March 11, 2010
MACo Associate Director Les Knapp testified in opposition to HB 881 before the House Appropriations Committee on March 9. The bill, sponsored by Delegate Tom Hucker, would authorize non-management library employees to form employee organizations and engage in collective bargaining. The bill also includes mediation and limited binding arbitration provisions.
Mr. Knapp argued that the bill imposed a costly mandate on both counties and local library systems. Representatives from various library systems stated the bill was unnecessary, as librarians can chose to unionize under federal law.
Washington County Herald-Mail story on local library representative testifying
At the hearing, several Delegates stated they were offering amendments to exempt their counties from the bill. As reported by MarylandReporter.com:
Delegates representing six counties have moved to exempt these jurisdictions from a bill that would make it easier for local librarians to unionize, citing concerns about the costs.
Representatives from Harford, Baltimore, Garret, Allegheny and Carroll Counties offered amendments to strike their counties from the bill.
Del. Mary-Dulany James, D-Cecil and Harford, was first to voice her opposition on collective bargaining rights for librarians.
“I’m a big proponent of local rights,” James said. “We don’t like it when the federal government tells the states what to do. I don’t think it’s an appropriate role for the state to be telling the local governments how to conduct themselves.”
The bill hearing for the bill’s cross-file, SB 225, took place on March 4.
Leave a Comment » | 
Uncategorized | Tagged: Bill Hearing, Collective Bargaining, Delegate Hucker, Education, Libraries | 
Permalink
Posted by Les Knapp
March 7, 2010
MACo Associate Director Les Knapp was part of a panel of library associations testifying in opposition to SB 225 before the Senate Finance Committee on March 2. The bill, sponsored by Senator Nancy King, would authorize non-management library employees to form employee organizations and engage in collective bargaining. The bill also includes mediation and limited binding arbitration provisions.
Mr. Knapp stated that the bill imposed a costly and unnecessary mandate on both the counties and public library systems at a time they are facing signficant State aid reductions and budgetary challenges. He described how counties have been recently criticized for giving multi-year pay raises that they are legally bound to provide under a collective bargaining agreement. Representatives from the Maryland Library Association and the various county associations also argued that the decision to organize should be left up to each individual jurisdiction and that process should not be forced on them.
The hearing for the bill’s cross-file, HB 881, is set for March 9 before the House Appropriations Committee.
1 Comment | Uncategorized | Tagged: Bill Hearing, Collective Bargaining, Education, Libraries, Senator King | Permalink
Posted by Les Knapp
March 1, 2010
The Maryland Senate passed SB 476 on Friday as reported in the Washington Post . The bill waives the multi-million dollar penalty the state imposed on 2 counties for failing to meet its maintenance of effort requirement for education. The bill moves to the House for consideration. This action was the first step taken by the legislature taking a look at the burdens of counties to fund county obligations.
According to an article in today’s Baltimore Sun:
For decades, Maryland lawmakers have built up public education through spending requirements that they’ve imposed on themselves and on local governments. But this year, more seriously than ever, the General Assembly is looking for ways to nip at school funding.
Del. John L. Bohanan Jr., a Democrat and chairman of the House of Delegates education budget subcommittee, said the economy has forced the General Assembly to consider changes to education funding that “12 months ago would never have even been up for discussion. “Now we’re looking at these drastic measures that may be needed to balance the budget,” he said.
Further comments from county officials reinforced the urgency of the legislation:
Three frustrated county executives testified at the Wednesday hearing that the state school board had set waiver requirements far too high, seemingly making only the total collapse of a tax base as reason enough to grant one.
“None of us are proud of ourselves for being here,” said Wicomico County Executive Richard M. Pollitt Jr. “But these are unprecedented times, and we’ve cut our other departments so drastically. We have to open other doors that have been kept closed. We’ve put off cutting education as long as we can.”
Wicomico, Prince George’s and Montgomery counties each asked the state school board last year to waive their spending requirement, though the former two were able to find enough funding in the end. Montgomery did not.
“We made a powerful case, and it was denied,” said Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett, who noted his county was able to come up with “99 percent” of the requirement. And, in previous years, he said, the county spent millions more than was required by law. He called the waiver process confusing and unfair.
Because of the school board’s denial, Montgomery schools are to be docked $24 million in state funding this year. The state Senate last week overwhelmingly approved legislation to waive that penalty, a proposal the House of Delegates is also expected to pass.
But Michael Sanderson, director of the Maryland Association of Counties, said Montgomery’s experience pointed to the need for a “release valve” in tough economic times such as these. “We know this is going to be another rough year,” he said.
Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: Education, Maintenance of Effort, Montgomery County, Prince George's County, Wicomico County, SB 476 | Permalink
Posted by Michele Dinkel
February 25, 2010
The main legislation addressing Maintenance of Effort — one of MACo’s legislative initiatives for 2010 — was heard in both the Senate and House Committees yesterday.
MACo has focused on reform of the waiver process as its legislative priority — this summary from the list of MACo’s initiatives for the year:
School Budget Accountability – MOE Reform
Summary: Facing deep State budget cuts and declining local revenues, many counties contemplated waivers from the State Maintenance of Effort law. Three counties who actually pursued the waiver through the State Board of Education were all rejected, with several disturbing rationale cited by the State Board. The current waiver process suggests an avenue for consideration of county budget difficulties, but the adjudication by the State Board (a body charged with advocating for public education, and without any expertise in government budgets or financing) may leave counties without meaningful redress in times of fiscal crisis. Legislation could eliminate, or replace, the current waiver system with a clearer and fairer process for evaluating county hardships in waiver requests.
The chief bills being heard on February 24 were products of the Joint Work Group on State, County, and Municipal Fiscal Relationships. Those bills, SB 310 and HB 304, would offer greater guidance in the State Board of Education’s consideration of waiver requests, and alter their timing and resolution.
MACo testified in support of waiver reform, seeking amendments to the bill to add additional provisions to allow an expedited appeal of the State Board’s decision, create an extraordinary and limited “economic waiver” as an objective process for the toughest economic circumstances, and require the State Board to honor agreements between the County and the local Board of Education. County Executives Ike Leggett, Jack Johnson, and Rick Pollitt — representing the three counties who sought but were denied waivers for FY 2010 by the State Board of Education, testified in favor of the legislation and MACo’s reform suggestions.
Additional bills on the MOE topic were also heard by their respective committees:
Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: Bill Hearing, Education, Ike Leggett, Jack Johnson, Maintenance of Effort, Rick Pollitt | Permalink
Posted by Michael Sanderson
February 21, 2010
Despite a number of high profile comments by various leaders that a shift in teacher pensions would not be addressed in the 2010 legislative session, Senate president Miller has kept the issue alive by introducing a revised version of that proposal. Senate Bill 959 would shift some cost increases in teacher pensions beginning in FY 2012.
The operative definition in the bill is that of “Local Share,” which is defined (on page 4 of the first reader bill) as follows:
(6) “LOCAL SHARE” MEANS THAT PORTION OF THE TOTAL EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION FOR LOCAL EMPLOYEES THAT:
(I) EXCEEDS THE TOTAL EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION FOR LOCAL EMPLOYEES THAT WAS CALCULATED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011; AND
(II) IS SOLELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO:
1. SALARY INCREASES ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 2010, FOR LOCAL EMPLOYEES; AND
2. THE HIRING OF NEW LOCAL EMPLOYEES ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 2010.
The bill proposes that this calculated “local share” would become a funding responsibility of the local school board, rather than being supported by the State.
This proposal, described by President Miller to county leaders as “modest,” would isolate those costs arising from new hires and salary increases. This marks a substantial change since last year.
The comparable operative section of last year’s bill (Senate Bill 710 of 2009, also introduced by President Miller) read as follows:
(6) “LOCAL SHARE” MEANS THAT PORTION OF THE TOTAL
EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION FOR LOCAL EMPLOYEES THAT EXCEEDS THE TOTAL
EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION FOR LOCAL EMPLOYEES THAT WAS CALCULATED
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010.
The fiscal impact for the 2019 legislation was massive — with counties absorbing some $100 million in additional costs in the first year of effect, and rapidly ballooning up to some $450 million by the fourth year, based on some nominal projections for cost escalation. The amount of the cost shift in the 2010 bill is likely to differ substantially with the prior bill, but is likely to still escalate to a very substantial cost shift from the State to its counties.
MACo has consistently opposed such a shift in costs, citing both the fiscal effect on counties, and the fact that the current State funding of pension obligations was a deliberate decision of the Thornton Commission and its accompanying legislation. Counties have regularly argued that taking this one element of school support in isolation and targeting a “fix” loses its proper perspective amidst an array of school funding formulas and offsets.
SB 959 has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing. The bill will be taken up for a position soon by the MACo Legislative Committee. Senator Miller had been scheduled to meet with MACo’s Legislative Committee during its February 17 meeting, but was unable to attend.
Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: Education, President Miller, State Budget, Teacher Pensions | Permalink
Posted by Michael Sanderson
February 21, 2010
MACo Associate Director Les Knapp testified in support of SB 476 with amendments before the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee on February 16. The bill, sponsored by Senator Ulysses Currie, would retroactively waive the maintenance of effort (MOE) penalty for FY 2010 and require a study of how the MOE “penalty” is calculated and on whom the penalty should be assessed.
Citing the summary rejection of all three counties that requested a waiver by the State Board of Education (SBE) last year, Mr. Knapp argued that the waiver process is broken and that relief should be retroactively granted to Montgomery County, which is the only county of the three that is facing a penalty for failing to meet MOE. He stated that unless the penalty is waived, $23.4 million in State MOE aid will be withheld from Montgomery County schools in FY 2011.
However, Mr. Knapp questioned the need for a penalty study, arguing that absent a pattern of counties failing to meet MOE, there is no need to alter the penalty provision. He also argued that if the penalty were shifted onto the counties would alter the nature of the MOE system from ”carrot and stick” approach to a local funding mandate and would require county elected officials to set tax rates and fund education at levels that hinder their ability to balance their county budgets. He offered an amendment that would strike the study language from the bill.
Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett also testified in support of the bill, who expressed his frustration that the waiver issue “could and should have been resolved by the State Board of Education”.
The Maryland State Education Association; the Maryland Association of Boards of Education; the Montgomery County Board of Education; and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees all supported the need to study the penalty provision.
Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: Bill Hearing, Education, Ike Leggett, Maintenance of Effort, Senator Currie | Permalink
Posted by Les Knapp
February 20, 2010
Interagency Committee on School Construction Executive Director David Lever provided his annual update on public school construction issues to the MACo Legislative Committee on February 17. Dr. Lever indicated that for the third straight fiscal year in a row, both the number of project requests and the dollar value of the requests decreased. FY 2011 submitted needs were $722.1 million and available funding was $256 million ($250 million in Governor Martin O’Malley’s FY 2011 budget plus $6 million in unneeded funds that reverted from other school construction projects). He attributed the decline in need to reduced local revenues, a continuing decrease in construction costs, and changes in student enrollment. He also explained that the State’s minimum annual funding target of $250 million, recommended by the Task Force to Study Public School Facilities in 2004, was set to expire soon and there needed to be discussion on whether to set a new goal.
He noted the following general trends in the FY 2011 Capital Improvement Program regarding school construction: (1) older facilities built in the 1960s and 1970s are reaching the end of their working life and need either major renovation or replacement; (2) slowed population growth in some counties allows increased attention to renovation of existing schools; and (3) the economic downturn has created a very unstable enrollment picture, with some counties losing students and other counties gaining students.
Dr. Lever also highlighted several new school construction issues, including: (1) the requirement that new schools must be high performance buildings (LEED Silver certification or equivalent); (2) school construction projects must now meet additional minority business enterprise participation requirements in order to qualify for State funding; (3) the impact of federal Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) decisions on enrollment patterns is still uncertain, creating planning difficulties; and (4) the synchronization of the school construction program to Smart Growth principles (locating new schools within Priority Funding Areas, focusing on compact or vertical school designs, etc.).
Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: Education, School Construction | Permalink
Posted by Les Knapp
February 8, 2010
The briefing scheduled for Tuesday in the House Ways and Means Committee has been canceled. There are no specific plans for a reschedule date at this time.
MACo had planned to present a range of views on the waiver process, with testimony from the three counties who sought (and were denied) waivers for FY 2010.
Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: Education, Maintenance of Effort | Permalink
Posted by Michael Sanderson
February 5, 2010
Several bills addressing maintenance of effort (MOE) have been introduced this Session. Reforming the MOE waiver process is a Maryland Association of Counties’ legislative initiative.
House Bill 304 and Senate Bill 310 are identical bills that seek to codify the MOE recommendations of the Joint Legislative Workgroup to Study State, County, and Municipal Fiscal Relationships. The bills are emergency bills that would extend the deadline for when a county may request a waiver to May 1 and require the State Board of Education (SBE) to decide whether to grant a waiver no late than 45 days after a county makes a request or June 1, whichever is earlier. The bills also require SBE to consider a variety of factors when determining whether to grant a waiver, including: (1) external environmental factors, such as the loss of a major employer or industry; (2) the county’s tax base; (3) the rate of inflation relative to the growth of student population; (4) the county’s statutory ability to raise revenues; (5) the county’s history of exceeding MOE; (6) agreement between the county government and school board on the waiver; (7) if there is a broad economic downturn; and (8) if there is signficant reduction in State Aid to the county.
House Bill 410 is an emergency bill that would grant counties a “blanket” waiver from meeting MOE for FY 2011, similar to the waiver granted back in the early 1990s.
House Bill 223 is an emergency bill that would retroactively exempt Montgomery County from meeting MOE for FY 2010,.
Finally, Senate Bill 403 does not address the MOE waiver issue, but would alter the withholding of State Aid that occurs when a county fails to meet MOE. The bill would require the State Comptroller to withhold an amount of State Aid to the counties equal to the increase in State Aid that would go to county school board. The school board’s funding would be held harmless.
Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: Education, Maintenance of Effort | Permalink
Posted by Les Knapp
February 4, 2010
Maryland Association of Counties (MACo) Associate Director Les Knapp supported House Bill 171 with amendments before the House Appropriations Committee on February 2. The bill would authorize the use of $4.5 million in federal qualified zone academy bonds (QZABs) for the Aging School Program. QZAB funding is restricted to certain schools serving lower income children and require a 10% matching contribution from a private entity or business.
Mr. Knapp noted MACo’s support of the Program, which traditionally has provided State general fund monies for school maintenance and repairs not eligible for capital bond funding because the projects do not have a 15-year life span. However, Mr. Knapp expressed concern that the Program’s flexibility would be eliminated if the Program were to be permanently funded through general obligation bonds or QZABs.
Mr. Knapp suggested amendment language stating it would be the intent of the General Assembly that the Aging Schools Program be funded through general funds whenever practicable. He noted such language was not legally binding and did not restrict the State from making adjustments during difficult fiscal times.
MACo submitted written testimony but did not testify on HB 171’s cross-file, Senate Bill 202.
Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: Aging Schools Program, Bill Hearing, Education | Permalink
Posted by Les Knapp
