496

MEMORANDUM TO COMMITTEE ON STATE FINANCE

AND TAXATION, AND ALL OTHER DELEGATES TO

THE MARYLAND CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION,

WITH RECOMMENDATIONS ON ARTICLE VI

OF THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION

October 30, 1967

In my address of September 29, 1967, before the full assembly of
the Maryland Constitutional Convention, I promised to transmit my
recommendations on Article VI of the Draft Constitution to the Con-
vention at a later date. Consequently, I have prepared the following
memorandum expressing my views, comments and proposals for
Article VI.

1. The present Constitution and Sections 6. 03 and 6. 07 of the draft
document imply that the Governor should submit a single budget
bill to the General Assembly. Supplemental budget items are inserted
as amendments to the original budget bill.

The General Assembly usually passes the budget bill in the last
five days of a General Assembly session. One of the primary reasons
for this is the necessity of amending it in order to include appropria-
tions for the maximum number of bills enacted during that session.
I plan to discuss with the legislative leaders the possibility of sub-
mitting separate budget bills for deficiency, regular and supplemental
purposes. Such a plan offers definite advantages to both the executive
and legislative branches.

While the details of implementing such a plan would be inap-
propriate to include in the Constitution, I would urge the delegates
to consider a provision broad enough to allow the executive budget
to be submitted in several separate bills.

2. I favor revision of Section 6. 10 of the Draft Constitution to
eliminate the restriction on supplementary appropriation bills to
"some single work, object or purpose" and to include authorization
for line item veto power by the Executive. The legal difficulties re-
sulting from the fiscal reform program enacted by the 1967 General
Assembly, which ultimately required a special one-day session this
summer, clearly demonstrate the need for constitutional clarification
in this area. However, I would not favor omission of the single object
or purpose provision unless line item veto power is provided. This
revision will also obviate any challenge to the constitutional validity
of the general construction bond bill.