A former employee of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene allegedly stole $1.7 million dollars since 2001 from kidney patients, according to Attorney General Doug Gansler. But according to the chief of the department, Secretary John Colmers, “None of the benefits used by the 2,400 individuals enrolled in the Kidney Disease Program have been affected, and program services are continuing uninterrupted.”
How is that possible? If the money was not missed, then the agency does not need it and must cut its budget. We would recommend the same solution for the Department of Transportation, where at least 22 employees regularly viewed pornography on work computers, according to a report earlier this year from the Office of Legislative Audits. One person accessed it 2,200 times in a week. That is someone without enough work to do. Taxpayers do not need to pay for his or her position or any other person so idle and careless with the trust given to them by Maryland residents.
Recommended Stories
Given the projected $1.5 billion structural deficit next year, state agencies should be doing everything possible to trim excess spending from their budgets. Both the Department of Health and Human Services and Mental Hygiene and the Department of Transportation can set an example for all state agencies by turning evidence of fraud into an opportunity to cut fat from their operations.
Ensure integrity of warrant process
Obtaining a warrant to search someone?s home or property is a big deal in this country. The Fourth Amendment guarantees, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Any rational human being could infer from this that lying to win a warrant would not pass constitutional muster. But in Maryland, the state?s highest court must debate the issue. Earlier this week, the Maryland Court of Appeals considered whether those who apply for a warrant may be held accountable for false or misleading information they knowingly supply to win one. The case stems from a decision last year by Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock, who dismissed a libel case against the Baltimore City Police Department based on the premise that search warrants can?t be scrutinized.
The high court must overturn that decision and restore the integrity to the warrant process throughout the state. The government must not be able to abuse its power because of personal vendettas disconnected from any evidence.
