Monthly Archives: May 2009

Paul Smith Announces Re-election Bid for Alderman
4:00 p.m. Friday, May 22, 2009
Front Steps of City Hall

Commissioner Jenkins, Sheriff Jenkins, Mayor Holtzinger, Alderman Imhoff, friends and my fellow citizens. Thank you for attending this event and for participating in this announcement.

I am here to announce that I intend to run for re-election for one of the five seats on the Frederick City Board of Aldermen.

At this time the City faces several challenges that I believe require the leadership and abilities of someone such as myself to help us meet them. These challenges include: (1) maintaining a strong city economy during a serious national and international financial crisis; (2) maintaining an efficient and thrifty city government; (3) continuing to bring businesses to Carroll Creek, Monocacy Boulevard, and other key locations in the city; (4) completing key annexations to the city; (5) finding a new and permanent home for the Police Department; and (6) moving forward on key transportation projects, including (a) Monocacy Blvd, (b) the US 15/Monocacy Blvd interchange, (c) securing the commitment of the State to rebuild and widen the bridges for US 15 at Patrick Street, Rosemont Ave. and 7th Street as break-out priorities on the I-270/US 15 Multi-Modal study/project. There are over a dozen additional projects and initiatives that the next city administration will need to meet.

For the city to successfully address, accomplish and meet these challenges, it is important that we have elected officials with the vision, wisdom, experience and courage to meet the challenges and bring success to the City. I submit that I am uniquely qualified and able to help the city meet these challenges. I will briefly explain why.

An elected official who does not have a VISION for the city cannot be expected to be a good leader for the City. We need someone who sees a certain future for the city, and who then works to bring to pass that vision. I certainly do have such a vision, and my record is evidence that I work to bring to pass that vision. Specifically, during the past four years the Mayor and Board promptly passed the Potomac River Water Supply Agreement, which will ensure the city that we have adequate water for the next 50 years. In addition, the city has continued to repair and rebuild new water and sewer lines to insure that we do not waste our precious water supply.

The city has continued to develop Carroll Creek and has brought many new businesses to the Monocacy Boulevard area. The city has recently pursued certain annexations that will be advantageous to the city. This administration has also trimmed and stream-lined the city government so that it is more effective and efficient. The City has improved its ability to do in-house some of the building and engineering work which it has previously contracted for others to do. The combination of these measures has saved the City close to a million dollars/year. This improved city government will be especially helpful to the city during the continuing economic downturn. This substantial improvement in the strength of our city government is not happenstance—it is the result of specific, choices, decisions and actions taken by people of vision that run the government.

We need elected officials with WISDOM. Wisdom is more than the possession of a lot of facts and knowledge. Wisdom is the application of knowledge with the judgment that at the same time advances one’s vision without inadvertently creating too many accessory problems. Inherent in a legislature’s challenge to solve problems is the risk that by solving one problem, the legislature can increase taxes, expand the size of government, and can also pass overly broad legislation that could bring about a myriad of unintended and undesirable consequences. A good legislator will both foresee such problems AND will have the courage to speak up and guard against legislation that would bring more problems than it would solve. I believe I possess the judgment and wisdom to best protect the city’s interests in this respect.

We all have our own set of EXPERIENCES in life. I submit that the set of experience that I bring is extremely valuable to the city. I have over 30 years of experience as an attorney, parent, coach, scoutmaster, and student of constitutional government. To this I now have 3

MEMO

To: Mayor and Board of Aldermen
From: C. Paul Smith
Date: May 21, 2009
Re: COLA adjustments in retiree pension payments

For the reasons given below, I intend to oppose making any change in the retirement pay benefits that are scheduled to be reduced by about 1% this coming year.

1. The benefits are subject to a contract that was made years ago by the City and the retirees or prospective retirees. The argument that the City is now doing something that is unfair to these retirees is absolutely unfounded. This is a matter of contract. This is not an issue of payment for on-going services.

2. I have been contacted by over a dozen retirees—all but one of whom were retired police. The benefits in their retirement package were specifically negotiated by the police with the City. Many benefits were secured, including the option for a 22-year retirement plan. It is disingenuous to say that the City is now being unfair by enforcing the provisions that both parties previously negotiated.

3. Section 35 of the retirement plan specifically provides that each year the payments will be adjusted according to changes in the CPI. Theoretically, these benefits will go up or down, according to the economy (as reflected in the CPI). The very purpose of COLA provision is to insulate the retiree pay from inflation. But conversely, the potential downward adjustment serves to protect the City from taking a financial hit if the economy experiences deflation. When the COLA adjustments work in both directions, this is fair to both parties. It would be unfair to the City and to the taxpayers to now change the terms of the retirement contract to prevent downward adjustments, but only to allow upward adjustments.

4. IF the City were to make additional payments such that there were no decreases in retirement payments this year, it would cost the City $685,000. This is a cost that would be born by the City taxpayers.

5. The City retirement benefits are quite substantial. The pay portion is only part of the benefits; the medical benefits are also substantial and are not affected by the slight decrease in the CPI.

6. I can understand why anyone whose retirement benefits would be reduced slightly, might not like it. But the fairest action for most people is to continue to honor the terms of the original negotiated agreement between the City and the retirees.

Message delivered by Alderman C. Paul Smith at the May 2009 Police Academy Graduation Ceremonies in the Weinberg Center.

Chief Dine, Frederick Police Officers, Honored Guests, and Candidates . . . .

It is my honor to be here, and on behalf of Mayor Holtzinger, to say a few words to the graduates and families of the 30th class of the Frederick City Police Academy in connection with their successful completion of that training.

In many respects the Frederick City Police is the face of the City—How you carry yourselves and how you carry out your responsibilities reflects on the City government and on the entire community that your protect and serve.

I believe that many of you regard the work of a police officer as a mission or calling to serve your fellow citizens—your brothers and sisters, if you will—to protect and defend your fellow citizens, and especially the weak, the young, the ill and the aged. I commend you for these desires. Those whose lives are devoted to service to their fellow man are the happiest and the greatest people. Your successful completion of the training course qualifies you for this glorious opportunity for service. Those who lose themselves in the service of others truly find themselves and find the key to happiness in life.

The families of officers and trainees share in making many of the sacrifices that are required of police officers. We certainly acknowledge this. We thank you families—wives, husbands, parents and children of police officers—for your support, without which the officers would not be able to tackle such enormous tasks.

As you all know, not everyone can qualify to become a police officer. To become a Frederick City Police Officer, one must possess the qualities of self discipline, courage, knowledge, skill and integrity. There is no virtue in ignorance, but there is great power in knowledge. To this end your training course has assisted you in learning about Frederick City, our roads, our stores, our parks, our homes, our people, our laws, and the multitude of procedures to govern your work. The training course has assisted you to develop observation and analysis and communication skills, and to develop multiple self-defense skills. And most importantly, under the exemplary leadership of Chief Kim Dine, you have been taught (or had reinforced) the habits of courtesy, decisiveness, patience, self-control, assertiveness and the proper use of force.

The acquisition of these attributes enables a police officer to be cool and composed under the most intense pressures, and to act with strength, skill and courage in the line of fire. Such men and women are the epitome of greatness. Congratulations to each of you on qualifying to join such an elite group of heroes. Thank you for your commitment to service, and God bless you in this noble endeavor.

Memo

To: Mayor and Board of Aldermen
From: Paul Smith
Date: May 12, 2009
Re: National Museum of Civil War Medicine – Request slight increase in budget funding for 2010 Budget

Attached to this Memo are minutes from the last meeting of the Board of Directors of the National Museum of Civil War Medicine. For the reasons given below, I am encouraging the Mayor and Board to approve a slight increase in funding to the Museum from the $25,000 given in the last budget to $30,000 for the 2010 budget.

1. Like many non-profits, the Museum is being hit with a reduction in both state and federal funding. To help weather this reduction, the Museum has already cut staff. The Museum is down to a minimal staff. At the April Board meeting, George Wunderlich proposed cutting the Museum’s budget by $86,000. Included in such cuts was a proposed 5% cut of his own salary, plus proposed cuts of 2% to staff IRAs. The Board of Directors rejected these latter cuts. But this still leaves the Museum in a difficult financial crisis. The Board voted to secure a $50,000 line of credit as a “stop-gap measure.”

As you will see from reading the names of the Board members (at the top of the attached minutes, the Board is comprised of some of the most prominent and dedicated individuals in our community. They all recognize the great value that is ours having George Wunderlich as Museum director, and the value to have him carry through with his leadership and plans for the Sesquicentennial. George is a man of exceptional knowledge, vision and initiative.

2. Because of the Civil War Sesquicentennial and the attending opportunities for the Museum, it is critical to the long-term growth and development of the Museum that it be prepared to capitalize on the tourism traffic that will visit Frederick during the next six years. This is the time to make the case for the national, historical importance of the National Museum of Civil War Medicine. Making the Museum’s efforts and programs a success should not be delayed or eliminated.

The City has already provided substantial and continued support to the Museum, both by providing the building (for $1/year) and with annual grants. In my opinion, the value of the rental contribution alone must exceed $50,000/year. So there is no question that the City has been generous in its support. But my point is that we should make sure that the Museum has every opportunity to succeed during the Sesquicentennial years; this will give us and the Museum the best opportunity to succeed and move toward permanent financial viability.

