Tag Archives: Peter Franchot

Response from Franchot’s Top Aide

Jan. 10, 2017–Len Foxwell, a longtime confidante and aide to Comptroller Peter Franchot responded to the column, “Maryland’s Demeaning ‘Begathon’ Continues” (see next item below) with the following lengthy defense of his boss. It’s three times longer than the column Foxwell finds objectionable, so be prepared.

Also note:  Maryland’s Jan. 25 “begathon” can be viewed live on the Board of Public Works page of the maryland.gov website. Watch the long hours of 24 school superintendents trooping before the board trying to justify more money for school construction — and then judge for yourself the value of this exercise.

Meanwhile, here is Foxwell’s missive:

January 9, 2017

Dear Mr. Rascovar:

Good afternoon, and Happy New Year.  Here’s to good health and both personal and professional fulfillment in the year ahead.

Having read your most recent contribution to MarylandReporter.com – a politically-lubricated jeremiad against the Maryland Public School Construction Program’s longstanding appeals process – I feel obliged to respectfully rebut several of your more misleading and uninformed points.

My first is in response to your characterization of the process itself – “a demeaning ‘begathon’ that long ago outlived its usefulness and turned into a political circus allowing the governor and comptroller to praise and reward their friends in the counties and humiliate their enemies.”  From this passage, your readers might assume that you have diligently attended previous school construction appeals hearings in recent years, and that you are personally familiar with the tone and tenor of the proceedings.

That would be incorrect.  I have had the good fortune of attending every Public School Construction Program appeals hearing since Comptroller Franchot took office in 2007.  To date, I haven’t actually seen you at any of them.  I find it highly improbable that you have followed this annual event – which customarily lasts several hours – on the Board of Public Works’ streaming video feed.  Therefore, I have to question your authority to editorialize on the performance of the Board members at this annual event.

The Board of Public Works provides the public with both a video archive and written transcripts of past meetings.  I would respectfully encourage you to go back, catch up on what you’ve missed over the past decade or so, and offer your readers with specific instances in which Board members gratuitously “humiliated” participants in the meeting or otherwise demonstrated inappropriate conduct.

In stark contrast to what you have described in your column, I think you’ll find that the Board of Public Works is, for the most part, quite laudatory of the efforts of Maryland’s local school systems to carry out their shared mission effectively in this age of limited financial resources.  As for Comptroller Franchot, you will find that he reserves particularly high praise for those school systems that have performed well on their annual public school maintenance surveys, as conducted by the Interagency Committee for Public School Construction.

This is a longstanding priority of his, one that dates back to the early days of our previous governor’s administration, because schools that are maintained properly tend to have a longer life span, which leads to cost savings for Maryland taxpayers.  Even more important, we believe, is the fact that – all things being roughly equal – students who have the opportunity to learn in safe, comfortable and attractive schools tend to outperform those who don’t.

The Board members have also utilized this open and transparent public forum to encourage local school systems to consider alternative construction practices and other strategies – such as the use of geothermal energy whenever possible – to achieve cost savings and better learning outcomes.  All of these would seem to be valuable points of discussion for those who share an interest in the fiscal well-being of our state and our ability to prepare students for success in a complex global economy.  Yet, inexplicably, none of these points found their way into your analysis, which leads me to speculate — with apologies in advance for being impolite —  that you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

In fairness to you, these meetings have had their moments of honest disagreement between Board members and local school systems.  Last year, for instance, the Board members sought to hold the Howard County Public School System accountable for its management of, and response to, the presence of unacceptable levels of mold in several of its schools, which had led to several reported cases of illness and hospitalization.

Similarly, there was considerable discussion about the decision of the Carroll County Public School System to close multiple schools within the county due to insufficient enrollment, despite Governor Hogan’s willingness to invest $4 million to forestall that effort.  Given the number of Maryland students, teachers and families whose lives were affected by these two issues alone, I think we would all be interested in knowing whether you regarded those public discussions as (to borrow your own terms) “distasteful” and “unbecoming.”

You correctly note that Comptroller Franchot has “conducted a consistent crusade to force [Baltimore County] to install portable, temporary air conditioners in all schools lacking central cooling units.” However, you incorrectly suggest that his effort is rooted in a desire to discredit the incumbent Baltimore County Executive and thwart whatever political ambitions he may harbor.

