Thursday, December 30, 2010

One more thing about that incinerator

     For one who has been there and done that, ad nauseum, on the waste to energy topic, it was painful to sit through the long meeting of the board of commissioners on Dec. 23, but it was necessary for them to go over it all, because it was obvious that they were hearing some things they had not heard before. Or had heard before but did not want to believe.
     To give credit where it's due, the commissioners asked some good questions, and in the particular case of David Roush, seemed to get it. Richard Rothschild shows he has a professional-sounding vocabulary, but he was obviously struggling to tailor what he was hearing into his preconceived notions, despite declarations of open-mindedness. He stated categorically during his election campaign that he had studied the issue thoroughly, found the direction the county was taking in partnership with Frederick County on a waste to energy plant wanting, and would work to halt it.
     I believed him then on the second part; he would try to stop it. I also believed he had failed to grasp some particulars that complicate the decision beyond a campaign slogan, and his responses at the Dec. 23 meeting proved it.
     Robin Frazier does not get it; but then her charm lies in her conservatism, which requires only that one ask, every so often, if there will be more figures to study later, more particulars, and isn't there a cheaper way. Haven Shoemaker reverted to the old Haven Shoemaker, the pre-candidate version, and did more listening than talking.
     Doug Howard was congenial, open, welcoming, gracious, and reassuring. A good start, and if he was aware that the topics brought forth during the public comments time had been brought forth before, and often, he treated each speaker as if new, illuminating truths had been revealed. He even seemed to believe the comment of one speaker that this was the first time that private trash haulers and environmentalist activists had been given the opportunity to speak before commissioners on this issue. This, despite the opening report from staff that a huge public information and feedback effort, including announcement, open meetings, public hearings and even a special meeting with all the private contractors had been held by the previous board.
     The newspaper reporters covering the Dec. 23 meeting were hearing it all for the first time, of course, and the impression one might get from the dialog among those attending was that several of the commissioners were hearing it for the first time, too. Fine; if you don't know, start over at the beginning, which is apparently what they are going to do.
     The most knowledgeable people in the room were the professional trash haulers whose private businesses would be affected by any policy changes the county government makes. Which is why they were invited to the table for discussions several years ago, about the same time a professional survey was contracted to lay the groundwork for staff to base a plan of action to be recommended to the commissioners at the time.
     One telling moment was when a private hauler pointed out that an option favored by conservatives and some conservationists and anybody looking for any argument against a waste to energy plant would not work county wide. He said that pay as you throw, in which each customer would pay according to how much trash they put out for pickup, was okay for high-density neighborhoods, but would not be efficient in more rural parts of the county. He also pointed out, correctly, that recycling, especially with the single-stream system (mixing all recyclables in one bin) was increasing, and that creates good news and bad news. The good news is that you see more recycling. The bad news is that it creates a problem with how to separate it on a truck, and still run a route with a full load at the end of the day, instead of burning fuel on two trucks, or two runs.
     Another private hauler, with operations both inside and outside the county, made the case that competition among haulers keeps the costs down, and he was opposed to any big-government approach, particularly one that might cut into his business.
     Understandable. The one big elephant in the room that the previous board of commissioners had to deal with -- and has not yet been noticed by the new board -- is that private solutions tend to favor contracts where the trash cans are close together; it gets less profitable when you provide the service out along the 700 miles of roads outside the towns and highly developed neighborhoods.
     If private haulers could cherry pick their customers, those with close neighbors would get a good deal, but those in the boonies would pay through the nose.
     So, how does the county comply with state laws requiring a waste management plan that allows cost controls, avoids the uncertainties of fuel charges by private landfill owners and private haulers, keeps the cost to the citizens manageable and predictable and improves the environment?
      The new board stopped short of a solution to that problem on Dec. 23, and will take a closer look at the pros and cons of a waste to energy plant partnership with Frederick County next month.  That's the one more thing, the big thing, and the thing that a narrow agenda or a political slogan does not solve.
     Stay tuned.

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Sometimes the big issues stick with you

     (The following column first appeared in The Carroll County Times and was later incorporated into a collection under The Great Tomato Seed Wars, 1994)

     Edward R. Murrow mad a name for himself covering the Battle of Britain.
     Walter Cronkite gave journalism a good name when he was considered the most trusted man in America as anchor of the CBS Evening News.
     Woodward and Bernstein made journalism infamous when they brought down a president and changed history.
     Me? I get to write about such rip-snorting issues as doggie do.
     "When are you going to write an editorial about the deplorable situation in my neighborhood?" demands this one particularly pushy reader who has somehow slipped past security to appear at my desk as I am in the middle of my morning coffee. "You need to get on the stick and speak out against people who let their dogs run loose on other people's property. And I'm not the only one who thinks so!"
     Now, if you have been in this business as long as I have, you know that when somebody says, "I'm not the only one who thinks so," they are seriously upset.
     That means if you don't do something, and fast, you will be voted out of office, or be afflicted with a cancelled subscription, or a note will be sent home to your mother.
     I ask, earnestly, "What seems to be the problem?" I was required to attend sensitivity training on how to listen attentively when dealing with irate people. They desperately need to know that others feel their angst.
     "Well, we have laws in this county about dogs staying on their own property, don't they? But my neighbor ignores them!" He shows me the sole of his shoe.
     Irate people, especially those with the source of their irritation still freshly attached to their shoes, tend to speak a lot in italics and exclamation points.
     I suggest he contact animal control.
     "Did that! They said to talk to my neighbor, but that doesn't work."
     My visitor is becoming increasingly agitated, waving his hands and stamping his feet. I reach for the Kleenex in case he bursts into tears. He looks at the box and misreads my intent.
     "Absolutely NOT! If anybody follows the dog around with a box of tissues, it will be the owner, not me!"
     "Why don't you just calm down," I suggest, gently, I think. "Lots of people have the same problem. You just have to make allowances. I have a dog in my neighborhood who must be on a diet of sawdust and dynamite. That, or we have an elephant in our midst."
     He chastises me for taking him lightly. I should be cursed with living in the midst of a doggie minefield, I am shirking my responsibilities as a protector of the populace.
     "You should write one of your patented, scathing, world-changing, prize-winning editorials to call attention to the number one public menace of our time!"
     Really? I think -- to myself, being earnest in my attempts at sensitivity. So when did this pass issues like AIDS and President Clinton's plans for health care?
     He props his shoe on the corner of my desk. "Don't belittle this issue. This is not to be trivialized! Have you ever seen what (doggie do) does to a pair of kids' $160 sneakers? There are more ridges, treads, nooks and crannies in the soles of those shoes--"
    "Okay, I get the picture."
    "I spent TWO HOURS the other night sitting on the curb with a mask, goggles, rubber gloves and a box of toothpicks!"
    "Maybe you could put up a fence."
    "A fence? Why should I have to put up the money for a fence? I have rights. I am an American! Maybe I should just shoot the dog. What happens if I shoot the dog? Not to kill him, just to scare him?"
     "While you are in jail, the dog will be laughing at you. And getting that much farther ahead of you in your little war. He may even invite his friends over; dogs have a way of designating one yard in the neighborhood as the place to go, no pun intended." I am aware that I am losing my grip on being consoling. My sensitivity training, the lessons in tact, are failing me.
     "Write the editorial! Sound the warning! Armageddon is here unless my neighbor keeps his dog on his own property! Alert the Humane Society, the County Commissioners, the appropriate law enforcement officials! One more bombing raid on my yard by that incontinent pooch and it will be another Bosnia, another Beirut, another Desert Storm!"
     Time to wrap this up. "I can see you're upset," I say -- earnestly. "Let me place a call to The President and see if he can send an emissary, or failing that, a peace-keeping mission. He could deploy troops, set up a perimeter around your yard."
     He looks at me. "What, are you nuts!"

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Budget crisis looming

     The Carroll County Commissioners are likely to run into a major hurdle when they get started on the next budget, because you can look for the state legislature to make good on the threats they have been waving around for the past two years or more.
     Those who serve the counties and cities in Annapolis have conveniently forgotten that the reason they once had a state retirement plan for teachers was to ensure that poor counties would not have to deal with a total talent drain to richer counties because of the pay and benefits offered teachers.
     Salaries in Carroll County have historically been near the bottom when compared to other counties, but the quality of life in this area near the metro areas made the salary difference less of an issue; the retirement was comparable, and many educators would rather teach where they live than travel to other metro area counties for a few more dollars in the paycheck.
     But years ago, the state pushed hard to make teachers get out of the "old" retirement system. The sales pitch was that the pension fund was dwindling, the plan unsustainable, and the smart thing to do was change to the "new" plan, which was less lucrative for the employees.  It was still a state plan, though, and an equalizer.
     Now, though, leaders in the state capital are looking at huge deficits, and they have no idea how they're going to fund not only teacher pensions in the future, but other state employees as well. That's because for years, the state declined to keep up the long term funding for the plan, spending the money elsewhere today. You can do that for awhile, but sooner or later, you're going to have all those retirees out there counting on those pension checks.
     The federal government stepped in and mandated more accountability, and now the bill is about to come due. So, the state legislators are saying that the counties are going to have to put up the money that the state has been putting toward the pension plan.
     That could mean millions more in county taxes to pay for pensions.
     Teachers and other Board of Education employees have already been told, in a memo from Superintendent Stephen Guthrie on Dec. 7, that the cuts in spending will continue for the foreseeable future. Reductions in staffing, from the classrooms to the clerical staff at the board offices, are expected. Forget about raises again; and now jobs are on the line.
     On the TV news magazine 60 Minutes last week, the woman on Wall Street who warned of the housing bubble bursting two years before it actually did was saying that the next major hit to the US economy will be in state and local government shortages in paying the bills, the most significant one being the funding of neglected pension plans.
     Cut taxes?  I doubt it.    

Saturday, December 18, 2010

It's not the wealth that matters, but the hope

     Several times in recent weeks, I have found myself stopping in my tracks and thinking about the bounty we have. A few weeks ago it happened when I walked into a supermarket. As I entered through the sliding doors, there was this explosion of color spread out before me; Oranges, apples, pears, grapes, green vegetables -- all laid out in displays covering an area the size of a basketball court. Abundant, fresh, healthy and affordable.
     Saturday is farmers' market day, and the foods and crafts and the humanity come together in a celebration of humanity, creativity, productivity, and generosity of spirit.
     No, it's not the Christmas music getting to me. It's the contrasts.
     It seems to me that in the contrasts, there is the basic theme of some of the stories we have brought with us through the generations, along great pilgrimages.
     Contrast the bounty of the supermarket -- any supermarket -- and the luxurious inventories in the retail stores with the dire reports in the news and just stop and think.
     Yes, the situations in Haiti or Somalia or Afghanistan cause us to worry, perhaps to grieve. But here, we have blessings, and those blessings are not to be ignored -- or regretted.
     To take the bounty for granted puts us at risk of becoming blind to the poverty of others, including our own ancestors. Every rich man has a family history of deprivation. Perhaps a future, too. In the big picture, there are plenty of regrets to go around.
     It's not an accident of arrogance that these bounties and this quality of life exists in this country. Other countries, too. The fact that some people live in good fortune while others are suffering in war and pestilence is the eternal story of humanity, a story of strife and struggle and inequalities and injustices -- of good and evil. The ebb and flow of haves and have-nots.
    Every culture has its history: rising, dominating, declining. Sometimes kings, sometimes slaves.
    Hope is part of the story. That's why varying faiths have similar themes, familiar histories. It is hope and faith and hard work and effort and the willingness to respect the rights of others to join the quest for a better life that lights the beacons so many have followed.
     My story might have been different if great-great grandparents had not sought just the opportunity for a better life, a better future.
     I may not be obligated to apologize for what I have, but I do feel a moral and -- especially in this season -- a spiritual requirement to make sure I do not deny those with less the opportunity to follow the beacons of hope that make life better for humanity.
     So, I drop some coins in the Salvation Army pot, aware that it's no real sacrifice of my wealth, but at least it's a token acknowledgment that the dreams of others are as valid as those who made it possible for me to have fresh produce in December.        

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Airport, waste to energy are issues; police force won't be

     Now that the electing games are over and the governing work is beginning in Carroll County, here's what I think will happen on several issues:  Enlargement of the airport runway, waste to energy plant co-operation with Frederick County, and local law enforcement.
      The replacement of the runway at Carroll County airport will most likely be carried through as the facts become clearer to the new board of commissioners. They were willing to milk the controversy stirred up by a handful of objectors while seeking office, but the truth will make it difficult for reasonable people to justify any change in direction on the airport plan.
       All the processes were followed, the work is needed, mostly paid for already and with way more benefit to the entire community than drawbacks. Not doing anything will, in the long run, cost more than going ahead.

     WASTE TO ENERGY
     The waste to energy plant could go either way. Frederick County's new commissioners, ironically, were elected in part because they were in favor of the project, showing that the apparent tidal wave of emails and wailing from another engaged and enraged group did not, indeed, represent the public will after all. And Frederick County will be the actual site of the plant.
     Carroll County is positioned to be a partner with Frederick County, which would ensure some cost-benefits, environmental controls and overall consistency in waste management as Carroll continues to build on its reputation as one of the more forward-looking counties in the state -- not my words, but the assessment of other administrators in sister counties and the state capital.
     But Carroll's new commissioners may opt out, just to make a show for the base constituency that helped them gain office. If so, the county may lose some money, but Frederick will be just fine, finding willing substitutes in Howard County, perhaps, or even Baltimore County, and others who know a good deal and a right course of action when they see one.
     It will be then up to the new commissioners to decide -- quickly -- if, when and where the next landfill will be located in Carroll County, assuming that the state Department of the Environment would issue permits. There would be public hearings, of course, and the new kids will find themselves on the other side of the table from those neighbors and former friends and supporters who will protest any site in the county.
     Or, this board of commissioners may choose the head in the sand approach, and hope something turns up to take them off the heat.  But waste management issues and expenses will not go away.

     COUNTY POLICE FORCE
     Finally, there is the so-called county police force issue.
     It is a dead horse. It was dead before it was ridden and whipped harshly during the recent election campaign. It died in the back-room dealing in the state capital.
     It was supposed to be a public discussion, and became tool for inciting a mob.
     Any real discussion about the viability of a county police force was blown all out of proportion by those whose vested interests lie in an expanded sheriff's department. As with the controversies inherent in discussion such issues as airports, "incinerators," and master plans and zoning, it was accomplished with a cagey manipulation of the natural populist inclinations of the local news media.
    The county police controversy is best described as an example of what happens when government transparency is turned against itself.
     There was a question to be answered:  Since the costs of maintaining a contract with the state police was getting to be so much higher than the cost of funding the sheriff's office, should the primary law enforcement agency designation be handed to the sheriff's department and let it go at that? Certainly in two or three years, a lot of money had been requested by the sheriff, and granted by the board of commissioners.
      But there were -- and remain -- those who were worried about the tendency of elected sheriffs to build empires, making the people vulnerable to higher costs without representation at budget time. A popular elected sheriff works at being popular and asking for money, but does not have to account to the voters for rising costs. Patterns in other Maryland counties and in jurisdictions across the county indicated that it was a legitimate concern, one that should be studied.
     When that intent to bring together a panel to examine the possibilities of a third option -- a county police force with fiscal controls in the hands of the commissioners --
got turned around and presented as a "takeover" and a "done deal," supporters of the sheriff's department showed up at a hearing with the delegation and asked the representatives to Annapolis to strip the commissioners of their rights under the state constitution to make local decisions regarding local policing.
     Annapolis being the place where people meet to trade votes, went along with the idea so long as it did not apply to their counties. Done deal.
     So, the plan to bring as many points of view to the table as possible and really go over the pros and cons of local policing before making a final decision was hijacked, became another election issue, and now, I see, some of the most ardent supporters of the sheriff's expansion plans will be covered by insurance in case they get sued.
     Not sworn officers -- they're already covered. The ones who will benefit from the most recent request for spending to the delegation are the auxiliary police, who wear uniforms to make them look like deputies. They already got the county cars the sheriff unilaterally decided to give them with a new paint job that says "community patrol" (those cars might have been deployed to other county uses or traded in as new cars were purchased, but the commissioners never made an issue of it).
     At first the idea of extending liability insurance to the auxiliary police was apparently presented as a "cost-saving" measure, but when the hard numbers were crunched, it costs more.
     Richard Rothschild, the neo-conservative, was heard to say that it was a little more money, but not much. He should be careful; that's the brink of the slippery slope to liberal, overspending politician status.

Monday, December 13, 2010

We already have term limits, and it works fine

     Commissioner Haven Shoemaker and the Carroll County Times are calling for legislation to impose term limits on those who serve as county commissioners.
     This is a no-lose position for the newest commissioner, who was until recently a small-town mayor and who, it might be speculated, has at least speculated on a future as a state legislator or -- what the heck -- governor, or maybe Washington.
     Why not? Congressman Roscoe Bartlett ran on a term limit platform nearly 30 years ago and he's still drawing a government paycheck.
     Almost 100 percent of the politicians I have known who took up the banner for term limits planned to ride the clamor into a long political career.
     Term limits is the periodic buzzword, the occasional  banner lifted by the politically obtuse, innately disaffected and the opportunistic office-seeker. It's a no-lose position for both conniving politicos and nerdy world-savers: Populism sells papers and gets votes. The press always is eager to "me, too!" to any criticism of political power; it's in the genetic makeup of those who seek a line of work in which you can write about things without having to know too much about them. We tend to be enamored with the romance of tilting at windmills in our dented armor -- or rumpled pants and wrinkled shirts.
     I speak from experience.
     Journalists are people who might have been teachers but lack the self-discipline and, often, the grades, to get a job on a college campus. In my life in the work, a significant number of journalistic colleagues were the ones who had been kicked out of college at least once, changed majors half a dozen times (having started out in some esoteric pursuit like Ancient History, or the literary significance of punk rock, or the decline of creative writing in a consumer-centered world), wound up graduating with a degree that has no bearing on modern self-support, and take part-time work tending bar and writing as a free-lancer for a weekly until they can find something to pay for a newer old Honda.
     Then there were the few dinosaurs, like myself, who wanted to write novels, but never even went to college, except night classes at University of Whatsis, while they ground away years running down car crashes, trailer park knifings and drug busts. Oh, yeah, and while you're at it, cover the school board, county courts, and local government, 4H fair and installation of Job's Daughters.
      My point is, even politicians who call for term limits have little intention of limiting their own political careers. Hardly a model to follow. Newspapers don't like politicians who serve for more than a few weeks, if that long, so don't look for an example there, either.
     The wisdom is already in place, and so is the system to employ it.
      Elected officials serve one term at a time. The voters decide how many terms any one representative can serve. Some might be worth electing two, three or more times. It's up to the person in office to decide, first of all, if they feel up to returning to office. But the final decision is up to the people who cast votes.
     And in the end, the voters get what they want -- or at least deserve.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

No absolutes; lots of absolutists

     Months ago, I wrote an idea on one of the index cards I carry in my shirt pocket; it said, "No absolutes, but lots of absolutists."
     Ever since I started writing the news in 1963, and especially once I was in positions to make news in political office, I've had the idea that life would be better if we had fewer absolutists.
     You know the type: Absolutely certain of his or her opinions, what is fact and what is hearsay (it's fact if it matches his opinion, hearsay if it does not).  More than willing to impose his truth on you and others, but offended if you disagree.
    When then-candidate Obama was campaigning, most of my friends were adamantly opposed to his election. Too left wing, they said. Absolutely liberal, they said, and they were absolutely certain he would always lean to the left.
     I disagreed, but not absolutely. Yes, he leans to the left, but he would not be a totally leftist President, I said. And, I prophesied, if he is elected, he will get as much grief from the liberal absolutists as he was getting then from the conservative absolutists.
     My argument was that he is too intelligent to be an absolutist, which only a few of my absolutist friends took as an insult.
     He may run as a liberal Democrat, but he will not be able to rule as one. Indeed, no elected official gets away with ruling anything in our culture. Not even Mitch McConnell or John Boehner. They can at most ride high with the moment with a certain absolutist faction.
     To get anything done, leaders will have to make adjustments -- call them compromises, changes of mind, even reversals as new information becomes apparent. There is the inevitable collision between ideals and realities, between intentions and interventions. In life, there are no absolutes.
     I used to grumble about the political correctness of the overly sensitive liberals, and was branded by some as a dyed in the wool conservative. More recently, I grumble more about the obstructionism of the extreme partisans on the right, and have been branded by some as a turncoat RINO -- that's an uncharacteristic cuteness that Republicans stumbled upon to label those whose dedication to unthinking loyalty is insufficient.
     I rest my case with the example going on now in Washington. First, the GOP holds the middle class hostage to get what it wants for their richer constituents. After some adjustments and deal-making, now it is the intransigent Left that is holding everyone hostage because they don't like seeing rich people and/or Republicans get away with anything.  Obama is vilified for being, in essence, a centrist.
    So if you think the recent elections successfully sent a message to elected officials about what Americans want to see from their leadership, I submit that you are not only wrong, but absolutely wrong.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Imagine what could have been

    Imagine where we would be today if a black man had not been elected President of the United States in 2008.
    Imagine what we would be debating if the black man had not been a Democrat. Or branded as a liberal.
   Would we really be holding up a treaty with the Russians that every country in the world says we need if a white, conservative, male had been elected to head the nation?
    Is it possible to be truly a patriot, with the best interests of the nation in mind, and still hold hostage two million families whose unemployment benefits are running out? Or is that the work of a partisan more interested in running the upstart black Chicago liberal out of Washington after only one term?
    How can rich conservatives retain any credibility when they argue on one hand that the budget deficits are job number one and then turn around and insist that the wealthiest Americans continue to get tax breaks that make the deficit worse?
     Or are they just pushing back against Democrats that they think are on the defensive?
     Do we really believe that they care more about everyday citizens than they do about expanding their numbers and their power in political office?
     What if our political actions, words, deeds, reflected the real ideals that we say we value:  Equal opportunity and  limited government?
     Can anyone make the argument that the obstructionism and disingenousness we see among partisans today meets the standard for limited government?
     What if this nation had celebrated the milestone of the election of a black man only 140 years after people of his race had been slaves? What if we really worked for compromise and the general well-being of all, to govern democratically within the structure of a republic, instead of competing among ourselves for power and domination?
     What if we were motivated by altruism, instead of greed, fear and ignorance?
     That would require that we face the truth, instead of hiding in hypocrisy.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

