Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Civic Integrity topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Kagan, officers urge ban on gubernatorial appointments for those convicted in Jan. 6 attack

Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee · March 17, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Sen. Cheryl Kagan presented SB 962, a proposal to bar people convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack from receiving gubernatorial appointments; former Capitol Police officers and democracy‑protection groups supported the measure while counselors suggested narrow drafting to reduce legal risk.

Sen. Cheryl Kagan told the committee SB 962 would prevent people convicted of crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol from being appointed by the governor to boards, commissions, task forces or work groups in Maryland. She framed the bill as a narrow bar on a gubernatorial privilege rather than a broader civil‑rights restriction, citing the harm to officers and institutions from that day.

Two former Capitol Police officers described the physical and emotional toll of the assault. Harry Dunn, a former U.S. Capitol Police officer, said accountability “serves as a deterrent” and argued a blanket presidential pardon has disrupted that accountability. Sergeant Aquilino Gonell recounted being assaulted by dozens of rioters and described ongoing medical procedures and trauma. Both urged support for the bill so those who attacked officers are not later appointed to positions of prestige.

David Weinberg of Protect Democracy United testified virtually in favor but recommended drafting refinements to avoid legal vulnerabilities—he suggested focusing the disqualification on conduct such as insurrection, sedition, assault or trespass while a legislative facility was under obvious physical attack to reduce arguments that the bill is a bill of attainder or conflicts with pardon power. Committee members asked whether a presidential pardon would preclude state action; sponsors cited an Attorney General letter saying the bill applies to convictions for crimes like assault or obstruction and likely would not punish protected speech.

The hearing closed after questioning and discussion of possible amendment language; no committee vote was recorded at this session.