State and County Budgets Create Perfect Storm for MoCo

The Gazette and Free State Politics have both covered the state’s continuing budget problems. Now the Gazette informs us that Montgomery County is facing at least a $240 million deficit next year even after closing a $297 million deficit this year. These twin typhoons are coming together to pound the county once again.

First, let’s look at the state budget. Back in April, we noted that despite tax hikes and spending cuts in the 2007 special session and the 2008 general session, the state had not completely closed its long-term deficit. At that time, the state’s Department of Legislative Services (DLS) projected a $243 million deficit in FY 2010 and a $596 million deficit in FY 2011. Thereafter, deficit amounts depended on the passage of the slots referendum. DLS said:

Based on the assumption that the constitutional amendment to implement video lottery terminals is approved by voters in the fall of 2008, the projected cash and structural shortfall narrows significantly by fiscal 2013. It is estimated that revenue from video lottery terminals will add nearly $500 million in revenue in fiscal 2012, increasing to an estimated $660 million in fiscal 2013. If the constitutional amendment is not successful, the structural deficit is projected to remain at the roughly -$600 million level.

Since then, the Comptroller’s office released estimates of state revenues through May. The Comptroller wrote:

General fund revenues for the month of May totaled $961.0 million, an increase of 15.1% over May 2007. For the fiscal year to date, general fund collections are $11.312 billion, growth of 5.1%. After a steep decline in April (adjusted for the rate increase), the sales tax showed some growth in May. Year-to-date, revenues are slightly under expectations, with underperformance in the individual income tax, sales tax and tobacco tax offset by strong performance from most other revenue sources.

We reproduce the summary data below.


A 5.1% increase in general fund revenues is not a disastrous performance, but the Comptroller states that it is “slightly under expectations.” That is the key. A very large chunk of state spending is driven by formulas, including education, special education, community colleges, Medicaid, library subsidies, land conservation, community services to seniors and aid to counties, municipalities and local health departments plus more. That says nothing of benefit payments to state employees. If these formulas call for a spending rate growth that exceeds the growth in revenues, there will be a gap that must be resolved by the Governor and legislature. Right now it appears that the state’s deficit may very well exceed the $243 million originally projected for next year.

And now we look at Montgomery County’s budget. This blog blanket-covered the County Council’s agonizing, but ultimately successful effort to close its $297 million deficit in May. Now they face at least a $240 million deficit next year. But that could change depending on the state of the county’s economy.

Back in May, I wrote the following on the county’s budget:

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.

Since then, the county’s Department of Finance reported residential real estate volumes of $287 million in March, $385 million in April and $381 million in May. Average home prices are still down in the low five hundred thousands (well below the July 2007 peak of $601,995), but unit sales exceeded 700 homes in both April and May, the best performance since last August. If the real estate market continues to improve, the county’s budget office may need to adjust its deficit estimate.

Still, the county’s budget deficit will be substantial and that means the public employee union contracts may very well be back on the table. Right now, the vote count looks precarious for the unions. Council Members Phil Andrews and Duchy Trachtenberg both recommended a 2-point cost-of-living adjustment cut last time. Council Member Roger Berliner supported a two-day furlough. New Council Member Donald Praisner ran on the notion that the contracts should be “reviewed.” The unions may be only one vote away from a contract cut.

Council Member Trachtenberg, Chair of the Management and Fiscal Policy Committee, had this to say to the Gazette:

“Clearly we are expecting revenue that is not on the high end, and we certainly recognize that next year’s budget cycle will be a difficult one,” said Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At large) of North Bethesda, chairwoman of the council’s finance committee. “It wouldn’t surprise me if at the end of the calendar year, we won’t have to look at more program savings, and a possible mid-year savings plan, which are what we try to do in a difficult deficit situation.”

Savings at mid-year would reduce next year’s deficit. That will in turn relieve the pressure on the unions’ contracts. It may therefore be in the unions’ interest to consider scouring their agencies’ budgets for potential reductions.

But any détente at the county level could be easily undone by the state. The lords of Annapolis may very well be preparing a nasty witches’ brew for Montgomery County, including a handoff of funding responsibility for teachers’ pensions. That move alone would easily swamp any savings identified by the unions. And so dealing with the county’s budget problems is not merely the responsibility of the county politicians and the public employee unions. It is also the responsibility of Montgomery’s state legislators to protect the county from any damage threatened by the state’s budget difficulties. We will be discussing this at length next week.

The Scandals of MoCo

That really is one humdinger of a scandal Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon is embroiled in! It’s got everything – money, corruption, sex, evil developers, furs, sex, contracting violations, sex, and probably even more sex. I hope for Baltimore’s sake that she doesn’t have some kind of perverted competition going on with Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. (My money’s on Kwame because the text messages are documented.) But then I started thinking – how does MoCo compare on the scandal meter? The answer is that we are just pathetic. Take a look at the pitiful scraps we are offering:

1. Jerry Weast’s meeting with the unions
When MCPS superintendent Jerry Weast discussed support for Nancy Navarro in the recent District 4 race with the county’s unions, he must have thought he was helping the school board president. He wasn’t. All he got for his trouble was spankings from bloggers and three straight weeks of negative Gazette coverage. Weast wound up hurting Navarro by giving ammo to her opponents and encouraging Don Praisner’s voters to turn out. This was a legitimate scandal because no school superintendent should be involved in elections, but its ultimate impact was to backfire on Weast. Scandal meter (1= Bennifer, 10=Monica): 3.

2. Illegal anti-Navarro robocalls
In a story first reported here and then picked up by the Gazette, illegal anonymous robocalls went out branding Navarro a tool of the developers. This played right into the hands of her opponents, all of whom rejected developer money. A few of us held a nice parlor game trying to figure out the source (I think it’s Foolio) but I doubt the calls alone tipped the race. And let’s face it – a Baltimore candidate who didn’t use illegal calls would be regarded as soft. Scandal meter: 3.

3. Duchy challenges council trips to Israel
When County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg found out that the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington was paying for trips to Israel by council members, she requested an opinion from the county’s ethics commission. Ultimately, the commission ruled the group could not pay for the trips even though they had been going on for 20 years. Duchy’s instincts were proven right although I think the Council Members could benefit from some time away from each other every now and then. Scandal meter: 2.

4. Silverman and Knapp caught breaking the ex parte rule
Near the end of the 2006 primary election, the now-deceased MoCo Progressive blog publicized meetings between a developer lawyer and Council Members Steve Silverman and Mike Knapp. The meetings violated the county’s ex parte rule, which forbids private discussions between Council Members and outside parties on zoning issues.

Now I know that the ex parte rule is supposed to prevent developer (and citizen) influence over land use issues, but this may be a little silly. I want the right to talk to my Council Members about anything! Only in MoCo would we label a conversation between a developer and a politician a scandal. In Baltimore, that’s called “lunch.” Scandal meter: 2.

5. Ann Marimow catches Praisner campaign manager in council building
During the District 4 special election, Washington Post reporter Ann Marimow exposed Praisner campaign manager Eric Hensal’s trips to meet allied council staffers in the council building during business hours. The staffers claimed they used personal cell phones to communicate and ate lunch outside the grounds.

This is not just small potatoes, it's tater tots. The real scandal is how much time I spend in Rockville. One of these days the receptionists will get wise to my fake County Council staff badge and throw me out onto the street where I belong! Scandal meter: 1 (Hensal), 4 (Adam).

So what's next? Will one of the Council Members forget to wear green on St. Patrick's Day? Will MCDCC appoint Itchy or Scratchy to the next delegate vacancy? (Can you imagine their presentations before the committee?) Will Marc Elrich be caught skinny-dipping in Sligo Creek? Unfortunately, none of the above will probably occur.

Yawn... I guess I'll wake up when Marion Barry moves here.

Give Them a Raise!

Folks, I have been in the labor movement for almost 14 years and rarely have I seen a more oppressed group of workers. They are vastly underpaid compared to their peers. They work extremely long hours with no overtime payments. They toil in cramped, noisy worksites with constant chaos all around. Their employers are brutal, never thanking them for good work and always flogging them for more output. Worst of all, when they screw up, their bosses drag their names into the newspapers.

Am I talking about carpenters? I could be, but not in this column. How about construction laborers, roofers, bricklayers, janitors or domestic workers? No, not this time. I’m talking about workers who are, in their own way, almost as exploited: the members of the Montgomery County Council.

OK, I just heard you yell, “Adam must be eating too many bon-bons again!” But please bear with me.

Montgomery County Council Members are paid $89,721 per year. The Council President, an office that rotates annually, is paid $98,693. That’s barely a middle-class income in this county. Just look at our housing costs. As of a year ago, the average price of an existing detached single-family home in Montgomery County was $540,000. If you assume annual property taxes of $3,000, an interest rate of 5.75% and $40,000 down, then 42% of a Council Member’s pre-tax salary would be required to make the monthly payment. So we don’t pay our Council Members enough to allow them to afford a house!

Now look at their peers. D.C. Council Members earned $115,000 each last year. There’s thirteen of them serving just over half the population that our nine Council Members cover. Maryland state legislators start at just over $43,000 for three months of work. And there are even quite a few county government staffers that make more money than their superiors on the Council.

And what do our Council Members get for these crumbs? For starters, they get over a hundred emails a day. (I get about that many, but most of them are scams or porn.) They endure endless meetings with wild-eyed activists. (I can hear my wife laughing.) The particularly unlucky Council Members are hauled into Marc Elrich’s office for long lectures on growth policy.

Want more? How about nasty phone calls at home. And pickets in front of their houses. And just to add insult to injury, voters approved a 2006 ballot measure to designate Council Members as “full-time” without raising their pay.

Now if you’ve ever met these Council Members, you know that they are all smart and capable. All of them could be earning far more in the private sector. Take Valerie Ervin. She has 25 years experience in the labor movement plus five more in local government. Any international union would be on its hands and knees to hire her as a political director for more than twice her council salary. She could be flying out to conferences in Palm Springs and Disney World and eating fist-sized shrimps with U.S. Senators if she wanted. Just think about that the next time you’re yelling at her over a cracked sidewalk! And good luck finding anyone who was smarter or worked harder than the late Marilyn Praisner. If she had stayed at the CIA, Osama bin Laden would be on the business end of a bunker-buster by now.

If ever a group of workers needed a union, this is it. So let’s get organized! Every Council Member should wear a button that says, “Pay me what I’m worth!” (Can you imagine the reaction at town hall meetings?) We’ll set up a picket line outside 100 Maryland Avenue. And maybe we’ll have to call a strike. That will stick it to those miserly residents!

Council Members of MoCo, unite! You have nothing to lose but your Blackberries!

End of Column

(Psst… OK, all the readers have left their computers, people. I held up my end of the deal. Now let’s talk about that pedestrian tunnel project…)

How the Planning Board Vote Went Down

The Gazette reported the County Council’s selection of Joseph Alfandre and Amy Presley to the Planning Board yesterday. But the details of the vote are more interesting than the results.

By law, the council had to select one Democrat and one Republican to fill the two vacancies created by the departure of Allison Bryant and the death of Gene Lynch. On the Democratic seat, the first vote taken by the council resulted in four votes for Action Committee for Transit President Ben Ross (from George Leventhal, Valerie Ervin, Duchy Trachtenberg and Phil Andrews), three votes for Kentlands developer Alfandre (from Marc Elrich, Roger Berliner and Mike Knapp) and two votes for former Prince George’s County Director of Parks and Recreation Marye Wells-Harley (from Nancy Floreen and Don Praisner). Since no candidate had a majority, a run-off vote was held. Ms. Floreen and Mr. Praisner supported Alfandre, giving him a 5-4 victory.

The interesting fact here is the nature of the two voting blocs. Many observers expected the five slow-growth Council Members (Elrich, Andrews, Trachtenberg, Berliner and Praisner) to decide on one candidate. This group has been sticking together, more or less, on votes on the budget, free parking at libraries and demolishing the Hillmead house. But that did not happen this time even though the selection of a Planning Board candidate is about as critical a development decision as the council will ever make. Council Members Leventhal, Ervin and Trachtenberg are known to be enthusiastic Purple Line supporters and perhaps that was one reason why they supported Ross. But most of the others concluded Alfandre was the better overall candidate. Most surprisingly, anti-development bad boy Marc Elrich and former End Gridlock slate member Nancy Floreen agreed on the same Planning Board candidate – and a developer no less!

This is a very positive event for a rather rancorous county government. What else might Mr. Elrich and Ms. Floreen agree on? Perhaps they should find out. I for one would love to see the product of an Elrich-Floreen alliance, if only because its very existence would bewilder the rest of the council!

Legendary Clarksburg activist Amy Presley was expected by everyone to win the other seat. But her move to the Planning Board creates some challenges for her Clarksburg Town Center Advisory Committee. Clarksburg has been a mess in recent weeks with the filing of multiple lawsuits and an apocalyptic showdown in which residents turned against each other in front of developer Newland Communities. (As an activist, I can tell you that there is nothing worse than seeing your own troops go to pieces in the face of the enemy.) Presley’s successors must find a way to get the best deal possible from Newland while keeping their own people together. That is going to be a challenge.

A word on outgoing Planning Board Member Allison Bryant. I will not soon forget how Bryant nearly fell out of his chair with roaring laughter at the sight of our Crossing Georgia video last winter. I have testified many times before many panels and have often wondered whether some of the presiding officials were paying attention. I never asked that question of Bryant, an engaging man who delighted in sparring with speakers. I did not always agree with him, but the Planning Board will not be the same without Bryant’s rolling eyes and thigh-slapping good humor. Planning, politics and life are more enjoyable if you can have fun, a valuable lesson taught by Allison Bryant to the rest of us.

It’s Over – For Now

After a torturous few months, the Montgomery County Council finally reached a unanimous budget agreement today. But while the bleary-eyed Council Members are no doubt working their way through their liquor cabinets as we write this, the fiscal hangover will arrive all too soon.

Yesterday’s cliffhanger boiled down to this: three Council Members (Duchy Trachtenberg, Phil Andrews and Roger Berliner) wanted $20 million in “labor savings” gained by a 2-day furlough, while two Council Members (Valerie Ervin and George Leventhal) said they would not violate the public employees’ contracts. Marc Elrich expressed dissatisfaction with the structure of the property tax while Nancy Floreen argued for more cuts not connected to the labor agreements. The final solution announced this morning by Council President Mike Knapp contained elements of every one of these ideas. We present the text of his proposal to our readers:

Statement by Council President Mike Knapp

To enable the Council to reach common ground and complete action on the FY09 operating budget, I propose the following final steps in the budget process:

1. Reduce the amount of property tax proposed by the County Executive by $20 million.

2. Keep property tax rates at the current level and provide a credit to owner-occupied homes of $579.

3. Reduce expenditures and change resources as follows:

$8.0 million from County Government and MCPS, to be achieved by reducing employee/personnel costs and securing productivity improvements and increased efficiencies. Each will report back to the Council about how these reductions will be achieved.

$1 million in fund balance from Montgomery College.

$3.5 million from the Council’s changes on May 15 to PAYGO (cash) in the FY09 capital budget and resources for Park and Planning.

After a long night of yelling, negotiating, coffee-swilling and perhaps coffee-throwing, none of the Council Members had any fight left in them to repeat the political theater of prior days. All praised the placid Mike Knapp and none claimed victory over the others for their priorities. Apparently they have tired of providing fodder for loose-tongued bloggers and I do not blame them.

But everyone on all sides of the debate – the Council Members, their staff, the Executive Branch, the union leaders and all other observers – expect that the approval of this budget is only the first round in a bruising match. That is because FY10’s budget will most likely also have a deficit in the hundreds of millions and similar debates will no doubt erupt. Drink up, Council Members, because here is what the morning after will look like:

1. The public employee unions preserved their contracts this time. But two Council Members (Phil Andrews and Duchy Trachtenberg) openly favored two-point reductions in their cost of living adjustments (COLAs). One more, Roger Berliner, favored a two-day furlough proposed by Mr. Andrews. Another one, incoming Council Member Donald Praisner, suggested a need to “review” union contracts during his special election campaign. That leaves the County Council only one vote away from approving “labor savings” next year. The unions are well aware of this situation and must work out a strategy to respond. They would be well-served to stick together.

2. All sides must watch the real estate market, which drives the county’s volatile recordation and transfer taxes. In an earlier post, I stated:

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.

If the real estate market does not turn up by the end of this year, projected revenue growth for FY10 may be even slower than the anemic rates that constrained the FY09 budget.

3. The county is getting hit badly by rising fuel costs. The agencies’ budget requests did not adequately predict the meteoric recent rise in gas and diesel prices. If the County Executive submits a supplemental budget request to cover higher fuel costs, will the County Council be able to locate the money without offsetting spending cuts?

4. As we documented a month ago, the state budget continues to deteriorate. Rumors are flying that the state will have to cut aid to the counties next spring, perhaps even passing down the burden of paying teacher pension contributions. This would add MANY millions more to any county budget deficit next year.

The County Council, and especially its ever-smiling (but seldom-blogging) President Mike Knapp, performed very well this year under heavy pressure. They will need to rise to the occasion at least one more time before the current economic downtown is over.

Deadlock

The County Council gathered today to pass its budget for next year. Because that budget calls for a property tax hike in excess of the rate of inflation, the county’s charter requires seven votes for it to pass. Instead, the County Council split on a 4-4 vote. Deadlock.

First the preliminaries. The council voted unanimously to divert $25 million from the PAYGO program to the operating budget. As we reported yesterday, PAYGO is a cash contribution made by the county to its capital program, which is otherwise financed by bonds. Council Member Marc Elrich recommended this measure yesterday and the rest of the council agreed. The council also voted to cut its “reconciliation list,” or the new spending it intends to add to the County Executive’s proposal, from $40 million to $25 million. The two measures combined freed up $40 million for the budget, equal to the amount of “labor savings” proposed by Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg and Phil Andrews last week.

And then came the vote on Council President Mike Knapp’s proposed budget. That budget included a property tax hike of $138 million – equal to the amount proposed by the County Executive, but structured differently. The budget also did not alter the county’s labor contracts. Council Members Knapp, Valerie Ervin, George Leventhal and Nancy Floreen voted in favor. Council Members Elrich, Trachtenberg, Andrews and Roger Berliner voted against. Deadlock.

During the campaign season, many of these council members – all Democrats – tend to sound alike. All favor labor rights, helping poor people, fiscal responsibility, “smart” growth policy and high-quality services. The way to truly evaluate the differences between these council members is how they deal with the gritty specifics of governing. Ms. Floreen loves to say, “The devil is in the details.” (Spend a half-hour with her and she will say it twice.) She is absolutely correct and, in this budget season, there is plenty of hell to go around.


Valerie Ervin and George Leventhal stand on a principle: labor agreements must be honored. Ms. Ervin credits her former membership in the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (parent union of MCGEO) with helping her survive her days as a low-income single mother. Mr. Leventhal believes that high-quality services, especially the schools and public safety, are the reason why people move into Montgomery County. While many residents may be angry about taxation, he asserts that they are not angry at the public employees who serve and protect them. For both Ms. Ervin and Mr. Leventhal, any violation of the public employees’ agreements will erode the county’s ability to provide effective services and damage its value to residents over the long run.


Duchy Trachtenberg, Phil Andrews and Roger Berliner also stand on a principle: taxpayers and employees must both share the pain of reaching a budget in tough times. Ms. Trachtenberg believes that there are people in the county who are more vulnerable than public employees, including the poor, the homeless, seniors and the mentally ill. Mr. Andrews believes that it is only fair to ask county workers to accept pay reductions if residents are paying higher taxes. Whereas before he favored a two percent cost of living [COLA] reduction and “labor savings” in the amount of $40 million, he proposed today that public employees be furloughed without pay for two days. He expects that measure to save $20.5 million, which he would use to reduce the property tax hike. Mr. Berliner agreed with Mr. Andrews and declared that his furlough proposal did not “break the contracts.”

Marc Elrich did not vote against the budget because of the labor agreements, but because he disagrees with the structure of the property tax. As originally proposed by County Executive Ike Leggett, the property tax hike would have contained a significant rate increase but also a large increase in the tax credit. This would have been a rather progressive tax. The County Council voted 7-1 to decrease both the rate and the credit, effectively shifting the burden away from business and apartment buildings and onto homeowners. The council’s rationale was to lower the tax burden on renters by limiting its impact on rental buildings. Mr. Elrich would like a return to something resembling the County Executive’s proposal and is trying to leverage his vote accordingly. Since the property tax formula can be changed in multiple ways, perhaps Mr. Elrich can gain some movement in his desired direction.

Nancy Floreen said, “I don’t see the crisis particularly because we just added $20 million to the budget. I am bewildered by what the ‘crisis’ is.” Ms. Floreen has a point: the council added $40 million to the County Executive’s original spending proposal before cutting it back to $25 million today. These are hardly the acts of desperate times. She further advised against a “last minute reduction taken out of the backs of the people who provide the services.”

The council is now debating the disposition of $20 million out of a $4.3 billion budget. In almost any business or labor-management context, this relatively small sum could be worked out. But the issue has been hardened by the fact that both sides have adopted a position based on principle. Mr. Leventhal and Ms. Ervin will not bend on the labor agreements; Ms. Trachtenberg, Mr. Andrews and Mr. Berliner insist that tax increases must be accompanied by “labor savings.” Either side can block the budget because it requires seven of the sitting eight votes to pass.


And what of Council President Mike Knapp? Pity upcounty’s gentle giant. He is the man in the middle. The District of Columbia elects its Council President for a full term. The holder of that office possesses many carrots and sticks to cajole colleagues into line. But under Montgomery County's rotating Presidency, Mr. Knapp holds his office for only one year. He has much responsibility and little commensurate authority. He faces a badly divided County Council and is struggling to get them past their differences. But he must get them to agree. Because for a county government that is required by law to balance its budget, deadlock is not an option.

Council Votes 6-2 to Preserve Labor Agreements (Updated)

Last Friday, Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg and Phil Andrews voted in the council’s Management and Fiscal Policy (MFP) Committee to recommend $40 million in “labor savings” or “employee participation,” alternative terms for under-funding the county’s collective bargaining agreements with its employees. Today, they sought support for their proposal from the full County Council. They found none.

Labor contracts were not the only budget item considered by the Council. They also discussed the nature of the proposed property tax hike. The MFP Committee recommended that the County Executive’s proposed rate and his proposed credit be cut. The effect of that structural change would be to channel the tax burden onto homeowners and away from commercial properties, including apartment buildings occupied by renters. That proposal was approved by the Council by a 7-1 vote, with Council Member Marc Elrich dissenting. Council Members Trachtenberg and Andrews also recommended lowering the amount by which the property tax would exceed the charter limit from $138 million (which was the County Executive’s proposal) to $118 million. Ms. Trachtenberg and Mr. Andrews were joined by Mike Knapp and Roger Berliner, but Valerie Ervin, Marc Elrich, George Leventhal and Nancy Floreen voted against it. And so the property tax reduction failed on a 4-4 vote. Interestingly, Ms. Floreen commented that she voted against the reduction because she wanted to see a larger one.

But the main action of the day concerned “labor savings.” The 300+ people who mobbed the room were not there to lobby for a $20 million reduction in a tax hike. The vast majority were public employees present to defend their livelihoods. And at least from the perspective of political theater, the County Council did not disappoint.


Former union organizer Valerie Ervin hurled the first thunderbolt. “We could fund this budget right now and not go into the COLAs [cost of living adjustments],” she said. “A lot of this other stuff is just subterfuge.”

George Leventhal objected to any hint of “subterfuge,” defending the county government’s record of clean government. But he agreed with Ms. Ervin on the COLAs, saying, “I don’t really appreciate the term ‘employee participation.’ That’s a euphemism for busting contracts.”

Phil Andrews would not back down. He looked the 300+ public employees in the eye and told them, “Employees need to do their part… It would be unfair to expect taxpayers to pay a tax increase to fully fund employee contracts that would be 8% next year.” He praised MFP Chairwoman Trachtenberg, who had joined with him in recommending labor savings, for her “intelligence, diligence and guts.”

Duchy Trachtenberg also stuck to her guns. “I have stood with labor on a number of issues,” she said, citing her support for living wage legislation and the SEIU’s organizing campaign at Montgomery College. “I represent a million residents. Most of them don’t have an opportunity to join a union and benefit from collective bargaining agreements… I don’t disrespect you, but I respect the unrepresented, the seniors, the disabled and the homeless.” She told the crowd, “I have been the object of a lot of vilification. It doesn’t do any good to attack another person on a policy difference.”

But the other Council Members did not seem convinced that reducing the COLAs was the only alternative. Council Member Marc Elrich brought up possible savings from the county’s annual PAYGO expenditure. PAYGO is a cash contribution made by the county towards capital projects, which are mostly financed by bonds. Council staff told Mr. Elrich that next year’s capital budget would be paid for by $330 million in bond issuances and $30 million in a cash PAYGO contribution. If the county did not make its cash contribution this year, it would not necessarily delay any capital projects which would be mostly covered by bonds. In fact, the unions recommended reducing PAYGO by $10 million last week, just one part of their suggested $67 million package of cuts and alternate revenues. Mr. Elrich’s idea received support from several other Council Members, though Ms. Trachtenberg opposed it.


And then Mr. Leventhal pointed out the real role played by the council in labor contract decisions. For non-schools government employees, the council does indeed set funding levels for contracts. But with regard to the public school system, the council only approves its budget as a whole. Contract funding is decided by the school board. Mr. Leventhal called Board of Education President (and former County Council candidate) Nancy Navarro to the witness table. He asked her whether the school system, if handed a budget cut by the council, would respond by cutting employee raises. She replied, “The board feels very strongly that its strategic investment is in the compensation of our employees.” And then she said that while she could not speak for the rest of the board, she personally would not vote to underfund contracts. Mr. Leventhal concluded that if the council cuts contracts for non-school employees but the school board preserved its employees’ pay, significant inequities in pay scales would result.

After Ms. Ervin recognized several exceptional county employees in the room – including one fire fighter who had heroically raced into a burning building to rescue victims inside – the County Council took its vote on the contracts. Ms. Trachtenberg and Mr. Andrews were the only Council Members on the short end of a 6-2 vote. While some of their colleagues defended their good faith, none were willing to break the county’s commitment to its employees.

But the issue is far from decided. In order to fund the contracts, the council must approve a property tax hike that exceeds the rate of inflation tomorrow. The county’s charter states that seven votes are necessary to do that. Both Mr. Andrews and Ms. Trachtenberg have publicly opposed breaking the limit, which would be sufficient to block it. One of them must budge. If they do not, there is no obvious alternative and catastrophe would result.

And so the lights will be on in the County Council building very, very late tonight.

Update: The Gazette and the Post have also covered the story.

REVOLT!

In a moment that defined their political careers, Montgomery County Council Members Duchy Trachtenberg, Phil Andrews and Valerie Ervin put the fate of the public employees’ cost of living adjustments on the table last Friday. Present to greet them were over 300 chanting, stomping, clapping and occasionally yelling union members.


Council Members Trachtenberg, Andrews and Ervin are members of the council’s Management and Fiscal Policy (MFP) Committee. The committee’s charge on Friday was to discuss the extent to which savings on the county’s labor costs should be applied to fix its $297 million budget deficit. “Labor savings” ultimately means funding less for personnel costs than is called for in the county’s collective bargaining agreements: a practice derisively labeled by the unions as “contract busting.”

A word about the union members in the pictures. Assembled by pugnacious MCGEO President Gino Renne in the nearby County Executive Office Building, they were in no mood for “contract busting” and marched across a rain-soaked street to confront their council overseers. Their radioactive yellow battle color is not intended to please the eye and it certainly does not. It is designed to attract attention. They certainly received plenty of it on Friday.

Council Member Trachtenberg, chairwoman of the MFP Committee, opened the meeting with new transfer and recordation tax receipt numbers for April. Transfer and recordation taxes depend on property sales and they have been devastated by the recent collapse in the county’s real estate and construction market. According to Ms. Trachtenberg, the county received $13 million in transfer and recordation taxes in April 2008, down from $18 million in April 2007. For the year to date, transfer and recordation taxes totaled $138 million, down from $180 million the year prior. “Taxpayers are reaching a breaking point,” declared Ms. Trachtenberg and that justified a 2% reduction in the unions’ negotiated COLAs.


Council Member Andrews agreed. Citing the fact that personnel costs accounted for 80% of the county’s budget, he told the ornery union members, “What’s fair is to ask everyone to help.” As he has for months, he criticized the unions’ agreements as “unaffordable” and stated flatly, “I would not have negotiated the contracts that came over to us.” Supporting Ms. Trachtenberg, he said, “I believe that the 2% COLA reduction is a fair way to go.”

Pictures cannot do justice to the unholy din created by the roaring public employees. Hundreds of police officers, bus drivers, librarians, deputy sheriffs, correctional officers and park and planning workers rose to their feet to challenge Council Members Trachtenberg and Andrews. “What are you giving back?” one cried. “We are the taxpayers!” another yelled. “You’re hitting us twice!” pointed out one employee who was also a county resident. Worker after worker decried simultaneous increases in fuel and food costs, cuts in county services and proposed cuts in COLAs as a squeeze on their standard of living from multiple sides.

And then Ms. Ervin took the mike. She is a 25-year veteran organizer and trainer in the labor movement and everyone knew what she would say. “I was a proud member of the UFCW union,” she announced to the crowd. “We do not have to balance this budget on the backs of working people.” She recounted a bookful of statistics on poverty and income inequality to the groans of the audience (some of which we will examine on this blog) and concluded with, “Montgomery County is affluent for only some people.” “I believe that cutting salaries will hurt our local economy,” she said, “and I will not support a 2% COLA reduction.” We present the crowd’s reaction below.


In the end, the MFP Committee did not recommend a 2% COLA reduction. Instead, Ms. Trachtenberg introduced a motion calling for $40 million in “labor savings” with the exact mechanism to be decided later by the rest of the County Council. Mr. Andrews concurred and Ms. Ervin ferociously dissented. Neither the council members nor the staff justified this particular number against a lesser or greater amount. No mention was made by anyone of the unions’ identification of $67 million in additional revenues and savings as reported on this blog. The Post and the Gazette also omitted that fact from their coverage.

So what will become of the committee’s proposal for “labor savings,” a euphemism for underfunding the contracts? There do not appear to be any other votes on the council for the MFP Committee’s proposal, especially considering the fact that the union contracts are affordable in the next fiscal year. Instead, a rough consensus is forming in favor of a slightly lower property tax increase than that proposed by the County Executive along with a carbon tax proposed by Council Member Nancy Floreen.


But even that plan involves breaking the county’s charter limit on property tax increases, which generally holds tax receipt gains to a level equaling the increase in the consumer price index. Seven of the eight County Council Members must vote to exceed that limit. Both Council Members Trachtenberg and Andrews oppose breaking the charter limit, enough to kill any property tax hike. Will either of them budge on that position, thus enabling the union contracts to be preserved? That is the big question. We will have an answer by Thursday.

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.

Nancy Floreen Calls for Across-the-Board Spending Cuts

Montgomery County Council Member Nancy Floreen challenged all county agencies to present a plan to cut their budgets by 2% below the County Executive's proposal on her blog today.

Floreen contends that a 2% across-the-board cut would enable the council to chop the County Executive's property tax increase in half. However, because she would still break the charter limit, her proposal would require seven votes to pass. Floreen argues:

As far as I am concerned, the proposed tax burden is untenable, particularly for the average homeowner facing increased fuel, food and health care costs. I am afraid that this budget is way out of line. In today’s economy, it is unaffordable... I know my colleagues have put their hearts into trying to limit spending. But I don’t believe we have gone far enough. Our neighbors in Fairfax County, the District of Columbia, and Prince George’s County are looking at budget increases of no more than 1.3%. We in Montgomery County need to join the rest of the region in looking toward a more sustainable budget.

It is impossible to overstate the turmoil going on in Rockville right now over the budget. Two council members - Duchy Trachtenberg and Phil Andrews - oppose a property tax increase, enough votes to kill it. Council Member Trachtenberg is eyeing the county's labor contracts for savings. The County Council's Education Committee voted to restore $26 million for public schools and $9.1 million for Montgomery College last week. How can resistance to the property tax hike, increases for education, adherence to union contracts and Floreen's call for across-the-board cuts be reconciled?

We'll find out soon enough. Zero hour for the budget is next week.

MoCo Property Tax Increase in Doubt

Last Friday, Montgomery County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg flatly told the Gazette, "I do not support going over the charter limit." This is a serious blow against passage of a county property tax increase.

Article 3, Section 305 of Montgomery County's charter restricts property tax increases to the change in the Consumer Price Index with exceptions for "(1) newly constructed property, (2) newly rezoned property, (3) property that, because of a change in state law, is assessed differently than it was assessed in the previous tax year, (4) property that has undergone a change in use, and (5) any development district tax used to fund capital improvement projects." Seven out of the nine County Council Members must vote to override this limit and raise the property tax by a higher amount.

To close a $297 million county budget deficit, County Executive Ike Leggett offered a budget that combined spending cuts with a $128 million property tax increase. Leggett's property tax proposal combines a 7.5% rate increase with a hike in the property tax credit for homeowners from $613 to $1,014, thereby making the tax over-weighted towards commercial properties and higher-value homes.

Council Member Trachtenberg was the first member of the council to openly oppose the property tax increase. Instead, she favors scrutinizing the county's labor costs. According to the Gazette:

Montgomery County needs a "good black and white description" of how much employee salaries, health benefits and pay raises are going to cost the county as it faces a budget crisis, the chairwoman of the Management and Fiscal Policy committee said Thursday.

"It’s very important that we have the bottom line and we have a sense of how we’re going to pay for the wages and the cost of living increases over the next few years," said Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At large) of North Bethesda. "The problems we’re going to face are not for one year only."

Trachtenberg said the contracts with county employees should be honored.

"But I’m suggesting we need to identify what we’re going to pay in these contracts and how we’re going to pay for them," she said.

Council Member Nancy Floreen has also been skeptical of the tax hike, telling the Gazette, "My basic reaction is that I have to be persuaded that we need to expand the property tax rate as much as [Leggett] is proposing... Those are big dollars they are counting on to pull them through and I’m just not there yet." Last Friday, Floreen said on her blog, "Given that these [property tax] increases would be in addition to the State’s bump in income taxes and the sales tax, I’m not convinced the community can bear them. On the other hand, the alternative would be significant cuts in service, which I’m not sure folks are willing to do either."

If Council Members Trachtenberg and Floreen both oppose the property tax increase, it will fail. Because the winner of the District 4 vacancy will not be certified until May 23, after the budget has been passed, there will be only six other sitting members on the County Council when the tax's fate is decided. Seven votes are needed to break the charter limit.

Nancy Floreen Joins the Blogosphere

The blogosphere has a new member: Montgomery County Council Member Nancy Floreen. Welcome to our world, Nancy! You will soon learn the joys of staying up until two in the morning to overcome writer’s block, trying to figure out html script errors and wondering who is using those anonymous screen names to make the snarky comments you’re tempted to delete.

Other politicians have tried to run blogs before. They have usually succumbed for two reasons: lack of regular postings and boring content. Now I am not worried about regular postings with Ms. Floreen. She is a very hardworking council member who labors on many issues every day and knows them all inside-out. I am sure she will feed her blog well. But on content, well...

You see, we really like Nancy Floreen. She is extremely charming, has a playful sense of humor and is very engaging in person. But we the voters give our politicians every incentive to be boring. I mean, when they say anything halfway interesting, we punish them for it. Just look at Robin Ficker. OK, bad example… How about George English? OK, another bad example, but you get my point. Only a few politicians regularly flout this rule (including our friend Dana Beyer, who is always good for an occasional blog post). So as one of Ms. Floreen's supportive constituents, I would like to start her off to blogging fame and fortune by suggesting she answer a few questions of mine. If she did, it would surely draw lots of eyes to her blog! Here goes:

1. Is it true that it once took four MCPD officers to force Marc Elrich to wear a tie for a council hearing?

2. Forget transgendered people. Can we pass a law that keeps the shower nuts out of the bathrooms?

3. True or false: George Leventhal once beat Mike Knapp in a game of one-on-one basketball.

4. Why do council staffers escort visitors out of the council offices? Don't you trust us not to steal the staplers? Or is this policy only used for me?

5. MoCo is not getting enough transportation money from the state. What if the county council members formed a human chain across the Beltway as a show of resolve?

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.

CRG Alleges “Intimidation” by Dana Beyer

Citizens for a Responsible Government (CRG), the organization seeking to overturn Montgomery County’s Transgender Anti-Discrimination bill is alleging “intimidation” by County Council staffer Dana Beyer. And the group claims to have video evidence supporting their allegations.

CRG states in a press release that Beyer encountered its signature collectors outside a Giant Supermarket at Bethesda’s Westwood Shopping Center on Monday February 18. The following six-second cellphone video shows Beyer telling the collectors, “An email went out; you’re going to be asked to leave. Any petitions gathered today are illegal.”



CRG claims this is part of a pattern of “harassment and intimidation” by Beyer and others. Former Republican candidate for Congress Dan Zubairi also alleges that Beyer “ordered” him not to sign CRG’s petition but CRG supplies no evidence to back up that allegation. Finally, CRG alleges that Beyer violated Section 19A-14 of the County Code during the course of her activities. CRG attorney John Garza said he will “probably” file a civil rights lawsuit soon.

Beyer, an aide to County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg, Vice-President of Equality Maryland and former candidate for District 18 Delegate, told her side of the story to this blog. She said she encountered CRG’s petition collectors on Primary Election Day, the following weekend and President’s Day (2/18), the date of the incident in question. At the Bethesda Giant, she entered the store, told the manager that the petition collectors were violating store policy (which allows the group to collect signatures on only one weekend per month), and left soon after making the statements to the group shown on the video.

Council Member Trachtenberg was the lead sponsor of the transgender bill. Beyer, a transgender female who serves on Trachtenberg’s staff, worked on the bill and advocates for keeping it on the books along with passage of a similar state-level law. Activists with Teach the Facts and Equality Maryland are now challenging the validity of CRG’s signatures.

“These people had a right to collect signatures if they’re not trespassing and they did so. But if they’re trespassing, there’s no right for them to be there,” Beyer told us. “I didn’t harass or intimidate anybody… I don’t think what I did is wrong at all.” Beyer accused CRG of employing scare tactics, saying, “You want to talk about harassment and intimidation – we’ve gotten death threats! I have to deal with this because people are threatening my life and those of my friends and colleagues.” Trachtenberg has also talked about “spiteful messages and threats,” telling the Frederick News Post last year, “(They) left a message on my home phone asking my husband if he knows my sex.”

CRG has two things going against it. First, its video clip is only six seconds long. It does not have any context associated with the events before or after the video was taken. That context, along with testimony and evidence about any other events at other locations, will be relevant in any lawsuit. Second, the organization has a history of distorting the content of the legislation. Given that history, CRG’s version of events cannot be trusted as the entire truth.

But the incident between Beyer and CRG raises some interesting questions.

Did Beyer violate the County’s ethics code?
County Code Chapter 19A-4(m) defines a “public employee” as including “the County Executive and each member of the County Council” along with “any person employed by a County agency, including the director of the agency.” No exemptions appear for council staff or any employees operating off-the-clock. Even non-paid board and commission members are treated as employees.

County Code Chapter 19A-14(e) states, “A public employee must not intimidate, threaten, coerce or discriminate against any person for the purpose of interfering with that person’s freedom to engage in political activity.” Do Beyer’s activities in the video constitute intimidation? That question may be examined in court.

How does this reflect on the Montgomery County Council?
Should CRG go to court, they will probably attempt to tie Beyer’s conduct to her supervisor, Council Member Trachtenberg. County Code Chapter 19A-14(f) states, “A person must not influence or attempt to influence a public employee to violate this Chapter.” CRG’s attorneys may very well ask whether Trachtenberg knew of Beyer’s activities. Trachtenberg has made ethics one of her priorities while on the council. For example, she questioned the ethical implications of lobbyist-paid trips taken to Israel by other council members in the past, ultimately causing the County to abandon them. Trachtenberg has set high ethical standards for herself and others and we would expect her to vigorously battle CRG’s charges in court. Other council members and their staff will pay close attention.

How does this incident change the debate over the legislation?
There is little question that this video will be a propaganda boon to CRG. They can now expand their argument beyond the narrow confines of the legislation (on which they are clearly wrong) and into the realm of civil liberties. CRG will ask what business a County Council employee had in enforcing Giant’s solicitation policy. Trespassing on Giant’s property is a matter for company management and the police. Throw in the fact that the council employee in question was a known advocate for the bill and an employee of its lead sponsor and CRG will claim political targeting by the government. Many people who support the transgender bill will be uncomfortable with the idea of county employees – especially the personal staff of council members – seeking to get petition collectors ejected from store premises. Civil liberties questions are now going to arise on both sides of this debate.

Update: The Sentinel's coverage is here.

County Council District 4 Special Election Preview, Part Two

As noted in Part One, Mrs. Praisner’s premature departure has left a large vacuum in Council District 4’s political world. But there are potential aspirants for her seat. The actual and possible candidates in the all-important Democratic primary include:

Board of Education President Nancy Navarro

Navarro, a co-founder of immigrant services non-profit Centro Familia, was originally appointed to the school board in 2004. She quickly formed an alliance with fellow board member (and future County Council Member) Valerie Ervin. When Navarro ran for election in 2006, she appeared on the Apple Ballot and leapfrogged Sharon Cox to become President shortly afterwards. Navarro declared for office on Tuesday and was promptly endorsed by progressive hero Donna Edwards.

Navarro is the early favorite for three reasons. First, her position on the school board gives her substantial district-wide name recognition. Second, she would be a logical choice to once again appear on the Apple Ballot. (Note: MCEA has not disclosed its plans.) Third, there is growing concern among politically-active MoCo women about a recent trend of filling vacancies formerly held by women with men. (The state legislative appointments in Districts 16, 18 and 47 come to mind.) If Navarro is the only female candidate in the field, she will benefit.

Current State Legislators

Of the eight current state legislators in Districts 14 and 19, all but one (District 14 Delegate Karen Montgomery) live in Council District 4. Two of them have run unsuccessfully for County Council before. District 19 Delegate Ben Kramer was the Democratic nominee in District 2 in 1994 and ran at-large in 1998. District 14 Delegate Herman Taylor was the Democratic nominee in District 2 in 1998. (Ironically, both Taylor and Kramer were defeated by Republican Nancy Dacek.) Any of the current state legislators would be plausible contenders for Mrs. Praisner’s seat.

However, not many of them will actually run. First, three of them (District 14 Senator Rona Kramer and Delegates Herman Taylor and Anne Kaiser) are in their second term and District 19 Delegate Henry Heller is in his sixth term. These legislators have or are gaining seniority in the General Assembly, probably making it less tempting to leave. Second, because their state legislative incomes ($43,000 and up) supplement their salaries from regular employment, they would have to make significant financial sacrifices to accept a sole County Council member salary of $89,721. Third, each of them would have to work hard to raise money quickly and make contacts in the portion of Council District 4 that they do not currently represent.

The most likely exception to the above rules is Ben Kramer. Kramer, the son of former County Executive Sidney Kramer and brother of current District 14 Senator Rona Kramer, is a self-employed businessmen who has loaned his delegate campaign $124,450. If he is still interested in following his father into County government, he is more than capable of waging a well-financed campaign aided by name recognition.

Former State Legislators

Former District 19 Delegates Adrienne Mandel and Carol Petzold unsuccessfully ran for Senate in 2006 against Mike Lenett. Either of them may be interested in a council run. But they would face the same problems the current state legislators have: the need to raise money quickly and campaign in the parts of Council District 4 that they did not represent in the statehouse.

Civic Activists

MoCo has hundreds of civic activists who volunteer substantial amounts of time on various causes. When many of these activists broaden their agendas beyond their neighborhood-specific issues, they often focus on limiting development, pursuing accountability in government and restraining government taxes and spending. These sorts of issues interest participants in organizations like the Montgomery County Civic Federation, the Montgomery County Taxpayers League and Neighborspac.

Two District 4 activists have already declared their candidacy.

Steve Kanstoroom, an activist from Ashton, looks a bit like an older Dirk Benedict without the cigar. Among the issues he has worked on in recent years are illegal deforestation, abuses in FEMA’s flood insurance program and the Planning Department’s denial of street addresses to some residents of Sandy Spring. Kanstoroom even exposed an individual who had appeared as an expert witness at Board of Appeals hearings as never having possessed a professional engineer license. The Montgomery County Civic Federation gave him its “Community Hero” award in 2006. But not everyone is a fan of Kanstoroom’s. Council Member George Leventhal was incensed after Kanstoroom picketed his house over the Sandy Spring issue.

Patrick E. Ryan is a management consultant with the Washington Federal Practice of PriceWaterhouseCoopers. He is a co-chair of Action in Montgomery, a multi-purpose activist group affiliated with the Saul Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation. He is also active in the Church of Resurrection Catholic Parish, the National Coalition of Homeless Veterans and the Fairland Master Plan Civic Advisory Committee. Ryan lives in northeastern Silver Spring near Burtonsville.

Civic activists were a natural part of Mrs. Praisner’s base. But a pure civic candidate faces problems of name recognition, raising money and securing endorsements – all of which are exacerbated in a short campaign. The 2006 race in Council District 2 provides an example. Longtime activist and Neighborspac endorsee Sharon Dooley ran against well-funded, endorsement-rich, MCEA-backed incumbent Mike Knapp. Dooley lost the race by 64-36%.

Perhaps the biggest problem Kanstoroom and Ryan have is each other. In a one-seat race, they threaten to split much of Mrs. Praisner’s coalition, thereby allowing another candidate to win. And there may yet be other civic candidates.

Finally, Free State Politics blogger Eric Luedtke lives in Council District 4. Luedtke is an MCEA member and is one of the most-learned, best-researched bloggers in the state. Are we going to see any announcements on FSP, Eric?

Our readers should watch three things going forward. First, who is getting endorsements from organizations with money (like the Chamber of Commerce) and ground operations (like MCEA)? Second, who is raising money? Campaign finance reports are due to the State Board of Elections on March 18, April 4, May 2 and June 3. Third, who is the County Executive, a Burtsonsville resident, going to support? A literature mailout with the Executive’s picture on it will be valuable in a short campaign with low turnout.

Stay tuned for more on this race.

Update: You can read the Post's coverage here. The Post floats one additional name: Cary Lamari, former president of the Montgomery County Civic Federation. Lamari finished 11th out of 13 candidates in the 2006 council at-large race.

Update 2: The Gazette's coverage is here and here.

County Council District 4 Special Election Preview, Part One

The upcoming special election for MoCo’s District 4 County Council seat is important for two reasons. First, it is the first time a council member other than Marilyn Praisner will represent the district. Second, it will decide the close balance of power on the council, especially on issues related to growth. And so we offer special coverage of this race here at Maryland Politics Watch.

Montgomery County Council District 4 was created in 1990, along with the four other council districts. Prior to that time, the council had seven members, all of whom were elected at-large. In 1990, the present system was set up assigning one council member to each of five districts, with four others running at-large. The districts roughly mirror the county’s population distribution with Council District 4 covering East County.

Geography

District 4’s boundaries are (roughly) the county line on the northeast and east, the outskirts of Olney and Brookeville on the north, Rock Creek and Veirs Mill Road on the west and Randolph Road, Four Corners and US-29 on the south. You can view the official district map here.

