gaithersblog.net

In Tuesday’s Washington Post, Pamela Constable and Lisa Rein write, To Illegal Immigrants, Md. Feeling Less Friendly:

Public anger against illegal immigrants, already entrenched in parts of Northern Virginia, is seeping into Maryland. With legislators facing unprecedented demands to take action, fears of a crackdown are spreading among illegal immigrants in a state that has been more tolerant of them.

A record 20 bills targeting illegal immigrants have been introduced in the state legislature this session. Although none of the bills is expected to survive, their supporters are far more vocal and organized than in the past, and the movement has gained recent support in Maryland communities that include Mount Rainier, Gaithersburg and Taneytown.

The article never explains the Gaithersburg reference, but I’ll guess that they are lumping the day laborer and anti-solicitation ordinance situation into this even though that issue is not immigration-specific.

“Everywhere you go now, the first thing they ask you for is papers,” Juan Perez, 28, a Central American construction worker, said outside a gas station in Langley Park one recent morning. “We do the work faster and cheaper, but no one wants us now. I haven’t sent any money home to my family since December, and I can barely pay to sleep in my friend’s apartment.”

Just across University Boulevard, a battered sedan with Virginia tags pulled up in front of a convenience store. The driver, a carpenter from Guatemala named Raul Romano, 40, said he and his family had recently fled Prince William County, their home for eight years, after it enacted a law allowing police to question immigrants about their legal status.

And speaking of Prince William County, N.C. Aizenman writes in the Washington Post, Immigration Agency Arrests 34 Workers At Concrete Firm:

Federal immigration authorities converged on a Prince William County construction company just before sunrise yesterday, arresting 34 Latin American nationals for being in the country illegally.

Timothy B. Wheeler writes in a somewhat misleadingly headlined item in today’s Baltimore Sun, Senate OKs credit repeal:

The Senate gave preliminary approval to a bill that would repeal a controversial new law requiring Maryland homeowners to apply for a property tax credit they have been getting automatically until now.

But the ultimate prospects for the repeal measure, which comes up for a final vote next week, are murky. The head of the House committee considering a similar bill says she sees no reason to retreat on a Homestead Tax Credit reform intended to weed out scofflaws.

The Senate voted 41 to 4 to repeal the application requirement, which sailed through the General Assembly unanimously last year.

Del. Sheila E. Hixson, chairwoman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said yesterday that she’s “not inclined to do anything” with a similar Homestead Tax Credit bill now pending in her committee.

“I think people overreacted,” said Hixson, a Montgomery County Democrat. But she noted that with five years to apply before losing the credit, there should be ample to sort things out.

Note that it is not too late to write to your delegates opposing the repeal of the registration requirement; if you do, you might want to copy Del. Hixson. For more information on this, you might look at my posting from yesterday.

In a regrettable column in this week’s Gazette, Barry Rascovar says:

Pity Maryland’s home owners. They’ve been targeted, unwittingly, by state legislators.

Mr. Rascovar is talking about the new law that requires homeowners to complete a one-time application to verify their eligibility for the homestead tax credit. As a result of some amount of public pressure, the Maryland Legislature is considering a bill which would repeal the new requirement. Now, for the most part the arguments I’ve seen in favor of repeal go more or less like this one from Mr. Rascovar:

Many home owners don’t even know property tax caps exist. They ignore notices stuffed into their reassessment notices that arrive once every three years. Chances are tens of thousands of home owners will fail to apply for inclusion in the Homestead Tax Credit.

Only when their tax bills soar will they discover they’ve been caught in a massive snare created by state lawmakers. Then the howls of enraged protests will be heard. It could get ugly.

In other words, the poor, ignorant taxpayers of Maryland will never know what happened; they’ll just be hit all of a sudden with a huge bill — victims of a greedy legislature, tricked into fattening the State’s coffers. Never mind the fact these homeowners will be able to get their bills corrected after the proper paperwork is filed. But in this column, Mr. Rascovar goes further, making it clearer what this is all about:

Just why someone who happens to live part-time in Maryland or owns a vacation home in Ocean City or Deep Creek Lake should be discriminated against and forced to pay much higher property taxes hasn’t been made clear. Nor is there a strong case for squeezing more tax revenue out of owners of rental property (who will simply raise the rents they charge).

