|
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, it has just been completed. I am going
over it now, and I am sending it back for
printing in just a few minutes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Then we will still
hold that amendment. Unless there are
amendments of which the Chair is not
aware, the next item on the agenda is
presentation of Minority Report LB-2 (B)
by Delegate Scanlan. This arises under
consideration of section 3.18. The Chair
recognizes Delegate Scanlan and requests
him to come forward to the reading desk
to present the minority report.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Mr. President
and fellow delegates: In the interest of
time, I want to advise Chairman Gallagher
and the Convention that I will waive the
ten minutes of controlled time allotted to
the minority and will rest with the presen-
tation of the Committee's report plus hope-
fully recognition during the period of any
uncontrolled debate that follows. I believe
the report, if you have it before you, speaks
for itself. As one of my waggish friends
said, I have come to make another long winded speech in favor of brief language
in the constitution.
As you know, the majority proposes that
the General Assembly shall provide by law
for a code of ethics and for the regulation
of conflicts of interest for all elected of-
ficials of the State of Maryland. In my
opinion and our opinion this provision
should not be made of constitutional dimen-
sion and inserted in the constitution.
In the first place, it is unnecessary. No
sound lawyer in this room can dispute the
fact that the legislature has ample power
to adopt the code of ethics for itself and to
enact conflict of interest legislation, not
only for all elected officials of this State
as proposed by the majority, but indeed for
all officials. Indeed, as a matter of fact the
argument can be made that if this provision
is put in, vesting power to enact conflict of
interest legislation for the elected officials
of the State, then perhaps somehow the
otherwise plenary power of the legislature
to enact conflict of interest legislation for
all officials would be impaired and they
would be restricted to legislation imple-
menting the particular provision that the
majority proposes. I do not mean to suggest
that we of the minority are happy with the
failure on the part of the General As-
sembly to go very far in the conflict of
interest field, however one must be fair
and recognize the fact that this is a
very difficult field in which to legislate.
I think the representative from California
|
who appeared before our Committee who
has been associated as the administrative
assistant to Mr. Unruh, the speaker of the
California house for many years, made the
telling point when he pointed out to the
extent that you increase the prestige of
the legislature, to the extent that you make
them more of a full-time body, to the ex-
tent that you pay them better, then to that
extent can you also expect more of them
by way of effective and comprehensive con-
flict of interest legislation. I think we are
moving in the direction of that type of
legislature and as we move in that direc-
tion, I think the possibilities are greater
that comprehensive conflict of interest legis-
lation will be enacted. But in any event the
power to do so is ample. What is suggested
by the minority adds not one whit to the
power, indeed, and if the argument I have
made before it may have any validity in the
long run perhaps subtract from that power.
Secondly, the provision is completely un-
enforceable to the extent that anyone could
rely on it to obtain particular relief or to
require somehow that the legislature enact
law. I notice that there have been a lot of
loose statements made on this floor during
the course of debates on previous sections
regarding conservation and consumer pro-
tection, that perhaps some right of action
was created for the court to act if the
legislature did not act. I think the law is
completely, firmly and everywhere settled,
including this State, at least in all Ameri-
can jurisdictions that the courts cannot
compel the performance of a legislative act,
cannot mandamus the legislature to do a
legislative act and there is no authority to
the contrary. 1 think the Chairman of the
Committee accepts that proposition.
Thirdly, assuming what cannot really be
assumed, that the provision could be ju-
dicially enforceable, the legislature could
very easily comply with it. It could adopt
an innocuous code of ethics for itself and
empty limited conflict of interest legis-
lation for other elected officials and then
take the position it had carried out its
constitutional duty.
Fourth, like so many of the suggestions
that have come before this Convention the
proposal demeans the legislative power. We
do not write into the constitution the sug-
gestion or admonition or an exhortation
that the governor execute the laws of this
State wisely and fairly, or that the courts
interpret them justly and equitably, why
then must we urge and prod the legisla-
ture to perform a particular act in a field
however compelling that field may be.
|