The financial goal of the Museum is to eventually build up an endowment fund of $8 or $9 million. At that point it would be self-sustaining. I believe the fund is currently a little over $1 million. Over a period of time, as gifts come in (from the living and from will bequests), this goal can be achieved. But it will probably take 20 years to achieve this goal. One of the recently initiated activities that will help to achieve this goal is the annual Major Letterman Dinner (scheduled for Oct. 28, 2009) and its annual award for Medical Excellence. (The City of Frederick was appropriately the first award recipient, last year.) This was a very successful event, and it will play a key role in bringing donations to the Museum in the future.

The Museum has no where else to make cuts. It is critical that the Museum retain the services of its Director, George Wunderlich, and of key staff, including Karen Thomassen and Niki Thrash. It is critical that the City and the Museum retain their knowledge and vision of how to best capitalize on the Sesquicentennial events. Their continued participation can help the City to put the City of Frederick on the map, so to speak, as a part of the important medical advances that came from the Civil War battles that were fought around the Frederick hub.

3. Because I am the liaison to the Museum, perhaps it could be said that I am partial to the Museum. I don’t doubt this. But it is also my responsibility to share with you my understanding of the Museum’s problems and opportunities—which are also City problems and opportunities. In my judgment it is in the City’s interest to give special treatment to the Museum at this critical time. If you share with me the belief that it is important that the Museum be able to capitalize on the tourism opportunities that will present themselves during the next six years, then please join with me in helping secure some financial help for them. The City cannot, and is not expected to cure the Museum’s entire funding problems. But it would help if we could show our commitment to the Museum as being a close partner with the City’s own growth, development and well-being. If the Museum performs impressively during these years, it could accelerate its becoming self-sufficient through increased gifts and tourism. But if the Museum is not able to take advantage of the Sesquicentennial because of funding gaps, then it may take many more years for the Museum to reach its financial goals and to secure the place of national prominence that it has the opportunity to attain.

It is this unique opportunity that I seek to help my fellow legislators in the City and the County to recognize. This opportunity is more than sufficient justification for the Museum to receive more funding than other non-profits. No other non-profit is facing the critical, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that the Museum is facing, as it prepares for the Sesquicentennial. The City cannot afford to be too stingy with the Museum at the very moment it has some extra needs to help it seize the Sesquicentennial opportunity.

4. The specific action that I am requesting is that the City increase its funding of the Museum in the 2010 budget from $25,000 to $30,000. This is not a large increase, but it would be extremely beneficial to the Museum, which has been paring every possible unnecessary expenditure. It would be an important indicator to the Museum and to the entire community that we recognize the importance of the Museum for the City and County, and that we are committed to help the Museum succeed in its Sesquicentennial efforts despite the economic difficulties that all are facing. Yes, this would be a slight increase in funding, at the same time the City is cutting back its contributions to other non-profits. But it is fully justified and warranted. The Museum’s and the City’s unique situation and opportunity requires that we do this.

Thank you for your support.

MEMO

To: Mayor and Board of Aldermen
From: C. Paul Smith
Date: May 9, 2009
Re: City’s Request for Opinion from Attorney General

I am requesting that the City withdraw its request of May 6, 2009 to the Attorney General, asking him to issue an advisory opinion as to three issues related to the ERIP (passed April 17, 2008). (Each of you should have a copy of the Mayor’s letter to the Attorney General together with the Legal Department’s memo.) This is not a matter that requires a vote of the Board of Aldermen, but, for the reasons stated below, I am requesting each of the Aldermen to express to Mayor Holtzinger your concurrence with me that the request be withdrawn. There is no reasonable expectation that an opinion from the Attorney General will be of any help to the City on any of the three issues, and the making of this request will merely be an embarrassment to the City for taking petty political issues to the Office of the Attorney General. Regardless of how the Attorney General responds to the City’s request, such response cannot be expected to provide any meaningful help in resolving the issues raised. Whatever opinions the Attorney General might render would merely be “advisory” opinions and they would not have the force of law to either confirm or repeal the City actions that they might address.

I would point out that the City has asked the Attorney General to address three separate questions. In the event you agree that one or two of the questions should be withdrawn, then please express this to the mayor. In my opinion it would be better for the City to withdraw even one or two of the questions than to withdraw none of them.

QUESTION NO. 1

Question No. 1: Is the intent of the Aldermen on matters not covered in a Board Resolution a part of that Resolution?

Answer No. 1: The simple and obvious answer to this is “No.” The very reason votes are taken on resolutions is to establish an official City position and to take a specific City action. It would totally undermine our government if someone could seek to establish an official City position without the safeguards and procedures present with respect to official votes on resolutions. It is inconceivable that the Attorney General could give any opinion other than this. And if he did, that advisory opinion would have to be disregarded.

