Twenty-Fifth Annual Report
January 1, 2003 - December 31, 2003
GENERAL STATUTORY
IMPLEMENTATION
The State Ethics Commission
met in regular session 9 times during Calendar Year 2003 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. In addition to the regularly scheduled
meetings, it met two additional times to conduct contested case
hearings.
Dominating the early part of
the year were issues related to the change in administration, which gave rise to
questions relating to the transition from one administration to another. Additionally, in calendar year 2003,
contested cases and litigation in the courts played a significant role in the
business conducted by the Commission.
One matter carried over from calendar year 2002, Miles et al; v. State
Ethics Commission, Case No. C-2002-81420DJ, was dismissed with consent of
the parties due to the enactment of HB 1074 (Chapter 470), which specifically
exempted Assistant State’s Attorneys and Deputy Sheriffs, who are recognized as
public officials, from the requirement of filing annual financial disclosure
statements. Delegate Sophocleus, who is an employee of the Anne Arundel State’s
Attorneys Office, introduced this bill, which was incorporated into the Public
Ethics Law in § 15-601(c).
Litigation continued in the assessment of a fine connected with the
State Ethics Commission v. Antonetti, 365 Md. 428 (1991) matter, and this
issue was finally settled in December 2003 with the assessment of a $7,500
fine.
The Commission staff
conducted 18 general ethics training programs, in Baltimore and Crownsville, for
employees who are required to file financial disclosure statements. Nine hundred sixty-nine employees
attended those sessions, and the attendees’ evaluation forms were overwhelmingly
favorable with regard to content and presentation. In addition to the 18 scheduled ethics
training programs, we made seven additional ethics presentations to 209
additional State employees and public officials associated with: Towson
University, the Board of Physicians, the Health Care Commission, the Allegany
Co. DSS; the Department of Agriculture; the Montgomery County Clerks of the
Court; and the Cecil County Department of Social Services.
During the 2003 legislative
session, House Bills 1074 and 191 were successfully enacted. House Bill 1074, signed into law by
Governor Ehrlich on May 22, 2003, and enacted in Chapter 470 of the General Laws
of Maryland, specifically identified the offices of the Sheriff in each county
and the offices of the State’s Attorney in each county as “Executive Units” and
exempted deputy sheriffs and all other employees in each Sheriff’s office and
deputy or assistant State’s Attorneys and all employees in the office of each
State’s Attorney’s office from the requirement of filing annual financial
disclosure statements. House Bill
191, signed into law by Governor Ehrlich on May 13, 2003, and enacted in Chapter
283 of the General Laws of Maryland, increased the lobbying registration fee
from $20 per registration to $50 per registration. This increase was required in order to
meet the rising costs of administrating the lobbying program and providing
mandatory training for lobbyists.
The increased lobbying fee became effective October 1,
2003.
In June, the Commission
conducted a contested case hearing on charges of lobbying violations by lobbyist
Bruce Bereano. The Commission
issued its decision and public order finding a violation of §15-713(1), being
engaged for lobbying purposes for contingent compensation. That case, which was appealed in the
Anne Arundel Circuit Court, was transferred to the Howard County Circuit Court
and is scheduled for hearing on the Petition for Judicial Review on June 1,
2004.
In June 2003, Commissioner
Michael May completed his second full term and retired, and also in June,
Chairman Charles O. Monk Jr. resigned from the Commission because he had
undertaken additional responsibilities for a community organization. Ava Feiner, Ph.D., and Robert Scholz,
Esquire were appointed to their respective vacated
positions.
Our fiscal year 2004 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 us with an actual
budget allocation of $685,490
In September 2003, we began work with the Executive
Department’s new IT staff to develop a program for
electronic filing for financial disclosure statements. We were fortunate in that the Montgomery
County Ethics Commission, which had already developed an electronic filing
process, agreed to share their software with the Commission. Although the development of an
electronic filing program for State employees and Public Officials was not
completed in 2003, some of the basic work on the program was accomplished. The Commission anticipates having a
fully operational electronic filing system in place for financial disclosure
filers by February 2005, in time to file the financial disclosure reports for
2004.
September also saw the electronic debut on our web site of the
Commission’s first newsletter. It
contains articles of interest to lobbyists, State employees and public officials
as well as profiles of the Commissioners.
The Commission intends to publish the newsletter quarterly on its web
site and include information that will be helpful to all of its
stakeholders.
On October 23, 2003, the Commission hosted a Statewide Ethics Conference
to which staff and members of the local jurisdictions’ various ethics boards and
commissions were invited. The
conference took place in Annapolis and the meetings and panel discussions were
conducted in the Legislative Services Building, Joint Committee Hearing Room and
the President’s Conference Room in the Miller Senate Building. Seventy-two local jurisdiction
representatives attended and discussed topics, including: Enforcement
Proceedings; Advisory Opinion Process; Ethics Commissions; and Local Ethics
Law. Panel discussions were led by:
Jennifer Allgair, Staff Counsel for the State Ethics Commission; Robert Hahn,
General Counsel, State Ethics Commission; Dorothy R. Fait, Chairperson, State
Ethics Commission; and Robert Scholz, member, State Ethics Commission. Plans for another comprehensive
conference is scheduled for 2005.
The 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 for informal staff advice and informal Commission
consideration of requests (See COMAR 19A.01.02.05). The informal advice
generally results in an advice letter 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. This was an average of 41 per year. During the next five years (1985 –
1989) another 128 opinions were issued. This was 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-five years of its existence, the Commission issued a total of
484 formal opinions. During the past five years the number of formal opinions
decreased to 22 while informal reviews and letter advice increased. A major
factor reducing the need for formal opinions issued by the Commission 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 2003,
the Commission considered 3 formal requests resulting in two formal published
opinions. One request involving the
application of §15-508
(procurement ethics) was rendered moot when the requester’s employer was not
selected by the using agency in an information technology procurement. The two
published formal opinions issued in 2003 advised two new State employees about
the application of §15-502 to a pre-existing secondary employment situation and
service on the board of directors of a nonprofit organization (Opinion Nos. 03-1
and 03-2).
During the year, the Commission also granted two exemptions pursuant to
§15-502(d) upon the recommendation of the Governor. The Commission granted an
exemption to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to maintain his interest in a
family farm, and to permit the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture to maintain his
veterinary license. The Deputy Secretary, however, gave up his active veterinary
practice.
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 2003:
Subject Matter of the Advice
Number of Requests
Lobbying Registration,
Reporting & Conduct
18
Secondary Employment
Advice
132
Participation Advice
8
Procurement
Restrictions
7
Post-Employment Advice
13
Gift Questions
29
Other
35
Total
242
The number of informal
matters decreased from calendar year 2002. In 2002 a total of 357 informal
matters were reviewed. The reduction in the absolute number of matters is
attributable in part to a reduction in requests from lobbyists for advice (from
53 in 2002 to 18 in 2003). 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. 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. 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 became
sufficiently familiar with the requirements of the Ethics Law to enable them to
screen situations requiring Commission review.
A review of the informal
requests received in 2003 also demonstrated an increase (116%) 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. Also during 2003 there was an increase (262%) in the number of requests
related to the receipt and acceptance of gifts. This too, may be explained by
the change of administration that brought new individuals to State service who
were not familiar with the Ethics Law provisions.
The 132 informal secondary
employment requests considered in 2003 came from the following Departments:
Department
Number of Requests
Department of Human Resources
48
Department of Health & Mental Hygiene
18
Department of Transportation
9
Executive Department
6
Department of Agriculture
5
University System of Maryland
5
Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services
4
Department of the Environment
3
Department of Natural Resources
3
Maryland State Lottery Agency
3
Other Agencies
28
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/).
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 59 faculty exemptions granted by university presidents between 1996 and 2002.
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 2003, USM institutions granted an additional 17
faculty exemptions. The exemptions were from the following
institutions:
Institution
No. Of Exemptions
University of Maryland, Baltimore
3
University of Maryland, College Park
14
Total Faculty Exemptions
17
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. 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 8,557 in 2002 to approximately 9,006 in
2003.
The Commission reviewed the
status of new boards and commissions and considered and acted upon requests by
advisory boards to be exempted from the requirement to file financial disclosure
statements. This activity has
significantly increased in recent years due to a substantial increase in the
number of boards and commissions created by the General Assembly.
Currently there are more
than 9,000 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. When
the Commission conducts compliance reviews of financial disclosure statements
and finds errors or omissions, it sends letters advising filers to provide
further information to correct or complete the documents.
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. The 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 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 2003, the Commission
processed 127 requests for “time of appointment”
exemptions.
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. Although the staff has diligently
pursued every available opportunity, including obtaining software from
Montgomery County at no cost to the State, prior to fiscal year 2004 the
Commission did not have any funding available to adapt that software or
implement any program that would permit electronic filing. We have been working on adapting the
written form into an electronic document that will be understandable, easier to
complete, and user friendly.
In working with the Governor’s IT staff
and others suggested by them, we 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,” we
will need to provide ranges 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; and over $250,000.” In this way we will be able to obtain
the information requested and eliminate the likelihood of typographical mistakes
that could be misleading, such as an extra “0” or a misplaced decimal
point. The same type of change will
be needed to obtain the information related to interests in corporations and
other entities. 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.
Lobbyist Disclosure
and
Regulation
During the lobbying year
ending October 31, 2003, 2,435 lobbying registrations were filed with the
Commission. This represents an
increase of 96 registrations from the 2,339 that filed in 2002. Seven hundred
twenty-four lobbyists registered for 1,056 employers. (Some employers have more than one
lobbyist and many lobbyists have more than one employer.) This compares to 722 lobbyists who
registered on behalf of 1030 employers in 2002. 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, 138
lobbyists had two or more registrations during this time period; 94 registrants
had four or more employers; and 61 lobbyists had eight or more employers. The Ethics Commission monitors lobbyist
registration, reporting, conduct, and certain aspects of campaign finance
activity.
The $30,496,709 in lobbying
expenditures reported for the period ending October 31, 2003, represents an
increase of $3,807,402 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 2003 increased from $1,164,780 to $1,488,646. The amount for food and beverages, other
than special categories, increased from $1,690 to $4,178. 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 and an increasing
reluctance of officials to accept this type of entertainment. Entertainment at
legislative organization meetings resulted in $15,787 in lobbyists’
expenditures. Lobbyists’
expenditures for special events increased from $1,115,206 in 2002 to $1,404,028 in
2003, 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 116 “all members” of the
General Assembly events reported in 2003 totaling $784,069, an increase over the
$657,023 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 85 events reported for
the House of Delegates Standing Committees and 72 for the Senate Standing
Committees. The total of 157
committee events was higher than the 136 events in 2002. The most entertained committee in the
House of Delegates was the Health, Government and Operations Committee with 22
events. The least entertained
Standing Committee in the House was the Judiciary Committee with 9 events. In the Senate, the most entertained
committee was the Finance Committee with 28 events and the least entertained
committee was the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee with 10
events. The regional delegations
with the most events reported were the Montgomery County Delegation and Prince
George’s County Delegation, with 27 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. Eleven lobbyists filed
13 gift reports in 2003 compared to 15 in 2002. 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 2003, 161
lobbyist employers reported total lobbying expenditures of $50,000 or more, and
344 lobbyist employers reported total expenditures of $25,000 or more. This compares to 324 employers reaching
$25,000 in expenditures in 2002.
One hundred four individual lobbyists, registered on behalf of one or
more employers, reported $50,000 or more in compensation for services as
compared to 99 in 2002. Fifty-nine
lobbyists reported compensation of $100,000 or more compared with 44 in
2002. 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 2003, 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:
10/31/03
10/31/02
10/31/01
1. Expenditures for meals
and beverages
for officials or employees
or their
immediate families.
$ 4,178
$ 1,690
$
3,486
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.)
$ 1,404,028 $
1,115,206
$ 814,161
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.
$ 18,524
$ 5,702
$ 17, 608
4. Expenditures for food
and beverages
at approved legislative
organizational
meetings.
$ 15,787
$ 12,298
$ 32,811
5. Expenses for a
ticket or free
admission to attend
charitable,
cultural or political events
where
all members of a legislative
unit
are invited.
$
4,708
$ 15,320
$
3,337
6. Gifts to or for
officials or employees
or their immediate families
(not
included in B-1 through
B-5).
