The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1935-10-11
RULING ON EMPLOYEES OF
STATE AID

eral of Maryland, in a ruling just
handed down, has decreed that all
old employees of the Board of State
Aid and Charities are safe in their
Jobs and can be removed only for
cause. The ruling applies to all of
the county welfare units in Maryland
whose personnel is appointed by the
State Board.
The ruling was made at the re-
quest of Samuel e. Shannahan, of
Easton, Director of Charities of the
Board of State Aid and Charities.
Mr.. Shannahan reported to Mr..
O'Conor that under ruling of Harry
C. Jones, State Employment Commits
sioner, all of the county welfare en-
ployees of the State Board would
have to take new examinations to
keep their jobs, and If they failed
they would be replaced by others who
passed.
Mr.. O'Conor ruled that all of these
employees are protected by the Merit
System and cannot be removed ex-
cept for cause, or required to take
new examinations to hold their posi-
TONS His rule has the effect of re-
versing the action of Employment
commissioner Jones and means that
hose persons validity appointed by
the State Board prior to April of this
year cannot be disturbed in their
positions by any action of the State
Employment Commissioner, except on
charges made against them for
inefficiency.
1t appeared that the Legislature of
1888 provided that employees of the
Board could be appointed without
examination; but once they were ap-
pointed, they could be removed only
Tor cause. Mr. O'Ccnor ruled that
his wording of the law brought them
within the Merit System and saved
heir jobs, unless someone brought
charges against them.
The Legislature of 1885 further
provided that all employees engaged
by the Board after April 1885,
should take examinations under the
Merit System rules. Therefore as to
all new employees employed by the
Board, Mr. O'Conor ruled that the
provisions of the 1885 Act would
govern and that they must qualify
under the terms of the Merit System.
Also it developed that the State
Board, although not required to by
law, provided that courtesy exami-
nations were to be held for its en-
ployees hired in 1888 and 1884. Mr..
! O'Conor ruled, however, that the
Board did not have to follow the re-
I suits of these courtesy examina-
tions" but could pick from them if it
chose or hire them in any manner /.
saw fit in the Boards own discretion.
| Speaking of the 1888 Act under
which employees of the State Board
could be hired without reference to
he Merit System, Attorney Gtneral
O'Conor, in his letter to Mr.. Shanna-
han, said:
your Board was free to use any
method of selection it deemed best.
1t could appoint without reference
20 the Merit System or, as apparent
| " was done, it could appoint after
courtesy examinations had been
held to provide an eligible list. How
ever it was not bound to follow the
results of these examinations. There
is nothing in the 1885 Act which
abolishes the positions of your en-
plcyees but the only effect of it, in
my Judgment, is to extend the opera
ton Of the Merit System to govern
not only the dismissal of your en-
ployees but also the appointment OF
all of your employees engaged sub
seouent to the effective date of the
Act.
"Of course, any future appoint
ments to your staff must be govern
ed by the 1885 Act which provides
for qualifications under the terms OF
the Merit System.
From a consideration of the
above, therefore, must conclude
that your employees appointed prior
to the 1895 Act were not legislated
out of office by the recent enactment
but that the 1885 Act, in effect, con-
tinues the organization already func-
tioning, without again qualifying
through examinations; and hat the
persons already employed, in the
manner above referred to, may be
removed from their positions only
for cause, as prescribed in the Merit
System Law"
Assistant Attorney General Char
les T. LeViness, 3rd, concurred in
the opinion