|
bill may be enacted after the beginning of
the fiscal year?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow,
did you hear the question?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: No, we never
intended that. The General Assembly be-
gins early in January or February. By the
terms of these 80 days, Senator James
tells me that this is technically possible. I
hope that in bringing together the legis-
lative and the other sections that we avoid
that, but I guess if you start adding up
the days you can see if it is technically
possible. I have not checked out the calen-
dars here, but I think it is better to go by
calendar in our own proceedings. I do not
know how it will be with the General
Assembly. It was not our intent, but it
may fall into that kind of situation.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, I think it is technically possible under
the present arrangement that if the legis-
lature failed to act you would have to stay
around until it did.
If it was after July 1, there would not
be anything you could do about it, so there
is no change in the technical possibilities.
DELEGATE JAMES: I think that is
absolutely correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lewis, can the
Chair inquire whether the question you
were requested to look at is something that
could be resolved very quickly, or would it
require further study?
MR. LEWIS: (Staff Advisor to Commit-
tee on State Finance and Taxation). Am I
permitted to speak?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think we can per-
mit you to speak under the circumstances
we asked you to speak.
MR. LEWIS: I do not know how quickly
I can do this. I think the problem arises
because the blue book dealing with Article
III, section 35 indicated it was being super-
seded by this provision in the budget, and
I do not think that was the correct intent,
because the provision we are talking about
in the budget is not a new provision, but an
old one that has always been there. Cer-
tainly, the budget provision was not in-
tended to supersede or take the place of
Article III, section 35.
When we dealt with this, it was certainly
my understanding that the budget provi-
sion applied only to the budgeted items. I
do not think it was discussed in the Com-
mittee, but I believe I did write a memo
to Judge Sherbow.
|
In other words, you were dealing with
compensation that was set out in the
budget, and if there was to be any limi-
tation on either increases or decreases in
compensation of public offices, it should be
specified in the other provisions of the
constitution dealing with those offices, and
we so stated in our memorandum.
I think the error perhaps was — and if
it was an error it was my error — that in
discussing this in the memorandum we re-
ferred only to increases, the reason being
that this was really the only think that
was an important item. If we had put in
"increases or decreases" it would have been
fairly clear, but we had no intention of
substituting this budget provision for Ar-
ticle III, section 35. I do not know that I
have helped on this.
The question is, do you want a restric-
tion on increases or decreases in the com-
pensation of public officers? If you do, it
ought to be, I should think, in a separate
provision and not mess up the budget
with it.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Bamberger,
the Chair suggests there are several pos-
sible courses of action open. We could pro-
ceed to vote on your amendment, which at
the moment, putting it mildly, is in a state
of confusion.
You could withdraw your amendment,
and after the matter was straightened out
submit another amendment at the time of
second reading when the committee rec-
ommendation is before the Convention; or
a committee recommendation, a separate
committee recommendation, touching not
merely upon the budget, but upon the whole
subject of compensation of public officers
could be introduced, which would resolve
the question.
Which course of action appeals to you?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I have an-
other alternative. I will withdraw my
amendment and let the Committee come
in and straighten this out.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
Amendment No. 3 is withdrawn.
Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Bam-
berger may be withdrawing it, but I think
it is very important.
The holding in the Pressman v. D'Ale-
sandro case was that the prohibition in
|
