Delegate Smigiel's Official Blog

Score One for Kent County News’ Pursuit of Open Government!

Delegate Smigiel — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 14:48:36 +0000

Lawmakers’ comments redacted

By CRAIG O’DONNELL codonnell@thekentcountynews.com

Published: Thursday, September 2, 2010 11:30 AM CDT

CHESTERTOWN — Jack Broderick, candidate for Queen Anne’s commissioner, said something secret on March 4, 2009.

It was at a public meeting of the Bay Bridge Reconstruction Advisory Group. He has chaired the 10-member BBRAG for five years.

Broderick says it wasn’t secret at all. But Ron Freeland, recently retired Maryland Transportation Authority secretary, acted on his own by blacking out Broderick’s comments from public meeting minutes.

When he did it, he claimed the Public Information Act allowed him to remove selected sentences. Freeland was an administrator, not a BBRAG member, and such a claim is dubious.

State law does allow keeping certain information private, but even when it falls into those categories, the MDTA has to give specific reasons for censoring – something Freeland never did. He also claimed “executive privilege” over minutes of a public body.

After months of trying to get full BBRAG minutes from the MDTA, Broderick was contacted in July. A computer crash wiped out his electronic documents last year, he said at the time. Then he tried to help the Kent County News get fresh uncensored minutes. He asked for electronic copies and the MDTA told him not to distribute public information to anyone. Instead, last week Broderick read from some printed minutes he located in his own files.

Not only were parts of public minutes hidden from the public; an MDTA lawyer told Broderick in July he could not give out public information – the minutes which his committee approved and he signed, as chairman, all in public meetings. The lawyer’s reason? Freeland said not to.

In July, Broderick called Gail Moran, his MDTA contact, and asked for electronic copies of minutes. Freeland, through one of his lawyers, said they wouldn’t give him any.

Last week Broderick said, “At first (Moran) said yes, then she called back and said, ‘There may be a problem getting the minutes to you. It looks like the legal office doesn’t want you to give them out.’”

Later, he got e-mail. It included a message from Sherita Harrison, assistant attorney general assigned as an MDTA lawyer.

Broderick read the July 23 e-mail last week, which said in part, “Please do not provide BBRAG minutes to Craig O’Donnell. I have forwarded to Mr. Freeland a copy of your e-mail … (he) has advised me to inform you that the MDTA is the custodian of the records for the BBRAG minutes and as such he should not provide copies to Mr. O’Donnell and should forward the request to the MDTA to respond accordingly.

“Thus he should not seek copies … from other BBRAG members to provide to Mr. O’Donnell.”

In other words, no, the chairman can’t have copies of public documents, and he can’t give anyone public documents.

And yet if the MDTA posted all minutes on its website, as many tiny towns and most counties do, this struggle would never have begun.

What’s So Secret?

None of what Broderick read is blockbuster stuff. There’s no personal information. In one case, Freeland’s name was removed twice.

The General Assembly was very upset about an MDTA toll hike in early 2009. A truck toll increase “happened very quickly, everybody was upset,” Broderick said. “Ron had orders from higher up. It basically moved out very fast.”

On March 9, 2009 Broderick told BBRAG members about legislative committee public hearings.

Freeland’s version of the March 9 minutes say “Mr. Broderick said that he had attended a recent hearing at the Maryland State Budget and Taxation Committee, where several bills introduced by Senator Pipkin were heard.”

Four lines are black, then “(He) said that he did not see the General Assembly warming up to the bill heard that would prohibit toll increases without legislative approval.”

What are the secret lines? They are: “… Ron Freeland was apologetic about the short time span” before the toll hike, and “He said Mr. Freeland has recommended a 60-day period” (between proposing a hike and putting it in place).

Pipkin, Smigiel Blacked Out

Those weren’t the only lines that were blacked out.

At a 2008 meeting, parts having to do with safety questions raised by Sen. E.J. Pipkin and Delegate Mike Smigiel were given the blackout treatment. On Aug. 10, 2008, the bay bridge’s soundness came into question when a semitrailer broke the side wall, killing the driver.

In Freeland’s version, the BBRAG Sept. 3, 2008 meeting after the accident was had three large blackouts. Pipkin and Smigiel came to question MDTA officials about the wreck. It appears there was an attempt to prevent the public from seeing criticism expressed in a public forum.

