Response from the Open Meetings Compliance Board

Last week we received the decision from the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board on our complaint regarding the ‘work group’ that put together the Artificial Turf report. We were not ever able to identify who attended any meetings they might have had; what was discussed, if anything; or even if the group ever met, after months and months of trying. The ‘work group’ was convened by the County Council’s Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment (T&E) Committee, yet the draft of the report that was made public had as the author in the metadata, Joe Lavorgna, a consultant to MCPS. So, who really wrote the report? No idea. Nope, still don’t know. Was there ever a work group? Did it ever meet? Nope, still don’t know.

Regarding our complaint, because the work group was not convened by a resolution, it doesn’t meet the act’s definition of a ‘public body,’ and so the Open Meetings Compliance Board found that “For the reasons stated above, we find that the work group was not a public body under the Act and that, so long as its members did not create a quorum of a different body that was subject to the Act, the Act was not violated.”Lesson: next time a ‘work group’ is convened, let’s all make sure there is a resolution for that group. This is a lesson we won’t forget.

Furthermore, although our complaint was not successful, the Board’s response is clear on this point: the government and Michael Faden in particular should not think they can bully or threaten the filer of a complaint as they did in their response. As the Board put it, “The Open Meetings Act is solely enforced by citizens.” That’s us!

Response From the MD Open Meetings Act Compliance Board 20111206234219

MoCo County Attorney Responds to OMA Complaint

Did Michael Faden have a bad day at the office?  Or has he been breathing too many fumes from the artificial turf advocates frequenting the County Council Office Buildings these days.

Read Mike's response to an Open Meetings Act complaint filed September 24, 2011 by two members of the Parents Coalition concerning the Artificial Turf Work Group that recently recommended more plastic fields in the county.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/72104513?access_key=key-2jvu42eb9jld7khjd4oz

Mike apparently thinks that he can use his taxpayer funded status to bully those who ask questions.  He writes:

This complaint verges on the frivolous because its authors cited absolutely no legal authority on which to base a violation of the Open Meeting Law.  . . . Were this case filed as a court case, sanctions for misuse of the judicial process would be in order.

I hate to break it to you, Mike, but we aren't in court, we pay your salary, and if the case were frivolous, the Open Meetings Compliance Board simply would have called up the filers and asked that they try again.

And part of the reason why the complaint was filed in the first place was that many community members couldn't figure out exactly what this working group was doing, who was on the committee, and when did it meet.  If the workgroup or whatever it was and whoever met were a bit more transparent, open meetings issues would be moot.

Just so we are reading from the same page, here is a link to the Open Meetings  Act:

According to the Act, "it is the public policy of the State that the public be provided with adequate notice of the time and location of meetings of public bodies, which shall be held in places reasonably accessible to individuals who would like to attend these meetings."

And, under the Act, the complaint needs the following:

• identify the public body, specify the action of the public body, and the date and the circumstances of the action, and
• signature of the complainant(s).

So, Michael, did you not check the rules applicable to Open Meeting Act complaints before you responded to the allegations?   

Or are you just trying to bully some of the same taxpayers who pay your salary?

And, if you had a truly horrible, no good, very bad day like Alexander, maybe it's best in the future to assign these matters to another staff member in your office.