Wicomico County Executive – Page 2

Taking a waiver off the table

To me, this is a confusing request Rick Pollitt has made. In a letter released today, he told the state to not bother giving Wicomico County a Maintenance of Effort waiver for the next budget year:

Wicomico County Executive Richard M. Pollitt, Jr., announced today that he has notified the Maryland State Board of Education that he is withdrawing the county’s application for a waiver of the Maintenance of Effort (M.O.E.) standard for funding public education for Fiscal Year 2012. Pollitt was to lead a Wicomico County delegation to Baltimore to appeal to the State Board for a waiver on May 24, but the withdrawal negates that presentation. Wicomico is the last of the six counties that initially filed for the waiver to take this action.

In a letter to the State Board, Pollitt said, “Withdrawal of the requested waiver does not indicate that Wicomico County will reach the M.O.E. level of funding in the next fiscal year. In fact, it will not.”

Under normal circumstances, if a county funds its local school system to the level designated as Maintenance of Effort, it receives millions of dollars in new State aid. However, as a reflection of the current state of the economy, no additional State funds are at risk next year for failure to meet M.O.E.

Pollitt noted that there is currently a legal challenge involving the Montgomery County Board of Education and their county government where the Board claims that M.O.E. is mandatory upon the counties and the only way to avoid funding M.O.E. is through the waiver process. “We, along with the Maryland Association of Counties (MACo), are watching that case with a great deal of concern as a ruling favorable to the Montgomery Board could be devastating to county fiscal policy. I believe the major risk to failing M.O.E. is the loss of additional State money. With no new money at stake, the exercise is moot.”

Recently, the Wicomico County Board of Education, by a tie vote, declined to endorse the county’s application for the waiver. Pollitt noted without the support of the local educational community, gaining the waiver would have been unlikely. Pollitt was successful in receiving a waiver last year but then had the support of the local school system.

Pollitt concluded, “providing adequate funding for the superior education of our young people is the most serious challenge we face. While I deeply believe that most Maryland jurisdictions have a strong commitment to do the right thing for our children; the precarious state of the economy, further exacerbated by an antiquated system of public school funding, points to a troubled future for local school funding and I have called on the State Board of Education to join with MACo, local boards of education and the Maryland General Assembly to work vigorously to develop a better plan for funding public schools.”

I suppose I can see the point if the question is moot, but it can’t be determined whether the point is moot until the court decides the Montgomery County case, can it? Perhaps leaving the request in may have been a better move. Sure, there’s no state money at stake – for now.

But more interesting to me is the tie vote at the Board of Education. Since there are seven members of the board, my question is who abstained, who voted to seek the waiver, and who voted against the deal. All I know is that it was a 3-3-1 split.

So apparently our ball is in the court of the court deciding the Montgomery County case. If things don’t go Wicomico’s way we may have another fiscal emergency come up later this year as the county scrambles to cut other areas to feed the beast that is our Board of Education.

Update: I’m told the three “no” votes were Don Fitzgerald, Ron Willey, and Michelle Wright, with Robin Holloway abstaining.

The silent majority

While it isn’t unprecedented, it is rare that I open up monoblogue to guest opinion. This is the case today, though, as Marc Kilmer of the Maryland Public Policy Institute counters the argument made by Wicomico County PIO Jim Fineran in a recent Daily Times opinion.

As Mr. Pollitt’s public spokesman, Jim Fineran is paid to put a positive spin on his boss’s proposal to raise our property tax rate. However, I’d caution anyone from mistaking the apathetic public response to Pollitt’s tax hike proposal for approval.

Yes, the people who showed up at the budget meetings generally spoke in favor of a tax hike. Government programs have concentrated benefits and diffused costs. Those who use programs are few and focused; those who pay for them are many and inattentive. Of course people who are benefiting from taxpayer largesse are going to rally when their favored programs are threatened.

During last year’s election, however, a large number of people spoke when they cast their ballots. They elected six very strong fiscal conservatives to the county council. Mr. Pollitt barely won a second term. Mr. Pollitt’s re-election was no doubt aided by the fact that last year he didn’t propose raising the tax rate even though the revenue cap would have allowed it. Now that it’s not an election year, Mr. Pollitt is certainly singing a different tune.

The results of the 2010 elections indicate a majority in Wicomico County supports low taxes. They may be silent at budget meetings but they speak loudly at election time. If our county council members stay true to the fiscally conservative message they advocated during the election, they should know that the people of Wicomico County support them.

Marc Kilmer is a Maryland Public Policy Institute senior fellow specializing in health care issues. He and his family reside in Wicomico County.

Observations on a budget

It seems to me that political theater in Wicomico County only comes around once or twice per annum, and that occasion reared its head again last night.

Since I have a life which doesn’t revolve completely around local politics, and since I already knew just how the proceedings would go from previous experience, I chose to sit and watch the hearing from the comfort of my living room on PAC-14. And while there were a couple occasions when I was ready to bolt out of my chair and make the five-minute drive down to the Civic Center, I refrained knowing that I would have the opportunity to say my piece in this space. Besides, I write better than I speak and I’m not limited to five minutes at the mike sitting here in my easy chair.

In essence, what this fight boils down to is whether we need to tax ourselves into oblivion or not. Sure, it’s only a 5 cent per $100 tax which affects only property owners that’s the largest controversy. But increasing the property tax rate also increases the personal property tax (also known as the ‘inventory’ tax) because it’s calculated on the property tax rate, times a factor of 2.5. So that rate will leap 12.5 cents per $100. Other ~~fee~~ tax increases proposed (remember, according to the Democrats, a fee is a tax) include charging homeowners more for mosquito spraying, setting a minimum tipping fee of $5, and increasing the price of solid waste permits by 9 percent.

A large part of last night’s discussion seemed to center around the Board of Education’s budget, with one commentator stating the case that a decrease in the BOE budget would end up increasing the budgets for law enforcement and the county corrections facilities. The school board seemed to have the largest lobbying group there.

However, the grousing shouldn’t be at the local board of education. Nope, our problems began when no one had the guts (or a judge who exhibited a little common sense) to tell the Thornton Commission to go pound sand. Supposedly the state didn’t fund education enough, so a formula was established to mandate how much counties were required to spend per pupil. Whether the number has any basis in reality or not, that’s what the state and county has to come up with to meet ‘maintenance of effort’ requirements. Some whined about the fact Wicomico needed a waiver from MOE, but I think we should have a permanent waiver. The state would be far better served to let the money follow the child and allow the parent more choice, but that’s a discussion far beyond the scope of a modest-sized county’s budget.

G.A. Harrison brought up a point I’d brought up before, and one promised by the County Executive before he was even elected. We were told that the budget would be stripped down to nothing (as County Executive Rick Pollitt claimed to do in Fruitland) then rebuilt as needs were apparent.

