One dimension of the current COVID crisis that has not been addressed so far is the impact on county employees. Many county employees, especially in public safety and transportation, are essential workers who have to interact face-to-face with the public. How are they doing in terms of their exposure to COVID-19?
The county’s COVID dashboard contains some data on county employee exposure. As of this morning, the county reported that 1,102 of its employees had missed work due to “a COVID-19 related exposure.” Of those employees, 1,037 had returned to work, 72 were currently in quarantine and 3 had passed away. Exposures by department are shown in the table below.
Overall, 10% of county employees have missed work due to exposure. The four departments with the highest rates of missed work are correction (38% of positions), fire and rescue (16%), transportation (12%) and police (11%).
However, exposures do not equal actual cases of COVID-19. I asked county health officer Travis Gayles for actual COVID cases by department and the county’s Office of Human Resources supplied them. The table below shows cases by department and compares them to cases among county residents.
Countywide, COVID cases account for roughly 2% of the population. For the most part, the case rates among county employees are near that level or lower.
Overall, the data shows that the county is doing a decent job of protecting most of its employees from COVID. Some departments have experienced significant scheduling challenges due to quarantine procedures from exposures. But those same quarantines may have helped limit the spread of the virus in employee work sites. This data suggests that as an employer, the county has done its part to contain COVID-19.
The Montgomery County Republican Party is now running this video attacking Council Member Will Jawando over his efforts to reform the police department.
The GOP is even running a Facebook ad to promote the video.
Not everyone is supportive of the county’s efforts to reform, reimagine and/or defund the police. Our post on the subject, “Free-For-All,” is on track to be the most-viewed post on Seventh State for this month. But getting attacked by Republicans is great for Jawando in building his prestige inside the county’s progressive Democratic base. Jawando should consider offering a subsidy to help the GOP run the ad in Takoma Park and the rest of the Democratic Crescent!
The 2020 primary is behind us and the ballots will go out soon for the general election. With few local races going on in the state but a historic presidential election coming, how did Maryland counties do on turnout?
First, let’s look at the final turnout percentage by county in the 2020 presidential primary. Jurisdictions in green had races on the ballot for which unaffiliated people could vote while jurisdictions in blue did not.
It’s not a coincidence that the bottom six counties had non-partisan races on the ballot for which unaffiliated voters could vote. Unaffiliated voters turn out at lower rates than party members, so when they are included in a voting population, the overall turnout rate is skewed downward. Baltimore City’s status as number one is due to the fact that it elects its mayor, comptroller and city council members in presidential years, an unusual practice for local jurisdictions in Maryland.
MoCo voters will see two charter amendments on property taxes on their ballots this fall. One of them was submitted by long-time anti-tax activist Robin Ficker, who delivered his petition signatures in February. The other was authored by Council Member Andrew Friedson and placed on the ballot by the county council. The Washington Post editorial board dislikes both, but for progressives, the choice is clear: the Friedson amendment is superior in providing adequate funding for government.
The first reason why progressives should support the Friedson amendment over the Ficker amendment is due to the nature of how they allow revenue increases. The Ficker amendment uses the methodology of the current charter limit on property taxes, which dates back to 1990. Currently, MoCo’s charter allows the volume of real property tax collections to rise at the rate of inflation with a few relatively minor exceptions. Friedson’s charter amendment would cap the weighted average tax rate on real property and allow collections to rise with assessments. So to compare their revenue generation over time, we need to compare the growth in price inflation (which is relied upon by the Ficker amendment) to the growth in assessments (which is relied upon by the Friedson amendment).
The chart below compares the growth in the county’s assessed value of real property to the growth in the Washington-Baltimore Consumer Price Index (CPI) from 2003 through 2017.
This period contained three distinct economic phases. The 2003-2010 period saw robust economic growth throughout the Washington region, causing assessment growth (115%) to far outpace price inflation (26%). Then came the Great Recession years of 2010 to 2013, during which assessments fell (5% over three years) while prices rose modestly (7%). In the slow recovery through 2017, assessments went up by 12% while prices rose by 4%. For the entire period, assessments increased by 129% while price inflation was 41%, suggesting that Friedson’s approach would have yielded MUCH more property tax revenue growth than Ficker’s. (The exact difference would have depended on other factors such as the application of tax credits, especially the homestead tax credit.)
