[House Report 111-409]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                 House Calendar No. 156
111th Congress                                                   Report
  2d Session            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                111-409                                                                 _______________________________________________________________________
 
         IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE FORTNEY ``PETE'' STARK 

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                       COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF

                            OFFICIAL CONDUCT

                 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

  January 29, 2010.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed




















               COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

ZOE LOFGREN, California              JO BONNER, Alabama
  Chair                                Ranking Republican Member
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky               MIKE CONAWAY, Texas
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    CHARLES DENT, Pennsylvania
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 MICHAEL McCAUL, Texas
             R. Blake Chisam, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
                  C. Morgan Kim, Deputy Chief Counsel
                    Dan Taylor, Counsel to the Chair
        Todd Ungerecht, Counsel to the Ranking Republican Member
                         Marc Borodin, Counsel
                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                  Washington, DC, January 29, 2010.
Hon. Lorraine C. Miller,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Miller: Pursuant to clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, we 
herewith transmit the attached Report, ``In the Matter of 
Representative Fortney `Pete' Stark.''
            Sincerely,
                                   Zoe Lofgren,
                                           Chair.
                                   Jo Bonner,
                                           Ranking Republican
                                             Member.
                           EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) has alleged that 
Representative Fortney ``Pete'' Stark violated Maryland 
criminal tax law and ethics rules of the House of 
Representatives by intentionally filing a false application for 
a Maryland property tax credit.
    The evidence clearly establishes that Representative Stark 
did not receive a tax credit as a result of filing an 
application for the credit. The evidence also establishes that 
he did not file a false application for the Maryland property 
tax credit.
    Representative Stark did not seek out the Maryland property 
tax credit. The State of Maryland required every homeowner in 
Maryland to fill out a form to determine their eligibility for 
the tax credit.
    Therefore, Representative Stark did not violate House 
ethics rules. Nor did he run afoul of Maryland's criminal or 
tax laws.
    Since 1977, the State of Maryland has had a property tax 
credit, called the Homestead Tax Credit (Credit), which limits 
tax assessment increases on one's home to 10 percent or less 
per year. Previously, the Credit could be automatically 
triggered without a homeowner applying for the Credit whenever 
property values rose substantially. According to Maryland's 
Department of Assessments and Taxation, the Credit was unique 
in that it was the only tax credit in Maryland's history for 
which a taxpayer did not have to apply, and most people did not 
even know they were receiving the Credit. As a result, the 
Credit was provided on a widespread basis to homeowners, 
whether they knew it or not.
    In 2007, Maryland enacted a new law requiring all 
homeowners to submit a one-time application to verify their 
eligibility or continued eligibility for the Credit. The 
applications required by the law were mailed to Maryland 
homeowners in stages. One-third of homeowners received the 
application in January 2008; one-third of homeowners received 
the application in January 2009; and the remaining one-third of 
homeowners received the application in January 2010.
    Representative Stark owns a home in Anne Arundel County, 
Maryland. It is the only home that he owns. He rents living 
accommodations in his congressional district.
    Representative Stark did not receive the Credit for his 
Maryland home between the time he purchased it in May 1987 and 
July 1, 2006, because his property taxes did not increase more 
than 10 percent in one year at any time during that period. 
However, between July 1, 2006, and June 30, 2009 (i.e., 
Maryland tax bill years 2007-2009), his property taxes did 
increase more than 10 percent each year. As a result, the 
Credit was automatically triggered and applied to 
Representative Stark's tax bill for those tax years by Maryland 
tax officials, even though he had taken no affirmative action 
to seek the Credit.
    Following passage of the 2007 law, Representative Stark 
received the Homestead Tax Credit application from Maryland's 
Department of Assessments and Taxation in January 2009. In 
compliance with Maryland's legal requirement, he submitted the 
required application electronically in February 2009.
    With respect to one question regarding voter registration, 
Representative Stark's response, as initially recorded 
electronically by Maryland, indicated that he was registered to 
vote at his Maryland property address. This mistaken response 
was soon corrected in March 2009.
    Maryland did not grant a Homestead Tax Credit to 
Representative Stark as a result of his application. His tax 
bill, which was issued in July 2009, reflected that 
Representative Stark received no tax credits whatsoever.
    These facts were available to OCE, and in many instances, 
were known to OCE or in its possession.
    The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (Standards 
Committee) concludes that OCE conducted an inadequate review, 
the result of which was to subject Representative Stark to 
unfounded criminal allegations.
    Maryland issues its tax bills on a fiscal basis, which runs 
from July 1 to the following June 30. OCE failed to acknowledge 
this key point. As a consequence, OCE erroneously found that 
Representative Stark received $3,769.79 in tax credits as a 
result of his Homestead Tax Credit application. OCE relied on 
an irrelevant document, which was from and issued in the tax 
year before Maryland mailed Representative Stark the required 
Homestead Tax Credit application.
    A search of the Internet or retrieval of Representative 
Stark's publicly available tax bill issued on July 1, 2009, 
would have made clear that Representative Stark received no tax 
credit as a result of submitting the required application and 
that Maryland did not classify his property as a principal 
residence. The first page of the first document OCE appended to 
its Findings noted that Maryland had classified Representative 
Stark's home as not being a principal residence. OCE's own 
summary of its staff's interview with Maryland tax officials 
indicated that Maryland had removed any Homestead Tax Credit 
previously associated with Representative Stark's Maryland 
residence (and automatically provided by Maryland tax 
officials) by May 1, 2009. OCE's own summary of its staff's 
interview with Representative Stark noted that Representative 
Stark told OCE's staff that he did not receive a tax credit 
after he filed the newly required application form.
    It is apparent from OCE's work that they treated 
Representative Stark inconsistently with the way they treated 
four other Members of Congress with similar situations whose 
cases were properly dismissed.
    First, OCE ignored a conclusion that it had reached in four 
similar matters. Maryland's application form, OCE had 
previously opined, is vague, unclear and subject to 
misinterpretation. OCE had concluded previously that the form, 
as worded, put Members of Congress at risk of making mistakes 
when filling out the form.
    Second, OCE omitted favorable information from 
Representative Stark's report that it included in the four 
other similar cases without explanation. OCE omitted from a 
witness interview summary, appended to its Findings in 
Representative Stark's case, a paragraph that it had included 
in witness interview summaries of the same interview in every 
other similar case it reviewed. That paragraph would have been 
favorable to Representative Stark.
    The Standards Committee notes that OCE reported that 
Representative Stark was belligerent and rude to OCE Staff and 
videotaped his interview. It is the Standards Committee's 
understanding that OCE routinely does not use a court reporter 
with witnesses.
    The Standards Committee finds that Representative Stark 
provided overall truthful answers and, at the worst, made a 
mistake when answering one question that had no bearing on the 
approval of the application. That mistake was corrected before 
Maryland adjudicated Representative Stark's application.
    In sum, Representative Stark's responses on his 
application, taken as a whole, did not establish his 
eligibility for the Homestead Tax Credit or evince an intent to 
lie or evade payment of Maryland property taxes. Maryland did 
not, in fact, grant any tax credits, including the Homestead 
Tax Credit, to Representative Stark as a result of his 
application.
    Accordingly, the Standards Committee finds that no further 
action in this matter is warranted. The matter is dismissed and 
the Standards Committee considers it closed.
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
 I. BACKGROUND........................................................1
        A. Procedural History....................................     1
        B. Summary of OCE's Allegations..........................     3
        C. Summary of Representative Stark's Response to OCE's 
            Allegations..........................................     3
II. JURISDICTION OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE...........................4
III.FACTUAL FINDINGS..................................................4

