You're watching Open Agenda. Here's our
host, Joe White.
>> Welcome to Open Agenda. I'm your host,
Joe White. In the studio with me today
is Councilman Joe Holloway from the
fifth district, Wakcom County.
>> How you doing today?
>> Thanks for being here,
>> Mr. Mike Goldberg. Thanks for coming out
from Delmare.
>> Good day.
>> So, uh,
we had the the the county executive's
legislative breakfast last Friday, which
was the Friday right after the last
council meeting,
>> right? And what I want to discuss in
this episode is the two work session
items, the bigger work session items,
the the the liquor bills that came back
up that continue to come back up
>> and the MOA with the corrections
department and ICE for 287G.
>> But I want to find out I want to get a
sense because you went to the
legislative breakfast. Were any of these
a topic at the legislative breakfast
Friday with the delegates priorities?
>> Yeah.
>> How did they come up? I mean,
>> we had a list.
>> Okay. Yeah, it was a pre-list made, you
know, things that were going to be
talked about. The council sent in a list
and of course she had her list.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> And and the liquor bills were actually
proposed by John Cannon. They brought
up. Yeah, they were brought up. Yeah.
>> Mike, you were there. I mean, was it I
mean, we didn't get noticed that the
public was invited to the breakfast
until the very last minute.
>> That's correct.
>> And this came up last year, last
October, in fact. Holly Campbell got up
and spoke and said, "Hey, look, there
needs to be more notice about the
legislative breakfast." I mean, it's it
is a time when our elected officials are
all in the same room that the public is
supposed to be involved.
>> Hi everybody. Uh Holly Campbell, Wcomigo
County. Um couple quick things. I
attended a couple of the sessions
available recently. I attended the
legislative breakfast um that was
conducted with all of the very important
stakeholders, delegate, senators. Um, I
will say I was very disappointed that
this was not publicized to the greater
public. Um, the public notice was posted
the day before and I found out about it
the morning of. It had been posted less
than 24 hours before that meeting. I did
jump in there about 20 minutes towards
the end and it probably would have been
really beneficial, but the entire row of
public seating was empty. Um, I would
like to make that note because I think
it's important that the public be
involved and one of the problems we're
having is the public is constantly
excluded. So something of that magnitude
with the largest scale of stakeholders
for the public to not be involved I
think is inexcusable.
>> But we saw once again the county
executive put this press release out 24
hours before the the meeting. I don't
even think it was 24 hours before and
there um people were viferously
complaining on social media about the
fact that it was not put out there um on
the executive's official Facebook page.
Um I clearly have gotten the sense not
just this time around but last year as
well that the county executive does not
want the public to be there. Yeah, you
were you were all crammed into a corner.
On another show, she was very proud and
boastful of the legislative breakfast
and how much it's grown. But time and
time again, we really see the priorities
really focus on the liquor bills.
>> Give you a little history about the um
legislative breakfast. It's my
understanding that was started back when
I think Rusty Molner was on the council,
president uh of the council and um it
was of course that time at that time it
was um there wasn't a county executive.
though um it was run by the council and
it's been run by the council for a
number of years and then when county
this county executive come along she
wanted control of it and it was always
done on Saturdays
>> so moved
>> so it used to be more accessible to the
public
>> it was more accessible public didn't
attend and and a lot of public didn't
attend I think three or four years ago
there was only two or three people there
from the public um because it really
wasn't advertised and you know I don't
think there was as much on the um much
going on. They got people's got people's
dander up. But that's um that's some of
the history of the legislative
breakfast, you know. And um
>> I think people are interested now though
because, you know, we've seen crisis
after crisis after crisis under this
county executive. And people are, you
know, they're they're interested. They
they're tuning in to what's going on
politically,
>> which is a very good sign. Um but um
they should have been accommodated. They
should have been informed so that they
could at least listen in. If not
participate, at least to be able to
listen. They weren't given that
opportunity.
>> Yeah.