Unfortunately, our process seems to lean too heavily on department heads who aren’t even willing to level-fund their departments, let alone make cuts. Perhaps the budget building needed to proceed as follows – and bear in mind Rick Pollitt has threatened to create a ‘shadow budget’ in the past.

We generally have an idea of what our revenues should look like before the budget is even created. I’ll present the following scenario, with numbers that are generally close to the mark but may not be exact.

Let’s assume that projected revenue without tax or fee increases of any sort is $110 million. By prioritizing what services need to be provided, the budget is prepared as if that would be the actual revenue. We should have an idea of what employees are paid, how much facility costs are, price of office supplies needed, and so forth.

At that point, we can estimate the impact of any tax or fee increases, regardless of how small, and then assign an extra expenditure to each – it doesn’t necessarily have to be in that department. Let’s say the $5 tipping fee creates $100,000 in revenue and thanks to that influx of cash we can hire (or retain) two teachers. For that matter, it could be any of a menu of options that we can think of – it’s two teachers, or staffing for an economic development office, or new radio equipment for the sheriff’s department, or HVAC renovations to a county facility. Whatever it is, at that point we can determine whether we want to bear the extra cost among ourselves for (the statists’ code phrase for this would ‘invest in’) the additional service or improvement.

Instead, we are just told that to maintain this county’s ‘quality of life’ (and how do we measure the cost/benefit analysis of that?) we have to increase these taxes and fees to match the budget wants County Executive Pollitt has set forth. If we don’t tax ourselves this way then someone has to suffer.

This method is working the system exactly backwards – it’s like walking into a restaurant with $15 and wanting the $19.95 buffet. They’ll let you up to the serving line, but you can’t have the steamed crabs, prime rib, or cheesecake. All you can eat are the items no one else will have like the Brussels sprouts and tofu. Maybe – just maybe – we’ll allow a plain lettuce salad; no dressing.

The better way would be to have the buffet come with a selection of inexpensive foods and cost $15, with the steamed crabs, prime rib, and cheesecake a $4.95 additional option if you desire to pay for it.

Our problem is one of perception. Everything goes up in price constantly, and the pound of flesh the federal and state governments extract out of us every year is beginning to feel more like they’re extracting five pounds apiece. Meanwhile, the quality of services doesn’t improve as quickly as the costs escalate. People notice this most in the perceived quality of our educational system, citing anecdotal evidence of high school graduates who can’t count change, speak proper English, or fill out a job application. Roads which were fixed a couple years earlier are already falling apart, they say, and they have to visit four governmental offices to get a simple permit. We all have our horror stories of dealing with government bureaucrats.

Of all the suggestions made during the portion of the county budget proceedings I watched, I thought those made by Tom Taylor made the most sense. His campaigns were always ones of thinking out of the box, seeking limited government solutions. (It was surprising that Tom twice sought the Democratic nomination for County Executive, but perhaps he’ll change those political stripes someday.) Contrast that with the person who spoke after him, Joe Ollinger – he basically said go ahead and raise my taxes because you’ve always (except for last year) raised them the maximum amount allowed. Sometimes precedents are made to be broken, and he of all people should realize there was a reason taxes weren’t jacked up to the max in 2010 – it was an election year! Rick Pollitt may not look like the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he possesses some political savvy.

If my math is correct – and generally it is – doing without the 5 cent tax increase would require about $4.5 million in cuts from a budget of $111 million. (Property tax revenue consists of about $3.9 million of that, with the corresponding inventory tax increase accounting for the other $600,000 or so.) That’s essentially a 4 percent across-the-board cut, and I believe that’s doable if the budget is pieced together in the proper fashion. (Remember, my theory is that it should have been based on the lower number, with optional buys and personnel placed as extra line-items.)

Instead, we get this annual (or semi-annual, as lean times have sometimes forced a mid-year course correction) whinefest where everyone pleads to either not have their pet services cut or not have their taxes raised. It’s pretty apparent whose side I’m on, because I don’t equate spending taxpayer money with gaining a better quality of life like Brad Gillis does. In my eyes, we should worry about the core of the core services first, then come up with the extras as we can afford them – taking into consideration their economic impact.

I trust our County Council will do just that, and the ball is now in their court. They just have to stand strong against the seductive pressure of constantly hearing that it’s only a little tax increase of money we’re entitled to anyhow under the revenue cap. Until the working people don’t have a revenue cap placed on them, the county government needs to do with less.

One final note: the speed camera legislation we thought was dead is rearing its ugly head again. Be at the County Council meeting June 7th and tell them they don’t need Big Brother as a revenue source. Speed cameras are not about safety, they’re about the cash. And Wicomico County will be the first to tell you they need more cash.

Not taxed enough already?

And to think I voted for this guy?

Perhaps Joe Ollinger doesn’t explain his case very well in a recent Letter to the Editor published in the Daily Times, but his contention is that we should gladly pay the nickel per $100 increase in property taxes here because, “in those years that property values decrease, such as this year, to maintain a revenue flow that keeps pace with inflation and population growth, the tax rate must increase by the maximum allowed by the cap.”

But it didn’t last year because his opponent, incumbent County Executive Rick Pollitt, was fretting over his re-election chances. So where was Joe then? Certainly he wasn’t advocating that Rick bleed local property owners dry! Remember, Pollitt was the one who complained for the entire first three years of his term about the cap and threatened to create a “shadow budget” with items he had to cut because revenues weren’t to his liking.

Yet even after the piece in the Daily Times, Joe was at the Republican Club meeting last night handing out a flyer which claimed Pollitt’s proposal to zero out the homestead credit has several “shortcomings.” These are directly from the flyer:

It is unfair. One group will benefit at the expense of other groups (renters, commercial property owners, future homebuyers, our own children and/or grandchildren)

It is a subsidy, and as with all subsidies, one group receives an economic benefit to the detriment of others.

It is not the “American independent – I’ll pay my own way” conservative attitude. Instead, it is a liberal socialist idea that expects a faceless society to pay for a portion of your expenses.

It will artificially increase the real property tax rate.

It will artificially increase the personal property rate.

It is bad for business and economic development.

It will decrease residential real estate activity.

It will increase the complexity of the tax code.

I suppose the best way to look at this is point by point. Joe has some good arguments, and some clunkers.

First of all, I don’t care a lot for the emotional appeal of calling something unfair; that sounds like something an eight-year-old would do. While it’s indeed true that the government is using the tax code to promote a certain behavior, I don’t think that a family or a homeowning couple is going to let a tax break of a few hundred dollars over time stop them if they want to move to a better school district, buy a larger (or smaller) home, or pursue a better economic opportunity. Unfortunately, our modern society is littered with these cases where one group has an advantage over other groups; case in point – the home mortgage interest deduction, which is a much larger incentive to buy a home than a minor property tax break.

