[00:13:41]
RUNNING A LITTLE BIT LATE DUE TO THE FACT WE HAD TO GET SOME OTHER MEMBERS ON THE PHONE.
[00:13:46]
SO AT THIS TIME WE'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER,[00:13:49]
AND WE'LL DO THE ROLL CALL PRESENT.JIM, YOU WANT TO CALL THE ROLL CALL? YES.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE CAN SEE IT ALL LIVE FIRST BEFORE WE START THE ROLL CALL.
OKAY? OKAY. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.
IT'S 615. WE WILL BEGIN THE MEETING FOR THE CAROLINE COUNTY POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD.
WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. ROLL CALL PERSONNEL ON PRESIDENT.
BRANDY JAMES BY PHONE AND TODD LORD BY PHONE.
WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. AND I'M ONLINE AS WELL.
[00:15:01]
OKAY. AWESOME. OKAY. THIS TIME.IS ANYONE HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE DECEMBER 30TH, 24 MINUTES, WHICH WAS STREAMED ONLINE.
EVERYBODY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT.
YES. LIVE STREAM. WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT THOSE MINUTES.
SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING. SEEING. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE. AYE.
SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, WE DID HAVE ONE ACC MEETING.
THAT ACC MEETING TOOK PLACE LAST NIGHT, AND IT WAS INVOLVING DENTON POLICE OFFICERS.
AND ALL THE CHARGES IN THOSE CASES WERE SUSTAINED.
FINAL REPORT HAS NOT BEEN TYPED AND SENT OUT TO THE ABC YET.
IN THAT CASE EXCEPT ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT CONCERNS WE WERE SCHEDULED TO HAVE WAYNE SILVERS, WHO IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE MARYLAND POLICE TRAINING COMMISSION, TO BE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY. HE HAS TO BE HERE.
HE LEAVES. HE DID VERIFY HE WAS COMING.
BUT WE HAVE NOT SEEN OR HEARD FROM HIM TODAY TO KNOW IF HE'S ACTUALLY COMING.
SO IF HE DOES GET HERE, WE'LL GO INTO THE ORDER THERE TO HAVE HIM SPEAK TO THIS ORGANIZATION AT THIS TIME.
WE'LL OPEN UP TO ANY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OF WHAT THE MUNICIPALITIES INVOLVED IN CAROLINE COUNTY AND THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
WE WILL START WITH WHOEVER WISHES TO START.
JESUS, I HEARD YOU HAVE ANOTHER OFFICER WITH YOU.
SO, CHIEF GADSDEN, CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR APPOINTMENT AS CHIEF OF BIGHORN.
YEAH, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE LIEUTENANT JACKSON.
JEFF JACKSON. HE'S. WORKED FOR ME PART TIME.
HE'S GOING TO BE DOING OUR INVESTIGATION, AND.
WE WE MET HIM LAST NIGHT, AND WE WE WOULD HAVE BEEN OUT AN HOUR EARLIER, BUT. WELL, I FORGOT TO WARN YOU ABOUT.
WE KNEW ABOUT IT, SO. BUT IT WAS IT WAS GREAT HAVING HIM THERE.
AND I HOPE WE WEREN'T TOO ROUGH ON HIM ASKING HIM QUESTIONS, BUT HE SEEMED TO KNOW EVERY ANSWER WE ASKED HIM.
HE WAS VERY SMOOTH. IT WAS JUST DARK VIDEOS, WATCHING THE CAMERAS.
IT WAS JUST HARD TO SEE BODY CAMERA.
IT WASN'T LIKE YOU WERE THERE.
SHERIFF. SO I THINK THAT EVERYBODY THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN SEEING ME, YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS HAVE MY OWN PROGRAM THAT.
I WILL HAVE. ANY ANY QUESTIONS OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE MUNICIPALITY AGENCIES, ANY AT ALL HERE IN SEEING NONE? ANY COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC HERE, MA'AM? OKAY. JUST TO COME AND SEE US.
ALRIGHT. SO WE REALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH ON THE AGENDA EXCEPT WE AS WE AS THE ACC SEE, AFTER HEARING AND SEEING CASES.
AND WHEN WE LED TO THE EXONERATION AND THE UNFOLDING OF CASES AGAINST OFFICERS IT WAS PRETTY MUCH UNAWARE TO THE MEMBERS ON THAT BOARD THAT NOT LIKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS, THESE OFFICERS DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR RECORDS EXPUNGED ON A ON AN UNFOUNDED AND OR EXONERATED CASE.
SO IT WAS IMPERATIVE THAT THE ACC WANTED THE PAB TO KNOW THAT WAS A MAJOR CONCERN AFTER HEARING THESE CASES. THE PAB MADE A MOTION TO WE SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION TO GO INTO THE EXONERATION OF BASICALLY TO BRING BACK THE EXPUNGEMENT ABILITY FOR OFFICERS AFTER THREE YEARS. SO THAT BILL WAS INTRODUCED BOTH ON THE HOUSE SIDE AND THE SENATE SIDE.
THE HOUSE BILL WAS IS HOUSE BILL 885, AND THE SENATE BILL IS 0625.
THE HEARING FOR THE HOUSE BILL SIDE WAS ON FEBRUARY 23RD OF THIS YEAR.
I ATTENDED THE MEETING AND I TESTIFIED ON BEHALF OF THE PAD.
I DID THAT BASED ON TWO REASONS THE MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED THAT WE SUPPORT IT.
AND I CONTACTED THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS NO CONFLICT FOR ME
[00:20:01]
REPRESENTING THIS BOARD IN ANNAPOLIS, TO TELL THE LEGISLATORS THERE THAT THIS IS WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR, AND WE THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.IT GOT TO BE LATE. IT WASN'T MY BEST TESTIMONY, I WILL TELL YOU, BECAUSE THE CHAIRMAN, LUKE KLEPPINGER, CHANGED RIGHT BEFORE WE GOT UP FOR TWO MINUTE COMMENTS TO ONE MINUTE COMMENT BECAUSE IT WAS TOO LATE IN THE DAY TO WHAT I HAD PREPARED.
I HAD A SHORT AND REAL QUICK IN MY HEAD INSTEAD OF READING, WHICH I HAD PREPARED UNDER TWO MINUTES.
SO IT DID CAUSE A LITTLE BIT OF ISSUE THERE WITH WITH MY MINDSET, BUT I MADE SURE TO LET THEM KNOW WHY I WAS THERE AND WHO I'M REPRESENTING.
SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT.
IT'S CO-SPONSORED BY BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.
SO IT'S A BIPARTISAN BILL, BUT IT HAS NOT MOVED AT ALL SINCE FEBRUARY 23RD. IT HAS NOT BEEN VOTED ON AT ALL.
NOW, THE SENATE WENT TO THE SENATE SIDE BECAUSE IT IS CROSS-FILED BY SENATOR FULTON WHO IS OUT OF FREDERICK COUNTY.
HE CROSS-FILED IT WITH SENATE BILL 725.
SO IT WILL PROCEED THROUGH THAT OVER THE CROSSOVER.
BUT THERE'S BEEN NO VOTE IN THE HOUSE.
I WILL TELL YOU, THERE WAS GREAT OPPOSITION OF THAT BILL AND SOME OF THAT OPPOSITION BILL FOR THAT BILL CAME IN THE ACC AND THE PAB OF BALTIMORE CITY.
THEY SPOKE IN OPPOSITION OF THAT BILL.
THEY FELT THAT AN OFFICER'S RECORD, WHETHER THEY WERE FOUND GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY, SHOULD BE IN THE RECORD IN CASE THEY DO SO.
SO BASICALLY, WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, YOU WANT TO SHOW PEOPLE HOW MANY TIMES AN OFFICER HAS BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY OR EXONERATED.
BUT WE HAD STRONG OPPOSITION ON THAT BILL.
AND I SAY US BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING WE'RE SUPPORTING.
SO IT HAS HELPED US A LOT HAVING BIPARTISAN ON THE BILL.
SO WE'RE JUST WAITING TO SEE NOTHING'S BEEN MOVED.
THE SESSIONS GOT THREE WEEKS, THREE WEEKS LEFT IN THE SESSION.
SO IT'S IT'S COMING DOWN TO THE END.
THAT IS THE ONLY BILL THAT I ASKED TO SPEAK ON.
AND THAT IS THE ONLY BILL THAT THAT THE BOARD APPROVED FOR ME TO SPEAK.
CHIEF BAKER WAS THERE IF THEY WANTED TO COMMENT ON THE OTHER BILLS.
I KNOW THERE WAS A YEAR AND A DAY FOR NONINVOLVEMENT.
SENATE BILL 2235 285. EXCUSE ME.
YEAH. BALTIMORE DCC WANTS TO NARROW THE TIME FRAME DOWN THAT YOU HAVE TO GET ALL INVESTIGATIONS TO THE CC BY IN TEN MONTHS, SO THEY HAVE TIME TO DO A FEW CASES.
THEY HAVE A PROBLEM THAT ACTUALLY STARTED.
THEY WANTED THEM DONE IN LESS TIME THAN THAT.
OBVIOUSLY. YOU KNOW I THINK THEY'VE GOT WHAT 400 CASES THAT THEY'RE SITTING ON RIGHT NOW THAT THEY DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE GOING TO GET THEM ACCOMPLISHED FOR THE AGENCY.
AND THEY ALSO HAVE ANOTHER BILL THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO HAVE A SECOND ACC, BUT THAT RAN INTO THAT RAN INTO A WALL WITH THE ISSUE BEING CONSISTENCY.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'VE GOT TWO DIFFERENT BOARDS, TWO DIFFERENT MAKEUPS, PEOPLE YOU JUST DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW WHAT? FEEL LIKE LAWYERS JUDGE SHOPPING, WAITING FOR A JUDGE TO MAKE A CRIMINAL CASE BEFORE THAT. SO THE THING THAT VERY THAT SURPRISED ME HEAVILY WITH THE ACC AND THE PA AT THE BALTIMORE CITY, THEY WERE STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE PAB TO HAVE SUBPOENA POWERS TO SUBPOENA POWERS.
