|
DELEGATE GILL: The Legislative
Council bill, I think, is 2.73. We are al-
ready working on that. They have the power
to do that. They continually tell us they
are going to make all these reforms so I
wonder about putting it in this transition
and freezing it into the constitution like
this. Is it necessary?
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: We do not
consider it is frozen into the constitution
when it is in the schedule of legislation.
This is nothing more than statute law
which the legislature is free to change. As
I am sure you know, there is some uncer-
tainty as to whether or not a bill will get
through the legislature or not and in view
of that, we feel it is best to plug that hole
in case it does not get through.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Roger.
DELEGATE KOGER: My question is
along the same line as Delegate Gill's. It
is my opinion that the reason for pension to
spouses is because we usually think in
terms of a dependent woman. In this par-
ticular case, do you think it is the intention
that in the event a woman is made a judge
and her husband perhaps is a highly paid
executive, in the event she dies, is the pur-
pose of this particular provision to con-
tinue the pension even to her spouse, even
if he is a man?
It appears to me this is an unusual bur-
den. If that is the intent, should we not
in some way re-word this particular tran-
sitory language or whatever it is we are
dealing with here?
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Delegate
Koger, I really do not know how you can
do it. I think we have to have these provi-
sions uniform. I recognize there may be
some inequality in who gets what, but we
regard this as one of the emoluments of
the office.
DELEGATE KOGER: Is there any at-
tempt made to do it? In other words, the
fact that it is not done does not mean it
should be done. Is there anything you can
do to amend this particular language?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Was
the word "spouse" used in the constitution?
DELEGATE KOGER : The word
"spouse", yes, is used in the constitution.
I am not trying to put a new interpretation
in. I am trying to make sure the interpre-
tation would only mean perhaps if the
spouse is a woman and not a man. It should
be distinguished. It seems there is a burden
placed upon the State to support a man
|
who is the survivor of a marriage, if he
is an executive with a large income. I
would like to have this covered. I would
like to have Delegate Mudd give us an
interpretation of just where it is in the
constitution.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Delegate Koger, I
am in favor of the women taking care of
the men, but it is not in the law at present
so far as I know. It is perhaps true in New
York to some extent, but the word "spouse"
has been used throughout this section in
the constitution, and in the transitional pro-
visions, and the schedule of legislation, and,
of course, it means the surviving spouse,
a male judge or a female judge.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : We
are trying not to discriminate against any-
body, I suppose.
DELEGATE KOGER: I am not con-
cerned with that at this point. What I am
trying to get at, is whether it is too late
to do something about it?
In other words, if this should leak out
to the public that we are doing all this,
and there are many things we have not
done, it appears to me this is not going to
be a good thing.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Cardin.
DELEGATE CARDIN: Mr. President, I
have a silly, facetious question.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : State
the question.
DELEGATE CARDIN: On page 25, un-
der section 23, section D, shall we interpret
it that the spouse who is entitled to pen-
sion under the provision of this section
shall be paid for the period of his life
unless he remarries? Do we have true
equality?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : That
is not consistent with the word "spouse".
I suppose the definition of "spouse" can
include both man and woman, can it not?
DELEGATE CARDIN: I believe the
definition of spouse goes both ways.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : The
only thing the Chair can say is there is
some provision in the Code, in rules of in-
terpretation, that "he" sometimes means
"she" and "she" somethimes means "he",
so you would have to leave it up to the
court to make its determination.
|
