3198

VETOES

unconstitutional. Advice of that nature is possible only in
the context of a specific invalidity. With respect to
proposed Section 490 of House Bill 948, which provides for
the appointment of a member of the Board by the Chief Judge
of the Court of Appeals, the elimination of the appointment
would not inhibit the functioning of the Board as it is a
discretionary appointment and not vital. As a result, if
this provision were found to be unconstitutional, it could
be severed without affecting the validity of the remaining
portions of the statute. In our view, the same result would
obtain if the appointment by the legislative officers were
held to be invalid.

In summary, we find the bill to be constitutionally
sufficient. In addition, without intending to comment upon
the relative wisdom thereof, we also note that the exemption
of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
from the additional authority of the Secretary of Budget and
Fiscal Planning, and the failure to correlate what would be
the somewhat overlapping responsibilities of that Secretary
under the two statutes may require the administration of two
separate and somewhat parallel programs. Of course, this
aspect of the bill presents a policy issue, which is
properly addressed by the agencies involved; however, since
the issue springs from the less than model interaction of
two statutes, we feel obliged to bring it to your attention.

Very truly yours,
Francis Bill Burch
Attorney General

1    We have also concluded that the authority conferred by
this section is limited to Executive Branch agencies
only. 61 Opinions of the Attorney General 241 (1976)

2     (1) The valid portion of the act must be independent of
the invalid portion and must form a complete act within
itself, Maryland Unemployment Compensation Board v.
Albrecht, 183 Md. 87 (1944); (2) the law enforced after
separation must be reasonable in light of the act as
originally drafted, Maryland Theatrical Corporation v.
Brennan, 180 Md. 377 (1942); and (3) the dominant or
main purpose of the act must not be defeated by the
invalidity of part of the act, Schneider v. Duer, 170
Md.' 326 (1936).

House Bill No. 950 - State Officers and State Employees