By Lindsey McPherson, lmcpherson@patuxent.com, Howard County Times

May 8, 2012 | 3:14 p.m.

State lawmakers are tired of looking back to April 9, when the General Assembly adjourned without passing legislation that would have raised revenues needed to balance the budget.

Instead, they’re looking forward to the special session scheduled for May 14, hoping they can go toAnnapolis and quickly complete the work left unfinished before the legislature’s regular 90-day session ended.

“I wish we could have worked it out during the closing days of the regular session and then it wouldn’t have been necessary,” Sen. Jim Robey, an Elkridge Democrat, said.

However, he added, “It’s essential that we go back and fix what we should have done during the 90 days.”

In the waning hours of the 2012 session, agreements on a plan to shift teacher pension costs to the counties, phased in over four years, and to raise income taxes on six-figure earners were agreed to by conference committees of Senate and House leaders but never voted on by the full chambers.

The failure to pass the revenue packages triggered the so-called “doomsday” budget, which would take effect July 1 and cut $500 million to largely Democratic-favored funding priorities, such as education and health care. Under the doomsday budget, the Howard County Public School System would lose $8.3 million in state aid and Howard Community Collegewould lose $1.4 million.

Gov. Martin O’Malley last week announced his decision to convene the special session on May 14, explaining in a statement, “there is too much at stake not to move forward.”

Sen. Ed Kasemeyer, a Columbia Democrat and chairman of the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, said he expects the legislature to pass the income tax plan the conference committee agreed to the final day of the regular session, which would raise taxes on individuals earning $100,000 or more and couples or families earning $150,000 or more.

“The teacher pension shift will occur also as it was proposed,” predicted Kasemeyer, who served as the Senate’s lead negotiator on the budget conference committees.

Columbia Democrat Del. Guy Guzzone agreed.

“Going back and revisiting everything doesn’t seem like it would be necessary,” he said.

Guzzone, who served as a non-voting member on the conference committees, was the delegate who proposed the four-year phase-in for the teacher pension shift. The shift of teacher pension costs to the counties would start at 50 percent in the first year, reach 65 percent in the second year, 85 percent in the third year and be fully phased in by the fourth.

Guzzone, Kasemeyer and Robey said the special session is expected to last two or three days and will only address the two revenue plans.

Though they seem to be singing the same tune, Kasemeyer said Senate and House leaders have not gotten together to discuss the plan for a special session.

“We’ve all met with the governor’s people separately, and I think we’re all on the same wave length,” he said.

Not quite all. The state’s GOP leaders have said a special session is not needed.

“The Board of Public Works could certainly make some changes here and there” to balance the budget, West Friendship Republican Sen. Allan Kittleman said. “We don’t need to come into special session.”

Kittleman said it’s hard to sell the budget the legislature ended up with after the regular session as a doomsday budget when it’s $700 million larger than the budget lawmakers passed last year.

“You could call it a live-within-your-means budget,” Kittleman said. He said he believes that’s what the legislature should do, instead of go into special session to raise taxes.

If the same income tax plan the conference committee came up with is what ends up on the Senate floor, Kittleman said he will not vote for it.

“In Howard County, the tax increase is especially burdensome,” he said.

Regarding the teacher pension shift, Kittleman said: “I’m not convinced it’s the right time to do that.”

http://www.baltimoresun.com/explore/howard/news/ph-ho-cf-political-notebook-0510-20120508,0,1991164.story

By Anthony Faiola, The Washington Post, Published: March 29

LONDON — Americans watching the latest push for social change in Britain might feel as if they had stepped into an alternate political universe: Here, the Conservatives are leading the charge for same-sex marriage.

Gay couples in Britain won the right to civil partnerships in 2004, which granted them nearly the same legal status as married heterosexual couples while avoiding the controversial use of the word “marriage.” But Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservative-led coalition have launched a historic drive to grant gay men and lesbians the option of also entering into civil marriages, touching off a surprisingly fierce uproar in largely progressive Britain and fueling a rebellion on the right as the party comes under heavy fire from traditional allies in the British clergy.

Yet challenging tradition appears to be exactly Cameron’s point. The proposal, put forward this month despite the lack of a strong clamor for marriage within Britain’s gay community, is nevertheless emerging as the cornerstone of a bid by the 45-year-old prime minister and other young leaders on the right here to redefine what it means to be a modern Conservative.

“I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative,” Cameron said in a recent landmark speech on the issue. “I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.”

Spurred to action by a book about a child with two dads, the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher rushed a ban through Parliament in 1988 forbidding local governments and schools from promoting homosexuality, with same-sex couples then described by law “as a pretended family relationship.” Twenty-four years later, strategists see Cameron’s decision to champion the gay marriage cause as an attempt to seize the mantle of progressive change from the left and broaden the Conservative Party’s appeal among an increasingly key voting group: young urbanites.

To be sure, since returning to power in 2010 after 13 years in the political wilderness, the Conservatives have pursued causes at the core of their founding beliefs: slashing the deficit, cutting public payrolls and moving to lower taxes. Yet the party of Thatcher has also sought to reinvent itself by becoming what one Conservative strategist called “very pro-gay.”

There are at least 12 openly gay members of Parliament from the Conservative Party, more than all other British political parties combined. A majority of those lawmakers were ushered into office with Cameron in 2010. Education Minister Michael Gove, a Conservative, has launched a campaign with the gay rights group Stonewall to combat homophobia in British schools. Cameron has hosted a summit on homophobia in professional soccer and officially apologized for Thatcher-era anti-gay policies, calling the party’s previous stance “a mistake.”

What prompted the shift? “We lost three elections, in 1997, 2001 and 2005,” said Margot James, former vice chairman of the Conservative Party and an openly gay member of Parliament.

“The electorate was not seeing us as a viable alternative in a modern world. But David Cameron came along and changed all that. This is a different Conservative Party now, one that is fully in favor of equal rights. I think the Republicans could learn a lot from us in how to appeal to the center, without whose votes a party cannot hope to win.”

Religious dissent

In Britain, legalizing gay marriage would be partly symbolic. Civil partnerships — passed under Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Labor government — gave same-sex couples equal access to national pensions, inheritances, tax breaks and other rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. But Cameron, a Christian and married father of three whose position on same-sex marriage gradually evolved since winning the party’s leadership in 2005, is calling gay marriage a matter of basic human rights.

He is also making a pitch to uneasy religious conservatives, suggesting that the institution of marriage will reinforce traditional values of commitment and monogamy within the gay community. Married same-sex couples, for instance, could file for divorce on the grounds of adultery — a legal option not currently considered in civil partnership laws.

The terms of political debate here remain different than in the United States, where the Republican Party base contains a highly influential religious right whose views on social issues are considered extreme even among many British Conservatives. But even here, the notion of altering the definition of marriage — as opposed to granting civil partnership rights — is hardly a safe political bet, with the push generating far more discord than most had anticipated.

Although a new law would not compel churches to perform religious wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, called the proposal “grotesque,” throwing his weight behind a growing national campaign to defeat the measure. The Church of England has decried the idea as tantamount to legislating cultural change and has mounted a rigorous defense of marriage “between a man and a woman.”

The issue is also setting up the biggest internal party rebellion since the Conservatives returned to power in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Strategists say that as many as a third of Conservative lawmakers may vote against the plan, which might nevertheless pass in Parliament with the backing of Cameron’s Liberal Democrat coalition partners and the opposition Labor Party.

Debate in gay community

By offering the proposal, Cameron has put his party out in front of even many gay advocates here who had seen other issues, such as stiffer penalties for hate crimes, as higher priorities. Although gay groups are vigorously campaigning in support of the measure, advocates initially debated whether they should even endorse a proposal seen by some as bringing a patriarchal and archaic institution to same-sex couples.

“This is more of David Cameron trying to drag the Conservatives kicking and screaming into the modern world,” said Ben Bradshaw, a ranking Labor lawmaker who in 1997 became one of Britain’s first openly gay members of Parliament. “Of course, we’ll support it, but this is pure politics on their part. This isn’t a priority for the gay community, which already won equal rights” with civil partnerships.

He added: “We’ve never needed the word ‘marriage,’ and all it’s done now is get a bunch of bishops hot under the collar. We’ve been pragmatic, not making the mistake they have in the U.S., where the gay lobby has banged on about marriage.”

But a growing chorus of voices in the gay community here is also livid that advocates have not pushed marriage to the top of the same-sex agenda sooner.

