Ch. 3

LAWS OF MARYLAND

(G) REMOVAL.

THE GOVERNOR MAY REMOVE A MEMBER FOR INCOMPETENCE OR
MISCONDUCT.

REVISOR'S NOTE: Subsections (a)(1), (2)(i), and (3), (b),
and (f)(1) of this section are new language derived
without substantive change from the second and third
sentences and the second clause of the fourth sentence
of former Art. 56, § 489,

Subsection (a)(2)(ii) of this section is new language
added to reflect that, in accordance with the
provisions now codified as Art. 41, § 8-102(c) of the
Code, the Governor chose, in 1974, to add 2 consumer-
members. These positions are considered to be
permanent additions to the membership of the Board.
Accordingly, in subsection (a)(1) of this section, the
reference to a total membership of 5 members is
substituted for the former, inaccurate reference to
"three (3) members".

Subsections (c) and (d)(2) of this section are new
language that repeats the provisions of present Art.
41, § 8-102(d) and (e) and the second sentence of (c).

Subsection (d)(1) of this section is standard language
added as an inherent and essential corollary to
subsection (c)(4) of this section.

Subsection (e) of this section is standard language
added to state the requirement that an individual
appointed to any office of profit or trust take the
oath specified in Md. Constitution, Art. I, § 9.

Subsection (f)(2) of this section is standard language
substituted for the first clause of the fourth
sentence of former Art. 56, § 489, which provided for
the terms of the members of the first Board and was
obsolete. This substitution is not intended to alter
the term of any member of the Board. See § 7 of Ch.

___, Acts of 1989. Accordingly, in subsection (f)(1)

of this section, the specific reference to "July 1" is
added. The terms of the members serving on October 1,
1989, end as follows: (1) 1 in 1990; (2) 1 in 1991;
and (3) 3 in 1992.

Subsection (f)(3) of this section is standard language
added to avoid gaps in membership by indicating that a
member serves until a successor takes office. This
addition is supported by the cases of Benson v.
Mellor, 152 Md. 481 (1927), and Grooms v. LaVale
Zoning Board, 27 Md. App. 266 (1975).

- 198 -