10/22/2026
READ BEFORE YOU VOTE!
If you have been following my posts, you know that ethics reform - specifically reducing the influence of developer money in local County politics - has been one of my most important priorities this year.
Let me give you a quick summary before I share something important.
HOW WE GOT HERE
In March, Councilwoman Lisa Rodvien introduced Bill 23-26 - a strong ethics bill that would have significantly restricted campaign contributions connected to pending land-use matters.
It expressly covered developers and applicants, their immediate family members, and professional agents such as attorneys, engineers, land-use consultants and registered lobbyists.
It also used a 24-month lookback period and gave the Ethics Commission meaningful enforcement authority, including the ability to petition the Circuit Court to void official action taken in violation of the law.
Around the same time, local newspapers published detailed reporting showing how land use decisions, zoning approvals, and major development projects in Anne Arundel County have been influenced by developer money and special interests.
Bill 23-26 would have been a real win for residents.
On April 20, the County Council voted it down 5-2.
Only Councilwomen Lisa Rodvien and Amanda Fiedler voted for it.
Allison Pickard was among the five Council members who voted no.
Three months later, another ethics bill was introduced – just in time to make it before the November election.
Bill 65-26.
It addressed the same general issue.
But when you compare the two bills, there are several very important differences.
THE THREE OBVIOUS LOOPHOLES
Bill 65-26 looks like reform in a headline.
But when you read the actual legislation, three major differences stand out.
LOOPHOLE 1 - Who is covered
Bill 65-26 does not expressly include immediate family members, attorneys, lobbyists, engineers or consultants solely because of their relationship with the applicant or developer.
Bill 23-26 expressly covered those relationships.
That matters.
Under Bill 65-26, a spouse, attorney, lobbyist or consultant may fall outside these restrictions unless that person independently fits another category in the bill's definition of a covered person.
That leaves an obvious path around the restriction. So why did they remove them?
LOOPHOLE 2 - How far back it looks
Bill 65-26 uses a 12-month lookback period.
Bill 23-26 used 24 months.
Major development projects are planned long before a formal application is filed.
A contribution made, let’s say 13 months before an application, would fall outside Bill 65-26's required 12-month disclosure period.
Bill 23-26 would have captured it.
Why cut the period in half?
LOOPHOLE 3 - What happens when the law is broken
Bill 23-26 contained substantially stronger enforcement provisions.
It included misdemeanor penalties and expressly authorized the Ethics Commission to petition the Circuit Court to invalidate any county decision or approval that violated the law.
Bill 65-26 takes a different approach.
It provides civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, possible suspension of an application's review, and public notice of noncompliance.
Those are consequences. But they are very different consequences from those contained in Bill 23-26.
There is an old expression about wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
That is how I view what happened here.
The Council gets to say it passed ethics reform, while many of the avenues through which developer-linked money can flow remain outside the bill's express coverage.
You cannot claim to have fully solved the problem while leaving some of its most obvious loopholes open.
The Council passed an ethics bill and can now say it acted.
But the loopholes remain significant enough that developer-linked money can potentially continue flowing through channels that Bill 65-26 does not expressly cover.
Business as usual - with a reform label on top.
WHAT HAPPENED ON OCTOBER 19
The County Council voted on Bill 65-26 at its October 19 meeting.
I testified in person.
So did Dave Crawford, the Republican candidate for County Executive Dave Crawford for County Executive, along with other candidates (George Gallagher George Gallagher for Anne Arundel County Council - District 6 and Cory Malinowski Cory Malinowski for County Council) and residents who believe stronger protections are needed.
I asked the Council directly:
Close these loopholes before passing the bill.
They did not.
Bill 65-26 passed 7-0.
I ASKED BOTH COUNTY EXECUTIVE CANDIDATES THE SAME QUESTIONS
Before the vote, I reached out to both candidates for County Executive - Allison Pickard and Dave Crawford - with six identical questions regarding Bill 65-26.
I asked about:
• the covered-person definition;
• family members and professional agents;
• the 12-month versus 24-month lookback;
• enforcement;
• what they would change;
• and whether ethics reform would be a priority of their administration.
I told residents that I would publish the candidates' responses.
Below are those responses in full.
ALLISON PICKARD - FULL RESPONSE:
“Mr. Prokop,
Thank you reaching out regarding Bill 65-26. As Monday, October 19th is our last Council meeting of this legislative term, current legislation can only receive an up or down vote as currently introduced or amended. I support Bill 65-26 and will vote in the affirmative.
I hope this information brings clarity to the legislative process at this unique time in the term of service.
Best,
Allison Pickard”
MY COMMENTARY - CLEARLY LABELED AS MY OWN:
I asked six questions.
Her response confirmed that she supported Bill 65-26 and intended to vote for it.
But it did not specifically answer the six questions I asked.
It did not tell residents whether she believes the legislation provides sufficient protection against developer-linked campaign contributions.
It did not address the covered-person loophole.
