Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:20 PM ET, 02/16/2011

Prince George's ethics review commission sees challenges in cleaning up county

By MIranda S. Spivack

A commission created by Prince George's County Executive Rushern L. Baker III (D) ran headlong into some big challenges Tuesday night as it tried to help Baker figure out ways to clean up county government and rid the county of its "pay to play" reputation.

Some of the testimony to the commission:

---The county has an ethics board, but one of its five positions has been vacant for several years, and Baker's predecessor, Jack B. Johnson, apparently did nothing to fill the seat. Johnson, 61, was indicted Monday on bribery and other charges in a widening federal corruption probe. His wife, Leslie Johnson, now a County Council member, has also been charged in the case. Both Johnsons, who are Democrats, were arrested Nov. 12.

--The office that collects county financial disclosure forms and lobbyist registration is staffed part-time, does not have the manpower to put the information online to make it accessible to the public, and lacks subpoena power and the authority to initiate an investigation. The ethics panel is essentially a "compliance board," said its attorney Anne C. Magner, and the penalties for non-compliance with disclosure requirements are minimal. Magner said that on occasion, the board will publish in its annual report the names of county employees who have not submitted financial disclosure forms.

---The forms that top county employees and elected officials are required to fill out in theory are aimed at identifying conflicts of interest, Magner said, but the staff does not identify those conflicts. Only a member of the public who reviews the paperwork might identify a conflict. That would require a trip to Upper Marlboro, the county seat, since the documents are not online.

--There is no requirement for annual ethics training for county employees. Magner said she has trained mid-level managers, but ethics training for other county employees has never been held in the 24 years she has been on the job, although Magner said she could conduct it if asked.

---The ethics board's staff -- Magner, who also has other duties in the county attorney's office, and a part-time administrative assistant -- review the hundreds of submissions but not to identify potential conflicts, she said. The forms are reviewed "for completeness. We do not review for conflicts. We would have no idea if there were conflicts," she said.

"You would have to know how everybody is connected....We really most of the time have no idea that such and such a company is doing business with the county," she told Baker's panel Tuesday night.

--The ethics board is staffed by the county attorney's office, which reports to the county executive. Magner acknowledged in a separate interview that connection might discourage some people who would want to report wrongdoing.

Still, she said, most county employees understand and abide by the rules, at least as far as she knows. Magner said problems usually are the result of something done by elected officials.
Magner also said that county law is weak on the issue of misusing county resources, otherwise known as diverting public funds or material for personal use. "Under the ethics code it is quite limited," she said. It is possible, however, that county personnel rules might be more stringent, but Magner could not say for certain, pointing out that is not her area of expertise.

"I am concerned about the lack of teeth," said retired Prince George's Circuit Court Judge William Missouri, a member of the review commission. "Right now I don't see you having any enforcement powers."

Also testifying Tuesday night was David Van Dyke, who heads Prince George's Office of Audits and Investigations. Van Dyke said his 16-person office "has some degree of independence from the executive branch," and largely functions as an internal auditor of county government functions. He said his office gets only a few complaints a month, and few of them relate to the office's mandate. He refers them to other county agencies, and complaints his office has received have on occasion led to a criminal investigation, he said.

But he acknowledged that his office has a low profile and said it could do a better job of letting the public know that it has an online complaint form and that people could send tips anonymously. He also said that the general bent of the office was auditing, but that two staff members are trained investigators.

Panel chairman Kurt Schmoke, former Baltimore mayor and currently dean at Howard University Law School, asked Van Dyke if his status as an "at will" employee of the County Council might dampen his office's willingness to challenge council members, or investigate them.

"So you could be gone tomorrow," Schmoke asked. Van Dyke said that was the case.

"Greater independence would really go a long way," Van Dyke said.

Missouri suggested that the position be for a set term that would overlap the four-year terms of the County Council so that if Van Dyke's office did something to affect one council, its members could not get rid of him easily.

"Trust me, I love the County Council," Missouri said. "But for transparency, it would be best if you were not an at will employee."

Former County Council member Peter Shapiro, also a member of the Baker panel, said the audits office "is not perceived to be the watchdog." That raises a question that Baker has also posed to the group: should Prince George's have a separate and independent Office of Inspector General?

"Ethics oversight functions in the county are currently lax. There is a sense that if something serious is going on, then the feds need to come in," Shapiro said.

The review commission will hold another hearing at 9 a.m. Feb. 26 at Prince George's Community College. Panel members hope county personnel officials will attend to explain some of the rules.

Meanwhile, state lawmakers are beginning to examine several measures that could toughen ethics rules in Prince George's. Baker has proposed some bills that would restrict the County Council's oversight of development and limit campaign contributions from developers.
House delegation chairman Melony Griffith (D-Prince George's) has convened a working group, including some of Baker's staff, to try to put together a compromise measure. County Council chairman Ingrid M. Turner (D-Bowie), who had been initially skeptical of the proposals, said late Tuesday that the council is beginning to work on some measures that it hopes to unveil next week.

"Each of the bills has different unintended consequences," Turner said. "We all want to improve the process for all the stakeholders."

Other measures have been proposed by State Senate President Mike Miller (D-Calvert) whose district includes a slice of Prince George's, and Prince George's Senate delegation chairman Douglas J.J. Peters (D-Prince George's).

By MIranda S. Spivack  | February 16, 2011; 5:20 PM ET
Categories:  Prince George's County  | Tags:  prince george's county; rushern l. baker III; kurt schmoke; william missouri; david van dyke; anne magner;  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Md. House sets hearing on same-sex marriage, anticipating Senate passage
Next: Md. senators told to expect long week of same-sex marriage debate


It is truly incredible how so many people can spin their wheels and do everything in their power to avoid reading the laws ... it really creates the impression that they WANT to go through the motions of doing something without ACHIEVING anything.


Posted by: polecatx1 | February 17, 2011 1:38 AM | Report abuse

I know of NINE sets of laws concerning the pay-to-play culture in Prince Is Gorgeous County.

There are the federal laws which Jack Be Nimble, Bruce Almighty Johnson has obliged himself confront.

Then there are state ethics laws which are SUPPOSED to be administered and enforced by the Maryland State Ethics Commission.

In addition there are the federal, state and county campaign finance laws which are SUPPOSED to be administered and enforced to prevent campaign contributions from being used as bribes or objects of extortion in land use matters.

There are, OF COURSE, the county ethics laws which no one seems to know and everyone seems to ignore ... just to state it doubly.

As regards land use and zoning ethics, there are also state laws that are MEANT to govern Park and Planning and there is also an internal MNCPPC set of ethics codes.

Above all ... due to a PAST HISTORY of graft and corruption ... there is a special state ethics code for Prince George's County which, FORTUNATELY, is watched over by our stalwart Clerk of the County Council.

But there is also a lesser-known chapter of federal law as part of the laws on OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE which deals more with the obstruction ofDUE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS and it would BEHOOVE those who give false or misleading testimony at public hearings and forums to STUDY IT ... especially those who, unlike yours truly, have law degrees.

Smoke and Mirrors !!!!

Posted by: polecatx1 | February 17, 2011 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Those testifying at public hearings or forums should be mindful that federal affordable-housing programs are involved in the ethics problems of Prince George's County government and that false statements may cross a very fine line to result in federal prison time:

Obstruction of Justice: an Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes that Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities
December 27, 2007

False Statements (18 U.S.C. 1001).
A matter is within the jurisdiction of a federal entity when it involves a matter “confided to the authority of a federal agency or department . . . A department or agency has jurisdiction, in this sense, when it has power to exercise authority in a particular situation. Understood in this way, the phrase ‘within the jurisdiction’ merely differentiates the official, authorized functions of a agency or department from matters peripheral to the business of that body.” Several courts have held that the phrase contemplates coverage of false statements made to state, local, or private entities but relating to matters that involve federal funds or regulations.

Posted by: polecatx1 | February 17, 2011 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company