Eric Luedtke’s analysis of the impact of the District 4 campaign on future Montgomery races was truly excellent. So naturally, I’d like to spoil it with my own two cents.
First, many politicians I talk to seem to have learned the wrong lesson from this race. They assume Nancy Navarro won in part because of the negative mail and anticipate more of that in 2010. They may be right that negative campaigning will increase, but it is fundamentally unknowable whether the anti-Kramer mailers put Navarro over the top. Ben Kramer was able to use those mailers to depict Navarro as a nasty opponent and himself as a victim, and that may very well have helped him to increase turnout among his base in Leisure World. Politicians emphasize this tactic in part because of its mass visibility. In contrast, the micro-targeting that Navarro’s campaign used was never matched by Kramer and had no downside. Since it was largely invisible, it does not receive sufficient credit for helping Navarro win the primary.
Eric also said this:I think we saw a profound difference between the way the Navarro campaign treated bloggers – as real media targets in the same way they pursue reporters – versus how the Kramer campaign treated bloggers – as, well, bloggers.
And how! I have two pieces of advice for politicians on how to deal with bloggers in 2010.
1. Send us every bit of positive information about your own campaign.
The Navarro and Lamari campaigns fed us a steady diet of positive news about themselves. Navarro’s staff sent us lots of endorsements, pictures, videos, mailers and everything else short of a new sauna. Lamari did the same thing and even contributed an op-ed column. (We encourage all politicians to steal Cary Lamari’s community land trust idea as long as they give him credit!) But the Kramer campaign sent us very little positive info about him. We had to go out and obtain his endorsements from those organizations themselves. We also had to ask Duchy Trachtenberg’s staff for her endorsement of Kramer. We only received two unsolicited pro-Kramer statements – one from Kevin Gillogly and another from Alison Klumpp – and neither of them were paid Kramer staffers. If we did not affirmatively seek out positive information on Kramer, very little of it would have appeared here because his campaign did not volunteer it.
Kramer’s people did respond to requests for information. One item they sent me – a set of notes from the State Highway Administration about the Georgia-Norbeck intersection – directly contradicted a statement made by Lamari in a debate. Why didn’t they offer this to me right after the debate and not wait for me to ask for it? If I had not gone out of my way to pursue this information, Kramer’s side of the Georgia-Norbeck issue would not have been told.
2. Don’t lie.
At the very beginning of the campaign, I asked Ben Kramer this question:Delegate, the last time you ran for County Council, you finished seventh out of eight candidates in the 1998 at-large race. If you finished that badly last time, why do you think you will win this time?
Kramer replied the reason he ran poorly in 1998 was that he dropped out of the race but missed the withdrawal deadline. He told me that his name was still on the ballot, but since he did not campaign, he attracted few votes.
I quickly discovered this was untrue. Kramer earned County Executive Doug Duncan’s endorsement prior to June 1998. He participated in a candidate debate in August. The Gazette mentioned Kramer’s candidacy on August 26 and discussed his mailers on September 2. Also on September 2, the Gazette reported that 40% of Kramer’s contributions came from developers. The Gazette reported the results from a poll on the at-large race, including Kramer, on September 9. And on election night, Kramer went to a vote count at Richard Montgomery High School before learning of his loss. The Gazette carried this quote:“I don’t have an answer [about what happened],” said a key Kramer supporter, Gino Renne, president of the Municipal and County Government Employees Organization.
I did not report this at the time because I was hoping that Kramer had made a mistake. What candidate would deliberately make such a claim when it could be so easily checked? But the more I thought about it, the more my skepticism of his campaign’s statements grew. One problem was Kramer’s position on ICC traffic mitigation. His sister, Senator Rona Kramer (D-14), defended a plan by SHA to build a bypass around Georgia Avenue and Norbeck Road at a community meeting attended by Ben Kramer. But shortly afterwards, both Kramers slammed it in writing as “convoluted.” The honesty issue boiled over when Kramer told Leisure World that he was not accepting contributions from developers while looking me in the eye, a statement that I had previously found to be untrue and exposed again the day before the election. Thousands of visitors saw that post. The Kramer campaign never responded and I caught them taking a developer contribution again after the primary. The issue of truthfulness will now dog Ben Kramer throughout the rest of his political career.
We are not naïve. We understand that some issues can be interpreted in multiple ways. We know the differences between honest disagreements, spin, parsing words, using context and outright falsehood. Remember that this blog is based in part on research. If you lie, we will find out. So just tell the truth. It’s easier that way for you and for us.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Reflections and Advice for 2010
Free State GOP Fades to Black, Part Three
Baltimore City and Prince George’s County have long been dominated by the Democrats. Baltimore County has been regarded as a swing county. Once upon a time, Montgomery County was not so different from Baltimore County. That time is now long gone.
Since 1990, between one-quarter and one-third of Baltimore County’s state legislators and the eight county officials (seven Council Members and the County Executive) have been Republicans. The last Republican County Executive, Roger Hayden, served between 1990 and 1994.
Additionally, much of Baltimore County was represented in Congress by Republicans Helen Delich Bentley (1984-1994) and Bob Ehrlich (1994-2002). While the GOP did not dominate Baltimore County, they were competitive enough to challenge the Democrats most of the time.
Montgomery County also once had a competitive Republican party.
Republicans held seats in Districts 14 (which was once split with Howard County), 15 (Potomac and western Montgomery) and 39 (which once extended to the Frederick County border). Most of the county was also represented by Congresswoman Connie Morella (1986-2002). But Montgomery’s Republicans have waned steadily from holding one-quarter of the county’s elected offices in 1994 to zero today.
The GOP’s fadeout in Montgomery County and its minority position in Baltimore County has greatly damaged its ability to compete on a statewide basis. At the end of October 2008, 56% of the state’s registered voters lived in the Big Four jurisdictions – Baltimore City and Baltimore, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. And of the 158 state legislative, County Executive/Mayor and County/City Council positions in those jurisdictions, Democrats now hold 149 seats (94%), with the only 9 Republican seats located in Baltimore County.
The GOP’s virtual annihilation in these jurisdictions prevents it from developing young talent. After all, Governors, Senators and Members of Congress often start as County Council Members and Delegates. And one of the reasons why Republican gubernatorial candidates like Ellen Sauerbrey and Bob Ehrlich were able to compete on a statewide basis is that they could tap into a large enough base of surrogates, activists and fundraisers who could create a geographically diversified electoral push. Now that the Republicans are almost extinct in the state’s most populated areas, that may no longer be possible.
All of the above trends have been developing over the past five state election cycles. But now one recent development has pushed the GOP to the edge: big Democratic registration gains during the last Presidential primary. More on that in Part Four.
Nancy Navarro Declares “New Day” in Montgomery County
Following is the press release from her campaign.
##FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE##
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Contact: David Moon, Campaign Manager
Email: david@navarroforcouncil.com
Nancy Navarro Declares “New Day” in Montgomery County
SILVER SPRING, MD – Today, Nancy Navarro declared victory in the Montgomery County Council, District 4 Special Election. After the now annual voting ritual that District 4 voters are becoming accustomed to, Navarro looks forward to reaching out to all members of the community and providing the steady, responsive representation that the late Councilmember Marilyn Praisner was so well-known for.
Navarro commented, “I am humbled to be able to give back to the community that has been so wonderful to my family for the past two decades. I am ready to get right to work and pick up where the Praisners left off.”
Navarro will host a series of town hall meetings in the coming months to meet residents throughout the many unique neighborhoods of District 4 and hear their concerns. During the campaign, in addition to reaching out to likely Democratic voters, Nancy began extensive outreach to communities traditionally taken for granted by politicians -- a strategy modeled partly after President Obama’s successful campaign.
As a result, this election is likely to have repercussions beyond simply filling a council vacancy. Many experts had been speculating about whether the droves of “unlikely” voters that Obama brought into the electorate would participate in off-year, down-ticket races. The answer in Montgomery County seems to be a resounding “yes.” Navarro’s campaign notes that 3,500 Democrats participated in the April 21st primary that did not participate in the 2008 Special Primary. The campaign plans to release a more thorough analysis of the 2009 Special Election in the coming weeks – but it is already clear that with the larger, and typically more diverse electorate expected to participate in the 2010 election cycle, Navarro’s margins can only improve.
###
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
District 4 General Election Precinct Final
At 10:35 PM with all 45 precincts in, Nancy Navarro has 6,637 votes (63.36%), Robin Ficker has 3,423 votes (32.68%), George Gluck has 372 votes (3.55%) and write-ins accounted for 43 votes. 10,475 votes were cast and turnout was 8.78%.
Robin Ficker is perhaps the most famous Republican in Montgomery County still trying to run for office. Yet, his voting percentage was actually below little-known Mark Fennel's in the 2008 special general (33.44%). In November 2008, 35,270 District 4 residents voted for the Ficker Amendment (51.3%). But less than one-tenth of them voted for Ficker in this election. Apparently, the popularity of the anti-tax issue did not translate into personal popularity for Ficker.
Ficker's name recognition, while significant, is offset by his baggage. Check out the results of a simple Google search on his name.
Other than the heckling articles and his website, the first page of search results contained his Just Up the Pike profile and two MPW posts: our questioning his residency and our description of his history in politics. Both of those posts have received several dozen direct visits every day over the last several days. Special election voters tend to be exceptionally well informed about candidates and they may very well have considered that information in the voting booth.
District 4 General Election Results (Updated)
At 9:07 PM with 31 of 45 precincts reporting, Nancy Navarro has 4,152 votes (62.01%), Robin Ficker has 2,276 (33.99%) and George Gluck has 243 votes (3.63%). There are 25 write-in votes and 6,696 total votes. Turnout so far is 5.62%.
Last year, Don Praisner defeated Mark Fennel by 6,123-3,092 (66.22-33.44%). Turnout was 8.90%.
Update: At 9:32 PM with 37 precincts in, it's Navarro 4,885 (62.58%), Ficker 2,617 (33.53%), Gluck 277 (3.55%) and write-ins 27. Total votes are 7,806 and turnout is 6.55%. It's interesting that Robin Ficker's percentage is virtually identical to Fennel's last year. Who could think that Ficker would draw the same level of support as an unknown like Fennel?
Update 2: At 9:53 PM with 42 precincts in, it's Navarro 5,768 (62.60%), Ficker 3,078 (33.41%), Gluck 327 (3.55%) and write-ins 41. Total votes are 9,214 and turnout is 7.73%. There are only 3 precincts left to be counted.
County Proclamation for Wayne Goldstein
County Council President Phil Andrews delivered this proclamation at Friday night's Montgomery County Civic Federation Awards Dinner.
WHEREAS, it takes a special person to dedicate much of their life to making sure government works the way the general public expects and to have vision when it comes toward actions that are based on what is best for the long-term future rather what seems convenient for the immediate moment; and
WHEREAS, for many years throughout Montgomery County, officials of all kinds—elected and otherwise—knew they were in for quite a day when they saw the man with a pony tail tucked under the quite evident hat approaching or read the name ‘Wayne Goldstein’ on the speaker’s list for an impending public hearing; and
WHEREAS, Wayne Goldstein unleashed his quiet fury from many positions, whether it was with Kensington Heights Citizens Association, Montgomery Preservation Inc., representing the Montgomery County Civic Federation, in his weekly newspaper columns or just in any random conversation where he could zing a point with the combined sharpness of an arrow and the soft touch of a feather pillow; and
WHEREAS, adjectives often can characterize a person, and the words that friends, admirers and even occasional philosophical opponents have used to describe Wayne Goldstein over the past few weeks include ‘tirelessly selfless community advocate,’ ‘pillar of the civic community,’ ‘fierce defender of the environment and historic preservation,’ ‘researcher beyond compare,’ tenacious and passionate,’ and ‘fearless,’; and
WHEREAS, since few were better with words than Wayne himself, it is likely best to allow Wayne to best sum up his life’s public work, as he once did in talking to The Washington Post about attempts to preserve a historic building, saying: "There's a tremendous amount of principle involved here. We're doing this to say, 'This was an important, historic building and this still is an important site, and we had a right to be heard and not be pushed aside.' ";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Council of Montgomery County, Maryland, hereby salutes the work, dedication and passion for life of
WAYNE GOLDSTEIN
and wants all to know that few individuals will have a left a mark on this County as he did, and most importantly, we all know that the real beneficiaries of Wayne’s life will be those who get to experience and enjoy many of the things Wayne fought to preserve for our later generations.
Presented on this 15th day of May in the year 2009.
Phil Andrews
Council President
Maryland Public Television Snows Leisure World
By Rocky Lopes.
On April 14, 2009, without notice to customers, Maryland Public Television (MPT) converted to digital-only service. People who view MPT via basic Comcast service suddenly found snow on Channel 22. This was very upsetting to residents of Leisure World, in particular, since they view Channel 22 using the master cable infrastructure provided by Leisure World to its residents and funded through monthly assessments charged by the mutuals.
This incensed me when I found out about it. I have family and friends who live in Leisure World who described with angst (and some anger) that they thought can't get MPT any more. I wrote to MPT, and eventually received a "fact sheet" (reproduced below) describing the options. Essentially what they are saying if I read it correctly is that Comcast is required to provide ONE public television station in the basic, non-digital tier, and that MPT is not the one. They don't say it, but we know that the one public broadcast channel that Comcast must provide in Montgomery County is WETA (Channel 26).
Thus, the only way to get MPT in Leisure World any more is to do one of three things, according to their fact sheet:
1. Install an antenna. Yeah, right: outdoor antennas are against the covenants of Leisure World.
2. Get a digital converter box for Channel 22 from Comcast which will be provided free for one year (after that, there will be a monthly fee.)
3. Convert to the digital tier, requiring installation of a digital box and payment of a monthly digital service fee (on top of the fees included for Comcast by the fees assessed to residents by the mutuals).
The problem is, at least for my loved-ones who live there, they are not interested in using one type of set-up to watch one channel, and then switch to another set-up to watch others. Switching inputs is a technological challenge to many.
My perception in reading between the lines of what MPT provided in their "fact sheet" is that there is sniping going on between MPT and Comcast, each blaming the other for this problem.
Meanwhile, Channel 22 is dark for those unable or unwilling to install yet another technologically challenging system to get it back.
It's such a shame this has to happen. It has nothing to do with DTV transition that will occur nationwide on June 12, yet similar issues arise. If MPT does this, what's next? It just plain ain't fair.
