|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARVIN MANDEL, Governor 3859
requirement upon the executive, judicial and legislative
branches of State and local government record-keeping.
At the very least, if this bill is approved, it will no
longer be legally permissible to maintain records
containing information about persons unless that
information is both necessary and relevant to accomplish
a purpose of the agency which is required to be
accomplished by statute or executive order. Thus, for
example, agencies could no longer lawfully keep records
which are merely "helpful and relevant" to accomplish a
purpose of the agency.
As further amended in the Senate, House bill 462
would create a new Section 5 (A) (1) of Article 76A which
would provide:
"except in cases of temporary denials under section
3(E) of this subtitle any applicant denied the right
to inspect public records where the official
custodian of the records is an agency subject to the
provisions of subtitle 24 of Article 41 of this Code
may ask for an administrative review of this
decision in accordance with Sections 251 through 254
of Article 4 1 of this Code."
Question has arisen over whether the administrative
hearing available under Article 41, §§251-254, would
constitute an administrative remedy which would have to
be exhausted before recourse to the courts in the cases
in which new Section 5(A) (1) would make that remedy
available. 1
We believe that such an administrative bearing, if
available, would be held to be an administrative remedy
which must be exhausted. When it is within the expertise
of an administrative agency to hear and consider evidence
brought before it and to make findings as to the
propriety of administrative actions or inactions, the
Court of Appeals has held that the judicial branch would
be performing a function that the legislature specified
be done by an administrative agency and that the courts
might be called upon prematurely to decide issues which
would never arise in the judicial branch if prescribed
administrative remedies were followed; consequently, if a
statute provides a specific form of legislative remedy in
a specific case, that remedy must be followed. Gingell
v. Prince George's County, 249 Md. 374 (1968).
The question has arisen whether, in cases in which
the administrative remedy is exhausted, and the applicant
seeks judicial review thereof, he must do so under the
judicial review provisions of the Administrative
Procedure act or may institute an original action under
the provisions of the Public Information Act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
