By Frank Johnson
Deputy City Attorney, City of Gaithersburg
The Section sponsored a spirited panel discussion on February 6 to discuss a few key Open Meetings topics. Assistant Attorney General Rachel Simmonsen, who advises the Open Meetings Compliance Board, spoke about the Open Meetings Act requirements as they apply to virtual meetings, noting that the Board has approved conference calls and virtual online public meetings, as long as the public body satisfies the Open Meetings Act requirements – such as advance notice, allowing access for public observation (or
listening, for conference calls), and the provision of minutes after the meeting.
Section Chair Amanda Conn, who teaches about the Open Meetings Act at George Washington Law School, spoke about the challenges many state-authorized boards, such as the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, now face in meeting additional live streaming requirements imposed on such state boards. These requirements have, in some cases, been imposed under the new Section 307 of the Act, which applies to 17 state boards and commissions, or under the state law provisions enabling the creation of other boards and commissions such as the WSSC. A key concern Amanda raised was how the state board, required to provide a live stream of its meeting, can continue the meeting if the live stream is interrupted during the meeting, and expressed particular concern that there are no clear answers – especially when, as for the WSSC, the live streaming requirement doesn’t fall directly under the Open Meetings Act.
Frank Johnson, who has been a certified trainer on the Open Meetings Act since 2017, spoke about the Act and Board priorities: to ensure the public can observe their officials in action, and watch and listen to their deliberations on public issues. He also highlighted a recent Board case, issued on October 31, 2022, in which the Board found the Sykesville Town Council violated the Act not by having a quorum having engaged in nonpublic deliberation, but by having a quorum receiving information – a Planning Commission report, at the Planning Commission’s open meeting – without fully communicating the details to the public.
The Board did not find that the Town Council, in attending the Planning Commission meeting, should have convened their own meeting, but found that it should have provided advance notice they would attend, and then summarized their attendance in the next Town Council minutes. The Sykesville Town Council did appeal the decision to the Carroll County Circuit Court, but the court dismissed the case without considering the merits after finding state law provides no judicial review for Open Meetings Compliance Board decisions, primarily as they are advisory.
Maryland State and Local Government Law Blog 