|
with the rapidly expanding system as it is,
no one really knows what the course will be.
We once again never heard any testi-
mony on this point. This has sprung full-
blown from the heads of the majority mem-
bers of this Committee, and I would urge
its rejection. Perhaps the most subtle and
destructive part of the Majority Report is
found in section 7, which places the Ad-
vistory Council on Higher Education in the
constitution.
You can see by the letter that was on
your desk today when you returned from
lunch that this was over the dead body
of the Advisory Council on Higher Edu-
cation because they have urged that this
whole Majority Report be struck and the
Minority Report be substituted in its place.
What this means is the Advisory Council,
which was created also in 1963 and has
some control over the course of higher ed-
ucation in Maryland by statute, would
forever be stripped of this control by virtue
of the fact that all three branches of higher
education would receive constitutional au-
tonomy. The roll of the Advisory Council
would be relegated to that of assisting in
the coordinating of programs of higher
education. Consequently, higher education
could ride off in three different directions,
and the Advisory Council would have noth-
ing to say about it; so despite the supposed
favor done to the Advisory Council, they
recognize the damage that this would bring
about, and they urge the delection of
section 8.
I urge deletion of section 7. I will not
engage in discussion of section 8. I think
on its face its ambiguity is clear. No state
constitution in this State has ever consti-
tutionalized libraries. We feel there is no
need for it, and I think that this explains
the position of the minority with respect
to the Majority Report.
The minority feels that education has
flourished under Article 77 of the Maryland
Code. If the theory of constitutional reward
is really the test that the majority wants
to use, then they should follow their lead
and stick much more closely to the provi-
sions of the existing Constitution under
which this education system has flourished.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one min-
ute, Delegate Lord.
DELEGATE LORD: I think history in-
dicates that the approach of the majority
is against the best interests of education
in this State, and also against the best
interests of the people of this State.
|
I will be glad to answer any questions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any ques-
tions of the minority spokesman? Delegate
Pullen.
DELEGATE PULLEN: Mr. Chairman,
you made quite a point —
THE CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt a
moment, Delegate Pullen? In view of the
limited time for questions and the number
of delegates standing to ask questions, the
Chair will restrict each delegate to two
questions.
DELEGATE PULLEN: Mr. Chairman,
I cannot begin to cover the questions in
two. I feel, sir —
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair will limit
you to two questions, and after the other
delegates have asked their questions, if
there is any remaining time, the Chair will
recognize you.
DELEGATE PULLEN: I accept that,
sir, with reluctance.
You make quite a point, Mr. Chairman,
of the matter of length and detailed provi-
sions. My question is this: have you con-
sidered 28 pages of the Minority Report
creating 71/£ pages plus amendments, ex-
ecutive branch 9l/z pages, plus amendments,
state finance and taxation QVz pages, suf-
frage and elections 5 pages, plus amend-
ments, legislative branch 8 pages, plus
amendments, local government 5 pages,
plus amendments, general provisions and
education, 2 pages? What is your definition
of length in comparison, sir?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Lord.
DELEGATE LORD: Dr. Pullen, I think
I can best answer you by quoting an emi-
nent authority on the subject of education
who appeared before the Constitutional
Convention Commission and offered testi-
mony on the subject of education, and
said:
"Now I think when we begin to write
the constitution with respect to educa-
tion, we must approach it from a con-
structive standpoint. This does not mean
a long-winded affair at all. It can be
done in a very few lines, but what you
are doing here when you rewrite the
Constitution of Maryland, you are re-
writing the school system of Maryland."
That authority was Dr. Thomas G. Pul-
len, Jr., former State Superintendent of
Schools.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Pullen.
|
