MENU

Sections

More

May 12, 2025

Talbot Spy

Nonpartisan Education-based News for Talbot County Community

Point of View Opinion

The Need to Call Out Gunsallus Falsehoods by Megan Cook

by 27 Comments

As someone who has worked hard to serve this community with honesty and transparency, I’ve always believed that facts should guide our public conversations, especially during an election. That’s why I feel compelled to address several misleading and outright false claims circulating in recent campaign materials. When falsehoods are left unchallenged, it risks becoming accepted as fact. Our community deserves better. These tactics are part of an effort not to inform or unite us but to stir fear and falsely influence voters. That’s not who we are in the Town of Easton, and it’s not how we should conduct ourselves.

One candidate, Frank Gunsallus, has claimed he is the only council member in 30 years to have gone “line by line” through the town budget. That statement isn’t just misleading, it’s false and is a disservice to the many council members, past and present, who have worked diligently every year to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. Every budget season involves careful review, discussion, and difficult decisions. Suggesting otherwise dismisses the thoughtful and responsible work of others who have taken that duty seriously, including myself when I served on the Council from 2009-2023.

The Inclusionary Zoning bill is still a work in progress, and no final version has been drafted. Since 2022, there have been numerous meetings and workshops with both the Town Council and Planning Commission. A dedicated task force, made up of volunteers who spent countless hours reviewing Easton’s housing needs, was appointed to offer thoughtful recommendations. That group is still finalizing its report. To claim the bill mandates high-density housing in every neighborhood is simply false and undermines the work of dozens of people trying in good faith to address a real challenge. The goal is simple: to make it possible for teachers, nurses, police officers, and others who serve our Town to actually live here. If an officer has sworn to protect and serve our town, they ought to be able to call it home.

The same flier accuses the mayor and staff of quietly ushering in development with little or no public input. That’s not only untrue, but it’s also an insult to the hardworking staff, the Planning Commission, and community members involved in every step of our public planning process. Nothing is being “snuck in.” Transparency and community input are cornerstones of how we operate. Claims to the contrary are simply false.

It’s also been claimed that I “recruited” three pro-mayor, pro-development candidates to run for Town Council. That’s false. Two of the implied candidates are already serving on the Council. One of them is running against Mr. Gunsallus not because of ideology, but out of concern over how meetings are managed, the lack of respect shown and civility, and communication breakdowns among council members. Mischaracterizing the motives of individuals who Mr. Gunsallus opposes is unfair and misleading. Voters should look for leadership that is respectful, collaborative, and able to work with others, especially when navigating difficult issues. That’s the kind of leadership Easton deserves.

It’s also been suggested that because I wasn’t born in Easton, I somehow care less or am less committed to this community. That’s not only wrong, it’s also deeply disrespectful. My husband and I moved to Easton 22 years ago for his job as a pediatrician and to be closer to his family. My work as mayor, as a former council member, and my involvement in projects like Project Idlewild, CarePacks, coaching sports, and serving on local boards and clubs, has always been about giving back to the place my husband and I chose to raise our family. And I’m far from alone. Many of the people who make meaningful contributions to Easton each day weren’t born here. What matters is not where someone started, but the heart and effort they bring to serving this town.

Easton is a town worth fighting for, not with fear or falsehoods, but with integrity, respect, and a commitment to the truth. Elections should be about ideas, accountability, and the future we want to build together, not personal attacks or misleading claims. I will continue to stand up for the facts, for our hardworking staff and volunteers, and for a community where we listen to each other even when we disagree. I encourage every voter to look past the lies, ask thoughtful questions, and choose leaders who value collaboration, honesty, and real public service.

Megan JM Cook is the mayor of Easton, Maryland

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

I Support Don Abbatiello for Easton Council President by David Montgomery

by

On May 6th voters in the Town of Easton will choose a new Town Council President. This is an election of exceptional importance, with two candidates who could not be more different from each other. For this reason, I have had to overcome my preference for neutrality in town elections.

I am endorsing Don Abbatiello for Town Council President.  I have had two years to observe how the candidates for this office conduct themselves on the Town Council. Additionally, I was fortunate to serve alongside Don, as interim President for several months in 2023.  Those experiences convince me that Don must be our new Council President.

Don’s calm demeanor, maturity, and integrity would make him stand out in any election. They have been particularly visible in the work of our Town Council. I have sometimes disagreed with fellow Council members, including Don. On those occasions, Don has always tried to find a middle ground on which we could compromise or an amicable way forward. Even when we disagree, he is always willing to engage with facts and rational arguments and to listen to my point of view. 

It may be selfish, but I look forward to having town meetings conducted by Don in an orderly, professional, and courteous manner. That is not what we have had for the past two years. We need a leader who builds good relations and communicates well with the Mayor and all members of the Town Council. 

Don’s dedication to our community is demonstrated by his 27 years of service as a high school teacher, 16 as an Easton firefighter (Fireman of the Year in 2025) and 6 years as Town Council member. I don’t know how he manages to fit all that into a day. Don does not strive for the limelight or try to be the center of attention on every occasion. He just works quietly and effectively to serve all of us.

