If Maryland renumbers its state employee pay grades, does that change who has to file a financial disclosure statement under the Public Ethics Law?

Plain-English summary

The State Ethics Commission asked the Attorney General whether a July 1985 renumbering of Maryland's Standard Salary Schedule, which turned the old Grade 18 into the new Grade 16, changed who had to file annual financial disclosure statements under the Public Ethics Law. The law required disclosure from employees classified or compensated at "grade level 18 or above," and a literal reading of that language after the renumbering would have suddenly excluded a whole group of employees, those in the old Grades 18 and 19, who had been covered before.

The Attorney General concluded that the renumbering was a purely administrative correction with no substantive effect on salaries, duties, or responsibilities, done only to fix the anomaly of the pay scale starting at Grade 3 instead of Grade 1. Because the Public Ethics Law's financial disclosure provisions were meant to guard against improper influence and the General Assembly intended the law to be construed liberally to serve that purpose, the opinion held that "grade level 18 or above" should be read as referring to the redesignated equivalent, new Grade 16 or above, so the same group of employees stayed covered.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1985. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did Maryland's 1985 renumbering of its pay grades exempt any state employees from having to file financial disclosure statements?
No, according to this opinion. The Attorney General concluded the renumbering was purely a technical relabeling of the Standard Salary Schedule and did not change the actual group of employees the Public Ethics Law's "grade level 18 or above" threshold was meant to cover.

Why not just read the disclosure law literally once the grade numbers changed?
The opinion reasoned that a literal reading would have accidentally exempted employees at the old Grades 18 and 19 from disclosure, which would conflict with the General Assembly's stated intent in Article 40A, §1-102 to protect the impartiality of public officials and guard against improper influence, and with the statute's own instruction to be construed liberally.

Who decided how the renumbered grades should be read for ethics purposes?
The State Ethics Commission requested the opinion, and the Attorney General directed that the Commission and all affected individuals read "grade level 18 or above" in the disclosure statute as referring to the new Grade 16 or above going forward.

Background and statutory framework

Article 40A, §4-101 required "public officials" to file annual financial disclosure statements, and §1-201(aa) defined "public official" for executive, legislative, and judicial branch employees using classification or compensation at "grade level 18 or above" as the threshold criterion in each category. Separately, Article 64A, §16(a) gave the Secretary of Personnel authority to classify positions and "combine, alter or abolish existing classes," and §27(a) required a pay plan setting compensation rates by grade, together comprising the Standard Salary Schedule.

Effective July 1, 1985, the Department of Personnel renumbered that schedule from a range of Grade 3 through Grade 23 to a range of Grade 1 through Grade 21, explaining in an internal memorandum that the change was meant only to fix the oddity of the schedule not starting at Grade 1, and that it would not affect salaries, powers, duties, or responsibilities. The opinion found that reading the Public Ethics Law's "grade level 18" language as tied to the new numbering, rather than to the substance of the old Grade 18, would be inconsistent with the legislative findings in Article 40A, §1-102(a) and (c) protecting against improper influence, and with §1-102(d)'s instruction that the law be liberally construed, so it directed that the threshold be read as referring to the redesignated counterpart grade.

Citations

Statutes:

• Article 40A, §4-101 of the Maryland Code (annual financial disclosure requirement for public officials)
• Article 40A, §1-201(aa) (definition of "public official" tied to grade level 18 or above)
• Article 40A, §1-201(w) (definition of "officials" encompassing public officials and State officials)
• Article 40A, §1-201(gg) (definition of "State officials")
• Article 64A, §16(a) (Secretary of Personnel's authority to classify positions)
• Article 64A, §27(a) (pay plan and Standard Salary Schedule)
• Article 40A, §1-102(a) (legislative findings on impartiality of public officials)
• Article 40A, §1-102(c) (financial disclosure intended to guard against improper influence)
• Article 40A, §1-102(d) (liberal construction of the Public Ethics Law)

Cases: none cited.

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1985/Volume70_1985.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

PUBLIC ETHICS

Financial Disclosure—"Public Official"—Personnel-Standard Salary Schedule—Department's Revision of Schedule does not Substantively Affect Classes of Persons Subject to Financial Disclosure Requirements.

July 3, 1985

Mr. John E. O'Donnell
Executive Director
State Ethics Commission

You have requested our opinion on whether the recent action of the Department of Personnel in renumbering the grades of the Standard Salary Schedule affects the applicability of the financial disclosure requirements of the Maryland Public Ethics Law, Article 40A of the Maryland Code.

For the reasons given below, we have concluded that the action of the Department of Personnel does not effect a change in substance. Rather, the provisions of the Public Ethics Law that require financial disclosure by certain persons classified or compensated at "grade level 18 or above" should be read as referring to the designated counterpart of those grades, that is, as referring to new "grade level 16 or above".

I
Background

Under Article 40A, §4-101, "public officials" must file annual financial disclosure statements.1 Article 40A, §1-201(aa) defines "public official" as one who, among other things, is classified or compensated at a specified level:

"(1) Any individual in an executive agency who:
(i) Is a classified employee at grade level 18 or above, or... receives a rate of compensation equal thereto...
(2) Any individual in the legislative branch, other than a State official, who receives a rate of compensation equal to or above grade level 18...
(3) Any individual in the judicial branch... who:
(i) Is classified or compensated at State grade level 18 or above...

Although the definition contains additional criteria that must be applied to determine whether a particular individual is included within any of the three categories of "public official", it is nonetheless clear that, for each of these categories, the threshold criterion is classification or compensation at or above "grade level 18".

Recently, the Department of Personnel announced a renumbering of the grades of the Standard Salary Schedule, effective July 1, 1985. As a result of that action, present grade level 18 has been renumbered as grade level 16. In our view, that action is a purely administrative adjustment in the nature of a technical correction, without substantive effect.

II
Analysis

Article 64A, §16(a) requires the Secretary of Personnel to "establish classes and classify therein all positions in the classified service" and empowers the Secretary to "combine, alter or abolish existing classes". Article 64A, §27(a) requires the Secretary to prepare a pay plan for all classes, or grades, of positions and provides that every State employee "shall be paid at one of the rates set forth in the pay plan for the grade or class of positions in which he is employed". Those position grades and their salaries comprise the Standard Salary Schedule.

For some years now, the Standard Salary Schedule has ranged from Grade 3, the lowest grade in current use, through Grade 23, the highest. Recognizing the anomaly of referring to the first grade level as Grade 3, the Department of Personnel has modified the schedule so that, effective July 1, 1985, it will range from Grade 1 through Grade 21.

As explained in the Department's announcement of the renumbering: "The grades of the Standard Salary Schedule are being renumbered so that the first grade will again be designated as Grade 1". Memorandum to Personnel Directors from Anne Hearn, Director, Division of Salary Administration and Position Classification (April 8, 1985) (emphasis added). Moreover, as the announcement also specifically emphasized, this redesignation would not affect salaries. Similarly, of course, the redesignation has no effect on any individual's powers, duties, or responsibilities. Thus, the Department's only intent was only to clarify the Standard Salary Schedule by eliminating an anomaly in its numerical designation of compensation grades.

A superficial reading of the provisions of Article 40A, §1-201(aa) might, however, suggest a substantive effect in the context of the Public Ethics Law. That is, if the references in those provisions to "grade level 18" were read as referring to the redesignated Grade 18, the financial disclosure requirements would be rendered newly inapplicable to an entire class of employees previously covered, i.e., those classified or compensated at former Grades 18 and 19 (redesignated Grades 16 and 17). In our view, such a reading would not comport with the intent of the General Assembly.

The legislative findings and statement of policy set out in Article 40A, §1-102 clearly manifest the General Assembly's strong desire to ensure "that the impartiality and independent judgment of public officials and officers will be maintained". Article 40A, §1-102(a). The financial disclosure provisions of the Public Ethics Law, in particular, are intended to guard against improper influence. See Article 40A, §1-102(c). Unquestionably, it would be inconsistent with that intent to treat a simple administrative correction in nomenclature as substantively effecting a narrowing of the applicability of the financial disclosure requirement.2

Nor is there any other reason to believe that the General Assembly intended the provisions of Article 40A, §1-201(aa) to be read with rigid literalness. To the contrary, Article 40A, §1-102(d) explicitly states a legislative intention that the Public Ethics Law generally be liberally construed to accomplish its purpose.

III
Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that the renumbering of the classification and compensation grade levels in the Standard Salary Schedule will not affect the applicability of the Public Ethics Law's financial disclosure requirement. Hence, in determining whether that requirement applies to a particular person, the State Ethics Commission (and all affected individuals) should read the statutory references to "grade level 18 or above" as referring to the redesignated counterpart of those grades, that is, as referring to new "grade level 16 or above".

Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General
James F. Truitt, Jr., Assistant Attorney General
C. J. Messerschmidt, Staff Attorney

Avery Aisenstark
Chief Counsel
Opinions and Advice

1 Article 40A, §4-101 applies to all "officials", a term defined by §1-201(w) as encompassing both "public officials" and "State officials". "State officials" are those judges and elected officials specifically enumerated in §1-201(gg).

2 Cf. Bill Review Letter (House Bill 1621) from Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General, to Harry Hughes, Governor (May 7, 1986) (amendment of salary-setting statute to conform to revision of county's classified salary schedule does not effect substantive change in authorized salary).