BOONSBORO, Md. — Boonsboro violated Maryland’s Open Meetings Act when it failed to tell residents that town officials planned to discuss a proposal for license plate-reading cameras, according to a state compliance board ruling prompted by a complaint from local news outlet Radio Free Hub City.
The Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board found that the Mayor and Town Council’s July 14, 2025, agenda listed only a general “Police Department Report,” even though town officials and council members knew beforehand that a proposal involving Flock Safety cameras was expected to be discussed.
The complaint was filed by Radio Free Hub City, an independent Washington County news outlet that has closely tracked the use of Flock cameras and other local government issues.
The ruling gives the outlet a tangible result from that watchdog work: the state board concluded that Boonsboro’s agenda did not provide the public enough information to decide whether the Flock discussion was something residents wanted to attend.
Maryland law requires meeting agendas to identify known items of business or topics expected to be discussed. The state’s Open Meetings guidance says agendas are intended to give residents adequate notice of public business and must generally be available at least 24 hours before a meeting.
Before the July 2025 meeting, Boonsboro’s police chief emailed council members and town staff with information about the Flock proposal and its cost. Several council members responded, including one who said it “sounds like a good deal,” while another asked about potentially placing a camera at the wastewater treatment plant.
The Compliance Board found that those communications demonstrated that the Flock proposal was a known topic before the meeting – that the generic listing for a police department report therefore wasn’t enough.
The town argued that officials did not expect to vote on the proposal during the meeting. The board rejected that reasoning, finding that the law requires known topics of discussion to appear on an agenda whether or not officials anticipate taking a vote.
The ruling grew out of emails exchanged before the meeting among the police chief, town staff and council members about the Flock proposal. The board found the emails did not themselves constitute an illegal meeting because too few council members actively participated, but said they demonstrated that officials knew the Flock proposal was expected to come before the council.
The finding highlights the importance of detailed agendas in allowing residents to know what their elected officials intend to discuss before a meeting begins.
That was particularly significant in this case because Flock’s automated license plate readers collect images and identifying information from passing vehicles for use in a searchable law-enforcement database, a technology that has generated debate over privacy, data sharing and police surveillance.
Radio Free Hub City’s complaint turned what could otherwise have remained a dispute over the wording of a year-old agenda into a formal state review of Boonsboro’s public-notice practices.
The Compliance Board’s opinions are advisory rather than court orders, and the board does not impose penalties. State law does, however, require a public body found in violation to announce the violation and orally summarize the board’s opinion at its next open meeting. A majority of the body’s members must also sign the opinion and return it to the board.
