|
board, or the administrative assistant or
the administrative officer of any board that
has heads of departments.
So therefore when you take this action
on this amendment you take that right
away, which means that the head would
have to be subject to advice and consent
of the Senate.
Just a little bit of practical knowledge
that I had in this case, and why I support
what Senator James said, that public policy
might dictate many things that are needed
and we cannot always tell today what is
needed. I served on a board, the Depart-
ment of Economic Development, for some
time, for a couple of years, and in that
case the governor controlled the adminis-
trative officers. In effect, the administra-
tive officer reflected the governor's policy.
He was responsible to the governor, but he
got the best of it in that the board was very
helpful in advice, and I think it worked
very well.
To adopt this amendment might very
well do some harm that we do not know
about, and I think it will certainly take
away the flexibility and the good things
that have happened, as the Committee has
submitted to us.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Grumbacher?
DELEGATE GRUMBACHER: Mr.
Chairman, members of the Convention, I
believe that this amendment follows good
management practice. I believe that one of
our major problems in our present govern-
ment is the inability of the governor to get
to and work with the direct case heads of
the department when there are administra-
tive boards between.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with
advisory boards. They are fine. They are
extremely helpful, extremely useful, but
time after time, we have seen cases where
boards which were in full charge of the
department were very difficult to reach and
it insulated the executive in charge of the
department from the governor.
I believe that this particular amendment
clarifies the situation and is extremely use-
ful.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marvin
Smith.
DELEGATE M. SMITH: Mr. Chairman,
I am not prepared to say that for the next
|
hundred years we will not need boards in
some instances to head some of these de-
partments. The example that was given
here was with reference to Chesapeake Bay
affairs, and being from the only county on
the Eastern Shore that is neither on the
bay or the ocean, I probably know less
about it than most of my fellow Eastern
Shoremen, but I cannot conceive but that
that department would not be a major de-
partment.
Yet, if you adopt this proposal you are
saying that it must have a single head.
It seems to me that what the executive
committee has done here is an excellent
thing. They have said that the general
policy shall be that there shall be a single
head, but at the same time, they have left
to the General Assembly the discretion to
meet changing situations, to meet the
numerous problems that may arise.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question?
(Call for the question.)
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 27 to Committee Recom-
mendation EB-1.
The Clerk will sound the quorum bell,
please.
Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: Mr. Chairman, I
do not know whether this is an inquiry or
some remarks in opposition, but it would
seem to me that the adoption of this amend-
ment would require us, when at the time
the education article is debated, to adopt
language which constitutionalizes the State
Board of Education, and probably also sets
forth the manner of its selection.
I do not want to argue the case at this
time. However, it is my intention at that
time to oppose constitutionalization of the
State Board of Education, and I want to
point out to those delegates who share my
position that they cannot vote in favor of
this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question arises
on the adoption of Amendment No. 27 to
Committee Recommendation EB-1. A vote
Aye is a vote in favor of Amendment 27.
A vote No is a vote against.
Cast your votes.
Delegate Boyce, announce your vote.
DELEGATE BOYCE: Aye, sir.
|
