|
DELEGATE WHITE: Mr. Chairman,
as the situation now stands, by the tie
vote, if we fail to reconsider the constitu-
tion actually as of this moment would
make no mention of this agency, is that
right?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is not entirely
correct.
Let the Chair again state what he under-
stands the situation to be as a result of
the last vote.
As a result of the last vate, the Com-
mittee Recommendation as amended, name-
ly, the Recommendation that the Board of
Public Works be provided for in the con-
stitution, is neither approved or disap-
proved; therefore there has been no action
of the Committee of the Whole on that
question. There is no recommendation that
a Board of Public Works be provided for
in the constitution, no recommendation that
a Board not be provided for in the consti-
tution. Therefore, on a consideration of
Committee Recommendation EB-1, the blue
paper, it would be in order for anyone to
submit an amendment providing for a
Board of Public Works.
If such an amendment is not offered or
if such an amendment is offered and re-
jected, there would be no Board of Public
Works provided for in the constitution.
If such an amendment is offered and the
amendment is approved, then obviously
there would be a Board of Public Works
provided for in the constitution.
Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, a point of parliamentary inquiry:
If the motion to reconsider fails, is it
not correct that the matter is once and for
all and forever disposed of?
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that
is accurate. It is too general a statement.
In the first place, the Chair does not think
you are limited to one motion to recon-
sider in the Committee of the Whole, but
entirely apart from that, this is only a
Committee of the Whole, and this is not
binding on the Convention.
In other words, this motion is not what
is commonly called a clincher.
The parliamentarian suggests I ought to
amplify my previous statement to make it
abundantly clear that the effect of the last
action is to leave no Committee Recom-
mendation approved by the Committee of
|
the Whole, and thus to leave the matter
open for any pertinent amendments.
There is no positive recommendation, so
the matter is open for any pertinent rec-
ommendations. A positive recommendation
one way or the other would, of course, be
controlling to the extent the Chair indi-
cated previously.
Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman, an-
other possibility occurred to me, and I won-
der if we can have a ruling on it. It is this:
Suppose the motion for reconsideration
wins and the matter is then open for re-
consideration, and then a tie vote is had —
THE CHAIRMAN: On which? On the
amendment?
DELEGATE CASE: Yes.
Then do I take it that the amendment
would fail and the proponents of the Board
of Public Works would then be precluded
from offering an amendment when the rec-
ommendations come up at a later time.
THE CHAIRMAN: Assuming that the
Committee of the Whole takes the next
step and approves Committee Recommenda-
tion No. 1; in other words, you would not
stop with the amendment. You would have
to take the next step. You said if the
vote were tie on the amendment, the
amendment would fail.
The Chair would then have to put the
Committee Recommendation, and depending
upon the action on the Committee Rec-
ommendation —
DELEGATE CASE: If that passed, then
your original ruling would be reinstated;
namely, that when the blue paper comes up
before us, we could not offer at that time
an appropriate amendment to reconstitute
a constitutional Board of Public Works?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think that would
be true, assuming it would be considered at
the Convention after the Committee of the
Whole reported this recommendation.
Delegate White.
DELEGATE WHITE: I would like to
ask the Chairman a question, the Chair-
man of the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: Pertaining to the
motion for reconsideration?
DELEGATE WHITE: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan,
would you yield to a question?
|
