[00:03:37]
GOOD MORNING EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO THE MAY 27TH, 2025 CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETING, WHICH IS NOW IN ORDER. THIS MORNING WE HAVE OUR INVOCATION BY REVEREND KING DANIEL OF BETHLEHEM WESLEYAN CHURCH, AND THAT'LL BE FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
SO IF EVERYONE CAN PLEASE RISE. REVEREND, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[Call to Order: Invocation, Rev Ken Clendaniel, Bethlehem Wesleyan Church; Pledge of Allegiance; Agenda Review]
FOR ANOTHER WEEK THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US AND AS WE'RE COMING OFF OF THIS MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND, WE ONCE AGAIN ARE JUST SO THANKFUL AND GRATEFUL FOR THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO GAVE OF THEIR LIVES FOR OUR FREEDOM SO WE COULD BE HERE IN THIS PLACE TO HAVE THIS KIND OF DISCUSSION, TO PRAY TOGETHER, TO BE ABLE TO EXPERIENCE THE FREEDOMS THAT WE ENJOY AND LORD, WE JUST PRAY FOR THEIR FAMILIES.WE PRAY THAT YOU CONTINUE TO BLESS THEM AND CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE THEM.
TODAY WE PRAY FOR THE COMMISSIONERS, LORD, WE PRAY FOR WISDOM AND DISCERNMENT AND GUIDANCE, LORD, AS THEY MAKE DECISIONS, AS THEY LEAD IN DISCUSSIONS.
LORD, FOR EVERYONE ELSE IN THIS ROOM WHO WILL BE PRESENTING, WHO WILL BE SPEAKING? LORD, I PRAY THAT YOU WOULD JUST HELP US TO COME TOGETHER WITH ONE GOAL IN MIND, LORD, TO COME TOGETHER FOR THE BETTERMENT OF OUR COMMUNITIES.
LORD, I JUST PRAY THAT YOU GIVE US UNITY. WHERE THERE'S DIVISION, I PRAY THAT YOU BRING US TOGETHER WITH ONE HEART, ONE MIND AND ONE SPIRIT WHERE THERE'S DISAGREEMENTS.
I PRAY THAT YOU HELP US TO FIND SOME COMMON GROUND.
[00:05:01]
JUST PRAYING, LORD, THAT YOU WOULD JUST GIVE THAT UNITY AND PEACE THAT WE SO DESPERATELY NEED, AND JUST PRAY FOR THAT GUIDANCE. LORD, WE PRAY THIS IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD AND SAVIOR.THANK YOU REVEREND. THANK YOU. OKAY, I HAVE A CLOSED SESSION.
[President’s Closed Session Report Out]
REPORT OUT STATEMENT. THE COMMISSIONERS MET IN CLOSED SESSION DURING THEIR MAY 20TH MEETING TO DISCUSS THE LEGAL AGREEMENT ATTACHED TO DAYSPRING APARTMENTS, AS WELL AS THE HIRING PROCESS FOR AN AT WILL COUNTY POSITION UNDER GENERAL.GENERAL. PROVISIONS SEVEN AND ONE. THE ATTENDEES WERE THE COMMISSIONERS KATHLEEN FREEMAN, DANIEL FOX, STEWART BARROLL, AND JENNIFER REIBLY. SO OUR FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS TODAY IS THE SECOND READING IN PUBLIC HEARING FOR LEGISLATIVE BILL 2025-006.
[Second Reading and Public Hearing]
AND I BELIEVE THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS NOT ADVERTISED TO START UNTIL 9:15.SO WE CAN'T START THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION, BUT WE CAN MOVE TO GO INTO LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE THAT I'LL INTRODUCE AFTER WE DO THAT MOVE TO GO TO LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
SECOND. MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. THE AYES HAVE IT. SO THIS LEGISLATIVE BILL IS FOR THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD AND ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGING COMMITTEE AND THE TRIAL BOARDS, WHICH IS A NEW CHAPTER.
CAN YOU ACTUALLY READ THE INTRODUCTION OR DO WE HAVE TO WAIT? I GUESS WE NEED TO WAIT PROBABLY TILL 9:15 TO ACTUALLY DO THAT TECHNICALLY.
YEAH. OKAY. WELL, LET'S DISCUSS THE ACTUAL BILL AND WITH US THIS MORNING, WE HAVE WAYNE SILVER, WHO IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE MARYLAND POLICE TRAINING COMMISSION.
MR. SILVER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING OVER.
SO VERY FORTUNATE THAT MR. SILVER WAS ABLE TO COME OVER TODAY AND AS A EXPERT ON THE NEW PAB, ACC LEGISLATION AND HOW COUNTIES ACROSS THE STATE HAVE HAVE INDIVIDUALLY APPROACHED THIS SUBJECT. SO DID YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF? SURE, SIR. AS THE CHAIR SAID, MY NAME IS WAYNE SILVER.
I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE POLICE TRAINING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION.
PART OF THE ROLE OF MY COMMISSION, IN ADDITION TO CERTIFYING OVER 15,000 POLICE OFFICERS IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND, WE ALSO CERTIFY ALL POLICE ACADEMIES, TRAINING ENTITIES, AND AS A COLLATERAL DUTY.
WHEN POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT PASSED, MY COMMISSION WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING THE REGULATIONS THAT IMPLEMENTED IT, AS WELL AS PROVIDING TRAINING TO ALL ACC AND TRIAL BOARD MEMBERS.
OKAY. THANK YOU. SO IS IT SAFE TO SAY YOU'VE WORKED WITH PRETTY MUCH EVERY PAB AND ACC ACROSS THE STATE IN THEIR 24 OR 25? 25 YES.. OKAY. SO THE STATE POLICE HAS ITS OWN INDEPENDENT BOARD.
THE STATE POLICE. WELL, STATE AGENCIES HAVE WHAT'S KNOWN AS THE STATEWIDE ACC.
THERE IS NO POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD FOR THE STATE AGENCIES.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THEY HAVE A STATEWIDE ACC FOR ANY POLICE AGENCY THAT FALLS UNDER STATE.
SO STATE POLICE, DNR? YES. TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, SO FORTH.
YEAH. OKAY. GOTCHA AND THEN EACH INDIVIDUAL COUNTY HAS THEIR OWN PAB AND ACC.
YES, SIR AND BALTIMORE CITY HAS ITS OWN SEPARATE FROM BALTIMORE COUNTY.
CORRECT? OKAY. SO, YOU KNOW, I GUESS A FEW QUESTIONS THAT I HAD WHAT KIND OF TRENDS HAVE YOU SEEN ACROSS THE STATE IN PAB AND OR, I GUESS, REALLY ACC ISSUES OR CONTENTION WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES? WHAT WE HAVE THE BIGGEST TRENDS WE'VE SEEN IS AS THIS PROCESS HAS GONE ON, WE'RE REALLY FINDING TWO TYPES OF ACC ONES WHO ARE JUST SO INUNDATED WITH CASES. THE LARGER COUNTIES, THE STATEWIDE ACC, WHERE THEY ARE REALLY JUST MOVING THROUGH THESE FESTS TO THE POINT IT'S BECOME A PAPER EXERCISE. THE OTHER THING WE'RE SEEING IS THAT THERE ARE SOME COUNTIES WHO, FRANKLY, THEY'RE JUST NOT GETTING THE AMOUNT OF COMPLAINTS, AND THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY A BAD THING AND WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THEM IS THAT THEY'RE KIND
[00:10:07]
OF FORGETTING WHAT THEY LEARNED IN THEIR TRAINING, BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST NOT USING IT. SO YOU KNOW, I KNOW ONE JURISDICTION IN SOUTHERN MARYLAND, THEY HAD FIVE CASES LAST YEAR AND, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME AND THEY COORDINATE WITH US.WE TALK BACK AND FORTH OVER LIKE, HOW DID THEY SAY TO DO THIS AGAIN? THE ONE THING I CAN SAY WITH SOME SURETY IS THAT DISCIPLINE IS OCCURRING, THE PROCESS IS WORKING.
HOWEVER, DISCIPLINE COMES A LOT SLOWER THAN IT USED TO.
OKAY. SO ONE MAJOR ISSUE THAT HAS KIND OF COME UP HERE, IN CAROLINE HAS BEEN THE SUBPOENA POWER AND INTERPRETATION OF THAT SUBPOENA POWER.
HAS THAT HAS ANY GUIDANCE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE ON THAT INTERPRETATION? NO GUIDANCE DIRECTLY IN THE FORM OF AN OPINION.
THERE WASN'T. I GUESS THERE WASN'T AN ACTUAL SUBPOENA.
THERE WAS A LETTER REQUESTING THE PRESENCE OF A POLICE OFFICER AND THE SUBPOENA AUTHORITY, I BELIEVE, WAS MENTIONED AS AN AVENUE THAT THE ACC COULD POTENTIALLY EXERCISE TO CORRECT AND OUR POSITION ON THIS THROUGH OUR TRAINING AND OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, IS THAT THE ACC, EVEN THOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN COMMENTS IN PUBLIC, COMMENTS FROM SOME OF THE ACC'S AND PABS, THE ACC DOES NOT HAVE SUBPOENA AUTHORITY.
WHAT OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW IS, AND THAT WOULD BE PUBLIC SAFETY ACT 3-1 HUNDRED FOUR ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGING COMMITTEE, SECTION 4, F AS IN FRANK NUMBER ONE IN EXECUTING ACTUALLY F IN EXECUTING ITS DUTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION E OF THIS SECTION, ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGING COMMITTEE MAY.
AND HERE'S THE STICKING POINT. REQUEST INFORMATION OR ACTION FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION AND THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS.
NOW, I WILL TELL YOU, IN PRACTICE, AND THE WAY WE'VE TRAINED IT IS THAT WE AND NOT JUST FOR THE ACC'S THEMSELVES, BUT WE ALSO DO BRIEFINGS FOR COMMAND STAFFS AT DIFFERENT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IS THAT THEY HAVE TO WORK WITH THE ACC.
THIS HAS TO BE A PARTNERSHIP. THIS SHOULD NOT BE A COMBATIVE RELATIONSHIP THAT IF THE ACC HAS A CASE, THEY REVIEW THE INVESTIGATIVE FILE. THEY FIND THAT THERE'S INFORMATION THAT IS LACKING.
THEN ONE OF THE OPTIONS, BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY THREE OPTIONS THE ACC CAN DO WITH THE CASE.
THEY EITHER HAVE TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGE, NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGED, OR THEY CAN TABLE IT AND RETURN IT FOR THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT'S WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING IN THAT IF THEY FEEL THAT THERE'S SOMETHING LACKING IN THAT INVESTIGATIVE FILE BECAUSE THE AGENCY IS THE INVESTIGATIVE ENTITY, THEN THEY CAN REACH BACK TO THAT AGENCY, WHETHER IT'S A SHERIFF'S OFFICE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AND SAY, HEY, YOU REFERENCED THIS, BUT YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE IT.
CAN WE SEE THAT? AND THEN THEY WORK WITH THAT AGENCY, AND THEN THAT AGENCY WILL TURN OVER THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND THEN HOPEFULLY AT THEIR NEXT MEETING THEY CAN HEAR THE CASE. BUT IT COULD ALSO BE SOMETHING SUCH AS COULD IN THEORY AN ACC SAY WE WANT TO TALK TO THE OFFICER AND WE COVER THIS IN OUR TRAINING WITH THEM.
THEY CAN DO THAT. THEY'D HAVE TO COORDINATE THAT WITH THE AGENCY.
BUT WE ALSO REMIND THEM THAT THEY CAN'T MAKE THE OFFICER TESTIFY SIMPLY BECAUSE EVEN IF IT'S A SITUATION WHERE THE OFFICER ISN'T FACING A CRIMINAL CASE, THEY MAY BE CONCERNED WITH A CIVIL ISSUE. SO IN PRACTICE, ACC'S JUST AREN'T DOING IT.
OR. SO WOULD YOU HAVE ANY WAY OF KNOWING SPECIFICALLY IF ANOTHER ACC HAD REQUESTED AN OFFICER'S PRESENCE? NOT DIRECTLY. ALL OF OUR INFORMATION COMES ANECDOTALLY, BUT I CAN SAY THIS JUST SEEING HOW THIS PROCESS HAS WORKED,
[00:15:02]
IF THEY DID, SIMILAR TO CAROLINE COUNTY, I'M SURE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WOULD BE CONTACTING US SAYING, HEY, HOW DOES THIS WORK? BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, NOT ONLY DO WE WORK WITH THE ACC AND THE TRIAL BOARDS, AND NOW WE'RE ALSO STARTING TO WORK WITH THE PAB'S AS WELL AND PROVIDING THEM TRAINING. WE ALSO WORK CLOSELY WITH THE AGENCIES TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE INTERPRETING IT PROPERLY AS WELL AND PROVIDING THE INFORMATION THEY SHOULD AND YOU DID SAY DURING YOUR TRAINING, YOU DO SET TELL THE ACC MEMBERS THAT IT IS AN OPTION TO REQUEST THAT AN OFFICER COME IN AND TESTIFY.BUT YOU ADVISE AGAINST IT IN THOSE TRAININGS OR.
WELL, WE PROVIDE THAT. IT MAY NOT GIVE THEM WHAT THEY ACTUALLY WANT IF THEY THINK THEY'RE GOING TO GET AN OFFICER WHO'S GOING TO SHOW UP AT AN ACC, AND THEY CAN COMPEL HIM TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
A SOUNDER WAY OF DOING IT IS TO GO BACK TO THAT AGENCY AND SAY, WE NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND WE'RE SEEING THIS IN A VARIETY OF AREAS WITH WHETHER AN OFFICER WAS ASKED CERTAIN QUESTIONS AND IT COULD BE AS SIMPLE AS CALLING THE CHIEF OR THE SHERIFF AND SAYING, HEY, DID YOU ASK THEM ABOUT THIS? AND THEN THEY CAN PROVIDE THAT BECAUSE THEN THEY CAN DO IT UNDER OATH.