There are 20 lines blacked out, which Broderick read on the phone. The missing words are in italics:

“A vehicle crash between a sedan and tractor trailer on August 10 resulted in the death of the tractor trailer driver when his vehicle crashed through the south parapet on the eastern shore side of the eastbound span.

“MDTA staff and engineering experts quickly began a thorough inspection of the bridge using x-ray [sic] … of the internal metal supports and identified areas where (internal supports were corroded).

“Acting on this finding, Secretary of Transportation and Maryland Transportation Authority Chairman John Porcari ordered an immediate closure of the right lane.

“The lane closure could provide needed safety to those traveling on the bridge [and] also allowed (staff) to reinforce the supports and provide additional safety to the span. It was announced the lane closure could take up to 10 weeks depending on what was found.”

Further along, missing text is about how, “Citing repeated assurances of bridge safety … Pipkin strongly pressed for an outside inspection” and said Pipkin had contacted Gov. Martin O’Malley.

Then “Delegate Michael Smigiel asked whether school buses are safe … Mr. Kolberg indicated he did not know the answer … he would answer later.” Geoffrey Kolberg was MDTA chief engineer at the time.

Broderick said last week, “It baffles me why this was redacted. It was all a matter of press releases and open dialogue at the time. This was all public.”

MDTA’s own press releases, in other words, said what was deliberately withheld two years later. The releases went out Aug. 26 and Sept. 8, 2008. In part they say: “The MDTA began today’s repairs after ultrasonic and ground penetrating radar (GPR) testing of the parapet in the right lane near the Eastern Shore indicated corrosion of reinforcing steel bolts encased in the concrete barrier. … The repairs we are starting today will restore the strength of the parapet … The corrosion is a direct result of voids in the center of the concrete parapet, where moisture has become trapped.”

Before redecking began about four years ago, the BBRAG was set up to hold open meetings for citizens to bring complaints and concerns and have issues directly addressed. Broderick called the BBRAG’s five-year existence “a good-news story. It bothers me (the MDTA) would take such an offensive angle to something that worked well.”

And there isn’t any consistency to the black marks. Two sentences (March 5, 2008) about speed radar also got the marker. The secret? “Police occupy the bridge lane that has already been closed … (they are) behind an attenuator truck to provide protection.”

Something about jersey barriers is under a very large black square on Oct. 1, 2008, but Broderick doesn’t have a paper copy to check. There are 15 or 16 lines gone from a paragraph that begins: “Mr. Cimino was asked about installing jersey walls between the lanes of the bridge.” Ken Cimino was an MDTA official.

The struggle to get full, uncensored minutes of MDTA committees including BBRAG, the MDTA Board, and its subcommittees, stretches back to November 2009. In the spring, two 36th District delegates, Dick Sossi and Smigiel, became involved. Sossi was instrumental getting a sheaf of meeting documents the MDTA refused to release.

Meanwhile, Smigiel did not believe Freeland had a right to do more than turn over the minutes as written. After exchanging several letters, on Aug. 17 he wrote to Freeland, “… (you say) you have worked with your department’s attorneys to provide those minutes in a redacted form. I would like to know what they told you was the reasoning behind this (and the) statute chapter and section” authorizing redaction of anything from public meeting minutes.

Minutes are a summary and “There should be nothing … that would have personally identifying information such as a social security number or driver’s license number since that would defeat the purpose of the summary in and of itself.”

After getting what he called “a runaround” from MDTA officials, he received a letter from the Office of the Attorney General. It doesn’t agree either.

On Aug. 24, Kathryn Rowe, assistant attorney general in the Office of Counsel to the General Assembly, wrote to Smigiel, “You have asked … whether a public body may redact material from minutes of an open meeting when providing them to a member of the public. It is my view that it may not.”

In other words, public meeting minutes are not to be tampered with once they have been approved. She added, “… the Public Information Act has been interpreted to always defer to other laws governing the disclosure of specific records. … Once material from an open session is included in the minutes, however, it is my view that it may not be redacted prior to disclosure.”

The Open Meetings Act already provides a way to talk about confidential topics in a “closed session.” Sensitive information is kept out of minutes that way.

