Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kent County ACC discusses complaint jurisdiction, forwards four cases to agencies; adopts minor procedural fixes
Summary
The Kent County Administrative Charging Committee reviewed five recent complaints, dismissed four for lack of jurisdiction and forwarded them to the relevant law-enforcement agencies; members also described recent meetings with local chiefs to coordinate investigative quality and agreed to update an internal flowchart. Votes were taken to adopt the agenda, approve minutes and adjourn.
The Kent County Administrative Charging Committee met July 2 and reviewed its current caseload, clarifying which complaints fall under its authority and agreeing to several small procedural updates.
Committee members said they received five complaints recently, and that four were dismissed because they named county or municipal leaders (the sheriff, police chief or their second-in-command) and therefore fell outside the ACC’s jurisdiction. "Four of them, we dismissed on jurisdictional issues because they were against the chief and or sheriff and or their number 2 in command," said Speaker 2, an ACC member. Those four complaints were forwarded to the respective law-enforcement agencies "as a courtesy" so they would be investigated locally and not simply be buried, Speaker 2 said. One complaint remains under investigation and the ACC expects the case to return to the committee after the agency completes its probe.
Speaker 2 and other ACC members reported meeting with the county sheriff and the Rock Hall police chief to introduce the ACC/PAB and to request that agency heads provide recommendations for appropriate behavioral responses when investigations identify misconduct. "We asked the heads of each law enforcement agency to make a recommendation as to what they believe the appropriate behavioral response should be," Speaker 2 said, describing the meetings as "a very good conversation" about expectations and partnership in oversight.
Members also discussed concerns about local trial-board procedures. Speaker 2 said some counties have undermined their trial-board processes and that the state legislature is "contemplating new rules to oversee that process," a development members noted as relevant background for how appeals might operate in the future.
To reduce future procedural risk, the ACC agreed to revise an internal checklist/flowchart used in case review. Speaker 1 said Mister Scott will take the chart and amend it based on lessons learned; Speaker 2 said the tweaks are intended to ensure the ACC’s record is ‘‘dotted i’s and crossed t’s’’ so decisions are defensible if challenged later.
Procedural housekeeping included the committee’s unanimous voice votes to adopt the day’s agenda and to approve last month’s minutes. The committee also moved, seconded and approved adjournment; the meeting closed at 3:38 p.m. The next ACC meeting is scheduled for Aug. 6, though one member noted a potential conflict with travel.
Votes at a glance - Motion to adopt today's agenda: passed by voice vote (recorded as 'Aye'). - Motion to approve last month's minutes: passed by voice vote (recorded as 'Aye'). - Motion to adjourn: passed by voice vote (recorded as 'Aye').
What’s next: The ACC will await completion of the outstanding agency investigation; members will circulate an amended flowchart before the next meeting and continue coordination with local law-enforcement leadership.
