BLAIR LEE III, Acting Governor                           319 5

'Without that provision [Art. IV, §9] the Judges
would undoubtedly have the power to appoint such
officers as are necessary for the proper conduct
of the business of their respective Courts.....'"

61 Opinions of the Attorney General 195, 197 (1976).

Accordingly, although such matters are never free from
doubt, in view of the increasingly proper reliance of the
courts upon automatic data processing as a tool in the
performance of the judicial function, we are of the opinion
that the appointment of a member to the Data Processing
Policy Board is "necessary for the proper conduct of the
business" of the Courts.

(b)    Legislative Appointment Authority. House Bill
948 further provides that a non-voting member of the Data
Processing Policy Board may be designated by the joint
action of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the
House of Delegates. Noting the significant reliance of the
Legislative Branch upon automatic data processing for the
preparation of bills and other services, we are of the
opinion that legislation authorizing the President and the
Speaker to exercise such authority does not contravene
Article 8.

(c)    Title Sufficiency. Although the title of House
Bill 948 was amended to provide for the exclusion of
"certain departments and branches of government from the
provisions of the Act" (emphasis supplied, the only
exclusions set forth in the body of the bill are from that
subtitle which is created by Section 1 of the Act. (See
units 135-143 1/2). Consequently, we have considered
whether the title of House bill 948, as amended, is
constitutionally defective as contravening the requirements
of Article III, Sec. 29 of the Constitution. He think not.

In pertinent part, Article III, Sec. 29 requires:

"... every law enacted by the General Assembly
shall embrace but one subject, and that shall be
described in its title; nor shall any law be
construed by reason of its title to grant powers
or confer rights which are not expressly
contained in the body of the Act."

The purpose of the first part of this provision is to fairly
advise the General Assembly and the public of the real
nature, and subject matter of the Act. McLaughlin v.
Warfield, 180 Md. 75, 78 (1941). Thus, a title must not be
misleading by apparently limiting the enactment to a much
narrower scope than the body of the Act is made to
encompass. Painter v. Mattfeldt, 119 Md. 466, 474 (1913).
However, the Court of Appeals has repeated in a number of
cases that titles to legislative acts will be declared