You are on page 1of 5

Ethics Commission Issues Blind-Eye Ruling

by Patrick Allen ... patrickwilliamallen@comcast.net

Government corruption, by and among elected officials and appointees in Frederick County, Maryland, is so
pervasive that more effort is put into protecting its existence than any efforts to dismantle the corruption as a
common practice.
Regarding the six counts enumerated in the 20 page ethics complaint document submitted to the Ethics
Commission and specifically the five counts containing criminal offense implications by a BoCC member,
sufficient and substantive direct evidence has been provided which meets or exceeds the threshold of referral to
the Maryland State Attorney General and the Maryland Office of the State Prosecutor.
Make no mistake in understanding each individual count is serious enough on its own merit, but collectively, the
aggregate of all counts demonstrate a pattern of criminal misconduct and corruption in Frederick County, Maryland.
The ruling by this panel of BoCC appointed ethics commission panelists, guided by the BoCC friendly County
Attorneys office demonstrates reprehensible conduct and clearly violates the Frederick County Ethics Ordinance
and Articles of governance stipulated in the Ethics Commissions Standard Operating Procedures.[1] [2] [3]

At stake was whether or not due process and rule of law would supersede personal and political connections
within the countys organizational structure and the future integrity of Frederick County government as it
migrates in 2014 from a Commissioner form of government to Charter government.
At issue is a six count ethics complaint filed by a private citizen exposing, via substantive direct evidence, a
pattern of organized corruption and criminal misconduct by BoCC President Blaine Young and others in his
administration and political circle.

A six count ethics complaint [1] was filed with the county on February 17, 2014. The six counts contained in the
complaint included:

Count 1 Frederick County Privatization The Oliver Porter recommended privatization of Frederick
County personnel and services.

Count 2 Sale of Montevue / Citizens The sale of these facilities to a pre-determined buyer.

Count 3 Acquisition of Confidential Courthouse Records The acquisition and use of confidential
courthouse records for the purposes of damaging a potential political opponent.

Count 4 Business / Development Community Quid Pro Quo The acknowledgement by Mr. Young that
favors between himself and the business / development community will be honored.

Count 5 Planning Commission Appointment(s) : Political Quid Pro Quo The acknowledgement by Mr.
Young that he fast-tracked specific appointees for the purposes of political gain during the 2014 County
Council election cycle.

Count 6 Supervisor / Subordinate Relations The highly questionable relationship, apparently


adulterous, between Mr. Young and a senior county employee in the countys budget office.

Along with the formal submission of the ethics complaint document, a companion document [2] was filed which
stipulated that five of the six counts contained criminal offense implications (4 felonies, 1 misdemeanor), which

under the Standard Operating Procedures of the Frederick County Ethics Commission ( C-2 and E-1 ), must be
held in the strictest of confidence and referred to an external investigative entity i.e., Maryland State Attorney
General, Maryland Office of the Special Prosecutor and the Maryland States Attorney.
Counts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 each contain criminal offense implications and within the 20 page complaint document,
sufficient and substantive cause and evidence for these counts to be referred to the appropriate external
investigative authority were presented.
[4]

In a letter , received electronically on Wednesday, May 21, 2014, from the Frederick County Ethics Commission,
the commission panelists made the following ruling for each count in the 20 page, six count, complaint document.
Count 1 Frederick County Privatization. Privatization is a ruse. Unethical and / or illegal use of prestige of
office by the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners, Blaine R. Young, and possibly other members of
the BoCC regarding the attempted privatization of Frederick County operations and workforce.
Mr. Youngs statement, Privatization is a ruse is direct evidence and supported by additional direct
evidence presented in the complaint document. [1]
Ethics Commission Ruling. The complainant alleges that a County Commissioner advocated for
privatization as a ruse and a hoax to determine the extent to which County residents might agree
with the Commissioners position on privatization.
The decision to consider proposals to restructure the County workforce and, as a related matter, to
consider the possible privatization of certain functions carried out by County employees was a
decision made by the Board of County Commissioners. This is not the forum in which to question
that decision or to challenge the motives of individual Commissioners who supported the proposals.
Response To Ruling. The Commission was provided with direct evidence in the form of verbatim
statements made by Commissioner Young as well as additional direct evidence in the form of
handwritten meeting notes which clearly support the charge that Mr. Young had used his elected
position and county taxpayer money to effect a political three-card-monte over the citizens.
The Commission is correct, insofar as the BoCC has the authority and flexibility to consider
proposals regarding county governance. However, the Commission, by disregarding the direct
evidence, overlooked the intent of Mr. Youngs actions.
In that Instagram moment, in Blaine Youngs Yellow Cab office, when Mr. Young said laughingly that
the Oliver Porter privatization proposal was a ruse on the citizens of Frederick County in an effort to
gauge citizen pushback, it was clear that Mr. Youngs motivation and intentions were not only
unethical, but criminal.
Count 2 Sale of Montevue / Citizens. The deal is in the bag. Unethical and / or illegal use of prestige of office
by the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners, Blaine R. Young, and possibly other members of the
BoCC regarding the attempted sale of Montevue Assisted Living and Citizens Rehabilitative Care Center located in
Frederick County, Maryland.
Mr. Youngs statements, The deal is in the bag and I have the deal in hand is direct evidence and
supported by additional direct evidence presented in the complaint document. [1]
Ethics Commission Ruling. The complaint alleges that a Commissioner privately negotiated a deal
to sell these entities to a selected buyer. The complaint states that this is both illegal and a direct
contradiction to transparency and open meetings with conducting county business.
The Ethics Commission has no power to address a complaint that the State Open Meetings Act was
violated, nor does it have jurisdiction over allegations of criminal conduct.
The Commission also notes that the sale of these facilities was approved by a majority of the Board
of County Commissioners after a public hearing.

Response To Ruling. The principle issue with this complaint count is not that Mr. Young violated
the State Open Meetings Act, but rather the fact that Blaine Young stated four months prior to the
public hearing and vote that he had the deal in hand.
The Commission was provided with direct evidence in the form of verbatim statements made by
Commissioner Young as well as additional direct evidence in the form of handwritten meeting notes
which clearly support the charge that Mr. Young and possibly / probably additional BoCC members
conducted secret negotiations to sell the facilities at an agreed upon price far in advance of
established process requirements.
Count 3 Acquisition of Confidential Courthouse Records. Unethical and / or illegal use of prestige of office
by the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners, Blaine R. Young, and possibly other members of the
BoCC regarding the pursuit and / or acquisition of confidential county courthouse records for the purposes of
political gain.
Mr. Youngs statements that a possible political opponent is engaged in personal activities which can
be surfaced from confidential courthouse records, with additional statements made over a several
week period regarding his efforts to obtain the confidential courthouse records, is direct evidence
and supported by additional direct evidence presented in the complaint document. [1]
Ethics Commission Ruling. In an attempt to determine what action, if any, is appropriate for the
Ethics Commission to take on this charge, the Commission requested additional information from the
complainant.
The Commission asked the complainant to identify the other persons referenced in the complaint as
having personal knowledge of the facts and to describe each persons involvement.
Given the limited information provided to support the claim the Commission finds that the charge
fails to state a potential violation. Without more information, the Commission also finds that a referral
for criminal investigation is not merited.
Response To Ruling. Not surprising, the Ethics Commission invoked the uncooperative
complainant strategy to deny referral of this criminal misconduct to an external investigative agency
which has the resources, authority and tools to conduct a full and complete investigation.
The Commission was provided with direct evidence in the form of verbatim statements made by
Commissioner Young as well as additional direct evidence in the form of handwritten meeting notes
which clearly support the charge that Mr. Young either attempted or succeeded in obtaining
confidential courthouse records belonging to a private citizen and potential political opponent.
Given the porous nature of confidentiality regarding information provided to the Ethics Commission,
the complainant was entirely correct in protecting the identities of other Frederick County citizens,
arguing that only a legitimate criminal investigative entity should be provided that information.
Count 4 Business / Development Community Quid Pro Quo. Unethical and / or illegal use of prestige of office
by the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners, Blaine R. Young, and possibly other members of the
BoCC regarding a quid pro quo relationship between the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners and
members in the business / development community.
Mr. Youngs statement, - the regional business community will keep their promise based on what I have
done for them already is direct evidence and supported by additional direct evidence (emails written
by Blaine Young) presented in the complaint document. [1]
Ethics Commission Ruling. The complaint quotes a County Commissioner [Blaine Young] as
stating that members of the business community would keep their promises to him based on what he
had done for those members. The complaint argues that this statement shows that a quid pro quo
relationship exists.

This allegation was found not to constitute a violation of the Ethics Ordinance.
Response To Ruling. The verbatim written statements by Blaine Young, in the form of emails, was
provided to the Ethics Commission.[1] When the Chief Executive of County government explicitly
states that the business / developer community are beholding to him for actions he has taken on
their behalf, it cannot be interpreted as anything but a quid pro quo.
The ruling by the Ethics Commission regarding this charge is clear evidence that the panelists on the
Commission, guided by the County Attorneys office as the legal advisor to the panel, flagrantly
disregarded the evidence placed in front of them, seemingly in an effort to protect Mr. Youngs
government-to-developer relationships and practices.
Count 5 Planning Commission Appointment(s) : Political Quid Pro Quo. Unethical and / or illegal use of
prestige of office by the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners, Blaine R. Young, and possibly other
members of the BoCC regarding the appointment of members to the Frederick County Planning Commission.
Mr. Youngs statement, Ive stacked the Planning Commission is direct evidence and supported by
additional direct evidence presented in the complaint document. [1]
Ethics Commission Ruling. The Planning Commission members are appointed by the Board of
County Commissioners after a public process for those appointments. The Ethics Ordinance is not
violated when the Board appoints members who are believed to share the Boards views on
development issues.
Response To Ruling. The complainant did not and does not argue against the public process
regarding appointments to the Planning Commission.
The Commission was provided with direct evidence in the form of verbatim statements made by
Commissioner Young as well as additional direct evidence in the form of handwritten meeting notes
which clearly support the charge that Mr. Young held private discussions with one or more Planning
Commission members to ensure their allegiance regarding matters placed before the Planning
Commission in exchange for higher visibility in county government to enhance these Planning
Commission members chances of winning County Council seats in the 2014 Charter Government
County Council elections.
Count 6 Supervisor / Subordinate Relations. Unethical personal relationship between the Frederick County
Board of County Commissioners President, Blaine R. Young, and the Frederick County Budget Officer, Regina
Williams Howell.
This allegation and / or charge is significant insofar as it presents unethical, if not illegal conduct,
based on the Frederick County Ethics Ordinance [Section 1-7.1-5, Conflict of Interest] and / or
[1]
Maryland Adultery statute(s).
Ethics Commission Ruling. The Ethics Commission previously found that a personal relationship
between a County Commissioner and an employee is outside the scope of the Ethics Ordinance.
The Commission also declines to make a referral for possible criminal investigation, stating, Even
were the Commission to make a referral for prosecution, it is highly unlikely that the State would
investigate or prosecute anyone for this conduct.
Response To Ruling. The Ethics Ordinance is clear charges containing criminal offense
implications must be referred to an external investigative entity.
The Ethics Commission does not have the judicial privilege and authority to decide whether Mr.
Young has committed Adultery or not. Nor do they have the judicial privilege and / or legal authority
to make a ruling based on the Ethics Commission's speculation as to what an external investigation
may or may not find.

Summary. The Frederick County Ethics Commission has chosen to turn a blind eye to the substantive evidence of
organized government corruption and criminal misconduct by elected officials and others in Frederick County,
Maryland.
With four of the six charges demonstrating clear evidence of felony criminal misconduct, the Ethics Commission,
guided in their deliberations by legal advice from the Frederick County Attorneys office, has demonstrated the
lengths to which the County Attorney and Blaine Young appointees will go to protect their allegiance to Mr. Young,
rather than their sworn obligation and responsibility to the citizens of Frederick County, Maryland.
The Ethics Commission, chaired by Gwen Romack, has expectedly abrogated its sworn duty and obligation to the
citizens of Frederick County, Maryland. It has demonstrated a complete disregard for the rule of law, common
sense and logical judgment.
It is completely beyond any modicum of logic and rational thought as to how citizens have allowed a single political
figure to garner and wield as much influence and control over multiple government agencies and organizations as
the citizens of Frederick County, Maryland, have given to Blaine Young.
An influence which overshadows the legitimacy of the Ethics Commission itself.
The capricious, politically motivated and possible Blaine Young instructed rulings by the Frederick County Ethics
Commission casts an even longer shadow of unchallenged organized corruption and deceit by the Board of County
Commissioners over Frederick County citizens.
The Ethics Commissions ruling(s)[4], overtly engineered and worded to protect BoCC members and county
employees cited in the 20 page, six count complaint document from investigation of criminal misconduct would be
laughable if it were not regarding such serious matters.
The panelists on the Frederick County Ethics Commission, under legal guidance by the Frederick County
Attorneys Office could have simply denied the complaint based on a punctuation error identified somewhere in the
complaint document, which would not have surprised anyone

[1] 20 Page Ethics Complaint


[2] Ethics Commission SOP Letter

http://www.scribd.com/doc/207567447/FredCo-Ethics-Violations-Complaint
http://www.scribd.com/doc/207646067/Ethics-Commission-SOP-Violations

[3] eMail correspondence with Frederick County Attorneys office during Ethics Commission deliberations
Maintaining Fredericks Criminal Enterprise
http://www.scribd.com/doc/220201507/Maintaining-Frederick-s-Criminal-Enterprise
[4] Ethics Commission Opinion 14-04

http://www.scribd.com/doc/225484748/Ethics-Commission-Ruling-Six-Count-Complaint

Inside The Right-Wing Inner Circle


Inside The Right-Wing Inner Circle Part II
Inside The Right-Wing Inner Circle - Part III

http://www.scribd.com/doc/146606790/Inside-the-Right-Wing-Inner-Circle
http://www.scribd.com/doc/148105797/Inside-the-Right-Wing-Inner-Circle-Part-II
http://www.scribd.com/doc/153258797/Inside-the-Right-Wing-Inner-Circle-Part-III

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Send Comments and Feedback to : patrickwilliamallen@comcast.net

You might also like