MD Open Meetings Compliane Board Opinions Review

Compliance Board Opinion No. 02-1
A complaint alleged that the Poolesville town commissioners held an improperly closed meeting to discuss selection of a possible new town manager. There was no violation because the closed meeting was lawful under the act’s personnel exception.

Opinion No. 02-2
Complaints concerning the meeting practices of the Carroll County commissioners were filed. The commissioners did not violate the act by failing to provide a detailed description of agenda items in meeting notices or the reasons for an anticipated closed session, according to the opinion. However, a violation did occur when the commissioners closed meetings without voting to go into closed session and by failing to document the justification for meeting in closed session. The description of the closed meetings included in the minutes did not satisfy the requirements.

Opinion No. 02-3
The Wicomico County Council was found in violation following a meeting that was closed to the public in March at which two topics discussed did not warrant closure. Other matters discussed in the closed session fell within the act’s exclusion for executive functions, according to the opinion.

Opinion No. 02-4
A second complaint filed against the Wicomico County Council alleged violation by conducting a meeting without providing notice. No violation occurred because the meeting was announced beforehand, and in fact, it never officially occurred because on the date specified, a quorum of the council was not present, according to the opinion.

Opinion No. 02-5
Salisbury City Council Member Rachel Polk, filed complaint alleging that three other members of the city council were in violation when they wrote a letter to the Mayor about a controversial project. A violation did not occur because it appears that no meeting occurred to produce the letter, according to the opinion.

Opinion No. 02-6
A complaint alleged the Mount Rainier City Council violated various requirements at meetings held from February through April. Public notice procedures and voting procedures prior to a closed session complied with the act, according to the opinion. The city council violated the act by failing to prepare an adequate written statement prior to certain closed meetings, failing to keep minutes of closed sessions, and failing to disclose in subsequent open meeting minutes certain information about prior closed meetings.

Opinion No. 02-7
A complaint alleged the Board of Directors of the Enoch Pratt Free Library were in violation in connection with a closed meeting. The session, held to discuss legal advice with counsel, did not violate the act, according to the opinion. No violation occurred by allowing the attendance at the closed meeting of individuals who, although not members of the Board of Directors, bore a special relationship to the directors distinct from that of members of the public generally. Failing to include the requisite information about the closed meeting in the minutes of the next open meeting was a violation.

Opinion No. 02-8
A second complaint was filed against the Enoch Pratt Free Library Board of Directors on the issue of attendance at closed sessions. In addition, it alleged the motion to close was improperly made. According to the opinion, no violations occurred for reasons previously stated and evidence that the correct procedure was followed for closing the meeting.

Opinion No. 02-9
A complaint alleged the Carroll County commissioners violated the act in connection with executive sessions dealing with the administration of the county’s Concurrency Management Ordinance and the county’s impact fees and water and sewer rates. According to the opinion, the commissioners were engaged in an executive function at the meetings and not in violation.

Opinion No. 02-10
A complaint alleged the Wicomico County Council was in violation for failing to keep minutes of meetings, failing to include in the minutes information about closed sessions, and improperly applying the executive function exception. There were no violations on one date because a meeting did not occur, according to the opinion. The council was in violation for failing to produce minutes for the meetings, failing to report information in the minutes in connection with a prior closed meeting, and closing a discussion not covered by executive function.

Opinion No. 02-11
A complaint was filed by Jim Lee, editor of the Carroll County Times, regarding an alleged meeting conducted in violation of the act by two members of the Carroll County Commission. The complaint alleges that following a public hearing on a zoning ordinance, two commissioners met with a citizen involved with the zoning proposal at a local restaurant. A quorum of the commissioners was present, but according to the opinion, given the commissioners’ denial that any public business was discussed, no meeting occurred and the act was not violated.