The Limits of Labor

Ann Marimow is a good reporter and I respect her work. But in her Sunday Post article, “Union Influence Sways Montgomery Budget Talks,” I believe she overstates her case. Montgomery County labor has power, but that power has its limits.

This may seem a curious statement coming from me. After all, my now-notorious 2006 guest post in which I christened the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA) the county’s 800-pound gorilla has contributed to the image of labor power in Montgomery. The story behind that long-ago essay is that I was running a petition drive at my precinct and witnessed the extraordinary attention given by voters to MCEA’s Apple Ballot. I then calculated the 90% win percentage earned by Apple Ballot candidates in the Democratic primary and concluded that MCEA had played an important role in the election. That essay was originally intended only for my own union people and a few friends but found its way onto the Internet through third parties as a guest blog. And so began my descent into online infamy, an unhappy event lamented by many who have been spoofed here. While the point of that original post may be true, it presents only one side of the story.

Consider the following facts in assessing the limits of public union power:

1. Public employees in Montgomery County are not uniformly better paid than in other jurisdictions. I compared wages and benefits across jurisdictions in a post last month and found no systemic advantage for workers in Montgomery. In fact, firefighters and teachers lagged many other nearby counties, many Montgomery workers are not eligible for a defined benefit pension and even teachers with Masters degrees cannot afford to buy the average county townhouse. Is this a result you would expect from “Big Labor?”

2. In my 800-pound gorilla post, I wrote:

With property tax growth slowing down, the next county council will face tough budgetary decisions. Public schools account for half of the county’s budget and would be an obvious location for cuts. But don’t expect any action there: the county’s politicians have learned that those who cross the Teachers Union once are unlikely to be given a second opportunity.

How wrong can a man be and still be allowed to blog? The fact is that County Executive Leggett has not recommended full funding for the public schools’ budget request in either of his first two years in office. Last year, the County Executive proposed $19.7 million less for the school budget than requested by the Superintendent. The County Council ultimately approved $6 million less than the school request. This year, the County Executive recommended $51 million less than the Superintendent’s request, of which $26 million has so far been restored by the County Council. The school unions have performed well in defending their budget but they are hardly untouchable.

3. SEIU Local 500 has so far been unsuccessful in persuading Montgomery College to terminate its “union avoidance” attorney. If the unions were truly all-powerful, the college’s actions would have been unthinkable.

4. Union-backed candidates do not automatically win. Many have noted the losses of school board candidate Alies Muskin and County Council candidate Nancy Navarro. But look back on 2006. Progressive Maryland President Elbridge James and teacher Melodye Berry were badly outraised and finished next-to-last in their delegate races despite being Apple-approved. MCEA could not save Ida Ruben from Jamie Raskin in the District 20 Senate race. And Apple Republican incumbents Howard Denis (County Council) and Jean Cryor (State Delegate) fell to Democratic challengers. Apparently George W. Bush had more sway with MoCo voters than did MCEA!

Pure union-only candidates struggle. Labor tends to do best when it backs candidates in concert with others. For example, a combination of union and civic support helped to elect County Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg and Marc Elrich and resulted in the eviction of Mike Subin. The real genius of the county’s labor strategists has been to pick candidates who are strong on their own merits and (hopefully) agree on union priorities. But even union-supported candidates sometimes stray, as has Council Member Trachtenberg – further evidence of the limits of labor power.

I will bet that most of our readers are not union members. “Why should I care about this?” you ask. Montgomery has always been a “you-get-what-you-pay-for” county. Our citizens have been willing to pay higher taxes than in other jurisdictions in a belief that higher service quality would result. Many Montgomery residents are employees or contractors of the federal government and easily see the relationship between funding and performance. Sometimes residents make common cause with unions in seeking county funding, as PTA members occasionally do with MCEA. By pressing for good compensation and adequate budgets, the unions help the county maintain its service level and recruit superior talent. Without strong unions, Montgomery’s politics might resemble those of infighting, school-challenged, crony-infested Prince George’s, or perhaps developer-, business- and tax-activist-dominated Northern Virginia.


Look into the eyes of this woman and read her sign. Labor is at its best when it presents her message to both the politicians and the public at large. Labor has power. Labor has limits. But labor, and the rest of the county, can only succeed if our citizens agree with the woman above.

Disclosure: The author is the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, which does not represent government employees in Maryland.

Labor Between the Hammer and the Anvil

As Montgomery County's budget battle draws to a clamorous climax, a new bomb has been dropped.

Yesterday, Council Member Trachtenberg sent the following letter calling for a 2 percent cost of living reduction to each of the county's public sector unions:



The unions countered in two ways.

1. In a letter to Ms. Trachtenberg sent today, MCEA, SEIU Local 500 and the school supervisors listed $67 million in new revenues available to the council next year. Those revenues include:

$14 Million
Adjustments in OPEB [contributions to future retiree healthcare liabilities]; would allow for 8 year payout, but does not assume the same level of increase; $11 million in savings from MCPS and $3 million from other agencies.

$9 Million
Net gain from increases in energy tax [as proposed by Council Member Floreen].

$10 Million
Could be taken from PAYGO.

$19 Million
Reduction of .5% into the reserve [maintained by the county to protect its AAA credit rating].

$15 Million
Potential carry-over carry over funds that were set aside in the FY 08 budget for emergencies, such as snow removal that were not needed.

2. In their letter to Ms. Trachtenberg, the unions state, "An additional source of revenue is to take into account any revenues in excess of projections in the current budget. We have no knowledge of what that figure is since it has not been shared by the County Executive’s office." Indeed, rumors are flying that the county's income tax receipts may be higher than first thought. The unions have sent a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request to the County Executive's office seeking a monthly tabulation of new income tax revenues received from the state. They hope to discover evidence that income tax receipts are higher than projected, thus relieving the pressure on their contracts.

One of the sad aspects of this showdown is that it may not be necessary. A week ago, we demonstrated to our readers that the County Executive's budget projects $301 million in new revenues for FY09 against $154 million in added union labor costs. At least for next year, labor's cost of living adjustment is easily affordable. Nevertheless, the hammer is falling.

In the private sector, an employer could not do what the county is considering. If a private company attempted to unilaterally change a labor agreement, the union could strike, file unfair labor practice charges, get enforcement orders from the National Labor Relations Board and the courts and file suit to collect benefit contributions. Only employers under bankruptcy protection could unilaterally alter wage levels. Montgomery County may be in a recession, but it is not under the supervision of a bankruptcy judge!

The fate of the unions' COLAs is far from certain. Council Members Trachtenberg and Phil Andrews can block the County Executive's proposed property tax increase, which requires seven of the eight sitting council members to pass. But altering the union contracts would require five votes. It may be difficult for Ms. Trachtenberg and Mr. Andrews to find three more council members willing to cut the COLAs when there are less electorally-threatening alternatives available.

And if the council simultaneously rejects the property tax hike and rejects COLA reductions, what then? No one knows. But the choice must be made in less than a week.

Challenge to the Unions, Part Two

In Part One, we reported on County Council Member and Management and Fiscal Policy Chairwoman Duchy Trachtenberg’s letter to public employee union MCGEO offering a choice between layoffs and COLA reductions. Today we examine whether those measures are justified by the county’s dire budget situation.

Concerned over the county’s long-run finances, Council Member Trachtenberg asked council staff for an estimate of the future obligations to the county imposed by its public employee union contracts. Two weeks later, the County Council’s merit staff director responded with a 129-page memo outlining those costs. Page 2 of the memo contained this statement:

Councilmember Trachtenberg has requested information on agency compensation costs over time. One measure of these costs is the cumulative fiscal impact of the current or pending three-year negotiated agreements with the six County and MCPS unions, starting with the base year. See the fiscal impact statements on pages 37-39 and 111-113. The cumulative fiscal impacts are $117.9 million for MCGEO [government employees], $45.4 million for the FOP [police], $37.2 million for the IAFF [fire fighters], $61.9 million for non-represented employees in County Government, and $577.7 million for MCPS.

The total of these amounts, $840.1 million, does not include higher ongoing costs for health benefits for active and retired employees, nor does it include the $1.2 billion cost of the proposed eight-year pre-funding schedule for future retiree health benefits.

Are these marginal costs really accurate? We looked up the supporting data on pages 37-39 and 111-113, which correspond to pages 53-55 and 127-129 in the pdf document. Following is our tabulation of all marginal costs reported.

The marginal costs for each of the employee categories amount to $134 million in FY08, $176 million in FY09, $225 million in FY10 and $21 million in FY11 for a total of $557 million over the four years. (The estimate is low for FY11 because only the fire fighters’ agreements cover that year.) This total is much lower than the $840 million reported on the second page of the staff report, even though that summary refers to the pages tabulated above. There is simply no data in those pages to justify the $840 million estimate.

Furthermore, marginal cost data for FY08 should not be construed as a future obligation faced by the county. FY08, the current fiscal year, expires on 6/30/08. Those costs have mostly been paid already.

Finally, the analysis includes marginal costs due to fire and rescue management and non-represented employees. Why should the unions be held responsible for additional spending on employees they do not represent?

Subtracting out costs for the almost-expired FY08, the fire and rescue management and the non-represented employees, the remaining future obligations faced by the county total $154 million in FY09, $193 million in FY10 and $20 million in FY11, or a combined $368 million. This is a far cry from the $840 million cited at the beginning of the staff report.


Are added salary costs of $150-200 million per year sustainable? The answer depends on the county’s economic performance and the county government’s revenue collections. According to revenue statistics released by the County Executive, revenues collected by the county are projected to rise by $109 million in the current fiscal year (between 7/1/07 and 6/30/08). That overall rise in receipts occurred despite the facts that a) county receipts from the real property transfer tax dropped from $107 million to $80 million (down 25%), b) receipts from the recordation tax dropped from $73 million to $53 million (down 27%) and c) the county may have entered a recession. The above means that even in a really bad year, the county’s revenues continued to rise.

The County Executive’s proposal projects a further rise in receipts in FY09 of $301 million, partially due to his property tax increase. This would be more than enough to pay the $154 million in extra costs associated with the union contracts. At least for next year, the county should be able to meet its labor obligations if it adopts a budget similar to the County Executive’s recommendation.

As for the future, the most volatile components of the county’s revenues are the two tied to real estate sales: the real property transfer tax and the recordation tax. According to the county’s Department of Finance, residential real estate sales volume averaged over $500 million per month from 2006 through the first eight months of 2007. Since then, residential real estate sales volume has averaged between $200 and $300 million per month. It is this collapse in residential real estate transactions that has caused many of the county’s current budget problems. All policymakers – both inside the government and inside the unions – should watch this figure in the Finance Department’s monthly economic updates. If it rises back up to $400 million per month or more, the county’s real property transfer and recordation taxes will begin to recover. If it falls further, tougher times are ahead.

Last Pre-Election County D4 Round-Up

By tomorrow night, this race will be over. Here’s the state of play one day out.

On press, coverage has picked up in the last week. The Post has written its last wrap-up article. Maryland Moment discusses a spat over an email sent by MCEA to its members. Dan Reed at Just Up the Pike has interviews up with almost every candidate. He will post an interview with Don Praisner tomorrow morning. Politicker Maryland has posted interviews with Praisner, Pat Ryan and Nancy Navarro’s campaign manager in the last few days.

On the ground, it appears that Navarro has sent out more literature than the other candidates combined. Some District 4 residents have reported receiving more than a half-dozen mailers from her over the last three weeks. Recently, Navarro lit has been showing up with “Endorsed by the Washington Post” stickers. The signs are more balanced among the Democrats; Praisner probably has a narrow lead with Navarro and Ryan close behind. Republican Mark Fennel may have more signs up than all the Democrats combined, with each accompanied by a “Robin Realty” sign. The three largest MoCo unions - MCEA, SEIU Local 500 and UFCW Local 1994 (MCGEO) - have several thousand members inside the district and are no doubt calling and emailing them on Navarro’s behalf. Don Praisner will be drawing on a list of everyone who has contributed to or supported Marilyn Praisner over the years and his campaign will be asking them to show up one last time for the family.

The great unknowable is who will arrive at the polls tomorrow. In the special election to fill the County Council District 5 seat in Prince George’s County, only 8% of the registered Democrats showed up. If turnout is less than that, Don Praisner will have the advantage. All sides concede that the Praisners have a devoted base inside the district who are sure to vote. But if turnout gets into the mid-teens, Navarro will close the gap.

So now the great call-out begins. Over the last several weeks, each of the candidates has been identifying their voters and earning their loyalties. Now they have to make sure that their people show up. That will determine the course of the election, the holder of the council seat and the political direction of Montgomery County for the next two years.

Are MoCo Public Employees Overpaid?

Yesterday, the Post reported on growing disagreements between Montgomery County leaders over compensation paid to county employees. Labor costs account for 80% of the county’s $4.3 billion budget and the county is facing a $297 million deficit. As a result, some county officials are scrutinizing employee contracts.

Council Member Phil Andrews told the Post that the county’s collective bargaining agreements were “unsustainable, unnecessary and unrelated to real-world economic conditions,” and said they should be rejected. Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg wants to know exactly what the county’s future obligations are under the contracts so the council can figure out how to pay for them. And the Post reported this tense exchange between Council President Mike Knapp and County Executive Ike Leggett:

Council President Michael Knapp (D-Upcounty) said Leggett's approval of the contracts appears to run counter to his message about the need to slow down spending.

“One would have thought that a more conservative approach would have been taken,” Knapp said. “It looks like we're trying to play both sides. Do we have bad economic times, or do we need to have generous increases in our contracts?”

In a prepared statement, Leggett called the contracts “consistent with agreements throughout the region” and said Knapp does not fully understand collective bargaining. Leggett said he has limited flexibility because of past decisions by the council and the school system and because of the possibility of binding arbitration in the event of an impasse. He cited the council's approval in 2006 of a $13 million enhancement to pensions for school system employees.

“I believe the Council President voted in favor of additional pension enhancements and every collective bargaining agreement that has ever been placed before him, thereby establishing less than favorable conditions in which future executives must negotiate,” he said in the statement.

So are Montgomery County’s public employees overpaid? Let’s examine a range of issues connected to their compensation.

Wages
The Post points out that many wage increases in the county’s contracts are actually intended to catch up to higher pay levels in other jurisdictions. As an example, the Post looks at fire fighters:

John Sparks, president of the Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters Association, said the county is playing catch-up for its 1,050 firefighters and paramedics. Rookie firefighters are paid $39,997, compared with $44,301 in the District, $40,784 in Prince George's County and $47,472 in Fairfax County. Among jurisdictions such as Montgomery with more than 500,000 people, the average salary nationally is $44,275 for starting firefighters.

Consider the county’s teachers. The Washington Area Boards of Education (WABE) estimates the total compensation cost of a teacher paid $60,000 in salary in nine of the metro area’s jurisdictions. Montgomery compensates such a teacher $81,792, above only Prince George’s County ($78,720). Montgomery trails Arlington County, the leader, by 7.1%.

WABE also reports the starting salary of a step 1 teacher with a bachelors degree in Montgomery as $44,200. The average sale price of an existing townhouse in the county was $364,000 a year ago. A simple analysis with a mortgage calculator and a spreadsheet generates some interesting revelations. If this starting teacher put down 10% of the townhouse’s value, took out a 30-year mortgage at a 6% fixed rate and paid $2,500 per year in property taxes, he or she would owe 59% of pre-tax salary per month to make the payments. A step 9 teacher with a masters degree makes $64,498 and would owe 40% of his or her pretax monthly salary for the mortgage and property tax payments on the same townhouse.

How can this be considered excessive pay?

You can view a breakdown of county salary schedules here.

Pensions
Government jobs used to be known for having modest salaries but great retirement benefits. This is not the case in Montgomery County. Since 1994, the county’s Employees’ Retirement System, its defined benefit plan, has been closed to new employees other than public safety workers. Currently only 5,294 of the county’s workers have county-funded defined benefit pensions. The county’s 11,486 teachers are covered by Maryland’s State Retirement and Pension System. This means that half of the county’s total workforce of 38,000 must rely only on a defined contribution pension plan for retirement. Most of Montgomery’s neighbors continue to grant their employees defined benefits.

Health Care
The county is projecting payments of $80.7 million for group health insurance premiums for its workforce next year (and that does not include school employees). It also projects $2.6 billion in future liabilities for retiree health benefits and is phasing in annual contributions towards those liabilities which will rise to $259 million after the next five years. Montgomery is not the only county facing a large liability for retiree health care: Howard reports a $477 million liability, Anne Arundel reports a $1.3 billion liability and Prince George’s reports a $2.7 billion liability. None of them approach Los Angeles County, California, which will have to deal with a $20 billion liability. This is clearly a lot of money so why not cut health coverage for county employees?

There are two problems with that. First, county employees already pay 20% of their health costs. Raising that percentage would be effectively a wage cut. Second, cutting health benefits will not decrease illness among public employees. They will continue to seek care in local hospitals. And in Maryland, state law provides that hospitals are reimbursed for their cost of uncompensated care (which totaled $734 million in 2006). Where does this money come from? About 90% is covered by allowing hospitals to charge higher rates that are determined partially by their uncompensated care experience. The remaining 10% comes from an assessment imposed on hospitals equaling 0.75% of their net patient revenues. Virtually all of this money comes back to taxpayers because government entities (like Medicare and Medicaid), premium-charging insurance companies and patients wind up ultimately paying the higher rates charged by the hospitals. In the end, if county employees get less health coverage, we will all pay for their health costs anyway. The only difference is that, with less coverage, county employees would be less likely to seek preventative care and more likely to use emergency rooms, thus driving up health care costs for everyone.

Recruitment and Retention
Consider the view of a talented prospective job applicant pondering whether to accept employment with the Montgomery County government. Unless that applicant is seeking a public safety or teacher job, he or she will not get a defined benefit pension. Unless the person is qualified for a top management job, he or she will be unlikely to afford a home in the county without assistance. He or she will be able to make more money in the District, Arlington County, Fairfax County or perhaps even Prince George’s County. For this applicant to commit to Montgomery, he or she will have to believe that Montgomery will one day pay at least as much as its neighbors and the applicant will someday be able to afford in-county housing. Otherwise, it makes little financial sense to work for Montgomery County and the best applicants will go elsewhere.

Competitiveness
Finally, an important part of the economic bedrock of Montgomery County is its superior level of government services – especially its public schools. When the county invests in its schools, it provides a powerful reason for businesses and residents to want to live here and create jobs here. Without top-grade public services, we will increasingly be seen as merely a high-cost jurisdiction in the metropolitan Washington area – and what happens to our economic competitiveness then?

It’s in the best interest of county taxpayers to attract and retain the best public employees to work for them. We do have to figure out how to pay for them. But spreading the mythology that county employees are overpaid will not get us there.

County Council District 4 Round-Up

OK everybody, with less than two weeks to go, here’s the latest.

1. The Prince George’s County Council District 5 special election has MoCo campaign operatives’ tongues wagging. In that seven-candidate election, Theresa Dudley defeated Adam Ortiz by 171 votes at last count with a turnout of 8.2% of registered voters. If that turnout holds in MoCo District 4, roughly 8,400 voters will show up. So a competitive D4 candidate will have 3,000 votes and a sure winner will cross the 4,000 mark. These are small, small numbers folks, and anything could happen.

2. The Post and the Gazette have churned out quite a few articles in the last week. Among them are reports of County Council staffers getting cozy with Don Praisner’s campaign manager, a recounting of last Saturday’s candidate forum and a discussion of the challenges of time and name recognition. Additionally, this blog has made MCDCC Vice-Chairman Alan Banov a multi-media star as he has been interviewed by the Gazette about the illegal robo-calls first reported here. Hopefully Mr. Banov will remember who launched his ride to fame when one of us runs for a state legislative appointment!

But the biggest story of the week is the Gazette’s report on two meetings at the home of MoCo Superintendent of Schools Jerry Weast attended by education union leaders a month ago. The Gazette reports, “At the first meeting, Weast said that the unions should endorse Navarro for the County Council, according to a person who talked about what happened on the condition of not being identified.” The Gazette quoted Merle Cuttita, President of SEIU Local 500, as saying that the meeting was primarily about budget issues but she added, “He let us know that she would be a good candidate for county council ... that Nancy Navarro would be a good candidate for the council.” Nancy Navarro and County Council Member Valerie Ervin attended the second meeting, but Navarro denied that any endorsement was discussed there.

My father was a special education teacher, an assistant principal, a principal, an Assistant Superintendent of Schools and a school system controller in upstate New York. He never endorsed politicians or asked his unions to support any of them. He had a sound reason for that policy. In my rural county, voters directly approved school budgets. If my father had ever gotten too close to a politician, it would have made the local paper and his budget would have been killed. So he never, ever went there.

It is perfectly natural for the Superintendent to meet with the President of the Board of Education (Navarro), a County Council Member on the Education Committee (Ervin) and the leaders of the unions to discuss the schools budget. But Jerry Weast is playing with fire if he indeed asked the unions to support Navarro. First, he will run afoul of the County Executive, who is supporting Don Praisner. Second, Navarro’s opponents will be sure to remember Weast’s political apostasy if one of them wins. Third, he is giving Navarro’s rivals a good issue and Steve Kanstoroom raised it at Wednesday night’s debate. (And check out my blog-brother Kevin Gillogly's searing rant about this, which is forthcoming.) Mr. Weast, take it from the son of a career public school administrator: stay out of politics.

3. District 4 resident Dan Reed of Just Up the Pike is the best interviewer in MoCo blogdom. He has a talent for picking up on the little things that tell you a lot about a person. Check out Rockville mayoral candidate Drew Powell’s relentless hunt for a security guard, Steve Kanstoroom’s making change for a homeless guy and former County Council candidate Hans Riemer’s pho-drenched denunciations of limousine liberals. Dan has posted interviews with Navarro, Kanstoroom and Republicans Mark Fennel and Thomas Hardman with more on the way. Do yourself a favor and bookmark Just Up the Pike.

4. Nancy Navarro and Don Praisner are getting most of the attention but Steve Kanstoroom and Pat Ryan deserve mention. Both are strong and attractive candidates. Kanstoroom is crazy-earnest and combines green eye-shades with a warm heart. He is a beloved figure among the Sandy Spring activists he is helping. Would he really wring greater efficiencies from MoCo government as he claims? I don’t know, but speaking as a fellow dirt-digging researcher, it would be fun to watch him try.

As for Ryan, he may be the true heir to Marilyn Praisner from a policy perspective. I have seen him at two debates and he espouses the Praisner position package: fiscal restraint and caution on growth. After picking up the Gazette’s endorsement, Ryan glowed with confidence at Wednesday night’s debate. If you are a District 4 voter who agreed with Marilyn Praisner’s agenda and would like to see an advocate carry it out for the long run, you should seriously consider Pat Ryan.

5. Don Praisner did not show up at Wednesday night’s debate. County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg told the audience that he was sick and had gone to the hospital. The Gazette is reporting that Mr. Praisner will not be attending tonight’s taped debate.

6. And if you guys really need more of this, here’s the schedule for the remaining debates:

FRI 4/4: 6:00 Montgomery Community Television/LWV Televised Forum @ MCT Studios, 7548 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855

SUN 4/6: 3:00 Sandy Spring Forum, Sherwood Elemenatary School, 1401 Olney-Sandy Spring Road (Rte 108), Sandy Spring, MD

TUE 4/8: 7:00 LWV Debate @ Sandy Spring Friends School 16923 Norwood Rd, Sandy Spring, MD 20860

WED 4/9: 7:00 Burtonsville Debate @ Paint Branch High School, 14121 Old Columbia Pike, Burtonsville, MD 20866

WED 4/9: 7:00 Northwood-Four Corners Forum @ North Four Corners Park Recreation Center, 211 Southwood Ave, Silver Spring, MD

THU 4/10: 2:00 Riderwood Debate @ Performance Hall of Lakeside Commons at Riderwood Village, 3150 Gracefield Rd, Silver Spring, MD

THU 4/10: 7:30 Leisureworld Debate @ Club House 1, 14901 Pennfield Circle, Silver Spring, MD

Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.

More on County Council District 4

Here’s our latest roundup for D4 residents and MoCo political junkies. (Yes, we know that you junkies need help, but in the meantime, keep reading our blog!)

Dan Reed at Just Up the Pike has posted an interview with Nancy Navarro. Once again, Dan shows off his knack for picking out the most interesting, and even the most provocative, statements from his interviewees.

Progressive Neighbors has posted interviews with Nancy Navarro and Don Praisner. These interviews contain the most detailed positions on issues so far released by either candidate. They even address our beloved Carr bill! Progressive Neighbors did not endorse in the contest.

Navarro has wrapped up the vast majority of union endorsements in the county. The only union to have endorsed another candidate is the Montgomery County Federation of Teachers, an American Federation of Teachers local union, which is supporting Don Praisner. MCFT has no contracts with the county and should not be confused with the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA), which represents county teachers and has endorsed Navarro.

Steve Kanstoroom and Pat Ryan have websites up. Don Praisner has completely redone his website and it is much improved.

The recent County Council committee changes hinge on who wins the District 4 race. If the winner disagrees with Council President Mike Knapp’s assignments, they could change next year.

Kevin Gillogly and I are working on a joint post about last week’s candidate forum. Hurry up, Kevin! We know you are still grumpy because of your decision not to run, but that is no excuse for not covering this race for our all-important readers. The Gazette’s coverage of the forum is here. They missed the central exchange in the debate over the relationship of the education budget and the county’s deficit, but we will cover that for our readers.

Putting a Gun to the Heads of Maryland’s Teachers (Updated)

The Baltimore Sun is reporting that Senate President Mike Miller is threatening education and teachers’ pension funding in an effort to get the Maryland State Teachers Association to support slots. This proves Eric Luedtke’s worries about this issue correct.

According to the Sun:

“They've got to help us either get some type of revenue, either taxes or the video lottery terminals, so we can continue funding public education at the rate I want it funded,” Miller said. "There's nothing more I want than to fund public education, but the beneficiaries of public education have got to respond in kind.”

But there is more:

The Senate president has also told union leaders that their failure to back the measure could force the General Assembly to seek another funding source for teacher pensions, including asking counties and school boards to foot the bill, a move that would almost certainly force severe cuts on the local level.

I have disagreed with the Senate President on slots in the past. But even more than that, I disagree with his approach to the relationship of slots and education funding. A common-sense, pro-education approach to this issue is to say, “I’m committed to education, now let’s go find the money.” Instead, Mr. Miller seems to be saying, “I’m committed to slots, now let’s figure out how to pass them.” This is not the kind of pro-education behavior I expect from my party in Annapolis.

Slots are now being marketed as a magical solution to the state’s budget problems. Some politicians are now telling us that if we pass them, we can pay for education, repeal the computer tax and pay for virtually any other kind of program that we want. But in fact, as surrounding jurisdictions increase their gambling programs in a mad, dice-and-whiskey-fueled gaming arms race, our revenue take will be far from certain. The only certainty is that license-holding corporations will be enriched beyond their executives’ wildest dreams, including those that are now teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

The Senate President is a recognized master of politics and has survived as long as he has by knowing the sentiments in his chamber better than anyone – ever. He is pressuring the teachers by threatening education funding and holding up their grievance arbitration bill because he knows that voters respect them. Apple Ballots with one-armed bandits on them are almost as valuable as penthouse comps. But there is a price to this tactic.

First, the teachers waged a relentless four-year campaign to get their pension benefits increased, a fight that ended in 2006. By threatening to subject those benefits to county financing, Mr. Miller is signaling his willingness to endanger the teachers’ top legislative achievement of the decade.

Second, he is pressuring the state organization’s board to make a decision without input from a closely-divided membership. This does not take into account the internal realities of a union, which is in fact a political organization. No political organization likes dealing with divisive issues – for example, look at the General Assembly’s contortions on gay marriage, illegal immigration, the death penalty and, of course, slots. As any political organization works it way through a tough issue, it needs time, delicate negotiations and ways to assuage those who come up short. Putting a gun to the heads of the leadership, as Mr. Miller is doing, may earn him a temporary victory but is sure to create fury in the ranks and a desire for revenge against the Senate President, his pro-slots colleagues and even some of the state union leaders themselves.

In Montgomery County, we call MCEA the 800-pound gorilla. Don’t make it angry, Mr. Miller, because this gorilla has a long memory.

Update: MSTA's board voted last night to support the slots referendum. The Post has the story here. MSTA President Clara Floyd released this statement:

Today the MSTA Board of Directors voted to support passage of the November slots referendum.

Thanks to Thornton funding, we are making clear progress in raising student achievement across the state. Our greatest moral responsibility is to continue this progress by ensuring that educators and schools have the resources they need to give every child access to great public schools.

The referendum establishes an Education Trust Fund and dedicates half of future proceeds to our public schools. It provides Maryland with an additional source of funding, beginning with licensing fees in early 2009.

Because of our state’s precarious fiscal outlook, if this referendum fails, students, teachers and support staff will be left with outdated facilities, larger classes, outdated textbooks and shortages of materials. School systems will be left with fewer resources to recruit and retain the best teachers and support staff.

Although this referendum is a necessary component to curing our state’s long-term fiscal woes, it is not sufficient. MSTA will continue to advocate strongly for other progressive and sustainable revenue alternatives to provide adequate funding for public education.

Despite the state board's endorsement, readers should not assume that all local affiliates will now do everything in their power to support slots. Judging from the controversial nature of the decision and, especially, the way in which it was made, some local affiliates are bound to work harder for the referendum than others.

Nancy Navarro's Show of Force

One week after Don Praisner announced his candidacy for the District 4 County Council seat backed by the County Executive and four council members, Nancy Navarro responded with an announcement of her own.

Navarro’s campaign kicked off at the Good Hope Community Center at 11 this morning. Supporters in attendance included Council Member Valerie Ervin, Casa de Maryland leader Gustavo Torres, District 20 Delegate Tom Hucker, several members of the school board, representatives from MCEA and SEIU Local 500 and scores of district residents. Navarro read this statement:

My name is Nancy Navarro. I am the President of the Montgomery County Board of Education, a wife and a parent of two amazing daughters who could not be with us because they are in school. Earlier today, I filed as a candidate for the District 4 Council seat.

This candidacy was not in my plans. It came about after a sad and unexpected death of a woman who dedicated her life to service. I have learned that many honorable endeavors usually are not planned and that is why it is so important to be ready. And I can say with absolute resolve that I am ready for this seat and I am willing to represent all the residents of District 4 and this County.

Yesterday, I visited with over 100 residents of this neighborhood at the Good Hope United Methodist Church. They came together to demand a renovation of this center and other centers located in mostly low-income communities of color. This community came out to be heard, to be supported and to indicate their presence in this District.

In the last three weeks, I have heard that the only issues that people in this District care about are land use, the ICC, traffic and the environment. Indeed these are very important issues to all of us, but let’s not forget all the other issues that we all face everyday: the need for quality education, jobs, affordable housing, access to affordable child care, access to affordable health care, business development, enhanced transportation services and many more.

These are the issues that we must grapple with as a District and as a County. In these difficult economic times, we will not be able to solve everything. But it sure helps to have someone who has been in elected office, who has presided over an elected body and who is not afraid to exercise her independence while making very difficult decisions. I do believe in the politics of possibilities. I do believe that Montgomery County with its ever-changing face can and will continue to preserve its quality of life.

I pledge to seek consensus whenever possible, to promote civil discourse and to always make decisions based on what is in the best interest of District 4 and the County. Please come out to vote on April 15. District 4 deserves a leader that is here for the long haul, one that has been tried and tested, one that reflects the hopes and dreams of all its residents.

Three things stood out about this announcement to your blogger:

1. The campaign showed off an extremely diverse group of supporters for the event. Just look at the picture below:


Blacks, whites, Latinos, Asians, seniors, kids, union people, community activists and many others were present in abundance. As Council Member Valerie Ervin said, “When we talk about the new Montgomery County, this is what it looks like.” More importantly, the gathering resembled a district in which no one demographic group commands a majority.

2. Special elections depend on turnout and this one will be no exception. The fact that MCEA, SEIU and Casa de Maryland activists have all pledged to support Navarro gives her a ground game that her opponents must match. They should all beware of the fist-pumping declaration delivered by Gustavo Torres: “We are going to fight to make sure immigrants vote in this election!”

3. Mr. Praisner is effectively the incumbent in the race. Nevertheless, there was immense confidence among Navarro’s supporters. (Perhaps the Good Hope Community Center was aptly named for today’s event.) They truly believe that they will outwork the Praisner campaign and bring change to the district.

This race is compelling because District 4 has not seen a truly competitive contest since it was created in 1990. That year Marilyn Praisner, coming off service on the school board, ran as the candidate of change and defeated three-term council incumbent Mike Gudis. Is Nancy Navarro the 2008 model of Mrs. Praisner? We’ll find out in less than five weeks.

Disclosure: The author is the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. The union’s Mid-Atlantic Regional Council has endorsed Navarro.

Teachers Endorse Navarro

Maryland Moment has the story here.

Additionally, Navarro's website now lists her supporters as including MCEA, the Service Employees, the Carpenters, Congressional candidate Donna Edwards, Senators Jamie Raskin and Rich Madaleno, Delegates Ana Sol Gutierrez and Tom Hucker, Council Member Valerie Ervin, Casa de Maryland leader Gustavo Torres and a majority of the school board.

Disclosure: the author is employed as Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters.

Praisner vs. Navarro: It's On

The campaigns of both Donald Praisner and Nancy Navarro made major announcements this week in the race for the District 4 County Council seat.

Donald Praisner, 76, kicked off his campaign at the County Council building on Monday. Backed by County Executive Ike Leggett and several council members, Mr. Praisner plans to hold the seat only for the remainder of his wife's term.

Navarro's campaign responded with this press release:

##FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE##
March 4, 2008
Nancy Navarro Recruits Top Staff for
Montgomery County Council Campaign
Navarro Promises to Bring Vigorous Volunteer-Energy and Fundraising to Big-Tent Campaign

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact: Nancy Navarro
Phone: 301-628-7705
Email: nancy@nancynavarro.org

SILVER SPRING, MD - Montgomery County Board of Education President, Nancy Navarro, today announced the hiring of top staff in her campaign for the vacant District 4 County Council seat.

Having retained Congresswoman-elect Donna Edwards' field director and Sen. Jamie Raskin's campaign manager, Navarro promises to run a first-rate campaign and to raise the resources necessary for victory on April 15th.

Navarro has already recruited dozens of volunteers and a high-profile list of endorsers to be announced in the coming weeks.

The campaign plans an official kickoff event on Monday, March 10th. Details to follow.

The Gazette article also reports that District 19 Delegate Ben Kramer is still considering entering the race. And the Post has more on the continuing dispute between Steve Kanstoroom and the Planning Board.

Next up is MCEA's endorsement, which could come this week. The union could endorse a candidate or sit out the race entirely.

Update: The Post's coverage is here.

Latest on County Council D4

Don Praisner will be endorsed by County Executive Ike Leggett and County Council Members Marc Elrich, Phil Andrews, Duchy Trachtenberg and Roger Berliner at his announcement on Monday. The Washington Post talked to Praisner and Leggett.

Steve Kanstoroom has been subpoenaed by the Montgomery County Planning Board to provide communications he has had with news organizations over the Sandy Spring road dispute.

No assumptions should be made at this point about MCEA's endorsement. The union could endorse a candidate or sit out the race entirely.

As of 4:40 pm today, Kanstoroom, Pat Ryan, Cary Lamari and Republican Mark Fennel have filed papers to run.

MCEA Begins Endorsement Process in County Council D4

The Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA) is starting its endorsement process for the County Council District 4 Special Election.

Wednesday’s Gazette will contain the following ad:

MCEA Candidate Recommendation Process
County Council (District 4) Vacancy
Special Election

During the next week, the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA), an organization of over 11,000 education professionals in our community, will be conducting candidate interviews and reviewing qualifications in connection with its recommendation process for the upcoming Special Election to be held in conjunction with the vacancy for Montgomery County Council (District 4).

Formal announcement of the individual recommended by MCEA will occur in March 2008.

Candidates interested in seeking recommendation by MCEA should contact Jon Gerson at 301-294-6232 or email: jgerson@mcea.nea.org by March 3, 2008 to ensure full consideration by the organization.

Gerson, MCEA’s Director of Community Outreach, offered our readers the following description of their process:

MCEA conducts one of the most thorough candidate screening processes of any organization in the county. MCEA contacts all incumbents and all announced and rumored candidates for office. We also run ads in both major party county newsletters soliciting candidates to participate in our screening process (note: because the timeframe for the Council vacancy did not allow placement in the party newsletters, we are running a ¼ page color ad in the Olney/Burtonsville/Wheaton editions of this Wednesday’s Gazette). All candidates are asked to complete a detailed questionnaire. All candidates are invited to participate in a personal interview with a team of rank-and-file MCEA member-volunteers from the Political Action and Legislative Support (PALS) Committee. (note: in 2006, over 100 candidates for public office were interviewed.) Each candidate is asked a set of structured questions. The interviews are all taped. The PALS Committee then discusses the interviews, reviews the questionnaires, and makes a recommendation to the MCEA Board. A 58% vote by the PALS Committee is necessary for a recommendation. The Board then reviews the recommendations, considers the broader political contexts, and makes its own recommendations; again with a 58% majority requirement. Those recommendations then go to MCEA’s final decision-making body, the Representative Assembly. At the RA, typically more than 170 elected MCEA Reps from schools all across the county discuss and debate the candidates. Approval of final recommendations of candidates again requires a 58% majority vote.

Freak of the Week

Anyone who can prove the following statement wrong gets a case of Dogfish Head 90 IPA and a no-prize.

Never before in the history of Maryland have two incumbent Congressmen and a MoCo Apple Ballot school board candidate gone down in the same primary night. Go ahead, start doing the research to prove me wrong!

And here is the strangest question you will ever see on a political blog: what do MCEA-backed school board candidate Alies Muskin and my tailbone have in common? Answer: both of them were done in by an ice storm.

MCEA's Apple Ballot, the WMD of county politics, relies on mass volunteering for distribution. Back in 2006, the Teachers fielded at least six Apple Ballot ladies in shifts at my precinct. Yesterday, only one Apple Ballot lady showed up. She left when the flurries started at 11 and no one replaced her. The rain started falling around 2, and a couple hours later, a thin sheet of ice covered every hard surface. I found this out the hard way when I fell down my front steps, ba-BUMP ba-BUMP ba-BUMP. Thus the considerable sympathy in my bruised tailbone for Ms. Muskin's plight. (Worry not, D18 legislators: I can still handle a shovel.) Philip Kauffman and Tommy Le, each of whom had run for school board before, edged out Muskin probably on name recognition alone.

I tell you, people, you can't get election analysis like this on CNN!

What a Way to Seek an Endorsement

Did you read the Post’s article on the Montgomery County school board candidates the other day? Did you see at-large candidate Tommy Le’s comments on the Montgomery County Education Association?

Le, by contrast, opposes the [teachers’] raises and the influence wielded by the teachers association, which he referred to as the "Montgomery County Extortion Association" during a telephone interview. He said labor support has packed the school board with people who "owe their allegiance to anything that benefits the union."

So Le is a principled objector who’s going to stand up to the “extortionists,” right? Wrong.

It turns out that Le actively sought the Teachers’ endorsement, sending in a questionnaire last December and sitting for an interview with them. In that questionnaire, Le described the current collective bargaining agreement as “a win-win situation for all concerns.” When the Teachers asked him, “Would you support honoring negotiated agreements, especially in tight fiscal times,” Le replied, “Yes.” Le also supported continued inclusion of MCEA on the schools’ Executive Leadership Team and Deputies’ Operating Budget Committee (a sure mechanism for “influence”). It was only after the Teachers endorsed Alies Muskin that Le went on the warpath.

Stranger still, Connection Newspapers reported the following during Le’s last school board run in October 2006:

Le said that he has not sought the endorsement of any organization because he does not want to be “subjected to their interests in the future.” “I want [to be able] to put the interests of the students first over the teachers’ union in case of financial crisis,” he said.

So first he doesn’t want an endorsement. Then he does. Then when he doesn’t get it, the Teachers are “extortionists.” What’s that old rule about getting out of the way of a politician who’s blowing himself up?

So here’s my idea: let’s get Kevin Gillogly to endorse him. That’ll put this campaign to bed for sure.

A Former Nevada Resident Reflects on the Democratic Caucuses

I'll bet you guys didn't know that I once lived in Nevada. Yes, it's true and I have the cheesy Las Vegas souvenirs to prove it. And as a former resident, I have a few things to say about Hillary Clinton's victory there.

Nearly a decade before I became acquainted with the joys of crossing the Intersection of Death, I was assigned to work a building trades organizing campaign in Las Vegas. Once I had unpacked my Van Halen CDs in my apartment, I went to see the Kings of Sinville - Culinary Workers Local Union 226. What I found was quite simply one of the most remarkable labor organizations that North America had ever seen. They had a savvy, battle-hardened leadership. They had the best research operation of any local union anywhere. They had an excellent organizing program. They had a hard-hitting political program. And best of all, they had a strong relationship with their members. Culinary was known for launching strikes against law-breaking casinos that went on for decades. That's right - their members walked on picket lines old enough to be mentioned in the Bible. As a young labor union researcher, I was in awe of them.

Culinary's political power in Las Vegas compares to MCEA's power in Montgomery County. But unlike MCEA, Culinary faces a state right-to-work law, a vigorous state Republican Party and giant, politically-connected gambling megacorporations that employ its members and occasionally run afoul of its contracts. Few unions can succeed in such a climate. Culinary does so through a ruthless blend of brains and brawn, mating its sophisticated staff with its militant, picket-sign-carrying membership.

That's why I'm as surprised as anyone that Culinary did not deliver the Democratic caucuses to its endorsed candidate, Senator Barack Obama. The Washington Post would have us believe that Culinary's power in Nevada is overrated. But I don't think that's a fair assessment for two reasons:

1. Culinary only announced its endorsement of Obama eight days before the primary. This did not give the union much time to educate its membership about its choice. All good unions know that members need to be persuaded, not instructed, to support their endorsed candidates at election time, and Culinary is no exception. Culinary's late endorsement was a miscalculation by its normally astute leadership, but it is not a sign of weakness.

2. Senator Hillary Clinton clearly has more name recognition and popular support than the Clark County Commissioners that Culinary usually beats up on.

So I'm not completely sure what this result says about Culinary, Nevada politics or Senator Clinton's campaign. But I'm pretty sure what it says about Senator Obama. The fact that one of North America's greatest local unions could not bring home a win for him in its stronghold is not a good sign for the junior Senator from Illinois.

A Note on Labor Endorsements in CD4

Here's a quick observation from a labor guy on union endorsements in the Wynn-Edwards race.

The labor movement has been unusually divided between the top two contenders in CD 4: Al Wynn, the incumbent and Donna Edwards, the returning challenger. Wynn's biggest labor endorsers are the MSTA/NEA funds (the state teachers), the Washington Metro AFL-CIO, the Maryland-DC AFL-CIO, SEIU Local 400 (Prince George's local schools employees), AFSCME Local 2250 (Prince George's government employees) and the Washington DC Building Trades. Edwards' endorsers include the national SEIU, the national UNITE-HERE, UFCW Local 400 (grocery workers) and Progressive Maryland. She has also earned important non-labor endorsements from NOW, the Sierra Club and Emily's List.

When labor unions endorse, they bring either money, people power or both. In the Wynn-Edwards race, both of the leading candidates have enough money to compete. And both of them already have lots of name recognition in the district. So the labor endorsements that will matter the most will come from unions that 1. have lots of members in the district, 2. can get their members to turn out, and 3. have volunteers that can handle other tasks on behalf of the campaigns, including communication with non-members.

On the Wynn side, the most meaningful endorsements come from the Teachers. Both MCEA and PGCEA use Apple Ballots in their campaigns. But there are real questions as to whether either Apple Ballot will be used for a federal race and whether either affiliate will truly work hard for Wynn. On the Edwards side, the most meaningful endorsements come from UFCW Local 400 (grocery workers), the national SEIU and especially Progressive Maryland. PM has a large email list and engages in plenty of door-to-door work. But it will have to be just as active in Prince George's as it usually is in Montgomery to maximize its impact for Edwards.

So my best guess is that if the Teachers go all-out for Wynn, he'll have the edge. If they don't, PM will give the edge to Donna Edwards. But labor support is only one small dimension in this race. The overriding factors will be the level of satisfaction with Wynn inside the district and the relative skill each side shows in getting turnout. And the minor candidates could drain a few votes from Edwards, though none has yet demonstrated real strength in the district.

Two other interesting facts stand out. First, the 7000-member UFCW Local 1994 (the MoCo government employees) has not endorsed either candidate. Second, it is extremely unusual for a local union (SEIU Local 400) to take an opposite position from its parent. I cannot recall this happening inside my union, where the international and the regional councils closely align. It is probably a sign of the unusual volatility and strong feelings in this particular race.

The Teachers vs. Neighborspac

Note: this post originally appeared on Just Up the Pike.

The reaction to my earlier guest blog (Teachers Union: the 800 lb. Gorilla of MoCo Politics) contained some agreement and some disagreement. Critics of my analysis question the relevance of the Apple Ballot, arguing that the county’s voters made their decisions on another basis, namely growth. I thought this comment was worthy of further examination.

Local politicians have two elementary tasks: A) develop and refine their message, and B) amplify it. Message content is the product of the politician’s beliefs and his or her opinion of the positions of the constituents. Message amplification is a logistical issue: the candidates need to spread their message to the greatest number of voters. In the 2006 primary election, amplification was a critical determinant of electoral success.

Message amplification is affected by the way in which voters obtain political information. “Passive consumption” involves television coverage, newspaper articles, campaign literature and advertisements. These sources are easily available, quickly consumed, and require no sacrifice or time adjustments by voters. “Active consumption” involves attendance at campaign events, writing letters and emails, and actual meetings with candidates and surrogates – sometimes at the voters’ initiative. These activities require considerably more time and effort for voters, and so they are far less frequently used than passive consumption.

In national races, passive consumption is often enough to allow voters to make relatively informed decisions. The current U.S. Senate race in Virginia is one example. Voters can read many newspaper articles and view frequent television coverage to form their opinions of George Allen and Jim Webb. They do not have to actually hear each candidate speak in person to learn their positions on, for example, the war in Iraq. Each candidate can additionally draw on a party apparatus and many surrogates to press his case for election.

In local races, passive consumption is less practical. Television coverage of the Montgomery County Executive race was scanty and perfunct. The print media was better, but Washington Post voters had to dig into the Metro section to read about the executive candidates. Television and print coverage of the county council and statehouse races was very sparse. The candidates’ literature and websites were hardly more informative. Every one of the Democratic candidates say that they support education, oppose traffic congestion, support diversity and will work on behalf of their constituents. No candidate proclaims their support for unfettered development. As a result, passive consumption – the preferred information receipt mechanism of most voters – is not sufficient to allow them to differentiate between local candidates. The sole useful source of passive consumption may be the Apple Ballot, which comes from a trusted source (the Teachers) and is delivered just outside the voting precinct.

As for active consumption, I practiced it during this election cycle. I met eleven candidates running for county office and almost every statehouse candidate in my district. I attended one debate, three campaign coffees, and several community events where candidates appeared. By September 12th, I felt I had learned enough to cast an informed vote. But how many voters actually apply this much energy to determining their choice in local races? A few thousand in the entire county? If this is the case, then where did the tens of thousands of votes necessary to elect winning at-large council candidates come from?

Faced with the limited usefulness of passive consumption and the infrequent practice of active consumption, the candidates must work very hard to reach out to voters. One aspect of this is fund-raising; an often-detested job that most candidates regard as a necessary evil. Another aspect is endorsements – especially from organizations that can deploy volunteers. Many candidates regard election-day volunteers as a more valuable resource than dollars since enthusiastic bodies are much more scarce than money. I personally witnessed a half-dozen candidates show up at my precinct to lobby last-minute voters. Two sent their wives.

The critical advantage of the Teachers Union in the 2006 Democratic primary relates to its epic ability to mobilize large numbers of election-day volunteers. I saw at least four carriers of the Teachers’ “Apple Ballot” at my voting precinct. This projects to over 800 “Apple” volunteers across the county if the union’s efforts were evenly spread. I have not heard of either Neighbors for a Better Montgomery (a group favoring development restrictions) or the Washington Post endorsement staff fielding a similar number of volunteers across the county. And of course, the Teachers’ mobilization capacity was substantially aided by the closing of the public schools on primary day. Distribution of the Apple Ballot may have been the most effective information consumption technique of the entire campaign, passive or active, by any organization or candidate.

The Apple volunteers were able to sway the opinions of many of the last-minute voters in my precinct by appealing to them to consider the opinions of “teachers” – not the “Teachers Union.” In my thirteen hours outside my precinct, I saw over a hundred voters read the Apple, occasionally while sitting on a bench outside the door and away from the electioneers, before heading into the voting building. The fact that the union’s endorsees won 27 of 30 contested races at the state and county levels testifies to the success of its efforts.

Four years ago, two of the Teachers’ endorsees were losing at-large candidates Blair Ewing and Marc Elrich. So far this year, none of the Teachers’ county-level endorsees have lost, including the phoenix-like Elrich. In fact, the Teachers’ at-large county council candidates (George Leventhal, Elrich and Duchy Trachtenberg) finished first, second and third, while two incumbents the Teachers did not endorse, Nancy Floreen and Mike Subin, finished fourth and fifth. Not being foolish, the Teachers declined to endorse the opponents of council members Phil Andrews (District 3) and Marilyn Praisner (District 4), each of whom was sure to crush their opposition.

As my critics argue, growth was certainly a big issue in this race. It had a significant impact on the County Executive contest, in which MCEA made no endorsement. And it was also a factor in the county council races, as any observer of one of the candidate debates would conclude. But compare the electoral record of the Teachers with that of Neighbors for a Better Montgomery (aka Neighborspac), a citizens organization arguing for limits on development. MCEA endorsed five candidates in contested county council primaries: Mike Knapp (District 2), Valerie Ervin (District 5), and Leventhal, Trachtenberg and Elrich (at-large). All of those candidates won. (The fate of Republican Howard Denis, who represents District 1 and was endorsed by both the Teachers and Neighborspac, will be decided in the general election.)

Neighborspac endorsed nine candidates in contested county primaries: Of those, six won. The group’s at-large candidates finished second, third, seventh and eleventh, while MCEA’s picks finished first, second and third. Neighborspac took more risks than the Teachers, choosing to oppose four incumbents, three of whom won despite the group’s opposition. (Subin, a target of both the Teachers and Neighborspac, was the only defeated incumbent.) MCEA was more conservative, choosing to endorse three rather than four at-large council candidates, leaving room for one of its non-endorsed incumbents to win. And while the Teachers clearly disliked Andrews and Praisner (criticizing them as “fiscal conservatives”), they did not support their opponents.

Neighborspac and MCEA faced off against each other on incumbent at-large council member and 2006 council president George Leventhal. Neighborspac criticized Leventhal for accepting 43% of his campaign contributions from developers, a charge the council member disputed. The group even depicted Leventhal as a puppet dancing on developer-controlled strings in its infamous “County Council Can-Can” internet animation.

The Teachers rallied to Leventhal’s defense. In endorsing him, MCEA wrote, “He championed the ‘Montgomery Cares’ program, which makes health care accessible for poor, uninsured county residents. George is seen as one of the more reliable pro-labor members of the council, consistently supporting negotiated contracts and the revenue proposals necessary to fund them.”

MCEA won this clash as Leventhal finished first in the at-large race. Additionally, MCEA endorsee and incumbent Mike Knapp (District 2) defeated Neighborspac endorsee and challenger Sharon Dooley by nearly 30 points. If growth was the dominant issue in the election and Neighborspac the most influential group, how can the victories of Leventhal and Knapp be explained? Overall, MCEA’s 5-0 record compares favorably to Neighborspac’s 6-3 record.

