The Open Meetings Act Do-Over - Part 2

Poor Dr. Starr.

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

The Open Meetings Act Do-Over

Poor Dr. Joshua Starr.

As soon as he arrives in Montgomery County, he is faced with a stream of Maryland Open Meetings Act complaints as a result of actions by his predecessor, Dr. Jerry Weast, and the esteemed Montgomery County Board of Education.

Dr. Starr had several choices.  He could reform the Board and ask them to heed the advice of the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board.  He could read the law himself, and abide by its requirements.   Or he could continue to insist that MoCo and its Board of Education can't possibly be wrong.

Guess what?  Doesn't matter that Pat O'Neill was on "pins and needles" at the thought of having to testify under oath for the first time during her tenure as a member of the Board of Education in conjunction with another open meetings matter.   Dr. Starr and the MoCo Board of Education insist they are right.

Dr. Starr and MoCo's Board of Education hired the Venable Law firm, one of the country's top 100 law firms, to ask for a "do over" of an earlier decision by the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board.   No more Reese and Carney.  They are serious, and are willing to fork over major dollars to have a partner who bills at top dollar at the firm draft a request to reconsider the issue.

You can read the request here.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/76187932?access_key=key-l786sqkc0tt1avqivcc

Curious, isn't it? 

Do you think MoCo is pressing this with the Compliance Board because we may be looking for a new superintendent shortly?   Why is the Board of Education so concerned about this decision?

Better question.  How much did Samantha Williams and Venable charge to write this opinion?

I am not sure that I would classify the selection of a School Superintendent as an administrative or routine function, would you?  And even assuming that such business could be conducted in a closed session away from the public eye, is that really necessary?  It's not as if the privacy of any candidates is an issue.

I thought the school system is short on funding.  Apparently not when it comes to paying lawyers to get them out of trouble.