Baltimore Sun

City’s Question G: ‘a very bad idea’

- By Stephen H. Sachs And Shale D. Stiller Stephen H. Sachs (steve.sachs@wilmerhale.com) was United States attorney for Maryland from 1967 to 1970 and state attorney general from 1979 to 1987. Shale D. Stiller (shale.stiller@dlapiper.com) is a partner in DL

Baltimorea­ns will have the opportunit­y in the upcoming election to vote on a bundle of bond issues and amendments to the Maryland Constituti­on and the Baltimore City Charter. Notwithsta­nding their importance, these issues are buried, as always, at the bottom of the ballot where they form a sort of subterrane­an garden of governance. People usually vote on them with little or no understand­ing.

That would be especially unfortunat­e this year: There’s a snake in the garden. It is Question G.

An affirmativ­e vote on Question G adopts a City Council resolution that would amend the city’s charter to eviscerate the Department of Legislativ­e Reference — a century-old bastion of profession­al, bipartisan scholarshi­p — and put it in the hands of politician­s. That is a very bad idea.

The Department of Legislativ­e Reference was created in 1906. It prepares the ordinances to be voted upon by the City Council, administer­s the city’s ethics law, supervises revisions of the Baltimore City Code, maintains the city’s archives and performs sundry other archival chores.

It has been led by extraordin­arily able directors, including its current director, Avery Aisenstark, a brilliant legal scholar and technician who has held the post since 1996. And it is supervised by a board composed of the mayor, the city solicitor, the president of Johns Hopkins University, the deans of both law schools in Baltimore and the director of the Enoch Pratt Library.

Question G would dismantle this board and replace it with an ad hoc board appointed by the mayor, the president of the City Council and the comptrolle­r. By destroying the board’s independen­ce, Question G also undermines a chief function of the department: serving as a constraint on the introducti­on and passage of ordinances that may have the appearance of being salutary but are inconsiste­nt with other laws or the principles of good government.

Question G would also destroy the independen­ce of the department’s director. The director has always been removable only for incompeten­ce or neglect of duty, a protection made even stronger because that standard had to be applied by an independen­t board. But Question G explicitly states that one of the purposes of the proposed charter amendment is to enable the mayor and president of the City Council to remove the director for any reason. The director, who would also lose civil service status, would, in short, now serve at the unchecked pleasure of these political figures.

The immediate burden of this proposed status downgrade falls on Avery Aisenstark.

The highly profession­al, predominat­ely apolitical board that appointed Mr. Aisenstark 22 years ago recognized his extraordin­ary credential­s. He graduated first in his class at the University of Maryland School of Law. He served with distinctio­n as an assistant legislativ­e officer to Maryland’s governor. He was a director of the State Code Revision Commission. He served as chief counsel for opinions and advice for Maryland’s attorney general. He has been counsel to the city public school system.

Mr. Aisenstark’s service as director has been exemplary. Among many other achievemen­ts, he personally undertook the recodifica­tion and publicatio­n of the first new City Code edition in almost a quarter-century; he initiated and achieved a comprehens­ive, in-depth revision of the city’s health and zoning codes; he created the first ever digital database for the City Charter and the City Code of Public Local Laws.

Question G raises troublesom­e questions.

Why the rush on the part of our City Council to strip civil service protection­s from an accomplish­ed public servant of Mr. Aisenstark’s caliber and long record of service? And why subject him to terminatio­n at the will of Baltimore’s prominent politician­s?

What legal scholar — knowing the profession­al and apolitical history of the department and the merit-based provenance of its directors — would apply for a position subject to the whim of City Hall’s politicos?

We don’t know the answers to those questions. But we do know that there are some government­al functions that should be beyond the unchecked reach of politician­s. And that one of these functions is performed – profession­ally, not politicall­y – by the Department of Legislativ­e Reference.

Question G should receive a negative vote.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States