Some are applying Party labels to candidates in this election, even though all elections in the town of Easton are nonpartisan. Don has not accepted financial support from either Party. He voluntarily disclosed campaign contributions, expenditures and names of contributors for this election, while his opponent has been hiding behind a promise to file a report at the start of next year. 

Don’s character, experience, qualifications and positions on policies affecting the town transcend party labels. He will not be indebted to any party or special interests when this election is over.

We are facing the prospect of devastating change if developers are given their way to build, build, build in Easton. My most important criterion for ranking candidates is their position on whether and how to slow that senseless growth. Don has spoken and voted consistently to restrain growth as long as I have known him. He has been more consistent on limiting proposed developments than anyone else on the Council, including me. 

Don and I have both questioned the proposed inclusionary zoning ordinance because it would be burdensome and have negligible effects. Neither of us wants taxpayers to bear the burden of subsidizing housing for some. I believe that under Don’s leadership, we will be able to find different, more constructive ways to deal with the cost of housing.

Preserving our town’s character, fiscal restraint, and strong support for public safety are my hallmarks of conservatism at the local level. I hope my conservative friends recognize that Don and I agree on all of these. In addition to his stance on growth, Don has worked hard to restrain spending while at the same time fully supporting our police and firefighters.

Don’s positions on all questions have been thoughtful and consistent. He thinks for himself and responds spontaneously, rather than reading prepared statements from notes. He has a clear set of principles that he applies across the board. Don does not vary his positions to suit the audiences that he is addressing or to garner votes. 

To sum it up, Don is the leader that Easton needs.

I am not endorsing Don lightly or even because we agree on everything. We have voted differently on issues that I think are important. But I have learned how destructive it is to make one issue a litmus test for support. When I compare Don to his opponent, I see an overwhelming difference in character, experience, and behavior, as well as clear and sound positions on critical issues for Easton. That makes Don Abbatiello my choice for Council President.

David Montgomery is the Easton Town Councilmember for Ward 3

 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Maryland’s Budget Crossroads Demands Unity, Not Division by Patrick Firth

by

If there’s one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on, it’s that Maryland is facing a budget crisis. But how we got here – and why it’s becoming so much worse so quickly – shouldn’t be up for debate.

Maryland’s economy has been relatively stagnant for years. According to the Maryland Comptroller’s office, our state’s economy grew just 1.6% between late 2016 and early 2023. Meanwhile, our neighbors in Virginia and Pennsylvania grew by 11.2% and 6.6%, respectively. The U.S. economy grew 13.9% during that same period.

This lack of growth was a ticking time bomb. In fact, economists have predicted since 2017 that this issue – a $3 billion structural deficit – was set to detonate this year.

While you may not like specific solutions in this budget – and it is by no means perfect – it is misleading to blame Governor Wes Moore for a budget shortfall that was predicted eight years before he was elected to office. It’s further misleading to point to a 2022 budget surplus because, like every other state, Maryland received a crucial financial lifeline from the federal government during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was convenient for the former governor, but not a long-term solution to Maryland’s ongoing budget issues.

Maryland also must face a stark reality: we will be hit disproportionately hard by the federal government’s workforce reduction priorities and bureaucratic consolidation. Whether you support this effort or not, our friends and neighbors on both sides of the Bay are going to be hit hard by these federal cuts. This does not even account for a stubborn inflation rate, ongoing and incoming tariffs, and a continuing rise to prices.

I’ve tried to read the latest budget proposal with a clear, unbiased perspective. It has things that both do and do not work for us on the Shore. It is not perfect, but it is a budget that can get us through very difficult times both now and ahead. It’s a sensible plan that balances $2 billion in cuts with $1 billion in new revenue. There are areas where all Marylanders may pay more in fees and such, but a significant majority of Marylanders will not see an increase to their individual tax rates. I think, given the difficult times ahead, this is an acceptable solution.

Real financial pain is on the horizon. Partially because of nearly a decade of economic stagnation in Maryland, partially because lawmakers have no choice but to accept an unpopular, but responsible, budget, and partially because of economically questionable decisions being made at the federal level. But I do have faith that we have the right individuals in charge in the State House and within the General Assembly – and that includes Del. Sample-Hughes’ thoughtful vote against the budget proposal in a symbolic gesture to support her constituents for a bill that would inevitably pass the House of Delegates.

The last thing I would contribute is that it is disingenuous to attack and sling mud at the lawmakers from the sidelines as they make tough decisions entering uncharted waters. There has never been a more important time to work together, across the political aisle, in search of and support for common-sense, bipartisan solutions that work for all Marylanders. And we citizens have a duty to remind our elected officials that they are sent to Annapolis to work together, to form partnerships, and to advance their constituents’ interests. Rather than “just say no,” perhaps our Eastern Shore delegation can begin conversations with their fellow lawmakers that begin with, “yes, and I need this for my constituents.” Maybe then they can be stronger advocates for our community. We all share the important value of securing a stronger, more sustainable future for our state and for the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

Patrick Firth is the outgoing chair of Talbot Democrats.

 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

The Political is Personal: Reflections on DEI by Margaret Andersen

by

As the women’s movement was unfolding in the late 1960s, all across the country women gathered in small, informal groups called consciousness raising (CR) groups—conversations that helped us identify the societal origins of problems we were facing in our individual lives. Domestic violence, rape, job discrimination, illegal abortion, the lack of birth control—you name it: These were experienced as personal problems, but their origins were in society and required political, not just personal solutions. For so many of us in my generation, “the personal is political” was a rallying call–a call for change not just in our personal lives, but in society and our social institutions.

This was a time (and it wasn’t that long ago) when there were no women in what we studied in school. Colleges were places where women could only wear dresses. Blue jeans, which became the symbol of a generation, were forbidden on campus—until women revolted. Blue jeans were a symbol of the working class and wearing them, as suggested by SNCC (the activist group, Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee), was a symbol of solidarity with the working class. Women demanded their rights—on campus, at home, at work: everywhere! 

We embarked on a course of compensatory education, trying to learn through any means necessary all that had been left out of what we were taught. There were few studies about women; even medical science routinely excluded women from research samples. When I was in graduate school (where I had no women professors), what we learned about women came from newsprint pamphlets, our CR groups, and whatever we could put our hands on that taught us about women’s history, lives, artistic contributions, and everyday experiences. This was the birth of Women’s Studies—or what is now often called gender studies.

My compensatory education had to offset all I had not learned about women, about people of color, about LGBTQ experiences—in other words, my education excluded more than half the world’s population. Ironically, the term “compensatory education” at the time usually referred to what was perceived as inadequate education for people of color in racially segregated schools, but we all need an education that teaches us about the full range of human experience.

As time proceeded, our efforts to “integrate” education by including the work, experiences, and contributions of women, people of color, immigrants, and LGBTQ people became institutionalized in women’s studies programs, ethnic and racial studies programs, LGBTQ studies, and—yes–diversity initiatives: the now demonized DEI!

Now the assault on so-called DEI feels like a punch in the gut to me. I have devoted fifty plus years of my education and the education I have passed on to others in the interest of an inclusive, not exclusive, curriculum. Scholarship in these diverse areas of study has flourished and people have learned that having more inclusive educational and workplace settings actually improves performance for ALL groups. What is it that is so threatening about DEI that powerful interests are now trying to wipe it out of every institution?

I’ll hazard a guess that most opponents of so-called DEI cannot tell you what it is. Of course, many of us have sat through boring workshops intended to raise our awareness of “DEI.” A lot of us have raised our understanding of what changes—both personal and political—are necessary to achieve a more fair and equitable society—in all its dimensions. To me, DEI is just about that—respecting and understanding the enormous diversity of people living and working all around us; desiring more equitable (just plain fair) opportunities for people to achieve their dreams; and being inclusive, not exclusive, in how we think and who we think about—and value.

I take the current assault on DEI as a personal affront—an affront on all I have worked for over fifty plus years as a professor, author, and college administrator. The time is frightening and, like many of my friends, colleagues, and family members, most days I just want to crawl in a hole. I feel powerless to change the retrograde actions that are happening all around us, every day. But the changes I have witnessed in my own lifetime are vast and should not be taken for granted. We must speak out even when it feels like there are big risks in doing so. 

Even putting these thoughts in print feels scary given the retribution that is now all too common. But I ask you to remember: I am your neighbor, might have been your teacher, am not a criminal. I am an American and love my country, as I hear you do too. But before you post some nasty comment to this letter, I ask you also to think about whether you want your child, your friend, your neighbor to grow up in a country where we learn little, if anything, about people’s experiences other than our own and where powerful interests ask you to ignore the hard work of so many who fought to bring you a more inclusive, just, and open society.  

I also ask you to deeply care about anyone, maybe in your family or friendship network, who loves a lesbian or gay daughter or sibling, even when the coming out process asked them to change everything they thought they knew. Love those who cherish and embrace a trans member of the family even when their old beliefs were upended by this reality. Love those who have fully welcomed an interracial couple and their children into an otherwise all white family. Care about anyone from an immigrant background who came to this nation to seek a better life for themselves and their children.  Know their experiences; don’t believe the myths.

To all of you, my heart is with you even as I rage! 

Dr Margaret L. Andersen is the Elizabeth and Edward Rosenberg Professor Emerita, Founder and Executive Director of the President’s Diversity Initiative, University of Delaware, who lives in Oxford.

 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

New report reveals value of resource conservation for Shore businesses by John Horner

by

I consider it a privilege to live and work in a place so many Marylanders associate with vacations, retirement, recreation, and quiet retreats. But as good as our parks, rivers, beaches, and charming towns are for those very activities—the Eastern Shore is equally a place of everyday living and hard honest work, schools and small businesses, boat builders and watermen. At Easton Utilities, we are invested in it all – whether we’re powering the air conditioning in a vacation home so that a young family can escape a summer heat wave, keeping the lights on in a farmer’s winter workshop, helping a local restaurant cook with natural gas, or providing high speed internet to a long-awaited new healthcare facility.

It’s easy to see how a utility company economically benefits the residents and visitors of the Shore. But all of our services would be irrelevant if not for the benefits provided by our water, woodlands, clean air, wildlife, fertile soil, beaches, and abundant seafood. These natural resources offer more than an admirable landscape and deep cultural identity, they drive our economy. Eastern Shore Land Conservancy (ESLC), in collaboration with the Delmarva Restoration and Conservation Network (DRCN), recently released a report titled, “Economic Impact of Natural Resources Conservation on the Delmarva Peninsula.” This comprehensive study highlights the undeniable benefits of the Eastern Shore’s natural resources.

Since I first began at Easton Utilities, we have made sustainability a priority. Our Easton Sustainability Campus is constantly developing new innovative ways to pursue our sustainability mission of conserving natural resources in a way that is economically viable. Located at our Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR) Wastewater Treatment Facility, this campus also houses our cost-effective 2 MW solar array which was significantly grant-funded by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). In fact, our ENR Wastewater Treatment Facility’s exceptional performance regarding nitrogen and phosphorous discharge concentrations has resulted in additional grant funding year over year from MDE. These funds are reinvested in the wastewater facility for ongoing operations and maintenance undertakings in order to continue optimal performance.

In addition, from our annual tree planting initiative to our pollinator habitat, we remain committed to enhancing the quality of life in our beloved coastal communities by making environmental stewardship a priority and seeking out cost-effective projects which can help us to address the needs of both our place and our people.

Now more than ever, ESLC’s economic report reveals just how critical conservation efforts are if we want to preserve our beautiful peninsula home and unique way of life. Land conservation anchors environmental stewardship; it’s a cornerstone for preserving the Eastern Shore’s cultural heritage and its economy. By safeguarding Delmarva’s natural resources, we ensure that future generations can experience the beauty, traditions, and productive, meaningful work that define this unique region.

In my role as the President and CEO of Easton Utilities, I am ever mindful of what drives the Eastern Shore quality of life for both our employees and our customers. This new report shares in numbers what we all feel daily: the natural resources of the Shore keep us afloat. I am confident that Easton Utilities, through our partnership with the Town of Easton and Mayor Megan Cook, will continue to do everything in our power to conserve our precious region while providing for our community, and now with an even greater understanding of the essential value of our natural resources.

John Horner is the president and CEO of Easton Utilities

The report can be read here.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Moore’s Misguided Tax Proposal: Punishing success, ignoring reform by Clayton Mitchell

by

Governor Wes Moore’s declaration that raising taxes would require a “high bar” seems to have been more rhetoric than reality. For many Maryland taxpayers, this supposed bar appears distressingly low. The governor’s plan to impose higher taxes on households earning over $1 million and individuals earning over $500,000 annually is a stark departure from his high-bar promise and a policy laden with inequities and unintended consequences.

Maryland’s fiscal challenges are undeniable. With revenue growth projected at less than 2% for fiscal year 2025 and under 1% for 2026, and mandatory spending on programs like Medicaid expected to rise by 9% this year alone, the state faces a daunting budgetary imbalance.

Governor Moore’s proposal includes $2 billion in discretionary spending cuts. However, these cuts are paired with targeted tax increases on higher earners. While the absence of increases to sales or property taxes may provide some comfort, the broader approach of selective taxation undermines the governor’s commitment to fairness and economic growth.

The recent Gonzales Poll underscores Marylanders’ skepticism of new taxation schemes, with nearly two-thirds of respondents expressing opposition to tax increases as a means of addressing the state’s fiscal challenges. This sentiment highlights the electorate’s demand for fiscal discipline and innovative solutions over the well-trodden path of raising taxes. Selective taxation, regardless of how it is framed, is inherently unjust.

As Senator Stephen Hershey (R-District 36) aptly noted, raising taxes on higher earners risks driving these individuals—and their substantial contributions to state revenues—out of Maryland entirely. This is not a theoretical concern. Data from previous tax hikes show an exodus of successful individuals to states with more favorable tax climates, leaving Maryland with an even smaller tax base.

The notion of taxing those who have done “exceptionally well” financially might seem appealing in theory, but in practice, it becomes an exercise in punishing achievement. This policy is less about equity and more about window dressing, an attempt to placate voters while masking the underlying inefficiencies in Maryland’s fiscal management.

The threshold for who qualifies as having done “exceptionally well” financially will be crucial. If history is any guide, this definition is likely to skew lower than proposed during the legislative process, capturing not only the affluent but also many middle-class families who have diligently saved and invested. Governor Moore’s framing of this policy as “asking a little more” from the wealthy is, to borrow a phrase, “putting lipstick on a pig”.

Maryland’s reliance on mandatory spending growth is at the heart of this crisis. Programs like the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, while laudable in their aims, require significant adjustments. Governor Moore has rightly noted that “adjustments” are necessary, but without genuine reform, mandatory spending will continue to balloon, exacerbating fiscal woes. Cutting only discretionary spending while leaving mandatory expenditures materially unchecked is akin to bailing water from a sinking ship without plugging the hole.