It did not address immediate family members, attorneys, lobbyists or other professional agents.
It did not address whether the lookback period should be 12 months or 24 months.
And it did not explain what she would do as County Executive if these gaps remain.
Those questions did not depend on whether the Council could amend the legislation that evening.
They were questions about her position and what she would do in the future.
Her response did not address them.
Councilwoman Pickard is asking residents to entrust her with one of the most powerful offices in Anne Arundel County.
She voted against Bill 23-26, which contained strong protections.
She then voted for Bill 65-26, which contains narrower protections with loopholes.
And when I asked directly what she believes should happen with the remaining loopholes, those questions went unanswered.
I believe residents deserved more information than that.
DAVE CRAWFORD - FULL RESPONSE:
“Dear Mr. Prokop, thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions. My responses are below. Should you need additional details, please contact me.
Question 1 - Do you believe Bill 65-26 in its current form provides sufficient protection against campaign contributions influencing land use decisions?
No. While Bill 65-26 contains worthwhile provisions, I do not believe it goes far enough. The definition of a covered person is limited, and the current disclosure period is too short to capture many contributions that may be relevant to a major land-use application. In my view, the law should address not only the applicant or developer directly, but also individuals and professionals who may have a close financial or representative relationship to that applicant.
Question 2 - Do you support expressly including developers’ immediate family members, outside attorneys, lobbyists, engineers and land use consultants under the definition of covered person?
Yes. Bill 23-26 included a definition that already addressed these relationships. The same should be included in Bill 65-26. Attorneys, lobbyists, engineers, consultants, and immediate family members can all have relationships with an applicant that are relevant when the public is evaluating campaign contributions connected to a pending land-use matter.
Question 3 - Do you support extending the disclosure lookback period from 12 months to 24 months?
Yes. Large development projects are often in preparation well before a formal application is filed. Financing, property acquisition, legal work, engineering, and other planning can take place over a period of several years. For that reason, I believe a 24-month disclosure period would provide a more complete picture.
Question 4 - If elected County Executive, would you commit to working with the County Council to close these gaps if they remain unresolved?
Yes. If these issues remain unresolved, I would work with the County Council to review the provisions of Bill 65-26 and consider legislation that expands the covered-person definition, lengthens the disclosure period, and strengthens enforcement. I would also seek input from the Ethics Commission, County attorneys, residents and other stakeholders.
Question 5 - What specific steps would you take as County Executive to strengthen these protections?
Three things immediately. First - reintroduce the more comprehensive covered person definition from Bill 23-26 including immediate family members and professional agents. Second - restore the 24-month lookback period. Third - restore the Ethics Commission's authority to seek court action to void approvals obtained in violation of the law. I would also review what additional disclosure requirements could legally and appropriately be implemented through County Executive policies or administrative procedures.
Question 6 - Would you commit to making ethics reform involving developer contributions a priority of your administration?
Yes. Public confidence in land-use decisions depends in part on confidence that those decisions are being made on their merits. If elected, I would make the review and strengthening of these protections an early priority of my administration.
Sincerely,
Dave Crawford”
MY COMMENTARY - CLEARLY LABELED AS MY OWN:
Mr. Crawford answered all six questions.
Specifically.
And on the record.
He said Bill 65-26 does not go far enough.
He supports broadening the covered-person definition.
He supports restoring the 24-month lookback period.
He supports restoring the Ethics Commission's ability to seek court action when the law is violated.
And he committed to making the review and strengthening of these protections an early priority of his administration.
Those are commitments.
Made publicly. In writing. Before the election.
Whether voters believe those commitments - and how much weight they give them - is ultimately for each resident to decide.
ONE MORE THING RESIDENTS SHOULD KNOW
There is another piece of context I believe residents should consider.
Councilwoman Pickard has received substantial campaign contributions from developers and development-related interests during this election cycle.
The Baltimore Banner has reported that Pickard received more money from development-related professionals during her Council tenure than any of her fellow Council members.
Pickard has publicly rejected the suggestion that those contributions affect how she governs.
Her position has been that the way she funds her campaign does not predict her governing style.
That is her position.
Residents can decide what weight to give that information alongside her votes, her response above, and the legislation itself.
MY CLOSING THOUGHT
The County Executive is one of the most powerful offices in Anne Arundel County.
The person elected will influence land-use policy, development, infrastructure priorities, County agencies, budgeting and the quality of life in our communities for at least the next four years.
I am not going to tell anyone what conclusion they must reach from the information above.
But I will tell you what I believe voters should examine carefully before making that decision:
Character.
Ethics.
Past record.
Transparency.
Specific commitments.
And whether the person asking for your vote has demonstrated a willingness to put residents before developers, special interests and political circles.
Do not simply listen to campaign slogans.
Look at the record.
Look at the votes.
Look at the answers.
And sometimes, look carefully at the questions that were not answered.
The responses above speak for themselves.
You be the judge.
Vote like democracy depends on it. Because it does.