Free State GOP Fades to Black, Part Two
The Maryland Republican Party is in deep trouble. Barack Obama’s 25-point win is just one sign. Far more worrisome are changes in voter registrations.
Between October 2000 and October 2008, the GOP’s voter registrations grew by 14.8%. That’s the good news. The bad news is that Democratic registrations grew by 25.1% and other registrations grew by 52.0% over the same period.
The Democratic share of registered voters has held steady near 57%. Registrations not affiliated with either of the two major parties have climbed from 13% to 16%. The GOP’s share has fallen from 30% to 27%. For whatever reason, voters who do not want to join the Democrats are increasingly choosing alternatives other than the Republicans.
The regional composition of the two parties has been changing in very different ways. Below is the regional distribution of the state’s Democrats in October 2000 and October 2008.
The Democrats are slowly, steadily orienting themselves away from Baltimore and towards the Washington suburbs. In 2000, the share of Democrats in Baltimore City and Baltimore County (32.8%) roughly equaled the share of Democrats in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties (32.3%). Eight years later, the share of Democrats in the two Baltimore jurisdictions (30.4%) trailed the two Washington suburban counties (36.0%). Using an expanded definition of the Baltimore area (Baltimore City and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford and Howard Counties), Baltimore’s percentage of state Democrats has fallen from 50.7% to 47.5%. Perhaps for the first time in Maryland’s history, a Democratic statewide candidate can win a party primary while losing in Baltimore and its suburbs.
The Republicans are going in a different direction.
The GOP is actually becoming more Baltimore-oriented. The share of its registrations in Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties has increased from 26.6% to 27.3%. Using the broader definition of the Baltimore area, the percentage of Maryland Republicans living there has grown from 47.7% to 49.4%. This has been driven not by fast growth of the GOP in Baltimore but by absolute reductions of Republicans in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. The share of Maryland Republicans living in those two counties has fallen from 22.3% to 18.5%.
The Democrats have kept up with the historic shift of Maryland’s population towards the Washington suburbs. The Republicans have not. And the Democrats have grown much more rapidly in the state’s fastest-growing region, Southern Maryland (by 41.8%), than have the Republicans (25.4%).
We will look at the consequences of the GOP’s failure to keep pace in Part Three.
Monday, May 18, 2009
What is at Stake on Tuesday
It is only one County Council seat in a low turnout special election, right? How much does that really mean? A lot, actually. What is at stake is the future of the Montgomery County Republican Party and the broader direction of the county as a whole.
Historically, Montgomery’s GOP has been comprised of three factions who have barely coexisted, much less worked together effectively.
1. Moderates
Montgomery has a long tradition of socially liberal and (relatively) fiscally conservative Republicans. Prominent examples include James P. Gleason, the county’s first Executive; former eight-term Congresswoman Connie Morella; former Delegate Jean Cryor (D-15); and former County Council Members Howie Denis (R-1), Betty Ann Krahnke (R-1) and Nancy Dacek (R-2).
This branch of the GOP established a niche in county politics by advocating a similar, but more modest, agenda of liberal government than the Democrats. But since Montgomery’s voters are so attuned to national politics, moderate rank-and-file Republicans were mostly driven out of the party by Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Some Republicans, like Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) and former Senator P.J. Hogan (D-39), joined the Democratic Party. Denis and Cryor stayed in office as long as they could until they were defeated by Democrats in a very bad year for the GOP (2006).
Another factor in this branch’s decline is that (relative) fiscal conservatism has found a home in part of the Democratic Party. It’s worth noting that in 2006, Denis and Cryor appeared on the Apple Ballot while Democratic County Council Members Nancy Floreen, Phil Andrews and Marilyn Praisner did not.
2. Social Conservatives
This wing of the party has been around for awhile but has never achieved the prominence of the moderates. The two foremost social conservative organizations in the county are the anti-GLBT group Citizens for a Responsible Government and the anti-illegal-immigration group Help Save Maryland. Both groups are tiny but very loud. Neither of them will ever win a majority of county voters over to their agenda. But both have received some attention from the GOP. Witness Republican Central Committee Member Adol Owen-Williams’ cry of “Heil Hitler” after the County Council’s passage of the transgender protection law and the appearance of several elected GOP leaders at a Help Save Maryland rally.
3. Anti-Tax Activists
Say what you will about Robin Ficker, but he is no ordinary politician. He is a sincere and highly-motivated advocate of one of the core principles of modern conservatism: tax restraint. His theatrics and repeated runs for office have caused many to underestimate him but the victory of his tax-limiting charter amendment should be a wake-up call to the Democrats.
Consider the following facts:
1. In the 2008 general election, 440,774 Montgomery voters cast cards. That is the highest number of votes cast in the history of the county. The turnout rate was 79%. This was the electorate that approved the Ficker Amendment.
2. The Ficker Amendment carried the county’s precincts located in Congressional Districts 4 and 6, State Districts 14, 15, 17, 19 and 39 and Council Districts 2, 3, and 4.
3. The Ficker Amendment passed by double digits in precincts located in Darnestown, Laytonsville, Clarksburg, Damascus, Sandy Spring, Dickerson, Poolesville and Germantown. It also passed in Derwood, North Potomac, Potomac, Gaithersburg, Olney, Burtonsville, Montgomery Village and (by 58 votes) Rockville.
Nothing in Montgomery associated with the Republican Party or right-of-center politics has approached the success of the Ficker Amendment since Connie Morella was last elected in 2000.
Anti-tax activism has a chance in Montgomery County in part because of our disadvantaged fiscal relationship with the state. The county’s relatively high nominal household incomes guarantee that it will be hit disproportionately hard by the state’s income tax. But the county’s high housing costs lead to high mortgage costs and a calculation by the state’s wealth formula, which is based partly on property values, that we are “too wealthy” to receive much state aid. As a result, we are third from the bottom in state aid per capita among Maryland’s counties even though we are first in mortgage costs and gasoline prices and second in foreclosures. All of this makes it harder for the county to maintain the quality of its schools and public services, without which Montgomery is merely a high-cost place to live and create jobs.
Robin Ficker’s answer is to limit local tax increases. He would follow the example of Prince George’s County, which passed its TRIM amendment over thirty years ago and has seen a relentless decline in its schools and police service ever since. Montgomery County is not as far away from going down that road as many Democrats may think. This represents perhaps the only viable return to relevance for the Montgomery GOP.
Beating Ficker on Tuesday will be one step off that path. But making the case that good government is worth paying for is essential to preventing a rebirth of the Montgomery County GOP, a surge in single-issue anti-tax activism and a resulting decline in the county’s fortunes.
Free State GOP Fades to Black, Part One
Maryland’s Republican Party is in a downward spiral. The problem goes far beyond the ideological disputes between the party’s leaders. It also goes beyond the recent overwhelming victory in the state by President Barack Obama. And the party’s poor position in the state legislature is merely a reflection of the GOP’s difficulties, not the cause. By every measure, the party is in serious trouble and the end is not yet in sight.
First, let’s begin by comparing the last two presidential elections in the state. Here are the numbers by county from 2004:
And here are the numbers by county from 2008:
The obvious fact is that Obama’s total margin (25.4 points) nearly doubled Kerry’s margin (13.0 points). But that understates the extent of Obama’s domination. As depicted by the chart below, Obama surpassed Kerry’s performance in every Maryland county.
