Anyone who watched the Frederick County Council meeting on July 23 was treated to a litany of reasons why the council believed it could not fulfill its responsibility to conduct proper oversight of the sheriff’s office. First of all, they said they had limited budgetary oversight. (Fact: They have the power to question Frederick County Sheriff’s Office operations and budget allocations, but refused to let their members ask questions under a facade of council time limits.) Questions submitted in writing by Councilman Hagen have not yet been answered but have been acknowledged as received personally by the sheriff, who did so in a very unprofessional manner.

Second, the council statement said that the 287(g) expenditures are embedded in the sheriff’s other line items. (Fact 1: inferring that they had no power to have the FCSO to break out those costs and put them in a line item, which both they and the executive could request through their control of the budget process and financial staff.)

Third, it appears that the council is ignoring its duty to not only encourage openness and transparency but to encourage the sheriff to continue to break the law on these requirements by denying information even to them. (Fact: The sheriff has no special right to deny information that is properly requested by our duly elected officials, or citizens. Simply taking the sheriff’s word that ICE will not permit it, without the council seeing the contract is enough for immediate contract cancellation.)

Fourth, the council, on advice of counsel, states that because of a lawsuit they will have nothing else to say regarding this issue. (Fact: They do not state on which of several issues they will be exercising silence because of a lawsuit against the sheriff and specific deputies. The law suit was regarding performing unconstitutional acts. They now seem to not realize that since the county is being held liable financially for those actions, they may well have legal right to correct the county policies on contracts. Specifically those they have not signed or negotiated but puts the county taxpayer at fiscal risk, either through settlement payments or increased insurance rates.)

Perhaps securing an outside legal firm well versed in Maryland law (as was done in the Montevue case) would provide better guidance to the council and our executive.

Edward Burrell

Point of Rocks

(6) comments

KarlBickel

Though Council President Keegan-Ayer indicated a powerlessness to take action regarding the Sheriff’s Office, she did acknowledge limited budget authority, the ability to reduce the Sheriff’s Office budget. She further indicated that the costs associated with the 287(g) agreement were hidden in the Sheriff’s Office budget, hidden from the County Executive, the County Council and county taxpayers.

Legislation that would prohibit the use of appropriated funds (a budget reduction) until the Sheriff provides a full accounting of the costs associated with the 287(g) agreement may be possible. Of course, this would not satisfy those calling for the elimination of the 287(g) agreement. However, it would demonstrate the Council’s willingness to listen and take action that is within their power, to provide greater transparency in the budget process and use of taxpayer dollars. It would show that the Council takes its fiduciary responsibility seriously, a cornerstone of good government.

mdcommuter

I watched the council meeting and was appalled at the behavior of speakers and the audience during the public comment period. Equally appalling was the attitude of the majority of council members concerning Frederick County's future. If RISE wants records for Frederick County, MD's participation in the 287(g) program they should initiate a Freedom of Information Act request with DHS.

Comment deleted.
public-redux

You used to say 4,000 times a year. What happened?

Comment deleted.
DickD

OMG Jersey, 2,000 times in Frederick County? Were the all illegals? Is that in the Sheriff's report?

DickD

First, let me thank you for your LTE, is is great.  However, I do not understand the below quote: "Specifically those they have not signed or negotiated but puts the county taxpayer at fiscal risk, either through settlement payments or increased insurance rates.) "Ed, please explain to us how the Sheriff can negotiate a contract, which can be a monetary drain on our budget, without agreement from the CE or the County Council.  I just don't see how this is possible.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominen criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.