As for the MDTA’s response, Freeland could not be reached. Press office contact Kelly Melhem did not return phone calls.

Harrison, contacted several times over many months, said she would not answer questions, claiming “attorney-client privilege.” Her e-mails have been legalistic and uninformative. MDTA Principal Counsel Valerie Smith did not want to speak on the phone last week.

After nine months, the MDTA has never sent uncensored copies of the minutes, and the Kent County News filed another formal records request for them Aug 30.

The Maryland State Archives website describes BBRAG as “Appointed by Executive Secretary in consultation with Chair, Maryland Transportation Authority: John E. (Jack) Broderick, Chair; Larry Brown; Nick Deoudes; Anne S. Ferro; Dolores Green; Barbara Hitchings; Randy Landis; Tracy Schulz; Barbara Span Obert; Nancy Wright.” Moran is the MDTA staff member assigned to it.

The Cecil Guardian Promises Fairness but Fails To Deliver.

Delegate Smigiel — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:55:59 +0000

On Aug. 9, 2010 I wrote a response to the outrageous article appearing in the Cecil Guardian. It appeared here under the title Journalism 101.

Shortly after having written the Article, Journalism 101, I received a visit from the Publisher/Owner of the Cecil Guardian, Mr. De Freitas who was responding to a phone call I had made asking why I had not been notified before the story about Commissioner candidate Ted Kolodzey’s ranting about Senator Pipkin and I wanting to destroy the County was published.

Mr. De Freitas began his conversation with me by trying to justify his article by hiding behind the fact that “it is what Kolodzey actually said”. I responded that it does not matter what Kolodzey said, the ethical and professional obligation of his paper is to call the parties involved in a story. I told him that both he and his reporter had an ethical obligation to give the Senator and myself a chance to respond to the spurious allegations. It should be the policy of any newspaper, to call a public official, for comment, who is being accused of being out to destroy the government they have been elected to represent.

When I pointed out that the author of the article, Ms. Stephanie Palko was also the same reporter who recently referred to the sex offender legislation I passed to protect children in Maryland as “touchy feely, apple pie legislation” he responded that he had also been at the event and heard Kolodzy make the statements. I told Mr. De Freitas that he was responsible for seeing that his Editor did her job and that as a reporter she should know that basic professional standards required I be called.

Mr. De Freitas acknowledged that I was correct and that he would do a better job in the future. He said I should send him my response and he would print it. I did send it on August 9, the same day we met.

When the letter did not appear in the August 12, 2010 edition of the Guardian I e-mailed to the publisher, Mr. De Freitas asking him if he had received the letter I sent to be published. On August 12, 2010 he responded “I did”.

The August 19th edition did not have my letter, nor did it contain a retraction.

The August 26, edition is now out and still, my letter has not been printed. Mr. De Freitas can dish it out but he can not take it. His paper printed that I had tried to run Mr. Kolodzey’s campaign and offered him money but that Mr. Kolodzey was unwilling to accept the strings that were attached and refused to be controlled by me. Had the paper called, they would have learned that I have never met Mr. Ted Kolodzey! When my Chief of staff called him to try to get details she was hung up on by him. I understand his embarrassment at starting out him political career on lies. What I don’t understand is the willingness of the newspaper to be used as an instrument of spreading those lies.

So much for fairness or professional ethics in journalism. It appears that the Cecil Guardian will be a partisan rag rather than a legitimate alternative newspaper.

I will save the readers the time of having to read the future editions regarding the elections because it is evident who they will be backing in the upcoming races. They will endorse Rudolph for delegate against Patterson in the general election, because Patterson believes you can and should actually lower taxes and cut spending. They will endorse Terry Moore over Chris Zeauskas in the primary for the same reason. They will endorse Ted Kolodzey over Michael Dunn and Rob Alt over Pipkin. I also expect they will endorse Manlove over me in the primary.

While I can not force them to have ethics or even to live up to their word and publish my response, I can choose to deprive those who support such unethical and unprofessional reporting, of the benefit of my business. As I went looking to buy a new car last week, which I did, I made sure that I did not buy it from any of the advertisers in the Cecil Guardian.

JOURNALISM 101-

Delegate Smigiel — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:24:03 +0000

The following letter to the Editor was sent to the editor of The Cecil Guardian. It is self explanatory. We shall see if the paper has the ethical standards necessary to admit and correct a mistake on their part.

Dear Editor:

On August, 5, 2010 The Cecil Guardian paper ran a front page article entitled “Candidate Kolodzey Distances Himself from Pipkin and Smigiel”. In the article, you quote Mr. Kolodzey as saying “he had aligned himself with Pipkin and Smigiel but had to leave them when he found their financial assistance in his campaign came with strings attached.” This is completely untrue!

I am very disappointed that your newspaper would fail to follow the most basic, ethical journalistic practice of calling those persons mentioned in a story to get their side of the story. If the reporter, Ms. Palko had done the bare minimum expected of any journalist and contacted those whom she was writing about, she would have learned that I have never met Mr. Kolodzey. I have never offered him any financial assistance. I have never offered to run his campaign.

At least, The Cecil Whig called to ask me if I had heard about what was said by Mr. Kolodzey. I received no such courtesy from Ms. Palko or anyone else from the Cecil Guardian paper.

The Cecil Whig reporter, Ms. Cheryl Mattix told me Mr. Kolodzey did not have any details to share about alleged meetings with me or financial offers of assistance. My Chief of Staff, Ms. Morony called Mr. Kolodzey to see if he could specify when any meeting had ever taken place. Mr. Kolodzey has no information on any details of the alleged meetings or offers because there were none.

When Mr. Kolodzey was pressed for additional information he said he did not have time to talk, when Ms. Morony asked if she could call back at a more convenient time, Mr. Kolodzey hung up on her.

In the Cecil Whig, I asked for an apology from Mr. Kolodzey for making such a blatant lie in a public setting. I think an apology and a retraction on the front page are also due from your paper for repeating the lies without ever checking to see if they were true.

I hope and trust that, in the future, before printing outrageous stories about elected public servants being “out to destroy the County” you will at least give the defamed elected officials the courtesy of a phone call to determine if they were in fact involved in anyway with the person making the allegations, you just might get the story right.

Yours in public service,

Delegate Mike Smigiel, Sr

A New Maryland Constitution?

Delegate Mike Smigiel — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 19:11:59 +0000

“The Gazette“, Maryland’s leading Business and Legal newspaper, published an article on July 26, 2010 which addressed the question “Should Maryland hold a Constitutional Convention?”

This question will appear on a ballot in November so the paper assembled some of Maryland’s best constitutional scholars including Mr. Byron Warnken, professor of Law at University of Baltimore School of Law, Assistant Attorney General Dan Friedman, authored “The Maryland Constitution: A Reference Guide (quite literally he wrote the book on the Maryland Constitution), as well as, Senator Jamie Raskin, a Constitutional Law professor at American University and myself.

You can see our thoughts by clicking on the link that will take you to Steve Lash’s article online. (scroll down to the section labelled “Lots and Slots” for my particular thoughts)

What are your thoughts? Should we have a Constitutional Convention?

Here’s the link to the article:

http://mddailyrecord.com/2010/07/25/does-maryland-need-a-constitutional-convention/

The Question(naire) of Special Interests

Delegate Mike Smigiel — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:20:29 +0000

Maryland’s special interest groups are busy sending their questionnaires out to the various candidates running for public office. As a result, the candidates are busy deciding whether to respond and to which of the questionnaires they should respond .

Just in the last few days, I have received questionnaires from Maryland Business for Responsive Government (MBRG), the National Rifle Association, the Maryland Farm Bureau, Tripwire (another 2^nd Amendment organization) and Maryland Right to Life. In the legislature, I not only vote for, but argue on behalf of, many of the policies held by these various groups, which makes answering their questionnaires easy.

Some candidates ignore the questioners which they know are from groups or organizations which are unfriendly to them. For instance, in my case, those groups claiming to be either pro-choice or anti-Second Amendment will most likely distribute their materials to their organizational members. Why should I spend my time giving aid and comfort to those who wish to replace me with a liberal anti business, anti- Second Amendment person? More often than not these types of questionnaires go unanswered.

The exception is when a group I may not agree with on most issues distributes their answers to more than just their group membership. For example, The League of Women Voters claims to be a non-partisan organization yet, its membership appears to be very liberal in their beliefs.

The answers to their questionnaires are distributed widely and to more than just their own membership and thus are worth answering. Even if you do not agree with the position that the League of Women Voters holds you want to answer the questions so all those who read their material will know your position.

It also gives you an opportunity to address what may actually be biased questions on the questionnaire. I think it is important to point out, when questions like the education question are asked, that the question is biased and presupposes an answer in line with the incorrect presumption in the question.

So you can see an example, I have scanned in this year’s League of Women Voters’ questionnaire and typed in my responses below. The questions are in italics. The actual document is at the very end. What follows is precisely what I submitted to them.

Delegate Michael D. Smigiel, Sr.

410-392-5815 office

delegatemikesmigiel@gmail.com

Blog: http://www.delegatemike.com

Facebook: Michael Smigiel

Twitter @MikeSmigiel

Qualifications: (What are your qualifications for this office?)

I have a Juris Doctorate and a Bachelor of Arts in political science. I’m a member of the Judiciary Committee leadership and serve as Republican Parliamentarian.

I’ve kept my promises to uphold the Constitution, vote against tax increases, cut spending and create private sector jobs.

Priorities: (What are your legislative priorities?)

To continue to keep my promises to uphold the Constitution, vote against tax increases, cut spending and create private sector jobs.

I will also continue leading the charge for recognition of our Second Amendment rights and to pass legislation to protect our children from dangerous predators.

Transportation: (What are your transportation priorities and how should they be funded?)

Route 404 safety issues are still a priority for the 36th District. Otherwise, returning the Counties’ highway funding will be a priority. We need to be able to maintain our roads and bridges. The State needs to return the funding to local government

Business Taxes: (Do you support any changes in Maryland’s Business Tax structure? If so, what changes would you endorse?)

I support lowering all taxes in order to make Maryland more competitive with neighboring states. We need to lower taxes for businesses so they have more capital to invest in expansion and inventory which will lead to more Maryland private sector jobs.

Saftey Net Services: (In light of the cuts to services for vulnerable populations, legislation has been proposed to increase beer, wine and liquor taxes. Would you support this proposal or any other means to restore funds for these services? Please explain.)

No, I will not support a new tax! “Designated funds” are rarely if ever actually protected and in fact this last session were all raided and put in the general fund. There are adequate funds available to protect the truly vulnerable.

Education: (How should state government work with local governments to solve the crisis in funding for public k-12 education.)

There is no crisis in funding for public K-12 education. We have been spending record amounts over the last few years as a result of Thornton. Maryland schools have been touted as being number one (1) in the nation the last two years!

Energy: (How should Maryland address its future energy needs?)

We need to renew and increase our nuclear plants as well as embracing the new alternative technologies such as solar, wind, wave and clean coal technologies. I believe Maryland is already taking an eclectic approach to our future energy needs.

League of Women Voters

Smigiel Named Maryland Oystermen’s “Legislator of the Year”

Delegate Mike Smigiel — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:08:18 +0000

Delegate Mike Smigiel Press Release

Contact: Andi Morony July 17,2010

410-490-2734

For Immediate Release

Smigiel Named Maryland Oystermen’s “Legislator of the Year”

Delegate Mike Smigiel (R-District 36, Upper Shore) was awarded the Maryland Oystermen Association’s highest honor “Legislator of the Year” for 2009-2010. “The watermen of Maryland are becoming endangered by the continued intrusions into their way of life” said Smigiel “The state legislature and the state agencies are constantly trying to over-regulate their industry. If we as their elected representatives don’t stand up for them and fight, they will soon be just a distant memory” continued Smigiel.

Last session, Delegate Smigiel told the Environmental Matters committee that if they continue to destroy the cultural heritage of the Eastern Shore, then his next bill would be to remove the waterman from the Great Seal of Maryland because the committee would have killed the industry.

Executive Director for the Maryland Oystermen Association, James T. Mullen stated that Smigiel has “…demonstrated a continued respect for Maryland’s Oystermen resource based economy, culture and heritage” Mullin continued to praise Smigiel saying he has shown “outstanding leadership, guidance and representation” in 2009 and 2010.

