Maryland Attorney General Opinion 101oag035

Gen. 35] 35

LIBRARY GOVERNANCE

ROLES OF COUNTY GOVERNING BODIES, BOARDS OF LIBRARY

TRUSTEES, AND LIBRARY DIRECTORS

August 17, 2016

Mr. Alfred Martin

Maryland Advisory Council on Libraries

On behalf of the Maryland Advisory Council on Libraries,

Mr. M. Kiplinger Hine, Jr., the former chair of the Council,1

requested our opinion on a series of questions regarding the role of

county governing bodies and boards of library of trustees (“library

boards”) in the management of local public libraries. Specifically,

he asked which entity—the county governing body or the library

board—has authority over the selection and management of library

personnel and equipment, and whether a county governing body

has the authority to place conditions on the use of library funds. He

also asked whether a county, if it has access to library records, is

required to maintain the privacy of those records in the same

manner as a library board.

As to the first question, it is our view that county governing

bodies do not have day-to-day control over library personnel and

equipment. Instead, those aspects of library governance are

overseen by the library boards and by the library “director”—a

State-certified library official who, by statute, exercises broad

executive authority over library operations. Further, home-rule

counties that have chosen the charter form of government are

authorized to enact their own provisions on the powers and duties

of library boards. Those counties may create a county department

to operate a library system and then place a certain degree of

operational control with that department, again subject to the

General Assembly’s allocation of some duties and powers to the

library director. As to all of the counties, resources allocated to the

library in a county budget may only be spent for library purposes

and in accordance with the county budget. As a practical matter,

those constraints limit even a charter county’s assignment of library

staff to non-library duties and its use of library equipment for non-

library purposes.

1

Mr. Hine passed away on December 27, 2015, after many years of

public service on the Advisory Council and, before that, in support of the

Calvert County public library system.

36 [101 Op. Att’y

The answer to the second question—whether a county may

place conditions on the expenditure of library funds—depends on

the nature of the condition. A county may require that library funds

be spent in accordance with the county’s generally-applicable

fiscal policies, but it may not condition the use of library funds in

such a way as to conflict with State laws and regulations. For

example, a county could not condition the use of library funds on

the library system’s employment of a director who does not meet

the qualifications set by State statute. Likewise, a county may not

impose conditions that would assign to a county department the

powers that, by statute, the General Assembly has assigned to

library directors.

As for the third question, it is irrelevant under the Maryland

Public Information Act (“PIA”) whether a library board’s

custodian or a county official has physical custody of library

records that the PIA makes confidential; neither custodian may

permit the inspection of those records.

I

A Brief History of Maryland’s Library Laws

Maryland’s local public libraries have a long history. Much

of that history involves a tension between centralized State control

and local autonomy. From the State’s perspective, local public

libraries are an extension of the public education system, which the

State has long directed through the State Board of Education. At

the same time, local public libraries are of obvious interest to the

residents they serve. In recognition of that interest, the General

Assembly has long viewed access to public libraries as something

requiring financial support by both the State and the localities.

With local financial support, however, has come some measure of

local control by county governing bodies. Striking the appropriate

balance between these competing interests while preserving the

independence of professional library staff has been the focus of

much of the State’s library legislation over the past 150 years.

A. Early Initiatives

The General Assembly’s first state-wide legislation on

libraries, enacted in 1872, struck that balance in favor of the State.

1872 Md. Laws, ch. 377. In that law, the General Assembly

provided for the establishment of public libraries in each school-

house district, to be managed “by the teacher, as librarian” and

“[f]or the further encouragement of education.” Id. Local

governing bodies were given no apparent role in the operation of

Gen. 35] 37

libraries. Funding for the district libraries, however, was to be

shared, with each to receive an annual appropriation from the State

School Fund, so long as the residents of the district raised matching

funds. Id.; see also Commission on the Public Library Laws,

Libraries for the People of Maryland (“Commission Report”) at 1

(1970) (reviewing the history of the State’s library laws); 72

Opinions of the Attorney General 262, 263 (1987).

Legislation enacted ten years later introduced the concept of

the library board of trustees as a means to preserve the

independence of library professionals. In 1882, Enoch Pratt

offered the City of Baltimore a gift of $1,058,000 for the

construction of a central library and four branches and an

endowment for their maintenance. See Kerr v. Enoch Pratt Free

Library of Baltimore City, 149 F.2d 212, 215 (4th Cir. 1945). As

a condition of his gift, Mr. Pratt insisted that the library system be

placed under the “control and management” of a board of

trustees—initially appointed by him but self-perpetuating—to

safeguard the library from “political manipulation.” Id. at 218. The

General Assembly enacted legislation authorizing Baltimore City

to accept Enoch Pratt’s gift and providing for partial local funding

and yearly audits. 1882 Md. Laws, ch. 181.

In 1898, the General Assembly adopted the Pratt model for all

municipalities. Legislation enacted that year granted the governing

body of each municipality the power to establish and maintain a

public library through a local tax assessment. 1898 Md. Laws, ch.

515. The legislation required each public library to be under the

direction of a library board of directors charged with carrying out

library operations and given “exclusive control of all moneys

collected to the credit of the library fund.” Id. Finally, it reassigned

the management of public libraries to a board with powers and

duties similar to those adopted for the Pratt library board but

appointed by the municipal governing body. Id.

In the same year that it gave municipalities the power to

establish local public libraries, the General Assembly also

authorized the incorporation of the Washington County Free

Library—the first county-wide public library system in Maryland

and only the second such library in the United States. 1898 Md.

Laws, ch. 511; see Washington County Free Library, “About Us,”

www.washcolibrary.org/aboutus.asp (last visited April 15, 2016).

Like the municipal public libraries, the Washington County Free

Library was to be controlled and managed by a board of trustees

with the power to accept funding from the county and private

donors, “make rules for the regulation” of the library, and “perform

38 [101 Op. Att’y

all other acts necessary to establish and maintain in perpetuity a

free public library for the use of the inhabitants of Washington

county.”2 1898 Md. Laws, ch. 511, §§ 2, 3.

Just four years later, the General Assembly expanded upon

the county-wide public library system adopted for Washington

County. Legislation enacted in 1902 authorized roughly half of the

counties to establish county library systems to be governed by a

library board.3 See 1902 Md. Laws, ch. 367. The boards had

“exclusive control of the expenditure of all moneys collected to the

credit of the library fund” and the power to appoint, remove, and

“fix the compensation” of library staff. Id. § 7. The county

commissioners in the covered counties were given the power to

appoint the library boards and audit the library’s finances. Id. § 8.

At the same time that it granted county commissioners

appointment and fiscal oversight roles, the 1902 legislation

introduced the concept of statewide guidance on library matters. It

created a free-standing commission appointed by the Governor—

known as the Maryland Library Commission—to give advice and

counsel to all free libraries in the State on matters such as the

“establishment of libraries, the selection of books, cataloguing of

books and any other matters pertaining to the maintenance or

administration of the library.” Id. § 15. The enhanced State role in

library operations reflected the “generally recognized” notion that

public libraries “form an integral part of a system of free public

education and are among its most efficient and valuable adjuncts.”

Johnson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 158 Md. 93, 103

(1930).

2

Unlike the boards of trustees for the other municipal libraries, the

Washington County board was not appointed by the local governing

body. Instead, a collection of local businessmen led the library initiative

and were named to the board in the State law incorporating the library.

1898 Md. Laws, ch. 511, § 1; see also The Hagerstown Morning Herald

at 3 (Jan. 24, 1945). The board was self-perpetuating, with the circuit

court empowered to exercise appointment authority only in the unlikely

event that no board member was willing and able to fill vacancies. 1898

Md. Laws, ch. 511, § 4.

3

Twelve Maryland counties were excluded from the law: Frederick,

Queen Anne’s, Garrett, Carroll, Harford, Howard, Charles, Somerset,

Wicomico, Kent, Prince George’s, St. Mary’s, Worcester, and

Baltimore. 1902 Md. Laws, ch. 367, § 16 (listing them in that order).

Gen. 35] 39

B. Maryland’s Statewide System of Public Libraries Takes

Shape

As public libraries proliferated at the local level, a need arose

for greater training of library staff and improvement of services in

rural communities. See Commission Report at 1. In response, the

General Assembly in 1945 enacted the Public Library Act, which

established the modern, statewide system of public libraries. Id.;

1945 Md. Laws, ch. 980. In some ways the 1945 Act built upon

the existing system, and in other ways it broke new ground. First,

a State library agency, known as the Division of Library Extension,

was established within the Maryland State Department of

Education to perform centralized functions.4 1945 Md. Laws, ch.

980. That central library agency absorbed the responsibilities of

the Maryland Library Commission and was given new powers and

duties, including the power to establish professional standards for

all public libraries. Id. Second, all counties were covered by the

new law, and all counties received State aid for the purchase of

books, so long as they collected a minimum tax or made an

equivalent appropriation to the county public library. Id. Third, in

a departure from the prior law, the Governor was given the power

to appoint a board of library trustees for each county that

established a county public library. Id.

The last of these centralizing features was the emergence of a

professional librarian with executive authority over county library

systems. Each library board was required to appoint a librarian

with qualifications that met State Board of Education standards. Id.

The librarian was to “act as the general executive officer of the

library” with the power to manage normal operations according to

“broad policies” approved by the library board. Id.

C. Control Shifts Back Toward the Counties

The centralization, statewide standards, and additional State

control over library boards raised concerns among the counties.

The authority to appoint library board members particularly

mattered to county governments because, as before, library boards

were imbued with broad authority. For example, each board of

library trustees was empowered to: make reasonable rules and

regulations for the use of the library; have general control of the

library staff, including powers of appointment, dismissal, and the

4

The Division of Library Extension was reorganized in 1969 as the

Division of Library Development and Services. Commission Report at

1, n.1.

40 [101 Op. Att’y

fixing of salaries; supervise the use of and have custody of all

property used for library purposes; and receive all moneys and to

control and make all expenditures from the Public Library Fund.

1945 Md. Laws, ch. 980. Given that library boards were now

appointed by the Governor, county governing bodies became

increasingly dissatisfied with the balance of State and local powers

with respect to library management. Commission Report at 7, 11.

The clearest attempt to shift the balance of power back toward

the counties occurred in 1967, when the Prince George’s County

delegation introduced, and the General Assembly adopted, a bill to

restructure the governance of that county’s library system. The bill

proposed to replace the gubernatorially-appointed library board in

Prince George’s County with a library board to be appointed by the

Board of County Commissioners. See 1967 Leg., Reg. Sess. H.B.

855. Further, library personnel would have been included in the

county’s merit system, and financial responsibility would have

been transferred to the Board of County Commissioners.5 Id.

Then-Governor Spiro T. Agnew vetoed the bill because he favored

development of a statewide approach to local control of county

public libraries instead of the enactment of county-specific

legislation. In his veto message, the Governor noted: “It is

extremely important at this time that our libraries in Maryland do

not experience any lapse from the high standards established under

the State system, both from the standpoint of the ability and

independence of board members and the quality of services.” 1967

Md. Laws, Veto Messages at 1771.

Although the Governor rejected the legislation specific to

Prince George’s County, he suggested in his veto message that he

was willing to work with legislative leaders to develop a statewide

framework for local control of county public libraries, albeit under

the State’s supervision. Id. at 1772. In 1968, the General Assembly

responded with a resolution to form the Commission on the Public

Library Laws, which it tasked with reviewing and preparing

recommendations for a comprehensive revision of Maryland’s

public library laws. House Joint Resolution No. 43. In its 1970

final report, the Commission acknowledged that the law at the time

did not “describe with sufficient precision what should be the exact

nature of the relationship” between county governing bodies and

By 1967, Prince George’s County was moving towards home rule.

5

In 1965, its voters chose not to create a charter drafting board, but they

voted to create one in 1968 and adopted a charter in 1970. John T. Willis

and Herbert C. Smith, Maryland Politics and Government: Democratic

Dominance 288 (2012).

Gen. 35] 41

library boards, which was a topic of “considerable concern” to both

of them. Commission Report at 7. Stating that “local elected

officials would have to have more assurances” that local funds

appropriated for library purposes were spent in accordance with the

particular appropriations, id., the Commission proposed legislation

to require library boards to “handle funds in accordance with duly

adopted budgets and the regulations of the local governing body.”

Id. at 11. That type of fiscal oversight, the Commission stated,

would promote “more constant cooperation” between the library

system and the local legislative and fiscal bodies by requiring the

library to “utilize accounting practices and policies approved by the

local governing body and expend its appropriation and other funds

consistent with its budget and the regulations of that local

governing body.” Id.

