2018 Primary Election – Tuesday, June 26, 2018, 7AM until 8PM

U.S. Congress

US Senate: Ben Cardin
House of Representatives:
Jesse Colvin for
Representative
(1st District )
Representative
C.A. Dutch
Ruppersberger
(2nd District)
Representative
John Sarbanes
(3rd District)
Representative
Anthony G. Brown
(4th District)
Representative
Steny Hoyer
(5th District)
Representative
Roger Manno
(6th District)
Representative
Elijah Cummings
(7th District)
District of Columbia
Eleanor Holmes Norton

Maryland State legislature

Baltimore City

District 40
Antonio Hayes – Senate
Terrell Boston – Delegate
Nick J. Mosby – Delegate
Melissa Wells – Delegate

District 41
Jill Carter – Senate
Bilal Ali – Delegate
George Mitchell – Delegate
Sandy Rosenberg – Delegate

District 43
Joan Carter Conway – Senate
Curt Anderson– Delegate
Maggie McIntosh – Delegate

Democratic State Central Committee
Krenthia A. Barber
Scherod Barnes
Odette Ramos
Terrence Thrweatt,Jr.
Sylvia Williams

District 44A
Keith E Haynes – Delegate

District 45
Nathaniel McFadden – Delegate
Talmadge Branch– Delegate
Cheryl Glenn – Delegate
Sharon McCullough – Delegate

District 46th
Bill Ferguson – Senate
Luke Clippinger- Delegate
Nate Loewentheil – Delegate
Dea Thomas – Delegate

Circuit Court Judges
Lynn Mays
Dana Middleton
John Nugent
Jennifer Schiffer

Clerk of the Court
Anika Middleton

Register of Wills
Belinda Conaway

Sheriff
John Anderson

Baltimore County

District 6
Johnny Ray Salling – Senate
Nick D’Adamo, Jr. – Delegate
Diane DeCarlo – Delegate
Megan Mieduszewski – Delegate

District 8
Katherine A. Klausmeier – Senate
Eric M. Bromwell – Delegate

District 10
Delores G. Kelley – Senate
Benjamin T. Brooks, Sr. – Delegate
Jay Jalisi – Delegate
Adrienne A. Jones – Delegate

District 11
Robert A. (Bobby) Zirkin – Senate
Jon Cardin – Delegate
Shelly L. Hettleman – Delegate
Dana M. Stein – Delegate

District 42
Stephen W. Lafferty – Senate

District 44
Shirley Nathan-Pulliam – Senate
Aaron Barnett – Delegate
Charles E. Sydnor III – Delegate

County Executive
Vicki Almond

County Council
Izzy Patoka – District 1
Tom Quirk – District 2
Collen Marie Ebacher – District 3
Juilan Jones – District 4
David Marks – District 5
Cathy Bevins – District 6
Todd Crandell – District 7

Sheriff
Jay Fisher 

Anne Arundel County

District 30
Sarah Elfreth – Senate
Michael E. Busch – Delegate

District 31
Edward P. (Ned ) Carey – Delegate

District 32
Pamela G. Beidle – Senate
Sandy Barlett – Delegate
Mark S. Chang – Delegate

District 33
Jerry Walker – Delegate
Pam Luby – Delegate

County Council
Pete Smith – District 1
Allison Pickard – District 2
Debbie Ritchie – District 3
Andrew Pruski – District 4
Dawn Myers – District 5
Scott MacMullan – District 6
James Kitchin – District 7

Anne Arundel County Democratic Central Committee
Stacy Korbelak – District 21
Christine Davenport – District 31
Patrick Armstrong – District 32
Andrea Horton-Jones – District 32
Don Rau – District 32
Chuck Cook – District 33

Anne Arundel County School Board
Sidney Butcher – District 1
Julie Hummer – District 4
Ray Leone – District 7

Carroll County

County Council
Dennis Frazier – District 3

Howard County

District 12
Edward J. Kasemeyer – Senate
Eric D. Ebersole – Delegate
Terri Hill – Delegate

District 13
Guy J. Guzzone – Senate
Vanessa E. Atterbeary – Delegate
Shane E. Pendergrass – Delegate
Frank S. Turner – Delegate

County Executive
Calvin Ball

County Council
Jon Weinstein – District 1
Greg Jennings – District 3
Deb Jung – District 4
China Williams – District 5

Montgomery County

District 14
Craig J. Zucker – Senate
Anne R. Kaiser – Delegate
Eric G. Luedtke – Delegate
Pamela E. Queen – Delegate

District 15
Brian J. Feldman – Senate
Kathleen M. Dumais – Delegate
David V. Fraser- Hidalgo – Delegate

District 16
Susan C. Lee – Senate
Adians B. Kelly – Delegate
Marc A. Korman – Delegate

District 17
Cheryl C. Kagan – Senate
Kumar P. Barve – Delegate
James W. Gilchrist – Delegate

District 18
Jeffery D. Waldstreicher – Senate
Alfred C. Carr, Jr. – Delegate

District 19
Benjamin F. Kramer – Senate
Bonnie L. Cullison – Delegate
Marice I. Morales – Delegate

Prince George’s County

County Executive
No Endorsement

District 21
James C. Rosapepe – Senate
Benjamin S. Barnes – Delegate
Joseline Pena-Melnyk – Delegate

District 22
Paul G. Pinsky – Senate
Tawanna P. Gaines – Delegate
Anne Healey – Delegate
Alonzo T. Washington – Delegate

District 23
Douglas J. Peters – Senate
Marvin E. Holmes, Jr. – Delegate
Geraldine Valentino-Smith – Delegate
Joseph F. Vallario, Jr. – Delegate

District 24
Joanne C. Benson – Senate
Erek L. Barron – Delegate
Jazz M. Lewis – Delegate
Maurice Simpson – Delegate

District 25
Melony Griffith – Senate
Darryl Barnes – Delegate
Nick Charles – Delegate
Dereck E. Davis – Delegate
Dr. Rhonda Wallace – Democratic
State Central Committee

District 26
Jamila Woods – Senate
David Sloan – Delegate
Veronica Turner – Delegate
Kriselda Valderrama – Delegate

District 27
Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr. – Senate
Michael A. Jackson – Delegate
Elizabeth G. (Susie) Proctor – Delegate

District 47A
Diana M. Fennell – Delegate
Jimmy Tarlau – Delegate

District 47B
Carlos Sanchez – Delegate

Circuit Court Judges
Tiffany H. Anderson
Robin Bright
Peter Killough
William Snoddy
Sean D. Wallace
Judy Lynn Woodall

County Council
Tom Dernoga – District 1
Deni Taveras – District 2
Tony Knotts – District 8
Sidney Harrison – District 9

County Council At-Large
Mel Franklin
Karen R. Toles

A leader of all people, Dr. King never chose fear, but always chose courage and determination when fighting for civil rights in the face of oppression, ignorance and violence. He refused to allow prison, violence or the threat of death sway his end mission. Instead, he stood beside his goal of achieving rights for all through nonviolent protests.

Dr. King maintained a vision for a more diverse America where all people enjoyed the benefits of equality. During a time when the opposition implemented legislation that withheld rights from people of color and expressed hatred through beatings and killings, Dr. King continued to take the high road. He realized that violence would play into the scheme of the opposition. He knew that violent retaliation would fit exactly into the assumed mold that many had formed regarding civil rights activists. Because of that, he constantly preached that nonviolence will ultimately allow the opposition to prevail.

Dr. King also understood the impact of unifying the masses in the push for one common goal. Separately, attaining any significant progress would be a challenge. Collectively, he and other civil rights activists could affect policies and influence change nationwide. Dr. King’s leadership contributed to the overall success of the civil rights movement in the mid-1900s and continues to impact civil rights movements in the present.

While King and other leaders generated momentous strides for equality, the push for civil rights remains a preeminent challenge today. We continue to experience poverty in the inner cities. We continue to fight for equal pay regardless of gender or race. We continue to battle education inequality. We continue to call for justice for all.

Dr. King’s legacy provides a staple model for how we combat inequality today. We cannot get comfortable in our current state. Too many people are relying on us to recognize and fight the inequalities that exist today.

Dr. King’s generation did their part. Now, it’s time to do ours. The next generation needs us.

Martin Luther King Jr. Day Parade

AFSCME MD. Council 67 invites you to partake in honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and our sanitation workers in the MLK Parade. in Baltimore City on Monday, Jan 15,2018 Meet at AFSCME Headquarters: 1410 Bush Street, Baltimore, MD 21230 @ 10:00AM – Vans will depart at 10:30AM.

New York had seen its share of protest parades since the start of World War I, but none had featured so prominently the city’s African-American population, gathering in such impressive numbers along New York’s wealthiest street.

This extraordinary procession was organized by the burgeoning National Association of the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a group of concerned black and white activists and intellectuals which had formed less than a decade earlier in New York.

The march was organized in direct response to a horrible plague of violence against black Americans in the 1910s, culminating in the East St. Louis Riots*, a massacre involving white mobs storming black neighborhoods in sheer racial animus. Two sets of riots in May and July 1917 left almost 200 people dead. Rioters burned black neighborhoods, cutting off water hoses and watched as families fled the burning buildings — to be picked off by gunmen.

This massacre was but one of several violent incidents aimed at new black laborers, pointed attacks meant to strike fear in the hearts of black Americans.

In New York, at a meeting of the NAACP in Harlem, president James Weldon Johnson (at the suggestion of New York Evening Post editor Oswald Villard) proposed an unusual but effective form of protest — an army of marchers along Fifth Avenue, drawing attention to the victims of the East St. Louis riot.

And in an unprecedented decision by the organizers, it would consist only of black marchers.

New York newspaper reports of the riot passively mentioned the tragic cost to the black residents of East St. Louis; a dramatic march down the city’s most prosperous street — comprised of those very people most likely to be victimized in such riots — would jar the delicate sensibilities of insulated New Yorkers.

This was a fairly radical idea for its time. Decades after the Civil War, most Americans, even in the most progressive states, still looked skeptically at organized black movements. Part of the NAACP’s early legitimacy for many was that it was formed by a mixture of black and white activists.

In 1915, the NAACP (in a crusade led by newspaper editor William Monroe Trotter) protested the release of the film Birth of a Nation, the trailblazing film that positively depicted the Ku Klux Klan while demonizing African-Americans. The protests failed to stop the film’s release but this organized resistance galvanized the NAACP and the black community for future battles.

While the East St. Louis tragedy was the focus of the mournful July 28th gathering, the march was intended as a larger protest against civil rights abuses in the United States. One of many flyers passed around during the march declared :

“We march because we are thoroughly opposed to Jim Crow cars, segregation, disenfranchisement and the host of evils that are forced upon us. We march in memory of our butchered dead, the massacre of honest toilers who were removing the reproach of laziness and thriftlessness hurled at the entire race. They died to prove our worthiness to live. We live in spite of death shadowing us and ours.” 

The thousands of people who marched that day came from virtually every African-American church in New York City and the surrounding area. A drum corps and a troupe of black Boy Scouts vibrantly led the parade, with women and children following behind, garbed in white dresses.

The men, some in United States army uniforms, marched last behind a row of flag bearers, holding representative flags from the United States, Great Britain, Liberia and Haiti.

There were no chants or rallying cries. The throng remained silent during the length of the parade, a common practice for peace parades but one pregnant with meaning here. The black communities in East St. Louis and in the South had little opportunity to engage in such protests. New Yorkers, in solidarity, would echo that reverberating silence. (It may also have been prudent for large groups of African-Americans marching along the city’s whitest street to keep themselves calcified.)

The marchers were orderly and stone-faced as they walked down Fifth Avenue — from 57th Street to 24th Street, culminating at Madison Square Park.  They were not allowed to gather there; according to the New York Sun, “When the marchers reached Twenty-Fourth Street, they turned west and were dismissed.”

Full Story – Politics and Protest, www.boweryboyshistory.com

By Ray Inoue July 11, 2017

Democrats have one big chance for a comeback, in 2018. There’s a path to win-a narrow one-but they could blow it.

The Republican power stranglehold is tightening. The Supreme Court is theirs, for a generation. They’ve implemented onerous voting restrictions in several states, and the new Court majority will likely let them do it in more. They’ve taken strong unions out of the equation in Wisconsin and are trying to replicate that wherever they can; they’ll surely get a big boost when the Court rules next year on Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, which could decimate the most politically potent unions. They’re filling federal jobs (executive, regulatory, and judicial) with partisans and zealots.

A GOP win in 2018 comparable to 2010 and 2014 could be irreversible. That’s their intention—they’re using the power they’ve gained strategically, in order to not have to relinquish it.

Democracy, and the movements that breathe life into it, are in peril.

Electoral tests of early 2017 have given rise to several schools of thought among Democrats about how to win next year, and beyond. Proponents cite the fragments of evidence at hand—four House special elections, the Virginia primary, even the elections in Britain and France, for their cases. The focus of most of these analyses is on policy: Should candidates run to the Left or to the Center? Many issues are in controversy: single-payer health care (favored by Rob Quist but not by Jon Ossoff), abortion (Omaha Mayoral candidate Heath Mello’s position turned off pro-choice advocates), and pipelines (dividing the Virginia contestants).

One school, relying on Labour’s strong showing under Jeremy Corbyn, argues that a populist politics of the left is Democrats’ formula for winning. But that’s not only an unproven hypothesis, it’s also not been tested in a general election for president since McGovern-Nixon in 1972.

The ideal policy posture is an unknown. However, there are enough “known knowns” to sketch the path to a win.

The Republicans govern today without a popular majority because they had and held Congress, but Democrats can’t push them out with less than a majority. Ours is a two-party system; in the contest for the nation’s fundamental direction, third parties are irrelevant. David Koch figured that out after getting a million votes on the Libertarian ticket in 1980, and has been spending his vast resources ever since on making the GOP win, and serve his interests. That’s exactly what Democrats need to do.

A narrow majority is insufficient. Narrow wins for president don’t yield majorities in Congress; likewise, the coattails of statewide winners in close races don’t tip legislatures. To win statewide—whether for governor, U.S. Senate, or presidential electors, campaigns tend to follow an efficiency rule: maximize base vote (which for Democrats is highly concentrated geographically), and pursue swing vote selectively.

To take power, to win legislative branch majorities, both state and federal, Democrats have to compete successfully outside their geographic strongholds.

The GOP saw its opportunities at the state level, and funded the Republican Governors Association and, for down-ballot, the Republican State Leadership Committee’s Future Majority Project through the first decade of this century. While national Democrats left state campaigns to fend for themselves in 2010, the RGA and RSLC invested big, and won big. Led by Scott Walker, Reince Priebus, and Ed Gillespie, they ushered in a new era of ruthless right-wing government. Funders like Art Pope in North Carolina and Rex Sinquefield in Missouri kept pushing the limits of the possible further to the right, as have Governors Bruce Rauner in Illinois, Sam Brownback in Kansas, Matt Bevin in Kentucky, and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick in Texas. As has, now, the Trump administration.

Democrats can rely on few checks and balances to constrain these forceful adversaries, though when compared with their efforts in the early days of the Reagan presidency, the Democrats have been remarkably united and disciplined in resisting Trump’s initiatives. Resistance doesn’t naturally evolve into a majority, however; the pendulum hasn’t swung back in Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan, and Ohio. It requires a plan.

Party primaries are supposed to nominate the stronger candidate—inherently stronger, or stronger as a result of the experience. Not always—Republicans nominated Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, Ken Buck in Colorado, and Sharron Angle in Nevada, costing them three winnable seats and the chance to take back the Senate in the wave election of 2010.

Republicans repeated that mistake in 2012, nominating Todd Akin in Missouri. But they learned their lesson, and applied it in 2014. Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell was primaried by the Tea Party’s Matt Bevin, who ran a bitterly personal campaign, giving Democrats confidence that their nominee, Alison Lundergan Grimes, could beat McConnell in the general. But the Tea Party voters came home. McConnell won by 15.4 percent and took over as Majority Leader. (He returned the favor in 2015, when Bevin won the primary for governor, stoking Democrats’ hopes for their candidate, Steve Conway, who led in the polls from July through October, until the GOP voter base came home.)

Party unity is largely up to the supporters of primary losers. If they stay home, cross over, or vote third party, as many unhappy Republicans did in the those lost Senate races, they doom the nominee.

The lesson applies with equal force to centrist Democrats and left Democrats. Neither tendency is large enough to win general elections if the other stays home. Richard Nixon benefited in 1968 from anti-war voters refusing to vote for Hubert Humphrey and in 1972 from centrists refusing to vote for George McGovern.

Every primary battle raises the unity challenge anew. On gubernatorial primary night in Virginia last month, GOP neo-Confederate loser Corey Stewart said “there is one word you will never hear from me, and that’s ‘unity.’” But Democratic loser Tom Perriello tweeted “Congratulations to Ralph Northam. Let’s go win this thing—united.”

