Baltimore IMC : http://www.baltimoreimc.org
News :: Elections & Legislation
Lawsuit: Baltimore City Council Holds Illegal Meetings. UPDATE: City Council President Sheila Dixon Testifies!
A community coalition fighting to downsize the Baltimore City Council has filed a suit accusing the Council of dirty political tricks.
UPDATE: Baltimore City Council President Sheila Dixon acknowledges that she may have violated Maryland's Open Meetings Act. But she didn't mean to.
UPDATE: Baltimore City Council President Sheila Dixon acknowledges that she may have violated Maryland's Open Meetings Act. But she didn't mean to.
SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 -- Baltimore City Council President Sheila Dixon was the first witness to testify during a court case that, if successful, will result in the removal of "Question Q" from this November's ballot.
On the surface of it, Question Q is an important but uncontroversial amendment to the City Charter that asks voters to change the Council structure from 6 three-member districts to 7 two-member districts, reducing the Council membership by four. But Question Q is far from innocuous, says members of Community and Labor United for Baltimore (CLUB), a coalition of community groups and unions. CLUB feels that Question Q is a dirty political trick meant to render CLUB's own resizing amendment, Question P, meaningless. Question P, which was placed on the ballot through voter petition, asks voters to restructure the council into fourteen single-member districts. Question Q and Question P are so similar that if both are approved by voters, they will effectively cancel each other out. If that happens, the Council's current structure will remain unchanged. And that, says CLUB, is exactly what Council Members hope will happen.
Although CLUB thinks Question Q is a sham to derail the whole resizing effort, there is nothing illegal about placing it on the ballot right below Question P. However, CLUB claims there was something illegal about the special August 8 meeting that the Council held in secret to get Question Q on the ballot. Therefore, says CLUB, Question Q should be removed from the ballot.
F. J. Collins, attorney for CLUB, argued in Baltimore City District Court this afternoon that the August 8 meeting was held in violation of Maryland's Open Meetings Act. The Act requires the Council to give the public adequate advance notice of any meetings attended by a quorum of Council members, among other stipulations to assure general access to proceedings.
Attorneys representing the City did not deny that the August 8 meeting was held without proper notice. In fact, Council President Dixon admitted under oath that no such notice was given even though a quorum was present during the meeting for a brief time. But failure to inform isn't enough to warrant court action, claimed a City attorney. Elaborating, he said that CLUB had to show evidence that the violation occurred knowingly and willfully, not just technically. Whether that's what the law really demands, however, is a decision that has yet to be made by the judge in the case.
Moreover, said the defense, President Dixon didn't even know there was going to be a quorum present that day. She invited all 18 members to attend, but only six "RSVP'd." And when ten members did unexpectedly enter the conference room, Dixon said she immediately opened the doors to a CLUB member and two members of the press who had been waiting in the hallway.
Even if there had been a quorum, Dixon probably would not have announced the meeting publicly, as the Act requires. Pleading her ignorance of the Act's specific stipulations, Dixon testified that "I did not feel that I had to announce any meeting other than the regular council meetings," referring to the every-other-Monday-evening general Council meetings held in the Council chambers.
Testimony in the case continues at the Mitchell Court House in downtown Baltimore tomorrow.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE:
SEPTEMBER 16, 2002 -- The battle to reform and resize the Baltimore City Council entered the courts today when Community and Labor United for Baltimore (CLUB) named the City Council as a defendant in a suit to be heard in Baltimore Circuit Court. CLUB contends that the Open Meetings Act (Maryland Rule 15-505) was violated when Council President Sheila Dixon convened a closed-door committee meeting on August 8, 2002. Decisions made during that meeting led to the Council placing an amendment on the November 5 ballot that CLUB claims is a direct attack on its own pre-existing amendment to change the Council structure from 6 three-member districts to 14 single-member districts. The suit requests that the courts require the Baltimore City and Maryland Boards of Elections withdraw the Council's proposed amendment from the ballot.
Throughout the spring and summer, CLUB gathered more than 10,000 signatures from the City's registered voters to put its amendment on the ballot as "Question P." Meanwhile, less sweeping restructuring proposals put forward by the Council itself languished in committee.
The Council swung into action, however, when it became clear that CLUB would succeed in its petition drive and could conceivably put four council members out of work after the November election. In what CLUB member Millie Tyssowski characterized as a "cynical" and "self-serving" move, the Council approved its own competing amendment for the ballot, Question Q, which asks voters to approve 7 two-member districts.
But according to CLUB, the Council does not really want Question Q to pass. It intends to use Question Q to destroy any chance that Question P will pass.
On June 25, the City's legal department responded to a request made by President Dixon.
"You have requested the advice of the Law Department with regard to what would happen if more than one proposed amendment received a majority of favorable votes," opens the Department's two-page written response to President Dixon's request. It concludes that "if several Charter amendments concerning the composition of the City Council were placed on the ballot and more than one received a majority of votes then all the proposals that passed must fail."
CLUB sees this as compelling evidence that the Council is using Question Q as a dirty political trick.
City Council President Sheila Dixon sees CLUB as the real dirty trickster
"That's crap," responds Dixon to the coalition's charges, adding that she "resents the fact" that CLUB is attacking the integrity of the Council.
The suit alleges that the City Council violated two of the Open Meetings Act's provisions.
First, it claims that the Council failed to give the public "reasonable advance notice" of the August 8 meeting. Sultan Shakir, one of the named plaintiffs in the case and a member of CLUB, reports that far from giving notice, the Council gave him and others seeking entrance to the meeting false information about its location.
Second, the suit alleges that the Council barred the public from the August 8 meeting, in violation of the Open Meetings Act requirement that the public be allowed to "witness the phases of the deliberations, policy formation and decision making."
But was the meeting really a meeting? President Dixon says no. She claims that a quorum of Council Members was not present so the August 8 gathering was not a "meeting" as the Open Meeting Act defines it. The rules didn't apply.
CLUB is not arguing the limits of the Act. It agrees that a quorum is required for the Act to be triggered. CLUB disagrees with Dixon, however, claiming that there was a quorum present.
In earlier media reports, Dixon has acknowledged that "for a second" enough members of the Council entered the meeting room to trigger the Act's rules. When that happened, Dixon says she immediately opened the proceedings to the public. And when three members abruptly departed the meeting several minutes later, she closed it again.
"Assembling a quorum, however briefly, triggers the public notice requirements of the Act," states language in the suit filed today by CLUB. "The City Council is not permitted to avoid the requirements of the Act by conducting debates while playing musical chairs," it continues. "Councilman Robert W. Curran suggested that the Council President could rotate smaller groups of the council through her office every few minutes and avoid triggering the Act. Council President Dixon attempted to explain away the fact that the City Council was debating the proposed Charter Amendments in closed session by saying that this is not an "official" meeting of the council. Under the Act, and meeting of a quorum of the City Council must be open, whether or not the City Council President deems it "official."
In addition to the Baltimore City Council, the suit names Mayor Martin O'Malley, the Baltimore City Board of Elections and the Maryland State Board of Elections.
CLUB is a coalition made up of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), AFSCME Local 44 and the League of Women Voters of Baltimore City.
See Indymedia Newswire Update 9/23/02:
baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/1801/index.php
On the surface of it, Question Q is an important but uncontroversial amendment to the City Charter that asks voters to change the Council structure from 6 three-member districts to 7 two-member districts, reducing the Council membership by four. But Question Q is far from innocuous, says members of Community and Labor United for Baltimore (CLUB), a coalition of community groups and unions. CLUB feels that Question Q is a dirty political trick meant to render CLUB's own resizing amendment, Question P, meaningless. Question P, which was placed on the ballot through voter petition, asks voters to restructure the council into fourteen single-member districts. Question Q and Question P are so similar that if both are approved by voters, they will effectively cancel each other out. If that happens, the Council's current structure will remain unchanged. And that, says CLUB, is exactly what Council Members hope will happen.
Although CLUB thinks Question Q is a sham to derail the whole resizing effort, there is nothing illegal about placing it on the ballot right below Question P. However, CLUB claims there was something illegal about the special August 8 meeting that the Council held in secret to get Question Q on the ballot. Therefore, says CLUB, Question Q should be removed from the ballot.
F. J. Collins, attorney for CLUB, argued in Baltimore City District Court this afternoon that the August 8 meeting was held in violation of Maryland's Open Meetings Act. The Act requires the Council to give the public adequate advance notice of any meetings attended by a quorum of Council members, among other stipulations to assure general access to proceedings.
Attorneys representing the City did not deny that the August 8 meeting was held without proper notice. In fact, Council President Dixon admitted under oath that no such notice was given even though a quorum was present during the meeting for a brief time. But failure to inform isn't enough to warrant court action, claimed a City attorney. Elaborating, he said that CLUB had to show evidence that the violation occurred knowingly and willfully, not just technically. Whether that's what the law really demands, however, is a decision that has yet to be made by the judge in the case.
Moreover, said the defense, President Dixon didn't even know there was going to be a quorum present that day. She invited all 18 members to attend, but only six "RSVP'd." And when ten members did unexpectedly enter the conference room, Dixon said she immediately opened the doors to a CLUB member and two members of the press who had been waiting in the hallway.
Even if there had been a quorum, Dixon probably would not have announced the meeting publicly, as the Act requires. Pleading her ignorance of the Act's specific stipulations, Dixon testified that "I did not feel that I had to announce any meeting other than the regular council meetings," referring to the every-other-Monday-evening general Council meetings held in the Council chambers.
Testimony in the case continues at the Mitchell Court House in downtown Baltimore tomorrow.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE:
SEPTEMBER 16, 2002 -- The battle to reform and resize the Baltimore City Council entered the courts today when Community and Labor United for Baltimore (CLUB) named the City Council as a defendant in a suit to be heard in Baltimore Circuit Court. CLUB contends that the Open Meetings Act (Maryland Rule 15-505) was violated when Council President Sheila Dixon convened a closed-door committee meeting on August 8, 2002. Decisions made during that meeting led to the Council placing an amendment on the November 5 ballot that CLUB claims is a direct attack on its own pre-existing amendment to change the Council structure from 6 three-member districts to 14 single-member districts. The suit requests that the courts require the Baltimore City and Maryland Boards of Elections withdraw the Council's proposed amendment from the ballot.
Throughout the spring and summer, CLUB gathered more than 10,000 signatures from the City's registered voters to put its amendment on the ballot as "Question P." Meanwhile, less sweeping restructuring proposals put forward by the Council itself languished in committee.
The Council swung into action, however, when it became clear that CLUB would succeed in its petition drive and could conceivably put four council members out of work after the November election. In what CLUB member Millie Tyssowski characterized as a "cynical" and "self-serving" move, the Council approved its own competing amendment for the ballot, Question Q, which asks voters to approve 7 two-member districts.
But according to CLUB, the Council does not really want Question Q to pass. It intends to use Question Q to destroy any chance that Question P will pass.
On June 25, the City's legal department responded to a request made by President Dixon.
"You have requested the advice of the Law Department with regard to what would happen if more than one proposed amendment received a majority of favorable votes," opens the Department's two-page written response to President Dixon's request. It concludes that "if several Charter amendments concerning the composition of the City Council were placed on the ballot and more than one received a majority of votes then all the proposals that passed must fail."
CLUB sees this as compelling evidence that the Council is using Question Q as a dirty political trick.
City Council President Sheila Dixon sees CLUB as the real dirty trickster
"That's crap," responds Dixon to the coalition's charges, adding that she "resents the fact" that CLUB is attacking the integrity of the Council.
The suit alleges that the City Council violated two of the Open Meetings Act's provisions.
First, it claims that the Council failed to give the public "reasonable advance notice" of the August 8 meeting. Sultan Shakir, one of the named plaintiffs in the case and a member of CLUB, reports that far from giving notice, the Council gave him and others seeking entrance to the meeting false information about its location.
Second, the suit alleges that the Council barred the public from the August 8 meeting, in violation of the Open Meetings Act requirement that the public be allowed to "witness the phases of the deliberations, policy formation and decision making."
But was the meeting really a meeting? President Dixon says no. She claims that a quorum of Council Members was not present so the August 8 gathering was not a "meeting" as the Open Meeting Act defines it. The rules didn't apply.
CLUB is not arguing the limits of the Act. It agrees that a quorum is required for the Act to be triggered. CLUB disagrees with Dixon, however, claiming that there was a quorum present.
In earlier media reports, Dixon has acknowledged that "for a second" enough members of the Council entered the meeting room to trigger the Act's rules. When that happened, Dixon says she immediately opened the proceedings to the public. And when three members abruptly departed the meeting several minutes later, she closed it again.
"Assembling a quorum, however briefly, triggers the public notice requirements of the Act," states language in the suit filed today by CLUB. "The City Council is not permitted to avoid the requirements of the Act by conducting debates while playing musical chairs," it continues. "Councilman Robert W. Curran suggested that the Council President could rotate smaller groups of the council through her office every few minutes and avoid triggering the Act. Council President Dixon attempted to explain away the fact that the City Council was debating the proposed Charter Amendments in closed session by saying that this is not an "official" meeting of the council. Under the Act, and meeting of a quorum of the City Council must be open, whether or not the City Council President deems it "official."
In addition to the Baltimore City Council, the suit names Mayor Martin O'Malley, the Baltimore City Board of Elections and the Maryland State Board of Elections.
CLUB is a coalition made up of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), AFSCME Local 44 and the League of Women Voters of Baltimore City.
See Indymedia Newswire Update 9/23/02:
baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/1801/index.php
Views
Information
Search
This site made manifest by dadaIMC software