|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3839
|
|
|
|
|
MARVIN MANDEL, Governor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
manner of such a review is similar to that which would be
conducted by a reviewing court, that is, a review of the
record in the case to determine if the departmental
decision was unconstitutional, in excess of statutory
authority, unlawful, erroneous as a matter of law,
arbitrary, unsupported by the evidence in the record, or
unsupported by the weight of evidence in the entire
record if new evidence is received.
It is apparent that the Legislature has determined
that a board of review, as its name implies, shall
conduct a review of a department's fact-finding results.
The review is made on the record presented; it is not to
be an independent, original decision on the evidence in
the case. The boards are usually composed of laymen who
thus serve as a check on the agency's power.
Senate Bill 960 proposes to broaden substantially
the scope of review of the Natural Resources Board of
Review by authorizing a de novo review. I cannot agree
with the General Assembly's decision in this matter for
several reasons.
First, the provisions of Senate Bill 960 conflict
with the policy decision made by my Administration and by
the Legislature in the 1969 reorganization. The reasons
for that policy decision have not changed. I believe it
is essential that the responsibility delegated to
administrative agencies by the Legislature be implemented
by those agencies. A reviewing body would be usurping
the function of the administrative agency if it were able
to freely develop its own record at the appeal stage. I
am certain that if a court attempted to conduct such a
review of an agency decision, the General Assembly would
react adversely. The same philosophical problem is
inherent in Senate Bill 960.
Another objection which I have to Senate Bill 960 is
that it creates an exception for one board of review.
There are five other such boards, each of which has been
granted the same scope of review and, with one exception,
the same general jurisdiction. If the nature and
functions of the State's boards of review are to be
altered, the six boards should be treated alike. I do
not believe that any special circumstances exist as to
the Natural Resources Board of Review, or any other
board, to require a special exception.
The State's boards of review have been subjected to
recent legislative criticism for several reasons. I have
previously instructed my staff to review the statutory
functions, powers, duties, and jurisdiction of these
boards. This decision was prompted by the Court of
Appeals decision in Montgomery County v. One Park North
Associates, 275 Md. 193 (1975) which involved a question
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
