<---->
MENU

Sections

More

March 21, 2023

The Talbot Spy

The nonprofit e-newspaper for the Talbot County Community

News News Homepage

Cambridge Mayor Takes Leave of Absence from Post

by

Cambridge Mayor Andrew Bradshaw has taken a leave of absence from his post, according to the city’s website.

According to the post:

“… Mayor Bradshaw is currently on an indefinite, voluntary, and unpaid leave of absence. During this temporary vacancy, all rights, powers, and duties of the mayor shall be assumed by Commission President Lajan Cephas in accordance with Sec. 3-21A of the City Charter.

“As previously stated, the City’s council-manager form of municipal government ensures that the business of the City will remain unaffected during the mayor’s unpaid leave of absence.

“It remains the sincerest hope of all of the commissioners that the mayor will do what is best for the City of Cambridge and its citizens and tender his resignation. Should he fail to do so, then the commissioners are prepared to pursue all available options under Maryland Law and the City Charter.”

Bradshaw was charged in mid-November with 50 counts of distributing revenge porn, the state prosecutor’s office said in a news release.

Bradshaw is charged with posting nude photographs of a former romantic partner to various forums on Reddit without her knowledge or consent and with the intent to harm her, according to the release.

A day after Bradshaw was charged, the Cambridge commissioners voted unanimously to have the city attorney draft a letter asking him for his resignation.

The vote came following an emergency meeting that went into closed session for consultations with the city attorney and city manager.

Section 3-35 of the city’s charter sets forth the procedure for removals from office:

“The commissioners may remove from office, or discharge from employment, the city manager, the chief bailiff and any other officer or employee that may be elected or appointed under the authority of the charter, or any ordinance or order of the commissioner (whether be the term of service under which he holds his office or employment), for neglect of duty, for incompetence, or for any other misconduct, which, in the judgment of the commissioners, constitute reasonable and sufficient ground for removing him from office, or depriving him of employment.

“In all cases, where the official or employee has any fixed or definite term of service, a charge or complaint, in writing, shall be presented to him, and evidence as to the facts alleged in such charge or complaint, shall be taken before the commissioners if he denies the correctness or truth of same.”

If Bradshaw were to resign or be removed, the commission president would assume “all rights, powers and duties of the mayor,” according to the charter, and the commissioners would need to schedule a special election to fill the mayoral vacancy.

Bradshaw was charged about three months after an Aug. 4 police search of his home and the mayor’s office at city hall.

Analysis: St. Michaels Town Manager Dismissal Raises Questions; Answers Will Be Hard to Get

by

St. Michaels residents continue to press for additional information about the town commission’s decision to dismiss the town manager, but the confidentiality of personnel issues makes it unlikely questions will be answered.

The St. Michaels commissioners went into closed session on June 24 to discuss personnel matters, which is one of more than a dozen exceptions to the state’s Open Meetings Act.

An attorney for Jean Weisman, a 37-year town employee who had been town manager for 10 years, later issued a statement saying the commissioners voted 4-1 at the June 24 meeting to dismiss Weisman; the town subsequently issued its own statement.

State law allows closed sessions to discuss personnel issues, including:

  • “(i) the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of an appointee, employee, or official over whom it has jurisdiction; or
  • “(ii) any other personnel matter that affects one or more specific individuals.”

The Open Meetings Act provides several conditions that must be met in order to close a session.

According to the Open Meetings Act Manual, prepared by the state attorney general’s office, those conditions are:

1) Any meeting must begin in an open session, for which proper notice has been given. The person designated by the public body to take the required Open Meetings Act training must be present or the public body must complete a compliance checklist available on the attorney general’s website.

2) In the open session, the presiding officer must complete a closing statement, “a written statement of the reason for closing the meeting,” that includes the “topics to be discussed” in addition to the statutory exception for closing the meeting. (The manual provides sample closing statement forms.)

