Baltimore County Charter Review Commission met Sept. 13.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
I. Introduction
The tenth meeting of the 2017 Baltimore County Charter Review Commission was called to order by Chairman Theodore (“Ted”) Venetoulis at 10:15 AM in the County Council Conference Room. The Chairman made brief opening remarks and indicated that based on the discussions at prior meetings and the public hearing, the Commission staff had prepared drafts of potential changes to certain County Charter sections.
(The drafts were set forth in two separate packets – one packet contains drafts of changes to Charter sections that are of a technical nature, such as changing the names of Offices and Departments to bring them in line with current nomenclature; the other packet contains drafts of Charter sections that reflect more substantive changes. The packets were sent to the Commission members several weeks ago for their consideration. As to the substantive issues, consensus was reached on a number of issues at the meeting on May 24, 2017, but others were left for future discussion).
The Chairman indicated the Commission would be primarily reviewing the drafts in the packet containing the substantive changes to Charter sections in an attempt to finalize the recommendations and provide guidance for drafting the Commission’s report, which is due next month. Mr. Venetoulis also welcomed individuals from the public that were in attendance. The other Commission members in attendance consisted of the following:
Nedda I. Pray, Esq.
Edward J. Gilliss, Esq.
Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
Michael E. Field, Esq.
David Karceski, Esq.
John Gontrum, Esq.
Antonio “Tony” Campbell, D.Min.
William A. McComas, Esq.
Mr. Venetoulis recommended that the Meeting Minutes from the June 21, 2017 public hearing being adopted. Following a motion and second, the Minutes were adopted by a voice vote.
II. Baltimore County Charter Review
The Chair recognized Mr. Thomas J. Peddicord, Jr., Legislative Counsel and Secretary to the County Council, to review the two packets of proposed Charter sections. Mr. Peddicord first discussed the packet with the proposed technical changes. The Chair then asked the members, after having reviewed these changes over the last few weeks, if there were any concerns or objections to these proposed changes and there were none.
Mr. Peddicord then proceeded to the packet with proposed substantive Charter changes. He first reviewed sections where there was prior consensus and explained the reasoning behind the proposed changes, as set forth in the “Comments” at the bottom of each draft. Mr. Peddicord addressed these proposed changes according to section number as follows:
Section 308(f) – this subsection deals with the effective date of laws. The first sentence of this section states “No bill shall be passed before the tenth calendar day following its introduction, except by the consent of a majority plus one of the total number of county council members established by this Charter.” This section implies that a bill could be introduced and passed at the same Legislative Session. There is no history as to why this sentence was added to the Charter by Bill 79-78 and approved by the voters, but Mr. Peddicord explained that it conflicts with the requirements of Article XI-A, Section 3 of the Maryland Constitution, dealing with publication and notice of local laws, as applied by the Maryland Court of Appeals in Schaeffer v. Anne Arundel County, et al, 338 Md. 75 (1995). The members agreed with Mr. Peddicord’s recommendation that this sentence be deleted.
Section 402 – this section deals with the County Executive. Mr. Peddicord recommended some minor, technical changes to this section in order to make the text gender neutral. In addition, changes to subparagraph (d)(9) would codify the existing custom and practice whereby the Executive submits for appointment or reappointment the County Administrative Officer (at the end of his term) as well as the heads of all departments and offices at the commencement of each term for confirmation by the County Council. There was consensus by the members to adopt this change. It was also mentioned that subsections (d)(11) and (d)(12) require the County Executive to serve on boards and commissions, and prepare and issue rules and regulations of the character previously prepared and issued by County Commissioners, respectively.The Executive does not sit on any Boards or Commissions, nor issue rules and regulations, therefore it was recommended that these subparagraphs be deleted. The members agreed.
Section 403 – this section pertains to the County Administrative Officer (CAO). In addition to technical changes to make the text gender neutral, Mr. Peddicord noted that subsection (d) states that the CAO exercises supervision over the activities of those offices and departments “whose heads he appoints.” In practice, it is the County Executive who appoints the heads of offices and departments, therefore it was recommended that this language be deleted. The members agreed.
