Did Hagerstown City Council’s Closed Session Violate Open Meetings Act? More Transparency is Needed

HAGERSTOWN, MD News (1/11/2024) – The Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board has issued its 18th Official Opinion of 2024, addressing Radio Free Hub City’s complaint against the Hagerstown City Council. The complaint alleged a violation of the Open Meetings Act in connection with the Council’s closed session discussions regarding the filling of a vacancy. Much of the Compliance Board’s opinion was dependent upon the City Attorney’s statement that Mayor Martinez’s comments regarding the events of the closed meeting were “not accurate”.

Our dispute originated from the resignation of Councilmember Bob Bruchey on October 10, 2023, prompting the need for the Council to select a qualified individual to fill the vacancy, as authorized by the City Charter. The City Charter does not define a process for filling vacancies, and leaves it up to the discretion of the City Council for each instance.

On November 7, 2023, the Council convened a closed session to discuss various matters, including the Council vacancy, with the agenda specifically referencing discussions related to the appointment, employment, and related considerations permitted under the Act.

A week after the closed session, the Mayor publicly announced that the Council had created a process, in closed session, to appoint Peter Perini to the City Council. This led to our complaint, asserting that the closed-door deliberations violated the Act by determining the selection process in closed session.

On December 11, 2024, the City of Hagerstown filed its response to the complaint, stating that “The Mayor’s comment about the process discussed in November 7, 2023 closed session was not accurate,” and that the conversation focused on information which is protected under § 3-305(b)(1).

The Compliance Board’s analysis, detailed in their official opinion, outlines two main points. Firstly, it emphasizes that making an appointment is generally considered an administrative function, falling outside the Act’s openness requirements. This perspective is supported by previous opinions and legislative language indicating that administrative functions are not subject to the Act.

Secondly, the Board highlighted the personnel matters exception under § 3-305(b)(1), allowing closed sessions for discussions related to the appointment of officials over whom the public body has jurisdiction. The exception encompasses a town council’s discussions about filling vacancies.

To address the specific claim of discussing the process rather than individual candidates, the Board examined the closed-session minutes and concluded that the Council’s discussion focused on specific candidates, their strengths, and weaknesses. The Board determined that this conversation qualified as either administrative in nature or within the scope of the personnel matters exception.

While we at Radio Free Hub City are encouraged to hear that a process was not developed in closed session in violation of the Open Meetings Act, we feel there is still more work to be done to increase transparency in how the Hagerstown City Council functions. Residents should not be left in the dark as to how the government is functioning, and there needs to be more transparency about future appointments. With 2024 an election year for City of Hagerstown, we’d like to encourage mayor and council candidates to engage in open conversations regarding government transparency and keeping residents informed regarding the inner workings of our government, while still protecting the privacy of candidates.

Our original complaint, the City’s response, and the full opinion from the OMCB is available below.

Article by multiple RFHC contributors.