Montgomery County council hears Police Accountability Board briefing, flags gaps in complaint data and access to investigative records

Montgomery County council members on Feb. 3 pressed the Police Accountability Board and county staff for clearer data and better tools to track complaints against law-enforcement officers, after staff reported substantial gaps in race and gender information and discrepancies between board and agency counts.

In an opening statement, Bishop Walker, chair of the Police Accountability Board, credited the board’s work since its 2022 inception and said the panel aims to recommend policies that prevent future misconduct as well as review outcomes of community complaints. "We continually review our commitment to our mandate," Walker said.

Council staffer Susan Farag summarized the board’s and Administrative Charging Committee’s (ACC) recent activity and resources: the PAB has nine members, the ACC five; the approved FY25 operating budget for these entities is about $788,000, which covers two full-time staff, two independent counsel and compensation and training for board members. Farag told the council that between Dec. 2023 and Nov. 2024 the ACC received 120 complaints and issued 43 written opinions addressing 130 allegations against 67 officers. Of those 43 opinions, the ACC issued administrative charges in 12 complaints, Farag said.

Farag and Forrest Gilman Riley, administrative director for the PAB and the ACC, said the board has been developing a complaint dashboard but that the county’s current information-storage infrastructure cannot yet model the relational data the board needs. "The current information storage infrastructure is not sufficient," Gilman Riley said, noting the board is weighing an in-house TEBS solution or an off-the-shelf product such as IA Pro.

Staff flagged major gaps in the data: about 18% of complainants did not report gender and roughly 52% did not report race or ethnicity, Farag said, which makes racial-equity trend analysis difficult. Council members and PAB members discussed whether that omission stems from the form design, distrust of the system or the mix of online versus paper filings.

A council member described usability problems on the PAB web page that can steer users toward printing and mailing the form instead of starting the online submission; the printed form also presents gender and race as blank fields rather than checkboxes, the member said, likely lowering collection rates. The council member urged clearer online prompts, checkboxes on printable forms and local assistance options to help people file complaints.

Members also raised whether PAB members receive the investigative materials the ACC reviews. Gilman Riley and staff said PAB members receive the original civilian complaint and the ACC’s written opinion but do not routinely receive investigative files (for example, internal investigation dossiers or unredacted body-worn camera footage). Staff said legal counsel has advised that, under the current structure, the PAB lacks authority to possess full investigative files by default; the board is exploring with special counsel whether redacted materials could be provided or whether procedural changes are needed.

The ACC’s case-processing times drew scrutiny. Staff reported that when no additional information is requested, ACC reviews average about 17 days; when the ACC asks agencies for more materials, reviews can average about 79 days. Council members asked whether adding cases (for example, since MCPD came under ACC purview on July 1, 2023) will create backlogs and whether additional staff or a case-management system could reduce delays.

Council members also asked about annual-report timing. Farag noted the PAB’s annual report is due by Dec. 31 under state law, which complicates direct calendar-year comparisons; staff agreed to survey other jurisdictions’ reporting windows and advise whether a county-level adjustment or a state-law change would be necessary.

Farag said practices vary across jurisdictions on how much detail adjudicated complaints are reported publicly. She and the board said they would consult special counsel and the county attorney about whether more anonymized, redacted complaint summaries could be made public without compromising privacy or legal processes.

Next steps: county staff and the PAB will continue evaluating case-management options, clarify what materials can legally be shared with the PAB (including redaction and MPIA procedures), and report back to the council as the FY26 budget and procurement discussions near. The chair thanked the panel and adjourned the work session.