Tag Archives: George Leventhal

Adam Pagnucco, George Leventhal, Robin Ficker, Term Limits

Two Myths About Term Limits

June 29, 2016 Adam Pagnucco

By Adam Pagnucco.

The fight over whether term limits should apply to Montgomery County elected officials is now underway, and that’s even before political heckler Robin Ficker has submitted his signatures for his proposed charter amendment. Supporters and opponents are offering arguments for their point of view, some with merit and some without. Today we will take down one of the most prominent arguments from each side.

1. Term Limits are Needed to Create Competition

The historical record shows plenty of competition for elected office in Montgomery County. It just doesn’t happen to be the kind of competition that some term limits supporters want.

Since charter government was established in 1970, there has been one Republican County Executive (Jim Gleason, the first to hold that office) and three Republican Council Members (District 1’s Betty Ann Krahnke and Howard Denis and District 2’s Nancy Dacek). The other county elected officials have all been Democrats. But there has been substantial competition among the Democrats over the years, including the Neal Potter vs. Sidney Kramer factions in the 1980s and early 1990s and the competing council slates in 2002.

Below are the election results over the last six cycles.

Incumbents were reelected 42 times and lost 6 times. It’s important to note that two of those six losses were by Republicans in general elections: Dacek (2002) and Denis (2006). Including them, incumbents had a win rate of 88%.

But when you count the open seats (15 of them including three special elections), newcomers filled seats one-third of the time. That’s plenty of turnover and FAR more than Congress. Ficker’s objection is that Democrats replace other Democrats, and term limits won’t change that.

2. Term Limits Supporters are Similar to Brexit Voters

This is an argument made by four-term council incumbent George Leventhal, who has called term limits “a dumb, unnecessary protest gesture” and compared supporters to Brexit voters. Leventhal has also noted that Help Save Maryland, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled a “nativist extremist” group, has gathered signatures for the charter amendment. This is a clear attempt to marginalize term limits supporters and paint them as pawns of racist xenophobes.

There are two problems with this argument. First, if Ficker, Help Save Maryland and the county GOP were the only people in favor of term limits, they would have absolutely no chance of passage. So why are Council Members like Leventhal so worried about it? The answer is that he and other opponents know the issue is getting broader traction. Second, the motivations of supporters are almost entirely local ones. Consider the following groups who might be tempted to back term limits.

People Who Object to the Giant Tax Hike

The nine percent property tax hike is extremely unpopular, unnecessarily large, and could not have come at a worse time. If term limits becomes a proxy vote on whether the Giant Tax Hike should have gone through – and Ficker is doing everything in his power to link the issues – term limits will pass by a mile.

Business People

Business owners and managers have been complaining incessantly about the difficulty of doing business in Montgomery County for many years. Passage of repeated tax hikes along with progressive legislation that increases the cost of doing business feeds into their unhappiness. Then there are the restaurants and retailers who are forced to do business with the county’s incompetent Department of Liquor Control. Term limits seem like a good idea to some of them!

County Employees

First, the County Council abrogated the county employee unions’ collective bargaining agreements . Next, the council introduced legislation to weaken their ability to negotiate. Some in labor are furious and there is even a chance that one or more unions could SUPPORT term limits.

One thing that many people outside labor don’t understand is that unions are political organizations. Local union leaders are elected by their members every three years. Each union has to deal with internal discussions, occasional disagreements and even dissent. Members have expectations of service and performance, and when they are not met, there can be consequences. When an employer rubs a union leader’s face in the bitter mud of defeat, that leader must fight back or risk being seen as weak. And if such a leader tells members that term limits are the only way to defend their rights in the workplace, a lot of those members are going to listen.

Non-Democrats and Moderate Democrats

Republicans and unaffiliated voters have long been on the outside looking in at county politics. But many moderate Democrats, especially those far away from the liberal precincts near the Beltway, don’t feel adequately represented either. True or not, comments about “Takoma Park liberals” dominating county government are not unheard of, even among Democrats. The county Democratic Party’s rank-and-file is more ideologically diverse than its elected leadership, and if the leaders don’t do things to keep moderates on board (like limit the size of tax hikes), they will lose some of them to the likes of Governor Larry Hogan and even to the cause of term limits.

Note the common thread of the concerns held by the above groups: none of them are linked to racism, xenophobia or political extremism. Whether they are right or wrong, all are rooted in local issues and many are in line with these folks’ self-interest.

In general, it’s a REALLY bad idea to call voters “dumb” even if sometimes there’s a little bit of truth in it. If that’s the argument that term limits opponents use, term limits will DEFINITELY pass.

Department of Liquor Control, Montgomery County

County Council Hopping Mad Over DLC Price Hike on Special Order Wines

May 27, 2016 David Lublin

Montgomery County Councimembers Tom Hucker and George Leventhal have objected vehemently to the Department of Liquor Control’s 10% price hike on special order wines. Both have been staunch defenders of the County’s liquor monopoly and amazed that the DLC is taking exactly the opposite approach advocated by the County earlier this year.

Here is George Leventhal’s email to DLC Acting Director Fariba Kassiri:

Dear Fariba,

Last year, the County Council unanimously recommended that special order beer and wine sales should be handled by the private sector. County Executive Leggett initially agreed to this recommendation, but then changed his mind and our state legislative delegation deferred to his wishes, so no change occurred to beer and wine sales in Montgomery County. Now, according to your message below, the county has decided that because special order beer and wine sales cost DLC substantially more to process, DLC will impose a substantial price hike on licensees for these products. This decision was made without informing the County Council ahead of time and without the benefit of any advice from a Task Force on Liquor Sales, which Mr. Leggett promised to appoint but has yet to appoint.

Once again, DLC is acting in a manner that is adverse to the interests of the county’s restaurants and retail sector. I am disappointed in this decision and even more disappointed by the failure of the executive branch to take this issue seriously. The County Council’s Ad Hoc Committee on Liquor Control delved into the issue and came up with a compromise last year that would have preserved significant revenue to the county while freeing restaurants and retailers from the most onerous challenges of working with the county-controlled system. I am done apologizing for the failure of the executive branch to handle liquor sales responsively and efficiently. The responsibility for this failure rests squarely with Mr. Leggett.

With great concern,

George Leventhal

Montgomery County Councilmember

Councilmember Tom Hucker issued a press release and also posted this on his Facebook page:

2018 Elections, Montgomery County

Who is Behind “Mayor of MoCo” Website?

May 17, 2016 David Lublin

Not too long ago, a web page popped up touting County Councilmember George Leventhal (D-At Large) as the next “Mayor” (i.e. County Executive) of Montgomery County. George is widely known to be interested in the race – he ran last time but withdrew before the primary to run for reelection.

The webpage is funny and gives a list of ten reasons – some serious, some joking – why Leventhal should be the next Exec. The author is seemingly the anonymous “Mayor of Moco:”

Clicking on the author’s name reveals inadvertently that former Del. Saqib Ali (D-39) is the author. While his name is not mentioned anywhere on the connecting page, it shows up in the URL:

In addition to creating the web page, Saqib has created an anonymous twitter account:

Saqib Ali has been very active in MoCo politics. He won election to the House of Delegates on a slate from District 39 in 2006. When the Senate seat became vacant, he sought it but the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee selected the much more experienced Del. Nancy King for the vacancy.

Del. Ali spent most of the next four years of his term in the House openly preparing to challenge King for the Senate seat. Indeed, the 2010 Senate primary was exceedingly close but King prevailed over Sleepy Saqib – as Sen. King labelled him during the campaign – by a margin of 3.4%.

In 2012, Saqib made a much less successful run for a Board of Education seat. In 2014, he announced but then pulled back for a run for a seat in the House of Delegates. Since then, he has become known for his activism in support of the BDS Movement, which advocates for boycotts, divestment and sanctions of Israel.

At the Montgomery Priorities Hearing, Saqib testified against legislation advocated by Del. Ben Kramer that would have resulted in the State boycotting companies and institutions that boycott Israel. More recently, he testified as a member of the Steering Committee of Marylanders for BDS on legislation before George’s committee on the Council on County legislation.

During his testimony, Saqib stated that Israeli settlements are “quite close to a war crime.” He then drops the qualifier when he says that “settlements meet the Geneva Convention definition for ‘war crime.” In short, he is now a strong and public advocate for BDS.

George Leventhal’s Viewpoint

George Leventhal kindly replied to my questions regarding the web page and BDS via email. Regarding the web page, George told me:

Saqib is a longtime friend. He let me know that he was planning to express his enthusiasm online about my potential candidacy for County Executive, but the “Mayor of MoCo” initiative is his alone, and I have had no involvement in it.

If I decide to run for County Executive, I will welcome Saqib’s involvement and will hope to win the support of a wide range of county residents, but I am a long way from making any decisions regarding 2018. In my four successful election campaigns, I am honored to have had the support of many activists in both the Jewish and Muslim communities, as well as many other communities. As an at-large councilmember who has represented more than one million constituents for nearly 14 years, I would not expect to agree with every opinion of every one of my supporters.

George’s point about not agreeing with everyone of his supporters is a good one. Who does? However, Saqib is not some random supporter among many. Saqib and George may well have become closer allies over George’s support for efforts to incorporate a Muslim holiday into the school calendar – a positive effort that is about recognition and inclusion. But George’s “longtime friend” is also leading local activist in support of BDS who is a former state legislator and has testified at least twice on the issue. At the very least, George raised no objection to this page, which represents his first public move for a bid for County Executive. As a result, pro-BDS Saqib seems more than some minor supporter.

George also shared his views on the BDS Movement:

I do not associate myself with efforts to boycott Israel or divest from it or impose sanctions on it. I feel a deep affinity for Israel, which I have visited three times. My sister lived there for several years. I support a two-state solution. In general, I would describe my views on the Israel/Palestine issue as consistent with those of J Street.

I would not characterize Israeli settlements in the West Bank as a war crime, although I think they are extremely counterproductive to the goal of peace in the Middle East.

While many might disagree with George’s views on BDS or Israeli settlements as either too liberal or too conservative, I’d say they fall right in the mainstream of Jewish and American opinion.

Some might argue that Donna Edwards’s identification with liberal J Street did her some harm in the Democratic primary, and that the same fate could befall George. More hardline pro-Israel voters do indeed reject J Street. Many others, however, would find George’s viewpoints utterly reasonable.

The more serious political problem is when a candidate is perceived fundamentally unsympathetic to Israel. In George’s comments, that is clearly not the case, as he strikes a smart balance of “deep affinity for Israel” and support for a “two-state solution.” But linkage with a prominent BDS supporter in what is essentially his prospective campaign’s first outing undermines that perception.

Moreover, Saqib is working to make this linkage stronger. He has now become the first person to attack me on Twitter before I even drafted a piece. Expressing anger at my “smears” and “appalling tactics,” Saqib then turned to faux outrage that I won’t open up this space to him. I look forward to all the pro-BDS webpages opening up their space to AIPAC and J Street.

All of this is helpful to getting Saqib Ali more attention but it sure doesn’t help George Leventhal.

Foreign Policy in County Elections?

Normally, I would not think foreign policy terribly relevant to a campaign for county executive. Aside from the nice Sister Cities program, my hope would be that any county executive focus on the nuts and bolts of making the County work well. But Saqib’s repeated public interventions show how views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can become intertwined with even local politics.

The injection of a prominent BDS supporter as part of George’s effort to stick his political toe publicly in the water will likely raise concerns among the many voters who oppose BDS and does not help us keep focused on the issues that matter – the ones on which George Leventhal has spent the vast majority of his career and has exhibited a great deal of genuine passion for over the years.

District 14

Leventhal Endorses Taylor

February 11, 2016 David Lublin

George’s letter to MCDCC:

I’m writing to express my hope that MCDCC will appoint Herman Taylor to the District 14 Delegate seat.

