HB328 revises the rules for financial disclosure statements filed by commissioners and applicants for appointment to bicounty commissions, with a particular focus on Prince George’s County and Montgomery County. The bill requires applicants for bicounty commission appointments to submit a paper copy of their electronically filed financial disclosure statement to the Prince George’s County Office of Ethics and Accountability in addition to the county administrative officer, and it directs that office to receive, retain, and manage those statements for Prince George’s County matters.
The bill also shifts several administrative duties related to disclosure statements. In Prince George’s County, the Office of Ethics and Accountability—not the county’s chief administrative officer—must transmit statements to the bicounty commission, keep the records for the commissioner’s term, return statements to unsuccessful applicants, notify the State Ethics Commission when an applicant is not appointed, and maintain public inspection procedures and visitor logs. The measure makes parallel conforming changes to the existing disclosure framework so that Prince George’s County is treated differently from Montgomery County in the handling of these records.
Impact
HB328 amends the General Provisions Article provisions governing bicounty commission ethics disclosures, specifically Sections 5-822 through 5-827. It changes the filing, retention, return, and public inspection responsibilities for financial disclosure statements, creating a new role for the Prince George’s County Office of Ethics and Accountability while leaving the State Ethics Commission’s electronic filing system in place. The bill affects commissioners and applicants for bicounty commissions, county administrative offices, the Prince George’s County ethics office, the Montgomery County process, and the public’s access to these records.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House and Senate unanimously, with 126-0 and 47-0 votes respectively, and the House committee reported it favorably with amendments. The lack of recorded opposition or committee transcript debate suggests general agreement that the measure was a technical or administrative ethics-related update rather than a contested policy change.
Contention
No major substantive opposition is reflected in the available record. Any likely discussion would have centered on administrative responsibility and record-handling procedures—especially the decision to route Prince George’s County disclosure statements through the Prince George’s County Office of Ethics and Accountability instead of the county chief administrative officer. The bill’s amendments appear to be aimed at clarifying local ethics administration and aligning disclosure handling with county-specific practices, rather than changing who must disclose or what must be disclosed.