301 A.3d 117
Md.2023Background
- Jacob Bennett, a Harford County public school teacher employed by the Harford County Board of Education (the Board), was elected to the Harford County Council in November 2022 and intended to serve while remaining a teacher.
- Harford County Charter § 207 prohibits a Council member from holding “any other office of profit or employment in the government of the State of Maryland, Harford County, or any municipality within Harford County.”
- The County sought declaratory and injunctive relief that Bennett was ineligible under § 207; the circuit court agreed and ordered Bennett to end his Board employment to serve on the Council.
- Bennett appealed; the Maryland Supreme Court (formerly Court of Appeals) reviewed whether § 207 applies to Board employees and whether the common-law doctrine of incompatible positions bars concurrent service.
- The Court found § 207 ambiguous as to county boards of education, applied the presumption favoring candidate eligibility, concluded the Board is independent (neither State nor County for § 207 purposes), and held § 207 does not bar Bennett.
- The Court also held the doctrine of incompatible positions does not disqualify Bennett because the Council lacks supervisory, appointive, removal, or salary-setting power over individual teachers and its budget role is too attenuated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (County) | Defendant's Argument (Bennett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Charter § 207 bars a Board-employed teacher from serving on the Harford County Council | The Board is a State or County agency; § 207 therefore disqualifies Bennett | The Board is neither purely State nor County for § 207; employees are eligible | Court: § 207 ambiguous; apply presumption favoring eligibility; Board treated as independent for § 207 → Bennett eligible |
| Whether the doctrine of incompatible positions prohibits concurrent service as teacher and Council member | Council’s budget and appointment role over Board members creates a conflict; positions incompatible | No present or prospective conflict; Council has no supervisory, appointive, removal, or individual salary-setting power over teachers | Court: No incompatibility — roles too attenuated; no subordinate or appointive/salary power linking offices |
Key Cases Cited
- Hetrich v. County Comm’rs of Anne Arundel County, 222 Md. 304 (1960) (articulates test for incompatibility: supervisory/appointive or salary-setting power and present/prospective conflicts)
- Lilly v. Jones, 158 Md. 260 (1930) (incompatibility doctrine precedent)
- Donlon v. Montgomery County Pub. Schs., 460 Md. 62 (2018) (county boards may be State, local, hybrid, or independent depending on context)
- Chesapeake Charter, Inc. v. Anne Arundel County Bd. of Educ., 358 Md. 129 (2000) (county boards are local in the budget/procurement context)
- Beka Industries, Inc. v. Worcester County Bd. of Educ., 419 Md. 194 (2011) (county boards treated as State entities for sovereign immunity in that context)
- Mayor & Comm’rs of Westernport v. Green, 144 Md. 85 (1923) (canon: presumption in favor of eligibility to hold office)
- Abrams v. Lamone, 398 Md. 146 (2007) (discusses the presumption favoring candidate eligibility)