U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

89–006 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2010

111–409 

House Calendar No. 156 

IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE 

FORTNEY ‘‘PETE’’ STARK 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF 

OFFICIAL CONDUCT 

JANUARY 29, 2010.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

Chair 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

Ranking Republican Member 

MIKE CONAWAY, Texas 

CHARLES DENT, Pennsylvania 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

R. BLAKE CHISAM, Chief Counsel/Staff Director 

C. MORGAN KIM, Deputy Chief Counsel 

DAN TAYLOR, Counsel to the Chair 

TODD UNGERECHT, Counsel to the Ranking Republican Member 

MARC BORODIN, Counsel 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

(III)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT, 

Washington, DC, January 29, 2010. 

Hon. LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk, House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MS. MILLER: Pursuant to clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b) of rule XI 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, we herewith transmit 

the attached Report, ‘‘In the Matter of Representative Fortney 

‘Pete’ Stark.’’ 

Sincerely, 

ZOE LOFGREN, 

Chair. 

JO BONNER, 

Ranking Republican 

Member. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

(V)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) has alleged that Representative Fortney ‘‘Pete’’ Stark violated Maryland criminal tax 

law and ethics rules of the House of Representatives by intentionally filing a false application for a Maryland property tax credit. 

The evidence clearly establishes that Representative Stark did 

not receive a tax credit as a result of filing an application for the 

credit. The evidence also establishes that he did not file a false application for the Maryland property tax credit. 

Representative Stark did not seek out the Maryland property tax 

credit. The State of Maryland required every homeowner in Maryland to fill out a form to determine their eligibility for the tax credit. 

Therefore, Representative Stark did not violate House ethics 

rules. Nor did he run afoul of Maryland’s criminal or tax laws. 

Since 1977, the State of Maryland has had a property tax credit, 

called the Homestead Tax Credit (Credit), which limits tax assessment increases on one’s home to 10 percent or less per year. Previously, the Credit could be automatically triggered without a 

homeowner applying for the Credit whenever property values rose 

substantially. According to Maryland’s Department of Assessments 

and Taxation, the Credit was unique in that it was the only tax 

credit in Maryland’s history for which a taxpayer did not have to 

apply, and most people did not even know they were receiving the 

Credit. As a result, the Credit was provided on a widespread basis 

to homeowners, whether they knew it or not. 

In 2007, Maryland enacted a new law requiring all homeowners 

to submit a one-time application to verify their eligibility or continued eligibility for the Credit. The applications required by the law 

were mailed to Maryland homeowners in stages. One-third of 

homeowners received the application in January 2008; one-third of 

homeowners received the application in January 2009; and the remaining one-third of homeowners received the application in January 2010. 

Representative Stark owns a home in Anne Arundel County, 

Maryland. It is the only home that he owns. He rents living accommodations in his congressional district. 

Representative Stark did not receive the Credit for his Maryland 

home between the time he purchased it in May 1987 and July 1, 

2006, because his property taxes did not increase more than 10 

percent in one year at any time during that period. However, between July 1, 2006, and June 30, 2009 (i.e., Maryland tax bill years 

2007–2009), his property taxes did increase more than 10 percent 

each year. As a result, the Credit was automatically triggered and 

applied to Representative Stark’s tax bill for those tax years by 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

VI

Maryland tax officials, even though he had taken no affirmative action to seek the Credit. 

Following passage of the 2007 law, Representative Stark received 

the Homestead Tax Credit application from Maryland’s Department of Assessments and Taxation in January 2009. In compliance 

with Maryland’s legal requirement, he submitted the required application electronically in February 2009. 

With respect to one question regarding voter registration, Representative Stark’s response, as initially recorded electronically by 

Maryland, indicated that he was registered to vote at his Maryland 

property address. This mistaken response was soon corrected in 

March 2009. 

Maryland did not grant a Homestead Tax Credit to Representative Stark as a result of his application. His tax bill, which was 

issued in July 2009, reflected that Representative Stark received 

no tax credits whatsoever. 

These facts were available to OCE, and in many instances, were 

known to OCE or in its possession. 

The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (Standards 

Committee) concludes that OCE conducted an inadequate review, 

the result of which was to subject Representative Stark to unfounded criminal allegations. 

Maryland issues its tax bills on a fiscal basis, which runs from 

July 1 to the following June 30. OCE failed to acknowledge this 

key point. As a consequence, OCE erroneously found that Representative Stark received $3,769.79 in tax credits as a result of his 

Homestead Tax Credit application. OCE relied on an irrelevant 

document, which was from and issued in the tax year before Maryland mailed Representative Stark the required Homestead Tax 

Credit application. 

A search of the Internet or retrieval of Representative Stark’s 

publicly available tax bill issued on July 1, 2009, would have made 

clear that Representative Stark received no tax credit as a result 

of submitting the required application and that Maryland did not 

classify his property as a principal residence. The first page of the 

first document OCE appended to its Findings noted that Maryland 

had classified Representative Stark’s home as not being a principal 

residence. OCE’s own summary of its staff’s interview with Maryland tax officials indicated that Maryland had removed any Homestead Tax Credit previously associated with Representative Stark’s 

Maryland residence (and automatically provided by Maryland tax 

officials) by May 1, 2009. OCE’s own summary of its staff’s interview with Representative Stark noted that Representative Stark 

told OCE’s staff that he did not receive a tax credit after he filed 

the newly required application form. 

It is apparent from OCE’s work that they treated Representative 

Stark inconsistently with the way they treated four other Members 

of Congress with similar situations whose cases were properly dismissed. 

First, OCE ignored a conclusion that it had reached in four similar matters. Maryland’s application form, OCE had previously 

opined, is vague, unclear and subject to misinterpretation. OCE 

had concluded previously that the form, as worded, put Members 

of Congress at risk of making mistakes when filling out the form. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

VII

Second, OCE omitted favorable information from Representative 

Stark’s report that it included in the four other similar cases without explanation. OCE omitted from a witness interview summary, 

appended to its Findings in Representative Stark’s case, a paragraph that it had included in witness interview summaries of the 

same interview in every other similar case it reviewed. That paragraph would have been favorable to Representative Stark. 

The Standards Committee notes that OCE reported that Representative Stark was belligerent and rude to OCE Staff and 

videotaped his interview. It is the Standards Committee’s understanding that OCE routinely does not use a court reporter with 

witnesses. 

The Standards Committee finds that Representative Stark provided overall truthful answers and, at the worst, made a mistake 

when answering one question that had no bearing on the approval 

of the application. That mistake was corrected before Maryland adjudicated Representative Stark’s application. 

In sum, Representative Stark’s responses on his application, 

taken as a whole, did not establish his eligibility for the Homestead 

Tax Credit or evince an intent to lie or evade payment of Maryland 

property taxes. Maryland did not, in fact, grant any tax credits, including the Homestead Tax Credit, to Representative Stark as a result of his application. 