THEY THINK THE PAB SHOULD HAVE SUBPOENA POWERS SO THEY CAN DO CHECKS AND BALANCES ON THE ACC. I THINK THAT GOT TO DO I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS.
I DON'T KNOW WHO THEY WERE SPEAKING FOR. THEY NEVER SAID WHO THEY WERE SPEAKING FOR WHEN THEY WERE SPEAKING FOR THE COMMISSION. I MEAN, THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL, BUT THEY WERE UP THERE OPPOSING EVERY PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT SHOULD BE A NONPARTISAN GROUP THERE.
BUT IT CLEARLY, IT CLEARLY WAS NOT.
AND ANYBODY WHO WAS THERE WOULD SAW IT.
IT WAS VERY COMICAL. PUBLIC DEFENDER ALSO SPOKE AGAINST BEING REMOVED FROM THE PERSONNEL FILE FOR ALL SORTS OF REASONS, WHICH IS KIND OF SILLY TO ME.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE PUBLIC SECTOR HAS TO DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY'RE USING BECAUSE THEY'RE USING THAT INFORMATION WHEN THEY'RE DOING THE CRIMINAL DEFENDANT CRIMINALS OR A SUSPECT THAT, YOU KNOW, HEY, THIS OFFICER DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S DOING. HE'S BEEN HE'S BEEN INVESTIGATED THIS MANY TIMES,
[00:25:04]
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. WELL, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED THAT MANY TIMES, BUT, YOU KNOW, HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN FOUND CULPABLE IN, IN ONE MINOR VIOLATION, BUT THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT USING THAT.AND AS FAR AS THE BUDGET BILL, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT ON MONDAY AT THE MARYLAND SHERIFF'S LEGISLATIVE MEETING.
AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S GOING, WHICH IS A SHAME.
I THINK IT'S COMMENDABLE FOR THIS BODY TO TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THAT.
IT'S IT'S JUST THAT MY BRAIN CAN'T WRAP AROUND THE LOGIC, AND I HAD TO PARK ALL THE WAY DOWN THE HARBOR AND WALK ALL THE WAY UP THE HILL, AND THEY ALLOW THEY HAVE ONE HOUR, TWO HOUR, THREE HOUR PARKING AND EVERYBODY KNOWS GOES ANNAPOLIS TAKES MORE THAN THAT.
SO YOU HAD TO PAY PARKING FOR 24 HOURS? YEAH. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, NOBODY'S GOING TO BE BACK AND FORTH. SO YOU KNOW, IT'S BUT IT BUT I GOT A GOOD WALK IN.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, BRANDY OR TODD, ANY ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THAT PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR FOR TESTIFYING IN FAVOR OF THAT BILL.
IT IS CRAZY TO ME WHY THE POLICE OFFICER JUST EXONERATED.
CANNOT HAVE THAT EXONERATED EXONERATION EXPUNGED FROM THE RECORD.
SO THANK YOU FOR TESTIFYING IN FAVOR OF THAT.
AND NOW I KNOW WHY I DON'T DO THAT ANYMORE.
SHERIFF, YOU WANT TO COMMENT AT ALL ON THE THE MARCH? I THINK FOURTH COMMISSIONERS MEETING WITH THE EMERGENCY LEGISLATION DEALING WITH THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARDS.
I WILL I WOULD RATHER HAVE YOU KNOW, OR MAYBE EVEN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR HERE.
BUT I, I AM WELL VERSED IN IT AS FAR AS READING IT.
YOU'RE THE CHIEF I KNOW HAVE READ IT AND MAKE COMMENTS ON IT, BUT I KNOW IT'S GONE BACK TO I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHERE IT IS AS FAR AS THE LAW GOES, WHERE THEY'RE AT, AS FAR AS INTRODUCING IT, OR I HAVE EVERYTHING I'VE READ.
I HAVE BEEN AGREEABLE TO A LOT OF IT WAS COMMISSIONER RELATED ISSUES AS WELL.
SO I KIND OF STAYED OUT OF THAT.
SURE. THAT'S CORRECT. SO AT THIS STAGE I DID SEND IT OUT TO THE MUNICIPALITIES AND I DID HEAR BACK TODAY REGARDING IT.
SO IN THE NEXT, I WOULD THINK COUPLE DAYS, WE'LL FIGURE OUT WHEN WE'RE GOING TO SCHEDULE TO GO IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSIONERS AGAIN, WHICH I DISCUSSED WITH CHIEF REGARDING THE SOME SUGGESTIONS THAT THEY HAVE.
AND IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN READING THE ORDINANCE, IT IS ON THE COMMISSIONERS LIVE MEETING FROM MARCH THE 4TH.
SO THE PAB ORDINANCE IS ON THERE FOR ANYONE TO LOOK OVER.
WE'RE STILL IN THE DISCUSSION PERIOD.
BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT THE TABLE ON ON THE FILM.
CORRECT. AND THAT WAS SOME OF MY CONCERN.
OKAY. AND MY CONCERN IS VERY CLEAR.
I'M A RETIRED PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE OFFICER.
WHAT I AM, I'M A FORMER SHERIFF OF CALVERT COUNTY.
I SAT ON THE MARYLAND POLICE TRAINING COMMISSION FOR 18 YEARS.
I WAS A MARYLAND STATE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE PRESIDENT FOR 18 YEARS.
I WAS THE FOP PRESIDENT IN PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY FOR NINE YEARS.
I WANT TO KNOW WHY. AND WHO SAYS THAT MEMBERS OF THE FOP CANNOT SIT ON PADS OR AXES? I CHECKED WITH ANNAPOLIS TODAY. CHECK WITH TWO LOBBYISTS, AND I CHECKED WITH TWO ATTORNEYS. AND NOT ONE PERSON IN ANNAPOLIS HAS EVER DECLARED THAT.
BUT THAT WAS SAID BY YOU, SHERIFF.
NO, THAT WASN'T SAID ABOUT ME. THAT WAS PUT IN THERE AT THE REQUEST OF MY UNDERSTANDING, IS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, AND HIS REQUEST IS HIS CONSIDERATION OF THE ETHICS AND THAT THEY WERE HONORED.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT I DID QUESTION WAYNE SILVER ABOUT THAT.
HE AGREED WITH IT SHOULD BE IN IT THAT NO, SOMEONE ON THE FOP SHOULD NOT BE ON THERE.
BUT HOW ABOUT THE MARYLAND CHURCH ASSOCIATION? CAN I BE ON IT? NO, NO. HOW ABOUT HOW ABOUT THE COALITION OF BLACK STATE TROOPERS? CAN THEY BE ON IT? THAT'S MY CONVERSATION. OR DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD? NO. I WANT TO KNOW WHY THE FBI WAS SINGLED OUT.
SO IT SAYS FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING WAS ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT RELATED ORGANIZATION WAS WHAT WAS GOING TO BE EXCLUDED, NOT JUST PEOPLE FROM THE WORKPLACE.
IT SAID INTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE.
BUT I WILL TELL YOU, WHEN WE TESTIFIED ABOUT COMMISSIONERS GEORGE WAS THERE, I SAID IN THAT MEETING THAT IT SHOULD BE OPEN TO THE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
BUT NO OTHER FACTOR HAS BEEN PUT IN NOBLE.
NOBLE HAS IT? NO. THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF BLACK LAW ENFORCEMENT EXECUTIVES, ARE THEY? THEY ALLOWED AGAIN, IT SAID, FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED.
[00:30:04]
BUT THE FOP WAS MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES.I WATCHED THE FILM, RODNEY. I DIDN'T WRITE THAT DOCUMENT. SO YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE ONE WHO SAID IT. SHERIFF. NO, NO, I DIDN'T HAVE A PAPER IN FRONT OF ME.
I WAS RECALLING FROM WHAT WAS SAID IN THERE, AND I BROUGHT IT UP TO THE COMMISSIONERS THAT I HAD AN ISSUE WITH IT IN THERE AS FAR AS NOT GIVING THEM THE LATITUDE TO MAKE THAT EXCEPTION. AND THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RIGHT THERE NODDING HER HEAD THAT THAT'S WHAT WAS SAID. WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO BACK AND READ IT BEFORE I MAY HAVE TO TAKE IT? ALRIGHT. SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I'M GOING TO BE GRANDFATHERED IN TO FOR THE REMAINDER OF MY TERM. THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY SAID IN THAT MEETING.
RIGHT. THEY WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN.
YES. SO ON THE NEXT TERM THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED.
SO IF I STAY IN AN ORGANIZATION THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN SINCE 1980, EITHER I LEAVE THAT ORGANIZATION OR I CANNOT BE PRIVILEGED TO ANOTHER TERM.
IS THAT THE WAY IT'S BEING WRITTEN? YES, CAPTAIN. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK OUT OF TURN AGAIN.
WE DID SIT IN ON SOME OF THE MEETINGS WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND THE DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. BUT AGAIN, THAT THOSE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ASKED OF LEGAL THAT WROTE THAT DOCUMENT.
AGAIN, I SAT IN THERE JUST WELL ATTENDED, AND THE DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND I WILL SAY NOT TO THROW ANYBODY UNDER THE BUS WHEN WHEN STEWART, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, LEARNED THAT THERE WAS A MEMBERS OF A FRATERNAL ORDER ORGANIZATION ON THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGING COMMITTEE, HE WAS CAUGHT BY SURPRISE BECAUSE HE, IN FACT, THOUGHT THAT WAS CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THAT THEY WOULD BE HEARING FROM THESE CASES. SO ME SITTING BACK HERE LISTENING AND I FEEL LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS BEING SHOT AT THE SHERIFF, BUT BUT THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT THE CASE.
SO WHEN I ACTUALLY INTERVIEWED FOR THE JOB, WHEN I INTERVIEWED FOR THIS POSITION, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS MY CIVIC DUTY TO HELP OUT THE CAROLINE COUNTY DO IT FOR NOTHING.
IT'S WHAT WE DO. EVERYBODY ON THIS BOARD DOES THAT.
AND WHEN I SAID THAT, I SAID EXACTLY WHAT I JUST SAID.
RETIRED PRINCE GEORGE'S SHERIFF FOP.
THIS I'M A MEMBER OF MARYLAND CONCERNS A POLICE SURVIVOR.
SURVIVORS. I'M A MEMBER OF THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS.
3 OR 4 ORGANIZATIONS. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WOULD CONFLICT WITH ANYTHING.
THAT WAS SAID WHEN I FIRST MET WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, AFTER I WAS SELECTED AND ASKED TO BE THE CHAIRMAN OF BOTH COMMITTEES, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY SAID, I KNOW YOU.
I USED TO REPRESENT THE FOP IN KENT COUNTY.
SO THEY KNEW THAT DAY THAT I USED TO BE THE PAST PRESIDENT.
DON'T YOU THINK, THE RESOLUTION SAID, IS THAT YOU HAD TO BE RETIRED FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, WHICH I AM.
SO SO THAT WAS KNOWN THEN, AND NOW I JUST DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S COMING UP NOW THAT I GOT PEOPLE CALLING ME AND SAYING, HEY, WE GOT A PROBLEM. THEY'RE TRYING TO GET RID OF YOU.
AND IT MAKES SENSE IF IT COMES UP NOW THAT YOU CAN'T BELONG TO A FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION, IT'S A CONFLICT. WHY DIDN'T THEY SAY THAT BEFORE YOU EVEN GOT INVOLVED IN THIS MESS? YEAH, THAT'S SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO ASK THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. I MEAN, HE'S THE ONE THAT'S GIVING LEGAL GUIDANCE TO COUNTY.
OKAY. AND I'LL ALSO SAY THAT AGAIN, EVERY CHIEF IN THIS ROOM HAD READ THAT DOCUMENT. AND I READ THE EMAIL TODAY, AND I DIDN'T SEE ONE INDIVIDUAL POINTED THAT OUT. I DID NOT READ THE DOCUMENT.
I WATCHED THE VIDEO. NO, NO, I SAID I DID.
OKAY. AND I SAID THAT EVERY CHIEF IN THIS ROOM READ THAT DOCUMENT AND NOT A ONE IN THE EMAIL I READ IN THEIR RESPONSE BACK OR CHIEF FOUGHT BACK TODAY SAID HAD AN ISSUE OR CONCERN WITH THAT PART OF IT.
THAT IS A CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROBLEM, NOT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THIS REGION.
THAT IS THEIR DECISION SOLELY AND PURELY.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE BOARDS THE THE CHANGING AND THE PROPOSED CHANGING OF THE BOARDS TO THREE MEMBERS OF THE PAB PUT ON THE ACC AND THAT WAY IT'LL MERGE OVER.
CAN I? YES, MA'AM. SO I, I THINK WHAT YOU REALLY SHOULD DO AN IMPORT.
SHOULD YOU SUBMIT ANY COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU HAVE FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS? THE ORDINANCE SHERIFF DID HAVE SOME INPUT AND COMMENTED ON.
IT HAS REALLY COME ABOUT FROM CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
SO I DON'T REALLY THINK IT'S FAIR TO ASK DONNY HOW THE CHANGES CAME ABOUT.
YOU REALLY SHOULD ADDRESS IT AS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE OFFICE OF LAW.
WELL, AS I WATCHED THE VIDEO, THE COMMISSIONERS THANKED THE SHERIFF FOR HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THIS, SUCH AS HIS SUBPOENA POWER, SUCH AS THE REGULATIONS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT IN FOR US TO SUBPOENA SOMEBODY TO COME IN
[00:35:01]
TO THE ACC AND HOW THAT NOW THAT WE CAN'T SUBPOENA THEM UNLESS WE TELL CERTAIN THINGS AND THEN WE SELL. SEND THE QUESTIONS TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT.WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ASK. THAT'S NOT TRANSPARENCY.
WELL, I CAN TELL YOU THAT CAME FROM WAYNE SILVER.
ALL THAT LANGUAGE CAME FROM HIM.
OKAY, WELL, YOU SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT.
YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT AT THE MEETING. I RELATED TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF THE BOARDS.
THERE IS A GENERAL DESIRE FOR ALL OF THE BOARDS OF THE COUNTY MANAGERS, TO NOT HAVE THEM BE SO BIG THAT THEY'RE LESS MANAGEABLE.
THE SAME THING HAS HAPPENED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MR. JACKSON WAS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO. THAT USED TO BE A SEVEN MEMBER BOARD.
THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT DOWN TO THE FIVE MEMBER BOARD.
REALLY? JUST TO KEEP IT MANAGEABLE.
I MEAN, I MEAN, YOU BROUGHT UP THE THREE FROM THE BECAUSE IT WENT OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND IT GOES OUT TO THE PUBLIC.
WE HAVE THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE PAB AT THIS HEARING, BUT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PAB MYSELF WAS NEVER TOLD OVER HERE.
LET ME JUST INTERRUPT FOR ONE SECOND.
PEOPLE THAT ARE STREAMING ARE HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING FROM THE AUDIENCE, SO IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND COMING UP IN FRONT OF THE MICROPHONE. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS.
THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE PAB IS THERE, BUT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PAB WAS NEVER WAS NOTIFIED OF ANY HEARING AT ALL.
AND THAT'S NOT TRANSPARENCY ON THE CIVILIAN BOARD.
THE PEOPLE HERE ARE GIVING UP THEIR TIME IS IS NOT BEING INCLUDED IN THIS PROCESS.
WE'RE CRITICIZED FOR EVERYTHING THAT WE DO.
WELL, I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN. IF YOU WEREN'T NOTIFIED, AND I DON'T KNOW IF KIM CAN ATTEST TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE NOTIFIED. BUT IT WASN'T.
IT WAS NOT A HEARING. IT WAS A WORKSHOP.
THE HEARING HAS YET TO TAKE PLACE.
IT PROBABLY ISN'T THE FINAL VERSION THAT'S GOING TO BE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THEM FOR REVIEW. SO I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THIS BOARD.
AND THE ACC, IF THEY'RE SO INCLINED TO ALSO SUBMIT COMMENTS OR COME DEFINITELY COME TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. BUT I MEAN, YOU HAVE THAT OPTION.
WE NEVER KNOW. YEAH. NOBODY ASKED FOR COMMENTS, NOBODY ELSE'S COMMENTS.
NOBODY TOLD THE CHAIRMAN, OKAY, THAT THIS HEARING SHOULD TAKE PLACE AND OR I WOULD HAVE CHOSE TO BE OR HAVE A DESIGNEE OR IF NOBODY WOULD COME, AT LEAST THEY HAD THAT OPTION.
THE ACC KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THIS EXCEPT WHAT THEY SAW ON THE VICTIM.
WE HAD A MEETING LAST NIGHT. THEY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING. KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE NEW SUBPOENA PROCESS.
SOME OF THEM WERE NOT HAPPY WITH THAT BECAUSE THEY MADE A DECISION TO REQUEST AN OFFICER TO COME IN. THE OFFICER. WE DID IT THROUGH THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN.
THAT OFFICER COULD HAVE COME IN IN THAT HEARING AND SAID NOTHING.
THAT OFFICER COULD HAVE BROUGHT AN ATTORNEY. HE HAD EVERY RIGHT.
WE EXPLAINED HIS RIGHTS, MADE SURE HE KNEW THAT OKAY.
AND NOW HE WANTS A SUBPOENA POWER.
IT'S BEEN WORKING AS IT'S TESTIFIED IN ANNAPOLIS, AND NOW WE'RE GOING THROUGH LEAKS OF WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO DO IT.
IF YOU HAVE TO SEND THIS THE OFFICE OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO QUESTIONS.
OKAY. THERE'S NOT TRANSPARENCY.
THE ONLY ONE PERSON CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. WE SEND QUESTIONS AND IT'S ARE THEY GOING TO FILM THE QUESTIONS? ARE THEY GOING TO FILM IT WHEN THEY ASK THEM. IS THAT THE FIRST TIME? THE PROBLEM WE HAVE THESE BOARDS AND THE REASON THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT HERE ANYMORE, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DOES NOT TRUST THE POLICE.
I'M NOT SAYING CAROLINE COUNTY I'M NOT SAYING THAT AT ALL.
I'M SAYING IN THIS STATE OF MARYLAND, IT'S NONSTOP.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS WATCH VIDEOS ALL DAY LONG.
SO THAT BEING SAID, I'M CARRYING IT FROM THE SEC.
NOBODY WAS NOTIFIED AND I'M CARRYING AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT NOTIFIED, AND IT WAS LABELED AS AN EMERGENCY BILL.
WHAT MAKES IT AN EMERGENCY? WELL, I'LL SAY THAT THAT I WASN'T NOTIFIED OF THE MEETING LAST NIGHT.
SO AGAIN, WAS NOT WAS THIS WAS THIS NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE COMMISSIONERS, THIS LEGISLATION THAT WAS ON THE.
OKAY. SO AGAIN, THE SAME THING.
IT WAS ON THE LEGISLATION. SO IF YOU WANT TO GO ON THE WEBSITE AND CHECK IT, YOU ABSOLUTELY COULD HAVE BEEN THERE. THEY DIDN'T BORROW ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC FOR BEING THERE. I WILL ALSO SAY THAT I ACTUALLY ASKED FOR AND THE COMMISSIONERS ARE AGREEMENT AGREEING IN CHANGING. SO THERE IS NO TERM LIMITS ON THIS BOARD OR ON THE OTHER BOARD.
SO LET'S PUT THE POSITIVE OUT THERE.
IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT THE NEGATIVE OUT THERE THAT YOU DON'T LIKE RODNEY OKAY. SO I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT HAVE TERM LIMITS. I WAS THE ONE IF YOU WATCHED THAT. WHO SAID THAT THE COMMISSIONER SHOULD. ABSOLUTELY. GRANDFATHER ANYBODY CURRENTLY ON THIS BOARD THAT IT DIDN'T AFFECT THEM.
THAT WOULD BE YOU. THAT WOULD BE YOU RODNEY.
AND I ABSOLUTELY SAID IN OUR MEETING THAT WE HAD THAT YOU WOULD ABSOLUTELY BLOW YOUR GASKET OVER THIS LEGISLATION.
[00:40:02]
AND I POINTED THAT OUT IN THE PRIVATE MEETING WE HAD.SO AGAIN, THAT'S WHY I ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS IN THAT PUBLIC SESSION ABOUT THE FOP AND ABOUT GRANDFATHERING ANYBODY IN AND MAKING IT A RECOMMENDATION AND NOT A SHALL TO THE COMMISSIONERS. SO I HOPE YOU WATCH THAT THAT VIDEO.
OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. SO IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME YOU'RE VERY ANGRY AND YOU'RE VERY ANGRY AT ME. I'M NOT ANGRY AT ALL.
OKAY. BUT I AS FAR AS I THOUGHT, THE ONLY THING THIS LEGISLATION RESTRICTED AND DIDN'T MAKE BETTER WAS THE CALLING OF OFFICERS TO THE ACC.
AND YOU KNOW HOW I STAND WITH THAT.
AND THIS IS CAROLINE COUNTY. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AND I BELIEVE MOST PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM ARE VERY, VERY, VERY SUPPORTIVE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THIS COUNTY. OKAY. SO AGAIN, I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
BUT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, GETTING RID OF IF RODNEY BARTLETT IS ON THIS BOARD AND RODNEY BARTLETT DOES A GREAT JOB, THE COMMISSIONER SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO TO REAPPOINT HIM FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS.
SAME THING WITH EVERYBODY ELSE SITTING THERE. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TRAIN PEOPLE AND THEN GET RID OF THEM AFTER WE'VE GOT THEM FOR EIGHT YEARS. SO AGAIN, YOU'RE SPEWING OUT ALL THE NEGATIVE THAT YOU THINK THAT'S IN THIS BILL.
AND I THINK THAT WE'VE WORKED VERY HARD AND DILIGENT ON THIS BILL, AND WE'VE MADE IT BETTER SO THAT EVERYBODY ON THIS BOARD CAN STAY.
AND I THINK THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH CAROLINE COUNTY IS THAT EVERYBODY GETS BORED. AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S ONLY THREE OF YOU HERE TODAY. AND I THINK THAT IF WE MAKE THIS BOARD SMALLER AND WE MERGE IT WITH THE ACC AND THE PEOPLE ARE ON THE ACC, THEN WE ABSOLUTELY WILL HAVE MORE BUY IN AND WE WILL ABSOLUTELY HAVE MORE PEOPLE SHOWING UP TO THESE MEETINGS. NOW, CAN I DISAGREE WITH THAT? I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD BRANDON.
I JUST I HAVE A I KIND OF I KIND OF WANT TO AGREE TO DISAGREE WITH WHAT SHERIFF BAKER IS SAYING, BECAUSE I FEEL AS THOUGH WE DON'T SHOW UP TO THIS MEETING BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD MEETING.
THIS FEELS LIKE A JOHN MEETING, LIKE JOHN AND KIM IS THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD. AND IF THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENTION BEHIND THE COMMISSIONERS APPOINTMENT OF THAT, THEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY SEEK OUT PEOPLE FROM THE COMMUNITY TO BE A PART OF THIS, BECAUSE TRUTHFULLY, WHAT WE'RE DOING, WE'RE NOT HOLDING ANYBODY ACCOUNTABLE.
WE'RE JUST MEETING TO APPOINT PEOPLE ON THE ACC WE'RE NOT REALLY DOING ANYTHING THAT A POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD, IN MY OPINION, SHOULD BE DOING THAT.
THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION, AND THAT'S WHY I FEEL PEOPLE DON'T WASTE THEIR TIME. THAT'S ON THE BOARD TO COME TO THESE MEETINGS, BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU'RE GOING TO THESE THINGS.
IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE BRINGING THE YOU'RE NOT INVITING THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD WITH YOU. YOU'RE GOING TO REPRESENT THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD AS THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD BECAUSE YOU'RE THE PRESIDENT. I DO FEEL AS THOUGH THERE SHOULD BE TERM LIMITS ON THESE TYPES OF BOARDS, BECAUSE PEOPLE GET COMPLACENT AND PEOPLE CONNECT AND FORM FRIENDSHIPS AND ALLIANCES, AND THAT'S HOW YOU GET PEOPLE WHO ARE OVERLOOKING THINGS. SO YES, YOU SHOULDN'T STAY HERE FOR 20 YEARS.
YOU SHOULD HAVE A TERM LIMIT AND YOU SHOULD BE BOOTED OUT.
SOMEBODY ELSE SHOULD COME ON TO THE BOARD.
BUT THAT'S JUST MY TWO, MY $0.02.
AND I'VE BEEN SAYING, I SAID THIS A FEW MEETINGS BACK THAT THERE IS NO THERE IS NO REAL DEFINITION TO WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY.
THE CAROLINE COUNTY POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD IS SUPPOSED TO DO, OTHER THAN COME TO THIS MEETING AND LISTEN TO JOHN AND KIM TALK OR WHOEVER'S ON THE AGENDA.
I MEAN, THE OCCASIONAL VOTE ON THE REPORT.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT WE DO. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WHAT ELSE IS THERE FOR US TO DO? WELL, THE THE LEGISLATIVE THING, YOUR PAP IS SUPPOSED TO IDENTIFY TRENDS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. WELL, HOW CAN WE IDENTIFY TRENDS, TRENDS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT? THE PUBLIC KNOWS THE TRENDS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.
BUT YOU'RE NOT SHARING WITH US THE COMPLAINTS.
WE DON'T KNOW IF THOSE TRENDS SHOULD BE COMING FROM WHAT YOU'RE RECEIVING IN THE ACC, AND IF THOSE TRENDS ARE NOT SHARED WITH US.
YOU SHOULD BE COLLECTING THAT DATA WHEN YOU'RE GETTING THOSE.
COMPLAINTS TO THE OCC, THE TRENDS PER PER AGENCY, PER WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.
AND YOU SHOULD BE WHOEVER THE PRESIDENT, WHOEVER SHOULD BE GIVING THAT TO US SO THAT WE CAN SAY, WELL, WE SEE A TREND IN FEDERALSBURG WHERE THE POLICE ARE, YOU KNOW, DOING WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, AND WE SHOULD BE WORKING WITH THEM TO ADDRESS THIS AS A COMMUNITY. HOWEVER, I DON'T SEE THAT, AND I HAVEN'T SEEN IT IN THE TIME THAT I'VE SAT HERE.
I'VE SEEN A WHOLE BUNCH OF SHOWBOATING, BUT I AIN'T SEEN NOTHING ELSE THAT'S CONDUCIVE. TO BE PUT ON.
AND WE ADDRESS THAT. IT'S IN OUR END OF THE YEAR REPORT THAT WE DID HAVE A TREND THAT BODY CAMS WORK ON THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED.
AND I WILL TELL YOU, THESE OFFICERS IN THIS, IN THIS COUNTY NOW ARE TURNING THE BODY.
WE HAVE NOT HAD MAJOR ISSUES WITH THE BODY AT FIRST.
WHEN WE FIRST STARTED IN THE ACC BROUGHT THAT TO THE BABY.
IT'S IN THE FINAL REPORT OF THE YEAR THAT THAT WAS A TREND THAT WE WE HAD.
THE NEXT TREND THAT WE DEVELOPED FOR THE ACC IS THAT THESE OFFICERS WERE UNABLE TO HAVE
[00:45:05]
THEIR CASES EXONERATED.WE MADE A MOTION. MOTION MADE, SECOND DISCUSSED.
AND WE TOOK THAT TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL THAT WE POSSIBLY COULD HAVE TAKEN THAT AS A CIVILIAN BOARD, WITH THE PERMISSIONS OF OUR COMMISSIONERS AND OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY TO TESTIFY IN ANNAPOLIS, BECAUSE IS WHAT THIS BOARD CONSIDERED A PROBLEM. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND BOARD MEMBERS THAT THEY DIDN'T LIKE, THAT THESE OFFICERS COULD NOT GET THEIR RECORDS EXPUNGED.
AND ALL THE CHIEFS IN THE ROOM ABSOLUTELY ALL FEEL THE SAME WAY.
SO WE YEAH, I WAS VERY PREPARED FOR THAT.
I WAS THERE FOR THAT MEETING. BUT BUT, JOHN, TRUTHFULLY, ARE WE REALLY IDENTIFYING THESE OBJECTS? ARE WE REALLY IDENTIFYING THESE ISSUES, OR IS THESE ISSUES THAT THE SHERIFF OR THE CHIEFS TO BRING IN BEFORE US.
WHERE DOES THE DATA SAY THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY AN ISSUE? THE BODY CAM ISSUE THAT WASN'T SOMETHING BECAUSE YOU WERE GETTING AN OVERABUNDANCE OF OF ACC REPORTS. THE OTHER ISSUE WAS BECAUSE SHERIFF BAKER CAME IN THERE BECAUSE Y'ALL DID WRONG BY ONE OF HIS DEPUTIES, AND HE WAS STANDING UP FOR HIS HIS EMPLOYEE.
SO IT'S NOT BECAUSE YOU WERE ACTUALLY SHARING WITH US THE ACTUAL RESULTS OF WHAT THE COMPLAINTS ARE COMING FROM THE ACC ARE LIKE BY CATEGORY OR BROKEN OUT IS BECAUSE SOMEONE'S BRINGING IT TO OUR ATTENTION.
SO THE ACC DID WRONG BY ONE OF HIS DEPUTIES BY FOLLOWING THE LAW.
WELL, I APOLOGIZE WHEN THEY DO WRONG.
I'M JUST SAYING WHEN SHERIFF BAKER SPOKE, HE SPOKE AS THOUGH IT WAS WRONG, WHETHER IT WAS RIGHT OR WRONG.
I DON'T KNOW, AND I'M NOT GOING DOWN THAT RABBIT HOLE WITH YOU, BECAUSE THAT'S JUST NOT WHAT I CHOOSE TO DO.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THE DATA FROM THE ACC IS NEVER PRESENTED TO THE PAB.
AND BASICALLY MY THING IS, IF IT WAS THE COMMISSIONER'S INTENTION FOR IT JUST TO BE A JOHN BARTON AND A KIM SHOW, THEN WHY BRING IN COMMUNITY MEMBERS? SHERIFF BAKER SAYS THAT PEOPLE DON'T COME BECAUSE IT'S BORING.
