The Frederick City Ethics Commission unanimously ruled on May 11 that Council Member Katie Nash committed three separate violations of the City Ethics Ordinance, fined her $1,000, and ordered her to cease all further Council activity involving Frederick data centers or energy.
The 16-page Opinion and Order, signed by Commission Chair Maureen Connors, is a public record of the Commission’s findings following a March 24 evidentiary hearing at which Nash testified under oath.
The Commission found that Nash violated Section 21-4(b)(1) by participating in matters in which she or her spouse held a financial interest, Section 21-4(c)(1)(B) by holding outside employment that impaired her impartiality, and Section 21-4(f)(1) by using the prestige of her elected office for private gain.
In addition, the Commission dismissed one of the four allegations, finding that Nash’s presentation of a developer-drafted text amendment as her own work did not violate the Ethics Ordinance, even as it flagged that the Council’s June 2025 agenda inaccurately attributed the data center legislation to “The Council” when no Council action had occurred.
The ruling marks Nash’s second ethics violation in four years.
The Commission sanctioned Nash in September 2022 for using her position as Alderwoman to lobby Neighborhood Advisory Council coordinators on behalf of the International Association of Firefighters Local 3666, her client at the time. The Commission imposed no fine in 2022 because the offense was her first.
The May 11 ruling cites that prior censure as having “put Ms. Nash on notice that caution was required when undertaking official action that may benefit herself or a client as well as the abuse of prestige of office.”
The Commission warned that any future violations may be referred to the Circuit Court for Frederick County for the assessment of larger fines per violation.
The Text Amendment Trammell Crow Submitted Was Identical to Nash’s
The Commission’s investigation established a chain of custody regarding the data center legislation, which destroys Nash’s public defense.
Nash submitted a text amendment to the City of Frederick Planning Department on August 2, 2025, identifying herself on the application as “President, City Council.” The Commission found that counsel for Trammell Crow, the developer Bruce Dean represents, drafted the language Nash submitted.
Four months later, on December 15, 2025, Dean’s firm submitted its own text amendment for data center legislation directly to the City on behalf of Trammell Crow.
Footnote 8 of the ruling states the finding plainly: “The text amendment submitted by Mr. Dean to the City in December 2025 on behalf of Trammell Crow was identical to that submitted by Ms. Nash.”
Footnote 2 reinforces it: “A second text amendment to permit Data Centers within the City of Frederick was submitted in December 2025 by Trammell Crow. This second text amendment is identical to the draft presented by Ms. Nash in August 2025.”
Nash refused to cede authorship at the March 24 hearing, testifying: “I took copies like I was copying and pasting and I asked them like, basically for legal, like does this work . . . And I definitely asked for Bruce’s input.” She withdrew her text amendment in December 2025, three days after Dean’s firm submitted the identical version under the name Trammell Crow.
In a December 18, 2025, email to her fellow Council Members, Nash wrote that the legislation was “drafted but not submitted. Note that I won’t be submitting this because it isn’t worth it to me to explain how electricity works, and I’m not quitting my job over this nonsense.”
What Frederick Data Center Projects Are at Issue
The text amendment Katie Nash submitted as Council President in August 2025 was part of a broader Frederick County data center buildout that includes Quantum Loophole’s gigawatt campus on the former Eastalco aluminum smelter site in Adamstown, the Trammell Crow projects, and Amazon Web Services’ ongoing interest in land in Frederick County.
The Eastalco site is adjacent to Tuscarora Creek, where Quantum Loophole’s early construction led to documented environmental violations. Former Rep. David J. Trone, then representing Maryland’s 6th Congressional District, dismissed those violations as “bumps in the road.”
The Nash text amendment would have opened the City of Frederick itself to data center development for the first time, extending the County’s data center footprint inside the City limits.
But the Trammell Crow text amendment that Bruce Dean submitted in December 2025, identical to Nash’s August submission, remains under the City’s consideration.
The January 2026 Critical Digital Infrastructure Ordinance heavily restricts data centers in Frederick County, permitting them only within a designated 2,600-acre overlay zone. The ordinance does not ban them entirely.
Vistra’s Own SEC Filings Destroyed Nash’s Central Defense
Nash’s central public defense throughout her tenure on the Council rests on a single claim: that her ongoing work as a paid lobbyist for Vistra Corp., a national energy company, creates no conflict of interest with data center policy because energy generation and data center development are unrelated industries.
She told the Commission at the March 24 hearing: “It’s, it’s not the same industry. I mean, do we know that? Like, I, no. It never occurred to me there’s a conflict. They’re different industries. It’s like comparing roads to cars. They’re not the same. Yes, cars use roads, but you would never make the link that by building roads, I’m somehow, I mean, it’s so… It’s so silly. It’s just silly.”
The Commission then quoted Vistra’s own 2024 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: “If electricity demand does not grow at the rate expected, or if we are unable to execute on large load offtake opportunities, our financial performance, growth opportunities, and stock price could be adversely impacted.”
