[00:02:10]
YOU GOOD? IS SHE GOOD? YOU GOOD? I WAS WAITING TO SEE IF I COULD SEE IT ON MY LAPTOP THAT IT'S STREAMING.
I THOUGHT CHRIS SAID BEFORE IT COULD TAKE 30S, BUT IT IS STREAMING, SO.
OKAY, SO I'M CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER THE CAROLINE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGING COMMITTEE. TODAY IS APRIL 22ND, 2025, AND THE TIME IS 5:02 P.M..
THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD AT THE CAROLINE COUNTY HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING IN DENTON, MARYLAND. THERE IS A QUORUM PRESENT.
THEREFORE, I WILL PROCEED WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALL RIGHT, SO THE ROLL CALL.
THAT AIN'T HERE. JEFF MARTIN'S HERE.
GREG, COLONEL'S NOT HERE, AND I'M PRESENT.
HAVE EACH ONE OF YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE MINUTES FROM THE OPEN SESSION MEETING? YES. TUESDAY, MARCH 18TH, 2024, OR I'M SORRY, 25? YES. YES. OKAY. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, ADDITIONS OR OMISSIONS REGARDING THESE MINUTES. MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT.
HOLD ON ONE SECOND. I HAVE A CORRECTION.
SURE. IN THE OPEN MEETING MINUTES. NUMBER FOUR, IT SAYS THAT I CALL FOR A MOTION TO OPEN THE MEETING AT 8:09 P.M.. I SHOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN I CLOSED IT.
OH. WE OPENED IT BACK UP AFTER WE HAD DISCUSSED THE CASE AT 809.
AFTER THREE HOURS OF MEETING AND DISCUSSING THE CASE.
IT'S TECHNICALLY A RESUMPTION OF A PREVIOUS OPEN SESSION.
IT'S TECHNICALLY NOT AN OPENING A NEW SESSION.
OKAY. I GOT YOU. YOU'RE GOING BACK INTO OPEN SESSION.
CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. AND IT WAS WRITTEN THE SAME WAY FOR THE CLOSED MINUTE.
[00:05:04]
OKAY. AND WE NEED TO ALSO APPROVE THE CLOSED MEETING MINUTES, PLEASE.ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S DO THE MINUTES FROM THE OPEN MEETING.
FROM THIS ONE WAS DECEMBER 30TH, 2024.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DO WE ACCEPT THOSE LAST TIME? THE LAST MEETING? I DON'T KNOW.
WE'RE APPROVING THE MEETINGS FROM TUESDAY, MARCH 18TH.
IN THE LAST MEETING, WE WERE APPROVING THE MEETING MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 18TH.
MOTION. ACCEPT THE MINUTES. OKAY.
MOTION CARRIED. OKAY. IS EVERYBODY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE CLOSED MINUTES.
YES. YES. FROM TUESDAY, MARCH 18TH.
OKAY. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR OMISSIONS OR CORRECTIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE OTHER THAN THE ONE I STATED ABOUT THE TIME? I HAVE NO CORRECTIONS.
OKAY. CAN I GET A MOTION THAT THEY BE APPROVED? THEN I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
SECOND. OKAY. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL OPPOSED? NONE OPPOSED. THE PERSON WHO MADE THE MOTION OR SECONDED OPPOSED IT.
THAT'S GOOD. MOTION IS CARRIED.
SO DURING THE MARCH 18TH, 2025 ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGING COMMITTEE MEETING, THE ACC HELD A CLOSED SESSION TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS ONE POLICE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO MARYLAND CODE AND ANNOTATED GENERAL PROVISIONS.
ARTICLE THREE 300 AND 5B1 DISCUSS COMPLAINT NUMBER DPD 2020 5-1 REVIEW OF COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST SPECIFIC POLICE OFFICERS AND DETERMINATION OF WHETHER TO RECOMMEND DISCIPLINE. 3305 B7 CONSULT WITH ACC ATTORNEY.
OBTAIN LEGAL ADVICE REGARDING COMPLAINTS BEING REVIEWED BY THE ACC.
3305B 13. COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFIC STATUTORY REQUIREMENT MARYLAND CODE ANNOTATED PUBLIC SAFETY ARTICLE THREE. GOOD MORNING GREG.
104 H REQUIRES THE ACC TO MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY RELATING TO MATTERS BEING CONSIDERED BY THE ACC UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION.
IN ATTENDANCE WERE ME, VATRE, JOHN BARTLETT, GREG TURNELL, IN ADDITION TO ACC ATTORNEY STEWART BARROLL AND ACC ADMINISTRATOR KIM RAEDER.
IS THIS WHERE WE GO INTO THE WORKSHOP, OR DO WE DO BUSINESS? WHAT DO WE DO? OKAY. SO WE'RE.
HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS? ABSOLUTELY, YEAH.
ALSO, I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD TELL YOU.
DID YOU TURN THE MICROPHONES ON? I DID. OKAY. BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONERS IS LIKE COMMISSIONERS.
ONE WOULD COME ON AUTOMATICALLY.
OH, YEAH. NO, I MADE SURE THAT GREG MIGHT NEED TO TURN HIS ON BECAUSE I HAD THE ONE ON DOWN HERE. THIS ONE? THIS ONE'S GREEN.
BUT THIS THING HERE SAYS UPDATING NETWORK.
OKAY. WHY WAS IT ON? I JUST PUSHED IT.
OKAY. I NOTICED IT THE LAST MEETING.
I DON'T THINK THEY WERE ALONE. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE HERE FOR A WORKSHOP PERTAINING TO THE NEW ARTICLE ONE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD, ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGING COMMITTEE AND TRIAL BOARDS OF NEW. CHAPTER 20 POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE CODE OF THE PUBLIC LOCAL LAWS OF CAROLINE COUNTY, MARYLAND.
SO WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION.
CORRECT. CORRECT. THAT'S THE ORIGINAL.
YES. AND YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED COPIES OF BOTH THE RESOLUTION AS WELL AS THE ORDINANCE.
I HAVE IT. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THIS GOES.
[00:10:07]
SO. WELL, BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAD RESOLUTIONS WE WERE OPERATING UNDER WHEN THIS FIRST CAME OUT.AND WE ARE NOW FORMALIZING OUR EXPERIENCE AND ALSO CHANGES IN THE LAW AND MAKING THIS INTO AN ORDINANCE. THIS ORDINANCE HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND COMMENTED UPON BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AS WELL AS THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND OBVIOUSLY THE OFFICE OF LAW AND THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR.
SO WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT IS HEARING FROM THIS COMMISSION AS TO ANY COMMENTS, TWEAKS, CHANGES, OBJECTIONS OR APPROVALS THAT YOU MAY HAVE WITH THIS PROPOSED DRAFT.
THE OUTCOME OF THIS MEETING, HOPEFULLY, WILL BE A LETTER WHICH KIM WILL ASSIST YOU IN PREPARING, GIVING YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITH ANY PROPOSED CHANGES.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES THIS VERY OFTEN WITH PROPOSED ORDINANCES, REVIEWS THE ORDINANCE, AND SENDS A LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONERS RECOMMENDING ITS ADOPTION, AS IS RECOMMENDING ITS ADOPTION WITH CERTAIN CHANGES OR OPPOSING IN SOME CASES, VERY, VERY RARE, I THINK. BUT THAT WOULD BE THE OUTCOME OF THIS EVENING'S EXERCISE.
ADOPTIONS AS IS AS PROPOSED, RECOMMEND ITS ADOPTION AS PROPOSED, IF THAT IS, IF THAT IS THE WILL OF THE BODY.
YES. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS.
IT'S ALWAYS NICE IF IT IS, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE.
SOMEBODY MAY HAVE A PARTICULAR OPINION ON ONE PROVISION THAT THEY THINK SHOULD BE CHANGED OR DELETED. SOMETIMES YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS IT.
SO. SO THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN NOW, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M READING FROM IT NOW, IF THIS HAD BEEN IN PLACE PRIOR TO US HAVING THIS COMMITTEE, NANCY AND I COULDN'T BE ON THE BOARD THE WAY IT'S PRESENTLY DRAFTED.
YES. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'LL BE ADOPTED THAT WAY, BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT'S PRESENTLY DRAFTED, RIGHT? SO? SO YOU'D LOSE TWO PEOPLE? NO, NO, YOU WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN.
I GET I'M SAYING IF IT HAD BEEN PRIOR TO US FORMING THE COMMITTEE, IF THIS ORDINANCE HAD BEEN IN PLACE, THEN NANCY AND I COULD NOT HAVE BEEN COMMITTEE, IF YOU FIT THAT.
I HAVE A SON IN LAW THAT'S A STATE TROOPER.
WOULD THAT BE IMMEDIATE FAMILY? A SON IN LAW? IT'S PRETTY IMMEDIATE. I'D HAVE TO GIVE THAT ONE SOME THOUGHT.
A SON IN LAW. IT MAY BE THAT THAT IS CLOSE ENOUGH THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM.
THAT'S A STATE LAW. THAT'S NOT AN ORDINANCE.
YOU DO NOT HAVE DIRECT FAMILY MEMBER OF THE MARYLAND STATE ATTORNEY.
I ANNOUNCED THAT TO THE COMMITTEE BEFORE.
TO THE COMMISSION? NO, I'M JUST SAYING WHEN WHEN THEY WERE, WHEN I HAD MY INTERVIEW IS PROBABLY WELL ENOUGH.
I THINK THE LAW ACTUALLY INTENDS FOR MARRIED SPOUSES.
I THINK THAT SON IN LAW PROBABLY IS FAR ENOUGH.
I DON'T KNOW. I'LL LEAVE THAT TO THE.
RIGHT. BECAUSE THEN WE'RE GOING TO THE PROBLEMS THAT IT WAS PROBABLY RIGHT.
I'M SORRY. WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE FOR THE FOP? WELL, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.
WHO WHO GAVE ALL THESE OR OR TRY TO CHANGE THIS ORDINANCE.
WHO COME UP WITH ALL THESE CHANGES? WHAT INPUT DO YOU GUYS HAVE? BECAUSE THE CHIEFS WERE NOT INVOLVED.
WE WERE NOT INVOLVED. SO WHO? REQUEST ALL THESE CHANGES.
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WANTED TO GO INTO THE ORDINANCE INSTEAD OF JUST RELYING ON THE RESOLUTIONS. AND WE FELT SUFFICIENT TIME HAD GONE BY TO TO COME UP WITH IDEAS, TO PERHAPS CHANGE THE WAY THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION WAS ENACTED OR PROMULGATED.
AND IN FACT, IT HAD BEEN AMENDED, I THINK, TWICE.
[00:15:01]
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE CHIEFS HAVE BEEN SHOWN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, AND THAT THEIR OBJECTION HAS BEEN THAT THE MUNICIPALITIES WOULD HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PAYING FOR THE TRIAL BOARDS.THEY THINK THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD PICK UP THE TRIAL BOARDS.
THE CHIEFS HAD A WORKSHOP ABOUT THIS.
YEAH. ALL THE CHIEFS ARE UNANIMOUS IN THIS, IN THIS ORDINANCE, EXCEPT FOR THE PART OF WHERE THEY THINK THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD PICK UP THE TROUBLES.
BUT DON'T THE CHIEFS AND YOU, DONNY, THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT SHOULD REMAIN AWAY FROM ALL THIS TO CREATE TRANSPARENCY BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND THIS BOARD? NO. I MEAN, IN ORDER TO SAY THAT THE CHIEFS WOULD BE REMAIN TRANSPARENT, WOULD WOULD SAY THAT WE'RE THE ONES CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATIONS, HIRING PEOPLE AND FIRING PEOPLE. SO I DON'T THINK THAT SAYING THAT THAT I TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF THE LEGISLATURE JUST THIS PAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION IN REFERENCE TO EXONERATING EXONERATED INDIVIDUALS HAVING THEIR CASE FILE REMOVED.
SO TO SAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE ADVICE AND TO THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, WE OPPOSE LEGISLATION AROUND SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION, PROPOSED LEGISLATION. A LOT OF THIS IN THIS IN THIS LEGISLATION WAS, WAS PRESENTED AND WAS, WAS, WAS PRESENTED TO THE STEWART BY THE MARYLAND POLICE TRAINING COMMISSION BEST PRACTICES. SO WE GOT A COPY OF THAT.
YEAH, YEAH. SO SO AGAIN THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT WE WANT TO POINT IT OUT.
I MEAN, IF YOU WATCH MY TESTIMONY FOR THE COMMISSIONERS, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE YOU KNOW, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WERE WELL AWARE WHEN THEY READ THIS THAT I DID NOT ASK FOR, NOR DID THE CHIEFS ABOUT THE.
BUT I'M NOT SAYING I DON'T AGREE WITH ABOUT FOP REPRESENTATIVES AS FAR AS ORGANIZATIONS.
I DO THINK THAT IS AN ETHICAL ISSUE THAT THE ETHICS BOARD PROBABLY WOULD HAVE AN ISSUE WITH. YOU KNOW, IF YOU IF YOU GO TO FOP LODGE AND YOU SEE A CC MEMBER HAVING A BEER NEXT TO, YOU KNOW, A PERSON WHO'S CHARGING GOING IN FRONT OF THE ACC, THAT'S A HUGE PROBLEM. I THINK WHY THEY'RE ADULTS, I THINK IT'S YOUR PROBLEM. YOU DON'T. YOU'VE SIGNED A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT THAT THE AGENCY CANNOT. I THINK I THINK I THINK WHEN YOU WHEN YOU GO INTO THAT PICTURE AND YOU HAVE A FRONT PAGE PICTURE OR SOCIAL MEDIA POST OR SOMETHING THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, HEY, HERE'S THE ACC MEMBER AND HERE'S SOMEBODY ELSE, AND THEY'RE SITTING THERE AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE ENGAGED IN YOU CAN HAVE ALL THE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS IN THE WORLD WHEN PEOPLE GET, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE, THEY MIGHT HAVE.
SO. SO IN THAT CASE DOESN'T HAVE TO OCCUR AT A AT A NO.
IT CAN OCCUR AT A RESTAURANT EVERY DAY.
YES. THERE'S NO LODGE IN CAROLINE COUNTY. I'M GIVING THE SPECIFICS, BUT I WOULD SAY AS MUCH AS IT'S AS YOU SAY IS IT'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
STEWART, BEING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND THE ATTORNEY OF THE PAB IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR THE ACC, THAT'S THAT IS A FIGHT.
NOT FOR ME. RIGHT. BUT I MEAN, WE'RE ONLY SO BIG.
OH, I AGREE WITH THAT. I AGREE.
THEY ALSO SUGGEST THE MARYLAND POLICE TRAINING COMMISSION HAS SUGGESTED THAT THEY HAVE A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER.
WHY SHOULD THAT POLICE OFFICER? WHY, IF THIS WAS BRAND NEW, WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO RESIGN FROM THE FOP? THAT'S NOT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT. IT IS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT.
COUNTY LAW? NO. THE CURRENT COUNTY LAW CODE SAYS THAT THEY WILL HAVE A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER. STATE LAW DOES NOT SAY THAT.
AND THERE ARE PROBABLY WHEN YOU GET INTO THE METROPOLITAN AREAS, THERE'S PROBABLY NO FORM OF POLICE OFFICERS OR ANYTHING ON ANY OF THE AXES OR NO, BUT THEIR POOL IS HUGE.
THERE ARE POOL TO DRAW FROM IS HUGE.
YOU CAN'T EVEN GET ANYBODY TO APPLY FOR THIS BOARD.
THERE SHOULDN'T BE OR THERE SHOULD BE. I'M NOT, I'M NOT I'M NOT GOING TO FIGHT THAT BATTLE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THAT, THAT THE, THE PART OF THAT THE CHIEFS HAD A HUGE ISSUE WITH.
WE HAVE RESOLVED WHAT IS THAT PART? WHAT IS THAT PART? THAT PART WAS THE ISSUE OF CALLING POLICE OFFICERS BEFORE THE ACC TO TESTIFY. AND WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE I THINK IT'S I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY YOU THINK OR EVERYBODY THINKS EVERYBODY CHIEFS, EVERYBODY IS UNANIMOUS IN THAT PART OF THIS LEGISLATION.
IS THERE ANY OTHER COUNTY IN THE STATE ADOPTING THAT SAME? THERE IS, YES. THIS, THIS, THAT, THAT LANGUAGE WAS PROVIDED BY THE MARYLAND POLICE TRAINING COMMISSION. BUT HAS ANY OTHER COUNTY IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND ADOPTED OR TRYING TO AMEND THE STATE LAW? THERE IS NO OTHER COUNTY IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND BESIDES CAROLINE COUNTY, WHO HAS EVER CALLED A POLICE OFFICER TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE SEC AND THAT COMES TO THE COMMISSION. BUT MY QUESTION IS, HAS ANY OTHER COUNTY TRIED TO ENACT LEGISLATION TO CHANGE THAT? SO YOU CANNOT LOOK, THIS LAW IS NOT.
THIS LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT THEM FROM CALLING PEOPLE INTO THE SEC.
WELL, THE WAY IT'S DRAFTED, IT REQUIRES THAT YOU SUBMIT A SEC, SUBMIT QUESTIONS IN WRITING FIRST TO SEE IF YOU CAN GET YOUR ANSWERS.
AND IF THAT DOESN'T PROVIDE YOU WITH THE ANSWERS THAT YOU NEED, I THINK THEN AT THAT POINT YOU CAN CALL AN OFFICER IN.
[00:20:01]
YEAH, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE WE EXPLAINED YOU BEFORE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THINGS THAT WE NEED ANSWERS FROM THE POLICE OFFICER DIRECTLY, NOT FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE.THE LAST TIME THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS WRITTEN WRONG WHEN IT WHEN I WAS TRANSCRIBED.
SO WE NEED A DEFINITE ANSWER FROM THE POLICE OFFICER THAT COULD HAVE ONLY BEEN CLEARED UP BY THE OFFICER. WELL, THAT COULD BE CLEARED UP BY. I SEND THE QUESTION BACK TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AND ASK THEM TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE FOP STANCE IN THE COUNTY IS THAT THEY THEY THEY ARE REQUIRED TO COME AND THEY ARE REQUIRED TO SHOW UP.
THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SPEAK. AND I DO NOT THINK YOU WILL GET ANY POLICE OFFICER MOVING FORWARD TO COME IN HERE AND SPEAK.
