Open letter to Baltimore City Councilman Brandon M. Scott.

Dear Councilman Scott:

As Chair of the Public Safety Committee of the Baltimore City Council, you take an active and constructive interest in the affairs of the Baltimore Police Department (BPD). You long have advocated for a return of the BPD to “city” control.

You and I both know that a full transfer of power is not going to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, there are things that the city council can and should do; the absence of complete control over the police department is no excuse for doing nothing.

You may have seen my op-ed that was published in the Baltimore Sun describing how the senators and delegates that represent the residents of Baltimore could open the disciplinary records of officers of the BPD to reasonable public scrutiny. In my opinion (and in the opinion of many others), full trust in the BPD will never be achieved until that is done.

What can the council do about that? Answer: Pass a resolution supporting introduction and enactment of the local law described in the op-ed. For one thing, such a bill will not pass without the support of city officials. There is a link to the bill that I drafted at the end of this letter.

Generally, city or county council resolutions asking state legislators to introduce specific legislation are about as welcome as suggestions by members of the General Assembly on which bills a local council should pass. But, as you know, the situation here is a different one.

The city council has a profound interest in an agency that, in every chartered county and other municipal corporation, is locally-controlled. It hardly is an intrusion upon state legislative prerogative for the council to express its views on such an intensely local concern as policing.

I am going to digress and vent a bit on what I believe will be the barrier to introduction of the bill I proposed. In my opinion, there are too many legislators from the city, both on the city council and in the General Assembly, who are more interested in avoiding blame and adverse political consequences than in accepting the risks necessary to get something done about the BPD. It is safer to point fingers at “Annapolis,” the mayor, or elsewhere than to take any sort of initiative.

Have you heard any discussion among your counterparts in the General Assembly from the city about the possibility of a public local law introducing some sunshine into disciplinary system of the BPD? I bet that you haven’t, and I bet that the reason is that they don’t want to stick out their necks. A lot of talk and political grandstanding goes on, but little else.

Not that the city council has been much better in the political courage department. In fact, among the rumblings one hears about the reluctance to turn full control of the BPD over to the city are comments about the council’s track record of not exercising the power that it does have.

I saw that first hand with the council’s reticence to exercise its control over the collective bargaining process in a manner that might offend Lodge 3 of the FOP. Council members, including yourself, told me that the council lacked the power to end the ridiculous impasse over the BPD patrol shift schedule. I wrote a number of op-eds pointing out that the council did have the power to end the impasse, including an op-ed that appeared in the Baltimore Brew.

After the op-ed was published by the Brew, I was informed by a city official that a member of the city council had a bill drafted that was “inspired” by the op-ed. The bill would have permanently removed the subject of shift schedules from the scope of collective bargaining in the city.

The draft bill was dated October 29, 2018. Five days later, the leadership of Lodge 3 announced that it reluctantly had capitulated on the issue of changing the 4×10 shift schedule:

“While our members agreed that this proposal [returning to a 5×8 shift schedule] was less than ideal, the alternative to acceptance was dismal, at best. Instead they made the hard choice to preserve our contractual rights, going forward.”

Was the timing a coincidence? Of course not. The union agreed to the shift schedule change while still able to get something in return for its concession. Had the subject of shift schedules been removed from the scope of collective bargaining, it would have lost all its value as a bargaining chip. One shot by the council over the union’s bow and the impasse ended.

The council allowed the impasse to continue for almost three years, costing the city millions of dollars. Council members like President Jack Young and Ryan Dorsey took occasional verbal pot shots at the FOP for its alleged intransigence, but that was all part of the game that it is run on Baltimore citizens by the city’s politicians: Point fingers at someone else and hope that citizens don’t catch on.

In summary, Councilman Scott, I urge you to focus on what you can do, not on what you can’t. If the senators and delegates that represent city residents do the same, some very important things can be accomplished. One of those things is bringing a reasonable amount of transparency to the BPD’s malfunctioning disciplinary system.

Good luck.

David A. Plymyer

[Draft public local law making BPD disciplinary records subject to limited public inspection:  draft bill pll balt city disciplinary records 1 12 19 ]

Md. Lawmakers should make police discipline records public.

Senators and delegates who represent Baltimore residents in the Maryland General Assembly talk a good game about restoring the public’s faith and confidence in the Baltimore Police Department (BPD). If they were serious about it, however, they would sponsor a local bill this session lifting the shroud of secrecy under state law that protects the disciplinary records of BPD officers from public scrutiny.

It is that shroud of secrecy that allowed police misconduct and outright corruption within the BPD to flourish. Bad officers who should have been fired weren’t. Sometimes it was because of a disciplinary system heavily weighted in favor of accused officers, sometimes it was because of managerial indifference or worse. Eventually, there were so many bad officers that the situation spun out of control.

Corruption was a cancer that metastasized because the public was kept in the dark. Police union officials will tell you that the reason the law secretes the results of disciplinary actions is to spare accused officers from embarrassment. That is not true. The reason is to keep citizens from finding out about too-lenient discipline and demanding reform.

Ideally, reasonable transparency of disciplinary records should apply to all police departments in Maryland. Police officers, unlike other public employees, are empowered to use force to place citizens under arrest and restrain their liberty. Their testimony can result in searches of homes and send people to prison for years. With such extraordinary power should come commensurate accountability.

It now appears that a statewide bill is not going to happen, however, because the political support is not there. And, in all fairness, Baltimore is where the crisis exists. The collapse of discipline in the BPD is primarily a Baltimore problem, and it is reasonable to expect elected officials who represent the citizens of Baltimore to take charge of trying to fix it.

Unlike the police departments of counties and other cities, the BPD is a state agency. The General Assembly, rather than the City Council, enacts the “public local laws” that govern the BPD. The statute that prohibits public disclosure of police disciplinary records is known as a “public general law,” applicable statewide.

In a 1989 case, the Maryland Court of Appeals stated that the General Assembly can make an exception to the provisions of a public general law that applies to the BPD as well as to other police departments by enacting a public local law applicable only to the BPD. That is of enormous practical significance.

By custom, a local law is subject to “local courtesy.” That means that enactment is all but assured if the law has the support of the senators and delegates who represent the city or county. It would be an unimaginable slight to the city if a local bill sponsored by city senators and delegates that only affected the BPD is defeated, especially if city officials endorsed the bill as an important step in restoring the confidence of city residents in the BPD.

I drafted a bill allowing public inspection of certain disciplinary records of BPD officers to try to get the ball rolling. If interested, legislators may contact me at the email address listed below and I will send them a copy. Free of charge.

Here’s what transparency for Baltimore police discipline would mean

The bill limits public inspection to complaints of dishonesty or untruthfulness and physical or verbal abuse of citizens. Those are the types of misconduct most relevant to citizens’ interests in holding the police commissioner accountable for ensuring that officers perform their duties fairly and justly. Other disciplinary matters would remain confidential.

I have no pride of authorship, and I am sure that the General Assembly’s bill drafters will have their own ideas on how such a bill should be written. But I wanted to minimize excuses for not getting anything done this session by starting the drafting process.

There has been a tendency among legislators who represent city residents, both in the General Assembly and on the City Council, to try to duck responsibility for repairing the BPD. Well, adding some transparency to disciplinary actions taken by the BPD is something that the senators and delegates who represent Baltimore citizens can do.

They don’t need the governor, and they don’t need the leaders of the General Assembly. It is time to stop waiting for help and do something. If the senators and delegates from the city join with city officials in seeking enactment of this legislation, they should be able to get it passed. In any event, there is no excuse for not trying.

[Published as an op-ed by the Baltimore Sun on January 22, 2019 but not posted to my blog until April 13, 2017. The date of posting that appears above was backdated to place all posts in the order in which they were written.]

Howard Street Tunnel expansion beats Pimlico Race Course plan by a mile.

If the city and state are betting big dollars, choose the project with the best chance of truly helping Baltimore.

Decisions must be made by state and local officials on what to do about the Howard Street Tunnel and the Pimlico Race Course, historically two places central to Baltimore commerce and culture – only one of which has a future.

The 123-year-old tunnel is an important part of Baltimore’s legacy as a thriving Mid-Atlantic rail hub and port city, a continuing role we must strengthen. Sadly, the 148-year-old Race Course is now just a reminder of its more storied past.

The reconstruction of the Howard Street Tunnel is a deal that Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, who pulled the plug on the Red Line and State Center, must get done.

If he fails to close that deal, he will cement his reputation as the governor who let down Baltimore – and Maryland – when they needed him most.


Owned by CSX Transportation, the tunnel carries trains to points south and west from the Port of Baltimore. Its inability to accommodate double-stacked containers, which now account for approximately 75% of intermodal shipments, has put the port at a competitive disadvantage.

The estimated cost of increasing the height of the Howard Street Tunnel to allow passage of rail cars with double-stacked containers is $445 million. CSX recently returned to the table with an offer to contribute $91 million toward reconstructing the tunnel, down from its $145 million offer in 2016.

Anticipating $155 million in federal funding, that means Maryland’s share would be $199 million. That’s $54 million more than the state said that it would contribute in 2016.

CSX’s opening gambit won’t be its final position, however. Governor Hogan needs to put his shoulder to the wheel and strike an agreement with CSX.

Tunnel Payout: 7,800 Jobs

Unlike other projects suggested as stimuli for the region’s economy, the benefits of the tunnel expansion are not speculative. State officials report that the port is responsible for nearly $3 billion in personal wages and salary and more than $300 million in state and local tax revenues.

The port generates about 13,650 direct jobs, with about another 114,000 jobs linked to port activities. Estimates are that expansion of the tunnel would add as many as 7,800 direct and indirect jobs.


Just as importantly, expansion would maintain the port’s competitiveness. The widening of the Panama Canal to allow the transit of larger container ships, completed in 2016, will increase double-stacking even more and adds to the urgency of expanding the tunnel. Business lost to ports like Norfolk or Miami is not readily recovered.

The port is currently thriving, and saw an 8% increase in general cargo and a 14% increase in container business last year. The city and state can ill afford to see that trend reversed.

Racing Days are Over

Ironically, after the news broke that CSX had renewed its interest in expanding the Howard Street Tunnel, the Maryland Stadium Authority issued a report stating that it was impractical to restore Baltimore’s dilapidated Pimlico Race Course, home of the Preakness Stakes.

The report recommended that Pimlico be demolished and rebuilt at an estimated cost of $424 million. It is a project to which no taxpayers’ money should be committed even if it means that the Preakness moves out of the city.

Governor Hogan has echoed the popular sentiment that the Preakness Stakes belongs in Baltimore. Trying to restore Old Hilltop to its past glory for the sole purpose of keeping one horserace in the city, however, is a sentiment that comes at too high a price.

The stadium authority did not specify how the cost of building a new race course should be allocated among the city, the state and the track’s owner, the Stronach Group. But this much is safe to say: there is no chance that Stronach will want to bear much of that cost.

Stronach wants to close Pimlico and move the Preakness to Laurel Park in Anne Arundel County. While having allowed Pimlico to deteriorate, Stronach invested tens of millions of dollars upgrading Laurel Park, which had 159 race days last year. Pimlico had 12.

The stadium authority recognized that the days of year-round racing at Pimlico were over, and proposed youth lacrosse and soccer games and drone races as activities to keep the racecourse from sitting idle.

Drone races? That tells you all that you need to know about the economic viability of rebuilding Pimlico.

Real Revitalization

None of this is to say that the site doesn’t deserve investment – it clearly does. That 300-acre parcel presents a magnificent opportunity for a project that serves as a catalyst for the revitalization of the surrounding neighborhoods, something that a racetrack has never done – and never will.

City and state money will be needed to redevelop that land once the racetrack is gone. Presented with a sensible plan, most citizens would approve of the spending. Smart leaders should come up with one.

The decisions on the Howard Street Tunnel and the Pimlico Race Course serve as litmus tests for whether city and state officials possess the vision, courage and clear-eyed realism to pull Baltimore back from the edge of an economic and social precipice.

The heyday of thoroughbred racing in Baltimore is over. Heaven help the city if, in the next few years, the same is said about its port.

[Published as guest commentary by the Baltimore Brew on January 8, 2019 but not posted to my blog until April 13, 2019. The date of posting that appears above was backdated to place all posts in the order in which they were written.]


Fitzgerald is finished.

Joel Fitzgerald is finished as a suitable candidate to be Baltimore’s next police commissioner. The last thing that a police department desperately in need of reform needs is a person with a reputation as a liar. The department needs someone who is a role model for honesty and integrity.

I will start with the following observation: Lying was an essential ingredient in the formula that produced the corruption and unconstitutional policing that destroyed the Baltimore Police Department as an effective law enforcement agency. Lying by commanders and supervisors about the actions of their subordinates. Lying by rank-and-file officers to supervisors and internal affairs investigators about the actions of their peers. Lying about overtime.

Then of course there was the lying on arrest warrants and search warrants. Lying on police reports and lying in court. Lying, lying and more lying. It seems to be a police department full of liars. How do you change a culture of lying by putting an alleged liar in charge?

The long road back to respectability and public confidence for the BPD requires a police commissioner whose reputation for truthfulness is beyond reproach. The citizens must be able to trust that, whatever happens in the department, they are getting the unvarnished truth from the commissioner. I don’t know how a commissioner who apparently shaded the truth to get the job could possibly fulfill that requirement.

If reports in the media are correct, the Fort Worth, Texas police chief was guilty of grossly inflating his resume. According to those reports, at least two of the claims were outright misrepresentations of the facts: Mr. Fitzgerald’s claim that he initiated “the largest active Body Worn Camera program in Texas” while chief of the Fort Worth police department and “the first active Body Camera program in Pennsylvania” while chief of the Allentown police department.

It doesn’t matter whether these putative achievements were relevant to Fitzgerald’s selection. It matters whether he told the truth about them.

To make matters worse, Mr. Fitzgerald initially resisted public disclosure of his resume. In retrospect, one could conclude that he was concerned about what scrutiny of that resume would reveal. Is the city really going to hire a commissioner who apparently tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the mayor and city council about his achievements?

If Diogenes held a lantern to the face of Mr. Fitzgerald, what would he see? For one thing, I doubt that he would see the face of the next Baltimore police commissioner. I expect Mr. Fitzgerald’s name to be withdrawn from consideration by the close of business on Monday. What a sad, sad chain of events for the City of Baltimore.

State Legislators Should Not Work for Local Governments.

A state senator or delegate shouldn’t be allowed to hold a position in local government while serving in the Maryland General Assembly. One job at a time with the state or any of its political subdivisions is enough.

Trying to serve two masters invariably results in conflicts of interest; sometimes in just plain old conflicts. The former situation is illustrated by the dual careers of Speaker of the House of Delegates Michael Busch. The latter by the recent comments of state Sen. Jill Carter.

Mr. Busch retired this month from his position in the Anne Arundel County Department of Recreation and Parks. He began working there 41 years ago, long before his election to the General Assembly in 1987.

I emphasize that, although some members of the General Assembly use their positions to find sinecures in local governments, that was not the case with Mr. Busch. He was hired on merit and served the county with distinction. I helped him when he established “coaches’ clinics” for volunteer coaches in the county’s extensive youth sports programs. No county employee was easier to get along with than Mr. Busch, and he excelled at working with volunteer organizations.

Especially after Mr. Busch was elected speaker in 2003, however, questions arose about how much time Mr. Busch spent performing his duties for the state when he was supposed to working for the county. Long-time Capital Gazette sports reporter Bill Wagner noted that “it was said that you were better off calling the State House if you needed to reach Busch” on Recreation and Parks business.

Rick Anthony is Anne Arundel County’s current Director of Recreation and Parks. His observations upon the retirement of his nominal subordinate were remarkably candid:

“Politically, you sometimes hear people asking if Mike is at work every day. Well, let me tell you something, what Mike has meant to this department is worth more than 10 full-time people because he absolutely has been able to bring home the bacon,” Anthony said. “Just his connections statewide are invaluable.”

