At a meeting of Baltimore County’s Police Accountability Board last month, one of its members unsuccessfully pushed for what would have been a radical change: actually reading the complaints filed by citizens.

Peter Fitzpatrick, the District 1 representative, had crafted a motion that would have modified the nine-person board‘s rules to allow its members to read and review — but not adjudicate — police misconduct complaints filed by the public. That role is typically reserved for a leaner “charging committee,” which has faced criticism for consistently siding with county police.

“How can we in good faith say to the public that we are holding police accountable for the complaints if we don‘t even know what they are?” Fitzpatrick asked his fellow board members.

The county established the Police Accountability Board three years ago after the General Assembly passed the Police Accountability Act in the wake of George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis Police in 2021. The law called for such boards to be created in every Maryland county, and in Baltimore, with the intent to give citizens a say in dealing with police misconduct.

While the law provided a general framework for the boards, its language left room for interpretation. As a result, the boards have been implemented unevenly across the state, causing a variety of controversies.

In Ocean City, the state’s attorney took to criminally charging people who filed misconduct complaints. In Baltimore, the board has grappled for more agency and independence. And in Howard County, the board is dealing with longstanding vacancies and has come under scrutiny for not doing enough to unearth data on policing.

In Baltimore County, advocates have expressed concerns about the board’s effectiveness. A review by The Baltimore Sun last year found the board‘s charging committee sided with police 75% of the time. Most of the cases they did pursue involved vehicle accidents and light discipline.

The board’s last hearing did little to ease those concerns.

In weighing Fitzpatrick’s motion to review citizen complaints, one board member, citing advice from county attorneys, said he was concerned it contradicted the law creating the board. Another questioned the point of reading complaints altogether, describing it as “idle curiosity.”

That’s despite the county’s website for the board saying that one of its duties is to “receive complaints of law enforcement officer misconduct filed by members of the public.”

Only one other board member, Nigeria Rolling-Ford, joined Fitzpatrick, and his motion failed 6-2 (one member was absent).

Former state Sen. Jill Carter, a Baltimore Democrat who spearheaded the legislation that created the accountability boards, tried after its passage to convene a task force that would follow through on the law’s implementation and clarify its language.

Former state Sen. Jill Carter spearheaded the legislation that created the accountability boards.

But Carter said she couldn’t convince Democratic leadership to revisit the reforms, attributing their hesitancy to “backlash from the law enforcement community.”

As for the debate in Baltimore County, Carter said it was “100% the intent of the legislature to have the police accountability boards be able to read and receive complaints from the public regarding police misconduct.”

“That was the goal,” said Carter, who has advocated to bolster the boards with more independence and members.

Seeing its role as limited, board forgoes ‘vital’ work

At April’s meeting, board member Scott Richmond said county attorneys had advised the board on Fitzpatrick’s motion.

“We received some information from counsel, I won‘t disclose that due to confidentiality,” Richmond said. “But I frankly think it’s a very slippery slope trying to amend legislative action with motions.”

Peta Richkus, a Baltimore County resident who spoke in favor of the motion, said, “The county law office’s opposition to this motion highlights exactly the kind of conflict of interest many warned about when the board was first formed.

“The county attorney’s role is to protect the county from legal risk,” Richkus added, “not to improve police accountability.”

A Baltimore County spokesperson said the law office “did not take a position and instead provided legal advice to PAB members in closed session.”

The county did not respond to Carter’s comments on the legislature’s intent.

For Richkus, “the law is clear and so is the public’s expectation.”

“The Police Accountability Board‘s primary responsibility is to advance accountability, transparency and trust,” Richkus said. “And that starts with reviewing the complaints you receive.”

The ACLU of Maryland, which helped pass the law creating the accountability boards, also threw its weight behind Fitzpatrick’s motion at the latest hearing.

Loretta Diaz, an ACLU campaign strategist, said the law makes it clear that board members can receive complaints and review the outcomes of disciplinary matters so they can provide recommendations.

“Every member of this board is appointed, and therefore each of you has both the obligation and the opportunity to engage meaningfully with this process,” Diaz said. “That work is vital. It is only possible if members are fully informed and members have access to the underlying complaints and investigations.”

In advocating for the board to pass Fitzpatrick’s motion, county resident Claire Landers expressed little confidence that the charging committee was appropriately scrutinizing police misconduct, given how often it sides with the county police department.

“If I were a member of this Police Accountability Board, I would be very uncomfortable knowing that there were complaints filed in my district and I have no idea what they were about,” Landers said.

She continued: “Are there patterns of certain officers? Are there certain districts where most of the complaints come from? What are the nature of those complaints? This board is my eyes and ears ... and that role requires they read what people are reporting.”

Danita Tolson, president of the NAACP Baltimore County, was unable to attend the meeting. But in an interview, Tolson questioned the purpose of the Police Accountability Board if it could not read complaints, suggesting it should be either disbanded or “restructured” to include more community members.

“How can they be productive if they don’t review the complaints?” Tolson asked. “They’re just sitting in seats. What is their position?”

Carter, the former lawmaker, sees the police accountability boards statewide as largely watered-down versions of what she and criminal justice reformers envisioned in 2021.

Today, none of the accountability boards have fully independent investigations, relying instead on police files to sort through evidence. Nor do they have independent attorneys, instead answering to lawyers who have the fiscal interests of the jurisdictions they serve at heart.

“As long as police continue to control the policing of themselves,” Carter said, “real change, real transparency, real accountability, is unlikely to happen.”