Governor Moore’s proposal to couple tax hikes on high earners with tax cuts for others and a reduction in the corporate tax rate sounds enticing on paper but is inherently flawed. This approach picks winners and losers in a manner that punishes achievement and stifles economic growth. Moreover, it fosters an anfractuous cycle: as discretionary spending is squeezed, the state will inevitably return to taxpayers—all taxpayers—for more revenue to fund an unsustainable status quo during the next few years.

The political dynamics in Annapolis further underscore the improbability of meaningful reform. As Senator Hershey predicted, little will be cut from the discretionary budget, taxes will be raised, and mandated spending will continue to expand unchecked. The legislature will “tax, spend, and turn the page” until next year, kicking the proverbial can down the road. Who among us doubts this outcome?

To chart a different course, Maryland must confront its fiscal realities with courage and clarity. Reforming the formulas that govern mandatory spending is imperative. Streamlining the state’s bureaucracy, as I argued in my December 11, 2024, Center Maryland column, must be a priority. Additionally, the state must cultivate economic growth by fostering a business-friendly environment, not by driving entrepreneurs and high earners away.

Governor Moore’s insistence that “taxes are a tactic, not an ideology” is worth remembering. But tactics, no matter how well-intentioned, must be rooted in sound strategy. Maryland’s path forward requires a disciplined, equitable approach to budgeting—one that respects all taxpayers, rewards achievement, and ensures the state’s fiscal health for generations to come. Anything less is a disservice to the millions who call Maryland home.

If Governor Moore can muster the fortitude to lead a true reorganization of Maryland’s sprawling bureaucracy and present a cogent, unapologetically realistic plan to revise and restrain mandatory spending in alignment with our fiscal realities, I will be the first to applaud his statesmanship. Indeed, I will champion his cause with unbridled vigor, for such an endeavor would be nothing short of heroic—a triumph of principle over expedience, of vision over inertia. It would be a testament that leadership, when rooted in prudence and equity, can rise above the clamor of demagoguery to chart a course worthy of Maryland’s promise and its people.

Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is a life-long Eastern Shoreman, an attorney, and former Chairman of the Maryland Department of Labor’s Board of Appeals.  He is co-host of the Gonzales/Mitchell Show podcast that discusses politics, business, and cultural issues. 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Maryland’s fiscal apocalypse by Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr.

by

Maryland’s State Budget is teetering on the brink of an unprecedented financial collapse. The refusal to address formula-driven mandatory and entitlement spending threatens to thrust the state into a cycle of automatic “runaway” deficits, culminating in a financial “Extinction Level Event” in the near future. Despite the gravity of this crisis, political leaders have shied away from the structural reforms necessary to restore fiscal stability. Without bold action, Maryland’s taxpayers face a perilous future.

At the heart of Maryland’s fiscal woes is the rigid structure of formula-driven mandatory spending. These formulas mandate funding levels for key programs, such as education and Medicaid, irrespective of the state’s revenue performance. 

The failure to redefine and adjust the mandatory and entitlement spending based on economic realities is not a trivial oversight; it is a catastrophic misjudgment that will surely lead to a financial collapse from which there is no recovery. The state’s budget will collapse under its own weight—not due to inadequate taxation, not by trimming the discretionary budget, but because of otherwise well-meaning mandatory spending formulas whose costs become prohibitively unsustainable as they approach reality. Senate President Bill Ferguson underscored this reality, acknowledging that entitlement programs constitute the bulk of the growing deficit. Yet, political leaders have made little progress in reforming these spending mandates.

The illusion of fiscal health under the Hogan administration was largely sustained by federal COVID relief funds, which artificially created budget surpluses. These one-time funds masked the structural deficit and deferred difficult financial decisions. However, with the federal COVID money now evaporated, the true extent of Maryland’s budgetary challenges has come into sharp focus. Moreover, the upcoming Trump administration is likely to scale back discretionary federal spending, which has traditionally bolstered Maryland’s economy due to its reliance on federal contracts and agencies. This reduction in federal support will further exacerbate the state’s financial challenges, leaving Maryland ill-prepared to weather the storm.

Another significant drain on the state’s resources is Governor Moore’s commitment to “climate investments.” While addressing climate change is a noble goal, it is fundamentally a national and global issue, not a state-specific one. Maryland’s taxpayers should not be saddled with debt for initiatives that will have a de minimus impact on global climate trends. Prioritizing these expenditures over addressing the budget crisis is fiscally irresponsible and diverts attention from urgent structural reforms.

The recent Gonzales Poll reveals that a majority of Marylanders oppose tax increases to address the budget deficit. More than three-quarters of respondents oppose increases in income, property, and sales taxes. Even among those who strongly approve of Governor Moore’s performance, a significant majority oppose new taxes. This opposition underscores the political peril of pursuing tax hikes without first addressing the state’s spending problem.

While commendable as a good first “baby step”, Governor Moore’s recent proposal to save $50 million through government efficiencies is a drop in the ocean compared to the nearly $3 billion deficit – a deficit that is projected to double by 2030. While symbolic gestures like streamlining laptop procurement and reducing underutilized state vehicles are commendable, they fall far short of the comprehensive restructuring needed and do nothing to adjust mandatory spending. 

The Moore Administration’s reliance on outside consultants, such as Boston Consulting Group, further diminishes the credibility of these efforts. Not only will the consulting firm receive 20% of any identified savings, but this agreement could cost taxpayers up to $15 million over two years. This expenditure – which has been billed as a measure to save money- epitomizes the mismanagement of resources that has plagued the state.

In a December 11, 2024, opinion article in Center Maryland, I called upon Governor Moore to “reorganize Maryland’s bloated bureaucracy” for the first time in over 50 years before considering tax increases. This reorganization should include revisiting mandatory spending formulas, recalibrating spending mandates to align with the state’s fiscal realities, addressing unfunded pension liabilities that loom like a ticking time bomb, and eliminating redundant programs through a thorough review of state operations. Recent proposals that have been quietly suggested by legislative leaders such as Senate President Bill Ferguson – such as raising the capital gains tax – fail to address the structural deficit and punish success, should be outright rejected. 

Maryland is at a crossroads. The state’s leaders must confront the hard truths about its fiscal trajectory and embrace meaningful reforms. Without immediate decisive action, the combination of formula-driven spending, evaporating federal support, and misplaced priorities will lead Maryland toward a financial catastrophe. The time for half-measures is over; the state’s fiscal survival depends on bold, transformative leadership.

Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is a lifelong Eastern Shoreman, attorney, and former Maryland Department of Labor’s Board of Appeals Chairman.  He is co-host of the Gonzales/Mitchell Show podcast, which discusses politics, business, and cultural issues.

 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Consent first, investigate later by Aubrey Sarvis

by

The Senate Armed Services Committee has scheduled a hearing for January 14th on the nomination of Pete Hegseth to be the next Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding that most committee senators have not been afforded an opportunity to see Mr. Hegseth’s F.B.I. background check or discuss with the nominee their concerns about reports involving sexual assault and harassment, a drinking problem, and mismanagement of two small veteran groups the nominee supervised. Usually a nominee for Secretary of Defense is eager to seize an opportunity to sit down with every senator on Armed Services to address allegations and alleviate any serious concerns. Not this time. This new approach is not consistent with how this committee exercises its advise and consent role.  Someone doesn’t want the Senate looking too closely at this young nominee’s background, recent behavior, and slim qualifications. The question is why.

Trump and incoming Vice-President Vance would have the Senate and American people believe there is nothing disturbing here and nothing more to learn about Mr. Hegseth’s fitness to serve in this critically important post.  Indeed, earlier this week the President-elect in a private caucus meeting with Senate Republicans apparently implored them to stick with him and Pete Hegseth, but he did not address any objections leveled against Mr. Hegseth’s nomination.  Last week Mr. Vance e-mailed me, and no doubt thousands of other veterans who had voted Republican at one time or another, “Patriot, They can’t go after President Trump and me.  We already beat them in a landslide! That’s why they’ve focused their efforts attacking a proud veteran like Pete Hegseth.”  Vance did not refute any of the arguments against the nomination, but he did ask me to sign Hegseth’s official letter of support that would soon flood senate offices.

Trump and Vance are making a weak case in behalf of this troubling nomination: senators should trust us and do as we ask. That isn’t the balance of power the framers of our Constitution had in mind. A president nominates, but he doesn’t get to manage the Senate process or dictate the vote outcome. Yes, historically, most senators have been inclined to vote for the nominee a president picks unless there are compelling reasons to object.  A refusal by the White House and a nominee to address and refute serious allegations would certainly be a compelling reason to vote against any nominee. Perhaps a review of the brief history of another troubling nomination for Secretary of Defense might be in order.  

In 1989, Republican President George H. W. Bush nominated the former Republican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services, John Tower of Texas, to be his Secretary of Defense. Opposition to the Tower nomination wasn’t about getting President Bush or embarrassing a credible nominee many respected.  Opposition to the Tower nomination went directly to concerns about the nominee’s excessive drinking, womanizing, unacceptable behavior towards women, and blackmail. In1989 the senate did not enjoy holding one of their own to the same standards they demanded of other nominees, but they could not deny what was before them in plain sight. What unfolded in public view over weeks was painful and could have been avoided by Mr. Tower withdrawing, but Tower insisted he had no problem with drinking or women, confident he and the Bush White House would prevail. After hearings and floor debate, the senate, having refused to be rushed or flattered or cowered did its job.  It did not consent to the Tower nomination, and Dick Cheney became Secretary of Defense which pleased most Republicans enormously. 

The Senate Armed Services Committee should adopt the Tower approach to take up the Hegseth nomination. Today, senators cannot deny the stonewalling going on as they wrestle with a nomination riddled with many unanswered questions. The committee should afford the smooth-talking television personality Hegseth a full and fair opportunity to refute serious allegations and silence his critics. Pithy and evasive answers must be challenged.  Most senators, Democrats and Republicans, would like to vote for the nominee.  But before the clerk calls the Hegseth vote each senator should ask if she or he is willing to take a chance on a nominee with thin qualifications who has a reported history of excessive drinking and repeated abusive behavior towards women, the very nominee, who, if confirmed, will make war and peace and national security recommendations to Congress and the President, and manage the largest workforce in the U. S. government. Senators must be able to answer in the affirmative they are confident this nominee will protect all service members from sexual abuse and harassment while also insuring women have the same opportunities for advancement as their male counterparts.  Women make up 18% of the force and some of our services are already not meeting their recruiting goals.  To declare, as this nominee and former junior officer has done, that some fields should not be open to women hardly encourages more women to sign up. 

Today there remains a serious sexual harassment and sexual abuse problem in every branch of our armed services, as well as a persistent drinking problem.  This is no time to confirm an individual to lead our armed forces and Defense Department civilians who may be seriously challenged in managing his drinking and conducting himself appropriately with women in social and professional settings.

Every senator on the committee should ask this nominee if he has now or ever had a serious drinking problem or a problem behaving appropriately with women at work and socially. The nominee’s answer must be clear and consistent with how he has conducted himself in recent years at work, socially, and at home.  Thirty-six years ago Senator John Tower, the former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, insisted he had no problem with drink or women, but hearings and a record complete with credible witnesses revealed otherwise.

 A few sitting senators such as Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Chuck Grassley of Iowa recall the ill-advised Tower nomination very well. Senator Grassley may want to share that history with his colleague, the junior senator from Iowa, Joni Ernest, an Army veteran, who sits on Armed Services and cares deeply about women in the ranks.  Soon she may have to vote on the Hegseth nomination. It could well be the most impactful vote Senator Ernst will ever cast.

Aubrey Sarvis is an Army veteran and retired United States Senate counsel and corporate lawyer now living in Chestertown 

 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Reflections on cabinet choices by J.T. Smith

by

Last week President-elect Trump proved his wish to be a “disrupter” by announcing several capricious and extraordinary choices for some of the most important posts in his cabinet. They included Robert F Kennedy Jr. to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS); Peter Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense; and Matt Gaetz to be Attorney General.

A half a century ago, I served as Executive Assistant to a prominent Republican public servant, Elliot Richardson, who served sequentially in these three cabinet posts. Trump’s choices caused me to recall and reflect on the experience and qualities that Richardson brought to these posts, and the stark contrast they suggest.

Richardson was paragon of the “Greatest Generation” and very much part of the “elite” that it is now popular to disparage. Descendant of a long line of prominent Boston doctors, he attended Harvard and Harvard Law School, where he was elected President of the Law Review. He interrupted law school to join the Army. He went ashore on D Day at Normandy as a medical officer and walked through a minefield to rescue a wounded companion. After law school, he clerked for a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In the 1950s he was a Senate staff member and then Assistant Secretary in the new Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW, now HHS). He then became United States Attorney for Massachusetts. After brief service as a partner in Boston’s preeminent law firm, he was elected Lt Governor and subsequently Attorney General of Massachusetts. Before becoming Secretary of HEW in 1970, Richardson served for a year as the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State.

To the job of Secretary of HEW, Richardson brought prior experience as the Department’s Assistant Secretary; expertise in public management from his roles in state government as well as the U.S. State Department; wide knowledge of the interaction of HEW’s programs with state social service, education and health agencies; and a family-based respect for HEW’s medical and public health professionals. He embraced a management style that emphasized respect for, and use of career civil servants. And he delighted in wrestling with the legislative and policy challenges surrounding welfare and health care reforms and vexed issues of civil rights.

The only thing that Richardson and RFK Jr have in common is family roots in Massachusetts. Kennedy has no experience with public management, no respect for civil servants or for public health programs. His vigorous embrace of a series anti-scientific conspiracy myths and other wrong-headed personal attributes should disqualify him from cabinet service even if he had relevant public management experience.

As Secretary of Defense, Richardson brought an understanding of foreign and defense policy from service as the number two officer of the State Department; seasoning as a manager of huge public agencies; heroic military service in WWII; and large respect for the Department’s military and civilian staff. Trump’s nominee, Peter Hegseth, a Fox News weekend commentator, is manifestly unqualified to be Secretary of Defense. He has no experience with which to manage a colossal public agency; has already started to wage culture war against military leadership and has engaged in lamentable public behavior. His military service is not in any way a sufficient qualification for the job.

Richardson brought sparkling credentials to the job of Attorney General—law review president, Supreme Court Clerk, United States Attorney and State Attorney General.

And he courageously defied President Nixon rather than execute an order he knew to be unlawful at the time of the “Saturday Night Massacre.” By horrendous contrast, Matt Gaetz, a morally compromised former legislator, has no relevant legal or public administration experience. He promises to be an agent of “retribution” for the new President.

Richardson was an exceptional representative of an exceptional generation. One cannot expect individuals of his quality to proliferate in later generations. But surely, there are more qualified citizens to fill these roles. The United States Senate should muster the will and courage to vote down these ludicrous selections for leadership of three of the nation’s vital departments. If it doesn’t, the Constitutional order will be in jeopardy and Republican Senators will live in infamy.