Therein lies the rub. Mr. Busch was elected to represent the citizens of District 30A, not the interests of the county Department of Recreation and Parks. And he was paid $137,000 to be the county’s full-time recreation administrator.

As for bringing home the bacon, it is worth noting that bacon is in limited supply. All 12 public high schools in Anne Arundel County have turf fields, thanks in part to state funding that Mr. Busch helped secure. Other counties probably envy Anne Arundel County for its turf fields. If so, I guess the answer for them is to get one of their own employees elected speaker.

At least the relationship between Anne Arundel County and Mr. Busch was a symbiotic one, keeping both employer and employee happy. Not so with the relationship between the City of Baltimore and Ms. Carter. That relationship illustrates the less-subtle perils of dual employment.

In January 2017, Ms. Carter, at the time a former state delegate, was appointed Director of Civil Rights and Wage Enforcement for the City of Baltimore. In April 2018, she was appointed by Gov. Larry Hogan to complete the unexpired term of former state Sen. Nathaniel Oaks, and she won election to a full four-year term in November.

Unlike Mr. Bush’s position with Anne Arundel County, Ms. Carter’s position with the city was not subject to a merit system hiring process. With some exceptions, the Maryland Public Ethics Law precludes members of the General Assembly from receiving compensation for positions with political subdivisions of the state not in the merit systems of those political subdivisions. The state constitution categorically precludes senators or delegates from holding any elected or appointed “office of profit or trust” with a city or county.

Although Ms. Carter later stated that she did not agree with the decision by City Solicitor Andre Davis that she could not continue to serve as civil rights director for the city while serving as a state senator, she relinquished her position as director. She took a demotion to deputy director. Then things really got nasty.

Mr. Davis became involved in major dust-up with the city’s Civilian Review Board, a pet program of Ms. Carter that receives administrative support from the Office of Civil Rights. The controversy was over the attempt by Mr. Davis to place conditions on access by the board to police disciplinary files. The board, created by state law, has certain oversight responsibilities for discipline within the Baltimore Police Department (BPD). Ms. Carter sided with the board.

Ms. Carter took to Twitter, accusing Mr. Davis of hurting people and causing havoc. She described him as “outrageous, unethical & unprofessional.” She also called him a “narcissistic tyrant.”

Here is the problem with what looks like the behavior of a disgruntled employee: Ms. Carter will be a member of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee when the General Assembly convenes in January. Mr. Davis is the city’s principal liaison with the team monitoring compliance by the BPD with the consent decree between the city and the United States Department of Justice.

The two must work together on one of the most pressing issues facing the city, the state legislative reforms that will be required to comply with the consent decree. Those reforms will go before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.

It is absolutely essential that the senators and delegates from the city work as a team with city officials to come up with an agreed-upon list of reforms. The last time that I checked, calling someone a “narcissistic tyrant” is not one of the suggestions in the team-building handbook.

Allowing state legislators to work as employees of local governments serves no important public purpose. The practice increases the potential not only for conflicts of interest but also for garden-variety interpersonal conflicts, neither of which benefits the citizens that state legislators are elected to represent.

[Published as guest commentary by Maryland Matters on December 18, 2018 but not posted to my blog until April 13, 2017. The date of posting that appears above was backdated to place all posts in the order in which they were written.]

To dream the impossible dream…about an amendment to the Md Public Information Act.

Few things in life are a bigger waste of time for an ordinary citizen than to send, unsolicited, a proposed bill to the Governor of the State of Maryland and ask him to support it.  But that is what I did.  For good measure, I sent copies to the President of the Maryland Senate and the Speaker of the House of Delegates.

Below is the cover letter that I sent and the memorandum that contains a proposed amendment to the Maryland Public Information Act that would allow public inspection of certain police disciplinary records.  HB 402 introduced in the 2016 session of the General Assembly was the last serious effort to pass such a bill.

I supported that bill as best I could, but I wasn’t happy with the way it was drafted.  Not that its drafting made any difference, because the bill lacked any real support and went down to ignominious defeat.  So, this year I had some time and drafted what I believe to be a better bill. Why not?

The cover letter explains why I believe that this legislation is so important, especially to the City of Baltimore:   Restoring the trust of the citizens in their police department is essential, and there will be no trust until there is some transparency in the disciplinary process.

The cover letter

December 8, 2018

The Hon. Lawrence J. Hogan, Jr.
Governor of the State of Maryland
100 State Circle
Annapolis, Maryland 21401-1925

SUBJ: Proposed amendment to the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA)

Dear Governor Hogan:

The City of Baltimore needs your help in bringing its epidemic of murder and other violent crime under control. That epidemic is about to enter its fifth year. It is an unbelievable tragedy for both the city and the state.

The Baltimore Police Department (BPD) has two separate but related problems. It currently lacks an effective strategy for reducing the violence. It also has lost control of the conduct of its officers, the extent of which is still unfolding.

Hopefully, the year 2019 will find Baltimore with a new, permanent police commissioner. In my opinion, and in the opinion of most experts in the field, the new commissioner will have to employ an aggressive, proactive approach to policing to reduce violence.

Such an approach will be a tough sell to the citizens of Baltimore – as well it should be, given the history of abuses by the BPD – without concomitant assurances that discipline within the department is sufficient to keep such policing within constitutional limits. I am proposing that you support one small measure in the 2019 session of the General Assembly that will begin the process of restoring public trust in the BPD, trust that is essential to its effectiveness.

The proposal is to carve a narrow exception to the MPIA that allows public inspection of certain police disciplinary records. Police chiefs, police commissioners and sheriffs must be accountable to the citizens of their jurisdictions for the discipline of their departments. The only way to achieve that is through the transparency of critical disciplinary actions.

I’ve attached a copy of a memorandum that includes a proposed bill. I am perfectly aware that such proposals from ordinary citizens generally have little value in the political arena. Submitting the proposal, however, makes me feel better because at least I have tried to do something to help.

Merry Christmas, Governor, and a Happy New Year.


                                    David A. Plymyer

Cc: Hon. Thomas V. Miller, Jr.
Hon. Michael E. Busch

The bill and explanatory memorandum

SUBJECT:            Proposed amendment to the Maryland Public Information Act regarding                                inspection of police disciplinary records

PREPARED BY: David A. Plymyer

DATE:                  December 8, 2018



To amend the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) to allow the inspection of police disciplinary records that result from complaints alleging the following conduct arising out of or occurring in the course of a police officer’s duties: 1) dishonesty or untruthfulness; and 2) the verbal or physical abuse of a citizen, including the use of excessive force or brutality.


The current provisions of the MPIA categorically exempt a “personnel record” of an individual from public disclosure. Although the statute gives some examples (application, performance rating, and scholastic achievement information) there is no definition of “personnel record” in the MPIA. The General Assembly left it to the courts to flesh out a definition.

In Montgomery County v. Shropshire, 420 Md. 362 (2011), the Court referred to its earlier decision in Governor v. Washington Post, 360 Md. 520 (2000) that held that “personnel records were those [records] relating to hiring, discipline, promotion, dismissal, or any matter involving an employee’s status.” The Court went on to hold in Shropshire that the record of an internal affairs investigation into an alleged violation of administrative rules by a police officer was a “personnel record” of that officer and could not be disclosed.

In my proposed bill, I codify the Court’s decision that the General Assembly generally intended to exempt the “disciplinary records” of public employees from disclosure under the MPIA by adding a new section to the MPIA specifically addressing disciplinary records. I then spell out a limited exception to that prohibition. In my opinion, this is a far cleaner and much less confusing approach than the alternative, which would be to create an “exception to the exception” under § 4-311 of the General Provisions Article. Section 4-311 is the section that declares “personnel records” to be exempt from disclosure under the MPIA.

I chose to limit the exceptions to police officers for the obvious reasons: Police officers, unlike other public employees, have the power to use force to place citizens under arrest and restrain their liberty. Their testimony can result in the search of citizens’ homes and send citizens to prison for years.

I further limited the exceptions to the two types of conduct that I believe are most relevant to citizens’ interests in holding leaders of police departments accountable for ensuring that their officers perform their duties fairly and justly: Dishonesty and untruthfulness, and abuse of citizens, physical or verbal.

To avoid confusion, I use language that makes clear that, as the term is used in the MPIA, a “record” refers to a discrete document or set of documents – not to a list such as an individual’s driving record, criminal record, or “disciplinary record.” Therefore, as applied to a given disciplinary action, disciplinary “record” refers to the documents and other materials specific to that action, not to a listing of the discipline imposed on an individual during the entirety of the individual’s employment.


Proposed bill

Annotated Code of Maryland – General Provisions Article

[new] § 4-328. Disciplinary records

(a) “Police officer” defined. — In this section, “police officer” has the meaning described in § 3-201(f) of the Public Safety Article.

(b) Included as disciplinary record. – – For purposes of this section, a disciplinary record includes a record of:

(1) the allegations or complaint that initiated consideration of possible disciplinary action against an employee by the individual’s employer;

(2) the investigation of the allegations or complaint conducted by or on behalf of the individual’s employer, including any findings and recommendations;

(3) for an individual subject to the Maryland Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights, the proceedings, outcome, findings of fact, and recommendations of a hearing board constituted under § 3-107 of the Public Safety Article; and

(4) the final decision by an individual’s employer on whether to impose disciplinary action, the disciplinary action imposed, and any explanation of the decision.

(c) In general. — Except as provided in subsection (d), a custodian shall deny inspection of a disciplinary record of an individual.

(d) Inspection of disciplinary record of police officer. — Subject to subsections (e) and (f), a custodian shall allow inspection of a disciplinary record of a police officer resulting from an allegation or complaint of the following conduct arising out of or occurring in the performance of the officer’s duty:

(1) Dishonesty or untruthfulness; or

(2) Verbal or physical abuse of a citizen, including the use of excessive force or brutality.

(e) Temporary denial. — A custodian may deny inspection of the record of an investigation governed by § 3-104 of the Public Safety Article until a hearing board constituted under § 3-107 of the Public Safety Article issues its decision.

(f) Expunged record. – A custodian shall deny inspection of a record expunged under § 3-110 of the Public Safety Article.


Explanation of provisions

4-328(a). I incorporated the definition of “police officer” from § 3-201(f) of the Public Safety Article rather than use the definition of “law enforcement officer” from the provisions of the Maryland Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBR). The reason for my decision is that using the Public Safety Article definition does not categorically exclude the disciplinary records of probationary police officers.

Under the LEOBR, “law enforcement officer” is defined as excluding a probationary officer except when there is an allegation of brutality. Using the definition of “police officer” set forth in § 3-201(f) means that a disciplinary complaint against a probationary officer alleging dishonesty, untruthfulness or verbal abuse of a citizen, although not subject to the LEOBR, will be subject to inspection.

4-328(b). This section specifies the recorded information that is within the scope of a “disciplinary record.” It is intended to be comprehensive and include everything from the initial complaint to the final decision. It includes the records of the proceedings of a police disciplinary hearing board constituted under the LEOBR.

4-328(c). Provides that, except as described in subsection (d), inspection of a disciplinary record of a public employee shall be denied.

4-328(d). Specifies the alleged conduct by a police officer for which inspection of a disciplinary record must be permitted. The alleged conduct must have arisen out of or occurred in the performance of the officer’s duty.

I included “verbal abuse” because such conduct can be a precursor to physical abuse. Citizens have the right to know how a police department is responding to known “red flags” to prevent misconduct from escalating from verbal to physical abuse.

“Arising out of” has a somewhat broader meaning than “occurring in” the performance of an officer’s duties, but still requires a nexus between the duties and the conduct. Under analogous circumstances courts have held that criminal or deliberate tortious conduct lies outside the scope of a police officer’s duties. See, e.g., Wolfe v. Anne Arundel County, 374 Md. 20 (2003). “Arising out of” is intended to include criminal or deliberate conduct that may not have been part of an officer’s duties but was related to (arose from) those duties in some manner.

4-328(e). Allows the custodian to delay inspection of the record of an investigation governed by the LEOBR until a police disciplinary hearing board issues its decision. Intended to protect the integrity of the investigation and the hearing process.

4-328(f). The LEOBR allows the expungement of a disciplinary complaint against a law enforcement officer three years after a final disposition of the complaint that exonerates the officer. This provision would prohibit a custodian from allowing inspection of a record expunged under the LEOBR.

I have been told that there is some interest in resurrecting the effort to amend the MPIA to allow limited inspection of police disciplinary records, and I passed the above proposal along to the person who told me that.  Do I have any great hope that my or any other proposal will go anywhere in the 2019 session?  No, but at least I tried to do something to move the police reform ball forward.  Which is more than most state officials can say.


Not all change is good when it comes to the words of hymns.

My reflection on this Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day is on the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” as sung by the parish choir of St. Martin’s Episcopal Church in Houston at yesterday’s funeral service for former president George H.W. Bush. The arrangement and singing were beautiful. In my opinion, there was just one problem: The lyrics in the fifth stanza.

Here are the lyrics as written by Julia Ward Howe in 1861 and first published in 1862:

“In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me;
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free!
While God is marching on.”

Here is the third line of the stanza as sung by the St. Martin choir:

“As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free!”

Let me make clear that I do not blame the choir or the church for the change; I am informed that “live” appears in many modern hymnals. The accepted history is that the change dates to 1959 when it appeared in a recording released by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

The modification gained a foothold as churches became more self-conscious about the hymn’s celebration of American militancy and the glorification of war as a purported instrument of God’s will. I understand the concern, but the change strips the most powerful passage in the song of the historical context that gives the passage its power. And it misses the larger, most important point of the original lyrics.

Julia Ward Howe was an ardent abolitionist who chafed at her own inability to make a direct contribution to the Union cause. When she wrote “let us die to make men free” she was referring to a willingness to die for that cause, quite literally. She wrote the hymn at the beginning of a war that would claim the lives of approximately 360,000 Union soldiers.

The larger point is, of course, the righteousness of sacrificing oneself, if necessary, for the freedom of others. The original language of the stanza is rightfully considered one of the most brilliant and stirring passages in American music.

As a boy, I sang the hymn countless times at Advent Lutheran Church in West Lawn, Pa.    I understood what Julia Ward Howe meant by the words, although I may not have fully appreciated their gravity until later. But Pastor Ernest Weber did. Gassed with chlorine gas on the fields of France in World War I, he preached with a raspy voice barely louder than a whisper.

And the many veterans of World War II and Korea sitting in the pews, including my father, got it. And, so did the widows, including Helen Frey, one of my mother’s best friends, who lost her husband in Korea.

There were older men and women in the congregation, including my grandmother, whose grandfathers had fought for the Union in the Civil War. They understood the meaning of those words, as well.  They sang that hymn from their heart, and it feels disrespectful to suggest that the words that they sang were somehow inappropriate, or unChristian.

I don’t believe in glorifying war. But the hymn reminds Christians that there are some things worth fighting and even dying for, and that the freedom of black men, women and children held as slaves on American soil was one of them. It seems to me that message is no less important today than it was in 1861.

If you don’t believe me that we need to continue to celebrate the righteousness of sacrificing, if necessary, for a cause greater than ourselves, then ask Cadet Bone Spurs.

On second thought. . .

The neighbors of the Chabad House of Towson are victimized once again.

Well, it looks like the neighbors of the Chabad House of Towson and Goucher in Towson are being victimized again, this time by accusations of religious prejudice for pursuing their legal remedies to have the 6,614 square-foot community center torn down. The accusations, attributed to a group called Friends of Towson Chabad, were reported last week in a front-page story in the Baltimore Sun captioned “Jewish group in Towson claims court order to raze Chabad center is case of religious discrimination.”

The Chabad House is a Jewish community center located about a block from the Towson University campus in a residential subdivision of Baltimore County known as Aigburth Manor. Rabbi Menachem Rivkin directs the center on behalf of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement. The deed to the property describes the owner as Friends of Lubavitch, Inc.