IT'S BORING BECAUSE WHAT ARE WE HERE FOR? WE'RE HERE TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE RUN THROUGH AN AGENDA AND JUST TALK.
WE'RE NOT HERE TO GIVE COMMUNITY INPUT.
WE'RE NOT. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING THAT'S BENEFICIAL TO BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN POLICE AND THE COMMUNITY.
WE'RE NOT DOING ANY OF THE THINGS THAT A POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD SHOULD BE DOING.
WE'RE JUST HERE LISTENING TO YOU RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE LISTENING TO YOU AND SHERIFF BAKER GO BACK AND FORTH.
OKAY. EVERY EVERY MEETING WE COME AS WE STARTED TODAY, SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, WE HAD ONE ACC MEETING.
I TOLD YOU, I TOLD THE BOARD, TOLD THE PUBLIC THE FINDING OF THAT MEETING.
THAT MEETING IS HELD IN A CLOSED SESSION.
WE, BY LAW, ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISCUSS IN ANY WAY UNDER CONFIDENTIALITY THAT WE CAN DISCUSS THE DETAILS OF, THAT WE CAN ONLY TELL YOU.
THE COMPLAINT WAS SUSTAINED OR EXONERATED OR UNFOUNDED.
THAT'S ALL WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO. WE'RE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO TELL YOU THE OFFICER'S NAME.
OKAY. WE DIDN'T. I DON'T THINK THAT WAS WHAT I WAS SAYING, JOHN. WHAT? I'M SAYING THAT TO BREAK IT.
BREAK IT DOWN, IF YOU BREAK IT DOWN TO DENTON HAS OVER THE NUMEROUS AMOUNT OF SPEEDING COMPLAINTS OR HAS A NUMEROUS AMOUNT OF, I DON'T KNOW, PROFILING OR WHATEVER, WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU AN OFFICER'S NAME.
WE'RE ASKING YOU WHAT ISSUES IS THE THE ACC SEEING? WE'RE NOT GETTING THAT.
WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS THAT YOU'RE NOT GIVING US THE DATA FROM THE ACC, SINCE YOU'RE SERVING ON TWO BOARDS, THAT DATA IS NOT COMING DOWN TO US SO THAT WE CAN TROUBLESHOOT WHAT THE ISSUES ARE.
WE ONLY KNOW THE ISSUES BECAUSE THE CHIEFS OR THE SHERIFF IS BRINGING THEM TO US.
LET ME LET ME ANSWER THAT QUESTION JUST FOR ONE SECOND.
BRANDY, THIS IS AN EXCELLENT POINT THAT I BROUGHT UP TO ATTORNEY MIKE RUST SO THAT MOVING FORWARD IN THIS NEW YEAR, WE CAN START BRINGING YOU ALL THE COMPLAINTS THAT ARE COMING IN, EITHER VIA THE PUBLIC PORTAL OR A PAPER COMPLAINT THAT COMES TO THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD AND WHETHER OR NOT IT GETS INVESTIGATED.
THAT IS UP TO THE LEAS AT THIS POINT.
AS OF MARCH 19TH, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC PORTAL COMPLAINTS OR ANY PAPER COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED.
THE ONLY COMPLAINT THAT WE RECEIVED WAS INVESTIGATED AND BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION DIRECTLY OF THE LEA THEMSELVES, SO WE NEVER SAW THAT UNTIL IT CAME TO THE OCC AS A FULLY INVESTIGATED FILE.
SO THERE HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING THIS YEAR THAT WE CAN EVEN PRESENT TO YOU ALL.
I'M FULLY AWARE THAT YOU ALL ARE.
THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD IS NOT FEELING INVOLVED.
AND I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS NOT ONLY WITH JOHN, BUT ALSO WITH MIKE ROSS AND TRYING TO HAVE OTHER THINGS FOR YOU ALL TO DO.
AND THEN I'M YOU HEARD THAT THE LA AND THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IS OFFERING RIDE ALONGS.
[00:50:04]
I MEAN, THERE REALLY ISN'T MUCH TO DO HERE IN CAROLINE COUNTY.AS FAR AS THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD IS CONCERNED, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SETTING UP BOOTHS OR GOING AND HANDING OUT PAMPHLETS AND THE WHOLE NINE YARDS, WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT THE COMPLAINTS AS THEY COME IN, BUT WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE COMPLAINTS COMING IN AT THE MOMENT. SO THERE'S REALLY NOTHING FOR US TO PRESENT. BUT I DO PROMISE YOU THAT THIS IS A CONVERSATION THAT HAS BEEN HAD.
THIS IS A NEW PROCESS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SET UP.
TODD, DO YOU REMEMBER YOU AND I HAVING THAT CONVERSATION? I DO, OKAY, SO AND AGAIN, IT'S NEW, AND MIKE IS NOT HERE WITH US THIS EVENING. BUT I DID TALK TO MIKE RUST ABOUT IT.
HE APPROVED IT. AND AS SOON AS THESE COMPLAINTS COME IN, WE WILL BE FORWARDING THEM TO YOU.
BUT AGAIN, AS OF TODAY, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING THIS YEAR TO PRESENT TO THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IS THAT AT ALL HELPFUL, BRANDI? YEAH, THAT'S HELPFUL, BUT I WASN'T ASKING FOR THE ACTUAL COMPLAINTS. I WAS JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, THE SUBJECT, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT. RATHER, IT WAS FOUNDED OR NOT FOUNDED. I DON'T CARE IF IT WAS GUILTY OR NOT, BUT IT WAS A COMPLAINT. LIKE SOMEBODY SAID, THIS WAS AN ISSUE IN THE COMMUNITY.
IF THAT'S ALL YOU'RE TAKING OFF OF THERE TO PRESENT TO US.
LIKE WE HAD FIVE SPEEDING COMPLAINTS.
SIX YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY COMPLAINTS OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.
SURE. WHETHER THEY'RE GUILTY. THAT'S THE ACC BUSINESS, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I KNOW IT'S EARLY IN THE YEAR YOU'RE NOT GETTING.
I MEAN, I HOPE WE WOULDN'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF COMPLAINTS, BUT THE OVERALL IS THAT EVEN A MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY BASIS OF THE DATA, WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY OF THAT.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.
YOU AND I KNOW MORE OF WHAT'S GOING ON THAN THE ACTUAL PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SERVING AS COMMUNITY MEMBERS ON THE BOARD. YOU TELL ME.
I THINK THAT'S A FAIR ARGUMENT.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS AND MOVE FORWARD AND SEE IF I CAN'T GET THIS INFORMATION TO YOU ALL.
SO WE WERE THINKING, IF WE GIVE YOU THE COMPLAINTS AGAIN, WHETHER OR NOT THE LEAGUE DECIDES TO INVESTIGATE IT, AT LEAST YOU GUYS ARE THE FIRST EYES ON IT, SO YOU CAN SEE THE COMPLAINTS THAT ARE COMING IN FROM THE PEOPLE AND THEN ONCE IT GETS INVESTIGATED.
YES, OF COURSE, THAT'S THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGING COMMITTEE. AND THEN THEY WILL GIVE YOU ALL THE FINDINGS AFTER THE FACT.
BUT IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND EMAILING ME ALL OF THE SUGGESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE AND THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TOO.
AND I CAN RUN IT BY THE ATTORNEY.
AND THEN AT OUR NEXT MEETING OR EVEN BEFORE THEN, I CAN SEND YOU ALL EMAILS AND KIND OF GET, YOU KNOW, GAUGE WHAT EVERYONE IS INTERESTED IN, SEEING WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE MOVING FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THIS MORE OF A BOARD WHERE PEOPLE WILL ATTEND AND BE HAPPY TO BE ON THE BOARD AND BE PROUD TO SERVE ON IT, RATHER THAN JUST SAYING YOU'RE SERVING ON IT BECAUSE YOUR TERMS NOT UP YET AND WAS SPEEDING COMPLAINTS.
WE DO NOT GET SPEEDING COMPLAINTS.
WE DON'T GET WE THE ONLY WAY WE GET COMPLAINTS THAT PEOPLE SEND THEM TO US AND WE DON'T GET THEM. AND EVERY COMPLAINT THAT WE GET, WE SHARE WITH THE BABY AND AND SOME ARE LATE, SOME ARE GONE. YESTERDAY'S CASE WAS VERY SIMPLE.
IT WAS SELF DISCOVERED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. IT WAS INVOLVING A CITIZEN, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY DISCOVERED BY THE DENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT THROUGH A FOLLOW UP ON SOMETHING ELSE. AND THERE ARE THE ONES THAT SENT THE COMPLAINT, BUT IT WAS INVOLVING THE CITIZEN.
SO THAT'S WHY IT CAME TO THE ACC.
AND I THINK THEY DID NOTIFY US THAT THEY WERE DOING AN INVESTIGATION, BUT DID NOT GO IN DETAIL WHAT IT WAS ABOUT.
IT WASN'T ENOUGH INFORMATION AT THAT POINT TO FORWARD ON TO ANYBODY AT THIS STAGE, UNLESS I'M RECEIVING THE COMPLAINT FIRSTHAND OR IF IT COMES THROUGH THE PUBLIC PORTAL.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF, YOU KNOW, CHIEF, LET ME KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE. BUT AS FAR AS GETTING NOTIFIED, NO, THERE WASN'T ENOUGH FOR ME TO TO HAND OVER OR THAT I WAS COMFORTABLE DISCLOSING AT THAT STAGE.
DID THAT ANSWER SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS, MISS BRANDI? I MEAN, I GET WHAT YOU'RE. I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO EXPLAIN IT. I JUST IT'S IT'S A LITTLE FRUSTRATING FOR ME TO TO SEE, JUST LIKE HOW IT'S OPERATING HERE VERSUS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS.
AND I KNOW CAROLINE IS NOT OTHER JURISDICTIONS, BUT I JUST, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS MORE OF A TWO MAN, A MAN AND A ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN SHOW VERSUS A WHOLE GROUP SHOW.
AND I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE AS FAR AS COMMUNICATION OF WHAT'S GOING ON.
