6 Official Opinions of The Compliance Board 203 (2009) : Gregory S. Brady

203
6 Official Opinions of the Compliance Board 203 (2009)

Minutes Failure to produce minutes following meeting
violated Act
Minutes Public Access Posting on website not required
Compliance Board Response to Complaint Public bodys
failure to respond in timely manner violated Act
December 7, 2009
Gregory S. Brady
The Open Meetings Compliance Board has considered your complaint that
the Sport Fish Advisory Commission and Tidal Fish Advisory Commission of
the Department of Natural Resources have violated the Open Meetings Act by
routinely failing to make copies of minutes available to the public.
For the reasons explained below, we find that the failure to post copies of
minutes on a website did not violate the Open Meetings Act. However, the
acknowledged failure to produce adequate minutes following certain meetings
violated the Act. Furthermore, the failure of the commissions to respond to the
complaint in a timely manner violated the Act.
I
Complaint and Response
According to the complaint, the Sport Fish Advisory Commission and
Tidal Fish Advisory Commission have repeatedly failed to make the minutes
of their meetings available to the public for years. The complaint indicated
that you have asked a Department of Natural Resources staff member for
years to get the websites up to date and post the meetings minutes for the
public to view. The complaint indicated that, as of April 25, 2009, minutes
had not been posted on the website since March 2008. However, the
complaint acknowledged that a summary of a joint commission meeting held
February 2009 was available online. The complaint indicated that each
commission typically meets six times a year and that the commissions meet
jointly several times a year.
Martin Gary of the Fisheries Service, Department of Natural Resources,
responded on behalf of both commissions. He indicated that the concerns ...
6 Official Opinions of the Compliance Board 203 (2009) 204
All statutory references are to the Open Meetings Act, Title 10, Subtitle 5 of
1
the State Government Article, Annotated Code of Maryland.
were justified, and [DNR staff] have addressed them to make sure the meeting
summaries will be available in a timely and through fashion. An internal e-
mail communication attached to the response noted that, at the time of the
complainants original request for online access to minutes, the Fisheries
Services lacked the necessary resources to create complete and thorough
minutes of ... Commission meetings. Audio recordings were made and staff
would produce meeting summaries, not formal minutes. However, in light of
the complainants request, the Fisheries Service has taken specific actions. In
July 2009, new operational guidelines were approved to require the
Department to produce draft summaries within 10 working days of each
meeting for review by the commissioners. Those summaries would be
approved at the next meeting and then posted on the website. In September
2009, the guidelines were modified to require verbatim transcripts of each
meeting beginning with a joint meeting in October 2009.
According to the response, summaries of prior meetings dating back to
January 2008 have been reviewed and some have been posted. However, some
of the summaries are functionally incomplete and have not been posted. If
they were posted, it would be necessary to qualify the posting that the
document is incomplete.
A copy of the Maryland Sport and Tidal Fisheries Advisory Commissions
Operating Guidelines was also submitted.
II
Analysis
Minutes
When public bodies such as the commissions conduct meetings that are
governed by the Open Meetings Act, they must generate minutes of those
meetings: As soon as practicable after a public body meets, it shall have
written minutes of its session prepared. 10-509(b). Absent special
1
circumstances, we have advised that minutes are to be available on a cycle
paralleling a public bodys meetings. See, e.g., 6 OMCB Opinions 164, 169
(2009). While a temporary staff shortage might justify a brief delay, resource
constraints do not excuse a public bodys obligation under the Act to produce
minutes. To constitute minutes of the public body, approval by the body is
required. 6 OMCB Opinions 187, 191 (2009).
The minutes of a meeting must reflect each item considered, any action that
the public body took on the item, and every recorded vote. 10-509(c)(1). We
have previously advised that each item considered is to be described in
sufficient detail so that a member of the public who reviews the minutes can
gain an appreciation of the issue under discussion. 6 OMCB Opinions 164, 169
(2009). A transcript is not required. However, a transcript would likely reflect
the information required by the Act. Id. While a public body may record its
meetings, a recording does not satisfy the obligation to produce written
minutes. Id.
The Act makes clear that minutes of a public meeting governed by the Act
are public records, open to inspection during ordinary business hours.
10-509(d). Many public bodies now post minutes on a website, a practice we
commend. However, there is no requirement under the Open Meetings Act
that a public body make a copy its minutes available online.
Given the acknowledgments in the response, it is clear the commissions
have not consistently complied with requirements of the Act in terms of
producing minutes following their meetings. To the extent the commissions
have not done so, the Act was violated. Given the acknowledgments and the
change in policy, little would be added by a review of the summaries of
individual meetings to determine whether or not they satisfied the minimal
requirements of the Act. Although minutes are not usually in the form of a
transcript, if the required information is present, the commissions decision to
produce transcripts of their meetings will satisfy the Act. However, a public
bodys failure to post a copy of minutes on a website in itself does not violate
the Act.
Response Time
The complaint was initially forwarded to the chairs of the commissions on
May 4, 2009, in care of the Department of Natural Resources. Under
10-502.5(c)(2)(i), a public body is required to file a written response to a
complaint within 30 days of its receipt. Only after multiple requests to the
Department of Natural Resources did we receive a response dated October 15,
2009. The commissions failure to respond to the complaint in a timely manner
violated the Act. 5 OMCB Opinions 1, 4 (2006).
III
Conclusion
The failure to post copies of minutes on a website did not violate the Open
Meetings Act. However, the acknowledged failure to produce adequate
minutes following certain meetings violated the Act. Furthermore, the failure
of the commissions to respond to the complaint in a timely manner violated the
Act.
OPEN MEETINGS COMPLIANCE BOARD
Elizabeth L. Nilson, Esquire
Courtney J. McKeldin
Julio Morales, Esquire

6 Official Opinions of The Compliance Board 203 (2009) : Gregory S. Brady

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 Official Opinions of The Compliance Board 203 (2009) : Gregory S. Brady

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 Official Opinions of The Compliance Board 203 (2009) : Gregory S. Brady

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

203

6 Official Opinions of the Compliance Board 203 (2009)

You might also like