In 2017, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County held that the building located at 14 Aigburth Road violated private setback covenants applicable to the property and would have to be razed as a result of a suit brought by neighbors and the Aigburth Manor community association. The required building setback is 115 feet from the road and the structure is less than 60 feet from the road. The county is not a party to the case.

In a separate case in 2017, the Baltimore County Board of Appeals ruled that the building permit for the structure had been procured “dishonestly.” The county did nothing about the unlawful structure as a result of the board’s decision, an inexplicable failure to act discussed below. The board’s decision, however, has no direct bearing on the legal action brought by the neighbors to enforce the private covenants.

The Board of Appeals held that Friends of Lubavitch had “acted in bad faith” by misrepresenting the purpose of the structure on the permit application as a “residential” addition to an existing 2,200 square-foot home occupied by Rabbi Rivkin. Rabbi Rivkin, who according to the Sun currently is expecting his sixth child, claimed that the 6,614 square-foot addition was necessary to accommodate his expanding family.

The Board of Appeals found that, from the beginning, the purpose of the building was to serve as a community center, a use not permitted as a matter of right under the zoning applicable to the property. The Board concluded that the permit therefore had been obtained by deception and misrepresentation.

In its opinion, the Board of Appeals referred to the testimony of the owner of the neighboring property, Robin Zoll. According to Mrs. Zoll, when she confronted Rabbi Rivkin about the manner in which the building permit had been obtained his response was: “I was as honest as I could be to get my permit.” The board called it a “stunning admission.”

In summary, Friends of Lubavitch, Inc. obtained the building permit for the structure in 2016 through what the Board of Appeals deemed to be misrepresentation and dishonesty. As if that wasn’t enough, Friends of Lubavitch built the community center in 2017 in violation of private covenants applicable to the property, effectively forcing the neighbors to act because the county had not.

In my experience, no neighbors would have taken this travesty lying down if they had the resources to fight it. For one thing, a structure like this can cause the property values of surrounding homes to plummet; the Board of Appeals noted that the building caused the assessed value of the neighboring property to drop from $408,000 to $341,500. For another, if you don’t enforce private covenants consistently and uniformly, you can lose your right to enforce them at all.

Now supporters of the Chabad House, including Rabbi Rivkin, are accusing its neighbors of anti-Semitism for asking the court to enforce the private covenants. You’re beginning to get a picture of who the real victims in this saga are. The neighbors are in this position only because the Baltimore County government failed to do its job.

In addition to the story in the Baltimore Sun describing the allegations of religious prejudice, there is another reason to review the history of the Towson Chabad House now. As Baltimore County begins the transition to his administration, County Executive Johnny Olszewski, Jr. and his transition team should review the Chabad House scandal to decide if this is how they believe that county government should treat its citizens. I know that this post is a long read, but there is no other way to appreciate the abuse that the neighbors of Chabad House have been forced to endure other than to understand the history.

Even though this post is long, it does not capture all of the relevant events. The Baltimore Sun recently did a timeline, with links to previous stories, that you can consult if you want additional detail.

By my count, the Aigburth Manor neighbors have been victimized at least three times. Twice by the Baltimore County government, and once by the friends of Towson Chabad aided and abetted by the Baltimore Sun.

The Chabad House of Towson and Goucher

Chabad House is approximately 6,614 square feet in size and is attached to the 2,200 square-foot pre-existing house by a breezeway. For all practical purposes, it is a separate, freestanding structure. There was no attempt to harmonize the institutional design of the addition to the house. The three-story building is seven feet higher than the neighboring three-story home.

The first floor of Chabad House has a dining room that can seat over 120, with a cloak room and men’s and women’s powder rooms to serve it; it is small banquet hall. The kitchen is commercially outfitted and far larger than necessary to serve Rabbi Rivkin’s family and friends. The building has rooms for a library, conference room, synagogue and student lounge.

There are two apartments on the second floor that have outside entrances. According to the findings of the Board, Rabbi Rivkin told members of the community that one of the apartments was for visitors and the other was for a caretaker. Neighbors say that the student center is open 24 hours a day and is illuminated all night.

Here is how the mission of Chabad House is described on its website: “Chabad at Towson provides a sense of Judaism though living and learning to the students at the University. We offer educational, ritual, and social activities to all students regarding the Jewish heritage and culture. We also provide Shabbat and holiday services and dinners, and meals that are prepared Glatt Kosher.”

Chabad House is a Jewish community center that serves both Towson and Goucher students. Even the group alleging that the ordered demolition is discriminatory refers to the building as a “religious hospitality center.” No one claims any longer that is nothing more than a residential addition to a single-family home to accommodate Rabbi Rivkin’s family. That pretext seems to be forgotten.


The Department of Permits, Approvals and Inspections ignored an opportunity to nip this travesty in the bud. Proper action by the county would have saved everyone, including Friends of Lubavitch, a lot of time, money and agony. Why the county failed to act at this stage, and at the next, are questions that deserved a lot more attention than they got.

There are four legal and administrative proceedings described herein. Two of them, the case in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County brought by the neighbors and the hearing before the Baltimore County Board of Appeals, took place after construction of Chabad House had been completed.

The other two, the review of the building permit application by the county Department Permits, Approvals and Inspections an and an administrative hearing before a county administrative law judge, took place before construction began. The Department of Permits, Approvals and Inspections had ample grounds upon which to deny the building permit, however.

If you don’t believe me about that, read what the Board of Appeals had to say about what the department knew when it was reviewing the permit application. You need to be aware that Lubavitch re-submitted plans for a “residential additional” after identical plans for a parsonage were rejected by the county Department of Permits, Approvals and Inspections to understand the board’s reference to the “new” plans.

The following comment by the county Board of Appeals may be the single most telling comment by anyone about the county’s attitude toward Chabad House:

“It is probably the case that no one in [county] officialdom actually believed that those new plans . . . were for a mere residential addition designed to help Rabbi Rivkin’s burgeoning family. And while it is reasonable to believe that few in county government believed the Lubavitch claim, no one in county government felt empowered to take steps to block construction.”

The Board of Appeals may have believed that no one in county government felt “empowered” to take steps to block construction. In my opinion, it is more likely that no one in county government felt inclined to take steps to block construction.

Here’s one step that the county could and should have “felt empowered” to take: Deny the permit. In my opinion, the Department of Permits, Approvals and Inspections knew or should have known from the plans and other information submitted to it that the permit being sought was not for a residential addition; there was ample evidence to support denial of the permit. If Friends of Lubavitch disagreed with the permit denial, let them appeal the decision to the Board of Appeals. Give Rabbi Rivkin and any other representatives of Friends of Lubavitch the opportunity to testify and be cross-examined under oath about the purpose of the addition.

The failure by the county to deny the application for a building permit for Chabad House was problematic and troublesome. There are other actions and inactions by the county that are even more suspicious.

As noted above, Lubavitch first sought a building permit for a “parsonage.” That application was denied by the county because a parsonage is allowed only as an accessory use to a synagogue, church or other house of worship, and even houses of worship are not allowed in the zoning applicable to the neighborhood.

According to testimony before Baltimore County Administrative Law Judge John Beverungen it appears that, after a discussion between Lubavitch lawyer Timothy Kotroco and Director of Permits, Approvals and Inspections Arnold Jablon, the application was changed to label the proposed structure simply as an “addition” to the existing residence. There were no material changes to the proposed structure.

The application was re-submitted with the proposed structure relabeled.  Based on the transcript from the hearing before Judge Beverungen, Mr. Jablon informed Mr. Kotroco that he would not issue a permit, however, until after the neighbors had a chance to be heard.

As a consequence, a “special hearing” was held. This is Mr. Kotroco’s account to Judge Beverungen at that hearing of his discussion with Mr. Jablon that led to the special hearing:

“[Mr. Jablon] said ‘I’m not going to give you a building permit for the house. I want you to have a hearing. . . because I’m not going to give you a building permit until you have a hearing and at least give an opportunity for the neighbors to come in . . . I want you to have a hearing so they know, public disclosure, and they know what it is you’re doing out there.’”