        A. Background Information on Representative Stark........     4
        B. The Maryland Homestead Tax Credit.....................     5
        C. Representative Stark's Application for the Homestead 
            Tax Credit...........................................     6
        D. MDAT's Action on Representative Stark's Application...     7
        E. OCE's Interaction with Representative Stark...........     8
IV. DISCUSSION........................................................9
        A. Overview..............................................     9
        B. Specific Legal Provisions or Standards of Conduct.....    10
            1. Willfully Providing False Information or Answer 
                (Section 14-1004 of Maryland Code)...............    10
            2. Evasion of Laws (Paragraph 2 of Code of Ethics for 
                Government Service)..............................    11
        C. The Record Unequivocally Shows That Representative 
            Stark Did Not Break Any Laws or Engage in Any 
            Improper Conduct.....................................    11
            1. The Record Shows That the Homestead Credit 
                Application Was Unclear..........................    11
            2. The Record Shows That Representative Stark 
                Provided Truthful Answers........................    12
            3. The Record Shows That Representative Stark Did Not 
                Receive A Tax Credit Based On His Application....    14
 V. CONCLUSIONS......................................................15
VI. STATEMENT UNDER RULE 13, CLAUSE 3(c) OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF 
    REPRESENTATIVES..................................................15
APPENDIX A: DOCUMENTS COLLECTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF 
  OFFICIAL CONDUCT...............................................    16
APPENDIX B: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
  ETHICS.........................................................    48
APPENDIX C: REPRESENTATIVE FORTNEY ``PETE'' STARK'S RESPONSE TO 
  THE REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS..    96


111th Congress                                                   Report
  2d Session           HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 111-409                                                      ======================================================================

               COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

         IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE FORTNEY ``PETE'' STARK

                                _______
                                

                            January 29, 2010

                                _______
                                

   Ms. Lofgren, from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             I. BACKGROUND


                         A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

    Sometime between the end of May and early June 2009, the 
Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) began preliminary reviews 
into allegations regarding the conduct of Representative 
Fortney ``Pete'' Stark and four other Members of Congress.\1\ 
OCE reviews alleged that these Members may have improperly 
received a property tax credit on homes owned in Maryland in 
violation of state law.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\OCE's records are conflicting regarding the exact date that OCE 
authorized and initiated its preliminary review regarding 
Representative Stark. In a letter to the Standards Committee on June 2, 
2009, OCE stated that the Board had initiated a preliminary review 
without specifying when OCE's Board authorized it. See COS. 0001 
(Letter from David E. Skaggs (Chair of OCE's Board) and Porter J. Goss 
(Co-Chair of OCE's Board), to Chair Zoe Lofgren and Ranking Republican 
Member Jo Bonner of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
June 2, 2009). However, in another letter from OCE to Rep. Stark on 
June 5, 2009, OCE stated that that OCE's Board authorized a preliminary 
review on May 29, 2009, and that it would initiate such review on June 
5, 2009. See COS. 0002-0003 (Letter regarding request for information 
from Leo Wise (Staff Director and Chief Counsel to OCE) to Rep. Pete 
Stark, June 5, 2009). And, finally, OCE's Report and Findings in this 
matter (OCE's Review No. 09-9030) states that OCE's Board authorized 
and initiated a preliminary review on June 5, 2009. See OCE Findings 
para.6. The documents designated with ``COS.'' numbers constitute the 
documents collected by the Standards Committee in the course of its 
investigation. Pertinent portions of the documents collected by the 
Standards Committee can be found at Appendix A. The Standards Committee 
notes that certain personal information, such as home addresses and 
other private information, has been redacted from the documents 
collected by the Standards Committee. The Standards Committee has 
redacted this information based on privacy considerations and because 
the information is irrelevant to any question at issue in this Report. 
OCE's Report (Report) and Findings of Fact and Citations to Law 
(Findings) in this matter can be found at Appendix B.
    \2\Three of the Members represented a state other than Maryland and 
one represented a district in Maryland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On June 26, 2009, four members of OCE's Board voted to 
terminate all of the reviews except for the one regarding 
Representative Stark. Representative Stark's situation was not 
materially distinguishable from the terminated matters, yet in 
contrast to the other matters, OCE's Board, on June 26, 2009, 
voted to initiate a second-phase review with respect to the 
matter involving Representative Stark.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\OCE Findings para.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On August 5, 2009, OCE's Board voted to extend the second-
phase review concerning Representative Stark for an additional 
14 days.\4\ It also forwarded to the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct (Standards Committee) the reports and findings 
for the terminated matters. OCE's cover letter to those 
terminated matters highlighted that its reviews uncovered 
several facts about the manner in which Maryland administers 
the Homestead Tax Credit that, in its judgment, ``place Members 
of Congress who own homes in Maryland at risk of being accused 
of improperly receiving the credit at no fault of their 
own.''\5\ No apparent explanation has been offered by OCE as to 
why this fact did not protect Representative Stark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Id. at para.8.
    \5\See COS. 0004 (Letter from David E. Skaggs (Chair of OCE Board) 
and Porter J. Goss (Co-Chair of OCE Board), to Chair Zoe Lofgren and 
Ranking Republican Member Jo Bonner of the Standards Committee, et al. 
August 5, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By OCE's count, the second-phase review ended on August 28, 
2009.\6\ OCE's Board adopted findings and voted to refer only 
the matter involving Representative Stark to the Standards 
Committee for further review on October 23, 2009.\7\ Three 
weeks later, OCE transmitted to the Standards Committee a 
report and findings (OCE Report and Findings) on November 12, 
2009, which contained OCE's findings adopted earlier and 
recommended further review of allegations involving 
Representative Stark.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\OCE Findings para.9. Given the conflicting dates as to when the 
preliminary review began, see supra n.1, this Committee expresses no 
opinion on whether OCE's determination that its second-phase review 
ended on August 28, 2009, is accurate because it has no bearing on the 
Committee's ultimate conclusion in this matter.
    \7\Id. at para.10.
    \8\``Upon the completion'' of a second-phase review, OCE is 
``authorized and directed'' to transmit a written report to this 
Committee. See H. Res. 895, Section 1, clause (c)(2)(C). In 
contravention of this directive, that did not occur here until more 
than two months after the second-phase review ended, which OCE 
determined was on August 28, 2009. Despite the Standards Committee's 
continuing concerns with OCE's adherence to its authorizing resolution, 
the Committee has nonetheless concluded, as it did recently in another 
matter with similar flaws, that ``on balance, the public interest [is] 
served by publication of OCE's Report and Findings in this case, and 
thus the Standards Committee [has] declined to withhold publication of 
OCE's Report and Findings.'' See House Comm. on Standards of Official 
Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Sam Graves, H.R. Rep. No. 111-
320, at 23 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In mid-November 2009, the Standards Committee sent OCE's 
Report and Findings to Representative Stark to provide him with 
an opportunity to respond to OCE's allegations. Representative 
Stark's counsel submitted a response on December 1, 2009, which 
Representative Stark formally adopted by oath or 
affirmation.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Representative Stark's response to the allegations in OCE's 
Report and Findings can be found at Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 24, 2009, the Chair and Ranking Republican 
Member of the Standards Committee issued a statement announcing 
they had jointly decided to extend the Committee's 
consideration of OCE's transmittal for a 45-day period.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A), and Standards Committee Rules 
17A(b)(1) and 17A(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    B. SUMMARY OF OCE'S ALLEGATIONS

    OCE's Report and Findings asserted that Representative 
Stark may have violated Maryland state law and the Code of 
Ethics for Government Service by intentionally misrepresenting 
information on an application to establish his eligibility for 
a property tax credit, the Homestead Tax Credit (Credit), for a 
house that he owns in Maryland.\11\ Maryland provides the 
Credit to homeowners who can establish that the home is their 
``principal residence.'' ``Principal residence'' is defined as 
the location where a homeowner is registered to vote, among 
other criteria.\12\ OCE asserted that Representative Stark 
misrepresented that he was registered to vote in Maryland on 
his application for the Credit, even though he is registered to 
vote in California.\13\ By doing so, OCE claimed that 
Representative Stark received $3,769.79 in Homestead Tax 
Credits in 2009.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\See OCE Report and Findings para.para.1-3, 15, 17.
    \12\OCE Findings para.1.
    \13\Id. at para.para.2-3, 15.
    \14\Id. at para.para.1-3, 15, 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   C. SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE STARK'S RESPONSE TO OCE'S ALLEGATIONS

    In his response to OCE's Report and Findings, 
Representative Stark asserted that he violated no laws or 
applicable standards of conduct. Rather, he contended that 
OCE's allegations were fundamentally flawed. Representative 
Stark raised four main arguments to OCE's allegations.
    First, Representative Stark claimed that he did not 
indicate on his electronically-filed application that he was 
registered to vote in Maryland to establish eligibility for the 
Credit.\15\ Representative Stark responded to OCE's allegation 
of ``intentional misrepresentation'' as ``nonsensical,'' given 
that other responses on his application showed that he did not 
fully meet the requirements to receive the Credit.\16\ Further, 
Representative Stark asserted that Maryland may have made an 
electronic data-entry error in compiling his on-line response, 
or that he may have mistakenly indicated his voter registration 
in his application.\17\ Because either of these scenarios is a 
more plausible explanation of the mistake, OCE's conclusion 
that Representative Stark committed an intentional 
misrepresentation was in error, according to him.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Rep. Stark Resp. to OCE Report and Findings at 2.
    \16\Id.
    \17\Id.
    \18\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, Representative Stark asserted that OCE's 
allegations were factually flawed because he did not, in fact, 
receive a Homestead Tax Credit as a result of his 
application.\19\ Rather, Maryland ultimately determined he was 
not eligible.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Id. at 3.
    \20\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, despite Maryland's denial of his application, 
Representative Stark maintained that he nonetheless may be 
eligible for the Credit because his Maryland home is the only 
home that he owns.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Id. Representative Stark rents living accommodations in his 
congressional district. See id. at 3, n.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fourth, Representative Stark raised procedural arguments 
that OCE violated its obligation to complete its review in a 
timely manner and refer this matter to the Standards Committee 
within 89 days as is required by OCE's authorizing 
resolution.\22\ As such, OCE transmitted its Report and 
Findings after the matter terminated, rendering it legally 
invalid.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\Id. at 3-4.
    \23\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              II. JURISDICTION OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE

    House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(2) vests jurisdiction over the 
matters addressed in this Report with the Standards Committee. 
The Standards Committee may investigate any alleged violation 
by a Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
Representatives of the Code of Official Conduct or of any law, 
rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to 
the conduct of such Member, officer, or employee.\24\ Sole and 
exclusive authority over the interpretation and enforcement of 
the Code of Official Conduct lies with the Standards 
Committee.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b).
    \25\House Rule X, clause 1(q), Standards Committee Rule 17A(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Standards Committee conducted its investigation in this 
matter pursuant to Standards Committee Rule 18(a), which 
authorizes the Standards Committee to consider any information 
in its possession indicating that a Member, officer, or 
employee may have committed a violation of the Code of Official 
Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of 
conduct applicable to the conduct of such Member, officer, or 
employee in the performance of the duties or the discharge of 
the responsibilities of such individual. Standards Committee 
Rule 18(a) authorizes the Chair and Ranking Minority Member to 
jointly gather additional information concerning such an 
alleged violation by a Member, officer, or employee.
    The instant Report is authorized under House Rule XI, 
clause 3(a)(2), which obligates the Standards Committee to 
report to the House its findings of fact and recommendations, 
if any, for the final disposition of any investigation and 
action as the Standards Committee may consider appropriate 
under the circumstances; and House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A), 
which authorizes the Standards Committee to report on matters 
forwarded to the Standards Committee by OCE.

                         III. FACTUAL FINDINGS

    The Standards Committee reviewed the matter discussed in 
OCE's Report and Findings without prejudice or presumptions as 
to the merits of the allegations.\26\ As such, the Standards 
Committee's findings and conclusions with regard to 
Representative Stark were informed by, but made independent of, 
OCE's Report and Findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Standards Committee Rule 17A(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON REPRESENTATIVE STARK

    Since January 1973, Representative Stark has represented 
the 13th Congressional District of California. As would be 
expected with this position, Representative Stark is registered 
to vote in California.\27\ He pays California resident 
taxes.\28\ He has a California driver's license.\29\ With 
respect to living arrangements, Representative Stark rents 
accommodations in his district, and has owned a home in 
Harwood, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, since May 1987.\30\ 
Representative Stark does not occupy or own any other 
residential properties.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\OCE Findings para.30.
    \28\Id. at para.32.
    \29\Id. at para.31.
    \30\See Rep. Stark Resp. to OCE Report and Findings at 3, n.3; OCE 
Findings para.19; and Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation, 
real property data regarding Rep. Stark's home, at Bates No. 09-
9030_0002, which is appended to OCE's Findings.
    \31\See Rep. Stark Resp. to OCE Report and Findings at 3, n.3. The 
Standards Committee further understands that Representative Stark uses 
a home owned by his in-laws as his mailing address in order to ensure 
that he receives mail when he is not in his congressional district.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  B. THE MARYLAND HOMESTEAD TAX CREDIT

    Since 1977, Maryland's Homestead Tax Credit Program has 
existed to help homeowners pay large state and county tax 
assessment increases on properties that qualify as their 
``principal residences.''\32\ The Credit limits taxable 
assessment increases each year to 10 percent or less.\33\ A 
``principal residence'' is defined as the ``one dwelling where 
the homeowner regularly resides and is the location designated 
by the owner for the legal purposes of voting, obtaining a 
driver's license, and filing income tax returns.''\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\Interview of Mr. Robert E. Young, Deputy Director, Maryland 
Department of Assessments and Taxation, by Standards Committee Staff, 
January 6, 2010 (hereinafter ``Int. of Robert Young by Standards 
Committee Staff''). The Maryland homestead property tax credit 
provisions, as amended, are codified in the Md. Code Ann., Tax-Prop. 
Sec. 9-105 (West 2009), and implementing regulations issued by the 
Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation (MD Assess. & Tax.), 
which are set forth in Title 18, Subtitle 7, Chapter 3 of the Code of 
Maryland Regulations (Md. Code of Regs. (2009)).
    \33\See COS. 0005 (providing overview of the Maryland Homestead Tax 
Credit, June 2009, from the Maryland Department of Assessments and 
Taxation's Web site).
    \34\Md. Code of Regs., Md. Assess. & Tax. 18.07.03.01(B)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In October 2007, the Maryland General Assembly passed a new 
law requiring all homeowners to submit a one-time application 
to verify whether a homeowner should receive or continue to 
receive the Credit.\35\ Through experience administering the 
program over the years, the Maryland Department of Assessments 
and Taxation (MDAT) learned that many homeowners who did not 
meet the requirements for the Credit were nonetheless receiving 
it, whether they knew it or not, particularly with respect to 
rented or vacation properties.\36\ Indeed, in explaining the 
basis for the new law, MDAT's Director noted that the Credit 
was ``unique'' because ``it is the only tax credit in the 
history of the state that you did not have to apply for * * * 
so most people didn't even know they were getting the 
credit.''\37\ Thus, the purpose of the new law was to ensure 
that homeowners were properly receiving these tax credits and 
to prevent substantial losses in tax revenue.\38\ The new law 
directed MDAT to establish an application process to verify 
that homeowners qualify for the Credit on their one ``principal 
residence.''\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\2007 Maryland Laws Ch. 564 (S.B. 522) and Ch. 565 (H.B. 436), 
codified in Md. Code Ann., Tax-Prop. Sec. 9-105(d)(6), (l) and (m).
    \36\Prior to 2007, for example, homeowners obtained the Credit 
during settlement on new homes if the homeowner indicated that the 
actual property address would be the location for receiving property 
tax bills. In such cases, MDAT presumed that the property would be an 
owner-occupied ``principal residence'' to qualify for the Credit. See 
Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff.
    \37\Janel Davis, Homeowners Now Must Apply for the State Property 
Tax Credit, Gazette.net, Jan. 9, 2008, available at http://
www.gazette.net/stories/010908/montnew84501_32357.shtml (last visited 
Jan. 27, 2010). (Gazette.Net is an online Maryland Community 
Newspaper.)
    \38\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff.
    \39\This directive requirement is codified in Md. Code Ann., Tax-
Prop. Sec. 9-105(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Robert E. Young is the Deputy Director of MDAT.\40\ Since 
1978, Mr. Young has been an employee of MDAT and has overseen 
the Homestead Tax Credit Program.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff.
    \41\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When interviewed by the Standards Committee, Mr. Young 
explained that MDAT informed all homeowners of the affirmative 
obligation to apply for the Credit by mailing applications to 
all Maryland homeowners with updated assessment notices over a 
three year period.\42\ Beginning on January 1, 2008, MDAT 
mailed the first set of applications to one-third of Maryland 
homeowners. On January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2010, 
respectively, MDAT mailed applications to the remaining two-
thirds of Maryland homeowners.\43\ MDAT's cover letter to these 
mailings informed homeowners that they could submit a completed 
application through the mail or electronically on MDAT's Web 
site.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff; OCE Findings 
para.24.
    \43\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff.
    \44\Id.; COS. 0006 (MDAT's Web site welcome page to submit 
application for the Credit on-line, which notes that the new law 
requires all homeowners to submit the one-time application).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To evaluate eligibility to receive the Credit, the 
application requires that a homeowner answer ``yes'' or ``no'' 
to five questions that closely parallel the definition of 
``principal residence.''\45\ Those questions ask, in relevant 
part: (1) Will the real property address identified on the 
application be used as the single, principal residence of the 
homeowner for more than six months of the calendar year, 
including July 1; (2) is the real property address identified 
on the application the address where the homeowner expects to 
file his or her next federal and Maryland income tax returns; 
(3) is the real property identified on the application the 
address from which the homeowner has received a driver's 
license; (4) is the real property identified on the application 
the address at which the homeowner is registered to vote; and 
(5) is any portion of the principal residence rented?\46\ A 
homeowner will automatically receive the Credit without further 
inquiry if he or she answers ``yes'' to all of the first four 
questions.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\See COS. 0007-0008 (blank copy of application for the Credit 
from MDAT's Web site).
    \46\COS. 0008.
    \47\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff. Mr. Young 
further explained to the Standards Committee Staff that when someone 
does not answer ``yes'' to all of the first four questions, then MDAT 
gets an ``exceptions report'' for further review of the application. 
Id. Mr. Young added that a ``no'' response to Question 4 pertaining to 
voter registration ``has the least probative value'' in MDAT's review 
because there are many acceptable explanations why someone may not be 
registered to vote at the particular address. Id. OCE's recitation of 
MDAT's review process, as set forth in its interview memorandum, stated 
that MDAT automatically grants applications if someone provides a 
``yes'' response to Questions 1 and 2 regardless of other answers due 
to resource constraints. See Bates Nos. 09-9030_0007-0008, para.para.7 
and 10, which are appended to OCE's Findings. OCE's recitation of 
MDAT's review process from notes taken during the interview is 
inconsistent with Mr. Young's explanation to the Standards Committee 
Staff in his transcribed interview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   C. REPRESENTATIVE STARK'S APPLICATION FOR THE HOMESTEAD TAX CREDIT

    On or about January 1, 2009, MDAT mailed to Representative 
Stark's Maryland address an application for the Credit, along 
with his assessment notice.\48\ MDAT's electronic business 
records document that Representative Stark submitted a 
completed application for the Credit through MDAT's on-line 
submission process on February 6, 2009.\49\ A print-out of 
Representative Stark's electronically-filed application from 
MDAT's electronic business records indicated that he answered 
``yes'' to Question 1 (principal residence for more than six 
months during the year), Question 2 (location for filing income 
tax returns), and Question 4 (voter registration).\50\ He 
answered ``no'' to Question 3 (driver's license) and Question 5 
(residence rented).\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff. It is the 
Standards Committee's understanding that Representative Stark did not 
receive the Credit for his Harwood home between the time he purchased 
it in May 1987 and July 1, 2006, because his property taxes did not 
increase more than 10% in one year at any time during that period. 
However, between July 1, 2006, and June 30, 2009 (i.e., tax bill years 
2007-2009), his property taxes did increase more than 10% each year. As 
a result, the Credit was automatically triggered and applied to 
Representative Stark's tax bill for those tax years by Maryland tax 
officials, even though he had taken no affirmative action to seek the 
Credit. See also OCE Findings para.20 (stating that Representative 
Stark did not receive the Credit before 2006).
    \49\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff; COS. 0009 
(printed from MDAT electronic records regarding Rep. Stark on January 
4, 2010).
    \50\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff; COS. 0010 
(printed from MDAT electronic records regarding Rep. Stark on January 
4, 2010).
    \51\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to Question 2, Representative Stark filed his 
California resident and Maryland non-resident income tax 
returns for 2008 from his Maryland address.\52\ He did the same 
for his Federal income tax return for 2008.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\OCE Findings para.32; Bates Nos. 09-9030--0024 and 09-9030--
0026, which are appended to OCE's Findings.
    \53\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to Question 4, MDAT's electronic business 
records apparently show that Representative Stark contacted 
MDAT in mid-March 2009, and requested that his answer be 
changed to a ``no'' response.\54\ The MDAT employee who 
received this call and made this entry purportedly told her 
supervisor.\55\ The supervisor, in turn, informed Mr. Young, 
who is her boss.\56\ Mr. Young did not speak with 
Representative Stark about this purported request.\57\ Nor did 
he have any further discussion with any MDAT employee about 
this purported telephone call.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\See COS. 0011 (printed from MDAT electronic records regarding 
Rep. Stark on January 4, 2010); OCE Findings para.28. Mr. Young told 
the Standards Committee Staff that the notations in this document about 
contacting him and not answering questions are solely meant to remind 
MDAT employees that tax informative is sensitive personal data and that 
only certain officials are authorized to respond to questions regarding 
such information. Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff.
    \55\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee.
    \56\Id. Mr. Young stated further that he did not know whether that 
information was accurate, but that is what he was told happened. Id. 
This is a classic ``double hearsay'' issue with respect to veracity of 
the conversations alone (and not including the underlying electronic 
entry of the phone call). Additionally, Representative Stark does not 
acknowledge such contact with MDAT in his response to the OCE Report or 
in his interview with OCE. See Rep. Stark Resp. to OCE Report and 
Findings at 2, n.1; OCE Findings para.35. Representative Stark's 
initial answer to this question and whether he later called MDAT 
regarding his response to this question are unclear. However, it is 
unnecessary for the Standards Committee to untangle these issues 
because whether Representative Stark did indeed make such a phone call 
or not is immaterial in light of the totality of factual findings and 
conclusions reached by the Committee in this matter. There would be 
nothing discreditable, in any event, in Representative Stark making an 
effort to correct an error.
    \57\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff.
    \58\Id. Given the volume of issues that Mr. Young is responsible 
for addressing, he added that this purported phone call was not 
something that he would have taken any special interest in unless it 
later became an issue. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         D. MDAT'S ACTION ON REPRESENTATIVE STARK'S APPLICATION

    MDAT did not find Representative Stark eligible for the 
Credit.\59\ MDAT likely found his application ineligible for 
the Credit by the end of March 2009,\60\ although OCE's Staff 
was told by MDAT that it removed the Credit associated with 
Representative Stark's Maryland residence on May 1, 2009.\61\ 
In any event, MDAT unquestionably disapproved of his 
eligibility before June 2009, when MDAT provided counties with 
electronic updates to ensure that tax bills contained current 
assessment and tax credit information.\62\ In Anne Arundel 
County, Maryland, tax bills were issued on July 1, 2009.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff.
    \60\Id. Mr. Young was unsure of the exact date because it is not a 
required input in MDAT's records. Id.
    \61\See Bates No. 09-9030--0009, para.12, which is appended to 
OCE's Findings.
    \62\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff.
    \63\Id. In Maryland, property tax bills are issued on a fiscal year 
basis, which runs from July 1 through June 30 of the following calendar 
year. Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff; see also COS. 
0012-0015 (MDAT's ``A Homeowner's Guide To Property Taxes and 
Assessments,'' last revised July 27, 2009, noting in Section I that tax 
bills are issued in July/August of each year in Maryland, and rendered 
for the upcoming fiscal year, which is effective as of July 1); and 
COS. 0016 (``Property Tax Information,'' Anne Arundel County, Maryland, 
noting that taxes are due on July 1, and may be paid without interest 
on or before September 30 of the tax year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Stark's property tax bill, which was issued 
on July 1, 2009, did not contain a Credit.\64\ Indeed, it 
contained no tax credit whatsoever.\65\ The notation of ``NOT A 
PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE'' on Representative Stark's tax bill 
highlighted that he did not receive any homestead tax benefit 
for the period July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010.\66\ 
Representative Stark, therefore, ``never received a homestead 
tax credit for the application which he submitted on-
line.''\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\COS. 0017 (Rep. Stark's property tax bill from July 1, 2009, 
issued by Anne Arundel County, Maryland).
    \65\Id.
    \66\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff; COS. 0017.
    \67\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, if Representative Stark had not responded to 
Maryland's requirement to submit an application, he would have 
continued to receive the Credit until December 2012.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\See Bates No. 09-9030--0008, para.6, which is appended to OCE's 
Findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             E. OCE'S INTERACTION WITH REPRESENTATIVE STARK

    In June 2009, OCE requested information from Representative 
Stark regarding his application for the Credit.\69\ 
Representative Stark could not locate a copy of his 
electronically-filed application.\70\ In lieu of an exact copy, 
Representative Stark, in mid-June 2009, provided OCE with the 
application filled out by hand, which represented his best 
recollection of how he filled out the on-line form.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\See OCE Findings para.25.
    \70\Id.
    \71\See OCE Findings para.25; Bates Nos. 09-9030_0014-0015, which 
are appended to OCE's Findings (containing a copy of Representative 
Stark's hand-written recollection of his application provided to OCE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 29, 2009, Representative Stark voluntarily agreed 
to an interview with OCE's Staff.\72\ The interview did not go 
smoothly. OCE's Staff claimed that Representative Stark was 
``belligerent'' and ``frequently insulted them.''\73\ They also 
indicated that Representative Stark was videotaping the 
interview and demanded a copy of the tape.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\OCE's Findings erroneously stated that OCE Staff interviewed 
Rep. Stark on May 29, 2009, see OCE Findings para.34. OCE Staff's 
interview memorandum of Rep. Stark contains the correct date of the 
interview on July 29, 2009. See Bates Nos. 09-9030_0028-0029, which are 
appended to OCE's Findings.
    \73\See Bates No. 09-9030_0029, para.8, which is appended to OCE's 
Findings.
    \74\See OCE Findings para.36; Bates No. 09-9030_0029, para.8; Bates 
No. 09-9030_0031-0033, which are appended to OCE's Findings. While 
Representative Stark appears to have acknowledged receipt of OCE's 
request, he did not substantively respond to it. See Bates No. 09-
9030_0035, which is appended to OCE's Findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the interview with OCE's Staff, Representative Stark 
was shown a copy of a print-out of his electronically-filed 
application, which OCE obtained from MDAT.\75\ Representative 
Stark could not explain why his response in the on-line version 
pertaining to voter registration differed from his recollection 
of his response, but acknowledged that these responses 
differed, according to OCE's interview memorandum.\76\ 
Representative Stark did not concede during the OCE interview 
that he contacted MDAT to change his response to the voter 
registration question.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\See OCE Findings para.35; Bates No. 09-9030_0029, para.7, which 
is appended to OCE's Findings.
    \76\See id.
    \77\See OCE Findings para.35; Bates No. 09-9030_0029, para.5, which 
is appended to OCE's Findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the interview with OCE's Staff, Representative Stark 
stated that he did not receive a Credit after filing the 
application on-line.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \78\See OCE Findings para.34; Bates No. 09-9030_0028, para.3, which 
is appended to OCE's Findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             IV. DISCUSSION


                              A. OVERVIEW

    The Standards Committee finds that Representative Stark did 
not intentionally misrepresent information on his application, 
or attempt to evade the payment of Maryland property taxes by 
misrepresenting such information, in violation of Maryland law. 
Based upon the facts gathered during the Standards Committee's 
independent investigation as fully discussed below, the 
Standards Committee found that Representative Stark did not 
receive a Maryland Homestead Tax Credit as a result of the 
application that he was required to file. His responses, taken 
as a whole, did not establish his eligibility for the Credit or 
evince an intent to lie or evade payment of Maryland property 
taxes, and MDAT did not, in fact, grant him any tax credit, 
including the Homestead Tax Credit.
    As a result, the Standards Committee finds that 
Representative Fortney ``Pete'' Stark did not violate any laws 
or other applicable standards of conduct in connection with his 
application for a Maryland Homestead Tax Credit, and that no 
further action is warranted in this matter.
    The Standards Committee further finds that OCE's 
determination that there is a ``substantial reason to believe'' 
the allegations that Representative Stark, by his conduct 
relating to his Credit application, may have violated Maryland 
law, House Rules, or other applicable standards of conduct was 
in error and not supported by the ``information then known to 
the Board.''\79\ Accordingly, the Standards Committee finds 
that no further action against Representative Stark is 
warranted and that the matter should be dismissed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \79\OCE Rule 9A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          B. SPECIFIC LEGAL PROVISIONS OR STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

    OCE's Report and Findings stated that Representative Stark 
may have violated the following legal provisions or standards 
of conduct.

1. Willfully Providing False Information or Answer (Section 14-1004 of 
        Maryland Code)

    Section 14-1004(a) of the Maryland Code provides:
          A person who willfully or with intent to evade 
        payment of a tax under this article or to prevent the 
        collection of a tax under this article provides false 
        information or a false answer to a tax interrogation 
        under this article is guilty of a misdemeanor and on 
        conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or 
        imprisonment not exceeding 18 months or both.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\Md. Code Ann., Tax-Prop. Sec. 14-1004(a) (West 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            (a) Elements and Standard of Proof to Establish a Violation 

    To prove a criminal violation of Section 14-1004(a) of the 
Maryland Code in connection with an application for a Homestead 
Tax Credit, it must be shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that 
an accused: ``willfully'' or with intent to evade payment of or 
prevent the collection of a tax provided false information or 
answers on his or her Credit application. Under Maryland 
criminal law, the term ``willful'' is accorded the meaning 
provided by federal courts interpreting this term in federal 
criminal tax provisions.\81\ Therefore, ``willfulness'' may be 
established through proof of a ``voluntary, intentional 
violation of a known legal duty, not the result of accident or 
mistake or other innocent cause.''\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\See Johnson v. State, 451 A.2d 330, 332 (Md. 1982).
    \82\Id; see also Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 201 (1991) 
(declaring that Supreme Court precedent conclusively establishes that 
the standard to meet the statutory ``willfulness'' requirement in 
criminal tax offenses is the ``voluntary, intentional violation of a 
known legal duty'') (citing United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 23 
(1976); United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 360 (1973)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            (b) Applicable Elements and Standards of Proof to Establish 
                    Alleged Criminal Violations in Standards Committee 
                    Proceedings
    Liability for a violation of Section 14-1004(a) of the 
Maryland Code requires proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that 
the accused acted with the requisite intent to commit the act 
and knowledge that the act is a violation of the law. However, 
it has been long established that this Committee need not 
adhere strictly to general criminal law standards that require 
proof of the requisite intent to establish a violation to 
appropriately execute its responsibilities in the non-criminal 
disciplinary context.\83\ Rather, the Code of Official Conduct 
and Code of Ethics for Government Service make clear that 
``Members of Congress are expected to adhere to standards of 
conduct far more demanding than the bare minimum standards 
established by our criminal laws.''\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \83\See House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Manual of 
Offenses and Procedures Korean Influence Investigation, pursuant to 
H.R. Res. 252, 95th Cong., at 35 (1977).
    \84\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Evasion of Laws (Paragraph 2 of Code of Ethics for Government 
        Service)

    Paragraph 2 of Code of Ethics for Government Service 
provides:
          Any person in Government Service should: * * *
          Paragraph 2: Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal 
        regulations of the United States and of all governments 
        therein and never be a party to their evasion.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \85\Code of Ethics for Government Service, Paragraph 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            (a) Elements and Standard of Proof to Establish a Violation
    A Member who violates a state criminal statute or seeks to 
evade the requirements of a state's tax law may be found to 
have violated standards of conduct applicable to Members of 
Congress under Paragraph 2 of the Code of Ethics for Government 
Service.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\See, e.g., See House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In 
the Matter of Representative James A. Traficant, Jr., H.R. Rep. No. 
107-594, at 4-12, 105-114 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As fully shown below, Representative Stark's conduct did 
not violate Maryland law under traditional criminal standards 
or under the more lenient standards applicable to the Standards 
Committee's review of alleged criminal misconduct. Nor does the 
evidence suggest that Representative Stark intended or 
attempted to evade payment of Maryland property taxes by 
providing false information.

