Part C
STATE GOVERNMENT
STATE AGENCIES, OFFICES, AND OFFICIALS
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Currently, matters concerning veterans are administered by three separate organizations in the State: the Maryland Veterans Commission, the Maryland Veterans Home Commission, and the War Memorial Commission. In an effort to improve communication and coordination among these organizations, and to increase public awareness of issues concerning veterans generally, Senate Bill 170/House Bill 183 (both passed) place each of the organizations under a single, cabinet-level Department of Veterans Affairs. The new Department will also serve as a single point of service to assist State veterans in obtaining any benefits and other services provided by the three organizations. Twenty-three other states also have created a similar single point-of-contact for veterans issues.
The Department will be headed by a Secretary appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The bills place the Maryland Veterans Commission, the Maryland Veterans Home Commission, the War Memorial Commission, and State veterans cemeteries under the control of the Department, authorize the Secretary to appoint the Director of the Veterans Commission, require the Department to staff the Veterans Commission, and authorize the Secretary to appoint five members of the War Memorial Commission. The City of Baltimore, which jointly administers the War Memorial Commission with the State, would continue to appoint the other five members to this body. A representative of a women veterans organization and a representative of the Black Veterans of All Wars, Inc., are added to the membership of the Maryland Veterans Commission.
The bills clarify that a veteran is a person who served on active duty in the armed forces of the Unites States, other than for training, and was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable. For purposes of eligibility for burial in a State veterans cemetery, the bills also clarify that a veteran is a person who served on active duty in the armed forces of the United States, or served as a member of the State militia ordered into active service of the United States by the President, and was killed in the line of duty.
Additional changes made by the bills include the addition of the Maryland World War II Memorial to the Veterans' Memorials and Monuments Program administered by the Maryland Veterans Commission, clarify that the purpose of the Veterans' Memorials and Monuments Program is to provide for the operation, maintenance, security, and preservation of the veterans' memorials and monuments in the State, and authorize the Commission to delegate authority over the program to a special commission or board established by the Commission and approved by the Governor. Finally, the bills allow the Veterans' Home Commission, with the approval of the Secretary, to promulgate any rules necessary to carry out its duties.
STATE COMMISSION ON THE CAPITAL CITY
In 1984, the General Assembly enacted legislation that resulted in the creation of the former State Commission on the Capital City. In 1996, during the enactment of legislation proposed by the Department of Budget and Management to eliminate and consolidate various State boards, commissions, and agencies, the State Commission on the Capital City was terminated. When the 1996 legislation was being considered, the Department of Budget and Management reported that the Commission had been inactive since the late 1980s and the Commission's funding was zeroed out in 1992. The Commission was described as a defunct agency in the Maryland Manual. The principal function of the former Commission was to "study possible ways to preserve and improve Annapolis as the capital of the State, with particular emphasis on the location of State offices and buildings and county and city buildings".
Senate Bill 311/House Bill 270 (both passed) establish a new State Commission on the Capital City consisting of one individual appointed by the Governor, the Governor, the senator and the delegates who represent the legislative district in which Annapolis is located (House version), the County Executive of Anne Arundel County, the Mayor of Annapolis, and the Superintendent of the United States Naval Academy. The Senate bill omits reference to the delegates who represent the Annapolis legislative district. Members are appointed for a term of four years with the appointed member serving as the chairman of the Commission. The bills provide that any study of the Commission is advisory only and that the Commission may not require or compel the adoption or implementation of any recommendation. Further, the Commission is authorized to accept money from a private or public agency for use in carrying out its powers and duties and, to accomplish its purposes under the law, may give the money to a private or public agency or otherwise spend the money.
Among its other duties, the Commission must study possible ways to preserve and improve Annapolis as the capital of the State, with particular emphasis on the location of State offices and buildings and county and city buildings. The Commission is also authorized to cooperate with public agencies to develop plans for the physical development of Annapolis and adjacent areas and to ensure adequate access to and transportation facilities for Annapolis and adjacent areas. Further, the Commission may make specific recommendations on community needs or projects in Annapolis and adjacent areas, including arterial highways, building codes, economic development, federal and State assistance programs, housing, industrial and commercial growth, parking facilities, space for public buildings, traffic control, urban renewal, and any other community need or project that the Commission believes may improve the facilities and development of Annapolis and adjacent areas or of any unit of the State government.
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
The General Assembly enacted legislation in 1995 that required the Land Acquisition Division of the Department of General Services to provide written notice to the governing body of a county or municipal corporation when the State sought to acquire real property within the local jurisdiction, and to provide an opportunity for the local governing body to comment before the Board of Public Works acted on the land acquisition. Although the General Assembly intended to provide an exception to this notice requirement for capital expenditures by the Maryland Aviation Administration, the Maryland Port Administration, and the Mass Transit Administration, the enactment also contained an inadvertent exemption of land acquisitions by these three State units from a requirement that the Board of Public Works approve the acquisition. House Bill 461 (passed) corrects this error by clarifying that land acquisition contracts of the Maryland Aviation Administration, the Maryland Port Administration, and the Mass Transit Administration must be reviewed by the Secretary of General Services, and then approved by the Board of Public Works.
STATE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
The State Advisory Council on Administrative Hearings advises the Chief Administrative Law Judge in carrying out the duties of the judge as the head of the Office of Administrative Hearings, identifies issues of importance to administrative law judges that should be addressed by the Chief Administrative Law Judge, and reviews issues and problems concerning administrative hearings and the administrative process. The Council also reviews and comments on policies and regulations proposed by the Chief Administrative Law Judge, advises the Governor as to those agencies that have a continuing exemption from the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings, and submits an annual report to the Legislative Policy Committee of the General Assembly.
House Bill 657 (passed) adds one additional member to the current nine-member council and requires that this new member be a nongovernmental attorney who practices before the Office of Administrative Hearings. Currently, the Council is composed of a State senator and a delegate, the State Attorney General (or designee), two secretaries (or designees) of departments involved in the adjudication of contested cases, two representatives from the Maryland Bar Association, and two representatives from the general public. By the addition to the Council of a member who is a nongovernmental attorney, the bill seeks to ensure that the deliberations of the Council have the benefit of the perspective of a private practitioner with experience before the Office of Administrative Hearings. This is analogous to legislative provisions that provide for the appointment of a "consumer member" to various units of State government.
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS
Current law does not authorize the Legislative Auditor to review financial records or audits pertaining to private foundations that work with units of State government. Most of the foundations are affiliated with institutions of higher education. Previous reports of the Office of Legislative Audits in 1978 and 1990 concluded that additional accountability by foundations was necessary. The Joint Audit Committee of the General Assembly held a hearing in 1998 to review the history of the Legislative Auditor's involvement with foundations and the controls over foundations, and to discuss potential problems with access to foundation records. After the hearing, the Joint Audit Committee decided to sponsor legislation to authorize access by the Legislative Auditor to the financial records of private foundations. Senate Bill 354/House Bill 682 (both failed) would have authorized the Office of Legislative Audits to access and review the audit reports, including working papers and management letters, of a private foundation affiliated with a State governmental unit. The office would also have been able to conduct an audit of a private foundation if the Joint Audit Committee determines that an audit is warranted as a result of either the office's review of a foundation's audit report or an audit of the affiliated unit of State government.
STATE EXPENDITURES ON YEAR 2000 READINESS
Early estimates by the Gartner Group and Anderson Consulting predicted Maryland would need to spend between $55 and $120 million to achieve Year 2000 (Y2K) readiness of its entire information infrastructure. This estimate included both out-of-pocket costs and in-house resource utilization. Maryland has appropriated $125 million between fiscal 1998 and fiscal 2000 to support the management and correction of its Y2K program. Given the finite amount of funding available and the large number of agencies in the State, funding is limited to agencies that receive at least 51 percent of their appropriation from general funds. Other agencies such as the Department of Transportation and smaller agencies such as Maryland Public Television, must rely on existing or external funds (federal funds, contributions, etc.) to repair their computer systems. The fiscal 2000 budget stipulated that up to $300,000 of State general funds may be distributed to municipalities to assist in Y2K remediation and replacement efforts.
In recognition of the seriousness and urgency of the Year 2000 problem, the administration established the Governor's Year 2000 Readiness Task Force by an executive order issued on April 5, 1999. The primary responsibility of the Task Force is to monitor Year 2000 mitigation, preparedness, and response and recovery activities. The task force must produce a report highlighting significant mitigation, preparedness, and response and recovery activities by March 31, 2000, or 90 days after the completion of recovery activities, whichever comes first. As of March 15, 1999, the administration has determined that nearly half of the State's most critical computer systems are assessed year 2000 compliant. About a third of the critical systems have been repaired and are being tested, while about a fifth are either being repaired or replaced.
OFFICIALS
State Police Officers
A State Police officer in Maryland is issued a 40-caliber semi-automatic Beretta that the officer likely will carry throughout the officer's career. Like all other pieces of equipment used by a State Police officer, however, the handgun is State-owned property. Under existing law, the State of Maryland is not an entity that is licensed to sell guns. Consequently, a retired State Police officer may not buy back the gun directly from the State, although the State has allowed a retired officer to buy back his or her handgun from the Beretta company with the officer paying certain transactional fees. As a practical matter, however, existing law requires that all handguns be surrendered to the Department of State Police when a State Police officer retires. House Bill 1218 (passed) allows a State Police officer in good standing to keep or acquire a handgun upon retirement if the officer reimburses the Department for the replacement value of the gun, and the Secretary of the Department authorizes the transaction.
State Treasurer
Under current law, State employees in the skilled and professional service are hired through the State recruitment process and terminated only for "just cause". The recruitment process for skilled and professional service includes: position selection plans, selection of candidates from an eligible list, job announcement, rating of qualified applicants, testing, categorization, and appeals. The termination process for skilled and professional service employees includes appeal of disciplinary action and termination for cause.
In an attempt to provide the State Treasurer with greater flexibility to recruit and retain experienced professionals who have experience and expertise in banking, investments, finance, and insurance, Senate Bill 715/House Bill 1084 (both failed) would have designated the staff of the State Treasurer as special appointment employees who serve at the pleasure of the Treasurer. Currently, the Treasurer's office has 51 employees of whom 26 are skilled service or professional service employees who would have been affected by the bill.
MILITIA
State law governing the militia has not undergone a thorough review and revision for more than 70 years. As a result, much of the law is archaic and obsolete. For example, the current law exempts "idiots, lunatics, paupers, vagabonds," and "confirmed drunkards" from participating in the State's militia. House Bill 450 (passed) revises the State militia law to reflect current conditions and future needs and establishes the Office of Adjutant General as a cabinet-level position in the Executive Branch.
The bill revises the appointment criteria for the Adjutant General by making this official a member of the Governor's cabinet who serves at the pleasure of the Governor. This essentially codifies existing practice as the Adjutant General regularly attends cabinet meetings. The bill also requires the Adjutant General to meet the requirements for federal recognition at the rank of Major General at the time of appointment, and to have at least ten years (rather than five years) of commissioned field grade service in the Maryland National Guard. Additionally, the Adjutant General is authorized to appoint: (1) an executive officer, (2) directors of military installations, procurement, military support to civil authorities, State personnel, administration, and veterans affairs, (3) site managers for military reservations, and (4) a grants administrator.
The bill also alters the appointment criteria for the Assistant Adjutant General for Army and the Assistant Adjutant General for Air by requiring that each of those individuals attain the rank of colonel and have at least ten years of commissioned field grade service in the Maryland National Guard.
Existing law authorizes the Military Department to provide financial assistance for higher education to members of the State's militia who attend a public college or university in the State. The bill extends tuition assistance to courses taken at a private institution of higher education in the State as well, if the private institution grants a member a tuition waiver of at least 50 percent.
LOTTERY
Lotteries for Maryland Stadium Authority
The Maryland Stadium Facilities Fund finances all the Maryland Stadium Authority's activities in the Camden Yards complex, including construction, operations, debt service, and administrative expenses. The fund receives money, in part, through the sale of sports theme lottery tickets. In fiscal 2000, the State Lottery Agency is required to contribute $24 million to the fund. It is estimated that revenue from The Big Game will contribute approximately $13.3 million towards this total, with the remaining $10.7 million coming from sports theme instant games. The State Lottery Agency reports that sports theme games are not as popular as other types of games. In fiscal 1998, the average weekly sales of the $1, $2, and $5 sports theme games was about $488,000 for the first ten weeks that the games were on sale. For the same period, the average weekly sales for the same priced tickets for nonsports theme games was $754,000, resulting in a difference of $266,000 per week.
Senate Bill 104 (passed) repeals the restrictions on the number and types of lotteries that must be conducted for the benefit of the Maryland Stadium Authority. As a result, the State Lottery Agency will be able to replace the less popular sports theme tickets with games that draw a larger customer base while still dedicating the proceeds for specified games to the Stadium Authority. This will allow the agency to match the annual appropriation for the Stadium Facilities Fund at a faster rate, thus making more games available to benefit the general fund. The tickets would continue to designate "for the benefit of the Maryland Stadium Authority". Given the comparative experience of fiscal 1998, it is assumed that the additional revenue generated could be significant. For illustrative purposes, if weekly sales are increased by $266,000 and this increase is sustained for 26 weeks, almost $7 million in additional sales would be generated, resulting in a general fund revenue increase of approximately $2 million each year.
Commissions of Licensed Agents
House Bill 495 (passed) requires the State Lottery Agency to pay its licensed agents a commission of 5% of the agent's gross receipts from ticket sales made during the year. Under current law, the Lottery Agency may set any rate subject to a maximum of 5%. The Lottery Agency currently pays agents a commission of 4% for on-line games and 5% for instant ticket sales. As a result of the increase in commissions authorized under this legislation, general fund revenues are projected to decrease by about $6.8 million in FY 2001, with future year revenue losses increasing by 2% annually.
Cash Prize Payments
Legislation enacted in 1996 (Ch. 505), authorized licensed lottery agents to pay game prizes of not more than $5,000 in cash. The Lottery Agency believes that, along with this benefit, Lottery agents need to fulfill certain responsibilities, including checking a Lottery winner's obligation to pay child support and criminal restitution. The Lottery Agency reports that the agency is subject to penalties from the Internal Revenue Service and other governmental authorities for an agent's failure to obtain required tax reporting information. Although the agency has been able to correct any problems before being penalized, the agency desires statutory authority to charge an agent for any cost or penalty that falls back on the agency.
In response to these concerns, Senate Bill 33 (failed), a departmental bill, would have authorized the State Lottery Agency to assess service charges, fines, and penalties upon agents for: (1) making winners' payments that are dishonored, nonnegotiable, or drawn upon insufficient funds; (2) failing to keep accurate financial records or failing to file required tax information or forms; (3) failing to follow agency rules, regulations, and procedures or to perform contractual obligations established by the agency; or (4) any act or omission while making cash prize payments that results in the agency being subject to claims or assessed fees, fines, or penalties. The bill also would have authorized the agency to charge back to a violating agent any costs or penalties that result from a violation of the bill and that are imposed by a third party on the agency. Additional penalties were specified for each failure of an agent to intercept a child support arrearage or criminal restitution and for violations involving intentional or willful misconduct or gross negligence by the agent. An agent would have been able to appeal a penalty imposed to the State Lottery Commission.
STATE DESIGNATIONS
Louis L. Goldstein Day
In recognition of the contributions and achievements of the late Louis L. Goldstein, House Joint Resolution 1 (passed) designates March 14 of each year as "Louis L. Goldstein Day". Goldstein, who was born on March 14, 1913, served in elected office in Maryland for more than 55 years. He began his political career in 1938 when he was elected to the House of Delegates from Calvert County. In 1942, he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps where he served until 1946. Upon his discharge from the armed services, he returned to Maryland and served as a Senator from Calvert County from 1947 to 1958, the last four years as President of the Senate. He served as Comptroller of the Treasury from 1958 to 1998. Goldstein, who will also be remembered for passing out gold-colored aluminum coins bearing the words "God Bless Y'all Real Good", passed away on July 3, 1998.
Public School Holidays
Senate Bill 736/House Bill 1167 (both passed) establishes Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as an official public school holiday. While all local jurisdictions currently close schools on that holiday, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is not recognized as an official public school holiday. (For a more detailed discussion of this issue, see Part L - "Education" of The 90 Day Report.)
MISCELLANEOUS
United States Jurisdiction
In 1997, the United States Assistant Secretary of the Army requested that Governor Glendening transfer to the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over a 265 acre parcel of land known as the "Berman parcel", which is located in Anne Arundel County within the Fort George C. Meade Military Reservation. Currently, the United States has only a proprietary interest in this property and uses the property to house supercomputers. The United States claims that acquisition of the parcel is essential to the continued protection of the national security functions and activities of the National Security Agency. Under Title 40, U.S. Code, § 255, the United States is authorized to request that the State grant it exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the land at issue. In response to the Army's request, House Bill 256 (passed) grants the United States exclusive jurisdiction over this land. The State, however, retains the right: (1) to serve all civil and criminal process of the courts of the State, and (2) to enforce and ensure compliance with all applicable environmental and Public Service Commission laws and regulations.
Anthony Gray, Jr. - Compensation for Wrongful Conviction & Imprisonment
Seven and a half years after Anthony Gray, Jr., was arrested and convicted in the 1991 murder of a Chesapeake Beach woman, another man confessed to killing the victim. After the Calvert County State's Attorney reopened the case and determined that there was, in fact, no evidence linking Gray to the crime, Gray was promptly released from prison. House Bill 1213 (failed) would have required the Governor to include $7.5 million in the fiscal 2001 State budget to compensate Gray for his wrongful conviction and resulting wrongful imprisonment. Under State law, a pardon is necessary for the State Board of Public Works to compensate a former prisoner. Only twice in recent years has the board agreed to pay individuals who were mistakenly imprisoned. The board agreed to pay Kirk Bloodworth of Cambridge $300,000 after he served nine years, including time on death row, for a murder he did not commit. The board also awarded Leslie A. Vass of Baltimore $250,000 for serving ten years for an armed robbery he did not commit.
ELECTION JUDGES
Recruiting and retaining a sufficient number of election judges to satisfy the needs of polling places in Maryland continues to be a major problem for local election directors. In the weeks leading up to the 1998 primary and general elections, many subdivisions reported a critical shortage of judges from both major political parties. To address this problem, Senate Bill 11 (passed) alters the law that allows a local board of elections to appoint an individual who is not a member of the majority party or principal minority party to serve as an election judge. Under current law, a board may appoint an election judge who does not belong to either major party only if the precinct has eight or more election judges. The bill lowers the threshold to six in an effort to increase the available pool of election judges. The bill also authorizes the Prince George's County Board of Elections to select a minor who is at least age 17 to serve as an election judge in a precinct with at least six election judges, provided the minor meets all other criteria (except for age) for voter registration in the county.
VOTING SYSTEMS
Mechanical lever voting machines have been cited in the past as a cause for slow and inaccurate election returns. To modernize voting systems used in elections in the State, Senate Bill 297 (passed) prohibits a county from using mechanical lever voting machines on or after January 1, 2002. This means that the three counties currently using mechanical lever machines must replace their voting systems at an estimated cost of $6.5 million in Prince George's County, $350,000 in Dorchester County, and $600,000 in Allegany County.
PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS FROM STATE FUNDED ENTITIES
In 1994 the management of the Maryland Small Business Development Financing Authority (MSBDFA) was privatized with the formation of a private corporation called MSBDFA Management Group, Inc. (MMG). The Department of Business and Economic Development entered into a contract with MMG to manage the programs of MSBDFA in February 1995. A finding last year by the Office of Legislative Audits revealed that MMG had made contributions in excess of $21,000 to political candidates from 1995 to 1998. Prompted by concerns over this situation, Senate Bill 345 (passed) prohibits any entity that derives a majority of its operating funds from the State from contributing money or anything of value to a candidate or political committee during a four-year election cycle.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS
Legislation enacted in 1997 requires campaign finance reports filed with the State Board of Elections to be submitted to and maintained by the board in an electronic storage format. Specifically, reports must be submitted in a "disk form." In response to information technology advances, Senate Bill 750/House Bill 976 (both passed) authorize the filing of reports using any electronic medium approved by the State Board of Elections beginning with the filings due in November 2000.
BALTIMORE CITY ELECTIONS CYCLE
Under current law, elections in Baltimore City for municipal offices are held in November of the year following the election of the Governor. In an effort to decrease city expenditures for elections and to increase voter turnout during statewide elections, Senate Bill 331 (failed) would have proposed a Constitutional Amendment that would have allowed elections for officers in Baltimore City to be held on a four-year election cycle concurrent with State and county elections. Contingent upon ratification of the Constitutional Amendment by both a majority of voters in the State and by a majority of the voters in Baltimore City, Senate Bill 330 (failed) would have altered the existing election cycle for the Mayor and Members of the City Council of Baltimore City to coincide with other jurisdictions around the State.
REFORM OF LEGISLATIVE ETHICS PROCESS
During the 1998 session, the topic of legislative ethics received considerable attention. Early in the 1998 session, the Senate voted to expel one of its members on the basis of findings of violations of the Maryland Public Ethics Law. Later in that session, a member of the House of Delegates resigned while under investigation by the Joint Ethics Committee.
The ethics conflicts that were revealed during the review of those two cases highlighted apparent uncertainty within the General Assembly and among members of the public regarding the ethical standards to which legislators should be held in balancing their legislative duties with their private lives. The events also dramatically demonstrated the need for a careful examination of the laws governing legislative ethics. A consolidated, comprehensive State ethics law was enacted 20 years ago. Since that time, the legislative environment in Annapolis has changed considerably. Some of these changes have had a significant impact on issues relating to legislative ethics.
Joint resolutions passed in 1998 established a Special Study Commission on the Maryland Public Ethics Law to review and make recommendations regarding the ethics law as it relates to the General Assembly and its members. The Study Commission, chaired by Congressman Benjamin L. Cardin, consisted of six legislators and nine public members and was staffed by the Department of Legislative Services.
In its Final Report to the General Assembly, the Study Commission recommended numerous changes to the current laws relating to legislative ethics. Most of these recommendations are reflected in Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 (both passed).
Employment of Relatives
Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 codify an advisory opinion of the Joint Ethics Committee that prohibits a legislator from using public funds to hire a relative, or the relative of any other legislator from the same legislative district, to perform legislative work. The current exception that allows a legislator with a physical impairment to hire a relative is continued, subject to the approval of the Joint Ethics Committee. Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 include a grandfather clause that allows for the continued employment of relatives who were hired before the effective date of the bills, as authorized by the advisory opinion that is codified in the bills.
Use of Public Funds
Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 codify the principle that public resources may be used by legislators only for public purposes. The bills recognize, however, that occasional incidental use may be made of resources such as telephones.
Adoption of Rules of Legislative Ethics
Under current law, the House and Senate Rules governing legislative ethics become effective after the adoption of a joint resolution by a constitutional majority of each chamber voting separately. Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 give the Joint Ethics Committee express authority to propose the adoption, amendment, and repeal of the rules governing legislative ethics. Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 also require that the Committee hold a public hearing before proposing a change to these rules.
Ethics Advisor to the General Assembly
Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 provide for the appointment of a full-time counsel to the Committee who will also serve as Ethics Advisor to the General Assembly. In recognition of the need to protect the confidential nature of communications between the new Ethics Advisor and individual legislators, Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 create a "fire wall" between the advisory services provided by the Ethics Advisor and the Committee's disciplinary actions by prohibiting the Ethics Advisor from participating in any investigatory or prosecutorial functions. Communication between the Ethics Advisor and a legislator are protected under the attorney-client privilege.
Representation before Governmental Units
Current law prohibits a legislator from representing a client for contingent compensation in any matter before or involving a State or local agency and from representing a client for any compensation in matters involving State procurement or the adoption of regulations. Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 broaden the prohibition against representing a client for any compensation by making it applicable, with certain exceptions, to representing a client in any matter before or involving a State or local agency. The bills also make the prohibition regarding procurement and the adoption of regulations applicable to representation of clients before units of local government.
Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 retain an exception in current law that allows a legislator to represent a client for a fee in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding and broaden this exception to make it applicable to representation in matters preliminary, incidental, or collateral to a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. The bills also create exceptions that allow a legislator to represent a client for compensation in matters involving an agency's ministerial duties as well as in matters involving a legislator's regular business, employment, or profession, if the contact with the governmental agency is an incidental part of and occurs in the customary manner of the business, employment, or profession.
Gifts - Solicitation from Lobbyists
Under current law, legislators and other officials are prohibited from soliciting gifts. Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 add a provision that clarifies that this prohibition applies to soliciting or facilitating the solicitation of a gift, on behalf of another person, from an individual who is employed as a regulated lobbyist. A legislator is not prohibited from soliciting or facilitating the solicitation of a gift on behalf of another person from an entity that employs an individual lobbyist. The intent of this provision, as stated in the Final Report of the Study Commission, is to "eliminate circumstances where an official may, however unintentionally, create undue pressure on a lobbyist to provide gifts to other individuals, groups, or organizations".
Gifts from Lobbyists - Threshold Reporting Amount
Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 make changes to the current statutory provisions governing the receipt of unsolicited gifts from lobbyists and the reporting of a legislator's receipt of such gifts to make these provisions internally consistent. Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 increase from $15 to $20 the monetary threshold that triggers a prohibition against receipt of unsolicited gifts from regulated lobbyists. Under the bills, a legislator is prohibited from receiving an unsolicited gift with a value of more than $20 from a regulated lobbyist. Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 decrease from $25 to $20 the monetary threshold that triggers an annual reporting requirement for gifts received from regulated lobbyists. Under the bills, most gifts with a value of more than $20 must be reported on a legislator's annual financial disclosure form that is filed with the State Ethics Commission and the Joint Ethics Committee.
Gifts - Acceptance of Meals or Alcoholic Beverages
Current law allows a legislator to accept a meal or beverage as a gift from a regulated lobbyist, but requires the legislator to report the value of any meal or beverage that exceeds $25 on the legislator's annual financial disclosure statement that is filed with the State Ethics Commission. In contrast, Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 prohibit a legislator from accepting meals and beverages unless they are: (1) received and consumed at a meal or reception to which all members of a "legislative unit" (i.e., the General Assembly, either house of the General Assembly, a standing committee, or a county or regional delegation of members that is recognized by a presiding officer) are invited; (2) received from a donor or sponsoring entity within the legislator's district, other than an individual who is employed as a regulated lobbyist, during a period when the General Assembly is not in session, at a location that is within a county that contains the member's district; or (3) received at the time and geographic location of a meeting of a legislative organization for which the member's presiding officer has approved the member's attendance at State expense.
Under Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1, legislators are not required to report on their annual financial disclosure statements the value of meals and beverages received and consumed at a meal or reception to which all of the members of a legislative unit are invited or those received at the time and geographic location of a meeting of a legislative organization for which the member's presiding officer has approved attendance at State expense. Likewise, the lobbyist sponsoring the meal or reception is not required to disclose the names of legislators who attend.
Gifts - Special Events
Legislators are currently allowed to accept gifts of tickets or free admissions for sporting, charitable, cultural, or political events that are provided by regulated lobbyists as a courtesy or ceremony to the office. Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 modify this rule to allow a legislator to accept gifts of tickets or free admissions only from a person who is sponsoring or conducting a charitable, cultural, or political event. Events to which all members of a legislative unit are invited need not be reported; however, if a legislator receives two or more tickets or free admissions with a cumulative value of $100 or more from one entity during any given year, Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 require the legislator and the lobbying entity to report the value of the tickets or free admissions.
Gifts - Reasonable Expenses for Legislative Conference
Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 create a new exception to the general prohibition against legislators accepting gifts from regulated lobbyists by allowing legislators to accept reasonable expenses for food, travel, lodging, or scheduled entertainment to attend a legislative conference that has been approved by the legislator's presiding officer.
Honoraria
Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 prohibit a legislator from accepting an honorarium unless it is limited to the value of meals, travel, lodging, and other expenses connected with a speaking engagement.
Use of Prestige of Office
Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 prohibit a legislator from intentionally using the prestige of membership in the General Assembly for private gain, thereby codifying an advisory opinion of the Joint Ethics Committee. The bills create an exception for "the performance of usual and customary constituent services without additional compensation".
Conflicts of Interest
Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 amend the standards governing conflicts of interest by: (1) specifying that interests common to a legislator's occupation or profession, or common to a large class of the public, do not give rise to the presumption of a conflict of interest and need not be "disclaimed"; (2) specifying that an apparent or presumed conflict that is "direct and personal" to the legislator, a member of the legislator's immediate family, or the legislator's employer creates an absolute bar to participation in legislative activity on a bill to which the conflict relates; (3) stating that a conflict will not be presumed if the legislator has no actual knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to the conflict; (4) raising from $10,000 to $25,000 the threshold amount of stock ownership that may create a presumed conflict of interest as to legislation affecting the corporation; and (5) narrowing the provision in current law that presumes a conflict of interest if a legislator solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept a gift, loan, or payment of significant value from a person affected by the legislator's vote so that the presumption applies only to the solicitation or acceptance of a loan (other than a loan from a commercial lender made in the normal course of business).
Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 continue a legislator's option to file a disclaimer of conflict form as to certain apparent or presumed conflicts, thereby allowing the legislator to participate in any legislative action to which the conflict relates.
A legislator "taking the rule" on a bill will be required to file a statement of explanation of the recusal.
Employment by Governmental Units
With certain exceptions, Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 prohibit a legislator from being employed by a State agency or local government. This prohibition does not apply to employment as a law enforcement officer or a fire or rescue squad worker. In addition, the Joint Ethics Committee is authorized to exempt a legislator from this prohibition if the employment is for a teaching position, a position that is subject to the merit system hiring process, a human services position, or a career path advancement. Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 contain a grandfather clause that allows for the continued employment of current members of the General Assembly who hold employment positions with a State agency or local government, even if they do not fall within one of the specified exceptions. Governmental employment that commenced before the legislator initially filed for election may be continued.
Joint Ethics Committee - Written Opinions
Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 include a number of provisions that are intended to encourage legislators to avail themselves of written opinions from the Committee and to encourage the Committee to publish formal opinions more frequently. The bills authorize legislators to request written opinions from the Committee regarding the propriety of any current or proposed conduct. A written opinion issued to a legislator, though binding on the legislator to whom it is addressed, would also protect the legislator from being sanctioned by the Committee. An investigation could not be initiated by the Committee based on the information provided by a legislator asking for advice, provided the legislator acts in good faith. The Committee will determine whether a particular opinion should be made public, with deletions and changes as necessary to protect a legislator's identity. A published opinion is binding on all legislators. The co-chairman of the Committee will be able to issue opinions without a vote of the full Committee if the opinion is consistent with prior precedent.
Joint Ethics Committee - Complaint and Hearing Procedures
To ensure that the complaint and investigation process relating to legislative ethics is fair and uniform for all interested parties, Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 make a number of changes to the current laws governing the form of an ethics complaint, the investigation of potential violations, and the making of findings and recommendations.
Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 provide that the same investigatory procedures will be followed regardless of whether a complaint to the Joint Ethics Committee is received in the form of: (1) a written statement and affidavit from a person; (2) a motion of a majority of the Committee; or (3) a referral from a presiding officer.
The bills maintain the general requirement in current law that the Joint Ethics Committee maintain confidentiality as to matters under its review involving a complaint against a legislator. However, the bills authorize the Committee to allow public access to otherwise confidential information if three-fourths of the members of the Committee vote, based on criteria established in the House and Senate Rules, to allow public access.
In cases involving inadvertent, technical, or minor violations, Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 authorize the Joint Ethics Committee to give a legislator the opportunity to cure the violation without the issue proceeding further or being made public. If the Committee determines that a complaint lacks merit, the Committee is required to terminate proceedings. After review of a complaint, the Committee is required to provide a statement of its findings to the legislator against whom the complaint has been filed. If the Committee determines that a complaint against a legislator has merit and that further proceedings are warranted, the Committee is required to prepare a formal allegation summary setting forth the alleged facts and issues.
If the Joint Ethics Committee decides that a complaint has merit and prepares an allegation summary, the Committee must provide the legislator with a copy of the complaint and allegation summary. The legislator may file a written response to the allegation summary.
As to any complaint filed against a legislator, a statement of findings will be prepared and provided to the legislator.
If, after considering the response of a legislator to an allegation summary and reviewing any other information it determines to be appropriate, the Joint Ethics Committee decides that further proceedings are necessary, the bill requires the Committee to conduct a formal hearing. Current law requires referral of the matter to a separate investigating committee. Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 eliminate this duplication of investigations. The bills require the Committee to adopt written procedures governing its hearings, including due process protections for an accused legislator.
Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 authorize the Joint Ethics Committee, by a two-thirds vote, to issue a subpoena to require the appearance of a person, the production of relevant records, and the giving of relevant testimony in a proceeding. If the Committee exercises its subpoena authority, the legislator under investigation may require that the Committee issue subpoenas on the legislator's behalf.
Annual Financial Disclosure Statements
Current law requires legislators to file an annual financial disclosure statement with the State Ethics Commission. Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 require that a duplicate of this statement be filed with the Joint Ethics Committee.
The current filing deadline of April 30th is retained in Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1. However, if there will be a substantial change in the financial disclosure statement, compared to the statement filed in the preceding year, the bills require that a "preliminary disclosure" be filed with the State Ethics Commission and the Joint Ethics Committee on or before the seventh day of session.
Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1 require the State Ethics Commission to develop a system that would allow for electronic filing of a legislator's annual financial disclosure statement.
USE OF PRESTIGE OF OFFICE
In addition to its recommendations regarding the laws governing legislative ethics, the Special Study Commission on the Maryland Public Ethics Law recommended that the current prohibition against public officials using the "prestige of office" for personal gain be broadened to apply to all "State officials". Senate Bill 25/House Bill 2 (both passed) implement this recommendation by broadening the prohibition against using the prestige of office for personal gain to include the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Comptroller, Attorney General, judges, judicial appointees, a State's Attorney, a clerk of a circuit court, a register of wills, a sheriff, and members of the General Assembly. To the extent that it applies to members of the General Assembly, Senate Bill 25/House Bill 2 duplicate a similar provision in Senate Bill 1/House Bill 1.
STUDY COMMISSION ON LOBBYIST ETHICS
The Special Study Commission on the Maryland Public Ethics Law that was established in 1998 was not authorized to review the provisions of current law that relate to regulated lobbyists, except to the extent that these provisions relate to the conduct of legislators. In recognition of the enormous growth in the business of lobbying and its tremendous impact on the legislative environment in Annapolis, the General Assembly passed legislation this year that creates a Study Commission on Lobbyist Ethics. Senate Joint Resolution 3/House Joint Resolution 20 (both passed) require the Commission to collect information on lobbying practices and standards of ethics for regulated lobbyists, receive testimony, develop a Code of Ethics for Lobbyists, and propose any appropriate statutory changes to the Maryland Public Ethics Law as it relates to regulated lobbyists. The Commission must report its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly no later than December 31, 1999.
RECORDS OF THE JOINT ETHICS COMMITTEE
Under current law, the State Ethics Commission is required to maintain a record of the name and address of each individual who examines or copies a financial disclosure statement that is kept on file by the Commission, as well as the name of the individual whose statement was examined or copied. House Bill 1029 (passed) requires that the Joint Ethics Committee maintain similar records of individuals who examine or copy the conflict of interest statements that are submitted by legislators and kept on file by the Committee. The bill requires the Committee to notify the legislator when a file has been examined, if the legislator has requested such notification.
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION - TRAINING
House Bill 58 (passed) requires the State Ethics Commission to provide a 2-hour training course on the requirements of the Maryland Public Ethics Law to individuals who are considered "public officials". Under current law, the term "public official" includes: (1) employees of executive units who receive compensation at a rate equivalent to at least grade 16 who are determined by the Commission to hold a position that includes certain types of decision making authority or who act as an advisor to such individuals; (2) other employees of executive units who have certain types of decision making authority or who act as an advisor to such individuals; (3) employees of the legislative branch who receive compensation at a rate equivalent to grade 16 who are designated by the presiding officers to be a "public official"; (4) employees of the judicial branch who receive compensation at a rate equivalent to at least grade 16; (5) members, employees, and appointees of the Maryland Stadium Authority and the Canal Place Preservation and Development Authority; and (6) members of the Emergency Medical Services Board. House Bill 58 requires public officials to complete the required training within 6 months of filling an applicable vacancy or position.
APPLICATION OF PROCUREMENT LAW
Maryland Port Administration
In 1998, the State began negotiating with Maersk and Sealand shipping lines with the hope of significantly expanding the volume of containerized cargo shipped through the Port of Baltimore. To increase the State's negotiating position, and to accelerate construction of new facilities at the Dundalk Marine Terminal should the State's efforts prove successful, the General Assembly has granted the Maryland Port Administration a limited exemption from the State's procurement law.
House Bill 1191 (passed) provides in part that, subject to specified exceptions, the State procurement law does not apply to the Maryland Port Administration for contracts pertaining to the design, construction, or dredging related to a container facility of at least 100 acres at Dundalk Marine Terminal. The provisions of the procurement law that will continue to apply are the State's minority business enterprise program, the prevailing wage law, the Maryland Little Miller Act (bonding requirements), and provisions governing contract administration and dispute resolution. The exception authorized by the bill expires May 31, 2001.
For further discussion pertaining to the State's efforts for expanding containerized cargo shipped through the Port of Baltimore, see the Economic and Community Development Section under Part H -- Business and Economic Issues of this 90 Day Report.
University System of Maryland
During the 1998 session, the General Assembly established a task force to study the governance, coordination, and funding of the University System of Maryland. The report of the task force served as the foundation for Senate Bill 682 (passed), granting the University System and its constituent institutions greater autonomy and flexibility in its operations. Discussion here is limited to procurement matters.
Senate Bill 682 requires the Board of Regents of the University System of Maryland to develop policies and procedures governing procurement by the University. The policies and procedures are subject to the approval by the Board of Public Works and the Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review Committee of the General Assembly and are to promote the purposes of the State's procurement law. However, with limited exceptions, such as the State's minority enterprise program, select contract administration provisions, and debarment provisions, the University System will no longer be subject to the State's procurement law. There is an additional exception applicable to select procurement provisions that would otherwise apply relating to certain enterprise activities of the University System. To the maximum extent practicable, the University System's procurement policies will require the purchasing of supplies or services through State Use Industries, Blind Industries and Services of Maryland, and the State's sheltered workshop program. Any contract for services or capital improvements with a value exceeding $500,000 will require approval of the Board of Public Works.
For a detailed discussion of Senate Bill 682, see the higher education section under Part L -- Education of this 90 Day Report.
PROCUREMENT PRACTICES IMPROVEMENT ACT
In response to a recommendation issued by the Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics of the Maryland General Assembly, Governor Parris Glendening established the Governor's Special Commission to Study Health Care Procurement Practices by executive order during March 1998. Although the Commission focused primarily on health care procurement practices, it also submitted recommendations that apply to general procurement practices of the State. Several of the legislative recommendations of the Commission were included in Senate Bill 719/House Bill 1090 (both passed), the Procurement Practices Improvement Act of 1999.
