Maryland’s Open Meetings Compliance Board has found that the Calvert County Board of County Commissioners broke state transparency law by failing to adequately explain, in writing, why it met behind closed doors on several occasions over the past year.
In an opinion dated Aug. 10, 2026, the three-member board concluded the county commissioners violated two sections of the Open Meetings Act: one requiring a detailed written statement before a public body closes a meeting, and another requiring a detailed summary afterward. The board rejected a separate complaint that the county’s website design made public records too hard to find, ruling that the law does not dictate how a county organizes its website.
The compliance board’s ruling stemmed from a complaint alleging the commissioners relied on vague, repetitive language to justify closing meetings to the public, then filled in real details only after the fact.
According to the opinion, the county’s past practice was to disclose only the legal justification for a closed session beforehand, sometimes writing simply “see memo” in the space meant to describe the topics under discussion. The commissioners would then attach a fuller explanation to the closing statement only after the closed session had already happened. The compliance board said that practice violates the law’s requirement that a presiding officer prepare a complete written statement, covering the reason for closing the meeting, the legal citation, and the topics to be discussed, before the closed session begins. The county told the board it has since changed its protocol.
The board also faulted three closed-session announcements from March and August 2025 for describing sensitive topics in language that closely echoed the wording of the law itself rather than giving the public real information. Several descriptions essentially restated the underlying legal exceptions almost word for word, according to the opinion, a practice both state law and the compliance board’s past rulings prohibit. Topics were described only in terms like a general reference to legal advice, to investing public funds, and to acquiring property, without any further specifics. A description covering personnel-related benefits and appointments likewise failed to make clear the discussion concerned specific individuals rather than broader personnel policy, the board found.
Separately, the board found that closed-session summaries from May 2025 and April 2026, both citing an exception that lets local governments discuss efforts to attract or retain a business, were similarly vague. One summary referred only vaguely to an extension related to a business proposal; the other referenced a request from an unnamed local business without elaborating further. The compliance board acknowledged that county officials may need to protect a company’s identity or negotiating position, but said the county could still have disclosed more detail without compromising those interests.
In each instance, the board said, the commissioners also failed to explain why the topic needed to be discussed privately in the first place, a separate requirement from simply citing the legal exception.
The compliance board does not have authority to force Calvert County to change its practices; it can only issue advisory opinions on whether the law was violated. Its rulings, however, are frequently cited in future disputes and often prompt local governments to revise their procedures.
The board did side with the county on one point, finding no violation in how the county’s website displays its closing statements, even though the complaint argued the format made records difficult to search using standard tools. The board said state law does not regulate how a public body designs its website, only that certain documents be posted when practicable.
