Breaking: "Transparent" Board of Education Cited for Three Violations of Open Meetings Act in One Day @mocoboe @mcps

In September of 2023, the Montgomery County Board of Education put out a statement announcing their commitment to a transparent, thorough and expeditious process in the Beidleman matter.  

By January of 2024, it was clear that the Board of Education had dropped the transparent pledge and was solely focused on expediting whatever they could behind closed doors.  After observing multiple violations of the Maryland Open Meetings Act, we finally filed a complaint on January 22, 2024.  By then it was clear that the Board of Education had ditched the Maryland Open Meetings Act and they were slipping into closed meetings at every opportunity.  

The violations noted in our complaint were clear and the Board of Education members should have had no problem understanding how they were violating the law.  Afterall, the Maryland Open Meetings Act requires at least one person to have taken the Maryland Open Meetings Act training for each board that plans on meeting in closed sessions.  The Board of Education has at least one person that knows the law, plus they have their own in house lawyers that should be clear on what is required. 

Upon receiving the complaint, the Board of Education could have acknowledged their violations and committed once again to being transparent etc...  

But the Board of Education decided to hire outside legal counsel to respond to the complaint and allege that they had not violated the Maryland Open Meetings Act.  That was a decision to spend MCPS Operating funds on an outside lawyer instead of a) admitting the violation, or b) using an in house lawyer already on the payroll to respond to the complaint.  

On April 19, 2024, the Open Meetings Compliance Board issued an opinion finding multiple violations of the Maryland Open Meetings Act by the Montgomery County Board of Education at their January 22, 2024 meeting. 

Instead of the Board of Education actually following through on their commitment to be transparent, the Board of Education wasted precious MCPS Operating Budget funds trying to cover up their violation of Maryland law. 

The Board of Education broke their commitment to the public and then compounded that breach by wasting education funds that could have gone to classrooms. 

From the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board:  

Feb. 2024: Board of Education Hires Outside Law Firm to Fight MD Open Meetings Act Complaint

2024.02.22 Letter to OMCB Responding to OMA Complaint No. 24-17 by Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland on Scribd

 

Here is the Montgomery County Board of Education's Legal Fees report for February 2024.  Somewhere in this report is buried the thousands of dollars that the Board of Education spent on outside legal counsel to defend a defenseless violation of the Maryland Open Meetings Act.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/D5WSZM72DE49/$file/Legal Fees Rpt 240229.pdf

Howard County parents lose lawsuit aimed to strip student school board member’s vote

A lawsuit filed by two Howard County parents that challenged the voting rights of the school board’s student member failed in Howard County Circuit Court.

Judge Richard S. Bernhardt wrote in his opinion that the student member position is not in violation of the Maryland constitution...

...Eighteen of the 25 Maryland school boards don’t allow students to vote. However, most school boards in the Baltimore region, including the state board, have one student member who can vote on most topics...

...Therefore, since Bernhardt determined the student member isn’t elected, the argument over the member’s age isn’t valid since no age requirement exists for “nonelected members” in the Maryland constitution or state law...

...A month later, 128 former student school board members in Maryland weighed in on the lawsuit in an amicus brief submitted to the court, saying it the lawsuit is an “egregious attack” on student representation.

The brief, filed by Washington, D.C.-based law firm Venable LLP in hopes of influencing the court’s decision, argued the lawsuit was invalid because the student member is not elected, which was the same reasoning Bernhardt used in his opinion Thursday...

https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/howard/cng-ho-board-wins-lawsuit-20210326-6bynogacgzdphgoexwowobtgoe-story.html?fbclid=IwAR3iolsF0ifcIHb-ieQKg0D874IdJn2RkcxYUvwlRyJQiGOvAIkcV2iTbt4

Critics of Stealthy But Heavily Lobbied Energy Bill Say It’s Bad for Consumers #Dinner #Steakhouse

On Feb. 26, in an extraordinary display of unity, all five members of Maryland’s Public Service Commission traveled to Annapolis to testify in the Senate Finance Committee against sweeping legislation that would change the way rates are set for the state’s biggest electric utility companies. The Office of People’s Counsel, the state agency that represents consumers’ interests in matters of utility regulation, also testified against the measure.

That night, Baltimore Gas & Electric, one of several large utilities supporting the bill, treated members of the Finance Committee and the House Economic Matters Committee to dinner at an Annapolis steakhouse.

Two weeks later, what’s known as the Alternative Rate Plan bill, perhaps the most heavily-lobbied piece of legislation this General Assembly session, but one that has largely flown under the radar, is starting to move – and starting to attract some attention. Economic Matters passed it unanimously on Wednesday night, and on Thursday morning, the legislation received preliminary approval on the House floor after a “debate” that lasted approximately 30 seconds.

“Is this bill good for consumers?” asked Del. Jon Cardin (D-Baltimore County).

“Yes,” replied Economic Matters Chair Dereck E. Davis (D-Prince George’s).

Shortly after, AARP, the lobbying group for senior citizens, put out an alert, pleading with its members to contact lawmakers and urge them to kill the bill.

“AARP needs YOUR help to Protect Maryland rate payers!” the alert read. “…The bill is described as a “Utility Wish List” because the Energy Lobby LOVES it!”..

https://www.marylandmatters.org/2019/03/15/critics-of-stealthy-but-heavily-lobbied-energy-bill-say-its-bad-for-consumers/

AUDIO: Del. C.T. Wilson, "We have a habit in Maryland of protecting these institutions...This is an emergency...Up to us to do something about it...Don't reward sneaky behavior." @votectwilson .@KathleenDumais1

Delegate C.T. Wilson, "Maryland has become a dumping ground for pedophile priests."

The video below is the audio feed from the Maryland House of Delegates on March 16, 2019, when Delegate Kathleen Dumais attempted to amend part of Delegate C.T. Wilson's bill to eliminate and extend the Statute of Limitations in civil suits concerning the sexual abuse of children.

Listen to Delegate CT Wilson as he responds to Delegate Kathleen Dumais' attempt to amend his bill.

Listen to the Delegate that says, "In a good faith manner in a very clear, honest and direct way we have tried to establish our legislative intent that we want to open up our courts for an examination, for an attempt to bring justice to children who were sexually abused.  We should speak with that widely and clearly in a bipartisan fashion with one voice.  We want to give those victims every opportunity possible to present their claims."

Montgomery County Delegate Kathleen Dumais presents an amendment to HB 687 that would eliminate the "look back" window in the bill. Delegate CT Wilson and others defend the bill and the provision. Delegate Kathleen Dumais' amendment was rejected 3 - 131.

Listen to the end.  There is a break and the audio is silent while votes are being cast.

Administrative Law Judge Ignores MD Law and Fed. Regulations In Excluding Press from Hearing

See the previous post about a Maryland Administrative Law Judge that barred a reporter from attending a hearing involving a MCPS student needing special education services. 

Here is applicable state law-Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 8-413(f)(2)

(2)   Parents involved in the hearings must be given the right to:

(i)   Have the child who is the subject of the hearing present; and

(ii)   Open the hearing to the public

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=ged&section=8-413&ext=html&session=2015RS&tab=subject5

 Here is the link to the federal regulations

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title34-vol2/xml/CFR-2015-title34-vol2-sec300-512.xml

§ 300.512Hearing rights.(a) General. Any party to a hearing conducted pursuant to §§ 300.507 through 300.513 or §§ 300.530 through 300.534, or an appeal conducted pursuant to § 300.514, has the right to—(1) Be accompanied and advised by counsel and by individuals with special knowledge or training with respect to the problems of children with disabilities, except that whether parties have the right to be represented by non-attorneys at due process hearings is determined under State law;(2) Present evidence and confront, cross-examine, and compel the attendance of witnesses;(3) Prohibit the introduction of any evidence at the hearing that has not been disclosed to that party at least five business days before the hearing;(4) Obtain a written, or, at the option of the parents, electronic, verbatim record of the hearing; and(5) Obtain written, or, at the option of the parents, electronic findings of fact and decisions.(b) Additional disclosure of information. (1) At least five business days prior to a hearing conducted pursuant to § 300.511(a), each party must disclose to all other parties all evaluations completed by that date and recommendations based on the offering party's evaluations that the party intends to use at the hearing.(2) A hearing officer may bar any party that fails to comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section from introducing the relevant evaluation or recommendation at the hearing without the consent of the other party.(c) Parental rights at hearings. Parents involved in hearings must be given the right to—(1) Have the child who is the subject of the hearing present;(2) Open the hearing to the public; and(3) Have the record of the hearing and the findings of fact and decisions described in paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of this section provided at no cost to parents.(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(2), 1415(h))[71 FR 46753, Aug. 14, 2006, as amended at 73 FR 73027, Dec. 1, 2008]

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title34-vol2/pdf/CFR-2015-title34-vol2-sec300-512.pdf

Montgomery Sentinel: Judge kicks Sentinel reporter out of hearing

Judge was formerly a partner in MCPS's outside law firm

17 Dec 2015 Written by  Danica Roem

Judge Marina Sabett

ROCKVILLE – Administrative law judge Marina Sabett barred a reporter from The Montgomery County Sentinel from a hearing involving a special-needs child Wednesday morning, despite the child's parents’ inviting the reporter to attend the hearing at the Carver Educational Services Center.

“The family invited you into the hearing and the government wanted to conduct the hearing in secret. It doesn’t get any worse than that,” said Maryland, Delaware, District of Columbia Press Association attorney Chuck Tobin. “This is the exact opposite of transparency in government.

Read the entire story at:
http://www.thesentinel.com/mont/newsx/local/item/2894-judge-kicks-sentinel-reporter-out-of-hearing

Judge Sabett's Linked-In profile says that she was previously a partner at Venable, LLC, a law firm that bills thousands of dollars of legal fees to MCPS each year.

Another $26,699 to the Venable law firm! #creditcards #expenseaccounts

...The Venable bill for July 2014 totaled $26,699. The largest amount was for policy matters ($20,205), the largest part of which related to expense review matters (18,477)..,

http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=9JTLS2579AAE

Karl A. Racine has raised about $675,000, including nearly a half-million of his own money, to fund his campaign, which has touted his experience as a litigator and manager.

Audits critical of candidate Karl Racine’s firm roil D.C. attorney general race

City Paper: Karl’s In Charge: Audits Question Bills from Attorney General Candidate’s Law Firm #mocoboe #creditcards #venable

The Montgomery County Board of Education's credit card reviewer in the news: 

...But maybe no one is better positioned to enjoy the new office than Karl Racine, who’s taken a leave of absence from white-shoe law firm Venable to run for the job...

...He’s also loaned or given his campaign $450,000 since the race began, giving him a $40,000 cash advantage over his nearest rival as of Oct. 10...

...While Racine ran the firm, according to the audits, Venable overbilled its clients—including the District—by hundreds of thousands of dollars...

...In 2011, an inspector general looked into whether Venable’s billing to the Treasury Department could be substantiated. Venable submitted bills that were with “vague and inadequate” work descriptions, according to the report, as well as expenses that weren’t allowed under the terms of the contract.
When the inspector general audited $1,027,049 worth of payments to Venable, it questioned $676,840 worth of payments—which amounted to two-thirds of the audited fees. The investigation found many expenses, according to the report, that should have had more documentation...

 ...Venable employees weren’t just remunerated with cash. The audit also found them inappropriately billing for 28 lunch and dinner orders, for a total of $1,737.70 in meals. District taxpayers picked up the check...

 http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2014/10/22/karls-in-charge-audits-question-bills-from-attorney-general-candidates-law-firm/

WPost: Montgomery County school board, critics at odds over $140,000 legal bill

First there was public uproar about how members of Montgomery County’s Board of Education used their district-issued credit cards. Now comes fallout regarding the $140,000 in legal bills that piled up as the records for those credit cards went under review and investigation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/montgomery-county-school-board-critics-at-odds-over-140000-legal-bill/2014/10/18/c792f2e0-47cc-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html?hpid=z2

Total Now $146,602! Another $18,477 to Venable law firm for credit card review! #creditcards

The July 2014, Venable law firm bill is now public. 

The Montgomery County Board of Education spent another $18,477 in July on legal fees to defend their use of MCPS credit cards. 



That brings the grand total to date up to $146,602! 

The Board of Education has almost spent as much on legal fees to defend their use of MCPS credit cards as their entire annual expense budget! 

Will there be more charges in August?  Stay tuned!

Phil is so phunny

Phil Kaufman, President of the Montgomery County Board of Education, still doesn't get it.  In the Washington Post, Phil once again defends his use of outside counsel to review the allegations of credit card misuse by Board of Education Members.

Its not the review that gives us heartburn.  Its the approximately $140,000 charge for Venable and Karl Racine.  

From the article:

When concerns were raised last spring about Montgomery County Board of Education member expenses and credit card usage, the board and I knew it was important that we undergo a swift and thorough process to understand the scope of the issue and look for ways to improve our procedures. We also knew that an external review would be needed to assure the community that the board was taking this matter seriously.
Some are questioning the cost of hiring lawyers to conduct this external review, but I believed then — and I believe now — that it was the right thing to do.

Did you really need fancy lawyers to tell you to tear up the cards?

Did you really need fancy lawyers to tell you to get real policies in place?

What on earth could a $500 per hour lawyer do to run up a charge of $140,000?

Do the math - at an average rate of $500 per hour that is 280 lawyer hours.

You've got to be kidding if you think that anyone believes that this took seven weeks of lawyers to review this mess.

Some more questions for Phil.

Will Venable continue to rack up oops, I mean, monitor the BOE members continued use of their expense accounts?

What about the other credit card holders in MCPS?  A while back, we estimated that over 1000 MCPS employees have school system credit cards.  Who is watching them?

Wait - we have the Maryland Association of Boards of Education meeting coming up this week in Ocean City.

You'll have a great opportunity to demonstrate your fiscal responsibility at that meeting.

Note to our readers:  Stay tuned for a blog posting once the expense logs are submitted.

Board of Education Spent $112,569 in One Month on Law Firm Reviewing Credit Card Expenditures - Bethesda Beat

Board of Education Spent $112,569 in One Month on Law Firm Reviewing Credit Card Expenditures - Bethesda Beat

...Why would the board spend more than $128,000 in legal fees for advice on an issue in which they were criticized for improper spending in the first place?
According to Board President Phil Kauffman, who responded to a Bethesda Beat email about the issue, the board thought it was important to have an independent counsel “thoroughly examine the records to ensure that taxpayer dollars were being used appropriately.”...

 ...“Our goal always is to have reasonable legal costs and to get good advice from experts to help us make the best possible decisions,” Kauffman wrote. “I am confident that we did that here and I believe that our new processes and procedures will ultimately serve the board and public well.”...

BOE Spent $128,125 Defending Use of MCPS Credit Cards and $158,477 Expense Account #Venable #KarlRacine

Fager's Island Restaurant Receipt

Montgomery County's Board of Education members really, really, really like their $158,477 expense account.

They like it so much that they paid $128,125 to have the Venable law firm and partner Karl Racine defend their use of MCPS credit cards.

Yes, that was $128,125 the BOE spent just to defend their use of credit cards.

Absolutely no students benefited from this "education funding." No teachers were hired and no classrooms were stocked with school supplies.  How many Montgomery County homes paid property taxes to supply those "education" dollars to the BOE for this use?

$128,125 spent just on 8 BOE members demanding the right to spend "education" dollars on their own meals and entertainment. $112,569 of those dollars were spent in ONE MONTH.  



The Venable bill for May 2014 totaled $28,888. The largest amount was for financial matters ($15,556), all of which was related to the review of expense reimbursements.

The Venable bill for June 2014 totaled $112,569, all of which was related to the review of expense 
reimbursements

Next month: the July 2014 Venable bill will be revealed.

Letter from Office of State Prosecutor

There are still over 1,400 other MCPS credit cards floating around.

  2014 Office of State Prosecutor by Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland

State prosecutor: No ‘criminal misconduct’ in use of Montgomery school board credit cards

 The Maryland Office of the State Prosecutor closed its investigation into Montgomery County school board members’ use of school system credit cards after the office subpoenaed board expense records in June.
http://www.gazette.net/article/20140826/NEWS/140829412/1022/state-prosecutor-no-x2018-criminal-misconduct-x2019-in-use-of&template=gazette

Note: The Board of Education has not eliminated any of their $158,477 expense account. 

The party will continue, just without the use of personal MCPS credit cards. 

Complaint Opens Meetings, Forces Release of Memo

The Washington Post Editorial

The Maryland Open Meetings Act Compliance Board has released their opinion concerning the secret meetings of Board President Phil Kauffman's credit card committee.

The original complaint was filed on May 31, 2014, by a member of the Parents' Coalition. The filing of the Complaint brought to light the creation of a backroom committee to discuss the Board of Education's (BOE) use of credit cards. When the complaint was filed the committee had already been formed and had met without any public notice.

On June 8, 2014, The Washington Post published a lengthy Editorial suggesting that the BOE had something to hide.

After the Complaint was filed, BOE President Kauffman changed his mind and made subsequent meetings of the credit card committee open to the public. As part of the filings that followed the initial Complaint, the BOE finally released the memorandum that had created the backroom credit card committee. The memorandum was made public on July 16th, almost two months after the committee had been created.

The filing of the Open Meetings Act complaint on May 31st was the catalyst for the opening of future meetings of this committee and forced the BOE to release the memorandum that originally created the committee.

The Open Meetings Act Compliance Board has determined that BOE President Kauffman's creation of a backroom, closed door committee did not actually violate current Maryland Open Meetings Act law. However, the process of permitting the public to question actions of boards by the filing of a complaint regarding the Maryland Open Meetings Act served to push the BOE to open meetings that otherwise would have been closed.

Through the complaint procedure, a member of the public was allowed to question a secret, closed door meeting and bring attention to the backroom dealings of a Board of Education. Shining a light on this backroom committee forced its existence into the sunlight and allowed the public and the press to attend and observe subsequent meetings.

  2014 August Open Meetings Act Opinion by Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland

BOE Spent $15,556 on Venable LLP in FIRST Month of Credit Card Scandal

The Board of Education has just released their Legal Fees Report for May 2014.  The report shows that in the first month of the MCPS credit card scandal the Board of Education spent $15,556 on the Venable LLP law firm reviewing expense reimbursements.

The MCPS credit card scandal went on for months and has not yet concluded.

Imagine what the BOE has paid Venable LLP over the course of the summer.

Stay tuned for the monthly totals.

Exclusive: BOE Produces Memo Previously Withheld from Public

After the Parents' Coalition filed an Open Meetings Act complaint with the Maryland Open Meetings Act Compliance Board the Montgomery County Board of Education (BOE) finally made public the memorandum from Board President Phil Kauffman that established the credit card committee.

Note that the BOE did not produce this memorandum in their initial response to the Open Meetings Act Compliance Board.

The BOE did not produce this memorandum until July 16th, five days after the Parents' Coalition alerted the Open Meetings Act Compliance Board to its existence. 

The memorandum, shown below in SCRIBD, from BOE President Phil Kauffman states that the backroom, no public allowed credit card committee was initially established just because Mr. Kauffman decided it was time to review the policy. 

The memorandum makes no mention of the fact that members of the Parents' Coalition had picked up over 300 pages of Board member credit card bills and expense reports just two days earlier on April 23, 2014. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: KMKoger@Venable.com
To: opengov@oag.state.md.us; AMacNeille@oag.state.md.us
CC: -------SMWilliams@Venable.com; KMKoger@Venable.com
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:45:44 -0400
Subject: RE: Open Meetings Act Complaint (MCPS) - response to Venable LLP

Ms. MacNeille:

Attached please find a copy of the April 25, 2014 Memorandum referenced by Ms. Wilson in her July 11, 2014 letter.  As noted in the Memorandum, Board of Education President Philip Kauffman created the ad hoc committee to review the processes and guidelines relating to Board of Education expenditures as set forth in the Board of Education’s Handbook.  In reviewing such processes and guidelines, the ad hoc committee is carrying out an administrative function and is not developing new policies for Board of Education expenditures as suggested by Ms. Wilson.  As noted in my letter of July 3, 2014, the Open Meetings Act also did not apply to the gathering of the ad hoc committee because such gathering did not involve a quorum of the Board of Education and the ad hoc committee is not a public body that is subject to the Open Meetings Act.   Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Kristin M. Koger, Esq. | Venable LLP
t 301.217.5643 | f 301.217.5617
One Church Street, Fifth Floor, Rockville, MD 20850

  April 25, 2014 Memorandum by Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland