Council vs. Executive: The Battle for Transparency in Wicomico County - Round 9
WICOMICO COUNTY, MD - A fresh conflict has emerged between the Wicomico County Council and Wicomico County Executive Julie Giordano regarding Legislative Bill 2025-14.
At the heart of the dispute is whether this new legislation truly enhances transparency or creates loopholes in government accountability. The central issue revolves around the scope of internal audits and whether all government activities should be subject to the same rigorous standards.
The County Council recently issued a press release stating that Bill 2025-14 was passed specifically to allow the Council itself to be audited. Under current county law, the Internal Auditor is prohibited from auditing an agency by which they were employed in the preceding two years.
Since the Auditor works for the Council, this rule effectively blocks audits of the Council Office.
The Council argues this bill waives that prohibition, aiming to align their office with the professional standards applied to other departments.
However, critics, including the County Executive, argue that the text of the bill contradicts these claims of transparency. A closer look at the legislation reveals specific exemptions under a section titled "Other Activities." (Bill is included below)
According to the bill language, several key functions are explicitly not subject to Global Internal Audit Standards. These exemptions include fiscal impact reviews of proposed budgets, budget amendments, other proposed legislation, hotline administration and investigations, and special projects requested by the County Council.
This carving out of responsibilities has raised concerns that the very areas where oversight is most critical-budgeting and special projects-are being shielded from recognized audit standards. While the Council asserts the bill allows them to be audited, the exemptions suggest that significant portions of their work would remain outside the scope of standard global auditing practices.
The County Council maintains that these exclusions are merely clarifications. Their statement explains that non-audit activities, such as advisory functions and budget analyses, are not audited by definition and therefore should not be subject to global audit standards.
They emphasized that the bill was reviewed by the County Attorney and the Audit Committee, and was adopted unanimously without opposition from the Executive Branch during its introduction or final vote.
We reached out to the County Executive for a comment and she replied with the following: "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, consistent with the county charter."
Despite these assurances, the question remains: Does this bill truly subject the County Council to the same level of scrutiny as other departments, including the County Executive's Office?
Transparency requires enforceable standards that apply equally across the board. How is this Bill truly transparent, and how is it even considered equal when only certain parts are eligible to be reviewed?