Neighborspac has two of the three elements required for a successful citizens’ pressure group: a research-backed policy agenda and political allies. It lacks the third element: a large number of volunteers, particularly election-day volunteers. The group should consider developing an election-day “Neighbors Ballot,” assuming it can round up 800+ volunteers to distribute it. Until Neighborspac assembles this kind of volunteer network, it will not match the power of the Teachers Union. Still, with a council lineup including at least five endorsees in addition to new County Executive Ike Leggett, Neighborpac is poised for success in obtaining at least some of its goals.

The Teachers, with a so-far perfect electoral record in this year’s county council contests, a professional and experienced leadership, and an army of election-day volunteers, should score many of their legislative wins by heftier margins than a mere five votes. Their power will soon be put to the test as their current contract expires next summer.

The 800 lb Gorilla of MoCo Politics

The mainstream media and the blogs are characterizing the 2006 Democratic primary in Maryland’s Montgomery County as the year that voters turned against growth. After all, many of the county-level winners – especially Ike Leggett, Marc Elrich, Duchy Trachtenberg and Valerie Ervin – ran on slow (or slower) growth platforms. So-called pro-growth candidates like Steve Silverman did not do as well. There is some truth to this story. However, to understand the results completely, we must realize that 2006 is the year the Teachers Union became the 800 pound gorilla of Montgomery County politics.

I first realized this while I was working at the polls on primary day. I spent all day at my precinct circulating a petition to build an east-side Metro entrance at Georgia and Forest Glen. I talked to all the political volunteers who showed up. Many candidates sent volunteers: county executive candidates Silverman and Leggett, county council candidates Ervin and Hans Riemer, and six of the eight District 18 state delegate candidates. Many candidates also showed up in person for parts of the day. The volunteers behaved pretty much the same way: chasing voters and giving them their candidates’ literature. Some voters took it while others didn’t. In many cases, the volunteers seemed to neutralize each other.

However, the candidates were not the only ones who sent volunteers. For almost the entire day, volunteers with the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA) were present at the precinct. These volunteers distributed the MCEA's “Apple Ballot” – a district-customized endorsement list appearing on a red, apple-shaped handout. The MCEA volunteers did not tell voters that the Apple Ballot candidates were endorsed by the Teachers Union. Instead, they asked them, “Would you like to know who teachers are voting for?” The majority of the voters said yes, took the ballot, and read it before entering the booth. The fact that the public schools were closed on primary day no doubt helped the MCEA field an army of these volunteers across the county.

Many voters had pre-conceived opinions about some of the top-ticket races, especially Cardin-Mfume for U.S. Senate and Leggett-Silverman for County Executive (both races in which the Teachers made no endorsements). However, most had no opinion on the down-ticket races such as county council, state legislature and school board. That is where the Apple Ballot made the biggest difference. After all, who wants to vote against teachers?

The MCEA endorsed 41 county, statehouse and school board candidates. Of those candidates, 30 had contested races. Apple Ballot candidates won 27 races and lost 3. That’s an astounding 90% success rate. The Teachers had decisive impacts on the following races:

At-Large County Council
Montgomery County has four at-large county council seats, and all were up for election. Three incumbents were running: George Leventhal, Nancy Floreen and Mike Subin. Ten challengers were also running, of whom the strongest were Marc Elrich and Duchy Trachtenberg. Conventional wisdom would dictate that the three incumbents would cruise to victory as the ten challengers diluted each other’s votes. But the Teachers had other ideas.

MCEA was upset that Floreen and Subin had supported delaying a 2003 cost-of-living increase that was due to teachers under their contract because of budget problems. As a result, Leventhal and challengers Elrich and Trachtenberg made the Apple Ballot, while incumbents Floreen and Subin were excluded. The Apple candidates won the top three slots, while Floreen earned the fourth seat and Subin lost. Subin’s loss was particularly notable because he was a 20-year council veteran and the long-time head of the council’s education committee.

District 5 County Council
Two candidates were running for this Silver Spring-Takoma Park-Wheaton-Kensington seat: school board member and council staffer Valerie Ervin, and Rock the Vote political director Hans Riemer. Ervin had the endorsements of most Montgomery County organizations and the advantages of council connections and a long residency. Riemer outraised Ervin $118,000 to $57, 000 – far outpacing Ervin in individual contributions – and knocked on at least three times as many doors. Most bloggers were calling this a close race. But the Apple was telling voters to support Ervin.

At my precinct, Riemer’s volunteers were present all day while Ervin’s came and went. Riemer’s people thought they had the field to themselves, but I told them, “You’re not competing with the Ervin people. You’re competing with those ladies with the apples.” The power of the Apple prevailed and Ervin blew out Riemer 62%-38%.

District 18 State Legislature
One of the three state delegate seats opened up when the incumbent state senator retired and one of the three incumbent delegates moved up to run for senate. The resulting open delegate seat attracted six challengers in addition to the two incumbents who were running for re-election. The field was deep: all six were solid candidates and had pockets of support in the district.

The two incumbents were Jane Lawton and Ana Gutierrez, who ran on a slate with the uncontested state senate candidate. Lawton worked hard, visited the neighborhoods, appeared at dozens of events and finished first with 20% of the vote. Gutierrez’s efforts focused almost solely on Spanish-language media, but that plus her slate support and incumbency earned her second place with 16% of the vote. And of course, both were apple-approved.

That left the third and final slot, and the two strongest contenders were young, aggressive lawyers Dan Farrington and Jeff Waldstreicher. At first glance, Farrington appeared to hold most of the advantages. Sometimes compared to Bill Clinton, Farrington surpassed Waldstreicher in public speaking and one-on-one contact and earned the Washington Post and Gazette endorsements (neither of which backed Waldstreicher). And while both candidates raised slightly more than $100,000, about 90% of Waldstreicher’s money came from himself and his family while Farrington had more than 450 contributors. One advantage Farrington did not possess was work ethic; both candidates worked extremely hard. Waldstreicher’s pesky, hustling style matched Farrington’s omnipresence and the two blanketed the district.

But Waldstreicher was the Apple candidate and let everyone know it. Every one of his literature pieces showed the apple, and he usually started off his voter contacts saying he was “teacher-endorsed.” Visitors to his website even found a giant red apple flying across the screen before seeing the candidate’s picture! Waldstreicher’s apple-carriers earned him a 392-vote victory for the final delegate seat (pending provisional ballot counting).

As for the school board, apple-endorsed Shirley Brandman won 59% of the vote in a 5-way contest for the at-large seat. And apple-endorsed Nancy Navarro won 57% of the vote in a 3-way race for the District 5 seat. If those winning percentages resemble each other, it’s probably not a coincidence.

Of course, each of these races involved other factors besides the Teachers. Voters were clearly tired of development, and that favored Elrich and Trachtenberg. Ervin’s supporters consistently criticized Riemer for his two-year county residency even as they were privately surprised by his fund-raising and hyperactive door-knocking. And the county’s widespread voting machine meltdown may have affected the District 18 statehouse race. But the MCEA’s ballot was the common thread in all these contests. I personally witnessed over a hundred voters reading the Apple while turning away candidate-specific literature from the other volunteers.

So what does the Teachers’ emergence as Montgomery County’s dominant political force mean for the future? With property tax growth slowing down, the next county council will face tough budgetary decisions. Public schools account for half of the county’s budget and would be an obvious location for cuts. But don’t expect any action there: the county’s politicians have learned that those who cross the Teachers Union once are unlikely to be given a second opportunity.