Once appropriated, funding for prosecutor can't be withheld
I understand the frustration of Del. Peter Franchot, who chairs the Public Safety and Administration Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, about the need to renew public confidence in the Baltimore City criminal justice system. However, Delegate Franchot cannot withhold $500,000 already appropriated to the Office of the State's Attorney.
He can influence funding decisions before the General Assembly passes the budget -- but not after the budget has passed, without any conditions on the $500,000 grant to the state's attorney.
The General Assembly, under the leadership of the Appropriations Committee, has made it clear that we are concerned about what appears to be a breakdown in the administration of justice and the protection of city residents.
However, in a recent column Mr. Franchot and I acknowledged the progress made in improving Baltimore's criminal justice system ("Memo to courts, prosecutors: reform must happen soon," Opinion Commentary, June 9).
I am encouraged by the creation of the Baltimore City Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, the aggressive leadership of Chief Judge Robert M. Bell both during and after this year's legislative session, the hard work of Judge David B. Mitchell and others and the recent appointment of John Lewin as project director of the Coordinating Council.
The General Assembly withheld $17.8 million in increased funds to the judiciary, the public defender, the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services and the Baltimore City Police Department. These funds will be released after the General Assembly reviews the comprehensive criminal justice reform plan Chief Judge Bell will submit on October 1.
Withholding the increases will not prevent the agencies from making reforms and fulfilling their other responsibilities, as the increased funds will not be needed until almost the end of the fiscal year.
The General Assembly did not withhold any funds in the supplemental budget for specific projects to improve Baltimore's criminal justice system, including the $500,000 grant for the state's attorney's office computerization project. A delay in this grant would delay many of the reforms the General Assembly is advocating.
The General Assembly, under the leadership of the budget committees, has already spoken on withholding funds. The General Assembly will take further action on the criminal justice system when it reviews the comprehensive criminal justice reform plan in October 1.
I expect the plan Judge Bell submits to describe reform efforts that will help restore public confidence in the administration of justice in the city, including the recent discussions of discovery and evidentiary reform needed in the Office of the State's Attorney.
Howard P. Rawlings, Baltimore
The writer is chairman of the Maryland House of Delegates' Committee on Appropriations.
Why the governor vetoed state's Y2K liability bill
The Sun's editorial "Fair protection from Y2K lawsuits," (July 10) misrepresents Gov. Parris Glendening's position on Maryland's Year 2000 (Y2K) computer bug legislation.
The editorial praises President Bill Clinton for signing legislation that limits liability for Y2K problems and criticizes the governor for being inflexible in rejecting a similar bill that was backed by Maryland business interests.
But the legislation President Clinton signed excludes actions relating to personal injury and wrongful death. The bill Mr. Glendening vetoed contained no such exclusion.
Maryland's business community refused to compromise on this issue, forcing the governor to veto the bill to protect the health and safety of Maryland's citizens.
Mr. Glendening in fact signed a Y2K bill that protects state and local governments. This bill excluded personal injury and wrongful death actions.
These details are critical to understanding the difference between President Clinton's actions and the governor's response to a very different bill, but seem to be of no import to The Sun.
Vicki Dexter
Daniel M. Clements, Baltimore
The writers are past presidents of the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association.
We all must do more for our kids, our future
As a school teacher, I was shocked by Ron Praydis' short-sighted letter, "Provide tax incentives for those who don't breed" (July 1). Mr. Praydis wrote, "Why should those who do not have children pay to educate the kids of those who do?"
Mr. Praydis apparently fails to realize not only that free education is guaranteed to all children by federal law, but that the measure of a society is how it treats its most precious resource: its children.
Unfortunately, this country has in many ways proved itself shamefully inadequate to the task of protecting and nurturing its future.
One need only look at the plight of schools and the rampant abuse and neglect of our children -- the children who will become our doctors, engineers and leaders. We should all be doing more for our children, not less.
Perhaps Mr. Praydis should remember the old adage: "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."
Joseph S. Melchor-Heinlen, Catonsville
Posting commandments won't help schoolchildren
As a Jewish day school student, I was very disturbed that Congress passed a law allowing display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. This is an inappropriate and disappointing solution to the complex problems raised by the Columbine High School shooting.
To have laws passed down by God hung on public school walls next to fire drill instructions and hall monitor lists is offensive and could cause tensions.
The commandments would be posted for all students to obey, but they represent the belief system of only some of the students.
In my opinion, it was the family environment and emotional problems of the shooters that led to the Columbine High shootings. These factors have little or nothing to do with religion; taping rules up on a wall won't do anything to solve such problems.
Renata Isaacson, Baltimore
SUVs spark a battle that everyone loses
In reply to E. Flatley's letter, "Large SUVs provide sense of security" (July 11), I'd note that when most people drove sedans, motorists shared a more or less level playing field. Now the motoring public seems to be engaged in a form of one-upmanship, in which every driver aims to be "safer" than fellow motorists in a vehicle which is larger than those around him.
Isn't it obvious that this is a losing game?
To Mr. Flatley and others who feel as he does: Your sense of security comes at the expense of my increasing insecurity in my small car, which I chose because of its fuel efficiency.
And, let me ask all you SUV owners, are you enjoying the heat? Keep driving those gas-guzzlers, keep pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and you'll get more of the same -- as well as droughts, floods, hurricanes and other forms of extreme weather as the build-up of greenhouse gases alters the global climate.
Elizabeth A. Fixsen, Savage
Hypocritical politicians need to live their beliefs
I agree whole-heartedly with Stuart Lacher's letter, "Hypocritical, arrogant politicians driving SUVs" (July 7). Unfortunately, we live in a world where politicians say one thing and do another.
Gov. Parris Glendening stressed saving the environment in his last campaign, yet he continues to drive an SUV that emits much more nitrogen oxide (a gas that forms smog) than the average sedan.
Politicians must stop talking like environmentalists and start living that way. The governor should find another, less polluting mode of transportation to keep Maryland's air clean.
Corinne Brinkley, Baltimore
Pub Date: 7/16/99