|
DELEGATE CLARK (presiding) : The
Chair recognizes Delegate Stern.
DELEGATE STERN: Chairman Mudd,
would you please go over those six exclu-
sive rule powers again, please?
DELEGATE MUDD: Those six cate-
gories in which the power is exclusively
left with the rule-making power of the
Court of Appeals are these: First, estab-
lishment of the number, qualifications and
duties of the commissioners, the commis-
sioners being the assistants to the district
court judges; second, establishment of pro-
visions for lawyers' poll, a matter dis-
cussed at some length yesterday; third,
establishment of rules for practice and pro-
cedure before the Commission on Judicial
Disabilities; fourth, establishment of the
manner of designating administrative
judges and their duties; fifth, provisions
for assignment of judges; and sixth, pro-
vision for appointment and terms of clerks
of the district courts, that is the four-tier
courts.
DELEGATE CLARK (presiding) : The
Chair recognizes Delegate Blair.
DELEGATE BLAIR: Mr. Chairman, in
connection with your section 5.29, Admin-
istration of Judicial System, is it true that
each of the chief judges of the lower three
tiers will serve at the pleasure of the judge
of the appellate court of appeals?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, sir.
DELEGATE BLAIR: My question to
you, does this not make for politics in the
judiciary? Is it not possible, then, for the
chief judge if he were to die and were to
be superseded by another, to then bump
out of the chief judgeship all those in the
under echelons?
DELEGATE MUDD: That is possible,
but we think a necessary provision, since
the full responsibility of administering the
court system is delegated to the chief judge
of the Court of Appeals, and to properly
and efficiently perform that function, we
think it is necessary that his assistants at
the other three-tier level shall serve at his
pleasure.
DELEGATE BLAIR: But you will ad-
mit that it does make for politics in the
judiciary, does it not?
DELEGATE MUDD: I do not consider
politics an ugly word. It does allow for
the appointment by the chief judge of a
man he thinks can best do the job.
DELEGATE BLAIR: So that he could
then eliminate anyone who had served for
|
any period of time in the lower three tiers
as chief judge, and you would have an en-
tirely new transition of chief judgeships
in the lower three tiers of the system?
DELEGATE MUDD: That is correct.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Are there any further questions of Dele-
gate Mudd?
The Chair recognizes Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Delegate
Mudd, other than the exclusive rule-making
power under section 5.31, and in light of
the fact that you have used completely dif-
ferent language in Article IV, section 18,
do you intend any change other than the
exclusive rule-making power than is exist-
ing in our present system?
DELEGATE MUDD: No. We consider
section 5.31 is consistent with the operation
under the present Constitution, especially
in the concurrent area.
DELEGATE WILLONER: And it is
meant to confer no more or no less powers
than presently exist?
DELEGATE MUDD: That is correct,
except in the six areas I have detailed for
Delegate Linton.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
The Chair recognizes Delegate Maurer.
DELEGATE MAURER: I have a ques-
tion on section 5.31. Did your Committee,
for example, consider whether the legis-
lature could if it wished establish a merit
system for employees of the courts, such
as secretaries, similar to the kind of thing
the legislature can enact and has enacted
for the executive branch?
DELEGATE MUDD: I think that would
be possible under the concurrent jurisdic-
tion in that area of the legislature to legis-
late, and of course, to exercise its rule-
making power. That would be a possible
result.
DELEGATE MAURER: Then the
courts could by rule-making power in ef-
fect veto it?
DELEGATE MUDD: Not necessarily. If
it were a matter of substance and not prac-
tice and procedure, it would be more ap-
propriately legislated than rule-making. I
would say to accomplish what you have
required would require two things: legisla-
tion and rules — if it were a matter of sub-
stance, it would involve matters of pro-
cedure.
DELEGATE MAURER: Thank you.
|
