|
ment in the fiscal field. They are simply
enormous.
DELEGATE PULLEN: Can we make a
tentative decision until we know that? We
are doing something in a vacuum.
DELEGATE JAMES: The governor of
Maryland has an ironclad clasp on the fis-
cal affairs of the State. I am going to limit
my remarks to that statement.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions of the minority spokesman?
The Chair hears none.
The Chair would like to address two
questions to both the minority spokesman
and the Vice Chairman to see if there is
any disagreement on the points to avoid
confusion in the debate.
Is the Chair correct in assuming that
both the minority and majority of the Com-
mittee agree that if there is no provision
in the constitution with respect to a treas-
urer that the selection of the treasurer
would be under section 4.23 of the Com-
mittee Recommendation?
DELEGATE JAMES: I am expressing
my opinion and I have not heard anyone
disagree with that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Could the Chair ask
the Vice Chairman of the Committee if he
agrees that that is the section that would
be applicable in the absence of a provision
in the constitution with respect to a
treasurer.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Yes, sir, assum-
ing only that he would not end up as the
head of a fiscal department.
THE CHAIRMAN: A principal depart-
ment.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Yes, otherwise,
I think section 4.23 would control.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would
like to ask this further question both of
the minority spokesman and the Vice Chair-
man. If that is so, and if there is no pro-
vision in the constitution with respect to
the treasurer is there a dispute as to
whether the legislature would have power
to determine the selection of the treasurer
under 4.23?
DELEGATE JAMES: I am not sure of
the answer to that question. I feel the way
it is phrased, you would have objection to
the appointment. If we change the word
to selected, this would mean not only in
this instance, but in any instance, the legis-
|
lature could provide a method of selection,
perhaps outside of the gubernatorial
powers.
It might mean that the legislature could
really name people in a bill the way it can
now, but I do not think the Convention
would want to do that.
Can the Vice-Chairman of the Commit-
tee say whether he agrees with that in-
terpretation?
DELEGATE ADKINS: I should take it
the word "appointed" in section 4.23 would
mean appointment under such rules as the
legislature adopted for its own designated
individual, which to me would indicate that
so long as the treasurer is not the head of
a principal department, it could be desig-
nated that he would be elected by the
legislature either in a joint session or by
individual action in both houses.
I am not sure that that is responsive to
the Chair's question.
DELEGATE JAMES: I am not sure
that that is right, either. I do not think it
is, as a matter of fact.
THE CHAIRMAN: I gather the mi-
nority and majority do not agree on that
interpretation of section 4.23. Any further
questions of the minority spokesman?
DELEGATE MALKUS: Mr. President,
I do not know whether this question should
be directed to the majority or the minority,
but I would like to know since this question
"is confusing to me and apparently it is
to the Vice-Chairman of the Committee and
I have not heard from the Chairman.
It is suggested that we contact the at-
torney general's office. Have we an opinion
as to what we are talking about from the
attorney general's office? I direct it to
Senator James, the Vice Chairman, or the
Chairman, whoever wants to answer it.
THE CHAIRMAN: I am not sure the
Chair understands your question. Opinion
on what question?
DELEGATE JAMES: Section 4.23.
DELEGATE MALKUS: That is correct.
DELEGATE JAMES: We do not have
an opinion from the attorney general. I
doubt that he could help much.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I have a ques-
tion. I think Delegate Adkins can answer it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grum-
bacher, you have a question of the minority
spokesman?
|
