HARRY HUGHES, Governor                                      4027

difference in the maintenance cost for lined and unlined graves.
Although the study recognized that over a long period of time
20 years and longer graves with liners could be expected to
sink less than unlined graves, the marginal cost difference to
maintain graves without liners would be relatively small and
would not justify the additional cost to purchase and install
grave liners.

Based in part on its staff study, the Maryland Veterans
Commission, on December 13, 1984, voted unanimously to oppose any
proposal for the State to supply grave liners for each burial
plot and reaffirmed the current practice of allowing individuals
to be buried with grave liners if the cost is paid by the family
or estate of the deceased or some other source on behalf of the
deceased. I have also received requests to veto this legislation
from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Budget and
Fiscal Planning.

The Department of Budget and Fiscal Planning conducted a
cost-benefit analysis of this proposal and concluded in a report
dated November 21, 1984 that it would not be cost effective for
the State to supply grave liners. The Department's report
indicated that all graves require a certain amount of maintenance
to replace sinking soil, whether or not they contain grave
liners, and concluded that the cost to the State to provide grave
liners would be 4 to 6 times greater than the cost to maintain
these graves without liners.

Although most commercial cemeteries require grave liners,
the cost of which is not paid by the cemetery, only 3 of 108
National Veterans Cemeteries require grave liners and those 3
cemeteries are in areas of unusual soil conditions not found at
Maryland veterans cemeteries. The long experience of the
Veterans Administration in this area and the fact that grave
liners are required only in the three locations with unusual soil
conditions strongly suggests that requiring grave liners in
Maryland's veterans cemeteries is not necessary.

There is also a serious interpretative problem with this
legislation that derives from technical errors associated with
adoption of the Conference Committee Report amendments. These
issues are addressed in the Attorney General's bill review letter
to be dated May 25, 1985 (copy attached).

For the above policy and technical reasons, I have decided
to veto House Bill 949.

Sincerely,
Harry Hughes
Governor

The Honorable Harry Hughes

May 25, 1985