|
ficials or those who are not involved at the
state level, then we believe this is one of
the open end matters that may well be
referred to the Local Government Com-
mittee or whoever the Chair may feel is
the proper group to handle it.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
For what purpose does Delegate Bard rise?
DELEGATE BARD: I have a question
related to the one that Delegate Bamberger
asked. May I ask it of Delegate Sherbow?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Go ahead.
DELEGATE BARD: How about those
local public officers who receive a portion
of their salaries from the State and within
the frame of reference of that portion,
they then fit under the category of the
state budget? Would they be embraced in
this statement?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I do not know.
It all depends on who they get their salary
check from, but if the salary check comes
from the State, that payment cannot be
decreased during their term of office.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Bard.
DELEGATE BARD: What if their salary
check comes from the county but the
major portion of it in some cases as
would hold true for example of county
superintendents, comes from the state ?
Would they fit within this embracement?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: No, for this
reason. You get paid by the county. You
do not iruiuire leg-ally, I am now saying1,
where the county got that money. If the
county got that money partly from the
State, partly from the federal government
and partly from taxes, this is at that mo-
ment not your problem.
If you are employed by the county, you
are paid by the county and you are a
county servant.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Bard.
DELEGATE BARD: Would it help some
if we inserted the word "state public offi-
cer" ?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Sherbow.
|
DELEGATE SHERBOW: No, we feel
that the words "public officer" are broad
enough to have the meaning that we in-
tended them to have.
There are all kinds of problems that
could arise. We think most of them are
solved by what we have done, saying that
the salaries shall not be decreased. We
did not say anything about increasing
them because we feel that this is a futile
effort to try to accomplish what cannot be
clone.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
The Chair recognizes Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: May I return to
the question about the certification of the
judicial branch budget in section G.Oo?
I have drafted two alternative amend-
ments and I have discussed them with
Chairman Mudd, and I think it would help
us to have the answer from you to tho
c|iiestion, whether or not in your judgment,
or whether it is the Committee's intention,
that whichever person is designated in the
constitution to certify the judicial budget
would be required to appear before the
legislature to testify with respect to that
budget, or if the constitution were to desig-
nate certification by the Chief Judge of the
Court of Appeals, whether that certification
is sufficient under the constitution and the
testimony in support of that budget could
be done by an administrative judge or some
other judge under the direction of the
Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I do not have-
the words of your amendment, of course,
but what we say in the section on testimony
is that "either house may require any per-
son in any branch or agency of the state
government other than the governor to
appear and testify with respect to the bud-
get bill or supplementary appropriation
bill."
We have nothing in here that says that
the legislature could not require the Chief
Judge of the Court of Appeals to appear
before them, but the Chief Judge of the
Court of Appeals could only, in my judg--
ment, be required to testify with respect to
administrative details. I think it would be
silly to do it when the administrative offi-
cers were there.
When you jump between the two depart-
ments of government, you could not call
on the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals
|
