2020 Legislative Score Update - Quarantine Edition

As those who follow the legislative record tracker might remember, the last update took place in January, scoring legislation through the end of 2019. The score for 2019 is found here, along with a new tracker for 2020.

I hope everyone is staying safe and healthy. We are in unprecedented times as COVID-19 has disrupted most of our daily routines and activities. It has also slowed down county council action on a whole host of bills. Many have been tabled and yet the county council has voted on 10 bills and 32 resolutions, although resolutions are appointments.

This year’s legislative tracker kicks off by scoring six out of the 10 council bills. The 2020 legislative score summary as shown below continues to illustrate two voting blocks. One block continues to vote adversely against the budget and school quality, while another block continues to uphold them.

The tracker continues to demonstrate that Howard County’s political establishment is beholden to developer interests on a bipartisan basis. Take for example the first bill introduced this year (CB1-2020).

The legislation would increase “the number of consecutive years a project or phase of a project must be retested if a project fails one or more components of the school capacity test of the Adequate Public Facilities Act of Howard County” from four to seven years.

This is the second time Councilwoman Liz Walsh sponsored the legislation after it failed as CB17-2019.

Last year, Councilman David Yungmann opposed the legislation because the Board of Education would not take action to mitigate growth regardless of whether the wait times were four or seven years.

Fast forward six months, he votes to delay the legislation “to have a more robust discussion”.

After the “robust discussion” did he vote for the legislation? No, he voted to delay even further because, “every piece of information…leads to another question”.

Well, how can this be? Presumably, he had all his questions answered in 2019 when he voted against it, because "the school system will delay or take no action regardless of whether the wait times were four or seven years." So, which on is it?

In the end, he voted against it.

Last year, Councilwoman Christiana Mercer-Rigby said she would like to see major redistricting take place before she supports the bill.

Fast forward six months and her reasons changed. This year, she voted to delay action by tabling to analyze “long-ranging fiscal policy”.

Adding to her reasons for opposing the legislation, she suggested during an extensive works session that the bill needs to be more targeted so projects in schools that are not overcrowded can move forward.

When Councilwoman Deb Jung told her that is how, by definition, the bill's mechanics works, her response was “if that’s how you feel, okay”.

In the end, she voted against it.