Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Rules Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory board discusses rules of procedure, legal limits on policymaking under Open Meetings Act
Summary
The Inspector General Advisory Board reviewed draft rules of procedure and received legal guidance that procedural rules should cover operations and not create substantive authority beyond the enabling ordinance; the board agreed to circulate edits individually and hold a public hearing before adoption.
After completing the recruitment briefing, the Inspector General Advisory Board moved to the next agenda item: rules of procedure. Chair David Salem introduced a draft prepared using exemplar documents from other Howard County boards and commissions and asked for legal guidance on required steps to adopt rules under county code.
Amanda Meijal of the Office of Law advised the board that while the Administrative Procedures Act and county code require that boards adopt rules of procedure, there are no specific statutory line items that dictate exact language. Meijal told the board that Maryland case law draws a clear line between procedural rules (which govern how a board operates) and substantive rulemaking (which the board cannot enact through procedural rules). “Maryland case law is very clear that rules of procedure... really relate to how the board act[s] — how the board operates,” Meijal said, and cautioned against using rules to grant the board substantive powers that are not in statute.
Meijal and staff explained Open Meetings Act constraints for collaborative drafting: board members may circulate a draft to solicit individual comments, but they must avoid email discussions among a quorum or otherwise conducting deliberations outside an open meeting. The Office of Law recommended that the board designate a single point of contact to collect individual emailed edits and then present compiled changes at a public meeting for discussion. The board agreed and selected board member Steve to serve as that point of contact for both the job advertisement and rules-of-procedure drafts.
Chair Salem said he had prepared a draft rules document using provisions from three exemplars and highlighted several sections where the board’s input was requested, notably the functions and duties section and provisions on public participation. Amanda Meijal advised that reproducing statutory duties (for example, the board’s role in selecting the inspector general) in the rules is permissible, but the board should not use the rules to expand its statutory authority.
The board discussed whether a public hearing is required. Staff advised that a public process for rules adoption is generally recommended; Meijal said she would provide specific notice and hearing guidance. The board tentatively scheduled a follow-up public meeting for May 15 and agreed the rules-of-procedure drafting would proceed in parallel with the job-advertisement drafting and would be presented for public discussion when compiled.
Board members asked that staff circulate the draft to members who participated remotely and to confirm procedures for one-on-one email feedback that would not violate the Open Meetings Act. Staff said they would distribute the materials to remote participants and work with the Office of Law to confirm process steps before the next public meeting.
