|
I think it is desirable to see it there, be-
cause it should be there. It has been rec-
ommended by the Sobeloff Commission, by
the people of this State, and I think it is
desirable and necessary to put it here. Cer-
tainly it bodes no evil. It may be changed
at any time by the legislature. I strongly
urge you support this amendment which I
think is in the nature of a housekeeping
one at this time.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Would Dele-
gate Grant yield to a question please?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant, do
you take the floor to yield to a question?
DELEGATE GRANT: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Delegate Grant,
under section B, providing that the munici-
pal corporation existing on June 30, 1968,
could adopt a new charter and amend or
repeal any charter, etc., would that permit
it to do so by way of an annexation with-
out the consent of the county?
DELEGATE GRANT: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Why not?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: First of all, the
operation of this is governed by the section
in the new constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: What section do you
refer to, Delegate Grant?
DELEGATE GRANT: Sections 7.05,
7.06, 7.07.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Delegate Grant,
would not this have the effect of law, which
would be equivalent to the act of the Gen-
eral Assembly overriding the requirement
of section 7.05, that no alteration of boun-
dary would take place without the consent
of the county and the municipality?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Except for the
fact that within itself it cannot be incon-
sistent with the provision of this consti-
tution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Well then, as
I understand it, what you are telling me is
|
that the consent of the county would not be
required.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: I point out es-
sentially it has got nothing to do with
annexation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: If the new
charter provided that the municipality
could annex, and that would be consistent
with existing law and powers, would that
not be an alteration of the boundaries of
the municipalities?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: This is a piece of
legislation, essentially, when it is enacted,
and as a piece of legislation it has to con-
form with sections 7.05, 7.06, and 7.07. Now
7.05, 7.06, and 7.07 provide that as differ-
ence from what you had heretofore, the
county has a say in annexations. The Gen-
eral Assembly will have the final say by
law of course.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: As I read sec-
tion 7.05, it contemplates that any altera-
tion of the boundaries of the municipality
would be accomplished by the consent of
the municipality and the county. In the
event, but only in the event of a dispute
between the two, or by way of action by
the General Assembly, which I understand
this would be the equivalent of, no altera-
tion of boundary of a municipality could
take place.
This amendment has the effect of the
General Assembly's moving in and usurp-
ing that concurrent action by county and
municipality, does it not?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: No, it does not.
First of all, this is carrying forth a clause
in the old Constitution. It obviously is the
basis for section 23A. That is the obvious
reason it was carried forward, or is sup-
posed to be carried forward. Now, section
7.05 establishes a totally separate set of
rules on annexation, to wit, gives the
county say in future annexations. There-
fore, the General Assembly would have to
act under section 7.05.
THE CHAIRMAN : Is there any further
question, Delegate Clagett?
DELEGATE CLAGETT: No, sir, I be-
lieve that is all.
|
