|
The reason I think that that should be
done is that some of these sections provide
that certain powers or functions of prin-
cipal departments or maybe other depart-
ments be changed by the legislature and
will be subject to reorganizational powers
of the legislature and the governor.
It was never intended, I take it, that as
to the purely constitutional powers of the
attorney general and the comptroller, such
constitutional powers should be subject to
these provisions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sybert,
the Chair thinks that that was very clear
on the record before, but to make certain,
can you simply ask Delegate Morgan
whether that was the clear intent of the
Committee?
DELEGATE SYBERT: Delegate Mor-
gan?
DELEGATE MORGAN: You are cor-
rect. It was not the intention of the Com-
mittee to make these sections apply to the
functions, powers, and duties granted to
the comptroller and attorney general by
this constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Or to any other offi-
cial granted powers by the constitution, I
assume. Is that correct?
DELEGATE MORGAN: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. Chairman,
this response troubles me. It would seem
to me as the colloquy on the floor has just
revealed it, that the General Assembly shall
by law prescribe functions and duties for
the executive department under the gov-
ernor, but do I understand that the Gen-
eral Assembly would not have the power
to reorganize the functions, reallocate
functions under other elected officers?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan I
do not think that that was the thrust of
the question.
As the Chair understands it, Delegate
Sybert was suggesting and Delegate Mor-
gan was concurring in the statement that
these sections, that is sections 4.18, and
4.19 particularly, in granting power to the
legislature to prescribe functions were not
granting power to the legislature to re-
allocate to different departments for offi-
cials, functions specifically granted by the
constitution to the attorney general, to the
comptroller or to the other officials.
Delegate Hanson.
|
DELEGATE HANSON: Then, as I un-
derstand it, if I am correct here, this would
apply only to those constitutional functions
granted those offices but not to statutory
functions?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is what the
Chair understands Delegate Sybert to be
driving at, and he is nodding his head in
the affirmative.
Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: That satisfies
my inquiry.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is your under-
standing, Delegate Morgan?
DELEGATE MORGAN: That is my un-
derstanding, and I think that is what I
replied to Delegate Sybert.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther amendments to section 4.23? Are there
any amendments to section 4.24?
The Chair hears none.
I am sorry, Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: In this case,
may I ask a question of the Executive
Branch Committee?
THE CHAIRMAN: You may, but the
Chair calls attention to the fact that the
very protracted presentation of the report
and question period is designed to avoid
this kind of thing.
Delegate Morgan, will you reply to an
inquiry?
DELEGATE MORGAN: I will.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Delegate Mor-
gan, the last sentence in section 4.24 which
prescribes limitations after a nomination
has been rejected by the Senate on line 38
prohibits the nomination of that same per-
son under certain circumstances.
Is it the intention of the Committee that
this will prohibit the appointment of the
person as well as the nomination being
sent to the Senate?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: It certainly is
the intention of the Committee, but I think
probably the language is deficient. I think
you really ought to have in here "shall
again be nominated for or appointed to"
the same office.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
|
