Montgomery County Joint Public Safety and Government Operations Committee Work Session - October 1, 2026

The joint committee (Public Safety and Government Operations & Fiscal Policy) met on October 1, 2026, from approximately 9:30 a.m. to early afternoon in the Council Hearing Room (3CHR). The session, chaired by Sidney Katz and co-chaired by Kate Stewart, addressed three agenda items: Bill 18-26 (Police – Powers and Duties of Director – DHS Law Enforcement Agency Hiring), Expedited Bill 29-26 (Personnel and Human Resources – Eligibility for County Employment, aka the "Community Trust in County Employees Act"), and a briefing on the unauthorized disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII) by the Fire and Rescue Service. The discussion centered on balancing community trust, hiring standards, legal concerns, and the county’s response to federal immigration enforcement.

Discussion Items

• Bill 18-26 (Continued Excellence and Public Service Act) – Lead Sponsor: Evan Glass

  • The bill would require the Montgomery County Police Department (MCPD) to verify specific information before extending a final offer of employment to applicants who were federal law enforcement officers for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or its subcomponents (including ICE, CBP, FEMA, HSI) on or after January 21, 2025, and who engaged in deportation, expulsion, or removal operations in the interior of the United States. Exceptions are made for individuals working at ports of entry or along the border.
  • The verification would include assignment and deployment locations, participation in or witnessing of use of force during operations, and any complaints filed.
  • MCPD Acting Chief Darren Frank noted that the department is already down over 200 officers and that out of 118 lateral applicants with law enforcement backgrounds, only 2 were hired. He emphasized that the current hiring process includes a 60-page background questionnaire, polygraph, social media scrubs, psychological evaluations, a 30-week academy, and 15 weeks of field training.
  • Chief Frank expressed concern that the bill would require MCPD to rely on federal agencies (e.g., via FOIA) to verify information, but those agencies are under no obligation to respond, potentially penalizing good candidates whose prior employers do not cooperate.
  • Councilmember Katz questioned the inclusion of FEMA (a DHS component) and the risk of disqualifying whistleblowers or individuals who tried to do good within ICE/CBP.
  • Councilmember Luedtke highlighted the tension between the “targeted” approach of Bill 18-26 (focusing on conduct) and the broader categorical ban in Bill 29-26.

• Expedited Bill 29-26 (Community Trust in County Employees Act) – Lead Sponsor: Kristin Mink

  • The bill would prohibit all county public-facing departments (listed as 17 agencies, including police, libraries, recreation, health and human services, etc.) from hiring any “restricted applicant,” defined as anyone employed by ICE or CBP on or after October 1, 2025, or anyone employed or contracted by the U.S. government to support enforcement of federal immigration laws.
  • Councilmember Mink argued that a narrow assessment of an individual’s role is “too squishy” and undermines community trust; thus a clear prohibition is necessary to reassure residents.
  • The County Executive’s Office (represented by Luisa Cardona) requested amendments: (1) give HR time to amend personnel regulations; (2) shift the burden from HR to hiring departments to certify if a position is sensitive/public-facing; (3) remove the list of departments and instead use a mechanism where each department self-identifies sensitive positions.
  • A revised fiscal impact statement (addendum) indicated that the bill could be implemented with no new staff if applicants simply self-attest (yes/no) to having worked for ICE/CBP, and the county would not verify those answers.
  • Councilmember Glass called the approach “overly broad” and “guilt by association,” noting that it would affect not just law enforcement but over 250,000 federal contractors in Maryland and many non-sworn staff.
  • Councilmember Luedtke raised constitutional concerns under the Supremacy Clause and Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and questioned how the bill aligns with the county’s “ban the box” policies (not asking about prior convictions).
  • Councilmember Evans supported the purpose but expressed unease about disqualifying people based on association rather than conduct, and asked for clearer measurement of community trust improvement.
  • The committee agreed to continue the discussion on October 19, 2026, with a focus on Bill 29-26, while incorporating insights from Bill 18-26.

• Briefing – Unauthorized Disclosure of PII by Fire and Rescue Service

  • On June 4, 2026, a Fire and Rescue Service employee inadvertently distributed an Excel spreadsheet containing names, addresses, bank account numbers, and routing numbers for approximately 7,500 county retirees, career firefighters, and volunteers.
  • The spreadsheet was created by Finance for a transition to electronic direct deposit for volunteer reimbursements; it contained four worksheets, but only one was intended to be sent.
  • The email was sent to 6 county employees and 62 volunteer fire chiefs/presidents. Within 1.5 hours, MCFRS realized the error and contacted the county’s IT security team (Tebs). Within 2 hours, over 3,300 messages were deleted from the county email system. For the 11 recipients outside the county email system, each was contacted and asked to delete the email.
  • The county notified affected individuals by email and mail within 4 days, and provided call scripts to 311 and the retirement contact center. The Chief Administrative Officer also attended a retiree association meeting.
  • The county’s Chief Information Security Officer (Keith Young) confirmed that this was human error, not a cyberattack. Recommendations include enhanced training, checklists for non-standard reports, data classification projects (already identified 2.5 million sensitive files), and encryption awareness.
  • Councilmember Glass noted that encryption alone would not have prevented the disclosure because recipients could still forward the email. He urged consideration of requiring all volunteer fire leaders to use county email accounts. Acting Deputy Chief Howard Richards said the department is not opposed but cited costs.
  • Councilmember Stewart recommended the county consider an internal audit of the new procedures and more direct communication (beyond 311) for affected retirees.

Key Outcomes

• Bills 18-26 and 29-26: The committee decided to continue the joint discussion on October 19, 2026, with a focus on refining Bill 29-26. Staff were asked to provide further legal analysis on constitutional issues and to circulate proposed amendments from the County Executive’s Office. No votes were taken.
• Data Breach Briefing: The committee accepted the briefing and noted the corrective actions already underway. The chair will forward a letter received from a concerned volunteer to the executive team. No formal action was taken, but the committee expects follow-up on: (1) consideration of providing county email accounts to all volunteer fire leaders, (2) potential internal audit of new procedures, and (3) enhanced proactive outreach to affected individuals.