Solicitation Process
In order to further safeguard against the potential of improper influence in the procurement process, Senate Bill 719/House Bill 1090 restrict the disclosure of information and establish documentation requirements applicable to each procurement. Specifically, the bills provide that, after a solicitation is issued and until a recommendation is made by a procurement officer, a procurement officer may not disclose to a person outside of the executive department information other than whether a decision has been made regarding a solicitation and other information that is available to the public under the State's public information law. A procurement officer must maintain a file on each procurement that includes information on inquiries, written solicitations, offers, correspondence, and the final contract. The bills require a procurement officer to record as part of the procurement file the date, time, and nature of an inquiry, as well as the name and affiliation of the person making the inquiry, after a solicitation is issued.
Conflict of Interest Provisions
The Commission also conducted a review of ethics laws that relate to procurement and recommended strengthening the law through a revision of the ownership/financial interest, employment, representation, and gift acceptance/solicitation provisions of the ethics laws. Senate Bill 719/House Bill 1090 codify several of these recommendations. The bills prohibit an official or employee from accepting a gift from a contractor competing for a contract or from any officer, employee, representative, agent, or consultant of the contractor, consistent with the law prohibiting a contractor from offering a gift to a procurement official. "Procurement official" is defined under the bills as either a procurement officer or an individual who participates in the drafting of specifications for procurement. "Financial interest" is also redefined under the Maryland Public Ethics Law to include certain ownership interests held by the spouse of an official or employee. The prohibition under conflict of interest provisions relating to participation on matters while exploring connected employment opportunities is modified to include situations where an official, employee, or qualifying relative has applied for a position. Additionally, the bills extend the restriction on an official or employee being employed by, or having a financial interest in, a business entity negotiating or holding a contract with the official's or employee's unit to also apply to subcontracts under a contract with the unit.
Debarment Procedures
The Commission also recommended that the debarment process under the State's procurement law be streamlined. Senate Bill 719/House Bill 1090 authorize the Attorney General to institute proceedings, without first obtaining approval of the Board of Public Works, to debar persons from entering into a contract with the State or a local government based on specified offenses. Under the bills, the Attorney General may institute proceedings by filing an administrative complaint with the Board of Public Works. The Board will then notify the person of the right to a hearing. Although the hearing would be conducted by a hearing officer, the final decision remains with the Board of Public Works.
RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE PROGRAM
Under the State's procurement law, a State agency may grant a preference to a bidder who has its principal office in Maryland and who is competing for a State contract with a responsible bidder with its principal office in another state as long as the preference does not conflict with federal law or a federal grant affecting the procurement contract. The preference granted must be identical to the preference that the other state makes available to its resident businesses.
Recognizing that there may be no nexus between where an out-of-state business has its principal office and where it has an operation with which a Maryland business may be competing, the General Assembly modified the reciprocal preference program. House Bill 1191 (passed), in part, allows State agencies to grant a Maryland business a preference when it is competing for a State contract with an out-of-state business whose principal office or principal operation through which it would provide services or supplies under the contract is in another state that grants its resident businesses a preference. "Services" is defined under the bill to include architectural services, construction related services, engineering services, and services under energy performance contracts.
STATE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
Prompt Payment of Subcontractors
For several years, the General Assembly has heard of cases where subcontractors have experienced problems being paid by prime contractors for work on State construction projects. Available remedies through the courts are often inadequate for small businesses, due to costs and delay coupled with immediate cash flow difficulties. Previous attempts to address subcontractors' complaints through legislation have proved unsuccessful. Because State agencies have no contractual relationship with subcontractors, the agencies have resisted any effort that might interfere with the State's interests in potential disputes between the State and a prime contractor. Organizations representing primarily prime contracts have resisted efforts perceived as inappropriate interference by the State in their contractual relationship with subcontractors. However, this session the General Assembly developed legislation to address subcontractors' complaints in cases involving the payment of undisputed amounts.
House Bill 1112 (passed), which is applicable to contractors who subcontract work under State construction contracts, establishes a prompt payment requirement and an informal dispute resolution process that only applies in cases where money is withheld by a prime contractor without adequate justification. The bill establishes a three-step resolution process addressing payment disputes between contractors and subcontractors, as outlined below. Failure to make payments as required under the bill can result in a monetary penalty.
The bill requires that a contractor pay a subcontractor within 10 days of receiving a progress payment or final payment from the State. Should payment be withheld, the contractor must give a subcontractor written notice of the reason and provide a copy of the notice to the procurement officer. "Undisputed amount" is defined under the bill as "an amount owed by a contractor to a subcontractor for which there is no good faith dispute, including any retainage withheld."
If a subcontractor reports the failure of a contractor to make a timely payment, within two business days a representative of the agency designated by the procurement officer is to verbally contact the contractor to ascertain whether the amount withheld constitutes an undisputed amount. Should the agency representative determine that all or part of the amount withheld is an undisputed amount, the representative shall instruct the contractor to pay the subcontractor within three business days and shall verbally inform the subcontractor of the results of discussions.
If the subcontractor still is not paid and the subcontractor reports the nonpayment in writing, the agency representative must schedule a meeting to take place within a ten-day period to discuss the dispute with the project manager, contractor, and subcontractor at a time and location selected by the agency representative. The agency representative shall require the parties to provide any information that the representative believes necessary to evaluate the dispute. Should the agency representative determine that the contractor is delinquent in making payments, further progress payments due to the contractor may be withheld pending payment.
If the contractor fails to pay the subcontractor within seven days after the delinquency determination, the agency representative must schedule a second meeting within five days after the close of the seven-day period. If the agency representative determines at the completion of the second meeting that the contractor continues to be delinquent in payments owed to the subcontractor, the agency representative is to order that further progress payments to the contractor not be processed until payment is verified. The representative also may order that work under the contract be suspended based on the failure of the contractor to meet contractual obligations. In addition, the agency representative may require the contractor to pay a penalty to the subcontractor not exceeding $100 per day from the date that payment was required following the initial contact of the contractor by the agency representative. However, the penalty may not be applied for any period that the subcontractor was delinquent in reporting nonpayment.
Finally, House Bill 1112 grants both the contractor and subcontractor a right to appeal the agency representative's final step decision to the procurement officer, and the contractor is required under the bill to comply with the procurement officer's decision. A decision of the agency representative or procurement officer is not subject to judicial review or review under the dispute resolution provisions of the State procurement law. An act, failure to act, or decision under the bill may not: (1) affect the rights of the contracting parties under other provisions of law; (2) be used as evidence on the merits of a dispute between the agency and the contractor or the contractor and the subcontractor in any other proceeding; or (3) result in liability against or prejudice the rights of the agency.
Contract Claims Process
In 1996, the General Assembly significantly modified the claims process for procurement contracts for construction. Under the current process, there is a fixed schedule for submission of both a notice of claim and the actual claim under construction contracts. A contractor must submit written notice of a claim within 30 days after the basis for the claim is known or should have been known. (A shorter period is required for differing site conditions, an issue addressed by regulations.) Within 30 days after submitting a notice of claim, the contractor must submit a written explanation of the claim, including the amount, the facts on which the claim is based, and relevant data and correspondence that may substantiate the claim.
Although State agencies are authorized by statute to extend the time in which the actual claim must be submitted, contracting industries have argued that the 30-day period for documenting a claim is not adequate. House Bill 1094 (passed) extends the time period within which a contractor must submit a written explanation of a contract claim from 30 days to 90 days after the notice of the claim has been filed. Consistent with the modified filing schedule, the bill modifies the restriction on payment for expenses untimely reported, extending the period for expenses incurred more than 120 days, rather than 60 days, preceding the required filing of the claim.
REGULATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS
Of the six legislative proposals dealing with administrative processes relating to public records, only one was successful during this session.
Electronic Records
After considering the issue in several previous sessions, the General Assembly approved legislation mandating free electronic public access to Maryland regulations. Senate Bill 259/House Bill 858 (both passed) require the Division of State Documents to make direct on-line searches of the Maryland Register and the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) available to the public free of charge. The bills prohibit the commercial resale or other compensated use of materials obtained from these searches. Before obtaining access to search material, the user must be presented with a statement advising the user of the prohibition against commercial use of the material, and allowing the user to refuse access under those terms.
On-line searches of Maryland regulatory material under Senate Bill 259/House Bill 858 must be available starting January 1, 2000.
Another reintroduced proposal, House Bill 790 (failed), would have declared electronic materials or reproductions of State records to be public records for purposes of public access, limiting the fees for editing, reproducing, and providing these materials to the public.
REGULATORY REFORM AND ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT
Task Force on Regulatory Reform
In order to take a broad look at the existing body of Maryland regulations, and to assess opportunities for streamlining it, Senate Joint Resolution 11 (passed) establishes a Task Force on Regulatory Reform. The Task Force is charged with examining the process by which agencies review all their regulations on an 8-year cycle under the Regulatory Review and Evaluation Act. In conducting that review, the Task Force must identify portions of at least two titles of the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) for a pilot examination, in order to clarify language and eliminate obsolete provisions, apply a cost/benefit analysis to the regulations, assess the impact of the regulations on small business, and identify standards more stringent than applicable federal standards. As appropriate, the Task Force may recommend legislative changes to the 2001 Legislative Session.
The Task Force will consist of 15 members selected from the legislature, cabinet secretaries, regulated industries, the Division of State Documents, and the general public. The final report of the Task Force is due to the Governor and the Legislative Policy Committee on December 1, 2000.
Administrative Hearings Oversight
In order to enhance oversight of the administrative hearing activities performed by the Office of Administrative Hearings, House Bill 657 (passed) adds an additional member to the existing State Advisory Council on Administrative Hearings. The bill specifically requires that a nongovernmental attorney who practices before the Office be named to the Advisory Council. This new member is in addition to the existing two members representing the Maryland State Bar Association. The aim of the legislation is to ensure that a legal perspective of the actual workings of the administrative hearing process is always available in the deliberations of the Advisory Council as it reviews and considers recommendations on improving this adjudicatory system.
Compensation Enhancements and New Pay Plan
Employee compensation enhancements constitute a major component of the fiscal 2000 budget. Five elements account for a general fund increase of $96.8 million over fiscal 1999 spending. A $1,275 salary increase per employee is provided, but will be phased-in to provide a take-home increase in salary of $957 per employee. A new standard salary plan affecting 44,000 positions increases the number of steps from 6 to 16, addressing the limitation on salary growth affecting 63% of State employees who are at the highest step under the current pay plan. There is a new pay plan in the Judiciary as well as for positions other than judges. Pay-for-performance has been expanded for fiscal 2000 to include $1,000 bonuses for employees receiving an evaluation of "outstanding" and $500 for "exceeds standards". A $600 per employee State match for deferred compensation contributions, required under Chapter 530 of the Acts of 1998, was funded based on the assumption that 60% of eligible employees would participate in the first year.
Step Increases
House Bill 981 (failed) would have required that any step increase payable to an employee whose position is in the Standard Pay Plan be based on and effective as of the anniversary date of the employee's date of employment with the State.
During the 1996 Session, a Maryland governor for the first time introduced collective bargaining legislation for State employees. Because the General Assembly did not pass collective bargaining legislation in 1996, the Governor promulgated an Executive Order establishing collective bargaining for certain State employees. Since 1996, collective bargaining, as defined by the Governor's Executive Order, has viewed employees and management as equal partners when discussing and resolving issues of importance to the work of State government.
House Bill 179 (passed), which establishes collective bargaining rights for employees in the principal departments of the executive branch of State government and creates an administrative process for collective bargaining, codifies much of the bargaining process set up by the Governor's Executive Order. As introduced, the bill would have gone beyond the procedures for collective bargaining established under the Executive Order by extending collective bargaining rights to nonfaculty employees of public institutions of higher education, creating procedures for resolving impasses, and requiring State employees to pay a fee to their unit's exclusive bargaining representative. As passed, however, House Bill 179 does not contain these provisions, and implementation of a collective bargaining plan for University System of Maryland nonfaculty employees is prohibited.
Specifically, House Bill 179: (1) defines which employees will and will not have collective bargaining rights; (2) grandfathers in the nine existing bargaining units and allows for the creation of more units if necessary; (3) creates a State Labor Relations Board, modeled after boards in other states, to oversee the collective bargaining process and resolve disputes; (4) guarantees employees and employers certain rights; (5) prohibits strikes; (6) provides that an elected bargaining representative has exclusive rights to participate in collective bargaining; (7) specifies the process for electing and decertifying an exclusive bargaining representative; and (8) establishes the duties of the exclusive bargaining representative.
Consistent with the Governor's Executive Order, House Bill 179 allows State employees, through their elected exclusive bargaining representatives, and the Governor to engage in good faith negotiations over wages, hours, and conditions of employment. All matters agreed to are to be contained in a memorandum of understanding, which must be ratified by the Governor and the members of the bargaining unit. Under the bill, the Governor is not required to negotiate on any matter that is inconsistent with existing law, and negotiations over service fees for nonunion members of the bargaining unit are prohibited. In addition, budget or legislative initiatives that are the result of negotiations must be recommended to the General Assembly for approval. The bill specifies that the budget authority of the General Assembly is not affected by the collective bargaining process, and the right of the General Assembly to change or modify the law with regard to any matter that is a subject of a memorandum of understanding is reserved.
STATE EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS
Satellite Organizations
Current law allows a "qualifying not-for-profit organization", defined as an organization that receives a certain portion of its operating expenses from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and is exempt from federal income tax, to participate in the State Employee and Retiree Health and Welfare Benefits Program as a satellite organization. House Bill 71 (Ch. 63) repeals the requirement under current law that a satellite organization must pay to the State the costs assessed by the Secretary of Budget and Management for the settlement of claims and expenses resulting from the participation of its employees in the program. This provision had been interpreted as requiring a satellite organization to pay these costs on an experience-rating basis. According to the Department of Budget and Management, this interpretation could result in a small agency being severely impacted by the claims associated with just one catastrophic illness. House Bill 71 was introduced by the Department of Budget and Management to eliminate this potential adverse impact.
Advisory Council
House Bill 1044 (passed) increases the membership of the State Employees' Health Insurance Advisory Council from 15 to 18 members by adding representatives from the Maryland Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals, the Maryland Professional Employees Council, and the State Law Enforcement Officers Labor Alliance.
Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority
House Bill 160 (Ch. 73) allows retirees of the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority to participate in the State Employee and Retiree Health and Welfare Benefits Program. The Act requires the Authority or any successor agency to pay to the State the employer share of the cost of participation in the program. The Authority, a multicounty agency created under the State's natural resources law, currently participates in the State pension system and health benefits program for active employees.
EMPLOYEE LEAVE
Senate Bill 276 (passed) expands the circumstances under which State employees may receive and use donations of unused annual, sick, or personal leave under the Employee-to-Employee Leave Donation Program. The bill allows receipt and use of donated leave for a catastrophic illness or injury of a member of an employee's immediate family for whom the employee is needed to provide direct care. The employee receiving the leave donation may use the leave only after obtaining approval from the employee's appointing authority. This approval is discretionary, and denial may be based on any reason that is consistently applied and that is not illegal or unconstitutional.
TELEWORKING PILOT PROGRAM
Several bills were introduced during the 1999 Session relating to the State's Telecommuting Pilot Program. House Bill 870 (passed) renames the program the Teleworking Pilot Program and makes a number of changes in the program. Under the bill, the Secretary of Budget and Management must adopt a telework policy and guidelines necessary to establish and carry out the purposes of the pilot program for use by all participating agencies. Participating agencies are required to provide teleworking State employees with copies of relevant agency telephone directories and reports that are stored on computer disk.
House Bill 870 also requires the Secretary of Budget and Management to hire a telework consultant to: (1) provide technical assistance in implementing the pilot program; (2) develop and conduct training programs for teleworking State employees and their managers; (3) identify telework centers, including distributive training technology centers, that are available to State teleworkers; and (4) develop a proposal for a telework center pilot program. In addition, the bill requires the Secretary to establish a Telework Steering Committee to assist the Secretary in establishing telework programs in all executive branch agencies, and provides for the composition and duties of the committee.
Under House Bill 870, each executive branch agency must establish a goal of having 10% of all eligible agency employees participate in a telework program and must present to the budget committees on December 1, 1999 and December 1, 2000 a report on the agency's success in implementing a telework program. The Department of Budget and Management also is required to report to the budget committees on December 1, 1999 and December 1, 2000 on the success of the pilot program and the effect of the pilot program within each participating agency.
Two other telecommuting bills would have assisted employees participating in a telecommuting program. House Bill 863 (failed) would have allowed an employee to convert personal or annual leave to cash for the purchase of home office equipment necessary to enable the employee to participate in a telecommuting program. House Bill 867 (failed) would have reimbursed certain State employees for interest expenses incurred in connection with the purchase of home office equipment needed for telecommuting.
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AND PROBATION
Under current law, an appointing authority of an employee in the State Personnel Management System may direct up to 3 work days of emergency suspension of the employee, with pay, to immediately remove the employee from the workplace when the appointing authority believes that the employee: (1) poses a threat to self, another individual, or State property; or (2) is incapable of properly performing the employee's duties because of extraordinary circumstances. House Bill 74 (passed) repeals this authority and instead authorizes the Secretary of Budget and Management to provide for administrative leave for the purpose of immediately removing an employee from the work site under those circumstances.
The bill is intended to eliminate any potential double jeopardy issue that might arise from the use of a 3-day suspension together with another type of disciplinary action. House Bill 74 allows an appointing authority to put an employee on administrative leave, conduct an investigation, and, if necessary, impose any disciplinary action available under State personnel law. House Bill 73 (passed) eliminates the requirement that an employee in the management service or in a special appointment position in the State Personnel Management System serve a probationary period. Since these employees already may be terminated at will under State personnel law, a requirement that they serve a probationary period is unnecessary.
VETERANS
House Bill 550 (passed) requires that a candidate for appointment to a position in the skilled service or the professional service who is an eligible veteran be identified as an eligible veteran on the list of eligible candidates.
STATE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
Senate Bill 141/House Bill 191 (both passed) alter several aspects of the State Police Retirement System and enhance the benefit structure for retirees and active members of that system.
Description of Enhancements
These bills also increase the retirement allowances of State Police Retirement System members who are retired or who retire before June 30, 1999, by providing annual lump sum payments as follows:
The lump sum would apply to all normal service and disability retirees and their beneficiaries. Retirees will receive a prospective annual unlimited cost of living adjustment (COLA) on this annual lump sum in addition to their existing benefit and COLA.
Fiscal Impact - Additional Employer Pension Contributions
There were 1,635 active members of the State Police Retirement System on June 30, 1998, with a total payroll of $70.7 million. Under the bills members will be able to retire at 22 years with 56.1% of average final compensation. Alternatively, they could retire at 25 years of service with 63.8% of average final compensation versus the current full retirement of 55% of average final compensation at 25 years (a 16% increase in the accrual rate). The DROP also affects pension costs by shortening the average age and years of service until retirement. There is also an actuarial cost associated with member eligibility for special disability benefits during the period when the member has "retired" but continues to work; however, the actuary estimates that this cost is not material.
The State's actuary advises that the enhancement for active members will increase total actuarial liabilities by a net present value of $67.5 million, amortized over 19 years until the year 2020. The first-year amortization payment in fiscal 2001 would be $8.2 million, increasing 5% per year thereafter.
