|
we could have put them there and called
them to your attention.
In either case it is clear that there is cer-
tain to be discussion on both of the items.
I looked upon this function as one of
merely calling it to the peoples' attention.
I do not go beyond it, and I would have
clone so, whether I put it in or not.
I would have preferred Style's state-
ments for them for proposed insertion if I
did not put them in. I did not put them in
as substantive changes, but to call them to
your attention.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: This question
should be directed to either Delegate Pen-
niman or Delegate Clagett.
Does the exception pertaining to multi-
governmental county units pertain as well
to those that might be created pursuant to
the section on intergovernmental coopera-
tion as well as those which might be cre-
ated in the first instance by legislation
under section 7.06?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): I do
not know that Delegate Clagett heard the
question or not.
Delegate Penniman, do you feel qualified
to answer that?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: T.his is, I be-
lieve, a substantive question.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Clagett, did you hear Delegate Han-
son's question ?
DELEGATE CLAGETT: I am afraid not,
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): You
were being diverted, so I will ask you to
repeat the question, Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: My question is,
does the exception on page 9 pertaining to
multiconnty governmental units apply
equally to those multicounty units which
may have been created or might in the fu-
ture be created under the intergovern-
mental cooperation section of article S, as
well as to those originally created under
section 7.06 of the local government
article ?
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Yes.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: The answer is
yes.
|
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Any
further questions of Delegate Penniman?
Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Chairman Penni-
man, the second sentence in this section, as
I read it, and as I believe it was intended,
permits the General Assembly to enact
laws in the specified categories without re-
spect to whether they are general or to
whether they are local in nature. Is that
correct?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: T.hat is cor-
rect.
DELEGATE CARSON: So that the word
"notwithstanding" in line 47 could be read
to mean without the limitations proposed
by this section, and that is what it really
means?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: That is cor-
rect.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Penniman.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: If you turn
to the last page, it says that a special law
shall not be enacted for any situation for
which a general law is applicable. This was,
to the Committee, an ambiguous situation.
Does that mean one where a law has been
enacted, or a situation exists where one
could be made applicable?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Delegate
Penniman, I would say that it was the in-
tention of the Committee that this lan-
guage would apply to those situations
where there was existing law, not where
there could be.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Thank you
very much.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I have a question
of Delegate Penniman.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Yes.
DELEGATE GRANT: In one of the
earlier drafts in section 7.06, why did you
take the numbering out?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: We took it
out because it was not very pretty, which
may not be a very satisfactory answer. We
have followed the practice of not number-
ing if we could possibly avoid numbering1
within a paragraph, so this is quite literally
the reason we took it out.
|
