The former top watchdog in Montgomery County misused his position to secure a raise for an employee in his department, according to an ethics panel that probed one of the many disputes between the investigator and County Executive Ike Leggett’s office.
Former Inspector General Thomas Dagley violated the county’s ethics law by suggesting he would audit the county’s management compensation practices after a requested pay raise for his deputy was denied, said the Montgomery County Ethics Commission.
The complaint was brought by former Montgomery County Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg, a longtime ally of Leggett’s, whom Dagley contends raised the issue because of his damning reports against the administration.
“Balderdash,” Dagley said of the findings by the ethics panel. “It is a bogus decision regardless because former Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg’s 2009 complaint, orchestrated by political appointees tethered to the county executive, was retaliatory. This is not the first or last time such a stunt was used to try to intimidate someone viewed as an adversary by the executive’s inner circle.”
Dagley left the post more than a year ago, citing the acrimonious relationship with Leggett’s representatives as one of the motivating factors in his decision to leave the job.
He accused some in the executive branch of interfering in his investigations, most notably, findings that a police officer used more than $400,000 in taxpayers’ money to sell guns at steep discounts to more than 200 police officers and prison guards.
In fact, it was the county executive’s chief spokesman who notified reporters of the commission’s decision.
“Not much more to say on [the] decision,” Leggett spokesman Patrick Lacefield said when asked for reaction to the findings his office released. “The Montgomery County Ethics Commission decision speaks for itself.”
Yet, multiple county officials told The Washington Examiner that the case against Dagley was politically motivated and was solely pursued because of the constant tensions between the IG’s office and the executive’s office. The irony, according to those officials, was that the employee in question ultimately secured a raise — meaning the dispute would have been avoided had it been granted in the first place.
