|
THE CHAIRMAN: I think, Delegate
Hardwicke, Delegate Gleason's point is
well taken and perhaps should be con-
sidered further.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Mr. Pres-
ident, let me point out a couple of things.
First of all, the Board of Review pro-
vision is a delay provision, I believe until
January of 1971. As I recall it, our pur-
pose in section 14 was to encourage the
General Assembly, by voluntary act, to
create a Board of Review at an earlier
date or to recognize that they might do so,
and it was also to provide that in case
they did so, the functions of the Board of
Public Works would be transferred to the
Board of Review.
There is also a second function here, and
that is the material on page 20, beginning
at line 3, which provides that, contractually
speaking, where you have the Board of
Public Works referred to in legislation,
contracts, etc., the reference would also be
determined to mean the Board of Review
insofar as it would go. It seems to me that
you could conceivably argue that this sec-
tion does not serve any useful purpose, but
I cannot say it does any harm.
THE CHAIRMAN: Might I suggest
since the question has made the point clear
at this point, that I think this is a matter
that the Committee on the Executive
Branch should give some thought to before
we come to the point of debating the sec-
tion. I do not think now is the time to do it.
Are there any further questions as to
that section, Delegate Gleason?
Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I simply
want to point out that there are continuing
obligations by the Board of Public Works
as they relate to outstanding bond issues
and bond issues which have been au-
thorized between now and the time when
the Board of Public Works goes out of
existence in January of 1971. It seems to
me that perhaps this is part of the reason
why section 14 is written as it is, and
other provisions as well, so when we take
a look at it, we see they bore this in mind.
THE CHAIRMAN: The point that Dele-
gate Gleason was making to the extent
the Chair understands it does not refer to
the powers conferred upon or retained in
the Board of Public Works. His point has
to do with the transfer of the powers to
the Board of Review after the Board of
Public Works has ceased to exist.
Are there any other questions?
|
Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: I might add a
footnote to this discussion. I discussed the
matter with Delegate Morgan. It seems to
at least some of the members of the Ex-
ecutive Branch Committee that if this is
not included, a potentially chaotic situation
could develop in view of the fact that the
Board of Public Works has become so en-
gaged with such powers over a wide area.
If it were left out without any residual
hole, if per chance the legislature failed
to act, I think the word chaotic is not too
loose a term to use for the situation that
could result.
For that reason, although I think Dele-
gate Gleason is quite right in his analy-
sis, it seems to some of the members of
the Executive Committee at least that it is
better to vest these powers in the new
Board of Review, subject to the right of
the legislature to withdraw, rather than
leave the hiatus which might exist if the
legislature failed to act.
For that reason, I think that, while I am
not authorized to speak for the Committee,
some of the members of the Committee
would feel that this provision ought to con-
tinue.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not
mean to suggest that the provision ought
to come out. I merely suggested that the
point is well taken in the sense that it is
well to note it. It is in existence.
My suggestion is that the Executive
Committee be thinking about it before we
reach debate on that point so that there
could bs some consensus for the advice of
the rest of the Committee of the Whole.
We have passed on down to section 21.
Are there any questions?
Delegate Grant?
DELEGATE GRANT: I had one ques-
tion on section 21.
As I understand it, there is no problem
with the salaries now for the upper tier
judges because they are already in office.
However, in point "D" you provide for
salary of the district court offices and it
indicates that that salary will not be com-
puted until January 1st, 1970. Since there
are no district court judges in office, would
this mean that the General Assembly could
change that salary or is the very fact that
there are some peoples' court judges who
are going to become district court judges,
operate to prevent that?
|
