|
Delegate Sollins.
DELEGATE SOLLINS: Mr. President,
I object, because the Committee on the
Legislative Branch report on this matter
very clearly says in its comments that sec-
tion 3.18 would prevent conflict of interest;
establishes the general provision that there
should be a code of ethics for all elected
officials in the State of Maryland. I think
the intent of the Committee was exactly
that, and not as has been stated previously.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suggests
that if that were the intent it was cer-
tainly, in the opinion of the Chair, at least,
not expressed in the language "elected offi-
cials of the State of Maryland".
If that is indeed the intent, I think it is
more than a matter of style and there
should be an amendment.
Delegate Sollins.
DELEGATE SOLLINS: Mr. Chairman,
I will withdraw at this moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I just con-
ferred with the sponsor who tells me it
was her intention that it would be state
officers, not officers who happen to be
elected anywhere within the State of
Maryland.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
The recommendation of the Committee
as to the amendment is modified as stated,
by having line 1 on page 3 read "of inter-
est, for all elected state officers.", and strike
out all of line 2.
Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Back to section
9.06, line 21, a point of information:
Could we make a little "b" out of Bank,
the first letter?
THE PRESIDENT: It has already been
done.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Did we strike
the comma following that?
THE PRESIDENT: No, that was not
done.
Delegate Penniman, do you desire to
strike the comma after the word "bank"
in line 21?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: I see no ob-
jection to dropping it.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you desire to
modify the section?
|
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of
objection the amendment will be further
modified in line 21 on page 2 to strike the
comma after the word "banks".
Delegate James raised with the Chair a
question as to the intended meaning of sec-
tion 9.08. Is Delegate Gallagher still in the
room? I think it might be worthwhile to
clarify with some colloquy.
As I understand it, Delegate James can
correct me if I am wrong, there has been
under consideration in the Legislative
Council or in the legislature a proposal un-
der which the legislature would provide by
law for the creation of a state board of
ethics, applicable to members of the Gen-
eral Assembly, and would provide further
for the implementation of the whole ar-
rangement by the adoption of rules by each
house of the General Assembly, and would
empower the board of ethics to rule upon
questions of conflict of interest at the re-
quest of any member of the General As-
sembly; and would further empower the
board of ethics so created to adopt regula-
tions, interpretations, and I suppose opin-
ions on questions of ethics or conflicts of
interest.
He stated to the Chair that he would
suppose that such actions would constitute
providing by law for a code of ethics, but
raised the question.
The Chair said that since the language
here is "provide by law for a code of
ethics", rather than "prescribe by law a
code of ethics", the Chair took it that such
an arrangement would be within the con-
templation of this section.
But if it is intended that the General
Assembly must provide the details of the
code of ethics by law, then it would seem
to the Chair that the language should be
somewhat modified.
Delegate James, have I fairly well stated
the problem?
DELEGATE JAMES: That is correct.
You have stated it properly.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Presi-
dent, I have seen the proposal of the sub-
committee headed by Senator Dorf which
is now included in the Legislative Council
package, and in my honest opinion those
resolutions, one resolution is for the Senate
and one for the House, are not sufficient to
comply with this section, because they do
|
