La Plata, Maryland — On July 29 the Town Council held an extended discussion about possible updates to its rules of procedure and gave staff direction to draft specific language on ex parte disclosures, to evaluate the feasibility and cost of attorney attendance at meetings, and to clarify closed-session practices and agenda-request procedures.

Ex parte communication: Council members said they want a standard disclosure mechanism for contacts that could influence quasi-judicial decisions — for example, development applications that may later come before council. Town Manager Chuck Stevens explained the principle and the practical limit: ex parte rules apply to communications about pending matters outside a public hearing and not to ordinary social interactions. “If that conversation starts talking about a planning project that is in the pipeline…anything that has to do with that planning project, any discussion around it has to occur in this room with the microphones on, with the camera on, with people in the gallery to hear what happens,” Stevens said. Councilman Paul Guttenberg pointed to Prince George’s County as an example and asked staff to draft an ex parte disclosure form or mechanism for review.

Attorney presence: Several council members asked staff to analyze the fiscal and operational implications of having the town attorney attend every council meeting, whether the attorney is contracted or in-house. Councilman Gregory Sampson said routine attorney presence could reduce legal risk but acknowledged higher costs; others urged staff to present comparative cost scenarios for in-house counsel versus contracted counsel who attends meetings on request.

Closed sessions and agenda-process changes: Councilmembers asked for clarified language that would prohibit formal voting in closed session and require that any formal actions be returned to open session for a public vote. Several members also sought a clearer, more predictable procedure for placing items on the agenda — including a staff-led “work-session” approach for members to flag and prioritize future agenda items without surprising staff or other council members.

Next steps: Stevens said staff will prepare: suggested ex parte disclosure language and a public-example form; an analysis of the fiscal impact of attorney attendance at meetings (in-house versus contracted models); clarified closed-session language that preserves necessary attorney/staff discussions while ensuring formal votes occur in public; and a proposal to refine the agenda-request process (timing and expectations for members who ask to add items). He said staff will vet any proposed changes against the town charter and state open-meetings law before returning draft amendments for council review.

Ending: Council members signaled consensus on the priority items (ex parte disclosures, attorney-attendance analysis, closed-session limits, and agenda workflow) and directed staff to return a clean draft for formal consideration in a future meeting. Stevens said he would coordinate legal review before any final adoption.