The Baltimore County Council, in a February 10 letter to Maryland’s Office of the Attorney General, said it violated the state’s Open Meetings Act when it held an unpublicized, closed-door meeting January 3.
Thomas Bostwick, the County Council’s legislative counsel, took responsibility for the noncompliance and wrote that he “will ensure that we take appropriate measures to be deliberate and intentional in complying with the act.”
Bostwick said the special January 3 meeting was called because there was a snowstorm in the forecast that could postpone the County Council’s January 6 meeting. That was when the council originally planned to vote for a county executive to replace Johnny Olszewski, who was resigning to take a seat in Congress.
In the letter, Bostwick acknowledged there was no public notice of the January 3 meeting. Also, it was held virtually on a “private” WebEx, as opposed to a “public webinar.”
The Open Meetings Act requires a public body to first give the public notice of a meeting, then convene in open session. At the meeting, the presiding officer must read aloud “a written statement of the reason for closing the meeting.”
While no official vote on the county executive was taken at the closed meeting, a document submitted to the attorney general states that each council member’s “direction on CE (county executive) election” was discussed.
The January 6 meeting was postponed one day because of snow.
On the morning of January 7, the County Council put out a news release announcing it had picked Kathy Klausmeier as the next county executive hours before it was scheduled to take the official vote.
Councilman Izzy Patoka on January 7 told WYPR about the January 3 closed session.
“Where we deliberated and we were looking for a candidate that could secure all seven council members and we landed on Senator Klausmeier,” Patoka said.
WYPR filed a complaint with the attorney general because the January 3 meeting was called without notice and took place in private.
Bostwick, in his letter to the attorney general, cited Patoka’s interview with WYPR as proof that “the council itself made no secret that the meeting took place.”
The Open Meetings Act Compliance Board within the Attorney General’s office has 30 days to write an advisory opinion on the complaint.
If it finds there was a violation, a member of the Baltimore County Council will have to summarize the opinion at its next open meeting, and a majority of members must then sign a copy of the complaint and submit it to the compliance board.
Bostwick wrote in the letter that he recognizes “the gravity of Open Meetings Act compliance. Local government is often the public’s only interaction with their government.”
