28 [80 Op. Att’y

1

 Your request does not provide detail about any particular

reorganization that might be contemplated. We shall be happy to provide

you with advice about a specific proposal should you require it.

CLERKS OF COURT

COURTSAND JUDGES ) JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION )PERSONNEL

) AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT REORGANIZATIONS

RESULTING IN EMPLOYEE DEMOTIONS

February 16, 1995

Mr. George B. Riggin, Jr.

State Court Administrator

You have requested our opinion whether certain language in

uncodified Section 4 of Chapter 515, Laws of Maryland 1990,

constrains the clerks of the circuit courts from implementing

reorganizations within their offices that might lead to employee

demotions as a result of reassignments of job duties. 

For the reasons stated below, we conclude that Section 4 of

Chapter 515 does not preclude employee demotions resulting from

a reorganization within a clerk’s office.1 Of course, any personnel

actions of this kind must be consistent with applicable personnel

procedures.

I

Analysis

As stated in 79 Opinions of the Attorney General 29 (1994),

“the laws governing the business and operations of the circuit court

clerks’ offices were amended in several respects in 1990.” In

Chapter 515, which was part of these 1990 amendments, the General

Assembly amended various provisions governing the funding and

operations of the clerks’ offices, including several in Title 2 of the

Courts and Judicial Proceedings (“CJ”) Article, Maryland Code.

More particularly, CJ §2-505 provides that the number of positions

in these offices are to be as provided in the budget; pursuant to rules
Gen. 28] 29

2

 Prior to these changes, the positions within the clerks’ offices were

not within any personnel system, except those in Baltimore City and

Washington County. See former Article IV, §26 of the Maryland

Constitution and CJ Title 2, Subtitle 5A. Salaries were set by the

Secretary of Personnel, and budgets for the clerks’ offices, reflecting the

number of positions, were reviewed by the Comptroller and included

within the State budget for the Executive Branch. See former CJ §§2-202,

2-205, and 2-505.

3

 Article IV, §26 of the Constitution provides as follows: “Deputy

clerks and other employees of the office of the Clerk shall be appointed

and removed according to procedures set by law.” Rules of the Court of

Appeals are “law,” of course. See Article IV, §18(a).

4

 An example given in the manual addresses the transfer of

employees from the Baltimore City Circuit Court Clerk’s Office Pre-Trial

Release Services Division to the Department of Public Safety and

Correctional Services, Division of Parole and Probation.

adopted by the Court of Appeals, the positions may be in either the

State classified or unclassified service or the Judicial Branch

personnel system; and the salaries for the positions are to be set by

the Chief Judge and included in the State budget for the Judicial

Branch.2 The Court of Appeals opted for a separate personnel

system within the Judicial Branch. Under Rule 1212d, “standards

and procedures for the selection, appointment, promotion,

reclassification, transfer, demotion, suspension, discharge or other

discipline” of clerks’ office employees are the responsibility of the

State Court Administrator, subject to the approval of the Court of

Appeals.3

Section 4 of Chapter 515 provides “[t]hat the Deputy Clerks

and employees of the Offices of the Clerks of Court who hold their

positions as of June 30, 1990 shall continue to do so without

diminution of salary, benefits, rights, or privileges.” This provision

is a standard section included in bills that either transfer employees

from one agency or office to another or that reorganize an agency or

office. The drafting manual in use in 1990 recommended that such

a bill address various aspects of the transition and perhaps specify

“that there should be no diminution in salary, benefits, etc.” of the

affected employees. Department of Legislative Reference,

Legislative Drafting Manual 1989, at 75.4 
30 [80 Op. Att’y

5

 Thus, for example, pension rights under former Article 73B, §117

of employees appointed as deputy clerks under former Article IV, of §26

of the Constitution were not intended to be affected by the 1990

amendments to the Constitution and Code. The rules adopted by the

Court of Appeals pursuant to the amended constitutional provisions and

statutes expressly address these pension rights. See Rule 1212c.

6

 For example, the 1987 legislation “reorganizing State government

by creating and establishing as principal departments of State government

the Department of Economic and Employment Development and the

Department of Housing and Community Development” contained an

uncodified section providing that every employee of the several prior

departments affected by the reorganization “shall transfer without any

change or loss of rights, benefits, entitlements, or status ....” Section 4 of

Chapter 311, Laws of Maryland 1987. It is inconceivable that the General

Assembly intended to guarantee forever that all of these employees, surely

numbering in the thousands, would never be adversely affected by a

subsequent reorganization.

7

 The managerial authority of the Court of Appeals over the clerks’

offices is explicit in the Constitution: “The office and business of the

Clerks, in all their departments, shall be subject to and governed in

accordance with rules adopted by the Court of Appeals ....” Article IV,

§10(a)(2). See also note 3 above and accompanying text. Therefore, an

excessively broad reading of Section 4 of Chapter 515 would raise serious

constitutional questions.

The function of this special section is to prevent any

unintended diminution in salary and employment benefits as a direct

result of the legislative reorganization.5

 Section 4 held the

employees harmless from the implementation of Chapter 515 itself.

 

The section was not intended to preclude subsequent

diminutions in position or salary that might result from

reorganizations implemented by management years later. To

construe this special section as a perpetual bar to personnel shifts

would unduly constrain legislatively reorganized agencies and

offices from making management decisions within their authority.6

Instead of merely preserving the status quo in the immediate

aftermath of the legislative reorganization, the special section would

then afford employees in such reorganized agencies and offices

benefits not afforded other State employees. Such a reading, which

is not suggested by the section’s language or apparent purpose,

would be unreasonable.7 
Gen. 28] 31

II

Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that Section 4 of Chapter 515 of

the Laws of Maryland 1990 does not preclude possible demotions

and diminutions of salary that may result from reorganizations

within the offices of the circuit court clerks. 

J. Joseph Curran, Jr.

Attorney General

Julia M. Freit

Assistant Attorney General

Jack Schwartz

Chief Counsel

 Opinions & Advice