One Final Ride Around Baltimore For William Donald Schaefer

Marylanders — hands on their hearts, crisply saluting or wiping away tears — lined streets and gathered at landmarks to bid personal farewells to William Donald Schaefer Monday afternoon, as the former mayor and governor was taken on one final trip by motorcade through his beloved Baltimore.

"His heart was in the city, and I wanted to say goodbye," said Bronwyn Mayden, who watched from Lexington Market, near her office at the University of Maryland School of Social Work, where she is an assistant dean.

It was an oft-repeated sentiment along the 14-mile course that served as a partial rewinding of Schaefer's life, one largely lived within the boundaries of a city that bears the legacy of his terms in office.


For two hours, the motorcade traveled to some of the spots nearest and dearest to his heart, from his childhood home in West Baltimore to the Inner Harbor, from Camden Yards to Corned Beef Row, from Federal Hill to Little Italy. Along the way, he would be feted by music — by players from the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra to those from the Baltimore Colts turned Baltimore Ravens Marching Band — and heralded with signs, some handmade with messages of gratitude, others old campaign posters, yellowed and faded.




Most touching to the former aides and friends who had choreographed the tour, though, were not the landmarks that he had a hand in building, but the people who gathered along the motorcade route or waited at the stops. Some were fellow politicians he had worked or battled with, some were advocates who represented neighborhoods or causes, most were simply Baltimoreans who came out for one final show of support.



Photo by reporter Julie Scharper via Twitter Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake leads Schaefer's casket into City Hall.



"It was all the people he loved and who loved him," said Lainy LeBow-Sachs, Schaefer's longtime aide, who received multiple flowers and tributes on his behalf. "And that's what he was all about — people, people, people."



The day began in Annapolis, with Schaefer lying in state at the State House for several hours. Then the motorcade, led by motorcycle police and carrying some of Schaefer's closest friends, made its first stop at his childhood home, 620 Edgewood St. in West Baltimore, where a Maryland flag was flying from its porch.

There, a warm and welcoming crowd applauded as the cars approached, waved signs and offered up pots of Schaefer's favored African violets — the kind of scene that would be repeated as the group criss-crossed the city.



More; http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-schaefer-motorcade-20110425,0,2338692.story

Longtime Aide To Schaefer Dies The Same Day

The Baltimore Sun

Here is how Charlie Kelly imagined the scene at the pearly gates this week: William Donald Schaefer  awaits entry as St. Peter goes over his list. Maybe his eyes are widening as he sees all the rude, bombastic things Schaefer has said over the years.

A diminutive woman who just passed through the gates interjects, "He really didn't mean all those things he said."

St. Peter continues down his list — it's a long one — and the woman starts to reconsider. "Maybe you're right," she says. "A little bit of purgatory might do him some good."

Pam Kelly was one of  William Donald Schaefer's closest aides, from Baltimore's City Hall to the State House in Annapolis. She ran his Cabinet meetings, she managed his tantrums, she whispered election night intelligence in his ear.

And on Monday, she did one last piece of advance work for the former mayor and governor: Kelly, 66 and suffering from lung cancer,  died four hours before Schaefer did.

"She probably was up there getting things ready for him," said her husband, Charlie.

Schaefer's circle, of which she was something of a social director, has been much in the news this week as they plan his memorial service and funeral next week. But to less public attention they have also been mourning the loss of the woman some considered Schaefer's right hand, someone whose counsel he trusted and who could be counted on to save him from himself.

Story Source;  http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-pam-kelly-death-20110420,0,5149751.story

How Liberals "Grow" An Economy....50% TAX INCREASE

• 50% Tax Increase
• Observations and Reflections on Legislative Activities
• By Delegate Mike McDermott

Apr. 11th, 2011

The war on rural Maryland continues with the 50% Tax increase on alcohol passed by the Senate and being fought out on the floor of the House of Delegates. This last minute shot at citizens and our business community carries with it an interesting fiscal note. The Department of Legislative Services states clearly that this bill will cause jobs to be lost in Maryland and result in a decrease in overall sales. In spite of these facts, we are having this rammed down our collective throats.

Interestingly enough, this tax was supported by the Disabilities and Mental Health communities as they shouted on the Lawyer’s Mall in the rain, “Dime a Drink, with a link!” They actually thought their liberal backers would give them this revenue. Well, to use wheel chair bound folks to push your tax, and then turn around and divide up the spoil for another purpose…in a word, “Shameful” even by liberal standards.

State line communities such as Ocean City, Delmar, and Pocomoke City will suffer greatly and lose jobs as Maryland residents simply cross the border to more tax friendly states. The retail loss is bad enough, but this bill will be implemented on July 1^st…the very height of our vacation season at the beach. Computers will need to be changed, software purchased, employees trained in the new tiered tax system, and all must be done overnight. Amendments were offered to alter this date to before or after the season to no effect. This will serve to further crush the only area of our regional economy where Maryland is still competitive tax wise.

With a budget already reconciled, here comes the slush fund. We asked, “Who decided, and who divided the spoil in this back room deal?” Well, the big three, (Baltimore City, Montgomery County, and Prince Georges County) made sure that they raked in $27 million for their schools; while they gave $1.25 million to be shared by 8 counties on the Eastern Shore. Divided evenly on the shore, we will receive $156,000.00 for each county…what a deal! It is these “back room deals” that the voters of Maryland have rejected with contempt. It is this “shadow government”, where the blinds are drawn and the shades are pulled that, more often than not, decides the winners and the losers in Annapolis.

Brought up on the 89^th day, after the budget was already settled, this tax bill slithered into the House Chamber with no warning. We fought diligently for 6-hours to amend a bill that we were not even prepared to address until the Speaker grew weary and cut off our opportunity to even offer amendments. It was totally out of order, but that does not matter when your government displays tyrannical behavior.

To make matters worse, we began our debate on this tax on Third Reader Monday morning and it was cut off almost before it began. What an outrage for the people of Maryland! Not only did they not have an opportunity to weigh in on the issue, their elected representatives were cut off as well. We were reduced to a two-minute statement to merely “explain” our votes. While business men and women filled the galleries in the House Chamber looking on in dismay, all of the delegates from the urban counties crushed the consumers in Maryland with this draconian tax.

This is not “representative democracy in action”; these are the actions of a banana republic. So while Rome burns, Nero fiddles, and the people of Maryland can name that tune in one collective note: Montgomery County $9 million, Prince George’s County $9 million, Baltimore City $9 million; and the tune for each county on the Eastern Shore: only $156,000.00.

Legislative Updates By Delegate Mike McDermott

• Field Notes
• Observations and Reflections on Legislative Activities
• By Delegate Mike McDermott

March 4th-April 9th, 2011

• The debate and voting on Second Reader Amendments for the Capital Budget, HB-71, was largely partisan with a few exceptions on the Democrat side of the aisle. This is the nearly billion dollar bill addressing a myriad of statewide projects from the tens of millions to the tens of thousands. The budget office with the Department of Legislative Services had recommended a reduction of overall spending down to $825 million, but this bill comes in at $925 million. The following amendments were offered on the floor following debate:

1. HB 71: (Delegate McDermott) {613721/1 Rejected (42-92): Would have reduced the overall Capital Budget by 5%
2. Floor Amendment (Delegate Boteler) {253627/1 Rejected (43-95): Would have reduced the overall Capital Budget by 3%
3. Floor Amendment (Delegate George) {143321/1 Rejected (45-93): Would have reduced the overall Capital Budget by a mere 1%
4. Floor Amendment (Delegate Smigiel) {803720/1 Rejected (41-97): Would have stripped the $15 million in local bond bills from the Capital Budget in recognition of the Tea Party Caucus and Republican Caucus position taken at the beginning of session relative to spending.

• The House debated HB-173, the Invest Maryland Bill, which seeks to create a $100 million dollar fund overseen by the Governor and his appointed committee. The fund is to be used as “venture capital” to invest in companies that would find private investors reluctant to take the risk. There was a lot of debate over the need to create such a fund. Some have referred to it as “the Governor’s slush fund” as it will allow him to “pick the winners” and move money to various companies and projects that he favors or those that are deemed “politically correct”. One must ask the question…if the private sector is not willing to put their capital at risk, why should the taxpayer take that risk? This is what happens in government…many willing to spend and risk OPM (Other People’s Money). After all, if you lose the money and the venture fails, where are those who will complain?
• On Tuesday afternoon, the Judiciary Committee heard the following Senate bills which had no matching bill in the House:

1. SB-50: Would allow the use of Victim’s Compensation Funds for the temporary lodging of victims of domestic violence.
2. SB-51: Would not allow for convicted felons to receive any compensation as a “victim” under the Victim’s Compensation Fund. We heard testimony that seemed to indicate that there would soon be audit revelations reflecting poorly on the process by which some individuals have been compensated.
3. SB-138: Would allow certain records to be introduced at trial for motor vehicle accident damage repair estimates. This would eliminate the need that a body shop estimator is required to come to court and testify as to their opinion or how they arrived at the estimate.
4. SB-142: Would require an insurance firm to provide last known address of a customer who is a defendant in a civil case if the information has not otherwise been provided.
5. SB-200: Requires the reporting of Juvenile Recidivism rates from state facilities that serve the Juvenile Justice System. This data has not been collected and there is no way to properly evaluate certain program areas as to their effectiveness.
6. SB-515: Sets the Federal Poverty Guidelines as the bar for determining eligibility of the services of the Public Defender. This would automatically provide a determination that someone qualified for the use of a Public Defender.

The committee voted “Favorable” on the following bills:
SB-599 (Requires pre litigation discovery of certain insurance coverage); SB-803 (The Senate version of the House bill increasing the use of ignition interlock systems in Maryland).

• On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee voted “Favorable” on the following bills:

SB-308 (Medical Marijuana); SB-139 (Changes grounds for an Absolute Divorce/reduces time of separation); SB-200 (Requires the Dept. of Juvenile Services to issue a report on the current recidivism rate in state run facilities); SB-374 (A technical change to the law governing Grand Jury Investigations in Baltimore City); SB-696 (A bill addressing technical changes to Estate and Trustee property law); SB-787 (Would require Juvenile Justice to provide similar programs for female detainees as they provide for males); SB-803 (This bill is now amended to resemble HB-1012 and addresses the new mandates for ignition interlock programs dealing with drunk drivers).

• On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee voted “Favorable” on the following bills:

SB-196 (Increases the Statute of Limitations on 4^th Degree Sex Offenses when the victim is a juvenile); SB-281 (Would require Prince George County Orphans Court Judges to be members of the MD bar); SB-327 (The Human Trafficking Protection Act); SB-515 (Changes the income eligibility requirements to qualify for a Public Defender); SB-747 (Creates a provision to address cruelty toward a pet in domestic violence cases).

