Maryland Attorney General Opinion 101oag035

Gen. 35] 35

LIBRARY GOVERNANCE
ROLES OF COUNTY GOVERNING BODIES, BOARDS OF LIBRARY
TRUSTEES, AND LIBRARY DIRECTORS
August 17, 2016
Mr. Alfred Martin
Maryland Advisory Council on Libraries
On behalf of the Maryland Advisory Council on Libraries,
Mr. M. Kiplinger Hine, Jr., the former chair of the Council,1
requested our opinion on a series of questions regarding the role of
county governing bodies and boards of library of trustees (“library
boards”) in the management of local public libraries. Specifically,
he asked which entity—the county governing body or the library
board—has authority over the selection and management of library
personnel and equipment, and whether a county governing body
has the authority to place conditions on the use of library funds. He
also asked whether a county, if it has access to library records, is
required to maintain the privacy of those records in the same
manner as a library board.
As to the first question, it is our view that county governing
bodies do not have day-to-day control over library personnel and
equipment. Instead, those aspects of library governance are
overseen by the library boards and by the library “director”—a
State-certified library official who, by statute, exercises broad
executive authority over library operations. Further, home-rule
counties that have chosen the charter form of government are
authorized to enact their own provisions on the powers and duties
of library boards. Those counties may create a county department
to operate a library system and then place a certain degree of
operational control with that department, again subject to the
General Assembly’s allocation of some duties and powers to the
library director. As to all of the counties, resources allocated to the
library in a county budget may only be spent for library purposes
and in accordance with the county budget. As a practical matter,
those constraints limit even a charter county’s assignment of library
staff to non-library duties and its use of library equipment for non-
library purposes.

1
Mr. Hine passed away on December 27, 2015, after many years of
public service on the Advisory Council and, before that, in support of the
Calvert County public library system.
36 [101 Op. Att’y

The answer to the second question—whether a county may
place conditions on the expenditure of library funds—depends on
the nature of the condition. A county may require that library funds
be spent in accordance with the county’s generally-applicable
fiscal policies, but it may not condition the use of library funds in
such a way as to conflict with State laws and regulations. For
example, a county could not condition the use of library funds on
the library system’s employment of a director who does not meet
the qualifications set by State statute. Likewise, a county may not
impose conditions that would assign to a county department the
powers that, by statute, the General Assembly has assigned to
library directors.
As for the third question, it is irrelevant under the Maryland
Public Information Act (“PIA”) whether a library board’s
custodian or a county official has physical custody of library
records that the PIA makes confidential; neither custodian may
permit the inspection of those records.
I
A Brief History of Maryland’s Library Laws
Maryland’s local public libraries have a long history. Much
of that history involves a tension between centralized State control
and local autonomy. From the State’s perspective, local public
libraries are an extension of the public education system, which the
State has long directed through the State Board of Education. At
the same time, local public libraries are of obvious interest to the
residents they serve. In recognition of that interest, the General
Assembly has long viewed access to public libraries as something
requiring financial support by both the State and the localities.
With local financial support, however, has come some measure of
local control by county governing bodies. Striking the appropriate
balance between these competing interests while preserving the
independence of professional library staff has been the focus of
much of the State’s library legislation over the past 150 years.
A. Early Initiatives
The General Assembly’s first state-wide legislation on
libraries, enacted in 1872, struck that balance in favor of the State.
1872 Md. Laws, ch. 377. In that law, the General Assembly
provided for the establishment of public libraries in each school-
house district, to be managed “by the teacher, as librarian” and
“[f]or the further encouragement of education.” Id. Local
governing bodies were given no apparent role in the operation of
Gen. 35] 37

libraries. Funding for the district libraries, however, was to be
shared, with each to receive an annual appropriation from the State
School Fund, so long as the residents of the district raised matching
funds. Id.; see also Commission on the Public Library Laws,
Libraries for the People of Maryland (“Commission Report”) at 1
(1970) (reviewing the history of the State’s library laws); 72
Opinions of the Attorney General 262, 263 (1987).
Legislation enacted ten years later introduced the concept of
the library board of trustees as a means to preserve the
independence of library professionals. In 1882, Enoch Pratt
offered the City of Baltimore a gift of $1,058,000 for the
construction of a central library and four branches and an
endowment for their maintenance. See Kerr v. Enoch Pratt Free
Library of Baltimore City, 149 F.2d 212, 215 (4th Cir. 1945). As
a condition of his gift, Mr. Pratt insisted that the library system be
placed under the “control and management” of a board of
trustees—initially appointed by him but self-perpetuating—to
safeguard the library from “political manipulation.” Id. at 218. The
General Assembly enacted legislation authorizing Baltimore City
to accept Enoch Pratt’s gift and providing for partial local funding
and yearly audits. 1882 Md. Laws, ch. 181.
In 1898, the General Assembly adopted the Pratt model for all
municipalities. Legislation enacted that year granted the governing
body of each municipality the power to establish and maintain a
public library through a local tax assessment. 1898 Md. Laws, ch.
515. The legislation required each public library to be under the
direction of a library board of directors charged with carrying out
library operations and given “exclusive control of all moneys
collected to the credit of the library fund.” Id. Finally, it reassigned
the management of public libraries to a board with powers and
duties similar to those adopted for the Pratt library board but
appointed by the municipal governing body. Id.
In the same year that it gave municipalities the power to
establish local public libraries, the General Assembly also
authorized the incorporation of the Washington County Free
Library—the first county-wide public library system in Maryland
and only the second such library in the United States. 1898 Md.
Laws, ch. 511; see Washington County Free Library, “About Us,”
www.washcolibrary.org/aboutus.asp (last visited April 15, 2016).
Like the municipal public libraries, the Washington County Free
Library was to be controlled and managed by a board of trustees
with the power to accept funding from the county and private
donors, “make rules for the regulation” of the library, and “perform
38 [101 Op. Att’y

all other acts necessary to establish and maintain in perpetuity a
free public library for the use of the inhabitants of Washington
county.”2 1898 Md. Laws, ch. 511, §§ 2, 3.
Just four years later, the General Assembly expanded upon
the county-wide public library system adopted for Washington
County. Legislation enacted in 1902 authorized roughly half of the
counties to establish county library systems to be governed by a
library board.3 See 1902 Md. Laws, ch. 367. The boards had
“exclusive control of the expenditure of all moneys collected to the
credit of the library fund” and the power to appoint, remove, and
“fix the compensation” of library staff. Id. § 7. The county
commissioners in the covered counties were given the power to
appoint the library boards and audit the library’s finances. Id. § 8.
At the same time that it granted county commissioners
appointment and fiscal oversight roles, the 1902 legislation
introduced the concept of statewide guidance on library matters. It
created a free-standing commission appointed by the Governor—
known as the Maryland Library Commission—to give advice and
counsel to all free libraries in the State on matters such as the
“establishment of libraries, the selection of books, cataloguing of
books and any other matters pertaining to the maintenance or
administration of the library.” Id. § 15. The enhanced State role in
library operations reflected the “generally recognized” notion that
public libraries “form an integral part of a system of free public
education and are among its most efficient and valuable adjuncts.”
Johnson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 158 Md. 93, 103
(1930).

