The Wicomico County Council passed legislation in December that would have allowed the council's independent auditor broader authority to review council activities and certain executive functions. The measure passed the council by a 6-0 roll call when one member was absent and was later vetoed by the county executive, a development that hosts and guests on the public affairs program Open Agenda called surprising and raised questions about communication and timing.

Panelists on the program said the legislation was developed in work sessions with participation from administration staff and the county attorney, and they argued the bill's provisions would primarily expand fiscal-audit oversight. A participant summarized the distinction discussed on air: fiscal audits focus on whether money in and out balances objectively, while performance audits assess how well an operation is meeting objectives and are more subjective. The program noted some listed exemptions in the bill (for example, fiscal impact reviews of proposed legislation, hotline administration and certain special projects) and said those were framed by supporters as unrelated to ordinary fiscal auditing.

The county executive stated in a press release, as read on air, that her responsibility begins after a bill is passed and delivered to her office and that she issued the veto consistent with the county charter. Guests on the program disputed the public characterization, saying the executive had participated in prior work sessions on related topics and that the timing and method of the press release raised transparency concerns.

Those concerns included the executive's decision to publish her position via a local blog post, rather than through the county's public-facing channels, and the panelists criticized the lack of apparent internal communication within the executive branch about the veto decision. On-air commentators also noted the auditor named in the discussion (referenced on air as Angelie Chantel) currently audits aspects of county operations under existing limits and that supporters of the change believe extending the auditor's remit would increase accountability.

The council is scheduled to meet Jan. 6, when panelists said members could move to override the veto. Because the bill originally passed 6-0 (with one member absent), panelists said an override outcome will depend on whether any council member changes a previous vote; speakers on the broadcast predicted either a unanimous override or a 6-1 result but noted no new evidence had emerged in the intervening weeks to suggest votes would change. The program also discussed the possibility that legal questions about the executive's veto authority could be raised, but did not report a formal legal determination on that point.

Next steps: the council will consider the veto override during its Jan. 6 meeting. Any formal vote or legal action stemming from the veto will be recorded in council minutes and should be reported through official county channels.