Maryland has voted for the Democratic nominee for President in every election since 1992. But the Democratic nominee’s margins have been far less than Obama’s, ranging from 13 points (Kerry) to 17 points (Al Gore). Was Barack Obama’s gigantic margin due to George W. Bush’s epic unpopularity, the state’s large black population, or something else?
Whatever the answer may be, this is just the start of the GOP’s problems. We will begin looking at voter registrations in Part Two.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Cardin and Leggett Support Navarro in Leisure World
This mailing went out from the Navarro campaign into Leisure World.
It’s All Over But the Voting
By Sharon Dooley.
Wednesday evening the final debate of the Council District 4 campaign was held at Sherwood High School in Sandy Spring. This evening was sponsored by two local groups - Sandy Spring-Ashton Rural Preservation Consortium (SSARPC) & Greater Sandy Spring Green Space.
It was obvious that fatigue has crept in like those fogs mentioned in Carl Sandburg’s poetry …on little cat feet. None of the candidates were spouting fiery rhetoric, although Robin Ficker at times returned to his favorite lines about the voters being the ATM for the council. But, he even forgot his handwritten prop about taxes, which had to be retrieved by one of his sons who were in attendance with their mother. Ah yes, when all else fails – bring in the family to show what a man of the people the candidate might be.
Taking note of MPW recent posts, Ficker did claim to be among the residents of Council District 4 and introduced one of his sons as the actual farmer on the family farm in Boyds, (the one where the candidate no longer lives, if he is to be believed). He also benefited from a rude and noisy cheering section, which made frequent and often inappropriate outbursts; all were discouraged by the moderator.
The two other candidates in this upcoming Tuesday election were also there. George Gluck - the Green candidate - is a serious man, an engineer and grandfather who cares about such things as global warming and free trade and other progressive issues and his sincerity shone through his remarks. He also spoke of living in the Brookeville area previously and noted he had a real appreciation for the quaint town and other rural areas nearby where the residents are trying to preserve historic areas and open spaces.
Nancy Navarro, recently returned from her native country of Venezuela and the funeral of her mother, who died suddenly, seemed subdued, but did not cave under the attacks of Ficker, or the accusatory questions his supporters submitted. Living in the most diverse district council district was a theme she returned to, as she mentioned ensuring services for all residents of the county. She stuck to the issues she had identified early on in the race as the core components of her campaign – reaching out to the minority members of District 4, promoting her successes on the Board of Education and speaking of the need to bring jobs and affordable housing to the eastern portion of the county. She also mentioned the needs for safety and security for our elder residents. She spoke of painful education budget cuts and sacrifices of the union members who turned back raises that they were expecting. She plowed no new ground, nor was she expected to at this late date. Each candidate was more in safe mode – not willing to make a mistake that might provide any opening for an opponent to exploit in a last minute mailing or robo-call.
Growth was a concern on the minds of the sparse audience as questions concerning zoning and the ICC were asked as well as future development. Navarro – who touted her Sierra Club endorsement – spoke against the ICC and the fact that Council District 4 would suffer disproportionately from the devastating effects of this highway, which has been questioned by many over the years. Gluck mentioned the deforestation that has already occurred. Ficker claimed the negative environmental effects will be worsened by the shopping malls and high rises that will appear at each ICC interchange and mentioned the need to replace devastated parklands. He claimed that development dollars, which fuel politics, will be in play in this area.
None of the candidates voiced support for the plan to move the Wheaton Library to the urban center as is planned. Each mentioned the need for the new planning board member to be smart and independent; Navarro spoke also in favor of a new member who could support Smart Growth concepts.
In closing statements, Navarro repeated her themes, mentioned the schools, which are the jewel of Montgomery County and the need to protect the quality of education for our community. She spoke of the need for a council member to speak up for the neighborhoods as a voice for those locals who might not be heard on the council.
Gluck was philosophical in a benediction to his campaign, speaking of lessons learned while sometimes speaking truths before their time. He mentioned his hope for progressive issues such as verifiable voting, campaign finance reform and an instant run-off system. He quoted Mark Twain in mentioning that “Irreverence is a Champion of Liberty and its’ only sure defense.”
Ficker was rambling in his closing and mentioned that all of his campaign funds had come from District 4 residents – a statement not verified by this writer! He claimed that the council was spendthrift and irresponsible with taxpayer dollars. He repeated his frequent ATM remark and noted that his multiple petitions over the years had garnered over 2 million votes (not mentioning the costs to the taxpayers of dealing with all of the defeated petition drives during this time.) He repeated that he was a man of the people who had lived in the county his entire life and he would do a good job and not be aloof; in proof he gave out his cell phone number if any in the audience had questions.
So District 4: The horses are in the starting gates – you can stay home and let the wrong winner be selected, you can vote your party and if turnout is along registration lines, elect a Democrat, or you can confound the experts and vote for a 50 to one third party candidate. The choice is up to you. But if the Preakness were any harbinger, I’d say keep your eyes on the filly in the race – she may well gallop to the finish!
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Nancy Navarro-Robin Ficker Debate on Political Pulse
The Navarro-Ficker debate will air on "Political Pulse" on Channel 16 TV on Saturday, May 16th at 6 p.m., Sunday May 17th at 6 p.m. and Monday May 18th at 7:30 p.m.
Nancy Navarro and Robin Ficker are running for Montgomery County Council in District 4.
Navarro's Enemies and the Company They Keep
Help Save Maryland has released its latest challenge to Nancy Navarro to answer its questionnaire. But the challenge appeared on the "American Jingoist" blog, a national right-wing site with some eye-popping content. Check out some of the company Help Save Maryland keeps.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Leggett and Andrews Slam State Board of Education
You better hide the kids and shield your eyes before reading this press release, folks!
Statement by County Executive Isiah Leggett and County Council President Phil Andrews on the Decision of the State Board of Education on the County’s Maintenance of Effort Waiver
“The last-minute decision by the Maryland State Board of Education to deny Montgomery County a one-time waiver of the Maintenance of Effort funding requirement is totally unjustified.
“This is a classic example of state bureaucrats second-guessing an agreement reached on the local level by Montgomery County and the Montgomery County Public Schools to fully fund County school programs.
“This waiver request was fully supported by the Montgomery County Board of Education – those in closest touch with the needs of County schoolchildren and their families.
“Given the County’s long history of unparalleled local funding for our public schools and the strong case Montgomery County has made for the existing fiscal difficulties, it is difficult to understand how any waiver for any jurisdiction at any time could ever be approved by this State Board of Education.
“This decision actually harms school kids and the Montgomery community as a whole. It potentially forces even further cuts in critical services such as public safety, positive youth programs, libraries, and help to the most vulnerable County residents – or reductions in public school spending.
“During the past decade, MCPS enrollment has risen by 5.4 percent while our local contribution to the schools increased 75 percent. Montgomery County has gone far above and beyond what is required by the State of Maryland in funding our schools with local dollars from local taxpayers. For the past two years, even with fiscal challenges, we have significantly reduced both the overall capital and operating budgets to ensure that our schools had the resources necessary. For example, last year, the County raised property taxes by $130 million, again, in part to help fund our public schools.
