maryland state ethics
commission
27th Annual
Report
January 1, 2005
through
december 31,
2005
General statutory implementation
The State Ethics
Commission met in regular session 9 times during Calendar Year 2005 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.
The State Ethics
Commission, as directed in State Government Article § 15-205, must administer
the provisions of the Public Ethics Law; prescribe and provide forms for each
document required by the Public Ethics Law; retain as a public record each
document filed with the Commission for at least four years after receipt;
periodically review the adequacy of public ethics laws; review each statement
and report filed in accordance with the Public Ethics Law and notify officials
and employees of any omissions or deficiencies; and publish and make available
to persons subject to the Public Ethics Law, and to the public, information
that explains the provisions of the Law, the duties imposed by it, and the
means for enforcing it.
The Commission is
required to compile annually, by March 1st, a list of entities doing
business with the state during the preceding calendar year and make this
information available to individuals required to file annual financial
disclosure statements; to provide training courses for public officials and for
regulated lobbyists; and to submit to the General Assembly an annual report on
its activities.
In 1999, the
Legislature added § 15-602(d) to the Public Ethics Law, requiring the
Commission to develop procedures under which financial disclosure statements
could be filed electronically and without additional cost to the individual
filing the statement. In FY 2005 the
Commission received funding sufficient to proceed with this mandate, and
beginning in February 2005, electronic filing was offered to all financial
disclosure filers through a secure web site, https://efds.ethics.state.md.us. More than 6,000 of the 11,000 filers took
advantage of electronic filing. The
improved efficiency resulting from the electronic process permitted the
Commission staff to complete the review of more than 2,600 statements by the
end of May 2005, a process that took many months to accomplish in the review of
paper forms. Although some filers encountered
frustration with the new system, the Commission staff was able to assist all of
those who called the office for help, and the comments received were
overwhelmingly positive.
In 2001, the
Legislature added § 15-709 to the Public Ethics Law, requiring the Commission
to develop procedures under which lobbying reports could be filed
electronically without additional cost to the individual who would opt to file
electronically, and to make the filed reports available for public inspection
electronically. In 2005, the
Commission, working with the Canton Group, LLC, a technology contractor,
developed a process by which regulated lobbyists could begin the registration
process and complete and submit all lobbying reports electronically and by
which the public would have immediate access to electronically submitted
reports. Electronic registration for
lobbyists became available November 1, 2005, and electronic lobbying reporting
for event reports and activity reports for the lobbying period of November 1,
2005 through April 30, 2006 was on-line before the end of calendar year
2005.
The Commission staff
continued to place substantial emphasis on the training for public officials
and employees and regulated lobbyists.
In its Strategic Plan, the Commission asserted its commitment to
education and training on its belief that increased and improved education and
training will lead to an increase in advice responsibilities and a decrease in
the volume of enforcement actions.
Commission staff has continued to focus on providing training to smaller
groups of employees at their particular agencies, which has permitted the
training to address the specific ethical issues confronted by State employees
and public officials in their particular service to the public. This has resulted in a marked increase in
the requests for advice that come to the Commission from employees and public
officials. During calendar year 2005,
the Commission conducted 40 general ethics training programs for agencies,
boards and commissions, attended by 1987, focusing more specifically on
conflicts of interest and the electronic filing process for financial
disclosure statements. In addition, the
Commission staff conducted eleven conflict of interest, electronic filing and
procurement training sessions attended by an additional 430 public officials,
and members of public and special interest groups. The Commission staff also conducted ten lobbying training
programs, attended by 213 regulated lobbyists, and one program on forms
completion attended by an additional 6 lobbyists or their assistants. The lobbying programs focused on electronic
filing and general lobbying prohibitions and reporting requirements.
In June 2003, the
Commission conducted a complaint hearing on charges of lobbying violations by
lobbyist Bruce C. Bereano. The
Commission issued its decision and public order finding a violation of §
15-713(1), being engaged for lobbying purposes for contingent compensation. On December 28, 2004, the Honorable Raymond
Kane of the Howard County Circuit Court, in case No. 13-C-03-057038, upheld the
Commission’s decision and sanction of a 10-month suspension of Mr. Bereano’s
lobbying registrations. Mr. Bereano’s appeal of Judge Kane’s decision was heard
in the Court of Special Appeals on November 9, 2005. By the end of 2005, the Court of Special Appeals had not issued
its decision with regard to this appeal.
On July 11, 2005, by
the nomination of Speaker Michael Busch, Governor Ehrlich appointed Darryl
Jones to fill the vacancy created in January 2004 by Bruce Poole’s resignation
from the Commission. On October 15,
2005, Ava Feiner, appointed by Governor Ehrlich in 2003,
resigned from the Commission, prior to completion of her term. Janet McHugh, Esq. was appointed on October
17, 2005, to fill the remainder of Dr. Feiner’s term.
The
Fiscal Year 2006 budget was approved for General Funds of
$668,465 and Special Funds of $127,582.
The Maryland 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. Formal opinions
generally follow an appearance before the Commission by the requestor, are
published in the Maryland Register, and are accessible electronically through
State Documents in COMAR Title 19A. The
Commission regulations, COMAR 19A.01.02.05, also permit the staff and the
Commission to provide informal advice.
Informal advice generally result in a letter or email to the requestor
referencing prior formal and informal Commission opinions addressing similar
facts and issues.
The State Ethics Commission is responsible for interpreting the Public
Ethics Law. In late 1979, when the
Commission was established, most advice requests resulted in published formal
opinions. During its first five years
of operation, the Commission issued a total of 205 formal opinions, and during
the next five years, another 128 formal opinions were issued. As a result, there is a large body of
published opinions available to the Commission staff providing guidance in
response to advice requests. During the
twenty-seven years in existence, the Commission has issued a total of 488
formal opinions. During the past five years the number of formal opinions has
deceased while informal reviews and letter advice has increased. A major factor
reducing the need for formal Commission opinions is the large number of
existing opinions that provide guidance to the staff thus expediting the advice
process.
During Calendar-Year 2005, the Commission issued two (2) formal published
opinions. Both opinions addressed the
application of Section 15-501 of the Ethics Law. This provision in part
prohibits officials and employees from participating in State matters if a
party to the matter is a business entity that employs the official’s or
employee’s spouse, parent, child, brother or sister. Section 15-501(b) allows
the Commission to grant exceptions to this requirement by advisory opinion.
Opinion No. 05-01 allowed the Secretary of Transportation to participate in
matters regarding two Fortune 500 companies who are vendors of the Department
and who each employ one adult child of the Secretary. The children of the
Secretary were employed in locations outside of Maryland and in divisions or
program unrelated to the vendors’ business with the Department.
Opinion No. 05-02 allowed the Director of Operations of the Maryland Port
Administration to participate in matters involving an international shipping
carrier that employed his older brother in a different region of the country.
The brother’s duties did not have any relationship to the carrier’s operation
in the Port of Baltimore.
The Commission’s informal docket, initiated in 2002, logs requests for
advice resulting in informal advice from the staff or Commission. The log may include telephone advice or
responses to routine questions from individuals who either call, email or
walk-into the office. The Commission
and its staff provided informal advice in the following subject areas during
calendar years 2002 through 2005:
|
Subject Matter of the Advice |
Number of Requests |
|||
|
2005 |
2004 |
2003 |
2002 |
|
|
Lobbying
Registration, Reporting and Conduct |
9 |
11 |
18 |
53 |
|
Secondary
Employment Advice |
121 |
108 |
132 |
269 |
|
Participation
Advice |
21 |
17 |
8 |
3 |
|
Procurement
Restrictions |
15 |
6 |
7 |
10 |
|
Post-Employment
Advice |
23 |
13 |
13 |
6 |
|
Gift
Questions |
22 |
21 |
29 |
8 |
|
Other |
40 |
44 |
35 |
28 |
|
Total |
251 |
220 |
242 |
377 |
The number of informal
matters increased in 2005 compared to 2004. The number of informal matter had
decreased each year from calendar year 2002 to 2004. The increase in 2005 is attributable to an increase in requests
for secondary employment advice, for procurement ethics advice and for
post-employment advice.
The 121 informal
secondary employment requests considered in 2005 arose from the following
Departments and agencies:
|
Department |
Number of Requests |
|||
|
2005 |
2004 |
2003 |
2002 |
|
|
Department of Human Resources |
33 |
40 |
48 |
219 |
|
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene |
30 |
22 |
18 |
20 |
|
Department of Transportation |
13 |
4 |
9 |
4 |
|
Executive Department |
4 |
5 |
6 |
2 |
|
Department of Agriculture |
1 |
3 |
5 |
0 |
|
University System of Maryland |
5 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
|
Dept. of Public Safety & Correctional
Services |
4 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
|
Department of Natural Resources |
6 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
|
Other Agencies/Departments |
25 |
25 |
34 |
19 |
|
Totals |
121 |
108 |
132 |
269 |
During calendar year
2005, the Commission’s Executive Director, General Counsel, Staff Counsel, and
Assistant Counsel responded to more than 1,800 phone inquiries.
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 104 faculty exemptions
granted by the university presidents between 1996 and 2004. These included exemptions at the University
of Baltimore (UMB), University of Maryland at Baltimore County (UMBC), and the
University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute. During calendar year 2005, USM institutions reported to the
Commission an additional 28 individual faculty members exemptions. The exemptions were from the following
institutions:
|
Institution |
Number of Exemptions |
|
University
of Maryland, Biotechnology Institute |
5 |
|
University
of Maryland, Baltimore County |
2 |
|
University
of Maryland, College Park |
19 |
|
University
of Maryland, Baltimore |
2 |
|
TOTAL FACULTY EXEMPTIONS |
28 |
In some instances the
individual faculty member had more than one interest exempted.
The financial
disclosure program continued to process the identification of those required to
file, to provide technical assistance to filers, and monitor compliance with
the Law. In accordance with Public
Ethics Law § 15-103, the Commission reviewed a large number of requests by
various agencies to add or delete positions from the financial disclosure
filing list, along with an extensive review of some outdated listings, the net
result was a decrease in the number of filers from approximately 12,170 in 2004
to 11,783 in 2005.
In accordance with
Public Ethics Law §§ 15-103 and 15-209, the Commission made decisions that were
forwarded to the Department of Budget and Management for its concurrence
regarding the status as “executive units” of newly created boards and
commissions and considered and acted upon requests by a number of boards and
commissions for exemption from the requirement to file financial disclosure
statements. In recent years, the
Commission has seen a substantial increase in the number of boards,
commissions, task forces, and technical advisory groups created by the General
Assembly.
Individuals who are
public officials only as the result of their participation on boards or
commissions are required to file a limited financial disclosure statement (Form
#2). Legislators are required to file a
more extensive disclosure statement (Form #19). The Commission staff conducts compliance reviews of financial
disclosure statements and notifies filers of identifiable errors or omissions,
and it pursues enforcement actions against those who fail to file. During 2005, the Commission staff reviewed
more than 2,600 financial disclosure statements for reporting year 2004.
In 1999, the
Legislature, in § 15-602(d) mandated that the Commission develop and implement
a process by which filers would be able to file their financial disclosure
statements electronically, at no additional cost to the filer. It was not until FY 2005 that the Commission
was able to obtain funding sufficient to develop electronic filing. With the appropriated funds we were able to
secure the services of the Canton Group, LLC, a technology contractor, and we
were able to implement electronic filing through a secure web site, https://efds.ethics.state.md.us. The Commission was hopeful that 20 to 25% of
the filers would opt to file electronically, and both the Commission and staff
were gratified to note that more than 6,000 filers used the electronic
process. Although there were a few
glitches at the very beginning (the first few weeks of February), and some
filers expressed some frustration with the program, the problems were easily
and promptly corrected by the contractor, and the staff were able to assist all
filers who contacted the Commission for help.
In order to create a
user friendly and less intrusive form, the contractor used a survey process of
question and answer that led the filer through each schedule of the form. Rather than exact amounts of consideration,
interest rates, or values, the contract used drop-down boxes that permitted the
filer to select a range of value that provided the Commission with sufficient
information and satisfied the filer as being less intrusive. Because of the change to the form
necessitated by the electronic program, the Commission changed the paper form
to conform, in substance, to the electronic form. The Commission also began the process of drafting a regulation
setting forth the new format for the financial disclosure statements.
As part of its
contract with the Commission, the Canton Group, LLC, also developed an
electronic administrative tool permitting the staff to review electronically
submitted statements, send email notification to the filer of any omission or
question raised by the statement. The
emails become attached to the electronic file, and a record is therefore
compiled of statements, inquiries and responses. The filer may also electronically file an amendment if
required. Of special benefit is the
programming that permits the filer to bring up his current form in subsequent
years, make the necessary changes, and submit the new form. The filer will be able to review statements
filed in prior years, and the Commission staff will be able to compare
statements electronically. The review
process is so efficient that one staff member was able to review more than
2,600 electronically filed forms by the end of May 2005, whereas a review of
2,600 paper forms would take several of the staff several months to
complete. With full compliance with
electronic filing, the Commission will be able to review the statements more
efficiently, notify filers of problems earlier than in prior years, and be more
efficient in the enforcement process.
Full compliance with electronic filing will also reduce the Commission
filing space requirements and provide a safer, more secure and more efficient
way of collecting, reviewing, and maintaining financial disclosure records.
In 2001, the
Legislature, in § 15-709 of the Public Ethics Law, mandated the Commission to
develop and implement an electronic process for regulated lobbyists to file
required reports at no additional cost to the individuals who file
electronically. The law also mandated
that lobbying reports be made available for public review electronically. In 2005, through the procurement process,
the Commission was able to contract with the Canton Group, LLC, who developed
the electronic financial disclosure statement filing process, to develop an
electronic reporting process for lobbyists.
In working with the contractor, the Commission determined that the best approach
would be to enable lobbyists to at least begin the registration process
electronically, which would create a data base for each lobbyist to report the
required information related to his or her employers. Because of the need to have original signatures for the lobbyist
and the employer, and because registration requires payment to the State of
Maryland of a $50 per registration fee, only part of the registration process
could be electronic. The electronic
portion of the registration process (providing the information related to the
lobbyist and the employer, the focus of the lobbying, etc) became available to
lobbying filers November 1, 2005.
Lobbyists are also able to file event notifications (Form 13E), event
reports (Form 13F) and Activity Reports (Form 4) electronically. The information provided electronically on
the Activity Reports will automatically transfer appropriate information to
other required forms such as Forms # 13A, B, C, and D. As lobbying activity and other reports do
not become due until the close of the lobbying period, which ends on April 30,
2006, there are no figures available for this calendar year as to the filing of
lobbying reports electronically.
Through the
Commission’s web site, http://ethics.gov.state.md.us,
the public will be able to search through lobbyists or employers to gain access
to the information that the Commission is required to collect. The administrative tool developed for
Commission use, will enable the Commission to calculate totals required for
annual reporting in a fraction of the time required in prior years when
calculations had to be made by hand.
The lobbying year
extends from November 1st to October 31st of the
following year. During the lobbying
year ending October 31, 2005, 2,525 lobbying registrations were filed with the
Commission. This represents a decrease
of 30 registrations from the 2,555 filed by October 31, 2004.
The following
expenditure data summarizes lobbying expenditures for the last three lobbying
years:
|
EXPENDITURES BY LOBBYISTS |
||||
|
Type of Expenditure |
10/31/05 $ |
10/31/04 $ |
10/31/03 $ |
|
|
B-1: Meals and
beverages for officials or employees or their immediate families |
3,202 |
4,493 |
4,178 |
|
|
B-2: 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. |
2,301,493 |
2,060,647 |
1,404,028 |
|
|
B-3: 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 |
13,028 |
26,283 |
18,524 |
|
|
B-4: Food and
beverages at approved legislative organizational meetings |
26,102 |
16,519 |
15,787 |
|
|
B-5: Ticket or free
admission to attend charitable, cultural or political events where all
members of a legislative unit are invited. |
4,782 |
4,350 |
4,708 |
|
|
B-6: Gifts to or for
officials or employees or their immediate families (not included on B-1
through B-5) |
24,931 |
16,478 |
41,421 |
|
|
SUBTOTAL OF ITEMS B 1 THROUGH B 6 |
$ 2,373,538 |
$ 2,128,770 |
$ 1,488,646 |
|
|
B-7:
Total compensation paid to registrant (not including sums reported in any
other section) |
28,957,735 |
32,832,105 |
25,367,757 |
|
|
B-8:
Salaries, compensation and reimbursed expenses for staff of the registrant |
1,112,595 |
980,177 |
889,332 |
|
|
B-9:
Office expenses not reported in B-5 or B-6 |
846,022 |
1,146,653 |
841,415 |
|
|
B-10:
Cost of professional and technical research and assistance not reported in
items B-5 or B-6 |
497,145 |
334,780 |
635,491 |
|
|
B-11:
Cost of publications which expressly encourage persons to communicate with
officials or employees |
473,243 |
465,458 |
771,743 |
|
|
B-12:
Fees and expenses paid to witnesses |
12,620 |
122,810 |
4,685 |
|
|
B-13:
Other expenses |
525,331 |
546,036 |
497,650 |
|
|
TOTAL OF ITEMS B-1 THROUGH B-13 |
$34,798,229 |
$38,556,789 |
$30,496,719 |
|
(NOTE:
At the time the Annual Report was compiled, some lobbyist expenditure
information may have been subject to adjustment based on staff review.)
The Public 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 Public 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 preliminary inquiries of potential Public Ethics Law violations.
The Commission divides
preliminary matters into two categories:
Preliminary Consideration Matters (A matters) and Preliminary Inquiry
Matters (B matters), the latter of which involves more extensive
investigation. In 2005, the Commission
opened 66 A matters, including: 34
conflict of interest matters, 30 lobbyist matters, and 2 financial disclosure
matters. The Commission entered into 15
Late Filing Agreements with lobbyists during 2005, resulting in payments of
$3625.00 to the State of Maryland. The
Commission closed 67 A matters in 2005.
The Commission opened
17 Preliminary Inquiry Matters (B matters) in 2005. Fifteen (15) of the B
matters involved conflict of interest issues and 2 involved lobbying
issues. In 2005, the Commission closed
18 B matters, including a few pending matters from 2004, 2003 and 2002.
In calendar year 2005,
the Commission issued 38 complaints: including 30 financial disclosure matters,
6 lobbying matters and 2 conflict of interest matters. The Commission closed 46 complaints in 2005,
including some pending matters from 2004 and 2003. The Commission collected $1200.00 from financial disclosure
complaints stemming from late financial disclosure statement fillings and
$500.00 from lobbying complaints stemming from late filings of lobbying
registrations, lobbying activity reports and other required lobbying forms. The Commission collected $5,000.00 through a
Stipulation of Settlement Agreement in a conflict of interest complaint in
which a former Department of Natural Resources employee participated in matters
involving his spouse’s business.
All enforcement payments collected
through Stipulations of Settlement or Late Filing Agreements were deposited in
the State’s general fund and cannot be used by the Commission. The Commission collected a total of
$10,325.00 in enforcement payments in 2005.
State Ethics Commission v. Bereano
was argued on November 9, 2005 in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, and
the decision is pending. The respondent
appealed the Commission’s June 2003 Order suspending his lobbying registrations
for a period of ten months and assessing a fine of $5,000 for a knowing and
willful violation of § 15-713(a) of the Public Ethics Law. The respondent originally requested judicial
review 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. On December 28, 2004, the Circuit Court for
Howard County affirmed the Commission’s Order.
On June 20, 2005,
lobbyist, Ira C. Cooke voluntarily agreed to a revocation of his lobbying
registrations pursuant to a Stipulation of Settlement Agreement in Complaint
C-3-05. The action arose from Mr.
Cooke’s December 2004 conviction in the State of California on three felony charges
arising from his Maryland lobbying relationship with Desert Counseling
Clinic.
