gaithersblog.net

Goings on in Gaithersburg, Maryland

January 27th, 2009

Police Alert Gaithersburg Communities to Nighttime Residential Burglary Trend

From the County’s website:

1/26/2009

Police Alert Gaithersburg Communities to Nighttime Residential Burglary Trend

Detectives from the 5th/6th District Investigative Section want to alert the communities surrounding the Montgomery Village area, of a developing trend of burglaries that have been occurring since mid December 2008, during the nighttime hours.

In most of the incidents, residents were at home and asleep during the burglaries. Entry has been gained mostly through garages and adjoining unlocked interior doors or other unlocked doors or windows. Also, once gaining entry the suspect(s) have taken loose items, such as laptops, wallets, and vehicle keys. In four burglaries, the victim’s vehicle was stolen.

The following are areas that have been affected by this trend:

  • 20500 block of Highland Hall on Thursday, December 11, 2008, between 5:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Forced entry was made through the garage.
  • 11000 block of Grassy Knoll on Monday, December 29, 2008, between 9:00 p.m. and Tuesday, December 30, 2008, at 7:00 a.m. Entry was made through an unlocked garage door.
  • 8800 block of Brink Road on Tuesday, December 30, 2008, between 12:45 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. Entry was made through an unlocked garage door.
  • 20700 block of Highland Hall on Saturday, January 3, 2009, between 3:10 a.m. and 3:20 a.m. Entry was made through an unlocked front door.
  • 100 block of Linden Hall Lane on Wednesday, January 7, 2009, at an unknown time. Entry was made through an unlocked side door. The homeowner’s vehicle was stolen.
  • 13400 block of Accent Way on Tuesday, January 13, 2009, between 10:30 p.m. and Wednesday, January 14, 2009 at 6:00 a.m. Forced entry was made through the front door.
  • 19300 block of Churubusco Lane on Sunday, January 18, 2009, at 11:45 p.m. Entry was made through an unlocked sliding glass door.
  • Unit block of Brook Run Court on Monday, January 19, 2009, between 3:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. Entry was made through an unlocked rear door.
  • Three burglaries occurred in the 18900 block of Blue Heron Lane on Monday, January 19, between 10:00 p.m. and Tuesday, January 20, 2009, at 6:30 a.m. Forced entry was made through garage doors. In one of these incidents, the homeowner’s vehicle was stolen. In another incident, the suspect(s) attempted to steal the homeowner’s vehicle.
  • 18900 block of Marsh Hawk Lane on Monday, January 19, 2009, between 10:00 p.m. and Tuesday, January 20, 2009, at 6:30 a.m. Entry was made through an unlocked garage door. The homeowner’s homemade motorcycle was stolen.
  • 8700 block of Waxwing Terrace on Monday, January 19, 2009, between 10:00 p.m. and Tuesday, January 20, 2009, at 6:30 a.m. Entry was made through an unlocked garage window.
  • 100 block of Cherrywood Drive on Friday, January 23, 2009, at 3:15 am. Entry was made through an unlocked window. The homeowner’s vehicle was stolen.

Residential burglaries can be crimes of opportunity. Homeowners can protect their property by following good crime prevention practices. Always lock doors and windows, including vehicle doors. Keep outside lights on at night or install motion lights. Keep shrubbery trimmed and always advise neighbors when you are going to be away. There have been several instances when a burglary suspect has been caught because of an alert community member reporting suspicious persons or situations to police right away. This frequently allows officers to respond in time to take the offender into custody.

There is no suspect description for these incidents as most homeowners were asleep. If a burglary is in progress call 9-1-1. Anyone with information about the suspect(s) responsible for the burglaries in this release should call the 5th/6th District Investigative Section at 240-773-6237.

###

Contact: Media Services Division Phone: 240.773.5030


View Larger Map

November 13th, 2008

Washington Post: Md. Police Officials’ Disability Retirement Probed

Ann E. Marimow and Dan Morse write:

Federal investigators are probing the disability retirement packages of two former assistant police chiefs in Montgomery County and appear keenly interested in how one of them was able to secure a subsequent job heading the Gaithersburg police department, according to subpoenas reviewed yesterday.

As part of what federal authorities described in the subpoenas to the county and city as a “criminal investigation of a suspected felony,” the investigators are seeking information about William C. O’Toole and John A. King, both of whom receive tax-free disability payments because of back injuries suffered while on the Montgomery force. King is now Gaithersburg’s chief, and O’Toole is executive director of the Northern Virginia Criminal Justice Training Academy.

October 30th, 2008

Examiner: US Attorney Investigating MoCo disability retirement (update 2, w/Gazette Story)

Update 2: Janel Davis, with assistance from Patricia M. Murret, writes, Feds subpoena disability records on former assistant chief:

King worked for the county for more than 25 years before taking the position in Gaithersburg. He has maintained that his application for disability was because of numerous injuries, including three herniated discs in his back, which made it impossible to do the work of an officer.

His injuries with Montgomery County occurred from wrestling a suspect and from four vehicle crashes, including two in which his cruiser was struck by drivers who ran red lights, King said.

“I can’t run, I can’t stand up for a certain period,” King said in an interview with The Gazette in August.

Update: Ann E. Marimow and Dan Morse write in Friday’s Washington Post, 91% of Applicants for Disability Pay Got It:

More than 90 percent of Montgomery County police officers who applied for disability retirement benefits in the past decade received them, including one officer who qualified based on a finger injury, according to county records released this week.

The troubled program, discussed at a County Council hearing yesterday, is drawing interest from federal law enforcement officials, who this week subpoenaed the records of Gaithersburg Police Chief John King, who retired from the Montgomery police on disability last year. Asked if Montgomery had also been subpoenaed about the disability program, county officials said they received a federal subpoena this week but would not discuss the subject of the request.

Kathleen Miller writes in the DC Examiner, Feds investigate Montgomery disability retirement rolls:

Federal authorities have started a preliminary investigation into allegations of abuse of Montgomery County’s disability retirement system by some former high-ranking police officers, and have subpoenaed at least one current employer of a retired assistant police chief.

Gaithersburg City Manager Angel Jones told The Examiner she received a subpoena Tuesday afternoon from the office of U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein seeking access to information about Gaithersburg Police Chief John King.

A September report from Montgomery County Inspector General Tom Dagley found that more than 60 percent of police officers who retired in recent years are receiving extra payments for work-related disabilities, compared with 3 percent of similar workers in Fairfax County.

Edward Lattner, a lawyer in the Montgomery County attorney’s office, told The Examiner Wednesday he was not comfortable commenting about whether county officials had also received subpoenas. He directed The Examiner to contact Rosenstein’s office for information

According to the article, Rosenstein would not comment.
.

October 15th, 2008

MCPS School Fees Used for Staff “Perks” (Updated w/info on Gaithersburg Audit)

Update: While far less egregious than the apparent situation at Richard Montgomery, the audit of Gaithersburg High School (one of several available at the Parents Coalition website), also lists some opportunities for improvement. Quoting the “Findings and Recommendations” section of the report (note the following was OCR’d from the bitmapped PDF, so please consult the original for an authoritative version):

At our meeting on June 5, 2008, we discussed actions taken since our previous audit report, dated April 23, 2007, that have strengthened financial accountability for lAP resources. As discussed, those conditions have been resolved. Although these actions improve accountability and internal control, we found additional conditions which weaken controls over, or management of resources. These conditions are described below along with our recommendations.

MCPS Form 280-54, Request for a Purchase, is used to obtain principal approval to proceed with an intended purchase (see IAF manual, p. 8). The purpose of each disbursement must be fully explained on this form in order to properly record expenditures in appropriate accounts and to ensure that expenditures comply with IAF requirements. In our random sample of disbursements, we found prior approval was not obtained for 24 percent of purchases made. By requiring prior approval, the principal retains control over the expenditure of IAF funds. We recommend that Form 280-54 be prepared by staff and signed by the principal at the time verbal approval is sought so that purchase orders and invoices bear a date subsequent to the approval date.

The yearbook sponsor is required to keep detailed records of the number of books sold, the price charged as well as the number of books distributed free of charge (see IAF manual, p. 16). However, the records kept by the yearbook sponsor did not enable us to reconcile the number of books purchased with the number sold, given free, and the remaining inventory. We were therefore unable to determine that all funds generated from this activity had been remitted. We recommend the yearbook sponsor be advised about the record-keeping requirements for this activity and assisted as needed.

Vocational education business activities should be conducted in accordance with MCPS Regulation IGK-RB, Career and Technology Education Projects from Outside MCPS. During our audit we observed the daily operation of the Cosmetology shop. We found that there were no controls in place to verify that all monies received were submitted to the financial agent. It was also noted that daily receipts were being held by the sponsor and not being turned in on a timely basis. To improve internal controls over receipts we recommend that an appointment book or daily log of customers be kept along with a copy of all work orders. A copy of the prenumbered payment receipt should be attached to the work order and brought to the financial assistant with the daily receipts. At the end of each month, the financial agent should reconcile work orders, daily log, and other receipt documentation with the monthly deposits.

