A unique interpretation
The public lost out when the quasi-public county Revenue Authority board awarded a $5,500 severance payment to Nevins and Associates at its Dec. 4 meeting.
The five-member board voted unanimously to close the meeting at the request of Hanan Sibel, the board’s chairman, who said he wished to discuss a “matter pertaining to compensation and personnel.” That’s one of 14 exemptions recognized by the state Open Meetings Act.
The act is designed to ensure that public officials do the people’s business in the open.
That may not have happened here.
What the board actually discussed was whether or not to award as much as $11,000 in payments to Nevins and Associates, a local public relations and advertising firm. The firm is owned by David Nevins, a former authority board member. Nevins’ company has had a no-bid, no-contract arrangement with the authority that began almost immediately after he left the board nine years ago.
Ultimately, the firm was awarded a $5,500 severance payment in an open session. The reasons why and any discussion about the issue are lost to the public.
It’s clear from e-mails obtained by Patuxent Publishing Co., publisher of this site, and interviews that some members were frustrated about billing practices used by Nevins. The company apparently received discounts on ads it placed for the authority, which was billed the full amount. Nevins and Associates then kept the difference — about 15 percent.
The actual discussion that took place is lost. A public airing might have made it tougher to vote for the payment.
Patrick Arey, the board’s attorney, explained after the Dec. 4 meeting that the board closed the meeting under the law’s personnel exemption using what appears to be a fairly unique interpretation of the law.
“‘Compensation of appointees over which we have jurisdiction,’ it’s kind of like, in general, we talk about personnel matters but it’s a little…” Arey tried to explain to me after the meeting. “No it’s not an employee but it talks about appointees and officials and everything, so.”
But it’s not an according-to-Hoyle definition that is generally recognized in the current law.
“Well, it’s appointees. Its the same thing as if you’re evaluating people bidding on a contract, that’s our rationale,” Arey said.
The state Open Meetings Act provides 14 reasons that a meeting may be closed to the public. Personnel issues, which include performance evaluations and discussions about pay “of appointees, employees or officials over whom it has jurisdiction,” is one of those reasons.
Plain language definitions don’t support the interpretation favored by Arey and the board.
The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition, defines appointee as “one who is appointed to a position.” For example, four of the authority’s board members are appointed exclusively by the county executive. The executive appoints the fifth member after consultation with the County Council.
The same dictionary defines contractor as “one who agrees to provide materials or services at a specified price.” Businesses that service computers or office equipment or repair parking garages would be examples of contractors.
Sibel held firm on the reason for closing the meeting during a Dec. 9 interview.
“It was about personnel and compensation,” Sibel said. “Our attorney said we were within our rights to do it, and we followed his suggestion.”
Les Pittler, a Towson attorney and member of the board, voted to close the meeting but said later that the discussion did not match the exemption used to close the discussion to the public.
He said he would not criticize Arey’s judgement but, after looking at a copy of the act provided by a reporter, acknowledged that he could not find an exemption that fit the discussion.
Patuxent Publishing Co., publisher of this Web site, filed a challenge to the closing of the meeting with the state’s Open Meeting Compliance Board on Dec. 12. The compliance board can only issue an advisory opinion but cannot sanction a government agency found to have violated the act.