Annual Report

STATE ETHICS COMMISSION

Twenty-Fifth Annual Report

January 1, 2003 - December 31, 2003

GENERAL STATUTORY IMPLEMENTATION

The State Ethics Commission met in regular session 9 times during Calendar Year 2003 and considered issues related to all areas of its statutory mandate: financial disclosure, conflict of interest, lobbyist disclosure and conduct restrictions, local government ethics laws, school board ethics regulations, advisory opinions, enforcement matters, employee training, lobbyist training and public information activities. In addition to the regularly scheduled meetings, it met two additional times to conduct contested case hearings.

Dominating the early part of the year were issues related to the change in administration, which gave rise to questions relating to the transition from one administration to another. Additionally, in calendar year 2003, contested cases and litigation in the courts played a significant role in the business conducted by the Commission. One matter carried over from calendar year 2002, Miles et al; v. State Ethics Commission, Case No. C-2002-81420DJ, was dismissed with consent of the parties due to the enactment of HB 1074 (Chapter 470), which specifically exempted Assistant State’s Attorneys and Deputy Sheriffs, who are recognized as public officials, from the requirement of filing annual financial disclosure statements. Delegate Sophocleus, who is an employee of the Anne Arundel State’s Attorneys Office, introduced this bill, which was incorporated into the Public Ethics Law in § 15-601(c). Litigation continued in the assessment of a fine connected with the State Ethics Commission v. Antonetti, 365 Md. 428 (1991) matter, and this issue was finally settled in December 2003 with the assessment of a $7,500 fine.

The Commission staff conducted 18 general ethics training programs, in Baltimore and Crownsville, for employees who are required to file financial disclosure statements. Nine hundred sixty-nine employees attended those sessions, and the attendees’ evaluation forms were overwhelmingly favorable with regard to content and presentation. In addition to the 18 scheduled ethics training programs, we made seven additional ethics presentations to 209 additional State employees and public officials associated with: Towson University, the Board of Physicians, the Health Care Commission, the Allegany Co. DSS; the Department of Agriculture; the Montgomery County Clerks of the Court; and the Cecil County Department of Social Services.

During the 2003 legislative session, House Bills 1074 and 191 were successfully enacted. House Bill 1074, signed into law by Governor Ehrlich on May 22, 2003, and enacted in Chapter 470 of the General Laws of Maryland, specifically identified the offices of the Sheriff in each county and the offices of the State’s Attorney in each county as “Executive Units” and exempted deputy sheriffs and all other employees in each Sheriff’s office and deputy or assistant State’s Attorneys and all employees in the office of each State’s Attorney’s office from the requirement of filing annual financial disclosure statements. House Bill 191, signed into law by Governor Ehrlich on May 13, 2003, and enacted in Chapter 283 of the General Laws of Maryland, increased the lobbying registration fee from $20 per registration to $50 per registration. This increase was required in order to meet the rising costs of administrating the lobbying program and providing mandatory training for lobbyists. The increased lobbying fee became effective October 1, 2003.

In June, the Commission conducted a contested case hearing on charges of lobbying violations by lobbyist Bruce Bereano. The Commission issued its decision and public order finding a violation of §15-713(1), being engaged for lobbying purposes for contingent compensation. That case, which was appealed in the Anne Arundel Circuit Court, was transferred to the Howard County Circuit Court and is scheduled for hearing on the Petition for Judicial Review on June 1, 2004.

In June 2003, Commissioner Michael May completed his second full term and retired, and also in June, Chairman Charles O. Monk Jr. resigned from the Commission because he had undertaken additional responsibilities for a community organization. Ava Feiner, Ph.D., and Robert Scholz, Esquire were appointed to their respective vacated positions.

Our fiscal year 2004 budget was approved for $731,144 (General Funds of $686,034 and Special Funds of $45,110), which in June was reduced by $35,000 for cost containment, and another $10,654 was removed from the General Fund Allocation, leaving us with an actual budget allocation of $685,490

In September 2003, we began work with the Executive Department’s new IT staff to develop a program for electronic filing for financial disclosure statements. We were fortunate in that the Montgomery County Ethics Commission, which had already developed an electronic filing process, agreed to share their software with the Commission. Although the development of an electronic filing program for State employees and Public Officials was not completed in 2003, some of the basic work on the program was accomplished. The Commission anticipates having a fully operational electronic filing system in place for financial disclosure filers by February 2005, in time to file the financial disclosure reports for 2004.

