Baltimore County Police Accountability Board rejects motion to review public complaints

The Baltimore County Police Accountability Board on a roll call vote declined a motion to change its rules of procedure to allow board members to review complaints of police misconduct filed by members of the public. The motion was moved by Peter Fitzpatrick and seconded by Karen White but did not receive enough votes to pass.

Board members and public commenters framed the issue as a dispute between transparency advocates and those citing legal and confidentiality limits. Supporters at the meeting argued the change would let board members ‘‘review the complaints you receive’’ and improve oversight. Opponents said the board’s authority and confidentiality rules are constrained by state law and that reviewing complaints piecemeal could be prejudicial or ineffective.

The motion would have modified the PAB’s rules to permit review of complaints ‘‘received by the PAB’’ (primarily those submitted via the board’s website). Public speakers urged passage. Claire Landers told the board, “I really, really urge you to build public confidence in this board…by adopting this board to allow PAB members to review the complaints filed.” Lorena Diaz of the ACLU of Maryland told members, “There is nothing in the statute or regulations that prohibits the PAB members from reviewing complaints,” and urged a yes vote as a step toward transparency.

Board members who opposed the motion raised legal and practical limits. Member Scott Richmond said he was ‘‘opposed to this motion’’ not because he disagreed with the goal but because he saw statutory constraints and potential confidentiality issues: he cited provisions of the Maryland Public Safety Article and said the statute “only authorizes the PAB to receive complaints of police misconduct filed by members of the public. It does not allow us to review them.” Richmond also expressed concern that hearing initial complaints without the full investigative file could be prejudicial and would not produce useful oversight without additional information.

Other speakers representing the public and advocacy organizations said they feared the current structure left most board members ‘‘in the dark’’ about the nature and patterns of complaints and therefore unable to identify trends or make policy recommendations. Peter Richgood, a public commenter, said the vote sent “an unfortunate message to the public” and argued confidentiality protections and procedural safeguards could allow members to see complaint details without violating privacy.

The motion was called and decided by roll call. The mover was Peter Fitzpatrick and the seconder was Karen White. The roll-call discussion recorded votes by seat: District 2 (Dan Williams) registered opposition; Districts 4, 5, 6 and 7 registered opposition; one at-large member (Miss Ford) recorded a yes; other members were recorded as absent or not voting during the tally call. The chair announced that by roll call the motion had failed.

The meeting record shows the board will keep the existing rules in place; the chair noted the change would have required the board to edit its rules of procedure and that implementation details would have been determined only if the motion had prevailed. Several public commenters and some board members said they intend to pursue statutory or procedural changes outside the board if necessary.

A national police-reform research group, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), is preparing a statewide review of Maryland’s Police Accountability Act implementation; speakers at the meeting said PERF’s study may provide comparative data the board can use in future rule or legislative discussions. The board’s next scheduled meeting was discussed at the end of the session.

Votes at a glance: the proposed rule change to allow PAB members to review complaints received by the PAB failed on roll call.