gaithersblog.net

Brad Botwin, Director of Help Save Maryland, sent me the following email:

This past summer Chuck Floyd and Help Save Maryland filed Maryland Public Information Act requests with Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett and Montgomery County Council President Marilyn Praisner concerning information and financial records relating to CASA of Maryland and the Montgomery County Government. Our intent was to uncover the vast taxpayer funded financial and organizational relationship between the pro-illegal alien group CASA and our elected officials.

Help Save Maryland opposes any taxpayer dollars being spent on CASA managed Day Laborer Centers which provides employment opportunities for illegal aliens or any other related CASA managed efforts. Included in the correspondence was a request for the names and addresses of the businesses that utilize the workers from the Day Laborer Centers. Again our intent was to notify the citizens of Montgomery County regarding the businesses that are utilizing the taxpayer-funded Centers in possible violation of Federal and State law.

After receiving little if any information or data from Leggett and Praisner, Help Save Maryland submitted a second set of letters in the hope that our elected officials and career Montgomery County employees would obey the law and release the information. Did not happen.

I am pleased to announce that Judicial Watch Inc (www.JudicialWatch.org), a DC based, conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law, has taken up our cause! Please see the attached letter to County Executive Leggett. A similar letter was sent to the Montgomery County Council. For further information please contact JW President Tom Fitton at 202-646-5172 x306

Brad Botwin, Director
Help Save Maryland

Attached to this email was a PDF file containing the letter sent by Judicial Watch. Below is a transcription of this PDF, which I produced via OCR, cleaning it up and formatting it by hand, so please consult the original for an authoritative copy. I must say that this does seem — to my untrained eye — like a massive request, covering a great deal of territory. But I do hope that this effort will ultimately result in some light being shed upon the County’s unmistakably cozy — but heretofore opaque — relationship with Casa de Maryland.

December 11, 2007

VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL AND FAX

Ike Leggett Montgomery County Executive 101 Monroe Street, 2nd Floor Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 240-777-2517	Mary Anderson Department of Health and Human Services 11 N. Washington Street, Suite 450 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 240-777-1342
Jennifer E. Barrett Department of Finance 101 Monroe St. Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: (240) 777-8857

Re: Maryland Public Information Act Request

Dear Sir/Madam:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Maryland Public Information Act (PIA), SG §§10-611 - 10-630, Judicial Watch, Inc. requests from Montgomery County access to and a copy of any and all public record(s) within thirty (30) days concerning or relating to the following:

1. Any and all records relating to CASA of (de) Maryland’s budget and accounting information, opening and operation of day labor site(s) in Montgomery County, procedures/requirements for determining work authorization at day labor site(s), and any agreements and/or applications made by CASA of (de) Maryland to Montgomery County.
2. Any and all records relating to the use of public funds to fund (including, but not limited to, grants, income, subsidies, loans, and debt forgiveness), house, or provide goods and services for any day labor site(s) located in Montgomery County.
3. Any and all records relating to the use of public funds provided to CASA of (de) Maryland by Montgomery County to fund, in any way, education, training, publications, outreach, health care, English language training, recreation, gang prevention, etc.

---

Custodian of Records
Public Information Act Request
December 11, 2007
Page 2 of 3

4. Any and all research, studies, analyses, statistics, data, surveys, reports, legal opinions, and any other information related to:
   1. Illegal immigrants immigrating to, living and/or working in Montgomery County;
   2. Day labor site(s), day laborers (including information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of day laborers) and employers of day laborers in Montgomery County; and
   3. CASA of (de) Maryland’s day labor site and day laborers and employers of such day laborers, including the citizenship or immigration status of day laborers.
5. Any and all communications and/or correspondence between Montgomery County and any federal government agency regarding CASA of (de) Maryland and/or any day labor site(s) located within the county.
6. Policies and procedures for Montgomery County employees concerning or relating to illegal aliens or suspected illegal aliens, including but not limited to approval or denial of services with respect to a person’s citizenship or immigration status.
7. Policies and procedures concerning or relating to contacts or communications with between Montgomery County employees and federal immigration officials, including but not limited to officials of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Border Patrol, regarding a person’s citizenship or immigration status.
8. Any third party communications, including, but not limited to members of the media and/or activists, regarding Montgomery County day labor site(s).

The time-frame for this request is January 1, 2005 to present.

Public records are any records that are made by, or received by, a covered public agency in connection with the transaction of public business. SG §10-611(g)(1)(i). All "public records" are covered by the PIA. The term "public record" includes not only written material but also computerized records (including, but not limited to emai1s and digital files), correspondence, photographs, photostats, films, microfilms, recordings, tapes, maps, drawings, and any copy of a public record. SG §10-611(g)(1)(ii).

Within thirty (30) days of receipt of this request, you are required to determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in your possession and to notify us promptly of your determination and the reasons therefore. SG §10-614(b)(2). If this request is denied you are required to provide a written statement of the reasons for the denial, the legal authority for the denial, and notice of the remedies for review of the denial within 10 working days. SG §10-614(b)(3)(ii).

---

Custodian of Records
Public Information Act Request
December 11, 2007
Page 3 of 3

Any reasonably segregable portion of a record otherwise exempt from disclosure is required to be made available after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. SG §10-618(a).

Finally, Judicial Watch requests a waiver of any direct costs of duplication or statutory fees pursuant to SG §10-618(c) as the request is for noncommercial purposes that serve the public interest. Judicial Watch is a non-profit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) educational organization dedicated to increasing public understanding of the operations of government as well as the importance of ethics and the rule of law. Judicial Watch regularly requests information from public agencies about their operations and activities and disseminates this information to the public in furtherance of its educational mission. However, if any fee is to be charged for copying the requested records, please notify us in advance if the expected cost is likely to exceed $150.00.

If you do not understand this request or any portion thereof, or if you feel you require clarification of this request or any portion thereof, please contact us immediately at 202-646-5172 or dgrothe@judicialwatch.org.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Deronda Grothe
Program Manager

Yet another audit report has come out documenting the State’s utter disregard for requirements for residents to obtain services, licenses and other formal documents. As reported by Kathleen Miller in the Examiner, Audit: 52K receiving aid lack valid SSN’s:

About 52,000 people who received public benefits like food stamps and temporary cash assistance in Maryland last year didn’t have valid Social Security numbers, a state audit has found.

This report comes from Maryland’s Office of Legislative Audits. The cover letter to the referenced report reads:

November 30, 2007

Delegate Steven J. DeBoy, Sr., Co-Chair, Joint Audit Committee
Senator Nathaniel J. McFadden, Co-Chair, Joint Audit Committee
Members of Joint Audit Committee
Annapolis, Maryland

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have audited the Family Investment Administration (FIA) of the Department of Human Resources for the period beginning August 11, 2003 and ending March 31, 2007.

Our audit disclosed a number of deficiencies in FIA’s monitoring of its public assistance programs. For example, computer matches designed to detect ineligible recipients (such as by comparing Maryland’s recipients to recipients in other states) were not performed for extended periods. Furthermore, when the matches were performed, due to limitations in the computer program used, the vast majority of public assistance recipients were excluded from the matches. We determined that approximately 52,000 individuals who received public assistance benefits during 2006 lacked valid social security numbers. Recipients are required by federal and state law to disclose their social security numbers; without valid social security numbers, certain eligibility procedures (such as matches with State wage records) are ineffective. FIA made assistance payments totaling $488 million during fiscal year 2007, primarily for temporary cash assistance and food stamps.

Our audit also disclosed that access to the computer system used to award and process public assistance benefits was not adequate as employees could modify recipient benefits without approval. Finally, we noted that several contracts were not sufficiently monitored to ensure that contractor billings were based upon contractor costs and to ensure that all services paid for were received.

Respectfully submitted,
Bruce A. Myers, CPA
Legislative Auditor

This comes on the heels of an October 19 report on the MVA, for which the cover letter reads:

October 19, 2007

Delegate Steven J. DeBoy, Sr., Co-Chair, Joint Audit Committee
Senator Nathaniel J. McFadden, Co-Chair, Joint Audit Committee
Members of Joint Audit Committee
Annapolis, Maryland

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have audited the Department of Transportation – Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) for the period beginning January 1, 2004 and ending November 30, 2006.

