The State of Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board recently ruled in favor of the Board of Education of Charles County in regard to a complaint filed by a staff member from Southern Maryland News. The complaint, filed in November 2025, alleged the Board of Education violated the Open Meetings Act when it met on Sept. 23, 2025, to discuss Board member vacancy candidates.
To fill a vacant seat, the Board is required to follow Md. Code Ann., General Provisions Article § 3-501 which outlines the legal process.
On Aug. 1, 2025, a Board member serving Charles County District 4 resigned, leaving a vacant seat open on the Board. Following § 3-501, the Board discussed the vacancy process at its Aug. 12, 2025, Board meeting; advertised the vacancy and application; shared the names and interview schedule of two candidates publicly; livestreamed the interviews (which are archived on the CCPS YouTube page); met to discuss the candidates; and announced its selection for the vacancy.
Southern Maryland News, the complainant, alleged that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by meeting in private to discuss the candidates without following the Act’s procedure to convene in closed session. The complainant also alleged the Board failed to make certain post-meeting disclosures.
The Board provided a response to the Open Meetings Compliance Board stating when it met to discuss the vacancy candidates, it did so as an administrative function and thus the meeting was not subject to the Open Meetings Act.
In an opinion dated Dec. 23, 2025, the Compliance Board agreed with the Board of Education that there was no violation of the Open Meetings Act because the Act did not apply to the Sept. 23 meeting.
The Compliance Board stated, “We conclude that, when the Board of Education met on September 23 to select a candidate to fill the vacant seat, it was administering an existing law that the Board of Education is legally responsible for administering. As already noted, § 3-501 of the Education Article requires the Board to fill a vacancy, and we have previously recognized that in so doing, the Board administers that law and, thus, performs an administrative function. As such we conclude that the September 23 meeting involved the performance of an administrative function, and the Act did not apply.”
In the Sept. 24, 2025, SOMD News article about the Board’s selection of Bridgette Patterson for the vacancy, Southern Maryland News stated that “the school board did not appear to give public notice of the Sept. 23 meeting in advance, as required by state’s open meetings law.” CCPS staff immediately requested a correction of the article and shared the legal citation that the Board followed. The request went unanswered.
The full opinion provided to the Board of Education by the Open Meetings Compliance Board is posted on the Attorney General of Maryland website here.
