ANNAPOLIS, Md. — The Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board determined that the Anne Arundel County Board of Education violated the state’s Open Meetings Act during a September 17, 2025, meeting by excluding the public from deliberations without following required procedures.
The opinion, issued December 1, 2025, and designated 19 Official Opinions of the Compliance Board 347, stemmed from a complaint alleging off-the-record discussions during recesses. The board convened in open session to address Superintendent Mark Bedell’s redistricting recommendations under agenda item 7.07, part of Phase 2 of the countywide redistricting process affecting clusters in Severna Park, Broadneck, and South County. After initial presentations and member comments, the board took a 19-minute recess, followed later by a 13-minute recess before voting.
During the second recess, board officers conferred with counsel on motion formats and voting procedures to align with redistricting policy, while other members engaged in small discussions. The compliance board found this consultation involved public business and formed part of the deliberative process, requiring either open discussion or a formal closed session under General Provisions Article Section 3-305(b)(7), which permits closures for legal advice. The board failed to conduct a recorded vote or prepare a written closing statement, violating Section 3-301.
The meeting, held at the Carol Sheffey Parham Building in Annapolis, drew from a process initiated to address school capacities and demographics, with Phase 2 recommendations impacting approximately 750 students across elementary, middle, and high schools. The board ultimately voted 8-0 to advance all proposed amendments to a public hearing, adjourning shortly after. A video recording of the session, available on the district’s YouTube channel, shows graphics during recesses but no member activities.
The Anne Arundel County Board of Education consists of seven elected nonpartisan members and one student member, with a quorum of five needed for actions under Education Article Section 3-2A-06. Elected members include Dana Schallheim as president, Robert Silkworth as vice president, and others such as Gloria Dent, Chuck Yocum, Corine Frank, Erica McFarland, and Micah Watson, alongside student member Alex Mack. The board oversees a district serving over 83,000 students in 126 schools, with redistricting aimed at balancing enrollment amid growth in areas like Crofton and southern communities near the Patuxent River.
Maryland’s Open Meetings Act, enacted to promote transparency, mandates public bodies conduct business openly unless exceptions apply, excluding administrative, judicial, or quasi-judicial functions. For closures, presiding officers must vote publicly and document reasons, citing authority and topics. The compliance board, comprising three attorneys appointed by the attorney general, reviews complaints and issues nonbinding opinions to guide compliance.
In this case, the compliance board emphasized that once a quorum convenes openly, subsequent side conversations on public matters, even during recesses or involving fewer than a quorum, cannot evade Act requirements. This interpretation aligns with prior opinions, such as 9 Official Opinions of the Compliance Board 283 (2015), which rejected mechanical quorum applications to prevent evasions, and 14 Official Opinions of the Compliance Board 29 (2020), finding violations in text exchanges between two members during open sessions. Another ruling, 19 Official Opinions of the Compliance Board 189 (2025), addressed similar breakout groups.
The Supreme Court of Maryland has supported broad constructions to frustrate evasive devices, as in J.P. Delphey Limited Partnership v. Mayor and City of Frederick (2006) and Community and Labor United for Baltimore Charter Committee v. Baltimore City Board of Elections (2003). Here, the compliance board noted the Act’s discretionary exceptions do not mandate closures, but procedural steps are required if chosen.
On December 3, 2025, the board announced the opinion during a public session, fulfilling disclosure under Section 3-211. Board President Schallheim stated the board, superintendent, and staff take open-meetings obligations seriously and will implement the compliance board’s guidance. No votes occurred on the opinion, as it serves advisory purposes. The announcement pledged adherence to ensure future deliberations maintain transparency.
This finding underscores accountability in educational governance, particularly for decisions like redistricting that affect families and communities. In Anne Arundel, the Phase 2 plan received final approval November 19, 2025, by a 5-3 vote, moving students primarily in Crofton and southern areas to alleviate overcrowding at schools such as Crofton Elementary and Nantucket Elementary. Public hearings in October and November 2025 gathered input, with the process documented on the district’s redistricting site.
Relevance extends to adjacent Southern Maryland counties—Calvert, Charles, and St. Mary’s—where school boards handle similar transparency mandates. For instance, the Charles County Board of Education was recently cleared of an alleged violation in a December 23, 2025, opinion regarding a vacancy appointment, after following procedures for closed interviews. Calvert County residents have voiced criticisms at board meetings, though no recent Open Meetings Act complaints surfaced in records. St. Mary’s County boards broadcast sessions live, emphasizing compliance.
The opinion highlights risks of manipulating quorums, advising bodies to avoid recesses for substantive talks without safeguards. For Anne Arundel, it prompts review of meeting protocols amid ongoing budget and policy discussions, with the next session set for January 2026. The compliance board’s role, since its establishment, has resolved hundreds of complaints annually, fostering public trust in government processes.