The proposals, most of which were introduced by Council President Nick Mosby, called for several structural changes to city government, most notably the Board of Estimates which is effectively controlled by the mayor under its current composition. The board, which approves city spending, has five members including the mayor and two of his appointees. The council president and city comptroller also serve on the board.

Mosby’s proposal called for the mayoral appointees — Baltimore’s solicitor and public works director — to be cut.

Mosby introduced the plan shortly after the May 14 primary election, leaving little time for a committee hearing and two subsequent votes. Ballot questions are certified in early August. Ultimately, a committee hearing was never scheduled and the proposal was never discussed.

Mayor Brandon Scott, who backed a similar plan to adjust Board of Estimates membership during his time as council president and backed off once elected mayor, was non-committal when pressed about Mosby’s proposal.

The council also neglected to schedule hearings on several additional proposed charter amendments introduced by Mosby to change the schedule for budget passage, establish an independent budget director for the council and a proposal to require city officials to present revenue estimates to the council earlier in the year.

Mosby, who has control over the committee hearing schedule, said this week he wanted to hold off on moving the changes forward until the members of the city’s Charter Review Commission could present their work to the council. The commission, which was convened following the approval of a ballot question in 2020, completed a report in June. Mosby said scheduling conflicts prevented the group from appearing before the council.

“When we talk about playing with the charter, it’s important that everyone is at the table including the general public,” he said. “There’s a reason the Charter Review Commission was established.”

Mosby said he was hopeful that the council will revisit the proposal during the next council session which will begin with the swearing-in of new members in December. The council president will no longer sit on the council by then. He lost his bid for reelection in May. Councilman Zeke Cohen won the Democratic nomination. He will face Republican Emmanuel Digman in November.

Cohen said he would support a review of “best practices” for the Board of Estimates if he becomes council president. “All options are on the table,” he said.

Comptroller Bill Henry, who publicly supported Mosby’s proposal, urged the next council to take up the matter.

“If it is not something this council is willing to consider, I certainly hope the newly elected council will — before other parties take the lead and petition their own charter amendments directly to the ballot,” he said.

Competing charter amendments proposed by Mosby and Cohen to overhaul the city’s redistricting process will also not appear on ballots this fall. No committee hearings were ever held on the proposals which were sparked by a conflict between Scott and the council last year.

Baltimore’s charter calls for the mayor to draft a proposed redistricting plan every 10 years following the census and ahead of the next municipal election. That plan is introduced to the council which is required to take action within 60 days. The window for the council to consider the plan is limited if it has any hopes of overriding a mayoral veto.

After assurances from Scott about his commitment to include the council in the process, the council chose to take additional time to consider the plan last year. It passed an alternative map proposed by Mosby with the assistance of a consultant. Scott raised objections and ultimately vetoed it, leaving too little time for a veto override. Scott’s plan became law.

Under Mosby’s proposed charter amendment, the mayor would have been required to veto measures passed by the council within two weeks. The council would have then had 20 days to reconsider the legislation.

Cohen’s plan called for the creation of a redistricting commission that would draft a proposed redistricting plan every 10 years following the release of census data. The plan would have been subject to approval by the mayor and City Council.

Cohen said he was disappointed his proposal never received a hearing, but said he plans to revisit the plan next council session. Council members and residents were disappointed with the outcome last time, he said.

“I think constituents were incredibly fired up during the redistricting process, and there was a lot of frustration with how it unfolded,” he said. “I think the same coalitions that formed while it was happening will reform in order to create a more fair process.”

The group, which includes a former city councilman, a known architect and the son of the original Harborplace developer, is challenging the wording of the question, which would expand the allowable uses along the Inner Harbor to include residential development as well as commercial uses.

The ballot question, now known as Question F, is needed to clear the way for an ambitious proposal from Baltimore developer MCB Real Estate to replace the beleaguered shopping and dining pavilions on the city’s waterfront. Led by Baltimore-native P. David Bramble, the group hopes to build four taller, mixed-use buildings, including a conjoined tower stretching 32 stories. MCB’s plan calls for 900 apartments and office space on the site along with a large new park space, a two-tier promenade and realigned roadways.

The Baltimore City Council placed the question on the ballot with the support of the majority of its members in March despite protests from some city residents who argued the plan would essentially privatize the public Inner Harbor shoreline, much of which was preserved as parkland by charter amendments in the late 1970s. Residents have objected to the proposed density, the removal of height limits, the inclusion of apartments and the road-narrowing plan.

The challenge, filed minutes before the 5 p.m. deadline Thursday, takes issue with the wording of the ballot question as it would be printed on the ballot. Currently the question gives a detailed geographical description of the Inner Harbor area and states that it will be amended to allow “for eating places, commercial uses, multifamily residential development and off-street parking with the areas used for multifamily dwellings and off-street parking as excluded from the area dedicated as a public park or for public benefit.”

The printing of ballots for voters across the state is slated to begin Friday. Maryland State Board of Elections Director Jared DeMarinis would not comment Thursday on the filing, but said “the law is clear as to what the judicial review is for.”

“They can seek review of the content and arrangement or to correct any administrative error,” he said. “It is not to re-litigate decided questions.”

DeMarinis said the law also makes clear the courts must hear judicial review petitions on an expedited basis. DeMarinis would not comment on any planned response to the filing by the state board.

During arguments before the Supreme Court of Maryland last week over two unrelated proposed ballot questions, an attorney for the Maryland State Board of Elections told justices that any changes made to ballots after Sept. 8 “would be very expensive and disruptive to the process.”

The 20 petitioners behind the challenge include former Councilman Tony Ambridge, architect Leon Bridges, and Ted Rouse, son of James Rouse who developed Harborplace in the 1970s.

Representing the challengers is Thiru Vignarajah, a former mayoral candidate who has been a vocal opponent of the proposed Harborplace development. On the campaign trail, Vignarajah called the proposal a “backroom deal” between Bramble and Mayor Brandon Scott, who supports the development, and an “exclusive resort for the wealthiest of the wealthy.” This summer, Vignarajah led an unsuccessful effort to put a competing ballot question before voters that would have barred residential development at the Inner Harbor and other city parks. The question came of the 10,000 necessary signatures for a citizen-driven ballot question.

Courts would have the power to suspend ballot printing, however Vignarajah said he did not ask in his petition to postpone the process.

While there has been ample discussion about the Harborplace proposal, a poll conducted for The Baltimore Sun, University of Baltimore and FOX45 in April showed the majority of city voters favored the plan. Of those surveyed, 59% said they supported the proposal. An additional 20% said they opposed the plan while 21% said they were unsure.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development funds will reimburse the Mayor’s Office of Homeless Services, or MOHS, for expenses related to its Continuum of Care program, which among other things helps to pay for housing for homeless residents. Baltimore contracts with about 40 vendors who in turn make payments to various landlords to ensure that people are housed.

In fiscal year 2020, MOHS was forced to relinquish funding the organization could have tapped from HUD due to problems accessing the funds. Baltimore lost access to the system for at least three months because employees of MOHS either left the office or were barred from access.

During a September 2023 council hearing on the lost funds, MOHS leaders said the city’s distribution system for the money has been critically challenged for years, causing delays in payments to vendors and subsequently landlords. As a result, residents have faced evictions.

MOHS Director Irene Agustin resigned shortly after news of the lost funds became public. She was replaced by Ernestina Simmons.

Mayor Brandon Scott personally appealed to then-HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge in June 2023 imploring her for an extension to withdraw money from the fiscal year 2020 grant. MOHS submitted additional documents to HUD in November, and since then HUD has been monitoring MOHS and the vendors who receive the funds from MOHS, city officials said.

On Thursday, Scott issued a news release thanking federal officials and pledging to strengthen MOHS in the future.

“This process has been a reflection of MOHS’s ability to adapt quickly and provide our partners on the ground the support they need in less than ideal circumstances,” he said. “As we move forward, we will utilize this experience to strengthen the agency and ensure that we are doing everything in our power to provide Baltimore’s most vulnerable residents with the support they need.”

Simmons called the funding “critical” to helping provide housing stability for vulnerable city residents.

“I am thankful to HUD for their partnership and support this past year as they worked alongside MOHS and our service providers to understand both our challenges as well as the steps we have made to improve our systems and processes,” she said.

The saga began in 2022 when the truck, a Toyota Tacoma owned by Mary Pat Staron, was seized by city police as part of a homicide investigation involving Staron’s son. Staron, a Harford County resident, was initially told she could pick up the vehicle, according to an agenda for the Board of Estimates, but when she went to the city’s impound lot and paid for its release, she was informed a hold had been placed on the truck by police.

Gordon Staron, Mary Pat Staron’s son, was charged in January 2023 with the slaying of Javarick Gantt, a deaf man found unresponsive in a city jail cell in November 2022. Gordon Staron was being held at the time on charges of killing Keith Bell. He is awaiting trial.

In August 2023, Mary Pat Staron was told by city officials that the hold on her truck had been lifted, and she was free to pick up the vehicle. But there was a problem. The vehicle was no longer on the city lot.

A detective “advised Ms. Staron that her vehicle was sold at auction by mistake,” the board’s agenda stated. Mary Pat Staron could not be reached Wednesday for comment.

