Remember a few months ago when we posted that Dr. Starr asked the Open Meetings Compliance Board to reconsider an opinion issued on July 26, 2011 that the Montgomery County Board of Education violated the Maryland Open Meetings Act when it convened a citizens committee to participate in the process that resulted in naming Dr. Starr as the new Superintendent of MCPS?
Here is a link to our December post.
Poor Dr. Starr is now even poorer. To the tune of $ 9,915.15.
On February 29, 2012, the Open Meetings Compliance Board denied Dr. Starr's request for a reconsideration of its finding that the Board of Education violated the Open Meetings Act again. You can read the decision here.
Specifically, the Open Meetings Compliance Board quoted an earlier opinion stating:
The Open Meetings Act contains no explicit authorization or procedure for reconsideration.. . . the Board will not entertain a request for reconsideration simply because a public body submits information that it could have provided in its response to the complaint and that merely expands upon a point already considered.The Compliance Board then found:
Here, the County Board has not presented us with new facts, and so we deny the request.Why the Board of Education decided to pursue this appeal doesn't make sense. Is Dr. Starr unhappy? Does the Board of Education plan on another search for a Superintendent of Schools shortly? The taxpaying public will never know, because the Board of Education continues to think that it can conduct its meetings out of the public view.
As this blogger has said before, we would all be better off if the Montgomery County Board of Education learned to abide by the principles of the Open Meetings Act.
How much did this cost the good citizens of Montgomery County? The Venable bill for the two attorneys on the case came to $ 9,916.15 for 16.7 hours of work, or $5,000 per day.And, we would have cash for other items - like textbooks, shop tools at Edison, and musical instruments.
Open Meetings Compliance Board to Brandman: No do over