G en. 275] 275
OP EN M EE TI NGS ACT

“E X ECUTI V E F UN CT I ON ”

J ul y28, 1993

R i cha rd S. McKernon , Esquir e T o w n o f P o o les v ill e O n behal f of the C om m issi o n ers of Pool es vi l l e, y ou have req u ested o u r op inion ab o u t th e n ature an d ap p li ca ti o n o f th e term

“ e xecu t i ve fu ncti on , ” as defined i n § 10 -502(d) of t he S tate G o v e r n m e n t A r t i c l e , M a r yl a n d C o d e ( “ S G ” A r t i c l e )

. S p e c i f i c a l l y, y ou r quest i on s ar e as foll ow s: 1

. D o es th e O p en M ee ti n g s A ct ap p ly to the C o m m issi o n ers of Pool es vi l l e w hen theyar e ca r r y i ng outan exe cut i ve func t i on?
2. W hat ar e exec uti ve fu ncti on s?
3

. W h a t typ e o f

n o tice , if a n y , m u st b e g iv e n to th e p u b lic w h en the C o m m issi o n ers o f P o o lesv il le sch ed u le a m ee ti n g to ca rry outan exe cut i ve func t i on?
4

. W h a t is th e re latio n sh ip b e tw e e n th e e x c e p tio n s s e t o u t in §10- 508( a) and an exec ut i ve funct i on? D o s om e of the exc ept i ons des cr i be ac t i vi t i es t hatfal l w i t hi n t he t er m “exe cut i ve func t i on”?
F or the reasons st at ed b el ow , w e con cl ud e as foll ow s: 1. T he O pen M eet i ngs A ctd o es notappl yt o t he C om m i s s i oner s of Pool es vi l l e w hen theyare car r y i ng outan exec ut i ve func t i on. 2. T he i nexac tdefi ni t i on of “e xecut i ve f u n cti on” does not l end i t s el f t o a ca t al og of ac t i vi t i es encompa sse d byt he def i ni t i on. I n gener al , a publ i c bodycarr i es outan exe cut i ve func t i on w heneve r (i) it is notcarr y i ng outan advi s or y , l egi s l at i ve, quas i

- l egi s l at i ve, or q u a si-ju d icia l f

u n c tio n , a s tho se ter m s ar e d e f in e d in th e A c t; a n d (ii)276 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y
it is engage d i n anypar tof the pr oces s of i m pl ement i ng a s t atut e or o th e r f o rm o f p re e x is tin g la w
. 3. T he O pen M ee ti ngs A ctdoes notr equi r e anyt ype of not i ce i f the C om m i s s i oner s of Pool es vil le m eett o carr youtan exec ut i ve func t i on. 4. T he O pen M eet i ngs A ctdoes notappl y t o a publ i c body t hat i s engage d i n an exe cut i ve func t i on. T her efor e, t he C om m i s s i oner s of Pool es vi l l e nee d notci t e an exce pt i on i n SG §10- 508( a) i n or der t o hol d a cl os ed meet i ng aboutan exe cut i ve func t i on, e v e n if th e a c tiv ity is e n c o m p a s s e d b yo n e o f th e e x c e p tio n s
.

I Scope of O pen M eet i ngs A ct
T h e sc o p e o f

th e A c t is se t o u t in S G § 1 0 -5 0 3 : (a) E xceptas pr ovi ded i n s ubs ect i on ( b) of thi s s ect i on, t hi s s ubt i t l e does notappl yt o: (1 ) a p u b lic b o d y w h e n it i s c a rry in g o u t: ( i ) an exe cut i ve func t i on; (i i) a jud ici al fu n cti o n ; or ( i i i ) a quas i

-

j udi ci al funct i on; or ( 2) a chanc e encount er , a s oci al gather i ng, o r o th e r o c c a sio n th a t is n o t in ten d e d to ci r cumvent t hi s s ubt i t l e. (b ) T h e p ro v isio n s o f

th is s u b tit le a p p lyto a p u b li c b o d yw h en itis m ee ti n g to co n side r: (1) g ran ti n g a li ce n se o r pe rm it ; or ( 2) a s peci al exce pt i on, var i ance , condi t i onal us e, zoni ng cl as s i fi cat i on, t heG en. 275] 277

