Blog
December 16, 2011 District Blast
Pulling A Fast One?
During the 2011 Session, the alchohol tax was increased for the purpose of reducing the number of individulas waiting for critical services from the Developmental Disabilities Adminstration (DDA). Advocates for the Developmentally Disabled community worked hard to secure this additional funding. Now it appears that most of these additional funds will be used to help balance next year’s budget instead of for their orginally intended purpose.
A number of legislators including myself will be sending the following letter to the Governor regarding this issue.
December 15, 2011
The Honorable Martin O’Malley
Governor
State House
100 State Circle
Annapolis, MD 21401
Dear Governor O’Malley,
We are certain you join us in our outrage at the Developmental Disabilities Administration
(DDA) whose financial mismanagement resulted in a $34.5 million budget surplus when 6,600 individuals sit on a list waiting for critical services. The most troubling aspect of this situation is the $25.7 million that had to be returned to the General Fund and could be used to close the $1 billion budget deficit in FY 2012 rather than sent back to those on the DDA’s ever-growing waiting list.
As you may be aware, Maryland ranks 43rd in the nation in terms of spending on services for people with developmental disabilities. Maryland’s budget growth of $1 billion per year for the last several years has often come at the expense of the DDA who has dealt with a two percent reduction in services; a fifteen percent cut in resource coordination; and a $1 million cut to low intensity support services – all while the waiting list continues to grow. The fact that they left millions of precious dollars on the table due to careless accounting may not in the end have been illegal, but it is certainly unethical.
It does appear that the new administration at the DDA is working with the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to make sure these types of accounting errors never happen again. While that is positive, it means little to those who have been on the waiting list for years when they could have been receiving assistance.
We are writing today to request two things. First, that the $25.7 million returned to the General Fund be returned to the DDA as immediately as possible. Second, that 100% of the remaining revenue from the sales tax increase on alcohol be permanently dedicated to the DDA.
None of us were in favor of the sales tax increase on alcohol that passed earlier this year.
However, the developmentally disabled population advocated strongly for it. They came to
Annapolis and testified for it. They put in the time and the effort to get the tax passed, only to have the rug pulled out from under them in the end with only a small portion of the new tax revenue going to the DDA and only for one year. For better or for worse, that tax is now law. Dedicating all those monies to the DDA is the right thing to do.
We are confident that these two actions, paired with new accounting procedures at the DDA, will allow those 6,600 developmentally disabled individuals to receive the services they so
desperately need.
Sincerely,
Congressional Redistricting Update
GOP gets possible redistricting edge
Republicans who would like to see the Democratic-drawn plan for congressional redistricting overturned got a potential advantage as two appointees of GOP presidents were selected for the three-judge panel that will hear a federal lawsuit challenging the map adopted by the General Assembly.
William B. Traxler Jr., chief judge of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, appointed Judges Paul V. Niemeyer, Alexander Williams Jr. and Roger W. Titus to hear the case. Niemeyer and Titus were appointed to the federal bench by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Williams was named by Democrat Bill Clinton. The suit was not brought by the Maryland Republican Party but was spearheaded by the Fannie Lou Hamer Political Action Committee. State Republicans have been openly supportive of the challenge, which drew the map in a way that would give Democrats a good shot at seizing seven of the state’s eight House seats.
Taxes and Tolls
Taxes and Tolls
Recently the Governor’s Commission on Sustainable Growth and the Blue Ribbon Commission on transportation funding issued their final reports. Both Commissions have proposed fee and tax increases.
Governor’s Commission on Sustainable Growth (proposal)
Increase in Bay Restoration Fee:
-In total 200% increase from $30 per year to $90 per year by FY ’15 (July 2014)
-In FY ’13 (July 2012) a 100% increase from $30 per year to $60 per year.
-In FY 15 a 50% increase from $60 per year to $90 per year
-Indexing to inflation beginning in FY 16 with a cap of 3% per year
Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Funding (proposal)
-64% increase in the gas tax over three years (from 23.5¢ to 38.5¢)
-100% increase in emission inspection fees (from $14 to $28)
-50% increase in vehicle registration fees (from $50.50 to $75.75)
-8% increase in vehicle titling tax (from 6% to 6.5%) or elimination of trade-in allowances
There is no doubt that our roads and bridges are in need of repair and improvement. And we are falling further behind in meeting these needs. As I see it, there are two principal reasons for this situation: First, over the last ten years the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) has been raided of nearly $800 million to balance the budget. Secondly, despite the fact that only 9% of the population uses mass transit, 45% of the TTF is used to subsidize the costs of mass transit. Considering the current state of the economy and the stresses that are on families and businesses, these proposed increases are unacceptable. In my opinion, these increases are drastic, especially in light of the fact that there is no guarantee they will be used for the purposes intended.
The Governor’s Commission on Sustainable Growth has proposed an increase in the Bay restoration fund (flush tax). We do have a long way to go in our efforts to clean the bay and ensure that Maryland will have clean and healthy drinking water in the future. The water quality in the Loch Raven, Prettyboy and Liberty Reservoirs need to be satisfactorily addressed. In past years, money from the bay restoration fund has been used to balance the budget. What guarantees do we have that revenue generated from these increased fees will be used for the intended purposes? If it looks as if these fee increases will be enacted, I will make every attempt to exempt those that are on septics.
Clearly and simply stated, Maryland’s problem is not a lack of revenue. It is the fact that we continue to overspend. While family budgets are shrinking and many businesses are tightening their budgets as well, the Maryland State operating budget has grown each year. A group of legislators including myself have proposed responsible budget reductions which, if they had been enacted, would have negated the need to transfer monies from funds such as the TTF and Bay Restoration fund.
As many of you are painfully aware on November 1, tolls were increased on many roads. This was done without any meaningful public input or legislative approval. During the upcoming Legislative session, I will be sponsoring legislation requiring timely public comment and legislative approval for tolls to be raised. The following is a schedule of toll increases.
Toll Increases (Approved by the Transportation Authority 9/22/11)
Key Bridge/Fort McHenry Tunnel/ Harbor Tunnel
50% increase from $2 both ways to $3 both ways effective November 1
33% increase from $3 both ways to $4 both ways effective July 1, 2013
Total increase 100% from 2011 to 2013
JFK Memorial Highway Section of I-95/Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge
33% increase from $6 to $8 effective July 1, 2013
Bay Bridge
60% increase from $2.50 to $4 effective November 1
50% increase from $4 to $6 effective July 1, 2013
Total increase 140% from 2011 to 2013
Harry W. Nice Bridge
33% increase from $3 to $4 effective November 1.
50% increase from $4 to $6 effective July 1, 2013
Total increase 100% from 2011 to 2013
Proposed Changes to Nutrient Guidelines
For your information, The Maryland Department of Agriculture has proposed changes to the Nutrient Management Guidelines. Recently, the Maryland Farm Bureau sent the following letter in opposition the changes.
November 21, 2011
The Honorable Martin O’Malley
Governor of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, MD 21410
Dear Governor O’Malley:
We are sincerely disappointed at the direction the state’s nutrient management program is taking based on the most recent set of regulations sent forward by the Department of Agriculture to the AELR Committee.
Since its inception, nutrient management planning on farms has been site specific and has taken into consideration the individual soil types, cropping schedule, nutrient needs and land characteristics of individual farms. When the program became part of the regulatory structure in 1998, the plans maintained their site specific characteristics, even when assessing the risk of phosphorus loss using the P-Site Index.
The regulatory proposal put forward by MDA, without the support of the Nutrient Management Advisory Committee, will turn our site-specific farm management tool into a one-size-fits-all prescription for farming that will force crop farmers to accept lower yields and livestock operators to take thousands of acres out of production because the cost of fencing every mile of stream that meanders through a pasture is not economically feasible. The manure application restrictions are likely to cause higher risk to the environment and complaints from neighbors when 12 months of manure is applied in a 2-3 week period in the spring. In addition, the one-size-fits-all “setback” in the proposed regulation is a “taking” of agricultural land without compensation and will disqualify Maryland farmers from participation in the highly successful federal CREP conservation program in the future.
Frankly, it appears to the farm community that the most recent proposal to change nutrient management guidelines are designed to simply “check off boxes” in the state’s TMDL requirements rather than as reasonable, economically feasible, practices that take into consideration the varying factors on each farm in the state. Farmers in every county are working with their local WIP planning group and are committed to implement the Best Management Plan options laid out in each county. This regulatory proposal short-circuits the TMDL/WIP process.
Farmers are frustrated by the whittling away of their ability to make farm-specific decisions to be productive while meeting nutrient reduction goals. The speed at which Maryland is placing mandates and restricting farm practices makes it impossible for good scientific research and cost/benefit analysis to be conducted. When you met with our Board of Directors during the summer of 2010, you pledged not to put Maryland farmers at a disadvantage compared to growers in other states. I can assure you this proposal will do exactly that. We are calling upon you now to uphold your pledge.
Listed below are some of our concerns about the most recent regulatory proposal to change the nutrient management program:
I. Setbacks for Nutrient Application -
A. We oppose the one-size-fits-all setback of 35-feet for the application of nutrients in proximity to surface water. A required setback regardless of site specific conditions is a “taking” of private property. We urge you to allow farmers to use site specific setbacks under a Soil Conservation and Water Quality Plan or other assessment that provides reasonable protection without undue reduction in field capacity.
B. We oppose language in the 10-foot setback requirement for pastures and hayfields that requires farmers to prevent livestock from depositing nutrients in the setback area. We believe this is a mandate to fence all streams. This requirement will impose a tremendous burden on farmers, whose livestock numbers have declined by 50% over the last 10 years. The fencing of some streams will require the division of pastures in such a way as to cut off access to barns and other structures integral to the farm operation. The language in the proposed regulation that prohibits a farmer from growing any crop or using the land in the 10 foot setback will make Maryland producers ineligible for participation in USDA’s CREP under federal guidelines in 2-CRP (Rev. 5), Amendment 1, paragraph 151.