Our audit disclosed that MVA did not have effective policies and procedures to oversee its Ignition Interlock Program (IIP). By requiring enrollees to have ignition interlock devices installed in their vehicles, IIP is intended to help prevent individuals convicted of alcohol-related driving violations from driving while intoxicated. However, MVA failed to take appropriate follow-up action for certain individuals who repeatedly violated the terms of the program, and such individuals were subsequently returned to a normal driving status.

Our audit also disclosed that procedures and controls over driver’s licensing transactions and related suspensions and revocations were not sufficient. For example, required documentation (such as proof of residency) was not always obtained for licenses issued, and certain licenses appeared to have been issued improperly, such as to individuals who were deceased. License suspensions and revocations and related appeals were also not processed timely, allowing licensees to retain their driving privileges for longer periods.

MVA’s procedures for monitoring licensed vehicle dealerships were not comprehensive to ensure that vehicle titling and registration transactions were properly processed and that the related excise taxes and fees were properly assessed. For example, dealership audits of these activities were not comprehensive, and MVA improperly waived certain penalties assessed for late submission of vehicle excise taxes and related fees by the dealerships.

MVA did not take timely action to enforce State laws that require vehicle owners to maintain insurance coverage for registered vehicles. Although State law requires the immediate suspension of a registration for any vehicle for which the insurance coverage is terminated or lapses, we found that MVA generally waited 115 days to process these suspensions. Furthermore, MVA did not invoice uninsured motorists for the related assessed penalties in a timely manner.

Numerous security and control deficiencies existed with respect to eMVA Store, which is operated by a contractor and provides online services to the public. For example, sensitive personal and financial information of eMVA Store customers was not adequately protected, critical security events were not adequately monitored, and critical software was out of date. Furthermore, the contractor was not required to receive periodic audits of its online security controls.

Finally, a number of internal control and record keeping deficiencies were noted in areas including the Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program, cash receipts, purchases and disbursements, and equipment.

We determined that MVA’s accountability and compliance level was unsatisfactory, in accordance with the rating system we established in conformity with State law. The primary factors contributing to the unsatisfactory rating were the number and significance of our audit findings, and the number of repeat audit findings from our preceding audit report. In this regard, MVA did not sufficiently address 12 of the 22 findings in our preceding audit report.

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce A. Myers, CPA
Legislative Auditor

And an August 8 report on the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, for which the cover letter reads:

August 8, 2007

Delegate Steven J. DeBoy, Sr., Co-Chair, Joint Audit Committee
Senator Nathaniel J. McFadden, Co-Chair, Joint Audit Committee
Members of Joint Audit Committee
Annapolis, Maryland

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have audited the Office of the Secretary and other units of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) for the period beginning July 10, 2003 and ending August 31, 2006.

Our audit disclosed serious deficiencies relating to the issuance of, accounting for, and safeguarding of vital records, including birth certificates. As a result, there was no assurance that certificates were only issued for legitimate purposes and that the related fees were deposited. For example, sufficient identification was not always required from applicants when requesting birth certificates. In addition, DHMH did not use prenumbered certificates for the majority of critical forms issued, and did not adequately account for the forms that were prenumbered. We also noted that DHMH did not properly oversee the issuance and security of birth and death certificates by the local health departments. Finally, access to the vital records automated system was not adequately restricted. Falsified or stolen vital statistics could allow the holder to obtain other critical documents (such as passports) and improper benefits (such as Social Security benefits).

Our audit also disclosed that DHMH did not review the budgets of subproviders that received a significant portion of the financial assistance provided to primary providers (such as to local health departments), and certain subproviders were not audited, as required, to provide assurance that their expenditures were reasonable. In addition, DHMH did not inspect various health care facilities annually as required by law. For example, 1,139 of the 1,567 (73 percent) licensed assisted living facilities were not inspected during fiscal year 2006. Furthermore, since its inception in 2005, taxpayer donations to the Cancer Fund, totaling $890,000, have not been spent; these donations are to provide grants for cancer research, prevention and treatment. Additionally, a federal fund reimbursement was not requested timely, resulting in lost interest to the State of approximately $396,000.

Finally, we noted internal control and record keeping deficiencies relating to purchases and disbursements, corporate purchasing cards, information systems, payroll, and equipment.

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce A. Myers,
CPA Legislative Auditor