Accordingly, the Standards Committee finds that no further action in this matter is warranted. The matter is dismissed and the 

Standards Committee considers it closed. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

(IX) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 1 

A. Procedural History ............................................................................... 1 

B. Summary of OCE’s Allegations .......................................................... 3 

C. Summary of Representative Stark’s Response to OCE’s Allegations ..................................................................................................... 3 

II. JURISDICTION OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE ............................... 4 

III. FACTUAL FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 4 

A. Background Information on Representative Stark ............................ 4 

B. The Maryland Homestead Tax Credit ................................................ 5 

C. Representative Stark’s Application for the Homestead Tax Credit . 6 

D. MDAT’s Action on Representative Stark’s Application ..................... 7 

E. OCE’s Interaction with Representative Stark .................................... 8 

IV. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................... 9 

A. Overview ................................................................................................ 9 

B. Specific Legal Provisions or Standards of Conduct ........................... 10 

1. Willfully Providing False Information or Answer (Section 14– 

1004 of Maryland Code) ............................................................. 10 

2. Evasion of Laws (Paragraph 2 of Code of Ethics for Government Service) ............................................................................... 11 

C. The Record Unequivocally Shows That Representative Stark Did 

Not Break Any Laws or Engage in Any Improper Conduct ........... 11 

1. The Record Shows That the Homestead Credit Application 

Was Unclear ................................................................................ 11 

2. The Record Shows That Representative Stark Provided Truthful Answers .................................................................................. 12 

3. The Record Shows That Representative Stark Did Not Receive 

A Tax Credit Based On His Application ................................... 14 

V. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 15 

VI. STATEMENT UNDER RULE 13, CLAUSE 3(c) OF THE RULES OF 

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES .................................................... 15 

APPENDIX A: DOCUMENTS COLLECTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON 

STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT .......................................................... 16 

APPENDIX B: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS ................................................................................................. 48 

APPENDIX C: REPRESENTATIVE FORTNEY ‘‘PETE’’ STARK’S RESPONSE TO THE REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS ....................................................................................... 96 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

1OCE’s records are conflicting regarding the exact date that OCE authorized and initiated 

its preliminary review regarding Representative Stark. In a letter to the Standards Committee 

on June 2, 2009, OCE stated that the Board had initiated a preliminary review without specifying when OCE’s Board authorized it. See COS. 0001 (Letter from David E. Skaggs (Chair of 

OCE’s Board) and Porter J. Goss (Co-Chair of OCE’s Board), to Chair Zoe Lofgren and Ranking 

Republican Member Jo Bonner of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, June 2, 

2009). However, in another letter from OCE to Rep. Stark on June 5, 2009, OCE stated that 

that OCE’s Board authorized a preliminary review on May 29, 2009, and that it would initiate 

such review on June 5, 2009. See COS. 0002–0003 (Letter regarding request for information 

from Leo Wise (Staff Director and Chief Counsel to OCE) to Rep. Pete Stark, June 5, 2009). 

And, finally, OCE’s Report and Findings in this matter (OCE’s Review No. 09–9030) states that 

OCE’s Board authorized and initiated a preliminary review on June 5, 2009. See OCE Findings 

¶ 6. The documents designated with ‘‘COS.’’ numbers constitute the documents collected by the 

Standards Committee in the course of its investigation. Pertinent portions of the documents collected by the Standards Committee can be found at Appendix A. The Standards Committee 

notes that certain personal information, such as home addresses and other private information, 

has been redacted from the documents collected by the Standards Committee. The Standards 

Committee has redacted this information based on privacy considerations and because the information is irrelevant to any question at issue in this Report. OCE’s Report (Report) and Findings 

of Fact and Citations to Law (Findings) in this matter can be found at Appendix B. 2Three of the Members represented a state other than Maryland and one represented a district in Maryland. 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 111–409 

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT 

IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE FORTNEY ‘‘PETE’’ 

STARK 

JANUARY 29, 2010 

Ms. LOFGREN, from the Committee on Standards of Official 

Conduct, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Sometime between the end of May and early June 2009, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) began preliminary reviews into 

allegations regarding the conduct of Representative Fortney ‘‘Pete’’ 

Stark and four other Members of Congress.1 OCE reviews alleged 

that these Members may have improperly received a property tax 

credit on homes owned in Maryland in violation of state law.2

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

2 

3OCE Findings ¶ 7. 

4 Id. at ¶ 8. 5See COS. 0004 (Letter from David E. Skaggs (Chair of OCE Board) and Porter J. Goss (CoChair of OCE Board), to Chair Zoe Lofgren and Ranking Republican Member Jo Bonner of the 

Standards Committee, et al. August 5, 2009). 6OCE Findings ¶ 9. Given the conflicting dates as to when the preliminary review began, see 

supra n.1, this Committee expresses no opinion on whether OCE’s determination that its second-phase review ended on August 28, 2009, is accurate because it has no bearing on the Committee’s ultimate conclusion in this matter. 7 Id. at ¶ 10. 8 ‘‘Upon the completion’’ of a second-phase review, OCE is ‘‘authorized and directed’’ to transmit a written report to this Committee. See H. Res. 895, Section 1, clause (c)(2)(C). In contravention of this directive, that did not occur here until more than two months after the second-phase 

review ended, which OCE determined was on August 28, 2009. Despite the Standards Committee’s continuing concerns with OCE’s adherence to its authorizing resolution, the Committee has 

nonetheless concluded, as it did recently in another matter with similar flaws, that ‘‘on balance, 

the public interest [is] served by publication of OCE’s Report and Findings in this case, and 

thus the Standards Committee [has] declined to withhold publication of OCE’s Report and Findings.’’ See House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Sam 

Graves, H.R. Rep. No. 111–320, at 23 (2009). 9 Representative Stark’s response to the allegations in OCE’s Report and Findings can be 

found at Appendix C. 10 House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A), and Standards Committee Rules 17A(b)(1) and 17A(c)(1). 

On June 26, 2009, four members of OCE’s Board voted to terminate all of the reviews except for the one regarding Representative 

Stark. Representative Stark’s situation was not materially distinguishable from the terminated matters, yet in contrast to the other 

matters, OCE’s Board, on June 26, 2009, voted to initiate a secondphase review with respect to the matter involving Representative 

Stark.3

On August 5, 2009, OCE’s Board voted to extend the secondphase review concerning Representative Stark for an additional 14 

days.4 It also forwarded to the Committee on Standards of Official 

Conduct (Standards Committee) the reports and findings for the 

terminated matters. OCE’s cover letter to those terminated matters 

highlighted that its reviews uncovered several facts about the manner in which Maryland administers the Homestead Tax Credit 

that, in its judgment, ‘‘place Members of Congress who own homes 

in Maryland at risk of being accused of improperly receiving the 

credit at no fault of their own.’’ 5 No apparent explanation has been 

offered by OCE as to why this fact did not protect Representative 

Stark. 