The district contains two distinct sub-sectors. The western sector includes the neighborhoods between the northern reaches of Wheaton and the southern outskirts of Olney. Much of this sector is accounted for by Aspen Hill. The eastern sector includes the US-29 corridor from White Oak to Burtonsville as well as the areas near the Howard County border. The dividing line between the sectors is New Hampshire Avenue. We make this distinction because these two sectors have very different demographics, as we shall see below.

There are no urbanized downtowns in District 4. The vast majority of the district is covered by single-family neighborhoods with only one Metro station (Glenmont) that is very close to the District 5 border. There are a few commercial strips along Georgia Avenue and Layhill Road in the west, US-29 and Cherry Hill Road in the east, and New Hampshire Avenue. But the lack of density robs the district of any centrally-recognized locations of social, political or civic activity.

Demographics

District 4 conforms fairly closely to the Census Bureau’s Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) 01005 and 01006. (Those areas, however, include part of Kensington and exclude part of the area along the Howard County border, so they are not a perfect fit.) According to Census, the two PUMAs had a population of 236,844 in 2006. The population was 44% white non-Hispanic, 26% black non-Hispanic, 17% Hispanic and 11% Asian non-Hispanic. Two-thirds of the population is native-born while one-third is foreign-born. Of the 33% foreign-born, almost two-thirds (19%) are non-citizens. Forty percent of the district’s population speaks a language other than English at home. Median household income is $74,656, lower than the county’s average ($87,624). Forty-one percent of MoCo’s black population lives in this district.

There are significant demographic differences between the two sub-sectors. On the western side, which includes Georgia Avenue, Aspen Hill and most of Layhill Road, the population was 51% white non-Hispanic, 17% black non-Hispanic, 21% Hispanic and 8% Asian non-Hispanic. The median household income was $70,170. On the eastern side, which includes the US-29 corridor along with Colesville, the population was 37% white non-Hispanic, 35% black non-Hispanic, 11% Hispanic and 14% Asian non-Hispanic. The median household income was $80,043. So the western part of the district is whiter, more Latino, and relatively poorer than the eastern side. On the eastern side, the black population almost equals the white population, Latinos are not as numerous and the residents are nearly as wealthy as the county average.

Politics

The natural breeding grounds of politicians are municipalities and civic associations. District 4 does not have any municipalities and its civic associations are generally not as well-organized as those closer to Downtown Silver Spring and the I-270 corridor though there are a few exceptions). Those factors combined with the lack of urban density and the long dominance by Mrs. Praisner have created something of a political vacuum in the district. Mrs. Praisner had no real rivals and no designated successors.

The population’s racial diversity is not well reflected by its politicians. State Legislative District 14, which accounts for much of the eastern side of the district, is represented by three white women and one black man. State Legislative District 19, which accounts for much of the western side, is represented by four white men. Mrs. Praisner was the only County Council Member who lived in County District 4. However, there is one important exception to the above rule: County Executive Ike Leggett, who served four terms as an at-large member of the council, is a Burtonsville resident.

Dan Reed’s outstanding East County blog Just Up the Pike provides a good feel for East County. Dan paints a picture of a community handicapped by lack of transit, car-oriented neighborhood design and a general lack of commercial amenities. His series on the Briggs Chaney area provides one example. Dan’s interview with Mrs. Praisner also touches on these issues.

But East County’s large and diverse population and its links to both Wheaton and Silver Spring tie it firmly into the rest of the county. Mrs. Praisner, an unusual thinker who could handle both big-picture concepts and excruciatingly minute details, understood this very well. She was a capable defender of the area’s priorities but also a serious player on countywide issues. Whoever follows her will require quite some time to match her stature.

In Part Two, we’ll look more closely at the district’s political playing field.

More on Special Election Dates in MoCo Council D4

Here's a tidbit sure to interest all of you MoCo political junkies.

The County Council staff memo written by Senior Legislative Attorney Mike Faden confirms the dates reported by Kevin (4/15 for the primary, 5/13 for the general). But it then says the following:

Although neither date falls during a school break, Council President Knapp confirmed with Superintendent Weast that the school system could handle continuing to use schools as polling places on these dates. Of the 46 polling places used this year in District 4, 43 are public schools. County Elections staff indicated that they expect to consolidate some polling places for this special election. In any case, voters in District 4 will be officially notified at least twice of the election dates and their polling place.

Two questions:

1. What will this "consolidation" of polling places do to turnout?

2. If the teachers are working, who is going to distribute the Apple Ballots?

New Committee Assignments on MoCo Council

Mrs. Praisner's passing has left vacancies on the Planning, Housing & Economic Development (PHED) Committee, which she chaired, and the Management & Fiscal Policy (MFP) Committee, which she chaired for many years. Those vacancies have now been filled by Mike Knapp (PHED) and Phil Andrews (MFP). Marc Elrich is the new PHED Chair. But these committee assignments are temporary pending the special election for Mrs. Praisner's seat in District 4. After that election, all of this (and more) could change.

You can view the new committee structure here.

How MoCo Does Special Elections

Montgomery County Council vacancies are filled by special elections. So why shouldn’t we do the same for state legislator vacancies?

Here’s how the county process works. When a council vacancy occurs, a special election must be held if the vacancy “occurs before December 1 of the year before a year in which a quadrennial state election will be held.” (County code, Chapter 16, Sec. 16-17(a)(4)) So, if a county council member stepped down on 11/30/09, a special election would have to be held. But if a council member stepped down on 12/2/09, the rest of the council would appoint a replacement who would serve out the rest of the term (County charter, Sec. 106).

When a special election is held, it “must be conducted in a manner consistent with provisions of state law that govern special elections to fill vacancies in the office of representative in Congress.” (County code, Chapter 16, Sec. 16-17(c)(1)) The council must adopt a resolution that sets the dates of both the special primary and the special general election.

However, “if the Council vacancy occurs during the period beginning 120 days before the next regular or special primary or general election conducted in the County under state law and ending 40 days before that election, the special primary election provided for by this Section must be held on the same date as the other election. If a second regular or special primary or general election conducted in the County under state law is held more than 30 but less than 60 days after the special primary election referred to in the preceding sentence, the special general election held under this Section must be held on the same date as the second other election.” (County code, Chapter 16, Sec. 16-17(d)(2))

So by using the same dates as other elections, the cost of special elections can be reduced and turnout can be elevated.

The last time a county council vacancy occurred was when District 5 council member Derick Berlage stepped down in June 2002 to become the county’s Planning Chairman. As the date was too late to trigger the special election requirement, the county council appointed Donnell Peterman to serve out the remaining months of Berlage’s term. Peterman was appointed on the condition that he not leverage his appointed incumbency to seek office that year. Peterman honored that commitment in 2002, choosing instead to run (unsuccessfully) for an at-large seat in 2006.

Now doesn’t this sound a lot better than the appointment process for state legislators, which brought us this and this and this?

The excuses for why we should not hold special elections for state vacancies are rapidly disappearing.

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.