Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dorchester County Ethics Commission elects chair, prepares annual certification to state
Summary
At its organizational meeting, the Dorchester County Ethics Commission elected a chair by voice vote, reviewed its administration for the year and agreed to submit the state’s annual certification after correcting a citation in the local ordinance.
The Dorchester County Ethics Commission elected a chair from among its membership by voice vote and moved to prepare its annual certification to the State Ethics Commission, commission members said at the organizational meeting.
The commission’s county attorney reported that the county’s local ethics law meets the state minimum standards and recommended filing the State form (referred to in the meeting as Form 26) that certifies local compliance. The attorney also noted a technical citation error in the county ordinance and asked that the minutes and ordinance reference be corrected to “Maryland Annotated Code, General Provisions Article, §5-801 and following.”
The certification matter matters because state law requires counties and municipalities to adopt local ethics laws that at least meet the state standard, and to file an annual certification showing that local rules conform to that requirement. The attorney said he would correct a listed phone number in the paperwork and circulate the corrected form for a signature, noting Robert Ames would be the signatory for the county.
Commission members also reviewed the commission’s recordkeeping for the year. The attorney reported that the only meeting falling inside the current fiscal year was last August’s reorganization meeting; another meeting in May 2024 occurred outside the fiscal year. He said the annual administration report will include agendas, minutes, and the signed attendance sheet for the year.
No members of the public attended the meeting. The presiding officer asked that the record show that no public commenters appeared at the start of the public comment period. With no additional business, a motion to adjourn was made and the meeting ended.
Quotes during the meeting included the county attorney saying, “I would be happy to continue for another year if that’s your choice,” when discussing the role of counsel for the commission, and later, “I can fix it and and then, send the corrected corrected number in there,” about correcting the phone number on the certification form. The presiding officer stated, “let the record reflect that no members of the public have appeared.”
The commission did not receive or record any formal ethics complaints during the period reviewed and indicated no additional administrative items required action at the meeting. Members approved the minutes of the prior (Aug. 26) meeting by email subsequent to that meeting, as noted by staff.
Follow-up actions identified at the meeting include correcting the ordinance citation in the minutes, fixing the phone number on the state certification form, circulating the corrected form for signature, and preparing the annual administration report for submission to the appropriate county authorities and the State Ethics Commission.
