General Assembly, mike miller, Peter Franchot

Peter Franchot Punches Back at Mike Miller

Comptroller Peter Franchot responded on Facebook to yesterday’s post on Senate President Mike Miller’s sharp criticism:

For the vast majority of my Facebook friends who have better things to do than keep up with the State Circle sandbox, and have asked me what all of this is about, here’s what Senator Miller’s latest attack boils down to. First, I’m an independent voice for the taxpayers of Maryland, who gave me this job that I love and who pay for my salary. I work for you – not for Senator Miller or any other Annapolis party boss.

Second, while I’m a lifelong progressive on social issues, I’m also a fiscal watchdog who is happy to work with responsible leaders from both parties to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent more efficiently, and to hold the line on higher taxes and unsustainable debt. For a backroom partisan like Senator Miller, who must destroy the Republicans at all costs in order to recover his grip on patronage appointments, preserve his grip on the redistricting process and such pursuits, my preference for bipartisan government is an act of heresy that is best snuffed out.

I offer this not in a spirit of anger or resentment of Senator Miller, because he is simply doing what Annapolis bosses do. I offer this simply to provide context to those who might otherwise be inclined to take the Senate President and his comments more seriously than they should. That said, enjoy your Friday and a relaxing weekend!

I’m sure Republicans are enjoying gleefully this intraparty feud. Comptroller Franchot has certainly given back as good as he got yesterday from Senate President Mike Miller. At the same time, it’s hard to imagine this statement will help improve relations with General Assembly Democrats, who wish that Franchot would carry water for them instead of the Governor more often.

A Note on Political Maneuvering

Yesterday, one had to chuckle when when Mike Miller said “I’m not going to name his name.” Though technically true, it self-evident that he was speaking of Peter Franchot. Peter Franchot’s statements that he does not harbor “a spirit of anger or resentment” after a blunt, return attack towards Miller in the name of providing “context” inspire as great an eye roll.

But let’s hold off on labeling either of these people as insincere–or at least more so than the rest of us. The media routinely places politicians in an impossible position. Would anyone be shocked if Peter Franchot felt “anger or resentment” after Mike Miller’s comments? Except Franchot would be criticized as petty if he did not disclaim being so. Yet denying this normal human response looks disingenuous, especially after his scathing critique of Miller.

And people wonder why politicians sometimes look like a pretzel married a robot.

Share
Montgomery County Public Schools

Addressing the Achievement Gap

The achievement gap between White and Asian students compared to their Latino and African-American counterparts has received increasing public attention. The County has a real interest in making sure all students perform well–not just because it’s right but also to assure that the County remains economically competitive. That’s not going to happen with an unskilled workforce.

Today, I thought I’d take a look at some of what Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) is already doing as part of its effort to make sure all kids have the skills to succeed. This is the first in what I hope will be an occasional series on public education. My thanks to Andrew Zuckerman, the Chief Operating Officer of MCPS, for providing so much of the information included here.

Choices in how we use our resources make a statement about what we value as a community. Traditionally, Montgomery County has been very supportive of MCPS, which accounts for roughly 50% of the County budget.

Impressively, despite enormous pressures due to tough economic times, the County has largely maintained that commitment. However, increases in the student population have nonetheless forced reductions in spending per pupil. The following graph shows the County contribution per pupil:

MCPS Spending per PupilSource: MCPS

This one reveals the total spending per pupil with state aid:

MCPS total spending per pupilSource: MCPS

Accordingly, it become all the more important that we use the money we have wisely, as is hardly a secret at MCPS. An examination of how MCPS directs it resources reveals that it is spending significantly more in those schools with more disadvantaged students.

The following graph reveals the teaching and staffing allocation to three different types of schools with similar numbers of students:

MCPS teacherSource: MCPS

To help disentangle the argot, Title I schools have high percentages of low-income families and qualify for federal assistance via the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In this Title I school, over one-half speak English as a second language and 82% receive free or reduced price lunches.

Focus schools receive extra attention from MCPS despite not meeting threshold for Title I schools. Eighteen percent of students in this Focus school speak English as a second language and 50% receive free or reduced price lunches.

Low FARM schools have few students receiving free or reduced price meals (read: more affluent). In the low FARM school in the example, just 6% receive free or reduced price meals and 6% speak English as a second language.

As the graph reveals, Title I schools have 59 teachers and staff members while Focus schools have 51. In contrast, the low FARM school has 39.5. The difference is due overwhelmingly to the allocation of additional teachers to Title I and Focus schools.

So even as we continue to discuss additional ways to close the achievement gap so that all students are performing as high as possible, we need to acknowledge that MCPS has directed meaningful resources towards this problem. That doesn’t mean it’s solved, doesn’t merit significant attention, or we don’t need to attack the problem in a variety of ways, but it also means that MCPS is taking real actions to address it and the gap in opportunity between more and less affluent areas of the County.

 

Share
General Assembly, Jamie Raskin, mike miller, Peter Franchot

Miller Touts Raskin, Disses Franchot in One Stroke on Opening Day

The Maryland Senate is just not a safe space for Peter Franchot.

On the opening day of session, many luminaries come before the General Assembly to say hello and give brief remarks. When Senate President Mike Miller introduced Brian Frosh, I’m told he said enthusiastically something along the lines of “Welcome to the Attorney General. He served in this body for many years.” followed by very welcoming applause from his former colleagues.

As Franchot rose to speak, Miller introduced him offhandedly as the “tax collector” to very scattered, tepid applause. However, the chamber gave a resounding round of applause when Miller next reminded the body that Franchot used to represent Sen. Jamie Raskin and touted Raskin as someone who was going to do a terrific job as the next congressman from the Eighth District.

Miller also compared Franchot to Trump in a television interview, so I guess it’s safe to say that they’re no longer BFFs. More dangerous for Franchot is the broader estrangement from the Democratic Party that the moment revealed.

Share
General Assembly, mike miller, Peter Franchot

Mike Miller Compares Peter Franchot to Trump

Bruce DePuyt of News Channel 8 got quite a first day of session interview from Senate President Mike Miller. After giving a lucid analysis of the sources of the Trump phenomenon and its danger, Miller aimed his fire closer to home:

He [Trump] is like one of our state officials. I’m not going to name his name. He’s a fraud. He was a moderate Democrat who is now transforming himself saying I’m a right-wing tea party conservative to get the vote. That’s nonsense. You’ve got to be true to yourself. He’s not true to himself as are other politicians that we know.

It’s an open secret that the state official who shall not be named is Comptroller Peter Franchot. Miller has been feuding publicly with the Comptroller, attacking him in a scathing public letter. Miller has been critical of Franchot for grandstanding and his now routine support of Gov. Hogan on the Board of Public Works.

Franchot’s evolution has been amazing. When he primaried sitting Comptroller William Donald Schaefer in 2006, he positioned himself as the progressive standard bearer. The Washington Post reported:

Franchot ran an aggressive campaign, trying to link both Schaefer and Owens to Ehrlich and claiming that he was “the only real Democrat in the race.”

So in essence, Miller’s argument is that Franchot has become exactly the portrait he drew of his opponent in 2006. Indeed, Franchot’s reply to Miller’s letter was highly complimentary of the Governor while critical of General Assembly Democrats.

Mike Miller is a centrist Democrat, so one can only imagine how liberals in the General Assembly view Franchot’s actions. I’d say Franchot is headed for uncharted waters except that, based on his own 2006 primary campaign, Franchot should know exactly where the course he is charting heads.

Share
District 14

Herman Taylor Mulling Bid for Senate Vacancy

taylorHerman Taylor for Senate?

Former Del. Herman Taylor is working behind the scenes to build support for a bid to fill the Senate vacancy in District 14 caused by Sen. Karen Montgomery’s retirement. Taylor served two terms in the House of Delegates until he ran in a lopsided losing primary against Rep. Donna Edwards in 2010–Taylor won 9% of the vote.

The leading candidate for the Senate vacancy is Del. Craig Zucker, who has the support of retiring Sen. Montgomery as well as Dels. Anne Kaiser and Eric Luedtke.  Zucker is now serving his second term in the House of Delegates.

