As open-meeting advocates and ethicists decried the Carroll County commissioners' decision to raise their daily allowance 650 percent, the two officials who voted in favor of the increase indicated they may reconsider their decision today.
Commissioners Donald I. Dell and Richard T. Yates, who last week voted for the increase without a public hearing, said yesterday that they may reconsider their action today -- the last day of official business for the board. Yates and W. Benjamin Brown, who opposed the measure, will leave office Monday; Dell will begin his third term.
"I don't know what to do now," said Dell, who would benefit from the increase. "I had asked [County Attorney Laurell Taylor] about it in the past and was always told that we had the power to increase it. Now that we've done it, we're finding out there are questions about how the additional funds are used."
Dell said he asked Taylor to provide him with a copy of all county laws related to the board's compensation. The increase passed Nov. 24 would make Carroll County's commissioners the highest-paid part-time elected officials in the state, according to an analysis by The Sun published yesterday.
"We will do what is legal," Dell said. "We never meant to do anything wrong."
The commissioners' vote increased their daily allowance -- a bonus given to them for showing up to work or appearing at official functions -- from $12 a day to $90 a day. Carroll would be the only county in Maryland that offers its part-time elected officials a daily payment in addition to salary, mileage and meal reimbursement, The Sun analysis showed.
During the board's four-year term, the three commissioners have billed the county for 2,758 working days, for a total daily bonus of $33,096. Under the new rate of $90 a day, the same number of days would cost the county an additional $215,124. The part-time commissioners also make $32,500 in salary.
Yates echoed Dell's comments yesterday, saying he thought the board's action was legal. "But if there's a vote to rescind, I'd be a fool not to rescind," Yates said. "There's no sense me hanging my head on this."
The General Assembly must approve increases in salary -- but not expenses -- for commissioner-run counties such as Carroll. State legislators said they have never received a request from the current board for a raise.
The board's decision came to light nearly a week after the private meeting was held. The commissioners voted on the proposal at the end of a routine meeting on contracts and legal agreements. The board's public schedule made no mention of the per-diem issue.
Dell and Yates defended their actions, saying the increase was a personnel issue that could be discussed in closed session.
"I made my decision with a fair conscience," Yates said.
The board's action is being reviewed by the state attorney general's office. Republican Del. Joseph M. Getty, a Manchester attorney, requested the investigation after learning of the private meeting. He said that because the daily bonus is not related to expenses, it amounts to a "salary enhancement."
"We are carefully studying this issue," said Robert N. McDonald, chief of opinions and advice for the attorney general's office. "We are doing our best to respond to Del. Getty as quickly as possible."
Such an investigation usually takes the attorney general's office about 10 weeks. But Getty, concerned that the new board may not have the power to change the daily allowance after it goes into effect, has asked for a "speedy opinion."
Some legal experts, ethicists and governmental watchdogs say that regardless of legal conclusions, the private meeting made a mockery of the state's open meeting law and raises serious ethical questions.
"It strikes me that there are a lot of missing pieces here that the public needs to know about. I believe these elected officials have a moral obligation to tell taxpayers what is going on," said Fred Guy, director of the Hoffberger Center for Professional Ethics at the University of Baltimore. "To keep the public in the dark would only increase their cynicism of politicians and erode public confidence."
Drafted by the late state comptroller Louis L. Goldstein when he was a legislator and passed by the General Assembly in 1954, the law's intent is to let the public witness government decisions and discussions, except in cases where sensitive issues -- such as personnel and litigation -- are the topics.
"As far as a personnel matter, I would argue that it is not," said Kathleen S. Skullney, executive director of Common Cause/Maryland, a public interest watchdog organization. "When meetings are closed for personnel matters, it has to do with disciplinary matters, changes in status, perhaps even changes in personnel structuring. It does not have to do with the expenditure of public funds.
"This is clearly a matter of public business and the expenditure of public funds, and I believe the public has the right to see those determinations being made," she said.
Pub Date: 12/03/98