Committee hears bill to require oversight of cemetery sales, transfers and government acquisition

House Bill 13 54 drew an hours-long panel of cemetery advocates, genealogists and preservationists before the Economic Matters Committee, which heard testimony about requiring Office of Cemetery Oversight approval before the sale, transfer or government acquisition of cemeteries.

Proponents told the committee the measure is aimed at protecting historic and family burial grounds from neglect, improper reuse and commercial exploitation. Michael DeWeaver, an intern for Delegate Gary Simmons, said the bill would require cemetery owners to obtain approval from the director of the Office of Cemetery Oversight before completing a sale or transfer.

The bill would also establish requirements for notice and procedural safeguards during any transfer or government acquisition, supporters said. Christine Simmons, a board member of the Anne Arundel Genealogical Society and the Coalition to Protect Maryland Burial Sites, told lawmakers she has researched Maryland cemeteries for 40 years and cited repeated problems when current ownership is unknown. She described cases in Anne Arundel County where neighbors parked on or fenced off family cemetery plots and where descendants have struggled for years to establish clear title and to obtain local enforcement because no owner is recorded.

Jennifer Johnson, founder of Friends of Saint Peter's Cemetery in West Baltimore, said her cemetery, founded in 1851, contains about 15,000 interments and that the bill would create an organized process to preserve cemeteries and protect remains if a move becomes necessary. David Zinner, coordinator of the Maryland Cemetery Legislative Advocates, told the committee the bill protects descendants, buyers and sellers by requiring full disclosure and a structured process for any transaction.

Yvonne Fisher, who said she has served nine years on the advisory council for the Office of Cemetery Oversight, argued for stricter procedural documentation so sales and transfers do not leave ‘‘room for abuses and illegal use of cemeteries,’’ including removing remains without appropriate surveys and notice. Fisher recommended ecological or burial surveys for apparently unused land before any construction and said owners should be required to inform every family member named in cemetery records before sales or transfers.

Committee members asked about the bill's fiscal note. A committee member noted the fiscal note said the Office of Cemetery Oversight could handle the bill's requirements with existing resources, while the Department of Labor indicated it would need to hire two people to carry out related requirements. Proponents said they had met with both agencies and that the Department of Legislative Services's (DLS) assessment that the change could be handled at minimal cost was their working estimate, though they continued discussions with agencies to resolve disagreements.

Not all advocates supported the bill as written. Dr. Marsha Coleman Adebayo, president of the Bethesda African Cemetery Coalition (BACC), said BACC could not support the measure because it could allow the director of cemeteries to be the final arbiter in disputes involving African American burial grounds. Citing the Maryland Supreme Court decision in BACC v. Housing Opportunities Commission (08/30/2024), Adebayo said descendant communities must be central decision-makers and urged that judicial review remain available rather than vesting final authority solely in the director.

On procedural safeguards for disinterment and reinterment, witnesses noted existing law already references that disinterments be performed by funeral directors, archaeologists or licensed cemetery professionals and suggested coordination with the Maryland Department of Health. A committee member proposed a friendly amendment that would require the director, in consultation with the Maryland Department of Health, to establish guidelines to ensure safe and dignified handling of human remains; a supporter on the panel said that would be a ‘‘wonderful addition.’'

The hearing included several concrete examples of the problems the bill intends to address: a descendant who has spent years and private funds on title work and surveys while the county declared ownership unknown; and the situation at Moses Cemetery in Montgomery County, which witnesses said was the subject of recent litigation and public commentary. Advocates repeatedly requested clear notice and involvement of descendants in any transfer process.

No formal vote was taken at the hearing; the chair closed testimony after receiving questions and comments and moved on to other bills. The committee record indicates amendments have been filed to address concerns raised by churches and descendant groups, and sponsors said they would provide those amendments to members.

Ending: The committee concluded the bill hearing and said it would consider amendments and continue interagency discussions before any further action.