Caroline County Police Accountability Board approves ordinance changes, adds alternate seat and virtual attendance option

The Caroline County Police Accountability Board voted May 7 to approve the county's proposed ordinance converting the board's administrative charter into local law, with two exceptions: the board authorized one alternate member and agreed to allow virtual attendance for members.

The change, part of proposed Ordinance 2025-1, would reduce the board from seven members to five and add language addressing membership, resignation for nonattendance and administrative charging committee (ACC) procedures, PAB Administrator Kim Raider told the board during the meeting.

"One of them is making the board a little bit smaller," Raider said, summarizing a principal change. She told members the draft also clarifies when officers may be asked to appear before the ACC and defines conflicts of interest for board and ACC members.

Why it matters: the proposed ordinance moves county practice from an administrative resolution into a formal ordinance that will follow the county legislative process, including three readings and a public hearing. Board members said a smaller membership, plus an alternate and virtual attendance, should ease chronic quorum problems and reduce the number of vacancies that have hampered the board's work.

Board discussion and votes Board members discussed several substantive changes in the draft ordinance. Raider said the draft incorporates edits from the sheriff's office, municipal chiefs and the administrative charging committee and noted the county attorney proposed language to avoid perceived conflicts of interest for members who have immediate relatives who are active local police officers.

The board debated attendance and replacements: the draft sets an attendance threshold that will automatically end membership if a member misses a set percentage of meetings in a calendar year, Raider said. Members asked whether virtual attendance could be allowed; Raider said she would draft language to permit it if the board voted to include that option.

After discussion, a board member moved to approve the county's recommendations with two exceptions: authorizing one alternate member and permitting virtual attendance. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The board recorded that the motion passed; members present voted in favor.

Trial boards, costs and due process A substantial portion of the discussion focused on trial boards and the practical difficulty of securing retired judges to serve. Raider said the county has been unable to find local retired judges willing to hear pending trial-board matters and that the draft contemplates using the Office of Administrative Hearings as an alternative.

Raider described the cost estimates members had received for an administrative law judge and a three-day trial, and the effects on county budgets and personnel: "I've looked into it. I've inquired. So it's just one of those things that's gonna have to happen," she said. Separate cost estimates discussed during the meeting ranged from roughly $6,000 up to $15,000 for multi-day proceedings; an administrative law judge rate of about $200 per hour was mentioned in the discussion.

FOP president Chris Kimtop, introduced during public comment, urged caution about calling officers to testify before the ACC and PAB. "I would absolutely advocate that they do not testify in front of this board," he said, citing potential criminal and civil implications and the risk of litigation years after an incident.

Board members and representatives noted that county practice on whether officers appear before the ACC differs around the state. Raider said the Maryland Police Training Commission indicated Caroline County was among the few counties that had called officers before the ACC and that other counties advise additional steps before summoning an officer.

State law, attorney-general guidance and expungement Speakers referenced state law and opinions while discussing what the county may impose by ordinance. Sheriff Baker and others said the attorney general's opinion supports counties imposing additional process requirements so long as the county does not conflict with state statute. "The attorney general's opinion was absolutely. And the spirit of this law was for the counties to have control," one participant summarized.

Sheriff Baker and board members also discussed separate, recent state legislation on expungement for exonerated or unfounded complaints. Baker said he testified and that the expungement measure failed in the recent session. "I submitted written testimony ... and it failed," he said. Participants said the issue may be revisited in the next legislative session.

Next steps and timeline Following the board vote, Raider said she would draft a letter reflecting the board's action, have it signed by the board chair, and forward it to the County Commissioners and county administrators. She outlined the county timeline for the ordinance: first reading at the commissioners' legislative session on May 20, a public hearing on May 27 and a final reading on June 10, subject to amendments during the legislative process.

The board adjourned after brief municipal Q&A and the vote.