>> So, so I want to take a break and when
we come back, I want to talk about the
the liquor bills work session and then
uh in the last segment I'd like to talk
about the MOA with 287G. All
>> right. Is that okay?
>> Sounds good.
>> So, stick with us. When we come back,
we're going to have a chance to talk to
Councilman Holloway just about the work
session from last October 7th, Tuesday
night. Stay with us. We'll be right
back.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. Councilman
Joe Holloway, thanks for sticking
around.
>> Thanks for the invite. Yeah,
>> you're welcome. Mike Goldberg, Delmare,
thank you for uh sticking around as
well.
>> The windows were locked. I couldn't get
out.
>> You tried to jump?
>> I did.
>> So, at the work session last Tuesday on
October 7th, there were two main
subjects and we're going to cover the
first one first, which which was about
liquor bills. Uh, next segment we'll
talk about the 287g MOA,
the the the the liquor bills. There's
three more that are being proposed. And
to me, these are starting to seem like
zombie liquor bills. Like they're
they're never alive, but they're never
undead. I mean, are this is this has
come back up in less than nine more
months.
>> The ongoing saga.
>> Why is this such a priority? Is
>> Well, I think it's been um I think there
was promises made.
>> Okay. um in the past and I think there's
an ongoing effort to get those done. Um
the county executive didn't send them
forward this time, but apparently the um
licensing board brought them forward,
which um I think is probably um out of
the out of the not under their umbrella
what they're doing.
>> You brought that up at the you brought
up at the last council meeting at the
during the work session that you did not
actually think this is in their purview.
I'm looking at your
it's board of licensed commissioners.
>> Yes.
>> Where does that give you the
authority,
especially authority to expend monies to
an attorney to try to change the alcohol
laws in the county because you're the
licensed commissioners. You're the ones
that actually see and see who's going to
get the licenses, you know, and control
who's selling alcohol.
>> The authority for the board to have an
attorney is in the statute.
>> Well, I understand that, but where does
it
>> Well, you asked where the authority came
from, and I'm
>> Yeah, but I mean, where does it where
does the authority
>> Well, I'll answer your other question.
So, um you have the authority
uh to request a legislative change to
your local delegation.
We come through you
uh to do that uh in cases where
um the board has assessed a need for a
change.
>> You don't have to you don't have to
>> but agree with it.
>> I know. I know. But how
What gives
you the um what's how is it under your
umbrella to you assess that there needs
to be a change?
>> I guess why why I mean from a business
standpoint how do you judge to say that
we need more we need to change this um
so we can um there don't have to be
restaurants there.
>> Well, we're char or any of the other
laws here that you're
>> we're charged with enforcement of the
alcohol laws in the county. Um, so
the authority to come before you and
request a particular piece of
legislation that would change current
law is implied into that enforcement.
Um, how is that implied in enforcement?
If you're charged with enforcement,
how's that how is it implied that you
want to change the law?
>> I don't think we're going to agree, Mr.
Holloway, but I would say
>> I'm not trying to disagree. I'm just
wondering how it is. Well, it's implied.
That's how I would
>> Where is it implied?
>> It's implied in the language that gives
the board the enforcement uh power of
the alcohol laws. You might
>> disagree.
>> Enforcement. That's not changing the
law.
>> Well, I'm I'm answering your question
and that's the answer.
>> Yeah.
>> So, the Wcomo County Board of License
Commissioners, it it is our to your
point, it is our charge to oversee the
sale and consumption of alcohol in Wcomo
County. That also includes enforcement,
but it also includes our businesses, our
economic drivers for this county. So,
what we as a board, our intent is to
look at the entire picture. We're going
to look at we're going to look at the
enforcement. We're going to look at the
safety safety. We're also going to look
at the economic drivers for our county
and for our businesses. So where we as a
board if we see a business need
that we feel is lacking or is necessary
then we will we discuss it as our board
and we decide is this something that
requires or that would need a
legislative change and then we bring it
before you as the council. But what I
what I'd like you all to recognize is is
yes we are a board of licensing and yes
we are a board of enforcement. We are
also a board that helps the businesses
in our community succeed and and they
try to have their economic impact.