It is worth noting that Comptroller Franchot’s engagement in this subject dates back to June 16, 2011, when he wrote letters to then-Baltimore County Schools Superintendent Joe A. Hairston and Baltimore City Schools CEO Andres A. Alonso.  Noting that the conditions within many of their school facilities can “pose an obvious health and safety risk to all concerned,” he asked “how…children can focus and learn – much less perform to the best of their abilities on final exams and standardized tests – in such an environment.”

He went on to write that “it is equally hard to see how teachers and staff members can feel like their hard work and sacrifice are truly valued when they are forced to work in such unpleasant workplace conditions,” and noted that these conditions “erode the quality of the learning experience” and “sends a disturbing message of indifference to those who have dedicated their lives to serving our children.”

Bear in mind that in June of 2011, Mr. Kamenetz had been in office for approximately six months, and was still several years away from being mentioned, within Maryland political circles, as a probable candidate for statewide office.  To that same point, the letters in question were authored more than three years prior to Governor Hogan’s successful gubernatorial campaign.

Therefore, the notion that the Comptroller’s commitment to safer classrooms for the children of Baltimore City and Baltimore County is inspired by a nebulous political rivalry with Mr. Kamenetz, or an equally nebulous political alliance with Governor Hogan, is beyond asinine.  Your insistence on force-feeding this discredited narrative erodes whatever credibility you have accumulated over the course of your career and – at a time when our political system is in such desperate need of sunlight – serves as a reminder of why public confidence in the media is trending in the wrong direction.

It is my belief that Comptroller Franchot’s perspective on the air conditioning issue has been well-documented.  For the sake of brevity, I won’t unpack his entire argument in response to yours.  Suffice to say that, in the year 2017, every child, teacher and public school employee is entitled to air conditioned classrooms in the warmer months – when it’s not uncommon for building temperatures escalate into the triple digits – just as they are entitled to heated classrooms on frigid days.

Despite the fact that hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars have been invested in the Baltimore City and Baltimore County school systems for building improvements since Comptroller Franchot took office, more than 50,000 school children in these two jurisdictions – most of whom hail from low and moderate-income communities – are unable to learn in the same conditions that are taken for granted elsewhere.  They are, however, expected to demonstrate the same academic progress and perform comparably on standardized tests as their peers.

The Maryland NAACP regards this as a “neglected civil right;” Comptroller Franchot views it as a fundamental matter of social and economic justice, and Governor Hogan has lent his support, and that of his Administration, to a grassroots coalition of families who demand equity for vulnerable children and teachers who otherwise would have no voice.

I suspect there is space for honest disagreement – however irrational – over the need for immediate relief for these children.  However, I would respectfully suggest that it is the height of disrespectful arrogance to blithely dismiss, as “plants,” those who have attended past Board of Public Works meetings to make their voices heard.

These are working parents who took unpaid time off from work to stand with their children as they described conditions in a classroom without air conditioning or even functioning windows.  They are members of our civic and faith community – such as the Rev. Dr. Alvin Hathaway of the Union Baptist Church in Baltimore – who refuse to stand by as certain children are held accountable for all of the obligations of enrollment in a Maryland public school without a fundamental right that is available to their peers.

All of them took advantage of the unique opportunity afforded by the Board of Public Works to express their points of view in an open, transparent forum, and many of them did so after feeling as if nobody else was bothering to listen to them.  None of them did so with professional benefits in mind, or to curry favor with members of the Annapolis political establishment.  Rather than trivialize their service, I would humbly suggest that you regard them as an aspirational model.

As a point of reference, I have attached copies of the 2011 correspondence that I referenced earlier in this letter.  I thank you in advance for considering the points articulated in this letter, and wish you, once again, a happy new year.

Sincerely,
Len N. Foxwell Chief of Staff Comptroller of Maryland

Re-imagining State Center

By Barry Rascovar

Jan. 2, 2017–As an early New Year’s gift to Maryland taxpayers, Gov. Larry Hogan, Jr. delivered the final blow to an outrageously priced scheme to turn over to private investors the 28-acre State Center complex in Baltimore for redevelopment.

Re-imagining State Center

The $1.5 billion State Center plan rejected by the Board of Public Works.

Hogan’s predecessor as governor, Martin O’Malley, had pushed hard  forthe State Center deal in a way that benefited the developers but left the state with unconscionably high rental payments for the next half-century – beginning at $30 million or more per year and escalating by 15 percent every five years.

O’Malley’s proposal also would have threatened the state’s triple-A bond rating by smashing through Maryland’s debt ceiling.

Additionally, the deal hinged on the state constructing for the developers a high-priced underground garage, costing $28.3 million. The money to pay for the 20-year bonds on the garage would come out of the state’s struggling Transportation Trust Fund at roughly $2 million a year.

As an extra kick-in-the-pants, state workers would have to pay to park in the underground garage even though they now get free parking on surface lots at State Center.

It was a boondoggle of immense proportions disguised as a mixed-used redevelopment of State Center to help revive midtown Baltimore.

Public-Private Partnership

The initial plan, worked out by former Gov. Bob Ehrlich in the early 2000s, made sense as a model for smart transit-oriented development. It was the sort of public-private partnership that would benefit Baltimore, the state and the developers – office space, retail, apartments and community amenities centered around two mass-transit lines.

Then came the Great Recession. What had been feasible plans for State Center’s re-birth crumbled. As lingering effects of the recession dragged on, the State Center proposal took on more of a Mission Impossible cast.

When O’Malley revived the concept with new developers and a new set of financing figures, what had been a good deal became more and more suspect.

The legislature started asking questions and looking at the proposal’s details. Analysts for the General Assembly didn’t like what they discovered.

The state was being asked, essentially, to underwrite this massive $1.5 billion project. There would be only one prime tenant in the developer’s lone Phase One building – the state of Maryland, occupying nearly all of the office space.

Even worse, the developers wanted to charge the state unheard of water-view rental rates for a mid-town building in a tenuous neighborhood overlooking other mid-town buildings, a hospital and a public housing project.

Then the underground garage was added to the state’s to-do list by the developers. As the Department of Legislative Services put it, “A significant amount of private investment has been continuously stripped out of the plan.” It was replaced by state taxpayer dollars.

Kopp, Franchot Skeptical

Comptroller Peter Franchot bailed out as a State Center supporter some five years ago, complaining about the exorbitant rents and the fear of losing Maryland’s money-saving triple-A bond rating.

Treasurer Nancy Kopp kept worrying about breaching the state’s borrowing limit by undertaking the capital leasing costs of the State Center project.

Thus, O’Malley no longer had the votes to gain Board of Public Works approval to complete the revised deal with the developers.

When Hogan entered the picture, he tried to work out a fair settlement that would not leave the state holding the bag and the developers reaping all the rewards.

He even turned to mediation with the developers. But the numbers wouldn’t work unless the state contributed heftily to the privately built project.

So Hogan pulled the plug on the State Center arrangement just before Christmas and then sued the developers to leave no doubt the deal has been cancelled.

What Next?

The fate of State Center after the legal finger-pointing ends is an open question.

It would cost in excess of $200 million for the state to replace its office buildings on the site. That’s capital money the state lacks at the moment.

More sensible would be leasing deeply discounted office space for state agencies in nearly empty downtown high-rises while working with the city on a new residential-and-retail plan for the State Center acreage.

Franchot even proposed a pie-in-the-sky idea: a large sports arena for Baltimore at  State Center. Hogan immediately asked the Maryland Stadium Authority to investigate this remote possibility.

It’s unfortunate a prolonged recession cut the economic legs out from under the original State Center development plans.

But it did.

Now it’s time to start all over.

Let’s re-imagine what State Center could become a decade from now: A catalyst for strengthening midtown neighborhoods, creating a new corridor of residences and shops, and givng state workers quality office space for state workers on the current site or at a more affordable location somewhere in Baltimore’s downtown area.

Hogan faced reality and pulled the plug because the deal on the table didn’t work. His next move will be even more important: defining the future uses for this valuable 28-acre property.

###

Procurement Clash Coming?

By Barry Rascovar

Feb. 15, 2016 – First, the good news: Gov. Larry Hogan, Jr. last week created a 19-member commission to come up with ways to fix Maryland’s maddeningly inefficient system for purchasing $7 billion worth of goods and services each year.

Here comes the bad news: This group may wind up trying to re-invent the wheel because state legislators appear ready to pass legislation, based on three years of study, that could dramatically change state purchasing practices.Procurement Clash Coming?

There’s no doubt Maryland’s now-antiquated and creaky procurement system needs an overhaul.

What once was a national model in the 1980s for sensible and effective state purchasing practices is now a costly embarrassment.

Practically every month, the Board of Public Works hears another horror story of botched bids, favoritism by state agencies in awarding contracts and an arcane set of practices and procedures that ties the bureaucracy in knots and delays major contracts for months and sometimes years.

It’s a procurement lawyer’s dream and a nightmare that costs the state dearly.

Broken System

Hogan was right to call Maryland’s system “a patchwork of archaic laws and processes that are inefficient, ineffective and results in wasted taxpayer dollars.”

Comptroller Peter Franchot has been on the warpath for years complaining about this “increasingly unworkable” and “broken” purchasing system “in dire need of reform.”

Lawmakers, especially Del. Dan Morhaim of Baltimore County, have been pushing for procurement reforms, too.

So why are the executive and legislative branches unable to synchronize their reform efforts?

Hogan, on his part, appears to want full credit for any changes. He’s hesitant to work with legislators and seems to have ignored the extensive work already completed on procurement reform.

O’Malley’s Role

There’s a lingering sense Republican Hogan wants nothing to do with anything initiated by Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley, whom the current governor has indirectly criticized time and again while announcing his own reforms.

Yet it was O’Malley who first took steps to revamp Maryland’s procurement system.

Back in 2012 O’Malley asked the Board of Public Works “to bring someone in to kick the tires” of the purchasing system. “We need to pull this apart and put it back together.”

The board contracted with Treya Partners for a thorough study of Maryland’s procurement activities.

The consultant found fragmented oversight of procurement bidding and the ultimate awards, with multiple state agencies setting their own standards and procedures; conflicting and inconsistent interpretations of procurement practice;, lax contract management, and poor relationships with state vendors.

In other words, the system is pretty much out of control.

Suggested Changes

Treya made 11 recommendations. After studying these proposals in 2014 and examining procurement laws in other states, the Department of Legislative Services backed many of Treya’s suggestions and added some of its own.

Among the main recommendations to lawmakers: Create a Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) under the Board of Public Works and consolidate most procurement officials spread throughout state government under the CPO.

State purchasing would be centralized, uniform processes would be followed consistently and one official would be accountable for ensuring that Maryland gets the best deal and the best quality for dollars spent on services and supplies.

It turns out Maryland is one of only a handful of states lacking a Chief Procurement Officer. The Free State is way behind the curve.

None of this is reflected in Hogan’s announcement. Nor is there any recognition that Democratic lawmakers are ready to turn into law many of these procurement recommendations.

It’s as though the governor doesn’t want to give credit to the hard work already done on procurement reform one floor below him.

Two Ships in the Night

Even before Hogan’s procurement commission gets off the ground the panel’s work may be rendered meaningless. It’s another indication that in the Maryland State House, Hogan and Democratic lawmakers continue to steer in different directions.

Still, the governor can salvage the situation – but only if he teams up with Del. Peter Hammen of Baltimore City, who chairs the House committee that is likely to pass the DLS procurement reform package (HB 353) that gets a hearing this Wednesday.

That would mean sharing credit with Democratic legislators, which Hogan has not wanted to do previously.

It would mean altering the mandate of the governor’s procurement commission so its main purpose becomes assessing the effectiveness of any new procurement law enacted this session and then recommending how to make the new process more efficient, more transparent and more effective in giving Maryland the best value on every contract.

On its own, Hogan’s procurement commission cannot change Maryland’s purchasing laws. Legislators can do that and they seem ready to act.

Hogan can avoid an embarrassment and come out looking like a true reformer by joining forces with like-minded legislators – regardless of their political party – who want a better procurement system for Maryland,

###

Procurement Disgrace

By Barry Rascovar

March 20, 2015 — Maryland’s system of contracting for services through competitive bids is in shambles. It has been that way for years — and is getting worse.

It’s an embarrassment to taxpayers. Yet a long list of procurement debacles hasn’t been enough to spur sweeping reforms.

That seems likely to change, thanks in part to a royal screw-up on a food-service contract that all three members of the Board of Public Works strongly denounced last week.

Procurement Disgrace

Maryland Board of Public Works

Gov. Larry Hogan Jr. described the badly botched prison-food procurement as “one of the most disgraceful displays of mismanagement” he’s seen in his long business career.

