Marriott and deregulation are good for Maryland's economy

Starting with the assumption that it is important to ensure that Maryland jobs are preserved and Maryland businesses remain strong, state elected officials need to provide strong leadership.

If Maryland is to grow, prosper and be a great place to create opportunities for our children and provide wages to support families, it must be recognized as a business-friendly state.

I, therefore, concur with the spirit of your editorial "Keeping Marriott in Maryland" (March 12) lauding Gov. Parris N. Glendening and Department of Business and Economic Development Secretary Richard C. Mike Lewin on their successful efforts to keep Marriott in Maryland.

You succinctly documented the benefits (3,700 jobs remain in Maryland) and chronicled the costs and incentives ($19 to $29 million) to keep Marriott a Maryland company.

As president of the Maryland Retailers Association, I was struck by the irony of the juxtaposition of the Marriott editorial with the comments of Michael J. Travieso and Korey Hartwich under the banner "Electric deregulation has many opponents."

Citizens and their elected officials must understand the symbiotic relationship between electric deregulation and economic development. As Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller said when introducing his legislation, Maryland cannot afford to be an island. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware -- and now even Virginia -- are ahead of Maryland on the road to deregulation.

Electric deregulation will benefit Maryland's economy by increasing efficiency and enhancing the competitive position of its businesses.

Moreover, deregulation will create new businesses in Maryland just as telephone deregulation has benefited Maryland economically.

Furthermore, a 1998 survey conducted by Cambridge Reports/Research International found that the opposition to deregulation is smaller in Maryland (21 percent vs. 23 percent nationally) and that Marylanders in general were more optimistic than U.S. residents overall about the potential positive effects of deregulation.

Electric restructuring is here, and now is the time for Maryland to get on board. Legislative actions should not be viewed as obstacles but as means to promote competition, customer choice and economic growth.

Likewise, if the utilities supplying electricity to Maryland customers cannot compete because of where they are on the deregulation curve, they will be at the mercy of states that can. And when that day comes, the stakes will be a lot higher than 3,700 jobs.

We should not fear change and choice. We should welcome them for the opportunities and benefits they promise Marylanders and their employers.

Returning to Marriott, the score is Maryland 1, Virginia 0.

Tom S. Saquella, Annapolis

The writer is president of the Maryland Retailers Association.

The recent introduction of legislation in the Maryland General Assembly that would bring competition to Maryland's electricity industry is welcome news. The proposal introduced by the leadership of the state Senate and the House of Delegates would bring important benefits to consumers and the state's economy.

I am particularly pleased with this legislation because, since retiring as a staff member for the Maryland General Assembly, I have studied the issue extensively.

In 1997, I prepared a research paper on these issues for Marylanders for Sensible Electricity Reform, a coalition of large and small businesses, local chambers of commerce, nonprofit consumer and environmental organizations, the investor-owned utilities and the large rural cooperatives.

Maryland is in a good position to move forward with utility deregulation. If legislation is approved during the current session of the General Assembly, customer choice would begin next year, and consumers would be able to enjoy the benefits of competition.

Introducing customer choice to the electricity utility industry involves changing the regulatory process that for almost 90 years has established the prices that Marylanders pay for electric service.

In a deregulated market, the consumer will be able to select the company that provides electricity and sells the electricity to the consumer. The price would be determined by the competitive marketplace. Delivery of electricity would continue to be regulated by the Public Service Commission and continue to be provided by existing utilities.

About 20 states have enacted legislation deregulating the electricity utility industry in those states. Other states are studying the issue and considering ways to introduce customer choice.

Legislation modifying the tax structure has been introduced to protect the level of state revenue from the taxes imposed on the electricity industry; to prevent any shift of tax burden between classes of consumers or between geographic areas of the state; and to create a level playing field for in-state and out-of-state producers of electricity.

Implementing change is always challenging. But in this case, it is a challenge worth meeting. Favorable action on the bills would enable Maryland to keep pace with other states in the changes that are sweeping the electricity utility industry.

William S. Ratchford II, Baltimore

The writer was director of the Department of Fiscal Services, the predecessor to the Department of Legislative Services, from 1974 to 1997.

Writer missed points on affirmative action

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez makes a very compelling argument for affirmative action, one that may deserve consideration ("Affirmative action should be based on need, not race," March 16). But please allow me to offer another point of view.

