Taneytown ethics commission dismisses complaint against Councilman Christopher Tillman

The Taneytown Ethics Commission dismissed a complaint on June 4 alleging Councilman Christopher Tillman used the prestige of his office to thwart collection of a beneficial assessment tied to a 2017 public works agreement.

The commission’s decision follows a hearing in which Tillman, who owns Georgia’s on York at 10 York Street, read a prepared statement and submitted water‑use data he said show average daily usage below the city’s 250‑gallon‑per‑day equivalent development unit (EDU) threshold. Tillman told the commission, “the computed average for the 5 year span from 2020 through the first quarter of 2025, the average is 226.6 gallons per day, well under the 250 gallon per day EDU.”

Why it matters: The complaint charged that Tillman used his position on city bodies to impede collection of an outstanding assessment in the Public Works Agreement (PWA) dated 09/21/2017. A finding that an official used office prestige to frustrate collection could have led to corrective orders or fines under Chapter 16 of the Taneytown City Code. The commission’s dismissal ends the ethics proceeding; any separate civil or contractual disputes over the PWA remain outside the commission’s enforcement action.

What the hearing covered: Tillman said the disputed charges trace to work and billing that predate his 2023 election to the council and that he never received a formal demand before the complaint. He told the panel he had repeatedly sought a fair hearing on the assessment and provided a quarterly usage chart and utility bills to support his claim that his average use is below the EDU threshold. He said two toilets were repaired after unusually high winter billing and that correcting those anomalies reduced his multi‑year average.

City staff and other speakers at the hearing told the commission that the council had been asked in 2024 to either amend the PWA or take no action; city staff described council silence or failure to amend as effectively affirming that the PWA remains in force. A member of the public and city staff recounted that planning and council records have, at multiple points, treated the PWA as outstanding.

Procedure and outcome: After hearing Tillman and public comment, Chairman Steve Marsalek moved to dismiss the complaint; the motion carried after deliberation. The commission’s roll was recorded as carrying the motion with three votes in favor and one abstention. The commission did not impose fines or corrective actions. Tillman said he reserved the right to appeal the commission’s finding if a future ruling is adverse to him and requested any future contractual or collection issues be resolved in the appropriate forum rather than by the ethics process.

Context and next steps: Commissioners and staff emphasized the limited scope of the ethics hearing — the panel decides only whether an ethical violation of Chapter 16 occurred; it does not adjudicate contracts or compel council action to amend or waive PWA obligations. City staff indicated collection or contractual questions should proceed through the city’s public‑works and legal processes. The commission’s written finding will be prepared based on the hearing record and made public as required by the code.