|
I suggest there are two clearly separate
and divisible questions.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair agrees
that the questions are divisible. I was
hesitating because the Chair is perplexed
as to exactly what the meaning of the
section with both phrases in it would be
if both were adopted.
Confusion arises in the mind of the
Chair as to whether the phrase "unless
otherwise provided by law" would then be
applicable only to the exception or to the
principal part of the question, and not the
exception, or both.
We can come to that later, I think after
we decide what to do. The Chair will
divide the question.
For what purpose does Delegate Weide-
meyer rise?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I want
to make a point of inquiry of Delegate
Maurer or the Chair.
If this amendment were to go through,
striking out, "unless otherwise provided by
law," in lines three and four, on page 8,
and then we left in the last sentence, "when
a board or commission is at the head of a
principal department", would that not be a
gross inconsistency between the first sen-
tence and that latter sentence?
THE CHAIRMAN: If the second ques-
tion were passed, without the first one
being passed, that would be true. If both
changes embodied in this amendment were
adopted then the point you make would be
a valid one. If they were both adopted
your point would be well taken.
Delegate Maurer.
DELEGATE MAURER: I am not sure
I understand the legal intricacies, but my
point is that unless there is an exception
for the State Department of Education and
the institutions of higher learning in the
event they are heads of principal depart-
ments, I do not wish to state that there
shall be only single executives. I see them
as inseparably tied.
THE CHAIRMAN: Your point is that
even though they might be divisible, you
do not want to have them divided, because
you think that, or at least your desire is,
that the first portion of the amendment be
adopted only if the second portion is like-
wise adopted?
DELEGATE MAURER: I would want
the second portion adopted only if the first
portion is adopted.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: I understand.
DELEGATE MAURER: That was my
request.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Maurer, as
in its present form I think the amendment
is divisible and if the division is called for,
since each could stand separately, the
Chair would have to grant the division.
I think to accomplish your purpose you
could offer an amendment to strike out
line 50, on page 7, and lines 1, 2, and 3 on
page 8, and the words "provided by law"
on line 4, and in lieu thereof substitute
a sentence reading "except for the state
public school system and institutions of
higher education, the head of each prin-
cipal department of the executive branch,
including the chief legal officer and the
chief fiscal officer, shall be a single execu-
tive."
If that were your amendment, then Dele-
gate Scanlan could move that you amend
your amendment by the addition of the
other phrase, and there could be a separate
vote on it.
Delegate Maurer, do you desire to restate
your amendment in the form suggested by
the Chair?
DELEGATE MAURER: If I under-
stand the Chair correctly, then it would
protect my amendment by presenting it in
one sentence?
THE CHAIRMAN: One sentence, but
still give the opportunity to other dele-
gates to offer an amendment to it.
DELEGATE MAURER: Yes, sir, I
would be pleased to do that. May I point
out that the executive committee has voted
to drop the phrase "including the chief
legal officer."
I do not know whether you want to, and
"chief fiscal officer", and I would be willing
to drop that at this time as well, if that
were agreeable to the Chair, or whether it
is simpler just to leave it in.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. The
Chair would be disposed to treat your
amendment as thus modified, with the
understanding that the corrected modified
amendment in printed form be placed on
the desk of the delegates, in the absence
of any objection.
Is there any objection to that procedure?
Delegate Winslow?
DELEGATE WINSLOW: I wanted to
ask a question.
|