AND THERE'S GUARANTEE ISSUES AND ALL THAT AREN'T OPEN TO THE ACC.
SO WE DON'T TELL THEM THEY CAN'T, BUT WE TELL THEM IT'S NOT LOGICAL TO DO THAT.
IT ACTUALLY MAKES MORE SENSE TO WORK WITH THE AGENCY BECAUSE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY CAN COMPEL THE OFFICER TO ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION, WHEREAS IF THE OFFICERS IN FRONT OF THE ACC, THEY CAN JUST NOT.
THEY CAN ELECT TO NOT PROVIDE AN ANSWER. CORRECT.
OKAY. WE TALKED A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, AND IT CAME UP THAT THE NATURE OF THE WAY THIS STATE STATUTE WAS CRAFTED IS VERY VAGUE, AND IT LEAVES A LOT OF A LOT OF AREA UNDEFINED OR OR VERY OVERALL, JUST VAGUE.
THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS POSED TO YOUR OFFICE ABOUT WHAT TO DO IN THESE SPECIFIC CASES AND HAS YOUR AG OR THE AG'S OFFICE DIRECTED, THAT REALLY IT'S UP TO EACH LOCAL JURISDICTION TO FILL OUT AND BUILD OUT SOME OF THOSE VAGUE AREAS. ABSOLUTELY. WHAT WE HAD WHEN WE HAD A VERY SHORT TIME FRAME TO DEVELOP THESE REGULATIONS.
AND WHEN WE INITIALLY DEVELOPED REGULATIONS, WE PUT IN A LOT MORE PROTOCOLS TO BE FOLLOWED ON WHO COULD BE ON AN ACC, WHO COULD BE ON A TRIAL BOARD. ANYTIME YOU GO TO PASS A REGULATION, IT HAS TO GO TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR LEGAL SUFFICIENCY.
IT WAS DENIED LEGAL SUFFICIENCY BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE BELIEVED THAT IT WAS NOT THE COMMISSION'S RESPONSIBILITY OR AUTHORITY TO DEVELOP THAT LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY FOR AN ACC OR A TRIAL BOARD.
IT WAS UP TO EITHER THE COUNTY IN THE IF IT RELATED TO AN ACC OR TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HEAD.
IF IT WAS A TRIAL BOARD. SO YEAH, WE WERE SPECIFICALLY TOLD THE COUNTIES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SCOPE OF THE LAW, BUT THEY DEVELOPED THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IMPLEMENTS THE LAW, NOT THE COMMISSION. THANK YOU. THE ONLY OTHER THING I HAD WAS ARE THERE ANY OTHER PROVISIONS IN OTHER COUNTY ORDINANCES? YEAH. AROUND THE STATE THAT REALLY SEEM TO BE WORKING WELL, THAT YOU THINK THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER INCORPORATING INTO OUR ORDINANCE? WHAT I AM SEEING IS THAT AND WE'VE ACTUALLY DONE A RETRAINING FOR A LOT OF ACC, SIMPLY BECAUSE, AS I SAID EARLIER, A LOT OF THEM JUST AREN'T GETTING A LOT OF CASES AND THEY'RE PICKING UP BAD HABITS.
WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS THAT THERE HAS TO BE A SET, STRUCTURED POLICY IN PLACE BY THE ACC ON SPECIFICALLY HOW THEY'RE GOING TO HANDLE CASES SUCH AS THIS AND THAT CAN COME DIRECTLY FROM THE THE COUNTY ITSELF AS IT DOES IN PLACES LIKE PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY AND ACTUALLY MOST OTHERS.
BUT IT HAS TO BE STRUCTURE IT. WE FIND THAT WE START TO SEE ISSUES WITH SOME OF THE ACC'S WHEN THEY START, QUOTE, WINGING IT, BECAUSE THEY REALLY HAVEN'T PUT IT INTO THE LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY WITH THINGS SUCH AS THIS, BUT ALSO SUCH AS, OKAY, WHAT IS THE ACTUAL PROCESS OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THESE CASES? WHAT IS THE ACTUAL PROCESS OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO WRITE THEM UP TO GIVE OUR OPINION? HOW ARE WE GOING TO COMMUNICATE THOSE THAT OPINION TO THE OFFICER, THE COMPLAINANT, AS WELL AS THE
[00:20:01]
DEPARTMENT ITSELF. SO THOSE ARE THE BIGGEST THINGS IS THERE HAS TO BE MORE STRUCTURE.AND I UNDERSTAND WHY A LOT OF ACC'S BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THEM WERE WAITING FOR US TO DO THE REGULATION AND THEN THEY REALIZE, OH, THERE'S NOT AS MUCH MEAT HERE AS WE THOUGHT.
SO A LOT OF THEM RUSHED TO GET THEM UP BECAUSE THEY WERE UNDER A TIME FRAME AS WELL, THAT A LOT OF THEM ARE GOING BACK NOW AND SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT, MAYBE WE SHOULD GIVE A LITTLE MORE STRUCTURE TO THIS, RIGHT? BUILD OUT POLICIES, PROCEDURES, RULES. YEAH. THINGS TO LOOK AT. WHICH WE HAVE THOSE WITH OUR OTHER COUNTY BOARDS, YOU KNOW, WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND WITH THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
I BELIEVE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ACTUALLY HAS A LIST OF, WHAT, TEN QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAVE TO ANSWER IN THE AFFIRMATIVE TO ALL OF THEM IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY ISSUE A VARIANCE. RIGHT. SO EVEN SOME TYPE OF STRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, LIKE THAT, IT'S NOT A SLIGHT ON THE MEMBERS, IT'S JUST PROVIDING THE STRUCTURE TO KEEP ON TEST TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE TREATING THE OFFICERS AND THE LEAS RESPECTFULLY OR FAIRLY. YES, SIR AND WHAT WE FIND WITH HAVING A STRUCTURE, IT NOT ONLY TREATS THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AND THE OFFICER FAIRLY, BUT IT ALSO ENSURES THE COMPLAINANT GETS A FAIR HEARING.
LAYING OUT THAT POLICY ENSURES THAT. NOW ONE THING THAT AND WE'VE DEVELOPED OVER TIME, YOU KNOW, WE'VE LEARNED THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW WHEN WE FIRST STARTED DOING THIS, WHERE WE'VE ADDED AN INITIAL SECTION AT THE VERY BEGINNING.
NOW, THE FIRST THING THE ACC SHOULD BE DOING IS DETERMINING WHETHER THEY HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE AT ALL, BECAUSE THOSE NUANCES WITH THAT AND WE'VE STARTED TRAINING ACC ON THERE, BUT I'M SEEING THE ONES THAT ARE RUNNING THE, SMOOTHER THAN OTHERS.
BECAUSE THERE ARE GAPS IN THIS LAW ARE THE ONES WHO ARE TAKING THE TIME.
THEY'RE REALLY OUTLINING EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO BE DONE IN THE PROCESS FOR IT.
NOW, OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN'T DO THAT WITH EVERYTHING. SOMETHING'S GOING TO COME UP THAT NO ONE THOUGHT OF, RIGHT? BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THERE ARE SOME COUNTIES THAT ARE DOING IT VERY EFFICIENTLY AND VERY WELL. YEAH AND IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE A LOT OF THE ONES THAT ARE DOING IT VERY EFFICIENTLY HAVE BEEN DOING IT THE LONGEST BECAUSE THEY WERE SOME OF THE FIRST PEOPLE WE TRAINED, AND THEY HAVE MORE PRACTICE DOING IT.
THAT WAS ONE THING THAT I NOTED IN MY RESEARCH WAS, YOU KNOW, UNDER OUR DEFINITIONS, WE HAVE POLICE MISCONDUCT AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE JUST SET FORTH. UNDER SUBSECTION THREE, DASH 101 OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ARTICLE, THE STATE CODE. I WAS LOOKING AT SOME OF THE OTHER COUNTIES, I BELIEVE CHARLES COUNTY ACTUALLY SPELLED OUT.
YOU KNOW WHAT THE DEFINITION OF POLICE MISCONDUCT WAS, PER.
AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING, YOU KNOW. WHEN WE GET TO IT.
BUT TO YOUR POINT ABOUT, DOES THE ACC EVEN HAVE JURISDICTION? YOU KNOW, THE FIRST THING THAT THEY SHOULD LOOK AT IS IT DEPRIVING THE RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAWS OF THE STATE? NUMBER TWO, DOES IT VIOLATE IS THERE A VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL STATUTE? AND NUMBER THREE, IS THERE A VIOLATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY STANDARD AND POLICY? SO NONE OF THOSE OCCUR. IT'S NOT A VALID COMPLAINT, RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION. WELL, IT COULD BE.
IT COULD STILL BE A COMPLAINT, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE A COMPLAINT THAT WOULD GO TO THE ACC.
ALONG WITH THAT, THE ONE AREA THAT WE SEE, THE BIGGEST DISCUSSION, I WON'T SAY IT'S A DEBATE, BUT IT'S DISCUSSION IS WHAT CONSTITUTES INVOLVING A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.
YOU KNOW, AND OUR POSITION IS JUST SIMPLY BEING A WITNESS TO AN EVENT DOESN'T INVOLVE YOU.
THERE HAS TO BE SOME IMPACT ON THE INDIVIDUAL MAKING THE COMPLAINT.
SO, YEAH, THERE'S A LOT OF NUANCES HERE AND I THINK THE MORE YOU CAN STRUCTURE THAT OUT IN POLICY OR LOCAL ORDINANCE, THE BETTER OFF YOU ARE. OKAY. DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? JUST A BRIEF COMMENT. I THINK THE FACT THAT THIS LEGISLATION WAS PASSED AND THEN KIND OF PASSED ALONG TO THE COUNTIES TO MAKE DECISIONS IS JUST FURTHER EVIDENCE TO ME.
IT'S A POOR [INAUDIBLE] I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT THE NUMBER ONE THING, I THINK IT WAS A TREMENDOUS PROBLEM WAS THE DOING AWAY WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER BILL OF RIGHTS THAT WAS THERE AND YOU KNOW, AND I THINK THAT WE WILL CERTAINLY DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO HERE, BUT I AM NOT IN A POSITION TO SIT UP HERE AND AFTER TRAINING AND YEARS OF SERVICE AND EXPERIENCE FOR POLICE OFFICERS TO DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, WHAT SOMEBODY DID WITH THE RIGHT, YOU KNOW, THE RIGHT WAY.
WE'LL DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. I DON'T I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF THIS, OF THIS BILL OR THIS POLICY.
[00:25:03]
SO WE'LL DO OUR JOB. BUT IT IS NOT UNCOMMON IN MY YEARS OF BEING HERE WHERE I SEE BILLS THAT ARE PASSED AND THEN THEY SAY, YOU JUST FIGURE IT OUT.WE HERE'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO TO MAKE IT SOMETHING LOOK GOOD.
BUT WE WANT YOU GUYS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT AND THEN WHEN WE TRY TO DO IT, THEY COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO. SO THANK YOU FOR COMING OVER.
AND YOU KNOW, WE WILL DO OUR BEST. THANK YOU.
[INAUDIBLE]. DO MOST OF THE ACC'S HAVE A STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE? THAT THEY DO FOLLOW? I KNOW WE TALKED. WE TOUCHED ON IT, BUT DO THEY HAVE A STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE? THEY. A LOT OF THEM DIDN'T HAVE IT AT FIRST, BUT THEY HAVE IT NOW.
OKAY. BECAUSE AND A LOT OF THAT IS BECAUSE THEY WENT THROUGH THE RETRAINING AND WE REALLY EMPHASIZED DOING THE RETRAINING OR THE REFRESHER THAT YOU REALLY GOT TO HAVE THIS POLICY, BECAUSE A LOT OF THE HICCUPS THAT WE SEE ARE JUST SIMPLE HUMAN ERROR, EITHER, LIKE I SAID, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SO MANY CASES, THEY'RE HEARING THAT THEY'RE KIND OF CUTTING CORNERS A LITTLE BIT, OR THEY'RE JUST NOT GETTING THAT MANY CASES AND THEY'RE JUST NOT REALLY REMEMBERING WHAT CAME OUT OF THE TRAINING.
SO HOW HOW OFTEN SHOULD THE RETRAINING, HOW OFTEN SHOULD WE BE DOING RETRAINING? WELL, WE THE RETRAINING IS VOLUNTARY, SO WE OFFER IT EVERY YEAR.
NOW, WHAT WE HAVE DONE BASED ON SOME BUDGET CUTS WE HAD WITH THE COMMISSION, IS INITIALLY WE CAME OUT TO COUNTIES LIKE WE CAME HERE AND DID THE INITIAL TRAINING AND WE DID ONE OF THE TRAINERS HERE. WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW, UNFORTUNATELY, IS WE'RE RUNNING IT ALL OUT OF SYKESVILLE.
OKAY. BECAUSE IT IS VOLUNTARY. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT ONE RECOMMEND, ONE OTHER RECOMMENDATION I WOULD MAKE EITHER WITH THE ACC OR THE TRIAL BOARDS IS DON'T WAIT UNTIL THE YOUR TENURE HAS EXPIRED AND THEN REACH OUT TO US AND SAY, CAN WE HAVE AN OPENING FOR PAB TRAINING? HAVE SOMEBODY IN THE BULLPEN THAT, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE PEOPLE YOU'VE ALREADY SELECTED THAT YOU CAN PUT IN BECAUSE WE'RE JUST NOT RUNNING THEM AS MUCH AS WE WERE IN THE PAST. WE'RE ONLY RUNNING THEM ABOUT THREE TIMES A YEAR NOW.
