|
branch it would not except for those em-
ployees dealing with licenses and so on, but
this would have to be subject to interpreta-
tion.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Delegate
Maurer cited the provision of the model
constitution as a precedent for her proposal.
I think it is only fair to point out that her
proposal goes considerably beyond even the
exhortations found in the model con-
stitution.
Her amendment would reach all em-
ployees in the service of the State and that
is not only all employees in the executive
branch, but it would be all employees in
the judicial branch and all employees of
the legislative branch. Even the model does
not go that far.
As a matter of fact, even in a discussion
of the laws on the model, it admits that
the concept of the merit system has gained
such wide acceptance that need for spelling
out the specific details seems no longer
necessary. Nevertheless, the model does end
up with the exhortatory provision of the
type decried by Delegate James.
I join in resisting cluttering up the con-
stitution with clauses which are unen-
forceable. If they are enforceable, they are
even more dangerous.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I have a question
for Delegate Morgan.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a moment;
Delegate Gill.
DELEGATE GILL: I also had a ques-
tion for Delegate Morgan.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: I wish to speak
in opposition.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any delegate desire
to speak in favor? If not, Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: I cannot agree
with my colleague and friend Delegate
Scanlan that this is merely pious exhorta-
tion. It seems to me there would be some
good flexible utility to permit methods to
be prescribed by means other than law
such as administrative regulations or some-
thing of this nature.
We are getting very mature in our merit
principle of employment in public service,
and we should be most careful that we not
|
impose a constitutional restriction upon the
expansion and flexibility of the system.
If that clause is removed, then I think
it falls under the admonition of Delegate
Scanlan, unfortunately, and for that rea-
son should probably be rejected.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant, do
you desire to pose your question?
DELEGATE GRANT: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE MORGAN: I yield.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: In addressing
this article specifically to the executive
branch would the overall thrust mean that
you intended that this would be dealt with
in the executive branch in this manner and
that you intended to leave employees or
appointees of either the judicial or legisla-
tive branch to be disposed of by those
branches?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: Mr. Chairman,
I think the General Assembly could cer-
tainly prescribe the civil service system for
judicial employees as well as legislative
employees if it chose to do so, but it has
not chosen to do so so far.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: By specifically
specifying legislative, you do not mean to
exclude the executive or judicial branch
by law?
DELEGATE MORGAN: This amend-
ment —
THE CHAIRMAN: I think he is speak-
ing not of the amendment, but rather of
the section as drafted.
His question is since this refers to em-
ployees in the executive branch does it
negative the power of the General Assem-
bly to provide for removal of employees in
other branches, is that your question?
DELEGATE GRANT: Yes.
DELEGATE MORGAN: It does not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gill.
DELEGATE GILL: My question is to
Delegate Maurer.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Maurer, do
you yield to a question?
|
