HPRB February 16, 2016 Meeting Thread

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Applehd

    Throbbing Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 26, 2012
    5,285
    This thread will be used for discussion of the meeting of the HPRB on February 16, 2016.

    DPSCS website link below. This site will be updated to reflect a change of meeting status or possible change of venue. The time and the location of the meeting is posted on the DPSCS HPRB website.
    http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/agencies/hprb.shtml

    ***As of 1-5-16, there seems to be a new twist to entering the meeting... not only do you have to show 'State issued' ID and sign in, now you are being wanded with a metal detector before entry.***

    Map of the meeting location below.
     

    Attachments

    • HPRB meeting site.jpg
      HPRB meeting site.jpg
      21.3 KB · Views: 642

    Hattie

    Active Member
    Sep 18, 2012
    178
    Regarding Open Meetings Act issues, it is clear that all parts of a meeting must be open unless the matter sought to be closed falls into one of the fourteen exceptions specified in the OMA. Before a meeting is closed, the Board must make a closing statement citing the particular exception relied upon. The OMA itself never requires a meeting to be closed (although other law might do so). A prior exception allowing closed meetings for “exceptional reasons” was repealed. There is an exception “to protect the privacy or reputation of an individual,” but only with regard to matters that do not pertain to public business. Hence, however desirable it might seem to spare an applicant the perceived indignity or stress of testifying in the open, that is not a basis for a closed session.

    See Open Meetings Act Manual (8th Ed., November 2015), Office of the Maryland Attorney General, Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opengov/Openmeetings/OMA_manual_2015.pdf, at 1. 28-29, 30:

    The [Open Meetings]Act thus reflects the balance that the General Assembly struck between the public’s need to know about the conduct of public business and the government’s need, in “special and appropriate circumstances,” to address certain types of matters behind closed doors. In case of doubt, the balance tilts towards openness: the default set by the Act is “except as otherwise expressly provided by [the Act], a public body shall meet in open session.” [Md. Code, General Provisions] § 3-301.

    * * *

    When a public body holds a meeting subject to the Act, the meeting must be open to the public unless the topic of discussion falls within one of the fourteen exceptions that allow a public body to exclude the public. See §§ 3-301, 3-305. Before closing an open meeting under one of the statutory exceptions, the public body must disclose the particular exception that permits the closed session. Then, in the closed session, the attendees may discuss only matters within the scope of that exception. § 3-305(b), (d); see also 7 OMCB Opinions 125, 127 (2011) (“discussions at closed meetings must fall within the scope of the exception claimed by the public body in advance”). For the most part, the decision to invoke an exception to close a meeting is discretionary. Although other laws, such as medical privacy laws, might require a public body to discuss a topic in a closed session, the Act itself does not mandate closed sessions; instead, it provides that the public body “may” meet in closed session to discuss an excepted topic. § 3-305(b).

    * * *


    The Act does not authorize public bodies to close meetings for discussions that fall outside of the exceptions. See § 3-305(b) (providing that a public body may close a meeting “only” to discuss one of the fourteen topics). Although the Act once permitted public bodies to close a meeting for “an exceptional reason” that was “so compelling” as to override the public interest in open meetings, that exception was repealed in 1991. See 1991 Laws of Md. ch. 655. The exceptions now reflect the General Assembly’s efforts to balance the public’s need to know with public bodies’ need to address certain specific topics in private.

    B. The “privacy or reputation” exception: § 3-305(b)(2).

    This exception allows a public body to close a meeting to “protect the privacy or reputation of an individual with respect to a matter that is not related to public business.” The Compliance Board has seldom addressed it, probably because most discussions about a person’s private matters would not likely relate to public business, and many others would fall instead into the personnel exception.

    * * *
    Id. (emphasis added).
     

    Rab1515

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 29, 2014
    2,081
    Calvert
    Regarding Open Meetings Act issues, it is clear that all parts of a meeting must be open unless the matter sought to be closed falls into one of the fourteen exceptions specified in the OMA. Before a meeting is closed, the Board must make a closing statement citing the particular exception relied upon. The OMA itself never requires a meeting to be closed (although other law might do so). A prior exception allowing closed meetings for “exceptional reasons” was repealed. There is an exception “to protect the privacy or reputation of an individual,” but only with regard to matters that do not pertain to public business. Hence, however desirable it might seem to spare an applicant the perceived indignity or stress of testifying in the open, that is not a basis for a closed session.

    See Open Meetings Act Manual (8th Ed., November 2015), Office of the Maryland Attorney General, Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opengov/Openmeetings/OMA_manual_2015.pdf, at 1. 28-29, 30:

    The [Open Meetings]Act thus reflects the balance that the General Assembly struck between the public’s need to know about the conduct of public business and the government’s need, in “special and appropriate circumstances,” to address certain types of matters behind closed doors. In case of doubt, the balance tilts towards openness: the default set by the Act is “except as otherwise expressly provided by [the Act], a public body shall meet in open session.” [Md. Code, General Provisions] § 3-301.

    * * *

    When a public body holds a meeting subject to the Act, the meeting must be open to the public unless the topic of discussion falls within one of the fourteen exceptions that allow a public body to exclude the public. See §§ 3-301, 3-305. Before closing an open meeting under one of the statutory exceptions, the public body must disclose the particular exception that permits the closed session. Then, in the closed session, the attendees may discuss only matters within the scope of that exception. § 3-305(b), (d); see also 7 OMCB Opinions 125, 127 (2011) (“discussions at closed meetings must fall within the scope of the exception claimed by the public body in advance”). For the most part, the decision to invoke an exception to close a meeting is discretionary. Although other laws, such as medical privacy laws, might require a public body to discuss a topic in a closed session, the Act itself does not mandate closed sessions; instead, it provides that the public body “may” meet in closed session to discuss an excepted topic. § 3-305(b).

    * * *


    The Act does not authorize public bodies to close meetings for discussions that fall outside of the exceptions. See § 3-305(b) (providing that a public body may close a meeting “only” to discuss one of the fourteen topics). Although the Act once permitted public bodies to close a meeting for “an exceptional reason” that was “so compelling” as to override the public interest in open meetings, that exception was repealed in 1991. See 1991 Laws of Md. ch. 655. The exceptions now reflect the General Assembly’s efforts to balance the public’s need to know with public bodies’ need to address certain specific topics in private.

    B. The “privacy or reputation” exception: § 3-305(b)(2).

    This exception allows a public body to close a meeting to “protect the privacy or reputation of an individual with respect to a matter that is not related to public business.” The Compliance Board has seldom addressed it, probably because most discussions about a person’s private matters would not likely relate to public business, and many others would fall instead into the personnel exception.

    * * *
    Id. (emphasis added).

    So they can't meet with the AAG in closed session any more?
     

    Hattie

    Active Member
    Sep 18, 2012
    178
    First, sorry once again for an inadvertent cross post.

    Second:

    So they can't meet with the AAG in closed session any more?

    A closed session to seek legal advice is one of the fourteen exceptions in the OMA. See OMA sec. 3-305(a)(7).
     

    BeoBill

    Crank in the Third Row
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 3, 2013
    27,064
    南馬里蘭州鮑伊
    Regarding Open Meetings Act issues, it is clear that all parts of a meeting must be open unless the matter sought to be closed falls into one of the fourteen exceptions specified in the OMA. Before a meeting is closed, the Board must make a closing statement citing the particular exception relied upon. The OMA itself never requires a meeting to be closed (although other law might do so). A prior exception allowing closed meetings for “exceptional reasons” was repealed. There is an exception “to protect the privacy or reputation of an individual,” but only with regard to matters that do not pertain to public business. Hence, however desirable it might seem to spare an applicant the perceived indignity or stress of testifying in the open, that is not a basis for a closed session.

    See Open Meetings Act Manual (8th Ed., November 2015), Office of the Maryland Attorney General, Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opengov/Openmeetings/OMA_manual_2015.pdf, at 1. 28-29, 30:

    The [Open Meetings]Act thus reflects the balance that the General Assembly struck between the public’s need to know about the conduct of public business and the government’s need, in “special and appropriate circumstances,” to address certain types of matters behind closed doors. In case of doubt, the balance tilts towards openness: the default set by the Act is “except as otherwise expressly provided by [the Act], a public body shall meet in open session.” [Md. Code, General Provisions] § 3-301.

    ============8<------------------

    Since everyone seems to enjoy lawyering the OMA, the retired analyst in the house respectfully offers the exceptions to an open meeting, formatted for legibility and comprehension, for the edification of all...

    §3-305.

    (a) The exceptions in subsection (b) of this section shall be strictly construed in favor of open meetings of public bodies.

    (b) Subject to subsection (d) of this section, a public body may meet in closed session or adjourn an open session to a closed session only to:
    (1) discuss
    (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;
    (2) protect the privacy or reputation of an individual with respect to a matter that is not related to public business;
    (3) consider the acquisition of real property for a public purpose and matters directly related to the acquisition;
    (4) consider a matter that concerns the proposal for a business or industrial organization to locate, expand, or remain in the State;
    (5) consider the investment of public funds;
    (6) consider the marketing of public securities;
    (7) consult with counsel to obtain legal advice;
    (8) consult with staff, consultants, or other individuals about pending or potential litigation;
    (9) conduct collective bargaining negotiations or consider matters that relate to the negotiations;
    (10) 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) prepare, administer, or grade a scholastic, licensing, or qualifying examination;
    (12) conduct or discuss an investigative proceeding on actual or possible criminal conduct;
    (13) comply with a specific constitutional, statutory, or judicially imposed requirement that prevents public disclosures about a particular proceeding or matter; or
    (14) discuss, before a contract is awarded or bids are opened, 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.

    (c) A public body that meets in closed session under this section may not discuss or act on any matter not authorized under subsection (b) of this section.

    (d)
    (1) Unless a majority of the members of a public body present and voting vote in favor of closing the session, the public body may not meet in closed session.
    (2) Before a public body meets in closed session, the presiding officer shall:
    (i) conduct a recorded vote on the closing of the session; and
    (ii) make a written statement of the reason for closing the meeting, including a citation of the authority under this section, and a listing of the topics to be discussed.
    (3) If a person objects to the closing of a session, the public body shall send a copy of the written statement to the Board.
    (4) The written statement shall be a matter of public record.
    (5) A public body shall keep a copy of the written statement for at least 1 year after the date of the session.

    Emphasis added by me for clarity.

    As mentioned above by Hattie, the full text of the Act is here:
    http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opengov/Openmeetings/10_1_14_OPEN_MEETINGS_ACT.pdf
     

    LCPIWB

    Needs an avatar
    MDS Supporter
    Nov 17, 2011
    2,001
    Underneath the blimp, Md.
    I ran into the former Chairman Thomas at Costco today filling up my tank.
    Asked him about his health. He says he is doing fine. And asked if he is keeping busy.
    (Actually I was not on the lookout for him, but I knew chances were high I would run into him at Costco as we discussed at a meeting once. Ran into him once before last year).
     

    Gryphon

    inveniam viam aut faciam
    Patriot Picket
    Mar 8, 2013
    6,993
    I bet he was happy to see one of his prior disapprovals while he enjoyed his hot dog.
     

    LCPIWB

    Needs an avatar
    MDS Supporter
    Nov 17, 2011
    2,001
    Underneath the blimp, Md.
    I bet on the inside he was not happy at all to see you. He might have thought you was still that gun crazy person who wanted to bend his ear off a little

    I don't know the opinion of anyone else but I always found the previous chairman to be cordial before and after the meetings. No point in bending his ear off, he is no longer the chairman.
     

    highli99

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 10, 2015
    2,551
    West Side
    Won't be able to make it to the meeting this week because I need to baby sit my baby. However, I will be eagerly following along and hope to see some disapprovals overturned!
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,928
    Messages
    7,259,402
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom