A Independence Declaration for 2012

As I look back over 2011, I have found that like most years, there was plenty of good and a bit of bad news.  I am hopeful that 2012 will be better for Laurel, Maryland, and for America.

As I reflect on 2011's national and regional challenges, I can't help but put some of the blame on our current lawmakers at the national and state levels.  Individually, they seem to be for the most part, good, upstanding citizens.  But collectively, they live in a corrosive system designed to turn even the strongest among them from the practice of statesmanship to the depths of partisanship.  A few examples:

-- Redistricting debacles, where the good of the region is sacrificed to partisan gerrymandering.  See PA and MD for examples from both parties.
-- Budget impasses brought on by partisan posturing.  See U.S. Congress.
-- Ever hardening partisan demands to not compromise with the other side while chronic and acute state and national problems continue to plague us.
-- Party-line voting is now the norm and expected.

It's become clear to me that my only recourse is to send a shock to the political system.  An action that shakes up the system and demonstrates for all observers that priorities must change.   This action must be seen as, not a turn away from any current party in power, but rather a condemnation of the practice of partisanship itself.

So I have decided to declare my independence and, regardless of affiliation, I will vote strictly anti-incumbent.  If a candidate now holds any partisan office, I declare my vote for their challenger without exception. 

If we are successful in this strategy and incumbents lose their seats in large numbers, I'm convinced that our anti-party message will be loudly received.   I am also convinced that if we stick together, we can break free from the evils of partisanship and therefore, I offer the following Declaration.

A Declaration of Independence From Partisan Candidates

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for People to dissolve the political bands which have connected them for far too long to their wayward Lawmakers, and to re-commit to those priorities that put the welfare of the People over the welfare of any political party.
 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments and their elected Lawmakers are instituted to serve the People, not political parties.  That whenever any Form of Government becomes so destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish their services, and to select new Lawmakers who demonstrate the following:
 

-- To hold the rights, safety and good of the People over the needs of any political party, or even their own elected or appointed offices.

-- To work together in good faith, in a spirit of compromise and collaboration that encourages the broadest, most innovative and most lasting solutions to the myriad difficult problems of the People.
 

-- To spend substantially more time working for the good of the People than working for their own reelection or any other partisan priority.

-- To draw representative district boundaries for the good of the People living within them and without regard to party priorities, or their own reelections.

-- To ensure that they put their legislative duties and imperatives ahead of any other work and that they vow to complete their official tasks before they adjourn for any reason.

-- To promise to be fully transparent and immediately disclose fully and publicly; any and all meetings with, formal or informal requests from, and any form of resources provided by any person, organization or other group with direct or potential legislative matters before them.

We, therefore, the People of these United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People, solemnly publish and declare ourselves free from the corrosive power of partisan politics and we pledge to remove all Lawmakers who have not demonstrated that they hold the needs and dreams of the People over the prerogatives of party.

To join the cause, just acknowledge your independence in the comments section.  

Anonymous

Is anonymous debate useful?

We are in the final few days of a hotly contested election here in beautiful, downtown, Laurel, MD.  It certainly has been one of the most contentious campaigns that I can remember during my 30+ years of living here.  Three people are running hard for Mayor and the "at-large" council seat is also locked in a tense struggle.
 
I like elections.  I enjoy the debate.  Elections cause me to think about issues.  Elections are healthy for a community.  But I've been watching a growing anonymity trend that's very troubling for me.

Both of our hometown news organizations, the venerable Laurel Leader and the upstart Laurel Patch are cranking out news, opinions and in a novel twist for a Laurel election, dozens of anonymous online comments. 

Go to the bottom of any article, especially in the Laurel Patch and you will see a handful of people strenuously debating.  Some of the comments are a bit over the top to say the least.
Some commenters are using -- what appears -- to be their real name.  And others are commenting behind a screen name.  Of course, there is no way to know for sure that commenters are offering their real names.  A commenter could easily use any name, even the name of a candidate.  Who could really know the truth?

Yesterday's mail also delivered to me a four page article anonymously attacking the Sarich campaign.  It looks like the authors spent a lot of money mailing the piece to every registered voter in Laurel.  This is a considerable investment in time and money for over 10,000 voters in the city.  Unfortunately, these authors chose to only identify themselves as "17 Laurel Taxpayers."

And finally, a neighbor told me last night that she was called by an anonymous phone pollster.  She was asked who she planned to vote for in the Mayoral race. The caller did not provide any affiliation.

