CLUB v. CITY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
Decision Date | 15 September 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 67,67 |
Citation | 377 Md. 183,832 A.2d 804 |
Parties | COMMUNITY AND LABOR UNITED FOR BALTIMORE CHARTER COMMITTEE (CLUB) et al. v. BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Francis J. Collins (Kahn, Smith & Collins), Baltimore, for appellants.
Michael G. Raimondi, Chief Solicitor (Thurman W. Zollicofer, Jr., City Solicitor of Baltimore), Michael D. Berman, Deputy Chief of Litigation (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen.), for appellees.
Argued before ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, LAWRENCE F. RODOWSKY, (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
The issue in this case is whether the Baltimore City Council and its Judiciary and Policy Committee violated the Open Meetings Act, Maryland Code (1984, 1999 Repl.Vol., 2002 Supp.), §§ 10-502 et seq. of the State Government Article, when it considered Bill 02-0654.1 This Bill, later designated as Question Q, proposed an amendment to the Baltimore City Charter restructuring the Baltimore City Council. It was different from another proposed charter amendment designated as Question P, that was to be placed on the ballot for the election scheduled for November 5, 2002.
The sponsors of Question P, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ("ACORN"), along with three individual voters, the Community and Labor United for Baltimore Charter Committee ("CLUB"), and certain other civic groups (collectively referred to as "CLUB"), filed a complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, the State Board of Elections, and the Baltimore City Board of Elections, seeking to remove Question Q from the ballot. In the complaint, as amended, CLUB alleged that the City Council's meeting of August 8 violated various provisions of the Open Meetings Act. Therefore, CLUB asserted, the actions of the City Council following from that meeting, including the passage of the Bill designated as Question Q, were void.
After an evidentiary hearing and oral arguments, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City denied CLUB's request for a preliminary injunction on September 26, 2002. CLUB immediately noted an appeal, and this Court issued a writ of certiorari on the same day. After oral argument on September 30, 2002, we issued an order reversing the Circuit Court's judgment and ordering the removal of Question Q from the ballot. We shall now state our reasons for that order.
(2) citizens be allowed to observe:
A public body, as defined in § 10-502, must meet in open session, which the general public is entitled to attend, except as otherwise provided for in the Open Meetings Act. §§ 10-505, 10-507, 10-508.2 The Open Meetings Act further specifies that the public body must provide adequate notice of the meeting. § 10-506.3 Acceptable methods for providing notice include "publication in the Maryland Register; ... delivery to representatives of the news media [or] ... posting ... the notice at a convenient public location." § 10-506(c). A public body is required to prepare written minutes of its meetings. § 10-509. These minutes are required to include the following information, § 10-509(c)(1):
The Open Meetings Act provides for sanctions in cases of non-compliance. In particular, it provides that if a court "finds that a public body willfully failed to comply with § 10-505, § 10-506, § 10-507, or § 10-509(c) of [the Open Meetings Act] and that no other remedy is adequate, [the court may] declare void the final action of the public body." § 10-510(d)(4).
The genesis of the case at bar lies in two alternative proposals to change the structure of the Baltimore City Council.4 Prior to the new proposals, the Baltimore City Council was comprised of eighteen council members, in six three-member districts, and a council president elected at large. CLUB supported what became known as Question P, which would restructure the City Council such that it would have fourteen single member districts and a president elected at large. Bill 02-0654, which later became known as Question Q, if passed at the November 2002 election, would have restructured the City Council into seven two-member districts and a president elected at large. If, however, both questions were placed on the ballot, and both passed, the Baltimore City Solicitor advised that they would nullify each other as being mutually irreconcilable, and that the structure of the Baltimore City Council would remain unchanged.
ACORN, one of the petitioners here, had obtained over 10,000 signatures of registered voters in Baltimore City to have Question P placed on the ballot in the November 2002 election. This process was completed approximately one week before the August 8 meeting of the City Council. At the time of this meeting, Bill 02-0654 had been in the Judiciary and Policy Committee of the City Council since April, 2002, and had not come out of the Committee. The purpose of calling a meeting of the City Council on August 8 was to discuss, among other business, Bill 02-0654, and "to assess the votes still needed to get the bill out of Committee and to ultimately pass the bill in the Council." The bill was one of the matters discussed at the meeting. The City Council met again on August 12, 2002, when the bill was moved from committee and passed by the Council. The Mayor signed the Bill on August 16, 2002.
Even though the President of the City Council, Sheila Dixon, generally gave public notice of the regularly scheduled Monday, and occasionally, Thursday night meetings of the Council, no notice of the August 8 meeting was given by the President to anyone other than council members. Following instructions, Dixon's assistant made telephone calls to inform the other eighteen members of the City Council of a meeting on Thursday, August 8. The calls were made between August 2 and August 7. Dixon had indicated that she did not want the media to be present at the August 8 meeting "because of her fear of how the media might portray the Council when it was having heated discussions." Nonetheless, Councilman Harris informed a member of ACORN and a reporter employed by the Baltimore Sun of the scheduled meeting. The Sun published a report about the scheduled August 8 meeting on August 7.
One of the appellants, Sultan Shakir, and two reporters were outside the meeting room, and were in contact with the President's assistant and press secretary as they attempted to gain admission to the meeting. The trial court found that "[t]here came a point in time during the course of the meeting when [the press secretary] informed Mr. Shakir and the two reporters that ten councilmembers were present and they could enter the meeting room." Approximately one minute after Shakir and two reporters entered the meeting room, the President determined that ten members of the Council were not present and closed the meeting. The Council did not vote to close the meeting.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grant v. Cnty. Council of Prince George's Cnty.
...legislation to require open meetings of public bodies was enacted in 1977. Cmty. and Labor United for Balt. Charter Comm. ("C.L.U.B.") v. Balt. City Bd. of Elections , 377 Md. 183, 193, 832 A.2d 804 (2003). The Open Meetings Act is codified at 2014 Md. Code General Provisions Article ("GP")......
-
Armstrong v. Baltimore
...the general public to view the entire deliberative process. Community And Labor United For Baltimore Charter Committee (CLUB)[,] et al. v. Baltimore City Board of Elections, et al., 377 Md. 183, 194, 832 A.2d 804 (2003). The Committee violated the Act by not performing "public business ... ......
-
Sammons v. McCarty
... ... Guar. Corp ... v. City of Buena Vista , 917 F.3d 206, 211 (4th Cir ... 2019); Paradise ... Loudoun County Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) ... and Randall, the Chair of the ... , 576 U.S. 155, 171 (2015); ... Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v ... Bennett , 564 U.S. 721, 734 (2011). As to ... Charter Comm ... (“C.L.U.B.”) v. Balt. City Bd. of Elections , ... 377 Md. 183, 193, 832 A.2d 804, 809 (2003). It was enacted ... ...
-
Sammons v. McCarthy
... ... Guar. Corp ... v. City of Buena Vista , 917 F.3d 206, 211 (4th Cir ... 2019); Paradise ... Loudoun County Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) ... and Randall, the Chair of the ... Reed , 576 U.S. at 171; Arizona Free Enterprise ... Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett , 564 U.S. 721, ... 734 (2011). As to ... Charter Comm ... (“C.L.U.B.”) v. Balt. City Bd. of Elections , ... 377 Md. 183, 193, 832 A.2d 804, 809 (2003). It was enacted ... ...
-
Maryland Register, Volume 42, Issue 15, July 24, 2015
...than a quorum of the public body, absent circumstances such as those in Community and Labor United v. Baltimore City Board of Elections, 377 Md. 183 (2003)); “administrative function” exclusion (exclusion does not extend to formulation of recommendations on size of budget); definition of “a......