You may recall that earlier this month the State found that the Talbot County Council violated the Maryland Open Meetings Act. The Council must conduct the public’s business in public, not via texts and emails that no one sees or even knows about. Here is a related story you might find it of interest; it also tells you something about the Council.
At the outset the Council stonewalled any inquiry—that is, Mr. Pack, the Council President, refused to respond to a letter directly asking what had unfolded. A straightforward exchange could have ended the matter informally. Instead, at least 3 members of the County Council took the position that no information would be revealed without the filing of a Public Information Act (“PIA”) request.
By law, a PIA request requires the filer to agree to pay the “reasonable costs” the public body incurs in responding—though the first two hours of effort are free. Sounds reasonable…and certainly insignificant when the documents are close at hand (that is, recent and limited in quantity). The law also provides for discretionary exceptions if the requestor is indigent, or if the request is “in the public interest.”
When the materials were ready for review, I was advised as follows: “The cost of searching for, preparing, and reviewing the records comes to $616.43, which represents 15 hour of staff time at prorated salaries of $31.51 to $57.36 per hour, with the first two hours provided free of charge.” I paid the fee (and in context I think it remains a good investment, come what may).
When reviewing the material produced by the County it became immediately apparent that all of the meaningful information—all of the Councils’ texts and emails leading up to its decision—had been withheld under completely discretionary (and I believe bogus) claims of “executive privilege.” Only a few documents produced were of any interest—so few there was not even a charge for printing them.
I reiterated my request that the County refund the PIA fee on the basis that the request was completely “in the public interest,” in no way motivated by a commercial, private or personal objective. In a few days came the reply that the County was willing to waive 50% of the cost (net $308.21). Perhaps foolishly putting principle over cash, I responded, “I am more puzzled than appreciative…” and declined that half-measure.
It happens, however, that the State created a “PIA Compliance Board” whose sole authority is to review the “reasonable charges” imposed for a PIA request. (It has no authority to address the much more important question of what information a public body must release! Go figure.) I contacted that Board, detailing the “public interest” behind the PIA request. During these exchanges the County realized they had miscalculated the fee by including benefits in its costs, which is not allowed. So I did receive a $118 refund on that account.
The PIA Compliance Board last week issued its opinion that the County is entitled to charge for the 15 hours of staff time, and no refund can be compelled. It explained (to my surprise) that, “the Board does not have the statutory authority to evaluate a custodian’s denial of a fee waiver request.” So consideration of the public interest element is subjectively up to the County Council alone. The Board also noted that I had presented nothing indicating “that the fee is not reasonably tied to the County’s actual costs,” and so they could not second-guess the County in that respect either.
What the PIA Compliance Board did state, however, is this: “The majority of the staff hours are attributed to the County attorney’s review of the responsive records for privilege.”
In other words, the County’s charge for the PIA request (about $500) was not for the cost of finding and assembling the few documents it released and the texts and emails it is still withholding. Rather the Council charged for the time it took the County Attorney to research and compile legal arguments as to why the County Council should withhold the requested documents from the public. Is that not perverse?
Given that the County did violate the Open Meetings Act as charged, it follows that the matter should have been discussed from the dais of the Bradley Meeting Room. If it had, then comments in the secret emails and texts would have been expressed publicly as required by law and no PIA request would have been needed.
The Talbot County Council should, first, release the still-secret emails and texts. Second, since the inquiry was and remains entirely in the public interest, and should not have been necessary in the first instance, the Council should refund the PIA fee. (Of course, I may be a tad conflicted as to the latter point.) I reiterated that request to the Council earlier this week, but have heard nothing so far.
Sure is a lot of nonsense over $500… unless it’s the principle of the thing.
Dan Watson is the former chair of Bipartisan Coalition For New Council Leadership and has lived in Talbot County for the last twenty-five years.
Tom Alspach says
Dan, thank you for pursuing “the principle of the thing” regarding this important issue. It is absurd, and punitive, that you should be compelled to pay the County attorney to develop arguments for withholding documents the subject of which should have been discussed in open session.
Alexa Seip says
I’m so flabbergasted by this I don’t know what to say. The arrogance that is being displayed by the County Council is truly mind boggling. It saddens me a great deal. I have supported some of these Council members with my vote and my campaign contributions thinking that these people would provide open dialogue and leadership on important issues facing Talbot County. I was wrong. I hate being wrong.
Carol Voyles says
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. As we witness a tolerance of efforts to obstruct justice in Washington, addressing our problems locally provides a modicum of relief. A lack of accountability need not become our “new normal” in Talbot County.
David Lloyd says
Always thought/hoped Talbot County politics would not in any way resemble the ongoing nonsense in our Nation’s Capital. Very, very disappointing to follow this movement by the County Council to forget its obligation to its constituents by keep us informed re matters of public interest. Had such high hopes for the new Council. Looks like we will need new leadership and representation!