By OCE’s count, the second-phase review ended on August 28, 

2009.6 OCE’s Board adopted findings and voted to refer only the 

matter involving Representative Stark to the Standards Committee 

for further review on October 23, 2009.7 Three weeks later, OCE 

transmitted to the Standards Committee a report and findings 

(OCE Report and Findings) on November 12, 2009, which contained OCE’s findings adopted earlier and recommended further review of allegations involving Representative Stark.8

In mid-November 2009, the Standards Committee sent OCE’s 

Report and Findings to Representative Stark to provide him with 

an opportunity to respond to OCE’s allegations. Representative 

Stark’s counsel submitted a response on December 1, 2009, which 

Representative Stark formally adopted by oath or affirmation.9

On December 24, 2009, the Chair and Ranking Republican Member of the Standards Committee issued a statement announcing 

they had jointly decided to extend the Committee’s consideration of 

OCE’s transmittal for a 45-day period.10

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

3 

11See OCE Report and Findings ¶¶ 1–3, 15, 17. 12OCE Findings ¶ 1. 13 Id. at ¶¶ 2–3, 15. 14 Id. at ¶¶ 1–3, 15, 20. 15 Rep. Stark Resp. to OCE Report and Findings at 2. 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 Id. at 3. 20 Id. 21 Id. Representative Stark rents living accommodations in his congressional district. See id. 

at 3, n.3. 

B. SUMMARY OF OCE’S ALLEGATIONS

OCE’s Report and Findings asserted that Representative Stark 

may have violated Maryland state law and the Code of Ethics for 

Government Service by intentionally misrepresenting information 

on an application to establish his eligibility for a property tax credit, the Homestead Tax Credit (Credit), for a house that he owns in 

Maryland.11 Maryland provides the Credit to homeowners who can 

establish that the home is their ‘‘principal residence.’’ ‘‘Principal 

residence’’ is defined as the location where a homeowner is registered to vote, among other criteria.12 OCE asserted that Representative Stark misrepresented that he was registered to vote in 

Maryland on his application for the Credit, even though he is registered to vote in California.13 By doing so, OCE claimed that Representative Stark received $3,769.79 in Homestead Tax Credits in 

2009.14

C. SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE STARK’S RESPONSE TO OCE’S

ALLEGATIONS

In his response to OCE’s Report and Findings, Representative 

Stark asserted that he violated no laws or applicable standards of 

conduct. Rather, he contended that OCE’s allegations were fundamentally flawed. Representative Stark raised four main arguments to OCE’s allegations. 

First, Representative Stark claimed that he did not indicate on 

his electronically-filed application that he was registered to vote in 

Maryland to establish eligibility for the Credit.15 Representative 

Stark responded to OCE’s allegation of ‘‘intentional misrepresentation’’ as ‘‘nonsensical,’’ given that other responses on his application 

showed that he did not fully meet the requirements to receive the 

Credit.16 Further, Representative Stark asserted that Maryland 

may have made an electronic data-entry error in compiling his online response, or that he may have mistakenly indicated his voter 

registration in his application.17 Because either of these scenarios 

is a more plausible explanation of the mistake, OCE’s conclusion 

that Representative Stark committed an intentional misrepresentation was in error, according to him.18

Second, Representative Stark asserted that OCE’s allegations 

were factually flawed because he did not, in fact, receive a Homestead Tax Credit as a result of his application.19 Rather, Maryland 

ultimately determined he was not eligible.20

Third, despite Maryland’s denial of his application, Representative Stark maintained that he nonetheless may be eligible for the 

Credit because his Maryland home is the only home that he 

owns.21

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

4 

22 Id. at 3–4. 23 Id. 24 House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b). 25 House Rule X, clause 1(q), Standards Committee Rule 17A(a). 26Standards Committee Rule 17A(a). 

Fourth, Representative Stark raised procedural arguments that 

OCE violated its obligation to complete its review in a timely manner and refer this matter to the Standards Committee within 89 

days as is required by OCE’s authorizing resolution.22 As such, 

OCE transmitted its Report and Findings after the matter terminated, rendering it legally invalid.23

II. JURISDICTION OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE 

House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(2) vests jurisdiction over the matters 

addressed in this Report with the Standards Committee. The 

Standards Committee may investigate any alleged violation by a 

Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives of the 

Code of Official Conduct or of any law, rule, regulation, or other 

standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of such Member, officer, or employee.24 Sole and exclusive authority over the interpretation and enforcement of the Code of Official Conduct lies with the 

Standards Committee.25

The Standards Committee conducted its investigation in this 

matter pursuant to Standards Committee Rule 18(a), which authorizes the Standards Committee to consider any information in 

its possession indicating that a Member, officer, or employee may 

have committed a violation of the Code of Official Conduct or any 

law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the 

conduct of such Member, officer, or employee in the performance of 

the duties or the discharge of the responsibilities of such individual. Standards Committee Rule 18(a) authorizes the Chair and 

Ranking Minority Member to jointly gather additional information 

concerning such an alleged violation by a Member, officer, or employee. 

The instant Report is authorized under House Rule XI, clause 

3(a)(2), which obligates the Standards Committee to report to the 

House its findings of fact and recommendations, if any, for the final 

disposition of any investigation and action as the Standards Committee may consider appropriate under the circumstances; and 

House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A), which authorizes the Standards 

Committee to report on matters forwarded to the Standards Committee by OCE. 

III. FACTUAL FINDINGS 

The Standards Committee reviewed the matter discussed in 

OCE’s Report and Findings without prejudice or presumptions as 

to the merits of the allegations.26 As such, the Standards Committee’s findings and conclusions with regard to Representative Stark 

were informed by, but made independent of, OCE’s Report and 

Findings. 

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON REPRESENTATIVE STARK

Since January 1973, Representative Stark has represented the 

13th Congressional District of California. As would be expected 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

5 

27OCE Findings ¶ 30. 28 Id. at ¶ 32. 29 Id. at ¶ 31. 30See Rep. Stark Resp. to OCE Report and Findings at 3, n.3; OCE Findings ¶ 19; and Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation, real property data regarding Rep. Stark’s home, 

at Bates No. 09–9030l0002, which is appended to OCE’s Findings. 31See Rep. Stark Resp. to OCE Report and Findings at 3, n.3. The Standards Committee further understands that Representative Stark uses a home owned by his in-laws as his mailing 

address in order to ensure that he receives mail when he is not in his congressional district. 32 Interview of Mr. Robert E. Young, Deputy Director, Maryland Department of Assessments 

and Taxation, by Standards Committee Staff, January 6, 2010 (hereinafter ‘‘Int. of Robert Young 

by Standards Committee Staff’’). The Maryland homestead property tax credit provisions, as 

amended, are codified in the Md. Code Ann., Tax-Prop. § 9–105 (West 2009), and implementing 

regulations issued by the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation (MD Assess. & 

Tax.), which are set forth in Title 18, Subtitle 7, Chapter 3 of the Code of Maryland Regulations 

(Md. Code of Regs. (2009)). 33See COS. 0005 (providing overview of the Maryland Homestead Tax Credit, June 2009, from 

the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation’s Web site). 34Md. Code of Regs., Md. Assess. & Tax. 18.07.03.01(B)(3). 35 2007 Maryland Laws Ch. 564 (S.B. 522) and Ch. 565 (H.B. 436), codified in Md. Code Ann., 

Tax-Prop. § 9–105(d)(6), (l) and (m). 36Prior to 2007, for example, homeowners obtained the Credit during settlement on new 

homes if the homeowner indicated that the actual property address would be the location for 

receiving property tax bills. In such cases, MDAT presumed that the property would be an 

owner-occupied ‘‘principal residence’’ to qualify for the Credit. See Int. of Robert Young by 

Standards Committee Staff. 37 Janel Davis, Homeowners Now Must Apply for the State Property Tax Credit, Gazette.net, 

