Panel hears narrow bill to require extra vetting for applicants with recent DHS service

Council member Glass introduced Bill 18-26, the Continued Excellence in Public Service Act, saying it "requires anyone who has worked for the US Department of Homeland Security on or after 01/21/2025 that they undergo an additional detailed review of their background if they want to become a Montgomery County police officer." Glass said the measure is narrowly tailored to preserve community trust while allowing applicants who meet county standards to be considered.

Acting Chief Darren Frank told the joint Public Safety and Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee the Montgomery County Police Department already uses an extensive vetting process. "We have a background investigation. It's a 60 page questionnaire ... and that is followed by a polygraph," Frank said, adding that candidates also go through psychological testing, a 30‑week academy and field training. Frank said the department is facing a staffing shortfall and has "over 200 officers down," but emphasized hiring standards remain high: in a recent lateral recruitment he said "among the applicants we had, a 118 had law enforcement background. We hired 2."

Staff counsel Jim Gorzalak explained how 18-26 would operate: it targets federal law enforcement officers as defined in federal statutes and applies to interior deportation, expulsion or removal operations after 01/21/2025. He said the bill carves out border and port‑of‑entry operations and narrows the covered deployment locations.

Committee members pressed staff and MCPD leadership on practical hurdles. Frank, noting FOIA limits and inter‑agency cooperation, warned that federal agencies "may choose not to provide" records the county would ask for, which could delay or disqualify an otherwise qualified applicant. Gorzalak and members also flagged an affidavit requirement in the draft as a potential criminal consequence for falsification and asked whether similar steps could be implemented administratively.

The committee did not vote. Chairs and sponsors agreed to continue work on both bills and to reconvene discussion on Oct. 19 so legal questions, affidavit language, and implementation timelines could be resolved.