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.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)