Jan. 9, 2008, available at http://www.gazette.net/stories/010908/montnew84501l32357.shtml 

(last visited Jan. 27, 2010). (Gazette.Net is an online Maryland Community Newspaper.) 38 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff. 

with this position, Representative Stark is registered to vote in 

California.27 He pays California resident taxes.28 He has a California driver’s license.29 With respect to living arrangements, Representative Stark rents accommodations in his district, and has 

owned a home in Harwood, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, since 

May 1987.30 Representative Stark does not occupy or own any 

other residential properties.31

B. THE MARYLAND HOMESTEAD TAX CREDIT

Since 1977, Maryland’s Homestead Tax Credit Program has existed to help homeowners pay large state and county tax assessment increases on properties that qualify as their ‘‘principal residences.’’ 32 The Credit limits taxable assessment increases each 

year to 10 percent or less.33 A ‘‘principal residence’’ is defined as 

the ‘‘one dwelling where the homeowner regularly resides and is 

the location designated by the owner for the legal purposes of voting, obtaining a driver’s license, and filing income tax returns.’’ 34

In October 2007, the Maryland General Assembly passed a new 

law requiring all homeowners to submit a one-time application to 

verify whether a homeowner should receive or continue to receive 

the Credit.35 Through experience administering the program over 

the years, the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation 

(MDAT) learned that many homeowners who did not meet the requirements for the Credit were nonetheless receiving it, whether 

they knew it or not, particularly with respect to rented or vacation 

properties.36 Indeed, in explaining the basis for the new law, 

MDAT’s Director noted that the Credit was ‘‘unique’’ because ‘‘it is 

the only tax credit in the history of the state that you did not have 

to apply for * * * so most people didn’t even know they were getting the credit.’’ 37 Thus, the purpose of the new law was to ensure 

that homeowners were properly receiving these tax credits and to 

prevent substantial losses in tax revenue.38 The new law directed 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

6 

39This directive requirement is codified in Md. Code Ann., Tax-Prop. § 9–105(d)(6). 40 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff. 41 Id. 42 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff; OCE Findings ¶ 24. 43 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff. 44 Id.; COS. 0006 (MDAT’s Web site welcome page to submit application for the Credit online, which notes that the new law requires all homeowners to submit the one-time application). 45See COS. 0007–0008 (blank copy of application for the Credit from MDAT’s Web site). 46 COS. 0008. 47 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff. Mr. Young further explained to the 

Standards Committee Staff that when someone does not answer ‘‘yes’’ to all of the first four 

questions, then MDAT gets an ‘‘exceptions report’’ for further review of the application. Id. Mr. 

Young added that a ‘‘no’’ response to Question 4 pertaining to voter registration ‘‘has the least 

probative value’’ in MDAT’s review because there are many acceptable explanations why someone may not be registered to vote at the particular address. Id. OCE’s recitation of MDAT’s review process, as set forth in its interview memorandum, stated that MDAT automatically grants 

applications if someone provides a ‘‘yes’’ response to Questions 1 and 2 regardless of other answers due to resource constraints. See Bates Nos. 09–9030l0007–0008, ¶¶ 7 and 10, which are 

appended to OCE’s Findings. OCE’s recitation of MDAT’s review process from notes taken during the interview is inconsistent with Mr. Young’s explanation to the Standards Committee Staff 

in his transcribed interview. 48 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff. It is the Standards Committee’s understanding that Representative Stark did not receive the Credit for his Harwood home between 

MDAT to establish an application process to verify that homeowners qualify for the Credit on their one ‘‘principal residence.’’ 39

Robert E. Young is the Deputy Director of MDAT.40 Since 1978, 

Mr. Young has been an employee of MDAT and has overseen the 

Homestead Tax Credit Program.41

When interviewed by the Standards Committee, Mr. Young explained that MDAT informed all homeowners of the affirmative obligation to apply for the Credit by mailing applications to all Maryland homeowners with updated assessment notices over a three 

year period.42 Beginning on January 1, 2008, MDAT mailed the 

first set of applications to one-third of Maryland homeowners. On 

January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2010, respectively, MDAT mailed 

applications to the remaining two-thirds of Maryland homeowners.43 MDAT’s cover letter to these mailings informed homeowners that they could submit a completed application through the 

mail or electronically on MDAT’s Web site.44

To evaluate eligibility to receive the Credit, the application requires that a homeowner answer ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ to five questions 

that closely parallel the definition of ‘‘principal residence.’’ 45 Those 

questions ask, in relevant part: (1) Will the real property address 

identified on the application be used as the single, principal residence of the homeowner for more than six months of the calendar 

year, including July 1; (2) is the real property address identified on 

the application the address where the homeowner expects to file 

his or her next federal and Maryland income tax returns; (3) is the 

real property identified on the application the address from which 

the homeowner has received a driver’s license; (4) is the real property identified on the application the address at which the homeowner is registered to vote; and (5) is any portion of the principal 

residence rented? 46 A homeowner will automatically receive the 

Credit without further inquiry if he or she answers ‘‘yes’’ to all of 

the first four questions.47

C. REPRESENTATIVE STARK’S APPLICATION FOR THE HOMESTEAD TAX

CREDIT

On or about January 1, 2009, MDAT mailed to Representative 

Stark’s Maryland address an application for the Credit, along with 

his assessment notice.48 MDAT’s electronic business records docuWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

7 

the time he purchased it in May 1987 and July 1, 2006, because his property taxes did not increase more than 10% in one year at any time during that period. However, between July 1, 

2006, and June 30, 2009 (i.e., tax bill years 2007–2009), his property taxes did increase more 

than 10% each year. As a result, the Credit was automatically triggered and applied to Representative Stark’s tax bill for those tax years by Maryland tax officials, even though he had 

taken no affirmative action to seek the Credit. See also OCE Findings ¶ 20 (stating that Representative Stark did not receive the Credit before 2006). 49 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff; COS. 0009 (printed from MDAT electronic records regarding Rep. Stark on January 4, 2010). 50 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff; COS. 0010 (printed from MDAT electronic records regarding Rep. Stark on January 4, 2010). 51 Id. 52OCE Findings ¶ 32; Bates Nos. 09–9030—0024 and 09–9030—0026, which are appended to 

OCE’s Findings. 53 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff. 54See COS. 0011 (printed from MDAT electronic records regarding Rep. Stark on January 4, 

2010); OCE Findings ¶ 28. Mr. Young told the Standards Committee Staff that the notations 

in this document about contacting him and not answering questions are solely meant to remind 

MDAT employees that tax informative is sensitive personal data and that only certain officials 

are authorized to respond to questions regarding such information. Int. of Robert Young by 

Standards Committee Staff. 55 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee. 56 Id. Mr. Young stated further that he did not know whether that information was accurate, 

but that is what he was told happened. Id. This is a classic ‘‘double hearsay’’ issue with respect 

to veracity of the conversations alone (and not including the underlying electronic entry of the 

phone call). Additionally, Representative Stark does not acknowledge such contact with MDAT 

in his response to the OCE Report or in his interview with OCE. See Rep. Stark Resp. to OCE 

Report and Findings at 2, n.1; OCE Findings ¶ 35. Representative Stark’s initial answer to this 

question and whether he later called MDAT regarding his response to this question are unclear. 