It also quoted Vistra’s 2025 Form 10-K: “Electricity demand drivers including the rise of large scale data centers, the electrification of oil field operations, and electric vehicle load building are contributing to a projected fast paced load growth in the regions we serve.”
Footnote 14 of the Commission’s opinion dismantles the defense: “Characterizing the connection as ‘silly’ flies in the face of the direct energy-data center link stated by her own client, Vistra, in its federal filings.”
Maryland lobbying records show Nash registered as a lobbyist for Vistra Corporate Services Company through October 31, 2025, the period during which she submitted the August 2 text amendment and presented at the October 23 and November 6 committee workshops.
She re-registered as a Vistra lobbyist on January 18, 2026, shortly after receiving notice of the ethics complaint.
Spires & Light and the “Not Credible” Finding
The Commission documented a second undisclosed financial entity that Nash failed to acknowledge.
Investigators obtained the website of Spires & Light, a government affairs firm operating from Nash’s home address at 1024 Dulaney Mill Drive in Frederick.
The site describes Nash and her husband Josh Bokee as “Partners, Spires and Light” and as a “husband-and-wife team” who “founded Spires and Light to help clients, including nonprofits and advocacy groups, as well as businesses and local governments cut through bureaucracy, build meaningful relationships, and achieve measurable impact.”
The site lists Nash’s direct phone number and her email address at the firm’s domain, and describes her as a “sought-after strategist for clients seeking real-world results.” It also identifies the firm’s services as Government Affairs, Lead Generation, Procurement Assistance, Sales, and Partnership/Coalition Development.
Nash denied any involvement in Spires & Light at the hearing and claimed to be completely unaware of its existence or of being part of a husband-and-wife team.
The Commission’s response appears in the body of the opinion: “The Commission does not find her testimony credible.”
The Commission separately documented Nash’s involvement in a non-profit called Connect for Broadband, Inc., which she also failed to disclose on any of her annual Financial Disclosure Statements. Nash acknowledged at the hearing that she remains involved with the entity, which her husband created. The Commission noted that “it is not clear what, if anything, it does.”
Josh Bokee is the listed contact on Connect For Broadband’s website.
The Commission ordered Nash to update her Disclosure Forms to reflect her involvement in both Connect for Broadband, Inc. and Spires & Light.
The Richard Griffin Alibi Collapsed
Nash testified that she submitted the text amendment because Richard Griffin, Director of the City’s Department of Economic Development, asked her to do so on behalf of the Mayor’s office. She further testified that emails existed proving Griffin’s request.
The Commission’s finding: “No such emails were provided by Ms. Nash and the investigation did not reveal any.”
The Commission pointed to Nash’s own public statement at the November 6, 2025, Government Operations Committee meeting, captured at minute marker 9:54 of the official recording: “Regarding the origin of the text amendment, very clearly I am the origin of that text amendment. I want to be very clear about that.”
The Commission found that Griffin did not become involved in the data center matter until approximately a year after Nash had begun circulating Data Center workgroup papers to City staff.
The ruling concludes: “Based on the email chain described above, Ms. Nash was the driving force behind the Data Center research and presentation of the text amendment.”
Procedural Attacks Rejected
Section IV of the opinion documents Nash’s procedural challenges and the Commission’s systematic rejection of each one.
Nash arrived at the March 24 hearing accompanied by her husband, Josh Bokee, and current Council President César Diaz. The Commission required both to leave under Ordinance Section 21-3(i), which mandates that “after a complaint is filed and until a final determination by the Commission, all actions regarding a complaint are confidential.”
She demanded the complainant’s identity, but the Commission denied her request, citing Ordinance Section 21-3.1(d). Nash then demanded the right to record the hearing outside of the official City recording. The Commission denied the request, and Nash claimed that the Commission denied her the right to cross-examine.
The Commission’s response: “The Commission called no witnesses. The Commission’s investigation and decision are based upon the conduct and testimony of Ms. Nash herself. In short, there was no one to cross-examine.”
Nash demanded that any Commissioner who had donated to a political campaign recuse themselves. The Commission cited Maryland Code Local Government Article Section 1-303, which provides that “an employee of a governmental entity may freely participate in any political activity and express any political opinion.”
The Commission found no legal basis for the requested recusal.
Nash specifically demanded the recusal of Commissioner Lollar, alleging ex parte communications and conflicts of interest related to his position with the Housing Authority of the City of Frederick. The Commission rejected the demand. Lollar participated in the hearing and the decision and resigned his position on April 20, 2026, per footnote 1 of the ruling.
Nash alleged the complaint was politically motivated.
The Commission’s response, in footnote 18: “There is no evidence of any political motivation underlying the complaint or that the complaint was spurious.”
Footnote 19 captures the Commission’s broader view of Nash’s conduct during the proceedings: “Throughout the process, Ms. Nash has made blanket accusatory statements without evidentiary support. To accuse the Commission of acting politically or with some sort of private agenda is calculated to discredit the volunteers who spend unpaid countless hours on behalf of the City of Frederick.”
A State Ethics Code Flag
Footnote 16 of the ruling contains a single sentence with significant implications: “Ms. Nash also has committed violations of the State Ethics Code. These violations are not considered here.”
The Commission does not elaborate.
The reference tracks with a March 30, 2026, Frederick News-Post report documenting Nash’s failure to register as a Maryland lobbyist before testifying on behalf of the Frederick County Career Firefighters and Paramedics Association at a February 3, 2026, hearing of the Maryland House Appropriations Committee.
Maryland State Ethics Commission rules require lobbyists to register before such testimony and impose fines of up to $1,000 per violation.
Nash characterized the registration failure as a “mistake” in comments to the News-Post.
The Pattern Established
The May 11 ruling establishes a documented pattern stretching across three regulatory bodies and four years.
Nash sought an advisory opinion from the Frederick Ethics Commission in 2021 before taking office. The Commission permitted her to continue working as a lobbyist but warned that the dual role “has the potential to raise several concerns.”
The Commission found Nash had violated the Ethics Ordinance in 2022 by using her position as Alderwoman to lobby on behalf of the firefighters’ union. The ruling ordered her to seek advisory opinions “for any questionable areas of professional work, or any unusual situation where an advanced opinion may be helpful to avoid conflicts.”
No record shows that Nash sought any subsequent advisory opinion before she initiated data center policy work for the City while registered as a lobbyist for Vistra and operating Energy Advocacy LLC.
Nash testified before a Maryland House committee in February 2026 on behalf of a paying client without registering as a state lobbyist.
In May 2026, the Frederick Ethics Commission found her in violation of three sections of the City Ethics Ordinance, deemed her sworn testimony regarding Spires & Light to be not credible, and ordered her to stop participating in matters involving data centers or energy.
The Sanctions
The Commission imposed three orders.
First, Nash must pay a $1,000 fine to the City of Frederick.
Second, she must cease and desist from any further Council action that may benefit her clients and employers in the energy or data industries, benefit her in her private employment as a lobbyist or consultant, or call for the use of City resources that may further the interests of any of her clients and employers.
Third, she must review and update her Disclosure Forms to reflect her involvement in Connect for Broadband, Inc. and Spires & Light.
The Commission’s closing warning establishes the stakes for any further activity: “In the event of future violations by Ms. Nash, the Commission may request that the matter be referred to the Circuit Court for Frederick County for the assessment of larger fines for each violation.”
Nash remains a sitting member of the Frederick City Council.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is Katie Nash?
Katie Nash serves as a Frederick City Council Member, held the Council President role for most of 2025, and represents the City of Frederick, Maryland. She also operates as a registered Maryland lobbyist through her firm Energy Advocacy LLC, with documented clients including Vistra Corporate Services Company.
What did the Frederick Ethics Commission rule on May 11, 2026?
The Frederick City Ethics Commission unanimously found that Katie Nash violated three sections of the City Ethics Ordinance, fined her $1,000, and ordered her to cease all Council activity involving data centers or energy.
Commission Chair Maureen Connors signed the ruling.
Why did the Commission fine Katie Nash $1,000?
The Commission found that Nash violated conflict-of-interest, outside-employment, and prestige-of-office provisions of the Frederick City Ethics Ordinance by participating in data center legislation while she drew pay as a lobbyist for Vistra Corporate Services Company and operated a government affairs firm called Spires & Light with her husband, Josh Bokee.
What is Spires & Light?
Spires & Light operates as a government affairs firm out of Katie Nash’s home address in Frederick, Maryland.
The firm’s website lists Nash and her husband, Josh Bokee, as partners and a “husband-and-wife team.” Nash denied any involvement at the March 24 hearing. The Commission found her testimony “not credible.”
What Frederick data center projects are at issue?
The Nash text amendment would have opened the City of Frederick to data center development for the first time.
The broader Frederick County context includes Quantum Loophole’s gigawatt campus on the former Eastalco aluminum smelter site in Adamstown, Trammell Crow’s data center projects, represented by attorney Bruce Dean, and Amazon Web Services’ ongoing interest in land in Frederick County.
Data centers remain prohibited under the current City of Frederick law.
Has the Commission cited Katie Nash for ethics violations before?
Yes.
The Frederick City Ethics Commission sanctioned Nash in September 2022 for using her position as Alderwoman to lobby Neighborhood Advisory Council coordinators on behalf of her client at the time, the International Association of Firefighters Local 3666.
The 2022 ruling imposed no fine because it was her first offense, and the May 11, 2026, ruling marks Nash’s second ethics violation in four years.
Who is Maureen Connors?
Maureen Connors chairs the Frederick City Ethics Commission and signed the May 11, 2026, Opinion and Order that found Nash in violation of the City Ethics Ordinance.