I GUESS THE LAST THING THAT I JUST THOUGHT OF HERE WAS HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED OR DO YOU KNOW OF ANY SITUATIONS AROUND THE STATE WHERE THE ACC'S HAVE NOTICED A VIOLATION OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICY OR PROCEDURE THAT WAS NOT BROUGHT UP IN THE COMPLAINT? YES. AND WHAT IS THE TRAINING COMMISSION STANCE ON THOSE TYPES OF THAT HAS HAPPENED? OUR POSITION ON THERE IS IF THEY NOTICE, IF THEY NOTICE SOMETHING, EITHER THAT WASN'T COVERED IN THE INVESTIGATIVE FILE THAT INVOLVED THE OFFICER WHO WAS THE THE SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION OR A THIRD PARTY OFFICER.
THEY SHOULD NOT BE DECIDING DISCIPLINE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE FILE.
THEY SHOULD TABLE THAT OR LET'S SAY IT'S A SECONDARY OFFICER.
BUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT SHOULD BE TABLED AND SENT BACK TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY TO INVESTIGATE, BECAUSE WHAT THE LAW SAYS ON THAT IS WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING IS THEY SHOULD BE MAKING DETERMINATIONS ON THE MATTER BEFORE THEM.
THAT'S NOT THE MATTER BEFORE THEM. THAT'S SOMETHING PERIPHERAL THAT THEY'VE IDENTIFIED.
THEY SHOULDN'T IGNORE IT, BUT THEY SHOULD JUST BE DEALING WITH THE MATTER BEFORE THEM.
YOU KNOW, PEOPLE SAY THINGS, EVERYBODY HAS 15 MINUTES THEY WISH YOU COULD TAKE BACK. SO IF THEY HAD A CASE WHERE HYPOTHETICALLY IF IT WAS AN EXCESSIVE FORCE CASE AND THEY REVIEW IT AND THEY FIND THAT THERE WAS NO EXCESSIVE FORCE, BUT THAT THE OFFICER WAS RUDE AND DISCOURTEOUS, AND THAT'S NOT ADDRESSED IN THE INVESTIGATIVE FILE.
NOW A LOT OF AGENCIES WILL ADDRESS IT, BUT LET'S SAY IT'S NOT.
THEY CAN MAKE THE DECISION ON THE EXCESSIVE FORCE.
SEND IT BACK SAYING, HEY, YOU ALSO HAVE A RUDE AND DISCOURTEOUS ISSUE HERE TO LOOK AT.
OR THEY CAN JUST SEND THE WHOLE THING BACK AND SAY, GIVE US SOMETHING ON THIS AS WELL. BUT THEY SHOULD NOT ARBITRARILY JUST BE MAKING A DECISION ON SOMETHING THAT IS NOT COVERED IN THE INVESTIGATIVE FILE AND DOES NOT INVOLVE THE OFFICER WHO'S THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. WHEN CAN I ASK A QUESTION OR TWO? YOU RAISED THE ISSUE EARLIER OF STANDING. SO A COMPLAINT IS BROUGHT BY SOMEBODY WHO SIMPLY WITNESSED AN INTERACTION BETWEEN ANOTHER CITIZEN AND A POLICE OFFICER.
LET'S JUST SAY THAT'S WHAT THE COMPLAINT IS. OKAY.
[00:30:08]
AND EVEN THOUGH EVERYTHING ELSE MAY BE TOTALLY PRESENT, AND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HAS DONE AN INVESTIGATION AND SUBMITTED IT TO THE ACC, THAT THE ACC AT THAT STAGE IS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT PARTY WAS NOT INVOLVED.THEREFORE, WE'RE NOT CONSIDERING THE COMPLAINT.
NO, HERE'S WHAT I'M SAYING AND YOU KIND OF HIT ON IT.
IF THEY'RE MAKING COMPLAINTS INVOLVING DOES THE COMPLAINT INVOLVE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC? SO IF THE PERSON IS MAKING THE COMPLAINT THAT THE POLICE OFFICER WAS ENGAGED IN MISCONDUCT, AND THERE'S ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC INVOLVED, YES, IT CERTAINLY GOES TO THE ACC, NO DIFFERENT THAN IF, SAY, I'M A SERGEANT AND I'M REVIEWING BODY WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE AND I SEE AN OFFICER ENGAGE IN WHAT APPEARS TO BE MISCONDUCT AND INVOLVES A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO COMPLAINT FROM IT STILL GOES TO THE ACC.
THE WHAT GIVES THE ACC THAT JURISDICTION? AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO CLARIFY THAT.
BUT IF YOU HAVE A COMPLAINT, AND THE ONE I HEAR A LOT IS YOU KNOW, SOME OF.
WELL, I WAS SITTING ON MY FRONT PORCH AND I SAW A SHERIFF'S PATROL DRIVE DOWN AT WHAT I FELT WAS A HIGH RATE OF SPEED THAT DIDN'T INVOLVE ME, AND THERE WAS NO MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT NOW IT'S LIKE ANYTHING.
YOU COULD TAKE IT TO A ABSURD LEVEL OF, WELL, WE PAY THEIR SALARY, THEREFORE IT DOES.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW IS. DOES IT? DOES THE COMPLAINT, THE MISCONDUCT OF THE OFFICER INVOLVING MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC? THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD FOR YOU, AND IT CAME UP EARLY IN TWO DIFFERENT ATTORNEY GENERALS, GAVE TWO DIFFERENT OPINIONS. WAS WHO MAKES THE THRESHOLD DECISION WHEN A COMPLAINT COMES IN THAT IT IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ACC, IS IT? IS IT? LET'S JUST SAY THE CHIEF.
IS IT THE COUNTY EMPLOYEE WHO IS RECEIVING IT THROUGH THE PORTAL ELECTRONICALLY AND LOOKS AT IT, PERHAPS THEN SHOWS IT TO AN ATTORNEY WHO WORKS FOR THE COUNTY AND THEY GO, WELL, THIS IS SILLY.
THIS IS NOT IN THE ACC JURISDICTION. ONE AG HAD SAID, OH NO, IT'S GOT TO GO TO THE ACC, IT'S GOT TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS BECAUSE THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE LAW. WHEREAS THOSE OF US WITH SOME MORE PRACTICAL COMMON SENSE FEELINGS ABOUT IT, IF THE COMPLAINT IS ABSURD ON ITS FACE, IS NOT CHARGING SOMETHING THAT THE ACC HAS JURISDICTION OVER, THEN WE DEEP SIX IT RIGHT THEN I JUST WONDER WHAT YOUR POSITION IS.
OUR POSITION ON THAT IS THAT IF YOU TAKE THE COMPLAINT IN THE BEST POSSIBLE LIGHT OF THE COMPLAINT AND YOU'RE REVIEWING IT AND YOU CANNOT IDENTIFY ANY MISCONDUCT IN THAT COMPLAINT. YOU BEING WHO? BEING THE DEPARTMENT OR THEIR COUNSEL. NOW, A SHERIFF IS NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT.
I WOULD HOPE NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT DECISION WITHOUT TALKING TO THEIR COUNSEL AND THEY'RE GOING TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT THAT, NO, THIS DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF MISCONDUCT.
NOW, WHAT KIND OF MAKES THIS MORE DIFFICULT? AND YOU'VE KIND OF ALLUDED TO IT IS IF YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THE PAB HAS RECEIVED THE CASE AND THEY FEEL, FOR WHATEVER REASON, THAT IT INVOLVES MISCONDUCT.
NOW YOU HAVE THAT DISAGREEMENT. WHAT WE TELL THE ACC, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THAT'S THE ONE WHO'S NOT GOING TO HEAR THE CASE IS THAT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHOULD COMMUNICATE THAT TO THE PAB, THAT WE DON'T FEEL THAT THIS MEETS THE.
THIS ANSWERS THE MAIL. TAKING THE BEST POSSIBLE LIGHT.
WE HAD. WE HAD A SITUATION IN ONE COUNTY WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL JUST MADE A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE THE POLICE AGENCY BECAUSE THEY DID NOT LIKE THE FACT THAT ONE OF THEIR POLICE CARS SAT IN THE POST OFFICE PARKING LOT AT A CERTAIN TIME, EVERY SINGLE DAY AND THE DEPARTMENT LOOKED AT IT AND SAID, THAT'S NOT VIOLATING OUR POLICY OR THE LAW OR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND OR THE UNITED STATES.
SO, NO, WE'RE NOT SENDING IT AND WHERE THAT NUANCE IS, THE A LOT OF TIMES THE ACC SAYS, WELL, WHAT OPTIONS DO WE HAVE? IF WE FELT WE SHOULD HAVE HEARD IT AND THE DEPARTMENT SAYS, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE AN INVESTIGATIVE FILE, IS THAT. WELL, THEY CAN REPORT IT TO THEIR PA BAY AND THEY CAN SAY, HEY, WE FEEL WE SHOULD HAVE HEARD THIS CASE AND THEN THE PAB CAN WRITE IT INTO THEIR END OF YEAR REPORT THAT WE HAVE SOME DISCREPANCIES.
BUT THE FIRST THING THEY SHOULD DO IS YOU KNOW, CALL THE SHERIFF, CALL THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OFFICER, WHOEVER THEIR LIAISON IS AND SAY, WHY ARE YOU NOT THINKING THIS SHOULD COME TO US?
[00:35:06]
AND I TELL YOU PROBABLY MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK I GET PHONE CALLS ON THAT.HEY, THEY DIDN'T GIVE THIS TO US. I'M LIKE, YEAH, I WOULDN'T HAVE GIVEN IT TO YOU EITHER.
BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN, IT'S INTERPRETIVE.
BUT THAT IT COMES BACK TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AND THE ACC AND THE PAB, THEY HAVE TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE, AND THEY HAVE TO KIND OF COME TO AN AGREEMENT.
NOW, I WILL TELL YOU THIS. I'VE SEEN THAT GO TO THE OTHER LEVEL WHERE AN OCC SAYS WE'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR CERTAIN TYPES OF CASES, WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO HEAR THEM BECAUSE WE FEEL THAT IT'S LOW HANGING FRUIT. IT'S QUOTE, NOT WHAT WE WERE FORMED FOR AND OUR POSITION ON THAT IS YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT. YOU'RE STILL SUPPOSED TO HEAR THOSE CASES. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE COULD BE THAT DISAGREEMENT AND IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO, YOU KNOW, THE PAB CAN PUT IT IN THEIR REPORT IF THEY DISAGREE WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, BUT ULTIMATELY THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ARE THE EXPERT ON THEIR POLICIES, ON WHAT THE LAW SAYS. BUT THEY IN MOST CASES AND I HAVE I'VE HEARD OF VERY FEW WHERE THERE'S A SERIOUS DISAGREEMENT, CHIEFS OR SHERIFFS ARE NOT MAKING THAT DECISION IN A VACUUM.
THEY SHOULD BE THEY SHOULD HAVE THEIR COUNSEL THERE AS WELL SAYING, HEY, NO, WE AGREE, WE DISAGREE.
WE AGREE THAT THIS SHOULDN'T GO THERE. AND SOME COUNTIES THAT'S HAPPENING QUITE A BIT.
THANK YOU. YEAH. WAYNE, COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE PROCESS WAS BEFORE UNDER THE OLD LAOBR AND HOW IT IT CHANGED MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT JUST SHIFTED FROM THE CHIEFS, THAT AND THE SHERIFF TO THE ACC.
SOMEWHAT. THERE WERE A COUPLE MAJOR CHANGES. OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A LOT OF NUANCES IN IT.
YOU KNOW, USE CHIEF [INAUDIBLE]. IF CHIEF [INAUDIBLE] HAD A WHAT USED TO BE CALLED A SUMMARY OFFENSE, SOMETHING MINOR, WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER LIKE A CATEGORY A, CATEGORY B, HE COULD JUST DISCIPLINE THAT.
AND IT WAS DONE. NOW TURNING A BODY CAMERA ON OR.
YEAH OR YOU KNOW, NOT PUTTING YOUR HAT ON IS TECHNICALLY OR RUDE AND DISCOURTEOUS.
HE COULD DEAL WITH THAT IMMEDIATELY. BUT NOW, BECAUSE THERE IS AN INVESTIGATIVE FILE, IT HAS TO BE SENT OVER TO THIS PROCESS AND THE OTHER THING WE HAVE NOW IS THAT ANYTHING CAN LEAD TO A TRIAL BOARD.
SO IF A POLICE OFFICER DOESN'T LIKE THE ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN.
LET'S SAY IT WAS THE LOWEST LEVEL OF DISCIPLINE, A LETTER OF COUNSEL.
THEY CAN SAY, I WANT A TRIAL BOARD. TRIAL BOARDS ARE INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE FOR DEPARTMENTS.
THEY HAVE NO APPEALABLE RIGHTS. IF THE IF THE ACC COMES BACK AND SAYS THEY FEEL AN OFFICER SHOULD NOT BE ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGED AND THEY MADE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY SHOULD, THEY CAN'T GO TO A TRIAL BOARD. ONLY THE OFFICER HAS THE RIGHT TO GO TO TRIAL BOARD.
SO THEY'RE KIND OF STUCK WITH WHATEVER THE ACC SAID.
SO THOSE ARE THE BIG DIFFERENCES. THERE'S BUT WE KIND OF ANTICIPATED THAT BECAUSE ESPECIALLY THE SLOWNESS BECAUSE ANYTIME YOU'RE ADDING ANOTHER PROCESS. YEAH. IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO BE AS QUICK AS YOU KNOW THE CHIEF FINDS SOMETHING OUT TODAY AND TOMORROW HE DISCIPLINES.
IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO WORK THAT WAY. RIGHT. IF SO IF AN ACC IF AN LEA RECOMMENDS THAT AN OFFICER BE EXONERATED AND AN ACC SAYS NO, WE WANT TO CHARGE THE OFFICER CHARGES THE OFFICER INSTITUTES THE DISCIPLINE. THE OFFICER THEN ELECTS TO TAKE IT TO TRIAL BOARD.
WHO PROSECUTES THE OFFICER AT THE TRIAL BOARD? WELL, THAT'S ONE OF THOSE AREAS WHERE WE HAVE ISSUES BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HEAD.
AND ONCE AGAIN, THEY'RE NOT DOING THIS IN A VACUUM. THEY'RE DOING IT WITH THEIR COUNSEL. RIGHT. SAYING WE DON'T FEEL THAT THE OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED, AND NOW THEY'RE IN A POSITION WHERE THEY HAVE TO PROSECUTE AT THE TRIAL BOARD.
WHAT HAS BEEN KIND OF IT'S NOT A WORKAROUND. IT'S BEEN REFERRED TO THAT IN A FEW REPORTS.
[00:40:09]
FOR THE AGENCIES, IT PUTS THEM IN A DIFFICULT POSITION THAT WE'RE ALREADY ON THE RECORD SAYING THIS OFFICER SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CHARGED, BUT YET YOU'RE NOW SAYING, SO WE CAN'T PROSECUTE OR PRESENT SOMETHING THAT WE ALREADY FEEL WE WANT TO RECORD, THAT IT'S IT'S NOT VALID. BUT WHAT THIS DOES IS IT AND WE STRESS THIS WITH THE CHIEFS AND ALSO WITH THE ACC AND THE PAB'S IS THAT IT IS STILL ULTIMATELY THE TRIAL BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY.SO IT IS SOMETIMES COUNSELED AS IT'S A PLEA AGREEMENT.
IT'S NOT. WE'LL JUST BOTH IN AGREEMENT ON THIS AND THE TRIAL BOARD COULD CERTAINLY DO THE SAME THING THE ACC DID AND SAY, NO, WE STILL THINK THE OFFICER SHOULD BE CHARGED, BUT IT HAS.
THAT DECISION HAS TO COME FROM THE TRIAL BOARD. RIGHT. OKAY.
I HAVE ONE LAST COMMENT, AND THIS MAY BE PART OF WHAT YOU ARE TRAINING NOT JUST MEMBERS OF THE ACC AND THE PAB, PERHAPS, BUT THE CHIEFS THEMSELVES, WHICH IS IN THE EVENT A TRIAL BOARD IS ELECTED.
WHAT I HAVE SEEN IS THAT THE CASE FILE IS ASSEMBLED TO BE SENT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE TRIAL BOARD MONTHS IN ADVANCE, SOMETIMES OF THE TRIAL BOARD WITH CHAPTER AND VERSE OF WHY THE OFFICER IS GUILTY OF EACH OF THE SPECIFIED CHARGES WITH A FACTUAL CONCLUSIONS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND WHY THE PERSON IS GUILTY AND THAT IS SENT OUT IN ADVANCE TO ALL THE TRIAL BOARD MEMBERS. AND WHEN THEY'RE CONFRONTED WITH IT.
THEY HAVE NO CONCEPTION OF WHY THAT'S WRONG, THAT THEY HAVE POISONED AND TAINTED THE TRIAL BOARD AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE, BUT HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS CAN BREAK THAT UP.
IT IS HAPPENING AND THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THESE AREAS OF DIFFICULTY.
SO IN THEORY WE DON'T. BUT IN THEORY, THERE'S 156 LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN MARYLAND.
YOU COULD HAVE 156 DIFFERENT TRIAL BOARD PROCESSES.
SOME ARE DOING IT THAT WAY. OTHERS WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS THEY'RE RUNNING IT LIKE THEY WOULD THE OLD [INAUDIBLE] TRIALS OR HOW WE WOULD RUN A REVOCATION HEARING WHERE THE INFORMATION IS ULTIMATELY PROVIDED, BUT IT'S PROVIDED IN THE FORM OF EVIDENCE SO THAT THE OTHER SIDE CAN OBJECT TO IT.
THAT'S BUT THE LAW GIVES THE AGENCY HAD ALL THE AUTHORITY TO SET UP THAT PROCESS.
NOW, WHAT WE HAVE SEEN, ESPECIALLY WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES, IS WHEN THERE'S SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY OUTSIDE THE NORM, THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES ARE STEPPING IN AND SAYING, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THIS. WE HAVE TRAINED EVERY SINGLE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND PROBABLY CLOSE TO 60 NOW. ALTHOUGH I'M SURE THEY'VE PROBABLY LOST A FEW HERE AND THERE.
WE'VE ONLY RETIRED A FEW RETIRED ONLY TRAINED A FEW RETIRED JUDGES.
MOST ARE USING THE ALJ'S FOR THIS PROCESS. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.
THAT'S AN ISSUE OR AN AREA OF CONCERN. BUT IT'S ALL IN HOW THE CHIEFS ESTABLISH THE PROCESS OR WHETHER OR NOT AND WHETHER THE ALJ ALONG WITH THE OTHER TWO BODIES. BECAUSE THAT'S ONE THING WE ALSO STRESS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TRIAL BOARD AND AN ACC TRIAL BOARD.
THE ACC IS MADE UP PURELY OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, THE TRIAL BOARD.
THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC IS STILL REPRESENTING THE COMMUNITY, AND THEN THE POLICE OFFICER IS REPRESENTING POLICE PROCEDURE AND WHAT WE'VE FOUND OFTENTIMES IS THAT THE HARDEST OF THE THREE IS OFTENTIMES THE POLICE OFFICER BECAUSE HE'S LIKE, NO, THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS. THEY'RE KIND OF SEEING THROUGH THE MINUTIA.
A LOT OF TIMES. BUT THERE IS A LOT OF LATITUDE GIVEN TO DEPARTMENTS ON HOW THEY DO THE JOB BOARDS.
ARE THE TRIAL BOARDS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC? ARE THEY OPEN PROCEEDINGS? THEY'RE OPEN. HOWEVER, THERE'S A LIST OF ABOUT 10 OR 12 THINGS THAT THEY CAN BE CLOSED FOR AND FRANKLY, IT'S NOT DIFFICULT TO FIND A REASON TO CLOSE THEM.
IMMEDIATELY GO INTO CLOSED SESSION BECAUSE YOU'RE ULTIMATELY DEALING WITH AN ADMINISTRATIVE OR PERSONNEL MATTER. I KNOW THERE WAS ONE COUNTY THAT SAID THAT THE ACC WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, BUT I DON'T THINK COUNTIES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE KNOW.
A LOT OF THEM ARE. LIKE I SAID, THEY'RE LIKE, I'M SURE YOU DO IT.
THE WAY WE DO IT IN MY COMMISSION IS, YEAH, THERE ARE NO OPEN MEETINGS, BUT THEY IMMEDIATELY GO TO CLOSED SESSION AND THEN YOU HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, DO ALL THE RIGHT READINGS AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
[00:45:02]
OKAY. GOTCHA. ALL RIGHT. AM I GOOD? GOOD. ALL RIGHT.THANK YOU SIR. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO STICK AROUND IN CASE ANYTHING COMES UP.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO STICK AROUND FOR A LITTLE BIT. YEAH.
OKAY. SO WITH THAT IS WELL PAST 9:15 NOW, SO I BELIEVE WE CAN DO THE INTRODUCTION, AND THEN WE CAN HAVE OUR PUBLIC HEARING. SO TURN IT OVER TO MR. BARROLL. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. WE'RE HERE FOR THE SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING OF LEGISLATIVE BILL 2025-006, WHICH DEALS WITH, AS WE'VE HEARD THIS MORNING, THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD, THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE AND COMMITTEE, AND THE TRIAL BOARDS. I WILL READ THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS PROPERLY PUBLISHED LAST WEEKEND IN THE STAR DEMOCRAT CAROLINE COUNTY GOVERNMENT. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON LEGISLATIVE BILL NUMBER 2025 006. NEW ARTICLE ONE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD, ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGING COMMITTEE AND TRIAL BOARDS OF NEW.
CHAPTER 20 POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE CODE OF PUBLIC LOCAL LAWS OF CAROLINE COUNTY, MARYLAND.
AN ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD.
PROVIDING FOR A CHAIR OF THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD.
PROVIDING FOR THE MEETING STANDARDS, TRAINING, BUDGET AND STAFF, AND RECORD KEEPING STANDARDS OF THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD, REQUIRING ANNUAL REPORTS BY THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD, ESTABLISHING AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGING COMMITTEE, PROVIDING FOR THE STAFFING, POWERS, DUTIES AND APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGING COMMITTEE.
ESTABLISHING TRIAL BOARDS. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE ABOVE ITEM ON TUESDAY, MAY 27TH, 2025, BEGINNING AT 9:15AM IN ROOM 106 OF THE CIRCUIT COURTHOUSE, LOCATED AT 109 MARKET STREET, DENTON, MARYLAND. 21629. TO SUBMIT COMMENTS IN WRITING EMAIL AT THE ADDRESS.
VISIT THE WEBSITE OR MAIL TO 109 MARKET STREET, ROOM 123, DENTON, MARYLAND 21629.
PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY NEEDING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION TO SUBMIT TESTIMONY SHOULD CONTACT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE AT 410 4790660. OKAY, JEN WE RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC OR ANY.
WE HAVE NO WRITTEN COMMENTS. NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP.
OKAY. WELL, I HEAR A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO MOVED. SECOND. MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. I GUESS.
NOW I SHOULD ASK. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING.
WELL, WE HAVE RECEIVED. GOT AHEAD OF MYSELF THERE.
WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME LETTERS FROM THE PAB, THE ACC AND ALSO FROM CHIEF BACON ON BEHALF OF A NUMBER OF OTHER CHIEFS. AND SO WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF INTERESTED PARTIES WHO HAVE GIVEN US COMMENTS, AND I HOPE THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE THOSE BEFORE YOU. I GUESS BEFORE BEFORE WE GO THROUGH THOSE. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? NOW. OKAY. NONE SEEN. ALL RIGHT. SO STEWART. SHOULD WE READ THESE INTO THE RECORD, OR IS THAT NOT NECESSARY? IT IS A MATTER OF YOUR DISCRETION AS TO WHETHER YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT OR NOT.
WELL, I'LL RUN OVER A FEW HERE STARTING, I GUESS WE'LL START WITH CHIEF BACORN'S REQUEST THAT WE ALSO ADD LANGUAGE TO THE BILL THAT THE ACC CAN ONLY REVIEW CASES PRESENTED TO THEM. IN THE CAN ONLY REVIEW THE SCOPE OF THE COMPLAINT AND IF AN AREA OUTSIDE OR A VIOLATION OUTSIDE OF THE COMPLAINT IS DISCOVERED THAT THEY NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE DISCIPLINARY ACTION ON THAT VIOLATION OR POTENTIAL VIOLATION THAT'S NOTICED, BUT THAT THEY COULD, I GUESS, SEND IT BACK TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY TO INVESTIGATE AND LOOK AT THAT.
SO THAT WAS THE REQUEST FROM THE CHIEF THAT SECONDED BY THE SHERIFF, BY THE WAY.
OKAY. AND I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT AMENDMENT.
[00:50:01]
OKAY. AND THEN WE ALSO RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD THAT RECOMMENDED THAT WE CHANGE ON PAGE 9, SUBSECTION 20-5B3, ADD TO PARAGRAPH THE OPTION FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO ATTEND THE MEETINGS REMOTELY AND ON PAGE 7, SUBSECTION 20-4G1 ON TO CHANGE SOME WORDING AND ADD THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY DESIGNATE ONE ALTERNATE MEMBER TO SIT ON THE PAB IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD, AND THAT WOULD BY DEFAULT DELETE OF G3D OF THAT SAME SUBSECTION THAT WAS ON PAGE SEVEN OF 20-4.SO IT WOULD REMOVE G3D AND BASICALLY MOVE IT UP TO THE PARAGRAPH UNDER G1. SO THAT'S JUST A NOT REALLY A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE.
SO THOSE WERE THE TWO RECOMMENDED BY THE PAB AND THEN THE ACC HAD 4 RECOMMENDATIONS.
ON PAGE FOUR, SUBSECTION 20-3B2 AT A CLOSE TO THAT PARAGRAPH, STATING THAT THE RULES AND PROCEDURES OF THE ACC MUST BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS.
SO WE JUST WANT TO ADD THAT ALSO TO THE ACC. PAGE FIVE, SUBSECTION 20-3C1.
THE ACC RECOMMENDS THAT WE STRIKE ALL LANGUAGE THAT DIRECTLY REFERENCES THAT THE ACC MAY NOT REQUEST OR COMPEL AN OFFICER TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ACC.
SO THAT ENTIRE PARAGRAPH THEY ARE RECOMMENDING THAT WE STRIKE ALL OF THAT, WHICH SETS THE PROCESS FOR AN ACC TO REQUEST AN OFFICER ATTEND AN ACC MEETING TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ACC WOULD FIRST HAVE TO ASK THE LEAGUE TO REQUEST FURTHER INFORMATION FROM THE OFFICER.
THEN ON THE THIRD, THIRD RECOMMENDATION WAS ON PAGE 620-4B1 TO ADD A SENTENCE THAT THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT MUST NOT BE SERVING UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF CAROLINE COUNTY.
SO RIGHT NOW, AN ACC MEMBER WHO HAD A SON SERVING AS A STATE POLICE OFFICER. THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN COULD NOT SERVE ON OUR ACC OR PAB, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT WOULDN'T BE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF ACC OR PAB. SO DO WE. DO WE WANT TO LIMIT THAT? TO THAT EXTENT? AND THEN THE FOURTH ITEM THAT THE ACC HAD WAS THAT ON PAGE SIX, SUBSECTION 20-4B3, STRIKE THE ENTIRE SENTENCE. A CURRENT MEMBER OF A POLICE FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION, SUCH AS A FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE ON OUR ACC OR PAB.
SO HOW DO YOU GUYS WANT TO? DO YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH AND DISCUSS EACH ONE OF THESE AMENDMENTS INDIVIDUALLY? THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.
YEAH. THAT'S FINE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THE FIRST, I BELIEVE I HAVE THEM ALL HIGHLIGHTED HERE.
SO THE FIRST THING THAT I HAD ON PAGE TWO, WE WANT TO GO TO PAGE TWO, ARTICLE ONE IN SUBSECTION 21 DEFINITIONS. C I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT THAT WE ADD THE ACTUAL STATE
[00:55:06]
STATUTE LANGUAGE THAT DEFINES WHAT MISCONDUCT IS.I THINK WE REFERENCE IT. BUT INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW, IF AN ACC OR PAB MEMBER WANTS TO GO LOOK IT UP, I THINK, YOU KNOW, BEING ABLE TO GO TO OUR ORDINANCE AND HAVE IT RIGHT THERE WITHOUT HAVING TO SEARCH THE STATE.
SO I THINK IF WE ACTUALLY SPELL IT OUT AS OPPOSED TO JUST REFERENCING.
SO YOU WOULD AMEND THAT UNDER DEFINITIONS. YEAH.
I WOULD JUST SAY SEE POLICE MISCONDUCT. THE MEANING SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION 3- 101 OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ARTICLE OF STATE CODE AND GO AHEAD AND DEFINE IT, SAY ONE DEPRIVING THE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE STATE TO A VIOLATION OF A CRIMINAL STATUTE, AND THREE A VIOLATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY STANDARDS AND POLICIES.
SO I WOULD MOVE THAT WE MAKE THAT AMENDMENT. I'LL SECOND.
OKAY. MOTION AND SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. OKAY. MAKE THAT AMENDMENT. SO MOVING ALONG THE NEXT ONE I HAD AND PLEASE, IF YOU SEE A PROPOSED CHANGE SOMEWHERE ELSE, LET ME KNOW.
I'M MOVING ON TO PAGE FOUR. 23 ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGING COMMITTEE.
THIS IS WHERE WE HAD AN ACC RECOMMENDATION. UNDER B TWO, ADOPT RULES OF PROCEDURE AND CONDUCT FOR HEARINGS THAT PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS, WHICH MAY BE AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AS A MAJORITY OF THE ACC MEMBERS OR ACC, MAY DEEM NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE ADD THE SENTENCE.
SUCH RULES AND ANY SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR APPROVAL AND THAT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT IS IN THE SECTION ABOVE UNDER THE PAB MINUTES. SO [INAUDIBLE].
OKAY. I'LL SECOND. MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. OKAY. THAT ONE SO CURRENTLY WE DON'T HAVE A STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE.
IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T THINK THAT THEY DO. I THINK THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ESTABLISH.
YES. ONE. OKAY. AND THAT'LL COME TO US FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL ON A CONSENT AGENDA OR SOMETHING? YES. OKAY. SO THAT ONE PASSES, WE'LL MOVE ON TO PAGE FIVE.
SO THIS IS WHERE THE OCC RECOMMENDS THE REMOVAL OF THAT ENTIRE PARAGRAPH.
WHICH WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, TO REMOVE C1 REQUEST INFORMATION OR ACTION FROM THE LEA THAT CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS AND THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS.
THE ACC MAY NOT REQUEST OR COMPEL A POLICE OFFICER TO APPEAR BEFORE THE OCC UNLESS IT HAS FIRST REQUESTED THE INFORMATION IT SEEKS FROM THE LEA AND IS STILL NOT SATISFIED. SERVED WRITTEN QUESTIONS UPON THE OFFICER, TOGETHER WITH A NOTICE SIGNED BY THE CHAIR OR PRESIDING OFFICER, STATING THAT THE OCC IS IN NEED OF THE OFFICER'S ANSWERS TO MAKE ITS DETERMINATION OF WHETHER AN OFFICER IS TO BE ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGED.
A COPY OF THE NOTICE AND THE QUESTIONS SHALL BE DELIVERED BY THE CHAIR OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER OR ACC STAFF TO THE HEAD OF THE LEA THAT EMPLOYS THE OFFICER WHO SHALL DELIVER THE SAME TO THE OFFICER AND NOTIFY THE ACC OF THE DATE OF SERVICE WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER SERVICE.
THE OFFICER SHALL PROVIDE THE ACC WRITTEN ANSWERS AND A SIGNED STATEMENT THAT THE ANSWERS ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF THE OFFICER'S KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF. SO THE ACC RECOMMENDED THAT WE STRIKE ALL OF THAT, IF I MAY, SIR.
THE THEORY WAS IF I UNDERSTOOD THE MEMBERS CORRECTLY WHEN THEY DISCUSSED THIS, THAT WE SORT OF HAVE THIS GOAL OF NOT ADDING TO THE LANGUAGE FROM THE STATUTE THAT WE WERE TRYING TO STICK AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE IN OUR ORDINANCE TO THE WORDS OF THE STATE STATUTE AND WHAT THEY HAD SUGGESTED WAS THAT RATHER THAN PUT IT IN THE ORDINANCE, THAT THIS LANGUAGE BE PUT INTO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH THEN HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS, WHICH MEANS IT WOULDN'T BE UP TO A FUTURE PAB TO CHANGE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE WITHOUT THE
[01:00:06]
PERMISSION, IF YOU WILL, OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.SO THAT WAS THEIR THEORY, WAS IF WE'RE TRYING TO STICK TO THIS SORT OF GOAL OF NOT EXPANDING UPON THE STATE STATUTE, THEN WE SHOULDN'T BE CLOGGING THE ORDINANCE UP WITH THAT EXTRA LANGUAGE JUST TO SUBSTITUTE.
PUT THAT INSTEAD INTO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.
THAT WAS THEIR THOUGHT. I THINK IF MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECT, I THINK SHERIFF BAKER MENTIONED THAT AS WELL AT, AT THE MEETING ABOUT PUTTING THIS IN THE OPERATING PROCEDURE.
AM I CORRECT, CATHERINE? YEAH. HE SAID HE WAS FINE WITH THAT EITHER WAY.
YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, IF I COULD, AND MAYBE IT'S A STUPID QUESTION.
ANY CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE HAS TO GO THROUGH, LIKE A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
IF THE RULES OR PROCEDURE CHANGE, THERE'S NO PUBLIC HEARING.
THE ORDINANCE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.
THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE SIMPLY SOMETHING. THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PART OF AN ORDINANCE. SO THEY JUST BE AT AN OPEN MEETING. AN OPEN MEETING? YEAH, BUT I MEAN, I DON'T SEE THE HARM IN HAVING IT IN OUR ORDINANCE.
I THINK IT CLEARLY I THINK IT'S GOING TO PROVIDE MORE PROTECTION FOR THE ACC, FOR THE COUNTY, FOR THE OFFICER TO HAVE THIS STEP. I MEAN, WHETHER IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE OR WHETHER IT'S IN THE RULES AND PROCEDURES, I THINK IT'S CLEANER TO JUST GO AHEAD AND LEAVE IT IN LIKE WE HAVE IT.
I BELIEVE WE HEARD MR. SILVER SAY EARLIER THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE AG'S OPINION THAT IT'S UP TO THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO BUILD OUT, YOU KNOW, THE VAGUE AREAS OF THIS ORDINANCE AND OR OF THE STATE STATE STATUTE.
AND I THINK WITH IT BEING THERE, I THINK IT CLEARLY THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY.
WHERE THE LEA'S WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY THING THAT, YOU KNOW, I REALLY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, WE ALSO HEARD THAT THE ACC CAN REQUEST THE LEA TO SUBPOENA AN OFFICER. SO IS, YOU KNOW, IS THIS STILL NECESSARY WITH THAT INTERPRETATION? WELL, OR DOES THIS ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, DOES THIS ACTUALLY GIVE THE ACC MORE AUTHORITY? WELL, WHAT THE ORDINANCE DOES IS USE THE LANGUAGE FROM THE STATUTE, WHICH, AS MR. SILVER EXPLAINED IS NOT READ BY ANYBODY, I BELIEVE, WHO KNOWS THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TO MEAN THAT THE ACC ITSELF CAN ISSUE SUBPOENAS THE WAY THE DRAFTSMEN OF THE STATE STATUTE WORDED IT.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE ACC COULD REQUEST OF THE LEA'S, TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS.
BUT THE LEA'S, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAVE NO SUBPOENA POWER.
THERE WAS NO SEPARATE ENABLING LEGISLATION GRANTING LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND, ANY OF THEM, THE RIGHT TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS LIKE THIS.
STATE'S ATTORNEYS HAVE THAT RIGHT. BUT WITH ALL THIS ALL THESE GENTLEMEN IN THE ROOM.
AM I WRONG? I MEAN, YOUR AGENCIES. EVEN IF THE ACC REQUESTED YOU TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA, YOU'RE GOING TO IGNORE IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO SUCH POWER. SO THAT'S, AGAIN, ONE OF THE TERRIBLE THINGS ABOUT THE STATE STATUTE.
SO WHY DON'T WE THEN STRIKE THE WORDS AND THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS? BECAUSE WE'VE WE'VE SORT OF HAD THESE DIFFERING GOALS AND I DON'T KNOW, IT'S UP TO YOU GENTLEMEN FOR POLICY REASONS.
IN SOME CASES, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO TRACK JUST THE WAY THE STATUTE IS WRITTEN.
SO THAT IS THE LANGUAGE THAT CAME OUT OF THE STATUTE ABOUT REQUESTING THE ISSUANCE.
WELL, I'M WONDERING IF WE SHOULD CLARIFY AND SAY AND REQUEST THE LEA ISSUE A SUBPOENA.
[01:05:04]
CORRECT? YEAH, WE CAN ORDER THEM TO DO IT. THAT'S NOT A SUBPOENA, BUT IT'S AN ORDER, RIGHT? SO IS THAT WHAT THEY WERE INSINUATING? THAT I DON'T KNOW.SO WHO'S THE ONLY ONE THAT DOES HAVE SUBPOENA POWER AT THE BOARD HAS.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THE BOARD HAS NO POWERS.
THEY DO? YES. WELL, I THINK WE'RE AT THE POINT HERE.
I DON'T CARE IF WE FOLLOW THE STATE LAW. IT'S A BAD IT'S A DUMB BILL, AND IT'S POORLY WRITTEN AND I DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT TRYING TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO.
WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO AND IF I DON'T SEE WHERE IT MAKES ANY SENSE TO GIVE ANYONE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUEST SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN'T REQUEST, RIGHT? SO, I MEAN, IF WE WANT TO GIVE THE ACC THE ABILITY TO ASK THE LEA TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, FINE.
BUT IF WE WANT TO SAY BY WHATEVER MEANS APPROPRIATE, FINE.
BUT WHAT I DON'T WANT TO. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE INTO THE SUBPOENA OFFICE, OKAY? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. CAN WE STRIKE? CAN WE STRIKE? OH. WE CAN AND THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS FROM.
YES. SO WE WOULD REQUEST LEAVE ALL THE LANGUAGE IN, JUST STRIKE THROUGH AND THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS AT THE END OF THE FIRST SENTENCE.
IS THAT WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE OR, SAY, REQUEST INFORMATION OR ACTION FROM THE LEA THAT CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION BY MEANS AVAILABLE OR YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? USE WHATEVER AUTHORITY YOU HAVE TO GET THAT INFORMATION BY WHATEVER MEANS AVAILABLE.
BUT I MEAN BY WHATEVER MEANS ARE AVAILABLE TO YOUR AGENCY TO GET THAT INFORMATION.
I KNEW THAT, BUT WHATEVER. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO.
I DON'T REALLY. WELL LET'S SAY ALLOWED BY STATE STATUTE.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH. STRIKE THROUGH AND THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA THE SUBPOENA LANGUAGE OUT OF THERE, FOR EXAMPLE, AS PROVIDED BY STATE LAW? YES. OR SOMETHING.
I WOULD SAY STATE LAW OR POLICY. STATE LAW OR POLICY AND OR AGENCY POLICY.
BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO AWARD. YEAH.
I JUST DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A TECHNICALITY AND SOME OFFICERS SAY, WELL, THIS IS NOT ALLOWED BY STATE LAW. IT'S A GOOD POLICY, YOU KNOW. RIGHT. SO BASICALLY YOU'RE SAYING AFTER WE FOLLOW ALL THIS PROTOCOL OF THE WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE BACK AND FORTH AND ALL THAT, AND THERE'S AND THE ACC IS STILL NOT SATISFIED WITH YOUR ANSWERS, THEN THEY CAN STILL REQUEST AN OFFICER.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF THEY DO REQUEST HIM AND THEY SAY AND YOU SAY AT YOUR REQUEST, SAY NO, HE'S NOT COMING, THEN THAT'S THE END OF IT.
SO THEY. WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANY AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANY [INAUDIBLE] IN WHETHER IF THE OFFICER SAYS, I'M NOT GOING TO SHOW UP, THEN I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY [INAUDIBLE] FROM THE LAW OR ANY CONSEQUENCES THAT THE OFFICER DOESN'T SHOW UP.