• Friday, while many Senate bills moved through the House, the big debate was on HB-470 which provides in-state tuition rates for illegal aliens. This will cost the state tens of millions of dollars and will make it more difficult for American citizens from neighboring states to attend our colleges and universities. It was interesting that none of the supporters disagreed with the cost associated with providing these reduced rates. We heard many argue in favor of the bill while using legal immigrants as their back drop. It truly was an outrage when one considers the time and effort a legal immigrant to our country must invest to become a resident alien, let alone a US citizen.

We heard that the discussion should not be about immigration, but “about education”. It should have been a debate about the rule of law and the cost of these benefits. By way of example, Montgomery County (that bastion of liberalism) has illegally offered these benefits at their community college for the past three years at a cost of millions in taxpayer dollars. It is a Federal offense to do what Montgomery County is doing in Maryland (and it is currently being litigated). There were amendments offered which would have limited the fiscal impact on our budget and to allow counties to opt out of providing this benefit at community colleges. All of these were resisted by the ruling party. This bill was amended on the floor and must be sent to the Senate before it can be finalized. The vote was close at 74-66.

• On Saturday, we faced another full day of bills moving back and forth between the House and Senate. The Senate pulled a fast one on the Medical Marijuana bill, SB-308, which had been amended to simply be a study. The senate amended the bill to include an “Affirmative Defense” for those who are caught in possession of 1-ounce or less of marijuana so they can avoid prosecution if they can provide evidence that they were using marijuana for medicinal reasons. I tried to amend this in Committee when it came back over to place the “affirmative defense” issue in the study as well, but this was rejected on a divided vote. This would have been a better approach as the study is set to provide many answers for the 2012 session, but many in the General Assembly seem intent on putting the cart before the horse. (Later during the late Saturday session, the bill was passed by the House on a vote of 82-54 after several amendments failed).

We took a break for the printing office to get cranked up and the arms to be twisted in the Democratic Caucus before coming back into session after 5pm. The dreaded tax on alcohol has been forced to the floor out of Ways and Means and we will be debating fiercely the merits of raising a tax by 50% on the consumers of Maryland. Alcohol is currently taxed at 6% above the 6% Retail Sales Tax already imposed. They want to raise the 6% to 9% immediately.

The Fiscal Note attached to this bill shows job losses in the industry if it is passed and a loss of revenues from diminished sales in the state. This is typical of any tax passed. In fact, if you want less of something, just tax it. The secondary issue of this tax is where the new found money will go. The budget was approved by the House without the additional revenue and there is no need to pass this tax in order to balance the budget; but this will not stop them from forcing through a tax in order to garner more spoil for Baltimore City, Prince Georges County, and Montgomery Counties. The hands are outstretched and there is a line outside the Speaker’s door a mile long.

To say this is disgusting is putting it mildly. This tax was being pushed for during session by the developmentally disabled and Mental Health lobby. They wanted the money to be directly assigned to filling the gaping holes in the Mental Health community created over the past few budget cycles by transfers, etc. I passed these folks and heard them in the Lawyer’s Mall shouting loudly, “Dime a drink, with a link” as they demanded an increased alcohol tax. So now it appears they will get a tax with little, if any, relief.

I’m sure we will be here till late tonight (Saturday). Take a deep breath Eastern Shore; Monday (Sine Die) will not be pretty fiscally or socially.

Legislative Updates By Delegate Mike McDermott

Field Notes

Observations and Reflections on Legislative Activities

March 28-April 1, 2011

• On Monday, the House voted on the following bills for Third Reader:

HB 291, HB 1150, HB 1180, HB 1209, HB 1225, HB 1233, HB 1242, HB 1245, HB 975, HB 1033, HB 1038, HB 1039, HB 1092, HB 1113, HB 1135, HB 1143, HB 364, HB 398, HB 461, HB 520, HB 534, HB 539, HB 604, HB 689, HB 62, HB 115, HB 148, HB 700, HB 858, HB 938, HB 943, HB 954, HB 160, HB 166, HB 170, HB 258, HB 262, HB 270, HB 285, HB 1254

• On Tuesday, the House voted on the following bills for Third Reader:

Third Reading Calendar (House Bills) #64

HB 715, HB 807, HB 1005, HB 1181, HB 1304

• On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee reviewed the following senate bills which have crossed over and have identical House Bills which have already been reviewed: SB-172, SB-299, SB-500, SB-511, SB-747. These bills will move quickly to the full House for 2nd and 3rd Reader if the House version has already passed. If the House version was unfavorable in Committee, the same will be applied to the senate bill.

 At the same hearing, the following senate bills were reviewed having no cross filed bill in the House:

1.      SB-61: Would allow greater access by the Department of Juvenile Services to         court related documents such as Charging Documents and Arrest Warrants. It will allow         them to release relevant information to a victim or witness of a crime which the             department may possess.

2.      SB-66: Seeks to repeal the requirement that a public safety agency report to the         state the release of a person who was detained and then released without charges. The         idea behind this bill being to minimize the impact of a person’s detainment if they are         ultimately released without charges.

3.      SB-218: Seeks to extend the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights to sworn         members of the Internal Investigative Unit of the Department of Corrections. Currently,         this group (approximately 24 officers) has not been listed with those officers covered         under the statute.

4.      SB-673: Allows for the payment of attorney’s fees from an estate under certain         circumstances without the need to have the payment approved by the court.

                                    

• On Wednesday morning, I met with some Republicans involved with the Capital Bond Budget (HB-71) for the purpose of reviewing the myriad of requests which presently total just under a billion dollars. The committee did not make significant cuts in this area and it represents a significant amount of created state debt that our state can ill afford. It appears that we will take the bill up at the beginning of next week. I plan on offering some amendments in an effort to reduce spending in the overall plan.
• On Wednesday, the House voted on the following bills for Third Reader:

HB 715, HB 807, HB 1005, HB 1181, HB 1304

• On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee reviewed the following senate bills which have crossed over and have identical House Bills which have already been reviewed: SB-247, SB-327, SB-333, SB-342, SB-362, SB-411, SB-593, SB-652, SB-768, SB-803. These bills will move quickly to the full House for 2nd and 3rd Reader if the House version has already passed. If the House version was unfavorable in Committee, the same will be applied to the senate bill.

    At the same hearing, the following senate bills were reviewed having no cross filed bill in         the House:

1.      SB-62: Which would require a greater degree of cooperation between the             Departments of Education and Juvenile Services as it relates to sharing of information as     required under certain circumstances.

2.      SB-169: Seeks to expand the definition of a debtor’s protected residence under         bankruptcy laws to include a condominium and a shared property such as a duplex.

3.      SB-281: Would change the requirements of an Orphan’s Court Judge in             Baltimore and Prince George’s Counties to include admission in the Maryland State Bar         Association. We heard a bill similar to this previously that was voted down.

4.      SB-599: Would require insurance carriers under certain circumstances to divulge     the amount of insurance coverage limits that exist for a policy holder prior to trial. It is         thought that this may reduce litigation actions.

• On Wednesday evening, I attended our annual Judiciary Committee dinner. Both Speaker Bush and Governor O’Malley came by to say hello and address the committee. During his comments, it became apparent that the Governor was a little perturbed by some of my recent press articles published on the shore which have been critical of some of his administration policy objectives. He called me out on it and jokingly told Chairman Vallario to “take away Delegate McDermott’s computer”. Working for the Eastern shore, and specifically my district, means I will often take exception to the governor’s proposals. I am currently working with him on a wind proposal that makes sense for rural Maryland, while at the same time opposing his “Big Wind” project as it has been presented. I pay attention to the Governor, and I am glad he is paying attention to the Eastern Shore.

• On Thursday, the House voted on the following bills for Third Reader:

HB 757, HB 758

• On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee reviewed the following senate bills which have crossed over and have identical House Bills which have already been reviewed: SB-112, SB-115, SB-174, SB-178, SB-278, SB-457, SB-480, SB-529, SB-531, SB-696. These bills will move quickly to the full House for 2nd and 3rd Reader if the House version has already passed. If the House version was unfavorable in Committee, the same will be applied to the senate bill.

At the same hearing, the following senate bill was reviewed having no cross filed bill in the House:

1.      SB-374: Seeks clarifying language in an existing law dealing with Grand Jury Investigations in Baltimore City. Does not change the substance of the law.

• On Friday, the House voted on the following bills for Third Reader:

   

HB 1279, SB 44, SB 84, SB 89, SB 90, SB 93, SB 144,SB 202, SB 203, SB 255, SB 416, SB 428, SB 682, SB 61, SB 66, SB 172, SB 299, SB 511, SB 673

• Next week will be the final push. The billion dollar Capital budget (HB-71) will be challenged and we could see the “Dream Act” (illegal alien in-state tuition), the Governor’s “Big Wind” and “Septic Ban” still find their way to the floor. Pay particular attention this week as the votes fly.



FIELD NOTES ~ By Delegate Mike McDermott

Observations and Reflections on Legislative Activities

By Delegate Mike McDermott

March 14th-18th, 2011

On Monday evening prior to session, there was a significant union rally on the Lawyer’s Mall which greeted us as we moved toward the State House. It was all about the Governor’s budget and their dislike for what has been proposed by the O’Malley Administration. I found it interesting that the governor actually came out and took the stage to speak to the crowd and proclaimed, “I don’t like the budget either!!!” Of course, the crowd was happy about this proclamation. So, I guess it may be true for democratic governor’s in Annapolis...you can have your cake and eat it too!

On Tuesday morning, the session was brief and we only voted on one bill:

HB-209: Vote 139-0 On Third Reader in Favor. Authorizing the purchase of agricultural land preservation easements if the land meets specified requirements and is subject to specified regulations governing the use of the land; clarifying that specified provisions of the Act do not exempt a landowner from complying with specified local laws or State or local requirements; prohibiting land subject to agricultural easement from being used for specified purposes; allowing a landowner to reserve up to three 1-acre lots to construct single-family residential dwellings, etc.

On Tuesday afternoon, I met with a sub committee to review the Child Neglect statute being championed by Lt. Governor Brown. We made many recommendations for changing the bill and hope to have it ready for committee soon.

On Tuesday, the following bills were heard in the Judicary Committee

HB-1174: Would give more power to the Division of Parole and Probation when it comes to reimposing sentences for violations of parole or probation. It would allow for lesser sentences on minor offenses and should reduce some prison costs.

