Ethics Matters News

COUNTY ETHICS REQUIREMENTS FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEES FOR COMMUNITY AND COOMPREHENSIVE PLANS
printable version

Unlike the old 1984 ethics law, the County's new Ethics Law, adopted in November 2005 and last amended by the Ethics Reform Act of 2007, has disclosure requirements for Citizen Advisory Committees for Community and Comprehensive Plans.  Last week, Ethics Matters sent the following letter to the Board of County Commissioners, the Ethics Commission, and the Planning Commission.

 

 

Dear Commissioners:

 

As the County begins the process of appointing citizens to two Citizens Advisory Committees (CAC), one for the County’s Comprehensive Plan and the other for the Wye Mills Community Plan, we would like to draw attention to Section 8-13.C of the County Ethics Code. 

 

            8-13.C.  All members of boards, commissions and committees listed in Subsection A above as identified in § 8-5.C of this title, and all members of ad hoc committees and task forces providing advice and/or recommendations regarding acquisition, zoning or designation of land, whether appointed by the Board of County Commissioners or appointed by other local government boards or commissions authorized to make such appointments, shall, together with the member's acceptance letter, submit a financial disclosure statement which shall include disclosure of any and all potential conflicts of interest that may be foreseeable as a result of accepting the board, commission or committee appointment.

           

            Because three of our five Ethics Matters Board members were on the five-person QAC Ethics Commission when the Ethics Commission was drafting the County’s new ethics code, we would like to provide some “legislative history” that may be helpful to you in regard to this financial disclosure requirement.

                       

1.  The language in 8-13.C was copied from the St. Mary’s County ethics code and included in the QAC proposed code that was drafted by the 2004 Ethics Commission at the request of the then County Commissioners.  Throughout the three-year process of updating the County’s ethics code under two sets of County Commissioners, this provision was never questioned or changed.

 

2.  The ethics code does not require citizens serving on committees such as a CAC to be subject to the Conflicts Provisions. (See Applicability 8-5.A-E.) Citizens should not be prohibited from CAC membership due to their financial interests or affliations. In fact, membership on these advisory committees should represent diverse land use interests.

 

3. The required financial disclosure is to create transparency.  This transparency serves two purposes.

 

a. It assures the public at large that the membership of a Citizen Advisory Committee represents the various land use interests and represents them fairly in relation to the makeup of the particular community, with no interest group disproportionately represented. 

 

b. It lets members of a committee know what the interests of the other members of the committee are; that is, “where they are coming from” as they add their input to the process.

 

4.  The categories of required financial disclosure (land ownership, business interests, gifts, etc.)  are set forth in 8-13.G and should be the same for each member of a given CAC.  The Ethics Commission may modify these requirements pursuant to 8-15.  For example, in the case of a specific area CAC, such as one for Wye Mills, the disclosure requirement of property ownership, gifts, etc., could be modified by the Ethics Commission to be directly relevant to that particular community, while being sure to provide the transparency that is the purpose of financial disclosure.

 

We hope this letter is helpful to you as citizens are invited to participate on CACs.  We offer it because, unlike the past, Citizens Advisory Committees are subject to our County’s new ethics law, and the application of the law to CACs and similar committees is unique because they are subject to the law’s Financial Disclosure requirements but not to its Conflicts of Interest provisions.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to share with you our understanding of the County’s new ethics law in regard to CACs.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

 

Mary Campbell

Count of comments: 0
Posted on 07 Nov 2007 by admin
ETHICS GUIDE, INFORMATION PUBLISHED
printable version

Good news!  The Ethics Commission is distributing “A Guide to the Ethics Law of Queen Anne’s County for County Employees, Officials and Citizens.”  It is available at our Ethics Matters website (www.ethicsmattersinc.org ) under DOCUMENTS, directly below the ethics code.  The Ethics Commission will be distributing this guide to all County employees and officials as well making it available at County libraries.  Hopefully, the County website will post this useful document before long.

 

Also available at the Ethics Matters website (www.ethicsmattersinc.org  ) under DOCUMENTS are the Ethics Commission’s information sheets about Conflicts of Interest, Financial Disclosure, and Gifts.

 

These documents, together with the Guide, help the Ethics Commissions meet its statutory obligation to inform and educate citizens regarding the purpose and implementation of the ethics law.  Ethics Matters congratulates the Ethics Commission on their publication, and we are pleased to help the Ethics Commission promote public understanding of the County ethics law by posting them on our website.

 

Further news regarding the QAC Ethics Commission:  Ethics Commission member Irving Pinder recently resigned from the Commission and has been replaced by the Rev. Nanese Hawthorne, who had been serving as an alternate.

Count of comments: 0
Posted on 09 Oct 2007 by admin
ETHICS EDUCATION UNDERWAY
printable version

            The County provided a valuable service to the citizens who serve on County Boards and Commissions at the June12 meeting of the Ethics Commission. Amanda Conn of the Funk & Bolton law firm gave a training session on the Maryland Open Meetings Act and Public Information Act for the Ethics Commission, its counsel, and interested chairmen of other County Boards and Commissions.  These two laws are complex and have notable exceptions.  Ms. Conn’s presentation and accompanying handouts are important to all the County’s Boards and Commissions because they must function within the requirements imposed by these two State laws.

 

            The County Commissioners are to be congratulated for providing this workshop.  Ethics Matters wishes they would distribute Ms. Conn’s handouts widely, now and in the future, and make her expertise on these two laws available by phone to County Boards, Commissions, and Committees who have questions or need assistance in interpretation.  These citizen bodies -- most of which are volunteer -- save the County considerable money each year as they supply their expertise, make decisions, and/or give advice.  The County should provide the support necessary to keep them from acting in violation of State laws. 

 

            At its meeting before the training session, the Ethics Commission worked on a mechanism to make sure that those appointed to Boards, Commissions or jobs that require financial disclosure are aware of the financial disclosure requirement when they accept an appointment, as well as when they must file financial disclosure statements (with acceptance of appointment, then annually, and upon termination).

 

            Also discussed was the need for the Ethics Commission to be aware of 1) any new job, Board or Commission created by the County Commissioners that has decision-making ability and of 2) any ad hoc committees and task forces “providing advice and/or recommendations regarding acquisition, zoning or designation of land whether appointed by the Board of County commissioners or appointed by other local government boards or commissions that are authorized to make such appointments.”  These are the criteria that under the Ethics Law require financial disclosure, and those accepting a newly created position should be aware of the requirements of that law.

 

It should be noted that when the County Commissioners create a new board, commission, or job, they cannot modify the requirements that the Ethics Law imposes unless they do so by statute.  The Ethics Commission alone has the ability to grant exceptions and/or modify the financial disclosure, gifts, and conflicts provisions for particular situations and then only if the Ethics Commission determines that applying the provisions would:

1.      Constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy;

2.      Significantly reduce the availability of qualified persons for public service; and

3.      Not be required to preserve the purposes of the law.

All three of the above conditions must be met.

 

The Ethics Commission is also beginning to look at ways to meet their statutory obligation “to conduct information and education programs about the purpose and implementation” of the ethics law.  This undertaking is especially important given the many changes to the County’s Ethics Law in the past year and a half.

           

Count of comments: 0
Posted on 18 Jun 2007 by admin
NEW ETHICS COMMISSIONERS; ETHICS MATTERS STATEMENT TO THEM
printable version

Last Tuesday, the County Commissioners announced the appointment of four new members and an alternate to the county Ethics Commission.  The new members are Robert Mueller, C. Irving Pindar, Kendall Ruffato and Shannon McClellan. The alternate is Nanese Hawthorne.

            Robert Mueller, who was an alternate on the Commission, is now a regular member.  Mr. Mueller, an attorney, recently retired from the Federal Government where he was senior commissioner for Judge Andrew Effron of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

            Also an attorney is Kendall Ruffato who is executive secretary to the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland.

            A third attorney appointed to the Ethics Commission is Shannon McClellan, currently Senior Advisor to the Dean of the University of Maryland School of Nursing

            Irving Pindar was formerly Director of Queen Anne’s County Department of Aging.  He is currently Executive Director of the Maryland Board of Physicians. Mr. Pindar is a lifelong resident of Queen Anne’s County.

            The alternate position is filled by Nanese Hawthorne, who was appointed Rector of St. Luke’s Parish in Church Hill in November 2006.

            Francis Roudiez is the current member of the Ethics Commission.

 

 

STATEMENT OF ETHICS MATTERS TO NEW ETHICS COMMISSION

 

This is a notable day for ethics in Queen Anne’s County.  The new County Commissioners have enacted a good ethics law that meets State standards and appointed five new members to the newly expanded Ethics Commission to administer it. We appreciate the time and dedication you are giving to the County by serving on the Ethics Commission.

 

             The accountability of governmental bodies to the public is essential in a democracy.  Since Ethics Commission meetings are rarely attended by the public, Ethics Matters tries to have a Board member attend each of the Ethics Commission’s meetings.  You should know that three of our five Board members are former members of the Queen Anne’s County Ethics Commission, so we understand full well what it is like to sit where you are sitting. 

           

            We know the challenges of administering and enforcing the County’s Ethics Law, while being at the same time subject to the constraints of Maryland’s Open Meetings Act and Public Information Act.  We are firm believers in the value of all three of these laws, and we support you as you work within them. 

 

            We also feel that should a problem with the administration of these three laws arise, we have a duty of care to bring it to your attention.

 

            We want to make sure you know that we share a common goal. We do not attend your meetings to find fault but rather in support of an important democratic principle and process � accountable ethical governance.  Thank you again for your service to the people of Queen Anne’s County.

 

Count of comments: 0
Posted on 26 Mar 2007 by admin
GOOD ETHICS BILL PASSED!!
printable version

 

Last night, at their January 16th meeting, the Queen Anne's County Commissioners passed, by a 5-0 vote, a series of amendments to the County’s Ethics Law.  This group of amendments, entitled the Ethics Reform Act of 2006, was the first law proposed and enacted by the new Board of County Commissioners. 

 

When a copy of the new bill is available electronically, we will post it on our website.  A description of the amendments can be found in the article titled “Good News” posted January 10, immediately below.

 

Below is Ethics Matters’ statement at the Commissioners’ Meeting.

 

“At last, with these amendments, Queen Anne’s County will have a fair, enforceable Ethics Code.  The Ethics Reform Act of 2006 meets and surpasses the State requirement for county ethics codes. It is good enough to serve as a model for other small counties as they update their ethics laws.  It is an ethics code that government workers and the public at large can point to with pride.  Thank you, Commissioners, for making good ethics legislation a top priority of your administration.  It is a great day for Queen Anne’s County.”

                              Mary Campbell for Ethics Matters

 

 

 

Count of comments: 0
Posted on 17 Jan 2007 by admin
GOOD NEWS
printable version

With the introduction last night (January 9) of an amendment containing an important conflicts provision, the County Commissioners completed a package of proposed amendments to the County’s Ethics Code.  (See Provisions of Proposed Ethics Amendments below.) 

 

These amendments, the Ethics Reform Act of 2006, will provide our County with:

-         an ethics code that meets and exceeds the State’s minimum requirement for County Ethics Codes 

-         an independent Ethics Commission

-         a fair, enforceable Ethics Code that promotes open, accountable government

-         an Ethics Code good enough to serve as a model for other small counties as they update their codes

-         an Ethics Code that government officials, employees and the public at large can point to with pride

 

Most of the proposed amendments were introduced on December 19 by Commissioner Billups and co-sponsored by Ms. Fordonski, Mr. Gunther, Mr. Ransom, and Dr. Wargotz, making the introduction of the proposed amendments unanimous.   It is notable that the new Board of County Commissioners chose to make these amendments to the Ethics Law the first piece of legislation of their administration.

 

Provisions of Proposed Ethics Amendments

 

Conflicts of Interest:

§        Restores the missing required conflicts of interest provision that prohibits having a contractual relationship with a business subject to the authority of your government unit.

§        Excuses from conflicts provisions regarding employment or ownership interests those officials or employees who are appointed to a regulatory or licensing authority pursuant to a requirement that persons subject to the jurisdiction of such authority be represented in appointments to it.

 

Complaint procedures:

§        Counsel prosecuting a complaint may not be the same counsel who advises the Ethics Commission on the complaint.

§        Rules regarding confidentiality of complaint proceedings.

§        Ability to require relevant evidence or knowledgeable witnesses (subpoena power subject to review by the County Attorney).

§        Number of years allowed for bringing a complaint for an alleged violation increased to 2.

§        Provides penalty for filing more than 2 frivolous complaints.

  • Respondent found innocent in complaint proceeding recommended for reimbursement for reasonable legal fees.

 

Lobbying:

§        Those registered as lobbyists do not have to account for all their income from a client, only income received for lobbying activities as defined by the QAC Ethics Law.

 

Ethics Commission:

§        Membership of Commission expanded to 5 and an alternate.

§        Limit lobbyist prohibition to Commission member (not family members)

§        Attorney for Ethics Commission appointed by Ethics Commission with consent of County Commissioners.

 

Definitions:

§        “subject to the authority of” defined and used consistently throughout code

 

 

 

Count of comments: 0
Posted on 10 Jan 2007 by admin
CONSIDER COUNTY EMPLOYEES
printable version

Press and Pulic Comment 

County Commissioners Meeting 10/31/06

 

As we noted last week, there is still a problem with a missing conflict of interest provision. It must be resolved before our County Ethics Code can receive State approval for meeting the minimum requirement. The provision addresses the problem of a County official or employee having an ownership stake or employment in a business entity that is doing business with his or her County agency. This basic conflicts provision was in our old law and in earlier proposed versions of our new law.  It was removed from the version that Mr. Cassell introduced and you passed.

 

According to the newspaper, Mr. Comfort is referring the State’s concern about this missing provision to the County Ethics Commission who could determine whether the definition of “authority” resolves the problem. If so, you Commissioners would not need to amend the Ethics law yet another time to get State approval. The code contains no definition of authority, so the County Ethics Commission would have to make an interpretation of what “authority” means and incorporate it in a regulation or advisory opinion.

 

Doesn’t it tell you something when the lawyer for the State Ethics Commission can’t find the provision? For the sake of our County employees, a clear statement of this  prohibition should appear in the Conflict of Interest Section of our ethics code.  That is where an employee would look when wondering whether a particular situation presented a conflict.  A basic conflicts prohibition buried outside the code itself in an interpretation contained in a regulation or advisory opinion puts our County government workers at a disadvantage and could set them up for an unintentional violation.

 

A clear statement of this basic conflicts provision should appear where an employee would look for it - in the Conflict of Interest Section of our the law.

 

Last summer, Mr. Ransom introduced an amendment to straighten out our new ethics law.  It contained a simple, straight-forward statement of the prohibition about being employed or having a financial interest in an entity that is “doing business with” the employee’s governmental unit.  It was clearly stated and met the State standard.

 

Mr. Ransom’s amendment was voted down 3-2, and an amendment addressing this missing conflicts provision was not among those you recently passed.  In spite of our pleas as a concerned citizens group and in spite of letters from the State about this conflicts provision, it is still missing from our code �and it still keeps our code from meeting State requirements.

 

Please amend our code so it meets the minimum State standard.  Put this basic required provision in the code �  put it in plain language and put it in the appropriate section.  For the sake of our government workers and the public at large, let’s keep our ethics code as straight-forward and easy to understand as possible.

 

 

Count of comments: 0
Posted on 09 Nov 2006 by admin
WHY? AFTER 8 AMENDMENTS, THERE ARE STILL PROBLEMS
printable version

Press and Public Comment 

County Commissioners Mtg. 10.24.06

Statement of Ethics Matters

 

In recent weeks you have passed 8 amendments to the County Ethics Law.  These amendments bring our County closer to the minimum standard required by the State, but we don’t seem to be there yet.

 

The process of getting a decent ethics code has been long and difficult.  During the past four years, our ethics law has gone from the old law, the weakest ethics law in Maryland, to the new law, introduced by Mr. Cassell and passed last November. It does not meet the minimum standard required by the State.

 

The Counsel to the State Ethics Commission reminded you earlier this month that there is an important Conflicts provision remaining to be addressed.  This provision prohibits a government official from owning or being employed by a business that has a contract or is negotiating a contract with that official’s government agency. For example, the Head of the Roads Department can’t be contracting to lease equipment for County use from an equipment rental company he owns.

 

A provision prohibiting this kind of conflict was present in earlier proposed versions of the law and was even a part of the old weak law.  However, this prohibition was eliminated from the law that Mr. Cassell introduced and you passed.

 

The letter from the State reminds you that they wrote last July questioning the absence of this provision. The State notes “that there has been no response . . . regarding these questions.”  The State’s Counsel even helpfully supplied language for an amendment addressing this conflicts situation, which, he said, if included in the code along with the recent amendments, would likely mean State approval of the County Ethics Law.  Please address this important provision so we can have an ethics law that at least meets the minimum requirement.

 

Also, you ignored the State’s recent recommendation to give our Ethics Commission the right to obtain relevant evidence and call knowledgeable witnesses when making decisions about violations of the law. Otherwise uncooperative respondents stonewall the Commission and possibly legitimate complaints must be dismissed for lack of evidence, and so the law can not be enforced. To be worth the paper it is written on, an ethics law must be enforceable. Please reconsider the State’s recommendation.

 

Ethics Matters has spent more than a year in pursuit of an ethics code that, at the least, meets the minimum standard.  It has been a long and frustrating process � and we still are not there.

 

What Ethics Matters, and so many citizens, really would like is a code that does more than just meet the minimum � a code that government employees and the public at large can be proud of.  But for the moment, we are resigned to first things first.  Let’s at least get to the point where we can get State approval for meeting the minimum requirement for County ethics codes.

Count of comments: 0
Posted on 25 Oct 2006 by admin
PROBLEMS AT THE COUNTY ETHICS COMMISSION MEETING
printable version

The Issue of Confidentiality

            At the October 16 County Ethics Commission meeting, the members voted to request that the County Commissioners amend the Ethics Law to provide an “enforcement mechanism” for maintaining the confidentiality of complaints. 

            The Ethics Law provides that “following the filing of a complaint and unless and until the matter is referred for prosecution or a finding of a violation has been made, the proceedings of the Commission in connection with the complaint shall be conducted in a confidential manner, unless such confidentiality is waived by the respondent.”

            This provision addresses the real concern that government officials and employees are sometimes “tried in the press.”  To help keep that from happening, the complaint proceedings of the Ethics Commission are to be conducted in a confidential manner. 

 

How can this problem be addressed?          

            The confidentiality of most complaint proceedings becomes less than complete when someone � usually the complainant - gives the complaint to the press or otherwise makes it known.  This has happened in virtually every ethics complaint in Queen Anne’s County in recent memory.  It happens in all counties, at the State level, and as we are seeing right now, at the national level.

            The QAC law nowhere states that the complainant cannot make the complaint public. It is questionable whether such a law would even be constitutional.  The law does say that the “proceedings” (the investigation and, if necessary, the hearing) conducted by the Ethics Commission are to be conducted in a confidential manner � that is, in closed session, unless the respondent wants the investigation and hearing public.

            Question: Upon receipt of the complaint, does the QAC Ethics Commission remind the complainant that the proceedings are confidential and make a request that the complaint be kept confidential?

            To do anything more than this is difficult, because legislation that prohibits the complainant from disclosing the complaint would most likely be void as an infringement of citizens’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.  It will be interesting to see how the County Attorney advises the County Commissioners on the Ethics Commission’s request. Some counties impose sanctions against individuals who file multiple frivolous complaints, but none that we know of attempts to impose a gag order.

           

Open Meetings violation

            The Ethics Commission should be aware that, in all likelihood, they violated the Open Meetings Act when they discussed and decided in a closed session to pursue a motion to request the “enforcement mechanism” amendment discussed above.  Discussions about changes in the law should not take place in a closed meeting.  Hopefully, realizing their error, the Ethics Commission will cure the problem.  The County needs to do a better job of equipping their volunteer Commission members for the task of interpreting and enforcing the Ethics Law, all the while negotiating the Open Meetings Act that provides the public with the transparency and accountability that a democracy requires. The citizens on the Ethics Commission need to be informed about and understand the laws they are enforcing and are subject to as they go about their duties.  They should not be stumbling into the embarrassing situation of acting in violation of the law.

 

Possible recommendation from the Ethics Commission to the County Commissioners

            If the Ethics Commission is going to request the County Commissioners to amend the Ethics law, it should consider echoing the State Ethics Commission’s recent recommendation that the QAC Ethics Commission be given the right to require that relevant information is produced and knowledgeable witnesses testify at complaint proceedings, so that the Ethics Commission is not forced to dismiss ethics complaints for lack of evidence.

