The Baltimore Sun from Baltimore, Maryland • A12

12 THE BALTIMORE SUN NEWS MONDAY, APRIL 28, 2014 RESPOND EDITORIALS It's not too late Our view: Mayor Rawlings-Blake needs to get involved in the 'ban the box' debate to address business' concerns with a measure designed to help ex-offenders altimore's City Council is due to vote today on the "ban the box" ordinance a measure that would prohibit prospective employers from inquiring about an applicant's criminal history until a conditional offer of employment is made. Its passage appears all but assured. The bill is designed to ensure that ex-offenders have a chance to be judged on the merit of their present skills rather than solely on the basis of their criminal past, and that is a goal we wholeheartedly support We just hope it's not too late to make two modest changes that would, ultimately, serve the greater cause of increasing employment opportunities for those with criminal records. Councilman Nick Mosby, the bill's chief sponsor, had extensive but ultimately fruitless negotiations with Greater Baltimore Committee President and CEO Donald C. Fry over the business community's concerns with the legislation Though the GBC had opposed the bill outright as anti-business, it had boiled its request down to three amendments.

One would have made clear that the ordinance did not apply to jobs where the hiring of ex-offenders is prohibited by state or federal law, and that one was adopted, though some have questioned whether the precise language the council approved is sufficient The second would eliminate criminal penalties possibly including jail time from the bill. And the third would allow prospective employers to check for criminal history before an offer of employment is made. As part of the negotiations, Mr. Fry offered the GBC's support on a number of initiatives to help encourage the hiring of ex-offenders, but the two sides were never able to come to agreement Though we commend the business community for making the offer, in our view, the proposed amendments are eminently reasonable and warrant adoption in their own right. Mr.

Mosby says he wants criminal penalties as part of the bill to ensure that it has teeth and to prevent employers as seeing fines for violations as merely the cost of doing business. And he analogizes the requirement that criminal background checks only occur after a conditional offer of employment is made to the way drug tests are handled now. Limiting them to that stage eliminates any chance of implicit bias in the hiring process, Mr. Mosby says. We appreciate the evident sincerity of Mr.

Mosby's position, but on those two points, we disagree. We find it odd that legislation intended to provide more opportunities for those with criminal records would have the result of giving more people criminal records. And the reality of putting off a criminal background check until a conditional offer of employment is made is that businesses could lose out on other qualified applicants if they have to wait until so late in the process to learn that a prospective employee's criminal record makes him or her unsuitable for the job in question. Moreover, we're not sure how it BARBARA HADDOCK TAYLORTHE BALTI City Councilman Nick Mosby plans to seek a vote today on his 'ban the box' legislation. benefits the ex-offender to have a job offered and then yanked away.

More fundamentally, though, the matter is a question of the relationship between the city government and the business community. As it is, Baltimore doesn't exactly have a reputation as being excessively business-friendly; quite the opposite. In a city without nearly enough jobs in general, we would hope the City Council would at least show some concern for potential employers' opinions. The business community showed a willingness to meet more than half-way, and although we do not believe the "ban the box" law itself would send employers scurrying for the suburbs, we do fear that a growing sense that City Hall is dismissive of the business perspective could. Three weeks ago, Councilman Bill Henry attempted to send the legislation back to committee so the council could at least hold a hearing on the proposed amendments, but there weren't enough votes for that It's unlikely that things have changed since then.

But it's not too late. Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has pledged to sign whatever bill the council passes but has not gotten involved in the details. Now's the time for her to get off the sidelines. She needs to look out for the bigger picture of how passing this legislation in this form in this manner will affect the city as a whole. Ms.

Rawlings-Blake should push for the council to send the bill back to committee to consider those two amendments, and she should make clear that she will veto any version of the bill that does not address those two concerns. After all, "ban the box" can give ex-offenders a fair shot at jobs, but that doesn't help if there are no jobs to get Wind turbines would impact Navy radar As the former director of the Atlantic Test Ranges at Patuxent River, Maryland I have been reading with interest the various articles related to the effects of wind turbines on instrumentation radar systems located at this facility. I am a recognized national expert on test range operations with over 40 years of experience in this field. I would like to let the public know that wind turbine development on the Eastern Shore is a real encroachment threat to sensitive test measurements performed by the Navy at Patuxent River. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Lincoln Laboratories performed an independent analysis to verify the interference and look for potential solutions.

MIT briefed the Navy and the political leaders on their findings, and that is driving the necessity of the bill HB 1168 to delay construction of only those turbines that are so tall they impact testing at the naval base. Currently there are no proven technical solutions that can mitigate the effects posed by wind turbines on these systems. To be perfectly clear, neither the Navy nor the political leaders are against wind turbines. In fact, the Navy fully supports the use of alternative energy sources and has worked closely with local, state and federal agencies to establish procedures for wind turbine encroachment. The Navy even generated a map to show the allowable height of turbines as a function of distance from the radars to ease the approval process.

However, the commercial wind turbines proposed for Somerset County will be among the tallest in the country and are too tall to be placed as currently planned without significantly impacting the Navy's systems. By comparison, I have yet to see any independent assessment that verifies the assertions consistently cited by those that are against this legislation. The Baltimore Sun's April 20th "Gone with the wind farm?" editorial contained multiple misleading statements presented and most data were inaccurate as to leave the reader with the impression this is an insignificant matter and should not even be considered by the governor. The effects of turbines on the Navy systems are a real and documented national security concern to the Navy, not theoretical, imagined or perceived as claimed. The Navy's systems are one of a kind and are essential to the Defense Department.

The cost alone to military programs utilizing this test capability could potentially be tens of millions of dollars per day for schedule delays caused by workaround procedures. Moreover, draft agreements being discussed between the Navy and the wind farm builder, Pioneer Green, are not legally binding. This means after this Texas based company constructs the wind farm it will be turned over to another company to operate, and that company will be left with agreements that are essentially unenforceable by the Navy. Greg Gillingham, Hollywood Reserve front page for actual news First, The Baltimore Sun reduced the amount of news it reported by eliminating one of its two daily papers. Then, The Sun further reduced its content by cutting down on the size of the paper that remained.

Now, the "newspaper" has reached the level of almost-no-news by regularly moving infotainment to the front page. Every time Michael Phelps popped his head out of the pool during the past week, he has appeared on the page where people used to look for the important things that were going on in the world makes triumphant return to familiar waters," April 25). Thomas Jefferson thought it was more important to have newspapers without a government than a government without newspapers, but by 1814 he also felt that newspapers had passed into a "putrid state" and that the people who wrote for newspapers were "depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food." He had no idea of the level to which to the Fourth Estate could sink in depraving the public taste. Michael Phelps is an amazing athlete who has done the United States in general and Maryland in particular more than proud. But he isn't "front-page news." Those of us who still prefer to read an actual newspaper are the older people who remember what newspapers are supposed to be.

The Baltimore Sun is not doing us proud. Janis L. Koch, Towson A word of thanks for Parkinson's caregivers I want to thank U.S. Sen. Cory Booker for his article, "Parkinson's takes a toll on families, too" (April 23).

I have Parkinson's, and my caregivers are my husband and my 24 -year-old daughter. I can't tell you what I would do if I did not have them. I have no friends or family who check in on me unless they see me, then they ask how am I doing. Mr. Booker's mother was so lucky to have a support group that came around to see her and help out.

Thank you very much for your positive article. Brenda Reed Make room for ride-sharing Our view: Ruling in Uber case reveals the inadequacy of existing regulations he proposal to classify Uber as a common carrier as ordered last week by the state's chief public utility law judge but potentially up for consideration by the Maryland Public Service Commission in the next 30 days is probably not the last word in Baltimore's ride wars. It simply reflects similar battles that have been raging elsewhere between traditional taxi services, utility regulators and technology-based companies like Uber that are providing an increasingly popular service. It's easy to see both sides on this one. On the one hand, ride-sharing is an innovative approach that has gotten rave reviews here and elsewhere.

