|
declared the office vacant. It is obviously
not the intention of the Committee on Style
to make any such change, and I would ask
that those stricken words be returned.
THE PRESIDENT: State that again,
please, Delegate Penniman.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Lines 20 to
23, beginning with "if the Court of Ap-
peals" and ending with the words in line
23, "shall be vacant", were inadvertently
taken out of the report as it came from
the Committee of the Whole. They are
necessary to make clear that not only does
the Court of Appeals decide that the man
cannot carry out the duties of his office,
but also that the office is therefore vacant.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objec-
tion to considering the typographical error
corrected so as not to delete the sentence
beginning in line 20 and continuing in lines
21, 22, and 23 on page 4?
The Chair hears none. That sentence will
not be deleted.
Delegate Penniman.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: In section
4.09, we come to the problem of the ref-
erence to the presiding officer of the Senate.
As it came to us from the legislative
branch article, the presiding officer of the
Senate was referred to in precisely those
words, in LB-3.13. It refers to the presid-
ing officer of the House and the presiding
officer of the Senate. We therefore felt
that it was inappropriate to have the pre-
siding officer of the Senate referred to as
the president of the Senate in an article
coming from the executive branch, and so
we removed it and changed it back to the
phrase that was in the legislative branch
article which referred to him as the pre-
siding officer of the Senate. That, then, is
true in both 4.09 and in 4.10, and I believe
also in 4.11.
In 4.11, we have made a change on
page 6. In line 2, where it speaks of re-
moval from office, we have changed it to
"the creation of a vacancy" since in this
instance, it refers to retirement for dis-
ability. Therefore we would not want to
place a man under a stigma of referring
to it as a removal, but rather his retire-
ment or the creation of a vacancy. This
would be in line with the same kinds of
changes which we made in Article 5.
In section 4.12, line 13, there is an error
again on our part. I would like to change
line 13 to read, "The governor from time to
time shall inform". I would simply like to
|
pull "shall" on the other side of the second
"time" so as not to split the verb.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any ob-
jection to considering the Committee's
amendment modified so on page 6, line 13,
the word "shall" after the word "governor"
is moved to after the words "time to time"?
The Chair hears none, so the change
will be considered as made.
Delegate Penniman.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: There is
some slight change in lines 14 and 15 as
to the order of words.
In 4.16, which had been 4.17, there is
some revision which seeks to put again in
chronological order how one handles the
return of vetoed bills.
In 4.17 there is a slight change in the
order in which the words appear, but no
change in the words. In line 33, we have
left in the word "such" and as we would
not have done so in the Committee on Style,
I would like to change "such" to "those". I
would like in line 32 to put in an "or"
before "the governor" and change the
"and" to "or any other officer".
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give them
again?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: In line 33,
I would like to change the "such" to "those
other powers", and in line 32 to insert an
"or" after "officer." Then I would like to
change the "and" which follows "gov-
ernor", to "or".
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objec-
tion to considering the recommendations of
the Committee modified so that in line 33
on page 7 the word "such" is changed to
"those" and in the blank space in 42 after
the word "officer" the word "or" is inserted,
and in the same line the word "and" is
changed to the word "or"?
The Chair hears no objection, so the
modifications will be considered as having
been made.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: I received a
note which says: "I cannot wait for an
explanation of the style change in section
4.18." It comes from Mr. Johnson. The
reason it comes from Mr. Johnson is that
the Committee on Style had inserted in line
4 "for at least five years" which are pre-
cisely the words I argued Delegate Johnson
down on last night when he sought to in-
sert them into Article 5. I should like the
intelligence of the convention to remove
|
