|
contained in the executive branch article
of the new constitution.
Our recommendations are divided into
two parts. The first is designated Commit-
tee Report EB-1. This is printed on white
sheets of paper and contains our commit-
tee's recommendations as to what should
not be included in the constitution.
The second part is designated as Com-
mittee Recommendation EB-1. This part is
printed on blue sheets of paper that are be-
fore you on your desks, and contains the
committee's recommendations as to what
should be in the new constitution.
At the outset I should like to express for
the records of this Convention my deep
appreciation to the Executive Branch Com-
mittee members for their cooperation in all
our deliberations. We had issues as to
which there were sharp differences of opin-
ion, and yet every member of the Commit-
tee conducted himself with a genuine re-
spect for the opinions of other members
who did not agree with him. It was and is,
in my opinion, a great Committee, and I
am very proud to have had the good for-
tune to be its Chairman.
We will dispose of recommendations on
the white sheets of paper first. That is
Committee Report No. EB-1. Then we will
proceed to the recommendations on the blue
sheets.
This past weekend the President of the
Convention strongly urged a compromise
upon both the majority and the minority
of the Committee, with a view to resolving
their differences with respect to Committee
Report EB-1. I regret to say, however,
that early this afternoon these efforts to
compromise the issues came to naught.
In the Committee Report EB-1, the Com-
mittee recommends that one agency and a
number of offices of the state government
not have constitutional status. I want to
emphasize that the Committee does not rec-
ommend the abolition of the one agency or
any of these offices, only that they do not
have constitutional status.
The agency covered by our recommenda-
tions is the Board of Public Works, and the
offices are those of comptroller, treasurer,
and the following sundry offices, at least
three of which ceased to exist long ago:
secretary of state, coroners, elisors, nota-
ries public, surveyors, and the state li-
brarian.
The issue of whether the new constitu-
tion should provide for a Board of Public
Works, whether it should provide for an
|
elected comptroller, whether it should pro-
vide for an elected attorney general,
whether it should provide for a treasurer
appointed by the General Assembly, all of
these issues were extremely controversial
in our Committee, and the vote on each was
11 to 9.
There was no controversy as to the sec-
retary of state, coroners, elisors, notaries
public, surveyors, or the state librarian.
Now let me give you the reasons the
Committee made the recommendations it
did on the Board of Public Works, on the
comptroller, on the treasurer, and on the
attorney general.
From the beginning, the Maryland con-
stitution has represented to the people of
Maryland that the executive power of the
State was vested in the governor. More-
over, the constitution has represented that
the governor is the one who has the re-
sponsibility to see to it that the laws of
the State are faithfully executed.
These representations in the constitution,
however, just are not so. The Constitution
of 1867 vests important executive func-
tions in the Board of Public Works. While
most of those constitutional functions have
become archaic and non-existent as a re-
sult of the march of history, the 1867 Con-
stitution also vests important executive
functions in the comptroller and vests ex-
ecutive functions in the treasurer.
Under the existing Constitution the gov-
ernor cannot, in the case of many laws, see
to it that such laws are faithfully exe-
cuted, except with the approval of another
member of the Board of Public Works —
and both of the other members of that
Board have no responsibility to the gov-
ernor.
This is clearly recognized by the fiscal
management subcommittee of the Curlett
Commission. The Honorable Joseph Sher-
bow, Chairman for that subcommittee, on
page 78 of the Commission's report said :
"It is entirely possible for the two
other members of the Board to override
the policies and proposals of the gov-
ernor and, in effect, to play a role which
is, in theory, assumed to be that of the
chief "executive.
"While Maryland has been fortunate
that the decision-making rules of the
Board have not disrupted or seriously im-
paired state executive activity and de-
velopment, the impact of this rule upon
future executive leadership and responsi-
bility should be carefully evaluated."
|
