Opinion ID: 2320269
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Maryland's Public Information Act.

Text: Section 10-611(g)(1)(i) of Maryland's Public Information Act (MPIA) states: `Public record' means the original or any copy of any documentary material that: (i) is made by a unit or instrumentality of the State government or of a political subdivision or received by the unit or instrumentality in connection with the transaction of public business; . . .  Maryland Code (1984, 2004 Repl.Vol.), § 10-611 of the State Government Article. Petitioner argues that it is not a statutorily created entity and, therefore, the MPIA does not apply to it. Respondents argue that the law only requires that the BDC be an instrumentality of Baltimore City for the MPIA to apply. Thus, the dispositive issue is whether the BDC is an instrumentality of Baltimore City. We hold that the BDC is an instrumentality of the City. [23] Such a holding is consistent with the stated purpose of the Maryland Public Information Act: (a) General rights of information. All persons are entitled to have access to information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees. (b) General construction. To carry out the right set forth in subsection (a) of this section, unless unwarranted invasion of the privacy of a person in interest would result, this Part III of this subtitle shall be construed in favor of permitting inspection of a public record, with the least cost and least delay to the person or governmental unit that requests inspection. § 10-612. Moreover, holding that the BDC is an instrumentality of the City is consistent with our interpretation of the General Assembly's intent when it enacted the MPIA: [I]t is well established that `the provisions of the [MPIA] reflect the legislative intent that citizens of the State of Maryland be accorded wide-ranging access to public information concerning the operation of their government.' Caffrey v. Department of Liquor Control for Montgomery County, 370 Md. 272, 305, 805 A.2d 268 (2002) (quoting Kirwan v. The Diamondback, 352 Md. 74, 81, 721 A.2d 196, 199 (1998) (holding that parking violations issued to the head coach and members of the basketball team at the University of Maryland were subject to the MPIA)); accord Fioretti v. Md. State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, 351 Md. 66, 73, 716 A.2d 258, 262 (1998) (State Board of Dental Examiners failed to carry its burden that its records fell within the MPIA's exception for law enforcement reports compiled for investigatory purposes); A.S. Abell Pub.Co. v. Mezzanote, 297 Md. 26, 32, 464 A.2d 1068, 1071 (1983) (statutorily created Maryland Insurance Guaranty Trust was an instrumentality of the State and therefore, subject to the MPIA). On several occasions, this Court has `explained that the provisions of the statute must be liberally construed . . . in order to effectuate the [MPIA's] broad remedial purpose.' Caffrey, 370 Md. at 306, 805 A.2d at 288 (quoting Kirwan, 352 Md. at 81, 721 A.2d at 199). Therefore, finding that the MPIA is applicable to the BDC is consistent with the stated purpose and the intent of the statute; the public should have broad access to information concerning the operation of governmental instrumentalities especially when the instrumentality's operations may involve charting the course and laying the foundation leading to the involuntary, albeit legal, taking of constitutionally protected private property even for compensation. The ordinary and popular meaning of the plain language of the statute does not require that an entity be established by a statute for it to be subject to the provisions of the MPIA. The statute only requires that the entity be a unit or instrumentality of the City for its provisions to apply. [24] Instrumentality is defined as the quality or state of being instrumental and instrumental is defined as serving as a means, agent, or tool. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 607 (10th ed.1998). Instrumentality is also defined as: 1. A thing used to achieve an end or purpose. 2. A means or agency through which a function of another entity is accomplished, such as a branch of a governing body. Black's Law Dictionary 814 (8th ed.2004). As the table above indicates, the BDC was formed to plan and implement long range development strategies throughout the City of Baltimore in behalf of the City of Baltimore; to implement, oversee, and encourage development that will increase the City's tax base; to provide jobs in the City; to enhance and improve the physical and cultural environment of the City; to improve the economic health of the City; and to be responsible for Urban Renewal Plans, Planned Unit Developments, Industrial Retention Zones, and Free Enterprise Zones on behalf of the City. The BDC was clearly established, and is maintained, as an agent or tool of Baltimore City in order to accomplish the City's ends or purposes. Thus, the plain language of the statute, in its ordinary and popular meaning, makes the BDC, in essence, an instrumentality of the City and, therefore, the MPIA is applicable to the BDC. Petitioner argues, in the alternative, that if we find ambiguity in § 10-611(g)(1)(i), that Moberly v. Herboldsheimer, 276 Md. 211, 345 A.2d 855 (1975) and Mezzanote, 297 Md. 26, 464 A.2d 1068, require us to find that the determining factor in whether the BDC is subject to the MPIA is whether it was created by law. Although we perceive no ambiguity in § 10-611(g)(1)(i), we will address these arguments. Petitioner misconstrues the holdings of Moberly and Mezzanote. There is no one factor we looked to in either of those cases to determine whether an entity is an instrumentality of the state. Instead, we examined all aspects of the relationship between the entity and the state or political subdivision. In Moberly, the Court was asked to determine whether a statutorily established corporation, known as the Board of Governors of the Memorial Hospital of Cumberland, was subject to the provisions of the MPIA. The Moberly Court found that a statutorily established corporation was subject to the MPIA based on all aspects of the interrelationship between it and the City of Cumberland. 276 Md. at 225, 345 A.2d at 862-63. In Mezzanote, the Court was asked to determine whether the statutorily created Maryland Insurance Guaranty (MIGA) was an instrumentality of the state for the purposes of the MPIA. The Mezzanote Court concluded that MIGA was subject to the provisions of MPIA only after: [E]xamining all aspects of the interrelationship between the State and MIGA, including the degree of control exercised by the State over MIGA's operation. . . . 297 Md. at 39, 464 A.2d at 1074. Thus, the fact that the Memorial Hospital of Cumberland and MIGA were created by statute was one factor, but not the only factor in assessing the degree of control exercised by the State or political subdivision over that entity. With respect to the BDC, the following aspects of its relationship with the City make it an instrumentality of the City: The BDC's Board of Directors, to include the Chairman of the Board, are nominated or appointed by the Mayor of Baltimore; he has the power to remove members of the Board before their four year terms are up; the Mayor also has the power to fill vacancies; the City's Commissioner of the Department of Housing and Community Development and the City's Director of Finance are permanent members of the Board; the BDC receives a substantial portion of its budget from the City; [25] the BDC has a tax exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code; pursuant to the City's contract with the BDC, if it should cease to exist, the City would control the disposition of the BDC's assets; BDC is also authorized to prepare and adopt Urban Renewal Plans, Unit Development, Industrial Retention Zones, and Free Enterprise Zones which are traditionally governmental functions. [26] We also note that the City Solicitor represented the BDC in this matter. [27] Thus, even though the BDC was not created by a legislative act, the factors listed above demonstrate that the BDC is subject to substantial control by the City because of how closely the two are intertwined. Therefore, even if the statute is ambiguous, which it is not, and the test applied in Moberly and Mezzanote was controlling  even under that test  the BDC is, in essence, an instrumentality of the City.