|
DELEGATE STORM: It is an interpreta-
tion along the lines advanced by Mr. Raley
and others, that the later sections will
make it impossible because of the governor
having the right to reorganize and its hav-
ing to be a principal department in order
to have any chance of being constituted. I
ask you to please consider this very care-
fully and examine the sections yet to come
and see what powers are being given to the
governor and what restrictions are being
placed on the legislature.
I think you will then come to the same
conclusion that Mr. Raley and others have
come to. The legislature I believe will not
be able to so provide. I believe that answers
my Chairman's question and I would like
to go with just one more thought.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the Chair may in-
terrupt you so the record will be clear, you
refer to sections later to come; could you
identify those for us specifically, please ?
DELEGATE STORM: Section 4.18 es-
pecially, and sections 4.20, 4.21, and 4.22.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are referring to
sections of Committee Recommendation
EB-1, I take it?
DELEGATE STORM: Yes, on blue paper.
If you will examine these sections very
closely you will see that we are restricting
the legislature and empowering the gov-
ernor with more power than anyone else I
know of in the United States has.
We already have a strong executive and
by this we will give him an absolute un-
bridled executive authority — a through
street without even a single red light being
shown.
THE CHAIRMAN: Your time has ex-
pired.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate de-
sire to speak in favor of Committee Recom-
mendation EB-1?
Delegate Morgan?
DELEGATE MORGAN: I would like to
read the first section of section 4.20: "The
head of each principal department of the
executive branch, including the chief legal
officer and the chief fiscal officer, shall be
a single executive unless otherwise pro-
vided by law."
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment against Committee Recommendation
EB-1?
Delegate Schneider?
|
DELEGATE SCHNEIDER: May I make
a parliamentary inquiry?
THE CHAIRMAN: State the inquiry.
DELEGATE SCHNEIDER: Is this not a
rather unusual type of vote, because if we
vote yes, then it will read that the Com-
mittee of the Whole recommends that the
Board of Public Works be revised; then I
guess we would have to send it back to the
Committee on the Executive Branch where
it would consider the section on the Board
of Public Works and would write a section
which would come out to the floor and then
be debated again and voted upon.
It would seem to me that a better way
to approach it would be to consider amend-
ments to the Committee Recommendation
which would put specific language in the
sections and thereby save time.
THE CHAIRMAN: It would not be neces-
sary for the whole matter to go back to
the Committee if the result follows that
you have indicated, namely that the amend-
ment is adopted and then the first para-
graph of the Report as amended is also
adopted; an amendment to provide for a
Board of Public Works could be submitted
with Committee Recommendation EB-1,
when that is before the Committee of the
Whole for consideration.
That follows immediately after this Re-
port.
Delegate Schneider.
DELEGATE SCHNEIDER: If the
amendment is defeated and the Committee
Recommendation EB-1 or Committee Report
No. 1, which says it shall not be provided
for in the constitution, is passed would
that preclude a minority from offering an
amendment to establish a Board of Public
Works ?
THE CHAIRMAN: It would not.
DELEGATE SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
want to speak in favor of the motion in
opposition to the Committee Report? Dele-
gate Sybert.
DELEGATE SYBERT: I rise in favor
of the motion to strike the word "not"
from the Committee Recommendation so
that the Board of Public Works will be
provided for.
Preliminarily, I would like to clear up
one point which has been raised by ques-
tion, and that is whether all the functions
on the Board of Public Works are purely
|
