States like Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, are ahead of the State of Maryland when it comes to protecting children. SB 568, as presently constituted, makes Maryland a laughing stock. @SenatorSusanLee

The Hon. Luke Clippinger, Chair

The Hon. Vanessa E. Atterbeary, Vice-Chair

Judiciary Committee

SB0568/CFHB0787 – Crimes – Child Abuse and Neglect – Failure to Report

Hearing: March 27, 2019 – 1:00 p.m.

Written Testimony of Ernest A. Crofoot, Attorney

Think about this: ALABAMA, ARKANSAS, and MISSISSIPPI!!!

Good afternoon. I am Ernest A. Crofoot. I am an attorney, graduate of the University of Baltimore School of Law, a Fellow of the Maryland Bar Foundation, member of the Peer Review Committee of the Attorney Grievance Commission, and an Ethics instructor for the Academy for Excellence in Local Government. My written and oral testimony on this bill are my own personal assessments and do not reflect the position of any group, organization, board or commission. I recently began providing assistance on this topic to other advocates.

Let me say first that I support, encourage, and beg the Legislature to pass legislation in this area – one with teeth, one with effective protection for child abuse victims, and one that values children victims over the concerns of highly funded special interest groups.

Senate Bill 568 is a half-hearted, flawed, and short sighted attempt to create an incentive for the timely and compassionate reporting by statutorily required reporters of suspected child abuse. Unfortunately, its shortcomings swallow any meager benefits it may otherwise offer.

First, and most importantly, SB 568 sets an impossible evidentiary standard by, in effect, requiring that one must have “actual knowledge” before one is required to report child abuse. In other submitted testimony, you will see that none other than Professor Emerita LynnMcLain, University of Baltimore School of Law, the author of the“gospel” on Maryland Evidence, has maintained consistently the “actual knowledge” is an impossible standard under Maryland law. In effect, it would require witnessing the actual abuse before requiring a subject person to make a report of child abuse. Professor McLain taught many of the members of this body the rules of evidence and I give the utmost deference to her interpretations and opinions. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have standards that can be generally described as “reasonable suspicion.” NONE have an “actual knowledge” evidentiary standard. This means that states like Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, are ahead of the State of Maryland when it comes to protecting children. Only Wyoming and Maryland lack the more than generally accepted standard. Only Wyoming and Maryland lack criminal penalties.

The actual knowledge standard is a higher standard than that required for a search warrant and, in fact, a higher standard than that which would be used to convict someone of child abuse. How can this be? It does work, however, if one’s intention is to protect special interests groups and curry favor with certain key legislative officials.

Last fall, this writer, together with about twenty other persons on both sides of this issue, was advised by a key member of this committee that whatever bill language might come about, “actual knowledge” would be out. As Paul Simon said, “All lies in jest.”

Any attorney worthy of the name knows that the actual knowledge standard is a red herring of gigantic proportion. It purpose is only to give lip service to this issue so that one may say “we did something,” when, in fact, it/they/you do nothing.

Second (actually a “tie” for first), is that this bill refuses to acknowledge the historic, longstanding, and pathetic record of the clergy in this area – not only in participating in child abuse but using church practices to cover up rampant child abuse, physical and sexual. Any serious bill addressing the underreporting of child abuse MUST include the clergy and members of all religious orders and sects as required reporters.

Third, the bill does creates another “will do little, if nothing” provision. The bill provides for a very short one-year period for charging the offense. That is the same period for spitting on the sidewalk or failing to obtain a permit. Often, the salient facts are not known within one year of the failure to report, e.g., as abusers often “shop” their victims from doctor to doctor to avoid detection or otherwise conceal abuse. A more reasonable standard is to have the limitations period run the same length of time for an abused person to bring charges (or, at a minimum, file a civil action). The seriousness of the failure to report on a child warrants the same charging period of limitations as felonies, i.e., NONE.

Fourth, the elimination of any provision requiring reporting after an abused child becomes an adult is ludicrous. There is a significant, logical, and compelling need for a required reporter to report even when the patient, etc., is an adult because the abuser may be victimizing persons other than the person undergoing treatment. For example, a twenty year old patient may report that her father abused her up until she reached puberty. That father, though, may be abusing other pre-pubescent children, and not requiring a report would further endanger those children.

We must protect children, not special interest groups. The clergy, educators, and doctors will all tell you that they are doing a great job as they conduct their own investigations. Look only to events in the Catholic Church, Wicomico County Schools, Key School in Annapolis, and elsewhere to see that this is definitely not the case.

I strongly urge this committee to give SB 568 an unfavorable vote or, in the alternative, to amend SB 568 in a manner consistent with the above. SB 568, as presently constituted, makes Maryland a laughing stock.

Thank you.

Respectfully.

Ernest A. Crofoot

EAC Testimony SB0568 Final ... by on Scribd

@SenatorSusanLee Puts Forth Another Useless Bill Instead of Actually Working to Protect Children

Montgomery County State Senator Susan Lee is at it again. 

Just like last year (2018) she is putting forth a bill that pretends to address the absence of any criminal penalty for mandatory reporters (for example, MCPS administrators) who fail to report suspected sexual abuse of children (for example, former MCPS teacher John Vigna).  

Maryland and Wyoming are the ONLY two states in the nation that do not have a penalty for a mandated reporters' (for example MCPS administrators) failure to report the sexual abuse of a child.  

Montgomery County Senator Susan Lee has again filed a bill that pretends to address this problem but in reality does not protect children because the standard written into the proposed law is almost impossible to ever attain. 

Below is public comment from child advocate and sexual abuse expert Ellen Mugmon on Senator Susan Lee's Senate Bill 568.  

Isn't it time for Montgomery County elected officials to stand up for the children of Maryland who have been sexually abused by public school staff?  

----------------------------

SB 568

CRIMES- CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT - FAILURE TO REPORT

Prepared by Ellen Mugmon

Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee

February 22, 2019

OPPOSE

   FACT SHEET

The underlying purpose of this bill is not to protect Maryland’s children.  Its real purpose is to continue to ensure that powerful, self-serving professionals and institutions remain unaccountable, as has been the case for over thirty years. No other state has enacted such a restrictive penalty for failing to report child abuse and neglect as proposed in this bill.  If mandatory reporters do not have “actual knowledge” of abuse or, in other words, did not witness it, then they cannot be subject to the penalty in SB 568 for failing to report, even when they suspect abuse or have other evidence that it occurred.  

Currently, certain professionals can be disciplined by licensing or certification boards for failing to report child abuse, but there is no way to discipline other mandatory reporters who do not have occupational boards. However, to our knowledge, only one professional since 1986 has ever been disciplined by a board for failure to report notwithstanding another bill, HB 245, enacted in 2016 which was supposed to increase disciplinary actions. Last session, its sponsor mentioned during a hearing that so far it has been ineffective.

Certain proponents of SB 568 know full well that the reporting law has no teeth and want to keep it that way. One dentist representing the Maryland State Dental Association previously had the temerity to testify publicly against penalties stating that she did not want to take the time to report head injuries she suspected or knew were caused by abuse. In addition, on Boychat, a pedophile chat line, pedophiles deemed a particular psychiatrist as “safe.”

It should be noted that all mandatory reporters are given immunity from both civil and criminal liability when they make good faith reports to encourage reporting. But the fact that there is no real enforcement of the law makes it, in reality, discretionary and rather than mandatory. 

Witnessing child abuse is extremely rare. Consequently, the federal law, enacted in response to the horrendous USA gymnastics scandal states: "When a mandatory reporter learns of facts that give reason to suspect that a child has suffered an incident of child abuse...and fails to make a timely report...the mandatory reporter shall be fined or imprisoned not more than a year or both.” Except for Maryland and Wyoming, other states’ laws are written similarly. 

In 1989, the General Assembly repealed a 1987 amendment named for Dr. Fred Berlin, a psychiatrist who treats pedophiles. This amendment had exempted health practitioners who provided psychiatric treatment to pedophiles from the mandatory reporting law.  It was unique to Maryland.  Since then the Maryland Psychiatric Society has attempted to use penalty bills such as SB 568 as vehicles to essentially reinstate the so-called Berlin exemption by negating a significant 1993 Attorney General’s opinion. See Md. Atty. Gen Op. Dec. 3, 1993. which requires the reporting of past abuse committed by pedophiles. (Prior to this session, a representative of the Society also suggested reinstating regressive language repealed in 1987 which would require reporting only when mandatory reporters contacted, examined or treated a child, not when the psychiatrist learned of abuse from the pedophile or other sources.)

SB 568 targets this Attorney General’s opinion by specifically exempting from the scope of the penalty  the failure to report abuse as soon as the victim turns 25.  Under this legislation, the shocking disclosures of the notorious Maskell Case, and others like it, would never have come to light. The Maskell case is chronicled in the Netflix series, The Keepers. The Baltimore Archdiocese, on its website, admits that it only reported Maskell as a result of this significant 26 year-old Attorney General’s opinion. SB 568, nonetheless, undermines it.

This backward provision would not just apply to the Catholic hierarchy and psychiatrists who learn of abuse from sex offenders, it would affect the safety of children in all settings. Placing a cap on the victim’s age means that Rachael Denhollander, who was one of 250 gymnasts who were victims of Larry Nassar and who was 31-years-old when she became the first one to disclose her victimization, would never come to Maryland to support SB 568 as part of her activism. Under this bill, a mandatory reporter would be able to say that she was too old to require a report  to authorities, and that her disclosure did not provide the requisite “actual knowledge” either.

The bill’s one year statute of limitations, which would require that the failure to report would have had to be discovered by authorities within one year, would further ensure that the possibility of a prosecution would be almost impossible.

The passage of SB 568 would additionally undermine Maryland’s civil reporting law.  It would muddy the understanding of the circumstances under which reporting is required. Because there would be two standards, “reason to believe” and “actual knowledge,” mandatory reporters may be confused as to which standard to apply. This would encourage them to delay reporting or not report at all.  After all, the state is only going to enforce the law if the mandatory reporter witnesses abuse.

This bill additionally appears to contravene another Attorney General’s opinion.  The phrase, “DOES NOT INCLUDE A DUTY TO INVESTIGATE,” implies that conducting internal investigations by schools prior to reporting is their choice. In a 1991 opinion, however, the Attorney General clearly stated that internal investigations conducted prior to reporting suspected abuse to the police and departments of social services to determine if there is a “reason to believe” to report are against the law. This provision is also troubling because it would sustain the Catholic bishop’s practice of conducting internal investigations prior to reporting to determine if allegations are credible. This is a long standing problem. Maryland’s reporting law does not include  the term or definition of what a credible allegation is. Apparently bishops themselves have various definitions for the term, and internal investigation prior to reporting whether in schools or other institutions compromise subsequent investigations by the police and social services and allow abusers and those who wish to cover up for them the opportunity to destroy evidence and place pressure on victims to remain silent.   

Therefore, SB 568’s ostensible purpose of protecting children is a pretext for furthering the agenda of powerful, self-interested professional groups and institutions. It would confirm that Maryland is an outlier state.

It would also be a way of getting the penalty issue off everyone’s plate by passing something.  Unfortunately, in this case, something is not better than nothing. Children’s interests deserve to be made the priority instead of mandatory reporters and certain institutions which refuse to protect them.

Bill spurred by Nassar scandal concerns Catholic Church

Updated: February 27, 2018 7:41 pm

LANSING, Michigan — A Michigan bill inspired by the Larry Nassar scandal that would retroactively extend the amount of time child victims of sexual abuse have to sue their abusers is drawing concerns from the Catholic Church, which has paid out billions of dollars to settle U.S. clergy abuse cases.

Michigan Catholic Conference spokesman David Maluchnik confirmed Tuesday that extending the statute of limitations is “of concern” to the church’s lobbying arm, but he withheld further comment until the bill’s impact could be fully reviewed. He said the group supports other parts of a 10-bill package introduced Monday, including a measure that would add more people to the list of those who must report suspected abuse to child protective services...

https://bangordailynews.com/2018/02/27/news/nation/bill-spurred-by-nassar-case-concerns-catholic-church/

Senator Susan Lee, Please Read: Absolutely no one, especially Rachael Denhollander, a victim of Larry Nassar’s whom proponents invoke, nor any other of the more than 250 victims, would ever consider coming to Maryland to testify for such a backward bill.

Oppose HB 500/SB 132 Crimes - Child Abuse and Neglect - Failure to Report
Prepared by
Ellen Mugmon
February 8, 2018

Maryland has the dubious distinction of being one of ten states that does not have a criminal
penalty for the failure to report suspected child abuse or neglect, even though false reporting
has been prosecuted.1

The purpose of HB 500/SB 132 is to get the longstanding penalty issue off everyone’s
plate by passing something. ​Unfortunately, in this case, the proposed penalty provision
is ineffective, regressive and harmful. Powerful, self-serving professional
organizations, institutions and individuals have fought for over thirty years any
legislative proposal based on the “reason to suspect or believe” standard.

