|
DELEGATE SICKLES: My answer is
yes, that would be an agency of the State
and therefore would be covered by section
4.25 even before the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke,
do you have a question?
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Do you
contemplate taking care of a situation
where a county executive for example,
might be involved in a conflict of interest
situation and that situation was on dead
center and nothing was being done about
it at the local level; would you expect
that the governor might have the power
to direct an inquiry to him under this pro-
vision?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sickles.
DELEGATE SICKLES: I would assume
so to the extent that he would be asking
for information which is available there.
I think that he could ask for whatever in-
formation were within the knowledge of
the county officials in order that he might
then be able to make a judgment as to
what action he might have to take.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Or in addi-
tion to making a judgment as to what ac-
tion he might have to take, would this not
possibly be a helpful measure in bringing
to the attention of the public certain prob-
lems which might exist at the lower levels
of the government?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sickles.
DELEGATE SICKLES: I would think
that it might, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions of the sponsor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: Delegate Sickles,
my question concerns not only this branch,
but a number of areas where we have this
situation, for example in the legislature.
What if the governor requests the county
commissioner for information and the
county commissioner simply does not do it?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sickles?
DELEGATE SICKLES: I would assume
this provision would be enforced to the ex-
tent that any other provision can be en-
|
forced, and I am not sure we fully com-
pleted the document and concerned our-
selves with all such provisions.
I would assume, this would be subject to
correction, that there might be a mandamus
action particularly if the kind of informa-
tion which is secured is just ministerial in
form which would just be a question of
bundling it up and sending it to the gov-
ernor.
That would be a different area. No
penalty is provided here and that would
have to be under a separate constitution or
supporting law.
DELEGATE DUKES: Do you suspect
we are going to end up with some sort of
sanction provision in the Constitution?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sickles.
DELEGATE SICKLES: I have provided
no sanction herein.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions of the sponsor of the amend-
ment?
(There was no response.)
If not, the Chair would like to address
two questions for purposes of clarification
of the intended meaning of the word
"officer" and the word —
DELEGATE DUKES: I just want to
say my question was answered. Delegate
Bothe advised me we will send the militia.
THE CHAIRMAN: the use of the
word "officer" and the use of the word
"information" in section 4.25.
Would officer include, for example, a
county solicitor in a charter form of gov-
ernment? In other words, would he be the
kind of person to whom the governor could
direct a request for information?
DELEGATE SICKLES: I must admit
that I have a problem here. Unfortunately,
early in my legal career, I researched this
problem at great length with respect to
another state, and I would hate to say any-
thing that would becloud an area that is
already settled.
Maybe some other attorneys have con-
cerned themselves with it. I do not know
from the current court interpretations in
that state whether a county solicitor would
be considered an officer. I am inclined to
think he might be.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would you intend
that the amendment reach to such a person?
|
