Somerset County BOE Pushes Back Against OIGE Findings - No Law Was Ever Violated

Fellow Editors
52 minutes ago
3 min read

The Somerset County Board of Education (SCBOE) has issued a forceful response to the Maryland Office of the Inspector General for Education (OIGE), disputing the agency’s findings regarding the Board’s procurement of legal services from Schifanelli Law, LLP.

The OIGE’s investigative report, released November 13, alleged that Somerset County Public Schools violated state procurement guidelines and local policy when selecting its current legal counsel. In a detailed memorandum to Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) President Dr. Joshua Michael, the Board’s attorneys argued that the OIGE’s legal conclusions were “erroneous,” “misleading,” and based on misinterpretations of state law.

Board Says State Procurement Law Doesn’t Apply

The Board disputes OIGE’s position that Somerset County is uniquely required to follow Maryland’s State Finance and Procurement Article and COMAR Title 21. Citing a 2000 Maryland Supreme Court ruling Chesapeake Charter v. Anne Arundel County BOE, the Board argues that all county school systems — including Somerset — are exempt from state procurement law except where the Education Article explicitly applies.

The memorandum emphasizes that the Education Article only mandates competitive bidding for school buildings, improvements, or supplies, not for professional services such as legal counsel. According to the Board, OIGE incorrectly claimed that local Policy 200-14 required adherence to state procurement guidelines, even though the policy contains no such reference.

Rescinding Policy 100-18 Was Lawful, Board Says

The OIGE also alleged that the Board violated its own policy procedures when it rescinded Policy 100-18, which previously governed legal services procurement. The Board counters that Policy 100-9 governs the adoption or amendment of policies — not their rescission. Because there is no local rule outlining a process for policy repeal, the Board maintains it acted lawfully by voting in open session to rescind Policy 100-18 before hiring Schifanelli Law.

Tensions Over OIGE Mistrust and Interviews

The Board further accuses the OIGE of creating an atmosphere of mistrust during the investigation. Citing an August 13 appearance by Inspector General Richard Henry on WBAL radio where he discussed allegations involving Somerset schools. The Board suggests the public commentary undermined confidence in the fairness of the investigation.

Correspondence included in the document shows a dispute over interview conditions: OIGE insisted interviews be recorded solely by its personnel, while board members asked to be interviewed as a group and to have a court reporter present. The Board claims it complied with all document requests but declined the interviews due to OIGE’s refusal to allow an independent court reporter and reluctance to permit counsel participation.

Board Accuses OIGE of Bias

The memorandum concludes that the OIGE's findings reflect “faulty” reasoning and a “sense of bias,” arguing that the Board acted fully within its legal authority in selecting its attorneys and rescinding prior policies. The Board maintains that local boards are not required to bid out legal services and that the OIGE’s attempt to impose state procurement standards contradicts Maryland law.

Last Page of OIGE's Report is "Inconclusive"

Throughout the report, the OIGE ironically contradicts his own assertion that "the law was violated" by justifying how the law wasn't violated. Because the OIGE has a nothing burger, the last page of the OIGE's report ends as inconclusive, with his only recommendations to the State Board of Education:

1. Update the State's procurement framework to create restrictions that don't currently exist.

2. Provide training to all local BOE's to fall in line and follow such new procurement practices.

Why Did the OIGE Act in a Way That Appears to Disregard Maryland Law Altogether?

The State of Maryland and their OIGE is peeved that they were unable to:

Forcibly stay the superintendent.
Remove the Board's Chair Matthew Lankford.
Remove the Board’s attorney who handed the State of Maryland a decisive defeat.

Fellows & Editors

November 18, 2025

Copyright DelmarvaPTC.org. Please consider subscribing to the Delmarva Parent Teacher Coalition and follow us on FaceBook to stay informed of what's really happening with education in our schools.