|
THE CHAIRMAN : All right.
Is there any other discussion? Are you
ready for the question?
(Call for the question.)
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell.
DELEGATE SYBERT: I would like to
ask the sponsor if he would agree to the
addition at the end of it with these words
"who shall serve at the pleasure of the
attorney general so as to conform with
what is in the present law and is a prac-
tice all over the country."
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Delegate Sybert,
since I would, as I indicated before, wish
to give the attorney general only such
powers in this area as he now has by the
present Constitution, I would not accept
that additional language.
DELEGATE SYBERT: Even though it
is in the present law.
DELEGATE CHABOT: But it is not
in the present Constitution and therefore
I would not accept this language.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: Mr. Chairman, I
would like to speak just briefly with re-
spect to this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
DELEGATE MASON: I rise to speak
in favor of the amendment. I think Dele-
gate Chabot clearly indicated the necessity
for such amendment. Now, if the attorney
general does not have the right to appoint
by the constitution, then some other of-
ficial could appoint the assistants for the
attorney general which would be intoler-
able.
Now, even if we have a merit system, the
attorney general would be the appointing
power under the merit system so it does
not prescribe the legislature from setting
up a merit system if they so choose nor
would it prevent the attorney general from
appointing the assistants at his pleasure.
So I urge you to vote for the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any other
discussion?
Delegate Gleason.
DELEGATE GLEASON: Mr. Chairman
and fellow delegates: I just have to dis-
agree with that statement by Delegate
Mason that if the power is granted to the
|
attorney general under this constitutional
recommendation to appoint such deputies
as may be prescribed by law, he will, of
necessity, have the power to appoint such
deputies.
The point is it will completely take away
from the General Assembly at any time in
the future the expression of the desire to
put such employees within the attorney
general's office under the merit system as
the policy of the merit system and the
protection of those employees may dictate.
We know that many of the employees of
the attorney general's office stay in office
through the life of their governmental
career. Many of these jobs are routine.
They do not take up policy matters. There
is no reason, just because these individuals
are lawyers, for them to be deprived of
the merit system.
I suggest that the recommended pro-
vision under Delegate Chabot's proposal,
the General Assembly already has this
power but you are adding an additional
power if you put this in the Constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I rise very
briefly to support this amendment. There
are at the present time in this State no
less than sixteen judges, sitting judges in
the federal courts, in the state courts, on
the Court of Appeals and any number of
other ex-judges and lawyers who have
served in the office of the attorney general.
I venture to say that hardly any of those
people would have been interested in a
merit system job. They regarded it as an
honor for them to come there and serve
for a limited number of years. Some have
served only a few years, some served
longer. I do not think any of those people
would have been attracted to a merit sys-
tem job and because of the professional
character of the work, I think it is most
fortunate that we have this provision in
the present Constitution and the present
law. I urge you to vote for it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any other
discussion?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
(Call for the question.)
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell.
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 10 to Committee Recom-
mendation EB-2.
|
