|
structure of the State from time to time
without the necessity of constitutional
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any ques-
tions of the Committee Chairman?
(There was no response.)
If not, we will proceed to the considera-
tion of the recommendation.
Is there any discussion?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell.
The question arises on the approval of
Committee Recommendation No. 5. A vote
Aye is a vote for the approval of Com-
mittee Recommendation No. 5. A vote No
is a vote against.
Cast your votes.
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 115 votes in the affirmative
and none in the negative, the recommenda-
tion is approved.
The next item for consideration on the
agenda is Committee Recommendation EB-
1. The Chair recognizes Delegate Morgan
for the purpose of presenting the report
of the Committee.
DELEGATE STORM: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: I have a point of
parliamentary inquiry.
THE CHAIRMAN : State the inquiry.
DELEGATE STORM: Would it be pos-
sible for this Convention to adopt two ex-
ecutive articles so that we who believe that
people are interested in keeping these of-
fices elective and those who believe that the
people do not know what it is all about and
are not able to do that would be able to
make this decision when the constitution
comes up for adoption? Would this be
possible?
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that
is a parliamentary inquiry. It is a legal
question. The Chair's view is that the con-
stitution recommended by the Convention
is to be submitted as one document to the
people for acceptance or rejection. Your in-
quiry, however, is not parliamentary. I will
|
be glad to discuss it with you at another
time, Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: Thank you. I will
take that opportunity.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan,
would you come forward to the reading
desk?
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman, so
that I can be clear in my mind on this
subject, what is the Chair's ruling as to
the disposition of Amendment No. 3, which
was the compromise advanced yesterday by
Delegate Morgan, and to which I think
Delegate Fornos offered an amendment?
The whole thing drifted away into the
haze, as far as I am concerned.
What happened? Where do we stand on
that?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair had ruled
that the amendment and the amendment to
tHe amendment were out of order, and the
subject matter of Recommendation No. 1
was made a special order of business at
the time of consideration of Committee
Recommendation EB-1.
Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: So that as a matter
of parliamentary posture, we stand with
respect to the Board of Public Works at
this time exactly as we stand with respect
to the comptroller. Is this correct, a tie
vote having obtained on both of those items,
there is no recommendation one way or the
other?
THE CHAIRMAN: That is in effect
correct, with this minor modification of
parliamentary procedure. That is that the
Committee of the Whole has concluded its
action with respect to Recommendation No.
2. Recommendation No. 1 has not been con-
cluded, and it is before the Committee of
the Whole simultaneously with the consid-
eration of Committee Recommendation
EB-1. As a practical matter, however, what
you say is true, and the Chair under-
stands that the Chairman of the Committee
at the proper time intends to offer an
amendment to Committee Recommendation
EB-1 which would in effect carry out the
purposes of Amendment No. 3 that was
ruled not in order.
DELEGATE CASE: Thank you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
|
