Measure would require fines, public shaming for improper meetings
New laws passed by the Maryland General Assembly late last week would put stricter penalties and an element of public-shaming behind the state's open meetings laws.State lawmakers said public officials have been able to flout the rules without significant consequences."It has no enforcement whatsoever," said Del. Dan Morhaim, a Baltimore CountyDemocrat who sponsored the bill to toughen open-meetings laws. "This is the first bill that actually creates some enforcement."Maryland's public officials are barred from conducting public business behind closed doors, but the penalties for doing so in the past have been a rarely-levied fine and a written notice that Morhaim said was often ignored.The bill came out of a series of hearings this summer, during which a committee of state lawmakers found that sometimes officials took written advisories about violations from the Open Meetings Compliance Board and "just throw it away."Gov. Martin O'Malley's spokeswoman Raquel Gillory said he is reviewing the bill.The measure would increase fines for breaking the open-meetings law from $100 to $250. It would also require a public body to announce at its next meeting that the compliance board found it had broken the law. Each member of the group that violated the law would have to sign a statement acknowledging their conduct...
I don't believe this is going to change anything. Democrat or Republican, politicians have no shame. $250 is nothing. Especially if it isn't going to come out of THEIR OWN pocket. If they can approve a 2 million dollar promethean board contract behind closed doors why would $250 fine be a problem? I am sure that any future announcement that they had "broken the law" will be announced at a closed door session.
ReplyDeleteKeep it open; 'Sunshine' lacking in snow days decision re: Garrett County Board of Ed at http://times-news.com/opinion/x437163143/Keep-it-open, concludes with the following but mandated Open Meetings Act training won't matter if we elect scofflaws:
ReplyDelete"In a perfect world, the people we elect to public office would want to make sure as many of their deliberations as possible are done in full view of their constituents.
But the fact remains many office-holders would rather not have to deal with public scrutiny — even on such simple matters like whether to accept a state waiver for making up snow days in Garrett County."