1 2 [92 O p . A tt’ y
P UB LI C E THI CS LA W
P UB L I C I NFOR MAT I ON A CT

– M UNI CI PALI TI ES

– B OW I E P UBLIC E THI CS O RDI NANCE I S C O N S I S T E N T WI T H S TATE P U BL IC E THI CS L A W

– E X EMP TIO N S F R OM D ISC LO S U R E IN O R D I N A N C E A R E C ONS I ST E NT WI T H P UB L I C I NFOR MAT I ON A CT

J une 14, 2007

The H onor abl e G

. Fr eder i ck Robi ns on Ma y o r, C ity o

f B o w ie

Y ou have a s ked for our opi ni on conce r ni ng t he appl i cat i on of th e P u b lic In f

o rm a tio n A c t (“ P IA ” ) to c e rta in r e c o rd s o f th e C ity E th ics C o m m iss io n o f

th e C it yo f

B o w ie ( “ C ity ” ). T h e m a ter ials t h a t a c c o mp a n i e d y o u rl e t t e ri n c l u d e d s e v e r a l q u e s t i o n s , wh i c h we su m m a riz e a n d re p h ra se a s f o llo w s: 1. A r e the pr ovi s i ons o f t he C i t yPubl i c Et hi cs O r di nance conce r ni ng t he di s cl os ur e of a dvi s or yopi ni ons o f the C i t yE t hi cs C om m i s s i on and t he di s cl os ur e of r ecor ds r el at ed t o compl ai nt s fi l ed w i t h t hatcomm i s s i on cons i s t ent w it h t he M ary l and Publ i c Et hi cs L a w?
2. T o w hatext enti s an advi s or yopi ni on of t he C i t yE t hi cs Co mm i s s i o n e x e mp tf

r o m d i s c l o s u r e u n d e rt h e P I A?
3. T o w hatext entar e r ecor ds r el at ed t o a compl ai ntfi l ed w i t h t he C i t yE t hi cs C om m i s s i on exempt fr om di s cl os ur e undert he P I A?
A s expl ai ned m or e ful l ybel ow , t he ans w er s t o t hes e ques t i ons are as foll ow s: 1. T he partof t he C i t yor di nanc e co ncerni ng di s cl os ur e of a d v iso ryo p in io n s o f

th e C ityE th ics C o m m iss io n is v irtu a lly i dent i cal t o t he model ethi cs l aw forl ocal governm ent s devel oped by t h e S t a t e E t h i c s Co mm i s s i o n p u r s u a n tt o t h e P u b l i c E t h i c s L a w. Sim il arly , t he partof the C i t yor di nance conce r ni ng di s cl os ur e of r ecor ds r el at i ng t o compl ai nt s fi l ed w i t h t he C i t yE t hi cs C om m i s s i onG en. 12] 13
i s near l yi dent i cal t o t he St at e Et hi cs C om m i s s i on’ s m odel or di nance
. A ccor di ngl y , t hes e pr ovi s i ons ar e cons i s t ent w it h t he M a r y l a n d P u b l i c E t h i c s L a w. 2. T he C i t yPubl i c Et hi cs O r di nance pr ovi des thatt he advi s or yopi ni ons of t h e C it yE t hi cs C om m i s s i on ar e t o be “publ i s hed and ot herw i s e made avai l abl e t o t he publ i c” e xceptt hat th e id e n t i ty o f

th e s u b je c t, i

. e. , t he per s on w ho i s t he s ubj ectof the advi s or yopi ni on, i s to b e d el et ed. W hi l e a muni ci pal or di nance ca n n o t ord inar il ycre ate a n ex ce p ti o n to the g en era l ru le of d iscl o su re undert he PI A , t hi s par t i cul arpr ovi s i on der i ves fr om t he model l ocal o rd in a n c e p ro m u lg a ted b yth e S tate E th ics C o m m iss io n p u rsu a n t to a s t atut e t hat r equi r es l ocal governm ent s t o enac tethi cs l aw s s i m i l ar to th e M a ry lan d P u b lic E th ics L a w
. T h e c o n f id e n tialityp ro v isio n in th e C ity o rd in a n c e is sim ilar to a p a ra llel co n f id e n tiality p ro v isio n in t he l aw t hatgoverns ad v isoryopi ni ons of the St at e Et hi cs C om m i s s i on. T he PI A defe r s t o ot her St at e s t atut es t hatm ake par t i cul ar r ecor ds orpar t i cul ari nfor m at i on confi dent i al

. T hus , t he i dent i t yof t he s ubj ectof a Ci t yE t hi cs C om m i s s i on advi s or yopi ni on sh o u ld n o t b e d isc lo se d in re sp o n se to a P IA re q u e st.
3. T he C i t yPubl i c Et hi cs O r di nance pr ov i d e s th a tal l act i ons of t he C i t yE t hi cs C om m i s s i o n o n a co m pl ai ntar e t o be tr eat ed c o n f id e n tially“ u n til a f

in a l d e ter m in a t i o n b yth e C o m m iss io n .” T h is pr ovi s i on i s al s o bas ed on the model or di nance d ev el oped byt he S t a t e E t h i c s C o m m i s s i o n p u r s u a n tt o S t a t e l a w
. A c c o r d i n g l y, r ecor ds r el at ed t o a compl ai nt fi l ed w i t h t he C i t y E t hi cs C om m i s s i on m aynotbe di s cl os ed i n resp o n se t o a PI A r eques tunt i l t he C om m i s s i on has m ade a fi nal det er m i nat i on. I t i s al s o pos s i bl e that ot herexce pt i ons i n t he PI A m ay appl yt o par t i cul arr ecor ds r el at ed to a c o m p lain t.

I Backg r ound
Y ourr eques tar os e outof a contr over s yconce r ni ng t he out s i de empl oym entof a m ember of t he C i t yC ounci l and the di s cl os ur e of r e c o r d s o f

t h e C i t y E t h i c s C o m m i s s i o n r e l a t e d t o t h a tc o n t r o v e r s y. A s w e under s t and it , dur i ng 2006, t w o compl ai nt s w er e fi l ed w ith the C ityE thics C o m m issi o n all eg in g v iolati o n s o f th e C ity ’s Publ i c Et hi cs O r di nance by t he C ounci l M ember and other i ndi vi dual s
. T he E t hi cs C om m i s s i on eventual l y det er m i ned t hatt he1 4 [92 O p . A tt’ y

In compliancewith our policy concerning opinion requests from 1 local g overnme nts, you included with your reque st a detaile dl egal analysis by the C ity Attorney which wesummarize in releva nt part in the te xt. C ounci l M em b er had a c onfl i ctof i nt er es tw i t h r es pectt o out s i de emp loy m ent

. I n l at e 2006, t he C ounci l M ember r eques t ed an advi s or yopi nion from t he C i t yE t hi cs C om m i s s i on conce r ni ng pr o sp ec t i ve empl oym ent

. A ft ert he Et hi cs C om m i s s i on r es ponded t o t hatr eques t , t he m ember s ubm i t t ed a se cond r eques ti n ear l y2007 s eeki ng cl ar i fi cat i on of the fi r s tadvi s or yopi ni on. O n M arc h 2, 2007, t he C i t yE t hi cs C om m i s s i on i s s ued a “part i al ” r es pons e t o t he C ounci l M ember ’ s s econd r eques tforan a d v iso ryo p in io n , a p p a r e n tlyb e c a u se it w a s g o in g to b e u n a b le to compl et e the ful l opi ni on byt he ti m e of a C i t yC ounci l m eet i ng s chedul ed forM ar ch 5, 2007. T he C om m i s s i on s enti t s par t i al res po nse t o the C ou ncil M em ber w ho request ed the op i nion and al so di s t r i but ed copi es t o t he ent i r e C i t yC ounci l , as w el l as var i ous ot her C i t yoffi ci al s , appar ent l yb ec au s e the C om m i s s i on had conc l uded th a t th e C o u n c il M e m b e r sh o u ld re f ra in f ro m in v o lv e m e n t in c e rta in m at t er s on t he age nda fort he C ounci l m eet i ng. T her eaf t er , s om eone su p p lied a c o p yo f th e p a rtial o p in io n to a lo c a l n e w sp a p e r. T h e C ity E thics C o m m issi o n su b seq u en tl yissue d it s co m p le te a d v isory o p in io n o n M a rc h 1 5 , 2 0 0 7

. T he C ounci l M ember t ook i s s ue w i t h t he r el eas e of the part i al advi s or yopi ni on. T he C i t y E t hi cs C om m i s s i on expr es s ed t he vi ew t hatt he part i al advi s or yopi ni on w as di s cl os abl e, exce ptt hatt he id e n tity o f th e s u b

je c t o f t h e o p i n io n , i.e

. , the C o u n cil M em b er, s houl d have be en re d ac t ed. T hati s s ue, and other s r ai s ed byt he C ounci l M ember , w er e r efe r r ed t o t he C i t y A t t or ney
. For exampl e, t he C ounci l M ember al s o ques t i oned w hether r ecor ds r el at ed t o t he compl ai nt s fi l ed w i t h the C i t yE t hi cs C om m i s s i on w oul d be d is c lo s a b le in re s p o n s e to P IA re q u e s ts

. T he C i t yA t t or neyagr eed th att he C om m i s s i on’ s par t i al adv i s or yopi ni on w as di s cl os abl e, butexpr es s ed doubtt hatt he C ounci l M ember ’ s i den ti t yw as confi dent i al

. T he C i t yA t t or ney 1
r eas on ed that , even i f pr ovi s i ons of the C i t y ’ s Publ i c Et hi cs O rd in a n c e m a d e th a t id e n tity c o n f id e n tial, th e C itylac k e d a u th o rity t o pas s an or di nance t hatw oul d s hi el d r ecor ds fr om di s cl os ur e under th e P IA . W ith re sp e c t to re c o rd s re latin g to c o m p la in ts , th e C ity A t t or neyappar ent l yr eac hed as i mi l arconcl us i on, butacknow l edgedG en. 12] 15

We have summari z ed i n formation set out i n memoranda of the 2 City Attorney that were attac hed to your re quest . We have not been provided with copie s of the complaints, dec isions of th e C i ty Ethics Commis sio n o n th os ec omp laint s, or thea dv iso ry

op ini on s discus sed in those memoranda

. However, the ba ckground information provided by the City Attor ne y a pp e ars su ff

ic ie nt to re sp on d to the qu e sti on s a dd re sse d in this opini on. t hatt he exc ept i on fori nves t i gat or yr ecor ds m i ghtappl yt o s om e of th o s e re c o rd s f

o r s o m e p e ri o d o f

tim e
. T he C ounci l M ember t hen r eques t ed t hatt he C i t yobt ai n an op i nion from t his O ffi ce on vari ou s quest i on s. 2