2
Unlike the boards of trustees for the other municipal libraries, the
Washington County board was not appointed by the local governing
body. Instead, a collection of local businessmen led the library initiative
and were named to the board in the State law incorporating the library.
1898 Md. Laws, ch. 511, § 1; see also The Hagerstown Morning Herald
at 3 (Jan. 24, 1945). The board was self-perpetuating, with the circuit
court empowered to exercise appointment authority only in the unlikely
event that no board member was willing and able to fill vacancies. 1898
Md. Laws, ch. 511, § 4.
3
Twelve Maryland counties were excluded from the law: Frederick,
Queen Anne’s, Garrett, Carroll, Harford, Howard, Charles, Somerset,
Wicomico, Kent, Prince George’s, St. Mary’s, Worcester, and
Baltimore. 1902 Md. Laws, ch. 367, § 16 (listing them in that order).
Gen. 35] 39

B. Maryland’s Statewide System of Public Libraries Takes
Shape
As public libraries proliferated at the local level, a need arose
for greater training of library staff and improvement of services in
rural communities. See Commission Report at 1. In response, the
General Assembly in 1945 enacted the Public Library Act, which
established the modern, statewide system of public libraries. Id.;
1945 Md. Laws, ch. 980. In some ways the 1945 Act built upon
the existing system, and in other ways it broke new ground. First,
a State library agency, known as the Division of Library Extension,
was established within the Maryland State Department of
Education to perform centralized functions.4 1945 Md. Laws, ch.
980. That central library agency absorbed the responsibilities of
the Maryland Library Commission and was given new powers and
duties, including the power to establish professional standards for
all public libraries. Id. Second, all counties were covered by the
new law, and all counties received State aid for the purchase of
books, so long as they collected a minimum tax or made an
equivalent appropriation to the county public library. Id. Third, in
a departure from the prior law, the Governor was given the power
to appoint a board of library trustees for each county that
established a county public library. Id.
The last of these centralizing features was the emergence of a
professional librarian with executive authority over county library
systems. Each library board was required to appoint a librarian
with qualifications that met State Board of Education standards. Id.
The librarian was to “act as the general executive officer of the
library” with the power to manage normal operations according to
“broad policies” approved by the library board. Id.
C. Control Shifts Back Toward the Counties
The centralization, statewide standards, and additional State
control over library boards raised concerns among the counties.
The authority to appoint library board members particularly
mattered to county governments because, as before, library boards
were imbued with broad authority. For example, each board of
library trustees was empowered to: make reasonable rules and
regulations for the use of the library; have general control of the
library staff, including powers of appointment, dismissal, and the

4
The Division of Library Extension was reorganized in 1969 as the
Division of Library Development and Services. Commission Report at
1, n.1.
40 [101 Op. Att’y

fixing of salaries; supervise the use of and have custody of all
property used for library purposes; and receive all moneys and to
control and make all expenditures from the Public Library Fund.
1945 Md. Laws, ch. 980. Given that library boards were now
appointed by the Governor, county governing bodies became
increasingly dissatisfied with the balance of State and local powers
with respect to library management. Commission Report at 7, 11.
The clearest attempt to shift the balance of power back toward
the counties occurred in 1967, when the Prince George’s County
delegation introduced, and the General Assembly adopted, a bill to
restructure the governance of that county’s library system. The bill
proposed to replace the gubernatorially-appointed library board in
Prince George’s County with a library board to be appointed by the
Board of County Commissioners. See 1967 Leg., Reg. Sess. H.B.
855. Further, library personnel would have been included in the
county’s merit system, and financial responsibility would have
been transferred to the Board of County Commissioners.5 Id.
Then-Governor Spiro T. Agnew vetoed the bill because he favored
development of a statewide approach to local control of county
public libraries instead of the enactment of county-specific
legislation. In his veto message, the Governor noted: “It is
extremely important at this time that our libraries in Maryland do
not experience any lapse from the high standards established under
the State system, both from the standpoint of the ability and
independence of board members and the quality of services.” 1967
Md. Laws, Veto Messages at 1771.
Although the Governor rejected the legislation specific to
Prince George’s County, he suggested in his veto message that he
was willing to work with legislative leaders to develop a statewide
framework for local control of county public libraries, albeit under
the State’s supervision. Id. at 1772. In 1968, the General Assembly
responded with a resolution to form the Commission on the Public
Library Laws, which it tasked with reviewing and preparing
recommendations for a comprehensive revision of Maryland’s
public library laws. House Joint Resolution No. 43. In its 1970
final report, the Commission acknowledged that the law at the time
did not “describe with sufficient precision what should be the exact
nature of the relationship” between county governing bodies and

