|
to the comptrollership. I do not recall the
precise number of that vote.
THE CHAIRMAN: I assume you mean
the vote by which the Recommendation No.
2 as amended was approved? Is that the
vote to which you refer, Delegate Gleason?
DELEGATE GLEASON: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is regularly moved
that the Committee of the Whole recon-
sider the vote by which it yesterday ap-
proved Recommendation No. 2 as amended.
Recommendation No. 2 as amended was
the Committee recommends that the office
of comptroller be provided for in the Con-
stitution.
Is there a second to the motion?
(Whereupon, the motion was seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The motion is made
and seconded.
For what purpose does Delegate Storm
rise?
DELEGATE STORM: Mr. Chairman,
you suggested that we finish up with the
attorney general, and I do not believe we
quite finished. You see, we have to have
three votes to get a point carried. This is
unusual, but that is the way it is. We have
still one more vote to make and that is to
insert in the Constitution that he shall be
an elected official.
Would you mind putting that before you
start reconsidering it?
THE CHAIRMAN: In accordance with
the Chair's ruling yesterday, that would
not be a proper matter for consideration
at this time. That will come up upon con-
sideration of the committee recommenda-
tion, and for that reason Delegate Mason
deleted that phrase from his amendment.
Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: Very well.
Just please do not get confused. When
it comes up, make sure you vote right. This
is a very strange proceeding.
(Laughter.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I have a par-
liamentary inquiry.
THE CHAIRMAN: State the inquiry.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: While I have
the greatest sympathy for reconsideration
|
if it is in proper order, I believe Rule
35 [37]*, which limits motions for recon-
sideration to the same session, presents a
problem. Is my understanding of the rule
correct or incorrect?
THE CHAIRMAN: Your understanding
is incorrect. Your statement of the rule is
correct.
As was stated by the Chair several weeks
ago in considering this same problem, the
Chair would follow the practice of consid-
ering recesses of the Committee of the
Whole for purpose of breaks or similar re-
cesses as not being an interruption of the
Committee of the Whole, so long as it had
the same report under consideration.
Under the rule, a motion to reconsider
would not be in order until the Committee
of the Whole rises to report with respect
to Committee Report EB-1.
I might say, Delegate Scanlan, that the
same inquiry was addressed to the Chair
several days ago at the same day that the
vote on Recommendation No. 2 was taken.
The Chair gave the same answer at that
time.
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: I have a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
THE CHAIRMAN: State the inquiry.
DELEGATE DUKES: How many times
may a matter be reconsidered?
THE CHAIRMAN: In the Committee of
the Whole?
DELEGATE DUKES: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: There is no limita-
tion on reconsideration in the Committee
of the Whole.
DELEGATE DUKES: Do I understand
if this section continues another four or
five days we could regularly reconsider
this matter every ten minutes?
THE CHAIRMAN: I would sincerely
trust — by "this section" I think you mean
EB-1 — would not continue four or five days.
If it did continue, your suggested result
would follow.
For what purpose does Delegate Chabot
rise?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Parliamentary
inquiry.
*The number in brackets refers to the
final number assigned to the rule in the
Rules of the Constitutional Convention of
Maryland.
|
