|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Raley.
DELEGATE RALEY: Mr. Chairman,
would Delegate Clagett yield to a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: His time has ex-
pired. Is it just one question?
DELEGATE RALEY: Just one question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett,
will you yield to another question?
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Yes, sir, and I
will take advantage of this to say also to
Delegate Bennett that we do have some
forcing procedure by way of a petition
which is in section 30, but it would be five
per cent or ten thousand whichever is less.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Raley.
DELEGATE RALEY: This section is
very important to the small counties who
are going into this. What bothers me here
is that there is no limit on the number that
could be nominated. You could have such
a large committee if you have nine it seems
to me. Did you consider having a limited
number that would be on that additional?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: The final num-
ber of persons making up the charter board
would not exceed nine. Those on the ballot,
of course, we do not place any limit upon
provided there are three thousand of three
per cent, whichever is less, behind them.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gullett.
DELEGATE GULLETT: I think that
there is built into this amendment and also
into the original provision of the schedule
of legislation provision if the county com-
missioners appear to be dilatory to the ex-
tent that they do not appoint the board.
The first per cent of the registered voters
would then get excited enough to force the
county commissioners to appoint the board
and probably would proceed to elect their
own board and probably could write a
charter. They could actually write a charter
in less than twelve months. If they wrote
the charter within six months, they could
turn this over to the county commissioners
and they could speed this process up so if
the process could be completed in time even
though some time were lost initially by
the county commissioners failing to act
properly. This could be caught up by the
voters themselves if they rose up in anxiety
about not getting the charter process
started.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other
questions?
|
Delegate Sosnowski.
DELEGATE SOSNOWSKI: Is there
anything in here to prevent the county
commissioners from nominating a board of
one?
THE CHAIRMAN: When you say "in
here", do you mean in the amendment?
DELEGATE SOSNOWSKI: Any place
at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: Can you answer the
question, Delegate Clagett?
DELEGATE CLAGETT: There is noth-
ing that would prevent them from doing so,
but I think it is so highly unlikely, par-
ticularly if you do include the alternative
procedure which we suggested by way of
this amendment, because if they came up
with one, I think it would insult the voters
to stimulate them to come up with a
petition.
DELEGATE SOSNOWSKI: Would you
like to lay odds?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Do not forget
that I am from Prince George's.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions? Is there any further dis-
cussion?
(There was no response.)
Are you ready for the question?
(Call for the question.)
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell.
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 10.
I am sorry, Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Mr. Chair-
man, in support of this amendment, let me
point out that this procedure is only our
suggestion as to a legislative procedure. If
it turned out to be impractical or unwork-
able, the legislature could add additional
procedures or could amend this one.
With regard to those who are worried
about time, these are maximum time sched-
ules and we do not believe that the county
commissioners will drag their feet and use
those maximum time schedules unless they
are interested in having the so-called model
charters adopted for their counties. This is
probably a very well thought-out sugges-
tion, and it might very well be that the
legislature would not attempt to change it.
|
