From Friends of Bob Cassilly:
Dear Harford County Neighbor,
I have a personal request. Can you take a few minutes to read this lengthy but very important email?
Unfortunately, once again I find myself in the position of having to fend off personal attacks and untruthful allegations from two of my Republican colleagues. I am as tired of dealing with this as you are likely tired of hearing it. There are far more pressing issues that demand my time in County government, and yours. Below, for those who are interested, is a detailed and factual response to the most recent allegations.
We have worked hard throughout this first year of my administration to ensure that your county government displays the highest standards of ethical conduct, transparency, professionalism, fiscal discipline, and public service. It is no surprise that, in doing so, we have angered a small group of highly influential insiders who have used their powers over the years to control and extract substantial benefits from County government at the citizens’ expense.
Typical in this age of the politics of personal destruction, their response has been repeated attacks on my character and integrity. In just one year in office, I have been falsely accused of misappropriating $7M, wiretapping, forgery, malfeasance in office, ethical violations, and more. No other public official in this state has faced such an onslaught.
The accusers include those who have voiced intense criticism of our decisions to hold the line or reduce county spending on favored projects and programs, our efforts to limit the development of apartments in the north half of the county, and our opposition to mega-warehouse distribution centers in the southern end.
The latest such false allegation is Councilman/Deputy Penman’s claim that I violated ethical standards by supposedly signing a real estate plat, which I did not sign. The relevant facts of this matter are rather mundane but important.
Our Family Farm
In the 1800s, my great-grandfather purchased and farmed a large parcel of land in Belcamp. In the 1960s, the State of Maryland took most of that farm through the process of eminent domain to construct Interstate 95. All six lanes of I-95 north of the 543 bridge now occupy most of that farm. A seven-acre parcel of undeveloped land is all that now remains still under family ownership. Decades ago, that land was subdivided into 8 residential lots to be served by septic systems but the lots were never sold. Since that time, property tax has been paid on each of those lots.
To finally sell that property, it was necessary to have the state Health Department approve septic fields for each of the proposed lots. The Health Department determined that the property would support only 3 septic systems. Accordingly, a new plat was prepared reducing the developable lots from 8 to 3. That plat was approved in due course by the Health Department and by the Department of Planning and Zoning without any favoritism or deviation from the process and considerations applied to all similar proposals. No effort was made to persuade the Health Department to increase the number of lots or to move the property into the nearby service area for county water and sewer.
County law requires that all such plats be signed by the County Executive and I review and sign as a matter of course many such plats that simply result in moving a septic field or reducing the available lots. However, in this case, the plat clearly indicated my family’s involvement; to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, my staff directed the plat to my second in command, the County Administrator, who reviewed and signed the plat. In doing so, he signed my name followed by his own initials to clearly indicate that he was the person who actually signed the plat. There was no favoritism in the review or signing of this plat that resulted in a reduction in developable lots.
Mr. Penman Crossed the Ethical Line
Attacks have also been made regarding the ethics complaint that the County Attorney filed against Councilman Penman alleging a conflict of interest in Mr. Penman’s votes and advocacy for matters related to his current employer, the Harford County Sheriff’s Office. The County Ethics Code states that an “official may not participate in … any matter in which the official … has an interest.”
Councilman/Deputy Penman is the only sheriff’s deputy in our state who also sits on a county council, where he continues to influence and vote on matters related to his personal compensation and benefits. Following complaints by Harford County residents that Councilman/Deputy Penman’s actions violate the County Code of Ethics, the County Attorney filed a complaint with the Board of Ethics alleging that Mr. Penman’s actions violate the County Code of Ethics.
Sheriff Gahler claims in a recent letter published in the Baltimore Sun that there is no merit to the ethics complaint which, the sheriff says, was filed in bad faith. In support of this position, he cites the Maryland Supreme Court’s ruling that Councilman/Teacher Bennett’s employment with the School Board does not disqualify him from serving as a Councilman. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Councilman Bennett’s case did not address any matters related to the applicability or enforcement of the Code of Ethics.
The only matter covered by the Court’s opinion in Councilman Bennett’s case was whether the County Charter, Section 207, prohibited Mr. Bennett, as a school teacher, from also sitting as a member of the County Council. Charter Section 207 states that a council member cannot be employed by “the government of the State of Maryland, Harford County, or any municipality within Harford County.”
The Supreme Court held that the Board of Education is a unique creature and not part of either the state government or Harford County government so Mr. Bennett is not barred by the County Charter from sitting on the County Council. The Court did not in any way suggest that once on the council, Mr. Bennett or Mr. Penman could engage in conduct in violation of the County Ethics Code.
Sheriff Gahler also argues in his recent letter in the Baltimore Sun that the Supreme Court’s decision allowing Councilman/Teacher Bennett to serve as both a council member and a public-school teacher also allows Councilman/Deputy Penman to serve as both a sheriff’s deputy and council member. However, the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Mr. Bennett does not apply to Mr. Penman.
The Supreme Court stated numerous times that its opinion that Section 207 of the County Charter does not prevent Mr. Bennett from sitting on the Council is based in significant part upon the unique characteristics of the Board of Education. The Court held that the Board of Education is not created by either the State Constitution or the County Charter and, therefore, does not clearly fit into the categories of a either state or county offices holders prohibited from serving on the County Council by the County Charter. The Sheriff’s office, by contrast, is a State Constitutional office.
Our county is now in a unique position. For the first time in the history of the Council, it now includes two members who are employees of two of the largest governmental beneficiaries of county taxpayer dollars, the Board of Education and the Sheriff’s Office. Those two entities now control the duty assignments, hours, income, benefits, and future employment of those two members. Clearly, those council members cannot exercise truly impartial judgment on matters related to the funding and operation of their employers.
The Sheriff’s Office, like the Maryland General Assembly, is a state office created by the State Constitution. It is common for the part-time members of the General Assembly to also be employed by another branch or level of government. Those members recognize the potential for conflicts of interest and resolve the matter by simply not voting or advocating on matters that relate to their employers. One would expect that Councilman/Deputy Penman would likewise recognize that conflict and refrain from advocating for or voting on matters related to his full-time employment.
While the case against Councilman Bennett was pending, Sheriff Gahler joked that if Mr. Bennett was permitted to remain on the Council that he, Sheriff Gahler, would hire other Council members onto his staff in order to gain favorable votes for his office by the County Council. Clearly, despite his protests to the contrary, Sheriff Gahler appreciates the ethical challenges faced by his employee, Councilman/Deputy Penman.
My administration remains dedicated to good governance for all citizens of Harford County and will continue to be good stewards of your tax dollars. Our goal is for Harford County to be the best possible place for you to live, work, and raise your family.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide the facts,
Bob
