|
tention to in this editorial, I think it is
from the Washington Post, an independent
newspaper, Monday, November 20, 1967.
I will not bore you with the entire arti-
cle just this portion: "similarly we would
hope the Convention will follow the path
of another committee in recommending
that the governor appoint future comp-
trollers and attorneys general. These two
officers now popularly elected have a major
role in the executive branch and ought to
be the governor's men."
DELEGATE MASON: I do not think
that is susceptible to a legal interpreta-
tion, Delegate Pullen.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Pullen.
DELEGATE PULLEN: I will accept
any kind of explanation you give me.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: Well, if he is the
governor's man, that is exactly what it
says, precisely that. He is the governor's
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Frederick.
DELEGATE FREDERICK: Delegate
Mason, do you think an elected attorney
general who has his own reputation on the
line would be in a better position to build
up a highly qualified staff than one who is
appointed by the governor and could quite
possibly have to accept some appointment,
like you know, our sons need training in
this field, whereas his reputation would be
on the line?
Do you not think that one who is elected
would be in a better position to build up a
highly qualified staff, more so than the
other type?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: Well, the elected
attorney general has more freedom of ac-
tion in selecting his own staff. It is up to
the man whether he will select a highly
qualified staff, but he certainly has the
opportunity more so than an appointed at-
torney general.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions of the minority spokesman?
(There was no response.)
If not, we can proceed to discussion.
Does the minority spokesman have an
amendment to offer?
DELEGATE MASON: No, sir.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. The ques-
tion arises on the approval of Recommenda-
tion No. 4. Under the debate schedule,
twenty minutes of controlled time, con-
trolled by Delegate Mason; twenty minutes
controlled by — I'm sorry, I thought you
said there was no amendment.
DELEGATE MASON: There is an
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Will the pages
please distribute the amendment?
This will be Amendment No. 6.
For what purpose does Delegate John-
son rise?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chair-
man, I just wondered whether or not it
would be in order to ask the Chair whether
or not the Chair would be disposed to con-
sider the debate and the question tomorrow
rather than begin the debate and then have
to interrupt it.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair had the
feeling that the debate would be very
limited. I would like to have the amendment
read, see if it is seconded, and then I will
inquire as to the length of debate.
Will the Clerk please read the amend-
ment?
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 6
to Committee Report EB-1, by Delegate
Mason: On line 26 on page 1 of the Com-
mittee Report strike out the word "not";
and in line 27 after the word "Constitu-
tion" add the words "as an elected official".
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: Mr. Chairman,
a parliamentary inquiry.
THE CHAIRMAN : State the inquiry.
DELEGATE MORGAN: Is the second
part of the amendment proposed by Dele-
gate Mason meant to add the words "as an
elected official" as an amendment to the
committee report?
THE CHAIRMAN: On the basis of the
same ruling that the Chair made with re-
spect to Amendment No. 4, the Chair
would greet this as being a suggestion or
proposition for inclusion in the Constitu-
tion, and if the amendment is offered in
this form, would rule it out of order.
The amendment offered in the form of
the first clause, down to the word "not"
would not be out of order.
Delegate Mason, did you hear the Chair's
answer to the parliamentary inquiry?
|
