Commissioners review revised public ethics code; county attorney and ethics board outline updates

County legal staff and a member of the county ethics board presented a proposed revision to Caroline County’s public ethics code and described several substantive changes the county ethics board recommended.

County Attorney Barrel (as identified in the meeting) and an ethics board member said the revision implements guidance required by the Maryland Public Ethics Law and clarifies several commonly recurring issues in local practice: how a recused official must physically remove themself from discussions and votes, a prohibition on private ex parte meetings between applicants and board or commission members without disclosure, and a clearer definition of covered family interests for conflict determinations. The ethics board member said the proposed code is modeled closely on the state ethics law and was reviewed and approved by the State Ethics Commission.

Why it matters: The changes aim to increase public confidence by reducing the potential for private, off‑record persuasion of board members, strengthening disclosure requirements and clarifying when officials must step away from decisions that could benefit themselves or immediate family members.

Major changes described by presenters - Recusal procedure: the draft spells out that a recused official should not participate in discussion and should physically remove themself from the decision area to avoid subtle influence on the deliberations. - Ex parte contacts: the draft generally prohibits private, persuasive contacts between applicants and decision‑makers; members must disclose any private contact during the public meeting so the record is complete. - Expanded conflict definition: the revision clarifies that conflicts include direct benefits not only to an official but to immediate family members when applicable.

Process and timing County legal staff said the State Ethics Commission has approved the current draft. Commissioners asked for time to read the draft and suggested delaying formal introduction to the next scheduled legislative session to allow for review and potential edits. The board agreed to schedule a formal introduction at a future legislative meeting after commissioners have had time to review the proposed code.

Ending note No formal changes were voted at the meeting; county staff and the ethics board said they will return with the draft for the commissioners’ formal introduction in the next available legislative cycle.