|
voted unfavorably? The bill is never in the
chamber at the time unless the bill is
brought before the chamber with an un-
favorable report, and then there is a vote
taken, and that vote is recorded.
Now, if a bill is introduced and the spon-
sor himself is not interested in bringing the
bill before the chamber for a vote, he wants
it killed and he wants it killed in that com-
mittee, because probably he is embarrassed
that he even introduced the bill.
Are you going to embarrass him by re-
quiring the chairman of the committee to
bring a bill out and say that there was no
vote in the committee for a bill that was
reported unfavorable?
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one-half
minute, Delegate Della.
DELEGATE DELLA: I think you are
just filling up this constitution that we are
working on with a lot of words 'that cannot
be enforced. I think the amendment will
benefit this section of the constitution that
we are trying to adopt.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, ladies and gentlemen, you would think
that the General Assembly of Maryland
was dealing with jelly beans instead of
dollars.
We are running a billion dollar operation
here in the State of Maryland and I am
sorry about anyone's embarrassment, but
I think that what we are really interested
in is public advisability and responsibility
on the part of the General Assembly. I
do not think it is too much trouble for a
committee chairman to keep a record of
votes, and I think when he thinks he is
taking a final vote and it is considered to
be final that it is not too much difficulty to
see that that information is transmitted to
the proper parties.
The one thing seems certain down here
and that is when you want to change any
old way that they have done it for years
and years and years, you suddenly have
everyone's back up and that is most unfor-
tunate. I suppose that what we have today
was once considered to be theoretical, new,
unsatisfactory. Now it is tradition bound,
it has ivy on it. Nobody wants to touch it. I
say if you want responsibility to be placed,
if you want the General Assembly to know
that it is going to be scrutinized and viewed
publicly, that this is the way to do it. I
|
think it is important, and it makes no sense
at all to require a Yea and Nay vote on the
floor when you kill a bill and not to re-
quire it in Committee. The effect is exactly
the same and I think this is important
enough in this kind of an operation, with
intelligent people, and with the staff that
they are going to have, to see to it that we
are able to give the public the information
it deserves.
I would urge you to defeat the amend-
ment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Mr. Chair-
man, ladies and gentlemen of the Commit-
tee: I regret that the argument is in terms
of the old versus the new. If we vote to
keep this sentence in 3.17, we are voting
to have mandatory substantial compliance,
whatever that is, and I am very much in
favor of the concept. It simply is not a
proper provision for this state constitution.
It is a proper provision for a rule of the
legislature.
Now, the Chairman has indicated that he
is willing to set it up, either as a rule, or
something which will be, or have a clear
legal concept but if you leave it in 3.17 as
it is, it is not going to have any legal con-
cept that we recognize in today's law. Con-
sequently, I urge you to vote for the amend-
ment, but with the understanding that the
status of the concept can be clarified, so
if we go for the amendment and let them
clarify it so that we do not have mandatory
substantial compliance, we will accomplish
what he wants, but we will not clutter up
the Constitution with something that does
not mean anything.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Mr. Chairman,
after listening a little bit more to this de-
bate, I am more convinced than ever that
the purpose of the movers of this amend-
ment is to eliminate from section 3.17 not
only this provision but three or four other
provisions that are added in there.
There is not the slightest doubt in my
mind as to what the meaning of this sec-
tion is. It is in there for a purpose. It is
mandatory. They shall do it. But if in fact,
due to a clerical error on the part of some
assistant, some mistake occurs, we do not
|