Other matters were discussed and satisfactorily resolved with Mrs. Annie Stone, business manager and Mrs. Debra Clouse, financial assistant. We appreciated their cooperation and assistance as well as others on your staff. Please provide a response to Mr. Adrian Talley, community superintendent, within 30 days of this report, with a copy to the Internal Audit office.


Many Gaithersblog readers will recall all the news from several weeks ago about MCPS school fees. One of the concerns raised by parents with regard to the school fees was that there was no public accounting of the use of those funds. Now, an audit of Richard Montgomery High School in Rockville has turned up evidence that, at least at that school, these funds were in fact being misused.

Channel 7 reports, Student Money Spent on Staff Perks at School:

They say thousands of dollars raised to help students is instead paying for special meals and new jackets for school leaders.

The internal audit reported thousands of dollars earmarked specifically for students at Richard Montgomery High School were in fact spent elsewhere.

From January 2007 through March of this year:

  • $9,400 went for an administration leadership retreat.
  • $5,100 was used for restaurant meals for the principal and other officials.
  • $1,100 was spent to buy eight jackets for administrators and staff.

Melissa J. Brachfeld writes in the Gazette, Auditors say money was used improperly at Richard Montgomery:

School system auditors say thousands of dollars raised by students at Richard Montgomery High School were used on meals, clothing, a retreat and other perks to benefit staff instead of students.

The money came out of the school’s Independent Activity Funds, which are collected from classroom fees, event ticket sales and fundraisers. School system policy says that unless otherwise designated, the funds belong to the student body and may not be used to benefit staff or particular student groups.

Note that this information comes out of an audit specific to Richard Montgomery, and thus does not address the question of the use of this money at other schools.

October 8th, 2008

Gaithersburg West Master Plan

Today I received an email from M-NCPPC containing an announcement regarding the start of the process to produce an update to the Gaithersburg West Master Plan. The announcement came in the form of a PDF, which I’ve transcribed below. However, please consult the original for an authoritative copy that can be printed and posted on your community bulletin board. Note that this is a County planning process, affecting the areas just outside the City limits, mostly to the west of the CSX tracks and to the east of Route 28. As noted in the announcement, this includes Oakmont, Rosemont, parts of the Washingtonian area, the Shady Grove Life Sciences Center, NIST, Londonderry, parts of Quince Orchard and the McGown tract; these areas are highlighted in blue in the map below.

Gaithersburg West Master Plan

What: Community Meetings on the Gaithersburg West Master Plan
When: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 7:00 – 9:00 p.m.
Thursday, November 6, 2008 7:00 – 9:00 p.m.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008 7:00 – 9:00 p.m.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008 7:00 – 9:00 p.m.
Who: Montgomery County Planning Department
Where: M-NCPPC Shady Grove Training Facility
16641 Crabbs Branch Way, Rockville

The Montgomery County Planning Department invites residents, business owners, and all interested parties to participate in the Gaithersburg West Master Plan (GWMP) update. This Master Plan will update the 1990 Shady Grove Study Area Master Plan and portions of the 1985 Gaithersburg Vicinity Master Plan. The area covered by the GWMP is shown on the map on page 2 and includes all of the areas in blue with bold lettering. The GWMP does not include any areas within the municipal boundaries of the City of Gaithersburg or the City of Rockville.

The Master Plan update is focused on the future of the Shady Grove Life Sciences Center (LSC) and the alignment and stations for the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). At the first meeting on October 29, Planning Department staff will present an overview of the Master Plan process, area-wide issues, and the ideas that are under consideration for the Life Sciences Center (see map), which includes the Belward property and areas around Shady Grove Adventist Hospital. Those attending can participate in small break-out groups as well as the large group setting. At subsequent meetings, there will be presentations from LSC property owners.

As shown on the map, the GWMP includes several enclaves, which are areas within the County’s jurisdiction that are surrounded by the City of Gaithersburg: the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Londonderry/Hoyle’s Addition, Oakmont, Rosemont, Washingtonian Industrial Park, and Washingtonian residential area (Washingtonian Tower vicinity). The GWMP also includes the residential neighborhoods west of Quince Orchard and Longdraft roads and the McGown property, a vacant parcel adjacent to I-270 and the City of Gaithersburg.

Please come! We welcome your participation, ideas, and suggestions. We encourage you to attend all the meetings as the agendas will cover different issues.

For more information, please visit

www.mcparkandplanning.org/planning/community/gaithersburg or contact Nancy Sturgeon at 301-495-1308 or nancy.sturgeon@mncppc-mc.org.

Click on the image to enlarge.

September 16th, 2008

Leggett to Host Town Hall Meeting in Gaithersburg

From the County’s website:

For Immediate Release: 8/25/2008

Leggett to Host Town Hall Meeting in Gaithersburg

On Wednesday, September 17, Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett will host a Town Hall Meeting at 7:30 p.m. at Gaithersburg Middle School, 2 Teachers Way. Previous town meetings have drawn thousands of residents who have taken advantage of the opportunity to voice their concerns to the County Executive.

“Town meetings present an excellent opportunity for me to find out what’s on the mind of our residents,” said Leggett. “A cornerstone of my administration has been to make sure ‘everyone has a seat at the table’ and these public meetings provide a forum for our residents to share their ideas and concerns.”

The town meeting is free and open to all and will be videotaped by County Cable 6, the County government channel, for future airing.

Sign language interpreter services will be provided only upon request with notice as far in advance as possible, but no less than 72 hours prior to the event. If these or other services or aids are needed to participate in this activity, please call 240-777-6530 or TTY 240-777-6505 or email a request to karen.falcon@montgomerycountymd.gov.

For more information about the town meeting or the cable television program schedule, call 240-777-6530.

# # #

Release ID: 08-331
Media Contact: Sue Tucker 240-777-6530

September 9th, 2008

Police Seek Public’s Help in Identifying Suspect in Theft from Vehicle Case

From the County’s website:

Police Seek Public’s Help in Identifying Suspect in Theft from Vehicle Case

Detectives from the Montgomery County Police 1st District Investigative Section are investigating an incident of theft from vehicle that occurred in Derwood. Detectives have recently obtained a surveillance photo of a suspect.

On September 3, 2008 at approximately 11:00 p.m., 1st District officers responded to the 5600 block of Lake Christopher Drive in Derwood for the report of a theft from a vehicle. A wallet that had been left inside the vehicle was stolen from the vehicle. Through the course of the investigation it was learned that a suspect then used the victim’s credit card just three hours later at a 7-Eleven convenience store located at 8946 North Westland Drive in Gaithersburg. Detectives have obtained a surveillance photo of a female suspect and are asking the public’s help in identifying her.

The suspect is described as a black female, 5’4” to 5’6” tall, 240 to 260 pounds, with medium-length dark hair combed back. She was wearing a green plaid dress and no shoes.

Montgomery County Police want to remind residents that thefts from vehicles can be prevented. Drivers should consider the following:

  • Take anything of value out of the vehicle when leaving the vehicle. Leaving valuables, and mechanisms that secure GPS and iPod systems in the vehicle, can be something that suspects are looking for to target a vehicle for theft.
  • Lock vehicle doors and set the vehicle alarm, if there is one.
  • Park vehicles in well illuminated areas.
  • Report suspicious activities as soon as they occur. Call the Montgomery County non-emergency number at 301-279-8000. If it is an emergency, dial 911.

Anyone who has information about this incident and/or the suspect is asked to call the 1st District Investigative Section at 240-773-6084 or the Montgomery County non-emergency number at

September 2nd, 2008

Gazette: Barve to seek ban of school fees (Update 6)

Update 6: On Channel 9’s website, Scott Rubens posted, Montgomery County Reviews School Fees:

A $1,000 fee for a choral class fired up a parent now fighting the fees charges for classes in Montgomery County Schools. Her oldest son is in college and her youngest attending private school, but Janis Sartucci still wants to end the fee practice she calls unfair.

“You’re talking about a two-tiered school system, one for kids who can afford the extras and one that can’t,” said Sartucci.

Update 5: Kate Ryan has filed another story at WTOP, After pressure from parents, committee looks into school fees:

When parents took their grievances directly to the Montgomery County Board of Education just before school opened, and said the fees were illegal, Weast - and all the members of the school board - remained silent.

But on Wednesday, standing between Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and Maryland House Majority Leader Kumar Barve - who wants to force schools across the state to drop frees - Weast says he was not contradicting earlier behavior.

“No. No. Nothing’s changed. We were already looking at things,” Weast says.

Update 4: Superintendent Weast has responded to the fees controversy in an item on Channel 7’s website, Montgomery Co. Superintendent Addresses School Fees:

“If it needs to be changed, we’ll change it. Where it needs to be changed, we’ll change it. And we’ll deal with it in a very professional way. That won’t hurt the students,” said Weast.

Update 3: Kate Ryan of WTOP also writes on this topic today, Md. House leader to call for ban on school fees:

Barve, who attended Montgomery County schools, says he’ll introduce a bill that will ban public schools from charging fees related to the curriculum.

“I didn’t have to show that my father made under a certain amount of money in order to get into it (calculus class) without paying fee. I had to show that I was able to do calculus. That’s all I had to worry about.”

Regarding the assertion that the the loss of fees will cause problems, he said:

“I don’t buy that argument. I just don’t. The Montgomery County delegation, senators and delegates, have done a terrific job bringing money home for our public school system, not just this year, but in the 18 years I’ve been in office.”

Sounds to me as if Mr. Barve is actually pretty well angered by the situation.

Update 2: Since posting this I’ve noticed that the Gazette’s Montgomery County Editorial this week, Addressing fees in public schools, speaks to this subject:

Advocates for change are on target. There is confusion over what’s mandatory and what’s not when it relates to coursework fees and some charges are open to interpretation – do principals ask or suggest, or do they require and mandate?

An updated opinion from the state’s attorney general might be helpful in guiding school boards since much has changed in the last three decades with school funding, curriculum and the materials needed in classes, from workbooks to graphing calculators. At the very least, the school board must clear up any ambiguity in its fee regulations and take steps needed to apply them consistently in all 199 schools.

Update: An expanded version of this article was posted Wednesday morning.

Marcus Moore writes in the Gazette, Barve to seek ban of school fees:

Del. Kumar P. Barve, the [Maryland] House Majority Leader, said Tuesday that he would file a bill before the upcoming General Assembly session in January to prohibit parents from paying the expenses.

“The purpose of public school education is to allow each child to get a great education regardless of their economic background,” said Barve (D-Dist. 17) of Gaithersburg. “I don’t think it’s wise … to stratify students between those who can afford the fees and those who can’t.”

Also on the topic of school fees, a couple of days ago Daniel de Vise wrote in the Washington Post, Public School Fees Wear On Montgomery Parents:

The fee debate has raised legal questions. In 1987, the Maryland attorney general interpreted the state’s guarantee of free public schools to mean “that everything directly related to a school’s curriculum must be available to all free of charge.” That opinion is key, as no state court has ruled on the legality of fees in the modern era.

Montgomery officials have suggested that schools are merely asking parents to pay the fees, and that all required materials will be provided. But schools seldom characterize fees as optional, in Montgomery or anyplace else.

“The families are led to believe that the fees are mandatory and that the students won’t be able to get their schedules and participate in activities and graduation if they don’t pay them,” said Angela Ciolfi, an attorney with the Legal Aid Justice Center in Charlottesville.

For more on this topic, see my previous post, as well as the Marcus Moore’s story from last week.

August 24th, 2008

School Fees Controversy (updated)

Update: Marcus Moore writes in the Gazette, Parents: School fees are illegal:

During a recent school board meeting, parent Rosanne A. Hurwitz asked the school system to refund $8 in fees for towels charged to her son, who attends Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring.

“Failure to pay this fee results in a financial obligation and students who do not pay this fee cannot participate in certain school activities, including graduation,” Hurwitz told the board. “While the Attorney General suggests parents appeal to the board, it is unconscionable to expect the families of our county to go through this process to obtain what is clearly their right.”

Though students are not denied access to classes, the school board’s policy is still illegal, said parent Janis Sartucci, an outspoken critic of the school system’s curricular fees.

“Where’s the money go?” Sartucci asked. “If this money is required to run the school system, why don’t we see it? If we are a revenue source for the school system, we should be in the budget documents, but we’re not.”

For my readers who are about to send your kids off to school, you should be aware that a storm is brewing over the fees you are about to be asked to pay for your children’s participation in the Montgomery County Public Schools curriculum. It is being argued that Maryland’s Constitution requires the school system to provide these courses for free (funded through taxation but otherwise not charged to individual students), and thus the fees being charged for credit courses — including such core requirements such as English, social studies and science — are unconstitutional.

One parent, Louis Wilen of Olney, contacted the State Attorney General’s office regarding these fees and received a response indicating that there likely is merit to this complaint. Parents Coalition, a political action committee, has posted this letter on their website; an OCR’d version is pasted in below.

