|
the suggestion of staff advisor, to make
clear that the whole session, that is those
first ninety days plus the next thirty or
possibly even the next thirty would still be
the regular session, so you do not create
a third type of session beside special ses-
sion and regular session. In line 50, the
word "shall" since it was also a changed
word.
The next page, 3.14, we simply cut out
the words "General Assembly" which was
not necessary. The middle level heading on
page 15, line 8, "Legislation", was added.
In line 38, we took the "shall be taken"
which had been in line 37 and put it in 38
after the bill to make it read exactly as it
does completely parallel to the next sen-
tence. We had to make them parallel. We
moved the "shall be taken" until after the
words "a bill" so it now corresponds in
style with the following sentence.
In section 3.21, we say it is passed "by
the affirmative vote of" which makes it the
same as it has been the custom throughout.
There is no change, happily, in section
3.22, formerly 3.23.
In section 3.23, line 4G, you should
change "time" to "date" since it is ob-
viously the first of July or summer date
that may be selected. Section 3.24 is Post
Audit. We decided to leave it there because
it is clearly a General Assembly function
with the General Assembly in complete
control naming the man and providing the
directions for them. This covers Article 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any ques-
tions as to Article 3?
Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Is it possible
as a result of 3.21 for a bill to be passed in
joint session?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: It is passed
by the majority of the members of each
house. I do not think we made any sub-
stantive change. A vote in joint session or
in either house on any bill or resolution
or for the election or confirmation of any
state officer shall be taken only in public
session.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Penniman,
the Chair is a little disturbed by that
change. I am not sure that it would not at
least raise a question.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: I see the
problem. I suggest we strike the change in
line 5 to make certain that there is no pos-
sibility of that.
|
THE PRESIDENT: You would also re-
store the "that" in line 7?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Yes, it would
be both in line 7 and line 5.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objec-
tion to modifying the recommendations of
the Committee so as to eliminate all change
in the first section of section 3.21 as it is
printed on lines 3.27 on page 16. Is there
any objection?
Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: I do not
think the Chair eliminated all the changes.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: The change
involving "in each house", but retaining the
affirmative vote.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry, the two
changes.
Is there any objection to modifying the
amendments proposed by the Committee so
as to restore in line 5 the words "in each
house" and to restore the word "that" in
line 7 and to strike the word "each" in
line 7?
The Chair hears no objection and the
modification will be made.
Delegate Winslow.
DELEGATE WINSLOW: Mr. Presi-
dent, may I revert to section 3.15 on page
13, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DELEGATE WINSLOW: In line 35,
Mr. Chairman, you have changed "pre-
scribed" to "provide", but in line 40, where
it seems to me that the use is exactly the
same "to prescribe by law for a regular
session" should not the same change be
made there? Line 40 says "otherwise pre-
scribed by law". Is not that use identical
with "prescribed by law" in section 35-36?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: In the case
of line 36, it states that there shall be
this organizational session at which some-
body else will do the organizational work.
I am just trying to think on my feet. I am
not really answering your question. It does
set a particular date and it seems to me
that this may be the prescribed date. It
does detail the particular date.
THE PRESIDENT: It refers to the
"convene" rather than "session".
THE PRESIDENT: Any other questions?
Delegate Mentzer.
|
