MENU

Sections

  • Home
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Editors and Writers
    • Join our Mailing List
    • Letters to Editor Policy
    • Advertising & Underwriting
    • Code of Ethics
    • Privacy
    • Talbot Spy Terms of Use
  • Art and Design
  • Culture and Local Life
  • Public Affairs
    • Ecosystem
    • Education
    • Health
    • Senior Life
  • Community Opinion
  • Sign up for Free Subscription
  • Donate to the Talbot Spy
  • Cambridge Spy

More

  • Support the Spy
  • About Spy Community Media
  • Advertising with the Spy
  • Subscribe
May 17, 2025

Talbot Spy

Nonpartisan Education-based News for Talbot County Community

  • Home
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Editors and Writers
    • Join our Mailing List
    • Letters to Editor Policy
    • Advertising & Underwriting
    • Code of Ethics
    • Privacy
    • Talbot Spy Terms of Use
  • Art and Design
  • Culture and Local Life
  • Public Affairs
    • Ecosystem
    • Education
    • Health
    • Senior Life
  • Community Opinion
  • Sign up for Free Subscription
  • Donate to the Talbot Spy
  • Cambridge Spy
3 Top Story

Analysis: St. Michaels Town Manager Dismissal Raises Questions; Answers Will Be Hard to Get

July 12, 2021 by John Griep

St. Michaels residents continue to press for additional information about the town commission’s decision to dismiss the town manager, but the confidentiality of personnel issues makes it unlikely questions will be answered.

The St. Michaels commissioners went into closed session on June 24 to discuss personnel matters, which is one of more than a dozen exceptions to the state’s Open Meetings Act.

An attorney for Jean Weisman, a 37-year town employee who had been town manager for 10 years, later issued a statement saying the commissioners voted 4-1 at the June 24 meeting to dismiss Weisman; the town subsequently issued its own statement.

State law allows closed sessions to discuss personnel issues, including:

  • “(i) the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of an appointee, employee, or official over whom it has jurisdiction; or
  • “(ii) any other personnel matter that affects one or more specific individuals.”

The Open Meetings Act provides several conditions that must be met in order to close a session.

According to the Open Meetings Act Manual, prepared by the state attorney general’s office, those conditions are:

1) Any meeting must begin in an open session, for which proper notice has been given. The person designated by the public body to take the required Open Meetings Act training must be present or the public body must complete a compliance checklist available on the attorney general’s website.

2) In the open session, the presiding officer must complete a closing statement, “a written statement of the reason for closing the meeting,” that includes the “topics to be discussed” in addition to the statutory exception for closing the meeting. (The manual provides sample closing statement forms.)

This requirement can get a little tricky when it comes to the topics to be discussed. The state’s open meetings compliance board, which is advisory only, has repeatedly said the topic should not simply repeat the “boilerplate” of the statutory exception — if the session is closed for a business relocation, for example, the topic should not be listed as “business relocation.”

According to the Open Meetings Act Manual: “In most cases, a description of the topic alone also does not convey why the public body needs to exclude the public. Occasionally, though, the Compliance Board has found that a description of the topic to be discussed adequately conveyed the public body’s reason for closing a meeting, as when the public body has described the topic as discipline matters respecting individual employees. See, e.g., 4 OMCB Opinions 188, 196 (2005).”

In a sample closing statement provided in the manual, in which the public body voted to go into closed session for personnel matters, the topic listed was “applicants for parks & rec head” and the reason provided for holding that discussion in a closed session was “Public discussion of applicants’ names and job info could discourage people from applying for Town jobs.”

3) There must be a recorded vote — a vote for which each member’s vote is specified — on a motion to close the meeting to the public. (Here, the manual also notes that a member of the public may object to the closing of a meeting.)

4) During the closed session, the discussion must be limited to the topics and scope listed on the closing statement.

5) After the closed session, “the public body must disclose, in the minutes of the next open session, information that discloses what topics were actually discussed, who attended the closed session, and what actions the public body took.”

St. Michaels has provided the following closing statement for the June 24 meeting:

Closed Session of June 24 2021

State law and the town’s charter also make it clear that the town commissioners may dismiss a town clerk/manager at any time, for almost any reason or for no reason.

Maryland is an at-will employment state, meaning “in the absence of an express contract, agreement or policy to the contrary, an employee may be hired or fired for almost any reason — whether fair or not — or for no reason at all,” according to the state labor department’s website.

The town charter, meanwhile, provides that the town clerk/manager “shall serve at the pleasure of the Commission….”

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: 3 Top Story Tagged With: analysis, at-will, charter, commissioners, confidentiality, employment, open meetings act, personnel, St. Michaels, town manager

Analysis Finds Harris Is Part of Trump’s ‘Unbreakable Wall’ in Congress

October 15, 2020 by Maryland Matters

President Trump probably views the Maryland congressional delegation as a vast wasteland of criticism and opposition. 

But if he was only going to have one ally in the state, he couldn’t do much better than Rep. Andrew P. Harris (R), a comprehensive analysis of GOP members of Congress found. 

The analysis was conducted by Axios, which looked at how Republican members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have responded to various Trump controversies. 

Harris earned a “Trump Loyalty Score” of 88 and he voted 93% of the time with the president. Not quite a perfect 100, but good enough for a fifth-place tie in the entire Congress. 

The voting index relied on data from FiveThirtyEight.

The loyalty score analyzed what lawmakers said — if anything — during seven of the president’s “biggest crises”: the “Access Hollywood” recording during the 2016 campaign; the travel ban on people from Muslim-majority nations early in Trump’s presidency; his comments about the racial violence in Charlottesville, Va.; his “s—hole countries” remark; the “go back” tweet directed at women of color serving in Congress; his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which led to his impeachment in the House; and his use of government forces to stage his Bible photo-op in June. 

Axios produced a checkerboard grid that links to each lawmaker’s response — or non-response — to those events. 

For his part, Harris either agreed with the president’s actions or words, offered a couple words of mild criticism followed immediately by an ad hoc condemnation of various Democrats (Hillary Clinton, for example), or he refused to say anything. 

A hard-charging conservative who knocked off fellow Republican Rep. Wayne Gilchrest in 2010, Harris’ fealty to Trump is well-chronicled. 

Like the president, Harris has been a vocal supporter of reopening the economy, despite the pandemic. 

Trump endorsed Harris after the congressman spoke approvingly about the much-criticized violence against protesters near the White House on June 1. Not that he needed the boost. 

Harris won a fifth term in 2018, when he defeated Democrat Jesse Colvin handily. The incumbent, a physician and former state Senator, received 60% of the vote. Colvin, a military veteran, received 38%. Harris is heavily favored over another military veteran, Mia Mason, in November.

Trump carried Harris’ Eastern Shore district with 60% of the vote in 2016. Clinton received 35%.

Through a spokesman, Harris declined to comment on the Axios story.

For the record, the Republican members of Congress who were deemed even “Trumpier” than Harris: Wisconsin Rep. Glenn Grothman; Georgia Sen. David Perdue; Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz; and North Dakota Sen. Kevin Cramer. Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert tied Harris for fifth.

By Bruce DePuyt

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: Maryland News Tagged With: analysis, andy harris, donald trump, loyalty

Copyright © 2025

Affiliated News

  • The Chestertown Spy
  • The Talbot Spy

Sections

  • Arts
  • Culture
  • Ecosystem
  • Education
  • Mid-Shore Health
  • Culture and Local Life
  • Shore Recovery
  • Spy Senior Nation

Spy Community Media

  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Underwriting

Copyright © 2025 · Spy Community Media Child Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in