|
we proceed with the consideration of this
in view of what Delegate Wheatley indi-
cates, we would not be able to adjourn until
some time between 7:15 P.M. and 7:30 P.M.
Would ,the delegates who would prefer
not to do so simply indicate to the Chair?
Raise your hand.
The delegates who would prefer not to
continue and complete this consideration if
we can finish it between 7:15 P.M. and
7:30 P.M.
Quite obviously, most would prefer to
continue. Very well. This is a controlled
period.
Delegate Lord, you have an amendment?
DELEGATE LORD: Mr. Chairman, I
would like Amendment J to be distributed.
THE CHAIRMAN: Please distribute
Amendment J. This will be Amendment No.
5. The Clerk will read the Amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 5
(to accompany Minority Report GP-6A) to
Committee Recommendation GP-6 by Dele-
gates Boyer, Lord, Key, Singer, E. J.
Clarke, and Caldwell.
On page 2 strike out all of lines 12
through 26, inclusive, and all of section 5.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes
Delegate Lord.
DELEGATE LORD: I do not think the
amendment has been fully distributed, but
I will yield three minutes to Delegate
Moser.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second. What
delegates do not have a copy of the amend-
ment? Will the pages please distribute the
amendment quickly?
My attention has been called to the fact
that in the discussion a few minutes ago I
spoke of resuming Monday. I meant Tues-
day, of course.
Have all delegates now received a copy
of Amendment No. 5? If not, indicate to
the pages.
Very well. Delegate Lord.
DELEGATE LORD: Mr. Chairman, I will
yield three minutes to Delegate Moser.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: Mr. Chairman and
ladies and gentlemen, I submit that section
5 should be rejected by this Convention not
only because it seems to seems to legislate,
|
but also because as legislation it legislates
badly.
All the arguments in favor of Amend-
ment No. 1 substituting for sections 1 and
4 apply here with even greater force in
favor of deleting section 5. If section 5 is
deleted the minority proposal would permit
Article 77 of the Maryland Annotated Code,
public education, to continue just as it is.
I emphasize that nothing in the local
government article and particularly in the
provisions relating to counties would pre-
vent this.
As changes in the law implement new
concepts in local school organization, as
changes in the law are required to imple-
ment new concepts of local school organi-
zation, the General Assembly as the elected
representative of the people can accom-
plish this.
No reason exists or has been suggested
by the minority to limit the power of the
General Assembly in this field and yet this
is just what section 5 if it is left in
would do.
I had analyzed this provision and I
thoug-ht I understood it, but I must con-
fess to total confusion over Vice-Chairman
Wheatley's answer to some of the questions
today. I submit it is poorly drawn and
ambiguous in a number of ways.
I am not quite sure what the words
"fiscal authorities" mean, for instance. Does
the referendum requirement continue to
apply after one referendum has been held
on the first change of fiscal authority or
can it be changed the second time without
referendum.
T,hei-e are other ambiguities and I think
that the main inconsistency, that the pro-
vision which Delegate Wheatley explained
would permit the counties to operate in
this field, seems to me to be in direct con-
flict with what we have adopted as an
amendment in substitution of majority
section 1.
I think also and in closing that the Ma-
jority Report is misleading where it sug-
gests that the counties and the local gov-
ernments are being given a greater say in
education. Local governments are in fact
being effectively prevented from changing
this constitutionally engraved structure of
local boards.
For these reasons I sincerely hope that
the amendment will pass.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wheatley.
|
