Community Reports – is the community reporting. See here for more.
The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the “Community Reports” section of our blog belong solely to the individual authors, and not necessarily to Moderately MOCO, its editors, other contributors, or any affiliated entities or organizations.
June 13 Meeting
At the June 13 County Council hearing regarding Bill 27-23, repeal of the Policing Advisory Commission, much of the public testimony was false, inaccurate or misleading. Here is the bill memorandum. The video starting at this section of the meeting can be seen here.
The chair of the committee said that the members of the commission are highly committed. In reality, 8 of the 13 original voting members resigned during their first term. Why? Cherri Branson, who gave testimony, abandoned her seat on the PAC to seek a position on the planning board. Only when that opportunity failed to materialize did she return to her seat on the PAC. These facts do not speak to a “highly committed” group of people. Three seats on the commission sit vacant; why have they not been filled?
By July 1 each year, the commission must submit an annual report to the county executive and council on its functions, activities, accomplishments, plans and objectives. The PAC failed to submit an annual report in 2022. How is this commission to be held accountable if they fail to perform such basic functions?
In January, the PAC announced that it would hold a virtual public forum “to solicit community testimony and feedback on traffic enforcement.” But its press release, issued prior to the forum, stated: “The PAC believes that traffic enforcement practices in the County do not meet basic tests of effectiveness, efficiency, and equal enforcement, and that a change in mission, focus and strategy is necessary.” The commission had already taken a position before receiving public feedback. As a MoCo resident, I have no confidence in an entity such as the PAC that carries obvious confirmation bias. Overwhelmingly, the written testimony asks for more traffic enforcement. Several criticize the PAC’s traffic report: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/PoliceAC/publichearing01082023.html.
Traffic Report
A chart in the PAC’s “updated” traffic report conflicts with their assertion that as traffic enforcement goes down, so do accidents. Over the full term of the chart, that’s true. But from 2020 on, there is a correlation between less enforcement and more accidents. When enforcement ticks up, accidents go down. Again, confirmation bias prevents the PAC from reflecting that reality because it doesn’t serve their narrative. A reputable entity should NOT have an agenda.
To add to the lack of professionalism of the PAC, attached to the traffic report, which is replete with errors and contradictions, is an analysis that appears to have been completed by one of the PAC member’s children. Since when do we have commissions outsourcing work to their children? Was he vetted? Why does he have a role?
The appointment structure, one commission recommended by one councilmember, makes the process political with no way to provide an overall balance of perspective and expertise. Again, the bias is evident.
Repeal the Police Accountability Board
The suggestion that the public will have no other way to provide input if the PAC is repealed is absurd. Here are just a few of the other ways: councilmembers hold their own public safety town halls regularly; the Police Accountability Board holds open meetings and has a social media presence; the police department meets with various community groups, including ethnic, racial, immigrant, faith-based, senior and LGBTQ advisory councils; the council holds hearings, such as the one on June 13, specifically to give the community the opportunity to voice their concerns. Repealing the PAC will have zero impact on the ability of residents to voice their concerns; conversely, it will streamline the process and make it far less confusing.
Emphasis on the idea that the PAC should not be repealed because all of the members of the PAC (of course, this doesn’t take into account the eight who already resigned and the three unfilled seats) think it should not be repealed is ludicrous; that seems like a desperation move to retain a commission that has become obsolete. Some believe that the PAC is stacked with anti-police activists, and that activists have an undue influence on it. Aside from the fact that the turnover rate alone on the commission indicates it is an unhealthy, inefficient and ineffective body, the members should not be “policing” themselves. It’s not up to them to decide, just like it wouldn’t be up to the council members to decide if a bill were on the table to repeal the council. That’s not how the system works, if the system has integrity.
Take Action
Email the County Council a prefilled email here or use the prefilled form to start your own letter.