Citizens of Maryland and Baltimore need to be sensitive to this dynamic when it comes to building economic power across Maryland. Montgomery County has over a few decades been taken as simply a suburban Washington DC county filled with the global corporate headquarters surrounding our Capitol. It is rich because of this and has far more power than it should in the governance of Maryland and counties. Baltimore is rebuilding and to do so in the way all Baltimore citizens want-----free from global corporate campuses and International Economic Zone status----we need Baltimore to protect vital infrastructure not only public services and works---but our public universities/hospitals/and yes, University of Maryland Carey School of Law.
We already know Ferguson and Anderson are leading this move for global corporations and Baltimore as an International Economic Zone----we know more Baltimore Maryland Assembly will pose progressive and pretend to fight for Morgan State as a reason to hand UMMS and Carey Law School to College Park. I have many citizens across Maryland following me in all counties so I say this----we need a Baltimore City as a strong, LOCAL ECONOMY to keep state and city sovereignty in place. Please see that Democrats in all counties vote against this merger.
Maryland is a very small state with a limited University of Maryland system. College Park and Baltimore City are the powerhouses of this system. If College Park controls Baltimore it controls the entire system. Those thinking a status of public IVY LEAGUE is a positive you must understand that IVY LEAGUE is not now an academic standing---it is a global Wall Street corporate institution----a product mill. There is no status in being called IVY LEAGUE in the US currently. It simply captures our state university system to this international economic zone structure.
Our University of Baltimore has a public justice law center geared to help with the needs of citizens and Carey Law School does have a progressive side although in Maryland it is hard to allow that progressive light to shine. A Mayor of Baltimore could subsidize many two year law degree students to fill EVERY BALTIMORE CITY AGENCY FOR OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY including moving cases to court when they are identified. This is the platform to building public justice geared towards addressing the cases our Grand Jury and Baltimore State's Attorney refuse to move forward.
This one issue below made industrial BIG AG AND BIG MEAT mad----but we have a law university writing on these critical social issues.
Manure in the Bay: A Report on Industrial Animal Agriculture in Maryland and Pennsylvania
Rena I. Steinzor
University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law; Center for Progressive Reform
Ling-Yee Huang
affiliation not provided to SSRN
June 1, 2012
Center for Progressive Reform Briefing Paper No. 1206
U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-32
Abstract:
This report provides a substantive and detailed look at the concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) and other animal feeding operations (AFO) programs in Maryland and Pennsylvania, as well as a general overview of the federal CAFO program. The information in this report was gathered through publicly available resources as well as a series of interviews with agency officials and other individuals who work with the animal agricultural sector. This report identifies concrete and practical recommendations for improving how the waste generated by animal industrial agriculture is managed and controlled by EPA, the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE), and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The report provides general recommendations that apply to each of these agencies and specific and distinct recommendations applicable to these three agencies that are primarily charged with protecting human health and the environment, along with recommendations for state agricultural agencies that also manage manure and AFOs. Most of these recommendations require no legislative action and could be implemented by the agencies under their existing authorities.
In the United States, the romantic image of the Jeffersonian farmer tending the field has long given way to industrial production of food. Nowhere is this more evident than in the animal agriculture sector, where the decline of the family farm and the subsequent rise of large-scale animal operations and the manure they generate have been dramatic. In the badly impaired Chesapeake Bay watershed, animal manure contributes around 19 percent of the total nitrogen and 26 percent of the total phosphorus to the Bay, or 53 million pounds and 5 million pounds, respectively. Manure also contains an unappetizing slurry of pathogens, antibiotics, and other pollutants such as cleaning fluids, heavy metals, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides. In the United States, EPA estimates that the largest of these concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) generate three times the amount of waste generated by humans annually. Unlike human waste, which is subject to extensive biological and chemical treatment, animal waste is most frequently spread onto land without treatment.
___________________________________________
As the article above showed, our Carey School of Law and University of Baltimore public justice write on this one issue-----progressive environmental law. The City of Baltimore has in its Public Works Department an environmental department having a mission of protecting our environment and public health. Raise your hand if you know this branch is not doing its job?
When the goal is rebuilding public health and cleaning our communities of environmental pollution and keeping development from communities that will bring this harm---you need lawyers and legal staff wanting to actually STOP BAD POLICY THAT WILL HARM OUR ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH. The status of International Economic Zone with the coming of Trans Pacific Trade Pact would have Baltimore and surrounding region looking like China with global corporate campuses and global FOXCONN factories all known to devastate our environment so why do we not hear this from our Baltimore City agencies tasked with environmental protection?
THE O'MALLEY MACHINE----INCLUDING RAWLINGS-BLAKE AND ALL BALTIMORE CITY HALL POLS APPOINT PEOPLE WHO DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT. THEY ARE NOT LOOKING TO PREVENT THESE PROBLEMS. THE LEGAL TEAMS ONLY LOOK TO PROTECT THE CITY FROM FAILURES OF BAD POLICY.
Below you see an article from 1993 talking about Baltimore City Board of Estimates and city lawyers all working simply to hide all of the fraud, corruption, and misappropriation only today this has been super-sized and now global corporations have their lawyers in city hall fighting to hide this same mess.
How much revenue has the city received over these few decades for watershed protection?
City of Baltimore
Subscribe
Department of the Environment
DPW Receives Grant to Support Watershed Restoration
Dec 17th, 2014The Baltimore City Department of Public Works has been selected to receive a $58,000 grant from the Watershed Assistance – Two-Year Milestone Support grant program.
A new mayor will bring fresh legal faces into Baltimore City agencies knowing they are committed to enforcing law and not at hiding failures. Each Baltimore City agency has these law teams and has the ability to pursue legal complaints as public servants serving our citizens and communities.
Baltimore's Board of Estimates: Is It Minding the Store?
December 26, 1993|By JOAN JACOBSON
Three months ago, City Comptroller Jacqueline F. McLean said she was shocked to hear that a woman hired under a consulting contract had done no work for the city.
Mrs. McLean said she had trusted information the mayor gave her when she and other Board of Estimates members approved the contract for fired Pratt Library chief Anna Curry to do consulting work for the mayor's office.
"I'm floored," said the comptroller when told Mrs. Curry was getting paid but doing no work.
Now it comes to light that Mrs. McLean herself pushed a contract through the Board of Estimates in September 1992 to hire a public relations consultant who also apparently does no work for the city.
The checks to the mystery worker went to a hair salon owned by Ms. McLean's relatives and were deposited in two bank accounts -- one apparently set up by the comptroller herself.
She also rushed a lease agreement by the board for a city agency to rent a building she and her husband were selling.
Initially, board members asked no questions, but later rescinded the lease when they discovered the comptroller's family owned the building.
How could this keep happening?
How could questionable transactions get past a board that is made up of the mayor, the city solicitor, the public works director, the city council president and the comptroller?
The questions aren't new. During the mayoral heyday of William Donald Schaefer, the Board of Estimates approved questionable grants to politicians, mortgages to city workers, and multimillion-dollar loans to politically well-connected developers -- that were later never repaid. Council members and others questioned whether the Board of Estimates was scrutinizing contracts adequately.
The board often gives approval with little or no public discussion.
Their public meeting used to follow a secret meeting where they hashed out details for spending tax dollars in a little room on City Hall's second floor. Then, the board filed into the stately Board of Estimates room, where portraits of former mayors look down from the walls, and quickly ran through the agenda.
(The private meetings have since been opened to the press.)
Even today, the Wednesday morning meetings can be confusing to a newcomer, as the board rushes through much of a 50-page-plus agenda, stopping only to hear long-winded complaints from contractors and their lawyers who lost bids to sell the school system a computer or the police department an air conditioning system.
At the end of every meeting there are always a few items -- called "added starters" or "walk-ons" -- that are not on the pre-printed agenda.
Mrs. McLean brought both the contract for the mystery worker and the lease agreement for her family's building to the board as walk-ons at the tail end of regular meetings.
The lease agreement -- to find new offices for health department workers -- appeared so routine that the board secretary turned off the tape recorder -- leaving no formal record of the deal.
It wasn't until after the meeting that Council President Mary Pat Clarke discovered that the address given for the building was phony and that the real address belonged to Mrs. McLean's family business.
Mrs. Clarke -- who also presides over the Board of Estimates as its president -- doesn't like walk-ons because she can't read the fine print in advance.
The Schmoke administration recently had the board approve a $10 million walk-on to hand over financial management, cafeteria and maintenance services in two city schools to a private company. She said she was given no time to read the amended contract before voting.
"I abstained on that vote. It's a multimillion-dollar contract. The ink was fresh," she said.
Ironically, said the council president, the one board member who tried to put a stop to the last minute walk-on items was Mrs. McLean.
"The comptroller had made a big issue of not permitting walk-ons. It's been a big, big issue of hers that everyone has tried to observe," said Ms. Clarke.
Last week, in light of the allegations against Mrs. McLean, Mr. Schmoke sent a memo to city agencies telling them to stop rushing items to the board at the last minute unless they are truly emergencies.
The Board of Estimates -- founded in 1900 -- is mandated by the city charter to approve all city financial transactions, as well as contracts for construction and purchasing.
Mayors have used the board to push through their own agendas, since the mayor controls three of the five votes -- his own, as well as those of his appointed city solicitor and public works director.
___________________________________________
The Baltimore School Building bond was so bad a public policy for the City of Baltimore that they had to hide yet again the details of these bond deals even not allowing citizens to know what investment firms and individuals were tied to this super-sized leverage deal for a $1billion dollars that the city already had in revenue to send to school building for decades.
BALTIMORE CITY HAD THIS BILLION AND COULD HAVE REBUILT ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAD WE STOPPED THE $1-2 BILLION A YEAR LOSS OF REVENUE TO FRAUD, CORRUPTION, AND MISAPPROPRIATION.