YOU KNOW, EVEN DOWN TO LIKE DETERMINING LIKE, OH, ARE WE GOING TO GIVE YOU IS WHAT THE COMPLAINTS ARE ABOUT.
I DON'T NEED TO KNOW THE DETAILS OF WHAT THEY DID OR IF THEY WERE GUILTY.
I DON'T NEED TO KNOW ALL OF THAT.
BUT TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, LIKE WE'RE HERE.
WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING?
[00:55:01]
AND THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING FOR.AND IF YOU ALL IF YOU'RE THE PRESIDENT, I MEAN, SOMEBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL US WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. LIKE, WHY DON'T WE HAVE ANY GUIDANCE AS TO WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, BUT OTHER COUNTIES DO? I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT OTHER PARTS ARE MOVING.
THEY'RE DOING THINGS. THEY'RE INVOLVED. THEY'RE THEY'RE WORKING WITH THEIR LOCAL POLICE. THEY'RE WORKING WITH THEIR SHERIFFS. AND HERE WE ARE. WE'RE BEING I'M WELL, I'M NOT BEEFING WITH THE SHERIFF. I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. I'M NOT BEEFING WITH HIM.
BUT AS A PART OF THE BOARD, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU AND THE SHERIFF HAVE A BEEF. AND IT'S LIKE EVERY SINGLE MEETING THERE'S A BEEF.
YOU SOUND PISSED OFF. HE SOUNDS PISSED OFF.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT STILL, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING TOGETHER. WELL, I AGREE, AND I DON'T HAVE A BEEF WITH THE SHERIFFS.
I MEAN, WE HAVE DISCUSSED THINGS.
WE'VE WE'VE DISCUSSED THINGS THAT ARE COMMON AND NOT.
I'M NOT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SEC ANYMORE.
SO THOSE DIALOGS WITH THE SEC PRETTY MUCH HAVE STOPPED.
AND WHETHER HE DOES IT WITH THE NEW CHAIRMAN, NANCY, I DON'T KNOW. BUT WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS OVER THE TIME WE'VE BEEN TO HIS OFFICE AND HE SAID, HEY, LET ME THROW THIS OUT TO YOU.
THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE. BUT THEY'RE CONFIDENTIAL.
THEY'RE CONFIDENTIAL CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE THAT THAT I'M FORBIDDEN OR ANYBODY ELSE IS FORBIDDEN TO DISCUSS.
BUT BUT TO SHARE. AND I'VE SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'VE MET WITH THE SHERIFF AND WE TALKED ABOUT A CASE IN THE OFFICE, AND THE CASE WAS SETTLED A DIFFERENT WAY, AND THAT WAS THE END OF IT.
SO IT DOESN'T COME TO THE PAB, DOESN'T COME TO THE ACC.
I MEAN, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY WE'RE INVOLVED.
EVERYTHING THAT I DO. KIM DOES.
OKAY. EVERYTHING THAT WE DO, WE PUT OUT.
THE PROBLEM, I GUESS, IS, IS THAT HERE IN CAROLINE COUNTY, WE HAD SEVEN COMPLAINTS LAST YEAR FOR A WHOLE YEAR.
THAT DOESN'T KEEP A LOT OF PEOPLE BUSY.
WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ACC MEETING IN DECEMBER, NOR JANUARY OR FEBRUARY.
NO. SO BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING FOR US TO DO.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE DOING THIS THING ALL THE TIME.
IT'S THERE'S NOT A LOT OF COMPLAINTS IN THE COUNTY, WHICH IS A GREAT THING. IT'S A POSITIVE THING. IT IS.
AND I MEAN, I MEAN, I DON'T NEED THE PAB TO KEEP ME BUSY.
I HAVE ENOUGH OTHER STUFF TO KEEP ME BUSY.
BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IF I'M SITTING ON A BOARD AND I HAVE SOMEONE OUT HERE REPRESENTING THE BOARD.
OKAY, JOHN, YOU'RE OUT HERE REPRESENTING THE PAB.
WHATEVER YOU SAY. AS FAR AS PAB, THEY'RE NOT JUST LOOKING AT IT.
AS JOHN BARTLETT IS SAYING THIS, THEY'RE LOOKING AT CAROLINE COUNTY PAB AS SAYING THAT, WHICH MEANS IT'S ME.
IT'S BRANDY. JAMES. IT'S TODD.
IT'S TODD. IT'S EVERYBODY WHO SERVES ON THIS BOARD.
YOU'RE REPRESENTING EVERYBODY. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WHEN THINGS ARE GOING ON, WE ALL SHOULD BE IN AGREEMENT THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
NOT JUST THE ONE PERSON, TWO PERSON WE MAKING THIS DEAL.
OKAY, SO WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF US? HONESTLY, I HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING ON THE WEB SINCE DECEMBER.
I'M NOT SAYING YOU JUST SAID WHAT YOU DO.
KIM KNOWS, AND I'M JUST SAYING SO KIM KNOWS.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF US? YOU. YOU MADE A MOTION.
SO BASICALLY, YOU'RE SAYING I SHOULD HAVE SAID I'M GOING TO ANNAPOLIS TO TESTIFY? I MEAN, YOU'RE TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE CAROLINE COUNTY PAB.
ARE YOU THE PAB ALONE? NO. MOTION. THE MOTION.
THE MOTION. WHO MADE THAT MOTION? TO THE DELEGATION OF MARYLAND? OKAY, OKAY. IF YOU THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE SAID TO ALL THE PA, I'M GOING TO ANNAPOLIS ON FEBRUARY 23RD.
ABSOLUTELY. I'D LIKE TO IF I COULD JUST READDRESS SOME OF THE ORDNANCE STATEMENTS, THINGS THAT I'VE HEARD.
I WANT TO REITERATE, THE ORDNANCE AT THIS POINT IS A DRAFT REWRITE OF THE ORDNANCE THAT THE OFFICE OF LAW AND STAFF HAVE WORKED ON AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
INPUT HAS BEEN SOLICITED FROM THE SHERIFF AND OTHERS REGARDING THE TERM LIMITS AND THE SIZE OF THE BOARD.
I JUST WANT TO REITERATE AGAIN, THAT IS A TREND THAT THE COUNTY COUNTY GOVERNMENT IS FOLLOWING FOR ALL OF OUR BOARDS.
AGAIN, JEFF JACKSON, MR. JACKSON SERVES ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT USED TO BE A SEVEN MEMBER BOARD.
WE'VE MOVED THAT DOWN TO FIVE MEMBERS.
AND REGARDING TERM LIMITS THIS ALSO APPLIES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AND OTHER BOARDS.
THE COUNTY HAS IN THE PAST, APPLIED TERM LIMITS TO SEVERAL OF OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. AND WHAT WE HAVE FOUND, AT LEAST HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE.
IT'S NOT ALWAYS THE BEST IDEA.
SOMETIMES IT'S GREAT TO HAVE FRESH PERSPECTIVES ON THE BOARD.
SOMETIMES NOBODY ELSE WANTS TO SERVE ON THE BOARD OR WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME TRAINING OUR
[01:00:06]
BOARD MEMBERS, AND IF THEY LEAVE IN FOUR YEARS, THEN WE'VE GOT TO RETRAIN A NEW BOARD MEMBER WHO DOESN'T HAVE THAT SAME HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE. SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR TAKING AWAY THE TERM LIMITS.AND AS SHERIFF BAKER STATED, AND I DON'T RECALL OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD EXACTLY HOW THE ORDINANCE IS WORDED, BUT THE CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS ARE GRANDFATHERED. YOU BROUGHT UP THE QUESTION OF, SO IF YOUR NEXT TERM IS UP, ARE YOU STILL GRANDFATHERED? I'M NOT SURE HOW THE ORDINANCE READS TO THAT.
NO, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE WILL AGE OFF THE BOARD.
BUT AGAIN, THAT IS JUST DISCUSSION AGAIN, WHEN KIM AND THE LAW'S THE LAW SENT ME AN EMAIL AND SAID, HEY, CAN WE MEET? MY NEXT CALL WAS TO KATHLEEN AND DANNY BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT THE COMMISSIONER SHOULD HAVE A SEAT AT THAT TABLE TO DISCUSS THAT, BECAUSE I FIGURED I WOULD BE HERE AND THERE WOULD BE SOME ACCUSATIONS THROWN AT ME ABOUT THIS, THIS WHOLE PROCESS. SO I WANTED SOMEBODY FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO BE THERE.
DANNY, WHO'S THE DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, WAS THERE.
WE HAD A VERY ROBUST DISCUSSION AS WELL AS THE PA ATTORNEY WAS IN THE ROOM.
AND HE HAD NO OBJECTIONS TO ANYTHING THAT WAS IN THERE, AM I NOT CORRECT, KIM? NONE WHATSOEVER. TO INCLUDE I ABSOLUTELY BROUGHT OUT THE FACT OF BEING A MEMBER OF ANY FRATERNAL ORDER OF ASSOCIATION TO INCLUDE THE FOP OR ANYTHING ELSE, AND HE. ABSOLUTELY MY UNDERSTANDING WAS MIKE RUSS WAS 110% IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
I, AT THAT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING, BROUGHT THAT SAME THING UP BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE A POLITICAL HOT TOPIC WITH THE COMMISSIONERS, AND I AM VERY OPEN WITH ALL THREE OF THEM. SO TO NOT GET THEM IN ANY POLITICAL HOT WATER.
AND I WAS VERY OPEN, IF YOU READ, YOU HEARD THAT I BROUGHT THAT OUT IN THAT MEETING TO SAY COMMISSIONERS, AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF THIS, THAT YOU'RE FULLY AWARE THAT THIS IS GOING TO UPSET A FEW OF THE MEMBERS ON THERE.
AND I BELIEVE I EVEN MENTIONED YOU AND NANCY AS BEING ON THE BOARD AND FOP MEMBERS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY SHOULD LEAVE THEMSELVES SOME AVENUE AS FAR AS EITHER GRANDFATHERING SOMEBODY IN, OR INSTEAD OF MAKING THAT A A SHELL, MAKE IT A MAY AND MAY POSSIBLY EVEN HAVE THE ETHICS BOARD REVIEW THAT IF THERE'S A POSSIBILITY OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
SO AGAIN, THE ONLY THING IN THAT BILL THAT I REALLY HAD TO FOCUS ON, AND I WILL SAY THIS IN A PUBLIC MEETING, OPEN MEETING ON VIDEO OR ANYTHING ELSE, WAS THE THE THE CONSTRAINTS OF SUBPOENA POLICE OFFICERS TO AN ACC MEETING.
AND I BELIEVE THAT EVERY CHIEF IN THIS ROOM TO INCLUDE GEORGE WAS IN THAT MEETING, SITTING AT THE TABLE NEXT TO ME HAD NO ISSUES WITH THAT WHATSOEVER, AND THEY ARE FULL SUPPORT OF THAT PART OF THE LEGISLATION.
OKAY, JOHN, CAN I SAY SOMETHING? YES, SIR. MR. TODD SO I DID A LIVE STREAM THE MEETING WITH THE LEGISLATION THAT WAS BEING TALKED ABOUT, AND I AM ONE OF THE MEMBERS THAT IS DUE TO FALL OFF ON JUNE.
I HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN DOING ANOTHER TERM.
I'D LIKE TO DO ANOTHER TERM. I'D LIKE TO SERVE ANOTHER TERM.
I DID HEAR THAT THERE WOULD BE NO TERM LIMITS, THAT THEY WERE ELIMINATING TERM LIMITS. HOWEVER, THE TWO TERM LIMITS THAT WERE UP WERE GOING TO BE FALL OFF.
THEY WERE GOING TO GO. SO I WAS LIKE, HOW CAN IT BE? YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE NO TERM LIMITS, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A TERM LIMIT BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO KICK PEOPLE OFF. SO I WAS A LITTLE BIT HESITANT ON WHEN I READ THE LEGISLATION, THAT ONE CONTRADICTED THE OTHER.
AND THEN I'M HEARING SOME WILL BE GRANDFATHERED.
JOHN WILL BE GRANDFATHERED IN.
MAYBE ONE OF THE OTHER ONES WILL BE GRANDFATHERED IN. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO GRANDFATHER SOME IN, BUT NOT ALL IN.
JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO SERVE ANOTHER TERM IF POSSIBLE. SO I JUST WANT THAT FOR THE RECORD.
AND I RELAYED THAT ALREADY TO KIM YESTERDAY WHEN YOU CALLED ME REGARDING THAT ON A CERTAIN TIME. I APPRECIATE THAT.
I MADE A NOTE OF IT TO AND WHAT TRAININGS I HEARD.
I HEARD THE TRAININGS OR RETRAINING.
THE WHAT TRAININGS ARE THE THE THE NEW PAB GOING TO GET? IS IT THE I DON'T REMEMBER.
I KNOW IT WAS ONE ALL FOR THAT I THINK.
OH, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. YES, THERE WAS A TRAINING OFFER THIS PAST OCTOBER FOR THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARDS, AND UNFORTUNATELY NOBODY IN CAROLINE COUNTY ATTENDED. WE DID HAVE A NICE ATTENDANCE FOR BOTH THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD AS WELL AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGING COMMITTEE. THERE WAS ONE ABOUT SIX HOUR DAY, AND THEN THE NEXT DAY WAS ANOTHER SIX HOUR DAY FOR THE BOARD SEPARATELY.
AT THIS STAGE, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD TRAINING THAT I'VE HEARD OF. THAT WAS THE ONE THAT THEY HAD SPECIALLY HELD, AND WE ACTUALLY HELD IT IN THIS COUNTY TO MAKE IT MORE AVAILABLE FOR OUR POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD. AND I DID GIVE YOU ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WAS SENT FROM THAT IN-SERVICE TRAINING. BUT AT THIS STAGE, I HAVEN'T HEARD OF ANY OTHER TRAININGS,
[01:05:02]
HAVE YOU, JOHN? NO. AND THAT IN-SERVICE TRAINING, WE HAD THE ACC TRAINING THE FIRST DAY.MYSELF AND JEFF MARTIN WERE THE ONLY TWO THAT WENT THAT IN THE SECOND DAY, THE PAB AND I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT WENT TO THAT.
AND WHEN I WHEN I TALK ABOUT TRAINING FOR BOARD MEMBERS I DON'T MEAN JUST THE PAB AND THE ACC WHEN I TALK ABOUT HOW WE ARE NOW LOOKING AT SHAPING OUR THE MAKEUP AND COMPOSITION OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ACROSS CAROLINE COUNTY YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S TRAINING THAT THE MEMBERS HAVE DONE WHATEVER THAT TRAINING IS, IT'S PERTINENT TO THAT BOARD.
IT'S INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE FOR THOSE MEMBERS WHO'VE BEEN SERVING IT'S SOMETIMES EVEN BEING COMFORTABLE SITTING HERE AS A BOARD.
I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MAYBE FEEL LIKE TRAINING, BUT THAT IS FOR SOME CITIZENS WHO SERVE ON OUR BOARDS, A SKILL THAT THEY HAVE TO ACQUIRE OVER TIME.
SO ANYTIME YOU REPLACE A BOARD, A NEW MEMBER ON A BOARD, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT THEY HAVE TO LEARN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THAT BOARD ALL OF THOSE THINGS. SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO SPECIFIC TRAINING THAT ANYBODY ON THE PAB AND THE ACC HAVE HAD. BUT WHEN I MAKE THAT STATEMENT AS A GENERIC STATEMENT THAT I'M APPLYING TO ALL OF THE BOARDS IN THE COUNTY, THE PAB TRAINING THEY HAVE, I GUESS, REFERRED TO AS IN-SERVICE TRAINING, BUT THAT'S THE TERM WE ALWAYS USED.
THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME ANY TRAINER WAS EVER OFFERED TO ANY BANK IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND.
DIDN'T OFFER ANY TRAINING, A MANDATE, THE MANDATED 40 HOUR TRAINING TO THE ACC THAT WAS MANDATED THEY HAD TO ATTEND BEFORE YOU COULD SIT ON THE BOARD, BUT THEY HAVE NEVER OFFERED ANY OR EXPLAINED THE LEGISLATION TO ANY MEMBER OF THE PAB AND THAT FROM THE STATE. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S IT'S NOT A COUNTY.
SURE. AND BUT THAT'S NEVER BEEN OFFERED.
AND THEN I KNOW WE DID PUT AN EMAIL OUT WHEN WE HAD THIS, WHAT WE CALL IN-SERVICE TRAINING.
WE WE KIND OF BEGGED TO GET THEM IN CAROLINE COUNTY, WHICH THEY DID. THAT'S THE SECOND TIME THEY CAME TO CAROLINE COUNTY TO DO IT.
SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TO TRAVEL, EVEN THOUGH OTHER PEOPLE DID HAVE TO TRAVEL TO, TO GO TO THE STATE.
SOME PEOPLE CAME FROM THE COUNTY FOR THAT TRAINING.
THAT'S NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH SHERIFF'S LAW ENFORCEMENT, THE COUNTY OR ANYTHING. LEAGER CAROLINE COUNTY. THEY JUST DON'T DO IT. AND WHY? BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN INSTRUCTED AS GOING TO THESE TRAINING.
THE ROLE OF THE PAB IS TO LOOK AT PATTERNS AND AND DEVELOPMENTS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT.
AND THAT'S TO I REMEMBER YOU SAID THAT THAT TRAINING WASN'T THAT ORIENTED TOWARDS PAB, AND IT WASN'T REALLY WORTH THE THE KOOL-AID.
THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING WHAT TRAININGS WAS BEING OFFERED OR WHAT WERE YOU RETRAINING PEOPLE IN OR HAVING TO RETRAIN PEOPLE IN, BECAUSE I DIDN'T STATEWIDE ISSUE THAT PEOPLE IN THE PAB WANTED TO TRAIN.
AND I KNOW OTHER PARTIES HAVE SAID WE WANTED TRAINING.
SO WHEN WE HAD THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE PUT ON THAT ONE DAY, WHATEVER WE CALLED THE PAB MEMBERS SHERIFF LAW ENFORCEMENT AROUND THE STATE, IT WAS PUT ON BY PERF.
IT WAS A ROUND TABLE, AND CHUCK WEXLER RAN IT, BUT HE DID NOT EVEN KNOW THE LEGISLATION.
NOT. NOT ONE CLUE. BUT THAT WAS SPONSORED BY THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.
AND AND HE BASICALLY WAS TRYING TO GET CHIEF SHERIFF'S OPINIONS OF WHAT EVERYBODY THOUGHT MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
AND THEY ISSUED A REPORT, BUT IT DIDN'T SAY STUDY FUNDED MISSION IS WHAT IT WAS. IT WAS MORE OF A STUDY SESSION THAN IT WAS A CAN YOU HEAR HIM? MORE MORE OF A STUDY. CHIEF BAKER AND MORE OF A STUDY SAYING WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ABOUT THE LEGISLATION.
SO? SO THAT'S ALL. MISS BRANDY, THAT'S ALL TRAINING'S BEEN OFFERED.
I MEAN I, I CAN'T WE DON'T ADVERTISE.
IT'S OUT THERE. IT'S ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
BARB AS WHAT THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, AND BUT I THINK, I MEAN, I THINK I UNDERSTAND HER QUESTION AND HER POINT, THOUGH. I THINK SHE'S RESPONDING TO MY STATEMENT THAT NO TERM LIMITS BECAUSE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE HAD TRAINING.
AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK I THINK THAT'S WHAT SHE'S GETTING AT. BUT YES, YOU ARE VERY CORRECT THAT THAT WAS MY THAT WAS THE POINT THAT I WAS MAKING.
SO IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A LACK OF SPECIFIC TRAINING OR ANYTHING, BUT MY STATEMENT WAS TRULY GENERIC AS I APPLY IT TO ALL THE BOARDS IN THE COUNTY.
I THINK THAT ONCE BOARD MEMBERS ARE COMFORTABLE SERVING ON BOARDS, IF THEY'RE WILLING TO CONTINUE SERVING AND THEY'RE DOING A GOOD JOB.
WE DON'T WANT TO APPLY TERM LIMITS THAT REMOVE SOMEBODY FROM DOING THAT.
