Priester v. Board of Appeals

Arthur, J. A Baltimore County fire captain sexually harassed numerous female subordinates and created a hostile work environment in which employees were afraid to report his misconduct. After the captain’s conduct came to light, the fire department terminated his employment. He applied for retirement benefits. The Board of Trustees of the Employees’ Retirement System denied the captain’s application on the ground that he had not rendered “honorable and faithful service as an employee,” a condition for the receipt of benefits under the Baltimore County Code.

The Baltimore County Board of Appeals affirmed that determination, and the Circuit Court for Baltimore County affirmed the Board of Appeals. The captain appealed to this Court. We affirm. Factual and Procedural History A. Captain Priester Theodore C. Priester, Jr., joined the Baltimore County Fire Department in 1982.

He received many commendations throughout his career, including a Silver Star for heroic conduct in fighting a fire. He became a lieutenant in 1992 and a captain in 1999. By March of 2013, he had acquired the rank of Fire Captain and was in charge of Fire Station 18 in Randallstown. B. The “Bathroom Incident” At Station 18 the downstairs bathroom had been designated as the women’s bathroom.

Notwithstanding that designation, ⁵²⁰ Captain Priester would sometimes use the downstairs bathroom. Kathleen Duncan-Fulton, an Emergency Medical Technician (or “EMT”), was sometimes responsible for cleaning the women’s bathroom. On several occasions, she had complained to a superior officer about Captain Priester’s use of the women’s bathroom. According to EMT Duncan-Fulton, Captain Priester would not flush the toilet or clean up after himself, and he would leave the bathroom in what she called a “disgusting” condition.

On the afternoon of March 15, 2013, Captain Priester, who is over six feet tall and weighs more than 300 pounds, leaned over EMT Duncan-Fulton in the station’s kitchen and, in a loud voice, demanded to know whether she had complained about him using the downstairs bathroom. She said, yes. He responded: “This is my house, and I’ll shit wherever I want.” He added that she was “supposed to clean the bathroom and like it.” He threatened to remove her from duty if she refused to clean the bathroom. A number of employees witnessed some or all of this exchange.

EMT Duncan-Fulton told Captain Priester that he was creating a hostile work environment because of his tone of voice. He ordered her to meet him in his office. When EMT Duncan-Fulton met with the captain in his office a few minutes later, he denied that he had yelled her. He said: “[Everybody here’s going to be a witness that I didn’t yell at you the way you’re saying I did.” She responded: “You’re absolutely right.

They’ll take your side because you let them do whatever the fuck they want.” He told her to leave, and she did. EMT Duncan-Fulton was extremely upset by Captain Priester’s aggressive demeanor and his threat to remove her. She called a superior officer, Captain Thomas Hoffman, who intervened and obtained an apology from Captain Priester. On the following day, EMT Duncan-Fulton met with Captain Hoffman and Captain Franklin E. Penn Jr. In that ⁵²¹ meeting she reported that Captain Priester had begun to complain about her job performance after she resisted his unwelcome advances.

C. The Investigation EMT Duncan-Fulton’s complaint prompted an internal investigation. In the meantime, on March 22, 2013, Captain Priester was summarily suspended from duty. The investigation uncovered allegations that Captain Pries-ter had sexually harassed numerous female employees, as well as at least one civilian. The alleged harassment occurred while the captain was on duty and, in many instances, in the presence of other employees.

At the close of the investigation, on April 9, 2013, the fire department issued a notification of charges, which summarized the allegations against Captain Priester. In total, the captain was charged with 19 violations of the fire department’s rules and regulations and two violations of County rules. The charges included violations of multiple departmental regulations concerning a captain’s duty, a violation of the fire department’s fair practices policy, and a violation of the County’s sexual harassment policy. 1 D. The Termination of Captain Priester’s Employment The Department’s Administrative Hearing Board held a hearing on the charges against Captain Priester on April 30, 2013. Although the captain had initially protested that he had “been falsely accused” of sexually harassing female employees, ⁵²² he advised the board that he wished to plead no contest and to submit a letter expressing remorse.

In his letter Captain Priester expressed regret and remorse, apologized “for any negative light shown on the department,” and asked for “due consideration” for his faithful service throughout his career. He wrote: Obviously, had any person advised me that they took offense to personal actions, comments, or gestures I would have immediately ceased and desisted. I have always been of a joking and flirtatious character. The Fire Department has changed drastically over these past 30 years.

Sadly I must admit, that while climbing the infamous “Dinosaur List” the department has left me behind. I realize that the responsibility falls completely to me to keep up with the changing times. I am especially accountable in my rank of Fire Captain and held to a higher standard. At another point in the letter, Captain Priester referred to the “horseplay, hazing, practical jokes, and basic clowning around of the ‘old fire department.’ ” He expressed his desire to be allowed to retire.

The board found Captain Priester guilty of 19 of the 21 charges against him and recommended that his employment be terminated. The Fire Chief, John J. Hohman, accepted that recommendation. On the following day, May 1, 2013, Captain Priester exercised his right, under the County Code, to appeal the decision to terminate his employment. In a letter to Chief Hohman, Captain Priester asked for permission to retire.

While apologizing “for any embarrassment” that he had caused the department and expressing his understanding that he “must face some form of discipline,” Captain Priester appeared to question the bona fides of his accusers: [I]f one single individual had ever said they were offended I assure you behavior modification would have been immediate. Certainly an individual should not be able to hold-back on issuing a complaint (2 years) until such time [as] they are in trouble. Also to have the same individual recruit addition ⁵²³ al complainants and have identical language is suspect as well. The department formally terminated Captain Priester’s employment on May 16, 2013. 2 E. The Application for Retirement Benefits On July 31, 2014, Captain Priester filed an application for retirement in which he sought pension benefits.

The Trustees of the Employees’ Retirement System met on December 9, 2014, and voted 4-1 to deny the application. Writing for the Trustees, the Director of the County’s Office of Budget and Finance explained that, to qualify for retirement benefits (i.e., “a service retirement allowance”) under the Baltimore County Code, an employee must accumulate a certain period of “creditable service.” See Balt. County Code § 5-1-213. The Code defines “creditable service” as “prior service,” such as service in the armed forces of the United States, plus “membership service.” Id. § 5-l-201(i).

The Code, in turn, defines “membership service” as “honorable and faithful service as an employee rendered while a member of the retirement system.” Id. § 5-l-201(p). The Trustees reasoned that Captain Priester’s service “was not honorable and faithful ⁵²⁴ and is therefore not creditable towards a retirement allowance.” F. Appeal to the Baltimore County Office of Administrative Hearings Captain Priester exercised his right to appeal the Trustees’ decision to the Baltimore County Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”). The OAH held four days of hearings between February 23, 2015, and May 28, 2015. 1. EMT Duncan-Fulton’s Testimony At the hearing, EMT Kathleen Duncan-Fulton testified that, after Captain Priester arrived at Fire Station 18 in 2010, he would periodically approach her from behind while she was washing dishes or working at a computer.

He would “nibble” on her neck and ear, use crude language to tell her that he thought that she was sexually aroused, and make other lewd and sexually suggestive comments. On other occasions, when he was in a room with her and other employees, he would call her name, put his hands to his face, and make a crude gesture that is meant to signify cunnilingus. She said that Captain Priester would engage in this behavior “at least once a day on the two days that [she] would see him and over a span of several months.” After several months, she told him to stop. Shortly thereafter, he began to complain about her job performance.

EMT Duncan-Fulton testified that she did not immediately report the harassment because she had been employed with the department for only nine or ten years, as opposed to Captain Priester’s 30 years. In her view, it was “a little difficult to think that somebody [was] going to take [her] side and believe [her].” After the “bathroom incident,” however, she “finally had enough” and decided to notify Captains Penn and Hoffman. Baltimore County submitted a written statement that EMT Duncan-Fulton made to the investigators. The statement corroborated the EMT’s testimony and included additional details.

