Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board Reference Guide

[DC-W]

Great summary above! Glad I know I wasn't just seeing and hearing things

 

[Applehd]

Wonder if the closed door voting has something to do with the law restricting the release of permit owners' info?

Even though we discussed this at the end of the meeting, I am still having trouble wrapping my head around what this private information is that we shouldn't hear? The applicants name and address are one of the first things read aloud along with the application number. I think it's all about how the board members vote, not the personal information at a public hearing.

ETA... The whole reason to be at a HANDGUN PERMIT REVIEW BOARD HEARING is to get a HANDGUN PERMIT... DUH...

 

[DC-W]

I still think it has more to do with their decision and the possibility they are insinuating that the applicant will get a permit. MD cannot publicly say who has one.

Either way, they may as well put up a smokestack like they're electing the Pope, lol. Maybe even do it Survivor style.

 

[montoya32]

I still think it has more to do with their decision and the possibility they are insinuating that the applicant will get a permit. MD cannot publicly say who has one.

Either way, they may as well put up a smokestack like they're electing the Pope, lol. Maybe even do it Survivor style.

Do they inform the applicant or do they leave knowing nothing more than when they arrived?

 

[Applehd]

I do not recall the applicant that was there for review being asked to come back into the closed door discussion, so I am assuming he did not get a decision tonight. But... I could have missed something... my head was going a mile-a-minute...

 

[montoya32]

I do not recall the applicant that was there for review being asked to come back into the closed door discussion, so I am assuming he did not get a decision tonight. But... I could have missed something... my head was going a mile-a-minute...

Did Knaub stay in for the vote or was he ushered out also?

 

[Minuteman]

Great info and discussion thanks.

Sounds like a small first step in the right direction.

 

[rrankin]

Open Meeting Act

As for having been a member of the Board of Elections a public body I think that the board may be violation of the Open Meeting Act.

The stated goals of the Maryland Open Meetings Act are to increase the public's faith in government, ensure the accountability of government to the public, and enhance the public's ability to participate effectively in our democracy. To further those goals, the Act generally requires State and local public bodies to hold their meetings in public, give the public adequate notice of those meetings, and allow the public to inspect meetings minutes and certain other records. Although the Act permits public bodies to discuss certain topics behind closed doors, public bodies must make certain disclosures both before and after they meet in closed session. The Act applies only to the public bodies that fall within its definition of that term, and some activities are excluded from the Act.

there are 14 reason a meeting can be closed the body has to list the reason and take a vote to go in to closed, and report out in open the action that was taken during the closed.

here are the 14 reasons that you can close a meeting:

(1) To discuss the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom this public body has jurisdiction; or any other personnel matter that affects one or more specific individuals;
(2) To protect the privacy or reputation of individuals concerning a matter not related to public business;
(3) To consider the acquisition of real property for a public purpose and matters directly related thereto;
(4) To consider a matter that concerns the proposal for a business or industrial organization to locate, expand, or remain in the State;
(5) To consider the investment of public funds;
(6) To consider the marketing of public securities;
(7) To consult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter;
(8) To consult with staff, consultants, or other individuals about pending or potential litigation;
(9) To conduct collective bargaining negotiations or consider matters that relate to the negotiations;
(10) To discuss public security, if the public body determines that public discussion would constitute a risk to the public or to public security, including: (i) the deployment of fire and police services and staff; and (ii) the development and implementation of emergency plans;
(11) To prepare, administer, or grade a scholastic, licensing, or qualifying examination;
(12) To conduct or discuss an investigative proceeding on actual or possible criminal conduct;
(13) To comply with a specific constitutional, statutory, or judicially imposed requirement that prevents public disclosures about a particular proceeding or matter;
(14) Before a contract is awarded or bids are opened, to discuss a matter directly related to a negotiating strategy or the contents of a bid or proposal, if public discussion or disclosure would adversely impact the ability of the public body to participate in the competitive bidding or proposal process.

 

[CypherPunk]

I have a very good idea what was or WASN'T presented.



We need to continue to attend these meetings to hold the board accountable. I am not all that happy that they usher the attendees out for the voting. Is that not part of the public meeting?



Wonder if the closed door voting has something to do with the law restricting the release of permit owners' info?

See the OP

 

[Biggfoot44]

My imeadate take away is the Board publicly refering to their "Formula" for granting Permits. Sounds like time for a Freedom of Information request for all Formulas .

 

[LCPIWB]

Did Knaub stay in for the vote or was he ushered out also?

I had to think about this quuestion a little bit to jog my memory.
The case which CPL Knaub was present was pretty much decided in front of our eyes. "ooooh, you have a business permit. blah blah blah" and the chairman says to CPL Knaub "So if the applicant submitted this additional supporting business owner then permit would be issued?" So more un-needed back and forth for 15mins, and the applicant asked something along of the lines of "so if get this all together and we meet next week you can decide then?" and then CPL Knaub replied along the lines "If you get the information to me before then you will have the permit in your hand before the next meeting"

So there was no behind doors discussion for that case, and that is when the chairman called recess until 6/16... But it did seem the board hung around to discuss other things. Maybe handing out next weeks homework.

 

[Straightshooter]

Looks to me like the new members need to be brought up to speed by somebody other than the old guard. Couldn't the procedures of the board such as not being able to testify unless you have new information be changed with a motion followed by a 3 to 2 vote.

 

[CypherPunk]

Looks to me like the new members need to be brought up to speed by somebody other than the old guard...

^^^This

 

[DC-W]

At least one of the new members is very much aware of how the board used to operate and how restrictive the state is.

Having said that, they were all just sworn in on Friday, so I think the questions we heard and concerned attitudes we saw from the new members is very remarkable.

If brown were governor, this would not be the case...

 

[montoya32]

See the OP

"Failure to vote in public"

Got it. How do we have this corrected by the 16th?

 

[Gryphon]

I will not repost my entire debrief, just the link since I may have posted in the wrong thread?



http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=3843985&postcount=349

 

[Gryphon]

As for having been a member of the Board of Elections a public body I think that the board may be violation of the Open Meeting Act.

The stated goals of the Maryland Open Meetings Act are to increase the public's faith in government, ensure the accountability of government to the public, and enhance the public's ability to participate effectively in our democracy. To further those goals, the Act generally requires State and local public bodies to hold their meetings in public, give the public adequate notice of those meetings, and allow the public to inspect meetings minutes and certain other records. Although the Act permits public bodies to discuss certain topics behind closed doors, public bodies must make certain disclosures both before and after they meet in closed session. The Act applies only to the public bodies that fall within its definition of that term, and some activities are excluded from the Act.

there are 14 reason a meeting can be closed the body has to list the reason and take a vote to go in to closed, and report out in open the action that was taken during the closed.

here are the 14 reasons that you can close a meeting:

(1) To discuss the appointment, employment, assignment, promotion, discipline, demotion, compensation, removal, resignation, or performance evaluation of appointees, employees, or officials over whom this public body has jurisdiction; or any other personnel matter that affects one or more specific individuals;
(2) To protect the privacy or reputation of individuals concerning a matter not related to public business;
(3) To consider the acquisition of real property for a public purpose and matters directly related thereto;
(4) To consider a matter that concerns the proposal for a business or industrial organization to locate, expand, or remain in the State;
(5) To consider the investment of public funds;
(6) To consider the marketing of public securities;
(7) To consult with counsel to obtain legal advice on a legal matter;
(8) To consult with staff, consultants, or other individuals about pending or potential litigation;
(9) To conduct collective bargaining negotiations or consider matters that relate to the negotiations;
(10) To discuss public security, if the public body determines that public discussion would constitute a risk to the public or to public security, including: (i) the deployment of fire and police services and staff; and (ii) the development and implementation of emergency plans;
(11) To prepare, administer, or grade a scholastic, licensing, or qualifying examination;
(12) To conduct or discuss an investigative proceeding on actual or possible criminal conduct;
(13) To comply with a specific constitutional, statutory, or judicially imposed requirement that prevents public disclosures about a particular proceeding or matter;
(14) Before a contract is awarded or bids are opened, to discuss a matter directly related to a negotiating strategy or the contents of a bid or proposal, if public discussion or disclosure would adversely impact the ability of the public body to participate in the competitive bidding or proposal process.

I too was a little concerned when the Chair said "you gotta leave now" to the public in attendance. No kidding, but I don't think he really meant it as rough as it sounded.

I questioned him about closing the meeting without the required announcement, and he and Collinson both immediately shot back (somewhat defensively) that they weren't closing the meeting, that they were merely deliberating the final disposition.

I admit to not knowing the answer. I do know the Public Information Act exempts disclosure of handgun permit records, so an argument can be made that allowing the public to hear the voting, and therefore the disposition, would be tantamount to improperly divulging private information. In addition, and argument can be made that the Board, appointed by the Governor to review the Supers denial, is participating in a deliberative process protected from disclosure by executive privilege.

My experience with other administrative bodies is that they deliberate in public, but they were not handling information otherwise exempt from disclosure under the PIA.

 

[pilotguy299]

Performing an "Administrative Function" does not need to be held in open session under the open meetings act.

http://www.oag.state.md.us/opengov/openmeetings/10_1_14_OPEN_MEETINGS_ACT.pdf

OPEN MEETINGS ACT (as recodified effective October 1, 2014 and put inTitle 3 of
the General Provisions Article of the Maryland Code)

§3–101.
(a) In this title the following words have the meanings indicated.
(b) (1) “Administrative function” means the administration of:
(i) a law of the State;
(ii) a law of a political subdivision of the State; or
(iii) a rule, regulation, or bylaw of a public body.

...

§3–103.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and § 3–104 of this
subtitle, this title does not apply to:
(1) a public body when it is carrying out:
(i) an administrative function;
(ii) a judicial function; or
(iii) a quasi–judicial function; or
(2) a chance encounter, a social gathering, or any other occasion that is
not intended to circumvent this title.
(b) This title applies to a public body when it is meeting to consider:
(1) granting a license or permit; or
....​

 

[PJDiesel]

So, the last line DOES make it apply to this situation then........ right?

 

[CypherPunk]

Performing an "Administrative Function" does not need to be held in open session under the open meetings act.

http://www.oag.state.md.us/opengov/openmeetings/10_1_14_OPEN_MEETINGS_ACT.pdf

OPEN MEETINGS ACT (as recodified effective October 1, 2014 and put inTitle 3 of
the General Provisions Article of the Maryland Code)

§3–101.
(a) In this title the following words have the meanings indicated.
(b) (1) “Administrative function” means the administration of:
(i) a law of the State;
(ii) a law of a political subdivision of the State; or
(iii) a rule, regulation, or bylaw of a public body.

...

§3–103.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and § 3–104 of this
subtitle, this title does not apply to:
(1) a public body when it is carrying out:
(i) an administrative function;
(ii) a judicial function; or
(iii) a quasi–judicial function; or
(2) a chance encounter, a social gathering, or any other occasion that is
not intended to circumvent this title.
(b) This title applies to a public body when it is meeting to consider:
(1) granting a license or permit; or
....​

My response in the Handgun Permit Review Board Reform thread here.