This requirement can get a little tricky when it comes to the topics to be discussed. The state’s open meetings compliance board, which is advisory only, has repeatedly said the topic should not simply repeat the “boilerplate” of the statutory exception — if the session is closed for a business relocation, for example, the topic should not be listed as “business relocation.”

According to the Open Meetings Act Manual: “In most cases, a description of the topic alone also does not convey why the public body needs to exclude the public. Occasionally, though, the Compliance Board has found that a description of the topic to be discussed adequately conveyed the public body’s reason for closing a meeting, as when the public body has described the topic as discipline matters respecting individual employees. See, e.g., 4 OMCB Opinions 188, 196 (2005).”

In a sample closing statement provided in the manual, in which the public body voted to go into closed session for personnel matters, the topic listed was “applicants for parks & rec head” and the reason provided for holding that discussion in a closed session was “Public discussion of applicants’ names and job info could discourage people from applying for Town jobs.”

3) There must be a recorded vote — a vote for which each member’s vote is specified — on a motion to close the meeting to the public. (Here, the manual also notes that a member of the public may object to the closing of a meeting.)

4) During the closed session, the discussion must be limited to the topics and scope listed on the closing statement.

5) After the closed session, “the public body must disclose, in the minutes of the next open session, information that discloses what topics were actually discussed, who attended the closed session, and what actions the public body took.”

St. Michaels has provided the following closing statement for the June 24 meeting:

Closed Session of June 24 2021

State law and the town’s charter also make it clear that the town commissioners may dismiss a town clerk/manager at any time, for almost any reason or for no reason.

Maryland is an at-will employment state, meaning “in the absence of an express contract, agreement or policy to the contrary, an employee may be hired or fired for almost any reason — whether fair or not — or for no reason at all,” according to the state labor department’s website.

The town charter, meanwhile, provides that the town clerk/manager “shall serve at the pleasure of the Commission….”

Talbot Voters Back Tax Cap Changes, Keep Residency Requirement for Top Appointees

by

A campaign focused on supporting police officers, emergency medical services personnel, and other first responders was successful in getting Talbot County voters to adopt three changes to the county’s property tax revenue cap.

Unofficial results with votes from early voting, election day, and absentee ballots shows passage of Ballot Questions B, C, and D.

Question D, which would allow the county council to temporarily increase the property tax rate above the revenue cap by up to one cent per $100 of assessed value for five years only, was approved 59% to 41% against, based on unofficial results.

Question B, which corrects inaccurate language in the tax cap approved by voters in 1996, had the largest margin of support with 72% voting for the charter amendment and 29% voting against.

Question C, to eliminate a reference to CPI-U, had 68% support. The existing property tax revenue cap limits the annual increase in property tax revenues to 2% or CPI-U, whichever is less.

However, Talbot County voters rejected a proposed charter change that would have allowed a super-majority of the county council to waive a residency requirement for the county attorney, engineer, and planning officer.

Question A was rejected 57% to 43%, according to unofficial results.

The unofficial results posted late Tuesday night after ballots cast on election day were counted largely mirrored the percentages seen in early and absentee voting.

A large number of Talbot County voters opted to cast ballots during early voting or by absentee ballot, with a smaller percentage voting Tuesday on the traditional Election Day.

Early, Absentee Talbot Voters Back Tax Cap Changes

by

Talbot County residents who voted by absentee ballot or during early voting supported three changes to the county’s property tax revenue cap, but rejected a measure to allow the county council to waive the residency requirement for county attorney, engineer, and planning officer.

Question A to waive the residency requirement was opposed by nearly 57 percent of early and absentee voters.

Question B corrects inaccurate language in the tax cap, approved by voters in 1996.

About 73 percent of early and absentee voters supported the charter amendment.

Question C would amend the tax cap by eliminating a reference to the Consumer Price Index-Urban (CPI-U). The existing property tax revenue cap limits the annual increase in property tax revenues to 2% or CPI-U, whichever is less.

Question C would eliminate CPI-U, which in some years has been less than 2%, further restricting the county’s ability to increase revenues to fund needed services and capital projects.

Early and absentee voters favored the amendment by 69% to 31%.

Question D would allow the county council to temporarily increase the property tax rate above the revenue cap by up to one cent per $100 of assessed value for five years only.

A one cent increase in the property tax rate would cost the owner of a home assessed at $250,000 an additional $25 annually; an additional $50 annually for the owner of a home assessed at $500,000.

Officials have pitched the one cent increase as a way for the county to catch up on lost revenue from the years when CPI-U limited the increase in revenue below 2% and as a way to help fund much-needed capital projects.

About 60% of early and absentee voters backed the temporary tax increase.


Talbot County Sheriff Joe Gamble and Emergency Services Director Clay Stamp had been leading the charge in seeking voter approval for Questions B, C, and D.

The public safety officials said the existing cap has limited the county’s ability to attract and retain deputies, paramedics, and other first responders.

Salaries and benefits for first responders are lower than in surrounding counties, the two have said, making it difficult to find new hires for open positions and leading to trained staffers leaving for better compensation packages elsewhere.

The county also needs to build a new office for the sheriff’s office and the county health department, as well as provide an additional substation for paramedics, officials have noted.

Talbot Voters Will Decide on Proposed Changes to Tax Cap

by

This video is about 17 minutes long.

Talbot voters will decide on two substantive changes to the county’s property tax revenue cap and a third measure that would correct faulty language in the current tax cap, which was approved by voters in 1996.

Talbot County Sheriff Joe Gamble and Emergency Services Director Clay Stamp have been leading the charge in seeking voter approval for the ballot questions.

The public safety officials say the existing cap has limited the county’s ability to attract and retain deputies, paramedics, and other first responders.

Salaries and benefits for first responders are lower than in surrounding counties, the two have said, making it difficult to find new hires for open positions and leading to trained staffers leaving for better compensation packages elsewhere.

The county also needs to build a new office for the sheriff’s office and the county health department, as well as provide an additional substation for paramedics, officials have noted.

Question B on the ballot for Talbot County voters is a charter amendment that would clarify how the county computes the property tax rate.

The current language, in Section 614 of the Talbot County Charter, identifies the properties included in the calculation as those “existing on the County real property tax rolls at the commencement of the County fiscal year.”

But that wording does not accurately reflect how the information is determined.

The county finance department actually uses the constant yield tax rate certification supplied by the state to determine the tax rate needed to comply with the tax cap.

Question B would amend the language to change it to those properties “included in the Constant Yield Tax Rate Certification prepared by the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation.”

According to the League of Women Voters (LWV) analysis in the voters’ guide at vote411.org:

“A vote FOR the Charter amendment means the Talbot County Charter would be amended to clarify that the County would use the Constant Yield Tax Rate Certification supplied by the State when determining the property tax rate to be used in the new fiscal year.

“A vote AGAINST the Charter amendment means that the inaccurate wording would remain in the Charter.”

This video is about 20 minutes long.

Question C would amend the tax cap by eliminating a reference to the Consumer Price Index-Urban (CPI-U). The existing property tax revenue cap limits the annual increase in property tax revenues to 2% or CPI-U, whichever is less.

Question C would eliminate CPI-U, which in some years has been less than 2%, further restricting the county’s ability to increase revenues to fund needed services and capital projects.

Since the current tax cap took effect in 1997, the increase in property tax revenues has been limited below 2% during nine fiscal years (with an average increase of 1%) and has been limited to 2% during 15 fiscal years (when CPI-U increased an average 2.78%), according to the LWV voters guide.

“This means that nine times the revenue cap has kept pace with the yearly national rate of inflation, but it has also been less than the national rate of inflation 15 times,” according to the League of Women Voters. “This resulting constriction of tax revenue leaves the County with insufficient revenue to fund all of the budget requests from County departments. While County services have continued to be funded, funding has not addressed all of the needs of the County and has left County departments with unfunded needs. Eliminating the CPI-U alternative would help County services over the long term keep pace with fixed costs and growing needs.

“County salaries and benefits, especially for public safety and emergency services employees, are not competitive with surrounding counties causing Talbot County the loss of valuable, trained personnel to those jurisdictions. For example, Talbot County loses several deputies every year, and it costs the County $97,482 for the first year of a newly trained deputy.”

“A vote FOR the Charter amendment means the Talbot County Charter would be amended to eliminate the use of the CPI-U as an alternate to the 2% cap on tax revenue, leaving the cap on tax revenue at 2% going forward.

“A vote AGAINST the Charter amendment means that the CPI-U would continue as an alternate to the 2% cap on tax revenue.”

Question D would allow the county council to temporarily increase the property tax rate above the revenue cap by up to one cent per $100 of assessed value for five years only.

A one cent increase in the property tax rate would cost the owner of a home assessed at $250,000 an additional $25 annually; an additional $50 annually for the owner of a home assessed at $500,000.

Officials have pitched the one cent increase as a way for the county to catch up on lost revenue from the years when CPI-U limited the increase in revenue below 2% and as a way to help fund much-needed capital projects.

“Talbot County’s revenue cap is one of the most restrictive in the State of Maryland, making it extremely difficult for the County to raise sufficient revenue to fund certain initiatives, including key public safety projects, such as a new facility for the Talbot County Sheriff; additional equipment and personnel for the Talbot County Department of Emergency Services; and, a new facility to house the Talbot County Health Department,” according to the League of Women Voters.

In its voter guide, the LWV notes:

“The County Council is, therefore, asking the voters to give the Council authority to increase revenues above the revenue cap, but only temporarily and with a limit of up to one cent (1¢) per one hundred dollars of assessed value. The Charter Amendment would authorize the County Council to raise revenues above the revenue cap by up to one cent (1¢) per one hundred dollars of assessed value for five years only.

“Arguments in Favor: County tax revenues have not kept pace with the rise in County costs to fund the full functioning of all County departmental needs, nor to remain competitive with other counties in our region in attracting and retaining employees,” according to the League of Women Voters. “This means there are fewer dollars available to fund capital projects that this ballot question is meant to address.

“The ability to increase revenues temporarily above the revenue cap would allow the County Council to fund costs anticipated for near-future capital expenses, including the new Sheriff and Health Department buildings and equipment for emergency services. Any temporary rise in tax revenue above the cap would go toward these projects. Increasing revenue now would reduce the cost of borrowing money to fund these needs.

“Arguments Against: This measure is almost sure to be used by the County Council over the next five fiscal years resulting in property taxes that are higher than 2% over the previous year.

“A vote FOR the Charter amendment means the Talbot County Charter would be amended to allow the Council the option of generating revenues above the revenue cap by up to one cent (1¢) per $100 of assessed valuation for the next five fiscal years.

“A vote AGAINST the Charter amendment means that the Charter would not be amended to allow an exception to the cap on tax revenue beyond the limit specified in the Charter.

The Talbot County Democratic Central Committee supports passage of all three tax cap measures, noting on its website:

“Question B will have no impact on property tax rate. This is a technical fix to reflect the way the assessable tax base is determined in the original charter.

“Question C is a permanent change to the way revenue is calculated. We currently use the Urban CPI or 2% whichever is lower. The Urban CPI does not accurately reflect the needs of a rural county.

“Question D is urgent for 2021 Fiscal Year for the County. Based on our population growth, we need more ambulance crews. Currently we cannot guarantee the twenty-minute minimum response time for an ambulance will be met, especially in the north part of the County without a fourth ambulance. This provision would also allow for more competitive pay for first responders.

“This amendment would allow a temporary increase of one penny per hundred dollars of assessed property value. It will provide the funds we need to meet the public safety needs of our citizens. The cost would amount to an annual increase of $25 for a property valued at $250,000 or $50 for a property valued at $500,000.

“The increase ends in five years.”