Wicomico County Council – Page 3

A week of hearings and forums

For some reason, next week is very busy with meetings in the public interest for local residents.

In fact, that docket begins today with a townhall meeting on the Second Amendment hosted by Congressman Andy Harris and featuring local perspective from Delegates Mike McDermott and Charles Otto. That’s going on at noon today out in Ocean City at the Holiday Inn Oceanfront, 6600 Coastal Highway. I would expect my friend Jackie Wellfonder will have full coverage on her site, since I can’t make it. (Right Coast Conservative beat Jackie to it.)

After catching a breather tomorrow, Monday’s a holiday. But it’s not stopping the Daily Times from hosting the first of two City Council forums, this one for residents in District 1. As reporter Jeremy Cox alerted me, The Daily Times “wants to hear what issues matter most in the Salisbury city elections. Whatever issues are voted on by the community will be put to the candidates for their positions and become newspaper stories ahead of the Feb. 26 primary and April 2 general election. Light refreshments will be served.”

That Monday meeting will be held at the First Baptist Church at the corner of Delaware and Booth Streets in Salisbury from 5-7 p.m. It’s the same location where the NAACP forum was held last month. One thing not made clear is whether mayoral candidates Joe Albero and Jim Ireton would be invited; my assumption is that they are. But since they’re not subjected to the primary they may only come to observe the potential council member they’ll work with from District 1, whether it’s incumbent Shanie Shields, newcomer April Jackson, or the inimitable Cynthia Polk.

On Tuesday there will be a City Council Debate at Perdue Hall (Room 156) on Salisbury University’s campus, sponsored by the Salisbury Area Chamber of Commerce. It will run from 7-8:30 p.m. Questions from the public are encouraged, and can be submitted through either the Chamber’s Facebook page or via e-mail: chamber (at) salisburyarea.com. (Since there’s no mayoral primary, those two candidates will duke it out on March 26, along with the four City Council primary survivors.)

Wednesday turns to a meeting of another sort, as the Wicomico County Council is holding a hearing on the proposed Tier Maps at 6 p.m. in the Midway Room of the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center:

The Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012, commonly referred to as the Septic Bil (sic), enacted by the State of Maryland, may limit the number of residential septic systems allowed on property within the A-1 Agricultural-Rural Zoning District.

The Wicomico County Council will hear public comments regarding the area proposed for limiting septic systems and requests that all interested persons appear at said time and place for the purpose of expressing their views and opinions concerning the matter.

In addition, this legislation may impact the future use and value of your property.

This meeting should bring a lot of spirited discussion, mostly in opposition to the state’s taking over of the approval process (as they have to rubberstamp these tier plans, or else certain developments can’t be approved.)

Finally, Thursday will bring the second of two Daily Times candidate forums as the hopefuls for District 2 take the stage. This event will also be held at the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center from 5-7 p.m. Voters in that district will need to choose between incumbent Debbie Campbell and first-time aspirants Jake Day or Jack Heath.

Wow. I’m not sure I can make all of those events with my outside work schedule – that 5 p.m. Thursday start looks awful tenuous (and that’s my district to boot.) So it may be up to you to see for yourself what all the hubbub is about.

Calling the questions

Because early voting begins tomorrow, I feel it’s necessary to talk about how Maryland voters should vote on the statewide issues they’ll face in the election. A total of seven questions are on the statewide ballot – four of them referred by action of the General Assembly and three of them via referendum. This is the first time since 1992 that state voters will have the option to overturn previously passed measures from the Maryland General Assembly and potentially break a forty-year string of honoring the General Assembly’s will.

I’m going to go down the questions in order, but Questions 1 and 2 are essentially similar – they just affect different jurisdictions.

Question 1 reads as follows:

Requires judges of the Orphans’ Court for Prince George’s County to be admitted to practice law in this State and to be a member in good standing of the Maryland Bar.

Substitute the word “Baltimore” for “Prince George’s” and you have Question 2.

Apparently the idea has spread that only an attorney and member of the Maryland Bar can understand the law as it relates to probate law. Now my understanding is that current Orphans’ Court judges who aren’t members of the Bar need to have certain decisions reviewed by a licensed attorney, but this process doesn’t seem to be an issue in most jurisdictions. The people of Prince George’s and Baltimore counties are already free to elect a standing member of the Maryland Bar if they feel the person is qualified to take on the task of Orphans’ Court Judge, but in not making that a requirement it allows people who are in other related occupations or even just those with simple common sense to hold these positions.

Further, while the ballot issues only affect Baltimore and Prince George’s counties now, it’s only a matter of time before the legal lobby gets this to be a statewide prohibition. That would artificially limit the pool of qualified applicants in many smaller counties in the same respect that only a small number are allowed to be State’s Attorney. It prevents turnover in the position, even if someone who may do a better job but lacks a legal qualification comes along.

Rather than set this further precedent (which started in the 2010 election with Baltimore City) I recommend a vote AGAINST both Questions 1 and 2.

Question 3 was also referred by the General Assembly:

Changes the point at which an elected official charged with certain crimes is automatically suspended or removed from office. Under existing law, an elected official who is convicted or pleads no contest is suspended and is removed only when the conviction becomes final. Under the amended law, an elected official is suspended when found guilty and is removed when the conviction becomes final or when the elected official pleads guilty or no contest.

To be quite honest, this ballot language is confusing to me. As I think I read it, basically an elected official who pleads guilty or no contest also forfeits his office. But an honorable public servant wouldn’t get into the situation in the first place.

I don’t see the need to change existing law and on my ballot I’m going to vote against it. But insofar as recommendations go I will remain neutral.

Question 4 is the first of three brought to the ballot via referendum back in 2011.

