Maryland case law › Arthur v. Hubbard

Arthur v. Hubbard

194 Md. 269 (1966) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedDelaplaine, J.✓ Good law
HoldingJames F.

Delaplaine, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. James F. Arthur, a member of the City Council of Baltimore, filed this petition for mandamus to compel Thomas F. Hubbard, chairman, and the other members 272 of the Planning Commission of the City of Baltimore, to recognize him as the City Council’s representative on that Commission, and to compel Medio Waldt, also a member of the City Council, to cease exercising any of the functions of the office of a member of the Commission. Petitioner alleged that Councilman Waldt claims and pretends to be a member of the Planning Commission by reason of the fact that at a session of the City Council on March 29, 1948, he was elected by the vote of a majority of the members to serve as its representative on the Commission to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Councilman Jerome Sloman, whose term as a member of the City Council would have expired in May, 1951. Petitioner further alleged that on April 4, 1949, he was elected by the City Council as its representative on the Commission to replace Councilman Waldt; that he attended a meeting of the Commission on April 6 and was then recognized as a member of it; and that he continued to act as such until a meeting of the Commission on April 27, when Councilman Waldt claimed that he had been duly elected as the City Council’s representative on the Commission and declared his intention to continue to act as such.

The Commission thereupon voted to recognize Councilman Waldt instead of petitioner. The Planning Commission and Councilman Waldt, defendants, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, municipal corporation, intervening party defendant, demurred to the petition. The Court sustained the demurrers and entered judgment in favor of defendants for costs. Petitioner appealed from that judgment.

Section 102 of the Baltimore City Charter, 1949 Ed., provides that the head of the Department of Planning, one of the executive departments of the City of Baltimore, shall be the Planning Commission, to consist of nine members, one of whom shall be the Director of Public Works ex officio, one of whom shall be the Mayor of the City ex officio, and one of whom shall be a member of the City Council ex officio, who shall be elected by that 273 body, and six of whom shall be residents of Baltimore City, whose interest in and knowledge of city planning shall be recognized, and who shall be appointed by the Mayor. This Section further provides that each of the members of the Commission, excluding those serving ex officio, except the member of the City Council, shall receive compensation at the rate of $25 for each meeting of the Commission attended, not exceeding $1,250 a year, and the Chairman shall receive $3,000 per year. Section 103 of the City Charter, which prescribes the terms of members of the Planning Commission, provides: “The terms of the ex officio members shall correspond to their respective official tenures, and the term of each appointed member shall be six years * * Petitioner called attention to Section 23 of the Charter, which provides that the City Council shall “appoint its own officers, regulate their respective compensation, * * * and remove them at pleasure.” It is beyond question that Councilman Waldt, when he was elected a member of the Planning Commission by the City Council, became the City Council’s ex officio member of the Commission within the meaning of Section 103; but his status as a member of the Commission

This is a preview of Arthur v. Hubbard. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.