|
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Based on the
modern concept, based on the recommenda-
tion of the Sobeloff Commission, and Pro-
fessor Schweitzer's studies, based on every-
thing that is available on the subject of
budget, we are not in any way eliminating
the requirements of the details in the
budget. We are, however, saying that in
order that the public, the legislature, all
be aware of what is encompassed within
the budget, it shall be by program.
This has the broadest meaning. The in-
tent of the Committee is not to be restric-
tive in any way. The two words should
have the broadest interpretation in our
judgment in order to shed enlightenment,
in order to shed information, in order to
give the legislature and the people a full
and complete knowledge of everything that
is contemplated in the field of expenditures
that are requested by the governor.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Maurer.
DELEGATE MAURER: Judge Sherbow,
does the addition of this change conform
to the budget we have now?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: No, because it
originally was meant to be changed by in-
stitution of the program budget, but I do
not find from a practical point of view that
there has been any real change that has
been made. They still have the line by line
book system. Here it is. You know, every
detail is furnished. It does not help. It
could help tremendously.
I know if I were sitting in the legisla-
ture I would much rather know what the
programs are, what the total allotted for
that program last year was, what you are
asking for next year, rather than to know
if they ordered two new automobiles and
three new stenographers.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Maurer.
DELEGATE MAURER: I do not dis-
agree with you on the value of a program
budget, as I said initially, Judge Sherbow.
I just wondered whether this is something
we should constitutionalize or whether this
is something which is moving along any-
how, and this is just unnecessary, and, in
fact, may be restrictive in the future, 25
or 30 years from now.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: We do not
think it is restrictive. We think it is help-
ful. We feel it ought to remain in. I think
|
the Eney draft as well reached that same
conclusion.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
The Chair recognizes Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Delegate Sher-
bow, I would like to refer you to section
G. 05, on line 25 of the recommendation. The
last word on that line is "he." Does that
refer back to the governor, or does it refer
back to the people who were to certify the
estimates of the appropriations? Who is it
that has the power of directing the time
to perform?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: That means
the governor. He sets up the form, the
standards and all the information. When
we say the Governor, we mean the Director
of the Budget under him is going to pro-
vide all the forms and details. He is going
to tell them what kind of language he
wants all of this to come under, because
we hope out of it some day will come a
uniform system.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: In section G.OG
when the governor sends an amendment
to become part of the budget bill, suppose
the budget bill has meanwhile passed one
house. Does it mean it must go back to
that house?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: If it has
passed one house, it would have to go back
to that one house to be incorporated in
as one budget unless, of course, he did not
care that it be made a separate matter in
which event you may have to provide sepa-
rate taxes for it.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: In section G.07
we discussed that last sentence about the
compensation of public officers. In the legis-
lative branch article we provided that the
legislature may not increase its salary ex-
cept under certain specified circumstances.
Are we now saying that the legislature
may not decrease its salary at all during
its term?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Sherbow.
|
