Charles commissioners argue over proposed removal bill

A bill outlining a removal process for a sitting commissioner in Charles County was struck down in a 3-2 vote on March 5, causing frustrations to rise.

The legislation would have created a provision that would allow four commissioners to begin the removal process but establish a heavy burden for the removal to occur.

County Attorney Wes Adams said that some commissioners have expressed a desire for depoliticizing a removal in the past, and would now require a complaint to an ethics commission, judicial review from the Charles County Circuit Court and public hearings on the matter of the removal.

In further efforts to depoliticize the process, discussions were had about bringing in an outside ethics panel as to not have the bias of Charles County citizens in the decision-making process.

Commissioner President Reuben B. Collins II (D), Commissioner Ralph E. Patterson II (D) and Commissioner Thomasina “Sina” Coates (D) all voted to stop the bill in its tracks Tuesday after they refused to send it to a public hearing.

Collins asked if any other jurisdictions under code home rule form of government have provisions like what the bill would provide, and Adams replied, saying there currently are none with such a provision and only two municipalities with other types of local government in Maryland have such processes.

Commissioner Gilbert “BJ” Bowling (D) and Commissioner Amanda Stewart (D) were in favor of the bill and appeared baffled that the other three commissioners would not at least send the bill to a public hearing to give citizens a voice in creating accountability.

Before the vote, Bowling said, “It shouldn’t matter what form of government we have. We can instill it, whether it’s a charter or code home rule. You’re saying nobody has done it, but we’re in a unique position where I don’t think any other jurisdiction has been in this situation, so we have to adapt and be progressive in the way we think.”

Bowling said that he does not believe it is fair to the people of Charles County to say that accountability will be established when a charter government is in place and the commissioners have the opportunity to create accountability now.

The commissioners have appointed a charter board to draft a potential new form of government, which will go to voters as a ballot referendum in November.

“I believe we’ve heard enough from the citizens, and people have asked for this,” Stewart said. “I think we have a responsibility to move this forward. Let’s set another public hearing and see, based on the revisions, what we hear from people and then decide from there.”

The vote to send the bill to a public hearing failed, prompting Bowling to say, “I’m having a hard time here because we’re having a charter board that’s out there screaming about accountability and how they’re going to do it, and we can do it right now. We’re not even giving the public a chance.”

“It’s almost like you’re creating a problem to justify the solution of a charter,” Bowling said.

Collins then created a motion to end consideration of the bill.

“So just to be clear, the motion and the second is to reject a bill for removal of a county commissioner or elected position for any type of misbehavior, am I correct,” Bowling asked.

Collins responded, saying that his comments have been consistent that this type of legislation is unprecedented in code home rule forms of government, and that it is not applicable.

“So what I’m hearing is the only way we can do it, is you’re saying that we have to go to a charter. But in reality, we can do it right now,” Bowling said.

“You are framing this in a light that’s favorable to whatever you’re trying to accomplish,” Collins said.

“Logic,” Bowling replied.

Neither Coates or Patterson commented at all during the discussion, except to cast their votes against the proposal.

“I really don’t think we should be surprised, Commissioner Bowling,” Stewart said. “What I’m hearing is that there are certain elected officials that will do whatever they want and get away with it.”

“If it was you or me, we’d be gone by now,” Stewart said to Bowling. “So now it’s going to be up to the residents in 2026 to decide what’s best for them and what they want.”