HB-899: Would provide police powers to a unit within the Division of which deal specifically with the apprehension of offenders on Warrant Retake Orders. Currently, officers are not able to arrest for violations which occur in the process of their warrant service or other related actions.

HB-677: Would make it a crime in Maryland for any municipality or government to grant “sanctuary status” to illegal aliens. It would require the state to enforce federal laws addressing illegal immigration. It was argued clearly on both sides, but it is clear that Maryland is fast becoming a sanctuary for illegal immigrants due to our lax enforcement policies and the current lack of enforcement by authorities from ICE.

HB-724: Would increase the statute of limitations for 4th Degree Sex Offense from one year to three. This bill will probably be amended to allow for extended limitations in the case where a victim is a juvenile.

HB-898: Would not allow for Bondsmen to fail to collect the full amount of their bond premium through various finance arrangements made with bonding companies. It does not allow for these companies to finance bonds, merely have an arrangement for collecting payment over time.

HB-1207: Would allow local government entities to prohibit the sale of drug paraphernalia to a minor. It allows for the revocation of business licenses, etc by the local authorities for violations. It is believed that this type of tie in would impact the sale of drug paraphernalia items to minors locally. Based on questions asked, the bill may create confusion across county or municipal boundaries.

HB-1075: Would repeal the Death Penalty in Maryland. This bill seeks to respond to the finding of the Maryland Commission on Capitol Punishment completed in 2008 which recommended abolishing the death penalty in Maryland in favor of Life in Prison.

HB-1074: Would provide an exemption for any Division of Correction employee or other related service employee to exempt themselves from participating in the process of a state execution. This is a no brainer, though, in all fairness, we simply do not exercise the death penalty in Maryland.

HB-804: Would require the MVA to place a certain notation on the driver’s license and state issued ID’s of convicted sex offenders. It is said this may aid law enforcement officers in identifying potential bad guys who may be involved in an abduction when stopped for another violation.

HB-1128: Would alter the definition of sexual contact to include any penetration by any part of the body or object. The current law does not make provision for penetration by other parts of the human body. Some recent cases have made this an issue that needs to be addressed according to some state’s attorney’s who testified in favor of the bill.

On Wednesday, the following bills were heard in the Judiciary Committee:

HB-1277: Would set the policy of the State so as to encourage the use of special needs trusts or supplemental needs trusts by individuals with disabilities of all ages to preserve funds in order to provide for the needs of the individuals not met by public benefits and to enhance their quality of life. The bill encourages self reliance on the part of those with disabilities.

HB-1296: Would allow for the electronic transmission of Eviction related documents. This is currently being done manually by the Clerks and Sheriff’s Office personnel. This would save time and certainly speed up the process by which these papers are transferred and eventually served.

On Thursday morning, the following bills were presented for Third Reader:

Third Reading Calendar (House Bills) #18

HB 86

Third Reading Passed (104-33)

HB 110

Third Reading Passed (138-0)

HB 263

Third Reading Passed (136-0)

HB 435

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

HB 463

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 481

Third Reading Passed (137-3)

HB 486

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

HB 507

Third Reading Passed (94-46)

HB 522

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

HB 581

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

Third Reading Calendar (House Bills) #19

HB 621

Third Reading Passed (137-2)

HB 630

Third Reading Passed (135-5)

HB 634

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

HB 667

Third Reading Passed (138-0)

HB 674

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 679

Third Reading Passed (103-35)

HB 727

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

HB 729

Third Reading Passed (108-32)

HB 749

Third Reading Passed (119-20)

HB 833

Third Reading Passed (130-3)

Third Reading Calendar (House Bills) #20

HB 837

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

HB 849

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 864

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

HB 877

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

HB 913

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

HB 972

Third Reading Passed (130-10)

HB 994

Third Reading Passed (122-9)

HB 1017

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 1018

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

HB 1025

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

HB 1088

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

On Thursday afternoon, the Judiciary Committee heard the following bills:

HB-1118: Requiring the juvenile court, in specified child in need of assistance hearings, to send written findings to specified individuals and agencies if the court finds that specified reasonable efforts were made but that a specified condition exists. Bills like this are generally procedural applications which may slightly modify one aspect of an existing law.

HB-1190: Seeks to expand a pilot program dealing with children in need of supervision to Cecil County and Prince Georges County. The program has been used successfully to divert children from the juvenile delinquency system. They wish to see it work in a more rural county. The bill carries a fiscal note of $250,000.00 and this may be a stumbling block.

HB-790: Seeks to create a crime of Home Invasion and see it classified as a violent crime. There was testimony that these crimes are often being treated as property crimes instead of violent offenses. We heard from several victims of home invasions.

HB-1305: Would expand the notification that a school receives when a student is arrested for certain offenses. It would add the charges of drug distribution to the offenses reported to certain school officials. This makes a lot of sense.

HB-825: Would provide a method for a juvenile defendant who has been waived to adult court to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals. This may create some unnecessary delays in criminal trials for a very low number of instances annually in Maryland. I think it may need further review before implementation.

On Friday, the following bills were voted on during the morning session:

Third Reading Calendar (House Bills) #21

HB 124

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 128

Third Reading Passed (118-22)

HB 245

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 268

Third Reading Passed (138-1)

HB 279

Third Reading Passed (138-0)

HB 376

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 417

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 466

Third Reading Passed (127-11)

Third Reading Calendar (House Bills) #22

HB 476

Third Reading Passed (138-0)

HB 506

Third Reading Passed (136-2)

HB 535

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 637

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 643

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

HB 944

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 1093

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

Third Reading Calendar (House Bills) #23

HB 38

Third Reading Passed (108-30)

HB 188

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

HB 195

Third Reading Passed (102-36)

HB 203

Third Reading Passed (133-4)

HB 286

Third Reading Passed (138-0)

HB 413

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 453

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

Third Reading Calendar (House Bills) #24

HB 456

Third Reading Passed (130-8)

HB 468

Third Reading Passed (138-0)

HB 479

Third Reading Passed (138-0)

HB 482

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 542

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 543

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 545

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 590

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

Third Reading Calendar (House Bills) #25

HB 596

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

HB 597

Third Reading Passed (138-0)

HB 600

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 741

Motion Special Order until 3/22 (Delegate Feldman) Adopted

HB 752

Third Reading Passed (138-0)

HB 793

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

HB 888

Third Reading Passed (140-0)

Third Reading Calendar (House Bills) #26

HB 940

Third Reading Passed (133-6)

HB 953

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 973

Third Reading Passed (137-0)

HB 996

Third Reading Passed (139-0)

HB 1028

Third Reading Passed (125-14)

HB 1095

Third Reading Passed (138-0)

HB 1119

Third Reading Passed (138-0)

On Friday afternoon, the Judiciary Committee voted on the following bills:

Favorable: HB-921, HB-1072, HB-1118, HB-1174

Unfavorable: HB-835, H-872, HB-1037,

FIELD NOTES By Delegate Mike McDermott

Field Notes

Observations and Reflections on Legislative Activities

By Delegate Mike McDermott

March 7^th –March 11^th, 2011

• Monday evening the Republican Caucus met prior to the evening session to discuss the upcoming debate and votes on the Gay Marriage legislation. We reviewed the previous weeks work in the Judiciary Committee and debated the proper strategy to utilize. At this time, the matter remains a matter of great debate.


• On Tuesday morning, the House began the debate on Senate Bill 116 which seeks to legalize gay marriage. This was the Second Reading of this bill and this is the time when the House offers and debates amendments to a bill. Several amendments were offered by both sides of the aisle. They addressed the following areas of concern:

1. Amendment 1 (543121/1) would address certain religious exemptions for adoption services and social service programs. It was simple and would have recognized the need for these objections for deeply held convictions. It was defeated on a vote of 58/79;


2. Amendment 2 (483026/1) would have provided for exemptions for religious held convictions as pertaining to training by teachers and participation by students in K-12 public school programs. This would address homosexual sex education and make provision for teachers, parents, and students not to participate in this type of training. It was voted down 54/86;


3. Amendment 3 (873228/1) would simply change the title of the bill to the “Same Sex Marriage Act” as opposed to its present title (Civil Marriage Protection Act). It was argued that the name was very deceiving and would continue to misdirect people when the bill goes to referendum. This amendment was defeated 52/85; and


4. Amendment 4 (223923/1) was offered by a democrat member and would require a statewide referendum be conducted prior to the law taking effect. This reasonable attempt was also shot down on a tight vote with a couple of democrats speaking out on the floor. The vote was 63/72.

With these amendment defeats, the bill remains intact and will next appear for Third Reader and a final vote. I must say I was very disappointed, particularly with the failure of amendments 3 and 4. The House is clearly divided and I have never seen good legislation pass under these circumstances. Clearly the ruling party’s leadership had been whipping their caucus and twisting arms to secure these votes. On the amendment votes, many of the delegates chose not to even vote! That was more shocking that all the rest. What a colossal failure of courage and conviction. This same legislative body debated slots and agreed to let the people decide “this monumental issue”, and then fails to think the people of Maryland should weigh in on the definition of “marriage”? What an outrage!

At this time on Tuesday, the final outcome remained unknown and both sides continued working hard. As a result, I strongly encouraged citizens to participate in the process with a focus on the House Democrats.

• On Tuesday, there were three Third Reader votes cast on the following bills:

1. HB- 24 : Third Reading Passed (138-2)


2. HB- 101: Third Reading Passed (89-50)


3. HB -302: Motion vote previous question (Delegate Minnick) Adopted Third Reading Passed (74-66)

• Tuesday afternoon, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony concerning the following bills:

1. HB-161: This bill would enhance the penalties when someone uses a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence or a felony. Further, it would expand the definition of “firearm” used in these types of crimes to include long guns and shotguns. This bill is supported by both sides as a way to get tougher on thugs.


2. HB-172: This bill would eliminate diminutive credits for inmates who violate firearms laws or commit crimes of violence. These are those “good time” credits inmates receive just for being incarcerated. These often serve to shorten their sentences. This bill received no opposition testimony.


3. HB-241: This bill would expand the definition of a firearm to include long guns and antique firearms and would place mandatory minimum sentences for the unlawful possession of these firearms. This bill is also supported by both sides and received no opposition.


4. HB-252: This bill would enhance the penalties for possession of a firearm that was loaded under any circumstances. It carries with it mandatory minimums. This bill had some problems as it could cause problems for those who make honest mistakes in the possession or transportation of a firearm under otherwise lawful purposes. It received significant opposition and will need to be amended if it has a chance of making it out of committee.


