Patch Complaint Spurs More Openness at Revenue Authority

After reviewing an open meetings complaint filed by Patch, the Baltimore County Revenue Authority recently agreed to use its website to give the public more notice about its meeting schedule.

Patch’s complaint, filed with the Maryland Attorney General’s open meetings compliance division, centers on the authority’s former process for announcing its meetings: a printed notice at a desk inside its Towson office.

Leslie Pittler, a revenue authority board member for more than a decade, made the motion to begin posting meeting announcements on the website during the authority’s Thursday meeting, a day after the five-member board was notified of the complaint.

“I thought, ‘Who sees this?’” said Pittler, whose motion was approved unanimously.

The revenue authority is a quasi-governmental agency that meets just about every month. It manages approximately $15 million in revenues generated by fees it sets at the county’s five golf courses, four parking garages in Towson and a number of metered surface and street parking spaces around the county.

The authority’s board is expected to vote on an additional measure that would require advertising its meetings in a general circulation publication. That vote was delayed to assess the costs involved with such a move.

Patch’s complaint alleges that the authority has violated the state’s Open Meetings Act because it does not publicly advertise its meetings. Typically, the authority announces its meetings by posting a single sheet of paper with the meeting information on the receptionist’s desk at its headquarters—an area that is not well-traveled by the public.

The complaint also alleges that the authority failed to give the public and media proper notice when it cancelled its Feb. 24 meeting and then rescheduled it for March 10.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the authority improperly closed its Jan. 13 meeting using an exemption allowing closures to discuss the acquisition of property. The authority used that closed session to discuss potential changes to the Towson Circle III project.

Heritage Properties and The Cordish Company are seeking changes to a widely publicized development agreement signed by the authority nearly three years ago. The county and the authority are contributing $18 million for a parking garage that will be attached to the private retail and office complex adjacent to Towson Town Center.

The authority was created in the 1950s by the General Assembly. As such, the meetings of its five-member board are subject to the Maryland Open Meetings Act. The state law requires a governmental body to open its meetings to the public or meet specific legal requirements before it can close meetings.

The attorney general's Open Meetings Compliance Board reviews complaints about public entities’ compliance with the Open Meetings Act. The board issues decisions that are advisory only and have no power to punish a public body that violates the act. Patch’s complaint is still pending with the compliance board.

Donald Hutchinson, the former county executive and current chairman of the revenue authority’s board, said the last-minute decision to cancel the Feb. 24 meeting was caused by his need for more recovery time from a recent surgery.

“That was on me,” Hutchinson said at Thursday’s meeting. “As a result, we may not have been in a position to provide all the necessary notices.”

As to the other two complaints, Hutchinson said he was “not in a position to respond to any of them.”

Soon after that statement, Hutchinson and the board moved to enter a closed session to discuss the Towson Circle III project.

Pittler was the only board member to oppose closing the meeting.

“I think that the public, when you’re talking about $18 million, has a right to know what we’re talking about here,” Pittler said.

Following the 15-minute closed meeting, Hutchinson said the board expected to cast a final vote on an updated agreement at its March 31 meeting.

Revenue Authority wrestles with access to information

The authority’s board on Thursday also discussed other issues of openness for the public and even its own members.

The board discussed a memo written by William “Lynnie” Cook, the authority’s chief executive, which asked board members to obtain information only through his office and not to speak to authority staff members.

Cook said the memo is designed to ensure all information presented to authority board members is “accurate and complete” and that it is given to all five members.

“Unfortunately there can often be a time when the staff is unaware of the answers,” Cook said.

The memo was similar to an amendment to the authority’s bylaws that Hutchinson proposed last summer after he became chairman of the board. That amendment was never voted on.

Pittler said the amendment and Cook’s memo were aimed at him.

Pittler opposed the memo, saying it’s his right and obligation under state law governing board members of corporations to seek out information from whoever has it.

“I will ask any question of any person that I want to ask,” Pittler said.

But Merreen Kelly, another board member, said Pittler might be putting employees in an uncomfortable position.

“You don’t have any empathy,” Kelly said to Pittler.

Pittler got visibly angry and told Kelly to “keep your personal remarks to yourself.”

The situation was defused when Bonnie Phipps, who was appointed to her first term on the board last summer, brokered a compromise.

Phipps agreed to work with Pittler on a statement that would be released to authority employees that would clearly delineate Cook and his management team's authority and what information board members could request from employees.

Public records discussion delayed

The authority also delayed a discussion about a memo written by its attorney related to a public records issue.

In January, Hutchinson asked Patrick Arey, the board’s attorney, to research when documents produced by the authority become a public record and must be released the public and media.

Arey’s memo was one of two pulled from a packet given to the media who attended Thursday’s meeting.

The discussion was ultimately delayed because Arey was ill and did not attend the meeting.

Hutchinson said the discussion could happen as soon as the board’s next meeting later this month. Whether or not that discussion will occur in open session is still unclear.

Also likely to be taken up at the board’s next meeting is a request made by Pittler for the authority to begin publishing on the website all expenditures of $5,000 and more.

The idea is similar to a bill sponsored by Del. Steve Lafferty that would require Baltimore County Public Schools to post similar information.