Baltimore County’s Administrative Charging Committee (ACC) voted Nov. 7 to ask Internal Affairs to include precinct or unit assignment counts for accused officers in its quarterly summary to the Police Accountability Board (PAB), but members rejected a separate proposal to report officers’ ranks.

Chair Christopher Sui opened the session and put the precinct-assignment motion to a voice vote. Committee members approved the motion unanimously, with the committee directing Internal Affairs to summarize counts by precinct or unit rather than link complaints to named officers.

The more contentious debate concerned two related requests from a PAB designee: to include (1) an accused officer’s experience level and (2) the officer’s rank in the ACC’s quarterly summary. Supporters said summarized counts by rank or years could increase transparency; opponents warned that including rank or an imprecise experience metric could make high-profile officers identifiable in departments with few senior officers.

Internal Affairs told the committee it could provide only the number of years an accused officer has been with the Baltimore County Police Department, not necessarily total career law-enforcement experience. Committee members repeatedly pressed for a clear definition of ‘‘experience’’ before ordering any change; several members said the county’s personnel records likely enumerate Baltimore County service years but not total prior service in other agencies.

After consulting counsel in closed session, the committee revisited the votes. Chair Christopher Sui announced that the motion to report officers’ ranks was defeated. When members polled on reporting the experience metric, at least two members recorded 'nay' responses; the transcript records disagreement about the measure and does not show a clear roll-call tally endorsing the broader experience report.

A separate motion to publish redacted ACC opinions on an ACC/PAB-accessible website received no second and therefore died. Committee members noted the mover had relied on legal advice when raising the transparency proposal.

The committee instructed staff to clarify with Internal Affairs exactly what data the department can produce (for example, whether 'years of service' would include prior out-of-county service) and to begin any approved reporting changes in 2026 to allow lead time for data collection.

The ACC scheduled future meetings and adjourned.