Open Meetings
Up

QA’s commissioners accused of holding illegal closed meetings
When the Queen Anne’s County Commissioners voted behind closed doors to suspend competitive bidding policy and award a no-bid contract, someone noticed. Angela Price, Kent Island editor for The Star Democrat, filed a complaint with the state’s Open Meetings Compliance Board, Oct. 20. She alleged they acted illegally by approving a contract and changing policy in [...]
QAC Commissioners violate Open Meetings Act
Angela Price, Editor of the The Kent Island Bay Times, filed an complaint with the Open Meetings Compliance Board alleging that the Board of County Commissioners of Queen Anne’s County violated the Open Meetings Act in several respects: (1) that a closed session on September 25, 2007, was required by the Act to have been [...]
Council violated open meeting law
The Chestertown Town Council violated the Maryland open meeting law in connection with two closed sessions it held back in April. According to an opinion by the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board, council violated the state open meetings act in connection with the closed meetings it held April 11 and 16 by failing t (1) give [...]
Hebron closed meeting queried
Hebron Commissioners allegedly violated Maryland’s opening meeting law during a recent closed meeting by not advertising it, according to a complaint under review by a state advisory board. The closed meeting in question, which preceded an open meeting Aug. 1, was in violation for two reasons, said T.J. Mumford, the Wicomico County resident who filed the [...]

Sveinn Storm has received a reply to his open meetings act complaint.  Here is a copy of the Attorney General's Opinion.

Here is some additional information concerning an earlier complaint filed with the Open Meetings Compliance Board.

Here is a copy of the Opinion of the Attorney General's Office - "The Council's failure to produce or approve minutes for numerous work sessions for an extended period violated the Act. It appears that documents required under the Act, namely minutes of certain closed sessions and work sessions and summaries following closed meetings to be included in publicly-available minutes, simply do not exist - a violation. In other cases, the Council indicated that certain documents relevant to the complaint were on file but did not produce the documents in response to the Compliance Board's request - itself a violation. The summary of a closed session held May 19, 2005, provided by the Council satisfied the disclosure requirements of the Act. Disclosure of the justifications for closing meetings for the period covered by the complaint were inadequate, because they merely parroted the applicable statutory exemption. Finally, continued discussion by a quorum of the Council following apparent conclusion of a public meeting violated the Act."

Here is a letter from the Town in response to the complaint.

Here is a letter from the Attorney General to the Town requesting additional information from the Town.

Here is a complaint filed with the Open Meetings Compliance Board - for "... failure to provide minutes of meetings in a timely manner. ... inadequate reasons for conducting a closed session, no summary of closed meetings provided in the following closed meeting, failure to generate minutes of closed sessions in a timely manner, and discussions of a quorum of officials continuing during breaks."

Audio clip of a "break" during a work session - Donna Turner and Norman Pinder grab Sheriff Crossley and talk about educating the public on how ineffective truck enforcement will be in reducing truck traffic.

Agenda from the January 5, 2006 Town Council Meeting - description of closed meeting is inadequate.

The Attorney General's Maryland Open Meetings Act Manual - "It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that, except in special and appropriate circumstances: public business be performed in an open and public manner; and citizens be allowed to observe: the performance of public officials; and the deliberations and decisions that the making of public policy involves."

The following are related rulings from the Attorney General's office: 

Aberdeen conducted a meeting that, in the midst of an announced recess, failed to be in “open session” as required by the Act - "Similarly, a presiding officer’s announcement that a meeting will be in recess for a stated period of time would cause members of the public to believe that no discussion of public business by a quorum of the public body would occur during the recess. Some members of the audience undoubtedly leave the meeting room during a recess to attend to personal matters. If a meeting in fact occurs during an announced recess, the meeting is not 'open' to all members of the public who wish to observe it, even if those who happen to remain in the room can do so."
Poolesville failed to provide sufficient information in the written statement required for a closed meeting - "The written statement requirement serves several objectives, .... First, the written statement gives the public body one last opportunity to consider whether a closed session really is necessary. ... . Second, the written statement helps enable members of the public who will be barred from the closed session to understand that this exception to the principle of openness is well-grounded. Finally, the written statement is an accountability tool, for an interested observer can compare what is said in the written statement preceding the meeting with what is said in the minutes summarizing the actual conduct of the meeting, and infer whether the public body hewed to the topic that justified the closing."
Riverdale failed to properly report close meetings - "A public body must find a way to inform the public of the 'topic of discussion' beyond the label 'personnel matter.' For example, the body might say (assuming this were the situation), 'Consideration of disciplinary action for alleged violations of municipal policy.' As this example indicates, there is a middle ground between identifying the individual whose personnel matter is involved, which is not required, and saying nothing more than the formulaic 'personnel matter,' which is impermissible."
The Montgomery County Council failed to provide a separate and distinct description of the “topic to be discussed” in advance of its closed meeting. "If the public body simply describes the topic of the meeting as “personnel,” it has effectively omitted the topic description, for the public knows nothing more than it already knew by the citation of the exception alone."
Poolesville failed to prepare minutes for various meetings during 2004 in a timely manner - "had the Planning Commission acted aggressively to add approval of the minutes of the meetings of September 17 and October 15, 2003, to the November 12 agenda and then acted on the item, we would not have found a violation."