Council hears lengthy objections to proposed temporary administrative suspension power; item introduced amid split views

Taneytown, Md. — A proposed ordinance that would permit temporary administrative suspension of enforcement for up to 60 days drew sharp opposition from several council members on May 12, producing lengthy debate about separation of powers and procedural safeguards.

The draft ordinance (as presented) would allow the mayor or administration to suspend enforcement of a municipal ordinance for a fixed period, require written notice to the city manager and city council explaining the reasons for suspension and propose clarifying changes, and place the item automatically on the council agenda during the suspension period for legislative review.

Opponents argued the draft was too broad. One council member said bluntly, "This is a bad idea," and raised concerns that the language could permit the mayor to suspend large swaths of municipal code without adequate checks. Several speakers requested sharper limits, shorter suspension windows, or clearer standards that would trigger the mechanism.

The mayor and supporters defended the measure as a formal process to surface ambiguous or unenforceable ordinances and to ensure administration and council address enforcement problems in a documented, time-limited way. Mayor Christopher G. Miller said the measure was intended to "kick it back to the council saying this needs to be clarified, so I'm not just saying to the city manager, 'hey, we're just not gonna enforce this.'" He added that the draft includes a sunset and that council could call an emergency meeting if it wanted to overturn a suspension.

Council direction and next steps: The item was introduced as drafted, but multiple council members asked staff to revise the language to narrow the scope, clarify standards for suspension, and consider shorter timeframes or an "intent-to-suspend" procedure that triggers immediate council notice without unilateral temporary suspension. Several members asked for legal review to confirm the measure's compatibility with charter authority and to avoid creating unbounded executive discretion.

Ending: Staff will return with revised language and a legal opinion addressing concerns raised by councilors before any final adoption vote.