OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Montgomery County, Maryland/County Council & Committees
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Montgomery County Council Public Safety Committee Work Session – September 30, 2026

County Council & Committees — Wednesday, September 30, 2026
BodyMontgomery County, Maryland
SessionCounty Council & Committees
DateWednesday, September 30, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:25:41

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Unassigned speaker

7:47

Well,

Speaker 1

7:48

good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us at the public safety committee work session of Wednesday, September thirtieth, twenty twenty six.

7:56

Today we have two topics on the agenda.

7:59

The first is an expedited bill, sixteen twenty-six, consumer protection amendments.

8:05

It's the Financial Exploitation Protection Act.

8:09

And the second one is Bill Thirty Six Twenty Six, Fire and Rescue Services Commission duties and responsibilities.

8:45

And I'm going to ask the other committee members if they have any opening comments.

8:49

Then I'm going to ask the first panel, the first panel to introduce themselves, and if they have any opening comments,

Unassigned speaker

8:55

and

Speaker 1

8:55

then ask Ms.

8:56

Wellens to please walk us through the first discussion.

Speaker 2

9:09

Um this bill basically aligns um our county consumer protection laws with um the state law.

9:18

The bill will provide Montgomery County Office of Consumer Protection with the authority and tools necessary to effectively deter and address deceptive trade practices, including those who um are targeting our residents who are most vulnerable.

10:05

And so this just provides another tool in the toolbox for us here in the county to provide assistance to our residents.

10:13

And again, I just want to thank our Office of Consumer Protection.

10:16

And I would also like to thank Kieran Kosher McCabe, who used to be on our team here at the county, who has now gone on to other things but worked uh very diligently on this bill with um OCP.

10:29

Thank you.

Speaker 1

10:30

Thank you.

10:31

Any councilman?

10:33

Um

Speaker 3

10:33

opening comments or no.

Speaker 1

10:36

Very good.

10:36

Would you all like to introduce yourselves, please?

Unassigned speaker

10:41

Good morning.

Speaker 1

10:42

You're gonna turn on your

Unassigned speaker

10:43

button.

Speaker 1

10:45

Very

Unassigned speaker

10:46

good.

Speaker 4

10:46

Good morning.

10:47

This is Eric Friedman with the Consumer Protection Office.

Unassigned speaker

10:51

Uh

Speaker 5

10:51

good morning.

10:52

My name's Tim Mulligan.

10:53

I'm a volunteer with the Office of Consumer Protection.

Speaker 1

10:57

Very good.

10:58

Ms.

10:58

Wellins, would you like to lead us through, please?

Speaker 6

11:01

Great.

11:01

Thank you so much, Mr.

11:02

Chair.

11:03

Good morning, Council members.

11:06

The lead sponsor of uh Bill 1626 explained the bills again to provide additional tools for the Office of Consumer Protection for protecting vulnerable adults and also for protecting adults who are 68 years in age or older.

11:24

And the bill also provides authority to the Office of Consumer Protection to conduct mediation programs.

11:33

And again, it it is the provisions of the law are entirely consistent with the existing state law and you know gives our folks the tools that the Office of Consumer Protection at the State level already have to assist with these types of deceptive trade practices.

11:54

Thank you to Mr.

11:55

Mulligan for his assistance

Unassigned speaker

11:57

with

Speaker 6

11:57

the drafting.

12:01

All council members, I believe, are co-sponsors of the legislation.

12:05

In terms of impacts, minimal fiscal impact is expected, indeterminate economic impact, positive racial equity and social justice impact, uh, no climate impacts.

12:21

The summary of public hearing, the testimony was all in favor of the bill in terms of just going back for a moment to the racial equity and social justice statement.

12:30

There was a recommendation for the Office of Consumer Protection to conduct targeted outreach and education to Bicot communities.

12:40

So there aren't any pending amendments that I know of.

12:45

Thank you, Mr.

12:46

Chair.

Speaker 1

12:47

Thank you.

12:47

And I know Mr.

12:48

Freeman, you've over the years have had educational programs.

Unassigned speaker

12:55

In

Speaker 1

12:55

fact, I've I've been in several of them over the years, even before I was a senior.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Public Safety███████████████████████████████████35%
Fire Safety███████████████████████████27%
Consumer Protection██████████████████18%
Legal Affairs█████████9%
Procedural█████5%
Technology and Innovation██2%
Public Engagement██2%
Labor Relations██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Montgomery County Council Public Safety Committee Work Session – September 30, 2026

The Montgomery County Council Public Safety Committee met on September 30, 2026, for a morning work session (agenda time 9:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m.) to review two bills: Expedited Bill 16-26, the Financial Exploitation Protection Act, and Bill 36-26, updating the Fire and Emergency Services Commission (FESC). The committee advanced both bills to the full County Council.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Staff reported that public hearing testimony on Bill 16-26 was entirely in favor of the bill, and no amendments were pending.
  • Tim Mulligan, a volunteer with the Office of Consumer Protection, said FBI estimates show scams are by far the largest source of financial losses in the United States. He described a case involving a 72-year-old woman with $450,000 missing from her bank account; the funds were traced to Canada and a front person was arrested, but the money was not recovered.
  • Russell Hartongue, president of the Montgomery County Volunteer Fire Rescue Association (MCVFRA), representing 19 local fire rescue departments, presented the association’s position that the FESC must review and approve all applicable fire and rescue policy documents, including fire chief general orders. He argued interim orders should not be used to circumvent required stakeholder and commission review.
  • A county executive branch representative said the executive appreciates the FESC’s work, does not want to undermine career and volunteer support, and believes legal ambiguities should be clarified in the law rather than left to interpretation.
  • Battalion Chief Ashley Robinson said Fire Chief Smedley has directed a collaborative policy process and that the department has adopted MCVFRA suggestions; she noted that when no feedback is received, the department assumes agreement.