September also saw the electronic debut on our web site of the Commission’s first newsletter. It contains articles of interest to lobbyists, State employees and public officials as well as profiles of the Commissioners. The Commission intends to publish the newsletter quarterly on its web site and include information that will be helpful to all of its stakeholders.

On October 23, 2003, the Commission hosted a Statewide Ethics Conference to which staff and members of the local jurisdictions’ various ethics boards and commissions were invited. The conference took place in Annapolis and the meetings and panel discussions were conducted in the Legislative Services Building, Joint Committee Hearing Room and the President’s Conference Room in the Miller Senate Building. Seventy-two local jurisdiction representatives attended and discussed topics, including: Enforcement Proceedings; Advisory Opinion Process; Ethics Commissions; and Local Ethics Law. Panel discussions were led by: Jennifer Allgair, Staff Counsel for the State Ethics Commission; Robert Hahn, General Counsel, State Ethics Commission; Dorothy R. Fait, Chairperson, State Ethics Commission; and Robert Scholz, member, State Ethics Commission. Plans for another comprehensive conference is scheduled for 2005.

Advice Activities

The Public Ethics Law (§15-301 through §15-303) provides that the State Ethics Commission may issue formal advisory opinions in response to requests from officials, employees, lobbyists, and others who are subject to the Ethics Law. These formal opinions generally follow an appearance before the Commission by the requestor and are published in the Maryland Register. The Commission regulations also allow for informal staff advice and informal Commission consideration of requests (See COMAR 19A.01.02.05). The informal advice generally results in an advice letter to the requestor that references prior opinions of the Commission addressing similar facts and issues.

The State Ethics Commission has the responsibility of interpreting the Public Ethics Law. When the Commission was first established in late 1979 most advice requests resulted in a published formal opinion. During its first full five years of operation (1980 –1984), the Commission issued a total of 205 opinions. This was an average of 41 per year. During the next five years (1985 – 1989) another 128 opinions were issued. This was an average of over 25 per year. As a result, there is a large body of published opinions available to the Commission staff to provide informal advice in response to advice requests. During the twenty-five years of its existence, the Commission issued a total of 484 formal opinions. During the past five years the number of formal opinions decreased to 22 while informal reviews and letter advice increased. A major factor reducing the need for formal opinions issued by the Commission is the large number of existing opinions that can now be used for informal guidance by the Commission or staff thus expediting advice.

During Calendar-Year 2003, the Commission considered 3 formal requests resulting in two formal published opinions. One request involving the application of §15-508 (procurement ethics) was rendered moot when the requester’s employer was not selected by the using agency in an information technology procurement. The two published formal opinions issued in 2003 advised two new State employees about the application of §15-502 to a pre-existing secondary employment situation and service on the board of directors of a nonprofit organization (Opinion Nos. 03-1 and 03-2).

During the year, the Commission also granted two exemptions pursuant to §15-502(d) upon the recommendation of the Governor. The Commission granted an exemption to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to maintain his interest in a family farm, and to permit the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture to maintain his veterinary license. The Deputy Secretary, however, gave up his active veterinary practice.

The Commission’s informal docket, initiated in 2002, logs requests for advice that result in informal advice provided to the requestor by either the Commission staff or the Commission itself. This does not include telephone advice or answers to routine questions provided by the Commission staff. The Commission and/or the Commission staff reviewed and considered requests in the following subject areas during calendar year 2003:

Subject Matter of the Advice Number of Requests

Lobbying Registration, Reporting & Conduct 18

Secondary Employment Advice 132

Participation Advice 8

Procurement Restrictions 7

Post-Employment Advice 13

Gift Questions 29

Other 35

Total 242

The number of informal matters decreased from calendar year 2002. In 2002 a total of 357 informal matters were reviewed. The reduction in the absolute number of matters is attributable in part to a reduction in requests from lobbyists for advice (from 53 in 2002 to 18 in 2003). During the last two months of 2001 and in early 2002, there were a significant number of advice requests addressing the implementation of HB2 (Chapter 631, Acts of 2001, effective November 1, 2001). At its meeting on February 6, 2002, the Commission considered 32 questions involving interpretation of HB2. When HB 1076 (Chapter 405, Acts of 2002) was enacted during the 2002 legislative session and signed as emergency legislation (May 6, 2002) various lobbyists sought additional informal advice. Additionally, the implementation of the Commission’s Lobbyist Training Program has impacted on the number of informal requests from lobbyists, who now have the benefit of the training and an understanding of the lobbying law requirements.

There was also a significant reduction in secondary employment requests. In 2002 there was a total of 269 such requests with 219 from the Department of Human Resources (“DHR”). In 2003, there were a total of 132 informal requests involving secondary employment, with 48 from the DHR. The reduction in the number of secondary employment requests from DHR is probably attributable to two factors. In 2001, the Department established procedures for approval of secondary employment that were circulated to all county departments of social services and resulted in a large number of requests to the Commission to review secondary employment of employees during 2001 and 2002. Many of these reviews were for existing secondary employment situations that had not been previously reviewed. By 2003, DHR’s review process had been implemented statewide and only new secondary employment situations needed to be reviewed. Additionally, DHR officials who participated in the Commission review became sufficiently familiar with the requirements of the Ethics Law to enable them to screen situations requiring Commission review.

A review of the informal requests received in 2003 also demonstrated an increase (116%) in the number of requests related to the application of the post-State employment provisions of the law. This is likely a reflection of the 2002 election that resulted in a change of administration and the movement of certain officials from State service. Also during 2003 there was an increase (262%) in the number of requests related to the receipt and acceptance of gifts. This too, may be explained by the change of administration that brought new individuals to State service who were not familiar with the Ethics Law provisions.

The 132 informal secondary employment requests considered in 2003 came from the following Departments:

Department Number of Requests

Department of Human Resources 48

Department of Health & Mental Hygiene 18

Department of Transportation 9

Executive Department 6

Department of Agriculture 5

University System of Maryland 5

Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services 4

Department of the Environment 3

Department of Natural Resources 3

Maryland State Lottery Agency 3

Other Agencies 28

Advisory opinions are available on the Internet through the Commission web site (http://ethics.gov.state.md.us) and the website of the Secretary of State, Division of State Documents (http://www.sos.state.md.us/).

University of Maryland Public-Private Partnership Exemptions

In 1990, the General Assembly enacted legislation allowing the University System of Maryland (USM) to grant to university faculty certain exemptions from the conflict of interest provisions of the Public Ethics Law. The exemptions were for “sponsored research and development” activities. Sponsored research and development was defined in the law as an ”agreement to engage in basic or applied research or development at a public senior higher education institution, and includes transferring university-owned technology or providing services by a faculty member to entities engaged in sponsored research or development.” Faculty members were not fully exempted from all Public Ethics Law requirements, and public disclosure of the interest or secondary employment was required. The institution granting the exemption was required to maintain the exemption as a public record and to file a copy with the State Ethics Commission.

In 1996, the General Assembly enacted the Public-Private Partnership Act. This law expanded the exemptions beyond faculty to include vice-presidents and presidents of institutions as well as the chancellor and vice-chancellors of the USM. The legislation also broadened the exemption from the conflict of interest provisions to include USM officials, faculty members, and employees. The USM Board of Regents and the USM institutions adopted procedures pursuant to §15-523 to allow the conflict of interest exemptions. The USM Board of Regents and seven of the affiliated institutions adopted policies, and the Commission’s authority was limited to comment on the policy’s conformity to Public-Private Partnership Act. The definition of “sponsored research” was expanded to include “participation in State economic development activities.”

The records filed by the institutions with the Commission reflect a total of 59 faculty exemptions granted by university presidents between 1996 and 2002. These included exemptions at the University of Maryland at Baltimore (UMB), University of Maryland at Baltimore County (UMBC), and the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute. During calendar year 2003, USM institutions granted an additional 17 faculty exemptions. The exemptions were from the following institutions:

Institution No. Of Exemptions

University of Maryland, Baltimore 3

University of Maryland, College Park 14

Total Faculty Exemptions 17

Financial Disclosure

The financial disclosure program continued to process the identification of those required to file, provide technical assistance to filers, and monitor compliance with the Law. The Commission reviewed a large number of requests by various agencies to add or delete positions from the financial disclosure filing list, and the net result was an increase in the number of filers from approximately 8,557 in 2002 to approximately 9,006 in 2003.