5. HB-382: This bill would remove diminutive credits when a firearm is used in the commission of any crime. It is simple and straightforward and goes further than HB-172 (which only removed one-half of the time).


6. HB-343: This bill would change the right to carry a firearm in Maryland from a “may issue” position by the State to a “shall issue” position. It would provide for law abiding Marylanders to be issued a concealed carry permit upon request if there was no clear reason why the permit should not be issued. Several folks testified from around the state. At issue is the position by the Maryland State Police interpreting the need for citizens to have “good and substantial” reasons for being issued a handgun carry permit, and that definition not being clear.


7. HB-803: This bill would make it a crime to possess a firearm in a hospital or institute of higher learning if they did not have a permit to do so. Of course, it is already a crime, but this bill would serve to place an exclamation point on the issue. I do not see that it is necessary, and I, for one, would rather have a professor armed on a campus that may be able to take immediate action to protect life than one who is a victim in waiting. This bill received significant opposition.


8. HB-519: This bill would copy the Federal regulations dealing with the removal or attempted removal of a serial number on a firearm which is currently not addressed by the state. It would also provide for additional regulations on ammunition for unregulated firearms. It would also criminalize some of the statues relative to those less than 21 years of age. The bill simply goes too far in many aspects and replicates what the feds are already performing now.


9. HB-1043: This bill again seeks to replicate many of the standards already in place and required by the federal government. This bill would allow the Maryland State Police to further regulate the licensing requirements of firearms dealers. The state seeks to increase enforcement in this area due to problems with some firearms dealers in the past. It increases reporting requirements in Maryland, many of which are already required under law.

10. HB-330/HB-1043: This bill seeks to limit the magazine capacity of firearms in Maryland. The magazine capacity is currently set at 20 rounds, but this bill would reduce that limit to 10 rounds. Reflecting on the previous Assault Weapons Ban conducted federally, these limitations simply do not do as they are intended, and that is control crime. This is the type of bill that is introduced which makes the delegate’s who provide them feel good, but they do nothing to stop violence in Maryland. As you would expect, many spoke against this type of ban.

11. HB-730: This bill seeks the creation of a task force to examine the issue of mental illness when applied to the purchase or control (sales) of firearms in Maryland. The bill is being amended to this end and the task force will include a variety of professionals who can weigh in on this issue. I can say that I am concerned about the study of one particular industry or particular customer base as being genuine in application. We need to keep our eye on the results of any sanctioned study.

• On Wednesday morning, the House began the debate on Senate Bill 116 which seeks to legalize gay marriage. This was the Second Reading of this bill and this is the time when the House offers and debates amendments to a bill. Several amendments were offered by both sides of the aisle. The first three addressed the following areas of concern:

1. Amendment 1 (543121/1) would address certain religious exemptions for adoption services and social service programs. It was simple and would have recognized the need for these objections for deeply held convictions. It was defeated on a vote of 58/79;


2. Amendment 2 (483026/1) would have provided for exemptions for religious held convictions as pertaining to training by teachers and participation by students in K-12 public school programs. This would address homosexual sex education and make provision for teachers, parents, and students not to participate in this type of training. It was voted down 54/86;


3. Amendment 3 (873228/1) would simply change the title of the bill to the “Same Sex Marriage Act” as opposed to its present title (Civil Marriage Protection Act). It was argued that the name was very deceiving and would continue to misdirect people when the bill goes to referendum. This amendment was defeated 52/85; and


4. Amendment 4 (223923/1) was offered by a democrat member and would require a statewide referendum be conducted prior to the law taking effect. This reasonable attempt was also shot down on a tight vote with a couple of democrats speaking out on the floor. The vote was 63/72.

With these amendment defeats, the bill remains intact and will next appear for Third Reader and a final vote. I must say I was very disappointed, particularly with the failure of amendments 3 and 4. The House is clearly divided and I have never seen good legislation pass under these circumstances. Clearly the ruling party’s leadership had been whipping their caucus and twisting arms to secure these votes. On the amendment votes, many of the delegates chose not to even vote! That was more shocking that all the rest. What a colossal failure of courage and conviction.

The final outcome remains unknown and both sides are working hard. As a result, I strongly encourage citizens to participate in the process with a focus on the House Democrats.

• On Wednesday, the following bills were heard in the Judiciary Committee:

1. HB-806: This bill would consolidate several existing charges concerning suspended or revoked driver’s license and would reduce the number of points assigned by the MVA to a person’s license. State’s Attorney’s spoke out against making the change as a lesser charge already exists in the law.


2. HB-657: This bill would allow the MVA to create a special registration plate for persons convicted 3 or more times with DUI convictions. This was an interesting proposal that has come to the committee for several years in a row now. It is a Scarlet Letter for drunk drivers and I like it.


3. HB-698: This bill would allow the MVA to accept valid US Military Identification as one of their valid IDs when securing a driver’s license. This one seems like a no brainer and I cannot imagine why the MVA would not accept a military ID as opposed that are of a more questionable nature.


4. HB-1069: This bill would allow the MVA to place a special notation on a person’s driver’s license once they have been convicted of DUI three times. It was testified that this bill would help those who sell alcohol act with greater caution when someone seeks to purchase alcohol.


5. HB-957: This bill would make it a separate offense for anyone previously convicted of DUI to refuse to take a breath or blood test for alcohol on a subsequent arrest. I like the idea of this bill as it would provide a greater penalty when someone refuses a test.


