Date: 11 Sep 2003
To: Thomas E. Dernoga
From: John M. Scroggins
cc: Camille A. Exum

Mr. Dernoga:

The last time I wrote to you, I was very critical, so it is only fair that I commend you when you've done something right by opposing the nutty Super Bowl boondoggle.

I am happy to see your position on this

If you've read my letter in the Journal this week, or the similar messages I sent to Miss Exum, you will have noticed that I listed just a few of the many vacant and abandoned commercial properties within walking distance of my residence.

I continue to be unhappy because the council seems determined to further reduce the tax base by creating more of these non-productive properties and forcing small businesses to shut down

The Super Bowl will not do anything to fix our economic problems. The only effects it will have on the area where I live will be negative. In the meantime, county officials will be expending their resources on attracting rich people for a once in a lifetime event--and giving those rich people a break on county taxes (sounds a Republican scheme to me).

Why can't our county staff resources be used to find ways to promote real, county-wide, economic development? Or to prevent or prosecute the rising crime, especially the auto thefts and homicides that are both increasing and rarely solved or prosecuted. Or maybe the county executive is looking for make-work projects because we have far too many county employees with nothing better to do?

You seem to be showing signs of good sense on these issues. What's wrong with your colleagues?

John M. Scroggins

Response:

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:30:19 -0400
From: Thomas E. Dernoga
To: John M. Scroggins
Cc: Camille A. Exum

We agree on the Super Bowl, for sure. You should know that Ms. Exum seems to have significant reservations. Other Council members do, too. The Post did not do a good job in discussing the reluctance of the Council regarding the Super Bowl -- most Council members voted yes (and some voted no on various provisions - NOT reported in the Post) because they want to continue the conversation and see what, if anything, we can get. I don't fault them. I just feel that there is too little to gain, so while take the time to talk. I assure you, the Council is not leaping blindly into the Super Bowl party business.

I do disagree with you on the car lots. You do make good points, but these particular small business owners add very little economic benefit and they discourage other higher quality uses from locating near them. Just because you know of abandoned sites that need attention does not relate to how getting rid of the plethora of these that congregate in certain areas could provide the incentive for redevelopment. I assure you that Ms. Exum is focused on these blighted areas in your community. I know because she reminds me all the time. I respect your opinion, but if you drove Rt. 1 from County line to District line, you would see more car dealers than virtually any other use. These uses have almost no capital investment in the land, thus they add little to the tax base. How about giving us a chance on this one?

Letter published in the Prince George's Gazette, 11 Sep 2003

In the 3600 block of Old Silver Hill Road, there is a vacant lot, with a crumbling building and overrun with weeds. It once was a small used car lot, but has been vacant and deteriorating since the dealer closed.

I am sure that we will see more of the same as used car dealers start to close.

Every day when I drive by that lot, and the ones that will follow it, I will be reminded of how the council has acted to shut down taxpaying businesses, put taxpaying citizens out of work and create additional eyesores like the one in the 3600 block of Old Silver Hill Road and the other vacant properties nearby.

You [County Councilwoman Camille Exum] and your naive colleagues may think that driving these successful small businesses away will lead to what you consider "higher quality" development. But if that fantasy were really true, there would not be a vacant eyesore in the 3600 block of Old Silver Hill Road.

Rather than arbitrarily and capriciously forcing successful small businesses to shut down without any compensation, why don't you and your colleagues ­ first ­ go find some "higher quality" tenants to invest in those properties and buy them? That would lead to fair compensation for the current businesses and possible increases in the county's tax base ­ a possible win-win situation rather than the lose-lose scenario you seem determined to pursue.

You may have some vague plan to do something in the future, but the recent history of the Suitland-Marlow Heights area, gives me no reason to have any faith whatsoever in county government attempts to attract "higher quality" development. The former Montgomery Ward store at Iverson Mall is vacant. The former K-Mart store on St. Barnabas Road is vacant (it has had a sign for a church for well over a year, but it is still vacant and deteriorating). Likewise, the former Hechinger store nearby has a sign for a church but appears to be vacant. At the site of the former motel between Branch Avenue and Old Silver Hill Road, CVS has taken half of the site, but the other half is vacant with the shell of a building that was started a couple of years ago and abandoned. The former drug store in the Hillcrest Heights Shopping Center is vacant. The former Hot Shoppe at Marlow Heights is vacant.

Before shutting down more of the productive businesses that are still operating in the area, I would think the council would want to see these many currently unproductive sites put to some productive use that will provide tax revenues.

Just what is your real goal here? It appears that all you are likely to accomplish will be to shut down more businesses and turn the area into a ghost town. I, for one, would much, much rather see used car dealers instead of overgrown vacant lots and abandoned building.

John M. Scroggins, Suitland

Letter published in the Prince George's Gazette, 11 Sep 2003, and Gazette Weekend Edition, 13 Sep 2003

Dear Del. [Carolyn J.B.] Howard:

I was appalled to read in The Gazette ["Delegation leader makes TRIM a top issue," Sept. 4] that you have joined the irresponsible, tax, tax, tax politicians attacking TRIM [Tax Reform Initiative by Marylanders].

Prince George's voters have spoken repeatedly on this issue. Why do you and so many of your fellow politicians find it so hard to understand what the voters have told you?

I have to live on a fixed income. That means that if I want to spend money on something new, I have to cut spending on something else. It also means that any tax increase you extort from me will require me to cut spending on something I consider a priority.

I have to live with this kind of fiscal restraint and responsibility. Why can't you tax, tax, tax politicians do the same?

Why are you trying to reduce my standard of living?

The Gazette says that you would earmark any revenue from repealing TRIM for education. Why should I believe you?

Last year, the General Assembly overrode the clear will of the voters and passed a tax on telephone service ­ one of the most obscenely taxed services there is (over 1/3 of my telephone bill goes to taxes and government-imposed "fees"). Legislators insisted that the tax was for education. But Gazette articles this spring indicated that County Executive [Jack] Johnson diverted a significant part of it to his "livable communities" initiative.

Most elected officials in Prince George's County claim that schools are their highest priority. Yet the County Council recently ignored the county charter and the will of the voters and voted to raise taxes for parks, not schools.

With this record of lies, why should I believe anything you or any other elected official says about spending priorities and earmarking money? How do I know you won't wait a year and then reverse yourself, spend the money elsewhere, and come back whining for more money again?

And, even if you do actually increase spending on education, why should I believe that giving more money to our currently dysfunctional school system will do anything to improve education results?

If taxes and expenditures were truly related to education results, we would have better than average schools. Prince George's County schools are already funded above the national average, yet they achieve results that are far below average. And look at the D.C. schools ­ they are among the best funded in the country, with just about the absolute worst results.

Money is clearly not the problem! If you don't understand that, maybe it's time for you and your political allies, who have been in control of our failing school system for decades, to step aside and see if anyone else has real answers that work before you and your ilk drive us farther down to the level of the highly funded but abysmal D.C. schools.

John M. Scroggins, Suitland

Note: Originally sent as an e-mail to Del. Howard; copies were also faxed to her Annapolis and district offices.

Response from Del. Howard: None!

Letter published in the Prince George's and Montogomery Journals, 9 Sep 2003

The Prince George's Council seems determined to shut down roughly 100 tax-paying used car dealers and put at least that many taxpaying citizens out of work.

It seems to me that it is very hypocritical for the Council leadership to run around calling for higher taxes at the same time.

I don't understand what is going on here, but I am rapidly becoming convinced that the current Council is bad news.

No, I don't own or work for a used car dealership. I do live within walking distance of several, and drive past a number of others in both Districts 7 and 8 every day.

They do not offend me. In fact, I am happy that we have so many small businesses around, and very unhappy that the Council is determined to squash them.

In the 3600 block of Old Silver Hill Road, there is a vacant lot overrun with weeds, with a crumbling building on it. It once was a small used car lot, but it has been deteriorating since the dealer closed. I am sure we will see more of the same as other used car dealers start to close.

Every day when I drive by that lot (and the ones that will follow), I will be reminded of how the Council has shut down taxpaying businesses, put taxpaying citizens out of work, and created additional eyesores like this.

Naive Council members may think that driving these successful small businesses away will lead to what they consider "higher quality" development, but if that fantasy were really true, there would not be a vacant eyesore on Old Silver Hill Road.

Rather than arbitrarily and capriciously forcing successful small businesses to shut down without any compensation, why don't they first go find some "higher quality" tenants to invest in those properties and buy them?

That would lead to fair compensation for the current businesses and possible increases in the county's tax base - a possible win-win situation, rather than the lose-lose scenario they seem determined to pursue.

There may be some vague plan to do something in the future, but the recent history of the Suitland-Marlow Heights area gives me no reason to have any faith whatsoever in county government attempts to attract "higher quality" development.

The former Montgomery Ward store at Iverson Mall is vacant, as is the former K-Mart on St. Barnabas Road. Likewise, the former Hechinger store nearby has a sign for a church, but also appears to be vacant.

At the site of the former motel between Branch Avenue and Old Silver Hill Road, CVS has taken half of the site, but the other half is vacant with the shell of a building that was started a couple of years ago and then abandoned.

The former drug store in the Hillcrest Heights Shopping Center is vacant. The former Hot Shoppe at Marlow Heights is, too.

Before shutting down more of the productive businesses that are still operating in the area, I would think the Council would want to see these many currently unproductive sites put to some productive use that will provide tax revenues.

I, for one, would much, much rather see used car dealers instead of overgrown vacant lots and abandoned buildings.

JOHN M. SCROGGINS
Suitland

Date: 5 Sep 2003
To: Exum, Camille A
From: John M. Scroggins
Subject: RE: Used car dealers

I consider this a pretty lame answer.

In the 3600 block of Old Silver Hill Road, there is a vacant lot, with a crumbling building and overrun with weeds. It once was a small used car lot, but has been vacant and deteriorating since the dealer closed.

I am sure that we will see more of the same as used car dealers start to close.

Every day when I drive by that lot, and the ones that will follow it, I will be reminded of how the council has acted to shut down taxpaying businesses, put taxpaying citizens out of work, and create additional eyesores like the one in the 3600 block of Old Silver Hill Road and the other vacant properties nearby.

You and your naive colleagues may think that driving these successful small businesses away will lead to what you consider "higher quality" development. But if that fantasy were really true, there would not be a vacant eyesore in the 3600 block of Old Silver Hill Road.

Rather than arbitrarily and capriciously forcing successful small businesses to shut down without any compensation, why don't you and your colleagues _FIRST_ go find some "higher quality" tenants to invest in those properties and buy them? That would lead to fair compensation for the current businesses and possible increases in the county's tax base--a possible win-win situation rather than the lose-lose scenario you seem determined to pursue.

You may have some vague plan to do something in the future, but the recent history of the Suitland-Marlow Heights area, gives me NO reason to have any faith whatsoever in count government attempts to attract "higher quality" development. The former Montgomery Ward store at Iverson Mall is vacant. The former K-Mart store on St. Barnabas Road is vacant (it has had a sign for a church for well over a year, but it is still vacant and deteriorating). Likewise, the former Hechinger store nearby has a sign for a church but appears to be vacant. At the site of the former motel between Branch Avenue and Old Silver Hill Road, CVS has taken half of the site, but the other half is vacant with the shell of a building that was started a couple of years ago and abandoned. The former drug store in the Hillcrest Heights Shopping Center is vacant. The former Hot Shoppe at Marlow Heights is vacant.

Before shutting down more of the productive businesses that are still operating in the area, I would think the council would want to see these many currently unproductive sites put to some productive use that will provide tax revenues.

Just what is your real goal here? It appears that all you are likely to accomplish will be to shut down more businesses and turn the area into a ghost town. I, for one, would much, much rather see used car dealers instead of overgrown vacant lots and abandoned building.

-----Original Message-----
At 8/28/2003 01:59 PM, you wrote:

Mr. Scroggins:
Thank you for your correspondence concerning the used car lots. I appreciate the opportunity to share my views on this matter. The bill to eliminate said dealerships was approved by the previous council. My colleagues and I took up a bill to allow the lots to remain for an additional 90 days only. I was not supportive of the 90 day extension.

