Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist

Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Md Troopers Assoc #20 & Westminster Md Fire Dept Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Showing posts with label Carroll Co Delegation to Annapolis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carroll Co Delegation to Annapolis. Show all posts

Sunday, July 12, 2015

July 9, 2015 update to Feb. 2008 story: “Compact avoids Do Not Deliver free newspaper law.”

July 9, 2015 update to Feb. 2008 story: “Compact avoids Do Not Deliver free newspaper law.” http://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/2015/07/july-9-2015-update-to-feb-2008-story.html

Update July 9, 2015 - A reader has been in touch to say that the link is dead for this story, “Compact avoids Do Not Deliver newspaper law, February 29, 2008.

Kevin E. Dayhoff July 9, 2015

Westminster Md. - The February 29, 2008 story was about proposed legislation in the Maryland General Assembly to stop the delivery – that is to say, the littering - of unwanted spam newspapers on your front yard – and the agreement that was reached that stopped the legislation from moving forward.

Word on the street in February 2008 was that the “do not deliver” legislation faced an uphill battle but had a better than average chance of passing because unwanted papers piling up in your front yard annoys both conservatives and liberals.

In Carroll County, the bipartisan initiative was spearheaded by a leading community liberal as far back as 1995 – and introduced in the Maryland General Assembly in 2008 by a leading community conservative. A copy of the November 13, 1995 citizen’s complaint was forwarded to the Westminster mayor’s office on November 14, 1995. 

The issue of the free newspapers littering neighborhoods was brought-up frequently in community meetings with homeowner associations and community groups from 1995 to 2008.

Actually, the free newspapers in the area ultimately made the decision for the legislative initiative as a result of failing to respond to the citizen complaints of many neighborhoods throughout the community.

Many in February 2008 felt strongly that the agreement did not go far enough. That in addition to the opt-out phone number, the agreement ought to have required the free newspapers to stop delivery at an address where it was obvious the free papers were not being retrieved – and as a result the papers were piling-up in an unsightly mess.

The accumulation of unwanted newspapers on a property in the neighborhood is an eyesore. In the words of one neighborhood newsletter, “Free papers laying around make the neighborhood look bad, and can invite crime by advertising when you may be away from home.”

More often than not, the accumulation of the unwanted free papers eventually has to be cleaned-up by municipal or county maintenance workers – which is a burden upon the taxpayers.

Or worse yet, the unwanted free newspapers end-up clogging the stormwater drains, causing damage and more cost to the taxpayers because government maintenance workers need to spend time cleaning-up the mess.

Apparently the problem has raised its ugly head again.

If you will recall, the February 2008 agreement with local newspapers was successful in getting Carroll County Delegate Shewell to withdraw the “do not deliver free newspapers” legislation.

In return for the withdrawal of the legislation, the local papers would provide a phone number that homeowners could call and opt-out of the free delivery.

Today, over seven years later, no one remembers the legislation or the agreement that stopped the legislation - - and the number published on the front of the free newspapers has evolved into voice mail jail that ultimately, if you are patient enough, lands you with someone who does not know where Westminster or Carroll County Maryland is located. “Never heard of it.” You cannot make this up.

In other words, it is a number provided so that the free newspapers can say that they are in compliance with the agreement. After-all, no-one said that the agreement required that the published number has to actually work as it was intended by the agreement… Just saying.

Meanwhile, what many folks have long forgotten is that according to Channel 2 in Baltimore, “Newspapers would have seven days to comply with a request.  If it's still delivered, consumers could register a complaint with the Attorney General's Office and the newspaper could face a fine.”

Maybe more folks ought to contact the Attorney General's Office and complain - or maybe better yet, this legislation ought to be brought back for re-consideration with stiffer penalties or maybe just outlaw the unwanted spam from being littered on your property altogether.

To be sure, we have greater problems to solve in the greater community, but this might be one small step in the correct direction to take pride in the appearance of our community, protect our neighborhoods from unwanted corporate spam, obviate the potential for attracting crime and protect the environment.

I’m just saying.

Kevin E. Dayhoff July 9, 2015

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Compact avoids Do Not Deliver newspaper law


spaceFriday, February 29, 2008
space
ANNAPOLIS — Four free-delivery newspapers in Maryland have agreed to crack down on deliveries to customers who say they don’t want them, pre-empting an attempt to set up what would have been one of the nation’s first “Do Not Deliver” laws.

The newspapers have agreed to publish a phone number that homeowners can call to stop deliveries. The number will be on the second page of each home delivery edition and will be in a 12-point bold font.

Under the agreement announced Thursday, the newspapers also said they would increase supervision of carriers to make sure deliveries stop when people make requests.

“We’re certainly not out to hurt businesses, but we do need to answer constituents’ concerns,” said Delegate Tanya Shewell, R-Carroll, who said she plans to withdraw two bills that would have fined newspaper publishers who failed to meet requests to stop deliveries within seven days.

Shewell says she proposed the bills after a flurry of complaints from constituents that the free newspapers littered their lawns and deliveries didn’t end even after homeowners requested them to stop.

The agreement applies only to Carroll County, northwest of Baltimore. But the director of the Maryland-Delaware-District of Columbia Press Association said many free newspapers would comply with provisions to prevent consumer complaints.

“Newspapers don’t want them going to people who don’t want them and won’t read them,” John “Jack” Murphy said during a meeting with Shewell.

The papers include The Examiner, the Carroll County Times (which distributes both free and paid papers); The Gazette, and Kapp Advertising, which produces a free-delivery periodical called The Merchandiser.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Do Not Deliver" Bill Delivers Controversy


Some say it's a nuisance and others call it community service. Free newspapers pop up on your front steps everyday. Now one Maryland lawmaker wants a "Do Not Deliver" registry.

"I do recycle them, but some of them do fly away in the yard and go onto the street and down the gutters," said Essex resident Cathy Benzig. 

In fact, a state delegate from Carroll County goes as far to say the newspapers, that are delivered with no cost, infringe on the rights of property owners.

Delegate Tanya Shewell from Carroll County says consumers have the right to say what's on their front lawn.  She wants a phone number printed on newspapers that you can call to stop delivery.

The bill is modeled after the national Do Not Call Registry that let's you decide about whether to receive telemarketing calls at home.  Delegate Shewell wants consumers to have the final say with free newspapers.  But some of her colleagues in Annapolis think the plan will hurt small businesses.

"I think it's much to do about nothing.  It's an intrusion.  It's shooting a flea with an elephant gun.  And it's unfair to local publishers who do a wonderful job for the community," said Del. Pat McDonough, (R) Baltimore County.  

Delegate McDonough says he's talked to publishers of local papers who say they'll stop delivery when asked.  But we talked to people with failed attempts. 

Newspapers would have seven days to comply with a request.  If it's still delivered, consumers could register a complaint with the Attorney General's Office and the newspaper could face a fine.

20080128-freepaperCh2ShewellDoNotDeliverBillDelsControversy - 20080128 Do Not Deliver Bill Delivers Controversy
*****

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Carroll County Board of Education to meet with Delegation Wednesday October 22 2008

Carroll County Board of Education to meet with Delegation Wednesday October 22 2008

Tuesday October 21, 2008

The Board of Education will meet with members of the State Legislative Delegation to review their Legislative Position Statements.

The breakfast meeting is scheduled on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. at the Carroll County Career and Technology Center.

20081021 Carroll County Board of Education to meet with Delegation

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Testimony of MD Sen. David Brinkley in support of SB 675 Carroll County five districts legislation…

Testimony of MD Sen. David Brinkley in support of SB 675 Carroll County five districts legislation…

On or about March 7, 2008


Senate Bill 675 would create five new districts for the purpose of changing county commissioner elections in Carroll County from three commissioners elected at-large to five commissioners elected by district.  The bill adopts the districting plan known as “Option 1” prepared by the Carroll County Districting Commission in 2006.  The two options presented in the Commission’s final report are attached and available in color on-line at: http://ccgovernment.carr.org/ccg/topics/redist-map/default.asp.

This same “Option 1” districting plan was incorporated in House Bill 491 which was passed by the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee during the 2006 Session.  However, that bill failed to reach final passage by sine die and the districting plan became the subject of court proceedings.  The case reached the Court of Appeals which ruled that only the General Assembly can create commissioner districts in Carroll County.  The court ruling reverted the 2006 election to three commissioners elected at-large.

The chief critic of the “Option 1” plan is Martin Radinsky, Chairman of the Democratic Central Committee of Carroll County, who views the map as a right-wing conspiracy patently unfair to Democrats because it “divides the pockets of Democrats that exist in the county, and I believe this is the intention of our 100 percent Republican delegation.” (Carroll County Times article, February 23, 2008)

I can assure this Committee that nothing is further from the truth than Mr. Radinsky’s comments.

First, there are strong policy reasons to adopt Option 1 over Option 2, including:

Option 2 violates the Commission’s own Guidelines by splitting municipal boundaries.  At the beginning of the districting process, the Commission adopted guidelines that included: “High regard should be given to the boundaries of political subdivisions, and where possible, the splitting of municipalities should be avoided.”  Option 2 bisects the municipality of Sykesville splitting the historic town from newer annexations including its major economic development project known as the “Warfield Complex.”  Option 1 does not split any municipal boundaries and supports a overall districting scheme in which larger municipalities serve as anchors for each district with Sykesville anchoring District 5 and Mt. Airy anchoring District 4.

Option 2 bisects a large unincorporated community planning area know as Finksburg.  On the eastern side of Carroll County is a growing residential area that does not have the advantages of municipal government but is organized informally within the Finksburg Area Planning Council.  Residents of this area oppose Option 2 because it literally splits in half the community planning area.  Option 1 preserves the unification of the Finksburg region and also supports the overall districting scheme in which larger municipalities serve as anchors for each district with Hampstead anchoring District 2.

Secondly, Mr. Radinsky is wrong when he claims that the Option 1 map “divides the pockets of Democrats” to provide an unfair political advantage to Republican commissioner candidates.  As shown by the attached tables, it is actually Mr. Radinsky’s Option 2 map that dilutes the Democrat voting strength.  In contrast, Option 1 provides the Democrats with two districts where the margin of Republican to Democrat voter registration is less than 16%.

As you can see from the voter registration data, the Carroll County Delegation has placed policy considerations above politics by selecting Option 1 and by rejecting Option 2 which would dilute Democrat voting strength by “dividing the pockets of Democrats that exist in the county.”  For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Committee give a favorable report to Senate Bill 675.





*****

Thursday, January 17, 2008

20080119 Public Hearing on Carroll County Local Bill Requests

CARROLL COUNTY DELEGATION

PUBLIC HEARING ON LOCAL BILL REQUESTS

Editor’s note: The public hearing on local bills proposed for the 2008 General Assembly is scheduled for 9 a.m. to noon, Saturday, Jan. 19, in Room 003 of the County Office Building, 225 N. Center St., Westminster.

JANUARY 19, 2008

AGENDA ITEMS

Commissioners and Allied Agencies Bills

  • Public Facilities Bond

  • Distribution of Tobacco Products to Minors – Prohibition & Penalties

  • Green Building Tax Credit

  • Regulation of Domestic Animals – Fine & Penalty Increase

  • Alcoholic Beverages – Increase Fees

  • Alcoholic Beverages – Sunday Sales

  • Alcoholic Beverages – Arts Council

· Exempt Carroll County Public Schools from all State and local noise ordinances

· Salary Increase for Board Members & Board President

Other Items for Discussion

· Election of County Commissioners Four by District, One at Large

· Creation of a County Police Department – Should it go to referendum?

20080109 Westminster Eagle: Districting plan faces hearing in January by Bob Allen

Westminster Eagle: Districting plan faces hearing in January by Bob Allen
Posted January 17, 2008
01/09/08 By Bob Allen



Bill would create four districts, one at-large
The latest proposal to expand the Board of County Commissioners from three to five members will be open for public comment at a hearing set for Jan. 19 in Westminster.
State Del. Donald Elliott (R-Dist. 4B) said he co-created the plan with State Sen. Allan Kittleman (R-Dist. 9). It calls for four commissioners to be elected by districts with a fifth elected at-large, or county-wide.
The at-large commissioner would serve as president of the Board of Commissioners.
Under the plan, Carroll voters would vote for two commissioner candidates, one running in their district and one at-large.
On the eve of the General Assembly opening in Annapolis this week, Elliott said he believes his proposal has enough bipartisan support to get it through the assembly. A similar plan failed to make it to the floor in 2006, mostly because of disagreement over how and where district lines should be drawn.
"Last (time) a lot of people felt the (commissioner) districts should align with state legislative districts," Elliott said. "This time, that has been done to the extent that it could be done."
The failed proposal also differed in that it called for five commissioners, all elected by district. That's what voters selected in a 2004 referendum.
Elliott said his four-district plan is a compromise that carves out districts as equitably as possible, based on population, a per capita balance between registered Republicans, Democrats and independents and geography.
"The bottom line is, we are trying to make a compromise with this," Elliott said. "I feel very strongly that with this county growing the way it is, a change in governance is in order."
Skeptics have said the new proposal should not go forward because it differs from the five-district plan chosen in the 2004 referendum -- and as a result may eventually be overturned in court.
Elliott says his proposal does not need to go to referendum and is on solid legal ground.
"We're not violating the public's wishes," he said. "We have checked with the Attorney General's office and we have a written opinion from them that this is not in violation of the referendum and that we are not doing anything illegal.
"For some of these people (who oppose his plan), they are using that (argument) as a way to try to kill this bill, as in the past," he added. "There are still people who want three commissioners and others who still want five at-large commissioners.
Janet Jump, former president of the Board of Elections who also served on the committee that drew up the initial districting plan, likes Elliott's revised plan and thinks a commissioner-by-district system is long overdue.
"Carroll County is very diverse; South Carroll is a world away from North Carroll," Jump said. "These (sectional) differences deserve to be honored and recognized in running the county government, and the present system doesn't do this."
"I think creating districts is the only way we can recognize these differences," she said.
Elliott said his plan is modeled after Charles County and it works effectively there.
"I've talked to people in Charles County and other counties (where the board of commissioners has been expanded) and they told me it does make a difference," he said.
The new five-commissioner plan has been submitted to members of Carroll's delegation to Annapolis. The delegation will vote on it sometime after taking public comment at the Jan. 19 hearing.
"If approved by the delegation, it will be dropped in the hopper and be voted on by the Maryland General Assembly," he said. "Hopefully this time we have bipartisan support we need."
The public hearing on the proposed five-commissioner plan and other local bills proposed for the 2008 General Assembly is scheduled for 9 a.m. to noon, Saturday, Jan. 19, in Room 003 of the County Office Building, 225 N. Center St., Westminster.
####

Thursday, January 11, 2007

20070109 Carroll lawmakers support wide ranging goals


Carroll lawmakers support wide ranging goals

January 9th, 2007

Kelsey Volkmann, writing for the Baltimore Examiner has published an article with a preview of what is on the minds of the Carroll County Delegation to Annapolis for the upcoming 422nd session of the Maryland General Assembly.

Carroll lawmakers support wide-ranging goals

http://www.examiner.com/a-498069~Carroll_lawmakers_support_wide_ranging_goals.html

Kelsey Volkmann, The Examiner
Read more by Kelsey Volkmann
Jan 9, 2007

Carroll County - From health insurance to solar energy to driving while talking on cell phones, Carroll’s lawmakers have wide-ranging priorities for 2007.


With the session starting Wednesday, The Examiner asked the all-Republican delegation to the General Assembly what it wanted to accomplish.

Read the rest of her article here.

For more information on each of the Carroll County Delegation to Annapolis, click on their name…

Haines - Sen. Larry Haines, (R) Dist. 5, Baltimore and Carroll Cos., Carroll County Delegation to Annapolis Chair

Kittleman - Minority Whip Sen. Alan Kittleman, (R) Dist. 9, Carroll and Howard Cos.

Elliott – Del. Donald B. Elliott, (R) Dist. 4B, Carroll and Frederick Cos.

Shewell – Del. Tanya Thornton Shewell, (R) Dist. 5A, Carroll Co.

Stocksdale – Del. Nancy R. Stocksdale, (R Dist. 5A, Carroll Co.

Krebs - Del. Susan W. Krebs, (R) Dist. 9B, Carroll Co.

Brinkley - Minority Leader Sen. David Brinkley, (R) Dist. 4, Carroll and Frederick Cos.

####

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

20061219 Brinkley named General Assembly Minority Leader


Brinkley named General Assembly Minority Leader.

Brinkley joins previously named Minority Whip in two top Republican leadership positions in the Maryland General Assembly

This is good news for Howard, Frederick and Carroll Counties.

December 19th, 2006

Please see my previous post on new leadership for the Republican Party in the Maryland General Assembly: “20061206 Senator Allan Kittleman named Minority Whip

And for additional, in depth background, read the September 22, 2006 article by Tom Dennison, writing for the Gazette, “Both Democratic and Republican Senate caucuses brace for change.”

_____

Senator Allan H. Kittleman, (R) Dist. 9, Carroll and Howard Cos. e-mailed me very early this morning to say that “the Senate Republicans elected (Senator) David Brinkley (Carroll and Frederick Cos.) to be the Minority Leader… I wanted to make sure that you were aware of this development. As you know, I will be serving as the Minority Whip for the 2007 Session.”

Meanwhile we will continue to look forward to leadership from the former Majority Leader and Minority Whip, Senator J. Lowell Stoltzfus (R-Dist. 38) of Westover and Senator Andrew P. Harris, (R) Dist. 7, Baltimore and Harford Cos.

Not only is this a great decision for all of Maryland, it also means that the Carroll County Delegation to Annapolis has among its contingent, two leadership positions in the Maryland General Assembly.

This is great news for Howard, Frederick and Carroll Counties.

Congratulations go out to Senators Brinkley and Kittleman.

####

Sunday, September 05, 2004

My Thoughts on the Five-Commissioner form of government by Westminster Mayor Kevin Dayhoff

My Thoughts on the Five-Commissioner form of government by Westminster Mayor Kevin Dayhoff

Proposed Five Commissioner Form of Government

September 4th, 2004 / October 31st, 2004

Kevin Dayhoff, Westminster mayor

Five regionally elected Commissioners makes government closer to the people.  Increased representation increases the collective experience and intellectual abilities of the Board working for us. 

The services and additional representation required of well managed growth and progressive government will cost more money.  Additional representation will give us valuable return for our money that will justify the expense. 

Ultimately, I will respect the judgment and wishes of Carroll Countians on November 2nd, 2004. 
_________________________________________

I see no substantive downside to Five Commissioners, only benefits.  A regionally elected Five Member Board of Commissioners makes government closer to the people. 

It is a reality that the county has grown, and recognizing that reality there is an appropriate need for additional representation.  Increased representation increases the collective experience and intellectual abilities of the Board working for us. 

The services and additional representation required of well managed growth and progressive government will cost more money.  Hopefully, it is not the additional money we spend, it is the additional return for our money that will justify the expense. 

No one wants to see government cost more but everyone wants the additional services and there has been a consistent clamor for additional representation for many years. 

Our current form of government of three commissioners was essentially formulated in 1851.  In 1851, the population of Carroll County was less than 16,000 (and less than 1,400 in Westminster. 

Westminster also had a Commissioner and Burgess form of government until 1856.)  Today, it is more than ten times that number.  There were no public schools in Carroll County in 1851.  There were only 9 election districts in Carroll County.  The County budget was less than $20,000.  (As a point of comparison to today’s budget: The 1853 budget for Carroll County was $19,019.57.  That figure included: $3,062 for supervisors of roads; $1,052.07 for county commissioners; $254 election expenses; $166.86 for sheriff; $56 for wood; $343.78 for jail expenses and $1,530.30 for roads and bridges among numerous other miscellaneous items.)

Ultimately, I will respect the vote of Carroll Countians on November 2nd, 2004.  I trust and respect the voters judgment and wishes.

20040904 My thoughts re Proposed Five Commissioners



*****