James Rada
Times-News Staff Writer

CUMBERLAND -- Businesses that were supposed to receive requests for proposals from the Maryland State Department of Education for the performance audit of Allegany County schools are denying they saw the correspondence. Others are saying they knew that MGT of America would receive the bid before the request was even published. The $315,195 contract was awarded by the Maryland Board of Public Works last week. Its approval was needed because only one bid had been received and the bid was more than $10,000.

State Superintendent of Schools Nancy Grasmick said, "A lot of companies are just not engaged in doing this (type of work). I'm not surprised that there was only one bid." Some contractors on the list of vendors who were supposedly sent the request for proposals by the state board of education say they never received it. According to Linda Bazerjian of the department's school and community outreach office, these were the "preapproved" vendors who should have received the requests.

Grant Thornton's Baltimore office was on the list of vendors. When contacted, John Engel, who does the consulting work at the office, said, "It's the first I've heard of it. I never received it."

Engel said he specializes in manufacturing consulting rather than education. He thought that the state request might have been forwarded to another office. He checked to see if anyone else in the company had received it because the company logs all incoming mail.

"There's no record, no memory or any trace of any RFP," Engel said.

Karen Cousins, assistant to the president of Management Analysis in Vienna, Va., said that all requests for proposals for management analysis come to the president. Not only was the president not the contact person listed to receive the RFP at the company, Cousins said, "I don't recall seeing the RFP or passing it on to the president."

John Roman of the EADS Group in Pennsylvania was not on the list of vendors, but his company had been made aware of the performance audit. He said the firm was interested in submitting a proposal in conjunction with another company. He said he called Grasmick's office to try to obtain a request.

"We contacted her several times trying to get an RFP. She told us the first time that we called that she didn't know what we were talking about," said Roman.

Grasmick said she was not aware of any problems with vendors not receiving the request and said, "If anyone had raised any concerns, we would have addressed them." She directed specific problems to the procurement officer, but he was not available at press time.

At least one of the vendors who received an request from the MSDE said he would have bid if he had known the contract was going to go so far over the estimates. Aaron Copeland was one of the 41 contractors who was supposed to receive requests. Though he said he didn't bid because Allegany County was too far away for him, price did play a factor, he said, and knowing the bidding could go so much higher would have made a difference.

"For $200,000, I wouldn't have done it. Now $300,000, that's a little different," said Copeland.

There were also problems with the list of vendors who received the correspondence. Four companies were listed twice on the list and so should have received two requests. The listed contacts at Deloitte and Touche, Bert Smith and Co., and Ernest and Young no longer worked at those companies and hadn't for awhile.

Because of the wrong contact, none of these companies had a record receiving the requests.

The request was also advertised once in Maryland Contract Weekly with a standard advertisement.

Another vendor, who asked to remain unnamed, said his company hadn't bid because of the travel costs involved and the other work it has going.

He questioned whether there might have been some preference given to MGT because of its previous work with the state and Grasmick.

When he found out MGT had won the contract, he said his company wouldn't have bid anyway. "We couldn't compete with them (MGT) because of the relationship they have with that (Grasmick's) office."

Dorothy Clennon of Thompson Cobb Bazilio and Associates said, "The report that I got is that MGT was present at the preproposal conference and appeared well-connected with your (MSDE) operation." She said that because she had been told that MGT did not want her company as a subcontractor, "In our judgment, it would not make sense to bid."

Grasmick said, "MGT does not get all of our business." She pointed out two recent projects, one in Charles County and one in Baltimore City, that MGT bid on but did not win.

The contract was awarded for a cost of $315,195, which is more than 65 percent over the last estimates of $200,000.

"I don't think the money's outrageous ... It's expensive, but a quality performance audit is expensive," said Grasmick. She explained that judging by what recent performance audits had cost, "This (audit's cost) is clearly in the ballpark."

The audit is scheduled to begin next week.

Could the whole horse track thing get much more fun?

Just another pithy political issue in Allegany County. Any sane people want to run for office? We could use a few.

Hypocrisy again
by Roy Meachum

House Speaker Casper Taylor called himself this week the victim of "misperceptions of legislative propriety." He was apparently so flustered his Notre Dame education went out the window: "misperceptions" is not a word in the English language.

What he meant was "perceptions" of legislative "misprision" which can be defined: contempt or disdain.

In other words there are lots of folks, including this columnist, who looked on the speaker's annual $150-a-head charity golf tournament as a way to milk lobbyists, while considering voters too dumb to figure out what's going on.

Players with business before the General Assembly hustled to tee off with their favorite legislators, to the tune of some $150,000, over the past 13 years, the speaker's press release boasted.

When presented with the opportunity to please arguably the most important lawmaker in Annapolis how could Bruce Bereano and his fellow arm-twisters not oblige. There was no option.

Of course lobbyist Gary R. Alexander disagreed; he insisted to a Sun reporter: "I don't think there was ever pressure on anybody to do anything." And pigs really fly.

Mr. Alexander and his fellow former delegate Dennis McCoy, who's now looking out for tobacco companies, both expressed solemn regrets.

