By Adam Pagnucco.
Last week, former Planning Board Member Partap Verma alleged that former Planning Board Chair Casey Anderson improperly tainted the work of Park and Planning’s inspector general. Verma said:
During my tenure as the audit committee representative, the former chair inappropriately kept two investigations open for the purposes of using this information at a later date. This included two investigations, one against a former commissioner on a state ethics violation and another against a sitting council member.
In both instances, the former chair in an abuse of power directed the OIG inspector to not close out the cases when both cases were either resolved or had no active issues associated with them.
Senator Ben Kramer, sponsor of two state bills transferring authority over Park and Planning’s functions to the county executive, jumped all over the allegations.
Yesterday, Park and Planning’s inspector general responded to the allegations in a letter to Montgomery County’s delegation of state legislators. The letter takes on Verma’s claims and discloses a previously unreported investigation of a planning board member who was running for county council. If any document in this whole affair is a must read, this is it.
Following is a transcript along with a version of the document on letter head.
*****
December 19, 2022
Via email – Julie.PalakovichCarr@house.state.md.us
Honorable Julie Palakovich Carr
Montgomery County Delegate
District Lowe House Office Building, Room 221
6 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
Re: Montgomery County – Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Restructuring Task Force (MC/PG 104/23).
Clarification of December 15, 2022 Testimony
Dear Delegate Palakovich Carr,
To best serve the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (Commission) and its constituents, I am impelled to clarify statements made by Mr. Partap Verma, former Montgomery County Commissioner and Audit Committee member, on December 15, 2022 addressing his support of Bill MC/PG 104/23. Mr. Verma testified to the following:
In order for the OIG of the Commission to be 100% independent, it is important that the Chair of the Commission not have any ability to control the direction of the OIG Inspector. In its current setup, the Chair has the ability to change the workplan of the OIG Inspector and influence the opening and closing of investigations. During my tenure as the Audit Committee representative, the former chair inappropriately kept two investigations open for the purposes of using this information at a later date. This included two investigations, one against a former Commissioner on a State ethics violation and another against a sitting council member. In both instances the former Chair in an abuse of power directed the OIG Inspector to not close out the cases when both cases were either resolved or had no active issues associated with them.
Annotated Code of Maryland (§15-502) established the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The Inspector General is selected and appointed by the Audit Committee. The Inspector General does not report to any Commission official or Commission Office. During my five years as the Inspector General, the former Montgomery County Chair did not influence nor control the direction of any investigation. Occasionally, the Chair brought potential issues to my attention for possible investigation or audit, as this is customary for Chairs and Officers of the Commission. My decisions to act were autonomous without any external influence and were made in the best interests of our community stakeholders.
The Audit Committee consists of four voting members. The Chair of the Commission serves as an ex officio nonvoting member of the Audit Committee who may vote only when there is a tie vote among the voting members. As required by Commission Practice[i], the Audit Committee must “coordinate with the Inspector General to develop the written annual risk-based work plan.” Contrary to Mr. Verma’s statement, the Commission Chair does not have the ability to change the OIG’s work plan or control the opening or closing of investigations.
Mr. Verma also referenced two investigations, one against a former Commissioner on a State ethics violation and another against a sitting council member. I am not aware of the two investigations Mr. Verma is referring to, however the OIG completed a limited investigation2 in 2021 involving a former Planning Board member who is now a sitting council member. The OIG has never investigated a sitting council member. Details of the limited investigation[ii] are provided below:
- On June 7, 2021, the former Montgomery County Chair informed me of a current Planning Board members campaign for County Council. Concerns were raised regarding inherent conflicts. I explained to the former Montgomery County Chair, the Maryland State Ethics Commission is responsible for investigating ethics and conflict of interest complaints against Commissioners. The former Montgomery County Chair did not make any additional requests for investigation into this matter.
- On July 2, 2021, a Montgomery County Planning Board member brought similar concerns to my attention regarding the Planning Board member seeking public office but this time specific allegations were made. At that time, I opened a limited investigation to assess possible violations of Maryland Land Use Article (§15-120) Prohibited Acts – Conflicts of Interest.
- On July 26, 2021, I presented the results of the limited investigation to the Commission’s Audit Committee. At that time, Ms. Elizabeth Hewlett, Chair, Prince George’s County Planning Board, was serving as the nonvoting member of the Audit Committee (not former Chair Anderson). During this briefing, it was determined that the allegations did not warrant referral to Maryland’s State Ethics Commission as the Public Ethics Law does not include the solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of political contributions as a gift. To protect the reputation of the Planning Board and Commission, the Audit Committee requested a complete investigation into the campaign activities of the Planning Board member.
- On July 26, 2021, I asked the Planning Board member for a list of their donors to assist in the investigation. The list of donors was not provided. The individual resigned from the Planning Board effective August 31, 2021. The OIG did not take any additional investigatory action.
- On October 1, 2022, The OIG issued a confidential Memorandum of Limited Investigation to the former Montgomery County Chair summarizing the OIG’s findings. The memorandum was promulgated to all Commission Officers and Audit Committee members. At time of issuance the OIG was planning on re-opening the investigation in 2022 once the donor lists became public, but due to resource restrictions coupled with the Planning Board member’s resignation, a subsequent review was not completed.
At no time during the OIG’s limited investigation did the former Montgomery County Chair try to influence the investigation, or request the investigation remain open. The OIG complies with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. These standards have strict requirements for independence.
In closing, preserving the reputation of the Commission is one of the many duties of the OIG. Inaccurate characterizations of the OIG’s independence must be corrected and accurately depict the facts. I am available to address any questions or concerns the members of the delegation may have as it relates this memorandum.
Regards,
Renee M. Kenney, CPA, CIA, CIA, CISA
Inspector General
cc: Jeffrey Zyontz, Chair Montgomery County Planning Board
Peter Shapiro, Chair Prince George’s County Planning Board
Dorothy Bailey, Vice Chair Prince George’s County Planning Board, Audit Committee Chair
Debra Borden, General Counsel, M-NCPPC
Cherri Branson, Commissioner Montgomery County Planning Board, Audit Committee Member
Asuntha Chiang-Smith, Executive Director, M-NCPPC
Gavin Cohen, Secretary-Treasurer, M-NCPPC
Erin White, Audit Committee Public Member
Benjamin Williams, Audit Committee Public Member
[i] Commission Practice 1-31, Organization and Functions of the Audit Committee and Office of the Inspector General
[ii] A limited investigation involves preliminary inquiries by the OIG to determine 1) if an administrative fraud, waste, and abuse investigation is warranted or 2) if the preliminary information supports a referral to an outside law enforcement agency for criminal investigation.