  C. THE RECORD UNEQUIVOCALLY SHOWS THAT REPRESENTATIVE STARK DID NOT 
            BREAK ANY LAWS OR ENGAGE IN ANY IMPROPER CONDUCT

1. The Record Shows That the Homestead Credit Application Was Unclear

    From its reviews of other Members who had been given the 
Credit, OCE determined that the Credit application was unclear. 
In its review of this matter, OCE also noted that the wording 
of Question 2 is vague because it allows a homeowner to answer 
``yes'' if he or she files a non-resident tax return from the 
Maryland property address, as Representative Stark did, despite 
MDAT's intent that this question only apply to a Maryland 
resident tax return.\87\ Moreover, in its reviews of other 
Members, OCE's Staff expressed that the application was 
confusing in more direct terms.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\OCE Findings para.32.
    \88\Specifically, its interview memoranda of the MDAT officials 
used in its findings for other Members stated that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The Homestead Tax Credit Application asks whether the 
      applicant's ``real property address'' is ``the location 
      where the homeowner(s) will file the federal and Maryland 
      income tax return,'' ``the location from which the 
      homeowner(s) have received a driver's license,'' and ``the 
      location from which the homeowner(s) are registered to 
      vote, if registered.'' The OCE staff pointed out that these 
      questions do not specify that the applicant must file a 
      Maryland resident tax return, receive a Maryland driver's 
      license, and be registered to vote in Maryland. [Emphasis 
      in original]. Representative 1 stated that despite the 
      application's ambiguity, it was [MDAT's] intent to grant 
      the Homestead Tax Credit only to principal residences of 
      property owners who were registered to vote in Maryland, 
      possessed Maryland driver's licenses, and filed Maryland 
      resident income tax returns. Representative 1 stated that 
      [MDAT] will consider changing the language of the 
      application to clarify this ambiguity. See, e.g., COS. 
      0018-0019, para.2.
    OCE's observations regarding the ambiguity on the 
application were omitted from the interview memorandum of MDAT 
officials only in Representative Stark's matter, despite the 
fact that the interview was of the same witnesses, and occurred 
on the same date and time.\89\ OCE's Report and Findings 
offered no statement identifying or explaining the omission of 
this paragraph in this matter, but the paragraph was included 
in all other interview memoranda of the MDAT officials in the 
matters that OCE terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \89\Compare Bates Nos. 09-9030_0028-0029, para.2, appended to OCE's 
Findings (OCE Staff's interview memorandum of MDAT officials pertaining 
to Representative Stark) with COS. 0018-0030, para.2, (OCE Staff's 
interview memoranda of MDAT officials pertaining to other Members). 
Except for Representative Stark, OCE's interview memoranda pertaining 
to other Members contained identical text in Paragraphs 1 through 
Paragraph 11, and then noted fact-specific issues for each Member. 
Compare Bates Nos. 09-9030_0028-0029, appended to OCE's Findings with 
COS. 0018-0030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is a fundamental axiom of our jurisprudence that the due 
process clause requires that ``all are entitled to be informed 
as to what the State commands or forbids.''\90\ Laws must 
``give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable 
opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act 
accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing 
fair warning.''\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453 (1939).
    \91\Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The determination that the underlying requirement at issue 
(i.e., the Homestead Tax Credit application) is vague would 
make it difficult to draw the conclusion that a ``willful'' 
violation subject to criminal sanctions had been committed. 
Under such circumstances, the requisite intent to commit the 
act with knowledge that it is a violation cannot be 
present.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\If the application is vague or unclear, then one cannot have 
``fair warning'' to willfully run afoul of what is prohibited. See City 
of Rockford, 408 U.S. at 108; see also Satellite Broadcasting Co. v. 
FCC, 824 F.2d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (holding that traditional concepts 
of due process and fair warning apply to administrative applications 
required by agencies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, OCE's conclusion that there is a substantial 
reason to believe that a ``willful'' violation was committed is 
at odds with its overall conclusion reached in its reviews of 
other Members. From those reviews, it reached the overall 
judgment that the manner in which Maryland administers the 
Homestead Tax Credit places ``Members of Congress who own homes 
in Maryland at risk of being accused of improperly receiving 
the credit at no fault of their own.''\93\ Such a 
characterization is the antithesis of the standard required to 
demonstrate a ``willful'' violation under Maryland laws.''\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \93\See COS. 0004.
    \94\See Johnson, 451 A.2d at 332 (``willfulness'' is the voluntary, 
intentional violation of a known legal duty, not the result of accident 
or mistake or other innocent cause).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Record Shows That Representative Stark Provided Truthful Answers

    The record demonstrates that Representative Stark provided 
overall truthful answers and, at most, made an inadvertent 
mistake regarding his voter registration response, which was 
soon corrected. His answers, when viewed in total and in 
context, evince no intent to lie or evade payment of a tax. 
Correcting an error is not misconduct.
    First, the facts show that Representative Stark truthfully 
answered Question 1 on his application regarding his Maryland 
home being his primary home. Representative Stark owns only one 
home, which is in Maryland, and rents accommodations in his 
congressional district.\95\ Under these circumstances, the 
record plainly shows that Representative Stark's Maryland home 
could be viewed as his single principal residence as this term 
is commonly understood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\See Rep. Stark Resp. to OCE Report and Findings at 3, n.3; OCE 
Findings para.19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, the facts demonstrate that Representative Stark 
truthfully answered Question 2 on his application, as that 
question is worded, regarding the filing of income tax returns 
from his Maryland property address. Representative Stark filed 
his Federal income tax returns for 2008, and his California 
resident and Maryland non-resident income tax returns for 2008 
from his Maryland address.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\See Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff; OCE 
Findings para.32; Bates Nos. 09-9030_0024 and 09-9030_0026, which are 
appended to OCE's Findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, the facts further show that Representative Stark 
truthfully answered Question 3 on his application relating to 
his California driver's license.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\OCE Findings para.33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At its core, OCE's conclusion rests solely upon the claim 
that Representative Stark ``falsely'' certified his response to 
Question 4 on the application to receive the Credit.\98\ This 
claim is not borne out by the facts. First, Representative 
Stark did not recall initially providing an affirmative 
response in his on-line application to this question, but 
acknowledged that such a response would be a mistake.\99\ 
Second, Representative Stark's on-line response to this 
question was changed to a ``no'' response before MDAT formally 
found his application ineligible for the Credit.\100\ 
Nonetheless, OCE appears to infer an intent to lie or evade tax 
payments from the fact that MDAT changed Representative Stark's 
response to this question two days after an article was 
published in the New York Times on March 14, 2009, regarding 
Representative Eliot Engel, who allegedly received the 
Credit.\101\ Even if true, there are no facts to show that this 
action was not the product of a mistake being discovered. 
Moreover, OCE did not draw similar inferences regarding other 
Members, after learning during its other reviews that some 
Members contacted MDAT contemporaneously with the publication 
of the article in the New York Times to allegedly remove the 
Credit associated with their homes. Yet in this matter, which 
merely involved a change to one response before any official 
determination was made, OCE did draw such an inference. Third, 
if both Maryland voting status and a Maryland driver's license 
were absolute legal requirements for the tax credit, as OCE 
described in its Findings, it would be nonsensical for 
Representative Stark to claim one but not the other if his true 
intent was to purposefully provide false answers to evade tax 
payments.\102\ Any reading of the above facts leads to the 
conclusion that, at most, Representative Stark made a mistake 
when answering this question, which has the ``least probative 
value'' in MDAT review.\103\ This mistake or inadvertent error 
was soon corrected after he submitted his on-line application 
and well before MDAT officially made its determination on his 
application.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\See OCE Findings para.para.1-3. 27-30.
    \99\See OCE Findings para.35; Bates Nos. 09-9030_0029, para.7, 
appended to OCE Findings.
    \100\See COS. 0011 (printed from MDAT electronic records regarding 
Rep. Stark on January 4, 2010). While Representative Stark does not 
acknowledge he contacted MDAT, his response in MDAT's electronic 
records was nonetheless changed to the correct response.
    \101\See OCE Findings para.29; Bates Nos. 09-9030_0021-0022, 
appended to OCE Findings.
    \102\See Rep. Stark Resp. to OCE Report and Findings at 2.
    \103\See Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff (stating 
that Question 4 pertaining to voter registration ``has the least 
probative value'' in MDAT's review because there are many acceptable 
explanations why someone may not be registered to vote at the 
particular address).
    \104\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mere mistakes or negligence fall far short of the 
requirement to prove a ``willful'' violation.\105\ 
Representative Stark's answers overall also demonstrate that he 
did not violate the more demanding standards of conduct applied 
in Standards Committee proceedings. However, the record further 
shows that the totality of Representative Stark's responses 
were truthful and, when viewed properly in context, show no 
intent to lie or evade tax payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \105\See Johnson, 451 A.2d at 332 (``willfulness'' is the 
voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty, not the result 
of accident or mistake or other innocent cause).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On this basis alone, OCE's allegations are not sustained. 
However, as discussed below, the record shows that OCE 
erroneously concluded that Representative Stark received tax 
benefits as a result of his Credit application. He did not.

