LA PLATA — The La Plata Town Council broke the state Open Meetings Act twice in the closed session that came just before it censured Mayor Jeannine James in August, a state oversight board has found, though it rejected other claims that the meeting was improperly called or closed.
In Opinion 318, issued Oct. 15, the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board concluded that the council’s written statement before the Aug. 18 closed session did not accurately describe what members planned to discuss, and that the summary the council later issued left out required details and misstated the session’s purpose.
The findings do not undo the censure. The board has no power to reverse a vote or fine a town; its opinions are advisory. But state law requires a public body found in violation to acknowledge the opinion and announce it at its next open meeting, and the town said it will do both. For residents, the opinion offers the first independent look inside the 13-minute closed session that preceded one of the most contentious votes in the town’s recent history.
What happened behind closed doors
The council called the Aug. 18 special meeting to take up members’ concerns about how James handled an invitation to serve on a state traffic planning body. Several members believed she had violated town policy and ordinance in responding to the invitation and might have improperly pressured town staff, according to the opinion.
The council met in open session, then closed the meeting. Behind closed doors, members questioned the town manager about his interactions with the mayor during two “Agenda Review” meetings. The town told the board the closed session lasted 11 minutes; the minutes put it at 13. When the council reopened the meeting, a majority voted to censure James. The Chronicle reported the 4-1 censure vote the next day, along with the mayor’s response disputing key facts.
The complaint was filed by more than one person. The opinion identifies one complainant as the mayor, who was present for the closed session, and does not name the others.
Where the board agreed with the complainants
Before a Maryland public body closes a meeting, it must issue a written statement that discloses the topic it expects to discuss. La Plata’s statement said the session would cover both “the conduct of an official while interacting with staff” and “the discipline of an official.”
The board found the second part inaccurate. A transcript of the open session that the council supplied showed members intended, even before closing the doors, to focus on questioning town staff, not on disciplining anyone. That was a violation of Section 3-305(d) of the General Provisions Article, the board said.
The second violation involved the public summary every body must issue after a closed session, under Section 3-306(c)(2). The board found La Plata’s minutes correctly listed the time, the legal authority cited and the vote to close, but did not say where the session took place or who was present. The minutes also repeated the claim that the session was held to discuss discipline. The closed-session minutes, which the council gave the board and said were not confidential, showed discipline never came up.
Where it sided with the council
The complainants raised three broader questions, and the board found no violation on any of them.
First, they asked whether council members had secretly met to agree on calling the special meeting. A council member submitted a written request for the meeting Aug. 13, signed by four of the five members. According to the council, one member drafted the request and then met separately with each of three colleagues, who signed it one at a time. Because a quorum of the council is three and no three members gathered at once, the board said the Open Meetings Act did not apply. It has long held that one-on-one conversations among members are allowed.
Second, the mayor argued the council had no legal basis to close the session at all, in part because she contends the council has no authority to discipline her. The board did not decide that question. It found instead that the discussion was about the town manager, whom the council appoints and can remove, and his dealings with the mayor. That fit the act’s personnel exception, which covers “any other personnel matter that affects one or more specific individuals,” so the closure was allowed.
The board added a caution. Had the closed discussion been only about the mayor and members’ complaints about her, it “may well have fallen beyond the scope” of that exception, the opinion says, noting the board has held that the exception generally does not cover criticism of a member by colleagues.
The council had also cited a second exception, for protecting a person’s privacy or reputation on a matter unrelated to public business. The board agreed with the mayor that the discussion did not fit that exception, since it dealt entirely with public business. But because the personnel exception already justified closing the session, and because the board could not say the council knew in advance that the privacy exception would not apply, it found no violation there.
Third, the board found no violation in the meeting agenda’s reference to discipline, because state law does not require an agenda to describe the subject of a closed session.
The opinion was signed by all three board members: Chair Runako Kumbula Allsopp, Karen R. Calmeise and Andrew G. White.
The town’s response
In a statement posted Oct. 20 on its official Facebook page, the town acknowledged both findings and said it regards Open Meetings Act compliance as integral to maintaining public trust. It said it will disclose the opinion at the council’s next open meeting, as the law requires.
The town said staff will revise post-meeting reporting procedures so closing statements include every detail the act requires and accurately describe closed-session topics. It said staff has also asked the compliance board for more detailed guidance on preparing closing statements.
The opinion is one more chapter in a monthslong rift between James and the four other council members. The Chronicle has reported on early questions about the meeting’s legality, the council’s 4-1 vote in September to strip the mayor of her role presiding over meetings through a charter amendment, and the Oct. 18 deadline for residents to petition that change to a referendum. Absent a successful petition, the charter change was set to take effect Oct. 28.
The full opinion is also posted in the compliance board’s opinions archive on the Maryland Attorney General’s website.
