STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
Twenty-Sixth Annual Report
January 1, 2004 - December 31, 2004
GENERAL
STATUTORY IMPLEMENTATION
The
State Ethics Commission met in regular session 10 times during Calendar Year
2004 and considered issues related to all areas of its statutory mandate:
financial disclosure, conflict of interest, lobbyist disclosure and conduct
restrictions, local government ethics laws, school board ethics regulations,
advisory opinions, enforcement matters, employee training, lobbyist training and
public information activities.
For
the first time since it was statutorily mandated in 1999, the Commission was
able to begin in earnest to develop an electronic filing process for financial
disclosure statements. The
Commission contracted with The Canton Group, LLC, to develop both the electronic
filing process and the electronic administrative review process. Although the statute, Md. Code Ann.,
State Gov’t Article § 15-602(d), does not require that all filers utilize the
electronic process, the Commission was hopeful that filers will embrace the new
process and thus reduce the paper storage crisis in our office. Electronic filing will provide the
Commission with the opportunity to engage in more directed review of the data,
streamline operations and allow the Commission staff to concentrate resources on
ethics training and education, advice, assistance to local governments, and
enforcement. The system will be
beta tested in January 2005, and it will be available for all filers by mid
February 2005 for the 2004 reporting year.
As
noted in the Commission’s Strategic Plan, the Commission believes that increased
education and training will lead to an increase in advice responsibilities and
decrease the volume enforcement actions.
In order to provide more meaningful training, the Commission staff has
reduced the focus on large multi-agency programs and has made a concerted effort
to provide training to smaller groups of employees at their particular
agencies. This approach has
resulted in training that addresses the specific ethical issues confronted by
various State employees in the various agencies and has resulted in more active
participation by the attendees. The
Commission staff has provided increased informal guidance and advice to
individuals who have attended training sessions. During calendar year 2004, the
Commission conducted 27 general ethics training programs attended by 1,054 State
employees. In addition to those
sessions, 17 additional programs for agencies, boards and commissions focusing
more specifically on conflicts of interest and the new electronic filing process
for financial disclosure statements were attended by 524 State employees and
public officials. The
Commission staff also conducted five lobbying training programs attended by 206
lobbyists plus two programs focusing on forms completion that were attended by
22 individuals who were administrative staff of regulated lobbyists.
During the 2004 Maryland Legislative
Session, House Bill 191 was enacted.
This bill modified §15-406(b)(2) of the Public Ethics Law by requiring an
aggrieved party in an enforcement action to petition either the Ethics
Commission or the reviewing Circuit Court in order to obtain a stay of the
Ethics Commission’s order.
Previously, enforcement orders issued by the Ethics Commission were
stayed automatically until final disposition in the review process. The modification brings the Commission
into parity with the Administrative Procedure Act contested case provisions,
which also require the aggrieved party to petition either the final decision
maker or the reviewing court in order to attain a stay of the
order.
In
June 2003, the Commission conducted a contested case hearing on charges of
lobbying violations by lobbyist Bruce C. Bereano. The Commission issued its decision and
public order finding a violation of §15-713(1), being engaged for lobbying
purposes for contingent compensation.
The request for judicial review, which Mr. Bereano filed in the Anne
Arundel Circuit Court, was transferred to the Howard County Circuit Court and
was heard before the Honorable Raymond Kane on June 1, 2004, Case No.
13-C-03-057038. On December 28,
2004, Judge Kane issued his decision upholding the Commission’s final decision
and sanction of a 10-month suspension of Mr. Bereano’s lobbying
registrations. Mr. Bereano noted
his appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. The case is currently pending before
that Court and scheduled for argument in October 2005.
On
July 30, 2004, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion upholding the Anne
Arundel Circuit Court’s decision in favor of lobbyist, Gerard Evans, in the
Commission’s appeal in the case of State Ethics Commission v. Gerard E.
Evans. The Court of Appeals
determined that the Ethics Commission did not have the authority to revoke Mr.
Evans’ lobbying registration as his July 14, 2000 conviction and September 29,
2000 sentencing for mail and wire fraud relating to his lobbying activity
occurred prior to the enactment of House Bill 2 (Chapter 63, Laws of 2001) (SG §
15-405(e)), which granted the Commission the right to revoke a lobbyist’s
registration under certain circumstances.
The Court of Appeals’ decision provided clarification of § 15-405(e) and
discussion of legislative history and statutory interpretation pertaining to the
lobbying enforcement provisions of the Public Ethics Law.
In
January 2004, Bruce Poole, who was appointed as to the State Ethics Commission
on February 1, 2000, resigned his position as a Commissioner. Mr. Poole filled the position that was a
nominee of the Speaker of the House.
The Speaker subsequently submitted a nomination to the Governor in
December 2004.
The
Fiscal Year 2005 budget was approved for $731,144 (General Funds of $686,034 and
Special Funds of $45,110), which in June was reduced by $35,000 for cost
containment, and another $10,654 was removed from the General Fund Allocation,
leaving an actual budget allocation of $685,490.
The
Maryland Public Ethics Law (§15-301 through §15-303) provides that the State
Ethics Commission may issue formal advisory opinions in response to requests
from officials, employees, lobbyists, and others who are subject to the Ethics
Law. These formal opinions
generally follow an appearance before the Commission by the requestor and are
published in the Maryland Register.
The Commission regulations also allow the staff and the Commission to
provide informal advice. (See COMAR
19A.01.02.05). Informal advice
generally results in a letter or email to the requestor that references prior
opinions of the Commission addressing similar facts and
issues.
The State Ethics Commission has the responsibility of interpreting the
Public Ethics Law. When the
Commission was first established in late 1979 most advice requests resulted in a
published formal opinion. During its first full five years of operation (1980
–1984), the Commission issued a total of 205 opinions: an average of 41 per
year. During the next five years (1985 – 1989) another 128 opinions were issued:
an average of over 25 per year.
As a result, there is a large body of published opinions available to the
Commission staff to provide informal advice in response to advice requests.
During the twenty-six years of its existence, the Commission has issued a total
of 486 formal opinions. During the past five years the number of formal opinions
has decreased to 18 while informal reviews and letter advice has increased. A
major factor reducing the need for formal Commission opinions is the large
number of existing opinions that can now be used for informal guidance by the
Commission or staff thus expediting advice.
During
Calendar-Year 2004, the Commission issued two (2) formal published opinions. One opinion addressed the application of
§15-502 to the Chair of the State Information Technology Board (“Board”)
(Opinion No. 04-1). The Requestor was an owner of an information technology
corporation that became a subcontractor on a newly awarded information
technology contract with the State Department of General Services. The Requestor
was a “public official” by virtue of his service on the Board, which was
affiliated with the Department of Budget and Management (“DBM”). The Commission
determined that given the role of DBM in the information technology procurement
processes, and the statutory duties of Board, an exception could not be granted
to permit continued service on the Board.
The
second opinion addressed whether an employee of the Maryland Transit
Administration could participate in project matters in which a party to those
matters was a vendor under a general task order contract that employed the
employee’s son (Opinion No. 04-02). The Commission allowed the participation
based on the specific circumstances of the employee’s situation as permitted by
§15-501. The published advisory opinions are available on the Internet through
the Commission web site (http://ethics.gov.state.md.us/) and
the website of the Secretary of State, Division of State Documents (http://www.sos.state.md.us/).
During the year, the Commission also granted one exemption pursuant to
§15-502(d) upon the recommendation of the Governor. The Commission granted an
exemption to allow the Assistant Secretary, Office of Resource Conservation of
the Department of Agriculture to maintain his interest in a family farm. This
was only the twenty-second (22) exemption granted in the history of the State
Ethics Commission.
The
Commission’s informal docket, initiated in 2002, logs requests for advice that
result in informal advice provided to the requestor by either the Commission
staff or the Commission itself. This does not include telephone advice or
answers to routine questions provided by the Commission staff. The Commission
and/or the Commission staff reviewed and considered requests in the following
subject areas during calendar year 2004:
Subject
Matter of the Advice
Number of Requests
2004 2003 2002
Lobbying Registration, Reporting & Conduct
11
18
53
Secondary Employment Advice
108
132
269
Participation Advice
17
8
3
Procurement Restrictions
6
7
10
Post-Employment Advice
13
13
6
Gift Questions
21
29
8
Other
44
35
28
Total
220
242
357
The
number of informal matters has decreased each year since calendar year 2002. In
2002 a total of 357 informal matters were reviewed. The reduction is
attributable, in part to a reduction in requests from lobbyists for advice (from
53 in 2002 to 18 in 2003 to 11 in 2004). During the last two months of 2001 and
in early 2002, there were a significant number of advice requests addressing the
implementation of HB2 (Chapter 631, Acts of 2001, effective November 1, 2001).
At its meeting on February 6, 2002, the Commission considered 32 questions
involving interpretation of HB2. When HB 1076 (Chapter 405, Acts of 2002) was
enacted during the 2002 legislative session and signed as emergency legislation
(May 6, 2002) various lobbyists sought additional informal advice. Additionally,
the implementation of the Commission’s Lobbyist Training Program has impacted on
the number of informal requests from lobbyists, who now have the benefit of the
training and an understanding of the lobbying law
requirements.
There
was also a significant reduction in secondary employment requests from calendar
year 2002. In 2002 there was a total of 269 such requests with 219 from the
Department of Human Resources (“DHR”). In 2003, there were a total of 132
informal requests involving secondary employment, with 48 from the DHR. In 2004,
there were a total of 108 such requests, with 40 from the DHR. The reduction in
the number of secondary employment requests from DHR is probably attributable to
two factors. In 2001, the Department established procedures for approval of
secondary employment that were circulated to all county departments of social
services and resulted in a large number of requests to the Commission to review
secondary employment of employees during 2001 and 2002. Many of these reviews
were for existing secondary employment situations that had not been previously
reviewed. By 2003, DHR’s review
process had been implemented statewide and only new secondary employment
situations needed to be reviewed. Additionally, DHR officials who participated
in the Commission review have become sufficiently familiar with the requirements
of the Ethics Law to enable them to screen situations without requiring
Commission review.
A
review of the informal requests received in 2003 and 2004 demonstrated an
increase in the number of requests related to the application of the post-State
employment provisions of the law. This
is likely a reflection of the 2002 election that resulted in a change of
administration and the movement of certain officials from State service.
The
108 informal secondary employment requests considered in 2004 came from the
following Departments:
Department
Number of Requests
2004 2003
2002
Department
of Human Resources
40
48
219
Department of Health & Mental Hygiene
22
18
20
Department of Transportation
4
9
4
Executive
Department
5
6
2
Department
of Agriculture
3
5
0
University
System of Maryland
2
5
2
Department
of Public Safety & Correctional Services
3
4
2
Department
of Natural Resources
4
3
1
Other
Agencies/Departments
25
34
19
The Commission staff has also provided general advice about the
application of the Ethics Law in response to phone inquiries from State
employees and lobbyists. During calendar year 2004, the Commission’s General
Counsel, Staff Counsel, and Assistant Counsel responded to more than 1,200 phone
inquires.
University of Maryland Public-Private Partnership
Exemptions
In
1990, the General Assembly enacted legislation allowing the University System of
Maryland (USM) to grant to university faculty certain exemptions from the
conflict of interest provisions of the Public Ethics Law. The exemptions were for “sponsored research and development”
activities. Sponsored research and
development was defined in the law as an ”agreement to engage in basic or
applied research or development at a public senior higher education institution,
and includes transferring university-owned technology or providing services by a
faculty member to entities engaged in sponsored research or development.” Faculty members were not fully exempted
from all Public Ethics Law requirements, and public disclosure of the interest
or secondary employment was required. The institution granting the exemption was
required to maintain the exemption as a public record and to file a copy with
the State Ethics Commission.
In 1996, the General Assembly enacted the Public-Private Partnership Act.
This law expanded the exemptions beyond faculty to include vice-presidents and
presidents of institutions as well as the chancellor and vice-chancellors of the
USM. The legislation also broadened
the exemption from the conflict of interest provisions to include USM officials,
faculty members, and employees. The
USM Board of Regents and the USM institutions adopted procedures pursuant to
§15-523 to allow the conflict of interest exemptions. The USM Board of Regents
and seven of the affiliated institutions adopted policies, and the Commission’s
authority was limited to comment on the policy’s conformity to Public-Private
Partnership Act. The definition of “sponsored research” was expanded to include
“participation in State economic development activities.”
The records filed by the institutions with the Commission reflect a total
of 76 faculty exemptions granted by university presidents between 1996 and 2003.
These included exemptions at the University of Maryland at Baltimore (UMB),
University of Maryland at Baltimore County (UMBC), and the University of
Maryland Biotechnology Institute.
During calendar year 2004, USM institutions granted an additional 19
individual faculty members an exemption. The exemptions were from the following
institutions:
Institution
No. Of Exemptions
University of Maryland, Baltimore
5
University
of Maryland, Baltimore County
1
University
of Maryland, College Park
13
Total
Faculty Exemptions
19
In some
instances the individual faculty member has had more than one interest exempted.
For example, in February 2004 the President exempted a faculty member for his
interests in two separate private entities. As reported in the State Ethics
Commission Annual Report for 2002, there has been only one Board of Regents
exemption for a university president in the history of the program. Pursuant to §15-523(c)(1) each exemption
requires a disclosure to the State Ethics Commission and is required to be
maintained as a public record at the educational institution.
The
financial disclosure program continued to process the identification of those
required to file, provide technical assistance to filers, and monitor compliance
with the Law. In accordance with
Public Ethics Law § 15-103, the Commission reviewed a large number of requests
by various agencies to add or delete positions from the financial disclosure
filing list, and the net result was an increase in the number of filers from
approximately 9,006 in 2003 to approximately 12,170 in 2004.
In
accordance with Public Ethics Law §§ 15-103 and 209, the Commission made
decisions concurred in by the Department of Budget and Management regarding the
status as “executive units” of newly created boards and commissions and
considered and acted upon requests by a number of boards and commissions to be
exempted from the requirement to file financial disclosure statements. In recent years there has been a
substantial increase in the number of boards, commissions, task forces, and
technical advisory groups created by the General Assembly.
Currently
there are more than 12,000 State and public officials required to file financial
disclosure forms, and the number of filers continues to grow. Individuals who are public officials
only as a result of their participation on boards or commissions are required to
file a limited form of financial disclosure (form #2). The Commission staff conducts
compliance reviews of financial disclosure statements and notifies filers of
identifiable errors or omissions, and it pursues enforcement actions against
those who fail to file. During
2004, Commission staff reviewed more than 2000 financial disclosure forms for
reporting year 2003.
The Commission also has the responsibility for the financial disclosure
program for appointees to executive boards or commissions who seek limited
conflict of interest exemptions from the appointing authority, sometimes
referred to as “Time of Appointment Exemptions.” Board or commission members must file a
request for the “time of appointment “ exemptions with the Commission, the
appointing authority, and the Senate, if Senate approval is required for the
appointment. The request forms publicly disclose existing conflicts and will
exempt the individuals only from those conflicts that are disclosed on the
forms. The Commission staff
coordinates this process with the appointing authority, reviews the forms and,
throughout the year, assists a large number of appointees in completing the
disclosures forms. In 2004, the
Commission processed 223 Time-of-Appointment Forms.
Under its 1999 mandate to develop electronic filing for financial
disclosure statements, Public Ethics Law § 15-602(d), the Commission must
develop procedures under which a statement may be filed electronically and
without additional cost to the individual who files the statement. The Commission worked with the Canton
Group, its contractor, to develop an electronic process that will be available
for the filing of 2004 Financial Disclosure Statements.
In working with the Governor’s IT staff
and others suggested by them, the Commission staff have become aware of some
changes to the financial disclosure form that will be necessary in order to
attain the accurate, efficient and effective collection of financial disclosure
information. For example, where the
written form asks for “amount of consideration paid” for interests in real
property, in order to avoid inadvertent mistakes permitted by “free writing,” a
range of consideration paid that the filer will highlight from “drop-down
boxes.” Thus, the filer will choose
between boxes that contain choices such as “under $50,000; $50,000 to $99,999;
$100,000 to $250,000, etc..” In
this way, the information required by Public Ethics Law § 15-607 will be
obtained and eliminate the likelihood of typographical mistakes that could be
misleading. Additional
modifications in the method of obtaining the required information will be
required in order effectuate the transition from paper to electronic
reporting. The Commission has
determined that such changes will provide sufficient information and meet the
statutory requirements of the financial disclosure section of the Public Ethics
Law as set forth in § 15-607.
The
increase in the number of filers together with the filers’ participation in
equity investment and other financial interests has created a resource crisis
within the Commission staff in reviewing the statements. The Commission lacks sufficient staff to
sort, file and review more than 10,000 annual financial disclosure reports, and
it lacks sufficient space and resources to store at least six years of financial
disclosure reports for each filer.
Absent any foreseeable increase in staff and space, the Commission must
put forth its efforts to develop an electronic filing process that will meet the
statutory requirements of § 15-607 and which will be embraced by filers with
confidence. The Commission’s next
Annual Report will contain facts and figures to assess the success of the
electronic filing project.
Lobbyist Disclosure
and
Regulation
During
the lobbying year ending October 31, 2004, 2,555 lobbying registrations were
filed with the Commission. This
represents an increase of 120 registrations from the 2,435 that filed in 2003.
Seven hundred fifty-five lobbyists registered for 1,059 employers. (Some employers have more than one
lobbyist and many lobbyists have more than one employer.) This compares to 724 lobbyists who
registered on behalf of 1056 employers in 2003. Although the largest number of lobbyists
is registered during the legislative session, registrations begin and end at
various times throughout the lobbying year, which begins on November 1 and ends
on October 31 of the following year.
