Maryland officials refuse to disclose documents about a secretive Pennsylvania-based environmental advocacy group that is helping them develop anti-global warming policies.

State environmental officials denied multiple Freedom of Information Act requests for documents and information on the work of the Center for Climate Strategies for the Maryland Commission on Climate Change.

Gov. Martin O’Malley created the commission via executive order earlier this year and appointed members of the panel, which is tasked with recommending policies governing Maryland state government’s response to global warming.

CCS is an arm of Enterprising Environmental Solutions Inc., a Pittsburgh-based nonprofit that bills itself as “a unique public-private partnership” that provides policy recommendations, management expertise and professional advice to state environmental officials.

This story continues below
Advertisement

But if you want to know facts about the relationship between Maryland’s climate commission and CCS, forget it — the Maryland Department of the Environment says that’s none of your business. I made my first public records request to MDE’s director of the air and radiation management administration, Tad Aburn, who oversees the climate change commission — on Aug. 26. I requested a copy of the state’s contract with CCS, the budget for the project and details of the project’s outside funding.

A month later, Maryland officials told me MDE has no contract with CCS, and therefore there is no budget for the project and no information about outside funding of the project. Wouldn’t it be great if all government operations cost nothing, like this one? But I was also informed in MDE’s response that e-mail correspondence relevant to my request was being withheld from me, because they “constitute inter agency & intra agency documents containing deliberative materials ... and their disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.”

The response cited a Maryland statute that addresses parties involved in litigation, which is not a factor here. Colleen Lamont, a lawyer with the attorney general’s office who reviewed my document request, tried to explain that the statute applied to documents that were “pre-decisional” and “deliberative” communications.

She also cited a policy that claims the law can be applied “to preserve the process of agency decision-making from the natural muting of free and frank discussion. ...” Sounds like a license to hide anything. So in response I requested all records from MDE pertaining to CCS and was again largely denied. What possibly could be so sensitive and detrimental to the public by disclosing the nature of the relationship between CCS and the state?

Something I was told by Laramie Daniel, an MDE liaison, might answer that question. In trying to explain why I could not have this public information, Daniel said Aburn “is the one who wanted the documents withheld.” Aburn has declined to speak with me directly.

What makes this doubly mysterious is how much more forthcoming officials have been in other states where CCS is involved, including Florida, Arizona, Minnesota, New Mexico, Virginia and others. I’ve had no problem obtaining what I asked for from those states, so what is Aburn’s — and Maryland’s — big secret? It could be the fact that, as in the other states, liberal environmental foundations are paying for CCS’ study process, thus effectively removing them from state budget requirements.

It could be that, according to a draft memorandum from CCS’ leaders to Aburn, “participants will not debate the science of climate change,” which undermines CCS’ claim as an “impartial and expert party [that] does not take positions on issues.”

Or perhaps Aburn has a deal with CCS that for whatever reason he does not want disclosed. It could be all these things, or none of them. Belying the claims to “no budget,” the aforementioned CCS draft memo says its process costs $460,000, which is consistent with its service charges in other states.

Also, as it has elsewhere, CCS promises to secure funds from “a group of private foundation donors” to pay for its work. Those sources remain a secret in Maryland’s case. But if you read CCS’ memo to Aburn, you’d think they have nothing to hide, because they say their “process is fully transparent.” Who are they kidding?

Paul Chesser is an associate editor for the John Locke Foundation.