In the event it should become necessary to determine the meaning of any ambiguity that may be found to exist in a resolution, then the expressed opinions of Aldermen on the substance of part of a resolution may become relevant. But no such opinion can be used to expand the scope and breadth of a resolution or to insert a condition into a resolution. The clarifying of an ambiguity in a resolution through the examination of statements by Aldermen is inherently problematic because the opinions of Aldermen can and sometimes does change in the course of a debate/discussion. Thus, even the identification of statements in support of one interpretation are not necessarily reliable to establish that interpretation as being the final interpretation held by a particular Alderman on a certain issue.

With respect to the particular factual question that is driving this issue for the Attorney General, it is my recollection that I for one voiced my opinion that while in general, no employee who might accept the buy-out should have any right to be rehired by the City, the City, on the other hand, should have the ability to rehire certain employees if the continued involvement of such employees was deemed very important to the City. It is my recollection that the Board of Aldermen did not discuss and reach a consensus on any specific terms, conditions and limitations as to such rehires.

Conclusion on No. 1: I suggest that the City withdraw its request that the Attorney General respond to this question. It would be a waste of the State’s time and money, and would not provide anything of benefit to the City.

QUESTION NO. 2

Question No. 2: What length of separation is required before an employee who took the buy-out can be rehired by the City?

Answer No. 2: The answer is that there is no required separation time for an employee, except that for those employees whose eligibility for the buy-out was met only by virtue of the “bridged years of service”—those employees must be separated from employment by at least 30 days before they could be eligible for rehire.

This answer is clear and unambiguous. Some may not like this answer because of its applicability to certain employees. But the result is clear. There is no legitimate issue to send to the Attorney General that challenges this result. This question is being submitted only because some people don’t like the result—not because any legitimate issue has been raised about it. If someone has some basis for challenging this answer, I would like to hear what it is. At this point I have not heard any reasoned challenge to this separation policy. Therefore, the City’s request to the Attorney General is merely asking him to think of some reason why this separation policy might be invalid. In my opinion that is not a proper basis for requesting the Attorney General to render an advisory opinion.

Conclusion on No. 2: I suggest that the City withdraw its request for the Attorney General to respond to this question. It would be a waste of the State’s time and money, and would provide nothing of benefit to the City.

QUESTION NO. 3

Question No. 3: What authority does the Mayor have to designate an employee to serve in an appointed position on a temporary basis without seeking the advice and consent of the Board of Aldermen?

Answer to No. 3: I would note preliminarily, that in my opinion this could be a legitimate question for the mayor and board because I do not find it specifically addressed in the Charter. I believe there is an inherent power on the part of the mayor to designate someone to do the work of someone in an appointed position on a temporary basis and for temporary and reasonable reasons and needs. Thus, depending upon the circumstances, it may become necessary for a Board of Aldermen to take some extraordinary legal action in the way of mandamus or injunctive relief if a mayor exceeded the implied scope of his authority in designating someone to temporarily fill an appointed position.

I fully expect that if the Attorney General were to respond to this question, he would give a general answer, similar to that which I suggested above. But such an answer cannot be expected to do anything to resolve the specific situations that are giving rise to the request for the Attorney General to give an advisory opinion. The limits and extent of implied mayoral powers can only determined by specific factual situations. And this can only happen if the Board of Aldermen should as a body take action to challenge something the mayor has done. For the reasons stated below, I don’t think that would be appropriate here. There is no practical reason to ask the Attorney General for an advisory opinion on this issue.

It is my understanding that this issue is being raised because of the dissatisfaction of some with the continued services of Ron Tobin and Earl Reed. Both of whom I understand took the buy-out, and both of whom have continued to work for the City. Both of these men were in appointed positions for which the approval of the Board of Aldermen was initially given. The argument is raised that since they accepted the retirement buy-out that they therefore cannot continue functioning in their appointed positions unless this is approved by the Board. I am not sure that this is a correct position. I am not sure that they need an additional board approval for continuing to serve in the positions to which they previously received Board approval. I understand that the mayor’s position is that even if Board approval would be necessary for approval on a permanent basis, their continued service is now only temporary, until the end of this mayor’s current term in office, and therefore that no Board approval is required.

If the Attorney General should eventually issue an advisory opinion that the mayor is mistaken, then where does that leave the City? With less than six months remaining in this mayor’s administration, does the Board of Aldermen really want to commence a court action to ask the Court to make the mayor either bring these men or other individuals to the Board for a vote? I for one do not wish to do this. This would be making a mountain out of a mole hill. There is no practical reason to pursue such litigation. There is no practical reason to try to force the mayor to appoint any particular person to fill these two appointed positions for periods of six months or less The only reasonable thing to do is to allow this mayor to continue to have his people in these designated positions until the end of his term. Any contrary action is merely petty politics. Such actions would be of no value at all to the City.

Conclusion No. 3: I suggest that the City withdraw its request for the Attorney General to respond to this question. It would be a waste of the State’s time and money, and would provide nothing of benefit to the City.