Baltimore County Executive James T. Smith Jr. could be headed for a showdown with the County Council in his first week on the job over the appointment of his top managers.

An amendment approved overwhelmingly by voters in November states that these top managers, who are heads of county departments and offices, are to be appointed by the county executive and confirmed by the council.

Council members contend that goes for new appointees and top managers from the Ruppersberger administration still in their jobs, many of whom Smith intends to keep on staff at least temporarily.

When the amendment takes effect tomorrow, it's unclear, council members said, whether Baltimore County's public works director would have the authority to fix a pothole, the permits director could issue code citations or the budget officer could order an audit without the formal reappointment.

Smith disagrees.

"Neither the charter nor the amendment that was approved by the voters provided for a termination date for existing department heads, therefore, under the charter, they continue to have the power to perform their office," said Smith spokeswoman Elise Armacost.

If Smith decides to keep any of the sitting department heads on permanently, he plans to send their names to the council for confirmation, Armacost said.

In a letter to County Administrative Officer John Wasilisin last week, council members suggested that the executive should send them the names of the current department heads as interim appointments, which are valid for 60 days and do not require confirmation. If after 60 days he still hasn't decided what to do, he could ask the council for extensions.

"I had so hoped that he was going to accept the offer of the temporary appointments and you could have written an article about the teamwork that he spoke about in his inaugural address, teamwork between the executive and the council and interested citizen groups," said councilman T. Bryan McIntire, a north county Republican.

"This would have been a very positive first step on his part, I think," McIntire said. "Well, that's a shame."

Armacost said Smith won't make interim appointments because the department heads would then be labeled "temporary," undermining their authority and ability to perform their jobs.

"The executive does not want to create that scenario," she said.

The dispute isn't likely to have immediate practical consequences - council members aren't likely to stand in front of snowplows tomorrow in protest. But after eight years of generally smooth dealings between the council and former executive C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, the disagreement provides a rocky start to the new administration's relationship with the most veteran council the county has ever elected.

During the campaign, some current and former county officials wondered whether Smith, who spent 16 years as a judge before stepping down to run for executive, would be willing to engage in th e give-and-take of politics or would stand fast on general principles.

Council members said yesterday that from a political perspective, they can't understand why he wouldn't submit the department heads' names as interim appointments, because he has everything to gain and nothing to lose.

"If the executive says he is going to submit [the names] anyway, then why not avoid the controversy and submit [them] now?" said Councilman Kevin Kamenetz, a Pikesville Democrat. "I think the council would like to avoid any type of confrontation with the executive, and I hope that the executive looks at the situation from a pragmatic point of view and [will] not be overly tied up in legal semantics."

Smith's objection to the amendment itself is well known. When the council was debating whether to put it on the ballot, Smith, then a candidate, helped organize a forceful lobbying effort against it, which included letters and speeches by former county executives and one of the charter's drafters.

McIntire, the architect of the amendment, said that if Smith didn't at the least submit the department heads as interim appointments, those officers would have no legal authority to act in their jobs.

"We just want to make sure we are doing things that are legally correct," he said.

County Attorney Edward J. Gilliss, however, said he doesn't think confirmation of existing department heads is necessary.

When Ruppersberger began his second term, he resubmitted the names of officials who required confirmation under the laws at the time - including the police chief and county administrative officer - though the charter didn't require it.

"Dutch in a sense set a precedent," McIntire said. "Certainly he didn't want there to be any doubt that these people did have the authority to function in those jobs."

What, exactly, the council could do if Smith doesn't acquiesce is unclear. In theory, the matter could go to court to get a judge's interpretation of the law, or the council could stage a symbolic revolt by refusing to hear from department heads at its twice-monthly work sessions.

Councilmen insist the amendment was not meant to signal a lack of confidence in the new executive or any department head, but was just a way to add checks and balances to one of the most executive-dominant local governments in the nation.

"I don't think it was intended to get any particular person," said Councilman Vincent J. Gardina, a Perry Hall Democrat. "The intent was to reaffirm the authority of the legislative branch of government to have oversight over the executive branch."