Discussion Items

Expedited Bill 16-26 – Consumer Protection Amendments (Financial Exploitation Protection Act)

  • Chair Sidney Katz explained the bill aligns Montgomery County consumer protection law with Maryland state law and gives the Office of Consumer Protection additional tools to deter deceptive trade practices targeting vulnerable residents and adults 68 years or older.
  • Staff said the bill also expressly authorizes mediation programs, expands the current narrow definition of consumer transactions, and has minimal fiscal impact, indeterminate economic impact, a positive racial equity and social justice impact, and no climate impact.
  • Eric Friedman of the Office of Consumer Protection and Tim Mulligan said the expanded authority would allow investigation of romance scams, investment scams, fake utilities or government agencies, and cases where jurisdiction under the old code was unclear.
  • Councilmember Kristin Mink voiced strong support, calling the prior lack of authority a major gap that needed to be fixed. Chair Katz also thanked groups serving people with intellectual disabilities, such as SEAC, noting the protections are important for residents living independently.
  • The committee voted 3–0 by acclamation to recommend the bill to the full Council; Chair Katz noted it would be 4–0 with Councilmember Stewart’s vote.

Bill 36-26 – Fire and Emergency Services Commission Duties and Responsibilities

  • Lead sponsor Councilmember Dawn Luedtke said the FESC was created when the county blended its fire service and is an extra procedural layer for volunteer, career, and public input on department policy. She said the bill fixes open-ended issues such as the timing of the annual report, tiebreakers, and interim health and safety orders.
  • Staff summarized key changes: at least a 30-day public comment period for proposed policies or regulations; a 60-day FESC review window; deemed approval if FESC does not act; regulations then move through the county’s Administrative Procedure Act process; notice of disapproval within five days; and interim orders lasting 90 days that can continue while full review is pending.
  • MCVFRA representatives raised concerns that fire chief general orders are no longer sent to the FESC and that association comments are sometimes not acted on. Councilmember Luedtke responded that the career and volunteer groups already have review rights under collective bargaining agreements, and that notice-and-comment processes require consideration, not adoption, of every comment.
  • The committee reviewed last-minute county executive amendments: expanding FESC public membership from three to five members to match the five regional service centers, limiting FESC review of emergency communication center dispatch matters to fire and rescue protocols, adding an explicit collective bargaining agreement exclusion, and allowing the fire chief to withdraw a pending policy before FESC action.
  • Committee members and panelists discussed whether expanding public members would shift the FESC's voting balance; the committee did not finalize that decision and directed staff to prepare the amendments for the full Council packet instead of voting on them in committee.
  • It was clarified that the withdrawal provision would apply only to items pending before the FESC, not to rescission of existing policies, which remains governed by collective bargaining and Office of Labor Relations processes. A suggestion was made to continue discussions on rescissions separately with the Office of Labor Relations.

Key Outcomes

  • Bill 16-26 was recommended to the full County Council by a 3–0 vote, with no amendments.
  • Bill 36-26 was recommended to the full County Council by acclamation. Staff was directed to draft amendments for full Council covering public membership expansion (from three to five, with details to be resolved), limiting ECC dispatch review to fire and rescue matters, adding a collective bargaining agreement exclusion, and allowing withdrawal of pending FESC items.
  • The committee agreed that continued conversations are needed with MCVFRA and the Office of Labor Relations on policy-rescission concerns and that the FESC annual report should be discussed by the Public Safety Committee in the future.

Meeting Transcript

Well, good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us at the public safety committee work session of Wednesday, September thirtieth, twenty twenty six. Today we have two topics on the agenda. The first is an expedited bill, sixteen twenty-six, consumer protection amendments. It's the Financial Exploitation Protection Act. And the second one is Bill Thirty Six Twenty Six, Fire and Rescue Services Commission duties and responsibilities. And I'm going to ask the other committee members if they have any opening comments. Then I'm going to ask the first panel, the first panel to introduce themselves, and if they have any opening comments, and then ask Ms. Wellens to please walk us through the first discussion. Um this bill basically aligns um our county consumer protection laws with um the state law. The bill will provide Montgomery County Office of Consumer Protection with the authority and tools necessary to effectively deter and address deceptive trade practices, including those who um are targeting our residents who are most vulnerable. And so this just provides another tool in the toolbox for us here in the county to provide assistance to our residents. And again, I just want to thank our Office of Consumer Protection. And I would also like to thank Kieran Kosher McCabe, who used to be on our team here at the county, who has now gone on to other things but worked uh very diligently on this bill with um OCP. Thank you. Thank you. Any councilman? Um opening comments or no. Very good. Would you all like to introduce yourselves, please? Good morning. You're gonna turn on your button. Very good. Good morning. This is Eric Friedman with the Consumer Protection Office. Uh good morning. My name's Tim Mulligan. I'm a volunteer with the Office of Consumer Protection. Very good. Ms. Wellins, would you like to lead us through, please? Great. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Council members. The lead sponsor of uh Bill 1626 explained the bills again to provide additional tools for the Office of Consumer Protection for protecting vulnerable adults and also for protecting adults who are 68 years in age or older. And the bill also provides authority to the Office of Consumer Protection to conduct mediation programs. And again, it it is the provisions of the law are entirely consistent with the existing state law and you know gives our folks the tools that the Office of Consumer Protection at the State level already have to assist with these types of deceptive trade practices. Thank you to Mr. Mulligan for his assistance with the drafting. All council members, I believe, are co-sponsors of the legislation. In terms of impacts, minimal fiscal impact is expected, indeterminate economic impact, positive racial equity and social justice impact, uh, no climate impacts.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com