Maryland Transportation Authority Series Violations of the Open Meetings Act and Troubles with Transparency By: codonnell@thekentcountynews.

com Note: The first request for meeting minutes from the MDTA was in November, 2009. After months of trying to work with them, we finally began logging Open Meetings Act violations and filing complaints with the Open Meetings Compliance Board. It is impossible to have a third party mediate Public Information Act disputes, because there is no board set up to do so. September 2, 2010 Lawmakers' comments redacted December 16, 2010 State panel: Meeting minutes should not have been redacted January 27, 2011 After complaint made, MDTA makes minutes more accessible February 24, 2011 MDTA continues to redact minutes March 17, 2011 Panel: MDTA violated open meetings law April 14, 2011 Questions remain about the availability of MDTA minutes April 21, 2011 Investigative Report: Public information request seeks investment minutes June 2, 2011 Compliance board: MDTA violated state sunshine law July 14, 2011 Analysis: Sifting through the bridge toll numbers it's confusing July 21, 2011 Compliance board: MDTA panel violated open meeting law August 4, 2011 Panel cautions MDTA about private company board December 1, 2011 Complaint filed against MDTA [Capital and Finance Committees] December 8, 2011 MDTA disagrees with a compliance board opinion

Feb. 9, 2012 Panel rules MDTA can't withhold old minutes February 16, 2012 More MDTA violations cited by state compliance panel April 12, 2012 MDTA officials again violate Open Meetings Act Board says teleconference is illegal April 19, 2012 Information on MDTA secret meeting scarce Board chairwoman says agency is improving April 26, 2012 Probing deeper into MDTAs open meetings issues May 3, 2012 MDTA dodged law

September 2, 2010 Lawmakers' comments redacted By CRAIG O'DONNELL CHESTERTOWN -- Jack Broderick, candidate for Queen Anne's commissioner, said something secret on March 4, 2009. It was at a public meeting of the Bay Bridge Reconstruction Advisory Group. He has chaired the 10member BBRAG for five years. Broderick says it wasn't secret at all. But Ron Freeland, recently retired Maryland Transportation Authority secretary, acted on his own by blacking out Broderick's comments from public meeting minutes. When he did it, he claimed the Public Information Act allowed him to remove selected sentences. Freeland was an administrator, not a BBRAG member, and such a claim is dubious. State law does allow keeping certain information private, but even when it falls into those categories, the MDTA has to give specific reasons for censoring something Freeland never did. He also claimed "executive privilege" over minutes of a public body. After months of trying to get full BBRAG minutes from the MDTA, Broderick was contacted in July. A computer crash wiped out his electronic documents last year, he said at the time. Then he tried to help the Kent County News get fresh uncensored minutes. He asked for electronic copies and the MDTA told him not to distribute public information to anyone. Instead, last week Broderick read from some printed minutes he located in his own files.

Not only were parts of public minutes hidden from the public; an MDTA lawyer told Broderick in July he could not give out public information the minutes which his committee approved and he signed, as chairman, all in public meetings. The lawyer's reason? Freeland said not to. In July, Broderick called Gail Moran, his MDTA contact, and asked for electronic copies of minutes. Freeland, through one of his lawyers, said they wouldn't give him any. Last week Broderick said, "At first (Moran) said yes, then she called back and said, 'There may be a problem getting the minutes to you. It looks like the legal office doesn't want you to give them out.'" Later, he got e-mail. It included a message from Sherita Harrison, assistant attorney general assigned as an MDTA lawyer. Broderick read the July 23 e-mail last week, which said in part, "Please do not provide BBRAG minutes to Craig O'Donnell. I have forwarded to Mr. Freeland a copy of your e-mail ... (he) has advised me to inform you that the MDTA is the custodian of the records for the BBRAG minutes and as such he should not provide copies to Mr. O'Donnell and should forward the request to the MDTA to respond accordingly. "Thus he should not seek copies ... from other BBRAG members to provide to Mr. O'Donnell." In other words, no, the chairman can't have copies of public documents, and he can't give anyone public documents. And yet if the MDTA posted all minutes on its website, as many tiny towns and most counties do, this struggle would never have begun. What's So Secret? None of what Broderick read is blockbuster stuff. There's no personal information. In one case, Freeland's name was removed twice. The General Assembly was very upset about an MDTA toll hike in early 2009. A truck toll increase "happened very quickly, everybody was upset," Broderick said. "Ron had orders from higher up. It basically moved out very fast." On March 9, 2009 Broderick told BBRAG members about legislative committee public hearings. Freeland's version of the March 9 minutes say "Mr. Broderick said that he had attended a recent hearing at the Maryland State Budget and Taxation Committee, where several bills introduced by Senator Pipkin were heard." Four lines are black, then "(He) said that he did not see the General Assembly warming up to the bill heard that would prohibit toll increases without legislative approval." What are the secret lines? They are: "... Ron Freeland was apologetic about the short time span" before the toll hike, and "He said Mr. Freeland has recommended a 60-day period" (between proposing a hike and putting it in place). Pipkin, Smigiel Blacked Out

Those weren't the only lines that were blacked out. At a 2008 meeting, parts having to do with safety questions raised by Sen. E.J. Pipkin and Delegate Mike Smigiel were given the blackout treatment. On Aug. 10, 2008, the bay bridge's soundness came into question when a semitrailer broke the side wall, killing the driver. In Freeland's version, the BBRAG Sept. 3, 2008 meeting after the accident was had three large blackouts. Pipkin and Smigiel came to question MDTA officials about the wreck. It appears there was an attempt to prevent the public from seeing criticism expressed in a public forum. There are 20 lines blacked out, which Broderick read on the phone. The missing words are in italics: "A vehicle crash between a sedan and tractor trailer on August 10 resulted in the death of the tractor trailer driver when his vehicle crashed through the south parapet on the eastern shore side of the eastbound span. "MDTA staff and engineering experts quickly began a thorough inspection of the bridge using x-ray ... of the internal metal supports and identified areas where (internal supports were corroded). "Acting on this finding, Secretary of Transportation and Maryland Transportation Authority Chairman John Porcari ordered an immediate closure of the right lane. "The lane closure could provide needed safety to those traveling on the bridge also allowed (staff) to reinforce the supports and provide additional safety to the span. It was announced the lane closure could take up to 10 weeks depending on what was found." Further along, missing text is about how, "Citing repeated assurances of bridge safety ... Pipkin strongly pressed for an outside inspection" and said Pipkin had contacted Gov. Martin O'Malley. Then "Delegate Michael Smigiel asked whether school buses are safe ... Mr. Kolberg indicated he did not know the answer ... he would answer later." Geoffrey Kolberg was MDTA chief engineer at the time. Broderick said last week, "It baffles me why this was redacted. It was all a matter of press releases and open dialogue at the time. This was all public." MDTA's own press releases, in other words, said what was deliberately withheld two years later. The releases went out Aug. 26 and Sept. 8, 2008. In part they say: "The MDTA began today's repairs after ultrasonic and ground penetrating radar (GPR) testing of the parapet in the right lane near the Eastern Shore indicated corrosion of reinforcing steel bolts encased in the concrete barrier. ... The repairs we are starting today will restore the strength of the parapet ... The corrosion is a direct result of voids in the center of the concrete parapet, where moisture has become trapped." Before redecking began about four years ago, the BBRAG was set up to hold open meetings for citizens to bring complaints and concerns and have issues directly addressed. Broderick called the BBRAG's five-year existence "a good-news story. It bothers me (the MDTA) would take such an offensive angle to something that worked well." And there isn't any consistency to the black marks. Two sentences (March 5, 2008) about speed radar also got the marker. The secret? "Police occupy the bridge lane that has already been closed ... (they are) behind an attenuator truck to provide protection."

Something about jersey barriers is under a very large black square on Oct. 1, 2008, but Broderick doesn't have a paper copy to check. There are 15 or 16 lines gone from a paragraph that begins: "Mr. Cimino was asked about installing jersey walls between the lanes of the bridge." Ken Cimino was an MDTA official. The struggle to get full, uncensored minutes of MDTA committees including BBRAG, the MDTA Board, and its subcommittees, stretches back to November 2009. In the spring, two 36th District delegates, Dick Sossi and Smigiel, became involved. Sossi was instrumental getting a sheaf of meeting documents the MDTA refused to release. Meanwhile, Smigiel did not believe Freeland had a right to do more than turn over the minutes as written. After exchanging several letters, on Aug. 17 he wrote to Freeland, "... (you say) you have worked with your department's attorneys to provide those minutes in a redacted form. I would like to know what they told you was the reasoning behind this (and the) statute chapter and section" authorizing redaction of anything from public meeting minutes. Minutes are a summary and "There should be nothing ... that would have personally identifying information such as a social security number or driver's license number since that would defeat the purpose of the summary in and of itself." After getting what he called "a runaround" from MDTA officials, he received a letter from the Office of the Attorney General. It doesn't agree either. On Aug. 24, Kathryn Rowe, assistant attorney general in the Office of Counsel to the General Assembly, wrote to Smigiel, "You have asked ... whether a public body may redact material from minutes of an open meeting when providing them to a member of the public. It is my view that it may not." In other words, public meeting minutes are not to be tampered with once they have been approved. She added, "... the Public Information Act has been interpreted to always defer to other laws governing the disclosure of specific records. ... Once material from an open session is included in the minutes, however, it is my view that it may not be redacted prior to disclosure." The Open Meetings Act already provides a way to talk about confidential topics in a "closed session." Sensitive information is kept out of minutes that way. As for the MDTA's response, Freeland could not be reached. Press office contact Kelly Melhem did not return phone calls. Harrison, contacted several times over many months, said she would not answer questions, claiming "attorney-client privilege." Her e-mails have been legalistic and uninformative. MDTA Principal Counsel Valerie Smith did not want to speak on the phone last week. After nine months, the MDTA has never sent uncensored copies of the minutes, and the Kent County News filed another formal records request for them Aug 30. The Maryland State Archives website describes BBRAG as "Appointed by Executive Secretary in consultation with Chair, Maryland Transportation Authority: John E. (Jack) Broderick, Chair; Larry Brown; Nick Deoudes; Anne S. Ferro; Dolores Green; Barbara Hitchings; Randy Landis; Tracy Schulz; Barbara Span Obert; Nancy Wright." Moran is the MDTA staff member assigned to it.

== December 16, 2010 State panel: Meeting minutes should not have been redacted By CRAIG O'DONNELL CHESTERTOWN -- The battle for uncensored minutes from the Maryland Transportation Authority appears to have ended. The Open Meetings Compliance Board wrote, Nov. 30, that meeting minutes cannot have sections removed, cannot be censored, or have anything "redacted," that is, blacked out. Over the past year, the Kent County News has investigated whether the Maryland Transportation Authority was keeping proper meeting minutes for its board and several other committees and making them easily available to the public, as the Maryland Open Meetings Act requires. An OMCB opinion earlier in the year found the MDTA was in violation of state law because its board minutes and other required meeting documents were not immediately available to anyone who came to their office to review them. For months, MDTA Executive Director Ron Freeland claimed he could remove parts of published minutes because of "executive privilege." When Freeland resigned in August to take a private-sector job, Deputy Transportation Secretary Harold Bartlett took over as acting MDTA executive director. After a report describing the nine-month battle for minutes from the Bay Bridge Reconstruction Advisory Committee was published in early September in the Kent County News and the Star Democrat, the agency has begun putting MDTA Board minutes on its website www.mdta.maryland. gov/MeetingSchedules/MeetingSchedules.html. Bartlett sent uncensored BBRAG minutes to the newspaper in September. First Request was in 2009 The MDTA was asked a year ago for copies of minutes and closing statements describing closed-door meetings. (The MDTA didn't have any minutes of any board or committee operating under its direction posted on its extensive website). The staff could not find meeting documents and refused to provide them without a written Public Information Act request. This caused the paper to file its first complaint with the Open Meetings Compliance Board. Writing on June 8, the compliance board said the MDTA violated the law when it could not produce materials upon request: "Apparently, the relevant documents existed. However, had someone visited the Authority to review the closing statements ..., it is obvious that the documents could not have been readily produced." Also, the law says meeting minutes and recordings must be kept for a minimum of a year. The MDTA's attorney, Sherita Harrison, claimed this means minutes older than a year don't have to be available to the public. The compliance board did not buy that: we "disagree with the Authority's suggestion that, should a public body choose to retain copies for a longer period, the right of the public to review these documents under the Act is somehow extinguished."

