FREDERICK COUNTY ETHICS COMMISSION

c/o Office of the County Attorney

Winchester Hall
12 East Church Street
Frederick, Maryland 21701
fcec@FrederickCountyMD.gov
ETHICS COMPLAINT FORM

Instructions:
Please type or print the information requested.
Use of this form is not mandatory, but all of the information requested below
should be provided when a complaint is made.
Anonymous complaints are not accepted.
The Ethics Ordinance is found in Chapter 1-7.1 of the County Code of
Ordinances. A link to the Ordinance is provided on the Ethics Commissions
website.
Additional information about the procedures for resolving complaints may be
found in the Ethics Commissions Standard Operating Procedures, which are also
on the Ethics Commissions website.

Information about the Complainant:

Name of person making the complaint:

Patrick Allen

Address:
4905 Rosehill Drive - Jefferson, Maryland - 21755

Email

address:
patrickwilliamallen@comcast.net

Telephone number(s):
Home:
301.606.8727
Cell:
Work:
Preferred method of communication:

email

Page 1 of 4

Information about the complaint:

Provide the specific provision of the Ethics Ordinance that you believe has been violated:
Please see accompanying complaint narrative.

Name of official or employee who is the subject of the complaint: 1. Gwen Romack, individually, as
Chairperson, Frederick County
Ethics Commission, and
2. Frederick County Ethics Commission

Describe the facts and circumstances that support the complaint.

(Provide as much detail as possible. Attach additional pages if necessary.)
NOTE : This ethics complaint is not filed as, nor should it be considered, frivolous. The complaint narrative
presents allegations of unethical conduct by the Frederick County Ethics Commission Chairperson, Gwen Romack,
individually, and non-compliance actions taken and The Ethics Commission panel as a whole.
It is important to note and consider based on comprehensive and substantive direct evidence, it is not
incumbent on the complainant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual is unethical or has
committed an illegal act, but instead, through the use of direct evidence, to raise reasonable doubt
regarding an individuals ethical and / or legal innocence.
In addition to Sections, sub-Sections and Paragraphs contained in the Frederick County Ethics Ordinance,
the Statement of Purpose establishes a subjective component into the due process, which stipulates:
"...recognizing that our system of representative government is dependent in part upon the people
maintaining the highest trust in their public officials and employees, [boards and commissions] ...",
further stating, "...confidence and trust is eroded when the conduct of the countys business is
subject to improper influence and even the appearance of improper influence".
Although not specifically written into provisions of the Frederick County Ethics Ordinance, the violation of
the Ethics Commission's own Standard Operating Procedures ( V (E)(1) ), based on the Frederick County
Ethics Ordinance Statement of Purpose demonstrates a willful act of obstruction of an investigative process
by the Frederick County Ethics Commission.
NOTE : The Frederick County Ethics Commission, itself, is not immune to citizen scrutiny and the process
of ethics oversight. It cannot conduct its' sworn obligations and responsibilities to the citizens of Frederick
County, Maryland, with impunity.
It must, as an administrative ethics oversight body, hold itself to a high standard of conduct and when
confronted with evidence of its own unethical and / or non-compliant conduct, by an individual panelist or as a
collective body, police itself in the same manner as it undertakes ethics complaints submitted against
elected public officials, county employees and members of other boards and commissions as defined in the
Frederick County Ethics Ordinance.
[ continued below signature on Page 4 and additional pages ]

Page 2 of 4

Witnesses:
Identify any witnesses who have personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances
related to the complaint:
NOTE : This page has been left intentionally blank. The request for witnesses is not applicable to the
submission of this ethics complaint.

Page 3 of 4

I hereby affirm under the penalty of perjury that the contents of this complaint, including
any attachments, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
/pwa/

February 11, 2015

Complainants Signature

Date

Allegation 1 : Unethical Conduct by Gwen Romack, Chairperson, Frederick County Ethics Commission
In a December 19, 2014, Frederick News-Post article related to the formation of an Ethics Reform Task Force by the
County Executive, Gwen Romack made the following comment in that article : "Neither [State Ethics] model
specifically references romantic or inappropriate relationships, and adding a restriction to Frederick County's
ordinance could be problematic...".
A local citizen watchdog group posted an online disagreement with, and rejection of Ms. Romack's comment.
In response to the watchdog group [The Frederick Chronicles] posting, Ms. Romack posted a comment to The
Frederick Chronicles which demonstrates poor judgment, unethical and unbecoming conduct for someone holding a
political appointed position on a Frederick County Commission.
[ See Ethics Complaint Appendix, Exhibit 1 ]
On December 20, 2014, Ms. Romack posted additional comments on social media (not at The Frederick Chronicles)
stating, "I am the Chair of the County Ethics Commission and one particular citizen has made it his life's mission to
harass and slander anyone who doesn't do whatever he thinks should happen the second he thinks it should
happen.", further stating, "I am not sure he is "all there" to be honest.".
[ See Ethics Complaint Appendix, Exhibit 2 ]
The Complainant asserts and alleges that in addition to the above evidence of unethical and unbecoming conduct,
Ms. Romack's comments toward a private citizen, regardless of who that private citizen may be, appear slanderous
in nature and tone and should be viewed as reprehensible and unacceptable the members of the Ethics
Commission.

In the absence of specific provisions in the Frederick County Ethics Ordinance, pertaining to unethical conduct by an
Ethics Commission panelist, an ethics complaint filed against an individual member of the panel should not be
summarily dismissed, but rather evaluated and processed through the lens of the Frederick County Ethics Ordinance
Statement of Purpose ... to wit"
"...recognizing that our system of representative government is dependent in part upon the people
maintaining the highest trust in their public officials and employees, [boards and commissions] ..."
Ms. Romack's social media comments clearly erode public trust and confidence in Ms. Romack, individually, and
the Frederick County Ethics Commission panel, collectively.

Page 4 of 4

Allegation 1 : Complainant Recommendation(s) : The Complainant recommends the Frederick County

Ethics Commission vote in the affirmative regarding the evidence presented in Allegation 1 and proceed
with one of the following actions:
1. Issue a Letter of Reprimand to Ms. Gwen Romack, Chair, Frederick County Ethics Commission and place a
copy of this letter into the requisite Frederick County Records File.
2. Censure Ms. Gwen Romack, Chair, Frederick County Ethics Commission, by a majority vote of
Commissioners and place a copy of the Letter of Censure into the requisite Frederick County Records File.
3. By a majority vote of the Commissioners, remove Ms. Gwen Romack, Chair, Frederick County Ethics Commission
from the Chair, replacing Ms. Gwen Romack with another Commission panelist by a majority vote of the
Commissioners.
4. By a majority vote of the Commissioners, file a formal request with the Frederick County Charter
Government County Council, to remove Ms. Gwen Romack, Chair, Frederick County Ethics Commission from
the panel of Commissioners, immediately terminating Ms. Romack's term with the Frederick County Ethics
Commission.

Allegation 2 : Non-Compliance with Frederick County Ethics Ordinance Standard Operating Procedures,
Section V (E)(1)
RE : Ethics Complaint, filed by Complainant on February 14, 2014
In February, 2014, an ethics complaint document was submitted to the Frederick County Ethics Commission for
consideration. The complaint document contained substantive and sufficient direct evidence to support 4
felony, 1 misdemeanor and 1 ethics violation allegations related to actions and activities between and among
Frederick County government elected officials, appointees and / or employees.
During the ninety (90) day period in which the Frederick County Ethics Commission deliberated the complaint,
Mr. Harold "Bud" Otis resigned from the Frederick County Ethics Commission and Ms. Gwen Romack was
installed as Chair. Following the completion of deliberations, the Ethics Commission issued a six page Ruling OPINION 14-04. NOTE : Information in this paragraph is not presented as evidence, but instead, as
background information for recollection by the Ethics Commission panelists.
In the Commission's ruling, all allegations contained in the complaint document were dismissed / denied.
Subsequent to the release of OPINION 14-04, a detailed review of OPINION 14-04 supports an argument to the
affirmative that the Frederick County Ethics Commission actions were non-compliant with the Frederick County
Ethics Ordinance Standard Operating Procedures, specifically Section V Complaints, Sub Section E Procedures,
Paragraph 1, which stipulates:
V. Complaints
E. Procedures
1. If the allegations in the complaint or the facts obtained during the Commissions investigation suggest
that criminal conduct may have occurred, the Commission will refer the matter to the Office of the Attorney
General, the State Prosecutor, or the States Attorney for a determination as to whether a criminal investigation is
warranted.
The language and instruction, to be adhered to by the Ethics Commission, is unambiguous, insofar as:
"If the allegations in the complaint ... suggest that criminal conduct may have occurred, the
Commission will refer the matter ..."
It is reasonable to draw a logical conclusion that the Ethics Commissions ruling(s) in OPINION 14-04
demonstrate non-compliance with regard to guidelines, instructions and / or governing process instructions
stipulated in the Frederick County Ethics Ordinance Standard Operating Procedures, Section V (E)(1).

In the absence of specific provisions in the Frederick County Ethics Ordinance, pertaining to unethical or
non-compliant conduct by the Ethics Commission panel, an ethics complaint filed against the panel, as a
collective body, should not be summarily dismissed, but rather evaluated and processed through the lens of
the Frederick County Ethics Ordinance Statement of Purpose ... to wit"
"...recognizing that our system of representative government is dependent in part upon the people
maintaining the highest trust in their public officials and employees, [boards and commissions] ..."
The actions of the Frederick County Ethics Commission, as articulated in Allegation 2, clearly erode public
trust and confidence in the Frederick County Ethics Commission.
Further, the evidence presented in Allegation 2, provides a clear and unambiguous explanation of how the
Frederick County Ethics Commission did not exhaust all remedies provisioned to the Commissioners.

Subsequent to the release of OPINION 14-04, a due diligence analysis of OPINION 14-04 rulings reveal
the following referential and / or evidential artifacts to support Allegation 2 of this ethics complaint.

1. Compliance to Specific Instructions Stipulated in the Frederick County Ethics Ordinance Standard Operating
Procedures Section V (E)(1) : Referral. of Criminal Offense Allegations.
In the February 14, 2014 Ethics Complaint, the Complainant requested that the Frederick County State's
Attorney's Office (SAO) recuse itself from any participation in an investigation of the ethics complaint, citing,
Charlie Smith had previously and publicly endorsed Mr. Blaine Young, ( "subject" ). It is not known by the
Complainant, at this time, if "request to recuse" was honored.
Based on an assumption of recusal by the Frederick County State's Attorney's Office, the Ethics Commission
was bound by its Standard Operating Procedures, Section V (E)(1), to refer the four (4) felony and one (1)
misdemeanor allegations contained in the ethics complaint to the Maryland State Attorney General and / or the
Maryland Office of the State Prosecutor.
Instead, the Ethics Commission, which does not have legal authority, or judicial privilege, to conduct criminal
investigations summarily dismissed all allegations contained in the ethics complaint, providing the Complainant
with the Ethics Commission's ruling for each allegation in OPINION 14-04.
The action of non-compliance with the Ethics Commission Standard Operating Procedures, Section V (E)
(1), is alleged by the Complainant to be an interference with and possible obstruction of a criminal
investigative process.
2. Complainant rebuttal to individual criminal allegation rulings in OPINION 14-04 as evidence the Ethics
Commission Standard Operating Procedures, Section V (E) (1), was violated in a non-compliant manner.
Ethics Commission rulings contained in OPINION 14-04 are included in this ethics complaint for reference,
with a written rebuttal for each ruling. Rulings and Rebuttals are presented beginning on the next page.

As an introduction to the presentation of allegations contained in the February 14, 2014 ethics complaint
submission and Complainant rebuttal comments related to each allegation, which challenges the Ethics
Commission's rulings contained in OPINION 14-04 and underlies the foundation of Allegation 2 in this
complaint, the Ethics Commission is provided the following background information:
1. Allegations 1-5 were / are based on direct evidence obtained during a six month investigation,
October 19, 2012 thru April 26, 2013.
2. Allegation 6 was / is based on general knowledge during the same six month period, with additional
confirmation provided by the "subject" throughout 2014 in the form of comments made to local news
media (radio and print) and "on the record" statements made to the Frederick County Charter
Government County Council.

