'Something needs to be adjusted'

     The best assessment I have heard on the confrontation in Wisconsin between teachers' unions and the intransigent new governor and his teaparty backers came from David Brooks, the conservative/moderate New York Times columnist.
     In his regular Friday evening roundtable with Jim Lehrer of PBS and Mark Shields, nationally syndicated columnist out of Washington, Brooks refused to take sides in the debate's core issue, which is whether union benefits need to be curtailed. But he said, and I paraphrase, "In the past 25 years there have been too many concessions but no funding for union pensions, and now something needs to be adjusted. Not like Warner wants to do in Wisconsin, but changes do have to be made."
     In my first adult job with United Air Lines at what was then called Friendship International Airport, my desk was just outside the door to the office of the station manager, and I heard all the conversations between union representatives and management whenever there was a local grievance. I was not yet 21, but I came to distrust the tactics, if not the motives, of the union leaders. Everything was blown out of proportion, and compromise was not a priority. I came to believe that the excessive demands of airline unions were a threat to the industry.
     Those opinions were no secret when I first ran for commissioner 40 years later. The board of the Carroll County Education Association grilled me as they did all candidates, knowing I had written columns and editorials in the past that had been critical of job actions and public employee unions. They asked me, point blank, if I wanted their endorsement.
     My reply was just as straight-forward. I said an endorsement by any union could be a kiss of death for a politician in this county, but I was more interested in letting people know, pro-union or not, that I was and remain pro-teacher. I said I am not fond of unions, but I support teachers. Same with firefighters and police. I like the men and women in the trenches, and would continue to support good wages and working conditions, but would never be able to support the traditional tactics of collective bargaining, which included, in my experience, intimidation of teachers, cops or anyone else in the ranks who did not walk the party line.
     A major concern to me in the issue of local policing versus making the sheriff the primary law enforcement officer was the source of so much support for the sheriff's position: A huge push was made by not only local members of the Fraternal Order of Police, but by law enforcement officers' unions across the entire nation. The weight of the benefits package favored by those unions is something called LEOPs, which is like the weight placed on the back of a beast of burden; it can grow over the years -- or quickly -- and break the backs of local government and the taxpayers. Ask the City of Westminster, which adopted the LEOPS plan a few years ago.
     So, being opposed to both union weight and conservatives waving flags and the Constitution, political leaders quickly find themselves forced to take sides or stand alone. Most will go with the votes and the campaign money.
    During that same campaign leading up to the 2002 election, I was asked by conservatives in every Republican club in the county, and in every candidates' forum, if I would cut spending and cut taxes. I believed we needed to do more for teachers, for emergency services workers, both professional and volunteers, and law enforcement in general.
     You should not promise to cut taxes until you have learned all that you need to know about the spending.
     I coined a phrase, "gradual and incremental," that I felt applied to every action that should be taken by elected officials, especially ones like me, still learning. Make cuts where you can, but make them gradually and incrementally. Spend more where you have to, like pension funding, but do it gradually and hold the line on tax increases.
     It's a balancing act; too much, too fast, and there are unplanned consequences later. One thing we did was recognize the need to include in our budget a plan for funding pensions.  That, as much as the already wise handling of the budget by county staff, led to improved ratings by New York bond rating firms, including one triple A. That saved taxpayers money, and gave the county better positioning in funding mandated or highly desirable public services.
     Ignoring the obligation to fund pensions has put many states and local governments in financial trouble. Over-reacting, or playing to the conservative rhetoric, as we have seen in Wisconsin by Governor Warner, or at the local level in Carroll County as the board of commissioners ties up future boards and decisions with a "super majority" requirement to raise revenues, has a negative effect on credit ratings and, ironically, costs the taxpayers more.
     In other words, as David Brooks said, what is needed is adjustment -- gradual and incremental, thoughtful, and even bi-partisan in nature.

Chickens are coming home to roost

     I wrote in this space on Dec. 22, 2010, that another budget crisis was looming; the shortfall of state and municipal funding for employee pensions would become another battleground.
     Fast forward to what's going on now in Wisconsin, New Jersey and a few other states. Correction: Fast forward to the attention that the problem is finally getting. Legislators have left the state to avoid being forced to provide the quorum on a vote they don't want to lose, which would eviscerate the power of government employee unions. The vote is up for action because the newly elected conservatives are doing what they think they have to in order to meet demands of the voters to cut spending and lower taxes, now.
     How did this mess happen?
     As I wrote in December, governments large and small have over promised and underfunded pension plans for government employees for years. The chickens have come home to roost, because you can't keep adding retirees to the list of takers without adding others to the list of providers.
     That's reality, perception or not. And I will get back to that simplistic concept that perception is reality in a moment.
     For years, the leaders of unions and government managers have pushed perceptions. Teachers and other government employees were recruited with the promises of good benefits packages and retirement plans and job security in lieu of the higher salaries that their college educations might have been worth in private industry. To be honest, many politicians exploited the fact that many teachers got into the profession because they were idealistic about making a difference in the lives of young people. We may not pay much, but this is an honorable profession, a great place to live and raise a family, so pass on the cash and wait for the pension, vacation time, etc.
     That got the teacher vote at election time. But in order to get the taxpayer vote, the same politicians chose to ignore the looming bill for those benefit packages.
     Perception was that all was rosy, but the reality was that it can't continue.
     Now the new perception in vogue is that you can turn on all those years of ignoring the realities and change everything right now. Emboldened by the tea party's simplistic but vote-getting slogans, the new boys and girls in office are once again acting without thought for the eventual consequences.  Here, in Maryland, as well as Wisconsin, and all the other places wherever there are showboating leaders, pro-union or pro-taxcutters, there is far too much willingness to pander to the base rather than work things through. The rhetoric is running on the fumes of futility on the part of the teachers' unions, and on the heady ether of arrogance by those still savoring political victory.
     The smell of success will give way, eventually, to having to deal with realities again. The solutions to the problems facing us in funding public work will not be found in locking ourselves in to demagogic policies, like super majorities to raise funds, but simple majorities to cut spending.  That perception of reality as espoused by Commissioners Haven Shoemaker and Richard Rothschild will not hold up in time. Dave Roush said so, but it fell on deaf ears, both on the third floor of the county office building and in the conservative-held bastion of Fortress Carroll.
     Perception is not always reality; in fact, it rarely is. Perception can be created, defended, chosen by popular demand and exploited, but reality eventually presents itself without artifice, and it is then that you see what leadership requires.
    

Sheriff is the king of the law enforcement mountain

     By voting 4-0 to approve a memorandum of understanding that recognizes the sheriff's department as the primary law enforcement agency in Carroll County, the board of commissioners are keeping their campaign promises.
     If Sheriff Ken Tregoning was more demonstrative, he would be kicking his heels and high-fiving all around; this is what he has wanted since running for the office years ago.
     It was of the highest priority: He wanted to win some game of King of the Mountain that apparently has its roots in his own career as a State Trooper. Those close to him told me it was personal, but it was professional, too. He truly believes it is in the best interests of the county to phase out the Resident Trooper program that the state police have had since the 1970s.
     I agree with him that it was time to phase out the Resident Trooper program. In my first term as commissioner, Perry Jones and I led support for increased funding, staffing and responsibilities for the sheriff's department. Commissioner Julia Gouge was more reluctant, but it was not a point of contention on the board. Perry and I initially thought it would be natural to give primary status to the sheriff's department, but something in the dialog, as it developed, gave me pause, and I wanted to get more information, get more public input, perhaps put together a study commission, to weigh the alternatives.
     One of the alternatives was creation of a county police force. No official action was taken to move in that direction; just suggestions that while we were beefing up the sheriff's resources and capabilities, we should make sure that was the best way to go for the citizens.
     At the urging of the sheriff, we invested considerable money into a process of accreditation that was intended to prove the sheriff and his deputies were the equal of any top police force in the country.
     A member of the Carroll County Taxpayers' Association called me to protest the building up of the sheriff's department. He said it would cost more than the state police resident trooper program. In a long phone conversation, I was able to show the caller that what was once a bargain for county taxpayers -- full-service troopers at 75 percent of the cost of one -- had changed over the years to where we were spending 125 percent of the cost of a fully-qualified and equipped deputy, one trained, by the way, by the same instructors those training cadets at the state police academy.
     The caller was not impressed with the facts. Instead, he changed the form of his complaint. He said the state police were simply more prestigious, and worth keeping even at the extra costs. It was just the beginning of my education that the public was not necessarily interested in objective analysis of the pros and cons of one kind of policing over another. State Police had their fans, the Sheriff (and the Old English concept of a sheriff as the top public official in the kingdom) had his supporters.
     It soon became apparent that the discussion, which at first had almost no coverage in the local papers, had spread beyond the boundaries of Carroll County. We began to hear from judges in the West, from sheriffs across the continent, and not inconsequentially, from the National Sheriff's Association.
     I was beginning to realize that this was more a clash of ideologies on a national scale than a local dialog on what form of police protection would best serve county residents.
Indeed, I became convinced that politics, national and local, and ego would supersede the public interest, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary.
     I  believed, naively, that what mattered first was professional competence, and second, the costs.  What mattered most to others was their own status, future funding, and the benefits of having the top job. Supporters for one side or the other displayed interests in bragging rights about their own role in influencing the eventual outcome.
     The resident trooper program was being used by the state police as a special training program in community policing. It was a desirable credential to add to a resume for those who wanted to rise through the ranks of the state police. Best of all, what had started as a subsidy to the county had morphed over the years to a benefit to the state police that was funded by the county. Resident troopers originally were intended to live in the county and patrol the areas near their homes. By the time we were taking a hard look at alternatives, resident troopers no longer were required to live here, and those assigned here were regularly temporarily reassigned to duties as far away as the Eastern Shore. We were still paying their salaries.
     Sheriff Tregoning was appreciative of our funding of his department and building his program -- until he realized that the alternative of a county police force might be the recommendation of an independent study commission. At that point, it became a textbook study in political craftsmanship, ending with the delegation, at Tregoning's request, getting a law passed in Annapolis that temporarily suspended the constitutional authority of Carroll County commissioners to make any changes in local policing. The law applied to no other Maryland county, and would expire at the end of the terms of the incumbent commissioners.
     Long before that blatant political power play, I was having reservations about how much fiscal control elected commissioners -- that board or any that followed it -- would have if the sheriff continued to get everything he wanted.
     His support staff was being increased at unprecedented rates, and he was increasing certain salaries, making promotions without following seniority rules, and seeking further increases in funding that were being turned down as excessive.
     We began looking at the huge increases in sheriff's budgets in other counties where the sheriff had been designated primary law enforcement. It seemed unsustainable, and the commissioners and executives were telling us, off line, that the sheriffs were popular because they were not accountable for the effect that department growth had on the local tax rate.
     We wanted more dialog, but it was cut off. The issue was dead as soon as the sheriff asked for and was granted special status that effectively took the matter out of the hands of the fiscal authorities of the county.
     I see that the sheriff has also apparently got what he wanted for replacement patrol cars. We had tried to have talks with him on the viability of changing from the bigger and more costly Ford Interceptors to the vehicle that more and more police forces are using, either the Dodge or the Chevy Impala.
     We had learned that the retiring cars, instead of being returned to the county, which holds the titles, was being awarded by the sheriff to his growing force of auxiliary officers to drive. Whether that practice is good for the taxpayers or not was never allowed any real discussion.
     Will the sheriff's department provide professional policing?  Absolutely?
    Was there a better, more efficient way, with more accountability for public spending? We will never know for sure. I think, based on what I have learned (aside from lessons in political clout) that the controls of a civilian panel would be better for cost management, but perhaps not as much as seemed possible at one time.
     After all, there is politics in police forces, too. 

Rothschild, Frazier are clueless

     It was painful to watch the display of ineptitude from commissioners Richard Rothschild and Robin Frazier at Tuesday's meeting of the board.
     Rothschild, in particular, showed that he is clueless about the processes by which a county or municipal government operates. His number one problem is that he wants to run it his way, and his way only.
     A certain level of ignorance in a new commissioner is to be expected. To insist on maintaining that status and selling it as a virtue is another story.
     As staff delicately and reluctantly sent him hints that the micro-managing, nit-picking and draconian changes he and Frazier want to employ in making spending cuts are not practicable, Rothschild continued to blow through all the caution signs, bludgeoning his colleagues and the staff with his agenda.
     Not only does he want to change the way the county moves ahead -- backward? -- from this point, but he wants to change decisions already made and processes already underway. So does Frazier.
     But Doug Howard, Haven Shoemaker, and Dave Roush finally have apparently had enough of the Mountain Man's Manifesto, that collection of ultra-conservative ideology and rhetoric about constitutional bare metal government. For the first time in public Tuesday they began to challenge it. Things got a little testy; Rothschild obviously does not compromise well.
     The issue at hand was a list of public works projects that are ready to be bid now. If they are not put out for bid now, the contractors who bid on roads projects and other long-term jobs will be committed to other counties and cities. The list of jobs was recommended by the very competent people who know more about building and maintaining roads and maintaining a frugal budget than Mr. Rothschild will likely learn in one term in office. Frazier's comments showed that she either learned nothing about the processes in her first term in office, or had forgotten it all after eight years.
     This board was so eager to show how they were going to change things that they forgot to ask questions, like How can we do it?  Or even, Can we do it?
     The remarks by Rothschild and Frazier seem to indicate that they don't care about how they can integrate their conservatism with the realities of making a budget and still keeping the heat and lights on. And getting bids and making contracts.  They seem to think they can dictate terms, and the world will get in line with them. Once they figure out what they are doing.
     They have all the resources at hand to make a smooth and gradual transition from previous policies, but they are in a hurry, and listening to staff is too much of an inconvenience.
     He even stated that staff cannot be trusted for realistic input, repeating several times that if the commissioners take guidance from the professionals, "we will be right back in the box, unable to make any cuts."
     He and Frazier want to revisit work that has been going on long before they took office, some that has been going on since. They want to start over and make their own decisions about what road repairs are critical, or what physical plant needs are necessary.
     Shoemaker, who has some experience in local government, said that he trusts staff to follow the general directive of the commissioners to limit recommendations to work that is critical. Rothschild and Frazier said they are better suited to do that.
     Howard and Roush know that if you ignore good advice when you have no personal knowledge of the criteria, you risk making things more expensive in the long run.
     None of their cautionary dialog made a dent in Rothschild's resolve. He is approaching everything from a mind-set that is better suited for campaign slogans and he does not want to be confused by the facts.
     Frazier is already confused, was confused, and apparently is willing to remain confused in the conviction that by delaying action, she cannot be accused of spending money, and that's all that matters.  After all, that's what conservative Republicans do.
     She is, without question, a loyal Republican. It was her executive decision to remove the portraits of the Governor and assistant governor from the lobby. "We don't want pictures of Democrats in the lobby of the county office building."  That's the kind of decisive action she's suited to.
     As an aside, I have been asked several times why this board dismissed Carole Hammen, director of human resources, when she had only 17 months to go until retirement, and Kathy Rauschenberg, who served as county clerk.
     The short answer is: Politics. Frazier and former commissioner Julia Gouge are not exchanging Christmas cards. They do not like each other. Hammen, and particularly Rauschenberg, were known to be friendly with Gouge. Rauschenberg was assistant to Gouge when Frazier and Gouge served together (?) three terms ago. So, friends of Gouge had to go. I understand that the present board did the right thing, though, and honored the contracts of Hammen and Rauschenberg -- the same contracts that were honored for the four employees who were released prior to the arrival of this "Fighting 59th," an appellation which shows signs of taking on new meaning.

Open meetings not necessarily open government

    News people write a lot about open government meetings, but there's a difference between open government and open meetings.
    You can have all the open meetings in the world, but an open and inclusive government is tough to have when the press fails to vet the candidates before the general elections.
     At an open meeting, like a forum for candidates, everyone can see the candidates and hear their responses to questions. But the openness there is useless if questions and answers are not followed up with increasing incisive and probing questions.
     And what point is there in insisting on open meetings if the reporters assigned to the beat show up late, leave early, or fail to write anything on a given topic because of overwork, lack of space or time?  Time and again, I have seen agenda items covered in open session go unreported, or comments made by elected officials or key staff go without reporting. It was discussed, in open session, but only a few took note, and if it becomes controversial later, the charge is that it was hidden, or being pushed through without enough public input.
        Then there is the Who Cares test. I used to ask reporters to ask the question, Who Cares? when deciding how much time to put into an issue. Sometimes, the things people care about are never part of a public meeting, and all too often, the things covered in public meetings are going to fail the who cares test.
     A case in point is the mystery of the missing portraits. Who removed the official portraits of the governor and vice governor from the lobby of the county office building?  Some people -- Democrats, in particular -- care a lot. Most people could not care less that the pictures were there in the first place -- or not.
     But the story behind the story is, How petty can the partisanship get if an elected commissioner, or followers, counted coup by deposing not only the incumbent commissioners, but the imagery of the political opposition at the state level?
And was it a unilateral decision by one commissioner, an semi-executive decision by a staffer, or did it come as a directive following a coffee-break chat between a couple or three commissioners?
     The press allows candidates to get away with broad statements.  Populist candidates also get a lot of soft tosses. When a person seeking office claims to be speaking "for the people," no one asks how they know what the people want. Are they going by the pats on the back they get from people who share their politics, or special interest groups?  How broad a spectrum of the population does the candidate serve, and what would that mean if they are elected?
     It's a generality, but my experience has been that the broader the spectrum of the population served by a candidate, the more responsive they will be to questions, and the more depth in their answers. The narrower the support -- although it may be noisy and passionate -- the more apt you are to get slogans and platitudes as responses.
     Volume of rhetoric is not openness.
     The Carroll County Board of Commissioners have been open about the fact that they do not feel compelled to conduct all business they might want to have with department heads. The reason is valid; when fewer people know what you're talking about until you're ready for the release of a plan, the less chance of having to deal with criticism before you actually have a complete plan of action.
     That's the reason, but that does not make it right.
     This board, in particular, gained popularity with certain constituencies -- enough to get a few thousand votes in a small district -- by claiming that the previous commissioners were overreaching -- getting out too far in front on planning and zoning, or airport renewal, or discussions about alternatives to state police. They were able to pick up the banner of opposition because they knew the discussions were taking place; the previous two boards were the most open in the history of the county. But because most people missed the initial discussions, or because the first talks were never reported in the local papers, the would-be candidates gained traction by accusing the elected officials then in office of making final decisions --"done deals" -- when the fact is they processes were just beginning.
    
     The spotlight gets hotter after the election. The candidates are now the insiders, the populists are now the guardians of the status quo as they deem appropriate. The press is less enamored. And the criticism nags.
     A week or so ago, I wrote that the wheels are wobbling on Commissioner Haven Shoemaker's cart, as evidenced by his diatribe in the letters to the editor about critics. On the heels of that, the word is out that Commissioner Richard Rothschild has informed former county employee Neil Ridgely that he will be sued if he does not cease what Rothschild considers slander and malicious commentary on the web site www.Carrollinchaos.com.
     There are other blogs created to comment on the local political scene. One of the more civil and relevant ones is www.commonsensecarroll.com. The commentary on that site is pointed, but intelligent. Such was not the case with some of the products used to stir up opposition to previous boards, and push for neo-conservative candidates like Rothschild, Frazier, Shoemaker and Howard.
     One of Rothschild's most ardent supporters is known to support the creation of web sites and pop-up regional tabloids whose primary purpose has been to trash the reputations of people considered too "liberal" to be in office in Carroll County. The definition of liberal includes what more enlightened people might think of as moderate, or open-minded. Those publications were brutal in their malicious attacks on the last two boards of commissioners, particularly board president Julia Gouge. She believes the constant harangue eroded faith in her, and she's probably right.
     Shoemaker and Rothschild, in particular, and Robin Frazier and Doug Howard, to a lesser degree, will have their detractors, and they should accept it as part of the job; they like to read good reviews from like-minded conservatives, so they should know that what applies to others in the public eye also applies to them:  Don't start believing your own public relations press clippings, and don't ignore the bad reviews. You learn more from the latter.
    

