Opinion ID: 2384574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reasons in Writing as to Amounts Denied

Text: Section 68 requires that the Council shall indicate in writing what item or items of the annual budget of the county board of education have been denied in whole or in part, and the reason for the denial in whole or in part of the respective items. The Council itself gave no reason for the denial of some of the funds requested by the Board for the fiscal year 1963-64. The Council claims that a letter from its president to the president of the Board satisfies the statutory requirement. In B'd of Education P.G. Co. v. Co. Com., 131 Md. 658, 102 Atl. 1011 (1917), we held that, under an earlier but similar statute, the reasons for the denial of any portion of the funds requested for the school budget must not only be in writing but must be detailed. In that opinion, Judge Thomas, for the Court, said: The statute leaves to the discretion of the County Commissioners the allowance of the amount asked for in excess of 40 cents on each one hundred dollars of assessable property in the county, and that discretion cannot be controlled by the courts. But the law imposes upon them the ministerial duty, when they do not allow the amount asked for in the budget in excess of 40 cents on each one hundred dollars of assessable property, of indicating in writing what items of the budget are denied and their reasons for such denial. This provision can hardly be said to be directory only. It was designed, not only to guard against an arbitrary refusal of the County Commissioners to levy the amount deemed necessary by the Board of Education for public school purposes, but also to advise the County Board of Education of the items to which it is required to limit the expenditure of the school tax. Worcester Co. v. School Comr's., 113 Md. 305 and Foote v. Harrington, 129 Md. 123. 131 Md. at 668. The letter relied upon by the Council did not meet the requirements. Without attempting to summarize it, even had it been a communication from the Council, it is apparent that at least as to some of the items, the necessary detailed information was not furnished. However, Section 68 requires that the reasons be given by the Council and the record of the hearing below shows no adequate Council action on the matter. The Council contends that the reasons for denial of part of the Board's request were given verbally and informally by members of its staff to members of the staff of the Board. As we pointed out in B'd of Education P.G. Co. v. Co. Com., supra, the statute requires written reasons for the denial. The Council is not bound by representations of its staff on such a matter; it can not delegate to its employees the performance of a duty which the Legislature has specifically provided shall be performed by the Council itself. Brown v. District of Columbia, 127 U.S. 579 (1888). See also Baltimore v. Porter, 18 Md. 284, 300, 79 Am. Dec. 686 (1862). The lower court was in error in denying the relief prayed.