Local Activist’s Open Meetings Complaint Results in Violation Against Washington County Commissioners, Frederick County Charges Against Activist Dismissed

A recent ruling by the Open Meetings Compliance Board has found that the Washington County Board of County Commissioners violated Maryland’s Open Meetings Act. This decision stems from a complaint filed by local activist (or agitator depending on who you talk with about him) Shaun Porter, who alleged he was improperly barred from attending a meeting on February 24, 2026. Meanwhile, criminal charges against Porter for Electronic Communication Harassment were nolle prossed (not prosecuted) after a judge determined his actions did not rise to the level of criminal harassment as defined by law.

The Open Meetings Compliance Board, operating under the Office of the Attorney General, issued its opinion on April 29, 2026, addressing two main points of contention raised by Porter. First, Porter claimed he was unlawfully removed from a 9 a.m. meeting on February 24, 2026, and then improperly prevented from attending a subsequent meeting later that same day.

Regarding the February 24 morning session, the Compliance Board found no violation in Porter’s removal. The Board acknowledged that Porter entered the meeting with two signs with insults towards Commissioner President John Barr. Although Porter argued that the County Board’s rules at the time only restricted the size of signs and not the number, county staff and the Board President deemed his possession of two signs and their manner of display disruptive to the orderly conduct of the meeting, despite the rules of decorum not specifying a limit on the number of signs. After Porter refused to remove one sign, and engaged in an argument with the Board President, he was escorted out by a deputy. The Board cited its authority under the Open Meetings Act to remove individuals whose behavior disrupts a meeting, emphasizing the public body’s right to conduct business without disruption and its obligation to enforce reasonable conduct rules.

However, the Compliance Board did find a violation concerning the later session on February 24. Porter was barred from attending a 6 p.m. joint meeting with the Town Council of Funkstown. The County Board contended that this session was a continuation of the earlier meeting, from which Porter had been removed due to his disruptive behavior. The Compliance Board, however, concluded that the six-hour gap between the morning session and the evening session, coupled with new opening ceremonies at the 6 p.m. session, indicated that it constituted a separate meeting. Citing precedent, the Board stated that a public body cannot ban an individual from attending a meeting based on disruptive behavior at a past meeting. Therefore, prohibiting Porter from attending the distinct 6 p.m. meeting was deemed a violation of the Open Meetings Act.

The County Board of Commissioners was required to acknowledge this violation of the Open Meetings Act during their meeting on May 5, 2026. A day after the Washington County Meeting, in Frederick County Circuit Court, Porter achieved another legal victory through the successful nolle prosse of criminal charges of electronic harassment against him in Frederick County.

The legal proceedings against Porter originated from a complaint filed on June 18, 2025, in the District Court of Maryland for Frederick County. Porter faced a charge of Electronic Communication Harassment, specifically under statute CR 38-05(b)(1), which carries a potential penalty of up to three years imprisonment and/or a $10,000 fine. The statement of charges detailed a pattern of communications from April 23, 2025, through June 18, 2025, allegedly sent to Michael Fry, an Assistant City Attorney. According to the complaint, these communications were intended to alarm, annoy, and harass Mr. Fry, despite a reasonable request from Fry for Porter to cease contact.

The detailed application for a statement of charges outlined numerous emails sent by Porter to Mr. Fry and other city officials. These messages, which began on April 23, 2025, with an email demanding city attorney salaries and containing offensive language, escalated over the following months. Porter’s communications frequently included derogatory remarks, accusations, and demands for information. Following a request from Mr. Fry on June 3, 2025, to stop the contact, Porter continued to send emails, some of which were sent within minutes of receiving the warning. These emails often referenced First Amendment rights and alleged violations of civil rights by Mr. Fry.

The communications continued through June 18, 2025 with a barrage of various insults.

The harassment charges were ultimately dismissed on May 6, 2026, after a judicial determination that Porter’s communications, despite their offensive and alarming tone, did not rise to the level of criminal harassment as defined by law, particularly when viewed through the lens of free speech protections.

Article by Ken Buckler, based upon information from the Open Meetings Compliance Board and Frederick County Circuit Court.

---