BRAC: More bad than good for Carroll?

     After you wade through all the posturing from those who would declare a total win-win for any additional employment at area military bases, county and municipal leaders will have to figure out how to pay for the economic "benefits."
     Yes, a Base Realignment and Closure plan that closes jobs in one state and moves them to Maryland seems to be good for business: More income taxes, more paychecks in the local cash flow, more government contracts to local vendors and all the trickle-down money that brings.
     But the Congress heard a report this week that the Pentagon should do more to help states and local governments to deal with traffic congestion at bases like Fort Meade when large numbers of new workers are added (Carroll County Times/Associated Press, Feb. 8).
     "The report warned that realignment and other sources of military growth, including troops returning from two wars, are already causing 'severe' transportation problems at most of the six facilities studied," the press report said.
     Significant numbers of employees travel from or through Carroll County now to jobs at Fort Meade. Traffic on Routes 32, I95, 295, 175, 29 and others are clogged with commuters now, and the projection is that more than 40,000 jobs will be added on or near the base with the BR AC plan.
     Ever since the Federal Government announced the changes, local leaders have huddled to consider the unfavorable ramifications of that kind of growth. Roads will be the most obvious problem, with commuting times increased for those driving normal work hours.
     Not so readily apparent are the challenges to the schools, fire and emergency providers, policing, and parks and recreational facilities.
     But the big gorilla in the room is the unresolved differences of opinion at the state level that has existed for three administrations in Annapolis, two Democrat and one Republican: How do we comply with clean air and water regulations -- and where do we get the water to begin with -- while dealing with such a large and sudden arrival of new residents?  And who will pay for it?
     The counties, if they are short-sighted, just look at all those new customers for local business, and add up the increases in fees for residential building permits and other fees and taxes. More sober, experienced leaders are looking at the costs of expanding infrastructure, the possibility of having to raise taxes, which always hurts the poorer and older residents, and the lasting conundrum of how you add density to cities without improving or in some cases creating public transportation.
     You want the jobs that a big military base brings? Be careful what you ask for. You may not be able to afford it.