Taylor will have an uphill battle to win support from a majority of the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee. Beyond his colleagues, Zucker recently gained support from African American Democratic Club, Latino Democratic Club and Coalition of Asian Pacific American Democrats. Former NAACP Leader Ben Jealous has also endorsed his candidacy.

The adroitly planned rollout of Zucker’s bid for the appointment has  aided his effort to secure the Senate seat. The delegation supports filling the delegate vacancy created by Zucker’s move to the Senate with African-American Pam Queen, a current member of the Central Committee, helping to alleviate concerns about maintaining the representation of women and expanding minority representation.

A pro-life moderate, Taylor will have trouble gaining support from a party identified solidly with abortion rights. Taylor’s run against Edwards no doubt earned him the ire of increasingly assertive progressives who celebrated her defeat of Al Wynn.

Share
Department of Liquor Control

Leventhal Says Council Has No Plans to Investigate DLC Snafu

There is a new twitter site on the ongoing problems with Montgomery County’s Department of Liquor Control: @UnSuckMoCoDLC. It appears to have been set up by a liquor licensee who wants “to let the public know what we licensees have to go through.” Neither Adam Pagnucco nor I know who is running the account or had anything to do with setting it up.

No Council Oversight of DLC New Year’s Problems

There was a lively discussion on the Seventh State Facebook page in the wake of this morning’s post. Beyond disagreeing with the post, Councilmember George Leventhal made some news in response to a question from Adam Pagnucco:

leventhalladhoc

In essence, George plans to do nothing. No serious investigation would wait months until the end of the state legislative session. The meeting of the General Assembly has no bearing on the Council’s oversight responsibilities. George knows this.

Moreover, if the General Assembly passes the County’s preferred bill on the topic, the County will still be engaging is very close to the same level of deliveries. Indeed, the change will likely be marginal as this proposal designed to protect the status quo in the guise of change is unworkable.

Yet Leventhal Prides Himself on Oversight

Nonetheless, George perceives himself as a leader in the fight for more accountability at the DLC. He’s just mad that no one is giving him enough credit for it:

leventhalloversightIt sure didn’t feel like George is a a strong critic when he gave the DLC a pass on the major New Year’s Eve delivery snafu because he had a bad experience at Starbucks. Moreover, The New Year’s snafu casts doubt on any effectiveness of this vaunted oversight to date and George’s Facebook comments today evince little evidence of a willingness to press further on this issue.

 

Share
Department of Liquor Control

Leventhal Defends DLC’s Bad Service

New Slogan? We Don’t Care. We Don’t Have To. We’re the DLC.

Last week, we reported that Department of Liquor Control stores completely fouled up deliveries in the week before New Year’s. Now, DLC Director George Griffin did issue an apology. But that doesn’t restore any of the lost income or makeup for the stress caused by  this total snafu.

Real accountability would mean rebates. Even more galling is that time was found to distribute material to defend the DLC in stores even as this mistake occurred. It also undermines the DLC claim that their reform program has produced meaningful results.

Councilmember Roger Berliner thinks that this is yet more evidence that it is time for the DLC to go the way of the dinosaur:

Berliner

Leventhal Attacks Berliner on Facebook

Councilmember George Leventhal came out swinging in comments on his colleague’s Facebook posts:

LeventhalonrestRestaurants are a major industry in Montgomery County. Beyond his misguided self-serving beliefs, saying that liquor reform is only of interest to restaurateurs is like saying that education is only of interests to parents so people should really quit their complaining. I’m sure restaurant owners appreciate George’s relegation of their repeat problems to illegitimate concerns.

BTW, restaurants are not flourishing as much as we might hope. Elm St. in Bethesda Row is one of the hottest blocks in the county with high pedestrian traffic. Right now, there are three empty restaurant spots on the block with one more store ready to close. In Silver Spring, Jackie’s is calling it a day and Jackie Greenbaum says she’d never open another restaurant in MoCo–it’s just too difficult.

