Some Considerations Regarding Howard County Bill 10-23

If this bill is designed to be a "conversation starter," then why do some (let us call them non-opponents of the bill) seem determined to quash any conversation on the topic until it "evolves?"  So, we can only have a dialogue on certain terms? Whose and why?

Who, precisely, was clamoring for this "conversation" to even take place? We have very recently changed how Howard County Board of Education members are elected.  Surely, don't we want at least a couple more election cycles to pass before considering another significant change?  Frankly, in the present author's point of view, the current system seems to be working rather well.

And why should Howard County voters accept the "oh, the bill will change" line of argumentation as a valid reason to keep an open mind? If one believes that the proponents of this bill are recommending a fundamentally bad change, what reason is there to believe that their version 2.0 will be any better, especially if it maintains the appointment element? "You hated the first iteration, but wait until you see our watered-down bill!"

One more note on conversations, it seems as though some Board of Education members have had discussions with these legislators and/or their staffs, while others have not, despite inquiries apparently behind made by the former.  I thought the Board of Education only exercised power as a collective body, wouldn't it have been best to implement a formal, coherent, communications approach, from the sponsor side, so different Board members weren't hearing different messages at different times?  The communications to date seem very...selective.

And what is the motivation for those who seem to be carrying water for 10-23?

The timing of the bill is interesting insofar as it was filed right before the election, presumably (in part) so no one could say that it was filed in response to any particular outcome.  That said, I would be interested in knowing if anyone possessed any poll data showing that Dan Newberger (for whom I voted) was likely to finish behind both Jacky McCoy (for whom I voted) and Linfeng Chen.  If both McCoy and Newberger won, would there have been any demand for this type of change?  Would this bill have been withdrawn?  If so, doesn't that prove the intent behind the bill?

You know what is also interesting about the timing of this bill?  If it proved to be a non-starter (which indeed seems likely to be the case), the debate is taking place four years removed from the next state legislative elections.  In short, when memories of this issue will have faded.  In further short, it is not likely to be a primary-able issue by 2026.  And I believe this bill, as currently written, should invite primaries for those who support it.  It is not a simple process bill (and such bills rarely are), it goes to the heart of what it means to be the Party of the People.  Let the people, via the ballot box, decide who serves.

In solidarity.

Coup De Grace

Howard County Bill 10-23 is a Terrible, Terrible Idea

Senator Clarence Lam (D-12) and Delegate Courtney Watson (D-9B) recently filed a bill that would change how Howard County Board of Education members are selected.  In short, we would move from:

Five members of the BoE elected by the voters based on county-council district, two members elected by Howard County voters county-wide (the at-large seats), and the student member to:

The County Executive, from a list provided by the Howard County state legislative delegation, appointing two members of the BoE, two members elected from the state senate districts that are at least "partially contained within Howard County," (at present, Districts 9 and 12), one member elected from the state senate district that is "wholly contained within Howard County" (at present, District 13), two members elected on an at-large basis, and the student member.  This, according to the proposed legislation, would take effect beginning in 2024.

Here are some reasons why this bill is a bad idea and is a "solution" that will only create more problems.

1. Democrats are supposed to favor expanding the franchise, not contracting it.  This proposal removes the direct electoral connection between two BoE members and the voting public. It puts decisions in the hands of the few, not the many.

2. It deepens partisan entanglements.  For those who despair over political party engagements in Board of Education affairs, this makes matters considerably worse.  Whose names do you think will appear on such lists? And, once appointed to the office, will they serve the greater public interest or the narrower agendas of those who put them on said lists/appointed them?  Will they be partners of, or servants to, other officials?

3. It doesn't resolve the issue of parochialism, which is a concern that some have expressed based on the move to county-council based districts.  It just adds a twist on top of it. At least the county council districts are, at the present time, roughly equal in population.  The same is not true with the state senate districts. What happens if, following the 2030 Census and reapportionment/redistricting process, Howard County has a sliver of one senatorial district consisting of only a few hundred voters?  Well, congratulations because they would have their very own Board of Education member.  This could lead to some wild disparities in the number of votes received by Board of Education candidates (among those actually appearing on ballots), not to mention unequal representation.

4.  Improved collaboration, which this bill purports to accomplish, is a very questionable rationale.  Does the manner of election need to be changed to improve collaboration or is a really of question of, I don't know, people doing the jobs they were elected to perform?  And in terms of "maintaining the independence of the Board," this measure would make the BoE - at least a couple members - less independent than they are now. 

5. Side note: if this was such a great idea, why was it not rolled out to the public prior to Election Day?  

While the current method of electing the Board of Education members is not perfect, I believe it is a significant improvement over the previous system...and it hasn't been in effect for that long.  Why the rush to change it, yet again, so quickly?

Even though it tries not to talk like a power grab, it sure as heck walks like one.

Please contact your state legislative delegation and let them know that Howard County Bill 10-23 is a bad idea.

In solidarity.

   

Horror in Uvalde

Following the murder of 19 children in Uvalde yesterday, I can’t help but wonder how many tragedies could have been avoided since Columbine by taking stronger actions against those who oppose reasonable restrictions on firearms. 

Specifically, I am thinking about politicians who toe the NRA line and gun manufacturer executives, those who establish the regulatory frameworks and those who produce the weapons, respectively. 

It has been my experience that such people are largely driven by greed (campaign contributions, revenues) and fear (of losing an election, of declining sales).

They are afraid of their “base,” but what if they started to fear those who want an end to such violence even more? What if, after such shootings, politicians who do the bidding of the radical gun lobby, and thus are culpable for letting such events happen face arrest (citizen’s or otherwise)? The same applies for weapons manufacturers. Would detention lead to reflection? Do they possess consciences? These are salient questions but let’s see what happens. 

To quote the Constitution so hypocritically cited by them, how is protecting the gun lobby and the murderers who use those weapons doing anything to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity?” No more empty “thoughts and prayers.” It is time for action. 

In solidarity.