Maryland’s HB 806 Could Destroy Government Transparency Efforts (Opinion)

A proposed bill in Maryland, HB 806, aims to expand government agencies’ ability to reject certain public records requests under the Public Information Act (PIA). The bill would allow agencies to deem repeated or burdensome requests as frivolous, vexatious, or abusive, potentially barring individuals from submitting future inquiries. This measure, had it been in place earlier, could have enabled the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to prevent Keedysville property owner Justin Holder from making continued requests related to land disputes. While proponents argue the bill is necessary to prevent misuse of government resources, critics warn that it may restrict legitimate information-seeking efforts and deter the public from filing records requests due to the financial risks of potential litigation.

HB 806 would allow agencies to escalate disputes over public records requests to the State Public Information Act Compliance Board or a circuit court, where a determination could be made to block certain requesters from further inquiries. The Board has already ruled against mass records requests in other cases, such as PIACB 24-029 and PIACB 24-106, where the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office and the Maryland Office of the Attorney General were inundated with dozens of overlapping requests related to specific criminal cases. While those decisions targeted requests the Board deemed coordinated and harassing, HB 806 would grant additional authority to block not only present but also future requests from individuals found to be submitting inquiries in bad faith.

DNR recently attempted to argue that Holder’s more than sixty PIA requests constituted bad-faith behavior, but the Board rejected this claim, ruling that persistence alone does not meet the legal threshold for being deemed vexatious. Under HB 806, however, agencies could rely on a broader definition of abuse to prevent further requests from individuals with ongoing disputes. Critics argue this could create a chilling effect, as those who repeatedly engage with government agencies over contentious issues—such as land use, environmental policies, or local governance—may find themselves barred from obtaining critical information.

“My experience is that nontransparent government already abuses the vexatious MPIA process, and giving them “abusive” is going to create more of the same loopholes,” said Holder in a statement to Radio Free Hub City. “More importantly the Bill lacks a definition of ‘abusive’ and I don’t think that term is defined well in Maryland courts, if at all. The 1st amendment gives us the right to redress, it does not say politeness is required.”

Holder is the plaintiff in ongoing civil action against multiple government agencies alleging corruption.

However, Washington County Sheriff’s Office testified in favor of the bill in Annapolis, making reference to abuse and vulgar requests which they cannot ignore due to Maryland law.

The representatives do not specify the bad-faith actor(s) by name, but potentially may be in reference to local activist Shaun Porter.

“I am openly declaring war on any politician or politician’s proxy who attacks our freedom of the press or redress of grievances,” stated Porter in a statement to Radio Free Hub City.

Another significant concern surrounding HB 806 is the financial burden it could impose on those who seek public records. The bill introduces new avenues for agencies to file complaints against requesters, which could result in court cases requiring legal representation. If a requester is forced into litigation they cannot afford, they may be effectively blocked from pursuing information not because their request is illegitimate, but because of prohibitive legal costs. This risk may deter ordinary citizens, journalists, and advocacy groups from submitting PIA requests, undermining government transparency.

While the bill does not explicitly impose fines or financial penalties on requesters, it allows agencies to escalate disputes through legal avenues, which may be sufficient to discourage records requests. The potential for selective enforcement also raises questions about whether agencies could use the law to silence inquiries they deem inconvenient. Those with fewer resources or legal expertise may be particularly vulnerable, reducing public oversight of government activities.

Another important example of the potential negative effects of HB 806 is our own efforts to shed light on the Washington County Government 2022 cybersecurity incident. Had HB 806 been in effect at the time, Radio Free Hub City’s persistent pursuit of public records regarding Washington County’s 2022 cybersecurity incident could have been halted before crucial information was ever disclosed. The county initially denied multiple Public Information Act requests, forcing continued efforts to obtain records detailing the circumstances that led to an $850,000 ransomware payment by the county’s insurance provider and an $410,789.31 in unreimbursed costs to the taxpayers. Prior to this request, the county refused to publicly acknowledge the nature of the cybersecurity incident, or discuss the costs involved. Under HB 806, Washington County could have argued that repeated requests on the same subject were vexatious or abusive, potentially blocking further inquiries and preventing taxpayers from learning how their money was spent and whether the cybersecurity failures had been properly addressed. This highlights how the proposed law could be used to suppress accountability efforts and shield government agencies from scrutiny, even in matters of significant public interest.

If passed, HB 806 would mark a shift in how Maryland handles public records requests, prioritizing agency discretion over requester persistence. The bill’s proponents maintain that it will help manage excessive or harassing requests, ensuring that agencies can focus resources on legitimate inquiries. Opponents caution that it could be used to suppress accountability efforts and make access to public information increasingly difficult for those without the means to contest an agency’s decision. As lawmakers consider the bill’s potential impact, the balance between government efficiency and public transparency remains at the forefront of the debate.

Associated documents for this story are available in our Public Information Archive.

Article by Ken Buckler, President of Radio Free Hub City. All opinions are his own, and do not reflect those of our clients or sponsors. This article was updated to include a quote by Shaun Porter relating to the bill.

---