Chesapeake Beach Ethics Commission begins rewrite of town ethics ordinance, calls for annual list of covered officials

The Chesapeake Beach Ethics Commission on Jan. 13 opened a multi-part effort to revise the town’s ethics ordinance, focusing on who must file financial disclosures, clearer definitions of prohibited conduct, and procedural changes for advisory opinions and enforcement.

Commissioners said the most urgent change is to remove ambiguity about which appointed officials and town employees must file disclosure statements. They proposed moving the roster of covered positions out of the ordinance text and into an annually updated appendix that the town administrator would maintain and submit to the town council for review before the April filing deadline.

Commissioners argued the change would shift the administrative task of maintaining the list to the town administrator and council while preserving the commission’s role in reviewing alleged ethics violations. Several members said the current ordinance’s phrasing and inconsistent job titles across town documents mean the commission and the public cannot reliably determine who is required to disclose.

Members debated substantive wording changes proposed in the draft. The draft replaces the term “corruptly” with “unethically” and includes examples commissioners said would make the standard clearer: lack of accountability (for example, no system to track permit processing times), nontransparency in decisionmaking, unfair treatment of businesses or residents, and unprofessional conduct such as failing to conduct periodic performance reviews. Some commissioners warned those definitions could broaden the commission’s jurisdiction to cover routine grievances that may not be ethics violations.

The draft also includes several procedural edits and policy proposals discussed at the meeting:

- Separate the scope of the overall ethics ordinance from the disclosure rules: commissioners proposed defining “covered” or “covered officials” for the ethics rules generally and maintaining a separate appendix enumerating who must file disclosure statements under article 4.

- Annual maintenance of the disclosure roster: commissioners recommended the town administrator present the roster to the town council annually in the first four months of the year so additions or removals can be decided before the April filing deadline.

- Advisory opinions and informal resolution: the draft would explicitly allow requests for advisory opinions in matters that do not involve a conflict-of-interest complaint, and it changes the threshold for an informal resolution of a complaint from unanimous to a majority vote of the commission.

- Financial thresholds and gifts: the commission discussed simplifying the definition of “earned income” to align with federal tax law, clarifying the legal definition of a gift (while excluding political campaign contributions), and streamlining honorarium language (for example, including compensation for book-writing in the same section). Commissioners also debated whether to define “substantial interest” with a fixed percentage (examples discussed ranged from 3% to 15%) and agreed to refine that language in later drafts.

- Late-filing fines and enforcement: one draft change recommended raising late-filing penalties to $5 a day with a $1,500 maximum to make penalties meaningful. Commissioners noted the town council previously rejected larger increases but said the commission can still recommend the change.

- State approval: commissioners reiterated that any substantive change to the town’s ethics ordinance must be reviewed by the state ethics office before it becomes effective.

Commissioners and staff emphasized process clarifications. Several speakers urged separating the administrative act of listing which volunteers or boards must file disclosures from the commission’s duty to investigate and decide ethics complaints. The commission discussed the need for a work session with the new town administrator, Amelia, so the administrator and council understand the proposed appendix process and the commission’s recommended changes.

No formal ordinance changes were adopted at the meeting. The commission agreed on next steps: the member who prepared the draft said he would consolidate the meeting’s edits, restore any previously proposed examples that had been lost in document history, and redistribute a new draft for review. Commissioners set a target date to reconvene and consider a final draft the week of Jan. 23 (members discussed Jan. 23 as a likely working date to have digested revisions and be prepared to vote). The commission also recorded two routine, uncontroversial actions earlier in the session: approval of the meeting agenda and approval of the Nov. 18 minutes.

Why it matters: revising the ethics ordinance affects transparency and accountability for elected officials, appointed boards and town administration in Chesapeake Beach. The proposed appendix and annual review aim to reduce confusion about who must file disclosures and to give the town council a predictable, repeatable process for updating the list of covered positions.

The commission will circulate a revised draft for review and return to the ordinance at a future meeting where commissioners expect to seek consensus before forwarding recommendations to the town council and the state ethics office for final review.