HPRB August 16, 2016 Meeting Thread

[mxrider]

Is the "additional information" additional or is it replacing information supplied to the MSP that was lost or not forwarded? I seem to recall reports of "missing information" from what was supplied to the MSP by the applicant.

It is indeed additional information, not replacement info.

 

[BeoBill]

I had to show ID and sign in at the main entrance security desk last night, and i was issued a visitor sticker. 20' away from this desk is the hearing room. Upon entering the hearing room i was asked to sign in again. This sign in sheet wanted my name, address, email, and phone number. That's enough personal information to conduct a successful burglary of your averge "gun nut's" home, but i digress.
Then upon leaving the hearing, i was asked to sign out of the building at the main entrance security desk.

Its a little silly, and excessive. And I assume the HPRB sign in sheet is being used by someone to match the identification of actual attendees with internet posters that claimed to attend.
I'm told this was a favorite past time of Knaub, matching mds screen names to applicants, printing out posts he deemed questionable, and putting those printouts in their application files.

And remember, MSP has a history of surveilling activists... someone please post the link.

I can think of two potential approaches to push back on this "dual sign in list" charade:

- Circulating Personally Identifiable Information in public with NO controls applied, which I'm sure is a Federal violation and probably a state violation as well; and/or
- An unnecessary and undocumented public burden under a Paperwork Reduction Act if Maryland has one.

Tally ho, legal eagles!

 

[BeoBill]

I may just do that for my hearing.

Let me know when that is and I'll cut my other obligation to attend and testify what an upstanding guy you are. Anybody else?

 

[BeoBill]

Is the "additional information" additional or is it replacing information supplied to the MSP that was lost or not forwarded? I seem to recall reports of "missing information" from what was supplied to the MSP by the applicant.

I recall hearing that as well. If it happens once or twice that could indicate shoddy but unintentionally poor record handling. If it happens with any regularity, especially in rather strong cases for the applicant, it could indicate a more nefarious motive.

Another question arises as to just where the records that contain PII went. In the Federal realm that could be a career-ending event.

 

[dblas]

Is the "additional information" additional or is it replacing information supplied to the MSP that was lost or not forwarded? I seem to recall reports of "missing information" from what was supplied to the MSP by the applicant.

Additional as in never provided in the first place by the applicant, that had it been submitted, would more than likely have resulted the issuance of a permit.

 

[dblas]

If you'd have been there you could have talked me from my hysteria afterwards.

Sorry my personal life was an inconvenience for you.

You also need to learn how to multi-quote so I can answer your questions, but here it goes..

You were informed wrong, did you happen to talk to the officer?

No clue on two party hearing, but I have been in other hearing where one party does indeed have a table perpendicular to the hearing board.

Two things;

1. MSP does indeed try to contact applicants after an appeal to try and get more information.

2. A lot off applicants, as we have seen at the appeals hearings, do not in fact supply all of the information to MSP, hence if that information is indeed brought to the hearing and MSP sees it before the hearing, they will do their actual job and take that information and work to issue a permit. Why should the board need to be involved if the MSP can resolve the issue with the NOW additional information??

How is MSP accepting information in the hallway, that was never originally submitted, kicking the can down the hallway? Why doe the board need to be involved when MSP has looked at the additional information, and on there own, made the decision to work with the applicant to get them a permit?

The discussion was based on questions by the new member (Hollaman) who was not present in the previous discussions of the MSP SOP, asking questions about the SOP. I didn't take it as the board not being any less bold than before, but bringing a current member up to speed.

 

[dblas]

I can think of two potential approaches to push back on this "dual sign in list" charade:

- Circulating Personally Identifiable Information in public with NO controls applied, which I'm sure is a Federal violation and probably a state violation as well; and/or
- An unnecessary and undocumented public burden under a Paperwork Reduction Act if Maryland has one.

Tally ho, legal eagles!

The secondary sign in sheet has been addressed and taken care of, the only sign in sheet should now be the one at the front desk for the building. There will, however, still be a wand used at the door to the hearing.

 

[Applehd]

New meeting thread posted... Sept. 13

 

[montoya32]

Sorry my personal life was an inconvenience for you.

You also need to learn how to multi-quote so I can answer your questions, but here it goes..

You were informed wrong, did you happen to talk to the officer?

No clue on two party hearing, but I have been in other hearing where one party does indeed have a table perpendicular to the hearing board.

Two things;

1. MSP does indeed try to contact applicants after an appeal to try and get more information.

Not always.

2. A lot off applicants, as we have seen at the appeals hearings, do not in fact supply all of the information to MSP, hence if that information is indeed brought to the hearing and MSP sees it before the hearing, they will do their actual job and take that information and work to issue a permit. Why should the board need to be involved if the MSP can resolve the issue with the NOW additional information??

How is MSP accepting information in the hallway, that was never originally submitted, kicking the can down the hallway? Why doe the board need to be involved when MSP has looked at the additional information, and on there own, made the decision to work with the applicant to get them a permit?

The discussion was based on questions by the new member (Hollaman) who was not present in the previous discussions of the MSP SOP, asking questions about the SOP. I didn't take it as the board not being any less bold than before, but bringing a current member up to speed.

I would have to agree with Jaybeez. I even mentioned as much to someone else. I have seen the board act in an independent and progressive manner, only to see for myself that they have "reeled" themselves in and are now less proactive and seem hesitant to make a precedent setting decision. Saying that they are sorry, but bound by the law is saddening. Nothing in the law prevented them from making the appropriate decisions, if they felt they would have been the appropriate decision. I am also at a loss for the lack of discussion/deliberation between the members. When the chairman asks for a motion, there is one of two responses required: 1. Move to uphold or 2. Move to overturn. Not hard at all.

 

[Jaybeez]

Sorry my personal life was an inconvenience for you.

You also need to learn how to multi-quote so I can answer your questions, but here it goes..

You were informed wrong, did you happen to talk to the officer?

No clue on two party hearing, but I have been in other hearing where one party does indeed have a table perpendicular to the hearing board.

Two things;

1. MSP does indeed try to contact applicants after an appeal to try and get more information.

2. A lot off applicants, as we have seen at the appeals hearings, do not in fact supply all of the information to MSP, hence if that information is indeed brought to the hearing and MSP sees it before the hearing, they will do their actual job and take that information and work to issue a permit. Why should the board need to be involved if the MSP can resolve the issue with the NOW additional information??

How is MSP accepting information in the hallway, that was never originally submitted, kicking the can down the hallway? Why doe the board need to be involved when MSP has looked at the additional information, and on there own, made the decision to work with the applicant to get them a permit?

The discussion was based on questions by the new member (Hollaman) who was not present in the previous discussions of the MSP SOP, asking questions about the SOP. I didn't take it as the board not being any less bold than before, but bringing a current member up to speed.

Sounds more like they are trying to short circuit the appeals process, and eliminate the oversight provided by the civilian board.
Because "making things go away" is better for the status quo, than the board setting a precedent and forcing the MSP to change their SOP.

 

[montoya32]

Sounds more like they are trying to short circuit the appeals process, and eliminate the oversight provided by the civilian board.
Because "making things go away" is better for the status quo, than the board setting a precedent and forcing the MSP to change their SOP.

 

[BeoBill]

The secondary sign in sheet has been addressed and taken care of, the only sign in sheet should now be the one at the front desk for the building. There will, however, still be a wand used at the door to the hearing.

Excellent! Great news!

And the wanding should be at the front desk also, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Rack&Roll]

As the person who refused to participate in the sign-in sheet process at this meeting--and who set off this review-- I still object to ANY sign-in process for a citizen who wants to observe PUBLIC BUSINESS IN THE PUBLIC AREA OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

I accept that there is a need to be screened for weapons, but screening me for my identity is unacceptable.

I will refuse again at the September 16th meeting and demand to be able to take a seat-- after I have been checked for weapons.

 

[basscat]

When will you peasants realize that your opinions and objections are irrelevant in this state?

 

[Rack&Roll]

Anyone remember "Bridge On The River Kwai?"

 

[Stoveman]

The secondary sign in sheet has been addressed and taken care of, the only sign in sheet should now be the one at the front desk for the building. There will, however, still be a wand used at the door to the hearing.

And how, pray tell, do you know this? Did the board have another meeting that the public wasn't privy to?

 

[Stoveman]

Excellent! Great news!

And the wanding should be at the front desk also, but that's just my opinion.

Not sure I would call it great news, stepping on your neck with one foot instead of both.

Still wondering how the change was made and how come the general public wasn't made aware before Dblas stepped in and hipped us all....

 

[montoya32]

And how, pray tell, do you know this? Did the board have another meeting that the public wasn't privy to?

Last I heard, at the "open" meeting the board decided to have a second sign in sheet in addition to bringing back the wand. I didn't know decisions and "business" was conducted outside of the "open" meetings. If so, scan a copy of the files and allow the board members to review the damn files. Allow them the same opportunity to craft questions and research cases as the MSP.

How can you expect a board of citizens, whom have no real expertise in the subject they are involved in, to make a complete ruling in the self-restricted 30 minute hearing?

Last suggestion, since we want to discuss "additional" information, when an applicant or permit holder files for an appeal, they should received the entire file on their case from the MSP. Why is it that the applicant/permit holder is required to submit all info to the MSP, but the MSP can hold any info from all until the evening of the hearing and at that, the applicant/permit holder never sees the full file?

 

[Stoveman]

How can we expect that board of citizens to make an intelligent and rational decision when half of the board ask no questions of either the applicant or the MSP?

It's almost like being an NRA instructor or a Monkey County cop gives you super secret double probation powers of discernment.....

 

[BeoBill]

Not sure I would call it great news, stepping on your neck with one foot instead of both.

Still wondering how the change was made and how come the general public wasn't made aware before Dblas stepped in and hipped us all....

Ever try to get into a Federal building? To get the State to rescind ANYTHING is a great thing, because it's an admission that it was unnecessary and a MISTAKE.

And I'd rather have one boot than two any day. Cuz they have to stay there when I let the Taco Bell Monster loose upwind...