|
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
The Chair recognizes Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Judge Sherbow, in
your explanation you referred to the fact
in section 6.05, mandatory appropriations,
that you had used the term "certification
by the chief judge in the superior court"
pursuant to the draft provision in that
regard.
Is it your view that the Committee on
Style and Drafting can change the Chief
Judge of the Superior Court to the Chief
Judge of the Court of Appeals?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Delegate
Mudd, since you have raised the point, in
order not to have any problem, I would
like to ask for unanimous consent for us to
modify that particular section which is in
section 6.05, on page 2, line 24, and strike
out the two words "Superior Court" and
insert in their place "Court of Appeals".
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Before we suggest
such an amendment, Judge Sherbow, would
you inform me whether such an amendment
would require that the Chief Judge of the
Court of Appeals only would be the person
required to appear before the legislature
to defend the judicial budget?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I think that
when the dust settles here, we might be
able to work out a provision vesting the
responsibility in the Chief Judge of the
Court of Appeals, and providing the ma-
chinery in the chief administrative officer
in the Court of Appeals. To do that, how-
ever, there has to be in our judgment a
specific constitutional designation of who
that shall be. Rather than have this come
back knowing we have designated the
wrong official, I would like to get unani-
mous consent to make it the Chief Judge
of the Court of Appeals, and then when
your Committee on the Judicial Branch has
worked out some more of the details, per-
haps you may have the more practical an-
swer to it.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Rather than ask
unanimous consent at this time for that
amendment, could it be deferred until I can
|
discuss it with members of the Judicial
Branch Committee? We feel it may be in-
advisable to have the responsibility evolve
upon the Chairman only.
My problem is that I would like to know
from the Presiding Officer or perhaps from
the Parliamentarian whether or not having
passed it in our Committee as Superior
Court judge which both of us know is in-
correct at this time in the light of your
committee's action, whether we ought to
make this amendment now.
I do not know. We are both seeking the
same end. May I ask the Chairman —
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
The parliamentarian is not here right now.
I would think that we could come back to it
later today.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Let me make
this suggestion, Mr. Chairman. I think,
Delegate Mudd and Mr. Chairman, that the
answer lies in this: our memorandum an-
ticipates this, because we say at the bottom
of page 4, whatever the designation is, it
should conform to the provision adopted by
the judicial branch.
I will withdraw my request and just
leave it to practical developments in order
to get it right after the Committee has
acted.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Kathleen Robie.
DELEGATE ROBIE: Mr. Chairman,
may I ask Mr. Sherbow a question?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Proceed.
DELEGATE ROBIE: Is it not true that
every child in the State of Maryland has
the right to a good public school education
and if he desires to take this education he
will be counted in the state's formula for
the budget?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Yes, that is
what I said.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Robie.
DELEGATE ROBIE: Then if he decides
that he does not want to avail himself of
this education and would like his own par-
ticular brand of education, then he is not
counted and would not come under this
formula?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Sherbow.
|
