By Jan Greenhawk

March 5, 2024

So much has happened in the last eight years. We have had two presidential elections, a pandemic, a gubernatorial election, and the Baltimore Orioles have become contenders.

Another thing happened in those years. The 2016 Oxford Stormwater Management and Shoreline Protection Master Plan was created. But somehow it was not available to the public on the Oxford Town website until recently.

Last week, it miraculously appeared on the Oxford Town website after resident Scott Rensberger’s countless attempts to get a hard copy. He confronted the Town Commissioners and Manager about his frustration at a town meeting on Tuesday, February 27, 2024.

Here is the link to the plan:

Feasibility Study Outline (oxfordmd.net) (a downloaded copy is at the end of this article)

The study is 71 pages long and contains descriptions of different problem areas throughout the town and proposed solutions, a timeline, and a cost breakdown for each project. The copy published on the website was labeled, “draft,” meaning there might be a final copy somewhere. It’s also possible that the Commissioners never signed on to the plan thus keeping it in limbo.

After a cursory review of the document, there doesn’t appear to be anything so complicated that it could not have been put on the Town website immediately when it was completed in 2016 and then left there alongside other plans from the past decade:

The list above shows all the plans including the recently added 2016 study.

At the very least, it should have been readily available to anyone who asked. Perhaps, as has been the answer about unavailable town policy documents in the last year, this was an “oversight. Maybe it was not posted because it was merely a draft. However, if that was the reason, why didn’t the Commissioners and Town Manager just say that when citizens asked for a copy or asked why there was no copy posted?

Usually, when government doesn’t make certain information public, it is because they don’t want people to know about it. Maybe it exposes a mistake or something town management or government is hiding.

In the 2016 Oxford Stormwater Management and Shoreline Protection Master Plan, the following areas of Oxford are the first four in the proposed mitigation plan/ schedule. For each area, the developers of the plan, George, Miles and Buhr LLC, Architects and Engineers, listed when each problem area should be addressed: Causeway Park, (Years 1-4) Historic Banks Street, Historic Tilghman Street, Historic Mill Street (Years 4-6) and Jack’s Point. (Years 6-8). These priorities are listed in the chart on pages 65-66 in Table 13-1. Remember, the plan was developed in 2016.

Other areas, Morris/Caroline Street, the Historic District, the Strand (parking lot) are listed as “future.” The other two phases of the Strand are listed as “unassigned.”

In a statement during the February 27, 2024 town meeting the Town Manager was talking about how to use $600,000 of ARPA funds that must be used by the town or lost. She mentioned “re-doing” the 2016 Oxford Stormwater Management and Shoreline Protection Master Plan study which identified town flooding needs and what can be done. She then remarked that town needs as stated in the 2013, 2015 (she might have been referring to the 2016 plan since we cannot find a 2015 plan) studies have been “climate influenced” and have changed.

Lewis stated that the areas that were looked at in those earlier studies had flooding problems then but aren’t having the same problems now. This is interesting since it seems that the same sections of town mentioned as priorities in the plan, the Causeway, Tilghman Street, Banks Street, Mill Street, and Jacks Point are the ones listed as critical areas for flooding then and are still flooding in 2024. Eight years ago, it appears that the creators of the study recommended that these areas be addressed first.

One area that is NOT mentioned as an immediate need in the 2016 Oxford Stormwater Management and Shoreline Protection Master Plan is specifically the focus on the preservation of the Strand Beach, a controversial project being completed now. Protection of the Strand Beach is a recommendation as a side note for preventing flooding at the Strand parking lot, but it is not the priority. Even the Strand Parking lot is listed below other area needs. Somehow this high visibility grant-funded project of restoring the Strand Beach did a leapfrog over more critical areas of town. Does the Strand project get the town and its administration publicity about preventing erosion with “living shorelines” and green solutions? Does it curry favor with the Md. Department of Natural Resources and the National Wildlife Foundation while leaving a huge portion of the town underwater? Was this project the only one the town could get grants for?

These are questions only the town can answer. However, when people ask, the town doesn’t want to answer and chastises those who ask or town staff launches into a long, rambling, defensive explanation meant to obfuscate and delay.

Perhaps the town didn’t want anyone to realize that the main focus of the Strand Project had nothing to do with real flooding problems in the town and actually was in opposition to the 2016 Oxford Stormwater Management and Shoreline Protection Master Plan. Maybe that is why the 2016 Oxford Stormwater Management and Shoreline Protection Master Plan was hidden away for so long. The old saying is “out of sight, out of mind.” Again, it’s a simple question with a simple, direct answer.

Refusing to give answers is inexcusable, particularly when you have people in Oxford who are suffering with their homes being damaged and destroyed by flood waters every year. People have a right to know what these studies have revealed and WHY the town went in another direction. The assumption is that these people will be angry about the answers, and they probably will be. But isn’t it better to take that chance and tell the truth?

In isolation, the actions of the town regarding the 2016 Oxford Stormwater Management and Shoreline Protection Master Plan may not seem like a very big deal. However, this is a lack of transparency the town has practiced continuously over the last year. It is a troubling pattern of non-transparency every citizen should be concerned about, whether they support the town management and officials or not. Maybe people don’t care or want people to stop asking because it doesn’t affect their lives.

They should remember, if they can shut people out on this issue, they can do the same on an issue that might affect the lives of others, including them.

Additional Notes: This is not the first time that town documents have disappeared and reappeared in Oxford.

Oxford Residents Demand Input And Expertise In Managing Town Finances – Easton Gazette (Claims of missing financial policies document)

Missing Document Suddenly Found In Oxford : Updated 9/29/23 – Easton Gazette

This is also not the first time that the town has ignored the advice of experts:

Town Of Oxford Ignores Seven Years Of Financial Auditor’s Concerns – Easton Gazette

Master-Plan-Rev1Download

If anyone who is in the Oxford Town Office or on the Commissioners wishes to explain to us what happened with this plan, you know where to reach us.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

OXFORD MARYLAND     STORMWATER PLAN

Author

Jan Greenhawk

Jan Greenhawk is a former teacher and school administrator for over thirty years. She has two grown children and lives with her husband in Maryland. She also spent over twenty-five years coaching/judging gymnastics and coaching women’s softball.

 Subscribe 

 Login

500

0 COMMENTS

By Jan Greenhawk

February 29, 2024

This article was originally published on at eastongazette.com

“THIS IS THE MOST UNTRANSPARENT TOWN I’VE EVER SEEN.” – Oxford Resident Scott Rensberger

Oxford Commissioners Delean Botkin and Costigan Prior to February 27th Meeting

It’s been a little over a year since citizens crowded the Oxford Community Center and demanded more transparency and accountability from the Town Commissioners and Town Office regarding the sudden retirement of the Police Chief as well as other issues. It’s clear that the town has not done enough to address those demands.

When everyone walked into the Oxford Town Meeting on Tuesday, February 27, 2024, they probably didn’t expect what happened that night. But what happened will remain in citizens’ memories for a very long time. It could impact how the town operates in the future.

The meeting started with the usual business and progressed to department reports from Maintenance Supervisor Matt Ozman and Interim Police Chief Phillips. There was new business about an ordinance that would affect building codes and CRS ratings. There was information about grants available, the town budget, an RFP for software, new personnel hiring, and announcements about upcoming events.

After the business of the meeting was almost over, Commissioner Katrina Greer stated that the town needed to investigate the best way to manage Town Manager Cheryl Lewis’s departure on July 1 and the best way search for a new town manager.

Greer offered options, stating that the town needed to be careful in replacing Lewis who has been in place for twelve years. She offered the possibility of using the Maryland Municipal League as a resource, getting community involvement, and even conducting a nationwide search since the town manages some thirty million dollars of grants. As Greer said, this could be the most important decision the Commissioners can make and one that could impact the town for years.

Appointed Commissioner Susan Delean Botkin said that conducting a nationwide search would cost the town $50,000. A citizen in the audience yelled out, “that’s horses***.”A short argument ensued until Tom Costigan halted the interchange, asked people to be respectful, and agreed to the idea of having a community workshop for citizens and commissioners to determine the needs and considerations when making this hire.

That’s when a resident of the town, Scott Rensberger, asked to speak publicly. Rensberger is an internationally renowned investigative reporter and photographer and created this video about flooding in Oxford:

Scott strode to the front of the room with a clear purpose and stated his name and address.

” I wasn’t going to say anything today but I got all riled up. I love this town,” he started. He then reminded President of the Commissioners Tom Costigan that Costigan had yelled at him at the last meeting when he asked a question. He asked that Costigan be more respectful this time. He also thanked the Commissioners for their time, acknowledging the difficulty of their jobs.

Rensberger has a lengthy resume as an award-winning investigative reporter and photojournalist. You can see his work and accolades here:

Scott Rensberger

This is the streaming video of the meeting.

Stream Video – Town Hall Streams (Scott can be found at 1:07:08 on the video)

“I’m trying to figure out this town,” he said. ” I’ve been writing the Commissioners and the Town Manager with fairly simple questions. They don’t respond to me. I don’t know how to get answers and I wish someone would tell me how.” He described his experiences visiting and living all over the world and the United States. “This town is the most non-transparent town I’ve ever seen. I can’t figure it out. It’s 600 people, it’s so easy.”

“When I Google St. Michaels, Dewey Beach, Rock Hall, all these places, their websites are so open.” Rensberger stated. Then he went on to suggest that people Google Rock Hall to see what he is talking about. He explained that the Rock Hall website posts a great deal of information including town expenditures as small as the money spent on gas by the town’s police cruiser.

“I turn on this one (Oxford’s website) and I’m going to sit there all night long trying to figure out anything,” he marveled. “It shouldn’t be this hard.”

Rensburger stated that he asked for the name of the engineer who’s coming to his property to study what is going on with the flooding on his property and he wasn’t given that name. He also said he asked for the 2016 study on the town flooding but he can’t get it. (Writer’s note; we could never find or get it either.) He described a drainage pipe under his property that hasn’t been cleaned for forty years.

In a 2013 report on flooding in Oxford, Rensburger said that a study in the report pointed out that his neighborhood was a “poor Black community”, and that the town was basically “allowing water to run down there.”

He paused briefly.

Reading notes from his phone, Rensburger asked the audience if they had ever heard of Silver Spring, Maryland, a community 130 times larger than Oxford. He pointed out that their Town Manager is paid $50,000 less than Oxford Town Manager Lewis. The same applies to Old Town Alexandria which is 300 times larger. “Our Town Manager is by far the highest paid Town Manager in Maryland,” he explained.

At this point, appointed Commissioner Susan Delean Botkin loudly interrupted Rensburger. ” Sir, you are out of line. I have responded to you and I have the emails. I see your stuff and it says you live here and you’re raising your daughter here. You’re not. You’re a part timer.” Botkin accused Rensburger of being a liar.*

Rensburger answered that he is not lying and had asked for the 2016 Study and hadn’t gotten it. Botkin held it up, waved it, and said, “It’s available and it’s your problem if you don’t have it.”

As the two continued back and forth, Commissioner Costigan broke in, silenced Botkin, and told Rensburger to continue. He did, detailing that the current Maintenance Supervisor, who Rensburger said is a good person, is the nephew of Cheryl Lewis’s long time “partner.” He mentioned that two maintenance employees are currently tenants on Lewis’s significant other’s property. He discussed the fact that Lewis’s daughter, the former town planner made $86,000 a year. In comparison, the newest hire for that position, a woman with years of experience, was hired as a planner for $50,000 to $70,000 a year.

Rensburger also pointed out that in the past few years the town had two employees, Maintenance Supervisor Scott Delude and Chief of Police Pat Maxwell, who had a combined 48 years of experience, who had vanished as employees with no valid explanation.

As he finished, Rensburger quietly returned to his seat. Commissioner Costigan said he would get Rensburger the name of the engineer.

There were additional public comments. One resident applauded Commissioner Greer’s suggestion that the town conduct an extensive, careful search for a new Town Manager. Another questioned a recent building permit and if it would be affected by new FEMA regulations.

The meeting was then adjourned as the Commissioners again went to a closed meeting for “legal and personnel matters.”

Writer’s Notes: The Friday edition of the STAR DEMOCRAT included a story about this meeting and the town manager search, but, as is typical of the publication, the reporter failed to report on Rensburger’s comments. This is not unusual, because it seems the reporter, Maggie Trovato, is more interested in describing the viewpoints of the town government and not the views or statements of the citizens. One wonders if she has been engaged to be a press release writer for the town. Or maybe the STAR DEMOCRAT is afraid that Rensburger, a renowned investigative reporter, is competition for them.

Oxford Commissioners discuss town manager search – Star Democrat (newsmemory.com

Additional Comment: * This is the second time in two meetings that appointed Commissioner Botkin has aggressively addressed citizens during and after meetings and made demeaning comments implying that those citizens did not have the right to be heard or have the same level of service from the town. The previous incident was when she told me that I had a bad attitude and that is why I don’t get information from the town. Her comment to Mr. Rensburger implied that “part time” residents who are property owners do NOT deserve the same consideration of the town. She also called him a liar. Is this proper behavior for a public official?

Perhaps Botkin should be reminded that there is NOTHING in the Town Charter or laws that allows town employees, administration, or elected officials to deny or discriminate against residents, full or part time, or refuse to give them the same respect and service they give everyone. Perhaps this is the reason Ms. Botkin did NOT get elected to office and had to be appointed.

More Info:

A Reminder about Oxford’s propensity to go to CLOSED MEETINGS:

The Tyranny Of The Closed Public Meeting – Easton Gazette

It seems it is time for government and administration in Oxford that believes in transparency, fairness and accountability. This is something that could be said about MANY levels of government.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

OXFORD MARYLAND     RH     TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT

Author

Jan Greenhawk

Jan Greenhawk is a former teacher and school administrator for over thirty years. She has two grown children and lives with her husband in Maryland. She also spent over twenty-five years coaching/judging gymnastics and coaching women’s softball.

 Subscribe 

You are logged in as Jan Greenhawk | Log out

500

0 COMMENTS

Town Of Oxford Weaponizes PIA Request Fees

By Jan Greenhawk

February 19, 2024

This article can be found on eastongazette.com

Public Information Act requests in the small town can run from $100 to $7000 up front!

It was evident at a recent town meeting in Oxford, Maryland that the town does not like to respond to Public Information Act requests. A resident of the town complained about the recent increase in the number of Public Information Requests filed with the town. From the Star Democrat:

At the beginning of public comment, resident Deborah Pulzone read a letter addressed to the Commissioners of Oxford and the town’s citizens. In her letter, Pulzone said that for 2021 and 2022, there was only one Maryland Public Information Act filed. In contrast, from Jan. 1, 2023 to Jan. 30 of this year, Pulzone said 30 PIAs were filed.

“It is obvious that these PIAs have become weaponized,” she said. “It appears they were made for the sole purpose of keeping our town employees preoccupied with busy paperwork, thereby making it extremely difficult to function in a productive and cost-effective manner.”

Based on her interaction with appointed Commissioner Botkin prior to the meeting, Pulzone’s comments seem to have been sanctioned and/or encouraged by a town commissioner.

She complained that citizens who asked questions about town government practices were disrupting and dividing the town. She talked about causing chaos, harassing town employees, and inspiring lower morale among the staff. She called people who filed PIA’s “disrespectful” toward the citizens of the town and the employees. She complained that there were citizens making allegations of financial wrongdoing and unethical hiring practices without any evidence. She was clearly confused as to why 2023 had so many PIA requests.

She missed the point of the Public Information Act.

She’s right about one thing. PIA’s are being weaponized. The fees to file them are being weaponized by the town government AGAINST citizens. There’s a reason there was an increase of these filings in 2023.

2023 was the year that the illusion of peace, ethics and honesty was peeled away from Oxford’s government. Events during that year included a suspicious sudden retirement of a long time Police Chief, uncovering of flawed hiring practices including nepotism and hires made without posting positions, and an appointment of the loser of a town Commissioner election into office prior to the swearing in of the winner of the same election in order to escape a new requirement to the town charter. There was the discovery of financial auditor concerns that were not addressed over the past seven years as well as salaries of certain town employees that seemed excessive. All these events occurred in 2023, thus the increase.

Apparently, Ms. Pulzone was either unaware of or didn’t choose to acknowledge that fact.

In 2023, citizens discovered there were things going on in town government that they did know about or approve of. When they asked questions, town administrators and commissioners hid behind their lawyer and refused to answer. Out of frustration and a desire for the truth, people filed public information act requests which is their right under Maryland Law.

Here is a link to the State’s PIA Manual:

PIA Manual (marylandattorneygeneral.gov)

The elite circle of power in Oxford didn’t like that at all.

So, they came up with a way to squash that effort immediately. If the town charged high enough fees for certain PIA requests, residents would not be able to afford the cost, word would get around and the PIA requests would cease.

There are several examples.

NOTE: We have receipts for all the following examples of the town demanding unreasonable payment for answers to Public Information Act requests. We have hidden the names of those who sent us the examples to prevent retribution against these citizens from the town.

One resident, when asking about personnel information and about the town’s participation a FEMA program was told by the town’s attorney that it would cost $1,000 for the town to respond. The request about personnel would not have a charge since the first two hours of a PIA request must be free. However, the second request prompted the town lawyer to quote fees covering seven hours of staff time to make copies of a document that can easily be printed off a computer. The attorney also stated that they would have to redact the document before sending it to the requestor. The fee had to be paid up front.

We got an electronic copy of the lawyer’s letter and the document from FEMA that was requested by the resident. In order to see how much time it would take to provide the person with the information, we downloaded it electronically, printed it, and reviewed it for redactions. We’re going to see if we can determine the time it takes to do all that.

First, the document is electronic. According to the lawyer’s email, however, the document was a PDF. It supposedly took the town office extra time to change the document from a PDF file on a computer to a printed page. So, let’s allow that task twenty minutes (which is ridiculous). Then, it took us ten minutes (on a slow home printer) and twenty-six sheets of paper to print (copy) the document. At .25 a copy, that would total $6.50. Total time for the highest paid employee in the town office to download, print and copy that information would be around $87 an hour, so $43.50 for the employee time IF copying was done by the Town Manager.

There were five signatures redacted in the document that the lawyer had to find and redact, so if it took two minutes for the lawyer to find and white out each signature, that’s ten minutes. There were no other redactions. The rest of the time would be the letters written from the lawyer to the filer. I know lawyers are expensive, but even if we allow 1 hour at the average rate per hour of municipal lawyers in Maryland, that tops out of $300 an hour plus the additional ten minutes for redactions. With 30 minutes to find and “copy” the document and an hour and ten minutes for the lawyer to review the document and redact five signatures, the total task time came to one hour and forty minutes, a far cry from the seven hours stated.

At the most, the cost would be approximately $380.00 a far cry from the $1,000 quoted. If the town lawyer had allowed the first two hours free for the request, it would have cost much less. As we go to press, we are not sure what the person was ultimately charged for the information. Even if it was much less, it seems the initial estimate was a way to get them to back off.

By the way, the person just wanted to understand the FEMA document so they could be prepared for an upcoming town meeting where the program would be discussed. I guess the town doesn’t want citizens to be educated on programs that could potentially be discussed in meetings and which could have drastic effects for the residents.

Another citizen asked for six months of financial records including invoices and checks. He/she was told his/her credit card would immediately have a hold on it of $5000 to $7000 as the fee for that request. Again, considering that we are in a small town of 650 people, it strains the imagination that there would be enough time spent on this request to exceed the first two hours for free rule so much that it would cost this much. Was the rest of the fee because of lawyer’s time to write letters and redact signatures? Again, if we allow the lawyer’s fee to write the letter and employee work time to find and copy all of the documents, we are nowhere NEAR $5000, much less $7000. Again, was this just a way to get the request to go away? If so, something is seriously wrong.

There are other residents who have made PIA requests that were only $96 or free. It’s hard to tell why some requests are cheap and some are excessive. It’s always left up to the discretion of the town.

Two excerpts from the state PIA manual clarify how fees may be charged:

Under GP § 4-206, an official custodian may charge reasonable fees for the
search and preparation of records for inspection and copying.

Fees may not be charged, however, for the first two hours
of search and preparation time.

The word “reasonable” is important here. The responses to the above requests are certainly not reasonable.

Are all Public Information Act requests in Oxford threatened with the same excessive fees? Or is that treatment only for those who the town deems as “having a bad attitude” or ” disruptive?” At a recent meeting, a town commissioner told me that “maybe the reason you aren’t getting answers is your attitude.” I didn’t realize that “attitude” was a prerequisite for a citizen to get public information from a public employee or entity. And, by the way, my attitude is just fine.

Either way, the purpose of the citizen tirade at the meeting seemed to be an attempt to shame and intimidate those who merely sought the truth from their town government and were not given answers via normal channels. What’s next, the doxxing of those residents?

Seems like the town is weaponizing the right of a citizen to file PIA’s, not the residents. The town has a distinct advantage because they can claim they need to charge fees any way they want.

There is a way that a citizen CAN complain if the fees are excessive or the requests take too long:

To file a complaint, you must first have attempted to resolve your dispute through the Public Access Ombudsman. If, after attempting to resolve your dispute through the Ombudsman, you have received a final determination stating that the dispute is unresolved or only partially resolved, you may file a complaint with the Board. You must file your complaint within 30 days after receiving the Ombudsman’s final determination. In addition, your complaint must be signed.

PIA Reference (marylandattorneygeneral.gov)

The problem is that the Ombudsman process is lengthy and cumbersome. By the time a citizen files a complaint and gets an answer, the need or importance of the request could be nullified.

The town and certain citizens seem to have forgotten the point of the PIA system. It was created to give all citizens, rich, poor, favored by the government or not, the same access to information that is not readily available publicly. It allows taxpayers to have working knowledge of the decisions made and actions taken by the people who are elected by them and those who work for the public. It gives the average person a look inside the processes of government even when the government doesn’t want them to. Sometimes, the PIA system can assure that governments and public employees follow the ethics, policies, laws and procedures they should follow when conducting town business.

It’s about transparency and accountability.

In her letter, Pulzone mentioned that these requests were costing the citizens of Oxford money and were chasing employees away.* It’s not necessarily true, but even if it was, there is an easy solution to that.

All the town has to do is answer the questions of the citizens and taxpayers of the town truthfully and completely when they are asked. Follow the rules, policies, and procedures set forth by the town in its charter and code. Treat the taxpayer as if you work for and represent them, because you do, whether you like them or not. Promote trust instead of destroying it.

If the town government/office does that, it’s easy. Problem solved.

*SPECIAL NOTES: Based on personal conversations, I can say that the argument that morale of the employees of the town is being destroyed by these requests is a red herring. In fact, employees of the town confidentially tell us that there are other factors causing low morale and turnover and that they don’t mind the questions. The questions aren’t about them and how they do their jobs. The questions are about the administration and governance of the town. Much of the cause for low morale stems from the top of the pyramid in town government.

SURROUNDING COUNTY/TOWN OFFICES: We canvassed other town and county offices across the area to see if these fees were unreasonable. To say that most of the people we talked to were shocked about the high fees Oxford asked for is an understatement. As one official replied, “Those fees are ridiculous.” Another said, “No office likes PIA requests, but we are legally bound to respond to them. It is the right of the citizens. Those fees are crazy.”

As usual, it seems that Oxford is operating on a completely different set of rules.

For more background on this story click this link:

Emotions Run High At Oxford Meeting; Town Manager Announces Her Retirement – Easton Gazette

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

OXFORD MARYLAND     PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT     RH

Author

Jan Greenhawk

Jan Greenhawk is a former teacher and school administrator for over thirty years. She has two grown children and lives with her husband in Maryland. She also spent over twenty-five years coaching/judging gymnastics and coaching women’s softball.

 Subscribe 

You are logged in as Jan Greenhawk | Log out

500

0 COMMENTS

Emotions Run High At Oxford Meeting; Town Manager Announces Her Retirement

By Jan Greenhawk

February 14, 2024

It started off as a relatively quiet meeting in Oxford, but it didn’t stay quiet for long.

The past year has been a contentious one for the citizens of the town as questions surrounded the sudden retirement of the longtime Chief of Police, hiring practices, financial procedures, and the drastic changing of the town’s Strand Shoreline.

The meeting started with reports from town departments. Maintenance Supervisor Matt Ozman detailed projects and repairs in the town.

Giving his police report, Interim Chief Chris Phillips listed all the calls and incidents in the town in the past two weeks. He reminded citizens of crosswalk laws for pedestrians, cars, and bicycles. Violation of those laws could cost someone $50 to $80. Phillips stated that his main concern was the safety of the people in town. He also invited everyone to “Coffee with a Cop” at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, Feb. 15 at the Oxford Community Center.

After the department head reports and the Commissioner’s vote to approve town ordinance 2401 regarding the regulation of cannabis businesses in town, Cheryl Lewis, town manager provided a thirty-minute review of the FEMA flood plain ordnance. The town, in order to keep a designation that will lower flood insurance rates for residents, must remove exemptions for building and renovation standards that are counter to FEMA requirements.

The FEMA regulations require that homeowners must follow the FEMA guidelines for homes in the critical flood plain to meet the standards for new construction as well as remodeling of homes with improvements that comprise over 50% of a home’s value even if those improvements are due to damage to the home. FEMA now requires that home foundations must be built to withstand flood waters up to 8 feet deep. This includes electrical infrastructure, duct work, etc.

The Commissioners will post the information for public comment and will vote on the ordinance at a later date.

Lewis went over a variety of grants that the town could apply for and recounted current openings for employment in the town. The Planning position that was open when the previous town planner left has been filled but not announced. Interviews with applicants for a Clerk/Treasurer will be completed this week. The Police Chief’s position will be posted. Many in town hope that interim Police Chief Chris Phillips will apply and get the job. The former Chief who suddenly stepped down from the position and is now a Lieutenant in the department, Eric Kellner, has been tabbed to do the interviews. This is seen by many as a conflict.

After explaining that the town will have three people and one current employee running the town, Lewis announced that she will be retiring June 30th. Several in attendance applauded.

Then the fireworks started. One resident, reading a three-page type written letter, stated that she lived in the town and had never seen the division, discord, and allegations against town staff as there had been in the past year. Since January 1 of 2023, the writer claimed that thirty public information act requests had been submitted to the town alleging fiduciary misappropriation and other ethical issues. She said the PIA’s caused a lowering in the morale of town employees and the requests were being used as a “weapon” against town staff. She also complained that answering the PIA’s was costing the town and its citizens quite a bit of money. She detailed the costs by hour. She then called those who filed the requests disgruntled malcontents and people with ill intent against the town staff. She said they were “disrespectful.”

This caused an immediate response from another citizen who stated that the citizens of the town had been denied answers to many questions in the past year. They want transparency and accountability from their Commissioners and Town Staff and the town had not been forthcoming on some issues. She said that these citizens had nothing against any of the town employees and did not make allegations but asked questions which is their right.* She stated that citizens wanted the Commissioners to run the town, not one employee and a small circle of influential residents. She also stated that public information requests are the right of the citizens/taxpayers when they ask questions and don’t get answers. Here is an explanation:

The Public Information Act (PIA) is a legal framework that allows citizens to inspect or copy government records. Here are the key points about the PIA:

1. Purpose: The PIA provides a mechanism for citizens to access information maintained by governmental bodies. It ensures transparency and accountability by allowing people to obtain a more complete understanding of how their government works¹².
2. Access to Records: Under the PIA, citizens have the right to request access to government records. Governmental bodies are generally required to release information in response to such requests.
3. Exceptions: However, there are specific instances where governmental bodies may withhold certain records from the public. These exceptions are outlined in the PIA.
4. Review Process: If a governmental body decides to withhold information, both the request and the information must be reviewed by the Open Records Division (ORD). The ORD determines whether the information can be withheld or must be released.
5. Requestor Rights: As a requestor, you have the right to be treated equally, receive prompt responses, and seek assistance from the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) if the governmental body fails to comply with the PIA.
6. Prompt Release: Governmental bodies must produce public information promptly. If there’s a delay, they must notify you. If information is withheld, the OAG may be involved in the process.

This sparked comments from other citizens who commented on recent flooding and the lack of information and response from the town regarding the situation of portions of the town who repeatedly flood. They noted that the Strand Project has been the focus of attention of the town above areas of the town with severe problems.

One resident, Scott Rensberger, mentioned that he had released this video six days ago to get help from the town for his neighborhood.

How Oxford, Maryland is Destroying a Neighborhood. (youtube.com)

One gentleman said that he had learned quite a bit from the town office about flooding while another resident said she was never told about the flooding on the property that she purchased and she was now suffering the consequences.

At the very least, these comments may indicate that better communication is needed between the Commissioners, the Town Office, and residents.

Questions were raised about if the town profited off of grant funds or if Oxford got kickbacks from contractors. Lewis explained that when town staff was used on a grant, the town would issue an invoice to the grantor who would then cut a check to the town. An obviously frustrated Costigan curtly commented “no” to the question about contractors.

At this point, Lewis, whose salary is approximately $180,000 a year, said that she “gives her time” above and beyond what is required managing grants and town business.

The President of the Commissioners closed public comment and Commissioners went to closed session.

Here is the recorded livestream of the meeting:

Stream Video – Town Hall Streams

SIDE NOTES: Several questions were raised about how a citizen got a list of the names, addresses etc. of people who did public information act requests and how she knew the exact hourly rate for employees and the town lawyer to deal with the requests. Did SHE do a PIA? Or was she given the information from inside sources.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

By Jan Greenhawk

February 9, 2024

Becraft and Carozza speak at the Oxford Community Center

It was a little less than a year ago that an angry crowd filled the Oxford Community Center to confront the Town Commissioners over the sudden, unexpected retirement of the longtime Police Chief Patrick Maxwell. The Commissioners sat stone faced in front of the room with Town Clerk Cheryl Lewis and Lawyer Lindsay Ryan while citizen after citizen asked questions which they would not answer. Many people walked out as soon as the Commissioners admitted they wouldn’t address citizens’ questions.

Last night, a similar, less angry crowd attended an “information” session on the Oxford Strand Restoration Project. The project has caused a great deal of frustration and upset in many of those same town residents. This time, the respondents from the Maryland Department of Natural Resource, National Wildlife Federation, and Underwood and Associates, the firm conducting the project, were willing to answer questions.

The problem is that most of their answers did not match up to what residents had been told by town administration about the “restoration,” its purpose, origin or approval.

The evening started out with the projection of an old Star Democrat article from 1971 regarding the creation of the iconic stone wall along the Strand, an image that has been the face of Oxford for over fifty years. Town Clerk Lewis read the article with the implication that Oxford has been fighting erosion on the Strand for years and this current solution was just one more in a long line of remedies.

She forgot a couple of facts. That project in 1971 was funded by the Federal Government and did little to change the shape of the Strand. It didn’t create static interruptions in the shoreline or “islands” logs and boulders jutting out into the Tred Avon River. And, the seawall seemed to work on most of the Strand except the beach at the very end where erosion did occur during extreme storms and flooding. The retaining wall along the “sweeping shoreline”* remained a beautiful symbol of Oxford.

After introducing the speakers for the evening, Nicole Carlozza (DNR), Chris Becraft (Underwood and Associates) and Amanda Poskaitis (National Wildlife Foundation), Lewis gave the stage over to Carlozza.

In order to understand the comparison between what Carlozza and Becraft ultimately talked about, one has to remember how the project was sold to the town. The town had been told that the restoration was to stop flooding, preserve the beach, and to obtain grant money for both by using the ONLY alternative that the State and or the NWF would accept for grants, living shorelines. Living shorelines are called “green” solutions as opposed to “gray” solutions which are seawalls and bulkheads.

Carlozza explained that the project was part of Maryland’s “Resiliency through Restoration” program which was created to provide support for resilience for “climate change” in communities. Living shorelines were described as “using nature to address these impacts.”

She also stated that there are many factors that impact towns including rising ground water. Natural solutions are ” only one piece of the puzzle” Carlozza said, ” and they won’t stop flooding.”

She said that after Hurricane Sandy, wetlands reduced damages of that storm by about 29%. She didn’t say where these wetlands were, whether they were natural or manmade, and exactly HOW they reduced damages. As residents of Oxford who live near some of the manmade “wetlands” and “marshes” in town, will tell you, they do not prevent flooding.

In 2008, Living Shorelines became the “default solution” in the State of Maryland and there are currently thirty projects throughout the State. In an effort to spread this default more, DNR solicits projects from local governments or non-profits through their website.

According to Carlozza, Oxford came in with the project in 2019. (Minutes from town meetings indicate that Oxford began courting this solution on 1/23/ 2018.)

At any rate, DNR accepts bids for these projects based on criteria which include coastal exposure reduction, ecological enhancement, cost efficiency, wildlife benefits, social benefits, equity, local capacity to implement, DEMONSTRATION VALUE, community wide benefits, readiness and ability to proceed, and landowner participation. Carlozza said that the “town” asked DNR to pursue solutions including “living shorelines” to solve erosion and flooding on the Strand.

She never mentioned community or citizen buy in. as well as project monitoring and maintenance from the town.

It’s not clear who in the town asked for this option, whether it was elected officials or employees, i.e. the Town Clerk’s office, but it is worth mentioning that former Commissioner Pete Dunbar (now deceased) was a big proponent of the “living shorelines” method and that since 2010 a living shoreline had been in place at the Town Park beach and Ferry Dock beach with mixed reviews on the effects, appearance and results.

Carlozza finished by saying that DNR does not design projects but works with partners such as the town and their contractors to complete them therefore absolving them of any responsibility.

Next was Amanda Poskaitis from the National Wildlife Federation who stated in a very brief presentation that the National Fish and Wildlife Federation would fund local projects which were in line with their mission. She noted that Oxford is 4 to 10 feet above sea level. She also stated that they “could have extended the sea wall” on the Strand but as the slide says, “the community collectively decided against” that idea. No one in the crowd remembers a discussion or vote on that idea.

Amanda Poskaitis from the National Wildlife Federation

The final speaker was Chris Becraft who described himself as a “Professional Shoreline Guy” for the firm Underwood and Associates. His firm was “hired by the town” to engineer this solution. Underwood and Associates design projects to withstand “100-year storms.” In Oxford’s case, they felt this meant providing a 6-foot berm and vegetative islands with terminal hooks on the Strand to grab on to any sand and “accrete” that material at a faster rate. This would occur in Phase One of the project. He then described Phase Two which would elevate the nearby parking lot by 2 feet.

Becraft said they had paused work on the project so they could see what work would be needed as the project is still “laying itself down” which means letting storms come and wash over the islands to see what happens. He also said that the Oxford Strand had a “good seawall “and it was still there but it was “greened over” which is “enivorospeak” for hidden under dirt and sand. (This is the seawall that Poskaitis said was rejected by “the community”)

The principles Becraft’s firm ascribe to are to do something, “nature based” to fix the problems on any project, including the Strand. For example, the stones in the rip rap currently making up the existing effective sea wall in Oxford were “not found here” so were not acceptable. The boulders placed out on islands were found in our coastal plain therefore they were deemed nature based and acceptable. Obviously, seawalls and bulkheads are not a “nature based” solution.

After showing pictures of other projects of his firm which were in wildlife preserves and rural areas, the session was opened up to questions from residents.

One resident asked about the islands and the fact that the logs placed on them seemed dangerous as children and others would go out to the islands. Becraft claimed that the logs were “an additional feature” that would help accrete sand and support habitat. As for children playing there, he said that was a “perspective” question as to whether or not the town wanted kids to play on them. The logs were as an additional feature were allegedly “community” supported.

Another audience member asked about the “predictability/unpredictability” of the efficiency of this project to accrete sand. Becraft said that the islands are stable and will provide a “natural solution” to erosion. He glibly stated that it is like the old “roach motel” commercial, saying, “sand comes in and never goes out.” Some residents have pictures depicting that this may not be entirely accurate as they show sand suspended in the water floating away from the Strand.

Becraft said he would like to see these pictures as that never happens.

A citizen of the town thanked the presenters for being in Oxford to do this presentation which is ” four years later than it should have been” alluding to the fact that when the project was designed in the early 2020’s citizen input was limited by the fact that meetings were not held in person but virtually. She went on to ask about maintenance of the project. DNR representative Carlozza answered, “Oxford is committed to maintenance.” In short, the town will pay. She also stated that this funding for similar projects was under a “pilot” program and that money won’t be around forever. **

In a question to Clerk Lewis, a resident asked how much the town gets paid for “finding” these projects. Lewis stated that any work on the grant done by employees of the town gets billed to the grant in an invoice and the grantor reimburses the town.

One resident asked about the fact that the Strand Shoreline was an iconic and beloved landmark of the town for many longtime residents and whether or not the firm had taken this into consideration when they designed the drastic alterations of the shoreline that make it unrecognizable. In his answer, Becraft said they could fix that issue by removing the boulders and the logs and that the islands, which would be planted over in grass, would often be out of sight.

Poskaitis from the National Wildlife Federation dismissively stated to the crowd, “Change is hard.”

Other questions were asked about access points to the water and beach across the berms, how high the dunes would be when planted, whether there would be ADA compliance and if the condos across the road would still flood. The dunes will be approximately 2 feet about the roadway and the grasses that will be planted will be 4 feet tall. He clarified that there will not be grasses on the dunes. Becraft maintained that there would be access through pathways across the berms but that some areas would be “unpleasant” to walk through because the grass growing there will be abrasive. If those grasses encroach on other areas, the town will have to manage that. He stated that the condos across from the shoreline would still experience flooding.

The DNR will not be able to pay to provide ADA compliance. That is a problem the town would have to deal with according to Carlozza.

Becraft said he would be happy to welcome the help of residents who wish to plant the sea grasses.

