Title: C.L.U.B. v. Board of Elections

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
No. 67
September Term, 2002
_________________________________________
COMMUNITY AND LABOR UNITED FOR
BALTIMORE CHARTER COMMITTEE (CLUB)
                                    et al.
v.
BALTIMORE CITY
BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al.
__________________________________________
        Eldridge
       
Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia
Rodowsky, Lawrence F.
   (Retired, specially assigned),
 
                                
         JJ.
__________________________________________
Opinion by Eldridge, J.
_________________________________________
Filed:   September 15, 2003
1
All future references to statutes are to the State Government Article, unless otherwise specified.
 
The issue in this case is whether the Baltimore City Council and its Judiciary
and Policy Committee violated the Open Meetings Act, Maryland Code (1984, 1999
Repl. Vol., 2002 Supp.), §§ 10-502 et seq. of the State Government Article, when it
considered Bill 02-0654.1  This Bill, later designated as Question Q, proposed an
amendment to the Baltimore City Charter restructuring the Baltimore City Council.  It
was different from another proposed charter amendment designated as Question P,  that
was to be placed on the ballot for the election scheduled for November 5, 2002.  
The sponsors of Question P, the Association of Community Organizations for
Reform Now (“ACOR N”), along with three individual voters, the Comm unity and
Labor United for Baltimore Charter Committee (“CLUB ”), and certain other civic
groups (collectively referred to as “CLUB ”), filed a complaint and a motion for a
preliminary injunction against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the State
Board of Elections, and the Baltimore City Board of Elections, seeking to remove
Question Q from the ballot.  In the complaint, as amended, CLUB alleged that the City
Council’s meeting of August 8  violated various provisions of the Open Meetings Act.
Therefore, CLUB asserted, the actions of the City Council following from that meeting,
including the passage of the Bill designated as Question Q, were void.
After an evidentiary hearing and oral arguments, the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City denied CLUB ’s request for a preliminary injunction on September 26, 2002.
-2-
2
Section 10-508(a) lists the topics that may be the subject of closed sessions. Furthermore,  “[a]
public body that meets in closed session . . . may not discuss or act on any matter not permitted under
(continued...)
CLUB immediately noted an appeal, and this Court issued a writ of certiorari on the
same day.  After oral argument on September 30, 2002, we issued an order reversing
the Circuit Court’s judgment and ordering the removal of Question Q from the ballot.
We shall now state our reasons for that order.
I.
A.
The Baltimore City Council is a legislative body required to conduct its business
in accordance with the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.  §§ 10-501, 10-502.
In addition, the Standing Committees of the City Council are also subject to the Open
Meetings Act.  The legislative purpose and policy of the Open Meetings Act is clearly
stated in § 10-501, that (emphasis added)
“[i]t is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that,
except in special and appropriate circumstances: 
(1) public business be performed in an open and public manner;
and 
(2) citizens be allowed to observe: 
(i) the performance of public officials; and 
(ii) the deliberations and decisions that the making of
public policy involves.”
A public body, as defined in § 10-502, must meet in open session, which the
general public is entitled to attend, except as otherwise provided for in the Open
Meetings Act.  §§ 10-505, 10-507, 10-508.2  The Open Meetings Act further specifies
-3-
2
(...continued)
subsection (a) of this section.”  §10-508 (b).
3
§ 10-506.  Notice of open session.
“(a) Required. – Before meeting in a closed or open session, a public body
shall give reasonable advance notice of the session. 
“(b) Form. – Whenever reasonable, a notice under this section shall: 
(1) be in writing; 
(2) include the date, time, and place of the session; and 
(3) if appropriate, include a statement that a part or all of a
meeting may be conducted in closed session.”
that the public body must provide adequate notice of the meeting. § 10-506.3
Acceptable methods for providing notice include “publication in the Maryland
Register; . . . delivery to representatives of the news media [or] . . . posting . . . the
notice at a convenient public location.”  § 10-506 (c).  A public body is required to
prepare written minutes of its meetings.  §10-509.  These minutes are required to
include the following information, §10-509(c)(1):
“(i) each item that the public body considered; 
(ii) the action that the public body took on each item; and 
(iii) each vote that was recorded.”
If the public body meets in closed session, the presiding officer must conduct a
recorded vote on closing the meeting and make a written statement of the reason for
closing the meeting. §10-508 (d) (2).  In addition, § 10-509(c) (2) states, in pertinent
part, that
-4-
4
There were several proposals for restructuring the City Council pending in the Council’s
Judiciary and Policy Committee.  For clarity, we focus our discussion on the one proposal that
passed the Council and was signed by the Mayor, namely Bill 02-0654, later known as Question Q.