THEY WOULD PROBABLY BE AN AGENCY POLICY IF I WOULD SAY, OFFICER, YOU HAVE TO SHOW UP.
IF HE DOESN'T, THEN I CAN MAKE CONSEQUENCES FOR HIM, FOR FAILURE TO OBEY.
BUT AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M GOING TO DO THAT IF I DISAGREE WITH IT. SO THERE'S A LOT OF CONTROVERSY BACK AND FORTH. A LOT OF THIS COMES BACK TO WHAT THE LAW SAYS IS THAT IF THEY DO SHOW UP, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO HAVE REPRESENTATION WITH THEM AND THAT'S WHY WE KIND OF SAY, YEAH, YOU CAN ASK THEM TO COME, BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE THEM TALK. YOU CAN'T MAKE THEM EVEN YOU CAN'T MAKE THEM COME BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE SUBPOENA POWER. YOU KNOW, SO BUT YOU ARE, CREATING THIS WHERE THERE IS A CORRESPONDENCE BACK AND FORTH AND THERE'S A DIALOG WHERE YOU'RE WORKING WITH THE ACC, WHICH I DO LIKE THAT. YEAH. YES. THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW IS TO COOPERATE AND THAT IS OUR INTENT IS TO COOPERATE.
[01:10:08]
AS OPPOSED TO JUST CALLING AN OFFICER IN A CLOSED SESSION AND ASKING THEM QUESTIONS.THE OFFICER WALKS OUT AND SAYS, THEY ASKED ME X, Y, AND Z WHEN THEY REALLY ASKED ME A, B, AND C, YOU KNOW? SO THEN YOU'VE GOT DIFFERING NARRATIVES.
AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH CALLING AN OFFICER AND ASKING QUESTIONS. THERE IS NO RECORD OF IT. THERE IS NO RECORD OF WHAT QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED ASKED AND THERE'S NO THERE SHOULD BE MINUTES. I GUESS THERE SHOULD BE CLOSED SESSION MINUTES. WELL, IT SHOULD BE, YES. RIGHT.
BUT THEY'RE SEALED. SO THEY ARE. YEAH. AND THIS LAW WAS MEANT FOR TRANSPARENCY. AND I THINK THAT LACKS TRANSPARENCY WHEN YOU START DOING OUR INVESTIGATIVE FILE [INAUDIBLE] , IS PUBLIC INFORMATION, IT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AFTER 30 DAYS AND OF A WRITTEN REQUEST.
AND YOU COULD RUN INTO A SITUATION WHERE AN ACC AND THIS HAS HAPPENED.
MACY'S COULD ASK FOR INFORMATION THAT IS JUST ILLOGICAL TO ASK FOR IT AND THE ACC COULD JUST COME BACK AND SAY, NO, WE'RE NOT GIVING IT TO YOU EITHER BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE IT OR YOU'RE JUST GOING WAY OUTSIDE YOUR SCOPE BECAUSE MAYBE YOU WANT INFORMATION ABOUT EVERY OFFICER ON THE DEPARTMENT. AT SOME POINT, THE ACC HAS TO MAKE THE DECISION BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE.
I CAN'T GIVE YOU WHAT DOESN'T EXIST. AT SOME POINT THE ACC HAS TO SAY OKAY, BUT THEY COULD ALSO DOCUMENT IN THEIR OPINION THAT WE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND WE COULDN'T GET IT. SO BASED OFF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, THIS IS OUR RECOMMENDATION.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE. I MEAN, THAT I WOULD THINK THAT THAT RESPONSE TO STEWART, BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE, AGAIN, THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET COPIES OF THAT. I DON'T KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE SUBJECT TO A PIA REQUEST. THIS IS ALL UNEXPLORED TERRITORY.
EXACTLY. IT'S A DOCUMENT GENERATED ORIGINALLY BY THE ACC AS PART OF ITS INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS, WHICH, IRONICALLY, THE STATUTE ALLOWS INVESTIGATION BY BOTH THE LEA AND THE ACC USES THE SAME WORD.
SO TO THE EXTENT THE OFFICER ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS AND PROVIDES A NEW CREATES AN EFFECT, A NEW DOCUMENT WHERE HE'S ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS AND SUBMITTED THEM BACK TO THE OCC, ARE THEY NOT UNDER THE CLOAK OF PROTECTION, IF YOU WILL.
THE CONE OF SILENCE OF THE ACC'S INVESTIGATION, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE CLOSED AND CONFIDENTIAL EVEN THOUGH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE MIGHT HAVE A COPY OF IT. SO IF YOU GET HIT WITH A PIA REQUEST, THE THING TO DO WOULD PROBABLY BE TO NOTIFY THE ACC AND SEE IF THEY'RE GOING TO OBJECT IN ANY WAY TO THE DISCLOSURE OF THAT DOCUMENT, AND THEN GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST IT.
BUT THIS IS WHERE THIS IS WAY OUT BEYOND WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO DRAFTED THIS STATUTE.
THEY NEVER THOUGHT THIS THROUGH. NO, THIS IS GOING TO BE COURT DECISIONS.
OKAY. WELL, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER PORTER MADE A MOTION TO MAKE THAT AMENDMENT.
I'LL SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE.
MOVING ON. PAGE 6. 20-4 MEMBERSHIP. SO THIS UNDER THERE'S HERE'S ONE SUBSECTION B, I KNOW YOU'RE STILL ON FIVE.
I'M STILL ON FIVE. THE CHIEFS AND THE SHERIFF'S JUST ADDING A NUMBER THREE, WHICH WOULD STATE THE ACC WOULD NOT INVESTIGATE OR DETERMINE ANY OTHER INFRACTION NOT CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT, WHICH I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES THAT THEY'RE ONLY THERE TO DO THE TASK AT HAND.
I MEAN, THAT'S JUST YEAH. SO YEP. I GOT I'M LOOKING AT THE ONE I MARKED UP OVER MY WEEKEND.
SO ANOTHER REASON WHY THE COMMISSIONERS NEED TO RAISE . SO 3, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADD CAN YOU READ IT, LARRY OR FRANK? I CAN'T READ, I CAN READ. OKAY. IT SAYS WILL NOT INVESTIGATE OR DETERMINE ANY OTHER INFRACTION NOT CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT.
[01:15:04]
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WILL NOT. THEY WANT TO LOOK OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE COMPLAINT. RIGHT. OKAY.YEAH. SECOND MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. OKAY. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THE AYES HAVE IT.
OKAY. SO WE'LL MAKE THAT AMENDMENT. NOW MOVE ON TO MEMBERSHIP ON PAGE 6 B, WE HAVE IMMEDIATE FAMILY. SO DO WE NEED TO ADD AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY DEFINITION, DO YOU THINK? STEWART IN THE DEFINITION AND I HAVE ONE THAT I'VE SUBMITTED TO YOU ALL.
OKAY. OFFICE OF LAW SUGGESTS SUBSTITUTING THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE FOR THE EXISTING TEXT, SO THAT NUMBER ONE WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS. AN ACTIVE POLICE OFFICER OR THE SPOUSE, EMPLOYEE, PARENT, PARENT IN LAW. SISTER, SISTER IN LAW. BROTHER IN LAW, STEPPARENT, STEPBROTHER OR STEPSISTER OF AN ACTIVE POLICE OFFICER.
THAT IS A DEFINITION OF IMMEDIATE FAMILY THAT YOU MIGHT WORK HERE.
OKAY. WE ENTER THAT TWICE BECAUSE WE ALSO HAVE IT UNDER B TWO IMMEDIATE FAMILY.
SO WOULD THE MOTION BE TO STRIKE IMMEDIATE FAMILY AND ADD.
WE COULD SAY AS DEFINED ABOVE. OKAY. RATHER THAN REPEAT IT.
OKAY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE IMMEDIATE FAMILY AND SUBSTITUTE AN ACTIVE POLICE OFFICER OR THE SPOUSE, EMPLOYEE? PARENT. PARENT IN LAW, SISTER, SISTER IN LAW, BROTHER, BROTHER IN LAW, STEPPARENTS.
STEPBROTHER OR STEPSISTER OF AN ACTIVE OFFICER.
SECOND. LET ME AMEND THAT REAL QUICK, LARRY AND THEN ALSO SERVING UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF CAROLINE COUNTY.
THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED AS WELL. SO I'LL MAKE I'LL SECOND THE AMENDMENT.
SO THIS IS EXPANDING ONTO THE RECOMMENDATION, RIGHT? IT IS. YEAH. I MEAN, THE BIGGEST THING WAS IF YOU HAD A BROTHER OR SOMETHING WHO WAS A CALIFORNIA POLICE OFFICER, IT REALLY SHOULDN'T AFFECT THEIR ABILITY TO SERVE.
I GOT IT. YEAH, I KNOW I'M IN FAVOR OF IT. YEAH.
OKAY. MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. OKAY.
AND THEN WE ARE STRIKING 3B3. A CURRENT MEMBER OF A POLICE FRATERNAL.
OH, OKAY. THE ACC THEN RECOMMENDS THAT WE REMOVE UNDER 20- 4B3. A CURRENT MEMBER OF A FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION SUCH AS A FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE. THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS WHERE I WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE IS UNDERSTANDING THAT.
THERE'S A BIG YOU DON'T HAVE A MAJORITY IN THE FOP AT THE MOMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THERE WOULD BE PRESENCE HERE.
I'LL SPEAK TO THAT. I'M SORRY. WE DON'T HAVE A MAJORITY.
YEAH. I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE A LARGE CROWD. YES.
I REALLY DON'T KNOW IF GEORGE HAS. I DON'T REALLY HAVE A POSITION ON IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I THINK WHAT WAS TALKED ABOUT, DISCUSSED IN OUR MEETINGS WERE TO GRANDFATHER, EVERYBODY IN AND THEN MOVING FORWARD, THERE WOULD BE NOBODY FROM LIKE THE STATE POLICE HAS WITH TROOPERS ASSOCIATION, THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT IT INCLUDES RETIREES AND RETIREES. BUT I DON'T HAVE A STANCE.
WELL, A LOT OF RETIREES MAINTAIN THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE FOP.
RIGHT. SO RETIRED STATUS. YEAH. IT WAS SAID THERE WAS A LODGE HERE.
YOU HAD YOU HAD, YOU KNOW, A RETIRED MEMBER, AN ACTIVE MEMBER AND THEY WERE SITTING AT THE BAR HAVING A BEER TOGETHER. THE APPEARANCE WOULD NOT BE THAT THAT GLEAMING IF GLEAMING. IF SOMEBODY TOOK A PICTURE OF IT AND YOU'RE DECIDING THE CASE AGAINST THEM TOMORROW.
I MEAN, THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, HEY, WE CAN'T BE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WHAT'S CHRIS SAYING? NO, WE SHOULD NOT HAVE MEMBERS ON THERE. YEAH.
[01:20:03]
NO, THIS SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT AS WELL AND THIS WAS A RECOMMENDATION BY THE ACC.YEAH. CORRECT. TO REMOVE IT. RIGHT. SO YOUR THING IS THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE [INAUDIBLE].
OKAY. SO THE FOP THINKS THAT WE SHOULD LEAVE THE LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED.
RIGHT. IS THAT SIMPLE? DO WE HAVE ANY? IS THERE SOMEONE HERE? ARE YOU WITH THE ACC? NO.
YOU KNOW, I WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IT WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, RESTRICT OUR ABILITY TO APPOINT SOMEONE BECAUSE IT MAY BE A STRUGGLE TO FIND PEOPLE TO APPOINT.
I'M FINE WITH LEAVING IT SO THAT THE MEMBERS THAT WE HAVE WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN.
IS THAT IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING? YEAH. WE'RE NOT. YES.
THE ORDINANCE PASSAGE OF THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO CHOP ANYBODY OFF THE CURRENT BOARD.
IT'S BY ATTRITION VERY SHORTLY YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE SOME MEMBERS, BUT IT'S NOT RETROACTIVE IN THE SENSE THAT YOU'RE AN FOP MEMBER, YOU'RE FIRED RIGHT OFF THIS BOARD.
WOULD IT PREVENT US FROM REAPPOINTING AN FOP MEMBER? THAT'S WHERE IT WOULD BEGIN TO BECOME DICEY. THE PERSON MIGHT HAVE TO RESIGN IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE, WHICH THEY'RE NOT GOING TO. NOBODY'S GOING TO DO THAT. IF YOU'VE BEEN OUT THAT MANY YEARS IN FOP, RIGHT? WHAT ARE OTHER COUNTIES DOING? WITH REGARD TO IT'S ALL OVER THE PLACE.
IT REALLY IS. THIS IS TRULY ONE OF THOSE AREAS THAT DEPENDS ON WHAT COUNTY YOU'RE AT.
BUT IT'S 100% IN THE AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
DO WE I MEAN, DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION OR ANYONE PRESENTING THE POSITION OF THE ACC? I MEAN, AS TO WHY THEY WOULD WANT IT TO LEAVE.
NO, I WOULD HATE TO SPEAK FOR COLLECTIVELY THAT COMMITTEE, BUT I MEAN, THEY VOTED TO SEND A LETTER RECOMMENDING THAT WE REMOVE IT, BUT I DON'T THINK THE LETTER GAVE MUCH CONTEXT AS TO WHY. YEAH. THE LETTER JUST SAYS STRIKE THE ENTIRE SENTENCE. A CURRENT MEMBER OF A POLICE FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION.
I THINK THEY FOUND THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET A RETIRED OFFICER TO SERVE FROM THE FOP POINT, WE DON'T WANT A LOCAL MEMBER ON THE BOARD. JUST SO I'M CLEAR MY OUR POSITION.