Republicans have tried to live by Ronald Reagan’s “eleventh commandment”—Thou Shalt not Speak Ill of Any Fellow Republican.

It’s a good principle, but it doesn’t go far enough to create victories. Democrats need their own commandment—Thou Shalt Support the Primary Winner. Not just a Big Tent; a battalion in which each wing does its part.

Trump wouldn’t be president if Republicans hadn’t closed ranks. They were clear about the opportunities for their own agendas afforded by a win, and the dangers of a loss.

The key to such victories is the parties. Rather than build up and rely on party structures, many prefer to invest in independent entities, like Americans for Prosperity on the right, and a host of organizations on the left. On the Democratic side, there are both the outgrowths of presidential campaigns (Organizing for America, Our Revolution) and independent expenditure entities based on constituencies with particular issue agendas.

These have undeniable benefits, both for the sponsors and for the party’s candidates. But the case for effective parties stands on its own. It resides in the mechanics of elections.

Just as Trump benefited from the instinctual unity of the Republican base, he also got a great boost from the operational improvements Priebus had built up in the Republican National Committee, like a sophisticated social media operation and a modern voter file. In contrast, the Clinton campaign didn’t (or couldn’t) rely on the DNC, in part because President Obama never made building a strong DNC a priority.

A well-run and well-resourced party is the means by which campaigns can build on what’s come before them rather than start from scratch.

There are many populations that can be targeted in the Democrats’ quest for voters who didn’t vote for Clinton; all of them, whether “base” or “swing,” require a persuasion strategy. A campaign that relies only on mobilization is unlikely to succeed.

But persuasion strategies rarely pay off quickly. Effective persuasion programs require organizing. And organizing success depends on credibility and consistency. These rules apply equally to strategies for driving a wedge into the opposition’s base, for attracting unaligned, disillusioned voters, and for engaging low-intensity or low-information base voters.

In other words, persuasion isn’t just about message. Getting the message right may be the least of it. It’s about messengers: For every dollar devoted to focus groups aimed at refining the message, Democrats need to invest 25 in organizing.

Many populations have been identified, post-election, for messaging and organizing work to expand the Democratic vote. The Prospect has filled a volume focused on the white working class. The DCCC has focused on rural, small-town, and exurban voters. Priorities USA has examined both drop-off voters and Obama-Trump voters. Seniors, Republican moderates, and disillusioned independents are also worthy of consideration. The search for the right message, and the debate about the implications of this year’s electoral tests, is as much about how to motivate likely Democrats who didn’t vote as about bringing back those who strayed to the other side. In fact, an argument is often made that the same economic message will work for both.

But Democrats lack credibility on economics. That became painfully obvious last November when Trump, with all his baggage, won the credibility battle on economics. But the Democrats’ problem is also that they have lost much of the infrastructure through which they once delivered an economic message, and worldview. In too much of America, the union hall is closed or quiet, the broadcast news comes from Fox or Sinclair, the ministers don’t preach the social gospel, the high school grads with liberal ideas have moved away, and people’s social media news feeds convey a completely different reality from that which liberals see.

As it is not known which constituencies will be responsive to Democratic organizing and persuasion, and can’t be known until it’s attempted, Democrats are obliged to explore each and every opportunity. That is an expensive proposition. Electoral campaigns won’t do it; they have to follow the rule of efficiency. The party could, but lacks the resources. Therefore, the responsibility falls to the independent non-party organizations. Their tactical strengths will be tested as they find and measure which potential voters respond to which messages, and reinforce whatever seems likely to pay off in the 2018 cycle, without cutting off efforts that have the potential to pay off over a longer time frame.

There’s a path back to winning. People fight hardest when defending their families, their property, and the things they believe in and believed they could count on. Millions of Americans, alarmed by the havoc that many years of right-wing rule would wreak, are signing up for the battles ahead. The other side may have more money, but it no longer has more intensity and more activists. It may even have less unity.

David vanquished Goliath. Guerrillas have defeated conventional armies. Underdogs who prevail do it through two methods: strategically, by exploiting weaknesses and contradictions of their enemy, and by reliance on sources of strength other than the obvious, material forces (money and numbers). Those non-material forces include morale, discipline, training, experience, focus, and unity.