I've written about anonymous comments in the past.  While I allow them here, I believe that anonymous articles, comments and polls are not very useful.  I think anonymity diminishes credibility.  It also tends to encourage people to be more rash, untruthful or hurtful in their comments.  However, we have a tradition of anonymous political speech in this country.  In some cases, anonymously speaking truth to power is useful for the good order of society.

So what do you think?  Opinions about candidates aside, does anonymity help or hurt political debate?

Please respond below.   Feel free to respond with your real name or anonymously.  Please be temperate.   

Good Morning Laurel

Wow, it has been quite awhile since I last posted on this far corner of the internets. There has been a lot going on and I really didn't have anything useful to say.  So I've been laying low and saving my rapidly diminishing brain cycles for other pursuits like counting campaign signs on Route 1.

Back at Easter time, a couple of doctors said that I needed to have a little heart plumbing done.  My advice to everyone is to try to avoid this kind of plumbing job.  It's messy, shockingly expensive and  personally disruptive for much longer than you might originally be led to believe. In these regards, I guess heart plumbing is like any other plumbing project.  You are happy to have had it done until you learn that now you must be even more careful about the bad stuff you can't throw down your new pipes.

I have a new diet and exercise regime.  Well actually, she-who-must-be-obeyed, put fresh batteries in her taser to motivate my daily exercise sessions.  She also uses that same taser to enforce her award-winning diet plan, "if it tastes good, spit it out."  I've become the "biggest loser" on so many levels ...

And since we've now entered the mass hypnosis period that we call our local political campaign season, I thought I would freshen the blog with a little redesign and jump back into the blogging fray.  We have so many interesting local issues to consider. 

Good Morning!

* The Laurel Lake sunrise picture above was taken on 27 June 2010 from Oxford Drive.  I took it quickly before Joanne could turn on her taser.

Laurel City Attorney Opinion on Polling Places

Robert Manzi, Laurel City Solicitor, rendered his opinion on Councilman Mike Sarich's memorandum about the city's lack of a polling place in ward two. Mr. Manzi introduces his legal analysis as follows:

In his Memorandum, Councilman Michael B. Sarich discusses his concerns that the
City of Laurel’s current election system may be violation of local, state and federal laws and regulations. Primarily, he argues that there is a need to add at least one polling place in the city. He also argues that there is a need to redraw election boundaries, as the populations in the two Wards in the city are uneven. He also warns that if the city "willfully and knowingly potentially violate" the local, state and federal elections laws, the City may face intervention from the courts. Moreover, in his press release, he warns that failing to take corrective measures prior to the upcoming September 2008 elections will jeopardize the validity of the election.

This memorandum will not discuss the possibility of placing an additional polling place in the city or redrawing district lines, as the Mayor and City Council are currently conducting a study on this issue in light of the changes in the population since the 2000 census. Instead, this memorandum will discuss whether the upcoming election in September 2008 can be overturned if the City does not add at least one polling place and redraw its current Ward boundaries, as suggested by Councilman Sarich.

Mr. Manzi concludes with the following statement:

Based on the above, it is evident that the lack of a second polling place and/or the failure to redraw the Ward boundaries prior to the upcoming September 2008 election will not invalidate the election.

You can read Mr. Manzi's 2000 word opinion on the city's website.

When Politics Trumps Policy, Everyone Loses

Note - 17 Jun 2008 - Just in case you read this blog via RSS you may want to see the comments section to follow a very engaging discussion .

This week, Laurel City Council Member Mike Sarich published a press release calling for the addition of a second city polling location in ward two. In his message, Councilman Sarich opens with the following quote, "Laurel in potential violation of multiple election laws, Sarich says." He goes on to provide his findings in support of this conclusion drawing from his own twelve-page legal and quantitative analysis previously provided to the council.

Councilman Sarich concludes: "If we want to continue to willfully and knowingly potentially violate the above laws and guidelines, it is clear that Laurel may face intervention from the courts. In order to avoid this, Laurel should add at least one polling place and redraw its current Ward boundaries". You can find Councilman Sarich's complete press release here.

Laurel Council President Fred Smalls, on behalf of the rest of the City Council, responded with his own message Friday stating, "I, along with the other members of the Laurel City Council, are appalled by Mr. Sarich’s press release and its intentionally misleading, prejudicial allegations developed by his desire to preempt the election process."

Mr. Smalls' continues, "Mr. Sarich has made a bold attempt to publicly shame, embarrass, and discredit the City Council and the City of Laurel. The City Council will meet in special meeting on Monday, June 16, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. to publicly censure Mr. Sarich for his disgraceful actions." You can find Mr. Smalls complete press release here.

----------------------------
I've been an advocate for a second polling place in Ward Two since I served on a city voter participation task force in 1994. However, I strongly disagree with Mr. Sarich's tactics. I'm afraid that he may have turned an excellent policy initiative into an election season political stunt. Everyone loses when elected officials let political agendas trump sound policy making processes.

- Rick

State Court Foolishly Upholds Sign Pollution

I think political signs are huge waste of time and a ugly blight on our landscape.

We traveled to Italy this spring to visit my number 1 daughter in Ferrara and I discovered that the Italians have tamed these ugly beasts quite well by insisting that all political signs be posted together in common areas.

In Italy, political campaigns must use the sign boards conveniently placed around town like you see in this photo on the left. The sign boards are only available during the election season. (Please click on any photo to enlarge.)

Today I read that we will never be able to control these signs in Maryland because U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake has struck down a Baltimore County law restricting political signs, deciding that time limits violate free speech. She issued a written opinion on a suit brought by the ACLU on behalf of three former candidates and four Baltimore County residents who wanted to place political signs in their yards outside of the permitted dates.

By the way, below is a picture of candidate's sign from Ferrara, Italy, that sounds strangely familiar? Anybody ever hear of this guy before?

Disappointment

I'm disappointed. It seems that far too often American political debates and policy disagreements degrade into personal attacks. I fear that these attacks cast a corrosive fog over the entire process. Why would any reasonable person want to stand for elected office in this environment? Where will we find tomorrow's leaders?

The national election campaigns are notoriously vicious but personal attacks are occurring even at the local level. For example, the comments that were posted in response to last week's ethics story got totally out of hand in my opinion. I am so disappointed about some of those comments that I'm considering disabling comments.

I have not made up my mind because I'm torn between a desire to encourage healthy discussion of important local issues and my fear that every post during the upcoming Laurel election season will devolve into petty bickering and personal attacks. I wanted to create a cyber front porch where reasonable people could share their opinions on our community's goals, problems and solutions --- not a dark alley for attacking people.

The blogger.com software has three comment modes. I can turn comments on, turn them off completely, or moderate them. Moderate means that I must approve the comment before it is posted. I don't want to moderate comments because I have always strived for complete transparency here. I have only deleted two comments in the history of Laurel Connections. Both of these comments met my standard for an over-the-line ad hominem attack. I pulled the comments after they were posted.

It's been my experience that most of the people who seek local elected offices have dedicated many years to community service. Most are involved because they genuinely want to serve. If elected, many shoulder their civic responsibilities at great personal sacrifice to both family time and career progress.

Why should this blog provide a public platform that submits these fine people to unsubstantiated and anonymous personal attacks? That's neither helpful for them nor healthy for our community.

Have I allowed the commenters to go too far? Are the comments useful for you? Should I disable comments? Where is your threshold for an inappropriate personal attack?

Please tell me what you think.

Laurel Leader Barely Gets The Story

The Laurel Leader's web-only story about Laurel City Council member Mike Sarich's ethics case left me barely informed this week. Their headline says, "Ethics panel clears Sarich — but barely." Unfortunately, the Leader never tells me that the panel decided unanimously in Sarich's favor. In other words, he was found innocent of committing any ethics violation. Not one member of the five person panel voted for finding a violation.

How does a unanimous decision rate a barely? Woman found pregnant, but barely ... makes about as much sense. Guilt or innocence, pregnant or not, these conditions demand a yes or no vote. It is not fair or even ethical to vote for one side but then turn around and call it the other.

I'm not taking sides on this case. I agree with the Laurel Ethics Commission that the rules on soliciting non-profits needs to be rewritten, both in Laurel and in Prince Georges County. The rules that allow our elected officials to act as bag-men for developer dollars has got to be stopped. If developers want to give money to local organizations, let them do it all by themselves.

The Mayor was doing his duty as chief executive officer of the city in bringing the case to the commission. But as far as the Sarich case is concerned, the allegation was made, the evidence was weighed and the panel voted. No ethics violation was found. The process worked.

I hope the Laurel Leader does the ethical thing and they fix their story in time for next Thursday's print edition.

Your comments are always welcome. Click the comments link below to post your opinion on this issue.

-rick

Update 5/5/2008. The Leader changed the story on their website today. The comments to this post are flying furiously. The Sarich effect has returned. Anonymous is even back! See the comments section for the complete discussion. - grw