This standard is used in the other forty states’ laws, as well as the Congressional
bipartisan federal law just enacted in response to the horrendous USA Gymnastics
scandal. See ​Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport
Authorization Act​, which criminally penalizes the failure to report abuse in U.S.
Amateur Athletic Organizations, including those in Maryland. None of these laws is
based on an undefined, restrictive “actual knowledge” standard.

This new federal law text states: "when a mandatory reporter learns of facts that give
reason to suspect that a child has suffered an incident of child abuse ... and fails to
make a timely report as required by subsection(a) of that section, [the mandatory
reporter] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than year or both."

The Two Major Flaws in this Maryland Bill Which Endanger Children

HB 500/SB 132 is unsurprisingly unique, unjustified, and unworkable for two main
reasons: 1) the “actual knowledge” standard and, 2) language in section 3-602.2(C)
which exempts from the scope of the penalty provision the failure to report as soon as
the victim turns eighteen. This language targets a significant 1993 Attorney General’s
opinion that has protected children for 25 years.​ Without that opinion, the shocking
disclosures of the notorious Maskell Case would never have come to light, as
chronicled in the Netflix series, ​The Keepers. T​he Baltimore Archdiocese concedes this
point in its response to the Keepers on its website.

Then Attorney General Curran, in his 1993 opinion, stated the following: “If we accept the
proposition that no reporting were required if the victim is now an adult, we would be
saying that there would be no duty to report if an eighteen year old had been
subjected to recent abuse and had younger siblings at home in the care of the abuser.
That would be an untenable construction of the statute, one that we cannot imagine
the General Assembly intended.”

1 Arundel Judge Frees Woman in Death of Horrible Man, The Washington Post, by Eric Rich.
November 10, 2004 where a teenager’s conviction for falsely reporting her sexual abuse by
her stepfather was vacated.


What is Actual Knowledge? Witnessing? Unknown?


SB 132/HB 500 states that mandatory reporters must have had “​actual knowledge​” of
abuse and subsequently have failed to report in order to be prosecuted. ​But every state
that criminalizes failure to report uses the “reason to believe or suspects” standard.

As the Baltimore City State’s Attorney notes in her written testimony on SB 132: “It is nearly
impossible from a legal perspective to prove that an individual had “actual knowledge
of abuse, especially if the mandatory reporter contends that they did not see the
abuse occur and did not believe the child’s disclosure.”

The term “actual knowledge” is undefined in the bill. There is no definition of “actual
knowledge” in Maryland statutes.​ There is also to my knowledge no definition of
“actual knowledge” in case law. No appellate court in Maryland has adopted a
definition of “actual knowledge” as some proponents claim. Rather, there are only
two concurrences in ​McCallum​ where Judges Chasanow and Robert Murphy discuss
the issue. Moreover, the Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions Committee has
not adopted a definition of “actual Knowledge.”

Proponents claim erroneously that, legislators should look at Connecticut as a good example
of a state’s law (No other state uses “actual knowledge in its reporting law.) which supports
“actual knowledge” in Maryland’s penalty provision. But Connecticut has a misdemeanor
penalty for failure to report suspected abuse without the term “actual knowledge” in it. The
“actual knowledge” language is in its felony provision,​ thereby not undermining its civil
reporting law as would be the case in Maryland should HB 500/SB 132 be enacted.
Additionally, knowing with certainty that a crime has been committed is a higher standard
than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard of proof required for a conviction. Jurors do
not need to witness crimes or even have first hand knowledge of crimes in order to convict
individuals for committing them.

How could this bill possibly prevent future victimization or have helped the victims of all the
scandals that have occurred across Maryland for decades? These scandals include the
cover-ups and failure to report by the Catholic Church, the ongoing scandals in the
Montgomery County Schools, the Ron Price scandal in the Anne Arundel County and the
more recent scandal in Prince George’s County.

Do Not invoke the #MeToo/#TimesUp Movements in Support This Bill.

Proponents claim that HB 500/SB 132 is in line with the goals of #MeToo/#TimesUp which
are to increase the power of victims to be believed, to increase the protection of women and
children, and to expand the possibility of justice. However, this legislation would
automatically discount disclosures of abuse by child and adult victims alike since
these disclosures most assuredly would not meet some “actual knowledge” standard.

Absolutely no one, especially Rachael Denhollander, a victim of Larry Nassar’s whom
proponents invoke, nor any other of the more than 250 victims, would ever consider
coming to Maryland to testify for such a backward bill. Ms. Denhollander was the first
victim to come forward publicly. She was 31-years-old when she disclosed her
victimization when she was 15-years-old. ​A mandated reporter under this bill could
say that she was too old to require a report and that her disclosure did not provide the
requisite “actual knowledge,” either.​  How then does this legislation better protect
children?

It is appalling that HB 500/SB 132 mirrors provisions in the USA Gymnastics’ policy
which caused the decades long cover-up of a terrible scandal. Steve Penny, the
former head of USA Gymnastics did not report the abuse because he deemed
disclosures by victims and even allegations by other coaches as third hand
information which did not prove to him that the abuse actually occurred.​ Moreover,
his investigator did not report complaints by gymnasts who had turned eighteen
because they were no longer children. It did not matter that they were children when
they were abused or that other children were in the hands of a prolific 54 year-old
pedophile. What mattered were rules which protected the reputation of the
organization.

Sending the Wrong Message - No Other State or the Federal Government has a
Penalty Like This

Proponents insist that the bill would not undermine the underlying civil reporting law since
the civil reporting law would not be changed. This is false. Two reporting standards muddy
the obligation to report suspected abuse and complicates training. Because there
would be no criminal penalty based on the "reason to believe" standard, why would
mandatory reporters follow the civil law, especially those not subject to professional
penalties?​ Instead they would most likely delay reporting until they knew for sure that
abuse has occurred or fail to report at all. This would endanger children. Child abuse is very
rarely “actually” witnessed and mandatory reporters are not trained to investigate suspected
abuse to determine if it actually happened.

A Mandatory Reporter Protection Bill

Supporters of this bill are up front in their testimony. They admit that the bill is
intended to protect mandatory reporters, first and foremost, not children, by severely
limiting the possibility of prosecution. ​They state that the bill “would be the most lenient
toward adults, i.e. mandatory reporters, than any other law in the entire United States or its
territories.”

They then wrongly argue that this penalty bill is better than nothing, even though there would
be negative consequences for the protection and safety of children, such as mandatory
reporters and institutions waiting it out until a victim’s eighteenth birthday. This is important
because HB 500/SB 132 has just a one year statute of limitations.

Mandated reporting of child abuse and neglect is the very foundation of the child protection
system. But this bill is so flawed that if it were enacted, the safety and protection of children
would be compromised far more than it is under current law. For these reasons, I request
HB 500/ SB 132 be given an unfavorable report.

Call MoCo Delegates and tell them: Vote NO! on MC 27-18, Eminent Domain - Expansion of 'Quick Take' Authority

Our representatives in Annapolis will be holding their weekly off-camera Friday morning meeting tomorrow and plan to vote on a late-filed bill, MC27-18, Montgomery County - Eminent Domain - Expansion of 'Quick Take' Authority.' The bill was requested by the chair on behalf of the Montgomery County government. They will meet tomorrow morning at 9:30am.

Your "representatives" in Annapolis have given you less than 24 hours to let them know how you feel. No public hearing process. Quick! Should they make it easier for the county to seize your property? Tick tock.

This is to amend the Constitution so if it makes it through the legislature it would be on the ballot in November.

 

From the bill:

"For the purpose of proposing an amendment to the Maryland Constitution to expand the authority of the County Council of Montgomery County to provide for the immediate taking of private property situated in the County and needed for certain purposes; making stylistic changes; and submitting this amendment to the qualified voters of the State for their adoption or rejection."

 

This would give the County Council authority for quick take on STATE roads which they currently do not have. So yes. This can be for the BRT and for the Beltway projects as well as the Bike plan which will also have to acquire property. Also, small cell towers. The State has a very defined process for taking and it is not quick take.  This would supersede that and the decisions would be made by politicians. Currently county quick take on county roads is limited.

 

Note that no other Maryland County has the ability for quick take on state roads.

Your delegates and their contact information are here. Just think of it as a game show. You have just a few more minutes to press the button. Or in this case, email your delegates. Remember, time's almost up!

ABC7: Only 2 states have no penalties for failing to report child sex abuse. Md. is one of them.

“There is no penalty if you fail to report,” said Maryland Senator Susan Lee (D-Bethesda). “I think we’re letting down the children that we’re trying to protect against abuse and neglect.”

http://wjla.com/features/7-on-your-side/only-two-states-have-no-penalties-for-failing-to-report-child-sex-abuse-maryland-is-one-of-them

MD Sex Offenders Should Not Be Allowed to Expunge Their Records! @Willcsmithjr

Contact Your Legislators

SUPPORT SB 774 - Criminal Procedure - Petition for Expungement to be heard in March 2, 2017 in the Judicial Proceedings Committee

Sex Offenders Should Not Be Allowed to Expunge Their Records

A last minute amendment grafted onto the Justice Reinvestment Act (JRA) enacted in 2016, scheduled to take effect on October 1, 2017, would have serious negative consequences for the safety and well being of Maryland’s children, as well other vulnerable populations. Prior to JRA, the only convictions eligible for expungement were convictions for a few specified public nuisance crimes, such as loitering and vagrancy.  The JRA, however, as a result of the amendment, now includes a provision that , according to the Daily Record, “would dramatically expand the number of crimes eligible for expungement” to at least one hundred and thirteen crimes -- three times more if attempted crimes, conspiracy or solicitation for each offense is counted.  Little, if any, attention was given at the time to the public safety implications of certain specific crimes permitted to be expunged or the impact of these expungements on criminal history records checks used to screen those who work with or have access to children, the elderly and those with disabilities.  It should be noted that in its consensus report, the Justice Reinvestment Coordinating Council never recommended any expungements.  

SB 774 (http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2017RS/bills/sb/sb0774f.pdf) would exempt from expungement convictions for second degree assault when the victim of the offense was disabled, a vulnerable adult, or a minor.  In addition, it would preclude the expungement of convictions under section 11-306a of the Criminal Law Article which involve the prostitution of children. The bill lists all the crimes to be expunged after ten years by section number without the name of the crime .    

Second-degree assault, section 3-203 0f the Criminal Law Article, a crime against a person, is deemed to be a violent crime in a list in one section of Maryland law.  It is important to know that a conviction for second degree assault against anyone is in and of itself is troubling.  It is especially troubling if an individual committed the crime against a vulnerable person or a child.  Most disturbing is that second degree assault, a nonsexual crime, it is all too often a plea bargain down from a serious sexual crime.  These plea bargains allow sex offenders to avoid registration.

To illustrate,  a Montgomery County elementary school teacher pleaded guilty to four counts of second degree assault after originally being charged with 11 felony counts of child sexual abuse.   Ultimately, he did not have to register as a sex offender or serve jail time. (WJLA.com December  2, 2013- Tim Krupica pleads guilty to assault, has sentence suspended)

To obliterate all records regarding a sex offender’s conviction for second degree assault, including underlying sexual assault/abuse charges, allows the sex offender to completely obscure his record and, thus, precludes the ability of schools, day care centers, and camps, nursing homes and nonprofits who serve the disabled,  etc. from adequately screening individuals who apply for these sensitive positions.  The state of Maryland has an obligation, first and foremost, to protect those who cannot protect themselves, not destroy the records of those who pose a danger to them .

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of Maryland Children.  If you have any questions,  please contact Ellen Mugmon  ellen.mugmon@gmail.com

Please contact committee members with the message that they should SUPPORT SB 774 - Criminal Procedure - Petition for Expungement.

The Baltimore Sun published a letter about this: http://www.baltimoresun.com/nes/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-expunge-letter-20160613-story.html)  

MARYLAND SENATE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS COMMITTEE PHONE AND EMAILS:

Baltimore County

Robert A. (Bobby) Zirkin, Chair (D-11)

Phone: (410) 841-3131 | (301) 858-3131

E-mail: bobby.zirkin@senate.state.md.us

James Brochin (D-42)

Phone: (410) 841-3648 | (301) 858-3648

E-mail: jim.brochin@senate.state.md.us

Delores G. Kelley, Vice Chair (D-10)

Phone: (410) 841-3606 | (301) 858-3606

E-mail: delores.kelley@senate.state.md.us

Carroll County

Justin D. Ready (R-5)

Phone: (410) 841-3683 | (301) 858-3683

E-mail: justin.ready@senate.state.md.us

Carroll & Frederick Counties

Michael J. Hough (R-4)