The owners had more than a year to redress this matter to the previous council and executive and did not. Further this matter is a part of a larger issue of the number of junked, abandoned, unregistered and unsafe vehicles on our streets and in our community.

Shortly, I will introduce legislation that will address other areas contributing to this substantial problem. I certainly appreciate and respect your opinion and I trust that you can appreciate the picture. I welcome continued dialogue on this and other issues of importance to our county.

Very truly yours
Camille

-----Original Message-----
From: John M. Scroggins
Sent: Thu Aug 28 13:08:38 2003
To: Exum, Camille A
Cc: Knotts, Tony
Subject: Used car dealers

According to recent press reports, the PG council seems determined to shut
down roughly a hundred tax-paying used car dealers and put at least that
many taxpaying citizens out of work

You were absent the last time the council voted on this issue. What is
your position?

It seems to me that is very hypocritical for the council chairman and other
members leadership to run around calling for higher taxes at the same time
those members are forcing taxpaying businesses to close and making sure
that the employees of those businesses can't afford to pay taxes.

I don't understand what is going here, but I am rapidly becoming convinced
that the current council is bad news.

No, I don't own or work for a used car dealership. I do live within
walking distance of several in your district, and drive past a number of
others in both districts 7 and 8 every day. They do not offend--I am happy
that we have so many small businesses around and VERY unhappy that your
colleagues are determined to squash them.

John M. Scroggins
3408 Weltham Street
Suitland, MD 20746

Response from Miss Exum: See above for answer to first message, no response to followup message.

Date: 4 Sep 2003
To: Delegate Carolyn Howard
From: John M. Scroggins
Subject: TRIM and schools
Cc: [Remainder of District 24 delegation; all officals mentioned in the Gazette article]

Dear Del. Howard:

I was appalled to read in the Gazette that you have joined the irresponsible, tax, tax, tax politicians attacking TRIM.

Prince George's voters have spoken repeatedly on this issue. Why do you and so many of your fellow politicians find it so hard to understand what the voters have told you?

I have to live on a fixed income. That means that if I want to spend money on something new, I have to cut spending on something else. It also means that any tax increase you extort from me will require me to cut spending on something I consider a priority.

I have to live with this kind of fiscal restraint and responsibility. Why can't you tax, tax, tax politicians do the same?

Why are you trying to reduce my standard of living?

The Gazette says that you would earmark any revenue from repealing TRIM for education. Why should I believe you?

Last year, the General Assembly overrode the clear will of the voters and passed a tax on telephone service--one of the most obscenely taxed services there is (over 1/3 of my telephone bill goes to taxes and government-imposed "fees"). Legislators insisted that the tax was for education. But Gazette articles this spring indicated that County Executive Johnson diverted a significant part of it to his "liveable communities" initiative.

Most elected officials in Prince George's County claim that schools are their highest priority. Yet the County Council recently ignored the county charter and the will of the voters and voted to raise taxes for parks, not schools.

With this record of lies, why should I believe anything you or any other elected official says about spending priorities and earmarking money? How do I know you won't wait a year and then reverse yourself, spend the money elsewhere, and come back whining for more money again?

And, even if you do actually increase spending on education, why should I believe that giving more money to our currently dysfunctional school system will do anything to improve education results?

If taxes and expenditures were truly related to education results, we would have better than average schools. Prince George's County schools are already funded above the national average, yet they achieve results that are far below average. And look at the DC schools--they are among the best funded in the country, with just about the absolute worst results.

Money is clearly NOT the problem! If you don't understand that, maybe it's time for you, and your political allies who have been in control of our failing school system for decades, to step aside and see if anyone else has real answers that work before you and your ilk drive us farther down to the level of the highly-funded but abysmal DC schools.

John M. Scroggins
3408 Weltham Street
Suitland, MD 20746

Responses: None

Date: 28 Aug 2003
To: Camille A. Exum
From: John M. Scroggins
Subject: Used car dealers
Cc: tknotts@co.pg.md.us

According to recent press reports, the PG council seems determined to shut down roughly a hundred tax-paying used car dealers and put at least that many taxpaying citizens out of work

You were absent the last time the council voted on this issue. What is your position?

It seems to me that is very hypocritical for the council chairman and other members leadership to run around calling for higher taxes at the same time those members are forcing taxpaying businesses to close and making sure that the employees of those businesses can't afford to pay taxes.

I don't understand what is going here, but I am rapidly becoming convinced that the current council is bad news.

No, I don't own or work for a used car dealership. I do live within walking distance of several in your district, and drive past a number of others in both districts 7 and 8 every day. They do not offend--I am happy that we have so many small businesses around and VERY unhappy that your colleagues are determined to squash them.

John M. Scroggins
3408 Weltham Street
Suitland, MD 20746

Responses: None from Mr. Knotts; see 5 Sep for Miss Exum's reply

Letter published in the Prince George's and Montgomery Journals, 9 May 2003

According to state Sen. Ulysses Currie's May 2 op-ed in The Journal ("Maryland's Perilous Fiscal Time"), he wants me to write to Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. and urge him not to make deep program cuts.

No! I intend to tell him just the opposite. As the session closed, I wrote to the person most responsible for the coming cuts - House Speaker Michael Busch, D-Anne Arundel - but he hasn't bothered to answer me.

Who caused Maryland's fiscal crisis? You folks in the General Assembly did! If Maryland is caught between a rock and a hard place, it's primarily because of your fiscal irresponsibility.

You not only created the problem, you then rejected the governor's reasonable solution. I am sickened by your blatant hypocrisy in blaming Ehrlich for the potential budget cuts.

You blame the governor for not funding education. Baloney!

You people in the General Assembly - not Bob Ehrlich - chose to give hundreds of millions of tax dollars in subsidies to out-of-state sports millionaires. Where was your concern for education then?

The General Assembly - not Bob Ehrlich - chose to spend tens of millions on luxurious Senate offices. Where was you concern for education then?

And they you people in the General Assembly - not Ehrlich - voted to spend millions on pay raises to reward yourselves for your wasteful spending. Where was your concern for education then?

In the session that just ended, Currie personally sponsored bills to spend millions on pork rather than education.

Even when you folks in the Assembly have money to spend, education is not your top priority. Giving you more taxes means you will spend it elsewhere, and then come back whining for more education money.

Just look at the obscene telephone tax Currie supported last year. When I add up all the taxes and government-created fees on my telephone bill, it comes to over 35 percent - as high as the sin taxes on booze and smoking.

You people in the General Assembly said the telephone tax increase you passed last year would be used for education. But Prince George's County Executive Jack B. Johnson (whom Currie supported) has refused to give all the proceeds to the schools, diverting a substantial portion to other programs instead.

You folks in Annapolis lied about how this tax increase would be used. Why should I - or anyone else - believe you the next time you want higher taxes for education?

Currie and many other politicians seem to accept the questionable notion that the Thornton Plan will solve our education problems. This is nonsense.

I find it hard to believe that our politicians even accepted such a plan from someone like Alvin Thornton. Just look at his record.

He was a member and then head of the School Board that presided over failing schools, and he got the latter position after misleading the voters about his re-election plans.

He then headed the elected School Board the General Assembly found so bad that it voted to kill it. If Thornton couldn't get it right when he was in charge of the schools, why do you think his current plan is any good?

And just what will more money for schools buy? More administrators? Pay raises for administrators? More busing?

That's where any increases seem to go, not into actual improvements in education. If more money actually meant better results, we wouldn't have such lousy schools now.

Prince George's County schools have received substantial increases in funding every year. Despite those increases, two things have remained the same:

The schools continue to fail to educate our children.

There is constant whining for more money.

What makes Currie think that giving more money to the same politicians and educrats who preside over our failing schools will buy anything other than more massive failure? We already spend more than the national average per pupil.

The District of Columbia's schools received huge increases in funding, and now spend much more per pupil than we do, but their schools are complete failures. Those funding increases did not cause any improvement.

My son was a honor student in the science and technology program at Oxon Hill High School. He went from there to a small, but very highly regarded engineering college in Indiana, which U.S. News and World Report rates as the best small engineering school in the country.

But he found himself poorly prepared. His rural Indiana classmates had a better grounding in math and science than he received at Oxon Hill. But those classmates came from communities that typically spend 20 percent less per pupil than we do. Why do they get better results?

If Currie really wanted to improve education, he would:

Stop throwing good money after bad.

Find out why our slightly above-average spending produces far below-average results.

Fix the real problem.

Insist on accountability for educational results.

Support alternative education programs that produce better results.

And stop supporting and funding failure.

What makes me sick at heart is not what may fall under the governor's budget knife, but rather how much of my tax money the members of the General Assembly have wasted on both nonessential and failed programs.

If it takes massive budget cuts to get them to set real priorities and spend money effectively, then those cuts are long overdue.

I have a fixed income. Every time they raise taxes, I must give up something. I have to budget my money to live within my income, and I expect them to do the same.

John M. Scroggins lives in Suitland.

Date: 7 May 2003
To: vaedit@jrnl.com
From: John M. Scroggins
Subject: "Maryland's perilous fiscal time", reply to Ulysses Curie

What follows below is a slightly edited version of an e-mail message I sent to Maryland Sen. Ulysses Currie in response to his "Viewpoint" column in the May 2 Prince George's Journal. I offer it to you for possible publication as a rebuttal to Sen. Currie. It is still in the form of a message to him. I would recast it in another format, but I'm about to leave town for a week and wouldn't have time until my return.

John M. Scroggins
3408 Weltham Street
Suitland, MD 20746
301-423-0031 (home)
240-350-6252 (wireless)

Dear Sen. Currie:

According to your recent column in the Journal, you want me to write to Governor Ehrlich and urge him not to make deep program cuts. NO! I intend to tell him Right On! As the session closed, I wrote to the person most responsible for the coming cuts--Michael Busch--but he hasn't bothered to answer me.

Who caused Maryland's fiscal crisis? You folks in the General Assembly did!

If Maryland is caught between a rock and a hard place, it is primarily because of the fiscal irresponsibility of you and your colleagues in the General Assembly. Your fiscal irresponsibility created the problem, and you people rejected the Governor's reasonable solution. I am sickened by your blatant hypocrisy in blaming Governor Ehrlich for the potential budget cuts.

You want to blame Governor Ehrlich for not funding education. Baloney!

You people in the General Assembly, not Bob Ehrlich, chose to give hundreds of millions of tax dollars in subsidies to out-of-state sports millionaires. Where was your concern for education then?

You people in the General Assembly, not Bob Ehrlich, chose to spend tens of millions of dollars on luxurious Senate offices. Where was you concern for education then?

In a further act of fiscal irresponsibility, you people in the General Assembly, not Bob Ehrlich, voted to spend millions of dollars each year on pay raises to reward yourselves for your wasteful spending. Where was you concern for education then?

In the session just ended, you personally sponsored bills to spend millions of dollars on pork rather than education.

Is your tax-based solution believable? NO!

As noted above, when you folks in the General Assembly have money to spend, education is NOT your top priority. Giving you more money in taxes means you will spend it elsewhere and then come back whining for more education money.

Just look at the obscene telephone tax you supported last year. Telephone service is more highly taxed than virtually any other product or service. When I add up all the taxes and government-created fees on my telephone bill, it comes to over 35%. It's like the sin taxes on booze and smoking.

You people said the telephone tax increase you passed last year would be used for education. The Gazette reports that Jack Johnson (whom you supported) has refused to give all the proceeds to the schools.* Instead he is diverting a substantial portion of it to other programs.

You folks in Annapolis lied about how the tax increase would be used! Why should I or anyone else believe you the next time you say you want higher taxes for education?

Is money the solution to our education problems? NO!

You and many other politicians seem to accept the questionable notion that the Thornton Plan will solve our education problems. NONSENSE!

Before even looking at the money issue, I find it hard to believe that you accept such a plan from someone like Alvin Thornton. Look at his record. He was a member and then head of the school board that presided over failing schools, and he got the latter position after misleading the voters about his reelection plans. He was head of the elected school board you found so bad that you voted to kill it (after your staff wrote to me and said you supported continuing the elected board).

If Thornton couldn't get it right when he was in charge of the schools, why do you think his current plan is any good?

Just what will more money for schools buy? More administrators? Pay raises for administrators? More busing? That's where increases seem to go--not into actual improvements in education. If more money actually meant better results, we wouldn't have such lousy schools now.

Prince George's County schools have received substantial increases in funding every year. Despite those increases, two things have remained the same:

1. The schools continue to fail to educate our children.
2. There is constant whining for more money.

What makes you think that giving more money to the same politicians and educrats who preside over our failing schools will buy anything other than more massive failure?

We already spend more than the national average per pupil, yet we get much poorer results. Why?

Look at the District of Columbia. Their schools have received huge increases in funding and now spend much more per pupil than our schools. But the DC schools are complete failures. Those increases funding increases did not cause any improvement in results.

My son was a honor student in the science and technology program at Oxon Hill High School. He went from there to a small, but very highly regarded engineering college in Indiana (a college US News and World Report rates as the best small engineering school in the country). He found himself poorly prepared. His rural Indiana classmates had a better grounding in math and science than he received at Oxon Hill. But those rural classmates came from communities that typically spend 20% less per pupil than we do. Why do they get better results?

If you really wanted to improve education, you would:

1. Stop throwing good money after bad.
2. Find out why our slightly above average spending produces far below average results.
3. Fix the real problem
4. Insist on accountability for educational results.
5. Support alternative education programs and proposals that produce better results.
6. Stop supporting and funding failure.

Giving more and more money to officials who fail is not true reform and is not a solution to our education problems.

Conclusion.

What makes me sick at heart is not what may fall under the governor's budget knife, but rather how much of my tax money you have wasted on both non-essential and failed programs.

If it takes massive budget cuts to get you to set real priorities and spend money effectively, those cuts are long overdue.

I have a fixed income. Every time you raise taxes I must give up something. I have to budget my money to live within my income. I expect you to do the same. If you can't, it is time for you to step aside in favor of someone who can.

John M. Scroggins
Suitland

* County executive's budget angers school board members
http://www.gazette.net/200314/princegeorgescty/education/151783-1.html

Response: None from Sen. Currie; published in the Journal, 9 May 2003.

Letter to the editor of the Prince George's Journal, published 28 Feb 2001

You begin your Feb. 23 editorial with the statement: "Our school board is not performing at the level county parents want - there's no argument from us about that."

I disagree! I would argue that the school board IS performing at the level voters want. As you point out later in your editorial, the board "includes a recently re-elected majority." I might add that even the most criticized member was re-elected by a substantial majority.

If the voters were really as unhappy as the press and a few politicians would make us believe, they would have replaced half of the current board in the last election - but they didn't. If the noisy activists, including Del. Rushern Baker, D-22B-Cheverly, were really interested in improving the board and the schools, why didn't they find and endorse a reform slate of better candidates?

Personally, I have virtually no respect for the current board, but I see no reason whatever to believe that replacements appointed through political patronage would be any better. I strongly believe that the real solution must come from within the county.

No state-imposed officials can solve the problems we have. Schools will improve when, and only when, the majority of parents and voters get fed up and elect effective, competent school board members who care about education and can earn the respect of both voters and the school bureaucracy. That may be difficult - democracy is often difficult - but it sure beats the autocratic alternatives proposed by Dels. Baker and James Hubbard, D-23rd-Bowie.

JOHN M. SCROGGINS

Suitland

Letter to the Editor of the Prince George's Journal, 24 Oct 2000

Should current term limits be retained? Yes!

Should the bills passed by the Prince George's County Council be approved by the voters? No!

I would gladly support, and gather signatures for, a measure to permit recall of county officials by petition.

With respect to the council members who are trying to get rid of term limits: As far as I am concerned, they have shown that they are unfit for elected office, and I will actively oppose their candidacy for any office in the future.

JOHN M. SCROGGINS

Suitland