It's about the facts, not the crusade for open meetings

     Sunday's Carroll County Times carried the editorial I expected; I could have written it in advance. Secret meetings, conference calls, reeks of payoffs, cronyism, all words used to express their editorial outrage at the departure of four county employees under the terms of contracts that allowed them to leave with severance pay and accrued benefits.
     Having worked for several newspapers, I can attest that the contracts were little different that many of those signed by newspaper executives and managers who have served at the pleasure of various publishers and group owners. I can attest that the newspapers also observed the appropriate rules and applicable laws for offering and accepting and announcing -- or not -- the changes in job status. Sometimes it is what is not said that speaks volumes.
     In the case of the editorial in Sunday's paper, what was not said was that the paper knew that staff changes were under consideration and would be announced when the legal parameters permitted. Also not explained was the fact that it was geographical separation that required that time limits be met with a conference call vote, rather than an announcement of a closed meeting for personnel purposes. In either case, the paper knew in advance that changes were coming, but did not know exactly what changes because even the county administration did not yet know; they were waiting for employee responses.
     The allusion to "payoffs" or preferred treatment for certain people is petulant and immature ranting -- a tantrum -- because the legal requirement was that (1) the contracts be at least reviewed and (2) if sufficient justification was apparent that the interests of the employees might be affected by the change in leadership, ALL persons employed under such a contract must be offered the opportunity to take dismissal under the terms agreed upon when they were hired. The fact that only four of the 21 department heads affected took advantage of their contracts was THEIR choice, not the commissioners'.
Had the commissioners picked only a few to dismiss with benefits, the critics, including the Times' editorialists, might have a point.
     Newspapers like to cast themselves as populist guardians of the right of the people to know, and castigate government loudly and often about transparency, and freedom of information. And yet newspapers themselves deliberately withhold information every day that might be of value to the community.
     They may justify the downplay of a story or a quote by saying it is irrelevant; let the public decide what is relevant. It may refuse to quote public officials on the grounds that the quote is self-serving, or political; but they will turn around and repeat information that they know is "spin" -- or an outright lie -- when it comes from a non-government source critical of those in elected office, or the policies in place.
     I will quote now from a newspaper article published in December of 2004, appearing in numerous papers in syndication across the nation. The writer was Lois Melina, a former newspaper reporter, journalism teacher, and author.
     "As the country prepares for at least two years with the Republicans in control of both the White House and Congress, it is vitally important that the news media look at how they have failed the American people and contributed to a polarized nation...."
     Still applies today. To continue, "TV programs that pit an extremist on the left against an extremist on the right have made it clear that there is no room for moderate voices....."
     Balance and fairness once was defined as getting to the facts behind the quotes or the apparent actions. I have advocated, both as a journalist and as an elected official, that the answer to the question, "Why," be a part of public discourse.
     "Instead, we have too many reporters who believe it is their job simply to quote what people tell them -- who think being 'investigative' is getting a conflicting quote."
     Reporters who have covered county government told me -- two on their departures and others who were frustrated with the editing of their stories -- that their editors killed facts quoted or produced by government sources. The reasons varied from not wanting the reading public to think that they were overly friendly with the elected officials or government employees to something as irresponsible as needing to "punch up the story." Apparently, mitigating inflammatory citizen accusations with enlightened comments by county sources got in the way of a good story.
     I know that any editor or reporter abhors being "used" by a government source, and that's commendable. But to go too far in the other direction is to allow the papers' news columns to be "used" by those with another political agenda.
     When Haven Shoemaker first started making irrational comments about two years ago, I confronted him. I said we had enjoyed a collegial relationship between the county and the town of Hampstead, but if he was going to allow his political ambitions to lead him to unfairly attack the county in general or Commissioner Julia Gouge in particular, I would set the record straight. I saw his strategy, and the papers were playing into it.
     More from the 2004 article:  "Political operatives understand the news media better than reporters and consequently are able to control what news is covered and how."
     That was a reference to the national scene, but all local is politics, too, and it happens here. The reporting jobs on Carroll County newspapers tend to be like revolving doors; the Times has had six or eight reporters come and go on the county beat in as many years: "And political operatives on all sides have learned how to frame lies in ways that manipulate the news media into covering them as though they have substance."
      Okay, fair question: Is that my game?  If so, it would be inconsistent with the efforts the county has made during the past eight years to open up meetings, even putting the budget planning sessions on the agenda, hiring a professional news person to ensure all questions were answered whenever they were asked, by whomever. Asking directors for detailed explanations as to "Why" in open sessions. Insisting that meetings between the commissioners and town officials were held in open session -- even though the press often did not bother to send anyone to cover them. And how many hours did we spend on the phone answering reporters' questions, only to see in the following day's news columns only the "angle" that the paper wanted to play, yet we continued to take the calls and respond to the press inquiries.
     The question is fair, but, as the 2004 article said, "It's also fair to ask the news media to be accountable for giving legs to a story that they knew was false. What we have seen is that smear tactics, if repeated often enough, gain legitimacy...."
     The Times and other local papers should obsess less over "secret" meetings, and try to do a better job of reporting the truths from the facts at hand.

Friday, December 3, 2010

Protesteth too much

     Commissioner-elect Haven Shoemaker is apoplectic that he didn't get a chance to carry out the threats he had made against certain staff members of the outgoing board of commissioners. He was a man with a plan, and it was going to happen, "right off the bat." Big changes, fast.
     Richard Rothschild's comments in Friday's Carroll County Times smack of disingenuousness. In response to the dismissals of the four directors, he complained about the timing, and said, "the new board has never made plans to come in and make replacements without having talked with every appointed employee".  But during the hearings for the Pathways master plan he questioned the abilities and even the motives of at least two of the directors who took advantage of their contracts and vacated the premises before he arrives on Monday.
     Former commissioners Robin Frazier was silent: But her actions of the past speak volumes. When she took office in her first term, she requested the resignations of all department heads. If they refused, she said, they could find themselves dismissed for insubordination, without accrued benefits. Of all the members of the incoming board of commissioners, the return of Frazier seems to cause the most concern among county employees.
     Doug Howard of District 5 is apparently out of the loop already. While Shoemaker and Frazier have been making public comments about rapid changes and "right-sizing" the county staff, Howard says he thinks the release of four directors was intended to disrupt the transition from the current board of commissioners to the new five-member board. He said, "But it was never our intention to make massive changes without a process first."
     But that's inconsistent with remarks Howard himself has made to the effect that the administration is top-heavy, and with the vast expertise and business acumen of the incoming board, there should an expectation that reorganization and downsizing is in order. There seems to be an expectation that instead of paying professionals, the work of the new board of commissioners can be turned over to volunteers.
     Maybe the five have lined up some action plan or so, but a few disconnects are beginning to show already. Howard thinks he has the business and administrative ability to run the county with no -- or less -- input in some current departments. David Roush expressed concern about losing the experience and institutional knowledge of key people, so perhaps he does not share the thinking that volunteers can fill in; give him credit for that. Frazier has demonstrated that she's willing to dictate actions to departments on her own, quietly and behind the scenes. In one of a series of interviews in the Times with the new board, Shoemaker rants about big changes fast; Howard is now saying no big changes so fast. Rothschild talks about making changes "not with a meat cleaver, but rather with a surgeon's scalpel."
     Either way you slice it, the directors who were key to the formation and implementation of the policies of the outgoing board might be expected to use the tools legally at their disposal to protect their families and their professional integrity, and their future careers.
    

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

A few reasons why you'd fire a good employee

     During the past week, the county has engaged in the process of letting a few good employees go, their contracts terminated with severance pay.
     The natural questions is, why would commissioners on their way out the door fire people?  Why not let the new commissioners assess the abilities of the employees, and decide whether to keep them or cut them loose? Is this a case of paying off political pals at taxpayer expense?
     I had to consider the substance and the appearance of the situation before I was able to take action. I am satisfied that the best interests of both the public and the employees were served with the termination of their contracts. Why?
     For starters, you can look up the county government web site and check out the video for Dec. 1 meeting. Close to the end, we discuss the merits of such an action, and bottom line is, it was why the contracts were offered in the first place, and it was time to wrap it up. It was the legal, ethical and honorable thing to do.
     I was reminded by human resources personnel several weeks ago that the contracts existed and that it was time to consider a course of action. Meanwhile, several of the commissioners-elect had sent some not-so-subtle threats that they would be lopping off heads and cleaning house. Hardly the classy and dignified way to send off people whose only sin was to have been appointed to their positions by outgoing commissioners.
     Dismissing someone is never a good time. Not even when it is done for the right reasons. So what are legitimate reasons for firing someone? One is that the job has been accomplished and the employee is no longer needed. Two, the employee is not the right person for the job they are incompetent, insubordinate, unreliable, that sort of thing. Three, the cost of paying someone to do the job is no longer affordable. Four, the job disappears -- the reason for it has passed, the time has run out.
     Contracts are written to protect the interests of all parties concerned. When the four county employees were hired, the commissioners were looking for people to accomplish work that we thought represented both the wishes and the best interests of the citizens. We looked for skill sets and abilities that would move the stated agenda forward -- better transparency and public information, the development of a master plan that would sustain the quality of life and manage growth in ways that would be fiscally and environmentally responsible, and competent operations of public works such as roads, trash and recycling efforts -- general county operations.
     As I said in my comments at the Dec. 1 meeting, many county employees could do better professionally working for counties who pay more than Carroll, or in private industry. They served the interests of the people at some sacrifice to themselves, and to their job security. For that, they are entitled to negotiate a reasonable contract, including the terms of separation.
     I appreciate their service, not to me, or this board of commissioners, but to the public this board has represented for the past eight years. I'm proud of their work in behalf of the people of Carroll County, and I wish them well as they move on.
    It's my opinion that the taxpayers got a great deal.

Monday, November 29, 2010

Wikileaks links versus transparency -- and the local angle

     Transparency in the government is the ideal. As is the Barbie Doll.
     The ideal, but not the real.
     Wiki leaks publishes candid correspondence between individuals who are working through a process that will eventually evolve into a policy. How soon do we have a right to know what is being said, and by whom? How accurate are those first remarks? Are there new facts and changes in perspective that come later, but do not have the sensational appeal of the early assessments? Which is more accurate, and is the public really served by total, absolute transparency?
     As a life-long newsman, I have always heal that virtually everything that happens is a process, and too much information before it's an action is not really of any value.
     When I was an editor for newspapers, I wanted my reporters to know what was going on, even if they could not report anything because when the time came, time was of the essence. I encouraged reporters to develop sources who could tell them background before an action was taken, so they'd have the context when they had action to report on deadline.
      Decision makers in any venue -- business, politics, the family, even the newsroom -- like to have their ducks in a row before they let anyone else know what's going on. It makes dealing with the pressures of feedback, or blow back, easier. In some cases, keeping the cards close to the vest makes it easier to accomplish the mission, achieve the goals.
     Dad knows they can't afford a trip to Disney World this year, so he's thinking about Ocean City again. But there's a chance that a bonus later in the month will change that, so don't make any announcements just yet, and avoid unnecessary drama.
     A business plans a new product, but the timing is crucial, and you don't want the competition to come out a day before you do, so you choose the time and place to hold the grand announcement.
     The newsroom has a story idea, but it does not want to be wrong, so it waits. But the competition might have a source, too, so -- put pressure on the reporters to dig and get someone to talk before the deeds are done.
     The point of this is, speculation makes for busy work, but it can be a disservice to a lot of people. So you use discretion, move carefully, even at the risk of appearing circumspect.
     So much for transparency? Perhaps, but there is something to be said for what my father always said: Be sure you're right, then go ahead.

