Baltimore City Board of Ethics Advisory Opinions
To better guide public servants about ethics requirements, the Ethics Board has the authority to issue advisory opinions on the Ethics Law's application to circumstances described in a written request. See City Code, Article 8, Subtitle 4. The Ethics Board is required to publish these opinions after removing all identifying information of the parties.
Right to Rely on an Advisory Opinion
Any person subject to the Ethics Law is entitled to rely on an advisory opinion of the Ethics Board that: 1) is reasonably applicable to that person’s circumstances; and 2) has not been overruled by a later opinion of the Ethics Board or superseded by later amendments to the Ethics Law or its Regulations. See City Code, Article 8, section 4-4.
Advisory Opinions
Fair Election Fund
- Can members of the new Fair Election Fund Commissions make monetary or in-kind donations to campaigns that receive FEF funds?
The Ethics Board was called on to carefully balance FEF Commissioners’ protected political speech protections under the First Amendment with the Ethics Law’s prohibitions against conflicts of interest.
Result: FEF Commissioners may exercise their First Amendment rights to make monetary and in-kind donations to qualifying campaigns. However, active, for-pay employment by a campaign receiving FEF funds creates a conflict of interest that is irreconcilable with the provisions of Art. 8!
Conflicts of Interest
Ethics Opinion 24-001 (February 29, 2024) on Fair Election Fund (FEF) commissioners’ ability to be employed on campaigns who receive funds from the FEF [link to document]
The Ethics Board determined that compensated employment by and through a campaign that receives FEF funds creates an impermissible Conflict of Interest for FEF commissioners.
Click here to view Public Opinion 24-001
Lobbying
This opinion clarifies activities that constitute “legislative lobbying” through the lens of an ethics complaint.
Restrictions on Secondary Employment/Board Membership
The Ethics Board issued this opinion after determining that a public servant's membership on an entity's governing board did not qualify as service on the City's behalf. This opinion clarifies the relevant exception to the Ethics Law's secondary employment restrictions for service on the City's behalf.
The Board provides guidance on the Ethics Law's provisions limiting a City public servant's secondary employment options, defining the term, "employment," and providing scenarios that raise an impermissible conflict of interest.
Restrictions on Employment After City Service
The Ethics Law's post-employment restriction does not bar an employee's proposed employment with another employer.
The Board addresses the following: 1) the scope of the Ethics Law's post-employment restriction; 2) what it means to assist or represent a party “other than the City”; and 3) whether the restriction terminates after a period of time.
Gifts
A City public servant, who was offered the gift of free travel and lodging from a controlled donor, did not qualify for exemption to the Ethics Law's gift restrictions, including its exemption for the gift of free travel and lodging from a controlled donor in exchange for the public servant's participation in a speaking engagement or on a panel.
This opinion applies the Ethics Law’s gift restrictions and exemptions to a situation in which an elected official is offered a free ticket or admission to a sporting event.
A City official may not solicit or accept a gift of below-market-rate rent from the property’s owner who qualifies as a “controlled donor."
The mere existence of an agreement with an entity does not allow the City to request anything that it wants from that entity without running afoul of the Ethics Law's restrictions on gift solicitation.
The Board clarifies the Ethics Law's restrictions on gift solicitation and acceptance, providing that gifts intended for charitable purposes or public benefit are not exempt from the gift provisions and that recusal does not exempt a public servant from the gift provisions.
Cohabitating partners with certain degrees of economic interdependence, such as shared financial accounts, living expenses, and property ownership, combined with the expectation that those arrangements will continue indefinitely, should be treated as a single economic unit for purposes of the Ethics Law.
The Board provides protocols for the acquisition and distribution of property, clarifying that the solicitation and acceptance of additional property than what is stipulated for in original contracts violates the Ethics Law's gift provisions.
The Board outlines three conditions for City sponsorship agreements: broad solicitation, vetting of sponsors, and approval by the Board of Estimates. When such conditions are met, a sponsorship agreement is treated the same as a contract and does not implicate the Ethics Law's gift provisions.
Conflicts of Interest - Recusal
A City Councilmember should refrain from participating in any legislative matter to which an entity that employs the Councilmember part time is a party.
The Ethics Law does not require members of the Board of Estimates ("BOE") to abstain from voting on all matters concerning a unit of City government under their control, although the BOE may issue additional voting abstention policies to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Cohabitating partners with certain degrees of economic interdependence, such as shared financial accounts, living expenses, and property ownership, combined with the expectation that those arrangements will continue indefinitely, should be treated as a single economic unit for purposes of the Ethics Law.
In response to various scenarios posed by a public servant, the Board determines which matters require recusal.
The definition of "business entity" for the purpose of the Ethics Law's recusal requirements encompasses the entirety of a conglomeration considered a single legal entity, such as a university or the Baltimore City Public School System, and is not limited to a particular site, division, or other sub-unit unless the sub-unit has a separate legal existence.
Prestige of Office
The Board provides recommendations for City agencies' official policies on letters of reference, in light of the Board's finding that a City employee used his City position for another's private gain in providing a letter of reference for a contractor to secure future work.
Are City Employees barred from participating in Elections?
Short answer: Of course not – City government cannot abridge or abrogate “political speech” protected by the First Amendment.
BUT: There are a number of restrictions to be observed and followed by public officials.
This is not strictly a matter for Ethics. So we refer you to the City Law Department’s concise summary on Political Activity by City Employees that should answer all your questions!
- It’s an Election Year: How about those “suspicious” Campaign Contributions? [Click here]
Does the Ethics Law apply to campaign donations? The answer may surprise you…