“[i]f a public body meets in closed session, the minutes for its next
open session shall include: 
(i) a statement of the time, place, and purpose of the
closed session; 
(ii) a record of the vote of each member as to closing the
session; 
(iii) a citation of the authority under this subtitle for
closing the session; and 
(iv) a listing of the topics of discussion, persons present,
and each action taken during the session.”
The Open Meetings Act provides for sanctions in cases of non-compliance.  In
particular, it provides that if a court “finds that a public body willfully failed to comply
with §10-505, § 10-506, § 10-507, or § 10-509(c) of [the Open Meetings Act] and that
no other remedy is adequate, [the court may] declare void the final action of the public
body.” §10-510(d)(4).
B.
The genesis of the case at bar lies in two alternative proposals to change the
structure of the Baltimore City Council.4  Prior to the new proposals, the Baltimore City
Council was comprised of eighteen council members, in six three-member districts, and
a council president elected at large.  CLUB supported what became known as Question
P, which would restructure the City Council such that it would have fourteen single
member districts and a president elected at large.  Bill 02-0654, which later became
known as Question Q, if passed at the November 2002 election, would have
-5-
restructured the City Council into seven two-member districts and a president elected
at large.  If, however, both questions were placed on the ballot, and both passed, the
Baltimore City Solicitor advised that they would nullify each other as being mutually
irreconcilable, and that the structure of the Baltimore City Council would remain
unchanged.
ACORN, one of the petitioners here,  had obtained over 10,000 signatures of
registered voters in Baltimore City to have Question P placed on the ballot in the
November 2002 election.  This process was completed approxim ately one week before
the August 8 meeting of the City Council.  At the time of this meeting, Bill 02-0654
had been in the Judiciary and Policy Committee of the City Council since April, 2002,
and had not come out of the Committee. The purpose of calling a meeting of the City
Council on  August 8 was to discuss, among other business, Bill 02-0654, and “to
assess the votes still needed to get the bill out of Committee and to ultimately pass the
bill in the Council.”  The bill was one of the matters discussed at the meeting.  The City
Council met again on August 12, 2002, when the bill was moved from committee and
passed by the Council.  The Mayor signed the Bill on August 16, 2002.  
 
Even though the President of the City Council, Sheila Dixon, generally gave
public notice of the regularly scheduled Monday, and occasionally, Thursday night
meetings of the Council, no notice of the August 8 meeting was given by the President
to anyone other than council members.  Following instructions, Dixon’s assistant made
telephone calls to inform the other eighteen members of the City Council of a meeting
-6-
on Thursday, August 8.  The calls were made between August 2 and August 7.   Dixon
had indicated that she did not want the media to be present at the August 8 meeting
“because of her fear of how the media might portray the Council when it was having
heated discussions.”  Nonetheless, Councilman Harris informed a member of ACORN
and a reporter employed by the Baltimore Sun of the scheduled meeting.  The Sun
published a report about the scheduled August 8 meeting on August 7. 
  Six council members, including four of the seven who made up the Judiciary
and Policy Committee, were expected to be present. Thus, a quorum of the Judiciary
and Policy Committee was anticipated to be present at the August 8 meeting.  The trial
court also found that
“20.
The stated intention of councilmembers to be present at, or
absent from, a meeting is not an accurate indicator of who
will actually be present.  Frequently, not all the members
who indicate they will be present actually attend, but
sometimes more members are present at the meeting than
indicated an intention to be present.
* * *
“22.
A quorum of the City Council is ten.
“23.
Physically present in the President’s Conference Room at
the time of the meeting on August 8, 2002, for some period
of time were Council President Dixon, and the following
Council members: Welch, Harris, Pugh, Garey, Spector,
Curran, Carter, Cain and Reisinger.
“24.
The August 8, 2002 meeting was held in the City Council
President’s Conference Room in City Hall.
“25.
At the August 8, 2002, meeting the number of
-7-
councilmembers present was not constant.  [The President’s
assistant] was instructed by the President to keep track of
councilmembers present in the meeting. * * * 
“26.
At the August 8, 2002, meeting the City Council President’s
Press Secretary . . . was instructed to open the meeting to the
public if ten or more councilmembers were present in the
room at one time.”
One of the appellants, Sultan Shakir, and two reporters were outside the meeting
room, and were in contact with the President’s assistant and press secretary as they
attempted to gain admission to the meeting. The trial court found that “[t]here came a
point in time during the course of the meeting when [the press secretary] informed Mr.
Shakir and the two reporters that ten councilmembers were present and they could enter
the meeting room.”  Approximately one minute after Shakir and two reporters entered
the meeting room, the President determined that ten members of the Council were not
present and closed the meeting.  The Council did not vote to close the meeting.
The Council met again on Monday, August 12, 2002.  The City Council has
luncheon meetings every other week.  The trial court found that
“45.
No individualized notice of these meetings is published, but
the City Council President prepares a memorandum to the
other members with a calendar of the dates of the regularly
scheduled Monday evening sessions. Luncheon meetings are
noted on this memorandum with an asterisk next to the date
for the regularly scheduled Monday evening session . . . .
This calendar is prepared on a yearly basis and sent to the
press.  It is also posted on the website.  No notice is given of
the topics to be discussed at these meetings.
“46.
Members of the media regularly attend the luncheon
-8-
meetings.
“47.
No record is kept of who attends these luncheon meetings.
“48. 
No minutes are kept of who attends these luncheon
meetings.
“49.
A quorum of the council is sometimes present at the
luncheon meetings . . . . 
* * * 
“51.
Sometimes, but not often, bills are brought to the luncheon
by members and other members sign them as a part of the
process to bring the bills out of committee and before the
entire Council for a vote.
“52.
The restructuring bills were not discussed at the August 12,
2002 luncheon meeting.”
The City Council met again at 5 p.m. on August 12, for a regularly scheduled meeting.
In the time after the luncheon meeting and before 5 p.m., the chairperson of the
Judiciary and Policy Committee had obtained sufficient signatures to bring the bill on
Question Q out of committee and up for a vote under the rules of the Council. 
The trial court made the following findings of fact with respect to the Council
President’s knowledge:
“57.
The City Council President knew since approxim ately the
end of June, 2002, that the City Solicitor had opined that if
both Questions P and Q passed at the November, 2002
election, that the two would nullify each other and neither
would become law.
“58.
Question P, and the fact that ACORN had gathered
sufficient signatures to have it placed on the ballot, was
-9-
discussed at the August 8, 2002 meeting prior to the time
that Mr. Shakir and the two reporters entered the meeting
room. 
* * *
“60.
The City Council President’s understanding of the Open
Meetings Act is that 1) it requires prior public notice be
given of the Council’s business meetings where a quorum is
expected to be present; 2) no prior notice is necessary unless
the Council knows that a quorum will be in attendance; and
3) if a quorum appears unexpectedly, opening of the meeting
to the public, without notice, is compliance.”
The plaintiffs assert that the Baltimore City Council violated the Open Meetings
Act at the August 8 meeting, pointing to the lack of notice and closing the meeting
without a vote.  The defendants counter that there was no quorum expected at the
August 8 meeting and that, therefore, the Open Meetings Act did not apply.  The
defendants are incorrect. 
II.
We begin our analysis of the Council’s actions by considering the purpose of the
Open Meetings Act.  The first Maryland comprehensive legislation about open
meetings came into effect in 1977, with the enactment of the new sections 7 through
15 of Article 76A of the Maryland Code.  See Wesley Chapel Bluemount Ass’n v.
Baltimore County, 347 Md. 125, 137-138, 699 A.2d 434, 440 (1997).  The current Open
Meetings Act was the result of a recodification of the provisions of Article 76A by
Ch. 284 of the Acts of 1984, without substantial change.  Thus, the policy of the Open
Meetings Act has remained unchanged, that “citizens be allowed to observe . . . the
-10-
deliberations and decisions that the making of public policy involves.” § 10-501 (a).
Chief Judge Murphy, writing for the Court in New Carrollton v. Rogers, 287 Md.
56, 72, 410 A.2d 1070, 1078-1079 (1980), stated:
“While the Act does not afford the public any right to participate
in the meetings, it does assure the public right to observe the
deliberative process and the making of decisions by the public
body at open meetings.  In this regard, it is clear that the Act
applies, not only to final decisions made by the public body
exercising legislative functions at a public meeting, but as well to
all deliberations which precede the actual legislative act or
decision, unless authorized by [§ 10-508] to be closed to the
public. * * *  It is . . . the deliberative and decision-making process
in its entirety which must be conducted in meetings open to the
public since every step of the process, including the final decision
itself, constitutes the consideration or transaction of public
business.”
 
See also Wesley Chapel Bluemount Ass’n v. Baltimore County, supra, 347 Md. at 138-
139, 699 A.2d at 440-441; College Park v. Cotter, 309 Md. 573, 585, 525 A.2d 1059,
1064-1065 (1987); Carroll County v. Landmark Comm unity Newspapers, 293 Md. 595,
601, 446 A.2d 63, 66 (1982); Avara v. Baltimore News American Div., 292 Md. 543,
548-549, 440 A.2d 368, 371 (1982); Andy’s Ice Cream, Inc. v. Salisbury, 125 Md. App.
125, 143-144, 724 A.2d 717, 725-726, cert. denied, 353 Md. 473, 727 A.2d 382 (1999).
The clear policy of the Open Meetings Act is to allow the general public to view
the entire deliberative process.  According to the findings of fact by the trial court, the
City Council wished to debate the issue of restructuring at the August 8 meeting.  At
that time, the council members were aware that Question P, instituting fourteen single
-11-
member districts, would be on the ballot for the November, 2002, election.   It is
undisputed that the Council intended to discuss Bill 02-0654, an alternative proposal
for restructuring the city council, at the August 8 meeting.  The Council President’s
belief that this discussion would be “heated,” is obviously not sufficient reason to close
the meeting to the media and the general public.  Such discussion is part of the
“deliberations” that the “citizens must be allowed to observe,” as intended by the Open
Meetings Act.
Observation by citizens is possible only when they have notice that such
deliberations are planned by their elected representatives.  Therefore, the Council was
obligated to provide “adequate  notice of the time and location of [the] meeting[]” to
the public.  § 10-501 (c).  We considered the issue of adequacy of notice in New
Carrollton v. Rogers, supra, where the municipality published a notice listing the time
and place of the meeting in two newspapers, and posted the notice with the same
information on a bulletin board at City Hall.  287 Md. at 69, 410 A.2d at 1077.   We
held that this was sufficient to meet the municipality’s obligation to give reasonable
advance notice in writing as required by the statute then in force.  
In the instant case, the City Council failed to provide notice to the public in any
form. In fact, the Council President deliberately omitted to give notice to the media,
contrary to the customary practice of the City Council.  The President of the Council
stated that she did not anticipate a quorum, and that, therefore, she believed that the
meeting was not covered by the Open Meetings Act.  But, as the trial court found,
-12-
5
“§10-508.  Closed session permitted.
* * *
“(d) Vote; written statement. -
* * * 
“(2) Before a public body meets in closed session, the presiding
officer shall:
(i) conduct a recorded vote on the closing of the session; and
(ii) make a written statement of the reason for closing the
meeting, including a citation of the authority under this section, and
a listing of the topics to be discussed.”
“[t]he stated intention of councilmembers to be present at, or absent from, a meeting
is not an accurate indicator of who will actually be present.  Frequently, not all the
members who indicate they will be present actually attend, but sometimes more
members are present at the meeting than indicated an intention to be present.”  Thus,
the President could not reasonably presume that there would be no quorum present.
She, therefore, had an obligation to provide reasonable written notice in advance of the
meeting.  Her failure to do so was a violation of the Open Meetings Act. While it is true
that Shakir and members of the media learned about the meeting, their knowledge does
not diminish the gravity of the violation.  Learning about a meeting, particularly one
where the topic was as important as the restructuring of the City Council, by
happenstance is contrary to the express policy and purpose of the Open Meetings Act.
Moreover, once a quorum had been established, and the meeting had been
declared open, it should not have been closed without a vote. § 10-508 (d) (2).5  This
vote is a simple majority of the members present.  There is no record that any such vote
-13-
was taken at the August 8 meeting.  Instead, the presiding officer simply decided to
close the meeting, and forced the citizens and members of the media to leave the
meeting room.  This too was a violation of the Open Meetings Act. 
The Council also conducted a luncheon meeting on August 12, 2002.  As was the
general practice, there was no individualized notice of this meeting, no record of
attendance was taken, and no minutes of the meeting were kept.  We accept the finding
of fact of the trial judge that Bill 02-0654 was not discussed at this meeting.  We also
accept the finding that Shakir would have attended the meeting if he had been aware
that the meeting was open to the public.  We reiterate that the Open Meetings Act
places an affirmative duty on the public body to provide notice of meetings.  The City
Council failed to provide adequate notice of this meeting, and thus violated the Open
Meetings Act.
Sometime between the luncheon meeting and 5 p.m. on August 12, 2002, the
chair of the Judiciary and Policy Committee obtained enough signatures to put Bill 02-
0654 to a vote.  Bill 02-0654 did indeed pass at the August 12 evening meeting, and
was signed on August 16 by the Mayor, allowing for the inclusion of Question Q on the
ballot for the November, 2002, election.
The record does not provide any significant information about the deliberations
that preceded the passage of this bill.  On the contrary, the record shows that the City
Council wished to conduct these deliberations away from the scrutiny of citizens and
the media.  In pursuit of this goal, the council first omitted  to provide notice of the
-14-
August 8 meeting, and when this failed, successfully excluded citizens and the media
from the meeting, where, presumably, the bill was discussed.  Assuming that the bill
in question was not discussed at the luncheon meeting on August 12, the only open
meeting on record with any discussion of Bill 02-0654 is the evening meeting on
August 12, where the Council voted on the bill.  
The Council effectively prevented members of the public from observing most
of the deliberations on the issue, in direct contravention to the expressly stated policy
of the Open Meetings Act.  We hold that the Council willfully failed to comply with
§§ 10-505 and 10-506 of the Open Meetings Act, and that the appropriate remedy was
to declare the action of the Baltimore City Council void.