You're watching Open Agenda. Here's our
host, Joe White.
>> Welcome to Open Agenda. I'm your host,
Joe White. In the studio with us now is
Mike Goldberg from Delmare. Thank you.
>> Of course.
>> Dr. Joe from Salsbury. Thanks for being
here.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Uh we were both at the January or all
three of us were at the January 6
meeting. Um where we we listened to the
county council override the county
executive's veto of the audit
legislation. We were there in back in
December and back in the summer through
the work sessions for this bill. Um a
little surprising that it got vetoed
over the holidays, right?
>> It was a Christmas surprise. I'll say
that.
>> Yeah. Well, after Christmas,
[laughter] sorry.
>> Um you know, Michael Langford and and
Trish Melvin were there at this last
meeting. I want to bring them in. I want
to get their perspective on what did
they see because I'm not sure to someone
who hasn't been going to the meetings on
a regular basis like we have who sat
through the work sessions and and seeing
this bill get introduced and have a
public hearing that they would that they
would even understand what was going on
and and I don't think they had access to
the press release, but I'd like to ask
them about that.
>> I'm looking forward to hearing what they
have to say.
>> All right. Will you guys come back in
after they're here?
>> You betcha.
>> All right. So stay with us. When we come
back, we're going to bring in Trish
Melvin and Michael Langford. We're going
to ask them about what they witnessed.
Stay with us. We'll be right back.
>> Welcome back to Open Agenda. In the
studio with us now is Michael Langford
from Salsbury. Thank you.
>> Thanks for having me.
>> Trish Melvin from Fruitland. Thank you
for coming out.
>> Sure.
>> So, you were you were both at the uh the
meeting on Tuesday, January 6th, and uh
and you you saw the veto override and uh
I know you you you weren't there in the
December meeting. I I was there to see
that one, but I want to get a
perspective and and Trish, did you did
you understand even what what what they
were overriding? Was
>> it It was a little bit unclear to me. Um
I wasn't up to date on the on the
information that was being presented
about the U legislation. Um what was
very helpful to me is John Cannon
prepared a PowerPoint.
>> Yes.
>> That was very clear um concise and
factual. What this does is give you
relatively a chronological presentation
of what what developed with legislative
bill 2025-14.
It was introduced by the council and it
was introduced by the council to give
the internal auditor more authority to
perform an audit review on the county
council. That was that was the purpose
of this bill. Uh we thought that it
encouraged transparency and it also
created greater efficiencies on the
behalf of the county council.
don't understand what could possibly be
wrong with that. Uh the action was taken
by the council actually at the request
of the administration and the executive
is now issued a veto on this bill.
Second, the back more continued
background. The internal auditor had
been working on this legislative bill
with the executives administrative staff
and legal department since March of
2025. That was over 10 months ago. So
there was plenty of times to vet this
and to have a shared discussion as to
whether or not this was the right way to
move forward.
The legislative work session began on
September the 16th. At that point in
time, the administration, the legal
department received the draft. There was
a public introduction on November the
18th. Again, opportunity to have any
discussions. And then on December 16th,
there was a public hearing and a final
vote. At this point in time, the
executive was actually in attendance at
the meeting but chose not to make any
comments. The reason I say this is
because the executive had shared with
one agency that the proper legislative
process did not involve the executive
inter interfering with the entire
legislative bill process until it came
to her table. I couldn't be any further
from the truth as to how we have acted
over the last 20 years and certainly how
we've how we presented legislative bills
over the last three years. So, that's
the reason for getting into the uh uh to
the weeds here. Um, at no time in
reference to this legislative bill, at
no time did this did members of the
county council, to my knowledge, receive
any phone calls, any text messages, any
emails, nor did we hear any public
comments with any objections from the
executive in this manner. But we have a
veto and that wouldn't be so bad except
for the press releases that came after
that and the blog comments that came
after that that you know again an
attempt to sort of disparage the county
council as far as just trying to do
their legislative responsibilities and
in a very clear statement that was sent
to me. The statement was from the
executive that it's important for the
public to understand that the county
executive does not influence legislation
while it is before the council.