Section 404 – this section deals with the removal of appointed officers in the Executive branch. In order to be consistent with the premise that the County Executive has ultimate authority to appoint and remove department heads, it was recommended that this section be changed to clarify that, except when provisions for removal are set forth in the Charter, the Executive may remove the heads of offices and departments appointed under Section 402 in the Executive branch of County Government. This section still reserves the power of the CAO to remove, subject to the merit system and county personnel law, any other officer or employee in the Administrative Services of the County. The members agreed with this change.
Section 508 – this section sets forth the powers and duties of the County Attorney. It states that the County Attorney shall maintain the journal of the County Council. In practice, this is not accurate. The Council Secretary maintains the journal. Therefore, it was recommended this sentence be deleted. The members agreed.
Section 522 – this section sets forth the organization of the Office of Planning and Zoning. Mr. Peddicord recommended a technical change to change the name to the current Department of Planning. There is also a sentence that states the Director of Planning and Zoning shall serve until resigning or being removed upon recommendation of the Executive and approval of a majority plus one of the County Council members. Once again, in order to be consistent with the prerogative of the Executive to appoint and remove department heads in the Executive branch, it was recommended that this language be deleted, particularly since the Department no longer includes the Zoning Commissioner’s office, which has been a separate office for many years (and is now the Office of Administrative Hearings). The language dealing with the terms of the Zoning Commissioner and Deputy Zoning Commissioners is naturally unchanged. The members agreed with the recommendation.
Sections 533 and 540 – these sections state that the County Executive serves on the Board of Recreation and Parks and Department of Social Services, respectively. In practice, the Executive does not serve on this Board or Department, and it was recommended that the language stating as such be deleted. The members agreed with this recommendation.
Sections 541 and 542 – these sections pertain to the Chief of Police and the Fire Chief, respectively. Subsection (b) of each section states that the Chief shall continue to hold office until resigning or being removed pursuant to the provisions of the Charter. Mr. Peddicord pointed out that, first, there are no such provisions in the Charter; and second, in order to again be consistent with the premise that the Executive should have the authority to appoint and remove department heads in the Executive branch, this section should be clarified to state that the Chief of these agencies shall continue to hold office until resigning or being removed pursuant to Section 404(b) of the Charter. The members agreed with this recommendation.
The Chair then requested Mr. Peddicord to circle back to substantive issues that had been discussed at previous meetings and draft language prepared, but for which further discussion was warranted.
The first section is Section 202(b). This section generally prohibits a member of the County Council from holding employment for profit with the County or the State. It was mentioned that a reciprocal bar does not hold true for members of the General Assembly, who may hold County employment. It was also pointed out by Mr. Peddicord that the Council addressed this issue a number of years ago to allow Council members to hold State employment; however, the question was defeated by County voters. This issue was discussed by the Commission members. Although the members recognized the inequity of State elected officials being permitted to have County employment but Council members not being permitted to have State employment, the members agreed not to make any changes to this Charter section, but to mention the discussion of this issue in the Commission’s final report.
Section 308(h) – this section deals with the Legislative branch’s timeframe for passing a bill. The sections states that “Any bill not passed within forty days after its introduction shall fail.” This is an issue that has been discussed at previous meetings and garnered extensive discussion amongst the Commission members at this meeting. This section was also a consistent topic of members of the public who testified at previous meetings, including the public hearing. The consensus among citizens was that the “40-day” life of a bill needed to be extended, similar to other surrounding jurisdictions, in order to give the public more time to respond to legislation and provide input. This issue was considered by the current Council and Bill 65-15 was introduced on September 8, 2015 to extend the time period to 65 days, but was later withdrawn. There was also discussion that any lengthening of the time period needs to be accompanied by language indicating when substantive amendments are offered to a bill, it would need to be held over to a next Legislative Session in order to give the public the opportunity to provide input on the amendments.
