|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3838
|
|
|
|
|
|
VETOES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
urged that this be done through the rule-making process.
I do not believe, however, that this would be a
preferable approach to further legislative consideration.
For these reasons, I have vetoed Senate Bill 936.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sincerely,
Marvin Mandel
Governor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senate Bill No. 960 — Natural Resources - Board of Review
AN ACT concerning
Natural Resources — Board of Review
FOR the purpose of permitting the Board of Review of the
Department of Natural Resources to take evidence de
novo; and permitting the Board of Review of the
Department of Natural Resources to draw its own
conclusions from the evidence.
May 26, 1977
Honorable Steny H. Hoyer
President of the Senate
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404
Dear Mr. President:
In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the
Maryland Constitution, I have today vetoed Senate Bill
960.
This bill enlarges the scope of review permitted to
the Board of Review of the Department of Natural
Resources by authorizing the Board to conduct a de novo
review of an appeal from a departmental decision.
The 1969 reorganization of the State government
ultimately produced an Executive Branch composed of 12
major departments, each headed by a Secretary who is
responsible for the operation of his department, and who
must report directly to the Governor. In addition, six
of these departments have a board of review.
The statutory scope of review granted to most of
these six boards is similar. The board is authorized to
review a departmental decision in a contested case. The
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
