Ethics Ordinance and Lobbying Reform

More than four years ago, Commissioner John "Lennie" Thompson was quoted in a Gazette article: "We ain't small anymore," he said. "Our lobbying regulations should resemble local ethics law of larger counties. It helps level the playing field between wealthy special interests and ordinary concerned citizens."

He was right about that. And, in the years since then, there have been numerous and serious efforts by commissioners Thompson and Jan Gardner to strengthen our ethics ordinance and establish basic lobbying reforms, to close the existing loopholes, and to hold the Board of County Commissioners to a higher standard.

A higher standard. But certainly not an unreasonable standard.

Many counties in Maryland alone have more restrictive lobbying laws today.

For instance, the counties of Calvert, Carroll, Cecil, Garrett, St. Mary’s, Washington, Caroline, Worcester, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Harford, Howard, Montgomery, Prince George’s, Talbot and Wicomico have tougher lobbying laws that apply to people who attempt to influence elected officials.

The closest we've come in recent years was a bill requiring the disclosure of private meetings between county commissioners and developers concerning land-use issues. It successfully passed the Maryland General Assembly but was vetoed by Governor Ehrlich.

All the other proposals - to improve our ethics ordinance or add meaningful lobbying reforms - have been shot down, one after the other, by commissioners Cady, Lovell and Reeder. The near complete resistance of those three commissioners has caused the state to rule that Frederick County is not in compliance with Maryland law.

Among the ethics and lobbying-related changes that have been voted down:

• require that meetings between commissioners and developers concerning land-use issues be disclosed;

• require that ex parte communications between applicants for changes in land-use laws and the county planning staff be disclosed;

• require more disclosure of compensation received from lobbying activities;

• prohibit developers from making campaign contributions to commissioners if the developer has a land-use issue pending;

• prohibit commissioners from accepting such contributions during a pending action;

If any or all of those examples sounds reasonable to you, you might be surprised to learn that none of those proposals have become law in Frederick County.

This is not in the public interest.

Incredibly, it is still perfectly legal - in Frederick County - for a county commissioner to ask for and/or receive a campaign contribution from a developer or land use attorney at the very same time they have business in front of the county, such as a rezoning application pending before the commissioners. In my experience, most people just assume that couldn't be true, and are stunned to find out that it is still legal...and common.

I wrote a Gazette column about this almost a year ago: Ethics law could use a legislative overhaul

I've included the complete text of two articles from the last couple of days immediately below. At the bottom of the page, there are also links a number of related articles, columns and letters to the editor from the Gazette.

From the FREDERICK NEWS POST:

Thompson renews push for lobbying reforms

Wednesday, May 3, 2006

by Clifford G. Cumber

FREDERICK -- The Maryland Ethics Commission last month rejected watered-down lobbying regulations proposed by the Frederick County Commissioners because they are not similar enough to state law.

The denial has spurred Commissioners President John L. Thompson Jr. to push fellow commissioners once again for stringent new laws that would force lobbyists to disclose money paid to them by their clients, and money they spend to influence elected officials.

For more than four years, Frederick County Commissioners have debated tougher restrictions on lobbyists, a 2002 campaign promise of Mr. Thompson's. He has argued that as the county has grown, so has pressure on the five-member county board from paid representatives, driving the need to overhaul Frederick's ethics laws.

In 2004, the Maryland Ethics Commission supported the original draft of Mr. Thompson's Lobbying Reform Ordinance when it was sent to them for review. But the commissioners late in 2005 diluted his reforms.

They stripped out a requirement that lobbyists disclose what they had been paid to lobby. The other would require reporting only of lobbying expenses costing more than $25.

Those changes "have more or less taken the teeth out of it," Mr. Thompson said by phone Monday.

In an April 20 letter framing a rejection, the Maryland Ethics Commission states the amendments frustrated "the public policy purpose of providing the public with information."

"The state ethics commission determined that it could not approve the two amendments to the proposed county draft as similar or substantially similar to the state ethics laws," it states.

To win the state ethics commission's approval, laws commissioners adopt must be "substantially similar" to the state's.

Because of that, the commissioners have a duty to promptly enact lobbying regulation mirroring the state's, Mr. Thompson said in an e-mail he sent Sunday to fellow commissioners.

If they don't, he will call for a formal opinion from the Maryland Ethics Commission.

"We need to bring our lobbying ordinance into compliance," he said.

If that opinion backs his assertion that the county needs stronger rules for paid representatives and the commissioners fail to act on it, Mr. Thompson said he will file a formal complaint with the state ethics board.

In order to comply, the county would have to enact a law to require lobbyists to report how much they had been paid.

"Because the public is entitled to legitimate and accurate information related to the overall lobbying effort, there should be full reporting of all lobbying expenditures," even those under $25, the commission letter concludes.

The ethics board responded to a Jan. 6 letter, sent by County Attorney Linda Thall. The letter ranged over a number of commissioners' concerns such as privacy between lobbyists and clients, that compensation is irrelevant to the effectiveness of lobbying efforts and weight to be given to the lobbyist's testimony.

"It was the view of the state ethics commission that historic public policy for the lobbying registration and reporting requirements is to benefit the citizens of the county," the commission replied.

Mr. Thompson agreed.

"The public has a right to know the amount of money that changes hands in the course of influencing county commissioners," he said.

State law has required lobbyists to file reports since 1973.

From the GAZETTE:

County not in compliance with state lobbying laws
Thompson asks colleagues to enact reform similar to state’s
http://www.gazette.net/stories/050406/frednew212218_31955.shtml

Thursday, May 4, 2006

by Sherry Greenfield

Frederick County Commission President John ‘‘Lennie” Thompson Jr. is asking his board colleagues to reform the county’s lobbying regulations now that the state has ruled the county is not in compliance with Maryland law.

The Maryland State Ethics Commission issued a ruling April 26 stating that the county needs to require lobbyists coming before commissioners to report compensation from a client, as the state ethics law does.

‘‘The [board of county commissioners] has a duty to enact public ethics laws related to lobbying that are substantially similar to the state ethics law,” said Thompson (R) an in e-mail to his colleagues. ‘‘I am assuming the [board] will, with reasonable promptness, enact a lobbying reform ordinance that is substantially similar to the state ethics law without the need for further involvement by the [State Ethics Commission]...”

Thompson said in an interview that if commissioners do not follow through with recommendations from the state he would ask for another advisory opinion on what will happen if the county does not comply.

Since he was first elected in 1998, Thompson has tirelessly fought to tighten the county’s lobbying regulations.

Last October, against Thompson’s wishes, the board took out a requirement from his proposed changes that says a lobbyist speaking before the board must disclose the fee his client is paying. Thompson considers this to be the centerpiece of his reform and knew at the time it was not in compliance with the state’s Ethics Commission.

The state Ethics Commission said it is imperative for lobbyists to report how much they are being paid.

‘‘...It was the view of the Ethics Commission that historic public policy for the lobbying registration and reporting requirements is to benefit the citizens of the county,” said Robert A. Hahn, general counsel for the State Ethics Commission. ‘‘It informs them of who is spending the money, and in what amounts to influence official action.”

Thompson’s colleagues do support his change that a lobbyist who earns at least $2,500 communicating to commissioners for his client would be required to register with the county’s Ethics Commission.

The county’s current lobbying code states that any person who contacts any county official or employee to influence that person in the performance of legal duties with gifts in excess of $500 must register with the county within five days.

For those who would like to read more, here are a few links to other related articles from the GAZETTE:

Who benefits from rapid growth?
http://www.gazette.net/stories/033006/fredlet180025_31945.shtml
Letter to the Editor
March 30, 2006

Lobbying reform is necessary for county
http://www.gazette.net/stories/011206/fredcol175532_31897.shtml
Kai Hagen column
January 12, 2006

Commissioners’ objections to lobbying reform explained
http://www.gazette.net/stories/011006/fredcou161903_31913.shtml
January 10, 2006

Where is the ethics?
http://www.gazette.net/stories/010506/fredlet194852_31895.shtml
Letter to the Editor
January 5, 2006

Ethics Commission backs Thompson’s lobbying disclosure proposal
http://www.gazette.net/stories/121505/fredcou152121_31907.shtml
December 15, 2005

Some still oppose county officials’ proposed lobbying changes
http://www.gazette.net/stories/120805/fredcou193740_31899.shtml
December 8, 2005

County to take lobbying reform to public hearing
Commissioner says board’s changes to his proposal may not follow state requirements
http://www.gazette.net/stories/120105/fredcou194709_31900.shtml
December 1, 2005

Chamber opposes Thompson’s lobbying reform
http://www.gazette.net/stories/092905/frednew183026_31903.shtml
September 29, 2005

Accusations hurled over New Market Region Plan
Residents question board’s contact with affected developers
http://www.gazette.net/stories/081805/fredMaccou_31814.shtml
August 18, 2005

Commissioner Thompson pleads for more open, not closed, government
http://gazette.net/gazette_archive/2002/200205/frederick/news/89955-1.html
January 31, 2002

Return to the BLOG home page.

If you have any questions, please email them to me. If you'd like to receive each blog entry by email, send an email (even a blank one) with "Blog" as the subject line.

WHY I'M VOTING FOR KAI!

David Lewis
Frederick, MD

Kai has coached our daughter's soccer team for the past few seasons. I know first-hand that he's a great coach and a great person. He genuinely cares about our kids. And he cares about Frederick County. I also know that Kai is deeply committed to sensible and responsible growth. That is one issue that should unite us all, regardless of political party. Nobody benefits from traffic congestion, sprawl and over-crowded schools. I'm supporting Kai...

More >>