The meaning of the word ALL has become an important point in overlapping concerns between the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office (FCSO) contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Frederick County Charter, control over the FCSO and the signing of contracts, grants and agreements by the county executive.

An examination of FCSO contracts and agreements by the local group Concerned Taxpayers has shown that ALL contracts and agreements involving the expenditure of appropriated funds are signed by the county executive, with the exception of the FCSO agreements with ICE. The two ICE agreements, the 287(g) agreement in which immigration status of those coming into custody of the jail (for which there is no reimbursement for costs incurred by the county), and the Inter-Governmental Service Agreement (IGSA) to house ICE detainees (for which there is a reimbursement that may or may not cover expenses), are the only FCSO agreements/contracts found by Concerned Taxpayers that were not signed by the county executive.

According to the county charter, Article 4, Section 402 (f), under County Executive Powers and Duties “signing or causing to be signed on the county’s behalf all deeds, contracts, and other instruments” is a required duty of the county executive.

The question regarding the absence of the county executive’s signature on these two FCSO agreements has become a bone of contention. Even the validity of the contracts, the spending of taxpayer dollars, in the absence of the executive’s signature, has come into question. Those raising the issue have focused on the word ALL, arguing that according to the county charter, ALL deeds, contracts and other instruments must be approved/signed by the county executive.

At the Aug. 1 meeting of the Charter Review Commission, Dr. Joseph Berman asked that the commission address Article 4, Section 402(f) by defining ALL.

The subject of Article 4, Section 402(f) was raised again at the Aug. 19 meeting of the Charter Review Commission meeting by commission members. At the time there was a lengthy discussion on the issue centering on the sheriff’s authority to sign contracts and the county executive’s duty to sign ALL contracts.

County Attorney John Mathias was tasked by the commission to draft an opinion on Article 4, Section 402(f)’s applicability regarding the signing of the 287(g) contract and presumably other such instruments involving the FCSO. These questions seemingly hinge on the use of the word ALL in the charter provision in question.

Merriam Webster’s online dictionary defines ALL as “the whole amount, quantity, or extent; as much as possible; every member or individual component.”

Black’s online Law Dictionary 2nd Ed. Defines ALL, “Collectively, this term designates the whole number of particulars, individuals, or separate items; distributively. It may be equivalent to ‘each’ or ‘every.’” State v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 66 Me. 510; Sherburne v. Sischo, 143 Mass. 442, 9 N. E. 797.”

It seems that the English language definition and the legal definition are clear, ALL means ALL, yet as of this writing, the county attorney’s office has not clarified the matter.

In the Aug. 19 commission meeting, the county attorney did make it clear that the sheriff is an independently elected official who can sign contracts, but that the sheriff can do only what the county executive and council fund.

In order for the county executive to exercise fiduciary responsibility it seems clear the executive must review, approve and sign ALL contracts requiring the expenditure of taxpayer dollars, in accordance with Article 4, Section 402(f) of the county charter. This includes the ICE agreements.

It is time for this to be addressed and clarified.

Karl Bickel was the 2018 Democratic candidate for sheriff. He can be reached at

(28) comments


Đá hồ ly là vật phẩm phong thủy về đường tình yêu, hôn nhân mà nhiều chị em tin tưởng sử dụng, các bạn cùng Đá quý An An cùng tìm hiểu nhé. Mặt đá hồ ly 9 đuôi giúp chủ nhân phát triển tình duyên mạnh mẽ, dễ đạt được hạnh phúc tình yêu của mình. Cách đeo hồ ly linh nghiệm nhất là chủ nhân cần đặt tên cho linh của mình và thân thiết gọi nó hằng ngày, có thế thì đá hồ ly phong thủy mới thiêng được.

Comment deleted.

3 is a charm, Bunny and when did Karl run in 2010?

Comment deleted.


Comment deleted.
Comment deleted.
Comment deleted.

Thank you!


HOLY FREDERICK BICKEL! Looks like Sheriff Jenkins is in serious trouble this time! Could this be his end?! If the County Executive did not sign the contract, that official, as a democrat remains untainted for the party. PURE DEMOCRAT PARTY BICKEL! If the contract is nullified, POW! - Jenkins could be forced to resign. That could result in an 'appointment' couldn't it? Or ... or ... Chuck could even be sued by the county for the cash spent on ICE programs during the duration of the contract. Good one democrats! You ruin him. You obilierate him. You identified him. Now you are about to classify him into those snappy swizz words your party likes to call any one who doesn't share your passion for your brand of booze. But wait, don't forget, if ALL is true: Sheriff Jenkins did ALL this to himself. In the plus column: The Minneapolis auditor choice makes sense now. Minneapolis is District 5 represented by a familiar congressional representative who has the bravery to file for her second divorce. Its probably the husband's fault. And, Frederick Mayor should have stood his gound - the weather vein directional makes total sense now: This Way! We are ALL HERE. ALL IN. FREE FREEDOM! Imagine those Maryland Delegate to Convention signs in Milwaukee!


