Wicomico County Council overrides executive veto on audit bill; communications and charter authority debated

Wicomico County Council voted on Jan. 6 to override the county executive's veto of Legislative Bill 2025-14, a code amendment the council says would give the county's internal auditor expanded authority to review council functions and improve transparency.

Proponents in the meeting and on the Open Agenda program said the bill was the product of months of work with the auditor and administration staff and followed a multi-step process that included work sessions beginning Sept. 16, a public introduction Nov. 18 and a public hearing and final vote Dec. 16. "At no time, to my knowledge, did members of the county council receive any phone calls, any text messages, any emails, nor did we hear any public comments with any objections from the executive in this manner, but we have a veto," a guest summarized of the council's view.

The bill — described on the record as intended to apply consistent internal‑audit oversight across branches — was defended legally by Bob Benson, the council's attorney, who urged the council to override. "She had no authority to veto it under the county charter," Benson said on the record, citing charter language and a prior Maryland appellate court opinion that resolved a similar dispute. Benson recommended an override to remove any opportunity for disagreement about implementation.

Supporters called the measure a standard auditing update. Michael Langford, an accountant and studio guest, said the proposal "seems standard" and that there was nothing in the briefing materials suggesting an unusual or improper audit framework. Trish Melvin, who attended the meetings, said she found John Cannon's PowerPoint "very clear, concise, and factual" and that the presentation clarified the bill's chronology and intent.

County executive statements and defendants of veto authority

On the other side, the executive's office framed the veto as consistent with the charter's allocation of authority. A summary of a statement attributed to the county executive in the record said "the county executive does not influence legislation while it is before the council. My responsibility begins only after a bill is passed and delivered to my office, and that is why the veto was issued at the appropriate time and stating consistent with the county charter." Guests on the program relayed that explanation and stressed the point that code amendments rewriting county law follow the regular legislative process, including executive review.

Disputed scope: audit standards and non‑audit duties

A persistent point of debate was whether some tasks assigned to the internal auditor would be "auditable" under global internal audit standards. Guests said the bill specifically exempted certain duties — examples discussed on the program included hotline administration, fiscal-impact reviews, budgets and assistance to council members — from the Institute of Internal Auditors' global internal audit standards. Opponents argued those were non‑audit functions and that carving out exemptions could either weaken independence or create ambiguity about what the auditor should and should not review.

Process questions and internal communications

Participants also raised procedural concerns about how the veto was communicated. Several guests said they were surprised by the veto and that key legal staff appeared not to be present at crucial moments; one guest said contacts in the legal office were caught off guard. Panelists criticized the timing and choice of outlets used to distribute the executive's press release: they reported the release first appeared on the blog Eastern Shore Undercover and was linked from the county executive's personal Facebook page rather than being posted immediately to the county's official website. "It wasn't on the county website. In fact, it wasn't until six days later that it appeared on the county website," one guest said.

Allegations of ethical concerns about communications

On the program, supporters of the override alleged that directing viewers to a particular blog raised conflicts of interest because Eastern Shore Undercover had been a past campaign contributor to the executive; callers urged that the matter be examined by the internal auditor or the state's attorney. The program guests characterized this as a communications and ethics concern to be investigated; the transcript records the allegation and the call for review but does not record an administrative response to that claim.

What happens next

The discussion on Open Agenda closed with guests urging the auditor to proceed and with calls for clearer communication and transparency about process and standards. The transcript records the override and the dispute over scope and process; specific vote tallies and mover/second names for the override are not specified in the broadcast transcript provided to this program.

Provenance: The account above synthesizes statements and timeline details from the Jan. 6 meeting and the Open Agenda program, including the presentation of John Cannon's PowerPoint, Bob Benson's legal recommendation, on-air guest recollections of meeting dates and process, and guest descriptions of the press release distribution.