Bennett v. Harford Cnty.
| Docket Number | 38-2022 |
| Decision Date | 30 August 2023 |
| Parties | JACOB BENNETT v. HARFORD COUNTY, MARYLAND |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND [*]
Argued: April 4, 2023
Circuit Court for Harford County Case No. C-12-CV-22-000857
Jacob Bennett, the appellant, and Harford County, Maryland (the "County"), the appellee, dispute whether Mr. Bennett is barred from serving as a member of the Harford County Council (the "Council") because of his employment as a schoolteacher by the Harford County Board of Education (the "Board"). In the November 2022 general election, Mr. Bennett was elected to the Council. Soon after, a dispute arose between Mr. Bennett and the County concerning whether he is precluded from serving simultaneously as a member of the Council and as an employee of the Board by either: (1) Section 207 of the Harford County Charter (the "Charter"), which prohibits a Council member from holding, among other things, "employment in the government of the State of Maryland[ or] Harford County"; or (2) the common law doctrine of incompatible positions. We hold that neither Charter § 207 nor the doctrine of incompatible positions bars Mr. Bennett from simultaneously serving as a member of the Council and an employee of the Board.
First, Charter § 207 does not preclude Mr. Bennett from serving on the Council because his employer, the Board, does not have the character of either a State or County government entity in the context presented. County boards of education can have the character of State, county, hybrid, or independent entities. Which character applies to a particular situation depends on context and applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. As applied in the context of Charter § 207, a county board of education does not have a particular character as State, county, hybrid, or independent entity. We therefore turn to our canons of statutory interpretation to discern the legislative intent underlying the provision. Because the language of § 207 is ambiguous and legislative history clarifies only part of that ambiguity, we employ a canon of statutory interpretation favoring candidate eligibility. We ultimately conclude that, for purposes of the applicability of § 207, the Board is an independent entity, neither State nor County, and that § 207 therefore does not preclude Mr. Bennett from simultaneously serving as a member of the Council and an employee of the Board.
Second, the doctrine of incompatible positions does not preclude Mr. Bennett's simultaneous service on the Council and as an employee of the Board because there is no present or prospective conflict of interest between the positions; neither position has a level of supervisory power over the other or the ability to hire, fire, or set the salary of the other; and none of the functions of the offices are "inherently inconsistent and repugnant." Hetrich v. County Comm'rs of Anne Arundel County, 222 Md. 304, 308 (1960) (quoting Lilly v. Jones, 158 Md. 260, 266 (1930)). The Council's limited roles with respect to the budget and membership of the Board are too attenuated from Mr. Bennett's position as a teacher to implicate the doctrine.
For those reasons, in a per curiam order issued following oral argument, we held that Mr. Bennett was not barred from serving on the Council while remaining a schoolteacher employed by the Board, reversed the contrary order and declaratory judgment of the Circuit Court for Harford County, and remanded the case with instructions to that court to enter a declaratory judgment in accord with our order. Bennett v. Harford County, 483 Md. 414 (2023) (per curiam). We now explain the basis for that order.
Harford County is governed by the terms of a charter adopted by the eligible voters of the County in November 1972. See Maryland Manual 1973-1974, at 589 (Morris L. Radoff &Frank F. White, Jr., eds., 1974). The legislative branch of the County government is the seven-member Council. Harford County Charter § 201. Six members of the Council must, at the time of their elections, reside in one of the County's six Council districts. Id. § 204. The seventh, who serves as Council President, is elected at large. Id. Members are elected for four-year terms on the same schedule as the election of state officers. Id. §§ 204, 206.
To be qualified to serve as a Council member, a candidate must "have been a resident and a qualified voter of the County for at least two years immediately preceding election or appointment," and (other than the Council President) "a resident of the Council district from which elected or appointed." Id. § 207.
While serving on the Council, a "member shall not hold any other office of profit or employment in the government of the State of Maryland, Harford County, or any municipality within Harford County, except a position held by virtue of being a Council member." Id. Members are further ineligible during their term "for appointment to any County office or position carrying compensation" other than Council member or the County Executive. Id.
This dispute centers on the prohibition in Charter § 207 against a member holding "employment in the government of the State of Maryland[ or] Harford County" while serving on the Council.[1]
Before the circuit court, the parties stipulated to the following facts, among others.
Mr. Bennett is a teacher in the Harford County Public Schools, employed by the Board. For the 2022-2023 school year, Mr. Bennett was under contract with the Board to teach wherever the Superintendent of the Harford County Public Schools assigned him.
In the November 2022 General Election, the voters of Harford County Council District F elected Mr. Bennett to serve as the Council member representing that district. Mr. Bennett intends to work as a teacher in Harford County Public Schools while simultaneously serving as a Council member.
Mr. Bennett is paid by the Board. As a teacher, Mr. Bennett participates in the State retirement system, with funding that comes from the County.
The Board receives substantial funding from the State, some of which comes from federal programs, and the County. Annually, the Board submits a proposed budget to the County Executive and the Council. Since 1972, the County Executive and the Council have fully funded the Board's proposed budget only four times, three of which were the last three fiscal years. Each year, the Council meets with Board representatives, considers the Board's proposed budget and any proposed cuts to it, and usually approves in part and denies in part the proposal. The Council also considers and acts on Board requests to transfer funds in the Board's budget between major categories. In making its funding decisions, the Council allocates County funds among the various agencies and units of government that receive funds from it, including several non-County entities.[2] The Board is the largest recipient of County operating budget funds.
Annually, the Council approves the allocation of County revenues to the Board, which the Board uses to pay for textbooks and classroom supplies; information and communication technology; a fleet of vehicles; and the salaries of its personnel, including teachers. The Council also approves the allocation of County revenues to the Board to pay for debt service on bonds issued to fund Board facilities, as well as to fund construction of and improvements to Board facilities.
Mr. Bennett's compensation as a member of the Council would be $49,000 per year.
About one month after Mr. Bennett's election, the County filed this action. In its complaint, the County sought a declaratory judgment that Mr. Bennett was not qualified to serve on the Council while employed by the Board, as well as an injunction barring him from serving on the Council. Before the circuit court, the County argued that the Board was either a State or a County agency and that, in either case, Mr. Bennett's employment with the Board rendered him unqualified to serve on the Council pursuant to Charter § 207 and the doctrine of incompatible positions. Mr. Bennett contended that the Board was neither a State nor a County agency and, therefore, he was not precluded from serving on the Council. Mr. Bennett counterclaimed for injunctive, declaratory, and mandamus relief to force the County to permit him to serve on the Council.
In February 2023, after a hearing, the circuit court ruled for the County. The court concluded that because the controversy arose from the Council's required input on the Board's annual budget, and budgetary issues are local in nature, the Board should be treated as a County entity for purposes of Charter § 207. The court noted that even if the Board were instead treated as a State agency, "the result [would] remain[] the same." The court accordingly entered a declaratory judgment and order in which it: (1) declared that Charter § 207 "applies to public school teachers employed by the Harford County Board of Education"; (2) declared that Mr. Bennett, due to his employment with the Harford County Board of Education, "is not qualified to be a member of the Harford County Council"; (3) ordered Mr. Bennett to "cure his lack of qualification . . . by terminating his employment with the Harford County Board of Education"; and (4) enjoined Mr. Bennett from acting as a member of the Council "unless and until he cures his lack of qualification[]"
Mr Bennett filed a notice of appeal with the Appellate Court of Maryland,[3] and petitioned for a writ of certiorari to this Court before action was taken by the Appellate Court. This Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial