Salary advisory board violated Open Meetings Act
Portion of discussion on raises should have been public, senior official said
By Bryan P. Sears
bsears@patuxent.com
Posted 11/20/09
The Baltimore County Personnel and Salary Advisory Board met Nov. 18 to recommend pay increases for the county executive and members of the County Council but did not open to the public an earlier unannounced meeting during which the particulars of their recommendations were discussed.
County Administrative Officer Fred Homan acknowledged in a brief phone call made to a reporter late Friday afternoon that the board violated the act by not opening the unannounced meeting.
“We do believe that, in fact, they did (violate the law) and we’re going to institute some training,” Homan said.
The county Office of Law began a review of the lawfulness of not making public the unannounced meeting after Patuxent Publishing Co., publisher of this Web site, raised questions with a county attorney.
During the board’s open meeting at 9:30 a.m. in a first-floor conference room of the county office building, members discussed a proposed 8-percent raise for both the county executive and members of the council beginning December 2010. The board recommended the 8-percent raise for the incoming county executive but only a 2-percent hike for incoming council members.
Board Chairman William Flattery said during that meeting that the board recommended only 2 percent for council members because of “of the other perks and the other benefits that go with (a County Council member’s) salary.”
But board members did not discuss or elaborate what those “perks” and “benefits” might be.
In an interview Thursday, Flattery said that three of the five-member board had gathered for a prior, unannounced meeting in a third-floor room. A fourth member joined them later.
At that time, members talked about the pension system and about a car allowance for council members, Flattery said.
When asked by a reporter if those conversations should have been open under provisions of the state Open Meetings Act, Flattery said he believed the law applied only to the regularly scheduled 9:30 a.m. meeting and not to the unannounced gathering beforehand.
The state Open Meetings Act requires that government boards hold all meetings in public. Meetings may be closed only due to specific circumstances. And the proposal to close a meeting must be voted on in a public session.
Under the law, an informal gathering would not necessarily be considered a public meeting. But when a majority of the members are present and discussing public business, such as an item on a meeting agenda, the provisions of the law are in effect.
Homan attributed the violation to the fact that salary board members were not knowledgeable about the Open Meetings Act and said the county would be conducting training on the subject.
This story has been updated.
user comments (15)
user davidmarks1 says...
Bryan Sears is the Bob Woodward/Carl Bernstein of Baltimore County! Seriously, I cannot think of another week that so illustrated the need for better accountability, transparency, and two-party checks and balances in the County Courthouse. Think of the headlines: lucrative pensions, pay raises for top officials, and now violations of the Open Meetings law. Maybe 2010 be the year of the reformers.
Posted 9:19 PM, 11.20.09
user brucerobinson says...
First, the Open Meetings Act was a piece of legislation that permitted those voting on it ot claim a position of favoring open government. There are no penalties for violations. No one gets fined. No one gets fired. The only possible penalty comes when violations are documented. Second, Bryan wrote about a prior violation in Baltimore County and my experience demonstrates that both volunteer and paid boards regularly ignore the law. Please keep up the good work of reporting what goes on in politics and government.
Posted 7:31 AM, 11.21.09
user billh says...
"The board recommended the 8-percent raise for the incoming county executive but only a 2-percent hike for incoming council members." While unemployment is at 10.2 percent and people are losing jobs it would be absurd to hold the meeting open to the public, the public would and should revolt over a decision like this. There should be a change in management!
Posted 8:29 AM, 11.21.09
user says...
Bryan deserves all the kudos we can muster...Love the Woodward / Berstein reference, I've actually made that comparison in the past. Bruce, isn't it just like legislators, not just the council but state and nationally as well, to create policy that quite frankly they don't have to enforce simply because their are no consequences. Only to give the facade of self governance....BAHHH it's laughable!
Posted 8:49 AM, 11.21.09
user kellymiller says...
Typical of the way they do business in county government. The private sector is finding ways to make ends meet, retain employees without making layoffs and holding back on pay raises and cost of living allowances. The public sector feels they have a need for pay raises, cost of living allowances, car allowances, beefed up expense reports and other perks, in the name of public service. The council is a part time job, meeting twice a week for a few hours and their salary is that of a full time position. They hold full time jobs in other fields on top of this income. It's interesting to note that the salary advisory board made no mention about pairing back the pensions of these part time politicians/ full time grifters. To even consider giving these fools another penny for the poor poor performance they give their constituents is insane. The pensions all of these politico's will receive for their lack of public service will be far greater than the actual incomes of many of their constituents in their districts. Vote them all out and let's begin to clean this swamp, starting on a county level before any of them think they have a chance to stick it to us in a higher office on a state level.
Posted 9:56 AM, 11.22.09
user stevetowson says...
Kelly, I think you echo the sentiments of a huge chunk of the electorate. The silence from the beneficiaries of this nonsense is deafening.
Posted 3:34 PM, 11.22.09
user kellymiller says...
Stevetowson, You are more than correct about the silence from the beneficiaries. Take for example, County Executive Jim Smith. He will draw a pension from his time on the County Council. Then he has his pension as a Circuit Court Judge. On top of that, he'll draw a pension from his time as County Executive. It's insane and on top of that, consider his time as Circuit Court Judge, he sentenced an innocent man to death. Had it not been for Project Innocence, Kirk Bloodworth would be pushing up daisy's due to this man's incompetence. Now, Jim Smith wants to run for State Senate. Add that to his pension. Get them all out of office and keep them as far from a printers office, a platform and a microphone and we'll all be better off, alive and doing well.
Posted 7:05 PM, 11.22.09
user readthearticle says...
Haven't 5 of the 7 Councilmen already commented that they would not support any legislation authorizing the pay increase? Why are we still talking about this? Throwing out statements that are absolutely untrue, such as "the silence from the beneficiaries is deafening.", simply stands only as politcal rhetoric. It's a sad sign when you have to mislead people for your own views.
Posted 12:29 PM, 11.23.09
user kellymiller says...
readthearticle is obviously a politician. What's the matter, the truth hurts? The oly rhetoric is that coming from the mouths of those already in office. We'll see about that come election day now, won't we?
Posted 3:25 PM, 11.23.09
user augieboy says...
Dear 'readthearticle'.. Read this article...they talk out of both sides of their mouths, and four years ago, 5 of 7 voted for increases...but to be fair, no one was really paying attention... http://www.explorebaltimorecounty.com/blog/politics/353/raises-four-years-ago/ I assume that it's the same two that voted against the raises 4 years ago...
Posted 4:33 PM, 11.23.09
user stevetowson says...
Readthearticle - You are(0r should be) a politician, and likely one on the council. You post a rhetorical question in such a way as to have people surmise the answer is something other than what has been publicly stated. Why are we still talking about this? If you don't know then maybe that's why your in likely, or should be politics. I'll generously explain it to you since you can't figure it out on your own; The council approved the members of the board slected by the executive, and the board is approving raises for all of them at a time of double digit unemployment, increasing taxes across the board, and financial uncertainty among a majority of people. PERHAPS YOU GET IT NOW.
Posted 11:15 PM, 11.23.09
user says...
Stevetowson/kellymiller-I am not a politician or on the County Council, nor to I aspire to be one. Also, the pension board is required, by law I believe, to review the salaries and make recommendations to the Council every 4 years. It's not like the Executive and Council are the ones coming up with this. AGAIN, if 5 of the 7 are saying they won't vote for the any salary increases (by the way the County Executive is also opposed to the increase) We can talk about increasing taxes and financial uncertaintity, let's throw pension reform too. But, it's wrong to attempt to tie this suggestion by the pension board as anything else. I GET IT CLEAR AS DAY. I HOPE YOU ULTIMATELY DO TOO . Augieboy-Most of us were doing better than we are now. The State and County were not facing tough budget times. Things were good. I'm not going to make a big issue out of 4 years ago because I (we) had to a chance to vote the Executive and Council out of office. Obviously, it wasn't a big issue since we elected the same Executive and Council. The problem is misleading, ranting posts only diminish the ability to influence real issues. That's my real issue.
Posted 8:22 PM, 11.26.09
user readthearticle says...
Sorry, the football was getting the best of me and I did not proof: Stevetowson/kellymiller-I am not a politician or on the County Council, nor do I aspire to be one. Also, the pension board is required, by law I believe, to review the salaries and make recommendations to the Council every 4 years. It's not like the Executive and Council are the ones coming up with this. AGAIN, 5 of the 7 are saying they won't vote for the any salary increases (by the way the County Executive is also opposed to the increase). We can talk about increasing taxes and financial uncertaintity, let's throw pension reform too, but, it's wrong to attempt to tie this suggestion by the pension board to anything else. I GET IT CLEAR AS DAY. I HOPE YOU ULTIMATELY DO TOO . Augieboy-Most of us were doing better than we are now. The State and County were not facing tough budget times. Things were good. I'm not going to make a big issue out of 4 years ago because I (we) had to a chance to vote the Executive and Council out of office. Obviously, it wasn't a big issue since we elected the same Executive and Council. The problem is misleading, ranting posts only diminish the ability to influence real issues. That's my real issue.
Posted 8:26 PM, 11.26.09
user stevetowson says...
"Salary advisory board violated Open Meetings Act"----------------WHY?
Posted 1:34 PM, 11.27.09
user stevetowson says...
"Salary advisory board violated Open Meetings Act"----------------WHY?
Posted 1:34 PM, 11.27.09
related articles
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement