The General Assembly's ethics committee told Sen. Norman R. Stone Jr. once again yesterday that he should refrain from voting on a bill that would benefit his employer, Peter G. Angelos.
The Baltimore County Democrat said afterward that he still intends to vote on the legislation, which would let some plaintiffs with asbestos-related cancer collect higher damage awards.
That decision appeared to put the senator and the ethics committee on a collision course. But Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller hinted that Stone might never get a chance to vote -- because the chairman of the committee scheduled to consider the bill could simply keep it in his desk drawer.
Sen. Walter M. Baker, chairman of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, is a vehement opponent of the bill who has disagreed with Stone's declared intention to participate. Baker said yesterday that if Stone continues to insist he will vote, that decision "could very well" affect whether the bill comes up for a vote.
Stone is an attorney in the law firm operated by Angelos, principal owner of the Baltimore Orioles and the leading lawyer for asbestos victims in Maryland. Sen. Thomas L. Bromwell, a Baltimore County Democrat, said he introduced the bill at the request of a lobbyist for Angelos, whose firm receives about one-third of each asbestos settlement he wins.
After the ethics committee sent Stone a letter last month saying he faced a clear conflict of interest on the bill, Stone asked the panel to reconsider its decision.
"The reason for my strong desire to vote on this bill is not to further the interests of my employer, but because my legislative district is home to thousands of people who were injured by substance exposure," Stone said.
The committee decided unanimously to reject Stone's request that it withdraw its advice.
Instead, it decided to send the senator a stronger letter repeating its admonition -- including citations of the specific provisions of the Senate rules and Maryland law on which it based its advice.
Members were not swayed by Stone's argument that his constituents expect him to vote on the matter.
Sen. Delores G. Kelley said the Senate needs the trust of all residents. "They are the ultimate judges -- all of the people of Maryland -- not just those who voted for me personally," said Kelley, also a Baltimore County Democrat.
Sen. Michael J. Collins, the ethics committee co-chairman, switched his position from opposing last month's letter of advice -- which he called premature -- to supporting the new letter. But he continued to defend Stone.
"Senator Stone is really a very sincere, decent man who has never had anything about his integrity questioned," said Collins, a Democrat who represents a neighboring Baltimore County district.
Stone said he was "disappointed" by the the panel's refusal to reverse its stand. "I felt and I still feel I owe it to my constituents to vote on the legislation," he said.
Under current law, the ethics committee can neither prevent Stone from voting nor impose sanctions if he does. Kenneth C. Montague Jr., a Baltimore Democrat, said the panel could send its findings -- but no recommendation about sanctions -- to the Senate president. It would then be up to Miller whether to seek a broader investigation.
The bill Angelos is seeking would remove a limit imposed by the General Assembly in 1986 on damages for pain and suffering. The limit affects between 100 and 200 asbestos-related cases being handled by his firm.
Stone's vote could be crucial because six votes are needed on the Judicial Proceedings Committee to move the bill to the Senate floor. Several members besides Baker have expressed reservations about the legislation.
Pub Date: 3/18/99