Proud of University Foundation

Editor: I am compelled to respond to your March 24 story, "UM fund gets big money, spotty results."

As vice chairperson of the University of Maryland System Board of Regents and as a member of the executive committee of the University of Maryland Foundation Inc., I am extremely pleased with the operation of the foundation.

And I am extremely outraged at the gross misrepresentations in your article. To list all of the inaccuracies would require an article of equal length. Instead, I will cite a few of the more egregious examples. Sadly, in each of these cases the correct information was provided to, and ignored by, the reporter.

First of all, the foundation did not -- and could not -- "create $12.5 million in new debt for the University of Maryland." The University System has an option to buy (at cost) from Montgomery County the building which houses its Center for Advanced Research in Biotechnology at Shady Grove. The foundation simply assisted in the process of securing the land for the project. Furthermore, the foundation never "intended to lease the building to the UM central administration at a profit." Its written agreement with the county precludes making a profit.

The repeated allegation that the foundation invested heavily in real estate deals is patently false. The foundation does not purchase real estate; it accepts donations of property. Such was the case with the Bowie research park, where the foundation holds a 25 percent undivided interest in 466 acres at a location well suited for high-tech development.

The reporter asserts that payments to University of Maryland Baltimore County President Michael K. Hooker for baby-sitting were determined to be taxable "after The Sun discovered this practice." Foundation records clearly indicate that the determination predates the reporter's inquiries. They also indicate that the payments were below the level required to be reported.

The reporter complains that the foundation "operated without a list of priorities." The foundation states its general priorities in its widely distributed annual report. Beyond these broad goals, the foundation exists to respond to the priorities of the University of Maryland System and its constituent institutions, as well as the interests of donors. It would be wholly inappropriate for the foundation to predetermine the specific projects it will support.

Finally , I think any sophisticated reader will recognize that the reporter's "charges" generally relate to matters of judgment, not matters of propriety. As one who sits with an eminent and responsible board of directors in making those judgments, I am comfortable with and proud of our decisions.

Roger R. Blunt.

Oxon Hill.

The writer is chief executive officer of Essex Construction Corp.

A 45-mph Limit

Editor: I recently moved to Maryland from Iowa and read with interest your editorial entitled, "Unsafe at 65 mph."

The Interstate highway speed limit in Iowa is 65 miles per hour, and the vast majority of drivers there stay within five mph of that limit. Maryland is another story; the vast majority of drivers here drive at least 10 mph over the current limit of 55, with many routinely driving 70-80 mph.

Your signs, which read something like "55 -- It's still the law!" are a joke. With next-to-no enforcement, there might as well be no law.

It seems to me ironic that a law designed to promote safety (the 55 mph limit), if adhered to, actually reduces the level of safety, when such a vast majority of drivers have no respect for either the law itself or the state's ability to enforce it.

Count me in with those opposed to increasing the limit. For those who would like the masses to have the "legal" right to safely drive 65 mph, a more practical alternative, in Maryland, at least, would be to reduce the speed limit to 45 mph!

John C. Horning.

Abingdon.

District Changes

Editor: Councilwoman Vera Hall states that the communities had a chance to speak about the redistricting plan beforehand.

That is untrue. The only plan offered at those meetings was the mayor's plan, which would not have affected the communities of Northeast Baltimore.

The Stokes plan may have upset the "good ol' boys," but it has also disrupted the good and old communities and neighborhoods of Northeast Baltimore whose taxpayers, black and white, have sustained the city for years. No matter how well-intentioned the First District council people may be, common sense says that it will be physically impossible for them to adequately cover the needs of such a large geographic area.

Redistricting will cause other problems as well. Community groups rely heavily on their district planner to notify them of changes in zoning, new building, etc. Now, the First District planner will have more territory to cover. Things are going to get by him and, consequently, the community, too.

It's very discouraging for those of us who love the city and our neighborhoods. We have chosen to stay when all around us friends and neighbors have gone and "For Sale" signs have thumbed their noses at us. We stuck with the city and now the city has chosen to abandon us.

I feel as though I've been punched in the stomach. And well I might, for the citizens of Northeast Baltimore have been dealt a low blow.

Mary Clare Simon.

Baltimore.

The writer is president of Frankford Improvement Association.

Pluralism

Editor: Your editorial, "America's Immigrant Boom," needs a little up-dating.

While most immigrants to these shores have made accommodations, their "melting" into the "pot" has not occurred. What we have instead is a form of pluralism for almost all the strangers to these shores.

J. Antoinette Garland.

Baltimore.

Police Duty

Editor: As we watch the truth unfold about the behavior of the Los Angeles Police Department we must not lose sight of the larger issues exposed. We must guard against the desire to look to the victim of such brutality for an explanation. We must support those who work for justice in this instance, and then we must look around us and determine the character of our own police force. We must test our notions of justice and personal freedom against the reality of police behavior and procedure.

Americans can not herald their "liberty and justice for all" ideals as they march off to war and then excuse violations of such ideals because "cops have a tough job."

The effect of crime on victims and communities is horrifying. Constant exposure to it can be debilitating. An officer who has fallen to this must be corrected or removed. I want to know who polices the police. Shall we be reduced to arming ourselves with video cameras?

Recently, I read in the East Baltimore Guide that a man suspected of drug distribution waited in a Southeastern District holding cell for an hour before receiving medical attention for a gun shot wound to his arm. The bullet had been accidentally fired by the officer's service revolver while in on-foot pursuit. That is all the article said. The same issue carried a much larger story about five officers from the same district who had been awarded medals for bravery.

We want to believe that police officers are heroic, that they are protecting our freedom. In reality police officers who are constantly working the busy streets of Baltimore have lost sight of their role in law enforcement. We look the other way because of our fear of violent crime. People of color and people who live in economically depressed areas have been aware of this for a long time.

Police officers need to understand that it is not their job to pass judgment at the scene. Their responsibility is to gather evidence and protect. The use of discretion and probable cause cannot become a means by which police assert their desire to punish a suspect.

The observation of the civil rights of suspects and witnesses is directly related to the higher notion of a person being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This notion is essential to an even higher ideal that all people are deserving of equality in the law.

K. J. Hollands.

Baltimore.