|
specific carries over the general, and that
obviously where there would be a conflict,
a specific provision would carry over the
general provision in the constitution.
If I am wrong, I am sure that our Com-
mittee on Style would add that, if it should
be added.
Am I right or wrong?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : I
think this time you are right.
DELEGATE WILLONER: How about
that!
(Laughter.)
DELEGATE MARION: We considered
and rejected an amendment which would
have required that meetings of judicial
nominating commissions be open to the
public. We rejected that for what I think
are good and sufficient reasons.
If you were to provide as implementation
of this section a piece of legislation, would
you include the protection for those com-
missions in that legislation?
DELEGATE WILLONER: Out of
abundance of caution, however, I think it
falls in the same category as when you
are discussing personnel matters. Because
you would go over a number of people and
be able to freely discuss a person's quali-
fications or disqualifications, those meetings
would have to be secret.
Once a decision has been reached on who
is going to get the nominations, then any
deliberations on those people should be open
so that there can be a full exposure of
those people whom the governor would have
a choice to elect as a judge.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Willis.
DELEGATE WILLIS: Delegate Willo-
ner, several questions. I do not know quite
how far this goes.
Suppose the head of an institution of
higher learning would like to have a staff
meeting with the heads of his departments.
Would that be open and would he have to
give prior notice of it?
DELEGATE WILLONER: My opinion
would be no, and I might add in answering
that, of course, this is subject to judicial
construction. There are a lot of open meet-
ing statutes on the books, Maryland has
several. Of course, Maryland has an auto-
matic inclusion that every meeting shall be
open where there is a decision taken. But
|
you can always have an executive session.
There is no enforcement and no notice or
anything else, and it is pretty meaningless.
But where the language has some mean-
ing the courts have restricted it. I do not
think you would have to worry about staff
meetings unless they were staff meetings
where you were going to decide something
that needed to be publicly articulated. As a
matter of fact, I am sure the courts would
not go that far, but I would like them to,
however.
DELEGATE WILLIS: We spoke of in-
stitutions of higher learning. Would you
bring it down to local boards of education
and staff meetings, where county commis-
sioners have quarterly meetings of all the
heads of their departments? I believe that
is a little different.
DELEGATE WILLONER: I do not
quite understand. The purpose is to get at
those decisions that affect the public in-
terest. If you are having troubles with
students at school, it is obviously not in-
tended to cover that kind of thing.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Pullen.
DELEGATE PULLEN: Mr. Chairman,
I should like to ask if this recommendation
would apply to all institutions subsidized
in part with public money, federal, state or
local.
DELEGATE WILLONER: That is a
test that has been used in some states.
However, it is beyond the ken of this
provision.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Miller, did you wish to be recognized?
DELEGATE B. MILLER: I find that
you have fourteen members of your Com-
mittee on the Minority Report, and I am
at a little bit of a loss. Did your Com-
mittee consider this matter in committee?
DELEGATE WILLONER: The Commit-
tee did consider this matter in committee.
The majority of the Committee approved
it, and then for personal reasons which I
will leave to Delegate Hostetter to explain,
the Committee removed it, but the rest of
the Committee felt it was important enough
that we should proceed with the Minority
Report, every member of the Committee
being in agreement with it except our
chairman, and Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : This
was a closed meeting at which the decision
was made?
|