Allegation 1 Frederick County Privatization The Oliver Porter recommended privatization

of Frederick County personnel and services.
Allegation 2 Sale of Montevue / Citizens The sale of these facilities to a pre-determined
buyer.
Allegation 3 Acquisition of Confidential Courthouse Records The acquisition and use of
confidential courthouse records for the purposes of damaging a potential political opponent.
Allegation 4 Business / Development Community Quid Pro Quo The acknowledgement
by Mr. Young that favors between himself and the business / development community will be
honored.
Allegation 5 Planning Commission Appointment(s) : Political Quid Pro Quo The
acknowledgement by Mr. Young that he fast-tracked specific appointees for the purposes of
political gain during the 2014 County Council election cycle.
Allegation 6 Supervisor / Subordinate Relations The highly questionable relationship,
apparently adulterous, between Mr. Young and a senior county employee in the countys
budget office.
NOTE : Allegation 2, of this ethics complaint, asserts and alleges non-compliance of
Frederick County Ethics Ordinance Standard Operating Procedures, Section V (E)(1),
by the Frederick County Ethics Commission, specifically, the referral of allegations
containing "criminal offense implications". For that reason, Allegation 5 in the above
list of Allegations will not be addressed.
Further, Ethics Commission Ruling text is taken directly from OPINION 14-04 and
Rebuttal To Ruling is the Complainant response to show error(s) in the Ethics
Commission Ruling and non-compliance of Section V (E)(1).

Allegation 1 Frederick County Privatization. Privatization is a ruse. Unethical and / or illegal use of
prestige of office by the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners, Blaine R. Young, and possibly
other members of the BoCC regarding the attempted privatization of Frederick County operations and
workforce. Mr. Youngs statement, Privatization is a ruse is direct evidence and supported by additional
direct evidence presented in the complaint document (face-to-face discussion with Mr. Young and meeting
notes).

Ethics Commission Ruling. The complainant alleges that a County Commissioner advocated for
privatization as a ruse and a hoax to determine the extent to which County residents might agree
with the Commissioners position on privatization.
The decision to consider proposals to restructure the County workforce and, as a related matter, to
consider the possible privatization of certain functions carried out by County employees was a
decision made by the Board of County Commissioners. This is not the forum in which to question
that decision or to challenge the motives of individual Commissioners who supported the proposals.

Rebuttal To Ruling. Regarding this February 14, 2014 ethics complaint allegation, the Complainant did not
question the decision, nor challenge the motive, of an individual member of the Frederick County Board of
County Commissioners.
The Complainant asserts and alleges the Ethics Commission did not base it's ruling on direct and sufficient
evidence provided to the Ethics Commission by stating in Ethics Commission's ruling, "This is not the forum
in which to question that decision or to challenge the motives of individual Commissioners ...
Argument. The ethics complaint allegation clearly presented direct and sufficient evidence of the
"subject's" premeditated intent to commit a criminal act, individually and / or with others, as well as the
"subject's" resultant actions in the execution of a criminal act, individually and / or with others.
The intent and actions by the "subject", individually and / or with others, demonstrates criminal misappropriation and use of county funds.
The Complainant asserts the Ethics Commission Ruling and the Complainant Rebuttal To Ruling is not a
question of semantics between the Complainant and the Ethics Commission, but rather, in
contemporary vernacular, a clear example of apples and oranges.
The Complainant allegation provides sufficient direct evidence for the allegation to be referred to an
external investigative entity which has the resources to conduct a comprehensive forensic investigation
of emails, cell phone records, land line records, digital document archives, etc., as well as personal
interviews with requisite persons.
Allegation. Based on information contained in the Rebuttal To Ruling and Argument, the Complainant
asserts and alleges non-compliance of Section V (E)(1) by the Ethics Commission based on the fact that
the Ethics Commission did not exhaust all remedies provisioned in Section V (E)(1) of the Ethics
Commission Standard Operating Procedures, to refer a sufficiently documented criminal act by an
elected public official to an external investigative entity.