My organization Citizens Oversight Maryland went to the Comptroller's Office----the Mayor of Baltimore's Office----I went to public justice to file lawsuit trying to get access to the details of this bad bond deal including the names of who are tied to the next boondoggle for Baltimore.
The mayor's lawyer heard me asking around city hall for this information and he stated right in front of me-----SHE IS GOING TO COURT WITH THIS-----that is the point I ran into nothing but closed doors for something required to be transparent.
THIS IS WHAT IS MEANT BY NEEDING LEGAL TEAMS IN BALTIMORE CITY HALL THAT WANT TO WORK TO PROTECT PUBLIC INTEREST AND NOT SIMPLY TO HIDE FAILURES.
This deal is what ties all of our K-12 to tons of non-profits all telling students, parents, and teachers what they need to do because-----the bond was handed to a non--profit and not the City of Baltimore and our Baltimore Public Schools. All Baltimore needs is a City Hall that provides oversight and accountability---and we don't need corporate non-profits with ties to global education corporations coming in to create massive debt tied to our public K-12.
No legal team working in public interest would have been part of these kinds of Wall Street financial deals taking billions of dollars in just Wall Street fees and fraud from our Baltimore coffers. This kind of debt structure is being tied to all US International Economic Zones cities like Baltimore. This is how you build public justice in Baltimore where for decades it has not existed. If a candidate is simply saying they are going to audit, audit, audit----they are going to build oversight in agencies but never talks openly about all of this-----they are not going to build oversight and accountability and end fraud, corruption, and misappropriation of our revenue.
A big build for city schools
Creative bond financing proposal could infuse billions into Baltimore for school construction and renovation
October 25, 2011|By Heather R. Mizeur and Thomas E. Wilcox
No heat in the winter. No air conditioning in the summer. Windows painted shut since the 1950s trap stagnant air that triggers infections and asthma attacks. Broken water fountains sit rusted outside crammed, crumbling classrooms.
The U.S. Constitution protects prisoners from ever facing such conditions. Yet a letter to the Baltimore Sun on Oct. 16 revealed that Baltimore's schoolchildren suffer these indignities every day. The writers were neither parents nor teachers but a group of middle school students themselves. They channeled their daily anger and said "[this] makes us feel unwanted."
We've seen their school, Holabird Academy, and we can't expect these kids to feel otherwise. They want to come to school to focus on learning, but their miserable building "doesn't offer this," as they put it. Nor do more than a hundred buildings like it in Baltimore. Instead, academic achievement suffers, students skip school and drop out, top-quality teachers leave the system and proud neighborhoods lose their economic backbone. The city and its people deserve better.
The estimated cost to get there: $2.8 billion. In these tough budget times, that's far more than what Baltimore and Annapolis can afford with traditional resources. Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and schools CEO Andrés Alonso bring a sincere desire to solve this problem. We need to give them more innovative tools with which to work — and we need to do it now.
That's where a new breed of public-private partnership (P3) comes in. Governments around the world have recently deployed so-called "63-20" bonds to raise massive amounts of money for infrastructure improvements. Available only to nonprofit entities, these bonds encourage cities to partner with community groups to get more out of underused real estate assets like schools and libraries. Taking advantage of creative upfront financing options, the partnership can then leverage its resources to fund a sweeping transformation. In a traditional municipal bond program, cities can only afford to renovate a handful of schools at a time. That process would take decades.
This aggressive and proven solution would also instantly bring with it thousands of construction-related jobs.
The concept: A nonprofit corporation, having partnered with the city, issues the tax-free 63-20 bonds backed by a dedicated revenue source — such as the yearly operating and capital budgets for the schools — and other resources such as a potential new sales tax or community-generated revenue from use of school facilities. The nonprofit has effectively loaned the amount of the bond to the school system, which, over the course of the repayment term, can either lease back the asset or create a buy-back partnership.
A 63-20 partnership also provides a unique opportunity to improve efficiency and city planning. Packaging several facility renovations into one project yields economies of scale in construction and the ability to make real a new vision for an entire community.
Once these schools are improved, we can open them after hours and in the summer, or share space with local groups and businesses like daycare centers. Schools serving as local anchors — with their libraries, pools or auditoriums — can potentially bring in new private revenue from the community and help revitalize neighborhoods. If we make energy efficiency a priority, as we should, facility operating costs will drop drastically for decades to come.
These are not untested approaches. P3 initiatives for school construction have succeeded in places as diverse as Greenville County, S.C.; Niagara Falls, N.Y.; and Washington, D.C.
We ask for the city to consider forming such a partnership and developing a long-term maintenance plan that ensures these buildings remain in peak condition far into the future. We need to hold city government accountable, but we also need to expect more from our other leaders. At the same time, the state should explore how the Board of Public Works, the Interagency Committee on School Construction, and other public resources might make this program work. The state should also give the city and its residents the freedom to vote on its own dedicated funding mechanism to supplement the cost.
Colleges and universities can help by creating alumni booster campaigns to promote the program; collecting and sharing surplus equipment from their campuses; and sending their brightest minds to help execute such a large-scale program. They will reap the reward of better-educated incoming students who will not need to be provided remedial support.
Finally, corporate leaders should think about how their participation in this program would yield dividends for their workforce and bottom line. There is shareholder value in improved schools and strengthened communities.
The only limits on our opportunities are the limits on our creativity.
__________________________________________
Every city agency has its legal teams hired SUPPOSEDLY to be guarding against fraud, corruption, and misappropriation AND to see that policies are enacted in the public interest meeting Federal and state laws and US Constitutional rights. None of that has occurred in Baltimore for decades. Now, if you think it is OK to ignore Federal equal protection in housing and education as is the history in Baltimore then you are opening the city for wider fraud and corruption and this is why we are now seeing global corporations connected to Baltimore City agencies doing on a grand scale what existed as local graft over decades. EVERYONE IS NOW BEING FLEECED AND BALTIMORE CITIZENS ARE NOW PAYING HIGHER AND HIGHER TAXES, FEES, AND FINES as all this corruption and now global corporate subsidy leads to more and more greed.
The article below has a Republican slant because what Republican Grassley is shouting against in Baltimore exists all over the nation and ESPECIALLY IN REPUBLICAN STATES AND COUNTIES. Remember, Baltimore is NOT DEMOCRATIC-----the politicians run as Democrats and then serve a very, very, very neo-conservative Johns Hopkins and Wall Street Baltimore Development----NOTHING DEMOCRATIC ABOUT THIS.
So, rebuilding public justice in Baltimore means a legal team in Baltimore Housing would have long ago challenged the existence of this QUASI-governmental status----would have decades ago stopped the misappropriation of all of our public housing and affordable housing funding. This was to every communities benefit as this would have allowed surrounding communities to stabilize and citizens working as small business owners hiring citizens in their communities to work and all kinds of housing development would have tons of new revenue coming into Baltimore's coffers. We would have ONE BALTIMORE for the people living in Baltimore and not be moving towards ONE WORLD BALTIMORE where Baltimore is simply an International Economic Zone like all others in third world nations.
This article simply states Maryland's and Baltimore's propensity to ignore paying court awarded settlements. Even citizens winning lawsuits against businesses and landlords simply see these businesses IGNORING COURT AWARDS. This negates any existence of a public justice system. So, it is the legal team in the Housing Agency who makes sure all this happens for citizens from start to end.
"What the hell yal doing over there in Baltimore?"
Baltimore’s Housing 'corruption allegations' investigated by Iowa Senator
September 30, 2011 9:46 AM MST
What's really going on over at this house?!
GCOMM Media Co
Did Maryland’s congressional delegation refuse to address a situation brought forth by multiple requests of area residents?
According to documents, emails and letters obtained by this Examiner, sent to higher authorities in regards to the possible conflicts of interest and corruption being alleged in three different agencies surrounding Baltimore’s Housing Authority; though members of the Maryland congressional delegation were copied on these emails alleging such corruption, neither ever followed up on such requests, the ranking Republican member of the United States Senate’s Judiciary Committee has. Senator Charles E. Grassley, one of the Senate’s most aggressive federal agency watchdogs, has recently requested documents pertaining to Baltimore’s public housing agency, along with the Department of Housing and Community Development and the highly criticized quasi-public agency known as the Baltimore Development Corporation – which is the financial arm of the housing agency and city government.
Baltimore’s Housing 'corruption allegations' investigated by Iowa Senator
September 30, 2011 9:46 AM MS
What's really going on over at this house?!
GCOMM Media Co
Did Maryland’s congressional delegation refuse to address a situation brought forth by multiple requests of area residents?
According to documents, emails and letters obtained by this Examiner, sent to higher authorities in regards to the possible conflicts of interest and corruption being alleged in three different agencies surrounding Baltimore’s Housing Authority; though members of the Maryland congressional delegation were copied on these emails alleging such corruption, neither ever followed up on such requests, the ranking Republican member of the United States Senate’s Judiciary Committee has. Senator Charles E. Grassley, one of the Senate’s most aggressive federal agency watchdogs, has recently requested documents pertaining to Baltimore’s public housing agency, along with the Department of Housing and Community Development and the highly criticized quasi-public agency known as the Baltimore Development Corporation – which is the financial arm of the housing agency and city government.
The letter sent by the Iowa Senator to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which oversees the housing authorities from all around the country, while directing millions of dollars to the City of Baltimore for urban renewal and housing programs; requested detailed billing records and legal services, especially pertaining to years of outside legal fees paid ($4-million) while also addressing why the authority has since refused to pay the funds owed ($12-million) in a court-ordered judgment, to former public housing residents who were illegally exposed to lead paint poisoning. In a detailed letter, specifically aimed at answering questions that raised the eyebrows of many both in Baltimore, as well as those Senator’s sitting on the Judiciary’s Oversight Committee; Sen. Grassley asks questions such as ‘Why the housing authority is now "one entity" with the city housing department?’ and ‘Did HUD approve this?’ It also states as to the Department providing detailed information as to how they spent $67 million in federal stimulus funds, as well as providing the names and detailed payments made to the outside law firms contracted to represent the city during many of these lead-paint cases - as a previous Baltimore Sun article stated that $228,000 was paid out to these firms between May and June alone?