With a Republican governor in Annapolis, it is more important than ever that Montgomery County build closer relationships with other Democratic-majority jurisdictions, especially Baltimore and Prince George’s County. Herman was an officer of the Legislative Black Caucus and has warm, long-standing friendships with the senators and delegates from those jurisdictions.

The central committee’s process is — correctly in my judgment — being criticized for failing to give District 14 voters a voice. Herman was elected by those voters twice already, in 2002 and 2006.

I like and respect Pam Queen, Chris Bradbury and Mark Feinroth. I understand these are tough choices. But there is no doubt in my mind that Montgomery County will be best served at this moment by putting Herman back in the seat he occupied previously.

Thank you for considering my point of view.

Warm regards,
George Leventhal

Department of Liquor Control

Leventhal Says Council Has No Plans to Investigate DLC Snafu

January 12, 2016 David Lublin

There is a new twitter site on the ongoing problems with Montgomery County’s Department of Liquor Control: @UnSuckMoCoDLC. It appears to have been set up by a liquor licensee who wants “to let the public know what we licensees have to go through.” Neither Adam Pagnucco nor I know who is running the account or had anything to do with setting it up.

No Council Oversight of DLC New Year’s Problems

There was a lively discussion on the Seventh State Facebook page in the wake of this morning’s post. Beyond disagreeing with the post, Councilmember George Leventhal made some news in response to a question from Adam Pagnucco:

In essence, George plans to do nothing. No serious investigation would wait months until the end of the state legislative session. The meeting of the General Assembly has no bearing on the Council’s oversight responsibilities. George knows this.

Moreover, if the General Assembly passes the County’s preferred bill on the topic, the County will still be engaging is very close to the same level of deliveries. Indeed, the change will likely be marginal as this proposal designed to protect the status quo in the guise of change is unworkable.

Yet Leventhal Prides Himself on Oversight

Nonetheless, George perceives himself as a leader in the fight for more accountability at the DLC. He’s just mad that no one is giving him enough credit for it:

It sure didn’t feel like George is a a strong critic when he gave the DLC a pass on the major New Year’s Eve delivery snafu because he had a bad experience at Starbucks. Moreover, The New Year’s snafu casts doubt on any effectiveness of this vaunted oversight to date and George’s Facebook comments today evince little evidence of a willingness to press further on this issue.

Department of Liquor Control

Leventhal Defends DLC’s Bad Service

January 12, 2016 David Lublin

New Slogan? We Don’t Care. We Don’t Have To. We’re the DLC.

Last week, we reported that Department of Liquor Control stores completely fouled up deliveries in the week before New Year’s. Now, DLC Director George Griffin did issue an apology. But that doesn’t restore any of the lost income or makeup for the stress caused by this total snafu.

Real accountability would mean rebates. Even more galling is that time was found to distribute material to defend the DLC in stores even as this mistake occurred. It also undermines the DLC claim that their reform program has produced meaningful results.

Councilmember Roger Berliner thinks that this is yet more evidence that it is time for the DLC to go the way of the dinosaur:

Leventhal Attacks Berliner on Facebook

Councilmember George Leventhal came out swinging in comments on his colleague’s Facebook posts:

Restaurants are a major industry in Montgomery County. Beyond his misguided self-serving beliefs, saying that liquor reform is only of interest to restaurateurs is like saying that education is only of interests to parents so people should really quit their complaining. I’m sure restaurant owners appreciate George’s relegation of their repeat problems to illegitimate concerns.

BTW, restaurants are not flourishing as much as we might hope. Elm St. in Bethesda Row is one of the hottest blocks in the county with high pedestrian traffic. Right now, there are three empty restaurant spots on the block with one more store ready to close. In Silver Spring, Jackie’s is calling it a day and Jackie Greenbaum says she’d never open another restaurant in MoCo–it’s just too difficult.

The Starbucks Defense

But hey, George has the Starbucks defense:

Of course, the difference is that, if you have a problem at Starbucks, you’re likely to get a good response to a complaint. They want you as a customer. If not, you have the option to shop elsewhere. But the DLC Monopoly forces consumers and businesses alike to deal with them. Eerily reminiscent of the legendary Lily Tomlin SNL skit posted at the top regarding the phone company monopoly: “We Don’t Care. We Don’t Have To. We’re the Phone Company.”

George’s blithe dismissal of major problems at the DLC–even those affecting major customers who were buying a lot more than a latte and whose livelihoods depend on it–shows an alarming lack of concern for constituents or willingness to listen. In George’s view, mediocrity in a monopoly government service is acceptable–a level of contempt that his constituents should not.

Montgomery County

Gloom from Floreen and Leventhal

September 24, 2015 David Lublin

Though Montgomery County Councilmembers George Leventhal and Nancy Floreen voted for the County’s bus-rapid transit (BRT) plan, both poured lots of cold water on the idea at a transit symposium at White Flint recently. In the process, both made statements that would likely surprise County voters regarding future taxes and spending.

Annual Purple Line Operation Payment?

Councilmember Nancy Floreen mentioned that that Montgomery County might have to make an annual payment toward the operational costs of the Purple Line. This ongoing cost would be in addition to the millions that the County has pledged to the light rail line’s construction. News to me, and suspect others, who expected the State to cover these costs.

Taxes Headed Up

Councilmember George Leventhal said that County Executive Ike Leggett would propose a “massive” tax increase in the forthcoming year just to meet current commitments in the context of explaining why he believes that the BRT system is not affordable.

Leventhal Makes Anti-Purple Line Arguments

Weirdly, George then went on to make a string of arguments frequently used against the Purple Line . . . but against bus-rapid transit. The concern about cost was particularly bizarre as BRT is far cheaper than light rail.

George also explained that we could not be sure that the hoped for development would come if we built BRT. Though the Purple Line entails much greater financial risk, George has brushed aside concerns regarding his favored project.

Perhaps most oddly, George argued the incompetence surrounding the Silver Spring Transit Center meant that people would not trust the County to build and operate BRT. Additionally, he explained that all of the trees that would be torn down and construction associated with the Purple Line would further turn people against transit.

Not exactly a vote of confidence in the County’s government and strange since BRT entails much less risk for more gain than the Purple Line. Why did George or Nancy vote for the plan that they now are now publicly undermining in the first place?

purple line

Prince George’s Out Negotiates Montgomery

August 20, 2015 David Lublin

As explained previously on 7S, Prince George’s County Executive Rushern Baker played hard to get on ponying up additional funds for the Purple Line in an effort to set up his County to extract concessions in price and other matters. Turns out he succeeded at both:

Prince George’s County has tentatively agreed to commit an additional $20 million to finance the Purple Line in exchange for assurances from state transportation officials that construction will begin within its borders and the command center be built there, a top aide to County Executive Rushern L. Baker III said Thursday. . . .

“I agree to accomplish each of these requests,” [Transportation Secretary] Rahn replied in an Aug. 12 letter to Baker.

Montgomery agreed to pay $40 million in additional costs and received nothing.

Baker negotiated a better deal than Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett or Council President George Leventhal. His County will pay half as much in additional costs, obtain more, and still have the light-rail project he supported move forward.

Larry Hogan, purple line

Rahn Weakens Hogan’s Hand on Purple Line

June 12, 2015 David Lublin

Robert McCartney in the Washington Post broke the story on Wednesday that Secretary of Transportation Pete Rahn has recommend building the Purple Line:

Rahn urged his boss to go ahead with the light-rail project in the Washington suburbs providing that the price tag is trimmed by about $300 million from the estimated $2.45 billion cost and that Montgomery and Prince George’s counties pay a bigger share, one of the officials said. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity because while they have been briefed on Rahn’s action, they were not authorized to speak publicly about it.

I tend to give credence to the story because of the response from the Governor’s office:

Hogan spokesman Doug Mayer said he could not confirm that Rahn had urged the governor to back a less-costly version of the project, rather than postpone it or kill it outright.

“As far as I know, no final recommendations have been made to the governor,” Mayer said. He declined to say whether Rahn had delivered a preliminary judgment.

If Rahn had yet to deliver his judgement or it was negative, wouldn’t Hogan’s spokesman issue a flat denial instead of a “no comment” in response to these questions?

Assuming that’s the case, the story places Hogan in an awkward position. If Hogan moves forward with the project, he looks weak and pushed into it by Rahn, despite the strong opposition of many Republicans. Alternatively, if Hogan nixes it, he looks like he has ignored the advice of the Secretary he charged with it and transit advocates will beat him over the head about it.

Either way, Hogan doesn’t look good. Rahn also cannot be happy that the press got a hold of this story. It portrays him as the indiscreet member of administration that has had strong message discipline. It also doesn’t aid his future job prospects, as people don’t want to hire someone who speaks out of school.

Side Note: Was Montgomery Council President George Leventhal, quoted later in the article as confirming the story, the source of the leak despite his protestations that:

I really like the secretary, and I hope I haven’t said anything that gets him in trouble. He was abundantly clear that he supports the project, he wants to build the project, and he was getting ready to make his recommendation.”

After all, it wouldn’t be the first time that someone was quoted as confirming their own “anonymous” leak.

purple line

Hogan Approves Purple Line

April 1, 2015 David Lublin

In a surprise move, Gov. Larry Hogan announced that he is ready to move full-speed ahead on the light-rail Purple Line that will travel from Bethesda to New Carrollton in suburban Washington. The Baltimore Sun reported:

“Working closely with Transportation Secretary Pete Rahn, we have discovered the means to reduce costs substantially,” said Gov. Hogan at an early morning press conference. “If we eliminate frills, I am now confident that it can be built in a cost-effective manner that will bring business to Maryland.”

Hogan explained that a major barrier has always been the price of the light-rail cars, which are expensive and have to be imported from Ostrava in the Czech Republic:

We have cut unnecessary extras. Seats provide no benefit to the taxpayer, so they have been eliminated from the redesigned trains. Indeed, we have now also done away with walls and the ceiling to go with a sleek, modern flatbed design.

Purple Line Project Manager Mike Madden applauded the move:

I appreciate the governor’s support and leadership on the project. Eliminating not just doors but walls will make it easier to board and to exit the train, thus reducing time spent at stations and increasing speed, resulting in an estimated increase in ridership of 31.7%.

When asked for the documentation on the increased ridership, Madden described the information as “proprietary” but also reassured the public on their accuracy: “They were calculated by the same high-quality experts who designed the Silver Spring Transit Center that will open later this year.”

Hogan’s decision to simplify cars was hailed by former Action Committee for Transit President Ben Ross:

This new design is in touch with the simplified lifestyle preferred by Millennials. Let’s face it: seats are emblematic of the bourgeois Lexus lifestyle. I’m glad that Maryland and Montgomery County have said “yes” to our smart growth future by embracing open plan light-rail.

Similarly, Montgomery Council President George Leventhal congratulated Hogan on WAMU for “finally following his lead” and said “The open plan is an excellent forward-thinking idea. I think of it as a moving Capital Crescent Trail. It will be a first-class system.”

Not all of Leventhal’s colleagues were so sanguine. Council Vice Chair Nancy Floreen said to the Washington Post:

Heck, I never thought the Governor would invest so much money in areas that will never vote for him. Now, I’ll have to come up with all the money that Montgomery County promised when I’m Council President next year. I don’t see why I shouldn’t just run for Congress instead.

But Robert Thomson, better known as Dr. Gridlock, reassured the public in an online Post discussion: “I have every confidence that the Purple Line will light a fire under small business in Langley Park just as the DC Streetcar has sparked long quiet H Street.”

Former Carroll County Commissioner Republican Robin Frazier denounced the move. Appearing at a “Help Save Maryland” rally, she said that it would only help “homosexuals and illegal aliens get around so that they can use bathrooms in more places.”