BUT DO YOU UNDERSTAND, SHERIFF, THAT WE CALL THAT OFFICER IN FOR HIS BEST INTEREST? HE WAS EXONERATED BEFORE HE EVEN GOT IN HIS CAR, BECAUSE HE CLEARED UP THE QUESTION THAT WE HAD.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT. I'M SAYING THAT THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE HUGE, HUGE TO IS THE LACK OF COMMUNICATION.
SO, YOU KNOW, I REACHED OUT DURING THAT SPECIFIC INCIDENT, TRIED TO TEACH THE TRIED TO TALK TO THE FORMER CHAIR AND HE SHUT ME DOWN.
THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE MEETING PEOPLE IN THE PARKING LOTS. YOU SAY THAT YOU'RE UNDER GAG ORDERS AND YOU'RE VIOLATING YOUR OWN GAG ORDER, AND THINGS HAPPEN IN THE PARKING LOT.
AND MY PROBLEM IS A 21 YEAR OLD DEPUTY OR A POLICE OFFICER.
THERE WASN'T A GAG ORDER. LET ME FINISH, PLEASE.
A POLICE OFFICER COMING IN BEFORE FIVE PEOPLE THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW.
AND YOU ASKING HIM QUESTIONS ABOUT A CASE WITHOUT LEGAL COUNSEL.
YOU KNOW HE DOESN'T KNOW WHERE THAT'S GOING. HE DOESN'T. WHEN HE GOES INTO.
HE KNOWS A POLICY AND A PROCEDURE FROM OUR AGENCY.
HE KNOWS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN DURING THAT INTERROGATION AND DURING THAT INTERROGATION.
WE ADVISE HIM IF IT'S A CRIMINAL CASE OF MIRANDA, ALL THAT THINGS THAT YOU GUYS DO NOT UNDERSTAND OR DO NOT KNOW.
AND THEN I, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THIS IS BASICALLY A JURY HERE.
SO WHEN YOU TURN YOURSELVES INTO AN INVESTIGATIVE BODY AND A PROSECUTOR OR A DEFENSE ATTORNEY, I THINK YOU HAVE HUGE PROBLEMS BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING IT UNDER THE CLOUD OF SECRECY, BECAUSE IN A TRIAL BOARD OR ANYWHERE ELSE, ALL THAT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, WHEN YOU GUYS DO IT, IT'S UNDER A CLOUD OF SECRECY.
AND I THINK THAT REALISTICALLY, ANY APPEALS COURT IS GOING TO IS GOING TO ABSOLUTELY SHUT THAT DOWN.
THAT PART OF THIS LAW IN MARYLAND WHERE IT'S NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT.
WELL, I SAY THERE WAS NO GAG ORDER IN EFFECT.
WHAT IS IT? THERE WAS NO GAG ORDER IN EFFECT.
NO, NO, THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING. WHAT WOULD I CALL IT? BARTLEBAUGH. HE TOLD ME THAT YOU ALL HAD VOTED AND THERE WAS A GAG ORDER IN EFFECT. AND HE COULD NOT TALK TO ME ABOUT THAT, ABOUT CALLING HIM IN AND WHY HE WANTED TO CALL HIM IN.
WELL, HE CANNOT TALK TO ANYBODY.
YOU KNOW, IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
WHEN WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INVESTIGATION, WHO YOU CANNOT TALK TO ANYBODY.
WHEN THERE'S AN INVESTIGATION. NOBODY CAN TALK ABOUT ANYTHING WHEN WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INVESTIGATION. WHO? YOU OR ME? YOU AND ME.
I CAN TALK, I CAN TALK IN CERTAIN, CERTAIN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
I CAN TALK TO. YES, I CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS. I DID SO TODAY.
SO THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, LET'S SAY THAT ONE CASES JUST BRINGING IT BACK TO THAT ONE CASE, IS THERE A WAY THAT THIS BOARD COULD SEND IT, COULD HAVE SENT ANY QUESTIONS TO THE AGENCY TO HELP ANSWER OR GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEEDED TO MAKE A DECISION IN THAT CASE.
I EXPLAINED THAT THAT NIGHT WHERE THE COURTHOUSE WAS FILLED UP WITH PEOPLE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY CALLED IT, BUT THERE WAS ONLY ONE QUESTION THAT THEY WANTED, THAT THE BOARD WANTED TO KNOW.
HE NEEDED TO ANSWER THAT HIMSELF, BECAUSE IT WAS HIS THOUGHT PROCESS AND IT WAS IN HIS BENEFIT. AND WHEN HE CAME IN, THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT HIM THAT WAS NERVOUS.
AND IF IT WAS, HE PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE A POLICE OFFICER BECAUSE I'VE BEEN THERE.
FIVE CIVILIANS SHOULD NOT SCARE YOU TO THAT DEGREE, PERIOD. HE GOES BEFORE JUDGES.
HE GOES BEFORE INTERNAL AFFAIRS, IA HE GOES BEFORE THEM.
HE GOES BEFORE THE SHERIFF AND ANSWERS QUESTIONS.
SO FIVE PEOPLE FROM THE CIVILIAN BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE THAT KIND OF IMPACT ON A POLICE OFFICER. AND HE CAME IN.
NOW, I IT WAS UNBEKNOWNST TO ME THAT THAT JOHN BARTLETT HAD GONE OUTSIDE TO TALK TO HIM. I DIDN'T I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT UNTIL. I DON'T UNTIL ALL THIS CAME TO A HEAD.
AND LIKE I SAID, I DIDN'T KNOW. I COULDN'T SUBPOENA ANYBODY.
I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHETHER I COULD TALK TO THE SHERIFF OR THE CHIEFS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE BOARD IS ABOUT.
IT'S ABOUT AN UNAFFILIATED BOARD DECIDING THE WHETHER IT'S BEING FAIR, FAIRLY DONE OR NOT. AND I KNOW THAT SHERIFF BAKER GETS UPSET BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THAT I
[00:25:01]
WAS TRYING TO DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE AND NOT TRYING TO DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE. BUT I CANNOT FORGET WHAT I KNOW AND WHAT I DID FOR OVER HALF OF MY LIFE.I DON'T VOTE. SO THAT WAS THAT PART WAS OUT OF ME.
AS FAR AS I DIDN'T KNOW I COULDN'T DO IT.
THIS BOOK SAYS I COULD DO IT. I JUST DID IT.
I DIDN'T KNOW YOU CONTACT THE AGENCY AND ASK FOR ANYTHING.
WELL, THAT WASN'T IN OUR. THAT'S NOT IN OUR ORDINANCE CURRENTLY. RIGHT.
BUT I MEAN, NO ONE HAD EVER MENTIONED THAT OR SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT. SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU DIDN'T IT DIDN'T CROSS YOUR MIND THAT YOU COULD DO THAT FIRST? NO, BECAUSE I MEAN THIS THEY BEAT THIS BOARD INTO TRANSPARENCY.
TRANSPARENCY. AND I'M TALKING ABOUT I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SHERIFF. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT HERE MEDIA NEWS, WHATEVER.
IT'S ALL ABOUT TRANSPARENCY. IT'S ALL ABOUT TRANSPARENCY. SO I DIDN'T TALK TO ANY OF THEM BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULDN'T CROSS THE UNETHICAL LINE.
I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER TO GO TALK TO HIM OR NOT. YOU KNOW, I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO CROSS ANY LINES THAT I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT THIS BOARD OR WHAT'S CONFIDENTIAL.
WE THOUGHT EVERYONE HAD TO STAY CONFIDENTIAL.
AND SHERIFF BAKER HAD THE COMMISSIONERS EVER SHOWING HIM THE VIDEO BEFORE WE EVEN GOT TO HEAR THE CASE, YOU KNOW, SO HE WAS ALREADY FORMING OR HAD PEOPLE FORMING OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT WE WERE DOING WAS WRONG, AND WE HADN'T EVEN GOT TO THAT POINT.
WELL, YOU HAD SEEN THE CASE BECAUSE THEN YOU SENT A LETTER TO ME OR TO THE OFFICER DEMANDING THAT HE APPEAR FOR A SECOND HEARING.
SO YOU HAD ALREADY. YEAH. BUT YOU HAD SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE VIDEO.
THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT THE VIDEO THAT IT WASN'T ABOUT THE VIDEO.
THE THE QUESTION WE ASKED HIM WASN'T I MEAN, IT I MEAN, I GUESS SO HE WAS IN IT, BUT WAS IT POSSIBLE? I MEAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION.
CLARIFICATION IS STRICTLY FOR THE AUDIENCE, BUT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO ASK THAT QUESTION IN WRITING TO HIM.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF THIS WAS IN EFFECT, COULD YOU HAVE SUBMITTED THAT QUESTION TO HIM IN WRITING TO ANSWER? MIGHT STILL HAVE BEEN SATISFIED THAT YOU GOT A RESPONSE FROM HUMAN WRITING OR FROM HIM, OR.
YEAH. OR DID HE NEED TO COME IN FRONT OF YOU? THAT'S MY QUESTION. YES.
FROM HIM? YES. THROUGH THE SHERIFF? NO. BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE HE WOULD BE MORE HESITANT, I WOULD THINK, TO ANSWER A QUESTION OF SOMETHING HE DID WRONG IN FRONT OF HIS SHERIFF THAN THE MEMBERS OF A BOARD, JUST BECAUSE.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THE SHERIFF CAN'T SAY, OH, WELL, I'M PISSED NOW, AND I'M NOT GOING TO.
IT'S OVER, YOU KNOW? BUT THAT'S WHERE I WOULD BE AFRAID OF MY HIERARCHY BECAUSE THAT'S MY BOSS. THAT'S WHAT WE DO.
THE INVESTIGATION FROM THE ONSET. THIS BODY DOES NOT HAVE ANY INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER, EXCEPT FOR THAT MINUSCULE LITTLE PART IN THERE ABOUT SUBPOENAS.
THE INVESTIGATION STARTS WITH US AND ENDS WITH US, BUT WE WEREN'T INVESTIGATING ANYTHING.
IT SAID IF WE ARE UNCLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING THAT TRANSPIRED, THEN WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK ABOUT IT.
SO THERE WERE VERY CONFLICTING STATEMENTS.
WHAT WE THOUGHT WERE INTO, YOU KNOW, THIS CASE IS ADJUDICATED, CORRECT? YES, SIR. OKAY.
SO IT WAS ABOUT WHAT THE WHAT THE WHOLE THING WAS ABOUT.
BUT JUST CLARIFY, LET'S NOT MENTION SPECIFIC NAMES OR ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE DUE PROCESS AND THEY STILL HAVE TO HAVE A 30 DAY NOTICE.
RIGHT. SO. THE SAME ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE TOWARDS THE TOWARDS THE COMPLAINANT OVER AND OVER AND OVER. YET WE SAW WHERE NOTHING HAD BEEN DONE ABOUT IT.
WHAT HE WAS SAYING, WHAT HE THOUGHT.
SO I INTRODUCED WHAT IT BOILED DOWN TO IS.
LET ME FINISH. WHAT I INTRODUCED WAS THAT IS A TACTIC THAT IS USED BY POLICE OFFICERS TO GAIN FURTHER ADVANTAGE.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THAT WAS HIS THOUGHT PROCESS.
SO THAT'S WHAT WHAT WE DECIDED THAT OKAY, WELL LET'S SEE WHAT HIS THOUGHT PROCESS WAS IF THAT WAS REALLY TRUE.
SO BEFORE HE CAME, I SAID WE COULD MINIMIZE IT.
LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
THAT WAY, THE QUESTIONS AREN'T FLYING FROM EVERYBODY IN ALL DIRECTIONS.
I'LL JUST ASK THE QUESTIONS ONE AT A TIME.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT WAS INFRINGING ON HIM OR THE SHERIFF OR THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS
[00:30:04]
INVESTIGATORS. THAT'S THAT'S HOW I FELT ABOUT IT.AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY, THAT THAT DAY IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
GOOD. SO THERE WAS SOMETHING WE WATCHED THE BODY CAM VIDEO, AND WE WATCHED THE INTERVIEW WITH THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, AND THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE TWO.
THERE WAS SOMETHING IN HIS REPORT THAT SAID THAT THE DEPUTY HAD SAID SOMETHING, AND WE DIDN'T SEE THAT ON THE VIDEO.
SO WE NEEDED TO CONFIRM WHETHER THIS WAS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED OR WHETHER IT WAS, YOU KNOW, AS YOU'RE WRITING YOUR REPORT, YOU THINK THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.
YOU KNOW, WE WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THAT WAS ALL THAT IT WAS.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN'T KNOW THAT BEFORE YOU COME INTO THE BOARD. SO YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT IS WE'RE GOING TO ASK. BUT THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT IT BOILED DOWN TO. WELL, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. LET ME ASK YOU, AS IN ANY FORUM POSITIONS, HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD GO INTO AN UNKNOWN SITUATION, NOT KNOWING WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE ASKED, AND GO IN AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WITHOUT REPRESENTATION OF A COUNCIL? HE HAD THE ABILITY SEVERAL TIMES.
SO WOULD YOU ANSWER? HONESTLY, IF I FELT THAT I NEEDED REPRESENTATION, I WOULD HAVE HIRED REPRESENTATION.
I MEAN, I WOULD HAVE GOT REPRESENTATION.
HOW MANY PEOPLE GO INTO A SITUATION NOT KNOWING WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ASKED BY FIVE INDIVIDUALS WHO THEY DO NOT KNOW, WHO THEY DO NOT WORK FOR, AND ARE GOING TO SIT AND ASK QUESTIONS THEY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHAT THAT'S GOING TO BE.
TWO QUESTIONS, SHERIFF, WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE IF SOMEBODY IS TELLING YOU YOU KNOW, THE TRUTH OR WHATEVER ABOUT HIS THOUGHT PROCESS, ARE YOU PREPARING HIM WITH QUESTIONS PRIOR TO.
I MEAN, AND IF WE HAD GIVEN THAT TO YOU, DOESN'T THAT MUDDY THE WATER FOR FOR WHAT THIS BOARD REPRESENTS? NOW I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT WHAT THIS. I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE ANY BAD POLICE OFFICERS IN CAROLINE COUNTY.
NUMBER ONE, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY CORRUPT POLICE OFFICERS OR OTHER POLICE OFFICERS THAT DO THINGS WRONG. YES. BUT AS FAR AS WHAT THIS BOARD REPRESENTS AND IS TRYING TO PROVE IS THAT THE POLICE AND THE DEPARTMENT HEADS ARE TRANSPARENT ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON.
SO IF I HAVE TO ASK YOU WHAT I NEED YOU TO ASK HIM AND JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, HE'S HE'S REALLY YOUR YOU'RE YOU'RE REALLY GOOD DEPUTY.
YOU DON'T YOU CAN FORMULATE ANY QUESTION YOU WANT.
WILL YOU DO IT? NO. COULD IT BE THOUGHT THAT THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON? YES. AND TO ME, THAT'S WHAT YOU ELIMINATE.
THAT'S WHAT THIS BOARD IS TO DO, IS TO ELIMINATE THAT.
AND WHO KNOWS, TWO YEARS DOWN THE ROAD THEY MIGHT SAY, WELL, THE EASTERN SHORE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T EVEN FOUND ANY OF YOUR PEOPLE. NOTHING'S BEEN FOUNDED.
AND POOR GEORGE, HE'S GOTTEN ALL THE THE GUILTY FINDINGS, AND HE HE HE DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING TO US.
HE HAS, BUT HE HASN'T COME TO US AND SAID ANYTHING.
AND HE ACTUALLY ASKED TO HAVE THE MEETING CHANGED, BUT. OH, BUT I MEAN, HE HASN'T REALLY SAID ANYTHING THAT HE HE THINKS WE'RE BEING UNFAIR OR ANYTHING.
I MEAN, THEIR MATRIX IS LAID OUT.
WELL, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE BEING QUITE ACCURATE THAT HE WAS THERE AT THE COMMISSIONERS MEETING THAT DAY, AND HE WAS VERY VOCAL IN SUPPORT AS WELL OF NOT CALLING POLICE OFFICERS.
YES, I KNOW THAT. I MEAN, THAT'S I MEAN, I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T WANT THAT DONE AND I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THAT AT ALL.
BUT YOU GUYS, I'M ALL FOR THIS.
I'LL SIT UP HERE AND TALK ALL DAY LONG. YOU KNOW I WILL TALK. WE HAVE CONVERSATIONS.
THAT'S WHAT I SAY. COMMUNICATIONS IS EVERYTHING. WHEN YOU STOP COMMUNICATIONS AND YOU STOP TALKING, THAT'S WHEN YOU HAVE THE PROBLEMS. THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS LAW THAT STATES THAT ANY ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS CANNOT COME AND TALK TO THE CHIEF, THE SHERIFF OR ANYBODY ELSE AND HAVE CONVERSATIONS.
IT'S WHEN YOU, YOU KNOW AND YOU FEEL IT'S NOT IN THE LAW.
YOU BEING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD IS THE TIP OF THE SPEAR.
AND I THINK THAT WHEN YOU DO, WHEN YOU DO STOP COMMUNICATIONS AND YOU, YOU, YOU LIMIT THOSE COMMUNICATIONS AND YOU JUST REFUSE TO TALK TO PEOPLE, I THINK THAT'S WHEN THE TRANSPARENCY FALLS OUT THE WINDOW.
I'M NOT REFUSING TO TALK TO PEOPLE, BUT I'M ALSO NOT GOING TO THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS. AND SPEAKING TO THE PILLARS OF WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS TRANSPARENCY IS A TWO WAY STREET. OKAY. MY ISSUE WITH TRANSPARENCY IS THIS BOARD WAS WAS MEETING AT THE IT DEPARTMENT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WHERE THE PUBLIC WASN'T EVEN ALLOWED.
THIS IS A MUCH BETTER SETTING, A MUCH BETTER COMMUNICATIONS, BECAUSE THIS BOARD IS SUPPOSED TO BE TRANSPARENT AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC.
AND I THINK THAT ABSOLUTELY IT IS NOW TRANSPARENT.
I THINK THAT THERE ARE THERE ARE WAYS AND MEANS THAT BOTH SIDES CAN CAN ACTUALLY WORK TOGETHER TO GET ALONG AND SUCCEED.
SO I'M NOT OPPOSED TO CERTAIN THINGS.
AND I HAD A HAND IN THIS LEGISLATION.
[00:35:02]
YES. AND READING IT AND EVERYTHING ELSE.BUT AGAIN, I WAS THE ONE THAT POINTED OUT TO THE COMMISSIONERS THAT, HEY, YOU HAVE TWO PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD WHO ARE FOP MEMBERS.
SO, I MEAN, I MEAN, I'VE SAID THAT RIGHT ON THE TAPE, AND THE COMMISSIONERS WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS NOT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I KNEW I WAS GOING TO BE BLAMED FOR THAT. THAT'S NOT I'M NOT SAYING THAT A POLICE OFFICER SHOULDN'T BE ON THIS BOARD.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS TRANSPARENCY IS A TWO WAY STREET, AND WE NEED TO BE TRANSPARENT.
AND THERE'S NOTHING. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THERE ARE NO CASES IN THIS COUNTY THAT REACH THE LEVEL OF THE INTENTION OF THIS LAW TO DATE.
AND I DO THINK AND I DO KNOW, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT THIS LAW WILL BE CHANGED NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION, BECAUSE I WAS IN A JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHEN A DEMOCRAT WHO CONTROLS THE STATE LEGISLATURE SAID ABSOLUTELY THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE AWAY MINOR OFFENSES AND THEY WERE ONLY GOING TO THE INTENT OF THE LAW WAS TO BE MORE SEVERE, SERIOUS BECAUSE BECAUSE BALTIMORE CITY HAS 800 CASES A MONTH. THEY ARE.
AND THEY'RE GETTING BEAT AT TRIAL.
AND AND AGAIN, SO I THINK THE TRANSPARENCY IS THE ISSUE.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, MY HOPES ARE AND IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE MEMBERS, YOU GUYS WOULD START SHOWING UP AT THE MEETINGS BECAUSE THE THERE'S NO SENSE IN US, YOU KNOW, DOING USE OF FORCE PRESENTATIONS AND OTHER THINGS THAT YOU GUYS WHO ARE THE FINDER OF FACTS, YOU KNOW, NEED TO SEE THAT WHEN THE PAB PRETTY MUCH DOES NOTHING.
AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE BOARD SHOULD BE SHRANK TO WHERE THERE ARE MORE MEMBERS OF THE PAB AND THE ACC ON ONE BOARD BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST NOT GETTING THE VOLUME THAT YOU ARE IN BALTIMORE CITY. YOU GUYS COULD PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, DIE OF OLD AGE BEFORE ANYTHING SERIOUS REALLY HAPPENS HERE IN CAROLINE COUNTY.
BUT IT'S JUST LIKE THE LAW CHANGES.
THAT'S THE GOAL. THE WHOLE GOAL IS FOR THE LAW TO CHANGE.
NONE OF US HERE, THE LAW IS GOING TO CHANGE IT. I'M A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE.
I MEAN, THE LAW IS GOING TO CHANGE.
THERE'S NO IFS OR BUTS ABOUT IT.
I MEAN, IT'S A IT'S A HUGE TOPIC.
YOU KNOW, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS HIRING RETENTION.
YOU KNOW, WHEN, YOU KNOW, I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, IF YOU GUYS DON'T BELIEVE ME, SO BE IT.
BUT WHEN YOU SENT THAT LETTER, IT WENT THROUGH MY AGENCY AND THROUGH THE ENTIRE COUNTY, AND IT SENT SHOCK WAVES TO THROUGH THE DEPUTIES.
I'M JUST I MEAN, I'M BEING HONEST. IT ABSOLUTELY SENT SHOCK WAVES.
YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WERE UPSET, BUT IT'S LIKE FAKE MEDIA.
LOOK, IT'S WHATEVER THEY'VE BEEN TOLD.
LOOK, YOU SAID IN THAT POSITION, THERE'S NO DOUBT IN MY MIND IF IF THIS BOARD HAD SENT YOU A LETTER SAYING YOU WERE GOING TO COME AND YOU WERE GOING TO TESTIFY IN FRONT OF THEM, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN UPSET. NO, I WOULD HAVE BEEN UPSET.
EXACTLY. SO. SO THE THING OF IT IS, IS.
BUT AGAIN, IF BARTLETT HAD REACHED OUT TO ME AND SAID, HEY, LOOK, THIS IS WHAT WE WHAT WE'RE THINKING, YOU KNOW, WE JUST NEED TO COME AND CLARIFY IT. YOU KNOW, WE WE COULD HAVE PREPARED THAT DEPUTY FOR THAT, AND WE COULD HAVE PREPARED FOR THE ENTIRE THE ENTIRE ENTIRE SITUATION. I REACHED OUT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS SOON AS I GOT THE LETTER AND, YOU KNOW, AND SHE GAVE ME GUIDANCE AND I FOLLOWED THAT GUIDANCE.
YOU KNOW, SINCE THEN I'VE, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES.
AND JOHN REACHED, BUT JOHN REACHED OUT.
AND YOU HAVE BAD ATTORNEYS, AND I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE FOLLOWED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S GUIDANCE AT THAT POINT IN TIME. BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I THINK, AGAIN, TRANSPARENCY AND COMMUNICATIONS IS THE KEY TO SUCCESS FOR EVERYBODY.
AND THAT'S AND THAT'S AND I WILL SAY THAT AND LOOK, WHEN PEOPLE SHUT ME DOWN AND THEY DON'T HAVE COMMUNICATIONS, THEY DON'T TALK TO YOU, THEN, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I SEE THAT AS, AS A HUGE ISSUE.
AND SO DOES THE OTHER CHIEFS AND SO DO THE OTHER CHIEFS. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I TALKED TO GEORGE QUITE FREQUENTLY, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER CHIEFS, YOU KNOW, WE MET AFTERWARDS. IT WAS GREAT.
YOU KNOW, I WILL SIT DOWN AND I SET OUT EVERY ONE OF YOU A LETTER AFTER THAT, AN EMAIL AND SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LOVE TO COME AND HAVE A COMMUNICATIONS, HAVE A TALK. YOU KNOW, THE PAB, THE ACC, I'LL TALK TO WHOEVER, YOU KNOW, NOT SAYING THAT I'M GOING TO LISTEN OR WE'RE GOING TO AGREE ON EVERYTHING. I'M NOT I SHOULDN'T SAY LISTEN. WE'RE NOT GOING TO AGREE ON EVERYTHING THAT'S SAID.
BUT WE WILL COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING WHEN YOU.
BUT THERE'S NOTHING YOU'VE AGREED WITH THAT THIS BOARD HAS DONE.
THERE'S NOTHING YOU'VE AGREED WITH THAT THIS BOARD HAS DONE SINCE IT BEGAN.
YEAH, YEAH. WELL, YOU'RE YOU'RE RIGHT.
BUT I DO THINK THAT WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS. I THINK WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS. I THINK THAT THIS BOARD ABSOLUTELY WAS NOT STRUCTURED AND WAS NOT MEETING ACCORDING TO THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. THAT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH US RENDERING A DECISION.
I THINK IT DOES. NO, IT DOESN'T, BECAUSE NONE OF US KNEW.
OH, WELL, WE'RE IN A BAD MEETING PLACE.
WE DON'T TALK ABOUT IT WHEN WE'RE NOT.
I DON'T TALK TO ANY OF THESE PEOPLE, PRETTY MUCH, YOU KNOW, AND I WASN'T EITHER, BUT BUT WHEN WHEN YOU ASK FOR CERTAIN THINGS, I THINK, AGAIN, TRANSPARENCY IS A TWO WAY STREET.
AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT EITHER ONE OF YOU, BUT WE CAN ONLY BE SO TRANSPARENT.
GOING BACK, I WANT TO INTERJECT SOMETHING REAL QUICK.
WHAT? THAT OFFICER WASN'T HE ASKED TO COME IN? YEAH. IT WASN'T A SUBPOENA.
NO, IT WAS A LETTER. AND THAT LETTER WAS DEMANDING AND VERY.
BUT IT BASICALLY SAID IT BASICALLY SAID YOU EITHER DO IT OR WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW.
BUT I WILL SAY THIS. HOW MANY INTERNALS DID I DO WHEN I WORKED A LOT? AND HOW WAS THAT WRITTEN? EXACTLY LIKE THAT. I CAN'T JUST CHANGE WHO I AM JUST BECAUSE I'M THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS BOARD. IF IT'S NOT SUITABLE TO THIS BOARD, THEN I UNDERSTAND THAT.
YEAH, WELL, NO, NO, WHAT I WAS SAYING IS IT WAS VERY DISTURBING TO THE DEPUTY.
[00:40:01]
AND I CAN TELL YOU HE MAY COME IN HERE AND HE DID A GREAT JOB, BUT HE WAS VERY MUCH DISTURBED. AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS HE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE FOP.IT WAS GOING TO COST HIM $250 TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY COME IN AND SIT AND TALK WITH HIM.
AND THAT'S THAT'S A HARDSHIP FOR A POLICE OFFICER, YOU KNOW, WHO'S GOT A WIFE AND KIDS AT HOME THAT HE'S, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO FEED. I MEAN, IT ABSOLUTELY IS.
AND, YOU KNOW, NO, THE HARDSHIP WAS WHEN I WORKED WELL, THAT WAS $250 WAS THE HARDSHIP THEN.
SO SO SO THERE ARE SO AGAIN LOOK AGAIN.
BUT THE FOP COULD HAVE STEPPED UP. IF THEY DISAGREED WITH IT.
THEY COULD HAVE STEPPED UP AND PAID FOR THE ATTORNEY. IF IT WAS THAT BIG A THING, WHY DIDN'T HE CONTACT AND SAY, I CAN'T AFFORD AN ATTORNEY, BUT I WANT TO BE REPRESENTED.
HE DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY. HE COULD HAVE GOT ANYBODY.
IT'S REPRESENTATION. IT DOESN'T SAY IT HAS TO BE A BAR CERTIFIED ATTORNEY.
IT'S JUST LIKE, LOOK, IF I'M GOING FOR YOU GUYS, I'M GOING TO HAVE A BAR CERTIFIED ATTORNEY.
COME WITH ME. SO I'M JUST TELLING YOU.
I MEAN, THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS.
AND LOOK, YOU KNOW, THE AG GAVE ME THE ADVICE, THOUGH. IF THE AC IS THEIR OWN BODY, THEY'RE THEY'RE SAYING IT.
DON'T GET INVOLVED. DON'T DO ANYTHING.
JUST LET IT PLAY OUT. AND THAT'S WHAT I DID.
NOW BEING THE GUY I AM, I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE, SHOULD HAVE STEPPED IN AND PROFFERED SOME SOMETHING ELSE.
AND I DID TRY TO SELL IT. AND I DID TRY TO TALK TO JOHN.
AND MY INTENTIONS TO TALK TO JOHN WAS TO HAVE A CONVERSATION. I HAVE ALWAYS KEPT JOHN VERY MUCH APPRIZED OF WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. YOU KNOW, WHAT CASES WE HAD, WHAT WE WERE, WHERE WE WERE AT WITH THEM.
SO FOR HIM TO SHUT ME DOWN AUTOMATICALLY WAS JUST KIND OF DISHEARTENING.
I WOULD SAY, WELL, HE'S NOT HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF, BUT I KNOW THAT HE HAS TOLD US NUMEROUS TIMES THAT HE CAN'T DEBATE ANYTHING, BUT HE DID PRIOR TO THIS ONE CASE, AND I TALK QUITE FREQUENTLY.
QUITE FREQUENTLY. WELL, I MEAN, THAT'S HE WAS IN MY OFFICE.
HE'S NOT HERE ANYMORE. SO WE CAN'T I CAN'T.
NO NO NO NO. LOOK. LOOK AGAIN.
JUST SAY WHAT HE DID AND DIDN'T DO.
WHAT I DON'T WHAT? THE ONLY THING I'M ASKING IS COMMUNICATIONS.
THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING. THAT'S ALL.
ANY THE CHIEFS ARE ASKING IS COMMUNICATIONS. I THINK THAT EVERYTHING CAN BE SOLVED WITH COMMUNICATIONS. I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS ANY ILL INTENT ON ANYBODY AGAIN THERE.
THIS IS PLAYING OUT JUST THE WAY I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO PLAY OUT. THERE WOULD BE A BUNCH OF COMPLAINTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS WHEN IT WAS ALL PUBLICIZED.
COMPLAINTS HAVE DROPPED TO PRACTICALLY NOTHING.
SO AGAIN, KNOCK ON WOOD, KNOCK ON WOOD.
I DON'T WANT TO FEEL IF I CALL YOU THAT, I'M BEING PERSUADED TO DO ONE THING OR ANOTHER. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO CALL ME, DON'T CALL ME.
IF THIS BOARD WANTS TO BE WANTS TO STAY, YOU KNOW, TO ITSELF AND DOESN'T WANT TO, WE JUST WANT TO. WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE BOARD. AND I KNOW THAT YOU ASKED JOHN.
WELL WHAT HAPPENED? WHAT DID THEY FIND? WELL, ONE TIME I WAS THERE WHEN YOU CALLED THEM, AND IT WAS A FINDING OF ONE OF YOUR OFFICERS, AND I MEAN THAT.
WHY WOULDN'T YOU? BECAUSE IT HAD NEVER BEEN.
WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO TO DISCUSS THE FINDINGS.
AND THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE. AND THAT CAN CHANGE PRIOR TO HIM GETTING TO THE SHERIFF AND TO AND I THINK THAT'S THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE. BUT THE LETTER IS GOING TO THE SHERIFF, THE POLICE OFFICER AT THE SAME TIME. CAN YOU IMAGINE GETTING FIRED OVER AN EMAIL? I MEAN, CAN YOU IMAGINE? I MEAN, I MEAN, IF YOU GUYS SENT A LETTER SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO FIND YOU GUILTY OF SUCH AND SUCH, AND THAT'S A TERMINATED OFFENSE, AND WE FIND THAT WE'RE GOING TO TERMINATE YOU, AND THAT'S DONE OVER AN EMAIL. I MEAN, DON'T YOU GUYS THINK THAT THE CHIEF SHOULD KNOW OR THE SHERIFF SHOULD KNOW? WELL, LIKE YOU SAID, I THINK IT GOES TO THE OFFICER AND YOU. BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTANDING IS UNTIL THE OFFICER ACCEPTS OR IS IS GIVEN THAT THAT WE'RE EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE IT, WE STILL CAN'T TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT UNTIL.
I AM THE ONE WHO SERVES HIM WITH THE NOTICE TO ACCEPT.
SO, I MEAN, EITHER WAY, I'M GOING TO KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT I MEAN, BUT WHO GETS THE EMAIL THAT SAYS YOU'RE TERMINATED? I MEAN, IT HAPPENED IN THIS STATE.
THEY GOT AN EMAIL SAYING YOU'RE TERMINATED. WE DON'T DO THAT.
RIGHT? NO, WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE.
AND IF THERE WAS ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE THAT IT WOULD BE SENT TO THE LA, TO THE SHERIFF OR TO THE CHIEF PRIOR TO SENDING IT TO THE POLICE OFFICER? WE HAVE NOT HAD ANYTHING TO THAT EXTENT. IN A TEXT MESSAGE, ANYBODY THAT'S BEEN DISCIPLINED BY THIS BOARD.
RIGHT. ANYBODY THAT'S BEEN ON DUTY BOARD.
IT GOES THROUGH THEIR SUPERIOR RIGHT? YES. AND THEY TELL THEM WE DON'T TELL THEM.
CORRECT. OKAY. AFTER YOU ALL AGREE ON THE FINDINGS AND THE LETTER IS SIGNED AND SO FORTH, PRIOR TO THEY WERE GETTING THE EMAILS AT THE SAME TIME WE WERE THEY WERE GETTING LETTERS AT THE SAME TIME WE WERE. I HAD DEPUTIES WERE GETTING LETTERS THAT THEY WERE EXONERATED AT THE SAME TIME OR, YOU KNOW, OR THERE WERE THE POLICE OFFICERS AT THE SAME TIME THEY WERE GETTING THEM. CORRECT. THEY WERE BECAUSE BECAUSE THE DEPUTY AS FAR AS THE THE THE REQUEST TO COME IN HERE WAS GETTING THAT NOTIFICATION AT THE SAME TIME I GOT THE NOTIFICATION. SO. WELL, I HAD ORIGINALLY ASKED YOU AND CAPTAIN TO HAVE HIM COME IN FIRST. I JUST DON'T WANT TO KEEP PLAYING OVER THE SAME SCENARIO OVER AND OVER. IT'S LIKE BEATING THE SAME DEAD HORSE. BUT IF WE WANT TO GO FROM THE BEGINNING, IT WAS. I DID ASK FIRST OVER EMAIL.
IT WAS DENIED. AND THEN A LETTER WAS WRITTEN AND THAT'S WHEN IT WAS FORMALLY ASKED.
[00:45:01]
SO I MEAN, SO WHAT IS THE PROCESS NOW? SO ONCE THIS BOARD MAKES A DECISION, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT AS FAR AS WHAT LIKE OUR FINDINGS. RIGHT. HOW DOES THAT PLAY OUT.WHEN DOES THE OFFICER FIND OUT WHEN DOES THE THAT'S THAT'S SOMETHING THE ADMINISTRATORS ME AND WHAT WE DO IS WHEN THE FINDINGS ARE MADE WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS, I WRITE THE LETTER STEWART BEFORE I WAS GOING TO SAY PATRICK.
AND NOW STEWART GOES OVER THE LETTER, MAKES SURE THAT IT LOOKS GOOD. EVERYTHING'S IN PLACE. I SEND IT OVER TO THE ACC TO HAVE THEM REVIEW IT AND GIVE ANY EDITS, AND THEN IT'S APPROVED AND SIGNED BY NANCY, AND THEN I SEND IT NOW TO THE CHIEF OR TO THE SHERIFF FIRST. AND THEN ACTUALLY I'VE BEEN UPLOADING IT INTO IA PRO, AND AT THAT POINT THE SHERIFF CAN THEN SEND IT AFTER THE INCIDENT WITH THE LETTER THAT I HAD EMAILED BEFORE REQUESTING THE PRESENCE OF THE OFFICER.
NOW I'M JUST PUTTING IT INTO THE IA PRO SYSTEM AND THEN LETTING CAPTAIN OR SHERIFF OR THE CHIEF HANDLE CONTACTING THE POLICE OFFICER SPECIFICALLY FOR THE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. YES, IT'S THE TRACKING SOFTWARE.
EVERYTHING'S IN THERE. THE INVESTIGATION, THE ACC LETTER.
