clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 1872   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

1872 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Dec. 6]

particular budget under consideration, but
that may not be the Committee's intention.

THE CHAIRMAN: Let me get yours
first.

In other words, you would mean the
sentence, as amended, that the compensa-
tion provided by law for a public officer
and included in the budget in the amount
provided by law could not be decreased
during his term of office?

DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Yes, sir.

THE CHAIRMAN: I believe that there
is pending before the Committee of the
whole a recommendation of another com-
mittee that would accomplish that pur-
pose. Will you bear with me just a mo-
ment? I think that is one of the recommen-
dations of the Committee on General Pro-
visions, but I am not absolutely certain.

Delegate Sherbow, do you now desire to
be recognized?

DELEGATE SHERBOW: Only for this
purpose: we had in mind state officers, peo-
ple who are provided for in the state bud-
get. We were not thinking in terms of
state's attorneys and others, because as
per our statement, we said it is the recom-
mendation of the committee that the blan-
ket prohibition of Article III, section 3.5
of the present Constitution be omitted as
recommended by the Constitutional Conven-
tion Commission. To the extent that a
limitation against increases in compensation
during the term of office is deemed desir-
able with respect to any particular office
or offices it should be included in the pro-
visions relating thereto.

On behalf of myself I would have no ob-
jection to the amendment, but I would
most strongly urge that either the Com-
mittee on Local Government or the Gen-
eral Provisions Committee or some other
group certainly provide that what the
Chair has just indicated is a provision
that is coming through.

THE CHAIRMAN: There is already a
provision in the article on the Judicial
Branch, as the Chair recalls it, that pro-
vides that compensation of judges shall not
be reduced during their term of office; is
that not correct, Delegate Mudd?

DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man.

THE CHAIRMAN: If the intent is as
the Chair indicated it, Delegate Bamberger,
would not that intent be better stated to
have your language read, instead of saying

"provided for in the state budget", say
"provided by law," and then the Com-
mittee on Style could take it out of the
budget section if it thought best?

It would seem to me not to be directly
related to the budget, if I understand your
amendment.

DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I must
confess, Mr. Chairman, at this point I
am confused.

THE CHAIRMAN: Can we wait just a
moment and check?

Delegate James.

DELEGATE JAMES: I think this is an
unfortunate phrase for this reason, that
some officers have salaries provided in the
budget alone, and some have their salaries
provided in the statute. Why could you not
simply use the word "State," or "public of-
ficer of the State," and eliminate this con-
fusion between statute and budget?

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.

DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Delegate
James, my only concern about using the
word "State" was that, as I understand
the Chairman of the Committee, it was
their intention, for instance, not to reach
state's attorneys by this provision, and
they are a state public officer.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wheatley,
can you advise the Chair whether your
Committee — I see Delegate Boyer is not
here right now — had under consideration
a recommendation that compensation of
public officers should not be reduced during
their term of office?

DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Mr. Chair-
man, that matter was briefly discussed by
the Committee, and on information sup-
plied to the Committee we were led to
believe this would be covered elsewhere.

THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. The Chair
is apparently in error in the belief that
there was a recommendation of the Com-
mittee on General Provisions touching upon
this matter. I know there is one in the
Committee on the Judicial Branch.

I am suggesting merely, Delegate Bam-
berger, that if your intention was as indi-
cated, that the amendment may not be
the happiest way to express it.

Delegate Bamberger.

DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I would
be quite pleased to withdraw the amend-
ment if the Committee can come up with



 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 1872   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives