G en. 21] 21
A L C O H O L IC BEVERAG ES
L I QUOR B OARDS

– R E S O L U T I O N O F P OTENTI AL D E AD L OCK O F M ONT GOME RY C OUN T Y B OAR D

J anuary30, 2001

M r

. E l l s w or th N ayl or, C hai r m an B oar d of Li cens e C om m is s i oners of Mo n tg o m e ry C o u n ty
Y ou have a s ked foran opi ni on on t he ef fec t of t w o pr ovi s i ons of the S t at e al coh oli c bev erages l aw w hen t he B oard of L i cense C om m i s s i oner s of M ont gom er yC ount y( t he “Li quorB oar d” ort he

“ B o a r d ” ) is u n a b le to re a c h a d e c isio n , b ya v o te o f th re e o f its m ember s , on an appl i cat i on fora l i quorli ce n se. O ne pr ovi s i on, s peci fi c t o M ont gom er yC ount y , r equi r es t he af fi rm at i ve conc u rren ce of atl eas tt hr ee mem ber s of t he B oar d t o appr ove, as wel l a s t o d e n y , a l i c e n s e
. Th e o t h e r p r o v i s i o n , whi ch appl i es s t at ew i de, cal l s for appr oval of a l i cens e appl i cat i on un l ess a l i quor boar d m akes cer t ai n fi ndi ngs agai ns tt he appl i cant

. Y ou as k w het her t hese t w o p rovi si on s conf l i ctand , i f so, w hich con t rol s. W e conc l ude t hatt he t w o pr ovi s i ons , pr oper l ycons t rued, can be harm oni zed in the fol l ow i ng m anner
. I f t hr ee mem ber s of t he B oar d ar e unabl e to c oncuron ei theri s s uance ordeni al of t he l i cens e and t o m ake t he r equi s i t e fi ndi ngs , t he B oar d s houl d d ef er ac t i o n o n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n u n t i l a f u tu r e me e t i n g
. I ti s p o s s i b l e t hat abs entm ember s of t he B oar d m ayb e pr es entata r econve ned m eet i ng, ort hat m ember s w ho w er e i ni t i al l ypr es entm ayhave rec o n side red the m att er, an d that three m em b ers w il l th en co n cu r. If the rea so n fo r inab il ity to ob tai n ag ree m en t of three m em b ers i s t hatone orm or e mem ber s decl i ne t o actbeca us e of ac tual or pot ent i al confl i ct s of i nt er es t , t he B oar d m ayi nvoke t he “rul e of nece s s i t y , ” w hi ch w oul d al l ow t hos e m ember s t o par t i ci pat e s o t hat t he B oar d can r eac h a dec i s i on. I f t he B oar d’ s fai l ur e t o act cont i nues foran unre as onabl e per i od of t i m e, ori s at t r i but abl e t o t he exi s t ence of one o r m o re v aca nci es , an appl i cantm ayappl yt o t he ci r cui tcour tfora w r i tof m andam us t o compel a dec i s i on ort he nece s s ar yappoi nt m ent s t o t he B oar d.2 2 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y
R es or tt o t he rul e of ne ces s i t yort o a w r i t of m andamus mi ght b e a v o id e d if

th e G e n e ra l A s s e m b lyw e re to c lar if yth e a lco h o lic bever ages l aw appl i cabl e t o M ont gom er yC ount yby m aki ng ei t her appr oval ordeni al al one cont i ngenton t he asse n t o f a maj or i t yof lic e n s e c o m m is s io n e rs
.

I

St at ut or y P r ov i s i ons A
. Statew i de Provi

s i on – Secti on 10- 202(

a) ( 2)
T he St at e al cohol i c beve r ages l aw i s co d ifi ed i n A nnot at ed Cod e o f M a r y l a n d , Ar t i c l e 2 B, § 1

- 1 01 et s eq. S ec ti o n 1 0 -20 2 (a), ap p li ca b le fo r the m o st p art stat ew ide, sets o u t the g en era l pro ce d u re byw hi ch l ocal boar ds of l i cens e comm i s s i oner s act on appl i cat i ons for l i qu or l i censes. P aragr aph (1) requi res a l ocal board t o p ub l i sh not i ce a nd hol d a hea r ing atw hi ch anyper s on m ayt es t i fyforor agai ns t t he appl i cat i on. Par agr aph (2) , t he port i on per t i nentt o y our i nq uiry , t hen provides:

( 2 ) ( i ) T h e a p p l i c a t i o n s h al l be di s appr oved and the l i ce n s e forw hi ch appl i cat i on i s m ade s hal l be r efus ed if t he B oar d o f

L i cens e C om m i s s i oner s for [B al t i m or e] C i t yoranycount ydet er m i nes th a t:
1. T he gra nt i ng of the l i cens e i s not nec ess ar yfort he ac comm odat i on of t he publ i c; 2. T he appl i cant i s nota fi tper s on to re c e iv e th e lice n se f

o r w h ich a p p lica tio n is m ade;
3

. T h e a p p l i c a n t h a s ma d e a m at er i al fal s e s t at ement i n hi s appl i cat i on; 4. T he appl i cantha s p r a c t i c ed fr aud i n connec t i on w i t h t he appl i cat i on; 5

. T h e o p e ra tio n o f

th e b u sin e ss , if t he l i cens e i s gr ant ed, w i l l undul ydi sturb t heG en. 21] 23

Section 10-202(a)(3) beg ins: “The provisions o f th i s paragraph 1 apply to the subdivisions listed and superse de conf licting pro v i s i ons el s ew h er e in this subsection [ i.e. , in §10-202(a) (1) a nd (2)].” Se eals o Article 2B , §1-103 (where state ment of g eneral rule is followed by local ex ce p t i o n s , th e l o ca l ex ce p t i o n s p re v ai l t o th e e x t ento f any i n consi stency

). p e a c e o f th e re sid e n ts o f

th e n e ig h b o rh o o d in w hi ch t he pl ace of bus i nes s i s t o be l ocat ed; or 6. T her e ar e ot herr eas ons , i n t he dis cret i on of the B o a rd, w hyt he li cense s houl d notbe i s s ued. ( i i ) I f no s uch fi ndi ngs ar e made by t he B oar d, t hen t he appl i cat i on s hal l be a p p ro v e d a n d th e lice n se iss u in g a u th o rity sh a ll iss u e th e lice n se f

o r w h ich a p p lica tio n is m ade upon pa y m entof t he fe e r equi r ed t o t he lo c a l co llec tin g a g e n t.
B. Mont

go m e r y Count y Pr ov is i ons 1
. S e c t i o n 1 0

- 2 0 2 ( m)
O t her par agr aphs of §10-202( a) and l at er s ubs ect i ons of §10- 20 2 incl ud e l ocal p ro v isi on s for s pecifi c M ary l and cou nti es. 1 Sect i on 10- 202( m ) s et s for t h pr ocedur es fort he i s s uance an d tr a n s f er of li qu or l i censes i n M on t go m eryC ou nty , as fol l ow s:

( m ) ( 1) I n M ont gom er yC ount y , befor e a l i cens e i s i s s ued ort r ans ferr ed, t he B o ard of L ice n se C o m m iss io n e rs s h a ll ca u se a su itab le s i gn or not i ce t o be pos t ed .

. . on t he pr emi s es d e s c ri b e d in th e a p p lic a tio n
.... ( 2) A deci s i on on an appl i cat i on for a l icense s hal l be made on t he bas i s of evi dence of r ecor d. ( 3 ) W h e n t he Boa r d o f Li c e n s e C o m m issi o n ers a cts u p o n an ap p li ca ti o n fo r a l i cens e, t he B oar d s hal l adopt a re s ol ut i on w hi ch s hal l cont ai n a det ai l ed s t at ement of t he gr ounds and fi ndi ngs for m i ng t he bas i s fort he2 4 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y
deci s i o n a n d t h e v o t e o f e a c h me mbe ro f

t he B oar d on t he dec i s i on.
. . . [I ] n t he ca s e of d e n ial, th e B o a rd sh a ll i n f o rm th e a p p lica n t in w riting o f

th e p ro c e d u re s f

o r a p p e a l. ( 4 ) T h e B o ard sh all ad opt r ul es of pr ocedur e, s ubj ect t o t he appr oval of t he C o u n tyC o u n c il.
2. Sect i on 15- 104
L at eri n A r t i cl e 2B , §15- 104 pr ovi des fort he appoi nt m ent of m ember s of t he boar ds of l i cens e comm i s s i oner s i n cer t ai n count i es by t h e c o u n t yc o mmi s s i o n e r s o rt h e c o u n t ye x e c u t i v e
. Se c t i o n 1 5- 104( c) det ai l s t he s t ructur e of the M ont gom er yC ount yB oar d and i ncl udes addi t i onal pr ovi s i ons conce r ni ng i t s pr ocedur e:

( c) ( 1) I n M ont gom er yC ount y , the B oar d of Li cens e C om m i s s i oner s cons i s t s of 5 m e m b e rs, a p p o in ted b yth e c o u n ty exec u ti v e, s ubj ectt o confi r m at i on byt he c o u n tyc o u n c il. (2) E ach m em b er o f the B oar d s erves a te rm o f 4 y e a rs
.... ( 3) N ot m or e t han t hr ee mem ber s of t h e Bo a r d s h a l l be me mb e r s o f t h e s a me p o l i t i c a l p a r t y. ( 4 ) T he B oar d annual l y s hal l e l ect one of i t s m ember s as chai r m an. ( 5 ) T h ree m e m b e rs o f th e B o ard con st i tute a quo rum for t rans a ct i ng bu si ness. A tl eas tt hr ee m ember s w ho ar e pr es entatt he v o tin g se s s io n m u st c o n c u r in th e a p p ro v a l, deni al , r evoca t i on, s u s p ens i on, or r ecl as s i fi cat i on of an a l cohol i c beve r age l i cens e. C
. P os s ible Conf

li ct
Y o u h a v e d isc o v e re d th a t th e im p o rt o f th e se p ro v isio n s is uncl ear w hen no t hr ee m ember s of t he B oar d agr ee on w hatact i onG en. 21] 25

Simi larly , if the L eg islature were to re vise §10-202(a)(2) to make 2 aff irmative findings a prerequisite to approval of a lice nse – as in a provision that currentl y appli es in Prince Ge org e’s County , seefo otn ote 3 below – there would be a potential conf lict with the require ment of §15- 104(c) (5) that thre e member s concur in the denial

of a lice nse. This situation al s o pertains in two other counties, for which 3 vi rtu a l l y i d e nt i c a l p r o v i s i o n s r e qu i r e th atatl e a s tthr e e m e mb e r s o f the ir five-me mber li qu or boards concur in the approval, denial, re vocation, suspension, or reclassification of a liquor license

. See Annotated Code of (continued...) t o t ake. O n i t s fac e, §15- 104( c) ( 5) appea r s expl ici t: “Thre e m em bers of t he B oard con st i tute a qu orum for transact i ng bu si ness. A tl eastt hree m em bers w ho are pr ese n t a t the vo t i ng sess i on m ust concuri n t he appr oval , deni al , r evoca t i on, s us p en sion, or r ecl as s i fi cat i on of an al cohol i c bever age l i cens e. ” H ow ever , as y ou o b se rv e , tha t se c tio n p ro v id e s n o g u id a n c e to c o v e r th e f o re se e a b le co n ti n g en cythat a q u o ru m o f three m igh t be p rese n t ata B o ard sess ion ca ll ed to v o te o n a li ce n se a p p li ca ti o n , b u t th ree m em b ers m i gh tno tagree on on e or ano ther cou rs e o f act i on – thati s, appr oval , deni al , r evoca t i on, s us pens i on, orr ecl as s i fi cat i on. T he p ro b lem m ig h t ar ise b e c a u se o n e o r m o re B o a rd m e m b e rs a re a b se n t, beca us e one orm o re m em ber s per cei ve conf l i ct s of i nt er es tt hat pr eventt hem from vot i ng on t he appl i cat i on , o rbeca us e t he m em b ers a re sp li t on w h ethe r t h e issu an ce o f a li ce n se is n ec essa ry t o acc om m odat e t he publ i c, w het hert he appl i canti s fi t t o r ece i ve t he lice n se , o r w h e th e r a n yo f th e o th e r f

in d in g s in § 1 0 -2 0 2 (a )(2 )(i) s houl d be made. In y ourl et t er , y ou pos tul at e a s i tuat i on i n w hi ch onl yfourm ember s of t he B oar d par t i ci pat e and theyar e dea dl ocked 2 -2 o n w h e th e r t o a p p ro v e o r d e n yth e a p p lic a tio n
. I f t he B oar d cannotr eac h a dec i s i on under §15- 104( c) ( 5) , one m igh t l o o k to § 1 0 -20 2 (a)(2)(ii ) as ref lecti n g an inten ti o n o n the p art of t he G ener al A s s embl yt hat a li ce ns e be i s s ued bec aus e t hr ee m em b ers f

ail to ag ree o n n eg ati v e fin d ing s u n d er § 1 0 -20 2 (a)(2)(i)

. H o w e v e r, if § 1 0 -2 0 2 (a )(2 )(ii) w e re re a d in th is m a n n e r, itw o u ld p rese n t a direc t con fli ct w ith the § 1 5 -10 4 (c)(5) req u i r ementthat“[a]t lea st th re e m e m b e rs
.. . m u st c o n c u r in th e a p p ro v a l ... o f a n a lco h o lic b e v e ra g e lic e n s e .” 2
S e c tio n 1 5 -1 0 4 (c )(5 ) p lain lyre q u ire s th a t ei thera p p ro v a l or d en ial o f a li ce n se is co n ti n g en t o n the v o te of at l ea st th ree m em b ers o f th e B o a rd

. S e c tio n 1 0 -2 0 2 (a )(2 )(ii) p ro v id e s th a t a lic e n se is to

32 6 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

(...continued) 3 Maryland, Article2B, §15- 104(b) ( Charles County ); §15-104(d) (Que en Anne’ s County). By contra st, in P rinceGeorg e’s County the statute re quires that at least threememb er s o f the five -member liquor board c oncur on ly for approval of a liquor license. Article 2B , §10-202(a)(3) (v). In addition, the finding s require d to justi fy approval of a li ce n s e havebeen reca st for Prince Ge org e’s County

so as to superse de §10-202( a)( 2) and the refore eliminate any

possible conflict. be i s s ued unl es s t he B oar d m akes one of t he negat i ve fi ndi ngs l i s t ed i n §10- 202( a) ( 2) ( i ) ; and i n M ont gom er yC ount y , t he conc ur r ence of th re e m e m b e rs is n e c e ss a ryto m a k e su c h a f in d in g . T h u s, b o th s t atut es r equi r e t hr ee vot es t o denya l i cens e, w hi l e t he pr ovi s i on sp e c if ic to M o n tg o m e ry C o u n ty a lso re q u ire s thr e e v o tes to g ra n t a li ce n se. T h e p o ssible c o n fli ct arises w h en , fo r som e re aso n , there a re n o t th re e v o te s f

o r e ith e r a c tio n
.

II
A n a ly sis
T o re sp o n d to y o u r q u e stio n , w e f irst e x a m in e th e e x ten t to w h ich th e sta tu to ry p ro v isio n s s h o u ld b e h a rm o n ize d in lig h t o f th e ir l egi s l at i ve hi s tory

. Second, w e cons i derhow t he B oar d m aygi ve eff ectt o bot h pr ovi s i ons w hen t her e appe art o be l es s t han t hr ee v o tes f o r e ith e r a p p ro v a l o r d e n ial.
A
. W hetherthe Statutes C onf li ct
1
. T h e R u le of In P a ri Ma ter ia
Und e rt h e ru l e of in p a ri m a ter ia , a funda m ent al rul e of cons t ruct i on fr equent l yannounce d and appl ie d byM ar y l and appel l at e cour t s , bot h s t atut es s houl d be gi ven ef fec t to t he ext ent pos s i bl e. For exampl e, i n Stat e v. G ha j ari , 346 M d. 101, 115, 695 A

. 2d 143 ( 1997) , t he C our t of A ppeal s decl ar ed: “W e pr es um e t hat t he legi sl at ure i ntends it s enact m ents ‘t o o perat e t og et her as a cons i s t entand har m oni ous body of l aw
. ’

. . . T hus , w hen t w o s t atut es appea rt o appl y t o t he s ame s i tuat i on, t hi s C our tw i l l at t empt t o gi ve eff ectt o bot h s t atut es t o t he ext entt hatt heyar e r econc i l abl e. ” See also S tate v. B r i cke r , 3 2 1 M d

. 8 6 , 9 3 , 5 8 1 A

. 2 d 9 (19 9 0 ); Kaczorow ski v. Mayo r o f B alt i m ore , 309 M d. 505, 511, 525 A

. 2dG en. 21] 27
6 2 8 (1 9 8 7 ); B rid

g e s v . N ice ly , 3 0 4 M d

. 1 , 1 0 , 4 9 7 A

. 2 d 1 4 2 (19 8 5 ); K i r kw ood v. P r ovi dent

Savi ngs B ank , 205 M d. 48, 56, 106 A

. 2d 103 (1 95 4) ( “If [a] subsequ ent A ctcan b e m ade, byanyreas on a b le cons tr u ct i on ori nt endment , t o s t and w i t h t he pr evi ous l egi s l at i on, that co n stru cti o n w il l al w ay s b e a d o p ted” ); Mont gom er y C ount y v. E li , 2 0 M d

. A p p . 2 6 9 , 2 7 7 , 3 1 5 A .2 d 1 3 6 , cer t

. deni ed , 271 M d. 735 ( 1974)

. T he rule of in p a ri m a ter ia appl i es even i f t he s t atut es in vo l ved w ere enacted at differ ent t i m es and w i t ho ut refer en c e to o n e a n o th e r. Managem ent P ers onnel Ser vi ces , I

nc. v. Sandef

ur , 300 M d

. 3 3 2 , 4 7 8 A

. 2 d 3 1 0 (19 8 4 ).
2. L egi s l at i ve H i s t ory
T he legi sl at i ve h i st oryof § §1 0-202 and 15 -104 p rovi des a compel l i ng cas e forharm o n i zi ng t he t w o pr ovi s i ons , s i nce the G ener al A s s embl yamended t he ver ys t atut or ypr ovi s i on embody i ng §10- 202 w hen i tl at erenac t ed §15- 104.
Sect i on 10- 202( a) of A r t i cl e 2B can be t r ace d back a tl eas tas far as C hapt er501 of t he Law s of M ar y l and 1947, t he l egi s l at i on es t abl i s hi ng i n i t s pr es entfor m t he St at e’ s s y s t em for r egul at i ng liq u o r s a le s
. See 75 O

pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al6 2 , 6 4 (19 9 0 ). T he 1947 l egi s l at i on added t o A r t i cl e 2B a new §52( a) , underw hi ch boar ds of l i cens e comm i ssi oner s w er e r equi r ed t o caus e t he publ i cat i on of not i ce of anyl i cens e appl i cat i on an d t o hol d a hear i ng. Sect i on 52( a) t hen cont i nued:

If th e B o a rd o f L i c e n s e C o m m is s io n e rs
... d e ter m in e s th a t t h e g ra n tin g o f th e lice n se is notnece s s ar yfort he ac comm o d at i on of t he publ i c ort hatt he appl i canti s not a fitper s on

.. ., o r h a s m a d e a m a ter ial f a lse sta tem e n t in h is a p p lica tio n , o r h a s p ra c tice d f ra u d in connec t i o n w i t h s ai d appl i cat i on, ort hatt he o p e ra tio n o f

th e b u sin e ss , if th e lic e n s e is grant ed, w i l l undul ydi s turb t he pea ce of t he reside n ts o f th e n eigh b o rho o d

. . . , o r t h at t h ere ar e ot herr eas ons , i n t he di s cr et ion of t he B oar d, w hyt he l i cens e s houl d no t be i s s ued, t hen t he appl i cat i on s hal l be di s appr oved and t he l i cens e appl i ed for s hal l be re fus ed. I f no s uch fi ndi ngs ar e made byt he B oar d, t hen t he a p p lica tio n sh a ll b e a p p ro v e d a n d th e sa id B o a rd s h a ll is s u e its c e rt if ic a te o f a p p ro v a l ....2 8 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

At the time Chapter 181 wa s beingconsidere d in the Gene ral 4 Assembly , a similar provision g overne d th e procee dings of the Montgome ry County Boa rd of Appeals ( “Z oning Boa rd”) . All actions or decisions of the Z oning B oard, e x cept de cisions with respec t to special exceptio n s , r e qu ire d th e a f f ir mati v e v o te o f at le a s t thr e e o f th e five membe r s o f th e b o ar d , an d s p e c ial e xc ep ti o n d e c is io n s r e qu ire d the aff irmative vote of at l east four members. Montg omery County Code, §59-A-4.123. I

n contra st to Article 2B , §15-104(c )(5) , the County Code contained a

“tie-breaker” provision for zoning m at t er s, to the eff ect that

“ [i]f thec on c ur

renc e of the ne c e ssa

ry tot a l of a ff ir mativ e vo te s sh a ll f

a il to b e a c hie ve d f

or any re a so n, then th e pe tit ion or a pp lic atio n sh a ll behe ld t o be denie d, or the a ction appealed from sha ll be held to be af firmed.” Chapter 181, on the othe r hand, did not specify the conseque nces of failure of the membe rs of the L iquor Boa rd to conc ur. I f therewere an i rr econc ilable conf lict betwee n §10-202(a) and 5 §15-104(c ), a number of f actor s might compe l the conclusion that §15- 104(c) should prevail. F i rs t , Article 1, §13 of the Annotated Codeof Maryland provides that a public local law, at least one e n acted by the Ge ne ral A sse mbly , p re vails ov e r a pu bli c g e ne ral la

w o n th e samesu

bje c t. See Mo ntgom e ry

Cou nty v . Eli , s u

p ra , 2 0 M d

. Ap p
. at2 7 7

- 7 8

. In addition, the alcoholic beverag es l aw its elf provides that a local exception (continued...) It w a s n o t u n til so m e 3 2 y e a rs late r th a t th e G e n e ra l A ss e m b ly en ac ted, i n the s am e p iece o f leg isl ati o n , the su b stan ce o f w h at are n o w § § 1 0

- 2 0 2 ( m) a n d 1 5

- 1 0 4 ( c ) o f Ar t i c l e 2 B. Ch a p t e r1 8 1 , L a ws o f M ary land 1 9 7 9

. C h ap ter 18 1 w as sp o n so red b ythe M o n tgo m ery 4 C ount ydel egati o n , and i tadded t o a t hen- exi s t i ng pr ovi s i on s ubs t ant i al l y i dent i cal t o cur r ent §10- 202( m ) ( 1) al l of t he l anguage now embodi ed i n §10- 202 ( m) ( 2 )

- ( 4)

. I tal s o r epl ace d a t hen- exi s t i ng r equi r ement t hat t he M ont gom er y C ount y E xecut i ve appoi nt a t hr eem embe r boar d of l i cens e comm i s s i oner s w i th l anguage cal l i ng for t he C ount yE xecut i ve t o appoi nta fi ve- m ember boar d , addi ng t he p rec ise w o rds n o w em b o d ied in § 1 5 -10 4 (c)(3)-(5).
B eca us e t he 1979 ena ct m enti t s el f amended A r t i cl e 2B , §60, t he s ucce s s ort o §52 and t he pr edec es s orof curr ent§10- 202 – a s ect i on t hati n 1979 i n cluded both t he gene r al pr ovi s i ons now codi fi ed i n §10- 202( a) and t he l ocal M ont gom er y C ount ypr ovi s i ons now codi fi ed i n §10- 202( m ) – i ts eems s afe t o concl ude t hat t he G ener al A s s embl y w as ful l y aw ar e of t he gener al deci s i on- m aki ng r equi r ement s i n t hats ect i on, and t hati tdi d no t f i nd t hem i ncons ist entw i t h t he new r equi r ement t hatthr ee mem ber s of t he B oar d concuri n anydeci s i on t o i s s ue ordenya l i quorl i cens e. 5G en. 21] 29

(...continued) 5 or qual if icati onprev ail s o ver acon fl ict in g g ener al p rov is io n. Art icl e 2B, §1-103. F inally , under g eneral pre cepts of statutory constru ct i on, laterenac ted and more specific or local leg islation prevails over e arlier -ena cted and moreg eneral leg islation. See, e .g. , Farmers & Merc hants Nat’l Bank v . S c hlossb e rg , 306 Md. 48, 63, 507 A.2 d 1 7 2 (1986). However , our c on c lus ion

that t he tw o se c tio ns c an b e ha rm on ize d avo ids thene e d to rea ch this question.
In theory , it is conceivable that there could be three votes to deny 6 an application, thus satis fying §15- 104(c) (5), but that the thre e member s wo uld no t a gr e e o no n e o f th e r e a s o n s f

o r d e nyi n ga

l i c e n s e s e tf

o rthin §10-202(a)(2) (i). Howe ver, §10- 202(a) (2)( i)6 authorizes a board to deny an applicat i o n i f thereare“other rea sons, in the discretion of the B oard, why the licenseshould not be issued.” We think it unl ikely that three members who voteto deny a licensecould not come to agree m ent on a findingunder this provision. B. H ar m oni z ing t he Statutor

y Pr ov is i ons T he t w o s t atut es ar e bot h s at i s fi ed i f t hr ee mem ber s of t he B oar d vot e t o denya l i cens e and make one of t he fi ndi ngs s peci fi ed by§10- 202( a) ( 2) ( i )

. L i kew i s e, bot h s tat u t es ar e s at i s fi ed i f t hr ee 6
m ember s vot e t o gr ant a l i cens e. T hus , t her e i s no i nevi t abl e conf l i ct b etw ee n the s tatu te s in m an yca ses, pa rt icularlyw h en all m em b ers o f th e B o a rd a re p re s e n t a n d v o te o n a d e c is io n
. H ow ever , w hen al l fi ve mem ber s of t he B o ar d do not par t i ci pat e, t he B oar d m ayfi nd i t s el f unabl e t o compl yw i t h one or bo t h st at utes

