The Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board has ruled that the Charles County Board of County Commissioners did not violate the Open Meetings Act when it discussed a potential new business and a separate land acquisition in closed session on January 28, 2026.
The unanimous opinion, issued June 2, 2026, addressed a complaint alleging that the Board improperly closed the meeting to discuss the potential acquisition of the Morgantown Generating Station, a former coal-fired power plant in the county, and failed to provide adequate public notice. The plant site later became the subject of a public announcement on February 2, 2026, regarding its planned acquisition by a data infrastructure company for a data center.
According to the opinion, the County Board’s agenda for the January 28 meeting stated that all or a portion of the session may be closed. During the open portion, the presiding officer announced that the Board would close the meeting to discuss a potential new business in the County, review a potential acquisition, and receive an update on a personnel matter. Minutes later showed that in closed session, staff introduced members of an organization potentially coming to the County, reviewed a potential land acquisition, and the Commissioners reached a consensus to have staff finalize negotiations. The County Attorney also provided an update on litigation involving a personnel matter.
The complaint, filed February 22, 2026, alleged that the discussion and any consensus reached regarding the Morgantown site occurred without public notice or opportunity for observation, and that the acquisition of a public utility plant was a matter of significant public interest that did not qualify for closed session.
In response, the County Board stated it entered closed session to hear about the potential relocation of a business to Charles County, describing it as a private-party transaction between a private business and the landowner in which the County had no financial stake or interest. The Board said no other matters beyond the possible relocation were discussed. Upon follow-up from Compliance Board staff, County counsel clarified that the discussion was limited to the fact that a specific company had purchased the property and was coming to the County, with no additional matters addressed on that topic. The Board confirmed it conducted additional unrelated business in closed session, including discussion of an unrelated property the County was contemplating acquiring as a potential site for a water tower.
The Compliance Board found no violation on the notice issue. The Open Meetings Act requires a meeting notice to include the date, time, and place, and, if appropriate, that part or all of the meeting may be closed. An agenda must contain known items for the open portion and indicate whether closure is expected, but it is not required to disclose the subject matter of any closed portion. The Board’s agenda met these requirements.
The Compliance Board also found no violation regarding the use of closed session. Before closing, the presiding officer must provide a written statement of the reason and authority for closure, along with a listing of topics. The County Board provided such a statement, citing two exceptions under the Act: one allowing closed discussion of a proposal for a business or industrial organization to locate, expand, or remain in the State, and another allowing closed discussion of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose and matters directly related to it.
The opinion noted that the discussion involving the Morgantown site fell under the business location exception. At the time of the January 28 meeting, there was no indication that the transaction or its details were public. The exception exists to protect a business’s interest in keeping its own identity and information confidential, and to avoid deterring businesses from making proposals if all such discussions were required to be open. The separate discussion of an unrelated property for a potential water tower site fell within the real property acquisition exception.
The Compliance Board concluded that the County Board did not violate the Act. The opinion is available through the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board.
