HAGERSTOWN, MD News (11/22/2023) – In a formal complaint addressed today to the Open Meetings Compliance Board (OMCB), Radio Free Hub City has raised concerns about the City of Hagerstown’s City Council potentially violating the Open Meetings Act during the selection of an appointee for a vacant Council seat.
Sponsored
The complaint alleges that on November 7, 2023, the Council violated the Open Meetings Act by deliberating, developing, and determining the selection process in closed session. According to the complainant, while the execution of the selection process is excluded from the Open Meetings Act, the initial deliberation and determination of how that process will be carried out should be conducted in an open session.
The complaint does not challenge the Council’s authority to conduct the selection process in a manner they see fit, but rather focuses on the lack of public visibility into the deliberation, development, and determination of the process. The City of Hagerstown charter leaves the process for replacing a vacant council member seat to the discretion of the sitting council, requiring them to determine the selection process for each vacancy.
According to the agenda, the Council’s closed session on November 7, 2023, falls under the “personnel matters” exception of the Maryland Open Meetings Act, which allows closed meetings for discussions related to the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of an appointee, employee, or official. However, the complaint argues that the initial deliberation and determination of the process for the selection, not the subsequent execution, should be open to the public.
The historical context provided in the complaint points out that the Council developed the process in an open meeting for the first vacancy of 2023 but deviated from this for the second vacancy, violating the transparency expected in such proceedings.
The complaint includes relevant meeting recordings and decisions from the OMCB, particularly highlighting Decision 163, where the Board of Education of Carroll County violated the Open Meetings Act by developing procedures for appointing a board vacancy in a closed meeting.
The complainant emphasizes that the focus is on the lack of transparency in the deliberation and development of the selection process rather than the execution of the process itself. While acknowledging the Council’s attempts at transparency after the fact, the complaint argues that the public was denied critical transparency by not allowing observation of the initial deliberation.
In conclusion, the complaint requests the OMCB to validate that the Council violated the Open Meetings Act by not conducting the initial deliberation, development, and determination of the selection process in an open session. The complaint does not seek invalidation of the selection process but aims to ensure that similar process focused deliberations occur in public in the future.
The OMCB is expected to issue a written opinion within approximately 30 days after receiving the public body’s response, providing an advisory statement on whether the Open Meetings Act was violated and explaining its reasoning. The Board, however, lacks the authority to issue orders or impose penalties.
The full complaint is available below.
Article by Ken Buckler, President and Managing Editor, Radio Free Hub City.