For example, she wrote that when Captain Priester would approach from behind while she was working, he would press her against the counter. She also wrote that she at ⁵²⁵ tempted not to “enter a room if he was alone” and that she “would leave the room if Capt. Priester appeared to be approaching [her].” 2. The Testimony of Captains Penn and Hoffman Captains Penn and Hoffman corroborated EMT Duncan-Fulton’s account of previous complaints about Captain Pries-ter’s misuse of the women’s bathroom.

Both captains said that they had never had any problems with EMT Duncan-Fulton’s job performance. 3. Lieutenant Stevens’s Testimony Lieutenant Michelle Stevens testified that Captain Priester was her captain for six to eight months when he was assigned to a different station. She testified that while she was working at a computer, Captain Priester would “put his hand on [her] leg and run it up [her] thigh.” She would tell him to “knock it off’ or “say please don’t do that” or try to “laugh it off.” The lieutenant “tried to not put [her]self in situations” where she could be subject to Captain Priester’s harassment. In an attempt to protect herself, she said that she did not go into closed rooms with Captain Priester.

During firefighting operations, Captain Priester would “pat her butt” or behave inappropriately by touching women. He would call her “toots,” to which she would reply, “[C]all me Lieutenant Toots[.]” Lieutenant Stevens said that Captain Priester would make inappropriate gestures to make others laugh. She said that people would laugh because they did not want to be “singled out.” When asked whether she thought that Captain Priester was just joking, Lieutenant Stevens said that he might have been, but that he did not stop once he was told to stop. She added that he was in the position of power.

She had begun as an EMT and had gotten promoted to the position of fire-suppression officer, and she believed that he did not want her “on the fire side.” ⁵²⁶ Lieutenant Stevens said that she did not immediately report Captain Priester's harassment because she did not “want to be labeled.” She stated that it was difficult for women to report harassment in the Baltimore County Fire Department and that she reported Captain Priester’s harassment only after she was questioned by Battalion Chief Peter Hill. On cross-examination, she explained that the department is “a paramilitary organization.” “You go to your Captain first for everything.” In a letter to Battalion Chief Hill, which was admitted into evidence at the hearing, Lieutenant Stevens wrote that she “struggled with the decision” to reveal any issues with Captain Priester, because it was difficult to be a woman, and a woman fire-suppression officer, in the Baltimore County Fire Department. Like EMT Duncan-Fulton’s written statement, Lieutenant Stevens’s letter corroborated her testimony and included additional details. She wrote that Captain Priester would breathe on her neck, kiss her neck, and whisper in her ear and that he would breathe heavily when she answered a telephone call that he had placed.

Other employees would laugh when they witnessed his conduct. Lieutenant Stevens would “try to laugh it off too,” because she did not want to be (in her words) “shunned” and did not “want a ‘label.’ ” In her testimony, she said, “I’m labeled now.” 3 4. Lieutenant Greenfeld’s Testimony EMT District Lieutenant Barbara Greenfeld testified that, shortly after she heard about the confrontation between Cap ⁵²⁷ tain Priester and EMT Duncan-Fulton, she reported two instances in which she was a victim of his sexual harassment. In the first incident, which occurred in 2012, she was on a call with Captain Priester.

While they were loading a patient on a stretcher into an ambulance, she climbed onto the first step. Captain Priester put his hand on her ankle and ran it up her leg into the vicinity of her crotch. His conduct elicited laughter from some of the men who were present. She said nothing, but finished loading the patient into the ambulance.

The second incident occurred in 2018, when Lieutenant Greenfeld was conducting a training session for about eight people. She was seated with a computer in front of her. Captain Priester came up from behind her and put his lips all over her face and ear. She screamed.

Everyone else laughed and acted as though it was a big joke. As a result of that incident, she stopped visiting Station 18, would not let Captain Priester get behind her, and tried to protect herself when she had to respond to emergency calls with him. When asked why she did not report Captain Priester after he had inappropriately touched her, she explained: The Fire Department people work very closely with one another. You depend on them to be there to protect your back, to support one another... [Tjhere’s not any part of that job you could do by yourself.

You have to have other people to help you do that job. And you don’t want to alienate those people by being the tattletale ... the person that turns ... someone in and gets them in trouble. When asked whether she had some particular concern about what might happen in a firefighting operation if she reported Captain Priester, Lieutenant Greenfeld responded: I’ve had Captains before that have ordered their crews not to help a certain person. You know, I’m telling you right now do not help that person.

And when you’re on an emergency incident ... you need that help. You need that backup. You need ... people that you trust to have your back if things get ugly. ⁵²⁸ On cross-examination, Lieutenant Greenfeld testified that inappropriate conduct was commonplace in the department when she began her career in 1986, but that Captain Priester was the only supervisor who had ever touched her. She said that she felt embarrassed when Captain Priester grabbed her from behind, especially because so many people were present.

She believed that Captain Priester engaged in such behavior “to show everybody” that he was the captain and could “do whatever [he] want[ed] to do.” 5. Paramedic Kelly’s Testimony Paramedic Amber Kelly testified that, when she was a student and not yet a member of the department, Captain Priester “would come up behind [her] and put his hands on [her] shoulders and rub [her] shoulders and down into [her] back and neck.” On one occasion, Captain Priester “placed his hand on [her] knee and slip[ped his hand] up slightly[,] approximately an inch toward [her] thigh.” Other times, she said, “he would come up behind [her] and whisper in [her] ear,” and he would take a “large breath in ... order to blow into [her] ear.” If she felt uncomfortable, she would move to another seat or to a different room to avoid Captain Priester. Paramedic Kelly said that she did not report the incidents because she was in training and, fearing retaliation, thought that it might prevent her from being hired. She believed that Captain Priester had some influence over whether she would be hired. 4 6.

Paramedic Glenn Harris’s Testimony Paramedic-Firefighter Glenn Harris testified that, before the “bathroom incident” between Captain Priester and EMT Duncan-Fulton, she had confided to him on several occasions that Captain Priester had “touched” her. She expressed concern about the “aggressive” and “uncomfortable” environment ⁵²⁹ in the station. She had also expressed concern about Captain Priester’s use of the women’s bathroom and the condition in which he left it. Paramedic Harris had witnessed an incident, about two and a half years earlier, when Captain Priester leaned onto the rails of Paramedic Kelly’s chair and asked her for a light.

He saw her stiffen up and tell him that she would give him a light, but to back off. On the day of the “bathroom incident,” Paramedic Harris observed part of the confrontation between Captain Priester and EMT Duncan-Fulton. He said that EMT Duncan-Fulton seemed to be “fearful” and in a “panic,” while Captain Priester “was more agitated and angry.” He observed EMT Duncan-Fulton “moving about the room ... to get away” from Captain Priester. According to Paramedic Harris, a nursing technician at Northwest Hospital (whom he described as a “rock solid person”) 5 became enraged as a result of an encounter with Captain Priester.

The technician complained to him that Captain Priester had touched her inappropriately and made suggestive comments to her while he was escorting a patient to the hospital. Paramedic Harris called Lieutenant Greenfeld to alert her to what had occurred and to seek guidance. Lieutenant Greenfeld corroborated his account in her testimony, saying that Paramedic Harris had called her and asked her to come to Northwest Hospital because Captain Priester was “ ‘at it again’ with either a nurse or a tech[nician].” 6 ⁵³⁰ Paramedic Harris also testified that during Captain Pries-ter’s suspension several members of Station 18 attended a funeral for a relative of one member. While at the funeral, Captain Priester named several of his accusers and said that “they better watch out.” He added, “That’s a threat.” 7 7.

Fire Chief Hohman’s Testimony At the time of the hearing in 2015, Fire Chief Hohman had spent 38 years in the department. He had been the chief for 15 years. In that capacity he reviewed every disciplinary decision in the department. Earlier, he had served for eight years as the union representative who defended employees against disciplinary charges.

When asked for his opinion about Captain Priester’s work performance, Chief Hohman stated that the captain “had a long-standing tendency to abuse power and authority and to curry favor with the people that worked with him by ... not enforcing the rules.” To his knowledge, no other officer had been disciplined as frequently as Captain Priester: his record was the worst of any officer that the chief had ever seen. On one occasion, the chief had demoted Captain Priester, but the demotion was overturned on appeal. Captain Priester’s prior infractions involved giving “preferential treatment” to some members of his team. “If they were on his team,” the chief said, “they didn’t have to follow the rules that everyone else followed.” Some of the infractions entailed false statements that were made to assist favored employees in obtaining sick leave. ⁵³¹ Chief Hohman regarded Captain Priester’s conduct, as reported by the complaining witnesses in this case, as “the ultimate abuse of power and authority.” The captain had “denigrat[ed] other employees” and made employees “afraid to do their jobs.” He deemed it “unconscionable” that Lieutenant Greenfeld was afraid to conduct training sessions at Captain Priester’s station because “she didn’t want to be subjected to his behavior.” Because of the “power and authority” that a captain wields at a fire station, Chief Hohman said that he “could understand why somebody would not come forward” and complain of sexual harassment. He said that the captain’s intimidation of women created the “worst possible” image of the department.

According to Chief Hohman, the department had been conducting training to combat sexual harassment since the 1980s. Hence Captain Priester had undoubtedly been taught that his conduct was against the law. Chief Hohman concluded that, in his view, Captain Pries-ter’s service was not honorable and faithful. 8. Captain Priester’s Testimony Captain Priester testified on his own behalf.

Although he had expressed remorse, pleaded no contest to the employment charges against him, and depicted himself as a “[djinosaur” who had failed to “keep up with the changing times,” he said that he had done so on the premise that the union would work out a deal under which he could retire and receive his entire pension. He denied the allegations against him. 8 9. The ALJ’s Decision On June 12, 2015, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an opinion and order, in which he affirmed in part, and ⁵³² reversed in part, the decision of the Trustees of the Employees’ Retirement System. Crediting the testimony against Captain Priester, the ALJ found that his service was not “honorable and faithful,” because it represented an abuse of his position as a captain.

On that basis, the ALJ concluded that Captain Priester’s service as a captain, from 1999 until the date of his termination in 2013, did not qualify as “creditable service.” Accordingly, the ALJ ordered that Captain Priester would be “entitled to receive a service retirement allowance from Baltimore County, and the ‘number of years of credible [sic] service’ ... shall not include that period of time during which [Captain Priester] held the rank of Captain.” The ALJ’s ruling resulted in a forfeiture of some, but not all, of Captain Priester’s pension. G. Proceedings Before the Board of Appeals Neither side was satisfied with the ALJ's Solomonic decision. Both sides appealed. In his appeal Captain Priester did not dispute the facts that were presented before the ALJ, but focused on what he regarded as flaws in the process, including the alleged vagueness of the terms “honorable and faithful.” For its part, the Employees’ Retirement System contended that the ALJ did not have the authority to revoke only part of the pension.

On October 16, 2015, the Board issued an opinion and order, in which it affirmed the finding that Captain Priester had not rendered “honorable and faithful” service, but reversed the conclusion that he could receive a pro-rated portion of his pension. The Board found “no precedent allowing the ALJ to deny pension benefits for only part of Mr. Priester’s employment with Baltimore County.” Accordingly, the Board denied Captain Priester’s entire claim for pension benefits. 9 ⁵³³ H. Judicial Review in the Circuit Court Captain Priester petitioned for judicial review of the Board’s decision in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. On June 20, 2016, the court signed a written order in which it upheld the Board’s decision. Captain Priester filed a timely notice of appeal on July 19, 2016.

Questions Presented. Captain Priester raises the following four questions: 1. Is the undefined term “honorable and faithful” service, which may restrict pension entitlement, so impermissi-bly vague that it must be struck down? 2. If the term “honorable and faithful” service is not impermissibly vague, was it applied by the Board in an arbitrary and capricious manner, inconsistent with the County pension statute and the relevant case law? 3.

Is the Board’s decision, which revoked and forfeited Mr. Priester’s entire County pension inconsistent with the plain and unambiguous language of the pension statute and pension case law? 4. Should the Board’s decision be reversed because it was not supported by substantial evidence in the record? For the following reasons, we answer each question in the negative. Consequently, we shall affirm the circuit court’s judgment affirming the decision of the Board of Appeals.

Discussion I. Standard of Review This Court exercises a “narrow” role when it reviews an administrative agency’s decision. Bd. of Physician Quality Assurance v. Banks, 354 Md. 59, 67 , 729 A.2d 376 (1999). Our role is “ ‘limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agency’s findings and conclusions’ ” and whether “ ‘the administrative decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law.’ ” Cnty. Council of ⁵³⁴ Prince George’s Cnty. v. Zimmer Dev.

Co., 444 Md. 490, 573 , 120 A.3d 677 (2015) (quoting United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. People’s Counsel for Baltimore Cnty., 336 Md. 569, 577 , 650 A.2d 226 (1994)). The reviewing court “must affirm the agency-decision if there is sufficient evidence such that ‘a reasoning mind reasonably could have reached the factual conclusion the agency reached.’ ” Id. (quoting Consumer Prot. Div. v. Morgan, 387 Md. 125, 160 , 874 A.2d 919 (2005)). “[Tjhe agency’s decision is prima facie correct and presumed valid, and ... it is the agency’s province to resolve conflicting evidence and to draw inferences from that evidence.’” Bd. of Physicians Quality Assurance v. Banks, 354 Md. at 68 , 729 A.2d 376 (quoting CBS Inc. v. Comptroller of the Treasury, 319 Md. 687, 698 , 575 A.2d 324 (1990)).

In general, however, the reviewing court exhibits no such deference where it determines that the agency decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law. See Catonsville Nursing Home, Inc. v. Loveman, 349 Md. 560, 568-69 , 709 A.2d 749 (1998). I. The Code Provision Is Not Void for Vagueness As an implicit corollary to the prohibition against the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, the Fourteenth Amendment invalidates legislation that is unduly vague. See, e.g., Finucan v. Md. Bd. of Physician Quality Assurance, 380 Md. 577, 591 , 846 A.2d 377 (2004); Williams v. State, 329 Md. 1, 8 , 616 A.2d 1275 (1992); Blaker v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 123 Md.App. 243, 255 , 717 A.2d 964 (1998).

Captain Priester contends that the pertinent Code provisions are “void for vagueness” because of the absence of a statutory or regulatory definition of the key terms “faithful” and “honorable,” We reject his contention. “Generally, courts employ two criteria in their analysis of whether a statute is void for vagueness.” Finucan v. Md. Bd. of Physician Quality Assurance, 380 Md. at 591 , 846 A.2d 377 (citing Bowers v. State, 283 Md. 115, 120-21 , 389 A.2d 341 ⁵³⁵ (1978)); accord Blaker v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 123 Md.App. at 255-56 , 717 A.2d 964 . First, a court determines whether the statute gives fair notice, as “ ‘[d]ue process commands that persons of ordinary intelligence and experience be afforded a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that they may govern their behavior accordingly.’” Finucan v. Md. Bd. of Physician Quality Assurance, 380 Md. at 591-92 , 846 A.2d 377 (citing Bowers v. State, 283 Md. at 121 , 389 A.2d 341 ); Blaker v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 123 Md.App. at 256 , 717 A.2d 964 . “[A] statute will survive a challenge that it is unconstitutionally vague if it uses plain language that is understandable to a person of ordinary intelligence.” Finucan v. Md. Bd. of Physician Quality Assurance, 380 Md. at 592 , 846 A.2d 377 ; accord Blaker v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 123 Md.App. at 256 , 717 A.2d 964 . Second, a court determines whether the statute “ ‘provide[s] legally fixed standards and adequate guidelines for police, judicial officers, triers of fact, and others whose obligation it is to enforce, apply and administer the penal laws.’” Finucan v. Md. Bd. of Physician Quality Assurance, 380 Md. at 592 , 846 A.2d 377 (quoting Bowers v. State, 283 Md. at 121 , 389 A.2d 341 ); accord Blaker v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 123 Md.App. at 256 , 717 A.2d 964 . 10 “A statute, however, is not void for vagueness ‘merely because it allows for the exercise of some discretion.’” Finucan v. Md. Bd. of Phy. Quality Assurance, 380 Md. at 592 , 846 A.2d 377 (quoting Bowers v. State, 283 Md. at 122 , 389 A.2d 341 ); accord Blaker v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 123 Md.App. at 256-57 , 717 A.2d 964 . “A statute is unconstitutionally vague only when it ‘is so broad as to be susceptible to irrational and selective patterns of enforcement.’ ” Finucan v. Md. Bd. of Physician Quality Assurance, 380 Md. at 592 , 846 A.2d 377 ⁵³⁶ (quoting Bowers v. State, 283 Md. at 122 , 389 A.2d 341 ); accord Blaker v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 123 Md.App. at 257 , 717 A.2d 964 . “The vagueness doctrine does not require absolute precision or perfection[.]” Blaker v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 123 Md.App. at 256 , 717 A.2d 964 . “ ‘Even trained lawyers may find it necessary to consult legal dictionaries, treatises, and judicial opinions before they may say with any certainty what some statutes may compel or forbid.’” Williams v. State, 329 Md. at 10 , 616 A.2d 1275 (quoting Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48, 50 , 96 S.Ct. 243 , 46 L.Ed.2d 185 (1975)).