The Public Ethic Law
requires Maryland counties and cities to enact local laws similar to the
State’s Public Ethics 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 to be covered by
county ethics laws. As part of its responsibilities,
the Commission staff reviewed proposed draft revisions to ethics laws for
Frederick and Queen Anne’s Counties, the City of College Park, and the Board of
Education of Frederick County during 2005.
Due to the Court of
Appeals opinion in Seipp v. Baltimore City Board of Elections, 377
Md.362, 833 A.2d 551 (2003), the Commission determined that its regulations
should be amended to better define the role of the State Ethics Commission with
regard to its determination that a local jurisdiction’s ethics provisions are
“similar” or “substantially similar” to the Public Ethics Law. In conjunction
with an advisory opinion considered late in 2005 the Commission reviewed the
history of the local government program and its local government and board of
education regulations (See Advisory Opinion No. 06-01). It is anticipated that
amendments to the regulations will be submitted in 2006.
The
Commission also received and reviewed reports from Prince George’s and
Montgomery Counties regarding the special land use ethics reports required in
those jurisdictions (See §15-829 through §15-841).
The
Commission staff has been active in providing formal training to State
employees, lobbyists and local jurisdictions.
The training has involved advising and assisting employees, officials,
candidates and lobbyists on completion of forms, and providing training related
to the conflict of interest provisions of the Public Ethics Law. 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. During calendar year 2005, the Commission staff conducted 40
training sessions for State employees at various locations throughout the
State. The Commission provided training to a total of 1987 employees and public
officials.
The
Commission has placed an increasing emphasis on training smaller groups of
employees and officials and has done so within the employees’ agencies. In this way, those attending the training
sessions participate more, and the training can be tailored to address the
concerns of the various employees in the context of their work
experiences. Additionally, the
Commission staff has provided training to agency leadership and to various
boards and commissions that support agency work. The Commission staff has received very positive response to the
training, which consists of a PowerPoint presentation, interactive lecture, and
supplemental documents that provide resource material. Although the training
commitments have placed a significant burden on the Commission’s staff, as each
training session requires that at least one, and many times two, of the
professional staff make the presentations, which causes a shortage of
professional staff available in the office to respond to telephone and “other”
inquiries in the office, the benefits of the training far outweigh the
inconvenience to staff. Expanded
training programs have resulted in a significant increase in the number of
telephone and email requests for guidance from employees who have attended the
sessions. What is significant is that
the number and severity of enforcement matters has decreased due to closer
contact and better communication with 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 213 lobbyists during calendar year 2005. A total of twelve training sessions were held on eight different
days during the year.
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. In order to ensure
adequate public access to the Commission’s memoranda, the Commission staff
posts them on our web site, http://ethics.gov.state.md.us,
and provides them to agencies for distribution to their employees. On a limited basis, the Commission is also
distributing another pamphlet covering ethics requirements for part‑time
members of State boards and commissions.
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. The Commission staff has 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 directs users
to the Annual Report, special explanatory memoranda, and a bi-monthly bulletin,
downloadable forms for lobbying and State employees and Public Officials, the
State vendor list, the Public Ethics Law and Formal Advisory Opinions. 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 Commission is hopeful that it will eventually have sufficient
funds to update its web software to include an interactive dialogue with users
enabling it to respond to questions on-line, provide educational programming
on-line, and allow users to navigate the site with more ease.
2005 legislation report
On
August 18, 2004, Commission staff sent Kenneth Masters, Chief Legislative
Officer, a request to include in the Governor’s Legislative Package an
amendment to §15-602(d) of the Public Ethics Law that would permit the
Commission to modify the format for disclosure information under § 15-607 so
that we could accomplish our goal of electronic filing for financial disclosure
statements. Senate Bill 150, sponsored
by Chairman, Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee, passed
unanimously in both houses and was signed by the Governor on April 26, 2005 and
enacted as chapter 127. The law adds to
(d) of § 15-602 permitting the Commission to adopt regulations to modify the
format for disclosure of information required under § 15-607. As of December 31, 2005, the regulations
have been drafted, and they will be submitted to State Documents in 2006.
legislative recommendations
In the coming
year, the Commission will continue to focus its attention on several of the
financial disclosure provisions in subtitle 6 of the Public Ethics Law. Now that the State Ethics Commission has had
25 years of experience, it has had the opportunity to review the reporting
requirements and recognize those areas, which appear to be the root of most conflicts,
and those areas, which, since the Commission’s inception, have not caused any
discernable problems. Additionally, the
law in other areas has developed so there are additional retirements and
deferred compensation plans that should be included in the exemption granted to
401K and 501K plans.
With
electronic filing being implemented, the Commission has reviewed the filing
requirements, and it has concluded that some discreet changes in requests for
information would be helpful in simplifying the reporting requirements without
jeopardizing the benefits of public disclosure.
·
In
the 1999 Session of the General Assembly, the Harford County Liquor Board and
its employees were placed under the authority of the State Ethics
Commission. However, the employees of
the Board, regardless of salary or duties, were excluded from financial
disclosure requirements. This general
exclusion should be withdrawn to make the disclosure requirements for these
employees the same as other employees subject to the State Ethics Law.
·
Disclosure
of interests in all State deferred compensation plans should be added to the
exemption now provided for those who have interests in 401 and 501 plans (§ 15-
102(t)(2)(iv)). The exemption is warranted as the State provides a discreet
list of investments into which employees may invest, and there is no latitude
for the employee to select investments other than those provided by the State.
·
Consideration
should be given to eliminating the need for reporting of investment in any
mutual fund publicly traded on a national scale. The basis for the request is that the employee has no control
over the trading of the individual holdings of the mutual fund, and, therefore,
it is improbable that an employee could effectuate any change in value of the
mutual fund by his or her official act as a State employee.
·
Judicial
candidates should be required to file financial disclosure in each year of
their candidacy in the same way as other candidates for State office.
The
Commission has also reviewed Subtitle 5, Conflicts of Interest and
suggests Legislative consideration of the following issues:
·
Specific
provisions should address membership by public officials on boards or directors
of private corporations having sensitive business or regulatory involvement
with the State.
·
The
post-employment provisions (§ 15-504) should be revised to address more
specifically the problems that are common to higher-level management positions.
·
Like
legislators, legislative staff should be prohibited from lobbying for one
legislative session after leaving their State employment.
·
The
law prohibiting misuse of confidential information should be extended to cover
former officials and employees as to confidential information acquired during
their State service.
Subtitle
8 of the Public Ethics Law, which address local jurisdictions and boards of
education, is also a priority. The Commission
is looking at the following issues:
·
The
provisions covering school board ethics regulations need strengthening to
assure that there are adequate sanctions for violations by board members,
candidates for board membership and lobbyists.
·
Subsequent
to the issuance of Seipp v. Baltimore City Board of Elections, et al,
377 Md. 362, 833 A.2d 551 (2003), which interpreted sections of subtitle 8 of
the Public Ethics Law and determined the degree to which local jurisdiction
ethics ordinances must be similar to the Public Ethics Law, the Commission
seeks to replace the language requiring that the local ordinance language be
similar or substantially similar to the Public Ethics Law with language
requiring that the Commission’s review of local ordinances be in accordance to
law.
The
Commission also supports and would seek an amendment to the lobbying provisions
of the Public Ethics Law (subtitle 7) with regard to two of the reporting
requirements in the HB2 legislation of 2001:
·
§15-708
should be revised in order to more correctly reflect lobbyist spending for
legislative meals and receptions. As
the requirement reads now, the process is cumbersome and may inadvertently
inflate the actual amount spent on lobbying legislators. The provision causes significant confusion
as to what costs should be reported and how the costs should be reported.
·
§15-705
currently provides that regulated lobbyists must file a separate report
disclosing the name of any State official of the Executive Branch or member of
the immediate family of a State official of the Executive Branch who has
benefited during the reporting period from gifts of meals or beverages from the
regulated lobbyist, whether or not in connection with lobbying activities. The lobbyist must file this report
accounting from Dollar One spent on a meal or beverage for an official of the
Executive Branch or a member of the official’s immediate family. This reporting requirement is difficult to
administer and is not in keeping with other gift reporting requirements, which
general require such a report only when the amount spent is $20 or greater or
$100 cumulatively from one donor. This
provision should be revised to require a report only when the amount spent is
$20 or greater or $100 cumulatively from one donor.
·
§15-703(e)
currently sets a registration fee of $50 per registration. The registration fee needs to be increased
to $70 per registration so that administration of the lobbying program can become
more self-sustaining and less reliant on General Fund appropriations.
The
Commission and staff continually review the Public Ethics Law in order to
determine if the administration and enforcement are consistent with the intent
of the law and the mission of the Commission.
·
The
Commission proposes that the Legislature enable it to assess civil penalties in
conflict of interest and other violations by State employees and public
officials. The Commission may currently
request a court of competent jurisdiction to assess fines of $5,000 per
violation, and it seeks the authority, on its own, to assess civil penalties in
the amount of $5,000 per violation. Having
this authority would provide a formal alternative to expensive and extended
court proceedings. This would give the Commission equal authority in setting
sanctions on conflict of interest issues as it presently has with regard to
lobbying violations. The Commission
currently has the authority to assess civil penalties up to $10,000 for
lobbying violations. All penalties
assess by the court or by the Commission go to the General Fund.
APPENDIX A
EMPLOYER
SPENDING $50,000 OR MORE - ALL REGISTRANTS
ALL
TYPES OF EXPENSES
November
1, 2004 ‑ October 31, 2005
$
AMOUNT EMPLOYER
|
|
603,950.60 |
Maryland Hospital
Association. |
|
|
543,165.91 |
MedChi, The Maryland
State Medical Society |
|
|
481,259.07 |
Medical Mutual
Liability Insurance Society of Maryland |
|
|
443,941.64 |
Maryland Association
of Realtors |
|
|
403,257.31 |
Verizon Maryland,
Inc. |
|
|
370,582.56 |
Pepco Holdings, Inc. |
|
|
356,642.00 |
Maryland Zoo in
Baltimore, The |
|
|
356,236.19 |
Johns Hopkins Institutions |
|
|
347,119.50 |
CareFirst Blue Cross
Blue Shield |
|
|
318,309.37 |
Maryland Jockey Club
of Baltimore City/Pimlico Race Track |
|
|
304,031.53 |
Maryland Retailers
Association |
|
|
299,761.28 |
Laurel Racing
Association, Inc. |
|
|
292,275.87 |
Maryland State
Teachers Association |
|
|
264,031.30 |
Peterson Companies,
The |
|
|
251,804.32 |
Washington Area New
Automobile Dealers Association |
|
|
249,794.00 |
Gaylord
Entertainment |
|
|
241,674.67 |
Maryland Bankers
Association |
|
|
241,454.29 |
Maryland Trial
Lawyers Association |
|
|
241,343.24 |
Ocean Downs
Racetrack/Allegany Racing Association |
|
|
240,220.72 |
Adventist
Healthcare, Inc. |
|
|
233,790.72 |
Mirant Mid-Atlantic,
LLC |
|
|
222,370.52 |
MedStar Health |
|
|
220,415.80 |
Amerigroup Maryland,
Inc. |
|
|
213,356.00 |
MAMSI/United
Healthcare |
|
|
212,538.82 |
Lifebridge Health |
|
|
206,000.00 |
Prince George’s
County Government |
|
|
204,614.31 |
Greenbelt Metro
Park, LLC |
|
|
195,560.68 |
Association of
Maryland Pilots |
|
|
191,906.00 |
Maryland
Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association |
|
|
181,239.00 |
Maryland Chamber of
Commerce |
|
|
178,200.00 |
Law Offices of Peter
G. Angelos |
|
|
176,662.60 |
Norfolk Southern
Corporation |
|
|
175,345.15 |
Technology Council
of Maryland |
|
|
166,626.00 |
AARP Maryland |
|
|
162,330.00 |
Comcast Cable
Communications |
|
|
157,817.00 |
League of Life and
Health Insurers of Maryland |
|
|
157,448.92 |
Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers |
|
|
155,359.03 |
Service Employees
International Union, Maryland DC Council |
|
|
155,049.00 |
Maryland Independent
College & University Association |
|
|
146,635.81 |
Children’s National
Medical Center |
|
|
144,685.00 |
Votehere, Inc. |
|
|
141,998.15 |
Maryland Automobile
Dealers Association |
|
|
141,000.00 |
Maryland State
Builders Association |
|
|
140,224.00 |
United Way of
Central Maryland |
|
|
134,882.80 |
Dimensions Health
Corporation |
|
|
134,499.88 |
Baltimore Jewish
Council |
|
|
134,475.00 |
Lyondell Chemicals |
|
|
133,224.00 |
Maryland State Bar
Association |
|
|
126,961.53 |
ACS State &
Local Solutions |
|
|
126,427.58 |
Schaller Anderson of
Maryland LLC |
|
|
124,538.92 |
Luk Flats, LLC |
|
|
123,251.85 |
Constellation Energy
Group, Inc. |
|
|
120,200.00 |
Oberthur Gaming
Technologies, Inc. |
|
|
120,150.00 |
Multimedia Games,
Inc. |
|
|
119,761.26 |
State Farm Insurance
Companies |
|
|
117,613.14 |
Health Facilities
Association of Maryland |
|
|
116,074.44 |
Cloverleaf
Standardbred Owners Association |
|
|
114,920.99 |
Restaurant
Association of Maryland, Inc. |
|
|
108,674.03 |
Apartment &
Office Building Assn. of Metro Washington |
|
|
108,416.61 |
MCI |
|
|
107,333.67 |
MidAtlantic Lifespan |
|
|
106,913.62 |
Property Casualty
Insurers Association of America |
|
|
102,471.75 |
Scientific Games
International |
|
|
102,447.10 |
American Petroleum
Institute |
|
|
101,613.35 |
Equality Maryland,
Inc. |
|
|
100,022.56 |
Chesapeake Bay
Foundation |
|
|
98,282.00 |
Northrop Grumman
Corporation |
|
|
97,505.37 |
Montgomery County
Chamber of Commerce |
|
|
97,000.00 |
Greater Washington
Board of Trade |
|
|
96,000.00 |
American Minority
Contractors & Business Association |
|
|
95,669.68 |
Cable Telecommunications
Association of MD, DE & DC |
|
|
94,103.13 |
Pharmaceutical
Research & Manufacturers of America |
|
|
92,116.00 |
American Heart
Association |
|
|
90,621.75 |
IGT |
|
|
90,200.00 |
OSI, Inc. (Outback
Steakhouse, Inc.) |
|
|
90,000.00 |
Policy Studies, Inc. |
|
|
89,020.40 |
Maryland Association
of Boards of Education |
|
|
88,811.39 |
Maryland Catholic
Conference |
|
|
87,576.06 |
Maryland Community
Health System, LLP |
|
|
86,264.00 |
Kaiser Foundation Health
Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, Inc. |
|
|
85,649.08 |
Reliant Energy, Inc. |
|
|
85,000.00 |
Evercare |
|
|
84,050.00 |
Americhoice Health
Services, Inc. |
|
|
84,000.00 |
Manufacturers’
Alliance of Maryland |
|
|
81,947.00 |
Clark Enterprises,
Inc. |
|
|
81,697.39 |
General Growth
Properties, Inc. |
|
|
81,162.04 |
Maryland Farm
Bureau, Inc. |
|
|
80,132.16 |
Greater Capital Area
Association of Realtors |
|
|
80,000.00 |
AARP |
|
|
80,000.00 |
Lorillard Tobacco
Company |
|
|
80,000.00 |
Alcoa Eastalco Works |
|
|
79,725.50 |
Suburban Hospital |
|
|
79,550.93 |
Friends of the
Family, Inc. |
|
|
78,672.20 |
Prison Health
Services, Inc. |
|
|
78,465.00 |
Maryland State
Dental Association |
|
|
78,400.00 |
Rite Aid Corporation |
|
|
77,687.72 |
GTECH Corporation |
|
|
76,395.30 |
Maryland State and
DC AFL-CIO |
|
|
76,274.00 |
Greater Washington
Commercial Association of Realtors |
|
|
75,000.00 |
Prince George’s
County Council |
|
|
75,000.00 |
Deloitte Consulting |
|
|
74,737.18 |
Cloverleaf
Enterprises, Inc. |
|
|
74,593.07 |
General Motors
Corporation |
|
|
72,685.00 |
St. Agnes Healthcare |
|
|
72,222.06 |
Planned Parenthood
of Metropolitan Washington |
|
|
72,000.00 |
BAA USA |
|
|
72,000.00 |
Walmart Stores, Inc. |
|
|
71,379.66 |
Correctional Medical
Services |
|
|
71,200.00 |
Valley Proteins Inc. |
|
|
70,650.00 |
CH2M Hill |
|
|
69,590.00 |
Maryland Taxicab,
Sedan & Paratransit |
|
|
67,878.49 |
Maryland Horse
Breeders Association |
|
|
67,741.36 |
Mid-Atlantic
Petroleum Distributors Association |
|
|
67,137.26 |
ESP, Inc. |
|
|
67,100.00 |
Microsoft
Corporation |
|
|
66,092.09 |
Maryland Tort Reform
Coalition |
|
|
66,084.93 |
NEXTEL
Communications |
|
|
65,500.00 |
Diebold Election
Systems |
|
|
65,390.74 |
UST Public Affairs,
Inc. |
|
|
65,251.38 |
National Federation
of Independent Business |
|
|
65,220.48 |
Kraft Foods North
America, Inc. |
|
|
65,022.64 |
Mental Health
Association of Maryland |
|
|
64,989.20 |
Government
Affairs-Maryland |
|
|
64,470.93 |
Phillip Morris, USA |
|
|
64,437.32 |
CGI-AMS |
|
|
64,200.00 |
Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) |
|
|
63,993.00 |
Sempra Generation |
|
|
63,681.53 |
Maryland Optometric
Association |
|
|
63,397.76 |
Nationwide Insurance
Company |
|
|
62,883.20 |
Cingular Wireless |
|
|
62,253.06 |
St. Joseph Medical
Center |
|
|
61,905.06 |
Concentra Medical
Centers |
|
|
61,825.38 |
Variable Annuity
Life Insurance Company, The (VALIC) |
|
|
61,661.24 |
Chimes, The |
|
|
61,592.76 |
Blind Industries
& Services of Maryland |
|
|
61,537.78 |
MBNA America |
|
|
61,189.48 |
American Cancer
Society |
|
|
60,715.35 |
M-Real USA
Corporation |
|
|
60,621.75 |
Accenture |
|
|
60,537.70 |
Maryland Citizens
Health Initiative, Inc. |
|
|
60,456.39 |
MV Transportation,
Inc. |
|
|
60,277.10 |
GBMC Healthcare,
Inc. |
|
|
60,250.00 |
Leucadia
International Corporation |
|
|
60,246.59 |
R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company |
|
|
60,050.00 |
Page &
Associates |
|
|
60,000.00 |
Duke Energy North
America |
|
|
60,000.00 |
National Funeral
Directors Association |
|
|
59,800.00 |
Maryland Insurance
Council |
|
|
59,669.86 |
Medco Health
Solutions |
|
|
59,640.52 |
University of
Phoenix |
|
|
58,933.34 |
Alternative Medicine
Integration of Maryland LLC |
|
|
58,779.72 |
Columbia Gas of
Maryland, Inc. |
|
|
58,483.34 |
Delaware North
Companies |
|
|
57,912.00 |
Discovery
Communications, Inc. |
|
|
57,000.00 |
American Insurance
Association |
|
|
55,767.87 |
Smart &
Associates, LLP |
|
|
55,600.00 |
Progressive Maryland |
|
|
55,500.00 |
Caremark |
|
|
55,430.32 |
Dominion Resources
Services, Inc. |
|
|
55,000.00 |
Altria Corporate
Services |
|
|
55,000.00 |
American Chemistry
Council |
|
|
54,936.57 |
Maryland Association
of Mortgage Brokers |
|
|
54,818.00 |
Lockheed Martin
Corporation |
|
|
54,000.00 |
UFCW Local 27 |
|
|
53,865.00 |
CSX Corporation |
|
|
53,249.73 |
Sunoco, Inc. |
|
|
53,142.64 |
T-Mobile USA, Inc. |
|
|
52,920.00 |
Yellow Transportation |
|
|
52,617.58 |
SCI Atlantic Region |
|
|
52,550.00 |
EPIC Pharmacies,
Inc. |
|
|
52,469.72 |
U. S. Wind Force,
LLC |
|
|
52,400.00 |
College of American
Pathologists |
|
|
52,398.78 |
Motion Picture
Association of America |
|
|
52,236.34 |
ACLU of Maryland
(America Civil Liberties Union) |
|
|
52,224.00 |
Washington Gas |
|
|
52,200.00 |
Fraternal Order of
Police Maryland State Lodge |
|
|
52,185.38 |
Advocates for
Children & Youth, Inc. |
|
|
52,182.01 |
Dreyers Grand Ice
Cream Inc. and Nestle Ice Cream Co. LLC |
|
|
52,050.00 |
Dental Network, The |
|
|
52,013.60 |
WMDA Service Station
and Automotive Repair Association |
|
|
52,000.00 |
Penn National
Gaming, Inc. |
|
|
51,539.00 |
MaryPirg Citizen
Lobby |
|
|
51,492.00 |
AFSCME Council 92 |
|
|
51,463.43 |
Abbott Laboratories |
|
|
51,329.60 |
Baltimore Building
& Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO |
|
|
51,206.52 |
Drug Policy Alliance |
|
|
50,851.51 |
AFSCME AFL-CIO |
|
|
50,563.77 |
Maryland State
Licensed Beverage Association |
|
|
50,523.46 |
Organization for International
Investment |
|
|
50,500.00 |
ARINC |
|
|
50,207.89 |
HSBC-GR Corp.
(Formerly Household Financial Group, LTD) |
|
|
50,149.92 |
Maryland Works, Inc. |
|
|
50,000.00 |
Maryland Association
of Chain Drug Stores |
|
|
50,000.00 |
MD/DC/DE
Broadcasters Association, Inc. |
APPENDIX B
LOBBYISTS RECEIVING $50,000
OR MORE IN COMPENSATION
ONE OR MORE EMPLOYERS
November 1, 2004 ‑
October 31, 2005
$ Amount
|
1.
|
1,018,784.73 |
Alexander,
Gary R. |
|
2.
|
892,584.00 |
Enten,
D. Robert |
|
3.
|
890,690.52 |
Rozner,
Joel D. |
|
4.
|
807,005.00 |
Rifkin,
Alan M. |
|
5.
|
806,488.19 |
Stierhoff,
John R. |
|
6.
|
709,758.33 |
Pitcher,
J. William |
|
7.
|
638,514.97 |
Johansen,
Michael V. |
|
8.
|
625,546.00 |
Rasmussen,
Dennis |
|
9.
|
595,470.00 |
Bereano,
Bruce C. |
|
10.
|
574,841.62 |
Shaivitz,
Robin F. |
|
11.
|
554,564.92 |
Cowen,
Lee |
|
12.
|
554,250.00 |
Manis,
Nicholas G. |
|
13.
|
518,250.05 |
Taylor,
Casper |
|
14.
|
464,400.00 |
Evans
Gerard E. |
|
15.
|
455,726.40 |
Burridge,
Carolyn T. |
|
16.
|
448,234.37 |
Popham,
Bryson F. |
|
17.
|
400,354.50 |
McCoy,
Dennis C. |
|
18.
|
394,000.20 |
Schwartz,
Joseph A., III |
|
19.
|
363,843.00 |
Hoffman,
Barbara |
|
20.
|
359,997.76 |
Collins,
Carville B. |
|
21.
|
326,453.50 |
Arrington,Michael |
|
22.
|
318,924.96 |
Lamb,
Todd |
|
23.
|
311,708.83 |
Tiburzi,
Paul A. |
|
24.
|
289,791.68 |
Ornstein,
Chantel |
|
25.
|
282,816.21 |
Doherty,
Daniel T., Jr. |
|
26.
|
262,303.00 |
Miedusiewski,
American Joe |
|
27.
|
231,500.00 |
Boston,
Frank |
|
28.
|
226,832.80 |
Kasemeyer,
Pamela M. |
|
29.
|
226,262.50 |
Funk,
David |
|
30.
|
207,288.23 |
Brocato,
Barbara Marx |
|
31.
|
204,000.00 |
Genn,
Gilbert J. |
|
32.
|
199,375.00 |
Levitan,
Laurence |
|
33.
|
197,200.00 |
Battle,
J. Kenneth Jr. |
|
34.
|
189,165.00 |
Andryszak,
John A. |
|
35.
|
187,817.00 |
Rivkin,
Deborah R. |
|
36.
|
185,064.00 |
Burner,
Gene L. |
|
37.
|
174,750.00 |
Manis,
George N. |
|
38.
|
167,500.00 |
Carter,
W. Minor |
|
39.
|
157,403.50 |
Binderman,Mindy
Koplan |
|
40.
|
157,350.00 |
Carroll,
David H., Jr. |
|
41.
|
157,350.00 |
Johnson,
Robert C. |
|
42.
|
154,280.00 |
Goldstein,
Franklin |
|
43.
|
152,420.00 |
Gally,
Eric |
|
44.
|
152,000.00 |
Canning,
Michael F. |
|
45.
|
149,451.25 |
Hanna,
Tiffany |
|
46.
|
148,000.00 |
Harris-Jones,
Lisa M. |
|
47.
|
144,685.00 |
Moffett,
Anthony |
|
48.
|
142,000.00 |
Proctor,
Gregory S. |
|
49.
|
140,664.00 |
Valentino-Benitez,
Ellen |
|
50.
|
140,000.00 |
Pica,
John A. Jr. |
|
51.
|
140,000.00 |
Hill,
Denise |
|
52.
|
139,806.49 |
McDonough,
John P. |
|
53.
|
137,800.00 |
Looney,
Sean M. |
|
54.
|
136,061.38 |
Iacobazzi,
Catherine F. |
|
55.
|
133,208.00 |
Harting,
Marta D. |
|
56.
|
128,050.00 |
Miles,
William R. |
|
57.
|
123,000.00 |
Albert,
David G. |
|
58.
|
122,000.00 |
DiPietro,
Christopher V. |
|
59.
|
121,400.00 |
Lanier,
Ivan |
|
60.
|
117,120.20 |
Wilkins,
Barbara J. |
|
61.
|
115,150.00 |
Sidh,
Sushant |
|
62.
|
115,000.00 |
Loughran,
Kathleen |
|
63.
|
113,040.00 |
Gisriel,
Michael U. |
|
64.
