We’ve heard about lawfare at the National level against various political figures. It’s where the government in power charges people they don’t like with crimes so they can ruin their reputations and deplete their bank accounts. Sometimes they just want the citizen to stop asking questions, or, in the case of some, conducting investigations.
It can happen in small towns too.
The last 19 months have been rough in Oxford, Maryland with controversies, dishonest politicians, audit findings ignored, hundreds of thousands of dollars unaccounted for, disregard for the election laws in the town charter, a huge structural deficit, and a total lack of transparency. Citizens have spoken out about these issues during this time, only to be dismissed and disregarded by two of the three Town Commissioners.
One investigative reporter, Scott Rensberger, has played a pivotal role in uncovering and exposing the corruption in the town. His videos have sparked conversation and consternation among the citizens regarding their town government.
Needless to say, he is not a favorite with the majority of town officials and their supporters.
After a recent foray ten weeks ago into investigating possible violations of election laws and regulations for voter eligibility that involved the relative of a prominent citizen of the town, Rensberger received a disturbing call from a local Sheriff’s Department Deputy. The Town Clerk, Vickie Sharp, had called to press harassment charges against Rensberger.
The funny thing is, Sharp wasn’t claiming SHE was harassed. She made the call on behalf of TWO residents of Oxford who said Rensberger had bothered them. What did he do?
The Town of Oxford was giving Rensberger the “run around” when it came to answering election questions, so he took it upon himself to do a bit of election research. In an attempt to do this research, Rensberger had placed an anonymous, non-partisan survey on eight residents’ front porches. Each survey was in an envelope with the resident’s name on it. If they wanted to participate, they could use an enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope to return the questionnaire to Rensberger. They did not have to include their names. Annoying, possibly, harassment? Hardly.
However, months later, Town Clerk Vickie Sharp reported Rensberger for harassment because of the surveys. Coincidentally, her report was filed just hours after Rensberger wrote to the three town Commissioners regarding voting irregularities regarding the last Town election. In his letter Rensberger reported that Vickie Sharp and the Election Board were not answering basic election questions.
So Sharp called the Sheriff’s Department with harassment charges.
Here is the definition of harassment in Maryland law:
As you can see, harassment is clearly defined as a clear course of conduct intended to “alarm or seriously annoy another.” Rensberger’s survey was completely neutral and didn’t favor either side in the recent election.
For some reason, Sharp, on her own volition or upon the suggestion of someone else (not the alleged victims) decided to file harassment charges on behalf of two people in Oxford, not herself. Was it because Rensberger was asking too many questions?
The deputy who took the call was new to the department and more than likely was trying to respond to a charge made by a town official regarding a resident of the town. In a phone call with Mr. Rensberger, he stated that he couldn’t disclose the names of the complainants other than Ms. Sharp.
According to Rensberger, ” the Deputy didn’t give me the names of anyone who I apparently harassed. He simply told me if I contact anyone in Oxford ever again that I could be arrested.”
Rensberger relayed the rest of the conversation:
(Deputy:) “I’m also here to let you know if you could cut it all together. Because in the State of Maryland the way harassment is written you have to be warned, you have to be told to stop, so this is me telling you to stop.
(Scott Rensberger:) “OK, but I’m still free to write to the Commissioners, correct?”
(Deputy:) — “The Town?”
(Scott Rensberger:) — “Yes, the three Commissioners that run Oxford. I can still write to them — correct?”
(Deputy:) — “My understanding is they wanted it done completely. Completely stopped.”
The “they” the Deputy was talking about was Vickie Sharp. Rensberger didn’t know at the time, but Vickie Sharp was the only person who contacted the Sheriff’s Office. The deputy continued to give him very little information.
Scott Rensberger: “There’s no way that you can tell me if it’s a few people — I don’t have that right as a citizen?”
(Deputy:) — “No.”
So here Rensberger was in limbo during this time with absolutely no idea what the officer was referring to nor the names of the people complaining so he could be sure not to make contact with them. He was just told if he made contact with these unknown residents again, he’d be arrested.
Rensberger decided to discuss the issue with officers at the Talbot County Sheriff’s Department. It was then he discovered that the only person who contacted the County was Vickie Sharp — Oxford’s acting Town Manager. This is also when he also learned that the case against him actually happened several weeks ago when he was doing research to learn more about possible voting irregularities.
At that point, the Deputy actually called the two alleged complainants, and they told him that they both felt the election research was an invasion of privacy and one of the two felt intimidated. Neither one of them discussed possible charges against Rensberger.
It was clear that the charges were not only bogus but filed and dealt with incorrectly. A young deputy acted rashly, and an interim Town Manager was targeting Rensberger after he wrote a letter to the Commissioners about the last election. Also relevant is that Sharp had previously and repeatedly stopped the Chair of the Oxford Election Board, Pam Baker, from answering Rensberger’s questions when he saw Baker in the town office. According to the town’s lawyer, Lyndsey Ryan, Vickie Sharp doesn’t have the authority to stop anyone from asking Baker a question.
Upon contacting the Talbot County Sheriff, Joe Gamble, Rensberger was able to have the matter cleared up. The deputy was wrong as he should have interviewed the citizens first to see if the claim filed by Sharp met the requirements of Maryland Law. See link https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/criminal-law/title-3/subtitle-8/section-3-803/
Gamble stated that the deputy should not have relied on what the third party told him since he is a new officer and a good young man who has a lot to learn. The Sheriff’s department is working with him and making sure that the appropriate steps are taken to lessen some of these “young cop mistakes”.*
Rensberger was very thankful for Gamble’s help and said, ” I don’t have any hard feelings towards the Sheriff’s department or the deputy. He was just trying to do his job after a top town official contacted him.
This brings us back to the person who made the complaint and WHY she made it. Was Vickie Sharp truly concerned about citizens being harassed in her town? If so, why not direct THEM first to the Oxford Police Chief, Chris Phillips to file a report on their own? Why did she go straight to the Sheriff’s Department to make the complaint for them? That’s not how it works.
It’s very clear that the Oxford Town Office has more on its mind than serving the citizens of the town. And, with the recent Resolution by the Town Commissioners to suppress citizen speech and questions at town meetings, it’s obvious some of the elected officials feel the same way.
This leads to the question of “why?” What are the town office and the Commissioners trying to hide? Who is directing their actions? Did someone direct Vickie Sharp to take the unprecedented steps she did? Or, was she enacting a personal agenda against Rensberger? Was she using two residents of Oxford to silence him regarding his current research into the town?
Where does it stop? Will any citizen in town who starts to ask questions get the same or worse treatment?Whether one agrees with Rensberger or not, these actions by Sharp are troubling.
Past history proves that the Town’s former and current administration are not above granting some residents favors while denying others information and the same rights as other citizens. Have they decided to take this one step further with lawfare?
*The Talbot County Sheriff’s Department was very helpful in getting this matter resolved. They don’t like these kinds of incidents any more than the rest of us do!
This article was originally featured in the Easton Gazette.
