Ethics complaint calls out Howard County executive candidate’s scrutiny of community center

Less than two weeks before the June 23 primary election, a Howard County executive candidate’s ongoing scrutiny of public funding for a community development project has drawn accusations of an ethics violation for political gain.

The project’s developer, Brian Kim, accused County Councilwoman and candidate Deb Jung of violating county ethics rules in how she’s questioning the project’s funding to boost her campaign.

Kim filed the complaint earlier this week, suggesting that Jung’s scrutiny of a planned community center was not driven by routine oversight concerns but by resentment that board members for the project had donated to her competitor, Vanessa Atterbeary. He also claims that Jung timed her raising of the issue publicly to have maximum election-season visibility.

Jung is one of four Democrats running to replace County Executive Calvin Ball, who has reached his term limit. Because no Republicans have filed to run in the race, the winner will likely be determined in the primary election.

Jung called the ethics complaint a ”desperate political stunt” and an attempt to undermine her campaign.

“I’m not afraid of their smear tactics and I won’t be bullied into standing down,” Jung said in a statement Friday. “If they had nothing to hide, they wouldn’t be attacking me.”

Jung once supported the project that she’s now questioning. Called The Source, it’s set to replace the former Columbia Flier building along Little Patuxent Parkway. Its development has been in the works since 2023, when the county approved an ambitious proposal for a public-private partnership to convert the Flier building into a community center and hub for recreational, health and social services.

With the county’s financial support, Kim would develop the building, which would then be managed by a nonprofit board of directors and leased as headquarters to the community wellness organization Columbia Community Care.

Since mid-May, Jung has repeatedly raised questions about The Source and its funding in public meetings, news interviews and on social media accounts for both her public office and campaign. Council members Liz Walsh, who’s also running for county executive, and David Yungmann have said they, too, have questions about how public funds were spent on the project, but neither was named in Kim’s complaint.

In an interview Friday, Jung said she has long supported building a community center near Columbia’s villages of Harpers Choice and Wilde Lake, but grew concerned this year after reviewing an annual report on The Source’s progress.

The county awarded Columbia Community Concepts, the nonprofit managing the project, two grants totaling $25 million in 2025 and 2026. About $12.2 million of the awarded funds have been spent so far, but construction has not yet begun.

Jung said Friday that she wants more information about how county money was used and the plan for the facility moving forward.

The nonprofit has remained compliant with the grants’ requirements, county spokeswoman Safa Hira said in an email. The public funds have been used for the demolition of the former Flier building as well as permitting, design, engineering and site analysis to prepare for the start of construction, she said.

County and nonprofit officials came together in late April for a groundbreaking ceremony on the project. A grading permit was recently issued for The Source, Hira said.

She said the timing and approach of council members who have raised questions are surprising, given their prior support for the project.

Hira added that no new funds for the project were requested during the spring budget cycle.

Claims in the ethics complaint include disputes over the scheduling of a meeting between council members and the developer as well as a press release bearing a county seal that was published on Jung’s council and campaign social media accounts.

Jung told The Baltimore Sun that the developer twice refused to meet with the council. Jones, the council chair and an Atterbeary supporter, rejected that claim, saying that in one case the council failed to follow up. In emails obtained by The Banner, Kim responded to council’s invitations that he had scheduling conflicts on the proposed dates and suggested alternatives when he would be available.

“Two invitations were extended and two declines were received,“ Jung said. ”Typically when the County grants an entity $25 million, they accommodate an invitation from the Council to discuss the project.”

Jung declined to address the complaint’s specific claims but was angry that the document had been obtained by news outlets, including The Banner. County code directs the ethics commission to keep such documents confidential.

Public revelation of the complaint’s existence came Wednesday night, when council members — who also serve as Howard’s zoning board — convened to consider a zoning matter related to Long Reach Village Center, which Kim is also redeveloping.

Christopher DeCarlo, an attorney representing Kim, submitted a motion calling for the board to disqualify Jung based on the pending ethics complaint or to shelve the matter until a later date.

Jung said at the meeting that the complaint amounted to a weaponization of the county’s ethics process.

Board members agreed to shelve the decision until 2027, in part because county code requires a moratorium on zoning board decisions between a primary election and a general election.

DeCarlo said in a statement that his client felt Jung’s actions were inappropriate and that he was concerned the Long Reach project would not receive fair consideration.

On Friday, Jung said the dispute over The Source would not have become a campaign issue if the developer had just answered her questions.

“I’m not trying to make The Source look bad,” she said.

Jung, however, has joined other candidates in questioning Atterbeary on her campaign fundraising, including from board members of The Source. She’s also emphasized her use of public funding, which limited her to small donations and means that she answers to residents, not special interests.

This story has been updated to include context about the scheduling of meetings between council and the developer.