“Now that we’re having this debate, the gay community is failing to step up to the plate and defend our right to marriage as aggressively as they should in the face of this sudden religious opposition,” said Ewan Watson, 37, a London-based lawyer who is in a same-sex relationship. “For some of us, having marriage is huge. It’s a statement that we really are equal, and we won’t be as long as they segregate us from the word ‘marriage.’ ”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/british-conservatives-lead-charge-for-gay-marriage/2012/03/29/gIQAzatzjS_story_1.html

Letter to the Editor, The Howard County Times

March 29, 2012 | 1:15 p.m.

In August 2011, amidst the debt ceiling debate, I changed my party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. I never liked the Bob Ehrlich sell-out-your-values Republican Party. I’m a Rand Paul“The Tea Party is Coming to Washington” kind of Republican. Yet I see the Tea Party has yet to come to Howard County.

I received a mailer from the Gelfman-Tucker campaign with the endorsement of Sen. Allan Kittlemanand I have to ask, “Why is a leading Republican supporting a Democratic endorsed slate and a judge (Tucker) appointed by Martin O’Malley?” Ditto for Del. Gail Bates, who also supports the incumbent judges. Republicans in this county and state border on irrelevancy and become more so when they support Democratic judges. (Yes, I know it’s “non-partisan” but lets get real folks.)

It’s fine to complain about the liberal judiciary of this state. But when push comes to shove, Sen. Kittleman and Del. Bates support Democratic judges who further the liberal tilt of the state versus Clarke Ahlers, a lawyer who sounds very much like a Tea Party kind of guy — fair, impartial, anti-establishment.

Republicans in this county and state seem to be getting what they deserve.

Nate Titman

Columbia

http://www.baltimoresun.com/explore/howard/opinion-talk/letter-editor/ph-ho-cf-letters-titman-0329-2-20120329,0,2936589.story

By Aaron C. Davis, The Washington Post, Published: April 1

Republicans in Maryland have been ruled by Democrats for almost two centuries. They have been divided into gerrymandered districts that dilute their ability to elect members to Congress. And their disorganized ranks have left the party’s most extreme members with an outsize voice in state politics.

But on Tuesday, the often overlooked and bulging moderate middle of the Maryland GOPwill be relevant — at least for a day. In the state’s first competitive presidential primary in a generation, polls and interviews suggest an overwhelming number of Republicans will vote for Mitt Romney.

They won’t be voting for the Romney they’ve seen tacking increasingly to the right to secure the party’s nomination. They say they’ll be voting for the Romney they see as a fiscal conservative — but someone who is also capable of compromise and nuanced positions and could beat President Obama: the post-Etch a Sketch Romney they suspect exists under a hardened coat of party rhetoric.

“There are more of us in this state than in others, I think, that are fiscally conservative and socially libertarian,” said state Sen. Allan H. Kittleman. The Howard County Republican, who backs Romney, was forced to step down as Senate minority leader after he introduced a bill last year allowing civil unions for Maryland gay couples. “Many Republicans here are concerned about some of the stands that senator [Rick] Santorum has taken or been advocating for . . .focusing more on social issues than economic ones.”

Social issues are not the central worry of the businesspeople, military veterans, contractors and like-minded government workers who make up the majority of Republicans in Washington’s Maryland suburbs.

They worry first about federal spending and debt, pruning government programs without choking off their livelihoods or the region’s economy. Many say they also are looking for a conservative who could break the gridlock in Washington.

For that, Romney holds another appeal. Having been elected to the top job in Massachusetts, a state only a shade bluer than their own, Romney is a lot like the guy Maryland Republicans were last able to elect to statewide office, former governor Robert L. Ehr­lich Jr.

“Obviously, we both represented blue states, we’re both acclimated to hostile legislatures,” said Ehrlich, Romney’s state campaign chairman. “Over the years, we’ve had several of those talks; we’ve traded war stories.”

Romney is leading Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, by 17 percentage points, according to one recent poll. Ehr­lich and other Romney supporters think the final tally for the state’s 37 convention delegates could be even more lopsided.

They say they’ve seen camps within Maryland’s Republican Party — moderates, traditional and social conservatives, and those with libertarian leanings — gelling in support of Romney.

Scores of tea party activists were among more than 700 people who turned out late last month for a weekday town hall with Romney.

“For a Wednesday afternoon, without much warning, that turnout said a lot,” said Nick Loffer, grass-roots director of Americans for Prosperity Maryland.

It was Romney’s only campaign stop in Maryland — even as behind the scenes his supporters have continued a pattern of leaving little to chance — in a contest expected to break much the way Northeast states have for Romney.

The pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future has purchased nearly $400,000 worth of television ad time in the Baltimore market, according to industry estimates. In the two weeks leading up to Tuesday’s election, that expenditure has blanketed much of the state’s Interstate 95 corridor, its capital and blue-collar Baltimore suburbs with commercials almost as frequent as those seen during Maryland’s last gubernatorial race.

Santorum’s campaign, which faces a potential momentum-stopper if he loses Tuesday in Wisconsin, inquired about the cost of television in Maryland, station ad representatives said, but he never purchased any ads. Santorum has not campaigned in Maryland.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich made a pass through Annapolis last week and is expected in Frederick on Monday. Ron Paul drew a large crowd of college students Wednesday at the University of Maryland.

Tuesday’s primaries in Maryland and the District — where moderate Republicans also have little to no political voice — will unfold on the periphery of the night’s perceived big prize in Wisconsin.

But that has not bothered many in Maryland. Party leaders note their delegates and the District’s 16 add up to 53, more than the 42 at stake in the Badger State.

“We matter, for the first time in a long time,” said Mark Uncapher, a telecommunications lawyer in Bethesda who chairs the Montgomery County Republican Party.

Uncapher, who made up his mind for Romney in the summer, said one reason Maryland’s results will be relevant Tuesday is that he thinks they will reinforce a national narrative of the Republican Partycoalescing behind Romney.

“A lot of it is the timing,” Uncapher said. “And quite frankly, as someone who supported [Sen. John] McCain four years ago, it’s fascinating to see how the perceptions have changed. Back then, Romney was the more conservative candidate. Now, he’s the moderate.”

Todd Eberly, an assistant professor of political science at St. Mary’s College, said it will not be surprising if Maryland heavily favors Romney.

“If you look at the exit polling from where Romney has won, he’s won in areas with income that was higher and where folks were better educated. High income, high education; that pretty much describes the entire population of Maryland.”

The campaign that Romney supporters have been running in the state speaks to Maryland’s special brand of Republicans. The headline event before Tuesday’s big vote? No fiery rally about Obama’s health-care program but a meet-and-greet Sunday to discuss foreign policy with former U.N. ambassador John R. Bolton.

“Winning here in Maryland and in D.C. on Tuesday will mark another significant step to show that Romney is the only truly national candidate left,” Bolton said after wooing more than 100 who packed the Royal Kosher restaurant in the northern Baltimore suburb of Pikesville with talk of how dangerous and ineffective Obama’s stance on Iran has been.

“The sooner we get our act together and everybody comes back into focus on the main event, the greater the likelihood we’ll win” the general election, Bolton said. Romney, he said, is the only candidate suitable to “sit at the big desk” and make important decisions looming on U.S. foreign policy.

Still, polls show Romney winning with less than a majority of the state’s Republican voters. While he is expected to win convincingly in Baltimore and Montgomery counties, the state’s two biggest concentrations of Republican voters, he may lose delegates in the state’s rural eastern and western flanks.

“There are areas of the state where Santorum could still do quite well,” Eberly said. Much the way Democrats win in the state, however, if Romney carries the suburbs of the District and Baltimore, he will win easily.

The question is whether Romney will be moderate enough, said Wayne T. Gilchrest, a Republican who represented Maryland’s 1st District in Congress for 18 years. He said he would have preferred to vote for former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr.

“The term moderate does not begin to describe the person with the intellect needed to deal with the complex issues we are facing in the 21st century,” Gilchrest said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/maryland-republicans-may-give-romney-a-boost/2012/04/01/gIQAqzyhpS_story_1.html

March 22, 2012

By Daniel Menefee
Dan@MarylandReporter.com

Gov. Martin O’Malley announced on March 9 that his administration was moving to make Maryland a more business-friendly state by repealing, revising and streamlining more than 131 regulations.

“Making it easier to do business in Maryland – making it easier for businesses to add to their payrolls – remains a top priority,” O’Malley said.

“We didn’t see anything significant that would benefit a typical business,” said Maryland Chamber of Commerce Vice President Ronald Wineholt. “I don’t think this is a game changer to help businesses in Maryland.”

One regulation the administration recommended for repeal is the prohibition on smoking in elevators. The administration recommends this because “state and local laws already prohibit smoking indoors. So this regulation is duplicative,” the recommendation says.

Another regulation on the administration’s hit list calls for the “eradication of sheep scabies,” a form of mange in sheep that has not been reported in the United States since 1970, according to the Merck Veterinary Manual.

