The Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board found no violation of the Open Meetings Act by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Mary’s County for participating in a ticketed “State of the County” luncheon hosted by the local Chamber of Commerce on Sept. 9, 2025, according to an opinion issued Dec. 26, 2025.
The opinion, labeled 19 Official Opinions of the Compliance Board 384 (2025), concluded that the event did not constitute a “meeting” under the Act because a quorum of the board did not convene to consider or transact public business. The board cautioned public bodies against participating in similar events where discussions could shift to pending matters, potentially triggering Act requirements.
The complaint alleged the event violated the Act by charging admission, making it not truly open to the public. Tickets cost $40 to $45 per person for the one-and-a-half-hour luncheon at the Bay District Fire Department building. The Chamber advertised it as a chance to hear from county commissioners about the county and ask questions in a moderated Q&A session.
Four of the five county commissioners attended. The event began with routine Chamber business, announcements and upcoming events, followed by lunch and a 12-minute “State of the County” video featuring county staff and department leaders discussing programs, acquisitions and projects, including a new computer-aided dispatch system for emergency services, updates to the comprehensive plan and park improvements.
The final segment was a 30-minute Q&A with the four commissioners. Each gave opening remarks: The board president noted federal funding cuts and the county’s relative economic stability compared to other communities. Another commissioner discussed economic growth, potential unfunded mandates from the General Assembly and caution in spending on new projects. A third applauded the dispatch system, transit modernization and the “Agricoast” brand for local agricultural vendors, while urging participation in the comprehensive plan update and citing traffic and budget as challenges. The fourth focused on the county’s high bond rating, affordable housing shortages and construction on a residential access road and YMCA building.
The moderator posed three questions. On expanding affordable workforce housing, commissioners described it as a state and national issue, noted the county does not build housing, suggested improving the permitting process and opposed high-density housing. Two mentioned possible incentives for builders without specifics or indications of pending proposals.
On legislative issues with the county’s state delegation, one mentioned bills dealing with MetCom, the county’s water and wastewater utility, without details. Others expressed uncertainty about General Assembly actions, anticipated unfunded mandates and intended a low profile this session.
The final question addressed the YMCA construction, with one commissioner stating the facility would have two swimming pools.
In its analysis, the compliance board noted no dispute that a quorum attended but focused on whether it convened to consider or transact public business. The Act defines “meet” as convening a quorum to consider or transact public business, with quorum as a majority or the number required by law.
The board cited prior opinions: The Act does not apply to chance encounters, social gatherings or occasions not intended to circumvent it, nor when a public body attends another entity’s event without conducting its own business. However, if a quorum considers or transacts public business, it becomes a meeting.
Factors considered include whether the host is private or public, the gathering’s nature, if it’s a step in decision-making, if topics are certain to come before the body and the public body’s actions. The board distinguished this from cases where quorums discussed pending matters, such as a development proposal or a vote on a specific issue.
Here, the compliance board found the discussion touched on general concerns like housing, traffic and the YMCA but not pending matters or specific proposals likely before the board. Members did not use the event to deliberate county business.
The board referenced similar past cases, including a 2025 opinion on “State of the County” events where a 2025 gathering was not a meeting because members sat apart and avoided policy discussions, though earlier events were inconclusive due to unclear records.
In contrast, a county council did not meet at a chamber event discussing public topics because members did not engage. A development corporation event was not a meeting as the project was not certain before the council. A church-hosted event on a county plan not before the town council was not a meeting.
The compliance board emphasized that even without a violation, the appearance of conducting business before a paying audience does not serve the Act’s purpose to increase public faith in government. It cautioned bodies to avoid comments on pending matters at such events, as discussions can shift unexpectedly.
The opinion was signed by Runako Kumbula Allsopp, Esq., chair; Karen R. Calmeise, Esq.; and Andrew G. White, Esq.
St. Mary’s County, in Southern Maryland, operates under the Act, which requires open sessions unless exceptions apply. The county board responded that the event was not a meeting. The compliance board noted no presumption of compliance applies in its process, only in circuit court actions.
This opinion aligns with efforts to clarify Act application amid community events in rural counties like St. Mary’s, where chambers often host informational gatherings. No further action was recommended, but the caution highlights vigilance needs for public officials in non-official settings.