My responsibility begins only after a
bill is passed and delivered to my
office and that is why the veto was
issued at the appropriate time and
stating consistent with the county
charter. Well, there's no reference to
this type of process in the county
charter and as I said before, there are
numerous opportunities for this
discussion to be held as we have done in
the past.
>> So, Michael, you you you got to see
President Cananan's presentation. It was
about six minutes long and and he did.
He went through the timeline when they
started this process with the executives
branch to to get this legislation
passed. Did you get a sense that what
they were looking for when they started
this process was to put both the
executive and the legislative branch
under the same parameters for audits?
Yeah, it's it seems standard. as an
accountant who's been involved in audits
for large companies. Um there's nothing
from what I've seen in the briefing book
or when again the council president
Hannon's you know presentation was great
and brought me up on the history of like
the process of you know the dates and
stuff but looking at it it's like it's
it's an audit. It's pretty standard
procedure and if you're doing your job
you don't really have to fear audits.
>> It seemed like from the presentation
they were absolutely shocked that this
got vetoed. Uh, Trish, were you aware
that there was a veto? I I know you
don't you don't do Facebook. So, how did
you even find out that that the
executive had issued a veto?
>> You know, I saw it on the agenda of the
council meeting. Okay.
>> Um, you know, I don't do Facebook and
I'm afraid I'm a little bit at a loss on
important communications like that.
>> This was not posted to the county
council's website. We do know that it
was put on the county executive's
personal Facebook page and um other
other news coverage had covered it and
she was kind of directing everybody
towards one in particular. Uh I was I
was interested to see just how you even
when you saw it on the agenda, did you
did you even understand what they were?
>> I really did not. I really did not. Um,
Michael, when the executive did bring up
uh some very poignant u opposition and
and and I'm not sure if if we understand
it uh all of her points, but she was
concerned that there's there are some
areas that there wasn't like the same
global standards for the audits, but
they're not auditable areas, I guess.
>> So, that that was the that was the thing
about her comments is like these global
audit standards. Um whenever you hear a
word like global or world or like
international um these are normally
nonprofits or like think tank type of
organizations that kind of set like this
is not like it's not the FAA setting
guidelines. It's not DOT that determine
these Yeah. the Yeah. This is not like
the Federal Reserve, the US Mint or any
kind of standard set by like a
governmental body. So like that was kind
of a tip to me. I was like, as someone
who's been an accountant, as someone
who's done audits, I don't know what
standards she's talking about.
>> So, Trish, I want to ask you, you have
some experience with audits and and I
want you to explain what is your
experience and and what did what did you
take from that from from your past
history?
>> Okay. I've never done a financial audit,
but I have done environmental audits up
and down the east coast. Okay.
>> And I've conducted mock OSHA audits.
>> Oh, wow. That sounds exciting.
>> And safety audits. Um, and as part of
the auditing process, there's typically
a step where you interview the audit and
you look for red flags. Sorry, I wasn't
in here earlier. I was the topic of
conversation, so I guess it was the
executive meeting rather than the
council meeting. Um, I will tell you
talking about legislative bill 2025-14
and the veto authority. Um, I just want
to make this very clear. This is not
about opposing audits. This is not about
protecting independence transparency or
this is about protecting independence
transparency and the balance of power
that our county charter requires.
And Mr. Benson kind of said um that the
bill can't be vetoed or shouldn't be
vetoed but yet it was sent to me to for
approval. So if there are bills that are
not supposed to be approved or vetoed my
why are we sending it to the executive
office because it could be vetoed. The
charter does allow the county council to
order audits and assign certain duties
to the internal auditor without
executive veto, but that exemption
applies only to specific council
actions, not new laws that rewrite the
county code. Legislative bill 2025-14 is
a code amendment. Under the charter,
that type of legislation follows the
normal legislative process, including
executive review and veto authority.
