|
phrase, unless otherwise provided by law,
could apply only to the first phrase, the
"except" clause, or it could apply only to
the second phrase, that is, to principal de-
partments, other than educational institu-
tions; or it could provide or could apply
to both.
I take it you are stating unequivocally
your intention that the phrase, unless
otherwise provided by law, is to be the
second, that is, to apply only to the prin-
cipal departments other than education?
DELEGATE BARD: That is correct,
Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: May I ad-
dress a question to Delegate Bard?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bard, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE BARD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I gather that
you, like some of us, do not want anybody
to have the power to change the system
whereby we have a Board of Regents at
the University of Maryland and boards at
the higher educational level, but when you
say, "as otherwise provided by law", in
spite of what you say your intention may
be, do you not realize there is a rule of
construction which might hold that the
latter provision may take precedence over
the earlier provision, and thus the very
thing that you are seeking to do you
nullify?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bard.
DELEGATE BARD: My answer to that
would be, Delegate Sherbow, that if we
could separate this whole concept and vote
on that separately as Delegate Scanlan
has stated, then I do not think we would
have any problem at all.
It may well be that after this amend-
ment to the amendment passes that we
might need to look further at yet another
amendment, but at this point I think we
have to face the issue which I have pre-
sented.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: My next ques-
tion is simply this: the end you seek, if I
understand, would be you not be better off
if the matter were changed so that it
would read as it is printed and then at the
very end simply say "the provisions of this
|
section shall not apply to the state public
school system and institutions of higher
learning"?
Then there cannot be any question in my
mind at least, that what you are talking
about is what you are saying.
This whole section then would not ap-
ply. I think there is confusion the way it
reads, "except that", and then in the end
you say "as provided by law". I am not
offering any amendments. I simply suggest
to you that there is this state of confusion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow,
the Chair would observe that this is the
kind of confusion that could be eliminated
by the Committee on Style, so long as the
record is clear, and I think that the record
indicates very clearly that Delegate Bard's
intention is as you have just stated it.
The Committee on Style could make such
changes as you suggest or any other to
carry that into effect.
DELEGATE BARD: Mr. Chairman, I
like that as a substitution, Delegate Sher-
bow, and would certainly accept it. At this
moment it may well be that it ought to be
a parenthetical statement, so that the Com-
mittee on Style could use it rather than
to have an amendment to an amendment to
an amendment.
What do you think of that?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: You asked me
a question; I wished we had the power to
say all those who are in favor of keeping
the school system out completely say yes,
those against say no.
I wish we had the power to put each of
the other sections there. Then we could put
it together, because I think this is where we
are all in trouble, and Delegate Scanlan
has simply pointed it out.
DELEGATE BARD: I agree.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: Mr. Chairman,
may I ask Delegate Bard a question, please?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bard, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE BARD: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: Delegate Bard,
would you please explain to me the differ-
ence between your amendment and the sec-
tion 4.8 as it appears in the blue copy?
|
