This message is especially for anyone who happens to be a resident of Baltimore City, though anyone intrigued by the antics of corrupt city politicians might find this interesting.
On August 8th, 2002, a quorum of the Baltimore City Council, and of the Council’s Committee on Judiciary and Legislative Investigations, was present at a secret meeting where Council members discussed proposals that would alter the form of the Council. They did so even though the Maryland Open Meetings Act requires that the public be given proper prior notice and access to any meeting where a quorum of a public body considers public business. The Council held no debate on the topic of Council reform at public meetings–all debate on the matter was done in private.
In particular, the City Council was concerned about the presence of Question P on the November election ballot, because if that question were to pass, the Council would consist of 14 single member districts and a President. This question was placed on the ballot after citizen’s groups led a lengthy grassroots drive to collect 10,000 signatures from city voters. Currently, the Council consists of 6 districts, each containing 3 members, and the Council President. The current members of the City Council have a very personal interest in the outcome on Question P, because some of them will lose their jobs if the Council’s size is reduced.
The quorum happened quite accidentally—the secret meeting was carefully orchestrated so that only 8 or 9 council members would be present in the meeting room at any given moment—essentially a game of legislative musical chairs with various members walking in and out to avoid the presence of a 10th member. But at one point, the music stopped and 10 Council members were in the room, triggering the requirements of the Maryland Open Meetings Act. Specifically, this would mean that the Council was obligated to give the public prior notice of the meeting, and to keep the meeting open to the public. When she realized a quorum was present, Council President Sheila Dixon ordered the few citizens and media members who were in the room to leave immediately. The Council had been beaten at their own game, and now they shifted into damage control mode.
Council President Sheila Dixon has admitted to a Baltimore Sun reporter that a quorum was in fact present and that Maryland’s Open Meetings Act was violated, but she rationalizes the episode by noting that the quorum was only present briefly. (N.B. Under the Maryland Open Meetings Act, the duration of the quorum is irrelevant.) Councilman Robert Curran told the press that the purpose of the secret meeting was to avoid debating council reform in public. Councilman John Cain remarked: “What’s the big deal? We had arguing to do.” (Each quote from Baltimore Sun article, Maryland section, 8/9/02) When elected officials express such a callous disregard for the public’s right to open government, it is no wonder there is so much cynicism about government.
It would be bad enough if the City Council were to secretly debate any public matter—that they did so while debating a significant change in the city government is deeply disturbing.
The Council President tries to characterize the Council’s actions as an effort to give voters a choice, “Voters who agree that the current structure needs to be changed now have options.” (from Council President Sheila Dixon’s August 14, 2002 press release) But this characterization is highly disingenuous. If the Council were truly interested in “giving voters a choice”, why did they not give us the choice to be present while they were debating council reform proposals? Council President Sheila Dixon offers a poor excuse: “Nobody took a vote (on Aug. 8)…We voted in public session and everything.” (Baltimore Sun, 9/17/02, 1B) In other words, the Council President’s viewpoint is that it should be perfectly fine to conduct all substantive debate hidden from public view, so long as the formal vote itself is done at a properly announced public meeting.
The Council’s true intent in putting Question Q on the ballot is to confuse the voters, because voters who are confused are likely to vote “no” on both questions. Though the Council would deny this was their intent, it is the only reasonable inference from their behavior at the August 12th meeting, where they unanimously and without discussion passed two resolutions on Council size that were inconsistent with one another. If the Council were truly devoted to a single coherent reform plan, they would not have unanimously passed two contradictory resolutions. After passage, one of these resolutions became Question Q, and the other was vetoed by the Mayor. The Council’s intent to confuse voters is also demonstrated by the remarkably similar wording in Questions P and Q.
Also, the Council is hoping that if both Questions P and Q pass, the inconsistencies between these questions will result in both being voided. To date, Maryland courts have not had to rule on the issue of whether the passage of two inconsistent ballot questions would result in a double knockout. However, the City Council has received an opinion from the City Solicitor that suggests a double knockout would be the result. If this would be the result, then Question P could only take effect if it passes and Question Q is defeated.
A broad coalition of citizen’s groups, including the League of Women Voters, ACORN, and AFSCME, has filed a lawsuit against the City Council, the Mayor, and the City and State Boards of Election. These citizen’s groups argue that since Question Q was passed illegally, it should be removed from the November ballot. Indeed, no lesser remedy would correct the harm done by the City Council’s surreptitious dealings. A court that allows Question Q to stay on the ballot would be setting a terrible precedent, essentially giving public bodies carte blanche to hide their deliberations from the public.
People may disagree about which reform proposal is best, or even as to whether reform is necessary, but everyone who cherishes democratic values will agree that the City Council’s backroom dealmaking is an unacceptable way for any public body to conduct business. If members of the City Council honestly believed that putting Question Q on the ballot served the public interest, why did they go to such lengths to hide all Council reform debate from the public? Their actions at the clandestine August 8th meeting and their subsequent passage of Question Q without any public debate on August 12th are shameful examples of government at its worst—serving the narrow interests of a few, and shutting out the general public and the media from important deliberations that should have been open to all. This is your City Council–be sure to let your friends and neighbors know about how the Council has abused the public trust.