NO. AND I THINK THE LAW ENFORCEMENT FEAR IS THAT ONCE YOU GET SOMEBODY ON THERE WHO KNOWS, IT'S LIKE A POLICE OFFICER ONCE THEY'RE COMFORTABLE IN THEIR JOB AND, AND AND THEY'VE WORKED OUT ALL THESE, THESE,
[01:10:01]
THESE ISSUES THAT WE'RE HAVING.YOU REALLY DON'T WANT TO GO BACK AND HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE IN THAT SEAT, AND YOU HAVE TO REWORK THE SAME ISSUES OUT.
SO, BRANDY, YES, RODNEY AND I ARE GOING TO HAVE A VERY BOISTEROUS CONVERSATIONS.
AND THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO STOP ANYTIME SOON UNTIL WE GET ALL THIS STUFF DONE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO DISAGREE. BUT AGAIN, WE NEED TO STILL HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO PICK UP THE PHONE AND HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS. AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND WORK THINGS OUT.
AND ONCE WE GET THOSE WORKED OUT, I REALLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO RUN DOWN THAT ROAD AGAIN AND WORK THEM OUT AGAIN WITH SOMEBODY ELSE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, AND I UNDERSTAND.
I JUST WAS TRYING TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION, BUT I AM STILL AGAINST A FOREVER TERM ON A BOARD. I DO THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN EXPIRATION DATE TO EVERYBODY.
WELL, THEY CAN I MEAN, THEY HAVE TO BE REAPPOINTED, YOU KNOW, EVERY FOUR YEARS. SO IF AT SOME POINT IN TIME A COMMISSIONER SAYS, YOU KNOW, THIS GUY HAS LIVED OUT OR HAS LIVED OUT THEIR, YOU KNOW, THEIR LIFE EXPECTANCY ON THIS BOARD OR THEY'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST TOO MANY CONTROVERSIES OR ISSUES, THEN THE COMMISSIONERS CAN DECIDE NOT TO REAPPOINT THEM.
AND IF THE COMMISSIONERS DECIDE THAT THAT THAT MR. BARTLETT SHOULDN'T BE THE CHAIRMAN IN FOUR YEARS, THEY CAN REAPPOINT HIM TO THE BOARD, JUST NOT AS A CHAIRMAN. THEY CAN REAPPOINT SOMEBODY ELSE ON THE BOARD AS A CHAIRMAN, YOU KNOW, ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO WRITE A STATEMENT TO THE TO THE COMMISSIONER SAYING, HEY, I THINK THAT EVERY FOUR YEARS SOMEONE ELSE ON THE BOARD SHOULD BE THE CHAIRMAN. I MEAN, AGAIN, THIS LEGISLATION IS IN INFANCY STAGES AND ANYBODY CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMISSIONERS ON WHAT THEY THINK, OR THE OFFICE OF LAW OF WHAT THEY THINK SHOULD BE IN THERE. YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THIS IS A PUBLIC MEETING THAT, THAT YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY HAVE INPUT IN.
AND I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT THEY PUT IN THE ORDINANCE AS WELL AS IF YOU'RE ABSENT FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MEETINGS, IF YOU DON'T ATTEND THREE MEETINGS, THEN YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY TAKEN OFF THE BOARD AND YOU WILL BE REPLACED.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE TO KEEP IN MIND SO THAT NEW PEOPLE WILL BE COMING ON.
IF THAT HAPPENS TO BE THE CASE, THAT'S UNEXCUSED ABSENCES.
YOU'RE JUST NOT SHOWING UP. I THINK THAT WAS JUST IF YOU'RE NOT HERE, IF YOU'RE NOT HERE FOR WHATEVER THE REASON, BECAUSE WE DECIDED WHO. YEAH.
WHAT DOES WHAT QUALIFIES AS AN EXCUSE.
SO YES. BECAUSE WHAT YOU CAN TELL ME THIS, YOU CAN TELL ME THAT, BUT WHO APPROVES IT. SO I THINK THAT WAS THE COMMISSIONER'S DISCRETION. BUT IF YOU MISS MORE THAN THREE MEETINGS IN A 12 MONTH PERIOD, THEN YOU WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY REMOVED FROM THE BOARD AND REPLACED BECAUSE WE WANT ATTENDANCE AT THESE MEETINGS BECAUSE EVERYONE'S TAKING THEIR TIME, THEIR ENERGY.
WE'VE ALL BEEN AT WORK ALL DAY TODAY, AND THEN WE ATTEND THESE NIGHT MEETINGS. AND IF WE CAN'T GET A QUORUM, THAT IS VERY FRUSTRATING FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SHOWING UP. AND MAYBE IF SOMETHING'S COMING UP ON THE ACC, WE ROTATE EVERY TWO YEARS, MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING TO BE DONE.
OKAY, WELL, LOOK, AGAIN, I THAT THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, JUST LIKE THIS LAW. THIS LAW, THIS IS THE WAY THAT CECIL COUNTY DOES IT RIGHT NOW. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS CECIL COUNTY IS THE GOLD SEAL.
AND AS FAR AS IT'S GOING RIGHT NOW.
SO FOP MEMBER AS A COUNTY EXECUTIVE, WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS BEFORE HIM.
HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS LAW. HE WAS JUST ELECTED.
YEAH. SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE GOLD SEAL, YOU KNOW, IS IS IS AGAIN, I THINK THAT WHEN YOU HAVE TOO MANY PEOPLE AT THE TABLE AND AGAIN, TOO MANY PEOPLE AT THE TABLE, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE CAN'T GET ALONG AND EVERYBODY THINKS YOU KNOW, SOMETHING ELSE OR SOMETHING ELSE. SO AGAIN, IF YOU NARROW IT DOWN, YOU KNOW YOU HAVE SEVEN MEMBER BOARD TOTAL WITH THE OCC, YOU HAVE THE MAJORITY OF THEM ON THE PAB AND TWO OUTSIDE MEMBERS.
PEOPLE ON THE PAB AND THE OCC BOTH HAVE STOCK IN BOTH BOARDS AND THEY CAN BRING IT, YOU KNOW, BACK TO THE AND PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THEY'RE MORE INVOLVED. BECAUSE IF YOU THINK THERE'S ONLY SEVEN THIS TIME, I THINK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE LESS AND LESS COMPLAINTS AS IT MOVES ALONG.
I REALLY DO, BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE IS GETTING READY TO NARROW DOWN WHAT GOES TO THE OCC AND THE PAB BECAUSE OF BALTIMORE CITY.
I WAS JUST IN A MEETING TODAY THAT IS GETTING TRACTION.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO MOVE THROUGH THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION, BUT IS ABSOLUTELY GOING TO MOVE THROUGH NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
ACCIDENTS ARE NO LONGER GOING TO BE THERE, AND THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO BE THE MAJOR VIOLATIONS ARE GOING TO COME TO THE OCC AND THE PAB.
ANY ANY OTHER COMMENTS? CHIEF SHERIFFS IN THE COMMENTS.
ANYTHING I MEAN, WE STARTED THIS ONE WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS ENDED.
IT WAS THROWN AT US. PUT TOGETHER.
I THINK IT WAS A LEARNING PROCESS.
THROUGHOUT EVERY BIT OF IT THE BILL OF RIGHTS WAS ESTABLISHED 40 YEARS ESTABLISHED.
APPELLATE DECISIONS WERE MADE, NUMEROUS DECISIONS THAT CAN FALL BACK TO AG DECISIONS AND ALL THAT.
AND WE'RE KIND OF TAKING EVERYTHING FROM THE GROUND STARTING OVER.
AND THEY THREW EVERYBODY INTO IT AND SAID, HEY, LET'S DO IT. I'VE LEARNED A LOT, REALLY.
I'VE LEARNED A LOT SITTING ON THESE BOARDS, HEARING FROM PEOPLE THAT HAVE NO LAW ENFORCEMENT BACKGROUND. AND I'VE LEARNED A LOT. I'VE SEEN A LOT MORE IN THE ACC WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING CASES, BUT I TRULY BELIEVE MY TIME ON THIS BOARD IS DONE. I AM RESIGNING TONIGHT FROM THIS BOARD.
[01:15:01]
I'VE GIVEN UP A LOT. I DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE ANYMORE.I LOVE I LOVE LAW ENFORCEMENT.
MY WHOLE LIFE HAS BEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT.
I'M 68 YEARS OLD NOW, AND MY BATTLES ARE OVER.
THAT DEPUTY BEING SUBPOENAED WAS DONE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THAT DEPUTY.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT I WILL NEVER, EVER, EVER IN MY LIFE HURT A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. BUT COPS DO DUMB THINGS.
AND SOMETIMES WE GOTTA RUN THE DISCIPLINE.
SOMETIMES THAT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO DO.
BUT I'VE ALWAYS LEARNED IN MY POLICE CAREER.
DISCIPLINE IS NOT THE END OF ALL.
IT DEPENDS ON HOW. HOW MUCH SHE SCREWED UP.
WHETHER YOU COULD BE SAVED. AND SOMETIMES PEOPLE THAT DID SAVE TURN OUT TO BE OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEES.
BUT I KNOW EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD WOULD BE DONE.
I, I JUST I'M AT A POINT WHERE WHEN I GET INVOLVED IN SOMETHING, I LIVE AND BREATHE IT. AND I THINK ABOUT IT 24 OVER SEVEN IT'S AFFECTING MY SLEEP.
THAT'S WHY I CHOSE AS AN ADULT TO MOVE HERE.
I CHOSE TO MOVE HERE. I INVESTED A LOT OF MONEY IN LAND IN THIS COUNTY.
AND SO AS MY TAX BILLS REFLECT SO IT'S BEEN AN HONOR TO BE HERE.
IT'S BEEN AN HONOR TO TO SEE SOME OF MY FRIENDS WHO I KNOW MANY, MANY YEARS EASTERN PD, FOP, PRESIDENT, FOP PRESIDENTS.
AND IT'S BEEN A WONDERFUL TIME.
SO IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, NO OTHER COMMENTS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
SECOND. WHO MADE THE MOTION? SOMEONE ON THE PHONE MAKE A MOTION.
MOTION. WE ADJOURN. MOTION TO ADJOURN.
SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE.
OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION PASSES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.