The Commission’s recommendation that local libraries be

required to follow the local governments’ fiscal regulations did not

extend to library governance more generally. To the contrary, the

Commission confirmed the concept of local libraries as parts of a

centralized State system:

The Commission considers that the best

possible development of the statewide system

of libraries requires centralization of the

leadership, coordination, planning, and

evaluation functions with a clear delineation

of each agency having responsibility for any

of these functions. These functions are being

commendably handled by the Division of

Library Development and Services.

Commission Report at 2. The Commission not only described the

Division of Library Development and Services as “primarily

responsible for leadership and the day-to-day and overall

operations of all libraries in the statewide system,” it recommended

bolstering the State’s role in the library system by creating the

Maryland Advisory Council on Libraries to “gather information on

library needs and . . . formulate policy and long-range plans for the

total statewide system.” Id. Overall, the Commission expressed the

view that it was “only reasonable that the State have regulatory

authority of library systems, financed substantially by State funds,

to assure the accomplishment of statewide library goals.” Id. at 13.

With respect to library board appointments, however, the

Commission recommended that the power be returned to the

county governing bodies, with restrictions in place to minimize the

42 [101 Op. Att’y

role of political influence. The problem with gubernatorial

appointments, the Commission stated, was that they “tend to

become a prestige award for political service rather than the

appointment of someone interested in and competent to direct the

affairs of local libraries.” Id. at 11. The problem was “to some

extent the same” at the county level, where the composition of the

library boards tended to reflect changes in the “political

complexion” of the local governing body. To address these

problems and ensure that library boards are “bi-partisan, if not non-

partisan,” the Commission recommended that county governing

bodies be required to appoint board members from nominees

selected by the library board and that members serve five-year

terms on a staggered basis. Id.; see also id. at 22 (setting forth the

proposed legislation).6

The Commission also made recommendations specific to

charter counties. Draft legislation attached to the Commission’s

report proposed that charter counties be authorized to provide, “by

the terms of their Charters,” the powers, duties, and method of

appointment of library boards, “provided, however, that all

responsibilities of local boards provided for in [the statute] shall be

fulfilled by local governmental agencies specifically designated by

the legislative body of the respective local government.” Id. at 23.

The greater powers recommended for charter counties did not,

however, reflect a conclusion that charter counties should be

exempt from the State library laws in other respects. To the

contrary, the Commission observed that exemptions reduce “the

strength, unity, and coordination of the statewide system of public

libraries” and “defeat th[e] State’s purpose in expending public

monies to fund the Division of Library Development and Services

as the agency to produce a strong, unified and coordinated

statewide system.” Id. at 13. In fact, the Commission proposed

eliminating the pre-existing exemption of twelve counties from the

State library laws. Id.; see also n.3 supra.

6

With regard to self-perpetuating library boards, the Commission

noted that “there had been no complaint,” but that the practice “is not

ideal and has produced some boards which are unrepresentative of the

community in their composition.” Commission Report at 11. The

Commission proposed that those boards’ status not be changed other

than to provide “the minimal guarantees that board membership will be

representative of the area served by the library, chosen on the basis of

ability, character, and demonstrated interest; not restricted by political

affiliation, race, sex, color, or creed; and will not include fewer than

seven members.” Id.

Gen. 35] 43

The Commission’s proposed legislation was introduced

substantially as the Commission had recommended, and, as

relevant here, the bill passed without material amendments.

Compare id., pp. 16-33 with 1971 Md. Laws, ch. 770. Local

governing bodies were given the power to appoint the library

governing boards, and charter counties were given the additional

power to shift board responsibilities to a county agency. As

recommended by the Commission, the 1971 Act required that “all

responsibilities of local boards . . . shall be fulfilled by a local

government unit or a board of library trustees specifically

designated by the legislative body of the respective local

government.” 1971 Md. Laws, ch. 770, at 1683 (Art. 77, § 171(b)).

The 1971 Act also authorized charter counties to alter the

organizational structure of their public libraries, either by charter

amendment or local law or a combination of both. Id. at 1682-83

(Art. 77, § 171). Regardless of what organizational structure was

chosen, however, all county systems had the “power[] and dut[y]”

to appoint a library “director” with the same executive powers held

by the librarian under the 1945 law. See id. at 1685 (Art. 77, § 173)

(including the appointment of a library director among the list of

the library board’s duties); see also id. at 1687 (Art. 77, § 174,

setting forth the library director’s powers). The changes made by

the 1971 law remain an integral part of the current legal framework,

and the Commission’s reasoning behind the proposed provisions

that the General Assembly adopted remain useful indications of the

legislative intent behind those provisions.

II

Current Laws on the Powers and Duties of Library Boards

The current statewide library laws are the product of a 1978 code

revision that re-organized the provisions of the 1971 Act. See

generally 1978 Md. Laws, ch. 22. Under the current law, all counties

have the authority to “establish, and appropriate an amount to support,

a county public library system free from political influence.”7

7

The legislative history indicates that the phrase “free from political

influence” was not used in the sense of insulating the library boards from

the influence of popularly-elected political bodies, but to ensure that

library board appointments were made without discrimination on the

basis of political affiliation. Although two re-numberings make the

history hard to follow, the language that now appears in § 23-401(a) was

added through the 1978 code revision process, which moved the

education laws from Article 77 to the new Education Article. 1978 Md.

Laws, ch. 22. Upon recodification, what is now § 23-401 appeared as

44 [101 Op. Att’y

Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 23-401(a).8 All counties and Baltimore

City have exercised their statutory authority to operate county-wide

public library systems.

The funding for the county library systems is provided

through the “minimum library program,” under which the State and

the counties share in the current operating and capital expenses of

the county public library systems. § 23-502(b). The State provides

approximately 40 percent of the total cost of the system’s expenses,

and the counties provide the other 60 percent through local taxes.

§ 23-503(a). Funds provided as part of the minimum library

program may only be used for library purposes. § 23-506(c).

Because every county in Maryland has elected to participate in the

minimum library program, these broad principles apply across the

State.

The day-to-day administration of the county systems is more

complicated, as it varies by the form of governance adopted by each

county. For our purposes, the various county library systems fall

into two general categories: (1) systems in non-charter counties,

which are run by a board of library trustees with the powers

specified by State law; and (2) systems in charter counties, which

have some authority to prescribe the powers of the entity that the

county establishes to run the system.9 Also relevant to your

§ 23-301 of the new article, and the Revisor’s Note for that section stated

that the “reference to a library system ‘free from political influence’ was

derived from the applicable provisions of Art. 77, §§ 172(a)(4) and

173(a)(4).” 1978 Md. Laws, ch. 22, at 473. Those two sections had

provided that the appointment of library board members and library

directors must be made without regard to “political affiliation.” The

Revisor’s Note for the successor to Art. 77, § 173—the newly-recodified

§ 23-306, which now appears at § 23-406—specifically explains that

“the present reference to political affiliation is deleted as unnecessary in

light of § 23-301(a),” which, again, now appears at § 23-401. 1978 Md.

Laws, ch. 22 at 480. The Revisor’s Notes for the successor to Art. 77,

§ 172—the newly-recodified § 23-303, which now appears at § 23-403—

while less specific, similarly provides no indication that the use of the

phrase “political influence” was intended as a substantive departure from

the earlier use of the phrase “political affiliation.” In fact, both Revisor’s

Notes indicate that the revisions were not intended to effect a

“substantive change.”

8

Except where indicated, all statutory cites in this opinion are to the

Education Article (2014 Repl. Vol., with 2015 Supplement).

9

The systems in Baltimore City and Washington County compose

their own category in that they are subject to the 1882 and 1898 laws

Gen. 35] 45

questions are the statutory provisions setting forth the duties that

the General Assembly chose to assign to the library director instead

of to the county governing bodies or library boards and agencies.

A. Library Boards in Non-Charter Counties

The library systems of non-charter counties “shall be

governed by a board of trustees.” § 23-401(b). A board of library

trustees generally consists of seven members appointed by the

county governing body from nominees submitted by the board of

library trustees to serve 5-year terms on a staggered basis. § 23-

403(a), (c). The library boards’ powers are variously permissive

(i.e., those that the boards “may” exercise) and mandatory (i.e.,

those that the boards “shall” exercise). See §§ 23-405 through 407.

The duties that library boards “shall” perform include:

“establish and operate” the library; provide for an annual audit of

“its business and financial transactions” and make the results

public; and report annually to the county governing body and the

State Superintendent of Education on the results of the audit,

including the number of books and periodicals held, and any other

information that the State Department of Education requires. § 23-405(b)

(i), (e). With respect to personnel matters, library boards “shall”

select and appoint a library director, who then serves at the board’s

pleasure, § 23-406(a), and “shall” establish personnel policies

on matters such as salaries, staff classification, benefits, work

hours, and “[a]ny other personnel procedures and practices

necessary for the efficient operation of the library.” § 23-406(b).

Library boards “may”: establish and operate libraries at “any

location in the county”; “[d]etermine the policy of the library,” and

“[a]dopt reasonable rules, regulations, and bylaws for the use of

the library and the conduct of its business.” § 23-405(c). With

respect to fiscal matters, a library board may “[a]dvise in the

preparation of, and approve, the library budget”; “[r]eceive,

account for, control, and supervise, under the rules and

regulations of the county governing body, the spending of all

public funds received by the library”; and “[u]se the services of

the fiscal agencies of the county

that, respectively, incorporated them. We will not discuss them further.

Nor will we discuss the other county-specific provisions within the

Education Article dealing with labor issues and other discrete topics. See

§§ 23-402, 23-601 through 614 (collective bargaining, Prince George’s

County and Howard County); § 23-402(d) (minority business enterprise

program, Prince George’s County), § 23-402(e) (name of Garrett

County’s system).

46 [101 Op. Att’y

governing body.” § 23-405(d). As to library personnel, a library

board is authorized to appoint any “necessary employees” that the

director nominates, § 23-406(a)(2), (f)(3), and to “dismiss any

library employee” on the “written recommendation of the library

director,” § 23-406(e).

B. Library Boards in Charter Counties

Under § 23-401(b), a charter county has two choices as to the

governance of its library system: “(1) Establish a county library

agency and grant it some or all of the powers of a board of trustees;

or (2) Have a board of library trustees, provide for the board’s

selection, and determine its powers.” The language of paragraph

(1) suggests that a charter county could elect to have a library

agency and confer on it only “some” of the powers provided to

library boards under State law. That possibility would leave

unresolved which entity, if any, exercises the library board powers

that are not so conferred.

Although we need not conclusively resolve that uncertainty in

order to answer the questions Mr. Hines asked, we reach two

interpretive conclusions that will play a role in the analysis below.

First, a charter county may not grant library board powers to an

entity other than a library board or a county library agency. The

current statutory language was adopted through a code revision

process that disavowed any intent to make a “substantive change”

in the law as it existed under the 1971 version of the law. 1978

Md. Laws, ch. 22, at 473 (Revisor’s Note).10 As discussed above,

that prior version specified that “all responsibilities of local boards

. . . shall be fulfilled by a local government unit or a board of library

trustees.” 1971 Md. Laws, ch. 770, at 1683 (emphasis added). The

Education Article thus gives charter counties a choice between only

two entities—a library board or library agency; it contains no

10

The Revisor’s Note also contains this statement about what now

appears as § 23-401(b): “The detailed provisions of Art. 77, § 171(b)

about library organization in charter counties are deleted in favor of the

simpler, but no less accurate provisions of subsection (b) of this section.”

Nothing in this statement, or the Revisor’s Note more generally, causes

us to depart from the rule of statutory construction that requires us to

interpret code-revised language consistent with its pre-amendment

meaning. See, e.g., Allen v. State, 402 Md. 59, 71-72 (2007); 100

Opinions of the Attorney General 160, 187 (2015).

Gen. 35] 47

provision authorizing a county’s governing body to reserve library

powers to itself.11

Second, although a charter county may choose to give a

library board or agency only some of the “may” powers described

above with respect to non-charter counties, it must confer all of the

“shall” powers as a condition of participation in the minimum

library program. That much flows from the statute’s current form.

The language of the statute leaves no room for a local governing

body to decide not to confer the “shall” powers; those powers are

mandatory responsibilities of a local library board or agency.12

One of those “shall” powers is the power to appoint a library

director, which we discuss next.

C. The Library Director

All library boards must appoint a “director of the library” who

either holds “State certification as a professional public librarian”

or is eligible to hold that certification and applies for it within 6

months of employment. § 23-406(a), (c). Charter counties may

delegate to a library agency the board’s authority to appoint the

director, § 23-401(b)(1), but the statute does not authorize them to

alter the director’s powers.13 Instead, the statute provides that the

library director “shall”:

11

Anne Arundel County appears to have both a library agency and a

library board. That county’s charter refers to the County Librarian as a

department head, but adopts the State law provisions on the library

board’s powers. See Anne Arundel County Charter § 552 (“[N]othing in

this Charter contained shall be held or construed as affecting or [in]

anywise changing the organization, operation and administration of the

County library system by the Board of Library Trustees as provided by

public general law.”).

12

This outcome also seems to be consistent with the statute as it

existed prior to code revision. That prior version required that the local

board or agency fulfill “all responsibilities” of the local board . . . shall

be fulfilled by a local government unit or a board of library trustees.”

1971 Md. Laws, ch. 770, at 1683 (emphasis added).

13

The provision of the 1971 law that established the position of

library director begins by saying “except as otherwise provided in

Section 171,” which might be read as suggesting that a charter county

could forgo the appointment of a library director under the flexibility

provided by that section. Although § 171 did provide charter counties

some flexibility, it nevertheless required that they assign “all

responsibilities” of the library board—which under § 173 includes the

48 [101 Op. Att’y

(1) Act as the general executive officer of

the library and be responsible for the

management of its operations in accordance

with policies approved by the board of library

trustees;

(2) Prepare the annual budget of the library,

and present it to the board for approval;

(3) Nominate for appointment all library

employees in the county library system; and

(4) Establish reasonable rules and adopt

regulations for the use of the library system

subject to approval by the board of library

trustees.

§ 23-406(f). A discussion as to the governance of local public

libraries thus must account for the State-mandated role of the

library director as well as the roles of a library board or department

and the county governing body.

III

Analysis

A. Selection and Management of Library Personnel and

Equipment

Your predecessor asked whether a county governing body

could unilaterally reassign library employees to departments in

county government or re-purpose library equipment to a non-

library use. We will address each question separately and within

the context of both a non-charter county and a charter county that

elects to confer library powers on a local library agency.

1. Library Personnel

With respect to library personnel, we focus on § 23-406,

which governs personnel issues. In construing that provision, we

appointment of a library director—either to a board or to a library

agency. The cross-reference to § 171 in § 173 thus seems designed to

direct the reader to the source of the charter counties’ flexibility to create

a library agency and not to render optional the appointment of a library

director. That much seems to be confirmed by § 179 of the 1971 law,

which contemplates that there would be a “director of the library” even

“if no board of trustees exists.” 1971 Md. Laws, ch. 770, at 1694 (Art.

77, § 179).

Gen. 35] 49

rely on well-settled principles of statutory interpretation. We

“begin our inquiry with the words of the statute and, ordinarily,

when the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, according

to their commonly understood meaning, we end our inquiry there

also.” Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Chase, 360 Md.

121, 128 (2000) (internal quotation and citations omitted). When

it is possible to draw conclusions based on the plain meaning of the

statutory language, we “neither add nor delete language so as to

reflect an intent not evidenced in that language.” Id. at 128

(internal quotation omitted). Nor do we read the statute in

isolation. As just one section of Maryland’s public library laws, it

“must be viewed within the context of the statutory scheme to

which it belongs, considering the purpose, aim, or policy of the

Legislature in enacting the statute.” State v. Johnson, 415 Md. 413,

421 (2010). In placing § 23-406 within its statutory context, we

thus also look to § 23-506(c), which requires that library funds be

used only for library purposes.

a. Non-Charter Counties

As to non-charter counties, the statute expressly grants to the

board of library trustees the power to appoint and dismiss library

personnel on the recommendation of the director. § 23-406(e),

(f)(3). The board also may delegate to the library director its

authority to appoint “any other necessary employees.” § 23-406(a).

The plain language of the statute is broad and inclusive, extending

from the top to the bottom of the library hierarchy, and nothing

suggests that these counties may delegate the board’s and director’s

authority to a third entity or to a different official. Similarly, the

statute delegates to the library board, and not to anyone else, the

authority to establish personnel policies on a wide range of topics,

including staff classification, salaries and benefits, work

conditions, hours of work, grievance procedures, and “any other

personnel procedures and practices necessary for the efficient

operation of the library.” § 23-406(b). Finally, if an employee

requests a hearing regarding a suspension or dismissal, it is held

before the board of library trustees. § 23-406(d), (e).

In short, § 23-406 assigns control over all library personnel

matters to the board of library trustees and the library director; the

statute gives no role to the county governing body in the

appointment, removal, assignment, or reassignment of library

personnel. By giving a significant role to the State-certified library

director, the statute furthers the broader purposes articulated by the

Commission—and presumably adopted by the General Assembly

when it enacted the Commission’s recommendations with little

50 [101 Op. Att’y

change—that the system of public libraries in Maryland be a

“strong, unified and coordinated statewide system.” Commission

Report at 13. Accordingly, in our opinion, the governing bodies of

non-charter counties lack the authority either to unilaterally

reassign library employees to county departments or to override the

personnel policies that a library board has adopted under § 23-

406(b).

b. Charter Counties

The same result holds in a charter county that has elected to

assign library governance to a library board and adopt the State law

provisions applicable to that body. In that instance, the difference

in form of county governance does not alter our analysis. Our

analysis is altered somewhat when a charter county has chosen to

“determine” the powers of their boards of trustees or establish a

county library agency, see § 23-401(b), but we reach basically the

same conclusion.14 Although the grant of authority to charter

counties to “determine” a county library agency’s “powers” might

seem open-ended, a local government’s authority to operate under

a charter does not include the authority to enact laws that would

conflict with general laws enacted by the General Assembly. See,

e.g., Mayor of Baltimore v. Hart, 395 Md. 394, 407, 409 (2006);

see also Coalition for Open Doors v. Annapolis Lodge No. 622,

333 Md. 359, 380, n.39 (1994). Although § 23-401(b) authorizes

charter counties to determine the powers of a library board or to

create a library agency with “some or all” of a library board’s

powers, the statute that defines the director’s powers—§ 23-406—

does not contain analogous language and thus does not authorize

charter counties to alter the library director’s powers, much less in

a way that would conflict with the statute.