Allegation 2 Sale of Montevue / Citizens. The deal is in the bag. Unethical and / or illegal use of
prestige of office by the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners, Blaine R. Young, and possibly
other members of the BoCC regarding the attempted sale of Montevue Assisted Living and Citizens
Rehabilitative Care Center located in Frederick County, Maryland.
Mr. Youngs statements, The deal is in the bag and I have the deal in hand is direct evidence and
supported by additional direct evidence presented in the complaint document.

Ethics Commission Ruling. The complaint alleges that a Commissioner privately negotiated a deal
to sell these entities to a selected buyer. The complaint states that this is both illegal and a direct
contradiction to transparency and open meetings with conducting county business.
The Ethics Commission has no power to address a complaint that the State Open Meetings Act was
not violated, nor does it have jurisdiction over allegations of criminal conduct.
The Commission also notes that the sale of these facilities was approved by a majority of the Board
of County Commissioners after a public hearing.

Rebuttal To Ruling. Regarding this February 14, 2014 ethics complaint allegation, the
Complainant asserts and alleges the Ethics Commission placed an unbalanced weight on the
Complainant's use of the term "open meetings" and did not place a greater weight on the direct
evidence provided to the Ethics Commission in the form of statements made by Mr. Young and
supporting meeting notes.
The Complainant, based on the direct evidence, asserts and alleges that Mr. Young, "subject",
individually and / or with others, conducted secret negotiations to sell the Montevue / Citizens Care
facilities at an agreed upon price far in advance of established and statute sale / purchase process
requirements.
Argument. As noted in the February 14, 2014 ethics complaint allegation, over four months prior to the
June 25, 2013 public hearing and Board of County Commissioners vote regarding the sale of the
healthcare facilities, Mr. Young admitted, in comments made during a private meeting, to conducting
private discussions and completing a financial purchase arrangement, which did not follow best
practices and statutory guidelines related to the issuance and advertisement of a Request for Proposals
and other County Ordinances which govern this type of transaction.
The Complainant asserts the Ethics Commission Ruling, which states, "The Ethics Commission has no
power to address a complaint that the State Open Meetings Act was violated, nor does it have
jurisdiction over allegations of criminal conduct." fully supports the Complainant allegation the Ethics
Commission did not comply with referral instructions for allegations containing "criminal offense
implications" as defined in the Frederick County Ethics Ordinance Standard Operating Procedures
Section V (E)(1).
The Complainant allegation provides sufficient direct evidence for the allegation to be referred to an
external investigative entity which has the resources to conduct a comprehensive forensic investigation
of emails, cell phone records, land line records, digital document archives, etc., as well as personal
interviews with requisite persons.
Allegation. Based on information contained in the Rebuttal To Ruling and Argument, the Complainant
asserts and alleges non-compliance of Section V (E)(1) by the Ethics Commission based on the fact that
the Ethics Commission did not exhaust all remedies provisioned in Section V (E)(1) of the Ethics
Commission Standard Operating Procedures, to refer a sufficiently documented criminal act by an
elected public official to an external investigative entity.

Allegation 3 Acquisition of Confidential Courthouse Records. Unethical and / or illegal use of

prestige of office by the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners, Blaine R. Young, and
possibly other members of the BoCC regarding the pursuit and / or acquisition of confidential county
courthouse records for the purposes of political gain.
Mr. Youngs statements that a possible political opponent is engaged in personal activities which can be
surfaced from confidential courthouse records, with additional statements made over a several week
period regarding his efforts to obtain the confidential courthouse records, is direct evidence and
supported by additional direct evidence presented in the complaint document.

Ethics Commission Ruling. In an attempt to determine what action, if any, is appropriate for the
Ethics Commission to take on this charge, the Commission requested additional information from the
complainant.
The Commission asked the complainant to identify the other persons referenced in the complaint as
having personal knowledge of the facts and to describe each persons involvement.
Given the limited information provided to support the claim the Commission finds that the charge
fails to state a potential violation. Without more information, the Commission also finds that a referral
for criminal investigation is not merited.

Rebuttal To Ruling. Regarding this February 14, 2014 ethics complaint allegation, the Complainant
asserts and alleges the Ethics Commission sought confidential information from the Complainant which
was not germaine to the review / evaluation of the ethics complaint allegation and should only be made
available to external investigative entities to protect the identity of confidential sources and informants.
Argument. The Ethics Commission, by invoking an uncooperative complainant texture to its ruling to
deny referral of an allegation containing "criminal offense implications" to an external investigative entity
is both capricious in nature and non-compliant to Section V (E)(1) of the Ethics Commission Standard
Operating Procedures in its application.
The Commission was provided with direct evidence in the form of verbatim statements made by
Commissioner Young, "subject", as well as direct evidence in the form of meeting notes which clearly
support the allegation that Mr. Young either attempted or succeeded in obtaining confidential
courthouse records believed to be directly associated to a private citizen and potential political
opponent.
Given the perceived porous nature of confidentiality regarding information provided to the Ethics
Commission, the complainant was entirely correct in protecting the identities of other Frederick County
citizens, arguing that only a legitimate criminal investigative entity should be provided that information.
The Complainant allegation provides sufficient direct evidence for the allegation to be referred to an
external investigative entity which has the resources to conduct a comprehensive forensic investigation
of emails, cell phone records, land line records, digital document archives, etc., as well as personal
interviews with requisite persons.
Allegation. Based on information contained in the Rebuttal To Ruling and Argument, the Complainant
asserts and alleges non-compliance of Section V (E)(1) by the Ethics Commission based on the fact that
the Ethics Commission did not exhaust all remedies provisioned in Section V (E)(1) of the Ethics
Commission Standard Operating Procedures, to refer a sufficiently documented criminal act by an
elected public official to an external investigative entity.

Allegation 4 Business / Development Community Quid Pro Quo. Unethical and / or illegal use of
prestige of office by the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners, Blaine R. Young, and
possibly other members of the BoCC regarding a quid pro quo relationship between the Frederick County
Board of County Commissioners and members in the business / development community.
Mr. Youngs statement, - the regional business community will keep their promise based on what I
have done for them already is direct evidence and supported by additional direct evidence (emails
written by Blaine Young) presented in the complaint document.

Ethics Commission Ruling. The complaint quotes a County Commissioner [Blaine Young] as
stating that members of the business community would keep their promises to him based on what
he had done for those members. The complaint argues that this statement shows that a quid pro
quo relationship exists.
This allegation was found not to constitute a violation of the Ethics Ordinance.

Rebuttal To Ruling. Regarding this February 14, 2014 ethics complaint allegation, the Complainant
asserts and alleges the Ethics Commission was unreasonably myopic during its evaluation and
deliberations, without consideration and inclusion of a preponderance of direct evidence regarding Mr.
Young's, "subject", nefarious and criminally alleged business practices presented in multiple allegations
against Mr. Young contained in the February 14, 2014 ethics complaint document.
Argument. The verbatim written statements by Blaine Young, subject in the form of emails, were
provided to the Ethics Commission. The Complainant argues that when the Chief Executive of County
government ( President, Frederick County Board of County Commissioners ) explicitly states the
business / developer community in Frederick County are beholden to him for actions he has taken on
their behalf, demonstrates a high probability of a quid pro quo relationship.
Quid Pro Quo [Definition]. Something For Something, Favor For Favor.
In legal usage, quid pro quo indicates that an item or a service has been traded in
return for something of value, usually when the propriety or equity of the transaction is
in question. Further, quid pro quo is defined as "Something that is given to you or
done for you in return for something you have given to or done for someone else."
In the context of the Complainant's remarks, presented as a rebuttal to the Ethics Commission ruling
regarding this allegation, Mr. Youngs statement, the regional business community will keep their
promise based on what I have done for them already is direct and sufficient evidence of a quid pro
quo relationship, further supported by additional direct evidence ( emails written by Blaine Young )
presented in the February 14, 2014 ethics complaint document.
The Complainant allegation provides sufficient direct evidence for the allegation to be referred to an
external investigative entity which has the resources to conduct a comprehensive forensic investigation
of emails, cell phone records, land line records, digital document archives, etc., as well as personal
interviews with requisite persons.
Allegation. Based on information contained in the Rebuttal To Ruling and Argument, the Complainant
asserts and alleges non-compliance of Section V (E)(1) by the Ethics Commission based on the fact that
the Ethics Commission did not exhaust all remedies provisioned in Section V (E)(1) of the Ethics
Commission Standard Operating Procedures, to refer a sufficiently documented criminal act by an
elected public official to an external investigative entity.

Allegation 6 Supervisor / Subordinate Relations. Unethical personal relationship between the

Frederick County Board of County Commissioners President, Blaine R. Young, and the Frederick
County Budget Officer, Regina Williams Howell.
This allegation and / or charge is significant insofar as it presents unethical, if not illegal conduct, based
on the Frederick County Ethics Ordinance [Section 1-7.1-5, Conflict of Interest] and / or Maryland
Adultery statute(s).

Ethics Commission Ruling. The Ethics Commission previously found that a personal relationship
between a County Commissioner and an employee is outside the scope of the Ethics Ordinance.
The Commission also declines to make a referral for possible criminal investigation, stating, Even were
the Commission to make a referral for prosecution, it is highly unlikely that the State would investigate or
prosecute anyone for this conduct.

Rebuttal To Ruling. Regarding this February 14, 2014 ethics complaint allegation, the Frederick County
Ethics Commission does not have the legal authority, or judicial privilege, to base this ruling on
speculation regarding what actions may or may not be taken by an external investigative entity.
This stipulation, alone, demonstrates the Ethics Commission is non-compliant with Section V (E)(1) of the
Frederick County Ethics Ordinance Standard Operating Procedures.
Argument. The Ethics Commission has previously been provided three (3) ethics complaints ( January
19, February 14 and December 17, 2014 ) which addressed the specific issue and allegation(s) of
adultery between an elected public official and a county employee, citing the statutory illegality and the
adverse impact the adulterous supervisor-subordinate relationship has on the continuity of operations at
Winchester Hall.
It is important to note that "subject", in the context of this ethics complaint allegation is actually
"subject(s)" ... Mr. Blaine Young and Mrs. Regina Williams Howell, currently known as Regina Williams.
Technically, as the most senior governing body [BoCC] in county government (at the time), all county
employees are reasonably considered to be "subordinate" to the BoCC. Mr. Young, "subject", worked
directly with Regina Williams, "subject", as exampled by their joint participation in budget meetings and
presentations.
According to Mr. Young's own admission, the "relationship" began in December 2012, and continued
during a period of time as Mr. Young stated to his political campaign donors, his radio audience and
news media outlets, that Mr. Young and Ms. Williams were not involved in an extra-marital affair.
In October, 2013, having not yet admitted publicly that the adulterous extra-marital relationship began in
December 2012, Mr. Young made public comments that he had separated his domicile from that of his
wife and children in August 2013 and was only then "dating" a [senior] county employee.
In 2014, as Frederick County citizens realized the mis-information of Mr. Young's "relationship" remarks,
Mr. Young began a public mea-culpa campaign ... ending with his appearance and allegation
substantiating comments from the podium at a Charter Government County Council Meeting.
A supervisor-subordinate relationship between the county's chief executive and the county's budget
officer is problematic insofar as it disrupts the continuity of government operations.
[ continued on following page ]

Given the relationship included Blaine Young, Frederick County Board of County Commissioners
President, and Regina Williams, Frederick County Budget Officer, confidential county staff sources have
stated that they "Felt like I had to walk on egg shells around Regina. You never know if what you say or
do is going to get beck to Blaine".
An adverse disruption to continuity of government operations directly affects county staff morale, county
staff performance and generally, with some degree of certainty, results in higher costs to the taxpayers.
The Complainant allegation provides sufficient direct evidence for the allegation to be referred to an
external investigative entity which has the resources to conduct a comprehensive forensic investigation
of emails, cell phone records, land line records, digital document archives, etc., as well as personal
interviews with requisite persons.
Allegation. Based on information contained in the Rebuttal To Ruling and Argument, the Complainant
asserts and alleges non-compliance of Section V (E)(1) by the Ethics Commission based on the fact that
the Ethics Commission did not exhaust all remedies provisioned in Section V (E)(1) of the Ethics
Commission Standard Operating Procedures, to refer a sufficiently documented criminal act by an
elected public official to an external investigative entity.

The state of Maryland still has what are known as "adultery laws" that afford relief to
innocent spouses who file for divorce on those grounds.
MD Code Family Law 7-103. Generally, adultery is defined as voluntary sexual
intercourse between a married person and a person other than that person's husband or
wife. The sexual intercourse necessary for adultery must involve some penetration of the
female organ by the male organ, but a completion of the sexual intercourse is not
required.
MD Code Criminal Law 10-501. Many states, including Maryland, make adultery a
criminal offense.

NOTE : Contained in the Allegation 2 section of this ethics complaint document is the text : "and / or
others", which immediately follows other text such as "subject", "Mr. Young", etc.
Generally, as applied to allegations in this section of this ethics complaint document, but not specifically to
all allegations presented in Allegation 2, the term "and / or others" includes, but is not limited to Board of
County Commissioners members, county employees, members of county boards and commissions,
Frederick County area development community to include residential and commercial developers and
applicant attorneys, Frederick County area private sector business entities.
Allegation 2 : Summary : As written into OPINION 14-04, and referenced within this ethics complaint
document, the Frederick County Ethics Commission has demonstrated an inconsistency regarding rulings
joined to Complainant allegations containing "criminal offense implications".
Examples from OPINION 14-04
Allegation 2 - Sale of Montevue / Citizens. The Ethics Ruling stated, "The Ethics Commission has no
power to address a complaint that ... nor does it have jurisdiction over allegations of criminal conduct."
Allegation 3 - Acquisition of Confidential Courthouse Records. Following a request by the Ethics
Commission to the Complainant for information ( names of sources / informants ) which the Complainant
denied to provide to the Ethics Commission on the basis that the information was confidential and should
only be provided to an external investigative entity, the Ethics Ruling stated, "Given the limited information
provided to support the claim the Commission finds that the charge fails to state a potential violation.
Without more information, the Commission also finds that a referral for criminal investigation is not merited."

The Complainant is in agreement with the Ethics Commission ruling remarks for Allegation 2, insofar as,
"... nor does it have jurisdiction over allegations of criminal conduct." The Ethics Commission Standard
Operating Procedures, Section V (E)(1), articulates actions to be taken by the Ethics Commission when
confronted with allegations of criminal conduct. This allegation should have been referred to an external
investigative entity, but it wasn't. Instead, it was summarily dismissed / denied by the Ethics Commission.
However, as noted in the Ethics Commission ruling remarks for Allegation 3, "... the Commission also finds
that a referral for criminal investigation is not merited." The Frederick County Ethics Commission is an
administrative body. In that capacity the Ethics Commission does not have legal authority, or judicial
privilege, to act as an investigative entity, nor deny referral of an allegation which contains criminal offense
implications by stating, "... the Commission also finds that a referral for criminal investigation is not merited."
The Frederick County Ethics Ordinance Standard Operating Procedures, Section V (E) (1), is explicit in its
guidelines and instruction, regarding allegation referral, when the Ethics Commission evaluates any
allegation containing "criminal offense implications".
As presented in Allegation 2 of this ethics complaint document, the Frederick County Ethics Commission
did not exhaust all referral remedies provisioned to the Commissioners as stipulated in Section V (E)(1).
Allegation 2 : Complainant Recommendation(s) : The Complainant recommends the Frederick County
Ethics Commission take the following actions:
1. Re-open the Ethics Complaint, filed February 14, 2014, integrating and interlacing five allegations in
that ethics complaint document, which are mirrored and updated in this ethics complaint document.
2. Refer the ethics complaint allegations contained in the ethics complaint package stipulated in
Recommendation #1 to the Maryland State Attorney General, with an explicit formal request for the
MD AG to assign a Special Prosecutor to lead the investigation(s) and use all necessary resources to
conduct a comprehensive forensic investigation of emails, cell phone records, land line records, digital
document archives, etc., as well as personal interviews with requisite persons for each allegation.

APPENDIX
Exhibit 1 : Social Media posting by Ms. Gwen Romack at The Frederick Chronicles facebook page.

Exhibit 2 : Social Media posting(s) by Ms. Gwen Romack on facebook. It is important to note that the comments in
this exhibit were posted to a facebook page which was publicly accessible / viewable until February 12, 2015, when
the Timeline on the offending facebook page was restricted to only FRIENDS of the facebook page owner.