Thus, for example, Maryland courts have rejected void-for-vagueness challenges to statutes under which a physician could be disciplined for “immoral or unprofessional conduct,” Finucan v. Md. Bd. of Physician Quality Assurance, 380 Md. at 591-95 , 846 A.2d 377 ; or for “unprofessional conduct,” which included “professional incompetency,” Unnamed Physician v. Comm’n on Med. Discipline, 285 Md. 1, 14-15 , 400 A.2d 396 (1979); see also Blaker v. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 123 Md.App. at 258 , 717 A.2d 964 (rejecting vagueness challenge to statute that permitted discipline of chiropractor for “professional incompetency”). Similarly, the Court of Appeals rejected a vagueness challenge to a criminal child-abuse statute that defined “abuse” as “physical injury sustained as result of cruel or inhumane treatment,” Bowers v. State, 283 Md. at 127-28 , 389 A.2d 341 ; and to a criminal statute that defined a “drug kingpin” as someone who occupied the position of “organizer, supervisor, financier, or manager” in a drug conspiracy. Williams v. State, 329 Md. 1, 8-12 , 616 A.2d 1275 (1992).

Captain Priester complains that the County Code does not define the terms “honorable” and “faithful” and that the Trustees have not propounded a regulatory definition. “Honorable” and “faithful,” however, “are not technical terms; rather they are common words with well understood meanings.” Williams v. State, 329 Md. at 11 , 616 A.2d 1275 . In Empls.’ Ret. Sys. of Baltimore Cnty. v. Brown, 186 Md.App. 293 , 973 A.2d 879 (2009), this Court affirmed the ⁵³⁷ Board of Appeals’ decision denying a Baltimore County police officer’s application for retirement benefits on the ground that he had not rendered “honorable and faithful service,” because he had regularly used cocaine, on a recreational basis, while he was off duty. In reaching its decision, this Court quoted an earlier, unreported opinion in the same case, which discussed the meaning of the terms “honorable” and “faithful” in the relevant section of the Baltimore County Code: ‘“Honorable” carries a number of connotations, including: “performed or accompanied with marks of honor or respect,” “attesting to creditable conduct[,]” “consistent with an untarnished reputation,” “characterized by integrity: guided by a high sense of honor and duty.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 556 (10th ed. 2000).

The definition of “faithful” includes the following: “steadfast in affection or allegiance,” “firm in adherence to promises or in observance of duty,” and it implies unswerving adherence to a person or thing or to the “oath or promise by which a tie was contracted.” Id. at 301 . In