Cecil County Commish to Broomell: Wait for Ethics Panel Review of Demands to Re-write New Code
Cecil County Commissioner Diana Broomell (R-4) will have to wait a few months in her relentless quest to re-open the county’s new ethics code, after her four fellow commissioners on Tuesday finally stood up to her push for immediate action on her demands.
Instead, a majority of the County Commissioners insisted that the county’s Ethics Commission should be allowed to see, review and comment upon her proposals before they are put out to a public hearing at taxpayer expense. All five members of the ethics panel had requested, in a letter to the County Commissioners, a five-month review process for any revision proposals.
Broomell put her proposals into writing for Tuesday’s commissioners’ worksession, unlike her push a few weeks ago to force an immediate “up or down vote” on her shifting verbal proposals, without a written text so colleagues could actually see what they were voting on.
[SEE most recent Cecil Times report here: http://ceciltimes.com/2012/01/cecil-county-commish-mired-again-in-broomell-demands-for-ethics-do-over/ ]
While the county faces many problems–such as new state environmental and planning mandates, reduced state aid to transportation and education, and the prospect of dumping half of teacher pension costs onto the county– Broomell has dominated many hours of commissioner worksessions with her persistent demands to re-write the already stricter ethics code adopted by a majority vote last fall.
Now, she has narrowed her proposals to three items:
–Requiring county Department heads to file the same detailed financial disclosure reports required of elected officials, such as county commissioners, to reveal all their property, investment, debt and financial accounts and those of their spouses; (Broomell has made vague, broad accusations, citing “constituent concerns,” that some department heads may be benefitting financially from their positions);
–Requiring volunteer members of county advisory panels, including the Ethics Commission, and attorneys acting as independent contractors providing legal services to county agencies and the Commissioners, to file “the same form as employees” of the county for ethics disclosures; and
–Requiring all members of the Ethics Commission to receive a copy of any complaint filed with the panel.
Those proposals differ from some of her earlier verbal demands, which would have required attorney independent contractors to file the same disclosures as elected officials, and required that the County Commissioners be given copies of all complaints filed with the ethics panel, despite county and state confidentiality rules to the contrary.
But Broomell did not go down without a fight Tuesday, even as her usual allies—Commissioners President James Mullin (R-1) and Michael Dunn (R-3)—signaled their reluctance to force the issue now without allowing the Ethics Commission to review the proposals.
Commissioners Robert Hodge (R-5) and Tari Moore (R-2) have repeatedly objected to what they said was an improper rush to judgment by Broomell before the ink was barely dry on the new ethics ordinance adopted under a state mandate last October. They also insisted on seeing her proposals in writing before any vote.
Hodge suggested Tuesday that the local ethics panel be allowed to weigh in before the County Commissioners put her proposals out to a public hearing that would require taxpayer costs of advertising, adding, “I don’t understand why there is a big hurry.” He also pointed out that the state’s ethics lawyers must review any changes in local codes and such reviews should be made before spending the money on a hearing, since further changes might be necessary that could require yet another public hearing at taxpayer expense. (Some of Broomell’s earlier proposals were turned down by the state panel.)
Broomell retorted: “It’s my observation, Commissioner Hodge, that we’re not doing this in a fast way, but we’re finding every excuse under the sun to stall this.” She wanted to go ahead with a public hearing on her plan even before the ethics panel reviewed it.
However, members of the Ethics Commission itself—including Broomell’s hand-picked friend, Valerie Falcioni, who is newly appointed to the panel—signed a letter dated 1/25/12 to the County Commissioners, asking for time and an orderly review process of whatever changes Broomell wanted to make. (Falcioni attended Tuesday’s worksession, taking notes during the meeting and huddling with Broomell after the session ended.)
In the letter obtained by Cecil Times, the ethics panel said the group “believes that changes to public law that directly implicates the public trust…should be deliberate, based upon objective data as well as feedback from local stakeholders and the public, and well informed in all respects.”
Such a review of any changes, the panel wrote before there were any written text amendments actually submitted by Broomell, should “recruit feedback from board and commission appointees, employees and elected officials who are subject to the new disclosure requirements, prior to issuing a report of its findings to the County Commissioners,” the letter said. The ethics panel also said it would review any proposed changes with the state Ethics Commission for that agency’s “feedback.”
The ethics panel asked for written text amendments and that its members be given time, until 7/1/12, to “analyze the proposed changes and report back to the County Commissioners with its findings and recommendations.”
The handwriting was on the Commissioners’ wall when Mullin said, “I’m OK with forwarding” Broomell’s proposals to the ethics panel for review before further action. “I think they should see it,” he said.
And even the usually silent Broomell ally, Commissioner Dunn, said that although he “supports” her proposals, he had no objection to having the ethics panel review them before proceeding.
“I’m not pleased,” Broomell said with a frown.
