Maryland Open Meetings Act

Maryland Open Meetings Act
Name	Maryland Open Meetings Act
Enacted by	Maryland General Assembly
Enacted	1974
Status	In force

Maryland Open Meetings Act The Maryland Open Meetings Act is a statutory framework enacted by the Maryland General Assembly to require public access to meetings of certain public bodies in Maryland. The Act establishes procedures for notice, public attendance, and minutes for meetings of governmental entities including local boards, state commissions, and school boards, and it works alongside other statutes such as the Maryland Public Information Act and constitutional provisions in the Maryland Constitution. Enforcement mechanisms involve the Maryland Attorney General, the Maryland Courts, and civil remedies pursued in state trial courts.

Overview

The Act governs meetings of public bodies created by or operating under authority from the Maryland General Assembly, including municipal bodies like the Baltimore City Council, county entities such as the Montgomery County Council, and statewide agencies like the Maryland Department of Transportation. It defines "public body" and "meeting" with reference to deliberative assemblies such as the Maryland State Board of Education, the Maryland Public Service Commission, and local school boards. The Act interacts with prosecutorial offices including the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland and local State's Attorney offices when enforcement issues arise.

Provisions and Requirements

Key provisions require public bodies like the Maryland Transit Administration board, the Maryland Stadium Authority, and the Maryland Higher Education Commission to provide advance public notice of meetings, maintain minutes, and allow public attendance except where law permits closure. Notices must often be provided in the manner used by entities such as the Annapolis City Council or the Prince George's County Council and may mirror practices of interstate comparators like the New York State Open Meetings Law or the Sunshine Law (Florida). The Act prescribes record-keeping responsibilities similar to those of the Library of Congress archival practices for official records, and the statute’s procedural mandates affect administrative agencies such as the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and regulatory bodies like the Maryland Insurance Administration.

Exemptions and Closed Sessions

The Act enumerates specific exemptions permitting closed sessions for subjects such as personnel matters before bodies like the Maryland Board of Physicians or Maryland Judiciary committees, real estate negotiations involving entities such as the Maryland Economic Development Corporation, and consultations with legal counsel analogous to practices in the United States Department of Justice. Exemptions also cover investigative matters involving offices like the Maryland State Police and deliberations concerning proprietary information held by public authorities such as the Maryland Port Administration. Bodies invoking closure must cite statutory authority and record the justification in minutes, consistent with procedures used by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency.

Enforcement and Remedies

Enforcement mechanisms include civil actions brought to the circuit courts of counties like Baltimore County and Howard County, and opinions issued by the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland. Remedies may include injunctions, declaratory relief, and orders to produce minutes or reopen improperly closed sessions, paralleling relief available under the Maryland Public Information Act. Courts such as the Maryland Court of Appeals and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals have adjudicated disputes implicating the Act, with litigants including municipalities like the City of Frederick and advocacy organizations such as the ACLU of Maryland.

Historical Development and Amendments

The Act originated in legislative efforts during the early 1970s alongside national movements spurred by events like the Watergate scandal and reforms in states exemplified by the Freedom of Information Act (United States). Subsequent amendments have addressed scope, notice requirements, and penalties, influenced by litigation involving bodies such as the Baltimore County Board of Education and the Montgomery County Board of Education. Legislative changes in sessions of the Maryland General Assembly have refined definitions and statutory exemptions, with periodic administrative guidance from the Office of Open Meetings Compliance offices in state and local governments.

Notable Cases and Litigation

Significant cases interpreting the Act have been adjudicated by the Maryland Court of Appeals, with disputes involving local entities like the Baltimore City Police Department oversight bodies, county councils including Anne Arundel County Council, and quasi-public agencies such as the Maryland Transit Administration. Litigation has addressed issues from improper serial communications among members of bodies like the Howard County Council to the adequacy of meeting notices for commissions such as the Maryland Public Service Commission. Nonprofit organizations, academic institutions like the University System of Maryland boards, and civic groups including the League of Women Voters of Maryland have frequently participated in or instigated litigation.

Compliance and Best Practices

Best practices recommended to entities such as municipal councils in Baltimore, county boards in Carroll County, and independent agencies like the Maryland Environmental Service include clear public notice protocols, detailed minutes, training for members in compliance modeled on programs from the National Association of Counties and the International City/County Management Association, and routine consultation with counsel from offices like the Maryland Attorney General or county legal departments. Public bodies are encouraged to adopt transparency policies used by institutions such as the Maryland Department of Planning and to use public-facing platforms similar to those employed by the Maryland Judiciary for posting agendas and minutes.

Impact and Criticism

The Act has promoted increased transparency for entities ranging from the Maryland Transportation Authority to local planning commissions in Howard County, but critics—academic commentators from institutions like the University of Maryland, College Park and advocacy groups such as the Maryland PIRG—argue exemptions are sometimes overused, citing tensions mirrored in debates over federal statutes like the Freedom of Information Act (United States). Concerns have included administrative burdens on smaller bodies such as town councils in Ocean City, Maryland and the potential chilling effects on candid deliberation highlighted by scholars affiliated with the American Bar Association and legal clinics at the University of Baltimore School of Law.

Category:Maryland law