Chief Justice Taney sits hidden in plain sight

Hidden in the bright light of our time; buried by an unwillingness to learn from history; shrouded in the refuse of the past, the statue of Chief Justice Roger Taney sits quietly in unforgiving prominence outside the State House of Maryland. Reasonable questions are being asked about the motives that led to the placement; succinct arguments are presented for the removal of the offending monument, but, the complexity of history compels the interested parties to set forth their own unique and individual solutions prior to defining the problem, and thereby, confound and confuse any potential educational dialogue.

[Maryland State House, Annapolis. Roger B. Taney in front beneath the dome under trees]

For those, who by chance of birth or by intellectual abhorrence, view the memory of the racist judge as an abomination before God, any discussion about the issues of lifetime are secondary and irrelevant to the end goal of removal. For those, who might propose to enter into a discussion about slavery, and its tentacles of evil which reach even to us today, any conversation is attacked as a support of the man’s dreadful legal contortion. In the light of history, we judge him, by standards we currently hold and without listening to those who knew him

The removal without discussion, and hoped for learning, simply white-washes the past. Judging Taney, a complex man, is a perilous exercise, as is judging Lincoln or Jefferson, Washington or Marshall, if we use only the emotions of the present seen through the spectacle of sixty-second history sound bites and factoids. “Taney also became involved in projects to aid American blacks. He was no abolitionist, but did believe that slavery was an unfortunate institution and should be ended someday.” Like Lincoln, “He (Taney) supported the African colonization movement for free blacks and measures to protect free blacks from unscrupulous slavers who would kidnap them for sale as slaves in the lower South, freed his own slaves, and was always kind and attentive to their interests. Yet while he agreed that slavery must be ended, he believed that it must be done slowly and solely by the actions of the individual states. He was deeply concerned all his life that the federal government would intrude and end slavery abruptly and destroy the South.”[1] [Roger B. Taney]

This idea that of slow non-federal-government abolition was in keeping with other revolutionary progressive moderate thinkers such as John Marshall, the first Chief Justice who was noted for his humane treatment as a slave master. And yet even with Marshall’s intentional avoidance of the question of slavery, it is Taney who judged but the horrendous decision of Dred Scott. Meanwhile, we conveniently forget the details of Marshall and slavery. “He (Marshall) had no trouble with slavery either. Marshall's sanguine attitude toward slavery clearly disturbs Newmyer, for Marshall devoted almost no mental energy to and found no moral fault with slavery (pp. 414-434). As Newmyer succinctly puts the case, Marshall "showed little interest in the subject" (p. 416).[8] This disinterest had consequences; for at no point did Marshall's Court show the slightest concern for the constitutional nature of slavery. When Mima Queen v. Hepburn, 11 U.S. [7 Cranch] 290 (1813), gave the Court a chance to place human rights before property rights, only Justice Gabriel Duvall (Prince George’s County) argued, "It will be universally admitted, that the right to freedom is more important than the right of property" (p. 428). Unfortunately the rest of the Court, including Chief Justice Marshall, did not hold to this universal value; for Marshall, property rights always came first. As Newmyer concludes of The Antelope, 23 U.S. [10 Wheaton] 66 (1825), "property trumped freedom again" (p. 433) [See Paul Finkelman, An Imperfect Union: Slavery, Federalism, and Comity (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981), and Thomas D. Morris, Southern Slavery and the Law, 1619-1860 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996).][2]

The whole idea that we can properly place blame on Taney and then find convenient ways to excuse the other southern revolutionaries seems unreasonable to me. Except for John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams, our whole pantheon is loaded with men at least as offensive, with our modern views, as Maryland’s Roger Taney. I suggest that obscuring and ignoring does not help heal the deep wounds and pain that we inherit from slavery, If we are to write an American history then we must address the great conundrum of the revolutionary ideals of America and its unspeakable facts. Trying to juggle the contradictions is a dynamic best served by constant conversation.

[Ship's Bell from the Battleship USS Maryland, in front statue of Chief Justice Taney]

And it was Taney, not Marshall, who when compelled but past legal decisions found in “Rhodes v. Bell, 2 How. 397, 43 U.S. 397, 11 L.Ed. 314 (U.S.Dist.Col.,1844)(The District of Columbia being still governed by the laws of Maryland and Virginia which were in force anterior to the cession, it is not lawful for an inhabitant of Washington county to purchase a slave in Alexandria county and bring him into Washington county for sale; if he does the slave will become entitled to his freedom)”.[3]

The contrast is one of studied avoidance and an ultimately disastrous, evil decision. “In contrast, Marshall, when faced with the question, (including, among others, the mamie queen, and scott v. ben cases which Paul cites), narrowly construed, indeed essentially eliminated, legal rights to manumission which American slaves did have 1) under state antiimportation statutes, essentially reading these statutes as unreasonably hypertechnical forfeitures of the slaveowners' property interests), and 2) in the mamie queen case, interpreting federal hearsay law so narrowly as to exclude the only evidence (family oral history) that slaves generally had to prove the free status of their matrilineal ancestors. (slave status descended through the maternal line).”[4] [John Marshall] USNPS

“As a contrast to Marshall's parched interpretation of legal rights to manumission, see e.g., the Taney (yes Taney) court opinion of Rhodes v. Bell, 43 US 397 (1844) in which the Taney court (opinion McLean) unanimously freed a slave, holding that manumission provisions in Virginia and Maryland antiimportation laws were applicable in the District of Columbia, narrowly construing an apparently contrary Congessional statute in the process.”[5]

[Roger Taney in front of Maryland State House]
Unlike Jefferson who never freed his slaves, and unlike Washington who waited until he and his wife were dead, or Marshall, who “…only freed one in his will, his long time personal slave. However, some have argued that the conditions on manumission were such that it was very unlikely that the gentleman would have taken advantage of the generosity. Marshall's will provided that the slave (who had been given to Marshall by his father 52 yeares earlier) would receive 100 dollars if he went to liberia and $50 if he remained in the United States, and if it was "impracticable" for him to leave that he could reside with one of Marshall's children (which I think Robin did - after all, how far are you going to get as a free elderly ex-slave on $50. (even in the 1830s))”[6] Roger B. Taney, while he was young and alive “…manumitted the slaves inherited from his father, and as long as they lived, he provided for the older ones by monthly pensions.”[7] Are we to ignore this, and condemn him while excusing others? History is rarely convenient and always painful. Truth is just beyond the next fact; choosing to limit the scope of the conversation serves no one. Using Taney as an instrument to have a true and binding discussion about slavery to create a authentic American history is a gift we can offer here in Maryland. The unwilling partnership is the story of this country; for too long we wrote only of Euro-centric facts. Today we have ethnic origin studies, an entire list of studies, but one must look hard for a combined joint story, good and bad, together as one common received American story.

Unlike Jefferson, who wrote about the enslaved population under the heading of “Animals” in his only book: Notes on the State of Virginia[8], Roger Taney could be remarkably advanced for his time. “While Taney distrusted the power of great aggregations of wealth in corporate form and believed that the state needed some authority to police such power, he also recognized the advantages to the American economy of the corporations' success and the need for the Court to protect their interests in the American economic system.”[9] As early as, Taney worked within the law which, being a two edged sword sometimes placed him on the side of right. “Invoking freedom of speech, Taney won acquittal in 1819 for a Methodist preacher whose sermon on national sins provoked the charge of trying to stir up slave rebellion”[10]

[Roger Taney]
The trouble and challenge when considering Taney is that he was not an original thinker, but rather looked to the fundamental understanding of stare decisis to help him render a position. In other words he tended to accept racist positions and then construe legal positions dependent on the thinking and thoughts of others who came before him continue the construction of a racist ideology.

Taney rose to prominence in Maryland, by finding a radically moderate path based upon the idea that laws should change gradually and be based upon precedence. “As a result he was chosen in 1816 for a five-year term in the state Senate, where he ousted the opposing faction from control and dominated the Federalist Party during the few years in which it continued to survive. His major interest, apart from the issues of party politics, seems to have been in laws to prevent the evils due to unsound currency and bad banking, and in laws to protect the rights of negroes in the state, whether freemen or slaves.” [11]

