Editorial Advisory Board: Accountability in the City of Baltimore

Listen to this article

Merriam-Webster defines “accountability” as  “the quality or state of being accountable especially: an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions.”

We fans of good government — a regime marked by integrity, transparency, and efficiency — well understand that without a robust system of accountability, those other virtues will not be realized. Fortunately, we see in Baltimore a rising tide of accountability measures that, while not yet fully baked into our often-dashed expectations, continue to hold out the promise of a new season of integrity, transparency, and efficiency.

For all the recent controversy surrounding the Baltimore Office of the Inspector General (OIG), those of us who have paid close attention to the performance of its incumbent inspector general and her highly-credentialed staff know full well that she has been one of the most valuable additions to City Hall in many years. Her hiring in 2017 was propitious.

Thereafter, the joint efforts of the then-mayor, members of the Baltimore City Council, and ultimately the people (who approved a charter amendment by more than an 80% margin) to make the OIG independent was a major achievement. The universal response was an all-too-rare tribute to Baltimore as a striver for good government. Reflective of the great work done by the OIG is that the council has now expanded its responsibilities to include training of employees on, and enforcement of, the long dormant City Ethics Code.

But it would have been naive for anyone to have actually believed that, sooner or later, there would not be a political firestorm ignited around the OIG. And the firestorm was coming no matter how much money and expenditures (more than $7 million at last count) the OIG could plausibly claim to have identified as potentially wasteful.

No worries. We are confident that like all sudden, intense storms, this one, too, shall pass. Soon enough, the OIG will once again turn its full attention to the important work it has done and continues to do ensuring accountability in local government.

Of course, the federal court consent decree is a second notable source of genuine accountability in local government. The federal judge managing the police department’s efforts to bring itself into compliance with the consent decree has been a strict taskmaster, and well he should be. The department’s well-documented historical failures are well known. We have every hope and expectation that the court will keep the pressure on Commissioner Michael Harrison and Mayor Brandon Scott to continue the march toward a constitutional and community-oriented law enforcement agency that is positioned to become a model for the entire country.

Trial boards

One little-noticed accountability innovation arising in part from the consent decree is the mandated civilian representation on the administrative trial boards that sworn members of the police department may elect to hear allegations of misconduct leveled against them by the Department’s Office of Professional Integrity. Until late last year, those hearings were held before three fellow sworn members only; predictably, and in many instances contrary to overwhelming evidence of misconduct, the trial boards exonerated their colleagues.

State law changes made by the General Assembly in 2015, coupled with hard bargaining over the city’s contract with the Fraternal Order of Police in 2018, permitted the city and its residents to enhance accountability by having at least two civilian members of every trial board tribunal, now consisting of five rather than three participants.

Civilian members have participated in approximately a half dozen cases so far. Those city residents first went through a vigorous training protocol, which included many hours of classroom instruction on police practices and policies, as well as several “ride-along” shifts with patrol officers on Baltimore streets.

Early reports are that those civilian volunteers are doing an excellent job by bringing fairness and fresh insights into the hearing process. We congratulate this cohort of cty residents who have stepped forward to bring greater accountability to the process of police discipline.

Accountability in government can only occur if we unfailingly demand it of our leaders. The community must continue to voice that demand with clarity and insistence.

Editorial Advisory Board member Arthur F. Fergenson did not participate in this opinion.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS

James B. Astrachan, Chair

James K. Archibald

Andre M. Davis

Arthur F. Fergenson

Nancy Forster

Susan Francis

Leigh Goodmark

Roland Harris

Michael Hayes

Julie C. Janofsky

Ericka N. King

C. William Michaels

Angela W. Russell

Debra G. Schubert

H. Mark Stichel

The Daily Record Editorial Advisory Board is composed of members of the legal profession who serve voluntarily and are independent of The Daily Record. Through their ongoing exchange of views, members of the board attempt to develop consensus on issues of importance to the bench, bar and public. When their minds meet, unsigned opinions will result. When they differ, or if a conflict exists, majority views and the names of members who do not participate will appear. Members of the community are invited to contribute letters to the editor and/or columns about opinions expressed by the Editorial Advisory Board.