See? In reality, Mr. Rascovar just doesn’t like the fact that people who own multiple homes, and people who own rental properties, can only get the tax break on the one property they happen to live in most of the time. But the Homestead Tax Credit was specifically tailored to encourage home ownership in the sense of owner-occupied housing, and is not available for these other sorts of properties. I do not imagine that there is any will in the legislature to change this aspect of the tax code. So barring any such change, Mr. Rascovar would appear to think that anyone who doesn’t like paying their full, legal tax obligation should just be able to lie about where they live and claim that they have multiple principal residences.

Mr. Rascovar also raises the specter of people’s rents going up as a result of this law. But the simple fact is that anyone who is renting from a law-abiding property owner is already paying whatever rate would result from such a pass-through. It is, for example, extremely unlikely — if not impossible — that any muti-family apartment building is getting this tax break. Generally the rental properties at issue are single-family homes (although likely including condos and townhouses). And in many cases these are the homes that have been turned into overcrowded, unlicensed boarding houses. Sometimes they are the vacation homes that are rented on a weekly basis while the owners are not there. These are not the sorts of investment activities that the Homestead Tax Credit was meant to encourage.

Yes, sometimes these homes are just ones that people kept as rental properties when they moved to a different house; in a large number of these cases I do imagine that these homeowners were ignorant of the requirement to change the principal-resident status of those properties, and this new law will be an awakening that will shave the margins between rents and costs. But ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for breaking the law, and this is a change that is overdue. Moreover, Mr. Rascovar does not present evidence that owners of such properties have been systematically charging sub-market rates for these properties as a result of the illicit tax breaks, thus passing the savings through to their renters. And in some cases the homeowners have extended their “ignorance” to two, three or even more rental properties.

Still, Mr. Rascovar wades yet further into the deep end:

Bureaucrats claim that owners of vacation homes and rental properties are “tax cheats.” Since when? Why are these Marylanders considered outlaws? When did it become evil to buy a second home or become a landlord? Why this double standard?

Oh, please. No one is claiming that the simple ownership of a vacation home or rental property makes anyone a “tax cheat”. It is only when the owners of these properties lie to the tax authority about their use of those properties that they become tax cheats. There is no double standard at play. Don’t be bamboozled by Mr. Rascovar — contact your representatives and let them know that House Bill 1256 is bad legislation, and should never see the light of day.

Kelly Brewington writes in this morning’s Sun:

As the number of illegal immigrants swells nationwide, state and local governments are grappling with a fiercely debated question: Are illegal immigrants a burden on or a benefit to local economies?

The answer: It depends on whom you ask.

States, demographers and interest groups have tried to quantify the fiscal costs versus the benefits of illegal immigration, but there’s no consensus on the answers. Those concerned about illegal immigration conclude new arrivals are a drain on public services, citing the growth of the school-age population and the mounting ranks of the uninsured. Meanwhile, others contend that illegal immigrants swell state coffers by paying millions in taxes and fees without receiving many services available to legal residents.

I received the following press release from Ben Ross of Action Committee for Transit:

For Immediate Release

Thursday morning, December 27, 2007

Source: Action Committee for Transit

www.actfortransit.org

For more information, call: Ben Ross at 301-913-2849.

TRANSIT ADVOCATES BLAST PROPOSAL TO DROP RIDE-ON ROUTES AFTER SYSTEM GETS NEW STATE AID

The Action Committee for Transit today denounced a plan to cut Ride-On bus service at a time when the Montgomery County bus system has just been awarded millions of dollars in new state aid. The cuts were proposed in a Dec. 21 budget-cutting plan sent from the County Executive to the County Council.

“With Montgomery County’s traffic so bad, the last thing we should be doing is putting more cars on the road by forcing people to drive who don’t want to,” commented ACT Vice President Ben Ross.

Just one month ago, Montgomery County members of the General Assembly won a pledge from Gov. Martin O’Malley to provide additional aid for Ride-On from Maryland’s Transportation Trust Fund. Local legislators who voted for tax increases wanted to be sure that some of the new revenues would go to relieve the travails of county commuters.