6. HB-318/360/1012/1276: All of these bills address additional requirements for the mandatory use of ignition interlock devices for those convicted of drunk driving. These are devices which require the driver submit a breath sample which is alcohol free before the vehicle can be operated. All of these bills propose variances with the same goal. Most of the bills focus on action being taken by the MVA, while one of the bills (360) requires the judge in the case mandate the interlock device. It appears clear that the committee is going to embrace a modified bill which takes all of these issues into account.

• On Thursday morning, the following bills were passed on Third Reader in the House:


• On Thursday, the Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the following bills:

1. SB- 454: Third Reading Passed (138-0)

2. SB -455: Third Reading Passed (138-0)

1. HB-878: This bill would require a defendant in a court proceeding to receive notification of their right to having their records expunged under certain conditions. It would simply clarify for defendants the rights they are assured under law but with which they may not be familiar.


2. HB-1072: This bill would require further regulations on the sale of Salvia requiring those who sell the product to verify the age of the purchaser and to post various regulations in their store addressing Salvia sales. This is just one of several bills addressing certain aspects of Salvia sales and distribution.


3. HB-919: This bill would institute a pilot program in Maryland similar to one already in existence in Texas. It is aimed at reducing the prison population by developing enhanced standards of parole and probation supervision. It provides various programs and incentives for inmates and reduces the technical violations often the reason for probationers being violated. The goal of the program is to reduce the number of inmates and create an incentivized program for success for probationers. If it is as successful as it has been in Texas, it would reduce the cost of corrections in Maryland.


4. HB-862: This bill would create a separate theft statute for the theft of mail. It is already covered under the current theft article, but the sponsor wanted to make provision for mail theft as a separate offense.


5. HB-964: This bill would create a pilot program called Recidivism Reduction Program and is designed to reduce the recidivism rate in Maryland prisons. It is a foundation program for HB-919 working in concert to achieve the same end results.


6. HB-971: This bill seeks to change the charge for abandoning a refrigerator from a criminal charge to a civil offense. It was testified that the modern refrigerators do not latch as the former models for which the law was established in the 1950’s and it would be more appropriate to charge as a civil infraction as opposed to a misdemeanor crime.


7. HB-967: This bill would increase the penalties for Malicious Destruction of Property. This bill would essentially double the current penalty for a violation.


8. HB-794: This bill would mandate a date certain by which the Division of Parole and Probation would have to conduct hearings for inmates incarcerated in local jails. The timeliness of these hearings has been brought into question in recent months. This bill seeks to rectify this issue.


9. HB-874: This bill would create a Truth in Sentencing Task Force. The task force would report on the use of diminution credits, early parole, and other aspects used in controlling inmate behavior.

10. HB-875: This bill would allow for prosecution of drug dealers who are laundering money less than $10,000.00 by creating a misdemeanor charge for transactions of less than $10,000.00. There is already a felony charge for transactions exceeding this amount.

11. HB-1024: This bill seeks to expand the protection of a pregnant woman and her fetus by expanding the time period whereby a person could be charged with Murder or Manslaughter of a Fetus. Currently, the law only applies to acts committed against a fetus who is “viable” outside of the womb of the mother. The law is constructed so as not to inhibit abortion. It is supported by Maryland Right to Life and the Maryland Catholic Conference. It was opposed by NARAL (pro abortion) and the ACLU. Needless to say, they turned it into an “abortion bill” even though the Attorney General has ruled that this bill would not violate the current abortion standards in Maryland.

12. HB-879: This bill would expand the venue of counterfeiting laws so charges could be filed in other jurisdictions.

• On Friday, we voted on a number of bills which lacked any controversy as follows:

· HB-354 : Third Reading Passed (137-0)

· HB -357:Third Reading Passed (139-0)

· HB- 378:Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB- 460: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB -503: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB -529: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB -709: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB -37: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB -61: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB -68: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB -204: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

· HB -281: Third Reading Passed (138-0)

· HB -306 : Third Reading Passed (139-1)

· HB -329: Third Reading Passed (140-0)

• The final vote of the day was to be on SB-116, the Gay Marriage Bill. The debate was civil and primarily taken on by democrats opposing and democrats in favor. Only a couple of Republicans spoke. It became quite clear that the votes to pass it were not on the floor. They stalled the vote as long as they could and then Chairman Vallario (Judiciary Committee) requested the bill be remanded back to the committee. Essentially, that ends the bill as it is highly unlikely it will be brought back out during the session and this can be interpreted as modest victory of the process.

I must say, there was an awful lot of political capital spent in the past two weeks on this issue. The broken and twisted arms are clearly apparent. The process also showed that a dynamic minority working together can build bridges with other members across the aisle. We will need to keep this matter before us while it remains in committee until the end of the session. The other interesting thing to watch is the long term impact the actions of the past week will have on many members and their relationship with House leadership. So much pressure was brought on freshmen members and those in various junior leadership positions, the failure to move the bill on the floor looks like a wasted fight. The matter is not going away, but for today in Maryland, the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman remains the law of the land.

• The following bills were voted on in the Judiciary Committee Friday afternoon:

Unfavorable: HB-137, HB-256, HB-423, HB-501, HB-797, HB-892, HB-1019, HB-1126, HB-1136

Favorable: HB-507, HB-667, HB-729, HB-749, HB-837, HB-1018