Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Complaint Process By Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PAB debate to receive full complaint contents deferred after counsel raises concerns
Summary
A motion to begin providing the board with the full contents of all complaints starting at the April meeting was made and seconded, but members deferred a vote after staff and counsel warned it could conflict with advice of counsel and require a bylaw change.
Board member Pete Fitzpatrick moved that the Baltimore County Police Accountability Board “begin receiving the contents of all complaints received by the board, starting with the April meeting.” The motion was seconded and opened to discussion.
Staff and other board members raised concerns about whether the proposal would conflict with advice of counsel and whether it would require a change to the board’s bylaws. One board member said, "I think it's generally a bad idea to go against advice of counsel, and any potential litigation would very much worry me." Staff advised the motion would need to be posted on the board website and typically requires a deferral to the next meeting for a vote unless there is unanimous approval.
Members agreed to defer the motion to the next meeting to allow for legal review and statutory research; one board member indicated they wanted to review the statutes cited before voting. The record will show the motion was made and seconded and will be revisited at the next meeting after staff posts the item and provides any necessary legal guidance.
Separately, the board moved into a closed session to receive legal advice from the Baltimore County Office of Law regarding the board’s authority to examine incoming complaints. Dawn made a motion to enter closed session under the cited statutory provision, the motion was seconded, and the board approved entering closed session. The board returned to open session and later adjourned.
