increase but also a large increase in the tax credit. This would have been a rather progressive tax. The County Council voted 7-1 to decrease both the rate and the credit, effectively shifting the burden away from business and apartment buildings and onto homeowners. The council’s rationale was to lower the tax burden on renters by limiting its impact on rental buildings. Mr. Elrich would like a return to something resembling the County Executive’s proposal and is trying to leverage his vote accordingly. Since the property tax formula can be changed in multiple ways, perhaps Mr. Elrich can gain some movement in his desired direction.
Nancy Floreen said, “I don’t see the crisis particularly because we just added $20 million to the budget. I am bewildered by what the ‘crisis’ is.” Ms. Floreen has a point: the council added $40 million to the County Executive’s original spending proposal before cutting it back to $25 million today. These are hardly the acts of desperate times. She further advised against a “last minute reduction taken out of the backs of the people who provide the services.”
The council is now debating the disposition of $20 million out of a $4.3 billion budget. In almost any business or labor-management context, this relatively small sum could be worked out. But the issue has been hardened by the fact that both sides have adopted a position based on principle. Mr. Leventhal and Ms. Ervin will not bend on the labor agreements; Ms. Trachtenberg, Mr. Andrews and Mr. Berliner insist that tax increases must be accompanied by “labor savings.” Either side can block the budget because it requires seven of the sitting eight votes to pass.
And what of Council President Mike Knapp? Pity upcounty’s gentle giant. He is the man in the middle. The District of Columbia elects its Council President for a full term. The holder of that office possesses many carrots and sticks to cajole colleagues into line. But under Montgomery County's rotating Presidency, Mr. Knapp holds his office for only one year. He has much responsibility and little commensurate authority. He faces a badly divided County Council and is struggling to get them past their differences. But he must get them to agree. Because for a county government that is required by law to balance its budget, deadlock is not an option.
New Chevy Chase Town Council's First Meeting
The Chevy Chase Town Council met last night. Mayor Linna Barnes called the meeting to order at 7pm. Here is a totally unofficial account of what happened.
Public Comments
Strongly opposed to the tearing down of the home next door at 44th and Willow, Deborah Vollmer called for a new moratorium on teardowns, asked that the Council figure out something to do about private sales to builders, and closed by raising the specter of rats.
Rose Miller spoke about the regulation of traffic at Chevy Chase Elementary and handed in extensive written comments. Diane Dorfman said she sighted a fox on Walsh Street. Willie Blacklow asked about the status of the left-turn arrow at the traffic light on Connecticut at Rosemary. (Thanks to everyone who congratulated Al and myself on our election during their comments.)
Swearing In, Election of Officers, and Committees
Town Clerk Andi Silverstone swore in myself and Al Lang as new councilmembers, and Kathy Strom for a second term. The Council then unanimously elected Kathy Strom as mayor, Rob Enelow as vice mayor, Linna Barnes as treasurer, myself as secretary, and Al Lang as community liaison. Each councilmember will also serve as a liaison to one Town committee: Kathy to Community Relations, Rob to Environment, Linna to Land Use, myself to Long-Range Planning, and Al to Public Services.
Recognition of Former Council Members
Members of the Council spoke about Mier Wolf and Lance Hoffman. Lance was lauded for his efforts on the water ordinance and other areas. Linna proposed that Mier's long service be recognized by naming a Town park after him in the near future. Rob said that Mier had gotten him to run for the Council and spoke about how much Mier has down for the Town. I mentioned that I hoped the civility and respect with which Mier treats everyone would continue on the new Council. Kathy said she had spoken with Mier and hoped that he would stay active in the Town. Al talked about how he had gotten to know both Lance and Mier during the recent election and respected both men.
Finances
The Council approved the new tax rate. The property tax rate for FY09 was set at a level to collect the same amount as money as FY08, a gentle decline in taxes if one takes into account inflation. The budget was also approved quickly with no changes. The Town Manager posted the budget narrative online, a practice I hope will continue. The Council discussed revisions to the permit fee and performance bond schedule and will hold a public hearing on them at the next Town Council meeting.
Sidewalks
After presentation of current sidewalk options for Thornapple and Oakridge, Town Manager Todd Hoffman agreed to see if 3.5 foot sidewalks met ADA and other legal requirements. He also will get the engineer to draft a plan for a new option for Oakridge which will take the space required for a sidewalk partially from the street and partly from the right-of-way.
The existing options take all the space from the street resulting in the elimination of parking on one side of the street, or from the right-of-way requiring the construction of retaining walls. Public Service Liaison Al Lang will hold meetings with residents on Thornapple and Oakridge on the various options for the proposed sidewalks. The Council agreed to move (or remove) trees in the path of the proposed sidewalk on Thornapple now since trees are more likely to survive replanting in spring than in summer.
Speed Humps
Like many other Councils before us, we foundered on the issue of speed humps. Public Services Chair Bill Pritchard presented the proposed new speed hump policy which suggests data-driven guidelines for the new speed humps. Al and Rob worried that the guidelines might exclude speed humps from areas where they were needed. Linna and I thought the guidelines were useful because the Council would have more data (e.g. how many cars are speeding and by how much) before choosing to install a speed hump, though their installation would ultimately remain a Council decision (read: political question) and the Council could override the guidelines. After much debate, it was discovered that Bill's version was slightly different than the version being examined by the Council, so it was thought wise to hold off on a final decision until we are all literally reading from the same page.
Time Limits on Variance Approvals
After discussion, four members of the Council agreed that variances should expire after a certain point unless the work was carried out. Al Lang opposed the change as unneeded since the problem had only occurred on a few homes. Homeowners will have one year to pull the permit and begin the work envisioned under the variance and then another year once the permit is issued to complete the work with the Town Manager and Mayor able to grant extensions administratively for good cause. The Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed code changes.
Jane Lawton Memorial
I was pleased that my first formal motion on the Council was to embody the unanimously expressed sentiment that the Town Hall should be named in honor of Jane Lawton--Kathy and Linna seconded the motion simultaneouly. Mier Wolf had first proposed this idea on the previous Council. The Town Hall is rented from the County, and County Councilwoman Nancy Floreen has promised to lead the effort at the County level to make the change.
The Council then adjourned (five minutes early!) into executive session.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Council Votes 6-2 to Preserve Labor Agreements (Updated)
Last Friday, Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg and Phil Andrews voted in the council’s Management and Fiscal Policy (MFP) Committee to recommend $40 million in “labor savings” or “employee participation,” alternative terms for under-funding the county’s collective bargaining agreements with its employees. Today, they sought support for their proposal from the full County Council. They found none.
Labor contracts were not the only budget item considered by the Council. They also discussed the nature of the proposed property tax hike. The MFP Committee recommended that the County Executive’s proposed rate and his proposed credit be cut. The effect of that structural change would be to channel the tax burden onto homeowners and away from commercial properties, including apartment buildings occupied by renters. That proposal was approved by the Council by a 7-1 vote, with Council Member Marc Elrich dissenting. Council Members Trachtenberg and Andrews also recommended lowering the amount by which the property tax would exceed the charter limit from $138 million (which was the County Executive’s proposal) to $118 million. Ms. Trachtenberg and Mr. Andrews were joined by Mike Knapp and Roger Berliner, but Valerie Ervin, Marc Elrich, George Leventhal and Nancy Floreen voted against it. And so the property tax reduction failed on a 4-4 vote. Interestingly, Ms. Floreen commented that she voted against the reduction because she wanted to see a larger one.
But the main action of the day concerned “labor savings.” The 300+ people who mobbed the room were not there to lobby for a $20 million reduction in a tax hike. The vast majority were public employees present to defend their livelihoods. And at least from the perspective of political theater, the County Council did not disappoint.
Former union organizer Valerie Ervin hurled the first thunderbolt. “We could fund this budget right now and not go into the COLAs [cost of living adjustments],” she said. “A lot of this other stuff is just subterfuge.”
George Leventhal objected to any hint of “subterfuge,” defending the county government’s record of clean government. But he agreed with Ms. Ervin on the COLAs, saying, “I don’t really appreciate the term ‘employee participation.’ That’s a euphemism for busting contracts.”
Phil Andrews would not back down. He looked the 300+ public employees in the eye and told them, “Employees need to do their part… It would be unfair to expect taxpayers to pay a tax increase to fully fund employee contracts that would be 8% next year.” He praised MFP Chairwoman Trachtenberg, who had joined with him in recommending labor savings, for her “intelligence, diligence and guts.”
Duchy Trachtenberg also stuck to her guns. “I have stood with labor on a number of issues,” she said, citing her support for living wage legislation and the SEIU’s organizing campaign at Montgomery College. “I represent a million residents. Most of them don’t have an opportunity to join a union and benefit from collective bargaining agreements… I don’t disrespect you, but I respect the unrepresented, the seniors, the disabled and the homeless.” She told the crowd, “I have been the object of a lot of vilification. It doesn’t do any good to attack another person on a policy difference.”
But the other Council Members did not seem convinced that reducing the COLAs was the only alternative. Council Member Marc Elrich brought up possible savings from the county’s annual PAYGO expenditure. PAYGO is a cash contribution made by the county towards capital projects, which are mostly financed by bonds. Council staff told Mr. Elrich that next year’s capital budget would be paid for by $330 million in bond issuances and $30 million in a cash PAYGO contribution. If the county did not make its cash contribution this year, it would not necessarily delay any capital projects which would be mostly covered by bonds. In fact, the unions recommended reducing PAYGO by $10 million last week, just one part of their suggested $67 million package of cuts and alternate revenues. Mr. Elrich’s idea received support from several other Council Members, though Ms. Trachtenberg opposed it.
And then Mr. Leventhal pointed out the real role played by the council in labor contract decisions. For non-schools government employees, the council does indeed set funding levels for contracts. But with regard to the public school system, the council only approves its budget as a whole. Contract funding is decided by the school board. Mr. Leventhal called Board of Education President (and former County Council candidate) Nancy Navarro to the witness table. He asked her whether the school system, if handed a budget cut by the council, would respond by cutting employee raises. She replied, “The board feels very strongly that its strategic investment is in the compensation of our employees.” And then she said that while she could not speak for the rest of the board, she personally would not vote to underfund contracts. Mr. Leventhal concluded that if the council cuts contracts for non-school employees but the school board preserved its employees’ pay, significant inequities in pay scales would result.
After Ms. Ervin recognized several exceptional county employees in the room – including one fire fighter who had heroically raced into a burning building to rescue victims inside – the County Council took its vote on the contracts. Ms. Trachtenberg and Mr. Andrews were the only Council Members on the short end of a 6-2 vote. While some of their colleagues defended their good faith, none were willing to break the county’s commitment to its employees.
But the issue is far from decided. In order to fund the contracts, the council must approve a property tax hike that exceeds the rate of inflation tomorrow. The county’s charter states that seven votes are necessary to do that. Both Mr. Andrews and Ms. Trachtenberg have publicly opposed breaking the limit, which would be sufficient to block it. One of them must budge. If they do not, there is no obvious alternative and catastrophe would result.
And so the lights will be on in the County Council building very, very late tonight.
Update: The Gazette and the Post have also covered the story.
Town of Chevy Chase Budget
Town Manager Todd Hoffman has posted a copy of the Town's budget narrative to the Town website at:
http://www.townofchevychase.org/assets/documents/pdfs/financials/09text.pdf
The document gives a line-by-line explanation for the budget. I found it very helpful. For each item, the narrative also states how much was budgeted and actually spent for FY08, and how much is proposed for FY09. One caution as you look through this and the actual budget is that the Town tends to take a conservative approach. Revenues are estimated on the low end and spending on the high end. Just because a budget item for FY09 is higher than spent for FY08 does not mean that spending will actually rise. It is quite common for the Town to spend less than budgeted.
The proposed FY09 budget itself can be found at:
http://www.townofchevychase.org/assets/documents/pdfs/financials/fy09budget.pdf
You'll see that budgeted (but not actual) revenues and expenditures balance. Town Clerk Andi Silverstone tells me that this is required by law. In reality, as you can see, we had healthy surpluses in FY07 and FY08. This money does not disappear but goes into the general fund and remains available to the Town.
WaPo writer complains about turnout; does not look in mirror
Boy this one rates as dumb. Today's Maryland Moment (WaPo blog on MD politics) has writer Ann Marimow with a headline of How Low Can They Go in MoCo that highlights the 8% turnout in yesterday's election.
Ms. Marimow mentions that the turnout was around 8%, true. But my question is how can a reporter for WaPo point a finger at the low turnout when her paper did next to nothing to promote the race. Too busy letting us know what is going on in Iraq and on the Presidential campaign trail but consistently fails to cover local events.
Another Round of Being Punked by the Post
I mentioned this during the primary race between Al Wynn and Donna Edwards. There they have the most important test of mainstream Democrats and left Democrats as any race in the country and we got third rate coverage.
This time the race to replace Marilyn Praisner was decidedly smaller than the Wynn-Edwards race and the coverage reflected that. But the real complaint is the WaPo did next to nothing to cover the special election (the time between the primary and yesterday) and much of anything. I never saw an editorial from them. The Gazette had an editorial and it was less than three column inches buried in the lower right hand corner of the editorial page.
The WaPo was even worse. Tuesday's paper had a mention of the race in the Metro section on page 2 in the upper right hand side. It was not the lead story. Total length was two paragraphs.
So for Ms. Marimow to put a headline on her blog about how low the turnout can go in MoCo when her paper did next to nothing in covering the race I have to laugh. Then I wrote a blog piece how stupid the Maryland Moment blog post she wrote is.
Next time look in the mirror WaPo. I think we have be in Iraq or someplace in Europe for the Post to care about us.
Mike Miller is Not Going Anywhere
Recently, there has been a lot of speculation as to whether Senate President Mike Miller would stick to his earlier pledge to retire. We are putting this conjecture to rest with one bold prediction: Mike Miller is not going anywhere.
Have you ever met the Senate President? We did, back in January. The white-maned, snorting old bull stomps into any room he enters and instantly dominates it. But he does not radiate pomp or arrogance like many politicians. He instead relies on good-old-boy, Free State charm, delivered with a bellowing laugh and a rough handshake. Miller would be equally at home entertaining foreign dignitaries at the statehouse or slamming boilermakers down at the shipyard.
The Senate President regaled our group with tales of his dealings with the media. He expressed hope that the blogs could provide a bit of balance to right-wing radio “even though I know some of you are with me and some of you are against me.” And then he cast a long, baleful look around the room. Now I have heard from multiple sources that Miller is a blog reader. “Hmmm,” I thought, “Is he trying to figure out who wrote this?” Miller seemed a wee bit hurt, perhaps let down, that he could be so misunderstood by any of us. And that’s when it hit me: this is part of his bag of tricks.
Better than anyone, Mike Miller understands the volatile and fragile mix of ego, fear, hope, insecurity and the needy desire to be loved that defines most politicians. He knows how to push every one of those buttons. He praises obedient Senators as courageous. He predicts dire consequences for the wayward. He shuffles subcomittee chairmanships and vice-chairmanships like cards in an ever-winning hand. He elevates junior Senators above senior ones when they stick with the boss. A longtime Annapolis player told me, “We call him Big Daddy. When people screw up, he doesn’t get mad at them. Instead, he tells them he's ‘disappointed.’ No one wants to let Dad down.”
Miller is resented by many Montgomery County liberals because he is rabidly pro-slots and lukewarm at best on gay rights. But Miller is actually to the left of most of the county’s allegedly liberal delegation on progressive taxation. He also expressed his opposition to Virginia’s harsh immigration measures in our interview. Many liberals tend to forget that Miller has to balance a diverse group ranging from anti-tax Baltimore County Senator (and former Miller aide) James Brochin to left-wingers like Senators Paul Pinsky, Jamie Raskin and Rich Madaleno. Brochin and Madaleno are both in Miller’s doghouse now for different reasons, but they will get out eventually if they stop making trouble for the boss. That is part of Miller’s way.
What would a Miller-less Senate look like? For a preview, look at the Montgomery County Council’s current deliberations on its budget. Only a few days out from the first vote on the next budget’s outline, there was still no public agreement on how to cut the county’s $297 million deficit. The late Marilyn Praisner, the most feared head-breaker in Rockville, would have had none of that. Would this sort of thing happen to Maryland’s Senate without its fearsome overlord?
Mike Miller is surrounded by a huge group of Senate allies, aides, former aides, lobbyists, former aides who are now lobbyists and many others who are commonly referred to as his “family.” They depend on him and cannot imagine Annapolis without him. They are undoubtedly urging him to stay on because, after all, no one can do the job of Senate President as well as their Dad (or Grand-dad) can. If you were in Miller’s position, how could you say no to your entire family?
The fact is that Big Daddy is the most powerful politician in Maryland's nearly 400-year history to never occupy the Governor's chair. And whatever you may think of him, Mike Miller is not going anywhere.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Trifecta for Chris and DCCC
Hillary's win in West Virginia has dominated press coverage tonight but the story that should have Republicans quaking is that Democrats won the special election runoff for Mississippi's First District. Chris Van Hollen's DCCC has now won three special elections in Republican territory:
Illinois 14. Former Speaker Denny Hastert's district went 55% for Bush in 2004 and is now held by Democrat Bill Foster.
Louisiana 6. Democrats didn't even field a candidate against the incumbent in 2002, 2004, or 2006, but Democrat Donald Cazayoux now holds this district where Bush scored 59% of the vote in 2004.
Mississippi 1. Republican Roger Wicker never won less than two-thirds of the vote since his first election in 1994. Bush won 62% of the vote in 2004 here but Democrat Travis Childers won the seat tonight with 52% of the vote.
Update: The Washington Post stole my, admittedly not that original, headline.
Council Election Update
Update 2: 10:00 PM The BOE has 43 of the 45 precincts reporting and the figures are holding at 66% to 33%.
The victory garden in the front yard of Alison Praisner Klumpp's house.
Alison Praisner Klumpp and her dad and new Council member, Don Praisner, outside of her home.
Update 9:32 PM: With 26 out of 45 precincts reporting and Praisner leading 66% to 33% over Fennel, Mark called to concede to Don. Picture is below. More information to follow as I get it.
Long time no post. But I tried to get you some mid-day reports on turnout. This should hold you over until the results comes over at the MoCo BOE.
The 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM counts are listed below:
What this table points out is that the Others (Non-Affiliated) voters were not voting. And that the turnout by party is matching the turnout by party that is in the district.
In short, unless Mark Fennel can take 27% of the Democratic vote our next Council member will be Don Praisner.
More to follow....
The Limits of Labor
Ann Marimow is a good reporter and I respect her work. But in her Sunday Post article, “Union Influence Sways Montgomery Budget Talks,” I believe she overstates her case. Montgomery County labor has power, but that power has its limits.
This may seem a curious statement coming from me. After all, my now-notorious 2006 guest post in which I christened the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA) the county’s 800-pound gorilla has contributed to the image of labor power in Montgomery. The story behind that long-ago essay is that I was running a petition drive at my precinct and witnessed the extraordinary attention given by voters to MCEA’s Apple Ballot. I then calculated the 90% win percentage earned by Apple Ballot candidates in the Democratic primary and concluded that MCEA had played an important role in the election. That essay was originally intended only for my own union people and a few friends but found its way onto the Internet through third parties as a guest blog. And so began my descent into online infamy, an unhappy event lamented by many who have been spoofed here. While the point of that original post may be true, it presents only one side of the story.
Consider the following facts in assessing the limits of public union power:
1. Public employees in Montgomery County are not uniformly better paid than in other jurisdictions. I compared wages and benefits across jurisdictions in a post last month and found no systemic advantage for workers in Montgomery. In fact, firefighters and teachers lagged many other nearby counties, many Montgomery workers are not eligible for a defined benefit pension and even teachers with Masters degrees cannot afford to buy the average county townhouse. Is this a result you would expect from “Big Labor?”
2. In my 800-pound gorilla post, I wrote:With property tax growth slowing down, the next county council will face tough budgetary decisions. Public schools account for half of the county’s budget and would be an obvious location for cuts. But don’t expect any action there: the county’s politicians have learned that those who cross the Teachers Union once are unlikely to be given a second opportunity.
How wrong can a man be and still be allowed to blog? The fact is that County Executive Leggett has not recommended full funding for the public schools’ budget request in either of his first two years in office. Last year, the County Executive proposed $19.7 million less for the school budget than requested by the Superintendent. The County Council ultimately approved $6 million less than the school request. This year, the County Executive recommended $51 million less than the Superintendent’s request, of which $26 million has so far been restored by the County Council. The school unions have performed well in defending their budget but they are hardly untouchable.
3. SEIU Local 500 has so far been unsuccessful in persuading Montgomery College to terminate its “union avoidance” attorney. If the unions were truly all-powerful, the college’s actions would have been unthinkable.
4. Union-backed candidates do not automatically win. Many have noted the losses of school board candidate Alies Muskin and County Council candidate Nancy Navarro. But look back on 2006. Progressive Maryland President Elbridge James and teacher Melodye Berry were badly outraised and finished next-to-last in their delegate races despite being Apple-approved. MCEA could not save Ida Ruben from Jamie Raskin in the District 20 Senate race. And Apple Republican incumbents Howard Denis (County Council) and Jean Cryor (State Delegate) fell to Democratic challengers. Apparently George W. Bush had more sway with MoCo voters than did MCEA!
Pure union-only candidates struggle. Labor tends to do best when it backs candidates in concert with others. For example, a combination of union and civic support helped to elect County Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg and Marc Elrich and resulted in the eviction of Mike Subin. The real genius of the county’s labor strategists has been to pick candidates who are strong on their own merits and (hopefully) agree on union priorities. But even union-supported candidates sometimes stray, as has Council Member Trachtenberg – further evidence of the limits of labor power.
I will bet that most of our readers are not union members. “Why should I care about this?” you ask. Montgomery has always been a “you-get-what-you-pay-for” county. Our citizens have been willing to pay higher taxes than in other jurisdictions in a belief that higher service quality would result. Many Montgomery residents are employees or contractors of the federal government and easily see the relationship between funding and performance. Sometimes residents make common cause with unions in seeking county funding, as PTA members occasionally do with MCEA. By pressing for good compensation and adequate budgets, the unions help the county maintain its service level and recruit superior talent. Without strong unions, Montgomery’s politics might resemble those of infighting, school-challenged, crony-infested Prince George’s, or perhaps developer-, business- and tax-activist-dominated Northern Virginia.
Look into the eyes of this woman and read her sign. Labor is at its best when it presents her message to both the politicians and the public at large. Labor has power. Labor has limits. But labor, and the rest of the county, can only succeed if our citizens agree with the woman above.
Disclosure: The author is the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, which does not represent government employees in Maryland.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
REVOLT!
In a moment that defined their political careers, Montgomery County Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg, Phil Andrews and Valerie Ervin put the fate of the public employees’ cost of living adjustments on the table last Friday. Present to greet them were over 300 chanting, stomping, clapping and occasionally yelling union members.
Council Members Trachtenberg, Andrews and Ervin are members of the council’s Management and Fiscal Policy (MFP) Committee. The committee’s charge on Friday was to discuss the extent to which savings on the county’s labor costs should be applied to fix its $297 million budget deficit. “Labor savings” ultimately means funding less for personnel costs than is called for in the county’s collective bargaining agreements: a practice derisively labeled by the unions as “contract busting.”
A word about the union members in the pictures. Assembled by pugnacious MCGEO President Gino Renne in the nearby County Executive Office Building, they were in no mood for “contract busting” and marched across a rain-soaked street to confront their council overseers. Their radioactive yellow battle color is not intended to please the eye and it certainly does not. It is designed to attract attention. They certainly received plenty of it on Friday.
Council Member Trachtenberg, chairwoman of the MFP Committee, opened the meeting with new transfer and recordation tax receipt numbers for April. Transfer and recordation taxes depend on property sales and they have been devastated by the recent collapse in the county’s real estate and construction market. According to Ms. Trachtenberg, the county received $13 million in transfer and recordation taxes in April 2008, down from $18 million in April 2007. For the year to date, transfer and recordation taxes totaled $138 million, down from $180 million the year prior. “Taxpayers are reaching a breaking point,” declared Ms. Trachtenberg and that justified a 2% reduction in the unions’ negotiated COLAs.
Council Member Andrews agreed. Citing the fact that personnel costs accounted for 80% of the county’s budget, he told the ornery union members, “What’s fair is to ask everyone to help.” As he has for months, he criticized the unions’ agreements as “unaffordable” and stated flatly, “I would not have negotiated the contracts that came over to us.” Supporting Ms. Trachtenberg, he said, “I believe that the 2% COLA reduction is a fair way to go.”