Second Request Made Next the newspaper asked for minutes from the BBRAG and the Bay Bridge Peer Review Group, a committee of highway experts who reviewed the MDTA's operations following a fatal August 2008 tractor-trailer crash on the bay bridge. When papers arrived, the BBRAG minutes had parts blacked out. The newspaper was charged 47 cents a page for copies, plus postage. (The Public Information Act makes it difficult to fight excessively high copying charges levied by state bureaucrats). Through its attorney, Harrison, the MDTA declined to write or say anything about the Peer Review Group. No minutes were provided, in fact, no information at all, and she did not mention the committee in her response to the paper's public information filing. This resulted in the second written open meetings complaint, one resolved Nov. 30. Although Harrison claimed the MDTA could black out sections of minutes if someone asked for copies, the compliance board said "a privilege cannot be applied after the fact." Once minutes are approved, they are fixed. A council or committee has the option, at the time they talk about something, to have a closed session and talk over certain kinds of business. If they choose not to, the public meeting record (minutes, tapes, videos) cannot be altered after the fact. The board wrote: "We want to clarify our recent opinion ... any person has a right to visit the office of a public body to inspect approved minutes of an open meeting and written closing statements. ... a person should not need to submit a written request" for copies of minutes or closing statements. "We also held that the right to copies of minutes is governed by the Public Information Act ..." They said their concern was for copies made on paper on a copying machine, and "that the agency should not have to subsidize an extensive volume of copying." Except, if someone asks for a copy of written closing statements at the time of a meeting, they should be provided ASAP, they said. In arguing the MDTA's position, Harrison claimed the Public Information Act would let them remove anything they wanted from copies of minutes. The compliance board said no. "We did not hold that the content of minutes of public meetings governed by the Open Meetings Act was subject to redaction under the Public Information Act ... (and) provisions governing access to records under the Public Information Act defer to other law," they wrote. "In this instance, the Open Meetings Act provides that minutes of open meetings are accessible to the public. Stated otherwise, a copy of the document provided to a requester should look no different than had the requester visited the office of the public body where the requester would be entitled to review approved minutes of open meetings at any time during ordinary business hours. "If a matter was discussed in an open session governed by the Open Meetings Act even if the meeting could have been closed (but) the public body did not elect to do so the minutes of that meeting are available to the public. A privilege cannot be applied after the fact."

The censored minutes were of BBRAG meetings on Mar. 5, Sept. 3, and Oct. 1, 2008 and Mar. 4, 2009. The blackouts included public comments in a public meeting by 36th District General Assembly members. A Loophole Fixed The Kent County News, in its second filing with the compliance board, held that the BBRAG was a citizens' advisory board made up of citizens and meeting publicly, and it is a "public body" and had to follow the Open Meetings Act. However the compliance board said Nov. 30 that it was not automatically a "public body" until Oct. 1, 2009, so the early BBRAG minutes were not governed by the Open Meetings Act. Last year an amendment went into effect to make the BBRAG and other committees like it legally a "public body" as soon as they are formed. It fixed a technical loophole which put committees like BBRAG in public-document and meeting limbo. However, there has never been anything in the Open Meetings Act to prevent any agency from declaring, as part of a committee's organizing bylaws, that it will adhere to the Open Meetings Act. That appears to be rare. The Open Meetings Compliance Board also ruled in November that the MDTA did not provide them with adequate information about the Peer Review Group: "we find that the response failed to satisfy" what the law requires. A written complaint to find out what happened to Peer Review Group minutes, when it met, and if the public was allowed to attend its meetings has been filed. == January 27, 2011 After complaint made, MDTA makes minutes more accessible By CRAIG O'DONNELL CHESTERTOWN -- Following an investigation into its meeting records reported in the Kent County News and The Star Democrat this fall, the Maryland Transportation Authority has made schedules and minutes more accessible to the public. And in a Jan. 21 written response to a recent Open Meetings Act complaint, the MDTA says it failed to follow the law for meetings of its 2008-09 "Peer Review Group." The expert panel was created by Gov. Martin O'Malley on Sept. 5, 2008. In the wake of the fatal August 2008 bay bridge truck crash, it met to review the MDTA's inspection and maintenance procedures and issue a report. The Peer Review Group was one of several MDTA committees which were operating without public notice of meetings. This has been partially corrected. In December, the agency's website "Public Meetings Archive" was expanded to include minutes and meeting schedules (at www.mdta.maryland.gov/MeetingSchedules/Minutes_Archive.html). Minutes

from MDTA Board meetings begin with Aug. 25, 2010. They are current to Nov. 24. With the minutes are short "closing statements" to document any meetings closed to the public. Since at least 2007 the "Capital" and "Finance" subcommittees vetted or approved contracts, bond sales, and did other public business without notice of when and where meetings were held. The MDTA's annual revenues are about $400 million. It is in charge of toll roads, tunnels and bridges and the Intercounty Connector. It owns the Canton Development Company, which owns the Canton Railroad at the Seagirt Marine Terminal. In early 2010, the Kent County News asked for fall 2009 subcommittee minutes. The MDTA demanded a written request, and then blacked out large sections of what was sent. Initially, Kelly Melhem in the MDTA public relations office said the two committees did not have to notify the public of meetings because each has only four members, which is not a quorum of the MDTA board. However, the Open Meetings Act treats formal subcommittees like these as standalone public bodies. They must follow the same transparency rules as the full board. At the Nov. 24 board meeting acting Executive Secretary Harold Bartlett introduced a resolution confirming the two are "public bodies" and will comply with the Open Meetings Act. That means proper notice for all meetings and no censored minutes. As of the end of January, Dec. 2 Capital Committee minutes and Dec. 9 Finance Committee minutes are also on the web. The Capital Committee's next two meetings are Feb. 3 and March 3; the Finance Committee's are Feb. 10 and March 10. They meet at 9 a.m. at 2310 Broening Highway, Baltimore. A year ago, this information was not on the website. The MDTA charged 47 cents per page to mail paper copies of minutes. Gaps Remain in Records Despite positive moves in the last few months, there are many questions about what MDTA boards and committees debated during 2007-2009 - when members were discussing the controversial Intercounty Connector and trying to recover from the fatal August 2008 bay bridge tractor-trailer crash. The Peer Review Group looked into bridge maintenance and inspection. Its final report is in electronic format on the MDTA's website. Despite a written request in early 2010, then-executive secretary Ron Freeland did not produce its minutes. The minutes question was included in a written complaint to the Open Meetings Compliance Board, which ruled Nov. 30 that the MDTA did not provide them with adequate information: "we find that the response failed to satisfy" what the law requires in the way of an answer. MDTA's attorney, Sherita Harrison, wrote there was nothing to reveal because the Peer Review Group existed only for six months ending in June 2009. So, a follow-up was filed. The Kent County News alleged this committee fit the definition of a "public body;" that the MDTA kept no minutes and posted no public notice of its meetings; and held meetings illegally closed to the public. Harrison said this week in a written reply to the Compliance Board that the MDTA did not keep the meeting records.

She wrote: "The Authority never advised Mr. O'Donnell or the Board that the Peer Review Group was not a public body ... By definition under the Act, the Peer Review Group was a public body." She then wrote there are no minutes or meeting notice records to provide: "the documents in question did not exist" when asked for in early 2010. In short, it appears the MDTA board and executive secretary knew it had a public body, but kept meetings and minutes under wraps. Bridge and tunnel inspection and maintenance is a compelling public safety issue. The public has every right to listen to a discussion by a committee which has been formed to assess it. Harrison wrote, "The Authority staff did not properly follow the Act ... however, its failure ... was not intentional or deliberate." The Open Meetings Compliance Board will issue its opinion in the next few months. MDTA Board members are Peter J. Basso, the Rev. William C. Calhoun Sr., Mary Beyer Halsey, Louise P. Hoblitzell, Richard C. Mike Lewin, Michael J. Whitson, and Walter E. Woodford Jr. Secretary of Transportation Beverley K. Swaim-Staley chairs the board, with veto power over all decisions. == February 24, 2011 MDTA continues to redact minutes By CRAIG O'DONNELL CHESTERTOWN -- The Maryland Transportation Authority is once again claiming it can censor meeting minutes. An Open Meetings Compliance Board opinion made it clear in a Nov. 30 formal opinion that meeting minutes cannot have sections removed, cannot be censored, or have anything "redacted," that is, blacked out. Last year, some Finance and Capital subcommittee minutes were provided to the Kent County News, but there were extensive blacked-out sections. Following the Nov. 30 opinion, the Kent County News requested copies again. Acting Executive Secretary Harold Bartlett, in a Feb. 10 letter, wrote that new copies of the subcommittee minutes for 2009-2010 were provided as a courtesy. The new copies contain only one three-line blackout, in minutes of a Finance Committee meeting on Sept. 10, 2009. However, the MDTA now says that the two subcommittees have never been "public bodies." In a Feb. 14 letter to the compliance board, MDTA attorneys Valerie Smith and Sherita Harrison said there had never been a formal MDTA board resolution which created the two subcommittees. Therefore, the MDTA's attorneys have written, the agency doesn't have to keep minutes (although it does), and it can censor whatever it provides to the public.

But, they stated, "By formal resolution ... November 24, 2010, the members of the Maryland Transportation Authority formally created the capital and finance committees for the purpose of making them subject to the Act." The state's Open Meetings Act doesn't apply to any meeting records before that date, they claim, because formal action like a board resolution is necessary to create a subcommittee that falls under the Open Meetings Act. Each subcommittee now consists of four members out of the eight-person MDTA board. (The board was expanded from six to eight members in 2007. The records are not entirely clear, but it appears the subcommittees each had three members before then). Each subcommittee meets at least once a month. The full MDTA board meets once a month. The agency argues that, since four of eight isn't a quorum, the subcommittee meetings aren't meetings of the MDTA board itself. "Obviously, a Board that meets once a month cannot micro manage the hundreds of decisions and actions that must be completed during the day to day operations of an entire State agency. ...," they wrote. Instead, staff members make presentations to the two subcommittees, which then recommend whether the full board should approve or not at the monthly meeting. "At the monthly meeting of the Authority Board conducted , each such item of business is represented to the entire Authority by Authority staff and, where applicable, associated contractors and public officials. ... The entire Authority publicly votes to approve or disapprove each such item." However, it appears that the MDTA board did enact formal resolutions concerning the Capital Committee several years ago. On March 14, 2007, the board discussed "proposed amendments to the ... Operating Policy" which included "Changes to the Organizational Chart ..."; "A provision allowing e-mail polls in addition to telephone polls"; "The addition of Exhibit 1, describing the structure for the Capital Committee; and Delegation to the Capital Committee the authority to approve contracts not to exceed $15 million ... which will be formalized in a Resolution to be proposed at the April Authority meeting." On May 30, 2007, that resolution was unanimously and formally approved, even though the proposal in March met with general agreement. On June 28, 2007, the MDTA board passed Resolution 07-06, which delegated contract approval authority up to $25 million to the Capital Committee. Later, in September 2008, the MDTA board adopted another resolution concerning its operating policy which took in various changes to policies over a period of many years. That later resolution contained a detailed description, the same "Exhibit 1," of the Capital Committee's organization and duties. Also, the MDTA board members discussed creating a similar document for the Finance Committee. Whether that was ever acted on is not clear from the public record. The attorneys also claim that the eight members of the MDTA board are state employees, and would be exempted from the Open Meetings Act when taking part in a subcommittee meeting. ==

March 17, 2011 Panel: MDTA violated open meetings law By CRAIG O'DONNELL CHESTERTOWN -- It's not easy to get simple answers to simple questions when you ask state government. Remember the 2008 bay bridge crash that killed a truck driver? Afterward, the safety of the Maryland Transportation Authority's bridges and tunnels came under fire and legislators asked whether structural inspections were adequate. Gov. Martin O'Malley directed then-Transportation Secretary John Porcari to hire a panel of transportation specialists from outside the state to review what the MDTA had been doing. By issuing the order, the governor created a public body. As it turned out, the MDTA "Bridge and Tunnel Inspection Peer Review Panel" (or Peer Review Group) met secretly for more than six months even though its activities fell squarely under the Open Meetings Act. All that's known about its meetings is a single statement in the final report: "... a sevenmember Panel of experts ... met extensively between October 2008 and May 2009." They were told to answer the complex question, "Are bridge and tunnel inspections in Maryland good enough?" and they did, issuing a June 1 final report. The simple question was: "Where are the Peer Review Group minutes and when did they meet?" The plain answer, after more than a year and three complaints filed with the Open Meetings Compliance Board, is "nowhere, and no one can say." That's illegal, the compliance board said this month: "We find that the Peer Review Group violated the Act," the three-member board wrote in a March 10 opinion letter. Its members failed to keep meeting minutes, required by law, or advertise meetings. And, they wrote, "We encourage the staff of the Transportation Authority to consider carefully and adhere to the requirements of the Act, if called upon to staff any future panels." The search for Peer Review minutes began in December 2009 and isn't over. Delegate Mike Smigiel, who was among those who questioned whether the MDTA's bridges are safe, said Monday, "I think the system's broken if it takes that long with all that effort to get something from a government agency the law says they must provide." First the MDTA demanded a written Public Information Act request (the OMCB has since stated no one can demand a written PIA request for meeting minutes). At the time, MDTA press contact Kelly Melhem wrote, "These minutes currently are available in audio format. ... We can also make them available to you electronically once they are transcribed. We expect the transcription to take a couple of weeks, due to the time of year." But the MDTA's letter supplying the requested documents, on April 22, 2010, said nothing about Peer Review transcripts or minutes and none were provided. In the other documents they sent, they censored large portions. This caused followup open meetings filings taking issue with censored or unavailable minutes. In reply the MDTA's attorney said the agency could censor minutes at will; and since the review group disbanded, they did not have to respond.

