PROGRESS, PROPOSALS, AND OMISSIONS @ 15 Sep 2006

Last week the County Commissioners made progress in getting the County’s Ethics Law to meet State standards. 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. The Commissioners also proposed some additional amendments which were either proposed by Ethics Matters or were modifications of amendments proposed by Ethics Matters. Still unaddressed is an important Conflicts of Interest provision.

Ethics Amendments passed:
Amendment 06-12 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. 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.

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. This change was made in response to a letter from the State Ethics Commission

Amendment 06-13 addresses the level of evidence required to find a violation of the Ethics law. 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. 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. Making the change was resisted by the majority of the County Commissioners after each letter.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.”

Ethics Amendments proposed:

Amendment 06-23 adds a number of Boards and Commissions to those that are subject to all provisions of the Ethics Law. 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. This amendment is proposed in response to the State Ethics Commission’s letter.

Amendment 06-24 straightens out some of the problems the State noted with the lobbying provisions.
Amendment 06-26 addresses the appointment of special counsel to the Ethics Commission
Amendment 06-27 authorizes the Ethics Commission to administer oaths and affirmations
Amendment 06-28 includes lobbyists among those from whom a County official or employee cannot receive gifts and clarifies the exemption provision. This amendment is made in response to the State Ethics Commission’s letter.

Ethics Provisions omitted:
Ethics Matters continues to be concerned about the omission of a Conflicts of Interest provision required by the State. 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. 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.

Ethics Matters regrets that the County Commissioners 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 (subpoena power). To quote the State Ethics Commission’s July 2006 letter to Queen Anne’s County:

“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. The absence of subpoenas 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, or even the costs related to gifts given to local officials and employees.”

The County has proposed an amendment that gives the County Ethics Commission the authority to administer oaths. But this addition is little help to the Commission if it is unable to require witnesses to testify.