|
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready for
the question?
Delegate Jett, will you withdraw your
motion so we can save some time? We are
ready for the question.
Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Mr. Chair-
man, fellow delegates, I have a lot of
trouble with this amendment. I think it was
designed, as was pointed out, to accommo-
date some of the situations which are out-
lined in section 3.23, and I suppose it would
accommodate a law pertaining to public
education or a law pertaining to natural
environment and resources, but I submit to
you that under section 3.23, a law on either
on those subjects would cover one county,
cover two counties, or it could cover ten
counties, and it would not necessarily be
confined to one county.
Also, in the amendment on lines 15, 16,
and 17, it says no law empowering a
county to exercise a power or perform a
function, et cetera, shall be subject to
referendum.
Now, unless this is ready in connection
with section 3.23, and there is no compul-
sion in connection with the section itself
that it must be read in connection with
section 3.23, that part empowering the
county to perform a function it seems to
me could cover a whole variety of situa-
tions, and would simply be a trouble maker,
a litigation maker.
It would raise the question whether the
law was subject to referendum or not, and
I am going to have to vote against this
section. I think it is too vague and too
ambiguous.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: So that the record
can be absolutely clear, and to allay, if
possible, the fears of Delegate Macdonald,
this amendment dovetails consistently and
absolutely with section 3.23. The language
in the excepting sentences that you referred
to are the words of section 3.23, so that
if any court has any question about the
fact that these two sections should be
ready to go, let them read this record and
decide the case accordingly.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: I move the pre-
vious question.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a second?
DELEGATE CASE: Second.
|
(Whereupon, the motion was duly sec-
onded.)
THE PRESIDENT: The question arises
on the motion to order the previous ques-
tion on adoption of Amendment No. 12 to
Committee Recommendation S&E-1 and
S&E-2 as amended by Report S&D-11.
All in favor, signify by saying Aye;
contrary, No. The Ayes have it. It is so
ordered.
The question arises on the adoption of
Amendment No. 12. A vote Aye is a vote
in favor of Amendment No. 12. A vote No
is a vote against.
Cast your votes.
Has every delegate voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
(There was no response.)
The Clerk will record the vote.
There being 82 votes in the affirmative
and 11 votes in the negative, the motion
carries. The amendment is adopted.
Will you please get before you the tanned
copies distributed to you today? I can call
to your attention some correcting pages.
While you are doing that, let me take
the opportunity to clarify a matter as to
which a number of delegates have inquired,
either of the Chair or the Parliamentarian.
Yesterday and today we have on three
different occasions I think suspended inter-
fering rules in order to reconsider items
adopted on second reading, and then have
adopted amendments.
The question has been asked, why was it
not necessary to read the committee rec-
ommendation again on second reading.
If you will recall when the Chair first
started to put the question to you the first
time it arose, I did so in a rather involved
manner, by suggesting a suspension of
rules to re-consider the vote by which the
committee recommendation was adopted on
second reading in order to reconder the
vote by which an amendment was adopted
or rejected.
Had that procedure been followed, it
would have been necessary to go back twice
and then forward twice and have a second
reading again.
The Parliamentarian suggested instead
the device which we have used, to suspend
the interfering rules, to permit considera-
tion, after second reading, of a section
|
