Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police Accountability Board calls for written ACC decisions, standardized complaint forms and more staff
Summary
The Police Accountability Board told the Public Safety Committee it reviewed 434 allegations concentrated in five categories and is recommending written Administrative Charging Committee opinions, a uniform complaint form, aggregated officer data and a dedicated research/data staff position (requested at grade N20) to fulfill the boardstatutory oversight role.
Montgomery County— The Police Accountability Board told the Public Safety Committee on March 16 that its 2025 annual report shows complaint data concentrated in five main allegation types and urged changes to improve transparency, data collection and the boardability to provide meaningful oversight.
Bishop Walker, chair of the Police Accountability Board (PAB), said the board is required by county code to submit an annual report identifying trends in disciplinary processes, recommending policy changes and describing complaint volumes and adjudication outcomes. The PAB said committee-reviewed cases yielded 434 allegations concentrated in: conformance to law/policy; general unprofessional conduct; bias and discrimination; use of force; and specific duty violations.
Key recommendations: The PAB urged (1) reinstating the board's receipt of written Administrative Charging Committee (ACC) opinions and final outcomes to clarify how allegations were resolved (sustained, unfounded, exonerated); (2) adopting a standardized complaint form across law enforcement agencies to collect consistent, comparable data; and (3) creating at least one dedicated research and data specialist position (budget request grade N20) to clean, analyze and interpret growing complaint data.
"Enhance the flow of information from the LEAs to the ACC to the PAB," Bishop Walker said, arguing that written ACC decisions would allow clearer interpretation of allegations and outcomes and support evidence-based recommendations to policymakers.
Legal limits and implementation: PAB members and the county's administrative director for police accountability noted a statutory wrinkle: the Maryland Police Accountability Act (MPAA) requires law enforcement agencies to share certain information with ACCs but does not require reciprocal sharing with local PABs. Several speakers told the committee that some changes could be pursued at the county policy level but that state law changes or direction from the Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission may be necessary for full standardization and reciprocity.
Trial boards and capacity: County internal affairs staff reported a trial-board manual approved late 2025 and said the county has conducted approximately four trial boards under the new system; other municipal agencies have had trials with varying outcomes. PAB members said the board's current data access limits their ability to move beyond descriptive reporting toward the "why" behind trends and urged action to permit longitudinal and contextual analysis without sharing identifying personal data.
Committee response and follow-up: Council members expressed concern that the PAB currently lacks sufficient information to fully meet its statutory mandate and urged quicker remedies. PAB representatives noted some support among local LEAs for standardization but said legal and logistical barriers remain. The PABand the committee agreed to reconvene after the PAB's second-quarter meetings with law-enforcement directors (PAB Q2 meeting scheduled for 2026-05-21) and to aim for a committee update in June.
The PAB's recommendations include both policy changes that could be initiated at the county level and issues that would require state legislative or regulatory action to resolve. The board said expanded staff capacity and a case management system would improve its ability to analyze trends while preserving privacy protections.
