|
It will no longer be a balance because the
thumb will be placed on the scale in favor
of the State Board of Education which is
now given control over the entire system,
something it has never had by statute; and
it is suggested that at this point it would
be unwise to give it this power in the
constitution.
The majority emphasizes that it is im-
portant that the superintendent of schools
be appointed by the Board and says that
this power must also be written into the
constitution. The great weight of authority
is to the contrary. Only eleven states
throughout the country provide that the
superintendent of schools shall be constitu-
tion by appointed by the Board of Education.
We think that while this system appears
to have worked well in Maryland, there is
no reason to assume that there is going to
be any radical change in Article 77 in the
future. Indeed there has not been any radi-
cal change in the past. Most of these pro-
visions have been in effect for nearly a
hundred years. The appointment power of
the State Board of Education has been in
effect since 1916. No witnesses, and I want
to emphasize this fact, suggested that this
whole constitutional structure that has
been presented by the majority should be
in the constitution.
Delegate Wheatley is correct: there were
twenty-one hearing dates and eighty-three
witnesses, and the bulk of these people were
in the educational bureaucracy, but what
he did not mention was that virtually all
of these witnesses addressed their attention
to the language of the draft constitution,
recommended change in wording here and
there, but none, and I repeat, none recom-
mended that we expand this into a nine-
section article on the subject of education.
This idea, it is submitted, was solely that
of the majority of this Committee and did
not represent any part of the testimony of
witnesses, much less the bulk of the
testimony.
Now, the Spector of the local government
article has been raised with respect to local
boards, and the minority feels that this is
really the reddest of red herrings, because
under the local government article as
adopted by this Constitutional Convention,
the position of the State Board and the
local boards is absolutely unchanged. If
these boards have ever been threatened, and
the minority question that they ever have
been, the threat is not greater under the
local government article as its exists. This
lengthy section 5, one of the ones that the
majority appears to be pressing seriously
|
here today, is as I said, virtually as long
as all the constitutional language in the
existing Constitution. About half the ques-
tions from the floor to Delegate Wheatley
indicated that its meaning is extremely
unclear.
The minority goes much further than
that. It is not only unclear, it is unneces-
sary, and an amendment to strike that en-
tire section offering no substitute language
will be offered.
Chairman Moser of the Committee on
Local Government will speak during the
controlled time and will re-emphasize the
fact that this is purely superfluous and
also basically incomprehensible.
Now, sections 6, 7 and 8 deal with the
emotional subject of autonomy in higher
education. I am delighted that the majority
in its presentation emphasized so strongly
this booklet entitled "The Efficiency of
Freedom" by the prestigious Einsenhower
Committee in 1959. For one, the minority
and the majority are in complete agreement
because we both seem to agree that this
is the signal treatise, if you will, on this
subject; and I think maybe a few words
on the subject of autonomy are necessary
before I begin.
There are three branches of higher edu-
cation in Maryland, the University, state
colleges, and community colleges. By stat-
ute in 1952, the University of Maryland
received statutory autonomy. This means
that they must present the case to the
legislature to justify the total budget of
the University. Cuts are made; usually one
or two or three percent of the budget is cut
by the legislature. When this budget passes,
the University remains in complete control
of this budget and how the money is used.
It may forget the barriers that have been
placed in the budget and the earmark uses
of the fund and may use the money as it
sees fit. It may create new programs, it
may abolish old programs, it may shift the
budget, as I say, as it sees fit. This is a
tremendous power, and a power that is
protected always from abuse by the fact
that it may be withdrawn by the General
Assembly.
Now, this power, which has never been
statutorily granted to the community col-
leges or the state colleges, indeed never
even requested by either one of those col-
leges, is constitutionally given to both of
these branches of the tri-party system of
higher education by the Majority Report.
Now, turning to page 30 of this booklet
entitled "The Efficiency of Freedom", there
|