If the county cuts Ride-On service at the same time that Ride-On is getting more money from the state’s Trust Fund, the net effect will be to use Transportation Trust Fund revenues to cover the county’s general operating deficit. ACT pointed out that when the previous state administration used TTF money to cover an operating deficit, Montgomery Countians were highly critical.

The transit group warned that diverting money dedicated for Ride-On could make it harder for our legislative delegation to win funding of any kind in the future.

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

Michael Dresser writes:

A federal judge gave Maryland the go-ahead yesterday to begin construction of a long-debated highway in the Washington suburbs, flatly rejecting environmentalists’ challenges to the $2.4 billion project.

…in a 106-page opinion, Williams ruled that state and federal officials fixed the environmental problems that scuttled earlier versions of the ICC.

“What seems abundantly clear to this Court is that Defendants went back to the drawing board, recommenced their study for the proposed project, and thoroughly considered, examined, and, most importantly, corrected the deficiencies from previous failed attempts,” he wrote.

Plaintiffs could still appeal, but they would be taking their case to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. - one of the nation’s most conservative appellate panels.

Michael Dresser writes,

A plan to transform the MARC commuter rail service into a fully functional, seven-days-a-week urban transit system would cost an estimated $3.9 billion over the next three decades, according to an outline released yesterday by the Maryland Transit Administration.

The plan, first reported by The Sun on Monday, would extend the service from Delaware to Virginia while more than tripling the current capacity of the overcrowded train system.

Michael Dresser writes,

The Maryland Transit Administration is planning a sweeping expansion of its popular but crowded MARC commuter train service, including weekend runs and additional weekday trains by next year and a tripling of the system’s capacity by 2035.

The detailed blueprint, outlined in a briefing by MTA Administrator Paul J. Wiedefeld, envisions a system that eventually would stretch from Virginia to Delaware and have the capacity to carry more than 100,000 riders a day.

In a sidebar, they identify the specific plans for the Brunswick Line:

Brunswick Line: Martinsburg, W.Va. to Washington; 7,000 daily trips
2010

• Add 200 seats
• Lengthen trains

2015

• Add 3,800 seats
• Increased Frederick service
• More express trains

2020

• Add 8,400 seats
• Reduce peak intervals to 15-20 minutes
• Expanded off-peak service
• Northern Virginia extension
• Weekend service
• New reverse peak* service

2035

• Add 7,000 seats
• Increase weekday service
• Weekend service

* Reverse peak service moves in the direction opposite of peak morning or evening travel. The Brunswick line now runs only eastbound in the morning and westbound in the evening.

This Monday’s Mayor and Council agenda contains a number of what I think are interesting items; two of these items are down at the bottom, under segment fourteen, “FROM THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS, CITY ATTORNEY AND OTHER STAFF”. One of these items (I’ll mention the other in a later post) is entitled “Guidance on a Memorandum Dated July 5, 2007 Concerning a Proposed Amendment to Section 27 of the City Charter”. Ostensibly, this is the first step in introducing an amendment to the City charter to delete the provision for a City-specific voter registry, as this registry is no longer is in use — since 1977 Gaithersburg has allowed for the use the County’s registry and at this point there is no one on the City’s registry.

However, the impetus for this change is what is interesting. During the May 7, 2007 meeting of the Mayor and Council, Susan Payne and Demos Chrissos raised the question of illegal immigrants on the City’s voter registration rolls; you’ll find their appearances starting at about 41:48 into the video. Apparently the Board of Supervisors of Elections was asked whether there was any mechanism in place to prevent this. The answer was contained in a memo from Joan More of the Board, who stated that the registration application requires the applicant to sign, under penalty of perjury, a statement that, among other things, they are U.S. Citizens. The memo sort of tosses this off as thus being a non-issue, and focuses more on eliminating the provision for a City-specific registry. I’ve transcribed the memo below (this was another OCR’d PDF, so I had to make a number of corrections; the original PDF can be found here). The memo refers to “Section 3-202(a)(i) of the Elections Law of the Annotated Code of Maryland”. I’ve also pulled in section 3-202 of the State Code, it can be found after the memo. The relevant section states that the application shall:

require the signature of the applicant, subject to the penalties of perjury, by which the applicant swears or affirms that the information contained in the registration application is true and that the applicant meets all of the qualifications to become a registered voter

I did pull up a copy of the Maryland voter registration form, and it (at least the English-language version) does at least include the citizenship requirement in the text. However, it does seem that all illegal immigrants need to do in order to register to vote is to perjure themselves.

Following is the memo from Joan More:

MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Joan More Board of Supervisors of Elections DATE: June 6 2007 SUBJECT: Election Registration

As you may recall, during the Monday, May 7, 2007 regular meeting of the Mayor and City Council a resident request was made as to whether there is a system in place to insure that individuals who register to vote are United States citizens. Prior to 1977, residents had to register with the City to participate in City elections. In 1977, the Mayor and City Council amended the City Charter to provide that “any person who has domicile within the City may register to vote in City elections by registering to vote in Montgomery County elections…” As late as the mid 1990’s there were still a few City residents who remained on the City’s voter registry who were not registered to vote with Montgomery County Board of Elections; however, at this point, there is no one on the City’s voter registry. Given that the City no longer has a voter registry, staff contacted Paul Valette who is the Election Operations Manager for the Montgomery County Board of Elections to determine if there is a system in place to insure individuals who are registered to vote are United States citizens. Mr. Valette informed staff that individuals registering to vote are required to sign a statement under the penalties of perjury that, among other things, they are United States citizens. This signed application is required pursuant to Section 3-202(a)(i) of the Elections Law of the Annotated Code of Maryland. No additional verification of citizenship is required or undertaken by the Board of Elections For your review, I have attached the applicable section of State law and a copy of the Maryland Voter Registration Application. During the course of discussing this issue, the Board realized that it may be appropriate for the Mayor and City Council to consider amending the City Charter to eliminate the language that permits residents to register at City Hall. As stated above, no one is currently registered with the City and the prospect of maintaining a separate list in the future does not seem to make sense. I hope this information is helpful. Assistant City Manager Felton will be seeking guidance on the concept of pursuing a Charter Amendment during the July 9 Mayor and City Council meeting jm/sp Attachments

cc: David B. Humpton, City Manager Frederick J. Felton Assistant, City Manager

And here is Section 3-202 of the Annotated Code of Maryland:

§ 3-202. Voter registration applications.

(a) Statewide voter registration application.-

(1) The statewide voter registration application shall:

(i) require the signature of the applicant, subject to the penalties of perjury, by which the applicant swears or affirms that the information contained in the registration application is true and that the applicant meets all of the qualifications to become a registered voter;

(ii) state the penalties for the submission of a false application; and

(iii) provide the applicant with the opportunity to cancel a current registration.

(2) The following information shall be made available to each applicant who is completing a statewide voter registration application:

(i) the qualifications to become a registered voter;

(ii) if an individual declines to register, this fact will remain confidential and be used only for voter registration purposes;

(iii) if an individual registers to vote, the office at which the application is submitted will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes; and

(iv) notification to the applicant that submission of the form to an individual other than an official, employee, or agent of a local board does not assure that the form will be filed or filed in a timely manner.

(3) The statewide voter registration application may not require:

(i) notarization or other formal authentication; or

(ii) any additional information, other than the information necessary to enable election officials to determine the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process.

(4) (i) A statewide voter registration application shall be produced exclusively by the State Board.

(ii) No other registration form may be used for registration purposes except:

1. a voter registration application produced by a local board with the approval of the State Board;

2. as provided in subsection (b) of this section;

3. as provided in § 3-203(b) of this subtitle;

4. any other form prescribed by federal law for voter registration; or

5. a federal write-in absentee ballot if used by a voter authorized to vote a federal write-in absentee ballot under federal law.

(b) National voter registration application.- The voter registration application form prescribed pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 shall be accepted by the appropriate election official for purposes of voter registration.

(c) Change of name, address, or party affiliation using voter registration applications.- The application described in this section may be used by a registered voter to change the voter’s name, address, or party affiliation.

[An. Code 1957, art. 33, § 3-202; 2002, ch. 291, §§ 2, 4; 2004, ch. 19; 2006, ch. 354.]