“Only the severity of the economic downturn and the dire consequences for the County’s overall budget caused us to request a waiver this year. Despite these challenging conditions, we still funded 99 percent of our school system’s request.
“Montgomery County requested this waiver in order to continue to support our world-class school system while, at the same time, sustain critical programs in public safety, help for the most vulnerable County residents, and other important initiatives in the County budget that support our children and youth.
“As a result of this unwarranted decision by the State Board of Education, we will work together on a plan to resolve this unacceptable denial in a manner which we believe will be in the best interests of the County and its taxpayers.”
# # #
Contact: Patrick Lacefield 301-919-9372, 240-777-6528
State Board of Education: Local Tax Caps Are No Grounds for Waivers
The State Board of Education denied the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) waivers for school funding for all three counties (Montgomery, Prince George’s and Wicomico) that applied. And contrary to what we were hearing, former Montgomery County Council Member Blair Ewing supported Montgomery’s request and dissented from the State Board’s decision.
In its decision for Montgomery County, the State Board cites state law holding that a county may obtain a waiver if the board determines “that the county’s fiscal condition significantly impedes the county’s ability to fund the maintenance of effort requirement.” The Board’s regulations list four factors it would consider in deciding on a waiver:
(a). External environmental factors such as a loss of major industry or business;
(b). Tax bases;
(c). Rate of inflation to growth of student population;
(d). The maintenance of effort requirement relative to the county’s statutory ability to raise revenues.
Moreover, a county asking for a waiver bears a burden of proof that the above factors prevent it from maintaining its current level of per-pupil school spending, thus requiring a waiver. Should a county not receive a waiver and fail to meet its MOE requirement, its increase of state aid would be at risk.
On Montgomery, the Board found the following:
(a). While the county is suffering an economic downturn, it has not lost a major industry or business. The Board noted that 21 of the other 24 counties also suffered from the recession and did not request waivers.
(b). The Board found that while Montgomery had revenue reductions, it did not have an erosion of its tax base. It cited the county’s relatively low unemployment rate and the presence of the federal government as protecting its tax base relative to the rest of the state.
(c). The Board stated that Montgomery’s student population had grown by just 1,424 in the year ending September 30, 2008 so inflation or student growth was not an issue.
(d). The Board differentiated between two limitations on the county’s ability to raise revenues: the income tax cap and the Ficker Amendment. Both were cited by the county as reasons it could not raise more money and was thus compelled to seek an MOE waiver.
State law limits income tax rates charged by the counties to 3.2%. Montgomery is already at that limit. The Board said, “We give great weight to the fact that the county is prohibited by State law from increasing the income tax rate.”
The Ficker Amendment, passed by Montgomery voters last November, requires a unanimous vote by nine County Council Members to raise property taxes by an amount exceeding the rate of inflation. The Board dismissed that as a reason for the MOE waiver, saying, “We give little weight to the need for a unanimous vote to raise property taxes.”
Why?
The Board said this about local tax caps:In some counties in Maryland there are locally imposed caps on taxes and/or other significant locally imposed impediments to increasing taxes. We do not opine on the propriety of those locally imposed prohibitions or impediments. We do opine, however, that based on our understanding of the State/local share requirements contained in Maryland’s education funding formula, when we consider a county’s ability to raise revenue we will give locally imposed prohibitions little weight in the balance.
Translation: you may pass the Ficker Amendment or any other tax caps, but you may not escape your responsibility to educate your kids. Prince George’s and Wicomico Counties were also denied waivers because the Board gave “little weight” to their own local tax caps.
We adopt this position because each county and its voters are free to restrict tax increases, but in our view, each is not free to abdicate its responsibility to fund its minimum local share of education costs. If we gave locally imposed prohibitions great weight in our analysis, we envision legal and public policy consequences that could destroy the cornerstone of the education funding formula because any county in Maryland can, by referendum or otherwise, cap its property or other tax bases at a level that would ultimately preclude the county from raising sufficient taxes to fund MOE in full. That is not an outcome this Board could sanction by interpretation of our regulation.
Our spies were dead wrong about Blair Ewing. He offered this dissent from the Montgomery decision:The Montgomery County case is a unique one. The initial problem was that there was adequate money to fund the schools, but not adequate money to fund both the schools and the county government operations. The local school board, the county executive and the county council have now all agreed on adequate funding for both the schools and the county government operations, but need the waiver they have requested to make the agreement effective. This is an example of good government at work. It ought to be encouraged and supported. The waiver should be granted.
State Board Member Donna Hill Staton also dissented.
So now Montgomery is obligated to divert $79 million of county money from non-school programs to the schools to maintain its per-pupil education spending. That is money the schools do not need because they are receiving federal stimulus funding. Police service, fire service, health and human services programs, transportation – all are at risk because of the Ficker Amendment.
And this is just the beginning.
Does Robin Ficker Live in District 4?
Republican District 4 nominee Robin Ficker has been making a big deal about his new East County residency, referring to “our district” in debates and criticizing Democrat Nancy Navarro for out-of-district contributions. But it turns out that Ficker himself may not actually live in District 4.
Section 102 of the Montgomery County Charter states:The Council shall be composed of nine members, each of whom shall be a qualified voter of Montgomery County. Four Councilmembers shall be nominated and elected by the qualified voters of the entire County. Each of the five other members of the Council shall, at the time of election, reside in a different Council district, and shall be nominated and elected by the qualified voters of that district.
A County Attorney Opinion from 1990 further clarifies that:Charter Section 102 requires those candidates running for election to the County Council from a councilmanic district to reside in the district they are seeking to represent. Residency must be established by the date of the primary election and maintained throughout the Council member’s term of office.
On February 23, the Gazette’s Janel Davis broke the story that Robin Ficker was moving from Boyds to “a house in the Fairland Estates area of the district on the perhaps ironically named Peaceful Lane.” We looked up the tax assessments for every house on that street and post them below:
Ficker is not listed as an owner of any of these houses. Furthermore, all but two of them are claimed as principal residences by their owners, who receive homestead credits towards their property taxes. The other two houses have the following listed phone numbers:
The phone number for 1303 Peaceful Lane is disconnected. The phone number for 1411 Peaceful Lane is answered by a message from “the Beanes.” None of this rules out the possibility that Ficker lives in a basement or accessory apartment in one of the homes on the street.
But there is more. On his property tax bill, Ficker still claims his house in Boyds as his principal residence. He is saving $2,250.81 in homestead and property tax credits this year.
Ficker “changed his residency” once before to run for office, challenging Senator P.J. Hogan in District 39 in 2002. But Ficker continued to claim his Boyds home as his principal residence back then too.
Finally, Ficker has just one listed home phone number in Maryland: the one at his home in Boyds.
If Robin Ficker truly is a resident of District 4, why does he own no property and have no phone number inside the district while he continues to have a listed phone number and a homestead credit for his “principal residence” in Boyds?
Thursday, May 14, 2009
New Members Elected to MCDCC
Following is the press release from MCDCC.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE
Press Release
May 14, 2009
For Immediate Release
Contact: Milt Minneman
Communications Director
301-299-2551
FAX: 301-299-4604
minnemmj@hotmail.com
New Members Elected to Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee
The Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee, at its May 12, 2009 meeting, elected Shirley C. Rivadeneira of Germantown as an At-Large-Member, filling a vacancy through the end of the 2006-10 term and Chloe Miller of Darnestown and Jordan Johnson of Silver Spring as Student Members for one year.
