Update:
On May 15 the full Baltimore City Council held a special meeting voting 14-0 to establish the Community Reinvestment and Reparations Commission. The legislation was passed with minor amendments to language describing the commission's duties.
Specifically the terms "distribute" and "allocate" were changed to "determine" and "direct," for how the committee decides to payout reparations.
The third reader of the bill now reads in part;
"The purpose of the commission is to determine the use of the funds disbursed to Baltimore City from the state community reinvestment and repair fund, direct the expenditures appropriated for those uses."
It now awaits the signature of Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott to become official law.
Read the full amended version of the bill below:
Original Story:
Baltimore City is one step closer to creating a reparations commission that would distribute funds to communities subjected to high levels of drug enforcement over the last two decades.
Bill 23-0353, sponsored by City Council President Nick Mosby, aims to follow-up on a cannabis reform law (House Bill 837) passed by the Maryland General Assembly in 2022.
That legislation implemented a Community Reinvestment and Repair Fund, generated from fees and taxes paid by state licensed cannabis retailers.
Associated funds are prohibited by law from going to law enforcement, and are instead required to go towards “community-based initiatives" benefiting low-income residents and those "disproportionately harmed by the cannabis prohibition and enforcement."
The fund is operated by the State Comptroller whose tasked with distributing the money to local jurisdictions based on the number of past cannabis arrests made there.
On April 25 the City Council's Economic and Community Development Committee voted 6-0 advancing the bill on its second reading, despite disapproval from Baltimore's law department.
If passed by the full City Council, the committee's bill would give members of the proposed reparations commission power to set certain rules and regulations, including on compensation and how it would be allocated.
In a March 21 letter to City Council, Chief Solicitor Elena R. DiPietro called language in the proposed bill "misleading."
DiPietro writes the bill passed by state lawmakers, "does not mention the establishment of a Commission, only a Fund.”
As result DiPietro opined local governments do not have authority to regulate use of the fund.
"The State Law leaves little opportunity for local legislation to regulate use of the Fund by local governments," DiPietro concluded. "When this bill is corrected to solve the problems described above, there is not much left of the proposal in Bill 23-0353. Accordingly, the Law Department does not approve this bill for form and legal sufficiency"
While several other City departments generally supported the idea of a reparations commission, many either referred the bill to the law department or requested amendments be made.
"The Department of Finance supports the intent of this legislation to engage residents in identifying ways to use funds from the Community Reinvestment and Repair Fund," wrote City Budget Director Laura Larsen. "However, the legislation as written establishes that the Commission will establish the purposes that funds may be used for and allocate the funding, which the Commission does not have authority to do."
The City's Department of Human Resources mostly echoed those remarks, agreeing the legal department should weigh in.
"Baltimore would be a trailblazer and could set an example for other cities to follow," wrote Quinton M. Herbert, DHR Director and Chief Human Capital Officer. "Again, however, we defer this matter to the Law Department for legal form and sufficiency."
Herbert also made mention of a few cities in the country who've already created similar commissions to handle social reparations, including in Asheville, North Carolina and Saint Paul, Minnesota.
In Saint Paul's case reparations were made in part for residents of a neighborhood impacted by highway construction, which they say deprived them of equal home ownership, economic prosperity, education, and healthcare.
The situation there resembles what lawmakers here allege happened with Baltimore City's Highway to Nowhere.
Meanwhile Baltimore City's Health Commissioner Dr. Letitia Dzirasa said this bill, which pertains only to drug enforcement, "has the potential to be transformative," but made three add-on recommendations to prevent "the perpetuation of inequities."
Dzirasa urged any reparations committee to include three sitting members with "lived experience," meaning they've been arrested or incarcerated in the past for drug offenses.
Another amendment suggested by Dzirasa ensures that organizations receiving funds have a "physical presence in the affected communities that they serve."
Dzirasa cited how states such as California, New York and Washington have launched social programs funded by marijuana sales.
Each used funds to help those with past marijuana convictions to legally enter the cannabis industry as business owners and entrepreneurs.
Likewise the City's Office of Equity and Civil Rights (OECR) appeared on board with creating a reparations committee, but said more time should be given to establish it.
"There are varying opinions on whether the Commission should serve in an advisory capacity to a city agency or be primarily responsible for directing the distribution of funds from the State Community Reinvestment and Repair Fund to Baltimore City," wrote Ty’lor Schnella, OECR Legislative Liaison. "The OECR suggests that the Commission's ideal function should be to identify community-based initiatives that benefit low- income and historically disinvested communities and those that serve communities disproportionately harmed by marijuana prohibition and enforcement."
As it stands now the commission, if created, would consist of 17 members including the City Comptroller. The Mayor would be responsible for appointing all 16 other members, 14 of them from each council district. They would be paid but required to submit financial disclosure statements in order to sit on the commission.
Each member would serve no more than two consecutive four-year terms. The commission would meet a minimum four times per year, and publish a biennial report beginning on or before December 1, 2024.