That said, in four of these sixteen years – the period of the Great Recession – Ficker’s approach would have raised more than Friedson’s because real estate values tend to decline during prolonged economic downturns. That leads us to the second major difference between the Friedson and Ficker amendments. Friedson’s amendment allows a unanimous council vote to break the charter limit on property taxes, which continues current practice. Ficker’s amendment eliminates the ability of the council to break the limit, thereby instituting a hard cap on property tax collections. (There is an important exception to this in state law which will be the subject of a future post.) If property tax collections collapse during a recession, Friedson would allow the council to intervene in case of an emergency while Ficker would not. That’s another big reason why progressives should support the Friedson amendment.
Some progressives were disappointed because they wanted the council to adopt County Executive Marc Elrich’s proposed charter amendment, which would have made property tax hikes easier. Good luck getting MoCo voters whose wallets are getting slammed by COVID-19 to support anything opening the door to tax hikes. The Friedson and Ficker amendments both limit property tax increases, but since the Friedson amendment raises more money over time, it deserves the support of the left.
Update: An earlier version of this post was based on changes in the national CPI. This version is based on the Washington-Baltimore CPI. The two measures change at similar rates so the conclusions here are unaffected.
Marylin Pierre, whose insurgent campaign for circuit court judge is backed by some progressive groups, has courted the county Republican Party for support. At least that’s what the former chairman of the MoCo GOP is claiming. And he has a picture and campaign finance records to prove it.
Maryland judicial elections are strange birds. In most elections, candidates run in partisan primaries to get their party nominations. The party nominees then face off against each other along with any write-in or unaffiliated petition candidates in a general election. In elections for circuit court or orphan’s court judges, candidates may run in any party primaries, including more than one party at a time, and whoever wins those primaries appears on the ballot in a non-partisan general election. For the most part, judicial candidates are those who emerge from a rigorous vetting process by judicial nominating commissions and receive temporary appointments to the bench pending election. However, other candidates who are age 30 or older, have been a state resident for 5 years and are a member of the Maryland bar may also run for judge.
Pierre has tried but failed to make it through the state’s vetting process before. Nevertheless, she has run for circuit court judge as is her right under state law. This year, four seats are on the ballot, each occupied by a vetted appointee (a sitting judge) seeking election. In the Republican primary, all four slots were won by the four sitting judges. In the Democratic primary, Pierre won one of the slots with three of the four sitting judges taking the others. Pierre is now facing the four sitting judges in a contentious general election. The top four vote-getters will win.
This is not the first time Pierre has run for judge. She ran in both the Democratic and Republican primaries in 2018 too, losing both and failing to advance to the general election. In evaluating Pierre’s current campaign, former MoCo GOP chairman and current central committee member Alexander A. Bush wrote an article on the party’s website recalling Pierre’s 2018 campaign. Bush wrote:
For a judicial candidate to get their name on the November General Election ballot, they must win in either the Republican or Democratic Primary election. Historically, insurgent candidates have focused on trying to win in the Republican Primary, because our primary has only about 15% as many voters as the Democratic Primary. It’s simple math: the campaigning necessary to win among 12,000 Republicans is a lot easier than the campaigning necessary to convince 75,000 Democrats.
And in 2018, that is exactly what Marylin Pierre attempted to do.
In January that year, Mrs. Pierre and her treasurer came to our candidate training event and assured those running the event that she would be a strongly conservative judge and asked for the party’s support in the 2018 Primary. Mrs. Pierre came to one of our fundraising dinners in early February to ask for our votes again, as campaign finance records will show. And later that month she came to our yearly convention, and proudly posed for a photo with the current county chairwoman for the Trump for President Campaign.
Bush ran this photo as proof.
State Board of Elections records also support Bush’s account, showing Pierre making two $70 contributions to the county Republican Party. One of those contributions (on 2/14/18) was made during the 2018 cycle. The other (on 2/5/19) was made after the 2018 election and occurred during this cycle.
Bush’s reaction to all this is scathing. He wrote:
Mrs. Pierre lost in both parties’ primaries in 2018. In fact, she did worse in the Republican Primary. Obviously, she has decided to change her strategy, and has remade herself into whatever she thinks will help her win.