I DON'T WANT A LOCAL MEMBER OF FOP ON THE ACC.
OKAY. IF THEY ARE A MEMBER SOMEWHERE ELSE THAT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
OKAY, I'M TALKING LOCAL HERE, RIGHT? NOT A MEMBER HERE IN CAROLINE COUNTY BECAUSE THEY COULD POTENTIALLY BE CONTRIBUTING TO THE REPRESENTATION THAT THE OFFICER WAS BRINGING INTO THE TRIAL BOARD OR THE ACC, CORRECT, RIGHT.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADD A CURRENT MEMBER OF A. OF THE CAROLINE COUNTY FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE.
WELL, I THINK IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE NOT JUST THE FOP, BUT ANY ORGANIZATION.
[INAUDIBLE]. ANY CAROLINE COUNTY, [INAUDIBLE].
RIGHT. AND I'M JUST GOING TO ADD AT THE I WAS AT THE ACC MEETING WHEN THEY DISCUSSED THIS, AND I JUST DON'T THINK THEY SAW A CONFLICT. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WENT INTO DETAILED SPECIFICS ABOUT THIS COMMENT OTHER THAN THEY JUST THEY DIDN'T SEE THE CONFLICT.
RIGHT. AND THEY FELT THAT A KNOWLEDGE OF A RETIRED POLICE OFFICER WAS A POSITIVE THING FOR THE ACC.
SO PRESUMABLY, IF YOU'RE IN A FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, YOU HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE OF IT, RIGHT?
[01:25:04]
SO. OKAY. SO I MADE A MOTION TO AMEND THE LANGUAGE TO SAY A LOCAL OR A CAROLINE COUNTY CHAPTER OF A POLICE FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION. I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY.BUT THE CURRENT ONES WOULD BE. THEY'RE FINE. RIGHT? YES. FOR NOW. YEAH. OKAY. MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT.
YEAH, I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. I HAVE THE REQUIREMENT.
IS THAT IN STATE LAW OR IS THAT JUST SOMETHING THAT WE SAY? THAT'S JUST SOMETHING WE CAME UP WITH? I DON'T WANT TO TIE OUR HANDS TO SOMEONE WHO'S RESIDED HERE FOR THREE YEARS.
I DON'T THINK. SHOULD WE HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT? WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON HAVING A I MEAN, WE COULD THE COMMISSIONERS COULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WITH THE APPOINTMENT.
THAT'S TRUE. AND IT JUST RESTRICTS FUTURE BOARDS OF COMMISSIONERS TO ACTUALLY THEN HAVING TO SAY, HAVE YOU LIVED HERE THREE YEARS AND, YOU KNOW, GO THROUGH ALL OF THAT.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD REMOVE THAT. YEAH, THAT'S KIND OF.
AND WE CAN, YOU KNOW. WHAT DO YOU THINK, LARRY? GO WITH THAT. YEAH. OKAY. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE STRIKE, ALL OF WHOM SHALL HAVE RESIDED IN CAROLINE COUNTY FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT AND CHANGE IT TO SAY, ALL OF WHOM MUST RESIDE IN CAROLINE COUNTY AT THE TIME OF APPOINTMENT AT THE TIME OF APPOINTMENT. I'LL SECOND.
OKAY. MOTION TO SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? NAY. THE AYES HAVE IT.
THEN WE HAVE A PAB RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS SAME PARAGRAPH AND THE PAB SUGGESTS THAT WE ADD THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY DESIGNATE ONE ALTERNATE MEMBER TO SIT ON THE PAB IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADD THAT STATEMENT.
SECOND. OKAY. MOTION. AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. THEN WE MOVE DOWN TO.
DO WE NEED TO STRIKE? I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE STRIKE.
BECAUSE WE'RE MOVING THAT UP TO THE TOP. PER THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION.
DO I HEAR A SECOND? THAT'S FINE. SECOND. MOTION AND SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. OKAY. MOVING ON TO SECTION H.
WITH REGARD TO THE ACC, THE ACC SHALL BE. EXCUSE ME, COMMISSIONER.
YEAH, I HAD A SUGGESTION AN E. OKAY. SIMPLY TO REWORD THAT EXISTING LANGUAGE TO READ AS FOLLOWS. TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, THE CHAIR OF THE PAB SHALL HAVE EXPERIENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE POSITION. IT'S JUST A SLIGHTLY. I THINK IT BETTER GRAMMATICALLY AND MAKES MORE SENSE.
OKAY. I MOVE THAT, I MOVE THAT REVISION. OKAY.
SECOND. MOTION AND SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. OKAY.
MOVING ON TO SECTION H. THE SAME STATEMENT IS IN H1.
[01:30:03]
THE ACC SHALL BE COMPOSED OF FIVE MEMBERS, ALL OF WHOM SHALL HAVE RESIDED IN CAROLINE COUNTY FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT.I WOULD MOVE THAT WE STRIKE THAT, ALL OF WHOM SHALL HAVE RESIDED IN CAROLINE COUNTY FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS PRIOR TO APPOINTMENT, AND ADD ALL OF WHOM SHALL RESIDE IN CAROLINE COUNTY AT THE TIME OF APPOINTMENT AT THE TIME OF APPOINTMENT.
SECOND. MOTION. SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. OKAY.
A LOT OF AMENDMENTS. I THINK THAT MIGHT UP. PAGE NINE.
PAGE NINE. WE HAVE ONE. LOOKS LIKE THERE'S ONE ON PAGE EIGHT.
THE OLDEST OF LAW SUGGESTS. OH, YES. SECTION 25-B1, PAGE EIGHT.
OKAY. IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT IS INTENDED THERE.
IT SIMPLY FIXES THE GRAMMAR AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE.
OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION TO INCORPORATE THE OFFICE OF LAWS RECOMMENDED CHANGES.
SECOND. MOTION. AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. OKAY, THAT'S PAGE EIGHT COVERED.
PAGE 9. PAB REQUESTS THAT WE ADD BOARD MEMBERS MAY ATTEND MEETINGS REMOTELY.
ANY OBJECTION TO THAT AMENDMENT? NO DISCUSSION.
GOOD. OKAY. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADD THAT BOARD MEMBERS MAY ATTEND MEETINGS REMOTELY.
SO. I MEAN, WHEN YOU SAY THAT, I MEAN, I SUPPOSE THEY'RE ALL REMOTELY.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? SO YOU STILL HAVE.
YOU GOTTA HAVE A QUORUM. SO IF EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE REMOTELY.
I MEAN, IS THAT. THAT'S A MATTER OF POLICY. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN, FOR YOU ALL THERE ARE SOME BOARDS THAT DO MEET THAT WAY. DURING COVID, A LOT OF BOARDS GOVERNMENT BOARDS MET.
I KNOW THE FOR EXAMPLE, THE CRITICAL AREAS COMMISSION MEETS REMOTELY AND THEY DO A ROLL CALL TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE A QUORUM, BUT THERE ISN'T ANYONE THERE PRESENT AT THE TIME.
OKAY, I'LL LEAVE IT AT YOUR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO.
IF YOU'RE FINE WITH IT, I'M GOOD. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH REMOTE.
SHOULD WE LIMIT IT TO NO MORE THAN THREE REMOTELY? SO THAT WAY ONE HAS TO BE IN PERSON. I THINK THEY SHOULD AT LEAST MEET ONCE.
I MEAN, THAT'S. YEAH. [INAUIDBLE]. THE STATEWIDE AGENCY MEETS EXCLUSIVELY, VIRTUALLY AND PABS.
I'VE SIGNED IN A LOT OF THEM ALL OVER THE PLACE.
SO WHAT DO YOU SEE A LOT OF TIMES AT HOWARD COUNTY? SOME WILL BE VIRTUAL, BUT OTHERS WILL BE THERE IN PERSON.
SO IT'S ALL OVER THE PLACE. I DON'T HAVE ANY PREFERENCE ANYWAY.
I DON'T, I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION. I DON'T HAVE A PREFERENCE.
I JUST WAS MAKING A STATEMENT. REALLY? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? YEAH. I MEAN, ANYONE WOULD BE ABLE TO LOG ON AND WATCH.
THAT WOULD BE THE THEORY. THE MEETING. RIGHT? YEAH. OKAY. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.
WELL, MY MOTION MAY ATTEND. RIGHT? MY MOTION STANDS TO ADD THE SUGGESTED LANGUAGE.
SECOND. OKAY. MOTION. AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. OKAY.
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ON. ALL RIGHT. I'VE GOT ONE ON TEN HERE REAL QUICK AND THEN WE'LL BE DONE, RIGHT? TEN.
SO WHAT I HAD WAS. THAT ONE WE ALREADY COVERED, WHICH WAS THE.
WE'VE ALREADY INCORPORATED THE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDATION.
RIGHT. I HAD IT DOWN HERE IN RULES, BUT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN INCORPORATED.
SEE, RECORD KEEPING ONE. I RECOMMEND THAT WE CHANGE INSTEAD OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY OF CAROLINE COUNTY, WE JUST SAY A COUNTY EMPLOYEE DESIGNATED BY THE COMMISSIONERS.
10-C1. JUST ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE THINGS. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO LOCK OUR HANDS IN.
[01:35:09]
SILVER, AND HE SAID THAT IT'S ALL OVER THE PLACE. SOME COUNTIES HAVE IT IN THE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, SOME PEOPLE HAVE IT. THE STATE'S ATTORNEY, ACTUALLY AND YOU TALK ABOUT A WEIRD SITUATION. THE STATE'S ATTORNEY, ACTUALLY.OH, YOU WALKED IN THE ROOM? I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE HERE. I'M SORRY.
SOME PUT IT UNDER THE HR. YEAH, UNDER. YEAH. SO, HR.
HE SAID, I MOVE. WE MAKE THAT CHANGE. THAT JUST GIVES US MORE FLEXIBILITY.
SO OKAY. MOTION I'LL SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ALL RIGHT, LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.
[01:42:36]
I CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER. REMINDING THAT WE ARE STILL IN LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE FORWARD TO THE THIRD READING AND POTENTIAL AMENDMENT OF LEGISLATIVE BILL 2025-006 UPON REDRAFTING WITH AMENDMENTS AND MAKING IT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR REVIEW.SECOND. OKAY. MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. IF I MAY SUGGEST IF THERE'S ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN YOU WOULD CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY.
I DON'T SEE ANY PUBLIC HERE, SO. NO. DO EITHER ONE OF YOU WANT TO COMMENT? NO. I MOVE, WE GO BACK INTO OPEN SESSION FROM LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
CLOSE THE PUBLIC, I MOVE, WE CLOSE THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
OKAY, I'LL SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. SAY AYE.
AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE THIRD READING AND POTENTIAL ENACTMENT FOR ANOTHER LEGISLATIVE BILL. MR. BARROLL. YES, SIR.
WE ARE HERE SCHEDULED FOR THE. THIRD READING WITH THE POTENTIAL TO AMEND OR ENACT LEGISLATIVE BILL
[01:45:05]
2025- 005, CHAPTER 175 ZONING. THIS IS ARTICLE 19 DEALING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.[Third Reading and Potential Amendment/ Enactment]
SUBSECTIONS C AND E OF SECTION 175-163. AND BASICALLY, THIS IS AN ACT THAT WOULD REPEAL AND REENACT WITH AMENDMENTS SUBSECTIONS C TERM AND E REMOVAL OF SECTION 175-163 OF ARTICLE 19 OF CHAPTER 175 ZONING. FOR THE PURPOSE OF MODIFYING THE LANGUAGE OF SUBSECTION C TO ELIMINATE TERM LIMITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MODIFYING LANGUAGE OF SUBSECTION E TO CONFORM TO CHANGES IN THE ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND.I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING. OKAY. IS THERE ANY COMMENTS ANY AMENDMENTS, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS FOR THIS BILL? I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ENACT LEGISLATIVE BILL 2025005.
SO MOVED. SECOND. MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
[Consent Agenda]
AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. OKAY.I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
SO MOVED. SECOND. MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. OKAY.
MOVING ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNS, COMMENTS ABOUT.
WELL, ACTUALLY, I MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE PO NUMBER 20250582 FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND MAKE THAT AN ACTION ITEM. SO I CAN RECUSE MYSELF FROM DISCUSSION ON THAT.
SO SECOND. OKAY, MOTION. AND SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. IS THERE ANYTHING, ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? I HAVE NONE. NO. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, AS AMENDED. SECOND. MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OKAY. COMMISSIONER BREEDING HAS RECUSED HIMSELF AS I UNDERSTAND THAT HIS COMPANY BID ON THE JOB EXCAVATING JOB AT DOUBLE HILLS. SO I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE PO NUMBER 2025 0582 TO CHOPTANK EXCAVATING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,045,578.30. SO MOVED. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
AYE. SO MOVED. THANK YOU . WHEN WOULD THIS START? DO YOU KNOW? [INAUDIBLE]. OUR INTENT IS TO HAVE A A JOINT MEETING WITH ALL PARTIES INVOLVED WITH THIS AND ISSUE A NOTICE TO PROCEED AND I THINK OUT OF THAT MEETING, A DATE WILL BE ISSUED FOR THEM TO START.
SO HONESTLY, IT WILL PROBABLY REVOLVE AROUND A LITTLE BIT OF CHOP TANKS.
OKAY. SCHEDULE. BUT IMMEDIATELY IS OUR INTENT.
WE WANT THIS ON THE BOOKS AND PROBABLY WITHIN REASON OF IT.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT.
