|
heads of principal departments. Under the
present constitutional laws the governor is
the head of a principal department.
If by your question you mean a comp-
troller retaining that status, the answer is
it would not be possible for the legislature
to provide for the selection of that person
in any way different from that set out in
the committee recommendation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Malkus.
DELEGATE MALKUS: As I under-
stand you, then, all the employees now un-
der the office of the comptroller would be
under the control of the appointee of the
governor?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not
say that. The Chair would not agree with
that statement.
The constitutional provision in the com-
mittee recommendation, as the Chair un-
derstands it, refers only to the head of the
department. I believe, although I am not
certain, that almost all, and maybe all of
the employees of the comptroller's office
today are under the merit system. There
certainly is no reason why the legislature
could not continue them under the merit
system. As the Chair understands the
committee recommendation — I am not sure
whether it is 23 or 24, Delegate Morgan —
the legislature would still have the power
to provide for the selection or appointment
of employees, other than heads of depart-
ments.
Is that correct, Delegate Morgan?
DELEGATE MORGAN: That is cor-
rect, Mr. Chairman. It is in section 4.23.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Mr. Chair-
man, a further question.
THE CHAIRMAN: State the question.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: A question
that would ultimately develop I would think
is if Committee Report EB-1 is adopted,
when the recommendation comes before us,
would the motion to reconsider still be in
order, in that it would be part of the same
report, or would this be considered a dif-
ferent report?
THE CHAIRMAN: It would be a dif-
ferent report, and if, as I assume would
be the case, the Committee of the Whole
had risen to report with respect to Com-
mittee Report EB-1, it would then not be
possible to have another motion to recon-
|
sider what the Committee of the Whole did
with respect to Committee Report EB-1.
Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: A further
question, Mr. Chairman: After the Com-
mittee of the Whole reports back would
there still be the usual opportunities for
amendment on second and third reading, as
it now exists?
THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: That would
not be changed?
THE CHAIRMAN: All the Chair meant
in indicating that there would be no oppor-
tunity for reconsideration was no oppor-
tunity for reconsideration by the Committee
of the Whole. The whole matter is, of
course, before the Convention on second
reading.
Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: And there
would also be the opportunity in any in-
stance for suspension of the rules, is that
correct?
THE CHAIRMAN: I am not sure I fol-
low you. The rules may be suspended at
any time on proper vote.
Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Which
would then allow the matter to be brought
before the body at any stage?
THE CHAIRMAN: What body do you
mean when you say "the body"?
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Whether we
are sitting as the Committee of the Whole
or the Convention?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
The rules could be suspended.
Let the Chair make it perfectly clear
that everything I have been saying as to
the affect of this vote and its binding char-
acter refers only to the Committee of the
Whole. The action of the Committee of the
Whole is in no way binding on the Con-
vention.
Are you ready for the question?
Delegate Kirkland.
DELEGATE KIRKLAND: One further
question: If it is not binding on the Con-
vention, is there a possibility of amendment
when we get back into Convention?
|