Taney’s work for and with President Jackson was that of a defender of the “little” man against great wealth and power. “While a member of the state Senate he sponsored legislation to prevent the circulation of bank notes at less than their face value, and to prevent the deliberate depreciation of the value of the notes of rural banks for which Baltimore bankers and brokers were said to be in part responsible.”[12] Roger Taney was instrumental in breaking the power of the national bank. “When he entered the Jackson cabinet he held the conviction that if the institution was to be rechartered it must be with definite limitations on its powers. He so advised the President, and when the friends of the bank attempted at the session of Congress of 1831-32 to force the enactment of a law granting a on the other Taney, who in 1831, “reigned his office as state attorney general, which he had held since 1827, in order to accept an appointment in President Jackson's Cabinet as attorney general. Among his opinions as attorney general, two revealed his stand on slavery: one supported South Carolina's law prohibiting free Blacks from entering the state, and one argued that Blacks could not be citizens.[13] This then is the basis for Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) decision which would come later.”[14]

Today, we focus on the single defining issue of that time. “Taney did not fit a heroic mold; but his mind was acute, his pen lucid. His patience, tact, and ability were instrumental in overcoming personal and doctrinal divisions among the justices, and though the Court was frequently divided, it continued to administer the law effectively. Under Taney's leadership the Court showed more tolerance of legislative power than it had under Marshall, but it did not surrender its hard-won powers to decide.[15] [Roger Taney]

“The issue of slavery was the downfall of the Court and detracted permanently from the image of Taney's statesmanship. In Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) Taney wrote the majority opinion for a bitterly divided Court which unwisely confronted all the explosive political questions in the case. Blacks, he said in a racist vein that has since been irrevocably associated with his name, could not be a citizen of the United States because he was recognized as inherently unequal by the Constitution. Congress, moreover, could not prohibit slavery in the territories because the 5th Amendment to the Constitution protected citizens in the possession of their property, and slaves were property.”[16]

Chief Justice Taney clearly outlined the problem which we face today in trying to come to terms with the founding of this republic. “The framers of the United States Constitution believed that people of African descent “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect,” and that “the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit…. [to be] bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.” With reference to the words “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence: “It is too clear for dispute that the enslaved African race was not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration.”[17] How then are we to judge him as the monster incarnate and then give Jefferson and Washington a pass? Roger Taney arouses the hatred of those who believe in the ideals and truths of the Declaration of Independence when he wrote: “It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in regard to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightend portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted; but the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."--from Taney's ruling[18]

So the issue is greater than Taney who bears the burden for not being greater than his time. “Jefferson didn't mean it when he wrote that all men are created equal," writes historian John Hope Franklin. "We've never meant it. The truth is that we're a bigoted people and always have been. We think every other country is trying to copy us now, and if they are, God help the world." He argues that, by betraying the ideals of freedom, "the Founding Fathers set the stage for every succeeding generation of Americans to apologize, compromise, and temporize on those principles."[19] [Roger Taney; Md State House]

Some would point out Taney’s contentious disagreements with Lincoln over presidential powers which echo down the ravines of history. Analogies can be dangerous, but the same people who would attack the current president and his right to wage war, would have found that Taney would have nee strongly in their camp. “Justice Robert C. Grier spoke for himself, Wayne, and Lincoln’s three appointees: The President had to meet the war as "it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name"; and rebellion did not make the South a sovereign nation. Four dissenters said the conflict was the President’s "personal war" until Congress recognized the insurrection on July 13, 1861.[20]

Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis, author of the dissent on Dred Scott, held his former colleague in high esteem despite their differences in that case. Writing in his own memoirs, Curtis described Taney: “He was indeed a great magistrate, and a man of singular purity of life and character. That there should have been one mistake in a judicial career so long, so exalted, and so useful is only proof of the imperfection of our nature. The reputation of Chief Justice Taney can afford to have anything known that he ever did and still leave a great fund of honor and praise to illustrate his name. If he had never done anything else that was high, heroic, and important, his noble vindication of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the dignity and authority of his office, against a rash minister of state, who, in the pride of a fancied executive power, came near to the commission of a great crime, will command the admiration and gratitude of every lover of constitutional liberty, so long as our institutions shall endure.”[21]

Chief Justice Taney, who remained loyal to the Union, died, aged 87, in October 1864, the same day his beloved state of Maryland, 220 years and six months after legalizing slavery, abolished the peculiarly evil institution.. Lincoln’s Attorney General Edward Bates wrote that his "great error" in the Dred Scott case should not forever "tarnish his otherwise well earned fame." And not long after Taney’s death, victory for the Union brought vindication of his defiant stand for the rule of law.”[22]

