The Calvert County Commissioners voted 3-to-2 to take proposed revisions to the countyโ€™s ethics code to a public hearing. The boardโ€™s vote came after a lengthy discussion during their Tuesday, Nov. 29 meeting. Members of the Calvert County Ethics Commission presented the commissioners with the revisions, in which the panel attempted to address concerns about a request for subpoena power, disclosures of proceedings and the issue of supervision of relatives.

According to Ethics Commission Vice Chairman Charles Bucy, the panel โ€œamended the proposed code to include the use of a summons rather than a subpoena.โ€

The commission felt some mechanism to compel individuals to testify during ethics complaint investigations was needed. Commissioner Gerald W. โ€œJerryโ€ Clark [R] indicated during a prior work session that he opposed granting the ethics panel, which is appointed by the county commissioners, authority that belongs solely to the court system.

Bucy stated the implementation of issuing a summons to an individual would aid the panel in its fact-finding mission.

โ€œThe use of a summons addresses the objective of the Ethics Commission to be able to interview all necessary witnesses and obtain necessary documents to deliver a balanced and thorough decision,โ€ Bucy stated. โ€œIt puts the burden of going to court on the Ethics Commission and not the witness. We are including the requirement that it be issued over the signature of our legal counsel to assure that a legal review is done before a summons is issued.โ€

โ€œWe believe this is a necessary tool,โ€ said commission member Bruce Henkelman. โ€œThe Ethics Commission is a fact-finding body. We entertain complaints from everyone. The summons will help us find out the facts.โ€

The change failed to placate Clark, who admitted he saw no real difference between a subpoena and a summons.ย  He also was unhappy with the fact the summons could be issued to someone outside the parameters of county government.

As for the contention the panel needs the summons authority to conduct investigations, Clark said, โ€œyou havenโ€™t had it before. Are you telling me havenโ€™t been able to do your job?โ€

โ€œI wo