Baltimore County Council violated Maryland's Open Meetings Act, chair says

Yahoo

05-02-2025

BALTIMORE — When the Baltimore County Council initially selected the county's top political official, they did so outside of public view. The council chair now realizes they violated state transparency laws.
'Apparently we were in violation of the Open Meetings Act,' council Chair Mike Ertel told The Baltimore Sun, adding, 'We were, kind of, of the mind that, well, it's a personnel decision. You know, we don't need to call a public meeting to close it,' he said. 'But that's what we're in violation of.'
The council was scheduled to vote Jan. 6 on a new executive to replace Johnny Olszewski, who was leaving for Congress. The biggest snowstorm to hit the area in years prompted the council to shift the meeting to the next day.
The council had held a prior meeting Jan. 3, mostly to discuss the logistics of the public vote, Ertel said. During the Zoom meeting, council members also discussed one of the county executive candidates, then-State Sen. Katherine Klausmeier.
'The only question was, 'I understand that people, you know, everybody, seems to be for Kathy. Is that still the case?' Everybody was like, 'Yep,'' Ertel said.
Then, instead of waiting until the public vote that was scheduled for 3 p.m. on Jan. 7, the council sent out a press release that morning, saying they'd 'selected' Klausmeier for the role, adding that the council's 'formal vote' would take place later that day.
Although Maryland's Open Meetings Act does allow discussion of personnel matters behind closed doors, it requires the council to give prior notice of a closed meeting and a reason for why it can't be open to the public — which, in this case, they did not.
Ertel said council members didn't know they were violating the act and described the violation as a 'technicality.'
'We thought we were fine because it was a personnel decision,' he said. He added that if they had given prior notice of the meeting, 'What would the public have had information on that they didn't have already? We had some closed meeting — that would be the only thing that they would know that they didn't know.'
Asked about the apparent meeting violation, Council Member Izzy Patoka, who was serving as council chair at the time of the vote, said, 'The only thing that should have been done is that it should have been posted on the council's website, and it was not.'
Patoka added, 'One of the reasons we held that meeting is because we were concerned about the weather and whether we would have a chance to deliberate. And so it was put together pretty quickly.'
The council's consensus on Klausmeier wasn't technically a vote, according to Patoka.
'During that time, we talked about kind of zeroing in on a finalist … but there was no voting, per se,' Patoka said. He added that while there was 'discussion' and 'consensus' about Klausmeier, 'There's never a vote until we're up in the chambers and cast a vote.'
Patoka said there have been times when members made 'commitments' on specific votes and later changed their minds. 'So there's no such thing as a vote until, in my opinion … until it's cast,' he said.
Patoka said the reason for alerting candidates about the council's selection before the meeting was 'to be respectful' to the candidates rather than having them 'sit there in a public setting and find out they weren't selected.'
During the Jan. 3 meeting, the council discussed whether they could swear in a new executive over Zoom, Ertel said. The clerk of court advised that the swearing-in had to take place in person.
'You've got to go and put your hand on the Bible and all that stuff,' Ertel said. 'So that was what the meeting was about — well if we can't do it Monday because of the snow, we'll have to do it Tuesday.'
Asked whether the council had discussed before Jan. 3 voting for Klausmeier, Ertel said, 'It's all just collected individual conversations among us.' Patoka also described 'individual discussions on the merit of different candidates.'
The situation was 'a clear violation of the Open Meetings Act,' said Joanne Antoine, executive director for the Maryland office of Common Cause, a grassroots organization focused on 'upholding the core values of American democracy,' according to the organization's website.
'While Common Cause at least takes no position on who was appointed, I do think the process could have been a lot more transparent,' she said.
Ertel also noted that it's unusual for the county council to select a county executive — who's usually chosen by Baltimore County voters unless there's a vacancy. The last time the council had to fill an executive vacancy was in 2018, after the sudden death of former County Executive Kevin Kamenetz and before Ertel or Patoka took office.
Ertel promises the meeting violation won't happen again.
'It was an honest oversight,' Ertel said. 'There was nothing nefarious going on.'
Maryland's Open Meetings Compliance Board received two complaints regarding the selection of the new county executive. WYPR reporter John Lee and Michael Ruby, editor of two local publications, The Country Chronicle and The Villager, filed the complaints.
The council's response to the complaints is due by Feb. 10, according to Assistant Attorney General Rachel Simmonsen. After that, the complainants and the council can issue further replies, and the board generally issues an opinion 30 days after all submissions are received.
If the compliance board finds a violation, then a majority of the council would need to sign a copy of the board's opinion acknowledging the violation. The violation must be announced at the council's next open meeting.
Neither the compliance board nor the attorney general's office has the power to impose penalties for violations, Simmonsen said.
The only enforcement mechanism for the Open Meetings Act is if a person files a lawsuit in county circuit court, according to the attorney general's website. 'During that process… representatives of the public body may be required to give sworn testimony and produce documents,' the website says.
The council's legislative counsel, Thomas Bostwick, did not respond to a request for comment. He previously told WYPR that 'the Council adhered to the spirit of the Open Meetings Act.'
Ertel emphasized that the decision for a new county executive, as a whole, was 'a very public process,' which included a hearing featuring public comment and a public presentation by five candidates who had applied.
One of the candidates, former Democratic State Sen. Jim Brochin, criticized the decision to have candidates read prepared speeches, instead of having them 'speak off the cuff' or respond to 'tough questions' from council members.
'Anyone can open a notebook and read a speech,' Brochin said, adding, 'That's not how you select a person of power.'
Brochin added that he believes Klausmeier 'will be a fine county executive.'
Asked about the lack of a question-and-answer session, Patoka said there wasn't enough time since the council had two months and two major holidays between Olszewski's election to Congress and his swearing-in on Jan. 3.
Patoka added that there was a 'rush' to swear in Olszweski's replacement because of ongoing county budget discussions and a need to present the council's priorities to the Maryland General Assembly during its legislative session, which began on Jan. 8. He also noted President Donald Trump mandating 'unknown variables on a daily basis.'
---------