|
DELEGATE FORNOS: Delegate Boileau,
it does not effect that language at all.
It would still allow regulatory quasi-
judicial such as the Public Service Com-
mission, those agencies with rule-making
authority, to be headed by boards.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gill.
DELEGATE GILL: I would like to make
a parliamentary inquiry.
THE CHAIRMAN: State your inquiry.
DELEGATE GILL: Yesterday after
some of the delegates were excused to leave
because of the weather, we discussed this
amendment. At the time I asked if we could
have a copy of 4.20 on the desk, and you
delayed action, hoping that it would soon
be ready, but as of now I do not have 4.20.
THE CHAIRMAN: 4.20 was distributed
yesterday afternoon.
DELEGATE GILL: It was distributed?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
DELEGATE GILL: I do not have it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fornos.
DELEGATE FORNOS: Delegate Gill,
all of the amendments attempted yesterday
under 4.20 were defeated, except for the
fact that we did remove out of your blue
sheet the phrase "including the chief legal
officer, the chief fiscal officer."
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gill.
DELEGATE GILL: Section 4.20, I
thought, started someplace else. That is
why I would like to have the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will you find the
Chief Page for me, please.
DELEGATE BOYCE: Mr. President.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyce.
DELEGATE BOYCE: I think that this
can be clarified to Delegate Gill's satisfac-
tion right away. Section 4.20 was simply
to remove six or seven words. There was
never a new amendment given to us, at
least I did not get one, and the words were,
"including the chief legal officer and the
chief fiscal officer."
That is the only change from section
4.20. They were taken out. The one you
are talking about was defeated on the floor.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me see if I can
clarify the inquiry.
Delegate Gill, section 4.20 is before you
now in the form printed on the blue sheet,
|
except for the change made this morning,
to strike out the words "including the chief
legal officer and the chief fiscal officer".
Other than that, the section is in the form
in your committee recommendation.
Delegate Koss, do you have a question to
the sponsor?
DELEGATE KOSS: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed.
DELEGATE KOSS: Delegate Fornos,
would your amendment still make it possi-
ble to have advisory boards with whom the
single chief executive could consult, but
nonetheless he himself would be responsible
for his decisions?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fornos.
DELEGATE FORNOS: Absolutely.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Cardin.
DELEGATE CARDIN: I believe my
question was very similar, Mr. Chairman.
My question was whether there could even
be a board. It is just that one man would
be responsible for the administrative ac-
tivities of the agency.
THE CHAIRMAN : Very well.
If there are no further questions to the
sponsor, the Chair recognizes Delegate
Morgan to speak in opposition.
DELEGATE MORGAN: Mr. President,
in this amendment we are going over the
ground that we went over yesterday in the
amendment proposed by Delegate Maurer,
and the amendment proposed by Delegate
Maurer was rejected by the Committee of
the Whole.
The effect of this amendment is just to
tie the hands of the General Assembly and
prevent it from providing for a board as
the head of a principal department, if the
General Assembly thinks it necessary or
desirable to do so.
I do not think you ought to tie the hands
of the General Assembly in that fashion.
It seems to me that if the General Assem-
bly feels in a given situation that a board
to represent particular areas of the State,
or represent particular interest in the
State is highly desirable, in the case of the
administration of a principal department,
I think the General Assembly ought to be
able to provide for such a board.
I hope this amendment is defeated.
THE CHAIRMAN : Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
|