II
St at ut or y P r ov i s i ons A
. P ubli c I

nf or m ati on A ct
T h e P IA a llo w s th e p u b lic a b ro a d rig h t o f a c c e ss to re c o rd s in t he pos s es s i on of St at e age nci es and l ocal governm ent s
. A nnot at ed C ode of M ary l and, St at e G overnm entA r t i cl e ( “SG ”) , §10- 611 et s eq. T he st atute i ncludes a gen eral rig ht t o inspectrecor ds, un l ess one of the exc ept i ons t o t he PI A pr ecl udes di s cl os ur e of r ecor ds or par t i cul ar i nfor m at i on. SG §10- 613( a)

. T he G ener al A s s embl yhas di r ect ed thatt he statut e be c ons t rued i n favorof perm i t t i ng i ns pect i on of a publ i c r ecor d, unl es s an unw arr an ted i nvas i on of p e rs o n a l p ri v a c yw o u ld re s u lt. S G § 1 0 -6 1 2 (b ).
T her e ar e fourcat egor i es of exc ept i ons t o t he PI A ’ s gener al ru l e o f d i s c l o s u r e
. F i r s t , t h e P I A d e f e r s t o v a r i o u s t yp e s o f

l a w – comm on l aw pr i vi l eges , fede r al and St at e s t atut es , fede r al reg u lat ion s, co u rtrules, co u rt o rde rs

– that m ayp rec lud e d iscl o su re of a r e c o r d o rp a r t i c u l a ri n f o r ma t i o n i n a r e c o r d

. SG §1 0

- 615. Second, t he PI A i t s el f r equi r es t hatcert ai n r ecor ds and s peci fi ed c a t e go r i e s of

i nf ormat i on be w i t hh e l d f

r om pub l i c i nspe c t i on
. SG §§ 10 -616 an d 1 0-617

. W i t h r espect t o cert ai n o t her t ypes of recor ds, t he P IA gives the cu st od i an o f t he record dis cret i on t o d enyaccess to the re cor d, ors ever abl e por t i ons of the r ecor d, i f the cus t odi an “bel i eves t hati ns pect i on .
. . byt he appl i cant w oul d be cont r ary t o t he p u b li c intere st. ” S G § 1 0 -61 8

. B ec au se th ese v ariou s ex ce p ti o n s are notm utual l yexcl usive, m or e than one e xcept i on m ayappl yt o a1 6 [92 O p . A tt’ y

For cer tain issues involving legislative a nd judicial officials, the 3 law a ssi gns a dmi nis tr ativ eand e nf orc e ment fu nc tio ns to o ther enti tie s. See, e .g. , SG §§15-102(b), 15- 510 et seq. This mandate is also incor porate d in the express po wer s of 4 municipalities. SG §15-802. par t i cul arr ecor d. O

f f i ce of the A t t or ney G ener alv. G al l agher , 359 M d. 341, 753 A

. 2d 1036 ( 2000)

. Fi nal l y , t he PI A i ncl udes a ca t chal l pr ovi s i on t hat , i n t he eve ntno exce pt i on appl i es and the cus t odi an of t h e rec o r d bel i eves t hati t s di s cl os ur e “w oul d caus e s ubs t ant i al inj uryt o the p u b lic in ter e st,” th e c u sto d ian m a ytem p o ra rilyw ith h o ld t he r ecor d and s eek a cour tor derpr event i ng di s cl os ur e. SG §10- 6 1 9

. B. Et h i c s La ws 1. St at e M andate f

or L ocal E t hi cs L aw s
T h e M ary land P u b li c E thics L aw , cu rren tl yco d ifi ed atSG §15- 101 et s eq. , s e t s f

o r t h e t h i c a l s t a n d a r d s f o rSt a t e o f

f i c i a l s and empl oy ee s, co n tr ac tors, an d lob b y ist s. T h e S tat e E thics C o m m iss i on admi ni s t er s and enf

or ces t hatl aw
. T o as s i s t t hos e subj ect t o t he l aw 3 i n co m ply i ng w i t h it s ethical st and ards, t he st atute i nclu d e s a p ro c e d u re f

o r in d iv id u a ls to o b tain a d v iso ryo p in io n s f ro m th e S tate E t hi cs C om m i s s i on on t he appl i cat i on of the l aw t o par t i cul ar ci r cumst ance s
. SG §15- 301 et s eq. W i t h r es pectt o enfor cementof t hos e s t andar ds , t he l aw author i zes t he fi l i ng of compl ai nt s w i t h t he C om m i s s i on about al l eged vi ol at i ons of t he s t atut e, w h ich t he C om m i s s i on i s au tho ri ze d to inv esti g ate a n d ad jud icate. SG § 1 5 -401 et s eq.
T he Publ i c Et hi cs L aw al s o r equi r es m uni ci p al i t i es t o enac t t hei r ow n l ocal ethi cs l aw s
. SG §15- 801 et s eq. ; s ee ge ner al l

y Sei pp v. B al t i m or e C it

y B o a r d of

E l ect i ons , 377 M d. 362, 364- 67, 833 A

. 2d 551 ( 2003)

. Per t i nentt o y ouri nqui r y , each m uni ci pal 4
c o rp o ra tio n is to e n a c t lo c a l law s g o v e rn in g c o n f licts o f in ter e st, fi nanci al di s cl os ur e, and l obby i ng. SG §15- 803. L ocal confl i ct s and fi nanci al di s cl os ur e pr ovi s i ons ar e t o be “s i m i l ar ” t o t he pr ovi s i ons of t he Publ i c Et hi cs L aw per t ai ni n g to the St at e governm ent ; l ocal l obby i ng pr ovi s i ons ar e t o be “s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l ar
. ” SG §§15- 804, 1 5 -8 0 5 (b ), 1 5 -8 0 6

