February 28, 2015

To:    Senate President Mike Miller and Senate Committee Chairs:

Budget and Taxation

Kasemeyer, Edward J.

Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs

Conway, Joan Carter

Executive Nominations

Raskin, Jamie

Finance

Middleton, Thomas M.

Judicial Proceedings

Zirkin, Bobby A.

Rules

Klausmeier, Katherine

To:    House Speaker Mike Busch and House Committee Chairs


Appropriations McIntosh, Maggie


Economic Matters Davis, Dereck E.


Environment and Transportation Barve, Kumar P.


Health and Government Operations Hammen, Peter A.


Rules and Executive Nominations Healey, Anne


Judiciary  Vallario, Joseph F., Jr.


Ways and Means  Hixson, Sheila E.



From: Cindy Walsh

Citizens Oversight Maryland



RE: Making the Maryland Assembly legislative process meet Maryland Constitution guarantees to citizens having voice in government.




I have been listening for several years to the voices of Maryland citizens and their concerns and frustrations with government and policy. We are moving forward with issues identified as critical to the economic and democratic health of the state and this is our first correspondence. As I listen to the Maryland Assembly committees talk about solutions for a 20% voter participation in elections----none of the discussions even touch on the real public frustrations. So, please listen to what the public wants and needs. Elections that cannot bring close to a majority of voters from each party to the polls are not constitutional elections of majority.



The big picture in Maryland legislative failure from a citizen prospective is the law framing the legislative session to 90 days.


Limitation on Length of Session

Article III, Section 15(1) of the Maryland Constitution permits the General Assembly to continue its session for a period “not longer than ninety days”each year. The General Assembly or the Governor may extend the session for up to thirty days.


Since 1971, Maryland has had a 90-day limit to its legislative session.



Citizens of Maryland want change----there either needs to be fewer bills in 90 days so all legislation can be considered and the public educated on policy-----or we need longer legislative sessions to meet that need.

1. Rules for public comment too limited and not standardized.
   
   

The citizens of Maryland must have access to public testimony in subcommittee meetings as well as full-committee meetings. The 3 minute limit for full-committee meetings does not allow opportunity for citizens to attend all committee meetings and speak on all the bills for which they wish to advocate. Imagine all committees meeting at 1:00 both Senate and House and it is obvious that bills cannot be available for all. Committees and commissions are invited to subcommittee meetings but all subcommittees do not allow public testimony. Please standardize this process to allow public testimony at ALL subcommittee meetings.




2.    Bills presents for hearings on the same day in both Senate and House.


A citizen wanting to advocate for a bill wants to do so in both Senate and House. When a bill is allowed to be scheduled for hearing on the same day in both chambers, citizens are being denied the opportunity to testify. This should not be allowed.




3.    Legislative Services and policy analysis are presented frequently in all committee meetings. Some committees provide all material handed to committee members to the public before meetings so the public can follow the discussion during the meeting and prepare for testimony if desired. Some committees provide some material and not legislative services policy analysis and some committees do not provide any materials distributed to committee members. We are told to come at the end of the day to retrieve what is left or directed to Legislative Services for copies each day. The citizens coming to Annapolis deserve to have all material available when they are interested enough to come to the capital. The costs of printing several extra copies of these materials are minimal. I know Legislative Services does not really want the public walking in every day for policy material. Please standardize the rules for all committees to provide each day to the public the materials the committee members are reviewing.


4.    Reading the list of bills to be considered in the order they will be considered at the beginning of each committee meeting allows citizens to hear when their bill will be heard in a 3 hour long meeting and this allows citizens to go to other committee meetings for other bill testimony. Ideally, posting the bill order on the digital screens most meeting rooms have would serve to the public's interest and to the scheduled speakers. Even a magnetic white board would be cheap and easy to prepare.

5.    Too many bills are considered for a 90 day session.  You are denying the citizens of Maryland an opportunity to know what is being presented----the opportunity to lobby effectively-----the opportunity to educate others on these bills and you have arranged an assembly line passage of legislation with little public scrutiny.  This is not how democracy works.


I do thank all committee chairs for providing opportunity for testimony that is for the most part equal opportunity and open. The goal should not be to have citizens write their testimony----the goal should be for all citizens to be able to share their views in a venue that all citizens of Maryland can access. Too often the public is told to write their testimony and we know this is an attempt to silence open public discussion.


I am including a nicely written study on citizen legislatures and the time constraints of sessions vs legislative agenda. Vermont was considering a 90 day session but still has the 'no time constraint' of open sessions. It concluded that a 90 day session was not conducive to 'citizen legislatures'.




Thank you for your time,




Cindy Walsh

2522 N Calvert St.

Baltimore, Maryland 21218

cwals99@yahoo.com







Forgive my not taking time to format----it is easily readable.




Vermont Legislative Research Shop

State Legislative Session Length







This report examines the possible effects of a limiting the length of the

legislative session. In

order to put the issue in context, we first exam

ine the history state legislatures and the reform

movement that led to enhanced legislative pr

ofessionalism and expanded legislative capacity.

We then consider the case studies of Vermont

and Maryland to see how session length impacts

both a citizen and prof

essional legislature.

History of State Legislatures

State legislatures developed into the type of polit

ical institutions that we

are familiar with today

between 1965 and 1980. Changes in the states’ legisl

atures were triggered by a perceived need to

increase the structural capacity

and professionalism of the legi

slative institution. Prior to the

legislative reform movement, le

gislatures were deemed largel

y ineffective and often corrupt

institutions who failed to suppl

y the constitutionally designed check on the executive branch.

Increasing the capacity mean improving legislatur

es in terms of the five S’s—space, session,

structure, staff, and salary. Session days and sta

ff are the two aspects of

capacity that have a

direct impact on the professionalization of the le

gislature as an institution, whereas space,

structure, and salary all have

a direct effect on the professi

onalization of the legislators

themselves.

1

According to Alan Rosenthal (a political sc

ience professor who has published extensively on

state legislatures) legislative sessi

ons, “had to provide more time, and more flexible time so that

legislators could accomplish their objectives.”

2

So, as part of the reform movement, some states

removed the constitutional limitations that had re

stricted the length of th

e regular session and/or

the amount of time that legislators remained in the

interim. As a result legislators “spent more

time on task, both during regular and special sess

ions and in the periods between sessions.”

3

Rosenthal states that legislator

s working in shorter legislative

sessions tend to be much more

active during the interim periods

. Even a small amount of service during these periods causes

increased strain on the legislative members

who depend on outside employment for their

livelihood. This strain would likel

y arise in the Vermont state le

gislature if the session were

shortened to 90 days because it is

a citizen legislature, in which

most legislators’ livelihood is

dependent upon a full time job outside of the legislature.



















The professionalization of legislat

ures (especially the higher salari

es) has led to an increase in

the number of legislators who can devote themselves

full-time to the job of being a legislator and

who, as a consequence, consider their profession to

be that of a ‘legislators.’ In other words,

legislative professionalism has led

to more “professional” legislator

s. It has also increased the

diversity of those who serve as le

gislators in the states; prior to

professionalization, only those

who held jobs from which they could take leav

e (mainly lawyers) or those who were retired

could easily serve as legislators. Additionally, “[

t]he improvement of facilities, the provision of

services, the employment of staff, and the growing power of the legislativ

e branch all appealed

to men and women who might have been

interested in political careers anyway.”

4

This increase in the professionaliz

ation of the legislators contribut

ed to public discontent because

the emphasis on the principle of teamwork has waned and is now centered on personal

achievement. The public has begun to question the motiv

ations of the legislators as well as their

individual integrity and motivations. Other f

actors that have led to

public discontent with

legislatures stem from a general

decline in trust regarding all sect

ors of society in addition to a

lack of trust in fellow citizens. Those fact

ors include; negative portr

ayals of the political

institution by the media, the increasing competiti

veness of politics, which in turn has led to

negative campaigning, and the many promises th

at have been made by candidates on the

campaign trial that are not kept once they go into office.

As Public discontent with state

legislatures increased, it eventua

lly brought modernization of the

legislatures to a halt. “The deinstitutionalization

of state legislatures in the 1990s came about not

because of the desire of the members but because of the demands of those on the outside;

principally the media and the public.”

5

The public became disappointed with legislatures as

institutions and cynical of the

legislators and their motives in

office. This disappointment

resulted in the reversal (usually via ballot measur

es) of some of the gains legislatures have made

in professionalism and capacity. A number of stat

es have imposed restrictions and limitations on

state legislatures, including, term

limits, restrictions on legislatur

es’ control of

taxes and budgets,

staff limitations, and limitations on th

e length of legislative sessions.

6

Vermont Legislature

Vermont is one of 17 states th

at have a citizen legislature.

7

Vermont has a bicameral legislature,

with 30 senators in the Senate

and 150 representatives in the

House of Representatives. The

legislative session normally runs fr

om early January to late April.

8

There is no constitutional




limit to Vermont’s legislative session, so th

e only limit on how late the session may run is







political. Vermont is one of 12 state legisl

atures that have no limit to session length

9

. Vermont

legislators work Tuesday through Fr

iday and are paid $600.78 per week

10

. Alan Rosenthal

describes the Vermont legi

slature’s session length:

Vermont’s legislature can also meet as long as it wa

nts, at least in theory. In practice, however, the

legislature tries mightily to get its work done in five or six months, both because members want to return to

their regular jobs and professions and because Vermonters simply do not want their legislators

continuously in session. The pressures

for legislators to go home are great.

11

On February 5, 2008, bill H.811 was introduced in

the Vermont House. The bill proposes a 90-

day limit on Vermont’s legislative

session unless two-thirds of th

e House and Senate vote to

extend the session.

12

Maryland Legislature

Maryland is one of 28 states that have a le

gislative session limit in its state constitution.

13

Since 1971, Maryland has had a 90-day

limit to its legislative session.

14

Maryland’s legislature

differs from Vermont in a few other ways. Mary

land’s legislature is slightly larger than

Vermont’s, with 141 representatives in the H

ouse of Delegates and a 47-member Senate.

15

Maryland’s legislature is consid

ered a “hybrid legislature,” w

ith a higher proportion of full-time

legislators.

16

Members work Tuesday through Thursday and are paid $43,500 a year

17

. Some

have expressed concerns with Maryland’s lim

ited session length; former Maryland Speaker of

the House, Cas Taylor, describes the process

as “trying to squeeze ten pounds in a five pound

bag these last two days [o

f the legislative session].”

18

Rosenthal describes the end of Maryland’s

legislative session as representative of the time pr

essures put on most states

with relatively brief

legislative sessions. Rosenthal concludes with Ca

s Taylor’s admonition that “‘time is valuable,

precious, limited.’ It is not unusua

l for the senate or house to run

until nearly the last minute,

adjourning

sine die

within twenty or thirty minutes of the constitutional deadline.”







in different states spend working per week

during the session and during the interim period.

20

The difference in the hours legislators work in

Maryland and Vermont is great. Th

is is partly due to session

length and whether or not the

legislature is a citizen legislature. While Mary

land’s legislative session is limited to 90 days,

Vermont’s legislature can last up to five months

(or more). The Vermont legislature consists of

citizen legislators, who are not

expected to invest as many ho

urs as professional legislators

during the interim period. The demands of a shor

t session are illustrated by the percentage of

Maryland legislators who work 60 plus hours a w

eek during the session versus those in Vermont:

63% compared to 16%. During the interim peri

od, 22% of Maryland legislators work 35+ hours

a week, whereas no Vermont legislator

s work more than 34 hours a week.

Given that such a high proportion

of Vermont legislators hold ot

her jobs, the longer hours (both

interim and during the session) demanded by a shor

ter session length coul

d present problems for

retaining a citizen legislature.



_____________________________________________________________________

March 27, 2015

To:          Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh; Maryland Assembly Senate Leader Mike Miller; Senators Raskin, Benson, Brochin, Conway, Feldman, Gladden, Hough, King, Lee, Madaleno, Manno, McFadden, Montgomery, Muse, Pinsky, Pugh, and Ramirez

From:    Cindy Walsh

Citizens Oversight Maryland

RE:          Senate Bill 374

Senate Bill 374 seeks to close what may be the last avenue to public justice the citizens of Maryland have in seeking recourse from government corruption and corporate fraud connected with billions of dollars in outsourced and privatized state and local contracts.  Whether corporate fraud or private non-profit fraud, Maryland is in crisis as billions of dollars are lost each year from State and City/County Treasuries.   Maryland was ranked just a few years ago by highly reputable International government watchdog organizations as 40th in the nation for fraud, corruption, and lack of transparency.  This Wall of Shame comes from having dismantled all oversight and accountability, defunding all states attorney and Maryland Attorney General’s offices dealing with white collar crime, and it comes from laws like Senate Bill 374 passed by the Maryland Assembly to limit the citizens of Maryland from seeking justice from these corruption and fraud schemes.

In Baltimore, the Maryland Assembly has passed laws targeting just Baltimore that limit the ability of citizens’ access to the Grand Jury.  Legal Aid and Public Justice agencies have laws that keep them from taking cases against public officials, and the Pro Bono system replacing public justice in Maryland has private lawyers able to decide if they want to take a case as is true with the State’s Attorney and Maryland Attorney General.  Senate Bill 374 seeks to deny even private law firms from pursuing frauds and corruptions involving public contracts.  Call me crazy but this feels like a conspiracy against the citizens of Maryland by the Maryland Assembly and this Attorney General having a goal of denying Equal Protection, Rule of Law, and Due Process through the courts in Maryland.  One by one, the avenues to justice from public corruption and systemic fraud have been closed though legislation passed by the Maryland Assembly.  The article below stands up for the private legal sector-----I stand up for Pro Se representation.  The Constitution guarantees the rights of Pro Se representation and private legal firms would help a deliberately underfunded Maryland public justice sector advance these cases of fraud.

Md. False Claims Act needs qui tam provision

By Julie Grohovsky  Baltimore Sun

Brian Frosh's proposed changes to Maryland's False Claims Act need to include a qui tam provision.

Maryland Constitution

 

Article 1.

That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

 

Article 2.

The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

Art. 6. That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, whenever the ends of Government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the People may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new Government; the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

 

Art. 18. That no Law to attaint particular persons of treason or felony, ought to be made in any case, or at any time, hereafter.

 

Art. 19. That every man, for any injury done to him in his person or property, ought to have remedy by the course of the Law of the Land, and ought to have justice and right, freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the Law of the Land.

 

 

US Constitution

 

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Due process, a vitally important right of the American people protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, has its roots in the concept of rule of law. This means that everyone should be subject to a fair and impartial legal system, sanctions and court.  The "why" is substantive due process. Even if an unreasonable law is passed and signed into law legally (procedural due process), substantive due process can make the law unconstitutional