|
whether they should be headed by a single
chief executive of each department, ac-
countable, so that you do not lose visability,
so that you do not have a game going on
where you get a state road's commissioner
who gets a call from one of his citizens,
and he says, help me out on this road, and
he says "I will", but he comes back and
says the board voted five to one against me.
We ought to get professionals and let
them be responsible for heading depart-
ments of government which have major re-
sponsibilities that we are enunciating in
our article. I feel that you cannot do this
through a board.
I would hope that we could once and for
all settle the question either way, and de-
cide whether we feel that the philosophy
which has been so well enunciated in 32 of
the states of this nation, as well as by the
federal government, and a practice which
prevails throughout counties, cities and
also throughout industry, of having a single
individual responsible for the administra-
tion and the execution of the affairs as-
signed to that department is the better one.
I would hope that this Convention would
act favorably upon this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to question the sponsor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate James?
DELEGATE JAMES: I would like to
oppose it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let's get questions
to the sponsor first.
Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: Delegate Fornos,
what other boards or commissions will be
provided for in this constitution?
DELEGATE FORNOS: I would have to
say on that, whatever the majority of the
Convention decides to do on the other
boards.
A board of review has been provided for
so far, and we have had some discussion, I
guess which will again arise when we are
confronted with the educational article, on
whether the principle that has prevailed
and now prevails with some 27,000 school
boards throughout the country, that educa-
tion is somewhat a trusteeship for all the
people and would be headed by a board
should continue.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason.
|
DELEGATE MASON: Would this pro-
vision preclude advisory boards?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fornos.
DELEGATE FORNOS: No, sir, it would
not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Raley, do
you have a question to put to the sponsor
of the amendment?
DELEGATE RALEY: The question that
I would like to ask is does every single de-
partment have to have a single executive?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fornos.
DELEGATE FORNOS: Yes, those de-
partments which are designated as prin-
cipal departments under the concept which
we adopted of no more than twenty prin-
cipal departments.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Raley.
DELEGATE RALEY: I will ask the
question in just a second. I am reading this
other section as quickly as I can.
If you are following that, there is no
other place provided in the constitution that
I know of for a board if you take it out of
there. It would seem to me you would also
have to take out of 4.21 the section on ad-
ministrative offices, et cetera, would you
not?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fornos.
DELEGATE FORNOS: The reason we
tried to get this simple enunciation is that
I think if this passes, then the Committee
on Style and Drafting can clean up the
rest of the language which was provided
for to solve the philosophy of allowing
boards to head up principal departments.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Raley.
DELEGATE RALEY: Let me get it then
clear, so that we all know what we are
doing here.
As I understand it, if you vote for this
amendment then every principal depart-
ment in the State has to be under the chief
executive and as it seems to me, it will, it
almost precludes any other boards from
being a department head; is that correct?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fornos.
DELEGATE FORNOS: He is absolutely
right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Maurer,
do you have a question?
DELEGATE MAURER: Yes, sir. I
wanted to direct a question to Mr. Fornos.
|