As the evening closed, many residents walked away with the revelation that the project had not been clearly presented nor clearly shared by the town when it was approved. Conflicting statements about what the project could and could not prevent and what its stated purpose was were traced back to town meetings from 2018 to 2023. Many asked “who approved this” and “why did they keep saying that the community asked for this, we never voted on this.” Some asked for the names of Commissioners who did approve it. An additional question was why the Tred Avon Yacht Club was the only entity who could change the scope of the project by demanding a planned island by their shoreline be removed from the plan.

It was an evening planned to dispel “rumors” and get community buy in for the Oxford Strand Restoration Project. Based on comments as people left the Community Center, the presentation did not meet that goal.

As it happened over a year ago, the session created more questions than it answered.

*this was how Chris Becraft described the Strand as it was before the project

**In A Star Democrat article dated today,2/9/24, Lewis said,” The town is still working to get funding for the project from the State.” This brings into question whether the completion of the project will happen.

Oxford Residents learn more, ask questions about Strand Beach project | Local | stardem.com

Link to presentation:

Town Talk-The Strand and more (youtube.com)

ADDITIONAL NOTES; One of the illuminating comments by the DNR during the presentation was that DNR grants projects in order to DEMONSTRATE VALUE. Is Oxford being used as a test case or justification for this type of project?

Previous articles:

What Have They Done To The Oxford Strand? It’s Awful! – Easton Gazette

Oxford Floods After December Storm – Easton Gazette

Hundreds Of Years Of Nature’s Work Destroyed On Oxford Strand – Easton Gazette

Why Are They Destroying Oxford’s Beautiful, Iconic Shoreline? – Easton Gazette

By Jan Greenhawk

February 5, 2024

This is the question and comment I hear as I grocery shop, go to work out, or just shop on a weekly basis. It’s usually someone who does not live in our town but who lives in our county and visits the town.

As I explain to them the insanity of the Oxford Strand Shoreline Restoration Project, they ask me, “Who approved that?”

Of course, I have to go through the names of the major players in the project and the timeline for its implementation.

Then they say, “They must be crazy to allow that. The Strand was so beautiful and now it looks like a trainwreck.” I share with them that “sea grasses” will be planted later. They look at me and say, “That’s even worse.”

It would be easy to blame everyone who voted for the “restoration.” But then, as you look over the rationale given for it from the Town Office, you see how the wool could have been pulled over peoples’ eyes. Maybe Commissioners should have done more research. Maybe citizens should have been more vigilant. Maybe they should have asked for more clarification. Maybe they should have understood that they were being sold the proverbial “bill of goods.”

Here is a portion of the minutes from 1/23/18:

Administrator Lewis explained she was requesting a letter of interest to apply for design funds for green
infrastructure for the town’s shoreline areas, to include the Strand, the parking lot off the Strand, Lovers
Lane beach, and all of the town’s street ends, which potentially could use some green infrastructure to
improve resiliency and reduce erosion. Most all of the town’s street ends have hardscapes on either side of them so they are susceptible to erosion. A design would look at all the elements. The plan would be
to look at the design in two phases. Phase 1 would be the Strand and Strand parking lot, and Phase II
would be Lovers Lane beach and the street ends. Even though no one knows what the best design would
be right now, what is known is that the Strand is a historic beach and would need to be preserved as a
sandy beach and the parking lot is used as a kayak access, but something is needed to add resiliency to
the beach and protect the street and parking lot infrastructure. Lewis added that the National Wildlife
Federation is looking for a community to collaborate with on a project in applying to the grant program, as the NWF is expanding their work on the preservation of shorelines and the use of green as opposed to gray infrastructure.

The bolded section of these comments show that while Lewis claimed she wanted to preserve sections of the town from erosion, the approach from the National Wildlife Federation was what compelled the town to implement the latest project on the Strand. She even said no one knew what the best approach would be.

Was the NWF having problems selling “green infrastructure” to communities? Did they need community guinea pigs? How did they decide on Oxford? After all, it seems that if green infrastructure was so great, many Eastern Shore towns would have jumped at the opportunity. Did other towns know something about green infrastructure that the administration of Oxford didn’t know (or knew and ignored)? Did the administration of Oxford just want the money regardless of the result of the project?

Or did they want to jump on board with something “new and innovative” rather than something tried and true that would actually preserve the beauty of the historic Strand?

Did they think taking on this project would get them more money later? Or maybe publicity?

A recent article by the Bay Journal shows how the effectiveness of “green infrastructure” to prevent erosion and flooding is not settled science. Like so many other “green” projects (wind turbines, solar panels/cells (Solyndra, Abound, Calisolar, Fiskar etc.) it appears that the Living Shorelines are being oversold as the complete answer for shore protection which they are not.

In Oxford’s case, the project may not only be ineffective, but destructive to what is a historic landmark for the town.

The article by the Bay Journal reminds us of a salesman trying to sell an expensive EV truck instead of a more practical diesel model to a rancher. Every tepid selling point is paired with a counterpoint that destroys it.

Living shorelines gain ground around the Chesapeake Bay but face hurdles | Policy & Politics | bayjournal.com

If one does a deep reading of the article, it actually exposes several misrepresentations made by the those pushing the “living shoreline” project as a viable option for the Oxford Strand.

Misrepresentation #1 – The Oxford Strand Shoreline Restoration Project will prevent flooding on the Strand. Nowhere in the article is a “living shoreline” credited or even mentioned as preventing or abating floods anywhere. The author never talks about flooding at all. In fact, the most heralded benefits to living shorelines are the development of more marshland and diverse populations of fish. Marshes created in town, as we have seen in many parts of Oxford, HOLD water and keep it from flowing out with the tide. In a recent flood, a resident of Oxford noted that the berm created by the living shorelines project kept the flood waters on the road instead of letting them drain.

In other parts of town where marshes have been planted, the same problem exists. The water from flooding stays there for days while other areas drain much quicker. In the summer, these marshes breed mosquitos.

Misrepresentation #2– The Oxford Strand Shoreline Restoration Project and other “soft” infrastructure projects are the ONLY projects the State of Maryland will approve for shoreline protection. Not true. The article says that the Maryland Department of Environment approves permits for bulkhead or revetment structures, particularly where they already exist, such as in Oxford. As previously said, the current project in Oxford was proposed and sold to the town by the National Fish and Wildlife Federation to promote a restoration project that many towns don’t want to attempt. The Department of Natural Resources only jumped on board after Oxford accepted the agreement from the NWF. If those planning the project in town had wanted to preserve the historic shoreline with a bulkhead (gray infrastructure), they probably would have gotten funding. From the article:

MDE automatically grants waivers for any proposed bulkhead or revetment where some kind of hardened shoreline stabilization structure already exists. When those are factored in, the agency approves more permits for bulkheads and revetments than for living shorelines.

Oxford already had hardened shoreline stabilization in place.

Why would the Maryland Department of Environment approve hard infrastructure if they thought living shorelines were much more effective?

Misrepresentation #3–The “Living Shoreline” method is a more effective manner of shoreline preservation. The very title of the Bay Journal article belies this statement. The author says people don’t understand “living shorelines” and how well they work. However, many people who DO understand what living shorelines do tout the practice as being comparable to hardline structures, not better, at preserving land from erosion under certain conditions. They say that the one thing living shorelines might do better is preserve fish and wildlife habitat and create marshy areas. The stated point of the Strand Shoreline Project is not to preserve wildlife habitat or create a marsh. It’s supposed to protect sand on a beach and a nearby roadway from washing away.

In fact, that last time there was “wildlife” on the Strand (a flock of ducks), the town had to remove it because with the wildlife came rats and people complained.

Do the people of Oxford want a marsh on the Strand? Doubtful. From the article:

“There’s a lot of work to do to convince people that living shorelines are providing comparable protection as armoring,” said Donna Bilkovic, a marine ecologist at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science Center for Coastal Resources Management. Even people who install living shorelines often think bulkheads and revetments provide superior protection, she noted.”

One wonders why this is such a hard sell if it works so well? Wouldn’t people be flocking to take advantage of this strategy if it was that good?

Misrepresentation #4- “Many other municipalities are using living shorelines to protect land from eroding.” It seems that it’s just the opposite as most urban and developed areas prefer hardline armoring to protect shorelines. The main customers of living shorelines are private residences and wildlife preserves where creating a marsh is desirable. From the article:

The degree of armoring varies around the Bay. Most exists in heavily developed urban and suburban areas. In Maryland, rates of armoring range from single digits in Somerset, Wicomico and Dorchester counties to roughly 40% in Anne Arundel and Baltimore counties. The vast majority of shoreline in Baltimore city is armored, data show.

Misrepresentation #5- The “Strand Living Shoreline Project” will NOT destroy the profile of the iconic Oxford Strand or beach. This misrepresentation is probably the most obvious to see. One can drive down the Oxford Strand now and see the destruction of the beautiful shoreline by the ugly “islands” and sand berms placed there. Add some sea grasses to that mix and you no longer have the pristine, beautiful shoreline that you had for over 300 years. You have a wetlands marsh and swamp.

Picture of the Strand Prior to the Turn of the Century.

In fact, the quote at the end of the article exposes the real motive of the Oxford Strand Beach Restoration via Living Shorelines:

Every time somebody is allowed to “re-armor,” said Bay Foundation senior scientist Doug Myers, an opportunity to create a marsh is lost. “We really do want to do a living shoreline if somebody is at the [point that] they have to replace a bulkhead.”

Again, they desire marsh creation.

Misrepresentation #6-Living Shorelines are economical answers for erosion of shorelines. The article goes against this as well.