$ 41,421
$ 14,564
$12,344
Subtotal of items l, 2, 3,
4, 5 and 6
$1,488,646
$1,164,780
$883,747
7. Total compensation paid
to registrant
(not including sums reported
in any
other section).
$25,367,757
$22,461,621
$19,282,080
8. Salaries, compensation
and reim‑
bursed expenses for staff of
the
registrant.
$ 889,332
$ 898,943
$690,167
9. Office expenses not
reported in
items 5 and 6.
$ 841,415
$ 829,315
$785,917
10. Cost of professional and
technical
research and assistance
not
reported in items 5 and
6.
$ 635,491
$ 310,151
$
90,530
11. Cost of publications
which
expressly encourage persons
to
communicate with officials
or
employees.
$ 771,743
$ 434,924
$209,633
12. Fees and expenses paid
to
witnesses.
$ 4,685
$ 28,541
$49,970
13. Other expenses.
$ 497,650
$ 561,032
$ 398,037
Total of items 1 through
13
$30,496,709
$26,689,307
$22,390,081
(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 2003, the Commission issued nine new complaints. Four complaints involved conflict of interest issues and five complaints involved financial disclosure issues. The Commission also closed thirteen complaints during 2003. Six complaints were closed when the Commission accepted a cure proposal from the complaints’ respondents, two Stipulations of Settlement were accepted by the Commission, four complaints were dismissed after a preliminary investigation and one complaint was closed for other reasons. The Commission collected $6,032.00 in payments to the State of Maryland through the two Stipulations of Settlement accepted in 2003.
At the end of 2003, the Commission had seven pending complaints under investigation. The pending complaints included one conflict of interest matter and six 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 involves more extensive
investigation. In 2003, the
Commission opened eighty Preliminary Consideration Matters, including thirty-six
conflict of interest matters, forty lobbyist matters and four financial
disclosure matters. The Commission
entered into seven Late Filing Agreements with lobbyists during 2003, resulting
in payments of $1850.00 to the State of Maryland. The Commission closed fifty-one
Preliminary Consideration Matters in 2003.
The Commission opened sixteen Preliminary Inquiry Matters in 2003. These matters involve more investigation than Preliminary Consideration Matters, which are often upgraded to this docket after the Commission’s initial review. Fourteen of the 2003 Preliminary Inquiry Matters involved conflict of interest issues and two involved lobbying issues. In 2003, the Commission closed fourteen Preliminary Inquiry Matters, including several of the pending matters from 2001 and 2002.
All enforcement payments collected through Stipulations of Settlement or Late Filing Agreements are deposited in the State’s general fund and cannot be used by the Commission.
In 2003, the State Ethics Commission was involved in three enforcement matters on appeal in the Maryland court system. The Circuit Court for Prince George’s County affirmed the Commission’s order in State Ethics Commission v. Antonetti, a 1997 enforcement matter, and ordered the respondent to pay fines of $7,500.00 for violating the Ethics Law. This matter was initially appealed in 1997 and has been heard by both the Court of Special Appeals and Court of Appeals. In September 2001, the Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the Circuit Court with directions to affirm the Commission’s order in the case and determine the amount of civil fines to be imposed in this matter.
State Ethics Commission v. Evans is currently on appeal in the Court of Appeals. The Commission revoked the respondent’s lobbying registrations pursuant to § 15-405 of the Public Ethics Law. The respondent appealed to 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.
State Ethics
Commission v. Bereano is currently on appeal in the Circuit Court for Howard
County. 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 filed an appeal 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 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 draft revisions to ethics laws and regulations for 9 localities during
2002. Additionally, the staff reviewed proposed changes to the Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission Ethics Regulations. The Commission formally
approved revisions to the Anne Arundel County and the Carroll County Ethics
Ordinances. The Commission also formally approved revisions to the Harford
County Board 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.
On October 23, 2003, the Commission hosted a Statewide Ethics Conference
to which staff and members of the local jurisdictions’ various ethics boards and
commissions were invited. The
conference took place in Annapolis and the meetings and panel discussions were
conducted. Seventy-two local
jurisdiction representatives attended and discussed topics, including:
Enforcement Proceedings; Advisory Opinion Process; Ethics Commissions; and Local
Ethics Law. The Commission plans to schedule various conferences directed toward
specific interests, such as small jurisdiction problems and issues common to
Boards of Education.
On October 10, 2003, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Seipp
v. Baltimore City Board of Elections, 377Md.362, 833 A.2d 551 (2003). The majority found that the Baltimore City
Ethics Ordinance’s financial disclosure provisions related to candidates’
filings were not similar to the State Law and could not be used to disqualify
Seipp as a candidate for City Council in the City’s primary election. The State Ethics Commission had
previously determined that the Baltimore City Ordinance was “similar” to the
State law. The majority determined that whether a local law is sufficiently
“similar” to the State law is an issue of law, upon which a court is entitled to
decide. Chief Judge Bell, for the
dissent, argued that the majority approach is to construe “similar” to be
“identical” unless there is a basis to modify the provision for the purpose of
avoiding a conflict of interest.
The Commission is considering the impact of this decision 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. A substantial daily staff workload has
involved advising and assisting employees, officials, candidates and lobbyists
on completion of forms, and providing informal advice regarding possible
conflicts of interest. 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. The staff gave numerous formal briefings
and training programs to groups of employees and officials and provided
employees of several agencies and departments special briefings at their
offices. During calendar year 2003, 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.
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 223 lobbyists during calendar year
2003.
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. Staff also distributes special memoranda
regarding the impact of the ethics law on gifts, procurement, post-employment,
employment, and on political activity. On a limited basis, the Commission
is also distributing another pamphlet covering ethics requirements for part‑time
members of State boards and commissions. Fiscal limitations have
essentially reduced the ability to develop new materials in printed form. The staff provides 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. We have 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
includes a program summary, a lobbyist list and related data, the Annual Report,
special explanatory memoranda, and a bi-monthly bulletin. Also included are copies of lobbying and
financial disclosure forms and the ability to access these forms. A new feature of this site, established
in 1999, is the provision of a list of State vendors that can be queried by
agency or vendor. 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 volume of persons
using this website has been steadily growing. The staff is also very frequently
involved in assisting the public and press in inspecting public records of
lobbyists and officials and providing access to other ethics law information in
media appearances or other means.
Due to increased costs in administering the lobbying program, the
Commission submitted legislation to increase lobbying registration fees from $20
per registration to $50 per registration for consideration during the 2003
legislative session (HB191). All
lobbying registration fees are directed to the Lobbyist Registration Fund, a
continuing, non-lapsing fund that is subject to § 7-302 of the State Finance and
Procurement Article. This fund is
used to defray the expenses of administering Subtitle 7 of the Public Ethics
Law.
The need to increase fees resulted from increased costs attendant to the
mandatory training programs for lobbyists and the general cost increases
involved in administering the program, such as printing, postage, and general
overhead. The
Commission’s proposal was accepted as Departmental
Legislation, and it met with no vocal opposition from the lobbyist
community. The bill passed and was
enacted effective October 1, 2003, in Chapter 283. For the period of October 1 through
December 31, 2003, the Commission collected $96,200 in lobbying fees as compared
with $32,348 for the same period of time in 2002. The Commission is hopeful that this
increase in the Special Funds will enable it to develop an efficient and
effective electronic lobbying registration and reporting program and make that
information publicly available on its web site for contemporaneous
review.
Exemption Granted to
Assistant State’s Attorneys & Deputy Sheriffs & Their
Employees
House Bill 1074, signed into law by Governor Ehrlich on May 22, 2003, and
enacted in Chapter 470 of the General Laws of Maryland, specifically identified
the offices of the Sheriff in each county and the offices of the State’s
Attorney in each county as “Executive Units” and exempted deputy sheriffs and
all other employees in each Sheriff’s office and deputy or assistant State’s
Attorneys and all employees in the office of each State’s Attorney’s office from
the requirement of filing annual financial disclosure
statements.
Proposed
Changes To The Financial Disclosure (Subtitle 6)
Provisions
In the coming year, the Commission will 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 24 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 quickly approaching, the Commission has closely
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.
·
Interests in real property,
corporations, partnerships, LLPs and LLCs should be reportable in ranges of
value rather than exact amounts.
This change would provide sufficient information for the Commission to
identify any possible conflicts without placing an undue burden on the filers to
obtain exact figures.
·
Debts to financial
institutions doing business with the State should likewise be reportable within
ranges of value in order to simplify the process without inhibiting the
Commission’s ability to identify possible conflicts.
·
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 401K and 501K 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
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 next priority for legislative consideration is Subtitle 5,
Conflicts of Interest. Once
the financial disclosure requirements have been addressed, the Commission will
turn its attention to the following issues related to conflicts of
interest:
·
Specific provisions should
address membership by high State 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.
·
There is a need to consider
granting the Commission 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, are the next 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. This alternative
would also provide the Commission with an additional potential income source
that would, to some extent, alleviate the State’s burden in meeting the
Commission’s increasing need for resources and personnel to accomplish its
mission.
·
In the current law, §
15-406(b) provides that a final order of the Commission is stayed automatically
until the time for seeking judicial review has expired, and, if a timely appeal
is filed, the order is stayed until final disposition by the court. We recommend that this provision be
revised to permit the respondent to request, in writing, a stay of the order,
and that it would be in the discretion of the Commission whether or not to grant
the stay. In the event the request
for a stay is denied, the respondent may appeal the ruling to the court. [Note: During the 2004 Session of the General
Assembly, Governor Ehrlich submitted HB 298 as an administration bill to remove
the automatic stay. The bill was
passed by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor on April 27,
2004. Chapter 77, Acts of
2004]
EMPLOYER SPENDING $25,000 OR MORE – ALL REGISTRANTS
ALL TYPES OF EXPENSES
November 1, 2002 - October 31, 2003
TOTAL
AMOUNT
EMPLOYER
1. 825,951.94 Centaur, Inc.
2. 675,165.91 Magna Entertainment Corporation
3. 398,783.10 Maryland Jockey Club of Baltimore City
4. 388,967.86 CareFirst Blue Cross Blue Shield
5. 375,702.10 Cable Telecommunications Assn. Of MD.DE & DC
6. 373,594.13 MedChi, The Maryland State Medical Society
7. 367,361.02 Cloverleaf Enterprises
8. 364,959.24 Laurel Racing Association, Inc.
9. 308,561.25 Maryland Association of Realtors
10. 262,881.79 Maryland Retail Merchants Association
11. 261,330.00 Maryland Hospital Association.
12. 240,285.51 Pepco Holdings, Inc.
13. 233,000.00 Hawthorn Group, The
14. 231,518.13 MedStar Health
15. 227,157.51 Maryland Bankers Association
16. 216,078.84 MAXIMUS
17. 199,822.39 American Cancer Society
18. 198,937.81 Maryland State Teachers Association
19. 198,080.68 Verizon-Maryland, Inc.
20. 175,291.08 MAMSI (Mid-Atlantic Medical Services)
21. 173,385.93 Maryland Chamber of Commerce
22. 168,992.93 ACS State & Local Solutions
23. 163,027.53 Mirant Mid-Atlantic, LLC
24. 160,374.15 Maryland Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association
25. 159,472.95 Adventist Healthcare, Inc.
26. 157,501.52 IGT Online Entertainment Systems, Inc.
27. 154,729.81 Washington Area NEW Automobile Dealers Association
28. 151,724.02 Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos
29. 150,938.00 Maryland State Bar Association
30. 150,008.35 Norfolk Southern Corporation
31. 148,796.07 Maryland Trial Lawyers Association
32. 139,427.70 Johns Hopkins Medicine
33. 136,419.17 AT & T
34. 127,518.35 Maryland New Car and Truck Dealers Assn.
35. 127,344.58 Allegany Racing LLC
36. 124,617.78 Philip Morris USA (by its service Corp. Altria Corporate Svcs., Inc.)
37. 124,474.85 Association of Maryland Pilots
38. 124,450.21 Wynn Resorts Ltd.