This is not about personalities. It's
not or I'm sorry, it's not about
personalities. It's about governance and
the rule of law. Every executive, past,
present, and future, has the same
responsibility to ensure that laws
comply with the charter. An internal
auditor must be independent, not just in
name, but in structure. When the same
body being audited can wave the audit
rules for itself or carve out activities
that are not subject to professional
standards, that independence is
compromised. Despite public claims, that
bill does not make the council fully
subject to independent audit standards.
In fact, it explicitly exempts certain
council related activities like fiscal
impact reviews, hotline investigations,
and assistance to council members like
gift card audits from the global audit
standards. Every department and every
branch of government should be held to
the same auditing standards. That's all
I asked. Creating carveouts or
exemptions for one branch undermines
public trust. We are also in an election
cycle and context matters. At least one
sitting member of the county council is
currently running for a statewide office
and several individuals who have
publicly and inaccurately characterized
this bill are running or considered
running for council seats. When
candidates or potential candidates
publicly promote legislation using
incorrect legal claims, it raises
serious questions about judgment,
preparedness, and respect for the
charter. Supporting legislation that
weakens auditor independence or creates
the appearance of self-p protection is
not strength. It's a liability. Voters
expect transparency. I hear it all the
time in this room. Accountability and
equal application of the rules.
Legislation like this invites
skepticism, damages credibility, and
creates unnecessary risk for anyone who
supports it, especially those asking for
the public for their vote. Strong
candidates don't need carveouts. They
should welcome clear and independent
oversight. That charter is our
constitution.
No bill, no matter how well-intentioned,
can override the charter or expand
council authority beyond what voters
approved. And you know, unfortunately, I
think I saw some red flags. Um, of
course, Joe Councilman Hollywood
Holloway spoke up about some red flags
that he had difficulty or historically
there's been difficulty obtaining
financial information out of the
executive uh branch. This is something
over the years since I've been on the
council that we've been really
challenged with getting information.
This makes it a lot more clear and I
hope in the future that we don't have
those challenges
>> which he which he stated went back
multiple administrations not just this
one
>> previous uh executives as well. Uh so
that was a red flag and um just the
unexplained veto you know after all this
effort had put in been put into the
project for months um why veto it and
the explanation to me was not clear you
know I think we saw from John Cannon the
facts from the charter in black and
white um when I compare that to kind of
a word salad um I I feel that the facts
are being obscured So you you picked up
on some red flags just just from that
that standpoint. If you were doing an
audit, you would just have more
questions. I guess
>> that's typically how we're trained. Once
you see those red flags, you dig in and
seek more information.
>> Gotcha. I think uh for me, if if at the
end of the day, we know that the county
council is going to be held to the same
standard the executives branch and vice
versa. The executive branch is going to
be held to the same standard as the
council. I'm comfortable. Now, if we can
make that even more transparent, then I
think that that that that that's the
opportunity and I think that's what they
were looking for. Um, when you go back
to President Canon's uh presentation, he
talked about the interaction with the
the legal department. Now, the legal
department answers directly to the
county executive. Uh the council has
their own uh lawyer, but the legal
department itself, they answer just to
county executive. They weren't they
weren't present in the override either.
You mean uh Tuesday night?
>> Yes.
>> That was all very confusing that so much
time over many months was spent with the
administration attorney putting all this
uh together for helping form the
legislation.
I thought that this was with input from
the executive. I mean, does the uh
administration attorney perform on
behalf of the executive?
>> They they do. I mean they they're
supposed to work together but it sounded
like from the presentation that they had
all worked together. I mean it's not
what you're saying about the scope of an
audit should be everyone in the
government and it it basically is and
the council you know determines that
framework and how people act and then
the county executive is supposed to act
with that that framework as the council
directs and she's really but like the
way that she often presents herself as
though she's an independent because we
changed it to an elected official
position now. She often does this. Well,
we have a balance of powers and I have
to question the council and everything
they do. But really, the county exec is
there to carry out the daily will of the
council who does not actually work there
on the daily.
>> Sure.
>> I mean, that's the function. And I think
that like the idea that um there's no
input from her like to make the
legislation work, you know, because if
there are legitimate qualms, if if she
has legitimate qualms, if there aren't
standards, why mention it now? Why just
veto and kill and waste all this time,
energy, and resources
>> of our local government when we already
know we're strapped?
