Part 2 of the Senate debate is below, and Part 1 of this debate can be found here. Here’s a quick review of the players in each district.
Senate District 37:
Rich Colburn, Republican – website and original responses.
House of Delegates District 37A: no responses.
House of Delegates District 37B:
Jim Adkins, Democrat – website and original responses.
Addie Eckardt, Republican – website and original responses.
Senate District 38: no responses.
House of Delegates District 38A:
Patrick Armstrong, Democrat – website and original responses.
House of Delegates District 38B:
Sonny Bloxom, Republican – website and original responses.
Michael James, Republican – website and original responses.
Jack Lord, Republican – website and original responses.
And now, let’s resume with Question #4.
Question #4:
This year a state takeover of several failing Baltimore City Schools was thwarted by the General Assembly overriding an earlier veto of a bill Governor Ehrlich rejected. A few states, though, are attempting to remove themselves from the federal “No Child Left Behind” regulations for various reasons, even at the risk of losing federal dollars. Do you support the federal NCLB mandates or do you feel the state could and should go without the additional restrictions (and funding)?
Richard Colburn (R, Sen 37): Maryland can ill afford to forego federal dollars by removing schools from the “No Child Left Behind” regulations. I continue to urge my constituents to do as we have done which is to urge federal representatives to address federal “No Child Left Behind” regulations making them more reasonable. The current regulations cause the teachers to spend an inordinate amount of time and resources preparing the children to pass tests in order to graduate instead of getting back to the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic.
Addie Eckardt (R, 37B): With regard to” No Child Left Behind” there are some very good aspects, especially the focus on every child receiving a quality education and meeting reading and math standards. Yes, there are some parts that need modification and there has been much discussion with the federal government about this. I would not reject the opportunity to continue with the program. What is more important to me is that we have put over 1 billion dollars into education over the past five years and we put a plan in place to assist schools in the event that students and schools were not making progress. What will happen to those students in the Baltimore city schools who are not reading and doing math? Will they graduate? I think not. Will they be able to get jobs and find meaningful work without the skills necessary to succeed? Or will they not graduate and wind up unemployed, on the streets, or in jail? I have visited an elementary school (an Edison School) that is doing well – students are achieving. I favored the intervention from the State Board to help those failing schools.
James Adkins (D, 37B): I would have to look at the numbers and whether or not Maryland could stand to lose the funding. Right now, NCLB is placing an ever increasing burden on our school systems. The real question is whether or not our students are graduating with more knowledge and are better prepared to enter the workplace and adulthood due to NCLB. Only time will tell, but “bright ideas” from Washington and even from Annapolis may not be as effective as the appropriate resourcing of good ideas by those who have to implement policies.
Patrick Armstrong (D, 38A): Today I believe that Maryland should stick with NCLB and the federal funding it brings. As for he legislation passed by Congress, NCLB is a lousy legal mess. The problems it creates for teachers and the roadblocks it puts into place for students are numerous. While many provisions are important for the future of our schools the majority of NCLB has failed our children and our schools, as many states and school boards across the country and in Maryland have discovered. This in mind, Maryland is currently in compliance with NCLB and I believe that we should continue to accept the federal assistance for our schools at this time. As for Baltimore, if a failing school cannot be remedied by the local jurisdiction than it should be taken over by the State until a solution can be found. No school in Maryland should be allowed to fall below our highest expectations for performance and quality education.
Jack Lord (R, 38B): No child left behind means accountable teachers and schools. Most schools could not do without the Federal funding. Worcester is probably the exception. They have some of the highest test scores but receive the least funding of any School system in the state.
Michael James (R, 38B): I support NCLB.
Sonny Bloxom (R, 38B): I support the federal NCLB mandates and would urge the state to seek modifications to it where appropriate for our state needs.
Question #5:
In the 2006 General Assembly, the Blackwater development in Cambridge became a contentious issue which led to legislation that was eventually defeated. However, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has continued to apply pressure to legislators and encourage voters to speak out on what they perceive as a threat to bay water quality. On the other hand, the city of Cambridge sees Blackwater as a needed shot in the arm for its economy and tax base. Where do you see yourself on this issue and related development matters?
Richard Colburn (R, Sen 37): Regarding Blackwater, I am a strong believer in private property rights. Also, a project that is 3 years old and $10 million dollars into the process should not be thwarted. When it comes to related development matters, I favor managed growth. Growth should be limited to regions already set aside for it in the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan should not be easily amended simply to accommodate a large development.
James Adkins (D, 37B): I don’t think we should use housing construction alone as the answer to strengthening the Eastern Shore’s economy. We need a full spectrum of employment here on the Shore and must look over the horizon to see what the Shore will look like in the next 50 years. It is a difficult balancing act to recruit the businesses and then make sure that we can provide the employees to run the businesses. The Eastern Shore needs to be able to plug into the high technology located in places like Montgomery County. Unless we can provide this type of opportunity here on the Shore, we will continue to build houses here and people will continue to drive across the Bay Bridge for work there just adding to the congestion on our roadways. Just think what our roads will be like in the future, if we don’t solve this problem. Finally, we have only one chance to get this right. We have to get a handle on growth here on the Shore or we will lose our way of life.
Addie Eckardt (R, 37B): There was a bill in Annapolis that would interrupt the local planning process regarding land development. In regards to the Blackwater legislation, the bill was introduced by western shore legislators without any conversation with the local delegation, which is the customary way of bill introduction. I did not support the bill as it did not come through the local delegation and would usurp the local process prematurely. Dorchester County is often the last frontier for development and since the development of Sailwinds Park, the subsequent focus on the Hyatt, and downtown redevelopment, I believe the process put in place through smart growth and the critical areas needed to be honored. The entire community needed the conversation about growth and the impact on the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. As I have traveled across the country, I have been impressed with development that has been managed with sensitivity to the local culture as well as the environmental assets. I have always believed that growth will come to Dorchester and it is important that it be managed carefully with as many citizens involved in the discussion and subsequently the decisions. Cambridge cannot expand services for citizens without some growth. Most of the county is not available for development due to the tidal and nontidal wetlands and the amount of farmland necessary to maintain farming as one of the major businesses. I co-sponsored HB114, which makes several changes regarding local planning and requires local jurisdictions to plan for potential annexation and include in planning documents. It also requires cities and counties to work together. I believe this legislation will address the concerns raised by the Blackwater situation.
Patrick Armstrong (D, 38A): I believe that development can occur without serious damage to the bay and surrounding waters. Unfortunately, at this time we do not have in place the proper laws requiring strict environmental protections from runoff and waste disposal. I believe that Blackwater is a dangerous development plan and should be held to much stricter environmental protections than those that are currently in place. As for the lower shore, we understand the importance of the Bay’s health and we understand the need for growth. I propose we hold developers accountable for protecting the bay as they build and ensure that every possible safeguard is in place to prevent further devastation to the waters around the eastern shore.
Jack Lord (R, 38B): Since that development is in District 37B I would defer to the wishes of the two Delegates representing that area.
Sonny Bloxom (R, 38B): The state needs to be more involved in land use issues, especially where their interest is greatest (ie. bay water quality, sensitive habitats, and road/transportation systems).
Michael James (R, 38B): From my view, the Blackwater Developers played by the rules, followed the permit process, and communicated with state and local officials from the beginning. It may have helped their cause to do more in the beginning to reach out early to their future opponents, but that is just speculation.
I feel the state government plays a needed role in protecting our environment and should monitor development to ensure that the benefits are not outweighed by problems, current or future. The state should stay active in development matters, however I feel it is unfair to legislate retroactively.
Question #6:
The last two sessions of the General Assembly have seen an inordinate amount of time spent dealing with personnel matters and political appointments. Some have claimed this as a usurpation of power properly belonging to the executive branch (governor’s office) but others see this as a proper extension of the duties of the General Assembly. In your opinion, has the General Assembly gone too far or does the Governor still wield too much power when it comes to personnel decisions?
Richard Colburn (R, Sen 37): The General Assembly has gone too far. Thousands and thousands of dollars have been spent already regarding this issue. This is a waste of time and a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. The Governor is the Chief Executive of the State and consequently should be able to work with individuals with like-minded philosophies. My question is what exactly do my Democratic counterparts not understand about the definition of an at-will employee?
Addie Eckardt (R, 37B): I believe the General Assembly has gone too far to block the Governor’s prerogative that has been the practice for the past 40 or more years. In the previous administration the changes were frequent but I don’t remember anyone questioning the Governor at that time. Government can get pretty entrenched over the years and if agencies are not functioning well, the Governor is held responsible whether he was responsible for the problems or not. The Governor answers to the citizens and if there was one message that rang true during the 2004 campaign it was that government was growing too fast and was not as efficient as it could be. The current Governor put together a transition team to review state government and to recommend changes, which they did. Outcome performance measures were established and managing for results became the expected practice. I did learn this past session that the Legislature does wield a lot of power as well and action became overreaching as bills were introduced and passed that exceeded Constitutional authority.
James Adkins (D, 37B): Maybe the answer is yes and no to both questions. The Governor was operating under expanded “at will” authority provided during the previous administration and authorized by the General Assembly. We can’t keep changing the rules depending on which party is in power. A governor needs the flexibility to have key positions filled by those who support and will implement his or her vision for operations of the executive branch. However, the chief executive and his staff must use good judgment and fairness when implementing policy.
Patrick Armstrong (D, 38A): Members of both political parties can agree that political establishments in Maryland have too much power. I believe that removing some of the more basic appointment decisions from the governor is a reasonable step to take. Our executive branch has more power than any other in the country and by reducing that power we can be sure that appointments are keep in check now and in future administrations of either political party.
Sonny Bloxom (R, 38B): The General Assembly has gone too far only because we have a Repulican Governor. They would never have done this with a Democratic Governor. They have a legitimate role to play but should do it for the right motives not for politics. Also, they need to remember they are the legislative branch of government and not the executive.
Jack Lord (R, 38B): Only since the Democrats have lost control of the appointment process and large numbers were replaced are they upset. I think the system works fine.
Michael James (R, 38B): The General Assembly has gone too far. They have now spent over $1,000,000.00 on their politically motivated hearings.
******************************
I tell you, this is SO much easier to put together than the U.S. Senate version. Maybe I just asked better questions? On Friday I’ll do the final four questions to wrap up the debate, and Sunday I’ll endorse the candidates I feel would be best for the Eastern Shore in all of the contested primaries.