A lesson in the real world of sustaining our life

   Governor Martin O'Malley's proposal to limit septic systems is bad news for the core of the new board of commissioners, and even more so for the land speculators, developers, real estate swappers and money baggers behind their recent sweep to victory.
    On the surface, it's a direct challenge to the "property rights" attitude that defines the current board, in contrast, say, to the philosophy of planning and preserving the resources of two previous boards.
    In case you were watching Dancing With the Stars or something, Maryland's governor spiced up an otherwise mundane State of the State address with the suggestion that the only way to meet the goals of cleaning up ground water in general and the Chesapeake Bay in particular was to put a limit on how many holes are punched into the Maryland countryside to receive the waste materials of residential neighborhoods. It's time, he said, to do what they have been trying to do for some time, and that is to put new home construction where there is already water and sewerage infrastructure in place to make the inflow and outgo more efficient -- and clean up our act.
     This is Smart Growth, which Republicans and other entrepreneurial types like to disparage as social engineering. It has never had much support from the people with money to make on residential growth in Carroll County, which is why this is GOP land, better known in the Baltimore Metro and DC suburban counties as Fortress Carroll. Folks out here favor the cowboy way of doing things, and they don't cotton much to the city folks with all their gov'mint regulations. It's why the Delegation to Annapolis is always Right on the money, but wrong in getting much done.
     When the 2002 Board of Commissioners, of which I was a member, came into office on a tide of sentiment for more growth control, the county still voted for Bob Ehrlich for governor and that good ol' bunch as the Carroll Delegation, but even the Republican governor and the GOP standard-carriers in the Senate and House could not overcome the general continuation of a more responsible way of planning and managing residential growth. The state Department of Planning, even under a Republican administration, still had to comply with federal pressures to clean up ground water and the runoff into the tributaries of the bay. The state Department of the Environment, under which the health department operates, still had stringent requirements for water quality coming out of county or municipal treatment plants, and even Bobby E, governor beloved of the Righteous Right, was maligned for imposing a "flush tax" that included even houses that flushed into an out of sight hole in the back yards.
     To his credit, Ehrlich was a realist about the need to address the problems of water and sewage in a growing population. We are not Wyoming; we are East Coast megalopolis, increasingly the bedroom of Baltimore-Washington.  An outpost, perhaps, but not a fortress.
     So for all the rants about the United Nations and the overreaching grasp of government, the fact to be dealt with is that the whole part and parcel of the region, including Carroll County, and even Washington and Garrett Counties, even the Eastern Shore, has to learn to be a regional neighbor, neighbors to each other, and it would be nice if we did not expect others to swim in or drink our effluent.
     Besides, the United States Government, even under Republican administrations, has come to realize that sustainability -- making sure that we can continue (sustain our life, even if it means adjusting our way of living).
     Don't blame it on the UN; this is our own nest that wise minds know we cannot continue to defile.

Two gone in 'restructuring' victims of politics

     If you think the decision by the new board of commissioners to fire Carole Hammen, director of human resources, and Kathy Rauschenberg, county clerk, is a purely fiscal decision to keep their promise to restructure county government, here's a little background to consider.
     Hammen's ouster is illogical, in fiscal or operational terms. She worked with the 2002 board to improve the predictability and essential fairness of salary scales -- prior to that, some employees had received no raises in years, while others (perhaps with better political connections) had jumped up the salary ladder. She guided a team of staffers through development of a more efficient and less costly insurance program, and an improved and more businesslike pension plan. County salary expenditures are second lowest in the state, numbers  of employees was also at the bottom, and the cost per taxpayer was the envy of every other subdivison in Maryland: so, what's to improve?
     Rauschenberg was a clerk to former board president, Julia Gouge, before becoming county clerk. Hammen was a professional, but it was feared that both she and Rauschenberg were too close to the former board, especially Julia Gouge.
     That would not do, especially for the returning commissioner Robin Frazier. Frazier and Gouge simply did not get along very well when the two served together during Frazier's first term in office (1998-2002). Both are strong-willed, and Frazier wanted to run the board from her desk; still does in this new board, which is rankling at least two of her colleagues. She apparently has found a soul mate -- politically -- in Richard Rothschild. Frazier speaks little and keeps her head down, but she's known to be resolute and loyal to her base.
    When Gouge returned to office in 2002, she lobbied for the transfer of several employees out of the third-floor offices, knowing that those employees were close to Frazier. One of those employees will be transferred back, now that Frazier has won re-election. Such is the way of politics.
    But while Gouge was satisfied to transfer employees, Frazier and her new colleagues are firing those who they fear may not take the oath of political loyalty. Hammen was 17 months short of qualifying for retirement. Rauschenberg is eligible for full retirement.
    Other targeted employees opted for taking advantage of employment contracts that gave them cash settlements before the new commissioners took office. The newly elected board met shortly after the primary elections, assumed that in Carroll County there was no chance of any Democrat getting elected, and started making plans for changes. Steven Horn, planning director, read the handwriting on the wall and took the early out option. So did Neil Ridgely, who had served as zoning administrator; Vivian Laxton, who had been hired as public information officer; and Mike Evans, director of public works, another Gouge fan who was pushed out -- some might say harrassed -- by supporters of Frazier and former commissioner Donald Dell. Evans had been invited by all three commissioners, Julia Gouge, Perry Jones, and myself, to return about two years after the 2002 election. He had taken a higher paying job with Howard County, but was willing to put off retirement to help with the county's waste management plans for the future,  and to restore professionality to a public works department that had been micro-managed by direct involvement of Dell and Frazier for several years.
    It all sounds like musical chairs and political payoffs -- and some of it is just that. But only one member of the Dell-Frazier cabinet or support staff was let go in 2002. Jobs were filled in other departments for others.
    Under this new organization, which Doug Howard says is the end of changes, the very big job of running the parks and recreation program now falls under Jolene Sullivan, whose background is in what used to be called the department of social services, including public assistance, aid to families in need, and the like. Sullivan has been around a long time, has a reputation as a survivor through various changes at the top.
    If this new board satisfies the same base that elected Frazier twice operates like that old model, look for micro-managing from the commissioners, whether they know what they're doing or not.
    Strong leadership is one thing; but none of the current commissioners -- and none on the previous board -- had the professional expertise to run everything without good advice.  Just taking orders might save a job, but it does not serve the public well.