Shirley Rivadeneira is an attorney with the U.S. Department of Labor and has been active in the Nancy Navarro for District 4 Councilmember and Obama-Biden campaigns. Rivadeneira received the degrees of Juris Doctor and Master of International Affairs from American University and the degree of Bachelor of Arts from Emory University. She may be reached at 404-717-9861 or srivade@hotmail.com.
Chloe Miller, a sophomore at Northwest High School, is a member of the High School Democrats and was supportive of the Central Committee at its 2009 Spring Ball, the 2008 Young Democrats kickoff, 2007 Holiday Party and the 2006 and 2008 Election Day activities. Miller may be reached at 301-963-9474 or konznme@yahoo.com.
Jordan Johnson, a Junior at John F. Kennedy High School, was Vice President of the school's Young Democrat Club and is Junior Class President, volunteered in the Obama campaign. He may be reached at 301-871-6225 or 301-367-3926.
Biographies and photos are available on request.
-End-
The Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee is the official voice for the Democratic Party in Montgomery County on all questions of public policy and promotes democratic government, social justice, and economic opportunity for all.
3720 Farragut Avenue • Kensington, Maryland 20895 • 301-946-1000 • FAX 301-946-1002 • www.mcdcc.org
By authority, MCDCC; Karen Britto, Chair; Simon Atlas, Treasurer.
A Tale of Five Sessions, Part Two
By Marc Korman.
Last time, we reviewed each D16 legislator’s view on the 2009 legislative session. Today we will see what their constituents had to say during the event’s Q&A.
Before diving into the questions asked, it is worth noting what was not asked. Unlike the last two years, no one asked about the Purple Line or the effect of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process on Bethesda.
The D16 team took thirteen questions. I will divide them into the categories of civil rights and liberties, environment, taxes, and miscellaneous.
Civil Rights and Liberties
Two questions were asked of Senator Frosh on these issues. The first was whether the General Assembly had determined the genesis of the police spying. Senator Frosh said it was not entirely clear, but the Police Superintendent took responsibility, saying it was a decision made by him.
The second question was much more rigorous. Scott Davenport, a D16 constituent and president of Equality Maryland’s Board, asked Senator Frosh why he would not let SB 566 out of committee. The legislation would prohibit discrimination based on gender identity, explicitly adding transgendered individuals to the state civil rights law.
Senator Frosh gave a vigorous defense of his actions regarding the bill and went on the offense against Equality Maryland. According to Senator Frosh, he has now brought the transgender bill to a vote three times. The first time was two years ago, when it failed. The other two times were this year, when both times the committee voted to table the bill. Equality Maryland’s position is that this year’s votes were procedural and not substantive votes on the bill. If Senator Frosh would force that vote, Equality Maryland says the bill would move out of committee and to the full Senate. The House of Delegates will not consider the bill until the Senate does.
Senator Frosh also questioned Equality Maryland’s singular focus on the transgender bill, at the expense of other issues like civil unions. Although he said he supports marriage equality and has told Senator Rich Madaleno he would cosponsor a constitutional amendment to that effect next session, he felt that civil unions were more achievable and would make a real difference.
A recent court decision, Schroer v. Billington, may have also changed the equation on transgender issues. That case found that the prohibition on gender discrimination in the federal Civil Rights Act included transgendered individuals. Senator Frosh indicated his belief that state civil rights law may do the same and thought Equality Maryland should work to test the law in court. Of course, the federal case is likely to work its way through the appeals process and could still be reversed.
Environment
Most of the questions asked were about the environment.
One D16 constituent asked how the new Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act would actually be executed. Senator Frosh conceded that no one quite knew how the full 25% cut by 2020, but that there would be a combination of efficiency improvements and other incremental steps to eventually reach the goal.
Another constituent raised the idea of connecting the growing green economy to workers with special needs, who often have good vocational education skills.
The next environmental questions were about the Chesapeake Bay and whether anything could be done to really improve the situation and if there were ways to increase education on the issue. Senator Frosh said that the lack of progress was not for lack of trying. Throughout his entire legislative career he had been working on the issue, and there had been no measurable improvement. What there has been is an increase in the Bay’s basin population of 1.5 million people, bringing with them new impervious surfaces and run-off that add to the damaging nutrients in the bay. But there is new hope on the horizon with the appointment of Chuck Fox to head the EPA’s national effort to save the bay.
Another set of environmental questions concerned improved efficiencies. One constituent asked about gas furnace efficiency, which Delegate Bronrott said he hoped to see improved in future years. The other question asked why the legislature had chosen to apply the International Building Code to schools and government buildings and not the well known LEED (Leadership in Environment and Energy Design) Code. Senator Frosh said Republicans in Annapolis had an extreme distaste for LEED and wanted to advance the Green Globe standard, but the legislature adopted the more efficient International Building Code standard as a compromise.
The final environmental question was on Maryland’s air and water pollution. The legislators said much progress had been made, but there were limits to what Maryland could do alone due to federal regulatory constraints.
Taxes
The two tax questions involved income tax skimming and home buyer tax credits. On income tax skimming, there was concern by one constituent that the same proposal could come again in the future. Delegate Frick acknowledged that was true, but felt the County delegation’s unity on the issue would endure in the future and be able to fight off future attempts.
The second question was posed by Matt Herrmann, president of the District 16 Democratic Club. Mr. Herrmann asked if the state had considered adding a first time home buyer tax credit, similar to recent federal legislation which allows a $8,000 tax credit for first time home buyers. Delegate Frick explained that Maryland already had a recordation tax credit and stressed that tax credits were hard hitting to the budget.
Miscellaneous
There were three other questions that were not as easily categorized.
The first question was about what strings might be attached to stimulus funds the state receives. Delegates Bronrott and Frick discussed the various programs funding was going towards. While the funds do not need to be repaid, each individual program has certain requirements. For example, if a state accepts funds for unemployment payments, they must provide benefits to part time workers. Maryland now does this, but several states refused to make the change because of concerns about the long term cost after the two years of stimulus funding ended.
The second question was about the 2010 Census and the changes it might bring to District 16. It was too early for any definitive answers, but Senator Frosh doubted D16 was growing as fast as other parts of the state.
The third question was about what limits were placed on nanobiology funding, specifically whether there could be weapons funded through the state. Delegate Lee said she had not thought of the issue and would look at it further.
WSSC Wild Child Takes on the Boy King
OK, it’s not King Kong vs. Godzilla. Or Darth Vader vs. Doctor Doom. Or even Moe vs. Larry vs. Curly. But in a throwdown that just had to happen, two of MPW’s favorite targets are going at it: Washington Suburban Sanitary Commissioner Juanita “Wild Child” Miller and Washington Post editorial intern Steven “Boy King” Stein. Let’s get ready to RUUUMMBLE!!
The Boy King fired the first shot with a tartly-worded Sunday editorial blasting WSSC. The Post’s Katherine Shaver has been doing some excellent reporting on the woes of the Maryland suburbs’ most dysfunctional agency and Stein followed by criticizing its “corrosive politics.” Stein’s critique of WSSC echoes ours – so closely, in fact, that we wonder if he used our blog post for his research. After all, everyone knows how attentive the Boy King is to MPW.