SO IT'S THE CLEAR TO NOT ONLY THE CHIEF OR TO THE SHERIFF, BUT AS WELL AS TO THE OFFICER THEMSELVES.
SO THERE'S MULTIPLE COPIES THAT YOU'VE SIGNED THAT GO IN THERE.
SO DOES IT MAKE SENSE? THAT'S WHERE IT SHOULD GO. IT DID SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.
SO IT GOES TO YOU FIRST BEFORE YOU OR THE CAPTAIN BEFORE IT GOES TO THE OFFICER.
CORRECT? YES. OKAY. WHAT? SO GOING BACK TO THAT, BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE FOCUSING ON THE SUBPOENA IDEA, AND I MEAN, IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A SUBPOENA IF THEY HAVE SOME KIND OF STANDING AGREEMENT WITH FOP, THAT THEY AT LEAST COME IN.
IF THEY DON'T WANT TO TALK, THEY DON'T HAVE TO TALK. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM SENDING YOU ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
AS LONG AS THE REST OF THE BOARD AGREES.
I, I MEAN, IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT ME.
YOU'RE RIGHT, SHERIFF, WE DON'T INVESTIGATE ANYTHING.
WE JUST TRY TO COMPREHEND AN INVESTIGATION AND THEN DETERMINE IF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS, POLICY AND PROCEDURE HAS BEEN VIOLATED OR BROKEN.
AND THEN WE APPLY IT TO THE MATRIX.
AND SPEAKING PERSONALLY OUR LINE OF WORK WAS DIFFERENT, BUT WAS STILL IN HER UNITY OF COMMAND, A UNIFORMED AGENCY.
AND IF SOMEBODY CALLED INTO QUESTION SOMETHING, I DID A COMPLAINT I'D WANT TO BE ABLE TO VERBALIZE.
IF SOMETHING COULD NOT BE FIGURED OUT, I'D WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE THAT BODY AND SPEAK. AND THAT'S JUST MY MY POSITION ON IT.
I REALLY DON'T. YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN CALLED BEFORE. GRAND JURIES JUDGES TO SPEAK IN. THESE OFFICERS HAVE DONE THE SAME THING.
AND WE'VE CALLED BALLS AND STRIKES.
WE HAVE BEEN FAIR. WE FAIR AND UNBIASED.
AND THAT'S WHY, SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AND I KNOW JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE TOOK THIS POSITION BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAINTAIN A GOOD, YOU KNOW, RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.
AND SO I THAT'S WHERE I STAND WITH THAT.
I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT TOOL THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE.
IN CASES LIKE WHAT WE JUST HAD.
I MEAN, THEY CAN'T OVERRIDE IT.
THEY'RE JUST WRITE. YOUR ORDINANCE IS JUST SUGGESTING THAT THIS IS WHAT BE DONE BEFORE SOMEONE MAKES A DECISION TO SUBPOENA SOMEONE.
WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS IS, IS JUST ESTABLISHES A PROCESS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH BEFORE YOU SUBPOENA SOMEONE.
SO IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY ANY AUTHORITY.
YEAH, BUT IF WE HAVE THE SAME SITUATION THAT WE HAVE BEFORE THAT WE CAN ASK THE QUESTION, SO YOU WANT TO SUBMIT THE QUESTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
SO THIS BEFORE WE SUBPOENA THIS ORDINANCE, THE WAY THIS DRAFT ORDINANCE READS, YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FIRST ASK THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THE QUESTION.
AND IF YOU'RE NOT SATISFIED, OR MAYBE IN THE CASE THAT YOU HAD IT, IT JUST DOESN'T WORK TO ASK THEM, WHICH MEANS YOU'RE NOT SATISFIED BY ASKING THEM THAT QUESTION. THEN THE QUESTION WOULD GO TO THE OFFICER IN WRITING VIA THE LET'S SEE. NOT SATISFIED?
[00:50:04]
SERVE WRITTEN QUESTIONS UPON THE OFFICER WITH A NOTICE SIGNED BY THE CHAIR PRESIDING OFFICER STATING THAT THE ACC IS IN NEED OF THE OFFICER'S ANSWERS.TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER AN OFFICER IS TO BE ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGED.
SO YOU WOULD GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO RESPOND IN WRITING FIRST, RIGHT? SO IF SO, IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT IS A QUESTION THAT THE ENTIRE BOARD FEELS THAT CAN'T BE ANSWERED BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
MAYBE BEING ABLE TO GET THIS FROM THIS OFFICER WHO KNOWS, IT MIGHT BE ONE OFFICER AGAINST ANOTHER OFFICER OR SOMETHING, AND YOU DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE AGENCY.
THEN BASICALLY, THE AVENUE BEING LEFT IS TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A FINDING WITHOUT THAT BEING ANSWERED. REMEMBER THAT THE LAST TIME WE HAD THAT, IT WAS WITH THAT OFFICER.
WE'RE ABOUT TO MAKE HIM AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE.
HIM. RIGHT. AND I AND THEN WE DECIDED TO CALL HIM.
AND IT CHANGED COMPLETELY TO NOT CHARGE HIM.
ALRIGHT. NEXT ON THE RIGHT HAND.
BUT IF THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO BE.
AND WE'LL HAVE TO DO WHATEVER WE THINK THEN, YOU KNOW.
SO YOU'RE SAYING IN THE, IN THE CASE THAT YOU HAD, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT YOU'VE GONE AROUND THE ROUNDABOUT, YOU COULD NOT IN YOUR OPINIONS, YOU COULD NOT HAVE ASKED THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR THAT INFORMATION TO GET THE ANSWERS THAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR.
I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T THINK SO.
JUST. BASED UPON WHAT HE SAID, HE COULD HAVE PROVIDED THAT ANSWER CONFIDENTLY TO IA OR TO THE SHERIFF.
HAD HE FELT IT THE OPPOSITE WAY, THEN I DON'T THINK HE WOULD HAVE BEEN HAVE THE SAME COMFORT LEVEL OF ANSWERING THAT QUESTION TO THEM.
YOU KNOW, WE ALL COME FROM DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS, DIFFERENT WALKS OF LIFE AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN DYING, I COME FROM, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT WALKS FROM WITHIN THE SAME FIELD.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE THINKS ABOUT THAT.
I AGREE WITH IT. BUT I KNOW I WANTED HIM TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THERE WAS A FINDING OF HIM DOING SOMETHING WRONG.
THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. THAT'S WHAT I KNOW.
SO I WROTE IT. THE ONLY THE ONLY WAY THAT I KNOW HOW TO WRITE, I, I HAVE A JOB NOW HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT.
AND I STILL WRITE THAT WAY. AND EVERYBODY THINKS, YOU KNOW, I'M HARD TO APPROACH BECAUSE I WRITE THAT WAY.
I DON'T KNOW ANY OTHER WAY, YOU KNOW? SO IT WASN'T TO TO BEAT HIM OR TO SCARE HIM DOWN OR INTIMIDATE HIM.
WE HAD ALREADY KNOWN THAT THE SHERIFF TOLD HIM NOT TO COME.
THAT'S NOT TRUE. I WAS ADVISED BY THE AG NOT TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND STAY AT IT, AND THAT'S WHAT I DID. OKAY, WELL, WHAT THE AG SAID GOT TO JOHN BARTLETT AND SAID BUT YOU ADVISE HIM NOT TO COME? NO, I NEVER HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM. THE AG TOLD ME WHAT HE TOLD US.
KIM? NO. I'D HAVE TO LOOK BACK AT EMAILS, BUT THAT'S.
I'D LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.
THAT I HAVE AN EMAIL THAT WE DISCUSSED HAVING HIM COME.
AND THAT I WAS TOLD HE WOULD NOT BE COMING TO THE MEETING.
I DON'T I MEAN, JOHN GOT WORD FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE THAT HE WASN'T.
I MEAN, THAT HE WAS TOLD NOT TO COME. TOLD ME TO STAY NEUTRAL AND TO LET ME LEAVE THAT DETERMINATION UP TO HIM.
I JUST DON'T THINK WITH SEVEN COMPLAINTS, I'M GOING TO GO TO SHERIFF BOUNCE HERE.
I DON'T THINK THE JUICE IS WORTH THE SQUEEZE ON SOME OF THIS STUFF.
YOU GOT A GOOD BOARD. WELL, I'M GOING TO DISAGREE AND SAY THAT.
THAT I ABSOLUTELY THINK THE JUICE WAS WORTH THE SQUEEZE. I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT'S GOING ON THAT COULD BE HANDLED DIFFERENTLY. I CAN TELL YOU MOVING FORWARD, THE FOP STANCE IS THAT YOU CAN SUBPOENA THEM, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO SPEAK, AND THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO COME HERE AND SAY ANYTHING. BECAUSE IF THEY KEEP COMING HERE AND THEY KEEP TALKING, YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP CALLING THEM. AND IF THEY COME HERE AND THEY DON'T TALK, THEN YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CALL THEM. OH, I DON'T KNOW.
YEAH. WE HAD EVERY ASPECT OF THAT.
WE. UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING PRESSING THAT WE ALL CANNOT AGREE OR WE CAN'T COMPREHEND, THAT WAS A LAST RESORT.
WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR TWO YEARS NOW, AND HE'S THE ONLY ONE WE'VE CALLED IN.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THE CHIEFS ARE ALL UNANIMOUS ON THIS.
SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT'S NOT JUST ME.
IT'S THE CHIEFS. THEY'RE ALL UNANIMOUS ON THIS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT AND THIS WHOLE BOARD'S UNANIMOUS. SO AGAIN YOU KNOW, THE OTHER PROCESS IS, YOU KNOW, THEY STILL HAVE A PROCESS AFTER YOU GUYS. SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW THEY ARE GOING TO USE THAT PROCESS.
OKAY. BUT THEY'RE ENTITLED TO DO THAT.
[00:55:01]
THAT'S WHAT THAT BOARD IS SET UP FOR.EXACTLY. BUT I THINK THAT THE THE QUESTION AT HAND IS THIS, THIS ORDINANCE AND WHERE YOU GUYS STAND ON IT, AND I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP ANY MORE TIME OF THESE INDIVIDUALS.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE, WELL, I MEAN, YOU GUYS WILL DECIDE THIS, BUT. YOU WOULD PREFER THAT IT NOT HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING AND GO THROUGH THE.
NO THAT'S NOT. I'M NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE SUBPOENA IN THE ORDINANCE PART BECAUSE.
I MEAN, STATE LAW STILL IS GOING TO ALLOW US TO DO IT.
IF SOMETHING MAJOR CRAZY HAPPENED AND IT HAD TO BE DONE, AND THIS BOARD VOTED THAT IT NEEDED TO BE DONE.
I MEAN, IT WOULD JUST BE DONE.
I MEAN, I DON'T. AND THEN IF THEY CAME AND TALKED AND THEY DON'T TALK.
OKAY. WELL, WE GOT NO FURTHER THAN WE DID, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE STARTED. I DON'T THINK THAT YOU HAVE.
A SHERIFF OR A CHIEF THAT SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THAT KIND OF INVESTIGATION TO A POINT WHERE THEY'RE THE ONE THAT'S GOING IN ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS. WELL, THEY'RE NOT.
I'LL RETRACT THAT BECAUSE YOU USED TO THEY WERE THE ONES THAT DELIVERED THE DISCIPLINE.
SO THEREFORE THEY SHOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN THE FINDINGS.
SO I WILL RETRACT THAT AND UNDERSTAND WHY IS SO MUCH PUSHBACK FOR THIS THING WHEN EVERYTHING IS BEING ON YOUR FAVOR FOR EVERYTHING.
AND THIS THAT WE DID, CALLING THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS ON HIS FAVOR.
HE WAS READY TO GET ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE.
IF WE DON'T CALL HIM AND WE DON'T ASK HIM DIRECTLY THAT QUESTION, AND HE WAS EXONERATED.
I'LL GO BACK TO NANCY'S ANALOGY.
IS THE JUICE WORTH THE STUDENTS? SO YOU SAID YES. SO SO AGAIN, NO, NO NO NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT FOR YOU GUYS.
IS THE JUICE WORTH THE SQUEEZE? SO THIS WAS A MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT THAT THAT HE HAD THE GENTLEMAN COMPLAINED THE WAY HE WAS SPOKEN TO. SO, YOU KNOW, I WATCHED THE VIDEO AND I HAD 30 YEARS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE. NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM THAT I SEE ANY MISCONDUCT.
WATCHING THAT VIDEO. SO AGAIN, GETTING INTO AREAS WHERE THERE IS NOT A COMPLAINT OR THERE IS NOT A NECESSITY TO GET INTO IS THE CONCERN OF MOST POLICE CHIEFS AND EXECUTIVES AROUND AROUND THE STATE.
THE COMPLAINT IS WHAT IT IS EXPANDING THAT COMPLAINT AND DIVING INTO AREAS WHERE WE'RE NOT INVESTIGATING OR THE DEPUTY HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE'S WALKING INTO, IS A SERIOUS ISSUE. AND AS A FIREMAN, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS FOR THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE DONE. POLICE OFFICERS ARE.
AND IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND. I DISAGREE WITH YOU THERE, RANKED. SO LET ME UNDERSTAND YOU ONE SECOND.
ALL RIGHT. INTERRUPT YOU. SO YOU'RE TALKING NOW ABOUT US INVESTIGATING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE COMPLAINTS. WE'RE TALKING STILL ABOUT THE SUBPOENA? YES, YES. BECAUSE I WAS I WAS I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT HE WAS EXONERATED ON PART OF IT. BUT YOU GUYS WERE LOOKING AT SOMETHING ELSE? NO.
WELL, I REMEMBER YOU SAYING THAT I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. AS FAR AS SOMEBODY TOLD HIM, HE WAS EXONERATED.
I DON'T THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT THAT WAS. THE CONVERSATION IN THE. HE WAS NEVER.
THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.
HE WAS GOING TO BE ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGED.
IT'S JUST A. TO ME, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A STRUGGLING TO CONTROL THIS BOARD BECAUSE IT'S TAKING IT OUT OF YOUR HANDS.
THAT IS NOT OUR FAULT. WE ALL GOT ON THIS BOARD TO.
LOOK AT THE BASELESS COMPLAINTS AND TOSS THEM.
AND IF THEY WERE SERIOUS, TO ADJUST IT BY THE MATRIX.
AND THERE'S NOBODY THAT WANTS A BAD COP PUNISHED MORE THAN A GOOD COP.
SO I CAN'T, FOR THE LIFE OF ME THINK THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT US TO MAKE THAT DECISION IF IT CAME TO IT. AND YOU SAY YOU SAY THAT IT'S IT'S IT'S IT'S US OVERREACHING AND NOT WANTING TO NOT OVERREACHING.
IT'S JUST RESISTING US AND KIND OF PUSHING US IN A CORNER AND JUST BAD MOUTHING US ALL THE TIME. LIKE, WHAT IN THE WORLD? I BAD ABOUT THAT. BUT MY COMPLAINT IS, WAS, WAS THE SIMPLE FACT OF THE, THE, THE CALLING IN OF A POLICE OFFICER.
WE ABSOLUTELY. IT'S NOT BEING DONE ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE STATE. I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
IT'S NOT WE'RE NOT EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE STATE.
AGAIN, I WANT TO IT'S JUST LIKE YOU SAY, ALL THE CHIEFS AND THE SHERIFFS SAY AND FEEL THIS WAY. THE MARYLAND POLICE TRAINING COMMISSION THINKS IT'S BAD PRACTICE.
[01:00:03]
THEY DIDN'T TELL US THAT BEFORE.AND IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE FIRST THAT EVER DID IT AND THAT.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT I'M BEING TOLD.
THIS IS BAD PRACTICE. IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE.
OKAY. SO THIS IS FROM THE MARYLAND POLICE TRAINING COMMISSION, FROM A GOVERNOR WHO IS NOT NOT A CONSERVATIVE BY ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.
BUT THEY SHOULDN'T TELL YOU THAT. THEY SHOULD TELL THIS BOARD THAT THEY ADVISED ME.
THEY NEVER. I WILL RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE THAT THEY DID TELL SOMEBODY ON THE BOARD, A PREVIOUS MEMBER OF THE BOARD IS WHAT I WAS TOLD.
WELL, I MEAN, THEY THEY DIDN'T TELL ME FOR SURE.
LIKE I SAID, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WE WERE DOING ANYTHING WRONG. WE'RE GETTING WAY OUTSIDE THE WEEDS HERE, SO I'M GOING TO QUIET DOWN AND LET YOU ALL MOVE ON.
SO THIS SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE, I MEAN, I THINK WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS IT'S CLEAR YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE.
ALL RIGHT. SO, I MEAN, YOU GUYS READ OVER THIS.
THIS, I MEAN, WHAT WHAT DO YOU GUYS WANT TO SEE? I MEAN, THAT'S EITHER DIFFERENT.
WHAT DO YOU AGREE WITH? WHAT DO YOU DISAGREE WITH? WE CAN TRY TO HASH THAT OUT.
JUST HAVE A REASON OF WHY YOU DISAGREE.
I JUST I FEEL THE THE THE SUBPOENA.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S A LAST DITCH EFFORT.
AND IF I'M ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT, I WANT THAT OPPORTUNITY.
IF THAT INDIVIDUAL DOESN'T WANT TO SPEAK, HE DOESN'T WANT TO SPEAK. I MEAN, BUT THAT'S JUST A TOOL FOR US TO TRY TO FIGURE IT ALL OUT.
IT'S NOT TO, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK SOME OF THAT TREPIDATION CAN BE CALMED FROM YOUR END, TOO.
YOU SEE A FAIR BOARD HERE? I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE COMMUNICATED BACK TO THE OFFICERS. LISTEN, THIS BOARD IS MADE UP OF CITIZENS.
OUR OUR TRACK RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
AND A LOT OF IT. LIKE YOU, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
90% EVEN GREATER HAS COME ACROSS OUR DESK IS BS AND WE WE UNDERSTAND THAT.
WELL, I THINK THIS IS A FAIR ALTERNATIVE MYSELF.
I THINK I THINK IT LEAVES YOU GUYS AN ADVANTAGE.
AND I THINK IT ALSO LEAVES THE DEPUTY AS WELL.
SO I, I AS I WAS A LAW ENFORCEMENT EXECUTIVE, I HAVE A PROBLEM THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH IT.
WELL, AND I KNOW THAT THE EMPLOYEES READ IT AND THEY AGREE WITH IT.
YOU KNOW, SHERIFF, IF THEY CHANGE IT, SAY IT'S GREAT.
YOU KNOW, WE'D HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT.
BUT I MAKE THAT THAT DECISION BASED ON WHAT I THINK IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE YOUR RANK AND FILE YOUR OFFICER.
WE SHOULD RESERVE THE ABILITY TO CALL AN OFFICER IN IF WE IF WE NEED TO.
I MEAN, IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT FOR A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE A PROBLEM COMPREHENDING AN INVESTIGATION LIKE WE DID LAST TIME.
I THINK THAT'S FAIR. IT WOULD BE A LAST RESORT.
HOPEFULLY THAT OFFICER WOULD VOLUNTARILY COME IN AND AND EXPLAIN TO US, YOU KNOW, WHAT HIS YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENED.
AND TO CLARIFY ANY DISCREPANCY WE FIND IN INVESTIGATION.
I JUST THINK COMING STRAIGHT FROM THAT INDIVIDUAL GIVES HIM ALL THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW US AND REFLECT TO US WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
I MEAN, I WOULD IN THAT POSITION.
I'VE KIND OF GOTTEN I DON'T THINK THAT THIS SHOULD BE DONE TO AN ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT A LAW, BASICALLY, THAT THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO GET QUESTIONS DONE.
I WOULD MAKE IT A SUGGESTION THAT WE COULD DO THIS, BUT THERE ARE TIMES THAT IT MAY BE THAT WE NEED TO SPEAK TO THE OFFICER WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE SHERIFF TO TALK TO THEM, THAT WE DON'T WANT TO INVOLVE THE SHERIFF FOR WHATEVER REASON. I CAN'T COME UP WITH AN EXAMPLE RIGHT NOW, BUT THE POTENTIAL IS THERE THAT WE MAY NOT WANT TO WANT TO GO THROUGH THE SHERIFF.
I JUST THINK IT'S A MISTAKE TO PUT IT IN ORDINANCE, BUT THAT'S THAT'S MY OPINION AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S HOW I FEEL. AND, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE BAD PRACTICE, BUT UNTIL IT'S NOT IN THE LAW, IT'S STILL AN OPTION.
IF THE LAW CHANGES AND WE CAN'T DO IT ANYMORE.
BUT GREAT. LIMIT US. TELL US WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT WE CAN'T DO.
WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A STRONG SET OF, OKAY, YOU CAN DO THIS. NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. AND HERE'S WHY, YOU KNOW, BUT THE LAW DOESN'T
[01:05:04]
LIKE HERE WE'RE GOING TO FORM A COMMITTEE. WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO DO? YOU FIGURE IT OUT.YOU KNOW. I THINK SOME OF WHAT WHAT JEFF SAYS, I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT.
I THINK IT KIND OF HAS TAKEN US ABACK THAT IT HAS TO BE AN ORDINANCE, ALMOST LIKE LIKE IT WAS THE CARDINAL SIN TO DO THAT.
AND I MEAN, I WAS VERY OFFENDED BY IT.
I DID WHAT I THOUGHT I WAS ALLOWED TO DO, AND I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE AN ORDINANCE. IT SHOULD BE SOME KIND OF, YOU KNOW, SUGGESTION, GUIDANCE, SOP, SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE THAT SAYS THIS IS HOW WE WOULD WANT THIS HANDLED ABSENT CRAZY CIRCUMSTANCES.
EXTENUATING. NOT CRAZY, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
AND I CAN'T THINK OF A REASON OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THAT IT WOULD MAKE IT NECESSARY TO TO GO COMPLETELY AROUND.
SO YOU WOULD PREFER THAT THAT NOT BE SPELLED OUT IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT THE ORDINANCE I'M JUST GOING TO OFFER FOR FRAMING YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE BOARD TO HAVE ADOPTED RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH I THINK YOU PROBABLY DO ALREADY.
BUT WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS, RATHER THAN NO, I DON'T THINK WE WE DO NOT.
THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD DOES.
WE WERE GOING TO BASE THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGING COMMITTEE RULES OF PROCEDURE ON THE ORDINANCE ONCE THAT'S COMPLETE.
SO WE KIND OF HAVE THE STEPS THAT WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS GETTING THAT DONE.
SO IT'S POSSIBLE WHAT YOU'RE WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS, RATHER THAN HAVE THAT IN THE ORDINANCE SPELLED OUT THAT THOU SHALT BE AND SEE, YOU ARE WILLING TO PUT IN YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT THIS IS THE THIS IS THE PROCEDURE YOU'RE GOING TO FOLLOW.
I'M JUST GOING TO THROW THIS OUT THERE. IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE OFFICER, YOU KNOW, OPTION ONE, BEST CASE SCENARIO YOU REACH OUT TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
OPTION TWO THE THAT DOESN'T WORK OR THAT'S NOT FEASIBLE.
YOUR SECOND YOUR SECOND STEP I GUESS IS YOU ASK THE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS.
IF YOU WERE TO FOLLOW THIS, YOU ASKED THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER QUESTIONS IN WRITING. THEY CAN RESPOND TO YOU IN WRITING IF THAT'S SUFFICIENT.
AND IF THAT DOESN'T SATISFY WHAT YOU NEED, THEN YOUR THIRD STEP WOULD BE TO ASK THEM TO VOLUNTARILY COME IN IN FRONT OF THE BOARD.
THAT DOESN'T WORK. YOU STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUBPOENA.
RIGHT. AND I FEEL THOSE STEPS AS A PROCESS GOES INTO YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.
I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE AS. A THOUGHT.
AND NOW YOU'RE STILL BOUND TO FOLLOW YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.
I MEAN, YOU CAN'T THEN HERE AND SAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING ELSE BARRING IT. BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO GET IN THERE. BARRING EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
THIS IS THE PROCEDURE THAT WE WILL FOLLOW. I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
ANY. WHAT DO YOU THINK? I ALWAYS SAID I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE CHANGED, YOU KNOW, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD STAY THE WAY IT IS.
IF CHERIE THINKS THAT THE LAW IS GOING TO CHANGE, JUST WAIT A COUPLE MORE MONTHS AND IT'S GOING TO CHANGE, YOU KNOW, AND WHATEVER THEY SAY, WE'LL DO.
WHY CHANGE IT? NOTHING IS BROKEN.
IT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT WORKING.
WHY CHANGE IT IF IT'S WITHIN OUR PURVIEW TO DO IT? WE JUST KEEP DOING IT UNTIL.
LIKE LIKE SHERIFF BAKER SAYS, IT'S ALL ABOUT TRANSPARENCY BETWEEN US AND THEM. DO YOU KNOW THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF HE COMES IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AND HE SAID, HEY GUYS, I PREFER YOU GUYS TO DO THIS.
WE COULD HAVE THAT IN CONSIDERATION.
YOU KNOW THAT IF WE HAVE AN ISSUE, WE NOTIFY HIM IF WE CAN.
BUT YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THE STATE LAW COMPLETELY.
THE LAW IN THE STATE SAYS YOU GUYS ARE ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
AND IT'S NOT THAT WE USE IT OUT OF CONTROL.
AND THERE WASN'T ANY COMMUNICATION OR TRANSPARENCY ABOUT PUTTING THIS INTO AN ORDINANCE THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO GET A SEAT AT THE TABLE, AT THE TABLE ANYWAY TO, YOU KNOW, TO EVEN SAY ANYTHING.
AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT WE WE EVEN HAVE A WE'RE NOT EVEN INVITED TO THE I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT WE NEED A SEAT AT THE TABLE. I MEAN, WE'RE WE'RE BOUND BY OUR LITTLE BOOK FROM THE STATE POLICE, I GUESS, BUT SO JUST SO I'M CLEAR, YOU GUYS ARE 100% BEHIND THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY. THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BILL.
YOU 100% BEHIND THAT STATE BILL.
YOU THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY GREAT? NO, NO.
AND NO ONE SAID THAT THAT STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN MADE.
NO, BUT THAT'S WHY THAT'S WHY THAT WE CAN'T COMMUNICATE WITH YOU.
[01:10:03]
BECAUSE YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT. AND WE'VE SAT HERE AND SAID WE'RE ABSOLUTELY NOT.THIS THIS RIGHT HERE IS TO MAKE IT BETTER FOR YOU.
YOU'RE THE ONE THAT'S SAYING THAT'S TO MAKE IT BETTER.
SO, I MEAN, YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE LAW, THEN THERE SHOULD BE YOU'RE PICKING ONE PIECE OF THE LAW AND MAKING IT THAT WE DON'T AGREE WITH THE WHOLE.
THERE'S PARTS OF THE LAW THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE THERE.
YOU KNOW, FOR BALTIMORE CITY, THIS WAS NOT MEANT FOR CAROLINE COUNTY, BUT IT'S IN CAROLINE COUNTY. IT'S HERE AGAIN.
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STILL HAVE CONTROL OVER THIS PART OF THE LAW.
AND YOU GUYS ARE SAYING THAT YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS AS IT IS PROPOSED.
SO YOU DON'T BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE LIMITATIONS TO THAT THAT CAN BE PLACED ON MARYLAND'S POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY LAW? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN BE.
THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THIS LAW.
THERE'S NOT PROBLEMS IN CAROLINE COUNTY WITH IT. NOT NOT ABOUT THE SUBPOENA.
I DISAGREE, THERE'S A LOT OF PARTS OF THE LAW THAT I DON'T LIKE.
BUT UNTIL THE LAW CHANGES, THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO FOLLOW.
THIS WOULD CHANGE THE WAY IT IS FOLLOWED IN CAROLINE COUNTY.
IT WOULD, BECAUSE THIS IS THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING.
AND IF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPT THIS, THEN THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO FOLLOW.
NO, NO IT'S OKAY. CAN WE JUST CLARIFY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S ON PAGE FIVE, SECTION C, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ASKING THE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE SUBPOENA, NOT THE WHOLE ORDINANCE. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE ORDINANCE. BUT I REALLY DO THINK WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THIS ONE SECTION. SO JUST EVEN FOR THE AUDIENCES OUT THERE TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHERE THE ACK IS COMING FROM REGARDING WHICH SECTION.
WELL, THAT IS THE SECTION THAT WE STARTED WITH AND WE'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET BEYOND.
OKAY. SO THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT AS A BOARD, WE'VE AGREED THAT WE DIDN'T THINK IT NEEDED TO BE PART OF A ORDINANCE.
NOT THAT WE DIDN'T LIKE IT, NOT THAT WE'RE TOTALLY 100% IN AGREEANCE THAT. SEE, YOU TOOK IT TO THE OPPOSITE END OF THE SPECTRUM THIS ENTIRE TIME WE'VE BEEN COMMUNICATING THAT. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M HEARING.
WE DON'T LIKE THE LAW THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.
WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT LIKE THE LAW.
WE JUST DON'T THINK THAT THE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN THERE NEEDS TO BE AN ORDINANCE. THAT'S ALL OUR THAT'S WHAT OUR OPINION IS.
AND I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU PUT THAT, IF YOU CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, MAYBE A SOLUTION OR A MEETING IN THE MIDDLE IS TO PUT THAT IN YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE. THAT'S THAT GIVES SHERIFF BAKER AND THE OTHER POLICE CHIEFS AND REALLY EVERYBODY, THE OFFICERS TO SOME EXTENT, SOME COMFORT LEVEL IN KNOWING WHAT THE PROCEDURE IS GOING TO BE.
AND AS I SAID, I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH ADOPTING THAT INTO THE RULES.
AND IF THERE ARE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T ASK THE QUESTIONS OR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY INITIALLY.
I MEAN, SOMEHOW IT HAS TO BE LIKE AN EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
I MEAN, WELL, SHERIFF BAKER ASKED ABOUT THAT.
WE DID WE THINK THAT THIS PART OF THIS RESOLUTION HERE, WHATEVER WAS A PROBLEM.
WE DON'T AGREE THAT THIS IS PART OF THE PROBLEM IN THE BILL.
IS IT IN BALTIMORE CITY? MAYBE. IS IT IN DORCHESTER COUNTY? MAYBE. I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT'S NOT HERE BECAUSE IT'S HAPPENED ONE TIME IN THE YEARS THAT THIS HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE 22 OR WHATEVER IT WAS.
NO, I DON'T THINK IT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM.
HAD HE NOT COME? HAD HE NOT TALKED, HIS FINDING WOULD HAVE BEEN TOTALLY DIFFERENT. HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXONERATED. BY THIS BOARD.
LET'S MAKE THAT CLEAR. THERE IS ANOTHER STEP AFTER THAT, RIGHT? BUT THAT'S NOT THAT'S TWO STEPS AFTER THAT.
THAT'S NOT HOW WE FORMULATE OUR DECISIONS.
BUT YOU YOU WERE SAYING HE WOULD HAVE HE HAS TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF THIS BOARD.
IF HE DOES NOT ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF THIS BOARD, IT IS NOT FINAL.
IT GOES AWAY. BUT IT'S STILL A FINDING AND IT GOES TO CIRCUIT COURT. RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT.
BUT IT'S STILL. YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF HE DIDN'T COME HERE, HE WOULD HAVE ULTIMATELY BEEN CONVICTED. HE WOULD. NO NO NO NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID.
WHAT SHE SAID WAS SHE'D BEEN ADMINISTERED. YOU WOULD HAVE FOUND THAT HE WAS LIABLE FOR A VIOLATION OF POLICY. BUT THEN IT ALSO GOES TO TRIAL COURT AND IT ALSO GOES TO THE COURT.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR TO ANYBODY WHO'S VIEWING THAT THERE ARE OTHER STEPS. YES, BUT THAT'S WHAT I SAID.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT THE FINDINGS OF THIS BOARD WOULD HAVE BEEN.
YEAH. WHAT YOU SAID WAS THE BOARD WOULD HAVE ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGED. WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE STEPS BEYOND THAT.
WE ARE NOT THE END ALL, BE ALL.
BUT THANK GOD HE CAME IN AND HE SPOKE, AND NO ONE THINKS THAT WAY.
WE'RE NOT GETTING PAID. WE'RE NOT GETTING PAID TO GET BEAT UP ON ABOUT A SUBPOENA THAT WE THOUGHT THAT WE COULD DO.
I MEAN, IT WASN'T EVEN A SUBPOENA BECAUSE IT GOT CUT SHORT OF BEING THAT SO.
[01:15:06]
BUT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS LAW HAS MADE STEPS AND FOR POLICE OFFICERS TO GO THROUGH ABOVE AND BEYOND. WHEN YOU WERE A POLICE OFFICER, NANCY, THAT MAKE THEM SKEPTICAL OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS.AND BUT EARLIER YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A BALANCE OF TRANSPARENCY.
SO TRANSPARENCY BETWEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATORS AND THE BOARD, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. TRANSPARENCY. I'M TALKING ABOUT TRANSPARENCY IS A TWO WAY STREET. YOU WANT TO CALL PEOPLE IN AND SUBPOENA THEM AND HAVE THEM COME IN AND ADMIT THE TESTIMONY TO THAT BOARD.
BUT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ALSO WANTS THAT TRANSPARENCY BACK AS WELL, THROUGH COMMUNICATIONS AND OPEN PUBLIC FORUMS LIKE THIS THAT ARE TAKING PLACE.
THEY PROBABLY LOVE HER SO MUCH ON THE BOARD TO GO OUT AND TALK ABOUT HOW WE DON'T WANT YOU TO TAKE SUBPOENAS, HOW YOU CALL AND GET THE FINDINGS FROM THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD BEFORE THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO.
I WILL PUT ON MY SOCIAL MEDIA PAGE TOMORROW THAT I AM TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, BUT YOU DON'T NEED TO.
I'M TALKING ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.
TRANSPARENT TO THE TO THE HILLS.
COME HOME. I WILL BE TRANSPARENT TO THE FACT THAT THAT ABSOLUTELY THAT I DISAGREE WITH THIS THIS POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD.
THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTY HAVE ELECTED, OR EITHER THE COMMISSIONERS OF DENTON AND THEIR POLICE CHIEF TO TO TO ADMINISTER DISCIPLINE AS WELL AS THE SHERIFF EVERY FOUR YEARS. SO AGAIN, I THINK THAT THERE IS TRANSPARENCY.
THERE IS TRANSPARENCY EVERY FOUR YEARS OR PEOPLE CAN COME IN AND HAVE A CONVERSATION.
THEY CAN FILE COMPLAINTS BEFORE PEOPLE GOT FIRED.
I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH THAT, BUT I DIDN'T MAKE THE LAW.
SO I'M SAYING I DIDN'T SET UP THIS POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD.
BUT WHEN IT WAS SET UP, I SAID PERHAPS I CAN BE AN ASSET TO IT.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT.
SHERIFF, YOUR FIGHT IS WITH ANNAPOLIS, RIGHT? NOT US. AND FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY, IF THE COMMISSIONERS WANT TO REWRITE EVERYTHING, SO BE IT. BUT FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY, I THINK WE JUST OUGHT TO KEEP THE WAY.
THE STATE OF MARYLAND HAS WRITTEN IT OUT.
AND IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE IT. ANNAPOLIS.
IF IT WAS UP TO US, THIS COMMITTEE WOULD NOT EXIST.
WELL, I WILL SAY THAT I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING THAT DOES, AND I ABSOLUTELY SAY THAT. GO ON THE RECORD, AND I WILL SAY THAT I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE WITH THIS LAW, BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE IT. AND I ABSOLUTELY WAS IN ANNAPOLIS TESTIFYING IN REFERENCE TO A SUBMITTED WRITTEN TESTIMONY THAT POLICE WHO ARE FOUND UNFOUNDED OR EXONERATED, THEIR POLICE RECORDS SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE SHOULD IN THE IN THE FORMER CHAIR OF THIS BOARD DID THE EXACT SAME THING.
HE WENT AND DID THE EXACT SAME THING AND SAYING, I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE WITH THIS LAW AND I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE WITH ANNAPOLIS. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT THAT POINT ABOUT THE PREVIOUS ALLEGATIONS WITH OFFICERS AND CLEARING THEIR JACKET TO GO ON THE RECORDS.
YEAH, THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY THIS BOARD VERY, THE VERY START OF THIS ACC WE BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE WE SAW A CONCERN WITH OFFICERS GETTING THESE THESE COMPLAINTS PILED UP EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE EXONERATED.
WHY THAT SHOULD STAY IN THEIR PERSONNEL JACKET. AND THIS BOARD WAS REPRESENTED WHERE I CAME FROM. IT WAS OUT IF YOU WERE EXONERATED.
THERE WAS NO CHARGE. IT WASN'T IN YOUR PERSONNEL JACKET.
SO THIS BOARD WAS REPRESENTED AT THE SAME LEGISLATIVE EVENT THAT YOU ATTENDED? WELL, THE PAB WAS REPRESENTED NOT NOT THIS.
WELL, THE THOUGHT OF HAS NO YES.
NO POLITICAL PURVIEW. IT SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY POLITICAL PURVIEW. OH, NO, NOT AT ALL.
NO, BUT HE WENT AND TESTIFIED THAT PAB.
ALLOW HIM TO GO THERE. SO I GUESS HE COULD HAVE WENT AS A CIVILIAN.
HE COULD HAVE. YES, BUT HE WENT AS A REPRESENTATIVE, JOHN DOE.
AND HE DID A FINE JOB TESTIFYING.
FRANK, I JUST WANT TO SAY, I THINK IT IS.
ARE YOU SURE? FRANK? CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONER JUST WANT TO SAY, I THINK THE BOARD HERE, WE'RE GETTING A BIT SIDETRACKED.
THE BOARD. I THINK YOU HAVE FULL INTEGRITY HERE.
I THINK YOU HAVE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE POLICE OFFICERS. DEPUTIES? I THINK WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO GET TOGETHER AND WORK THIS DIALOG OUT.
START OVER. GOES TO BEING A MEMBER.
I THINK WE'RE HAVING A HARD ENOUGH TIME FILLING BOARD SEATS WHERE WE ARE AT ANYTHING.
SO WHETHER IT BE FOP OR OR RETIRED FOP.
I STILL THINK WE NEED TO STILL CONSIDER THAT AS FAR AS THE SUBPOENA GOES, I THINK WE NEED TO FIND SOMETHING WHERE WE'RE A HAPPY MEDIUM HERE WHERE EVERYBODY IS, YOU KNOW, APPEASED AND AND CAN BE SATISFIED WITH THE RESULT.
[01:20:02]
SO I, I THINK EVERYBODY FEELS THAT THEY NEED A SEAT AT THE TABLE AND SOMETIMES EVERYBODY'S NOT, DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY'RE BEING HEARD. SO I THINK WE NEED TO GET BACK TO THE DIALOG AT HAND AND COME UP WITH SOME TYPE OF A SOLUTION WHERE WE CAN ALL BE AT.THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS DO. I KNOW IT'S VOLUNTEER.
IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT IN THE ORDINANCE.
I MEAN, IT SHOULD BE IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, BUT THERE IS A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING AMONGST EVERYBODY ABOUT HOW THAT'S HANDLED WHEN YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION.
BECAUSE I ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW, MAYBE ATTORNEY BARROLL CAN SAY, LIKE, CAN THEY TALK TO SHERIFF BAKER? I'M GOING TO TALK AS IF YOU'RE GOING TO WHOEVER HAS ANYBODY IN TROUBLE.
BUT I MEAN, SO THEY IF THEY HAVE A CASE, CAN THEY TALK TO SHERIFF BAKER ABOUT IT? IS HE THE ONLY THAT'S DONE THE INVESTIGATION? ARE THE ODDS ARE IF IT'S A DEPUTY SHERIFF.
I MEAN, IT VARIES, BUT SOMETIMES THE SHERIFF HAS WORKED THROUGH HIS PERSONNEL, HAVE CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION FOR THE LEE.
SO IN THE COURSE OF RECEIVING.
I WASN'T GOING TO GET INTO THIS, BUT THE PEOPLE THAT DRAFTED THIS ORDINANCE COMMITTED LEGAL MALPRACTICE IN SO MANY WAYS.
THREE 100 FOR THIS ORDINANCE OR I'M TALKING ABOUT THE STATUTE.
THREE DASH 105 104 SORRY OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ARTICLE.
THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A MINUTE. FINDINGS.
FINDINGS OF FACT. JURIES FIND FACTS.
JUDGES FIND FACTS AND APPLY THE LAW TO THOSE FACTS THAT IT FINDS.
THIS ONE SECTION, AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGING COMMITTEE, SHALL REVIEW THE FINDINGS OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY'S INVESTIGATION, CONDUCTED AND FORWARDED.
MAKE A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE GUY IS TO BE CHARGED OR NOT CHARGED.
YOU, THE OCC, CAN AUTHORIZE A POLICE OFFICER CALLED TO BE TO APPEAR BEFORE AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGING COMMITTEE, TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY A REPRESENTATIVE.
VERY NEXT SECTION. ISSUE A WRITTEN OPINION THAT DESCRIBES IN DETAIL ITS FINDINGS, OUR FINDINGS OF THEIR FINDINGS. YOU SEE WHAT I'M GETTING AT? THIS IS A SCHIZOPHRENIC SECTION BECAUSE IT REFERS TO THE FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, WHICH ARE THEN FORWARDED TO YOU.
BUT YOU STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE, BECAUSE IT AUTHORIZES YOU TO REVIEW ANY BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE THAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO THE MATTERS COVERED IN THE COMPLAINT OF MISCONDUCT, AND AUTHORIZE THE OFFICER TO SHOW UP BEFORE YOU.
HE CAN BE ACCOMPANIED BY A REPRESENTATIVE.
AND IT SAYS THAT IN EXECUTING YOUR DUTIES, YOU MAY REQUEST INFORMATION OR ACTION FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION, COMMA. NOW THIS IS WHERE THE GRAMMAR IS.
ANOTHER CASE OF MALPRACTICE, INCLUDING REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION AND THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS.
THERE IS NO COMMA AFTER INVESTIGATION.
SO THIS SUBSECTION WHICH AUTHORIZES YOU TO DO THIS REQUEST INFORMATION OR ACTION FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION, COMMA, INCLUDING REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION AND THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS.
NO COMMA AFTER INVESTIGATION, WHICH MEANS WHICH MEANS YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO REQUEST THIS INFORMATION OR ACTION FROM THE LEAGER NOT THEORETICALLY, BY GRAMMAR, ANYWAY. ISSUE YOUR OWN SUBPOENA.
YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO. THE WAY THIS IS DRAFTED, REQUEST THE LEAGER TO ISSUE THE SUBPOENAS, WHICH IT HAS NO POWER TO DO.
AND THAT'S THE WAY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INTERPRETED IT TO. AGAIN.
THIS ISN'T OUR FIGHT. WE ARE STUCK.
THIS IS. THIS IS WHY WE'VE GOT THIS SORT OF BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THIS.
BOTH SIDES ARE RIGHT. AND WHAT YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A BALANCE HERE.
WHAT THE SHERIFF IS POINTING OUT. THIS IS JUST MY OPINION.
THE SHERIFFS POINTING OUT SOMETHING THAT'S A HUMAN INTEREST THING. AND IT'S ALSO A DETERRENT TO RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF POLICE OFFICERS THAT A YOUNG, PERHAPS NOT VETERAN POLICE OFFICER BEING HAULED IN FRONT OF A CIVILIAN BODY THAT HAS GOT THE POWER TO CHARGE HIM ADMINISTRATIVELY AND POTENTIALLY AFFECT OR END HIS CAREER, WOULD JUSTIFIABLY BE CONCERNED IF YOU REQUEST.
AS THE STATUTE SAYS YOU CAN, TO BRING THE OFFICER IN WITHOUT ANY CHECK OR
[01:25:02]
BALANCE ON YOUR DECISION TO BRING HIM IN.THERE ARE NO CRITERIA THAT YOU MUST SATISFY FIRST BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO BRING AN OFFICER IN IN FRONT OF YOU AND PUT HIM THROUGH THAT.
AND WHAT THE SHERIFF IS POINTING OUT, QUITE CORRECTLY IS AND I WAS AN FOP ATTORNEY FOR LIKE 30 YEARS IS IT DOESN'T TAKE LONG FOR THE NETWORK TO WORK, WHICH IS OKAY. YOU GET ASKED TO COME IN, NOBODY TALK.
THEY HAVE NO POWER TO FORCE YOU TO ANSWER A QUESTION.
AND WE CAN'T COMPEL TESTIMONY. YOU CAN'T, BUT THE SHERIFF CAN.
SO. SO ONE OF THE THINGS OR THE CHIEF.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS YOU DO IS IF YOU FOLLOW WHAT'S IN THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND YOU SAY, WE WANT TO HAVE THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GIVEN TO US, WE WANT SOME ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS.
YOU CAN ASK FOR ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION.
YOU CAN SUBMIT WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF OR SHERIFF TO ASK.
AND IF THE SHERIFF AND THE CHIEF ARE GENUINELY, HOPEFULLY DOING, YOU KNOW, THE COMMON TASK HERE, WHICH IS TO PURSUE JUSTICE.
THEY'RE GOING TO BASICALLY TELL THE OFFICER, I WANT YOU TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS AND YOU LIE TO ME. THAT'S NOTHING COMPARED TO WHAT YOU'RE CHARGED WITH.
THAT'S GOING TO BE A NEW CHARGE AND THAT'S GOING TO BE TERMINATION. SO I THINK THE SYSTEM, THE WAY WE'VE OUTLINED IT HERE IS NOT PERFECT.
IT IS AN ATTEMPT TO AMELIORATE A DISASTER OF A DRAFTING EXERCISE BY SOMEBODY IN A HELL OF A RUSH WHO WROTE THIS THING TERRIBLY AND DOESN'T UNDERSTAND HOW DIFFICULT IT IS FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY TO, NUMBER ONE, ISSUE SUBPOENAS.
HOW DOES IT ISSUE SUBPOENAS, ANYWAY? THIS IS DRAFTED, ACTUALLY, THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO REQUIRE OR REQUEST THE LEAGER TO ISSUE THE SUBPOENAS.
THIS IS THE WAY IT'S DRAFTED. SO WE'RE TRYING TO DO WE'RE ALL IN THIS ROOM TRYING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN TO GET THROUGH THIS.
LOOKING OUT FOR, OF COURSE, YOUR SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH.
THE CHIEFS AND SHERIFFS WANT TO PROTECT RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION AND LOOK OUT FOR THEIR FOLKS HAVING UNDUE ANGUISH.
THERE IS ANGUISH THAT TO DO, AND THERE'S UNDUE ANGUISH.
AND SOMETIMES THE MERE THOUGHT OF HAVING TO COME IN IN FRONT OF THE BOARD, WITH OR WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY IS, IS SCARY, FRIGHTENING.
AND IT'S IT BOTHERS. I DISAGREE WITH THAT.
I DISAGREE WITH THAT. I THINK IT WOULD SCARE THE HECK OUT OF YOUNG POLICE OFFICERS.
BUT AGAIN, I JUST SAID, THIS IS MY OPINION.
I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS I GIVE THIS ADVICE.
THIS IS JUST MY PROFESSIONAL ADVICE.
CHAIR, LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING. THIS HAS JUST OCCURRED. I ONLY DISAGREE WITH SOMEONE BEING AFRAID TO COME BEFORE FIVE CIVILIANS.
WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE OR WOULD YOU BE TOTALLY AGAINST.
WHEN WE FORWARD QUESTIONS TO YOU TO ASK THE DEPUTY FOR ONE OF US TO ATTEND THAT MEETING? I MEAN, YOU COULD WATCH IT REMOTELY, BUT I THINK THAT IF YOU DO SO, THEN YOU'RE VIOLATING THIS BOARD AS A WHOLE BEING.
I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT YOU'RE NOT A BOARD UNLESS YOU'RE YOU'RE ALL TOGETHER. SO WE WOULD WE WOULD WE WOULD WE WOULD VIDEOTAPE THE INTERVIEW AS WE VIDEOTAPE EVERYTHING.
SO YOU WOULD SEE IT AS A BOARD.
TOGETHER WE INTERVIEW I MEAN, WE.
MOST OF OUR TIMES WHEN WE DO INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS, THEY'RE ALL AUDIO AND VIDEOTAPED.
OKAY. AND THAT'S THE THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE IS THERE'S NO RECORD.
IF YOU GUYS PULL SOMEBODY IN AND ASK THEM QUESTIONS, NO RECORD OF WHAT THE QUESTIONS EVEN ARE. SO EVEN IF YOU KNOW, YOU GET SOMETHING THEY LIE DURING, IF THEY COME IN HERE AND THEY LIE TO THIS BODY AND YOU COME BACK TO ME AND YOU SAY, HEY, THEY LIED TO THIS BODY, THEN I HAVE TO DO AN INVESTIGATION TO FIND OUT THAT THEY LIED SO I CAN TERMINATE THEM FOR LYING, YOU KNOW, AND NOTHING, NOTHING IN HERE. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS AUDIO VIDEOTAPED THE CLOSED SESSIONS OR NOT, I GUESS. I GUESS I SHOULD ASK THAT QUESTION FIRST. BUT AGAIN, IF THEY LIE AND YOU CAN'T COMPEL THEM TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
I CAN COMPEL THEM TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. AND WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU WRITE DOWN AND THEY ASK, THEY ANSWER.
THEN. THEN IT'S GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU JUST THAT WAY. SO I HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING WHY THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE.
IF YOU WRITE DOWN THE QUESTIONS, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THEM ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER THEM. BECAUSE THE LAW COMPELS ME AND OTHER CHIEFS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUEST OF THE INVESTIGATION.
NOW, IF THERE'S SOMETHING CRAZY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION THAT YOU'RE ASKING.
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO I GET ADVICE FROM, AND SHE OR HE SAYS, NO, THIS IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE.
YOU SHOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT DO THIS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD BE HELD LIABLE OR THE COUNTY THEN, YOU KNOW, THEN I WOULD, YOU KNOW, RESPECTFULLY WRITE BACK OR SHE WOULD WRITE DRAFT A LETTER TO YOU GUYS SAYING OR THE COUNCIL SAYING, NO, THIS IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE. I'M ADVISING THE SHERIFF NOT TO COMPLY WITH THAT. SO BUT I MEAN, NINE TIMES OUT OF TEN, THAT'S MY WHOLE PREROGATIVE. HERE IS THESE.
[01:30:02]
THERE IS NO SERIOUS CASES THAT THAT IN CAROLINE COUNTY THAT SHOULD HAVE THIS AMOUNT OF FRUSTRATION OR THIS AMOUNT OF BRAINPOWER IN THIS ROOM WORKING TO JUSTIFY.I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. SO, SO I MEAN, MOVING FORWARD AND WHY WHY CAN'T WE TRY IT THAT WAY AND NOT HAVE TO CHANGE THIS ORDINANCE AND JUST TRY IT AND SEE IF YOUR WAY WORKS? AS FAR AS THE TRANSPARENCY AND THE I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS ORDINANCE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, AND IT'S GOING TO BE MY RECOMMENDATION AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CHIEFS THAT THIS ORDINANCE GO IN TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THAT WHAT YOU GUYS DECIDE TO DO IS TOTALLY UP TO YOU.
SO BASICALLY, WE HAVE THIS ON THE DON IS WHERE I KNOW AND I SUPPORT HIS WAY OR NO WAY.
BUT YOU GOTTA SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A BOARD HERE TOO THAT, YOU KNOW, FEELS THEY NEED TO BE A LOT OF THINGS THAT OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE NO FINAL SAY IN HOW THIS ORDINANCE IS GOING TO BE. WE ARE OFFERING OUR OPINIONS, THINGS THAT WE AGREE WITH. WE DON'T AGREE WITH THINGS HE AGREES WITH, DOESN'T AGREE WITH. AND YOU GUYS MAKE THE FINAL DECISION.
AND WE LIVE WITH WHATEVER THAT DECISION IS.
THIS IS OUR OPINIONS. AND THE CRAZY THING OF THIS WHOLE LAW IS I COULD ABSOLUTELY NOT ADHERE TO ANY OF THIS LAW.
AND THE THING HERE IS THEN THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE TO SUE ME AND DEFEND ME AT THE SAME TIME AND IN FRONT OF THE OR THE AG WOULD SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THIS IS ALL LOOK, LOOK, I AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER HERE.
WE ALL NEED TO FIND A HAPPY MEDIUM, YOU KNOW, AND I ABSOLUTELY RESPECT EVERY ONE OF YOU.
AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU GUYS DO.
AND YOU COMING IN HERE. THIS IS DEFINITELY A ROUGH TASK.
BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT I ABSOLUTELY.
AND I WILL GO ON THE RECORD SHOUTING FROM THE HILLTOPS OF CAROLINE COUNTY, IF THERE WERE ANY, THAT I ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE WITH THIS, THIS MARYLAND POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY LAW, AS WELL AS EVERY CHIEF AND SHERIFF ACROSS THE STATE, ARE UNANIMOUS ON THIS.
WE ALL DO. WE ALL AGREE WITH YOU.
NOT THAT IT CAN, BUT IF IT WENT AWAY TOMORROW, THEN WE WOULD GO ABOUT OUR LIVES LIKE IT NEVER HAPPENED. I HAD A POINT I WAS GOING TO.
SO. SO I WILL SAY THAT THAT THAT THIS HAS BEEN WORKED ON BY A LOT OF BRAINPOWER.
THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS IN THERE THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH. THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS IN THERE THAT I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH.
MY BIGGEST PART OF THIS ENTIRE PIECE IS THE PIECE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW.
AND I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE THAT THERE SHOULD BE EITHER IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OR IN THIS ORDINANCE, THIS WRITTEN OUT AS THE LAW IS WRITTEN, OR I'M SORRY, AS THE MARYLAND POLICE TRAINING COMMISSION HAS SUGGESTED, TO BE WRITTEN. AND THIS IS THIS, THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE MARYLAND POLICE TRAINING COMMISSION. AND THEY ALL ARE INGREDIENTS THAT IT IS GOOD ORDINANCE.
BUT IT'S OF YOUR OPINION, THOUGH THIS LAW WILL BE CHANGED IN ANNAPOLIS EVENTUALLY. LOOK, I MEAN, YOU MADE THAT STATEMENT EARLIER.
I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE CHANGES BECAUSE BALTIMORE CITY IS HAVING TREMENDOUS ISSUES WITH THIS. I BELIEVE THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.
YES, BUT DO I BET ON ANNAPOLIS TO DO ANYTHING OR GET ANYTHING DONE? THERE'S GOING TO BE A SPECIAL SESSION IN OCTOBER, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BRING IN THE AMOUNT OF TAX REVENUE THEY THINK THEY ARE GOING TO BRING IN, AND THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO EITHER ONE RAISE TAXES AGAIN, OR TWO, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT COSTS.
THERE'S NO ANSWER BUTS ABOUT THAT.
WHETHER I THINK THAT BECAUSE ONE DEMOCRAT ON THE COMMISSION AND THE PERF IS RECOMMENDING CHANGES TO ANNAPOLIS TO DO THIS.
NOW, I DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE COURT DECISIONS THAT COME DOWN, HOPEFULLY NOT FROM CAROLINE COUNTY, BECAUSE THE COURT DECISIONS ARE VERY COSTLY THAT THAT ARE GOING TO CHANGE AND RECTIFY SOME OF THIS IN THE LAW TO WHERE IT IS GOING TO BE. AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THINKS AS WELL IS THAT IT IS GOING TO ABSOLUTELY TAKE OUT THE RIGHT FOR ANYONE FOR YOU GUYS TO HAVE TO, TO, TO BE ABLE TO CALL PEOPLE IN.
BECAUSE, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, MOST COURTROOMS WHERE YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE DOING THAT ARE TRANSPARENT AND OPEN IN YOUR SESSIONS.
THEY ARE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC.
AND I THINK THAT'S THAT'S AN ABSOLUTE ISSUE FOR THE COURTS, IS GOING TO BE THAT THEY WANT THIS TO BE TRANSPARENT.
IF YOU CALL SOMEBODY IN A CLOSED SESSION AND YOU ASK THEM UNKNOWN QUESTIONS THAT AREN'T RECORDED, THEN WHERE DOES THAT GO? AND I THINK THAT'S NOT TRANSPARENT AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THE LAW LAW WAS INTENDED FOR.
IT WAS INTENDED FOR TRANSPARENCY.
AND YOU WERE SAYING THAT IT WOULD TAKE OUT A LOT OF THE MINOR THINGS THAT WE'RE SEEING.
WE DON'T WANT TO BE HEARING COMPLAINTS ABOUT SOMEBODY TO WEAR THEIR HAT. THEN WE WOULD WE WILL NEVER MEET AGAIN, BECAUSE MOST OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN CAROLINE COUNTY ARE MINOR IN NATURE.
YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT YOU'RE NOT TALKING TO ME THE WAY YOU SHOULD BE SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING TO ME. THEY THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU YOU GIVE ME A TICKET.
YOU KNOW I DIDN'T DESERVE THE TICKET.
DISCOURTEOUS SHOULD NOT TAKE THE AMOUNT OF BRAIN POWER IN THE ROOM.
YOU KNOW, THAT SHOULD BE HANDLED WITHIN A MATTER OF DAYS.
ON. NOT A MATTER OF WEEKS OR MONTHS.
BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, LOOK, CONVERSATION IS A GREAT THING.
[01:35:01]
I AGREE WITH CONVERSATION.WE CAN ALWAYS AGREE TO DISAGREE, BUT WHEN WE TAKE CONVERSATION OUT OF THE PICTURE, THAT'S WHEN THERE ARE ISSUES.
BUT I DO LOOK, I APPRECIATE EVERY ONE OF YOU UP THERE.
DON'T. BUT MY MY JOB. BUT WE CAN'T AGREE TO DISAGREE.
THAT'S A PROBLEM. WE CAN BECAUSE IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSIONERS. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT UP TO ME. IT'S NOT UP TO YOU. IT'S UP TO THOSE THREE PEOPLE THAT ARE SITTING BEHIND THAT TABLE WITH THE ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THAT OUR STANCE IS THAT AS FAR AS THE, THE, THE POLICE CHIEFS AND THE SHERIFF IS BESIDES THE FACT THAT THE TOWNS WANT THE COMMISSIONER TO PAY FOR THE, THE THE TRIAL BOARDS IS THAT WE AGREE WITH THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN AT THIS POINT IN TIME. OKAY, OKAY. BUT THAT'S JUST LIKE I SAID, YOU BRING THAT INFLUENCE WHEN YOU TALK TO US THAT WE SHOULD AGREE WITH IT. AND THERE'S PEOPLE THAT JUST DON'T. YOU GUYS, YOU GUYS ARE ADULTS. TO THINK AND PROPOSE HOWEVER YOU SEE FIT.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS IS A A FIX OR A BAND-AID ON VERY BAD LEGISLATION.
AND I THINK THAT THIS IT'S NOT A BAND-AID ON IT FOR CAROLINE COUNTY BECAUSE NO, NO, IT'S NOT BECAUSE NOTHING HAS HAPPENED IN CAROLINE COUNTY TO WARRANT A BAND-AID.
I'D BE MORE WORRIED ABOUT ALL THESE FILINGS.
IF NOTHING HAS HAPPENED AND THERE'S NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT, THEN WHY ARE YOU OPPOSED TO THIS? BECAUSE IT'S THE LAW.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY GIVE US. YOU JUST SAID YOU DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE LAW. YEAH.
PARTS OF THE LAW. YOU ARE GENERALIZING THE WHOLE LAW.
THIS PART IS NOT BAD. BUT THE THING GOING TO YOUR FILES, ON YOUR JACKETS OF YOUR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT PEOPLE, YOUR DEPUTIES THAT SHOULD BE MORE CONCERNED THAN THIS PIECE OF THE LAW BECAUSE IT'S AFFECTING YOUR PEOPLE MORE THAN THIS PIECE.
THIS IS ONE TIME ACTION THAT KIND OF BENEFIT YOUR SHERIFF AT THAT POINT? WELL, THE OTHER ONES ARE GETTING ALL THOSE FILES IN THEIR JACKETS, AND THEY'RE AFFECTING EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR DEPUTIES THAT HAVE A COMPLAINT.
310. OKAY. SO THAT'S NOT THE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE LAW.
THEN YOU SAID THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE LAW IS GOING TO DO NOTHING ABOUT THAT.
THE COMMISSIONERS CAN DO WHAT'S WHAT'S IN THIS ORDINANCE. AND WE WOULD AGREE TO DISAGREE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS ENTIRE LAW IS ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS AND SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PASSED. AND I WOULD GO ON THE RECORD TOO MUCH, SHERIFF, BUT I IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S YOUR WAY OR NO WAY.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE NO OPTION.
WE CAN'T SAY NOTHING. BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY POINT THAT YOU WANT TO PROVE, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT.
SO WE PRESENT OUR ARGUMENTS, I THINK.
I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR EVERYBODY. IT'S IN THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND WE'LL MAKE A DECISION.
AGAIN, I KEEP GOING BACK TO TRANSPARENCY.
AND FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY.
IF THE COMMISSIONERS WANT TO CHANGE THE LAW, THEY DON'T LIKE IT.
BUT I THINK IT WOULD LOOK BAD ON THIS BODY IF WE AGREED TO CHANGE SOMETHING AND THEN SOMETHING. AN ACCUSATION CAME DOWN THE ROAD THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S COLLUSION BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ALL YOU KNOW, I THINK IF WE WE STICK WITH WHAT ANNAPOLIS SAYS, WHETHER WE AGREE WITH IT OR NOT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT, THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT. IF THE COMMISSIONERS WANT TO CHANGE IT, LET THEM CHANGE IT.
BUT FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR AGENCY AND THIS BOARD, I THINK IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST TO KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS.
WELL, WE WILL WE WILL ABSOLUTELY AGREE TO DISAGREE THAT LAW IS ABSOLUTELY NOT FOR THIS, THIS COUNTY, THIS THAT LAW IS.
ABSOLUTELY. AND 99.9% OF THE PEOPLE POPULATION OF THIS COUNTY WOULD ABSOLUTELY VOTE FOR THIS ORDINANCE.
THAT'S GREAT. I DON'T DISAGREE, AND ABSOLUTELY 99.9% OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY WOULD ABSOLUTELY VOTE AGAINST THE MARYLAND POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF SHERIFF. I TOLD THE COMMISSIONERS WHEN I CAME IN FOR MY INTERVIEW, I DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE LAW.
WELL, THEN I'M JUST ABSOLUTELY ASTONISHED THAT THAT ALL FOUR OF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS, THIS ORDINANCE TRANSPARENCY.
THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT. TRANSPARENT. IT'S ABSOLUTELY THIS IS MORE TRANSPARENT.
I'M ONLY SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT IT IS BECAUSE THERE'S THE JUICE ISN'T WORTH THE SQUEEZE.
SO I MEAN, PUT IT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.
YOU HAVE A WHOLE MEETING WITH ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE WITH THE STATE'S ATTORNEY OR WITH, I'M SORRY, WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND OTHER POLICE CHIEFS.
AND YOU MAKE THIS. WHY WOULDN'T YOU BE IN FAVOR OF IT? HOW IS THAT TRANSPARENCY? IT'S YOUR INPUT THAT IS TRANSPARENT BECAUSE IT GOES IN FRONT OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO HAVE A CONVERSATION. WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH A PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAD HAVE PEOPLE IN THERE TESTIFYING. WE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. ABSOLUTELY. YOU WERE THERE. NOT WITH THIS ORDINANCE.
NO, SIR. NONE OF US KNEW ABOUT THIS HEARING AT ALL.
SO WE HAVEN'T HAD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS YET.
OH, WELL, TALKING ABOUT THAT, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE ISSUE.
NO, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS ON A ON A WITH CALLING PEOPLE IN WHICH SPAWNED THIS
[01:40:02]
WHOLE THING. NO, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE.WE HAD A WORKSHOP WITH THIS ORDINANCE. OKAY, WELL, I WATCHED IT ONLINE. THAT'S. I MEAN, THAT'S HOW I KNEW ABOUT THIS.
SO THAT'S THE OLD ONE, RIGHT? YEAH. THAT'S THE OLD ONE.
YEAH. THE OTHER ONE. OH I DON'T KNOW.
I JUST PICKED PAPERS UP SO I DON'T, I DON'T, I DON'T EVEN NOTHING GETS SERIOUS ENOUGH TO DO THE WHOLE SUBPOENA THING ANYWAY.
I DID IT BECAUSE LIKE HE SAID THE THERE CAN BE A PERCEPTION OF COLLUSION IF I COME TO YOU, I'M NOT GOING TO THE THE COMMUNITY IN FREDERICKSBURG OR MARYDALE OR ANYWHERE ELSE GOING TO THEM, ASKING THEM QUESTIONS.
I'M NOT GOING TO THE THE COMPLAINANTS FAMILY ASKING THEM, YOU KNOW, HOW THEY FELT ABOUT SOMETHING.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPARENCY.
THAT'S HOW TRANSPARENCY IS CREATED.
TRANSPARENCY IS CREATED BY HAVING PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HAVING A CONVERSATION.
AGAIN, I WILL SAY THAT THIS THIS BOARD HAS BECOME MORE TRANSPARENT NOW THAT WE ARE NOT MEETING AT THE IT CENTER WITHOUT.
WE I MEAN, I DON'T I DON'T THINK THE THE LOGISTICS OF IT, I DON'T THINK THE CITIZENS OF CAROLINE COUNTY WILL BE VERY HAPPY KNOWING THAT WE'RE SPENDING ALL THESE RESOURCES AND ALL THIS MONEY AND ALL THIS TIME ON SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS ONE TIME. IT BENEFITS THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
I COULD TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE PEOPLE OVER HERE THAT THEY'RE GETTING PAID MEETINGS, WORKSHOPS, MEETING WITH ALL THE SHERIFFS FOR WHAT? TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE THAT IT DOESN'T HURT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
THEY DON'T HURT NOBODY. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME OPPOSING SOMETHING.
WE DON'T GET PAID, BUT WE'RE HERE FOR FREE.
AND LIMITS. LIMIT YOUR AUTHORITY.
SO AGAIN, I THINK THAT IF WE'RE ALL IN AGREEANCE THAT THIS IS BAD LEGISLATION, THIS IS A FIX FOR THAT LEGISLATION.
ALL THE CHIEFS IN THIS COUNTY ARE FOR THIS LEGISLATION.
THE MARYLAND POLICE TRAINING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED THIS LEGISLATION. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS REVIEWED THIS LEGISLATION.
NOBODY HAS ANY ISSUES WITH THE LEGISLATION.
OKAY. THEN THEY SHOULD DO IT TO ANNAPOLIS.
THEY SHOULD MAKE IT PART OF THE LAW.
SO I'M GOING TO SUGGEST, BECAUSE I'M THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY ASKED FOR YOU GUYS TO MEET AND DISCUSS THE ORDINANCE.
I'M FEELING BADLY, BUT I THINK WHAT I REALLY HAD HOPED YOU WOULD DO IS GO THROUGH THE ORDINANCE AND COME UP WITH YOUR OWN RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE KNOW HOW SHERIFF BAKER FEELS.
YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL. BUT THIS IS WE WANT THIS BOARD TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THIS DRAFT ORDINANCE. RIGHT.
BUT IF WE'RE AGAINST SOMETHING IN THIS DRAFT ORDINANCE, IT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE AGAINST SHERIFF BAKER. IT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE AGAINST COMMISSIONER BREEDING OR BARTZ. THAT'S NOT WHAT IT MEANS.
IT MEANS THAT WE'VE ALL REVERTED TO OUR OWN INTERNAL FILES AND DEVELOPED AN ADULT OPINION OF SOMETHING. AND WHEN IT'S NOT TREATED THAT WAY, THEN IT BECOMES OFFENSIVE AND THE COMMUNICATION BREAKS DOWN.
THAT'S WHERE THE COMMUNICATION GETS BROKEN DOWN.
I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU TO THINK LIKE ME.
I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE THE COMMISSIONERS TO THINK LIKE ME. I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE THIS BOARD. IT'S A BOARD.
THESE GUYS ARE DOING THEIR BEST AT IT.
AND THERE'S NOBODY BEATING DOWN THE DOOR.
THE DOOR'S BEEN OPEN ALL NIGHT. THERE AIN'T BEEN A SOUL COMING HERE WANTING TO SERVE ON THIS BOARD. SO. LET'S MOVE ON PAST THIS.
ANYBODY SEE ANY OTHER OF THESE ORDINANCES THAT, I MEAN, I. THAT THEY'RE DISAGREEING WITH SHOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED THAT IF YOU REMEMBER THE FOP, YOU SHOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED FOR THE BOARD. WHAT'S THAT? YOU MENTIONED LEAVING THE FOP.
I THINK WITH WITH THE WAY THIS BOARD MEMBERS FOR ANYTHING.
I MEAN, WE HAVE A FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN TO. UNLIMITED TERMS. AS LONG AS YOU KEEP GETTING APPOINTED. THEY DON'T HAVE TO STEP DOWN AFTER SO LONG. SO WE'RE GOING AWAY TO TERM LIMITS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT'S SO HARD TO FIND PEOPLE TO SERVE ON CERTAIN BOARDS.
SO I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE CAN LIVE WITH AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, RETIRE THAT. BUT WELL, LIKE IN MY CASE, I'M, I'M RETIRED. ANY.
YOU CAN'T HAVE AN ACTIVE MEMBER SIT.
SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE RETIRED. THEY'RE GOING TO BE RETIRED. STANDING WITHIN THE FOP.
[01:45:06]
YOU CAN'T BE ACTIVE FOP IF YOU'RE NOT ACTIVE MEMBER.SWORN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. WELL, YOU'RE AN ACTIVE FOP MEMBER.
YOU'RE JUST IN RETIRED STATUS. CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT I SAY. STATUS. THE STATUS.
YOU WEREN'T AN ACTIVE FOP MEMBER.
THAT'S NOT A I'M NOT ACTIVE STATUS.
I'M RETIRED OFFICER. YOU'RE AN ACTIVE, ACTIVE MEMBER THAT YOU'RE IN RETIRED STATUS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT MAYBE TO REMOVE THAT AREA? I THINK WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS GATHER A LIST OF WHAT THE ACC WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT THEY WOULD LIKE CHANGED AND THAT NATURE, INSTEAD OF DEBATING BACK AND FORTH, MAYBE WE CAN FOCUS ON RECOMMENDATIONS.
IF THAT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE WE CAN TURN THE CONVERSATION THAT WAY, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'VE BEEN CHATTING FOR AT LEAST AN HOUR. WELL, MY PERSONAL RECOMMENDATION IS ALMOST TWO HOURS. THE FOP CALLS. OKAY, SO.
SO THAT'S PAGE SIX. TWO OF FOUR FOP B3.
I'M SORRY. NO. AS A WHOLE OF CAROLINE COUNTY, WHAT PERCENTAGE WOULD YOU SAY ARE MEMBERS OF THE TRUNK? HUGELY. OKAY, SO SO YOU COULD HAVE.
NO, IT'S PROBABLY LESS THAN 5050 NOW. OKAY, SO SO THE FOP REALLY WOULDN'T PLAY A FACTOR BECAUSE THAT PERSON, YOU KNOW, IT'S A 50% CHANCE, BUT THIS DOESN'T. SO JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, THOUGH, THIS LAW DOES NOT STATE CLEARLY FFP MEMBERS IT STATES. IT STATES THE LAW STATES THAT IT HAS TO BE A MEMBER OF A FRATERNAL POLICE ORGANIZATION. SO THAT COULD BE MARYLAND TROOPERS ASSOCIATION, THAT COULD BE ANY ORGANIZATION THAT IS AFFILIATED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT.
BUT WHAT THAT DOES IS TOTALLY REDUCE YOUR POOL OF FORMER POLICE OFFICER APPLICANTS TO TO SIT ON THIS BOARD AND PROVIDE VERY GOOD INSIGHT.
IF YOU WANT IF YOU WANTED TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD, YOU COULD JUST RESIGN FROM THE FOP. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU.
ABSOLUTELY NOT. WELL, AGAIN, YOU CAN'T.
DANNY. I'M JUST. NO. YOU'RE SAYING YOU WOULD RESIGN FROM THE FOP TO SIT ON A VOLUNTEER BOARD? I KNOW BECAUSE OF THE WHOLE ATTORNEY SITUATION, BUT THE WHOLE THING IS.
WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO RESIGN? I'M RETIRED.
I'M NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD. I'M SAYING I'M GIVING YOU ALTERNATIVES.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE YOU'RE ELIMINATING A BLOCK.
I'M SAYING YOU'RE NOT LIMITING A BLOCK. IF IF THIS IF THIS IS.
I'M NOT SAYING I AGREE WITH THIS. THIS IS PART OF THE ORDINANCE. THIS WAS NOT AGAIN WAS NOT ME. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES TO WHERE YOU CAN DO THAT.
