Washington County Salary Study Commission Found to Violate Open Meetings Act

The Washington County Salary Study Commission has been found to have violated Maryland’s Open Meetings Act, according to an opinion issued by the Open Meetings Compliance Board. Radio Free Hub City brought the allegations forward, asserting that the commission failed to provide adequate notice for several of its meetings. The commission has acknowledged that it did not advertise four of its meetings, which has been determined to be a violation of the Act.

The Act mandates that public bodies provide reasonable advance notice before holding any session, whether open or closed. In its defense, the Washington County Salary Study Commission stated that it had posted agendas on the county’s main website page for other meetings. However, a dispute arose regarding the adequacy of notice for meetings held on October 22, 2025, and January 12, January 21, February 18, and March 2, 2026. Radio Free Hub City contended that the commission should have utilized specific county webpages dedicated to boards and commissions for meeting notifications, rather than relying solely on the main landing page.

While the Open Meetings Compliance Board acknowledged that it is reasonable to expect meeting notices for a county body to appear on a page detailing county boards and commissions, the Act grants public bodies flexibility in how they disseminate information. The Board clarified that it has not mandated that all public body meeting notices must be posted in the same location on a government website. The primary consideration is whether the chosen method reasonably ensures public awareness. However, a significant issue arose concerning the accuracy of the posted notices. Radio Free Hub City pointed out that a hyperlink on the county’s main webpage, which purportedly led to the agenda for the March 2 meeting, actually directed users to the agenda for the February 18 meeting. Furthermore, evidence suggested that the agenda for the March 2 meeting was never posted, and similar deficiencies may have affected the agendas for earlier meetings.

Despite lack of evidence to support their claims, the Commission claimed that all meetings after September 24, 2025, were properly advertised. The Board noted that the October 22 and January 21 meetings were canceled, thereby eliminating the need for notice for those specific dates. For the remaining meetings in question, the Compliance Board was unable to definitively confirm whether reasonable advance notice was provided due to factual disputes. However, the failure to provide notice for four other meetings was a clear violation of Section 3-302 of the Act.

The original compliance board opinion can be found in our public information archive.

Article by Ken Buckler, based upon information from the Open Meetings Compliance Board

Video Spotlight