Count of comments: 0
Posted on 18 Oct 2006 by admin
MORE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED FOR ETHICS LAW
printable version
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Tuesday evening, September 26, the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> held a hearing on six more amendments to the County Ethics Law.  Like the two amendments passed a few weeks ago, three of the six amendments were written in order to get the County ethics law (passed November 2005) up to the State’s minimum standards for county ethics laws. These amendments related to lobbying, gifts, and the officials who are subject to financial disclosure requirements.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The three other amendments dealt with the ability of the Ethics Commission to enforce the ethics law and function as an independent body.  Ethics Matters’ testimony on these amendments is below.  In testifying on 06-25, Ethics Matters noted that there is still a problem with the Conflicts of Interest provisions which will undoubtedly come up when the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> resubmit the amended ethics law to the State Ethics Commission for a determination as to whether it now meets State requirements.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><B><U><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">Testimony on 06-25 � Dismissal of Ethics Commission and comment on conflicts issue<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></U></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">In March of 2005, immediately following the hearing on an early version of the ethics bill, the motion was made to dismiss the volunteer Ethics Commission.  The Ethics Commission had, pursuant to your request, updated the old 1984 ethics law � the weakest in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:State w:st="on">Maryland</st1:State></st1:place> - and provided one that the State said it would likely approve.  The response was a motion to dismiss “with gratitude” those citizens who had worked long and hard on the new law.  A motion was made and then tabled.  The threat of dismissal sat out there on the table, hanging over the heads of the citizens on the Ethics Commission for weeks before it was finally voted down.      <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">This amendment should prevent the kind of treatment that occurred when there is a disagreement between the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> and citizens serving on an independent commission. As State Ethics laws and <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Maryland</st1:place></st1:State> county ethics codes typically provide, dismissal of Ethics Commission members should only be for good cause and with an opportunity for a hearing. We hope you will vote for this amendment and provide current and future Ethics Commission volunteers protection from threats of dismissal without an opportunity to be heard.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">I’d like to use the remainder of my time to draw your attention to an issue contained in the State Ethics Commission’s letter to you.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">In its July 25 letter to you, the State raised questions about the required conflicts of interest provision that prohibits County employees from working for a company that is doing business with their government agency.  You need to address the State’s questions. As the State notes, under our present law, it is not clear that such secondary employment is prohibited, as it must be if our code is to meet minimum State standards.  <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">If unresolved, this issue will surely come up when you resubmit the amended ethics law to the State Ethics Commission for a determination as to whether it now meets State requirements.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Arial Black" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial Black'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><B><U><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">Testimony on 06-26 � Appointment of Counsel for the Ethics Commission<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></U></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">This amendment makes no change in the present unsatisfactory situation concerning counsel for the Ethics Commission. You, the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>, appoint the Ethics Commission’s counsel.  Instead, we should follow the model of Cecil and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Dorchester</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Counties</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>, among others, and allow the Ethics Commission to appoint its own counsel.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">Look at a relevant episode that happened here in our county.  In the spring of 2005, you, the County Commissioners, launched an investigation of the volunteer citizens on the Ethics Commission, alleging that a letter written to a County employee as a result of an inquiry was “outside the scope and/or jurisdiction authority”.  The Ethics Commission’s attorney, appointed by the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>, advised it as to how to deal with the inquiry.  The Ethics Commission followed counsel’s advice. The counsel wrote, signed, and mailed the letter to the County employee.  <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">When the investigation that concerned this letter was launched, the Ethics commission had no lawyer to represent them. Their counsel was disqualified because she advised and wrote the letter.  The <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> hired a lawyer to conduct their investigation, but the Ethics Commission’s requests for a lawyer were ignored.  The volunteers on the Ethics Commission were on their own dealing with a government investigation which questioned their integrity and which required the production of pages and pages of documents and responses.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">It was only when an outraged former Maryland Attorney General came to the Ethics Commission’s defense, that this months-long investigation came to an abrupt end, absolving the Ethics Commission and its counsel.  Then the <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName>’ initial response was to refuse to pay these citizens’ legal bills because the lawyer who came to their rescue had not been hired by the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>!<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">Another, and this time hypothetical, scenario.  What if someone brings an ethics complaint against one or more of the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>?  Is it proper for the Ethics Commission be advised in this situation by the lawyer those <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> hired?  <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">An Ethics Commission has to be independent, and it has to have at all times the assistance of a lawyer who is well-versed in local and state ethics law and procedures, and who is responsible to the Ethics Commission alone.  You, the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>, appoint at your sole discretion the volunteer members, but you should not have sole responsibility for hiring the attorney who advises them on this complex law.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Arial Black" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial Black'"> </SPAN></FONT><B><U><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">Testimony on 06-27 � Authority to administer Oaths<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></U></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">This amendment to the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Ethics</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> Code would give the Ethics Commission the power to administer oaths and affirmations to persons testifying before it.  It is a good addition; it will increase the likelihood that testimony given in an Ethics Commission proceeding will be truthful.  <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">But it should be clearly understood that the authority to administer oaths is no substitute for the authority to issue subpoenas � that is, the ability to require the production of necessary documents and the ability to require the attendance of knowledgeable witnesses.  You cannot administer an oath to a person who declines to appear and testify � and under Queen Anne’s County law the Ethics Commission has no ability to require a person to appear and testify.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">The State Ethics Commission, in a letter dated July 26 this year, makes it quite clear that our <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Ethics</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> Commission should have <U>both</U> the authority to administer oaths and the authority to issue subpoenas.  The State Commission does not have the legal power to mandate inclusion of these powers in our Ethics Code, but it clearly recommends the adoption of both. Let me read the relevant paragraph from page 6 of the letter:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">“The Commission has consistently recommended that counties and municipalities consider including authority to administer oaths and issue subpoenas to the extent allowed by municipal and/or county law.  The absence of subpoena and oath authority would limit the ability of the local ethics commissions to conduct fact-finding related to particular allegations.  For example, business or financial records may be required to prove secondary employment by a local employee, or even the costs related to gifts given to local officials and employees. Subpoena use may also assist in financial disclosure matters.  Several counties, similar in size to Queen Anne’s County, have included the subpoena power in recently revised ethics ordinances.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B><B><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">When our Ethics Commission cannot review relevant documents or hear the testimony of knowledgeable witnesses it is severely hampered in its ability to make decisions which enforce the law.  A law that cannot be effectively enforced is a weak law. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
Count of comments: 0
Posted on 28 Sep 2006 by admin
PROGRESS, PROPOSALS, AND OMISSIONS
printable version