“It seems as though someone got caught with their hand(s) in the cookie jar,” said GCOMM Media Co. political analyst Shaun Louis. “I’m astonished that the entire state delegation - made up of eight congressional representatives and two state senators – seem to know about these many in-depth and serious allegations yet chose to ignore such?” Which is what should really be examined, as while the majority of the delegation is Democrats who would not want such an investigation to exist and make their golden girl city administrator to look bad; two of the representatives are Republicans [Congressman Andy Harris (1st) and Roscoe Bartlett (6th)], who would seemingly be pleased to pick up such alleged abuse? “According to the documents sent to us both Hassan, they would seemingly prove that the ENTIRE delegation knew the same exact information provided to Senator Grassley, therefore there is NO excuse as to why these members were not at least willingly to assist the Senator’s efforts, or sign onto the letter submitted to the HUD Secretary,” questioned Louis.
Multiple attempts to contact each representative went unanswered, however according to close sources within the Senator’s office and the national Republican Party, its been said that ‘both the GOP members from Maryland were quiet effective in showing their disdain for such a practice, and were willing to take the back road in supporting Senator Grassley’s office in any way necessary?’ Yet the allegations made should now be examined thoroughly, from not only the Maryland delegation but also the Mayor’s Office, who apparently has put out a strong statement regarding possible wrongdoing being found. Ryan O'Doherty, spokesman for Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, said the Mayor "very much encourages Senator Grassley to share and disclose any specific allegations of wrongdoing so that they can be fully investigated immediately."
However, not everybody is so sure about this early tough talk? “It’s ridiculous that now these officials want to act as if this is some sort of surprise; however everyone in this city, especially those in the black community utilizing these HUD dollars, have know for years that [Paul] Graziano is a do-nothing drunk who should never have been allowed to obtain the lead position at both of these agencies, making more money than the Mayor without doing nowhere near the amount of work as our city’s chief executive,” said community leader Bill Friendly, who has previously fought against the housing mess during past administrations, with no resolution forcing him to move to Baltimore County. “This situation was dropped on the doorstep of Mayor Rawlings-Blake, as Graziano is O’Malley’s mess,” stated Friendly. Paul Graziano, the Director of Baltimore’s Housing Authority as well as the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Community Development, was brought in by former Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley; who came to Graziano’s aide years ago when Graziano was arrested for public intoxication and disturbing the peace charges – in which then Mayor O’Malley reportedly went in to the city’s Central Booking and Intake Facility to personally get the Housing Authority director released from incarceration.
This on-going investigation will most certainly make people aware of what has been going on over there in the City’s Housing Department(s), as well as possibly opening the window to the most criticized, and possibly corrupt, quasi-public agency known as the BDC. Below are some other bullet points made in the letter sent by Senator Grassley to HUD in regards to this inquiry:
•Provide documentation outlining steps federal officials took after a critical 2008 audit found numerous housing violations in residential units leased by the Baltimore authority for tenants.
•Provide names and financial reports for the housing authority's nonprofit affiliates, including lists of officers and employees, their yearly salaries and compensation, and any conflict of interest statements submitted to HUD.
_____________________________________________
'Articles of the Baltimore City Code
These are the fundamental units of the Baltimore City Code'.
When I say that a major research and government document facility like Johns Hopkins fails to update its only volume of Baltimore City Code since 2003-----this was several years in the making of time Baltimore was designated an International Economic Zone----and International Economic Zone will ignore US Rule of Law, US Constitutional rights, public justice, and the concept of city, state, and national sovereignty. If you understand this timeline---you see the growing dismantlement of all of the above in Baltimore and the policies installed over a few decades removing all oversight and accountability----taking away all public policy voice from citizens and tying all Baltimore agencies to first corporations and now global corporations------
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX THE PROBLEMS OF PUBLIC JUSTICE IN BALTIMORE AND IF A CANDIDATE NEVER MENTIONS ALL THIS---THEY ARE NOT GOING TO FIX THESE PROBLEMS.
Even if we attended to our Baltimore City Code---it is written so vaguely----as is all new statutes passed by Maryland Assembly these few decades-----as to not having TEETH in any venue of government.
WHAT??????? WRITING OUR CITY CODE AND MARYLAND STATUTES SO VAGUELY AS TO HAVE NO TEETH FOR CITIZENS WANTING JUSTICE!
*******************************************************************
Articles of the Baltimore City Code
These are the fundamental units of the Baltimore City Code.
01
Mayor, City Council, and Municipal Agencies
02
Consumer Protections
04
Community Relations
05
Finance, Property, and Procurement
06
Historical and Architectural Preservation
07
Natural Resources
08
Ethics
09
Fire Suppression and Prevention
10
Harbors, Docks, and Wharves
11
Labor and Employment
12
Municipal Labor Relations
13
Housing and Urban Renewal
14
Special Benefits Districts
15
Licensing and Regulation
16
Markets
18
Educational and Cultural Programs
19
Police Ordinances
20
Railroads
22
Retirement Systems
23
Sanitation
24
Water
25
Sewers
26
Surveys, Streets, and Highways
27
Stormwater Fees
28
Taxes
31
Transit and Traffic
______________________________________________
Sadly it is mostly Republican citizens shouting out against this dismantling of our US Constitutional rights and capture of our government on all levels by global corporations. Below you see such an article that has a right-leaning stance in that it tends to emphasize the corporate side of regulatory interpretation. He states that it was 1990 being the point that regulations be interpreted by those affected by the regulation and that was when policy turned from being public interest to corporate and profit-interest----right at the Reagan/Clinton era. Republicans pushed this and now it is global corporations using this NRA to their benefit----fleecing the US of all wealth and assets as regulations are totally ignored.
The point is this-------the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 only states------stakeholders will have voice in interpreting these regulations towards policy-making. Every time in Baltimore and Maryland these STAKEHOLDERS never seem to be the citizens in our communities. So, stakeholders can be defined ANY WAY A BALTIMORE CITY HALL WANTS-----just as the structure of a BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION can be that of community small businesses, community banks, citizens from all communities, and community labor and justice activists.
THESE ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS TO WHOM DEMOCRATS LISTEN.
A Mayor of Baltimore has the power to INTERPRET how legislation is written, enforced, and who the STAKEHOLDERS really are in the city.
ONE BALTIMORE FOR THE COMMUNITIES AND CITIZENS LIVING IN THEM TODAY WOULD RESTRUCTURE BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WITH THAT FACE.
'In 1990 the regulatory landscape was changed yet again by passage of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (NRA) [currently codified to 5 U.S.C §§ 561-570]'.
'As stated in the opening paragraph, regulations are intended to elaborate on the working details of a statute. It is beyond Congress' ability to be experts in every field concerning which it may be called upon to legislate. The US Supreme Court has referred to the text of Congressional legislation as "the broad language of the statute", which often times requires more detail to be properly placed into effect. These "details" are found in the "implementing regulations" promulgated by the agencies that must administrate and/or enforce a statute. Federal agencies are charged with faithful implementation and enforcement of the laws [statutes] through the regulations they promulgate. Although properly speaking, regulations are not law, rules and regulations have the full force and effect of the law'.
Code of Federal Regulations
Regulations are created and used by executive agencies to "clarify" the intent and scope of federal statutes, which an agency is charged with administrating or enforcing. Statutes are the actual laws passed by Congress; regulations are the "who, what, when, where, and how" involved in administrating and/or enforcing the statute.
Modern History
As the New Deal unfolded in the early 1930's and Congress began to increase both the number of agencies and the scope of the authority of those agencies, the agencies began promulgating voluminous regulations. There was no mechanism for publishing, codifying, accessing or updating these regulations. There was considerable confusion about which regulations were in effect at any given time. In several 1934 Supreme Court cases involving administrative law violations, difficulty in keeping abreast of the current body of administrative law became obvious. Neither the defendants nor the government correctly understood which regulations were currently in effect. In response, Congress passed the Federal Register Act (ch. 417, 49 Stat. 500 (1935)). The Act mandates the daily publication of the Federal Register, whose purpose is to serve as a central repository of the publication of all newly adopted rules and regulations. Furthermore, publication in this periodical is constructive notice to all who may be affected by a regulation.
Although the Federal Register was helpful in notifying the government and people of changes and additions to federal regulations, the regulations were still not codified. Congress amended the Federal Register Act in 1937 to require codification and subject access to the regulations through publication in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The first CFR was published in 1939.
The purpose of the CFR was/is to provide a system of categorization whereby all the regulations promulgated [created] by a federal department or agency on a given subject can be located and tied to the corresponding statute. The CFR does an admirable job of providing that service.
As stated in the opening paragraph, regulations are intended to elaborate on the working details of a statute. It is beyond Congress' ability to be experts in every field concerning which it may be called upon to legislate. The US Supreme Court has referred to the text of Congressional legislation as "the broad language of the statute", which often times requires more detail to be properly placed into effect. These "details" are found in the "implementing regulations" promulgated by the agencies that must administrate and/or enforce a statute. Federal agencies are charged with faithful implementation and enforcement of the laws [statutes] through the regulations they promulgate. Although properly speaking, regulations are not law, rules and regulations have the full force and effect of the law.
[Editor's Note - It should be noted that federal statutes, as well as their associated regulations, only have force and effect upon those persons who are properly within federal jurisdiction, and has no force or effect upon anyone else. See the section, Federal Jurisdiction, within this website for more information on federal jurisdictional limitations.]
In 1946 the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) was passed clarifying the process of making regulation, allowing for greater accessibility and participation by all citizens. The APA required the publication in the Federal Register of all proposed rule changes and a period for public comment. Proposed and final regulations that have general applicability and legal effect are required to be published in the Federal Register. The administrative regulation-making process requires that proposed regulations be published and that a comment period be provided. When the comment period closes, the agency may finalize the regulation. Once the regulation becomes final, it is published again in the Federal Register and then codified into the Code of Federal Regulations.
In 1990 the regulatory landscape was changed yet again by passage of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (NRA) [currently codified to 5 U.S.C §§ 561-570]. The NRA allows for greater involvement by affected parties in the drafting of regulations. Changes under NRA are more procedural than substantive and need not be addressed further in this document.
Regulations Control the Law
The power of regulations is that they control the application of the statute.
"... we think it's important to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act would impose no penalties on anyone".
California Banking Association v. Schultz, 416 US 21 (1974)
While not all statues require regulations, for practical purposes it can be generally considered that a statute for which an implementing regulation has never been created has no administrative or judicially cognizable consequence for failing to follow the statute.
"Although the relevant statute authorized the Secretary to impose such a duty, his implementing regulation did not do so. Therefore we held that there was no duty to disclose..."
United States V. Murphy, 809 F.2d 142, 1431 "The reporting act is not self-executing; it can impose no duties until implementing regulations have been promulgated."
California Bankers Ass'n v. Schultz, 416 US 21
"For federal tax purposes, federal regulations govern."
Lyeth v. Hoey, 305 US 188, 59 S. Ct 155
"...failure to adhere to agency regulations may amount to a denial of due process if the regulations are required by constitution or statute."
Arzanipour v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 866 F. 2d 743 746 (5th Cir. 1989)
Although regulations are controlling in most circumstances, and they have the full force and effect of law, it is important to note that regulations can never expand upon the powers vested in the agency by a statute. Here is how the California Supreme Court phrased it:
Administrative agency may not, under guise of its rulemaking power, abridge or enlarge its authority or act beyond powers given it by statute which is source of its power; administrative regulations that alter or amend statute or enlarge or impair its scope are void.
San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soc. V. City of Moreno Valley, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d. 897 (1996, Cal.App. 4th Dist)
On this issue the federal courts have stated:
"...power to issue regulations is not power to change the law..."
US v. New England Coal and Coke Company 318 F.2d 138 (1963)
Making Sense of the Code of Federal Regulations
As one can clearly see, the regulations are preeminent in their significance. When attempting to understand the specifics of a law, one should always research not only the applicable statutes, but also the associated regulations. To overlook the regulations would be a critical mistake.
Statutes are generally (but not always) codified into the United States Code (USC). [See the section, United States Code, within this website for more details on the United States Code.] The CFR is a much larger compendium than is the USC. This is because the CFR provides all the intricate and/or technical details that are required to properly administrate or enforce a statute. As an example, a statute may be only three paragraphs in length, but the implementing regulation(s) may be eight pages long! Additionally, there may be numerous regulations associated with just one statute! This reality makes the CFR many times larger than the USC. In the average law library the USC (annotated lawyer's edition) takes up a modest size bookcase. The CFR usually takes up the better part of a wall.
The CFR, like the USC, is separated into 50 distinct "titles". Each "title" addresses a distinct subject matter. Examples are; Title 26 - Internal Revenue; Title 27 - Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; Title 28 - The Judiciary; Title 8 - Immigration and Naturalization; Title 19 - Customs. These titles are then broken down into Parts and Subparts. As we stated earlier, the regulations are voluminous - Title 26 of the CFR has 799 Parts (although some are reserved for future use).
There is a numerical relationship between the subject matter in the Titles of both the USC and CFR. For instance, in the USC, Title 8 deals with Immigration matters - so does Title 8 of the CFR. Title 26 of the USC addresses taxes; so does Title 26 of the CFR. This type of number-to-subject relationship between the USC and CFR exists in all but a few of the titles.
The format that is generally used to designate a section within the CFR is exemplified by this citation: 26 CFR 301.6012.
That citation is broken down as follows: 26 CFR means the 26th Title of the CFR. "301" is a reference to Part 301 within Title 26. "6012" is the section of the USC that this section of the CFR is expanding upon. Don't let that last sentence confuse you - the numbers that appear after the decimal point in a CFR citation are always the same as the section number of the USC to which the regulation pertains. However, since the regulations are more detailed than the statute, the section number for the regulation may be broken down into numerous "sub-sections" that do not appear in the USC.
As an example, within Title 26 of the USC there is §641. For the CFR to expand on that section properly, Part 1 of the CFR offers the following sections:
1.641(a)-0
1.641(a)-1
1.641(a)-2
1.641(b)-1
1.641(b)-2
You can easily see why the CFR is a larger compendium than the USC when there are five sub-sections in the regulations to clarify just one statute.
Each "Part" within a Title of the CFR addresses a specific aspect of the subject matter of the Title. We wish we could tell you that there is a standardized system in place for determining which aspects of the subject matter get codified to which Parts of a Title, but such is not the case. Each title deals with such diverse issues that no hard-and-fast rule can be constructed for how areas are broken down and assigned into the various Parts of each Title.