By 1967, Prince George’s County was moving towards home rule.
5

In 1965, its voters chose not to create a charter drafting board, but they
voted to create one in 1968 and adopted a charter in 1970. John T. Willis
and Herbert C. Smith, Maryland Politics and Government: Democratic
Dominance 288 (2012).
Gen. 35] 41

library boards, which was a topic of “considerable concern” to both
of them. Commission Report at 7. Stating that “local elected
officials would have to have more assurances” that local funds
appropriated for library purposes were spent in accordance with the
particular appropriations, id., the Commission proposed legislation
to require library boards to “handle funds in accordance with duly
adopted budgets and the regulations of the local governing body.”
Id. at 11. That type of fiscal oversight, the Commission stated,
would promote “more constant cooperation” between the library
system and the local legislative and fiscal bodies by requiring the
library to “utilize accounting practices and policies approved by the
local governing body and expend its appropriation and other funds
consistent with its budget and the regulations of that local
governing body.” Id.
The Commission’s recommendation that local libraries be
required to follow the local governments’ fiscal regulations did not
extend to library governance more generally. To the contrary, the
Commission confirmed the concept of local libraries as parts of a
centralized State system:
The Commission considers that the best
possible development of the statewide system
of libraries requires centralization of the
leadership, coordination, planning, and
evaluation functions with a clear delineation
of each agency having responsibility for any
of these functions. These functions are being
commendably handled by the Division of
Library Development and Services.
Commission Report at 2. The Commission not only described the
Division of Library Development and Services as “primarily
responsible for leadership and the day-to-day and overall
operations of all libraries in the statewide system,” it recommended
bolstering the State’s role in the library system by creating the
Maryland Advisory Council on Libraries to “gather information on
library needs and . . . formulate policy and long-range plans for the
total statewide system.” Id. Overall, the Commission expressed the
view that it was “only reasonable that the State have regulatory
authority of library systems, financed substantially by State funds,
to assure the accomplishment of statewide library goals.” Id. at 13.
With respect to library board appointments, however, the
Commission recommended that the power be returned to the
county governing bodies, with restrictions in place to minimize the
42 [101 Op. Att’y

role of political influence. The problem with gubernatorial
appointments, the Commission stated, was that they “tend to
become a prestige award for political service rather than the
appointment of someone interested in and competent to direct the
affairs of local libraries.” Id. at 11. The problem was “to some
extent the same” at the county level, where the composition of the
library boards tended to reflect changes in the “political
complexion” of the local governing body. To address these
problems and ensure that library boards are “bi-partisan, if not non-
partisan,” the Commission recommended that county governing
bodies be required to appoint board members from nominees
selected by the library board and that members serve five-year
terms on a staggered basis. Id.; see also id. at 22 (setting forth the
proposed legislation).6
The Commission also made recommendations specific to
charter counties. Draft legislation attached to the Commission’s
report proposed that charter counties be authorized to provide, “by
the terms of their Charters,” the powers, duties, and method of
appointment of library boards, “provided, however, that all
responsibilities of local boards provided for in [the statute] shall be
fulfilled by local governmental agencies specifically designated by
the legislative body of the respective local government.” Id. at 23.
The greater powers recommended for charter counties did not,
however, reflect a conclusion that charter counties should be
exempt from the State library laws in other respects. To the
contrary, the Commission observed that exemptions reduce “the
strength, unity, and coordination of the statewide system of public
libraries” and “defeat th[e] State’s purpose in expending public
monies to fund the Division of Library Development and Services
as the agency to produce a strong, unified and coordinated
statewide system.” Id. at 13. In fact, the Commission proposed
eliminating the pre-existing exemption of twelve counties from the
State library laws. Id.; see also n.3 supra.

6
With regard to self-perpetuating library boards, the Commission
noted that “there had been no complaint,” but that the practice “is not
ideal and has produced some boards which are unrepresentative of the
community in their composition.” Commission Report at 11. The
Commission proposed that those boards’ status not be changed other
than to provide “the minimal guarantees that board membership will be
representative of the area served by the library, chosen on the basis of
ability, character, and demonstrated interest; not restricted by political
affiliation, race, sex, color, or creed; and will not include fewer than
seven members.” Id.
Gen. 35] 43

The Commission’s proposed legislation was introduced
substantially as the Commission had recommended, and, as
relevant here, the bill passed without material amendments.
Compare id., pp. 16-33 with 1971 Md. Laws, ch. 770. Local
governing bodies were given the power to appoint the library
governing boards, and charter counties were given the additional
power to shift board responsibilities to a county agency. As
recommended by the Commission, the 1971 Act required that “all
responsibilities of local boards . . . shall be fulfilled by a local
government unit or a board of library trustees specifically
designated by the legislative body of the respective local
government.” 1971 Md. Laws, ch. 770, at 1683 (Art. 77, § 171(b)).
The 1971 Act also authorized charter counties to alter the
organizational structure of their public libraries, either by charter
amendment or local law or a combination of both. Id. at 1682-83
(Art. 77, § 171). Regardless of what organizational structure was
chosen, however, all county systems had the “power[] and dut[y]”
to appoint a library “director” with the same executive powers held
by the librarian under the 1945 law. See id. at 1685 (Art. 77, § 173)
(including the appointment of a library director among the list of
the library board’s duties); see also id. at 1687 (Art. 77, § 174,
setting forth the library director’s powers). The changes made by
the 1971 law remain an integral part of the current legal framework,
and the Commission’s reasoning behind the proposed provisions
that the General Assembly adopted remain useful indications of the
legislative intent behind those provisions.
II
Current Laws on the Powers and Duties of Library Boards
The current statewide library laws are the product of a 1978 code
revision that re-organized the provisions of the 1971 Act. See
generally 1978 Md. Laws, ch. 22. Under the current law, all counties
have the authority to “establish, and appropriate an amount to support,
a county public library system free from political influence.”7

7
The legislative history indicates that the phrase “free from political
influence” was not used in the sense of insulating the library boards from
the influence of popularly-elected political bodies, but to ensure that
library board appointments were made without discrimination on the
basis of political affiliation. Although two re-numberings make the
history hard to follow, the language that now appears in § 23-401(a) was
added through the 1978 code revision process, which moved the
education laws from Article 77 to the new Education Article. 1978 Md.
Laws, ch. 22. Upon recodification, what is now § 23-401 appeared as
44 [101 Op. Att’y

Md. Code Ann., Educ. § 23-401(a).8 All counties and Baltimore
City have exercised their statutory authority to operate county-wide
public library systems.
The funding for the county library systems is provided
through the “minimum library program,” under which the State and
the counties share in the current operating and capital expenses of
the county public library systems. § 23-502(b). The State provides
approximately 40 percent of the total cost of the system’s expenses,
and the counties provide the other 60 percent through local taxes.
§ 23-503(a). Funds provided as part of the minimum library
program may only be used for library purposes. § 23-506(c).
Because every county in Maryland has elected to participate in the
minimum library program, these broad principles apply across the
State.
The day-to-day administration of the county systems is more
complicated, as it varies by the form of governance adopted by each
county. For our purposes, the various county library systems fall
into two general categories: (1) systems in non-charter counties,
which are run by a board of library trustees with the powers
specified by State law; and (2) systems in charter counties, which
have some authority to prescribe the powers of the entity that the
county establishes to run the system.9 Also relevant to your