A lot of sarcasm, SL. While ALL means ALL, it would be looked at in terms of when the MOU was signed. .As the MOU was signed, by the Sheriff, in 2008, it predates the County Charter. So, at the time it was signed it should be ruled legal. Legal up to the time the County Charter was effective.

Now that doesn't mean that the MOU is legal today. In fact, I think it isn't. It should have been renegotiated and signed by the CE. .It wasn't. So, from the County Charter effective date upto the present, there has been no MOU that is and has been legal. It needs to be renegotiated and signed by the CE, if that's what the County wants.

As far as Karl trying to replace Jenkins because of this oversight, that is simply not true. Karl is quite capable of running an effective campaign, if he chooses.

You are right about one thing, Karl has pointed out many of Jenkins mistakes. All part of a political campaign. If you, meaning any political person, are going to campaign you better be ready for all mistakes being pointed out.

Now, if you want to look at qualifications, Karl is far more qualified. He has worked as a DC police officer, has two master degrees in law and many more qualifications. Jenkins is a high school graduate and "good ole boy".


I read that the 2016 MOA. which expired on June 30, 2019, was extended. I assume that is Legal. Another 3 years? 🤷‍♂️


Bill Clinton and the Meaning of “Is”

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

Sept 13, 19989:14 PM

Actually a very astute reference to a Supreme Court Decision. But so many thought it was a joke or never "got it."


Agreed. I never understood why Clinton was mocked for that. I thought it was pretty sharp of him. It would have been ever sharper if he had just assumed “is” means what it usually means and answered “no” to the question.


Be should have asked: now or then?


Good letter, Karl! Thank you!


OK, so FCPS can't sign contracts either then! C'mon man you lost many times and you're chapped, still.

FCSO cannot incur county costs to 287(g) and prior audits (FCSO internal and FredCo Gov) have shown that all was in order. Another round of audits would show the same if conducted as before but just to spike the punch "SHE" wants an outside audit wasting money on trying to kill the program. It will show that FCSO is in order and the program WILL STAND.

The Santos matter does not prove a burden to the continued execution of the program. Instead it simply shows that more thorough execution of duties must be performed, just as with any arrest that is shown to have inconsistencies, poor execution, or just plain bleeding heart support.

Santos got away with her status and got a boost from the left-kind, not exactly a great day for justice and U.S. constitutional adherence IMO.


The large sum payout to Santos and her attorneys isn’t a burden? Thanks for the laugh!


Winning an election is not a "Get out of Jail" card, but an opportunity to do the job and to demonstrate competence. The Sheriff is open to review.


Don Trump won an election. Now facing impeachment and quite possibly criminal conviction.




Can't argue the "jist" of the letter so you attack the letter writer. Seems you learned the lesson from our commander in chief very well. Why are you afraid of an independent audit?


Daddy chuck isn’t afraid of the audit itself. The Santos settlement is sealed, so he now the county council can say what’s going on. Because of the Santos settlement, the county council is looking to ax the 287g program. But they can’t say this. And Jenkins can’t say this. So the council has ordered the audit as the first step to nix the program. Jenkins knows the program is a liability, he and the program combines are a liability. The audit stems from the settlement. The sealed settlement. That no one is supposed to know anything about.


How about if we all use gist spelled correctly rather than an incorrect spelling in quotation marks ("jist"). As the saying goes, jist is just wrong.


Thanks public - I know just how wrong the makes the entire post.


hay, You’re welcome. BTW, it doesn’t make the entire comment wrong. It merely makes you appear to be poorly educated. I’m happy to help. It takes a village, you know.


Can't we jist express ourselves "freely"?


When it comes to language you’re free

To call an elbow a knee

But to duck confusion you mist

Understand meanings are jist

Vital for distinguishing them from we


Care to guess why “jist” was in quotes.


Can anyone sign a contract committing the County?

You say, “The Santos matter does not prove a burden to the continued execution of the program. Instead it simply shows that more thorough execution of duties must be performed, just as with any arrest that is shown to have inconsistencies, poor execution, or just plain bleeding heart support.” What the hell does that mean?🤷‍♂️ Is Jenkins going to pay damages out of pocket? Gibberish..


Good Letter Karl.

Not to mention the litigation fees and the lawsuit settlement Bourne from Thr high Sherf abusing the 287g (program.

Comment deleted.

Kelly - attack the issue, not the individual..


Th sheriff is the issue.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominem criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.