For residents seeking answers on the events leading up to the nullification of their votes in the recent town election, the May 15th Town council meeting not only failed to provide answers, but raised more questions on the validity of the process used to nullify the votes of 78 residents.

To the frustration of many who had assembled to get answers to their questions, Burgess Barnes spent over 20 minutes repeating a litany of claims he has made on Facebook questioning the veracity of this newspaper’s coverage of town events in general, and this election specifically.

Barnes concluded by chastising the assembled residents telling them "to take some of the energy that they are constantly complaining about and join a community service." Barnes then went on to list the community groups he is in, and said, "I have never seen most people in town that are complaining at any of these events."

While most of the residents who subsequently spoke during the public comment period chose not to address Barnes’ claim that local residents did not do community service, Dorothea Mordan responded to Barnes on the subject right out of the box, telling Barnes that he was wrong. There are many Woodsboro residents who, like the Mordans, are caregivers for family members, and are able to find time to participate in community service and various non-profit organizations, noting that she herself was a founding board member of a nonprofit that focuses on independent living (Kitsune, Inc.), and has been a Parent Member of the FCPS Special Education Citizens Advisory Committee (SECAC).

With regard to the nullification of the votes, Barnes said that he had contacted the town’s lawyer for legal advice on David Williams, who was running for Commissioner while also seeking write-in votes for Burgess.

The letter sent by the town's lawyer, which was subsequently used to invalidate the votes of everyone who wrote in Williams for burgess, asserted that "Maryland law expressly prohibits a person from being a simultaneous candidate for more than one public office."

This assertion failed to recognize that the Maryland State election laws cited do not apply to municipal elections, such as those recently held in Woodsboro.

The Summary Guide, Maryland Candidacy & Campaign Finance Laws, issued by the Maryland State Board of Elections in November, 2022 clearly states: "Maryland election law does not regulate the conduct of municipal elections." Furthermore, the General Assembly of Maryland, Department of Legislative Services Fact Sheet: Elections in Maryland reinforces the Summary Guide, stating "Municipal elections (other than the Baltimore City elections) are primarily governed by each municipality's law...."

The lawyer's letter acknowledged that there is no Maryland case law regarding a case like this, but instead cited a Florida case law - Fair vs Adams (139 So.2d 879 (1962)) and provided a select quote from the court’s conclusion. However, the letter failed to acknowledge that the same case judgement recognizes other state courts (Nevada and Illinois) have issued rulings that do not prohibit candidates from seeking election to more than one public office.

In defending the lawyer’s letter, Barnes referenced a footnote a section of the town code related to elections (section 10) stating that "state law" was applicable, and based upon that, the state election law prohibiting candidates for running for two offices thereby applied to Woodsboro.

While there is in fact a footnote in section 10 of the town code that does point to state election law, the footnote in question deals with the handling of absentee ballots only and does not direct the town in away to run its elections in accordance with state election law. In addition, the town code specifically says in Part II, Ch. 1, Article I, Sec. 1-3(b) that, "Cross references, editor's notes, charter references and law references which appear after sections or subsections of this code or which otherwise appear in footnote form are provided for the convenience of the user of this code and have no legal effect."

As noted earlier, state election law requirements do not apply to municipal elections, and municipal elections are run in accordance with town code. Because Woodsboro town code does not prohibit an individual from running for two offices at the same time, the casting of votes for David Williams for Burgess was in fact lawful.

The lack of jurisdiction of state election law over town codes was confirmed by the town managers of Thurmont, Walkersville and Taneytown. Interestingly enough, the town of Walkersville noticed the disconnect and inserted such language into their code, but without it "It would be legal for someone to run for both Burgess and Town council." The lack of jurisdiction of Maryland election, and/or county election laws over municipal elections was also affirmed by County Executive Jessica Fitzwater and County Council President Brad Young.

The question on top of most residents’ minds was who gave direction to the election judges to invalidate all ballots for Williams and when this direction was given.

Barnes, who had received the letter on May 6, four days before the election, told the residents that he had decided not to release the letter prior to the completion of the voting due to concern over the fact that absentee ballots had already been submitted.

In response to Commissioner John Cutshall’s question as to what guidance was given to the election judges on how votes needed to be dispositioned, Barnes said that he was unable to answer Cutshall’s questions because he had not talked to the election judges.

Town staff immediately refuted Barnes’ response, stating that while they had in fact directed the election judges, they "did it by the direction of the Burgess and the attorney."

Speaking to directly to Barnes, town staff said, "So you do know what they were told, because you told me what to tell them. So you can answer John's question."

Town staff then went on to state that they told the election judges: "If you voted for only two commissioner, that was a legal vote and your vote counted. Any ballot that had Mr. Williams' name written in as Burgess, had to be marked as invalid. That is how we were told how to do it."

In response, Barnes again stated "that was the instruction we got from the attorney." However, contrary to Barnes' statement, the attorney's letter did not include such instruction.

Following Barnes statement, Commissioner Case expressed reservation on the tone and nature of Barnes’ comments, and said given the information presented, "the whole process was unfortunate" and he himself "would ask for a re-election."

The floor was then opened to residents to voice their opinions and/or concerns on how the election process was handled. The majority of those who spoke expressed a desire to know exactly what was told to the election judges, who told them, and when. Given the apparent involvement of Barnes in those decisions, many asked that an independent ethics investigation.

In asking for an ethics investigation, residents stated the facts needed to be brought to light so that there is confidence in the town’s process for conducting elections going forward.

Residents stated that, if in fact, election judges were directed by the current Burgess to nullify the ballots of his opponent, then there appeared a be conflict of interest as he was a candidate in the election and had a vested personal interest in its outcome.

Several residents concerned about the integrity of the results called for the election to be run all over again, with one even suggesting that Barnes step down as Burgess.

According to a report by the Frederick News-Post, Barbara Wagner, election director for the Frederick county Board of Elections said elected officials telling the election judges how to county votes would be inappropriate in an election the county board was part of.

At the conclusion of the pubic comment period, Barnes attempted to answer some of the questions raised by the pubic comments, but in doing so, he only seemed to raise more questions in the minds of the questioners.

After Barnes’ closing comments, Commissioner Jesse Case told the residents in the hall that the town should not have invalidated the votes. But Case was cut off by Barnes who challenged him by asking if he was "going against the attorney’s opinion?"

Barnes’ statement about the lawyer’s letter brought repeated calls from residents that the lawyer’s letter had no basis in fact. The renewed back and forth between the residents and Barnes became so heated that Commissioner Bill Rittlemeyer shouted "stop" and brought the exchange to an end, at which time Barnes called for the meeting to come to an end.