A legislative proposal to tighten open-meeting restrictions for the Howard County school board could benefit from clarification, an assistant attorney general has recommended.
In a letter dated Dec. 12 to Del. Elizabeth Bobo -- the Democrat who put forward the original draft of the legislation -- Jack Schwartz said that Bobo's bill, if "properly interpreted," would meet her objective: limiting the purposes for which the board can hold closed meetings. But Schwartz suggested that "an alternative would likewise do so, with somewhat greater clarity."
Schwartz offered a tighter version of the bill, which Bobo said she will have drawn up and introduced in the General Assembly next month.
"The way I read it, they both accomplish the same thing," said Bobo, who asked for the attorney general's comments after complaints surfaced about the wording of her bill. "But I'm having [Schwartz's recommendation] drafted as an amendment, and the delegation can decide what's what."
Labeled "Ho. Co. 7-03," the proposal would require board members to meet in public to take care of administrative housekeeping matters that fall under an "executive-function" classification -- unlike other public bodies that deal with these things in secret.
Board members have said that being able to hold closed meetings is crucial to their operation.
The board is defending this view in county circuit court in a case brought against the board by Allen Dyer, an Ellicott City lawyer suing the board for what he claims are open-meeting and public-record violations.
Some board members are ready to throw in the towel.
"This is an emotional issue that is generating a lot of heat for a lot of reasons," said board member James P. O'Donnell. "My opinion is that when you're in an environment like that, you do whatever you have to do so that people are comfortable. And if that means no more executive function, then the board and the administration will find another way to keep each other informed that won't concern or upset people in our community."
The proposed bill is the latest effort by legislators, citizens and the county PTA Council to get the Howard board to conduct more of its business in the open.
"I have read over the attorney general's alternative proposal several times," Dyer said. "I like it. It looks clean, and I think that anyone can understand it."
Dyer was initially happy to hear about Bobo's intention, but when he saw her proposed bill, he balked because it introduced terms, he said, that could cause further confusion.
The original and revised proposals address local education laws that can be seen as conflicting with the state Open Meetings Act.
Some, including Dyer, interpret the laws to mean that the Howard board cannot meet in private for executive-function reasons, while the board and its lawyers say it is legal.
"I think that what Mrs. Bobo is trying to do is clarify the law, and I think we need that," said newest board member Courtney Watson, who took her position Dec. 2.
"I think there is too much room for interpretation within the executive-function part of the law, and I think that anything we can do to clarify that for the public and the Board of Education is positive," Watson said.
The board is scheduled to take an official position on the proposed legislation at its next meting, Jan. 9.
Dyer's lawsuit seeks to clarify local and state laws that determine when the school board can close a meeting. Bobo's proposal, if passed, would do the same.
Board members attempted a legislative solution to the lawsuit beginning a year ago, when they lobbied for legislation from Bobo that would allow them access to executive function, but the effort was killed Nov. 26 at the suggestion of the board's lawyer.
The circuit court judge presiding over Dyer's case against the board, James B. Dudley, has said the trial will continue regardless of the legislation.
The board likely will begin presenting its defense next month against charges that it frequently held illegal closed meetings and has taken actions beyond its delegated power.