Session Scoop Saves Orphans

On May 10 and 19, the Session Scoop team helped bring numerous orphans to Annapolis for pictures with Governor Martin O’Malley.  It was part of a yearly ritual that marks, in many ways, the end of the 2011 legislative session.  It is rewarding, hectic, confusing at times, and not at all what you think.

On these two days, Governor O’Malley, Lt. Governor Brown, Senate President Mike Miller and House Speaker Mike Busch signed into law almost 500 enactments of the Assembly, ending the journey of each from idea, to bill, to law.  

Supporters of the approved legislation attend the signing ceremony, receiving a pen and a photograph to commemorate its passage.  (See MAIF’s photo!)  Sometimes, there are no public victors available to celebrate a legislative success, and sadly, the bill becomes an “orphan”.

Bill signing day is a marvel of government efficiency.  Yes, really.  Over 200 bills are signed in a formal ceremony that usually involves the sponsor and citizens who worked to secure its passage.  For some signings, the crowd is large.  For instance, the so-called Dream Act, which allows undocumented Marylanders to receive in-state tuition rates at the state’s community colleges, involved dozens of activists.  The bill was “signed” four times to accommodate the over 100 supporters that wanted to be a part of the picture.

Bill signing ceremonies are highly choreographed.  The day before the event, a list of legislation to be signed is posted by the Governor’s office.  The next day, those supporters interested in the photo op assemble on the first floor of the State House while the elected officials are corralled in the Governor’s ceremonial office on the second floor. 

How can we know all of this inside information?  It just so happens that the Session Scoop team was in the trenches.  Armed with a list of bills, the team helped direct each elected official into the correct photo.  This is way harder than it sounds.  First, you have to recognize the official (they hate not being recognized).  Second, you have to determine which bill the official wants to be photographed in.  This is a big challenge.

Why?  Three reasons.  First, the intel is lacking.  The powers that be provide a list of bill numbers, in the order they will be signed.  However, if a bill was cross-filed (introduced in the House and Senate) and both bills passed, they are signed simultaneously.  This means that when someone comes for the photo of a House bill, you have to figure out the Senate bill number so they can get in the right picture.  But it gets far more confusing.

Another problem that plagues this process can only be described as the brain drain that follows the end of session. Many of the officials have forgotten (or possibly never knew) the bill numbers of legislation they worked on over the past six months.  One official told Session Scoop he was there for the “phosphates” bill, but didn’t know the bill number.  In fact, there wasn’t even a bill throughout the entire 2011 session with the word “phosphates” in the title.  Pretty frustrating, right? 

And still, chaos continues its manic reign right through the minutes leading up to the big photo.  Bill signings start at 10:00 a.m.  Between 9:50 a.m. - 10:05 a.m. hoards of politicians sashay into the room prepping for their “close up”.  This creates a perfect storm of confusion:  lots of people looking for direction and only a few brave souls providing some.

Meanwhile, hundreds of people wait on the first floor, listening for their bill to be called.  A bill number is called out to the crowd; interested supporters surge forward and follow a red-jacketed youth volunteer up to the second floor.  As they enter the ceremonial office, they are coupled with the appropriate politician.  Eventually, supporters stand proudly behind the signers, for the official photo.  This process is repeated hundreds of times each day.

As each group entered, our team checked bill numbers and alerted the appropriate elected officials.  During this time, many of the elected officials grow impatient waiting for their bill to be called.  Many don’t understand why their bills can’t be called by sponsor, instead of by bill number, and everyone wants to know why it can’t all happen NOW!  There is something funny and chaotic about dozens of adults all trying to go first, and charging that the system is unfair.

Not surprisingly, some of them learn how to “cheat.”  They have their staff go downstairs and get their bills called out all in a row.  This makes the Master bill list upstairs instantly outdated – leading to more confusion, or as the Session Scoop team thinks if it – “fun”.  Fun because in the confusion, the politicians looked to our team for help.  (This role reversal is sweet, because for 90 days we had to beg them for help.)  Enjoying the power, we helped some, confused others, and asked for contributions (one of those clauses is false).

Somehow, despite the confusion, it all works.  The elected officials are happy with assistance we’ve provided, some even hang out and talk with us as they await their next photo.  We get a valuable opportunity to build relationships on behalf of MAIF.

But what about the orphans?

If a bill is called on the first floor and no public supporters gather behind the red-jacketed volunteer, it is scratched from the photo list and stopped before it reaches the second floor. This complicates things upstairs.  Even though there’s no interest on the first floor, an elected official might be waiting on the orphaned bill on the second floor.  What a mess.

To get the “orphan bills” and the elected officials together in a photo, the team must revisit the bill number guessing game with the elected official, “I don’t know the number, but it involves school busses….”  And so it continues.  Once the orphans are identified, they are reunited with the elected official who gets a prime, solo spot in the picture.

Somehow it all works.  Volunteering gave the Session Scoop team a headache, but built some wonderful connections with elected officials, their constituents, and family members.

Plus, we helped the orphans.

MAIF Asks Drivers to Buckle Up For A Buck

MAIF's Charitable Giving Committee is asked dozens of times throughout the year to donate on behalf of causes that run the gamut from incurable diseases to projects that help sustain the environment.  One of our most favorite causes is vehicular safety.  It's not too surprising that an automobile insurance company would make safety a priority.  Besides the obvious reason of saving lives, vehicular safety can also increase your insurances rates. 

Buckle Up For A Buck is a brilliant idea from the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA).  Partnering with SHA and the Montgomery County Police Department, MAIF funded the program in which law and enforcement and safety advocates handed out $1 bills to all drivers and passengers who buckled up before heading out on the road. The message was simple:  It pays to buckle up.  Literally.  Those drivers and passengers who neglected to wear their seat belts received a warning from law enforcement and information about the costs of not buckling up.

A buck won't change a life, or even buy much of a candy bar.  But this relatively inexpensive incentive always generates awareness of automobile safety issues and inspires stories about the importance of using a seatbelt.

 

Session Scoop Presents: Our First Video Blog

BIG NEWS Next Week...

Session Scoop isn't ready to sign-off just yet, stay tuned next week for our video update filmed at historic Fort McHenry. 

A Carnival of Cross-Fire

It’s the time of year in Annapolis when you have to watch out for the cross-fire.  Many bills are filed in both the House and Senate – this is called cross-filing.  The advantage of cross-filing is that you are virtually assured a hearing in both chambers, allowing bill supporters to educate all the involved parties.  If identical bills end up passing the House and Senate, the bill is passed.

But sometimes identical versions don’t pass; sometimes a version is voted down in one chamber and passes the other, and sometimes votes in one chamber impact votes and other issues in the other chamber.  All this activity sets up the April cross-fire phenomenon.  Bills march back and forth across Rowe Boulevard, like items in a carnival shooting gallery, some survive, but some die for the dumbest of reasons.

Recently, we wrote about issues surrounding motor scooters.  See Motor Scooters – like a bike or like a motorcycle? While not exactly the same bills, House Bill 961 and Senate Bill 708 both required licensing, registering, and insuring of motor scooters.  Senate Bill 708 passed the full Senate intact - now it has to journey across the street to the House.

SB 708, is now assigned to the same Committee that considered the related House Bill, 961.  HB 961 died in Committee – technically it is set for a Summer Study, which is a more detailed post-session review of the issue.  Senate Bill 708, then, is doomed to Summer Study too.  It is a victim of cross-fire.

But it will not be the only victim.  The House passed legislation making using a cell phone while driving a primary violation instead of a secondary violation.  The Senate rejected the bill.  In retaliation, the House rejected other bills.  The Senate passed the Civil Marriage bill.  The House failed to enact it.  The House passed a bill providing protections to transgendered individuals – but now the Senate won’t consider it.  And so it goes.

A popular Senate bill now waits its turn to see if it will get caught in cross-fire.  Senate Bill 679 allows local jurisdictions to install cameras on school buses to catch motorists who fail to stop when the bus is loading or unloading children.  It passed the Senate 38 to 7.  But the House already rejected a similar bill – House Bill 1106.  More cross-fire?

At the end of the day, legislators are people too.  Like people everywhere, they retaliate for rejections – real or perceived.  It’s cross-fire season in Annapolis, and people are trying real hard not to let their bills get hit.

The .0015% Solution

The State’s operating budget is over 14 billion, with a “b”, dollars.  All of us see it as the State’s blueprint for spending, but few know it can be a lethal arena for what many of us might see as pure policy issues.

Last year, the Governor announced that he was moving the Department of Housing and Community Development from Crownsville (in Anne Arundel County) to rental space at a Metro stop in Prince George’s County.  The move fulfilled a 2006 campaign pledge.  You might think that the Governor – the Chief Executive Officer of the State – would be able to decide where executive offices are located.

You would be wrong.

Employees, the employees union, and Anne Arundel County fought the move through the budget process.  The Department of Housing and Community Development’s budget is part of that $14 billion spending plan.  Legislators burrowed deep into it, and inserted a $250,000 provision requiring a study and legislative approval on constructing or rehabilitating the Department’s headquarters in Crownsville, and a detailed review of a move to Prince George’s County impact of the existing employees.  The $250,000, on a percentage basis, is .0015 of a percent of the state’s general operating budget.

Will the Department move?  Time will tell, but that .0015 % solution just might prove lethal to this initative.

And the survey says...

A big THANK YOU to all of our readers that took the Punt, Pass, or Kick Survey last week.  It was great to hear from all of you on the legislation that we've talked about over the past (almost) 90 days.

So, we thought it best to "share with the class" and give you the results of the first ever MAIF's Policy and Communication's Department Punt, Pass or Kick Survey, here it goes:

We asked...
On February 14th we discussed SB 48. Remember SB 48? It requires that a record be kept by those installing replacement airbags in vehicles and that the buyer is made aware of the salvaged airbag prior to purchase. What do you think the outcome of SB 48 will be?