The parents’ protest of these fees has been attracting some amount of media attention. WTOP’s Kate Ryan has done a couple of stories on this, including this one on the web. James Adams reported the story on Channel 4, and Channel 7 also has an article posted. Chris Core has also weighed in [mp3 link] on the matter in his “Core Values” commentary on WTOP. Quoting the Channel 7 story,

Clarksburg High School leads the list of local high schools with more than 200 different fees, and parent, Rosanne Hurwitz,says the fees are “a form of educational extortion….”

“The art fees are probably some of the worst,” said parent Louis Wilen, who added that “sometimes the materials are a little bit expensive, but that’s just part of the cost of running a school system.”

MCPS does not appear to be interested in backing down on these fees, which vary widely from school to school. Last Tuesday (8/19), they sent out a memo to principals throughout the system, providing background information on the official MCPS position on these fees. This memo was also posted on the Parents’ Coalition website as well, and I’ve OCR’d and pasted this in below as well.

As I read the MCPS position on these fees, it appears that they believe that, while they are required to provide, for free, the facilities, books and the equipment, they are within their right to charge the students for any consumables used in the class. Thus, a workbook that would be unusable by a subsequent student, or lab materials that are consumed during experiments, are fair game for charges. They also attempt to defuse some of the complaints by insisting that no one will be denied access to these classes based on an inability to pay. However, this generosity would seem to be beside the point if the issue is whether the fees are legal in the first place, and thus it comes across as evading the question. The point of this evasion is clearly to create confusion on the part of the reader between the ability to pay and the obligation to pay. These are two very different things, and MCPS knows this full well.

One thing I note in the memo is that, in the attachment entitled Summary of Board of Education Policy JNA, Curricular Expenses for Students, and Montgomery County Public Schools Regulation JNA-RA, Curricular Expenses for Students, they include the bullet item:

  • You may be contacted by persons who challenge or contradict our policy of curricular expenses for student fees. There may be individuals or organizations that attempt to tell you that no fees may be charged. This is their interpretation of the law.

This is a bothersome statement, which among other things makes clear that the attachment goes beyond just being a “summary” of official policy — I have read policies JNA and JNA-RA, and I find nothing in either of them about being contacted by persons challenging the policy. Moreover, the statement “This is their interpretation of the law” is clearly meant to disparage those who complain. But it doesn’t work here because (a) it is so clearly reflexive — MCPS’ counterargument is, after all, just their interpretation of the law, and (b) as I read the letter from the Attorney General’s office below, it would appear to be more than just some parents’ interpretation of the law that curricular fees are highly questionable.

Anyway, here is the letter from the Attorney General’s office, OCR’d from the PDF on the Parent’s Coalition website. Please let me know if you spot any transcription errors.

Louis Wilen
17101 MacDuff Avenue
Olney, MD 20832-2960

Dear Mr. Wilen:

Robert McDonald, Chief of Opinions in the Attorney General’s Office, referred your email of August 13,2008 to me for response. I am Principal Counsel to the Maryland State Department of Education.

You explain in your e-mail that Magruder High School in Montgomery County requires students to pay fees ranging from $5 to $40 for certain courses in Art, Business and Computer Science, English, Family and Consumer Science, Health and Physical Education, SAT Prep, Music, Science, and Technology Education. (See attached schedule). You have asked our Office to investigate and take action as warranted.

Over the course of years, this Office has issued Opinions and advice letters addressing the school fees issue. In 1987, the Attorney General opined:

[W]e cannot say whether Maryland courts would go as far as courts in some states in categorizing the activities that must be offered without charge. But, whatever the outer limits of Maryland’s “free public schools” guarantee, we are safe in saying that anything directly related to a school’s curriculum must be available to all without charge. To borrow the North Dakota Supreme Court’s formulation, whatever is an “integral part of the educational system” must be free. Cardiff v. Bismark Public School Disf., 263 N.W.2d 105, 113 (N.D. 1978) (Emphasis added).

72 Op. Att’y Gen. 262, 267 (1987).

That Opinion has formed the legal basis for several letters of advice. For example, on March 7, 1995, this Office advised Senator Barbara Hoffman that a Senate Bill allowing county school boards to charge students a fee for a driver education course offered during the regular school day would violate the “free public school” requirement of the State constitution.

On February 22, 1996, this Office advised Senator Thomas Mac Middleton that a legislative proposal allowing schools to charge fees for “non-academic type activities” could raise a substantial constitutional question. That letter of advice reviews case law from various states recognizing that the courts of Maryland have not ruled on the school fees issue.

In March, 2003, we responded to a question from a public charter school that was considering imposing a fee for full day kindergarten. At that time, only half-day kindergarten was mandatory. Yet, because kindergarten was a part of Maryland’s system of free public schools, we advised that, in our view, charging a fee for full day kindergarten would not be legally acceptable.

I am enclosing a copy of each of the letters and the Opinion described above.

While the Attorney General’s Office is not empowered to “take action” against a school’s fee structure, you may wish to file an appeal of this matter with the local superintendent. Pursuant to Md. Educ. Art. Code Ann. § 4-205, each county superintendent shall decide all controversies and disputes that involve: (i) the rules and regulations of the county board; and (ii) the proper administration of the county public school system. If you are not satisfied with the superintendent’s decision, you may appeal to the local school board and, thereafter to the State Board of Education, if you are not satisfied with the local board’s decision. Id. § 4-205(c)(3). The State Board of Education has the authority to decide this kind of issue and to direct the Montgomery County Board of Education to cease charging the fees that the State Board deems to be illegal.

I hope this information addresses your request and is helpful to you in pursuing this matter further if you wish to do so.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth M. Kameen I
Principal Counsel
Assistant Attorney General

cc: Dr. Jerry Weast (w/enclosures)
Judy Bresler, Esquire (w/enclosures)
Robert McDonald, Esquire (w/o enclosures)
Shanetta Paskel, Esquire (w/o enclosures)
Dr. Nancy S. Grasmick (w/o enclosures)
Jackie LaFiandra, Esquire (w/o enclosure)

Note that where it says “(Emphasis added)” in the above, such was inserted by the AG’s office in their letter to Mr. Wilen.

And here is the MCPS memo to principals, OCR’d from the PDF on the Parent’s Coalition website. Again, please let me know if you spot any transcription errors.

Office of School Performance
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Rockville, Maryland
August 19,2008

MEMORANDUM

To: All Principals
From: Stephen L. Bedford, Chief School Performance officer
Subject: ACTION REQUESTED: Student Curricular Fees

Summary

  • Recently there have been a number of questions regarding curricular expenses for students (student fees) from parents, members of the community, and media. These questions have been directed to individual schools, the Office of School Performance, and the Public lnformation Office. Generally, the questions are focused on the legality of charging fees for curricular expenses, such as supplemental materials and project/lab fees.
  • A summary of Board of Education Policy JNA, Curricular Expenses for Students, and Montgomery County Public Schools Regulation JNA-RA, Curricular Expenses for Students, is attached for your information and to ensure a consistent understanding of this policy and regulation. This summary provides clarification on curricular expenses and highlights those expenses that are allowable under Policy INA. Please remember. students must have reasonable access to supplemental materials and may not be penalized academically for their inability to pay for supplemental materials.

Action

Questions

  • If you have additional questions regarding curricular expenses or receive questions that you feel you cannot respond to, please contact your community superintendent.

SLB:bmk

Attachment

Copy to:
Executive Staff

Attachment

Summary of Board of Education Policy JNA, Curricular Expenses for Students, and Montgomery County Public Schools Regulation JNA-RA, Curricular Expenses for Students

  • Board of Education Policy JNA, Curricular Expenses for Students, and Montgomery County Public Schools Regulation JNA-RA, Curricular Expenses for Students. govern student course-related fees.
  • Project or lab fees may be charged. No student will be excluded from participation in any course requiring project or lab fees based on the inability to pay the fee.
  • You may be contacted by persons who challenge or contradict our policy of curricular expenses for student fees. There may be individuals or organizations that attempt to tell you that no fees may be charged. This is their interpretation of the law.
  • The Board of Education has approved fees under certain circumstances, and our policy is that students may be asked to purchase supplemental materials or provide project or lab fees.
  • Montgomery County Public Schools provides all students with full access to all courses, the instructional materials required for those courses, and the instructional program.
  • Required textbooks are provided by the school.
  • Expenses associated with some courses, including workbooks and materials, that become the property of students are allowed.
  • It may be requested that students purchase supplemental materials, such as workbooks, dictionaries, review guides, etc.
  • Students must have reasonable access to supplemental materials and may not be penalized academically for their inability to pay for supplemental materials.
  • No student may be excluded from participation in any course based on inability to pay the fee where a fee may be applicable.
  • Curricular expenses are reviewed and approved annually by community superintendents.

Note that I had to look up those policy links because they weren’t present in the bitmapped PDF from Parents Coalition; if I’ve got them wrong please let me know.

