290 [80 O p. Att’y

1 You also posed

a second question, about

the consequences if the billwere applicable and yet the M aryland S tadium Aut hority fa iled to enforceit. In light of our answer to your first question, we need not consider the second. STADI UM AUTHORITY S TATUTORY C ONSTRUCTION

) S TATUTORY B AR T O T EAMS C OMPOSEDOF T OO F EW P LAYERS W ITH R ECENT M AJOR L EAGUE E XPERIENCE D OES N OT A PPLY W HEN T HERE IS N O P LAYERS ’ S TRIKE

May 12, 1995

Mr. R ichard A . Mon tgome ry, III Deputy Legisl

ativeOffice r

On behalf of

the Administrati on, you have re que ste d our opinionconcern ing Ch apter 6 (Sen ate Bill 719) of the Laws of Maryland 1995, “Prof

essiona l Bas eball

)Camden Y ards. ” Pointing out that t

he law was enacted in the midst of t he major lea gue base ball strike, you ask whether t he law’s pr ohibition on the us e of Ca mden Yar ds by teams with too many new players must be applied, althoug h the strike is now over. For the rea sons st ated bel ow, we conclude that Chapter6 is not applic able t o games played when ther e is no bas eball strike. 1

I Background Sen ate Bill 719 wa s signe d into law on March 27, 1995. As an emergency measure, t

he billbecame effect ive immediate ly. At t hat time, th e u nion repr esenting major league baseballplayers was on strike, and the t eam owners had announced an inte ntion to play a full sche dule with “repl acement players ”

)former major league players,Gen. 290] 291

2 With the important

excepti on of the B altimore Orioles,the teams had already fielded replaceme nt players during spring training.

3 The uniondid so after a federal court found that the owners had engage d in unfair labor practices. The owners a nd the union have no t reached a collectivebargaining agreement, however, and the strike could conceivably be resumed at some point in the future.

4 The Tigers and Orioles have a three- game series at Camden Yards beginning May 16, 1995. minor leag ue p laye rs, se m i-pro fess ion al pla yer s, a nd any one else who could be signed to fill out a roster. 2 Chapter 6 amended the l aw governing the Maryland Stadi um Au thority by imposing the foll owing prohibi tion: “Notwithst anding an y otherprov ision o f this sub title, the A utho rity sha ll prohib it a major league pr ofessi onal baseba ll t eam from playing bas eball in a stadium in Camden Yards if f ewer than 75% of the playe rs on the team’s current

40-player

major league roste r were on the 40-pl ayer major league r oster

of a prof essiona l team in major leagu e bas eball atany tim e in the precedi ng calendar year.” §13-723(b) of the Fin anc ial In stitutio ns (“ FI” ) A rticle , M ary land Co de.
In early April, af

ter Chapter 6 became effective, the players’ un ion call ed off t

he str ike. 3 The Orioles and the res t of the m ajo r league teams are pl aying the ir r egularly scheduled games. Each team has f

illed i ts roster w ith w hat it co nside rs the b est ava ilable players. According to at l east one pr ess repor t, t he Detroit

Tigers have so many players wit

hout the r equisi te major l eague experi ence that the team fail s to meet t he cr ite rion i n FI §13-723(b) . We do not know wh ethe r this rep ort is acc ura te. For p urpo ses of th is opinion, how ever, we shall sim ply as sum e that it is an d pro ceed to the le gal questi on: Does FI §13 -723 (b) req uire the Stad ium Au thority to bar the Tigers from playing in Oriole Park at Camden Y ards? 4292 [80 O p. Att’y
II Interpret ation of Chapter 6
In inter preting Chapter 6, we ap ply the principles o f statutory cons truction frequ ently re iterated b y the C ourt o f Ap peals:

In analy zing a statute, w e m ust alw ay s be cognizant

of the f undamental principle t ha t statutory co ns t ru ct i on i s app ro ac he d f ro m a commonsensical perspective. Thus, we seek to avoid cons truction s that are illogical, unreasonabl e, or incons ist ent with c omm on sense. Further

more, we do not read statutory language in is olati on or out of cont ext but constr ue it in light

of the l egisl ature’ s general pur pose a nd in the context of the stat ute as a whole. Context may include related statutes, pertinentlegis lative hist ory and other material that fairly bears on the fundame ntal i ssue of legislativ e pur pose or go al. Frostv. State , 336 Md. 125, 137-38, 647 A.2d 106 (1994) (internal quotations, bra cke ts, an d cita tion s om itted ). The C o urt’ s rej ecti on of an unyiel ding “plai n meaning rule” is espe cial ly pertinent to our inter pretation of ou r Ch apter 6 : “Ev en w here th e la nguag e of a statute is plain and unambiguous, we ma y loo k elsew here to divine legis lative intent ; t he plai n meaning rule i s not ri gid and does not require us to re ad legi slat ive provi sions in rote fash ion an d in isola tion .” Blaine v. Blaine , 336 Md. 49, 64, 646 A.2d413 (19 94). The pream ble to Chapter 6 menti ons “repla cement player s”

) a term not use d in the t ext of t he stat ute but c learly meaning players signedto replace those on stri ke. Re ferring to a pollof Orioles’ season ticke t holder s, t

he preamble ci tes overwhelming opposit ion to “the i dea of the Ori oles using replac ement player s inst ead of the current Orio les.” T he pr eam ble also not es pollresul ts i ndicat ing that “the overwhelming majori ty of se as on t icket holders belie ve that major league pr ofessi onal baseba ll s hould cancelthe upcoming season rather

than play with repl acement player s if f ewer than 75% of the te am’s basebal l playe rs were base ball pl ayers on a major league profes sio nal ba seba ll team in 19 94.” T hus, th e prea mb le unmistakabl y links the “75% ” thres hold in the tex t of the s tatute to the public’ s dist aste f

or repl acement player s an d so to t he str ikeGen. 290] 293

5 For example, in a letter of advice written while the bill was pending, our officeobserved that, “[a]smajor league players have struck ina dispute with team owners, the enactment of State legislation affec ting the use of re

placeme nt players at Camde

n Yards r

aises the is sue o f whether the matter has been pre-empted bythe [National Labor] Relations Act.” Letter to

Delega te Samuel I. Rosenberg and Senator John A. Pica, Jr., from Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Israel a t 2 (February 21, 1995). itself. Another paragr aph of the p ream ble refer s to cer tain l osses at the Universi ty of Maryland’ s parki ng garag es fro m “an extended strik e.” The pream ble is clear eviden ce that, in passing F I §13-72 3(b), the Gen eral Assem bly’s object ive was to prevent the use of

Camden Yards by t eams fiel ding repl acement player s during a strike. Although a pream ble is not a part of the s tatut e its elf, it i s voted on as part of

the bill and can b e am ende d (ind eed, w as am ende d in Chapter6), and th e Co urt of A ppea ls gives a prea mb le con sidera ble weightas evidence of th e leg islativ e ob jectiv e. See, e. g., Parr ison v. State, 335 Md. 554, 559, 644 A.2d 537 (199 4); McAlear v. McAlear , 298 Md. 320, 344 n.26, 469 A.2d 1 256 (198 4); Dillon v. State , 277 M d. 571, 583 , 357 A .2d 360 (1 976). Other ma terial in the legisl ative hist ory confi rms this object ive. In their billanalyses of Senate Bi ll 719, the jurisd icti onal committees noted as “b ackg roun d” to the bil l the foll owing: “Major league baseball playe rs have been on strik e since the m iddle of last season . The players ’ union and owners continue to talk without resu lt.... The Orio les’ ow ner is not in favor of replacement players. How ever, other t eams are accept ing repl ac e me nt play ers at the ir spring tr aining. ” The billfil e also cont ains much other material refl ecti ng the obvious point t hat Chapter 6 was enact ed against the backgroundof the s tri ke and was inte nde d solel y to deal with one potential aspect

of the stri ke, the use of replacement players. 5294 [80 O p. Att’y
III Conclusion It would b e inco nsistent with the G eneral A ssemb ly’s object ive, and w ith com mo n sense, to co nstrue Ch apter 6 a s applying wh en a te am is not usi ng replac ement player s in l ieu of striking playe rs. The General Assembly never intend ed this b ill to barfrom C amd en Y ard s a team that simply has an unus ually hi gh num ber of ro oki es, w hen ther e is n o stri ke. Thus, it is our o pinion that C hapte r 6 do es no t apply to games invo lv ing the Detroi t Tiger s (or any ot her team) when there i s n o strik e by m ajor leag ue b ase ball p laye rs.
J. Joseph C urran, Jr. AttorneyGeneral Jack Sch wa rtz Chief Counsel Opinions & Advice