Julia Walsh Gouge entered her fourth term as a Carroll commissioner with tremendous momentum.
After enduring four years of being outvoted by former Commissioners Donald I. Dell and Robin Bartlett Frazier, she left the conservative duo in her dust during the county's Republican primary and emerged as the top vote-getter in last month's general election. Two weeks ago, she began her new term as the president of a board that in its first two days cast votes to reshape county policy on a slew of major issues.
But the going has grown treacherous.
That initial blitz of votes included a call for the resignations from all three members of the county ethics commission - the same panel that had been investigating Gouge for a year.
The ethics panelists fired back last week, saying they wouldn't resign and accusing the commissioners of trying to thwart their investigation of Gouge. They further alleged that a member of the county attorney's office, acting on orders from an unnamed commissioner, had improperly seized ethics commission documents.
Meanwhile, news broke last week that Gouge is the subject of an inquiry by the state prosecutor's office into possible ethical violations.
"The word quagmire does come to mind," said former commissioner candidate Neil Ridgely in assessing the situation.
Ridgely, like many who follow county politics, is no fan of the ethics commission members, who were called "biased" and "incompetent" by the commissioners. But Ridgely also said he wonders whether the commissioners have made a heap of trouble for themselves by trying to fire the ethics panelists. Gouge has so far said she's undaunted by the upheaval.
"Anything that's negative has the potential to become a distraction," she said Friday. "But this term was supposed to be about moving forward, and that's what we're going to do. Our plans for the future have nothing to do with this ethics panel."
The ethics panelists say that their names are being unfairly dragged through the mud and that they'll go to court to defend their right to continue investigating Gouge.
"The public has no idea how far we've bent over backward not to be political," said panel Chairman James F. W. Talley.
The panel's investigation of Gouge began about a year ago after a county-hired contractor, Charles Stambaugh, alleged that the commissioner's daughter, Jill Gebhart, had tried to use her mother's name to intimidate him during an argument at her Hampstead business.
Though no charges arose in connection with that incident, the ensuing investigation turned up other potential ethics violations, the ethics panel announced in a June 24 letter. Among the new issues was the possibility that Gouge had influenced Stambaugh to lower by $1,000 the cost of a sewer line extension he performed at Gebhart's business, Jill's Jams and Jellies.
Denial issued
Gouge has denied ever asking anyone to lower the price. Doug Myers, the county's director of public works, said last week that someone from his office had asked Stambaugh to lower the price but that he didn't remember Gouge ever asking him to have it reduced.
Both Myers and a former member of his office, Wayne Lewns, said state investigators have questioned them. Talley, asked whether he or other members of the ethics panel have been interviewed by state investigators, declined to comment. The other two members, Sue Primoff and John Harner, have referred all questions to Talley.
On Dec. 3, the day after the new commissioners took office, Minnich and Jones approved a letter from County Attorney Kimberly A. Millender accusing the ethics panel of misuse of office and asking its members to resign within seven days or be fired Dec. 31. Gouge recused herself from voting on the letter. The commissioners also rescinded a $10,000 budget allocation to the panel and announced plans to increase its membership from three to seven.
Minnich argues that the ethics panel's reputation is irreparably damaged.
"If an ethics board has no credibility, it has no value," he said in explaining his call for resignations.
Decision lauded
Minnich and Jones have said repeatedly that they aren't seeking to overhaul the panel to protect Gouge from further investigation.
The call for resignations was popular with political observers who say they've felt so disgusted with the ethics panel during the past several years that they automatically give Gouge the benefit of the doubt.
"I think the new commissioners made one of their best decisions when they asked for those resignations," said Ross Dangel, spokesman for the Eldersburg-based Freedom Area Citizens' Council. "It's a politically corrupted group."
Critics such as Dangel say the ethics panel has frequently chosen to investigate political enemies such as Gouge while ignoring potential ethics violations by more like-minded subjects. Many felt the panel should have investigated conservative activist Ed Primoff - husband of panel member Sue Primoff - earlier this year after he attempted to develop his property using a law he had helped conceive as a member of an appointed committee.
The ethics panelists said they never received a request to investigate Primoff and that even if they had, they have no jurisdiction over members of advisory committees.
That explanation left critics unsatisfied, but several said they remain unsure whether the commissioners can actually fire the ethics panel. The county ethics code states that the commissioners are to appoint ethics panel members but is silent on whether they can fire them.
Ridgely said he had pondered how to overhaul the panel during this year's campaign but didn't think its members could be fired without proof of malfeasance.
"It appears the commissioners have a different legal opinion and if it is well-founded, they have done the right thing," Ridgely said yesterday. "That bunch on the ethics board has not served the county interest well for a long time. They have been looking for powers which would have made them look like the Spanish Inquisition."
In a Dec. 12 response to the commissioners, the ethics panel's attorneys, Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver of Baltimore, argue that the commissioners have no power to fire the ethics panelists.
"Otherwise, the members of the commission would always be subject to removal whenever an investigation was focused upon an elected official or others appointed by elected officials," reads the letter by attorney James E. Edwards Jr.
Vote called 'hasty'
The letter also calls the commissioners' vote to take away $10,000 a "hasty" decision and notes that the money would have helped the panelists investigate the alleged seizing of their files.
"Thus it is likely that the true motivation for the County Commissioners' current attempt to remove the members of the Commission is ... a misguided effort to prevent further investigation of the matter," the letter reads.
Talley said Friday that he hopes Minnich and Jones will reconsider their votes.
"I really feel they need to take a good, in-depth look a all of the facts that led them to their decisions," he said.
Jones has not been able to be reached for comment on the letter or Talley's remarks. Minnich is willing to meet with the ethics panelists, an option offered in the original letter calling for their resignations, he said. But he said Friday that he has heard nothing that would change his opinion and has no knowledge of a county employee improperly seizing the ethics commission's files.
Gouge said she had no comment on the specifics of the letter but said the commissioners would probably discuss it this week. She reiterated her belief that the ethics panel is out to get her, but said she's trying to put it and the inquiries by state investigators out of her mind.
"I think I've commented enough that people know how I feel," she said. "This whole thing has seemed so ridiculous at times. But we have business to get to, and that's what we'll do."