|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: It may be possible,
but certainly inconsistent with the guide-
lines that we contemplated. I do not see
how three lawyers and one layman would
technically suffice to provide an equal num-
ber of lawyers and laymen when there is a
distinction in our recommendation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: I was think-
ing of the case where a lawyer might not
qualify as a lawyer voting so to speak and
therefore, might be appointed by the gov-
ernor. If you are going to consider mem-
bers on the judicial aspect, should this not
also be considered?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: I agree with you.
I will pass the same query on to our staff
man as the Chairman suggested.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: Would you
consider the advisability of striking out the
fact that he may be ineligible for any other
public office and make it that he not be
eligible for any judicial office since the
purpose is to broaden the possibility of
getting good men to serve on this nominat-
ing commission? There are a great many
people who would be useful on this commis-
sion who would decline if they thereby ex-
empted themselves from any further ambi-
tions to serve the public.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair is not
clear as to your question.
Would you restate the matter you wanted
the Committee of the Whole to consider?
DELEGATE BENNETT: Would you
consider that point?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: In answer to your
question, Delegate Bennett, we would have
to ask the Committee of the Whole to re-
view all of the pertinent provisions of our
recommendations dealing with the nominat-
ing commission in view of the fact that the
judicial member has been eliminated. We
feel several possibilities must be considered
and all of those will be done by our staff.
THE CHAIRMAN: May the Chair state
what he understands Delegate Bennett was
driving at? I think you said that you would
like the Committee to consider changing
lines 23 to 24 in section 5.20 so as to per-
mit and not prohibit a member of the com-
|
mission from thereafter being appointed
within the two-year period to the judiciary.
I believe Delegate Mudd in his presenta-
tion indicated that the Committee had here-
tofore considered and rejected that prop-
osition.
Delegate Mudd?
DELEGATE MUDD: That is entirely
correct. We did consider that proposition
but thought this prohibition was advisable
and necessary.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: Yes, but there
is a different light on it now in view of the
amendments we have made. All I am trying
to suggest is that you have made it as
broad as possible for a public spirited citi-
zen, a lawyer to serve on this committee
without striking fear into his heart.
If he accepts the office he will be ineli-
gible, in either direction.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: I thought that was
inadvisable.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Taylor.
DELEGATE TAYLOR: What would be
the status of a retired judge who might be
appointed by a governor to the nominating
commission. Could he qualify as a lay
member?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is a question
that we have asked the staff advisor to the
Committee to review carefully and to ad-
vise the Committee of the Whole very
shortly.
Delegate Schneider, for what purpose do
you rise?
DELEGATE SCHNEIDER: A statement
of personal privilege. I am happy to an-
nounce we are fortunate to have a group
of lovely ladies from the Homemaker's club
of Prince George's County and I hope we
will give them a hearty welcome.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delighted to have
them here.
(Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Burgess.
DELEGATE BURGESS: I would like to
address a question to Delegate Mudd.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes.
|
