|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: It was our inter-
pretation of the court's rule-making power
that it is their final practice and procedure.
If you repeat the merit plan for the em-
ployees enacted by the legislature, it would
seem to me that that would be non-revok-
able under the rule-making power of the
Court of Appeals in matters, practice and
procedure.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant, the
Chair suggests that these questions are
hardly pertinent to the matter under con-
sideration or section 4.23.
DELEGATE GRANT: I think it is per-
tinent, because of the fact that it says the
General Assembly shall provide the law
for all employees.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think you are
correct. Do you have any further questions?
DELEGATE GRANT: I just want to
make certain that this is in the record,
that the Chairman of the Judicial Branch
Committee does not understand that the
rule-making power would extend to declar-
ing that the merit system would not be
applicable to the judiciary department.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: That would be my
opinion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Mr. Chairman,
would the Chairman of the Executive
Branch Committee yield for a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: Would Delegate
Morgan yield for a question?
DELEGATE MORGAN: I yield.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Delegate Mor-
gan, does the language in Committee Rec-
ommendation No. 4.23 give to the General
Assembly power that it would not other-
wise have, or does it restrict the General
Assembly in any way?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: I cannot say
that it restricts the General Assembly in
any way. It is simply a wrap-up to round
out the removal authority. It says officers
of one class would be appointed in one
fashion and officers of another class would
be appointed in another fashion and this
|
says all officers shall be appointed in ac-
cordance with the general rules prescribed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: If there were no
section 4.23 would the General Assembly
have less power than the General Assem-
bly would otherwise have?
DELEGATE MORGAN: In my opinion,
it would not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any further ques-
tions, Delegate Chabot?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Mr. Chairman,
may I speak for the amendment?
THE CHAIRMAN: You may.
DELEGATE CHABOT: The amendment
was described as having no function except
being exhortative. In this I suggest it is
of greater usefulness than the language
which is in the committee recommendation,
since that language neither increases nor
decreases power nor does it exhort any-
one to do anything in any specific way or
in any general way.
I suggest that exhortations are not al-
ways bad things to include in the constitu-
tion and that this particular one is a good
one.
As to the specific point that Delegate
Hanson raised, it seems to me that the
language prescribed by law is sufficiently
general so that the General Assembly would
be permitted to authorize a civil service
board or agency to prescribe by regula-
tions which sort of categories of people un-
der certain guideline circumstances would
be covered and who would not be covered,
so that the problem that he raised would
not seem to be a difficulty under the lan-
guage presented by Delegate Maurer.
Under the circumstances, I would en-
courage that this amendment be adopted.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question?
Delegate Grumbacher.
DELEGATE GRUMBACHER: I would
like to make a parliamentary inquiry.
THE CHAIRMAN: State the inquiry.
DELEGATE GRUMBACHER: Under
what rule are we able to yield the floor
for a question when we do not have the
floor?
I have noticed time and again yes-
terday and today that someone will ask if
|
