|
would close off in certain areas, and I
want to point out to you with this new
draft constitution, time after time again
you have made new provisions and you
said, "to be established by law." The legis-
lature would have to hold extended hear-
ings of all bureaus and commissions and
everything else to get the concept of where
the door should be closed, and I do not
think they would be able to get that legis-
lation written for the next seven or eight
years with all the other things they have
got to do.
In the meantime, if you take Amend-
ment No. 24, everything is wide open, and
the legislature will not have had time to
close the door. It is a very dangerous
amendment, in that form. Therefore I
drafted for our Committee the proposal
submitted as a substitute by Mr. Kiefer,
which declares the policy of the right to
know, but it shall be opened and given
after the legislature has had the time to
study the matter carefully.
If you will notice "to the extent and in
the manner provided by law," the concept
is there, and the legislature will have ample
time to develop it carefully.
I hope if you act in this area at all, and
it is a good concept, that you take Amend-
ment No. 24-A and substitute it for 24
and pass it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: I think I have
grasped the spirit of the Kiefer amend-
ment. He and delegate Weidemeyer are in
favor of the right to know, but not very
much. Delegate Scanlan wanted to strike
everything. That was a clear approach.
Delegate Scanlan characterized a similar
amendment as governmental immunity. He
said he was for it, but it said absolutely
nothing. Delegate Kiefer would have saved
us trouble if he had introduced a proposal
which would say the people shall have such
right as provided by the legislature. That
is what this amendment does. If we are
going to deal with it at all, we ought to
say something.
I think this particular amendment is
more dangerous than the section in the
government immunity section. I fully agree
with Delegate Chabot and Delegate Willo-
ner that this amendment has a strong
chance to do away with present common
law rights and you would only have that
right which the legislature presently
provided.
It changes the whole concept, but it
changes it in a negative way. Let us not
|
go back. Let us retain what is good. If you
like that amendment then move to strike
this, but do not put this concept into the
constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Cardin.
DELEGATE CARDIN: Mr. Chairman
and fellow delegates, I think we all agree
on the philosophy that we all have the
right to know. Some of us come here for
the first time in a governmental action
other than balloting. Others are experi-
enced. I would like to know everything that
goes on. I have had experience in this Con-
vention, and my experience here has shown
me that there are some meetings that can-
not and should not be opened because they
can be misinterpreted if people can only
listen to a portion or part when they are
there.
I would suggest not taking Amendment
No. 24, which opens everything and which
will force the General Assembly in which
we must have confidence, to issue by
statute hoards of "do nots". We do have,
according to the Maryland Code, obviously
many open meetings, and we will continue
to. I am sure in the integrity of the Gen-
eral Assembly they will open more and
more. But we must do it through the posi-
tive, not the negative. Let us do it as it
benefits the people.
Amendment No. 24-A, from what I un-
derstand from those who are knowledge-
able, does not delete the rights that we
already have. It will give us the others
that we want. Let us not put ourselves in
a position where we do not permit the gov-
ernment to act as it must at times away
from everyone's eyes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Schneider.
DELEGATE SCHNEIDER: Mr. Chair-
man, I want to speak against Amendment
No. 24-A. As Delegate Dukes has pointed
out, it is a step backwards. If not a step
backwards, it is not a step forward. If you
are in favor of the right to know, this does
nothing. It merely constitutionalizes what
we presently have, and perhaps not quite
as much.
If you are against the right to know,
why would you want useless language in
the constitution? No matter how you feel on
this, there is no use putting a toothless
provision of 24-A in the constitution.
If you are in favor of the right to know,
I think you are in favor of the right to
require public meetings. This does not do
that. This says merely that you can inspect
the minutes after the meeting has been
|
