|
to testify before the legislature in any
other aspect of the work of the court.
Whatever your amendment would say, I
hope it would provide for an official who
could be specifically named or a finger put
on him so that the legislature would know
to whom to look as the chief administrative
officer, and, indeed, if the event ever oc-
curred and any mandamus proceedings
were involved, you would know where you
could find the person to be required to act.
Now, whether or not it is the Chief Judge
of the Court of Appeals or the chief ad-
ministrative officer of our court system as
determined by the Chief Judge of the Court
of Appeals, I would leave this for discus-
sion of the Committee on the Judicial
Branch and we will be "lad to cooperate
with you so that what comes out would be
the distillation of the thinking of both
groups.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: I think the pre-
ference would be to provide certification by
the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals.
There would be some reluctance to do that
if in your considered judgment he would
be expected to appear and testify and
could not in the normal course of the bud-
get proceedings send his administrative
officer who would probably have clone all
the work on that budget anyway.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: My only an-
swer would be that I would expect likewise
that the. chief administrative officer would
be the one who would be called over. But I
would not say that the legislature would
not have the power to subpoena or ask the
Chief Judge to come over.
Now, in Baltimore City where you have
this kind of situation, the clerk goes over
to the City Council, the director of the bud-
get, but I know from time to time the
Chief Judges come over to discuss it with
the City Council. I do not think it is the
best way to run the two separate depart-
ments of government, but I do not know
how to say to you, name the Chief Judge as
a man, but then say to the legislature "You
cannot ask the Chief Judge."
1 think you will have to find language
which will give you the chief administrative
officer as designated by the Chief Judge of
the Court of Appeals.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: What you are
saying is whether the Chief Judge is desig-
|
nated as the person to certify the judicial
budget or not, he could still be required as
could anybody in government, to appear
under the language of section 6.09 to give
testimony before the legislative branch on
that budget?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Other than the
governor ?
DELEGATE MARION: Other than the
governor.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: That is right.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Gallagher has been trying to get
the floor for quite a while.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Judge, in
the section on the legislative branch, we did
not make any exceptions with respect to the
powers of the General Assembly to compel
the attendance of witnesses.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: All I can say
is that this is a matter of conflict that
ought to be straightened out. I think it
also involves the matter of philosophy. I am
not sure that the governor ought to be re-
quired to go before the General Assembly
and testify with regard to his budget.
I think this is the provision which ought
to remain in. I do not think it is in conflict
with yours, is it, Delegate Gallagher?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: No.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: It is just that
we have exempted one person who is pres-
ent from the requirement of testifying.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I would
agree that the two can be read consistent
with each other, so long as we understand
that all you seem to do is to exclude the
governor as a witness with respect to testi-
mony on the budget bill.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Yes, then we
do what you normally expect. Everybody
|
