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

Heading: Conflict between the Ordinance and the State Act.

Text: The lower court concluded that the Ordinance conflicted with § 29-10 of the State Act because it does not contain, as mandated by that section, standards and requirements which are substantially those required [by the State Act] for State officials and candidates. The court held that under the purpose clause of the State Act, disclosure requirements are imposed only upon public officers or public officials, and that the provisions of the Ordinance, expressly enacted to implement the State Act, cannot lawfully be applied to persons like the complaining County employees who do not hold any office. Additionally, the court said: ... the State law is more limited in scope than Chapter 20A. Its coverage is more restrictive and its requirements concerning disclosure are fewer. The Court therefore finds that Chapter 20A is invalid and void because it does not set forth standards and requirements which are `substantially' those required by the State law. Section 29-10 of the State Act, as originally proposed, merely empowered counties to enact public financial disclosure requirements; as finally enacted, § 29-10 hereby directed the counties to enact public financial disclosure requirements ... the standards and requirements of which must be substantially those required by ... [the State Act]. That section also provides that the express powers contained and enumerated in Articles 23A, 25A and 25B of the ... [Maryland] Code ... are intended and shall be deemed to incorporate and include the power and authority contained in this section. Nothing in the State Act compels the conclusion that it was intended to be limited in application to persons who, in a strict legal sense, hold public office; indeed, § 29-11 expressly provides to the contrary and indicates a legislative intention to cover a broad range of governmental officials and employees who exercise significant governmental authority, whether they be elected or appointed. See 58 Op. Att'y Gen. 343 (1973). We think the provisions of § 29-10 plainly constitute a legislative mandate that the counties shall enact public disclosure laws which, at a minimum, contain standards and requirements substantially like those imposed by the State Act. [2] Persons other than public officers and officials are covered under both the State Act and the Ordinance, and although there are some differences in the quantum and manner of disclosure required by the two laws, we think the Ordinance does contain public financial disclosure standards and requirements which, in the sense contemplated by the legislature, are substantially those required by the State Act for State officials and candidates. Accordingly, we hold that the lower court erred in finding that the Ordinance was void because it was in conflict with the State Act. See County Council for Montgomery County v. Montgomery Association, Inc., 264 Md. 52, 333 A.2d 596 (1975).