functions conferred on it or delegated to it by the Board of Public Works." All contracts,
plans, and specifications for public improvements had to bs submitted to the depart-
ment for its review.71
The haphazard, uncoordinated manner in which duties had been heaped upon the
board has been noted several times. Finally, in 1951-52 a study was made of the board's
organization and function. It was part of a more general study of the state government
undertaken by a gubernatorially appointed Commission on Administrative Organi-
zation of the State. Headed initially by Simon Sobeloff (until his appointment by Gov.
Theodore R. McKeldin as chief judge of the Court of Appeals) and then by Baltimore
attorney Enos Stockbridge, the commission over a two—year period issued twelve re-
ports in which it described the administrative structure of the state government and
made a number of recommendations for change. The eighth report, issued in November
1952, dealt with public works.72
By and large the commission expressed its approval of the current administration
of public works, finding no serious deficiencies. Most of its recommendations dealt
with clarifying some procedures and coordinating the activities of the Department of
Budget and Procurement, the Department of Public Improvements, and the State
Planning Commission. Its only major recommendation pertaining directly to the Board
of Public Works was that the board be "relieved of its responsibility under which it
gives approval to thousands of minor transactions involving public works and prop-
erty."73
The commission noted the expanded jurisdiction of the board over the years but
observed that it had "never been given or has never taken upon itself detailed res-
ponsibities for supervision of administration." Rather, it had limped along with one
part-time employee and had "relied for administrative assistance on the staffs of the
three members in their major capacities." The board, said the commission, "should
retain its authority over major decisions involving public works and property, but it
should not be burdened with thousands of small items regarding which it cannot make
informed decision." Such items should be transferred to other agencies for final ac-
tion.74
In specific terms the commission recommended that the board retain jurisdiction
over the construction of state office buildings, the issuance of bonds and opening of
bids, and the selection of sites for new buildings. It should not be required to approve
all change orders, however, but only where the aggregate change amounted to 10
percent or more of the contract. Moreover, board approval should not be required for
the disposition of personal property worth less than $10,000.75
The legislature paid no attention to these recommendations, and so the board
went on as it had before.76 In a typical meeting of the 1950s, the board might be called
upon to (1) adopt resolutions for the sale of various installments of previously au-
thorized bond issues, (2) decide whether one agency or another should receive a set
of the state code, (3) award construction contracts and approve projects or change orders
for dozens of projects and agencies, (4) approve leases for various agencies, (5) consider
reports on various matters, with or without taking action on them, (6) consider requests
for allocations from the general emergency fund, (7) approve budget reallocations from
71. Acts of 1947, ch. 171.
72. Commission on Administrative Organization of the State, Eighth Report (Annapolis, 1 November 1952),
MdHR 806666.
73. Ibid., 2:20.
74. Ibid., pp. 5, 20.
75. Ibid., pp. 20-21. An example of this tedious action occurred at the meeting of 29 May 1946, when the
board had to approve the sale of seventy-five worn-out tires by the State Roads Commission for $7. BPW
Minutes, 29 May 1946, vol. 7 (1946-48), p. 35.
76. A bill (S.B. 194) was introduced into the Senate in the 1953 session "relating to the powers and duties
of the Board of Public Works and the Department of Public Improvements," but it never emerged from the
Judicial Proceedings Committee. S. Jour. (1953), p. 263.