>> So maybe we should change the name from
board of licensed commissioners to board
of licensed commissioners and
promotions.
>> Not at all. I disagree with that 100%.
>> Let me let me just chime in. So the the
process
has been
um from the board's standpoint
to always come before the local um
political bodies on any legislative
change.
It's our policy uh at least as long as
I've been the attorney that we would
never go we would never bypass this body
or the executive office and go directly
to the local delegation. And frankly, uh
I've I've been told that that's how they
want it as well. And specifically, you
you mentioned that they're using county
resources through, you know, paid time
with their attorney to to bring up
something that's actually not in their
purview. Correct. Explain that.
>> Well, if you look if you look at what
they're charged with, they're charged
with issuing license, enforcing the law
>> and of course issuing fines, you know,
making decisions if somebody breaks the
law. Um, you know, one of the license
holders. There's nothing in nothing in
the law that I've read and I've had an
attorney look at it and um there's
nothing in it that says that they're
supposed to be lobbying
um you know for businesses.
>> Well, they brought they brought three
proposals to you in the work session to
get consensus to bring back as a
resolution. One of them was to to make
it so that license or a license holders,
the three of them, don't have to have a
restaurant attached to their to their uh
establishment.
>> One was to eliminate the need to get 10
signatures.
>> Correct.
>> Uh in the area to just get approval for
a license.
>> And then the the third one was was they
want to move up the time that golf
courses can serve alcohol from 10:00
a.m. to 7:00 a.m.
>> Right. Um, one of them didn't really get
a consensus. They said to come back and
that was for the the 10 signatures. They
>> they almost took that off the table.
They they basically were saying what,
you know, that they're going to bring it
back, but I don't think they're that
interested in it in doing it. You know,
>> I want to hone in on the one
particularly about separating getting
having a class A license and having to
have a restaurant attached. You
mentioned in your in the work session
when it was your time to talk that you
feel like this is a baby step towards u
adding more liquor dispensaries.
>> Well, it is. So, a little history here.
Years ago, back in the 50s, early 60s
when I was trying to buy beer before I
was old enough,
stores that sold gasoline couldn't sell
alcohol. Okay, that was deemed
discriminatory at some point in time and
they opened it up so
could sell alcohol that sold gasoline.
Mr. Bob over there has a store on a
corner and then sell has an alcohol
license and somebody down the street
says, "Yeah, you're discriminating
against me because I want an alcohol
license, too." Now, I know you'd have to
change the law. So, like I said before,
this is um
this is just the first step. I want this
council to realize this. You know, we it
seems like these liquor, you know, these
bills come back every year. I think
somebody even made a comment the other
morning at legislative breakfast. Here
we are again with more liquor bills. I
think it was one of the delegates that
said that. Um
you know, it's it's a step. You
I' I've been on the council for a number
of years. I've never had people calling
me saying, "We need more liquor stores."
And our county executive, of course, has
made a promise in the past that, you
know, we're going to relax the liquor
bills so we can have more liquor stores
in the county. Um, I don't know who
she's made those promises to, but that's
that's pretty much what we're we're
hearing. And they keep coming they keep
coming along.
>> You you challenged Miss Miss Jordan on
that. and and she seemed to almost agree
with you that it wasn't in their purview
to to bring this up, but then also said
that that they were asked to bring this
to you.
>> No,
>> but I mean, anybody specifically was
cited to have brought
>> No, they didn't say who it was. You
know, if somebody wants that, they you
know, the business themselves should
bring it forward.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, that's who should, you know,
step out and do it yourself.
>> Well,
>> don't don't use they have to pay their
county attorney. Um, and if I'm being
told correctly and if I've read the law
correctly, that's not what they do. Like
I say, the number of years I've been on
the council, I've not received all any
calls if maybe one or two. Why don't we
have a liquor store here? Why don't we
have, you know, why why is the county
running the liquor stores? Well, at one
time they were giving us, you know, a
million dollars a year. It's gone down
now because of cannabis and because
>> the monopoly
>> Yeah. the the monopoly thing. And um but
it's not um I you know with all the
other issues Wakcomo County has this is
what we deal with every year.
>> You're you're considered you're
considered one of the staunchest
conservatives on the council and and
Councilwoman Sheny Shields is definitely
not that. And you both have opposed
these liquor bills. I do not support
this because the main reason I don't
trust
um
the legislation that whoever came up
with this because every year it's always
been something about alcohol.
Next year it's going to be something
about alcohol.
So if it's required to and I don't see
any harm Cuz what's going to open the
door?
And you might say it's not. It's going
to open the door for other people
wanting the alcohol. You might have to
go to court for it. If you let one not
have a restaurant, you're going to have
others that want the same thing. And I'm
doing it because of the trust factor.
Because here we go again. Something has
to go up before the general assembly
and somebody is pushing this.
not necessarily commissioners, but
somebody's pushing this alcohol stuff
and I'm not supporting it at all. And um
that's all I have to say about it.
>> Essentially, this is the first step in
in having more liquor stores in the
county. I realize that it only applies
to the three that now have the three
private stores we have, but the next
step after this is going to be to change
that number from three to whatever. Um,
I don't know why this board which is
administers the licensing law is
initiating this. Let the people or the
people that have liquor stores and with
restaurants, let them do it and let the
council stay out of it because if the
council does a letter of support for
this, it's an ironclad cinch. It will
pass in Annapolis. So, let the be
neutral on this. let them go to
Annapolis and argue their case without
the support of the county council.
>> Uh Mrs. Shields understands that her
community does not want liquor stores on
every corner. They they understand, you
know, what that does to the
neighborhood,
>> crime and violence,
>> right? Um
I I represent the east side. I've not
had people calling me and saying, "Hey,
we need a liquor store in Pittsville or
we need a liquor store in Willards or we
need a liquor store in Parsonsburg or
Walston Switch." So we don't, you know,
it's just not something that's that's
been an issue, but it seems to be an
issue um to fulfilling a promise I think
that's been kept.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> And it's the incrementalism that kind of
scares me. You know, as uh as the
executive said uh or um perhaps it was
Carl Anderson, you now that the now that
the door is open, we may as well walk on
in.
>> Is truly amazing. I didn't think we'd
get here. I hoped we'd get here. Uh we
had obstacles all along the way, you
know, uh from last minute amendments at
the bill hearing to but we got it.
Despite the last minute amendments and
changes, we got it through and and now
it's on to the next step. Now that we
cracked the door open, we just might as
well walk on through.
>> So again, to the business business
community, our restaurant tours, the
greater Salsbury committee, Mike Dunn,
we were on the phone several times. I
was like, "Brother, these people making
me crazy, but we got it done." And so
again, thank you. Well, what kind of
priorities did the executive lay out in
the breakfast other than liquor bills? I
mean, was was that the most prominent
part of of what she brought?
>> She she didn't even really bring it
forward. Um C um Councilman Cannon
brought that forward. Okay. You know, he
brought that
>> and he has supported these.
>> He has supported Yeah, he supported in
the past, you know. So anyway, um no,
it's um it's been an interesting um it's
been an interesting just to watch like
one of the delegates said, you know,
every year here we are again with more
liquor bills. So anyway,
>> well, I want to take some time and I
want to discuss the MOA and the workings
there for the 287G. Uh would you stick
around for one more segment? We'll talk
about that.
>> Sure.
>> So stay with us. When we come back,
we're all going to still be in the
studio and we're going to talk about the
other part of the work session which was
the 287g MOA. So stay with us. We'll be
right back.
Welcome back to Open Agenda, gentlemen.
Thanks for sticking around. I want to
have a chance to ask both of you about
the work session. We were all in
attendance. You were obviously at the
council table uh with MOA with 287G
and in particular, and we talked about
this on a show we put out a week ago,
that this is not an MOA with the
sheriff's office in ICE. This is
actually an MOA with the Department of
Corrections in ICE. Is that accurate?