Despite all its advantages, today’s powerful right could be tomorrow’s losers.

Americans will have to endure many blows along the way. Republicans’ preponderance of power is so great that we shouldn’t expect repetitions of the blundering rollout of the Affordable Care Act repeal.

But the strength of the resistance runs deep: millions demonstrating on January 21, thousands at multiple town halls and airport protests. That intensity, if combined with unity, discipline, and the other “non-material” forces, will create other strengths. It can generate so many funds that the usual Republican financial advantage can be greatly diminished.

By naming itself the “resistance,” the opposition has chosen a powerfully motivating brand. It has the flavors of determination, selflessness, and moral superiority, like Victor Laszlo in Casablanca. But it doesn’t translate smoothly to the electoral challenge of 2018. For one thing, it’s only attractive to those who weren’t for Trump before. Its primary focus is the president himself, secondarily the defensive battles against the administration’s initiatives, and only remotely about governors or state legislatures.

To win in 2018, Democrats will need to re-focus the energy they’ve shown fighting Trump on state and congressional politics. Republicans will fund their campaigns lavishly. They’ll have control of the electoral apparatus in most states and counties. They’ll be enforcing post-Shelby voter-ID laws and other restrictions.

Governorships are the most important opportunities. Statewide races can’t be gerrymandered, and every Democratic gain loosens the GOP power stranglehold.

The narrow path to a robust majority requires unity, a well-run and well-resourced party, organizing and messaging that reaches and engages the voters who weren’t there in 2016, and the re-focused energies of the resistance.

With a few exceptions, the key 2018 elections will be in states and districts where base-vote mobilization isn’t sufficient to provide a win. Some of the candidates will be leftist Democrats, some will not. They all have to win. Democrats need to campaign for them all, and raise money for them all, as if our lives depended on it.

They do.

By Paul Booth – July 5, 2017

Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz (D), who is crisscrossing the state in his role as president of the Maryland Association of Counties, says it will likely be after Labor Day before he decides whether to run for governor in 2018.

“Right now, we’re all focused on keeping our kids busy,” Kamenetz, who has two teenagers at home, said Monday after meeting with members of the Montgomery County Council in Rockville.

But with the Democratic gubernatorial primary just over a year away (June 26, 2018), it’s clear that Kamenetz, 52, who is barred from seeking a third term as executive, is plenty focused on politics.

He organized to finish a surprising second to a prospective rival, Rep. John Delaney, in a late April gubernatorial straw poll of Democrats in western Maryland, where he is not well known.

And in the interview Monday, he called incumbent Republican Gov. Larry Hogan “a caretaker” who has not articulated a long-term vision for the state and said he believes Democrats can retake the governor’s mansion next year.

“This is still a Democratic state,” Kamenetz said, citing the large majorities that have voted for former senator Barbara Mikulski, Sens. Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. “Governor Hogan’s election in 2014 was more about the Democrats’ failure to turn out as opposed to the Republic brand somehow growing.”

In an email, Hogan spokeswoman Amelia Chasse said the governor’s office “doesn’t pay much attention to partisan rhetoric and politics. The governor is focused on getting things done for Maryland, like creating 100,000 jobs over the past two years and building roads and bridges across the state.”

In addition to Delaney, other likely or declared Democratic candidates include Prince George’s County Executive Rushern L. Baker III, former attorney general Doug Gansler, former NAACP president Benjamin Jealous, state Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (Montgomery), tech entrepreneur Alec Ross and lawyer James L. Shea.

Since mid-April, Kamenetz has met with elected officials in Baltimore City and Calvert, Frederick and St. Mary’s counties as part of his work for the Maryland Association of Counties, a nonpartisan group that advocates in Annapolis for legislation sought by local governments.

He stopped in Howard on Monday before going to Rockville. Tuesday, he is scheduled for Queen Anne’s County on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

Association Executive Director Michael Sanderson appears with Kamenetz at the briefings, which tend to be policy-heavy, with a focus on opioid fatalities and cuts in education spending or highway-user-fund revenues.

The association was supposed to provide lunch for the Montgomery council members after the session, but the discussion came to a halt before the food arrived.

“You get an A for this and an F for catering,” joked council member Sidney Katz (D-Rockville-Gaithersburg).

