Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kent County Police Accountability Board clarifies limits on complaints, delays brochures; one case pending
Summary
At its July 2 meeting the Kent County Police Accountability Board clarified that complaints against police chiefs and sheriffs are generally outside its jurisdiction, said members, and reported one case is awaiting agency review. Board members also said informational brochures remain in layout and will be reviewed before printing.
Kent County Police Accountability Board members met July 2 and clarified which complaints the board may investigate, said members, while routine agenda items including acceptance of the agenda and minutes were approved and one complaint remains under agency review.
The clarification matters because residents sometimes assume the board can investigate all police-related complaints; board members said statutory limits and other oversight mechanisms apply in some cases. "The police chief ... does not fall under the purview of the Police Accountability Board," said PAB Chair, explaining the board's statutory limits.
Board members said chiefs, sheriffs and certain senior deputies are handled outside the PAB's review process under state and local accountability channels. The board discussed that elected sheriffs are accountable to voters and, in some cases, removable by the governor; appointed police chiefs are accountable to the elected officials who appointed them and can be reported to those officials. "There are a number of jurisdictional, hurdles that you must overcome in order for the PAB to have jurisdiction over a particular complaint," said PAB member (explainer), listing a timeframe requirement, that the conduct occurred after the law took effect, and that the officer must have been employed by a municipality or county within the PAB's jurisdiction.
The Chestertown Ethics Commission chair noted an additional route for some complaints: "All of us are under county ethics law, just being members of this, commission," the chair said, and added that ethics commissions can investigate certain ethics complaints against chiefs. Board members also said the state police can be asked to investigate alleged misconduct if a complainant seeks that route.
On outreach, members said a brochure explaining the board's role and how to file complaints is not yet printed because the layout is still being finalized; the board agreed members will review the layout before printing. "Brochures. They haven't been printed yet," the PAB Chair said. Members asked whether the website currently explains the jurisdictional distinction; the chair said the distinction exists in statute but is not necessarily posted verbatim on the board's website.
The board reported informal meetings with local law-enforcement leadership to keep lines of communication open. One member said they had met with the county sheriff and Rock Hall's police chief to review law and procedures "and it went very well." The Chestertown police chief did not attend that meeting because of personnel reasons, the member said.
Procedural items: the board unanimously approved the agenda and the minutes by voice vote. A board member said, "We have actually 1 case," and members noted that complaint remains in the agency review process and no formal PAB determination was announced. The board scheduled its next meeting for August and asked members to confirm availability when they receive the notice.
The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn, which passed by voice vote; the PAB Chair adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.