It is our understanding that the state has not conducted an analysis of the amount of stream fencing that will have to occur under this mandate or the cost of that mandate. Contrary to the declaration of the Department on the forms transmitting this proposed regulation to AELR, I can assure you that this mandate will havesignificant financial impact on the small businesses that are our family farms.
II. Application Timing -
A. The March 1st – September 9th requirement to inject or incorporate within 72 hours all organic nutrient sources should be deleted from the Guidelines. The nutrient value of the organic nutrients is already calculated and included in a farm’s nutrient management plan and the nutrients are taken up by the growing crop. By including the incorporation requirement for dry manures, the regulations will force farmers to disturb the soil and undo decades of no-till benefit for the Bay. The current economic situation does not allow most farmers to invest in expensive new Turbo-Till equipment. We believe the mandate to incorporate will lead to soil erosion and phosphorus transport and set back our ability to meet TMDL/WIP goals.
B. The requirement for 10-months of manure storage (and the call by the environmental community for 12-months storage) is wrongheaded for many reasons. First, spreading 12 months worth of manure in one month in the spring could be a bigger environmental risk than the current process of spreading manure throughout the year based on soil holding capacity and crop need. If spring rains are overwhelming, nutrients will move at higher rates if they are applied all at once in larger quantities. Second, the farm community does not have the infrastructure (trucks and equipment to spread and incorporate) 12 months of manure in the 2 or 3 weeks prior to spring planting.
The requirement for additional storage to comply with a winter application ban and a year-round restriction on traditional application by July 1, 2016 should be removed from the draft. The cost of this requirement far outweighs the benefits in most cases. Winter application of manure because of lack of storage capacity occurs in only a small percentage of cases. Many of the winter applications due to storage capacity issues occur because of unusual rainfall patterns. This is not an annual occurrence. It is our understanding that cost-share programs at the state and federal level are not sufficiently funded and do not allow investment in the amount of storage capacity called for in this regulation.
III. Fall Fertilization Rates -
In the Maryland Nutrient Management Manual Supplement 3 MDA proposes to prohibit fall application of commercial fertilizer to small grain crops unless a soil nitrate test shows less than 10 ppm for wheat or 15 ppm for barley. Our primary concern with this proposal is that it has not been fully vetted and the research to support it has not been peer reviewed. In the two hour discussion held in May, we learned that the research was conducted only in modest yielding grain plots. There is significant concern among professional agronomists that limiting fall nutrient use will stifle highly productive fields. We believe more study and discussion should be given to determine the optimum soil nitrate level necessary for high yielding crop growth. We urge you to withdraw this proposal until the research can be peer reviewed and agreement can be reached among Maryland’s professional agronomists.
In conclusion, Maryland Farm Bureau urges you to direct the Maryland Department of Agriculture to withdraw or redraft many of the proposed nutrient management changes in a way that allows the site-specific characteristic of the program to continue. We urge you to protect the diversity of our industry and allow for scientifically-proven agronomic practices to improve, not hinder, our ability to produce the highest quality food and fiber for consumers in Maryland and around the world.
Sincerely,
PATRICIA A. LANGENFELDER
President
Congressional Redistricting
Congressional Redistricting
Once every ten years, Maryland is required under the Constitution to re-draw the boundaries of its eight Congressional Districts. The purpose of which is to reconfigure the districts to account for population changes that have occurred.
Under Maryland law, the redistricting process is initiated by the Governor, who draws a proposed new “map,” which is then debated and confirmed by the General Assembly. Due to the majority Democrats hold in the Maryland State legislature (133 Democrats versus a measly 55 Republicans), our State’s redistricting process is exceptionally lopsided and unbalanced.
Maryland’s political monopoly has certainly not been shy about flexing its muscles in this round of redistricting. The Governor’s plan concerns itself with a few critical objectives: protect all incumbent Democratic Congressmen; unseat Republican Roscoe Bartlett; and divide Baltimore County into as many pieces as possible in order to dilute its political influence. The Governor’s plan succeeds beautifully in achieving these priorities.
But the cost of this political achievement to the citizens of Maryland, Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties and western Maryland is significant. Several of the proposed districts are so convoluted that they have been described variously as paint splatters, creatures from the swamp and mangled salamanders. The Congressmen representing these districts won’t know their constituents, and their constituents won’t know them. Invariably, Congressmen will ignore the more far-flung communities within their districts. Moreover, the citizens of the State will see the politics of the State tilted to an even greater extreme than they currently are. In a State that generally votes 40-45% Republican and 55-60% Democrat, it seems wholly unfair that more than likely merely one Congressman out of eight will be a Republican.
Under the Governor’s plan, Baltimore County is divided into four pieces. Our Legislative District – 5B – will be divided between three Congressional districts. Currently, most of our area is represented by Congressman Bartlett. Under the new plan, precincts 6-1 (voting place Prettyboy Elementary School – Cafeteria), 6-2 (Gunpowder Baptist Church) and 7-1 (Seventh District Elementary School – GYM) will be in Congressional District 1 which is currently represented by Congressman Andy Harris. Precinct 8-23 (which votes at Carroll Gills Meth Church – Fellowship Hall) will be in Congressional District 2 currently represented by Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger. The remaining precincts 5-1 (which votes at Fifth District Elementary), 7-2 (American Legion Hall – Post #256 – Social Hall), 7-3 (Hereford High School), 8-1 (Sparks Elementary School- Cafeteria), 8-2 (Oregon Ridge Lodge Hall – Sequioa Hall), 8-21 (St. Marys Orthodox Church – Hall), 8-22 (Broadmead – Rec Room), 8-24 (Korean Presbyterian Church – 1sr Floor), 8-25 (Sparks Elementary School – GYM), 10-1 (St. James Episcopal Church Parish House) and 10-3 (Jacksonville Elementary School – GYM) will be in Congressional District 7 currently represented by Congressman Elijah Cummings.
Some people argue that the majority is simply exercising its democratic right to draw districts as it sees fit. This is true. However, the process is subject to commonsense limits, including the principles that districts be of equal size, reasonably compact, connected, respectful of political and geographic boundaries, and protective of the rights of racial minorities. The Governor’s plan fails on all these tests.
Traffic Update
The State Highway Administration (SHA) Office of Structures is hosting an informational public meeting/open house on Wednesday evening, November 9 to acquaint the public with an upcoming major project to replace the Middletown Road bridge over I-83. The bridge is structurally safe, but showing signs of deterioration. SHA is planning to replace it with a new bridge beginning early summer 2012.
SHA will replace the existing bridge with a wider bridge to provide an additional westbound lane along Middletown Road. The new bridge traffic pattern will enhance traffic safety and operations at the interchange. The new bridge will have a similar appearance as the Freeland Road bridge over I-83, completed summer 2007. The existing bridge will remain open to traffic during construction; however, SHA and the contractor will need to temporarily close 20 spaces at the 60-space Park and Ride lot.
SHA Public Meeting:
Middletown Road Bridge over I-83 Bridge Replacement Project – Public Informational Meeting/Open House
Date/Time:
Wednesday, November 9, 2011, 5:30 p.m. – 7 p.m. Citizens may arrive at any time, walk through the project displays at their own pace, and speak with project team members. No formal presentation will be given.
Location:
Prettyboy Elementary School – Cafeteria, 19810 Middletown Road, Freeland MD 21053
If citizens have any questions, they may contact Ms. Kelly Nash, Bridge Design Manager, SHA’s Office of Structures in Baltimore at 410-545-8074, toll-free 1-888-375-1084 or by email at knash@sha.state.md.us.
Sincerely,
David W. Peake
Metropolitan District Engineer
Baltimore and Harford Counties
State Highway Administration – District 4 Office
Hunt Valley MD 21030
Why the Special Session is Convening……….. Congressional Redistricting
Why the Special Session is Convening………..
Congressional Redistricting
The Governor has called for a special session to convene next week, in order to adopt a Congressional redistricting plan for Maryland. The reason that Congressional redistricting must take place prior to the 2012 Legislative Session is that the filing deadline for the April 3rd 2012 Congressional Primary is January 11, 2012 (as required by State Law) which by coincidence is the first day of the Legislative Session.
Whenever there is a special session it causes me concern because other issues can be considered along with redistricting. That is the reason that issues such as increasing the gas tax, and expanding the sales tax have recently received attention as such proposals can be considered.
The following is taken from the Maryland General Assembly’s webpage entitled Redistricting and Reapportionment (http://mlis.state.md.us/other/redistricting/redistricting.htm). Further information can be found regarding redistricting on the webpage.
Legal Requirements
The U.S. Constitution and the state constitution requires Maryland to redraw its congressional and legislative district lines every 10 years following the census to maintain equal population. The Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution requires congressional districts to be as equal in population as practicable. The 14th Amendment and Article III, Section 4 of the Maryland Constitution requires legislative districts be of substantially equal population.
Redistricting Process in Maryland
Maryland’s constitution also lays out the process by which legislative districts are redrawn. Article III, Section 5 requires the Governor to conduct public hearings and introduce a legislative district plan on the first day of the legislative session in the 2nd year following each census. This will occur on January 11, 2012. The plan takes effect on the 45th day of the legislative session unless the General Assembly enacts its own plan before the deadline.
The Governor is not legally required to draft a congressional plan, however, the Governor traditionally introduces a congressional plan to the General Assembly for consideration. This year, a special session is anticipated to finalize congressional districts in time for the 2012 election cycle.
Adjusted Data in Maryland
Chapter 67 of 2010 requires that population counts used to create legislative districts for the U.S. Congress, General Assembly, and county and municipal governing bodies exclude incarcerated individuals who were not State residents prior to their incarceration in either State or federal correctional facilities and that incarcerated individuals who were State residents prior to their incarceration be counted as residents at their last known address.
Traffic Update
The State Highway Administration has begun a $1.5 million highway patching, milling and resurfacing project on MD 25 (Falls Road) from Stringtown Road to MD 137 (Mount Carmel Road) in northern Baltimore County. This project is part of SHA’s ongoing highway maintenance program, and the contractor is Gray and Son, Inc. of Timonium.
