Our neighbors and friends in St. Michaels have been asking why we remain concerned about the ethics issue in St. Michaels government. We’re concerned because the Town has an ongoing ethics problem.
We brought a complaint before the town Ethics Commission because we were concerned that Town Commission President Bill Boos’ persistent refusal to have the Town Commissioners even consider the skateboard park as a location for the new town hall might have been influenced by his relationship with the Maritime Museum. The Ethics Commission refused to consider what we had to say and dismissed our complaint after a secret hearing and after delegating the decision to its attorney. This was in violation of our right as citizens to a fair hearing on the facts of the complaint.
We sued the ethics commission – not the town or any commissioner – in Talbot County Circuit Court because we were denied a fair hearing. That Court found that the rules of the Ethics Commission were hopelessly confusing. In the words of the Court: “The Ethics Commission’s Rules not only fail to comply with its statutory mandate, they set up standards that are so confusing that the complainant cannot be reasonably assured of the process that will be used.” The Court also judged that in denying our complaint without a hearing, the Ethics Commission had used “an unlawful procedure.” The court held that, based on the allegations in our ethics complaint, we had a “reasonable basis to proceed.”
The court required the Ethics Commission to hold a proper hearing and it complied. We were disappointed, but not surprised, when the Ethics Commission then held that Mr. Boos did not have an “impermissible” conflict of interest. The Ethics Commission could hardly do otherwise: its Chair, Ms. Sidney Davenport-Trond, has the same sort of conflict we claimed influenced Mr. Boos. His company has an exclusive contract to broker luxury yachts donated to the Maritime Museum. Ms. Davenport-Trond is a “Platinum Partner” preferred catering provider to the Maritime Museum. The Maritime Museum’s interest in acquiring the skateboard park is well known. Ms. Davenport-Trond was given the opportunity to recuse herself and refused. If the Ethics Commission had ruled against Mr. Boos, it would have been indicting its own Chair.
The location of the new town hall was not the issue in the ethics hearing. Recusal in matters in which a public official might have the appearance of a conflict of interest was the issue. The Ethics Commission held that Mr. Boos did not have an “impermissible” conflict of interest. What is a “permissible” conflict of interest? A permissible conflict of interest isn’t permissible at all. There is no such thing as a permissible conflict of interest, and we expect better of our public officials.
John Novak
On behalf of the St. Michaels Action Committee
Michael Estrella says
Making false or unfounded accusations against the local government and or specific people in that government is not a new thing in St. Michaels, it has been an ongoing thing around here for at least 15 years, perhaps even longer. I remember during the Miles point era that rumors flew that the town commission president and several others were on the developers payrole. When the local government embarked on a road repair project that would make repairs to almost every road in town some folks accused the town of not managing the project properly. They claimed that the town’s mismanagement was going to result in the demise of an older large oak tree in Muskrat Park and to prevent any futher tree murders the town needed to hand excavate roadways around all trees by hand. In more recent times when Dirty Dan’s was sold the rumors flew like crazy. According to some, the commission was hiding things from the public and they were going to let the new owners have a liquor bar in the new station as well as a pharmacy and groceries and any number of other things.
What all of those things have in common is a lack of fact. The commission president wasn’t on the developer’s payrole, no one from the town was. The tree that was ready to yell timber outlived two of the folks involve in the claim and, almost a dozen years later, is still alive today. The gas station never was going to have a liquor bar but the town did benefit from the cleanup of the lot. Unfortunately, after being sued and having extra legal expences, they were unable to remain in business. Something else these things seem to have in common is the people involved. Some of the same folks who whisper about who was paying who for what are still there today supporting the SMAC rumor mill. SMAC isn’t really new, it just has a new name with new lawyers and a new “leader” of sorts but at its core, its a group of folks that seem to me to be desperate to make a point but keep failing.
I seem to remember that in January of 2019, at a monthly town meeting, the head of SMAC stood up and seemed to accuse three of the town commissioners of what would be an ethics violation over a vote they had taken in a previous meeting. Those were Commissioners Gorman, Boos, and Windon. Shortly after that accusation I was allowed to speak. I had been at the meeting when the vote in question took place and was witness to the fact that throughout the entire discussion as well as the follow on vote, Commissioner Gorman had recused himself because, as he put it, he worked for the museum and didn’t think it proper for him to take part. I relayed this to the Commissioners and the public in attendance. Given that SMAC couldn’t get that fact straight I felt confident that their statement lacked any merit and still feel that way today. Since that meeting, there have been a number of events including a letter from lawyers to the town that I thought seemed to offer a quid pro quo of sorts, what was termed a suit against the town by many people, several reviews by our lawyers and the town’s ethics commission, and announcement of decisions as well as addional allegations now against a member of the ethics commission.
As I said, the commission president wasn’t on the developer payrole, the tree in Muskrat Park still lives, there was never goint to be a bar at Dirty Dan’s, Commissioner Gorman couldn’t have committed an ethics violation because he recused himself and both Commissioners Windon and Boos have received rulings that clear them of any violation and, given the record, I feel faily sure that this latest charge against a member of the ethics commission lack merit as well. What I wish I had heard but haven’t is a public apology to the commissioners who I believe were falsely accuse. I don’t believe there has ever been a public apology to Mr. Gorman, Mr. Boos, or Ms. Windon and I think decency demands it. I can not help but wonder who SMAC will accuse of wrongdoing next….perhaps me….or maybe YOU!
Mike Estrella
Bill Boos says
Mr Novak, your actions and those of your SMAC friends have become shameful. I, and others have endured your personal attacks for two years, but your latest rant about me and Sydney Trond is not only unfounded and ridiculous, but just plain mean spirited. For God’s sake, we are your neighbors. Sydney, John and Peter on the Ethics Commission are good, smart decent people. They don’t deserve this. This isn’t Annapolis or Washington, it is St Michaels. Those you continue to accuse of wrongdoing are volunteers, trying to give something back to the town. Please listen to your friends and neighbors, and stop.
Ann Borders says
St Michaels deserves better.
The Town of St. Michaels deserves better of it citizens. Over the years there has been a committee to champion one cause or the other. However, it is clear the members of the St Michaels Action Committee have no moral compass and a very perverse mission. This group grossly missed used the ethics process to intimidate sitting Commissioners. With the express purpose of getting a “vote” over turned in favor of SMAC members’ personal interest.
Commissioner Bibb wants the Town to build a new police station on the skate board park. A police station that has been studied and determined that renovating the current police station would address the issues. Commissioner Bibb doesn’t like NO for an answer so he has continued to push this narrative in his unofficial meetings for two plus years. And then there are the SMAC members, who don’t want the CBMM to get the land for their own personal reasons. So when the vote on the land use did not go their way, the SMAC members drummed up charges to accuse Commissioner Boos of an ethics violations. Charges that any first year finance student would have known was not a “conflict of interest” permissible or otherwise. When SMAC members didn’t like the Ethics Commission first ruling, they push forward with a law suit that cost the Town ten of thousands of dollars in legal fees. To say you didn’t sue the Town simply confirms “SMAC doesn’t know what they are talking about”. The Ethics Commission is appointed by the Town, and their legal expenses are paid by the Town. So yes SMAC at the end of the day, you sued the Town.
SMAC, got the hearing they wanted, and they lost. This has been going on more then two years, GET OVER IT, LET IT GO. Or are you just going to keep dragging everyone’s name in the mud to get your way. At least 4 of the 8 candidates running in this election are either card carrying members of SMAC or, in the case Commissioner Bibb, a silent member of SMAC. Given the divisive practices of these SMAC members I don’t think any of them deserve to hold office in the Town of St Michaels.
When the citizens of St Michaels fought for Miles Point they were fighting an outsider, a corporation, not their neighbors and friends. Please stop trying to ruin the reputation of the good people who are giving their time to serve this small Town in good faith.
Mr Novak, Mr Breimhurst and the other SMAC members have done more to divide St. Michaels then to Unite it. So hopefully all the good citizens who marched for “St. Michaels United” will do the right thing, and not vote for any SMAC member on July 13th.
St Michaels deserves better.
Ann Borders
Former Commissioner
St Michaels.