In order to find the precise location of a regulation within the CFR one might find the "Contents" section at the front of each CFR Title to be useful. Additionally, the publisher of the CFR [the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)] has been kind enough to publish an appendix to the CFR, called the "CFR Index and Finding Aids". Inside that volume one will find (amongst other things) the "Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules". This "table" lists all of the sections of the USC and then provides you with the CFR location of the regulations that have been promulgated for any specific USC section. [The "table" also provides this same cross-reference system for Statutes-at-Large and Executive Orders.]
In order to clarify the formatting we've just discussed, we'll examine some CFR Parts. Here is a small sample of the Parts from Title 26 [CFR]:
Taxes upon individuals Part 1
Estate taxPart 20
Gift taxPart 25
Employment taxPart 31
Taxes on wageringPart 44
It should be noted that there is also a numerical relationship between the individual section of the USC and the corresponding section of the CFR. Let's look at an example. Section 6001 of the USC is the section that requires the keeping of books and records. The purpose of the regulation is to specify who needs to keep such books and records, and under what circumstances.
Keeping in mind from the list above that different Parts address different taxable activities and types of taxes, one must ask if §6001 applies to all taxes, or just some taxes and/or taxable activities. The way we can make that determination is to examine the CFR to see which types of taxes (or taxable activities) require the keeping of books and records, and which do not. After examining the CFR and its Parts, we find that the Secretary of the Treasury [who creates tax regulations] has promulgated only the following regulations concerning §6001:
Title 26 [CFR] - Parts 1, 31, 55, 156
Title 27 [CFR] - Parts 19, 53, 194, 250, 296
So…§6001 (the requirement to keep books and records) has been made enforceable by the Secretary of the Treasury upon only 4 types of taxes in Title 26, and 5 specific taxable activities in Title 27 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms).
In Title 26, those taxes (Parts) are:
Part 1Taxes Upon Individuals
Part 31Employment Taxes.
Part 55Excise Taxes on Real Estate Investment Trusts and Regulated Investment Companies.
Part 156 Excise Taxes on Greenmail.
In Title 27, those taxable activities (Parts) are:
Part 19Distilled Spirit Plants.
Part 53Manufacturers Excise Taxes-Firearms and Ammunition.
Part 194Liquor Dealers.
Part 250Liquors and Articles from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Part 296 Misc. Regs Relating to Tobacco Products and Cigarette Papers and Tubes.
Therefore, according to the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury, if you are not involved in one of the activities listed above (Parts 19, 53, 194, 250, & 296), or liable for one of the taxes listed above (Part 1, 31, 55, & 156), there is no legal requirement for you to keep books and records.
When There Are No Regulations
It should be kept in mind that the government routinely attempts to use a regulation for matters concerning which a regulation has no applicability.
Our editor was once called by friends who own a tanning salon. Not long after they opened, an FDA official visited their business and demanded to inspect the tanning beds. The owners (a husband and wife who are not Patriots) were taken aback and refused to allow the inspection. The official left saying that he would return at a later date. Our editor researched the FDA regulations for the owners and found that the only regulations promulgated on the subject of "tanning devices" dealt with tanning devices used for medical purposes. In other words, tanning devices used by a doctor's prescription, or administered directly by the doctor's staff. Obviously there was no regulatory authority for the FDA to inspect "recreational" tanning beds. The owners wrote a succinct letter to the FDA official informing him of his complete lack of jurisdiction to inspect the beds in their business. Two weeks later the official returned to their business and stated that if they did not allow the inspection right then, he would return later in the day with a team of armed US marshals and close their business down and take their 12 month-old infant (who was present at the business with them) into "protective custody". While the owners capitulated and allowed their beds to be inspected, the FDA official never presented any evidence of FDA jurisdiction. He simply used crude threats of violence to create fear and gain compliance.
Of course the underlying reality is that the FDA official was initially relying on the "medical" regulations until the owners called him to accountability on the issue. Once the official's misrepresentation was exposed, he chose the path so common to petty tyrants - he chose to toss the law out the window and use threats and coercion to accomplish what the law would not support.
The regulations can be a powerful tool, but one must recognize that courage is an essential element when facing a dishonest government.
What If There Are Regulations?
Many times there are regulations concerning a matter that the government has contacted you about. Does this mean you must comply with the regulations? Maybe "yes" and maybe "no". One must remember that regulations only clarify the implementation of a statute. Therefore the question becomes, "Under what authority did Congress pass the statute?" In other words, if a statute was passed under the federal government's interstate commerce authority, the regulations still apply only to matters over which the US has interstate commerce authority. Accordingly, if a government official shows up at the local shoe repair shop and attempts to impose their authority by presenting regulations that were written for a statute that relies on US interstate commerce authority, it is extremely unlikely that the regulation has any lawful applicability to the local shoe repairman.
Although today most Americans prefer to let the government "tell them" what is right or wrong, the US Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of each Citizen to determine for himself if the government actually has the authority it claims in any given situation. This dovetails perfectly with one of the founding principles of our form of government, which is that all government power is derived from the consent of the governed [that's you]. Since the government's authority to act is derived from the Citizens, there is no better person to determine the truth about the government's authority than you!
RSS Feed