To: The Honorable Clarence Lam, Chao Wu, Natalie Ziegler and members of the Howard County Delegation to the Maryland General Assembly

From: Laura Mettle, President, The League of Women Voters of Howard County

Testimony In FAVOR, with amendments, of Ho.Co. 2-25, Howard County Board of Education - Board Member Terms and Compensation Commission

The League of Women Voters of Howard County supports this bill IN PART and recommends amendments to Ho.Co. 2-25.

The League recognizes the need to compensate elected officials at rates that attract high quality candidates for the positions and that offer just recompense for the time and energy expended by elected officials seeking to discharge their duties effectively. It is apparent that the rates currently paid to members of the Howard County Board of Education do not meet those needs.

We fully support the creation of a commission to study compensation for Board of Education members followed by recommendations to adjust the payments to those officials.

However, we find the proposed differentiation of term length based on the percentage of votes obtained to be confusing and believe that, if enacted, most voters would also find it difficult to understand. One could also say it is unfair to the citizens who will not know how long the candidate they vote for will serve in office, or when they will again be afforded a time to choose another representative to the Board of Education, should the winning candidate prove unsatisfactory.

We are also wary of possible unintended consequences of this provision, which may result in an increase in deliberate undervoting for at-large positions, in an attempt to ensure that preferred candidates receive the larger share of votes and are thus eligible for longer terms. This provision could also result in a longer term for a candidate in a district who did not draw an opponent, as they would by definition receive 100% of the vote. In that event the voters of that district had no choice in their representation, and delaying the opportunity for them to make another selection seems undemocratic.

We believe that voters in every district of the county deserve to vote for representatives to the Board of Education in the same frequency county-wide. We recommend retaining the 4 year term for all members of the Board.

Please amend the proposed bill, Ho. Co. 2-25, to remove the additions to section 3-701 (2) (i) 1, through 3-701, (2) (III).

25 November 2024

To: The Honorable Clarence Lam, Chao Wu, Natalie Ziegler and members of the Howard County Delegation to the Maryland General Assembly

From: Laura Mettle, President, The League of Women Voters of Howard County

Testimony in FAVOR of Ho.Co.3-25, Howard County - Public Campaign Financing - Board of Education

The League of Women Voters of Howard County SUPPORTS Ho.Co. 3-25.

The League of Women Voters supports public campaign financing in general.

We note that political campaigns, especially county-wide campaigns, have become more expensive in recent years. It would be a disservice to the community if high campaign costs prevented highly qualified candidates who lack financial resources to self-finance from running for a seat on the Board of Education. Public financing would enable candidates to focus on communicating their ideas and positions to voters instead of spending their time finding donors to fund their campaigns.

Please support Ho.Co. 3-25, Public Campaign Financing for the Board of Education.

25 November 2024

To: The Honorable Clarence Lam, Chao Wu, Natalie Ziegler and members of the Howard County Delegation to the Maryland General Assembly

From: Laura Mettle, President, The League of Women Voters of Howard County

Testimony in OPPOSITION to Ho.Co. 8-25.

The League of Women Voters of Howard County OPPOSES Ho.Co. 8 - 25.

While the League of Women Voters supports the idea of ranked choice voting in general, this bill is too narrowly drawn, and the Board of Education elections in Howard County draw too few candidates, for this bill to have an impact.

Were Board of Education members all elected at-large from among a large number of candidates, this bill would make some sense, and we would most likely support it.

However, most members of the Board are elected from districts, and none of the primary contests this year featured more than three candidates for any one position. The school board election in 2022 featured a total of eight candidates for two at-large positions in the primary, winnowed to four for the general election, from which voters chose the two board members.

Furthermore, this bill does not define the criteria for triggering the ranked-choice voting process, leaving that decision up to the County Council. Would there be a set criteria, or would the decision be made on a case-by-case basis?

We suspect that this provision would almost never be used in our current elections. Since it would be a rare occurrence, voters would probably be confused by it. One possible unintended consequence is that fewer voters would choose to cast their ballots in the Board of Education election. Because of these circumstances, the community may come to see ranked-choice voting and school board elections as undemocratic. We know that is not the intention behind this bill.

The Board of Education does need to learn to work together for the benefit of all students in Howard County. We are skeptical that this bill provides the means for that to occur.