§ 23-301 of the new article, and the Revisor’s Note for that section stated
that the “reference to a library system ‘free from political influence’ was
derived from the applicable provisions of Art. 77, §§ 172(a)(4) and
173(a)(4).” 1978 Md. Laws, ch. 22, at 473. Those two sections had
provided that the appointment of library board members and library
directors must be made without regard to “political affiliation.” The
Revisor’s Note for the successor to Art. 77, § 173—the newly-recodified
§ 23-306, which now appears at § 23-406—specifically explains that
“the present reference to political affiliation is deleted as unnecessary in
light of § 23-301(a),” which, again, now appears at § 23-401. 1978 Md.
Laws, ch. 22 at 480. The Revisor’s Notes for the successor to Art. 77,
§ 172—the newly-recodified § 23-303, which now appears at § 23-403—
while less specific, similarly provides no indication that the use of the
phrase “political influence” was intended as a substantive departure from
the earlier use of the phrase “political affiliation.” In fact, both Revisor’s
Notes indicate that the revisions were not intended to effect a
“substantive change.”
8
Except where indicated, all statutory cites in this opinion are to the
Education Article (2014 Repl. Vol., with 2015 Supplement).
9
The systems in Baltimore City and Washington County compose
their own category in that they are subject to the 1882 and 1898 laws
Gen. 35] 45

questions are the statutory provisions setting forth the duties that
the General Assembly chose to assign to the library director instead
of to the county governing bodies or library boards and agencies.
A. Library Boards in Non-Charter Counties
The library systems of non-charter counties “shall be
governed by a board of trustees.” § 23-401(b). A board of library
trustees generally consists of seven members appointed by the
county governing body from nominees submitted by the board of
library trustees to serve 5-year terms on a staggered basis. § 23-
403(a), (c). The library boards’ powers are variously permissive
(i.e., those that the boards “may” exercise) and mandatory (i.e.,
those that the boards “shall” exercise). See §§ 23-405 through 407.
The duties that library boards “shall” perform include:
“establish and operate” the library; provide for an annual audit of
“its business and financial transactions” and make the results
public; and report annually to the county governing body and the
State Superintendent of Education on the results of the audit,
including the number of books and periodicals held, and any other
information that the State Department of Education requires. § 23-405(b)
(i), (e). With respect to personnel matters, library boards “shall”
select and appoint a library director, who then serves at the board’s
pleasure, § 23-406(a), and “shall” establish personnel policies
on matters such as salaries, staff classification, benefits, work
hours, and “[a]ny other personnel procedures and practices
necessary for the efficient operation of the library.” § 23-406(b).
Library boards “may”: establish and operate libraries at “any
location in the county”; “[d]etermine the policy of the library,” and
“[a]dopt reasonable rules, regulations, and bylaws for the use of
the library and the conduct of its business.” § 23-405(c). With
respect to fiscal matters, a library board may “[a]dvise in the
preparation of, and approve, the library budget”; “[r]eceive,
account for, control, and supervise, under the rules and
regulations of the county governing body, the spending of all
public funds received by the library”; and “[u]se the services of
the fiscal agencies of the county
that, respectively, incorporated them. We will not discuss them further.
Nor will we discuss the other county-specific provisions within the
Education Article dealing with labor issues and other discrete topics. See
§§ 23-402, 23-601 through 614 (collective bargaining, Prince George’s
County and Howard County); § 23-402(d) (minority business enterprise
program, Prince George’s County), § 23-402(e) (name of Garrett
County’s system).
46 [101 Op. Att’y

governing body.” § 23-405(d). As to library personnel, a library
board is authorized to appoint any “necessary employees” that the
director nominates, § 23-406(a)(2), (f)(3), and to “dismiss any
library employee” on the “written recommendation of the library
director,” § 23-406(e).
B. Library Boards in Charter Counties
Under § 23-401(b), a charter county has two choices as to the
governance of its library system: “(1) Establish a county library
agency and grant it some or all of the powers of a board of trustees;
or (2) Have a board of library trustees, provide for the board’s
selection, and determine its powers.” The language of paragraph
(1) suggests that a charter county could elect to have a library
agency and confer on it only “some” of the powers provided to
library boards under State law. That possibility would leave
unresolved which entity, if any, exercises the library board powers
that are not so conferred.
Although we need not conclusively resolve that uncertainty in
order to answer the questions Mr. Hines asked, we reach two
interpretive conclusions that will play a role in the analysis below.
First, a charter county may not grant library board powers to an
entity other than a library board or a county library agency. The
current statutory language was adopted through a code revision
process that disavowed any intent to make a “substantive change”
in the law as it existed under the 1971 version of the law. 1978
Md. Laws, ch. 22, at 473 (Revisor’s Note).10 As discussed above,
that prior version specified that “all responsibilities of local boards
. . . shall be fulfilled by a local government unit or a board of library
trustees.” 1971 Md. Laws, ch. 770, at 1683 (emphasis added). The
Education Article thus gives charter counties a choice between only
two entities—a library board or library agency; it contains no

10
The Revisor’s Note also contains this statement about what now
appears as § 23-401(b): “The detailed provisions of Art. 77, § 171(b)
about library organization in charter counties are deleted in favor of the
simpler, but no less accurate provisions of subsection (b) of this section.”
Nothing in this statement, or the Revisor’s Note more generally, causes
us to depart from the rule of statutory construction that requires us to
interpret code-revised language consistent with its pre-amendment
meaning. See, e.g., Allen v. State, 402 Md. 59, 71-72 (2007); 100
Opinions of the Attorney General 160, 187 (2015).
Gen. 35] 47

provision authorizing a county’s governing body to reserve library
powers to itself.11
Second, although a charter county may choose to give a
library board or agency only some of the “may” powers described
above with respect to non-charter counties, it must confer all of the
“shall” powers as a condition of participation in the minimum
library program. That much flows from the statute’s current form.
The language of the statute leaves no room for a local governing
body to decide not to confer the “shall” powers; those powers are
mandatory responsibilities of a local library board or agency.12
One of those “shall” powers is the power to appoint a library
director, which we discuss next.
C. The Library Director
All library boards must appoint a “director of the library” who
either holds “State certification as a professional public librarian”
or is eligible to hold that certification and applies for it within 6
months of employment. § 23-406(a), (c). Charter counties may
delegate to a library agency the board’s authority to appoint the
director, § 23-401(b)(1), but the statute does not authorize them to
alter the director’s powers.13 Instead, the statute provides that the
library director “shall”:

11
Anne Arundel County appears to have both a library agency and a
library board. That county’s charter refers to the County Librarian as a
department head, but adopts the State law provisions on the library
board’s powers. See Anne Arundel County Charter § 552 (“[N]othing in
this Charter contained shall be held or construed as affecting or [in]
anywise changing the organization, operation and administration of the
County library system by the Board of Library Trustees as provided by
public general law.”).
12
This outcome also seems to be consistent with the statute as it
existed prior to code revision. That prior version required that the local
board or agency fulfill “all responsibilities” of the local board . . . shall
be fulfilled by a local government unit or a board of library trustees.”
1971 Md. Laws, ch. 770, at 1683 (emphasis added).
13
The provision of the 1971 law that established the position of
library director begins by saying “except as otherwise provided in
Section 171,” which might be read as suggesting that a charter county
could forgo the appointment of a library director under the flexibility
provided by that section. Although § 171 did provide charter counties
some flexibility, it nevertheless required that they assign “all
responsibilities” of the library board—which under § 173 includes the
48 [101 Op. Att’y

(1) Act as the general executive officer of
the library and be responsible for the
management of its operations in accordance
with policies approved by the board of library
trustees;
(2) Prepare the annual budget of the library,
and present it to the board for approval;
(3) Nominate for appointment all library
employees in the county library system; and
(4) Establish reasonable rules and adopt
regulations for the use of the library system
subject to approval by the board of library
trustees.
§ 23-406(f). A discussion as to the governance of local public
libraries thus must account for the State-mandated role of the
library director as well as the roles of a library board or department
and the county governing body.
III
Analysis
A. Selection and Management of Library Personnel and
Equipment
Your predecessor asked whether a county governing body
could unilaterally reassign library employees to departments in
county government or re-purpose library equipment to a non-
library use. We will address each question separately and within
the context of both a non-charter county and a charter county that
elects to confer library powers on a local library agency.
1. Library Personnel
With respect to library personnel, we focus on § 23-406,
which governs personnel issues. In construing that provision, we

appointment of a library director—either to a board or to a library
agency. The cross-reference to § 171 in § 173 thus seems designed to
direct the reader to the source of the charter counties’ flexibility to create
a library agency and not to render optional the appointment of a library
director. That much seems to be confirmed by § 179 of the 1971 law,
which contemplates that there would be a “director of the library” even
“if no board of trustees exists.” 1971 Md. Laws, ch. 770, at 1694 (Art.
77, § 179).
Gen. 35] 49

rely on well-settled principles of statutory interpretation. We
“begin our inquiry with the words of the statute and, ordinarily,
when the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, according
to their commonly understood meaning, we end our inquiry there
also.” Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Chase, 360 Md.
121, 128 (2000) (internal quotation and citations omitted). When
it is possible to draw conclusions based on the plain meaning of the
statutory language, we “neither add nor delete language so as to
reflect an intent not evidenced in that language.” Id. at 128
(internal quotation omitted). Nor do we read the statute in
isolation. As just one section of Maryland’s public library laws, it
“must be viewed within the context of the statutory scheme to
which it belongs, considering the purpose, aim, or policy of the
Legislature in enacting the statute.” State v. Johnson, 415 Md. 413,
421 (2010). In placing § 23-406 within its statutory context, we
thus also look to § 23-506(c), which requires that library funds be
used only for library purposes.
a. Non-Charter Counties
As to non-charter counties, the statute expressly grants to the
board of library trustees the power to appoint and dismiss library
personnel on the recommendation of the director. § 23-406(e),
(f)(3). The board also may delegate to the library director its
authority to appoint “any other necessary employees.” § 23-406(a).
The plain language of the statute is broad and inclusive, extending
from the top to the bottom of the library hierarchy, and nothing
suggests that these counties may delegate the board’s and director’s
authority to a third entity or to a different official. Similarly, the
statute delegates to the library board, and not to anyone else, the
authority to establish personnel policies on a wide range of topics,
including staff classification, salaries and benefits, work
conditions, hours of work, grievance procedures, and “any other
personnel procedures and practices necessary for the efficient
operation of the library.” § 23-406(b). Finally, if an employee
requests a hearing regarding a suspension or dismissal, it is held
before the board of library trustees. § 23-406(d), (e).
In short, § 23-406 assigns control over all library personnel
matters to the board of library trustees and the library director; the
statute gives no role to the county governing body in the
appointment, removal, assignment, or reassignment of library
personnel. By giving a significant role to the State-certified library
director, the statute furthers the broader purposes articulated by the
Commission—and presumably adopted by the General Assembly
when it enacted the Commission’s recommendations with little
50 [101 Op. Att’y

change—that the system of public libraries in Maryland be a
“strong, unified and coordinated statewide system.” Commission
Report at 13. Accordingly, in our opinion, the governing bodies of
non-charter counties lack the authority either to unilaterally
reassign library employees to county departments or to override the
personnel policies that a library board has adopted under § 23-
406(b).
b. Charter Counties
The same result holds in a charter county that has elected to
assign library governance to a library board and adopt the State law
provisions applicable to that body. In that instance, the difference
in form of county governance does not alter our analysis. Our
analysis is altered somewhat when a charter county has chosen to
“determine” the powers of their boards of trustees or establish a
county library agency, see § 23-401(b), but we reach basically the
same conclusion.14 Although the grant of authority to charter
counties to “determine” a county library agency’s “powers” might
seem open-ended, a local government’s authority to operate under
a charter does not include the authority to enact laws that would
conflict with general laws enacted by the General Assembly. See,
e.g., Mayor of Baltimore v. Hart, 395 Md. 394, 407, 409 (2006);
see also Coalition for Open Doors v. Annapolis Lodge No. 622,
333 Md. 359, 380, n.39 (1994). Although § 23-401(b) authorizes
charter counties to determine the powers of a library board or to
create a library agency with “some or all” of a library board’s
powers, the statute that defines the director’s powers—§ 23-406—
does not contain analogous language and thus does not authorize
charter counties to alter the library director’s powers, much less in
a way that would conflict with the statute.
In our opinion, the charter counties’ authority to structure the
governance of libraries is circumscribed by the statutory role
assigned to library directors. First, and most specifically, a charter
county may not adopt measures to empower a county agency to
unilaterally appoint, suspend, or dismiss library employees,
because § 23-406 expressly gives the library director a role in all
of those actions. Likewise, we conclude that a county agency’s

14
Eleven Maryland counties have ratified charter forms of
government: Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Cecil, Dorchester, Frederick,
Harford, Howard, Montgomery, Prince George’s, Talbot, and
Wicomico. Maryland Manual On-Line, http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/
mdmanual/01glance/html/county.html (last visited April 18, 2016).
Gen. 35] 51

unilateral removal of a library employee from library duties by
“reassigning” the employee to other county duties would conflict
with the legislative intent that library directors, certified by the
State as professional public librarians, § 23-406(c), play a
substantive role in deciding who should be dismissed from
employment in the county library system.15 See § 23-406(f)(3)
(requirement that the director nominate “all library employees” for
appointment).
Second, and more generally, we conclude that a charter
county’s authority with regard to library governance is limited by
§ 23-406(f)(1), which designates the library director as the “general
executive officer of the library” and makes the library director
“responsible for the management of its operations.” This
“executive” function, when used in laws that apportion
governmental powers, generally encompasses the implementation
of laws and policies, as opposed to the formulation of them. Queen
Anne’s Conservation, Inc. v. County Comm’rs of Queen Anne’s
County, 382 Md. 306, 324-27 (2004) (distinguishing executive
powers from legislative powers); see also, e.g., Eggert v.
Montgomery County Council, 263 Md. 243, 259 (1971) (holding
that the construction of public improvements pursuant to existing
law is executive in character); 78 Opinions of the Attorney General
275, 279-80 (1993) (collecting Maryland cases in which the Court
of Appeals addressed the scope of executive powers for various
purposes). State law assigns to the director the executive function
of operating the library system in a manner that is consistent with
the personnel policies and budget approved by a library board or
agency and the fiscal policies of the county. Regardless of whether
a charter county chooses to establish a county library agency, State
law does not authorize that county either to assume the library
director’s executive function or delegate it to another entity.
Finally, applicable to all counties is the statutory prohibition
on the use of State and local library system funds for non-library
purposes. § 23-506(c). A library system employee who has been

15
Depending on the county, an involuntary transfer of an employee
from a position in the library system to a position in the county
government might well be a termination of employment, subject to the
procedures in § 23-406. You have not asked us to address the
employment-law implications of transfers, which could vary with such
circumstances as the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement,
and, for charter counties, the extent to which the library agency has
adopted county-wide personnel policies.
52 [101 Op. Att’y

assigned non-library duties thus may not be paid for that work from
library system funds.
2. Library Equipment
Your predecessor also asked whether a county governing
body could “appropriate” equipment purchased for library use for
other uses. The statutory language does not address the
repurposing of equipment for non-library use, but it does address
the purchase of library equipment more generally through
provisions governing the administration of library funding.
Three funding provisions are relevant here. First, as discussed
above, § 23-506(c)(1) requires that funds provided under the
minimum library program “may be used only for library purposes.”
That provision suggests that a county governing body may not
repurpose to a non-library use equipment that was purchased with
library funds. By contrast, § 23-506(b) suggests a greater role for
the county governing body. It provides that capital expenses—
which are defined by statute to include the purchase of “equipment
and furniture for . . . library buildings,” § 23-501—are administered
by the county governing body, while operating expenses are
administered by the board of library trustees. § 23-506(b). Finally,
§ 23-405(d)(2) seems to fall somewhere in the middle:
Each board of library trustees may receive,
account for, control, and supervise, under the
rules and regulations of the county governing
body, the spending of all public funds
received by the library.
§ 23-405(d)(2).
Before attempting to construe all three of these provisions
together, we must first attempt to give meaning to § 23-405(d),
which is ambiguous. It is not clear whether the Legislature
intended that a county governing body, through its “rules and
regulations,” would have the power to direct the use of capital
expense funds beyond the original purchase of equipment for
library use or, alternatively, whether the board of library trustees,
by virtue of its power to “control, and supervise” the spending of
all public funds received by the library, acquires full ownership and
control of library equipment after it is purchased. To resolve the
ambiguity created by § 23-405(d)(2), we seek an explanation of
what was intended when that language was adopted. See, e.g.,
Baker v. Montgomery County, 427 Md. 691, 706 (2012) (where the
language of a statute is ambiguous, a court may rely on legislative
Gen. 35] 53

history to “discern the legislative purpose, the ends to be
accomplished, or the evils to be remedied” (internal quotation
omitted)).
The origins of § 23-405(d)(2) can be traced to the 1970
Commission Report. Counties had expressed concern that their
“elected officials should have control to prevent transfer of funds
appropriated for one library purpose from being used for another
library purpose,” and thus the Commission sought to provide
“more assurances” that funds would be expended for the purpose
designated by the people’s representatives. Commission Report at
7. To address this concern, the Commission recommended the
following statutory language:
[Each board of library trustees may] receive,
account for, control and supervise, in
accordance with its duly adopted budget and
the regulations of the local governing body,
the expenditure of all public funds received by
the library.
Commission Report at 24. The Legislature adopted the
Commission’s recommendation without substantive change when
it enacted what is now § 23-405(d)(2).16 In light of this legislative
history, we do not read § 23-405(d)(2) as extending the county
governing body’s role as administrator of expense funds beyond
the original purchase. That provision simply assures local elected
officials that the library board will spend library funds for their
designated library purpose.
Putting all three relevant provisions together, it is our view
that county governing bodies have the authority to designate which
of the appropriated library funds are capital funds and which are
operating funds. That outcome seems to flow from § 23-405(d)(2),
which makes the expenditure of library funds subject to the “rules
and regulations of the county governing body.” Once the county
has made the allocation between capital and operating expenses,
the county may further specify the particular use to which the
capital funds may be put. That much flows from § 23-506(b).

