This election cycle, there are no just Judges and Board of Education officials to consider but two County Charter Ammendments as well. Qestion A initiated by act of County Council seeks to repeal legally ineffective provisions from the County Charter. Question B, initiated by petition seeks to require a unanimous county council vote to increase taxes on real property. If that isn't enough wonkiness for you, peek under the covers below wherein I elaborate upon the deeper meaning of said Charter Amendments...
QUESTION A
Charter Amendment by act of County Council
Repeal of Legally Ineffective Provisions
Repeal Sections 311A, 311B, and 313A of the County Charter, regarding use of County funds to operate a landfill system on residentially zoned land; burying or trenching sewage sludge on residentially zoned land; and telephone service offered by the C&P Telephone Company.
It seems Question A is this lesser of the two charter amendments this year. On the surface as worded it seems pretty innocuous, but a little delving has left me questioning the necessity or even prudence of passing this amendment. However, since I'm running out of time to post this diary, I am just going to quote the League of Women Voters for an overview analysis...
The County Charter provides a framework for the governance of the county. Three provisions in the County Charter: 311A, 311B, and 313A currently have no legal force and do not affect how county government operates. The Maryland courts blocked implementation of 311A and 313A because each directly conflicted with some aspect of state law. More fundamentally, neither of these provisions are proper "Charter Material" because they do not address a fundamental aspect of the form and basic structure of county government. In addition, they attempt to legislate through a charter amendment, which the Maryland Constitution prohibits. Although the Maryland courts have not blocked the operation of 311B, a consistent line of Court of Appeal opinions makes clear that this provision, like the ones above, is in conflict with the Maryland Constitution’s prohibition on legislating through a charter amendment. (MCLWV)
For those who don't know C&P Telephone Company is now Verizon which was constrained by charter section 313A to charge an equal rate for service throughout the county.
QUESTION B
Charter Amendment by petition
Property Tax Limit - Votes Needed to Override
Amend Section 305 of the County Charter to require a unanimous vote of 9 Councilmembers, rather than the 7 out of 9 votes currently required, to levy a tax on real property that will produce revenue that exceeds the annual limit on property tax revenue set in that section.
Currently, under Section 305 (passed in 1990) tax revenue increases on real properties may not exceed an amount attributable to inflation unless approved by a 7 out of 9 councilmembers. Since it's inception the council has passed only 2 budgets that were not unanimous and since the addition of section 305, the limit has been exceeded only 4 time with councilmember consent, mainly due to property value increases which caused the county council to reduce tax rates. Let me re-emphasize, section 305 doesn't limit tax rate increases, it limits tax revenue increases. So if the assessed value of real property increases significantly, as it has in the past, the County
Question B in yet another incarnation of Robin Ficker's 1975, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2004 Tax Limiting proposals that have been continually rejected by MoCo voters. Robin Ficker, serial curmudgeon, perrenial quixotic GOP also-ran candidate and erstwhile professional Heckler has rebounded from the suspension of his law license to open "Robin Realty" brokerage, although most of the time it seems to be a PAC dedicated to putting up "Yes on Question B" signs.
So the origins of the Amendment are stereotypically dubious, but in this year of economic woe, many remain concerned that an uninformed electorate may transfer some of their discomfort onto local government by voting "yes" on question B. By most accounts this would be a tremendous mistake akin to Prince George's County's ill fated TRIM measure passed in decades past which has basically starved PGCo's schools and public service sector for funds with predictable consequences in service quality and quantity (site).
I will quote the League of Women Voters Montgomery County
to succinctly make the case that just about everyone has made against the Ficker Charter Amendment...
Requiring nine votes to exceed the charter limit could be problematic if a council position is vacant when the tax rate needed to be approved, as occurred in this fiscal year. In addition, it gives veto power to a single member of the council. County expenses such as education, health care for employees and transportation do not necessarily grow at the same rate as inflation. Passage of this measure could result in a reduction of county services. Restricting the council’s fiscal options could jeopardize the county’s AAA bond rating, which means it would pay higher interest rates to borrow money for capital
projects.
LWVMC opposes this amendment.
Not surprisingly, the every member of the current county council and the county executive have made statements that share the LWVMC opinion (site) as does the Montgomery County Education Association, aka Teachers Union (pdf)...
If Question B were on the books, there would have been an additional $128 million dollars in cuts in this year’s budget. Such a shortfall would result in laying off hundreds of teachers, firefighters and police officers, cutting library hours, reducing services to seniors, and closing parks and recreation centers.
This time around there was some controversy regarding the Washington Post's endorsement of "No on Question B" because the MCEA seems to have taken that position for granted and pre-printed ballots which the paper caught wind of through Robin Ficker. The post finally came around on Sunday November 2, 2008, which makes he Posts witholding the recommendation seem childish (site). Not surprsingly the Montogomery County Democratic Central Committee also urges a no vote on Question B.
ENTERIK'S RECOMMENDATION:
Vote NO on Question A. These provisions while currently ineffective, remain the last line of defense against MoCo siting a waste facility or sewage treatment trench near your home.
Vote NO on Question B, for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is maintaining MoCo public school rating and AAA bond rating. This Ficker Amendment may very well create a dictator on the county council or prevent the council from collecting the necessary funds to maintain service should one of the seats become vacant (as it has this year). No! No! No!