th<strong>Open</strong> <strong>Meetings</strong> Act Manual (7 ed.) 4-622that deals separately with the underlying [policy] issue. The exception applies23only if the potential for litigation is concrete, rather than speculative.Two other exceptions allow a public body to close a meeting in order to dealeffectively with labor negotiations <strong>and</strong> procurement matters. Under §10-508(a)(9),a public body may “conduct collective bargaining negotiations or consider mattersthat relate to the negotiations” in closed session. With respect to procurement,“before a contract is awarded or bids are opened,” a public body may meet in closedsession to “discuss a matter directly related to a negotiating strategy or the contentsof a bid or proposal, if public discussion or disclosure would adversely impact theability of the public body to participate in the competitive or bidding proposalprocess.” §10-508(a)(14). This exception is evidently intended to protect againstpremature disclosure of sensitive information like the public body’s negotiatingstrategy. Conversely, the exception was not intended to permit secret discussion bya public body of open bids submitted by various bidders. More generally, as theCompliance Board put it, “there is no exception in the Act for ‘negotiation issues’24as such.” Only negotiations of the types specified in the exceptions are covered.Finally, three other exceptions deal with sensitive issues warranting closedmeetings: the discussion of “public security,” if “public discussion would constitute25a risk to the public or public security,” §10-508(a)(10); the preparation,administration, or grading of “a scholastic, licensing, or qualifying examination,”26§10-508(a)(11); <strong>and</strong> the conduct or discussion of “an investigative proceeding onactual or possible criminal conduct,” §10-508(a)(12).The <strong>Open</strong> <strong>Meetings</strong> Act does not prohibit a public body from taking finalaction at a session that is properly closed to the public under one of the exceptions.221 OMCB Opinions 56, 60 (1994) (Opinion 94-1).233 OMCB Opinions 233, 239 (2002) (Opinion 02-13); 1 OMCB Opinions 237, 240(1997) (Opinion 97-9).241 OMCB Opinions 233, 234 (1997) (Opinion 97-8) (exception does not apply tonegotiations among government jurisdictions over cost-sharing arrangement). See also 3OMCB Opinions 233, 237 (2002) (Opinion 02-13).2526See 1 OMCB Opinions 73 (1994) (Opinion 94-5).See 1 OMCB Opinions 13 (1992) (Opinion 92-4).
th<strong>Open</strong> <strong>Meetings</strong> Act Manual (7 ed.) 4-7So, for example, a public body may vote to make a particular kind of investment ofpublic funds in closed session. Other law, however, may bar final action in a closed27session.27See, e.g., Article 23A, §8 <strong>and</strong> Article 25, §5 of the Maryl<strong>and</strong> Code (municipal <strong>and</strong>county legislative bodies may not finally adopt an “ordinance, resolution, rule orregulation” in an executive session); see also 94 Opinions of the <strong>Attorney</strong> <strong>General</strong> 101(2009).
Change language