|
112,548.00 |
Weisel,
Meredith R. |
|
65.
|
106,300.00 |
Muir,
Scott |
|
66.
|
106,000.00 |
Wise,
J. Steven |
|
67.
|
104,894.00 |
Waranch,
Nan Arlene |
|
68.
|
102,518.50 |
Ciekot,
Ann T. |
|
69.
|
100,995.27 |
Wood,
Paul G. |
|
70.
|
100,000.00 |
Townsend,
Pegeen |
|
71.
|
98,998.00 |
Montgomery,
Richard A., III |
|
72.
|
91,000.00 |
Rehrmann,
Eileen |
|
73.
|
90,650.00 |
Johnson,
Deron A. |
|
74.
|
89,585.00 |
Roddy,
Patrick |
|
75.
|
87,330.82 |
Winstead,
David L. |
|
76.
|
86,721.60 |
Hoover,
Lesa Noblitt |
|
77.
|
86,500.00 |
Murphy,
Don |
|
78.
|
83,000.00 |
Jepson,
Robert |
|
79.
|
81,504.15 |
Antoun,
Mary |
|
80.
|
80,000.00 |
Matricciani,
Denise M. |
|
81.
|
80,000.00 |
McDougall,
Cathy |
|
82.
|
80,000.00 |
Nathanson,
Martha Dale |
|
83.
|
78,320.00 |
Wyatt,
Joseph Richard |
|
84.
|
78,200.00 |
Doolan,
Devin John |
|
85.
|
77,858.57 |
Murphy,
Kathleen M. |
|
86.
|
76,000.00 |
McHugh,
Kathleen L. |
|
87.
|
75,000.00 |
Lucchi,
Leonard L. |
|
88.
|
74,415.00 |
Bryant,
Eric Lee |
|
89.
|
72,998.00 |
Thompson,
Melvin R. |
|
90.
|
71,832.00 |
Kaufman,
M. James |
|
91.
|
71,800.00 |
Cohen,
Harold A. |
|
92.
|
71,500.00 |
Opara,
Clay C. |
|
93.
|
71,395.00 |
Neil,
John B. |
|
94.
|
71,298.00 |
Saquella,
Thomas S. |
|
95.
|
69,207.00 |
Levitan,
Susan T. |
|
96.
|
69,081.05 |
Zellmer,
Jeffrie |
|
97.
|
68,200.00 |
Kauffman,
Danna Lubrani |
|
98.
|
68,014.89 |
Richardson,
Lawrence A., Jr. |
|
99.
|
66,700.00 |
Larsen,
Steven B. |
|
100.
|
66,271.00 |
Doherty,
Frances |
|
101.
|
65,700.00 |
Woolums,
John R. |
|
102.
|
64,636.80 |
Powell,
Michael C. |
|
103.
|
64,563.85 |
Cobbs,
Drew P. |
|
104.
|
63,500.00 |
Neily,
Alice J. |
|
105.
|
62,460.00 |
Douglas,
Robert C. |
|
106.
|
60,000.00 |
Creighton,
Nancy |
|
107.
|
60,000.00 |
DeFrancis,
Joseph A. |
|
108.
|
60,000.00 |
Lawrence,
Edgar (Larry) |
|
109.
|
60,000.00 |
Ranier,
Edward M. |
|
110.
|
59,949.00 |
Yewell,
Therese |
|
111.
|
55,858.00 |
Bjarekull,
Tina M. |
|
112.
|
55,000.00 |
Flowers,
Willie |
|
113.
|
54,000.00 |
Counihan,
Gene W. |
|
114.
|
54,000.00 |
Dunphy,
David D. |
|
115.
|
54,000.00 |
Fedder,
Michaeline R. |
|
116.
|
53,933.70 |
Mickens,
Randal L. |
|
117.
|
53,793.75 |
Maloney,
Amy E. |
|
118.
|
53,550.00 |
Ray,
Kelley |
|
119.
|
52,875.00 |
Sammis,
Elizabeth P. |
|
120.
|
51,500.00 |
Doyle,
James J., Jr. |
|
121.
|
50,850.00 |
Conn,
David |
|
122.
|
50,388.16 |
Mitchell,
Susan N. |
|
123.
|
50,000.00 |
Pierson,
Calvin M. |
|
124.
|
50,000.00 |
Robbins,
Earl H., Jr. |
|
125.
|
50,000.00 |
Sokolowski,
Paul |
|
126.
|
50,000.00 |
Todd,
Greta |
APPENDIX C
EXPENDITURES ON SPECIAL EVENTS
November 1, 2004 – October 31, 2005
|
Group Invited |
Number of Times Invited |
TOTAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
All
General Assembly |
102 |
$1,296,617.20 |
|
Anne
Arundel County Delegation |
6 |
44,200.92 |
|
Baltimore
City Delegation |
6 |
10,104.24 |
|
Baltimore
County Delegation |
9 |
17,324.58 |
|
Carroll
County Delegation |
3 |
2,615.31 |
|
Harford
County Delegation |
2 |
888.23 |
|
Howard
County Delegation |
7 |
74,659.28 |
|
Lower
Eastern Shore Delegation |
6 |
1,426.71 |
|
Montgomery
County Delegation |
20 |
246,743.39 |
|
Prince
George’s County Delegation |
21 |
209,080.15 |
|
Southern
Maryland Delegation |
5 |
43,875.86 |
|
Upper
Eastern Shore Delegation |
7 |
1,537.27 |
|
Western
Maryland Delegation |
4 |
45,213.18 |
|
|
|
|
HOUSE
|
|
|
|
Appropriations |
11 |
26,482.51 |
|
Health
& Government Operations |
20 |
42,611.23 |
|
Economic
Matters |
19 |
44,433.75 |
|
Environmental
Matters |
14 |
18,482.70 |
|
Judiciary |
12 |
27,207.19 |
|
Ways
and Means |
11 |
30,781.34 |
|
|
|
|
SENATE
|
|
|
|
Budget
and Taxation |
14 |
31,366.20 |
|
Education,
Health & Environ. Affairs |
18 |
19,837.50 |
|
Finance |
25 |
36,950.05 |
|
Judicial
Proceedings |
12 |
29,053.93 |
TOTAL: $2,301,492.72
(NOTE: Where more than
one committee was invited to the same event for the
purposes of this
report, there may be a proportionate allocation.)
APPENDIX D
LOBBYING
FIRMS EARNING $1,000,000 OR MORE
November
1, 2004 – October 31, 2005
|
Name of Firm |
Compensation
Reported |
|
|
|
|
Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, LLC |
$2,735,585.49 |
|
Alexander & Cleaver, P.A. |
2,704,518.08 |
|
Funk & Bolton, P.A. |
2,047,918.31 |
|
Chesapeake Government Relations |
1,009,551.26 |