One can simply use a smartphone app to summon and pay for a ride (your choice of vehicles) as well as monitor its progress and rate the driver. Uber doesn't own the vehicles it dispatches as "UberBLACK" or "UberSUV" or employ the drivers; it's a software company that operates more like a matchmaker and cashier. On the other hand, the regulation of common carriers from sedan and limousine operators to taxi companies protects the public from bad or uninsured drivers, makes sure vehicles are safe and licensed and ensures affordability and that all neighborhoods are served. Why would the method of dispatch a smartphone merely substituting for a telephone call or outstretched hand somehow exempt it from those same consumer protections? What's needed is a compromise, one that doesn't lead to the stifling of innovation but also protects the public interest Merely classifying Uber (or the similar Lyft service, which is likely to get the same treatment by the PSC shortly) as a common carrier or "passenger-for-hire" probably doesn't achieve that end unless it leads to fundamentally retMnldng the regulations for all common carriers to determine which are essential and which serve only to reduce competition Let's face it It's not difficult to find people who are unhappy with existing taxi services. That's not just in Baltimore.

Across the country, these services have often become monopolized with the unfortunate result of mediocrity and indifference to customers. Government has played a big role in that with a dizzying array of regulations that cover everything from driver language fluency to a cab's hours of operation But that doesn't mean anything should go on the roads either. The public expects a certain level of protection vehicles that are safe and sufficiently insured, drivers who are competent and fares that are reasonable and easy to understand. Nobody cries when the PSC cracks down on illegal hacks operating broken down jalopies in poor neighborhoods although they are often just as loved by their customers. The General Assembly recently had a chance to give the PSC greater flexibility to regulate companies like Uber and Lyft under a proposed new category of "operators of transportation networks," but the legislation never made it past the committee level.

Sen Bill Ferguson, sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, said it was difficult to convince lawmakers outside Baltimore who are unfamiliar with the service to support it in the face of fierce opposition from traditional taxi operators. Modeled after a California plan, the approach favored by Senator Ferguson and Del. Ben Barnes, who sponsored the House version, would have the PSC focus its regulation on the commercial drivers who own and operate vehicles and not so much on software companies. He fears that the PSC may yet cause Uber to leave the state and solidify Maryland's reputation as a place where government red tape discourages new ideas and approaches. Whether this flexibility can be achieved by the PSC alone seems doubtful.

Judge Terry Romine classified Uber as a common carrier largely because it didn't fit any other existing category under state law. Rewriting the statute is a task for the legislature in Annapolis, not for an independent regulatory agency. Here's an example of where existing law is inadequate. Under ride-sharing, the cost of a trip can differ based on demand. At busy hours, a ride to the airport may be more expensive.

Yet common carriers are required to post their rates in advance, and there's no mechanism to be flexible. What's to protect ride-share customers from getting ripped off by a sudden rate increase? The software provides them with the estimate of a trip's cost in advance. Taxi companies claim to welcome competition, but apparently only from other taxi companies. There should be room for a fundamentally different approach like Uber. Perhaps the judge's ruling will be the first step toward a sensible compromise that neither disadvantages existing operators nor discourages new ideas, but at least at the moment, it looks like a tough road ahead.

Talk to us The Baltimore Sun welcomes comments from readers on subjects of local and national relevance by email, by Twitter or on our Web site, baltimoresun.com. The Sun reserves the right to edit and publish them in the newspaper or on the Web site. Online E-mail us Twitter Our address THE BALTIMORE SUN A Tribune Publishing Company TIMOTHY E.RYAN Publisher, President and Chief Executive Officer NEWS ADMINISTRATION Triffon G. Alatzas, Senior Vice President, Executive Editor MARYLAND VOICES Andrew A. Green, Editorial Page Editor BALTIMORE SUN MEDIA GROUP Judith Berman, Senior Vice President I Sales Marketing Trish McCarthy Carroll, Senior Vice President I Customer Engagement Daniel M.

Sarko, Vice President I Advertising Stephen G. Seidl, Senior Vice President I Operations Technology Timothy J. Thomas, Senior Vice President I Business Development baltimoresun.comtalk talkbackbaltimoresun.com twitter.combaltimoresun The Baltimore Sun, P.O. Box 1377 Baltimore 21278-0001 Online exclusive President Obama came into office with no plan or even a plan A for his foreign policy efforts, writes Jonah Goldberg. baltimoresun.comopinion.