You responded...
Punt:  19%
Pass:  74%
Kick:  7%

Our take....
The bill had an air of public safety and anti-fraud efforts about it.  The issue is complicated by Federal law issues and it's getting too late to figure things out down here.  We vote kick.

We asked...
On February 11th we wrote about SB 138. If passed, SB 138 would allow Marylanders to prove damages by submitting unpaid estimates, instead of a paid bill. What do you think will happen to SB 138?

You responded...
Punt:  23%
Pass:  19%
Kick:  58%

Our take....
We predict a heavily amended bill, restricting it to estimates prepared by or on behalf of an insurance company, will...pass.

We asked...Financial literacy is an important topic, but is it important enough to mandate that it be taught as a graduation requirment as SB 262 details? On February 25th we discussed the pros and cons of financial literacy in the classroom. What is your bet on the outcome of SB 262?

You responded...
Punt:  45%
Pass:  22%
Kick:  33%

Our take....There is a concern about micro managing the classroom.  This is viewed as a good idea, but might be a bad law.  We vote kick.

We asked...On February 23rd we wrote about HB 222. Remember the camel's nose and HB 222? Sponsors of the bill want to make using a handheld cell phone a primary offense in Maryland. Do you think the camel is completely in the tent?

You responded...
Punt:  26%
Pass:  55%
Kick:  19%

Our take....It turns out we cheated on this one.  The bill passed the full House and died in a Senate committee.  A definitive kick.

We asked...We discussed HB 1058 and its companion, SB 711 on March 7th. If passed the legislation would shift the insurance responsibility from the rental company to your personal automobile policy in Maryland. Which direction do you think these bills are heading?

You responded...

Punt:  32%
Pass:  16%
Kick:  52%

Our take....The bill was doomed when the owner of a rental car company lectured the Senate committee that was hearing the bill.  Disrespect never plays well.  We vote kick.

We asked...Session Scoop just updated you on March 18th about the unfavorable outcome of the HB 737, legislation that would prohibit smoking in a vehicle with a child under the age of eight. The companion bill however, SB 415 is still under consideration. What will be the outcome of SB 415?

You responded...

Punt:  19%
Pass:  23%
Kick:  58%

Our take:There are still some limits on how far government will go.  This is a kick.

We asked...On March 18th we wrote about HB 873. HB 873 – the Maryland Civil Litigation Funding Act would allow people to receive "funding" in advance of the outcome of their case, in return for paying back the company once the case has been settled or won. What will come of HB 873?

You responded...

Punt:  45%
Pass:  13%
Kick:  32%

Our take:  This bill makes a number of people very uncomfortable.  The industry is trying to offer amendments to save it, but we think it's too hard for people to swallow.  We vote...kick.

Punt, Pass, or Kick?

Over the past 75 or so days, Session Scoop has brought you information on the 90-day Maryland General Assembly Session. Now we're interested to hear from you! Let us know how you think the legislation we've discussed will fare, by taking our Punt, Pass, or Kick Survey.

Punt, Pass, or Kick Survey

Not all legislation is created equal, just like Philadelphia Eagles Coach, Andy Reid

The Odd Couple

In Maryland, certain things just do not go together.  Crabs and milk, Steeler’s fans and Raven’s supporters, dancing and me.*

Exclusive Video of Mark's Dancing Abilities

Definite lines also exist during the legislative session, and on March 16 there was a pairing as odd as Oscar and Felix.  On that day, lobbyists for the plaintiff’s bar and lobbyists for the insurance industry testified together against a bill.  What could bring these two opposites together?  A bill relating to insurance coverage for rental cars, SB 711.

We wrote about the House version of this bill (HB 1058) on March 7.  On March 16 the Senate Finance Committee heard the Senate version of the bill.  Both sides had re-calibrated their presentations and re-loaded their witness panels in light of the House hearing experience.  The result was lots more fun for observers.

Fundamentally, SB 711 takes the responsibility for insuring a rental car in Maryland away from the rental car company and transfers it to your personal insurance policy.  One supporter, testifying in favor of the bill, was the owner of a Maryland rental car company.  He claims his total insurance costs approach $200,000.  This bill, he claimed, will take that expense off his company, and put it on the mostly out-of-state people who rent a car when they visit Maryland.

Naturally enough, this provoked the committee to ask whether rental rates would be lower if his expenses went down.  Eschewing subtlety, the businessman said 1) the committee had no right to ask him that, 2) that he was a Maryland citizen, 3) that the money he saved would mostly be paid by non-Maryland citizens, 4) that should be the end of it.  Before he could get to 5), the rental car company lobbyist cut him off.

After that self-immolating testimony, the Finance Committee was treated to the “Odd Couple” show of insurance industry lobbyists and plaintiff’s lawyer’s lobbyists united at the witness table.  Both oppose the bill as disadvantages to Maryland victims of accidents by rental car drivers, and the industry noted 10% of Maryland rentals are to Marylanders, and the bill will therefore increase insurance rates.

All in all, the hearing was notable not for its substance, but for its oddities.  The plaintiff/industry testimony was one oddity, the raw political nature of the one presentation was the other.  One amused, one antagonized, forming a third Odd Couple.

Maybe the rental car company guy should join me for dancing lessons.

*This article was written by Mark McCurdy, please don't make assumptions about the rest of our dancing skills.

Making HERstory: Women Lawmakers in Maryland

March is Women's History Month.  With that in mind we've decided to take a look women legislators in Maryland - the history, the make up, the causes they champion, and how Maryland stacks up to the rest of the country in representation by women.

According to the website of the Women Legislators of Maryland, Maryland is rich with history of powerful women making a difference in Maryland politics.  In fact, in 1648 Margaret Brent, a representative to Lord Baltimore, was the first women in recorded history to demand the right to vote.   It would be another 273 years before women were granted sufferage and almost immediately after women began represent Marylanders in the Maryland General Assembly.  Mary Eliza Watters Risteau was the first woman to serve in the House of Delegates, as well as the State Senate.  Since then, many women have followed, including the first African-American Delegates in 1958, Verda F. Welcome and Irma George Dixon. 

Today, women make up 31% of the Maryland General Assembly - that's significantly above the nationwide average of only 23% (National Foundation for Women Legislators).  Maryland's female representation is actually among the top ten largest in the country.  Women make up 23% of the Maryland Senate and 33% of the House of Delegates.  Of the 58 women legislators, 78% are Democrats and 22% are Republicans.

So, what makes a woman legislator different from her male counterpart?  Other than the obvious, women legislators tend to introduce and champion legislation that effects women.  In 2010, the Maryland Women's Caucus introduced 14 pieces of legislation that addressed human trafficking, child support, sexual abuse, among others, successfully passing 57% of the bills they supported.



Senator Catherine Pugh

Senator Catherine Pugh is a legislator from Baltimore City.  Senator Pugh is also First Vice President of the Women Legislators of Maryland, a non-profit made of up women legislators dedicated to improving public policy that affects women.  Senator Pugh recently introduced Senate Bill 126, legislation to create a women and children's center in her district.  “It is important as women legislators that we advance the rights of women.  We must also remember our history for all of us are here due in part to women who have come before us.  The greatest honor we can bestow upon them is creating good public policy that helps all Marylanders.” Said Senator Catherine Pugh.

Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Ricco

Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Ricco represents Caroline, Dorchester, Talbot, and Wicomico Counties on Maryland's Eastern Shore.  Delegate Haddaway-Ricco is the Minority Whip and President Elect of the Women Legislators of Maryland.  This session Delegate Haddaway-Ricco introduced House Bill 804  - legislation that would require a special notation be made on the licenses of registered sex-offenders in Maryland.   Said Delegate Haddaway-Ricco, I'm proud to introduce and support legislation that protects women, families, and children and the Women's Caucus provides an excellent forum for those policies.  Women are making incredible strides in Maryland politics thanks in part to strong, hard-working female legislators that have served before us.  As a young, female legislator I feel very privileged to serve the public in this capacity and be part of Maryland history in the making."

Senator Pugh and Delegate Haddaway-Ricco are just two of 58 powerful women representing all corners of the State and developing policy that advances women's rights.  The MAIF Policy and Communications Department is grateful that Maryland is one of the most forward-thinking States in the Union when it comes female represenation in our State government.  If you'd like to learn more about women working in goverment, check out this website from the National Council of State Legislatures.

Up the Camel's Nose

Excuse us.  We mean “camel’s nose” update.



We couldn't find a picture
of a camel on a cell phone.
We think this is the next best thing.

On February 23 we gave you the back story on HB 222 “The Camel’s Nose, Half a Loaf and Such Stuff.”  In it we described how supporters accepted “half a loaf” to get the cell phone while driving ban passed after 11 years of trying.  The key to passage – restricting enforcement to a “secondary violation.”  As the story noted, four months after the law went into effect, supporters launched an effort to remove the ‘secondary’ violation language and make it enforceable as a primary violation.

So far, the strategy is working.  The camel’s nose is in the tent, and the House voted in favor of the second half of a loaf by 92-39 on March 10.  If passed by the Senate, police will be able to pull you over for driving while using your cell phone, even if you are not committing any other offense.

An Update of Sorts - Smoking in a Vehicle with a Child

Back in February, we told you about SB 415, legislation that would prohibit smoking in a vehicle with a passenger under the age of eight.  While SB 415 has been stalled in Judical Proceedings for some time, we can tell you that its crossfile, HB 737 was voted unfavorable by the House Environmental Matters Committee yesterday. 

Will the Senate make Nicorette chewing gum the next best option for parents with their precious cargo?  We'll keep you posted on what happens next.

Contingency lawyers – Contingency "loans?"

Many plaintiffs’ lawyers work for a contingency fee. If you hire one, it means that if you lose your case, you do not pay your lawyer anything. However, if you win your case, the lawyer gets a significant percentage of your recovery.

This type of fee arrangement helps people of limited means obtain representation. Most of us could not afford to pay an attorney an hourly rate to handle our claim. Sure, the lawyer’s cut of the proceeds can be high, but sometimes they work just as hard in a losing effort, and get nothing.

HB 873 – the Maryland Civil Litigation Funding Act – takes this concept a step further. It allows people to receive "funding" in return for paying back the company once the case has been settled or won. Supporters note that, especially when an accident leaves you unable to work, you still need to pay your bills. Why not obtain advanced funding to pay today’s bills in return for a lien against your future settlement?

Believe it or not, there are companies in business that specialize in these unusual transactions. They give you money, and if you win or settle your case they recover that amount, plus a fee from your award. Like with contingency fee lawyers, if you don’t win your case, you owe them nothing on your "loan." I put "" around loan, because technically these transactions are not loans, and are not regulated like other lending activity. They are just "fees." I put "" around fees because they really are interest, despite the technicality.

The "fees" on these transactions are very high. If you accept $10,000 from them and your case settles two years and one day later, you owe them $30,000. Even if your case is resolved favorably in only one month, that $10,000 "loan" you got will cost you $14,500 when your case settles.

Consumer advocates worry about these "fees." They note that while they are not technically "interest," the "fees" are huge. In fact, they are often well over 100%. Desperate people, they testified, make bad choices.

Insurance carriers raise a different fear. If your case is worth $30,000, and you get a funding advance of $10,000, they note that two years later the entire settlement amount would be owed to the funding company. This, they say, will result in plaintiffs refusing to settle their case unless extra money is added. After all, why not gamble on a higher award at trial – since if you win you get extra money, and if you lose, you don’t have to pay back the "loan." This will increase insurance costs, they argue, for all of us.

Both sides might have valid points. Injured people may need money to pay their bills. The cost of these funds, however, rightly makes people gasp. The result of the "loan" may force more trials or higher settlements.

Aren’t you glad you are not an elected official?

　

Voices or Tunnels?

The best show in wintry Annapolis is not usually at the taverns, colleges, or even the Ram’s Head. Instead, many a day it is the voices outside the State House in the area know as "Lawyer’s Mall."

Generally speaking, the Assembly goes into session Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays at 10:00 a.m., Fridays at 11:00 a.m. and Monday nights at 8:00 p.m. Members walk from their offices on Rowe Boulevard, through Lawyer’s Mall and up the State House steps.

Regulars call this walk "the gauntlet." Lobbyists and special interest members string themselves out along the Mall to catch up with a Delegate or Senator on a quick matter, or to say hello, or to seek support on a bill. The conversations are filled with the language of the legislation. Words like "Amendments," "Second Reader," and references to bill numbers, "JPR" and "ECM" tumble out in a torrent. These conversations continue up the steps, into the State House halls, and only end when the members escape into the House or Senate Chambers.

This carnival is often augmented by public supporters and protesters. On Wednesday March 9, the House took up same sex marriage legislation (SB 116). The Senate debated in-state tuition rates for illegal/undocumented (pick your term) aliens (SB 167). The street was a cacophony of sound; ardent pleas mixed with anger, name calling, scorn, or in isolated incidents, support.

These supporters and protesters waited on Lawyer’s Mall to greet/condemn, encourage/ discourage, attack/defend their progressive/conservative, liberal/Neanderthal friends/enemies/ supporters (again pick your favorites) with bullhorns, signs, and shouts as members walk to the State House.

It didn’t end there. On the agenda is a bill raising gas taxes, and protesters against that bill also assembled, augmenting last week’s show when tractor trailer drivers drove their rigs through town in opposition to that bill. If you were a legislator, your ears and your eyes were under assault.

Say what you will about the legislative process, but in Maryland real citizens have real input every morning. Your Delegate or Senator is right there, hearing your voice even if not always embracing the message. It is an extraordinary show.

Why so extraordinary? Because what most visitors don’t know is that there is a tunnel under Lawyer’s Mall connecting Delegates and Senators offices directly to the State House. The members do not have to walk through the Mall’s angry crowd or pleading lobbyists. They can go under it in total peace.

Voices or tunnels? Despite it all, they continue to choose the voices.

What the heck is an Ignition Interlock?

An ignition interlock device is a mechanism that is installed in a vehicle's dashboard. It works like a breathalyzer - you breathe into the device and it measures your Breath Alcohol Content (BAC). If your BAC is over a certain amount, the vehicle will not start. Having the device installed is often a condition of driving again if your license was suspended or revoked as the result of a DUI conviction.  Approximately 8,000 Maryland drivers participate in the Maryland Ignition Interlock Program.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration figures show on average Maryland loses three people weekly in alcohol-related traffic crashes. According the National Conference of State Legislators, about 1.4 million drivers are arrested nationwide for alcohol impairment. Forty-eight states (including Maryland) and the District of Columbia authorize or mandate the use of ignition interlock system to deter alcohol-impaired driving. Is Maryland's current law strong enough? Some say no!

Four ignition interlock bills HB 318, HB 360, HB 1012 and HB 1276 were heard this week in the House Judiciary committee. All bills were heard at the same time, creating confusion for witnesses testifying on behalf of any of the proposals. Each of he bills attempt to readdress, tweak, or expand the current ignition interlock system.  As one witness stated to the committee "pass a meaningful bill, not a feel good bill".  Despite the differences in the legislation all agreed (with the exception of the liquor industry) that reform to the current ignition interlock program is necessary to save lives.

Read more about ignition interlocks from today's Baltimore Sun.

Sign, Sign, Everywhere a Sign...

You're probably all too familiar with advertisement signs that tend to litter Maryland's highways. These signs sometimes read "We Buy Homes" or "Get Out of Debt". What you might not know, is that most of these signs are unauthorized and illegal. Still, they seem to overrun many roads.

Regardless of how you feel about the aesthetic qualities (or lack thereof) with these signs, they cause a significant amount of trouble for State Highway Administration (SHA), the agency tasked with taking care of Maryland's highways. During testimony this week, SHA testified that over $600,000 is spent annually to remove unauthorized signs from State right-of-way. In 2008 alone the agency estimated that it removed 70,000 illegal signs. These signs also impede maitenance progress, like the mowing of roadways. Moreover, SHA believes that unauthorized signs pose a safety hazard, distracting drivers from the task at hand.

But all of this would change with passage of new legislation, Senate Bill 410. Currently, SHA is the only organization authorized to clear signs from State highways. SB 410 delegates power from SHA and shifts it to the county or municipalty where the sign stands. With the passge of the legislation, the local jurisdiction will be able to remove signs from a State highway themselves. Additionally, the bill would assess a $25 fine on any business or person found to be violating the law. The hopeful result of the legisation is a win-win that empowers local jurisdications to keep their highways well-maintained and reduce the litter associated with unauthorized signs.

There was no opposition to the bill. It seems as though all signs point to a postive outcome and cleaner highways for Marylanders.

Update on Texting and Driving...

According to The Baltimore Sun's Maryland Politics Blog, the Maryland Senate has voted favorably on legislation that would ban reading a text while driving.  Similar legislation has moved through the House as well.  Read the full story on Maryland Politics.

It’s Just a Question....

Picture this: a contractor comes out to your house to give you an estimate for a new deck.  The contractor looks at the project, and then asks you for a copy of your tax return so she can work up a price quote.  Concerned?

If you are, then you might share the insurance industry’s view of HB 921.  The legislation, heard last week in the House Judiciary Committee, requires an insurance carrier, upon written notice of a claim, to disclose to the plaintiff the amount of insurance coverage on the claim.  Under current law, that information only is required to be disclosed after a lawsuit is filed.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers believe early disclosure of policy limits will lead to faster claims settlements and fairer negotiations.  They say the current law on disclosure encourages unnecessary lawsuits.  This happens when a high-damaged plaintiff starts settlement negotiations.  Even if you have $50,000 in medical bills, you still might take an insurance company payment of $30,000 if that is all the insurance available.  But if you think the defendant might have a $100,000 policy, you won’t take the $30,000 offer, and you will sue.  In short, they claim uncertainty leads to lawsuits.

Insurance carriers and privacy experts have a different view of the bill.  The carriers say the amount of insurance should not change the value of the injury.  The industry fears people would demand higher settlements if they knew more insurance was available.  Privacy advocates worry that personal financial information involving the amount of insurance you have on your business, car, home, or profession ought to remain personal.  They fear that there is insufficient protection of your personal financial information. First, the insurance company does not have to notify you before it is sent out, and second, the fact that you deny causing the accident does not keep the plaintiff from getting your personal insurance information.

So back to the original question.  Are you comfortable telling that contractor how much your make before she gives you a bid?  If you didn’t have much money, perhaps it could help you.  If you are well off, perhaps it would inflate the cost.

Is it any different with your insurance information?

Car Rentals and Insurance

Should your personal automobile insurance policy be primary when you rent a vehicle in the State of Maryland?  Currently, it isn't.  If you rent a vehicle in Maryland, the car rental company covers you and the vehicle you've rented.  House Bill 1058 and its companion, Senate Bill 711 would shift the insurance responsibility from the rental company to your personal automobile policy.

Proponents of HB 1058 and SB 711  testified that Maryland is one of only six states where the car rental company is responsible for insuring the vehicle.  Being primary puts the rental car company at risk for numerous claims and settlements that may drive these self-insured companies out of business. Opponents of the legislation say the shift is too radical, and could create confusion as insurance usually follows the vehicle and not the person driving it.  Moreover, they assert, if you bought a policy to cover a 1997 Chevrolet, why should they be forced to cover your 2011 rental convertable? 

Proponents believe, that if passed HB 1058 and SB 711 would save Maryland rental car companies a substanital amount of  money. Opponenets say these costs will be paid by everyone in the form of increased automoble insurance coverage premiums.  The real question is, will the saving results in lower rental car rates for consumers?

Motor Scooters – like a bike, or like a motorcycle?

HB 961 and SB 708 require that certain motor scooters be titled and registered with the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration. The bills also require that motor scooters be insured.

To decide where you stand on this issue, take this short SAT-like test:

Cars are to insurance like motor scooters are to:

1. Motorcycles
2. Bicycles

How you answered the above question has a profound impact on whether you support or oppose HB 961 and SB 708.  Under existing law, a motor scooter is not considered a motor vehicle, it is treated like a bike. This is an important legal point. Because it is not a motor vehicle, a scooter does not have to be insured.  More importantly, your car’s uninsured motorist coverage may not protect you in the event of an accident caused by a motor scooter. Similarly, if you are a qualified* pedestrian struck by a motor scooter, you cannot recieve compensation from the Maryland's Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund, because that fund only compensates qualified victims of uninsured motor vehicles.

Supporters of the legislation believe the number of motor scooters on the road is growing; and that they are capable of causing accidents that should be covered by insurance. Opponents feel that forcing these costs on riders will make consumers less likely to buy motor scooters, and force them to use less safe motorbikes instead.

In contrast to motor scooters, motorcycles must be registered with the MVA, and must carry liability insurance. Bicycles, on the other hand, do not have to be registered or insured. If you answered (b) to the test, then the law does not have to change. If you answered (a), then maybe you want change.

　

Both sides have valid points. But if your barefoot toes are run over by a motor scooter in Ocean City this summer – will you treat it like an injury by a bicycle or a motorcycle?

*Insurance Article Section 20-601 of the Maryland Annaoted Code uses only 211 words to define "qualified person."  Basically, it requires you to not own a car or have any other insurance you could use to cover the injury. 

There, that took only 16 words.

The Need for Speed - House Bill 904

We've all done it - approached a work zone in our vehicle, scanned the area for workers, and wondered if the posted speed limits really applied if no workers are present.  New legislation introduced by Baltimore County Delegate Jill Carter would leave no room for ambiguity in this question.  House Bill 904 proposes an exception to the current law that would prohibit the use speed cameras when no work is taking place within the work zone. 



Legendary "speeder" Tom Cruise

Speed cameras have become increasingly prevalent in work zones allowing "eyes" to be on drivers at all hours of the day, regardless of the time the work is taking place.  Many citizens have questioned the reasonableness of a speeding ticket issued in a work zone at midnight or in the wee hours of the morning.  Those citizens have voiced their displeasure to their local legislators, no doubt resulting in the creation of this legislation.  Proponents warned that if the law remains, public anger will only continue and intensify.

Original "speeder" Speed Racer

Despite what might seem as an unfair tactic by "Big Brother" to enhance State revenue, opponents argue that speeding in work zones at any time of the day poses a very real hazard.  In fact, statics provided showed that in 80% of work zone accidents, it is the driver of the vehicle that is injured, not the worker.  The men and women in the work zones aren't the only potential hazards to drivers - narrow lanes, uneven pavement, cones, barrels all require that drivers pay extra attention while driving through a highway work zone.  Opponents fear a change to the law would only add a distraction as drivers would begin to scan the work zone to see if it was operational before deciding to hit the gas pedal.

This is the second time around for this particular bill, but something tells us there isn't one cure-all answer for the issue.  As work zones continue to pop up around all major highways (there are 300 active work zones in  Maryland at any one time), citizens continue to speed, and constituents continue to complain, it doesn't seem as though a policy that plays fair without compromising safety is on the horizon.

Quick Hits

Baseball is starting so here are some quick hits.

SB 586/ HB 388/ SB 140 – These three bills allow plaintiffs to serve the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration as agent for the car driver, when the insured was not found by earlier efforts.

SB599/ HB921 – Requires insurance companies to disclose an insured’s policy limits before the start of litigation.

SB142 – Requires insurance companies to disclose any address information it has on its insureds.

If you want your voice heard on these insurance issues, send a note to your representative.

Mandatory Financial Literacy for Maryland Students?

Reading, writing, arithmetic are the basic skills that all students should master by the completion of the 12th grade.  New legislation would aim to add financial skills to that list.  Senate bill 262 would require that every Maryland public high school student take one semester of a stand-alone financial literacy course as a part of their graduation requirements.  The course would include financial management topics such as loans, credit cards, insurance, stock market, and other financial issues.

Currently only four states – Utah, Missouri, Virginia, and Tennessee – have a required stand-alone financial literacy course prior to graduation. In Maryland, Carroll, Talbot, and Allegheny counties currently require high school students to complete a semester-long course in financial literacy. Seven additional counties offer semester- or year-long elective courses with financial literacy embedded into the curriculum.  SB 262 would mandate financial literacy to be taught statewide.

Proponents agree that based on the historic recession and mortgage meltdown, financial literacy is needed now more than ever for Maryland students.  They argue that teaching these practical real-world skills will instill responsible financial choices in college and early adulthood, that will help an individual to maintain good credit, purchase a house or car, and understand how to save.

And although opponents see the value in financial literacy, many wonder if this will burden already over-worked teachers with another performance based graduation requirement.  Another worry is that a mandatory course in senior year could put undue pressure on students already taking advance placement courses and preparing for graduation.

Even though there are differing opinions on how to best bring financial literacy to Maryland students, both sides agree it is a worthy subject.  It seems that finding the best way to make it happen will be the hardest part.

Listen to Legislation Live!

Can't make it to Annapolis, but still want to be in the loop?  Just a reminder that you can listen live to Senate and House hearings every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday starting at 1 pm.  If you aren't available, all hearings are recorded and available 24/7 on the Maryland General Assembly website.

SOMETIMES THE REAL WORLD INTRUDES

Annapolis during the legislative session is a very insular society. Bill after bill is heard before small committees with the same professional lobbyist class in attendance. These lobbyists and legislators work together on some bills, and against each other on other bills. The issues change, but to an astounding degree the players remain the same.

Each player needs to compartmentalize every subject, and nothing can be taken personally, because today’s opponent is tomorrow’s ally. "Go along to get along," relish your victories, move past the defeats, do your job. It’s not personal.

Except when it is.

SB317/HB647 was up for a hearing in the Senate Finance Committee. It was one of nine bills to be heard that afternoon. The usual chatter was occurring as lobbyists whispered, spectators read or answered e-mails on PDA’s, legislators move in and out of the room, and a woman – not of the insular Annapolis world – moved towards the witness table.

Five sentences into her testimony, the PDA’s were no longer in use. The chatter in the room stopped. Legislators were no longer looking at their laptops. All was quiet as the woman, calmly and strongly recounted her story. Here is a part of it:

Her neighbor came to her door one morning. He rang the bell, she answered, and let him inside. He showed her her morning paper that he had kindly picked up on his way up her walk. She thanked him, and turned briefly away. As she turned, he removed a hammer and butcher knife he had hidden in the newspaper. He knocked her to the floor with a blow to the back of her head. She struggled to escape, and was hit again and again. Beaten, she fell to the floor in a pool of her own blood. There, in her own home, he held the knife to her throat, sexually assaulted her, and told her he was going to kill her and then himself.

Thankfully, the brave victim talked the assilant down from his rage and he fled without carrying out his threat. The police came, the assailant was caught, and the woman ultimately had her home cleansed of the physical after effects of the attack. That service cost almost $10,000. Her insurance company paid for the clean-up, and then surcharged her policy for making a claim.

SB317/HB647 stops this practice. It makes it illegal for a homeowner’s insurance company to use information that an individual was the victim of a violent crime in deciding to cancel or surcharge a policy.

This bill will pass. For a few minutes that day Annapolis stopped, the real world came in, and it got personal.

　

Update: Senate Finance Hears SB 394 - MAIF Installment

Yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee heard Senate Bill 394, legislation that would give MAIF policyholders the choice to pay their premiums in installments, instead of upfront and in-full as the current law requires. 

Instead of rehashing the details of the hearing, we thought we'd let you read what other media is saying about SB 394 .  We'll update this list as more stories come out.

Baltimore Sun Editorial

“The Camel’s Nose”, “Half a Loaf", and such stuff...

In the world of politics, phrases like “getting the camel’s nose under the tent” and “half a loaf is better than none” resonate with a fervor akin to religion. Last week’s bill on hands-free cell phone use, House Bill 222, is a good example of why these tired phrases are revived in Annapolis every legislative session.

Efforts to ban the use of handheld cell phones while driving were started by Delegate John Arnick in 1999 House Bill 37.  Those efforts were unsuccessful until 2010’s Senate Bill 321 “The Delegate John Arnick Electronic Communication Safety Act of 2010.”  In the 11 years between the introduction and passage of the bill, Delegate Arnick left office, took another position, and, in 2006, passed away.

The 2010 success was by the thinnest of margins.  Final Senate approval was by a vote of 24-23.

To get it passed, supporters accepted “half a loaf” by making the use of a hand-held cell phone a “secondary violation.”  This meant the police could not enforce the law unless first they caught you committing another violation, like speeding.  However, now, the “camel’s nose was in the tent.” 

Fast forward only four months from the time the ban took effect.  2011’s HB 222 proposes to remove the “secondary violation” language that was a key to the bill’s 2010 passage.  Strong arguments support this change.  For example, while eight states and the District of Columbia prohibit the use of hand-held cell phones by all drivers while operating a motor vehicle, only Maryland makes it a secondary violation.  A September 2010 study by the University of North Texas Health Science Center estimated that talking on or texting from cell phones while driving killed 16,000 people from 2001 to 2007.

While good reasons may support the change, it is only possible in 2011 because the acceptance of “half a loaf” in 2010 allowed “the camel’s nose in the tent.”  Eleven years to pass half a bill, but only four months to get the rest?  That’s why those sayings are revived each year.