Public education in Allegany County -
it couldn't hurt

April 24, 2000, is a date that will go down in infamy. Or not, depending on your perspective.

That's the date the Allegany County Board of Education followed through on a plan conceived 15 years ago to consolidate schools throughout the county. Explaining why it took 15 years to implement a plan as obvious as the nose on your face will take some doing, but we'll do our best.

It was long maintained that consolidation could not take place because of politics, politics, politics. Too many officials owing too many special interests. Even our own Speaker of the House stated that consolidation had been avoided because of a lack of political fortitude on the part of our elected school boards. What he failed to clarify was the fact that it was not a lack of fortitude in facing the voters, but rather a lack of fortitude in facing him and his agenda.

Silly, silly, silly. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Foolish, foolish, foolish. (Name that school board member: "I welcome your probing.")

So what has our Speaker of the House been doing in the middle of an issue that is legally within the purview of another elected body? We dare to say that it has nothing to do with quality education in Allegany County. (See: This is Smart?)

Ok, back up to the 1980s, when a previous school board attempted to consolidate after the release of the Guild Report, a document that outlined the dire situation we would face if we chose to ignore our declining enrollment and spiraling costs.

At that time, our Speaker wrote to the State Attorney General's Office for assistance in stopping the consolidation process. Initially, he asked if he could introduce legislation into the General Assembly to overturn that school board's decision, "which would expressly prohibit the consolidation of the two schools involved. In other words, I wish to know whether the General Assembly can revoke this particular consolidation without having to address the issue of consolidation generally for each county in the state." (letter to Robert A. Zarnoch, assistant attorney general, November 1987)

He couldn't overturn the decision completely, but old Bob did come to the Speaker's rescue, and thus the Taylor Busing Bill was born.

So, Westmar was created, but the Taylor Busing Bill ended consolidation at the secondary level for the next 20 years.

It's important to note that, while the Speaker prevented consolidation in the outlying areas, schools in the city of Cumberland were closed en masse. Hmmm. Who does he represent again?

Fast forward to the 1999-2000 school year. A financial crisis looms - we have eight high schools and 3,500 high school students. One high school has a junior class of five at the beginning of the year; by year's end, fully 40 percent of that class have dropped out. Ok, it was only two kids, but you do the math.

We face a budget deficit long denied by the current superintendent. Is it - $300,000? Is it - $1 million? NO! It's $6 million! Now that's denial.

Ok, so let's cut the budget. Wait. We cut kindergarten aids last year. Can't go there. Our library spending is already down 95 percent over the past decade. Can't go there.

We only spend .72 cents per student for instructional materials. Can't go there. Our Gifted and Talented program has an operating budget of a little more than $2,000 for THE ENTIRE COUNTY. Can't go there. But wait! On the horizon is a politician committed to education. Or something. And look - he's wrested $1 million from the education governor for our little system, in addition to an approximate $3 million extra we got this year! Hooray! We're saved! Well, except that we're still about $1 million short.

And except that we can't consolidate if we take that million from the education govenor. And Consolidation is the only way to save large chunks of change on an annual basis. Mr. Taylor and the education govenor want us to wait until an "independent audit" is conducted by the state. Why? To tell us what we already know? Duh.

So the school board votes - actually three of the five members vote - to consolidate schools, reject the governor's bribe (which he used to get Taylor's support of his gun bill - another long story), and save $1.9 million in the process. (As an aside, can you imagine what $1.9 million per year would have meant to our schools over the past 15 years? Don't weep, your face will get blotchy.)

Hooray! We saved ourselves!

The heroes in this little morality tale are as follows: Judie Thelen, who, though up for re-election, voted to consolidate and do the right thing by the kids in our county; Tim Woodring, who first galvanized the populace and clarified the issue for the community; and finally Enordo Moose Arnone, who changed his vote to take the governor's money after he learned of the numerous strings attached.

The bad guys - in case you weren't paying attention - are: Dee Truesdell, a school board member who has lost all sense of direction, and sense in general; Jody Goldsworthy Gordon, a professional fence stradeller, whose ability to avoid making difficult decisions is legend in local political circles; and, of course, Casper Taylor, whose desire to run Allegany County as though we were actually living in Cuba is wearing a bit thin.

So here we are, at the dawn of a new day. Thank you, thank you those board members who chose to stand for our children, and not the status quo.

We'll keep you posted.

Not that we don't like the idea of attracting tourists to the area. It's a nice idea. And once projects such as Canal Place and the Rails to Trails hiking/biking path are complete, we'll have lots for people to do.

But right now, we don't have lots for people to do. In fact, we have very little for people to do. So exactly why do we have a tourism entity that lures people here for weekend stays? All we're doing is annoying the ones who show up.

Let's be honest. We have the Scenic Railroad, which is a great way to spend an afternoon or evening. And we have the C&O Canal trail. Plus, we have a few nice but small items such as the History House on Washington Street. And that's pretty much it.

Not that we want to knock the area. We like it here. We think we have a lot going for us. But in terms of a weekend getaway, we're not quite there yet.

So why is it we have a tourist bureau selling us as though we are? Every year, the local tourist bureau produces a great big book about all there is to do here. In it is fascinating information that most people don't care about. For example, one spread on the arts consists of a picture and short history of William Macy, an actor who grew up here. That's nice, but does a tourist care? No. A tourist wants to know what there is to do and when they can do it. They want information that pertains to them. They want street maps so they can get around.

They don't care if William Macy grew up here. They care about which restaurants are open for breakfast on Sunday.

They're trying, our tourism bureau, but they don't get it. That could stem from the fact that they've had several directors over the past five years. No one seems to stay for more than a year.

Part of the problem may be the basic setup - it's run as a quasi-private agency, which means it's supported with taxpayer dollars (to the tune of approximately 70 percent of its budget) but actually run by a board comprised of people with a vested interest in the tourist industry.

And there's no public accountability.

When was the last time anyone saw any financial information on the Visitor's Bureau's use of taxpayer funds? Their finances never seem to be open to public scrutiny.

This is one case where government employees (with knowledge of the industry) making decisions is preferable to a board of private entities calling all the shots. One particularly demanding board member could skew the focus of the entire organization - to his or her own financial benefit.

Public accountability is a good thing. Hey, it's our money.

Taylor seeking to double tourism
Speaker asks panels to evaluate how to 'maximize' industry

House Speaker Casper R. Taylor Jr. has asked a group of legislators to evaluate whether Maryland's tourism industry is receiving enough emphasis within the state - a study that could conclude that the state tourism office should report directly to the governor.

"My greatest hope is to maximize the success of the tourism industry in Maryland," Taylor said. "One way to create a stronger focus is to give tourism Cabinet-level status. But, I have not yet reached a conclusion, and I don't want the legislators to do so either."

The Allegany County Democrat is a man whose legacy will include Canal Place, a $250 million state and federal project that will refill part of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal in the heart of Cumberland, allowing tourists to ride canal boats pulled by mules, and who brokered the deal that created the Rocky Gap Lodge and Golf Resort in Cumberland. So, he admits to having certain established beliefs about tourism.

"I'm going into this with a preconceived notion that we are not giving the tourism indus- try enough focus," he said.

"I think one can argue that we haven't come close to maximizing the value of the tourism industry throughout our state. There are many jobs to be created, a much greater tax base to build and more economic growth. If the maximum way to do that is to give it Cabinet-level status, we should do it. . . I would not be surprised to conclude that the volume of tourism could be doubled."

Taylor recently asked members of the House Economic Matters and Appropriations committees to study tourism in Maryland in advance of the start of the legislative ses- sion in January.

Among the key questions Taylor would like to see answered is how much Maryland should spend on tourism.

The tourism budget for the 2001 fiscal year is $13.4 million, much less than is being spent in the states with which Maryland competes. For instance, when Maryland's fiscal 1999 budget was $10 million, Virginia's annual budget for tourism was $21 million, and Pennsylvania's was $18 million.

Richard C. Mike Lewin, secretary of the Department of Business and Economic Development, doesn't mind studying tourism, but he likes the structure of the depart- ment as is. Currently, he oversees the tourism office within the state's Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED).

"I feel tourism belongs in this department," Lewin said, citing $7 billion in economic impact from tourism in 1999. "It's an incredible economic driver. I think it's unlikely that any department of tourism as a stand-alone entity will fly. At this time, I wouldn't favor it."

The majority of states, 38, do handle tourism as a department within another, but within the past 10 years, 10 states have chosen to break out those departments or at least par- tially privatize those offices, according to the Travel Industry Association of America (TIA). Two states fall into neither category.

Among the states with Cabinet-level departments are: Vermont, Kentucky, Wisconsin, New Mexico and South Dakota, said Patty H. Hubbard, a vice president of TIA.

"Those states that have a separate tourism department recognize the economic potential of the travel and tourism industry," Hubbard said. "It isn't buried in the normal structure somewhere. You can't think too far out if you don't know how much money you're going to have or you have to worry about it being cut."

Maryland Comptroller William Donald Schaefer has talked about a Cabinet-level tourism department for several years, bringing it up to Gov. Parris N. Glendening as recently as a few months ago, he said.

"I think it's something that should have been done a long time ago," Schaefer said. "Tourism has been disjointed and ignored. It can't be under another department, because it doesn't get the attention. You need your own budget."

Lenny P. Berger, a retired physician and an Ocean City hotelier, is another advocate.

"I think it's a wonderful idea," he said. "It definitely should be a department of its own. Unfortunately, it's been a stepchild of DBED. Everyone is vying for the same dollars when you're in another department."

State Sen. Thomas L. Bromwell, the Baltimore County Democrat who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, also favors further study of tourism, but he's not as sold on the idea of a separate department, saying the money might be better used.

"I don't know if we want to spend a half million developing a department of tourism," he said. "You're spending a lot of money on bureaucracy. I'd just as soon take that money and spend it on tourism itself.

"I think we need to put a greater emphasis on what we have rather than creating a department that we don't know that we need."

Maryland Notebook

Del. Michael E. Busch's decision to stay in the legislature and not leave for a lucrative job heading a state-operated insurance fund may have touched off a new tide of discontent with many of Maryland's 141 members of the House of Delegates.

It's not that people were unhappy that Busch (D-Anne Arundel) was staying. To the contrary, Busch is the powerful chairman of the Economic Matters Committee, very popular and widely thought to be the leading contender to be the next speaker.

But just his consideration of a move set people to thinking what might be possible if Busch left and what new roles might be available for some ambitious delegates. Majority Leader John A. Hurson (D-Montgomery) would have likely succeeded Busch. Del. Maggie L. McIntosh (D-Baltimore) could have become majority leader. It would have brought about the first significant change in House leadership in more than six years.

Now that Busch is staying, the thoughts of what might have been are lingering.

"There are a lot of people waiting in the wings. At some point, they will get bored and move on to something more lucrative and less time-consuming" outside the legislature, said Del. Cheryl C. Kagan (D-Montgomery).

Busch and others in leadership positions are aware they've got to create opportunities for talented legislators to thrive. "You have to empower some of the bright, young members coming along," Busch said.

Still, House Speaker Casper R. Taylor Jr. (D-Allegany) said he has detected no wide-spread discontent. Though he has tried to create opportunities for up-and-coming legislators, he said, "you go through the pecking order in everything you do in life."

There has been a stasis in the leadership of the House. The speaker has been popular with many members, but speculation has been rampant about how long he'll stay in office. Many see him leaving at the end of this term in 2002 or not long after the next election, perhaps to become state treasurer, a job that is filled through an election by the General Assembly members, or to run for comptroller if William Donald Schaefer (D) retires.

Taylor is a respected lawmaker who attempts to grapple with important if sometimes unsexy issues and who sees himself as a bit of a wonk. His next move is difficult because unlike many states, Maryland's speakership is not considered a natural spring- board for other offices. His predecessor, for example, became a utility company lobbyist.

For his part, Taylor dismisses talk of his future as "political gossip." He said he is happy to be speaker and didn't plan to run for anything but the legislature in 2002.

There has been a similar holding pattern in the Senate, where President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Prince George's) has been in charge since 1987. While several senators are interested in succeeding Miller, there is less stifled ambition because the Senate is much smaller than the House,with only 47 members.

Change in the House is necessary, some members say privately, because there are too many ambitious delegates eager to move up the rungs of power.

"Cas has to go. He has to go before the end of the next term," said one former member who talks to many current lawmakers. "People are getting frustrated about their own careers. The Young Turks want to move up. They want to go to the Senate or some other office,and they can't when they're just one of 141."

Taylor has tried to accommodate those desires by expanding leadership roles and creating subcommittees for delegates to chair. But that hasn't appeased some.

"There are people who are anxious to make changes, but there is no vacuum until [Taylor] creates one and then the dominoes start falling," one delegate said.

That does not appear likely any time soon. Instead, there will be more of the same. "Mike Busch's decision to stay has absolutely no connection with my present or my future, and it never did," Taylor said.

Baker Reelected

Citing their recent success in Annapolis, Prince George's County delegates to the Maryland General Assembly last week reelected Rushern L. Baker III (D-Cheverly) as their chairman and Barbara Frush (D-Calverton) as their vice chairman.

In the last session, Baker, Frush and Sen. Ulysses Currie (D-Forestville), chairman of the Prince George's Senate delegation, helped the delegation bring home an unprece- dented $15.4 million in supplemental funding, including $5 million to settle a county lawsuit with the state over district court security costs and $2 million to prepare roads and waterfront for the National Harbor project in Oxon Hill.

County legislators also secured $44 million to help with construction of 26 schools, $41.3 million to extend the Metrorail Blue Line to Largo Town Center, $29.4 million to build and maintain roads in the county, and about $8 million for health programs such as family planning and AIDS education and outreach.

The county Senate delegation does not vote on its chairmanship until after the start of the next legislative session. Currie is expected to seek the post again. During the last session, he was challenged for the chairmanship by Paul G. Pinsky (D-Hyattsville).