Well, leave it to the Wild Child to come blasting back! We know that Juanita Miller is a talented email writer and she did not disappoint. Here’s what she sent out to all of WSSC on Monday night. Can you imagine what she would have written if she knew Stein was an intern?
From: Miller, Juanita [mailto:jMiller@wsscwater.com]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 6:17 PM
To: Hawes, Jennifer; #Commissioners; #Change Leadership Team; #Commission Employees
Subject: RE: Clips: 5/11/09
It is quite apparent that the Washington Post's editor is on a "witch" hunt in its continued attempts to denigrate Prince George's County and its Commissioners. The article "Water Fight" (05/10/2009, editorial) contains little substance with lots of fabricated and manipulated the verbiage contrary to the two "balanced " articles on WSSC written last week by reporter Katherine Shaver.
The truth is in the facts and detail which the editor has clearly and apparently purposefully omitted! The editor demeans the "process" (labeled "dubious" in the editorial) which six commissioners developed, approved and initiated. The editor omitted that Rudy Chow was the highest ranking candidate from a national search. Equally as important, he is a 30-year Montgomery County resident and has worked at WSSC for more than 25 years. Mr. Chow was selected by the former GM to run the largest department in the agency-- Customer Care, and he has demonstrated leadership and management skills based on his performance for the GM to make that selection. Mr. Chow has earned the right to be WSSC’s GM. He is hardly a pawn of Prince George’s County since his lifelong ties have been and are to Montgomery County. The characterization of Mr. Chow made by the Post editor undermines Mr. Chow and the integrity of the process.
Montgomery County commissioners have blatantly "refused" to adhere to an established process (approved and sanctioned by them) only after Mr. Chow was identified as the winner of that process--that is the FACT!! They have clearly shown on two other occasions preference for "less qualified" persons to lead the agency, i.e., they supported an employee who had only two months working at the agency, with no engineering experience, rather than the more senior, experienced and qualified employee to serve as the interim GM. They supported a candidate (recommended by the two County Executives) with a checkered past over its own "home grown" employee. Their conduct has made a mockery of "succession" planning and been an insult to the committed employees who seek to grow with this agency.
Yet it is apparent that the Washington Post editors have little concern for truth when expediency and continued desire to denigrate and demean all that is Prince George’s County, simply because they can do so in anonymity. The editors who wrote this editorial have little to no knowledge of WSSC's MBE program and process and have continued to rehash the same misinformation as if or because it is the singular most important crutch the Post has to lean on when it seeks to cast aspersions on the minority commissioners and the MBE program. The editor dug deep once again to a 1997 reference in an attempt to "impugn" this Commissioner’s leadership in carrying out fiduciary responsibilities. The FACT is the staff member who was the project manager at that time for the sludge contracts and was responsible for investigating firms prior to award of the sludge contract, had not done due diligence and was reprimanded for that shortsightedness at the public hearing. It should also be noted that the State Ethics Board cleared and exonerated Commissioner Miller from the unfounded allegations made 12 years ago. This case is a matter of State record and can be easily checked by Post researchers; yet the Post editors have continuously and purposely mischaracterized that matter.
Another fact relative to Commissioners’ expenses is the three year cumulative amount of $10,000+ paid by the GM for this Commissioner to attend the national AWWA conferences. It is to be noted that each year the cost for attending this conference comes out of the GM's budget for each Commissioner from both counties who chooses to attend the conference. It also should be noted that Commissioner Counihan's expenses of $9000-plus for 14 months far exceeded that of Commissioner Agarwal's expenses of $5000-plus for the five years he has served. I surmise that it wasn't newsworthy since it didn't involve a Prince George's Commissioner exceeding expenses.
I am "adamant" about adhering to established policies and procedures and have documented many accounts of irregularities that the Post is apparently not interested in publishing. I am also adamant about supporting a process that identifies a person who happens to be the most qualified for GM and who happens to be Asian. The Post should be questioning Montgomery County representatives who have manipulated and engaged in underhanded tactics to circumvent a process that identified one of its own longtime residents as the winner of the GM process.
It's apparent that news must be slow at the Post for the editor to continue to misrepresent certain facts relative to Prince George's Commissioners and their position on issues.
The only "pet" in this matter is the "peeve" as well as the "unspeakable and capricious" journalism exercised by the Washington Post editor who obviously has a penchant for attempting to denigrate Prince George's County's Commissioners, especially this one. This explains why the Washington Post readership appears to be suffering, especially in Prince George’s County. It’s apparent the Post editors are determined to print disparaging articles about Prince George’s County.
As has been stated previously in the public forum and is reiterated in this missive, the Washington Post does not guide the actions or operations of this agency nor the functions of its Board.
It appears that the Post is on a mission to fabricate and manipulate information in an effort to cover up the corrupt activities occurring at this agency and provide a distraction of the facts. It's ironic that these articles began to appear shortly after an audit/investigation of certain activities at the Commission was requested by Commissioner Miller.
The Post did not find it "newsworthy" to further research/investigate Commissioner Miller's assertion to its reporter about the corruption at the agency, i.e. an employee being arrested for stealing $10,000 plus of ratepayers money and other risks that leave the agency exposed which need to be mitigated . And did I mention that Commissioners allocated funds to hire an Ethics Officer, conducted interviews and then the process got halted (and not by the Prince Georges' Commissioners)? Also the agency spent well over $100K for the original GM search only to have the Montgomery County Commissioners balk at the results and continue an exclusive search outside of Commission authority and then had the agency billed for the Montgomery County process. This means that the ratepayers paid for a duplicate yet exclusive process conducted by Montgomery County.
Let the truth be told, the Post editors’ determination to impugn the integrity and character of Commissioner Miller and Prince George’s County have blinded them to the FACTS.
Commissioner Juanita Miller
Will Montgomery Get its School Funding Waiver?
A major part of Montgomery County’s $587 million budget crisis is not under the control of the County Executive, the County Council or anyone else in Rockville. In fact, a decision affecting $79 million of county money will actually be made in Baltimore – the home of Maryland’s State Board of Education.
Maryland state law contains a “Maintenance of Effort” (MOE) requirement for counties stating that they must at least maintain their per-pupil county spending on education before receiving state school aid increases. The goal of the law is to prevent counties from diverting their own school spending while accepting state school money.
Montgomery County is suffering its worst budget problems since at least the early 1990s. The crisis could have been a lot worse if the state did not receive federal stimulus money. Much of the stimulus money was earmarked for schools, and the Governor used part of it to fully fund the state’s Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI) program. That meant Montgomery could fund almost its entire education budget request but still faced problems in the rest of its county government. And so the county applied for an MOE waiver from the State Board of Education, claiming that it had more than met its responsibility for education but had needs elsewhere. Specifically, the county asked to use $95 million (later revised down to $79 million) required for school funding to finance other parts of the government, arguing that federal aid would keep the schools whole. Both the Montgomery County Board of Education and MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast supported the request.
The State Board of Education, however, may not go along. It is taking its sweet time in making its decision, waiting to release its position until May 15. (The County Council’s first vote on the budget, originally scheduled for May 14, has been postponed until next Tuesday.) If the State Board does not grant the county’s request, all or part of the $79 million will have to be transferred from the police, fire service, public works, transportation, health and human services or other government functions to MCPS. Policy makers worry that would damage non-school services and create significant inequities between non-school employees and MCPS personnel.
