The Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board has found that the Charles County Board of Elections violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to adequately disclose the topics it intended to discuss in closed session and the reason for excluding the public from those discussions.
The opinion, issued June 29, 2026, responds to a complaint alleging that the Board of Elections convened in closed session without first making the required public disclosures.
The Act generally requires that a public body conduct its meetings in the open, except when carrying out certain functions or discussing matters that fall within specific exceptions allowing for closed meetings. Before closing a meeting, the presiding officer must make a written statement of the reason for closing the meeting, including a citation of the authority and a listing of the topics to be discussed.
The complainant alleged that on March 25, 2026, the Board of Elections convened to consider the eligibility of a candidate to appear on the 2026 election ballot and violated the Act by failing to disclose the statutory basis for closing the session or provide the written closing statement.
The Compliance Board noted that the Act does not require a public body to orally announce the details of a written closing statement. However, the written closing statement must adequately disclose the topics of discussion and the reasons for discussing those topics in closed session.
A recording of the meeting indicates that the Board closed the session to discuss personnel matters and to consult with counsel for legal advice. The written closing statement invoked the personnel matters exception and the legal advice exception.
The Compliance Board found no violation based on the allegation that the Board failed to disclose the statutory basis for closing the meeting. However, the written closing statement was deficient because it failed to disclose the topics of discussion or the reasons for discussing those topics in closed session. The statement listed only “personnel” and “consult with counsel” as topics and provided only boilerplate reasons.
The Compliance Board found that the Board of Elections violated the Act by failing to adequately disclose the topics of discussion and the reasons for discussing those topics behind closed doors before convening in closed session on March 25.
The opinion is subject to the acknowledgement and announcement requirements of the Open Meetings Act.
The Charles County Board of Elections is responsible for administering elections in the county. The case involved consideration of a candidate’s eligibility for the 2026 ballot.
The Compliance Board’s finding emphasizes the importance of transparency in closed session procedures. Public bodies must provide sufficient detail in written closing statements to allow the public to understand the basis for closing a meeting.
For Charles County residents, the opinion underscores the need for open government practices in election administration. The Board of Elections plays a critical role in ensuring fair and transparent elections.
The Compliance Board is an independent state agency that provides guidance on the Open Meetings Act. Its opinions help public bodies understand and comply with transparency requirements.
The Charles County Board of Elections will need to address the violation and improve its practices for closed session disclosures. The opinion serves as a reminder to all public bodies of the importance of proper procedures when closing meetings.