The compliance board was not convinced by this. In rulings in July and November 2010 they flatly said it could not censor minutes, and it didn't give enough explanation about the Peer Review Group: "We find that the response failed to satisfy" what the law requires from a public body after a complaint has been filed, they wrote. In December 2010 the Kent County News specifically detailed how the Review Group met illegally in a third open meetings complaint. Assistant Attorney General Sherita Harrison gave the agency's position in a Jan. 21 letter, first, "The Authority never advised ... that the Peer Review Group was not a public body ... by definition (it) was a public body." She said "the Authority staff did not properly follow the Act with regard to holding meeting of the Peer Review Group" but that wasn't "intentional or deliberate." Next, "The Authority ... does not have documents relating to the Peer Review Group." But since it "provided access to a detailed report" in July 2009 it doesn't matter no minutes were kept. Again, the compliance board was unconvinced. Its members wrote, "A final report, however comprehensive, does not satisfy the requirements of the statute (and) even if a report issued at the end of a public body's existence were to contain everything that would have appeared in minutes," it's no good. The point of published minutes is to make "information available on a more timely basis. ... This may be critical to those members of the public who wish to keep current on the activities of a public body, when unable to attend its meetings." Second, the board wrote, "tape recordings were made for approximately half of the panel's meetings and were ultimately transcribed. ... a transcription that is created on a timely basis does satisfy the minutes requirement" if it is approved and available to the public. Making them available would help satisfy the law's requirements. Cheryl Sparks, MDTA communications director, said Tuesday she would find out which transcripts are available. == April 14, 2011 Questions remain about the availability of MDTA minutes By CRAIG O'DONNELL CHESTERTOWN -- Since 2007, the Maryland Transportation Authority has held at least 30 different discussions, behind closed doors and out of public view, to consider "the investment of public funds" or "the marketing of securities." Each general category investment or bonds is among the 14 exceptions in the Maryland Open Meetings Act. When correctly justified in advance, the MDTA or any public body can hold part of a meeting out of public view. These two exceptions are rarely used, but if properly used, closing a discussion of bonds or investments meeting to the public is permitted. The legal exception for talking about investments is known as "10-508(a)5" after the subsection of the law where it's found. For bonds, it's 10-508(a)6.

During any closed session the public body must keep minutes and approve them without delay. But with most of the 14 exceptions, closed session minutes can remain sealed from public scrutiny indefinitely, unless the public body votes to publish them. Investments and securities are different. There's a sunshine requirement. Tape recordings and minutes of closed-door conversations and decisions must be "unsealed" (placed into the meeting records) "when the public body invests the funds" or "securities ... have been marketed." For example, if the MDTA discusses a bond sale in a closed session in October, it is expected to create minutes of the closed session and approve them at its November meeting. After it holds the bond sale in December, the closed minutes should be open and available very shortly afterward. The law, unfortunately, does not specify exactly how soon afterward or how the public body is to notify the public when the records are unsealed. In a March 24 letter in response to an open meetings complaint filed by the Kent County News, the MDTA apparently relies on this vague wording. The letter claims, without providing details, that the board has not violated the Open Meetings Act because the 30 sets of minutes are "available." But the Kent County News reviewed four years of the board's published minutes. There is nothing in them about when, or how, they were to be made available to the public. The MDTA has annual revenues in excess of $400 million; controls the state's toll bridges and toll highways; and has committed to spend at least $2.6 billion on the 18-mile Intercounty Connector. Some estimates put the price closer to $3.1 billion. Although nominally independent of state government, the MDTA board chairman is the Secretary of Transportation, with veto power over all decisions of the eight-member panel. Its investments and decisions to issue debt that must be repaid are clearly important for the public to understand. The 30 closed sessions were overwhelmingly concerned with financing the multi-billion-dollar ICC. Most are described by generic phrases, such as "ICC funding, financial overview and forecast," "Intercounty connector funding" or "ICC Project." Some are labeled "TIFIA" and others "GARVEE." These figure prominently in ICC financing. TIFIA loans are a form of federal credit pool for transportation projects. GARVEE means Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles. These bonds are repaid out of anticipated future federal funding. Missing Minutes After repeated requests in 2009-2010, the Kent County News got copies of MDTA board minutes from January 2007 to December 2010. On 13 dates in 2007 the MDTA board members claimed, in closing their meeting, to be taking up investment decisions or bond sales. There were 10 in 2008, and six in 2009. Due to the sketchy descriptions in the published minutes, it remains unclear if there was more than one investment or bond-sales topic talked about in some of these meetings; there are at least 30 identified topics.

The descriptions are so general, it may be that some topics taken up in secret were not within the limits of the investment-bond exceptions. The total absence of any unsealed minutes from the materials sent by the MDTA in 2009-2010 resulted in the open meetings complaint filed several months ago. Also, there may have been more closed sessions about investments or bonds in 2006, but the MDTA has not provided its minutes for that year. By 2010, the MDTA board was no longer using the "investment" or "bond issue" exceptions to talk about its finances out of earshot of the public. Discussion of them was in the hands of the four-member Finance Committee. In subcommittee meetings in April, May, June and July they vetted bond decisions and discussed bids from potential bond managers. Until November 2010, the MDTA's policy was that the public didn't need notice of its Capital and Finance Committee meetings; and that neither committee had to issue minutes to the public. Finance Committee meetings were not advertised or open to the public. Records show the full board simply ratified, unanimously, decisions made in the subcommittee. The policy was changed following a series of open meetings complaints filed by the Kent County News as part of an investigation of the Transportation Authority's meeting procedures. The Open Meetings Compliance Board's opinion on the missing minutes of "investment" and "issuing securities" closed sessions is pending. Since January 2011 the MDTA has been putting its Board, Capital Committee, and Finance Committee minutes on its website, which is a great improvement for public access to information about its activities. The web page is www.mdta.maryland.gov/MeetingSchedules/Minutes_Archive.html. == April 21, 2011 Investigative Report Public information request seeks investment minutes By CRAIG O'DONNELL CHESTERTOWN -- To allow the public to track how public bodies make investment decisions or decide to issue bonds, the Open Meetings Act says minutes and tapes of closed sessions to talk about investing money or issuing debt can be secret only until the investments are made. A Kent County News investigation revealed that minutes of at least 30 closed session discussions of bonds and investments by the Maryland Transportation Authority were apparently kept back when the newspaper asked for complete meeting minutes from 2007-2010.

After discovering the MDTA board never acted to vote to unseal "investment" minutes, the Kent County News submitted a Public Information Act request for them, plus any tapes of the 30 closed meetings. The law requires tape recordings to be unsealed along with the minutes. In his April 1, 2010 response letter, Acting Executive Secretary Randolph Brown said he had decided a fee waiver for the Kent County News "is not in the public interest." He said printed minutes would cost $16, and tape copies would cost nearly $800. In an April 12 letter, he said the cost is calculated at $39.72 per hour for an employee to listen to the tapes and leave out parts that don't have to do with investments and bonds, plus $100 for "equipment to make copies" and $9.98 for tapes. Long before asking for the unsealed closed session minutes, the Kent County News focused on two investments, approved behind closed doors on May 30, 2007. The MDTA cited 10-508(a)5, investment of public funds, to hold the closed-door meeting. An Open Meetings Compliance Board complaint was filed several months ago. What the MDTA chose to print about those closed sessions was inadequate, the complaint alleged, and the "investment" exception did not apply. The OMCB's decision is pending. One discussion apparently included amending a contract with the Maryland Port Authority, so to "invest" in a schooner: "members unanimously voted to contribute $164,000 to the Pride of Baltimore II for fiscal year 2007 by reducing the amount payable by the Maryland Port Administration to the Authority under the Seagirt Martine Terminal Operating Agreement by that amount." Investing usually includes the expectation of a financial return, such as interest or dividends. It was a donation to a nonprofit organization, apparently without expecting any return. The Open Meetings Act has no exception for talking about donating public money in secret; and amending a contract is not something which can be done outside public view. The second was a corporate charter amendment for the Canton Development Company: "members unanimously consented to the articles of amendment of the Canton Development Company authorizing additional shares by the (CDC) and delegated the authority to the Executive Secretary to execute the consent document. Members want to continue to operate the railroad primarily as a service to the Port and to provide the benefit to the Port. This investment will be taken to the Board of Public Works." The public minutes don't mention how many shares or how much money, or how the MDTA could amend a corporate charter. According to Canton Railroad officials, $1,000,000 was transferred to the railroad to expand a switching district in Cecil County. Information on the CDC is scarce. It is 100 percent owned by the MDTA, which bought a bankrupt railroad company 25 years ago for $875,000. At least one MDTA board member is on its board: Walter E. Woodford Jr. is chairman. The summary sounds like there was a policy discussion about what the railroad serves; and there doesn't appear to be an exception in the Open Meetings Act for a public body to amend a charter or discuss and vote on issuing stock. The Open Meetings Act does not allow public bodies to pick an exception that's "close enough." The topic must clearly fall within one of the 14 categories. Writing for the MDTA, Assistant Attorney General Sherita Harrison responded March 24, "the closed minutes were available to the public once the investment was made." She did not explain how the public would locate them or know when any given "investment was made." The response appears to say

the MDTA board doesn't have to inform the public, by board action, that minutes and tapes are available on a particular date. The MDTA response also said the CDC and Canton Railroad are private companies, despite being owned 100 percent by the MDTA. Published records from CDC meetings might have showed the reasoning behind the $1,000,000 transfer of funds. The reason and the amount doesn't appear in the MDTA's public record. The Open Meetings Compliance Board has noted in the Maryland Open Meetings Manual: "According to the Court of Special Appeals, a private corporation that 'was organized and has functioned as an extension or sub-agency of the ... government' is a 'public body' under the Act." The court wrote: "A private corporate form alone does not insure that the entity functions as a private corporation. When a private corporation is organized under government control and operated to carry on public business, it is acting, at least, in a quasi-governmental way. When it does, in light of the stated purposes of the statute, it is unreasonable to conclude that such an entity can use the private corporate form as a parasol to avoid the statutorily-imposed sunshine of the Open Meetings Act." The OMCB Opinions Index, 1990 through mid-2010, has only one entry about 10-508(a)5 (investment); none on 10-508(a)6 (marketing securities). Its sole comment, in January 2005, is "no opinion possible" due to lack of information in a particular case. The OMCB asked the CDC for their response as well. In a brief reply, John C. Magness, CDC president and CEO, said it is a private company. An OMCB opinion on this question is pending. == June 2, 2011 Compliance board: MDTA violated state sunshine law By CRAIG O'DONNELL CHESTERTOWN -- It's been a rough couple of years for the Maryland Transportation Authority. The MDTA is in charge of all toll roads, tunnels and bridges in the state. Its revenues are about $400 million a year. In recent years it has taken on billions of dollars in loans to build the Inter-County Connector. And it hasn't been following the law when it comes to open meetings and the public records of them. In its latest ruling, the Open Meetings Compliance Board again said the MDTA has been holding illegal meetings over a very long time. It said the authority's "Capital Committee" met illegally for more than three years starting in July 2007. This is the second time recently when the MDTA has been found violating required public notice and minutes preparation sections of the Maryland Open Meetings Act for an extended period of time. In a May 23 letter based on a January Open Meetings Act complaint filed by the Kent County News, the three-member Compliance Board said, "the Act did apply to, and was violated by, the Capital Com-

mittee. We shall trust that the Authority's 2010 resolution that at least two of its committees will operate in the open will assure public access to its entire deliberative process." A Compliance Board opinion earlier this year said the "Peer Review Panel" appointed by the governor's orders conducted illegal meetings from late 2008 until June 2009. There was no public notice, and there were no minutes published for the public. Responding to that complaint, the MDTA legal department admitted the Peer Review Group was a public body and claimed that its final report was just as good as minutes. Capital Committee Between June 2007 and November 2010 the Capital Committee met about once a month. There was no public notice of dates, times or locations. It kept "meeting notes" but did not prepare and publish minutes for the public. When asked in 2009 and 2010 for minutes of the committee, the MDTA's legal staff claimed it did not have to provide the "notes" in full and could censor any part of them. In a pair of opinions in 2010, the Compliance Board instructed the MDTA that it cannot censor or redact anything from minutes of public meetings. The MDTA's lawyers unsuccessfully argued that the Public Information Act lets the agency censor copies of minutes without any explanation beyond "executive privilege." In response to the Kent County News investigation, Acting Secretary Harold Bartlett, since retired, had the MDTA Board adopt a formal resolution in November 2010. It recognized that its Finance and Capital Committees were engaged in significant public business that the public was entitled to observe. The resolution specifically said they would proceed under the Open Meetings Act in the future. However, that does not remedy past violations, according to the Compliance Board. Both committees have been active for an unknown number of years. The Kent County News has paid for copies of MDTA Board minutes from 2007 to 2010, and references to the two committees go back at least that far. Bartlett provided free copies of Finance and Capital Committee minutes back to September, 2009 and said minutes in the future would be uploaded to a web page. In a long analysis of the situation, the OMCB concluded the MDTA Board adopted Resolution 07-06 in June 2007, laying out the makeup and authority of a three-member Capital Committee. There is a chart to detail its procurement authority versus the MDTA executive secretary's authority. For example, its members could approve certain contracts up to $5 million. In a set of complicated explanations, the MDTA's lawyer said Resolution 07-06 was not really a resolution. Apparently, for over 20 years, the MDTA changed its bylaws, or "Operating Policy," many times without following its own procedures. To change the Operating Policy requires a formal Resolution. That was often ignored. Technically speaking, those amendments were invalid, although the MDTA apparently proceeded to treat them as if they had been adopted by the correct procedure. The lawyer said, since there was a later resolution to ratify defective amendments dating from 1985 to 2005, the Capital Committee resolution should be ignored. It was not included in this later corrective resolution.

The OMCB did not agree, and concluded that the Capital Committee had been formally created, even if the MDTA wanted to ignore the resolution it adopted in June 2007. That triggered the public transparency requirements found in the Open Meetings Act. And the MDTA Board never voted, in a later resolution, to nullify it. There are also indications in the MDTA Board minutes that the Finance Committee was organized and operating based on the Capital Committee outline. Since the Finance Committee was never mentioned in a formally adopted resolution, however, the OMCB ruled that it was not subject to the Open Meetings Act. The members wrote, "Nevertheless, as a general matter, we do not believe the General Assembly intended that public bodies could operate out of the sunshine by apportioning their statutory powers among committees composed of fewer than a quorum of their members. ... If the November 2010 resolution ... merely formalized a procedure by which the Finance Committee functioned as an arm of the Authority, we encourage the Authority not to stand on that formality with respect to content in the Committee's minutes" from its meetings in past years. The MDTA claims it can charge for paper copies because of the Public Information Act, even though it is clear the authority uses Microsoft Word to create its documents. It apparently circulates electronic copies of minutes to the eight members and Secretary of Transportation Beverly Swaim-Staley, who is the MDTA Board Chairwoman. But it will not send PDF or Word files of the past minutes when requested. In an April 26 e-mail to the Compliance Board, MDTA Principal Counsel Valerie J. Smith repeatedly emphasized the MDTA was "voluntarily" posting minutes and closing statements on its website. As of May 27, though, the closing statements had vanished without explanation from the Minutes Archive online at www.mdta.maryland.gov/MeetingSchedules/Minutes_Archive.html. == July 14, 2011 Analysis Sifting through the bridge toll numbers it's confusing By CRAIG O'DONNELL [Looked at the PR put out by MDTA about the Bay Bridge-Hatem Bridge toll increase, and used inflation-adjusted dollars to determine if the statements were accurate or not. Not specific to MDTA meetings and Board votes.] == July 21, 2011 Compliance board: MDTA panel violated open meeting law By CRAIG O'DONNELL CHESTERTOWN -- The Maryland Transportation Authority board of directors can't call donating money an "investment."

When they did, and did it in a closed meeting, they broke the law. It can't hold a shareholder's meeting behind closed doors and vote to issue stock to itself. When it did that, it broke the law again. The MDTA did it twice in one closed meeting on a single day in 2007, the Open Meetings Compliance Board ruled on June 27. Since being confronted with censored MDTA public meeting minutes in 2009 and 2010, the Kent County News has investigated how well the MDTA Board follows Maryland's public meetings law. So far, the results show its compliance is historically sketchy. The June 27 ruling is the latest in a string where the OMCB found fault with the MDTA's handling of its public meetings. Contacted last week, Cheryl Sparks, the MDTA's public relations director, did not reply to requests for comment. The normally low-profile board controls the Maryland Transportation Authority: about 1,200 employees and $400 million in annual revenues. It has been in the news constantly since it voted, in June, to jack up toll charges on its bridges, tunnels and highways. Its members have faced more than 1,000 angry citizens in at least one public hearing on the toll proposal, 700 at another, and hundreds in Worcester County. Only after a series of Kent County News Open Meetings Act complaints did the MDTA start putting complete minutes and meeting dates on its website, last fall, so the public does not have to pay for paper copies. Meanwhile many smaller counties and towns have created informative websites or supply minutes by e-mail and have done so for years. The MDTA argued to the OMCB that it is entitled to censor meeting minutes. The attempt failed. When it blacked out passages in public documents, it violated the law, according to compliance board opinions in June and November 2010. When a public body censors public documents and offers boilerplate recitation of "executive privilege" as the reason it can, it prompted closer scrutiny. The paper paid for minutes from 2007 and 2008, and investigated what the board reported during the four years 2007-2010. The examination so far revealed questionable actions. The meeting minutes of May 30, 2007 describe how the MDTA used the "investment of public funds" as the legal reason to bar the public from discussion of a donation to support the Pride of Baltimore II sailing ship. The parts of the state meetings law that permits confidential discussion of investments or bond sales are known as 10-508(a)5 and 10-508(a)6. The minutes have few details, but it appears the board voted in secret to change a contract with the Maryland Port Administration so the Pride could dock for free or at a substantial discount. This was described as voting "to contribute $164,000 to the Pride of Baltimore II for fiscal year 2007." In a response to the February complaint, the MDTA's attorney, Sherita D. Harrison, wrote that the complaint "alleges the discussions ... were 'impermissibly' held in closed session. "The Authority properly completed a written closing statement. It properly created meeting minutes (and) both of those investments were legally and permissibly discussed in closed session .... As such,

Mr. O'Donnell's confusion alone does not equate to an 'impermissible closing of a meeting.' and therefore, he has not presented evidence of any violation of the Act." The subject of the complaint was, however, whether a donation is an "investment," and whether voting to buy Canton Development stock from itself was truly an "investment." The OMCB wrote that a charitable contribution isn't investment. "At first blush it would seem clear that a 'contribution' to a private entity qualifying as a 501(c)3 organization ... is not the same as an 'investment' of public funds." The OMCB said a closed-door meeting must be about "a concrete investment possibility; it does not apply to discussion of the financing mechanism for contributing to a promotional endeavor." And "permitting public bodies to discuss in closed sessions their voluntary contributions of public funds would not serve any purpose recognized by the Act (since) the transfer of funds is gratuitous." As a result, "the word 'investment' does not include ... expenditure on either charitable contributions or promotional activities." In the same ruling, the MDTA board was told that it's illegal to conduct "corporate governance" in a closed session. Behind closed doors, the MDTA voted to allow the Canton Development Company, which it owns 100 percent, to issue stock. During the 2007 closed meeting, the MDTA board members voted as the body representing the only shareholder to issue more CDC stock. This it later bought for $1,000,000 from itself. As sole stockholder, the MDTA board controls who serves on the one board of directors for the three companies: the Canton Development Company and the two railroads it owns. So when the MDTA board used the "investment" exception to go behind closed doors and amend the CDC's bylaws to issue stock, it broke the law: "We find that MDTA violated the Act by discussing the corporate governance of CDC in a session closed under the 'investment' exception." This is because corporate financing and governance are not included in any exception found in the Open Meetings Act. == August 4, 2011 Panel cautions MDTA about private company board By CRAIG O'DONNELL CHESTERTOWN -- All aboard! The Maryland Transportation Authority has its own "family-owned company" it owns every share of stock in two railroads. And when it met behind closed doors in 2007 to vote to issue $1,000,000 of Canton Development Company stock, and then buy it from itself, it violated the Open Meetings Act. A recent Open Meetings Compliance Board opinion said they were shareholders conducting corporate governance, not a state agency "investing" public funds, and should have done business in the open. But is the Board of Directors of the MDTA-controlled CDC a public body which must advertise and hold public meetings? The MDTA's attorneys claim it is a private corporation.

Organizationally, it is. The MDTA bought a bankrupt private company in 1987. The office of Comptroller Peter Franchot said the MDTA appears to be the only state agency that entirely owns a private corporation. The CDC is a holding company for buildings, real estate, and railroads: the Canton RR, founded in 1906, and Freestate Logistics in Cecil County, founded in 2007. Each has a board of directors made up of whoever is on the CDC board: the three boards are the same people. CDC's board chairman is Walter Woodford, who has been an MDTA Board member for two decades. He is paid $300 per meeting. The newest CDC director, Thomas Osborne, was appointed in Oct. 2007. He is "former Authority Executive Secretary," according to the MDTA's minutes. The others are: Vice Chairman Maurice E. Good; Frederick G. Davis; Thomas H. Kerwin; Porter K. Wheeler; JoAnne Zawitoski. Canton RR president John C. Magness is also a director. In Oct. 2007, the entire CDC board was reappointed by the MDTA (acting as shareholder). Each member's term was extended by three years (in one case, out to 2013). In the case of public-private partnerships, the OMCB quoted a 1999 Court of Appeals decision: "To permit the government to operate outside the view of the public through private corporations ... is an invitation to great mischief...." The OMCB wrote it appears the Canton Development Company/Canton RR/Freestate Logistics boards are public bodies, since the companies carry out activities for public purposes and are completely controlled by the MDTA. The OMCB said, however, it did not have enough information on hand to decide. In effect, the Canton Development Company and its two railroads are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the executive branch of Maryland's government. It began when the late Gov. William Schaefer's Board of Public Works let the MDTA buy the bankrupt company. Without it, the state would lose control of rail access to the Seagirt Marine Terminal that port project was already underway. The MDTA paid either $875,000 or $1,625,000 for all the stock (records vary). The MDTA is a nominally independent agency, tightly connected to the executive branch. Part of its staff is funded by the Maryland Department of Transportation. The MDTA Board is appointed by the governor; the MDTA Board chair is a cabinet member, the Secretary of Transportation. While the MDTA Board votes on its decisions, the Secretary of Transportation as chairman has an absolute veto. So it is unlikely shareholder decisions the governor doesn't like would be allowed to take effect. Does this "private" corporation pay taxes? Or just certain taxes? The comptroller's office said CDC tax data is private. However, in the MDTA's annual financial reports of June 2006 and June 2007, a summary of CDC balance sheets indicates it paid "Income Tax $168,000" for calendar year 2005 and $144,000 for 2006. Other reports from 2001 to 2010 don't have any info.

Property tax payments are unreported. Neither the Canton Railroad website nor the MDTA's website have information on the addresses of its holdings. The state Department of Assessments and Taxation website does not allow search by owner. The Canton RR apparently owns 11 locomotives, a caboose and eight boxcars. What Freestate Logistics owns and where it is located is unclear. The MDTA gets an annual report from the "private" company. Cheryl Sparks, MDTA communications director, said in an e-mail, "The annual report has Freestate and Canton Railroad included in it." Minutes from 2007-2011 mention the annual report just once. The MDTA has not placed copies on its extensive website or in its own annual report. So how does the MDTA Board carry out shareholder duties if the subject never comes up in its meetings? Compliance board members Elizabeth Nilson, Courtney McKeldin and Julio Morales warned "a stockholders' meeting comprised of a quorum of the MDTA (board) as stockholder" is a public meeting of the MDTA "because that quorum would be discussing the affairs of the entity it controls for public purposes." The MDTA cannot say how many stockholder meetings have occurred between 1987 and 2011. Company bylaws call for at least one a year. Asked about the past decade, Sparks wrote, "We do not have a document that includes this information for 2000-2011." She wrote, "... updates are periodically given at the MDTA Board meetings. Monthly summaries are given to MDTA Board Members and CDC periodically attends the monthly MDTA Board meeting to provide a verbal update. CDC updates would be provided by either John Magness of CDC or Member Wooford." Beyond the May 2007 illegal meeting, the CDC is a topic in minutes four times in 4-1/2 years of monthly meetings. == December 1, 2011 Complaint filed against MDTA By CRAIG O'DONNELL CHESTERTOWN -- Were a half-dozen meetings held in 2011 by the Maryland Transportation Authority Board and its Finance and Capital committees completely legal? The Open Meetings Compliance Board expects to issue an opinion in December. Typically, the two four-member committees meet once a month a few weeks before the eight-member board does. For the first time ever, committee meetings have been open to the public this year. However, it appears they have run afoul of some requirements in the Maryland Open Meetings Act. Exactly what topics were discussed behind closed doors between December 2010 and June 2011 is not entirely clear. For years, the two committees operated in secret. Since the end of 2010, their meetings have been opened to the public and their minutes published on the MDTA's website, www.mdta.maryland. gov.

An investigation by the Kent County News in 2010 revealed that the two committees, which have existed for many years, never advertised their meetings or made public their minutes. The MDTA has never specified when they were established; the MDTA itself has been in existence since 1971, when it replaced the State Roads Commission. Documents from 2007 to 2011 show its two committees regularly discussed significant contracts, policies, bond issues, loans, and other matters in advance of the full board meetings and outside the public eye. In November 2010 the MDTA board passed a formal resolution ensuring its Finance Committee and Capital Committee meetings would abide by the Open Meetings Act. It provides for public notice and for published minutes. It resolved a dispute where the MDTA claimed its committees aren't "public bodies," so they did not have to allow the public into their meetings, provide notice, or publish minutes. In May, the Open Meetings Compliance Board issued opinion 7 OMCB 176, which clarified that the Capital Committee had been given specific duties in a 2007 resolution, making it a fully public body. On the other hand, the Finance Committee was never formally constituted, even though its four members were previewing all the authority's financial matters. The OMCB suggested the Finance Committee was functioning as a public body and wrote: "... as a general matter, we do not believe that the General Assembly intended that public bodies could operate out of the sunshine by apportioning their statutory powers among committees composed of fewer than a quorum of their members." To see if the committees were operating entirely in the sunlight, the first six months of meeting records were examined in September. The law requires meeting minutes to disclose certain items of information in reasonable detail. Certain apparent short-comings resulted in a followup complaint. A May 5 meeting billed as the four-member Capital Committee meeting turned out to have seven MDTA board members listening to a staff presentation. The complaint alleged seven members (a board quorum) made the gathering an unpublicized MDTA board meeting, not the advertised Capital Committee meeting. Also, the MDTA board did not create and approve the legally required minutes afterwards. Attorney Sherita Harrison, writing for the Authority's legal staff, replied, "MDTA held a Capital Committee meeting on May 5, 2011. ... At the beginning of the meeting, Committee Chair Woodford announced that three (3) members of the Finance Committee ... were present for the System preservation/I-95 Express Toll Lanes and the Proposed Draft FY 2012-2017 items, although they did not participate in or take any action during the Capital Committee meeting." She said it was not a closed meeting of the MDTA Board, and that the Open Meetings Act "recognizes that a public body may discuss policy and take action during a closed session." However, many Open Meetings Compliance Board opinions over the past two decades make it clear that a meeting held without notice is a closed meeting. In opinion 6 OMCB 47 of 2008, which involved the Kent County Planning Commission, the threemember compliance panel wrote, "Unless advance notice is given, a meeting is not in reality an open meeting."

In 2010, it repeated: "Reasonable notice must be given .... Absent advance notice, it cannot be said that a meeting is in reality an 'open' meeting since the public would not be aware that a meeting was to occur. ...." The state's Open Meetings Act Manual also makes it clear that legislative matters and policy deliberations are not to be handled behind closed doors. For example, there can be a confidential consultation with an attorney on legal details, but "'the exception is a relatively narrow one, limited to the give-andtake between lawyer and client in the context of the bona fide rendering of advice.' Furthermore, 'once the legal advice is obtained, the public body may not remain in closed session to discuss policy issues or other matters.'" Too Broad? The complaint also alleges committees closed their doors to talk about some items which aren't under any of the Open Meetings Act's 14 specific exceptions. For example, the Finance Committee held closed sessions on Feb. 10, April 14, and June 9. On these occasions, the complaint says, what went on is only vaguely described in the required public summary. Or, the exception claimed did not apply to what apparently was being decided. The public was barred while the Finance Committee discussed "certain litigation;" "a draft Request for Proposals" and "financial data;" a "potential claim relating to bonds;" and "negotiation with current operators ... over terms of the new 'gap' contracts for continued operation of the Plazas." Contracts are to be handled in public, and "negotiations" are not automatically privileged, according to previous OMCB opinions. Similarly, it says phrases like "certain litigation" are far too vague to mean anything. No secrets are revealed, for example, if a court case is identified (as in "Jones v. Doe.") A Capital Committee closed session April 7, was for obtaining legal advice and discussing litigation on "the status and terms of a draft request for Proposals for the future redevelopment and operation of the I-95 Travel Plaza." How litigation is involved with advertising a contract is left for the public to wonder about. == December 8, 2011 MDTA disagrees with a compliance board opinion By CRAIG O'DONNELL CHESTERTOWN -- The Maryland Transportation Authority says it doesn't agree with the Open Meetings Compliance Board. Attorney Sherita Harrison of the MDTA's legal staff wrote that the state toll-roads agency does not agree with a recent OMCB opinion, which defined the status of two longstanding subcommittees. The comment is in a written response to a September complaint filed by the Kent County News. Because a March 2007 resolution by the toll agency board outlined the four-member Capital Committee's membership and powers, that subcommittee automatically became a public body, the OMCB ruled May 23. Its meetings from 2007 to 2010 were in violation of the law since they happened without public notice and the meeting minutes were not available to the public.

The compliance board also noted that the four-member Finance Committee, while not the subject of a similar formal resolution, performed a lot of heavy lifting each month in advance of full MDTA board meetings. Both subcommittees met without public notice for many years. Only in December 2010 did they open their meetings to the public. Certain legal actions create a public body a regulation, legislation, executive order or a resolution, for example. But, the OMCB pointed out, courts have said some committees and boards, based on the matters they handle and the work they do, are public bodies no matter how they were initially formed. The three members of the Compliance Board suggested that the best course was to have the Finance Committee also operate under the Open Meetings Act, making past "meeting notes" available. While the response says the MDTA board does not agree, it does not specify what the disagreement involves. The members themselves are not on record, and as far as can be determined from their meeting minutes, have never discussed it in public. Whatever they had to say was apparently taken up outside public view in a closed session for "legal advice" on June 23. The meeting record says the public was barred so the MDTA board could "consult with legal counsel to obtain advice regarding an Open Meetings Compliance Board decision issued May 23, 2011 regarding the MDTA Capital and Finance Committees." However, the agenda for that day gives topics as "CLOSED SESSION 9 a.m. PIA Requests & Open Meeting Compliance Board Issues." The minutes don't indicate any closed-door discussion of Public Information Act requests. That may mean the subject did not come up, or that the minutes are flawed. It isn't clear whether the closed-door conference was limited to advice on points of law. The agenda was obtained through a Public Information Act request. The Kent County News asked for copies of all agendas for 2007-2011 as part of a longstanding investigation. The newspaper complaint has alleged the Capital and Finance committees were used for years for in-depth discussions of matters such as ICC contracts and financing, and then their conclusions were debated in closed sessions of the full MDTA board. In such situations the followup public discussion and votes are termed "ceremonial" ratifications of decisions previously made outside public view. From the public record it isn't clear why the MDTA board wanted legal advice in June. It didn't communicate its disagreement to the Open Meetings Compliance Board following the ruling. Compliance board attorney Ann MacNeille said her office had not gotten anything from the MDTA board after May 23. "We routinely send complainants copies of responses that go to the substance of allegations," she wrote in a Nov. 29 e-mail, "so I think you have what I have." As far as differences between the agenda and minutes, Harrison said in a Dec. 5 e-mail, "We have addressed Mr. O'Donnell's allegation that the June 23, 2011 was improperly closed and that the discussion went beyond the grounds for closing in our prior response. Therefore, we will not provide any further

argument on this issue. However ... if the OMCB requests any supplemental documentation relating to this matter, we will provide it at that time." The OMCB is expected to issue an opinion after the holidays, MacNeille said Tuesday. The Transportation Authority is a nominally independent organization operating the state's toll roads and toll bridges. Its financial obligations led to a controversial set of toll hikes that began Nov. 1 and will be phased in over the next year in different places. The nearly $3 billion price tag on the 18-mile Inter County Connector plus additional spending for widening I-95 comes on top of maintenance costs for its toll bridges. The MDTA said it needed to increase tolls to pay the bills. In a series of hearings held for public comment, Eastern Shore residents and elected officials objected particularly to steep increases on the Chesapeake Bay bridge and the Hatem bridge over the Susquehanna River. General Assembly members from the 36th District charged that toll rates were set to pay off ICC loans at the expense of Shore residents crossing the Chesapeake Bay to work or shop. While a cabinet member, the Secretary of Transportation, chairs the MDTA board and has veto power, the General Assembly has no direct oversight of the Authority. This has been a frustration expressed by Sen. E.J. Pipkin and Delegate Mike Smigiel, both Republicans of the 36th District. Since an Aug. 10, 2008 crash on the Bay Bridge involving a Millington woman resulted in the death of a truck driver, the Kent County News has monitored the MDTA's meeting policies, procedures, and what it reports to the public. The coverage of Open Meetings Act violations at the MDTA including censored meeting minutes resulted in a formal resolution of November 2010, confirming that the Finance and Capital committees are public bodies. The agency began putting their meeting notices on the MDTA's web page along with those for the Bay Bridge Reconstruction Advisory Committee and the full MDTA board. Also, minutes are now posted for the public at http://www.mdta.maryland.gov/MeetingSchedules/Meetings_and_Minutes.html. == February 9, 2012 Panel rules MDTA can't withhold old minutes By CRAIG O'DONNELL CHESTERTOWN In Groundhog Day, the movie, poor Bill Murray does the same thing again and again and again until he figures out what he has to do right. Just in time for Groundhog Day 2012, the Open Meetings Compliance Board again told the Maryland Transportation Authority again that it cant use Marylands Public Information Act to block public access to meeting minutes. (The Public Information Act allows an agency to set a price for documents; in some cases the amount of money may simply be too much to pay). The ruling stems from a Nov. 3 visit to the MDTA office on Broening Highway, Baltimore.