Wheels wobbling on Shoemaker's cart

   In commissioner Haven Shoemaker's letter to the editor in Monday's Times, the squeaking (squawking?) sound you hear is of wheels wobbling, about to fall off the cart, just shy of two months in office.
   Understandably, the new commish is unhappy with criticism of the board's decision to disassociate itself with an admittedly obscure and misunderstood United Nations subgroup called ICLEI, which stands for International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. More specifically, the board took some heat for voting to quit the county's participation without putting the item on the agenda, let alone having a public hearing on the merits of the program.
    Much has been made -- too much -- of the fact that the United Nations initiative pledges efforts to cooperate with rest of the world on the ideals of preserving natural resources and cleaning the environment.
     While some people see participation in such programs a logical extension of the hope and idealism that defines America's root values, others see it all as a socialist plot to take over America and destroy the Constitutional right of Americans. Shoemakers was one of the first local candidates for office to see the potential in that divide, and he capitalized on it. He won votes for his "we the people" promises, but perhaps he forgot that the job requires consideration for all the people, and their disparate views.
     He writes -- petulantly -- that the board will not be swayed by "governance by plebiscite or editorial petulance." I'm not quite sure of how Shoemaker defines "plebiscite,"  but my dictionary pulls it from the adjective "plebeian," or a member of the common people. But this is the same Haven Shoemaker who ran for office as a voice for The People.
     He asks why anyone should be surprised at what some see as an abrupt dismissal of an ideal when he made it clear during the election campaign that he was coming to change things, to take swift and definitive action. But he also said, again in response to critics' fears of knee-jerk actions, that he had no set agenda, that all decisions for changes would be open, well-considered, and reasonable.
    He promised transparency and participation as a candidate. Now, he writes that the recent actions of the board are, "not the first executive decision made by the board, nor will it be the last."
     While promising transparency as a candidate, and respect for personal property rights, he was pushing hard more or less behind the scenes (he had already decided to run for commissioner) as mayor Hampstead to sue an owner of private property for the takeover by eminent domain of a well, to serve the greater good of the community at large. It did not escape the attention of more astute observers that he remained relatively quiet about his role in the effort for taking of private property.
    Now, Shoemaker decries editorial criticism "from the comfort of the newsroom ... behind the editorial curtain."
    Comfort? Editorial curtain?  Editorials are out there, open; right, wrong, or a little of both, they at least are not secret. Nor, for the most part, are they self-serving. They just make the people who want to be more comfortable work for the privilege.
     Perhaps Shoemaker expected some editorial praise for following through on campaign promises; the problem is, he and the rest of the board violated one promise while holding firm to another. Inconsistency -- and disingenuousness -- will make those cart wheels wobble.