2166                                      Vetoes

Dear Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with Article II, Section 17, of the Maryland Con-
stitution, I have today vetoed House Bill 1055.

This Bill provides that whenever the Superintendent of the Mary-
land State Police reduces in rank a noncommissioned police employee
or reduces in rank a commissioned police employee during the em-
ployee's one-year probationary period, the demoted employee may re-
quest a hearing on such action by a Board of Review consisting of
three members appointed by the Commissioner of Personnel.

House Bill 1055 is in my opinion inconsistent with a provision
in House Bill 371 which was enacted by the General Assembly and
was signed by me on April 28, 1970. House Bill 371 created a Depart-
ment of Public Safety and Correctional Services headed by a Secre-
tary, and it placed the Maryland State Police within the Department
of Public Safety and Correctional Services. House Bill 371 adds two
new sections to Article 41 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, Sec-
tions 204B (c) and 204C (c), which, taken together, vest full power in
the Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services to review
directly all personnel actions taken by the Superintendent of the
Maryland State Police. Furthermore, personnel actions of the Super-
intendent should be directly reviewed by the Secretary, who will be
the Superintendent's immediate superior, rather than review by a
board appointed by the Commissioner of Personnel.

In addition, the Superintendent of the Maryland State Police has
requested that I veto House Bill 1055 for the above-mentioned reasons
as well as for other reasons set forth in the Superintendent's letter,
the letter is attached herewith and should be considered a part of this
message.

In light of the foregoing, I have decided to veto House Bill 1055.

Sincerely,

/s/ Marvin Mandel,

Governor.

Letter from Maryland State Police on House Bill 1055

May 7, 1970.

Mr. John Eldridge
Governor's Office
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Dear Jack:

Confirming our telephone conversation today, I believe it advis-
able to bring to your and the Governor's attention my views regard-
ing House Bill 1055 which was passed by this year's session of the
General Assembly.

While I agree with the philosophy of the Bill to the extent that
an employee is entitled to some administrative review or appeal if a
decision is made that he is to be demoted, nevertheless I feel that this
legislation has some fundamental defects.