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Last week the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> made progress in getting the County’s Ethics Law to meet State standards.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Although they defeated, 3-2, the bundle of amendments submitted by Ethics Matters, they did pass two amendments that strengthen the law and move it closer to the minimum required by the State.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>The Commissioners also proposed some additional amendments which were either proposed by Ethics Matters or were modifications of amendments proposed by Ethics Matters.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Still unaddressed is an important Conflicts of Interest provision.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Ethics Amendments passed:</SPAN></FONT></U></B><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Amendment 06-12</SPAN></FONT></U> changes the definition of “family member” by removing the restriction of having to “reside in the same household with the official or employee.” in order to be considered a family member.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>The State Ethics Commission noted this problem which allowed officials to participate in decisions affecting their family members as long as they did not live in their house.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Amendment 06-12 also removed the Ethics Commission’s ability to exempt any part-time elected official or members of Boards or Commissions, etc. from any or all of the requirements of the Ethics law (gifts, ownership conflicts) if their outside employment did not affect their official duties.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>This change was made in response to a letter from the State Ethics Commission.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Amendment 06-13</SPAN></FONT></U> addresses the level of evidence required to find a violation of the Ethics law.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>The County had required “clear and convincing” evidence of an ethics violation yet did not allow the Ethics Commission the power to gather evidence or require witnesses to testify, thus making it impossible for the Commission to fulfill its duty of hearing and deciding complaints.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>The problem with their standard of evidence was pointed out to the County by the State Ethics Commission in two letters dated April 2005 and July 2006.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Making the change was resisted by the majority of the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> after each letter.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Apparently the State has made their position abundantly clear in yet another exchange, for the Commissioners voted 5-0 to change the standard of evidence to a “preponderance.”<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Ethics Amendments proposed:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></U></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Amendment 06-23</SPAN></FONT></U> adds a number of Boards and Commissions to those that are subject to all provisions of the Ethics Law.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>It also makes it clear that members of any board or commission that has decision making authority are subject to all provisions of the Ethics Law.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>This amendment is proposed in response to the State Ethics Commission’s letter.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Amendment 06-24</SPAN></FONT></U> straightens out some of the problems the State noted with the lobbying provisions.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Amendment 06-25</SPAN></FONT></U> addresses the procedures for removing a member of the Ethics Commission.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Amendment 06-26</SPAN></FONT></U> addresses the appointment of special counsel to the Ethics Commission.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Amendment 06-27</SPAN></FONT></U> authorizes the Ethics Commission to administer oaths and affirmations.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Amendment 06-28 </SPAN></FONT></U><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>includes lobbyists among those from whom a County official or employee cannot receive gifts and clarifies the exemption provision.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>This amendment is made in response to the State Ethics Commission’s letter.<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">Ethics Provisions omitted:</SPAN></FONT></U></B><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">   </SPAN>Ethics Matters continues to be concerned about the omission of a <U>Conflicts of Interest provision</U> required by the State.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>The provision was in the proposed law reviewed by the State in August 2005, but omitted in the law as it was passed in November 2005.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>It prohibits being employed by or having a financial interest in an entity that is doing business with the governmental unit with which the official or employee is affiliated.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>In its July 2006, the State questioned this omission, and asked the County whether and how it has addressed this issue.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">            </SPAN>Ethics Matters regrets that the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> refuse to give the Ethics Commission and respondents to an ethics complaint the ability to require that relevant evidence be produced and witnesses required to testify (<U>subpoena power</U>).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>To quote the State Ethics Commission’s July 2006 letter to Queen Anne’s County: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">“The (State Ethics) Commission has consistently recommended that counties and municipalities consider including authority to administer oaths and issue subpoenas to the extent allowed by municipal and/or County law.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>The absence of subpoenas and oath authority would limit the ability of the local ethics commissions to conduct fact-finding related to particular allegations.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>For example, business or financial records may be required to prove secondary employment, or even the costs related to gifts given to local officials and employees.”<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The County has proposed an amendment that gives the County Ethics Commission the authority to administer oaths.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>But this addition is little help to the Commission if it is unable to require witnesses to testify.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 3">                                    </SPAN><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
Count of comments: 0
Posted on 15 Sep 2006 by admin
ETHICS INVESTIGATION UNDERWAY
printable version
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">In an Executive Session at its meeting on Monday, August 21, the County Ethics Commission reviewed a complaint brought against a former County official and the former official’s response.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Following the closed session review, the Ethics Commission announced it would investigate a number of allegations in the complaint.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Included in the investigation are charges of conflict of interest (for holding or acquiring an interest of more than 51% in a business entity regulated by the official’s agency) and of failure to fill out the section of the financial disclosure form regarding interests held in property in Queen Anne’s County. </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Ethics</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> Commission Meetings are open to the public, except when they are in Executive session. The minutes of their meetings, including the announcement of actions taken in Executive Session, are public record.</P>
Count of comments: 0
Posted on 25 Aug 2006 by admin
SOME ETHICS LAW PROGRESS
printable version
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Ethics Matters’ proposed amendments to the County Ethics Law were the subject of the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>’ workshop on August 15.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>The amendments, requested and introduced by Commissioner Ransom, were discussed in light of a letter received by the County from Mr. Robert Hahn, Counsel to the State Ethics Commission. </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">The majority of Ethics Matters’ proposed amendments were aimed at making the County ethics law meet at least the minimum standard required of counties by the State.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Mr. Hahn’s comments addressed Ethics Matters proposed amendments in view of those requirements.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>The Commissioners evidently agreed to accept most of the proposed amendments, although no vote was taken. </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">The amendments that drew the most discussion and became the sticking points were the amendment giving the Ethics Commission subpoena power and the amendment changing the level of evidence required to find a violation of the ethics law from “clear and convincing evidence” to “a preponderance of evidence.”<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">There seemed to be an acknowledgement that the Ethics Commission can not do its duty of hearing and deciding complaints when it is unable to require either evidence or witnesses, yet must have “clear and convincing evidence” in order to determine a violation of the law.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>There was no resolution of this problem, instead a request to Mr. Thompson, the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Attorney</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>, to ask Mr. Hahn whether the State was requiring or suggesting the change from “clear and convincing” to “preponderance.”<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Although the State did not require that the County Ethics Commission be given subpoena power, the Hahn letter recommended it.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">At the end of the workshop there was talk of drafting a new bill containing the agreed-upon amendments, and the request that Mr. Thompson consult Mr. Hahn on the evidence issue. There was no date established for either of these actions.</P>
Count of comments: 0
Posted on 25 Aug 2006 by admin
PROPOSALS TO FIX COUNTY ETHICS LAW ARE FINALLY ON THE TABLE
printable version
