Board of Ethical Conduct dismisses procedural claims, orders hearing on alleged payment demand in Moses v. Kimbrough

The Metropolitan Board of Ethical Conduct on Sept. 18 voted to dismiss allegations in a complaint that neighborhood and private meetings were procedurally manipulated and to hold an evidentiary hearing on a separate allegation that a council member demanded payment to influence a rezoning decision.

The board heard a summary from Department of Law counsel Attorney Ecki, who told members: "The complaint alleges that the council member violated the standards of conduct concerning a rezoning request by manipulating the processes for conducting community and private meetings." She said the Department of Law's view is that the procedural allegations concerned operational meeting practices and "do not involve ethical matters as defined in state law and the standards of conduct." The department recommended dismissing those operational allegations but recommended a hearing on separate allegations that a council member demanded payment of funds that the council member would control to advance the rezoning request.

The recommendation to dismiss the operational claims passed on a roll-call vote the board recorded as four yes votes, no nays and one recusal. The board then voted to proceed to an evidentiary hearing on the allegation about a demand for funds; that motion also passed with four yes votes and one recusal. The board noted it requires four affirmative votes to take action.

Board members clarified that dismissing the operational allegation does not remove related facts from consideration at a hearing on the payment-demand allegation. Attorney Ecki confirmed that relevant facts about meeting conduct may be considered when determining whether the alleged demand for funds could constitute a violation of the standards of conduct.

Board member Mister Sabas announced a recusal before discussion, saying, "I will need to recuse myself from the discussion and the vote for this, just for the record. The reason being that I'm the National Bar Association's designee, but I also, own a wine and liquor store, Maryland Farms Wine and Spirits. Best Brands, is a supplier, of our store, a distributor." The board proceeded with the votes after confirming a quorum and that four affirmative votes are required for action.

Members discussed what evidence and legal standards a hearing would examine. Several members asked for context about how "community benefits" negotiations typically operate; legal counsel advised that the board must gather facts through the evidentiary hearing and then apply the standards of conduct to those facts rather than researching or making determinations outside the hearing process.

The board described the hearing procedure it will follow: the hearing will be open to the public; parties may submit written materials and witness lists but must file all materials and lists at least seven days before the hearing or risk exclusion; witnesses will testify under oath and be subject to cross-examination; parties have a right to counsel; and the board may continue the hearing in its discretion. The board warned that submitted complaint attachments that contain contact information or sign-in sheets are not confidential simply because they were labeled as such by a meeting organizer; those materials, once filed, are part of the complaint record.

The board set an initial hearing date of Friday, Oct. 24, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Parties will receive formal notice of the date and the board's hearing procedures and must comply with the seven-day submission deadline.

No final determination on the merits was made. The hearing will be limited to whether statements alleged in the complaint, if proven, meet the Metro standards of conduct prohibition on soliciting anything of value or using a metropolitan position to secure unwarranted privileges.

The board adjourned after scheduling and procedural discussion.