Montgomery County officials violated Maryland election law by using public funds and employees on county time...

This article is about the Montgomery County Executive, his staff and Montgomery County Council members who all asserted that they were above the law back in 2012. They weren't. 
These are the same elected officials and lawyers who continue to support the Board of Education and Superintendent in the charging of illegal fees to students.  Is it time for some new legal counsel for Montgomery County?  

The Washington Post:  Court says Montgomery County violated law in campaign to roll back police union rights

Montgomery County officials violated Maryland election law by using public funds and employees on county time to campaign in support of the 2012 ballot proposition that eliminated certain collective bargaining rights for police, a state circuit court judge has ruled...
...Circuit Court Judge Ronald B. Rubin said in a March 19 decision that the union’s claim may have validity. But he ruled that the two officials are entitled to at least “qualified immunity” because they acted in good faith on the advice of county and state attorneys...
...The county launched an aggressive campaign in favor of the measure. Leggett authorized Lacefield to spend up to $200,000 in county funds for mailings, bus advertisements and bumper stickers. County employees campaigned actively during work hours, according to testimony.
The FOP sought to purchase the same kind of advertising for Ride-On buses but was denied by the county because the ads were deemed “political.” Leggett eventually allowed the ads, but it was too late to place them on buses before the election.
Leggett and Lacefield said they were advised by attorneys for the state and county that they were exempt from requirements in Maryland election law to create a campaign committee and file reports disclosing the sources of funding. The county also argued in court that under home rule it had the authority to conduct the campaign.
But Rubin called this “a bold presumption of power.” He said the county’s fight for Question B went far beyond the bounds of merely informing Montgomery citizens about a matter of public interest and became partisan electioneering.
“No court has suggested that a government may not spend money to inform the public about its initiatives or legislative enactments. Of course it can,” Rubin wrote. “But there is a world of difference between communications that inform, and communications that proselytize and try to influence the outcome of an election contest.”
Rubin added: “In this case, based on the court’s findings, the question is not even a close call.”