The Commission reviewed the status of new boards and commissions and considered and acted upon requests by advisory boards to be exempted from the requirement to file financial disclosure statements. This activity has significantly increased in recent years due to a substantial increase in the number of boards and commissions created by the General Assembly.

Currently there are more than 9,000 public officials required to file financial disclosure forms, and the number of filers continues to grow. Individuals who are public officials only as a result of their participation on boards or commissions are required to file a limited form of financial disclosure. When the Commission conducts compliance reviews of financial disclosure statements and finds errors or omissions, it sends letters advising filers to provide further information to correct or complete the documents.

The Commission also has the responsibility for the financial disclosure program for appointees to executive boards or commissions who seek limited conflict of interest exemptions from the appointing authority. The board or commission members must file a request for the “time of appointment “ exemptions with the Commission, the appointing authority, and the Senate if Senate approval is required for the appointment. The request forms publicly disclose existing conflicts and exempt the individuals only from those conflicts that are disclosed on the forms. The Commission staff coordinates this process with the appointing authority, reviews the forms and, throughout the year, assists a large number of appointees in completing the disclosures forms. In 2003, the Commission processed 127 requests for “time of appointment” exemptions.

Under its 1999 mandate to develop electronic filing for financial disclosure statements, Public Ethics Law § 15-602(d), the Commission must develop procedures under which a statement may be filed electronically and without additional cost to the individual who files the statement. Although the staff has diligently pursued every available opportunity, including obtaining software from Montgomery County at no cost to the State, prior to fiscal year 2004 the Commission did not have any funding available to adapt that software or implement any program that would permit electronic filing. We have been working on adapting the written form into an electronic document that will be understandable, easier to complete, and user friendly.

In working with the Governor’s IT staff and others suggested by them, we have become aware of some changes to the financial disclosure form that will be necessary in order to attain the accurate, efficient and effective collection of financial disclosure information. For example, where the written form asks for “amount of consideration paid” for interests in real property, in order to avoid inadvertent mistakes permitted by “free writing,” we will need to provide ranges of consideration paid that the filer will highlight from “drop-down boxes.” Thus, the filer will choose between boxes that contain choices such as “under $50,000; $50,000 to $99,999; $100,000 to $250,000; and over $250,000.” In this way we will be able to obtain the information requested and eliminate the likelihood of typographical mistakes that could be misleading, such as an extra “0” or a misplaced decimal point. The same type of change will be needed to obtain the information related to interests in corporations and other entities. The Commission has determined that such changes will provide sufficient information and meet the statutory requirements of the financial disclosure section of the Public Ethics Law as set forth in § 15-607.

Lobbyist Disclosure and Regulation

During the lobbying year ending October 31, 2003, 2,435 lobbying registrations were filed with the Commission. This represents an increase of 96 registrations from the 2,339 that filed in 2002. Seven hundred twenty-four lobbyists registered for 1,056 employers. (Some employers have more than one lobbyist and many lobbyists have more than one employer.) This compares to 722 lobbyists who registered on behalf of 1030 employers in 2002. Although the largest number of lobbyists is registered during the legislative session, registrations begin and end at various times throughout the lobbying year, which begins on November 1 and ends on October 31 of the following year. Most persons registered to lobby had a single registration representing one employer. However, 138 lobbyists had two or more registrations during this time period; 94 registrants had four or more employers; and 61 lobbyists had eight or more employers. The Ethics Commission monitors lobbyist registration, reporting, conduct, and certain aspects of campaign finance activity.

The $30,496,709 in lobbying expenditures reported for the period ending October 31, 2003, represents an increase of $3,807,402 from the previous year. Lobbyists’ compensation continued to increase. Lobbying expenditures have very significantly increased since the $2,864,454 reported expenditures in 1979; the first year the Ethics Commission administered the filing program. Expenditures for gifts and entertainment in 2003 increased from $1,164,780 to $1,488,646. The amount for food and beverages, other than special categories, increased from $1,690 to $4,178. The amount in this category was dramatically lower than the $416,924 reported in this category for 1992, reflecting the stronger disclosure laws of that year and an increasing reluctance of officials to accept this type of entertainment. Entertainment at legislative organization meetings resulted in $15,787 in lobbyists’ expenditures. Lobbyists’ expenditures for special events increased from $1,115,206 in 2002 to $1,404,028 in 2003, a substantial increase from the $245,288 reported for special events in 1994. Under current law, special events include events to which all members of the General Assembly, either house, standing committees, or geographic delegations are invited. There were 116 “all members” of the General Assembly events reported in 2003 totaling $784,069, an increase over the $657,023 spent for the previous year. The total expenditure for special events may be misleading, as the reporting requirement is for the total cost of the event rather than funds expended directly on General Assembly members. There were 85 events reported for the House of Delegates Standing Committees and 72 for the Senate Standing Committees. The total of 157 committee events was higher than the 136 events in 2002. The most entertained committee in the House of Delegates was the Health, Government and Operations Committee with 22 events. The least entertained Standing Committee in the House was the Judiciary Committee with 9 events. In the Senate, the most entertained committee was the Finance Committee with 28 events and the least entertained committee was the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee with 10 events. The regional delegations with the most events reported were the Montgomery County Delegation and Prince George’s County Delegation, with 27 events each.

A detailed analysis of special events spending is contained in Appendix C of this report. Lobbyists are also required to file gift reports naming individuals receiving tickets or other gifts above certain thresholds. Eleven lobbyists filed 13 gift reports in 2003 compared to 15 in 2002. Gift reports may name one or more gift recipients. Gift reports tend to be concentrated among the higher spending employers. New gift limitations, effective October 1, 1999, and the fact that gift reports are no longer required in some situations have resulted in the very substantial decline in gift reports.

For the year 2003, 161 lobbyist employers reported total lobbying expenditures of $50,000 or more, and 344 lobbyist employers reported total expenditures of $25,000 or more. This compares to 324 employers reaching $25,000 in expenditures in 2002. One hundred four individual lobbyists, registered on behalf of one or more employers, reported $50,000 or more in compensation for services as compared to 99 in 2002. Fifty-nine lobbyists reported compensation of $100,000 or more compared with 44 in 2002. There is a growing trend toward firms employing several lobbyists, ranging from groups within large law firms to government relations groups unassociated with the practice of law. In 2003, four fee-earning firms earned over $1,000,000. This information is outlined in Appendix D.

Examples of topic areas involving large total employer expenditures during the reporting period included business, utilities, racing, labor, health, banking, energy, communications, technology, attorneys, real estate, construction and insurance. Employer lobbying spending continues to increase. In 1988, only 5 employers spent over $100,000 on lobbying. In 1999, 35 employers exceeded $100,000. Lists of those employers spending $25,000 or more and those lobbyists reporting $50,000 or more in compensation are included in Appendices A and B of this report.

The following expenditure data summarizes lobbying expenditures for the last three lobbying years:

10/31/03 10/31/02 10/31/01

1. Expenditures for meals and beverages

for officials or employees or their

immediate families. $ 4,178 $ 1,690 $ 3,486

2. Expenditures for special events,

including parties, dinners,

athletic events, entertainment,

and other functions to which all

members of the General Assembly,

either house thereof, or any

standing committee thereof were

invited. (Date, location, group

benefited, and total expense for

each event are also reported.) $ 1,404,028 $ 1,115,206 $ 814,161

3. Expenses for food, lodging, and

scheduled entertainment of officials

and employees and spouses for a

meeting given in return for

participation in a panel or

speaking engagement at the

meeting. $ 18,524 $ 5,702 $ 17, 608

4. Expenditures for food and beverages

at approved legislative organizational

meetings. $ 15,787 $ 12,298 $ 32,811

5. Expenses for a ticket or free

admission to attend charitable,

cultural or political events where

all members of a legislative unit

are invited. $ 4,708 $ 15,320 $ 3,337

6. Gifts to or for officials or employees

or their immediate families (not

included in B-1 through B-5). $ 41,421 $ 14,564 $12,344

Subtotal of items l, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 $1,488,646 $1,164,780 $883,747

7. Total compensation paid to registrant

(not including sums reported in any

other section). $25,367,757 $22,461,621 $19,282,080

8. Salaries, compensation and reim‑

bursed expenses for staff of the

registrant. $ 889,332 $ 898,943 $690,167

9. Office expenses not reported in

items 5 and 6. $ 841,415 $ 829,315 $785,917

10. Cost of professional and technical

research and assistance not

reported in items 5 and 6. $ 635,491 $ 310,151 $ 90,530

11. Cost of publications which

expressly encourage persons to

communicate with officials or

employees. $ 771,743 $ 434,924 $209,633

12. Fees and expenses paid to

witnesses. $ 4,685 $ 28,541 $49,970

13. Other expenses. $ 497,650 $ 561,032 $ 398,037

Total of items 1 through 13 $30,496,709 $26,689,307 $22,390,081

(NOTE: At the time the Annual Report was compiled, some lobbyist expenditure information may have been subject to adjustment based on the staff review program.)

Enforcement Activities

In calendar year 2003, the Commission issued nine new complaints. Four complaints involved conflict of interest issues and five complaints involved financial disclosure issues. The Commission also closed thirteen complaints during 2003. Six complaints were closed when the Commission accepted a cure proposal from the complaints’ respondents, two Stipulations of Settlement were accepted by the Commission, four complaints were dismissed after a preliminary investigation and one complaint was closed for other reasons. The Commission collected $6,032.00 in payments to the State of Maryland through the two Stipulations of Settlement accepted in 2003.

At the end of 2003, the Commission had seven pending complaints under investigation. The pending complaints included one conflict of interest matter and six financial disclosure matters.

The Ethics Law provides that any person may file a complaint with the Commission. Complaints filed with the Commission must be signed under oath and allege a violation of the Ethics Law by a person subject to the law. The Commission may file a complaint on its own initiative, and, at its discretion, may proceed with a preliminary inquires of potential Ethics Law violations.

The Commission divides preliminary matters into two categories: Preliminary Consideration Matters and Preliminary Inquiry Matters. The latter involves more extensive investigation. In 2003, the Commission opened eighty Preliminary Consideration Matters, including thirty-six conflict of interest matters, forty lobbyist matters and four financial disclosure matters. The Commission entered into seven Late Filing Agreements with lobbyists during 2003, resulting in payments of $1850.00 to the State of Maryland. The Commission closed fifty-one Preliminary Consideration Matters in 2003.

The Commission opened sixteen Preliminary Inquiry Matters in 2003. These matters involve more investigation than Preliminary Consideration Matters, which are often upgraded to this docket after the Commission’s initial review. Fourteen of the 2003 Preliminary Inquiry Matters involved conflict of interest issues and two involved lobbying issues. In 2003, the Commission closed fourteen Preliminary Inquiry Matters, including several of the pending matters from 2001 and 2002.

All enforcement payments collected through Stipulations of Settlement or Late Filing Agreements are deposited in the State’s general fund and cannot be used by the Commission.

In 2003, the State Ethics Commission was involved in three enforcement matters on appeal in the Maryland court system. The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County affirmed the Commission’s order in State Ethics Commission v. Antonetti, a 1997 enforcement matter, and ordered the respondent to pay fines of $7,500.00 for violating the Ethics Law. This matter was initially appealed in 1997 and has been heard by both the Court of Special Appeals and Court of Appeals. In September 2001, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the Circuit Court with directions to affirm the Commission’s order in the case and determine the amount of civil fines to be imposed in this matter.

State Ethics Commission v. Evans is currently on appeal in the Court of Appeals. The Commission revoked the respondent’s lobbying registrations pursuant to § 15-405 of the Public Ethics Law. The respondent appealed to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, which reversed the Commission’s Order. The Commission filed an appeal with the Court of Special Appeals. The Court of Appeals, on its own motion, removed the case from the Court of Special Appeals and scheduled arguments in the case for May 6, 2004.

State Ethics Commission v. Bereano is currently on appeal in the Circuit Court for Howard County. The respondent appealed the Commission’s June 2003 Order suspending his lobbying registrations for a period of ten months and seeking a fine of $5,000 for a knowing and willful violation of § 15-713(1) of the Ethics Law. The respondent originally filed an appeal of the Commission’s Order in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, but the Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County transferred the matter to the Circuit Court for Howard County.