. F o r e xam ple, i f, becau se of ab sences, recusal s, abs t ent i ons , orvaca nci es , t her e ar e not t hr ee m ember s i n agr eement on ei t heri s s uance ordeni al , t he B oar d w i l l be unabl e to m ake a fi ndi ng nece s s ar yt o t he deni al of a l i cens e under§10- 202( a) ( 2) , and i tw i l l l i kew i s e be una bl e t o co m pl yw i t h t he r equi r ement s of §15- 1 0 4 (c )(5 ) to e ith e r g ra n t ordenyt he appl i cat i on. D ependi ng on t he r eas on forfai l ur e t o obt ai n t he r equi r ed t hr ee vot es , t her e ar e s ever al o p tio n s th a t w o u ld p e rm it c o m p lia n c e w ith b o th s ta tu te s
. 1. P os t ponem ent of

D eci s i on Fi r s t , t he B o ard m i ghtpos tpone i t s deci s i on on t he pendi ng l i cens e unt i l a fut ur e m eet i ng. A bs ent m ember s of t he B oar d m i ght b e p re se n t a t th e re c o n v e n e d m e e tin g , o r m e m b e rs w h o w e re in iti a lly pr es entm i ghthave a l t er ed t hei rvi ew s , s o t hat th ere w oul d be3 0 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

concurr ence of t hr ee vot es fora par t i cul ar deci s i on att he s ubs equent m e e tin g . In so m e c a se s, h o w e v e r, th e B o a rd m ig h t h a v e to re so rt to t he rul e of n ecessi t yt o o btai n the necessar yvo t es. 2
. T h e R u le of N ec essity
I f fa i l ur e t o obt ai n t he conc ur r ence of t hr ee mem bers w er e a re su lt o f th e re f u sa l o r re lu c tan c e o f

o n e o r m o re m e m b e rs to par t i ci pat e, bas ed on ac tual orpot enti al c onfl i ct s of i nt er es t , t he B oar d m i ghti nvoke t he “rul e of ne ces s i t y , ” a c om m on l aw doct r i ne th a t p re v a ils o v e r d is q u a lif ic a tio n s ta n d a rd s
. See U ni t ed Stat es v. W ill , 449 U

. S. 200, 211- 16 ( 1980) ( t r aci ng l i neage of t he comm on l aw r u l e o f

n e c e s s i t y , a s i ta p p l i e d t o j u d g e s , t o i t s o r i g i n s u nder E n g lish c o m m o n law ). U n d e r th a t d o c trin e , if a p u b lic b o d yis unabl e t o r eac h a dec i s i o n b ec au se one orm or e mem ber s have d isq u a lifie d th e m se lv e s b a se d o n c o n f licts o f in ter e st, a n d if

th e re is n o a ltern a tiv e tr ib u n a l to d e c id e th e m a tter, a n ym e m b e r su b jec t to c o n f lic tin g in te re s t s is a llo w e d to v o te d e s p ite th o s e c o n f lic ts

. See B a rk e r v . S e c re ta ry o

f S ta te , 752 S. W

. 2d 437, 440- 41 ( M o. C t

. A pp. 1 9 8 8 ); A l l en v. Tom s R i ver R egi onal B oar d of E ducat i on , 559 A

. 2d 8 8 3 (N .J . S u p e r. 1 9 8 9 ).
M ar y l and cour t s have empl oy ed t he rul e of ne ces s i t yi n a num berof i ns tances

. For exampl e, i n G o rd y v . D e n n is , 176 M d. 106, 5 A

. 2d 69 ( 1939) , a cas e ci t ed by t he Supr eme C our ti n W ill , t he C o u rt o f A p p e a ls c o n sid e re d w h e th e r ju d g e s o n th a t C o u rt sh o u ld re c u se th e m se lv e s f

ro m a c a se c o n c e rn in g th e im p o sitio n o f a sta te i ncome t ax on t he s al ar yof j udges

. T he C our tnot ed t hat“t he d isq u a lific a tio n o f a ll th e ju d g e s w o u ld d e stro y th e o n lytrib u n a l in w h ich r e lief

b ya p p e a l m a yb e so u g h t. .

.. S o , o f n e c e ss ity , the ru le as t o t he di s qual i fi cat i on of j udges m us ty i eld

. . . . ” 176 M d. at109. See a l so Cha i r man , Bo a r d

o f Tr u s t e e s v

. Waldr on, 2 8 5 M d. 175, 1 7 9 -8 0 , 4 0 1 A .2 d 1 7 2 (1 9 7 9 ); A t t o r ney G ener alv. W aldr on , 289 M d . 6 8 3 , 6 8 5 n .2 , 4 2 6 A .2 d 9 2 9 (1 9 8 1 ).
T he rul e of nece s s i t yappl i es t o admi ni s t r at i ve bodi es t hat exer ci s e quas i

-

j udi ci al funct i ons, s uch as gr ant i ng orr evoki ng lic e n s e s
. B oa rd of

Medical E

xam i ners v. Sew ard , 203 M d. 574, 581- 8 3 , 1 0 2 A .2 d 2 4 8 (1 9 5 4 ). See a lso O pi ni on N o. 86- 029 ( A pr i l 30, 1 9 8 6 ) (u n p u b lish e d ) (ru le o f n e c e ss ityw o u ld re q u ire m a y o r to conducthear i ng on char ges agai ns tm ember s of boar d of hous i ng c o mmi s s i o n e r s , e v e n i f t h e r e wer e a b a s i s f o r d i s q u a l i f

i c a t i on of m ay or )

. T he G en era l A s s embl yhas al s o i ncorpor at ed t he doctr i ne in th e S tate P u b lic E th ics L a w . A n n o tate d C o d e o f M a ry lan d , S tateG en. 21] 31

SG §15-501(c) states that an of ficial who othe rwis e wo u l d be 7 dis qu a lif ie d f ro m par tic ipatin gin a

matte r m ay

no ne the le ss p artic ipatein the dec ision if: (1) the di squalification would leavea body

wi thl es s th ana qu o rumcap ab l e o f a ct i n g; (2 ) thedisqual if

ied o ff ic ia l or e mpl oye e is require d by

law to ac t; or (3 ) the disqu a lif

ie d o ff ic ia l or e mpl oye e is theon ly indivi du a l a

uth orize d to a c t. G over nm entA r t i cl e (“ SG ”) , §15- 501( c)

. A per s on w ho i nvokes t he 7
rul e of ne ces s i t yt o t ake p art in a dec i s i on i n s pi t e of di s qual i fy i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e s s h o u ld d is c lo s e th e n a tu re o f th e c o n f lic t. See i d.
T hus , i f t he B oar d’ s fai l ur e t o m u ster t hr ee vot es forei t her appr oval or d en ial o f a l i cens e i s t he r es ul tof a r ecus al , undert he rule o f n ecessitythe re cu sed m em b ers c o u ld p arti cipa te i n the m att er, a f ter sta tin g th e n a tu re o f th e c o n f lict.
3. M anda m us
F inally , if intr an sige n ce o n the pa rt o f on e or m o re B o a rd me mb e r s we r e t o c o n t i n u e f o r s u c h a n u n r e a s o n a b l e p e r i o d o f t i me as t o thr eat en a depr i vat i on of due pr oces s t o a l i cens e appl i cant , t he a p p lica n t w o u ld h a v e th e rig h t to b rin g a n a c tio n f o r m a n d a m u s to c o m p e l th e B o a r d t o re a c h a d e c is io n
. See A. H

. Sm i th Sand & G r avel C o. v. D epar tm ent

of W at erR es our ces , 270 M d. 652, 661- 62, 313 A

. 2d 820 ( 1974)

. Si m i l ar l y , i f t he B oar d w er e unabl e t o act beca us e of vaca nci es t hat t he appoi nt i ng aut hor i t yfors om e r eas on fai led to fil l, t he appl i cantcoul d appl yt o a cour tt o compel t he necessaryapp oint m ents

.

III
C oncl usi on
I n s um m ar y , §10- 202( a) ( 2) ( i i ) and §15- 104 can be r ead h arm o n iou slyto req u ir e tha t th ree m em b ers o f th e B o ard af firm ati v elyco n cu r in th e i ssu an ce o r d en ial o f a l iqu o r li ce n se. If t hr ee mem ber s cannoti m m edi at el y co ncur , t he mat t erm aybe pos tponed unt i l a l at er B oar d m eet i ng, t he rul e of ne ces s i t ym aybe i nv ok ed w hen app ropri at e, or, i n a n e x tr em e case, t he li cense3 2 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y
ap p li ca n t m ayo b tai n the in terve n ti o n o f a co u rt

. T h e n ee d to reso rt to e x tra o rd in a rym e a su re s c o u ld b e a v o id e d if th e G e n e ra l A ss e m b ly w e re to c lar if

yth e a lco h o lic b e v e ra g e s la w a p p lica b le to M ont gom er yC ount yt o m ake appr oval or deni al al one cont i ngenton t he assent of a m aj ori t yof li cense co m m i ssi on ers
. J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al
Ju d ith A . A rm o ld A s s is tan t A tt o rn ey G en er al
R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons and A dvi ce