MarylanD

state ethics commission

 

45 Calvert StreeT, 3rd floor

Annapolis, maryland 21401

410-260-7770

1-877-669-6085

fax: 410-260-7746

http://ethics.gov.state.md.us

 

29th Annual Report

 

 

 

January 1, 2007 through

december 31, 2007

 

 

 

 

 

 


General statutory implementation

 

Overview

The State Ethics Commission met in regular session 9 times during Calendar Year 2007 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.  It also met one time for the expressed purpose of long term planning, at which meeting no other issues were considered.

The State Ethics Commission, as directed in State Government Article § 15-205, administers the provisions of the Public Ethics Law; prescribes and provides forms for each document required by the Public Ethics Law; retains as a public record each document filed with the Commission for at least four years after receipt; periodically reviews the adequacy of public ethics laws; reviews each statement and report filed in accordance with the Public Ethics Law and notifies officials and employees of any omissions or deficiencies; and publishes and makes available to persons subject to the Public Ethics Law, information that explains the provisions of the Law, the duties imposed by it, and the means for enforcing it.

The Commission compiled by March 1, 2007, a list of entities doing business with the State during the preceding calendar year and made this information available to individuals required to file annual financial disclosure statements.  It also provided training courses for public officials and for regulated lobbyists; and submitted to the General Assembly an annual report on its activities for calendar year 2006.

During calendar year 2007, the Commission continued to encourage officials and employees to file his or her annual financial disclosure statement electronically. During 2007, 9,624 statements were filed electronically by officials and employees.  This represented approximately 71% of the 12,922 required to file.

Additionally, in 2007 the Commission made all lobbying registrations, activity reports, and special event reports available electronically. Lobbying registrations, event reports and activity reports were either submitted electronically or electronically inputted by Commission staff, and available to the public electronically from the Commission’s website, http://ethics.gov.state.md.us.

The Commission staff continued to place substantial emphasis on the training for public officials and employees and regulated lobbyists.  Commission staff continued to focus on providing training to smaller groups of employees at their particular agencies in 2007. This permitted the training to address the specific ethical issues confronted by State employees and public officials in their particular service to the public.  During calendar year 2007, the Commission conducted 23 general ethics training programs for agencies, boards and commissions, attended by 1,100 State employees and public officials, focusing on conflicts of interest and the electronic filing process for financial disclosure statements.  In addition, the Commission staff conducted 13 additional training sessions addressing conflicts of interest, electronic filing and procurement attended by an additional 390 members of public and special interest groups, bringing total number of individuals who attended general ethics and conflicts of interest training to 1,490.  The Commission staff also conducted 25 lobbying training programs, attended by 346 regulated lobbyists pursuant to Public Ethics Law § 15-205(e). The lobbying programs focused on electronic filing and the general lobbying conduct prohibitions in the Law, 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 on June 30, 2003, finding a violation of § 15-713(1) for 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.  On November 9, 2006, the Court of Special Appeals upheld Judge Kane’s decision.  On December 8, 2006, Mr. Bereano filed for reconsideration, and on December 29, 2006.  On April 29, 2007, the Court of Special Appeals issued it order denying the reconsideration and re-issued its November 9, 2006 Opinion.  The Court of Appeals subsequently granted Mr. Bereano’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari.  The case was argued before the Court of Appeals on October 2, 2007 and was pending at the close of the calendar year.

At the end of June, 2007, Julian L. Lapides stepped down as Chairman of the Commission. Robert F. Scholz was elected by the members to serve as Chairman for the year beginning July 1, 2007. Suzanne S. Fox retired as the Executive Director of the Commission on June 30, 2007. After a significant search and recruitment, Robert A. Hahn was selected to replace Ms. Fox. Mr. Hahn had over twenty-five years experience with the Commission as Staff Counsel and General Counsel. Jennifer Allgair, the Commission’s Assistant General Counsel, who also had experience as Staff Counsel, was selected by the Commission to replace Mr. Hahn as General Counsel. In September, Dea W. Daly was hired as the Assistant General Counsel. Ms. Daly had 9 years experience as a Policy Analyst at the Department of Legislative Services and two years in private practice. At the same time, William J. Colquhoun was hired as Staff Counsel. Mr. Colquhoun joined the Commission staff after six years in private practice of law in Anne Arundel County. In December 2007, Ms. Jacqueline Cales, the Legal Assistant to the Staff Counsel resigned to accept a position with the United States District Court in Greenbelt. Her position was vacant at the end of the year.

The Fiscal Year 2008 budget was approved for General Funds of $638,278 and Special Funds of $263,588, for a total appropriate of $901,866. The Commission submitted a budget amendment which was approved by the Department of Budget & Management and the General Assembly budget committees that allowed the Commission an additional position and a half. The full time position was to be a compliance officer to address the concerns in the 2006 Office of Legislative Audits performance audit regarding the timely filing of financial disclosure statements by persons required to file disclosure. The budget amendment also allowed for enhancements to both the financial disclosure and lobbying electronic filing systems.

 

Advice Activities

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’s regulations, COMAR 19A.01.02.05, also permit the staff and the Commission to provide informal advice.  Informal advice generally results 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 its twenty-nine years in existence, the Commission has issued a total of 496 formal opinions. During the past five years the number of formal opinions has decreased while informal reviews and letter advice have increased. A major factor reducing the need for formal Commission opinions is the large number of existing opinions that provide guidance to the staff in responding to requests for informal advice, thus expediting the advice process. 

During calendar year 2007, the Commission issued 5 formal published opinions.  The first opinion (Opinion No. 07-01) was the result of a request of an employee of the PenMar Development Corporation (“PMDC”) regarding the application of the post-employment provisions of the Ethics Law to his possible future employment with a publicly traded real estate development trust that purchased Ft. Richie from PDMC. The opinion discussed the definitions of key terms within the post-employment provisions and factors used to evaluate post-employment matters, as developed in past Commission opinions.  The Commission concluded that the Requestor’s proposed employment with the development trust was prohibited by the post-employment provisions of the Ethics Law.

In Opinion No. 07-02, the Commission granted an exception under § 15-501 of the Ethics Law to an employee of State Highway Administration to allow the employee to participate in matters involving the Intercounty Connector (“ICC”) design-build contracts, procurement reviews and design reviews in which a consulting company that employed the employee’s brother may be a subcontractor on an ICC proposal team.  The Commission set forth guidelines in the opinion to allow the employee to participate in some matters, but directed the agency to reassign other matters directly involving the consulting company to another employee.

In Opinion No. 07-03, the Commission provided advice to an elected official of the Executive Department regarding the application of the provisions of the Ethics Law to his and his wife’s interest in becoming foster parents through the Maryland Department of Human Resources’ (“DHR”) foster care program.  The Commission advised that the Ethics Law did not prohibit the official from becoming a foster parent or participating in the program.  However, the Ethics Law would restrict his participation in certain official government matters related to the foster care program.  The Commission also provided advice regarding the application of the prestige of office provision to this request.

The Commission, by Opinion No. 07-04, advised a Family Services Caseworker at a local Department of Social Services (“DSS”) that she could continue her secondary employment as a psychiatric unit technician with a hospital located in the same county as her State employer.  The Commission granted an exception to allow the secondary employment pursuant to § 15-502 of the Ethics Law and the Commission’s Exception to Outside Employment Prohibition Regulations at COMAR 19A.02.01.03.

Finally, in Opinion No. 07-05, the Commission granted an exception to allow secondary employment to another employee of a local DSS pursuant to § 15-502 of the Ethics Law and the Commission’s Exception to Outside Employment Prohibition Regulations at COMAR 19A.02.01.03.  The DSS employee involved in this opinion proposed secondary employment as a contractual social worker with a private adoption agency that facilitates international adoptions, which is subject to the regulatory authority of her State agency.

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 for advice.  The Commission and its staff provided informal advice in the following subject areas during calendar years 2005 through 2007:

Subject Matter of the Advice

2007

2006

2005

Lobbying Registration, Reporting and Conduct

6

5

9

Secondary employment Advice

121

110

121

Participation Advice

19

15

21

Procurement Restrictions

10

8

15

Post-Employment Advice

30

17

23

Gift Questions

35

17

22

Other

19

28

40

Total

240

200

251

                                                                                                          

The number of informal matters increased in 2007 compared to 2006. Many of these matters dealt with State employees seeking outside or secondary employment.  The 121 informal secondary employment requests considered in 2007 arose from the following Departments and agencies:


DEPARTMENT

2007

2006

2005

Department of Human Resources

31

45

33

Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

21

18

30

Department of Transportation

9

5

13

Executive Department

4

1

4

Department of Agriculture

4

1

1

University System of Maryland

4

1

5

Dept. of Public Safety & Correctional Services

2

2

4

Department of Natural Resources

4

1

6

Other Agencies/Departments

42

36

25

Totals

121

110

121

 

The 42 “other agency” secondary employment requests arose from 22 different State agencies.   The Department of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation submitted 5 secondary employment requests.  The Department of Business and Economic Development presented 5 requests. The remaining 20 agencies presented 32 requests.  During calendar year 2007, the Commission’s Executive Director, General Counsel, Staff Counsel, and Assistant Counsel responded to more than 1941 phone inquiries.

 

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 141 faculty exemptions granted by the university presidents between 1996 and 2006, including exemptions at the University of Baltimore (UMB), the University of Maryland at Baltimore County (UMBC), the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute (UMBI), the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES), and the University of Maryland College Park (UMCP).  During calendar year 2007, USM institutions reported to the Commission an additional 45 individual faculty members exemptions.  The University of Maryland, Baltimore reported one exemption to the Commission in 2007 that was actually for calendar year 2006 and had been overlooked.  The exemptions were from the following institutions:

Institution