39. 122,700.00 Manufacturers’ Alliance of Maryland
40. 122,500.00 Luk Flats, LLC
41. 120,928.31 Schaller Anderson of Maryland LLC
42. 117,559.24 Maryland Independent College & University Association
43. 110,000.00 Prince George’s County Council
44. 107,549.52 Greater Baltimore Medical Center Healthcare, Inc. (GBMC)
45. 104,531.65 Baltimore Jewish Council & Maryland Jewish Alliance
46. 104,105.00 Maryland Association of Community Colleges
47. 101,033.06 Apartment & Office Building Association of Metro Washington
48. 100,737.60 Carmax Auto Superstores, Inc.
49. 100,143.73 League of Life and Health Insurers of Maryland
50. 100,020.00 Multimedia Games, Inc.
51. 98,628.00 Diebold Election Systems
52. 98,380.12 Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc.
53. 96,323.75 ESP, Inc.
54. 94,957.71 Washington Home d/b/a Maryland Community Hospice
55. 94,496.79 St. Joseph Medical Center
56. 93,733.11 Medical Mutual Liability Insurance Society of Maryland
57. 90,003.38 American Heart Association
58. 89,503.08 Maryland Optometric Association
59. 89,133.04 Delaware North Companies
60. 88,835.26 Children’s National Medical Center
61. 88,584.41 Clark Enterprises, Inc.
62. 87,746.17 Lifebridge Health
63. 87,153.42 State Farm Insurance Companies
64. 85,946.33 AT & T Wireless Services, Inc.
65. 85,917.75 Greenbelt Metropark L.L.C
66. 85,370.93 General Motors Corporation
67. 85,353.67 Chemical & Industrial Technology Alliance
68. 85,161.23 National Association of Independent Insurers
69. 83,141.28 Johns Hopkins University
70. 82,676.15 Mettiki Coal Corporation
71. 81,749.85 Coventry First LLC
72. 81,133.04 Policy Studies, Inc.
73. 80,883.50 Maryland Industrial Group
74. 80,350.00 Baltimore Marine Industries, Inc.
75. 80,000.00 Lorillard Tobacco Company
76. 79,204.88 Suburban Hospital Healthcare System, Inc.
77. 78,755.27 Motorola, Inc.
78. 77,875.28 Johnson Controls, Inc.
79. 77,537.25 Maryland Farm Bureau, Inc.
80. 77,114.23 HMS Host Corporation
81. 76,799.37 Home Builders Association of Maryland
82. 76,790.92 Republic Properties Corporation
83. 76,700.00 Maryland Classified Employees Association
84. 76,000.00 Maryland State Builders Association
85. 74,870.70 American Petroleum Institute
86. 74,379.43 Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
87. 73,807.44 Rite Aid Corporation
88. 73,380.12 UST Public Affairs, Inc.
89. 73,222.85 Maryland Catholic Conference
90. 73,036.60 Hudson Group
91. 72,573.77 Baltimore Building & Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO
92. 72,350.87 Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc.
93. 71,948.83 Maryland Tort Reform Coalition
94. 71,157.10 Advocates for Children & Youth
95. 70,855.01 Comcast Cablevision of Maryland, L.P.
96. 70,020.00 Dimensions Healthcare System
97. 70,000.00 Ameristar Casinos
98. 69,985.20 Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, Inc.
99. 69,938.30 Government Affairs-Maryland
100. 68,953.00 Greater Capital Area Association of Realtors
101. 68,865.86 Kraft Foods, Inc. by its service corporation Altria Corp. Services
102. 68,806.25 St. Agnes Health Care
103. 67,805.93 Watson Pharmaceuticals
104. 67,315.00 Northrup Grumman Corporation
105. 67,256.04 NEXTEL Communications
106. 66,824.26 Marriott International, Inc., The
107. 66,600.00 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
108. 66,487.10 Nationwide Insurance Company
109. 66,208.00 Maryland State Dental Association
110. 66,040.00 Microsoft Corporation
111. 65,972.50 Washington Gas
112. 65,000.00 Harrah’s Operating Co.
113. 64,870.43 Maryland Association of Boards of Education
114. 63,872.17 Bearing Point
115. 63,155.70 Americhoice Health Services, Inc.
116. 62,730.00 Progressive Insurance Company
117. 62,520.00 USA Funds, Inc.
118. 62,088.94 Health Facilities Association of Maryland
119. 62,051.69 Maryland Citizens Health Initiative Education Fund, Inc.
120. 61,783.70 Anne Arundel Medical Center
121. 61,638.35 Prison Health Services, Inc.
122. 61,617.89 VALIC Financial Advisors
123. 61,584.22 Association of Maryland Docking Pilots
124. 61,509.86 Maryland Community Health System LLP
125. 61,078.96 Maryland State Fair & Agricultural Society, Inc.
126. 60,878.05 SCI Atlantic Region
127. 60,608.30 ACCENTURE
128. 60,385.88 MBNA America
129.
60,380.00
United Healthcare of the Mid-Atlantic
130.
60,331.95
Cingular
Wireless
131. 60,259.14 Maryland Horse Breeders Association
132. 60,000.00 CA One Services, Inc.
133. 60,000.00 Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America
134. 60,000.00 Transcore Holdings, Inc.
135. 60,000.00 University of Phoenix
136. 59,816.26 Catholic Charities
137. 59,602.08 American Lung Association of Maryland
138. 58,090.00 American Chemistry Council
139. 57,423.18 Chimes, The
140. 57,122.00 Anheuser-Busch Companies
141. 57,008.63 Lockheed Martin Corporation
142. 56,400.00 Pepsi Bottling Group
143. 56,317.39 Mental Health Association of Maryland
144. 55,391.58 Mid-Atlantic Lifespan
145. 54,783.15 Cloverleaf Standardbred Owners Association
146. 54,666.31 Maryland Insurance Council
147. 54,223.75 Maryland Association of Mortgage Brokers
148. 54,000.00 Supershuttle International, Inc.
149. 52,518.70 Ramsay Youth Services, Inc.
150. 52,500.00 Deloitte Consulting
151. 52,500.00 Walmart Stores, Inc.
152. 52,426.42 Pfizer, Inc.
153. 52,020.00 Dental Network, The
154. 51,939.02 Mid-Atlantic Petroleum Distributors Association
155. 51,915.26 EPIC Pharmacies/Maryland Professional Pharmacies, Inc.
