7 Official Opinions of the Compliance Board 76 (2010)
Meeting Presence of County Commissioners as individuals
at meeting of another body not a meeting of the
Commissioners.
Public Body Charles County Economic Executive
Committee appointed by County Commissioners
sufficiently formed to be subject to Open Meetings Act
December 22, 2010
George R. Rusty Talcott, V
The Open Meetings Compliance Board has considered your complaint
concerning the Charles County Commissioners attendance at a meeting of the
Charles County Economic Executive Committee on August 24, 2010.
For the reasons explained below, we find that the Board of County
Commissioners did not violate the Act in that they appeared to have attended
as guests of the designated chair of the Executive Committee and did not
conduct any business as the Board. We find, however, that the Executive
Committee itself was a public body governed by the Open Meetings Act.
Because the Executive Committee failed to give notice of the meeting, the
meeting was conducted in violation of the Act.
I
Complaint and Response
According to the complaint, four county commissioners attended the first
1
meeting with the newly appointed Charles County Economic Executive
Committee during the afternoon of August 24, 2010, at the County Office
Building. No notice of this meeting was given to the public. Included with
the complaint was a July 2, 2010, press release from the County
Commissioners Office announcing the Commissioners appointment of the
Executive Committee. The County Commissioners charged the Executive
The Board of County Commissioners ordinarily consists of five members,
1
but we understand that currently there is currently a vacancy on the Board.
76
7 Official Opinions of the Compliance Board 76 (2010) 77
Committee with developing bylaws for the planned Economic Development
Advisory Board for approval by the Commissioners. According to the
complaint, the 12 individuals appointed to the Executive Committee and the
four County Commissioners, as well as certain County staff members, attended
the meeting. While the complaint appeared to focus primarily on the presence
of the County Commissioners, a preliminary question is whether the Executive
Committee itself was subject to the Act.
In a timely response to the complaint, Roger Lee Fink, County Attorney for
Charles County, described the development of the Executive Committee in
further detail. On May 21, 2010, the County Commissioners announced their
2
intent to establish an Economic Development Advisory Board. Following that
announcement, the County Commissioners determined to first create an
Executive Committee to develop recommendations for the County
Commissioners consideration concerning the Boards powers and duties, as
well as suggested bylaws. It was envisioned that, once the County
Commissioners approved the bylaws, they would establish the Board by formal
action.
The County Commissioners appointed the members of the Executive
Committee over a period of several months. As of August 24, 2010, about 15
members had been appointed, at least 10 of whom were not officials or
employees of the County, State, or any municipal government. Because more
3
than three months had passed since the May 21 announcement, the designated
chairman of the Executive Committee invited the other appointees to attend an
organizational meeting at the County Office Building on August 24, 2010.
The chairman also extended a courtesy invitation to the individual County
Commissioners in the event any of them wished to attend. The response
acknowledged that no public notice was given in advance of the meeting.
As to the suggestion that the meeting was a County Commissioner meeting,
the response stated, it clearly [was] not. The Commissioners were invited
merely to offer welcoming remarks. After their remarks, three of the
Commissioners left. Only Commissioner Patterson - - a non-voting, ex officio
member of the Executive Committee - - remained for the meeting. Included
with the response was a draft copy of minutes of the meeting, showing that the
Commissioners had no functional role to play. The response cited Ajamian
v. v. Montgomery County, 99 Md. App. 665 (1994) as well as 1 OMCB
We had granted the County Attorney a brief extension of time to reply.
2
Apparently, the County Commissioners made additional appointments on
3
September 21, 2010.
7 Official Opinions of the Compliance Board 76 (2010) 78
Opinions 104 (1994) and 1 OMCB Opinions 120 (1995), in support of its
position.
The response also addressed whether the Executive Committee meeting
was subject to the Act. As phrased in the response, the issue is whether, at
this stage of its yet-to-be fully formed existence, was the ... Executive
Committee a public body subject to the Open Meetings Act at the time the
meeting was scheduled? Additionally, in the absence of formal establishment,
bylaws, clear direction from the appointing authority and other matters relating
to the roles and responsibilities of the committee and its members, was the
Committee empowered to exercise any more than an administrative internal
organizational function at its August 24 first meeting? Based on prior
th
opinions of the Compliance Board, the response conceded that the Executive
Committee was sufficiently formed to be a public body and that at least part
of the session involved an advisory function that would be subject to the Acts
open meeting requirements unless the meeting was properly closed. The
response noted that the Executive Committee conducted its first meeting
evidently unaware of the applicability of the Act and its need to provide public
notice.. However, the County Attorney did provide an overview of the Act as
the first item at the Executive Committees second meeting and indicated that
notice was provided for that meeting and will be provided for future sessions.
II
Analysis
We agree with the County Attorney that the County Commissioners did not
violate the Open Meetings Act by attending the August 24, 2010, meeting.
The authorities cited in the response might be distinguished in that the meeting
here was conducted by a public body created by the County Commissioners.
Nevertheless, there is no suggestion that the County Commissioners were
present in anything other than their individual capacities or that they convened
as a public body to consider or to transact public business. To be sure, the
recommendations of the Executive Committee would be considered and
perhaps adopted by the County Commissioners before the establishment of the
Economic Development Advisory Board. However, based on the response, we
understand that only one County Commissioner was present at the time the
Executive Committee actually started its work.
We do find that the Executive Committee itself was a public body.
Although it apparently was not created by any formal instrument, we find that
the Commissioners appointment of the members did result in establishment
of a public body under 10-502(h)(2)(i). The fact that additional members
were appointed subsequent to the meeting does not alter our analysis. It
appears that a quorum was available to start the work of the Executive
7 Official Opinions of the Compliance Board 76 (2010) 79
Committee on August 24, 2010. In fact, it is noteworthy that the press release
from the County dated July 2, 2010, indicated that the Executive Committee
existed as of that date. Based on the draft minutes included with the response,
a quorum had assembled. While the response raised questions as to the
authority of the Executive Committee to act at that point, the draft minutes
illustrate that the Executive Committee operated under the assumption that it
had the necessary authority. Further, the members conducted a meeting
during which, for at least part of the time, they carried out an advisory function
as defined under the Act. 10-502(c)(3). That is, the Executive Committee
considered proposed bylaws to be recommended to the County Commissioners
for the planned Economic Development Advisory Board in accordance with
the County Commissioners charge. Had the County Commissioners
questioned the Executive Committees authority to meet on August 24, 2010,
the County Commissioners or their staff clearly would have advised the
Committee or its chairman before that date.
Given the acknowledgment that no notice was provided, extensive
discussion is unnecessary. We find that the Executive Committee violated
10-506 by holding a meeting without providing public notice as required by
the Act. However, we commend the County Attorneys Office for advising the
Executive Committee of the requirements of the Act after the deficiency came
to the offices attention.
III
Conclusion
We find that the Charles County Commissioners did not violate the Open
Meetings Act by attending the Economic Executive Committee meeting on
August 24, 2010. However, we find that the Executive Committee violated the
Act in that the Committee failed to give public notice of its meeting that date.
OPEN MEETINGS COMPLIANCE BOARD
Elizabeth A. Nilson, Esquire
Courtney J. McKeldin
Julio Morales, Esquire
7 Official Opinions of the Compliance Board 76 (2010) 80
