Where there is Smoke....

If you remember the Derek Fink story from earlier this month, you can conclusively say that there is trouble in paradise for Fink. Just check out the Facebook fan page for Cookie's Kitchen restaurant:

In an attempt to create clarity Cookie Kiser owner of Cookies Kitchen, Cookies City Line Diner & Cookies Bay Meadow Grill would like to make the following announcement: She no longer has any affiliation personally, professionally or politically with DEREK FINK.

I think that settles one aspect of this story. But I can't wait until we really get to the bottom of this one....

The Perils of Choosing One

Life's tough when you're the chosen one in a local election. Take, for example, Derek Fink a Republican candidate for County Council in the 3rd District. One of the candidates running to succeed Current Councilman Ron Dillon, Fink has been anointed as the establishment candidate in the race, supported by many local elected officials and by movers and shakers within the area business community.

(Nobody can exactly say why Fink is the chosen one. His career experience is more as a political functionary than as the "restaurant owner" he would like to portray himself as. And I met the guy once, and he seemed relatively aloof and clueless, but that's a story for another time).

What is very interesting however is how every solitary mention of one of Fink's prominent initial backers has completely vanished from his campaign website.

Ruth "Cookie" Kiser is the owner of the famous Cookie's Kitchen restaurant and Pasadena. She has been a longtime instrumental and important figure in the Pasadena business community. She has also been a longtime supporter of Republican candidates and causes here in Anne Arundel County, a financial backer of the candidacies of Bob Ehrlich, Steve Schuh and (curiously) Democrat George Johnson.

Kiser also has played a significant role in Fink's ability to mount a credible campaign. She gave Fink the opportunity to run Cookies Bay Meadow Grille in the Baymeadow Industrial Park. She was Fink's campaign treasurer when he opened his campaign finance committee in 2008, and donated $1,000 to Fink's campaign. She's even listed in property records as co-owner of Fink's home. That's a pretty significant commitment Kiser made to Fink.

However, upon the relaunch of Fink's campaign website, every mention of Kiser on his site has been scrubbed. She has been replaced as Treasurer as of November 5th. Fink's website, which used to mention specifically his employment at the Grille, now says only that "Derek is a small business owner in the County."

What happened? Who knows for sure. There are a number of rumors that are swirling, none of which are substantiated enough to publish.

The reason I mention this story (other than the fact that I am a resident of the 3rd District) is to demonstrate once again the perils of the establishment closing ranks around a candidate without doing their homework. A number of elected Republicans have given Fink their full and unadulterated support in this primary and at the moment it seems that this closing of ranks was predicated more around the fact that Fink was embraced by the business community and Fink's service as Steve Schuh's campaign manager than it was by the idea that Fink is the best candidate to serve the people of the district.

We as Republicans need to make sure that we do our homework in our primary elections, and not let establishment endorsements be the only guide of the candidates we support with donations of time and money....

Next Job Up

So, County Councilman Josh Cohen is running for Mayor of Annapolis. Cohen though seems to have a pretty disturbing trend happening when it comes to holding office and failing to finish what he starts.

Cohen was elected as an Annapolis Alderman in 2001 and the re-elected in 2005. Barely past his victory in 2005, he was off an running for County Council in the 6th District in 2006. Now, barely halfway through his first term as a County Councilman, he is ignoring his County responsibilities to run for Mayor.

I guess Cohen is in the career politician-in-training program, always looking forward a bigger and better post. I bet the residents of the 6th Councilmanic District wish that they knew he was going to try and bail on them before his time was up, especially when you consider that if Cohen had just stayed put as an Alderman we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I just hope that the voters of Annapolis are wise enough to reject a guy who never has his eyes on the job he has, but always the job he wants...

Another Day, More Reasons

One of the best reasons for an elected school board in Anne Arundel County are encapsulated in this article regarding school budgeting:

Angry County Council members yesterday accused the Anne Arundel County school system of vilifying the county government for the superintendent's proposal to leave 200 teaching positions unfilled, with the council chairwoman blasting school officials for running "one hell of a PR [public relations] scam."

"Whoever's doing your PR over there is doing one heck of a job, not a fair one, but a good job," Council Chairwoman Cathleen M. Vitale scolded the district's top business and human resources officials. "I'm wondering when I will see the press release that says the superintendent cut 200 positions ... so [he] can move forward with other non-core programs and initiatives."

Kudos to Councilwoman Vitale for calling a spade a spade on this one. Something Councilman Ed Reilly also echoed:

Council members insisted they funded 294 new teaching positions last year, and it was the school district's decision to use the money in other ways and pull the funding from such a controversial area as classroom teachers.

"So, even though we told you we want you to use [funding] for teachers, you used it for other things?" Councilman Edward R. Reilly asked the school system's assistant superintendent Gregory V. Nourse, budget director Susan Bowen and human resources director Florie Bozzella.

"We have gotten very little from the school board, which I'm not very happy about," continued Reilly, who called the meeting. "Wish we would've gotten some of the numbers before the news outlets."

The budget battle has everything to do with the call for an elected school board. Let's face it, a School Board appointed by the O'Malley/Leopold Commission is not going to be any more proactive that the current Board in adopting responsible spending that focuses on educating students first and foremost. I have argued for some time that Kevin Maxwell's spending priorities are out of whack with what is necessary in order to properly educate students in core classes and subject matters. The County Council understands this, and is taking steps to address these concerns with the budget. The Board appointed by the O'Malley/Leopold Commission is merely going to gives us more of the same, particularly when one considers that it has been suggested by the Commission that Board members should give the Superintendent carte blanche when it comes to School System Operations.

Kevin Maxwell's fiscal irresponsibility has been tolerated by a majority of the current members of the school Board, and more than likely will also be tolerated by the appointees coming from O'Malley and Leopold's liberal commission. Until we make sure that this Board is elected by the voters of Anne Arundel County, taxpayers will not have their interests represented in School System policymaking and we will see a continuation of recklessly misguided spending from the Board and the Superintendent.

At the end of the day, taxpayers still lose

It's not a good time to be in Anne Arundel County when the "Republican" County Executive and the Republican County Council are arguing just how they should bilk taxpayers:

The Anne Arundel County Council has offered a counterproposal to a massive set of increases to impact fees on new development proposed by County Executive John R. Leopold: raise the transfer tax rate to generate millions of dollars toward school construction and maintenance and reversing the effects of storm-water runoff.

On Monday, the Republican-majority council unanimously agreed to support a resolution that seeks state-enabling legislation to raise the transfer tax on property sales from 1 percent to as high as 1.5 percent. The resolution's sponsor, Republican C. Edward Middlebrooks, said the initiative could raise $25 million a year for the building and repairing of schools and restoring of streams. He estimated that about $18 million would go toward schools and $7 million toward cleaning up watersheds and waterways damaged by runoff.

Either way, taxpayers lose. Taxpayers will either foot the bill indirectly through higher prices on property or higher prices for services and business, or the taxpayers will pay the bill directly through the higher impact fees. Whichever side wins, it is going to drive the cost of living in Anne Arundel County up in times of financial uncertainty. Not a win-win strategy. It's not good when the Republican County Executive and County Council are acting like our Democratic Governor and General Assembly. You can barely tell the difference when both groups want to eschew reduced spending and go straight for raising taxes on an already distressed electorate.

An idea that's all wet

It's getting harder and harder to tell the Republicans from the Democrats at the County level without a scorecard when you hear about stuff like this:

Of course, protecting her firefighter husband from harm is an added benefit of the mandatory fire sprinkler initiative Councilman Cathy Vitale plans to push this month.

But the reason she wants every new home in Anne Arundel County to come with sprinklers springs from a story he once told her after a heart breaking day on the job.....

....For the past month, she has floated a plan to join the growing ranks of nearly 20 other jurisdictions that require every new home to come with sprinklers.

At least six counties have the rule, from neighboring Prince George's County - which passed the ordinance in 1992 and since then has not seen a fire death in any of the 50,000 homes with sprinklers - to Talbot County, where an ordinance passed last week followed the death of a family of three.

Ms. Vitale has shopped her plan to fellow councilmen, who appear largely supportive, firefighters who have been longing for a sprinkler policy since the 1970s and to the homebuilders association, which generally oppose such measures.

This is the type of liberal nannystatism that you would expect from Democrats, not a veteran Republican County Councilwoman in the county's most conservative Councilmanic District. And certainly not from a politician looking for a promotion in 2010. Voters remember when politicians add at least $1 per square foot to the costs of their new home.

And Vitale isn't even the only alleged conservative who is gung ho for this idea:

Councilman Ed Reilly, R-Crofton, is an insurance agent and said the sprinklers will diminish the cost of insurance policies.

"I'm very much in favor of it, and I'm embarrassed we haven't done anything before," Mr. Reilly said at the hearing.

And the real question on everybody's mind is how in the world the residents of this county are going to pay for this?

For example, neighborhoods on wells must also install holding tanks to make sure the sprinklers have enough pressure to work.

Who is going to pay for that? Is the county going to force new communities to build holding tanks, thus artificially inflating the prices of these new homes?

Additionally if people currently want sprinklers, they can have sprinklers. The market is already giving people the option. And the market seems to be taking care of this:

Today, people building custom homes order sprinklers, but it is rare for the builder of a subdivision to voluntarily install them in a new home, said Larry Cate, the vice president of Absolute Fire Protection in Severna Park who has been installing sprinkling systems in Anne Arundel for two decades.

"You won't close a tough sell," Mr. Cate said of sprinkler skeptics. "It's usually black or white. You either believe in it and you want it, or you don't."

The extra costs put builders constructing neighborhoods at a competitive disadvantage, but Mr. Cate suspects that if every home was forced to have it, the playing field would be even.

Which is also a completely ridiculous statement from Mr. Cate. The playing field is already even. Some builders choose to install sprinklers. Some don't. The consumer gets to make that choice as it is.

We all agree that deaths from fires in the home are a tragic loss to a family and a tragic loss to the community. But this idea is all wet. What is the benefit to the consumer if such systems are mandated? What are the chances that a home is going to be involved in a fire? Do we really want to pass such a cost on to homeowners, who are already going to be expected to pay more and more under the O'Malley tax plan? Do we want to pinch builders, who will likely see somewhat of a hit in business if they are required to install such systems at an additional cost?

I can see the current existing requirement in multi-unit dwellings. But to require that such sprinkler systems in new single-family homes is excessive. In a climate that already finds it difficult to construct affordable housing, why should new costs be added to by government. Vitale and Reilly should really reconsider their positions on this issue, as this is not the kind of conservatism we expect from our Republican elected officials.