What to know ahead of court hearings in Prince George’s County’s $39 million tug-of-war

Attorneys representing Prince George’s County, the County Council and a state-supervised park and planning agency are scheduled to meet in court Monday and Tuesday to decide who controls more than $39 million in taxpayer dollars.

Pending before the court are the county’s motions to dismiss the case and quash subpoenas seeking testimony of key council members.

The case is part of an ongoing budget battle between the county and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, which has jurisdiction over parks, planning and development in Prince George’s and Montgomery counties. It is funded by residents’ property taxes.

The outcome of the case has implications for the county’s operating budget, the commission’s finances and nonprofits that rely on government reimbursements to provide critical services.

In a statement Friday, spokesperson Calista Black said the commission is prepared to proceed and “would like this case to reach a final decision so that the tax funds currently unavailable can be used for their intended purposes.”

The commission sued this year, claiming the county violated state and local law by enacting legislation to transfer $39 million from the commission to its coffers.

Circuit Court Judge Krystal Alves temporarily blocked the transfer in an initial ruling in June, handing the commission an early win.

Further hearings in the case were scheduled for September but postponed until next week.

In recent weeks, the County Council hired its own lawyers after county attorney Anthony Jones determined there was a conflict of interest between the council and County Executive Aisha Braveboy’s administration.

Braveboy spokesperson Brian Fischer declined to answer specific questions about the case and wrote in an email, “It is inappropriate to comment on litigation and matters pending before the court.”

The council’s attorneys from Rifkin Weiner Livingston did not respond to requests for comment.

The commission has contended in its court filings that “there is only one defendant in this matter: Prince George’s County.”

And, in a filing Friday, commission attorney Ben Rupert questioned the county’s conflict of interest, writing that it “has not been documented or otherwise supported in any way.”

A controversial transfer

The $39 million at issue comes from an annual program through which organizations and municipal governments can seek expense reimbursements known as “project charges.”

The latest budget, which took effect July 1, changed the process by requiring the commission to transfer more than $39 million to county coffers, seemingly eliminating the commission’s role in determining which organizations receive reimbursements and how much.

Part of the county’s argument to dismiss the lawsuit centers on a resolution the County Council passed in September to “clarify” lawmakers’ intent.

The county has argued the clarification renders key elements of the commission’s lawsuit moot.

The commission disagrees and has contended in court filings that the “illegal mechanism, destination, and purpose of the funds are unchanged.”

In the weeks leading up to the hearings, county and council attorneys have pressed the court to quash subpoenas from the commission targeting Council Chair Krystal Oriadha and council member Edward Burroughs.

Both council members have come under scrutiny for trying to steer millions of dollars in project charges to their preferred organizations, including one run by a close friend of Oriadha.

Their attorneys have claimed legal precedent “prohibits the subpoenaed appearance” of the lawmakers “to testify to their intentions and motives” behind their votes.

But the commission has contended “the political inconvenience of answering questions under oath about a topic currently subject to immense public scrutiny” isn’t a legal reason to invoke “’legislative privilege’ to personal matters like participating in political patronage involving taxpayer funds.”

As of Friday, the court had yet to rule on these matters.

Neither Oriadha nor Burroughs responded to requests for comment.

Council members at odds

County Council member Tom Dernoga said he has long believed the county should have its own legal representation in the case.

“I’ve been of the opinion for months that the council and the executive have differing interests,” he said in an interview.

After hearings were postponed and the council passed its clarifying resolution in September, Dernoga expected the county and the commission to reach a settlement.

But by mid-October the two sides had not come to an agreement.

Dernoga said that’s when he took a more active role and spoke with other council members and attorneys in the Office of Law about the council hiring its own lawyers.

On Oct. 27, at the end of the council’s last scheduled legislative meeting of the year, lawmakers voted to go into closed session and decided to hire outside attorneys.

The meeting agenda did not include mention of a closed meeting or “executive session” to discuss the matter.

Meeting minutes, which would reflect any votes during the closed session, had not been posted to the council’s website as of Friday.

Not all 11 council members were present for the vote to hire outside lawyers.

Council member Jolene Ivey said Dernoga asked her and council member Sydney Harrison to leave the meeting before it began.

“It’s kind of funny that the people who were subpoenaed were not asked to leave,” Ivey said, alluding to Oriadha and Burroughs. “But whatever, I got other things to fuss about.”

Responding to Ivey, Dernoga said, “It’s inappropriate to discuss what happens in executive session. And I’ve made this point to people before, because people are not real good about it.”

Dernoga said he planned to refer Ivey’s comments about the closed-session meeting to the council’s administration “to see what they think about it.”

Harrison said Dernoga had suggested that he and Ivey recuse themselves because of their public stances on the lawsuit and their attendance at the initial court hearings.

Harrison and Ivey have been critical of Oriadha and Burroughs’ use of project charges, and they have requested an independent audit and a state investigation.

Harrison said, after learning the closed-session meeting was meant to hire outside attorneys, he also determined he needed to step out.

“I recused myself out of the room because I believe that this needs to go to court,” he said.