Single lane closures with flagging operations may be in effect along sections of Falls Road between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. on Saturdays. Weather permitting, the project should be completed by mid-November 2011.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact one of the District Maintenance Operations Engineers: Mr. Michael Boardwine at 410-229-2364 or Mr. Mike Wetzel at 410-229-2366. The District Office toll-free number is 1-866-998-0367 and the e-mail address is shadistrict4@sha.state.md.us.
Sincerely,
David W. Peake
State Highway Administration – District 4
Metropolitan District Engineer
Baltimore and Harford Counties
SPECIAL ATTENTION TO RESIDENTS OF THE NORTHERN PORTION OF PRECINCT 7 (PARKTON, MARYLAND LINE)
On Thursday 10/7/2011, two daytime residential burglaries were reported in the northern portion of the precinct. The locations and times of occurrence were:
21,300 block of Lentz Road, between 8:00 AM and 11:20 AM (Maryland Line area)
18,900 block of Hyde Road, between 8:00 AM and 4 PM (Parkton area)
Both of these burglaries involved similar methods of entry by forcing/prying open a door to the side or rear of the home.
I am requesting that area residents be alert to suspicious activity around their houses and other houses in the neighborhood, particularly during the time spans noted above. Be particularly alert for door-to-door solicitors, particularly those who do not carry or display a Baltimore County Huckster’s License. Remember that door-to-door soliciting can be a method in which a burglar can determine if a house is vacant. We are aware of a suspicious solicitor in the Tracey’s Choice area (off Middletown Road between York Road and I-83) around mid-September. He was described as a white male, 20s, about 6/00 tall and had been seen operating a silver vehicle, possibly a Pontiac Grand Am, with unknownMassachusetts registration. If any resident had an encounter with this person and can provide additional information or a tag number, please contact us at the number below
I would also ask any resident has other information that may assist in these investigations to please call the Precinct 7 Investigative Services Team at 410-887-1823. You do not have to provide your name. You can also email me directly at jlurz@baltimorecountymd.gov
Thanks for your support!
Captain Martin Lurz
BCoPD Precinct 7
COMPLETION OF FINANCIAL LITERACY COURSE VITAL TO HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES
Unfortunately, the 2011 Assembly rejected HB 127/SB 262 which would have required that in order to graduate, Maryland high school students must complete a semester-long course on the fundamentals of personal financial matters.
Among the bill’s supporters were the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, the State Comptroller and the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation. They stressed the importance of assuring that before students leave high school for college or the workplace, they are educated in the basics of financial matters. This basic knowledge will empower them to make informed personal financial decisions in their lives.
The 2008 Task Force to Improve Financial Literacy in Maryland reported that although some local school systems offer financial literacy education as an elective course and a few others require completion of the course in order to graduate, not enough was being done to comprehensively educate all students about basic financial concepts. Such concepts include: preparing a household budget, saving and investing, as well as retirement plans. In short efforts to provide financial literacy education to all high school students varies from county to county in quality and degree of emphasis.
In June 2010, the Maryland State Department of Education adopted regulations to require each local school system to implement personal financial literacy programs in elementary, middle and high schools. While that approach is valid, it lacks the emphasis of a comprehensive semester-long course in financial basics that high school students must complete in order to graduate. The legislation that failed to obtain Assembly approval approached financial literacy as an imperative and important tool that young adults must have to make life’s important decisions.
Wells Fargo conducted a survey in 2009 that revealed only 41% of 18 to 21-year olds understood the concept of credit scores or the 401 (k)…only 28% understood annual percentage rates…and only 31% understood compound interest. Like reading, money management is a learned skill. It is a skill people need to manage their lives and plan wisely for their futures.
I am hopeful that the 2012 General Assembly will approve legislation to make completion of a substantive financial literacy course a requirement for high school graduation.
Please do not hesitate to contact me about this or any other legislative issue of concern to you. I continue to encourage and welcome your input.
VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER SHOULD BE JUDGED AS A SERIOUS CRIME
On October 1, a long overdue law becomes effective. After eight years of failed attempts, the legislature approved and Governor O’Malley signed into law HB 363, which makes vehicular manslaughter a crime. I am very proud that I was able to closely work with the sponsor of this bill, as well as constituents of mine who tragically lost relatives to reckless drivers.
Under our current law, a driver can be prosecuted for gross negligence. But the standard of gross negligence is extremely difficult to meet. It requires proof of a willful and wanton disregard for human life, thereby forcing prosecutors no choice but to issue a civil driving citation. This situation creates a gaping loophole in the state’s vehicular manslaughter law.
In the State v. Kramer in 1990, the Court of Appeals said that to prove “gross negligence,” the evidence must be sufficient, beyond a shadow of a doubt to establish that the driver had a wanton or reckless disregard for human life in the operation of the automobile. The driver’s conduct must be extraordinary or outrageous to meet the standard of gross negligence.
Gross negligence could not be proven when in 1995, a reckless driver, Raymond Charles Haney, lost control of his car on a Baltimore County street and hit and killed a 25-year old mother, her two children and her niece and nephew who were all standing at a bus stop. Mr. Haney got several traffic tickets totaling $5,000 and no jail time. Gross negligence could not be proven when a 15-year old girl was killed on Ritchie Highway by a driver speeding and weaving through traffic and running a red light. The driver was fined $1,500 because of insufficient evidence to convict him of vehicular manslaughter.
The new law provides another charge that prosecutors can apply when someone is killed as a result of driver negligence. Under the new law, a driver could be found guilty of a misdemeanor if prosecutors can show that a reasonable person would have known that such negligent driving creates a risk that someone could be killed. Those found guilty of negligent driving that results in the death of an individual will face up to 3 years imprisonment and a fine up to $5,000.
Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding this or any other legislative issue of concern to you. As always, I encourage and welcome your input.
Special Session 2011
October 17, 2011 – Special Session of the Maryland General Assembly
Just days after Governor O’Malley announced the date for this fall’s Special Session for redistricting, the majority leadership in the General Assembly have made it clear that raising taxes is also on their agenda.
This should come as no surprise. Merely one week after the conclusion of this 2011 Session, the Chairman of the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee made his intentions known as bluntly as possible in stating, “We’ve got to tax more things.” This, after a session where the sales tax on alcohol was increased 50%, and the majority party passed a budget that was laden with tax and fee increases. In the end, it is the taxpayer that suffers with an attitude like that dominating Annapolis.
Just four years ago, under the guise of eliminating Maryland’s constant structural deficits, the General Assembly increased taxes by $1.3 billion during the 2007 Special Session. They increased the sales tax, as well as personal and corporate income taxes. With the passage of these increased taxes they then increased spending by $1.3 billion just a few months later. This same tax and spend mentality is what we’re dealing with today.
However, it is of significant importance that in 2007 the economic decline was warned of, but it had not completely materialized. Today we’re in the middle of a continuing recession, with record unemployment that is high and steady. Another round of tax increases would be deleterious to Maryland’s hardworking taxpayers and detrimental to job creation.
It seems that the struggle of Maryland’s taxpayers in this economic downturn makes no difference to some of the members of the majority party. With gas prices still climbing, there are many still eyeing a gas tax increase. In addition to a gas tax increase, there is consideration being given to expanding the sales tax to services, the internet, etc. The Senate Budget and Taxation committee has suddenly realized the state is facing a $1.1 billion deficit next year – a fact they were oblivious to when they increased spending $1.4 billion just a few months ago.
To deal with this issue the Committee has asked the Department of Legislative Services to compile a list of things that are currently not taxed that could be. (“They want to know: What could we tax that we don’t tax now?” -Warren Deschenaux, Department of Legislative Services Washington Examiner, July 11, 2011). The list includes necessities like food and both prescription and non-prescription medication. It is amazing how many of the same people who scream about affordable health care are considering adding a tax to medication.
Rest assured, I WILL NOT support any increase in taxes. In this economic crisis, it is not prudent or right to further ask our Maryland families and businesses to shoulder an additional financial burden while so many are already stretched so thinly. The problem continues to be spending beyond our means.
Latest on Petition Effort
The petition drive to put in-state tuition on the ballot has been a historic success! The Board of Elections certified enough signatures from the second batch to officially put SB 167 on the ballot for the voters to decide in 2012. SB 167 gives in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants and would have gone into effect on July 1 of this year had the petition drive not turned in enough signatures by the May 31 deadline. Since enough signatures have been turned in and validated, the bill does not go into effect until after the November 2012 election and possibly not even then if the bill fails in the ballot box. This petition drive was unlike others that have been organized in Maryland. It was entirely a grassroots effort! All the hundreds of people around the state who gave their time and their energy to help collect signatures are to be congratulated on their hard work and dedication.
Governor’s Offshore Wind Farm Proposal
GOVERNOR’S OFFSHORE WIND LEGISLATION
It is apparent that our nation and its citizens would be best served in achieving energy independence. To become more self sufficient in supplying our own energy should be one of America’s priorities. I strongly support initiatives aimed at utilizing our country’s own natural resources. In addition, I have supported the development of alternative energy sources that are efficient, but most importantly cost effective. During this past Legislative Session Governor O’Malley proposed his off shore wind farm legislation. The bill did not make it to a vote in either house and is currently undergoing further study.
The Governor will bring back his proposal to create a 120 turbine offshore wind farm off the Maryland coast. The purpose is to use wind power as renewable clean energy to help us meet our goal of obtaining 20% of our electric power from renewable sources by 2022.
During the 2011 session the legislation died in the Senate Finance Committee and no vote was ever taken in the House. As mentioned earlier, the wind power bill is being studied during the interim.
The cost of the wind farm is estimated at $1.5 billion. Under the terms of the Governor’s 2011 proposal, the cost will be paid for by every residential and business user of electricity as a monthly surcharge on their electric bills for 25 years. The surcharge was proposed capped at $2 a month with no assurance that it will not be increased in the future.
The Governor’s 2011 wind power bill creates a very “strong” market for wind by mandating that every Maryland electric company enter into 25-year contracts to buy wind at a price 60% higher than what they are paying for energy now. If successful the law would certainly had an impact on the same electric users that are paying a surcharge on their monthly bills.
Experts project that comparable prices between fossil fuels and wind energy will not occur until at least a decade.
If the Governor’s original legislation had passed and when the wind farm had been completed, the power generated from the 120 turbine wind farm will contribute a mere 2.5% to our goal of 20% use of renewable source energy by 2022.
I might add that wind power is one of the most expensive and one of the least efficient clean energy sources. It operates at peak efficiency for only a few days a year, while nuclear plants operate at peak efficiency 365 days a year. It has also been emphasized that because wind power is so undependable, it will need coal-fired plants as back up. While I do support the state and nation achieving energy independence, it should not come at such a high cost for Maryland residents.
End Of Session Report
To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution: when the bank informs a customer that there are insufficient funds to cover a deposited check, most people would be upset with the source of the bounced check, not the bank. In politics, however, folks get mad at the person who tells them there is no money. Indeed, politicians are keen to make promises to favored constituencies while neglecting to set aside money to fulfill those pledges.
Once again, as the Maryland General Assembly concludes its annual 90-day legislative session, lawmakers in Annapolis have left the State’s pension system with significant unfunded liability, shifted unprecedented tax burdens to the counties, and failed to significantly reduce the structural deficit-projected to rise to $1.2 billion in the coming years. The $34 billion fiscal 2012 Budget includes nearly a billion dollars of transfers from Special ‘Trust’ Funds to the General Fund.
Among the Special Funds raided to sustain spending increases in the State’s operating budget, the Transportation Trust Fund and Program Open Space will forgo $126.9 million and $131 million, respectively. Bear in mind, property transfer taxes finance the land-buying activities of Program Open Space. Likewise, the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund, which will lose $90 million in transfers to the General Fund, is based on the so-called ‘flush tax.’ Fund transfers, which have become a pervasive tool in the budget balancing act here in Annapolis, are particularly disingenuous given the declared purpose of taxes used to fund these dedicated revenue sources.
Next year’s budget also includes transfers of $51.7 million from the University System of Maryland, $26.5 million from the Injured Workers Insurance Fund (IWIF), $1.8 million from the Vehicle Theft Prevention Fund, and $1.5 million from the Board of Physicians Fund. The Administration has proposed compensating for the Trust Fund raids with loans that taxpayers must later repay with interest. To be sure, Maryland’s budget, particularly the Capital Budget, is so laden with substitutions that it is difficult to imagine how the State could cope with genuine emergencies involving our infrastructure or natural resources.
My constituents overwhelmingly support pairing down the budget so that revenues and expenditures match much like their family budget. In my opinion the FY 2012 Budget is fiscally irresponsible; therefore, I voted against the Budget.
Unfunded Pension Liability
According to the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO), state retirement systems must be at least 80 percent funded to be considered fiscally sound. Maryland’s unfunded pension liability is currently estimated to be 64 percent, which ranks the State 30th nationally. In order to raise that number to the requisite 80 percent level by 2023, the State has adopted several changes to the costly pension system. Maryland will contribute nearly $1.5 billion to the pension system in fiscal 2012, nearly tripling the $555 million contributed in 2003.
Beginning July 1, state employees and teachers would contribute 7 percent of their salaries-up from 5 percent-to the plan. Cost-of-living increases will be capped at 2.5 percent, while the multiplier used to calculate the amount of money retirees receive will be reduced from 1.8 percent to 1.5 percent for new employees. Further, annual cost-of-living adjustments for retirees will be based on the performance of the retirement plan’s investments. The targeted rate of return is 7.75 percent. If the actual return rate falls below that goal, retirees will receive a 1 percent COLA, and if investments exceed the 7.75 percent rate of return, the COLA will be 2.5 percent. Retirement eligibility will now be determined by the ‘Rule of 90′: for any employee that wishes to retire before the age of 65, his/her age and years of service must add to 90.
Direct Shipment of Wine
After a decade of unsuccessful attempts to pass legislation permitting direct wine shipping in Maryland, the General Assembly has, at last, passed a bill that I cosponsored and supported to allow wineries to ship up to 18 cases per year to Maryland residents. The new law will take effect July 1, placing Maryland in the company of 37 other states and the District of Columbia. With near unanimous support, the bill represents a compromise among the alcohol industry, wineries and consumer groups. While wineries may ship to Maryland homes after paying a $200 annual fee, retailers-including wine of the month clubs-may not ship to Marylanders. Retailer shipping is only permissible in about a dozen states at this time.
Liquor Tax Increase
After an election cycle replete with vows to avoid tax increases, many lawmakers wasted little time in identifying potential new revenue streams, particularly the liquor tax, which the Assembly has been loath to touch for the last 40 years. I voted against the plan to raise the alcoholic beverage sales tax from 6 to 9 percent. Though proponents of the tax hike assert that the increase is needed to support funding for the developmentally disabled, the bulk of this new revenue has been earmarked for Prince George’s County and Baltimore City.
Based on the State’s education formula-known as Thornton-Maryland doles out roughly $6 billion annually in proportion to each county’s student enrollment and wealth. Since both Baltimore City and Prince George’s County lost enrollment and gained wealth this year, the self-adjusting formula requires cuts to aid in those jurisdictions. New revenues from the liquor tax increase allow legislators to circumvent those legitimate reductions, undermining both the stated goals of Thornton and the alcoholic beverage sales tax proposal.
Baltimore County sold the most beer in the State last year (13.4 million gallons) and ranked second in sales of distilled spirits (1.4 million gallons), yet stands to receive only a fraction of the revenue we will generate. Meanwhile, funds for the developmentally disabled would only increase by $15 million, despite the initial pledge of many times that amount.
Reservoir Preservation
In an effort to prevent pollutants from entering our reservoirs, I sponsored and supported legislation, which passed, requiring local governments to prioritize agricultural land preservation applications for conservation of land draining into a reservoir. Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation has led to purchase of easements on 2080 farms spanning 283,523 acres since 1977, while Program Open Space is responsible for setting aside 353,688 acres beginning in 1969. Water from the three reservoirs in northern Baltimore County serves two million people throughout the region, an indication that the prioritization of applications could have a potentially significant impact on the long-term health of our potable water supply.
Health Care
Despite the relentless drumbeat among state health officials to act swiftly to prepare Maryland for the changes to our healthcare system enacted by Congress under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) last year, I voted against legislation that will align State laws with the federal mandates of the ACA (aka Obamacare). Provisions regarding preexisting condition exclusions are especially troubling given the propensity of less scrupulous individuals to game the system, resulting in higher premiums for everyone else. This aspect of the federal law remains ambiguous even after considerable attention in the General Assembly.
In response to growing concern among patients and providers alike, I sponsored and supported legislation-which passed unanimously-to require insurance companies and HMOs that provide coverage for prescription eye drops to also provide coverage for refills of prescription eye drops in accordance with guidance for early refills under Medicare Part D. This legislation is designed to help people on maintenance drugs for conditions such as glaucoma. The physician prescribing the eye drops must indicate on the original prescription that additional quantities of eye drops are needed, and refills may not exceed the number of additional quantities indicated on the prescription.
In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants
Amid persistent worry over the rising cost of higher education for Maryland families, the formidable illegal immigration lobby has shepherded a proposal in the General Assembly that will hasten price increases for college education. I voted against legislation granting in-state college tuition to students who reside in Maryland but are not legally living in the United States. The bill, which passed both chambers, stipulates that students attend a Maryland high school for at least three years and initially attend a community college in the same jurisdiction as their high school before qualifying for in-state tuition at a four-year public college or university. Despite projections that the legislation will cost the state $778,400 in fiscal 2014, rising to $3.5 million by fiscal 2016, it is likely that the eventual price tag will be substantially greater since this analysis is only based on the cost to Montgomery College in Montgomery County and fails to adequately consider the effects on other jurisdictions.
Criminally negligent manslaughter by vehicle
Traffic fatalities continue to plague northern Baltimore County. Over the last three years there have been three horrific accidents which have claimed the lives of three people, one of whom had been a friend of mine since 1970. In each incident the vehicle operator was driving in a criminally negligent manner. Currently, State law does not contain a separate offense for criminally negligent manslaughter by vehicle or vessel. All three drivers received points and a monetary fine. There were no criminal charges.
For the last three years, I, along with other legislators have actively supported legislation creating an offense of criminally negligent manslaughter by vehicle. This legislation has been “put in the drawer” by the Chairman of Judiciary for the last five years allowing no vote on the proposal. This year, with the help of the Speaker, a vote was taken and the bill passed the House. We then faced opposition from the Chair of the Senate Judicial proceedings Committee, however, thanks to herculean efforts from supporters, the bill passed late in the Session. Long overdue this common sense measure needs only the Governor’s signature to become law.
Parole for Lifers
Under current Maryland law, an individual convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life with parole can be paroled only by the Governor after being incarcerated for 25 years. Legislation was introduced, which passed, specifying that, if the Parole Commission decides to grant parole to an inmate sentenced to life imprisonment who has served 25 years without application of diminution of confinement credits, the decision must be transmitted to the Governor, who may disapprove the decision in writing within 180 days. However, if the Governor does not disapprove the decision within that timeframe, the decision to grant parole becomes effective. So if the Governor takes no action, the lifer is automatically paroled.
Delegate John Olszewski and I introduced an amendment which was approved by the House 67-66, then stripped from the bill with pressure from the House leadership. In my opinion, this legislation goes against government’s number one responsibility of insuring public safety. I voted against this proposal.
As always, I look forward to your questions and thoughts throughout the year. I will continue to send periodic updates as news develops in Annapolis and closer to home. Please do not hesitate to contact me any time regarding issues of concern to you. I look forward to seeing many of you at community meetings and other events across Northern Baltimore County this spring!