>> That's my understanding. Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> Um it was interesting that they had
gentlemen, a representative from ICE via
Zoom at the council meeting and a couple
times he was asked questions from county
executive almost asking like followup
like, well, this is how it would work.
And
>> Mr. Mccuria, would that be a resolution
for you for your agency?
>> No, sir. How how it works is the
nominations will come from Mr. Gordono.
So, whoever she decides will be the
warrant service officers, then that is
who I will delegate the authority to or
I will get the authority delegated to
them over the training and whatnot.
>> Now, in order for the sheriff's deputies
to ever be a part of this, they would
have to be a separate MOA orou with the
Department of Corrections and the
sheriff's office.
>> That's my understanding from that
meeting. Yes. Do you feel like this is
going to become very convoluted before
it ever becomes apparent what's going
on?
>> It got convoluted from the beginning. I
think um
you know a lot of folks came in upset
about what was going on. I think if they
had known exactly what this MOA was
going to be as it was explained to us at
the meeting, there wouldn't be as many
people upset because it basically says
that, you know, they're going to um
charge these people after they've been,
you know, for something else. Yeah. Um,
so the problem arose is when we seen the
agreement, there's two things in the
agreement that that really um jumped out
at me is one of the things they said is
there's going to be no no cost.
>> Yeah.
>> Now, I've been in government long enough
to know the government doesn't do
anything that there isn't a cost to.
>> It's one really one of the the funniest
things and and she doubled down on it.
She she said it once and then she came
back to it. And this is from someone who
who claims to be a conservative. um a
lot of uh misinformation that is out
there is the cost that the county will
bear. So the way that we have worked
this out with the sheriff's office and
with corrections, it's basically budget
neutral. It is not costing the taxpayers
anything.
>> There is never a time the government
>> She said it again on another show. She
keeps insisting this is costneutral.
>> If you go into the um into the agreement
and look at section E and section G, um
both sections mention what's going to
cost. Yeah,
>> you know, um the training is going to be
one one thing.
>> Transportation
>> and transportation and then the other is
interpreters which may or may not be a
cost, you know, a cost. Um
>> it's not free though. There's a cost.
It's going to cost the taxpayers here
money, you know. And the other thing is,
you know, the sheriff's department and
department of corrections is
short-handed.
>> Yeah.
>> Right now, now I want to make this
really clear for your audience.
I think the Biden administration really
has ruined the United States um for a
period of time now with what they've
done, letting all the immigrants across
the border, people that we don't know
who they are, what their backgrounds
are. I'm fully in support of trying to
um correct this immigration problem.
>> Sure. I mean, you're talking about
people who were allowed to come here as
undocumented folks by the Biden
administration.
>> Right. Right. and um you know so how we
do it is a different story. Yeah.
>> Um I'm not fully um
against what they're trying to do in the
county. My biggest problem with this is
um the information that's gone out or
not gone out um and how they have
handled it.
>> Yeah. I mean I'm in favor of having some
sort of agreement with ICE to to to
process people who are criminals of of
any type in in our
>> society. and if they happen to be
illegal citizens here who are also
criminals that there has to be a process
there. But Councilman Vice President
Jeff Merritt really took the county
executive to task.
>> The amount of misinformation on this is
absolutely staggering.
>> I I
>> the amount of contradiction is
staggering.
>> I disagree.
>> The the press releases, the radio
interviews, every time somebody gets in
front of a microphone, something
different is said. We've got it all
documented here. We don't even know
what's up at this point because so much
different stuff has been laid out there.
>> Council Merrick, you had every
opportunity to reach out to the sheriff
of this county.
>> Excuse me. Right now, please, before we
get anywhere else, we don't interrupt
people here. Let him finish.
>> John, we're having an open discussion.
>> Let him finish. I'm not done.
>> Okay.
>> We are not responsible for this. You've
said so multiple times.
multiple interviews.
We've got it all right here.
>> Okay.
>> So, have you now changed your mind,
>> Jeeoff? This is not about changing a
mind. What happened was is that I did
not think
>> if if she didn't run to a microphone
every time that she uh had a thought
about this, it wouldn't be so uh
non-trans. Yeah. fearful
>> because you're seeing I mean council
Holly there's 2 hours of public comments
>> right
>> at the last meeting and most of them
were based around people who were
against having
>> you know the interesting thing is start
starting to happen or what I'm starting
to see is um a lot of businesses in the
county business owners in fact I was
talking to a gentleman that's um in the
landscaping business I know him to be a
very big conservative you know I mean
he's supported conservative values and
conservative politicians in the past you
know, um he said, "And it's starting to
get hard to really find find employees
to do what I do." He said, "Not that
they're not that they're illegal because
I try not to hire anybody illegal." He
says, "But they're just fearful to be on
the street because they don't know if
they're going to get picked up for one
reason or the other, you know." Well,
you see the rhetoric that even the
county executive had in the Baltimore
Sun where she stated that we're not
really targeting people, but we're
targeting people who may not be
citizens. We should let ICE determine
them if there should be here. If they
are, then we'll release them. Well, that
that that would that's a pretty scary uh
proposition. And we've seen it in in
historical, you know, if you go back to
Germany in the 1930s, there were people
going around seeing, you know, what your
status was. And then if they agreed with
you, then they released you. If not,
then
>> show me the papers.
>> Yeah. Show
>> and and that's pretty scary, of course.
And uh can't advocate for that. But to
me, the executives's whole approach to
this has been anything but linear. It
reminds me of a pinball machine. Ding,
ding, ding, ding, ding. We've gone from
the JM model to the WSO model to the
agreement being between, you know,
between ICE and uh the um Department of
Corrections. Now, it looks like the the
um sheriff's office is going to be
involved. Originally, they were going to
be involved and then it was detention
and now it's back to the sheriff being
involved and then she's chastising
people for being confused.
>> Well, and and don't forget at one point
she said that council has nothing to do
with this.
>> That now she's saying that the ball's in
your court. In fact, she stated that on
another show just yesterday that this is
this is completely in your all's court.
And again, like you know, you're talking
about that you want there to be a
process. There are a lot of us out there
who want there to be a process, but I'm
not sure if I trust her process.
>> For better or worse, the executive owns
this. She's the one who brought it to
the table.
>> Uh my name is on this MOA.
>> She's the one who created the chaos and
confusion. Even uh Congressman Andy
Harris thought that a uh an MOA had
already been signed.
>> He congratulated and congratulated, but
obviously that was not the case. Is is
this incompetence or is it intentional
to keep the public confused and uh to
keep the the population unsettled? And
it's the the divisiveness and people and
the feeling of of uh not being settled
of fear that can have very undesirable
consequences and uh it it really
concerns me. This is not how anything
gets managed by a competent manager.
>> Yeah.
What do you what do you think the next
steps are, Councilman Holloway?
>> Well, I suppose that at some point in
time we'll have another work session.
You know, our our council attorney and
and of course her attorney, they
disagree. Um it's an open-ended it's an
open-ended contract. Um
there's no dollar figure on it and
there's no dollar figure apparently that
the purchasing agent can put on it.
>> Yeah.
>> So for that reason, the council doesn't
have to be involved in it. Okay. Now, I
think what the county attorney, um, Mr.
Illuminati was, um, moving towards,
well, the council has complained in the
past because it's not been involved with
different things that have been signed,
which we should have been.
>> Yeah.
>> In the past, she has tried to work
around the council. Safari at the Quarry
was, you know, a perfect example of
that. She even admitted during a work
session that she signed thatou for 364
days to keep the council out of it. Now
suddenly she's had a change of heart.
Come on. Zebras don't change their
stripes.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, well, thank you very much. Thanks
for coming out and talking to us. And as
there are updates, I'd like to see if
you'd come back on the show and talk to
us about it some more.
>> Okay.
>> Thanks for watching this edition of Open
Agenda. We'll be back later this week
with another new episode.
I mean, I mean, I just can't get it all
in. Well,
