OMA Denial of Request for Reconsideration of HPRB Advisory Opinion

The Director of Open Government issued an Advisory Opinion on March 29, 2022, in response to a February 9, 2022, Request for Reconsideration, Amended Complaint, and Prospective Complaint submitted to the Office of Open Government for consideration after the Director's January 5, 2022, dismissal of Open Meetings Act (“OMA”) Complaint #OOG-2021-0007-M (“Dismissal”).  The Advisory Opinion set forth the following justification for the dismissal: (1) the Reconsideration Request and Complaints raise issues that were dismissed concerning your August 10, 2021, complaint; (2) distribution of the Record of Action summaries does not violate the OMA so it is unlikely that an OMA violation will occur in the future; (3) there is no legal basis to enjoin the Record of Action summary distribution by the OP because it is unlikely that a prospective OMA violation will occur; (4) the OMA and its regulations do not authorize a complaint to be amended after its dismissal; (5) the OOG’s enabling legislation authorizes reconsiderations only when the Director of Open Government issues an advisory opinion of his/her/their own initiative;[1] and (6) the request for reconsideration does not concern an advisory opinion that was issued of the Director of Open Government's initiative. 

The Advisory Opinion is here.

The petition may be accessed here (PII redacted)


[1] D.C. Official Code § 1-1162.05c(c)(2) states: “[I]f the Director of Open Government issues an advisory opinion regarding the Open Meetings Act on his or her own initiative, any person aggrieved by the opinion may appeal the opinion for consideration by the Board.” The “Board” is the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability or BEGA.

Public Body: 
Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB)