I am a 67 year old runner and conservative. I taught for 31 years and retired a few years back. In my life, I have coached and judged gymnastics, coached softball, and raised two amazing kids.
MSEA regards ordinary, non-educator citizens who run for school boards as a threat to public education. In a message sent out this week, the Association warned membership that the election of “shadowy, extremist groups with little to no experience or training in education theory or practice are challenging previously embraced K-12 literature and curriculum” would take” instructional decisions out of the hands of educators and books out of media centers. The stakes for school board races are becoming higher—their impact goes beyond what your next contract looks like and extends into parts of our schools and profession that have always been seen as the purview of educators rather than political extremists.”
Wow. Talk about extremist language and hyperbole! Mom and Dad as threats? I’m not sure the union understands the meaning of the word “public.”
Describing average parents and community members who don’t want their children exposed to pornography, racial division, hatred and harmful gender ideology as “fringe, reactionary, and billionaire-funded ” indicates that the teachers’ unions have forgotten what the citizens of this State and Country want. They want their children taught academic content and skills, not hateful political and activist ideology. And, as stated in this column before, unions have forgotten that most of their members feel the same way. That is why teachers are leaving the profession in droves citing the fact that they can’t continue to lie and indoctrinate children.
Imagine describing the citizen taxpayers and parents your organizations serve in such derogatory and hateful terms. Only in a public union can you get away with that.
It’s also insulting to insinuate that only those who have worked in the education establishment should not be elected to school boards. I think the union has forgotten that School Boards are supposed to be citizen oversight boards that represent the members of the communities they serve, not just former educators. Many times, the perspectives of non-educators in these positions spur successful, practical, and innovative programs.
Is educational experience the real issue here, or is it just that the Teachers’ Unions wants School Board rubber stamps for teachers to indoctrinate students in the beliefs of Progressive splinter groups? Do they really think that taking pornographic materials out of the classroom is a problem? In their screed against conservative candidates, they quote the director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, Deborah Caldwell-Stone, “This is a dangerous time for readers and the public servants who provide access to reading materials. Readers, particularly students, are losing access to critical information, and librarians and teachers are under attack for doing their jobs.” Does critical information include graphic descriptions and depictions of oral, anal, vaginal sex; rape and pedophilia in the classrooms of our schools?
This drive against citizen/parental rights is also schizophrenic on the part of the union. They want community/parents’ votes when the union wants a raise, better working conditions or help in classrooms, but don’t want to hear from non-educators on school boards, especially if they don’t extol the union “party line.” The message is clearly, sit down, shut up, and don’t run for School Board.”
Yet, the union complains that in Maryland, educators have witnessed efforts to “muzzle educators from western Maryland to the Eastern Shore.” The reality is that most teachers fear going against the union and educational establishment more than they do conservatives on school boards.
Hypocrites and liars.
There are plenty of former educators and teachers who run for Board of Education positions. I can think of several on our current and past boards. Funny thing is, the union, despite their tirade against those who have ” little to no experience or training in education theory or practice,” won’t support veterans from the education system in Board elections unless those candidates support the Marxist, extreme positions of the union. They hate former teachers/educators who are Conservatives too!
It seems MSEA is also horrified by the alleged “billions” of dollars supporting conservative BOE candidates. This seems ironic when one considers the following stories exposing the extravagant salaries and massive Teacher’s Union revenues and assets:
Little of this money goes to helping teachers. In 2020, the NEA spent over $50 million on “political activities and lobbying” and $120 million on other “contributions, gifts and grants” which can be political in nature. These include funding their own political action committees, ballot initiatives (that often have nothing to do with teachers or education) and at least $20 million to self-proclaimed “progressive” organizations. (Unionfacts.com)
The one thing that is blatantly clear in this article is that the unions are afraid of losing their continued stranglehold on the public-school systems in Maryland. They talk about “inclusion” but work to stifle anyone, educator or not, who doesn’t toe their progressive, Marxist line and they will throw millions at preventing diverse voice and ideas from being heard.
Get ready folks. If you thought the Presidential race was going to be contentious in 2024, local school board elections are going to be just as bad. Or worse.
The link below shows the Union losing its collective mind and having a total meltdown over the idea of losing control of school boards in Maryland:
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.
Part Two in the Series on the Oxford Strand Project
The sign above is posted on the disaster that is the Oxford Strand “Restoration” Project. The word “restoration’ is in quotes because the project should be called the Oxford Strand Destruction Project.
The interesting part of the explanation on the sign is that this company, Underwood and Associates, thinks that the citizens of this town will be upset that there’s no work being done on the project. They also seem to think that the cute explanation that the company workers “are leaving the project for a few months to let nature do its work” will make it sound like this is a natural process. It isn’t.
Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn’t nature done a great job creating our beautiful Strand without human help? Weren’t hundreds of years of enough? If you have been down to the Strand recently, you would know immediately that this is NOT the work of nature. It looks more like the work of a strip-mining company that has dug up the land and left a shallow pool of water and some piles of dirt. It’s quite disturbing. In other words, it looks like the Strand Quarry. The promised “tweaks” and “landscaping with marshy grasses” will not help. One look at the sign above shows you what the end product will look like.
It didn’t need to happen this way.
If you had asked any long-term resident of the town of Oxford about their priorities during the last forty years, no doubt you would have heard about a variety of issues; the aging population in the town and loss of young residents and families, the high cost of homes in the town, the lack of traditional job opportunities in the town, and the flooding of certain main areas of the town. You might have heard complaints about the flock of ducks on the strand brought there by tourists feeding them and the rats and vermin they attracted or the lack of affordable cable. There were others, the day-to-day nuisances that drive people crazy. Locals often complained that they no longer knew everyone in town.
Flooding at the Causeway Entrance to Town
At no time did we hear complaints that the Strand beach was being flooded and washed away. In fact, many residents on the Strand (including a former Commissioner and his wife who recently moved) often complained that the beach was a “nuisance” because the people who visited it were loud and disruptive.
I don’t remember the citizens asking for the Strand project. I think they asked for an entrance to town that wasn’t flooded after a heavy rain. They asked about preventing flooding in other parts of town. If the Strand had to be protected, many citizens suggested more tried and true traditional methods (often called “gray infrastructure”).
Somehow, beginning in 2018, saving the Strand beach through “green infrastructure” became a priority above all the other areas in town that flood more heavily and regularly.
Based on statements in town minutes starting in that year, it was a bait and switch.
If you don’t know what a bait and switch is, it’s when someone represents a product they are selling at a low price only to substitute another generally inferior product in its place when someone buys it.
While the Oxford Strand Beach is not a product being advertised for sale, it appears to be a project that was sold by town management to those offering grants as a way to protect the town’s vital infrastructure while all along it really was just a way to get money extend to the small beach and attract tourists: This is from Easton’s Star Democrat, April 2021:
Improving the shoreline will break stormwater surges through a mimic of natural shoreline conditions. It includes a 1,000-foot sand dune on the beach and three marshy islands out in the waters of the Tred Avon. Residents have raised concerns about beach access and aesthetic changes, but the engineers have promised the 13,000 square feet of the beach will remain the same square footage after completion. Some of the grassy areas on the beach will be encroached upon, however.
A recent look at the project belies the claim that at the end, beach will be the same square footage that it has always been. To the untrained eye, it currently looks more like three times the original footprint. Of course, there is not a ” 1,000-foot sand dune” or marshy islands on the Strand.
Many residents of Oxford have registered their misgivings and outright anger about the changes and the fact that THIS project was not only put at the top of the priority list instead of really needy areas but that it is being done in a way that substantially changes the character of the historic Strand and the Town.
In the same Star Democrat article, Bhaskar Subramanian, the Shoreline Conservation Section Chief for the Chesapeake & Coastal Service at DNR, stated another motivation for this project as it is being completed:
“The goal of the project is to make Strand Beach both ‘bigger and better,’ he added, and the Strand Beach Shoreline Improvement Project is bold but efficient. ‘We want innovative projects’ he explained. ‘And especially ones that push the science forward.‘ “
The grant for $2.8 million dollars given to the town was from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the National Fish and Wildlife Federation who are partners in this endeavor. Both have specific interest in the project.
It’s not unusual for government agencies and NGO’s to offer big grants to communities. Sometimes they do it to solve problems, sometimes they do it because they have a big pot of money and have to do something with it or lose it, but more often they give grants to use communities as “guinea pigs” to push new ideas as Subramanian said. This allows the agency to use the project to get more funds, promote a certain methodology and agenda, and get involved in projects in other areas.
How are recipients chosen? Is it that the grant was so well intentioned, so well written that the state agency just HAD to give it to them, or, as it is with many public agencies, someone, an important staff member or politician has a “special” connection to a certain town or county and wants projects funded in that area. In Federal lingo, it’s called “bringing home the pork.” These agencies make money off these grants as well.
Is that how Oxford was chosen for this Strand beach project? We can’t be sure.
Regardless of how Oxford was chosen for this project, town meeting minutes show that the presentation of the project was constructed in such a way to portray the grant as being about preventing erosion and protecting infrastructure on the Strand while, in reality, the town was being sold a project to create a bigger beach along the Strand. Why?
We know that certain Commissioners had voiced concerns about how they wanted to bring more tourists into the town despite the fact that the charm of Oxford is that there are NOT a large crowd of tourists traipsing down the streets all summer. The few businesses that cater to tourists are mainly restaurants, a gift shop, a bookstore, an ice cream parlor, a coffee place, and a general store. Commissioners saw a larger Strand Beach as part of an increasing tax income, regardless of the fact that the citizens in Oxford already saw the summer visitors to the small beach as a nuisance. Many of them who moved here were looking for a beautiful and quiet small town, not a busy beach resort.
In Town meeting minutes from July 2019, residents complained about activities and crowds at the Beach:
A resident (name withheld) also stated that having lived at the beach for many, many, years, he did feel that things had become much worse in recent years. A concern was expressed that people were on the beach all hours of the night and it would take to long for someone to drive from Easton if someone was to call 911. (Town Manager) Lewis stated that 911 would dispatch Chief Maxwell (*special note: Maxwell was our previous Chief and lived in town, a luxury we no longer have) and this was the normal dispatch for Oxford Police and that any citizen who believes something is wrong or has concerns should never hesitate to call 911.
And this statement was also made:
There were concerns regarding the planned resiliency improvements and the need to not create more beach than we have parking area, which was acknowledged by town staff.
But Lewis was browsing for grants and the National Fish and Wildlife Federation wanted a town to experiment with their new “green vs. gray” infrastructure solution to erosion. Lewis even stated at the time that “no one knows what the best design would be”. However, she and the Commissioners were willing to take what seems like a big chance on the “green” infrastructure solution so they could collaborate with the National Fish and Wildlife Federation on new initiatives to partially save (and possibly increase) an “historic beach”.
At no point in any of the minutes from town meetings during 2018 and on did any Commissioner ask if the town should look at other more urgent flooding priorities and solutions that would actually work, be more efficient and more economically funded. While “gray” infrastructure may not be the current fad for shoreline protection, it is still a valid solution that has worked in many places for a long time. The current design is an experimental boondoggle that will destroy a historic shoreline instead of a commonsense, priority solution that would have preserved an iconic symbol of the town.
Now we have something that looks like a dredge site in a quarry. And this is just PART ONE of the project. In all discussions of the project, other phases have been discussed which include improvements to an adjacent private property. Strangely, no one has mentioned the need to constantly maintain the sand dune, beach sands and “living islands” created by the experiment. This will cost millions. Who will pay for that? The State? Doesn’t seem likely.
Unfortunately, the Governor of Maryland has told state leaders that drastic cuts to the budget will be coming, citing an upcoming huge budget shortfall in the making:
Governor Wes Moore previously hinted at hard times and budget cuts over the summer, and this week some of them became clearer. The state’s transportation budget, facing its own long-term gap, will be cut significantly.
The proposed cuts range from nixing highway improvement projects that haven’t started to reducing commuter bus service to cutting back on roadside litter pickup. Local governments would get a smaller share of the gas tax for their own road projects than they have in years past.
While he doesn’t specifically mention cuts to DNR, it’s a sure bet that the second part of a project for a town of 650 residents to save a beach or to maintain a dune and “living islands” will NOT be a state priority. The residents of Oxford will be left holding the bag. The “out of the box” design the Town Manager promoted will become a costly, ugly end to a once beautiful historic shoreline.
A friend of mine, upon seeing the Strand project asked, “How do we undo this mess?”
It’s a great question. What can citizens do?
One, be heard. Most of the planning for this project occurred during the Pandemic when “in person” meetings were not happening. So, there were just a few who participated virtually. Now that they have seen what is going on, people need to go to town meetings and voice their opinions. Our town leaders must be held accountable, especially those who were in office during the planning of this debacle. ( The next meeting is Tuesday, December 12th at 6:00 p.m.)
Many want to demand that work on the project be stopped and reversed at the cost of the contracted company. This would probably demand litigation on the contract, an expensive, lengthy process.
If there is a way to mitigate the damage created to this historic shoreline, it should be investigated and implemented as quickly as possible.
Maybe in these months while the contractor is not working, Nature WILL do her work and get the Strand back to the perfect, beautiful place it was. She usually does.
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.
It was stunning the other day as I listened to excerpts from the debate between Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and California Governor Gavin Newsom. First, it’s clear that Newsom doesn’t want to answer any questions about the destruction of his state economically and socially. He dances around those answers in the typical Progressive manner by throwing insults and deflecting from the real question. He is never direct.
When the topic came up about permitting pornography in the classroom, one would think this would be a slam dunk for any politician. Clearly, no one can support pornographic materials being distributed in our schools. Well, almost no one. Here’s a transcript of the exchange during the debate:
HANNITY: Here is the question that I have for you, Governor Newsom. Some of the work you are talking about, one is called, the governor just brought it up, it is called “Gender Queer, a Memoir,” explicit pornographic book showing sex acts. Another, “Flamer,” a graphic book about young boys performing sex acts at summer camp. “This Book Is Gay,” a book containing instructions on the ins and outs of gay sexuality. Let me finish. Lets talk about a book that contains graphic descriptions about how to masturbate for males and females. My question to you, Governor Newsom, those books, do you believe that is appropriate for school districts to teach kids, yes or no?
NEWSOM: Oh, come on, that’s not part of the curriculum. They’re not teaching that.
HANNITY: Those are books that were in school.
NEWSOM: Hold on. The bottom line is, you are on a book-banning binge in your state. 1,406 books, 3,362 in this country.
HANNITY: You didn’t answer me. What about those books?
NEWSOM: We don’t provide for K-3rd grade education, that kind of curriculum, it is just made up. These guys make it up. It is part of this cultural purge.
HANNITY: Should it be — what grade would it be?
NEWSOM: What I find offensive, Sean and Ron, is the very significant number of these books happen to be LGBTQ books. A significant number of these books happen to be about African-Americans.
HANNITY: Is it appropriate?
NEWSOM: I told you ––
HANNITY: Is it appropriate in school?
NEWSOM: We don’t teach that. We have sex education in middle school and high schools where it is appropriate. This is a ginned-up, made-up issue to divide this country. You talk about dividing this country. This is part of the culture war, the weaponization of grievance. This is part using education, We are focusing on math, science. We are focusing on reimagining our schools. He is criminalizing teachers and criminalizing librarians.
Did you read that? Newsom calls the fact that the books Hannity mentioned ARE in school libraries “made up.” Newsom’s approach started out as “we don’t teach that.” Then he goes to “It’s not in our K-3rd curriculum.” He just can’t decide whether it IS in their schools or not. In the end, he calls it a “ginned up issue” and accuses those against pornography in the classroom of criminalizing librarians and teachers. So typically Progressive. Lie and deflect.
He also says that the majority of these books are about LGBTQ and African Americans. Statistically, I can’t tell you how many of the pornographic books are about LGBTQ, but I can tell you that the African American friends I have don’t want pornography of ANY kind in their schools. Another secret? My gay friends don’t either.
But, here’s the thing. Newsom is not the exception to the norm in Progressives. He actually supports this pornography in the classroom. He’s not alone.
Here is a story about a School Board President in Central Bucks, Pennsylvania who is being sworn with her hands on a pile of “banned” books. Two of the books are sexually explicit.
The woman’s name is, appropriately, Karen Smith and she said she and other Democrats ran for school board and won as a reaction to the “hate” in the community directed toward the LGBTQ community. What form did this hate take? It took form in groups protesting explicit pornography in books, some with an LGBTQ theme, that were in their child’s classroom. One wonders if protesting heterosexual pornography in classrooms is “hate.”
At any rate, Smith and four other Democrats elected to make them the majority immediately showed their “love” for the LGBTQ community by dismantling the book review process to permit pornography and allowing trans male athletes to compete in girls’ sports in the district. Clearly, they are heterophobes and misogynists.
The question is, what is the motivation of people like Newsom and Smith as they deny the existence of or support pornography in our classrooms?
With Newsom it’s clear. Everything Newsom does is politically motivated. There must be big campaign funds (teachers’ unions, etc.) behind his views. Based on the duplicity of his answers, it’s also possible that Gavin doesn’t have a clue about what is going on in California’s schools.
With people like Karen Smith, the motives are more confounding and disturbing to ANYONE with a sense of decency and a will to protect children. Of course, she could also be pandering to political supporters at the local level. But, I think there is something else going on here.
Is it possible that Karen and people like her think it is okay to expose children to graphic, explicit sex in books? It is possible. Remember in the 60’s the counterculture promoted that “children are sexual beings” and their sexuality should not be repressed. The idea was that sex is a “natural” act and children should not be shielded lest they think it is bad. It was a nice fairy tale for those who wanted to live in denial of reality.
Research shows that the hippies of the 60’s didn’t understand the damage done by their open attitudes regarding children’s exposure to sex at an early age. Studies show that the earlier the exposure, the more likely the child is to be targeted by sexual predators or participate in risky sexual behavior. It doesn’t matter if they are LGBTQ or not.
Another reason why these people might be promoting pornography in the classroom is that they, themselves, are damaged people. Studies on those who sexualize children show that almost all of them had been sexually molested as children. Does misery love company? Or do they see this as normal since it happened to them?
There are also people who want to be seen as the most extreme, the most left leaning and radical. It’s an adrenaline rush for them when they see the impact their outlandish statements and acts have on normal, rational people. I believe that this could also be the reason for people who claim to worship Satan. No one with a reasonable nature would worship a “deity” that is based on evil, human sacrifice, and the promotion of selfish, evil acts. One wonders if the two groups include the same members.
Which leads us to the final, and most extreme, reason, and that is that this pornography in the classroom is a way to groom our children for pedophiles and human trafficking. Hope for Justice, a non-profit group that fights human trafficking published these numbers regarding the profits from various forms of human trafficking and/or exploitation:
Illicit profits breakdown
US$169.9 billion from sexual exploitation
US$75.9 billion from forced labour in the private sector, including domestic servitude
TOTAL = US$245.81 billion
The bulk of this profit is from sexual exploitation.
Whatever the reason, those of us who truly care about children need to fight back against those who would normalize the unthinkable. If we don’t, we are just as guilty as those who perpetrate this evil.
The First in a Series of Articles on the Shoreline “Restoration” Taking Place in Oxford, Maryland
The little town of Oxford was once called the “colonial capital of Maryland.” Since its existence in the 1600’s, its shoreline on the Tred Avon River, a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay, has supported many watermen who worked on the water throughout the year. In more recent times, its beautiful streets, especially the Strand which rises from the river, have attracted tourism. Not the big, flashy tourism of shop filled towns like St. Michaels or crowded beach towns such as Ocean City, but the quiet, peaceful tourism of a town where one can walk the streets without bumping into others or fighting traffic.
The aforementioned Strand shoreline was one of the hallmarks of this tourism. One could walk along the small sidewalk above the stone abutment that holds back the river or sit in a lawn chair and watch the boats go by or be amazed by the amazing sunsets. At the end of the Strand was a tiny beach that attracted families in the summer.
No more.
Nowadays, people are riding up and down the Strand to view something else. The town administration is calling it the “Oxford Shoreline Improvements.” It’s being done on a million dollar grant from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the National Wildlife Federation. From where many people sit, these don’t look like improvements at all.
Here is how the Oxford Shoreline looked prior to the project. This picture was taken from the Town’s website.
Beautiful, isn’t it?
Here are some others:
Here is what it looks like now as the project begins.
Sand dunes next to the road and extension of the sand beach well past where it had been.
More extension of the beach and creation of huge dunes.
This is what that once gorgeous shoreline looks like now.
While many of the above pictures were taken while work was being done, here is the “concept picture” of the “Dynamic Living Shorelines” project funded by a grant from the Department of Natural Resources and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. This is the project that will change, and destroy, the iconic Strand of Oxford forever. As the Oxford Town Manager said, “The living shoreline and breakwaters will give us the ability to push the land out a little bit.” This will provide more beach area, crowds, and a sandy expansion most people in town, especially the Strand, don’t want.
As one homeowner said, “I didn’t buy my home to live near a beach.”
This picture shows the addition of a long jetty and then what are called ” Living Islands” in front of a large sand dune and an extension of the beach. In reality, the beach will stretch farther than what is depicted in the picture above. Here is an enlarged picture of this concept as created in other locations:
“Living Islands” is the latest thing in shore restoration. No more do designers merely want to prevent destruction of the shore, now they want to create “natural” solutions that totally sculpt the shore into something nature didn’t create. That, of course, means artificial manmade islands that are anything but natural.
No more of Oxford’s beautiful uninterrupted waters occasionally populated by sailboats.
Why is this being done? It’s partially the fear of “sea rise” and “climate change.” Or at least that is the reason they give.
From the Oxford webpage description of the project:Due to sea level rise and increasing storm intensity, this area of Oxford has taken a beating over the last many years raising multiple concerns, from the continuation of one of Oxford’s most valued assets, its historic sandy beach, to protection of critical public infrastructure, including the road, water, sewer, electricity, telephone and cable, the ability to provide emergency services during tidal and storm events, and the ability to protect historic residential and commercial properties from the encroaching waters.
After reading this, one would think that the Strand area is the only area in Oxford that suffers consistent tidal flooding. This is untrue. More on that later.
In a town meeting in 2021, the Town Manager stated that this project will not achieve the goal of stopping town tidal flooding.
From January 2021 Oxford Town Commissioner minutes:It was noted this project would not prevent elevated tidal flooding, which takes place on the backside of the Strand parking lot and along private properties, the project is intended to reduce damage to the exposed northern side and the fragile infrastructure found along this northern edge. Commissioners-Minutes-012621.pdf (oxfordmd.net)
Seems like extreme actions when it won’t prevent “elevated tidal flooding” but will merely “reduce” damage to the exposed northern side. One may assume that is the beach and the private property at its end. An Oxford landmark destroyed for little return and at the expense of other, more needy parts of town. An improvement to a private property provided by public grant funds.
From a February, 2021 Oxford Town Commissioner’s Meeting: She (Town Manager Cheryl Lewis) also noted that the town experiences tidal and stormwater flooding throughout town and that this project is only looking at the northern edge of the town and the solutions developed here will not solve all of the town’s problems. This project is just one piece of a bigger picture and is one-step towards the preservation of the town for the next 50 to 100 years. She explained that a good deal of effort is spent convincing State funders that Oxford intends to be around in 100 and 200 years, and that after the first 300 years there is no plan to throw in the towel now. Sea level rise is going to require a lot of adapting in order for Oxford to continue to exist in the future, and with 330 years of past success, forwarding thinking planning only seems natural.Commissioners-Minutes-020921.pdf (oxfordmd.net)
It’s curious that the Town Manager stated that the town had “no plan to throw in the towel now” and that “state funders” had to be convinced of that. I wonder if not throwing in the towel includes destroying landmarks just to get state funding.
The implication is that there will be more projects to come, but it seems those projects have been bumped to the back of the line while this one has taken precedence. It’s odd that the flooding of the end of the Strand wasn’t a major focus for the town until about 2018, right about the time the Maryland Department of Natural Resources was ready to give Oxford big money for a solution of this type.
Was this project a “solution” looking for a problem? Is it an expensive test case that will be used as advertising for others? Are the citizens of Oxford participating in a big environmental experimental without knowing it?
Grant writers, developers and government agencies like the Maryland Department of National Resources love solutions like this one. They like big, intrusive plans that cost tons of money and create drastic change. They like showy projects that get the attention of people who don’t have to live with them. A few projects like Oxford’s can generate more projects in the same mold, thus more money.
Let’s not forget the money those in the shoreline/environmental restoration business like Underwood and Associates make from offering these over designed projects exchanging beautiful shorelines for a jumble of unnatural islands and breakwaters. They are attractive to the crowd who applauds projects that supposedly protect nature while actually destroying what was created naturally. These are projects businesses and government agencies can take pictures of to advertise to other costumers. These are the projects that get town administration publicity, like in this National Wildlife Federation Blog:
The strangest statement of the National Wildlife Federation article is the statement, “Oxford intends to be around in 100 and 200 years, and that after the first 300 years there is no plan to throw in the towel now.” I’m not sure where that statement came from or why Lewis decided to include it, but it seems she is trying justify this drastic destruction of the historic Strand to save the town hundreds of years in the future. It’s amazing the town survived over 300 years without intervention, isn’t it?
Other parts of town that are actually flooded during heavy rains have no current plans or grants in the works for their restoration or protection. It’s as though they don’t matter. Ask anyone in the “Park” section of town or those living on Bank Street, Pier Street, Mill Street and Tilghman Street who have dealt with tidal flooding consistently over the past 40 years. Most notably, the Causeway, the main entrance to the town, floods at high tides, full moons and during heavy rain. Response from the Town of Oxford? A few promises of fixes in the future and mostly crickets. After all, the town needs to save the Strand Beach at all costs. The citizens? They are told they should lift their houses and buy more flood insurance.
Flooding on Bank Street in Oxford
Mild Flooding at the Causeway- it usually crosses the road. This is the main entrance to town.
Pier Street
Intersection of Morris and South Morris Street
Willows Avenue (area of the town known as “the Park.”)
The Strand (2018)- The Strand does flood, but mainly during large storms and not nearly as much as the rest of the town.
In the NWF article Lewis acknowledges that there were other options available:
You have people that are fine with a nature-based approach, and just as many who say something like a sea wall would work a lot better. And sure, a sea wall might work well under some circumstances, in some places. But there are things we need in Oxford that hardened infrastructure like that just wouldn’t provide—first and foremost, protection of our public beach.
I thought the point was to prevent flooding and infrastructure destruction. Clearly, she thinks the beach is the most important thing. After all, it is now being extended well past where it originally was.
Many in town disagree with the “living islands” approach. One longtime resident stated, “The problem could have been solved by lifting the roadway of the Strand, the parking lot, and strengthening the bulkhead on the wall with additional rip rap where the beach is.”
Another description of the project:
In coordination with the town’s partners in this project, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Coastal Restoration Services, the National Wildlife Federation and the awarded engineering firm, Underwood and Associates, the town has developed designs that will incorporate natural marshy areas to act as breakwaters in protecting the Strand, along with dunes to prevent waters from overrunning the road and is currently submitting these designs for permitting review by state and federal agencies for future construction.
I’m not sure they understand the meaning of “natural.” According to the dictionary, it means, “existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.” The marshy areas being created, along with the five foot “dunes” mentioned, would not naturally occur at this spot on the Strand.
As for sand dunes, they can cause as many problems as they may potentially solve. First, the establishment of sand dunes is a time-consuming process. This means that newly placed dunes will be subject to as much or more erosion as the original shoreline. They require constant maintenance and replenishment, which is expensive for communities to fund. There are limited plant options available in harsh climates and the dunes themselves may disrupt and destroy the natural habitat of some species.
Even the man made “living islands” will require monitoring to make sure they actually work and withstand “sea rise.” Once again, they must be maintained perpetually. Will the Town of Oxford perpetually be bound to sand dune and “living island” protection costs? It’s a strong possibility.
Moreover, pumping millions of cubic yards of sand onto beaches can cause environmental damage, according to decades of studies. It kills wildlife scooped up from the ocean floor and smothers mole crabs and other creatures where sand is dumped, said Robert Young, a geology professor at Western Carolina University.
It seems this small area has been deemed a priority in the continued fight against flooding in Oxford while much larger and crucial areas which are consistently flooded and affect so many more people are virtually ignored or put at the end of the timetable.
Why was this project chosen first? After all, shouldn’t there be a comprehensive town plan to manage flooding that lists priority areas like the Causeway and the area of the Post Office?
The survey below regarding flooding in Oxford, conducted in 2012, doesn’t even mention the Strand as a flood concern or a concern at all. Odd that Lewis conducted and commented on these responses but then went on to promote the Strand as a priority in 2018. What were the real priorities for this decision? Money? Tourism? Notoriety?
The Town Manager sold the concept to the Commissioners, and they voted to approve it on April 27, 2021. Citizen participation at the meeting was severely limited to virtual by the restriction against live attendance at town meetings due to “Covid.”
On that day, the Town of Oxford, whose quiet beauty has brought tourists here for years, had its beautiful Strand needlessly destroyed.
One lifetime resident addressed this work on the Strand, ” Remember this; hunting for sea glass, wading with your kids, swimming even at low tide…no longer. Now you will have walking up and over berms, no more sea glass and probably not a chance to fish anymore. The bulkhead where people tried to fish is now buried. “The Strand” is no longer the iconic historic area it used to be.”
One wonders why there wasn’t a less destructive solution than the one currently employed, one that would maintain the strand shoreline and its character while still protecting that section of the road, the parking lot etc. from flooding. Lack of imagination? Apathy to the beauty of The Strand and what it means to the citizens of Oxford?
I was once told that many bureaucrats consider themselves special people who think that they, and they alone, know what is right for the people they serve. They don’t even feel they need to listen to the public or solicit ideas from the people they serve. It’s a very special kind of arrogance. As a local bureaucrat once said, ” I can tell these people anything, and they will believe it and go along with it. “
Time to stop going along with it. It is probably too late to save our beloved Oxford Strand. Maybe we can save other iconic parts of Oxford from this type of destruction.
Portrait of Robert Morris, c. 1782 by Charles Willson Peale
For almost a year a majority of citizens in the small town of Oxford, Maryland, have been demanding change and transparency in their town government. Their questions and demands have initiated the development of a hiring policy to assure ethical hiring practices, an election to add a resolution for a special election to replace Town Commissioners when they leave office early, the actual election of a new Commissioner, and many inquiries about the questionable sudden retirement of the police chief and other town employees. Citizens are getting involved in town government and are demanding answers and ethics in their town government.
You would think that local government and the other citizens of Oxford would appreciate the participation of the other residents of the town. Not so.
The authoritarian people who have controlled Oxford for so long are pushing back, afraid of losing their power over town government. They seem to be afraid of transparency and citizen involvement. They have forgotten who government works for; not just the wealthy and influential, but the citizens. They are “circling the wagons” in an attempt to shut down those asking questions.
In a recent town meeting (which was standing room only) one citizen, a local architect and member of the “status quo crowd” wrote a letter to the town entitled, “What Would Robert Morris Do?” It was read by the President of the Town Commissioners, Tom Costigan. In it, the man accused all of the citizens asking questions of being “divisive” and spreading misinformation. This is the third of what seems a coordinated attack of indignant letters and emails from people who don’t care for transparency. He claimed that citizens asking questions of government is not something Robert Morris would approve of. He believes Morris would tell us to sit down and shut up.
If you don’t know Oxford, Robert Morris is a noteworthy historical figure in our town. He has a historic inn named after him as well as our main street. Robert Morris was called the “financier” of the American Revolution. One interesting fact about him is that he originally didn’t want to fight the British. A successful, wealthy businessman, Morris tried to bridge calls for independence with those who were in favor of neutrality and petitioning the King. He didn’t even want to sign the Declaration of Independence. He eventually discovered that the only way to address the tyranny of King George and Great Britian would be to join the Revolutionaries, sign the declaration, fight back and finance the Revolutionary War. He went on to become a critical figure in the young government and was a signer of the Constitution. Without him, the Revolutionary War would not have succeeded.
In other words, he asked questions and made demands of the British and Colonial Government as did the other Founding Fathers. He fought back against the constant lies, repression and tyranny of an unresponsive set of rulers.
Sound familiar? Sound like what the citizens of Oxford are doing? Yeah, it does to me too.
I pointed this out in a response to the letter during public comment. I reminded the writer, the other citizens, and the commissioners, that asking questions is NOT divisive, even if the status quo crowd and town office want to call it that. I stated that we are not interested in getting people in trouble or fired without cause. We WANT TRANSPARENCY, ethical behavior and truth. I reminded everyone that our actions are exactly what Robert Morris and the rest of Founding Fathers did and would tell us to do. It’s how they founded this country. They encouraged a vocal, active citizenry that came from all stations of life, not just those who historically held power. They encouraged people to fight for the right to speak freely to our leaders. They knew there would necessarily be passionate disagreement. As George Washington said, “Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.”
That quote leads back to the initial question. What are the elitists and town office of Oxford trying to keep from the light? It seems odd that a small group of people would fight so hard to keep information hidden from other citizens and to allow the Commissioners/town office to consistently ignore and subvert the policies and procedures of the town. One wonders if it is because they have received some benefit from allowing these actions to occur. Maybe they are reaping the benefits of “business as usual” from the town office. It could be a permit given where others wouldn’t get one, a promise of no speed/drunk driving enforcement outside a bar/restaurant, or actions that favor some citizens over others. Maybe they want the decisions of the past kept secret. Or maybe they desire placid compliance, regardless of the ultimate price.
Or maybe it is something bigger.
None of us know. But that doesn’t mean we should stop asking questions of our public officials, elected and/or hired. Getting real answers is the only way to regain trust.
Robert Morris and the rest of the Founding Fathers would tell us NOT to stop.
As Benjamin Franklin said, ” It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” Ben didn’t say that so it could be a bumper sticker. He said it so people would remember our duty as citizens.
We are working hard to fulfill that responsibility. Even when some people don’t like it.
Update: an acquaintance of mine wrote to say, “Morris made money, the only freedom he cared about was freedom to profit. He sold as much to the British as he did to the Americans. Just an ordinary merchant.” I really appreciated his comments.
That is probably true. However, in the end, he played a major role in the creation of this country, regardless of his motives. And, after all, many of us speaking up are “just ordinary citizens.” Not judges, not architects, not bankers etc.
This article was originally published on eastongazette.com
As the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future rolls out into its second full year of implementation, a horrible truth is coming to light. The funding formula set up for schools blatantly values some students over others.
Despite the Supreme Court finding in 1954 that “separate but equal” is unconstitutional, the State of Maryland wants to reinstate the idea via Blueprint funding.
In the past, counties were given funds for schools via a funding formula that factored in economic status of the county and how many students were enrolled in the district by September 30. For example, in 2016, Talbot County was 24th in the State for per pupil funding provided by the state based on the fact that the county was considered wealthy. Baltimore City, a poor district, was top in per pupil funding provided by the state. Counties like Talbot had to make up the difference between the state portion per pupil and their actual needs. Baltimore City and other poor districts had to do considerably less of the heavy lifting.
The funding was uneven from district to district. But local school boards and Superintendents could determine internally what funding would be and how to spread that money throughout their schools based on what schools needed. They had to show the state how they would spend funds and then were accountable to the state for student outcomes. They could also distribute staff in the schools as they saw fit:
The Old Model
Under the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, the funding will be not only be different from district to district, but from school to school based on state formulas, not local needs. The funding for the nine areas listed below will be determined by the Blueprint formulas, not local input. No longer will locals report and be held accountable for just district level student outcomes but will have to present the funding and outcomes by STATE mandated category in each school.
While making districts accountable for each school in their system is not a bad thing, the Blueprint will give the locals NO control of how to make these schools successful. Many good, effective programs will be defunded and discontinued.
In the new formula, some students are worth more state aid than others. Each district starts out with a base dollar amount for students, $8642.00 per student as determined by enrollment on September 30. This is called “foundation” money. After that comes the “add-ons.” Each struggling K-3 will get an additional $665.00 per student. The term struggling is defined by criteria determined by the State. Special Education students gain systems the base amount plus an additional 86% of the base amount added on. An English Language Learner is the base amount plus 100% of the base amount added. Finally, Free and Reduced Lunch Students are worth base amount plus $6232.00 added. Students can qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch if their family earns 300% of the Federal Poverty Level.
The chart below shows how this will work:
One can see that School A with more students will get less money than School B which has fewer students. And it’s not just a little less, it is substantially less. As the Anne Arundel Schools Superintendent stated in his explanation, children are now entities that “generate dollars” based on their demographics. This is not only a structural change, but an alarming difference as to how we view students. They are commodities.
Let’s translate this into reality. The local district will have difficult decisions to make. With limited financial and staff resources, they will have to pull staff and programs out of School A and put them into School B regardless of the number of students in each. The chart below shows how the smaller school will have more staff and therefore will have a larger average expenditure per teacher in salary. Again, this will not be determined by the locals, but by the state. The State will not care how many teachers are in a given school, the state will want a certain amount of money spent on staff in that school.
This will lead to more problems than uneven class sizes and staff shortages in some schools. Teachers and staff will be moved around like pawns on a chess board in order to meet state mandates determined by the demographic of the students who are in each school. More experienced teachers with higher salaries may be moved to schools based solely on the fact that they are needed to meet the average salary required by the Blueprint. The opposite will happen with new teachers with lower salaries. Teachers won’t be moved based on their level of expertise, but on how much money they make.
Another complication is that the funding per student in a school will change if students leave one school to go to another.
In other words, there will be no continuity of staff in schools and year to year budgeting will be a nightmare. And, let’s not forget that many systems are already short staffed.
In an effort to warn his district’s Board of Education and parent population, Anne Arundel County Chief Financial Officer Matthew Stanski presented the information in the slides above but also other information to show not only how this would affect schools but staffing expenses and financial accounting processes in the county. Currently, systems across the state are preparing budgets without knowing the rules. The projected timeline is shown below:
The Blueprint is not just a concern for one county. On August 19, Carroll County School Superintendent Cynthia McCabe explained to parents that they were “not going to like the changes” the Blueprint would cause in their schools. As a consequence of the new funding formula, schools that were successful would lose staff, funding and programs to other county schools based solely on student demographics, causing large class sizes, fewer teachers, and undoubtedly lower achievement in schools that were doing well. Again, the students become a source of funding, not children in need of education. If the goal is system wide mediocrity, they will achieve it.
Other Superintendents have voiced their concerns over the cost of the Blueprint, the loss of local control of decisions, and the “one size fits all” design of the initiative.
Some will say that this is okay. Why shouldn’t schools with more poor students, English Language Learners, etc. get more resources? The fact is that in most cases they are already. With the exception of large City school systems like Baltimore City and Prince Georges’ County, most systems in the state are addressing the issues of economic, demographic, and special needs subgroups via local programs and funding decisions. Frankly, the disaster in these larger school districts is that they have misallocated money in general and gotten very little return. For the most part, however, local boards want all of their schools to succeed, and they usually know what will work in those schools.
The Blueprint disconnects districts from solving problems in a way that fits their community. It destroys the opportunity for school district administrations to develop creative, dynamic ideas for schools to actually address the challenges of educating all of their students using sound, time tested educational practices while also looking for new, better ways to teach. Funding for those initiatives won’t be possible when the Blueprint dictates that funding be focused on others. Most of these dictates will be promoted by legislators who have no background in education and are merely passing bills to virtue signal that they care. Oh, and to spend those tax dollars!
As it is written, the Blueprint nullifies the needs for local Boards of Education and Superintendents by completely removing them from the decision making process.
It’s about State entities wanting full and complete control over schools in the State of Maryland so they can make sure that schools implement a new unconstitutional precepts separate and unequal. It’s not a Blueprint for Maryland’s Future. It’s a Blueprint for Returning to Maryland’s Past.
Video of Anne Arundel County Public Schools Board Meeting:
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.
We’ve heard it many times in the past three years. Every time there are questions about how money is being spent by government, someone mentions doing a “forensic audit.” Does anyone except lawyers and certified public accountants know what that means?
A forensic audit is different from a financial or internal audit. Financial audits are done to evaluate the financial health of a company or agency. Internal audits are done by companies themselves to find financial issues/problems.
Forensic audits are special audits done to determine if any financial fraud, misappropriation, or embezzlement has occurred. The forensic audit is done in order to support a court case not only for crimes but in financial disputes as well. Usually, a forensic audit is chosen instead of a regular audit if there’s a chance that the evidence collected could be used in court. The problems that trigger a forensic audit may not be major crimes but could be as little as padding expense reports, misusing public funds or conflict of interest. Forensic audits are done by specially trained auditors.
For example, if a manager allows and approves inaccurate expenses of an employee with whom they have a personal relationship that could be discovered and noted in a forensic audit.
Forensic auditors have skills that help them perform an audit so that facts can be presented in court.
Forensic audits are often expensive and time consuming as every detail must be investigated; all income, disbursements, contracts, payments, bills, etc. are examined to see if there is any wrongdoing. A forensic auditor can cost anywhere from $300 to $500 an hour.3 Financial audits either confirm illegal actions or confirm that no illegal actions occurred so they are well worth it.
Here are examples of problems that could be discovered in a forensic audit: (These are posted for informational purposes only and are NOT implying misdeeds by any Oxford town employee and/or official.)
1.If an employee is alleged to have misused their position for personal gains and caused the organization to incur a loss, a forensic audit comes into the picture. For instance, a manager who approves an employee’s excess/unwanted expenses due to a personal relationship may have some leverage over that employee. The manager will not benefit financially from this activitybut could gain favor with the employee personally and professionally.
2. The head of the purchasing department approves purchases from a vendor that will supply material at a higher or lower cost than other vendors. Although the quality of the product is not good, the purchaser is getting some personal compensation (could be “in kind”) from that vendor.
3. An employee submits a fake bill using the company stationery or to show damaged or expired inventory and receives funds for or use of that inventory.2
Forensic audits are not always conducted because one is suspicious of crimes or dishonesty. Forensic accounting can be used to assess the work of professionals, including accountants themselves. The findings from this assessment can determine who has made critical errors (whether intentionally or not). Of course, if the need occurs, forensic audits can be used in court.
The initial question is if the Town of Oxford needs a forensic audit.
Every year for seven years, auditors paid to look over Oxford’s accounts have cited the need to prevent internal conflicts or other issues with accounts by splitting financial duties between two people in the town’s office. Every year, the Commissioners have said they can’t afford to do that even though staff was available to do the job in the town office and the fact that the Commissioners hired an additional staff person as a town “planner” during the same time period. The person hired is the daughter of the current town manager.
The need presented by the auditors was ignored. The Commissioners’ assertion that the town couldn’t afford an additional position isn’t true. Our current town planner makes upwards of $80,000 a year. And, in years past, the financial duties had been split between the Town Manager and another employee who still works in the town office. Why did that end?
Noting those facts, many in town find it troubling that the Commissioners, past and some present, have resisted fixing the problem. Leaving financial matters to ONE person in an organization, public or private, is an invitation for public mistrust and possible employee misdeeds.
The Commissioners’ resistance should trigger a forensic audit. For one thing, if there is no wrongdoing, a forensic audit could put people’s minds at ease a bit. It might also spur the Commissioners to implement a simple solution to the problem; reassign some of the responsibilities of staff in the town’s office. Certainly, the Town Manager and her daughter cannot be assigned to split financial duties. But Town Office duties could be changed to go back to the way things were run before the current Town Manager was hired. These are simple solutions and resisting them seems odd at best.
If there are problems, a forensic audit of the town’s books for the past decade would certainly find them. These might be issues that wouldn’t be discovered by regular auditors and finding these issues would help the town be more fiscally responsible and accountable.
Additionally, with all the millions of dollars from grants being managed in the Town’s accounts, a forensic audit would prove to those funding the grants that Oxford is serious about ethically managing funds.
If presented correctly, those who work in public office positions might welcome the chance to show how well and ethically they do their jobs! A clean forensic audit would do a lot to quiet rumors, innuendo, and allegations of unethical practices. It would also spur the Town Commissioners to adhere more to the guidelines, policies, and procedures of the town, something they have become reluctant to do lately.
So, should Oxford do a forensic audit? Yes. It needs to be done now, before it’s too late.
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.
Oxford Citizens Have Until November 14 To Give Input On Financial Advisory Committee
When it was pointed out in a meeting in September that neither the Commissioners of Oxford nor the Town Manager/Treasurer have experience or qualifications to adequately manage the town’s millions of dollars from grants, Commission President Tom Costigan and member Katrina Greer each created proposals for an “Investment Advisory Committee” to help with that duty.
The two proposals have been posted at the Town’s website for citizens to look at and comment on prior to next week’s town meeting.
It’s not unusual for the town to assign various duties to different volunteer committees in the town. Currently, there are the following commissions: Board of Zoning Appeals, Board of Port Wardens, Historic District Commission, Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation, Election Board, and Ethics Committee. Memberships range from 9 members to three. All committees have terms that vary from 3 to 5 years except the Ethics Committee which, for some odd reason, has no date of appointment or term length for members listed.
Committee members are recruited from the town based on different requirements and are approved by the Commissioners.
The Financial Advisory Committee, according to both proposals, will review the Town’s investments and make recommendations to the Commissioners of investment opportunities for the town.
The differences between the two proposals center mainly on the number of members on the committee, what their terms would be, what information about the town finances they would have access to, and what the requirements would be for membership.
Number of members/length of terms: The proposal drafted by Commission President Tom Costigan suggests three members, each having terms of three years except for the first three members who will have staggered terms of one, two and three years. Greer’s proposal requires five members who will each have terms of two years.
Information access: While Costigan’s proposal requires the Town Manager to provide reports of current funds and investments of the town, the town budget, and expenditures, Greer’s proposal goes a bit deeper, giving the committee access to “all town financial information, both direct and indirect without restriction that is available to the public via a Public Information Act request.”
Eligibility of Members: In Costigan’s proposal, only registered voters in the Town of Oxford with training and experience in investment policies and implementation would be eligible for the Committee. Greer requires that only Property Owners be permitted. They would have to have more specified training in finance including professional certifications, advanced degrees in finance, economics or accounting, and/or seven years in a professional position whose primary responsibilities are for budget, finance, or investment decisions in a large governmental, commercial, academic or non-profit organization which has an annual budget or financial assets under management of more than $100 million.
Analysis: There are plusses and minuses to each proposal. Costigan’s is a much simpler proposal while Greer’s is more detailed in nature. As we have discovered in the last eight months, “the devil is in the details” when it comes to town government. Anything left to interpretation can potentially allow Commissioners and employees to play fast and loose with policies. When serving the public, it is important that everyone is on the same page. With a little editing and “cleaning up,” the details in Greer’s proposal would get the edge on specificity and delineation of committee responsibilities and rights. Our suggestion is to take Costigan’s cleaner framework and insert details from Greer’s.
As far as how many members the committee would have, we believe that the more people you can involve in this committee, the better. The idea of five members versus three prevents the appearance of giving power to a select few and will allow for a broader cross section of the town’s population to be represented.
The terms of the appointees should be no less than three years. Limiting the length of term to two years doesn’t allow for significant, in-depth work to get done. Other official committees in town have terms from three to five years (outside the ethics committee whose term is a mystery), so the precedent has been set for this committee to also have terms of no less than three years. While the staggered terms are interesting, it’s not clear what the purpose would be to pursue that option. Our suggestion is to have five members from Greers proposal and have three-year terms, non-staggered.
Costigan’s proposal seems to limit the information that the committee would have access to while requiring them to do a quarterly review of the town’s investments. However, without access to the full picture of the town’s assets, investments, and expenditures, the committee will not have a comprehensive picture of the economic status of the town. Greer’s proposal allows the members of the committee information that would be available via public information requests, which seems reasonable. Our suggestion is to follow Greer’s access allowance here.
When it comes to eligibility requirements, neither proposal hits the mark. Costigan’s plan wants to allow only registered voters with financial background to participate. Greer, on the other hand, suggests property owners only with extensive financial experience. In reality, in a town of 650 residents, the pool of possible participants should be more open. It’s our suggestion that anyone who is a registered voter, a property owner, or a verified resident of the town be eligible. This will allow someone who rents property in Oxford to participate, which will give some long-time renters a stake in the process. After all, those who live in the town have a vested interest in how town investments fare since their rent and water/sewage bills could be impacted.
When it comes to the duties and selection process, both proposals are identical, allowing the Town Commissioners interviews, nominations, and the duty to make appointments. Both require that applicants disclose any potential financial or business conflicts.
There is a third option which is to do nothing at all. Based on the input from people at town meetings, that option is not satisfactory considering that the amount of money that runs through the town coffers is in the millions. Also, auditor’s reports from the past seven years seem to indicate that more financial oversight and advice is called for:
With such differences on the elements of each proposal, perhaps an ad hoc committee made up of citizens such as the one that created the town’s hiring policy would be the way to go. In that way, the citizens of the town are guaranteed a thorough and complete review of the proposals by citizens and a way to merge these ideas into one effective, working policy. It was an effective process before, why not now?
ADDITIONAL NOTES: While some are using this issue to promote and protect certain employees/elected officials and divide the town, others just want a reasonable, transparent process that will provide accountability and a solution to the issue of investment expertise and financial responsibility in our small town.
A recent email sent to some citizens by a well-known local real estate agent stated those looking for accountability are making allegations of “corruption and grift” in the town administration. This is patently untrue. Questioning the actions of elected officials and public employees is the ultimate check and balance on government whether at the local, county, state or federal government. When actions are taken that could be suspect, it is the citizen’s right to question those actions and demand disclosure.
The email stated that the small group questioning actions of the town had “personal grievances or a different version of what Oxford should be. Period.” Again, if questioning the actions of a public employee or official is “personal” then I suggest that the person who wrote the email should never question another public employee or official about how government is being run. It is a Constitutional right of the citizens “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” If he doesn’t want to avail himself of that right, so be it.
In fact, the “personal” attacks have come from those who want the status quo in Oxford. Members of our “small” group (which isn’t small at all) have been insulted and chastised for exposing the truth. We’ve been told our opinions shouldn’t matter and we should sit down, shut up and stop asking questions.
The writer says we want a different version of “what Oxford should be” from what he wants. If that means we believe our version of Oxford should be a town where public business is not hidden or limited to a privileged few, the writer is correct, our version is different. In our version no matter how many buildings one has built, sold, designed, worked on, etc. or how many county committees that person has been on, no matter how many fancy government positions that person has held, how expensive his house is or what his bank account holds, and no matter how long that person has lived in town, that person has no more right to state their opinions or ideas than the normal middle class working Oxford citizen who raised or is raising a family here and has lived here for fifty, five, or one year(s). The average citizen sees things going on and asks questions. Their questions demand respect and answers.
Our vision of Oxford is what it used to be; a place where we didn’t have to have these debates. The rights of the citizens were understood.
The two proposals can be found here:
Per the meeting, citizen comments regarding these proposals or the third option of “No Committee Needed” should be forward to oxfordclerk@goeaston.net for dissemination to all Commissioners prior to the meeting. (WE SUGGEST YOU COPY THE COMMISSIONERS AS WELL TO ASSURE YOUR RESPONSES ARE RECEIVED)
Starting in 2016, the firms conducting Oxford’s financial audits have expressed concerns about how the town’s financial accounts were being maintained by the town office.
Yearly audits point out as a weakness in Oxford’s financial structure that the responsibilities of Town Manager and Treasurer were under the control of one person, the Town Manager.
From the last audit done on 6/30/22 by UHYLLP, Certified Public Accountants wrote this regarding the financial management structure of the town:
Finding Number 2022-001 Criteria: Proper segregation of duties should be in place to strengthen internal controls to provide reasonable assurance that a material misstatement to the financial statements is prevented. Condition: We noted that the system currently in place creates conflicts within duties assigned to a single individual and produces a high level of internal control risk. During our audit, we noted a lack of segregation of duties. Cause: The lack of appropriately designed internal control systems has produced conflicts regarding assigned duties. Effect: Segregation of duties issues does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, the misappropriation of assets and/or errors on a timely basis. Recommendation: We recommend that, when possible, responsibilities for authorization, recording, and maintaining custody of assets be assigned to different employees. In situations where this is not possible, we recommend the implementation of certain transaction review controls. It is important to note that review controls do not eliminate all risk when segregation of duties conflicts exist, and management and those charged with governance need to be aware of such risks. Identification of Repeat Finding: Due to the nature and size of the Town, this is a repeat finding.
This is the same finding that had been stated in all audits starting in 2016. Yet, the town has not corrected the possible conflict and inherent risk by splitting financial duties between two employees.
Here are the findings from 2016:
Finding Number 2016-001 Criteria: Proper segregation of duties should be in place to strengthen internal controls to provide reasonable assurance that a material misstatement to the financial statements is prevented. Condition: We noted that the system currently in place creates conflicts within duties assigned to a single individual and produces a high level of internal control risk. During our audit, we noted a lack of segregation of duties. Cause: The lack of appropriately designed internal control systems has produced conflicts regarding assigned duties. Effect: Segregation of duties issues does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, the misappropriation of assets and/or errors on a timely basis. Recommendation: We recommend that, when possible, responsibilities for authorization, recording, and maintaining custody of assets be assigned to different employees. In situations where this is not possible, we recommend the implementation of certain transaction review controls. It is important to note that review controls do not eliminate all risk when segregation of duties conflicts exist, and management and those charged with governance need to be aware of such risks. Identification of Repeat Finding: Due to the nature and size of the Town, this is a repeat finding.
In these findings “responsible officials,” (who are NOT identified), were quoted in both audits and all audits since 2016:
Views of Responsible Officials: It has been determined that it would not be cost effective for the Town to add additional personnel to ensure complete segregation of duties in the finance department. However, within the two-person finance department, the Town has effectively designed and implemented mitigating internal controls to help reduce such risk.
The town has not shared what the “mitigating internal controls” are that have been “designed and implemented.”
The actual actions of these “responsible officials” are at odds with what they stated about “cost effectiveness” since in 2021 the town spent approximately $86,000 a year to hire a “town planner” instead of hiring someone who is a CPA who could act as town treasurer. Hiring a treasurer/CPA would have alleviated the internal controls problem.
The Town Manager’s daughter was hired for the Town Planner position.
Apparently, the town’s priority was not in hiring additional finance personnel. The priority was not about splitting the financial responsibilities of the town to mitigate financial risk for the town.
One wonders what the priorities were and are.
The problem could be easily fixed now if some of the financial responsibility was split between current employees in the town office. That’s how it was done previous to the current Town administration. Of course, it would have to be someone else besides the Town Manager’s daughter to avoid a conflict of interest.
That could be by using the current Town Clerk to split financial duties with the Town Manager. That position shared financial responsibilities in the past with the previous Town Manager.
Another option would be to re-classify some jobs in the Town Office and assure that there is someone on staff who has a college degree and financial certification, for example a CPA who could share financial responsibilities with the Town Manager.
It’s been seven years of this being pointed out yearly by auditors. If the issue isn’t resolved, the potential is always there for inaccuracies, mistakes or malfeasance as the auditors stated.
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.
Also according to the Maryland Sheriffs’ Association:
Today, Sheriffs remain the primary law enforcement official in many Maryland communities. The state’s 24 Sheriffs and their more than 1,600 deputies are sworn police officers, graduates of certified police academies, and have the same powers as other Maryland law enforcement officials to make arrests and detain lawbreakers.
In unincorporated areas of the State, the Sheriff frequently provides all law enforcement services. In other jurisdictions, the Sheriff’s primary law enforcement duties may be limited to routine patrol and accident and criminal investigation.
However, even in jurisdictions where other organizations, such as the county or State police, have primary law enforcement responsibilities, Sheriffs retain their police powers. This means Sheriffs and their deputies will respond anytime, anywhere, they observe the commission of a crime or see a citizen in need of assistance.
A delegation of legislators in Frederick County wants to change the role of Sheriffs. Because Sheriffs are designated in the Maryland Constitution as state employees elected by the citizens in their counties, they cannot be removed from office except by elections.
The Frederick County Delegation, citing the recent legal problems of Frederick County Sheriff Jenkins, want to be able to remove a sheriff from office. Legislation is currently being drafted for presentation to the Maryland House of Delegates during the next session. The legislation would rewrite the Maryland Constitution and enhance the ability of counties to remove their sheriffs due to neglect or inability to carry out their duties due to an accusation.
While pushing this idea, speakers spoke about problems in other jurisdictions with their sheriffs, namely Harford and Montgomery County.
But there is a problem with their logic.
The reason Sheriffs are elected in Maryland is to assure each county has law enforcement that is subject to the will of the electorate. Every four years, sheriffs can be voted out by the citizens. This does not apply to State Police or even municipal police forces. Maryland has a checks and balance system between three different kinds of law enforcement entities. And, while they work together, two are accountable to state/municipal government and the other to the local voters.
Of course, they must all follow the law.
But sheriffs bring something different to the table. Within their agency, they have a laser like focus on the needs of their county. Since they are elected, they are more in tune with what their citizens need and want. They are residents of their counties, making them more invested in what happens there.
The Governor, States Attorney General and Democrats in the Maryland legislature seem to have a problem with that. To be honest, they seem to have a problem with ALL law enforcement. They have handcuffed them with sweeping “police reform” bills.
One section of the police reform bill creates a new statewide use-of-force policy and says that officers who violate those standards, causing serious injury or death, can be convicted and sent to prison for up to 10 years. The standard says that force can be used only to prevent “an imminent threat of physical injury” to a person or to “effectuate a legitimate law enforcement objective.”
The policy also says that force must be “necessary and proportional.” Police reform groups said that was a tougher standard than the traditional “reasonableness” standard, which they said was not sufficient for holding officers accountable for blatant acts of violence.
Trouble is, no one can actually define what “necessary and proportional” is, making the standard arbitrary. Police officers won’t know if what they do during an arrest will get them convicted of a crime or not, forcing many to do nothing. Imagine being a policeman facing a violent person committing a crime, especially with a weapon, and having to decide in a split second whether to shoot, use a taser, take other action or just do nothing. No matter what you do, your actions will be reviewed negatively by a group of people who have never been cops and have NO idea whether your actions are “necessary or proportional.”
Or worse, you could have your actions questioned by people who have openly declared war on police. It’s no secret that the Police Accountability Boards in various jurisdictions are populated with people who have an axe to grind with law enforcement.
Which brings us back to this new proposal. President of the Maryland Sheriff’s Association Joe Gamble said about the proposed action; ” The Frederick County delegation to the Legislature is attempting to change the Maryland Constitution in order to remove a sheriff from office for being ACCUSED of an ethics violation or being ACCUSED of a crime. There is no such law that would remove a delegate, senator, governor for an accusation of an ethics violation or being accused of a crime. What’s next, changing our U.S. Constitution since citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty? Will citizens now have the burden of proof to show innocence?”
The bottom line is, one person, one group makes an allegation against a sheriff and that sheriff could be removed. Sounds like a strategy those who wish to commit crime would love to use to remove an effective law enforcement officer.
For the past ten years, the movement to neuter, demoralize, and defund the police has been growing in the United States and particularly in blue states like Maryland. At the same time, crime statistics are sky rocketing.
If there are unethical sheriffs, the people in their counties will hold them accountable with elections. But, at the same time, people in all areas of the state realize the importance of our local Sheriff’s Departments in keeping them protected from those who wish to do harm to them. People also realize that if any law enforcement agency in their counties is going to fight to protect the Constitutional rights of citizens, it’s likely to be their sheriff’s department.
We need to return the favor by standing up for them.
