By Adam Pagnucco.
In 2019, the county council passed legislation to establish the Policing Advisory Commission (PAC), which is charged with advising the council on policing issues. The commission is part of a larger package of legislation and initiatives intended to reform policing consistent with rising concerns about criminal justice nationwide.
On Friday, the commission announced that it is holding a virtual public forum “to solicit community testimony and feedback on traffic enforcement in the County by the Montgomery County Police Department (MCPD).” That’s consistent with its legislative intent, which includes a duty to “accept correspondence and comments from members of the public.” But then its press release stated the following.
The PAC believes that traffic enforcement practices in the County do not meet basic tests of effectiveness, efficiency, and equal enforcement, and that a change in mission, focus, and strategy is necessary. The PAC’s report on traffic enforcement, including recommendations, can be found here. The PAC is very interested in hearing from the Montgomery County community regarding their experience with traffic enforcement, and what changes or improvements they would like to see.
Since the commission is a public body, let’s compare its pending public forum to public hearings held by legislative bodies like the General Assembly and the county council. Ideally, hearings are held to present public officials with perspectives on proposals that they may not have previously considered. The concept is that the issue is not pre-decided and public comment may make a difference. In this case, the commission has made up its mind before the forum. It has already concluded that traffic enforcement is ineffective, inefficient and inequitable and now seeks commentary from the public in line with its pre-existing stated policy position.
The commission’s conduct here suggests confirmation bias, a practice of seeking out evidence to support an already held view rather than objectively gathering facts to construct a resulting position. The county government is accused of this all the time, especially in matters of land use. But here it is openly stated in a press release for all to see.
Governmental entities at all levels hear from advocacy groups, who have a point of view, build a case on its behalf and meet with elected officials to pursue their goals. There is nothing wrong with that – individuals and their private organizations have a right to petition their governments. But the commission is a government-established body staffed by a taxpayer-funded council employee. That means it must be held to a higher standard than any private advocacy group which operates without public funds.
The council needs to pay close attention to the bodies it creates. If they give objective advice from positions of expertise and neutral fact gathering, that’s legitimate. If instead they use tax dollars to act like advocacy groups, that’s different. It may be time to explore this issue not only with regards to the Policing Advisory Commission but with all uses of public funds.