The Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board issued an opinion on December 23, 2025, finding no violation by the Charles County Board of Education in its handling of a board vacancy selection process. The board met privately on September 23, 2025, to choose a candidate for the District 4 seat without public notice or an open session, prompting complaints that it failed to follow Open Meetings Act procedures for closing meetings and post-session disclosures. The compliance board determined the meeting involved an administrative function under state law, exempting it from the act’s requirements.
Complainants alleged the board should have notified the public, provided an agenda, convened briefly in open session, voted to close, and issued a written statement citing authority and topics discussed. They also claimed required disclosures in subsequent minutes were lacking. The compliance board, consisting of Runako Kumbula Allsopp, Karen R. Calmeise, and Andrew G. White, rejected these claims, citing the distinction between exclusions and exceptions in the Open Meetings Act.
The vacancy arose when Linda Warren, the District 4 representative, resigned effective August 1, 2025, due to personal circumstances that required her to relocate outside the district. State law mandates board members reside in the commissioner district they represent, leading to her departure after serving since November 2022. The board advertised the position and received two applications from qualified residents: Denise Joseph and Bridgette Patterson.
On August 12, 2025, during an open meeting, the board discussed its plan to fill the seat. It posted applicant names and interview schedules at least two weeks in advance, as required by Maryland Education Article Section 3-501. Interviews occurred on September 17, 2025, in an open session at the Jesse L. Starkey Administration Building in La Plata, livestreamed on the district website and later archived on YouTube. Joseph interviewed at 3 p.m., followed by Patterson at 4 p.m. Questions covered the board’s role, education gaps, fiscal planning, policy implementation, and the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future.
The private selection meeting followed six days later. The board chose Patterson, a White Plains resident, to serve through December 2026. She was sworn in on October 27, 2025, by Charles County Circuit Court Clerk Lisa E. Yates during an open work session. Patterson thanked the board and community in brief remarks, committing to student success in the district serving 28,162 pupils across 37 schools.
Maryland Education Article Section 3-501 requires the board to fill vacancies within 90 days by selecting a qualified individual for the remainder of the term. It mandates public interviews, livestreaming, video recordings, applicant lists published two weeks prior, and notices matching regular meeting protocols. However, it explicitly states discussions of applicants or the final selection need not occur publicly. The compliance board referenced this provision, noting the process aligned with statutory duties.
The Open Meetings Act, codified in the General Provisions Article, requires public bodies to meet openly unless an exclusion or exception applies. Exclusions cover administrative, judicial, or quasi-judicial functions, where the act generally does not apply. Exceptions, listed in Section 3-305(b), allow closed sessions for 15 specific topics after public notice, an open vote to close, and a written statement. Post-closure, minutes of the next open session must disclose actions taken.
In its analysis, the compliance board applied a two-step test for administrative functions. First, the discussion must not fall under advisory, judicial, legislative, quasi-judicial, or quasi-legislative categories defined in Section 3-101. The board’s selection did not involve studying public concerns, judicial powers, contested cases, or approving rules, budgets, or contracts. Approving an appointment is legislative only if responding to another’s proposal; self-appointment pursuant to legal obligation is administrative.
Second, the activity must administer an existing law the body is responsible for. Here, the board administered Education Section 3-501 by filling the vacancy. Prior opinions, such as 8 OMCB Opinions 84 (2012) and 4 OMCB Opinions 182 (2005), support this view. The compliance board cited its manual and past rulings, emphasizing administrative functions as the administration of laws, rules, or bylaws excluding other defined functions.
State education law evolved to include these transparency measures following 2018 amendments, balancing public input with efficient governance. The Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, enacted in 2021, emphasizes accountability in local boards, though not directly tied to vacancy processes. Local stakeholders value such procedures to maintain trust in decisions affecting school resources and curricula.
The compliance board’s opinion reinforces that boards may handle internal appointments privately when statutorily directed, provided public elements like interviews are met. This ruling aligns with precedents where similar selections were deemed administrative, such as a 2024 opinion distinguishing self-appointments from confirmations.
For Charles County, the process ensured continuity without disruption to school operations. Patterson, with experience in community advocacy, joins a board addressing enrollment growth and facility needs. The district recently welcomed a new chief of schools and honored staff contributions, reflecting ongoing administrative stability.