As a young girl, Ms. Valdes-Rodriguez made a decision to live with her father, whom she describes as a middle-class Cuban-American college professor.

It was an easy decision, based on her description of her white mother and her socioeconomic situation.

While it may be true that Cuban-Americans "have median household incomes higher than that of whites," and her fourth generation Mexican-American husband's family may have successfully assimilated into a blissful suburban existence, her brush strokes are a bit too broad.

Most Hispanics are not affluent Cuban-Americans, and while it may be true that Hispanic-Americans are achieving a level of prosperity, an argument can be made that the struggle has not been easy.

Why consider race-based affirmative action? So that her brother, Ric, can go by Ricardo without feeling ashamed of his heritage. So that the white members of her family don't continue to look down on Hispanics; so that Ricardo can feel comfortable with Salsa music instead of Lynyrd Skynyrd; so that Hispanics as a whole can know dignity, respect and, most important, pride and self-esteem.

I am proud to see an Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez byline in the newspaper.

But that is not enough. Where are Hispanics on television? In movies? In board rooms? While an argument for need-based affirmative action is easy to espouse, please believe that it is more than economic need that is keeping America's minorities from achieving equal footing.

Hector L. Torres, Baltimore

The article by Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez was very interesting but missed a certain point.

Affirmative action programs in hiring and college admissions should be aimed at helping individuals whose primary obstacle to success is racial prejudice, people whose attitudes enable them to take advantage of the opportunities provided by affirmative action programs.

The primary obstacles faced by the people Ms. Valdes-Rodriguez describes (her "white" family) are their own behaviors and lifestyle choices.

Those behaviors may be associated with their material poverty, but helping them is an entirely different -- and more difficult -- problem than helping minority individuals who have the will and drive to succeed but who are held back by outside conditions beyond their control.

Other types of programs need to be designed for people like Ms. Valdes-Rodriguez' relatives.

Once they have fallen into the kind of disorderly and destructive lifestyles she describes, the only way to induce them to change may be if they are convicted of crimes and incarcerated.

Then, rather than just locking them up and throwing away the key, we as a society should make an intensive investment in helping them to get off drugs, to make up deficiencies in their education, to work toward a change in attitude toward themselves and their society -- most important, to give them hope.

Elizabeth Fixsen, Savage

Don't blame teachers for bad scores

It's too bad that Michael Holden's article "Making the grade is up to students" (March 14) was buried on the back page of The Sun's Perspective section, where it was likely missed by many readers, including some tough-minded education reformers who have decided that the best way to evaluate teachers is by linking their job performance to student test scores.

This idea is derived from an equally simplistic notion (which has become a virtual mantra in some reform circles) to the effect that "if the student isn't learning, the teacher must not be teaching."

Mr. Holden made clear the illogicality of both notions by enumerating many factors that influence student achievement yet remain totally beyond even the most outstanding teacher's ability to control such factors as absenteeism, chronic lateness, failure to complete homework assignments, lack of motivation and absence of parental interest. We might add student transience. In Baltimore City, many schools see as much as 20 or 30 percent student turnover each year.

But Mr. Holden's most persuasive argument against using student test scores was in his question, "What if students decide to blow off a standardized test, fail to take it seriously and do badly? Should the teacher be held accountable for those results?" This is especially relevant in Maryland, where the highly touted Maryland School Performance Assessment Program tests, fraught with weighty implications for teachers and their schools, have absolutely no bearing on students' grades. And students -- especially older students -- know this very well.

Many effective ways exist to evaluate teacher performance, and Mr. Holden offered several examples. But using student test scores is clearly not one of them. I hope education officials now enamored of this dubious idea will reconsider.

Howard Bluth, Baltimore

Choice, not money best for education

I had to respond to Joe Murray's Opinion Commentary article "We must support public schools" (March 10). As a former public school teacher and as a home-schooling mother of three children, I would ask Mr. Murray to research the issue of school vouchers further before making a rash judgment of a really good idea that would better support our public schools, at least the ones that are educating our children properly.

Look at Washington. Its cost per pupil for a public school education is among the highest in the country, but I don't see an influx of students into that school system for the best education. The answer is not pouring more money into an already defunct system. The answer is to allow parents to choose how and where they want their children educated.

If neighborhood schools are excellent and doing a good job of educating children, they can receive money to continue doing so.

Finally I would argue that what has contributed the most to democracy in America has been freedom of choice, not the public school system.

Catherine Matthews, Baltimore

Joe Murray's view of America is scary. He needs to be reminded that our nation values universal education and, despite some efforts in the past, does not support the notion that every child must attend public schools.

Advocates of choice propose that we merely allow parents who educate their children privately the same financial support as parents who send their children to public schools.

Herman Schmidt, Bradshaw

Chicken series ignored successful farmers

The recent series in The Sun about relationships between poultry companies and the farm families that grow chickens for them fails to provide your readers with a complete picture of the true situation in Maryland ("The new pecking order," Feb. 28 to March 2).

Your headlines gave the impression that all growers were suffering at the hands of the poultry companies. This simply is not true. Several days after the series, a story by Ted Shelsby indicated that poultry growers did especially well in 1998 ("Md. farm income down 3% in 1998; Grain growers suffer big losses, but poultry, dairy farmers do well," March 11). The story quoted poultry grower and former Maryland Secretary of Agriculture Lewis Riley as saying, "Last year was our best in the past 10 to 12 years."

It was interesting that you focused on the poultry industry in Alabama and Texas rather than the Eastern Shore. I suspect that was the case because your reporters had trouble finding controversial situations in Maryland.

You did cite one company here and allegations against it, but that was years ago, and the people who were alleged to have been involved are no longer there.

More than 2,600 farm families grow chickens on the Delmarva Peninsula. A 1997 poultry grower survey by the University of Delaware found that 73 percent of Delmarva's growers were satisfied with their poultry growing businesses. Three-quarters were satisfied with their relationship with their poultry company.

Similar percentages said they can speak freely with their company, can get a prompt response from their company if they have a question, get the experience and support they need when there is a problem with a flock and get information from their company when they need it.

While a large percentage of surveyed growers said they were unsatisfied with the income they received from their poultry operations, I suspect most businesses and working men and women would probably say the same thing about their incomes.

It is important to note that the survey was conducted at the end of a rare down cycle in our industry, so growers naturally might have been negative. Since then, grower payments have risen significantly.

One thing was loud and clear from the University of Delaware survey: Only 31 percent said the poultry industry needs more government regulation.

As a result of this survey, Delmarva's poultry companies increased their grower communications and support programs. When times were good for the companies, like they were last year as indicated in the Shelsby story, companies shared the good times with their growers by paying them more money.

Many families on Maryland's Eastern Shore are very content with their poultry-growing operations. Unfortunately, they are not the ones who make the headlines and feature stories.

Kenneth M. Bounds, Denton

The writer is president Delmarva Poultry Industry Inc.

Make Memorial location a place for young and old

We want to share our support for the proposal submitted by Govans Ecumenical Development Corp. (GEDC) and Presbyterian Homes Inc. (PHI) to develop the site of Memorial Stadium as an affordable retirement community and YMCA.

As local ministers and priests, we see many senior citizens who are faced with the prospect of having to leave their neighborhoods and their communities of faith because they can no longer live alone. They are worried about their ability to live with increasing health care costs and limited income.

Safety concerns frighten them, and there are few, if any, alternatives for them. Less than 10 percent can qualify for the security and comfort of the life-care communities that now ring our city. That is why we believe the proposed "Stadium Place" idea is so greatly needed and is our choice for a worthy successor to Memorial Stadium. It would be affordable to most senior citizens in Baltimore and would provide many desirable amenities.

Stadium Place would be more than a retirement community. The partnership between GEDC/PHI and the YMCA of Central Maryland would enable the community to respond to the need of our families and youth. Without a place to go after school, young people can sometimes turn to drug abuse and other destructive activities.

Young people need a productive place to go that will build their self esteem and character. The "Y" has been a strong partner with the religious community for more than a century. Stadium Place would meet the needs of young people as well as serve families and senior citizens in the surrounding communities.

This proposal would be a national model for addressing the needs of urban residents and creating a healthy and safe campus for the neighborhood. We believe Baltimore can show the nation that people will stay in the city when the support system is there. GEDCO/PHI and the YMCA would provide that support.

We urge the community to support this innovative project for Memorial Stadium.

The Rev. William Burke, The Rev. P.M. Smith, The Rev. Christa Burns, Baltimore

The writers are with, respectively, St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church, Huber Memorial United Church of Christ and Second Presbyterian Church.