In our opinion, the charter counties’ authority to structure the

governance of libraries is circumscribed by the statutory role

assigned to library directors. First, and most specifically, a charter

county may not adopt measures to empower a county agency to

unilaterally appoint, suspend, or dismiss library employees,

because § 23-406 expressly gives the library director a role in all

of those actions. Likewise, we conclude that a county agency’s

14

Eleven Maryland counties have ratified charter forms of

government: Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Cecil, Dorchester, Frederick,

Harford, Howard, Montgomery, Prince George’s, Talbot, and

Wicomico. Maryland Manual On-Line, http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/

mdmanual/01glance/html/county.html (last visited April 18, 2016).

Gen. 35] 51

unilateral removal of a library employee from library duties by

“reassigning” the employee to other county duties would conflict

with the legislative intent that library directors, certified by the

State as professional public librarians, § 23-406(c), play a

substantive role in deciding who should be dismissed from

employment in the county library system.15 See § 23-406(f)(3)

(requirement that the director nominate “all library employees” for

appointment).

Second, and more generally, we conclude that a charter

county’s authority with regard to library governance is limited by

§ 23-406(f)(1), which designates the library director as the “general

executive officer of the library” and makes the library director

“responsible for the management of its operations.” This

“executive” function, when used in laws that apportion

governmental powers, generally encompasses the implementation

of laws and policies, as opposed to the formulation of them. Queen

Anne’s Conservation, Inc. v. County Comm’rs of Queen Anne’s

County, 382 Md. 306, 324-27 (2004) (distinguishing executive

powers from legislative powers); see also, e.g., Eggert v.

Montgomery County Council, 263 Md. 243, 259 (1971) (holding

that the construction of public improvements pursuant to existing

law is executive in character); 78 Opinions of the Attorney General

275, 279-80 (1993) (collecting Maryland cases in which the Court

of Appeals addressed the scope of executive powers for various

purposes). State law assigns to the director the executive function

of operating the library system in a manner that is consistent with

the personnel policies and budget approved by a library board or

agency and the fiscal policies of the county. Regardless of whether

a charter county chooses to establish a county library agency, State

law does not authorize that county either to assume the library

director’s executive function or delegate it to another entity.

Finally, applicable to all counties is the statutory prohibition

on the use of State and local library system funds for non-library

purposes. § 23-506(c). A library system employee who has been

15

Depending on the county, an involuntary transfer of an employee

from a position in the library system to a position in the county

government might well be a termination of employment, subject to the

procedures in § 23-406. You have not asked us to address the

employment-law implications of transfers, which could vary with such

circumstances as the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement,

and, for charter counties, the extent to which the library agency has

adopted county-wide personnel policies.

52 [101 Op. Att’y

assigned non-library duties thus may not be paid for that work from

library system funds.

2. Library Equipment

Your predecessor also asked whether a county governing

body could “appropriate” equipment purchased for library use for

other uses. The statutory language does not address the

repurposing of equipment for non-library use, but it does address

the purchase of library equipment more generally through

provisions governing the administration of library funding.

Three funding provisions are relevant here. First, as discussed

above, § 23-506(c)(1) requires that funds provided under the

minimum library program “may be used only for library purposes.”

That provision suggests that a county governing body may not

repurpose to a non-library use equipment that was purchased with

library funds. By contrast, § 23-506(b) suggests a greater role for

the county governing body. It provides that capital expenses—

which are defined by statute to include the purchase of “equipment

and furniture for . . . library buildings,” § 23-501—are administered

by the county governing body, while operating expenses are

administered by the board of library trustees. § 23-506(b). Finally,

§ 23-405(d)(2) seems to fall somewhere in the middle:

Each board of library trustees may receive,

account for, control, and supervise, under the

rules and regulations of the county governing

body, the spending of all public funds

received by the library.

§ 23-405(d)(2).

Before attempting to construe all three of these provisions

together, we must first attempt to give meaning to § 23-405(d),

which is ambiguous. It is not clear whether the Legislature

intended that a county governing body, through its “rules and

regulations,” would have the power to direct the use of capital

expense funds beyond the original purchase of equipment for

library use or, alternatively, whether the board of library trustees,

by virtue of its power to “control, and supervise” the spending of

all public funds received by the library, acquires full ownership and

control of library equipment after it is purchased. To resolve the

ambiguity created by § 23-405(d)(2), we seek an explanation of

what was intended when that language was adopted. See, e.g.,

Baker v. Montgomery County, 427 Md. 691, 706 (2012) (where the

language of a statute is ambiguous, a court may rely on legislative

Gen. 35] 53

history to “discern the legislative purpose, the ends to be

accomplished, or the evils to be remedied” (internal quotation

omitted)).

The origins of § 23-405(d)(2) can be traced to the 1970

Commission Report. Counties had expressed concern that their

“elected officials should have control to prevent transfer of funds

appropriated for one library purpose from being used for another

library purpose,” and thus the Commission sought to provide

“more assurances” that funds would be expended for the purpose

designated by the people’s representatives. Commission Report at

7. To address this concern, the Commission recommended the

following statutory language:

[Each board of library trustees may] receive,

account for, control and supervise, in

accordance with its duly adopted budget and

the regulations of the local governing body,

the expenditure of all public funds received by

the library.

Commission Report at 24. The Legislature adopted the

Commission’s recommendation without substantive change when

it enacted what is now § 23-405(d)(2).16 In light of this legislative

history, we do not read § 23-405(d)(2) as extending the county

governing body’s role as administrator of expense funds beyond

the original purchase. That provision simply assures local elected

officials that the library board will spend library funds for their

designated library purpose.

Putting all three relevant provisions together, it is our view

that county governing bodies have the authority to designate which

of the appropriated library funds are capital funds and which are

operating funds. That outcome seems to flow from § 23-405(d)(2),

which makes the expenditure of library funds subject to the “rules

and regulations of the county governing body.” Once the county

has made the allocation between capital and operating expenses,

the county may further specify the particular use to which the

capital funds may be put. That much flows from § 23-506(b).

16

Compare Commission Report, pp. 16-33 with 1971 Md. Laws, ch.

770. The only difference between the Commission’s recommended

language and what now appears as § 23-405(d)(2) is that the

Commission’s version refers to a “duly adopted budget” and regulations

whereas the enacted language refers to “rules and regulations”—a

difference that we do not find meaningful in this context.

54 [101 Op. Att’y

Under no circumstance, however, may minimum library program

funds be expended for non-library purposes. That much flows from

§ 23-506(c).

An example might illustrate how these provisions interrelate.

A county governing body may direct that a certain amount of

capital funds be used to purchase computers for the library system.

In that event, the board or the library agency may not spend those

capital funds for any other purpose. By contrast, a county provides

library operating funds essentially in a lump sum; § 23-506(b)(1)

gives the library board (or agency) the power to administer those

funds.

We see no evidence, however, that the General Assembly

intended to give the county governing body the continuing power

to direct the use of equipment after it is placed in service. Rather,

day-to-day decisions about how to use library equipment fall within

the library director’s executive function, subject to the policies and

general oversight of the library board. See § 23-406(a)(1) (director

serves “at the pleasure of the board”), (f)(1) (director acts as

executive officer “in accordance with policies approved by the

board”).

Accordingly, as to both charter and non-charter counties, it is

our opinion that a county governing body may not appropriate for

other uses equipment that was purchased for library use. Funds

provided by the county and State as part of the minimum library

program must be used only for library purposes. § 23-506(c). A

county’s dedication of equipment purchased with minimum library

program funds to a non-library use would conflict with this

mandate. And, as with personnel actions, decisions involving the

allocation of library equipment must be consistent with the role that

the General Assembly has assigned to the library director. Under

§ 23-406(f)(1), the library director “shall . . . [a]ct as the general

executive officer of the library and be responsible for the

management of its operations in accordance with policies approved

by the board of library trustees.” These duties, placed by the

General Assembly with State-certified library professionals, could

not be meaningfully performed by directors if non-library

personnel and entities were given unilateral authority to declare

library equipment excess and remove it.

B. A County Governing Body’s Placement of Conditions on

Library Funds

Your predecessor also asked whether a county governing

body has the authority to place conditions on the specific use of

Gen. 35] 55

library funds. Library funding originates with the county

governing body but then quickly becomes intertwined with other

entities. Under the county-State minimum library program, the

State shares in the current operating and capital expenses of

participating county public library systems. § 23-502(b). All State

and county funds provided as part of the minimum library program

may only be used for library purposes. § 23-506(c).

More specifically, the library boards administer “current

operating funds,” while the county governing bodies administer

“capital expense funds.” § 23-506(b). Although the term

“operating funds” is not defined, the term “capital expense” means

“principal and interest payments, or current capital spending or

accumulation” for purchases of land and buildings and the

“purchase of equipment and furniture for these library buildings.”

§ 23-501(c). In addition, while a library board may “[r]ecommend

to the county governing body the acquisition, use, or conveyance

of property for any purpose valid under [the State’s county library

laws],” § 23-405(f)(3), the county governing body has the authority

to appropriate funds for those purposes. § 23-401(a).

Normally, the authority to appropriate funds—and to reduce

or eliminate an appropriation—includes an implicit authority to set

conditions. 85 Opinions of the Attorney General 167, 171 (2000)

(citing Bayne v. Secretary of State, 283 Md. 560, 574 (1978)).

Thus, in the absence of a provision of law to the contrary, a county

may impose conditions on a grantee’s receipt of county funds,

“including a direction as to the manner of expenditure of those

funds.” Prince George’s County v. Chillum-Adelphi Volunteer

Fire Dep’t, Inc., 275 Md. 374, 381 (1975). However, a county may

not impose a condition that conflicts with State law, deals with a

subject matter that the General Assembly has expressly reserved

for itself, or deals with an area in which the General Assembly has

“acted with such force that an intent to occupy the entire field must

be implied.” McCarthy v. Board of Educ. of Anne Arundel County,

280 Md. 634, 639 (1977). State preemption of local law effectively

limits the authority of a county to impose conditions that would

otherwise be valid under the county’s authority to reduce or

eliminate appropriations. See Howard County v. Potomac Elec.

Power Co., 319 Md. 511, 527-28 (1990).

The application of the preemption doctrine to county budget

conditions would depend on two circumstances: the type of funds

and the nature of the condition. The type of funds makes a

difference because the statute gives county government bodies

somewhat greater leeway with respect to capital expenses than they

56 [101 Op. Att’y

have with respect to operating expense. The county governing

bodies “administer[]” the former, while the library boards

administer the latter. § 23-506(b).

As to the nature of the condition, we cannot be very specific,

as your predecessor did not request an opinion with respect to any

particular type of budget condition. Suffice it to say that prior

opinions of this Office have invalidated on preemption grounds

some types of budget conditions on education appropriations. See

85 Opinions of the Attorney General at 175 (county may not

condition funds on the creation of two audit positions, in light of

the school board’s control over staffing decisions); 81 Opinions of

the Attorney General 26, 34 (1996) (county may not condition

eligibility for a grant on a school’s agreement to pursue a particular

program of instruction); see also McCarthy, 280 Md. at 650-51 (the

State has “forcibly” occupied the field of education (internal

quotation omitted)). Instead, our analysis here will focus on

preemption and the permissibility of budget conditions more

generally.

The historically close association between public libraries and

public schools suggests that the State’s preemptive reach is

particularly broad here. The General Assembly has found public

libraries to be “essential components of the educational system.”

§ 23-101(a)(1). Indeed, early public libraries originated as school-

house district libraries intended “[f]or the further encouragement

of education.” 1872 Md. Laws, ch. 377. The Court of Appeals has

similarly recognized that public libraries “form an integral part of

a system of free public education and are among its most efficient

and valuable adjuncts.” Johnson, 158 Md. at 103. Today, the

central library agency is housed within the Maryland State

Department of Education and recommends to the State Board of

Education rules and regulations to implement the statewide library

system. §§ 23-102, 23-106(b)(10). The leadership of the Division

of Library Development and Services is critical because it is “the

only State agency having regular contact with and any legal

responsibility for the total library enterprise.” Commission Report

at 3.

Maryland’s public library laws have been revised multiple

times, each time with an eye toward a more comprehensive

framework. Rather than authorizing county public libraries and

remaining silent on their governance, the General Assembly

carefully outlined the appointment, composition, and powers and

duties of the board of library trustees. See §§ 23-403 through 23-

405. And, in 1971, as a further indication of its intent that local

libraries be components of a statewide system, the General

Gen. 35] 57

Assembly repealed the provisions that had exempted some counties

from the library laws. 1971 Md. Laws, ch. 770. In short, the State

has addressed how library governance is to be allocated among

county governing bodies, library boards or agencies, and library

directors and has thereby limited the types of conditions that a

county governing body may place on the expenditure of library

funds.

