0312.

2-
. \
A\Q\ S
z...co \
t-..-I
/.;:.-:ft-I2.:.-
,-:P
y
NINTH ANNUAL REpORT
OF THE
OPEN MEETINGS COMPLIANCE B
ARD
_,,,.)
i --.
,j ... :: .. '
't, .
.... {t
'"".
. "'.1.
Ir
I i
i I
i
: !
..
-

NINTH ANNUAL REpORT
OF THE
OPEN NffiETINGS COMWLMNCE BOARD
Pursuant to 10-502.4(e) of the State GovemmentArticle, e Board this
annual report, covering the period July 1,2000, through June 30, 2 1.
I
Activities of the Board
A. Financial and Support Activities
No funds were specifically appropriated for the Compliance oard in the Bill
for fiscal year 2001. Although the Governor has indicated a will ngness to make funds
. !
available to defray the necessary expenses of the Board, during fi cal year 2001 ino such
funds were expended. The Attorney General's Office has borne e incidental :costs of
!
copying and mailing Board-related documents. The Board is ateful to the Attorney
I
General's Office for this assistance.
Indeed, the Board wishes to acknowledge more generally the ongoing support of the
i
Attorney General's Office, especially the infonned and dedicated' olvement of 4-ssistant
Attorney GeneFal Jack Schwartz, who was the author of the invalu Ie Open Meetings Act
Manual (4th ed. 2000) and who has provided the Board with essenti advice gpidance.
i
In addition, all of the recordkeeping and other clerical and admini trative suppo:rit for the
i
Board are provided by Ms. Kathleen Izdebski and Ms. Carol O'Bro ki, of the Opinions and
I
Advice Division of the Attorney General's Office. The cost to the oard been
significant had it been required to obtain these support services els where.
B. Complaints and Opinions
i
. From July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001, the. Campli ce Board 28
.... :, 0 -, -. ,,. .. ;
complaints alleging violations of the Open Meetings Ace Some 0 the alleged
I 1__ .. :
"""'-: -:--'..
''-x .
,-,
.....
i.
more than one V1
five complaints
. olation. One complaint was withdraw:n before an 0
pmo
n was iSSUr and
were pending on June 30, 2001.
on, the Board received an oral complaint from a newsp Inadditi
of a town counc
to 10-502.6, th
and detennined
exclusion from
it meeting, alleging that the meeting was to be closed
e Attorney General's Office, on behalf of the Board, i
that the meeting could properly be closed under the
the Act.
Table 1 b elow indicates that, as in prior years; complaints from c
TYPE OF COMPLAINANTS
Type Number
Citizens 20
Government Officials 2
News Media 6
Table 1
involved public bodies in municipalities than in othez
i
i
editor in advance per
i
awfully. PUrsuant unl
ves
.' I
tigated the matter
. I
"ex ecutive furlction"
i
I
I
I .
"tiz
ens predoTtedo
I
i
I
i
r''X ..,._..
;
i'
I
!
leve Is of goverpment, More complaints
as Table 2 indic
there are several
ates. As the Board has noted in the past, this fact is rprising, bpcause
times as many municipalities as counties in Marylm
COMPLAINTS BY TYPE OF PUBLIC DOl
Public Body
. Number
State 1
County 7
School Board 9
Library Board 1
11
Table 2
2
d.
Y
r":
[' ;
.... '.
I
i
!
\
\
,
! .
During the reporting period, the Board issued 17 opinions.
1
about half these
opinions, the Board found a violation of the Act. Violations includ d unlawfully
!
meetings, failing to follow the Act's procedural requirements, givin inadequate
I
notice, and failing to prepare minutes in a timely way.
,
I
i
I
I
Although it is impossible to estimate the incidence of unre orted violatiqns, the
Compliance Board believes that the low number of viol tions reflects loverall
compliance with the law by public bodies at all levels of governme t. This concl+sion is
further supported by the fact that only a handful of Open Meetings Act issues hate been
brought.to court.
. The. Act calls upon us to discuss in particular "compl ints the
reasonableness of the notice provided for meetings." 1 0-502.4( e )(2) iii). In general, notice
is;ues have not been a focus of complaints, probably because the ct is quite flekible in
allowing a range of notice methods. That is, the Act allows notice 0 be given by "any ...
reasonable method," including posting at a public location near the sit of the meetin,. Thus,
the General Assembly left considerable discretion to each public bo y as to the method of
public notice. As long as a public body posts the notice or takes on of the other feps set
out in the law in a timely manner, the Board will not find a olation of the notice
requirement.
2
Public bodies do face notice problems, however, whe they call a mebting on .
short notice, delay a previously scheduled meeting, or decide to 0 en a meeting had
previously been scheduled as a closed meeting. The Compliance Bard's guidancb is that
the public should be told of unexpected scheduling developments as oon as practichble, by
whatever means are feasible under the L
The Act also calls on the Board to discuss "the impact on State d local gove ents
of 10-502(h)(2) of this article, iriCluding a discussi n of how the lffected
bad adhered to requirements of this subtitle." . In JO-5 2(h)(2), the feneral
Assembly extended the definition of "public body" to include "an multimember board,
lOne opinion combined a response to two complaints about a board 0 county commissioners.
2 In addition, the notice requirements of the Act, the rest of the Act, are entirely ina ! plicable
to an "executive function." '-.
,
',. ,<\),'
'1f:,q\"
3
. ) .
'i .
commission, or committee appointed by the Governor or the chief ex cutive authorif of a
subdivision of the State, if the in its m at 2
employed by the State or a pohtical of the tate. This pr
J
V1s10n
ongmally carned a "sunset" date of June 30, 1994, but IS now a pe anent part ofilie law.
No issue concerning the expanded definition arose during this repo ng period.
II
Recommendations
e Compliance Board is to re ort annually "any recommenda ons for improvements
to the provisions" of the Act. 10-502.4(e)()(v). As in prior years, e Complianc1 Board
that lO-502.4( e )(2) (iv) be eliminated. As noted above, . s provision requires
every annual report of the Board to discuss "the impact on State an local governdents of
the provisions of IO-502(h)(2) of this Article, including a discussi n of how the airrected
entities have adhered to the requirements of this subtitle." The prov sion referred + is the
one that extended the definition of "public body" to include certain c tizen advisory ranels.
In all likelihood, the Compliance Board's duty to discuss this rovision in its/ :nnual
report was linked to the original sunset provision. The General Asse bly wished to ensure
that it would have infonnation enabling it to make a judgment about e tending or eliJinating
the sunset provision. Now that the General Assembly has eliminate the sunset prdvision,
there appears to be no sound reason for requiring a discussion of the i sue annually. Should
some particular occurrence in the future merit discussion in an annual eport, the COIIli Hance
Board will do so. But an annual, required recitation serves no purp se.
4