Smigiel thanked the Maryland Oystermen Association for the honor of being designated as their “Legislator of the Year”. “I look forward to continuing to work with the Oystermen to revitalize their way of life. The Maryland Oysterman bring hundreds of years of experience to the table and its my hope to convince my fellow legislators of the value which the waterman bring to the discussion of protecting the Chesapeake Bay.”

#####

State Board of Elections Proposes New Rules for Facebook, Twitter and Other Social Media.

Delegate Mike Smigiel — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:45:38 +0000

Delegate Smigiel has requested that the Administrative, Executive, Legislative Review committee (AELR) have a public hearing to discuss the State Board of Elections’ proposed emergency regulations. A hearing will be held in the Joint Hearing Room in Annapolis on July 20, 2010 at 10 a.m.

If you have any questions or comments please come out to the public hearing. If you can not make the hearing, let me know and I will do what I can to get your question or concern addressed.

Click below to read the proposed emergency regulations.

McDONALD V. CITY OF CHICAGO DECISION IS DISAPPOINTING!

Delegate Smigiel — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:12:31 +0000

This 2nd Amendment Supporter is very Disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court.

It was one of those pivital events in politics when I heard the U.S. Supreme Court had just decided by a 5-4 decision that the 2nd Amendment applies to the individual.

My first reaction was a sigh of relief. I did not want the burden of civil disobedience that was sure to follow any decision which held that the Second Amendment to our Bill of Rights does not apply to the individual.

Those of us who are true believers in the Constitutional rights described in the Bill of Rights as “inalienable”, know that governments do not bestow such rights upon the individual, God does.

As these inalienable rights come from God, no government or branch thereof, Executive, Legislative, or Judicial can take or bestow those rights. I know this to be as true today as it was when Thomas Jefferson explained this to the world over two hundred years ago.

It really does not matter what the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, or the President says with respect to the right to keep and bear arms because any interpretation contrary to that of Jefferson’s, (ie. our inalienable rights are God given), would be an illegitimate, illegal decision, ignored by myself and tens of millions of other Constitutional purists.

Which brings me to why I am so upset with the McDonald v. City of Chicago decision. How could 4 of 9 justices NOT understand this basic concept of God given inalienable rights?

Would any of those four agree to local government control over other inalienable rights such as free speech or freedom to choose ones own religion? I would hope not, but who knows, if they can pervert their judicial logic to fit their liberal political ideology when dealing with Second Amendment rights, then what other perversions of our Constitution will these jurists allow to manifestly endanger our public liberty?

The McDonald v. City of Chicago decision should have been a unanimous decision! The American people should not have to worry about the possibility that local governments, like the City of Chicago could legislate away any of the rights we are given by God.

Chicago’s laws outlawing the ownership or possession of a handgun within someone’s home was an egregious attack on the Constitutional rights of the citizens of Chicago. As such, it’s citizens, according to many Constitutional scholars and purists, like myself, believe that civil disobedience of such a law would be appropriate.

As I said, I am relieved that 5 of the 9 justices also believe in the Constitutional rights found within the Bill of Rights being extended to the individual.

I did not want to be considered by my government to be a criminal, but would have chosen to disobey any decision that was contrary to the principles which I believe our founding fathers had in mind when writing the documents on which we base our concepts of liberty and freedom.

I know those who disagree with me will say “you are a lawyer, an officer of the court and an elected official, it is irresponsible of you to talk about choosing which laws to follow or to advocate civil disobedience.”

It is the fact, that I am a lawyer, a Marine, and an elected State legislator that requires me to take such a position.

I swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution, not a President, not a legislature, not any court. As a Marine my duty was to my God, my Country, and my Corps, again, not a President, not a legislature, not any court.

So, while I am pleased by the majority decision of the Supreme Court in the McDonald v. the City of Chicago decision I am very concerned that it was so close. We were actually one vote away from armed, law abiding, patriotic American citizens having to decide between accepting an illegitimate, illegal decision of the Supreme Court or choosing to reject the decision as an illegitimate attempt to interfere with an inalienable right.

After my sigh of relief, my second thought was that I will now need to bring suit to stop Maryland’s permit to carry process from continuing to be an infringement on our inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

The Maryland State Police use of the nebulous, non defined term “good and substantial cause” keeps tens of thousands of Marylanders from having the right to self defense. This infringement must stop.

For now, lets see, if Maryland takes the first step towards correcting this injustice and finally embraces the the right of its citizens to self defense through the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms.

MARYLAND GOVERNOR SIGNS “CASTLE DOCTRINE” BILL

Delegate Mike Smigiel — Fri, 21 May 2010 14:47:12 +0000

In what amounts to a stealthy victory for Second Amendment advocates in Maryland, yesterday, the Governor signed into law a modified “Castle Doctrine” bill (SB-411).

This new law will provide civil immunity for a person defending their dwelling or place of business. This immunity provides that the person is not liable for damages for a personal injury or death of an individual when protecting yourself in your home. Maryland added the proviso that the doctrine only applies as long as the persons defending them selves are not convicted of a crime related to the act for which the immunity is being sought.

Second Amendment supporters should take hope in the passage of this modified “Castle Doctrine”. Not only have we been successful in defeating anti-second amendment legislation such as HB-820, (the registration bill from this past session), we have been incrementally advancing pro-Second Amendment bills into law. These advances are done without a lot of pomp and circumstance so as not to draw the attention of the gun fearing progressives.

So don’t believe that nothing is being done to recapture the liberties that the progressives have taken from us. There have been many such small victories which receive little or no press coverage. Know that you can make a difference and that your pro-Second Amendment legislators are not only killing the bad bills we are obtaining small victories every session.

REPORTER CALLS SEX OFFENDER LEGISLATION “FEEL-GOOD TALK” & “APPLE PIE STUFF”

Delegate Mike Smigiel — Tue, 18 May 2010 21:06:56 +0000

I was very disappointed to read the following statement by Stephanie PalKo in her “It’s All Business” article in the May 6, 2010 edition of the Cecil Guardian. Ms. Palko wrote “Everybody must have been a little tired at the Cecil County Chamber of Commerce’s Legislative wrap-up breakfast on Monday morning. They just listened to the feel-good talk about how legislators pushed for heftier sex offender jail terms, measures to fight gangs, and other apple pie stuff.”

Ms. Palko missed the fact that every legislator who spoke, spoke about taxes, the budget and uncontrolled spending by the current administration.

I spoke about the unemployment tax on business and legislation that was passed by the Democratic majority which will undoubtedly lead to another increase in the unemployment tax. Since all other business related topics had been thoroughly discussed by the other legislators I also mentioned the passage of three of my bills which now give Maryland some of the strongest child sexual offender protections in the County (HB-289, HB-254, and HB-60).

When I discussed these bills at the Kent County Chamber event I looked out at one table and saw a member crying. After our presentation she came up to me to tell me she was the victim of child sexual abuse and how thankful she was that I submitted this important legislation. I don’t believe she would classify these bills as “feel good talk.” I don’t believe that the family of Sarah Foxwell – who was found dead Christmas morning at the hands of a child sexual predator – would consider the legislation “feel good talk.” Neither would young “Alexis,” the 11 year old girl who tried to kill herself in Cecil County when a convicted sex offender was allowed to continue stalking her, even after he had been convicted and was awaiting sentencing.

As was explained at the event, the gang legislation came out of an initiation rite of a Harford County gang whereby a cab driver, who was the father of eight, was shot in the head. I believe it was callous and offensive for Ms. Palko to refer to the passage of such important legislation as “feel good talk” and “apple pie stuff.”

I get it, I understand that Ms. Palko and many of the Chamber members don’t like being represented by conservative Republicans. Her position that our reporting the “us” and “them” votes somehow means we do not work together or is somehow a disservice to our constituents and incomprehensible. Do you really think that I, a Republican, was able to get those three major child sex offender bills passed without working with Democrats?

The legislative wrap up presented information from Delegate Sossi, Senator Pipkin, a representative of Senator Jacobs’ office, Delegate Riley and myself on many tax and fiscal issues from the last session (Delegates Rudolph, Mary Delaney-James, and Walkup were not present).

Ms. Palko not only owes an apology for what she wrote, but also owes an apology to her readers for what she failed to report which is what actually occurred at the legislative wrap up.