However, it is unnecessary for the Standards Committee to untangle these issues because 

whether Representative Stark did indeed make such a phone call or not is immaterial in light 

of the totality of factual findings and conclusions reached by the Committee in this matter. 

There would be nothing discreditable, in any event, in Representative Stark making an effort 

to correct an error. 57 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff. 58 Id. Given the volume of issues that Mr. Young is responsible for addressing, he added that 

this purported phone call was not something that he would have taken any special interest in 

unless it later became an issue. Id. 59 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff. 

ment that Representative Stark submitted a completed application 

for the Credit through MDAT’s on-line submission process on February 6, 2009.49 A print-out of Representative Stark’s electronically-filed application from MDAT’s electronic business records indicated that he answered ‘‘yes’’ to Question 1 (principal residence 

for more than six months during the year), Question 2 (location for 

filing income tax returns), and Question 4 (voter registration).50 He 

answered ‘‘no’’ to Question 3 (driver’s license) and Question 5 (residence rented).51

With respect to Question 2, Representative Stark filed his California resident and Maryland non-resident income tax returns for 

2008 from his Maryland address.52 He did the same for his Federal 

income tax return for 2008.53

With respect to Question 4, MDAT’s electronic business records 

apparently show that Representative Stark contacted MDAT in 

mid-March 2009, and requested that his answer be changed to a 

‘‘no’’ response.54 The MDAT employee who received this call and 

made this entry purportedly told her supervisor.55 The supervisor, 

in turn, informed Mr. Young, who is her boss.56 Mr. Young did not 

speak with Representative Stark about this purported request.57

Nor did he have any further discussion with any MDAT employee 

about this purported telephone call.58

D. MDAT’S ACTION ON REPRESENTATIVE STARK’S APPLICATION

MDAT did not find Representative Stark eligible for the Credit.59

MDAT likely found his application ineligible for the Credit by the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

8 

60 Id. Mr. Young was unsure of the exact date because it is not a required input in MDAT’s 

records. Id. 61See Bates No. 09–9030—0009, ¶ 12, which is appended to OCE’s Findings. 62 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff. 63 Id. In Maryland, property tax bills are issued on a fiscal year basis, which runs from July 

1 through June 30 of the following calendar year. Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee 

Staff; see also COS. 0012–0015 (MDAT’s ‘‘A Homeowner’s Guide To Property Taxes and Assessments,’’ last revised July 27, 2009, noting in Section I that tax bills are issued in July/August 

of each year in Maryland, and rendered for the upcoming fiscal year, which is effective as of 

July 1); and COS. 0016 (‘‘Property Tax Information,’’ Anne Arundel County, Maryland, noting 

that taxes are due on July 1, and may be paid without interest on or before September 30 of 

the tax year). 64 COS. 0017 (Rep. Stark’s property tax bill from July 1, 2009, issued by Anne Arundel County, Maryland). 65 Id. 66 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff; COS. 0017. 67 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff. 68See Bates No. 09–9030—0008, ¶ 6, which is appended to OCE’s Findings. 69See OCE Findings ¶ 25. 70 Id. 71See OCE Findings ¶ 25; Bates Nos. 09–9030l0014–0015, which are appended to OCE’s 

Findings (containing a copy of Representative Stark’s hand-written recollection of his application 

provided to OCE). 72OCE’s Findings erroneously stated that OCE Staff interviewed Rep. Stark on May 29, 2009, 

see OCE Findings ¶ 34. OCE Staff’s interview memorandum of Rep. Stark contains the correct 

date of the interview on July 29, 2009. See Bates Nos. 09–9030l0028–0029, which are appended to OCE’s Findings. 73See Bates No. 09–9030l0029, ¶ 8, which is appended to OCE’s Findings. 

end of March 2009,60 although OCE’s Staff was told by MDAT that 

it removed the Credit associated with Representative Stark’s Maryland residence on May 1, 2009.61 In any event, MDAT unquestionably disapproved of his eligibility before June 2009, when MDAT 

provided counties with electronic updates to ensure that tax bills 

contained current assessment and tax credit information.62 In 

Anne Arundel County, Maryland, tax bills were issued on July 1, 

2009.63

Representative Stark’s property tax bill, which was issued on 

July 1, 2009, did not contain a Credit.64 Indeed, it contained no tax 

credit whatsoever.65 The notation of ‘‘NOT A PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE’’ on Representative Stark’s tax bill highlighted that he did 

not receive any homestead tax benefit for the period July 1, 2009, 

through June 30, 2010.66 Representative Stark, therefore, ‘‘never 

received a homestead tax credit for the application which he submitted on-line.’’67

Furthermore, if Representative Stark had not responded to 

Maryland’s requirement to submit an application, he would have 

continued to receive the Credit until December 2012.68

E. OCE’S INTERACTION WITH REPRESENTATIVE STARK

In June 2009, OCE requested information from Representative 

Stark regarding his application for the Credit.69 Representative 

Stark could not locate a copy of his electronically-filed application.70 In lieu of an exact copy, Representative Stark, in mid-June 

2009, provided OCE with the application filled out by hand, which 

represented his best recollection of how he filled out the on-line 

form.71

On July 29, 2009, Representative Stark voluntarily agreed to an 

interview with OCE’s Staff.72 The interview did not go smoothly. 

OCE’s Staff claimed that Representative Stark was ‘‘belligerent’’ 

and ‘‘frequently insulted them.’’ 73 They also indicated that RepWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

9 

74See OCE Findings ¶ 36; Bates No. 09–9030l0029, ¶ 8; Bates No. 09–9030l0031–0033, 

which are appended to OCE’s Findings. While Representative Stark appears to have acknowledged receipt of OCE’s request, he did not substantively respond to it. See Bates No. 09– 

9030l0035, which is appended to OCE’s Findings. 75See OCE Findings ¶ 35; Bates No. 09–9030l0029, ¶ 7, which is appended to OCE’s Findings. 76See id. 77See OCE Findings ¶ 35; Bates No. 09–9030l0029, ¶ 5, which is appended to OCE’s Findings. 78See OCE Findings ¶ 34; Bates No. 09–9030l0028, ¶ 3, which is appended to OCE’s Findings. 79OCE Rule 9A. 

resentative Stark was videotaping the interview and demanded a 

copy of the tape.74

During the interview with OCE’s Staff, Representative Stark was 

shown a copy of a print-out of his electronically-filed application, 

which OCE obtained from MDAT.75 Representative Stark could not 

explain why his response in the on-line version pertaining to voter 

registration differed from his recollection of his response, but acknowledged that these responses differed, according to OCE’s interview memorandum.76 Representative Stark did not concede during 

the OCE interview that he contacted MDAT to change his response 

to the voter registration question.77

During the interview with OCE’s Staff, Representative Stark 

stated that he did not receive a Credit after filing the application 

on-line.78

IV. DISCUSSION 

A. OVERVIEW

The Standards Committee finds that Representative Stark did 

not intentionally misrepresent information on his application, or 

attempt to evade the payment of Maryland property taxes by misrepresenting such information, in violation of Maryland law. Based 

upon the facts gathered during the Standards Committee’s independent investigation as fully discussed below, the Standards Committee found that Representative Stark did not receive a Maryland 

Homestead Tax Credit as a result of the application that he was 

required to file. His responses, taken as a whole, did not establish 

his eligibility for the Credit or evince an intent to lie or evade payment of Maryland property taxes, and MDAT did not, in fact, grant 

him any tax credit, including the Homestead Tax Credit. 