Rumors are careening all over Rockville even as we write this. Everyone is speculating about what the State Board will do, but very few people claim to know the outcome. (Those who do are probably lying!) Here are a few factors.
1. Precedent
The State Board is full of business people and school activists who are deeply invested in the state’s educational system. They do not want to make it easy for the counties to evade their MOE obligations. In FY 1992, the state gave a blanket waiver to the counties allowing non-compliance with MOE but that idea did not go anywhere this year. It is likely that the State Board will want to keep waivers available only for genuine emergencies.
2. Nancy Grasmick
The state’s Superintendent of Schools is the ultimate survivor of Maryland politics. Even the Governor had to make his peace with her. Part of Grasmick’s power derives from the state’s strong educational performance. What happens if the State Board approves MOE waivers and test scores go down? One more thing: Grasmick and Weast are not the best of friends.
3. Prince George’s County
Two other counties are applying for MOE waivers: Wicomico and Prince George’s. While Montgomery’s leaders are cooperating, Prince George’s County Executive Jack Johnson and his Board of Education are in open conflict over their waiver request. Would the State Board approve Montgomery’s request but deny Prince George’s? How would that be perceived? What would the blowback be from Prince George’s politicians against the O’Malley administration? All of the above may be an issue, but why should one county’s request have anything to do with the other’s?
One of our best-connected spies is convinced Montgomery will not get the waiver. Two spies report that State Board member Blair Ewing - a former Montgomery County Council Member and county Board of Education Member - is working against the request. Our other informants make no predictions and are on the edge of their seats. The State Board will likely show its hand tomorrow and Montgomery officials – and the rest of us – will learn our fate.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Jane E. Lawton Center Dedication
Please save Sunday, June 14th, from 2pm to 4pm, to celebrate the renaming of the Leland Community Recreation Center in memory of former Delegate Jane E. Lawton. The ceremony will take place at the Leland Center, 4301 Willow Lane, Chevy Chase, MD 20815. Former Chevy Chase Mayor Mier Wolf will serve as Master of Ceremonies at the event, and I know Stephanie Lawton, one of Jane's two daughters, plans to speak. If you have any questions, please call (240) 777-6800.
Navarro General Election Mailer
Here is some proof that Navarro is taking Ficker seriously. So should the rest of the Democrats.
A Tale of Five Sessions, Part One
By Marc Korman.
The recent District 16 town hall reminded me of the old Kurosawa film, Rashomon. The Japanese classic shows the same series of events from four different perspectives. Others may think of this as the Quentin Tarantino method. In Part One, we will look at what all four District 16 legislators had to say about the 2009 legislative session. In Part Two, we will examine the fifth perspective on the legislative session, that of the District 16 constituents who asked questions at the May 11th town hall.
Delegate Susan Lee
Delegate Lee’s primary focus was on education and her own legislative accomplishments and initiatives. Despite the financial crisis, Delegate Lee was proud that Maryland had maintained its education commitment, including funding for the Geographic Cost of Education Index for the first time. Delegate Lee linked the legislature’s commitment to education to Maryland’s recent ranking by Education Week as the top state for education. She also heralded the legislature for not shifting the cost of teacher’s pensions to the counties and keeping public university tuition frozen for a fourth straight year.
Shifting to her own agenda, Delegate Lee departed this year from her signature identity theft issue and focused on biotechnology and nanotechnology. She was happy to have helped champion the biotech investment tax credit, preserving it at a $6 million value. Governor O’Malley also signed Delegate Lee’s legislation, HB 1124. The legislation adds to the mission of the already existing nanobiotechnology program within the Maryland Technology Development Corporation, pushing investment in public private partnerships for nanobiotech. Nanobiotechnology is the specialized field of nanotechnology focused on the human body, essentially seeking improved medical treatments.
Delegate Lee also heavily pushed HB 1117 during the session. The legislation would expand the liability shield for the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs), protecting users from civil suits. There is already immunity for the use of the devices, but the legislation would have eliminated the requirement that assistance or aid be provided in a reasonable manner for immunity to apply. That vast expansion of immunity brought concerns from trial lawyers and the bill died in the Senate.
Delegate Bill Frick
Delegate Frick discussed the session from the angle of existing and potential conflicts among the counties. Maryland has twenty-three counties and the City of Baltimore, and each one is different. But they can also be divided into a few broad categories. For example, ten Maryland counties operate under a Charter form of government, meaning they have home rule and do not general require General Assembly approval of their local legislation. Some counties are also more reliant than others on the local income tax. Montgomery and Howard Counties have the highest tax rate, 3.2%. The lowest is Worchester County, with 1.25%. As Adam Pagnucco has explored on this blog, there are also differences in the size of the teacher pension obligation in each county.
Both teacher pensions and skimming the local income tax were considered by the General Assembly to balance the state budget, as required by the state Constitution. But Montgomery County’s legislators stayed united against both of those efforts and neither were used. The budget did rely on a one time use of a reserve fund available for local income tax refunds if the collected taxes are not sufficient to cover the refund needs. The now exhausted fund will need to be repaid in the future.
Delegate Frick also discussed the Senate Finance Committee’s defeat of his credit card legislation, chronicled on this blog. However, there may soon be federal action to address the issue, as discussed at a recent press event with Congressman Van Hollen and Delegate Frick.
Delegate Bill Bronrott
Delegate Bronrott reviewed the session primarily through the scope of transportation. Some type of cut was necessary in order to balance the budget and maintain the state’s AAA bond rating, which Delegate Bronrott said sounded like “pocket protector talk” but was extremely important. Local governments took a transportation funding hit, but according to Delegate Bronrott the county government told the legislature this was their performed form of pain compared to the pension shifting or income tax skimming discussed by Delegate Frick. But stimulus funding is helping to pay for some local transportation programs, such as new hybrid buses and road and bridge maintenance.
Delegate Bronrott also highlighted his work on highway safety, which is something he labors on each session. One of the new laws going into effect on the road safety issue is SB 265, raising the driving age by six months.
Senator Brian Frosh
Given his chairmanship of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, it is not surprising that Senator Frosh viewed the session from the perspective of that committee. After hearing his colleagues complain about legislation that died in the Senate, he started off with an old joke about a young member of the US House of Representatives who told his senior Democratic colleague ‘I can’t wait to debate the enemy, those darn Republicans.’ To which the senior Democrat responded ‘The Republicans are not the enemy, they are the loyal opposition. The Senate is the enemy.’
The highlight of the Senator’s session appears to have been overturning the Supreme Court. In 2007, the Supreme Court reversed years of precedent and decided that manufacturer imposed minimum prices on retailers no longer violated federal anti-trust law. State law in this regard usually mirrors federal law, but SB 239 divorces the two on this specific issue and makes minimum price requirements by manufacturers a violation of anti-trust. This will allow retailers to, if they choose, set lower prices which is good for consumers.
Senator Frosh was also happy to see the two domestic violence bills involving guns pass, as well as the legislature’s step in the right direction on the death penalty. All of these initiatives flowed through the Judicial Proceedings Committee.
Conclusion
Each legislator discussed the legislative session in a different light. Next time, we will look at what their constituents had to say.