The three-member OMCB wrote Jan. 30: We state, again: (1) a public body may not treat an inperson request for inspection as a PIA request and (2) a person's right to inspect documents under the Act is not extinguished by the fact that the public body has retained minutes for longer than the retention period required by the Act. Not only is the MDTA repeating itself, but its public records vortex means regular complaints to the Compliance Board have been necessary. The MDTA chairwoman is Secretary of Transportation Beverley Swaim-Staley. Efforts to reach her for comment were unsuccessful. A call to her Customer Service Manager, Karen Saab, was not returned. Instead, Maryland Department of Transportation spokesman Jack Cahalan sent an e-mail to say inquiries should be directed to the MDTA. The MDTA did not respond by deadline time. Back in June 2010, in a complaint filed because the MDTA blacked-out large portions of minutes, the Compliance Board shot down the same MDTA arguments -- anything older than one year could be censored as it saw fit. The Open Meetings Act is clearly worded: anyone who goes to a government office is entitled to read meeting documents then and there, without delay. Delegate Mike Smigiel of the 36th District said Tuesday, Its clear the agencys been rather obstreperous about providing documents. Its important that the press can come in (and look them over) and explain to the citizens how the government works. He said, It takes a lot of gall to say, yes, we have them, but the time has run out, so we dont have to give them to you. Thats outside the spirit and intent of the law. Agencies should not be able to thwart that access intended by the legislature. In this case, visiting to read minutes involved a 180-mile, four-hour roundtrip to Baltimore. As it turned out, some minutes which couldnt be gathered that day. The late executive assistant, Cindy Taylor was asked for minutes books for 2005 and 2006 MDTA Board meetings, and minutes of 200708 Capital and Finance Committee meetings. Old board minutes were in binders right on a shelf, and the reporter was able to read them and take notes. But the other papers would take some time to find, said Taylor. She said she would send paper copies free. A few weeks later, the Maryland Transportation Authority said copies wouldnt be sent, and to get them electronically would cost $307 to cover the salary, health benefits and pension of an unidentified person who would have to work for six or seven hours to prepare everything. That triggered in the written complaint from the newspaper. As in the past, the MDTAs legal staff responded. The Dec. 20 e-mail said: Clearly, Mr. ODonnell is making another attempt to have the OMCB review alleged OMA violations relating to the Capital and Finance Committees However, this particular issue is a PIA issue and not an OMA issue as Mr. ODonnell is now attempting to allege.

That view is wrong, said the Compliance Board. If the meeting minutes arent on hand, there has to be a mutually satisfactory way to get them. The e-mail said the November 3, 2011 request and subsequent follow-up email request for electronic copies was treated as a PIA request. Mr. ODonnell was sent a cost estimate letter detailing the cost related to the retrieval and preparation of the documents in response to his request. At no time did MDTA advise Mr. ODonnell that it did not have copies of the documents that he was seeking but instead advised him that his request for copies of those documents was subject to the PIA and would be treated as such. Meanwhile, after filing the complaint, the newspaper asked for the $307 fee to be waived. That is often done for news media. MDTA Executive Secretary Harold Bartlett repeated in a Jan. 9 letter that the Public Information Act permitted them to charge and demanded $307. He denied the waiver, since he could not see how the Kent County News would use the information. He wrote, neither you nor the Kent County News has shown any connection between the documents sought and matter of genuine public concern or how the production of those documents will primarily benefit the public. Additionally, during the last couple of years, you on behalf of the Kent County News have made voluminous PIA requests to MOTA and have received countless numbers of documents. It appears that censored meeting minutes, meetings held without public notice or minutes, and closed sessions that should have been open dont fit Bartletts idea of genuine public concern. Yet this is the 14th article about the MDTAs meetings and noncompliance with the Open Meetings Act. Bartletts decision didnt matter to the Compliance Board. A citizen cant be sent away and then contacted with a demand for payment, the OMCB ruled. When Taylor said she would send paper copies free, the OMCB said, that was fair as long as the MDTA had kept its word: When a public body cannot fulfill a persons request for on-the-spot inspection of old minutes, it may agree with that person to accommodate the request by providing copies reasonably promptly And, as we explained to the Authority in 2010, when a public body has transferred meetings documents to storage, we would expect that the public body would agree to retrieve such records if still in its custody within a reasonable period. But, Such arrangements do not turn a person's [meeting documents] request into a PIA request. The Compliance Board concluded that the MDTA should supply Capital Committee minutes since March 2007 (the date of a formal resolution giving it approval powers). It again said the Finance Committee was probably acting on matters serious enough that it too would pass the court test, known as Andys Ice Cream, which determines when a committee is a public body because of the business it conducts, and suggested its Meeting Notes be released. The MDTA Board has eight members. Only seven seats are filled. Kent County resident Art Hock was appointed to the board in October. According to the MDTA website, other members are Peter J. Basso, Rev. Dr. William C. Calhoun Sr., Mary Beyer Halsey, Michael J. Whitson, Walter E. Woodford Jr. and Bradley Mims. ==

February 16, 2012 More MDTA violations cited by state compliance panel By CRAIG O'DONNELL CHESTERTOWN Seven members of the eight-person Maryland Transportation Authority board were in a room. It sounds like the start of a joke, but no, it really happened, on May 5, 2011. And thats a quorum, according to the Open Meetings Compliance Board, and almost anyone else youd care to ask. Just count noses. Perhaps the joke is, the MDTA didnt see it that way. Seven of eight members werent a quorum, because the MDTA called it a Capital Committee meeting, replied the boards legal staff. In the nine-page Opinion 8 OMCB 8 published Jan. 30, the Compliance Board addressed a series of issues. First of all, its a meeting of the full board if three members from the Finance Committee happen to sit in to hear a presentation or briefing. It has never been necessary for a board or commission to plan to vote, in order to fall under the legal definition of a meeting. And a quorum, attending a meeting of another entity, is not exempt from the law either. The opinion provided citations at length. Briefly, the OMCB said, The fact that a quorum may have been created unexpectedly does not exempt the discussion of public business from the Act's requirement that it be conducted openly. Accordingly, we have concluded that a briefing on public business, even if limited in scope and devoid of discussion, given to an accidental quorum of a public body's members, constituted a meeting as defined by the Act. To be legally open requires proper public notice and, later, proper minutes neither were supplied by the MDTA board on May 5. The Kent County News filed complaints in the fall of 2011 as part of an ongoing investigation of the MDTA boards meeting records. They alleged multiple violations of the publics right to adequate information under the Open Meetings Act. Complete and accurate MDTA minutes are essential because the meetings are difficult and expensive for citizens to attend. While the members routinely call in by speakerphone, the MDTA does not provide a way for the public to listen in remotely. Often, no one from the public or the media is there. The MDTA routinely approves millions of dollars in spending at its meetings. Even when someone does go, the MDTA board elects to conduct many closed sessions. Some information about the secret discussions is required to be published, but MDTA minutes often fall short of the minimum.

And until the December 2011 Capital and Finance Committee meetings, the MDTA claimed the public was not entitled to attend those gatherings anyway. Better Minutes Needed The MDTA also needs to pay attention to what it provides in minutes and how quickly they were available to the public, according to the opinion. May 5 meeting minutes were not approved for two months, even though all MDTA minutes are typically approved at the following monthly meeting, and there was no apparent reason for a May delay. The MDTAs response was the complaint included a specious conspiracy theory about the unusual delay. The OMCB replied, We observe that no provision of the Act make a public bodys opinion of a citizens character or opinions relevant to our inquiry of whether the public body complied with the Act. Since the MDTAs response did not answer the Compliance Boards questions about the delay, the opinion said, the MDTA was again in violation of the law. When presented with a complaint, public bodies are required to submit facts to show there has been no violation. Minutes Vague, Incomplete The complaint identified multiple 2011 MDTA Board, Capital and Finance Committee meetings where minutes appeared to be deficient, without enough detail. For example, on June 23, 2011, the full board minutes report, Members unanimously voted to move into Closed Session pursuant to Section 10-508(a)(7) to consult with legal counsel to obtain advice regarding an Open Meetings Compliance Board decision issued May 23, 2011 regarding the MDTA Capital and Finance Committees. At 9:15 a.m., motion was made by Mr. Michael Whitson and seconded by Mr. Lewin, with the unanimous approval of the Members to return to Open Session. The law requires the minutes to list everyone attending the closed session. The MDTA routinely did not, only listing people who were there when the meeting was called to order. So on June 23 it seems 28 people attended the closed session, plus the MDTA board members. If the number gets too big, the idea of a closed session erodes, the Compliance Board wrote. As a general matter, while closing a session to receive legal advice from counsel (is allowed) the attendance of people other than members and appropriate staff of the public body may call into question the applicability of that exception to the discussion actually held. The Compliance Board used Finance Committee June 9 minutes as an example. There was a closed session, without legally sufficient information about it: We have reviewed both the June 9 minutes and the minutes of the July 7 meeting for compliance . Neither set complies because neither lists the attendees at the closed session held on June 9. Additionally, the June 9 minutes list the purpose behind closing the session but do not state what topics were actually discussed or action taken, if any. The opinion goes on to state, the fact that members voted to go into closed session for a certain reason is not a substitute for information on what actually occurred there.

The Compliance Board also addressed whether the MDTA discussed contracts in closed session illegally. They wrote, We stress that the public body must be able to identify a tangible connection to a particular procurement in which the public body expects to engage or participate . in order to bar the public. Negotiating a contract is not sufficient. Also, to the extent that the Authority and these two committees have discussed contract amendments, sole-source contracts, and memoranda of understanding in closed sessions under circumstances which neither establish an adverse impact on a competitive bidding or proposal process nor satisfy another exception, they violated the Act. When such a discussion would have an adverse impact we encourage the Authority to provide the public with sufficient information in its closing statements and closed-session summaries to demonstrate the applicability of the exception. Mystery Missing Member In the same opinion, the Compliance Board rejected the complaint that a vacant position changed the number of board members making a quorum. As long as no more than four members gather, it is not a meeting of the full board. (However, it could be a meeting of the Finance or Capital Committees). Related to the vacancy, the board said it could not offer a decision on whether a members resignation should be included in minutes. Isaac Marks resigned in July 2010 to take on work for the judicial branch; the MDTAs minutes are silent on what happened to him. His name simply vanished from members listed at meetings. In every other case in recent years where a member has left the MDTA Board, the minutes include a mention of the change. A press release issued on April 27, 2011, mentions the vacancy has been filled by A. Bradley Mims, but neglects Marks resignation. The MDTA press office did not return phone calls or e-mails seeking comment by press time. The MDTA Board has eight members; seven seats are filled. The chairwoman is Secretary of Transportation Beverley Swaim-Staley. Kent County resident Art Hock was appointed to the board in October. According to the MDTA website, other members are Peter J. Basso, Rev. Dr. William C. Calhoun Sr., Mary Beyer Halsey, Michael J. Whitson, Walter E. Woodford Jr. and Mims. ==

April 12, 2012 MDTA officials again violate Open Meetings Act Board says teleconference is illegal By CRAIG O'DONNELL CHESTERTOWN - Following the Open Meetings Act still doesnt appear to be high on the Maryland Transportation Authoritys To-Do list. The Maryland Transportation Authority meeting on Sept. 26, 2011 was altogether illegal, said the Open Meetings Compliance Board, in a March 28 opinion. The Sept. 26 teleconference meeting was hastily called to hire Harold Bartlett as the agencys executive secretary. It was a special meeting, announced on a website a few hours beforehand. This is the latest in a long string of Open Meetings Act violations by the states eight-member tollbridge and toll road governing body. The Sept. 26 meeting, the OMCB wrote, is a classic example of how a public body might avoid needless suspicion, and also the expenditure of its resources on responding to a complaint ... by adhering to the Acts procedures .... The Kent County News has been following the MDTAs board and committee meetings for over two years. A series of OMCB opinions from late 2009 to date all concern meetings of the MDTA Board of Directors or its Capital, Finance, or Peer Review committees. Past complaints alleged procedural violations -- failing to give the proper information to the public -- and substantive violations. These are where, for example, the MDTA illegally barred the public from its May 2007 discussion of what it said were investments -- but actually were not. The March opinion is blunt: We emphasize that, contrary to the Authoritys position, a public body may not vote in secret to meet in secret. In it, the Compliance Board explains the legal reasoning in great detail, perhaps for MDTA board members. The most recent set of violations include some the MDTA has been warned about in past Compliance Board opinions. September Secret Meeting The special meeting was poorly publicized and violated fundamental principles in the law. The unusually detailed opinion said, We conclude that the Authority violated the Act by closing the meeting to the public without first voting in public to do so, without first creating a written statement of the basis of the decision to exclude the public, and without adequately summarizing the meeting in the minutes of its subsequent meeting. The complaint was filed after the secret meeting was revealed in early December. It alleged there was insufficient notice, the meeting was illegally closed to the public, minutes were never approved and the summary of the closed session did not have the legally required amount of detail. The entire Sept. 26 meeting was closed to the public, and the illegal conference-call was only briefly mentioned in the boards next meeting minutes, Oct. 27. Those were approved on Nov. 30, and were not available to the public until early December. The entire public record of the secret meeting consists of two sentences: Ratification of Action Taken During September 26, 2011 Closed Session Meeting. Upon motion by Ms. [Mary Beyer] Halsey and seconded by Mr. [Walter E.] Woodford, Members unanimously approved the appointment of Harold M. Bartlett as the MDTA Executive Secretary. In its response to the Compliance Board, the MDTAs legal staff admitted the summary fell short of what is legally required. Among other items the laws requirements include listing the people who were present in the closed session, which the MDTA did not do.

However, it began following this part of the statute in its minutes starting in December. Buck Stops with Board In more than five years, none of the MDTA board members have been trained about on the Open Meetings Act, as far as can be determined from its records. The MDTA Board has eight members; seven seats are filled. Kent County resident Art Hock became a member in October. Others are Peter Basso, Rev. William Calhoun Sr., Halsey, Michael Whitson, Woodford and Bradley Mims. There is one vacancy. Whether or not it affects the boards ability to follow the law, the buck stops with them. We have frequently noted that the public body is ultimately responsible for compliance (with the Open Meetings Act), not the staff, wrote the OMCB. State Secretary of Transportation Beverley Swaim-Staley chairs the MDTA Board. She does not vote or count toward a quorum, but she has absolute veto over any board action. As the presiding officer, the OMCB said, she is responsible for following the requirements in the law: The Act does not make the presiding officers performance of his or her duties contingent on public attendance .... Instead, the Acts documentation requirements (were created to make) a public bodys conduct of public business be transparent also to members of the public who are unable to attend its meetings. The MDTA press office did not return phone calls or emails seeking comment by press time. Excuse Rejected In explaining why the meeting was held as it was, the MDTA legal department said it has its own idea of the law. It does not interpret the plain language of the statute to require that an open session must be held prior to a public body voting to hold a closed session. The response did not say how or when this position was ever discussed by the MDTA board itself, or whether it is simply the legal departments idea. In dealing with the MDTA, it is often hard to tell what someone means by the MDTA. The board? The staff? The chairwoman? Regardless, the Compliance Board quickly sank the argument. They wrote, The Authority thus claims that a public body may meet in a closed session and conduct the vote during that closed session (and) asserts that it complied with the Act by creating its written (closing) statement during the closed session. That is simply wrong. Neither the Act ..., nor the Open Meetings Act Manual ... supports the Authoritys interpretation, and we have long made clear in our own opinions that the vote to close a meeting must be held in an open meeting, wrote the OMCB. Over two years there have been some improvements at the toll-road agency. It began putting minutes online in fall 2010, and began holding Capital and Finance committee meetings in public in December 2010, but the board of directors continues to run afoul of the meetings law. Beyond the Sept. 26 meeting, the opinion notes, It appears from the agenda of the Authoritys January 23, 2012 monthly meeting that the Authority also began that meeting with a closed session. This leads to the suspicion that, in past years, other decisions have been made in secret meetings, said the Compliance Board: The Authoritys statement here of its contrary 'interpretation' of (the statute) raises the possibility that the Authority may have bypassed the (required) procedures in other instances. Since

any such meetings were secret, of course, the public has no way to know how many times, or when, this happened. This is not the first time the MDTA appears to have interpreted the meetings law in its own unique way, even though free advice is available from the attorney generals office. Thus in May 2011, it held an illegal unannounced meeting of the full board. The agency claimed it was a Capital Committee meeting with Finance Committee members attending, not a full board meeting. This is an elementary part of the law that is difficult to misunderstand: a quorum makes a meeting. Remarkably, the MDTAs response was to argue its members could meet as a quorum at any time, but were only holding a meeting if it was publicly labeled a board meeting. In an opinion, the Compliance Board said: The Act applies when a quorum of a public body meets for the 'consideration or transaction of public business,' ... whether or not the public body takes an action. A briefing or presentation like the one in May 2011 is public business. The Open Meetings Compliance Board consists of Elizabeth Nilson, Courtney McKeldin and Julio Morales. Its opinions are online at www.oag.state.md.us/Opengov/Openmeetings/board.htm. The most recent opinion is indexed online as 8 OMCB 46. == April 19, 2012 Information on MDTA secret meeting scarce Board chairwoman says agency is improving By CRAIG O'DONNELL CHESTERTOWN - The states Open Meetings Compliance Board ruled a Maryland Transportation Authority meeting on Sept. 26, 2011 was illegal. The long and unusually detailed opinion was published March 28. It covered multiple violations of the state law: meeting notice, meeting closing statements, the secret vote to hold a closed session, and the lack of a complete public summary later. In essence, the MDTA board missed the target on every major part of the Open Meetings Act that day. The requirements of the Open Meetings Act are few and relatively simple. In a way, they make up a script for parts of meetings that will keep a public body out of the weeds. If they are ignored, however, or an agency gets slapdash or sloppy, it opens the door to allegations of potential illegalities and can convince the public things are deliberately being done secretly. In this case the OMCB wrote, We conclude that the Authority violated the Act by closing the meeting to the public without first voting in public to do so, without first creating a written statement of the basis of the decision to exclude the public, and without adequately summarizing the meeting in the minutes of its subsequent meeting. The special meeting by teleconference was hastily arranged. A no-

tice went up on a website sometime during the morning for a 12:30 p.m. meeting. The purpose was to hold a vote to hire Harold Bartlett as the new executive secretary. Parts of the nine-page opinion were reported in the Kent County News, April 12. The rest of the opinion looked in detail at why the public notice wasnt enough; the information later supplied in minutes wasnt enough; and the mandatory closing statement filled out at the time of the meeting had problems. The OMCB noted that errors and omissions cause suspicion and distrust among members of the public. For its part, the MDTA board seems unwilling to discuss its ongoing transparency problems. The press office at the MDTA did not respond to requests for a phone interview with the board chairwoman, Beverly Swaim-Staley. A similar request in 2010 was turned down. She wears two hats: Secretary of Transportation and MDTA board chairwoman. According to the MDTAs enabling legislation, that board directs an executive secretary, who handles the day-to-day business at the toll-bridge agency. Questions e-mailed through the press office for the chairwoman were not answered. Instead, the MDTA's Director of Communications, Cheryl Sparks, e-mailed a statement she said was from Swaim-Staley: I am aware of the OMCB's recent opinions on OMA compliance as it relates to the MDTA Board Meetings. We appreciate the guidance provided by the OMCB and continue to improve our processes. Today, MDTA is diligent in posting meeting dates and times to its website and following up by posting its open session meeting minutes to the MDTA website on a monthly basis for our Finance and Capital Committees, as well as our full Board meetings. Unfortunately, the statement avoided the questions -the more recent Open Meetings Compliance Board opinion has nothing to do with whether or not minutes have been posted on a website. In a followup e-mail and telephone message, the Kent County News asked if Swaim-Staley agrees with the Compliance Board on one important item: the presiding officer and board members are responsible for correctly following the statute -- not the staff. The question was not answered by deadline, either. Why the Rush? As the Compliance Board has noted, lack of information can cause questions about a meeting even when there was nothing improper about the closed-door conversation that actually occurred. (Faced with a complaint to resolve, the OMCB is allowed to read confidential minutes to determine what went on; it does not reveal what is in them except in very general terms). The very secrecy of the meeting itself raises many questions about how the MDTA board handles its business, and whether decisions are made that they simply vote, unanimously, to approve. For example, it has never explained the emergency hiring. Why so fast after two months, during which its records show the question went without any discussion whatsoever? Why would the top job at the authority be filled in a brief, secret teleconference? The MDTA board, which is legally charged with hiring and firing its executive secretary, did not hold any

public discussion of job applicants between July 28 (a closed session) and the day they held the rush vote, according to its own minutes. So, during a two-month period the MDTA board could have discussed candidates for executive secretary but did not. Was it handled some other way? Sparks said the MDTA board has a Human Resources Committee made up of three members (Rev. William Calhoun, Jack Basso and Mary Halsey), but it held no meetings in 2011. So executive secretary candidates were not vetted outside public view by this committee. Sparks has not answered questions about how the meeting was arranged among the members. Was there an e-mail? Were there phone calls? How long before the meeting? Why would this simple information be locked away? Could it be the meeting was arranged several days or a week in advance, but the notice was only posted a couple hours before the teleconference? The explanation may lie in a loophole in the meetings law. It does permit a public body to circulate packets, papers or e-mails among themselves on matters of public business, without having a public meeting. This can be used to come to a decision outside public view, but it is not strictly illegal. On the other hand, court cases referenced in the Maryland Open Meetings Act Manual< have held that the law does not permit arriving at a decision outside public view. Simply holding a public meeting for a ceremonial vote to approve the decision that was made isn't permissible. The courts expect as much public discussion as possible of any public business, including hiring decisions. If confidentiality is necessary, specifics can be taken behind closed doors if the Open Meeting Act's requirements are followed. In this case, the public is left to speculate. They had no discussion for two months -- were MDTA board members directed to vote a certain way via letter or e-mail? So far, it is another open question. Info Hard to Get The Compliance Board found that the MDTA did not disclose enough about the secret meeting. Despite this, the MDTA still has not published, in the legally required fashion, minimum details of the vote. After an exchange of e-mails on the question of what information will be given to the public, and when, Sparks wrote April 12: The closed meeting was held on September 26, 2011 via teleconference at 7201 Corporate Center Drive, Hanover, Maryland 21076 at 12:35 p.m. to discuss the appointment of the Executive Secretary. ... Member Woodford motioned to go into closed session and Member Hoblitzell seconded it with unanimous approval. The persons present at the meeting were: Members Hoblitzell, Woodford, Calhoun, Whitson, Basso, Lewin, Halsey, Mims and Secretary Swaim- Staley. The members discussed and voted on the appointment of Harold Bartlett to the position of Executive Secretary. The Members approved the appointment of Harold Bartlett to the position of Executive Secretary. This is most of the information that should have been in the Oct. 27 public summary; six months passed before it was disclosed. Sparks did not say how those present voted on Sept. 26; who made the motion; who seconded.

It was probably unanimous, since an examination of years of MDTA minutes shows only hundred-percent agreement among the board. She continued, The OMA does not require that the public have access to the record of the vote on a topic discussed in closed session, and the OMCB specifically states in its opinion what information the public must be given per SG 10-509 (c)(2). You have been given all of the required information that was mistakenly omitted from the open meeting minutes for October 27, 2011. However, the OMCB has already published opinions on inadequate minutes. They should be changed to correct mistakes and provide accurate information. Providing more detail in response to a complaint is not enough to inform the general public. For example, in Opinion 7 OMCB 216, from 2011: The Commissioners closed a meeting under the personnel exception to discuss an 'addendum to an employee's contract and a new employee contract.' .... the minutes of the next public meeting did not contain any information on what occurred at the closed session. The Commissioners acknowledge (they must) make certain disclosures. They admit that they omitted those disclosures from the minutes of the next meeting. They further identify the individuals and contracts discussed, confirm that only those personnel matters were discussed, and state that they are 'committed to correcting any and all deficiencies noted.' We trust that this information will be available to other citizens reviewing the January 4, 2011 minutes. Because the Commissioners have admitted this violation, we need not discuss it further. When Sparks was supplied with this information, she sent another e-mail on April 17: MDTA will amend the minutes of the Oct. 27, 2011 meeting. I do not have a specific timeframe for this to happen but am told it will be done. Secondly, MDTA will not be producing Open Session meeting minutes for the Sept. 26, 2011 meeting. Can a Vote be Secret? The press office also insists the law does not require them to reveal how the seven members voted in the secret meeting, only the action they took. It is legal to hold a vote in a closed session. However, the Open Meetings Act was amended in the 2011 General Assembly session to allow certain kinds of electronic minutes, and the amendment affects reporting of votes, according to the Compliance Board. In Opinion 7 OMCB 237 of 2011, they wrote: We conclude ... while perhaps the Town did not violate the Act with respect to the minutes addressed here, the recent amendment to the Act now makes clear that a public body's minutes should reflect the individual votes of each member participating in a recorded vote. == April 26, 2012 Probing deeper into MDTAs open meetings issues By CRAIG O'DONNELL CHESTERTOWN - When the Open Meetings Compliance Board looked at the Sept. 26, 2011 meeting of the Maryland Transportation Authoritys governing board, it focused on whether the toll-road agency fulfilled three specific legal requirements.

They apply to all meetings by all public bodies and form the framework of the publics right to know. None were up to snuff. The basics are the public notice; a summary of every closed session (to be included in minutes of the agencys next open meeting); and a written statement from immediately before the closed session with the reason for closing it to public view and the topics of discussion. The most recent MDTA opinion is indexed online as 8 OMCB 46 at www.oag.state.md.us/Opengov/Openmeetings/board.htm. Other parts of the nine-page opinion, and attempts after it was issued to get details on the Sept. 26 meeting, were the subject of articles on April 12 and 19. They are available on the Kent County News website. In its March 28 opinion, the Compliance Board emphasized all meetings must go by the book: The Act does not make the presiding officers performance of his or her duties contingent on public attendance. ... Instead, the Acts documentation requirements (were created to make) a public bodys conduct of public business be transparent also to members of the public who are unable to attend its meetings. Even if the public isnt there and the chairs are empty, as they were on Sept. 26, the legal procedures matter. Better Notice Needed The first step in the Open Meetings Act is to give proper notice about a planned meeting. A website is not a cure-all, said the opinion, especially when the meeting is just a few hours after something gets put on a web page. Therefore, the OMCB said, the agencys public notice failed. The rule is to use the best feasible technique, perhaps getting word out several ways. The more effort a public body can show, the less likely it will hear it violated the law. Also in violation: the MDTA web notice gives the wrong location. It says Broening Highway, Baltimore. The closing statement, which is legally required to accurately reflect when and where the meeting was actually held, says Hanover. The MDTA legal staff did not explain the discrepancy in response to the original complaint. In an April 12 e-mail, however, the MDTAs Director of Communications Cheryl Sparks confirmed it was in Hanover. If the Authority did not in fact convene this Meeting at its Broening Highway offices ... the notice violated the Act, said the OMCB. Announcing one location and using another is illegal. To fix an error, the MDTA would have to show it posted another complete public notice about the change of location. In the opinion, the OMCB suggested several ways to send best feasible notice of a rush meeting, perhaps by phone, e-mail, or fax. In the case of an emergency meeting, reporters and members of the media are usually acceptable surrogates for the general public if they get as much advance notice as possible. The OMCB referred to an old opinion from 1992. As for best feasible notice, we repeat ...

a public body would be well advised to provide telephone notice to reporters who are reasonably thought to be interested. The Kent County News easily falls into this category; as the Authority is aware (the Kent County News) has followed the Authoritys meetings since at least 2009. Some public bodies maintain a list of the e-mail addresses of people who wish to be notified ... and we commend (that) as an additional method of giving notice. So far, the MDTA has not responded to questions about how and when the MDTA board members were notified. Finally, the Compliance Board said, the notice said the entire meeting was closed to the public, which isnt permissible under Maryland law. Any meeting must begin with an open session, which the public can observe no matter how short the open session turns out to be. Summary Failed A published closed session summary informs the public of the general nature of any confidential business: who was in the closed-door meeting; what topics were talked over; whether any actions were taken. The law allows voting in closed session, but votes must be reported. The KCN complaint said the summary of Sept. 26 offered in the MDTA boards next minutes (Oct. 27, 2011) was not complete. The Compliance Board agreed; the MDTAs legal staff did not dispute that fact. But this is not the first time recent MDTA minutes have come up short, and a year ago the MDTA was warned about missing information. Then, the MDTAs legal staff protested it was all just a mistake. Minutes of a January 2011 meeting lacked the legally required summary. At the time the MDTA called it inadvertent -- blaming the clerical staff. The complaint and opinion struck the MDTA legal staff as unfair, and resulted in a lengthy e-mail from Valerie Smith, principal counsel. Smith wrote, The only omission that occurred ... was that in drafting the open meeting minutes for January 27, 2011 administrative personnel inadvertently omitted this description ... According to her, the topic to be discussed ... appeared on the Statement for a Closed Meeting and was read by the Chair at the Authority meeting. She said, (It was a) clerical error that did not prevent any member of the public from knowing the topic since it was stated in the open meeting before the Authority went into closed session. However, the Compliance Board has often explained, a verbal announcement alone is not enough to comply with the law. Many published Opinions, such as 5 OMCB 189, make the point. A correct closing statement and an accurate summary of the closed session in later minutes are mandatory. Not the Staffs Problem Perhaps it was true the January minutes were incomplete due to a mistake. However, without the Open Meetings Act complaint afterward there is no assurance they would ever have been corrected. Also, there is no way to evaluate how many other MDTA minutes over the years have contained mistakes of this sort, long unnoticed and unlikely ever to be uncorrected unless a member of the public points out the shortcomings. And the Compliance Board has emphasized public body members, including whoever chairs the meeting, are totally responsible for obeying the law, creating accurate and complete meeting records.

They made three points in Opinion 7 OMCB 216: We stress that the decision of what information should be disclosed on a closing statement requires a good-faith judgment call by the presiding officer, who is responsible for preparing it. And, members who vote to adopt open-session minutes containing a summary of a prior closed session in effect certify the sufficiency of that summary; (we have said) "it is through the approval of minutes that a public body can be said to accept responsibility for the record of its meetings. So, The Act thus also makes compliance with the minutes procedures the responsibility ultimately of the members of the public body, not of its staff. Not the Publics Problem After explaining the error, Smith wrote that the mistake wasnt important -- anyone at the meeting heard an announcement. By this logic, every citizen who cannot be bothered to attend and observe the meeting, (as Smith wrote) isnt entitled to question the minutes when they finally see them. However, the public wasnt there at all Jan. 27. Everyone was an MDTA employee, board member, or from the Maryland Department of Transportation. So a public verbal announcement to an empty room made no difference, since it wasnt in front of private citizens or news media. This raises two questions. Would employees be likely to file an Open Meetings Act complaint about incomplete records? Probably not. Is the public or press obligated to go to a meeting to follow what a public body is up to? OMCB opinions over the years are clear. No. Many citizens could want to know about discussions and decisions at a meeting, yet cant attend. This is particularly true of MDTA meetings, starting around 9 a.m. on a weekday. Its a good guess that there are so many public bodies meeting weekly in Maryland the entire press corps from the Eastern Shore to Deep Creek Lake could never get to them all. In the latest opinion the Compliance Board repeated, the Acts documentation requirements (show) the Legislatures intent that a public bodys conduct of public business be transparent also to members of the public who are unable to attend its meetings. That is why a closing statement must be written before the doors close, and a summary must report what happened. An announcement at the meeting is not good enough. (Some public bodies put digital recordings on a website so interested citizens can replay them later, but not the MDTA. It does have cassette tapes. The public must go to the Broening Highway office to hear them.) == May 3, 2012 MDTA dodged law By CRAIG O'DONNELL

CHESTERTOWN - On Sept. 26, 2011, the Maryland Transportation Authoritys governing board held a meeting that was completely secret. Once it was discovered, a complaint to the Open Meetings Compliance Board and its late-March opinion revealed an illegal meeting. The meeting was for the hiring of a new executive secretary for the MDTA. Other parts of the nine page opinion, and attempts to get the basic details on the meeting from the MDTA press office, were the subject of articles published April 12, 19 and 26. The MDTA board is the governing body for a theoretically independent legal entity. It is responsible for an organization carrying nearly $3 billion in debt; controlling all toll roads and bridges in the state, plus a wholly-owned railroad in Baltimore; and having thousands of employees, including the secondlargest police force in the state. It operates largely without legislative oversight, and the board is chaired by the state secretary of transportation. Yet it cannot consistently conduct meetings according to the Open Meetings Act, and in this case didnt provide legal public notice, the required public meeting summary or a proper closing statement. The public is entitled to one special document from every closed meeting -- a closing statement. It is the third element the Compliance Board looked at in Opinion 8 OMCB 46. The question was whether the written closing statement, as required by law, was correct and complete. Its to be filled out in an open session, when a public vote is held to approve closing, and it has to include a full description of why the board or committee needs to bar the public from what it is about to discuss. It amounts to a declaration by the public body that they have confidential items to discuss, items fall into one or another of the 14 specific categories found in the law and the reason for the closed-door meeting is not trivial or, perhaps, specious. What Day Was It? Time, date and place are specifically mentioned in the Open Meetings Act because meetings happen at a certain time, in a particular place, on a given date. Yet the closing statement, which was supposedly created Sept. 26 behind the MDTAs closed doors, was undated -- a violation of required procedure. It might have been an oversight. But without a date on the document, the public has the right to question if it was made up some days or weeks later when its absence was noted. Nothing stops any public body from posting a closing statement, perhaps as a PDF file, on its website later that day or the next. The Compliance Board has said it must be available to anyone who asks to see it no later than the following business day. It has suggested the closing statement be faxed or emailed free to any citizen on request, since it is typically no longer than two pages.

In its March opinion, the Compliance Board emphasized all meetings must go by the book, even if the public or press isnt there. When the chairs are empty, as they were on Sept. 26, the legal procedures still matter, and that includes putting the date on the closing statement. Vote and Statement Faulty Before any closed session can be held, the Open Meetings Act requires a formal, recorded motion and vote; the closing statement paperwork must include specific items and reasonable detail. It can be brief, but it cannot be misleading. It cant be vague or, as the Compliance Board calls it, parrot the statutory language. This means that, for example, a closed meeting to discuss hiring someone can be held under the Personnel exception, but the written Topic disclosure cant merely say: Personnel. Once there has been a vote and all items have been identified, a board can only talk about the specific items it listed for the public vote. It can decide to drop one or more, but not add them. It cant begin talking about policies or legislation. In the March opinion, the OMCB told the MDTA board that it is illegal to vote, in secret, to hold a closed meeting -- something that should be obvious. Yet the MDTA did just that on Sept. 26. The closing statement has to be completed and voted upon in an open session, not in a closed session. And to fill in blanks later or change it is also a violation of the state meetings law. Why does the law require the disclosure statement? Because any member of the public at any meeting has the right to voice an objection to the closed session right then and there. The OMCB wrote: The closing statement must be completed before the public body closes its meeting because the Act grants a member of the public the right to object to the closure. While an objection does not preclude a closed session, the public body must send a copy (of its written statement) to the Compliance Board if someone objects. Later, any member of the public can file a formal complaint if they wish to. The OMCB continued: If the form were permitted to be completed after the start of the closed session -- when the doors are shut -- the public body would effectively eliminate the publics right to evaluate, then and there, the asserted basis for the public bodys decision to close its meeting. As a matter of procedure, the vote by the board members to meet outside public view is in the public record: A publicly-held vote will be reflected in the minutes of that meeting, and ... the closing statement is a matter of public record. The Act is violated "if ... the [closing statement] is modified during the course of the closed session and the presiding officer signs the form at the sessions end. A public body is also supposed to avoid repeating the same phrases in every closing statement. The MDTAs Sept. 26 document says the reason for a closed session is: To discuss matters that are permitted by statute to be discussed during a closed session of a meeting of a public body. Over many years the Compliance Board has often warned about trying to use uninformative boilerplate. Boilerplate is formulaic or hackneyed language according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. And in fact, this MDTA boilerplate has never varied. The oldest closing statement the MDTA has turned over to the Kent County News dates to January 2008 -- more than 3 1/2 years before the secret September session.

It has a line pre-typed at the bottom which says To discuss matters that are permitted by statute to be discussed during a closed session of a meeting of a public body. And its still there less than two months ago. More than four years after the phrase is first seen, its in regular use. The Feb. 23, 2012 closing statement filled out by the MDTA -- the newest available -- says: To discuss matters that are permitted by statute to be discussed during a closed session of a meeting of a public body. Whether the public will ever really know why the MDTA has to call a secret rush meeting to hire its executive secretary is an open question. Seven months after the secret meeting, some of the most basic facts about it -- such as when and how the MDTA board members were notified of the rush teleconference, and how long the meeting actually lasted -- are still unknown, because the MDTA press office has refused to answer questions sent by email or phone requests. Instead, according to the press office, the MDTA will only answer through the mechanism of more paper: a Public Information Act letter to get documents, such as e-mail, that might show when the MDTA board heard about the teleconference. The press office said minutes will be corrected to include an accurate summary at some undetermined time in the future, and otherwise, all the details they are required by law to place before the public have been provided. The MDTA board has eight members. The chairwoman is Secretary of Transportation Beverley SwaimStaley. Members are Jack Basso, William Calhoun, Mary Halsey, Michael Whitson, Walter Woodford Jr., Bradley Mims and Art Hock. There is one vacancy. Swaim-Staley has declined all requests for an interview. The Open Meetings Compliance Board is Elizabeth Nilson, Courtney McKeldin and Julio Morales. Its opinions -- including the MDTA opinion, indexed as 8 OMCB 46 -- are online at www.oag.state.md.us/ Opengov/Openmeetings/board.htm. ==