Mr. Kotroco is a former Baltimore County Zoning Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge, but he didn’t know what type of “hearing” Mr. Jablon was referring to. Mr. Kotroco continued his explanation to Judge Beverungen as follows:

“And I said [to Mr. Jablon] ‘Okay. But I’m not sure what to ask for.’ And I asked for a special hearing. I came up with the language that you see on the special hearing application. I took it back in to Mr. Jablon. I said ‘Well, here’s what I’m filing. Are you comfortable with that? I’m going to go in. We’ll have a public hearing. Whoever wants to come in and take a look at what we’re doing and ask any questions about this addition, that’d be great. I’m going to file it.’

And [Mr. Jablon said, ‘That’s what I want you to do.’ So that’s what I filed. And that’s why we’re here.”

Why were they there before an Administrative Law Judge? In retrospect the purpose of the so-called “special hearing” is not clear at all. The neighbors protesting the application for the permit certainly thought that they were there for an opportunity to persuade Judge Beverungen to block issuance of the permit because the proposed structure was not in fact a residential addition to an existing single-family home.

Was such definitive action by Judge Beverungen ever in the cards, however? At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Beverungen ruled that the question placed before him was one that went to the ultimate use of the structure that could only be resolved once the structure was completed and put to use.

Judge Beverungen stated that he could do more than rule that Lubavitch had the right to construct an addition to the house for residential use – a fact that no one disputed. If the addition was used for something other than residential use upon completion, it was a problem for the county’s zoning enforcement officials to address if and when such improper use occurred, according to Judge Beverungen. In other words, the entire hearing was a waste of time.

Was the special hearing ever intended as anything more than a “show hearing” intended to appease the neighbors? Or perhaps intended to burn up the resources of the neighbors and the Aigburth Manor community association in a pointless proceeding by wasting the money that the neighbors and their community association paid to a lawyer to represent them during the hearing?

Undaunted, the neighbors and their community association appealed Judge Beverungen’s non-decision to the county Board of Appeals. In the meantime, the Department of Permits, Approvals and Inspections issued the building permit to Lubavitch and construction began.

The Board of Appeals decision

The Board of Appeals overruled Judge Beverungen in a 2-1 decision. As noted above, the structure had been completed and put to use as a community center by the time the Board of Appeals got the case. Nevertheless, the dissenting board member opined that the “wiser course” would be to deny the neighbors’ request to declare the structure unlawful and leave the matter to zoning enforcement officials. Another profile in courage from a county official who wanted to push the problem off on someone else.

As far as I can tell, board members Joseph Evans and Meryl Rosen were the only county officials to acquit themselves well throughout this entire debacle. The two wrote in the Board’s decision:

“Sadly, Lubavitch has achieved its goals by manipulating both the administrative system as well as everyone’s natural inclination to defer to religious organizations. In the end, Lubavitch has left [the Board of Appeals] with very few options, but leaving the neighbors stranded cannot be one of them.”

The decision concluded that Lubavitch “acted in bad faith in obtaining the building permit and constructing the addition.” It declared that Lubavitch “is and has been using the property at 14 Aigburth Road as a community center without having obtained the necessary approvals or complying with the necessary regulations.”

The decision set the stage for the Department of Permits, Approvals and Inspections to revoke the permit and file suit to have the addition removed. The Board of Appeals may have been unwilling to leave the neighbors stranded, but the Department of Permits, Approvals and Inspections wasn’t. The department refused to join the fight to have the unlawful structure removed.


There is evidence to suggest that the decision by the Board of Appeals upset a plan by the county to give the neighbors their “day in court” and then issue the building permit. As documented in her letter to Mr. Jablon dated January 17, 2018, Mrs. Zoll claims that she and others were told by Mr. Jablon during a meeting in September 2016 that he “needed a final order from the Board of Appeals before taking the action to stop the construction, then underway, and enforce the zoning laws with respect to the [Chabad House] property.”

The county, however, did nothing about the Chabad House when the order became final on September 5, 2017 and continues to do nothing. Mrs. Zoll pressed her argument with county officials that because of the ruling by the Board of Appeals it was the county’s responsibility to have the building torn down. The county did not concur:

“We disagree with [Mrs. Zoll’s] interpretation that the County must require the addition to be removed,” county spokeswoman Ellen Kobler wrote in an email, according to the Sun in a story published in March of this year. “The Board’s issue was the use, not the size of the building.”

First of all, Ms. Kobler’s characterization of the board’s decision was not accurate. The board determined that the building permit was obtained by a bad faith misrepresentation of the purpose of the structure and that the permit would not have been issued if the true purpose had been disclosed. Chabad House was up and operating by the time of the board’s decision, and the board found that it was a non-residential structure; specifically, a community center.

As described by the Board of Appeals, the result of the construction under the permit was an outsized structure unsuitable for residential use. The board cited a witness who testified that “it is unimaginable that a normal home buyer would ever dream of purchasing this so-called house were Lubavitch to decide to sell it.”

The permit was issued for a residential structure. Friends of Lubavitch built a community center, which is a non-residential structure. The size of the structure has no bearing on the lawfulness of the construction. It is an unlawful, non-residential structure.

Ms. Kobler’s interpretation of the county’s responsibility under the law for removal of the building also was 100% wrong. The permit was based on material misrepresentations of fact by the applicant and may be “voided as if it had never been issued” by the Department of Permits, Approvals and Inspections. The county should have acted to return the property to its pre-existing condition. The following is from the Baltimore County Building Code:


The law hardly could be any clearer and applies whether there has been construction done under the permit or not. Revocation of a permit obtained by a misrepresentation of fact is the first step in the legal process for a county to have construction done under a permit demolished. See Permanent Financial Corp. v. Montgomery County, 308 Md. 239 (1986).

The county lost its first opportunity to do the right thing when it did not deny the building permit for Chabad House. Even if you accept the proposition that the county was “powerless” to deny the permit (I certainly don’t), it had no excuse for its failure to revoke the permit and move to have the building torn down after the Board of Appeals issued its decision.

On March 29, 2018, after reading Ms. Kobler’s “explanation,” I wrote a piece posted on my blog that reproduced the language of the county building code described above. County officials thereafter stopped claiming that the law did not allow it to act to remove the building and, incredibly, instead began disputing the facts as adjudicated by their own Board of Appeals.

On April 9, 2018, Sun reporter Libby Solomon picked up my point about the law in a story about Chabad House. The following is an excerpt from her story:

According to the Baltimore County building code, the county can revoke a building permit if there is a “false statement or misrepresentation of fact in the application or on the plans on which the permit or approval was based.”

But Arnold Jablon, county director of permits, approvals and inspections, said the county has no plans to revoke the permit, saying in an email sent through spokeswoman Ellen Kobler that it was “legally applied for and secured,” and was not acquired under false pretenses.

“If I say I will use my home as a residence but use one room for a home office, is that a false statement?” Jablon wrote. “What if the property owner at the time he applied for a bldg. permit believed his intentions were permitted as residential uses?”

[Emphasis added.]

Let’s get this straight: After hearing hours and hours of testimony and legal argument documented in a 17-page opinion, the Baltimore County Board of Appeals concluded that the building permit was “dishonestly obtained” by Lubavitch based on misrepresentations of fact by Lubavitch and Rabbi Rivkin about the purpose of the structure – i.e., the permit was obtained under false pretenses. But Mr. Jablon, who according to the Board of Appeals apparently felt powerless to deny issuance of the permit, now feels empowered to disregard a decision by the county’s Board of Appeals and decide for the county that the permit was “legally applied for and secured”?

Who the hell is Arnold Jablon to second-guess the findings of fact and decision made by the Baltimore County Board of Appeals after a contested-case, quasi-judicial hearing? The Board of Appeals was established by the county charter so that citizens have some protection from decisions made by bureaucrats like Mr. Jablon.

In summary, the county, through Ms. Kobler, first tried to argue that the county had no power to act under the law. When confronted by me and then by Ms. Solomon with the relevant provisions of the county building code, the county, through Mr. Jablon, changed tack to argue that the building permit was lawfully obtained, despite the finding by the county’s own Board of Appeals.

I mentioned above that I believe that there may have been a plan by the county to railroad the permit through. You will recall the statements made to Judge Beverungen by Mr. Kotroco, Lubavitch’s lawyer, recounted above. Here is that same line of inquiry when the case was appealed to the Board of Appeals, in the form of questions by Mr. Kotroco to a surveyor employed by Lubavitch that he called as a witness:

Mr. Kotroco: You’re aware that Mr. Jablon told us to file the special hearing, and I’ll give you the permit. Is that what you’re aware of?

Witness: Yeah. More or less that was what I was aware of, you know, secondhand. But, yes.

Mr. Kotroco: “Give the neighbors the notice, file the hearing, have the hearing, I’ll give you the permit”?  [Emphasis added.]

Witness: Notice was – – that seemed like the key issue.

Mr. Kotroco: Okay.

“Give the neighbors the notice, file the hearing, have the hearing, I’ll give you the permit.” If that is an accurate account of what Mr. Jablon said, then it sounds like the hearing was intended to be nothing more than a charade.

Did two members of a three-member panel of the Board of Appeals upset the apple cart by what they described as their refusal to leave the neighbors stranded, and by declaring the structure unlawful? If so, no problem: Mr. Jablon now says that he disagrees with the Board of Appeals, and he still refuses to act.

To recap the sequence of events: Mr. Jablon proposes that the issue of whether Friends of Lubavitch is entitled to obtain a building permit for what the neighbors claim is a community center, not a residential addition, be submitted to an administrative law judge for determination. The administrative law judge, however, rules that the issue is not ripe for decision until the building is completed and in use.

The neighbors exercise their right of appeal to the county Board of Appeals. While the appeal is pending, Mr. Jablon issues the building permit and construction begins. By the time of the hearing before the Board of Appeals, construction is completed.

The Board of Appeals finds that the building permit was obtained by deception and should not have been issued: The building was, from the beginning, intended to be a community center and that is what it is and how it is being used. The neighbors were right. The building is a community center, not a residence.

And then, after all the hours and hours spent in hearings by the neighbors, and the money spent on lawyers, Mr. Jablon decides that he no longer cares what the Board of Appeals has to say. As far as he is concerned, the building permit was “legally applied for and secured” and that the permit was not acquired under false pretenses.

What kind of county allows its public officials to treat citizens like that? Answer: Baltimore County.


According to the Sun, organizers of a group called Friends of Towson Chabad likened the opposition to the center and the court rulings to Kristallnacht, the name given to two days in 1938 when German Nazis torched synagogues and vandalized Jewish homes, killing nearly 100 Jews. Rabbi Rivkin is identified in the story as a member of the Friends of Towson Chabad.

“Eighty years after Kristallnacht, a rabbi’s home and a home for thousands of Jewish students is slated for destruction,” the organizers stated, according to the Sun. “For a clearly discriminatory ruling like this to be administered in the 21st century is chilling.”

The record of the Board of Appeals indicates that the neighbors of Chabad House bent over backwards to accommodate the use of the Rivkin residence as a student center before the addition was constructed. They tolerated the traffic and noise attendant to the comings and goings of students to Rabbi Rivkin’s residence in the spirit of being good neighbors.

It was not until Lubavitch decided to build an outsized institutional structure more than 55 feet inside the required front setback from the street that the neighbors acted. Imagine how the neighbors felt reading these highly-damaging accusations on the front page of the Baltimore Sun. Here is what Mrs. Zoll told the Sun:

“I’ve lived in this community for more than 50 years, and I have a very good reputation, and I am not an anti-Semite or an anti-anything,” she said. “It’s an absolute besmirchment of everything that I am.”

In my opinion, the Baltimore Sun did the neighbors a further injustice by running the story captioned “Jewish group in Towson claims court order to raze Chabad center is case of religious discrimination” on the front page of the newspaper. From the paper’s coverage of the long-running dispute the Sun’s reporters and editors knew or should have known that the claims of anti-Semitism were suspect at best.

So why put them on the front page? I view the decision to give the accusations front-page coverage as cheesy sensationalism unbecoming a paper like the Sun.

The text of the article isn’t much better. It lumps the Chabad House controversy in with a series of cases brought against the county under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

That comparison gives the allegations more credence than they deserve. For one thing, the county isn’t involved in the suit that resulted in what the Friends of Towson Chabad call a “clearly discriminatory ruling.” It is a private action brought to enforce a private contract. Nothing in the facts of that dispute supports a RLUIPA action, in my opinion.  Indeed, the story does not describe the factual underpinnings of the group’s claim of discrimination – if there are any.

Also, the story buries an important part of the history of this matter on the second page and even then, understates it. The story states only that the Board of Appeals found Friends of Lubavitch to be “insincere” in describing the proposed building as a residence.

As we know, the language of the board’s decision was a lot stronger than that. The decision stated that Lubavitch “acted in bad faith in obtaining the building permit and constructing the addition,” and described much of Rabbi Rivkin’s testimony at the hearing as “coy and disingenuous” and as “not particularly credible on contested points.” The board concluded that the permit had been “dishonestly procured.”

The board’s decision referred to Rabbi Rivkin’s demeanor at the hearing as “self-interested and combative.” Even the dissenting member on the panel noted that he agreed with the majority that Rabbi Rivkin’s testimony was “evasive and truculent.” It must have been quite a performance.

Judge Susan Souder of the Circuit Court for Baltimore Court wrote the Memorandum Opinion finding that the setback covenant applicable to the Chabad House property was valid and that the community center violated it. Judge Souder apparently was also unimpressed with Rabbi Rivkin’s testimony, noting that his “demeanor was evasive and aggressive during questioning.” She stated: “Thus, where his testimony differed from that of Robin Zoll, whom the Court found credible, the Court credited Ms. Zoll’s testimony.”

Judge Souder also noted that a neighbor brought the existence of the setback covenant, a matter of public record, to the personal attention of Rabbi Rivkin while the site was still being excavated, before actual construction had begun. Friends of Lukavich elected to continue with construction despite the risk of it being found to violate the setback requirement.

Why was information that undermined the credibility of the accusers buried toward the end of the story? And why was it understated?  In my opinion, the Sun’s story took a very serious allegation out of its context and placed it on the front page where it would draw the most attention and do the most damage to ordinary citizens trying to enforce their contractual rights.


Baltimore County left the neighbors of Chabad House and the Aigburth Manor community association to fend for themselves in what has become extremely expensive litigation to try to get a building torn down that the county never should have allowed to be built. The county failed to act even after the county Board of Appeals determined that the structure was unlawful. The refusal of the county to step up to its responsibilities in this matter is, in my opinion, base and borderline immoral.

Mrs. Zoll, her neighbors, and the members of the Aigburth Manor Association, Inc. who stood up for their rights are heroes in my book. Their efforts opened a window for the rest of us to see how Baltimore County government operates.  Can you imagine how the county treats residents who don’t have the resources to fight back?  It is unfortunate that in addition to mistreatment by their own county government these citizens also had to endure personal attacks plastered on the front page of the Baltimore Sun.

I hope that Mr. Olsewski and his transition team take a close look at the Chabad House debacle and at the Department of Permits, Approvals and Inspections. Something that one hears throughout the county is that county government needs a “housecleaning.” Based on what I found when looking into the Chabad House controversy, I believe that the housecleaning done in the Department of Permits, Approvals and Inspections should be an especially thorough one.

The Baltimore City Council bill that never was.

It is a bill that was not introduced at last Monday’s meeting of the Baltimore City Council that could be the most important bill drafted for the council this year. It is the bill that “encouraged” Lodge 3 of the Fraternal Order of Police (the FOP) to reach agreement with the city on a new collective bargaining agreement.

Here is the timeline leading up to the “bill that never was”:

On October 17th the Baltimore Brew published my guest commentary chastising the city council for not acting to break the years-long impasse over the FOP’s reluctance to give up the 4×10 shift schedule by withdrawing the issue of shift schedules from the scope of collective bargaining. I made the same argument in an op-ed published earlier this year by the Baltimore Sun.

On October 29th I received an email from the city’s Department of Legislative Reference that included the draft of a bill. The author of the email said the bill was “inspired” by my guest commentary in the Baltimore Brew on October 17th, and that the member of the city council who had requested that the Department of Legislative Reference draft the bill wanted me to review it.

(My suspicion is that the author also wanted to make sure that word got out about what the council was considering. A threat is of no value unless communicated to its intended audience.)

The bill withdrew the subject of “the structuring and scheduling of shifts” from the scope of collective bargaining between the city and employee unions as I had proposed. I reviewed the bill as requested and made some suggested changes.

Here is a link to the draft bill:

On November 3rd the FOP issued a notice to its members that a tentative agreement had been reached with the city. The agreement included a return to a 5×8 shift schedule for patrol officers as well as the addition of civilian members to hearing boards constituted under the Maryland Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBR).

The initial reaction to the proposed agreement by FOP members was overwhelmingly negative. I am informed that union president Sgt. Michael Mancuso worked long and hard to explain the agreement to his members.

On November 13th FOP members voted to ratify the agreement. Sgt. Mancuso said the following in a press release:

“While our members agreed that this proposal was less than ideal, the alternative to acceptance was dismal, at best. Instead they made the hard choice to preserve our contractual rights, going forward.”

To what “alternative to acceptance” was Sgt. Mancuso referring, and why was that alternative “dismal, at best”? And why was it necessary for the FOP to accept the city’s proposal “to preserve our contractual rights”?

Was Sgt. Mancuso referring to the bill that had been drafted and was ready for introduction? I don’t know for sure, but the timing of the drafting of the bill and the reluctant acceptance by the union of a “less than ideal” proposal seems like more than a coincidence. If the draft bill was a shot over the bow of the FOP by legislators, it wouldn’t be the first time such a thing was done.

My guess is that Sgt. Mancuso was telling his members that they better get the best deal possible before they lost the right to negotiate over shift schedules entirely. And he probably was right. I was informed last week that there is no plan to introduce the bill stripping the union of that right at this time – probably because the draft bill had accomplished its purpose of inducing the FOP to soften its hardline stance.

The bill I reviewed made no mention of civilians on police hearing boards. In the Baltimore Sun op-ed mentioned above, however, I also pointed out how Assistant Attorney General Kathryn Rowe had basically provided the city a road map on how to put civilians on the hearing boards without the consent of the FOP.

As it happens, State Senator Nathaniel McFadden had solicited Ms. Rowe’s advice after he read another op-ed by me reaching the same conclusion in July 2016. So, my other guess is that the next bill to be drafted was a bill following Ms. Rowe’s road map to put civilians on hearing boards.

Why is any of this worth mentioning? For only one reason, and that is if it helps to debunk the myth that the Baltimore City Council is powerless to influence the course of events in the Baltimore Police Department.

Members of the council perpetrate this myth, and it is one of my major pet peeves because it is intended to mislead the public. The myth serves to protect council members from being held accountable by the voters, and it gives them an excuse for not making politically-fraught decisions.

Council members tend to wring their hands and point their fingers when it comes to the Baltimore Police Department. They have less of a tendency to do anything worthwhile, especially when it comes to legislation.

I don’t know the identity of the council member who initiated the drafting of the bill that was sent to me, but I give credit to whomever it was for taking a step in the right direction. I believe that he or she gave the negotiations between the city and the FOP the push that they needed.

And please don’t accuse the council member who initiated the bill of “union-busting.” It is the job of the City Council under the City Charter to put reasonable limits on collective bargaining by identifying those management decisions on agency operations that should not be subject to negotiation, and then legislating accordingly. At the end of the day the Baltimore City Council must put the interests of the citizens of the city first, even if council members occasionally have to be reminded of that.

And credit also to Sgt. Mancuso. He not only did the right thing, he did the smart thing. Collective bargaining rights for public employees are not written into the state or federal constitutions. Lodge 3 would not have been the first public employee union to overplay its hand, winning a battle or two and then losing the war.

City officials touted the new collective bargaining agreement as a “win” for both police officers and the city. In my opinion, whether or not it constituted a “win” is not the point. It was a fair and reasonable deal for both sides, and that is the applicable standard.

The Baltimore City Council is entitled to access to the report on the background check done on Joel Fitzgerald, the mayor’s nominee to be the next police commissioner.

Baltimore City Solicitor Andre Davis reportedly informed members of the Baltimore City Council that they will not be given access to the report on the background check done on Joel Fitzgerald, Mayor Catherine Pugh’s nominee to be the city’s next police commissioner. Mr. Davis described the report of the background check as a “personnel record” protected from disclosure under the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA).

In my opinion, Mr. Davis has interpreted the prohibition against disclosure of personnel records too narrowly. I believe that the report of the background check may be provided to members of the council under the guidance issued by the Maryland Attorney General on access to personnel records.

The language of the statute itself is indeed restrictive. Under the law, the only person given the explicit right of access to an individual’s personnel records is the “elected or appointed official who supervises the work of the individual.”

Mr. Davis is correct that the report on the background check is a personnel record protected by the MPIA. In Kirwan v. The Diamondback, 352 Md. 74 (1998), the Maryland Court of Appeals held that “personnel records were those relating to hiring, discipline, promotion, dismissal, or any matter involving an employee’s status.” The background check certainly is related to the proposed hiring of Mr. Fitzgerald.

A too-literal interpretation of the statute, however, would lead to absurd results inconsistent with the law’s intent. For example, it would preclude the staff of a city or county human resources office from reviewing and screening application materials submitted by individuals seeking employment with the city or county.

The Maryland Attorney General long has recognized that this provision of the MPIA must be construed in the context of its purpose and intent. Persons other than an individual’s supervisor (whatever that means for a person who has not yet been hired) must have access to personnel records to do their jobs. In the latest edition of the Public Information Act Manual, the Attorney General states:

“It is implicit in the personnel records exemption that another agency charged with responsibilities related to personnel administration may have access to those records to the extent necessary to carry out its duties.” [MPIA Manual, p. 3-9.]

This principle first was described by the Attorney General in 86 Opinions of the Attorney General 94, 108-109 (2001). In that 2001 opinion, the Attorney General stated that the agency seeking access to the personnel records must be performing a “personnel function.”  In my experience, the Attorney General’s interpretation of the law has been widely embraced throughout state and local government.

Under Section 16-5 of the Code of Public Local Laws of Baltimore City, the appointment of a police commissioner by the mayor is “subject to confirmation by the City Council by a majority vote of its members.” In my opinion, the responsibility of the council to confirm the mayor’s selection of a police commissioner clearly is an integral part of the process of hiring the commissioner and therefore is a “personnel function” within the scope of the Attorney General’s guidance.

And I have no doubt that access to the report of the background check done on a police commissioner whose appointment the council is being asked to confirm should be considered necessary to carry out the council’s duty.  There may be something in Mr. Fitzgerald’s background that is acceptable to the mayor but not to a majority of the members of the council. If the report on Mr. Fitzgerald was available for consideration by the mayor, then it should be available for consideration by the council.

Mr. Davis expressed concern that if the report on the background check is provided to the council it will end up in the hands of the public. I get his concern, even though giving access to members of the council entitled to inspect it as part of their duties does not make the report “public” under the law.

I propose a practical precaution: I’d allow members of council to review the report, but not give them copies. No offense, council members, but city government leaks like a sieve and Mr. Fitzgerald’s privacy interests are entitled to reasonable protection, just like everyone else’s.

Also, I’d warn council members that, if they leak the contents of the report, they can be criminally prosecuted for violation of the MPIA. And a deliberate violation of the MPIA would constitute misconduct in office subjecting a member to further penalties including removal from office.

In conclusion, there’s a legally-acceptable resolution of the apparent impasse over the city council’s access to the report on the background check of Mr. Fitzgerald. In fairness to Mr. Fitzgerald, he should have been told all of this before applying for the job – what the process would entail, who would have access to his application information and under what conditions, etc. If he is unhappy with the council’s access, he has the option of withdrawing his candidacy for the position.  In any case, the city needs to get past the usual chaos and dysfunction that accompanies city actions and get to the business at hand.