Maryland has a rule that local ethics ordinances must require the disclosure of all an elected official's real property, stocks, and bonds. According to an article in the Carroll County Times, the Mount Airy council keeps passing an ethics ordinance that requires the disclosure only of real property in Mount Airy and surrounding counties, but nowhere else. And the state ethics commission keeps rejecting the ordinances as insufficiently strict.

This year, a bill was introduced that would require local elected officials to disclose only property in their town or county, and property acquired from someone who has done business with the local government. The bill did not pass.

According to the state EC, 62 out of the state's 73 municipalities have passed an acceptable ethics ordinance. Mount Airy's council president says that some of the 11 that haven't passed an acceptable ordinance are “rallying the troops” to resist the law.

I think they're right to resist, and to insist on a lessening of the requirement. This is a problem of applying state rules at the local level (state law requires that local requirements be "equivalent to or exceed the requirements of state law"). A state elected official should certainly disclose any property owned in the state. But a local official's disclosure should be limited to the local government's jurisdiction. Acquisitions and rentals from, and sales and rentals to, those doing business with the local government should also be disclosed, but for a different reason: these show relationships that may require withdrawal from matters involving individuals and entities that come before the official.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---