|
judges as founders of this nation and as
exponents of two distinct political philoso-
phies.
However, may I point out that as I re-
call, Thomas Jefferson was elected Presi-
dent in 1800, that he served as a strong ex-
ecutive, that at no time did he suggest
that the constitution be amended so as to
provide a plural executive, nor even that
Congress, which was largely under his con-
trol, should create an independent fiscal
officer to share his powers and responsi-
bilities.
I suggest, ladies and gentlemen, that the
actions of a strong executive, Thomas Jef-
ferson, the first of a long line of strong ex-
ecutives, including Andrew Jackson, Abra-
ham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Wood-
row Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt,
speak louder than his words.
In point of fact, I know of no place in
the writings of Thomas Jefferson where he
ever suggested that there should be a plural
executive. The executive power we heard
yesterday several times should be vested in
the government and we should take care
that the laws be faithfully executed.
How can you vest the executive power
in the government and then divide that
power among two or three executives? A
plural executive is rarely very effective.
We heard it yesterday and have heard for
many days about checks and balances in
the government. It is an old and respected
tenet of American political theory, but the
checks and balance system was never in-
tended to prevent one branch of govern-
ment from prevailing over another branch.
It was never intended to provide an over-
riding of the head of a branch of govern-
ment by someone within that branch.
What we need in the fiscal affairs of this
State, it would seem to me, is something
like the United States Comptroller General
who would be responsible to the legislature
and a fiscal officer who would be respon-
sible to the governor.
(First Vice-President James Clark as-
sumed the Chair).
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
The Chair recognizes Delegate Sybert.
DELEGATE SYBERT: I should like to
yield three minutes to Delegate Finch.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
The Chair recognizes Delegate Finch.
DELEGATE FINCH: Mr. Chairman and
fellow delegates: Traditionally there are
|
three branches of government — executive,
legislative and judicial. As the affairs of
government, particularly local government,
become more complex, it becomes more im-
perative that certain phases of govern-
mental function be entirely separate and free
of partisan control.
One phase of government which sepa-
rates readily from the other functions is
the highly specialized area of finance. The
establishment of this vital and divisible
function as a separate branch of the govern-
ment system would be recognition of the
need for specialized, non-partisan control
of the growth of our state purse.
Considering that the financial affairs of
the State, which would be under the aus-
pices of the office of the comptroller, are
matters as technical and complex as they
are crucial, they should, from necessity, be
managed by professionals of the highest
expertise and competency, unfettered by
executive or partisan control of the purse-
strings beyond the apportionment level.
It is not suggested that any of the pres-
ently created branches, executive, legisla-
tive or judicial, would suffer from the cre-
ation of this separate office. The legislature
will still legislate and control the overall
budget and various apportionments; the
governor will remain the political chieftain
and foremost individual policy maker of the
state: the judiciary will still preside over
the realm of law through case decisions.
With the office of comptroller in the consti-
tution as an elective office, the other
branches would be free of great technical
burdens which tend to be somewhat abused
when lumped in with the various other
functions of this already independent office.
As to the method of selecting the proper
officer to head this branch of local govern-
ment, it would be conducive to the inde-
pendent functioning of this office, that this
officer, the comptroller, be elected to serve
through the general election route. If this
office is to be appointive, who would do the
appointing? The governor? If the governor
holds the power of appointment and/or
dismissal over this office, the governor
would, likewise, hold an overriding measure
of control over this supposedly independent
branch of government.
However, if a separate finance branch is
headed by an elected officer, then this office
will be controlled and managed by an offi-
cial directly responsible to the people. The
comptroller will "run on his record". This
is as it should be; that heads of major
branches of government be responsible and
responsive directly to the will of the people.
|