>> I mean, I Yeah, I definitely would want
her her her concerns to be uh right
looked into, but at the same time, maybe
the the ship had already sailed, I
guess, is is is the problem. And and and
it doesn't sound like there was actually
a problem at all. Uh I appreciate both
of your perspectives from having been
there. I want to bring back in uh Mike
Goldberg and Joe Venosa. They they were
at the December meeting and the January
meeting and I want to really get their
perspective on just how they felt like
that change had happened. So, thank you
for for your insight. So, when we come
back, we're going to bring in Joe Venosa
and Mike Goldberg and we're going to
talk to them about what they saw at the
December meeting and how surprised they
were at the veto override in January.
So, stay with us. We'll be right back.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. Back in the
studio with us is Mike Goldberg from
Delmare. Thanks for coming back. Of
course, Dr. Joe from Salsbury. Thanks
for being back.
>> Yes, sir.
>> So, it was interesting to get a chance
to talk to Michael and Trish uh because
they were at the January 6th meeting uh
where they got to see the veto override.
Uh I know we were all in in person at
the December meeting. uh you know when
we were going through this process I
mean whether it was the work sessions
with Analie back in September and
October or as we were even seeing the
legislation get passed in December. Um
did you did you this seemed almost
boring like we this was just another
part of the role of government like this
was this was just something that was
coming up and then the veto was just
surprising right? Well, the veto
surprised me because near as I could
tell, this was a collaborative effort
between the council and the
administration and then out of the blue,
you know, and based on false premises
that uh the audit standards were not
being applied equally. That simply is is
not the case.
>> Well, you went back and did some
research. I know you you you you asked
for some follow-up information. This was
after we saw the briefing book come out
before the meeting Tuesday. uh the the
the the five points that are not part of
the global standards and whether you
agree with like as Michael said that
they're really not that big of a deal or
what these aren't audible parts of the
bill. Right.
>> Right. I mean when when you think audit
you're you're dealing with um you're
dealing with issues very objectively but
these points to which uh that that were
excluded to which the executive um uh
did not agree with um those are very
subjective items. I don't know how you
apply a standard uh to those kind of
things.
>> Do you think they would if they could?
Uh if they could, I believe they would
>> because one of them was just running the
employee hotline, right? How do you I
mean I guess you audit whether she's
doing it or not doing how many operators
were hanging up on the call on the
suicide hotline or something. I mean,
you know, [laughter] maybe maybe that
would be objective. This is a completely
subjective approach and it's a
responsibility that is being assigned to
the auditor that is in fact a non audit
function. Think of it like this. The
vice president of the United States
serves as the vice president but also
the president of the senate. That has
nothing to do with him being vice
president. It's more than one function.
How many of us in any job have not worn
more than one hat? And this is all
>> so and on these hats. It just doesn't
fall under the global standards of of
auditors.
>> Not that that I can tell at all.
>> Joe, what was your take on what you saw?
I mean, what was there parts of this
that concerned you or from from from
either aspect, the override or or the
>> the the override? Uh nothing about the
actual legislative action at the last
meeting surprised me. Um, what surprised
me in hindsight because I got
information on this afterward and I'll
explain it in a second is this. Um, who
was not in the room? Did
>> did you notice
>> Paul Wilbur was not there?
>> Paul Wilbur was not in the room and
>> he's he's the head of the legal
department.
>> Correct. And Andrew Illuminati, although
he was in the room partially, he was not
there in those moments. Um, I think
that's instructive.
>> Okay.
>> Um, and why I say that is because I also
have some contacts in Mr. Wilbur's
office, and I can tell you, and please
verify this, they were caught off guard
uh at her veto. Paul Wilbur specifically
was caught off guard, but other people
related to the process were caught off
guard because she never told them. Um,
so you could make the argument that it
was a reckless veto in the sense that
she never informed the very people that
were working on it with her and the
council for months. So, that speaks to
some more disturbing behavior. Uh,
>> so you're you're making the assertion
that because they weren't there, it was
it was tactful that they weren't there
because they didn't want to be called
out for this this miss. I guess
>> that's that's part of it. Absolutely. I
I think um it's it speaks
volumes that they weren't there to even
uh field questions.