A “judicial f

unction” ca

n be ca rried out only

by elements of the 1 Judic ia l B ra

nc h of StateGo ve rnme nt. SG § 10 -5 02 (e ). Th ete rm “ qu a sijudicial” func tion refers to cer tain ad j udicatory

proce eding s before a dminis trativ ea g e nc ie s. SG § 10 -5 02 (i ). This op inion do e s n ot discus s whatever quasi -j u d i ci al fun ct i o n s th e C o mm i s s i o n er s o f P o o l es v i l l e m i ght perf orm. Un de r SG § 10 -5 02 (b ), theAc t does a pp ly to a n e xec uti veor

qu a si- 2 judicial function that involves the grant of a license or permit or a zoning matter. P ri o r t o the 1991 amendments to the Open Mee tings Ac t, the

3 g e ne ral r e qu ir eme nt t

hat, “ [e]xc ept a s o therw isee xpre ssly prov ide d in

thi s subtitl e, a public body

shall meet i n o p en s essi on” wa s modified by the additional languag e “whenever the public bo dy is carr ying out”an advisory function, a le g i s l at i ve func tion, or a quasi-le g islative function. For mer SG §10-505. All thre e of the se terms remain in the defin itional (continued...) enfor cementof anyzoni ng l aw orr egul at i on, o r an yo ther z o n ing m att er. T hi s pr ovi s i on m us tbe r ead t ogetherw i t h SG §10- 505, w hi ch s t at es th a t, “ [ e ] x c e p t a s o th e rw is e e x p re s s ly p ro v id e d in th is s u b title , a publ i c body s hal l m eet i n open ses s i on. ” T hus , t he det er m i nat i on of t he func t i on ca r r i ed outbyt he publ i c body– t hati s , w hethert he p u b l i c b o d yi s e n g a g e d i n a n e x e c u t i v e , j u d i c i a l o rq u a s i

- j u d i ci al funct i on – w i l l oft en be cruci al i n det er m i ni ng w hethera publ i c body th a t h e ld a c lo s e d s e s s io n d id s o la w f u lly. See ge ner al l

y O ffi ce of the A tt o rne yG en er a l, O p en Meet i ngs A ct

M anualC h. 2, at3- 12 ( 1992)

. A nd, s i n ce i ns t rum ent s of gene r al governm entl i ke the C om m i s s i oner s of Pool es vi l l e w oul d nevercarr youtj udi ci al funct i ons and onl yr a r el yquas i

- j udi ci al ones , t he det er m i nat i ve poi nt w i l l o f t e n b e whe t h e rt h e p u b l i c b o d yi s e n g a g e d i n a n e x e c ut i ve funct i on. 1
I f the C om m i s s i oner s of Pool es vi l l e a re engage d i n an exec ut i ve func t ion , t he A ctgener al l ydoes notappl y
. I f the 2 C om m i s s i oner s of Pool es vi l le ar e notengage d i n an exe cut i ve funct i on, t hen the A ctgener al l yappl i es
. I n t hatevent , t he C o m m issi oner s m us tgi ve pr opernot i ce of t he meet i ng, and the m eet i ng m us tbe open unl es s on e of the 14 exc ept i ons i n SG §10- 508( a) m aybe i nvoked. 3278 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y

(...continued) 3 section of the Open Meetings Ac t, s eeSG §10-502(b), ( f), a nd (j), but they areno longer dec isive in terms of a public body ’s obligation to hold an open mee ting. In other words, if a public body is carr ying out a function that cannot becate g orized under a ny one of the s ixdefine d functions, then its meeting must be open unless one of the ex ceptions in SG §10-508(a) a pp lie s. II

N at ur e of

“Exec ut i ve Funct i on”
T he def i ni t ion o f “exec ut i ve func t i on, ” s etouti n SG §10- 5 0 2 (d ), w a s le f

t u n c h a n g e d b yth e 1 9 9 1 a m e n d m e n ts: ( 1) “Execut i ve func t i on” means t he admi ni s t r at i on of: ( i ) a l aw of the St at e; ( i i ) a l aw of a pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on of t he St at e; or ( i i i ) a rul e, r egul at i on, orby law o f a p u b l i c b o d y. ( 2) “Execut i ve func t i on does noti ncl ude: ( i ) an advi s or yfunct i on; ( i i ) a j udi ci al funct i on; (iii) a le g isla tiv e f

u n c tio n ; ( i v) a quas i

-

j udi ci al funct i on; or ( v) a quas i

- l egi s l at i ve func t i on. T hi s “p er s e exe m pt i on forexec ut i ve func t i ons ” w as s ai d byt he C our tof A ppeal s t o be “uni que” a m ong t he open m eet i ngs l aw s of th e 5 0 s ta te s
. B o a rd o

f C o u n ty C o m m ’rs v
. L a n d m a r kC o m m u n ity N ew s papers of

M d. , I nc. , 2 9 3 M d

. 5 9 5 , 6 0 1 , 4 4 6 A

. 2 d 6 3 (19 8 2 ).G en. 275] 279
B eca us e the af

fi r m at i ve as pectof the def i ni t i on, “the admi ni s t r at i on of .

. . a l aw
. . . , ” i s s o amorphous , w e begi n w i t h t he c ompa r a t i ve l ypr e c i s e ne ga t i ve a s pe c tof t he de fi ni t i on
. U nd e rSG §10- 502( d) (2) , i f an a ct i vi t yfal l s w i t hi n anyof the otherfi ve f u n c tio n s d e f

in e d in th e A c t – a d v iso ry , jud icia l, l e g isla tiv e , q u a sij udi ci al, o r quas i

- l egi s l at i ve – then per for ce i ti s not“an e xecut i ve f u n c t i o n , ” e v e n i f t h e a c t i v i t y i n v o l v e s t h e a d mi n i s t r a t i o n o f a l a w. W heneve rt he C om m i s s i oner s of Pool es vi l l e enact an or di nance , for exampl e, i n one s ens e they ar e adm i ni s t er i ng St at e l aw s – t hati s , t he c o n s t i tu t i o n a l a n d s t a tu t o r y pr o v i s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o mu n i c i p a l h o me rul e. B ut i n enac t i ng an or di nance , t he C om m i s s i oner s ar e “e nact i ng

. . . a law o r oth er m ea su re to se t pu b li c p o li cy ” a n d there fo re a re engage d i n a “l egi s l at i ve funct i on” as defi ned i n SG §10- 502( f) and n o t an e x e c u tiv e f

u n c tio n
. See L an dm ark C om m un i t y N ew spap ers , 293 M d. at607 ( “ent i r e budget arypr oces s ” i s quas i

- l egi s l at i ve and there fo re n o t exe cu ti v e).
T hus , t he fi r s ts t ep i n t he ana l y s i s i s t o consid er w hether a n o th e r f u n c tio n a l d e f

in iti o n f it s th e a c tiv ityto b e c a rrie d o u t at a m ee ti n g
. I f s o, the ac t i vi t ybydefi ni t i on does noti nvol ve an e x e c u tiv e f

u n c tio n , an d th e A c t w o u ld a p p lyu n les s th e a c tiv ityis q u a si-ju d icia l a n d n o t re late d to th e g ra n t o f a lice n se o r p e rm it o r to a n yz o n in g m a tt e r
. If

, o n th e o th e r h a n d , a p u b lic b o d yc o n d u c ts bu s i n e s s t h a t i s n o t e n c o mpa s s e d b y t h e d e f i n i t i o n s o f a n y o f

t he ot herfunct i ons , t he ac t i vi t yw oul d be an execut i ve func t i on – and t he A ctw oul d notappl y– i f the ac t i vi t y“l ooks t o orfac i l i t at es t he a d m in istra tio n , ex e c u tio n o r im p lem e n tatio n o f a la w a lre a d yin for ce and eff

ect

. ” S cul lv. Mont

gom er y C i t iz ens League, 249 M d. 2 7 1 , 2 8 2 , 2 3 1 A .2 d 9 2 (1 9 6 8 ).
I n t hi s pas sag e, the C our tof A ppeal s w as des cr i bi ng t he “r ecogni zed t es t ” fordet er m i ni ng w hethera muni ci pal or di nance w as “l egi s l at i ve” i n natur e, and ther efor e s ubj ectt o r efe r endum, or “exe cut i ve oradmi ni s t r at i ve, ” and ther efor e not

. T he dr aft er s of the O pen M eet i ngs A ctof 1977, w hi ch or i gi nat ed the func t i onal defi ni t i ons ati s s ue, pr es um abl yw er e fa m i l i arw i t h S c u ll

. T he por t i on of the def

i ni t i on of “l egi s l at i v e fu n cti on” i n SG §10- 502( b) ( 1) , forexampl e – “a ppr ovi ng, di s appr ovi ng, enac t i ng, a m e n d i n g , o r r e p e a l i n g a l a w o r o t h e r m e a s u r e t o s e tp u b l i c p o l i c y”

– i s qui t e s i m i l art o S cu ll ’s des cr i pt i on of a “ l egi s l at i ve” or di nance – “an e nactm entof gene r al appl i cat i on pr esc ri bi ng a new pl an or pol i cy
. ” 249 M d. at282.280 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y

Seenote 2 above

. 4 A s y ou poi ntouti n y ourl ett er , t he C our tof A ppeal s appl i ed t he t es ts etouti n S c u ll to h o ld th a t co n stru c tio n o f p u b lic im p rov em en ts pu rsua n t t o e x isti n g law is ex ec u ti v e in c h ara cter. Eg g e rt v . Mo n tg o m e ry C o u n ty C o u n c il , 263 M d. 242, 282, A