My thought on point number two (the “subsidy” point) is much along the line of the first item.

But I don’t see where that tax break is such a “liberal socialist” idea – after all, we all want lower taxes. Right now, we have two options on the table: a 10% homestead exemption or a zero homestead exemption. So far, given Joe’s track record of questioning the opposition to a nickel property tax increase (even one which falls within the revenue cap) I wonder why he’s chosen this hill to fight on. No one has yet justified why we couldn’t cut another three percent from our overall budget, which is approximately the amount being discussed.

Since I don’t know whether our current homestead exemption is factored into the existing rates for either property tax or personal property tax (better known as the inventory tax; a tax Wicomico County is alone among Maryland jurisdictions in charging) I can’t rebut or agree with Joe’s fourth and fifth points.

But I do think it’s a stretch to say that a homestead tax exemption change would be “bad for business and economic development.” Perhaps I need some examples of counties which have tried this and how they fared. My guess is that there were a number of much larger factors which had to do with other overtaxation, red tape, and regulation that sent them spiraling downward economically.

I’d also like to see proof of point number seven (“decrease residential real estate activity”) with examples. We’re pretty much at the bottom of the barrel now.

I can agree with Joe’s final point, though. But then again, we should already have a pretty complex system based on the rates in effect when a home was purchased and then increased by the maximum amount when times were good and assessments shot through the roof. Does the 10% increase now in effect take into account all the money “lost” to the county when a property’s value shot up 40 percent but taxes only increased 10 percent? Is there a “catch-up” provision?

For example, take a mythical home assessed at $100,000 in a particular tax year and taxed at $1 per hundred dollars of valuation; their annual tax would be $1,000. The way I figure it, raising the assessed value a year later to $150,000 (assuming the same tax rate) would increase taxes to $1,500 – but under the 10% rule they could only go up to $1,100 because your taxable assessed value only can go up to $110,000. Does the county lose out on that $400 entirely or is that worked into the next year’s tax rate?

The whole idea behind the zero homestead exemption is to have a tradeoff; as Pollitt notes in his budget presentation:

“(I)n return for a slightly higher tax rate, I’m proposing to make sure our home-owning citizens get a permanent tax break starting in fiscal year 2013 to go with the increase.”

Beginning in FY2013, Pollitt wants the amount you’re assessed on to never go up – if your FY2013 assessment is $100,000 that’s where it will stay. But (and this is a BIG but,) that doesn’t mean your taxes wouldn’t increase. Whatever the state determines for “constant yield” and can be slid under the revenue cap, that rate increase will still hit you. Next year it may be a nickel again – or it could be a dime.

Of course, there’s a corollary to this as well – what if assessed values continue to plummet? Does this provision allow you to have a lower assessed value and remain there? We don’t know the answer to that, but there’s a very real possibility we haven’t weathered the real estate storm yet and that this scenario could apply.

The proposal needs to be explained in terms a layman can understand, with real-life examples from counties which have taken the lead in this area.

Julie Brewington has her take on the situation as well.

Bonds, beer, and other items of local interest

I don’t use them too often, but I am on the e-mail distribution list for press releases from Wicomico County. Jim Fineran was a busy guy today since I received two, and I thought both deserved a little bit of comment.

The first one I’ll ponder is “County Scores High Marks From Wall Street’s Annual Evaluation.” One bragging point generally made by County Executive Rick Pollitt is that the bond firms love our county because they believe it’s run on sound financial footing. Of course, it’s a good thing they believe this because otherwise we’d be paying interest out the wazoo once the bill for county capital projects comes due.

And Pollitt states this again here, with a little slap at Joe Ollinger in the process.

During the recent campaign, my challenger stated that the county’s strong fiscal grades from Wall Street were a result of the Revenue Cap. However, the agencies have made it clear that our success has actually come in spite of the Revenue Cap. The following is from Moody’s Report:

RECENTLY HEALTHY FINANCIAL OPERATIONS MAY BE CONSTRAINED BY TAX REVENUE LIMITATIONS

Wicomico County has maintained a healthy financial position during recent years despite the impact of property tax revenue constraints, supported by proactive management and conservative fiscal policies and practices. (Emphasis in original.)

Yes, the election is over and Rick is back to his complaining about the revenue cap. Tell Moody’s that they don’t get a vote on changing this and it’s doubtful the five or six GOP members of County Council (depending on the election’s final outcome) are going to see it any other way. Certainly one tug-of-war likely to result next year as the budget is discussed will be whether to make up for the shortage that Pollitt voluntarily took this year when he opted not to raise the property tax rate to the constant yield rate.

Anyone with half a brain realizes that running a county and performing legitimate functions of county government costs money – the question is and will continue to be just how much can those of us living in the county afford to give when the other branches of government ask for an increasing share and costs for everything else (like gasoline and groceries) continue to add up?

Pretty soon we won’t be able to afford beer or wine, which brings me to my second press release.

Even though it’s generally after the fact, I talk about the Autumn Wine Festival and made sure to mention its baby brother the Good Beer Festival quite a bit this year, too. Obviously the group I’m associated with uses the events for political purposes given their calendar date in the midst of campaign season but I’d like to see both thrive for other reasons as well.

So I was pleased to actually see some attendance and financial numbers from each this year, for the first time in my memory. And my guesses were actually pretty good on attendance.

I recall that the prediction made by Parks and Recreation for attendance at the Good Beer Festival was 2,000 for the weekend, but the nice weather Saturday made me sure they came pretty close to that number on just that day alone. Sure enough, the event drew 1,628 that day. I also thought the Sunday crowd was about half, and indeed Sunday drew 750. Overall, they exceeded expectations by nearly 20 percent – but still suffered a small loss financially (about $1 per person.) Hopefully, the event will get more vendors to help make up the difference because otherwise I thought it was well run – the department was “ecstatic” about its future so perhaps in October 2011 we can do it again!

As for the AWF, year 8 was great as they drew 4,651 patrons and made a profit of about $24,000, mostly on the strength of the number of vendors (ticket sales made about 1/4 of the profit.) So they are set to go after a couple tough years of weather. And given the fact the AWF is now “twice its original size” it seems the Good Beer Festival is also on track to become as successful.

One thing unaccounted for insofar as the financial numbers at the festival grounds is the impact of over 7,000 visitors. Granted, there is some percentage who are local but even if just five percent come from far enough away to merit an overnight stay that packs hundreds of hotel rooms and helps keep the restaurants and gas stations in business. Just on an anecdotal basis from working a booth I notice a lot of people come here from across the bay so even if it’s a day trip we’re bringing money to the local economy. These events do well for paying for themselves and I suspect with decent weather next year the GBF will move into the black.

Finally, I wanted to point one thing out about this ‘Third Friday’ video.

I find it interesting that this video is featured on the ‘jimiretonformayor’ Youtube channel. Is that kosher with Salisbury’s campaign finance laws? I think it’s a question worth asking so I’m going to.

Honestly, I don’t mind Jim Ireton taking the time to promote this event as part of his duties but under the auspices of a campaign Youtube site I think this could be considered an in-kind contribution by the person uploading the videos (one can ask who does that and whether that’s on city time too.) Perhaps the city of Salisbury needs its own Youtube channel which can be used for these sorts of announcements.

Since I’m the burr in the saddle to a lot of people in power, why not ask this question too?

The passion of the PACE (FOP debate part 2)

As I explained in Part 1, it works out much better for writing this (and I would think for reading) to split the accounting into two parts. And while most would have believed the main event would be the County Executive race – particularly because one candidate believes strongly in a countywide police force to supplant the four separate law enforcement jurisdictions we have now – it only served as an undercard to a verbal bout between State’s Attorney candidates.

To once again set the stage, the event was moderated by PACE Director Dr. Adam Hoffman and where I use the terms ‘law enforcement’ and ‘law enforcement officers’ they will be shortened to LE and LEOs, respectively.

Let’s begin with the County Executive race, giving first dibs to the challenger.

With decades of business experience to draw on, Joe Ollinger obviously looks at government from an “outside looking in” standpoint and eventually contrasted himself with his opponent, who to Joe has a different perspective in seeing things through the lense of years of being a bureaucrat.

Since this was a FOP function, Ollinger concentrated heavily on the first question and his proposal for a single, countywide police force. It would be “a lot more efficient,” argued Ollinger, who asked the crowd whether, if they were design things from scratch, they would have such a situation. It’s a situation which prevents communication and cooperation, added Joe. Later, in his closing statement, Ollinger observed that the only resistance to change seems to be coming from inside of government.

Ollinger also revealed that he was only interested in the office for a single, four-year term and believed that, “we shouldn’t have career politicians” doing the task. He also advocated a “pay-for-performance” plan and accountability for the 48% of our county budget devoted to the Board of Education.

Conversely, Rick Pollitt was “moved by President Kennedy’s call to citizenship” and had devoted his career to public service as a commitment to his community. Having said that, though, he pointed out that this was his first elected post.

Regarding the topic of crime, Pollitt was blunt: “I don’t have all the answers.” But he stressed that he’d worked for stronger partnerships and the best equipment and tools, including a push for the LEOPS pension. He also was firmly against combining the agencies because he believed the 30,000 Wicomico citizens who lived in the involved municipalities had no interest in doing so.

In contrast to Ollinger’s businesslike approach, Pollitt stated, “I understand providing services is not like running a business.” Rather than things always being about the bottom line, companies are attracted to the quality of life as the “greatest single economic development tool.” It was a theme he repeated in his closing statement, which occurred after his lone stumble – retreating briefly from the podium Pollitt and Hoffman collided, sending Rick to the floor.

As I noted in Part 1 there was the opportunity for the audience to ask questions, and one member asked Joe Ollinger how a new police agency would be paid for. Ollinger recalled that this subject has been around for at least 15 years, since he served on a countywide consolidated functions committee. The consolidation could have “funding as it is right now,” with the expected savings returned to the municipalities on a proportional basis to their original contributions.

This was the point where Rick Pollitt again responded that “no one wants to consolidate…it’s not gonna happen.” But he agreed there were other areas pointed out by the committee which still could be.

At last, we are left with the State’s Attorney race. This one I’m going to handle on more of a blow-by-blow basis because, of the five audience questions allowed, four were regarding issues in this race.

It didn’t take long for Matt Maciarello to start the verbal jousting – after going through his background and history of leadership, he then claimed, “I believe I’m the most qualified to be State’s Attorney.” Moving into crime-related specifics, he vowed to bring communication and collaboration to the office and to specifically target the criminals who affect us – he was “passionate” about keeping us safe.

This passion was a general theme of Matt’s, but he also took part of his opening remarks to accuse his opponent of being conflicted in the Thomas Leggs/Sarah Foxwell case.

Obviously, W. Seth Mitchell wasn’t going to let that stand too long. He briefly went over his “history of community service” and time in the State’s Attorney office before answering the question about why he should be elected over his opponent quite simply – “it’s called experience.” (He also pointed out the 17 year age difference between him and Maciarello.) To him, the best way to fight crime is through “thorough prosecution.”

So we had the battle lines drawn – Maciarello touting his passion and new ideas while Mitchell countered with the experience card.

After the other table had taken its turn speaking (as detailed in Part 1), wouldn’t you know the first question had to have come from a Mitchell supporter – “how many cases have you tried?”

Maciarello admitted he had tried but two jury trials and “several” bench trials, but countered that he knew his way around civil and crimimal litigation through his career and added that the State’s Attorney doesn’t try every single case himself. After bringing up the fact that longtime local attorney Arch McFadden had endorsed him, Matt countered the Mitchell contention by saying, “experience counts, but the right kind of experience counts too.” He again brought up his leadership roles and rapid career advancement. “If you want a leader, you’ll vote for me,” said Matt, but “if you want someone who’s stood in court” you could vote for Mitchell. Vowed Matt, “I’m the guy who’s going to reduce crime in Wicomico County.”

After Mitchell guessed his count of cases was in the thousands, he snidely remarked that, “Maybe I should vote for him…I guess Matt will do it all.” Seth continued, “if you want someone who’s tried cases, he concedes it’s me.” Mitchell also believe he was the one who the staff would look up to, and reiterated, “if you want experience in the courtroom, it is me.”

I then asked a question I’d raised before, regarding the fact that outgoing SA Davis Ruark also took over the job at a young age, his early 30’s.

Maciarello replied, “I’ve grown just as a candidate,” and that he was “taking the role and responsibility seriously.” He further believed, “a young mind is a flexible mind” and promised to embed prosecutors into LE and the community at large. Citing his energy and drive, he repeated that “I can do this job” and vowed again that, “I’m not going to sleep until crime is addressed.”

In reply, Mitchell said that “I think you can (grow in the office)” but stressed the relationships he’d built up and that “I will be a tough prosecutor.” He also said he’d learned a lot from Sam Vincent as his opponent over the years.

Mitchell also claimed that Davis Ruark had “4 to 6 years” of experience in the State Attorney’s office before he took over. While I can’t verify his claim, I can verify that Ruark passed the bar in 1981, about 6 years prior to his appointment as State’s Attorney. According to Matt’s website, he passed the bar in December 2003, so he’s working on seven years in the field.

Needless to say, someone asked how each would handle the Thomas Leggs/Sarah Foxwell case. This time Mitchell had the first shot.

And Mitchell made sure to say that, “I’ve made several calls to Davis Ruark” regarding the situation and, should he choose to keep Ruark on as an assistant in the case, “there’s nothing to stop me.” But Seth promised “I’ll take care of that case,” and stated the irony of one of Leggs’ defense attorneys (Arch McFadden) endorsing a man who would be in charge of putting his onetime client away.

Maciarello countered by calling this contrast a classic difference in leadership styles and said of Mitchell, “he does not understand attorney ethics.” It was “reckless” to put Mitchell on the Leggs case when he also defended the accused murderer in a case several years ago. Continuing his passionate appeal, Matt told the crowd, “I’m not letting my community go down the tubes.”

The final question addressed to the pair made reference to Davis Ruark’s support of 30 new police officers in Salisbury.

Maciarello expounded on his “proactivity” and wanted to look for grant money to help out. “I’m itching to get in there” and start solving problems like these.

Mitchell was more cautious in his approach. “We always need more police officers on the street,” he said, but getting to that point would require a “balancing act.” Playing off Matt’s analogy of being a football coach in his response, Mitchell chided him by saying you can’t be a football coach but you need to be one of the players.

As for the allegations leveled by Matt on attorney ethics, Seth was “very angry…he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

In the courtroom, it often comes down to the final argument; the point where the cases are summarized.

Maciarello told the FOP, “I want to make you the most effective crime fighter you can be.” He pointed out that he’d ran a positive campaign, but when it came to the top 6 gang members in Salisbury he warned, “I’m coming for you.”

“I’m going to exceed your expectations,” he continued, and “communication will be the culture of my office.” Summing up, Maciarello opined, “a State’s Attorney is a leader…my opponent has a myopic vision” of the office.

Mitchell based his close on the question, “if you were a criminal, who would you most fear? You have to demand the skills to do this job.” Recounting the experience and resume gap, he said that “you don’t start at the top.”

“Don’t go with a novice,” he concluded, “go with a professional.”

On the whole, it was obvious that Matt was passionate – almost to a fault. Yet he also seemed to have a better vision of the administrative side of the job – where the office could go and how to be a leader in it. Moreover, you always wonder how someone who was a defense attorney would fare on the other side, and could he be effective putting away those he may have defended in the past (including, but not limited to, Thomas Leggs.)

In any case, this donnybrook for State’s Attorney may have become the most contentious race in the area, one which seems to be a small-scale model of larger races like the Ehrlich-O’Malley or Harris-Kratovil contests. Potted plants need not apply.

Candidate Wednesday: August 18, 2010

The second in the series will feature three candidates – one is running for Wicomico County Executive while the others are trying to replace Jim Mathias as a Delegate from House District 38B.

Having a more detailed budget and vowing to reduce government as John can sounds good. Cutting from the top and getting rid of “double-dipping” has its own populist appeal. Even lunch with the employees sounds good – but that’s going to eat up a lot of John’s income!

But is the ferry that big of an issue to run a campaign for County Executive on? John sounds like the opposite of Rick Pollitt in that he would be more of a hands-on executive. It would be a refreshing change in that respect.

The question I wish Matt had asked, though, was how Baker’s background in dealing with state government and unions would hold him in good stead on the level of a County Executive. In speaking with him before, the one beef he has with the Tea Party is their disrespect of unions (perhaps their anger is more with the union leadership than the rank-and-file, but it’s still there.) That’s something which may need to be reconciled in a Baker administration.

This is one of the more interesting interviews insofar as location, since it was shot in Marty’s dress shop. (Full disclosure: her dress shop is one of my advertisers as is she.) She started out a little slowly, but once the conversation got rolling her delivery improved. In some respects she is the perfect candidate, with some reluctance to serve the public in such a manner but determined to do so as a product of her background in small business and the agricultural community.

I like the part where Marty fretted about the effect on her life with the legislature being in session (I call it Maryland’s 90 Days of Terror), and certainly she raised some legitimate concerns about private property rights with the reference to HB63. (Spoiler alert: that committee bill is part of my upcoming monoblogue Accountability Project.) She’s part of a crowded four candidate field for the District 38B GOP nominations.

On the Democratic side in that same race is John Hayden.

John seemed to have a way to describe those things which were problems, but was a little short on details on how to solve them. He did make a good point regarding the coastal bays as opposed to Chesapeake Bay (a distinction which the state doesn’t always make) but seemed to have too much of a platitude for schools. And if he can “simplify” the state government it would be a Houdini act given he would be among a whole party of Democrats who are basically responsible for writing the labyrinthine code we have now.

One thing John didn’t point out is that he’s a fellow blogger; he does the Maryland On My Mind website I link to.

Unfortunately, the interview was marred by several interruptions – certainly not to the extent of Jim Rutledge’s bus interview from last week, but having a phone ring and other conversations going on didn’t help a voter decide. In fact, all three of these interviews featured seemed to be out of focus (they were among the first done so perhaps it was a guinea pig effect.)

I’ll continue this series next week with another 38B challenger, a hopeful from District 37B, and a County Council candidate – for the first time it will be an all-GOP edition. You’ll have to stay tuned and find out who gets featured.

Thanks again to Matt Trenka and Right Coast for allowing the usage of these interviews.

Candidate Wednesday begins this week

The other day I told you folks that I was going to become another outlet for the Right Coast interviews being done by local questioner Matt Trenka. Tomorrow I will replay three of the nine videos done so far, somewhat randomly selected to present candidates in three different races. These will appear both here at monoblogue and in a slightly different format at my Wicomico County Examiner page.

There will also be my commentary on what was said, although I will limit it to a paragraph or two. I may also lend a hand to future interviews as my schedule allows, perhaps as an off-camera guest questioner.

So far the nine interviews which have been done include:

U.S. Senate candidate Jim Rutledge
House of Delegates candidates John Hayden, Mike McCready, Marty Pusey, Mike McDermott, and Dustin Mills
County Executive candidate John Wayne Baker
County Council candidates Chris Lewis and Mike Brewington

Of the group five are Republicans and four are Democrats so it is a nice bipartisan mix, although all are challengers.

At the moment doing three per week means I’ll have videos on August 11, 18, and 25. If there are more the date will be September 1 and as we approach the primary it may mean I add a day or two during that week since early voting begins September 3 and absentee ballots are out shortly.

Look for the first three videos tomorrow afternoon.

What if you had a forum and no one showed up?

This article is an extension of one on my Examiner.com page. Since I was the only person to cover it I really didn’t have to be in any hurry to write about it, did I?

Sometimes events like this really make me wonder about the state of our governed: what if you had a candidate forum and only candidates showed up?

Last Friday was such an event. Each week over the last month or so the Salisbury Area Chamber of Commerce has hosted what they call a “lunch and learn” event where a group of four politicians (none of whom are opponents to each other) plead their cases before whatever audience shows up. In this case, it was two other officeseekers, me acting as press, and two members of the general public. Even counting the moderator, politicians outnumbered citizens for this forum.

For me, it was nothing new except for getting to hear from County Executive hopeful John Wayne Baker. I have heard and seen plenty from the two Republican participants (Stevie Prettyman of Council District 2 and the unopposed Joe Holloway of District 5) and had just seen the other guest, County Council candidate Ed Taylor, at the NAACP forum.

At this forum, each gave an opening statement and then answered a series of questions – many of them posed by other elected officials or officeseekers.

For example, John Wayne Baker, who is running for County Executive as a Democrat, was asked by David MacLeod whether his very campaign would be a violation of the Hatch Act (Baker works at the Eastern Correctional Institution.) Baker replied that the warden gave him permission as long as he didn’t campaign on state time.

But in his opening statement Baker suggested that his TEA Party involvement led him to throw his hat into the County Executive ring, stating, “if you sit on your couch and complain, no one hears you.” And while he may not have a lot of executive experience he knows that in budgeting, “column A has to equal column B.”

Prettyman said that “clear vision and clear thinking” are necessary in a term where several items are on the table, such as redistricting, the comprehensive plan, and the charter review. She also touted her 25 years of business experience prior to politics.

Since Holloway is unopposed, he doesn’t have to worry about losing the election. But he still talked about following a “common-sense philosophy” of government over the last four years, using the example of westside land acquisition. He also recalled that “we were warned” about the upcoming recession back in 2007 yet the warnings were unheeded.

I asked Baker how he would see his relationship with County Council if elected – after all, he was potentially sitting with over half the County Council in the room if the election results turned out the correct way.

Baker replied he was a “very upfront person” who was a fiscal conservative and would return to budget basics. “We need a whole different philosophy in government,” said John. But since he already works with a “difficult set of clients,” working with County Council would not be that difficult.

Obviously holding a job with ECI did tie Baker’s hands in one respect – he would not comment on inmate release policies. Joe Ollinger asked that question of him, which may have been a bit unfair since both are running for the same position.

The fourth person scheduled to participate showed up a little late, but Ed Taylor gave as his reason for running again that, “I feel I’m doing the right thing (to) be part of the solution.” His experience of three previous terms would be an asset, theorized Taylor.

There was some discussion on a subsequent question from Joe Ollinger about the tax differential report done recently. None of the Council members present had the study’s cost, but the point was brought up that a differential would be revenue-neutral – however, the tax rates for various jurisdictions would be affected with city rates going down and rural rates increasing.

When asked about the spike in crime by David MacLeod (who was in the audience doing the grilling this week) Stevie Prettyman said that the legislative body had little to do aside from providing the tools for the law enforcement arm of the county to succeed. But the conversation turned to the former drill academy which closed several years ago and how it could have been effective given the right leadership and type of youth sentenced to stay there. “I was sorry to see it go by the wayside,” noted Stevie Prettyman.

But John Wayne Baker saw the problem differently. When asked about using different model communities for crime, Baker was blunt, stating that statistics can be deceiving and in the end “it has to be not worthwhile to be a criminal.” Kids needed a work ethic, he argued, and part of the answer was to “find some common sense in Wicomico County” and attempt to recruit kids away from the gang culture.

Some of that answer could be in parks and recreation, and an observer asked about those programs, particularly the proposed west side park. It was still in the works, said Stevie Prettyman, but Program Open Space money was “frozen.” Baker countered with the question of when we have enough parks (the county has 58, he claimed) and mentioned the successful private ventures of the Fruitland Falcons youth football program and the Crown Sports Center. Prettyman conceded we had to balance core functions with the quality of life.

These were just some of a number of interesting exchanges which most people missed. It’s a shame that candidates put themselves out and speak, but most people will vote based on reputation, party, or thirty second commercial rather than these face-to-face meetings. That’s a missed opportunity to be sure.

Playing favorites?

Yesterday I detailed Thursday night’s NAACP forum and bemoaned the lack of participation by challengers. However, several different sources have chimed in to comment that these same candidates were unaware of the event.

It’s noteworthy to mention that, aside from the various Central Committee posts, there are 13 incumbents running for county office and I believe all but one was in attendance. (I honestly don’t recall seeing Karen Lemon, who is running unopposed for Register of Wills – but she may have been there.) On the other hand, only 8 of 16 challengers were there and none of them were what you would consider “Tea Party” candidates. (For the purpose of this discussion, these would be County Executive candidate John Wayne Baker, County Council at-large candidates Mike Brewington and Chris Lewis, and District 2 challenger Mike Calpino. In the group you have two Democrats, a Republican, and a Libertarian, so it’s not exclusionary by party.)

Allow me to contribute my two cents to the story. I only heard about the event because I peruse candidate calendars to create my weekly Election Calendar, and it was on Joe Ollinger’s website that I saw the note about the NAACP forum being held. In fact, my original mention of the event had it beginning at 6 p.m. and not 7:00 because there was no time listed and I was going from memory of similar forums in 2006.

I received my personal invitation from the e-mail account of Orville Penn (who was the moderator) on Monday last – it was sent late Sunday night. The addressee was NAACP Wicomico (a common tactic to verify the e-mail got out) and it was cc’d to 20 candidates, mostly Central Committee members but also aspirants for State’s Attorney, Judge of the Orphans’ Court, Register of Wills, Clerk of Courts, amd Sheriff. It also appears that Penn received the information from the Board of Elections website, so if a candidate did not list an e-mail he or she was skipped.

This is the content of the invitation itself:

July 10, 2010

Dear Political Candidate;

You are cordially invited to participate in the NAACP’s Meet the Candidates political forum. The forum will be held at 7:00pm on July 22, 2010 at First Baptist Church, located on the corner of Delaware and Booth Streets in Salisbury.

The forum will give members of our community the opportunity to meet you. Please confirm your attendance by contacting the NAACP’s office at 410-543-4187 upon receipt of the correspondence, it will be appreciated.~~by July 15, 2010~~.

We look forward to seeing you on the 22nd of July.

Sincerely,

Mary Ashanti

Mary Ashanti, President
(Note that the formatting and emphasis is as it was in the original, and the July 15 date was crossed out.)

It’s worth noting that a handful of candidates on the ballot did not supply an e-mail to the Board of Elections; however, none of the aggrieved candidates are among that group.

It appears the answer to this mystery would be to see the original e-mail sent out on or about July 10th, presumably to all the candidates who were originally slated to speak – County Executive and County Council hopefuls. Since everyone who is looking for that office has an e-mail we would immediately find out if any omissions were made.

So did the NAACP skip candidates who have been associated with the local Tea Party movement? In Chris Lewis’s case it’s very possible since his e-mail provided to the Board of Elections has the phrase “tea party” in it – for others it’s less clear. But without proof it’s a matter of he said, she said.

With another forum for state-level candidates being planned, such an omission may affect a few candidates there as well.

NAACP forum well attended – except by candidates

On my Examiner site I have pictures as well, but quite honestly they serve to record some of the participants for higher county office.

There are 46 total candidates on the primary election ballot for county offices here in Wicomico County. Perhaps it was the somewhat late notice for the event – as a candidate I received an invitation earlier this week – but barely half could be bothered to attend. (Granted, the thirteen Republican Central Committee aspirants make up a large percentage of the ballot and there was a competing event in Ocean City. But none of the four Democrats for their Central Committee showed either!) Many of the so-called “Tea Party” candidates locally were absent as well. In fact, aside from the County Executive race there weren’t a whole lot of challengers present – all but one District Council forum participant was an incumbent member of County Council.

Of course, being an NAACP forum many questions focused on race, but the audience of nearly 100 seemed to be most interested in economic issues. The audience-supplied questions tended toward that part of the platform. And since local NAACP head Mary Ashanti demanded respect in order to avoid trouble with the national organization, the candidates and audience were fairly well-behaved and polite.

In looking at each individual race, some differences were clear from the outset.

Right off the top, speaking in his opening statement, Tom Taylor told the crowd he was running on a “strict” fiscal accountability ticket for County Executive. On the other hand, incumbent Rick Pollitt said as the first County Executive, “we needed to concentrate on getting the citizens more engaged,” and talked about his efforts at diversity in employment and appointments. And these guys are both Democrats. The Republican in the race, Joe Ollinger, pointed out his lifetime of business experience and vowed to bring new, refreshing ideas to the table.

Even the books which best exemplify their approach to government (yes, this was a question) were radically different. Rick Pollitt chose John F. Kennedy’s “Profiles in Courage,” while Joe Ollinger selected “The Genius of the People,” which is a look at the trials and tribulations of our Founding Fathers as they drafted the Constitution in 1787. Tom Taylor preferred Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” which also happens to be one of my favorites.

Two related questions talked about disparity and inequity. While Joe Ollinger spoke about hiring the most qualified people, he also noted “the great equalizer” was public schools. Conversely, Tom Taylor said that government’s sole purpose was to protect individual rights, not provide services – it’s “the great umpire” but governs best when it governs least. And once again, Rick Pollitt brought up his contention, “the government had to reflect the face of the community” but not, as Ollinger said previously, a quota.

When the question turned to harmony between the executive and County Council, Ollinger promised to “work very closely” with County Council; Pollitt also thought “we’ve established a good relationship.” Meanwhile, Taylor related his experience with PAC-14: he tapes each County Council meeting for the community access cable channel. Taylor vowed to continue to attend County Council meetings if elected.

The final question dealt with quotas as moderator Orville Penn wanted to ask if the officeseekers would promise a particular percentage of minorities in county government. Of course, Rick Pollitt said, “I will try my best.” Joe Ollinger would hire the most qualified person since “the most important job” is to make sure money is spent wisely. But Tom Taylor not only would hire the best person, he spoke about us being “all one race – the human race.”

It’s unquestionable that Democrats have a choice in their primary race, as Taylor described himself as a libertarian Democrat while Pollitt spent the first three years of his term making the case the revenue cap was handicapping him. In some respects Taylor could even be considered to the right of Ollinger, who believed his business background would hold him in good stead for running the county.

Democrat John Wayne Baker, who would be described as a Tea Party candidate for County Executive, did not attend the forum.

The forum turned to the three (of six) County Council members who were present – Democrats Ed Taylor and David Cowall and Republican Bob Culver.

In his opening statement, Taylor talked about the three terms he’d already served on County Council, and remarked people asked him, “why are you crazy enough to run again?” He wanted to, “be part of the solution.”

Political newcomer Cowall said County Council was, “a job that needs doing right” and a place for “logical, nonpartisan decisions.” Culver, the Republican who ran for County Executive in 2006, simply cited his upbringing and business experience in his remarks.

The first question regarded the revenue cap, which Culver favored but Cowall thought “needs a new look” and Taylor opposed – he claimed that in 2002 he calculated the county would lose $50 million under the cap.

Another question concerned how minorities “get the axe” when budgets are cut. Culver contended that core services have to have “first consideration” while Cowall believed we needed to “set our priorities and set them right” – across-the-board cuts were a “bad idea.” Taylor would leave education and public safety alone.

A final question asked about jobs for the minority community. I thought Bob Culver had an interesting point, one that encouraged minorities to take low-paying jobs now because of the prospect for advancement as the economy rebounded. This generation expected what his already had without working its way through life as he had. He also had the idea of subsidizing job creation through grants which would defray part of salaries for new hires. (Of course, what happens when the grant money is gone?)

Cowall, who said we “need to support our farmers,” pointed out that jobs are being created in certain sectors like health care and by Salisbury University. Green jobs were also a possibility within our ability to create them, and he was upbeat about our future. Taylor thought we needed to add more economic development staff and try to draw construction back in.

Honestly, none of the three excited me a great deal and it’s a shame that Mike Brewington (another “Tea Party” Democrat), Matt Holloway, and Chris Lewis (a “Tea Party” Republican) weren’t in attendance to express their ideas and make the forum a little more rousing.

The final major portion of the debate dealt with district Council members, with most of the stage time devoted to District 1 council candidates. Not only was that the only district which was represented by both candidates in the running for the seat but it’s a district which serves a large part of the black community and is represented by the sole black member on Wicomico County Council, Sheree Sample-Hughes. Her opponent, Dave Goslee, Jr., is white.

In their opening statements, Sample-Hughes talked about “having a seat at the table” and her interaction with the community through quarterly meetings. On the other hand, Goslee touted his business and farming experience.

Of course, some of the questions involved NAACP and civil rights issues. Sample-Hughes played up her membership in the organization, calling it an “educating” organization, and discussed an incident which occurred in a local barbershop where patrons were told to hit the floor by police. The African-American community was “not as respected as it should be,” she opined, but added, “there should be a point in time where we are okay.” Meanwhile, Goslee spoke about his “endeavor” to attract talented people to the business he helps to operate and believed that Biblical principles should be the basis of our relationships.

One interesting interchange was the candidates getting to ask questions of each other. Goslee asked Sample-Hughes about her charitable works – which mainly involved working with the American Legion auxiliary – while Sheree asked Dave about what he could bring to the table in partnerships? Goslee cited his work with the Delmar Fire Department, the United Way, and the Joseph House as examples.

Since the other candidates were unopposed at the forum, they were allowed an opening statement before getting into group questioning.

Stevie Prettyman of District 2 told the crowd her “commitment is to conservative principles” and talked about her favorite books: a tome by fellow Councilman Taylor called “Just Me and God” and her mother’s journal. Her opponent, Mike Calpino (another local Tea Party participant and the lone Libertarian on the county ballot) did not participate.

District 3 Council member Gail Bartkovich talked about the importance of the upcoming county comprehensive plan and related how she and Sample-Hughes, who serves as Council vice-president, work out the weekly agenda together. Bartkovich has served as Council president for the last year. Her Republican opponent, John Hamilton, was not in attendance.

David MacLeod of District 4 was more blunt: “I need four more years to get it right.” He related his life experience, which including time living overseas in Africa, and said he would concentrate on crime – “a cancer” on the community – if re-elected. Opponent Bob Caldwell, a Republican known for community involvement, surprisingly missed the forum.

Joe Holloway of District 5 is in the catbird seat since he is unopposed. So he talked about Council’s role as a “filter” between the County Executive and the people and termed it the “last line of defense” against overlegislation.

The questions by this point were more simple, perhaps because the evening had grown long and there were still more candidates who were on the agenda.

On the revenue cap:

Sheree Sample-Hughes thought a modification (a 3% increase) was needed because she could see the constraints from sitting at the table.
Stevie Prettyman voted against the original tax increase which set off the drive for the revenue cap and instead said “we have to create job opportunities (and) get out of the way.”
David MacLeod noted the “community expressed themselves…I have to learn to live within that.”
Joe Holloway is deadset against removing it because the revenue cap acts as a control on spending.
Gail Bartkovich described the “mistrust” caused by the original situation and called for more transparency.
Dave Goslee would honor his constituents’ wishes.

Reagrding the comprehensive plan:

Goslee related his business experience with making short- and long-term plans with his employer and vowed to create “the best county in the state of Maryland” by stressing jobs and public safety.
Bartkovich sought public input and described the plan as a “vision of (the county’s) look and growth.”
Joe Holloway wanted to make sure we didn’t tackle the “downzoning” issue before the comprehensive plan was complete.
MacLeod sought a “balance between growth and agriculture” and also stressed public participation.
So did Prettyman, who saw the plan as a method of expressing our, “hopes, dreams, (and) vision.”
Sample-Hughes saw the plan as a foundation to preserve agriculture but also as a work which could enhance employment and public safety.

Speaking of downzoning, the last question was regarding the candidates’ position on the subject. While Sample-Hughes thought it best to study the approach other counties have taken, MacLeod was “very concerned” about the possibility of state involvement, and Bartkovich said she wouldn’t consider the subject until the comprehensive plan was finalized.

Even more hardened in their opposition were Prettyman, who demanded any downzoning plan include adequate compensation, and Holloway, who contended there was no good compensation method. Dave Goslee was very much opposed since part of his plan for retirement involved selling pieces of his farm – an option which Holloway also remarked saved some of his farmer friends from bankruptcy.

Since the hour was late, remaining candidates were briefly introduced. The two present State’s Attorney candidates answered a question about the role of the State’s Attorney – Seth Mitchell saw it as one of “seek(ing) justice” and demanding responsibility while training young staffers properly, while incumbent Davis Ruark saw his role as being a leader in the community, seeking justice, and assuring fairness. Newly-minted (and perhaps former) candidate Matt Maciarello was not present.

Other candidates who attended the forum (and absentees):

Mark Bowen (Clerk of the Court) who remarked he’s unopposed for the first time in 16 years.
Norma Lee Barkley, Melissa Pollitt Bright, William Smith, and Pete Evans for Judge of the Orphans’ Court. Barkley, Bright, and Smith are incumbents, and Smith is the sole Republican. Barkley remarked she was seeking her last term and the three incumbents work well together as a team regardless of party. No candidates were absent.
Sheriff Mike Lewis is unopposed but was called away before having the opportunity to speak.
Three officeseekers (of 13) for Republican Central Committee were there: myself, Dave Goslee Jr. and G.A. Harrison. Harrison has his own thoughts on the proceedings. Political bloggers running for public office: whooda thunk it?
Amazingly to me, none of the four members of the Democratic Central Committee came up to speak. Each Central Committee member (by this point it was two, Goslee and I) were allowed 30 seconds to speak and I took about 15.

A future forum is in the works for state candidates (District 37A incumbent Rudy Cane and his Democratic opponent Von Siggers were in attendance) with a date to be determined. Hopefully they do a better job of showing up than a number of county officials did.

Pollitt files to retain County Executive seat but draws a rematch

It certainly wasn’t unexpected that Rick Pollitt would file to keep his County Executive seat, and today he did. But in a case which Yogi Berra would call “deja vu all over again” his Democratic challenger from 2006 also filed today.

T. Anthony “Tom” Taylor, who only won 23% of the vote in that challenge four years ago, is back to face Pollitt in the September 14th primary. But this time Pollitt has a record for Taylor to criticize, and Tom is going to make this campaign one about, “…financial responsibility and ending the expansive intrusiveness of government.”

(continued on my Examiner.com page…but come back for more analysis.)

One thing about having a blog is having an archive. On September 10, 2006, just before the primary, I said the following regarding Tom Taylor:

On the other side in his self-described “David vs. Goliath” matchup is Tom Taylor. Taylor is what I would describe as a Reagan Democrat, stressing private property rights, citizen preparedness, and allowing citizens more of an ability to defend themselves as they see fit.

Taylor fits in with Wicomico County in many ways. Our county is one where the Democrats lead in voter registration, but where the Democrat party has not had a gubernatorial or Presidential candidate carry the county since William Donald Schaefer in 1986. Essentially, it’s a conservative hotbed where voter registration means less than it does in most places.

(snip)

Wicomico County, based on its overall voting record in races for executive positions and its overwhelming approval of the revenue cap just two years ago, is no place for a “taxer and spender.” Because he provides an insurance policy against government overwhelming the masses in Wicomico County, I’m urging our county’s Democrats to follow the age-old example and let David slay Goliath. Tom Taylor is your best pick for County Executive.

That still rings true today because, quite honestly, we needed a belt-tightener when times were good to make the bad times easier to work through. Certainly Wicomico County did set some money aside, but as we see by the example of the man Pollitt is local campaign chair for (Martin O’Malley) no wallet is truly safe with a Democrat like Pollitt or O’Malley in charge.

It should be an interesting campaign.