"I've always enjoyed it myself," Mr. McCoy said, "I'll be sorry to see it go, but I'm not surprised."

In the same story, Mr. Taylor allowed: "I guess I'm getting tired of all this brow beating from the editorial pages. Considering the atmosphere we're in, it's not worth it. It's not worth the perceptual damage that is being done to my institution." A violin's crescendo should have been heard at that point.

Actually the speaker has been damaging the office himself, sanctioning shaky propositions like that cited in Wednesday's column: "Rampant hypocrisy."

When last year's deal was made, depriving delegates and senators of the free booze and grub they grabbed for Annapolis lobbyists, exemptions were allowed for officially sanctioned gatherings across Maryland lines, such as the national and regional legislators conventions.

In Chicago this July and along Mississippi's gambling gold coast later in August, the General Assembly leadership endorsed expense account combat on a grand scale, including Gulf of Mexico cruise via chartered yacht.

Under rules sanctioned by Mr. Taylor, furthermore, there is no need to disclose the names of the lawmakers royally entertained out-of-state. So much for any pretensions General Assembly morality might demand full disclosure.

At the same time, legislators agreed in what was entitled ironically "sweeping ethics reform," to continue the legal status of charity events, like the speaker's golf tournament, which rely heavily on lobbyists and their deep pockets.

The provision that denied senators and delegates handouts from special interests allowed legislators to front charity affairs, on the condition that none of the financial proceeds came their way.

Behind a benevolent facade, the nonprofit affair became really just another powerful weapon in politicians' arsenal, a way to pay back old friends and develop new ones, while bathed in a holier than Thou glow: complete hypocrisy.

By comparison, the old corruption seems now pure as freshly fallen snow in Cas Taylor's native Allegany County.

On the same day Marylands's speaker bowed to the latest public uproar over the General Assembly's questionable ethics, Circuit Judge Edward G. Angeletti belatedly removed himself from an asbestos injury trial.

It seems the retired Baltimore judge returned to the bench after being tendered a cushy position by Peter Angelos, whose firm represents an estimated "three-quarters or more" of the pending asbestos injury cases, according to the Sun.

Once the job offer surfaced, Mr. Angeletti really had no choice but to take off his robes again and dodge any asbestos-related trial assignments.

The Maryland Code of Judicial Conduct, quoted in the Baltimore newspaper, holds: "A judge should not participate in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

Nevertheless, for nearly three weeks Mr. Angeletti refused to step down, despite loud protests from defense lawyers intent on earning their retainers.

The presiding judge stubbornly mounted the bench, day after day, while the fees and costs ran higher and higher and the prostests grew in volume.

In what seemed the last possible moment, on the verge of the jury launching deliberations, Mr. Angeletti relented, but only after the world learned defense attorneys had petitioned a state appeals court to look into the Angelos offer.

Short of winning an absolute acquittal, the petition signaled an appeal was dead certain and a new trial probably iminent.

"Whatever the reults would have been," one company lawyer said, "they would have been tainted by the job offer."

Somewhere in the law books surely precedent can be found for holding a judge liable financially for completely unnecessary costs his conduct inflicts on the plaintiffs and defendants. Edward Angeletti will never pay, of course. But why not?

An equally burning question: Why didn't Circuit Court Administrative Judge Ellen Heller move to remove the cause for overwhelming doubt the trial had any hope of at least maintaining the appearance of impartiality?

In Maryland, q.e.d, "misperceptons" are not limited to the legislative branch. Chief executive Parris Glendening has delivered his share. Our whole state government obviously reeks of hypocrisy.

Residents of Allegany County jammed a ballroom at the Holiday Inn here yesterday to speak their piece about a horse track proposed in their slice of Western Maryland heaven.
 
 During a three-hour hearing before the Maryland Racing Commission, 38 residents from one end of the county to the other voiced opinions about the proposed track. The final tally was 24 against, 14 in favor. That was closer than many had anticipated.
 
 "I didn't think it went that badly," William Rickman Jr. said. "I thought more people would come out against it."
 
 A Montgomery County developer and owner of the Delaware Park racetrack and slots emporium, Rickman and his father, William Rickman Sr., have submitted one of the two applications for the license to build and operate the track.
 
 Joe De Francis, president and CEO of the, has submitted the other. Majority stockholder of Pimlico and Laurel Park, De Francis submitted his in partnership with Rosecroft Raceway, the harness track in Prince George's County.
 
 The Rickmans' proposal calls for a track at the eastern edge of Allegany County, 22 miles east of Cumberland. The Maryland Jockey Club-Rosecroft proposal calls for one at the county's
 western edge, seven miles west of Cumberland.
 
 Both proposals call for brief thoroughbred and harness meets - the Rickmans' plan suggests 21 days, MJC-Rosecroft's 20 days - presumably in the summer, and betting on races simulcast from other tracks the rest of the year.
 
