Category Archives: Adam Pagnucco

Adam Pagnucco, police

Collective Sloppiness

By Adam Pagnucco.

Yesterday, the county council’s Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO) released a stunning report on collective bargaining between the county and Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) Lodge 35. The report shows incredible sloppiness by the county in administering labor relations with the police that likely goes back far before the current county executive was in office.

The FOP is one of three unions representing employees of the Montgomery County Government. The other two are the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 1664 and MCGEO. Since 1982, the county has negotiated collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with the FOP, including many provisions on wages, benefits and working conditions. The OLO report examines bargaining between the county and FOP but does not include the other two unions.

OLO makes many findings of concern, including on issues of transparency. Two major findings leap out of the report.

The county and the FOP did not agree on what their agreement actually was.

OLO wrote:

First, the Executive Branch and the FOP use different versions of the primary agreement and do not agree on a singular document as the primary CBA. Second, the parties also do not agree on which side letters and MOAs [memorandums of agreement] are part of the current agreement and which are not. OLO was told by representatives both in the Executive Branch and from the FOP that the County Government and the FOP have not had a signed collective bargaining agreement for over a decade. OLO has also been told by the Executive Branch that an agreement is in place and the Office of Labor Relations and the FOP are working towards a unified, written document. OLO notes that despite the state of the documents, the parties report that they work together to implement the collective bargaining agreement on a day-to-day basis and use an agreed-upon arbitration process to resolve disagreements, when necessary.

OLO’s primary finding is that it is impossible for a third-party reader to identify the terms and provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the County and FOP Lodge 35 because the parties do not agree on the primary document. In addition, while the County and the FOP agree that certain side letters and MOAs are in effect, they do not agree on the current status/effect of all side letters and MOAs. This disagreement adds to the inability of a third-party to know or understand all the provisions that make up the collective bargaining agreement.

In other words, MoCo voters have no idea what they’re paying for and, as of the writing of the report, have no way to find out.

An aside. When I was working in the labor movement, I worked with an old, wily jurisdictional director from Brooklyn named Stan. Stan was responsible for negotiating international union agreements with our contractors. Stan had seen every trick in the book over his decades of negotiating. One trick was when company attorneys made changes to agreements that were not negotiated and tried to sneak them in. For example, if the union and the company agreed to changing Articles 12, 15 and 28, the company attorney might insert those changes but also make a change to Article 30. If that change went unnoticed and the union president signed it, that became part of the new agreement.

To stop that kind of thing, Stan would summon me into his office and give me a copy of his version of the agreement. Then he would read aloud from the company’s version – every single word in that New Yawk accent of his – including the sections that had not been renegotiated. If we found one punctuation mark that was out of place, BAM! Stan would be on the phone with the company lawyer, demanding to know how that happened. That’s how much we cared about making sure the agreement was exactly what we agreed to, every single word.

And that’s why I am surprised by the county’s sloppiness here. From my own experience in the labor movement, when the parties don’t agree on what their agreement is, that “agreement” can be hard to administer.

The agreement that expired on June 30, 2020 provided benefit levels that exceeded maximum amounts set in county law.

OLO identified the following examples of benefits in the agreement that exceeded what is allowable under county law.

Agreement: Most current employees contribute 4.75% of salary for retirement.

County law: Employee contributions are set at 6.75% of salary for service after June 30, 2012.

Agreement: The pension cost of living adjustment is tied to the consumer price index with a cap of 7.5%.

County law: The pension cost of living adjustment is tied to the consumer price index with a cap of 2.5%.

Agreement: The minimum pension for a service-connected disability is set at 66.6% of final earnings.

County law: The minimum pension for a service-connected disability is set at 52.5% of final earnings.

Agreement: The health insurance premium split is set at 80% County / 20% employee.

County law: The health insurance premium split is set at 75% County / 25% employee.

The county council made several changes to benefit levels through legislation passed during the Great Recession. The legislation preempts any contents of collective bargaining agreements. It may be that subsequent agreements were not updated to reflect these changes because of the kind of sloppiness seen above. The OLO report authors told me, “FOP members received benefits as stipulated in law and Council resolutions (not what is written in the contracts).”

In responding to the report, Chief Administrative Officer Rich Madaleno wrote, “…The draft report notes that the County and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) have been unable to agree upon a unified collective bargaining agreement. This is no longer accurate. OLR [Office of Labor Relations] and the FOP have been engaged in a year-long project to reconcile those differences and have agreed to a single version of the collective bargaining agreement. Attached for your information is the unsigned agreement. The signed version will be forwarded to you next week.”

Unfortunately, the new agreement received by OLO contains the same benefit levels that exceed the maximums contained in county law. That issue has not been cleaned up. Neither have a host of issues I identified last June, the most disturbing of which requires the county to fight certain Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) requests in court. OLO identified the latter issue as well, writing that that provision appears to conflict with state law.

OLO recommends that all collective bargaining documents, including supplementary ones, be posted on the county’s website for public view; that outdated and/or moot language be purged; that the county council be notified of changes; and that the agreements be consistent with federal, state and county law. Given the county’s past mistakes, these are hard recommendations to argue against.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, budget, COVID-19, MCGEO

Two Negotiating Strategies, Two Outcomes

By Adam Pagnucco.

In justifying the county’s creation of a $4 million per pay period emergency pay liability, representatives of county government depict it as a good deal for taxpayers. They say that the county’s collective bargaining agreements set much higher levels of emergency pay than the amount the county is now paying, so $4 million a pay period is actually a bargain. Setting aside whether the county’s existing emergency pay provisions actually apply to a pandemic – there is some doubt about that – the county’s claim is called into question by the emergency compensation program of one of its sister agencies, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, commonly referred to as Park and Planning.

MCGEO is the largest county employee union of both Montgomery County Government and Park and Planning. It is led by the fearsome Gino Renne, who has a long and famous history of playing hardball with politicians. The union’s prior collective bargaining agreements with both the county and Park and Planning had preexisting emergency pay provisions which the county cited in providing COVID pay. Unlike MCGEO’s preexisting agreement with the county, its preexisting agreement with Park and Planning has an emergency pay provision explicitly referring to “epidemics.” Despite that fact, negotiations between MCGEO and the two agencies yielded outcomes that were worlds apart.

MCGEO’s agreement with the county

Signed on April 3, the agreement gives employees in “front facing onsite work” an extra $10 per hour and employees in “back office onsite work” an extra $3 per hour. Teleworking employees do not receive extra pay. The differential counts for the purpose of calculating overtime pay.

The agreement is indefinite. Here is its language on duration:

This Agreement may re-open on June 20, 2020. However, if the declared Maryland State of Emergency related to COVID-19 extends beyond that time, the terms of this Agreement shall continue, or after collectively bargaining with MCGEO, will be modified based upon the circumstances at the time. In the event that the declared Maryland State of Emergency related to COVID-19 is rescinded before June 20, 2020, the date of the Declaration’s rescission shall be considered the last day of this Agreement, notwithstanding the pay periods indicated above defining when the COVID-19 Differential will be paid.

The county could renegotiate the agreement if MCGEO agrees to do it. Otherwise, the agreement lasts as long as the state’s declared emergency does. As of this writing, the emergency continues and so does the agreement. County council staff has previously noted that it provides by far the most generous COVID pay of any jurisdiction in the region.

MCGEO’s agreements with Park and Planning

MCGEO has had two memorandums of understanding and six agreements on the COVID emergency with Park and Planning through late January. Their effective dates are:

MOU signed 3/15/20
Agreement 1: 5/4/20 – 6/30/20
MOU signed 7/2/20
Agreement 2: 7/10/20 – 8/8/30
Agreement 3: 8/5/20 – 8/29/20
Agreement 4: 9/8/20 – 10/3/20
Agreement 5: 10/5/20 – 11/28/20
Agreement 6: 11/25/20 – 1/30/21

Of the agreements, only the first (lasting through June 30) contained extra pay. That agreement gave an extra $2.75 per hour for “onsite work” and an extra $4.50 per hour for child care aides performing “front facing onsite work.” Unlike the county’s agreement, emergency pay was not included in the calculation of overtime pay. The later agreements provided varying levels of leave and paid time off and have other language on health and safety, teleworking and scheduling but they do not provide emergency pay. Let’s note that time away from work does more to protect employee health than requiring them to report on-site with a pay differential.

No one will ever accuse MCGEO President Gino Renne of being an ineffective negotiator. He has delivered outstanding value to his members for many years. The difference here is in the negotiating strategies taken by the two agencies. Park and Planning utilized a series of short, time-limited agreements to adjust its compensation to changing circumstances. The county signed one open-ended agreement that locked in extra pay negotiated during the height of COVID’s first wave. Gino signed the agreements with both agencies despite their vast differences.

That’s not all. The county’s agreements with the police and fire fighters both provide indefinite emergency pay of $10 per hour for onsite work, with the extra pay counting for calculations of overtime. Of Park and Planning’s five agreements with its police union through late November, only one – lasting through June 30 – provided emergency pay and that was for $4.50 an hour. Once again, Park and Planning got a different result with a different negotiating strategy.

The results of these differing agreements are two-fold. First, there is a huge gap in the costs faced by the agencies. The county has about 9 times the employees of Park and Planning. The county has paid $4 million per pay period since April, which translates to $78 million as of last week. Park and Planning paid a total of $400,917.

Second, there is a tremendous inequity between county employees (many of whom are receiving an extra $3 or $10 per hour) and Park and Planning employees (who are getting paid time off and leave but not extra pay since June 30). That inequity extends to employees of MCPS and Montgomery College, who are not getting anything resembling the county’s pay. Expect these employees to ask – with justification – why they aren’t getting the same extra money as county workers.

The question of how to pay for the county’s huge new liability – one that was avoided by Park and Planning – will be a big factor in writing the next operating budget. We shall find out the consequences of all this when it arrives on March 15.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, COVID-19

How Does MoCo’s Vaccination Rate Compare to the Rest of Maryland?

By Adam Pagnucco.

Last night, Montgomery County Government sent out a blast email claiming, “Montgomery County is has [sic] taken swift steps to administer the vaccines it has received—proceeding at one of the highest rates of vaccine administration in Maryland.” The same claim is repeated on the county’s website.

Is this true?

The county doesn’t elaborate on this claim in great detail but it has support from the slide below from its Department of Health and Human Services. The slide shows the percentage of received vaccines that has been administered by each county in the state. As of January 13, MoCo administered 63% of the vaccines it has received, trailing only Caroline County (68%) and far above the state average (36%).

However, the county trails badly on another key measure: the percentage of population vaccinated. Another slide from the same presentation shows that just 2.2% of MoCo’s population has been vaccinated with at least one dose, a rate that trails 20 of the state’s 24 jurisdictions.

To be fair, MoCo doesn’t have full control of its population vaccination rate because the state allocates vaccines by county. At this point, Baltimore County has received more vaccines than MoCo even though its population is smaller.

County Executive Marc Elrich has posted a good explanation of the complications in distributing vaccines, especially the role played by the need to vaccinate people twice. It’s very informative for folks who would like to understand how the process works and what bottlenecks lie within.

In any event, by one measure, the county is exceeding the state’s vaccination rate and by another, it is falling short. The story is a complex one and, at this point, not reducible to emailed success stories.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Will Jawando

Is Rent Stabilization Dead on Arrival?

By Adam Pagnucco.

After successfully passing a temporary rent stabilization bill in April, Council Member Will Jawando has introduced a permanent rent stabilization bill for many properties within one mile of Metro stations or a half mile from bus rapid transit stations. The bill would exempt certain properties, such as licensed health care facilities, non-profit properties, owner-occupied group houses, religious buildings, transient lodging, dormitories, nursing homes and accessory apartments. It would apply to new buildings after five years of operation as rentals. Buildings not exempted would be allowed to charge annual rent increases up to the county’s (currently) voluntary rent guideline, which was 2.6% in 2020. The guideline is pegged to the rental component of the Washington-Baltimore CPI-U, which is produced by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and has varied between 1.5% and 4.0% over the last decade.

This bill was always going to have a rough ride but now it has a formidable, perhaps even fatal, obstacle – an economic impact statement predicting mayhem to MoCo’s housing market if it passes.

In MoCo, economic impact statements on legislation are prepared by the Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO), a group of merit analysts housed in the legislative branch. OLO has long produced subject matter reports that are often eye-popping reading, but under legislation sponsored by Council Member Andrew Friedson last year, it has taken over the preparation of economic impact statements from the executive branch.

The economic impact statement on Jawando’s bill, reprinted at the end of this column, was prepared by former county council and planning department analyst Jacob Sesker, whose work draws much respect from the council and beyond. It is a lethal indictment of rent stabilization both generally and specifically in MoCo. The statement begins with this blunt declaration:

The Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO) expects Bill 52-20 to have a negative economic impact overall. Residents of rent stabilized units would periodically benefit from lower rent increases. Residents of non-rent stabilized units would likely face increased rent costs. The economic benefit to households is smaller than the economic cost to businesses, in part because the household sector would absorb employment and earnings losses associated with decreased revenue for businesses in the real estate industry. Artificially constrained rents will also have a negative impact on asset values and property tax revenues.

Research indicates that rent stabilization could lead to reduced supply of rental housing and upward pressure on the prices of unregulated units (including owner-occupied units). This reduced supply could occur as a result of condominium conversion or reduced construction activity. Research also indicates that rent stabilization programs often result in disinvestment by owners, including deferred or foregone maintenance. There is evidence that rent stabilization has led to neighborhood deterioration or increased crime in some locations.

The statement’s next three and a half pages contains a literature review summarizing many negative findings of rent control, including higher rents for non-controlled units; poor targeting to people in need as wealthy people secure rent-controlled units; increased conversions of rental units into condos; and maintenance issues for controlled properties. These findings are nothing new – they mirror my own review in 2017, which found that economists have recounted problems with rent control for decades. Even the communist government of Vietnam abandoned it, with one official telling the press, “The Americans couldn’t destroy Hanoi, but we have destroyed our city by very low rents. We realized it was stupid and that we must change policy.”

The interesting part of the statement is its research on MoCo’s housing market. Using data from Costar, the statement finds that from 2001 through 2020, rents in MoCo rose by an annual average rate of 1.48%. In properties within 1 mile of rail transit, the average rent increase was 1.28%. Rent increases in MoCo have been among the lowest in the region as shown by the statement’s chart below. If MoCo already has some of the lowest rent increases in the region, what problem is the bill attempting to fix?

While the statement does attempt to model the potential negative economic impacts of rent control on the county’s economy, it omits discussion of MoCo’s two major housing challenges: inadequate rates of construction and slow job growth that deters initiation and financing of housing projects. The District of Columbia has a rent stabilization law and has not seen those problems because it exempts buildings constructed after 1975. (The D.C. Policy Center estimated that just 36% of the District’s rental units were covered by rent stabilization in 2019.) Jawando’s bill applies to new construction after a five-year grace period. Takoma Park’s rent stabilization law applies to new construction and the city is losing rental units. Given the above, what would Jawando’s bill do to housing construction in MoCo?

There will be a lot more to say about this bill from folks with lots of different views on it. That said, since economists overwhelmingly oppose rent control, the advocates have a lot of work to do.

The economic impact statement is reprinted below.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Andrew Friedson, Anne Kaiser, Evan Glass, Larry Hogan, Marc Elrich, Media, purple line, Robin Ficker, taxes

Political Awards 2020

By Adam Pagnucco.

It’s that time: here are the political awards for 2020, the year that was!

Politician of the Year: Governor Larry Hogan

There is really no other choice. Because of the unique demands of the COVID-19 crisis, it’s possible that no Governor of Maryland has wielded more power than Hogan did in 2020 since the colonial era. Local governments, employers and residents all over the state have had to react to his many executive orders. He has had successes, such as Maryland’s relatively low COVID case rate compared to the rest of the country, and he has had failures, such as the flawed test kits from South Korea. Above all, he has been incredibly consequential – far more than any other political figure in the state – and that is enough for this award.

Debacle of the Year: The Purple Line

Again, there is no other choice. The Purple Line’s public-private partnership (P3) was supposed to protect taxpayers from liability, but its collapse will cost us $250 million that would otherwise be available for other transportation projects. The state is promising to complete the project, which will someday generate real benefits for the Washington region, but no one knows its completion date or its ultimate cost. With another P3 pending for the Beltway/I-270 project, the Hogan administration owes it to Marylanders to report on lessons learned from the Purple Line so that its mistakes are not repeated.

Runners Up
Two powerful officials – Hogan Chief of Staff Roy McGrath and MoCo Chief Administrative Officer Andrew Kleine – lost their jobs due to scandal. The McGrath story may not be over.

Worst Move of the Year: Robin Ficker’s Question B

Ficker thought he could get MoCo voters to approve a draconian tax cap that would handcuff county government forever. Instead, not only did voters reject his idea, but they approved a competing ballot amendment (more below) that will actually generate more revenue for the county over time.

Runners Up
MoCo Republicans badly wanted the nine council district charter amendment to pass but they wound up helping to defeat it because of their prominent embrace of it in the toxic year of Trump. Talbot County officials insisted on keeping a confederate statue at their courthouse, a long-term loser for the county.

Best Move of the Year (Tie): Andrew Friedson’s Question A and Evan Glass’s Question C

Former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel once said, “Never allow a good crisis to go to waste.” Council Members Andrew Friedson and Evan Glass sure didn’t, drafting competing ballot questions against Ficker’s anti-tax charter amendment and another amendment providing for an all-district council structure. The result of the passage of Friedson’s Question A and Glass’s Question C is a more rational, liberalized property tax structure and a larger county council to service a larger population.

Runner Up
Baltimore County Executive John Olszewski Jr. issued an executive order capping third party food delivery app fees at 15%, preventing excessive fees ranging as high as 30%. The order also bans them from reducing driver compensation and tips to comply with the fee cap.

Missing in Action Award: Almost Everyone Planning or Thinking of a Run for Governor

Comptroller Peter Franchot is the only declared candidate for governor. He has a war chest, a statewide profile and a consulting firm. Right now, he has no competition. As Roger Waters would say, is there anybody out there?

Big Deal of the Year: Moratorium Repeal

The county council repealed the county’s illogical housing moratorium policy, which did not accomplish its intended purpose (alleviating school crowding) but did prevent housing construction in the face of MoCo’s affordable housing shortage. Housing construction still has challenges – including financing problems stemming in part from slow job growth – but the council was right to junk moratoriums that did no good and made housing problems worse.

Just Because She’s Great Award: Delegate Anne Kaiser

She never asks for attention or takes credit for anything. But Delegate Anne Kaiser is everything you could want in an elected leader: smart, practical, savvy, mentors younger politicians and plays the long game. Best of all, she’s a down to Earth person who doesn’t let success go to her head. She’s a worthy successor to the great Sheila Hixson as chair of Ways and Means. Long may she serve.

MoCo Feud of the Year: JOF vs Stephen Austin

In one corner: political newcomer Stephen Austin, running for school board on a platform of opposing MCPS’s boundary analysis. In the other corner: former school board member Jill Ortman-Fouse (universally known as “JOF”), leader of a movement favoring boundary studies in the interest of equity. This was never going to be a great relationship, but this feud set a record for most screenshots in a MoCo political dispute. Here’s to more in the new year!

Runner Up
County Executive Marc Elrich vs Governor Larry Hogan. This one runs hot and cold but it flared big-time when Hogan stopped MoCo from instituting a blanket shutdown of private schools. These two can’t stand each other so expect more this year.

Media Outlet of the Year: Baltimore Brew

If you’re not reading Baltimore Brew, you need to start doing it right now! No city scandal can hide from the Brew’s hustling, dirt-digging journalists, whether it’s document shredding, scams, SLAPP suits, politician tax liens, travel expenses, or other questionable activities. Baltimore Brew is a must-read and a true gem of Maryland journalism.

Game Changer Award: Len Foxwell

For more than a decade, the Franchot-Foxwell partnership roiled Annapolis, grabbed headlines and marched steadily towards Government House. Now Foxwell is a free agent and available for hire as a communications, public relations and political strategist. Few people combine knowledge of politics, policy, press and all things Maryland like Len. Having him on the market is a game changer, especially for anyone who hires him.

County Employee of the Year: Inspector General Megan Davey Limarzi

Limarzi is MoCo’s dynamite inspector general, whose reports on mischief in county government regularly rock Rockville. Two especially notable reports revealed an “overtime scam” in the fire department and overpayment of COVID emergency pay in at least one county department. In Fiscal Year 2020, complaints to the inspector general increased 92%, suggesting confidence in her work. Count me as her biggest fan!

Runners Up

Like Calvin and Hobbes, Travis Gayles (the county’s health officer) and Earl Stoddard (the county’s emergency management director) come as a pair. Both of them have played critical roles in responding to COVID. Gayles is a happy warrior who shrugs off criticism and is indefatigable in his job. Stoddard is a stand-up guy who earned a lot of respect in taking responsibility for the county’s grant management issues. Given the nature of their jobs, Gayles and Stoddard are not always loved, but they deserve credit for taking the heat and carrying on when so many other health officials are leaving around the country.

Quote of the Year: “Hope is Not a Fiscal Strategy”

Council Member Andrew Friedson has said this so many times that his colleagues (and executive branch officials) are probably sick of hearing it. But it’s true: the county has been praying since the summer for a federal bailout that has yet to arrive while the day of reckoning is near. We could have done better.

Gaffe of the Year: “Can I Say the Council is Fact Proof?”

Here is an instance in which County Executive Marc Elrich’s snarky sense of humor was not appreciated by the county council in this hot mic moment. Can we get more hot mics please?

Survivor of the Year: Linda Lamone

After numerous glitches in the primary election, state elections administrator Linda Lamone looked like she might finally be run out of Annapolis. But she outlasted calls for her resignation and the general election went better, so she remains in her job. Given her many problems and a string of bad audits, Lamone isn’t just a survivor of the year – she is THE survivor of the last twenty years. State leaders need to restructure the accountability of her position after she finally retires.

Departure of the Year: Bob Dorfman

We’re not fans of the county liquor monopoly here at Seventh State, but former monopoly director Bob Dorfman was a capable manager who tamed some of its worst problems. Depending on who succeeds him, the county could really miss him.

Most Ignored Story of the Year: Public Information Act Suspension

The Elrich administration’s indefinite suspension of public information act deadlines is the single biggest setback for open government in MoCo that I have seen in almost 15 years of writing. And yet to my knowledge, not a single politician said anything about it publicly and not a single D.C. area press outlet has followed up. I’m not surprised by the politicians. But I am surprised by how meekly the press surrendered to the suspension of one of the greatest tools of investigative reporting available – the public information act. To quote Roger Waters again, is there anybody out there?

That’s all for 2020, folks!

Share
Adam Pagnucco, COVID-19, Department of Liquor Control, Ethics, Fire Service, Judicial Elections, MCDCC, MCEA

The Top Twenty Seventh State Posts of 2020, Part Two

By Adam Pagnucco.

Yesterday, we listed posts 11 through 20 in terms of page views for the year 2020. Here are the top ten.

  1. Volcano in Rockville

In the wake of former Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Andrew Kleine’s admitted ethics violations, County Executive Marc Elrich wanted him to stay in his job. But the county council was outraged by the scandal and exploded in public fury. The council’s anger wound up forcing Kleine out and opened the door to the ascension of the new CAO, former county budget director and state senator Rich Madaleno.

  1. Repeal the Linda Lamone for Life Law

The problems with the 2020 primary election prompted this historical post summarizing why the state has a law protecting its elections administrator, Linda Lamone, from accountability. Comptroller Peter Franchot and Lieutenant Governor Boyd Rutherford called for Lamone’s resignation but she survived for the thousandth time. Thankfully, the general election was a smoother affair than the primary.

  1. Sitting Judges Get Temporary Restraining Order Against Pierre
  2. Progressive-Backed Judge Candidate Courted, Donated to Republicans
  3. Judge Candidate on Floyd Cops: “Lock Em Up”

It’s fitting that these three posts finished back-to-back-to-back because they all concern the nastiest judicial election in recent MoCo history: the challenge by attorney Marylin Pierre to four sitting judges. This one had a LOT going on: partisanship, charges of racism, charges of lying and even a temporary restraining order. The whole thing cast a foul odor over the ballot box and led me to conclude that judicial elections should mostly be abolished.

  1. Harris Blasts MCEA Over School Reopening

School board elections are mostly sleepy affairs in which candidates agree at least 90% of the time and the only difference between them is which ones are endorsed by the Apple Ballot and the Post. Not this year! MCPS’s boundary study dominated the primary and school reopening took the spotlight in the general, with Lynne Harris (the Post’s candidate) blasting the teachers union for allegedly resisting reopening. Harris told Blair High School’s Silver Chips newspaper that the teachers “were obstructionist, inflammatory, and just said ‘no’ to everything.” That provoked a furious response and the teachers are unlikely to forget it.

  1. What’s More Important? The Liquor Monopoly or a Thousand Bartenders?

Early in the COVID crisis, Governor Larry Hogan gave counties discretion to allow restaurants to offer takeout and delivery of mixed drinks. Many other states and the City of Baltimore allowed it, but MoCo’s liquor monopoly did not. The issue prompted a mass revolt by restaurants and consumers and the county ultimately allowed it.

  1. IG Investigates “Overtime Scam” in the Fire Department

County Inspector General Megan Davey Limarzi blew the lid off county government with her landmark report on an overtime scam in the fire department. The scandal involved more than $900,000 of overtime which exceeded limits set by the fire chief and was scheduled outside of the system usually used by county public safety agencies. Readers were all over this but I have not heard of anyone being disciplined for it. As of this writing, this is the sixth most-read post in the history of Seventh State measured by page views.

  1. Restaurant: My Staff Will Not Wear Face Masks

Last July, The Grille at Flower Hill in Gaithersburg posted this on Facebook: “Let me be very clear…my staff will not wear face masks while working here at the Grille. If that bothers you then please dine elsewhere and please try to find something more important to occupy your time such as volunteer at a nursing home or soup kitchen. Whoever you are that filed the complaint, you need to take a good look in the mirror and try to find some real meaning in your life.” The post provoked a huge firestorm from irate customers resulting in the permanent closure of the restaurant four days later. As of this writing, this is the fifth most-read post in the history of Seventh State measured by page views.

  1. MoCo Democrats Issue Statement on Ballot Questions

This post reprinted the Montgomery County Democratic Party’s statement on the four ballot questions. It was originally published on September 17 and initially attracted little site traffic. But it started to pop in early and mid-October and dominated page views in the latter part of the month. Most of the traffic was generated by Google searches. This provided valuable intel: thousands of people were seeking out what the Democratic Party had to say about a group of arcane and confusing ballot questions. And if they were coming to Seventh State, they were no doubt also visiting other sites with similar information like news outlets and the party’s own site. In the end, it seems likely that the party was the dominant force in driving voter reaction to the ballot questions as its positions carried the election by double digits. It was also a huge boon to us as this post ranks third in page views in the history of Seventh State.

On to 2021!

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Baltimore City, Corporate Welfare, COVID-19, Development, Economy, Ike Leggett, Marc Elrich, MCEA, MCPS, police

The Top Twenty Seventh State Posts of 2020, Part One

By Adam Pagnucco.

The year 2020 was hugely eventful for the entire world and MoCo was no exception. In our county, 2020 saw a public health crisis, a resulting economic crash and huge challenges to our quality of life. In political terms, it also saw unusually contentious elections for school board and circuit court judge, four historic ballot questions and numerous fights inside county government. We wrote about it all on Seventh State. Here are the top twenty posts measured by page views from the people who count the most – YOU, our readers.

  1. Miscreants Run Wild at Elrich Press Conference

This was a poorly organized public event gone wrong, culminating with an unmasked protestor getting within spitting distance of the county executive. For those who question the need for the executive to have a security detail, this is Exhibit A for why it can be necessary.

  1. Elrich Vetoes WMATA Property Tax Bill

County Executive Marc Elrich’s first veto, this one targeting a council-passed bill giving Metro station developers 15-year property tax breaks, set off a fight on corporate welfare that has not ended by a long shot. That will prove especially true if a proposal by the planning staff to grant tax abatements to other properties near Metro stations advances.

  1. The Squeaky Wheel and Inequities Hiding in Plain Sight

MoCo PTA Vice-President Laura Stewart wrote this guest blog on inequities in MCPS’s capital budget. It’s a must-read for everyone who cares about school construction.

  1. Will MCPS Reopen?

In early November, MCPS told the public that it was planning a phased-in reopening of schools for some in-person instruction. But the winter surge of COVID quickly overtook that plan and cast the timing of reopening in doubt. The issue is still unsettled.

  1. MCEA: MCPS Reopening Plan “Wholly Inadequate” to Protect Students and Staff

Back in the summer, MCPS’s original reopening plan was drenched in controversy, ultimately resulting in a pitched battle with the county teachers’ union (MCEA). MCPS wound up going with virtual learning for the fall, like most other large school systems in the region, but the mechanics and safety of reopening are still subjects of debate.

  1. What Happened to White Flint?

Jobs, jobs, JOBS. According to White Flint developers, MoCo’s slow rate of job growth was one reason that they could not get financing to proceed on the county’s preeminent development plan. The chart below says it all. And when the COVID pandemic finally ends, county leaders must dedicate themselves to creating jobs, Jobs, JOBS or MoCo’s stagnation will continue.

  1. Baltimore City’s Election Has a Problem

Back in June, incumbent Baltimore City Council Member Zeke Cohen, who had a big lead in money and endorsements over his challenger, appeared on election night to be getting just 2% of the vote. That was the first sign of a primary gone wrong, which led to many misgivings about the state’s processes with mail ballots and the performance of its long-time election administrator Linda Lamone.

  1. Why Montgomery County Ballot Questions B and D Are Truly Bad Ideas You Should Vote Against

2020 was a year of surprises, and one of the bigger surprises was the emergence from political retirement of former County Executive Ike Leggett. Question B (Robin Ficker’s latest anti-tax charter amendment) and Question D (nine council districts) disturbed Leggett enough that he started a ballot issue committee to defeat them. This post was Leggett’s guest column on why they were bad ideas and it got a big reaction from our readers.

  1. Teachers Respond to Lynne Harris

After school board candidate Lynne Harris blamed MCEA for allegedly resisting school reopening (a post that also appears on our top 20 list), a group of rank-and-file teachers pushed back in this guest post. It achieved wide readership that was probably concentrated among teachers as the general election approached.

  1. Free-For-All

In non-COVID news, 2020 was the year that the county’s police department (along with departments around the country) became a political football. This post describes how the executive, the county council and Annapolis all jumped into the issue of policing with little coordination. Lost in the debate was the central fact that crime in MoCo is at its lowest level in decades. Policing will continue to be a hot topic in 2021.

Tomorrow we will list the top ten Seventh State posts for the year!

Share
Adam Pagnucco, mike miller, purple line, transportation

How Mike Miller Helped Save the Purple Line

By Adam Pagnucco.

The Purple Line is the subject of much drama today, but the truth is that the project has always been wrapped in drama and almost died several times. Indeed, it could have met its end back in 2013. The fact that it survived was a near miracle, and that is in part because of one critical person: retiring Senator Mike Miller. For the first time ever, here is the untold story of how Mike Miller helped save the Purple Line.

As the summer of 2013 approached, the Purple Line was facing a critical deadline: the state had to show the federal government that it could afford its share of the rail line’s cost to be eligible for nearly a billion dollars in federal funding. The problem was that the state didn’t have the money. Depleted by revenue declines during the Great Recession, the state’s transportation trust fund was broke. Without new money, we could never show the federal government that we could meet our part of the cost. Baltimore’s Red Line had the same problem. With no adequate state funding, the feds were bound to send their money to other projects around the country. Both the Purple Line and the Red Line would then die.

A group of advocates then put together a coalition called Get Maryland Moving to lobby for new transportation revenues. Our members included smart growth groups, environmentalists, business organizations and local governments from all over the state. We had a website, social media, press hits, lobbying, day-to-day coordination and all the accoutrements of a mass campaign, all thrown together in a few weeks. We wanted the Purple Line and the Red Line, but we understood that the rest of the state needed their projects too. Our approach was to get enough money for everyone because that was the only way new funding would pass.

Right off the bat, my contacts in the General Assembly told me that a transportation revenue increase was dead on arrival. The legislature had passed a variety of tax increases in the 2007 special session, leading to GOP gains in the House of Delegates in the following election. Nevertheless, the Democrats raised the income tax in 2012. Developer Larry Hogan, who had served in the administration of GOP Governor Bob Ehrlich, had founded Change Maryland largely on the tax issue and was a year and a half away from becoming governor. Democratic state legislators conceded privately that more transportation money was necessary, especially for the Red Line and the Purple Line, but they were extremely reluctant to raise taxes again.

We were underdogs but we had two aces in the hole.

Senate President Mike Miller

Miller seemed like an unlikely ally for MoCo as he had masterminded both an income tax increase and a teacher pension shift the year before, both of which disproportionately crushed the county. But Miller was an absolute warrior on the issue of transportation funding. He knew that the entire state had massive infrastructure needs that had no chance of getting built without more money. Ever since the state’s last gas tax hike in 1992, Miller had never stopped talking about transportation funding. As far back as 1997, Miller told the Baltimore Sun: “The money for these projects doesn’t come out of the sky… It’s going to take a tax increase. It’s a bad word, but it’s got to happen.” In 2008, Miller told me in an interview that he had pushed for a 12-cent gas tax increase, declaring, “We need to move forward as quickly as we can on mass transit.”

Miller never gave up when he cared about an issue, and he cared a lot about transportation funding. He also had no fear of Governor Martin O’Malley, who was reluctant to get out front on a revenue increase that voters opposed. In January, Miller introduced his own revenue bill and put O’Malley on the spot, telling the Washington Post, “This needs to be an initiative by the governor… It doesn’t poll well, but that’s what leadership is all about.”

To hell with the naysayers. We had Mike Miller on our side. That meant we had a shot.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell

Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is now known primarily for his gifts scandal in 2014, which led to a conviction that was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. But before that, McDonnell was a rising star in the national GOP who seemed to be going places. As unlikely as it seems now, in the world of 2013, it was not out of the realm of possibility that both McDonnell and O’Malley would someday be on the presidential tickets of their respective political parties.

In his final year in office, McDonnell put together a giant transportation funding bill, showing a level of boldness that contrasted with the reticence of his rival across the Potomac. Annapolis felt the pressure. O’Malley could not be seen as failing on transportation while McDonnell got a new funding package through a state legislature controlled by Republicans. And McDonnell did just that, scoring a huge success in late February as bipartisan majorities passed his multi-billion dollar transportation bill. McDonnell’s success in Virginia along with Miller’s constant urging prompted O’Malley to get off the bench, as he finally sent over an administration bill in early March. The train was starting to move.

But there was one more problem: Baltimore’s lawmakers were resisting the bill. We thought that the prospect of funding the Red Line gave them reason enough to support it. But some city legislators were indifferent to the Red Line, others were outright opposed, and one even told one of our organizers that the state would build it even without new money because “they owe it to us.” The city wanted something different: state school construction money to fix their aging schools. That could have meant the end of transportation funding right there as not everyone was enthralled with the idea of sending more money to Baltimore. And without the city’s votes, our bill would have died.

So state leaders cut a deal with the city: they would get a billion dollars in school construction money, financed with lottery proceeds, in return for voting for the transportation bill. The city got a great deal but the Washington suburbs got the Purple Line. (Hogan canceled the Red Line two years later, causing city leaders to cry injustice on behalf of a project that many of them never truly wanted.) O’Malley’s bill was amended and passed, generating hundreds of millions of dollars for transportation and keeping the Purple Line alive.

Raising transportation revenue required a team effort. Local governments, advocacy groups, the business community and key elected officials all played a part. But Mike Miller was absolutely critical to the effort. He was the first powerful state leader out of the box on the issue. He had talked about the necessity of raising money for transportation projects for years and years while many other politicians cowered under their desks. He wouldn’t let it go and he publicly took on a sitting governor from his own party to get the money. Having Miller in our corner gave us a fighting chance even when it looked like we would lose. When it was time to cut the final deal, we knew that he had both the desire and the capability to work with others and get it done. And he did. To this day, I believe the Purple Line wouldn’t have survived without him.

Here’s an idea. When the Purple Line opens, the state should name its station on the University of Maryland’s College Park campus for Miller. He loves the university, from which he graduated with two degrees, and he has done as much for the state’s infrastructure as any other Marylander. If anyone deserves recognition of this kind, it is surely Mike Miller.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, mike miller

Flashback: Mike Miller Meets the Bloggers

By Adam Pagnucco.

With the retirement of Senator Mike Miller, who ruled the Maryland Senate for decades, many stories are being told of his long tenure. This is one of many records he holds: more stories are told about Mike Miller than any other Maryland politician, hands down. My contribution comes from the archives of Seventh State’s predecessor and our first blog, Maryland Politics Watch. It relates what happened the first time I met Miller.

It was January 2008. Believe it or not, there were many more state and local politics blogs back then than there are now. (David Lublin, Just Up the Pike’s Dan Reed and I are some of the rare survivors.) Blogs were new back then and they were starting to get the attention of politicians and the mainstream press. So then-Senator Rich Madaleno convened a group of us to interview the Senate President on the record in Annapolis. Besides Miller and Madaleno, Senator Jamie Raskin and Delegate Kumar Barve also attended.

I was nervous as hell. This was Mike Miller after all! I had heard the stories of how he would chew out reporters when he thought they were wrong. I knew how powerful he was. Here was a man who was elected to the legislature when I was less than a year old and became Senate President when I was a bass guitarist in a high school rock band. He knew more about Maryland politics than the rest of Annapolis put together, much less a rookie blogger like me. So I put on my best suit and my favorite tie and tried to act like I knew I what I was talking about. I hope I amused him!

The passage I reprint below comes from a three-part series I wrote called “Mike Miller Meets the Bloggers.” The issues we discussed are long settled but were hot back then: the 2007 special session, slots, drivers licenses for immigrants, comparing Governors Ehrlich and O’Malley and so on. The interesting thing about the discussion is that it shows how Miller dealt with the media. Most politicians are careful, even guarded, when they are on the record with the press. They leave themselves wiggle room. They avoid antagonizing key groups. They might strategically antagonize some others. (How many Democrats are delighted to take on the gun lobby?) They speak in generalities. You know the drill. It’s politico-speak.

That was not Mike Miller’s way. He spoke in direct, sometimes graphic language. His positions were stark and understandable to everyone. His policy positions were often stated in provocative terms. (You don’t like slots? Fine. How would YOU pay for schools??) The press didn’t have to ask him a question twelve different ways to get something interesting from him. He would get right to the point with a pithy quote – sometimes without even having to be asked. Reporters may not have liked being called out from the rostrum as he sometimes did, but he made their jobs easier by explaining his side of the story in simple terms readily grasped by readers.

Why was Miller, the ultimate politician, so different from other politicians in dealing with press? First, Miller was unusual in that he was absolutely secure in both his Senate seat and his hold on the Senate presidency. Most politicians feel at least some insecurity related to their electoral prospects but not Miller. He could fire at will. Second, Miller was a busy fellow and he did not have time – or any appreciation – for BS. His personality was direct, sometimes to a fault, and he made no effort to adjust that for politics. Third, Miller was often doing his caucus members a favor by being so blunt in the newspaper. Suppose Senator X wanted to pass a bill badly and Miller said it was dead in the Baltimore Sun. No one blamed X for not rounding up the votes; he could say, “Mike Miller killed my bill.” That made life easier for X and no amount of heat could affect the Senate President. He would just go right on being Mike Miller – a role he created and no one else could play!

We may have a few more things to say about the Senate President, but for now, I’ll reprint this column from January 2008. And I’ll leave you with this: whatever you think of him, let’s all recognize that there will never, ever, EVER be another Mike Miller.

*****

Mike Miller Meets the Bloggers, Part Two

In Part One, we laid the scene for you: on one side of the table sat the fearsome, powerful old bull, the indomitable Senate President Mike Miller. On the other side sat a gangly, geeky band of bloggers, united only by their common desire for a post-meeting trip to Ram’s Head Tavern.

A few comments on the Senate President. For more than twenty years, Mike Miller has reigned over the Senate with a gregarious combination of ego, fear and patronage. His personal magnetism is so overwhelming that he could likely charm a bird out of its nest and onto his open palm. But if the bird voted the wrong way on a must-have bill, the hapless creature would be quickly crushed and tossed to the back of the Senate chamber. This demonstrates the Miller Rule, which is a simple one: “Work with me and prosper. Work against me and suffer.” Most Democratic Senators respond to this rule predictably, although there have been exceptions.

We asked Miller a lot of questions, and he gave us a lot of answers. For the benefit of our readers, I did my best to keep up with the exchange. Following are the Senate President’s responses to a few of our prods and pokings. If anyone else in the room recollects it differently, please comment and we’ll adjust the record.

On Governor Ehrlich
A few people remember that at the beginning of Governor Ehrlich’s term, Miller was ready to establish a pragmatic working relationship with him. But that approach ran into problems. “Ehrlich was a nice guy, but he didn’t work, and the state suffered,” Miller grumbled. He was “surrounded by yes-men” and rarely came out of his office. “All he did was put bandages on things!” The old warhorse was clearly relieved to see him gone.

On Governor O’Malley
Miller gave O’Malley lavish credit for moving to act on a deficit that he inherited, even if it cost him politically. “O’Malley knew his numbers would go in the toilet no matter what he did, so he did the right thing.” Miller attacked some of the Governor’s opponents, criticizing them for being “mean-spirited” and spreading rumors. “The Governor is a very progressive person,” Miller insisted. But he warned, “This Governor, in order to get his numbers up, will have to do some things you won’t like.” As an example, he mentioned a new emphasis on crime prevention, not always the highest priority of liberals.

On Slots
As perhaps the greatest champion of slots in the state, Miller’s views are well-known. “We have got to have that money!” he cried. The Senate President predicted that a possible recession would hurt tax revenues, thereby making slots money all the more necessary. “We need to get the slots bill passed whether you like it or you don’t like it!” Miller thundered. So in case you were wondering if Mike Miller had changed his mind on slots, the answer is NOPE!

On Transit
I asked Miller if he had a choice to fund the Washington suburbs’ Purple Line or Baltimore’s Red Line, but not both, which of the two he would pick. I was sure he would dodge this one, but to his credit, he did not. “The Purple Line!” he declared. “You know, I was a University of Maryland – College Park graduate.” Miller pointed out that he proposed a 12-cent gas tax last year but he could not round up enough votes for it. “We need to move forward as quickly as we can on mass transit.”

On Illegal Immigration
“There aren’t more than 2% of the people that understand immigration,” Miller snorted. “If you crack down on illegal immigrants too much, they’ll just bring their families over here.” The Senate President does not support the draconian measures implemented in parts of Virginia, saying, “John McCain tells the truth on this issue.” As for drivers licenses, Miller says, “The Governor has spoken on this. He considers this a national security matter. It’s a tough issue.” Miller did not contest the Governor’s decision to abide by the federal RealID law and end the state’s practice of issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.

On the Regressive Nature of the Special Session Tax Package
Regular readers will recall how I criticized the Senate President for the regressive character of the special session tax package. Leaping into the jaws of the lion, I asked him the following question:

“The tax package that was passed by the special session collected the majority of its revenues from raising the regressive sales tax. If you could have that one back and do it over, would you have taxed the rich a bit more to give the working people a break?”

Miller did not back down from the sales tax. He described it as “the most regressive but also the most acceptable” of the taxes, claiming that he received little protest on it. “But I wish I could have had more from the income tax.” Miller noted, accurately, that part of the Montgomery County delegation, backed by their County Executive, pushed back against the Governor’s rate increase for the top income tax brackets, thereby limiting the legislature’s ability to raise them. “You need 24 votes to pass something through the Senate and I didn’t have the votes to spare!” For the record, let’s stipulate that nobody – absolutely nobody – knows more about getting 24 votes in the Maryland Senate than Mike Miller.

The Senate President has a point and perhaps I was unfair with him. It is true that a substantial portion of MoCo legislators pushed back against the top income tax rate hikes but did not criticize the sales tax. If that part of the MoCo delegation did not protest the tax hikes on the rich, there would have been less need to rely on the more regressive elements of the package. And who knows? Perhaps there would have been less pressure to resort to the much-hated computer services tax.

So while I don’t agree with Miller’s assertion that the sales tax increase is in any way “acceptable,” I will no longer criticize him as primarily responsible for encouraging regressivity in the tax package. There’s plenty of responsibility to go around for that.

On the Computer Services Tax
“The computer tax is not a good tax, but it’s $200 million and I’m going to fight to keep it!” The principal reason for keeping it? “No one can agree on a replacement.”

So other than David Lublin’s Big Question, which I’ll address in Part Three, that’s what I have from Mike Miller. Even though many liberals occasionally disagree with the Senate President, let’s give him his due. He implemented a tough agenda of deficit reduction on the Governor’s behalf. He is more straightforward in answering questions than most politicians. And he keeps a lid on the natural parochialism that might otherwise prevail in the Senate through a hardened mix of guile, intimidation and pragmatism. With a weaker Senate leader, the special session may very well have failed and the need to raise taxes this year would be much greater. So you may not like Mike Miller. But you should respect him.

Even though Senator Jamie Raskin of District 20 (Silver Spring/Takoma Park) attended our blogger fest, we did not flay him as we did his colleagues. In Part Three, you’ll hear from House Majority Leader Kumar Barve.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Marc Elrich, police

Who’s the Boss?

By Adam Pagnucco.

One of the challenges of running the executive branch is to present a unified front to the public. The executive branch has thousands of employees and hundreds of subject matter experts in fields ranging from transportation to IT to law to environmental management to social services to… you get the idea. It’s incredible how much the county government does and how much its employees know. But at the same time, it works for one person: the county executive. He or she is the ultimate policy maker for the executive branch. After hopefully listening to input far and wide, the executive’s decision on an executive branch position is final. And every person inside the executive branch must respect it.

Or at least that’s the theory.

This principle broke down in full public view with regards to MC 4-21, a state bill affecting only Montgomery County introduced by Delegate Vaughn Stewart (D-19). The bill would enable, but not mandate, the county to transfer administration of speed cameras from the police department to the transportation department. Stewart believes it makes sense to have one agency in charge of both traffic safety and road improvements, and since the police department does not manage road projects, he thinks the transportation department should do both. County Executive Marc Elrich supports the bill and there is no indication in documents sent to the county council that he has any reservations about it. That should be the end of the story; the executive (as well as the council) supports the bill and the state delegation, which will decide its fate, will take that into account when deciding how to vote on it.

But that’s not the end of the story. The county’s director of intergovernmental relations wrote this to the council in addition to noting the executive’s support:

The Office of the County Attorney (OCA), the Department of Transportation (MCDOT), and the Department of Police (MCPD) have expressed concerns about MC 4-21. Specifically, OCA explained that while the local bill is only enabling, “DOT is not a law enforcing agency and is not equipped to act as one.” It pointed out that the bill “would have Montgomery County as the only jurisdiction in the State where no law enforcement individuals are reviewing speed camera citations and signing off on violations.”

Well, OK. The bill is an enabling bill, not a mandate. If the bill passes, the executive would have a voice in determining whether the shift in responsibility is actually implemented. Is the Office of County Attorney arguing that its boss – the executive – should not have that voice when the executive openly desires it?

There is more. When the MoCo state legislators’ land use committee convened to consider the bill on December 17, representatives of the police department acknowledged that the executive supported the bill and then proceeded to argue against it. Among their statements were that Baltimore City allegedly screwed up a similar program, the MoCo police had 15 years of experience in speed camera management that was a “national model,” and the state legislators should “make sure this is not an emotional decision.” They also characterized D.C.’s speed camera program, which was shifted to their transportation department, as “the worst program in the nation, hands down, by far.” One police official proudly declared, “We do not succumb to political influence!” in front of – you guessed it – seven state politicians in the meeting. He concluded that a transfer of responsibility “would do irreparable damage to this program as well as programs throughout the state.”

But the executive supports the bill.

Set aside the specifics of the bill for a moment. When the executive makes a policy decision, such as whether to support legislation, it is not merely a personal gesture. The executive is elected by voters to make decisions on behalf of the executive branch. Its employees are bound to carry out those decisions. Sure, the executive branch doesn’t exist in a bubble – it has to respond to other governmental bodies as well as a host of outside circumstances. But within its boundaries, the executive’s decisions must be respected. If not, then the departments turn into free agents and no one is really running the place.

You can bet that when the police openly tried to kill a bill supported by the executive, the state legislators who witnessed it noticed. They are not the only ones. The county council knows about it. No doubt other departments are watching. It’s impossible to say what gave rise to the police rebellion. Do they feel that the executive does not listen to them? If so, the executive’s information gathering process needs improvement. But if the executive does not remind his subordinates who their boss is, then the executive branch won’t have a boss. And that would make the county damn near ungovernable.

Share