. 2d 474 ( 1971)

. S o, t oo, i s t he i s s uance of pr evi ous l yauthor i zed de btfor p u b lic w o rk s
. C i t

y of Bo w i e v. C ou nty C om m issi on ers , 2 5 8 M d. 4 5 4 , 2 6 7 A

. 2 d 1 7 2 (19 7 0 ). In a n ea rl ier case , m o reo v er, th e C o u rt hel d t hatt he ac quis i t i on of pr oper t yforcountyoffi ce s pace i s an e x e c u tiv e a c tiv ity. H

o rm e s v . B a lti m o re C o u n ty , 225 M d. 371, 170 A

. 2 d 7 7 2 (19 6 1 ). In ad d it ion , the O p en M ee ti n g s C o m p li an ce B o ard h a s h e ld th e f

o llo w in g a c tiv iti e s to b e e x e c u tiv e f u n c tio n s: a d iscu ssion b etw ee n co u n tyco m m issi oner s and mem ber s o f th e b o ard of di r ect or s o f a hospi t al ( O pi ni on N o. 92- 2 ( O ct ober23, 1992) re p rin tedin 1 O

f f i ci alO pi ni ons of

the M ar yland O pen Meet i ngs C o m p lia n c e B o a r d (h e r e a

fte r “ O ffic ia l O p in io n s ” ) 6) ; t he w or k of a l ocal pl anni ng comm i s s i on ( O pi ni on N o. 92- 3 ( N ovember 9, 1992) re p rin tedin 1 O

f f i ci alO pi ni ons 10) ; t he proc es s i ng of a c om pl ai nt byan occ upat i onal l i censi n g b o ar d ( O pi ni on N o. 92- 4 ( N ovember 1 7 , 1 9 9 2 ) re

p rin tedin 1 O

f f i ci alO pi ni ons 13) ; di s cus s i on betw een count y comm i s s i oner s an d s c h o o l b o a r d me mbe r s over i m pl ement at i on of budgetcut s ( O pi ni on N o. 93- 2 ( J anuary 7, 1993) re p rin tedin 1 O

f f i ci alO pi ni ons 23) ; and the i nves t i gat or yand advi s or yopi ni on act i vi t i es of a l ocal ethi cs comm i s s i on ( O pi ni on N o
. 9 3 -4 (F eb rua ry2 4 , 1 9 9 3 ) re p rin tedin 1 O

f f i ci alO pi ni ons 3 0 ).
A s t he C om pl i ance B oar d cont i nues i t s w or k, t hes e exa m pl es w i l l m ul t i pl y
. T he open- ended na tur e of the s t atut or ydefi ni t i on, h o w e v e r, p re c lu d e s a n ye x h a u s tiv e lis t h e re
. III
N ot i ce of

M eet i ngs T he r equi r ement t hata publ i c bodygi ve “r eas onabl e adva nce n o ti ce ” o f bot h i t s open and c l os ed meet i ngs i s s etouti n SG §10- 5 0 6 , p a rt o f th e O p e n M e e tin g s A c t su b tit le. If a p u b lic b o d yis engag ed i n an exe cut i ve func t i on, “thi s s ubt i t l e does notappl yt o” the pu b li c bo d y
. S G § 1 0 -50 3 (a)(1)(i)

. S e e L a n dm a rk C o m m u n ity 4 N ew spap ers , 2 9 3 M d . at 6 0 5 . “B e c a u se th e A c t a s a w h o le is in a p p lica b le, th e p ro v isio n s o f th e A c t g o v e rn in g n o tice to th e p u b licG en. 275] 281

Your letter

advises that no provision in the Poolesvill e cha rter or 5 c od ere qu ir e s n oti c eun de r s uc h c irc ums tanc e s. and vot i ng pr i ort o t he conduc tof a c l os ed s es s i on t hemsel ves do not appl y
. ” C om pl i ance B oar d O pi ni on 93- 4, at2. H ence , w hen the C om m i s s i oner s of Pool es vi l l e mee tt o carr youtan exe cut i ve funct i on, t heyar e notr equi r ed by t he O pen M eet i ngs A ctt o pr ovi de anynot i ce of

t he meet i ng. 5
A s a m at t er of s ound pr act i ce, publ i c bodi es oft en gi ve not i ce o f me e t i n g s e v e n wh e n t h e Ac t d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h e m t o d o s o
. As a mat t er of l aw , how ever , t hey ar e not r equi r ed t o do s o byt he O pen M e e tin g s A c t.

IV

E x cept i ons A l l ow i ng C l os ed M eet i ngs SG §10- 508( a) s et s out a l i s t of 14 ci r cumst ance s underw hi ch a m eet i ng t hat i s ot herw i s e s ubj ect t o t he O pen M eet i ngs A ctm aybe cl os ed. T hi s s ect i on al s o r equi r es cert ai n pr ocedur es t o be fol l ow ed b e f o re o n e o f

th e e x c e p tio n s m a yb e in v o k e d

. See gener al l y O pen Meet i ngs A ct

M anualat14- 19.
A s y ou poi nt out , m any of thes e exc ept i ons des cr i be ac t i vi t i es t hatappea rt o be w i t hi n t he exe cut i ve funct i on. I f a publ i c body , for ex am p le, is “co n side r[ing ] th e a cq u isi ti o n o f r e a l p ro p ertyfo r a publ i c purpos e and mat t er s di r ect l y relate d t her et o, ” SG §10- 508( a)( 3 ), the publ i c bodyw oul d or di nar i l ybe doi ng s o i n t he c o n d u c t o f

a n e x e c u tiv e f

u n c tio n
. S e e H

o rm e s v . B a lti m o re C o u n ty , 225 M d. at377 -78

. O ther s of thes e s peci fi c exc ept i ons – for i nst ance, tho se having to do w i t h t he ad m i nis t rat i on of ex am i nati on s, S G §1 0-508 (a) (11), or w i t h the con du ctof cri m i nal i nv est i gati on s, S G § 1 0 -50 8 (a)(12 )

)a lso d e sc rib e a c tiv iti e s th a t o rd in a rily cons t i tut e execut i ve func t i ons
. I f the publ i c bodyi s i ndeed c arr y i ng o u t an a c tiv ityth a t is a n e x e c u tiv e f u n c tio n , ev e n o n e th a t is p re c ise ly d e sc rib e d b y a n e x c e p tio n in S G § 1 0 -5 0 8 (a ), th e p u b lic b o d yis no t subject t o the A ct a n d n ee d n o t inv o k e the ex ce p ti o n
. It m a ys im p ly cl o s e th e m e e tin g
.282 [7 8 O p
. A tt ’y
T h i s c o n s t ru c t i o n d o e s n o tr e n d e rt h e s e e x c e p t i o n s a n u l l i t y, how ever
. U nder som e ci r cumst ance s , a publ i c bodym i ghtbe carr y i ng outa quas i

- l egi s l at i ve func ti o n – i n par t i cul ar , t he a p p ro v in g , d isa p p ro v in g , o r a m e n d in g o f a b u d g e t o r c o n tra c t – i nvol vi ng ac ti vi t i es t hatm i ghtot herw i s e be a n exec ut i ve func t i on. See P a rt I I a b o v e
. If a p u b lic b o d yis c o n sid e rin g w h e th e r to appr opr i at e mo n eyt o buyr eal pr oper t y , forexampl e, i ti s engage d i n a qu asi-l egi s l at i ve func t i on, notan exe cut i ve func t i on, and t her efor e mi ghthave oc cas i on t o invoke t he exc ept i on i n §10- 508( a) ( 3)

. I f, on t he otherhand, m oneyw er e al r eadybudget ed for l a n d a c q u i s i t i o n a n d a p u b l i c b o d y wer e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e c h o i c e of s i t es avai l abl e, t hen t he m at t er w oul d be an e xecut i ve func t i on, and t he e x ce p ti o n i n SG §10- 508( a) ( 3) need notbe i nvoked fort he p u b lic b o d yto h o ld a c lo s e d m e e tin g la w f u lly.

V
C oncl usi on T he “ex ec u ti v e f

u n cti o n ” c o m p o n en t of the O pen M eet i ngs A ct is pro b ab lythe m o st diff icult po rt io n o f

the A ct t o ad m inist er, p a rtic u la r f

o r p u b lic b o d ies lik e th e C o m m iss io n e rs o f P o o les v ill e t hatcarr youtbot h l egi s l at i ve and exec ut i ve func t i ons
. T hi s opi ni on t r i es t o pr ovi de as m uch gui dance as t he def i nit ion of “e xecut i ve funct i on” al l ow s
. I f an ac ti vi t ydoes come w i t hi n t he def i ni t i on, w h ich th e O p en M ee ti n g s C o m p lia n c e B o ard in it s an n u al rep o rt rig h tlyc a lled “ tro u b lesom el yvag u e ,” a n ym e e tin g a b o u t th a t ac tiv ity is o u ts id e th e A c t.

J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al
Ja c k S c h w a rtz C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons & Advi ce