|
The question arises on the motion to re-
consider the vote of 72 to 66 by which
Committee Recommendation No. 2 was ap-
proved as amended, and to reconsider the
vote of 70 to 68 by which Recommendation
No. 2 was amended.
A vote Aye is a vote in favor of recon-
sideration. A vote No is a vote against.
If the motion is carried and the votes
are reconsidered, the Committee will have
before it under discussion Amendment No.
2 to Recommendation No. 2, and will pro-
ceed from that point.
If the motion fails, we will proceed to a
consideration of Recommendation No. 5.
Is there are question? Cast your votes.
Have all delegates voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 71 votes in the affirmative
and 67 in the negative, the motion is
carried and the votes are to be reconsidered.
There is now before you Amendment No.
2 to Recommendation No. 2, the amend-
ment being to strike the word "not" in line
18 on page 1 of Committee Report EB-1,
the effect of which would be to read that
the Committee recommends that the office
of comptroller be provided for in the con-
stitution.
The motion was a motion of Delegate
Sybert. The Chair recognizes Delegate Sy-
bert to speak to the motion, if he desires.
The parliamentarian suggests to the
Chair, and I think he is correct, that the
person who moved the reconsideration prob-
ably has the prior right to speak.
DELEGATE GLEASON: I yield.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sybert, do
you desire to speak?
DELEGATE SYBERT: I do, Mr. Chair-
man — briefly.
It seems to me that this action just
taken presages a long continuance of this
convention. Just yesterday the vote to de-
lete the word "not" as to the provision
concerning comptroller carried by a consti-
tutional majority, that is 72, or rather, the
adoption of the committee recommendation
carried by 72 votes.
Here we are on the merry-go-round
again. I am not going to recount and rehash
all the arguments for continuing the comp-
troller in the Constitution, and, of course,
|
as an elected official. I do recommend very
sincerely to this Convention that it in the
upcoming vote put the matter on ice once
and for all, as it did yesterday by voting
here by a constitutional majority for the
retention of the office of comptroller in
the Constitution, regardless of personali-
ties, so that no one will have the temerity
to offer further motions to reconsider.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: Mr. Chairman,
I just wanted to urge the Committee of the
Whole to vote No on this amendment, the
effect of which will be to adopt the Recom-
mendation of the Committee on the Execu-
tive Branch.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question?
Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman, a
point of parliamentary inquiry: I know
you have stated this several times, but I
think there is some confusion about it, and
I wonder if you would state it again.
As I take it, if the vote on this particular
issue is unfavorable to the comptroller,
that is one way of putting it so we all un-
derstand it, and thereafter, the Committee
of the Whole votes to adopt the commit-
tee's recommendation, if those two things
happened, that thereafter there could be no
amendment to EB-1 which would, in effect
provide for a constitutionally ordained
comptroller with all of the duties that he
may or may not have?
Is this correct?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct.
Let the Chair again, at the risk of repeti-
tion, try to state what he conceives to be
the parliamentary situation, so that there
will be no misunderstanding.
The question now before you arises on
the adoption of Amendment No. 2.
For what purpose does Delegate Malkus
rise?
DELEGATE MALKUS: Mr. President,
to ask someone, the Chairman or the vice
chairman, or you, sir, a question, if I may.
THE CHAIRMAN: If you will permit
the Chair to finish his statement, I will
recognize you to ask another question.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question now
arises on the adoption of Amendment No.
|
