It isn't exactly shocking that the Maryland's Open Meetings Compliance Board found that the Baltimore Development Corp. held improper behind-closed-doors conversations about the Port Covington tax increment financing proposal. The BDC has only been holding open meetings at all for a decade, and this isn't the first time it has failed to follow the rules. But it is the most egregious for the simple reason that so much is at stake. At $535 billion, the Port Covington TIF request is far and away the largest Baltimore has ever considered, and how it is structured and whether it is approved could have a profound impact on the city for decades to come.

The BDC defended the decision of its Project Review and Oversight Committee to close meetings on March 9 and 15 by citing an exemption to the Open Meetings Act for discussions related to “the marketing of public securities.” The logic being, apparently, that if the committee recommended approval of the TIF to the full BDC, and the BDC to the Board of Finance, and the Board of Finance to the City Council, and the City Council voted in approval, then the Board of Finance at some unspecified later date would get around to marketing quite a lot of public securities. The compliance board didn't buy that, particularly given evidence that what the committee was actually discussing were important details related to the structure of the deal itself, not the eventual marketing of bonds.

According to the BDC's own minutes from its March 24 meeting, here's what was discussed and our take on why it is important:

Commitments the developer has made related to affordable housing, workforce development and support of small, local, minority- and women-owned businesses.

The city has determined that the development is exempt from Baltimore's weak affordable housing ordinance, but Sagamore Development, the private development company of Under Armour founder Kevin Plank, has agreed to a goal that 10 percent of residential units will be affordable to people who make less than 80 percent of the regional median income. But that doesn't mean much since that translates to an income about 65 percent higher than the city's median. City officials say they will try to take other steps to help low-income households to live in the new development, but there remains a substantial risk that this deal will produce a community that is neither racially nor economically diverse.

Whether the proposed light rail spur fits within the South Baltimore Gateway and Middle Branch master plans.

The question of how people would get in and out of Port Covington is a crucial one, as it is one of the most isolated parts of the city. (Perhaps that's why Mr. Plank was able to buy 140 generally underused acres there.) The plan calls not only for a light rail spur from Westport but also the conversion of a former railroad trestle to provide bike and pedestrian access across the Middle Branch, as well as new entrance and exit ramps from I-95 (to be paid for with federal and state funds). But it doesn't involve the refurbishment of the Hanover Street bridge, which connects the proposed development to Cherry Hill. At stake is how much spillover effect this massive development has, and where. It's a crucial question given that the financial viability of the proposal from the city's perspective depends in part on how many of those who work in Port Covington (both in construction and permanently) actually live in the city and pay income taxes here. Are the proposed connections to the rest of the city the most advantageous possible?

Other sources of funding the project is seeking.

Sagamore is looking for about as much in federal and state funding as it is requesting in its TIF proposal. The question is whether the project will be able to tap into newly available funds or whether this project will end up competing with others in Baltimore. For example, some of the highway improvements for Port Covington could be eligible for grants from the same pot of federal money as the proposed Baltimore & Potomac rail tunnel replacement.

“Out of an abundance of caution to comply with the Open Meetings Act,” the minutes of the BDC's March 24 meeting read, BDC Chairman Arnold Williams asked staff members to repeat their answers to questions raised about those topics in closed sessions, but there is a world of difference between hearing after-the-fact summaries and witnessing the actual back-and-forth as it occurs. How deeply did the committee consider these issues and their implications? We don't know, and public trust in the process suffers as a result.

In penance for violating the Open Meetings Act, a BDC member will be required at the next meeting to announce and orally summarize the compliance board's opinion, and a majority of members will be required to sign the opinion and return it to the board. Theoretically, someone could sue, but the penalties aren't exactly severe — a fine of up to $250 for a first offense and up to $1,000 for subsequent violations.

The Sun, the Baltimore Business Journal and Baltimore Brew filed the complaint in this instance, but the parties who should really be fighting for openness are the developers. One of these days, the City Council is going to get fed up with the lack of transparency and reject a TIF. Council members already face tremendous public pressure to vote against these deals; why let the process make things worse?