LA PLATA, Md. — The Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board issued an opinion on November 19, 2025, finding that the La Plata Town Council violated the state’s Open Meetings Act during a September 11, 2025, team-building retreat. The board determined the event qualified as a public meeting because council members discussed town business, including new strategic priorities and specific initiatives such as a tourism zone ordinance and charter review. Violations included failure to provide reasonable advance notice and to prepare required minutes, marking the second such ruling against the council in 2025.
The retreat took place at Wills Memorial Park in La Plata from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., facilitated by professionals and described by the council as focused on team development for newly elected members. No regulatory or legislative actions occurred, according to the town’s response to the complaint. However, the board’s review of an event summary revealed discussions on public matters, triggering the act’s requirements. The council advertised the retreat via a website notification on September 2, 2025, to subscribers, and announced it at the town’s Planning Commission meeting that day and the council’s September 9, 2025, session. Despite these efforts, the board noted the event’s absence from the town’s online meeting calendar, its standard method for public notices, constituted inadequate advance notice under section 3-302(a) of the act.
Additionally, while facilitators prepared a summary presented by the town manager at the council’s September 23, 2025, meeting, no formal minutes were created for the retreat itself. The act mandates minutes detailing each item considered, actions taken, and recorded votes, per section 3-306. The board concluded the summary fell short, as it did not include these elements, and presenting it in later minutes would not inform the public where to find retreat-specific information.
In response, the Town of La Plata released a statement acknowledging the findings and committing to corrective measures. These include posting all quorum gatherings on the online calendar, implementing a compliance checklist for notices and minutes, and requiring retraining for staff and officials on identifying meetings under the act. The town plans to disclose the board’s opinion at its next open meeting, as required by section 3-211.
This opinion follows a prior ruling in June 2025, where the board found the council violated the act in a September 3, 2024, closed session on personnel matters involving a mayoral stipend. That case cited insufficient details in closing statements and minutes under sections 3-305 and 3-306. The town similarly pledged improved procedures then, highlighting a pattern of transparency issues.
Maryland’s Open Meetings Act, enacted to ensure public business occurs openly, applies to public bodies like town councils when a quorum convenes to consider or transact such business. Its purpose is to foster public trust, accountability, and participation in government processes. The act requires reasonable advance notice of meetings, open access unless a closed session exception applies, and prompt preparation of minutes. Exceptions for closures include personnel, legal, or real estate matters, but even then, detailed disclosures are mandatory. The Open Meetings Compliance Board, a three-member entity appointed by the governor and housed in the Office of the Attorney General, issues advisory opinions on complaints but lacks enforcement powers beyond requiring public acknowledgments.
The board has addressed retreats in prior opinions, clarifying that labels like “team-building” do not exempt events if public business is discussed. For instance, gatherings focused solely on interpersonal relations fall outside the act, but those involving agenda-setting or policy priorities do not. In a 2004 opinion, the board stated that whether a retreat qualifies as a meeting depends on the presence of a quorum and consideration of public topics, not the event’s name. This aligns with the act’s definition of a meeting as convening a quorum to consider public business.
These violations underscore the act’s role in local governance, particularly in small communities where residents rely on transparent processes for decisions affecting ordinances, grants, and policies. Charles County, encompassing La Plata, emphasizes public access to meetings as part of broader accountability measures. The board’s rulings serve as educational tools, reminding officials that deviations from standard notice methods, such as online calendars, can hinder public awareness. For La Plata residents, familiar with local landmarks like Wills Memorial Park, such oversights may limit engagement in strategic planning that shapes tourism and infrastructure.
In Southern Maryland, where towns like La Plata balance growth with historical preservation, compliance with the act ensures residents can observe priority-setting without barriers. The town’s corrective steps, including expanded protocols and training, aim to align future gatherings with legal standards, potentially preventing repeat issues seen in the 2024 closed session case.