FROM: Gino Renne <grenne@mcgeo.

org>

Reply all|
Mon 8/22/2016 5:40 PM
To: [Redacted]

Dear Delegate Kramer,

This correspondence is in response to your email to the DLC work group dated
August 19th, 2016
The only story here is that you are a politician with common sense.
Which is pretty much a contradiction in terms.
Your presentation at the last work group offered a viable option for the group to
consider. It protects both the workers and the revenues generated by the DLC,
which help fund critical services to include education. In addition, it offers a fix to
the business interests that have complained about the operation of the DLC.
Now it appears that your motives are being questioned by Bethesda Magazinefor
proposing an alternative that will not involve you as part of the decision making
process and, as you have made clear, will not result in any financial benefit to you.
As best I can tell, the only way that any of this might impact you is if all of theMoCo
liquor stores were to close something that even the staunches opponents of the
DLC have not suggested. Those leases and the goodwill that MoCo has inthose
stores are worth tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.
Its obvious what is going on...all you have to do is follow the money.
This whole uproar about the DLC is being driven by a very small group of Bethesda
based restaurants, business owners and liquor interests. The Bethesda Chamber
declared this as its top priority. Bethesda alcohol related advertising dollars and
Bethesda Magazine...those dots aren't very hard to connect.
Meanwhile, the sponsor of the bill, which would convert the DLC from a public to
a private monopoly, is married to a woman who receives a six figure salary from
one of the largest alcohol producers and distributors in the world.

He owns thousands of dollars of stock in that company and has received thousands
of dollars in political contributions from the alcohol industry.
That same company is one of the largest proponents of the private distribution
monopoly bill and they have testified repeatedly in support of it.
But, Bethesda Magazine has barely offered a whisper about those cozy relationships
and personal conflicts of interest. So much for journalistic integrity.
In your email you said that there are those who think that you should have announced
to the work group that you have an interest in property that has a county liquor store
as a tenant. I have no doubt that if there was any way that you might have benefited
from the concept that you discussed, you would have done so. Nevertheless, it
certainly doesn't change the merits of your good suggestion.
I sure don't remember EVER hearing the sponsor of the private distribution bill
announce all of his direct and personal financial ties to the private distribution
monopoly that supplements his familys income so that they can enjoy their
BETHESDA home and BETHESDA lifestyle.
Just follow the money, my man...follow the money.
You and I don't always agree on issues and there have been times when I supported
your opponent. But in the many years that I have known you, you have always made
your decisions on the merits of an issue and what you believe is in the best interests
of the people, your integrity is beyond reproach.
Keep taking the high road and as you said, don't let the powerful liquor interests
muzzle you. You have been taking them on for years and you crushed them with the
passage of Noah's Law! They know they can't buy you and that you're tenacious, so
they and their surrogates are pulling out all the stops to sideline you. Knowing you
as I do that will not happen.
Remember Ben, just follow the money.
Respectfully,
Gino

From: Kramerdelegate19
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 5:01 PM
To: [redacted]
Subject: DLC Public Private Partnership Discussion

Dear Members of the Montgomery County Liquor Work Group:

I wanted to send you this follow up email to the proposal that I offered to the work group
on the 10th of August.
Andrew Metcalf, who works for Bethesda Magazine, has indicated that he may write a
story about the proposal.
From what I understand, the story will discuss that I have an interest in a retail strip
center that has a Montgomery County liquor store as a tenant.
He has indicated that there are members of the work group with whom he has spoken
that were concerned by the fact that I did not disclose that information at the meeting.
Therefore, I wanted to share with the members the following:
I was graciously invited by the work group chair to discuss my concept of the publicprivate partnership the day before the August 10th meeting. I had previously discussed
this idea with her, and I indicated that I would be happy to present it to the work group
when she invited me to do so on the 9th.
The proposal that I discussed was that of a very general concept for the creation of a
public-private partnership between Montgomery County and the private sector for the
day to day operations and management of the DLC distribution system.
As I discussed at the meeting, the public-private partnership offers a fix for those who
assert that the operation is inadequate as a government run entity. It also protects
Montgomery County's revenue stream and Montgomery County's employees, which are
two of the County Executive's announced primary goals in contemplating change.
Public-private partnerships are far from a unique concept, and the suggestion that I
offered seemed to be a common sense approach to the issue.
I am not a member of the work group and will have no part in the deliberations or
decisions the group makes.
Ultimately, it will be the decision of the County Council and County Executive as to
what, if any, changes are made to the DLC.
Regardless, the P3 proposal that I discussed in no way benefits me financially and will
have no effect, at all, on the County store at the referenced property.
If Montgomery County adopts some form of a public-private partnership for the
management of the DLC, I will receive no personal gain of any kind, as it will have no
impact on the lease. There have been no proposals that have been presented to the

work group that will have any financial impact on me, either to my benefit or to my
detriment, directly or indirectly.
As such, it did not occur to me that there would be an effort to create the impression
that I might somehow benefit from the work group's decisions or have a hidden
agenda. Therefore, I did not announce at the start of the meeting that I have an interest
in the property that has the lease.
However, I am also not at all hesitant to share that fact. I certainly have never hidden
this information and have had colleagues and other elected officials who have utilized
the same property for campaign signs and offices. Community groups know of my
connection to the property and have contacted me to use vacant spaces for community
activities.
This past legislative session there were two bills introduced that related to the
DLC. One bill would have provided for a ballot initiative to allow for the private
distribution of alcoholic beverages in Montgomery County, as well as, created a mix of
County and private stores selling spirits.
The other bill would have allowed for private delivery of special orders to licensees.
Neither of those bills would have had any affect, at all, on the referenced lease and
would not have created any financial benefit or harm to me, should they have passed or
failed.
However, out of an abundance of caution, I met with the General Assembly's ethics
advisor and discussed the lease and the two bills. As there were no financial
implications for me, either directly or indirectly, I was advised that I could vote on the
proposed legislation.
Regardless of the content of the story about the August 10th work group meeting, I
wanted to make sure that all of you are aware of the situation and that my only intention
and motive was to offer a common sense option for your consideration. I am just very
disappointed that rather than the merits of the proposal being the topic, my integrity and
sincere intentions are being questioned.
Should any decisions about the DLC require action by the legislature, I will continue to
comply with the letter and the spirit of our ethics laws and take no action that would
result in personal gain to me, my family or business. I will also, once again, seek the
guidance of the General Assembly's ethics counsel before consideration of any vote
that may affect the DLC.
Finally, while I understand that the financially powerful liquor interests wield a
disproportionately dominant influence on alcohol related matters, and are continually
seeking to increase profits without regard to the publics welfare, I hope that the few
who advocate for socially responsible alcohol laws and regulations will not be muzzled
by their efforts.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns with
regard to this matter, and I thank you for your public service as a member of this group.
Sincerely,
Ben Kramer