>> Okay. And if you I have to wonder what
went on in that room in her office that
afternoon and evening because I think
that some of those concerns boiled over
and and I'm just speculating now, but
the people that I've spoken with who who
have um better knowledge than I have
indicated that that there are some real
internal uh problems right now over how
she handled the veto.
>> No question about [clears throat] that.
Look, I think this speaks to the county
executive's style of governing. Rather
than governing on principle, rather than
basing her actions on confidence and
understanding of the issues, in my
opinion, what she does is try to create
chaos, keeping everybody on the ropes,
keeping everybody off balance. That is
her methodology of maintaining control.
That is extremely disturbing. That's no
way to govern.
>> I I I don't doubt that. I think we've
seen for the last 3 years that has been
the pattern. But it doesn't explain why
she would be so involved in the process
on this particular piece of legislation
and then suddenly radically without
telling her own lawyers to change it. I
think something else is going on. Well,
I I will say, you know, one assertion
she made that I I wouldn't want to ever
see this happen with any county
executive is that she's not supposed to
be in uh involved in recommending
legislation to come forward. That's
leadership. And if if if she was not
willing to do that or some somebody else
in the county executive's office not
willing to do that, that I wouldn't want
them to not have that opportunity and I
would want them to want to do that part.
Uh, you talk about balance. Bob Benson,
who's the the attorney for the county
council, seemed to have the most
balanced argument. She had no authority
to veto it under the county charter. Um,
and that's made clear in chapter 411
under executive veto and under chapter
305F.
Um the language notwithstanding that
clear language um I am nevertheless
recommending to the council that they
vote to override the veto. I make this
recommendation because the exe executive
through the department law department is
responsible for the implementation of
changes to chapter 13 by made by
legislative bill 2025-14.
As council will remember all too well
well a mere three years ago, the
executive misinterpreted equally clear
language in the charter and that
misinterpretation only got resolved by
extensive litigation that resulted in an
opinion issued by the Maryland appellet
court affirming council's interpretation
of the charter. In order to avoid a
circumstance where the executive refuses
to implement the changes mandated by
legislative bill 2025
uh 14, a vote to override the veto
remove any opportunity for disagreement
such that the executive is mandated to
implement the changes adopted in
legislative bill 2025-14.
So to to again restate it, she had no
authority to veto it. She has vetoed it.
uh to the extent that there could be any
disagreement about what the language is
of the code, whether she's authorized to
veto it or not, my recommendation is
that if you that you vote to override
the veto.
>> He he actually went over the reasons why
the veto itself was not even valid.
>> Yeah.
>> But also went through the process of why
they should still the council should
still go through the override because we
saw this with the confirmation of of the
of the two appointees back two years
ago. I I think that if they hadn't
vetoed it, uh, County Executive Gardonno
would have probably filed another
lawsuit against the taxpayers, meaning
the council. And this gets to my point
as to why she's doing it. This is just
my speculation. I think money is being
moved,
>> and I think she's very afraid of of the
order finding out where some of that
money is going.
>> I don't know. That's I mean, that's
that's a pretty bold assertion. But I
will tell you this, I my thinking is
>> I don't care if it was the county
council, the county executive, or the
person running the vending machine down
the hallway. If someone's moving money,
I hope that the auditor finds it, and I
hope that they're held accountable
because right now in this community, we
have a lot of folks who are struggling
just to pay for the groceries. So, if
somebody's moving money around, they
should be
>> and that's the thing. I'm not I'm not
necessarily suggesting that the
executive is moving money in an
unethical or possibly legally dubious
manner. But what I'm saying is that if
any executive were doing that if they
were, they would be afraid of that veto
override because of what it could find
out.
>> I just find it we we were never going to
it passed six to zero to start with. And
we had one county council person who was
absent in December.
