To Do the Right Thing
Sherwin Markman • July 20, 2021
For public servants, there are times when “doing the right thing” isn't obvious, or easy, or without pain. I can illustrate this by relating two times I had to make such choices.
The first was long ago when as a young man I served as chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission of Des Moines, Ia., the town where I was born and raised and to which I initially returned after completing law school. I was proud of our work, especially we drafted and oversaw enactment of Des Moines’ first city-wide master plan.
Our commission met publicly one evening a week to consider and vote on petitions for zoning variances sought by individuals and businesses. It was at one of these sessions that I faced a moral dilemma.
A local developer had acquired property along one of Des Moines’ major streets. This land, along with adjoining properties, was taken up with large, old homes, all occupied and well kept. The developer planned to tear these houses down and replace them with commercial enterprises. For that, he needed a change in zoning from residential to commercial; in other words, he wanted to “strip zone” that community. I, for one, believed that strip zoning was an abomination that should be fought wherever possible; so I voted against this proposal, which was defeated by a single vote.
The next day, my father received a telephone call from the developer, who was an important customer of his. In no uncertain terms, the developer told my father that, unless I changed my vote on the zoning change issue, the developer would sever his business relationship with my father. My father immediately got in touch with me, repeated the developer’s demand and threat, and told me that it was vitally important to him that I comply. I refused and continued to do so despite my father’s increasing anger, which culminated in my hanging up on him.
The following week, when the developer re-raised his zoning issue before our commission, I again voted “no,” and the proposition failed. I never learned — and never asked — if the developer followed through on his threat to my father, but the cost to me was great because it took many months for my father to forgive me. I never reported the developer’s attempted coercion for the simple reason that I wanted to protect my father when there had been, as they say, “no harm, no foul.”
Should I have acted differently? Should I have informed the authorities as soon as my father spoke to me? And what would I tell them? Would I lie and omit his importuning that I should do as the developer demanded? Should I have abstained from again voting “no” the following week, which might have resulted in the result the developer demanded? The law may be clear that I should have implicated both developer and my father, but in real life it is another matter entirely.
The second experience I want to share happened while I was serving in the White House.
In Des Moines, I had a client, Jay Wells, who became a good friend. Jay lived in New York and was quite wealthy, something I definitely was not when I moved myself and my family to Washington to join President Lyndon Johnson’s White House staff.
Not surprisingly, my wife and three young children were far from thrilled to be uprooted from the place where all of us had been born, and move to the high-cost-of-living “East,” especially since I would be doing so at about 25% of the income I was making in Des Moines. In order to mollify them, I promised that our home would be as nice and our children’s schools would be as fine and we would enjoy as good a life as we were leaving behind. Nobody was thrilled by my promise, but, reluctantly, they went along with me.
What my promise to them meant, of course, was that in Washington, we would be required to live on our savings, which was a severely limited nest egg that I knew would last us no more than three or four years in Washington.
As it happened, over drinks one evening, I had confided these facts to my client and friend, Jay Wells. And that is what led to my problem.
It began this way: One afternoon, I was sitting in my West Wing office when the White House operator told me that a Mr. Wells was in the downstairs waiting room and wished to see me. I invited him up. He greeted me warmly and explained that he was here as a member of a presidential commission. But, he added, he had another, more specific purpose in mind.
“As you probably know,” he began, “I have now accumulated more wealth than my family and I could spend in several lifetimes.” I began to congratulate him, but he held up his hand and continued. “On the other hand, I know that you are going broke working here, and that’s not right. So I am going to give you whatever money you need to come out even in your living expenses. It will be a gift — no strings attached.”
I immediately told him that I could not agree to that, that it would not be right for a host of reasons, and probably not legal to boot. Jay countered that he would make it a loan with no interest, payable once I was settled after leaving the White House. I refused that as well.
It was several weeks before I heard from Jay again. This time, he wanted to come to my office accompanied by Mike Feldman, the man who once had been White House counsel to both Kennedy and Johnson. I agreed, of course.
Jay opened the conversation by telling me that he had retained Feldman to find a way to satisfy my objections to Jay’s proposals, and that Feldman had succeeded. Feldman then handed me a sheaf of papers. “What we have here is a charitable trust,” he explained. “Its purpose is to finance needy and deserving public servants such as yourself. Attached to it is my legal opinion that the endeavor is entirely proper.”
I shook my head. “I can’t do this,” I said. “Don’t you even want to read it?” Feldman asked, incredulous. “I don’t need to,” I said. “I am assuming that you are correct. I’m not arguing that. But I just can’t do it.”
There ensured a long, sometimes acrimonious discussion about my reasons. Essentially, these boiled down to my belief that as a presidential assistant, I should not be a party to anything — especially if it involved money — that, if it became public, would embarrass my boss, LBJ.
And so it was that by late 1968, I had exhausted my savings and it was imperative that I resign and return to the practice of law. Fortunately for my conscience, President Johnson was not running for another term in office, and, in actuality, understood and encouraged my search for another job.
So what to make of these two relatively minor blips of moral pressure that I’ve described? For one thing, the rights and wrongs of them were not easy to discern, nor were the results without pain. Thus, to me they illustrate that, when sitting in judgment of our public servants, the rest of us should at times endeavor to be considerably more empathetic to their moral judgments than is our usual wont.
Sherwin Markman, a graduate of the Yale Law School, lives with his wife, Kathryn (Peggy) in Rock Hall, Maryland. He served as an assistant to President Lyndon Johnson, after which was a trial lawyer in Washington, D.C. He has published several books, including one dealing with the Electoral College. He has also taught and lectured about the American political system.
Common Sense for the Eastern Shore
Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.
Apparently, some people think that the GOP’s “big beautiful bill” is a foregone conclusion, and that the struggle over the budget and Trump’s agenda is over and done. Not true. On Sunday night, the bill — given the alternate name “Big Bad Bullsh*t Bill” by the Democratic Women’s Caucus — was voted out of the House Budget Committee. The GOP plan is to pass this legislation in the House before Memorial Day. But that’s not the end of it. As Jessica Craven explained in her Chop Wood Carry Water column: “Remember, we have at least six weeks left in this process. The bill has to: Pass the House, Then head to the Senate where it will likely be rewritten almost completely, Then be passed there, Then be brought back to the House for reconciliation, And then, if the House changes that version at all, Go back to the Senate for another vote.” She adds, “Every step of that process is a place for us to kill it.” The bill is over a thousand pages long, and the American people will not get a chance to read it until it has passed the House. But, thanks to 5Calls , we know it includes:
Let's talk about our Eastern Shore Delegation, the representatives who are supposed to fight for our nine Shore counties in Annapolis, and what they actually got up to this session.
For the first time in recent memory, Virginia Democrats have candidates running in all 100 House of Delegates districts — a milestone party leaders and grassroots organizers say reflects rising momentum as President Donald Trump’s second term continues to galvanize opposition.
The 447th legislative session of the Maryland General Assembly adjourned on April 8. This End of Session Report highlights the work Shore Progress has done to fight for working families and bring real results home to the Shore. Over the 90-day session, lawmakers debated 1,901 bills and passed 878 into law. Shore Progress and members supported legislation that delivers for the Eastern Shore, protecting our environment, expanding access to housing and healthcare, strengthening workers’ rights, and more. Shore Progress Supported Legislation By The Numbers: Over 60 pieces of our backed legislation were passed. Another 15 passed in one Chamber but not the other. Legislation details are below, past the budget section. The 2026 Maryland State Budget How We Got Here: Maryland’s budget problems didn’t start overnight. They began under Governor Larry Hogan. Governor Hogan expanded the state budget yearly but blocked the legislature from moving money around or making common-sense changes. Instead of fixing the structural issues, Hogan used federal covid relief funds to hide the cracks and drained our state’s savings from $5.5 billion to $2.3 billion to boost his image before leaving office. How Trump/Musk Made It Worse: Maryland is facing a new fiscal crisis driven by the Trump–Musk administration, whose trade wars, tariff policies, and deep federal cuts have hit us harder than most, costing the state over 30,000 jobs, shuttering offices, and erasing promised investments. A University of Maryland study estimates Trump’s tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion, and those federal cuts have already added $300 million to our budget deficit. Covid aid gave us a short-term boost and even created a fake surplus under Hogan, but that money is gone, while housing, healthcare, and college prices keep rising. The Trump–Musk White House is only making things worse by slashing funding, gutting services, and eliminating research that Marylanders rely on. How The State Budget Fixes These Issues: This year, Maryland faced a $3 billion budget gap, and the General Assembly fixed it with a smart mix of cuts and fair new revenue, while protecting working families, schools, and health care. The 2025 Budget cuts $1.9 billion ($400 million less than last year) without gutting services people rely on. The General Assembly raised $1.2 billion in fair new revenue, mostly from the wealthiest Marylanders. The Budget ended with a $350 million surplus, plus $2.4 billion saved in the Rainy Day Fund (more than 9% of general fund revenue), which came in $7 million above what the Spending Affordability Committee called for. The budget protects funding for our schools, health care, transit, and public workers. The budget delivers real wins: $800 million more annually for transit and infrastructure, plus $500 million for long-term transportation needs. It invests $9.7 billion in public schools and boosts local education aid by $572.5 million, a 7% increase. If current revenue trends hold, no new taxes will be needed next session. Even better, 94% of Marylanders will see a tax cut or no change, while only the wealthiest 5% will finally pay their fair share. The tax system is smarter now. We’re: Taxing IT and data services like Texas and D.C. do; Raising taxes on cannabis and sports betting, not groceries or medicine; and Letting counties adjust income taxes. The budget also restores critical funding: $122 million for teacher planning $15 million for cancer research $11 million for crime victims $7 million for local business zones, and Continued support for public TV, the arts, and BCCC The budget invests in People with disabilities, with $181 million in services Growing private-sector jobs with $139 million in funding, including $27.5 million for quantum tech, $16 million for the Sunny Day Fund, and $10 million for infrastructure loans. Health care is protected for 1.5 million Marylanders, with $15.6 billion for Medicaid and higher provider pay. Public safety is getting a boost too, with $60 million for victim services, $5.5 million for juvenile services, and $5 million for parole and probation staffing. This budget also tackles climate change with $100 million for clean energy and solar projects, and $200 million in potential ratepayer relief. Public workers get a well-deserved raise, with $200 million in salary increases, including a 1% COLA and ~2.5% raises for union workers. The ultra-wealthy will finally chip in to pay for it: People earning over $750,000 will pay more, Millionaires will pay 6.5%, and Capital gains over $350,000 get a 2% surcharge. Deductions are capped for high earners, but working families can still deduct student loans, medical debt, and donations. This budget is bold, fair, and built to last. That’s why Shore Progress proudly supports it. Click on the arrows below for details in each section.
