By Adam Pagnucco.
We hear it all the time: Montgomery County is a diverse place. And it’s true. We are diverse in terms of race, religion, culture, language, national origin, sexual orientation, food preferences and even sports teams. (Somehow, Nationals fans and Orioles fans live together in peace, though that would be harder if they were in the same league.) But there is one kind of diversity we rarely talk about: political diversity. Our leaders are almost all progressives and like to pretend that all of the voters are progressives too (at least the Democratic ones). We ordinary residents know that’s not the case. And now the question is being called in new legislation before the county’s delegation of state legislators.
Montgomery County government contains many bodies prohibiting occupants from all belonging to the same political party. They include but are not limited to county council redistricting commissions, the Public Election Fund Committee, the Board of Appeals, the Charter Review Commission, the Merit System Protection Board, the Ethics Commission, the Board of Elections, the Montgomery County Planning Board and the Board of License Commissioners. Some of these requirements are set in state law and others are in county law. State bodies such as the State Board of Elections and the state’s Ethics Commission sometimes have similar requirements. Even the Maryland Racing Commission, which regulates horse racing, prohibits more than 6 of its 9 members from affiliating with one political party.
Many of these requirements are ancient. They are designed to restrain patronage and diversify thinking. And besides, what is the great harm in having folks from multiple parties regulate race horses? But two new state bills would begin to change that.
MC 5-23 would remove the requirement that no more than three of the five members of the Board of License Commissioners, which regulates alcohol licensees, come from the same political party. Instead of party, the bill states, “When evaluating an applicant for membership on the board, the county executive shall consider the need for geographic, political, racial, ethnic and gender diversity on the board.” This bill is before our state legislators at the request of County Executive Marc Elrich.
MC/PG 109-23 would do the same for the planning boards in Montgomery and Prince George’s counties. It is sponsored by Delegate Linda Foley (D-15), who was once chair of the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee.
So what is the rationale for these bills? The first is an allegation that it’s hard to find sane board applicants who are not Democrats. This came up when the county council appointed former Planning Board Member Amy Presley to a temporary spot on the planning board, only for Seventh State’s David Lublin to reveal her history of right-wing tweets. When I asked my sources in the council building about that, they essentially claimed that the requirement that they not pick a Democrat for all positions forced them to pick someone with those kinds of views. One told me, “If you don’t like it, let us pick only Democrats.”
Another view is that party status is an obsolete filter for considering appointees. Council Member Gabe Albornoz expressed that in November when the Board of License Commissioners bill came before the council for comment. He said:
Council Vice-President Glass and I were sort of whispering to each other, the notion of party affiliation is one that I think we should look at across the board. It’s a relic of the past that no longer perfectly reflects people’s views and opinions just because they are of one party or the other and I think is really holding us back in a variety of different ways. So I do think that’s something this next council needs to take up working in partnership with our General Assembly and our delegation.
Well now.
According to the State Board of Elections, Montgomery County had 98,374 registered Republicans, 161,477 unaffiliated voters and 9,447 members of third parties in October 2022. Is it not possible to find any among them who have the capacity to evaluate land use and discipline liquor license violators? Who knew that we had so many lunatics and dullards here who are saved only by the fact that they are lucky enough to be governed by Democrats?
What happens if there are occasional problems with county appointees? Two solutions are available. First, the county should vet all board applicants carefully, and not just the non-Democrats. (Vetting is sometimes a challenge for the county.) And second, if any board members act unprofessionally, the county should get rid of them. The county council just put on a master class in how to remove wayward board members. As for the liquor bill’s call to “consider the need for geographic, political, racial, ethnic and gender diversity,” that is good and proper and nothing in current law prevents that from happening now.
The poster child for a misbehaving board of appointees is the recently dismissed planning board. But let’s remember – it was a civil war between the three Democrats which took down the board while the two non-Democrats mostly stayed on the margins. All of this looks like a “solution” in search of a problem.
We’re Americans. We argue about everything! In Maryland, we argue about the proper way to make crab cakes. (I have learned a ton about this from the Facebook group Maryland is a Cult, Not a State.) And even if arguing isn’t your thing, is the county really going to erupt in flames if we allow non-Democrats to participate in the issuance of liquor licenses?
What on Earth are our leaders afraid of?
Enough of these bills. The past architects of our government were right to encourage political diversity. And just like other types of diversity, we should not fear it. Within the bounds of mutual tolerance and respect, we should embrace it.