Open Meetings Compliance Board finds Cambridge City Council in violation

CAMBRIDGE — The Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board has found the Cambridge City Council to be in violation of the Open Meetings Act for actions made during and following a City Council meeting on Jan. 8

At a City Council meeting on July 8, Cambridge Mayor Stephen Rideout read a portion of the board’s July 3 opinion, which found that the council violated documentation requirements for a closed meeting preceding the open session council meeting in January.

“The city does not fully agree with this decision, but has read it as required by the Open Meetings Act board,” he said before directing city staff to publish the opinion on the city’s website.

According to the opinion, which was published on the Maryland attorney general website , the board found the city failed to prepare a written closing statement to enter into a closed session meeting, failed to put together “sufficiently detailed” minutes of the closed session and failed to put together a “sufficiently detailed” public summary of the closed session.

The board did not find that the council violated the Open Meetings Act by holding the meeting, itself.

The opinion states the complainant filed an application in September requesting the city rezone several parcels of land. It says the council was scheduled to vote on the matter on Jan. 8, and at the beginning of that meeting, the council voted to postpone the vote on the application.

According to the Jan. 8 council agenda and meeting minutes, the council voted to postpone one item that dealt with rezoning: an ordinance that would have amended zoning to make four contiguous parcels at the corner of Washington and High streets the same zoning district.

At a council meeting on April 22, the council voted to deny the proposed ordinance, which had previously been tabled, in a three-to-two vote, with commissioners Jameson Harrington and Brian Roche voting against denying the rezoning.

Jim Chaney, complainant and managing member of the LLC, Quality Housing Cambridge — which submitted the application to rezone parcels on Washington and High streets — said he thought the board did the best that they could with the information they were able to obtain. Chaney said it was concerning that the city did not keep “proper minutes” for the closed session meeting. He said that he didn’t believe in the city’s leadership.

“How do you attract businesses and people to come to the city when you’re doing things like this?” he asked.

According to the opinion from the Compliance Board, the complaint alleged that the council:

Entered into closed session without convening the meeting in open session.Had discussions in closed session outside the parameters of what it said it would discuss.Failed to make require disclosures to the public after exiting closed session.Conducted business outside of a meeting that should have been conducted in an open meeting.

The complaint also alleged that the council violated the act by tabling the ordinance during the Jan. 8 open session meeting.

After the council responded to the board that it entered closed session on Jan. 8 after making a public announcement required by the Open Meetings Act, the Compliance Board said it could not conclude whether the council “improperly convened” in closed session.

The board said that although the council invoked two exceptions that allow it to enter into closed session, the council did not prepare a written closing statement, which is a violation of the act.

The board also said it could not determine whether the council talked about things outside the bounds of what it claimed to enter closed session for because the council did not disclose anything regarding the substance of the closed meeting in its sealed minutes. The board found the council in violation of the act because of that failure to disclose the substance of the meeting in the sealed minutes.

The board said the minutes “fail to provide all the details required for a sufficient closed session summary.”

Regarding the allegation that the council conducted business it should not have outside of the meeting, the board said the question is really a matter of whether the commission met in secret because the act only applies to meetings. The board said the council denies discussing the application before the regular meeting, and the board could not conclude whether the council met in secret.

The board said tabling an item is not a violation of the act and declined to find a violation based on that specific allegation brought forward by the complainant.