Let's Have Debate
The Sun is right on target in its Oct. 22 editorial when it excoriates the special-interest-fueled political system that, this year, has led to a greater proliferation of attack ads than ever before.
It is a fact, however, that Maryland had a chance this year to see a different kind of campaign, one characterized by serious discussion of the issues.
Months before the primary, Republican Senate candidate Bill Brock offered to incumbent Paul Sarbanes that the two split the costs of funding six network-televised, Lincoln-Douglas style debates that would better inform the people of Maryland about the positions of the two on the real problems facing all of us.
Unfortunately, Mr. Sarbanes, who dismissed the present system "corruptive" as early as 1983, waited until after the primary to ,, reply to Mr. Brock, and then had his campaign manager blow off Mr. Brock's proposed ennobling of the system as a "stunt."
Reasonable people can draw their own conclusions as to why, but one can only hope that the Congress and the Maryland General Assembly will act in 1995 to facilitate the kind of process Bill Brock suggested and the incumbent rejected.
A key component of that kind of system would be an absolute ban on contributions from political action committees, a change
Mr. Brock has advocated for the past 20 years.
J. Lee Annis Jr.
Rockville
Retiring Judges
As the judge who in both age and years is now the most senior woman serving in the state judiciary, I must admit to having a very personal stake in the passage of Ballot Question 3 which extends the mandatory retirement age of Maryland judges from 70 to 75.
Those who oppose the amendment on the ground that earlier retirement will result in a much needed increase in the number of women judges are just plain wrong.
On the contrary, passage of the amendment is more likely to promote and secure the number of women serving on the bench.
Going by history, there is every reason to predict that whenever I retire, I will be replaced by a male, as occurred when my only two predecessors, Judges Shirley Jones and Mary Arabian, left the Baltimore Circuit Court.
When the first woman ever appointed to sit on the Court of Appeals, Judge Rita Davidson, died in 1984, she was replaced by a man. No woman judge sat on the Court of Appeals for the next 10 years, until Judge Irma Raker was appointed to that court in 1994.
The increase in the proportion of women (as well as black judges) which has rightfully occurred and which promises to escalate over the years ahead is certainly not to be attributed to spaces left by retiring judges.
Urging support of the amendment, Judge Rosalyn Bell, who was forced to retire from the Court of Special Appeals on reaching age 70, points out that early retirement is particularly unfair to professional women who, after curtailing or delaying their work and studies to fulfill family obligations, are arbitrarily cut off at the height of their careers.
It is a fact that women live and function longer than men and that both are generally in top intellectual form well past the age of 70.
With the exception of workers in positions requiring physical activity (police officers, firefighters and prison guards), judges are the only public officers subject to a mandatory retirement age in Maryland.
All others -- from the governor and comptroller to teachers, clerks and janitors -- can continue working for as long as they are otherwise qualified.A "yes" vote for Question 3 will impact only a few judicial positions.
Most judges opt to leave the bench before reaching 70, for it is a financial disadvantage to continue after a judge can retire with a substantial pension, Social Security and income from law practice.
Those who are concerned with the budget implications of Question 3 should be aware that those who remain on the bench instead of retiring will be virtually donating their time to the state instead of collecting a pension and being replaced by another judge who must be freshly financed.
Thus, passage of the amendment will result in a financial savings to the taxpayers, while allowing them to be served by the most seasoned and dedicated judges.
Elsbeth Levy Bothe
Baltimore
NB The writer is a judge in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
Foolish Consistency
In his Oct. 28 letter [criticizing The Evening Sun's endorsement of 81-year-old Louis Goldstein for comptroller despite its support of mandatory retirement for judges at age 70], Henry R. Wolfe misquoted a famous line from Emerson.
Emerson never wrote that "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Rather, he said "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
4 There's a whale of a difference between the two.
Anne B. Archer
Baltimore
Mayberry's Record
The Sun's editorial page Nov. 4 describes Timothy Mayberry, candidate for Maryland state comptroller, a finance position, as "an uncredentialed GOP challenger." The statement is inaccurate . . .
Overlooked are 15 years of executive-level finance credentials, including service as vice president of Citibank (the largest in the nation), vice president of the Bank of Baltimore, vice president of American Security Bank, plus service as special consultant to the Federal regulatory agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
These activities, proving him to be well credentialed for the comptroller post, were not supplied to The Baltimore Sun's readers.
A challenge to editorial writer Barry Rascovar, reveals he meant to define Mayberry as politically uncredentialed. He should have send so; voters today are weary of career politicians who have
brought so much grief to the state.
Beth McGinly
Boonesboro
B6 The writer is Timothy Mayberry's campaign manager.
What Teachers Need To Work with Parents
I am writing in response to Marilyn McCraven's column, "In the Shadow of the Pen" (Oct. 15) and the letters of response that were written by R. D. Bush and John A. Micklos (Oct. 22).
I am an educator. I am fortunate enough to teach in a school where the majority of parents are extremely supportive of the school and are actively involved in their children's educations.
However, I simply must address John A. Micklos' statement, "Finally, teachers and administrators must stay in touch with parents at all times, because in the final analysis it is parents who can make the difference in reforming schools." I support this statement, and I want to address it from the viewpoint of the teacher.
During the past few years, the educational system has gone through many changes, and yet the basic concepts of education are still the same.
Teachers in public schools are charged with teaching all children, regardless of their inabilities, abilities, school funding, present administration, political climate, educational trends, condition of school building, available supply of instructional materials or family structure.
When we consider only the issue of working closely, "staying in touch" with parents, the task sounds very manageable. It is good home-school relations that promote quality of learning both in the home and in the school. But this is not the real picture. The real picture is quite different.
The schools are not fiscally funded nor physically accommodating to this concept for many reasons:
* The majority of elementary teachers teach 26 to 30-plus students each day for an entire year, but we do not have access to telephones in our offices (classrooms). Our clientele does not stop at the maximum number of children we serve.
* The numbers don't stop with 60 parents for 30 children. The numbers begin to dramatically multiply when children's parents are separated, divorced, remarried, or when grandparents assist assuming child care responsibilities.
* The numbers don't stop there, either. Parents are using many other support systems to assist their children, and frequently parents request that teachers be involved in this process. Teachers frequently confer with tutors, private psychologists, pediatricians, therapists, and the list continues, dependent upon the child, his family and the circumstances at hand.
* The numbers still don't stop there. Parents need and expect teachers to be knowledgeable regarding the services that are being provided by other professionals in the school system, even though the individuals may be housed in other buildings and see the children on a scheduled or intermittent basis.
Teachers routinely work with a minimum of five to eight other professionals each week, even though the time allotted for planning remains at 40 minutes per day for both lesson planning and conferring with other professionals.
When professionals from outside the building work with children experiencing special needs, the number of professionals with whom the teacher should be networking escalates.
* Another interesting group of individuals that teachers routinely work with are the non-paid individuals who work in our buildings: the volunteers (both parents and others) who work with children or perform clerical duties for the teachers; the students and faculty from the universities and colleges who work in the classrooms to get practical exposure to the day-to-day experience of professional educators in the classroom and the visitors who come in just to observe (scheduled and unscheduled).
* Now that we are experiencing the addition of computer technology into the schools and individual classrooms, teachers are and will be communicating with other educators throughout the county, the state, the nation and the world to enrich the learning environment for all children and educators.
It doesn't take long to realize that teachers are teaching plus doing much more to assist children in their overall education. It can no longer be accomplished by the classroom teacher in the isolated classroom. The desire of teachers to work with families to fulfill expectations of teacher involvement and follow through are most genuine and sincere.
However, in many schools 35 to 60-plus teachers are struggling to use the two to five lines that are in a building.
The phones are not convenient to teachers' classrooms, so teachers must make phone calls during lesson preparation/planning time (40 to 60 minutes) per day; use their 30-minute lunch time; make calls before school; make calls after school; or make calls at home when they are "off" duty.
When will the education profession be viewed as a profession that deserves the modern conveniences of all offices throughout the United States?
When will sufficient phones be placed in the schools? When will E-mail be available to teachers?
Teachers are willing to try to meet the expectations of parent contact; but how can they be held accountable to meet the expectations of staying in touch with parents, when teachers can't get to a phone during the work day because it is so far away or because the two available lines are always busy?
Teachers routinely go the extra mile for children, but expecting teachers to complete all professional phone calls at home does not reflect a commitment to this concept.
If this concept helps to form the backbone of a strong education, then the public at large and the individual school systems must provide the funds for the educators to access parents, other professional and business contacts and children.
With the commitment that we are now experiencing in reference to site-based management, it seems that the concept of teachers working closely with parents is simply lip service. There is no way teachers can begin to assume more roles and reach out and touch more professionals throughout the work day and
work week unti the basic hardware is in place.
Brenda J. Rainwater
Timonium
Business Lacks Diversity
When The Sun undertook an "examination" of Maryland's business climate (Oct. 31), community and its relationship with the state, it "examined" a small cabal and fraternity. That fraternity, which The Sun labeled "Voices of Maryland Business," is uniformly white, male, wealthy and Republican conservative.
The other important "voices" doing business in Maryland went unexamined, unaccounted for and ignored as non-entities. That is "business as usual" here in so-called Charm City.
Studiously scorned are women, racial and ethnic minorities and the handicapped, all of whom own businesses and contribute to the economy and job base.
The underlying problem isn't readily apparent to The Sun and the "voices of Maryland business" because that would require some looking in the mirror and actually seeing what the real problem has been. For the last several centuries this group of so-called power brokers has passed the torch to others of their "kind."
We all know the usual suspects. They have names like Baldwin and Mason. Other major metropolitan areas, such as Chicago or New York or L.A. or Las Vegas or Atlanta, are moving and shaking because they have something Baltimore sorely lacks: diversity. And lacking that specific vital lifeblood, Baltimore will continue to languish and diminish. The die has been cast. The Sun published a listing of the guilty, not the honorable business leaders necessary for successful travel into the next century and beyond.
The disparity between the white community (the haves) and the black community (the have-nots) couldn't be more stark or entrenched than here in Baltimore and Maryland.
I belong to a local business group of so-called "voices of Maryland business" that couldn't be more white or male. They moan about a lack of business among themselves; failing to look outward into the community and the country.
Failing to keep up with the changes in population, lacking the will to include rather than exclude, this bogus power structure is ripe for a hard fall. Lack of vision will ultimately cost Baltimore more than it already has with the infighting among the old boys' club. They're now reaping what they've sowed; the seeds of discontent are making a very bitter harvest.
Contrast that to Chicago, for instance, which is still a very favorable place to live and do business.
Growing up, I was in daily contact with a wealth of people from other nations and cultures and of different color than myself.
The majority of these minorities were and are active contributors to the community and have decent jobs or own businesses. They do not necessarily want government hand-outs; there is deep pride in bootstrapping. Color was definitely not a precursor to being excluded from the business community. When they ran up against a wall of white racism, they went around it and organized their own groups. They are now forces to be reckoned with and strides have been made.
Yes, racism and bigotry existed and still does with pernicious tenacity. Somehow, with all those drawbacks, the "voices" in Chicago business can sing in harmony, still include rather than exclude a significant portion of business owners. Too bad we can't say the same thing for Baltimore and the state.
Baltimore is a shameful community of closet bigots and will end up like Detroit if things continue.
Like a dysfunctional addict, Baltimore is in deep denial of its underlying dysphoria. Until that denial is squarely faced, and acknowledged, Baltimore will remain broke, hollowed out, with a siege mentality unproductive to any business growth.
Like many other excluded, unappreciated area business owners, am giving serious thought to moving to another more dynamic, diverse metropolitan area.
I don't need any further proof Maryland doesn't esteem or want women and minorities in its business sector. The governor has become a weakling without any real dynamic ability to draw together disparate groups and still find prosperity for all.
