An ancillary question, which the record does not permit us to resolve, is whether, upon a finding by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County that the board was so required and violated the law in not conducting its deliberation openly, the court was justified in requiring the county to pay 65% of the attorney's fees incurred by the persons challenging the board's action. The question before us in this appeal is whether the Baltimore County Board of Appeals was required by the State Open Meetings Act to deliberate in open session when considering an appeal from a hearing officer's approval of a development plan.
One principal way to do that is to examine the relevant legislative history of the statute. Especially when, as in this case, the words of the statute are susceptible to more than one meaning, it is necessary to consider their meaning and effect "in light of the setting, the objectives and purpose of the enactment." Tucker v. As we have said many, many times, the cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and carry out the true intention of the Legislature.
0 kommentar(er)
