|
Where is that so indicated, if I might
ask?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Up until this
point the mandatory provisions are set out
in 6.05. The governor certifies to the pre-
siding officer for the judicial branch as it
is certified by the court in such manner
and at such time as he shall direct. To the
extent that appropriations for the legisla-
tive and the judicial branches and the
state's board of public school systems are
required by law, the estimates therefor
shall be included in the budget without
revision.
When it comes to the legislature, the
General Assembly may amend the budget
bill by increasing any item relating to the
legislative or judicial branches. It would
be implicit that they could not reduce
items. Obviously the legislative they would
not, but insofar as the judicial branch is
concerned they could increase it.
Now, they may reduce or strike out any
item except that which is for the public
school support, but it may not change the
budget bill or change the estimate of
revenue. The compensation of a public of-
ficer may not be decreased.
What you are asking me is in either
event can they wipe out everything in the
judicial picture except the salaries of the
judges?
I would say that it is implicit in our
section that they cannot do it. I do not
know if it is or is not in the amendment
proposed because there is no reference to
it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Delegate Sher-
bow, I do not know quite how to phrase the
next question, because I did not read the
language that way. It was my understand-
ing — and am I not correct — that the word
"budget" on line 30 in section 6.05, where
it says that the estimates for various
things, including the legislative and judi-
cial branches, shall be included in the
budget without revision, refers to the budg-
et which Delegate Case described some
time ago as the document which the gov-
ernor prepares?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion,
would you mind if the Chair interrupted
you?
DELEGATE MARION: Not at all, Mr.
Chairman.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow,
your last answer was not entirely clear to
the Chair, and if I understand part of it,
I am not at all clear that the language
means this.
I had understood from a reading of the
recommendation that mandated items, that
is, items prescribed by law for the judicial
budget, could not be changed by the gov-
ernor. He had to include them in the budg-
et, because the legislature had said so.
However, once the budget got into the
budget bill, which would include the man-
dated items, since they had been pre-
scribed by the legislature they could be
reduced by the legislature, except man-
dated items for the public school system.
Is that what you were saying a moment
ago?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Yes, that is
correct. Provided when the legislature made
its change it was by the enactment of the
budget bill, changing the law as it then
existed.
THE CHAIRMAN : Yes. In other words,
I think what Delegate Sherbow was say-
ing, which, of course, is true, is that the
legislature cannot change the budget. It
can reduce the appropriations in the budg-
et bill, except that the provisions in section
6.07 would prevent an amendment to
change the appropriation for state-sup-
ported public school systems.
Does that answer your question, Dele-
gate Marion?
DELEGATE MARION: I think so, Mr.
Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Would the
Chairman of the Committee yield to a ques-
tion?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Yes, indeed.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I think we
are addressing ourselves to the question
which was originally asked by Delegate
Willis. I take it from your answer and the
Chair's explanation that the answer to his
question is that the proposed amendment
does not give the General Assembly any
power to reduce the appropriations for the
judicial branch which it did not have under
the Committee's proposal?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
|