The Starbucks Defense

But hey, George has the Starbucks defense:

leventhalstarbucksOf course, the difference is that, if you have a problem at Starbucks, you’re likely to get a good response to a complaint. They want you as a customer. If not, you have the option to shop elsewhere. But the DLC Monopoly forces consumers and businesses alike to deal with them. Eerily reminiscent of the legendary Lily Tomlin SNL skit posted at the top regarding the phone company monopoly: “We Don’t Care. We Don’t Have To. We’re the Phone Company.”

George’s blithe dismissal of major problems at the DLC–even those affecting major customers who were buying a lot more than a latte and whose livelihoods depend on it–shows an alarming lack of concern for constituents or willingness to listen. In George’s view, mediocrity in a monopoly government service is acceptable–a level of contempt that his constituents should not.

Share
US Senate

Sierra Club Endorses Van Hollen

From the Press Release:
Bladensburg, MD — Today, Sierra Club’s Maryland Chapter announced the endorsement of Representative Chris Van Hollen for election to the US Senate in 2016. In response, Chair of the Maryland Chapter, Baird Straughan, released the following statement:

“The Sierra Club endorses Congressman Van Hollen because he has the proven ability to transform an environmental vision into effective legislation. If we are to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st Century, we need legislators who have the knowledge, commitment, and leadership skills documented in Rep. Van Hollen’s record.

“More than 15 years ago, State Senator Van Hollen led the successful fight to pass the Maryland Clean Energy Incentives Act of 2000. That leadership has continued unabated ever since. He won a ban on drilling in parts of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. He was the lead sponsor of the Healthy Climate and Family Security Act. He co-chairs the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change and the Congressional Chesapeake Bay Watershed Caucus, and is a member of the Safe Climate Caucus. And now, he is now a leading sponsor of “Frack Pack” legislation that would close oil and gas loopholes and responsibly regulate fracking at the Federal level.

“We’re endorsing Congressman Van Hollen because today’s environmental crises have reached a breaking point — not just for the Chesapeake Bay and Maryland, but for our country and the world. Rep. Van Hollen has proven his ability to work through the gridlock of the U.S. Senate, and pass legislation that creates the solutions that are so critically needed today.”

Share
Congressional Elections

Franchot Endorses Matthews

From the press release:

“As a proud resident of Maryland’s 8th Congressional District, I am happy to announce my support of my friend, Kathleen Matthews, in her campaign for Congress,” said Peter Franchot.  “Having known Kathleen for many years, I believe she will bring to Congress a fresh perspective, new talent and a sensible approach to the challenges facing our state and country. She is a proven advocate for equality and social justice, and one who is also capable of reaching across the aisle to achieve meaningful results at a time when toxic partisanship has crippled Washington and alienated countless Americans from our political process.”

This is a nice endorsement for Kathleen Matthews. Franchot used to represent the same territory as her leading opponent, Jamie Raskin. He is the probably the most well-known in-state official to endorse Matthews.

Over the years, Franchot has tacked from being seen as one of the stronger progressive leaders to a leading voice for fiscal restraint. This endorsement should help Matthews continue to consolidate support from business and fiscally moderate Democrats.

On the other hand, this endorsement helps set up the primary as one of Jamie Raskin and the progressive wing versus Kathleen Matthews and and more centrist Democrats. As the progressive wing has been increasingly ascendant in Montgomery Democratic primaries, this provides opportunities for Raskin.

Raskin’s current problem, however, is that he will be tied up in Annapolis for the legislative session, while Matthews is free to campaign aggressively. Dels. Kumar Barvé and Ana Sol Gutiérrez, who are also in the mix for this seat, face the same challenge.

 

Share
marriage equality

Republicans Still Angry Marriage is Legal and Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples Isn’t

As I pointed out not long ago, Republican Del. Richard Metzger is still on the anti-same-sex marriage hobby horse and sponsoring a bill designed to allow discrimination against same-sex couples under a bogus claim of protecting religious freedom.

Governor Hogan responded weakly, with his office saying that he would wait for the legislative process to proceed. Contrast this lack of backbone to stand up for established law and actual Marylanders with his willingness to oppose Syrian refugees–an issue on which he has zero power. A real profile in courage.

