As an observer to recent ethics discussions, to include print media and public hearings, and as one of two citizens

to make a formal presentation to the Ethics Reform Task Force (ERTF), I would like to provide comments for the
Councils consideration.
I strongly believe the current discussions have incorrectly blended, melded and mixed mutually exclusive legal and
procedural elements regarding ethics oversight and management... to wit : the What and the How.
What : The ethics ordinance (EO) is the what, insofar as the language enumerates what constitutes,
or is defined as, an ethics violation.
It is virtually impossible to enumerate every possible ethics violation in a single document, or multiple
volumes. As has been evidenced in Frederick Countys past, if an ethics complaint allegation does
not exactly match an enumerated violation in the EO, the allegation is dismissed.
General Provision : For judicial matters, the Department of Defense has developed the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Much like the EO, the UCMJ enumerates
violations of varying degrees but, the military has gone one step further which the
County Council should seriously consider for integration into the EO.
General Article 134 is often referred to as the catch all provision in the UCMJ. In other
words, if an alleged violation does not explicitly match an enumerated violation, this
provision allows for possible indictment, prosecution and penalty based solely on curiosity.
The Frederick County EO must also contain a general provision, where allegations which
do not explicitly match an enumerated violation in the EO can be pursued based on ethics
curiosity.
How : The standard operating procedures (SOP) is the how, insofar as the language stipulates the
rules and course(s) of action to be taken with regard to an ethics violation criminal or otherwise.
To ensure transparency and trust in government, the SOP should not be written by members of the
Ethics Commission, which has been the case. As an example, in January, 2015, the Gwen Romack
chaired Ethics Commission modified language in the SOP which allowed the ethics panel to refer
allegations for external investigation at their discretion.
This is not only problematic on the surface, but poses possible ethics panel misconduct at its core.
Since the Ethics Commission fundamentally works in secret, to give this body the authority and
flexibility to write its own rules of conduct is tantamount to allowing this citizen volunteer body to
function far too autonomously and without oversight.
Once again, in Frederick Countys past, legitimate and well evidenced allegations of criminal
misconduct by elected officials and / or county staff (felony and misdemeanor) have been summarily
dismissed by an ethics panel which had no oversight over its actions (i.e., OPINIONS 14-01, 14-04).
As a reminder, the last time the Frederick County Ethics Commission ruled in favor of an ethics complaint was in
January, 2012, when a county animal shelter employee was reprimanded for allowing pictures to be taken at the
countys animal shelter without permission from a Supervisor.
All complaints, filed since January, 2012, specifically complaints against sitting BoCC members and / or county
staff, have been summarily dismissed no referral for investigation by an external entity.
Also, complaints against BoCC members, specifically Blaine Young, were routed to States Attorney Charlie Smith,
who publicly endorsed Blaine Young and should have been recused from any involvement in the complaint(s) or
access to information contained in the complaint(s). Instead, Mr. Smith chose to not pursue well evidenced
allegations of ex-parte meetings by one or more BoCC members.
Selecting Ethics Commission Panelists. County Executive Gardner is not demonstrating transparency in
government by selecting her choices for ethics panelists and expecting the County Council to rubber stamp the
selections.
Frederick County must employ a politically neutral process for the selection of Ethics Commission members. The
County Executive has reached out to the League of Women Voters to construct such a methodology, however, the
most politically neutral approach, referred to as a Blind Lottery Selection Methodology, was offered to the ERTF
and to the County Executive, but has been dismissed out of hand without comment.

Ethics is a very serious matter ranging from the use of county resources (i.e., email, fax machines) to conduct
private and personal business to more egregious violations such as misappropriation of taxpayer funds to conduct
political activities.
As the legislative body for Frederick Countys Charter government, I believe you have an obligation and
responsibility to ensure the language of the EO is as thorough as possible, but includes a general provision as well
as demanding an ethics SOP which contains no loopholes for political advantage.

Patrick Allen
Jefferson, Maryland Council District 1

Ethics Commission Subpoena Power : I strongly oppose granting subpoena power, of any type, to an
administrative panel, manned by citizen volunteers, with little-to-no investigative credentials. The ethics panel
should, however, take testimony, under oath, from complainants.
Further, all ethics panel meetings, hearings, deliberations should be recorded by transcript and / or digital
recording. These proceedings are a part of the countys business and intellectual property. The transcripts and / or
digital media can be easily secured to ensure restricted access and confidentiality.
The SOP, Section V (E) (1), contains referral language which addresses referral of criminal allegations to external
entities, but this section of the SOP should be strengthened and the at their discretion language removed.
Additionally, complainants have requested audience with the ethics panel, to argue the merits of their allegations
and provide the panel with clarification to questions the panel members may have. However, in the vast majority of
cases, the ethics panel has denied this privilege to complainants. The SOP should contain language which
provides complainants the opportunity to present criminal allegations and evidence contained in the complaint
document to the ethics panel.
Also, in Section V (E) (1), the ethics panel is provided guidance as to the referral of criminal allegations to an
external entity. This language needs to be rewritten to remove any conflict of interest. As an example, ethics
complaints have been filed against former BoCC members, to include former BoCC President Blaine Young. One
or more of these complaints were sent to States Attorney Charlie Smith, who returned the complaint to the BoCC
appointed ethics panel for dismissal. Mr. Smith had publicly endorsed Mr. Young and for the ethics panel to send
the allegations to Mr. Smith was a clear and evident conflict of interest.