2258

VETOES

purposes of Article III, Section 35 of the Maryland
Constitution (56 Opinions of the Attorney General 329
(1971). Even were we to conclude that Senate Bill 1096 were
not unconstitutional in its entirety, the addition of a per
diem allowance by Senate Bill 1096 for these supervisors
constitutes an impermissible increase in compensation during
their term of office which would be prohibited by Article
III, Section 35. More importantly, however, because
supervisors who are compensated for their services are
officers of profit and because supervisor—members of the
Soil Conservation Committee are also officers. Senate Bill
1096's addition of the per diem allowance makes
supervisor—membership on the Committee a second office of
profit in violation of Article 35 of the Declaration of
Rights, Nor can these supervisors be considered as serving
in an ex officio capacity on the Committee (and thus
arguable considered holders of a single office of profit).
Cf. 60 Opinions of the Attorney General 121 (1975), supra.
While the President of the Maryland Association of Soil
Conservation Districts serves ex officio on the Committee,
this does not cure the conflict with Article 35 by virtue of
his holding two officers of profit, viz: a supervisor and
member of the Committee. Moreover, Section 8—201 does not
establish true ex officio service with regard to the four
supervisor members since the four are selected by the
Secretary of the Department of Agriculture from among those
recommended by the district supervisors of each area
represented. See 61 Opinions of the Attorney General 152,
163 (1976) ("[T]he ex—officio position must arise directly
from holding the first office."); see also State v.
Williams, 132 S.E.2d 329, 332 (N.C. 1963) ("The authority of
[the person] as a member of the Welfare Board did not result
from the fact that he was a County Commissioner but from the
fact that the Board of Commissioners had appointed him to
serve as a member of the Welfare Board..-."). Thus, since,
under Section 8—201, a supervisor would not serve in a true
ex officio capacity as a compensated member of the Soil
Conservation Committee and the section requires the
selection of a supervisor and, by Senate Bill 1096, requires
his compensation in the second post, the situation would
appear to be controlled by the case of Howard County Comm.
v. Westphal, supra. In that case the Court of Appeals
struck down as facially unconstitutional a law which
directed a single County Commissioner selected by other
commissioners to serve as a member of the County
Metropolitan Commission with compensation. The Court held
that service in the two posts violated Article 35's ban
against holding two offices of profit. On the authority of
the Westphal case, and because the compensation for the
Committee provided by Senate Bill 1096 is not divisible
among its members, we must conclude that the bill in its
entirety is unconstitutional and thus we cannot approve it.

Very truly yours,
Stephen H. Sachs