If this doesn’t convince you, regardless of your political views, not to vote for Marylin Pierre, then nothing will.
After writing his article, Bush later told me directly, “At the candidate training, she asked for MCGOP’s support, claiming she would be a ‘law and order’ judge who would be tough on bail.”
This time around, Pierre is running as anything but a Republican. She has participated in Progressive Maryland’s candidate training program and has been endorsed by Progressive Neighbors, Our Revolution and Town of Somerset Mayor Jeffrey Slavin, one of the most progressive elected officials on Planet Earth. What would they have thought if they knew that she had been courting and donating to Republicans?
There is more. In a video on Facebook, Pierre criticized her opponents because a Trump supporter sat on one of their nominating commissions. Showing the person at a pro-Trump rally, Pierre said, “This woman was on the commission that recommended almost half of the Montgomery County judges to the governor. Does she share your values? Will the judges she recommended take Montgomery County in the direction you want to go?”
And so Pierre goes after her opponents because a Trump supporter sat on one of their nominating commissions after she herself gave money to the county GOP – twice.
I have asked Pierre for comment on Bush’s story and I will print it when I receive it.
MoCo Inspector General (IG) Megan Davey Limarzi has released her office’s annual report for Fiscal Year 2020 and it’s a doozy. The prior year was a very busy one for her and her staff!
The headline from her report is an obvious one – the phenomenal rise in complaints in FY20, the first full year of the new administration. The IG wrote, “We received 165 complaints in FY2020. This represents a 92% increase from FY2019.” The IG noted that her office’s authority was extended to the Housing Opportunities Commission and Montgomery College in October 2019 but she does not credit that for the rise in complaints. Instead, she said, “We attribute the increase in complaints to expanded outreach efforts and the perceived effectiveness of our reviews and investigations.”
This chart in the IG’s report shows skyrocketing complaints in the most recent fiscal year.
Two additional reports stand out. The first concerns the county’s Office of Human Resources (OHR). The IG wrote:
We initiated a review based on numerous complaints alleging improper practices within the Office of Human Resources (OHR), including internal hiring processes, assignment of employee salaries and use of contractors.
We found that OHR did not follow normal competitive procurement processes when they awarded four contracts to one individual in an apparent attempt at splitting purchases to avoid contracting thresholds. In total, OHR made $184,900 in payments to the individual or a company they controlled. To facilitate some of the payments, OHR inappropriately used the “exempt” commodity code associated with collective bargaining, falsely indicating that County procurement requirements did not apply.
The second concerns the Department of Health and Human Services. The IG wrote:
The OIG conducted an investigation based on a complaint alleging a Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) manager misused Recovery Oriented Systems of Care (ROSC) grant funds resulting in a referral to the State’s Attorney’s Office. Through our investigation, we found evidence that the County DHHS manager engaged in a clear pattern of mismanagement and violations of County procurement regulations regarding the management of ROSC funds.
Was anyone disciplined for these violations?
The IG’s office, part of the legacy of former Council Member and former County Executive Ike Leggett, is one of the most valuable offices in MoCo government. With ten thousand people working for the county, there is bound to be some mischief going on and taxpayers deserve to know about it. That said, since the office has been around for more than 20 years and is therefore known to many county employees, it’s an open question as to whether expanded outreach alone is responsible for the astounding eruption in complaints last year. The county council should ask the executive branch why complaints to the IG have exploded under its watch.
Montgomery County’s COVID-19 dashboard is a great resource for judging the county’s progress in its efforts to control the coronavirus. Unfortunately, it’s not so great at enabling comparison with other jurisdictions, most of whom don’t release data at that level of detail. Inter-jurisdictional comparison is relevant because both public health and economic competitiveness cross state and county lines. Also, if local leaders facing similar circumstances make different decisions, that’s important for voters to know.
MoCo is about average for the region in terms of cases per capita. It is above average on deaths per capita. Prince George’s County has been hardest hit in terms of cases and, along with D.C., on deaths.
The data above illustrates the historical impact of COVID-19 but it’s less helpful in understanding recent trends. The table below shows cases in the two most-recent 7 day periods (8/24-8/30 and 8/31-9/6) relative to population.
