Salisbury Ethics Commission Show Trial

Displaying the cowardice to be expected of someone who attacks children, Barrie Comegys stooge Jonathan Taylor failed to show up for the Salisbury Ethics Commission show trial precipitated by his own actions.  While thousands of taxpayer dollars were wasted in this spiteful and ridiculous action, Taylor (who already lives on the generosity of taxpayers) hid from view while Barrie Comegys stalwart Lynn Cathcart was on hand to take notes for the wannbe “Powers That Be”.

To be fair, the Ethics Commission ran a fairly clean meeting.  The attending members:  Donna Forgash, Norman Lyster, Bob Gladden, and Fran Kane all asked valid, thoughtful, and polite questions.

While several people at the hearing asked the same question, “What the hell are we doing here?”, the Ethics Commission serves a theoretically important role.  It has been suggested that the board should have examined the complaint prior to today’s hearing and ruled that it was frivolous.  However, if a complaint had been filed against Barrie Tilghman, Mike Dunn, Gary Comegys, or Louise Smith and the Commission had done so (ruled it frivolous in a private meeting) I would be one of the first to scream fraud and cover-up;  so would many of the same people asking that question today.

Was the complaint frivolous?  It turns out that it was.  Councilwoman Terry Cohen made a presentation that not only proved the claim specious, but shamed City Solicitor Paul Wilber for his complete incompetence on these matters.  While not named specifically today, Cohen also proved Councilman Gary Comegys to be a liar, a fool, or both.  You’ll have to decide.

We need to remember that Comegys has repeatedly argued that health insurance was never part of the city council’s compensation and that the city never had a policy on the matter.  Now we all know that this is not true.  However, the argument wasn’t helped by acting Ethics Commission chair Bob Gladden’s admission that he received healthcare coverage as a member of council 15 years ago.  Comegys, et al, have also argued that voting on the budget was OK for him because he wasn’t taking advantage of the healthcare coverage and the city’s Salary Review Commission took care of any ethical problem with voting for his own salary as part of the budget.  However, Cohen provided evidence that the Salary Review Commission did consider healthcare as part of the council’s total compensation when making their recommendations to council.  They also looked at retirement and life insurance benefits (which Comegys does take advantage of).  Most importantly, Cohen provided evidence that Comegys, as well as the other members of council, voted on a resolution accepting the Salary Review Commission’s recommendations.  Therefore, if Cohen was guilty on this count all other members would also be guilty of a similar violation for voting on the Salary Review Commission’s recommendations.

Oh, but it gets even better.  Cohen provided evidence that CareFirst (the administrator of the city’s healthcare plan) does not make a distinction between elected officials and full time city employees.  According to CareFirst, the city would have to enact legislation changing the current policy in order to make that change.  Isn’t that what Mayor Jim Ireton, Cohen, and Councilwoman Debbie Campbell were arguing all along?

It gets better still.  Remember Comegys argument at the last council meeting that Ireton didn’t have a right to change the budget ordinance?  I actually agreed with him.  As Cohen demonstrated, and Comegys evidently agrees, the council’s job is to set policy.  It is the Mayor’s job to administer that policy.  Therefore, former Mayor Barrie Tilghman’s attempt to end council healthcare coverage through the budgeting process was an illegal act.  The council would have needed to make a change to the city’s personnel policy (see the paragraph above).  Therefore, if Comegys’ statements at the last meeting were genuine, he must agree that Tilghman acted illegally and we all know that he would never want to do anything illegal.  Right?

The piece de resistance -

I would warrant that everyone, with the possible exception of the sub-70 IQ Jonathan Taylor crew, would agree that the city of Salisbury has no right to take any action contrary to the Maryland state constitution.  Cohen produced a section of the state constitution that specifically prohibits the increasing or diminishing of any legislator’s compensation during their term.  For Jonathan, et al, “diminishing” means reducing or cutting.

Of course we would expect the Jonathan Taylors and Lynn Cathcarts of the world to argue that this section did not apply to municipal office holders.  To bolster her claim, Cohen also produced an advisory AG’s opinion for the city of Westminster which specifically addressed these issues.  Westiminster asked if they could add healthcare and retirement benefits for their city council.  The AG’s opinion stated that retirement benefits could be added in the middle of a term since they were not compensation for the purposes of the Maryland constitution.  However, healthcare could NOT be added since this WAS COMPENSATION.

IF healthcare is compensation; AND
IF the Maryland constitution prohibits the increasing or diminishing of compensation during a legislator’s term;  AND
IF city council members are legislators (which they are according to the Salisbury charter);  THEREFORE

It is a violation of the Maryland constitution to do what Barrie Tilghman proposed.  We also need to remember that Tilghman was not alone in this attempted illegal act.  Both Comegys and Councilwoman Louise Smith began conspiring with Tilghman a year ago to do this.  Unfortunately for them, their arrogance prohibited them from attempting what was obviously political retribution in a manner that would have been legal (but would have shown them to be the spiteful brats that they are).

With all due respect to Campbell, her much briefer testimony before the Ethics Commission was a bit anti-climatic.  Cohen had pretty much covered every point.  Given the thoroughness of Cohen’s evidence and the strength of her arguments, any opinion of this body other than a blanket absolution will provide more evidence of Tilghman’s evil influence.  Remember, every member of this body was hand-picked by Tilghman.

As noted at the beginning, the Ethics Commission appeared to act properly.  However, I am concerned about a few matters that need to be addressed by the current administration.

• Why was Lore Chambers present at the meeting, and on the taxpayers’ dime?  If she doesn’t have enough work to do, perhaps Mayor Ireton will heed the argument of many that her position is redundant.

• Why didn’t the Ethics Commission follow the guidelines provided to Cohen and Campbell by City Adminstrator John Pick?  I don’t fault the commission members for this.  This screw-up clearly falls in the laps of Pick and Wilber.

• Why was the public required to leave the meeting during their deliberations?  … and why was John Pick permitted to take part in those deliberations when he is neither a commission member nor the city’s legal advisor?  (more on this below)

If you are a regular reader, you know that I have a hang-up about rules.  If you’re not going to follow them, don’t bother having them.  While I don’t agree with the Ethics Commission being allowed to deliberate in secret, I understand the argument.  I still think that it is wrong.  However, to allow Pick to take part in those deliberations is clearly wrong and lacks a valid argument in its favor.

What is most disturbing about this matter is Pick’s answer to my question as to why he was in there:

I was there to smooth out the process.  I was a resource.  I helped them make their decision.

First of all, it is not his place to HELP them make their decision.  It is not Wilber’s place either.  Pick had no business in a closed session.  Wilber’s job is to answer legal questions.  Unfortunately, given the way Cohen shamed Wilber over this matter I even question his competance to do that.  However, the job of the Ethics Commission is to reach their own conclusions based on the evidence before them.  Given the evidence that choice is crystal clear.

Given that Gladden is already on the record stating that NO ethical violation occurred I would be interested to know why Pick and Wilber both appeared to be trying to convince the Commission of something.  We’ll just have to wait and see what their written opinion is.

Sphere: Related Content