16
Compare Commission Report, pp. 16-33 with 1971 Md. Laws, ch.
770. The only difference between the Commission’s recommended
language and what now appears as § 23-405(d)(2) is that the
Commission’s version refers to a “duly adopted budget” and regulations
whereas the enacted language refers to “rules and regulations”—a
difference that we do not find meaningful in this context.
54 [101 Op. Att’y

Under no circumstance, however, may minimum library program
funds be expended for non-library purposes. That much flows from
§ 23-506(c).
An example might illustrate how these provisions interrelate.
A county governing body may direct that a certain amount of
capital funds be used to purchase computers for the library system.
In that event, the board or the library agency may not spend those
capital funds for any other purpose. By contrast, a county provides
library operating funds essentially in a lump sum; § 23-506(b)(1)
gives the library board (or agency) the power to administer those
funds.
We see no evidence, however, that the General Assembly
intended to give the county governing body the continuing power
to direct the use of equipment after it is placed in service. Rather,
day-to-day decisions about how to use library equipment fall within
the library director’s executive function, subject to the policies and
general oversight of the library board. See § 23-406(a)(1) (director
serves “at the pleasure of the board”), (f)(1) (director acts as
executive officer “in accordance with policies approved by the
board”).
Accordingly, as to both charter and non-charter counties, it is
our opinion that a county governing body may not appropriate for
other uses equipment that was purchased for library use. Funds
provided by the county and State as part of the minimum library
program must be used only for library purposes. § 23-506(c). A
county’s dedication of equipment purchased with minimum library
program funds to a non-library use would conflict with this
mandate. And, as with personnel actions, decisions involving the
allocation of library equipment must be consistent with the role that
the General Assembly has assigned to the library director. Under
§ 23-406(f)(1), the library director “shall . . . [a]ct as the general
executive officer of the library and be responsible for the
management of its operations in accordance with policies approved
by the board of library trustees.” These duties, placed by the
General Assembly with State-certified library professionals, could
not be meaningfully performed by directors if non-library
personnel and entities were given unilateral authority to declare
library equipment excess and remove it.
B. A County Governing Body’s Placement of Conditions on
Library Funds
Your predecessor also asked whether a county governing
body has the authority to place conditions on the specific use of
Gen. 35] 55

library funds. Library funding originates with the county
governing body but then quickly becomes intertwined with other
entities. Under the county-State minimum library program, the
State shares in the current operating and capital expenses of
participating county public library systems. § 23-502(b). All State
and county funds provided as part of the minimum library program
may only be used for library purposes. § 23-506(c).
More specifically, the library boards administer “current
operating funds,” while the county governing bodies administer
“capital expense funds.” § 23-506(b). Although the term
“operating funds” is not defined, the term “capital expense” means
“principal and interest payments, or current capital spending or
accumulation” for purchases of land and buildings and the
“purchase of equipment and furniture for these library buildings.”
§ 23-501(c). In addition, while a library board may “[r]ecommend
to the county governing body the acquisition, use, or conveyance
of property for any purpose valid under [the State’s county library
laws],” § 23-405(f)(3), the county governing body has the authority
to appropriate funds for those purposes. § 23-401(a).
Normally, the authority to appropriate funds—and to reduce
or eliminate an appropriation—includes an implicit authority to set
conditions. 85 Opinions of the Attorney General 167, 171 (2000)
(citing Bayne v. Secretary of State, 283 Md. 560, 574 (1978)).
Thus, in the absence of a provision of law to the contrary, a county
may impose conditions on a grantee’s receipt of county funds,
“including a direction as to the manner of expenditure of those
funds.” Prince George’s County v. Chillum-Adelphi Volunteer
Fire Dep’t, Inc., 275 Md. 374, 381 (1975). However, a county may
not impose a condition that conflicts with State law, deals with a
subject matter that the General Assembly has expressly reserved
for itself, or deals with an area in which the General Assembly has
“acted with such force that an intent to occupy the entire field must
be implied.” McCarthy v. Board of Educ. of Anne Arundel County,
280 Md. 634, 639 (1977). State preemption of local law effectively
limits the authority of a county to impose conditions that would
otherwise be valid under the county’s authority to reduce or
eliminate appropriations. See Howard County v. Potomac Elec.
Power Co., 319 Md. 511, 527-28 (1990).
The application of the preemption doctrine to county budget
conditions would depend on two circumstances: the type of funds
and the nature of the condition. The type of funds makes a
difference because the statute gives county government bodies
somewhat greater leeway with respect to capital expenses than they
56 [101 Op. Att’y

have with respect to operating expense. The county governing
bodies “administer[]” the former, while the library boards
administer the latter. § 23-506(b).
As to the nature of the condition, we cannot be very specific,
as your predecessor did not request an opinion with respect to any
particular type of budget condition. Suffice it to say that prior
opinions of this Office have invalidated on preemption grounds
some types of budget conditions on education appropriations. See
85 Opinions of the Attorney General at 175 (county may not
condition funds on the creation of two audit positions, in light of
the school board’s control over staffing decisions); 81 Opinions of
the Attorney General 26, 34 (1996) (county may not condition
eligibility for a grant on a school’s agreement to pursue a particular
program of instruction); see also McCarthy, 280 Md. at 650-51 (the
State has “forcibly” occupied the field of education (internal
quotation omitted)). Instead, our analysis here will focus on
preemption and the permissibility of budget conditions more
generally.
The historically close association between public libraries and
public schools suggests that the State’s preemptive reach is
particularly broad here. The General Assembly has found public
libraries to be “essential components of the educational system.”
§ 23-101(a)(1). Indeed, early public libraries originated as school-
house district libraries intended “[f]or the further encouragement
of education.” 1872 Md. Laws, ch. 377. The Court of Appeals has
similarly recognized that public libraries “form an integral part of
a system of free public education and are among its most efficient
and valuable adjuncts.” Johnson, 158 Md. at 103. Today, the
central library agency is housed within the Maryland State
Department of Education and recommends to the State Board of
Education rules and regulations to implement the statewide library
system. §§ 23-102, 23-106(b)(10). The leadership of the Division
of Library Development and Services is critical because it is “the
only State agency having regular contact with and any legal
responsibility for the total library enterprise.” Commission Report
at 3.
Maryland’s public library laws have been revised multiple
times, each time with an eye toward a more comprehensive
framework. Rather than authorizing county public libraries and
remaining silent on their governance, the General Assembly
carefully outlined the appointment, composition, and powers and
duties of the board of library trustees. See §§ 23-403 through 23-
405. And, in 1971, as a further indication of its intent that local
libraries be components of a statewide system, the General
Gen. 35] 57

Assembly repealed the provisions that had exempted some counties
from the library laws. 1971 Md. Laws, ch. 770. In short, the State
has addressed how library governance is to be allocated among
county governing bodies, library boards or agencies, and library
directors and has thereby limited the types of conditions that a
county governing body may place on the expenditure of library
funds.
In our opinion, a county governing body may place a
condition on the specific use of library funds only to the extent that
the condition does not intrude upon the statutory framework
developed by the General Assembly. See Chillum-Adelphi
Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc., 275 Md. at 381 (stating that charter
county could impose conditions in the “absence of some provision
of law to the contrary, constitutional or statutory”); 85 Opinions of
the Attorney General at 172-74 (discussing preemption in the
context of county education budgets). Whether State law would
preempt a particular condition depends on the type of condition at
issue.
C. The Privacy of Library Records Under the PIA
In his letter requesting this opinion, your predecessor asked
whether a “county” that has access to library records is required to
maintain the privacy of those records in the same manner as a board
of library trustees. This question is governed by the Maryland
Public Information Act (“PIA”),17 which provides in relevant part:
(a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, a
custodian shall prohibit inspection, use, or
disclosure of a circulation record of a public
library or any other item, collection, or
grouping of information about an individual
that:
(1) is maintained by a library;
(2) contains an individual’s name or the
identifying number, symbol, or other
identifying particular assigned to the
individual; and

17
Md. Code Ann., Gen. Prov. (“GP”) §§ 4-101 through 4-1001 (2014
Repl. Vol., 2015 Supp.). The Education Article contains analogous
provisions, but they apply only to the circulation records of free
association, school, college, and university libraries. See Educ. § 23-107.
58 [101 Op. Att’y

(3) identifies the use a patron makes of
that library’s materials, services, or facilities.
(b) A custodian shall allow inspection, use,
or disclosure of a circulation record of a public
library only:
(1) in connection with the library’s
ordinary business; and
(2) for the purposes for which the record
was created.
GP § 4-308. When a library record meets the criteria stated in GP
§ 4-308, the PIA generally prohibits the disclosure of that record.
At the outset, it is important to note that we have not been
asked whether it is appropriate for a county official to have routine
access to a record subject to GP § 4-308. We are not in this opinion
providing advice on that legal issue, which may require an analysis
of First Amendment law,18 national security law,19 and State
records retention laws.20 The question posed to us instead assumes
that a county has access to library records in some circumstances
and asks only for our advice on the legal obligations of a county
official who in fact has possession of such records. We will accept

18
The disclosure of library patrons’ reading choices could raise First
Amendment concerns. See, e.g., Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of
Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044, 1053 (Colo. 2002) (“The First Amendment
embraces the individual’s right to purchase and read whatever books she
wishes to, without fear that the government will take steps to discover
which books she buys, reads, or intends to read.”).
19
The various federal laws pertaining to national security
investigations might impose duties on a custodian. See, e.g., Susan
Nevelow Mart, The Chains of the Constitution and Legal Process in the
Library: A Post-USA Patriot Reauthorization Act Assessment, 33 Okla.
City U. L. Rev. 435 (2008) (discussing the application of the USA
PATRIOT Act to public libraries).
20
For example, although a library records custodian may store
confidential library records at a facility under another custodian’s
physical control, a library board or library agency may not allow those
records to be stored in a way that provides access not permitted by the
PIA. See, e.g., Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 10-611(b)(1) (requiring
that units of State government have a records management program with
procedures “to ensure the security of the records”).
Gen. 35] 59

that assumption solely for purposes of answering the specific legal
question that has been posed to us.
With that limitation in place, the fact that a county official
might possess library records does not alter the level of protection
afforded such records. There are two types of custodians under the
PIA. The “official custodian” is the “officer or employee of the
State or of a political subdivision who is responsible for keeping a
public record,” GP § 4-101(f); here, that would probably be the
library director, who, as “the general executive officer of the
library,” manages library operations in accordance with the policies
approved by the library board. Educ. § 23-406(f)(1). The term
“custodian” also includes, however, “any other authorized
individual who has physical custody and control of a public
record.” GP § 4-101(d). As a result, a county official who is
authorized to have access to a library record also might qualify as
a “custodian,” though not an “official custodian.” Because GP § 4-
308 applies to “custodians” generally, the obligation to maintain
the privacy of library records applies equally to the library director
and any county official who might possess such records.21
County officials who have access to library records are not
authorized to provide broader access than the PIA allows. Counties
lack the authority to adopt measures that conflict with a State law
by permitting that which the State law prohibits. See, e.g., Police
Patrol Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Prince George’s County, 378 Md. 702, 714
(2003) (“A local ordinance is pre-empted by conflict when it
prohibits an activity which is intended to be permitted by state law,
or permits an activity which is intended to be prohibited by state
law.” (quoting Montrose Christian Sch. Corp. v. Walsh, 363 Md.
565, 580 (2001)); see also 86 Opinions of the Attorney General 94,
106-08 (2001) (explaining that a local ordinance cannot establish
an exception to the PIA that is not allowed under State law). A
county measure that permitted the disclosure of records protected
by GP § 4-308 would be invalid for that reason alone. Accordingly,
a non-library custodian to whom a library has transferred library
records must comply with the PIA when considering a request for
those records.

21
The two exceptions to the protections provided by GP § 4-308(a)
pertain to library operations and so would not usually authorize
disclosure by non-library personnel. See GP § 4-308(b); Educ. § 23-
406(f)(1) (making the library director responsible for library operations).
60 [101 Op. Att’y

III
Conclusion
The balance of authority among county governing bodies,
boards of library trustees or a charter county’s library agency, and
library directors is an important topic throughout Maryland’s
public library laws. Although it is difficult to generalize about
which entity has primary authority over the many types of
personnel and equipment issues that might arise, there are three
overarching principles to help guide the relevant participants. First,
library funds must be used for library purposes and spent in
accordance with a duly adopted budget. That principle limits the
ability of both the county library and the county governing body to
assign library employees to non-library positions and use library
equipment for non-library purposes. Second, the General
Assembly has made the library director, who must be certified by
the State for the position, the “executive officer” of the library.
While there might be some overlap between the roles of the
director and the library board or agency, we see no
indication that a county governing body may itself manage
day-to-day library operations, either directly or through
conditions that go beyond the fiscal roles assigned to it. Third,
because library records are protected under the PIA, a county
official in possession of such records must maintain their
privacy in the same manner as a board of library trustees.
Brian E. Frosh
Attorney General of Maryland
Alan J. Dunklow
Assistant Attorney General

Adam D. Snyder
Chief Counsel, Opinions & Advice

* This opinion was revised after issuance to include a citation to 72
Opinions of the Attorney General 262 (1987).