August 12th, 2008

County publishes more information on GE Tech Park plans

The County has put up a series of web pages describing what they call their “Property Use Initiative”. These pages contain extensive information about their plans to relocate several County functions to a number of mostly further-up-county sites, with detailed analysis of each site. There is a 30-minute video giving an overview of the plan, as well as a flowchart showing how the uses are likely to be redistributed; a small copy of the flowchart is pasted in below, click on the image to load the PDF from the County’s website.

County Land Use Flow Chart

There is also a page on the GE Tech Park, containing many of the statements that we have heard from them many times before. On the most sensitive of topics, they remain as vague as ever:

  • The property is I-3 zoning which permits the County to uses including office, warehousing and manufacturing.
  • An additional 700,000 square feet of I-3 development and uses are permitted on the site “by right” under the Annexation agreement. However, the County does not plan to construct additional buildings on the site.
  • The tenant, GXS, is willing to vacate the building and the size of this building allows the County to immediately consolidate in one location certain uses that are currently dispersed throughout the County.
  • The GE Tech Park is surrounded by natural and man made buffers that separate the areas of the site where new development is likely to occur from existing adjacent residential development and the County is considering enhancing these buffers.

But in the FAQ they state:

  • Can you put deed restrictions on the property to ensure that there will be no other uses? No, we cannot bind the future government in this manner.

Which I read as saying that they feel that at this point in the process they can tell any story they think will lower the community’s resistance, but on the other side of the next County election — which if you think about it will be held before any major expansion would be likely to begin — any promises they make now are null and void. They do not, I note, answer the question I’ve heard asked many times: How is it fiscally responsible to buy and hold valuable land that you have no intention of using?

  • Will you control the employee traffic through the residential streets? We want 100 percent of the traffic to enter from route 28.

Well, you know, you can’t always get what you want. Note that they do not say they will do anything to control this. They do have a link on that page to a recent traffic study (PDF format).

The FAQ contains many statements along these lines:

  • Will you reduce the parking lot to create a larger buffer between the property and the residential? We can look into that. Will also relocate the warehouse loading bays if necessary.

Well, yes, they can look into that. I’m sure they look into all maner of things, but how many of these things get done?

  • Can the lakefront property be deeded to the city? The County plans to preserve and improve that portion of the parcel by adding benches to make it usable for residents.

Note that they don’t even answer the questions in their own FAQ. And they are silent on the obvious follow-up question of why they would hold on to property that would be that expensive to maintain if they don’t plan on using it for anything beyond seating. Note that they have not proposed to make this a formal County park. They do mention on another FAQ page that they plan on putting a public safety memorial near the lake, but I don’t think that this is intended as part of a park so much as a monument in an office building complex.

  • What is the impact to city tax revenues? Will the county reimburse the city? That has not been determined, but the County has plans to discuss this with the city.

Another thing to look into.

  • Will this affect the construction of the aquatic center? This will have no effect on the construction.

Why does the limiting of this question to the construction of the aquatic center leave me feeling that there’s more to this story?

  • What has been the City of Gaithersburg’s reaction to the general proposal for a substantial public safety presence at the GE Tech Park site? The City of Gaithersburg has not opposed our proposed uses. Some officials voiced support, other cautious support and others were non-committal.

Again, I’m not sure this tells the whole story. From what I’ve seen in public meetings on this topic, City officials have had a large number of questions which the County staff have not been willing or able to answer. But in the end the tone of this FAQ entry seems to suggest that it doesn’t really matter to the county how the City reacts.

  • The study proposes moving the District 1 Station from its current location on Seven Locks Road to the GE Tech Park. Chief Manger told the Committee that the move will not only provide upgraded facility but will allow Headquarters to become a 24-hour facility. However, the GE Tech Park is just barely in District 1 and would be quite distance from many residences and businesses in the District. What are the service impacts from this relocation? Should consideration be given to establishing a centrally located satellite or sub station? Has the City of Rockville been asked for their reaction to the relocation of the District 1 station? If so, what were there comments? The District 1 Station will be located on the extreme edge of the district that it serves. This will have no impact on the officers’ effectiveness or the speed of responses because to a large degree, calls are dispatched to officers in their roving vehicles, not from the station. It will be less convenient for residents on the other side of the district to get to the station and in the future we may consider a substation more centrally located. Preliminary conversations have been held with the City of Rockville. Additionally, of course the City of Rockville’s police services supplement those of the County and the impacts of the proposed 1st District should not be significant.

In other words, they don’t really have a good answer to this.