Maryland Gov. Wes Moore is pushing back against critics of his handling of reparations legislation who questioned why he drafted his own plan before ultimately vetoing one approved by lawmakers.

The Democratic governor never went through with his plan to introduce an executive order, which would have created a commission to study the thorny issue of how the state should make amends for its role in abetting slavery and systemic discrimination.

The executive order was not made public until The Baltimore Banner published an article about its existence on Sunday. Lawmakers and others who spoke to The Banner expressed frustration that the governor drafted a plan that looked similar to their own legislation.

Moore’s chief of staff, Fagan Harris, responded in a written statement defending the governor’s actions, criticizing those who questioned him and challenging their details.

“The Governor has been clear he wants action — not to wait and see, or to sign the state up for legislation with an unknown pricetag to the Maryland taxpayers,” Harris wrote in the statement.

The legislation has a nominal price tag of about $55,000 per year for staffing support for a 23-member reparations commission. The commission would spend two years studying the state’s role in slavery and discrimination and offering recommendations on how to redress them.

While many view reparations solely as monetary payments, the bill directs the commission to consider a range of options that also include official statements of apology as well as policy changes, such as property tax rebates, tuition assistance and business incentives.

The governor and the General Assembly would have to act to carry out any of the commission’s recommendations.

Harris’ statement also called into question the lawmakers quoted in the article, including their statements that Moore’s draft executive order mirrored the bill they were working on.

Del. Aletheia McCaskill, Del. Joseline Peña-Melnyk, both Democrats, and Dayvon Love from the think tank Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, all either were shown or briefed on the governor’s executive order. They described it as markedly similar to the bill that lawmakers ultimately passed to create a reparations commission.

McCaskill also said that during a one-on-one meeting with the governor in April, she was shown a folder that contained the executive order and a rollout plan for the order that included a media plan.

Harris contested her version of the meeting.

“Delegate Aletheia McCaskill and the governor met, but her recollection of the events are inaccurate,” Harris’ statement said. “The governor vetoed this legislation, and the staff’s draft alternative differed greatly from her proposal. No documents showing a press plan were shared, those are lies, and the governor highlighted his continued concerns about her legislation.”

The governor’s office did not respond additional questions, including whether Harris was in the room while McCaskill and Moore discussed the executive order. Nor did they provide a copy of the executive order.

“I stand by my recollection of the meeting with the Governor and the events leading up to the veto of this bill,” McCaskill said in a statement Monday.

McCaskill and others said the main difference between her legislation and the governor’s order was that the governor proposed two additional members for the reparations commission. McCaskill said she offered to amend the legislation to add the two members; the governor declined.

Harris’ statement also reiterated that the governor’s team was in touch with lawmakers throughout the General Assembly session as they considered the reparations legislation.

“The governor himself met with many of the legislators that pushed this effort, and at numerous occasions the office expressed hesitancy with the proposed legislation — to say anything to the contrary is simply false."

Lawmakers and advocates said that when they met and spoke with the governor or his team about reparations, they heard concerns about the legislation but no suggestions for how to improve it.

McCaskill, one of the lead sponsors of the reparations bill, said she’s focused on overriding the governor’s veto and moving forward.

“While I appreciate Governor Moore’s commitment to addressing Maryland’s past and advancing efforts to build economic equity, my firm belief is that moving forward with this legislation is the clearest way to ensure accountability,” McCaskill said in a statement.

Del. Jheanelle Wilkins, a Democrat who chairs the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland, said that while lawmakers and the governor have a “fundamental disagreement” on the path forward on reparations, she also expressed hope that they can work together in the future.

Wilkins called the commission “a serious, comprehensive plan to implement reparations in our state and is an investment in justice for Black Marylanders.”

“We remain committed to working to ensure this critical step toward reparative justice is realized and implemented with the care, urgency and depth it deserves by overriding the veto,” she said.