My copy of the pamphlet on the 1979 Maryland Public Ethics Law
and some thoughts on the current Maryland Ethics disclosure law.
For your files, please find from my old papers a copy of a
pamphlet that the State Dept. of Legislative References published in early 1979
about the newly enacted Maryland Public Ethics Law which went into effect on
July 1, 1979.
I have long-since forgotten the context of the law or what particular
incident may have precipitated the law.
I do remember that at the time fulfilling the requirements
of the law were relatively effortless and unremarkable.
According to some individuals close to the situation, “legislation
enacted by the Maryland General Assembly in 2010 required local ethics ordinances
to be at least as stringent as state law. At the time, many municipal
government officials expressed alarm over the breadth of the new financial
disclosure requirements. Municipal officials were concerned that the broad
requirements would deter capable new candidates from seeking local office and
influence current elected officials to decline to seek reelection.
“Bills introduced in the 2014 session of the General
Assembly by Senator Raskin and Delegates Gilchrist and Haddaway-Riccio sought
to exempt local municipal elected officials from disclosing certain items.
In 2015, the Maryland Municipal League is taking a different
approach to this legislation. Rather than exempting elected municipal officials
and candidates for municipal office from filing financial disclosure
statements, or certain information therein, this legislation would shield
certain confidential information from public inspection absent a finding by a
local ethics commission of a violation of any part of the municipalities’
financial disclosure or conflict of interest requirements.
“Specifically, the law would shield information regarding a
spouse or dependent child, and, unless related to a business entity with which
the municipality has conducted business within the last 10 years, the candidate
or elected official’s interests in real property located outside the municipal
corporation, interests in corporations, partnerships, and limited liability
companies, employment information, and indebtedness.
“All of the above information would still be reported and
submitted to the local ethics commission, be available to the local board of
elections, and to the courts; however, it would not be releasable to the public
absent a finding by the ethics commission of a violation.”
I was elected to the Common Council of the City of
Westminster in 1999 and served as Mayor from 2001 until 2005. In these capacities, and particularly as
Mayor, I expended numerous hours engaged in activities in furtherance of the
interests of the City and its residents and businesses.
At all times during my elected service, I worked in
non-City-related employment, as a businessman, farmer, artist, and free-lance
journalist.
I currently find the requirements of the Model Ordinance to be
unreasonably burdensome. Although, in my capacity as an elected official, I
thoroughly understand that I have no reasonable expectation of privacy as to
information that is relevant to my service as a municipal employee, the Model
Ordinance presents an opportunity for an excessive arbitrary invasion of my
personal privacy, unrelated to the purpose and intent of the State Public
Ethics Law, because the required disclosures would include information neither
relevant, material, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the disclosure of
pertinent information related in any way to my public service.
I take pride and satisfaction in my past service for our
citizens as an elected official in Westminster, notwithstanding the fact that
my expenses as an elected official exceeded the compensation provided by the
Charter of the City of Westminster
I am unaware of any conduct by a City elected official or by
a candidate for City elective office during my tenure that presented either a
conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest that would have
been identified and corrected by the Model Ordinance but that would have been
missed by the City’s Proposed Ordinance.
In my view, the provisions of the Model Ordinance, if not
modified and revised as set forth in the City’s Proposed Ordinance, impose a
substantial hardship and an undue intrusion upon the personal privacy of
persons who choose to run for and serve in public office in the City of
Westminster, without accomplishing any significant benefit in terms of
protecting the public that would justify the hardship or invasion of privacy.
Although I, along with current and former municipal officials
throughout the state, understand that in order for municipal government, the
government that is closest to the people, to be effective, it must be
transparent and open, approachable and accessible.
Strong ethics ordinances are critical for local government
to effective, vibrant and meaningful.
My family has been involved in municipal government for
many-generations dating back to before the 1890s. It is my insight that
adoption of the Model Ordinance is over-kill and as such would significantly
reduce the availability of qualified individuals for public service and
encourages currently- elected officials to decline to seek reelection.
I do not know the status of the current legislation in the
Maryland General Assembly. I do know that the current law is so severe,
punishing and draconian that many good folks who would make great local
municipal officials have quietly opted-out of participating in local government
as a result of the new law.
Many current officials have determined that it is punitive
in nature but find themselves unwilling to publicly challenge it for fear of
being subjected to political and media ridicule – so they have simply decided
to quietly opt-out from serving.
It should be further noted that no one can serve in public
office without the support of their family. Family members across the state
have objected to disclosing aspects of their personal life that have nothing to
do with the material conduct of municipal government.
The nature and breadth of issues that municipal government
officials deal with are far narrower than those that state and even county
officials address. It stands to reason that the nature and breadth of financial
disclosure of municipal officials versus state officials should parallel those
differences.
Just saying