As a result, the Standards Committee finds that Representative 

Fortney ‘‘Pete’’ Stark did not violate any laws or other applicable 

standards of conduct in connection with his application for a Maryland Homestead Tax Credit, and that no further action is warranted in this matter. 

The Standards Committee further finds that OCE’s determination that there is a ‘‘substantial reason to believe’’ the allegations 

that Representative Stark, by his conduct relating to his Credit application, may have violated Maryland law, House Rules, or other 

applicable standards of conduct was in error and not supported by 

the ‘‘information then known to the Board.’’ 79 Accordingly, the 

Standards Committee finds that no further action against Representative Stark is warranted and that the matter should be dismissed. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

10 

80Md. Code Ann., Tax-Prop. § 14–1004(a) (West 2009). 81See Johnson v. State, 451 A.2d 330, 332 (Md. 1982). 82 Id; see also Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 201 (1991) (declaring that Supreme Court 

precedent conclusively establishes that the standard to meet the statutory ‘‘willfulness’’ requirement in criminal tax offenses is the ‘‘voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty’’) 

(citing United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 23 (1976); United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 

360 (1973)). 83See House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Manual of Offenses and Procedures Korean Influence Investigation, pursuant to H.R. Res. 252, 95th Cong., at 35 (1977). 84 Id. 

B. SPECIFIC LEGAL PROVISIONS OR STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

OCE’s Report and Findings stated that Representative Stark 

may have violated the following legal provisions or standards of 

conduct. 

1. Willfully Providing False Information or Answer (Section 14– 

1004 of Maryland Code) 

Section 14–1004(a) of the Maryland Code provides: 

A person who willfully or with intent to evade payment of a 

tax under this article or to prevent the collection of a tax under 

this article provides false information or a false answer to a 

tax interrogation under this article is guilty of a misdemeanor 

and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or 

imprisonment not exceeding 18 months or both.80

(a) Elements and Standard of Proof to Establish a Violation 

To prove a criminal violation of Section 14–1004(a) of the Maryland Code in connection with an application for a Homestead Tax 

Credit, it must be shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an accused: ‘‘willfully’’ or with intent to evade payment of or prevent the 

collection of a tax provided false information or answers on his or 

her Credit application. Under Maryland criminal law, the term 

‘‘willful’’ is accorded the meaning provided by federal courts interpreting this term in federal criminal tax provisions.81 Therefore, 

‘‘willfulness’’ may be established through proof of a ‘‘voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty, not the result of accident 

or mistake or other innocent cause.’’ 82

(b) Applicable Elements and Standards of Proof to Establish 

Alleged Criminal Violations in Standards Committee 

Proceedings 

Liability for a violation of Section 14–1004(a) of the Maryland 

Code requires proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused 

acted with the requisite intent to commit the act and knowledge 

that the act is a violation of the law. However, it has been long established that this Committee need not adhere strictly to general 

criminal law standards that require proof of the requisite intent to 

establish a violation to appropriately execute its responsibilities in 

the non-criminal disciplinary context.83 Rather, the Code of Official 

Conduct and Code of Ethics for Government Service make clear 

that ‘‘Members of Congress are expected to adhere to standards of 

conduct far more demanding than the bare minimum standards established by our criminal laws.’’ 84

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

11 

85 Code of Ethics for Government Service, Paragraph 2. 86See, e.g., See House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative 

James A. Traficant, Jr., H.R. Rep. No. 107–594, at 4–12, 105–114 (2002). 87OCE Findings ¶ 32. 88Specifically, its interview memoranda of the MDAT officials used in its findings for other 

Members stated that: 

The Homestead Tax Credit Application asks whether the applicant’s ‘‘real property address’’ is ‘‘the location where the homeowner(s) will file the federal and Maryland income tax return,’’ ‘‘the location from which the homeowner(s) have received a driver’s 

license,’’ and ‘‘the location from which the homeowner(s) are registered to vote, if registered.’’ The OCE staff pointed out that these questions do not specify that the applicant must file a Maryland resident tax return, receive a Maryland driver’s license, and 

be registered to vote in Maryland. [Emphasis in original]. Representative 1 stated that 

despite the application’s ambiguity, it was [MDAT’s] intent to grant the Homestead Tax 

Credit only to principal residences of property owners who were registered to vote in 

Maryland, possessed Maryland driver’s licenses, and filed Maryland resident income tax 

returns. Representative 1 stated that [MDAT] will consider changing the language of 

the application to clarify this ambiguity. See, e.g., COS. 0018–0019, ¶ 2. 

2. Evasion of Laws (Paragraph 2 of Code of Ethics for Government 

Service) 

Paragraph 2 of Code of Ethics for Government Service provides: 

Any person in Government Service should: * * * 

Paragraph 2: Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and 

never be a party to their evasion.85

(a) Elements and Standard of Proof to Establish a Violation 

A Member who violates a state criminal statute or seeks to evade 

the requirements of a state’s tax law may be found to have violated 

standards of conduct applicable to Members of Congress under 

Paragraph 2 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service.86

As fully shown below, Representative Stark’s conduct did not violate Maryland law under traditional criminal standards or under 

the more lenient standards applicable to the Standards Committee’s review of alleged criminal misconduct. Nor does the evidence 

suggest that Representative Stark intended or attempted to evade 

payment of Maryland property taxes by providing false information. 

C. THE RECORD UNEQUIVOCALLY SHOWS THAT REPRESENTATIVE

STARK DID NOT BREAK ANY LAWS OR ENGAGE IN ANY IMPROPER

CONDUCT

1. The Record Shows That the Homestead Credit Application Was 

Unclear 

From its reviews of other Members who had been given the Credit, OCE determined that the Credit application was unclear. In its 

review of this matter, OCE also noted that the wording of Question 

2 is vague because it allows a homeowner to answer ‘‘yes’’ if he or 

she files a non-resident tax return from the Maryland property address, as Representative Stark did, despite MDAT’s intent that this 

question only apply to a Maryland resident tax return.87 Moreover, 

in its reviews of other Members, OCE’s Staff expressed that the application was confusing in more direct terms.88

OCE’s observations regarding the ambiguity on the application 

were omitted from the interview memorandum of MDAT officials 

only in Representative Stark’s matter, despite the fact that the 

interview was of the same witnesses, and occurred on the same 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

12 

89 Compare Bates Nos. 09–9030l0028–0029, ¶ 2, appended to OCE’s Findings (OCE Staff’s 

interview memorandum of MDAT officials pertaining to Representative Stark) with COS. 0018– 

0030, ¶ 2, (OCE Staff’s interview memoranda of MDAT officials pertaining to other Members). 

Except for Representative Stark, OCE’s interview memoranda pertaining to other Members contained identical text in Paragraphs 1 through Paragraph 11, and then noted fact-specific issues 

for each Member. Compare Bates Nos. 09–9030l0028–0029, appended to OCE’s Findings with 

COS. 0018–0030. 90Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453 (1939). 91Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). 92 If the application is vague or unclear, then one cannot have ‘‘fair warning’’ to willfully run 

afoul of what is prohibited. See City of Rockford, 408 U.S. at 108; see also Satellite Broadcasting 

Co. v. FCC, 824 F.2d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (holding that traditional concepts of due process and 

fair warning apply to administrative applications required by agencies). 93See COS. 0004. 94See Johnson, 451 A.2d at 332 (‘‘willfulness’’ is the voluntary, intentional violation of a 

known legal duty, not the result of accident or mistake or other innocent cause). 95See Rep. Stark Resp. to OCE Report and Findings at 3, n.3; OCE Findings ¶ 19. 

date and time.89 OCE’s Report and Findings offered no statement 

identifying or explaining the omission of this paragraph in this 

matter, but the paragraph was included in all other interview 

memoranda of the MDAT officials in the matters that OCE terminated. 

It is a fundamental axiom of our jurisprudence that the due process clause requires that ‘‘all are entitled to be informed as to what 

the State commands or forbids.’’ 90 Laws must ‘‘give the person of 

ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the 

innocent by not providing fair warning.’’ 91

The determination that the underlying requirement at issue (i.e., 

the Homestead Tax Credit application) is vague would make it difficult to draw the conclusion that a ‘‘willful’’ violation subject to 

criminal sanctions had been committed. Under such circumstances, 

the requisite intent to commit the act with knowledge that it is a 

violation cannot be present.92

Moreover, OCE’s conclusion that there is a substantial reason to 

believe that a ‘‘willful’’ violation was committed is at odds with its 

overall conclusion reached in its reviews of other Members. From 

those reviews, it reached the overall judgment that the manner in 

which Maryland administers the Homestead Tax Credit places 

‘‘Members of Congress who own homes in Maryland at risk of being 

accused of improperly receiving the credit at no fault of their 

own.’’ 93 Such a characterization is the antithesis of the standard 

required to demonstrate a ‘‘willful’’ violation under Maryland 

laws.’’ 94

2. The Record Shows That Representative Stark Provided Truthful 

Answers 

The record demonstrates that Representative Stark provided 

overall truthful answers and, at most, made an inadvertent mistake regarding his voter registration response, which was soon corrected. His answers, when viewed in total and in context, evince no 

intent to lie or evade payment of a tax. Correcting an error is not 

misconduct. 

First, the facts show that Representative Stark truthfully answered Question 1 on his application regarding his Maryland home 

being his primary home. Representative Stark owns only one home, 

which is in Maryland, and rents accommodations in his congressional district.95 Under these circumstances, the record plainly 

shows that Representative Stark’s Maryland home could be viewed 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

13 

96See Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff; OCE Findings ¶ 32; Bates Nos. 09– 

9030l0024 and 09–9030l0026, which are appended to OCE’s Findings. 97OCE Findings ¶ 33. 98See OCE Findings ¶¶ 1–3. 27–30. 99See OCE Findings ¶ 35; Bates Nos. 09–9030l0029, ¶ 7, appended to OCE Findings. 100See COS. 0011 (printed from MDAT electronic records regarding Rep. Stark on January 

4, 2010). While Representative Stark does not acknowledge he contacted MDAT, his response 

in MDAT’s electronic records was nonetheless changed to the correct response. 101See OCE Findings ¶ 29; Bates Nos. 09–9030l0021–0022, appended to OCE Findings. 102See Rep. Stark Resp. to OCE Report and Findings at 2. 103See Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff (stating that Question 4 pertaining 

to voter registration ‘‘has the least probative value’’ in MDAT’s review because there are many 

acceptable explanations why someone may not be registered to vote at the particular address). 

as his single principal residence as this term is commonly understood. 

Second, the facts demonstrate that Representative Stark truthfully answered Question 2 on his application, as that question is 

worded, regarding the filing of income tax returns from his Maryland property address. Representative Stark filed his Federal income tax returns for 2008, and his California resident and Maryland non-resident income tax returns for 2008 from his Maryland 

address.96

Third, the facts further show that Representative Stark truthfully answered Question 3 on his application relating to his California driver’s license.97

At its core, OCE’s conclusion rests solely upon the claim that 

Representative Stark ‘‘falsely’’ certified his response to Question 4 

on the application to receive the Credit.98 This claim is not borne 

out by the facts. First, Representative Stark did not recall initially 

providing an affirmative response in his on-line application to this 

question, but acknowledged that such a response would be a mistake.99 Second, Representative Stark’s on-line response to this 

question was changed to a ‘‘no’’ response before MDAT formally 

found his application ineligible for the Credit.100 Nonetheless, OCE 

appears to infer an intent to lie or evade tax payments from the 

fact that MDAT changed Representative Stark’s response to this 

question two days after an article was published in the New York 

Times on March 14, 2009, regarding Representative Eliot Engel, 

who allegedly received the Credit.101 Even if true, there are no 

facts to show that this action was not the product of a mistake 

being discovered. Moreover, OCE did not draw similar inferences 

regarding other Members, after learning during its other reviews 

that some Members contacted MDAT contemporaneously with the 

publication of the article in the New York Times to allegedly remove the Credit associated with their homes. Yet in this matter, 

which merely involved a change to one response before any official 

determination was made, OCE did draw such an inference. Third, 

if both Maryland voting status and a Maryland driver’s license 

were absolute legal requirements for the tax credit, as OCE described in its Findings, it would be nonsensical for Representative 

Stark to claim one but not the other if his true intent was to purposefully provide false answers to evade tax payments.102 Any 

reading of the above facts leads to the conclusion that, at most, 

Representative Stark made a mistake when answering this question, which has the ‘‘least probative value’’ in MDAT review.103

This mistake or inadvertent error was soon corrected after he subWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

14 

104 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff. 105See Johnson, 451 A.2d at 332 (‘‘willfulness’’ is the voluntary, intentional violation of a 

known legal duty, not the result of accident or mistake or other innocent cause). 106 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff. 107 Id. 108 COS. 0017. 109OCE Findings ¶ 20; Bates No. 09–9030l0005, which is appended to OCE’s Findings. See 

also OCE Findings ¶ 1. 110See Bates No. 09–9030l0005, which is appended to OCE’s Findings. 111 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff; see also COS. 0012–0015. 112See COS. 0031 (Rep. Stark’s tax bill issued for fiscal year 2009, which runs from July 1, 2008–June 30, 2009, containing homestead tax credits of $3,769.79). 

mitted his on-line application and well before MDAT officially 

made its determination on his application.104

Mere mistakes or negligence fall far short of the requirement to 

prove a ‘‘willful’’ violation.105 Representative Stark’s answers overall also demonstrate that he did not violate the more demanding 

standards of conduct applied in Standards Committee proceedings. 

However, the record further shows that the totality of Representative Stark’s responses were truthful and, when viewed properly in 

context, show no intent to lie or evade tax payments. 

On this basis alone, OCE’s allegations are not sustained. However, as discussed below, the record shows that OCE erroneously 

concluded that Representative Stark received tax benefits as a result of his Credit application. He did not. 

3. The Record Shows That Representative Stark Did Not Receive a 

Tax Credit Based on His Application 

The Standards Committee’s independent investigation conclusively established that Representative Stark received no tax benefits as a result of his electronically-filed application for the Credit 

in February 2009. MDAT did not grant Representative Stark’s application and his ‘‘application never resulted in his actually receiving a homestead tax credit for any tax year after its submission.’’ 106 MDAT unquestionably disapproved of his eligibility before 

June 2009, when MDAT provided counties with electronic updates 

to ensure that tax bills contained current assessment and tax credit information.107 Indeed, Representative Stark’s property tax bill, 

issued on July 1, 2009, evidences that he received no Credit or tax 

benefit of any kind as a result of his application.108 OCE’s allegations are thus unfounded. Moreover, the record shows that OCE 

had evidence in its possession to prove this fact. 

OCE was in error when it asserted that, ‘‘in calendar year 2009, 

the year directly affected by his answers on the 2008 application, 

Representative Stark received $3,769.79 in state and county tax 

[homestead] credits,’’ based on a document printed on May 5, 

2009.’’ 109

The May 5 document that OCE relied upon for this assertion is 

for bill year 2009, not calendar year 2009.110 Maryland issues its 

tax bills on a fiscal basis, which runs in Maryland from July 1 to 

the following June 30.111 Therefore, bill year 2009 in the document 

relied upon by OCE corresponded to fiscal year 2009, which began 

on July 1, 2008. In other words, the bill was issued to Representative Stark on July 1, 2008, before MDAT even mailed an application to Representative Stark for the Credit on January 1, 2009.112

As noted earlier, the Credit was automatically triggered and applied to Representative Stark’s tax bill in bill years 2007–2009 by 

Maryland tax officials because his assessments increased by more 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

15 

113See supra n.47. 114See Bates No. 09–9030l0009, ¶ 12, which is appended to OCE’s Findings. 115 Instead, OCE included this significant fact in the last sentence that begins with the New 

York Times article discussed above. See id. 116See Bates No. 09–9030l0002, which is appended to OCE’s Findings. 117See OCE Findings ¶ 34; Bates No. 09–9030l0028, ¶ 3, which is appended to OCE Findings. 118 Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff. 119 House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b). 120See House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A); Standard Committee Rule 17A; and H. Res. 895, Section 1, clause 1(f). 

than 10% per year, even though he had taken no affirmative action 

to seek the Credit during that time.113

Additionally, OCE’s allegations are inconsistent with the available evidence. First, MDAT had removed any Credit associated 

with Representative Stark’s Maryland residence by May 1, 2009, as 

documented in OCE’s interview memorandum.114 OCE omitted this 

fact from the body of its Findings.115 Second, the very first page of 

the exhibit that OCE relied upon for its erroneous conclusion shows 

that MDAT had highlighted that Representative Stark’s Harwood, 

Maryland, home was not his ‘‘principal residence’’ as of May 6, 

2009.116 This means that Representative Stark would not and did 

not receive any Credit in July 2009. Last, Representative Stark reiterated to OCE that MDAT found he was not eligible for the Credit approximately one month after MDAT told OCE the same 

thing.117 These consistent statements from MDAT and Representative Stark regarding the disposition of Representative Stark’s application should have made clear that, as MDAT told the Standards 

Committee, Representative Stark’s ‘‘application never resulted in 

his actually receiving a homestead tax credit for any tax year after 

its submission.’’ 118

V. CONCLUSIONS 

In view of the Standards Committee’s findings of fact in Section 

III, and conclusions reached applying those findings in Section IV, 

the Committee finds that no further action is warranted. The matter is dismissed and the Standards Committee considers it closed. 

The Chair is directed upon providing the required notice to Representative Stark and OCE, pursuant to House Rule XI, Clause 

3(b)(8)(A), and Committee Rule 17A(a)(2), to file the instant Report 

with the House, together with Representative Stark’s response and 

a copy of OCE’s Report and Findings in this matter, both of which 

are made a part of this Report and appended hereto.119 The filing 

of the instant Report, along with its publication on the Standards 

Committee’s Web site, shall serve as publication of OCE’s Report 

and Findings, pursuant to House Rule XI, Clause 3(b)(8)(A), and 

Committee Rule 17A(b)(3) and 17A(c)(2). No other version of OCE’s 

Report and Findings is authorized and any publication of OCE’s 

Report and Findings independent of the instant Report is not authorized.120

VI. STATEMENT UNDER RULE 13, CLAUSE 3(c) OF THE 

RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

The Standards Committee made no special oversight findings in 

this report. No budget statement is submitted. No funding is authorized by any measure in this report. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

16 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 here HR409.001
17 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 here HR409.002
18 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 here HR409.003
19 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 here HR409.004
20 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 here HR409.005
21 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 here HR409.006
22 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 here HR409.007
23 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 here HR409.008
24 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 here HR409.009
25 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 here HR409.010
26 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 here HR409.011
27 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 here HR409.012
28 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 here HR409.013
29 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 here HR409.014
30 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 here HR409.015
31 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 here HR409.016
32 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 here HR409.017
33 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 here HR409.018
34 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 43 here HR409.019
35 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 here HR409.020
36 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 here HR409.021
37 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 here HR409.022
38 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 here HR409.023
39 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 here HR409.024
40 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 here HR409.025
41 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 here HR409.026
42 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 here HR409.027
43 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 here HR409.028
44 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 here HR409.029
45 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 here HR409.030
46 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 here HR409.031
47 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 56 here HR409.032
48 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 here HR409.033
49 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 58 here HR409.034
50 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 59 here HR409.035
51 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 60 here HR409.036
52 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 61 here HR409.037
53 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 62 here HR409.038
54 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 here HR409.039
55 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 here HR409.040
56 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 here HR409.041
57 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 here HR409.042
58 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 here HR409.043
59 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 here HR409.044
60 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 here HR409.045
61 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 here HR409.046
62 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 here HR409.047
63 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 here HR409.048
64 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 here HR409.049
65 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 here HR409.050
66 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 here HR409.051
67 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 here HR409.052
68 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 here HR409.053
69 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 78 here HR409.054
70 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 here HR409.055
71 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 here HR409.056
72 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 here HR409.057
73 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 here HR409.058
74 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 here HR409.059
75 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 here HR409.060
76 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 here HR409.061
77 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 here HR409.062
78 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 here HR409.063
79 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 88 here HR409.064
80 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 89 here HR409.065
81 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 here HR409.066
82 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 here HR409.067
83 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 here HR409.068
84 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 here HR409.069
85 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 here HR409.070
86 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 here HR409.071
87 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 here HR409.072
88 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 here HR409.073
89 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 here HR409.074
90 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 here HR409.075
91 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 here HR409.076
92 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 here HR409.077
93 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 here HR409.078
94 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 here HR409.079
95 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 104 here HR409.080
96 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 105 here HR409.081
97 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 106 here HR409.082
98 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 107 here HR409.083
99 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 108 here HR409.084
100 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 109 here HR409.085
101 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 110 here HR409.086
102 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 here HR409.087
103 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 here HR409.088
104 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 here HR409.089
105 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 here HR409.090
106 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 here HR409.091
107 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 116 here HR409.092
108 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 117 here HR409.093
109 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 118 here HR409.094
110 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 here HR409.095
111 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 here HR409.096
112 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 121 here HR409.097