Most persons registered to lobby had a single registration representing
one employer. However, 144
lobbyists had two or more registrations during this time period; 94 registrants
had four or more employers; and 69 lobbyists had eight or more employers. The Ethics Commission staff monitors
lobbyist registration, reporting, conduct, and certain aspects of campaign
finance activity.
The
$38,556,789 in lobbying expenditures reported for the period ending October 31,
2004, represents an increase of $8,060,080 from the previous year. Lobbyists’ compensation continued to
increase. Lobbying expenditures
have very significantly increased since the $2,864,454 reported expenditures in
1979; the first year the Ethics Commission administered the filing program. Expenditures for gifts and entertainment
in 2004 increased from $1,488,646 to $2,128,770. The amount for food and
beverages, other than special categories, increased from $4,178 to $4,493. The amount in this category was
dramatically lower than the $416,924 reported in this category for 1992,
reflecting the stronger disclosure laws of that year. Entertainment at legislative
organization meetings resulted in $16,519 in lobbyists’ expenditures. Lobbyists’ expenditures for special
events increased from $1,404,028 in 2003 to $2,060,647 in 2004, a substantial
increase from the $245,288 reported for special events in 1994. Under current law, special events
include events to which all members of the General Assembly, either house,
standing committees, or geographic delegations are invited. There were 126 “all members” of the
General Assembly events reported in 2004 totaling $1,072,303, an increase over
the $784,069 spent for the previous year.
The total expenditure for special events may be misleading, as the
reporting requirement is for the total cost of the event rather than funds
expended directly on General Assembly members. There were 94 events reported for
the House of Delegates Standing Committees and 83 for the Senate Standing
Committees. The total of 177
committee events was higher than the 157 events in 2003. The most entertained committee in the
House of Delegates was the Health, Government and Operations Committee with 28
events. The least entertained
Standing Committee in the House was the Ways and Means Committee with 10
events. In the Senate, the most
entertained committee was the Finance Committee with 26 events and the least
entertained committee was the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs
Committee with 16 events. The
regional delegations with the most events reported were the Montgomery County
Delegation and Prince George’s County Delegation, with 21 events
each.
A
detailed analysis of special events spending is contained in Appendix C of this
report. Lobbyists are also required
to file gift reports naming individuals receiving tickets or other gifts above
certain thresholds. Five lobbyists
filed 5 gift reports in 2004 compared to 13 in 2003. Gift reports may name one or more gift
recipients. Gift reports tend to be
concentrated among the higher spending employers. New gift limitations,
effective October 1, 1999, and the fact that gift reports are no longer required
in some situations have resulted in the very substantial decline in gift
reports.
For
the year 2004, 196 lobbyist employers reported total lobbying expenditures of
$50,000 or more, and 388 lobbyist employers reported total expenditures of
$25,000 or more. This compares to
344 employers reaching $25,000 in expenditures in 2003. One hundred sixteen individual
lobbyists, registered on behalf of one or more employers, reported $50,000 or
more in compensation for services as compared to 104 in 2003. Sixty-four lobbyists reported
compensation of $100,000 or more compared with 59 in 2003. There is a growing trend toward firms
employing several lobbyists, ranging from groups within large law firms to
government relations groups unassociated with the practice of law. In 2004, four fee-earning firms earned
over $1,000,000. This information
is outlined in Appendix D.
Examples
of topic areas involving large total employer expenditures during the reporting
period included business, utilities, racing, labor, health, banking, energy,
communications, technology, attorneys, real estate, construction and
insurance. Employer lobbying
spending continues to increase. In
1988, only 5 employers spent over $100,000 on lobbying. In 1999, 35 employers exceeded
$100,000. Lists of those employers
spending $25,000 or more and those lobbyists reporting $50,000 or more in
compensation are included in Appendices A and B of this report.
The
following expenditure data summarizes lobbying expenditures for the last three
lobbying years:
10/31/04
10/31/03
10/31/02
1.
Expenditures for meals and beverages
for officials or
employees or their
immediate
families.
$ 4,493
$
4,178
$
1,690
2.
Expenditures for special events,
including
parties, dinners,
athletic
events, entertainment,
and
other functions to which all
members
of the General Assembly,
either
house thereof, or any
standing
committee thereof were
invited. (Date, location,
group
benefited,
and total expense for
each
event are also reported.)
$ 2,060,647
$ 1,404,028
$ 1,115,206
3.
Expenses for food, lodging, and
scheduled
entertainment of officials
and
employees and spouses for a
meeting
given in return for
participation
in a panel or
speaking
engagement at the
meeting.
$ 26,283
$ 18,524
$
5,702
4.
Expenditures for food and beverages
at
approved legislative organizational
meetings.
$ 16, 519
$ 15,787
$ 12,298
5. Expenses for a ticket or free
admission
to attend charitable,
cultural
or political events where
all
members of a legislative unit
are
invited.
$ 4,350
$ 4,708
$
15,320
6. Gifts to or for officials or
employees
or
their immediate families (not
included
in B-1 through B-5).
$ 16,478
$ 41,421
$
14,564
Subtotal
of items l, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6
$2,128,770
$1,488,646
$1,164,780
7.
Total compensation paid to registrant
(not including
sums reported in any
other
section).
$32,832,105
$25,367,757
$22,461,621
8.
Salaries, compensation and reim‑
bursed
expenses for staff of the
registrant.
$ 980,177
$ 889,332 $
898,943
9.
Office expenses not reported in
items 5 and
6.
$ 1,146,653
$ 841,415 $
829,315
10. Cost of professional and
technical
research
and assistance not
reported
in items 5 and 6.
$ 334,780
$ 635,491 $ 310,151
11. Cost of publications
which
expressly
encourage persons to
communicate
with officials or
employees.
$ 465,458
$ 771,743 $
434,924
12. Fees and expenses paid to
witnesses.
$ 122,810
$ 4,685
$
28,541
13. Other expenses.
$ 546,036
$ 497,650 $
561,032
Total
of items 1 through 13
$38,556,789
$30,496,719
$26,689,307
(NOTE:
At the time the Annual Report was compiled, some lobbyist expenditure
information may have been subject to adjustment based on the staff review
program.)
In calendar year 2004,
the Commission issued fifty-six complaints. Three complaints involved conflict of
interest issues, forty-three involved financial disclosure issues, and ten
involved lobbying issues. The
Commission also closed forty-six complaints during 2004. Thirty-five complaints were closed when
the Commission accepted a cure proposal from the complaints’ respondents,
fourteen Stipulations of Settlement were accepted by the Commission, three
complaints were dismissed after a preliminary investigation and one complaint
was closed for other reasons. The
Commission collected $4650.00 in payments to the State of Maryland through the
Stipulations of Settlement accepted in 2004.
At the end of 2004,
the Commission had fourteen pending complaints under investigation. The pending complaints included four
conflict of interest matters and ten financial disclosure
matters.
The Ethics Law provides that
any person may file a complaint with the Commission. Complaints filed with the Commission
must be signed under oath and allege a violation of the Ethics Law by a person
subject to the law. The Commission
may file a complaint on its own initiative, and, at its discretion, may proceed
with a preliminary inquires of potential Ethics Law
violations.
The Commission divides
preliminary matters into two categories:
Preliminary Consideration Matters and Preliminary Inquiry Matters, the
latter of which involves more extensive investigation. In 2004, the Commission opened
ninety-six Preliminary Consideration Matters, including fifty-nine conflict of
interest matters, thirty-three lobbyist matters and four financial disclosure
matters. The Commission entered
into twelve Late Filing Agreements with lobbyists during 2004, resulting in
payments of $3250.00 to the State of Maryland. The Commission closed ninety-seven
Preliminary Consideration Matters in 2004.
The Commission opened
twenty-three Preliminary Inquiry Matters in 2004. Twenty-two of the 2004 Preliminary
Inquiry Matters involved conflict of interest issues and one involved lobbying
issues. In 2004, the Commission
closed nineteen Preliminary Inquiry Matters, including a few pending matters
from 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002.
All enforcement
payments collected through Stipulations of Settlement or Late Filing Agreements
were deposited in the State’s general fund and cannot be used by the Commission.
The Commission’s
appeal in State Ethics Commission v. Evans was completed in
2004. The Commission revoked
the respondent’s lobbying registrations pursuant to § 15-405(e) of the Public
Ethics Law in 2002. The respondent
requested judicial review in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, which
reversed the Commission’s Order.
The Commission filed an appeal with the Court of Special Appeals. The Court of Appeals, on its own motion,
removed the case from the Court of Special Appeals and scheduled arguments in
the case for May 6, 2004. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision in favor of Mr. Evans on July
30, 2004.
