ACP votes to send letter on Bill 5-26 (masks prohibited); members debate enforceability and timing
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
The Advisory Commission on Policing's ad hoc committee reviewed Bill 5-26 ("Masks prohibited") and the commission voted March 9 to send a letter reflecting the group's position. Members supported taking a stance but raised concerns about federal preemption, enforceability and whether similar legislation is advancing in Annapolis.
The Advisory Commission on Policing voted during its March 9 meeting to forward a letter on Bill 5-26, a proposed local measure described in the meeting as a "masks prohibited" draft.
The chair introduced an ad hoc review group that included Sherry, Laura, Christina, Henry and Francisco. Terry (speaker 1) called the draft "well done" and said the letter should be treated as a recommendation about the county's position rather than an enforceable local law.
Henry (speaker 10) said the penalties and disciplinary language in the draft appeared to place responsibility on the Montgomery County Police Department and warned that federal action and pending state legislation might affect enforceability. "We would be pretty much beholden to what legislation comes out of Annapolis," Henry said, arguing the county should focus on pressing local issues like utilities.
Eva (speaker 4) urged the commission to include stronger language where the county can act, suggesting the letter could recommend the county explore options such as prohibiting federal immigration-enforcement (ICE) staging on county property. Susan (speaker 6) noted a separate bill—referred to in the meeting as the County Values Act—already seeks to limit ICE activity on county property but lacks penalties.
Francisco (speaker 5), who incorporated critical comments into the draft, said the group had added exceptions that mirror some state-level language (for religious clothing, visors, helmets) and tried to strike a nuanced tone that makes a principle statement while leaving timing and legal strategy to the county council.
The commission moved and seconded a motion to send the letter and voted in favor; Henry registered opposition. The motion carried.
Next steps: The draft will be finalized and sent to the county council before the local deadline (members flagged March 12 as the submission cutoff).
