among lawyers will participate in their se-
lection. I urge you to seek alternative con-
stitutional safeguards which might more
effectively and realistically and rigorously
achieve an independent judicial branch.
Article VI properly authorizes strong
executive leadership in the preparation and
presentation of the state budget. Of par-
ticular interest is the controversial matter
of whether or not the present time limit on
state indebtedness should be increased be-
yond 15 years. For most purposes, a pay-
as-you-go is a commendable objective and
one which I have consistently supported.
The inclusion of $10 million as a current
payment on capital improvements in the
fiscal 1968 budget attests to this fact.
Respected and experienced state fiscal
experts are concerned about the impact of
any bond period extension on the state's
credit rating. I share their concern should
such a privilege be uncontrolled and abused.
However, we face a need to implement un-
usual and massive programs to purify our
air and waters, to provide modern trans-
portation systems, to meet the challenge
to public safety.
These cannot be amortized over a 15-
year period without a dramatic increase
in the current tax burden. More impor-
tantly, because of the beneficial life of
these improvements, they probably should
be liquidated over a longer period.
Because of the complexity of this sub-
ject, I will later submit to this Convention
a separate memorandum specifying my
views and suggesting certain changes in
the draft provisions.
Section 6.05, is perhaps the most po-
litically sensitive provision in the entire
draft Constitution. As an administrator
who can proudly point to significant accom-
plishments in increasing state financial aid
to all facets of public education, I am com-
pelled to speak out forthrightly on this
measure.
While I support the provisions of section
6.05 requiring the mandatory inclusion of
budgetary requests from the legislative and
judicial branches of state government, I
contend that the executive and legislative
branches should have the authority to re-
view and revise the education budget. Edu-
cation is a part of the executive responsi-
bility and while I do not deny its promi-
nence in program priority, its budgetary
provisions should not be excepted any more
than those of the departments responsible
for securing our citizens' health and public |
safety. The Governor and General Assem-
bly, who in the last analysis are responsible
for raising funds to support all state pro-
grams, and who are held directly respon-
sible by the electorate for any increase in
the tax burden must be permitted the right
to exercise discretionary powers commen-
surate with this responsibility. There is no
reason to justify the obvious want of con-
fidence in the executive and legislative
branches that this section implies.
The exception of budgetary control over
education is inconsistent with the constitu-
tional concept requiring checks and bal-
ances to exist among and not within any
single branch of government. In fact, this
exception violates that constitutional prin-
ciple in two of our three branches.
Similar logic must be applied in your
consideration of section 6.08. If the provi-
sions of section 6.05 require legislative -and
judicial budgets to be transmitted as re-
quested, it is my belief that the governor
shall have the right to exercise line item
veto over these appropriations as enacted
by the General Assembly. Without this
right of executive review, the electorate is
bereft of safeguards limiting legislative
expenses.
Article VII dealing with the powers as-
signed or reserved to local government de-
mands careful review. While I strongly en-
dorse the principles of home rule, I believe
any mandatory or implied shift of powers
to the county governments should be con-
sidered with care. I have grave reserva-
tions over any partial or ambiguous grant
of authority that is not exactly balanced
by a direct line of accountable responsibility
to the electorate.
Sections 7.08 and 7.09 are sought to re-
form existing legislative practices that have
been subject on isolated occasions to de-
liberate political manipulation and abuse.
However, I do not believe that the classifi-
cation system is the absolute or ultimate
solution to this problem. Other alternatives
should be explored to protect the counties
without freezing them into rigid, restric-
tive categories.
Since a constitution is designed not only
to serve the present but to anticipate the
future, it is vital that provisions to facili-
tate regional government be included for
that time — no matter how distant —
when local governments desire to unite in
some or several cooperative ventures.
Before concluding this testimony, I wish
to note that this message has been inten- |
