CUMBERLAND — While Allegany County officials say they’ve worked since November to comply with Maryland’s Open Meetings Act and want to move forward, what about their earlier violations of the state law?
Frostburg resident Kit Pepper Lescallette, who filed a declaration of intent to run this year for county commissioner, raised the issue last month in a complaint she submitted to the Open Meetings Compliance Board.
Lescallette said county commissioners met privately Aug. 8, 2024, and the same day authorized a memorandum of understanding with Port River West LLC related to redevelopment of the Luke Mill property.
“This action taken by county officials authorized a long-term public-private redevelopment arrangement — later learned to be tied to a data center project and involving millions of dollars in land acquisitions — without the public being informed that such an agreement was under consideration,” Lescallette’s complaint stated. “Without any public disclosures, they executed the agreement, bought land in both Maryland and West Virginia, and then first informed the public of these activities and commitments almost a year later.”
She said the circumstances surrounding that 2024 meeting raise concerns under the Open Meetings Act that include approval of an agreement during a closed meeting and failure to make the approved document available to the public for nearly a year.
Terms of the agreement remained undisclosed from April 2024 to July 2025 while the county accepted “approximately $2 million in private funds, added $50,000 in county funds and purchased property associated with the redevelopment project, including land in West Virginia and the Luke Mill property itself,” Lescallette said.
“The agreement was not publicly disclosed until July 10, 2025, when a related document described as a ‘memorandum of agreement’ appeared on a county commission meeting agenda,” her complaint stated.
In a public meeting at that time, Allegany County Commissioners Dave Caporale and Bill Atkinson with no discussion approved the agreement with Port River West.
Commissioner Creade Brodie was absent from that meeting.
“The total amount expended on these purchases was approximately $2,050,000, consistent with the financial structure described in the August 7, 2024 MOU,” Lescallette said. “No vote authorizing these expenditure appears in publicly available meeting agendas or minutes.”
She asked the compliance board to investigate the county’s Aug. 8, 2024, and various closed meetings, determine whether commissioners violated the Open Meetings Act and if so issue an opinion, and if refer appropriate issues to other state authorities for further review.
In response, attorney Gorman E. Getty on behalf of the Allegany County Board of Commissioners said the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board “can and likely will find violations” associated with Lescallette’s complaint.
Getty said that after the compliance board in November found the county violated the Open Meetings Act, county officials examined some of their older transactions.
With guidance from the compliance board, “the county has undertaken to publicly reconsider actions taken prior to the compliance board’s decision,” he said.
However, the county “is challenged in respect to complaints of alleged violations on a serial basis going back months and years prior to the county’s acknowledgement and this board’s guidance,” Getty said.
“Despite the county’s best intentions and its current efforts to comply with the act, the resources of the county and perhaps the compliance board itself are put under significant pressure when we use a retrospective approach to what we want to be a forward leaning process.”
Lescallette fired back.
“These are not minor or technical issues,” she told the compliance board. “These decisions involve public land, public money, and long-term obligations made in the name of the public. Luke Mill is not an isolated case. It is simply the one we can see most clearly.”
She asked the board to take actions that include requiring the county to identify every closed session from Jan. 1, 2023, to present, and “provide all corresponding minutes and recordings,” review all closed session materials related to the Luke Mill transaction, and “recognize that these records exist within the five-year statutory retention period and are subject to review.”
According to Open Meetings Compliance Board complaint procedures, the board typically within a month after receiving a public body’s response issues an opinion, which is strictly advisory.
“The compliance board doesn’t have authority to issue orders or impose penalties,” the procedures state.