Comptroller Peter Franchot, a persistent but lonely critic of these contracting disasters, called it “the most troubling procurement” in his eight years on the board.

Treasurer Nancy Kopp, ever the diplomat who chooses her words with care, said she was “sorely troubled.”

Nightmarish Tales

Nearly every month, the board hears nightmarish tales of state contracting efforts gone awry, of contractors who submit low-ball bids only to seek costly add-ons later, of inept procurement  officials who misapply contracting rules, tilt the playing field, make a mess of the bid-and-award process or fail to use common sense.

Hogan and Franchot earlier this year repeatedly skewered University System of Maryland officials for ineptly explaining cost overruns and excessive spending on university capital projects.

Now the prison-food contract horror story has led board members to the brink of action.

It’s a tale of stupidity by corrections officials under former Gov. Martin O’Malley.

It’s a tale of a contractor using the threat of cutting off food deliveries to Baltimore inmates to secure a whopping 54 percent boost in state payments.

It’s also a tale of misleading statements that are coming back to haunt the winning bidder.

Franchot called the misadventures of this contract award “highly irregular.” He urged the governor to ask Attorney General Brian Frosh to investigate and determine whether this was the result of “staggering incompetence — or something else.”

Franchot also should have asked the governor to appoint a blue-ribbon panel of outside experts to study recent procurement disasters and recommend ways to fix a dysfunctional system.

Meals Per Day

In short, here’s what happened on the prison-food contract.

State corrections officials made the inexcusable mistake of erring on how many meals are served to Baltimore prison inmates each day. This should have been basic math, backed up by recent meals-per-day figures.

Yet corrections officials requested contractors submit bids for serving 23,000 daily prison meals. The actual number should have been closer to 15,000.

That’s a huge difference because the contractor is paid on a price-per-meal basis.

The incumbent contractor, based on its seven years of experience at the Baltimore prisons, estimated it would cost $89 million over three years to fulfill the food contract. The other bidder came up with a stunningly low figure of $37 million.

That’s a whopping difference — a gap in bids so gigantic it should have set off alarm bells. Something was very wrong with the state’s request for proposals (RFP).

Board Approval

Instead of catching the mistake early, state prison officials went ahead and awarded the contract to the low bidder, which hadn’t even taken the basic step of inspecting the prison kitchen facilities before bidding.

Such naiveté never surfaced when the board, under O’Malley, approved this contract in early January. Instead, the company called itself award-winning and pledged to do a great job.

Almost immediately that promise collapsed.

The prison kitchen facilities needed hundreds of thousands of dollars in upgrades that the contractor hadn’t figured on. Health inspectors listed 11 pages of required remediation.

The vendor was serving nearly 8,000 fewer meals per day and losing $70,000 a week.

On Feb. 24, the company informed the state it would stop serving inmates on Feb. 28 — just four days later — unless its compensation was boosted immediately by 53 percent.

Faced with the prospect of inmates going without food, new corrections secretary Stephen Moyer had little choice but to give the vendor what it wanted — an emergency, six-month, $6.6 million contract that dramatically jacked up payments to the vendor.

Moyer wisely cancelled the original contract award, which is supposed to be re-bid in about six months. Good luck on that one — especially since the department that bungled the first RFP-and-award process is still running the show.

Franchot called the winning vendor’s explanations “deplorable.” “You essentially deceived us,” he told the company’s owners last week.

But whose fault was it? The state is so culpable that legal action against the winning bidder may not be possible.

Thorough Vetting

In reality, it is a systemic problem.

From top to bottom, Maryland’s procurement laws and procedures need a thorough vetting by experts. The process is too easily manipulated by contractors and by state officials.

Hogan has grown increasingly irritated by the flawed and costly contracting mistakes that have come before the Board of Public Works since he took office in late January,

Enough already.

Actions to revamp and improve the system will speak far louder than angry words of disgust.

###

The Race Is On!

Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown

By Barry Rascovar / May 21, 2013

LT. GOV. ANTHONY BROWN couldn’t even wait till the Preakness had run its course at Pimlico to announce the obvious: he’s running for governor next year.

He did it in an unorthodox fashion that some labeled bizarre. His kick-off took place at one of the worst possible media times of the week – very late on a Friday afternoon – and at an out-of-the-way location for much of the Maryland media (Largo). Then he followed the next day with mundane mini-events in Frederick and Baltimore City.

Except for the lavish praise from his boss, Gov. Martin O’Malley, Brown’s kick-off was underwhelming.

He cast himself as the uber -liberal in the race (though he’ll have trouble out-liberaling Del. Heather Mizeur of Montgomery County, who says she, too, wants to be governor). Just think of him as “O’Malley-plus.” He wants more, more, more of every social welfare program that’s good for Maryland, and more, more, more of what O’Malley did as governor.

As far-left Congresswoman Donna Edwards told Brown’s kick-off crowd, “He cares about the things we care about.”

That pretty much boxes in Brown in this campaign. He’s running after the left-of-center votes within the Democratic Party, building on a foundation of African-American support and labor unions.
That’s not a bad strategy given the liberal leanings of Democrats in Maryland.

The problem is that this leaves his main opponent, Attorney General Dough Gansler, a huge opening to sweep up the rest of the Democratic vote on June 24 next year. Thanks to the departure of Comptroller Peter Franchot from the governor’s race, Gansler can slide to the center, or even slightly right of center on some issues.

He’s already done that in opposing O’Malley’s gasoline tax increase and he’ll do it on other issues, too. He wasn’t involved in crafting and pushing through controversial legislation over the past seven years. But Brown was.

Gansler now can portray himself as a populist critic of the big-spending, tax-raising O’Malley-Brown administration, just like Franchot would have done. At the same time Gansler has assiduously developed an enviable record as attorney general on social issues that plays well with liberal Democratic groups.

He also has a huge fund-raising lead that could grow now that Brown has a campaign staff to support for the next 13 months. Plus, Gansler won’t be tied down in Annapolis from January through mid-April while the legislature is in session. That could be a big advantage for a high-energy campaigner like Gansler.

Lurking on the horizon is another contender who could throw both Brown’s and Gansler’s plans into disarray: Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger of Baltimore County.

In many ways, a Ruppersberger candidacy re-shuffles the political deck. He’s far better known than Brown or Gansler. Ruppersberger’s familiarity among voters is such that most of them refer to him simply as “Dutch.” That’s a big advantage.

Ruppersberger would immediately become the Baltimore-area candidate, but also the top vote-getter in rural parts of the state. He’s a “blue-dog Democrat” in Congress, a fiscal moderate slightly to the right of center but with a sparkling social record both on Capitol Hill and as Baltimore County Executive.

That could be a tough combination to beat, especially since Gansler and Brown (and Mizeur) are likely to split the Washington area vote. Meanwhile, Ruppersberger will pick up a good chunk of Baltimore City votes, thus denying Brown a Prince George’s County – Baltimore City axis.

The congressman’s real strength comes from the Baltimore suburbs, which he has represented for years – Harford County, Anne Arundel County and particularly heavy-voting Baltimore County.
He could become the immediate favorite – if he runs.

Giving up a seat in Congress is no small sacrifice, especially when you’re been a Big Wheel on the prestigious House Intelligence Committee. But Ruppersberger is term-limited on that panel next year, meaning a return to his status as a run-of-the-mill member of the minority party.

Besides, Ruppersberger loved running Baltimore County where he displayed solid skills as a manager and chief executive. He also would enter the race unencumbered by the controversies that now dog O’Malley and Brown – especially the tax issue.

That’s only one reason next year’s gubernatorial election is so hard to predict. Gansler has hordes of campaign cash. Brown has O’Malley’s and party establishment backing. Ruppersberger has the broadest potential voter base.

Will Dutch ditch the race? Will Mizeur steal votes from both Brown and Gansler? Will Democrats support an O’Malley clone or is voter fatigue setting in after two terms?

And how will Democratic turnout affect the outcome?

Legislators unwisely pushed the 2014 primary back to late June rather than in the fall. That’s a big change for voters. History shows early Maryland primaries attract small turnouts. History also shows the lowest turnouts are usually in Prince George’s County and Baltimore City.

That does not bode well for Brown, who also is fighting the curse of Maryland lieutenant governors. Not one has succeeded his or her boss in the state’s top job.

So take your pick. Next year’s race for governor will be just as tough to handicap as Oxbow’s unexpected 15-1 triumph in this year’s Preakness classic.