There were 1,234 retirees and beneficiaries of the State Police Retirement System as of June 30, 1998. The actuary estimates that the annual lump sum payments and attendant COLAs will increase the system's actuarial liabilities by $23.7 million, amortized over the 19 years until 2020. The first-year amortization payment in fiscal 2001 will be $1,496,000, increasing 5% per year thereafter.
In total, employer contributions will increase by $9.7 million in fiscal 2001, increasing 5% per year thereafter. As a percentage of payroll, the employer contribution rate would increase from 1.26% (fiscal 2000) to 13.26%. (This rate is based on the assumption that the State makes contributions for all system members, including those in the DROP.)
It is assumed that 80% of the pension expenditures will be general fund and the remainder special fund (Transportation Trust Fund). The Governor's proposed fiscal 2000 budget included $8 million of general funds contingent on enactment of these bills. The additional pension costs resulting from these bills, however, would not be realized until fiscal 2001, so the General Assembly cut the budgeted fiscal 2000 funds.
State Police Retirement System - Actuarial Funding Changes
The Board of Trustees of the State Retirement and Pension System is currently considering a change in its actuarial funding methodology to make contribution rates less volatile as the overall system approaches full funding. If the board makes such a change, the cost of the State Police enhancement could vary significantly from the current estimates.
A change in the actuarial funding method will not alter the total additional liabilities of $91.2 million under the enhancement. The funding method, however, will alter the annual cost of the enhancement by altering the distribution of when those costs are paid. The actuary estimates that the annual costs in the initial years of the enhancement would go down under an alternate funding method. Such a funding method would increase the State Police system's contribution gradually from the current rate of 1.26% up to the system's new normal cost. In that case, the first-year contribution rate could be lower than the 13.26% currently estimated.
FOLLOW-UP ITEMS TO PENSION SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
The pension systems for State employees and teachers were significantly enhanced last year under Chapter 530 of 1998 (House Bill 987 of 1998). As is typically the case following large-scale legislative changes, there were several smaller follow-up items to the pension enhancement this year.
Participating Local Governmental Units
Local governmental units that participate in the State Retirement and Pension System (SRPS) are provided the option to offer the pension enhancement to their members of the Employees' Pension System under Senate Bill 363 (passed).
Local governmental units that participate in the SRPS were not included in the 1998 pension enhancement. The participating governmental units are part of a "pool" of assets and liabilities, but each unit pays a slightly different rate to account for different demographic patterns and past contributions that were actuarially deficient. During the 1998 interim, the Joint Committee on Pensions studied the cost impact to the participating governmental units participating in the enhancement. The vast majority of participating local governments that expressed an opinion to the joint committee were in favor of expanding the pension benefit enhancement to include them. The few jurisdictions that opposed enhancement for their own systems (primarily for cost reasons) did not oppose expansion of the enhancement to other jurisdictions.
Senate Bill 363 gives local governments that participate in the SRPS the option to participate in the pension enhancement under the 1998 enactment. The bill allows members of the Employees' Pension System (or Selection C or "bifurcated" members of the Employees' Retirement System) who are employed by a participating governmental unit that elects the enhancement to receive the improved pension benefit formula under the 1998 enactment. The enhancement is optional on the part of the local employer, but once an election is made it is irrevocable. The employers have a six-month window period beginning July 1, 1999 in which to elect the enhancement. The bill takes effect July 1, 1999, but the benefits and employer and employee costs are retroactive to July 1, 1998 to make them consistent with the enhancement granted to other pension system members. Future employers joining the SRPS will do so under the enhanced benefit structure. Employees have a grace period to pay back the missed employee contributions without interest.
Covered employees now receive 1.4% of average final compensation for each year of service after July 1, 1998. Service before July 1, 1998 earns 1.2% or the existing formula, whichever is higher, for each year of service. These employees are required to contribute 2% of pay toward their pension benefit. They receive a compound COLA capped at 3%, versus the previous simple COLA (also capped at 3%).
The State's actuary estimates the following aggregate cost (as a percent of payroll) to participating governmental units if they elect the benefit enhancement:
Participating Local Governments: Aggregate Rates
| FY 2000 Base Rate (including impact of investment assumption change to 8%): |
3.70% |
| Aggregate Cost of Enhancement: | 2.42% |
| Total Aggregate FY 2000 for Employers Electing Enhancement: |
6.12% |
The actuary notes that these aggregate rates do not reflect adjustments for individual local governments relating to the Retirement System surcharge, any surplus or deficit adjustment, and new employee costs.
The bill does not include the participating governmental units in the deferred compensation matching program, which is open to State employees only. (Local governments can establish their own deferred compensation programs and some have done so.) Individualized costs for the participating local governments will be provided to the local governments prior to the beginning of the window period for making the election to participate in the pension enhancement.
Selection C Members ("Bifurcators")
Senate Bill 363 also includes Selection C members of the retirement systems who are State employees or teachers in the pension enhancement. Selection C members, also referred to as "bifurcated" members, currently accrue service in the pension systems, but maintain service credit in the retirement systems for their years of service prior to electing to bifurcate. Because Selection C members are members of the retirement systems, they were not eligible for the enhancement under the 1998 enactment.
Under Senate Bill 363, covered employees now receive 1.4% of average final compensation for each year of service after July 1, 1998. Service before July 1, 1998 earns 1.2% or the existing formula, whichever is higher, for each year of service. These employees must contribute 2% of pay toward their pension benefit. They receive a compound cost of living adjustment (COLA) capped at 3%, versus the previous simple COLA (also capped at 3%). The bill applies retroactively, granting eligibility and creditable service for affected members as of July 1, 1998 (including for those who have retired since July 1, 1998) and includes the compound COLA since that date. The bill also makes Selection C members who are State employees eligible for the deferred compensation matching program created under the 1998 enactment.
The State Retirement Agency advises that there are 1,734 Selection C members, of whom 1,626 are State employees or teachers. The State's actuary estimates that including these 1,626 Selection C members in the enhancement will increase the system's liabilities by $25.3 million. Amortizing these liabilities over the 19 years until 2020 results in a first-year payment in fiscal 2001 of $1.5 million. Future year payments will increase by 5% per year based on actuarial assumptions. The additional amortization payment is equal to about 0.03% to the aggregate State contribution rate of 10.7%.
There are 276 Selection C members who are State employees and will be eligible for the $600 match to deferred compensation. Participation in deferred compensation by these employees, who have worked for the State for at least 19 years, is likely to be higher than the general population. It is assumed that 75% of them will take advantage of the full $600 match in fiscal 2000, increasing to 85% in fiscal 2001 and beyond. This will result in fiscal 2000 costs of $124,200 and fiscal 2001 costs of $140,760.
In total, State fiscal 2000 expenditures will increase by $124,200 (for the deferred compensation matching program) and fiscal 2001 expenditures will increase by $1,640,760 (for the matching program and the pension enhancement), increasing by 5% per year thereafter based on actuarial assumptions.
Other Follow-Up Items to Pension Enhancement
Senate Bill 363 also made two technical changes to the pension systems. The nomenclature for the systems was changed to distinguish between the previous noncontributory benefit formula and the new contributory benefit formula. Also, the law was clarified regarding the appropriate accrual rate for service credit for unused sick leave and military service.
Members of the pension systems who work less than 500 hours a year are not entitled to pension service credit. Senate Bill 106 (passed) excludes from membership in the Employees' Pension System (EPS) and the Teachers' Pension System (TPS) an employee who is not already a member of a State system and who accepts a position for which the budgeted hours per fiscal year are less than 500 hours. These employees and their employers no longer have to make the mandatory pension contributions. For example, some school boards employ cafeteria workers who work two to three hours per day during the school year. These employers previously made contributions of 5.99% (calendar 1997 base rate) of pay for EPS members (and the employees contributed 2% of pay), but the employees were not eligible for pension service benefits. Employees who are already members of a State system would not be affected. Employees who are in positions for which the budgeted hours increase above 500 hours would be enrolled in the appropriate pension system.
Senate Bill 121 (passed) allows any State employee at an eligible State higher education institution who is eligible to have a deferred compensation account with a provider other than the Supplemental Retirement Plans to receive the State match to deferred compensation via that provider. The vast majority of State employees are required to use one of three tax-deferred payroll savings plans offered by the Maryland Supplemental Retirement Plans and administered by PEBSCO. State law, however, allows four private deferred compensation providers to offer such services to State employees at certain State higher education institutions (University System of Maryland, Morgan State University, St. Mary's College, and the Maryland Higher Education Commission) because the providers are already on campus offering their services to higher education teachers who elect the Optional Retirement Program. Under Chapter 530 of 1998, the employer matching program (of up to $600) to an employee's deferred compensation account under Chapter 530 of 1998 (HB 987) was not available to employees via these four providers; they were required to drop their current provider and use PEBSCO to get the match. House Bill 735 (failed) would have required the University of Maryland Medical System, a withdrawn employer of the SRPS, to provide the pension enhancement to employees who are still members or retirees of the State system. The medical system would have been responsible for the additional costs.
TEACHER REEMPLOYMENT
Several bills were introduced this year to deal with the issue of the reemployment earnings limitation. All members of the SRPS, including teachers, are subject to an earnings limitation that offsets their pension benefit (dollar for dollar) for any amount they earn (in combination with their pension benefit) that exceeds their salary at retirement. Each of the bills would have waived the earnings limitation for teachers if they met certain criteria with the intent of allowing these teachers to come back to work in various capacities.
Under Senate Bill 15 (passed), a Teachers' Retirement System or the Teachers' Pension System retiree is not subject to the earnings limitation if the retiree meets the following criteria:
The teacher must continue to receive satisfactory or better evaluations to receive the exemption. The exception for reconstituted schools ends when the school meets the standards for school performance set by the State Board of Education. The local boards of education must notify the State Retirement Agency of any retired teachers who qualify for the exemption from the reemployment offset. The State Board of Education must notify the local boards of education as to which schools, counties, or subject areas meet the above criteria.
Senate Bill 15 takes effect July 1, 1999 and sunsets on June 30, 2004. The State Board of Education is required to submit a report to the Governor and the General Assembly on or before December 31, 2001 and again on or before December 31, 2003 on the impact of the bill on teacher recruitment and teacher shortages at Maryland's public schools.
House Bill 87 (failed) would have exempted retired members of both the Teachers' Retirement System and the Teachers' Pension System from the earnings limitation if they had been retired for at least a year and went back to work in a position different from the one from which they retired. House Bill 1158 (failed) would have exempted retired members of the Teachers' Retirement System who came back to work part-time for the University System of Maryland. Senate Bill 105 (failed) was sponsored by the Joint Committee on Pensions and would have exempted teachers who go back to work in a different school system as a classroom teacher.
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' PENSION SYSTEM
Over the past several years, various State agencies -- including the Department of Natural Resources police, the University System of Maryland, and the Maryland Transportation Authority -- have transferred their police forces from the Employees' Pension System (EPS) to the Law Enforcement Officers' Pension System (LEOPS). This year, the police force of Morgan State University is transferred under Senate Bill 13 (Ch. 10). Morgan State University police officers employed by Morgan State University on or before June 30, 1999 have the option to transfer to the LEOPS, which offers unreduced retirement benefits after 25 years (versus 30 years in the EPS) and more generous benefits. Current employees have until December 31, 1999 to switch. Future Morgan State University police officers would be in the LEOPS.
DISCLOSURE OF RETIREMENT RECORDS
The employer-provided portion of the pensions of retired appointed officials of Anne Arundel County are available for disclosure upon written request under House Bill 403 (passed). Anne Arundel officials may consent to have the employee-provided portion disclosed as well.
OTHER PENSION LEGISLATION
To comply with federal tax law, Senate Bill 113 (passed) incorporates federal limitations on State Retirement and Pension System (SRPS) pension contributions and benefits. The bill provides that a member may not receive a benefit that exceeds the applicable limit under § 415 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). The bill prohibits the board of trustees of the SRPS from paying an allowance that exceeds the limit on benefit accruals under § 415. The board must reduce any allowance to the extent that it exceeds the § 415(b) limit as adjusted each year under Internal Revenue Service regulations. For calendar 1998, the federal benefit limits range based on age from $77,000 per year at age 55 to $130,000 per year at age 65. The board must also reduce any employee contributions and other additions to any defined contribution plan maintained by the board to the extent they exceed the limits on annual additions under § 415(c). Because the IRC treats member contributions to the defined benefit plan as technically a defined contribution plan, the federal limit on member contributions applies.
To allow the State Retirement Agency's spending authority to keep pace with administrative demands, Senate Bill 731 (passed) increases the maximum spending authority for administrative and operational expenses of the Board of Trustees for the SRPS and the State Retirement Agency from 0.2% of the payroll of SRPS members to 0.22%. The 0.2% cap on administrative and operational expenses has been in effect since July 1, 1985. Due to slow growth in hiring and salaries of the membership, the payroll base, and hence the expense cap, have not grown at the anticipated rate. The administrative expenses of the system, however, have grown as anticipated based on the increasing number of retirees and beneficiaries. Adjusting the cap formula to 0.22% increases the agency's spending authority to $14.2 million for fiscal 2000, for an increase of $1.3 million. The agency cannot spend the additional funds without a legislative appropriation or budget amendment.
The Board of Trustees of the SRPS has recently acquired a building in downtown Baltimore, a portion of which will be occupied by the State Retirement Agency and the remainder of which will be rented to private tenants. Senate Bill 100 (passed) exempts from State procurement law any real property that is owned and occupied by the SRPS. The board intends to use a private management company to operate the portion of the space leased to private tenants and believes that it is more efficient to use one private manager for the entire building, including the space used for its own personnel. Its own space would normally be subject to the State procurement requirements, including the use of the Department of General Services for maintenance.
The pension for Orphans' Court Judges of Prince George's County is enhanced under Senate Bill 357 (passed). The Garrett County Office for Children, Youth and Families is included in the State Retirement and Pension System of Maryland as a participating governmental unit under House Bill 517 (passed). Senate Bill 771/ House Bill 1087 (failed) would have extended the early retirement incentive program offered last year to nonfaculty employees of the University System of Maryland to similar employees of St. Mary's College and Morgan State University.
NEW JOINT COMMITTEE
In 1996, frustrated with the pace of the implementation of the restructuring, begun over 10 years ago, of the systems in the State that deliver services to children and families, the General Assembly included language in the budget bill requesting that the Governor establish a task force to address implementation problems. The resulting Governor's Task Force on Children, Youth, and Families Systems Reform recommended the creation of a State Commission on Children, Youth, and Families. In an executive order issued in May of 1998, the Governor created the Partnership for Children, Youth, and Families to serve as an advisory council in the development and achievement of policy objectives and desired outcomes for programs and services to Maryland's children and families. The partnership has been laying the groundwork to be used for developing a results-based service delivery system.
To serve as a legislative counterpart to the partnership, the General Assembly created a 20-member Joint Committee on Children, Youth, and Families Senate Bill 516/House Bill 492 (both passed). The Joint Committee will serve as a collaborative body capable of uniting the legislature's efforts to improve the well-being of Maryland's children and youth. The Joint Committee is to be staffed by the Department of Legislative Services and will report annually to the General Assembly.
Specifically, the Joint Committee will: (1) investigate the problems that jeopardize the well-being of Maryland children, youth, and families; (2) identify State policies and actions that can improve the well-being of Maryland children, youth, and families; (3) review and make recommendations on statutes, programs, and budgetary priorities; (4) search for any interdepartmental gaps, inconsistencies, and inefficiencies; (5) identify any new laws, programs, and budgetary priorities that are needed for the well-being of Maryland children, youth, and families; (6) serve as an informational resource for the Senate and House on legislative policy matters concerning children, youth, and families; and (7) perform other activities, including improving public awareness of the special needs of Maryland children, youth, and families.
SPENDING AFFORDABILITY COMMITTEE
Every year the Spending Affordability Committee of the General Assembly recommends to the Governor and General Assembly a level of spending for the State operating budget that is reflective of the current and prospective condition of the State's economy. The Spending Affordability Committee consists of 18 voting members and 4 nonvoting members. Under current practice, a committee recommendation needs only a majority vote of present members.
For fiscal 2000, the Spending Affordability Committee recommended a 5.9% growth in State spending, exceeding the projected 4.8% growth in personal income, a common measure of growth in the State's economy. This recommendation was made with a 9 to 3 vote, 1 vote short of a full majority of voting members.
Senate Bill 346 (failed) would have required that a recommendation of the Spending Affordability Committee to increase expenditures in excess of the growth rate in the State's economy be made by a majority vote of the full authorizing voting membership of the committee.
REDISTRICTING
House Bill 498 (failed), a constitutional amendment, would have required the subdivision of a legislative district into delegate districts if the majority of a legislative district's population resides in one county and the remaining portion of its population resides in another county. The subdivision must provide for the lesser population to be contained within a single-member delegate district. The redistricting concepts embodied within House Bill 498 were considered in identical legislation introduced during the three previous sessions.
TERM LIMITS
The Maryland Constitution provides in Article III, Section 6 that a member of the General Assembly serve a term of 4 years, but places no limit on the number of terms a member may serve. Senate Bill 164 (failed) would have amended the Constitution of Maryland to limit the number of terms an individual may serve in the House of Delegates and in the Senate to not more than three consecutive terms.
Currently, 18 states have adopted some form of term limitation. In a majority of the states with term limits, the limits will not actually become effective until elections in the years 2000 through 2008. Three states, Nebraska, Massachusetts, and Washington, have overturned previously imposed state legislative term limits.
OFFICE SPACE
Senate Bill 697 (failed) would have repealed the law that prohibits a local government from supplementing the office space, services, or equipment of a member of the General Assembly.
Under existing law, the State provides the members of the General Assembly with reasonable office space and services, equipment, and secretarial staffing, as provided in the State budget. Current law also prohibits a municipal corporation, county, or other political subdivision or its governing body from subsidizing a member of the General Assembly in the maintenance of office space, services, or equipment. Senate Bill 697 sought to eliminate this prohibition.
RECORDING OF FLOOR SESSIONS
House Bill 31 (failed) would have required the Department of Legislative Services to produce audio and video recordings of each floor session and each meeting of a standing committee of the Senate or the House of Delegates. Under the bill, the recordings were to be made available to the media, subject to guidelines adopted by the Legislative Policy Committee including circumstances under which recordings may not be made, procedures for public availability, and charges for access to the recordings or recording system.
Current law does not address the issue of audio or video taping of General Assembly proceedings. Since the early 1990s, the Senate has been making audio recordings of floor sessions and committee meetings, although committee voting sessions are not recorded. Also, the hearings of some joint committees are recorded. The House of Delegates does not record floor proceedings, although some hearings of the subcommittees of the House Appropriations Committee are recorded. The House of Delegates does not record other committee hearings.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 19 states videotape floor proceedings and two states record all committee hearings.
NEW STUDY GROUPS
The General Assembly passed several legislative measures to create new task forces and commissions to study a variety of issues that it identified as necessitating a more broad-based and in-depth review than could be provided by the standing committees. These task forces and commissions are appointed by the presiding officers and the Governor and usually include legislators and other members that represent appropriate public and private sector individuals. The study groups often develop major legislative proposals that are introduced in a subsequent session of the General Assembly and serve as the basis for addressing major legislative concerns.
The new study groups are embodied in the following legislative measures (all passed):
ETHICS
The subject of legislative ethics received considerable attention during the 1999 session, based largely on the recommendations submitted by the Special Study Commission on Legislative Ethics.
For further information about legislative ethics, refer to the subpart "Ethics" within this part.