Phone: (410) 841-3704 | (301) 858-3704

E-mail: michael.hough@senate.state.md.us

Cecil & Harford Counties

Wayne Norman (R-35)

Phone: (410) 841-3603 | (301) 858-3603

E-mail: wayne.norman@senate.state.md.us

Harford County

Robert G. Cassilly (R-34)

Phone: (410) 841-3158 | (301) 858-3158

E-mail: bob.cassilly@senate.state.md.us

Montgomery County

Susan C. Lee (D-16)

Phone: (410) 841-3124 | (301) 858-3124

E-mail: susan.lee@senate.state.md.us

William C. (Will) Smith, Jr. (D-20)

Phone: (410) 841-3634 | (301) 858-3634

E-mail: will.smith@senate.state.md.us

Prince George's County

C. Anthony Muse (D-26)

Phone: (410) 841-3092 | (301) 858-3092

E -mail: anthony.muse@senate.state.md.us

Victor R. Ramirez (D-47)

Phone: (410) 841-3745 | (301) 858-3745

Update on MoCo Annapolis Delegation Calendar

Here is the update on the schedule for our MoCo Annapolis Delegation. Public hearings will be held
in November and December. Got a bill you would like your representatives to introduce in Annapolis this upcoming session? Want your gasoline taxes raised? Let them know. Go here to contact your representatives in the State House.

Monday, October 17, 2011 -- 2011 Special Session Convenes

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 -- Sponsor Approval Deadline for local and bi-county bills (This is the deadline for the requesting legislator to approve legislation in order to be guaranteed a hearing without the bill considered to be "late filed.")

Wednesday, November 16, 2011 -- Joint House and Senate Priorities Hearing -
7:00 p.m. - 3rd Floor Hearing Room, Stella Werner Council Office Bldg., 100 Maryland Ave., Rockville, MD 20850 - This hearing is an opportunity for the public to respond to the Road Show and to bring other issues of importance for the 2012 Session to the attention of the legislators. The Priorities Hearing will be carried live over County Cable Montgomery (Channel 6 on Comcast and Channel 30 on Verizon).
Click here to sign up to testify

Monday, December 5, 2011 -- House Hearing for local bills -
7:00 p.m. - 3rd Floor Hearing Room, Stella Werner Council Office Bldg., 100 Maryland Ave., Rockville, MD 20850 - Local bills refer to legislation affecting issues specific to Montgomery County.
Click here to sign up to testify

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 -- House Hearing for bi-county bills -
7:00 p.m. - 3rd Floor Hearing Room, Stella Werner Council Office Bldg., 100 Maryland Ave., Rockville, MD 20850 - Bi-County bills refer to legislation that requires the approval of the Montgomery County and the Prince George’s County Delegations.
Click here to sign up to testify

BOE Redistricting Plan in Annapolis now.

From the Montgomery Delegation website.

Sponsor: Chairs on behalf of Montgomery County Board of Education

MC 1-11SS
Montgomery County - Board of Education Residence Districts - Redistricting Plan

Read the bill here.

For the purpose of altering the boundaries of the residence districts for the Montgomery County Board of Education; repealing a provision of law relating to the date when certain reapportioned districts become effective; making this Act an emergency measure; and generally relating to the residence districts for the Montgomery County Board of Education.

Board of Education Redistricting

In Montgomery County, a Board of Education district means a geographic area in which an elected member of the Board must live. In Montgomery County there are five resident-district members and two at-large members of the Board; however, all Board members are elected by the county as a whole.

According to Maryland state law, the five Montgomery County Board of Education residency districts must be redrawn after each decennial (10 year) census to make sure that the districts are “substantially equal in population”. The 2010 Census revealed that over the last decade, the population of Montgomery County increased 11.3 percent and that the boundaries of the five Board of Education districts needed to be redrawn. The Maryland General Assembly, at the request of the Montgomery County Delegation, must enact legislation during the upcoming 2011 special session to redraw the districts so that they can be in place for the April 2012 primary and November 2012 general elections.

On August 24, 2011 the Board unanimously voted to approve a RESOLUTION to recommend a redistricting plan to the Montgomery County Delegation that both establishes districts substantially equal in population and allows for anticipated growth.

Local Action:
9/15/11 - Joint Montgomery County House & Senate Delegation Public Hearing
4:00 p.m., 3rd Floor Hearing Room, Stella Werner Council Office Bldg., Rockville