Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Hogan’s state police announcement: That’s not how any of this works

Gov. Larry Hogan’s plan to pay to re-open the State Police barracks in Annapolis by sticking it to a project favored by House Speaker Michael E. Busch is starting to feel like one of those Esurance commercials:

“That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of this works,” says the woman to her over-sharing friend.

Hogan announced Friday that he plans to re-open the barracks, closed in 2008 by then Gov. Martin J. O’Malley as a cost-cutting move, and hire 100 new troopers. This was a proposal Hogan had in his second supplemental budget, which Busch would not allow to be introduced in the House.

RELATED: Hogan gets his way by nixing Busch’s pet project

A statement released by the governor attempted to explain how this would be paid for:

“To offset the expenditure associated with the State Police action, Governor Hogan will line-item veto a single item in the Maryland Consolidated Capital Bond Loan of 2015, also known as the Capital Budget. This veto eliminates $2 million in state funding for renovations to the Maryland Hall for the Creative Arts, also based in Annapolis. The remainder of the capital budget is unaffected and will pass into law without the Governor’s signature.”

The governor’s office has declined to elaborate on details explaining how the announcement Friday would pay for the Maryland State Police barracks in Annapolis.

“It’s part of Governor Hogan’s overall commitment to general savings and fiscal responsibility,” said Shareese Churchill, a Hogan spokeswoman.

The Maryland Hall for the Creative Arts is in Busch’s district and is an organization the speaker has supported in the past.

But here’s the rub: While Hogan can eliminate funding for individual capital projects there are things he cannot do.

First, the governor cannot simply kill one project and then spend the money on another project that is not contained in the capital budget. Killing the project would just mean that the money for that project doesn’t get spent.

Second, the money could not be used for hiring or paying for new troopers or other operating expenses related to the barracks.

Finally, a veto of one item isn’t the last word on the matter. The legislature can override the veto with a three-fifths majority of both the House and Senate.

Until such details emerge from the governor, all that’s left is the tagline from the commercial: That’s not how any of this works.


  1. Without knowing the real back story or the books, it’s impossible to relate to any of this other than to see it as just another red vs blue bump up that in no particular way helps the electorate.

    Where’s the clarity? Where’s the truth?

  2. Ty: Thanks for the comment. I think it’s pretty clear that the $2 million here won’t cover the expense of 100 troopers (works out to an average salary of $20,000 per trooper) and the renovations needed to reopen a facility closed for nearly 8 years.

    On top of that, a governor is not permitted to shift funds from one capital project to another project, especially one that isn’t even in the budget approved by the legislature. Not to mention using the capital budget to pay ongoing operating expenses. All of that was in the post.

    A point that the governor’s own staff did not contest when asked directly.

    None of that means that there isn’t an element of partisanship on both sides here but the issue is bigger than just red and blue bickering.

  3. even if he can not transfer funds for other projects, at least we’re are going to see who is easing our taxes.

  4. Bryan P. Sears

    Which tax does this affect, Heydebbi?

  5. Michael Golden

    I think Heydebbi is thinking of the I-don’t-know-what-I’m-talking-about tax.