How does a vehicle mistakenly go to auction? There was a paperwork mistake, officials told the board Wednesday.

Corren Johnson, Baltimore’s Department of Transportation director, said the truck arrived on the agency’s lot without a police hold, and a letter was automatically sent to Mary Pat Staron informing her that she could pick up the vehicle. However, the coding for the truck changed when the hold was placed on the vehicle. That change meant the computer system did not recognize when the hold was lifted, she said. No letter was sent to Mary Pat Staron when the hold came off, nor when the truck was headed to sale, she said.

Baltimore received $22,000 for the truck at auction, officials told the board.

Stephen Salsbury, the city’s deputy solicitor, said the settlement includes the value of the truck, including all remaining payments on the loan, which Mary Pat Staron continued to pay as the truck sat in the city’s impound lot. The final payout also includes money toward insurance which Mary Pat Staron also paid while the vehicle was in the city’s possession.

Salsbury told the board Baltimore has implemented several changes to ensure a similar auction doesn’t happen again. Baltimore Police will no longer be able to request holds of vehicles or release them over the phone, he said. Paperwork will now be required. Police will also maintain a list of all vehicles on hold that transportation officials will be able to check before auctioning off an vehicles, he said. Transportation officials will also confirm that notice has been sent to a vehicle’s owner before it can be auctioned, Salsbury said.

Johnson said the transportation department is also working with city technology officials to build a new safeguard into the department’s computer system.

The five-member Board of Estimates approved the settlement unanimously.

Candidates for office were required to file campaign finance reports last week detailing spending from April 27 (18 days before the May 14 primary) to Aug. 20.

Below are four noteworthy donations made this campaign season, some in the final days before the primary and others recorded this summer.

The Paterakis family makes a late play for Sheila Dixon 

For years, the Paterakis name was synonymous with three things: breadmaking, Harbor East and Baltimore politics. The well-heeled family made dozens of donations in past years to a variety of candidates and were big players in the city’s 2020 mayoral race.

This cycle, however, the family was considerably more quiet. They showed up in the final days of the Baltimore mayoral race when four members of the clan made donations to Democrat Sheila Dixon. John Paterakis Jr., Charles Paterakis and Stephen Paterakis all gave $1,000 to Dixon in May. Each of the three, all associated with H&S Properties, gave $1,500 earlier in the campaign cycle. William J. Paterakis of Northeast Foods contributed $3,000 on the day before the election.

While the family made a late push for Dixon, she wasn’t the only mayoral player they supported. In September 2023, John and Charles Paterakis both made $500 donations to Brandon Scott, the eventual winner in the Democratic mayoral primary. William Paterakis contributed $1,000 that same month and an additional $1,500 in March.

Remember William “Billy” Madonna Jr.?

Those on the political scene in Baltimore in the 1990s will recall William Madonna Jr.’s colorful and ultimately illegal schemes. The former state legislator known for his gift of gab was charged in 1999 for what prosecutors said was parlaying his friendship with a state senator into control of the city’s liquor board. The bribery charges against Madonna were dropped amid a high-profile trial. Madonna pleaded guilty to conspiracy.

In 2010, Madonna pleaded guilty again, this time to a federal charge stemming from a fundraising business that defrauded Fraternal Order of Police groups in the Baltimore and Washington area.

Why this trip down memory lane? Madonna, now in his 70s and living in Perry Hall, surfaced as a donor to Dixon. He contributed $5,000 to the former mayor in late April.

Scott reports donation over the max (again)

In April, The Baltimore Sun wrote that Scott, a Democrat and the city’s mayor since 2020, had reported donations from nine entities that exceeded the $6,000 maximum candidates are allowed from individual donors each election cycle. Later that month, Scott amended several campaign finance reports to correct reporting errors related to five of those contributors and issued refunds to four others.

Among the contributors who were issued refunds was Brandon Wylie, co-owner of florist Fleurs D’Ave. Wylie, a Randallstown resident, gave Scott $10,000 via three donations recorded in January 2023, August 2023 and January 2024. He was issued a $4,000 refund in April after The Sun reported the overage.

Scott’s latest campaign finance report, however, shows a new donation from Wylie, this time for $2,500. The contribution was recorded July 29. The current election cycle does not end until the end of 2026. Scott faces Republican Shannon Wright in the November election.

Scott’s campaign staff said they mistakenly reported the latest donation as an individual contribution from Wylie. The donation was intended to come from Wylie’s business. The campaign intends to amend Scott’s report to reflect the change, they said.

