When it comes to text-messaging from court, apparently some people just don’t know when to quit.

(And Judge Sweeney thought the reporters at the Dixon trial had a problem…) 

HT: Baltimore Sun

Has it really been more than seven months since I’ve noted the annotations in the opinions of Court of Appeals Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr.?

Sadly, it has.

I’ve been checking periodically since May, of course, but honestly I haven’t been as diligent as I should have been. (Anyone else smell a New Year’s resolution here?) So I did a quick review of the judge’s opinions since I last wrote about them. And while I didn’t see too many Harry Potter references, two opinions stood out.

Harrell referred to a zoning dispute between Baltimore City residents and a neighboring apartment complex as “the city’s version of the Hundred Years’ War” in a July opinion. Not only does Harrell give a brief description of the Hundred Years’ War in a footnote, he includes this gem:

The Hundred Years’ War gave history Joan of Arc. The instant case also has a central figure named Joan (one of the Petitioners), who, like her saintly antecedent, faithfully presses her cause, having battled the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore numerous times. Although Joan of Arc suffered an unfortunate fate, her principals… ultimately succeeded.

One month later, Harrell went from the historical to the philosophical. He began a majority opinion holding the state can regulate noise from a shooting club in Allegany County with a question: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Harrell notes many attribute the question to 18th century Irish philosopher George Berkeley.

The judge then partially answers the question. “An existentialist likely would decline to confront the riddle because human impact expressly is excluded by the query,” he writes. His footnote offers a crash course in existentialism:

Most existentialists treat the human subject as the starting point for philosophical thought. Thus, this riddle likely would be deemed by them to be too abstract and remote from the concrete human experience to be worthy of serious contemplation.

In other words, the opposite of Harrell’s opinions.

Are you a Maryland lawyer or willing to become one?

Are you a Maryland resident or willing to become one?

Are you in good standing?

Do you have 10 years of progressively responsible active experience in the practice of law?

Did at least two of those years involve prosecutoral or similar legal experience before administrative or disciplinary agencies, as well as supervisory experience over other lawyers and a budget?

If you answered yes to all of these questions, you qualify for a $115,000-$130,000-a-year job that has been held by the same person since 1981.

Oh, one other thing: You must be willing to prosecute Maryland attorneys who violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Yes, for the first time in nearly 30 years, Maryland’s Attorney Grievance Commission is in need of a new bar counsel.

Melvin Hirshman, who has been the chief prosecutor of wayward lawyers since 1981, has announced he will retire on June 30.

Linda H. Lamone, who chairs the AGC, said the panel will conduct “as wide a search as we can” for a successor to Hirshman. The commission will post ads on the websites of the Maryland Judiciary, the American Bar Association and the Maryland State Bar Association, among other places, Lamone added.

The AGC will screen the applicants. The applicant or applicants who make the commission’s cut will be submitted to the Court of Appeals for its final approval, Lamone said.

Applications are due by 5 p.m. Jan. 4 at the Maryland Judiciary’s human-resources department in Annapolis.

Any takers?

Del. Norman H. Conway, D-Wicomico and Worcester, readily admits he was the lawmaker who added language to the state’s budget requiring the Maryland Disability Law Center to submit financial documents before receiving funding. (The funding was untied from the reporting requirement in the final version of the budget passed by the General Assembly.)

MDLC was the only legal services organization targeted, raising alarms in the legal services community. Conway, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said MDLC was selected because he had not seen an audit from the organization recently. (Virginia Knowlton, MDLC’s executive director, has noted that her organization undergoes financial audits at both state and federal levels to receive grant money, and Conway has access to those.)

Conway also points out that the documentation requirement is not uncommon. ”Throughout the budget, you’ll see all types of reports that are requested from a list of organizations and state agencies,” he said.

Scanning through the budget (PDF), I discovered more than a dozen similar documentation requirements. The Maryland Higher Education Commission and the state’s historically black institutions, for example, have to submit a report showing the effectiveness of programs to increase graduation and retention rates before receiving $1.5 million for that purpose. The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is asked to submit a report on the “proposed closing of state-operated beds” at the Walter P. Carter in Baltimore City before receiving $10 million. And the Maryland Insurance Administration is to report on “an agreed upon practice for forecasting and tracking the premium tax” before receiving $100,000.

An analyst with the Department of Legislative Services confirmed the frequent use of documentation requirements for funding, and said the unusual thing here is that MDLC succeeded in getting them untied .

Conway indicated that the selected organizations are not being accused of or being investigated for wrongdoing. Rather, it’s a way for the legislators to make sure state funds are being used appropriately, particularly in the current economic climate.

“I like to focus on what the activities are,” he said. “The committee needs to understand these different expenditures.”

Whatever Conway’s motives, MDLC and other legal services agencies see it as a shot across their bow, according to this commentary by Legal Aid’s Joe Surkiewicz. What do you think?

Mother Jones magazine has a fascinating article in its March/April issue about people who open franchise businesses, then find out that the franchisor has not been entirely up front with them. The story focuses on an Annapolis couple, Deborah Williams and Richard Welshans, who opened a Coffee Beanery in 2003.

According to the story:

The couple hadn’t fully appreciated that Coffee Beanery, like many franchise operators, makes money selling franchises and gear, not coffee. They started getting bills far in excess of what they believed they’d signed up for. There was surveillance equipment, a music system, an obsolete, $14,000 lighting system. The ice machine the company sent was big enough to supply several restaurants, Williams says. Then there was the faulty $8,000 pastry display case, and a cash register so buggy that it sometimes forced them to close for days. In Coffee Beanery’s initial documentation, Welshans and Williams allege, it also failed to disclose a gift-card program and a Pepsi contract that were later imposed. If the couple refused any of it, the company could sue them for franchise violation. “We were losing money hand over fist,” Williams recalls.

The couple was financially ruined.

When they sued Coffee Beanery in federal district court in Maryland, the company got the case moved to Michigan, where it is based. There, a judge looked at the “fine print” of their franchise contract, which committed the franchisees to settle disputes by arbitration, and sent the case to an arbitrator.

The arbitrator found for Coffee Beanery, attributing the couple’s problems with their store to their own inexperience, and ordered them to pay more Read the rest of this entry »

The Annapolis press corps has only recently begun attending the “pre-meetings” that members of the Board of Public Works hold in advance of their twice-monthly get-togethers. That’s why I was surprised when I got the boot Wednesday morning, the same day that members of the state spending panel slashed Maryland’s budget by almost $300 million, affecting tens of thousands of Marylanders.

The pre-meetings generally consist of a quick discussion of the issues coming before the board. It’s typically not that exciting, but since the BPW regularly approves tens of millions in state contracts, transparency is very important. 

Gov. Martin O’Malley’s office maintains that the pre-meetings were always open to the press. The problem was that until recently, many of us did not know they were taking place, because their time and place are not publicized in the same way that the formal meetings are. The issue came to my attention when one of Comptroller Peter Franchot’s staff members pointed out that Franchot doesn’t attend the meetings because he’s concerned about their legality under the state’s open meeting rules.

So we’re allowed to go in there now, and so I did Wednesday morning in hopes of getting just a little more context about the list of budget cuts that had still not been made public as of 10 a.m. This was about two hours before the BPW voted to approve the cuts wholesale after a brief discussion.

For the moment, I was the only reporter in the room. O’Malley came in and was trailed a few minutes later by Communications Director Rick Abbruzzese. Rick looked at me and gave me the old heave-ho, you’re out of here, thumb-over-the-shoulder gesture.

Until state Treasurer Nancy K. Kopp arrived, Abbruzzese later explained, the governor’s staff would meet privately. Kopp stood in the hallway and spoke on her phone, not entering the room to create a quorum until the meeting had gone on behind closed doors for about 15 minutes. When Kopp entered the room, reporters were allowed in and we heard a short discussion of the cuts that included few specifics. We were handed a list of proposed cuts as the pre-meeting concluded.

So I’m wondering, is an open meeting closed until it officially begins? Help me out here, folks. Tell me what you think.

ANDY ROSEN, Business Writer

This morning we’re excited to show you Eye on Annapolis, the newest web offering of The Daily Record.

Eye on Annapolis will focus exclusively on the legislative session in our state capital (which begins today) and will be authored largely by Business Writer Andy Rosen.

As Andy explains, “This post will kick off the most up-to-the-minute coverage we can offer. It will allow you to see what we’re working on, to catch some tidbits that don’t make it into stories, and to talk back to us about what is important to you.”

Check out his welcome message – and leave a comment! – or read about the new blog.

JACKIE SAUTER, Multimedia Editor

WaPo has an interesting front-page profile today of Annapolis’s St. John’s College and its struggle to attract and enroll minority students. Its goal is shared by many academic institutions, including the University System of Maryland.

Only 35 of St. John’s 489 students are minorities – just over seven percent of the student body.

The story concludes by pointing out how the tables have turned: it’s no longer the school that needs to be convinced that it needs minorities; now, the minority students are the ones who need convincing that St. John’s is the best place for them.

JACKIE SAUTER, Multimedia Editor

State and local agencies had to pony up $200,000 for security for the recent one-day peace conference in Annapolis.

Here’s a partial breakdown:

-$57,000 for Maryland State Police

-$28,000 for Annapolis police officers and firefighters

-$54,000 for Anne Arundel County officers

JACKIE SAUTER, Multimedia Editor