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">At the August 1<SUP>st</SUP> <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>meeting of the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>, Commissioner Gene Ransom introduced further amendments to the County Ethics Law.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>These amendments were prepared by Ethics Matters at Mr. Ransom’s request.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Before our current Ethics Law was passed in November 2005, Ethics Matters had contended that it would fall short of meeting the minimum State standard for County ethics laws.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Ethics Matters has continued to express its distress both to the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> and to the State Ethics Commission over the disservice to the County that is done by an unlawful Ethics Law.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">In June, Mr. Ransom introduced two amendments to the County Ethics Law. At the hearing on the amendments, Ethics Matters, along with other Queen Anne’s County citizens, told the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> that the Ransom amendments were “a good first step,” but there were still deficiencies in the code that would keep it from meeting minimum State standards. A number of citizens stated that they wanted an ethics code that met more than the minimum requirements; they wanted a code the County could be proud of - a model code.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">After introducing his two amendments, Mr. Ransom asked Ethics Matters to propose further amendments to the County Ethics Law in order to bring our law up to the minimum standard. Mr. Ransom introduced the amendments proposed by Ethics Matters on August 1<SUP>st</SUP>.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN>Besides providing Mr. Ransom with the amendments, Ethics Matters submitted them to the State Ethics Commission for comment.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Mr. Hahn, Counsel to the State Ethics Commission, responded in a letter dated July 25, 2006 which discussed all the amendments currently before the Commissioners.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">This Tuesday, August 15 at 2:30 in the Commissioners Meeting Room, the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> will have a workshop on all of the pending amendments to the Ethics Law. Mr. Hahn’s letter is certain to be part of the discussion. It is our understanding that Mr. Thompson, the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Attorney</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>, will be present.</P>
Count of comments: 0
Posted on 11 Aug 2006 by admin
COMMISSIONERS TAKE UP ETHICS -- AGAIN
printable version
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Last night, July 25, at the County Commissioners’ meeting, there was a public hearing but no vote on Bills 06-12 and 06-13 which correct a few of the problems with the current ethics code.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>There was a good public turn-out, and quite a few people spoke in favor the bills; none spoke against. Among the people who spoke on behalf of the two bills were EMI Board members, Terry Babb, Mary Campbell, and Stan Ruddie.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Below are the statements made by Mary Campbell on behalf of Ethics Matters.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">The additional amendments prepared by Ethics Matters at Commissioner Ransom’s request were not introduced at this meeting as anticipated. (To see the amendments click on the first item under Commentary at <A href="http://www.ethicsmattersinc.org/">www.ethicsmattersinc.org</A> ).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Apparently Mr. Ransom was not able to introduce them because although posted on the County website as a Legislative Day, they somehow decided otherwise.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Mr. Ransom has told Ethics Matters that he will introduce our amendments at the Commissioners’ Legislative Day meeting next Tuesday, August 1.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><U>Bill 06-12 � Statement of Mary Campbell for Ethics Matters<o:p></o:p></U></I></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">You should pass this bill because, as the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Attorney</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> said a few weeks ago, it corrects mistakes in our ethics law.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>I would add - serious mistakes.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>One mistake allows the Ethics Commission to exempt you Commissioners or members of a part time Board or Commission from the entire ethics code if your other job does not affect your official duties.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>So if you sell cars in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Annapolis</st1:place></st1:City>, you could be exempted from having to comply with any or all requirements of the ethics code. </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">The other mistaken provision allows a County official to make a decision on behalf of the County on a matter that has a direct financial impact on a family member just as long as that family member doesn’t live in the same house as the official.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Eliminating these mistakes will be a good step toward making our law comply with State requirements.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>But you need to take more steps because there are other problems with our County’s ethics law - problems that keep us from meeting the minimum ethical standard required by the state.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>For just one example, in our County a government official can own a company that’s doing business with his County agency. A provision prohibiting such a conflict-ridden situation is required by the State; and was in all earlier versions of this law. This provision helps assure the public that its government officials will act for the common good and not for private financial gain.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>It should be restored to our ethics code.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Please, pass this bill, but don’t stop here.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>In fact, don’t stop until you have provided this County with a decent ethics law.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>It is embarrassing to the citizens at large as well as to honest and conscientious government employees to live and work in a county whose ethical standards are so low that they do not meet even the minimum requirements of the State.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Queen Anne’s County deserves an ethics code it can be proud of.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><U><o:p><SPAN style="TEXT-DECORATION: none"> </SPAN></o:p></U></I></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><U>Bill <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>06-13 Statement for Ethics Matters by Mary Campbell<o:p></o:p></U></I></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><U><o:p><SPAN style="TEXT-DECORATION: none"> </SPAN></o:p></U></I></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">It is the statutory duty of the Ethics Commission to hear and decide complaints alleging a violation of the Ethics Law. In your ethics law passed last fall, you refused to give the Ethics Commission � and the person complained about - the ability to require relevant evidence and testimony at the complaint hearing.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>And on top of that you insist that the Ethics Commission have “clear and convincing” evidence in order to find a violation of the law.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>So they must have clear and convincing evidence to find a violation, but they cannot require witnesses to testify or relevant evidence to be produced. Unless there is a very blatant violation, this is a recipe to hamstring the Ethics Commission; they are kept from seeing violations of the ethics law, and so they can’t enforce it.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><U><o:p></o:p></U></I></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">The justification for making our ethics law unenforceable in this way seems to be that citizens on Boards and Commission need to be protected from the volunteer citizens serving on Ethics Commission.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">   </SPAN>So to do this, you make the ethics law � which applies to all of County government, not just to Boards and Commissions � unenforceable. Of course the person complained about should have the full protection of the law. But the way to achieve that protection is not to make the ethics law unenforceable. How can you deny the Ethics Commission the ability to require relevant testimony and evidence while at the same time insisting that it have “clear and convincing” evidence to establish a violation? It is a set up that makes your ethics law just an unenforceable piece of paper.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">We know of no other <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Maryland</st1:place></st1:State> county ethics law that is set up this way.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>While this bill does not give the Ethics Commission the ability to require relevant evidence, it does make the standard of evidence necessary to find a violation in keeping with other counties and in accordance with the State’s August 30, 2005 letter to you.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>And it helps our County overcome the unfortunate distinction we currently have � that of the county whose ethics law does not meet the minimum requirements of the State, while at the same time being the County with the least enforceable ethics law in the State.</P>
Count of comments: 0
Posted on 26 Jul 2006 by admin
PUBLIC HEARING ON ETHICS BILLS. ETHICS MATTERS' AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED
printable version