In our opinion, a county governing body may place a

condition on the specific use of library funds only to the extent that

the condition does not intrude upon the statutory framework

developed by the General Assembly. See Chillum-Adelphi

Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc., 275 Md. at 381 (stating that charter

county could impose conditions in the “absence of some provision

of law to the contrary, constitutional or statutory”); 85 Opinions of

the Attorney General at 172-74 (discussing preemption in the

context of county education budgets). Whether State law would

preempt a particular condition depends on the type of condition at

issue.

C. The Privacy of Library Records Under the PIA

In his letter requesting this opinion, your predecessor asked

whether a “county” that has access to library records is required to

maintain the privacy of those records in the same manner as a board

of library trustees. This question is governed by the Maryland

Public Information Act (“PIA”),17 which provides in relevant part:

(a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, a

custodian shall prohibit inspection, use, or

disclosure of a circulation record of a public

library or any other item, collection, or

grouping of information about an individual

that:

(1) is maintained by a library;

(2) contains an individual’s name or the

identifying number, symbol, or other

identifying particular assigned to the

individual; and

17

Md. Code Ann., Gen. Prov. (“GP”) §§ 4-101 through 4-1001 (2014

Repl. Vol., 2015 Supp.). The Education Article contains analogous

provisions, but they apply only to the circulation records of free

association, school, college, and university libraries. See Educ. § 23-107.

58 [101 Op. Att’y

(3) identifies the use a patron makes of

that library’s materials, services, or facilities.

(b) A custodian shall allow inspection, use,

or disclosure of a circulation record of a public

library only:

(1) in connection with the library’s

ordinary business; and

(2) for the purposes for which the record

was created.

GP § 4-308. When a library record meets the criteria stated in GP

§ 4-308, the PIA generally prohibits the disclosure of that record.

At the outset, it is important to note that we have not been

asked whether it is appropriate for a county official to have routine

access to a record subject to GP § 4-308. We are not in this opinion

providing advice on that legal issue, which may require an analysis

of First Amendment law,18 national security law,19 and State

records retention laws.20 The question posed to us instead assumes

that a county has access to library records in some circumstances

and asks only for our advice on the legal obligations of a county

official who in fact has possession of such records. We will accept

18

The disclosure of library patrons’ reading choices could raise First

Amendment concerns. See, e.g., Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of

Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044, 1053 (Colo. 2002) (“The First Amendment

embraces the individual’s right to purchase and read whatever books she

wishes to, without fear that the government will take steps to discover

which books she buys, reads, or intends to read.”).

19

The various federal laws pertaining to national security

investigations might impose duties on a custodian. See, e.g., Susan

Nevelow Mart, The Chains of the Constitution and Legal Process in the

Library: A Post-USA Patriot Reauthorization Act Assessment, 33 Okla.

City U. L. Rev. 435 (2008) (discussing the application of the USA

PATRIOT Act to public libraries).

20

For example, although a library records custodian may store

confidential library records at a facility under another custodian’s

physical control, a library board or library agency may not allow those

records to be stored in a way that provides access not permitted by the

PIA. See, e.g., Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 10-611(b)(1) (requiring

that units of State government have a records management program with

procedures “to ensure the security of the records”).

Gen. 35] 59

that assumption solely for purposes of answering the specific legal

question that has been posed to us.

With that limitation in place, the fact that a county official

might possess library records does not alter the level of protection

afforded such records. There are two types of custodians under the

PIA. The “official custodian” is the “officer or employee of the

State or of a political subdivision who is responsible for keeping a

public record,” GP § 4-101(f); here, that would probably be the

library director, who, as “the general executive officer of the

library,” manages library operations in accordance with the policies

approved by the library board. Educ. § 23-406(f)(1). The term

“custodian” also includes, however, “any other authorized

individual who has physical custody and control of a public

record.” GP § 4-101(d). As a result, a county official who is

authorized to have access to a library record also might qualify as

a “custodian,” though not an “official custodian.” Because GP § 4-

308 applies to “custodians” generally, the obligation to maintain

the privacy of library records applies equally to the library director

and any county official who might possess such records.21

County officials who have access to library records are not

authorized to provide broader access than the PIA allows. Counties

lack the authority to adopt measures that conflict with a State law

by permitting that which the State law prohibits. See, e.g., Police

Patrol Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Prince George’s County, 378 Md. 702, 714

(2003) (“A local ordinance is pre-empted by conflict when it

prohibits an activity which is intended to be permitted by state law,

or permits an activity which is intended to be prohibited by state

law.” (quoting Montrose Christian Sch. Corp. v. Walsh, 363 Md.

565, 580 (2001)); see also 86 Opinions of the Attorney General 94,

106-08 (2001) (explaining that a local ordinance cannot establish

an exception to the PIA that is not allowed under State law). A

county measure that permitted the disclosure of records protected

by GP § 4-308 would be invalid for that reason alone. Accordingly,

a non-library custodian to whom a library has transferred library

records must comply with the PIA when considering a request for

those records.

21

The two exceptions to the protections provided by GP § 4-308(a)

pertain to library operations and so would not usually authorize

disclosure by non-library personnel. See GP § 4-308(b); Educ. § 23-

406(f)(1) (making the library director responsible for library operations).

60 [101 Op. Att’y

III

Conclusion

The balance of authority among county governing bodies,

boards of library trustees or a charter county’s library agency, and

library directors is an important topic throughout Maryland’s

public library laws. Although it is difficult to generalize about

which entity has primary authority over the many types of

personnel and equipment issues that might arise, there are three

overarching principles to help guide the relevant participants. First,

library funds must be used for library purposes and spent in

accordance with a duly adopted budget. That principle limits the

ability of both the county library and the county governing body to

assign library employees to non-library positions and use library

equipment for non-library purposes. Second, the General

Assembly has made the library director, who must be certified by

the State for the position, the “executive officer” of the library.

While there might be some overlap between the roles of the

director and the library board or agency, we see no

indication that a county governing body may itself manage

day-to-day library operations, either directly or through

conditions that go beyond the fiscal roles assigned to it. Third,

because library records are protected under the PIA, a county

official in possession of such records must maintain their

privacy in the same manner as a board of library trustees.

Brian E. Frosh

Attorney General of Maryland

Alan J. Dunklow

Assistant Attorney General

Adam D. Snyder

Chief Counsel, Opinions & Advice

* This opinion was revised after issuance to include a citation to 72

Opinions of the Attorney General 262 (1987).