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.