[picture below is of Justice Thurgood Marshall in the mall on the otherside of the State house]
Let us then boldly speak of the complexities of men, of the good and the bad. And if the discussion moves us to direct our attention away from Roger Taney and place his monument a little closer to the dark, let us not think that we do not hear his foot steps. We can not ignore history; we can not pretend that evil did not exist, and worse we must never forget, but use the dead ends of history to enlighten our choices in the hope that we can find our way. Move the statue if you must, but not without a conversation. Think of an alternative, whereby we move Justice Taney to one side peering into a dark, dead end corner and stand Frederick Douglas looking into the light directing us to consider the differences and what might have been; a dialogue between good and bad choices.

***********************************************************************************

Notes:

Pictures taken July 19th, 2007 in Annapolis by Author


[1] "Roger Brooke Taney." DISCovering U.S. History. Gale Research, 1997. From Richard L. Hillard, "Roger Brooke Taney." Great Lives from History, Frank N. Magill, ed. American Series, Vol. 5. Salem Press, 1987. Reproduced in History Resource Center. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC/ (Document Number: BT2104101109)
[2] R. Kent Newmyer. John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court. Southern Biography Series. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2001. xviii + 511 pp. Illustrations, essay on sources, index, list of cases. $39.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8071-2701-8.
[3] Vernellia R. Randall ; University of Dayton School of Law
[4] Professor Yvette M. Barksdale; Associate Professor of Law, The John Marshall Law School
[5] Professor Yvette M. Barksdale; Associate Professor of Law, The John Marshall Law School
[6] Professor Yvette M. Barksdale; Associate Professor of Law, The John Marshall Law School
[7] Roger Brooke Taney; J.P.W. McNeal. Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter.; The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Published 1912. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
[8] Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library; http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefVirg.html
[9] [9] "Roger Brooke Taney." DISCovering U.S. History. Gale Research, 1997. From Richard L. Hillard, "Roger Brooke Taney." Great Lives from History, Frank N. Magill, ed. American Series, Vol. 5. Salem Press, 1987. Reproduced in History Resource Center. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group.
[10] The Taney Court; The Supreme Court Historical Society
[11] Roger Brooke Taney. "Dictionary of American Biography Base Set. American Council of Learned Societies, 1928-1936. Reproduced in History Resource Center. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC/ (Document Number: BT2310002363)
[12] Roger Brooke Taney ."Dictionary of American Biography Base Set. American Council of Learned Societies, 1928-1936. Reproduced in History Resource Center. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC/ (Document Number: BT2310002363)
[13] "Roger Brooke Taney." Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2nd ed. 17 Vols. Gale Research, 1998. Reproduced in History Resource Center. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC/ (Document Number: K1631006393)
[14] Roger Brooke Taney. "Dictionary of American Biography Base Set. American Council of Learned Societies, 1928-1936. Reproduced in History Resource Center. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC/ (Document Number: BT2310002363)
[15] Roger Brooke Taney. "Dictionary of American Biography Base Set. American Council of Learned Societies, 1928-1936. Reproduced in History Resource Center. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC/ (Document Number: BT2310002363)
[16] Roger Brooke Taney. "Dictionary of American Biography Base Set. American Council of Learned Societies, 1928-1936. Reproduced in History Resource Center. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/HistRC/ (Document Number: BT2310002363)
[17] Infamous Dred Scott slavery case decision took place 150 years ago this week
kansiscitykansan.com; Thursday, March 8, 2007 BRYAN F. Le BEAU
[18] Roger B. Taney; From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[19] We the Slave Owners; Dinesh D'Souza; Copyright © 2007 by the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University
[20] The Supreme Court Historical Society
[21] Roger B. Taney; From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[22] The Taney Court; The Supreme Court Historical Society

Prince George's County Ballot Questions

Five horribly bad for county government charter amendments for Prince George’s County are now on the ballot in November. These amendments B, C, F, G, and H will mandate the beginnings of a committee partnership form of government. They will reduce efficiency, create confusion, and potentially redirect resources. The bad for county government amendments will quite possibly delay the purchase of vital resources and equipment as we put politics in the place of process and procedure.

