Editor:
Do they help or hurt Kent County?
The shuttering of Upper Shore suggests—perhaps strongly—that Kent Countians are not well served by the four Republicans who represent us in Annapolis.
For example, I heard directly from a county official that the Kent delegation voted against two separate early versions of the state budget that included funding for Upper Shore. At the time, I took his statement to be true; after all, he made it in a public meeting of about 20 people. But, is it? If it is, then our reps have a lot of explaining to do!
Over the next few months, seems to me that local citizens should investigate if any votes and statements by our GOP senator (Pipkin) and our GOP delegates (Walkup, Smigiel, and Sossi) have helped or hurt Kent County.
Are Pipkin, Walkup, Smigiel, and Sossi too conservative to operate effectively in a state that’s mostly Democrats, with a governor who’s liberal, and with a legislature that’s dominated by the heavily populated “metropolitan” counties and Baltimore City?
I suggest a “Citizens Research Committee to Investigate How Kent County Reps Vote” and agree to participate. By “votes and statements,” I mean in committee meetings as well as on the floor. Any takers? With an election next year, should be fun! And a public service!
Gren Whitman
Warrior Bob Kramer says
Rocky, I’m not sure that this whole US situation can be explained by simple Newtonian politics. What appears to be up is down and what appears to be red is blue. And there is no purple in sight.
I’ve lived with the theory that our accordian toters were no matters in the scope of Maryland politics dominated by the spirit of democrats (although the right says socialism). And though the decision (to close US) was not once again resonant with their tune, the decision was from a rep of the democrat dominated legislature and a democrat Governor… based on a democrat appointed Secretary.
Yet the bottom line continues to be… we get a ton of respect and lots of pats on the head for being cute, but we continually get bread crumbs from the state.
Maybe it’s our own fault. Maybe we are too reliant on this methodology of the republic style of governance. Maybe we do need to take matters into our own hands and start baking our own cakes. I think that’s where we should be spending our energy rather than getting into pillow fights with pols who really don’t matter (unfortunately).
I’m a taker from that stand point.
Keith Thompson says
To add to Warrior Bob’s point from someone who is somewhat of an outsider in that I work in Chestertown, but live in Delaware…
I think the greater issue here is a possible lack of forsight in seeing to it that local and regional services are provided and paid for by local and regional agencies rather than by the state. I commend the efforts by local representatives such as Pipkin, Walkup, Smigiel, and Sossi as well as others like Jay Jacobs to keep the center open, but their work was largely done in crisis mode after is was apparent the state had already made the decision to close it.
Recently on the air at WCTR, I asked Kent County Administrator Sue Hayman if there was the possibility that the Mental Health Center could be transferred over a regional authority that would be funded by the counties and towns it serves and her answer was (if I remember correctly) that she didn’t think so because of state law that prevents state funded agencies to be transferred to local control. Hindsight is 20/20, but it seems that there should have been the forsight to see the potential danger in having the state running such a vital local facility and efforts should have been made to have a plan in place to gain local control of the facility in case the state decided to close it and to work to change any law necessary to allow that transfer of control.
In may be the libertarian in me, but I think this issue illustrates one of the dangers of a large centralized government in that if a community is relying on the state to run a vital local program it also runs the risk of losing that vital local program if it no longer benefits the state to run it. Its also the libertarian in me that believes that a program that is vital to the Upper Eastern Shore should be funded by those who live on the Upper Eastern Shore and not by those that live in Annapolis or Baltimore, just as I believe that people who live on the Upper Eastern Shore shouldn’t have to fund a program that benefits those in Annapolis or in Baltimore. I think perhaps instead of the more conservative Eastern Shore trying to work with the more liberal state government to get its fair share of the crumbs, the Eastern Shore senators and delegates should be working to change the laws and regulations to allow for more local autonomy. If that fails, as radical as it sounds, perhaps secession would be the next step.
Warrior Bob Kramer says
<<<>>>
How sweet the words, Keith. While from a practical standpoint (lacking of critical mass) it’s not going to happen, it is a philosophical answer to our problems. And there is nothing wrong with a heavy dose of Libertarianism either.
If we can’t imagine our future, then who can.
Jimbo says
If “operating effectively” in Annapolis means our representatives should roll over like beta dogs for Mike Miller and Martin O’Malley, I vote for secession. The truth is that the Eastern Shore has been denigrated and spurned by Annapolis Lawmakers and Maryland power brokers of all political stripes for 400 years. (Remember Willie Don’s famous outhouse quote?) So why should we suck up to them now?
tracy mitchell griggs says
The county and other eastern shore counties can ill afford to lose any more jobs….there are few economic opportunities as it stands.