Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    7omcb193 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Craig O'Donnell
    The Compliance Board determined that the Carroll County Commissioners did not violate the Open Meetings Act in their communications about redistricting committees. While the Commissioners discussed public business outside of an open meeting, through separate emails and conversations between the president and individual commissioners, a quorum was never present at once. As such, their communications did not meet the legal definition of a "meeting" under the Act, which requires a quorum to be convened. However, the Board emphasized that this type of serial communication deprives the public of observing real decision making.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    7omcb193 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Craig O'Donnell
    33 views2 pages
    The Compliance Board determined that the Carroll County Commissioners did not violate the Open Meetings Act in their communications about redistricting committees. While the Commissioners discussed public business outside of an open meeting, through separate emails and conversations between the president and individual commissioners, a quorum was never present at once. As such, their communications did not meet the legal definition of a "meeting" under the Act, which requires a quorum to be convened. However, the Board emphasized that this type of serial communication deprives the public of observing real decision making.

    Original Title

    7omcb193.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Compliance Board determined that the Carroll County Commissioners did not violate the Open Meetings Act in their communications about redistricting committees. While the Commissioners discussed public business outside of an open meeting, through separate emails and conversations between the president and individual commissioners, a quorum was never present at once. As such, their communications did not meet the legal definition of a "meeting" under the Act, which requires a quorum to be convened. However, the Board emphasized that this type of serial communication deprives the public of observing real decision making.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    33 views2 pages

    7omcb193 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Craig O'Donnell
    The Compliance Board determined that the Carroll County Commissioners did not violate the Open Meetings Act in their communications about redistricting committees. While the Commissioners discussed public business outside of an open meeting, through separate emails and conversations between the president and individual commissioners, a quorum was never present at once. As such, their communications did not meet the legal definition of a "meeting" under the Act, which requires a quorum to be convened. However, the Board emphasized that this type of serial communication deprives the public of observing real decision making.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    7 Official Opinions of the Compliance Board 193 (2011)

    Meeting Determined not to be a meeting: Quorum not


    present
    May 23, 2011
    Complainants: Respondent:
    Mr. Cornelius Ridgely Carroll County Commissioners
    Ms. Judith Smith
    We have considered the complaint of Mr. Cornelius Ridgely and Ms.
    Judith Smith, (Complainants) that the Board of County Commissioners of
    Carroll County (Commissioners) violated the Open Meetings Act on March
    17 or 18, 2011 by communicating privately about public business. We
    conclude that the Commissioners did not violate the Act, because it did not
    apply to the communications in question.
    Complainants allege that the Commissioners communicated about certain
    State laws on redistricting committees, reviewed a certain proposal, and voted
    to recommend it, all either in a closed meeting or by e-mail or other means of
    circulating messages. The Commissioners, a five-member body, respond that
    while they indeed conducted those activities outside of an open meeting, they
    did so not in a meeting, but rather by separate e-mail messages, a call between
    their president and one Commissioner, a conversation between the president
    and one Commissioner, and a message left with the Town Clerk for the
    president. The Commissioners attach various e-mails and relate the sequence
    of events. Although the president states in one e-mail that he [s]poke to two
    other commissioners, a reference that could suggest that a quorum of three had
    met, their narrative states that the president had spoken separately with each
    of those commissioners. In short, at no time did more than two
    Commissioners interact on this matter.
    The Act applies only to meetings of a quorum of a public body to discuss
    public business. See State Government Article (SG), 10-505 (providing,
    a public body shall meet in open session) and SG 10-502(g) (defining
    meet to mean to convene a quorum of a public body for the consideration
    or transaction of public business). While other laws might require a public
    body to conduct certain business in a public meeting, the Act does not; rather,
    it simply sets rules that must be followed when a meeting subject to the Act
    occurs. 6 OMCB Opinions 57, 61 (2008). The Act is the sole source of our
    authority, SG 10-502.4, and we therefore may only address allegations
    involving meetings within its definition of the term.
    193
    7 Official Opinions of the Compliance Board 193 (2011) 194
    Here, the alleged communications were not made in a meeting as
    defined by the Act. In 1999, addressing a similar complaint about e-mail
    communications, we concluded that an e-mail canvass of the members of a
    public body does not involve the convening of a quorum. 2 OMCB Opinions
    78, 78-79 (1999). And, in 1994, addressing a similar complaint about private
    conversations between two members of a city council which consisted of more
    than three members, we stated: The Act was not applicable to whatever
    discussions may have occurred between any two members..., because no
    quorum was present at those discussions. 1 OMCB Opinions 101, 102
    (1994). Here, there is no indication that more than two Commissioners
    attended any telephone, e-mail, or face-to-face discussion about the
    redistricting committee.
    We conclude that the Board of County Commissioners of Carroll County
    did not violate the Open Meetings Act when their president communicated
    with each commissioner out of the presence of the others. As in 2 OMCB
    Opinions 49, 50 (1999), another case in which a public body discussed public
    business through a series of communications between the chair and each
    member, we reach this result because the Acts definition of meeting could
    hardly be more precise. However, even though the seriatum contacts
    concerning the matter did not constitute a meeting, we emphasize a
    conclusion reached by us in the past: that this way of proceeding deprives the
    public of an opportunity to observe the real decision-making process, for a
    subsequent open meeting to ratify the decision...is a mere formality. Id.
    We have no authority to address whether this conduct violated other laws
    applicable to this public body.
    OPEN MEETINGS COMPLIANCE BOARD
    Elizabeth L. Nilson, Esquire
    Courtney J. McKeldin
    Julio A. Morales, Esquire

    You might also like