. H o w e v e r, lo c a l p ro v isio n s c a n “ b e m o d if ied toG en. 12] 17

Some municip al i t ies havebeen grante d partial or total 5 exemptions relating to local ethics laws. See CO MAR 19 A. 04 .0 3. 03 ; see als o note followingCOMAR 19A.04.01.03. t he ext entnece s sary t o m ake the pr ovi s i ons r el evant

. . . i n t he l ocal j ur i s di ct i on. ” I

d. 5
T he author i t yof a l ocal governm ent t o admi ni s t erand enf or ce l ocal ethi cs l aw s , i ncl udi ng t he creat i on of m echa ni s m s t o i s s ue advi s o r y o p i n i o n s a n d t o a d j u d i c a t e c o mpl a i n t s , i s i mpl i c i t i n t he l egi slat ive m andat e t o cr eat e thos e l aw s
. 66 O pi ni ons of

the A t t or ney G ener al1 9 7 (1 9 8 1 ). T o a ss ist lo c a l g o v e rn m e n ts in c a rry in g o u t th e se re sp o n sib ili ties , the S tate E th ics C o m m iss io n is char ged w i t h adopt i ng m odel ethi cs pr ovi s i ons t hat m ay be us ed by l ocal g o v e r n me n te n t i t i e s
. SG §1 5

- 2 0 5 ( b )

. I f a l o c a l g o v e r nm ent fai l s t o compl yw i t h t he r equi r ement t o cr eat e a l ocal ethi cs l aw , t he S tat e E thics C o m m issi o n is a u tho ri ze d to b ri n g su itin circu itco u rt to e n f o rc e th a t o b lig a tio n . S G § 1 5 -8 0 8

. T he St at e Et hi cs C om m i s s i on has adopt ed t w o m odel ethi cs o rd in a n c e s – a lo n g v e rsio n a n d a sh o rt v e rsio n , k n o w n a s M o d e l A a n d M o d e l B r e s p e c t i v e l y
. COM AR 1 9 A. 0 4

. , Ap p e n d i c e s A a n d B; s e e a ls o S e ip

p , 377 M d. at 3 6 6

. I n addi t i on t o s ubs t ant i ve rul es conce r ni ng confl i ct s of i nt er es t , fi nanci al di s cl os ur e, and l obby i ng, t hos e model s al so p rov ide fort he cr eat i on of a l ocal ethi cs co m m issi o n an d au tho ri ze that co m m issio n to issue ad v isory o p inions and t o i nves t i gat e compl ai nt s of al l eged vi ol at i ons
. T he advi s or yopi ni on and compl ai ntpr ovi s i ons appea rt o be bas ed on s t atut or y pr ovi s i ons governi ng t he i s s uance of advi s or yopi ni ons and t he pr oc e s s i ng of

c ompl a i nt s byt he St a t e Et hi c s Com mi s s i on
. SG §§15- 301 et

s eq
. , 15- 401 et

s eq. 2. C i t y P ubl i c E t hi cs O rdi nance
T he C i t yof B ow i e has adopt ed a publ i c ethi cs or di nance t hat l ar gel yt r acks M odel A pr ovi ded byt he St at e Et hi cs C o m m issi o n. B ow i e C i t yC ode, A r t i cl e I V , §§2- 66 t hr ough 2- 73. T he or di nance cr eat es t he C i t yE t hi cs C om m i s s i on and i ncl udes pr ovi s i ons conce r ni ng confl i ct s of i nt er es t , fi nanci al di s cl os ur e, and l obby i ng adapt ed fr om t he M odel A w i t h m i noredi t i ng.
T he Publ i c Et hi cs O r di nance pr ovi des fort he C i t yE t hi cs C om m i s s i on t o pr ovi de advi s or y opi ni ons on t he appl i cat i on of the et hics ordi nan ce. T he rel evan tprovis i on st at es:1 8 [92 O p . A tt’ y A nyoffi ci al orot her per s on s ubj ect t o t he pr ovi s i ons of thi s A r t i cl e may req ues tof the C om m i s s i on an advi s or yopi ni on conce r ni ng t he appl i cat i on of thi s A rt i cl e. T he C om m i ssi on shal l res po nd prom ptl y t o these re q u e sts , p ro v id in g in ter p r e tatio n s o f th is A rticle b a se d o n th e f

a c ts re a so n a b lya v a ilab le t o i t

. C opi es of t hes e i nt erpr et at i ons , w i t h t he i dent i t y o f t he s ubj ectdel et ed, s hal l be publ i s hed and ot herw i s e made avai l abl e t o t he p u b lic in a c c o rd a n c e w ith a n y a p p lica b le S tate or C i t yof B ow i e l aw s conce rni ng pu blic recor ds.
A r t i cl e I V , §2- 69( V I )

. T hi s pr ovi s i on t r ac k s alm os tverbat i m t he la n g u a g e o f

M o d e l A o f th e S ta te E th ic s C o m m is s io n
. See CO M AR 1 9 A

. 0 4 , A p p en d ix A , § 4 (f).
T he Publ i c Et hi cs O r di nance al s o cont ains a pr ovi s i on conce r ni ng compl ai nt s about all eged vi ol at i ons of the ethi cs or di nance : A nyper s on m ayfi l e w i t h t he C om m i s s i on

a compl ai ntal l egi ng a vi ol at i on of anyof the p ro v isio n s o f

th is A rticle . T h e se c o m p lain ts s hal l be w r i t t en and unde r oath oraff i r m at i on and s hal l b e re ferr ed t o t he C i t yA t t or neyor ot her l egal couns el , i f appr opr i at e, for i nves t i gat i on and r evi ew
. I f af t err ece i vi ng an i nves t i gat i ve r epor t , the C o m m i s s i on det er m i nes t her e ar e i ns uffi ci ent fac t s u p on w h ich to b a se a d e te r m in a tio n o f v io latio n , it m a y d i sm i ss the co m plai nt. If there i s a r eas onabl e bas i s forbel i evi ng a vi ol at i on has occurr ed then the s ubj ectof the compl ai nt s hal l be af

for ded an oppor tuni t yfora hea r i ng co n d uct ed on the r ecor d. A nyfi nal d e ter m in a tio n re su lti n g f ro m th e h e a rin g sh a ll i ncl ude fi nd ings of fa ctand conc l us i ons of l aw
. U pon a fi ndi ng of a vi ol at ion , t he C om m i s s i on m ay t ake anyenfor cementact i on pr ovi ded fori n acc or dance w i t h Sect i on 2- 73 of t hi s A r t i cl e. A ft er a com pl ai nt i s fi l ed and unt i l a fi nal det er m i nat i on by t he C om m i s s i on,G en. 12] 19

As a pre liminary

matter, we have conside red whether our 6 considera tion of these questions i s consistent with our policies g overning Attor ne y Gene ral op ini on s. As a matter of policy , when a question involves the interpre tation of a municipal ordina

nce w e usually

defer to the int erpretation of the municipal attorney

. 88 Op ini on s o f th eAttor

ne yGene ra l 103, 111-12 n. 12 (2 00 3) . In th is c a se , th eordin anc ein q ue sti on is vir

tually identi c a l to a model esta

blished in State law and the pertinent State law re quires that the ordinanc e be “ simil ar”to a State statute. More over, thequestion prese nted i s not so much construction of the municipal ordinancebut whether its undisput ed mea

ning is c onsistent with S tate law. Second, this Offic e does not ty pically issue opinions concer ning the Public Ethics L aw as i t i s o ur policy to defe r to the interpretation of the State Ethi cs C o mmission, which has been ve sted by law with the ob lig atio n toc on str

uethat la w. OA G Pol ic ie s and Proc e dure s, §2 .0 , II .C. Ag a in, thequ e sti on

he reis n ot s o mu c h thec on str uc tio n o f t

hePub lic Ethics L aw – the State Ethics Comm ission has clearly construed that law to authorize local g overnme nts to ad o p t ethi cs ordinanc es that include prov isi on s f

or a dv iso ry op ini on s and theproc e ssingof e thi c s c omp laint s with a degree of

confide ntiality . The issue he re is whe ther that interpre tation conflicts with the PIA.

al l act i ons r egar di ng a compl ai nts hal l be t r e a t e d c o n f

i d e n t i a l l y. A rt ic le IV , § 2 -6 9 (V II ). A g a in , th is p ro v is io n tr a c k s M o d e l A

. See C O M A R 1 9 A

. 0 4 , A p p en d ix A , § 4 (g).

III
A n a ly sis
A s w e under s t and i t , t he C ounci l M ember has r ai s ed ques t i ons th a t tu rn o n w h e th e r th e P u b lic E th ics O rd in a n c e is c o n sis ten t w ith S t a t e l a w – s p e c i f

i c a l l y , t h e P u b l i c E t h i c s L a w a n d t h e P I A

. We di s cus s fi rst the r el at i on of the or di nance t o t he Publ i c Et hi cs L aw a n d , s e c o n d , h o w t wo p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e o r d i n a n c e r e l a t e t o t h e P I A. 6
A
. W h e th e r th e City O rdin a n c e is Co n sis ten t w ith th e S ta te P ubli c E thi cs L aw A s o u tli n e d a b o v e , itis a p p a r e n t th a t th e C itya d o p ted its Publ i c Et hi cs O r di nance t o ful fi l l i t s obl i gat i ons undert he M ary l and Publ i c Et h ic s L aw
. T he pr ovi s i ons of thator di nance ar e der i ved2 0 [92 O p . A tt’ y fr om one of the model or di nance s pr om ul gat ed b y the St at e Et hi cs C om m i s s i on. I n part i cul ar , t he pr ovi s i ons conce r ni ng di s cl os ur e of i nfor m at i on r elated t o advi s or yopi ni ons of the C i t yE t hi cs C om m issi on orcompl ai nt s fi l ed w i t h t he C i t yE t hi cs C om m i s s i on ar e vi r tual l yi denti ca l to t he model s pr ovi ded byt he St at e Et hi cs C om m i s s i on. T hus, thos e por t i ons of the C i t y ’ s Publ i c Et hi cs O rd in a n c e a re c o n s is te n t w ith M a ryla n d P u b lic E th ic s L a w
. B
. A ppli cati on o

f th e PIA to R ecor ds of the Cit y E thi cs Com m is s i on 1. A dvi s or y O pi ni ons
T h e C ity A ttorn eyco n clud ed that n o n e o f th e m an d atory exempt i ons i n t he PI A for par t i cul ar cat egor i es of r ecor ds ( SG §10- 616) or par t i cul art ypes of i nfor m at i on ( SG §10- 617) appl i ed t o t he advi s or yopi ni ons of t he C i t y E t hi cs C om m i s s i on. H e al s o not ed that t hos e opi ni ons ar e notencompas s ed w i t hi n any of t he ca t egor i es of r ecor ds t hatm aybe w i t hhel d bya cus tod ian if t he cus t odi an d eterm ines that it is w ith in th e pu b li c i n terest to do so (S G § 1 0 -61 8 ). W e agr ee.
I n ourvi ew , t he C i t y A t t or neyal s o corr ect l yi dent i fi ed the key ques t i on as w hetherdi s cl os ur e of the i dent i t yof the i ndi vi dual w ho is th e su b

ject o f a n ad v isoryo p inion is co v ere d b ythe P IA ’s exempt i on for r ecor ds governed by “other l aw ” ( SG §10- 615)

. T he C ity A tto rn e y d e te rm in e d th a t it is n o t. W e re s p e c tf u lly d is a g re e
. S G §1 0-615 provides:

A cus t odi an s hal l denyi ns pect i on of a publ i c r ecor d or any par t of a publ i c r ecor d i f: ( 1) byl aw , t he publ i c r ecor d i s pr i vi l eged orconfi dent i al ; or ( 2) t he i ns pect i on w oul d be contr aryt o: ( i ) a St at e s t atut e; ( i i ) a fe der al s t atut e ora r egul at i on t hatis i s s ued undert he s t atut e and ha s t he f o r c e o f l a w;G en. 12] 21

The identity

of the subjec t of the opinion shou l d , of cour se, be 7 reda cted f rom other records relate d to the advisory opinion if requeste d under thePIA. Cf. 64 Opinions of the Attorney Gene ral 1 62, 164 n.5 (197 9 ). Such rec ords may also be e x empt from disclosureif other e xcepti on s to thePIA a

pp lie d to pa

rtic ula r re c ords

. ( i i i ) t he rul es adopt ed byt he C our tof A ppeal s ; or ( i v) an or derof a c our tof r ecor d.
M u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e s d o n o ta p p e a ro n t h e l i s to f “ o t h e rl a w” s etouti n SG § 1 0 -615( 2) t hatm ayt rum p t he PI A ’ s gener al rul e of di s cl os ur e forpubl i c r ecor ds

. T hus , o rdi nar i l ya muni ci pal or di nance t hatpurpor t s t o m ake r ecor ds or i nfor m at i on confi dent i al a n d to c re a te a n e x c e p tio n to th e P I A n o t o th e rw ise b a se d o n S tate l aw i s i neff

ect i ve. I n P ol i ce P atr ol Secur i t y Sys t em s , I

nc. v. P r i nce G e o rg e ’s C o u n ty , 378 M d. 702, 838 A

. 2d 1191 ( 2003) , t he C our tof A ppeal s hel d t hata count y or di nance cr eat i ng a r egi s t r at i on s y s t em forbui l d ing alarm s y s t ems and purpor t i ng t o pr ot ectt hos e r ecor ds fr om publ i c i ns pect i on coul d notpr eempt t he PI A ’ s rul e fa vor i ng publ i c ac ces s
. T he C our ts t at ed: “a l ocal l aw or or di nance m aynot m ake a par t i cul arpubl i c r ecor d orpi ece of publ i c i nfor m at i on
‘ pr i vi l eged orconfi dent i al ’ fort he purpos es of t he [PIA ] unl es s one of t he s our ces of l aw l i s t ed i n §10- 615( 2) does s o orauthor iz es the adopt i on of

s uch .” 3 7 8 M d . a t 7 1 5 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ).
Sect i on 2- 69( V I ) of the C i t yPubl i c Et hi cs O rdi nance c o n c e r n i n g a d v i s o r y e t h i c s o p i n i o n s d e r i v e s f r o m a S t a t e s t a tu t e
. As o ut l i ned above , t hats t atut e – the Publ i c Et hi cs L aw – r equi r es m uni ci pal i t i es t o adopt l ocal ethi cs or di nance s t hat ar e “s i m i l ar ” or “subst anti al l ysi m i l ar” t o the Stat e st atute i n a n um ber of respect s. I tal s o r eq u i r ed the St at e Et hi cs C om m i s s i on t o devi s e model o rdinances fo r that purpose. In car ry i ng ou tt hat charge, t he S t ate E th ics C o m m iss io n p ro m u lg a ted a m o d e l o rd in a n c e w ith admi ni s t r at i ve pr ovi s i ons bas ed on the corr es pondi ng pr ovi s i ons of t he Publ i c Et hi cs L aw
. A m ong t hos e pr ovi s i ons i s t he r equi r ement t hatt he i dent i t y o f t he s ubj ectof an a dvi s or yopi ni on notbe d is c lo s e d w h e n th e s u b s ta n c e o f th e o p in io n is m a d e p u b lic

. See SG § 15- 303. T h u s, in ouropi ni on, di s cl os ur e of the i dent i t yof the su b jec t o f a n a d v iso ry o p in io n o f th e C ity E th ics C o m m iss io n w o u ld b e “ c o n tr a ry to ... a S ta te s ta tu te ....” 72 2 [92 O p . A tt’ y

A local ordinancewould not ordinarily superse de a ma

ndatory 8 exception to disclosure in the PIA. Caffrey v. De p’t o f Liquor Control , 370 Md. 272, 303, 805 A.2d 268 (2002). I n a 1986 opi ni on, A t t or neyG ener al Sachs deal tw i t h a conver s e s i tuat i on. 71 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al2 8 2 (19 8 6 ). In th at si tuation , a c o u n tyethics law , w h ich w as p att ern ed af ter a m o d e l p ro m u lg a ted b yth e S tate E th ics C o m m i ssi on , req u ire d c e rta in co u n tyo ff

ici als a n d e m p loy ee s to f il e a n n u al fina n cial disclosu re sta tem e n ts. In a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e m o d e l o rd in a n c e , th e c o u n ty o rdin an ce all o w ed fo r p u b li c i n sp ec ti o n o f th o se re co rds. H o w ev er, the c o u n tyethics co m m issi o n raised the q u esti o n w h ethe r th e P IA ’s m anda toryexempt i on forper s onal fi nanci al i nfor m at i on ( SG §10- 6 1 7 (f )) tru m p e d th e o rd in a n c e a n d re q u ire d th e c o m m iss io n to w i t hhol d t he i nfor m at i on fr om publ i c i ns pect i on. A t t or neyG ener al 8 Sachs t r ace d t he or i gi n of the di s cl os ur e r equi r ement t o t he M ary l and Publ i c Et hi cs L aw and not ed t hatt he r equi r ement s embodi ed i n t he county ’ s or di nance and di s cl os ur e form s w er e “pa t t erned on the dis cl osure app roaches dis cussed i n t he [S t at e E t hics C om m i ssi on ’s ] r egul at i ons and r efl ectt he St at e di s cl os ur e appr oach. ” I d. at283- 85. A ccor di ngl y , he conc l uded thatt he l ocal or di nance bas ed o n t he Publ i c Et hi cs L aw pr evai l ed overt he otherw i s e man d a t o rye x cept i on in th e P IA

. I tm i ghtbe ar gued that , w hi l e the Publ i c Et hi cs L aw r equi r es l ocal governm ent s t o adopt cert ai n ethi cs pr ovi s i ons , i tdoes not i t s el f m andat e thatt he l ocal or di nance pr ovi de for confi dent i al i t yof th e id e n tityo f

a re q u e ste r o f

a n o p in io n . H o w e v e r, in th e P u b lic E t hi cs L aw , t he G ener al A s s embl yal s o del egat ed t o t he St at e Et hi cs C o m m issi on t he t as k of devi s i ng m odel or di nance s “s i m i l ar ” or “s ubs t ant ial lys i m i l ar ” t o t he St at e ethi cs pr ovi s i ons
. T he admi ni s t r at i ve and e nfor cementpr ovi s i ons t hatt he St at e Ethi cs C o m m i s s i on has i ncl uded i n i t s m odel l aw s hel p ens ur e thatt he s ubs t ant i ve pr ovi s i ons of the l ocal et hi cs l aw ar e i m pl ement ed and i nt erpr et ed i n a w ayt hati s “s i m i l ar ” or“s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l ar ” t o t he c o rr e s p o n d in g p r o v i s io n s o f th e S ta te e th ic s la w
. See CO M AR 1 9 A .0 4 .0 2 .0 3

. T h e L e g isla tu re h a s r e q u ire d th e S tate E th ics C o m m iss io n to k ee p co n fid en ti al th e iden ti ty o f the su b ject o f a S tat e e thics ad v isory o p in io n . S G § 1 5 -3 0 3 (b ). T h e o b v io u s p u rp o se o f th a t p ro v isio n is t o encour age i ndi vi dual s t o s eek gui dance fr om t he St at e Et hi cs C o m m iss io n w ith o u t n e c e ss a rily e x p o sin g p riv a te a f f a irs to p u b lic vi ew , w hi l e s t i l l al l ow i ng forpubl i cat i on o f the s ubs t ance andG en. 12] 23

The phra se “person in interest” is de fined g enerally as “a person 9 or g overnme ntal unit that is th e s ub j ect of a public re cord ....”SG §10- 611(e)

. The provision g overning complaints filed with the State Ethics

10 Commi ssion arguably

pro v i d es for

greater c onfidentiality

as the matter remains confidential unless the S tate Ethi cs C ommissi on finds a violation o r r e f e r s th e m att e r f

o r p r o s e c ut i o n
. T h e p r o v i s i o n i n th e C i ty Pub lic (continued...) r e a s o n i n g o f

t h e o p i n i o n f

o rt h e b e n e f

i to f t h e pu bl i c a tl a r g e
. By in c lu d in g su c h a p ro v is io n in its m o d e l lo c a l o rd in a n c e , the S tate E th ics C o m m iss io n w a s s im p lyin c o rp o ra tin g p o licyju d g m e n ts al r eadym ade byt he G ener al A s s embl y
. T he C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on w as undoubt edl ya r eas onabl e choi ce w i t hi n i t s del egat ed di s cr et i on. I ndeed, i tcoul d be ar g ued that , w i t houtt he bene fi tof a confi dent i al i t ypr ovi s i on t o encour age t he devel opm ent of t he l ocal l aw t hr ough advi s or yopi ni ons , t he l ocal law m ightfal l s hor tof “s ubs t ant i al s i m i l ar i t y ” t o t he Publ i c E thi cs L aw m andat ed byt he G e n e r a l A s s e m b l y.
I t mi g h t a l s o b e a r g u e d t h a t e v e n a l o c a l o r d i n a n c e der i ved fr om and cl os el yr el at ed t o a St at e s t atut e i s n o t “o therl aw ” that cr eat es an exc ept i on underSG §10- 615, beca use the PI A i s t o be

“ c on s t rue d i n f

a vo rof pe r mi t t i ng i ns pe c t i on of a pu bl i c r e c or d. ” SG §10- 612( b)

. H ow ever , t hatrul e of c onstr u ct i on i s qual i fi ed byt he p h ra se “unless an unw arr anted i nv asi on of pri vacy of a perso n in i nt er es tw oul d r es ul t

. ” I d. A s n o ted a b o v e , th e c o n f id e n tiality pr ovi s i on i n ques t i on is d esi gned t o pr ot ectt he pr i vacyof the r eques t ero f t he opi ni on – “a pe r s on i n i nt er es t

. ” T hus , t he 9 pr es um pt i on t hata r ecor d i s open t o i ns pect i o n d o es n o thave the sam e force i n thi s contextas i tm ayi n o t hers.
2
. R ec o rd s R elatin g to C o m p laints
T he s ame anal y s i s appl i es t o di s cl os ur e of i nfor m at i on r el at ed t o a compl ai ntof an e t hi cs l aw vi ol at i on. Sect i on 2- 69( V I I ) of the C i t y Publ i c E t hi cs O r di nance pr ovi des t hat al l act i ons r el at i ng t o a c o m p lain t f

iled w ith th e C ityE th ics C o m m iss io n a re to re m a in confi dent i al unt i l t he C om m i s s i on has m ade a fi nal det er m i nat i on of th e c o m p lain t. L ik e th e p ro v isio n c o n c e rn in g a d v iso ryo p in io n s, th is pr ovi s i on der i ves fr om a St at e s t at u te and pr ovi des for c o n f id e n tial it y s o m e w h a t sim ilar to th a t p ro v id e d f o r c o m p lain ts p ro c e s s e d b y th e S ta te E th ic s C o m m is s io n
. See SG §15- 407. For 102 4 [92 O p . A tt’ y

(...continued) 10 Ethics Ordinanc e does not turn on whe ther a violat i on is found or a criminal re fer

ral is made, just whe th er th e C ity Ethics Commi ssion has made a final dete rmination.
That exception encompasse s rec ords of investig ation conducte d 11 by a city attorney and an “ investigatory

fi l e co mpiled for any

... law enforcement, judicial, corre ctional, or p ro secution purpose ...” SG §10- 618(f) (1)( i)-(ii). Such records may be withheld from inspection under the PIA i f the c us todian fin ds that disc los urewo uld be“ c ontr ary

to t hepu bli c interest.” S G § 1 0 -618(a). I f the re quester is a “per son in interest,” the custodian may

only withh o l d the re cords if thecustodian finds that disclosure would c ause at least one of seven enumerated ha rms. SG §10- 618(f) (2). the s am e re aso n s o u tl ined in the p rev iou s se c ti o n as to ad v isory opi ni ons , di s cl os ur e o f rec or ds r el at i ng t o a compl ai ntpr i ort o t he d e ter m in a tio n o f

th e C ity E th ics C o m m iss io n w o u ld b e c o n tra ryto pr ovi s i ons of the or di nance der i vi ng fr om t he s ame St at e s t atut e. A ccor di ngl y , s uch r ecor ds w oul d be exempt fr om di s cl os ur e under S G § 1 0 -61 5 (2).
O t herexcept i ons i n t he PI A m ayal s o appl yt o par t i cul ar re c o rd s re late d to a p a rticu lar c o m p la in t. F o r e x a m p le, a s th e C ity A tt o rne yind icate d , th e d iscreti o n aryex ce p ti o n fo r i n v esti g atory re c ords i n SG §1 0-618 (f) m ay app l y t o r ecords rel at i ng to co m p lai n ts. Itis al so p o s s ible that so m e o f th e C o m m issi o n ’s

11
rec o rds re lat ing to co m p lai n ts m ayfa ll w ith in the d iscreti o n ary exce pt i on i n SG §10- 618( b) forpr e- deci s i onal r ecor ds t hat r efl ectan a g e n c y ’s d e lib e ra tiv e p ro c e s s
. See Str om ber g MetalW

or ks , I nc. v. U ni ver s i ty of Mar

yland , 3 8 2 M d

. 1 5 1 , 8 5 4 A

. 2 d 1 2 2 0 (20 0 4 ). In ad d it ion , d ep en d ing o n the na ture of the pa rt icular co m p lai n t, there m aybe o t her excep t i on s that coul d ap plyt o p art i cularrecor ds.

IV
C oncl usi on
F or t he reasons setfort h ab ov e, ou r opi nion i s as fol l ow s: 1. T he pr ovi s i ons of t he C i t y Publ i c E t hi cs O r di nance conce r ni ng di s cl os ur e of a dvi s or yop inion s of the C i t yE t hi cs C om m i s s i on and di s cl os ure of r ecor ds r el at ed t o compl ai nt s fi l edG en. 12] 25

w i t h t hatcomm issi o n ar e cons i s t entw i t h M ary l and Publ i c Et hi cs L a w. 2. T he i dent i t yof t he subj ect of an advi s or y opi ni on of the C ityE thics C o m m issi o n fa ll s w ith in S G § 1 0 -61 5 (2), th e P IA ’s exem pti on con cerni ng r e c or ds made c on fi de nt i al byotherS t at e l aw s. 3. R ecor ds r el at ed t o a compl ai nt fi l ed w i t h t he C i t yE t hi cs C om m i s s i on ar e exem pt fr om di s cl os ur e underSG §10- 615( 2) of the P IA u n til th e C o m m iss io n h a s m a d e a f in a l d e ter m in a ti o n . It i s p o ssible tha t othe r ex ce p ti o n s to the P IA ’s g en era l rule o f d iscl o su re m a ya p p lyto p a rticu lar re c o rd s re late d to a c o m p lain t.

D ougl as F

. G ans l er A t t or neyG ener al
R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C hi ef Counsel O p ini ons and A dvi ce