156. 51,872.08 Winbak Farms
157. 51,701.30 Fraternal Order of Police - Maryland State Lodge
158. 50,835.50 AOL Time Warner
159. 50,165.28 Household Financial Group, Ltd.
160. 50,079.55 Associated Utility Contractors of Md. Inc.
161. 50,000.00 National Federation of Independent Businesses
162. 49,675.00 Alcoa Eastalco Works
163. 49,508.75 Community Education Partners
164. 49,263.13 Almost Family-Caretenders
165. 49,149.12 Long Term Care Pharmacy Alliance
166. 48,944.17 Globe Ground North America, LLC
167. 48,576.00 Sunoco, Inc.
168. 48,572.69 Maryland School for the Blind
169. 48,370.73 American Insurance Association
170. 48,293.11 Magellan Health Services
171. 46,504.00 Recording for Blind & Dyslexic
172. 45,863.08 Baltimore County Chamber of Commerce
173. 45,729.16 Perdue Farms, Inc.
174. 45,550.36 AFT Maryland (American Federation of Teachers)
175. 45,545.33 Maryland Association of Certified Public Accountants
176. 45,420.00 Owens Illinois, Inc.
177. 45,191.28 Maryland Association of Chain Drug Stores
178. 45,108.33 Ebay, Inc.
179. 45,000.00 CIGNA Corporation
180. 45,000.00 Maryland Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
181. 44,932.12 Dupont, Inc.
182. 44,737.68 AFSCME AFL-CIO
183. 44,545.69 Rouse Company, The
184. 44,516.11 Eli Lilly & Company
185. 44,497.30 Maryland State Licensed Beverage Assn.
186. 43,633.40 Waste Management, Inc.
187. 43,284.55 Maryland Society of Anesthesiologists
188. 42,948.17 Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington
189. 42,923.24 Insurance Agents and Brokers of Maryland
190. 42,804.78 Maryland Motor Truck Association, Inc.
191. 42,674.26 Drug Policy Alliance Network, The
192. 42,532.89 Coalition for Tax Equity
193. 42,500.00 Amerigroup Md. Inc.
194. 42,110.94 Cellco Partnership, a Delaware Limited Partnership
195. 42,062.00 Maryland Budget & Tax Policy Institute
196. 42,000.00 Assurant Group
197. 41,911.26 Maryland Society of the American Institute of Architects, Inc.
198. 41,683.38 Motion Picture Association of Maryland
199. 41,600.00 R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
200.
41,200.00
United Way of Central Maryland
201. 41,118.00 Cognos Corporation
202. 40,933.00 Common Cause
203. 40,600.81 MCI World Com, Inc.
204. 40,040.00 JRL Enterprises, Inc.
205. 38,699.04 Maryland Motor Coach Association
206. 38,675.63 WMDP Service Station & Automotive Repair Assn.
207. 38,580.00 Maryland Taxicab, Sedan & Paratransit
208. 38,465.00 MIE Properties
209.
38,437.47
City of Annapolis
210. 38,400.00 Advance PCS
211. 38,140.00 Feld Entertainment Inc.
212.
38,000.00
University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute
213. 37,543.02 AFSCME Council 92
214. 37,532.80 Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce
215. 37,428.38 Professional Firefighters of Maryland
216. 37,424.29 Genesis Health Ventures
217. 37,421.89 Kennedy Kreiger Institute
218. 37,107.46 Marine Trades Association of Maryland
219. 37,000.00 Cigar Association of America, Inc.
220. 37,000.00 CSX Corporation
221. 36,895.01 Louis Berger Group, Inc., The
222. 36,673.50 Maryland Association of Non-Profit Organizations
223. 36,607.30 West Group
224. 36,500.00 Golden Rule Insurance Company
225. 36,490.20 Adoptions Together
226. 36,358.95 Spherix
227. 36,173.65 Blind Industries & Services of Maryland
228. 36,080.00 Avaya, Inc.
229. 36,000.00 Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc.
230. 36,000.00 DGS, Inc.
231. 36,000.00 Duron Paints & Wallcovering
232. 36,000.00 KOBA Institute
233. 36,000.00 Quest Diagnostics
234. 35,962.85 National Association of Insurance & Financial Advisors-Maryland
235. 35,922.04 State Law Enforcement Officers Labor Alliance
236. 35,812.96 Maryland Chiropractic Association
237. 35,464.07 Medco Health Solutions
238. 35,400.00 Progressive Maryland
239. 35,330.49 MD/DC/DE Soft Drink Association
240. 35,167.60 Maryland Tourism Council
241. 35,000.00 MeadWestvaco Corporation
242. 35,000.00 Oberthur Gaming Technologies, Inc.
243. 34,800.10 Greater Washington Board of Trade
244. 34,751.70 Maryland Association of Tobacco & Candy Distributors
245. 34,600.00 Marijuana Policy Project
246. 34,258.00 USAA
247. 34,121.24 HLR Service Corporation
248.
34,109.97
Teachers Insurance & Annuity
Assoc.-College Retirement Equities Fund
249. 34,007.78 Citigroup Management Corporation
250. 33,658.29 National Aquarium in Baltimore, Inc.
251. 33,252.35 Maryland Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians
252. 33,183.52 Allegheny Energy
253. 33,000.00 Maryland Credit Union League
254. 32,842.42 American Physical Therapy Association of Maryland
255. 32,832.78 DMJM Harris
256. 32,744.47 Greater Baltimore Committee
257. 32,510.85 AAA Mid-Atlantic
258. 32,455.43 Correctional Medical Services
259. 32,435.71 Maryland Bail Bond Association
260. 32,330.76 Sheppard Pratt Health Systems
261. 32,308.74 Maryland Citizens for the Arts, Inc.
262. 32,006.25 Baltimore Orioles, Inc.
263. 32,000.00 Allstate Check Cashing
264. 32,000.00 BWI Taxi Management
265. 31,710.86 Maryland Radiological Society
266. 31,700.00 Maryland Society of Eye Physicians & Surgeons
267. 31,633.04 Advanced Geo Tech Systems
268. 31,520.34 Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
269. 31,434.09 Technology Council of Maryland
270. 31,394.16 CASA of Maryland, Inc.
271. 31,356.32 Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.
272. 31,279.60 Miller Brewing Company
273. 31,153.89 Columbia Gas of Maryland, Inc.