Wrong on the Basic Facts

Red Maryland, however, has not been silent. A pity, as their post contained a real whopper:

2012’s Question 6, which was supported by Maryland Democrats and current Republican Senate candidate Chrys Kefalas, contained not a single provision protecting the religious liberties of any Marylanders.

Has Brian Griffiths read the legislation to which he linked?

Section 2 reads:

SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That an official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony may not be required to solemnize or officiate any particular marriage or religious rite of any marriage in violation of the right to free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by the Maryland Constitution and Maryland Declaration of Rights. Each religious organization, association, or society has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine, policy teachings, and beliefs regarding who may marry within that faith. An official of a religious order or body authorized to join individuals in marriage under §406(a)(2)(i) of the Family Law Article and who fails or refuses to join individuals in marriage is not subject to any fine or other penalty for the failure or refusal.

Section 3 and Section 4 are also about religious protection:

SECTION 3. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious organization, association, or society, may not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual if the request for the services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges is related to: (1) the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage that is in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs; or (2) the promotion of marriage through any social or religious programs or services, in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs, unless State or federal funds are received for that specific program or service.

(b) A refusal by an entity described in subsection (a) of this section, or of any individual who is employed by an entity described in subsection (a) of this section, to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges in accordance with subsection (a) of this section may not create a civil claim or cause of action or result in any State action to penalize, withhold benefits from, or discriminate against the entity or individual.

Of course, all of these provisions are redundant of the Constitution’s protections of religious freedom but were included to assuage concerns nonetheless. Red Maryland also neglects to mention that marriage equality expanded religious liberty by finally permitting religions that want to conduct legal same-sex marriages to do so. Yep, many religious people are pro-same-sex marriage.

I hope that Red Maryland corrects the record and apologizes to Republican Chrys Kafalas for their inaccurate claim in their slam against him for showing the content of his character by standing up courageously for religious freedom and his own civil liberties. Chrys demonstrated what used to be called leadership in the pre-Trump Republican Party. But I’m not holding my breath.

The Republican Discrimination Agenda

Red Maryland describes Metzger’s bill as follows:

Basically, the law is designed to ensure that religious organizations that have a moral objection to gay marriage don’t have to be forced to participate in one. You would think that this would be a basic common sense idea, that religious individuals would not be forced to officiate or participate in a same-sex marriage.

Not one rabbi, priest, minister, imam etc. has been forced to officiate a single same-sex marriage against their will in any place in the nation. Not one. So let’s put that red herring to bed.

Instead, the bill is designed to protect the likes of Kim Davis, who as a public official has a duty to issue marriage certificates that are now perfectly, but she finds repugnant. Where does this end? Religious beliefs are personal and vary endlessly. Can people like Kim Davis refuse to issue marriage certificates to mixed race couples if it offends their religious beliefs? What about divorced couples? Or to people who have committed adultery?

The idea of not forcing religious individuals to participate in same-sex marriage is equally broad. Should Holy Cross or Adventist Hospital be able to prohibit a same-sex spouse from being with their spouse or making medical decisions if needed on the grounds that it would force a religious organization to “participate in marriage” as described by Brian Griffiths.

This is not a religious freedom agenda. This is an effort to roll back anti-discrimination protections for lesbians and gay than have been established law in this State since 2001 with no problems not withstanding the howls from the right. Red Maryland thinks that the reality of same-sex marriage is a good excuse to change this.

Again, where does it end? If you follow the logic, anyone can discriminate against anyone on religious grounds because religious beliefs are inherently personal. It would be the undoing of all anti-discrimination law, which is the point.

In our daily lives, we all have to rub up and deal with lots of people who live their lives differently than we choose. As it turns out, the people of Maryland and the First Amendment are managing just fine without this legislation. Marylanders understand that it takes all kinds to make a world and are not such special snowflakes that they need protection beyond the boundaries enshrined already in law and the Constitution against the reality of same-sex marriage. After all, they voted for it.

Share

Maryland Politics Watch