I'M NOT SAYING I AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS. THIS WAS NOT WELL, I DISAGREE WITH THAT. KIM.
THAT'S OKAY. WHERE IT MENTIONS THE THING ABOUT HAVING A POLICE OFFICER IN YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY. I THINK IT SHOULD BE IN THE JURISDICTION.
IT CAN'T BE A POLICE OFFICER IN THE JURISDICTION OF CAROLINE COUNTY.
THAT'S STATE LAW, THOUGH, THAT THE COUNTY I THINK A LOT OF THIS IN HERE IS DIRECTLY FROM STATE LAW.
THAT'S DIRECTLY IN THE STATE LAW. THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO CHANGE THAT RIGHT NOW.
TO ME, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. MY SON MOVES TO ARIZONA AS AN OFFICER IN PHOENIX.
WHY WOULD THAT MATTER? I WONDER I WONDER IF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY IS MY RIGHT STEWART.
THAT IS A STATE LAW STATE STATUTE.
LET'S SEE HERE. JUST LIKE YOU HAVE TO BE RETIRED FOR THREE YEARS.
TWO YEARS, TWO YEARS. I'M GOING TO WRITE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS DOWN, AND THEN WE CAN GO OVER THEM WHEN WE DECIDE TO MAKE A MOTION. JUST SO WE'RE HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
3-102, SUBSECTION B. AN ACTIVE POLICE OFFICER MAY NOT BE A MEMBER OF A POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD. ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGING COMMITTEE.
I DON'T SEE IT. I KIND OF AGREE WITH THAT.
I DON'T THINK I SHOULD BE. I THOUGHT THAT WAS A STATE STATUTE THAT. TALKS ABOUT ACTIVE DUTY POLICE WITH POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY.
DON'T ASK ME. IT'S JUST ANOTHER ONE OF THE THAT WASN'T IN THE ORIGINAL STATUTE THEN.
I AGREE. I THINK THAT UNLESS YOU'RE MARRIED TO HIM, I DON'T THINK THAT. I THINK IT'S ALL GOING TO HAVE A HUGE IMPACT.
SO YOUR SUGGESTION WAS IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY.
IF THAT IS DECIDED TO BE LEFT IN THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE IT AS STATED WITH JURISDICTION. I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE POTENTIALLY, YES. I COULD ALWAYS ABSTAIN BECAUSE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
BUT THERE'S STILL THAT'S A TRANSPARENCY ISSUE.
I MEAN, I WAS GOING TO SAY DAUGHTER IN LAW, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT OR SON IN LAW.
BUT BUT I DO AGREE WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID. IF YOU ARE,
[01:50:01]
IF THEY ARE IN THE JURISDICTION THAT YOU OVERSEE, I DO THINK THAT'S A HUGE CONFLICT.NOW, HE SAYS THAT EVERY NOW AND AGAIN IF IT'S IN ARIZONA.
NOW DID WE COME TO TO GO BACK TO PAGE FIVE? SEE ONE ABOUT THE SUBPOENA, THE QUESTIONS.
DID WE COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON YOU WANT TO WHAT? YOU WANT TO REMOVE, WHAT YOU WANT TO KEEP IN THERE? BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, BUT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO WRITE IT DOWN AS TO WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE.
MY OPINION WAS IT MOVES INTO OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS OR RULES OF PROCEDURE RATHER THAN IN AN ORDINANCE. OKAY.
NANCY. YEAH. KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS.
KEEP THE. KEEP THE PARAGRAPH AS IS, AS IT STATED.
NOW, KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS. OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.
AMENDED. NO CHANGE, NO CHANGE, NO AMENDMENT, NO. ALL THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THERE.
I HAVE TO RAISE A QUESTION HERE.
SO IF THE COMMISSIONERS WERE TO FOLLOW YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
AND DELETE THAT PORTION FROM THE ORDINANCE.
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU WOULD SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPT, OR PERHAPS EVEN BEFORE THE ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED, CHANGE YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE TO INCORPORATE THOSE PROVISIONS.
WELL, RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE RULES OR PROCEDURES TO CHANGE, BUT EVENTUALLY ADOPT.
ADOPT. NOW, WHAT THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT SAY IS THAT YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE AND CONDUCT FOR HEARINGS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WHICH MEANS THAT IF YOU ADOPT IT IN JULY, YOU CAN'T BY MAJORITY VOTE THREE MONTHS LATER, TAKE IT AWAY UNLESS THE COMMISSIONERS SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVE THAT CHANGE.
SO THAT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN SECTION 20 3B2, WHICH IS WHERE YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO ADOPT RULES OF PROCEDURE AND CONDUCT.
WE WOULD SIMPLY ADD A CLAUSE ON THE END OF THAT, THAT THESE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND CONDUCT MUST BE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND THAT WOULD GIVE THE COMMISSIONERS THE ASSURANCE THAT THIS WOULD A NEW BOARD SUBSEQUENTLY CHANGES ITS RULES OF PROCEDURE AND TAKES AWAY THE STRENGTH OF WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS WERE RELYING UPON.
RIGHT. THAT MAKE SENSE? NANCY? I'M ABSTAINING ON THAT.
AN IMPORTANT PIECE TO ME BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF INTENTION, SO. I THINK THAT IF THE IF THE LAW IS GOING TO CHANGE AND THE SHERIFF KNOWS IT'S GOING TO CHANGE, THEN LET THE LAW CHANGE IT.
IT'S LESS MONEY. I THINK IT BECOMES VERY MUDDY WHEN YOU START TAKING LAWS AND THEN MASSAGING THEM TO, TO MEET ALL KIND OF.
I DON'T WANT TO SAY LEADERS MEANS, BUT I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ON THAT.
OKAY. NOTED. ANY OTHER AREAS THAT WE WANTED TO DISCUSS OR ANY OTHER CLARIFICATION? YEAH. ANYTHING? YEAH. ANYTHING ELSE? WELL, I THINK THIS BOARD IS JUST GOING TO STAY WHERE IT IS.
WELL, IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A LETTER FIRST OF ALL.
THERE'S NO LAW THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO WRITE A LETTER. YOU'VE BEEN ASKED TO, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO. IF YOU DECIDE TO WRITE A LETTER, IT SHOULD BE AFTER A MOTION IS MADE AND VOTED ON AND CARRIED AS TO WHAT THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER SHOULD BE.
IT MAY BE THAT WE RECOMMEND THE ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES, AND PERHAPS A BRIEF EXPLANATION AFTER EACH CHANGE AS TO WHY THE CHANGE IS.
YOUTH IS TO BE RECOMMENDED TO THE COMMISSIONERS TO PASS.
[01:55:04]
SO WE COULD HAVE WROTE A LETTER. YES.VERSUS SITTING HERE DOING ALL THIS.
WELL, YOU HAVE TO DO IT IN OPEN SESSION. WHO IS THIS PLANNING COMMISSION DOES IT THIS WAY ALL THE TIME. IS THAT LETTER GOING TO BE PUBLIC? YES. YES. IT'LL BE. IT'LL GO TO THE COMMISSIONERS. RIGHT? YES. SO I HAVE A COPY OF THAT ONE.
SURE. SO WE CAN GO OVER WHAT I'VE NOTED THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED, AND THEN WE CAN MAKE A MOTION IF YOU ALL CHOOSE TO. AND THEN I CAN WRITE THE LETTER WITH YOUR HELP. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A PLAN? IS THERE GOING TO BE ANOTHER MEETING? WOULD YOU LIKE THAT? ANOTHER? HAVE ANOTHER MEETING? NO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.
I DON'T THINK THIS BOARD APPEARS.
IF THE MOTION INCLUDES THAT THE LETTER BE SENT, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS.
AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE TO THE WORD.
BUT KIM HAS GOT THEM JOTTED DOWN.
AND YOU APPROVE OF THAT? YOU'RE AUTHORIZING, AS PART OF THE MOTION FOR THE CHAIR TO SIGN SUCH A LETTER ON BEHALF OF YOUR COMMISSION COMMITTEE AND FORWARD IT TO THE COMMISSIONERS.
IN THE USE OF THE LETTERS REQUIRED BY LAW NO.
YOU'VE BEEN REQUESTED BY THE ADMINISTRATION TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND PROVIDE COMMENTARY, COMMENTS, FEEDBACK.
AND WHAT THIS NORMALLY CONSISTS OF IS A A MOTION.
ONE OF YOU WOULD MAKE SOMEONE SECONDS IT.
YOU CAN DISCUSS IT VOTE ON IT.
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO SIGN A LETTER TO THIS EFFECT.
SO BASICALLY IF WE DON'T WRITE A LETTER THEN THERE'S NO OFFICIAL OPINION FROM THE SEC ON THE ORDINANCE. RIGHT. OKAY.
I MEAN, WHATEVER Y'ALL WANT TO DO THAT HAPPENS TONIGHT.
WE CAN AGAIN. YOU COULD ALWAYS TABLE IT.
I SUGGESTING THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD PROBABLY APPRECIATE IT BEING DECIDED TODAY, TONIGHT SO THAT THE LETTER GETS TO THEM AND IN GOOD TIME.
SO YOU WANT TO GO OVER WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN DOWN? I DO. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON DO YOU HAVE YOUR ORDINANCE.
OKAY. SO TO START PAGE 5C1 WHERE I HAVE VICE CHAIR MARTIN SUGGESTION, RECOMMENDATION OF ADDING WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN THIS PARAGRAPH TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT WILL BE ADOPTED IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
AND THEN VADIM AND GREG SAID THEY WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE ALL AREAS THAT WERE ADDED IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS.
SO ANY ADDITIONS THAT WERE ADDED IN THERE, YOU'D LIKE THEM REMOVED AND JUST JUST WITH THE STATUE STATES IS ALLOWED FOR YOU ALL REGARDING BRINGING AN OFFICER IN TO SPEAK WITH THEM. AND THEN NANCY IS GOING TO ABSTAIN AT THIS TIME.
AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO CHANGE PAGE 423 NUMBER TWO, WHERE STEWART COUNCIL SUGGESTED WE ADD A CLAUSE WHICH MUST BE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. SO THAT IN CASE THERE'S FUTURE BOARD MEMBERS AND SO FORTH, THAT THESE DECISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. AND THEN THE NEXT IS 24 ON PAGE SIX, MEMBERSHIP NUMBER ONE, WE WERE GOING TO ADD THE LANGUAGE OF IF WE DECIDE TO KEEP THIS NUMBER ONE, ADD THE JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY.
SO IF THERE'S IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER, AN ACTIVE POLICE POLICE OFFICER JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY. AND THEN THE NEXT ONE WAS REMOVING NUMBER THREE ALTOGETHER.
AND EVERYONE AGREED UPON THAT, OR AT LEAST THE MAJORITY OF YOU DID.
WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT DOWN AS A RECOMMENDATION. DOES THAT SOUND GOOD? YES. NO. MAYBE. YES. YES YES.
I'M SORRY. I WAS DISTRACTED TRYING TO READ SOMETHING.
OH, NO. SURE YOU'RE OKAY? DO YOU NEED ME TO REPEAT ANYTHING OR WHAT YOU JUST SAID? OH, I JUST PAGE SIX B1.
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS MAY NOT BE APPOINTED TO SERVE ON THE PAB OR THE ACC, AND IT WAS NUMBER ONE, AN ACTIVE POLICE OFFICER OR FAMILY MEMBER OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF ACTIVE POLICE OFFICER IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY THAT THAT THEY RESIDE SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
AND THEN NUMBER THREE, WE WERE GOING TO REMOVE.
[02:00:02]
YES. OKAY, GOOD. ANYTHING ELSE? WE'RE ALL GOOD WITH THAT. YEAH. OKAY.OKAY. WOULD ONE OF YOU LIKE TO MOVE THAT A LETTER WITH THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS BE DRAFTED? AND I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DRAFT A LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONER STATING WHAT? OUR OPINION. OR I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DRAFT A LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONERS GIVING OUR OPINION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN IT AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN IT. OKAY.
ANY DISCUSSION? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT CAN WE DO A SECOND? NO. SECOND. NO. ALL RIGHT.
I SECOND. OKAY. GOING TO SAY OKAY.
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. OKAY. WAS IT UNANIMOUS? YES. OKAY. YEAH. IT WAS ANONYMOUS.
PUBLIC COMMENT. PUBLIC COMMENT? NO, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE I AM HERE.
SURE. IS THERE ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENT? I'LL JUST SAY REALLY QUICKLY.
IF YOU HAVE TIME, PLEASE REACH OUT TO ME AND DISCUSS THIS WITH ME.
WHY YOU GUYS THINK THAT OPEN SUBPOENA POWER, WHICH THE COMMISSIONERS DON'T HAVE, AND NO OTHER BOARD IN THIS COUNTY THAT SHOULD STAY WITH THIS BOARD WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH STEPS. I WILL SAY IT'S GOING TO BE A HARD SELL FOR ME, BUT I WOULD APPRECIATE AN INVITE EACH ONE OF YOU TO REACH OUT TO ME AND EXPLAIN.
IT'S NOT OUR POSITION TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU.
AND IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT, CHANGE IT.
YOU GOTTA TELL ME WHY I SHOULDN'T VOTE.
THAT'S WHAT ANNAPOLIS HAS TOLD US TO DO.
ANNAPOLIS HAS NOT GIVEN YOU FREE SUBPOENA POWER.
I THINK WE DIFFER ON THAT OPINION.
NO. THE LAW. THE LAW SAYS SUBPOENA POWER.
THE LAW SAYS THAT THEY HAVE SUBPOENA POWER.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND? THAT'S AN OPEN CHECKBOOK FOR LAWSUITS AND TO SPEND ALL KINDS OF COUNTY MONEY. OKAY, SO WE JUST WANT TO PUT REASONABLE LIMITS ON HER.
SO. WHILE WE'RE TALKING. WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF RULES THAT WE'VE GOT.
COMMISSIONER I THINK THAT EVERYBODY SAID THEIR OPINION ABOUT IT HERE AND WHY THEY THINK THAT THEY SHOULD.
I HAVEN'T HEARD A CLEAR EXPLANATION, AND THAT'S FINE.
IF YOU GUYS DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH ME ONE ON ONE. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I'M JUST. I'M JUST EXTENDING THE INVITATION.
OKAY. HOW SOON WOULD YOU NEED THAT ONE TO DO THAT? ONE OVER THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO.
I DON'T I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN INTRODUCTION TO THIS NEXT WEEK. WE DON'T HAVE A MEETING NEXT WEEK. SO IT CAN'T BE INTRODUCED UNTIL TWO WEEKS AFTER.
OKAY. SO YEAH, EVEN THEN, THAT'S JUST INTRODUCTION.
WE STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS WHICH WOULD BE A MEETING OR TWO LATER. SO IT'LL TAKE AND WE CAN AMEND IT RIGHT UP UNTIL THE DAY THAT WE ENACT.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IMMEDIATELY.
AND I HAVE A FEELING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THIS ORDINANCE COMING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS. THAT'S GREAT.
I KNOW. I MEAN, WHY DO YOU SAY THAT? BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THIS FOR THE COMMISSION. WE HOPE SO.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY KNOWS OR CARES ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE EXCEPT FOR BINGO.
NOT YET. NOT YET. COMMISSIONER, JUST TO CLARIFY, ARE YOU ASKING THEM TO COME TO A COMMISSIONERS MEETING? NO. ME INDIVIDUALLY MEETING? OKAY, CALL ME INDIVIDUALLY.
THANK YOU. NOT. I'M NOT OFFICIAL.
THIS IS JUST PUBLIC COMMENT, PERIOD. I'M JUST EXTENDING THE INVITATION.
I'M NOT SAYING YOU GOT NO PROBLEM.
I JUST WAS DOCUMENTING IT IN CASE I NEEDED TO DO SOMETHING. IN ADDITION, WITH MY BOARD HERE. STEWART.
YOUR YOUR BRAIN WORK IS MOVING.
WHAT ARE YOU THINKING THERE? NO, NO, I'M.
I'M I'M PLEASED WITH WHERE WE'RE ENDING UP.
YOU ALL HAVE HONESTLY DISCUSSED IT.
YOU'VE VOTED FOR THE FORM OF THE LETTER.
YOU'VE HAD AN INVITATION FROM A COUNTY COMMISSIONER TO TO ELUCIDATE, IF YOU WILL, YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS ON THE CHANGES YOU ARE PROPOSING TO THE PROPOSED
[02:05:04]
ORDINANCE. I TALK ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.THAT'S YOU CAN'T ASK FOR MORE THAN THAT.
ARE WE GOING TO GIVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO PAB TO REVIEW THIS AND GIVE THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSIONERS? YES.
THEY ARE ACTUALLY MEETING NEXT MONTH. THEY'VE ALL BEEN ALERTED AS WELL AS SENT THE RESOLUTION. CURRENT RESOLUTION AS WELL AS THE ORDINANCE.
AND IT'S A PUBLIC MEETING THAT'S SCHEDULED FOR NEXT MONTH.
SINCE WE'RE IN A MEETING, IS THERE ANY PROGRESS ON REPLACING THE FIFTH MEMBER OF THE BOARD, THE FIFTH POSITION? THE FIFTH CHAIR, WHATEVER.
THERE'S NOT. I DO NOT BE REPLACED.
I HOPE SO. OH, OKAY. WE HAVEN'T STARTED ADVERTISING FOR IT YET.
I'M JUST WAITING FOR THE OKAY TO DO SO.
AND THE NEXT TRAINING IS IN OCTOBER FOR THE ACC, I BELIEVE. SO WE ARE A COUPLE MONTHS OUT.
THEY JUST HAD ONE. THERE'S JUST NOT A LOT OF TURNOVER.
I SUPPOSE RIGHT AT THE MOMENT THEY HOLD THEM BASED AS THEY NEED THEM.
SO UNLESS SOME MORE MEMBERS NEED TO SIGN UP, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AS OF A WEEK AGO THAT THERE ISN'T ANOTHER ACC TRAINING UNTIL OCTOBER.
OKAY, SO THERE ISN'T A SUPER RUSH SINCE WE DO HAVE UFR AT THE MOMENT AND WE HAVE A QUORUM.
BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE LOOKING INTO. THANKS.
ARE WE WAITING FOR SOMEONE? NO, NO. OKAY. CAN WE GET A MOTION THAT WE ADJOURN? I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SECOND.
THANK YOU GUYS. THANKS. OKAY.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.