The Baltimore County Council Merely Pretended To Fix the Flaws in Its Legislative Procedures
The Baltimore County Council patted itself on the back earlier this month for “reforms” that it made to the much-criticized process it follows when amending legislation. The minor changes fell far short of real reform. In what has been a pattern in the county, the changes were intended to give the appearance of solving a problem without actually solving it.
The manner in which the Baltimore County Council amends legislation is opaque and confusing. Proposed amendments to a bill generally are introduced and voted on at a legislative session with no advance notice of the amendments or opportunity for the public to testify on them.
If amendments are adopted, the council takes a final vote on the amended bill at the same legislative session without giving the public the chance to be heard on the bill as amended. Systematic exclusion of the public from such an important part of the legislative process drew sharp criticism during the debate over the plastic bag ban last year.
Roger Hartley, the dean of the College of Public Affairs at the University of Baltimore, pointed out during the debate that the process used to amend legislation matters: “We want to make sure that [amendments] achieve what they’re supposed to achieve, and mistakes get made all of the time when we don’t have a chance to thoroughly consider them and think a little bit more deeply and get good information on the table.”
Best practice from other charter counties omitted
The council responded to the criticism by passing Resolution 6–24, which changed its rules of procedure. Inexplicably, the changes did not include adding a requirement found in the laws of most Maryland charter counties that recognizes that amendments other than purely technical ones frequently result in subtle but significant changes to a bill’s effect.
Seven of the eleven charter counties in Maryland — Anne Arundel, Cecil, Dorchester, Frederick, Howard, Prince Georges and Talbot — require that a bill amended as to substance be reprinted as amended, re-advertised and reheard at a subsequent hearing in the same manner as a new bill. The important safeguard against improvident legislation gives council members an opportunity to fully consider an amended bill. More importantly, it gives the public the opportunity to testify on it.
An eighth charter county, Montgomery, has seven standing committees in which amendments are vetted before bills reach the council floor. Baltimore County does not. It shares with Harford and Wicomico Counties the dubious distinction of having legislative processes least conducive to meaningful public participation.
Giant loophole left in the one alleged improvement
Resolution 6–24 left a giant loophole even in the one improvement that it purportedly made to the amendment process. The resolution requires advance notice of proposed amendments but does not mandate that the public be given an opportunity to testify on them. Advance notice serves no purpose unless the public is given an opportunity to weigh on the merits of the amendments.
Public testimony on individual bills occurs at work sessions, not at legislative sessions. The rule changes provide that amendments to a bill may be introduced for discussion at a work session before being introduced and voted on at a legislative session, but there is no requirement to do so.
Under Rule of Procedure 29A as adopted by Resolution 6–24, amendments to a bill still may be introduced for the first time and approved at the same legislative session that the amended bill is passed into law, as long as the amendments are posted on the council’s website no later than 10 A.M. on the day of the session. There is an opportunity for public testimony on “any matter of interest” at a legislative session, but it comes after all other business, including voting on amendments and bills, is concluded.
Consequently, the practice of denying the public the chance to testify on proposed amendments as well as on an amended bill can continue. The resolution did nothing to ensure public participation in the amendment process, and the council retains control over whether the public gets an opportunity to testify on proposed amendments or on an amended bill.
The resolution does provide that at least two work sessions must be scheduled for each bill. With no assurance that the public will be given an opportunity to testify on any amendments to a bill at one of those work sessions, however, the provision is of no real value.
Resolution 6–24 was a sham
Why didn’t the council adopt the best practice followed by seven other charter counties requiring that a bill amended as to substance be reheard at a later date? And if it believed that allowing the public to testify on proposed amendments was an adequate substitute for such a requirement (which it isn’t), why did it leave a loophole that allows the council to approve amendments without giving the public an opportunity to testify on them?
The council already had the options of discussing proposed amendments at at a work session and postponing the vote on an amended bill so that the public would have an opportunity to testify on it. Without turning those options into requirements, the resolution accomplished nothing.
In my opinion, Resolution 6–24 was an attempt by the council to deflect criticism of its legislative procedures, not an attempt to adopt meaningful reform. Bad old habits and practices die hard in Baltimore County.