274. 31,060.00 Aegon Institutional Markets
275. 30,998.43 Ameridebt
276. 30,962.25 Giant Food, Inc.
277. 30,900.00 Brownsfield Reform Coalition
278. 30,500.00 Maryland Disability Law Center
279. 30,494.00 Maryland Agriculture Council, Inc.
280. 30,200.00 E.J. Krause & Associates
281. 30,134.83 Prince George’s County Association of Realtors
282. 30,096.60 Maryland Green Industries Council
283. 30,031.50 Peterson Companies, The
284. 30,000.00 Channel One Network
285. 30,000.00 Community Gaming Enterprises LLC
286. 30,000.00 DCI Group LLC
287. 30,000.00 Jerome J. Parks
288. 30,000.00 Marylanders for Better Transportation
289. 30,000.00 Washington Brick & Terra Cotta Companies
290. 29,961.52 Eastern Shore of Maryland Educational Consortium
291. 29,814.00 Maryland Troopers Association
292. 29,689.04 Restaurant Association of Maryland
293. 29,282.77 Committee to Save the Trail (COST)
294. 29,252.96 GKV
295. 29,234.78 Erickson Retirement Communities
296. 29,228.55 Schering-Plough External Affairs, Inc.
297. 29,204.28 Greater Baltimore Board of Realtors, Inc.
298. 29,000.00 MD/DC/DE Press Association
299. 28,940.64 Maryland Science Center
300. 28,883.38 Historic Preservation Coalition
301. 28,641.80 Mid-Atlantic Financial Services Association
302. 28,551.00 Maryland Center for Community Development
303. 28,418.59 Assoc. of Independent Consumer Credit Counseling Agencies
304. 28,250.00 AARP
305. 28,160.38 Peachtree Settlement Funding
306. 28,086.96 Associated Builders & Contractors, Metro Washington Chapter
307. 28,000.00 Pacific Rehab of Maryland
308. 28,000.00 Prince George’s County Planning Board
309. 27,600.89 Smoke Free Maryland
310. 27,542.64 Montgomery Cnty Council of Supporting Srvcs. Employees Local 500
311. 27,529.93 Maryland Coalition of Title Insurers
312. 27,500.00 Liberty Mutual Group
313. 27,000.00 Enterprise Information Systems
314. 26,892.59 Maryland State Funeral Directors Association
315. 26,760.24 Maryland Podiatric Medical Association
316. 26,629.00 Anne Arundel County Association of Realtors
317. 26,529.88 Second Genesis Foundation, Inc.
318. 26,500.00 National Employee Benefit Companies Inc.
319. 26,468.96 Maryland Crime Victims’ Resource Center
320. 26,460.46 Washington Metropolitan Auto Body Association
321. 26,453.88 American Council of Life Insurance
322. 26,131.65 Best Buddies International, Inc.
323. 26,029.00 Property Owners Association of Greater Baltimore, Inc.
324. 25,833.34 Greater Bethesda Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce
325. 25,797.00 CDR Financial Products
326. 25,735.89 Maryland Highway Contractors Association
327. 25,703.30 Maryland Aggregates Association, Inc.
328. 25,600.00 Maryland Multi-Family Housing Association
329. 25,514.93 Chesapeake Fast Ferry Coalition
330. 25,433.64 Maryland Land Title Association
331. 25,432.12 Amports
332. 25,370.73 Alliance of American Insurers
333. 25,216.69 Maryland Dental Hygienists Association
334. 25,205.99 Reinsurance Association of America
335. 25,116.64 Explore Information Services
336. 25,070.35 Alliance of Maryland Dental Plans
337. 25,054.25 Encore Funding LLC
338. 25,040.00 CNSI
339. 25,040.00 Multi-State Associates on behalf of U.S. Fireworks Safety Commission
340. 25,040.00 Ocean City Chamber of Commerce
341. 25,000.00 Elevator Industry Work Preservation Fund
342. 25,000.00 GRO Coalition
343. 25,000.00 Maryland Psychological Association
344. 25,000.00 Spielo Manufacturing, Inc.
LOBBYISTS RECEIVING $50,000 OR MORE IN COMPENSATION
ONE OR MORE EMPLOYERS
November 1, 2002 - October 31, 2003
$ Amount
1. |
$1,010,293.76 |
Alexander, Gary R. |
2. |
824,885.25 |
Rozner, Joel D. |
3. |
790,456.25 |
Rifkin, Alan M. |
4. |
622,810.00 |
Enten, D. Robert |
5. |
602,600.06 |
Bereano, Bruce C. |
6. |
576,734.34 |
Stierhoff, John R. |
7. |
563,201.06 |
Shaivitz, Robin F. |
8. |
560,698.17 |
Tiburzi, Paul A. |
9. |
538,891.56 |
Johansen, Michael V. |
10. |
493,736.22 |
Schwartz, Joseph A., III |
11. |
487,855.00 |
McCoy, Dennis C. |
12. |
484,800.00 |
Rasmussen, Dennis |
13. |
436,750.00 |
Cowen, Lee |
14. |
413,204.00 |
Burridge, Carolyn T. |
15. |
407,372.14 |
Pitcher, J. William |
16. |
391,540.97 |
Popham, Bryson F. |
17. |
356,183.00 |
Manis, Nicholas G. |
18. |
334,398.97 |
Lanier, Ivan |
19. |
299,953.24 |
Winstead, David |
20. |
299,153.50 |
Miedusiewski, American Joe |
21. |
275,000.00 |
Pica, John A. Jr. |
22. |
274,933.51 |
Cooke, Ira C. |
23. |
271,755.84 |
Collins, Carville B. |
24. |
237,354.65 |
Doherty, Daniel T., Jr. |
25. |
235,975.00 |
Aery, Shaila |
26. |
226,500.00 |