>> Uh they were Shannie Shields was at the
January meeting. The only person who
changed her mind was Councilman James.
>> I guess the only thing that I'd be
concerned about is the uh be um the part
where we added county auditor
performance of other activities will not
be subject to the global internal audit
standards published by the Institute of
Internal Auditors. Um that would be an
oversight on me I imagine. But uh I that
that's a concern of mine
>> to address Mr. W's question. the the
additional duties that have been
assigned are not items that are audit
items. They are additional duties um to
review budgets to to to discuss fiscal
impacts proposed resolute res
resolutions to administer the hotline.
They are not items that are that are um
that the auditor would be auditing under
any circumstance or just additional
duties that she's being asked to fun to
to propose. Um, consequently, she's not
auditing those things and never would
audit those things.
>> Well, and we've seen time and time again
with him, he generally votes in the way
that the county executive is is leaned
towards. Not all the time, but a lot of
the time.
>> We we some of us had sort of an office
pool bet as to whether or not he would
change his vote, and I won.
>> So, Michael, I I want to ask you, uh, we
we heard Trish earlier talk about that
she was not privy to the executives's
override. She she never saw a press
release and and this is someone who
keeps up on that whether it's the city
of Frutland or or Wakamaku County. She's
keeping up on what's what the press
releases are. She never saw it and you
spoke about it at the meeting. Uh I want
I want you to explain what your concerns
there were and what you plan to do about
it.
>> Well, the first place that it was posted
um was Eastern Shore Undercover.
>> Okay.
>> Uh a blog site. Um, from what I
understand, the press release was sent
to other media outlets, uh, and his just
happened to be the first one to post it,
uh, to post it. Um, the problem is is
that on Julie Gardano's personal
Facebook page, she was actually
directing viewers to Eastern Shore
Undercover to see her press release
>> instead of the county website.
>> And it wasn't on the county website. In
fact, it wasn't until 6 days later that
it appeared on the county website. And
of course, they're going to claim, well,
we it was just an oversight. No, it
wasn't. This is this is not the first
time.
>> Why do you think it was done
intentionally?
>> Well, we've seen a pattern on this.
First of all, we know that Eastern Shore
Undercover has been in the past uh a
significant campaign contributor to the
to the county executives campaign. Um,
so there seems to be, you know, we
direct we direct traffic to Eastern
Shore undercover and he makes money and
in return, so it would seem uh he is
giving the county executive unfathered
support no matter what. So essentially,
he is acting as a I'm I'm sorry, Eastern
Shore Undercover is acting as a
political operative for the county
executive. That should have gone that
should have been posted immediately on
the county's website or andor the
official county executive Facebook page.
So, if I'm hearing you right, what
you're saying is that this blog site,
Eastern for Undercover, which has been
accused by a lot of people in the
community of of of profiting over
people's personal tragedies, posting
personal information in the midst of,
you know,
>> suicides and first responders
>> and having a contract with the county
executive to do just that.
>> Well, that's kind of where I'm going. So
with that history and reputation and
controversy, now it seems like the
executive is outsourcing her own
communications
that we theoretically as the taxpayers
pay for.
>> Well, she had sent it to other outlets
as well, but that was the only outlet
that she encouraged people to go.
>> That's the thing. So So just for
clarification, she never encouraged her
her her followers to go to any other
blogs or or news outlets.
>> That that would be correct. So she's
directing the traffic to one source, the
one source she's had a contract with,
which is an an incredible uh conflict of
interest there.
>> That contract has expired.
>> It has expired, but the behavior has
remained the same. This is a conflict of
interest. I think at the very least it
is, you know, an ethical violation. Um
there it it it could be construed as
being collusive behavior as well. And uh
I think this needs to be looked into
deeply by the internal auditor and
perhaps even the state's attorney.
>> Well, thank you both. I appreciate your
insight into this and uh I I'm I'm sure
there are going to be more parts of this
story, but from now we hope that the
auditor can go about starting to do her
job. So, thanks for watching this
episode of Open Agenda. We'll be back
later this week with another new
episode.
All right, cool. We got it.