Living shorelines don’t always cost more. But the cost is often high in places exposed to intense wind-driven waves, especially with the labor involved in planting and maintaining vegetation. In some cases, homeowners balk at the projected cost and may try armoring the shoreline without a permit.

What is the Oxford Strand? It is a place exposed to intense wind-driven waves. It will be interesting to see the cost involved in the labor of planting and maintaining vegetation as well as replacing sand.

Even the DNR says:

“Meeting with different property owners, it’s hard to say a living shoreline of some form won’t work in most sites,” said Wes Gould, chief of DNR’s shoreline conservation service. “But … at what point financially is it unfeasible. Who makes that call?”

Wes admits that it is ” hard to say” if a living shoreline “won’t work.” They can’t say it will work and it is hard to justify the expense based on that.

The Bay Journal clearly wrote an article written to convince people that living shorelines are the best way to save our beaches and shorelines from destruction. However, even they can’t deny that there are other options available that will do the job just as well in many situations like Oxford. The Oxford town administration turned a deaf ear to those options. Why? How did they get away with it?

During the Pandemic, town meetings were held virtually with no in person attendance allowed. What better time to present what will be a controversial project; when no one can question and/or respond face to face.

It’s also clear that the people in town who signed off on the Strand Beach Restoration Project wanted to be in on the latest technique in the environmental universe, regardless of the detrimental effects of the project on this historic attraction in the town. As Town Clerk Lewis said when choosing contractors for the project, she wanted an “out of the box” proposal instead of choosing an armoring approach that would save both the appearance and the integrity of the Strand. They were talked into this approach. They either ignored the whole point of creating a “marsh” or were purposely misled.

The citizens aren’t having it.

The town administration knows that the citizens are not on board with this project. Therefore, they are presenting this:

We recommend that citizens attend and bring many questions for these speakers.

A good one might be, ” How will you rectify the damage you have done to the Historic Shoreline on Oxford’s Strand?” or ” How will you restore the Strand to the way it has been for over 300 years?”

Even better, “Why didn’t you explore ways to prevent erosion while maintaining the integrity of the Strand?”

For more details, read these articles about the project. You will see many quotes from those in charge. Their words speak volumes.

Why Are They Destroying Oxford’s Beautiful, Iconic Shoreline? – Easton Gazette

Hundreds Of Years Of Nature’s Work Destroyed On Oxford Strand – Easton Gazette

NOTES: The resistance to these ugly solutions in the name of the environment are happening in other towns and cities as well. For example, in Ocean City, the citizens came out against wind turbines along their shore:

https://swartz.substack.com/p/a-blow-to-offshore-wind?r=5oov5&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=pos

https://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/local/maryland/2023/10/26/anger-flows-at-ocean-city-presentation-on-offshore-wind-proj

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Author

Jan Greenhawk

Jan Greenhawk is a former teacher and school administrator for over thirty years. She has two grown children and lives with her husband in Maryland. She also spent over twenty-five years coaching/judging gymnastics and coaching women’s softball.

 Subscribe 

You are logged in as Jan Greenhawk | Log out

500

2 COMMENTS

Oldest 

Sarah Mayock

Guest

 1 day ago

We town residents should have voted on this since we pay town taxes.

0

 Reply

Jan Greenhawk

Author

 Reply to  Sarah Mayock

 20 hours ago

The project is funded by a grant, HOWEVER, this work will impact all of us who live here in town in many ways. And, there will probably be costs involved in the maintenance of these “islands” which will have to be replanted and recreated. I agree, the whole town should have had a say.

0

 Reply

While test scores plummet and a majority of the students can’t do basic math, the Southern Poverty Law Center has stepped up to provide a curriculum to help students be…activists.

Yes, that is correct. The SPLC, a group that designates anyone who doesn’t go along with their Marxist agenda or donate to their cause, as domestic terrorists, white supremacists, and anything else nasty they can think of, has decided to help teachers develop student activists.

It’s not the only time the SPLC has sent materials to classrooms to subvert the teaching of academics and replace it with leftist propaganda that teachers can use to indoctrinate our children.

From October 2023:

Free Propaganda Lessons Delivered To The Mailbox Of Your Child’s Teacher – Easton Gazette

The above is a magazine filled with articles that demean our country and anyone who disagrees with their Progressive mantras.

This set of lessons comes from what appears to be a front group, called “Youth in Front.” (youthinfront.org) The materials were published in 2021. They couch their lesson under the guise of “civics” lessons. That designation would be fine if the lessons truly addressed the full scope of civics including the Constitution, our rights, history etc. and had the context of living in a great country that allows freedom of speech and real rights. Unfortunately, the lessons in their handouts are mostly about identity politics, victimhood, and hating America.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1RDYaUI2lykxCmPXEOKE5Yw9BimL-jjOI6ZR0OJVHX3c/edit?usp=sharing

Here is text from one of the slides:

The labels say more about who’s labeling, than who is labeled

Toni Morrison, the American writer, winner of a Pulitzer Prize and Nobel Prize for Literature, wrote: “The definitions belong to the definers, not the defined”. Each label we place, with the objective of limiting the others, actually restricts our world. Each label is the expression of our inability to deal with complexity and uncertainty, with the unexpected and the ambivalent.

In other words, facts are not facts if you don’t like them.

And then we have this Kamala Harris type gem:

In fact, we usually resort to labels when reality is so complex that it overwhelms us psychologically, or when we don’t have the cognitive tools to assess in a fair measure what is happening.

From this perspective, each label is like a tunnel that closes our vision to a more vast, wide and complex reality. And if we don’t have a global perspective of what is happening, we cannot respond adaptively. In that moment we stop responding to reality to begin to respond to the biased image of reality that we have built in our mind.

One phrase stands out, “global perspective.” The other is the “biased image of reality that we have built in our mind.” Seems like we are telling kids not to follow what they KNOW because it is “biased.” In other words, “Disregard the facts, listen to us and no one else.”

In one unit, they teach educators how to “support student activism”:

1. Effective adult supporters keep youth in front by listening carefully, asking questions as needed, and sharing their understanding of the school and local community when youth seek guidance. 
2. Teachers’ personal and professional identities influence which roles and actions they take in supporting student activists. 
3. Teachers’ personal and professional identities shape how students and colleagues view them as supporters. 
4. Teachers can build alliances with other personnel to develop strategies for supporting student-activism in their schools.

Apparently, they want to allow the personal beliefs and “identities” of teachers to determine how they steer students’ political activism.

And here is this nugget in the form of a “web” students fill out on themselves:

The name in the middle is a coincidence, right?

There are three units in this “curriculum:”

Each unit contains 10 plus lessons. If each lesson in one class period, this “unit” will take up 20 class periods. In a nine-week semester, that boils down to four weeks. Four weeks of learning activism instead of reading, writing, math, history, science, etc.

Youth in Front : YouthInFront

Teaching civics on its own is not a bad thing. When one confines civics to “activism” and leaves out all the contextual information kids need to know, it is indoctrination and a disservice to our young people.

If teachers need to teach “civics” perhaps they should look at resources from the Heritage Foundation:

Civics Lessons and Resources | The Heritage Foundation

Resources are divided by purpose, audience, and grade level and most are free. They actually cover the Constitution, history of this country, etc. You know, things children should learn.

Someone should call the SPLC. Or maybe not, they will probably designate all the groups posting this information as “terrorists” and “racists.”

By Jan Greenhawk

February 2, 2024

No Comments

It’s becoming so common place now that many people don’t even blink an eye when it happens.

The State of Maryland, in an attempt to control the indoctrination apparatus of our public schools, will neuter school boards who are responsive to local citizens. The Legislature will do this by enacting laws and mandates that give the power of those local, elected school boards to unelected state bureaucrats.

The “Freedom to Read Act” is the latest poison pill in this effort. It falls in line behind many other bills presented or passed in the last two years in the tyrannical Maryland General Assembly. Infamous HB 119, a bill which would have mandated local school systems to adhere specifically to the prurient goals of the “Health and Sex Education Framework,” went so far as to threaten systems with a “fine” if they didn’t comply. Thankfully, after serious resistance by the Maryland Association of Boards of Education and local school boards across the state, the bill died a swift death. (Don’t worry, they are bringing in back this year thanks to Howard County Delegate Vanessa Atterbeary.)

Of course, the biggest takeover of local control is the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, which mandates everything from programs provided, teachers’ salaries, and, of course, county funding.

This latest proposed bill, SB 0738, seems innocuous by its title. It’s something Progressives do all the time, name a bill with a title that sounds great but really is anything but what it says. Calling it the “Freedom to Read Act” makes it sound like a bill that will encourage people to read. Maybe it should say, “Freedom to Read PORNOGRAPHY Act.”

sb0738FDownload

It’s actually a reaction to local Maryland county school boards such as Carroll County taking objectionable books out of their school libraries. Contrary to what leftists say, these aren’t books like “To Kill a Mockingbird” or books about Black History. These books have pornographic images or descriptions, the likes of which you could find in Penthouse Magazine. The Carroll County Board considered the opinions of parents with children as young as elementary school who complained that these books demonstrating various types of sex such as oral, vaginal, anal, etc. were accessible to students. Some of the books portrayed graphic rape scenes or sexual experimentation in the story lines that were not appropriate for ANY minor child.

Organizations such as GLSEN, the Maryland Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, PFLAG, etc. vigorously oppose removing pornography from our schools. On a state and national scale, the ALA, American Library Association, violently opposes restrictions of ANY books in school libraries. The sponsors of this bill even got their title FROM the ALA:

Books for All: Protect the Freedom to Read in Your Community | Advocacy, Legislation & Issues (ala.org)

Unite Against Book Bans – Unite Against Book Bans

ALA even goes so far as to display a list of the “Top 13 Most Challenged Books” on their website:

Top 13 Most Challenged Books of 2022 | Advocacy, Legislation & Issues (ala.org)

It doesn’t seem to bother them that they are defending each of the books, which, by their own description are, “claimed to be sexually explicit.” The word “claimed” is the weasel word in the description. These books are not just “claimed” to be sexually explicit; they ARE sexually explicit. I won’t post those pornographic images in this article, but you can go to bookslooks.org to see for yourself.

Back to the bill.

This bill is partly sponsored (ironically) by Bill Ferguson (D- Baltimore City) who helped author the controversial juvenile justice reform in Maryland that has turned our cities into crime plagued dystopias while young offenders steal cars, attack people etc. without consequence. It is also co-sponsored by Cheryl Kagan (D- Montgomery County) who attempted to pass a bill last year that would allow minors to receive vaccines without the consent or knowledge of their parents. Thankfully, her bill went down in total defeat. She’s apparently back with a horrible vengeance.

The bill provides protection for public librarians or school librarians from being fired if they allow pornographic books to remain on library shelves as long as those books are acceptable under the State’s Standards for Libraries. Don’t know what those are?

They don’t exist outside this proposed law.

(A) IT IS THE GOAL OF THE STATE THAT EACH LIBRARY IS OPERATED IN A
MANNER THAT RECOGNIZES THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS:
(1,) LIBRARY MATERIALS, SERVICES, AND RESOURCES EXIST AND SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR THE INTEREST, INFORMATION, AND ENLIGHTENMENT
OF ALL PERSONS THE LIBRARY SERVES;
(2.) A LIBRARY SHOULD NOT EXCLUDE MATERIAL FROM ITS
CATALOGUE BECAUSE OF THE ORIGIN, BACKGROUND, OR VIEWS OF A PERSON WHO
CREATED THE MATERIAL; AND

(3)A LIBRARY SHOULD NOT PROHIBIT OR REMOVE MATERIAL FROM
ITS CATALOGUE BECAUSE OF PARTISAN OR DOCTRINAL DISAPPROVAL.

IT IS THE INTENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY THAT ANY LIBRARY,
SCHOOL LIBRARY, RESOURCE CENTER, OR OTHER LIBRARY ARRANGEMENT
DEVELOPED BY THE STATE LIBRARY AGENCY THAT RECEIVES FUNDING FROM THE
STATE SHALL ADOPT AND FOLLOW A WRITTEN POLICY CONSISTENT WITH THE
STATE STANDARDS FOR LIBRARIES ENUMERATED IN SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS
SECTION.

If you read carefully, these “State Library Standards” state that no books may be removed from the shelves “BECAUSE OF PARTISAN OR DOCTRINAL DISAPPROVAL.” Translation? Pornography must remain in our libraries despite the wishes of parents and other citizens.

If a school board or other public entity demand that the librarian remove objectionable books and the librarian doesn’t, the school board or public entity MAY NOT FIRE THAT LIBRARIAN. If they do, they can be fined by the State Library Board/State Librarian who is appointed by the Governor.

Do you see what we see? We see what is happening to the local police and sheriff’s departments who are no longer able to manage their own employees without the interference of civilian committees. Now school boards/county councils will be under the control of an UNELECTED group of political appointees who will supersede their personnel decisions. Don’t think those political appointees won’t have an agenda?

In this case, the agenda is extremely troubling.

Why Are Public Officials Openly Supporting Pornography In Our Classrooms? – Easton Gazette

What can you do?

This bill has already had its first reader. But, you can go to https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/ and sign up to testify against this bill in writing, in person, or virtually. The next hearing date has not been set yet, so keep an eye on the website to see when the next hearing is. Then, sign up to testify.

Witness-Sign-Up-Guide-Szeliga-1Download

Stop the poison pills. Maintain local control.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Author

Jan Greenhawk

Jan Greenhawk is a former teacher and school administrator for over thirty years. She has two grown children and lives with her husband in Maryland. She also spent over twenty-five years coaching/judging gymnastics and coaching women’s softball.

 Subscribe 

You are logged in as Jan Greenhawk | Log out

500

0 COMMENTS

By Jan Greenhawk

January 30, 2024

This article can be found at eastongazette.com

I’m told the dental lobby in D.C. and Maryland is very powerful and that they grease the palms of many of our politicians. I had no idea.

Based on Maryland’s House Bill 167, their efforts have been successful. The bill entitled the “Public Schools Student Health – Certificate of Student Dental Health” will require that:

BEGINNING IN THE 2026–2027 SCHOOL YEAR, EACH STUDENT
ENROLLED IN A PUBLIC ELEMENTARY OR SECONDARY SCHOOL IN THE STATE SHALL
SUBMIT TO THE SCHOOL A CERTIFICATE OF DENTAL HEALTH ON A SCHEDULE
ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT.

2024 Regular Session – House Bill 167 First Reader (maryland.gov)

Yes, you read that right. Now before you can take your little ones to school you must provide, along with the proof of a multitude of vaccinations, a certificate saying your child has been to the dentist. Plus, the State is going to demand that you take your child to the dentist on their approved schedule.

One could say that the vaccinations MAY have a purpose in protecting all children from communicable diseases like measles, mumps, rubella, etc. (Although many say that these vaccines do more harm than good.) But, how does having a dental checkup benefit the “greater good”?

It doesn’t, unless of course you are a dentist. Or a member of the Maryland Dental Action Coalition, who not only wants the state to pay for dental care for low-income residents but wants all parents to have to prove they have taken their child to the dentist before they enter school.

The Commission, along with the legislator submitting the bill, Del. Andrea Fletcher Harrison (D-Prince Georges County), states, “People feel good when their individual oral health is being taken care of.”

Delegate Fletcher really has her finger on the pulse of the population, doesn’t she? Who hasn’t said at one time or another, “If only my individual oral health was being taken care of, I could really be happy”?

I am being facetious.

I’m not denying that dental health for children is important. However, since when do the schools get to tell parents to take their children to a dentist or they can’t come to school? What’s next, certification by a podiatrist? Will certain dentists friendly to the State regime be designated as the “preferred dentists”? You laugh but it has happened in the past.

What will happen if your child misses his/her six months checkup? Is he/she booted out of school?

Who knows.

Of course, since it will be a requirement, there will be expanded free dental health programs. Except free means the taxpayers pay for it.

Dental Plans – Maryland Health Connection

Pages – Maryland Healthy Smiles Dental Program

It’s likely that your school health office will soon be joined by a dentist’s office as well. All these services delivered during the school day, taking the focus off learning and diminishing the hours students will be in the classroom. Maybe that’s why the Community Schools Model need to provide “extended learning time” (i.e. longer school days) and “extended school year” (year-round school).

All of these options and services are part of the “Community Schools” concept. For those who don’t know, the Community Schools designation for a school makes it a “one stop shop” for all kinds of services. As the State of Maryland says in its description, ” Community schools provide a wide array of wraparound services that enhance students’ ability to be successful. “The examples they give are:

• Extended Learning Time
• Extended school year
• Safe transportation to and from school
• Vision and dental services
• Expanded school-based health center services
• Additional social workers, counselors, and psychologists
• Additional mentors and restorative practice coaches
• Healthy food in and out of school.
• Access to mental health practitioners.

These are not the only services they will provide. There are plans for adult education for the families of the students, job placement services for family members, and rental assistance.

Think we are exaggerating about rental assistance? Look at House Bill 370 which describes rental assistance for students in community schools:

2024 Regular Session – Senate Bill 370 First Reader (maryland.gov)

The bill goes on to describe a variety of the “wrap around services” in these community schools.

IDENTIFYING STUDENT HOUSEHOLDS ELIGIBLE FOR THE
RENTAL ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOL FAMILIES PROGRAM
ESTABLISHED UNDER § 9.9–104.1 OF THIS SUBTITLE AND AIDING IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM AT THE COMMUNITY SCHOOL;

And also this description:

A. Tutoring;
2 B. English language learner courses;
3 C. Early childhood development and parenting classes;
4 D. College and career advising;
5 E. Employment opportunities;
6 F. Citizenship education;
7 G. Food pantries; [and]
8 H. RENTAL ASSISTANCE,

We have three of these Community Schools in our county. They get that designation because of the demographics of their school population. They also get much more funding than the other schools in the county and are designated to get the most experienced teachers as well.

Here’s the problem. We already have agencies funded by the State of Maryland and the Federal Government that provide these services. For example:

Department of Housing and Community Development (Maryland)

Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) (maryland.gov)

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Federal)

Rental Help: Maryland | HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Department of Human Services: (Maryland)

Rental Assistance – Maryland Department of Human Services

So, why the duplication? Why use schools to offer these “wraparound” services rather than the above agencies?

The sponsors of these bills say it’s too hard for parents to find these services. They say that parents neglect their children’s teeth and have to be forced to get dental services. My thought is maybe these agencies should do a better job of getting the word out and educating parents about the need for dental care.

The State prefers force.

Offering these services in Community Schools will drastically increase the foot traffic by outsiders in the buildings since many adults who are not parents or who are “relatives” of students will suddenly be in the schools getting their “wraparound” freebies. I don’t have to tell you the possible problems with that.

Think that’s crazy? A candidate for Mayor in Baltimore City has proposed the free school meals be extended to breakfast, lunch and dinner for ALL family members of students. Can you imagine if little Mary shows up for free breakfast with mom, dad, and all her aunts and uncles? It’s going to get crowded.

It’s all about control. The State and the Federal Government are really determined to make things so easy for parents that the State can ultimately control ALL the decisions of parents. They can then become the “de facto” parents of those children and determine the “fitness” of parents to raise their own children.

Think that’s farfetched? Read this story:

REPORT: Montana Family Accuses Govt Of ‘Kidnapping’ Teen Daughter After They Refused To Affirm Her Gender Transition | The Daily Caller

The more parents suck up the “freebies” that the State and Federal Government give them, the more responsibility and decision making they give away. Of course, for some of them, this absolves them of any accountability for their children as well. Hard for many of us to imagine, but there are those out there who would gladly do that.

The two bills above are just small pieces of a bigger scheme to kill parental rights in this country.

There’s an old saying, “Death of a Thousand Cuts.” This is its origin:

“A slow death by the torture of many small wounds, none lethal in itself, but fatal in their cumulative effect. This torture was a form of execution in ancient China, reserved for the most heinous crime.”( Death of a thousand cuts – phrase meaning and origin (phrases.org.uk))

Seems fitting, doesn’t it? Even more so since it originated in China.

It’s a technique the Chinese were very good at. Seems our government is very good at it also.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Author

Jan Greenhawk

Jan Greenhawk is a former teacher and school administrator for over thirty years. She has two grown children and lives with her husband in Maryland. She also spent over twenty-five years coaching/judging gymnastics and coaching women’s softball.

 Subscribe 

You are logged in as Jan Greenhawk | Log out

500

0 COMMENTS

By Jan Greenhawk

January 27, 2024

This article originally appeared on eastongazette.com

RUN FOR SCHOOL BOARD (SEE AD AT END OF STORY)

” Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

It seemed that the legislators and the Maryland State Board of Education got the message last year when HB 119/ SB 199 died. The bill would have allowed the State Superintendent, at the time Mohammad Choudhury, to remove state funding from counties who did not implement fully the State’s Comprehensive Sex Education Curriculum. Choudhury, who was hired under Republican Larry Hogan, arrogantly named himself sole arbiter of what would be taught in Maryland schools.

The Man Who Would Rule Maryland Education – Radio Free Oxford

Choudhury’s arrogance was his eventual undoing. The bill died and months later, Mohammad was on his way out as State Superintendent.

If you think about it Choudhury was only hitching his wagon to the premise behind the State’s Blueprint for Maryland’s Future which puts the state in charge of all aspects of what is done in local school except curriculum. Even more, it allows the State to tell locals what their education budget will be. The Blueprint is the crack in the dam, allowing the flood waters of state control loose.

He thought he could do the same. But, you don’t embarrass State Legislators in livestreamed meetings and politically live to tell about it. Choudhury had no people skills. So he’s technically gone.

But, the State never tires of sucking up all control.

Now they have a more palatable figurehead in the person of Cary Wright, the new interim Superintendent who will probably be permanently hired later on this Spring.

One look at her and you think that Cary is a sweet old lady much like your third-grade teacher. Soft spoken and respectful, she comes across as someone who has a level head and only the best interests of Maryland students at heart. Maybe she does.

I’m not convinced.

State School Board Appoints Wright As Interim – Easton Gazette

Excerpt from the article above:

Wright has been retired since 2022 and lives in Baltimore County. She is a former teacher, principal, and administrator in Montgomery and Prince George’s County and was the Chief Academic Officer for the Washington D.C. public schools from 2009-2013. Her latest position was as Mississippi State Superintendent of School for the past 11 years.

You don’t rise up in the ranks in systems like Montgomery and D.C. without being someone who, at the very least, can play the power system aggressively.

Also, though she is credited with the “Mississippi Miracle” in raising scores there, she also had some rather shady dealings in that state:

Wright came under scrutiny by a watchdog group and a state auditor who claim that under Wright’s watch, the Mississippi Department of Education has been guilty of funny business in the awarding of contracts including MDE trying to direct work to specific vendors and avoid oversight by coding similar contracts differently and by breaking up large contracts into smaller increments so as to keep them below the thresholds that would require competitive bidding.

Then there’s the dubious business relationship MDE had with Joseph B. Kyles, a Democratic activist in Memphis, whose company received over a two-year period more than $250,000 in no-bid contracts for information technology goods and services.  In four of the six payments to Kyles’ company, the purchases were just under the $50,000 threshold that would have required MDE to get other quotes. Curiously, except for the invoices, there are no contracts or other paperwork to be found to back up these expenditures. ¹

Doesn’t sound like anything my third-grade teacher would have done.

The biggest problem with her is HOW she and her Mississippi State Department of Education engineered the advance in student scores in the state:

Many have lauded the progress Mississippi has made academically. Although the state has shown some academic progress under Wright, it’s hard to gauge how much. When she touts the increase in the state’s graduation rate, for example, she glosses over the fact that graduation requirements have been watered down. Later this month, the state will release the new accountability grades for schools and school districts. MDE has rigged the grading, though, to increase the likelihood that the number of F-rated districts won’t jump and the number of A-rated districts won’t fall. (This from an article written in 2017)

Does any of these tactics sound familiar to you? Think about the recent move in the state to share testing data for schools wrapped in other “feel good data” such as school climate, diversity, access to a “well rounded” curriculum (whatever that is), etc. thus giving “star ratings” from one to five for each school. A school with miserable testing data can avoid a poor star rating by doing well in soft, non-objective measures. Here’s an example of one of those areas:

The School Quality and Student Success indicator measures the performance of students in a school who regularly attend school, report positive perceptions of their school, and have actively engaged in rigorous and/or co-curricular academic coursework outside of traditional English language arts and mathematics (elementary) or science and social studies (middle). School points are comprised of a school’s percentage of not chronically absent students, school survey results, and measures of access to a well-rounded curriculum.

Maryland Report Card – ReportCards – ReportCardSchool

It’s almost like Cary brought these ideas with her.

So, it’s no surprise that Superintendent Wright is jumping on the state control of local education bandwagon with a mandate by the Maryland State Department of Education that ALL school systems implement THE SCIENCE OF READING.

The Science of Reading has been around for a while, but recently has become a preferred method of teaching reading. This is a reaction to the ridiculous Whole Language instruction of the late 90’s into the 2000’s that left so many children without the ability to read. If you were a student, parent or teacher during that time period, you know what I am talking about.

Our county started talking about implementing the Science of Reading about two years ago.

This website gives an explanation of the Science of Reading:

The Science of Reading: The Basics | National Center on Improving Literacy

I have no problem with this approach. In fact, as a former teacher I am excited to see that perhaps NOW schools will actually start teaching reading in a variety of ways including phonics, decoding, etc. All those teachers who have hidden those materials away for years in fear of being fired if they used them can take them out of storage. (And yes, people were threatened with unemployment if they didn’t go along with whole language.)

Plus, I know how miserable reading scores have been in many Maryland districts. The State average hovers around 48% of students being proficient in reading, meaning more than half are not. Some districts like Baltimore City have percentages in the mid-twenties, meaning three quarters of their students are not proficient in reading. Others like Worcester, have scores nearing the 70th percentile.

What I have a problem with is this:

State-Board-Resolution-24-01-Statewide-Adoption-of-Reading-A-1Download

You might say to yourself, “What’s the big deal? Isn’t this about improving literacy in our state?”

I suppose it is. But I think it is more about control than anything else. The above document, with all the legal language, says two troubling things:

One, “All literacy instruction in Maryland public schools must be aligned to the Science of Reading, including structured literacy, effective School Year 2024-25.”

Two, “The State Board charges the State Superintendent of Schools with drafting a comprehensive literacy policy aligned to the Science of Reading for consideration to the State Board for approval, including but not limited to curriculum adoption, assessment, data analysis, early warning system, intervention, and accountability.”

Any time a state uses the word “all” in a phrase, we have a problem.

Regardless of how great Science of Reading is, requiring all systems to use the exact same approach to reading is discounting that there are negatives about SOR that cannot be ignored. (see link at the end of this article.) Also, there are districts in the state that already have successful literacy programs in place. Now they only have a year to get all their teachers extensively trained in the Science of Reading model.

Do they have to dismantle successful practices to meet the wishes of the State Board/Superintendent? Will they be punished if they don’t?

The second problem is that this State Superintendent will be designing a “comprehensive literacy policy” aligned with Science of Reading. This policy will include “curriculum adoption.” Anyone who has been in education will tell you, “Curriculum” is a huge category which can include everything from books read, materials used, lessons taught, strategies enlisted, assessments used, etc. Districts will be restricted in which materials they can use and how they can use them. This leads to a lack of creative district/school/student centered options for teachers.

The sad truth is that this is exactly how the now discredited whole language was forced into schools. It is the same way they are forcing systems to use the Comprehensive Health and Sex Education framework. Neither of those have had good results.

It’s clear that the State of Maryland, under the guise of caring about student achievement, is intent on taking control away from local school boards. And, as I have written before, the school boards seem willing to give that control away so they don’t get blamed for whatever disaster the state creates.

It’s a different person at the helm, perhaps someone with a kinder, gentler approach.

The end result is still the same. New boss. Same as the old boss.

9 Concerns About the Science of Reading: Why It’s Not Settled Science! – Nancy Bailey’s Education Website (nancyebailey.com)

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Run for local office, especially school board. We need strong people who support parental rights and local control of education. The deadline to file in Maryland is 2/9/24. Find the deadline for your state!

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Author

Jan Greenhawk

Jan Greenhawk is a former teacher and school administrator for over thirty years. She has two grown children and lives with her husband in Maryland. She also spent over twenty-five years coaching/judging gymnastics and coaching women’s softball.

 Subscribe 

You are logged in as Jan Greenhawk | Log out

500

0 COMMENTS