Arrington,Michael |
27. |
224,003.38 |
Brocato, Barbara Marx |
28. |
220,000.00 |
Genn, Gilbert J. |
29. |
215,169.47 |
Powell, Michael C. |
30. |
201,370.25 |
Levitan, Laurence |
31. |
195,000.00 |
Boston, Frank |
32. |
171,483.24 |
O'Dell, Wayne |
33. |
165,438.84 |
Wayson, Edward O., Jr. |
34. |
162,478.00 |
Evans Gerard E. |
35. |
155,000.00 |
Gisriel, Michael U. |
36. |
154,083.00 |
Valentino-Benitez, Ellen |
37. |
152,000.00 |
Carter, W. Minor |
38. |
148,800.00 |
McAlpine, Jim |
39. |
139,638.36 |
McDonough, John P. |
40. |
133,620.88 |
Rivkin, Deborah R. |
41. |
129,898.00 |
Neil, John B. |
42. |
127,418.10 |
Goldstein, Franklin |
43. |
126,260.59 |
Douglas, Robert C. |
44. |
123,750.00 |
Gally, Eric |
45. |
122,382.79 |
Wilkins, Barbara J. |
46. |
115,676.00 |
Wyatt, Joseph Richard |
47. |
115,499.99 |
Johnson Robert C. |
48. |
113,850.00 |
Canning, Michael F. |
49. |
112,900.00 |
Johnson, Deron A. |
50. |
111,723.71 |
Doolan, Devin John |
51. |
111,184.00 |
Winchester, Albert, III |
52. |
110,500.00 |
Burner, Gene L. |
53. |
110,000.00 |
Holman, Mark |
54. |
110,000.00 |
Pappas, Melissa |
55. |
109,500.00 |
Carroll, David H., Jr. |
56. |
105,500.00 |
Opara, Clay C. |
57. |
103,150.00 |
Binderman,Mindy Koplan |
58. |
102,783.36 |
Ornstein, Chantel |
59. |
100,000.00 |
Hill, Denise |
60. |
99,000.00 |
Doyle, James J., Jr. |
61. |
97,500.00 |
Albert, David G. |
62. |
93,959.56 |
Davey, John P. |
63. |
91,000.00 |
Harris-Jones, Lisa M. |
64. |
90,523.00 |
Harting, Marta D. |
65. |
90,170.50 |
Kress, William A. |
66. |
87,091.15 |
Kasemeyer Pamela Metz |
67. |
82,233.34 |
Resh, Ronald E. |
68. |
80,000.00 |
DiPietro, Christopher V. |
69. |
75,139.08 |
Hoover, Lesa N. |
70. |
74,940.64 |
Saquella, Thomas S. |
71. |
74,870.00 |
Andryszak, John A. |
72. |
74,078.40 |
Davis, Michael H. |
73. |
72,500.00 |
Proctor, Gregory S. |
74. |
72,451.00 |
Muir, Scott |
75. |
72,129.08 |
Gunther, Robert |
76. |
71,030.05 |
Sheehan, Lorraine M. |
77. |
70,000.00 |
Hawk, Wynee Elizabeth |
78. |
70,000.00 |
Kinkel, Anthony G. |
79. |
70,000.00 |
McHugh, Kathleen |
80. |
68,787.50 |
Conwell, John F. |
81. |
65,916.68 |
Fowlkes, Lyle |
82. |
65,250.00 |
Zellmer, Jeffrie |
83. |
64,972.92 |
Jacobson, Jonas A. |
84. |
63,750.00 |
Iacobazzi, Catherine F. |
85. |
62,407.00 |
Doherty, Frances |
86. |
61,786.63 |
Murphy, Kathleen M. |
87. |
60,669.00 |
Pennino, Bonita Maria |
88. |
60,000.00 |
Benton, Cheryl |
89. |
60,000.00 |
DeFrancis, Joseph A. |
90. |
60,000.00 |
Thomas, David Wayne |
91. |
59,500.00 |
Ciekot, Ann T. |
92. |
58,912.47 |
Antoun, Mary |
93. |
58,000.00 |
Komenda, Frank J. |
94. |
58,000.00 |
Townsend, Pegeen |
95. |
57,700.00 |
Neily, Alice J. |
96. |
57,500.00 |
Jepson, Robert |
97. |
57,000.00 |
Counihan, Gene W. |
98. |
56,741.68 |
Taylor, Casper |
99. |
56,344.40 |
Richardson, Lawrence A., Jr. |
100. |
55,736.00 |
Sammis, Elizabeth P. |
101. |
51,973.00 |
Woolums, John R. |
102. |
51,750.00 |
Manis, George N. |
103. |
51,250.00 |
Nathanson, Martha Dale |
104. |
50,771.00 |
Bjarekull, Tina M. |
EXPENDITURES ON SPECIAL EVENTS
November 1, 2002 - October 31, 2003
Group Invited |
Number of Times Invited |
Total |
All General Assembly |
116 |
$784,069.26 |
Senate Only |
1 |
3,810.65 |
Anne Arundel County Delegation |
12 |
45,957.58 |
Baltimore City Delegation |
21 |
63,488.75 |
Baltimore County Delegation |
21 |
47,800.59 |
Carroll County Delegation |
4 |
842.32 |
Harford County Delegation |
8 |
4,801.95 |
Howard County Delegation |
7 |
22,005.37 |
Lower Eastern Shore Delegation |
7 |
2,442.37 |
Montgomery County Delegation |
27 |
75,503.47 |
Prince George’s County Delegation |
27 |
69,420.24 |
Upper Eastern Shore Delegation |
10 |
24,866.88 |
Western Maryland Delegation |
5 |
12,913.62 |
Southern Maryland Delegation |
9 |
27,397.48 |
|
|
|
HOUSE |
|
|
Appropriations |
12 |
7,148.87 |
Health & Governmental Operations |
22 |
38,249.74 |
Economic Matters |
19 |
34,615.25 |
Environmental Matters |
11 |
18,312.77 |
Judiciary |
9 |
10,879.76 |
Ways and Means |
12 |
17,163.25 |
|
|
|
SENATE |
|
|
Budget and Taxation |
20 |
18,197.34 |
Education, Health & Environmental Affairs |
10 |
8,771.14 |
Finance |
28 |
41,996.57 |
Judicial Proceedings |
14 |
21,243.02 |
TOTAL: $1,401,898.24
(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, 2002 - October 31, 2003
Name of Firm Amount of Compensation Reported
Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver $2, 505,570.56
Alexander & Cleaver, P.A. 2,176,335.51
Funk & Bolton, P.A. 1,250,292.87
Piper Rudnick LLP
1,098,716.14