When public trust is already stretched thin, Maryland doesn’t need an accountability office that dodges its own accountability and ironically turns its power against the people it serves. Yet that is precisely the problem unfolding between the Somerset County Board of Education and the Maryland Office of the Inspector General for Education (OIGE).
This isn’t about partisan politics or personalities. It’s about the rule of law, and the OIGE’s troubling misunderstanding of it coupled with his insistence on inventing authority in law, statutes, rules, regulations, articles, policies, and procedures where none exists.
On November 18, 2025, we released this article that explains what the OIGE had asserted:
The IG then responds back on November 19th attempting to justify his invalid claims:
Somerset Board’s counsel responded on November 20th with a memorandum that lays out a point-by-point rebuttal:
What emerges is a picture of an oversight agency forcing square pegs into round holes, stretching statutory language, and attempting to redefine basic terms of school governance. If the Inspector General wants to hold districts accountable, it must first hold itself accountable to the law.
At the heart of the dispute is the OIGE’s attempt to weaponize Maryland Education Article § 4-205, which has a provision that gives local superintendents authority to interpret “rules” and “regulations.” That’s it. Those two terms. Not “policy.” Not “contracting decisions.” Not “board governance.”
Every experienced board member or attorney knows the difference. Policies are created by elected boards to guide the direction of their school systems. Procedures are written by superintendents to implement those policies. Rules govern procedure. Ignoring these foundational distinctions is an attempt to manipulate or rewrite Maryland law.\
Yet that is exactly what the OIGE has tried to do. Suggesting that Somerset’s Board was obligated to treat its superintendent as the final interpreter of board policy when no dispute ever existed in the first place. The Board rightly rejected that absurd logic. When elected officials adopt a policy, they are the authoritative interpreters of that policy. No outside agency gets to invent a process that the law does not require.
Then there is the question of closed session. The OIGE was eager to fault the Board for voting behind closed doors when hiring their legal counsel. But Maryland’s Open Meetings Act is crystal clear: personnel matters, including the hiring or dismissal of legal counsel, are permitted subjects for confidential discussion and action. The Compliance Board has repeatedly affirmed this over the years.
More
the demonicrats of this state will leave no stone unturned to make sure your kids are schooled in their dei marist woke tranny agenda! guarantying making sure your kids are their serfs for life!
Corruption at the highest levels. Very common where you have liberals running the show. Sad but true. Wake up people, vote them out.
Somerset county is the armpit of Maryland.
Grateful for the bravery of the Somerset County Board of Education. Ridding the District of the prior lawyers that were promoting the interest of the radical left and the teacher’s union instead of holding the system accountable to students, parents, and the community is a HUGE victory. Hope the Board’s bravery and success will inspire other districts to drain the swamp too.