Weekly Field Notes By Delegate Mike McDermott

Field Notes

Observations and Reflections on Legislative Activities

By Delegate Mike McDermott

February 28^st-March 4^th, 2011

·        Monday afternoon a joint hearing of the Judiciary and HGO (Health and Government Operations) Committees on the Medical Marijuana bill. As proposed, the bill would allow for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in Maryland and would establish a permitting and growing process by the government. It would also establish strict rules governing the prescription process by the medical community. The hearing was beneficial and many questions were asked, but some of the issues remain very complex. There is great concern that Maryland would become like California and also about how the permitting process would actually function for growing marijuana for medical purposes. At the hearing, I presented by amendment to the bill which would provide that use of marijuana for medical purposes could only be done through vaporization, ingestion, pill form, injection, or by any doctor approved medical device. This would restrict marijuana from being smoked and would insure that it is utilized through best medical practices. The bill has a long way to go, but it is on the way.

·        Tuesday morning during session, it was announced that the Judiciary Committee would meet immediately after the close of business for a vote on SB-116, the Gay Marriage Bill. Well, we all showed up…except for two missing democrats…and we waited to vote. It became clear after about 15-minutes that the missing delegates had gotten the Wisconsin flu and had flown the coop. Of course, we demanded to vote on the bill but were told by the Chairman that he wanted to wait until the other two delegates could be present. Clearly, he knew he did not have th votes he needed to pass the bill out of committee. We waited an hour to vote that day, but it never happened.

·        On Tuesday, the Judiciary Committee conducted hearings on the following bills:

1.      HB-408: This bill seeks to address a gap in identity fraud where criminals use false names to create fictitious identities. This has become a new form of identity theft being utilized to defraud businesses of millions.

2.      HB-484: This bill seeks to correct an omission from compliance with the Federal mandates of Jessica’s Law by creating a Sex Offender Registry for Juvenile Offenders. This is required for Maryland to come into compliance and not place federal funds received from the Department of Justice at risk. It is not required that the Juvenile Registry be available to the public, but it would be accessible by the Criminal Justice system and the registrants would be required to comply with registration monitoring the same as adult offenders. There was a lot of discussion on this issue and some on the committee struggle with treating juveniles in the same way we deal with adults. There may be a compromise that will work for all members, but we will have to see how this one works out.

3.      HB-507: This bill seeks to require law enforcement agencies to report on any deployment or use of an Electronic Control Device, commonly called a tazor or stun gun. This legislation is part of an attempt by some to thwart the use of these devices in Maryland by placing burdensome restrictions on their availability and use by law enforcement and civilians. This bill would treat these weapons differently than any other weapon utilized by law enforcement, and I do not see it coming out of the committee with a favorable ruling.

4.       HB-568: This bill seeks to ban the use of any proceeds from drug trafficking from being utilized by a defendant to secure legal representation. The law already prohibits the use of ill gotten gain from being used to compensate to knowingly be received by an attorney for compensation, but it currently exempts money from drug sales. Go figure! This law would make it a crime to do so and was met with opposition by some on the committee who took exception to the notion that this practice was ongoing in Maryland. As the committee is composed of be many trial lawyers, I doubt this one finds its way to the House floor for a vote.

5.      HB-588: This bill seeks to ban the use of portable scanning devices by criminals who use them to gather credit card information when they are simply in close proximity to a potential victim. We saw a display of how criminals use these devices to simply retrieve credit card information by simply standing near an unknowing victim. This is a relatively new method and it was hoped by the sponsors that the committee would allow law enforcement to be proactive with this law. The committee appeared to like the law, but the Chairman was skeptical at this point.

6.      HB-594: This is my bill which would require a certain category of Top Tier Sex Offenders to be monitored by GPS technology by law enforcement. The hearing went well, and the only hold up is in the cost of implementation. I am working with Parole and Probation to see if something can be worked out within the current law to accommodate the provisions of this bill. The only opposition was from, of course, two registered sex offenders. Of course, they painted themselves as “victims” and did not feel this approach was needed.

7.      HB-663: This is a simple bill which would make it a crime to commit a crime of violence in the presence of a minor. This would be an add on charge, but it would address the egregious way some of our children are traumatized by adults.

8.      HB-682: This bill seeks to require bail bonding companies to pay the full bonds of defendants that fail to appear for trial on a sooner rather than later time table. Many of the bondsmen came to testify about how this type of legislation would injure their business and attempted to show how they currently comply and the system, in their opinion, is not broken. After listening to testimony, it is clear that this is a very competitive business where bondsmen are undercutting each other on a regular basis to garner customers. There was concern expressed for companies which only require a person to pay 1% of the bond as a fee.

9.      HB-781: This bill would extend the prohibitions on the drug Salvia so it could not be sold or marketed in Maryland for adults. It is already illegal for juveniles. It would not make possession a crime, but it would eliminate distribution within the state. As Salvia is not on the federal DEA list, I am not sure if this one will be leaving the committee with a favorable ruling.

10.  HB-845: This bill seeks the banning of the drug Mephedrone. This is another synthetic drug being utilized form frequently in the state, but it has not been placed on the federal DEA list. The committee tries to work with the federal banning list as this allows for a seamless application of the law. The federal government also conducts intense studies and testing to determine if a substance should be on the controlled substance list. I believe there will be a “wait and see” approach on Medthedrone.

·        On Wednesday, we had been working behind the scenes in reaching out to any democrats on the committee who may be having a change of heart about the Gay Marriage Bill. We talked about Civil Marriage amendment issues and the like with the focus on preserving the definition of marriage as it is today. We seemed to gain some ground and it looked like we had two votes coming over, but the pressure was being well placed from the Democratic side of the aisle. I saw the Speaker of the House come into our Committee Room on more than one occasion that day, and he was not happy. There were numerous visits by the highest ranking members of the House as they caucused with the hold out democrats who desired to “vote their conscience” on the matter. Sadly for them, their “conscience” had little to do with the desire of the leadership…it was just getting in the way. There would be no vote today either.

I have to give a tip of the hat to Delegate Mike Smigiel and Delegate Don Dwyer. They both led the opposition effort in the Judiciary Committee and it was their actions that helped delay the vote and kept the liberals off their game.

·        On Wednesday, the Judiciary Committee conducted a hearing on the following bills:

1.      HB-574: This bill would provide for punitive damages against a certain category of “high risk drunk drivers”. Those favoring the bill believe it would allow for monetary punishment of these drivers on a civil basis beyond the damages caused. While this seemed like a good idea, it was quite clear following testimony that this would undoubtedly result in higher insurance premiums for all Marylanders were it enacted.

2.      HB-729: This bill seeks to preserve the rights of Marylanders who may sign onto a Class Action Agreement without full knowledge of their actions. It would tend to make these types of agreements unenforceable in many instances.

3.      HB-765: This bill seeks to require the State of Maryland to claim the surplus funds established and held by the Attorney Grievance Commission and use them for general government purposes when those funds exceed a certain level. The account is currently at over 10 million dollars, but is apparently being addressed by the commission.

4.      HB-797: This bill would require proper investigations be conducted on judges and other officers of the court when a complaint is filed and found to have merit. Following testimony, it was clear that there is general reluctance for these type of cases to move forward as a general rule. We heard some egregious testimony of alleged improprieties by more than one victim concerning officers of the court.

5.      HB-921: This would require insurance carriers to divulge the amount of coverage liability a plaintiff in a court case may have during prelitigation hearings. There was disagreement on the impact of this type of disclosure as to whether it would help or hurt the process.