Contrary to the perception of many native Baltimoreans, the nation's largest cities are still growing, and opportunity is available to those who don't happen to have been born white, upper or upper-middle class and male.
As we move into the 21st century, Baltimore and the state will continue to decline. The indicators and handwriting are on the wall.
Too bad the "voices of Maryland business" are too busy with their discordant whining and back-biting of each other to notice their boat is sinking and life-support is in order. They richly deserve each other and the loss of profits they've earned.
Teri L. Hagberg
Perry Hall
Gun Control Won't Solve Violence
On Oct. 26, two articles appeared in The Sun on the problem of violence. Jon Vernick, Stephen Teret and Daniel Webster, in "Gun Control Won't Stop Violence, but It Can Limit It" (Opinion * Commentary), suggest that the enactment of more gun control laws can have a significant impact on reducing violent death.
In the Maryland section Peter Hermann wrote a piece entitled "Violence erupts at Patterson." This focused on the Patterson High School students rebelling against a tougher, stricter code of conduct and the venting of their rage against the school and adult authority.
Hermann reported on food, bottle and rock throwing, assault and fighting, and marked defiance even against the police who were called to intervene. No guns were involved. In fact, it is unlikely that gun control laws would have had any influence in curbing this all too common type of violence that occurs in the schools and communities throughout our nation.
Yet, despite this, we seem bound and determined to pursue the further enactment of such laws as a panacea for youthful violence.
Even Vernick, Teret and Webster, as supporters of gun control, acknowledge that a reduced access to guns "will not eliminate the social and economic factors that contribute to violence."
Unfortunately, this is the portion of their article that is likely to be glossed over or ignored. Rather, many of us will unwittingly pin our hopes on the illusion that gun control bandages will somehow stop that nation's bleeding.
Whether we acknowledge it or not, the problem of youthful violence won't be solved by well intentioned legislators who make more gun control laws.
Rather, this battle must be fought in our homes, in our schools and in the communities in which we live.
we are serious about curbing violence, then we need to address its causes and direct our resources in fostering an environment which motivates young people to become viable, productive members of society.
Angry, hopeless youth; repeated school failure; teen-age promiscuity; neglectful and abusive parents; the easy access to drugs and alcohol; an overburdened and demoralized educational system; the failure to support existing law enforcement; the under-funding and under-staffing of rehabilitation programs; and abject poverty and despair cause violence. It would make more sense to focus on these problems than to make more laws.
The fact is that we can't or won't even enforce the laws which have been legislated. Why make more?
Recently, there has been a raft of complaints about more funding for programs and agencies that are geared to providing educational, recreational, and rehabilitation services to our youth.
This has been called "pork" and condemned as "throwing money at the problem." Isn't the continued enactment of gun control laws more of the same?
Most people realize that gun control won't solve the problem of violence. Yet many citizens and politicians are poised and ready to spend considerable amounts of money to enact laws which are unlikely to work.
And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Imagine how much it will cost to educate and assist gun dealers in implementing the laws; to conduct background checks; to set up bureaucratic monitoring and enforcement procedures; and then to evaluate the effectiveness of what has been enacted.
The cost to businesses could also be staggering, not to mention that a business owner might now need to purchase added insurance as a protection in case he or she is sued for inadvertently selling a gun to the wrong person who shoots somebody or commits suicide. Talk about "pork" and "throwing money at the problem."
The enactment of more gun control laws might be of benefit to some individuals and groups who are employed in the public or private sectors, but they are unlikely to deter the violent behavior of hostile, despairing, young people.
Lastly, while many studies were cited by Vernick, Teret, and Webster to support the efficacy of gun control laws, the problem of identifying and dealing with real causes of violence still remains.
Our time, energy and resources would be better spent in re-vitalizing, strengthening and supporting the existing educational, social and law enforcement systems that deal with the problems of youthful violence in our communities on a daily basis.
Enacting more gun control laws and then spending money to study them is a poor use of our limited resources.
Paul Lavin
Towson
The writer is a faculty member in the Psychology Department at Towson State University.