Friday, November 26, 2010

Political leadership and the three rules of plumbing

     One more week, and I will be just another civilian, no longer a county commissioner.
When people ask me if I find the transition difficult, I say no, because serving as a commissioner is what I have done for eight years. I was a civilian before, and considered myself a civilian during, the tenure. So I'm still a civilian.
     The only difference between a commissioner and anyone else, as far as I am concerned, is that voters go to the polls to choose commissioners to make policy based on the wants and needs of the general population -- ALL the people in the county, not just the people who voted for them, or members of their party, or sect or whatever.
     Commissioners do not, and should not, run the daily operations of the government all by themselves. That's why campaign promises should be modest, and expectations by the public realistic. Those who think commissioners or town council members or delegates to Annapolis or Washington should take charge are missing the point: No one is smart enough, or versed enough in all of the complexities of governing, to be successful without the collaboration of others, both professionals and volunteers.
     Okay, I know some of my more conservative friends are saying that's just the problem with government -- it has become too complex. It should be simple, as is in, cut spending and cut taxes. I have held the same opinions myself, in less enlightened days. People with leanings to the right of center, politically, like to use bumper stickers to map out an action plan. You can get elected to public office by playing to that theory, but you can't sustain any effort to reach success with such a simplistic approach.
     Let's use plumbing as an analogy. I heard a joke once that anyone can be a plumber if they remember three rules: One, (sewage) flows downhill, two, payday is on Friday, and, three, the boss is an ass.
     A lot of us look at politics the same way.
    Those of us who like to play do-it-yourself soon learn that plumbing is not that easy at all. You have to have a basic knowledge of the system, first of all, and then you have to have the right tools to work on it. You have to make investments in time, materials and talent, and you will always, always, make at least four trips to the hardware store before you bring home the right parts. You live with skinned knuckles, sore knees, a bad back, and little respect. It's a complete and apt analogy with holding public office.
     In theory, our system is the best on earth, despite the assertions of a copy desk editor I once knew who had come to believe that what America really needed was a benevolent dictator. The hole in the idea is, who gets to define benevolent? The people who want to cut programs, or the people whose programs are cut?
     So I believe that our best leaders have vision and the ability to communicate them to the population. They win the job then of moving inside a system that is already prescribed by law, regulation, custom, and the constraints of time and money, which is almost always completely different than what they told the people who voted for them. And always, there are people who do the actual work, and they have skills (or not) and habits and knowledge that requires that they, too, are communicating well with the elected official who has been chosen to represent the people.
     Again, when I say The People, I mean ALL the people, not just the ones who might share a bus to a rally or the six or eight words on a poster that sum up just about everything they know.
     Time and again, I have publicly recognized the contributions of paid county staff, from the directors of the departments to the men and women on the roads crew and the maintenance facilities, who make government come into focus as a plan and then become action.  Then there are the hundreds of citizens who serve on myriad commissions, committees and boards, advising the leadership on everything from parks and recreation to fire and emergency services to economic development to planning and zoning to ethics to senior citizens and social services to courts and law enforcement ....
No one person, no group of three, no board of five can do it by themselves.
     I have the feeling that the incoming board of commissioners believe they have the skills and the knowledge and the experience to run things. Maybe they think some paid positions can be replaced with volunteers. 
     My best wishes for them would be that their education is swift and well taken, with the least possible damage to the system they do not now fully understand. My hopes for the rest of us civilians is that they learn quickly that they are just like us, but with more responsibility for the moment.  Because the first rule of plumbing does apply.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Pushing back is politics; pulling together is public service

     I feel for President Obama. And for the American people, who deserve better than they're getting from the Republicans in Congress.
     The intransigence of the GOP on the START treaty is unconscionable. The new majority in the House and the conservatives in the Senate, playing to the extremists in their base, care more about numbers on their side of the aisle than they do about  national security, or the reputation of America in the world community.
     True, there are those who would like us to withdraw from membership in the world, but it isn't going to happen. Like it or not, America is going to continue to share the planet with Russia, North Korean, Iran, and every other nation, and the world population. So we can follow the leadership of our President, or we can work to make him fail, even if it hurts us and our children and grandchildren.
     If you want to be angry about something, you should be angry about that.
     Strength comes through relevance, and the GOP and conservative allies taking out their partisan rage on the President and the Democrats are only hurting the effort to remain relevant. Irrelevance on the world stage is dangerous.
     Pushing back is adolescent gamesmanship. We should all be pulling together, working as one nation, to remain one nation in a world of nations. We need to be recognized as a nation united on essential issues. It's far more important than any one politician, or party, or faction.
     The country needs leadership, not petty political pushback.
 

Friday, November 19, 2010

Sustainabillity report is a list of talking points, not a mandate

     Two of the three commissioners accepted a report on sustainability from staffer Neil Ridgely and McDaniel College student John Modica this past week. One commissioner -- Mike Zimmer -- chose not to endorse the report because he said it was calling for things that were never going to happen, like mandated recycling, among other things.
     I think Commissioner Zimmer has been keeping company with absolutists too much lately. Later in the week, he refused to accept a staff report on changes in the county's mineral overlay rules, claiming that he wanted to wait for the return of Commissioner Gouge. The delay conveniently puts the plan on hold long enough that it would need action by the next board of commissioners.
     I suspect that the delay is what the next board of commissioners would like. They have sent correspondence asking that this board essentially shut down and go home early, and let them take over from here. To me, that's like telling the driver of a bus to turn the wheel over before bringing the vehicle to a complete journey, because they plan to take over the driving next month.
     One hopeful -- unsuccessful candidate Michelle Jefferson, had a letter to the editor asserting, "we will take over from here". She seems to think she will be part of the new county leadership, even though she did not make it through the primary. Aside from her tendency to assume that she speaks for everyone whenever she has an opinion, she was pretty close with District Four commissioner-elect Richard Rothschild, so perhaps she hopes to be his special assistant. But wait, didn't she call for the elimination of those jobs when she was running for office?
     Never mind: Inconsistency is a given in politics. Zimmer, as a candidate for office four years ago, said he would not hire a special assistant, but once elected, he hired Amanda Boyd Miller, close associate of then-aspiring and now state senator-elect Joseph Getty, who has been waiting for years, paying his dues, for Sen. Larry Haines to retire. Getty has close ties with commissioner-elect Robin Frazier, who has exhibited an uncanny understanding of what goes on in the current administration -- almost as if she has access to the mail and staff reports -- that goes beyond the fact that she was a one-term commissioner eight years ago.
      There was a report that someone allowed her to enter the county office building after hours recently.
     That could have been at the invitation of Mr. Zimmer; he has made himself available to the incoming board, which should be a good thing, assuming it is for the purpose of helping them get up to speed on issues and assure a smooth transition.
     My guess it's not quite all that altruistic, judging by the back-channel comments and occasional emails from the victors in the election to some in the building who have served the county under the current -- but outgoing -- commissioners. Terms like, "You can clean out your desk now because I'm coming to clean house" lead a reasonable person to think that the new commissioners are thinking more like taking scalps than taking care of the public business.
     Which leads me back to the sustainability report received last week, after a year of hashing it out by a broad spectrum of citizens. In my view, the report puts on the table ideas that belong in the public discussion and consideration as we attempt to ensure continuity of the good life -- clean water and land, good plans for economic health and reasonable rates of industrial and residential growth, containment of costs, and preservation of the right of all citizens, regardless of the connections to insider politicians, to participate in important decisions on public policy. Not MAKE policy, but at least deal with science and facts, not just political paradigms.
     To the absolutists of the New Right, language in the report is to be taken literally and absolutely as a plan to institute government control and rhetoric in public policy. That seemed to be Zimmer's take, but perhaps he wants to make a good impression on the team that seems likely to dominate the new board of commissioners -- Frazier, Rothschild and Haven Shoemaker. The tendency to want to leave unfinished business unfinished, and therefor up to the new board, seems to be consistent with revising strategies, rather than finishing the job at hand in the current term.
     Because even if you have never been a candidate, like Miller, you can play a role  in the larger arena of partisan politics, which has at least as much to do with The Party as it does representing the total population. And even if you have been an unsuccessful candidate, like Jefferson, you can hold out hope for a job in the new administration, or support for future political campaigns.
     Zimmer is precluded from any county employment for a few years, a policy that precludes former electeds from financial gain following policy decisions of which they were a part.
     But there is often room for a good party team player somewhere as the victors enjoy the spoils of winning elections.
    

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

The conspiracy theorists tell me they're watching me

      Recently, I was copied on an email sent out by those who suspect everyone of tyranny rallying the true believers to come out to the commissioner's meeting that week to "pack the room" and ''let the commissioners know we're watching them."
      The source of this angst was a report from a committee on sustainability, which, it seems, is some kind of code for a takeover by the United Nations.
     "Sustainability" it seems, is just one buzzword that the defenders of true liberty want everyone to see as a bad thing.  If you do not learn the vocabulary words, you are in danger of being "enslaved by the globalists". If you do not react negatively to terms like "social justice," or "environmental responsibility," you are at best a socialist sympathizer, and at worst, an enabler of an international cabal that will overturn the United States Constitution and destroy your liberties.
     I was just a child during the McCarthy era, but I learned even then that the real enemy of my family's way of life was the absolutist zealot who first changed the definition of words to instill fear, feed ignorance, and exploit divisiveness for the purpose of abusing power.
     Twist the truth, scare people, stir up controversy, and then proclaim yourself or your cult leader as the savior of the nation.
     The tactic is not new. It has been a tool for building empires and has led to wars and terrorism. It counts on people getting only part of the story, or a certain twisted interpretation of the story, and not the whole truth. One weapon they use is the claim that they, alone, know the truth and they are here to share it with those who will join them. And if you don't join them, well, then they will be watching YOU.
     The Scare of the Moment is something called Agenda 21, and it's right at the top of a long list of out-there postings that can be found on Google. If you fall for the absolutists' line, then you should mistrust any attempt at cleaning up the planet, working collaboratively with anyone who is not a True American. Put up walls, put 'gators in the moat around America, get your gun and defend us against the rest of the world, or those within our Fortress America who would engage in dialog with other nations or cultures on issues that might affect all of us.
     This was the kind of rhetoric that led to the enclaves of "patriots" who blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.
     This is a big, diverse (another bad word) collection of cultures in America, and I feel safe with the majority of my fellow citizens. You'll have to forgive me if I object to attempts at intimidation from people who call themselves patriots right here in the nation that allows them -- and me -- to have differences of opinion on how to keep the best of what we have and participate as a free American in the continued prosperity and health of my community and my country.
     That effort is worth sustaining.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Late news, as in, too late

    Carroll County Times editor Jim Lee had another insightful column in Sunday's edition, adding to a list of good analytical pieces in the past few months.
     But as I have mumbled about a few of them in recent months, I heard someone else say, "Where was this information when it mattered?" As, for instance, during the campaigns and before the primary elections. Or why were these questions left unanswered, for the most part, in the mainstream press prior to now?
     Dig out your Sunday Times editorial page and read the column, and then go on line and find past cautionary columns by Lee in the archives. He raises many of the same red flags that I have raised over two terms in public office. To get to the point, we are about to return to the days of unbridled residential growth and unplanned zoning that the libertarians love, even if it is at the expense of the average citizen. Lee sees it, I see it, and anyone with a memory of the history of the past 30 years can see it. but the voters got stars in their eyes when candidates used words like liberty and freedom and property rights.  Sure, those words imply shared values, but what is missing is the fact that not everyone gets to benefit.
     If you live in Carroll County, you will love the majority members of the new board of commissioners if you:
     ....Own property that you want to develop into residential building lots...
     ....Sell real estate, or practice real estate or property management law....
     ....Have land that could be used for junk, storage, noisy commerce or other odious uses if the zoning were eased up . . . .
     ....Love the sight of billboards ....
     ....Do not care about the quality of water that drains into Liberty reservoir or the Chesapeake Bay.....
     ....Think it's no body's business if groundwaters are polluted by industrial negligence combined with a lack of governmental regulation .....
     ....Do not use and do not care if others value recreational facilities, trails, fields .....
     ....Do not use and do not care if senior centers or libraries are not funded as they have been ....
     ....Oppose or are indifferent to the preservation of farms so they can remain a viable industry in a county becoming more and more a dormitory, with amenities, to urban jobholders.
     I'm glad to see the Times and other media raising the issues again, but where were they when the information might have given people something to think about?

Friday, November 12, 2010

Reality check on deficits came a few months too late

     Maybe I'm in the minority again, but why is everyone so shocked at the draconian requirements for reducing the deficit, as floated by the bipartisan Bowles/Simpson commission?
     My only complaint about the report is that it should have been out there for both sides of the political aisles to debate long BEFORE the elections -- before the primaries -- when the effect might have been to soften some of the rhetoric, especially from the Rabid Right.
     You want cuts in spending? Great; here's how it will affect you, and you, and you -- all of us, because everyone will have to give up something.
     We learn at the age of three that you can't have your cake and eat it, too, and yet we continue to fall for the sales pitches at election time.
     You can't cut taxes when you've already made the commitment to certain spending, any more than you can send the check back in the restaurant for a lower total after you've had your dinner.
      We can order less for the next meal. We can set lower limits on future choices, and reduce expectations. We can go on a diet, but everybody has to get enough to eat.
     The first time I ran for office, I was asked time and again if I would cut taxes. I said that I did not know enough about why we spent as much as we did, but it was obvious to me that we could not spend much less on education or emergency services, two of the most expensive items on the list. Prior to my second term, I said cutting taxes required less spending, and we were required to spend close to 85 percent of the budget, and that did not leave much room for cuts, especially as costs and needs and expectations continue to rise. The goal should be to know the difference between needs and wants, and then to manage resources wisely.
     I'm sure that answer did not please dyed-in-the-wool fiscal conservatives, but I was being realistic. Voters appreciated a straight answer.
     Too many candidates promise more than they can deliver.  People want to believe that they can get more for less, and they are too willing to hear only what they want to hear. And there are always those who have no qualms about telling anybody what they want to hear if it means sealing the deal.
     Politicians like Palin and, yes, President Obama, are marketed like star quarterbacks or world series heroes, but the reality of serving in public office is that you are not the star player; your job is to be the referee, the umpire, or the ground crew ensuring a level playing field and safe conditions for the game.
     But enough of that kind of analogy; too many consider politics a game already.
     You get what you are willing to pay for. In a free election, all of us get what the majority agrees to pay for -- or we sacrifice what the majority is willing to give up. If there is no total agreement -- and there never is -- then you cannot have absolute representation, but you can have leadership.
     You still can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Veterans' Day is for the survivors

     This Veterans' Day, I'm thinking about my comrades in arms who survived.
     Memorial Day is for those who are no longer here.
     Civilians seem to get the two confused. One day is as important as the other; yes, Veterans' Day is as important to remember as Memorial Day, because a lot of us who came home will live out our lives thinking every day of those who did not.
     Veterans who have come home to resume some kind of normalcy are taken for granted. What you may not understand, if you have never served in uniform, particularly in times of war, or overseas for months at a time, is that the time given to military service is an ever-present part of a person forever.
     Veterans don't go on forever talking about what they might have missed while they were away. They know they gained something, too. Most of it good, some of it very bad, but all of it -- well, the saying that what does not kill you makes you stronger was probably said first by a veteran.
     Veterans are patriots, no matter what their opinions on current politics. Not all who call themselves patriots are veterans, and they should mind their rhetoric when laying claim to special status.
     True veterans deserve respect, and in some cases, deferential treatment, but few will insist on it.
     The veterans I know drop the petty differences and ignore the political posturing. We had a job to do, and we did it, now all we ask is that those who make big decisions not mess things up too much.
     Differences of opinion are okay with us; the whole idea is to preserve a country where you can disagree without having a coup every four years, instead of an election.
     We tend to prefer to disagree among ourselves, with others who have spent the capital; time, loss or deferral  of personal or career advancement, damaged marriages, old wounds that ache in the night, and some bad dreams now and then. We know a clueless and privileged point of view when we hear one, but we're likely to keep our mouths shut in the presence of people who have not been there and done that to back up their theories.
     One way or another, we all have the T-shirt. We may join the Veterans of Foreign Wars post, or the Legion, and some of us are more active than others, but we all respect those who served.
     And we're not finished serving, although it is often without notice, or proper appreciation. That's okay, we're satisfied to give time and money to student scholarships, youth sports, veterans' hospital patients, widows and families. We go to funerals of men and women who served their country. We console and pay respects to the families, even though we often do not know the people personally.
     Maybe not personally, but we know them. And we salute.
     On Veteran's Day, we pause, salute our brothers and sisters, acknowledge the community expressions of gratitude, and keep the traditions as best we can.
     Not long ago, the image of the veteran was of some grizzled old man from a war before most were born. No longer.
     Now, veterans are women, too, and younger, some living with wounds that would have killed previous soldiers. The mental and emotional prices are going up, too, I would suspect. My father served for the duration of WW2 and came home to resume his life. I served a tour of duty during the Vietnam War; some of my comrades served two tours there, or more. Today's volunteer military may send men and women into harm's way three, four, five or more times.
     Salute.  

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Will we see a return to the bad old days; looks like it

     Commissioner-elect Robin Frazier will have to wait another month before she and her back-room handlers can begin tampering with planning commissions and other processes.
      This is where I came in, and I am not finished yet. I step down the first week in December, but until then I will continue to do what I ran for commissioner to do back in 2002 -- protect the processes from the corruption of insider politicians and special interests, and open up the workings of local government to make them as transparent as possible.
     Frazier was a member of the board of commissioners in the late 1990s, a board which was allegedly run not from the third floor, but from the kitchen phone of an influential developer/investor. At least that's what the influential meddler said; he bragged as much to me and several others who have told me they were amazed at the lack of discretion.
     It was this developer, with the help of several other anti-planning, anti-zoning activists, who insinuated that a member of the planning commission at the time was guilty of conflict of interest and perhaps worse.
     The real story turned out to be that the gentleman was guilty of nothing more than refusing to be bullied by Frazier's friends. They put enough pressure on him that he eventually  resigned. I know, because I was duped into breaking the story about the controversy, and I am not proud of being used like that.
     In fact, when I realized that I had been lied to, I told my wife I thought I should run for public office to help clean up the mess. She agreed, and I served two terms in office in what might be called an attempt at redemption.
     During the past eight years, I have had a hand in an untold number of appointments of county citizens to various boards and commissions. I made a point of seeking balance, even to the point of placing people on the planning commission, the economic development commission and others that I knew had different opinions than my own. I did not care whether they were Republicans or Democrats, but I did value character, integrity, experience and ability.
     Based on the actions and words of Commissioner elect Frazier, and by their signature on the letter asking that the current board leave the job of filling any current vacancies to them, I assume they have different criteria in mind.
     I have no second thoughts about the quality of people who have been serving the county on the ethics commission, planning and zoning, economic development, industrial development authority, board of zoning appeals of the environmental affairs council. The latest appointments, made last week before we got the request from Frazier, et al, have impeccable reputations and years of service with parks and recreation at the county level, business, the Chamber of Commerce, hospital, library board and other volunteer work and community service.
     My only fear is that they will be subjected to the same intimidation and political and self-serving tactics of the land owners, speculators and realty interests who wanted clear sailing for their own agendas that we saw prior to the big clean-up that started eight years ago.
     A diligent and vigilant press and an informed public will make it tougher on the shady activities of the old guard, even though the majority of the incoming board seems to have ties to them.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

A poem, to take the edge off, and then a challenge

The Lemon Seed

I know the lemon seed must be
'else there'd be no lemon tree.
And lacking tree there'd be no fruit,
which, when you get right to it,
is all I really need, I think,
to make my tasty lemon drink.

So I seek to squeeze the pulp
and anticipate that first big gulp
that satisfies my thirst, you see,
with the nectar of the lemon tree,
leaving out what I do not need;
swallowing another lemon seed.

Joe the Public has some changes to make, too

    Okay, the anger of the public has been noted. Now someone has to tell the public the truth: People have some work to do, just as they have told politicians they need to clean up the act.
     Who will say it?  Okay, I will.
     All those who think Joe the Plumber is a hero, I have to tell you, Joe is a big part of the problem. Not THE Joe the Plumber, but the icon of Joe the Average Guy and Gal. Everyperson.
     The job is to get informed. Having an opinion is not good enough. If you really want to be taken seriously by anyone who is elected to public office, be it Republican, Democrat, Tea-Party person or Constitutionalists or Libertarian --- you'll have to learn to incorporate a certain level of trust and even civility when you challenge the leadership.
     The reason for that is already showing up in the wake of the big turnover in Congress. The Republicans and so-called tea party candidates,  who exploited
public anger very well, now are in the position where they will have to deliver. And the repeal of the "Obamacare" health plan will be less of a repeal than the kind of fine tuning and collaborative work with those across the aisle that should have been going on in the first place.
     Your job, Joe Public, is to understand that that you must demand more transparent processes, reject the spin and posturing, and accept the fact that the first ideas put on the table are just starting points for discussion on any issue worth taking to a vote for policy change. Express your thoughts, temper the anger, and listen more.
     And until the politicians learn that you are more patient, more informed, less exploitable and sincere in your desire to know what they're doing, and WHY, you must show that you are going to listen to both sides in any issue, and support good ideas, and reject bad ones, from any part of the political spectrum.  If you show that you are listening before you fly off the handle, they won't be able to spin facts to stir irrational rhetoric, and maybe, just maybe, they'll work together for YOU, and not for their party, or their faction, or their pals in the lobby.
     It's something to think about.

    

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Now we'll see if the big change changes anything

    The votes are in, the people have spoken, and all those other cliche's that follow disputatious campaigns.
    Now we'll see if THIS vote for change really changes anything.
    We have five new commissioners who will hit the ground. The running part is over, now it's time to deliver.
     The result, on the face of it, is merely a return to where the county was eight years ago; more growth, less planning for growth, resulting in wild swings of adequacy and tax rates.
     But there they are, so it is up to those who would have had different results to serve as the loyal opposition -- or to merely capitulate and let it be. Give the new board some time to work things out, learn realities, and get on with representing -- or leading -- county residents.
     That's at the local level. Same rules should apply at the state level. O'Malley won, Ehrlich lost, get over it. But will we? Or will we push back again, mobilize the conservative interests in the overwhelming majority of counties to ensure that O'Malley and the Democrats fail, just as the Right continues to do all it can to ensure that O'Bama fails, and becomes a one-term President?
    Do we work collaboratively to make the adjustments to ideas and bring about some positive results, or will we see more gridlock, leading to dead in the water government, uncertainty, inconsistency?
    To be sure, there are and always have been elements in politics dedicated to their partisan mission, rather than the best interests for the public. That's why you have Tea Party types who are not sure what's wrong -- or what's going on -- but they know they don't like it. So change the channel again, and maybe there's a better show somewhere else.
    Nobody loves the guy who sits with the remote and keeps changing the channel, but we do it every four years -- getting to be every two years -- in our elections. It's time to settle down and give a real chance to people who get elected to bring about something better.
    Right, Left or whatever; if we want to march, we should get into step and stop changing direction willy-nilly. We are getting nowhere this way.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Reason or demagoguery: Your choice

    In the local elections (Carroll County) for commission, the first vote for a new format of five commissioners elected by district, rather than at large, it will be critical that reasonable people with open minds and the ability to work together share the responsibility of interpreting the wishes and the best interests of the electorate.
   The team that offers the best chance for cooperative and reasoned government -- in my opinion -- would be Roush, Reynolds, Johnson, McLaurin and Bevard.
  

Friday, October 29, 2010

Wrong holiday

   'Tis the weekend before elections
and all through the county
stealth candidates hunker down
anticipating their bounty.

There's Frazier up in One,
created just for her return;
'hide and keep silent,' say handlers,
so you won't get burned.

If voters really know her
they'd go another way
and she'd have to get a real job
instead of the public pay

And Rothschild down in Four,
who scared the clientele
into thinking boogy government
is sending us to Hell.

His public image is phony
and his politics extreme,
full of statistical baloney
so he can live out his dream

And Shoemaker paces District Two
hoping others do not see
the other side of dark ambition
and the depths of political greed.

How appropriate that the holiday
is not Christmas like it seems;
No, it's just a scary scenario
at this time of Halloween.....

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Definition of patriotism (a vocabulary lesson)

     There are those among us who would take it upon themselves to decide who is worthy of being called a patriot.
     So let us dust off the Random House College Dictionary and set down some rules for rhetoric.
     Patriotism:  Devoted love, support and defense of one's country. Loyalty. (No mention of immigration status, ethnic or racial background, gender or sexual orientation, nor of religion or lack thereof).
     Jingoism:  Professing patriotism loundly and excessively; chauvinistic (zealous and belligerent, prejudiced), bellicose (inclined to fight, pugnatious.)
     Guess which definition best describes those who claim to be the best patriots.
     Conservative: Disposed to preserve what is established and resist change.
     Liberal: Favorable to progress or reform; favoring representational government rather than aristocracies. Open minded or tolerant.
     Guess which definition the so-called Tea-party advocates claim as their own. Just for giggles, ask one to explain how the original tea-party crowd could be called conservative if they wanted to change the government.
     Democracy: A system of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
     Republic:  A state in which the supreme power rests in the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen by them.
     Subtle difference between the two; "republicans" are less inclined to have everybody vote on every issue. They like the idea of electing folks to make the complicated choices necessary to form policy.  Guess the party affiliation of the most vociferous critics of government at any level today. Hint: Democrats and moderates are accused of being "leftist" or socialist. The other direction, uh, that would be Right, can in extreme circumstances become totalitarian, or absolutist, or -- under state control.
     Socialism:  A theory or system that advocates the ownership and control of industry, capital, land, etc. by the community as a whole.
     Zealotry:  Undue or excessive, fanaticism.
     Bigotry: Stubborn . . . intolerance of any belief, creed, race or opinion that differs with one's own.
     Guess who today is most .... Oh, well, you get the idea.

Monday, October 25, 2010

Not yet ready for prime time club

   Overheard assessment of commissioner candidates:  "It's alarming how ignorant of the realities they all are."
    The specific reference was to the statement by District Three candidate Doug Mathias that the airport renovations are a drain on the county taxpayers; some of the most damning criticism over the months has been that they only reason the commissioners were moving ahead was because it was such a good financial deal for the county. Maybe Mr. Mathias only recently started paying attention.
     But there were other comments made that showed more astute observers of local issues just how much of a learning curve any combination of the five candidates will have before they are up to speed with the facts on waste to energy, the airport, taxes and spending, and even the powers -- or lack of them -- of the commission form of government.
     To my eye and ear, many of the statements by even the better qualified candidates are charitably defined as campaign rhetoric. Some comments are silly, like the one about the county's participation in sustainability planning being some part of an international conspiracy to bring socialism down on us.
     This is the truth:  There will be an election, and none of the candidates to lead this county are qualified to make any serious decisions just yet. So it can only be hoped that the survivors -- I can't bring myself to use the word, 'winners' --  of the vote have enough collective wisdom to contain the hubris of the moment and take some time to make sure their next moves are constructive improvements, and not just demolition work.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Support your fire department? or Tea party? You choose

   You can be supportive of your local volunteer fire company, or your recreation council, or you can help so-called patriots and tea party types take over local and national government.
    But you can't have it both ways.
    Example: This past week, the county commissioners refinanced a loan to a local fire company that had been backed by county bonds. The action saved that fire company $259,000 in interest payments, a significant amount.
     The initial loans to fire companies help them provide services to their communities at lower interest rates, and do things that they may never be able to do in a timely manner on their own. The loans are paid back, over time, at no cost to taxpayers, but that fact is often overlooked, conveniently, by ultra conservatives. Absolutist types, like the majority of Libertarians -- many posing as Republicans -- tea-party advocates and Constitution-quoting populists, maintain that community organizations should not be supported in any way by governments. They would refuse grants from the federal and state governments on that principle, even though such grants are really just our share of  tax dollars being returned to us. Their point is that refusing to use such funds will someday result in such programs drying up and going away.
     In essence, what they are saying is, if you want to support the fire companies, do it with your donations. If you want youth sports, let the parents pay full costs of fields, maintenance, equipment, referees, etc.
     Their agenda would have deleterious impacts on public safety, the courts, schools, health, roads -- just about every quality of life issue that makes this country a great place to live.
     So you have a choice: Support local government loans and grants in the form of the tax dollars that come back to us, or be willing to live in communities that do not have the quality of life that we now enjoy.
     It's a choice, and there may be arguments for either side, but you can't have it both ways.
    

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Rothschild represents a costly fringe element

     Richard Rothschild's comments at Wednesday night's forum confirm what I have come to believe from reading his comments in the voters guides and one the web: He is an absolutist, whose extreme thinking is out of sync with even the mainstream Carroll County conservative.
    Oh, he sounds good. And he dresses well. But intelligence and the ability to articulate do not always mean one knows what he's talking about. He puts out numbers as if he has a complete command of the facts, but his figures on the Waste to Energy plan are out of thin air. No substance, but if you don't know, you have to be impressed with the way he talks. I can see a crowd falling under the trance of a false prophet, or a snake oil salesman.
      Rothschild can be impressive to one who knows even less than he does.
    Not to say that Rothschild does not get it. Maybe he does. But it's not what Rothschild knows that matters to him -- or to his more ardent supporters. It's what he BELIEVES that matters.
     It's apparent to me that he is more interested in forwarding his ideology than dealing with facts. He is one of those to whom truth is reserved for the True Believers, the kool-aid drinkers of a particular demagoguery devoted to an extreme Right Wing way of thinking.
     Not conservative; extreme.  I am reminded of Sen. Joe McCarthy and the anti-communist panic in America half a century ago. The roots of extreme right rantings are found there, unknown to several generations, forgotten by others, but the damage that McCarthy did to America is one of the darker chapters of our past. At one time, he had a lot of people agreeing with him.
     Most Americans opposed communism, but McCarthy's extreme witch-hunting put communists under every bed, in every closet. He manipulated the populace with fear.
     In time, most Americans, even the most patriotic, came to see McCarthy as too reminiscent of another extremist, Adolph Hitler. His extreme thinking and flaming rhetoric became a national embarrassment.
     Carroll County is a conservative county, and has, despite the campaign rhetoric of various aspirants to the powers of public office, been run in a conservative way. You don't survive the economy with a reserve intact, as we have, without conservative, sound, financial practices.
     But the True Believers -- the extreme conservatives -- would refuse to take back the taxes you have paid to the federal and state governments, money we get as part of our share of paying for schools, parks, public facilities. The True Believers would end all participation in grants, spend no money on parks and recreation, for example, and take on the entire burden for those expenses out of a demagogic dedication to smaller government.
     Smart is not what smarties say. Smart is what smart people do. Smart people will not be voting for candidates like Rothschild. Which is not to say he will not be elected. Just be aware.    
    

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Questions for the candidates at the forum -- or any time....

    Wednesday night at the Carroll County community media center, the usual questions will be put to the various candidates for county commissioner. Everyone will assert that they will be brave, clean, kind and reverent and maybe even truthful, once the campaigning is over.
     Here are a couple of questions I'd like to ask.
     For Robin Frazier: There is an allegation going around that she told former county public works director Doug Myers that while she was working for a bank, she gained access to bank records of commissioner Julia Gouge, and found damaging information that "we're just waiting for the right time to bring up"? Is that true? (I have my doubts that they found anything, or we'd have seen it all over the place by now.)
     Follow up question would be, if she did access bank records of a customer for political reasons, can we trust her to serve all the citizens in public office?
    For Richard Rothschild:  Did he really tell a group of supporters that he believes people have a right to live in communities of people "like themselves."  What does that mean? What does he really do -- specifically -- to earn money? Is he a landlord in depressed neighborhoods?
     Does he believe in the Maryland Constitution, or does he consider it null and void? Does he believe in zoning (ask Frazier that one, too)? If not, what protections do homeowners have against land uses next to them that would destroy or damage the value of their homes?
     For all candidates, but particularly Haven Shoemaker: Is it your intention to turn back the progress that has been made on residential growth controls? How will that serve the best interests of taxpayers, when it was the uncontrolled growth of housing and a lack of planning for industrial and economic revenues that has caused county taxpayers to pay a disproportionate share of the bills for schools, public safety and parks and recreation?