3. The Record Shows That Representative Stark Did Not Receive a Tax 
        Credit Based on His Application

    The Standards Committee's independent investigation 
conclusively established that Representative Stark received no 
tax benefits as a result of his electronically-filed 
application for the Credit in February 2009. MDAT did not grant 
Representative Stark's application and his ``application never 
resulted in his actually receiving a homestead tax credit for 
any tax year after its submission.''\106\ MDAT unquestionably 
disapproved of his eligibility before June 2009, when MDAT 
provided counties with electronic updates to ensure that tax 
bills contained current assessment and tax credit 
information.\107\ Indeed, Representative Stark's property tax 
bill, issued on July 1, 2009, evidences that he received no 
Credit or tax benefit of any kind as a result of his 
application.\108\ OCE's allegations are thus unfounded. 
Moreover, the record shows that OCE had evidence in its 
possession to prove this fact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff.
    \107\Id.
    \108\COS. 0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OCE was in error when it asserted that, ``in calendar year 
2009, the year directly affected by his answers on the 2008 
application, Representative Stark received $3,769.79 in state 
and county tax [homestead] credits,'' based on a document 
printed on May 5, 2009.''\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \109\OCE Findings para.20; Bates No. 09-9030_0005, which is 
appended to OCE's Findings. See also OCE Findings para.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The May 5 document that OCE relied upon for this assertion 
is for bill year 2009, not calendar year 2009.\110\ Maryland 
issues its tax bills on a fiscal basis, which runs in Maryland 
from July 1 to the following June 30.\111\ Therefore, bill year 
2009 in the document relied upon by OCE corresponded to fiscal 
year 2009, which began on July 1, 2008. In other words, the 
bill was issued to Representative Stark on July 1, 2008, before 
MDAT even mailed an application to Representative Stark for the 
Credit on January 1, 2009.\112\ As noted earlier, the Credit 
was automatically triggered and applied to Representative 
Stark's tax bill in bill years 2007-2009 by Maryland tax 
officials because his assessments increased by more than 10% 
per year, even though he had taken no affirmative action to 
seek the Credit during that time.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \110\See Bates No. 09-9030_0005, which is appended to OCE's 
Findings.
    \111\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff; see also 
COS. 0012-0015.
    \112\See COS. 0031 (Rep. Stark's tax bill issued for fiscal year 
2009, which runs from July 1, 2008-June 30, 2009, containing homestead 
tax credits of $3,769.79).
    \113\See supra n.47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, OCE's allegations are inconsistent with the 
available evidence. First, MDAT had removed any Credit 
associated with Representative Stark's Maryland residence by 
May 1, 2009, as documented in OCE's interview memorandum.\114\ 
OCE omitted this fact from the body of its Findings.\115\ 
Second, the very first page of the exhibit that OCE relied upon 
for its erroneous conclusion shows that MDAT had highlighted 
that Representative Stark's Harwood, Maryland, home was not his 
``principal residence'' as of May 6, 2009.\116\ This means that 
Representative Stark would not and did not receive any Credit 
in July 2009. Last, Representative Stark reiterated to OCE that 
MDAT found he was not eligible for the Credit approximately one 
month after MDAT told OCE the same thing.\117\ These consistent 
statements from MDAT and Representative Stark regarding the 
disposition of Representative Stark's application should have 
made clear that, as MDAT told the Standards Committee, 
Representative Stark's ``application never resulted in his 
actually receiving a homestead tax credit for any tax year 
after its submission.''\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \114\See Bates No. 09-9030_0009, para.12, which is appended to 
OCE's Findings.
    \115\Instead, OCE included this significant fact in the last 
sentence that begins with the New York Times article discussed above. 
See id.
    \116\See Bates No. 09-9030_0002, which is appended to OCE's 
Findings.
    \117\See OCE Findings para.34; Bates No. 09-9030_0028, para.3, 
which is appended to OCE Findings.
    \118\Int. of Robert Young by Standards Committee Staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             V. CONCLUSIONS

    In view of the Standards Committee's findings of fact in 
Section III, and conclusions reached applying those findings in 
Section IV, the Committee finds that no further action is 
warranted. The matter is dismissed and the Standards Committee 
considers it closed.
    The Chair is directed upon providing the required notice to 
Representative Stark and OCE, pursuant to House Rule XI, Clause 
3(b)(8)(A), and Committee Rule 17A(a)(2), to file the instant 
Report with the House, together with Representative Stark's 
response and a copy of OCE's Report and Findings in this 
matter, both of which are made a part of this Report and 
appended hereto.\119\ The filing of the instant Report, along 
with its publication on the Standards Committee's Web site, 
shall serve as publication of OCE's Report and Findings, 
pursuant to House Rule XI, Clause 3(b)(8)(A), and Committee 
Rule 17A(b)(3) and 17A(c)(2). No other version of OCE's Report 
and Findings is authorized and any publication of OCE's Report 
and Findings independent of the instant Report is not 
authorized.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \119\House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b).
    \120\See House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A); Standard Committee Rule 
17A; and H. Res. 895, Section 1, clause 1(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 VI. STATEMENT UNDER RULE 13, CLAUSE 3(c) OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF 
                            REPRESENTATIVES

    The Standards Committee made no special oversight findings 
in this report. No budget statement is submitted. No funding is 
authorized by any measure in this report.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