Local Government Ethics Laws

The Ethics Law requires Maryland counties and cities to enact local laws similar to the State Law. In addition to the requirement that counties and cities enact ethics laws, the General Assembly amended the Law in 1983 to require local school boards either to promulgate ethics regulations similar to the State Law or be covered by county ethics laws. As part of its responsibilities, the Commission staff reviewed draft revisions to ethics laws and regulations for 9 localities during 2002. Additionally, the staff reviewed proposed changes to the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Ethics Regulations. The Commission formally approved revisions to the Anne Arundel County and the Carroll County Ethics Ordinances. The Commission also formally approved revisions to the Harford County Board of Education Ethics regulations. Criteria for evaluating similarity to the State Law are defined in Commission regulations. Municipalities, based on size and other factors, may be exempted from all or part of the requirement, though an exemption may be granted only in response to a written request.

On October 10, 2003, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Seipp v. Baltimore City Board of Elections, 377Md.362, 833 A.2d 551 (2003). The majority found that the Baltimore City Ethics Ordinance’s financial disclosure provisions related to candidates’ filings were not similar to the State Law and could not be used to disqualify Seipp as a candidate for City Council in the City’s primary election. The State Ethics Commission had previously determined that the Baltimore City Ordinance was “similar” to the State law. The majority determined that whether a local law is sufficiently “similar” to the State law is an issue of law, upon which a court is entitled to decide. Chief Judge Bell, for the dissent, argued that the majority approach is to construe “similar” to be “identical” unless there is a basis to modify the provision for the purpose of avoiding a conflict of interest. The Commission is considering the impact of this decision on its local government and school board regulations.

Educational and Informational Activities

The Commission staff has been active in providing formal training to State employees, lobbyists and local jurisdictions. A substantial daily staff workload has involved advising and assisting employees, officials, candidates and lobbyists on completion of forms, and providing informal advice regarding possible conflicts of interest. The Commission staff has assisted local government and school board officials in drafting their ethics laws and regulations. The staff has also provided technical advice to local government ethics boards. Legislation passed in 1999 requires new financial disclosure filers to receive 2 hours of Ethics Law training (§15-205(d)). The Commission began implementation of this mandate in calendar year 2000. The staff gave numerous formal briefings and training programs to groups of employees and officials and provided employees of several agencies and departments special briefings at their offices. During calendar year 2003, the Commission staff conducted 18 training sessions for State employees at various locations throughout the State. The Commission provided training to a total of 1,178 employees and public officials.

In accordance with § 15-205(e) of the Public Ethics Law, which mandates the Ethics Commission to provide a training course for regulated lobbyists and prospective regulated lobbyists at least twice each year, the Commission staff provided training to 223 lobbyists during calendar year 2003.

Part of the Commission's public information activity involves distribution of lists of registered lobbyists and provision of assistance to persons inspecting various forms filed with the Commission. The Commission's staff distributes, through interagency mail, a special two-page summary of ethics requirements and other applicable memoranda to State agency managers. Staff also distributes special memoranda regarding the impact of the ethics law on gifts, procurement, post-employment, employment, and on political activity. On a limited basis, the Commission is also distributing another pamphlet covering ethics requirements for part‑time members of State boards and commissions. Fiscal limitations have essentially reduced the ability to develop new materials in printed form. The staff provides memoranda on lobbying laws relating to private colleges, lobbyist political activity, and a memorandum regarding adjustments to the procurement ethics provisions by request and on its web site. We have also developed a special memorandum to advise potential new members of boards and commissions of the impact of the Ethics Law.

The Ethics Commission maintains a complete and up-to-date home page on the Internet. The home page includes a program summary, a lobbyist list and related data, the Annual Report, special explanatory memoranda, and a bi-monthly bulletin. Also included are copies of lobbying and financial disclosure forms and the ability to access these forms. A new feature of this site, established in 1999, is the provision of a list of State vendors that can be queried by agency or vendor. Another feature is an ethics question of the month, which answers hypothetical questions based on past Commission opinions. The Internet provides a cost effective mechanism for providing ethics information and training to those covered by the Ethics Law and public access to ethics information. The volume of persons using this website has been steadily growing. The staff is also very frequently involved in assisting the public and press in inspecting public records of lobbyists and officials and providing access to other ethics law information in media appearances or other means.