|
DELEGATE SICKLES: I must confess
that when I faced this problem, I settled
on the word "officer" because I thought
that it would have a word of "art" meaning
other than in the document, and I would
be satisfied with that.
Now, you are asking me to make my in-
tention clear. It seems to me in order to do
that, I would then have to run through a
series of questions with respect to specific
officers and have a true and false test here.
I am not sure that I have thought it
through that far.
THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the record
will be clear: You did not intend to limit
it to the top officer?
DELEGATE SICKLES: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: My second question
would be as to your intention with respect
to the use of the word "information" as re-
lated to your amendment? Would it em-
brace, for instance, a request from the gov-
ernor to a county executive to advise him
as to the reasons why he made a particular
decision or appointment or anything of that
sort?
DELEGATE SICKLES: This was not
my intention. It seemed to me it was not
to be. If that were a published document,
it would then be a matter of fact; the docu-
ment would have outlined the reasons.
I am not looking for any subjective judg-
ments on the part of the individual, just
true facts.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions?
Delegate Sybert.
DELEGATE SYBERT: Mr. Chairman,
in view of Delegate Sickles' answer to your
first question, I would like to pose a clari-
fying question.
In my county, we have had a janitor for
many years. He is not decrepit, but he has
a bad back. Recently we dressed up our
courthouse by certain improvements. At
the same time we changed the title of the
janitor that I referred to, to the court-
house engineer.
Would you recommend that we down-
grade this title so he cannot be requested
for information by the governor?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sickles.
DELEGATE SICKLES: My human in-
stincts would say I think he ought to retain
the title and if he were asked a question
he ought to answer it.
|
(Laughter.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions to the sponsor of the amend-
ment?
If not, the Chair recognizes Delegate
Morgan to speak in opposition.
DELEGATE MORGAN: Mr. Chairman,
as I indicated in the questions that I asked
of Delegate Sickles, I am afraid that the
way this amendment is drafted, it would
really force the governor to require local
subdivisions and municipalities to keep
records in certain forms on certain sub-
jects and would impose expenses on coun-
ties that they just do not want to bear. I
really think that the governor's getting the
information from the local units of govern-
ment can be handled on a cooperative basis,
much better than putting a requirement in
the constitution that the county has to
furnish the governor with information that
the governor may require.
I, therefore, oppose this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
(There was no response.)
Any other delegate desire to speak in
opposition?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
(Call for the question.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will ring
the quorum bell.
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 28 to Committee Recom-
mendation EB-1. A vote Aye is a vote in
favor of Amendment No. 28. A vote No is
a vote against.
Cast your vote.
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote? Delegate
Boyce, you are voting in the negative?
DELEGATE BOYCE: Yes, in the nega-
tive.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will re-
cord the vote.
There being 18 votes in the affirmative
and 102 in the negative. The motion is lost.
The amendment is rejected.
Those are all the amendments to this ar-
ticle of which the Chair has any knowledge.
|
