Open meetings best antidote to secret schemes
Anne Arundel County Executive Janet S. Owens got it exactly right when she said that the public had the right to see the expendi- ture of public funds.
She was referring to highly questionable financial transactions by the board of the Anne Arundel County Economic Development Corporation as reported in The Sun.
It is difficult to believe that such blatant self-enrichment actually would have occurred if the public and the media had been able to attend the meetings of this board.
Despite being funded by public monies, governed by public officials or their appointees, and having considerable authority to spend tax dollars, such corporations are not considered public bodies subject to Maryland's open meetings law.
Clearly, they should be. Baltimoreans know only too well how short the public's end of the stick is when economic development business is conducted in secret.
Public scrutiny is a far more effective means of protecting the public interest than commitments to stricter bylaws as The Sun suggested (Editorial, "Putting public interest first," Aug. 20), or any other scheme by which the foxes continue to guard the henhouse.
Kathleen Skullney, Annapolis
The writer is executive director of Common Cause-Maryland.
Voters should choose county school board
I was involved in the nomination process of the Anne Arundel County school board some years ago.
I was one of a dozen or so PTA members from our children's school who attended meetings during which candidates spoke. We listened. We discussed the candidates among our group. Then we cast our votes.
One of the candidates received a vote from most members in our group. This same candidate happened to receive far more votes countywide than any other. He was, in the eyes of 200 or 300 parents who gave up family time to participate in the process, the most capable candidate for the school board.
Does anyone remember the positive contributions made by the people's choice candidate? Was the people's choice candidate re-elected to the school board? Did the people's choice candidate serve with honor?
Unfortunately, the answer to all three questions are "no." The people's candidate never served. The governor needed one of his own on the board.
The time is now for the state to allow "we the people" to elect our school board.
Dan Tewell, Baltimore
The writer is issues committee chairman of the Reform Party of Maryland.
Concern for the public good?
The state's encouragement of citizens to turn in their neighbors for suspected watering ban violations sure brings out the worst in some people.
This was dramatically illustrated in The Sun's Aug. 12 story about the Howard County couple, Bill and Pat Kidwell, who tried to embarrass their local fire department and its chief ("Fire chief caught filling pool says divers use it for training").
Fire officials told The Sun that they needed to add water to the swimming pool that they occasionally use for training exercises in preparation for testing new diving equipment.
It is obvious that the fire company thought its actions were completely above board. After all, rational people simply don't commit intentional violations in broad daylight in a bright red fire truck with their name painted on the side in large letters.
If the couple truly thought the firefighters were not in compliance with the rules, one would think they might first ask the fire company directly.
Or, they could have reported it to county government. But when, as The Sun reported, one of their first actions was to call TV stations, one can't help but think that their motivation had little to do with concern for the public good.
Edward L. Maddox, Millersville
Flag-burning amendment would turn back clock
We are on the threshold of turning back the clock 212 years by amending the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to place severe restraints on the freedom of speech.
I refer to the proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit desecration of the American flag. Amending the Constitution is a two-setp process. First, two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate must approve the proposal. Then, it is presented to the state legislatures and three-fourths of them must approve.
To demonstrate how close we are to completing the first step, for several years the House has overwhelmingly passed the proposal, but the Senate has refused to go along. However, the Senate fell only a couple of votes short on the last occasion and is creeping closer to passage. Then the debate really gets underway.
Before there was a Constitution, Thomas Jefferson said, "The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right."
Jefferson was busy in Paris drafting treaties and trade agreements in 1787 when the Constitution was drafted. But as disclosed in correspondence between him and John Adams in November 1787, they shared a concern about an absence of a "Declaration of Rights" in the Constitution. Jefferson frequently voiced this complaint to his friend and drafter of the Constitution, James Madison.
In 1781, we concluded the great 5-year War of Revolution with the British. We had substantial help from Britain's enemy, France. A number of Frenchmen of the Enlightenment, headed by General Lafayette, played prominent roles. Many of our Revolutionary leaders, including Washington, Adams and Hamilton, made sacrifices and paid the price for our victory.
When that victory was obtained, however, they strove to regain the friendship of the English rather than return to the closeness of our association with the French.
By the time Washington had finished his two terms, the Congress and presidency were in the firm control of the Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton.
There was a large measure of dissatisfaction in the country with our government cuddling up with the British and giving the straight arm to our old allies, the French. The Federalists took all that they would tolerate and then enacted four bills popularly known as the Alien and Sedition Acts.
The most egregious of the acts was the Sedition Act of July 14, 1798. Jefferson's initial fear was that the law was aimed at shutting down the Whig processes and restricting letters of Democratic-Republican Congressmen to their constituents. Enforcement of the act closed some newspapers, including the New York Time Piece. It resulted in demonstrations against Congressman Livingston of New York and the arrest of Congressman Matthew Lyon of Vermont.
Jeffersondrafted the Kentucky Resolutions, denouncing the Alien and Sedition Acts as unconstitutional infringements on human rights. They succeeded somewhat in restraining the dictatorial action of the government in 1799 until Jefferson could take over upon his election in 1800.
What does all of this have to do with the proposed amendment to the Constitution prohibiting desecration of the U.S. flag?
The flag is merely a symbol of our great democracy. Burning it is a manifestation of disapproval and criticism of our government. People who burn the flag will go to prison.
Can't you see how close we are to the despicable Alien and Sedition Acts?
The next step is incarceration of those who verbally criticize our president or members of Congress or other segments of our government.
We could then no longer say, "We hold these truths to be self-evident "
Bill D. Burlison, Odenton
The writer is an Anne Arundel County councilman.