Establishes that individuals, including undocumented immigrants, are eligible to pay in-state tuition rates at community colleges in Maryland, provided the student meets certain conditions relating to attendance and graduation from a Maryland high school, filing of income taxes, intent to apply for permanent residency, and registration with the selective service system (if required); makes such students eligible to pay in-state tuition rates at a four-year public college or university if the student has first completed 60 credit hours or graduated from a community college in Maryland; provides that students qualifying for in-state tuition rates by this method will not be counted as in-state students for purposes of counting undergraduate enrollment; and extends the time in which honorably discharged veterans may qualify for in-state tuition rates.

First of all, the opening sentence is wrong – they are not “undocumented immigrants,” they are “illegal aliens.”

And the argument that these families have to pay taxes is a red herring – they only have to file. Chances are they’re going to get a refund from claiming the child credit so in that instance they are a net taker of government largess.

This bill is also disingenuous in the fact that these illegal aliens will pay in-state tuition rates but for official enrollment counts will be deemed out-of-state students. So why are they entitled to pay in-state tuition again?

Aside from the last sentence, which according to Delegate Pat McDonough was the original intent of the bill until hijacked by illegal immigration advocates like CASA de Maryland, this ballot issue is a trainwreck for hard-working and legal Maryland residents.

Don’t fall for the sob stories presented by supporters – I urge a vote AGAINST Question 4.

Question 5 was also made necessary via petition, although it had the slimmest measure of success and made the signature threshold with fewer than 60,000 valid signatures (slightly over 55,000 were required.) It is also perhaps the most poorly-worded item on the ballot.

Establishes the boundaries for the State’s eight United States Congressional Districts based on recent census figures, as required by the United States Constitution.

I don’t know who dreamed up this description, but they left out the obvious word: “gerrymandered.”

It’s worth noting that Maryland Republicans created a map which was very elegant in its simplicity and only carved up a handful of counties in a relatively sensible manner. Of course, that was ignored by the Democrats who drew up our current abortion of a map, with districts resembling Rorschach ink blots. Their main objective was to set up State Senator Rob “Gas Tax” Garagiola with his own Congressional seat but that plan was foiled by John Delaney.

Of course, there are those who prefer the current lines because they see a slight partisan advantage for themselves and, indeed, we run the risk of an even worse map should the current lines be tossed out. But I’ll take my chances. Vote AGAINST Question 5.

Next up is the petition which secured the most signatures – over 200,000 at last count as thousands continued to pour in months after the official deadline. Here is Question 6 in legalese:

Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.

The other day I posted a video which explains well the overall argument against same-sex marriage, but one other point I’ve heard refutes the religious exemption fig leaf: that only applies until some clergy member creates the precedent of marrying a same-sex couple. Once precedent is established, there’s less legal recourse for recalcitrant clergy to refuse to perform ceremonies, much like those religious organizations which provide health insurance for their employees are being forced to cover birth control and abortions via federal edict. Those portions of the law would be the first to be struck down in any liberal court of law, and Maryland has enough of those to make it a slam dunk.

Honestly I don’t care who sleeps with who, but marriage should remain as being between a man and a woman – it’s for the children. Vote AGAINST Question 6.

Finally, we come to Question 7, which has been – by far – the one generating the most media attention thanks to nearly nine figures of spending by various casino interests. In all honesty, it’s a battle between gaming concerns Penn National and MGM for the hearts and minds of Maryland voters. Penn National has casinos in Charles Town, West Virginia and Perryville, Maryland which would be hurt by the competition a new casino would provide while MGM finally got a sweetheart deal from the state it could accept since they chose not to bid on any of the five original casinos provided by state voters in 2008.

Question 7 reads:

Do you favor the expansion of commercial gaming in the State of Maryland for the primary purpose of raising revenue for education to authorize video lottery operation licensees to operate “table games” as defined by law; to increase from 15,000 to 16,500 the maximum number of video lottery terminals that may be operated in the State; and to increase from 5 to 6 the maximum number of video lottery operation licenses that may be awarded in the State and allow a video lottery facility to operate in Prince George’s County?

I’ve already talked about this issue at length so I see no need to reinvent the wheel, whether it’s roulette or otherwise. Vote AGAINST Question 7.

Because of my inclination to disfavor Question 3, it will be an easy trip down the ballot for me – no, no, no, and so forth. But on the Wicomico County Questions A through D, all deserve support as they were carefully thought out by a Charter Review Committee whose judgement I trust. These are outlined on page 2 of our sample proof ballot here.

Of the four, perhaps the weakest link is Question C because of the removal of the residency requirement. But while a 2/3 majority doesn’t seem like a lot, having a seven-person County Council translates to a 5-2 majority. I’d be a little more hesitant with a nine-person County Council and 6-3 requirement but that’s not in the cards anytime soon.

The others are good ideas, particularly Question A. Having experienced the Council replacement process I would have liked an additional 15 days to make a better-informed decision.

So now you know how this voter will fill out his ballot, and I suggest you do the same.

WCRC meeting – October 2012

Serving as a warmup to the final televised campaign debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, those who attended the October meeting of the Wicomico County Republican Club were treated to spirited debate of our own.

But first we attended to the usual club business by reciting the Lord’s Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance and welcoming those distinguished guests in attendance. I read the minutes compiled by Dave Parker (thanks to him for filling in last month while I was away) and we got our treasurer’s report as well.

Our featured speaker was County Council at-large member Matt Holloway, who mainly focused on the ongoing battle between state and county interests over SB236, the so-called “septic bill.” Matt said that the majority on County Council “views it as a downzoning effort by the state.” It’s a battle we have already fought out locally, so apparently environmentalists have appealed to a higher power to get their way in Wicomico County and other rural areas around the state. “It’s our intention to fight this as much as we can,” said Matt.

As Matt explained it, there would possibly be two tiered zoning maps: one the state suggests and one we come up with locally. He stressed the importance of attending a public meeting to show support for the county’s map, which will almost certainly be the less restrictive of the two. (The county’s map is not finished yet, said Matt in response to an audience question.)

More scary, of course, was the cost of implementing the provisions of PlanMaryland and the Watershed Improvement Plan, a sum Matt pegged at $1.2 billion over a decade. It may as well be $100 billion to a small county like ours, said Matt.

Yet there was hope, as the county is discussing joining a lawsuit by several rural counties against the state. (I’ll discuss this more in a post later this week.)

Matt also briefly went over the county’s charter amendments which will serve as Questions A, B, C, and D on the ballot. Respectively they address the length of time by which a vacancy on Council must be filled (lengthening it to 45 days), reducing the number of voters needed to petition items to referendum, making sure the County Attorney has at least 5 years’ experience, and mandating public budget hearings. I think it took me longer to type that then he spent, since a number of us were already familiar with the Charter Review Committee’s work.

In taking questions, one struck me as prudent because it regarded how much county land could “perc,” or be drainable. It brought up a discussion about how government could really throw a wrench into the works by holding up those permits, with the example given of a piece of property which once had a house (which was demolished via controlled burn) that someone wants to build on but haven’t been able to do so for two years as they await the perc permit.

There was also a question as to how the local delegation voted, and since this will be one bill on the upcoming monoblogue Accountability Project you’ll find that points will go to the five local Republicans (Colburn, Eckardt, Haddaway-Riccio, McDermott, and Otto) as well as Democrat Jim Mathias for properly voting “no,” while Delegates Cane and Conway get diddly-squat for voting in favor of this ill-considered bill.

Dave Parker gave a Central Committee report detailing the good results of a recent appeal for funds, the upcoming Central Committee meeting on November 5, and the fact early voting begins Saturday. He also shared his thoughts on some of the statewide ballot issues, with fellow Central Committee member Blan Harcum pointing out the pro-Question 7 letter penned by former State chairs Michael Steele and Audrey Scott. It was apparent that, unlike the Central Committee, the club was split on the issue.

Joe Holloway piggybacked on Dave’s report by claiming the three key issues the General Assembly will look at next year are restrictions on wells (similar to those for septic systems), an increase in the gas tax, and perhaps the adoption of a mileage tax.

Bonnie Luna brought up an event I haven’t featured quite yet: a townhall meeting with Congressman Andy Harris at 7 p.m. on Monday, October 29th at the Black Diamond Lodge in Fruitland. She noted that there may be a busload of radical green environmentalist wackos (she referred to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, but I’ll embellish with the truth) attending the event as well as Democratic write-in candidate John LaFerla.

She also pleaded with us to do more volunteering as the final push begins: working at headquarters and manning the phones were at the top of her list.

Jackie Wellfonder spoke on behalf of Dan Bongino’s U.S. Senate campaign, talking about the upcoming meet and greet fundraiser at Wicomico County headquarters on Thursday evening and the U.S. Senate debate next Tuesday afternoon at Salisbury University. They are also looking for volunteers to do some canvassing.

Woody Willing gave a Board of Elections report which has led me to do a minor correction on my August post. It was a question of semantics as I pointed out over 900 voters were purged from the rolls; they were actually only shifted from active to inactive status. But I think he (and/or the state board) are confusing my report with other posts I’ve done regarding the statewide efforts of Election Integrity Maryland.

Next up was the first really serious debate we’ve had in many moons. In the September meeting I missed, the subject of media advertising for this election came up and an understanding was reached to allocate a sum of money to be used after exploring several options. Several members believed we should go ahead with this plan, but others held the opinion the money would be better spent in 2014. Those in favor of waiting barely won in a rare split decision.

And the feisty crowd wasn’t finished, as we debated the merits of having a band at our Christmas Party on December 2nd at the Legacy Restaurant. Many cried that spending money on a band and not on advertising seemed foolish, but others contended we would draw more people with the band. Those who wanted the music won another close vote.

After all that discussion, we finally found something worth agreeing on: sometime next week there will be a “2016: Obama’s America” viewing event at our headquarters. The date hasn’t been selected yet.

I gave a review of the two recent festivals, pointing out we possibly reached 10,000 voters and reminded all of them Wicomico County has a strong Republican Party. The Democrats weren’t at both events (just one) and missed an opportunity.

This was our last meeting at the county headquarters, and the next meeting will be the final meeting of 2012. It will be November 26 at the normal venue, the Chamber of Commerce building downtown. I won’t miss trying to balance my notebook on a chair.

Odds and ends number 56

I have a veritable catch-all of little feature items best handled in a paragraph or two, so I’ll get cracking!

First of all is an important update from the state Board of Elections with the ballot language for the seven statewide issues as well as a number of local questions (including four from Wicomico County.)

At first read, it doesn’t appear there’s any effort to deceive people into voting in a counter-intuitive manner (e.g. voting for an issue to repeal a particular law.) It appears that those who want to repeal certain laws would indeed vote against them at the ballot box.

I am a little concerned about the way Question 6 is worded, though. Here’s how the same-sex marriage bill is presented:

Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.

Of the seven questions the state presents to voters, this is the longest. Actually, if you removed the first clause it’s not a bad law but the part about gay and lesbian couples is a non-starter, which is probably why that language was added – people will say, oh, okay, the churches don’t have to participate. But that’s not the point, and the additional language obfuscates it.

I also wonder why the term “same-sex” wasn’t used. With the possible exception of Question 3, it’s just going to be down-the-line “against” for me. But on a local level, I’m all for two of the proposed changes – not quite sure about the last two questions quite yet.

I’m very disappointed, though, that the term limits proposal for the County Executive did not make it through County Council. Apparently several Republicans don’t have the spine to return the county to a citizen-based power structure, ensuring no individual would run the county for more than eight years. I guess we will have to primary them, won’t we?

Of course, last night the County Council heard testimony about the county’s redistricting plan for a work session today. I happen to think the plan put in place by the Redistricting Committee is quite sound and well thought out because it uses a number of significant natural and man-made boundaries (like U.S. 50) to define districts as well as making change easier in the future.

But scuttlebutt I’m hearing is that a second plan is in the works; one which will be more favorable to certain incumbents on County Council. While it’s true that about 1/4 of the county’s population is displaced by the Redistricting Committee’s plan, the goal is to establish more permanent district boundaries which won’t change as much in future years. One thing I like about the Redistricting Committee’s plan is how it keeps most of the communities together – obviously Salisbury has to be divided into at least two districts based on population and this map puts the heart of the city into either District 1 (the majority-minority district) or District 4. (Since I began work on this post last night, I have learned there is a second plan, drawn up by a county employee. While I haven’t seen it, my impression is that it’s closer to the old map.)

Speaking of elections, this tidbit came to me from Cathy Keim of Election Integrity Maryland. It’s “even better than being a poll watcher” and it goes right to the heart of the problem.

I asked Anthony Gutierrez, our local BOE head, if you have to be registered in the county that you serve as an election judge. He said no. As long as you are a Maryland registered voter, you can be an election judge in any county that hires you. He also stated that Baltimore has a terrible time recruiting enough Republican and non-partisan election judges. The goal is to have one chief judge from each major party at each polling place. If they cannot do that, then they try to get a non-partisan judge. If they can’t do that……then it just has to be two of the same party! This holds for regular judges also.

Being an election judge is even better than being a poll watcher as you are actually running the election. Please bring this up to the GOP that they need to be filling these positions in Baltimore and PG County and maybe other counties. I know that this is a regular problem, so the GOP should already be aware of it, but it never hurts to get people working on a solution sooner rather than later.

In Wicomico County we only have about 38 precincts, so presumably they only need 38 election judges from each party. But if you’re armed with the poll watcher training and are an election judge in a “problem” county it’s indeed possible to give the Democrats fits by insisting the letter of the law be followed.

Apparently they’re not going to follow the letter of the law in Tampa during the Republican convention. If you believe the Accuracy in Media group and writer Tina Trent, agitators funded by radical left-wingers including George Soros are plotting to disrupt the proceedings – of course, they’ll get plenty of press coverage if they succeed. Meanwhile, during the next week there are going to be protests in Charlotte at the Democrats’ shindig (some by unions bitterly disappointed the convention is being held in a right-to-work state) but you won’t hear a peep.

The President’s campaign also has the laughable idea that seeing five years of Mitt Romney’s tax returns are enough. This is part of a missive from Obama ~~For~~ Against America’s Jim Messina:

Friday morning, I sent a letter to Mitt Romney’s campaign manager, asking that Romney release just five years of tax returns. And I made a commitment that, if he does, this campaign would not demand more.

You should add your name. Here’s why:

Right now, our opponent is proposing a $2,000 tax increase on middle-class families with kids in order to pay for tax breaks for millionaires like him.

He’s asking Americans to put him in charge of their taxes, while refusing to come clean about his own.

This isn’t going away because voters deserve better, and everyone but the Romney campaign seems to recognize that.

(snip)

Romney’s refusal to release his returns is raising more questions than he’s been willing to answer.

According to the one full year of returns he has released, Romney paid 13.9% in taxes on his income. Thursday, he said he went back and looked, and has never paid less than 13% over the last ten years.

Now we’re asking him to put his money where his mouth is.

It is absolutely relevant for us to ask how much a presidential candidate paid in taxes, if he sheltered his money or tried to get out of paying taxes at all, why he started — and continues to own — a corporation offshore in Bermuda, why he keeps his finances offshore in the Cayman Islands, and why he opened a Swiss bank account.

(snip)

This issue isn’t going away, and for good reason. Tell Romney to follow 30 years of precedent and release his tax returns.

Next thing you know, they’ll be asking for ten years’ worth. Meanwhile, we don’t have any of Obama’s college records, never mind the whole birth certificate thing. Of course, anyone can Photoshop any sort of “fake but accurate” documents they want, but that’s not the point, either.

I truly don’t give a damn whether Mitt Romney has a Swiss bank account or money in the Cayman Islands. It’s his money and he can do as he pleases with it. And paying almost 14% of his taxes on his income? Just ask an average American who scores a big tax refund check, complete with earned income credit, what rate he or she paid and I’ll bet the answer may surprise you. Sorry, Jim Messina, that class warfare card is no good here.

That’s Obama’s America. And to that effect a movie will be shown locally beginning Friday – showtimes are here, and the trailer is below.

I may have to go see this one, and I am not a movie buff.

I’m going to close with a little encouragement from a fellow blogger – Marianne (aka Zilla of the Resistance) has been through a lot with her late stage Lyme Disease. Well, not only has she found improvement with some of her most painful symptoms of late, she’s also received some cheering news from the Mitt Romney camp as he’s making what Marianne terms a “bold stand” against those medical professionals skeptical of some possible treatments for the disease. (Maryland is one area affected more heavily than most.) Perhaps there’s light at the end of the tunnel for her, and it’s not an oncoming train.

The light at the end of this post is also here, but it’s only the next post down. I encourage you to keep reading.

Wicomico County could be going through changes

I mentioned the other day that there were proposed changes in the Wicomico County charter, and now I’ve had an opportunity to digest these a little bit. Many are perfunctory, but there are also some which may be controversial as well.

There are a number of changes being proposed to the charter, but some of the more provocative ones are:

Establishing special elections for long-term vacancies within County Council or the County Executive. This was probably a reaction to the untimely death of the late District 4 Council member Bob Caldwell, who died less than a year into his term. An appointee approved by our Central Committee and selected by County Council, John Hall, will serve the last three years.
Establishing a two-term limit on the County Executive. Notably, that prohibition would not extend to County Council. From what I’ve been told, this two-term limit on the county’s leader was considered as part of the original Charter change that created the County Executive position a decade ago but the Democratic County Council majority at the time balked at the inclusion of that language. It’s worthy of note that none of those four Democrats chose to run again in 2006, the election where the first County Executive was selected and the Council was stripped of its executive powers over Wicomico County.
Changing the number of referendum signatures required from 15% of the total number of registered voters in the county to 15% of county voters who cast ballots in the previous Presidential election. Using the active voters from October, 2008 and local results from that year’s Presidential election as a base it would reduce the number of signatures required from 7,934 to 6,278 – still a significant number. Similarly, a public-inspired change to the Charter goes from needing signatures from 20% of all registered voters (or 10,000, whichever is fewer) to 20% of participating voters, with a maximum requirement of 10,000. The 20% of participating threshold would reduce the number of signatures required to 8,371 based on 2008 numbers.
Giving the County Council a say on the removal of the County Attorney via a 2/3 vote (which in Wicomico County would be a 5-2 vote assuming all seven members are present.) This was probably inspired by the controversy in the city of Salisbury over their city attorney.

In discussing this with Marc Kilmer, a member of the committee who gave me the heads-up on the situation, it’s not clear just how these items would be presented should they pass muster with County Council.

But given the fact that state voters will already be facing six (and perhaps seven) ballot issues this fall, the number of local questions should probably be kept to a minimum. If they were to pass the first three issues I spell out and write the questions in such a way that these subjects be put together, with special elections for County positions as one question, term limits on the County Executive – and I would be inclined to suggest the same for County Council – as a second question, and the referendum changes as a third, I think we could call it a day.

Sure, there are other changes which probably should be made but many of them are more technical and there’s no reason we can’t come back in 2014 to make those corrections. There’s no restriction on when items supported by the Charter Review Committee can be placed before voters because, with five affirmative votes, County Council can bring those up at any time. I might even be convinced that putting off the term limits question to 2014, when we can add County Council to the roster of offices under term limits and vote in politicians who would be subject thereto, would be the way to go.

Of course we have no way of knowing what the 2014 ballot will look like at a state referendum level because there are almost always state amendments placed before voters, and if the Democratic majority in Annapolis doesn’t learn the lesson they are hopefully taught this time we may see a half-dozen or more statewide questions once again. But knowing that there are already a number of weighty issues before the voters in Wicomico County, it may be smart to parcel out changes among several election cycles and address the most important ones now. To me, making sure vacancies are filled by the people and easing referendum requirements are top priorities, while term limits can go on the back burner.

But the Charter Review Committee has done its job, and now it’s up to the people to speak. The next chance comes Tuesday evening at the County Council meeting, but there’s also e-mail and voice communications as well. This post is my take on what should be done but I’m sure readers have theirs, too.

Odds and ends number 54

Yes, it’s time to clear out the e-mail box and since “random thoughts on the passing scene” was sort of taken by Thomas Sowell I call this exercise “odds and ends.” Usually I put up anywhere from a sentence to three paragraphs or so for items not long enough to stand a full post but interesting to me nonetheless.

Perhaps I’m reading more into this than I should, but the other day I found out Andy Harris is likely no fan of the FairTax. This is because, as part of an e-mail I received from him on real estate issues he wrote:

I oppose plans that would result in net tax increases by restricting or eliminating the home mortgage deduction.

Now maybe this is only in context with his next statement:

Reduction, modification, or elimination of all or some of the current tax benefits for homeowners will remain a risk as long as the Administration strives to reduce debt by raising tax revenue without getting wasteful and unnecessary spending under control.

This is where Andy was discussing recommendations by Obama’s deficit commission that would eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for certain (presumably wealthy) homeowners or cut these deductions across the board in an effort to raise revenue.

Andy makes the correct point in his note that we need to cut spending, but I’m hoping he’s not shut the door on a consumption-based taxation system.

One thing I can also say about Andy is that he’s not on any vice-presidential radar screen. But I got the results of a survey the other day which surprised me.

The Liberty News Network, which purportedly is representative of the TEA Party given its parent company is Grassfire Nation, conducted an online poll asking who Mitt Romney should select as his running mate. While the piece claims a “majority” of TEA Partiers prefer Marco Rubio, the last time I checked 36.6% wasn’t a “majority.” That, friends, is only a plurality.

Despite that LNN headlining faux pas, Rubio won the poll but I also find it interesting that the “racist” TEA Party’s top three choices were Marco Rubio, Allen West with 23.4 percent, and Condoleeza Rice, who had 18.2 percent. No one else was over 5.2% of the vote. Apparently almost 80 percent of these “racists” are fine with a Latino or black vice-president – I would be more happy with West than Rubio or Rice, though.

Speaking of Latinos, but more generally of the variety of those having dubious legality to be in our country, I was alerted to a Washington Post story that glowingly describes the city of Baltimore’s efforts to repopulate itself via the immigrant population. Shani George, the Post employee who occasionally feeds bloggers items of interest from the paper, wrote in her e-mail:

The welcome mats thrown out by struggling cities and states stand in stark contrast to the reception immigrants have faced in places such as Arizona and Alabama. Most of the immigrant-friendly measures around the country are in their infancy, so it is difficult to assess how effective they are.

Critics say cities that lure immigrants end up with high numbers of undocumented migrants. That also is difficult to measure, particularly now that immigration from Mexico, the largest source of illegal immigration, has dwindled to essentially zero.

And the story, by Carol Morello and Luz Lazo, starts right out with the emotional punch to the gut:

A native of Puebla, Mexico, (Alexandra) Gonzalez feels more at home in Baltimore with every passing year. She attends city-run nutrition and exercise classes in Spanish and takes her two young children to a Spanish-language storytelling hour at her neighborhood library. She plans to earn a GED and become a teacher.

Both of Gonzalez’s young children were born in America, so they are American citizens; meanwhile, the accompanying photo captions to the story say Alexandra and her husband are here sans permission. And it doesn’t sound like they’re looking to assimilate anytime soon, since she’s taking Spanish-language courses and sending her kids to similar classes. William Donald Schaefer is slowly spinning in his grave.

Of course, Pat McDonough weighed in. I did not change the text of this excerpt of his release – indeed, it is all caps:

THE MAYOR’S ‘AMNESTY ATMOSPHERE’ IS CREATING UNFAIR COMPETITION FOR JOBS AND ENTRANCE INTO COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOR THE LEGAL RESIDENTS OF BALTIMORE. THE MAYOR IS PANDERING TO THE HISPANIC VOTE, CREATING A SUPER MAGNET FOR AN INFLUX OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

(snip)

I AM SURPRISED THAT THE MEDIA, PRESS, AND OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE NOT CHALLENGED HER IN THESE EXTREME AND RECKLESS POLICIES.

For the most part Pat is right, but how many people are going to kill the messenger? Dude, lighten up a little, stop being a publicity hog, and fire whoever is writing your stuff in all caps. You just might be the reason no one is challenging these policies.

And it’s a shame because being a bull in a china shop like that, in many instances, drowns out more reasoned arguments like this one from writer Hans Bader about upcoming proposed rule changes in Maryland schools. In many, the inmates would end up running the asylum. (Sorry about the link – Examiner is really overdoing it on intrusive ads.)

Finally, I want to send out a bat-signal to a couple of my loyal readers who have items before the County Council, ones which will certainly be decided during their next meeting. Both the Charter Review Committee and Redistricting Committee have finished their work, and I know the County Council held a work session on both in their last meeting.

If I can get an executive summary of the proposed Charter changes and a copy of the proposed map, I would find it most helpful for analysis of both. The briefing book County Council used in their last meeting is 90 pages long with a lot of extraneous information. Even though I’ve been described as “wordy,” “verbose,” and “wonky,” I like concise information.

The next County Council meeting will be Tuesday, August 7, and it should be the monthly evening meeting. From what I’ve read on the Charter changes, they should be palatable to most but I just want to make sure my interpretation is correct. Meanwhile, I understand the county’s district map had to change quite a bit and I think it would be helpful for my commentary on it to have a copy for sharing!

So there you have it, the odds and ends of life.

WCRC meeting – April 2012

The complaints were flying fast and furious at tonight’s meeting – not about those running the meeting or featured speaker County Councilman Bob Culver, but about a system of uncaring state government seemingly devoted to the notion of forcing us into oblivion here in the hinterlands.

After handling the normal mundane business at hand, Bob began his remarks by making light of the fact he “made the paper and Grapevine all in one week.” As he’d mentioned before, the last year-plus on County Council had been challenging and interesting at the same time, and he praised fellow Council member Gail Bartkovich for her help on picking through the budget. In fact, this Council edition has a “great dynamic,” assessed Culver.

They had been presented two budgets for FY2013: one billed by County Executive Rick Pollitt as the “doomsday” budget had around $7 million in cuts in case the state’s maintenance of effort rules would apply with no new revenue, while the other “relief” budget restored those cuts and instead grew the Board of Education by 2 percent. Culver correctly pegged these budgets, particularly the “doomsday” edition, as an “end run to remove the revenue cap” with the assistance of Delegate Norm “14 Million Dollar” Conway. (Note I made up the name for him, not Bob.) Bob also saw the income tax increase county payers will endure (from 3.1% to 3.2%) as “political blackmail” made necessary by state mandates.

And while state leaders dithered over the Prince George’s County casinos that Senate President Mike Miller wants vs. the revenue enhancements Martin O’Malley desires, we in Wicomico County are still saddled with a lot of bad legislation. Take the new residential sprinkler law which will add between $7,000 and $20,000 to the cost of a new home for example. Or consider the septic bill, which affects farmers because their property values and available credit decrease.

Moreover, the budget only works by withdrawing from the rainy day fund, of which only about $12.2 million is currently not otherwise spoken for. There is “no chance in hell” we can afford a $14 million hit, said Bob, although “we could have made $7 million.” But when the county has lost $800 million in assessed value since 2010, things get more difficult. And while new county administrator Wayne Strasburg is a “breath of fresh air,” Wayne also believes we need at least a 7 cent per $100 increase in the property tax for each of the next three years, said Culver.

In addition, Bob believed we dodged a bullet for now with the failure of the teacher pension shift that the counties lobbied against. But it was only a matter of time before that shoe dropped and Culver thought we should begin planning for that eventuality now.

When asked about the fate of the elected school board, Bob was blunt: “Mr. (Rudy) Cane killed it.” Bob was told in no uncertain terms it would not advance while Rudy was chair of the county delegation.

At this point Delegate Charles Otto got into the conversation, blasting the maintenance of effort bill as a “ridiculous, unconstitutional thing.” The only thing we’d have a special session for, continued Otto, would be to raise $500 million in taxes.

Hearing the grumbling that there wasn’t much we could do about the situation, Cathy Keim begged to differ. She pointed out that Election Integrity Maryland was training poll watchers, which we would need in various areas of the state. We could also work on the petition and referendum she was collecting signatures for.

That was echoed by Central Committee member John Palmer, who also announced that the signatures being collected were also being made into a handy database of conservative and right-leaning Marylanders which could be useful for future efforts. Regarding our County Council, Palmer assessed it as “six Republicans (with) three acting like Republicans.”

County Council member Joe Holloway chimed in that the Bennett Middle vote “decided the fate” of the 7 cent property tax increase. By voting to spend that additional money, the Council was left with no choice but to max out to the revenue cap this time around.

As it turned out, Culver was the catalyst for a wide-ranging discussion of solutions ranging from activism to prayer, as we were reminded by one observer that National Prayer Day comes a week from Thursday. “God is judging our nation,” she warned. We need “more prayer warriors.”

After engaging in a mea culpa for an error he made in his most recent Daily Times column, Dave Parker mentioned the state budget in his Central Committee report; he marveled that “uncontrollable Republicans” were being blamed for the non-passage of the budget Martin O’Malley would have preferred. O’Malley left out the inconvenient truth that Democrats in Annapolis can pass whatever they please without a single GOP vote. Martin O’Malley “wants to be Obama,” Parker believed.

But Dave was disturbed by one earmark which was passed, despite the fact he’ll receive some tangible benefit. The state wrote itself $135 million more debt so Norm Conway could brag about bringing a new library to Salisbury University. (Gee, it should be under construction just in time for Conway’s re-election campaign, you think?)

Longtime political campaign organizer Bonnie Luna announced she was at it again, as she will soon begin the local Mitt Romney campaign with a kickoff organizational meeting sometime next month. Dan Bongino also has a local coordinator in rising young political operative Shawn Jester.

But I wanted to wrap up with one final travesty in an evening that seemed to be permeated with doom and gloom for some reason.

After a number of years of trying, the Wicomico County Republican Club finally set up a scholarship to be given to a high school senior who qualifies in several different areas, including (naturally) being a registered Republican. It’s not a huge scholarship by any means, but $500 can be a help to a young student. (I know it would have helped me thirty years ago when I began college.)

We found out today that the Wicomico County Board of Education would not list it in their list of scholarships, for the stated reason that the recipient has to be a registered Republican. Now there are other stipends which are restricted for other various reasons, such as the applicant has to be a minority, female, pursue a particular career major, or even be a wrestler, but apparently those sorts of restrictions are just fine. This tends to follow the same logic which would allow a non-believer to head up a Christian school group. But the good news is the scholarship will soon be on the Delmarva Education Foundation website, which is a relief for a conservative student (including homeschooled) who would like to avoid the federal student loan scam if at all possible.

So the meeting wasn’t all bad. Hopefully in a couple months we’ll get to meet our recipient; perhaps he or she can attend our next meeting on June 25. Since the fourth Monday in May is Memorial Day we will skip May and have our next confab in June.

Bloggers need not apply?

Last night I was sitting in my living room, listening to the County Council meeting on PAC14, when my jaw just about hit the floor. The question of the county’s Redistricting Committee was brought up, and objection which floored me was registered by District 1 Council member Sheree Sample-Hughes.

Her point of contention with the list of nominees was based on the fact that one of the seven members who volunteered is a fellow blogger, and the concern was that any of the proceedings would necessarily find their way onto the internet. She was also concerned that G.A. Harrison, the blogger in question, has been critical in the past of County Council members.

As it turned out, her motion to strike Harrison from the list barely got a second from at-large member Matt Holloway and was outvoted 4-3. (I seem to recall District 2’s Stevie Prettyman was the other vote to oust Harrison, but my memory could be incorrect. Suffice to say that it was a 4-3 vote.) As previously amended, the Redistricting Committee appointments passed on a 6-1 vote with Sample-Hughes objecting.

Given the situation, I thought it was prudent to put my two cents in.

In all honesty, the only difference between a person who writes a blog and a person who doesn’t is that one has a public forum which attracts the occasional reader and one does not. There are people out there who don’t write as an avocation who are prone to spilling the beans on whatever happens to someone who then disseminates the information – hence we get such people as “unnamed sources.” It really wouldn’t matter if the person had a website or not.

This sort of situation has come up before. Back in November, the Republican Central Committee had a meeting to interview and select four applicants for the County Council seat which became available with Bob Caldwell’s passing. G.A. Harrison was at that meeting – which was open to the public – and we cautioned him to not reveal the results before each of the six applicants was selected the next day; true to his word, he did not. As you can read, I did, but the post was set for noon the following day as agreed.

But the events of last night bring up another question. Obviously readers know I have this gig, but my writing skills have also led me to be entrusted with a post as Secretary of two different organizations: the Wicomico County Republican Central Committee and the Wicomico County Republican Club. And as regular readers are aware, each month I do a summary of the WCRC meeting. That was not without objection in the beginning, but once I was made aware of some of the concerns I tailored my reporting to be informative without getting into certain business, like the financials.

On the other hand, I don’t do reporting for most of the Central Committee meetings, with the main reason being we don’t often have guest speakers. The Central Committee summary given at the WCRC meeting normally covers the newsworthy items anyway; people don’t really have to know that (for example) we debated at our last meeting whether to allow surrogates for the various Senatorial campaigns to speak at our Lincoln Day Dinner in lieu of candidates who couldn’t attend. (By the way, our Lincoln Day Dinner is Saturday, February 25, and all ten Republican U.S. Senate candidates from Maryland have been invited to speak. As to the question, we will play it by ear.)

Needless to say, I have to constantly use my judgement on what to write about party affairs but over the years I’ve done this I’ve figured out where to push and where to hold off. I think G.A. Harrison can do the same with the Redistricting Committee.

And while I realize that Harrison has been a critic of several members of County Council in the past, I don’t think that acrimony is grounds to take him off a committee. That seems like petty politics to me, and I don’t think being a blogger should preclude one from serving the community in other capacities as well. Instead, G.A. should be commended for stepping up to the plate just as his other six cohorts and those others who may have expressed an interest but did not make the cut did.

A caving on Bennett Middle School?

Update: As projected, District 2 Council member Stevie Prettyman is indeed the one who sold us out in a 4-3 vote. She joined District 4 appointee John Hall, at-large member Matt Holloway, and District 1 Democrat Sheree Sample-Hughes in voting to commit the county to years of debt. Hope the squeaky wheel minority is happy.

According to published reports in both the blogosphere and mainstream media, Wicomico County Council is holding yet another meeting tomorrow morning to discuss the stalled Bennett Middle School project. County Executive Rick Pollitt has already asked County Council to allot a 7 cent per $100 increase in the property tax to help pay for the new school without presenting the remainder of his operating budget. (The phrase for that where I come from is “a pig in a poke.”)

First of all, it’s notable that the meeting will be a daytime meeting rather than an evening meeting, since I thought the intention of having night meetings would be to encourage participation. Perhaps that time worked better within the schedule of the few squeaky wheels who don’t understand that people are tapped out, so no means no. For working folks, it’s not that easy.

And since it will be a legislative session, this will give at least one of the four who originally voted to hold off on the school until funds are more available the opportunity to cave in to the caterwauling of these parents who are more than willing to pay higher taxes. News flash: there is nothing stopping those in Parents in Action from stroking a check to make up the difference in their tax rates; however, the rest of us may want to see a better funding plan for a more affordable school that won’t put those same children who attend the school into decades of watching the county pay for it.

G.A. Harrison opines in his piece that District 2 Council member Stevie Prettyman is the weakest link among the four, and that over the last week there has been a “sometimes mudslinging” campaign against the four who voted to be fiscally prudent – another I spoke to agreed that the County Council is getting “hate mail.” Perhaps supporters of fiscal sanity were a little too complacent.

Of course, there is the slim chance that we are the recipient of some fiscal miracle and the county can afford this project without saddling the next generation in debt or, more importantly, raising taxes on a population which is already overburdened. Harrison suffers from one possible inaccuracy in his report, though – I believe a seven cent rise in the property tax homeowners would result in a staggering 17.5 cent per $100 increase in the personal property tax Wicomico County businesses are saddled with. Certainly local businesses can weather that increase, no problem. </sarc>

Failing that miracle, it bears noting that a County Council which bends whichever way the wind blows is also subject to a primary challenge next time around. I can guarantee you local Democrats will give no credit for voting to raise taxes in the next election and will instead use the 2014 campaign to paint County Council as the obstructionists who rode Rick Pollitt out of a job.

When the time is right, we can build Bennett Middle School – if the state has it as its priority to build schools there will be no “end of the line.” I say call their bluff and hold the line on county spending.

If you can attend the County Council meeting, by all means do so. We need to support the fiscally conservative majority and make sure they can weather the storm presented by a few malcontents who seem to think a new school will solve all our educational problems.

Why add to the debt?

Obviously this post I cite is an oversimplification of the educational approach needed for many children, but I thought it was appropriate to point this out given the fact a small group of parents – backed by an all-powerful school board and sympathetic County Executive and newspaper – are putting big-time pressure on our County Council to approve the debt necessary to build a new middle school.

But Richard F. Miniter, a writer posting on the American Thinker website, makes the case that education can be as simple as applying a little discipline and effort, given the vast library now available to anyone who has an e-reader and cares enough about their child to make sure they learn. And there is a time savings, as Miniter writes:

It also sums down to a little block of time because without having to get ready for the school bus; the bus ride; dispersing to classroom; disciplinary issues in classrooms; having to raise your hand to go to the bathroom; noisy, chaotic hallways scenes every fifty minutes; noisy, chaotic lunch periods; announcements; fire drills; lectures about bullying, respecting alternative lifestyles, or strangers; then preparing for the bus ride home, followed by homework, one can do a better job with a child in two hours than a traditional school classroom setting can in eight.

Now extrapolate that to the building itself. If one can learn in the small space of time allotted to learning at home, it can also be assumed that learning can be achieved in a regular school building, regardless of the age.

Continue reading “Why add to the debt?”

Wicomico County Council: the Holloway & Holloway show

I’m told the fix was in from the start. But last night Wicomico County Council added its newest member in District 4’s John Hall and reorganized. Out was two-year County Council President Gail Bartkovich of District 3 and in was former Council Vice-President Joe Holloway of District 5. He was replaced by at-large member Matt Holloway.

And while Joe Holloway announced the decision was by unanimous consent, the lone Democrat on the body chose to wait until Council comments to express her dissent. Maybe Joe didn’t hear her in the hubbub, but I don’t think Sheree Sample-Hughes needed to take up an attitude, just politely state that for the record the vote was not unanimous.

But this post is more about the direction I’d like to see the County Council take us in.

Continue reading “Wicomico County Council: the Holloway & Holloway show”

WCRC meeting – November 2011

I wasn’t sure what to think about the meeting when I found out who the speaker would be, but Wayne Strausburg turned out to be an interesting guest who had a lot of things to say.

Of course, we attended to our usual opening business, but the bulk of the meeting dealt with the prospective changes to our county Charter from the committee of fifteen interested citizens – three of whom were in the room – headed by Strausburg.

Wayne explained his role as speaker would be to relate the process and entertainment of ideas that the Charter Review Committee (CRC) would review on their way to making recommendations to County Council. As head of the group, Strausburg wanted to have a “consensus” on proposals because “we don’t take changes to the document lightly.”

Continue reading “WCRC meeting – November 2011”