|
THE CHAIRMAN : Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Boyce.
DELEGATE BOYCE: Mr. Chairman
and delegates, I think we basically are
nitty-gritty as far as the argument on the
Committee is concerned. Delegate Maurer
has made this a proposition to clean up
what I think was that of Delegates Raley
and Pullen earlier, and 1 know there has
been a discussion trying to work it out.
I think this is an excellent solution of
the problem, and every time Delegate
Morgan has mentioned the need for a prin-
cipal department of the state and needing
a board he mentions 'the Chesapeake Bay
fisheries or something to that extent, but
I do not think they are going to be our
principal departments, and I think if you
want a properly run and managed State
we are not going to have boards as heads
of departments. I think if we could have a
Convention approve this, I think we would
solve the biggest problem I worry about in
the minority reports.
And if this went through before the
amendments in 19 and 4.20 I think we
would solve other problems and I think
I could get the rest of the minority mem-
bers to withdraw this report if we went
through.
I do not mean this as a threat. Even if
the vote is decisive we will not bring it up,
but I 'would like to have a chance while
discussing this to get my members of that
minority report to go and see if they
would not agree to this.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak against the amend-
ment?
Delegate Beachley.
DELEGATE BEACHLEY: I would like
to ask Delegate Maurer a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Maurer, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE MAURER: I yield.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Beachley.
DELEGATE BEACHLEY: Delegate
Maurer, I would like to ask a question
about what looks like this might be a
transfer of language from, I think 4.21,
into 4.20. You have said "except in the
state public school system and institutions
of higher learning." I think that same
statement is also in section 4.21.
|
Is there a particular reason to change it
over from 4.21 to 4.20, because I think in
your Amendment No. 19, you strike it out
of 4.21. Is that correct?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Maurer.
DELEGATE MAURER: Under section
4.21, the phrase which you are referring to
I believe, starts in line 22, "acting alone
he shall appoint each administrative of-
ficer serving under a board or commission,
which is the head of a principal depart-
ment, except the head or chief administra-
tive officer of institutions of higher educa-
tion", and this deals with the chief ad-
ministrative officer. There is no need to
have that, because there will be no other
boards except the ones dealing with educa-
tion, and those boards will presumably
continue to appoint their own officers, chief
officers.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Beachley.
DELEGATE BEACHLEY: Then it is
advantageous to transfer it to the place
where you mentioned.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Maurer.
DELEGATE MAURER: It serves a
different purpose, and I would only take
out the sentence which you refer to in the
event we pass the amendment.
It is not entirely related, but I think it
protects the school system the way section
4.21 protects the state superintendent and
the president of the university.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Beachley.
DELEGATE BEACHLEY: Thank you,
Delegate Maurer.
THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose
does Delegate Scanlan rise?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: A parliamen-
tary inquiry of the Chair.
THE CHAIRMAN: State the inquiry.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Is not the
amendment in its present form divisible?
The first section of it clearly presents the
question of whether or not there shall be
a single executive, plus the flexibility to
provide in other cases, and whether or not
in that instance the school board and the
institutions of higher learning shall be
permitted to have boards as their heads.
The second part of the amendment clearly
poses the issue, apart from the school
board and the institutions of higher edu-
cation, as to whether or not the legisla-
ture is to have any flexibility in this matter.
|