 Attended by about 250 people, the hearing was the first public step toward what could result in the return of horse racing to Western Maryland. The commission will hold another hearing on the matter in November or December, and then probably decide a month or two later whether or not to grant a license, its chairman John Franzone said.
 
 Opposition revolved around environmental issues, objections to gambling and threats to the quality of life. Proponents focused on the economic impact of creating jobs and attracting tourists. They also recalled fond memories of attending races at the Cumberland fairgrounds, where horses ran seasonally from 1921 to 1958.
 
 "We had one heckuva good time," John Ankeney, an 80-year-old resident of Cumberland, said of the old Fairgo track. "I miss it, and I'd like to have it back."
 
 Georgene McLaughlin, a horse lover who lives in tiny Oldtown, said that a track and year-round betting facility would keep Western Maryland residents from gambling elsewhere, especially
 at Charles Town Races in West Virginia.
 
 Plus, she said, she's tired of seeing young people leave the county in search of employment.
 
 "The more jobs we have in this county, the better," McLaughlin said.
 
 A cross-section of the business community favors construction of a horse track for economic development reasons, said Bud Willetts, executive director of the Allegany Chamber of Commerce. He said that he polled his 575 members on the question of a track in the county, and that 80 percent of the respondents liked the idea.
 
 Still, the most passionate voices at the hearing spoke in bitter opposition to the proposed track.
 
 John N. Bambacus, the mayor of Frostburg, said his community of 9,000 residents already suffered from "major water supply and distribution problems. ... Do we want to provide water to homes with failing wells, or do we want to supply a racetrack?"
 
 Robin Gorrell, Frostburg's commissioner of public works, said that a horse track with limited racing was merely a guise for an off-track betting parlor.
 
 "I don't feel this is about a racetrack," she said. "It's about off-track betting, and it's about
 gambling."
 
 And a majority of residents who spoke denounced gambling.
 
 John C. Sullivan, a retired lawyer from Frostburg, said it would result in the "demoralization of the town itself."
 
 Steve Schuessler, pastor of the LaVale Assembly of God church, said it was a "temptation I believe better left in eastern Maryland."
 
 David A. Brigham, who lives in Little Orleans, requested that the commissioners reject the Rickman proposal because it threatens the quality of life. Brighman heads a group formed to fight the track called Citizens Against The Racecourse.
 
 "This beautiful area of the state deserves to be protected, to be left as unspoiled as possible," Brigham said.
 
 Of the residents in the eastern part of the county, he said, "most believe a racetrack and gambling venture in Little Orleans violate the sense of community and the lifestyle they
 desire."
 
 Candi Mann, who lives in Little Orleans, was the youngest person to speak at the hearing. She is 14.
 
 "I am representing the future generation of Little Orleans," she said. "You can't put a price on the beauty of this area. Don't take something away that took years to create and call it progress."
 
 At its regular monthly meeting before the hearing, the commission approved Rickman as the potential new owner and operator of the Ocean Downs harness track. Rickman is buying the Eastern Shore track from Bally's. He said he anticipates closing on the deal Oct. 16.
 
 The commission also heard from Marty Jacobs, general counsel of the Maryland Jockey Club, who reported on the reopening of the former Poor Jimmy's off-track-betting parlor in Cecil
 County.
 
 Remodeled and reopened Sept. 15, the renamed Northeast Racing and Sports Club in its first nine days accepted 45 percent more wagers than the same period a year before, Jacobs said.
 
 The commissioner C. Frank Hopkins, one of Poor Jimmy's biggest critics, said: "The place is elegant. The food is wonderful, and it's priced for the neighborhood. Everybody's happy with it."
 

In order to settle the dispute that erupted, the Governor stepped in and provided additional funding for a library in Frostburg.

Why did Mr. Taylor dictate the use of funds in Allegany County that had nothing to do with him?

Fortunately for the voters of Allegany County, the plan failed in part because it would have cost more taxpayer dollars than what's in place currently, and few representatives from the county's various muncipalities - many of which have their own police operations - were involved in the reconfiguration. They were simply told what would happen within their municipality after the plan was finished. The unanimous response of the elected officials througout the county's cities and towns: no thanks.

Then, Mr. Taylor apparently traded his support of Governor Parris Glendening's gun bill for $1 million from the Governor for our schools, money provided only if the local school board did not consolidate this year. The language attached to the money made reference to "geographically balanced" schools, a concept that ignores the fact that our population is NOT geographically balanced.

Mr. Taylor's machinations were apparently designed to protect the schools in the sparsely populated eastern end of the county, which he represents. However, his efforts make no sense when looking at his entire voting district. The precincts at Flintstone, Oldtown and Little Orleans have a total of 1,400 registered voters. Mr. Taylor's district, which encompasses Cumberland's south end and west side, as well as Route 220 to Cresaptown, has a total of 17,000 registered voters.

His desire to construct "geographically balanced educational complexes" would result in children from Cumberland being bused in large numbers to an "educational complex" in the Flintstone/Oldtown region. How many children? To fill an educational complex, which usually consists of an elementary, middle and high school, a minimum of 700 children would have to be bused from town.