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">There will be a public hearing on two ethics bills, 06-12 and 06-13, on July 25 at 7:15 in the Commissioners’ meeting room.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>In addition, it is our understanding that at this meeting Commissioner Ransom will introduce the amendments proposed by Ethics Matters (see “Ethics Matters Gives Ransom Amendments to Ethics Code” below). </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">As you know, the new Queen Anne’s County ethics code, passed last November, has not been approved by the State Ethics Commission.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>County ethics codes are required by State law to meet certain standards in regard to conflicts of interest, lobbying, and financial disclosure.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Our County ethics law does not meet these standards.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Commissioner Ransom’s two bills, 06-12 and 06-13, if passed, will correct some, but not all, of the problems with our ethics code. Bill 06-12 addresses the definitions of “family member” and “executive action” as well as eliminating a condition forgiving part time officials from being subject to the ethics code.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Bill 06-13 changes the standard of evidence necessary to find a violation of the ethics code from “clear and convincing” to “a preponderance of evidence.”<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Realizing that even with the changes incorporated in his two bills, the County’s ethics code still falls short of State requirements, Mr. Ransom recently asked Ethics Matters to propose a full set of correcting amendments.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Ethics Matters and its counsel (former State Attorney General Stephen Sachs and ethics law expert Avery Aisenstark) responded with amendments that would result in an ethics law that meets State’s standards and provides for an independent Ethics Commission with the ability to fulfill its statutory duties. It is these amendments Commissioner Ransom plans to introduce.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>(For the amendments and explanatory comments, see the first item under Commentary on this website.)</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Our county’s ethics law was three long, difficult years in the making.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>It is an embarrassment that it does not meet the minimum standard required by the State.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Queen Anne’s County, its employees, officials, and the general citizenry, deserve an ethics code they can be proud of.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>Democracy depends on the citizens’ ability to trust their government to act in the public’s behalf; a good, fair ethics code is the foundation of that trust.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
Count of comments: 0
Posted on 17 Jul 2006 by admin
ETHICS MATTERS GIVES RANSOM AMENDMENTS TO ETHICS CODE
printable version
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"></B> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">In response to a request from Commissioner Ransom, Ethics Matters and its counsel have proposed amendments to the QAC Ethics Code. These revisions would result in a Code that:</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">            </SPAN><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>1) meets minimum State standards; </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">            </SPAN><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>2) creates an independent Ethics Commission that is not inappropriately subject to the will of the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>; and</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">            </SPAN>3) enables the Ethics Commission to perform its statutory duty of “hearing and deciding” complaints effectively.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">To see the precedents in other counties and to understand how the current code falls short of State standards, go to Commentary on this website for the proposed amendments and comments.</SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">The following is a summary of the proposed amendments:</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><U>Applicability</U>.</B> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">            </SPAN>Ensures that Boards and Commissions are properly covered by ethics rules according to State law.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><U>Definitions</U>.</B><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">   </SPAN><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">            </SPAN>Corrects overly narrow definitions of “executive action” and “family member.” </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><U>Ethics Commission</U></B>.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">            </SPAN>Removes broad and unnecessary disqualifications for membership on the Ethics Commission.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">            </SPAN>Restricts power of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> to dismiss the Ethics Commissioners without good cause and proper proceedings.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">            </SPAN>Empowers Ethics Commission to select its own counsel, instead of having counsel both selected and paid by <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><U>Ethics Commission Hearings</U></B><U>.</U> <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">            </SPAN>Provides Commission and respondent(s) with ability to obtain evidence necessary to resolve complaints.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">            </SPAN>Makes burden of proof necessary to find an ethics violation appropriate to a civil offence and in keeping with other counties. </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><U>Conflicts of Interest</U></B><U>.</U> <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">            </SPAN>Restores restrictions (removed from current law) on County officials’ ownership and employment connections with companies doing business with their County agency.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">            </SPAN>Recognizes that officials’ contractual relationships (e.g. consulting, attorney-client) with private parties can give rise to conflicts of interest.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><U>Gifts.</U></B> <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">            </SPAN>Restores restriction on gifts from lobbyists.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">            </SPAN>Empowers Ethics Commission to exempt specific gifts or classes of gifts on a written finding they are not detrimental to impartial conduct of County business.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><U>Exemptions.</U></B> <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="mso-tab-count: 1">            </SPAN>Corrects over-broad power to exempt part-time County officials and others from all the ethics rules.</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
Count of comments: 0
Posted on 09 Jul 2006 by admin
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE GETTING BACK ON TRACK
printable version
<P class=MsoNormal><B><I><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-STYLE: italic"></SPAN></FONT></U></I></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Ethics Matters is pleased to report that the financial disclosure requirements of the ethics law are now back on the road to being implemented.  Ethics Matters’ attorney Stephen Sachs wrote County Attorney Patrick Thompson expressing Ethics Matters’ belief that the County had improperly distributed obsolete financial disclosure forms and had not met the legal requirements of the new law. (See Sachs letter to Thompson re financial disclosure in Documents on this website)  Subsequently, the County Ethics Commission voted last week to distribute a financial disclosure form that carries out the requirements of the current ethics law.   <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The new disclosure form will be distributed following a 14 day public comment period.  The deadline for completion of the financial disclosure form has been extended to April 10.  You can view the proposed form at the Ethics Commissions website on the County website (<A title=http://www.qac.org/ href="http://www.qac.org/">www.qac.org</A>.)..<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">There are still some problems with the financial disclosure form as posted on the County website.  Ethics Matters has submitted comments to the Ethics Commission pointing out them out.   Below is a summary of the problems.  (For a complete account, see Ethics Matters’ comments on financial disclosure form under Documents)<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">(1)  There are a number of key words and phrases used in the disclosure form that have a special meaning in the context of the Ethics code.  They are carefully defined in the definition section of the code.  But the definitions are not provided as part of the financial disclosure form.  This lack of information is sure to cause filers to omit required information, which defeats the purpose of financial disclosure � accountability to the public -- and subjects officials/employees to complaints for non-disclosure.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">(2)  Unfortunately, in the one instance where the form seems to provide a definition, it misleadingly provides only a partial definition and so invites evasion of the disclosure required by law.  The form states that “reportable real estate holdings or interests include those held individually, jointly, in partnership or corporately,” omitting the rest of the definition, including “directly <U>or indirectly</U>.”  This is a serious omission that could invite evasion of the disclosure required by the law.  For example, a person filing the form might take the position that he does not need to report an ownership interest in a parent corporation whose subsidiary owns real estate in the County, claiming that he does not “individually, jointly, in partnership, or corporately “own real estate in the County, inasmuch as the only corporation he has an interest in is not itself an owner of County real estate.  It should be made clear, by providing the complete definition, that ownership interests held “indirectly” must be disclosed as required by law.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">(3)  A third problem with the disclosure form is its expansion of the code’s provision requiring disclosure of “any office, directorship, partnership, or salaried employment in any business entity” held by an official/employee or spouse.  The form expands this to include such positions held by a family member in the household.  While this may be a good idea, the form cannot add requirements that are not written in the law it is implementing.  Perhaps the Ethics Commission may want to suggest this expansion of accountability as one of the amendments to the new law.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><I><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-STYLE: italic"><o:p><SPAN style="TEXT-DECORATION: none"> </SPAN></o:p></SPAN></FONT></U></I></B><B><I><U><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-STYLE: italic">Ethics Standards for Planning and Zoning Boards<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></U></I></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">            Ethics Matters gave testimony in support of Del. Smigiel’s bill, HB 85, to establish a “Task Force to Create Standards of Ethics for Planning and Zoning Boards.”  You can read the testimony in Documents on this website. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p> February 3, 2006</o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
Count of comments: 0
Posted on 07 Jul 2006 by admin
AMENDMENTS OFFER PARTIAL FIX FOR ETHICS LAW SHORTCOMINGS
printable version

<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calisto MT" size="3"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Calisto MT';">          <font size="2"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">  On Tuesday, June 6, Commissioner Gene Ransom introduced two amendments to the County’s new Ethics Law.  The first amendment addresses and corrects two problems ( the definition of “family member” and the exception/modification provision) raised by the State Ethics Commission in its April letter to the County stating that it could not approve the County’s new Ethics Law.  </span><o:p style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;"></o:p></font></span></font></p> <p style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p>          </o:p></span></font><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> Ransom’s second amendment deals with the level of evidence necessary to establish a violation of the Ethics Law.  When the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype> <st1:placename w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:placename></st1:place> revised the Ethics Commission’s proposed Ethics Law, they raised the level of proof necessary to find a violation to “clear and convincing evidence” and at the same time removed the Ethics Commission’s ability to subpoena evidence.   These actions stripped the Ethics Commission of its ability to enforce the Ethics Code.  If an independent Ethics Commission is unable to gather and examine evidence, how can it find whether there is “clear and convincing evidence” of wrong-doing?  It’s equivalent to not letting the Health Department inspect the restaurant kitchen when people have complained about getting sick after eating there.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p>           </o:p></span></font><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This second Ransom amendment lowers the burden of proof necessary to find a violation back to “a preponderance of the evidence,” but, critically, it does not restore the subpoena power that was in the draft law proposed by the Ethics Commission.  The Ethics Commission, lacking the power necessary to gather and examine evidence from uncooperative persons, remains hamstrung and ineffective when deciding complaints.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">          </span></font><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Ethics Matters believes there are other problems with the new Ethics Law that keep it from meeting State standards.  Under the new Ethics Law:</span></font></p> <p style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">                        </span></font><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">-<b><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span></b></span>a government official or employee can have a financial interest in or be employed by a company that is doing business with his or her government agency;  <o:p></o:p></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: 0.5in; font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;"><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">- some officials who make decisions on behalf of the public have no accountability in the form of a financial disclosure requirement;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.25in; font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;"><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">                  - large numbers of County employees do not have to meet any of the standards of the Ethics Code; and<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.25in; font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;"><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">                  - two provisions pertaining to lobbying have been weakened.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.25in; font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;"><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></font><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Queen Anne’s County needs to have a strong Ethics Code that county employees and other citizens can take pride in.  Sadly, we have a code the State cannot approve because it does not even meet minimum State standards.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.25in; font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;"><font size="2"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p> June 12, 2006</o:p></span></font></p>
Count of comments: 0
Posted on 12 Jun 2006 by admin
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION DOES NOT APPROVE NEW ETHICS CODE
printable version
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">The State Ethics Commission has declined to approve the new County Ethics Law introduced by Mr. Cassell and adopted unanimously by the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> in November of 2005. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">Ethics Matters has learned that the State Ethics Commission sent a letter of disapproval to the County on April 26, 2006, citing problems with the County’s law as enacted. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">Maryland State Law requires that the provisions of county ethics laws be “similar to” the provisions of the State Ethics Law governing conflicts of interest, gifts, and lobbying.  The State Ethics Commission reviews and approves county ethics laws based on this “similar to” standard.  <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt">The problems cited by the State<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">The first of  two problems cited by the State in its April 26 letter is the provision in the new County ethics law that allows a government official to decide on matters that directly affect a business owned by the official’s brother, sister, parent or child, as long as they don’t live in the official’s household. That means, according to the new County law, a government official can discuss and decide on a contract between the County and a company owned by his son.  There is no longer a requirement for the County official to recuse him or herself in this situation.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">The State Ethics Commission also expressed its concern over the new exemption authority.  It allows the County Ethics Commission to exempt the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> (or any other part-time official) from all the major provisions of the ethics law if the official’s outside employment does not present a conflict with his or her official duties. Thus, under the new Ethics Law, a Commissioner who is retired, or manages a movie theatre, or works for United Airlines, could be exempted from all major provisions of the ethics code including the receipt of gifts or conflicts due to property ownership or business interests held.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt">More problems<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">Ethics Matters believes that in addition to the problems thus far cited by the State, there are additional shortcomings in the County’s new law that stand in the way of its approval by the State.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">The County misled the State about the new law.  In August of 2005, the State found problems in an earlier version of Mr. Cassell’s proposed law and recommended specific changes.  In its December 20, 2005 letter transmitting the newly enacted law to the State Ethics Commission, the County assured the State that the law “as written, now incorporates all of the recommendations made in the State Ethics Commission’s letter to us dated August 30, 2005.”  That assurance to the State was not the truth.  The truth is the Commissioners removed an important State recommendation regarding the level of evidence in ethics cases before shortly before they enacted the law.  <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">The Commissioners will have to provide the County with a new lawful, amended Ethics Law.  There are other questionable aspects to the law they should consider fixing.  One is the change that made it acceptable for a government official or employee to have a financial interest in, or be employed by, a company that is doing business with his or her government agency.  Another is the provision that removes large numbers of County employees from meeting any of the standards of the Ethics code.  The Commissioners should also revisit a couple of their earlier amendments that weaken some of the regulations concerning lobbyists. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"> </SPAN></FONT><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 14pt">Query<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">The Board of Ethics Matters read the State’s letter at their May meeting.  Board members wondered, “How it is possible that, after three years in the making, our County has ended up with an unlawful ethics law - one that the State cannot approve.  Many counties exceed State requirements.  Why is it so hard for us just to meet them? “ <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE NEW QAC ETHICS LAW<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">May 13, 2003</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> ask QAC Ethics Commission to update 1984 County Ethics Law<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><B><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Summer 2004</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"> QAC Ethics Commission sends completed draft of proposed updated Ethics Law to State Ethics Commission for comment, is told that the State would likely approve the proposed law if passed<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><B><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">September 2, 2004 </SPAN></FONT></B><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">QAC Ethics Commission submits proposed Ethics Law to <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><B><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">December 20, 2004</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"> Commissioners hold workshop on proposed Ethics Law<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><B><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">February 15, 2005</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"> Proposed Law, with changes, introduced as 05-04 by Mr. Koval<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><B><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">March 8, 2005</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"> Public Hearing on 05-04<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><B><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">May 17, 2005</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"> Commissioners amend 05-04; amended law is introduced by Mr. Cassell as 05-04 � Amendment No.1<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><B><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">June 7, 2005</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"> The then-chair of County Ethics Commission tells <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> at Press and Public Comment that some of their amendments are unlawful, especially in regard to Conflicts of Interest and the inability of the Ethics Commission to enforce the law, and that 05-04, Amendment No. 1 could not be approved by the State Ethics Commission.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><B><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">August 27, 2005</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"> State Ethics Commission sends letter to the County both requiring changes and recommending changes to 05-04, Amendment No. 1.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><B><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">November 15, 2005</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName>’ Workshop on <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Attorney</st1:PlaceName></st1:place>’s 05-04 � Amendment No. 2 “incorporating” State Ethics Commissions comments.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">                 Commissioners make other changes that are incorporated into 05-04 � Amendment No. 3, introduced by Mr. Cassell.   </SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">                 </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">Chair of Ethics Matters tells Commissioners at Press and Public Comment that 05-04-Amendment No. 3 contains unlawful provisions and it could not be approved by the State<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">                  <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> unanimously pass 05-04 Amendment No. 3, to become County’s new ethics law December 30, 2006<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><B><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">December 20, 2005  </SPAN></FONT></B><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">County sends State Ethics Commission a copy of 05-04, Amendment No. 3<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT><B><FONT face=Garamond size=3><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">April 26, 2006  </SPAN></FONT></B><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">State Ethics Commission informs <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">County</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Commissioners</st1:PlaceName></st1:place> that it can not approve 05-04 Amendment No. 3.</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Garamond><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Garamond">May 16, 2006<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
Count of comments: 0
Posted on 16 May 2006 by admin

<< Previous 1 2 3 Next >>

Powered by CuteNews