Vague Charter Wording in Ocean City Leaves Council Member in His Seat

Ocean City, MD - Yesterday, I watched the Ocean City Council Meeting regarding Council Member Tony Deluca. First and foremost, I want to express my heartfelt concern for the Deluca family as they navigate the health issues affecting their loved one. This should be the top priority for the family, regardless of any future decisions regarding council membership.

Now, let's address the reality of this complicated situation. I do not know Mr. Tony Deluca personally; I have never met him and have no ties to the matter-my opinion is based solely on what I observed during the meeting as a media outlet and the information obtained from the agenda.

Mr. Deluca presented multiple documents verifying that his permanent address is in Ocean City, MD, including his driver's license, voting documents, banking statements, and more. Since being elected to office in 2014, he has only missed one council or board meeting. Given this, regardless if you think he is part time, full time or somewhere in between, is hard to question whether he is fulfilling his obligations to Ocean City?

After watching the council meeting, the fact is, there simply isn't enough evidence to prove how long he lives in Ocean City and whether or not he is a resident of Ocean City, or Annapolis. No one provided a smoking gun or verifiable proof that Mr. Deluca does not use his Ocean City address as his permanent residence.

During the meeting, the council members repeatedly stated that they do not believe Mr. Deluca meets the letter of the law and that his situation is not what the charter intended. The problem, however, is that the charter language is very vague. Until the charter is revised, Mr. Deluca is not in violation of any rules. All the evidence presented was circumstantial.

Nowhere in the charter does it specify how long a person must reside in Ocean City to serve as a council member. Does a council member need to live there for six months and one day? Seven months? Nine months? The charter does not stipulate that residency must cover a full 12 months.

Additionally, the charter makes no mention that a council member must be a "full-time resident" of Ocean City. So once again, according to the letter of the law, I believe Mr. Deluca is not in violation.

The law is the law, and the charter is the charter; no verifiable violations exist! Therefore, Mr. Deluca should be allowed to continue serving the citizens of Ocean City who voted him into office.

The council plans to revisit the charter to consider changes to its wording. It's worth noting that Council Member Carol Proctor called for a motion to disqualify Deluca, but she did not receive a second, effectively killing the motion.

For now, Mr. Deluca will remain on the Ocean City Council, which I agree is the right decision based on the information provided.