[County Administrator’s Report]
SAY THE DIRECTORS, DANNY AND MYSELF, ARE GOING THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER PRIORITY PROJECTS AND I PLAN TO GIVE YOU MORE ROBUST UPDATE NEXT WEEK ON ALL OF THE[01:50:10]
PROJECTS. MANY OF THEM ARE WRAPPING UP, WHICH IS GOOD NEWS.SO I'M JUST BRINGING THAT UP FOR NEXT WEEK, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE OTHER THINGS ON YOUR MIND THAT WE NEED TO START FOCUSING ON OR, YOU KNOW, ELEVATING UP THE PRIORITIES, THEN IT'LL BE THE WEEK AFTER.
AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE FINALLY RECEIVED THE FONZIE, SO JAMIE AND REC AND PARKS IS ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD ON SOME ACTION ITEMS WITH NORTH COUNTY PARK. SHE ANTICIPATES HAVING THE BID DOCUMENTS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS.
SO WE'RE MOVING FORWARD ON THAT ON WE'RE STILL WAITING ON COMMENTS FROM SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT, WHICH I UNDERSTAND HAS BEEN A COUPLE OF MONTHS.
SO SHE'LL BE PAYING ON SCD AGAIN FOR THAT. I FORWARDED AN EMAIL TO ALL THREE OF YOU.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE IT ON YOUR CALENDARS.
THERE'S A PSC PUBLIC HEARING ON THE HALO SOLAR PROJECT WHICH IS UP IN GOLDSBORO.
IT'S A 34 ACRE SOLAR PROJECT. THAT'S A VIRTUAL MEETING ON JUNE 10TH IF YOU WANT TO ATTEND.
AND LISTEN I'VE SPOKEN TO ROBIN CAYHALL REGARDING THE GAINEY'S WHARF NUISANCE SITUATION.
SHE IS MEETING. PROBABLY EVEN MORE THIS WEEK WITH BOTH MDE AND MDH EXPLORING THE BEST OPTION FOR CITATION AND ENFORCEMENT OR ISSUING A VIOLATION CONVERSATION WITH HER, SHE COULD ISSUE A VIOLATION FOR SOME OF THE ISSUES OUT THERE, BUT SHE DOES NOT HAVE THE ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITY.
SO ONCE THE 30 DAYS IS UP, YOU KNOW. SO I GUESS I THINK IT'S MDH HAS THE TEETH TO FOLLOW UP.
ALSO, I THINK YOU ALL KNOW THERE WAS A BURIAL SITE FOUND WHILE THEY WERE EXCAVATING.
I GUESS SOME HUMAN REMAINS. CHERRY WOOD. SORRY.
YES. TEMPORARY. SO RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A TEMPORARY HALT OF WORK JUST IN THAT LOCATION ON THE PARCEL.
ALL THE APPROPRIATE ACTIONS ARE BEING TAKEN. CHERRY WOOD HAS NOTIFIED EVERYBODY THAT THEY'RE OBLIGATED TO NOTIFY THAT OUR BURIAL SITES ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS CONVENING, AND YOU KNOW, THAT'S MOVING FORWARD THE WAY THAT IT SHOULD.
AND ON THE SOLAR PROJECT ALSO, I BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION RECENTLY, MAYBE A FEW WEEKS AGO, WE HAD A ACTUALLY, I THINK SHE EMAILED ALL OF YOU DIRECTLY, A PROPERTY OWNER WHO HAD SOME ISSUES WITH THE SCREENING THAT WAS BEING PROVIDED BY THE SOLAR PROJECT. I'VE SPOKEN TO HER, AS HAS CRYSTAL DAD'S YOUR PLANNING DIRECTOR AND WE ACTUALLY, I SHOULD SAY CRYSTAL HAS MET WITH THE SOLAR COMPANY, AND THEY ARE MAKING SOME CHANGES TO THE SCREENING TO HELP THAT INDIVIDUAL OUT.
THEY CAN'T MAKE ALL OF HER REQUESTED CHANGES BECAUSE ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE IMPACTED, DO NOT AGREE. SO THEY'RE GOING WITH THE APPROVED WHAT? THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED FOR THE SCREENING AT THE ONE SIDE OF HER LANE.
BUT THEY ARE DOING SOME MORE PLANTINGS BY HER PROPERTY.
SO THAT'S A POSITIVE THING. I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE RIGHT NOW.
SO. OKAY AND THE SOLAR PROJECTS THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION HEARINGS COMING UP.
HAVE THEY BEEN SUBMITTED TO OUR PLANNING AND CODES DEPARTMENT YET? DO YOU KNOW HALO? I'M ACTUALLY NOT SURE. DO YOU KNOW? OKAY. I WOULD GUESS THAT THEY HAVE, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO GO OUT ON THAT.
THEY HAVEN'T BEEN TO PLANNING COMMISSION YET.
SO MAYBE THEY'RE IN THE REVIEW. IF THEY ARE SUBMITTED, THEY'RE BEING REVIEWED BY STAFF.
WHICH. BRINGS ME TO A DISCUSSION ABOUT OUR 2000 ACRE CAP.
DO WE WANT TO POTENTIALLY AMEND OUR CODE TO DO AWAY WITH THE 2000 ACRE CAP AND OR INSIDE OF KEEP THE 2000 ACRE CAP IN PLACE AND INSIDE OF THAT LIMIT SOLAR TO LAND THAT IS NOT DESIGNATED AG LAND OR DESIGNATED LAND OF
[01:55:04]
STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE OR NATIONAL IMPORTANCE. MAYBE A CONVERSATION TO HAVE WITH LESLIE AND SEE HOW MUCH OF THE COUNTY IS ACTUALLY DESIGNATED AS AG LAND OF NATIONWIDE IMPORTANCE OR STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE? YEAH, I THINK WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION IN LIGHT OF THE IN LIGHT OF THESE OF THE BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE CAN DO AS FAR AS CERTAINLY THE ONES THAT ARE IN PROGRESS.BUT I MEAN, IT'S, YOU KNOW, GOING FORWARD, OUR INTENTION WAS TO TRY TO BE COLLABORATIVE AND TRY TO BE, YOU KNOW, TO WORK WITH THE STATE AND WITH SOLAR.
BUT I THINK THAT HAS ALL BEEN PREEMPTED BY THE BY THE STATE.
I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT CUTTING IT OFF AND NOT ALLOWING ANY MORE.
RIGHT. ON [INAUDIBLE]. RIGHT. OKAY. I TOLD YOU THAT BEFORE.
YEAH. ALRIGHT. WELL, I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH CRYSTAL AND LESLIE AND START TO, YOU KNOW, HASH OUT WHAT KIND OF LANGUAGE IS APPROPRIATE TO REACH TO THE GOAL OF THE WILL OF WHAT I THINK THE THREE OF US WANT TO DO.
[County Commissioners Open Discussion Period]
SO. OKAY. COUNTY COMMISSIONER, OPEN DISCUSSION.PERIOD. COMMISSIONER. PORTER. YEAH. A COUPLE OF THINGS.
THE AS WE KNOW, J. FALSTAD IS CIRCULATING A PETITION FOR A REFERENDUM ON THE SENATE BILLS AND THE ENERGY BILLS THAT WERE PASSED. I THINK HE MAY BE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, BUT I MEAN, HE'S BEEN GOING IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. I THINK YOU TWO HAVE SIGNED IT.
I'VE SIGNED MINE. YOU KNOW, I THINK WHATEVER WE CAN DO AS A TO HELP HIM WITH THE PLATFORM TO GET THAT DONE WHAT THE PETITION ACTUALLY SAYS IS, DOES NOT REALLY RESTRICT SOLAR FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IT IS THAT IT WOULD GIVE CONTROL BACK TO THE COUNTIES NOT COMPLETELY BANNING SOLAR.
THE I THINK THAT WE CERTAINLY I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE LOST A VERY A GOOD, GREAT PERSON FOR CAROLINE BILL TOWERS, HIS PASSING, I THINK, WILL AFFECT THE COUNTY IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY THAT PEOPLE PROBABLY DON'T EVEN REALIZE AT THIS POINT.
BUT HE WAS CERTAINLY A VERY GENEROUS YOU KNOW, PHILANTHROPIC MAN AND FAMILY, THE ENTIRE FAMILY WITH YOU KNOW, USING HIS FACILITIES THERE THAT HE HAD TO FOR MANY FUNDRAISING OPPORTUNITIES AND YOU KNOW, HE WAS A VERY GRACIOUS PERSON TO THIS COUNTY.
AND I THINK IT'S A SIGNIFICANT LOSS. AND ONE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO FLOAT TO KIND OF SEE IF WE WOULD CONSIDER, I KNOW WE'RE ALWAYS HAVING ORGANIZATIONS AND, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO COME IN AND WANT US TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN MONTHS AS DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS OR OCCASIONS.
I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE JUST WE JUST WENT THROUGH MEMORIAL DAY, AND IT'S A SHAME THAT I THINK WE ONLY, YOU KNOW, KIND OF, YOU KNOW, EMPHASIZED THAT DAY.
SO IF WE CAN DO A PROCLAMATION AND INVITE SOME VETERANS IN, I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT IF YOU GUYS ARE OKAY WITH THAT AND, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER THING IS WE STARTED A PROCESS HERE SOME YEARS AGO ABOUT RECOGNIZING COUNTY PEOPLE.
I THINK WE NEED TO REALLY PICK PICKED THAT UP.
THERE ARE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK BILL WOULD HAVE BEEN A, WE CAN DO IT, BUT IT WOULD BE GREAT FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR HIM.
SO I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO MAYBE MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS AND HAVE, YOU KNOW, RECOGNIZE SOME PEOPLE FOR THE WORK THEY DO, NOT ONLY IN THE COUNTY, BUT ONE THAT POPS IN MY MIND IS KENNY WOOD.
[02:00:01]
KENNY DOES WORK. UNBELIEVABLE WORK THROUGHOUT THE WORLD AND JUST BRING THE PEOPLE IN AND RECOGNIZE THEM AS COUNTY CITIZENS AND, YOU KNOW, TRY TO, YOU KNOW, THANK THEM AND EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION FOR WHAT THEY DO AND SO IF WE CAN WORK ON THAT.YEAH. IT'S YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED.
WE NEED TO DO. SO BUT YEAH, I THINK THE DISCUSSION ON THE SOLAR ORDINANCE IS ONE THAT WE NEED TO WE NEED TO HAVE? I THINK THIS REFERENDUM IS A GOOD IDEA.
I KNOW IT'S A PRETTY STEEP HILL TO CLIMB, BUT JAY SEEMS TO BE PRETTY, YOU KNOW, PRETTY AGGRESSIVE WITH IT AND I'M CERTAINLY WILLING TO HELP HIM HOWEVER I CAN AS WELL. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER BARTZ OF COURSE, I WAS UNDER THE WEATHER LAST WEEK, SO I DIDN'T GET TO TOO MUCH, SO I WE WENT TO THE STRAWBERRY FESTIVAL. THAT WAS ALWAYS A GREAT TIME AND I DID SIGN JAY'S PETITION, PETITION YESTERDAY. SO I DID GET OUT FOR THAT.
SO NOT MUCH IN MY. YEAH. IF ANYONE DOES WANT TO SIGN THE PETITION IT IS A LITTLE NUANCED. ACCORDING TO WHAT JAY TOLD ME YESTERDAY, THE BILL HAS TO BE PRINTED ON THE BACK OF THE PETITION, WHICH COMMISSIONER PORTER. IT IS VERY SMALL. SO THE 28 PAGE BILL IS PRINTED ON THE BACK WITH A LINK.
THE PETITION, EACH SHEET YOU HAVE TO LIST THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE SIGNATURES ARE BEING OBTAINED FROM, AND ONLY SIGNATURES FROM THAT COUNTY CAN SIGN THAT SHEET.
YOU HAVE TO WRITE YOUR FIRST, MIDDLE AND LAST NAME.
AND WHEN YOU SIGN, YOU HAVE TO SIGN YOUR FIRST, MIDDLE, AND LAST NAME.
EVEN IF YOUR NORMAL SIGNATURE DOES NOT INCLUDE YOUR COMPLETE NAME, YOU HAVE TO WRITE IT OUT.
EVERYTHING HAS TO BE PERFECT, OR THE SIGNATURE DOESN'T COUNT.
SO VERY NUANCED. IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED REACH OUT TO JAY.
HE'S THE PERSON J. FOSTER IS THE PERSON THAT KNOWS IT ALL.
COMPETITION. SO BUT THAT'S ALL I HAD. SO WE'LL NOW HAVE OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE ONE MORE THING? SURE. YEAH.
[Public Comment]
I WAS SCROLLING THROUGH THE PRESS RELEASE SUBMITTED BY THE PSC ABOUT HALO.AND I REALIZED THERE'S A SECOND SOLAR HEARING THAT'S LISTED ON HERE ALSO THAT I MISSED.
I HAD TO SCROLL DOWN. YEAH. SO IT'S A SOLAR PROJECT WITHIN THE TOWN OF FEDERALSBURG.
THERE'S AN IN-PERSON PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 10TH.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT. SORRY. OKAY.
WE'RE GOING INTO OUR SUMMER SCHEDULE, WHICH WILL MEAN THAT WE WILL HAVE MEETINGS EVERY OTHER WEEK.
SO WITH THAT, I SEE NO ONE IN THE PUBLIC, SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE EMPLOYMENT, APPOINTMENT, ASSIGNMENT OR PERSONNEL MATTER AND TO DISCUSS A MATTER DIRECTLY RELATED TO NEGOTIATING NEGOTIATION STRATEGY.
[Closed Session: To Discuss the Employment, Appointment, Assignment or Personnel Matter. &]
PROCESS UNDER GENERAL PROVISIONS. ARTICLE 3 -305, B ONE AND 14.SO MOVED. SECOND. MOTION AND SECOND. NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.