Matt Parsons, Baltimore Action Legal Team
In recent weeks, local advocates for police accountability have ramped up organizing and lobbying efforts to pass Senate Bill 441/House Bill 991. These bills would expand key powers of Baltimore City’s Civilian Review Board, which has provided police oversight since 1999, and combine it with the new Police Accountability Board the Scott administration is hoping to implement by July of this year. If the bills don’t pass, Baltimore will have both a weaker CRB and a PAB competing for the same basic goal. This kind of ineffective, wasteful framework is exactly what activists are trying to avoid.
As the deadline to pass the bills approaches next Monday, this issue has received notable media attention. Coverage has so far detailed the Mayor’s objections to the bills against the community’s demands for police oversight. Unfortunately, coverage has omitted a key legal development that casts a more favorable light on the legislation.
On March 3, the Office of the Attorney General issued an advisory opinion which revealed the Mayor’s objections are unfounded. The Attorney General analyzed the pertinent issues of city control over local agencies and the Board’s ability to retain independent counsel. We summarize the Attorney General’s relevant findings below.
This bill proposes that the Board receive funding of at least 2% of the BPD’s annual budget. The Mayor’s office alleges this legislation unlawfully impinges on the City’s authority over local matters such as enacting budgets and allocating funds. But the power to allocate funds is not solely delegated to the City under our Constitution, and the General Assembly may legitimately require the City to make expenditures to support the Civilian Review Board.
The bill also proposes the Board have the power to retain independent legal counsel (whereas it is currently represented by the Baltimore City Law Department). The Mayor’s office maintains the Board is an agency under the city’s control - not an independent agency - and should not have access to independent counsel. However, the General Assembly established the Civilian Review Board as a “permanent, independent” agency in 1999. The Board also operates autonomously, even as the City exercises limited control over matters such as approving the Board’s membership.
The Court of Special Appeals has stated the Board is indeed an independent agency; therefore, the Attorney General concludes, the Board can retain independent counsel to represent its interests. Under the current structure, the Baltimore City Law Department simultaneously represents the Board and BPD in a clear conflict of interest. The ability to retain independent counsel is crucial for its success and cannot be overstated.
The Scott administration may continue to dither about how strengthening our existing Civilian Review Board might exclude community input from the police oversight process. They may claim this bill extends the State’s control over the Baltimore Police Department, pitting the legislation against ongoing efforts to regain local control of BPD. But in light of the Attorney General’s opinion, it is clear: these are no more than false distractions.
The Baltimore Civilian Review Board already exists, and has set the foundation for future police accountability. If this legislation does not pass, this fact will not change. Instead, Baltimore will continue with both a Civilian Review Board and Police Accountability Board, as outlined in 2021’s legislation, House Bill 670.
This is not only duplicative and a waste of city resources; it is simply unworkable. If this scenario plays out, the Mayor’s office will have just four months to implement the following per HB 670: create the guidelines for this new Police Accountability Board, interview and appoint all of its members, find a place to house this new entity, and determine a funding stream for the new office.
Despite this looming deadline, the Mayor has put no effort into implementing a plan. Instead, he has devoted more effort to resisting the community’s long standing pleas for police accountability. Meanwhile, almost every other jurisdiction in Maryland has broken ground in implementing their Police Accountability Boards, holding community forums and interviewing candidates for membership.
If the City wants more local control over police accountability - as it publicly stated in its opposition to the bill - it has not yet demonstrated its willingness or ability to do so. But if any party has a vested interest in police accountability, it is the community tirelessly organizing in its pursuit.
The black and brown communities directly impacted by police misconduct have remained resolute throughout the Baltimore Uprising, the Gun Trace Task Force, and centuries prior of systemic racism. But we cannot resign ourselves to the status quo of racial injustice. We cannot deny this historic opportunity for Baltimore to lead the state in implementing more effective police oversight boards.
To the Mayor and the Baltimore City Delegation, BALT implores you: Listen to your community. Support Senate Bill 441/House Bill 991 now.