State Ethics
Commission v. Bereano is
currently on appeal in Maryland Court of Special Appeals. The respondent appealed the Commission’s
June 2003 Order suspending his lobbying registrations for a period of ten months
and seeking a fine of $5,000 for a knowing and willful violation of § 15-713(1)
of the Ethics Law. The respondent
originally requested judicial review of the Commission’s Order in the Circuit
Court for Anne Arundel County, but the Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court
for Anne Arundel County transferred the matter to the Circuit Court for Howard
County. The Circuit
Court for Howard County affirmed the Commission’s Order on December 28,
2004. Mr. Bereano appealed the
Circuit Court’s decision and arguments are scheduled in the Court of Special
Appeals in October 2005.
Local Government Ethics
Laws
The Ethics Law requires Maryland counties and cities to enact local laws
similar to the State Law. In
addition to the requirement that counties and cities enact ethics laws, the
General Assembly amended the Law in 1983 to require local school boards either
to promulgate ethics regulations similar to the State Law or be covered by
county ethics laws. As part of its
responsibilities, the Commission staff reviewed proposed draft revisions to
ethics laws for Baltimore City, 4 counties, and 5 municipalities during 2004.
Two county Boards of Education submitted proposed revisions to their ethics
regulations. Additionally, the staff reviewed proposed changes to the Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission Ethics Regulations. The Commission formally
approved revisions to the Baltimore City, the Town of Cheverly, Mt. Airy, and
St. Mary’s Ethics Ordinances. The Commission also formally approved revisions to
the Harford County and the Allegany County Boards of Education Ethics
Regulations. Criteria for
evaluating similarity to the State Law are defined in Commission
regulations. Municipalities, based
on size and other factors, may be exempted from all or part of the requirement,
though an exemption may be granted only in response to a written request.
The Commission also received and reviewed reports from Prince George’s
County and Montgomery County regarding special land use ethics reports required
in those jurisdiction (See §15-829 through §15-841).
As discussed in the Commission’s Annual Report for 2003, the Commission
and Commission staff continue to consider and evaluate the impact of the
Court of
Appeals’ opinion in Seipp v. Baltimore City Board of Elections, 377Md.362, 833 A.2d 551 (2003) on its local government and school board
regulations.
Educational and
Informational Activities
The Commission staff has been active in providing formal training to
State employees, lobbyists and local jurisdictions. The training has involved advising and
assisting employees, officials, candidates and lobbyists on completion of forms,
and providing training related to the conflict of interest provisions of the
Public Ethics Law. The Commission
staff has assisted local government and school board officials in drafting their
ethics laws and regulations. The
staff has also provided technical advice to local government ethics boards.
Legislation passed in 1999 requires new financial disclosure filers to receive 2
hours of Ethics Law training (§15-205(d)).
The Commission began implementation of this mandate in calendar year
2000. During calendar year 2004,
the Commission staff conducted 18 training sessions for State employees at
various locations throughout the State. The Commission provided training to a
total of 1,178 employees and public officials.
The Commission has placed an increasing emphasis on training smaller
groups of employees and officials and has done so within the employees’
agencies. In this way, those
attending the training sessions participate more, and the training can be
tailored to address the concerns of the various employees in the context of
their work experiences.
Additionally, the Commission staff has provided training to agency
leadership and to various boards and commissions that support agency work. The Commission staff has received very
positive response to the training.
The training consists of a PowerPoint presentation, interactive lecture,
and supplemental documents that provide resource material. The training
commitments have placed a significant burden on the Commission’s staff, as each
training session requires that at least one, and many times two, of the
professional staff make the presentations, which causes a shortage of
professional staff available in the office to respond to telephone and “other”
inquiries in the office. Funding
for an additional professional position that could assist with the training or
be available in the office would increase the Commission staff’s effectiveness
in providing the type of training and advice that could result in a reduction of
our enforcement responsibilities.
The Commission staff has found that the expanded training programs have
resulted in a significant increase in the number of telephone and email requests
for guidance from employees who have attended the
sessions.
In accordance with § 15-205(e) of the Public Ethics Law, which mandates
the Ethics Commission to provide a training course for regulated lobbyists and
prospective regulated lobbyists at least twice each year, the Commission staff
provided training to 197 lobbyists during calendar year
2004.
Part of the Commission's public information activity involves
distribution of lists of registered lobbyists and provision of assistance to
persons inspecting various forms filed with the Commission. The Commission's staff
distributes, through interagency mail, a special two-page summary of ethics
requirements and other applicable memoranda to State agency managers. In order to ensure adequate public
access to the Commission’s memoranda, the Commission staff posts them on our web
site, http://ethics.gov.state.md.us/, and
distribute them to agencies for distribution to their employees. On a limited basis, the
Commission is also distributing another pamphlet covering ethics requirements
for part‑time members of State boards and commissions. The staff provides a memoranda on
lobbying laws relating to private colleges, lobbyist political activity, and a
memorandum regarding adjustments to the procurement ethics provisions by request
and on its web site. The Commission
staff has also developed a special memorandum to advise potential new members of
boards and commissions of the impact of the Ethics Law.
The Ethics Commission maintains a complete and up-to-date home page on
the Internet. The home page directs
users to the Annual Report, special explanatory memoranda, and a bi-monthly
bulletin, downloadable forms for lobbying and State employees and Public
Officials, the State vendor list, the Public Ethics Law and Formal Advisory
Opinions. Another feature is an
ethics question of the month, which answers hypothetical questions based on past
Commission opinions. The Internet
provides a cost effective mechanism for providing ethics information and
training to those covered by the Ethics Law and public access to ethics
information. The Commission is
hopeful that it will eventually have sufficient funds to update its web software
to include an interactive dialogue with users enabling it to respond to
questions on-line, provide educational programming on-line, and allow users to
navigate the site with more ease.
Automatic Stay of Enforcement Actions
House
Bill 191 was enacted and modified § 15-406(b)(2) of the Public Ethics Law by
requiring an aggrieved party in an enforcement action to petition either the
Ethics Commission or the reviewing Circuit Court in order to obtain a stay of
the Ethics Commission’s order.
Previously, enforcement orders issued by the Ethics Commission were
stayed automatically until final disposition in the review process. The modification brings the Commission
into parity with the Administrative Procedure Act contested case provisions,
which also require the aggrieved party to petition either the final decision
maker or the reviewing court in order to attain a stay of the
order.
Financial Disclosure
Delegate
Warren Miller filed several bills to modify the financial disclosure provisions
of the Public Ethics Law. HB 608
was enacted and modified Schedule H of the Annual Financial Disclosure Statement
by requiring the filer to report any earned income by dependent children only if
the source of that income resulted from employment with or ownership of an
entity that did business with or was regulated by the filer’s
agency.
Proposed Changes To The
Financial Disclosure (Subtitle 6)
Provisions
In the coming year, the Commission will continue to focus its attention
on several of the financial disclosure provisions in subtitle 6 of the Public
Ethics Law. Now that the State
Ethics Commission has had 25 years of experience, it has had the opportunity to
review the reporting requirements and recognize those areas, which appear to be
the root of most conflicts, and those areas, which, since the Commission’s
inception, have not caused any discernable problems. Additionally, the law in other areas has
developed so there are additional retirements and deferred compensation plans
that should be included in the exemption granted to 401K and 501K
plans.
With electronic filing being implemented, the Commission has reviewed the
filing requirements, and it has concluded that some discreet changes in requests
for information would be helpful in simplifying the reporting requirements
without jeopardizing the benefits of public disclosure.
·
New
officials should file a financial disclosure statement covering their holdings
as of the time they come into their position rather than for the previous
calendar year.
·
In
the 1999 Session of the General Assembly, the Harford County Liquor Board and
its employees were placed under the authority of the State Ethics
Commission. However, the employees
of the Board, regardless of salary or duties, were excluded from financial
disclosure requirements. This
general exclusion should be withdrawn to make the disclosure requirements for
these employees the same as other employees subject to the State Ethics Law.
·
Disclosure
of interests in all State deferred compensation plans should be added to the
exemption now provided for those who have interests in 401 and 501 plans (§ 15-
102(t)(2)(iv)). The exemption is warranted as the State provides a discreet list
of investments into which employees may invest, and there is no latitude for the
employee to select investments other than those provided by the
State.
·
Consideration
should be given to eliminating the need for reporting of investment in any
mutual fund in which there are more than 25 members on the basis that the
employee has no control over the trading of the individual holdings of the
mutual fund, and, therefore, it is improbable that an employee could effectuate
any change in value of the mutual fund by his or her official act as a State
employee.
·
The
provisions of §15-608
regarding attributable interests should be studied with the idea of reducing the
burden caused by the disclosure requirements when a person has a small share in
a large and diverse testamentary trust.
·
Judicial
candidates should be required to file financial disclosure in each year of their
candidacy in the same way as other candidates for State
office.
·
In
election years, improperly filed candidate's disclosure forms create unique
enforcement problems. Before the
Commission can find a violation and make it public, a variety of confidential
administrative and ad judicatory processes have to occur. In most cases this process extends
beyond the primary election and, likely, beyond the general election. This means that serious completion
problems or even false disclosure could exist unknown to the voting public. A very large percentage of non‑incumbent
candidates have substantial financial disclosure statement completion
problems. The General Assembly
should review this matter and determine whether confidentiality should be
eliminated at an earlier point in the enforcement process with regard to
candidates’ financial disclosure enforcement cases.
·
Section15-205(a)(5)
should be revised by substituting a provision for review consistent with
standards to be established by the Commission. The submission of documents requiring
Commission review has expanded almost exponentially, and it is not possible that
the current staff and resources would permit review of each document
filed.
Proposed Changes To The Conflicts Of Interest (Subtitle 5) Provisions
The Commission has also reviewed Subtitle 5, Conflicts of Interest
and suggests Legislative consideration of the following
issues:
·
Specific
provisions should address membership by public officials on boards or directors
of private corporations having sensitive business or regulatory involvement with
the State.
·
The
post-employment provisions (§ 15-504) should be revised to more specifically
address the problems that are common to higher-level management
positions.
·
The
Commission should have some level of civil penalty assessment authority in
conflict of interest matters in order to provide a formal alternative to
expensive court proceedings. This
would give the Commission equal authority in setting sanctions on conflict of
interest issues as it presently has with regard to lobbying
violations.
·
Like
legislators, legislative and other employees should be prohibited from lobbying
for one legislative session after leaving their State
employment.
·
The
law prohibiting misuse of confidential information should be extended to cover
former officials and employees as to confidential information acquired during
their State service.
Proposed Changes To The
Local Jurisdictions (Subtitle 8) Provisions
Subtitle 8 of the Public Ethics Law, which address local jurisdictions and boards of education, is also a priority. The Commission is looking at the following issues:
·
The
provisions covering school board ethics regulations need strengthening to assure
that there are adequate sanctions for violations by board members, candidates
for board membership and lobbyists.
·
Local
jurisdictions should be able to use lobbying registration and reporting with the
State Ethics Commission as an alternative or substitute for local
filing.
·
The
bi-county agency ethics regulations requirements should require that sufficient
penalty provisions are provided and that the current ethics regulations of these
agencies meet the intent of the Public Ethics Law.
·
The
Commission has informally determined that the bi-county agencies are to be
treated as State or local agencies for the purposes of exemptions under the
State lobbying registration requirements.
The Law should be amended to specifically clarify their status under
these provisions.
·
In order to avoid uncertain and confusing
application and administration of the Law, the special provisions of
§15-807
making members of State boards funded in whole or in part by Baltimore County
subject to the county disclosure law instead of the State Law should be
considered for elimination, or at a minimum copies of these forms should be
filed with the State Ethics Commission.
·
Subsequent
to the issuance of Seipp v. Baltimore City Board of Elections, et al, 377
Md. 362, 833 A.2d 551 (2003), which interpreted sections of subtitle 8 of the
Public Ethics Law and determined the degree to which local jurisdiction ethics
ordinances must be similar to the Public Ethics Law, the Commission seeks to
replace the language requiring that the local ordinance language be similar or
substantially similar to the Public Ethics Law with language requiring that the
Commission’s review of local ordinances be in accordance to law.
Proposed
Changes To The Lobbying (Subtitle 7) Provisions
The Commission also supports and would seek an amendment to the lobbying
provisions of the Public Ethics Law (subtitle 7) with regard to two of the
reporting requirements in the HB2 legislation of
2001:
·
§15-708
should be revised in order to more correctly reflect lobbyist spending for
legislative meals and receptions.
As the requirement reads now, the process is cumbersome and may
inadvertently inflate the actual amount spent on lobbying legislators. The provision causes significant
confusion as to what costs should be included and how the costs should be
reported.
·
§15-705
currently provides that regulated lobbyists must file a separate report
disclosing the name of any State official of the Executive Branch or member of
the immediate family of a State official of the Executive Branch who has
benefited during the reporting period from gifts of meals or beverages from the
regulated lobbyist, whether or not in connection with lobbying activities. The lobbyist must file this report
accounting from Dollar One spent on a meal or beverage for an official of the
Executive Branch or a member of the official’s immediate family. This reporting requirement is difficult
to administer and is not in keeping with other gift reporting requirements,
which general require such a report only when the amount spent is $20 or greater
or $100 cumulatively from one donor.
This provision should be revised to require a report only when the amount
spent is $20 or greater or $100 cumulatively from one
donor.
Proposed Change To The Enforcement (Subsection 4) Provisions
The Commission and staff continually review the Public Ethics Law in
order to determine if the administration and enforcement are consistent with the
intent of the law and the mission of the Commission.
-
The
Commission recommends that it be granted civil penalty authority in conflict of
interest matters in order to provide a formal alternative to expensive and time
consuming contested case proceedings.
EMPLOYER SPENDING $25,000 OR MORE –
ALL REGISTRANTS
ALL
TYPES OF EXPENSES
November 1, 2003 - October 31,
2004
TOTAL AMOUNT
EMPLOYER
1.
734,005.37
MedChi, The Maryland State Medical Society
2.
415,769.94
Maryland Jockey Club of Baltimore City/Pimlico Race
Track
3.
403,055.12
Magna Entertainment Corporation
4.
377,097.04
CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield
5.
370,698.00
Maryland Hospital Association.
6.
364,338.79
Maryland Association of Realtors
7.
363,623.44
Laurel Racing Association, Inc.
8.
337,531.35
Maryland State Teachers Association
9.
335,648.36
Verizon-Maryland, Inc.
10.
330,910.53
MedStar Health
11.
321,174.00
Baltimore Zoo/Maryland Zoological Society
12.
288,227.35
Maryland Retailers Association
13.
282,750.00
Greater Washington Board of Trade
14.
274,541.69
Pepco Holdings, Inc.
15.
256,083.05
Chimes, The
16.
248,905.57
Allegany Racing LLC/Ocean Downs
17.
233,922.70
Maryland Bankers Association
18.
230,581.37
Maryland Trial Lawyers Association
19.
216,371.53
Peterson Companies, The
20.
205,220.48
Adventist Healthcare, Inc.
21.
201,663.21
Medical Mutual Liability Insurance Society of
Maryland
22.
200,711.00
MAMSI (Mid-Atlantic Medical Services)
23.
200,269.90
Centaur, Inc.
24.
199,394.25
Johns Hopkins Medicine
25.
193,877.41
Maryland Chamber of Commerce
26.
191,504.53
Maryland Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association
27.
180,612.95
Delaware North Companies
28.
174,901.09
Norfolk Southern Corporation
29.
174,607.15
State Farm Insurance Companies
30.
172,887.21
ACS State & Local Solutions
31.
171,393.22
Philip Morris USA by its service Corp. Altria Corporate Services, Inc.
32.
158,700.00
Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos
33.
156,529.30
Luk Flats, LLC
34.
156,098.36
American Cancer Society
35.
153,899.55
League of Life and Health Insurers of Maryland
36.
149,051.68
Dimensions Healthcare System
37.
148,504.81
Mirant Mid-Atlantic, LLC
38.
147,180.25
Maryland Independent College & University
Association
39.
147,066.13
Health Facilities Association of Maryland
40.
138,276.53
Northwind Racing
41.
138,250.15
Association of Maryland Pilots
42.
136,843.94
Policy Studies, Inc.
43.
134,716.14
Maryland New Car and Truck Dealers Assn.
44.
134,706.39
Schaller Anderson of Maryland LLC
45.
131,499.48
Cable Telecommunications Assn. Of MD.DE & DC
46.
123,173.00
Progressive Maryland
47.
123,000.00
Maryland State Builders Association
48.
122,720.11
MAXIMUS
49.
120,708.10
Multimedia Games, Inc.
50.
118,948.00
Maryland State Bar Association
51.
115,699.00
Maryland Citizens Health Initiative
52.
115,250.97
Children’s National Medical Center
53.
113,300.00
Princeton Review K-12 Services, The
54.
113,198.09
Perdue Farms, Inc.
55.
111,139.61
Oberthur Gaming Technologies, Inc.
56.
110,925.26
Northrup Grumman Corporation
57.
108,150.00
Greenbelt Metropark L.L.C
58.
108,150.00
Hawthorn Group, The
59.
106,732.98
Service Employees International Union, MD/DC
Council
60.
105,807.89
Life Settlement Institute
61.
105,053.31
Apartment & Office Bldg.Assn.of Metro
Washington
62.
105,000.00
Manufacturers’ Alliance of Maryland
63.
103,076.08
MCI World Com, Inc.
64.
102,644.00
Lifebridge Health
65.
102,630.87
Greater Baltimore Medical Center Healthcare, Inc.
(GBMC)
66.
102,267.00
IGT
67.
99,800.00
Comcast Cable Communications
68.
99,097.61
Property Casualty Insurers Association of America
69.
98,282.52
Bearing Point
70.
97,305.77
ESP, Inc.
71.
97,262.00
AT & T
72.
96,999.47
Discovery Communications, Inc.
73.
96,659.69
St. Joseph Medical Center
74.
96,028.00
AT & T Wireless
Services, Inc.
75.
95,100.00
Maryland Association of Community Colleges
76.
95,098.69
Coalition for Tax Equity
77.
94,713.68
American Heart Association
78.
94,049.43
General Motors Corporation
79.
93,569.38
Maryland Association of Mortgage Brokers
80.
93,325.00
May Department Stores Company, The
81.
92,666.78
Maryland Horse Breeders Association
82.
92,636.68
Clark Enterprises, Inc.
83.
90,000.00
Deloitte Consutling
84.
89,252.29
Progressive Insurance Company
85.
87,903.10
Maryland Tort Reform Coalition
86.
87,308.41
Amerigroup Md. Inc.
87.
87,000.00
Diebold Election Systems
88.
86,611.00
Cloverleaf Enterprises, Inc.
89.
84,868.95
Mid-Atlantic Lifespan
90.
84,339.26
Baltimore Jewish Council & Maryland Jewish
Alliance
91.
84,195.19
NEXTEL Communications
92.
84,157.96
Maryland Optometric Association
93.
84,100.00
Americhoice Health Services, Inc.
94.
83,901.58
American Petroleum Institute
95.
83,320.59
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States,
Inc.
96.
82,634.57
Baltimore Building & Construction Trades Council,
AFL-CIO
97.
82,000.00
Community Education Partners
98.
81,245.83
Maryland Community Health System LLP
99.
80,657.61
Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc.
100.
80,429.99
AFSCME Council 92
101.
80,000.00
Lorillard Tobacco Company
102.
80,000.00
National Funeral Directors Association
103.
79,850.00
Microsoft Corporation
104.
79,593.20
Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of
America
105.
78,050.00
Caremark RX, Inc.
106.
77,927.68
CGI-AMS
107.
77,061.63
Rite Aid Corporation
108.
77,000.00
Chemical & Industrial
Technology Alliance
109.
76,530.53
Maryland Association of Boards of Education
110.
76,472.00
UST Public Affairs, Inc.
111.
76,228.60
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
112.
76,149.99
Washington Area New Automobile Dealers Association
113.
75,367.55
Maryland Catholic Conference
114.
75,092.00
Equality Maryland, Inc.
115.
75,050.00
Mack Trucks
116.
75,050.00
Volvo Trucks of North America, Inc.
117.
74,226.00
Johns Hopkins University
118.
73,500.33
CJ Systems Aviation Group
119.
72,829.79
Valley Proteins, Inc.
120.
72,083.62
Hudson Group
121.
71,283.28
GTECH Corporation
122.
70,000.00
Prince George’s County Council
123.
69,860.77
Maryland Citizens for Asbestos Reform
124.
69,622.92
Limited Brands, Inc.
125.
69,343.76
Cingular
Wireless
126.
68,953.69
Maryland Farm Bureau, Inc.
127.
68,722.80
CH2M Hill
128.
68,000.00
Harrah’s Operating Co.
129.
67,793.29
Suburban Hospital Healthcare System, Inc.
130.
67,409.61
Cloverleaf Standardbred Owners Association
131.
66,700.00
Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority
132.
66,425.00
Maryland State Dental Association
133.
66,366.00
MaryPIRG Citizen Lobby
134.
66,007.40
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
135.
65,407.42
Maryland State and DC AFL-CIO
136.
64,812.59
St. Agnes Health Care
137.
64,708.87
Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc.
138.
64,563.92
Greater Capital Area Association of Realtors
139.
64,184.00
Washington Gas
140.
64,083.44
Rouse Company, The
141.
64,017.62
Maryland State Fair & Agricultural Society,
Inc.
142.
63,353.89
Nationwide Insurance Company
143.
62,629.68
Advocates for Children & Youth, Inc.
144.
62,500.42
Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company, The
(VALIC)
145.
62,198.85
Allegheny Energy
146.
61,938.84
MBNA America
147.
61,898.09
HSBC-GR Corporation
148.
61,836.48
National Federation of Independent Businesses
149.
61,734.06
Spielo Manufacturing, Inc.
150.
61,422.59
Prison Health Services, Inc.
151.
61,228.20
Motorola, Inc.
152.
61,127.24
ACCENTURE
153.
61,105.13
Avatech Solutions
154.
60,483.88
Buchart Horn, Inc.
155.
60,000.00
CA One Services, Inc.
156.
60,000.00
University of Phoenix
157.
59,799.10
Government Affairs-Maryland
158.
58,894.56
Lockheed Martin Corporation
159.
58,118.00
Maryland Insurance Council
160.
58,057.00
Maryland State Bar Association
161.
58,054.00
Maryland Citizens Health Initiative Education Fund,
Inc.
162.
58,019.00
Marine Trades Association of Maryland
163.
57,507.00
AARP
164.
56,723.00
Johns Hopkins Institutions
165.
55,500.00
Penn National Gaming, Inc.
166.
55,302.25
Medco Health Solutions
167.
55,204.76
Nortel Networks
168.
55,000.00
Corrections Corporation of America
169.
54,783.13
American Insurance Association
170.
54,434.07
SCI Atlantic Region
171.
54,000.00
Gaylord Entertainment
172.
53,925.00
United Way of Central Maryland
173.
53,819.18
Home Builders Association of Maryland
174.
53,727.57
Concentra Medical Centers
175.
53,558.50
USAA
176.
52,611.00
GlobeGround North America, LLC
177.
52,600.00
EPIC Pharmacies/Maryland Professional Pharmacies,
Inc.
178.
52,480.43
WMDP Service Station & Automotive Repair Assn.
179.
52,100.59
Mettiki Coal Corporation
180.
52,050.00
Dental Network, The
181.
51,534.55
Abbott Laboratories
182.
51,456.47
Magellan Health Services
183.
51,000.00
Maryland Association of Chain Drug Stores
184.
50,957.77
American Council of Engineering Companies/Maryland
185.
50,790.15
MD/DC/DE Soft Drink Association
186.
50,700.00
Fraternal Order of Police - Maryland State Lodge
187.
50,607.00
Maryland Association of Non-Profit Organizations
188.
50,598.10
Pfizer, Inc.
189.
50,357.00
Eli Lilly & Company
190.
50,256.98
Long Term Care Pharmacy Alliance
191.
50,234.71
Almost Family-Caretenders
192.
50,050.00
Dell Corporation
193.
50,000.00
Alcoa Eastalco Works
194.
50,000.00
CSX Corporation
195.
50,000.00
Service Employees International Union, District 1199 E-DC
196.
50,000.00
Walmart Stores, Inc.
197.
49,912.36
ACLU of Maryland (American Civil Liberties Union)
198.
49,806.64
Catholic Charities
199.
49,614.85
Medimmune, Inc.
200.
49,133.59
Associated Builders & Contractors, Metro Washington
Chapter
201.
48,634.59
Maryland Taxicab, Sedan & Paratransit
202.
48,310.82
Cellco Partnership, a Delaware Limited Partnership
203.
48,050.00
AES Warrior Run
204.
48,018.02
Association of Maryland Docking Pilots
205.
48,000.00
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
206.
47,950.00
Mid-Atlantic Petroleum Distributors Association
207.
47,784.04
Insurance Agents and Brokers of Maryland
208.
47,638.65
Time Warner, Inc.
209.
47,093.87
Carroll Hospital Center
210.
46,951.75
CBIZ Benefits and Insurance Services
211.
46,855.20
Maryland State Licensed Beverage Assn.
212.
46,737.32
Drug Policy Alliance
213.
46,453.01
Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
214.
46,125.00
Owens Illinois, Inc.
215.
46,000.00
Outward Bound
216.
45,000.00
Allied Defense Group
217.
45,000.00
Unitedhealth Group, Inc.
218.
44,843.06
Grocery Manufacturers of America
219.
44,703.76
Motion Picture Association of Maryland
220.
44,606.26
City of Annapolis
221.
44,575.39
Community Hospice of Maryland
222.
44,476.52
Maryland Legislative Sportsmen’s Foundation
223.
44,327.33
National Association of Insurance & Financial
Advisors-Maryland
224.
44,282.23
Parsons Water & Infrastructure, Inc.
225.
43,572.85
Maryland Chiropractic Association
226.
43,429.07
Mental Health Association of Maryland
227.
43,369.79
Maryland State Funeral Directors Association
228.
42,829.63
Republic Properties Corporation
229.
42,645.45
HLR Service Corporation
230.
42,295.06
American Lung Association of Maryland
231.
42,000.00
Assurant Group
232.
42,000.00
First Transit
233.
41,974.28
Melwood Horticultural Training Center, Inc.
234.
41,810.00
CTB Government Relations
235.
41,250.00
CIGNA Corporation
236.
41,200.00
Safe and Sound Campaign
237.
41,164.00
First Health Services Corporation
238.
41,127.40
Primedia Workplace Learning
239.
41,025.59
Maryland Society of the American Institute of Architects,
Inc.
240.
40,985.00
Delaware-Md Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America
241.
40,800.00
Maryland Disability Law Center
242.