Full story by Bill Turque – Baltimore Sun

Harford County Public Schools support staff urged members of the County Council to support higher wages for workers such as bus drivers and school custodians during the council’s second and final public hearing on the county’s fiscal 2018 budget Thursday.

“I’m here today to let you know that we’re here and also ask [you] to keep us in mind when it comes to funds for the school system,” Deborah Tell, president of AFSCME Local 2471, said during the hearing.

The hearing in the auditorium of Fallston High School lasted just10 minutes and featured five speakers, including Tell.

Council members did stick around long after the hearing to talk one-on-one with attendees, as they did following a May 4 public hearing at Joppatowne High School.

At least 20 people were in the audience. Tell and four of her colleagues and fellow union members, who wore green AFSCME shirts, sat in the front row. Chabria Thomas, an organizer with AFSCME Council 67 in Baltimore, sat with them.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a nationwide union, represents more than 700 HCPS support workers, according to Tell.

She said after the meeting that group includes employees such as bus drivers, bus attendants, food service workers, facilities and maintenance staff, school custodians and some technology and office staff.

“It’s been a long time since we had a halfway decent raise,” she told council members.

Tell, a bus driver who has worked for the school system for nearly 30 years, said the last major pay increase for support staff came in 2006.

She said wages have increased by 74 cents in the past decade.

“They’re working 40 hours a week, yet they’re finding they can’t support their families without going out and getting a second job, and many of those jobs are full-time jobs as well,” Tell said.

Employees represented by AFSCME are in one of five employee bargaining units with which the Board of Education negotiates contracts.

The school board and all five bargaining units have agreed the school system will provide two step increases on the salary scale and a 2 percent COLA, or cost of living allowance, for eligible employees, although those increases are “contingent upon necessary fiscal support from the funding authorities,” according to an earlier statement from the school system.

The School Board has approved a $456.06 million operating budget for fiscal 2018, with the majority of funding coming from the county and state. That figure is $17.1 million more than the current operating budget, and much of the increase was meant for employee salary increases.

The school board requested $251.6 million for the county’s portion of the budget, but County Executive Barry Glassman allocated $238.7 million in his proposed county budget for next year — it is a $5.2 million increase from what the county allocated to the schools this year, and Glassman has said $5 million of that increase is slated for teacher pay increases and earmarked for the school budget’s instructional salaries category. The money can’t be shifted elsewhere without county approval.

The County Council has the final say on the county’s annual budget, including how much goes to the school system. While it has the power to restore any reduction of funds Glassman has made in the school system’s total funding request, it would also have to find money to do that, either from reductions elsewhere in the county executive’s budget or by raising taxes.

Tell asked council members to “make sure that our pay raises are in the back of your mind” when the school board makes its annual budget requests.

Dave Magnani, a resident of Abingdon, expressed his concerns about what he called “wasteful spending” by the school system, such as paying too much to contractors.

“I am in support of benefitting the teachers, who do an excellent job, but when the school system continually cries for more money every year, I think they should look at their own wasteful spending habits and implement checks and balances, not only with the purchasing but with the rest of the administration,” he said.

The council also heard from the heads of the unions representing Harford County Sheriff’s Office law enforcement and corrections deputies, who expressed their thanks that Glassman’s budget includes salary increases for deputies and civilian employees.

The AFSCME members had an in-depth discussion with Council President Richard Slutzky about school funding after the hearing. The conversation started after he embraced Carolyn Gordon, a custodian who has worked at Aberdeen High School since 1991.

Gordon said later that she has known Slutzky, a former teacher and coach at AHS, since 1984, as her four children are graduates of Aberdeen High.

She said the conversation with Slutzky was productive, but that the council president also had explained county government has little control over how the school system spends its allocation.

“It’s really up to the [school] board to put the money where it needs to go,” she said.

Led by President Norman Anderson, the executive board, shop stewards and VMOs held one-on-one meetings with every employee on the list. They explained the benefits of membership, listened to employee concerns and asked them to join AFSCME, so they could build power together. It was not easy work and they faced a lot of tough questions, but the leaders never quit.

Their never quit attitude produced results, and at the April Local meeting President Anderson announced the Local met their goal. The organizers signed up 51 new members, nearly 95% of the employees they spoke with. Council 67 salutes the leaders and organizers of Local 921 for their commitment to organizing for themselves, for the community and for workers they represent.

By Ryan Genovese

Senior Staff Representative