October 8, 2018
Anne Arundel County Ethics Commission
Heritage Office Complex
2666 Riva Road; Suite 160
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Via Hand Delivery
Dear Commission Members:
On behalf of Friends of Steuart Pittman, the authorized campaign committee
of the Democratic candidate for Anne Arundel County Executive, I am filing the
following ethics complaint against Anne Arundel County Executive Steve Schuh and
his authorized campaign committee, Citizens to Elect Steve Schuh. A formal
complaint form is attached to this letter.
On October 5, 2018, Mr. Schuh sent a memorandum on official Anne Arundel
County letterhead to residents of Crofton seeking to address statements made by
Mr. Pittman regarding two controversial County development projects, Enclave at
Crofton and Two Rivers. (See, Attachment 1). In the memorandum, Mr. Schuh
suggests that Mr. Pittman has been, “spreading misinformation to advance [his]
political agenda.” However, it is actually Mr. Schuh who is improperly using taxpayer funds to prepare and distribute official government memoranda to address
claims allegedly made by his political opponent in an attempt to promote his reelection. The purely political nature of this memorandum is obvious at first glance.
It also bears mentioning that Mr. Schuh’s campaign has received political
contributions from the developers of both the Enclave and Two Rivers projects. See,
Chase Cook, Pittman Calls for Ethics Investigation into Schuh Memo on Anne Arundel
County Letterhead, THE CAPITAL GAZETTE, Oct. 6, 2019, available at
http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/government/ac-cn-pittman-ethics-1007story.html
This flagrant use of public resources, including the use of County letterhead,
computers, resident lists, resources and staff, to prepare a memorandum to address
alleged “misinformation” by a political opponent is a clear violation of both State
and County public ethics laws. Md. Code Ann. Pub. Ethics Law § 5-506 (a)(1)(i) and
Anne Arundel County Code § 7-5-107 (a) both state that an employee or public
official “may not intentionally use the prestige of public office or public position” for
that employee or public official’s private gain. While both statutes also create an
exemption for “the performance of usual and customary constituent services,” in
this instance, Mr. Schuh was clearly not performing “usual and customary
constituent services.” Rather, he was very openly addressing statements made by
his political opponent in an attempt to use the prestige and position of his elected
office to serve his political agenda, i.e. to defend himself from political attacks on his

 record and to bolster his chances for re-election.
The State Ethics Commission recently opined on this exact issue in a
memorandum examining political activity by covered officials. In a section entitled
“Constituent Services and Use of Official Letterhead,” the Commission recognized
that while the law contains an exception for the performance of usual and
customary constituent services, the distinction between public initiatives and
partisan political matters must be maintained at all times. “The Commission
emphasizes that the constituent services exception does not allow the use of public
funds, facilities, equipment, services, government time or other government assets
or resources for involvement in, support of, or opposition to partisan political
activity such as advocating the election or defeat of a candidate or generating
written material that is clearly only for the private benefit of the official, State
employee or a candidate for office.” See, Ethics Commission Memorandum dated
October 1, 2017 and available at: https://ethics.maryland.gov/wpcontent/uploads/filebase/state-employees/state-employees-memos/PoliticalActivity.pdf.
The Commission continued by noting that it views “the use of official
letterhead of the elected official as appropriate in official business and for
customary constituent services,” but that “[o]ther correspondence, particularly if it
relates to the partisan political activity” should be sent on stationary that is not
printed at public expense and that the preparation and mailing of the
correspondence should not involve any public resources. By sending a politically
motivated memorandum on County letterhead Mr. Schuh has failed to maintain the
necessary distinction between public initiatives and partisan political matters.
Finally, this is not the first time Mr. Schuh has misused his position of
authority and county resources to improperly promote his political re-election
campaign. Mr. Schuh has issued memoranda and notices on official County
letterhead to residents of the Mayo peninsula regarding County-funded projects,
residents of Crownsville regarding the proposed Chesapeake Bayhawks project, and
to police officers and firefighters after their unions endorsed Mr. Pittman. (See,
Attachments 2, 3 & 4).
Pursuant to Anne Arundel County Code §7-4-101, et seq. I respectfully
request an ethics investigation into the above-described violations.
Sincerely,

Peter Baron
Campaign Manager
Friends of Steuart Pittman