Pictures cannot do justice to the unholy din created by the roaring public employees. Hundreds of police officers, bus drivers, librarians, deputy sheriffs, correctional officers and park and planning workers rose to their feet to challenge Council Members Trachtenberg and Andrews. “What are you giving back?” one cried. “We are the taxpayers!” another yelled. “You’re hitting us twice!” pointed out one employee who was also a county resident. Worker after worker decried simultaneous increases in fuel and food costs, cuts in county services and proposed cuts in COLAs as a squeeze on their standard of living from multiple sides.
And then Ms. Ervin took the mike. She is a 25-year veteran organizer and trainer in the labor movement and everyone knew what she would say. “I was a proud member of the UFCW union,” she announced to the crowd. “We do not have to balance this budget on the backs of working people.” She recounted a bookful of statistics on poverty and income inequality to the groans of the audience (some of which we will examine on this blog) and concluded with, “Montgomery County is affluent for only some people.” “I believe that cutting salaries will hurt our local economy,” she said, “and I will not support a 2% COLA reduction.” We present the crowd’s reaction below.
In the end, the MFP Committee did not recommend a 2% COLA reduction. Instead, Ms. Trachtenberg introduced a motion calling for $40 million in “labor savings” with the exact mechanism to be decided later by the rest of the County Council. Mr. Andrews concurred and Ms. Ervin ferociously dissented. Neither the council members nor the staff justified this particular number against a lesser or greater amount. No mention was made by anyone of the unions’ identification of $67 million in additional revenues and savings as reported on this blog. The Post and the Gazette also omitted that fact from their coverage.
So what will become of the committee’s proposal for “labor savings,” a euphemism for underfunding the contracts? There do not appear to be any other votes on the council for the MFP Committee’s proposal, especially considering the fact that the union contracts are affordable in the next fiscal year. Instead, a rough consensus is forming in favor of a slightly lower property tax increase than that proposed by the County Executive along with a carbon tax proposed by Council Member Nancy Floreen. 
But even that plan involves breaking the county’s charter limit on property tax increases, which generally holds tax receipt gains to a level equaling the increase in the consumer price index. Seven of the eight County Council Members must vote to exceed that limit. Both Council Members Trachtenberg and Andrews oppose breaking the charter limit, enough to kill any property tax hike. Will either of them budge on that position, thus enabling the union contracts to be preserved? That is the big question. We will have an answer by Thursday.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Labor Between the Hammer and the Anvil
As Montgomery County's budget battle draws to a clamorous climax, a new bomb has been dropped.
Yesterday, Council Member Trachtenberg sent the following letter calling for a 2 percent cost of living reduction to each of the county's public sector unions:
The unions countered in two ways.
1. In a letter to Ms. Trachtenberg sent today, MCEA, SEIU Local 500 and the school supervisors listed $67 million in new revenues available to the council next year. Those revenues include:
$14 Million
Adjustments in OPEB [contributions to future retiree healthcare liabilities]; would allow for 8 year payout, but does not assume the same level of increase; $11 million in savings from MCPS and $3 million from other agencies.
$9 Million
Net gain from increases in energy tax [as proposed by Council Member Floreen].
$10 Million
Could be taken from PAYGO.
$19 Million
Reduction of .5% into the reserve [maintained by the county to protect its AAA credit rating].
$15 Million
Potential carry-over carry over funds that were set aside in the FY 08 budget for emergencies, such as snow removal that were not needed.
2. In their letter to Ms. Trachtenberg, the unions state, "An additional source of revenue is to take into account any revenues in excess of projections in the current budget. We have no knowledge of what that figure is since it has not been shared by the County Executive’s office." Indeed, rumors are flying that the county's income tax receipts may be higher than first thought. The unions have sent a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request to the County Executive's office seeking a monthly tabulation of new income tax revenues received from the state. They hope to discover evidence that income tax receipts are higher than projected, thus relieving the pressure on their contracts.
One of the sad aspects of this showdown is that it may not be necessary. A week ago, we demonstrated to our readers that the County Executive's budget projects $301 million in new revenues for FY09 against $154 million in added union labor costs. At least for next year, labor's cost of living adjustment is easily affordable. Nevertheless, the hammer is falling.
In the private sector, an employer could not do what the county is considering. If a private company attempted to unilaterally change a labor agreement, the union could strike, file unfair labor practice charges, get enforcement orders from the National Labor Relations Board and the courts and file suit to collect benefit contributions. Only employers under bankruptcy protection could unilaterally alter wage levels. Montgomery County may be in a recession, but it is not under the supervision of a bankruptcy judge!
The fate of the unions' COLAs is far from certain. Council Members Trachtenberg and Phil Andrews can block the County Executive's proposed property tax increase, which requires seven of the eight sitting council members to pass. But altering the union contracts would require five votes. It may be difficult for Ms. Trachtenberg and Mr. Andrews to find three more council members willing to cut the COLAs when there are less electorally-threatening alternatives available.
And if the council simultaneously rejects the property tax hike and rejects COLA reductions, what then? No one knows. But the choice must be made in less than a week.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
MCDCC to the Rescue
Folks, this is why we need a strong Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee. In addition to mailing out a sample ballot for Don Praisner in the County Council District 4 special election, MCDCC is putting out this call for volunteers on poll coverage.May 8, 2008
If you want to prevent Robin Ficker from joining the County Council staff, call MCDCC at 301-946-1000.
MCDCC Members:
We are approaching the Special General Election on Tuesday, May 13, 2008. It is vital that we have coverage for all precincts in this election.
I am asking the MCDCC members to support this effort by volunteering their time to help with poll coverage.
Please let us know the duration of time that you will be available. I understand that we all have a busy schedule, but we can give a portion of our time when the stakes are so high and the Republicans are running a very aggressive Get-Out-the-Vote operation.
The staff at the MCDCC office will be maintaining a precinct coverage spreadsheet that will have information regarding which precincts require coverage and the time frame for coverage needed.
By responding quickly, we can effectively make timely decisions to fill those precincts that are pending coverage.
You can help make this election run smoothly and demonstrate your support for the Council District 4 Democratic candidate, Don Praisner.
Please forward this email to your local Democratic District Clubs and ask them to send it to their databases.
Your continued commitment to supporting our Democratic Candidates is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Vivian
Governor, It’s Up to You
In a comment on my previous post calling for Maryland’s uncommitted super delegates to jointly announce their support for Senator Barack Obama, District 39 Delegate Saqib Ali said the following:Adam, Why do you only put the responsibility on the 9 unpledged Super-Delegates?
Delegate Ali makes a fair point. Maryland’s pro-Clinton super delegates are:
I agree that all the uncommitted Super Delegates should immediately endorse Senator Obama.
However the 11 Super Delegates who have previously pledged to Senator Clinton should also SWITCH to Senator Obama post-haste. It is their responsibility to heal the party every bit as much as the uncommitted SuperDs.
In fact if "The Clinton 11" switch, it would have a net effect of +22 for Obama. It would be a crushing blow. It would have a huge mathematical and psychological effect. It might end the nomination battle today.
So yes, the 9 uncommitted should join the Obama train. But even more important, The Clinton 11 should join too!
Governor Martin O’Malley
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger
State Treasurer Nancy Kopp
Former Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend
Alvaro Cifuentes, Former Chair, DNC Hispanic Caucus
Maria Cordone, Director of Community Services, International Association of Machinists
Richard Michalski, Vice President, International Association of Machinists
Glenard Middleton, President, AFSCME Council 67
Carol Pensky, Founder, DNC Women’s Forum
Michael Steed, Managing Director, Paladin Capital Group
We should note that both AFSCME and the Machinists have endorsed Senator Clinton. Since the Clinton Administration fought hard to pass NAFTA, which has devastated the Machinists, many of the rest of us in labor have been scratching our heads over their endorsement for many months.
The key figure in the above list is Governor O’Malley. He alone has the power to deliver most if not all of Maryland’s super delegates as a group, as Delegate Ali suggests. Some believe that the Governor has national ambitions. What better way to enter the national stage as a bold deliverer of the party from a continuing bloody primary fight?
There are more parochial reasons for the Governor to intervene. Maryland badly needs federal funding for its BRAC transportation projects, its three proposed transit projects (Baltimore’s Red Line and the Washington suburbs’ Purple Line and Corridor Cities Transitway) and further cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay. How would the Governor be better positioned in pursuing those funds? By sticking with a furious, increasingly ugly Clinton campaign to the bitter, losing end? Or by delivering victory in the primary to future President Obama?
Governor, it’s up to you. We are watching.
On Political Pulse
Washington Post writer Ann Marimow, who has written a series of articles on Montgomery County budget issues such as the $300 million deficit, will be on the 'Political Pulse' TV Show on Thursday, May 8th at 9 p.m. and Tuesday, May 13th at 9:30 p.m. Among other things, Ann will discuss the important votes that the County Council will take on the budget in the next 2 weeks.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
Death Sciences versus Life Sciences
From Marc Korman: A few weeks ago, I heard District 18 Senator Rich Madaleno refer to the difference between Maryland’s and Virginia’s reliance on federal government spending as the difference between life sciences and death sciences. Maryland benefits when the government is investing in healthcare and scientific research, while Virginia benefits when the government invests in war and defense.
I thought it was an astute, and somewhat humorous observation. The question is, is it true?
Broadly speaking, it’s easy to look around and say yes. After all, Virginia has the Pentagon and we have the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute of Science and Technology. Looking at non-defense science more broadly, Maryland is also home to the Goddard Space Center. But how about if we take a closer look at some other measures of Maryland versus Virginia. Below are three categories to help us examine the issue.
First, we look at the value of government procurement contracts for the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services, and NASA.
Second, we look at the location of the corporate headquarters for the top government contractors for those same government agencies.
Third, we examine how many military installations there are in Maryland and Virginia.
2006 Government Procurement Contract Dollars
Agency Maryland Virginia
Department of Defense 21,803,858 41,915,022
Homeland Security 1,000,833 3,002,026
Department of Health and
Human Services 3,634,797 556,061
NASA 1,314,526 79,506
Government Contractors
Of the top five defense contractors in 2007, one was based in Maryland and two were based in Virginia.
Defense Contractor Corporate Headquarters
Lockheed Martin Maryland
Boeing Illinois
Northrop Grumman California
General Dynamics Virginia
Raytheon Massachusetts
Of the top five homeland security contractors in 2007, one is located in Virginia and none are located in Maryland.
Homeland Security Contractor Corporate Headquarters
Integrated Coast Guard Systems Virginia (Note, this is a Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman Partnership)
IBM New York
L-3 Communications Holdings New York
Unisys Pennsylvania
SAIC California
Of the top five Department of Health and Human Services contractors in 2007, none were based in Maryland or Virginia.
Health and Human Services Contractor Corporate Headquarters
Merck New Jersey
Sanofi Pasteur Pennsylvania
GlaxoSmithKline Pennsylvania (US HQ)
Wyeth Pennsylvania
Bavarian Nordic No US HQ Listed
Of the top five NASA contractors in 2007, one is in Maryland and none are in Virginia.
NASA Contractor Corporate Headquarters
California Institute of Technology California
United Space Alliance Texas (Note, this is a Lockheed Martin and Boeing Partnership)
Lockheed Martin Maryland
Boeing Illinois
Jacobs Engineering Group California
Military Installations
There are seven active military bases in Maryland:
Bethesda Naval Center
Naval Station Annapolis
Naval Air Station Patuxent River
US Naval Academy
Andrews Air Force Base
Fort Meade
Fort Detrick
Aberdeen Proving Ground
There are fifteen active military bases in Virginia (does not include the Pentgon):
Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base
Norfolk Naval Shipyard
Norfolk Naval Station
Oceana Naval Air Station
Portsmouth Naval Medical Center
Yorktown Naval Weapons Station
Langley Air Force Base
Fort A.P. Hill
Fort Belvoir
Fort Eustis
Fort Lee
Fort Monroe
Fort Myer
Fort Story
Quantico Marine Base
Coast Guard Atlantic Area – Portsmouth
Cost Guard Integrated Support Center – Portsmouth
Coast Guard Reserve Training Center Yorktown
Cape Henry Inn and Beach Club
So what do these categories demonstrate? That the facts back up Senator Madaleno’s observation. Virginia receives far more in defense contract dollars than Maryland, and that category far outweighs other federal spending. Virginia also has more military installations, beginning with the Pentagon. However, Maryland does receive some benefit from increased security dollars, including the contribution from Lockheed Martin, one of the state’s largest employers with almost 10,000 people.
Overall, Maryland would benefit much more from increased investment in science, which will hopefully come with a Democratic Administration, while Virginia benefits far more from the military-industrial complex.
Robin Ficker Joins the County Council Staff
Of course this has not happened, but it might. Here’s how the Stella Werner building’s worst nightmare could come true.
Let’s put aside the ideological differences between County District 4 special election candidates Don Praisner and his Ficker-backed opponent, Mark Fennel. All elections boil down to mathematics in the end. And it is mathematically possible for Fennel to beat Mr. Praisner.
Consider the following statistics. In the District 4 special primary, 7,658 Democrats voted, of whom 3,391 voted for Mr. Praisner. The Republicans attracted 1,919 primary voters, of whom 926 voted for Fennel. That means Fennel has a chance if three things happen:
1. Democrats who voted for one of Mr. Praisner’s opponents do not show up for the general election.
Nancy Navarro’s supporters are still fuming about the negative attacks against their candidate. Steve Kanstoroom and Pat Ryan were both asked to leave early in the race by Mr. Praisner’s allies. None of these three has much incentive to encourage their people to vote for Mr. Praisner unless they hope to earn his endorsement in 2010 (and that will not happen for Navarro).
2. Only half of Mr. Praisner’s primary voters show up for the general election.
One of the things that stood out from both the phone banking and door knocking was that the vast majority of District 4 Democrats did not know there was a special primary. Who is reminding them that there is a special general on May 13th? MCDCC is stepping up with a mailing on behalf of Mr. Praisner. But we see less activity from his organization now than we did a month ago aside from a recent ice cream fundraiser. One anonymous but influential Praisner supporter told me, “Dem complacency now is very dangerous.”
3. Every Republican shows up again to vote for Fennel.
This possibility cannot be dismissed. Fennel’s de facto campaign manager, Robin Ficker, is the all-time MoCo champion of sign-planting and petition-gathering. Love him or hate him, no one has more energy than the maniacal Ficker. And the Republicans were never as divided as the Democrats in this race. Anti-tax Republicans would love to grab any elected office in the county regardless of whether the candidate is Fennel or someone else. A low-turnout special election may be their best opportunity.
If every one of the above events occurred, Fennel would defeat Mr. Praisner by a 1,919 to 1,696 vote, or a 53-47% spread. It would be the ultimate royal flush in MoCo political history.
So could it actually happen? The chances are extremely low, but they are greater than zero. It’s time for the Democrats to get back to work.
