Mandel's conviction remains an injustice

When I served in the House of Delegates - from 1955 to 1959 - Marvin Mandel was chairman of the city legislative delegation. He demonstrated leadership, a keen legal mind and fairness to Republicans as well as Democrats.

As governor, Mr. Mandel reorganized state government, which was long overdue, and was widely respected as one of our best governors.

In 1975, he was indicted in federal court based on charges that he had personally benefited from the financial success of his close associates at some racetracks as a result of laws he helped enact ("Mandel trial revisited," Oct. 13).

I remember attending the trial one day and talking with Mr. Mandel. In answer to one of my questions during a recess, he said, "I still don't know what, if anything, I did wrong."

There is no doubt in my mind that this answer came from a very competent lawyer with a clear and keen legal mind.

The appellate courts vindicated Mr. Mandel after he had spent considerable time incarcerated, and President Ronald Reagan later commuted his sentence.

It is a sad day in our legal system when a man who defends himself against an alleged criminal violation is convicted by a jury evidently misled by the charge it was given.

Isn't it about time for The Sun to switch its emphasis from reiterating Mr. Mandel's conviction to recognizing this injustice and his otherwise commendable service to Maryland in the House of Delegates and as governor?

Samuel A. Culotta

Baltimore

Right to reconsider Thornton funding

Congratulations to Gov. Martin O'Malley on his proposal to reopen the Thornton law for fiscal examination as part of the forthcoming consideration of state taxation and spending ("Educators protest freezing Thornton," Oct. 13).

Educators, predictably, always howl vociferously at any suggestion of funding cuts.

They simply can't envision any fiscal belt-tightening as a means or incentive to pursue more fruitful, diligent and rational methods than those espoused by the philosophically bankrupt federal Department of Education.

The truth is that much of the additional funds schools have received in recent years have been spent chasing the elusive grail of higher test scores.

The No Child Left Behind law has been a boondoggle from the start. This insane law has prompted schools to chase test data instead of learning.

A fair reduction in the unsustainable growth rate of education spending created by the Thornton law is not only necessary for the state but also would be good for schools.

Contrary to the protests of the education establishment, this restriction would be beneficial because it would force some needed rethinking in both education methodology and management.

The result would be a net gain in learning.

Frank O'Keefe

Baltimore

Will state still aid sectarian schools?

I guess we'll learn something about the education priorities of the governor and the legislature during the coming Assembly special session.

Gov. Martin O'Malley wants the legislature to revisit the Thornton law that requires inflation-based state funding increases for public education ("Educators protest freezing Thornton," Oct. 13).

Mr. O'Malley seems to see that action as essential to balance the state budget.

But will he once again include millions in state aid for non-public (mainly religious) schools in that budget?

And will the legislature take away the money for our public schools while again providing it to religious schools?

Kenneth A. Stevens

Savage

State's tax burden already high enough

Yes, Maryland is now ranked No. 1 in median household income among U.S. states. But do we want to be No. 1 in tax burden too ("O'Malley confident on session," Oct. 16)?

Our taxes are high enough. In fact, they are already too high.

Generally, if you can't make ends meet, you go on a budget and spend less - the way millions of struggling Americans do.

Hey, there's an idea. Gov. Martin O'Malley, why not offer a little less spending to bring the budget into line?

James Horchner

Pylesville

Past time to close Rosewood Center

At its monthly meeting in February, in response to pending legislation and a report by the Maryland Office of Health Care Quality, the Baltimore County Commission on Disabilities voted unanimously to support closing the Rosewood Center in Owings Mills.

Unfortunately, given the most recent report by the OHCQ indicating that conditions have not improved at the institution and, in fact, have deteriorated to the point that a ban on new admissions has been instituted and an independent monitor has been mandated, the commission, at its September meeting, renewed its support for the closure of this institution ("Coalition persists on closure of Rosewood," Oct. 11).

The reason often given for the continued operation of the Rosewood Center is that it houses individuals who are so disabled they cannot survive in the community.

However, we believe this argument to be specious, given that eight states and the District of Columbia no longer operate any institutions for individuals with disabilities.

In fact, in 1996, Maryland successfully closed its second-largest state mental health institution and transferred its residents into community programs, leaving the five Southern Maryland counties with no such institution.

In the face of such success, why does the state continue to hold the outdated belief that large institutions such as Rosewood are necessary?

Terri S. Parrish Phoenix

Benjamin J. Dubin Baltimore

The writers are, respectively, the chairwoman and vice chairman of the Baltimore County Commission on Disabilities.

Gun-rights defender deserves applause

The Sun's editorial "30,000 - and counting" (Oct. 12) derides state Sen. James Brochin of Baltimore County as "the problem" as a result of his vote against the proposed Maryland Assault Weapons Ban of 2007.

But Mr. Brochin should be commended rather than condemned. He is among a minority of Maryland legislators who are willing to stand up for a private citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

The so-called assault weapons targeted by the proposed ban are no more deadly than any other semiautomatic firearm.

The primary reason a firearm is designated an "assault weapon" is that it has cosmetic features that, to some people, look scary.

I suspect that the real motivation for the proponents of an assault weapons ban has little to do with crime control. I think the ban's appeal lies in its utility as a divide-and-conquer tool.

By incrementally eliminating one class of private firearm ownership at a time, gun opponent hope to achieve their ultimate goal of complete civilian disarmament.

Maryland would benefit from having more elected officials like Mr. Brochin to challenge such blatant attempts to undermine our liberty.

Brad Sharpless

Odenton