Public excluded from discussion of purchase, state says

Murphy says open meetings violation is an ‘opportunity to do better’

The Charles County Board of Commissioners failed on two occasions to adequately disclose actions taken in closed sessions regarding the purchase of a Waldorf property for use as a recreational center, the state’s Open Meetings Act Compliance Board ruled late last week.

“The County Board’s failure to make adequate disclosures before and after those sessions meant that members of the public had little information about what the County Board would discuss behind closed doors and no information on why the County Board

had decided to exclude them,” the compliance board stated in a written opinion that was delivered to the commissioners on Dec. 1.

The compliance board also determined that on four occasions the commissioners discussed the property acquisition in closed sessions without first publicly announcing that it would be doing so, as required by the Open Meetings Act.

Commissioners’ President Peter F. Murphy (D) publicly announced the findings at the county commissioners’ open session on Tuesday, in accordance with the written opinion’s directive.

The commissioners also signed a copy of the findings that will be returned to the compliance board.

“We conduct all of our business in open session, we’re very transparent and open about that,” Murphy said in his acknowledgment of the findings. “But there are some categories that do allow us to discuss in closed session, behind closed doors.”

Under the Open Meetings Act, the commissioners may move into closed session to discuss any of 14 specific topics, including personnel matters, property acquisitions and legal issues. The particular topics to be discussed must be announced publicly before moving into closed session.

“As you can imagine, the kinds of things that we do in a closed session can be very complicated at times, and there’s a possibility that at times that we may move a little bit off of the exact topic,” Murphy admitted. “But we are always very careful to ... try and stick exactly to the topics that we’re permitted to do.”

In early May, the Maryland Independent published an article about the proposed acquisition of the 1.88-acre property on Post Office Road in Waldorf. The article prompted a series of discussions on social media about whether the commissioners had conducted the acquisition in front of the public.

Following the publication of the article and the ensuing social media debate, Port Tobacco resident John Coller decided to find out. He filed two Maryland Public Information Act requests to obtain the contract for the property purchase and the minutes of the closed sessions at which the purchase was discussed.

The county signed the $3.5 million contract with Bowie Investments LLC on March 3 and paid a $5,000 deposit four days later. Neither the contract nor the deposit were on the public agenda of the commissioners’ Mar. 7 open session, Coller found.

Believing that the commissioners had violated the law governing public meetings, Coller filed a complaint with the Open Meetings Compliance Board on Sept. 1. After considering the county attorney’s response that the discussions were covered by the real property exception, the compliance board issued its opinion three months later.

Murphy noted that, by law, the public announcement was not an admission that the county commissioners had violated the Open Meetings Act.

However, in acknowledging the compliance board’s conclusions, Murphy struck a positive tone.

“While this may appear to be a negative, I really look at this as an opportunity,” he said. “We, I believe, do an outstanding job in this county of complying with all the rules and regulations that we’re required to. However, if that is not the case, as it’s been said here, we look at this as an opportunity to do better.”

Going forward, Murphy said, the commissioners would schedule closed sessions in the morning so that they wouldn’t break up the open sessions. Furthermore, prior to entering into closed session the clerk will read aloud the applicable exceptions for the record. Murphy said he hoped these actions would prevent confusion in the future.

“Any time we have an opportunity to improve the way that we manage and improve the way that we govern, you can expect that we will certainly take that opportunity,” Murphy said.

The county’s Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism will operate a multi-generational recreation center at the Post Office Road property. County spokesperson Donna Fuqua said that “necessary renovations” have pushed the expected opening date from next July into the fall.

“Capital Services, Aging and Human Services, and the Recreation divisions are working collaboratively with the architect on developing a final concept plan for the renovations which will be presented to the board of county commissioners in the near future,” Fuqua said in a statement. “A proposal has been requested from the architect to complete the full design and construction cost estimate.”

Coller said that he was satisfied with the way the commissioners have addressed the compliance board’s findings.

“I saw Commissioner Murphy’s comments, and I agree, they really shouldn’t look at this as an admonishment,” Coller said.

“I’m very happy with the response because now they have an opportunity to schedule public hearings and maybe get some input from experts and community stakeholders about the project moving forward,” he said. “Especially with a project of this size, you really do want public input, and I’m glad they’re going to use [the compliance board’s opinion] as guidance.”

For Coller, the issue is now a closed book.

“I think I’ve done my part as a citizen on this one,” he said. “If it needs to go anywhere, it’s somebody else’s turn.”