3434

VETOES

Honorable Harry Hughes
Governor of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Re: Senate Bill 624

Dear Governor Hughes:

This is to advise you that we have reviewed for
constitutionality and legal sufficiency Senate Bill 624, a
bill authorizing the Department of Natural Resources to
enter concession management agreements. Because of defects
in the title, provisions for approval of the agreements by
the Board of Public Works and for approval of plans for
concession development by the General Assembly cannot be
given effect. Although there is some doubt as to whether
these provisions are severable, we think that the bill can
be signed into law and the remaining provisions given
effect.

Article III, Section 29 of the Constitution requires
that "every Law ... shall embrace but one subject, and that
shall be described in its title." This requirement is
satisfied if the title fairly advises the Legislature and
the public of the real nature and purpose of the
legislation. Baltimore Transit Co. v. Metropolitan Transit
Authority, 232 Md. 509, 521 (1963). While the title need
not be an abstract of the text, Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore v. State, 281 Md. 217, 225 (1977), it must be
sufficiently clear and comprehensive to reasonably cover the
provisions of the statute. Barrett v. Clark, 189 Md. 116,
127 (1947). Moreover, it cannot be misleading. Allied
American Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of Motor
Vehicles, 219 Md. 607, 614 (1959).

Although the title refers to the agreements being made
"in accordance with procedures approved by the Board of
Public Works," as does the text, the title does not reflect
the requirement that the agreement itself is subject to
approval by the Board of Public Works. As the title does
not adequately reflect the requirement for Board approval,
it cannot, in our judgment, be given effect. Additionally,
the title refers to a "review" of plans, while the text
provides not merely for a review of plans for concession
development but requires approval of the plans by a joint
resolution of the General Assembly. In this respect, the
title does not fully reflect the provisions of the bill.
Even if it were adequate, we have some substantial
reservations about the constitutionality of this legislative
veto provision, especially with respect to the purported
power of the General Assembly to amend the plans.

As provisions for approval of the agreements by the
Board of Public Works and for legislative review and