clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 3226   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

3226 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Jan. 4]

vested in the Board of Public Review are
such powers as the General Assembly shall
provide by law.

What we are providing here in transi-
tory legislation is that when the Board of
Public Works shall go out of existence,
that all of those powers, constitutional and
statutory, shall transfer automatically to
the Board of Review. You realize that this
is an agency which heretofore has been
an intermediate agency, and which has ex-
ecutive and legislative duties and responsi-
bilities attached to it.

If all these powers are transferred to
the Board of Review, then, we must realize
that we are dealing with a different kind
of animal here. If the General Assembly
wants to change those powers, an act is
going to be subject to a gubernatorial veto,
which is going to require it to have to go
by two-thirds vote to override the veto,
which is a different thing than, I think, is
provided in the constitution, and, there-
fore, I think it is a substantive change
here.

DELEGATE HARDWICKE : The pur-
pose of this section 14, as I understand it,
is to provide during the transitional legis-
lative period for the possibility that the
legislature, or that the Board of Public
Works, may pass out of existence, and that
we are trying to encourage this to occur
and to encourage the creation of the Board
of Review, which would pick up these func-
tions prior to the time that the Board of
Public Works must pass out of existence
in 1971.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason.

DELEGATE GLEASON: Mr. Presi-
dent, Delegate Hardwicke, I suggest to
you that that is a substantive change, and
was not decided by the Committee of the
Whole. It is completely different from any-
thing we discussed with respect to that
provision when it was on the floor, and
that is a legislative decision which we left
to the General Assembly.

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gleason,
I am not sure that I followed an earlier
part of your question, and maybe Delegate
Hardwicke is having the same problem.

Under section 4.24, the powers of the
Board of Review are to be prescribed by
the General Assembly by law, which means
by law subject to gubernatorial veto.

Under section 14 we are, in effect, pro-
viding by law temporarily that the powers
conferred upon the Board of Review are

the same powers presently conferred by
law upon the Board of Public Works.

Is your point that section 14 is not sub-
ject to gubernatorial veto?

DELEGATE GLEASON: Section 14 of
the transitory legislation?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.

DELEGATE GLEASON: No, that is
not my point. It is not subject, I presume.
That is not my point.

THE CHAIRMAN: But it is subject to
amendment by the General Assembly.

DELEGATE GLEASON: Yes. My point
is this: you started out your statement by
saying that under section 4.24 the Board
of Public Review must be created and it
must have such powers as the General As-
sembly shall prescribe, but there also is
another effect of that provision, namely,
that the Board of Public Works goes out
of existence.

THE CHAIRMAN: Let me see. I think
I understand your point now. Let me state
it and see if I do. What you are saying is
that under section 4.24, the contemplation
is that before the Board of Review has any
powers, they must be prescribed by law
subject to gubernatorial veto and that
what we are doing in section 14 is the
converse. We are conferring upon them
powers which can be taken away only by
law, subject to gubernatorial veto.

Is that your point?

DELEGATE GLEASON: That is my
point, Mr. President. I think that because
of what we are doing, it would be very
difficult for the General Assembly to take
a whole fresh look at this Board of Re-
view because, after all, now they do not
have their own representative on it and it
may be that they may really want to cut
down the power of this new board. I do not
think they can effectively do that unless
they have the votes to overturn the guber-
natorial veto. That is different from what
the provision provides for.

THE CHAIRMAN: The only solution to
the problem that you raise, I take it, would
be to omit a provision such as this so that
it would be imperative that the General
Assembly act before the Board of Review
came into existence. Otherwise, it would
have no powers.

DELEGATE GLEASON: That is pre-
cisely my solution.



 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 3226   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives