Opinion ID: 2263509
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Delegation of Legislative Powers.

Text: The lower court held that certain provisions of the Ordinance were unconstitutional since they constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative powers to administrative officers without proper guidelines and standards, viz.: (1) 20A-3(c) which requires that financial disclosure statements be filed by officials designated by the County Executive or County Council as might be desirable to promote the trust and confidence of the citizens of the County in the ... County government; (2) § 20A-4(i) which directs the County's Chief Administrative Officer to provide forms for filing statements; (3) § 20A-8(e) which directs the County Director of Finance to suspend payment of any salary or other compensation to a person against whom the Circuit Court for Montgomery County issues a writ of mandamus to compel compliance with the Ordinance; and (4) § 20A-9 which delegates to the County Executive the power to adopt reasonable and necessary rules and regulations for the implementation and administration of this Chapter. We said in Pressman v. Barnes, 209 Md. 544, 555, 121 A.2d 816, 822 (1956): Generally, a statute or ordinance vesting discretion in administrative officials without fixing any standards for their guidance is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. But we also hold, as a qualification of the general rule, that where the discretion to be exercised relates to police regulations for the protection of public morals, health, safety, or general welfare, and it is impracticable to fix standards without destroying the flexibility necessary to enable the administrative officials to carry out the legislative will, legislation delegating such discretion without such restrictions may be valid. [citations omitted] It is recognized that it would not always be possible for Legislature or City Council to deal directly with the multitude of details in the complex situations upon which it operates. Comptroller of Treasury v. M.E. Rockhill, Inc., 205 Md. 226, 232, 107 A.2d 93. The modern tendency of the courts is toward greater liberality in permitting grants of discretion to administrative officials in order to facilitate the administration of the laws as the complexity of governmental and economic conditions increases. To the same effect, see County Council v. Investors Funding, 270 Md. 403, 312 A.2d 225 (1973); Davis v. Montgomery County, 267 Md. 456, 298 A.2d 178 (1972); Gino's v. Baltimore City, 250 Md. 621, 244 A.2d 218 (1968); Matthaei v. Housing Authority, 177 Md. 506, 9 A.2d 835 (1939). We think the powers delegated to County officials are well within the rule of the cases and accordingly we hold that the lower court erred in finding an unlawful delegation of legislative powers to County Officials. See L. Cohen, Some Aspects of Maryland Administrative Law, 24 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1964).