6.      HB-1120: This bill would allow for civil claims to be filed against those who sell or furnish alcohol to individuals who wind up damaging property or injuring another party as a result of their intoxication. It seems the bill would take away from individual responsibility and place more on restaurant and bar owners who may be unwitting victims themselves of a previously intoxicated patron. This is a bill which would drive up the cost of doing business in Maryland through the need for greater insurance premiums.

7.      HB-1126: This bill seeks to make provisions for jurors in Baltimore City to receive some type of parking compensation. I guess the delegate thinks the rest of Marylanders should pay for Baltimore City jurors to park their cars. Well, why not? Don’t we pay for everything else over there? There is also a companion bill to this one, HB-1136 which seeks to increase the amount of money paid by Baltimore City for those performing their civic duty. It would further require all employers to provide paid leave time for those serving on jury duty in Baltimore City. My thought is, if Baltimore City wants these things, let them pay the bill. The state is broke.

8.      HB-1129: This bill would define Contributory Negligence in Maryland. There is great concern by the business community and those practicing law in Maryland that certain recent inquiries and actions taken by Chief Judge Bell of the State District Court seem to indicate his desire to see the age old definition altered. There were many arguing and pleading for the General Assembly to take action rather than wait for the Judicial Branch of the government to legislate from the bench. I am not sure if we will get a chance to vote this one out, but I sure hope we do.

·        On Thursday, when we showed up for our committee session, again several delegates were missing in action. It became abundantly clear that these freshmen democrats were holding firm, but one of them was beginning to cave to pressure. It  became clear, as the day wore on, that we would not be voting on SB-116 today either.

·        On Thursday, the Judiciary Committee held the following hearings:

1.      HB-162: This bill would create a criminal penalty for Child Neglect whereas, till now, this has only been applied civilly by the Department of Social Services as a means of action. This bill was presented by Lt. Governor Brown and his task force. It was generally well received, but was too broad and left a lot of things to be worked out before it could be passed. As a result, a subcommittee was created by the Chairman to study the bill and recommend changes to the full committee. I was honored to be selected as a member of the subcommittee and we will meet next week to address the issues in the bill with the Lt. Governor.

2.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     HB -407: This bill seeks to create a specific charge of cruelty to animals during an incident of domestic violence. While this may be a problem area, it was thought that there was ample law in place to address this issue.

3.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     HB-510: This bill seeks to enhance the penalties ascribed to the charges involving stalking and other forms of harassment. We heard from two victims who provided compelling testimony on the need to get tough. I will be offering an amendment to this bill which would provide that District Court Commissioners could not release a person on bond who is charged with violating the provisions of a Peace or Ex-Parte Order.

4.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     HB-582: This bill seeks to broaden the definition of harassment to include electronic communications and applications. This would include social media sites, emails, text messages and the like. This bill was well received.

5.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     HB-667: This bill would provide that a Final Peace Order could be up to one year as opposed to the current limit of 6-months.

6.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     HB-819: This bill would include “strangulation and suffocation” under the current criminal definition of a “serious physical injury”. We received testimony which indicated that this type of injury often is underreported and not obvious to investigators, although it can be a very serious medical issue for the victim.

7.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     HB-859: This bill would broaden the use of out of court statements made by a victim of child abuse. It would allow caseworkers and counselors to testify as to hearsay evidence of a victim. During discussion, it was agreed that the language of the bill needed to be tightened up and amended before it would pass out of committee.

8.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     HB-872: This bill would require GPS tracking of Respondents under the decree of a Final Protection Order. This bill met with stiff opposition as the government would be tracking individuals who are not charged with a criminal act. I do not believe this one is coming out of committee. It was interesting to me that the ACLU showed up to protest the GPS tracking of Sex Offenders, but were a no show in this instance.

9.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     HB-968: This bill has been named, “Justice’s Law” by the sponsor in honor of the child who was murdered and charged under the Child Abuse statutes. Under the law, the defendant could only receive a maximum sentence of 30-years. This bill seeks to provide the judge the ability to sentence a defendant up to Life in prison if convicted. This bill makes a lot of sense and certainly would find application in the courts when it comes to sentencing bad guys.