Mr. Gontrum indicated that changing this section by adding 25 more days was a consistent sentiment of the public and that he believed was a good idea. Ms. Pray agreed.
Mr. Gilliss asked Mr. Peddicord if this change would present any procedural problems and Mr. Peddicord indicated it would not, only that some new rules of procedure would need to be prepared and adopted by the Council.
Mr. McComas stated he does not believe the change from 40 days to 65 days goes far enough, and does not address the issue of amendments being offered at the last minute. Ms. Pray agreed and indicated she believes the issue of substantive amendments should be addressed in the Charter.
Mr. Smith indicated he understands the frustration that last minute amendments may cause, but feels it is more of a procedural issue that the Council should address in its rules of procedure, than a Charter issue – that the section being considered only deals with the lifespan of a bill and any changes should deal with that issue.
The Chair indicated that the Commission heard the community on this issue and extending the time appears to be a reasonable accommodation, although he expressed concern about possible unintended consequences, such as other procedural issues. As to amendments, the Chair indicated that this is a concern that should be addressed as such and acknowledged in the Commission’s report.
The consensus of the Commission was to recommend that the time for passing a bill be extended from 40 to 65 days, and that other concerns, particularly as to last minute amendments, be addressed and discussed in the final report.
Section 310 – this section pertains to the general noninterference with the Executive branch by the Legislative branch. It states in general that except for the purpose of inquiry or information, neither the County Council nor any member thereof shall deal directly with any officer, agent or employee in the executive branch of the County government other than the County Executive. Although there was no consensus on this issue at previous meetings, the Chair had directed the Commission staff to include language advocated by Ms. Pray similar to language in the Frederick County Charter, which would require office and department heads to respond to reasonable requests for information.
Ms. Pray indicated she believes stronger language is necessary in order to require the Executive’s office and department heads, or their designees, to respond to Council members, particularly on behalf of constituents. She also believes the language should place a timeframe on when a response is due.
Mr. Gilliss expressed reservations about the necessity for this added language, given that the existing language already permits Council members to make requests of department and office heads “for inquiry or information” purposes.
Notwithstanding Ms. Pray’s position, the consensus was to not insert additional language to this section, but Mr. McComas did recommend discussing and acknowledging in the Commission’s final report the problems that occur with office and department heads not adequately responding to requests for information and that this behavior is counterproductive. The consensus of the members agreed with this approach as well.
The Chair then asked if there were any other issues that had not been covered in the substantive packet and not discussed at the meeting.
Mr. Gontrum asked what a bill or question on the ballot concerning these issues would look like and Mr. Peddicord indicated that the technical changes would likely involve three or four bills. The substantive changes would also involve several bills, and the questions on the ballot, should those bills pass, would need to be worded accordingly.
Mr. Campbell asked whether the possible increase in size to a nine-member Council was a viable issue. The consensus at this time was no, but given the changing population and demographics of the County, it is an issue that should be addressed in the Commission’s final report and may warrant future consideration.
In Mr. Benjamin’s absence at the meeting, Mr. McComas raised the issue of residency of department heads, which Mr. Benjamin had mentioned previously.
Mr. Smith mentioned that his father, former County Executive Jim Smith, had some difficulty finding persons for some positions at the beginning of his term in 2002, and that to place further restrictions such as residency on potential candidates would make recruitment even more difficult.
The consensus was not to make any changes in this regard.
III. Future Meetings
Chairman Venetoulis indicated that the next meeting of the Commission, and likely the final meeting, would be on Wednesday September 27th at 10:00 AM in the Council Chamber.
IV. Closing remarks by the Chairman
The Chairman thanked the members for their attendance and the discussion of issues. There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, the Chairman recommended that the meeting be adjourned. Upon motion to adjourn and second by several members, followed by a voice vote, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 AM.
http://resources.baltimorecountymd.gov/Documents/CountyCouncil/boards%20and%20commissions/Chrtr_Rev_Com_Meeting_Minutes_91317.pdf
Alerts Sign-up