354 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y

A “seri ou s c ri me ” is d e fi ne d a s a ny fe lony and c e rt a in 1 misdemeanors a

nd other off

enses. SeeArticle 27A , §2(h). PUBLI C DEFENDER A DMINI STRATI V E L A W

) R UL E MAKI NG

) P UB L I C I NFOR MAT I ON A CT

) S T AT US OF E L I GI B I L I T Y C R ITE R IA

M ay13, 1994

The H onor abl e Robert

C

. N al l ey C ha i rm an , D istri ctA dvis ory B oa rd D is tr i ct N o. 4 of the Publ i c D ef

enderSys t em Y ou have r eques t ed our opi ni on conce r ni ng t he l egal s t atus of th e c riter ia u se d b y th e P u b lic D e f e n d e r to d e ter m in e th e e lig ib ili ty of indi vidual s fo r repres entat i on by t hat of fi ce. S pecifi cal l y , y ou ask w het h er t he cr i t er i a ar e “r egul at i ons ” undert he A dm i ni s t r at i ve P ro c e d u re A c t a n d w h e th e r th e ya re o p e n to in sp e c tio n b yth e p u b lic orbyt he D i s t r i ctA dvi s or yB oar d. F o r th e r e a so n s s tate d b e lo w , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e e lig ib ili ty cr i t er i a of t he Publ i c D efe ndercons t i tut e a “ r egul at i on, ” w i t hi n t he m eani ng of t he A dm i ni s t r at i ve Pr ocedur e A ct , and ther efor e ar e not enfor cea bl e unl es s pr oper l yadopt ed under t he A PA

. M or eover , t he c ri te ri a a re o p e n to in s p e c tio n b ya n ym e m b e r o f th e p u b lic

.

I E l i gi bi l i t y F or R epres ent at i on B y P ubl i c D ef ender U nderA r t i cl e 27A , §4( a) , “[i ] ts hal l be t he pr i m arydut yof t he Publ i c D efe ndert o pr ovi de l ega l r epr es ent at i on foranyi ndi gent d e f e n d a n t e lig ib le f

o r se rv ice s u n d e r th is a rticle .” A n “ in d ig e n t” defe ndanti s “anyper s on take n i nt o cus t odyorchar ged w i t h a s er i ous cr i m e . . . w ho under oath or aff i r m at i on s ubs cr i bes and s t at es in w riting th a t h e is f

in a n c iallyu n a b le, w ith o u t u n d u e h a rd sh ip , to p rov ide f o r t h e f u ll p ay m en t of

an att o rne ya n d a ll othe r ne ce ssary ex p en ses o f leg al rep rese n tat ion

. ” A rt icl e 2 7 A , § 2 (f). 1G en. 354] 355

Th i s ap p ro ach to e ligibility is common in S tate programs of 2 financ ial assistance

. See, e .g., CO MAR 07 .0 3. 17 .1 0J (s c he du leof inc ome (continued...) T he Publ i c D efe nderunq u e s t i o n a b l yh a s a u th o r i t yt o det er m i ne w h e th e r a d e f

e n d a n t is “in d ig e n t” a n d th e re f o re p o ten tiallye lig ib le f o r re p re se n tatio n b yth e O f f ice o f th e P u b lic D e f

e n d e r. A rticle 27 A , §7 (a) provides as fol l ow s:

E l i gi bi l i t y for t he s ervi ces of t he O ffi ce of t he Publ i c D efe nders hal l be det er m i ned on t he bas i s of t he need of t he per s on see k i ng l egal r epr es ent at i on. N eed s hal l be meas ur ed acc or di ng t o t he fi nanci al abi l i t yof t he per s on to e n g a g e a n d c o m p e n sa te c o m p e ten t p riv a te co u n s e l an d to p rov ide a ll o ther n ec essa ry e x p e n se s o f

re p re se n tatio n . S u c h a b ili tysh a ll be recogni zed t o be a va r i abl e depe ndi ng on t he natur e, ext entan d l i qui di t yof as s et s ; t he di s pos able n eti ncome of t he def endant ; t he n a tu re o f

th e o f f e n se ; th e e f

f o r t a n d sk ill r equi r ed t o gatherper t i nenti nfor m at i on; t he l ength and com pl exi t y of t he pr ocee di ngs ; and anyotherforeseeabl e exp enses. In t heo ry , t he O ffi ce of

t he P ub l i c D efen der m i gh tadm i nis t er these el i gi bi l i t ypr ovi s i ons on an ent i r el yi ndi vi dual i zed bas i s , t hr ough an a d h o c a s s e s s m e n t o f

e a c h a p p lic a n t’ s f

in a n c ia l a b ility. T h e P u b lic D e f

e n d e r’s c u rre n t e lig ib ili ty re g u latio n , s e t o u t in C O M A R 14. 06. 03. 04, r eca pi tul at es t he s t atut or ypr ovi s i ons and i n c o rp o r a t e s c e r t a i n “ g u i d e l i n e s ” d r a wn f r o m B a ld w in v . S ta te , 51 M d . A p p . 5 3 8 , 4 4 4 A .2 d 1 0 5 8 (1 9 8 2 ). B u t th e r e g u latio n , too , is s u f f i c i e n t l y g e n e r a l i n i t s t e r m s s o t h a t i t m i g h tb e a p p l i e d c a s e - b yca se if the ag en cych o se to ad m inist er the law in tha t m an n er. As a m a t t e ro f

s o u n d a d m i n i s tr a t i v e p r a c t i c e , h o we v e r , s o me m o re sp e c if

ic g u id e lin e s o r c riter ia a re p ro b a b lyn e c e ss a ry . A n d , in fac t , t he off

i ce doe s u se cer t ai n pr eci s e cr i t er i a t o as s es s an appl i cat i on forr epr es ent at i on. A m anual us ed byi nt ake pe r s onnel c o n t a i n s a g r i d , a r r a n g e d b y i n c o me l e v e l s a n d n u mbe r of dep end ents

. T his gri d play s a key rol e i n eli gibi l i t ydeterm i nati on s. A n ap p li ca n t w ith inco m e in e x ce ss o f th e a m o u n t all o ca ted f o r a par t i cul arnum berof depe ndent s w i l l be deni ed r epr es ent at i on. 2356 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y

(...continued) 2 limit s by household size to determine elig ibility for F ood Sta

mp Program). For a detailed revie w of the history , purpose, a nd require ments of 3 the “re gulation” component of the Administrative Procedure Ac t, see75 Opinions of the Attorney Gene ral 37 (1990). T he O ffi ce of

t he P ub l i c D e f

e n d e r i s conce rned t hat, i f t hese sp e c if ic c riter ia w e re k n o w n , d e f e n d a n ts m ig h t tailo r th e ir app l i cat i on s t o m e e t th em . T hu s, t he o ffi ce has n ot adopted t hese cr i t e r i a b yr e g u l a t i o n o ro t h e r wi s e ma d e t h e m pu b l i c . You rl e t t er al so m entio n s the di si ncli nati on of the P ub l i c D efen der t o d i scl ose t he cr i t er i a t o t he D i s t r i ctA dvi s or yB oar d, w hi ch evi dent l ys ought t hem as pa r tof i t s eff

or t t o “s tudyand obs er ve the oper at i on of the D i s t r i ct Publ i c D efe nder O ffi ce” and t o “advi s e the Publ i c D efe nder and t he D i s t r i ctPubl i c D efe nderw i t h r es pectt o . . . m at t er s per t ai ni ng to th e o p e ra tio n o f

th e D istric t P u b lic D e f

e n d e r O f f ice a n d th e P u b lic D e f e n d e rs S y s te m .” A rt ic le 2 7 A , § 1 0 (c ).
II A p p li ca ti o n o f R u lem a k ing R eq u irem en ts A . R u lem a k in gR e q u ire m e n ts G e n e ra lly
T he A dm i ni s t r at i ve Pr ocedur e A ct , w hi ch under §10- 102( a) of the S t at e G ov ernm ent A rt i cl e (“SG ” A rt i cl e) appl i es t o v i rt u a lly everyuni ti n t he Execut i ve B r anch, pr es cr i bes t he pr ocedur al r equi r ement s for the adopt i on of a r egul at i on. I f an a gency ’ s act i on 3 i s a “r egul at i on, ” as t hat t er m i s defi ned i n t he A PA , “the ac t i on m ay be t aken onl yi n acc or dance w i t h t he rul emaki ng pr ocedur es cont ai ned i n t he [A PA ]

. ” C B S, I nc. v. C om

ptr ol l er , 319 M d

. 687, 6 9 2 , 5 7 5 A .2 d 3 2 4 (1 9 9 0 ). S e e a ls o , e .g ., 76 O pi ni ons of

the A t t or ney G ener al19 , 2 2 ( 1991) ; 68 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al9, 11 ( 1983) ; 65 O pi ni ons of the A t t or ney G ener al396, 404 (1 9 8 0 ).
I f an agenc y t akes an ac t i on s ubj ectt o t he A PA ’ s rul emaki ng pr oces s butfai l s t o compl y w i t h t hes e pr ocedur al r equi r ement s , t he a g e n c y ’s a c tio n is u n e n f o rc e a b le . S G § 1 0 -1 2 5 (d )( 3 ). See, e. g. , 78 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al8, 14 ( 1993) ( i nt er agenc y
“ m e m o ra n d u m o f

u n d e rsta n d in g ” re g a rd in g e lig ib ili tyf o r c e rta inG en. 354] 357 empl oy m ents er vi ces unenfor cea bl e beca us e i thad notbeen a dopt ed i n acc or dance w i th t he A PA ) ; 76 O pi ni ons of the At t or ney G ener al 3 ( 1991) ( s t at ement byPhy s i cal T her apyB oar d abouts cope of pr act i ce of

phy s i cal t her apy of no l egal eff ect beca us e i t had notbeen adopt ed i n acc or dance w i t h t he A PA ) ; 57 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al4 7 8 , 4 7 9 -80 (19 7 2 ) (e li g ibil ityreq u ir em en t fo r w elfa re pr ogr am i nval i d and unenfor cea bl e becaus e i t had not been a dopt ed in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e A P A ). B. D e f initi on o f “Reg ulati on” T h e A P A d e f

i n e s t h e t e r m “ r e g u l a t i o n ” q u i t e b r o a d l y: (1) ‘ R eg u lat ion ’ m ea n s a statem en t or an am en d m en t or re p e a l o f a sta tem e n t th a t: ( i ) has gener al appl i cat i on; (ii) h a s f u tu re e f f e c t; ( i i i ) i s adopt ed bya uni tt o: 1 . d e tail o r c a rryo u t a la w th a t th e u n it adm i nis t ers ;

2 . g o v e rn o rg a n iza tio n o f th e u n it; 3 . g o v e rn th e p ro c e d u re o f th e u n it; 4. govern pr act i ce be for e the uni t ; and ( i v) i s i n anyfor m , i ncl udi ng: 1. a gui del i ne; 2. a rul e; 3. a s t andar d; 4. a s t at ement of i nt erpr et at i on; 5

. a s t a t e m e n to f

p o l i c y. ( 2) R egul at i on does noti ncl ude: (i) a sta tem e n t th a t: 1. concer ns onl yi nt ernal m anage m entof t he uni t ; and 2. does not aff ectdi r ect l yt he r i ght s of t he publ i c ort he pr ocedur es avai l abl e t o t he publ i c.358 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y

As one commentator has st ated, a broad construction is “nec essar y 4 to de f e at t h e in c li n ati o ns h o wnb y

s o mea g e n c ie s to la

b e l a s ‘ b u ll etins,’ ‘announc ements,’ ‘ guides,’ ‘inter pretive bulletins,’ a

nd the like, announce ments which, in leg al operation and ef fec t, really amount to rules and then to a s s e rt t

h at [ th e y] ar e n o t t e c hn ic a lly r u le s b ut m e r e ly

p o licy statements, and he nce ma

y be issued without observa nce of the p rocedures r e qu ire d in c o nn e c ti o nw it

hth e a d o p ti o no f

r u le s . ” 1 Co oper, Sta te Administrati ve Law108 (1965).

( i i ) a r es pons e of t he uni t t o a pet i t i on foradopt i on of a r egul at i on . . . ; or ( i i i ) a dec larator yrul i ng of t he uni tas t o a re g u la tio n , o rd e r, o r s ta tu te

.... S G § 1 0 -10 1 (e). A lth o u g h th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h a s e sc h e w e d a n y“ a llencompa ssi ng s t at ement ” of the ci r cumst ance s underw hi ch ru lem a k in g is le g a llyre q u ire d , the C o u r t cite d w ith a p p ro v a l a num ber o f o u t

- of- s t at e ca s es hol di ng “thatl egi s l at i ve i nt ent m a n d a tes u se o f

th e ru lem a k in g p ro c e ss w h e n th e a g e n c ya c tio n f a lls w i t hi n t he s t atut or ydefi ni t i on of .

. . ’ r egul at i on. ’ ” C B S I nc. v. C om ptr ol l er , 3 1 9 M d . a t 6 9 4

. See a lso, e. g. , E x par t e Tr ayl or N u rs in gH o m e , In c ., 5 4 3 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 3 (A la. 1 9 8 8 ); Sen n P ark N urs i ng C ent erv. Mi l l er , 4 5 5 N .E .2 d 1 5 3 , 1 5 7 (I ll. A p p . 1 9 8 3 ), a ff’d i n par tand r ev’ d i n par ton othergr ounds , 4 7 0 N .E .2 d 1 0 2 9 (Ill. 1 9 8 4 ); B ur ke v. C hi ldr en’s Ser vi ces D i vis i on , 5 5 2 P

. 2 d 5 9 2 (O r. A p p . 1 9 7 6 ), a

ff’d , 6 07 P. 2d 141 ( O r . 1980)

. T hi s offi ce, t oo, “has c o n sis ten tly c o n stru e d th e d e f in iti o n o f ‘re g u latio n ’ a s b ro a d lya s its l anguage and appa r entunder l y i ng i nt entdi r ect

. ” 72 O pi ni ons of

the A t t or ney G eneral

3 1 3 (19 8 7 ) (M ary land R ac ing C o m m issi o n ’s p o lic yre g a rd in g A ra b ia n ra c in g ). S e e a ls o , e .g ., 70 O pi ni ons of

the A t t or ney G ener al2 0 8 (1 9 8 5 ) (a u to m a tic w a iv e r p ro g ra m a s to cert ai n t ax pena l t i es ) ; 66 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al151 (19 8 1 ) (H o m e Im p rov em en t C o m m issi o n p o li cych an g e). 4
I n ourvi ew , t he cr i t er i a for eval uat i ng t he al l eged i ndi gencyof d e f e n d a n ts se e k in g re p re se n tatio n b y th e P u b lic D e f e n d e r f a ll w ith in t he def i ni t i on of “r egul at i on. ” T he cr i t er i a ar e “a s t at ement ” havi ng “gene r al appl i cat i on” t o al l defe ndant s appl y i ng forr epr es ent at i on, and t his st at em ent has “fu ture effect” for that cl ass of defe nd ants

. SG §10- 101( e) ( 1) ( i ) and (i i )

. Fur t her , t he cr i t er i a w er e adopt ed byG en. 354] 359

Th e Pub licDe fend e r i s empow e re d und e r Artic le27 A, §5 (3 ) t o 5 fo rm ulateand a do pt re gulatio ns “ to e ff

e c tuate the purp os e s o f t

his artic le and to p ro m o t e the ef ficient c onduct of the w ork and g eneral administration of the off

ice ....” Man y detai ls o f t

hea pp lic atio n p ro c e ss c onta ine d in thePub lic 6 Def ender ’s intake manual undoubtedly do satisfy

this test for the internal manag ement exception. Cf . 61 Opinions of the Attorney Gene ral 3, 4 (1976) (rules g overning proce dures f or pane l attorneys arewithin internal

(continued...) th e P u b lic D e f

e n d e r to “ d e tail o r c a rryo u t a la w th a t th e u n it admi ni s t er s . ” SG §10- 101( e)(1 )(i ii ) 1. A nd, i n l i ghtof SG §10- 101( e) ( 1) ( i v) , t he form of t he cr i t er i a ) a c h a rt w ith in a m a n u a l

)is im m a ter ial. 5 C . “I nter nal Managem ent ” E

xclusion T he A P A ’s defini t i on of “regu l at ion” c on t ai ns t hree exp res s excl us i ons : sta t ement s conce r ni ng “i nt ernal m anage m ent ”; r es pons es t o pet it i ons fort he adopt i on of r egul at i ons ; and d e c lar a to ryru lin g s. S G § 1 0 -1 0 1 (e )(2 )

. O b v io u sly , the e lig ib ili ty cr i t er i a of t he Publ i c D efe nderar e nei t hera r es pons e t o a pet i t i on for adopt i on of a r egul at i on nora dec l ar at or yrul i ng. A ccor di ngl y , t hey a re e x c lu d e d f

ro m th e d e f

in iti o n o f

“ re g u latio n ” o n lyif

th e yf a ll w i t hi n t he “i nt ernal m anage m ent ” e x cept i on )t hati s , i f t he “s t at ement ” embody i ng t he cr i t er i a ( 1) “conc erns onl y [t he] i nt ernal m a n a g e m e n t o f

th e u n it”; a n d (2 ) “ d o e s n o t af f e c t d ire c tlyth e rig h ts o f th e p u b lic o r t h e p ro c e d u re s a v a ila b le to th e p u b lic .” W hethert he el i gi bi l i t ycr i t er i a ar e exe m pt fr om rul emaki ng by vi r tue of the “i nt ernal m anage m ent ” exce pt i on depends pr i m ar i l yon t hei reff ecton t he publ i c. T he exc ept i on appl i es onl yi f t her e i s no s i gni fi cantef

fe ct ei t heron t he “pr ocedur al s t eps t hati nt er es t ed per s ons m us t t ake i n t hei r deal i ngs w i t h t he agenc y ort he al l ocat i on of s ubs t ant i ve bene fi t s orbur dens

. ” 72 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al2 3 0 , 2 3 5 -3 6 (1 9 8 7 ) (S tate ’s sm o k in g p o licyg u id e lin e s f a ll w ith in “in terna l m an ag em en t” ex ce p ti o n ). E x a m p le s o f

sta tem e n ts th a t h a v e lit tle e f f e c t o n th e p u b lic i ncl ude i ns t ruct i ons m er el y“s pel l [i ng] outoper at i onal det ai l s l i ke w h a t f o rm s to f ill o u t, w h a t ap p ro v a ls t o o b tain , o r w h a t ev id e n c e to loo k a t to d e term ine w h ethe r an ap p li ca n t m ee ts a statu tory s t andar d. ” 72 O

pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener ala t 2 3 5

. S tate m e n ts 6360 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y

(...continued) 6 manag ement exception). In light of this conc lusion, we nee d not consid er wh ether the 7 Di stric t A dv iso ry

Counc il w ou ld h avean e nti tle me nt t o in sp e c t th e c ri te ri a e ve n if thepu bli c g e ne rally

did no t. t hat have a g reat er effecton t he p ub l i c i nclude t ho se t hat “i m po se a p p lic a tio n p ro c e d u re s , e sta b lish e lig ib ili ty c rite ria n o t se t fo r th in a sta tu te, re str ict a c c e ss to a sta tu to ry b e n e fit , ori m pos e fe es . ” Id

. (em p h asis ad d ed ). I n a p e r t i n e n ta n d i ns t r u c t i v e c a s e , t h e Co n n e c t i c u tS u p r e me C our ts t ruck dow n t hats t at e’ s at t empt t o rel yon a pr i orappr oval r equi r emen t , w hi ch had notbeen a dopt ed i n acc or dance w i t h t he C o n n e c t i c u t APA , t o d e n y p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e b e n e f i t s t o p a y t he m o v in g e x p e n s e s to a n o th e rw is e q u a lif ie d a p p lic a n t. W

a lkerv. C om m is s i oner, D ept

. of I ncom e M ai nt enance , 446 A

. 2d 822 ( C onn. 1 9 8 2 ). T h e c o u rt h e ld th a t th e in ter n a l m a n a g e m e n t ex c e p tio n d id notappl yt o t he addi t i on of t he pr i orappr oval pr oces s , beca us e s uch a p ro c e s s “ a f

f e c ts th e s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts o f th e p o te n tia l r e c ip ie n ts .” 446 A

. 2d at825. G i ven thatt he el i gi bi l i t ycr i t er i a di r ect l yaff ectt he r i ght s of pot ent i al r eci pi ent s of t he l egal s er vi ces of t he Publ i c D efe nder , t he i nt ernal m anage m entexce pt i on cannotappl y . Som eone w ho earns l es s t han a gi ven dol l aramount w i l l obt ai n r epr es ent at i on; s om eone w ho e a r n s mor e wi l l n o t

. Th e APA i s i n t e n d e d t o e n s u r e t h a t t he aff ect ed mem ber s of t he publ i c w i l l have a chanc e t o comm enton an agenc y ’ s l i ne- dr aw i ng exer ci s e of t hi s ki nd. E l i gi bi l i t ycr i t er i a that have a s ubs t ant i al i m pacton t he r i ght s of def endant s app ly ing f

or r e pr e s e nt a t i on may be gi ve n ef fe c t on l yi f a do pt e d thr ou gh t he A PA ru le m a k in g p ro c e s s .

III P ubl i c D i s cl os ure Onc e t h e e l i g i b i l i t yc r i t e r i a a r e p r o p o s e d a s a r e g u l a t i on, o b v i o u s l yt h e ywi l l b e p u b l i c . Bu te v e n b e f o r e t h a tt i me , we c on c l ud e t ha tt he c r i t e r i a a r e op e n t o pu bl i c i ns pe c t i on . U nd e rSG 7 §10- 6 1 3 (a), “[e ] xceptas ot herw i s e pr ovi ded byl aw , a cus t odi an sh all p erm ita p erso n o r go v ern m en t u n itto insp ec t any p u b li c re co rdG en. 354] 361

The c riteria a

re a “public re cord.” SeeSG §10-611(f)

. 8 Whil e werec ognize the Publi c De fender’s leg itimate conce rn 9 about applications that might be tailored to me et known criteri a, o th er a g e nc ie s r e sp on d to thi s prob le m by inc ludingve ri fi c atio n re qu ir e me nts in their regulations. See, e .g., CO MAR 0 7. 03 .1 7. 07 A ( F oo d St amp Pr ogra m r e qu ir e s “ the us e of thi rd pa rt y inf or matio n or doc umentatio n to establish the ac cura cy o f statements on the a pplication”). I f such verific ation measure s werejudge d not fea sible for the Publi c De fender’s intake proc ess, a c hang e in the statute will be nec essar y to exempt the e lig ibi lity c ri te ri a from APArule makin gre qu ir e me nts and thePub lic Inf or matio n A c t. atanyr eas on ab l e t i m e. ” N o pr ovi s i on of t he Publ i c I nfor m at i on 8 A ct , oranyot herl aw of w h ic h w e ar e aw ar e, w oul d author i ze the Publ i c D efe ndert o denya r eques tt o i ns pectt he cr i t er i a. 9

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 e lig ib ili tyc riter ia es t abl i s hed byt he Publ i c D efe nder s O ffi ce mustbe ado p te d under th e ru lem a k in g p ro c e d u re s o f th e A d m in istra tiv e P ro c e d u re A c t in o rd e r to b e leg a llye f

f e c tiv e . T h e se c riter ia a re o p e n to p u b lic in s p e c tio n . 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