|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: How much
money, Mr. Weidemeyer, do you think bingo
games and slot machines take out of Anne
Arundel County each year?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: We are
happy for it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Fornos.
DELEGATE FORNOS: Mr. Chairman
and fellow delegates: Lest the wrong im-
pression was given of Anne Arundel
County, not all the people in Anne Arundel
County agree with Delegate Weidemeyer.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rosen-
stock.
DELEGATE ROSENSTOCK: Mr. Chair-
man and fellow delegates: Last night I en-
joyed hearing an interview of the Governor
of Maryland on television. He spoke about
this Convention, and in so doing remarked
about the office of attorney general. He
stated that in his opinion the office of at-
torney general came as close to performing
the duties of an ombudsman as such an
office itself if created could do, and from
my experience, the elected attorney general
with constitutional status has been most
helpful working out problems between the
citizen and the various bureaucrats that
we have in the State of Maryland. For
that reason, I shall vote for the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Ulrich.
DELEGATE ULRICH: I rise for per-
sonal privilege. I would like to say Amen
to Mr. Fornos' statement.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition to the amend-
ment?
DELEGATE BOYCE : Yes, Mr. Chair-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyce.
DELEGATE BOYCE: Mr. President
and members of this Convention and Com-
mittee of the Whole:
I sat by while we rewrote the judicial
article, and listened to lawyer after lawyer
talk. Only four people spoke who were not
lawyers.
What bothers me is the octopus-like at-
titude of the attorney general's office. What
|
is important to think about is that all of
you who are lawyers and are presently
taking fees from the attorney general's
office should disqualify yourself from vot-
ing on this article as far as the attorney
general is concerned, because I feel per-
fectly certain that the list is being pre-
pared, and as a Convention as a whole we
will not look very attractive if we have a
conflict of interest on this question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Blair.
DELEGATE BLAIR: Mr. Chairman and
ladies and gentlemen of the Convention:
Besides the quasi- judicial aspect of this
matter, there is an all-important matter
that I would like to consider. I would like
to make an analogy in this issue between
the attorney general's office, which is elec-
tive, and the city solicitor's office in Balti-
more, which is appointive. I have had some
experience in both departments, having
served six years as an assistant city solici-
tor in Baltimore City, and two years as
special assistant attorney general.
The attorney general now appoints his
deputies, all of his assistants, his special
assistants, and they are subject to the
hiring and firing of the attorney general.
They are not subject to any executive con-
trol, and he gets the most competent men
of his choosing, not politically mandated
assistants.
Now, the city solicitor of Baltimore City
is appointed by the administration. All of
his assistants are appointed by the attor-
ney general; his deputy is appointed by the
administration, and he has what is known
as a politically dominated solicitor's office.
To verify that fact I would like to refer
you to the article appearing in the Morn-
ing Sun of July 29, 1965 — and I quote the
headlines :
"Alien Calls Some Aides Incompetent.
City Solicitor Defends Hiring of New Men
in his Office."
As a part of that article it states: "Jo-
seph Alien, the City's Chief Legal Officer,
said one reason he has been obliged to add
men to his staff was the presence of dead
wood inherited by him when he took office
some two years ago."
I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen of
this Convention, that the question before us
is the identical proposition that was pro-
pounded by Judge Henderson concerning
the judiciary when he stated that there
|
