An Unannounced Board Meeting Lasting 88 Minutes
By Jolie McShane, Secure the Vote MD
Election transparency depends on one basic principle: the public must know when a meeting is happening and what business will be conducted. Without notice or an agenda, citizens cannot attend, observe, or meaningfully participate.
That principle was tested by the Harford County Board of Elections’ October 9, 2024 meeting, and the outcome has left many Maryland voters asking how an unannounced meeting with formal votes can be considered acceptable.
What the Maryland Open Meetings Act Requires
Maryland’s Open Meetings Act (OMA) exists to ensure that the public’s business is conducted openly and transparently. The law requires public bodies, including boards of elections, to provide reasonable advance notice of meetings so that members of the public have a meaningful opportunity to attend.
At a minimum, the Act requires:
- Public notice of the time, place, and date of meetings
- Transparency about whether a meeting will include open or closed sessions
- That any business conducted in open session be accessible to the public
The Act is not satisfied merely because a meeting is technically labeled “open.” If the public has no notice that a meeting is occurring, the meeting is not meaningfully open, and public oversight is effectively eliminated. It is against this legal framework that the October 9, 2024 Harford County Board of Elections meeting must be evaluated.
What the Official Minutes Show
The approved minutes for the October 9, 2024 meeting tell a clear and detailed story. According to the Board’s own record:
- The meeting was called to order at 5:42 p.m.
- A quorum was present, including at least one member of the minority party
- The Chair “welcomed members and guests,” although no guests were present
No members of the public attended, a fact that is unsurprising, given that no meeting notice or agenda was posted.
Votes Were Taken in Open Session
Before entering closed session, the Board conducted substantive business in open session, including formal votes on leadership positions:
- Christina Bracknell was elected Board President
- Mr. Richardson was elected Board Secretary
- Ms. McMillan remained Board Vice President
Each motion was made, seconded, and passed unanimously by the members present. These votes occurred during an open session that the public had no opportunity to attend, raising serious questions about compliance with the Open Meetings Act’s notice requirements.
A 46-Minute Closed Session and a 7:10 p.m. Adjournment
The minutes further state, the Board voted to enter closed session at 5:45 p.m. The stated purpose was personnel issues. The closed session adjourned at 6:31 p.m. After the closed session, the meeting did not adjourn until 7:10 p.m. From start to finish, the meeting lasted approximately 88 minutes.
The Contradiction That Was Never Reconciled
Despite what the official minutes show, counsel for the Harford County Board of Elections represented to the Open Meetings Compliance Board that the meeting lasted only three minutes. When a request for reconsideration was filed, pointing out that the Board’s own approved minutes contradicted that claim, the Open Meetings Compliance Board declined to reconsider its opinion.
The result is a troubling disconnect:
- The Board’s minutes document a lengthy meeting with votes and a closed session
- Counsel characterized the meeting as lasting only minutes
- The Compliance Board declined to revisit its decision after the minutes were reviewed
For many citizens, this raises a fundamental question: How can an unannounced meeting with formal votes be meaningfully “open” if the public had no notice it was occurring?
Why This Matters Beyond One County
Boards of elections wield significant authority. They appoint officials, oversee election administration, and certify results. Public confidence in elections depends on transparency in how these boards operate. When the meetings are not announced, agendas are not posted, votes are taken without public attendance, and contradictions in the official record go unresolved, the public is left with fewer assurances that oversight mechanisms are working as intended.
Secure the Vote MD Will Continue to Document Transparency Failures
Secure the Vote MD is committed to documenting election transparency issues using official records, timelines, and primary documents. This case illustrates why vigilance matters and why transparency laws are only as strong as their enforcement.
