Weaponizing Ethics Complaints in Washington County Politics Needs to End (Opinion)

The following is my personal opinion of how recent ethics complaints appear to have unfolded in Washington County. All opinions are my own. This is an OPINON piece.

The landscape of local governance in Washington County, Maryland, is currently marred by a troubling pattern in which ethics complaints—originally designed as critical tools for institutional accountability—are being repurposed and wielded as strategic political weapons against rivals. This is why the recent ethics complaints by Senator Paul Corderman, Commissioner Candidate Taj Smith, and Commissioner Candidate Kaden Snyder appear to be a weaponization of the process, and we need to promptly revise relevant ethics codes to restrict publicly releasing such information until a complaint is adjudicated.

UPDATE 11/9/2025 – Reviewing the City of Hagerstown latest rules of procedure, which were updated August 11, 2025, complainants are prohibited from releasing any information related to the complaint. Furthermore, violation of confidentiality may result in dismissal of the complaint. While we have no confirmation, it is highly likely this occurred with Senator Corderman’s complaint against Councilmember Bell.

This corrosive practice finds its effectiveness not in the actual merit of the allegations, but in the regulatory structure of the Washington County Ethics Commission, specifically its mandate for confidentiality. This rule, which states that “After a complaint is filed and until a final finding of a violation by the Commission, all actions regarding a complaint are confidential,” is systematically exploited by political actors. The goal is to bypass local confidentiality rules by immediately publicizing the existence of the allegation upon filing, which ensures instant reputational damage and introduces political doubt, regardless of the complaint’s eventual truth or validity.

Since the Ethics Commission is legally prohibited from confirming or denying any details of a pending investigation, the complainant gains complete control over the public narrative, effectively painting the accused with a presumption of guilt by association. This maneuver forces the subject of the complaint to battle the accusation alone in the court of public opinion, diverting their focus and resources from their official duties and campaigns. And regardless of the merit of the complaint, and perhaps those who wrote such complaints truly believed they were in the right, the public release of information that the complaint had been filed is enough to cause serious issues in the court of public opinion, and in my opinion should not occur.

There have been only two recent instances recently of local ethics commissions finding a complaint was valid. The first was the 2016 complaint against school board member Michael Guessford. The Ethics Advisory Panel determined that elected member Mike Guessford was responsible for multiple ethical violations related to an undisclosed payment to his business Applause Caterers by Washington County Public Schools. While Guessford was not removed from the board, he was censured. The second, the 2021 incident where County Commissioner Cort Meinelschmidt benefited from the Restaurant Relief Grant Program, a program which he voted in favor of. And even though the details are a bit more murky, such as Meinelschmidt not realizing that the grant he was voting for was the same grant he applied for through the City of Hagerstown, he was removed from the board by the other commissioners in relation to that incident. Both of these incidents involved an elected official profiting financially from the government they have oversight of. For other ethics complaints not involving monetary transactions and business deals, the ethics commissions continue to not find any violations.

The strategic deployment of these accusations is evident in several high-profile disputes involving both county and municipal officials and candidates. In the intra-party electoral contest between Republican candidate Kaden Snyder and incumbent Commissioner President Jeff Cline, Snyder publicly disclosed the filing of a complaint focusing on Cline’s alleged “misuse of funds dating back to 2017.” This announcement, timed for maximum impact during a heated primary election, demonstrates a tactical preference for creating damaging headlines over awaiting the Ethics Commission’s due process. The accusation itself, focusing on fiscal integrity, is highly detrimental to a Commissioner responsible for county finances. The results of the complaint are not publicly available online.

We’ve previously found ourselves accidentally taking this same approach, in which we were provided information regarding a potential ethics violation by the Mayor of Smithsburg and one of the Councilmembers. I hated running that story, but the facts checked out, so we ran it. And while I believe that Councilmember Dan truly did have the best of intentions, to this day I still regret our coverage of the whole matter, and I’m very glad that Mayor Souders released his press release regarding the ethics commission clearing him of any wrongdoing, as far too many of these complaints go unresolved for the public, because those who have been targeted by the complaints do not publish the final results. As a result of this incident, our policy changed that we won’t publish information about an ethics matter until an official complaint has been filed, and only then if someone else has publicly released the complaint details first.

Similarly, the complaint filed by State Senator Paul Corderman against Hagerstown City Councilwoman Erika Bell, alleging that she attempted to “use her position to influence police” during a traffic stop involving her boyfriend, was not left for the City Ethics Board’s confidential review. Instead, the Senator publicized the filing and his concerns via a public Facebook post, instantly transforming a local administrative review into a highly visible public controversy. The Senator further amplified the pressure by simultaneously filing a Maryland Public Information Act (PIA) request, guaranteeing continued scrutiny regardless of the City Ethics Board’s eventual, confidential determination. The consistent factor in this and similar cases is that the political objective—inflicting reputational harm during a critical political period—was achieved the moment the complaint was publicly announced, rendering any confidential disposition by the respective ethics bodies largely irrelevant to the political damage inflicted.

UPDATE 11/9/2025 – Reviewing the City of Hagerstown latest rules of procedure, which were updated August 11, 2025, complainants are prohibited from releasing any information related to the complaint. Furthermore, violation of confidentiality may result in dismissal of the complaint. While we have no confirmation, it is highly likely this occurred with Senator Corderman’s complaint against Councilmember Bell.

And then there’s the complaint filed by Taj Smith against Hagerstown Councilmember Flaherty. The ethics complaint filed by Taj Smith, a (now former) local Democratic Central Committee member, NAACP President, and now County Commissioner candidate, against Republican Hagerstown City Councilmember Sean Flaherty exemplifies the low-cost, high-impact tactical misuse of formal oversight systems. The complaint alleged that Councilmember Flaherty engaged in the mistreatment of fellow council members, particularly women on the body, by exhibiting disrespectful and rude behavior both during public meetings and on social media platforms. This filing, however, demonstrates an egregious attempt at political leverage because the Hagerstown City Ethics Ordinance, like most local codes, is narrowly limited to enforcing financial conflicts of interest, misuse of office, and corruption, and contains no legal provisions to govern a member’s tone, demeanor, or interpersonal conduct. For the residents of Hagerstown, this situation results in the waste of crucial institutional resources, as the City Ethics Commission is forced to dedicate time to the review of accusations that are clearly outside the defined scope of its authority, thereby distracting the entire city governance apparatus from addressing substantive policy concerns in favor of managing political feuds. But once again, the public was never informed of the results of that complaint.

So why do we report on these issues at all? Because once the matter is made public, we have to report on it to help separate fact from fiction, as we attempted to do through our publication of the various body camera videos involving Erika Bell. It is my hope that by publishing the videos in their raw format, we can help residents of Hagerstown and Washington County to separate fact from fiction themselves, and make up their own minds if the ethics complaint was truly warranted. We can’t ignore these topics and simply allow rumors to run rampant, but we can try to balance the scales with factual information. And maybe in the process, the truth will come out. I hate that we are even put in this situation, but here we are, time and time again.

Unfortunately, this pattern poses a substantial threat not only to the reputations of individual officials but also to the core legitimacy of the county’s ethical oversight institutions. When the public repeatedly observes ethics complaints functioning as political weapons—and sees that the Commission is constrained by law from defending the accused or clarifying its process—the seriousness of genuine ethics violations can be discounted by the electorate as mere political noise. This erosion of trust undermines the very foundation of accountability in Washington County. For residents of Washington County, this practice has tangible consequences: it leads to elected and appointed officials being frequently distracted from the work of governance, forced to dedicate time and public resources to defending themselves against potentially frivolous or strategically motivated claims. Furthermore, it chills legitimate political debate by making the filing of a retaliatory ethics complaint an accepted, if destructive, tactic. It may also deter highly qualified citizens from seeking public office if they perceive the process as a minefield of politically weaponized accusations.

To restore institutional credibility and mitigate this systemic political exploitation, Hagerstown and Washington County should consider policy adjustments. Relevant codes should be revised to introduce formal deterrents against vexatious filings being announced publicly by the filer. By creating a high-bar designation for individuals who repeatedly file baseless, publicly announced complaints and potentially making them liable for the costs of investigating demonstrably weak claims, the political incentive for strategic harassment can be significantly reduced. Additionally, the Commission’s existing public information program must be enhanced to explicitly educate the electorate on the difference between a political allegation and a regulatory finding, emphasizing that an announced ethics complaint represents only the unverified view of the complainant. This collective action is necessary to ensure the ethics process serves accountability rather than electoral combat. We, the media, can only do so much towards education of such topics, and to have official sources provide their own education would greatly help the public better understand the entire process.

But most importantly, I call on all within the Washington County political landscape, to cease these public attacks and weaponization of the ethics complaint process. Please do continue to file legitimate ethics complaints, but perhaps it’s best if we wait for the ethics commission results before announcing? And if you have been targeted by one of these public ethics complaints, I’d like to encourage you to release the findings, especially if you were not found of any wrongdoing.

Some Additional Thoughts after initial publication: I’ve had several people reach out or comment that the ethics process is broken, and that it should be handled publicly, with some even going so far as to say that the ethics commission members are corrupt themselves. I have mixed feelings on this. While certainly it’s important for residents to understand who they’re voting for, I feel that by complainants simply bypassing the process and publicly releasing the details of the complaint before it’s adjudicated, residents are only seeing one side of the story. So in the interest of fairness, either all of the process should be confidential, or none of it should.

And you know, maybe those filing the complaints did genuinely feel that the complaints had merit. But I firmly believe the approach of placing the complaints in the court of public opinion before the ink was even dry on the complaint was absolutely wrong.

Full disclosure – we had known about the Erika Bell issue for some time before Senator Corderman released the complaint, from multiple sources. We intentionally did not report on the issue because no charges had been filed against the councilmember, and it wasn’t our place to spread rumors. A very unfortunate situation all around with that complaint, and I think it’s important to note that had it not been made public by Senator Corderman or another public official, we likely wouldn’t have covered it at all.

The point of this opinion piece was to get people talking, and show the need for change. And I would say based on the feedback so far, mission accomplished.

Opinion article by Ken Buckler, President of Radio Free Hub City. All opinions are his own, and do not reflect those of our clients or advertisers.

DISCLAIMER: Councilmember Flaherty purchased $60.00 of rotating banner advertisements from Radio Free Hub City during the 2024 election cycle in September, 2024. No compensation was received regarding this or any other article, and this article was not requested or reviewed by Flaherty or any associated entities.

---