Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Taneytown ethics board urges review of sign and campaign‑finance rules after dispute over authority line
Summary
The Taneytown Ethics Board found a campaign authority line missing from a building banner, accepted its later correction, and recommended that the mayor and council revisit the city's sign and campaign‑finance rules, including whether to require a minimum size for authority lines.
The Taneytown Ethics Board on April 30 accepted that a campaign authority line that had been missing from a building banner has been added and recommended that the mayor and city council review the city's sign and campaign‑finance rules.
The matter surfaced during the board's review of campaign finance filings. Chairman Steve Marsalek, Chairman of the Taneytown Ethics Board, said he drove past the banner after an earlier meeting and found the authority line was not present, though it was visible on yard signs. Marsalek said the line was added by the time of the April 30 meeting and that he "did not appreciate that a misrepresentation was made to the ethics committee when it was absolutely 100% incorrect." The board accepted the correction by unanimous consensus.
The issue prompted discussion of whether the city's campaign finance law and sign code give clear guidance on where and how authority lines must appear. Linda Canfield, a board member, said she had not inspected the banner closely at the prior meeting and had assumed there might be a required size for the authority line. Canfield said she later learned the law does not specify a size requirement.
A city staff member who addressed the board explained that Taneytown's sign code does not explicitly mention campaign signs. "Campaign signs are not mentioned. So my interpretation of the code would be that campaign signs are prohibited in every residential district in the city," the staff member said, adding that the code would need a new provision permitting campaign signs and specifying any size limitations before the city could reliably enforce such rules in all zones.
Board members discussed options including adding a minimum size for authority lines or removing the requirement entirely. Marsalek said he would ask the mayor and council to revisit the sign ordinance or campaign‑finance ordinance to consider adding a minimum size or removing the authority line requirement before the next campaign season.
The board also discussed whether a social media post showing an officer in uniform might violate campaign rules; City Attorney Gullo told the board that "this is not a violation by the candidate and would be the decision of the city manager to determine if the officer was in violation of any rules associated with the employee manual." The board did not take enforcement action on the social‑media question.
The board directed that the mayor and council receive the recommendation to revisit the sign and campaign‑finance rules and noted that, if changes are needed, they should be in place prior to the next campaign cycle. The board did not adopt a specific ordinance change at the meeting.
Less urgent items at the conclusion of the discussion included scheduling and administrative follow‑up. The board set a tentative meeting for June 4 at 3:30 p.m. to review the next filing cycle.
