COUCH, Judge.

We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the City Council of College Park is prohibited from conducting any closed meetings under the Municipal Charter of College Park and the Maryland Sunshine Law, Maryland Code (1984, 1986 Cum. Supp.), State Government §§ 10-501 — 510.

I

Joseph W. Cotter III (appellee), an elected member of the City Council of College Park ("City Council" or "Council"), filed suit in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County against the Mayor and seven members of the City Council (appellants). In his complaint, he alleged that the Council held closed meetings in violation of Article 10, § 24 of the Municipal Charter of College Park ("Municipal Charter" or "Charter"), which states: "All meetings of the Mayor and Council herein provided for, shall be open to the citizens of the city." Appellee requested a writ of mandamus "requiring said officials of the City of College Park and their agents to hold open, public meetings and enjoining them from locking the doors of the Municipal Center during meetings of the Mayor and Council."

According to appellee, the Mayor and City Council have held at least twenty closed meetings in the two years preceding the instant suit. On many occasions, appellee contends, these meetings were held without prior notice to the public; when citizens did attend, they were removed from the meeting hall. Appellee notes that since he took office in December of 1985, four such closed meetings have been held. Appellee asserts that he has registered a protest with the Mayor and City Council and has excluded himself from three of these meetings on the ground that to attend them would violate his oath to uphold the Municipal Charter.

Answering the complaint, the appellants do not dispute that closed meetings have been held on certain occasions during a three year period beginning in 1983. They argue, however, that these closed sessions, which have been "held to consult with City staff, especially the City Attorney, on very limited issues," are permitted by the Maryland Sunshine Law ("Sunshine Law" or "the Act"). They also contend that the Municipal Charter does not present a bar to such meetings. In their view, the Charter does not "in any way preclude executive sessions for the purpose of consultation with counsel or to discuss other issues which must properly be considered out of the public view."

After a hearing, the trial court enjoined the Mayor and City council from conducting any closed sessions or meetings as long as Article 10, § 24 of the Municipal Charter remained in force. The court reasoned:

"[U]nder the plain language of the [Maryland Sunshine Law] Section 10-504 (1984) conflict of laws provision, since Article X, Section 24, of the City Charter of College Park is more stringent [(i.e., allows no exception to the open meeting requirement)], it controls and all meetings of the Mayor and Council of College Park are required to be open meetings.

. . . . .

"Where the intent of a statute is expressed in clear and unambiguous language, as it is in Article X, Section 24, of the Charter of the City of College Park, the court must carry it into effect even if the court is of the opinion that the policy of the legislation is unwise, harsh or unjust."

The court added:

"If the City of College Park no longer wishes to require all meetings of the Mayor and Council to be open, it has available the Md. Ann. Code Art. 23A (1957) provisions for amending the Charter."

The appellants appealed the lower court's decision to the Court of Special Appeals and concurrently filed a petition for writ of certiorari with this Court. Before review by the intermediate appellate court, we granted appellants' petition. We shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

II

At the outset, we address appellee's contention that the instant appeal is moot. Shortly after the appellee filed his suit, the Mayor and City Council of College Park proposed an amendment to the open meeting provision in the Municipal Charter. As amended, Article 10, § 24 would read as follows (emphasis added):

"All meetings of the Mayor and Council herein provided for shall be open to the citizens of the city. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent the Mayor and City Council from holding executive (closed) session from which the public is excluded, in accordance with the safeguards provided by State law, but no ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation shall be finally adopted at such an executive meeting."

More than 1100 signatures of registered College Park voters were collected to bring the proposed amendment to a referendum vote. The ballot asked voters whether they were "in favor of closed meetings of the Mayor and Council as permitted by and held in accordance with the safeguards of the State of Maryland Sunshine Act." On December 9, 1986, the voters defeated the proposed charter amendment.

The appellee contends the referendum vote moots the present controversy. He reasons as follows: The vote represents the public's desire for open meetings. When the Charter provision in force is read as reflecting this desire, the appellants' contention that Article 10, § 24 permits closed sessions is no longer tenable. "Since there is no longer any controversy with regard to how the voters of College Park want the meetings of their Mayor and Council conducted, and the Mayor and Council are the peoples' duly elected representatives, there is no longer an existing controversy." We reject appellee's contention.

As a general rule, appellate courts do not give opinions on abstract propositions or moot questions. See, e.g., County Commissioners of Charles County v. Secretary of Health Mental Hygiene, 302 Md. 566, 568, 489 A.2d 1127, 1128 (1985) (and cases cited therein). "A question is moot if, at the time it is before the court, there is no longer an existing controversy between the parties, so that there is no longer any effective remedy which the court can provide." Attorney General v. Anne Arundel County School Bus Contractors Association, 286 Md. 324, 327, 407 A.2d 749, 752 (1979) (citations omitted). When a party is seeking an injunction or similar relief, it will not "issue if the acts sought to be enjoined have been discontinued or abandoned." Id., 407 A.2d at 752 (citations omitted).

In the instant case, a controversy still exists between the opposing litigants. The referendum vote, although expressing the will of a majority of the interested voters of College Park, did not amend the Municipal Charter, thereby eliminating the controversy concerning the interpretation of the Charter provision in question. The vote did not prevent the appellants from still maintaining, which they do on appeal, that Article 10, § 24 permits closed meetings. This is simply not a case where the "acts sought to be enjoined have been discontinued or abandoned." Anne Arundel County School Bus, 286 Md. at 327, 407 A.2d at 752. Compare State v. Ficker, 266 Md. 500, 507, 295 A.2d 231, 235 (1972) (offending act sought to be enjoined has been abandoned). Had the referendum vote amended the Charter to explicitly prohibit closed meetings, or to prevent the appellants from pursuing their present position, we would have a very different situation. Since an effective remedy does exist (i.e., an injunction), we conclude the present appeal is not moot.

III

We begin our analysis with the Maryland Sunshine Law, Md. Code (1984, 1986 Cum. Supp.), State Government §§ 10-501 — 510, which will bring the present controversy into focus. The Maryland Sunshine Law requires that meetings of public bodies, with limited exceptions, be open to the public. See Carroll County Education Association v. Board of Education of Carroll County, 294 Md. 144, 147, 448 A.2d 345, 347 (1982); Avara v. Baltimore News American Division, 292 Md. 543, 440 A.2d 368 (1982). Section 10-502 expresses the legislative policy of the statute:

"It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that, except in special and appropriate circumstances:

1) public business be performed in an open and public manner; and

2) citizens be advised and aware of:

(i) the performance of public officials; and

(ii) the deliberations and decisions that the making of public policy involves."

At the heart of the Act is section 10-505, which states that a public body shall meet in open session whenever that body is carrying out an advisory, legislative, or quasi-legislative function. The Act does, however, allow closed meetings to take place in limited circumstances. See Md. Code (1984, 1986 Cum. Supp.), State Government § 10-508(a). For example, a public body may meet in closed session or adjourn an open session to a closed session to consult with counsel, id. at § 10-508(a)(7), or to protect the privacy and reputation of individuals with respect to a matter that is not related to public business. Id. at § 10-508(a)(2). A public body that meets in closed session may not discuss or act on a matter not explicitly permitted under section 10-508(a). Id. at 10-508(b).

Before meeting in an open session, a public body must give reasonable advance notice to the public of the upcoming session. Id. at 10-506(a). See City of New Carrollton v. Rogers, 287 Md. 56, 410 A.2d 1070 (1980). Whenever reasonable, the requisite notice must be in writing, and include the date, time and place of the session. Md. Code (1984, 1986 Cum. Supp.), State Government § 10-506(b). The Act also requires the public body to maintain minutes of its session, reflecting each item that the public body considered, the action taken on each item, together with any recorded votes. Id. at 10-509(b)-(c). These minutes, which are to be prepared as soon as practicable after the body meets, are public records and shall be open for public inspection. Id. at 10-509(d).

In City of New Carrollton v. Rogers, Chief Judge Murphy for this Court summarized the impact of the Sunshine Law then in force. His observations are applicable to the current Act:

"While the Act does not afford the public any right to participate in the meetings, it does assure the public right to observe the deliberative process and the making of decisions by the public body at open meetings. In this regard, it is clear that the Act applies, not only to final decisions made by the public body exercising legislative functions at a public meeting, but as well to all deliberations which precede the actual legislative act or decision, unless authorized by [§ 10-508] to be closed to the public. The Act makes no distinction between formal and informal meetings of the public body; it simply covers all meetings at which a quorum of the constituent membership of the public body is convened `for the purpose of considering or transacting public business.' [§ 10-501(f)]. It is, therefore, the deliberative and decision-making process in its entirety which must be conducted in meetings open to the public since every step of the process, including the final decision itself, constitutes the consideration or transaction of public business."

Id. at 72, 410 A.2d at 1078-79.

IV

In the instant case, both parties focus on section 10-504 of the Act, entitled Conflict of Laws, which reads as follows (emphasis added):

"Whenever this subtitle and another law that relates to meetings of public bodies conflict, this subtitle applies unless the other law is more stringent."

This provision establishes that, although the Maryland Sunshine Law is the touchstone by which public bodies are to conduct their meetings, the statute is not exclusive in its application. The statute only outlines the minimum requirements for conducting open meetings. Cf. Annapolis v. Annapolis Waterfront Co., 284 Md. 383, 393, 396 A.2d 1080, 1086 (1979) (Md. Code (1957, 1987 Repl. Vol.), Art. 23A, implementing Article XI-E, § 3 of the Maryland Constitution, only establishes minimum requirements regarding municipal affairs; municipalities are free to provide additional standards and safeguards in harmony with concurrent state legislation). It does not supersede legislative enactments designed to bring more openness to public meetings. Cf. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency v. McKay, 590 F. Supp. 1071, 1072 (D.Nev. 1984), aff'd, 769 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1985) (The Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, a congressionally ratified interstate compact, intended that the sunshine law of the State granting greater public access to meetings of local governments is the law which should control the Compact's governing agency, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency). Stated differently, section 10-504 permits expansion upon the guarantees of the statute, thereby limiting or eliminating the circumstances enumerated in section 10-508 in which closed meetings may be held. As so construed, section 10-504 is consistent with, and best effectuates, the legislature's commitment to promoting public access to the affairs of state.

Appellee argues, and the trial court held, that the Municipal Charter provision in question (Article 10, § 24) is a "more stringent" law within the contemplation of section 10-504. According to the trial court, while section 10-508 "allows public bodies to hold closed meetings under certain conditions, the City Charter of College Park is more restrictive and allows no exceptions to the open meeting requirement." As a more stringent law, "it controls and all meetings of the Mayor and Council of College Park are required to be open meetings."

The issue presented, then, is one of statutory construction. The fundamental task, in such a case, is to discern the objective, goal or purpose of the legislation. Kaczorowski v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 512, 525 A.2d 628 (1987). In our "efforts to discover purpose, aim, or policy we look at the words of the statute . . . because what the legislature has written in an effort to achieve a goal is a natural ingredient of analysis to determine that goal." Id., at 513, 525 A.2d 628. We also may consider "other material that fairly bears on the fundamental issue of legislative purpose or goal" so that we may read the language of the legislation in the context within which it was written. Id. at 515, 525 A.2d 628.

In the instant case, the language of Article 10, § 24 of the Municipal Charter is clear. It is a flat prohibition against closed meetings in the City of College Park. That language is totally consistent with the apparent intent of the provision, which is to mandate open meetings of the Mayor and Council. See note 2, supra. And see notes 8-11, supra, and accompanying text. It is also consistent with the section 10-504 conflict of laws provision, because the Charter provision is a permissible expansion upon the guarantees embodied in the Maryland Sunshine Act.

In an effort to undermine the trial court's reliance on the conflict of laws provision (section 10-504), appellants argue that the Charter is not more stringent than the Sunshine Law. Appellants reason as follows:

"While the new Sunshine Act provides that all meetings, except where specifically provided, are to be open to the public . . ., the City Charter states that meetings need be open only to `the citizens of the city,' which is a more limited group than the `general public' referred to in the new Sunshine Act."

Since the Charter provides for less public participation than the Sunshine Law, appellants contend, section 10-504 is inapplicable and the Sunshine Law and its enumerated exceptions should take precedence over the Charter.

We think the appellants read the phrase "citizens of the city" too narrowly. The "`meaning of the plainest language' is controlled by the context in which it appears." Kaczorowski, 309 Md. at 514, 525 A.2d 628 (quoting Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America v. Ins. Comm'r, 293 Md. 629, 642, 446 A.2d 1140, 1147 (1982)). As we have already noted, the context of the words "citizens of the city" is a charter provision designed to assure completely open meetings. In any event, if one of the proposed interpretations would render an enactment valid, while another would render it invalid or ineffective, the court will construe the enactment to be valid whenever feasible. In re Criminal Investigation No. 1-162, 307 Md. 674, 685, 516 A.2d 976, 982 (1986); Pickett v. Prince George's County, 291 Md. 648, 661, 436 A.2d 449, 456 (1981). Relying on this rule, we conclude that the phrase noted above is consistent with, and not any narrower than, the term "general public" as used in section 10-507(a) of the Sunshine Law. See supra note 16.

V

Appellants advance two additional arguments in support of their position. First, appellants suggest that we read the Municipal Charter to incorporate the circumstances enumerated in section 10-508 in which closed meetings may be held. See supra note 18. We decline to accept the appellants' invitation to do so. Their argument ignores the impact of the Act's conflict of laws provision (section 10-504). Furthermore, appellants would have us read into the Municipal Charter something which is plainly not permitted by its language, and which is completely inconsistent with the purpose of the Charter.

As a fallback position, appellants argue that we should at least recognize an exception in the Municipal Charter for closed meetings between the City Council and its attorney. According to appellants, the trial court's broad construction of the Charter provision will cripple the City Council's ability to consult with its attorney, thereby emasculating the attorney-client privilege. They reason as follows:

"Settlement and avoidance of litigation are particularly sensitive activities, whose conduct would be greatly confounded, often made impossible, by undiscriminating insistence on open lawyer-client conferences. In settlement advice, the attorney's professional task is to provide his client a frank appraisal of strength and weakness, gains and risks, hopes and fears. If the public's `right to know' compelled admission of an audience, the ringside seats would be occupied by the government's adversary, delighted to capitalize on every revelation of weakness."

For the reasons set forth below, we reject this contention.

The attorney-client privilege, deeply rooted in common law, is now codified in Md. Code (1984 Repl. Vol., 1986 Cum. Supp.), Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 9-108 ("A person may not be compelled to testify in violation of the attorney-client privilege."). The privilege is:

"a rule of evidence that forever bars disclosure, without the consent of the client, of all communications that pass in confidence between the client and his attorney during the course of professional employment or as an incident of professional intercourse between them."

State v. Pratt, 284 Md. 516, 519, 398 A.2d 421, 423 (1979); Harrison v. State, 276 Md. 122, 135, 345 A.2d 830, 838 (1975). The privilege is based on the public policy of encouraging individuals needing legal assistance to disclose information freely to their attorneys without concern that such information will be revealed. Pratt, 284 Md. at 520, 398 A.2d at 423; Harrison, 276 Md. at 135, 345 A.2d at 838. A client may waive his right to confidentiality, either expressly or implicitly, but the authority to waive the privilege belongs to the client alone. Pratt, 284 Md. at 521, 398 A.2d at 424.

The Maryland Sunshine Law recognizes the attorney-client privilege. Section 10-508 states in part that a public body may meet in closed session or adjourn an open session to a closed session to "consult with counsel," Md. Code (1984, 1986 Cum. Supp.), State Government § 10-508 (a)(7), or to "consult with staff, consultants, or other individuals about pending or potential litigation." Id. at § 10-508(a)(8). But as we have construed section 10-504, the conflict of laws provision, a jurisdiction such as College Park is authorized to eliminate this exception to the open meeting requirement. Section 10-504 provides legislative authorization for the City of College Park to waive the attorney-client privilege between the governing public body (the City Council) and its attorney. Cf. Smith County Education Association v. Anderson, 676 S.W.2d 328, 333 (Tenn. 1984). That the General Assembly has the authority to take such action, at least outside the criminal context, is not disputed. Cf. Bremer v. State, 18 Md. App. 291, 334, 307 A.2d 503, 529, cert. denied, 269 Md. 755 (1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 930, 94 S.Ct. 1440, 39 L.Ed.2d 488 (1974) (The privilege of communication between patient and psychiatrist "exists by legislative grant, and ordinarily the legislature may provide the conditions under which it is applicable.") (citations omitted).

In support of their argument, appellants rely on a number of judicial decisions that have fashioned an exception in their open meeting statutes for private attorney-client discussions, even though the statutes do not explicitly contain such an exception. See, e.g., Tahoe Regional Planning Agency v. McKay, 590 F. Supp. 1071 (D.Nev. 1984), aff'd, 769 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1985); Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, 263 Cal.App.2d 41, 69 Cal.Rptr. 480 (1968); Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Housing Redevelopment Authority, 310 Minn. 313, 251 N.W.2d 620 (1976). In general, these cases have held that the State legislature did not intend to repeal the privilege when enacting the open meeting law.

These cases, however, do not control the present circumstances. First, we are not concerned here with establishing an attorney-client exception in the Maryland Sunshine Law; the General Assembly has already recognized this exception in section 10-508(a)(7)-(8). Second, and more significantly, when these cases were decided, none of the open meeting statutes contained a conflict of laws provision similar to section 10-504 reflecting the State legislature's intention to provide a given jurisdiction with the authority to afford the public greater access to meetings.

In reaching our conclusion, we do not belittle the arguments advanced by the appellants that public discussions between the City Council and its attorney may be detrimental to the public's interest. On the other hand, we also acknowledge concerns that weigh in favor of holding such discussions in public. For example, "to allow the Council to go into executive session at any time upon the pretext of consulting the City Attorney about legal matters, might readily open the door to repeated and undetectable evasions" of the Sunshine Law. Laman v. McCord, 245 Ark. 401, 406, 432 S.W.2d 753, 756 (1968). See Sacramento Newspaper Guild, 263 Cal.App.2d at 58; 69 Cal.Rptr. at 492; Minneapolis Star, 310 Minn. at 321, 246 S.W.2d at 454. In any event, the General Assembly has determined that these considerations are to be debated and resolved in the first instance by the voters of College Park. The voters have indicated their preference in Article 10, § 24 of the Municipal Charter, and we must effectuate that clear choice.

It may have been unwise for the General Assembly to allow a jurisdiction to open consultations between the City Council and its attorney; and indeed it may have been unwise for the City of College Park to have taken such a step. We do not express an opinion on either of these propositions. It is simply not our role to sit in judgment on the wisdom of the legislature or the voters of College Park. This Court deals with the construction and constitutionality of legislative determinations, not their wisdom. State v. Wyand, 304 Md. 721, 726, 501 A.2d 43, 45 (1985), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 1492, 89 L.Ed.2d 893 (1986). See Taylor v. Department of Employment Training, 308 Md. 468, 474, 520 A.2d 379, 382 (1987).

We therefore conclude that the City Council of College Park is prohibited from conducting any closed meetings under Article 10, § 24 of the Municipal Charter.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANTS.

"Pending litigation; closed session; notice; memorandum