|
DELEGATE WILLONER: Assuming
that the Court of Appeals established a
rule that all defendants who established
their indigency are required to have an
attorney, and that the attorney would be
required to be paid $25 an hour for court
appearances and $15 an hour for research,
could appropriations to support that rule
be made to be included in the budget of
the court?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: If that is a
valid rule. If it is within the constitutional
rule-making power that we give to the
Court of Appeals, then to that extent it
would be required to be put into the
budget.
If the legislature felt that this were
improper, that they would not go along
with such a program, then the legislature
has the power to act to repeal that rule
having the force of law.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Then I as-
sume the legislative check you refer to in
the school appropriations has not existed
in the judicial appropriations?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: On the con-
trary, I think the check in the judicial pro-
gram is as strong except for one thing. If
the legislature decides it does not agree
with the rule, they may by enactment
change it and let the Court of Appeals
come back and re-enact it.
I can tell you I sat on that Rules Com-
mittee. I have never seen any problem like
this exist except in one instance and a
couple of us were designated to go over and
talk to the legislative leaders, and when
we came back there was no problem.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: In section
6.10 you describe supplementary appropria-
tions; under the executive article there is
also the use of the word "supplementary
appropriations".
Is the intent of your description of sup-
plementary appropriations that it be the
description that we used for supplementary
appropriations throughout the constitution?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Sherbow.
|
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Well, our in-
tent is to say that any other appropria-
tion is a supplementary appropriation. We
have denned it in these broad terms.
If there is a difference between what we
have and what the executive branch has,
then once again I say to Professor Penni-
man, highlight it and let us see what dif-
ference if any exists and we will attempt
to eliminate that difference.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: I was told
when we were debating the executive sec-
tion that you would solve this problem for
me, because in describing supplementary
appropriations in that section, they re-
ferred to the present Constitution and all
the details that are required to establish
the supplementary appropriation bill. And
I was told, "don't worry about it". I was
told Judge Sherbow will straighten it out
in the state finance section.
Now, I want you to straighten it out.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SPIERBOW: I am sorry I
misunderstood you. I thought you were ask-
ing for something else. What they were
talking about at that time was the situa-
tion which had developed as a result of a
case which went to the Court of Appeals
involving the last large tax bill where we
had the provision in the Constitution pro-
viding that the appropriations shall relate
to a single purpose, and so on.
When they said we would straighten it
out, they were right. I think we have. At
least I hope we have, because we have said
instead of that archaic language limited
to some single work, object or purpose, that
it shall be embodied in a separate bill
called a supplementary appropriation bill,
the purpose or purposes of which shall be
clearly defined therein.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
For what purpose does Delegate Case arise?
DELEGATE CASE: Perhaps I can help
Chairman Sherbow in answering Delegate
Willoner's question.
Actually what happened, Delegate Wil-
loner, is that when the executive part was
going through the Committee last week, if
you will recall, we amended it and used
certain language different from what the
Committee had used.
I prepared the amendment myself and
what we did was to take the language right
|
