128 [78 Op. Att’y

DISABLED PERSONS

BLIND INDUSTRIES AND SERVICES OF MARYLAND — APPLICATION

OF DIRECT LABOR REQUIREMENTS AND PROCUREMENT

PREFERENCES TO BISM — INVESTMENTS BY BISM

May 24, 1993

Dr. Nancy S. Grasmick

State Superintendent of Schools

You have requested our opinion on certain issues of statutory

interpretation related to the operation of Blind Industries and

Services of Maryland (“BISM”). Specifically, you present the

following questions:

1. Do the requirements for the sale of “products made by the

blind” in Article 30, §30A(a) through (c) of the Maryland Code

apply to merchandise or other products sold by BISM? If so, is

compliance with the direct labor requirements measured on a

product-by-product basis, or for a total facility?

2. Do the direct labor requirements of Article 30, §30A

apply to the provision of vending machine services?

3. Does the procurement preference established for BISM

in Title 14, Subtitle 1 of the State Finance and Procurement Article,

Maryland Code (“SF” Article) depend upon the employment of a

minimal number of blind individuals in the activity for which the

preference is claimed?

4. Is the discretion of the Board of Trustees of BISM to

make investments limited to the types of investments specified in

Article 95, §22. 

For the reasons stated below, we conclude as follows: 

1. The requirements in Article 30, §30A governing the sale

of products made by the blind apply to merchandise or other

products sold by BISM. Compliance with the direct labor
Gen. 128] 129

requirements are to be measured on a product-by-product basis,

rather than for a total facility.

2. The direct labor requirements of Article 30, §30A apply

to the provision of vending machine services.

3. The employment or training of some minimum number of

blind individuals in the production of goods or services is not a

precondition to BISM’s procurement preference under SF Title 14,

Subtitle 1. BISM is required, however, to offer only those goods or

services that “directly benefit” blind individuals and, in so doing,

must comply with the direct labor requirements of Article 30, §30A.

4. The discretion of BISM’s Board of Trustees to make

investments is not limited to the types of investments authorized in

Article 95, §22. 

This opinion is based on the facts available to us in an audit

report and other materials. We should not be taken to have

addressed any issue of compliance with the legal requirements that

we outline. Nor, of course, do we comment on any of the policy

questions that might be raised about the scope of BISM’s business

endeavors.

We are aware, moreover, of the recent controversy regarding

BISM’s expenditures and hiring practices. These important issues

about BISM’s operations go well beyond the scope of this opinion,

and we take no position about them. We do observe, however, that

because BISM receives both State financialsupport and a significant

statutory procurement preference, continuing scrutiny is essential to

ensure that BISM is in fact serving the interests of blind individuals

in Maryland.

I

Background

Blind Industries and Services of Maryland is a corporation

created by Article 30, §§5 and 6 to provide for the employment and

training of blind citizens of Maryland. BISM receives a State

educational grant in excess of one million dollars. BISM also enjoys
130 [78 Op. Att’y

 The Office of Legislative Audits of the Department of Fiscal 1

Services issued a special report on October 27, 1992 that included, among

other points, recommendations that an opinion be sought from this office

regarding the direct labor requirements of Article 30, §30A and the range

of investments permitted BISM under State law.

a statutory preference for the purchase of its supplies or services by

State government. SF §14-103(2). 

As we understand it, BISM currently comprises three divisions:

the Industries Division, the Rehabilitation Training Program, and the

Services Program. The Industries Division houses such diverse

enterprises as industrial sewing, manufacturing, microfilming, and

commercial vending services. 

Commercial vending services, known as BISM Vending

Services (“BVS”), were initiated in the spring of 1989. Through

BVS, BISM provides and services vending machines throughout the

State. These vending services have given rise to your questions

regarding the scope of Article 30, §30A and the statutory

procurement preferences.1

II

History of BISM and the Blind Vending Program

As early as 1874, the Maryland Legislature evidenced a desire

to provide a mechanism for blind citizensto earn income through the

fruits of their labor. At that time, the General Assembly authorized

the directors of the Maryland Institution for the Instruction of the

Blind to establish workshops and open a store for the sale of articles

manufactured by the blind. Chapter 236, Laws of Maryland 1874.

The genesis of BISM may be found in legislation enacted in

1908, which established a workshop in Baltimore City for the

employment of blind men and women. This legislation vested

general supervision and control of the workshop in a board of

trustees. The board of trustees was constituted a “body corporate”

under the name Maryland Workshop for the Blind. The Workshop

was to be open for the labor and manufacture of all blind citizens
Gen. 128] 131

 Later legislation authorized workshops elsewhere in the State, as

2

well as in Baltimore City. Chapter 100, Laws of Maryland 1955.

over the age of 18. All profits arising from the operation of the

Workshop were to be used in furthering its usefulness. Chapter 566,

Laws of Maryland 1908.2

In 1939, the General Assembly expanded the permissible

Workshop activities by providing authority for the Workshop to

issue licenses to blind U.S. citizens “for the operation of stands in all

State, county and municipal buildings for the vending of

newspapers, periodicals, confections, tobacco products and any other

articles, except alcoholic beverages.” Chapter 513, Laws of

Maryland 1939. The 1939 amendments also permitted a blind

individual 21 years old or older to apply to the Workshop “to operate

a legitimate business of any kind to provide a livelihood for himself

and dependents.” Id. Ultimately, the General Assembly designated

the workshops as “training and employment centers” and changed

the name of the Maryland Workshop for the Blind to “Blind

Industries and Services of Maryland.” Chapter 164, Laws of

Maryland 1973. Hence, by 1973 the basic structure and scope of

BISM’s business was established.

In 75 Opinions of the Attorney General 189 (1990), we

discussed in detail the history of Maryland’s blind vending program.

Briefly, we said that BISM’s initial participation in the program was

in response to the federal Randolph-Sheppard Act of 1936, codified

as amended at 20 U.S.C. §§107 through 107f. The RandolphSheppard Act required the State to designate an entity to license

blind persons to operate vending stands on federal property, and the

Maryland Workshop for the Blind was so designated. Chapter 513,

Laws of Maryland 1939. Eventually, the General Assembly

authorized the Maryland Workshop for the Blind to license blind

vendors operating stands on State and privately-owned property as

well. Chapter 5, Laws of Maryland 1955.

In Chapter 63 of the Laws of Maryland 1958, the General

Assembly transferred the responsibility for licensing blind vendors

to operate on federal property from BISM to the Division of

Vocational Rehabilitation (“DVR”) in the State Department of
132 [78 Op. Att’y

 Amendments to the Randolph-Sheppard Act required the states to 3

designate vocational rehabilitation agencies, rather than agencies for the

blind, to administer the federal program for blind vendors. See Vocational

Rehabilitation Amendments of 1954, Pub. L. No. 83-565, §4, 68 Stat. 663

(1954). Pursuant to Chapter 12 of the Laws of Maryland 1992, the

Division of Vocational Rehabilitation is now known as the Division of

Rehabilitative Services.

Education. Thus, while DVR licensed managers for federal 3

vending facilities, the Maryland Workshop for the Blind licensed

blind vendors for State and private facilities. 

The blind vending program was reunified by the enactment of

Chapter 743 of the Laws of Maryland 1980. This legislation

amended ED §21-303(c) to establish DVR as the administrator of

the Maryland Vending Program for the Blind under the RandolphSheppard Act and also as the licensing agency for all blind vending

stands in the State.

Although divested of its licensing authority over blind vendors

by the 1980 legislation, BISM did not cease its participation in blind

vending activities. For approximately the next ten years, BISM

served under a contract with DVR to locate, build, and staff snack

bars, cafeterias, and sundry shops in publicly owned buildings and

in private businesses. This contractual relationship was terminated

in 1990. 

III

Employment of Blind Individuals Pursuant to Article 30, §30A

A. Applicability of Article 30, §30A to BISM

Article 30, §30A is essentially a truth-in-marketing law that has

the dual effect of protecting consumers who purchase, and blind

individuals who market, products made by the blind: 

(a) It is unlawful for any person,

association, or corporation, to sell, or offer to

sell, to the public any merchandise or other

products of any nature, which are represented
Gen. 128] 133

to be products made by the blind, unless the

merchandise or other products have been

actually made or manufactured by blind

persons as defined in this article. If the

merchandise or other products are made or

manufactured by a corporation, association or

partnership, it is unlawful for such products to

be sold or offered for sale to the public as

products made by the blind unless they are

products made by the blind as defined in this

article.

(b) It is unlawful for any person,

association, or corporation having products for

sale to use the word blind in the name or title

of the person, association, or corporation

unless the person, association, or corporation

limits its sales to the sale of products made by

the blind as defined in this article.

(c) A product made by the blind is one

which in its manufacture and assembly has

involved the use of blind workers to an extent

constituting not less than seventy-five percent

of the total personnel engaged in the direct

labor hours in the manufacture and assembly

of the product. Nothing in this subtitle

authorizes the identification of goods or

articles as made by blind persons if the direct

labor performed by blind persons in

connection therewith consists solely of the

packaging or packing thereof as distinguished

from the manufacture and assembly of goods

or articles. Direct labor hours shall include all

hours in the manufacture and assembly of a

product made by blind persons but not

including time spent in the administration,

supervision, shipping and inspection of such

products.
134 [78 Op. Att’y

 Although a $100 fine seems minimal, “[e]ach sale, or offer to sell, 4

of merchandise or products in violation of the provisions of this section

is a separate offense.”

A violation of §30A is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to

$100 and, if the fine is not paid, imprisonment of up to 30 days.

§30A(f).4

To determine whether §30A applies to Blind Industries and

Services of Maryland, we look first to the language of the statute.

By its terms, §30A appears to apply to BISM: BISM is,

indisputably, a “corporation.” It is a well-settled principle of

statutory construction, however, that a statute regulating persons and

corporations generally does not include the State, its agencies, or its

politicalsubdivisions unless the Legislature has clearly expressed an

intention otherwise. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. U.S.

Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 314 Md. 131, 550 A.2d 69 (1988);

Unnamed Physician v. Commission on Medical Discipline, 285 Md.

1, 400 A.2d 396 (1979).

BISM asserts that it is a State agency and is therefore outside

the scope of the statute, because Article 30, §30A, contains no

provision explicitly subjecting the State to its requirements. And it

is true that an opinion of this office characterized BISM’s

predecessor corporation, the Maryland Workshop for the Blind, as

a State agency sufficient to qualify for the administration of a State

plan for federal aid to the blind. 21 Opinions of the Attorney

General 170 (1936). See also 50 Opinions of the Attorney General

188 (1965). Yet other opinions concluded that the Maryland

Workshop for the Blind was not a State-owned institution and,

therefore, was neither exempt from payment of collateral inheritance

tax, 23 Opinions of the Attorney General 616 (1938), nor exempt

from compliance with the Baltimore City Building Code. 40

Opinions of the Attorney General 120 (1955). Later, this office

advised that employees of the Maryland Workshop for the Blind

were not State employees. 53 Opinions of the Attorney General 249

(1968). We draw from this mixed historical record the lesson that

one must look to the characteristics and functions of BISM in the

context of the particular statute at issue to determine whether BISM

is intended to be viewed, for purposes of that statute, as a State

entity. 
Gen. 128] 135

 State appropriations for BISM are incorporated in the annual 5

budget bill as monies appropriated for a “State-aided educational

institution.” See, e.g., Chapter 8, Laws of Maryland 1993 (appropriating

$1.1 million to BISM for fiscal year 1994). In fiscal years 1988 through

1993, BISM received approximately $1 million per year in State aid. In

fiscal year 1992, BISM’s total revenues were in excess of $14 million.

Blind Industries and Services Special Report, Office of Legislative Audits,

Department of Fiscal Services (October 27, 1992). 

BISM, like its predecessor Maryland Workshop for the Blind,

is a body corporate created for the general supervision and control

of training and employment centers for the blind. Article 30, §6.

Since its inception, the corporation has been governed by a board of

trustees appointed by the Governor. The board is required to keep

proper records of its funds and accounts, be audited annually, and

make an annual report to the Governor, the General Assembly, and

the Chairman of the Joint Budget and Audit Committee. Id.

Aside from these limited indicia of State control, BISM has

broad powers to conduct business as would any private corporation.

Under Article 30, §6(a), “BISM has the right to acquire and hold

property, real, personal, and mixed, in any manner whatsoever, to

sue and be sued, and to make and use a common seal, with the right

to alter and change the same at any time.” Similarly, BISM has “full

power to establish, maintain, direct and supervise all matters

pertaining to blind industries, its maintenance and regulation,

including the purchase of all machinery and materials as may seem

to them suitable and necessary, and the barter or exchange of articles

or manufactures entrusted to them for disposal.” Article 30, §6(d).

It is empowered to appoint a corporate secretary and other necessary

employees and to fix their compensation. Article 30, §6(b).

In practice, BISM has conducted itself much as a private entity,

operating in accord with its own bylaws, setting compensation for its

employees, and obtaining status as a nonprofit, charitable

corporation under §501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Although BISM receives money from the State pursuant to a grant

agreement, the State is under no statutory requirement to fund

BISM.5

Attorney General Burch described BISM’s predecessor as a

“semi-autonomous corporate entity.” 53 Opinions of the Attorney

General at 249. Another way to put it is that BISM is a “quasi-
136 [78 Op. Att’y

The receipt of special privileges is a hallmark of a quasi-public

6

corporation. Potter v. Bethesda Fire Dep’t, Inc., 59 Md. App. 228, 235,

474 A.2d 1365 (1984), vacated on other grounds, 302 Md. 281, 487 A.2d

288 (1985).

As discussed in Part II above, BISM has had no licensing 7

responsibilities since 1980. 

public corporation.” Quasi-public corporations are private in

ownership, “‘but which, nevertheless, by reason of the nature and

extent of their operations and effect on the welfare of the public at

large, have been styled quasi-public corporations.’” Potter v.

Bethesda Fire Dep’t, 309 Md. 347, 357, 524 A.2d 61 (1987)

(quoting 1 W. Fletcher & C. Swearingen, Cyclopedia of the Law of

Private Corporations §63, at 600 (1983 rev. vol.)).

BISM plays an important, legislatively recognized role in

providing for the welfare of blind persons. Its activities are

“‘affected with a public interest ....” Potter, 309 Md. at 358 (citation

omitted). In recognition of its role, BISM receives certain special

privileges, like the procurement preference discussed in Part IV

below. BISM, therefore, is not merely a private corporation ) it is

6

a quasi-public one.

But this label does not resolve the question whether BISM

should be viewed as excluded from Article 30, §30A just as if it

were a State agency. “Not all quasi-public corporations are

governmental in nature ....” Potter, 309 Md. at 358. See, e.g.,

Maryland & Pa. R.R.Co. v. Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co.,

224 Md. 34, 39, 166 A.2d 247 (1960) (railroad). BISM, despite its

public welfare role, does not exercise governmental powers. Just 7

as the Court in Potter held a particular statute to encompass only

governmental, quasi-public corporations, a different statute might

encompass only non-governmental, quasi-public corporations. 

That is, indeed, our construction of Article 30, §30A. The

usual rule of construction would lead us to conclude that the term

“corporation” in §30A does not encompass governmental, quasipublic corporations. But we see no reason why the term

“corporation” in this context should exclude a non-governmental,

quasi-public corporation like BISM. 
Gen. 128] 137

 Although Article 1, §8 of the Code sets out a rule of construction 8

that “[t]he singular always includes the plural, and vice versa ...,” this rule

(continued...)

The State and its subdivisions are ordinarily excluded from

generally applicable statutes to avoid potential impairment of the

State’s sovereignty – “‘the reasoning applicable to [citizens

generally] applies with very different, and often contrary force, to

the government itself.’” State v. Milburn, 9 Gill 105, 118 (1850)

(citation omitted). BISM is not the government. Nor is BISM’s

public welfare role compromised by compliance with §30A. Indeed,

the employment requirements of that section are entirely consonant

with BISM’s objective of increasing employment opportunities for

blind persons. 

B. Compliance With the Direct Labor Requirements of §30A 

Having determined that Article 30, §30A applies to

merchandise or other products sold by BISM, we turn to the question

whether compliance with §30A is required on a product-by-product

basis. We start with the language of the statute itself. Article 30,

§30A(c) defines “product made by the blind” as follows:

A product made by the blind is one which

in its manufacture and assembly has involved

the use of blind workers to an extent

constituting not less than seventy-five percent

of the total personnel engaged in the direct

labor hours in the manufacture and assembly

of the product .... Direct labor hours shall

include all hours in the manufacture and

assembly of a product made by blind persons

but not including time spent in the

administration, supervision, shipping and

inspection of such products.

(Emphasis added.) Although the statute does not address the

question specifically raised, it does refer to “product” only in the

singular. Cf. §30A(d), (e), and (e-1) (referring to “products,” not “a

product”). Thus, the plain language of the statute suggests that

compliance with the direct labor hours requirement must be on a

product-by-product basis.8
138 [78 Op. Att’y

 (...continued) 8

is inapplicable if inconsistent with the legislative intent underlying a

particular statute. State Tax Comm’n v. Harrington, 126 Md. 157, 94 A.

537 (1915). As we explain below, a construction of §30A(c) that lumped

all products together would be inconsistent with the purpose of the

subsection.

BISM contends that it need not comply with the direct labor

hour requirement on a product-by-product basis, asserting instead

that it need only comply with the direct labor hour requirement on an

overall basis by facility. In support of this assertion, BISM cites the

federal Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act (“JWOD” Act), which established

a program to increase employment and training opportunities for

persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. 41 U.S.C.

§§46 et seq. Under the JWOD Act, a Committee for Purchase From

the Blind and other Severely Handicapped establishes and publishes

in the Federal Register a procurement list. Any entity of the federal

government intending to procure commodities or services on the

procurement list must afford priority to a “qualified nonprofit agency

for the blind or such an agency for other severely handicapped.” 41

U.S.C. §48. The JWOD Act defines a “qualified nonprofit agency

for the blind” as an agency:

(A) organized under the laws of the

United States or of any State, operated in the

interest of blind individuals, and the net

income of which does not inure in whole or in

part to the benefit of any shareholder or other

individual; 

(B) which complies with any applicable

occupational health and safety standard

prescribed by the Secretary of Labor; and

(C) which in the production of

commodities and in the provision of services

... during the fiscal year employs blind

individuals for not less than 75 per centum of

the man-hours of direct labor required for the

production or provision of the commodities or

services.
Gen. 128] 139

41 U.S.C. §48b(3). 

Although the JWOD Act and implementing regulations, 41

C.F.R. §51-1.3, provide a direct labor requirement similar to that set

out in Article 30, §30A, the federal statute may be interpreted as

permitting the direct labor requirement to be met on an agency-byagency basis, simply because the direct labor is measured in the

provision of “commodities or services,” in the aggregate. Assuming

for discussion purposes that such an interpretation is accurate, the

direct labor provisions of the JWOD Act have no bearing on the

interpretation of Article 30, §30A. By its very terms, the JWOD Act

is directed only to federal agencies and only places limitations on the

federal procurement of certain products made by blind individuals.

Thus, there is no conflict with §30A, which provides a yardstick for

measuring whether a product touted as one “made by the blind” is in

fact so made for sale in this State.

Support for compliance on a product-by-product basis is found

in the legislative history and structure of Article 30. Although the

General Assembly has modified and expanded BISM’s functions and

structure over time, the nucleus of legislative intent has remained

intact: the entity exists to benefit blind citizens of Maryland. It is

within this context that §30A must be interpreted. Provision of

goods and services necessarily involves a range of jobs. To permit

compliance on a facility-by-facility basis would permit the shunting

of blind individuals into lower paying, less desirable jobs while

sighted individuals filled the more lucrative positions. 

To give effect to what we believe was the General Assembly’s

objective in enacting Article 30, §30A, we conclude that compliance

with the direct labor requirements of §30A must be on a product-byproduct basis. If the General Assembly concludes that a different

outcome is preferred, of course it may change the statute

accordingly. 

C. Applicability of the Direct Labor Requirement to the

Provision of Vending Machine Services

As described above, BISM’s “industrial” activities include

vending machine services provided by BVS. The items actually sold

in the vending machines are not made by the blind, but the vending

service division employs some blind individuals.
140 [78 Op. Att’y

Article 30, §30A(b) makes it unlawful for a “corporation

having products for sale to use the word blind in the title of the ...

corporation unless the ... corporation limits its sales to the sale of

products made by the blind as defined in this article”. Through

BVS, BISM has “products for sale”; it also has the word “blind” in

its title. A literal reading of the statute would thus require products

sold by BVS to meet the definition of “products made by the blind”

within §30A, thereby requiring blind individuals to comprise at least

75 percent of the total personnel engaged in the manufacture and

assembly of the candy bars, soda, and the like sold through BVS. 

Were we to apply the “plain meaning” rule of statutory

construction inflexibly, we would be forced to the conclusion that

BISM could never be a distributor of brand-name merchandise or

provide other such services. The Maryland Court of Appeals has

held that the plain meaning rule is not rigid, however, noting that

“legislative purpose is critical, that purpose must be discerned in

light of context, and that statutes are to be construed reasonably with

the reference to the purpose to be accomplished.” Kaczorowski v.

City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 516, 525 A.2d 628, 633 (1987). We

must begin with “the words of the statute, read in light of the full

context in which they appear, and in light of external manifestations

of intent or general purpose available through other evidence.” Bane

v. State, 327 Md. 305, 308, 609 A.2d 313, 314 (1992). Hence,

“we do not read particular language in a statute in isolation or out

of context; rather, we construe statutory language in light of the

Legislature’s general purpose and in the context of the statute as

a whole.” State v. Crescent Cities Jaycees Foundation, Inc., 330

Md. 460, 624 A.2d 955, 959, (1994).

The full context of §30A makes it obvious that the intent of the

General Assembly was to permit BISM to produce both tangible

items and services. Section 30A is part of a legislative scheme,

dating back to the latter part of the nineteenth century, to provide

employment for blind individuals. As noted in the legislative history

set forth above, Article 30 provides not only for the establishment of

BISM but also for the application to BISM of “any blind person of

the age of 18 years or more, desiring to operate a legitimate business

of any kind to provide a livelihood for himself and dependents.”

Article 30, §8 (emphasis added). Article 30 gives BISM broad

powers to operate under the name of “Blind Industries and Services

of Maryland” and directs BISM to be open for the “labor and
Gen. 128] 141

 These provisions were transferred effective July 1, 1981 to SF Title 9

14, Subtitle 1. 

manufactures of all blind citizens of Maryland ....” Article 30, §6

(emphasis added). Furthermore, State procurement preferences

currently found in SF §§14-103 through 14-105 were originally

included as §6A and §6D within Article 30. These preferences are

for the purchase of supplies and services from BISM. As early as 9

1939, the Legislature provided BISM’s predecessor, the Maryland

Workshop for the Blind, with the authority to issue licenses to blind

individuals for the operation of stands for the vending of newspaper,

periodicals, confections, tobacco products and any other articles

except alcoholic beverages. 

Although blind people need not have manufactured the items

sold through the vending services of BISM, we conclude that blind

people must comprise at least 75 percent of the vending services

personnel. Despite its longstanding recognition that BISM was

producing both tangible items and services, the Legislature never

excluded BISM’s vending (or any other) services from the direct

labor requirements of §30A. From this fact we can only conclude

that the intent of the General Assembly was to encompass both

tangible items and services in the terms “products or merchandise”

in §30A. Indeed, given the use of the term “merchandise,” which

refers to goods sold in commerce, the term “products” must be taken

to have a broader scope, for if it too encompassed only tangible

items, one term or the other would be surplusage. To avoid that

result, we construe “products” broadly to encompass services,

applying the reasoning of a federal appeals court: 

In its broadest sense, the term “product”

denotes anything which is produced. Since

economic activity includes the rendition of

services, it is appropriate, where the context

otherwise permits, to refer to a completed

service as a “product.”

Great Western Broadcasting Corp. v. NLRB, 310 F.2d 591, 595 (9th

Cir. 1962). 

Thus, we conclude that BISM must comply with §30A in all

respects, including the requirement of maintaining a 75 percent to 25
142 [78 Op. Att’y

percent ratio of blind to sighted individuals in the provision of

vending machine services. This conclusion gives full effect to the

legislative purpose evident in the overall statutory scheme ) to

directly benefit blind individuals through the provision of training

and employment. 

IV

BISM’s Procurement Preference 

For Vending Machine Services

SF Title 14 manifests the State’s interest in promoting the

welfare of disadvantaged citizens by granting supporting

organizations a procurement preference. Subtitle 1 of SF Title 14

requires units of State government to procure needed products and

services from either State Use Industries, Blind Industries and

Services of Maryland, or sheltered workshops before soliciting

public bids. Specifically, SF §14-103 provides as follows:

The State or a State aided or controlled

entity shall buy supplies and services from:

(1) State Use Industries, as provided in

Article 27, §§680 through 681M of the Code

if State Use Industries provides the supplies or

services;

(2) Blind Industries and Services of

Maryland, if:

 (i) Blind Industries and Services of

Maryland provides the supplies or

services; and

 (ii) State Use Industries does not

provide the supplies or services; or

(3) sheltered workshops if:

 (i) a sheltered workshop provides the

supplies or services;
Gen. 128] 143

 The Blind Industries and Services of Maryland Pricing Committee 10

consists of the following four members or their designees: the Secretary

of General Services; the Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional

Services; the President of Blind Industries and Services of Maryland; and

a member of the Executive Board of the National Federation of the Blind

of Maryland appointed by the Executive Board. SF §14-104.

 COMAR 21.11.05.01.B(4) defines “master list” as “a consolidated 11

catalog, produced at least annually, that lists the supplies and services

(continued...)

 (ii) neither State Use Industries nor

Blind Industries and Services of

Maryland provides the supplies or

services; and

 (iii) The State or a State aided or

controlled entity is not required by law to

buy the supplies or services from any

other unit of the State government.

Title 14 does not set standards for selecting the supplies or

services to which the preferences apply. The Legislature has,

instead, provided various mechanisms for that purpose. Article 27,

§681B vests general control over the goods and services offered by

State Use Industries in the State Use Industries Advisory Committee

and authorizes training programs for inmates to provide services and

goods which are “practical and adaptable for prison industry” and

“that are likely to be needed and used” by various governmental

entities. Similarly, SF §14-106(e)(2) makes the Pricing and

Selection Committee for Rehabilitation and Employment Programs

responsible for selecting “appropriate” supplies and services for

sheltered workshops to offer for procurement. 

With respect to BISM, the General Assembly instructed BISM

to “revise the list of supplies and services it provides,” SF §14-105,

and created the Blind Industries and Services of Maryland Pricing

Committee, SF §14-104. Under the statutory scheme, BISM itself 10

decides upon the supplies and services to be furnished, and the

Pricing Committee establishes the charge for these items. This

information is included on the “Master List,” which is circulated to

State units.11
144 [78 Op. Att’y

 (...continued) 11

subject to procurement ...” from BISM and the other preferred suppliers.

The master list indicates whether the selling entity is State Use Industries,

BISM, or sheltered workshops; the fair market price; and, if the supply or

service can be furnished by more than one selling entity, the ordering

priority. 

BISM’s authority to decide upon services to include on the

Master List is not, of course, carte blanche. BISM must act in

accord with its statute and applicable regulations. See Holy Cross

Hospital v. Nichols, 290 Md. 149, 428 A.2d 447 (1981). Under its

statute, BISM is “a training and employment center for the blind.”

Article 30, §4. Its general purpose is to “be open for the labor and

manufactures” of blind citizens of Maryland. Article 30, §6. By

regulation, “[o]nly supplies and services that directly benefit ... blind

persons ... through meaningful work experiences, occupational

opportunities, vocational rehabilitation and training, and work

therapy, are to be provided by [BISM].” COMAR 21.11.05.02.B.

Therefore, to the extent that vending machine services “directly

benefit” blind persons within the meaning of the regulation, such

services may be included on the Master List, and BISM is entitled to

a procurement preference for them. The regulations do not provide

that a service must employ a certain proportion of blind individuals

in order to meet the “directly benefit” test.

We cannot conclude that either SF Title 14 or the

implementing regulations require that BISM employ any minimum

number of blind individuals as a precondition to a procurement

preference for the vending machine services. As discussed in Part

III above, however, BISM is required by Article 30, §30A to ensure

that at least 75 percent of its work force for vending machine

services consists of blind individuals. 

V

BISM’s Discretion to Make Investments

The board of trustees of BISM has long had “the right to

acquire and hold property, real, personal, and mixed, in any manner

whatsoever.” Article 30, §6(a) (emphasis added). Hence, unless it

is subject to some other statutory restriction, BISM’s board is free to
Gen. 128] 145

 These local officials may invest “in obligations or repurchase 12

agreements of the type in which the Treasurer may reinvest under §6-222

of the State Finance and Procurement Article, or to deposit said moneys

in any bank or banks in the State of Maryland or in any savings and loan

association or savings and loan associations or in any building and loan

association or building and loan associations in interest-bearing time

deposit and/or savings accounts, or in the local government investment

pool created in this article ....”

invest its assets (a form of personal property) prudently within the

range of investment vehicles open to any corporate board.

The question is whether BISM’s discretion is limited by Article

95, §22 of the Code. We think not. As we read it, §22 generally

restricts the investments of the political subdivisions or bodies

politic of the State, including any “public body corporate” that is

itself a political subdivision or body politic. It does not apply to an

entity that is not a political subdivision or body politic. This scope

is manifest in the phrasing of §22(a):

Except as provided in subsection (c) of

this section and notwithstanding any provision

of a local law or ordinance, the county

commissioners of each county of the State,

and the chief fiscal or administrative officer or

officers or governing body of each

municipality, town, body politic, public body

corporate, school, road, drainage,

improvement, construction, or soil

conservation district or commission in the

state, including ... the Upper Potomac River

Commission, and county school boards and

other political subdivisions and bodies politic

of the State and any agency of any political

subdivision of the State are hereby severally

directed, authorized, and empowered [to make

certain investments].

Article 95, §22(a) (as amended by Chapter 262, Laws of Maryland

1992, emphasis added).12

A “political subdivision” is “public and governmental.” Potter

v. Bethesda Fire Dep’t, 309 Md. at 354 (emphasis added). “Bodies
146 [78 Op. Att’y

politic” are governmental bodies or public corporations “having

powers and duties of government.” Hamilton County Bd. v.

Professional Guild, 46 Ohio St. 3d 147, 545 N.E.2d 1260, 1264

(1989) (emphasis added). See also 1 McQuillan, Municipal

Corporations §1.19, at 21 (3d ed. 1987). 

We discussed BISM’s corporate nature in Part III above.

While BISM serves an important public purpose as a quasi-public

corporation, it does not exercise governmental powers. BISM is not

a political subdivision or body politic within the scope of Article 95,

§22. Therefore, BISM’s board may make investments pursuant to

its broad authority under Article 30, §6(a). 

VI

Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that:

1. The requirements in Article 30, §30A governing the sale

of products made by the blind apply to merchandise or other

products sold by BISM. Compliance with the direct labor

requirements are to be measured on a product-by-product basis,

rather than for a total facility.

2. The direct labor requirements of Article 30, §30A apply

to the provision of vending machine services.

3. The employment or training of some minimum number of

blind individuals in the production of goods or services is not a

precondition to BISM’s procurement preference under SF Title 14,

Subtitle 1. BISM is required, however, to offer only those goods or

services that “directly benefit” blind individuals and, in so doing,

must comply with the direct labor requirements of Article 30, §30A.
Gen. 128] 147

4. The discretion of BISM’s Board of Trustees to make

investments is not limited to the types of investments authorized in

Article 95, §22. 

J. Joseph Curran, Jr.

Attorney General

Jack Schwartz

Chief Counsel

Opinions & Advice

Margaret Ann Nolan

Assistant Attorney General

Gail R. Cohn

Assistant Attorney General