See the administration’s latest recommendations for repeal.

Regulations reviewed every eight years

Wineholt said he could only count 55 regulations that were actually addressed and their repeal offered little help to improve the business climate in Maryland. He said the state reviews regulations every eight years, under Maryland law, to remove regulations that are obsolete.

He said many of the regulations O’Malley put on the chopping block were up for review anyway.

But Wineholt said regulators were not as much of a hindrance to business as Maryland lawmakers.

“Many concerns expressed by businesses about over-regulation are not the result of overreaching state administrators, but stem from state laws that unnecessarily interject the state government into the marketplace, such as minimum wage, living wage, prevailing wage and many other workplace regulation statutes. True regulatory reform will need to address these issues so business owners are allowed to run their businesses.”

Sen. Allan Kittleman, R-Howard, who regularly sponsors bill to repeal the laws on prevailing and living wage, said the regulations being thrown out pale in comparison to the measures that are on the table in this legislative session that will make it harder to do business in Maryland.

He said O’Malley’s deregulation effort was merely “posturing.”

Kittleman dismissed O’Malley’s deregulation stance shortly after a vote passed in the Senate on Tuesday to require hotels to use energy saving motion detectors in new hotel construction. The city of Frederick says it will require an additional $7,000 annually to hire a part–time inspector.  Kittleman said costs to builders would also increase and those costs would ultimately be passed onto the consumer.

The motion detectors automatically turn on lights and climate control units in hotel rooms.

“What the governor is trying to pass in legislation is terrible for business,” Kittleman said. “He is heaping more burdens on business. Look at all the legislation on the table and you can really understand how the governor and the majority party feel about business.”

“O’Malley is a great magician, he uses one hand to say, ‘Look at all the regulations I’m changing’ but the other hand is picking your pocket,” Kittleman said.
http://marylandreporter.com/2012/03/22/lawmakers-hurt-business-more-than-regulators-maryland-chamber-of-commerce-says/

By Associated Press, Published: March 8

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — The Maryland Senate has narrowly rejected an amendment that would have altered when speed cameras can be used to ticket drivers in work zones.

The body rejected the amendment, which would have change a bill designed to allow people other than police officers to sign tickets recorded by cameras, by a 23 to 22 vote Thursday.

Sponsored by Howard County Republican state Sen. Allan Kittleman, the amendment would have mandated that speed cameras need not be used in construction zones when no one is working.

Opponents of the amendment argued that the cameras, which were legalized statewide in 2009, are necessary even when workers are not present because narrowed lanes and adjustments to traffic flow make roads dangerous.

The bill awaits a final vote from the full Senate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-senators-reject-plan-to-limit-speed-camera-use-bill-modifying-ticket-signers-awaits-vote/2012/03/08/gIQAbb5OzR_story.html

March 06, 2012

By Daniel Menefee, MarylandReporter.com
Dan@MarylandReporter.com

The Senate rejected a floor amendment to freeze judges’ salaries at current levels Monday night as the Senate cleared the way for final passage of a 3% pay raise over three years – an increase of up to $14,500 by 2016.

Democrats shot down an amendment to freeze judges’ salaries by a 33-9 vote along party lines.

“Circuit court judges by the end of 2016 will be making more than our governor,” said Sen. Allan Kittleman, R-Howard, who proposed the salary freeze on the Senate floor Monday night. His amendment “keeps the salaries the same as they are right now…I think it is the right message we send to our citizens. We’re working on a very difficult budget right now.”

Kittleman noted that the annual cost would rise to $7 million annually by 2016 as the pay raises are phased in.

March 15 deadline

By March 15, the legislature must amend recommendations from the Judicial Compensation Commission or raises automatically kick in at 6% over the next three years — an increase of up to $29,000 over the same period.

Current judges’ salaries range from $127,000 to $180,000. Under a 3% increase, salaries would range from $141,000 to $196,000, the top salary for the chief judge.

Members of the Judicial Compensation Commission appeared before the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee in early February. They lamented that Maryland judges ranked low in salaries compared to most states and that many judges were facing impending tuition bills for college-bound children.  The commission said salaries needed to be higher to attract and keep talent on the bench.

Senate Budget subcommittee chair James Robey echoed the arguments of the commission Monday night that the state needed to attract and keep the best judges on the bench.

“These are the best of the best when it comes to the legal community,” Robey, D-Howard, told the Senate. “It’s very difficult to attract qualified people to become judges.”

He said many judges give up lucrative law practices to work long hours on the bench.

“[They] work lots of hours.  It’s a lot of evening work,” Robey said. He said the salaries increases were “appropriate.”

Kittleman responded that there is no shortage of legal talent appearing before the Executive Nominations Committee for a job on the bench.

“Knowing how many come before us for judgeships, I don’t see a lack of people who want to become judges,” Kittleman responded. “And they’re good people.”

Kittleman said after the vote that it was hard to reconcile pay increases for judges in light of tax increases and budget cuts that are currently on the table.

“I don’t think someone who already makes $150,000 should get a raise,” Kittleman said. “The citizens of Maryland expect our public servants to sacrifice like everyone else is sacrificing in this economy.”
http://marylandreporter.com/2012/03/06/senate-moves-to-give-judges-3-pay-raise-for-next-three-years/

By Lindsey McPherson, lmcpherson@patuxent.com, Howard County Times

March 6, 2012 | 3:49 p.m.

One bill garnered a lot of attention as it supporters fought through staunch opposition to get the final votes needed for passage. The other received little mention after its release and glided its way into law without legislators ever taking a vote.

The two bills — one legalizing same-sex marriage and one redrawing state legislative district boundaries — marked the General Assembly’s major accomplishments as state lawmakers reached the midway point of the 2012 legislative session Feb. 24. The legislature still has many issues to tackle before the 90-day session ends April 9.

The same-sex marriage bill passed the Senate Feb. 23 in a 25-22 vote; all three Howard senators supported the measure. The bill had narrowly passed the House of Delegates in a 72-67 vote Feb. 17.

Sen. Allan Kittleman, a West Friendship Republican, was the only Republican state senator to give the bill his approval; GOP Dels. Robert Costa, of Anne Arundel County, and Wade Kach, of Baltimore County, also supported the bill.

Kittleman said he believes marriage equality “is the Civil Rights issue of our generation” and that creating equal protections for same-sex couples under the law “was the right thing to do.

“I never once second-guessed my decision,” he said.

Because Kittleman represents the more conservative part of Howard County, it’s no surprise his position on same-sex marriage has not pleased all of his constituents.

“I’ve certainly had people, as recently as this past Saturday, say they’re going to work hard against me” in the next election, Kittleman said.

District 9 Dels. Warren Miller, a Woodbine Republican, and Gail Bates, a West Friendship Republican, both voted against the same-sex marriage bill. The only other Howard legislator to vote against the bill was District 12 Del. Steven DeBoy, a Halethorpe Democrat.

O’Malley signed the same-sex marriage bill into law March 1, but it is not slated to take effect until Jan. 1, 2013. Opponents are already pushing a referendum petition and are expected to get enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot in November.

Additional Howard delegate

A bill setting the boundaries of the state legislative districts for the next decade became law Feb. 24. Though the legislature never voted on the redistricting plan, which was introduced by O’Malley at the beginning of the session, state law says the governor’s plan becomes law if the General Assembly has not adopted a plan by the 45th day of session.

The new legislative boundaries, which will go into effect for the 2014 elections, create an additional delegate seat for Howard County in District 9, which is currently split into two subdistricts — District 9A in Howard and District 9B in Carroll County.

The new boundaries move District 9A out to Ellicott City, changing it from a two-delegate subdistrict to a one-delegate subdistrict. District 9B changes from a one-delegate subdistrict to a two-delegate subdistrict as its footprint in Carroll County is reduced and it enters western Howard County, where it extends through part of western Elliott City and covers parts of Clarksville, Highland and Fulton along the Montgomery County border.

Miller and Bates Howard’s currently represent District 9A, but they both live in the new District 9B. As a result, the seat created by the new District 9A is up for grabs in 2014, and both political parties are eyeing it.

“I think the Democrats have an excellent opportunity to pick up an additional delegate in the county,” Howard County Democratic Party chairman Mike McPherson said. “Who that is, I don’t know yet. I haven’t given any thought to it, although I have had some inquiries.”

McPherson declined to say who had inquired about the 9A seat. He also noted that “9B is not totally out of the question either” in terms of Democrats picking up a seat or two.

Howard County Republican Party chairwoman Loretta Shields said the GOP sees the 9A seat as a good opportunity for the county to gain a third Republican delegate. Asked who she thinks would be interested in running for that seat, she said “it’s too early to have that kind of conversation.”

Because of the redistricting changes, District 13 lost population to District 9 along the Montgomery County border. Other than that, changes made to the district were minor.

District 12 looks largely the same — stretching from west Columbia across to the southwestern part of Baltimore County — with minor shifts along its borders that will mean the majority of the district’s population is in Howard County instead of Baltimore County, as it is now.

The new redistricting map eliminates the District 12 subdistricts, making the campaigning area much larger for Columbia Democrat Del. Liz Bobo, who currently represents District 12B, and Halethorpe Democrats Dels. James Malone and Steven DeBoy, who currently represent District 12A.

Shields said District 12 could also provide an opportunity for a Republican to pick up a seat.

“You have a lot of conservatives on what was the 12A” side of the district, she explained.

Overall, Shields said the state redistricting plan for Republicans “was terrible statewide, but in Howard County it’s not that bad.”

http://www.baltimoresun.com/explore/howard/news/ph-ho-cf-political-notebook-0308-20120306,0,4415997.story

Wednesday, Feb. 29, 2012

Southern Maryland Newspapers Online

You would be hard-pressed to find too many people opposed to wind energy in theory. The fossil fuel and nuclear industries? Some birders concerned about damage from turbine blades? After all, wind energy is clean, renewable and relatively safe to produce.

For those reasons, and to make the United States more energy self-sufficient, the Obama administration has placed wind power development on the fast track. More specifically, it is touting offshore wind production.

On Feb. 2, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar traveled to Baltimore for a news conference during which he called the potential for wind power off the Atlantic coast “staggering.” He identified four “wind energy areas” off Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia and, of course, Maryland.

That was music to the ears of Gov. Martin O’Malley, who was standing next to Salazar. The governor has made offshore wind a cornerstone of his energy policy. He recently extracted a pledge from Exelon Corp. to invest more than $30 million in offshore wind development as part of a deal to back the firm’s plan to buy Baltimore-based Constellation Energy.

O’Malley would like to see a wind farm some 12 nautical miles off the coast of Ocean City. About 80,000 acres have been designated for leasing.

Now, fast-forward to Tuesday, when members of the state Senate Finance Committee grilled O’Malley about his wind proposal. Some of the comments and questions directed at him were silly, but others were on point.

“Why should ratepayers, many of whom can’t pay their bills right now, pay for this investment?” asked Sen. Delores G. Kelley. The governor and the state Energy Administration puts the added cost for residential ratepayers of wind-generated electricity at about $2 a month.

A recent poll commissioned by the Marylanders for Offshore Wind Coalition indicated that about two-thirds of voters would be willing to pay the $2 for offshore wind. Some three-quarters of those surveyed believe the state should move toward renewable energy sources such as wind power. The poll results show that most of those responding were moved by the potential health benefits of wind power and the number of jobs potentially created.

The state says a 310-megawatt installation could mean 1,200 jobs during five years of construction and another 250 jobs in operations and maintenance.

But some, including a number of Republicans, are questioning both the $2-a-month cost figure and the forecast of jobs for Marylanders.

In fact, searching through a number of studies shows how difficult it is to come up with reliable numbers on wind energy costs. Quite a few variables are at play. They include equipment, site, ownership, backup generation, grid management, etc. Then there’s the question of governmental subsidies and tax breaks — and their duration.

As for the job-creation numbers, Sen. Allan H. Kittleman questioned how much work would be done by Maryland residents.

To his credit, O’Malley said he’s “amenable and open to any way that we can move forward on this.” As he notes, Maryland has a requirement that 20 percent of its electricity be generated from renewable sources by 2022. Wind could become part of a portfolio that might include renewable sources such as solar power and biofuels.

Still, regarding wind, it’s imperative that the numbers add up accurately — and the public understands what it’s potentially getting into — before turbines begin spinning in the Atlantic.

http://www.somdnews.com/article/20120229/OPINION/702299886/-1/don-t-put-spin-on-cost-of-wind-turbines&template=southernMaryland

March 1, 2012

Chris Cavey, The Tentacle

Last week both chambers of the Maryland General Assembly voted favorably on the Civil Marriage Protection Act, allowing gays to legally marry in Maryland. In hindsight that vote was more of a study about the character of our elected representatives than a great dissertation on changing Maryland’s morals by law.

Personally, I believe marriage should be between members of the opposite sex. I believe that marriage, with the natural family unit and relationships it creates, is the backbone of every culture since the beginning of time. It is a bond historically centered around the reproductively of our species and is a control mechanism within our culture.

In a constitutional republic there are basic principles in ideology, such as certain freedoms: equality before the law, civic duties of citizens and government being answerable to citizens by the changing of their elected representatives. Aside from demographic swings, many changes in our representatives are made due to the declined character and morals of those serving in office… once again they will be answerable for their actions I’m sure.

Although I have personal disagreement with those who voted in favor of this bill, I have nothing but respect for members of each chamber who have fought long and hard and openly championed their respective sides of this issue. It is a test of character in Annapolis when – on tough issues – individual members go against the grain of their party or chamber leadership to represent their constituency.

It is also a time when lack of character tempts the feeble.

Sen. Allen Kittleman (R., Carroll/Howard) is a man of character. He has been a champion of this specific issue, and that has not been easy to do as a Republican senator and prior minority caucus leader. The senator had previously voted in favor of gay marriage. He has offered his own “compromise” bill based on civil unions rather than “marriage” and has worked the trenches to find middle ground within this emotional debate. Senator Kittleman speaks intelligently about his issue and is not angry in debate.

Last summer I listened as the senator explained his position to a room full of hard core GOP club members. It was elegant and emotional. He took his time, didn’t back down and answered many tough questions over the course of a very long hour in a very uncomfortable situation. Afterwards he received applause.

The applause was not a sign of agreement on the issue but that of respect. He had reminded everyone of his long-held stance, explained and answered all questions asked. He did his job, reached out to his constituency and was openly accountable for his actions, which is exactly what an elected representative should do.

Senator Kittleman is a man of class and character.

On the House side of the statehouse dome, the gay marriage bill found itself in much murkier water. Being “the people’s house,” its members are a scrappier bunch. When Gov. Martin O’Malley and the House leadership checked their vote count on this bill, they found many of the House Democrats were not in favor due to their deeply held moral and religious beliefs. (Signs of character.)

The “persuadables” within the Democrat realm were a finite number – which meant Democrat leadership looked to the low hanging fruit within the ranks of the GOP to put Governor O’Malley’s signature bill over the top. The goal of one or two GOP votes would allow proponents to claim bi-partisan support in the House…their justification and future claim to the media of broad-ranging social support.

It is not a sign of either virtue or character when a member of the minority party, or any elected official, is so easily or readily identified as “obtainable.” It typically means someone has trod that same path to the well previously on less high profile issues. It indicates those members are known to have compromised their morals and the confidence of their constituency by changing votes while in Annapolis and many miles away from the people back home.

We all know character is about what you do when no one is looking.

One member who was “obtained” has spent 37 long years serving conservative Republican constituency in the House of Delegates. Presumably “He Who Shall Remain Nameless” should be the GOP elder statesman, who has fought every battle and would understand best the tricks and temptations of those who would persuade the weak minded. He should have been the teacher and example of integrity and dependability.

But not so… this delegate’s opinion on the issue suddenly and mysteriously changed, shocking his rural conservative district and the Republican caucus. The delegate’s testimony, earlier that afternoon, within his committee, had been against the bill; even casting his vote to kill the issue of gay marriage before it could reach a full House vote. Yet, within a few short hours his 37-years of purported conservative principles and personal reputation vanished – after a visit with an “influential friend.”

It makes you wonder…was this the first time?

Later his explanation for his vote and change of heart was awkward and contrived… as if he had a sudden epiphany. Perhaps it was just years of pretending and self-service finally rearing its ugly head.

The meeting with his influential visitor prompted many rumors by his disappointed peers about potential deals – which likely did or will happen, but only time will tell. Was it payback for favorable redistricting? Future money for his 10th four-year term? Perhaps a nice well-paid state appointed job? Or enhanced retirement? Who knows? Whatever the deal, it only brings shame to our system of government and discredits those who serve in Annapolis.

One thing is certain: this delegate will now become an ineffective leper within the General Assembly. Once you have openly and publicly compromised your morals, given others the perception your vote is for sale and indicate through your actions that your word can no longer be trusted, you are done.

Henry Clay once said: “Of all the properties which belong to honorable men, not one is so highly prized as that of character.”

chris@cavey.com

http://www.thetentacle.com/ShowArticle.cfm?mydocid=4950