Salisbury City Council health insurance ethics complaint

Should Pocomoke follow suit? Yes, it IS wrong for members to vote for their own benefits. is it "unethical"? sure it is, is like giving yourself a $10,000.00 raise, more money than they make to sit on the council. What's taking Salisbury so long to come to this very easy conclusion? If they find it is indeed ethical will they let that ridiculous decision stand? let's hope not. I feel it's wrong for any city council members or any elected official to receive health insurance on the tax payers dime, this is not only a part-time position, it's a very part-time, part-time position. There's no reason that a council member does not have insurance through their full time employment or retirement plan. I hope Salisbury sees this and says no to the insurance.
On that same note who and when was Pocomokes insurance implemented? Was it voted on by the council? If they have a job or retirement plan are they being paid double by insurance companies somehow? Do we have a board of ethics? Some more questions that need to be addressed here in Pocomoke. Say NO to benefits for elected officials that are not full time. It's our dime.

Questions surrounding the actions of two councilwomen named in a complaint still remained following the conclusion of a Salisbury City Ethics Commission hearing late Wednesday morning.

Both City Council members, Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen, testified at the hearing that lasted more than an hour and a half, but the commission closed the meeting room doors in the Salisbury fire station headquarters and deliberated privately.

The five-member ethics panel, made up of city residents appointed by the mayor and approved by the council, is expected to publish a written opinion at an undetermined date.

The complaint against Cohen and Campbell, who receive health benefits through the city, was filed by city resident and blogger Jonathan Taylor early last week.

Taylor, known as The Salisbury Grinch, accused Cohen of violating the city's municipal code when she voted to pass the city's budget -- which included funds for health insurance -- in late May.

Taylor also alleges Campbell and Cohen violated the code when they discussed health insurance issues during City Council work sessions.

"I don't see any conflict of interest in the process," said Robert Gladden, who was voted vice chairman in the absence of Ethics Commission chairman the Rev. John Kennedy. "My personal feeling is there has not been any ethics violation," said the former Salisbury city councilman just before the public portion of the hearing concluded.

A third councilwoman, Shanie Shields, receives health benefits through the city; however, she was not named in the complaint.

Taylor said he declined to name Shields because she publicly stated her intent to discontinue receiving health insurance through the city.

While Taylor was not present during the meeting due to a scheduling conflict, City Administrator John Pick read Taylor's written testimony to committee members during the hearing.

"Anytime you discuss salary and benefits, it's a political thing," Cohen testified. "Do we commit an ethics violation every time we vote on the budget?"


Cohen alleges that when former mayor Barrie Parsons Tilghman removed health insurance benefits from the 2010 budget, Tilghman violated the municipal code. The council's job is to create policy, and the mayor's job is to administer policy set forth by the council, Cohen said during the hearing.



"I cannot knowingly vote for a budget that contains something that was done illegally," Cohen testified.

Furthermore, Cohen said if she and Shields had abstained from what has become a controversial budget vote on May 25, the council would have been unable to take a vote because the remaining two voting members were not enough for a quorum.

Campbell was absent from the budget vote due to illness.

At the hearing, Campbell was represented by local attorney Steve Cox, who made arguments on her behalf before the commission.

Cox pointed to the conflict of interest section of the municipal code which makes an exception for elected officials, and others to whom the section applies, to participate in any city-related "decision-making process" if the individual has disclosed his or her interests and "does not create a conflict of interest."

"It is clear that the interest of Miss Campbell was disclosed," Cox said to the Ethics Commission.

While the code does not define conflict of interest, Cox said everyone knew Campbell received health insurance through the city.

While Campbell's attorney and Cohen both maintained the benefits-budget vote issue was a policy issue, Taylor asserted that it was the actions of the councilwomen that should be the focus of the probe.

"I must emphasize again this is not whether the former mayor was in her right to make the cut, it is on the actions that the two councilwomen took to re-obtain said benefits," Pick said while reading Taylor's statement to the committee. "I think this is financially irresponsible when the cost of Debbie and Terry's insurance for four years for Debbie will be $40,000 and two years for Terry will cost $20,000, which equals $60,000, or two police cars."