10.                                                                                                                                                                                                                 HB-1018: This bill seeks to provide an applicable distance in a Protective Order issued by a court whereby a Respondent could not come within a designated distance of the Petitioner. After hearing testimony, this seemed to be more of a problem with court interpretation of the current law rather than a loop hole being exploited.

11.                                                                                                                                                                                                                 HB-1019: This bill seeks to create and define “reasonable corporal punishment” in Maryland. It was interesting to me as this bill was being proffered by advocates who believe this type of parental punishment should be banned in Maryland. Parents need to keep their radar up on bills such as these that seek to take away or limit their ability to correct their children in the way they deem appropriate. Abuse should never be tolerated, but these folks would eliminate spanking altogether if you gave them the chance.

·                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           On Friday morning, the Eastern Shore Delegation met with several folks from the shore including representatives from the Salisbury Zoo. They provided us with information packets on updates and the pending expansion of their facilities as well as their ongoing capital campaign. They are seeking a bond grant of $200,000.00 (state debt) for an Animal Health Clinic and a new Visitor/Environmental Center. Zoo Director Joel Hamilton did a nice job presenting their progress and expressing their need for support. Del. Conway and Del. Cane have already forwarded a bond bill to address the request for funding.

Also making a presentation were folks from the Teackle Mansion in Somerset County. They are also engaged in a major renovation project and are attempting to secure some funding from the state through a bond bill. They recently completed work involving the replacement of their HVAC system and are now working on the interior restoration.

The more lively discussion we had at the meeting came from the various representatives from several Local Management Boards across the shore. We heard specifically from Caroline County’s board as well as Dorchester County. These boards assist local government in distributing funds for various programs providing services to children in our communities. Over the past two years, the administrative funding for these programs has been greatly reduced by the state and they have struggled to maintain personnel so as to adequately manage their programs. The boards were complaining that they have funding which they should be able to access to help cover these administrative costs while times are bad in the economy and their funding sources are so depleted. Rosemary King, the Executive Director with the Governor’s Office for Children was also in attendance and spoke to the delegation about the expressed concerns. She clearly sent a message that the available funds must be used for programs and not address administrative costs. She felt strongly that they had gone the extra mile in the past two fiscal years to allow the various boards to adjust their spending and personnel needs to meet the new normal and she was disinclined to make any further provisions for future requests. The exchange was back and forth with ideas being offered and it appears we will continue to negotiate with her office on ways to assist the LMB’s as they continue to provide these much needed services to our folks back home.

·                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Friday, the drama surrounding the committee vote on Gay Marriage came to a head. The bottom line is, the democratic leadership was able to stiff arm the votes they needed in the committee to get it to the floor, so they quickly scheduled the vote Friday afternoon. There was a spirited debate from both sides, but I believe the compelling arguments were with those in opposition to the passage of SB-116. There were so many television cameras in the committee room, you could see little else. Clearly we were a divided committee. The Republicans on the committee were joined by three (3) Democrats in opposition, while those in favor were all Democrats. The final vote was cast by the Chairman to pass the bill on to the House floor.

I watched and participated all week long as our committee members worked to sway votes. I can tell you that if those votes were cast by secret ballot, there would have been several more “no” votes cast on Friday and it would have been defeated. On the floor when the entire House votes next week, I believe one or more of our committee members who voted for the bill will vote against it for Third Reader. I also do not believe the supporters of SB-116 have the needed votes for passage at the present time. The floor debate will, no doubt, be long and arduous. In the end, it would have always been better to let the voters decide at the polls in 2012; and, if the vote is favorable in the House, I’m quite sure the bill will be petitioned to referendum in Maryland.

I have to say after this week, the meetings were long and exhausting and the Eastern Shore never looked so good as when I crossed that bridge late Friday afternoon.