Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Code Removal Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Calvert County to hold public hearing on ethics code changes required by state House Bill 834
Summary
The Board voted to advertise a July 15 public hearing on proposed changes to the county ethics code that would implement state House Bill 834: requiring the ethics commission to make public any recommendation to expel a commissioner for conflict-of-interest violations and authorizing a county removal process following a contested-case hearing.
The Board of County Commissioners voted June 17 to advertise a public hearing on July 15 to accept comments on a proposed update to the Calvert County ethics code intended to implement House Bill 834, enacted by the Maryland General Assembly in 2024.
Background and scope: House Bill 834 requires that local ethics codes be amended so that an ethics commission must publicly disclose any recommendation to expel a county commissioner for a conflict‑of‑interest violation, and that the county adopt a process authorizing the governing body to remove an elected official following such a recommendation. The Calvert County Ethics Commission provided a draft ordinance and clarifying edits to align the local code with state law.
What the changes mean: Ethics‑commission chair Timothy Cox (joining virtually) and legal counsel Todd Pounds told the board the proposed language is narrowly tailored to conflict‑of‑interest provisions already in the county code (section 41‑13) and state law cross‑references (section 5‑807(a)(1)). The commission clarified that apparent or potential conflicts of interest are already treated differently in the code and that not every ethics complaint would lead to a removal recommendation. The proposed process would require the commission to publicly disclose a recommendation for removal; any subsequent removal action by the board would follow contested‑case procedures and a public hearing, and would be at the board’s discretion.
Questions from commissioners: Commissioners asked how the process would begin (citizen complaints to the ethics commission, commission review and a possible recommendation), whether trivial matters (for example, traffic citations) could trigger the statute, and what procedural protections would apply. Legal counsel said the language is narrowly drawn; only violations that fall under the conflict‑of‑interest provisions would be candidates for a recommendation to expel, and the board would hold a contested‑case hearing with full procedural protections before taking removal action.
Board action: The board voted to advertise a public hearing for July 15 to receive comments on the proposed changes.
Next steps: The ethics commission requested that staff hold the July 15 hearing; following public comment the board may consider final adoption of the ordinance. Commissioners and staff indicated they would continue outreach to clarify scope and procedures before the hearing.
