|
DELEGATE BOYER: Mr. Chairman, I
have consulted with our expert on the
Committee, Mr. Sosnowski, on this par-
ticular article on impeachment, and with
several other members of the Committee.
If this does what we think it does, we
think it is good in import and intent. We
feel perhaps there has been some loophole
in the General Provisions recommendations
dealing with local officers, so unless there
is some objection from any member of the
Committee, and please feel free to speak
up, we would suggest, perhaps, that the
amendment be adopted along with GP-10.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Mr. Chairman,
I believe in a strong executive and have so
argued in this convention. I do not believe
it should be this strong and I would urge
that the amendment be defeated.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I would just
simply point out that this is not a delega-
tion of power of the executive, but dele-
gation of the power of the General As-
sembly.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: It seems to
me, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
delegation, that this is a pretty broad
hunting license for the General Assembly
which in fact imbues them with authority
to do almost anything. There is no defini-
tion of what is misconduct or what is
incompetency, and any particular group
or any particular committee can start out
to investigate almost anyone.
Now, I ask, how are you going to get
independence in the conduct of office if you
are going to strike the fear into them of
an investigation of this kind?
How are you going to get really inde-
pendent men to serve their State when they
have this bludgeon, this threat hanging
over them all of the time, so that any-
body can bring up the issue of incompetency
at any time.
It seems to me the amendment certainly
ought to be defeated in the name of good
government.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment?
|
Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I point out that
the concepts that are used in there of mis-
conduct in office and incompetence are well
defined legal concepts. It provides for a
judicial review, and a judicial review would
adhere to these terms.
I point out that if you do not give the
General Assembly power in this area, you
have got in this constitution officers who
are beyond the power of removal for any
reason short of impeachment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: I would like to
ask Delegate Grant a question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegates desiring
to speak would have the floor.
Delegate Case, do you desire to speak
against the amendment?
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, I
think this is a very dangerous amendment,
and I think so for two reasons.
First, it violates all the chief powers
principles that we have adopted heretofore
through the adoption of the recommenda-
tions of the Local Government Committee's
suggestions.
Secondly, it is in complete violation of
the spirit if not the terms of sections 4.21,
4.22 and 4.23 of the executive department
which we have also adopted.
I think that the proposed amendment
runs counter to both of these, philosophi-
cally and practically. It seems to me this
serves as nothing but a witch hunt, where
the terms and provisions which I have
already referred to adequately take care
of the case, so I would hope that the amend-
ment would be defeated.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant, do
you take the floor to yield to a question
from Delegate Mason?
DELEGATE GRANT: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mason.
DELEGATE MASON: Delegate Grant,
suppose you removed from office an officer
who is non-political, say, the president of
the institution of higher learning or a
member of the state board of education.
How do you go about replacing that non-
political officer?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
|