And in addition, small and minority owned business will find an added layer of decision making to navigate, increasing the costs and, therefore, the likelihood that they will not undertake the challenge of negotiating with ten power centers instead of one. Adding to the cost will ultimately leave the competitive government contract field in the hands of those with the resources to build the coalition needed to secure the contracts. The resulting reduction in businesses interested in securing contracts is bad for county government and bad for the people of the county.

Quoting from the Dr. Richard Schragger in the Yale Law Journal, “… limited capacity to make effective policy reinforces the parochialism of its leaders…”. Dr. Scragger notes that attempts to limit the power of the executive can be construed as a distrust of pure democracy. There is a feeling among some power centers, in his words, “elites”, that strong leaders and the people who placed them in power need to be constrained. Today, the county is asked to begin restricting the power of the executive, which is bad for county government.

Many businesses large and small are run as corporations. In the matter of these bad for county government amendments comes my world view. As a businessman and a member of a board of directors, I see my role analogous to that of the county council. I approve budgets, not how and when paperclips and trucks are bought and used. I expect, in this worldview, to hold accountable the CEO, but not to micromanage. In the best of all possible worlds, the CEO would seek advice and work with his or her board, but in the end he or she alone is held accountable. Of course analogies like this are broad strokes and imperfect fits, subject to counter arguments, however, it is the view of a strong manager, in charge and accountable, which molds my opinion in this matter.

Great works of literature have come from a committee at least once in English history, but this very exception proves the rule. I am looking yet for examples from history of successful rule by committee. The original Confederation of States of which Maryland, and this county were part, is a failed example, well intentioned, of what happens with a weak executive form of government. We need to have faith that the voters will choose a leader wisely, and not place restraints on him or her a priori, because we think that the voters might make a mistake.
These amendments are bad for government. They are restrictions for future leaders and council as well as the present incumbents. But whatever the differences maybe today, they major players are term-limited, I for one feel that the voters of my proud county will do the right thing both when it comes to bill bad for government or elected quality leaders for the future. I do not fear the power

Historic Mitchell House; African-American History and more

The van Horn-Mitchell stands still today in Deanwood, Maryland, silent sentinel to proud Prince George’s. If ever there was a structure in Prince George’s County which deserved preservation for the history that passed through its doors, this house is it. Not only is it representative of a slave plantation house, but it was the home to a state delegate, speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, state senator and United States congressman, Archibold van Horn. And, then ,after a stay in James Fowler’s family, which perhaps was engaged in helping African-Americans escape from slavery as part of the underground railroad, it was bought by Benjamin and Clara Mitchell in the summer of 1940.

We save houses for their architectural interest or unique design features. We save buildings to show styles of times gone past, and we preserve sites in which important people and events took place. It is easy, it seems, to save a large grand structure of wealth from times past, but harder, by far, to realize that the homes of ordinary people, who achieved far from ordinary things, are just as important.

After a fire the day before Thanksgiving in 1991, enough of Prince George’s County’s community, led by a lawyer named Wayne Curry, sprang into action to save and rebuilt the structure. Now, it is time to come once more to support and preserve the house in a manner which it deserves. A house, in which Portia Washington Pittman, Malcolm X, Mohammed Ali, Anwar Sadat and Elijah Mohammed visited, conversed and held forth on matters of importance to the African American community and to the people of the Untied States at large, is a major contributing resource to the preservation of history in this county and in this country.

The Mitchells loved to speak about the community and the house, even the unexplained tunnel in the basement. Today the house is for sale, and the proud history is hidden, perhaps as an embarrassment, more likely, because someone feels it would lower the value at sale. Instead of touting history, history is obscured and lightly glossed over. This county, this community must stand up and preserve what is left of the structure before more uninformed alterations take place. Prince George’s County has much work to do in order to preserve the fast disappearing African American history of the county and the Mitchell House is a symbol which must not be lost.

Besides saving the structure from further abuse, oral histories need to be secured, perhaps an archeological study undertaken, and, at the very least, a history of the people and their times in and near this house needs to be written.

There is much to do, and little time;
history slips away at night, and is lost in the mists of memory.

Charter Amendments: Beware of politicians bearing gifts

In proud Prince George’s, Horribly Bad For County Government charter amendment questions beg for a NO vote. The ancient Romans had a saying: Timeo Danaos et donna ferentes. Beware of politicians bearing gifts is my translation. Today we are given the gift of altering our form of government, Beware! Beware!

Recent conversation in print suggests that it is a simple matter for ten people to consider and reach agreement and therefore the charter changes are a small price to pay for perfect government. “The information given to the county executive to examine before making decisions can simply be duplicated for the County Council. Surely, a body of nine, who usually vote in a unified manner, can handle analyzing the decisions of one. Thorough reviews would be processed seamlessly; questionable decisions deserve to be kept in limbo until answers are made clear” (Gazette.com)

This is the classic statement of elites, fearing democracy, which proffer the argument that 1) if everyone in a group has interests in common, then they will act collectively to achieve them; and 2) in a democracy, the greatest concern is that the majority will tyrannize and exploit the minority. Mancur Olson, Jr. . Indeed, the proponents claim that, if in fact, these amendments are meant to control the chief executive; then their very nature is unarguably in the best interest of their readers.

The need to create vertical, shifting coalitions of influence to achieve a working majority will assure that the common good is held captive to individual (political) gain. The complexity that will occur under these proposed changes, and the difficulty of navigating the new political reality will mean that citizens and business will have to hire professionals skilled at forging these new coalitions of power. In addition, trying to hold the new collective executive accountable, will give rise, rather, to finger pointing blurring the abilities of the voters to discern the cause of the delay, inaction or governmental misstep.

There is in the public discourse the idea that these ballot questions, if approved, would somehow remove politics from government, by adding more government. But actually the fear is about the exercise of raw, absolute, political power. Of course, because of the many commissions and, for example, term limits, a chief executive already is limited. So this is an attempt to constrain him or her even more. And to what end? To prevent him or her from actually dynamically using the power of the office to reach out and respond to his or her constituents who placed the person in the office in the first place. We are faced here with a power sharing grab.

The resources at the hand of a strong chief executive can react to the needs of the people who placed him in office quickly and decisively. This power to send men and money to a particular area in the county can be seen as punitive when one section benefits and not another. But if that is true, then imagine nine parochial interest groups continuously vying to control a portion of the public funds in order to satisfy the needs of their sub section of the county. What you will have is on going deal making in order to spread resources everywhere and a reluctance to fix and solve challenges in a specific place and time. The county executive is the only person elected by the entire county and therefore the only person accountable to all the electorate. The voters should expect and should hold accountable that this person elected by the majority will have the best interests of the majority in mind as an end goal of his or her government.

But no matter the reasons, the amendments are still is BAD FOR COUNTY GOVERNMENT! Just vote NO!

Still Bad for County Government in Prince George's

“Prince George's voters to decide on executive's responsibilities.”

This is the headline from a weblog posted on October 15^th from an article in the Prince George’s Examiner. I would like to quote two sections of this article for you, my fellow citizens and voters of proud Prince George’s. The first refers to the depth of change which would take place if we do not vote NO on the proposed charter amendments: BCFGH . “The changes to the county charter would grant the council several powers generally unavailable to the legislative bodies of other Maryland counties with elected executives. They include the power to approve or reject all contracts totaling more than $100,000.”

I continue to search for any examples to support the position that voting for these Horribly Bad For County Government amendments would bring our county into line with other jurisdictions. What I do find is summed up in the second quote from the article. “Other proposed charter changes would require the council's approval before positions could be added to county agencies or before transfers of more than $250,000 could be made within county departments. Although the council must now sign off on the county's budget, the executive has significant power to reprogram money after its approval. Eliminating those powers would give the council wide authority to determine priorities of government departments.”

Whatever the original idea, these five amendments are bad for business, bad for government, and bad for the county. What we need is more democracy, not less. We need more direct accountability, not more fetters and chains, and temporal coalitions built to gain aggregations of interest groups necessary to move votes of consultations. We need action, direction, and execution. We have already the tools to watch over excesses; we need enforce the current laws and regulations if we sense the taint of corruption. We need to trust that we the voters will deal with the chief executive if he strays too far a-field. And remember, we have already limited the extent of his or her power with term limits.

Building coalitions of interest groups already is a challenge which taxes many local groups who try to move government. Adding to the layer of complexity is not a solution, but an impediment. The ballot and the vote,; not the expanded legislative partnership, is what we need.

Vote NO BCFGH on November 7^th, and vote for democracy.

Prince George's County Charter Questions

The Horribly Bad For County Government, Prince George’s County charter amendments must be defeated by voting NO. Together, they would begin to change our form of government from a strong executive to at best a legislated partnership and perhaps even head us down towards a county manager system in which the voters and politics would be removed from the governing equation. I have even heard some say that the model would be the State of Maryland’s Public Works Committee. Does someone out there really think that the Public Works Committee is a good idea for Prince George’s County?

A local government’s limited ability to make effective policy reinforces the parochialisms of its leaders. (Paraphrased from Dr. Richard C. Schragger’s Can Strong Mayors Empower Weak Cities?) I am going to paraphrase and quote extensively from his work which you may read at the link above. There is something vaguely anti-democratic about trying to limit the power of a strong executive elected by the voters to lead. Fear of this power, which in local politics is wielded directly and immediately causes some well meaning people to attempt to restrict and constrain the people’s elect official. There is a strong revulsion to the exercise of raw power which is easily visible in local politics. There the rewarding of contracts and the direction of monies can be seen to smell of corruption, but this same mix of dispensation is exactly the attraction to political power. The ability to get something, done right now, for the right people, at the right place.

The past decades have seen a movement to restrict the power of executives and to divide the politics from the administration of the county’s business. In some sense, we have done this with the burden of Park and Planning which supposedly insulates the public from electoral abuse in making land development choices. How many of you believe that? The attempt to constrain the executive is a reflection of an innate distrust of democracy. The most severe form of tyranny, someone once said, is the tyranny of the majority for there is no escape but treason. And so there is an immediate short sighted attempt to reign in a chief executive, and in doing so, limit his or her very ability to do whose things for which the voters elected him or her in the first place.

Again quoting from Dr. Scgragger, “…the gap between formal authority and political influence is the arena in which much relevant policy is made.” Given this reality, there is an inclination to fragment executive power and to place this power in the hands of elite run boards and commissions, of which, I submit, there are enough in place to constrain the executive, as I serve on several. Today, political elites attempt to move power from the strong central authority and towards the wards or councilmanic districts. The end result is to disperse political power. This diffuse system lacks accountability and worse dynamic potential.

So in the end, we are diluting and weakening our chief executive’s abilities to respond quickly and decisively to our needs as citizens of Prince George’s County. We already have limited the power of the chief executive with term limits, with boards and commissions and with a robust strong council system. We need not make things more complicated in the hope of getting something ill-defined. Democracy is the worse form of government except for all the other forms of government. Fear of democracy is not a solution. Elect and hold accountable; use the laws already in place and from time to time pass resolutions and county code additions to fix problems unforeseen today. Let us boldly and proudly go forth into this century with our council legislating and our county executive managing. Vote NO for BCFGH.

Horribly Bad For County Government

Horribly Bad For County Government: this is the theme today, tomorrow and everyday until, on November 7th, the voters say NO. In my last article, I mentioned some reasons that these are bad for us, and noted that I would supply the ballot question letters.

On the ballot questions we will vote NO to question B which would direct the county government to not exceed the number of positions in each grade for any specific agency as approved in the budget without returning to the council to for approval. This is a time consuming constraint on the ability of the executive to react to emergencies and changing situations. More hands in the wheel when changing lanes is not necessarily the right time for committee decision making.

We will also vote NO to question C which would give the legislative branch the right to ear-mark for its own uses 1% of the total annual budget. This is the so-called “revenue enhancement amendment. Not only would we have to track the executive for grants and contracts but now we would have to follow the money through nine council people. The amount of effort and time to build vertical coalitions of interest group would discourage small and minority business.

NO will also be the vote on amendment F which is the attempt to restrict by adding a consulting by the council feature to the letting of small and minority personal service contracts by the executive. This one would effectively take the very people who benefit, small and minority businesses out of the picture for the same reasons as mentioned in the last paragraph.

G is a NO because it constricts, constrains, and confines the executive from responding promptly, professionally, and purposefully to unforeseen emergencies and situations which arise from changing times and events. This is bad management and bad government. Someone needs to respond when the voter calls. Committees can review later, by the voter needs help now, not after consultation. Equipment needs be purchased before the patient dies, at once, with the shortest amount of delay.

And H is an additional delay which we do not need. We need people appointed and at work for us quicker. We should be asking that government try to move faster not slower. This amendment, which would extend the appointment time for top level and legislatively confirmed positions on commissions from 30 days to 45 days, should get a NO vote.

How should remember these charter amendments for proud Prince George’s? Horribly Bad For County Government. Vote NO!

Prince George's County Charter Amendments

Politics in Prince George’s County is definitely local, and sometimes solely of the moment. On November 7th, 2006 voters will consider several charter amendments. I did a few minute’s search on “google” trying to find the letters which will identify each question, but, like with many thing important, that seemed a bit fruitless. So I will refer to the county legislation and post later when I have the corresponding actual letter designations that will be found on the ballot.

Prince George’s County voters will be asked to decide on at least five amendments, anyone of which by itself might fly under the radar but when taken together substantively alter the present form of government. Local newspaper editorials and articles present either a confusing explanation as to why these are good for government or couch the explications in terms of a reported feud which can be found only by reading articles in the same newspaper. If there is a feud, then voting for BCFG&H is short-sighted. If there is no feud, then these charter questions are simply Horribly Bad For County Government.

First a summary:

County Bill 70, CB70, would direct the county government to not exceed the number of positions in each grade for any specific agency as approved in the budget without returning to the council for approval. This is a direct restraint of the ability of the chief executive officer to move personnel to address problems and challenges immediately without his legislative partners’ involvement. An analogy could be presented with a corporation’s CEO and its Board of Directors. Exactly how many people does it take to make management decisions? Why is the legislative policy branch involved in executive decisions, unless of course it wants to be part of the executive branch of government, too. We have a balance of power; the council legislates and the executive operates. This amendment would blur the lines and cause undue complications and delay in the day-to-day operations of local government.

CB71 would extend the appointment time for top level and legislatively confirmed positions on commissions from 30 days to 45 days. I should think that we would want to move in the other direction and speed the process up not slow it down. I leave it to the reader to decide if slow is good when making decisions to fill pot holes, provide health services, public safety, and emergency services, among others.

CB72 is very interesting because it would give the legislative branch the right to ear-mark for its own uses 1% of the total annual budget. The reasoning suggested is that the executive has to come back to the council any way to account for overtime and emergency overruns, so the council should just keep that 25 million or so dollars and use it as the members see fit. To me it sounds like a special projects fund meaning that vertical columns of influence will not lobby nine people instead of one in order to lay hands on the money for county projects. Accountability would be spread over nine instead of one, and worse small and minority businesses would be hard-pressed to afford the lobbyist needed to open all the doors necessary to build a coalition to spend the money.

CB73 violates a fundamental power of a CEO, who, when confronted by an unexpected emergency, may choose to put a hold on one project and, within budget guidelines and constraints, spend the money on the emergency. The CEO, both in a corporation and in government, is held accountable for the choices made by elections. We seem to be presented with a fear of democracy; that the person elected to lead and make decisions may need oversight votes in addition to the electorate’s votes. The delay in consultation and the lobbying pressure is no way to run a government.

CB74 is the famous or infamous, depending on which floor in the County Administrative building one works, "personal contracts" restrictions. This bill at least seems on the surface to be reasonable, if the end goal is to tie up all small government contracts in a stew of deal making which will be needed to obtain a contract. The ability to respond fast to an emergency or to a constituent request through the letting of a contract as defined in this charter amendment will require a business to solicit a majority of the council as well as the executive branch in order to collect the oversight majority vote to sustain the business opportunity.

What are the voters being asked to do, but have a legislative executive form of government instead of a strong single office held accountable every four years and limited by term limits. These amendments are bad for county government, and suggest a fear by a governing elite of the majority. In order to make executive decisions in the face of pressing public need, coalitions built around nine councilmanic districts will have to be built involving more lobbyists, not fewer, and more time not less before anything gets done.

In a few days I will review what happens to investment in urban centers when the executive branch is weakened, and talk about the flight of capital, and accordingly business.