J.T. Smith served in the CIA, the Department of Health Education and Welfare, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce and the Department of State before becoming a partner in the law firm of  Covington & Burling. He retired to Easton in 2005.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Balancing Growth and Green: Chestertown’s Greenbelt Plan Faces a Solar Challenge by Steve Kline

by

My love for the Eastern Shore started in Chestertown. I used to visit each fall for the Chestertown Wildlife Art Festival and it was one of my favorite weekends of the year. Big groups of migrating Canada geese would hang in the air, as would that first real bite of autumn chill. The magic of Chestertown, like so much of the Eastern Shore, is in its close interplay of vista and village. Just a stone’s throw from my favorite bookstore one can enjoy the rural countryside in full, by paddling Radcliffe Creek, cycling a scenic byway, or photographing combines bringing in the harvest.

At the same time, I was making those trips to Chestertown, around 2007, Eastern Shore Land Conservancy was working with the Town of Chestertown, Kent County, and a professional planning firm, to create the Chestertown Greenbelt Master Plan. The master plan was meant to encompass the future of the Clarke-Hopewell farm, described by Chestertown Mayor David Foster as “our only real opportunity for expansion of Chestertown.” The nearly 500 acre farm, located northeast of Chestertown’s historic downtown, is one of the last remaining sizeable undeveloped tracts within the Chestertown Planning Boundary.

This was before the Great Recession and there were plenty of questions about how development would shape the future of Chestertown and the entire Eastern Shore. So enter the master plan, developed with strong input from the community, to ensure that future development of the Clarke-Hopewell farm would serve as an “organic extension of the historic fabric of the town,” an effort to replicate in Chestertown’s future what had worked so well in its past.

One of the questions that was asked during the inevitable community workshop nearly twenty years ago was: “What defines the character of Chestertown, and should be reflected in this new part of town?” Responses include: “historic…small town feeling…neighborhood feel…walkable…life on a human scale.” Those words do a nice job describing what works about Chestertown. The master plan hews closely to these ideas, providing a flexible and iterative development program designed to “accommodate much of the growth of the town and the county over the next 50-100 years.” The plan includes hamlets and villages, each of which incorporates mixed-use buildings, civic uses, and neighborhood greens. 

In 2015, the Chestertown Greenbelt Master Plan was incorporated formally into the Chestertown comprehensive plan. It was memorialized in a beautiful leather-bound volume that sits on a shelf here at the Eastern Shore Conservation Center. Increasingly, it looks like that is where the master plan will stay.

Instead of human-scale hamlets, what now seems poised to occupy the Clarke-Hopewell farm is a 45-megawatt utility-scale solar array. The array will send power straight to the grid, keeping lights on and computers buzzing in homes and businesses and data centers as far away as Illinois. And all of this has been planned despite the clear and formal opposition of Chestertown and Kent County.

This change came about because the solar developer, a subsidiary of a massive Canadian-based asset management company, petitioned for, and was granted a Certificate of Public Convenience and Need (or a CPCN) from the State of Maryland. What does this mean? Well, in this case, the CPCN serves as a kind of permission slip, signed by state government, allowing the solar company to work around time-tested and well-understood local land use decision making processes. This is referred to as preemption, since local zoning rules, planning commissions, and comprehensive plans are ‘preempted’ by the CPCN, which serves as a kind of blanket approval for land use and site plans that might otherwise be inconsistent with local wishes.  

State preemption of local land use rules is being done in the spirit of addressing the challenge of climate change head on, for which the state has adopted aggressive renewable energy generation goals. But in the rush to site solar power, the pendulum has swung too far. The playing field is too unlevel. Parcels close to our towns and designated growth areas deserve careful attention, responsible land use, and close examination. In Chestertown’s case, the state’s CPCN is plowing through the town’s best laid plans and taking off the table a parcel that was meant to accommodate well-planned growth for the next fifty years or more. Instead of public parks, community orchards, and apartments that young people can afford and easily bike from, instead of tree-café-playground-garden-cottage-barbershop we’ll have panel-panel-panel—more than 140,000 modules.

Solar panels do not need fertile soil. They do not need to have their hair cut and they do not need to bike to class in the morning. There are many other places solar can go. Where else is Chestertown supposed to go? There are not many other spaces the rest of Chestertown can grow into. At least not without contributing to the Eastern Shore’s “auto-oriented suburban sprawl which threatens to erode its rural character.”

In the race to site solar power as quickly as possible, the Eastern Shore looks increasingly attractive. But we must have some balance, some way to say “Here, but not there.” Many of our open acres are best at producing food, and they should remain in agriculture. Other acres, located nearest our towns, are best suited for new neighborhoods. Some spots are well-suited for solar generation. But when we write a new set of rules that only applies to solar, the balance is thrown off in favor of a single land use.

Rather than allowing Chestertown to “grow harmoniously… slowly and methodically as to maximize the efficiency of its land use,” as the Greenbelt Plan so eloquently states, we will allow our land to be “rapidly digested.” The Eastern Shore will lose.

Steve Kline is the president of the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.