BLAIR LEE III, Acting Governor

3197

3. The Phase I Plan.

In 63 Opinions of the Attorney General ___, supra, we

noted, "the reorganization which the Phase I Plan would
achieve constitutes merely the transfer of a function ...
from one department to another and not the abolition or
transfer of a program." Thereupon, we conclude that that
the Budget Bill, although perhaps not the more desirable,
would nevertheless be an "adequate vehicle" for implementing
the Plan. Furthermore, we conclude that nothing in either
federal or State law prohibits the implementation of the
Phase I Plan.

Section 2 of House Bill 948 specifically directs the
Department of Budget and Fiscal Planning shall, in the
reorganization of State data processing operations, adhere
to a three—phased schedule which clearly is the very same
plan that we addressed in our earlier Opinion and expressly
provides Phase I thereof shall involve the Annapolis Data
Center, the Baltimore Computer Utility, and the Public
Safety Data Center. Thus, although exempting the Department
of Public Safety and Correctional Services from the
additional authority which it would vest in the Secretary of
Budget and Fiscal Planning, this bill envisions the
continuing inclusion of the Public Safety Data Center in the
Plan. It is, therefore, apparent to us that the Legislature
intended for the Plan to proceed as generally described in
our earlier Opinion. Indeed, we note that the Legislature
passed a Budget which also provided for the implementation
of the Plan. See, Laws of 1978, Ch. 44.

4. Severability.

Under certain conditions the valid portions of a
partially invalid act may be given effect. Sands,
Sutherland Statutory Construction §44.01 (4th Ed. 1973).
Indeed, the General Assembly has generally provided for the
severability of its acts (see, Code, Art. 1, §23) and has
expressly so provided with respect to this measure; see
Section 6. However, although a severability clause such as
that contained in House Bill 948 has been held to be a
"positive declaration of the legislature's intention,"

Heubeck v. City of Baltimore, 205 Md. 203 (1954), the

existence of such a clause is neither an inexorable command
nor dispositive of the question of severability; rather, it
merely provides a rule of construction which may aid in
determining legislative intent; State v. Schuller, 280 Md.
305, 319 (1977). Thus, when confronted with a partially
invalid statute, the courts must still determine whether the
valid portion is sufficiently independent to justify
separate enforcement. Consequently, although the Court of
Appeals has formulated certain guidelines,2 we are never
able to conclude that the balance of any bill will be valid
regardless of which portion thereof is held to be