During the 8/24-8/30 period, MoCo had the lowest cases per capita of any large jurisdiction in the region. During the following week (8/31-9/6), MoCo was below the regional average and about equal to Baltimore City, Howard, Fairfax and Loudoun. It’s worth noting that MoCo’s cases per capita increased over the two weeks.
MoCo is one of just four jurisdictions in Maryland (along with Baltimore City and Anne Arundel and Prince George’s counties) that is not reopening in line with the state’s phase 3. MoCo’s cases per capita in the most recent week are roughly equal to or lower than Howard, which is proceeding to stage 3, and most of Northern Virginia, which has been operating under Virginia’s phase 3 (which is less restrictive than Maryland’s) since July 1.
Here’s the bottom line, folks: if reopening is a data driven decision, then the facts do not point exclusively in one direction. As seen here and in Part One, supporters and opponents of reopening can each point to data that reinforces their respective points of view. Anyone who says that the data is completely with them is mistaken.
That said, each side bears a burden in making their argument.
County Executive Marc Elrich must explain why he continues to resist reopening despite improvement in the majority of the county’s tracked measures. He must also explain why some jurisdictions with similar or higher recent COVID case rates have proceeded to greater economic liberalization than MoCo, especially in Virginia.
The critics have a different problem. Elrich has been very consistent in saying that public health is his top priority. In making that judgment, he is far from alone among MoCo residents. Critics have to acknowledge that further reopening creates greater risk. They must also explain why public health should not be considered the county’s sole top priority, or at the very least why concessions on that issue are justified by economic recovery.
Last week, Governor Larry Hogan announced that Maryland would enter phase 3 of its reopening, which included a partial lifting of restrictions on indoor theaters, outdoor venues, retail stores and religious institutions. County Executive Marc Elrich said he was a “bit disappointed” with the decision and said the governor “has again taken us by surprise.” Declaring “this is not party time,” Elrich declined to follow the state’s reopening plan, which he is allowed to do under the governor’s executive orders.
Jurisdictions around the state are split. Anne Arundel, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties are not proceeding to phase 3. Baltimore City is not either, although it is relaxing some restrictions. Most of the rest of the state, including large jurisdictions like Baltimore County, Frederick and Howard, are moving into phase 3 with a handful of small counties not making announcements yet.
Elrich has said time and again that his reopening decisions are made based on data and science. Elrich’s critics say he is not balancing economic needs with public health and that county restrictions are driving MoCo residents to spend money in neighboring jurisdictions.
Who is right?
First, let’s look at MoCo’s COVID-19 dashboard, which tabulates 10 quantitative data points and 7 qualitative data points identified by the county as relevant to its progress. At this writing (Sunday, September 6), 4 data points (intensive care unit bed utilization, percentage of ventilators in use, test positivity and hospitalizations) have been rated adequate on at least 80% of the days since the county went into phase 2. No data points have been rated inadequate on a majority of those days, although one (acute care bed utilization rate) was close. This is not a perfect record, but it’s a decent one.
The record looks stronger when these numbers are compared to the worst days in May. Let’s look at the county’s weakest measure: acute care bed utilization rate. This measure has averaged just above 70% in the last couple weeks. It topped out at 82% in early May. Bear in mind that this is the county’s weakest measure and it has shown improvement.
Now here is one of the county’s strongest measures: the percentage of the county’s ventilators in use. In the second week of May, this measure peaked at just over 60%. It has now been under 30% since mid-August.
The qualitative criteria are even better. As of September 6, 4 criteria were judged to be met and 3 were making progress.
Elrich and his critics can each find support for their arguments in this data. Elrich can say that not every measure is where it should be and that the trend of improvement is not as robust as it was in June or July. Those who disagree can say that most measures have been improving, and if that is not enough to justify further reopening, then what is?
All of the above is just one dimension of the issue. In Part Two, we shall see how MoCo compares to its neighbors.
In a retort to County Executive Marc Elrich’s decision to not follow the state’s phase 3 reopening of businesses, Governor Larry Hogan’s office has released a letter written by Elrich asking the governor to relax restrictions on live entertainment. Specifically, Elrich asked Hogan to allow live entertainment, which was at that time prohibited, in front of audiences of 50 or less people. Hogan’s phase 3 reopening, which is scheduled to take effect tomorrow, allows live performances with audiences of 50% capacity or 100 people indoors and 50% capacity or 250 people outdoors, whichever is less.
Elrich’s defense of the live entertainment industry will be appreciated by musicians, comedians, actors and other performers. But those in other industries that are affected by the county’s refusal to follow the state into Phase 3, such as retail and religious establishments, will inevitably ask: what about us?
Marcus Jones, chief of the Montgomery County Police Department (MCPD), earns praise from my sources as competent, well-intentioned and not wedded to the practices of the past despite his decades of experience at MCPD. But Jones has a problem: he faces far more obstacles in running his department than any other senior manager in county government. That’s because a tornadic swirl of national and local politics has provoked a free-for-all over MCPD that is unprecedented in recent county history.
Monday night saw the first meeting of the county executive’s “Reimagining Public Safety Task Force.” I couldn’t find the task force’s roster online so I asked the county’s public information office, which gave me a member list: all 43 of them. Attendance at the first meeting totaled 73 people, some of whom were county employees assigned to attend. The task force member roster given to me by the county does not include any member of MCPD management. It also does not contain any of the leaders of Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) Lodge 35, which represents MCPD’s rank and file sworn officers. With 43 seats available, you might figure that at least one or two of them would go to management or labor.
The FOP did not respond to a request for comment, but I asked MCPD Captain Tom Jordan, the police department’s public information officer, about MCPD’s participation on the task force. He replied:
The MCPD does not have a representative on the task force. We provide subject matter experts to the task force when requests for information are received. I do not have information on how the task force was selected nor do I know if the MCPD was asked to provide recommendations for representatives. That is a better question for the CE’s [county executive’s] office since they formed the task force.
The 43-member task force along with future consultants joins the county council’s 13-member policing advisory commission in providing advice on MCPD. At least the council’s commission includes the MCPD chief and the FOP president as ex officio members. The commission held its first meeting on August 24 while the executive’s task force held its first meeting on August 31. Multiple council members say the two entities are duplicative but the executive says they’re wrong. Come on now. How could two large appointed bodies of community members discussing the exact same thing a week apart possibly be duplicative??
The council, of course, has not sat idly by while the executive and his folks get to have all the fun of scrutinizing MCPD. Since January 2019, the council has introduced five bills regarding police department operations and passed four of them. The fifth will be considered this fall. The council also passed a sixth bill requested by the executive creating a new assistant chief position. (When asked about this latter bill desired by his boss, Chief Jones shrugged, “I had no heartburn over it.”)
The disconnected approaches taken by the executive and the council, as well as their creation of separate advisory bodies, reflect the feelings the two branches hold about each other. The executive thinks the council is “fact proof” while the council feels the executive is ineffective and incapable of leadership. These mutual feelings of disdain affect many aspects of county government, not just the police. Now the two branches are in competition over what to do with MCPD.
Add together the task force, the commission, the interest groups, the activists, the consultants and the interested politicians in Rockville, Annapolis and beyond and it’s almost impossible to count all the players who want to reimagine, defund and/or outright abolish police.
These flyers have been taped to doors of commercial spaces in downtown Silver Spring. Who is distributing them?
The issue here is not whether the police department deserves to be scrutinized. It does, as do police departments around the rest of the country. For example, I have previously written about provisions in the FOP contract that require the county to destroy records and fight public information act requests in court. What needs to happen is a grand, holistic effort by all the major players – police management, the FOP, the counties, Annapolis and interested groups – to work out a package of complementary improvements that makes sense. Instead, the efforts above appear random, uncoordinated and in some cases duplicative. This is not measured, strategic and purposeful reform – it’s a free-for-all. How does this get us to a better place?
Think about how all of this looks to potential police recruits. If you were offered a job with oversight that looked like this, would you take it?
At stake is something that no one is talking about – crime in MoCo is at an historic low. Politicians in most jurisdictions would be jumping up and down to take credit for that, but not in our county. We take low crime rates here for granted. Social justice is important and the experience of people of color in dealing with police needs to be addressed. But if the free-for-all outlined above disrupts MCPD’s operations and crime starts going up again, all of us – regardless of our views on policing – will pay the price.
