378 [7 9 O p
. A tt ’y

In an ea rlier letter, we discusse d a constitutional issue concerning 1 the Retirement Pl an for

Appointed and Ele cted Of ficials. L etter f

rom Atto r n e y G e n e r al J. Jo s ep h Cur r an , Jr

. , to D e le g ate Jo anCadden (D e c e mber 3 0, 19 93 ). We adv ise d th at th e AnneAr un de l Co unty

Cou nc il wo uld no t vi olatetheContr a c t Cla us e of the U .S. Con sti tution sh ou ld i t (continued...) PUBLI C O FF I CERS AND EM PLOYEES
C OUNTI ES

) A NNE A RUNDEL C OUN T Y A T T ORN E Y E X ERCI SES S OVERE I GN P OW ER

Sept ember 8, 1994

T h e H o n o ra b le R o b e rt R . N

e a ll C ount y Execut i ve f

orA nne Arundel

C ount y Y ou have r eques t ed our o pi ni on “w hethert he pos i t i on of C o u n tyA tto rn e yf

o r A n n e A ru n d e l C o u n tym e e ts th e re q u ire m e n ts of t he exe r ci s e of s over ei gnt ys t andar d as ar t i cul at ed byt he dec i s i ons of t he C our tof A ppeal s forvar i ous cons t i tut i o n al , i m m uni t yand S ta te p e n s io n la w p u rp o s e s .”
For t he r eas ons s t at ed bel ow , w e concl ude t hat t he pos i t i on of C ou ntyA t t orneyfor A nn e A rundel C ou nty do es m eet t he “ex erci se o f so v e re ig n ty ” sta n d a rd f o r d e ter m in in g th e e x iste n c e o f a p u b lic o f f ic e
. I Backg r ound
I n a r ece ntopi ni on, t h e C o unt yA t t or neyforA nne A rundel C ount yexami n ed the m anneri n w hi ch the R et i r ement Pl an for A ppoi nt ed and E l ect ed O ffi ci al s of A nne A rundel C ount yhas been a d m in iste re d

. L e tter f

ro m C o u n ty A tto rn e yJu d so n P . G a rre tt, Jr., to C ount yE xecut i ve R ober tR

. N eal l ( J ul y22, 1 9 9 4) ( “O pi ni on L et t er ”)

. T he C ou n ty A t t or neyadvi s ed thatonl yt hos e appoi nt ed o ff ici als w h o m et t h e trad it ion al t est fo r iden ti fy ing p u b li c o ff icers w er e pr oper l yencompas s ed byt hi s r et i r ement pl an. 1G en. 378] 379

(...continued) 1 c ho os e to re du c e be ne fi ts t o p artic ipa nts in the pl an. No thi ngin t his opinion affe cts the analy sis or conclusion in that prior letter

. In one of theSupreme Court’s e arlie s tcase s, Justice James 2 Wils on ob se rv e d, rh e toric a lly : “ Who , o r what, i s a so ve re ignty? What is his or its so ve re ignty? On thi s su bje c t th e e rror s and

themazes aree ndle ss and inexplicable.” Chi

sh olm v . Ge or

gia , 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 456 ( 1793). T he C ount yA t t or neyt hen appl i ed the t r adi t i onal cr i t er i a t o t he pos i t i ons i n ques t i on, as s es s i ng w hether eac h exer ci s ed a port i on of t he s over ei gnt yof t he St at e as del egat ed t o i t s pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on, A nne A rundel C ount y . For obvi ous r eas ons , t he C ount yA t t or ney decl i ned t o expr es s an opi ni on conce r ni ng t he st atus of t he pos i t i on of C ount yA t t or neyi t s el f. O pi ni on L et t er at 36 n. 32. Y ouropi ni on re q u e s t to u s th e n f

o llo w e d

. Y ourr eques tdoes notcal l upon us t o r evi s i t t he i nt erpr et at i on o f co u n tyl aw r eac hed byt he C ount yA t t or ney , norw oul d i tbe a p p ro p ri a te f

o r u s to d o s o
. See O pi ni on N o. 94- 001, 21: 8 M d. R eg. 619 ( J anuary 5, 1994) ( unpubl i s hed) ( A t t or ney G eneral opi ni ons or di nar i l yavoi d i nt erpr et at i on of l ocal l aw )

. N ors h oul d w e be u n d e rsto o d to b e a d d re ss in g th e p u b lic o f f ice r sta tu s o f

c o u n ty a tto rn e y s g e n e ra lly . R a th e r, th is o p in io n is lim ited to th e sp e c if ic q u e stio n p o se d : w h e th e r th e A n n e A ru n d e l C o u n tyA tto rn e ym e e ts t he “exer ci s e of s over ei gnt y ” cr i t er i on for a publ i c offi ce, i n l i ghtof th e g ra n ts o f

a u th o ri ty to th e C o u n ty A tto rn e yu n d e r c o u n ty la w .

II
E x er cise o f S o v er eign ty A s th e C o u n tyA tto rn e ya p tlyo b se rv e d in h is o p in io n , “it is e a sie r to re c o g n iz e th e e x e rc ise o f so v e re ig n tyre q u ire m e n t th a n to expr es s i t‘ i n a def

i ni t i on t hatw i l l be ent ir el yfaul t l es s
. ’ ” O pi ni on L et t erat34 ( quot i ng St at e Tax C om m ’ n v. H ar r i ngt on , 126 M d. 157, 159 94 A

. 537 ( 1915) )

. T he C ount y A t t or ney t hen w enton t o offe r 2 a s um m ar yof t he gover ni ng pr i nci pl es w i t h w hi ch w e ent i r el yagr ee:

A s w ith m an yo ther cre ature s o f c ase law , there i s no defi ni t i on of t he t er m “exe rci s e of so v e re ig n ty .” T h e o p in io n s te a c h th a t to380 [7 9 O p
. A tt ’y

e x e rc ise a p o rtio n o f

th e so v e r e ig n p o w e r is exer ci s e i n one’ s o w n r i ght“s om e of the f u n c tio n s o f

g o v e rn m e n t” th a t ca n b e v a lid ly per for m ed onl y pur s uant t o a s peci fi c gr antof g o v e rn m e n tal p o w e r a n d th a t ar e n o t “p u re ly m in iste ria l ” bu t , rat her, “su fficie n tly s ubs t ant i ve” a nd “ca l l fo r t he exe r ci s e of ju d g m e n t a n d d is c re tio n .” O pi ni on L et t erat 34- 35 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. T he i nqui r y m us tfocus on t he attri bu t es of t he p art i cularpo si t i on : “T he n ature of the duti es, th e p a rticu lar m e th o d in w h ich th e ya re to b e p e rf o rm e d , the e n d to b e a ttain e d , the d e p o sito ryo f th e p o w e rs c o n f

e rre d a n d th e w h o le s ur r oundi ngs m us tbe cons i der ed w h en t he ques t i on as t o w hether t he pos i t i on i s a publ ic o ff ice ornoti s t o be s ol ved. ” School C om m is s i oners v. G olds bor ough , 90 M d. 193, 206, 44 A

. 1055 ( 18 9 9 )

. Hen c e , we tu r n t o t h e s e f a c t s a b o u tt h e Ann e Arunde l C o u n ty A tto rn e y . III

P ow ers of

A nne A rundel C ounty A t t orney T he A nne A rundel C ount yC har t er r eci t es t he cor e pow er s and dut i es of t he C ount yA t tor ney
. U nder§526 of t he cha r t er , t he C ount y A t t or ney i s t he l egal advi s or of t he county , gi ves advi ce a nd opi ni ons on l egal ques t i ons pr es ent ed bycountyoffi ci al s , appr oves c o n t r a c t s a n d o t h e ri n s t ru m e n t s f o rf o r m a n d l e g a l s u f

f i c i e n c y, advi s es t he C ount y E xecut i ve as t o t he l egal i t y of ordi nance s pas s ed by t he C ount y C ounci l , and def ends countyoffi cer s and empl oy ees in c iv il a c tio n s
. N o M ary l and ca s e oropi ni on of t hi s offi ce ha s cons i der ed w hethert hi s combi nat i on of gene r al dut i es , char act er i s t i c of the ap p o inted p ri n cipa l l aw y er o f a h o m e rule p o li ti ca l su b d ivisi o n , are s u f f i c i e n ti n t h e m s e l v e s t o c o n s t i tu t e t h e e x e r c i s e o f s o v e r e i g n t y. W e re th e d u ti e s o f

th e C o u n tyA tto rn e ylim ited to th e se , itis do ub t ful w hethert he po si t i on cou l d be sai d t o involve t he ex erci se of s over ei gnt y , for t he m er e re nder i ng of advi ce and r epr es ent at i on o f a c lie n t in c o u rt a re n o t a ttr ib u te s o f s o v e re ig n p o w e r. See Ja ckson v

. C os by , 1 7 9 M d . 6 7 1 , 6 7 5 , 2 2 A .2 d 4 5 3 (1 9 4 1 ) (c ity at t or ney w ho w as r et ai ned byt he muni ci pal i t yt o per for m w hat ever l egal dut i es w ere as sig n ed to hi m w as not a pub l i c off i cer becauseG en. 378] 381

Th e ma in po wer of a no tary pu bli c is to a dmi nis te r oaths

. Ar tic le 3 68, §3 of the Mar

yland Code. h e “ e x e rc ise s n o p o rtio n o f th e so v e re ig n p o w e r o f th e g o v e rn m e n t, b u t m e r e ly pe rf

o rm s th e d u ties re q u ire d o f h im b yth e o f

f icia ls e m p lo y in g h im

.. .”); St at e Tax C om m ’ n v. H ar r i ngt on , 126 M d. at 164 ( gener al couns el t o t he comm i s s i on w as nota publ i c off i ci al and di d notexer ci s e anys over ei gn pow er ) ; 58 O pi ni ons of the At t or ney G ener al3, 11 ( 19 73) ( couns el t o l i quorboar d) ; 20 O pi ni ons of

the A t t or ney G ener al58 1 , 5 8 3 ( 1935) ( t ow n at t or ney ) ; 14 O pi ni ons of the A t t or ney G ener al 2 3 0 (1 9 2 7 ) ( b o a rd a tto rn e y ). A ccord , P e o p le ex rel. D aw s on v. Kno x, 247 N

. Y

. S. 731, 735 ( A pp. D i v. 1931) (c o u n ty at to rn e y ). B u t se e B re d ice v . C ity o f N o rw a lk , 206 A

. 2d 433 ( C onn. 1964) and B l ack v

. Sut t on , 1 9 1 S .W .2 d 4 0 7 (K y . 1 9 4 5 ) (c ity a tto rn e y s e x e rc is e s o v e re ig n p o w e r)

. T hese pri or aut ho ri t i es ar e dis t i ng uis hab l e, ho w ever, becau se the A n n e A run d el C o u n tyA tt o rneyh as b ee n g ran ted s p ec ifi c p o w ers b ey o n d th e g en era l des cripti o n in § 5 2 6 o f th e C o u n tyC h arter. U nd er A rt i cl e 2, §1 -101(a)( 11 ) of t he C ou ntyC od e, t he C o u n ty A tt or neym ayaut hor i ze the i s s uance of a s ubpoena t o compel tes tim o n yo r th e p ro d u c tio n o f re c o rd s in c o n n e c tio n w ith inv esti g ati o n s , in q u ir ies, o r he aring s. U n d er A rt icl e 2 , § 1 -10 2 (a), t he C ount yA t t or ney“mayadmi ni s t er oaths t o and t ake t he t es t i m ony of anyw i t nes s
. . . . ”
I n 60 O pi ni ons of the At t or ney G ener al 632 ( 1975) , A t t or ney G ener al B ur ch w as as ked w hether t he chi ef adm i ni s t r at i ve cl er ks of t he D i s t r i ctC o u rt w er e pr oper l ycons i der ed appoi nt ed off i ci al s for ce rt a in p u rpo ses. W h il e n o ti n g that “the b u lk o f th eir du ti es a re pu rel y m i nis t eri al , ” t he A t t orney G eneral po i nted out that the cler ks’ a u t h o r i t y “ t o is s ue w r i t

s , adm i nis t eroaths , and cer t i fy paper s under th e se a l o f

th e C o u rt a re a ll i m p o rta n t p u b lic d u ties w h ich a p p e a r to i nvol ve the exe r ci s e of a por t i on of t he s over ei gnt yof t he St at e. ” 60 O pi ni o n s o

f the At t or ney G ener al at635 ( emphasi s added)

. T he A t t or n e yGen e r a l ’ s c o n c l u s i o n i n t h i s r e g a r d i s c o n s i s t e n twi t h t he lo n g lin e o f

o p in io n s h o ld in g n o ta ri e s p u b lic to b e o f f ic e rs
. S e e , e .g ., 3 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al2 7 1 (19 1 8 ). 3
T he C ount yA t t or neyal s o pl ay s a r ol e i n t he adm i ni s t r at i on of t he county ’ s s el f- i ns ur ance fund t hatamount s t o t h e ex erci s e of so v e re ig n p o w e r. T h e se lf -in su ra n c e f

u n d is u se d to p a yc e rta in l i abi l i t yand w or ker s ’ compensa t i on cl ai m s agai n stt he countyand382 [7 9 O p
. A tt ’y

When a board or commission ex erc ises sovere ign pow ers 4 collectively , eac h member of the entity is de emed to do so personally for p urposes of “public officer” a nalysis. S

e eH o wa rd Co u n ty M e tro. Comm’n v. W

estphal , 232 Md. 334, 340-42, 193 A.2d 56 (1963)

. The County Attorney unquestionably exercised sovereign power 5 un de r Artic le9 o f t

heCounty Cod e , th e c ounty ’s pu bli c e thi c s la

w. Until June 30, 1993, the County Attorney

had overal l re sponsibili ty for administeringthe local ethics law, including thepower to reviewfinanc ial disclosure stateme nts for complianc e and to c onduct investig ations and hearings. See60 Opinions of the Attorney Gene ral 530 (1975). Ef fec tive July 1, 1993, a County

Ethics Commi ssion assumed responsibi l i ty for administration of the county ethics law. §100C(b) of the County Charter

. o th e r e n tit ies

. A r ti c le 2 , § 5 -1 0 1 o f th e C o u n tyC o d e . T h e f u n d is admi ni s t er ed bya s el f- i ns ur ance fund comm i t t ee, i ncl udi ng t he C o u n tyA tto rn e y , w h ich h a s th e f o llo w in g p o w e rs: ( 1) R eview an d ap p rov e al l cl ai m s for p a y m e n t f

ro m th e f

u n d w h e re th e a m o u n t to be pai d exce ed $5, 000; ( 2) E s t abl i s h pol i ci es r el at i ng t o t he oper at i on and mai nt enanc e of the fund; and (3 ) A d o p t ru les an d reg u la tio n s n e ce ssary f o r t h e o p e ra tio n o f

th e f u n d

.... §5- 104( d) of t he C ount y C ode. T hes e di s cr et i onaryact s i nvol ve the e x e rc i s e o f

s o v e re ig n p o w e r. See 57 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al 5 9 5, 601- 03 ( 1957) ( rul emaki ng pow eri s “cl ear l yof so v ere ign d im en sion s”). 4
T h is p a rtial re v iew o f

th e p o w e rs a n d d u ties o f th e C o u n ty A t t or neyal r eadyes t abl i s hes t hatt he C ount yA t t or neyexer ci s es per s onal l ys om e por t i on of t he s over ei gn pow erof th e St at e, as del egat ed t o A nne A rundel C ount y . T hus , w e nee d notcons i dert he eff ectof var i ous ot her gr ant s of aut hor i t y , s om e of w hi ch ( i ncl udi ng ce rt ain c ivil en fo rce m en t po w ers u n d er A rt icl e 1 1 , § 6 -10 2 (g) (1 ), A rticle 2 6 , § 1 -1 1 4 , an d A rticle 2 8 , § 1 7 -1 0 2 (f )(1 ) o f th e C o u n ty C o d e ) a l s o a p p e a rt o i n v o l v e t h e e x e r c i s e o f s o v e r e i g n t y. 5G en. 378] 383
IV C oncl usi on In su m m a ry , itis o u r o p in io n th a t th e p o sitio n o f C o u n ty A t t or ney for A nne A rundel C ount y m eet s t he r equi r ement s o f t he

“ e x e rc is e o f

s o v e re ig n ty” s ta n d a rd u n d e r M a ryla n d la w .

J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al
Ja c k S c h w a rtz C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons & Advi ce