Friday’s preliminary approval by the House of Delegates was given to a bill that would limit how county health officers can be fired.
House Bill 609Del. Joseline Pea-Melnyk (D-Prince Georges), would require Maryland’s health secretary to give written notice of removal of health officers. This would limit the grounds a health officer can be removed to misconduct in office, immorality, insubordination or willful neglect.
Pea-Melnyk stated that this measure was an unfortunate reflection on the undued political influence we have witnessed in our public health policies during a bill hearing last month. She stated that public health officials have been political targets since the COVID-19 pandemic. They have also faced retaliation from elected officials as well as threats from the public. She said that the bill would ensure transparency so that health officials are removed in an appropriate manner.
The bill appears to provide additional legal protections for the local health officer, Del. Jason Buckel, R-Allegany), was seen on Friday morning on the House Floor.
Buckel proposed an amendment to add the refusal of following a lawful directive from the county board or health or any state official who has executive power over the county department to the list of reasons Buckel could dismiss a local county officer.
The amendment would give the county executive ultimate decision-making authority if they did not see eye-to–eye with a local health officer on issues such as mask mandates.
It is important to consider all the science and health knowledge that exists. [the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has]He said that although it is the responsibility of the elected official to make a decision when it comes to making a decision, it is their responsibility to do so.
Pea-Melnyk claimed that the bill already contains insubordination.
Del. Johnny Mautz (R – Upper Shore) stated that the amendment would clarify what insubordination means.
The amendment was defeated in 38-91 votes.
Del. Jefferson Ghrist, R-Upper Shore), lamented the lack of bipartisanship in the result. Two days ago, not a single committee had accepted any amendment. [from the minority party] yet. He said that at some point, we will have to work together.
Del. April Rose (Rosevelt-Carroll) introduced an amendment that would require local officials to be hired as contractual employees for a period of four years in conjunction with the gubernatorial elections cycle. She stated that this would give the public an opportunity hold their local health officials responsible.
Health officials are currently not elected, but have broad power to close down businesses. [during the pandemic]She said,
Pea-Melnyk argued that health officers shouldn’t be political employees. The decisions they make should be based purely on science and data and not politics. She said that health officers are not typically resigned when there is a change in government and should be kept away from politics.
The amendment by Roses was defeated in 38-91 votes. The measure passed its second reading.
The Senate crossfile is expected to be discussed in the chamber on Monday.
House moves bill to assign environmental justice scores for permit applications
A bill was passed by the Maryland Department of the Environment and divided among the deputies. It would require anyone applying for permits to the Department of the Environment to include an EJ score.
Unter House Bill 1200According to Del., the Maryland Department of the Environment would need to provide indicators from the EJ Score, such as pollution burden exposure, sensitive population and socioeconomic factors, in a public notice indicating that the department is looking into the application. Dana Stein (D. Baltimore County).
Maryland EJScreen was already created by the University of Maryland. This tool gives an EJ score for each census block and soon for each legislative district. It helps to show cumulative environmental impacts in a given community. The tool also includes information about communities socioeconomics, proximity of wastewater treatment and power stations, exposure to pollutant and airborne particulate matter, as well as access to food, green space, and access to water.
This tool was required by the original bill, but it was changed to MDE.
Del. Mark Fisher (R. Calvert) stated that the bill would lead to potential lawsuits against developers, which could result in losing jobs. He introduced an amendment to prohibit the Department of the Environment’s use of an environmental justice score in deciding whether to issue permits.
Stein stated that the bill is about providing a notice with information that residents do not normally have access to. This information does not affect the decision-making power MDE. An EJ score would not ban any possible projects.
Stein said that there would be no public notice that would show that the permit applicant caused the pollution burden on the community. Stein also addressed the concern about lawsuits. The Fishers amendment was defeated by a vote of 37 to 91.
Del. Matthew Morgan (R.-St. Marys), introduced an amend that would prevent an EJ score from incorporating indicators related to race and color, religions, familial status or national origin, marital status sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or disability.
Morgan said that Morgan was aBiden administration releases screening toolRace was not taken into consideration when deciding where resources should be allocated to communities that are most likely to be affected by environmental hazards.
Joe Biden and I may not see eye-to-eye on many polices, but I believe the Biden administration got it right, he said.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyStein explained that the national EJScreen uses demographic indicator such as people of colour, low-income populations, unemployment rate, and others.
Del. Eric Luedtke, D-Montgomery), the main purpose of an EJ score to identify discrimination and let communities be aware if there is a concentration of facilities with negative public health effects.
Luedtke said that it is a well-known truth that pollution is concentrated in low-income communities in Maryland and elsewhere in the United States.
Morgans amendment failed in a vote of 34 to 90. The measure was passed on second read. On Friday, the Senate version of this bill was passed by that chamber 45-0.
Senate moves forward with reform of Juvenile Justice
The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee members re-examined their debate on Senate Bill 691Community-based treatment would be preferred to the out-of home placement of children with criminal charges.
The Juvenile Justice Reform Council was responsible for the creation of the bill. This bipartisan committee included advocates, lawmakers, and law enforcement officers.
Senator Michael J. Hough (R. Frederick) claimed that the bill would allow violent crime victims to remain in their communities.
Sen. Jill P. Carter, D-Baltimore City, responded that this does not prohibit community detention and other restraints.
Carter said that criminal justice professionals have stated that children and their communities are often subject to more harm than good when they are removed home from their parents.
Let me be clear: When we say no prison, we still mean community-based services, according to Carter.
Justin D. Ready (R. Carroll), Senate Minority Whip, was asked about the implications for passing the bill. He stated that the bill would be very constrictive.[s]The consequences that children could face for serious crimes.
Carter said that many experts told Carter that the Juvenile Justice Reform Council heard about the abilities of children brains to change and adjust. This means that they have a high chance of being rehabilitated.
Ready said that the Senate contradicts itself constantly when it comes to neuroplasticity of minors. He claimed that while lawmakers shouldn’t be held responsible in some cases, they give them greater freedom to make decisions in others.
He said that violence is the place where we have to draw a line. It sends the message that we expect less from you when we lower the penalties for violent criminal behavior.
Robert G. Cassilly, a Republican from Harford, argued that the Department of Juvenile Services doesn’t fulfill its mission to rehabilitate kids. Even though statistics show the opposite, the Department of Juvenile Services claims that juvenile crime is increasing.
DJS is failing to fulfill their mission, he stated. He also said that the bill is a mere effort to gloss over that failure.
After nearly an hour, the debate was paused to allow the voting committees to continue.
By the time that the bill was brought back to the floor during the afternoon session, a compromise had been reached.
Hough, who had stated previously that he intended to propose an amendment, withdrew his statement.
William C. Smith Jr., Chair of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee (D-Montgomery), offered an amendment that would give judges more freedom when setting probation.
The amendment was approved without any debate. The bill will be finalized in the chamber Monday.
Different versions and versions of Time to Care Act are passed chambers
Maryland Senate voted 31-15 in favor of the bill. Paid family and medical leaveFriday, parents could take up to 24 weeks off work to have their child born, adopted or guardian. They can also take time to care for themselves after a serious illness.
The bill would create an insurance program that would allow workers to take up 12 weeks of sick time per year to care for their family members or themselves. The program would be funded in 75-25 split by workers and employers, with workers contributing more.
The Senate Democrats’ approach is vastly different from that of the House paid leave push. In the House, lawmakers have gathered around a plan for a deeper study of the issue over the next 12 months and to launch a paid-leave program in June 2024. The House billFriday afternoon, passed 96-33 without any debate
Before voting against the Senate bill, Senator Adelaide C. Eckardt, R-Upper Shore, expressed concern that the state doesn’t have more numbers to calculate the cost.
It is difficult to roll back a program once it has been passed, and once you have made promises to people, it is hard to get that back, she said.
Brian J. Feldman, Vice Chair of the Senate Finance Committee (D-Montgomery), told Eckardt that there is still time for the General Assembly to revisit the bill next session.
Justin C. Ready (R.Carroll), Senate Minority Whip, expressed concern over the bills payroll tax.
He said that it is only a few dollars per week for our friends who support the bill. But when you think about all the stuff we pile onto people in the State, it really does matter.
Fourteen Senate Republicans voted in opposition to the measure, and they were joined by Democratic Senator Katherine A. Klausmeier (D.Baltimore County). Republican Senator Edward R. Reilly (R -Anne Arundel), was absent for the vote.