various other agencies, such as the
Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs.
This information is then presented to
the Board with the recommendations of
the secretary.
POLICY
According to the secretary, the Board
sets all policy not set by the legislature
in the management of government. The
Board acts as a pre-auditing body which
checks and controls the expenditure of
money approved by the legislature in
the budget. The secretary feels that such
a check on governmental spending is
necessary, that the Board is necessary
for the protection of the people, and
that it should be provided for in the
constitution. Without the balance pro-
vided by the comptroller, a separately
elected member, the secretary feels that
the Board's effectiveness as a check on
an irresponsible governor would be
diminished. Members of the Board, if
appointed, would be obligated to the
governor and thus would not offer com-
pletely candid opinions either in the
privacy of the Board or in public.
The secretary feels that the Board
deals with many expenditures which
could be handled by a service agency
such as the General Services Adminis-
tration in the federal government. In
some instances, the Board has approved
items costing less than fifty dollars, but
such items are usually stated in a de-
tailed request which the Board often
approves perfunctorily.
Three cases at law are cited below to
demonstrate the scope of the responsi-
bilities of the Board of Public Works.
I. Brown v. C. & O. Canal Co., 73 Md.
567 (1890).
The canal company was insolvent.
It resisted the appointment of receivers
and insisted that there should be an im-
mediate sale of the entire company. The
170
|
State, an intervenor, took the same
position.
Interpreting Article XII, Section 3 of
the Maryland Constitution the court
said ". . . [T]he Board of Public Works,
in the absence of express legislative
authority, would have no power to
waive or surrender a State's lien, or to
make a contract for a deferred lien, on
the property of any of the internal im-
provement companies of the State."27
II. Bonsai v. Yellott, 100 Md. 481, 60 A.
593 (1905).
This was a suit to enjoin the State
from expending any public funds to
construct any road. The Court said that
Article XII, Section 3 of the Constitut-
tion shows conclusively that the "works
of internal improvement" intended were
such as the State had been connected
with or interested in as "stockholder,"
or "creditor" — such as had driven it to
the very verge of bankruptcy and depri-
vation — and not such as every State
government must have, either in its
own name or in the name of its "polit-
ical agencies," created for the better
government of the affairs of the State.
HI. Terminal Constr. Corp. v. State Bd.
of P. W., (Cir. Ct. of Baltimore City),
Daily Record, July 29, 1957.
The Board of Public Works is not re-
quired to invoke competitive bidding
for contracts of public improvements
and need not continue competitive bid-
ding after once resorting to it. It may
use its judgment, subject only to the
interest of the taxpayer, and the courts
will not interfere even if the Board is
mistaken in its conclusion. Of course,
when the Board acts with taint of
fraudulent, collusive, or arbitary con-
duct, its conclusions are subject to
review.
27 Brown v. C. & O. Canal Co., 73 Md.
567,604,605 (1890).
|