Scott gives to PAC opposing city ballot question

Scott has been vocal about his opposition to a ballot question that will appear on November ballots asking city voters to cut the size of the City Council in half, and last month he lent his first financial support to the cause.

The ballot question, sponsored by the People for Elected Accountability and Civic Engagement, has been chiefly funded by David Smith, executive chairman and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group and co-owner of The Sun. The committee’s latest campaign finance filing shows Smith gave an additional $75,000 in February to the committee, making his total contribution this cycle $415,000. The committee submitted more than 25,000 signatures from city voters to the Baltimore City Board of Elections in January, securing a place on the November ballot.

In August, Scott contributed $5,000 to “Stop Sinclair,” a political committee established in July by Scott’s staff and campaign team to oppose the ballot question.

The spending, which was detailed in Vignarajah’s most recent campaign finance reports released last week, included a $90,000 television buy on April 23, and $110,000 spent on the purchase and production of television ads on April 26. On May 1, Vignarajah, a former prosecutor who polls showed trailing in the race, withdrew from the mayoral contest, casting his support behind Sheila Dixon.

Vignarajah’s early exit and endorsement of Dixon, a fellow Democrat, was the subject of pushback at the time because his campaign was backed by public funds. A past candidate for office known for his fundraising prowess, Vignarajah qualified for the use of public money by raising small-dollar donations from city residents totaling at least $40,000. Upon qualifying, he received a one-time payment of $200,000 and eventually raised enough money to receive a total of $668,881 in public matching funds.

Campaigns funded by the Baltimore City Fair Elections Fund must return any unspent money to the fund at the end of their campaigns. Vignarajah returned $201,303 of the money he raised to the fund, campaign finance records show. The fund, filled with city money, was available for the first time in 2024.

Vignarajah spent a total of $390,403 in the final week of his campaign, finance records show. Expenses included food and drinks for fundraisers, $30,000 in consulting fees, $5,700 for buttons, bumper stickers and T-shirts, and $35,400 for a poll.

Vignarajah told The Baltimore Sun the records reflect payments being made for invoices shortly before the end of the campaign, but most of the expenses were incurred well before that date, he said.

“We knew that after we announced, we couldn’t officially spend anymore, and so to prepare for that, we were executing all the obligations to staff and vendors,” he said. “What you’re seeing are checks being written.”

Vignarajah’s television ads, however, ran through his final day in the race. Records filed with the Federal Communications Commission by local television stations show his campaign purchased ads on April 26. Additional ads were bought on April 30, orders that were canceled the next day after Vignarajah held a joint press conference with Dixon to announce his withdrawal.

The campaign never paid for the ads purchased on April 30, and therefore was never issued a refund, Vignarajah said. The fees recorded in campaign finance documents also include the cost of production for the spots, which was incurred earlier, he said.

Vignarajah said the poll was conducted shortly before his exit from the race, and it was used to help guide his decision to leave, he said. Asked when he decided to drop out of the race, Vignarajah said he was “strongly considering” it for several days prior, but didn’t make a decision until the evening of April 30 and the morning of May 1.

Mayor Brandon Scott ultimately prevailed in the Democratic primary, besting Dixon by a 12,800-vote margin. He’ll face Republican challenger Shannon Wright in November.

Emily Scarr, a senior adviser for good government group Maryland PIRG, was one of several officials who raised concerns when Vignarajah exited the race, specifically because he chose to endorse Dixon. Scarr said his spending in the final days raised no red flags, however. It’s normal for candidates to buy time on TV, and it makes sense that the poll helped to inform Vignarajah’s exit, she said.

“We do hope folks opting into the public financing system abide by stricter ethics rules, but to expect them to behave differently than a regularly funded candidate is irrational,” she said.

Scarr said her primary concern was whether Vignarajah’s endorsement of Dixon should have invalidated his use of public financing. That’s a question worth exploration as legislators think about potential improvements to the law, she said.

Several members of the Baltimore City Council are considering just that. Last week, Councilwoman Phylicia Porter introduced a resolution calling for a hearing on the administration of the city’s fair election fund. The fund’s administrator and other city officials have been asked to appear before the council to discuss the process for recuperating leftover money from candidates.

Porter said she would like to establish procedures for the administration of the fund with an eye on greater accountability.

The councilwoman said she already has her eyes on some additional tweaks to the law, specific to when a candidate drops out of a race before Election Day. Porter said she couldn’t comment on Vignarajah’s spending until she had a chance to review his campaign finance reports.

Vignarajah’s reports show no funds were transferred to Dixon or any political committees supporting her.

Tonia Lee, spokeswoman for Baltimore’s Department of Finance, told The Baltimore Sun that all candidates who received public funding for the city’s 2024 primary returned their unspent funds ahead of the June 27 deadline.

Ultimately, Vignarajah said he was trying to be mindful of conserving public funds when he chose to get out of the race.

“What we didn’t want to do was run through the tape and use remaining funds,” he said.

The Supreme Court of Maryland took up the two cases after separate Baltimore Circuit Court judges found that each question should not appear on ballots for city voters to consider this fall. Each judge ruled that their respective question was outside the scope of changes that citizens are able to make to the city’s charter.

The high court concurred, finding that the questions impeded upon powers set aside for legislative bodies, like the Baltimore City Council.

In Baltimore, citizens have the right to petition to place a question on the ballot by collecting 10,000 signatures from qualified city voters. Past court decisions have found that those ballot questions must be proper charter material — amendments that change the form of city government rather than set policy.

The court heard arguments Wednesday from both Renew Baltimore, the group backing the tax proposal, and the Maryland Child Alliance, which sponsored the proposed payments for parents, better known as the Baby Bonus. The ruling came on an expedited schedule because of the upcoming election. The Maryland State Board of Elections is due to begin printing ballots on Sept. 6.

Renew Baltimore, a coalition of economists and former city officials, collected more than 23,000 signatures in support of its proposal, which would have nearly halved the city’s property tax rate over seven years, from 2.248% to 1.2%. The Baltimore City Board of Elections notified the group in July that the measure would be stricken from the ballot, arguing that only the mayor and City Council have the power to set the property tax rate.

Circuit Judge Althea M. Handy sided with the board, finding that the ballot question “would take all power and discretion from the City Council and their ability to legislate and determine the tax rate.”

Attorneys for Renew Baltimore argued the proposal is legal because courts have determined that residents can place reasonable limitations on their government’s power to tax by way of charter amendments. The group postulates the tax break would boost the city’s population, thus increasing the number of taxpayers and making up for a projected multimillion-dollar reduction in city revenue.

Justices expressed concern that the cap would act as an effective tax reduction that would hamstring the city’s ability to meet budgetary needs.

In fiscal year 2023, Baltimore brought in roughly $3.6 billion of revenue, almost 30% of which — about $1 billion — came from the property tax, according to the city’s annual audited report. Renew Baltimore’s critics argue its proposal would cut city revenue by one-quarter and require dramatically slashing city services.

A 1990 appellate decision at the center of the election board’s argument distinguished between voters placing a cap on a legislature’s ability to set a tax rate and rolling back the tax rate. In that case, appeals judges determined that a charter amendment could be used to set a cap, but not to roll back the rate, according to court filings.

In its order Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled the proposed ballot measure violates a provision of Maryland property tax law that says it’s solely the duty of a county’s “governing body” to set a property tax rate each year. The high court upheld an Aug. 9 ruling by Baltimore Circuit Judge Althea M. Handy.

“The circuit court correctly determined that the proposed charter amendment impermissibly sets the property tax rate … and, therefore, cannot be presented on the November 2024 general election ballot,” read the order, signed by Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader.

The ruling marked the end of the road for Renew Baltimore, which tried once before in 2022 to place the tax cut question on the ballot, but gathered too few signatures.

Leaders of Renew Baltimore decried the court’s ruling in a statement, calling on Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, a Democrat, and the City Council to reduce the city’s property tax rate.

“We are deeply disappointed in today’s ruling by the members of the Maryland Supreme Court, which denies the will of 23,542 Baltimore City residents who signed a petition to at last bring about fair and equitable property taxes,” wrote Ben Frederick and Matthew Wyskiel. “It is unfortunate that the Court decided to ignore the demands of the tens of thousands of residents who have called for responsible property tax reform, denying them the opportunity to control their financial future and improve the prospects of the City they love.”

In a statement, Scott’s office called Renew Baltimore’s proposal “illegal and downright terrible policy.”

“We’re glad the Supreme Court saw through their inaccurate spin, fuzzy math, and weak legal arguments,” the mayor’s office said. “Today’s decision ensures that the City can move forward without the threat of bankruptcy that would disrupt essential city services, and we can continue about the business of pursuing property tax relief in a responsible way.”

Courtney Jenkins, President, Metropolitan Baltimore Council Of AFL-CIO Unions, applauded the Supreme Court’s ruling in a statement Thursday, arguing that Renew Baltimore sought to “subvert the democratic process” to benefit the wealthy.

“City leaders, workers, and everyday Baltimoreans know that halving city property taxes would have decimated city services and made Baltimore a less healthy community where basic human needs would be left unmet due to a lack of funding,” said Jenkins, on behalf of the group Baltimore City Not For Sale Coalition, which represented community groups, city workers, teachers and residents in opposition to the ballot measure.

Judges also heard arguments for and against the Baby Bonus which would have paid city parents $1,000 upon the arrival of a new child. The question, sponsored by a coalition of city teachers, was intended to alleviate childhood poverty.

In the case of the Baby Bonus, it was the city that sued to have the question removed from the ballot, arguing that it exceeds the authority of citizens. The Baltimore City Board of Elections had previously approved the question to appear on ballots. Baltimore Circuit Judge John Stanley Nugent sided with the city earlier this month, granting an injunction.

Attorneys for the Maryland Child Alliance and the Baltimore City Board of Elections, which is a party to the case, argued that the city would maintain discretion to make decisions about how to implement the Baby Bonus. Legislators would still have the power to decide how the payments would be distributed and whether adoptive parents would be included.

The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the proposed Baby Bonus ballot measure violated an article of the state constitution that gives county legislative bodies “law-making power.” The high court’s order affirmed Nugent’s Aug. 9 ruling.

“The circuit court correctly determined that the Baby Bonus Amendment violates … the Constitution of Maryland because it is not proper ‘charter material,'” read the order, also signed by Fader.  “Accordingly, it cannot be presented on the November 2024 general election ballot.”

Organizers of the Baby Bonus initiative said they were “deeply disappointed” by the Supreme Court’s ruling, in a statement posted on the social media platform X, saying the decision “denies Baltimore voters the opportunity to decide on a policy that could have supported families welcoming new children.”

“While this is a significant setback,” the statement added, “we remain committed to finding ways to reduce child poverty and support Baltimore families. Once we receive the full court decision, we will carefully review it to determine potential next steps, including possibly revising the amendment language for a future ballot initiative.”

Scott’s office called the high court’s decision “the right one” in a statement.

“While we’ve said from the beginning that we align with the goal of providing more Baltimore residents with access to guaranteed income, this proposal was not legally sound and should not have been on the ballot,” the mayor’s office said. “We’re grateful the Maryland Supreme Court agreed. It is our sincere hope that everyone supportive of this effort joins us in advocating for more guaranteed income programs, particularly at the national level.”

Calling the ruling a “major loss” for Baltimore, Nate Golden, president of Maryland Child Alliance, the organization behind the Baby Bonus campaign, criticized Scott and other elected officials for what he described as inaction in fighting child poverty.

“We hear a lot of rhetoric about child poverty,” said Golden, a math teacher at Forest Park High School. “But I’m still teaching a classroom full of kids experiencing it year after year after year.”

The Supreme Court of Maryland took up the case, along with another offering payments to new city parents, which has not yet been ruled on, after separate Baltimore Circuit Court judges found that each question should not appear on ballots for city voters to consider this fall. Each judge ruled that their respective question was outside the scope of changes that citizens are able to make to the city’s charter.

This story will be updated. 

The Supreme Court of Maryland took up the two cases after separate Baltimore Circuit Court judges found that each question should not appear on ballots for city voters to consider this fall. Each judge ruled that their respective question was outside the scope of changes that citizens are able to make to the city’s charter. The organizers behind each question collected more than 10,000 signatures from qualified city voters in an effort to place the questions on the ballot, one of two local methods to enact a change to the city’s charter.

The court, which took the matters under consideration, has a short window to rule on both ballot questions. The Maryland State Board of Elections is due to begin the process of printing ballots for the November election on Sept. 6.

The court heard arguments first from Renew Baltimore, a coalition of economists and former city officials who are seeking to slash and cap Baltimore’s property tax rate. The question, which organizers collected more than 23,000 signatures in support of, would nearly halve the city’s property tax rate over seven years, from 2.248% to 1.2%. The Baltimore City Board of Elections notified the group in July that the measure would be stricken from the ballot, arguing that only the mayor and City Council have the power to set the property tax rate.

Circuit Judge Althea M. Handy sided with the board, finding that the ballot question “would take all power and discretion from the City Council and their ability to legislate and determine the tax rate.”

Attorneys for Renew Baltimore argued the proposal is legal because courts have determined that residents can place reasonable limitations on their government’s power to tax by way of charter amendments. The group postulates the tax break would boost the city’s population, thus increasing the number of taxpayers and making up for a projected multimillion-dollar reduction in city revenue.

Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader asked attorneys for the group about the possibility that revenue may not go up as projected. “If that prediction is incorrect and revenue goes down, you will have significantly reduced the discretion of the council because they won’t be able to raise the tax rates,” he said.

“The mayor and City Council will still have tons of discretion to adjust the funds,” argued Constantine Themelis, an attorney for Renew. Themelis said city leaders would have the option to further lower tax rates.

In fiscal year 2023, Baltimore brought in roughly $3.6 billion of revenue, almost 30% of which — about $1 billion — came from the property tax, according to the city’s annual audited report. Renew Baltimore’s critics argue its proposal would cut city revenue by one-quarter and require dramatically slashing city services.

A 1990 appellate decision at the center of the election board’s argument distinguished between voters placing a cap on a legislature’s ability to set a tax rate and rolling back the tax rate. In that case, appeals judges determined that a charter amendment could be used to set a cap, but not to roll back the rate, according to court filings. Thomas Chapman, an attorney for the Baltimore City Board of Elections, argued Renew’s proposal would effectively set the tax rate via a cap.

“If you cap the rate and they’re not able to generate enough revenue, doesn’t that tie the city’s hands?” asked Justice Angela M. Eaves.

“There is no reliable evidence to support that the city is going to be unable to do that,” Themelis replied. He dismissed a filing from Baltimore finance officials arguing the cut would be catastrophic to the city’s budget, and instead pointed to a report from Sage Policy Group in support of the effort. Anirban Basu, chairman and CEO of Sage, is one of Renew’s primary backers.

Judges also heard arguments related to a ballot question commonly known as the Baby Bonus which would pay city parents $1,000 upon the arrival of a new child. The question, sponsored by the Maryland Child Alliance, is designed to alleviate childhood poverty.

In the case of the Baby Bonus, it was the city that sued to have the question removed from the ballot, arguing that it exceeds the authority of citizens. The Baltimore City Board of Elections had previously approved the question to appear on ballots. Baltimore Circuit Judge John Stanley Nugent sided with the city earlier this month, granting an injunction.

Attorneys for the Maryland Child Alliance and the Baltimore City Board of Elections, which is a party to the case, argued that the city would maintain discretion to make decisions about how to implement the Baby Bonus. The proposal would require payments to new parents, but it would allow city officials to determine instances in which a nonbiological parent might be eligible, argued Chapman, representing the election board. The council could also weigh how a person’s residency is determined and the method that would be used to pay new parents, he said.

Fader said the details left to be fleshed out by the ballot question seemed more administrative than policy-setting.

“[The argument is] it’s putting the decision-making into the charter but it’s not,” Fader said. “It’s putting the decision made by the voters into the charter.”

Attorney Thomas Webb, representing the city, argued that citizen charter amendments are designed to propose structural changes to government, not to legislate, which is the job of the City Council.

Attorney Mark Stichel, representing the Maryland Child Alliance, said the group was willing to strike the specific $1,000 requirement, leaving a policy that a payment be made to new parents.

Chapman, who reviews all proposed ballot questions on behalf of the Baltimore City Board of Elections before they are placed on the ballot, asked the court during his final remarks to establish a clear test for whether a ballot question complies with Maryland’s constitution.

“Our highest interest here is having a clear and administrable rule for what counts as proper charter material, both for the sake of our own operations and reducing litigation and also for the sake of petition sponsors who should be able to know before they go into a burdensome and time-consuming petition drive whether their petition is lawful,” he said.

This week, Baltimore Inspector General Isabel Mercedes Cumming made official a request that none of her predecessors could: She asked her independent board to keep her on the job when her term expires this year.

“I will not hesitate to tell the truth and to fight,” Cumming told The Baltimore Sun in an exclusive interview. “I think the people actually respect that.”

In Baltimore, where the inspector general has long operated under the thumb of the mayor, Cumming finds herself in a novel position. Created in 2005 by then-Mayor Martin O’Malley, Baltimore’s inspector general role was intended to be an independent, internal watchdog to investigate city operations. The position, however, traditionally has had little practical power to do so. Answering to the mayor-appointed solicitor, Cumming’s predecessors faced political pressure. Several were pushed out by mayors. Others left because they lacked independence.

That position changed in 2018 when voters approved a charter amendment granting the office independent authority. Moving forward, inspectors general would serve six-year terms (purposefully longer than the four-year mayoral term) and answer to a board.

That freedom has cleared the way for some headline-making investigations. Cumming, who was named to the job in 2018 by then-Mayor Catherine Pugh and is the first woman to hold the post, has issued dozens of reports detailing ballooning costs, wasteful spending, wage theft and city vendors failing to live up to contracts.

A scathing report, issued jointly by Cumming’s office and Baltimore County Inspector General Kelly Madigan in 2020, found the city and county had jointly lost millions of dollars in water and sewer revenue despite spending more than $133 million to address ongoing problems. The nine-month investigation found tens of thousands of digital water meters in both municipalities were not fully functional.

Cumming has also taken on the organizational culture within City Hall. Some of her earliest reports shed light on a “culture of fear” in the city’s human resources department and what she said was a “toxic” culture perpetuated by the city’s former head of the Department of Transportation.

No investigation made bigger waves, however, than Cumming’s probe of former State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby. Mosby herself requested the scrutiny in 2020 amid questions raised by the media about her trips abroad and revelations that she formed travel and hospitality companies while in office. In 2021, Cumming went public with her findings showing Mosby was absent from Baltimore for 144 workdays in 2018 and 2019, but disclosed 85 on her state ethics forms. Cumming referred parts of her probe to the Maryland State Ethics Commission and federal investigators.

Mosby fired back, demanding via attorneys that the inspector general correct “misstatements and inaccuracies” in the report. The Baltimore chapter of the NAACP publicly questioned Cumming’s objectivity and suggested that she had unfairly targeted Black officials and vendors. One month later, a federal probe into both the state’s attorney and her husband, Council President Nick Mosby, became public. When federal investigators visited Nick Mosby at his City Hall office in March 2021, surveillance video showed Cumming leading them into the building.

Marilyn Mosby was charged and convicted earlier this year of perjury and mortgage fraud. Nick Mosby has not been charged.

Cumming dismissed criticisms that her investigation was politically or racially motivated.

“There was no truth to it,” she said. “I’m really very independent. I don’t like politics. I just do my job.”

Cumming cited the Mosby probe as one of the most important of her tenure, in part because the backlash proved the need to restructure the board overseeing the inspector general’s office, she said.

The board, which was hastily convened for the first time after the Mosby probe, included several elected officials or their designees. Political machinations in the aftermath of the Mosby investigation pushed the City Council to make a change. With approval of a new charter amendment in 2022, the board now includes seven members selected by the council, two from the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners or the Association of Certified Public Accountants and the deans of two area law schools.

“What’s always been most important is that the office will continue well beyond me,” Cumming said. “The fact that very important laws changed to make the office stronger will in the end be one of my biggest achievements. To have a strong office of the inspector general means you’ll have better government.”

That board will ultimately decide whether Cumming stays or goes. She said she notified board leaders of her intention to stay via a letter delivered this week.

Madigan, Baltimore County’s inspector general, said Cumming has navigated the criticisms that come with holding the office and managed to elevate the work. Effective inspectors general find the balance between saying enough to put the office’s efforts in the spotlight and not saying so much that an investigation would be compromised, she said.

“That’s why it’s so important that IGs are independent,” Madigan said. “It’s not that you don’t fret about the decisions you make, but you have the freedom to make those decisions.”

In recent months, Cumming has zeroed in on a new target. In July, her office released a report detailing a lack of provisions to keep laborers cool at the Department of Public Works’ Cherry Hill facility. She noted broken ice machines, a cold-water faucet running hot water and a non-functioning heating and air conditioning system in the locker room.

A follow-up report issued several weeks later found similar issues at other DPW facilities. The reports noted many city trucks that laborers rode in lacked air conditioning. In some cases, provisions like Gatorade and toilet paper for employees were stored behind locked doors.

The reports, delivered as summer temperatures soared, proved timely. On Aug. 2, Ronald Silver II, a 36-year-old DPW employee, died on the job after succumbing to the heat. Silver’s death coupled with Cumming’s devastating reports led to calls for reform from the City Council, union officials and the public. The City Council held a hearing on the subject Thursday, expressing exasperation. Mayor Brandon Scott, who has acknowledged a toxic culture exists, has maintained that his administration’s investments in facility improvements are a critical step toward rectifying the situation.

Cumming was visibly passionate when she spoke to The Sun about the investigation. DPW was scrutinized before by the inspector general’s office in 2019, she noted, and conditions have only worsened.

“The fact that it was allowed by so many to get so much worse, shame on all of us,” she said. “Shame on the administration. Shame on the union. Shame on all of us.”

Cumming, who has a team of investigators in her office, personally investigated some of the DPW case, touring DPW facilities to see conditions for herself. It wasn’t the first time the inspector general has gotten her hands dirty, and if granted a second term, is unlikely to be the last.

Ronald Weich, dean of the law school at Seton Hall who formerly served on the inspector general’s board when he was dean of the University of Baltimore School of Law, said Cumming’s work during her first term clearly warrants a second.

“She has done important work to root out waste, fraud and abuse,” he said. “She’s done a good job establishing the independence of the office, and she brings to the job the highest integrity and a strong reputation.”

Of her agenda for the next six years, Cumming said city residents should expect more of the same.

“It won’t be any different. I have no aspirations to do anything other than the job I have,” she said. “I love my job. I love the city. I love what I do.”