Training Requirement for Maryland Public Bodies
Training requirement: Effective October 1, 2013, each public entity subject to the Open Meetings Act must designate a member, officer, or employee to receive training on the requirements of the Act. The designated person must receive the training within 90 days of the designation. Because the legislation also specifies that the training must be completed “within 6 months after the effective date,” training received before October 1 will not satisfy the requirement.
The legislation requires each public body to send a list of its designees to the Open Meetings Compliance Board. That can be done by an e-mail to OpenGov@oag.state.md.us, with a subject line specifying “Open Meetings training designee(s) of [name of public body].”
The designee can receive the training either through (1) the online class “offered by the Office of the Attorney General and the University of Maryland’s Institute for Governmental Service and Research,” or (2) “a class on the requirements of the Open Meetings law offered by the Maryland Association of Counties or the Maryland Municipal League through the Academy for Excellence in Local Governance.” The online class is posted athttp://www.igsr.umd.edu/VLC/OMA/class_oma_intro1.php , and the designee can print out a certificate of completion.
The text of the legislation is posted at: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/chapters_noln/Ch_351_hb0139E.pdf. |
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Open Meetings Act Training Now Required by Maryland Law
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One of the things I believe that the MCPS as well as the County Council and even the current President has come to learn is phrase "or then what?" I love the phrases: "must designate a member" and "must receive the training within 90 days" and "training must be completed within 6 months after the effective date". So where's the "carrot or stick" in all of this? Will MCPS lose funding from the state? Will the state police come and shut down the MCPS Council. What if as Chairman I said, "no". Even if they send someone, "who cares". Even if someone goes and "sees the light" and tries to correct the Board, I am sure they'll be told, in polite terms, to "shut their pie hole." Once again is someone going to spend the money on a lawyer to sue them for not complying. NO. And they (MCPS) know that. So where's the incentive to comply with a rule they don't believe in in a county with apathetic voters?
ReplyDeleteA Open Meetings Law complaint alleging valid notice, openness, minutes, etc. provision violations should be on everyone's bucket list.
DeleteChris, I think the first test of how well this is going to work is, will MCPS make public, without any fuss, or delay, the name of their designated person.
ReplyDeletePaula, If MCPS doesn't make public the name of their person, the keeper of the names of the designated individuals should make them available without any fuss or delay responsive to a public information act request. In a perfect world the office of the attorney general would keep an update to date list of the designated person for each public body on his web site.
DeleteI have no faith. I'll believe it when I see it.
ReplyDeleteHB 331/SB 826 (includes increasing the penaltites for violations) are also effective in 2013, October 1, 2013. This change to the Act might be incentive for the MCPS as well as the County Council to comply with the Open Meetings Act. Who will be the first to take a public body in violation of the Act to court after October 1st.? My hope is that judges won't be as sympathedic toward scofflaws as the members of the Open Meeting Law Compliance Board have been when issuing opinions. Perhaps judges wlll take into consideration both the letter and the spirit of the Act when making a determination as to whether the law was violated.
ReplyDeleteHB 331/SB 826 = Requiring that a public body take specified actions if the State Open Meetings Law Compliance Board determines that a violation of the Open Meetings Act has occurred; providing that compliance with specified provisions of the Act is not an admission to a specified violation and may not be used as evidence in a specified proceeding; repealing a prohibition on the introduction of opinions issued by the Board as evidence in specified proceedings; increasing the penalties for violations of the Open Meetings Act; etc.
The Maryland House of Delegates has given preliminary approval to a watered down version of legislation designed to give enforcement teeth for violations the state’s Open Meetings Act.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Len Lazarick of Maryland Reporter, the bill filed by Delegate Dan Morahaim (D-Baltimore County), would have mandated stiff fines for violations of the law.
Del. Dan Morhaim’s bill to increase potential penalties for illegally closing meetings were reduced and any fines imposed would be imposed on the public body as a whole, not the individual members. The fine, which is now capped at $100, would range from $250 to $1,000.
Morhaim had originally proposed fines of $1,000 to $10,000 on individual members of the offending body. The Baltimore County delegate said the amendments were made at the request of the Maryland Association of Counties and the Maryland Municipal League.
Morahaim’s bill came after the Open Meetings Compliance Board ruled that the University System of Maryland Board of Regents violated the Open Meetings Act when it entered entered into multiple private meetings to discuss the University of Maryland at College Park leaving the Atlantic Coast Conference to join the Big Ten Conference.
From Watchdogwire-Maryland, February 28, 2013
One of the so called improvements to the Open Meetings Act passed by combo watered down bills HB 0331 and SB 0826 is the addition of a procedure to require public bodies to acknowledge publically any violations determined by the Compliance Board. Specifically, if the board determines that a violation has occurred, a member of the public body must, at the public body’s next open meeting after the board has issued its opinion, announce the violation and orally summarize the opinion. A majority of the public body’s members must then sign a copy of the opinion. Further changes address circuit court proceedings and fines that may be--repeat, may be--imposed by the court.
ReplyDeleteThis new law might be a good enough reason forscofflaw public bodies not to be at least the first to violate the Act under the new provisions effective Oct. 1st. of this year.