40,583.64
Maryland Industrial Group
243.
40,352.00
Spherix
244.
40,295.16
Kennedy Kreiger Institute
245.
40,100.00
Michael Company, The
246.
40,000.00
Cigar Association of America, Inc.
247.
40,000.00
Feld Entertainment Inc.
248.
39,709.71
DMJM Harris
249.
39,668.00
Sunoco, Inc.
250.
39,536,78
ResCare, Inc.
251.
39,455.89
AFT Maryland (American Federation of Teachers)
252.
38,955.75
Anheuser-Busch Companies
253.
38,864.51
Greater Baltimore Committee
254.
38,611.42
Maryland Radiological Society
255.
38,548.02
Maryland Association of Tobacco & Candy
Distributors
256.
38,455.83
Maryland Association of Certified Public
Accountants
257.
38,448.00
Yellow Transportation
258.
38,394.23
Correctional Medical Services
259.
38,160.00
Maryland Center for Community Development
260.
38,028.74
Maryland Credit Union League
261.
38,000.00
EDS (Electronic Data Systems Corporation)
262.
37,766.30
MV Transportation
263.
37,750.24
Maryland Aggregates Association, Inc.
264.
37,750.00
Maryland Society of Eye Physicians & Surgeons
265.
37,541.73
CASA of Maryland, Inc.
266.
37,530.00
EJ Krause & Associates, Inc.
267.
37,406.76
Agency Insurance Company of Maryland
268.
37,108.00
University of Maryland Medical System
269.
36,869.79
Sempra Energy Global Enterprises
270.
36,758.00
Common Cause
271.
36,720.00
Maryland Motor Coach Association
272.
36,677.01
Maryland Science Center
273.
36,512.95
Advanced Geo Tech Systems
274.
36,500.74
Golden Rule Insurance Company
275.
36,296.58
Genesis Health Ventures
276.
36,259.46
Indoor Tanning Association
277.
36,150.00
Avaya, Inc.
278.
36,000.11
Maryland Troopers Association
279.
36,000.00
7-11, Inc.
280.
36,000.00
BAA USA
281.
36,000.00
Quest Diagnostics
282.
36,000.00
Supershuttle International, Inc.
283.
35,900.27
National Rifle Assn. Institute for Legislative Action
(Crimestrike)
284.
35,706.31
Jai Medical Systems
285.
35,662.51
Lilac Capitol, LLC
286.
35,648.79
Maryland Society of Anesthesiologists
287.
35,636.30
HMS Host Corporation
288.
35,467.07
AAA Mid-Atlantic
289.
35,186.90
United Healthcare of the Mid-Atlantic
290.
35,000.00
Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc.
291.
35,000.00
MeadWestvaco Corporation
292.
35,000.00
Snack Food Association
293.
34,876.30
General Electric
294.
34,588.00
Maryland School for the Blind
295.
34,185.48
Columbia Gas of Maryland, Inc.
296.
34,156.11
Restaurant Association of Maryland
297.
34,149.64
Multi-Housing Laundry Association
298.
34,082.61
Maryland Motor Truck Association, Inc.
299.
34,037.21
Teachers
Insr. & Annuity Assoc-College Retirement Equities Fund
300.
34,028.12
Scientific Games International
301.
33,785.00
AFTRA (American Federation of TV & Radio
Artists)
302.
33,670.35
Maryland Free State Cemetery & Funeral
Association
303.
33,666.22
Symphony Health Services
304.
33,552.55
Planned Parenthood of Maryland
305.
33,034.23
Sheppard Pratt Health Systems
306.
32,536.00
Recording for Blind & Dyslexic
307.
32,246.09
Marriott International, Inc., The
308.
32,000.00
Allstate Check Cashing
309.
32,000.00
Maryland Standardbred Breeders Association
310.
32,000.00
Valueoptions
311.
31,999.98
RCP Development Company LLC
312.
31,852.68
Maryland Chapter of the American College of Emergency
Physicians
313.
31,748.28
Maryland Podiatric Medical Association
314.
31,566.60
Maryland Rental Car Coalition
315.
31,248.96
Eastern Shore of Maryland Educational Consortium
316.
31,208.45
Atlantic Bingo Supply, Inc.
317.
31,153.85
Center for Poverty Solutions
318.
30,900.00
CDR Financial Products
319.
30,833.32
American Physical Therapy Association of Maryland,
Inc.
320.
30,737.82
Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington
321.
30,685.38
US Wind Force, LLC
322.
30,395.00
Maryland Community Resource Center Coalition
323.
30,394.23
Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce
324.
30,205.08
Erickson Retirement Communities
325.
30,155.00
Maryland Green Industries Council
326.
30,100.00
Leucadia International Corporation
327.
30,100.00
Winbak Farms
328.
30,000.00
Jerome J. Parks Companies, Inc.
329.
30,000.00
Medtronic Sofamore Danek
330.
30,000.00
Prince George’s County Association of Realtors
331.
30,000.00
Sleep Services of America
332.
29,747.52
City of Rockville
333.
29,500.00
American Council of Life Insurers
334.
29,279.55
National Association of Industrial & Office Parks (N.A.I.O.P)
335.
29,093.20
Miller Brewing Company
336.
29,019.68
Maryland Tourism Council
337.
29,000.00
MD/DC/DE Press Association
338.
28,928.14
Maryland Psychological Association
339.
28,882.72
Chesapeake Ranch Water Company
340.
28,832.31
Explore Information Services
341.
28,783.44
Legal Aid Bureau, Inc.
342.
28,720.00
Baltimore Orioles, Inc.
343.
28,704.00
Anne Arundel Medical Center
344.
28,632.13
Columbia Association, Inc.
345.
28,593.97
Trigen-Baltimore Energy Corporation
346.
28,542.88
Ebay, Inc.
347.
28,500.00
Maryland Agriculture Council, Inc.
348.
28,200.00
Maryland Multi Housing Association
349.
28,153.40
Cognos Corporation
350.
28,100.00
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
351.
28,000.00
Prince George’s County Planning Board
352.
28,000.00
Professional Firefighters of Maryland
353.
27,957.34
Greater Bethesda Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce
354.
27,867.97
Maryland Highway Contractors Association
355.
27,800.00
Baltimore Medical Systems, Inc.
356.
27,757.11
Pro-Life Maryland, Inc.
357.
27,650.00
Sprint Corporation
358.
27,600.00
Hospice Network of Maryland
359.
27,500.00
American Chemistry Council
360.
27,177.10
Mid-Atlantic Association of Community Health
Centers
361.
27,173.67
Elder Health
362.
27,081.72
Adoptions Together
363.
27,000.00
Evercare
364.
27,000.00
ISG
365.
27,000.00
Waste Management, Inc.
366.
26,890.00
State Law Enforcement Officers Labor Alliance
367.
26,829.93
Maryland Dental Hygienists Association
368.
26,814.00
Property Owners Association of Greater Baltimore,
Inc.
369.
26,598.45
Second Genesis Foundation, Inc.
370.
26,590.12
AFSCME AFL-CIO
371.
26,464.16
All Risks Limited
372.
26,400.00
Schering-Plough External Affairs, Inc.
373.
26,052.00
RVG Management and Development Co.
374.
26,003.16
Hunters Brooke, LLC
375.
26,000.00
Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED)
376.
25,990.04
Abilities Network
377.
25,819.86
Maryland Association of Nurse Anesthetists
378.
25,720.09
Maryland Mortgage Bankers Association
379.
25,519.17
Mercer Ventures D/B/A/ Mercer Staffing
380.
25,500.00
DCI Group LLC and AT & T
381.
25,200.00
EIA/NSWMA
382.
25,050.00
MIE Properties
383.
25,050.00
Multi-State Associates on behalf of Aventis Pasteur,
Inc.
384.
25,049.99
Investment Company Institute
385.
25,000.00
Elevator Industry Work Preservation Fund
386.
25,000.00
Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union, Local
7
387.
25,000.00
Maryland Land Title Association
388.
25,000.00
Maryland Self Storage Association, Inc.
LOBBYISTS RECEIVING $50,000 OR MORE
IN COMPENSATION
ONE
OR MORE EMPLOYERS
November 1, 2003 - October 31,
2004
$
Amount
|
1.
|
1,026,698.02 |
Alexander,
Gary R. |
|
2.
|
857,628.75 |
Rozner,
Joel D. |
|
3.
|
841,891.94 |
Stierhoff,
John R. |
|
4.
|
815,190.95 |
Rifkin,
Alan M. |
|
5.
|
745,813.86 |
Cowen,
Lee |
|
6.
|
709,032.00 |
Enten,
D. Robert |
|
7.
|
595,400.00 |
Bereano,
Bruce C. |
|
8.
|
589,600.00 |
Pitcher,
J. William |
|
9.
|
577,622.73 |
Taylor,
Casper |
|
10. |
577,122.00 |
Schwartz,
Joseph A., III |
|
11. |
576,100.25 |
Johansen,
Michael V. |
|
12. |
575,034.02 |
Shaivitz,
Robin F. |
|
13. |
565,593.47 |
Tiburzi,
Paul A. |
|
14. |
509,103.00 |
McCoy,
Dennis C. |
|
15. |
476,459.12 |
Popham,
Bryson F. |
|
16. |
454,398.00 |
Rasmussen,
Dennis |
|
17. |
408,109.78 |
Burridge,
Carolyn T. |
|
18. |
379,625.00 |
Manis,
Nicholas G. |
|
19. |
353,330.45 |
Collins,
Carville B. |
|
20. |
321,000.00 |
Evans
Gerard E. |
|
21. |
307,495.22 |
Ornstein,
Chantel |
|
22. |
305,000.00 |
Pica,
John A. Jr. |
|
23. |
283,820.33 |
Wayson,
Edward O., Jr. |
|
24. |
266,765.00 |
Miedusiewski,
American Joe |
|
25. |
256,907.02 |
Doherty,
Daniel T., Jr. |
|
26. |
255,350.00 |
Hoffman,
Barbara |
|
27. |
245,732.00 |
Aery,
Shaila |
|
28. |
226,000.00 |
Arrington,Michael |
|
29. |
225,000.00 |
Genn,
Gilbert J. |
|
30. |
195,833.30 |
Carroll,
David H., Jr. |
|
31. |
194,102.01 |
Levitan,
Laurence |
|
32. |
193,500.00 |
Boston,
Frank |
|
33. |
190,050.00 |
Burner,
Gene L. |
|
34. |
185,833.30 |
Johnson
Robert C. |
|
35. |
182,500.00 |
Rivkin,
Deborah R. |
|
36. |
182,000.00 |
Albert,
David G. |
|
37. |
173,313.19 |
Brocato,
Barbara Marx |
|
38. |
169,608.34 |
Canning,
Michael F. |
|
39. |
151,349.80
|
Doolan,
Devin John |
|
40. |
150,905.14 |
Powell,
Michael C. |
|
41. |
147,434.41 |
Winstead,
David |
|
42. |
145,814.25 |
Harting,
Marta D. |
|
43. |
142,998.00 |
Binderman,Mindy
Koplan |
|
44. |
141,966.00 |
Goldstein,
Franklin |
|
45. |
140,664.00 |
Valentino-Benitez,
Ellen |
|
46. |
128,020.28 |
Douglas,
Robert C. |
|
47. |
125,700.00 |
Gisriel,
Michael U. |
|
48. |
125,625.00 |
Andryszak,
John A. |
|
49. |
125,000.00 |
Hill,
Denise |
|
50. |
122,304.35 |
Battle,
J. Kenneth Jr. |
|
51. |
118,000.00 |
Harris-Jones,
Lisa M. |
|
52. |
117,509.80 |
Lamb,
Todd |
|
53. |
116,000.00 |
DiPietro,
Christopher V. |
|
54. |
115,870.00 |
Gally,
Eric |
|
55. |
114,724.19 |
Wilkins,
Barbara J. |
|
56. |
114,433.34 |
Lanier,
Ivan |
|
57. |
112,700.00
|
Neil,
John B. |
|
58. |
111,883.00 |
McDonough,
John P. |
|
59. |
108,974.55 |
Cooke,
Ira C. |
|
60. |
107,308.10 |
Iacobazzi,
Catherine F. |
|
61. |
106,589.00 |
Larsen,
Steven B. |
|
62. |
105,250.00 |
Muir,
Scott |
|
63. |
105,033.33 |
Opara,
Clay C. |
|
64. |
101,250.00 |
Manis,
George N. |
|
65. |
99,000.00 |
Doyle,
James J., Jr. |
|
66. |
94,500.00 |
Cryor,
Michael |
|
67. |
92,926.10 |
Davis,
Michael H. |
|
68. |
91,914.00 |
Bryant,
Eric Lee |
|
69. |
89,684.00 |
Wyatt,
Joseph Richard |
|
70. |
86,860.00 |
Montgomery,
Richard A. |
|
71. |
85,519.96 |
Looney,
Sean M. |
|
72. |
82,500.00 |
Carter,
W. Minor |
|
73. |
82,186.00 |
Ciekot,
Ann T. |
|
74. |
80,000.00 |
Ranier,
Edward M. |
|
75. |
79,000.00 |
Foxwell,
Leonard N. Jr. |
|
76. |
75,000.00 |
Harris,
Willie R. |
|
77. |
75,000.00 |
Kinkel,
Anthony G. |
|
78. |
74,800.62 |
Hoover,
Lesa N. |
|
79. |
74,671.14 |
Saquella,
Thomas S. |
|
80. |
73,000.00 |
McHugh,
Kathleen |
|
81. |
70,000.00 |
Hawk,
Wynee Elizabeth |
|
82. |
69,906.25 |
Proctor,
Gregory S. |
|
83. |
69,876.29 |
Murphy,
Kathleen M. |
|
84. |
68,905.00 |
Sheehan,
Lorraine M. |
|
85. |
68,500.00 |
Rehrmann,
Eileen |
|
86. |
66,900.00 |
Johnson,
Deron A. |
|
87. |
66,835.67 |
Richardson,
Lawrence A., Jr. |
|
88. |
66,418.65 |
Micucci,
Paul |
|
89. |
64,600.00 |
Albers,
William E. |
|
90. |
64,500.00 |
Miles,
William R. |
|
91. |
63,454.41 |
Antoun,
Mary |
|
92. |
63,150.00 |
Sammis,
Elizabeth P. |
|
93. |
62,500.00 |
Nathanson,
Martha Dale |
|
94. |
60,609.00 |
Kaufman,
M. James |
|
95. |
60,000.00 |
DeFrancis,
Joseph A. |
|
96. |
60,000.00 |
Townsend,
Pegeen |
|
97. |
58,225.50 |
Zellmer,
Jeffrie |
|
98. |
58,000.00 |
Jepson,
Robert |
|
99. |
57,450.00 |
Woolums,
John R. |
|
100. |
55,497.63 |
Wood,
Paul G. |
|
101. |
55,000.00 |
Counihan,
Gene W. |
|
102. |
55,000.00 |
Levitan,
Susan |
|
103. |
54,700.00 |
Cohen,
Harold A. |
|
104. |
54,655.38 |
Flanagan,
Sean Patrick |
|
105. |
54,081.00 |
Bellissimo,
Toni A. |
|
106. |
54,000.00 |
Komenda,
Frank J. |
|
107. |
52,663.34 |
Fowlkes,
Lyle |
|
108. |
52,650.00 |
Bjarekull,
Tina M. |
|
109. |
52,102.06 |
Esty,
Susan |
|
110. |
51,065.18 |
Saquella,
Diana K. |
|
111. |
51,014.00 |
Woodard,
Mark D. |
|
112. |
51,000.00 |
Crutcher,
Mark |
|
113. |
51,000.00 |
Fedder,
Michaeline R. |
|
114. |
50,000.00 |
Matricciani,
Denise M. |
|
115. |
50,000.00 |
Robbins,
Earl H. Jr. |
|
116. |
50,000.00 |
Thomas,
David Wayne |
EXPENDITURES
ON SPECIAL EVENTS
November
1, 2003 ‑ October 31,
2004
Group
Number of
Invited
Times Invited
Total
All
General Assembly
126
1,072,303.01
Senate
Only
2
3,785.35
Anne
Arundel County Delegation
16
38,036.48
Baltimore
City Delegation
12
11,968.26
Baltimore
County Delegation
16
108,161.75
Carroll
County Delegation
5
50,121.69
Harford
County Delegation
6
94,307.55
Howard
County Delegation
13
55,198.49
Lower
Eastern Shore Delegation
7
3,160.77
Upper
Eastern Shore Delegation
8
3,700.79
Montgomery
County Delegation
21
149,751.40
Prince
George’s County Delegation
21
159,646.93
Southern
Maryland Delegation
10
13,947.27
Western
Maryland Delegation
7
8,130.56
HOUSE
Appropriations
13
14,906.23
Health
& Government Operations
28
50,646.54
Economic
Matters
17
37,224.31
Environmental
Matters
11
11,122.84
Judiciary
15
30,689.48
Ways and
Means
10
31,274.10
SENATE
Budget
and Taxation
23
43,772.02
Education,
Health & Environ. Affairs
16
15,502.84
Finance
26
31,681.95
Judicial
Proceedings
18
21,606.46
TOTAL:
$2,060,647.07
(NOTE:
Where more than one committee was invited to the same event for
the
purposes
of this report, there may be a proportionate allocation.)
LOBBYING
FIRMS EARNING $1,000,000 OR MORE
November
1, 2003 - October 31,
2004
Name of Firm
Amount of Compensation
Reported
Alexander & Cleaver, P.A.
$ 2,724,651.02
Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, LLC
2,661,981.96
Funk & Bolton, P.A.
1,717,116.06
Piper Rudnick LLP
1,252,735.89