not sure I was clear as to the answer. If
there is an extension of 30 days or an addi-
tional 30 days, must these two extensions
also run consecutively to the 90 days?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: That is
the interpretation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Adkins?
DELEGATE ADKINS: Mr. Chairman,
I should like to ask a question with rela-
tion to the matter of redistricting.
I assume that will be presented in a fu-
ture report. I wonder if the Chairman could
just briefly outline the method that they
will propose for redistricting, specifically
with relation to the point of whether it
shall be completely legislative, by commis-
sion, by the Executive or a combination of
all three.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes, I
think lean speak on the section, although
there has been no final vote.
I think it is the majority will of the
Committee that some commission be ap-
pointed, bipartisan in nature, which would
have the original responsibility of prepar-
ing a redistricting plan, and that to some
extent it should reflect representatives of
the General Assembly.
The Committee definitely feels that the
executive should not have a hand in the
preparation of the original recommenda-
tions. Once this commission of a bipartisan
nature has submitted its recommendations,
it shall go to the General Assembly.
At this point the General Assembly is
free to accept it or to change it. If it does
not accept it or change it, it then auto-
matically becomes law. If it is changed,
then the General Assembly change becomes
law. In the event of a court challenge, the
General Assembly plan would be presented
first. If that fell as a result of court scru-
tiny, then the commission plan would follow
it as a second line of defense.
That is roughly the way the Committee
is thinking at this time.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any
further questions of the Chairman of the
Committee?
Delegate Byrnes?
DELEGATE BYRNES: Mr. Chairman,
referring now to lines 26 through 28 of
page 3—
THE CHAIRMAN: Of the recommenda-
tion? |
DELEGATE BYRNES:—of the recom-
mendation of the Legislative Branch Com-
mittee: Was the sole reason of the Com-
mittee concerning living expenses this idea
of enticement to extend the session 30 days
and then another 30 days?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: No. That
certainly would have been only some slight
by-product, but not the sole reason. The
sole reason was that the Committee wanted
the salary on the table.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Is there a possi-
bility in the future, Mr. Chairman, for a
confusion to arise between allowances and
living expenses?
I note in the report that living expenses
are not delineated.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: It is very
difficult, because some people live differ-
ently from others.
We sought to prohibit per diem expenses.
However, those who were enamored of the
English language did not want the Latin.
That is why we did not use per diem. The
idea was to eliminate the practice which is
now embodied in the $25 per day. We did
not want to eliminate travel expenses,
secretarial expenses, postage, stationery or
any of the other actual expenses of the
delegates. In other words, we would have
the salary cover the living expenses.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
Chairman, did the Committee give consid-
eration to the fact that by extending the
term of the present legislature to 1971, and
then making the terms of the legislatures
thereafter five years each, that we could
be marching to both the tune of Washing-
ton figures and the edicts of the Supreme
Court.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: The Com-
mittee found the four-year term attractive.
There is a great possibility that the fed-
eral government will go to a five year
census, a quinquennial census rather than
a decennial census, and we may eliminate
decennial in the redistricting proposal,
which is yet to come.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to ask Delegate Gallagher
to clarify the latter part of section 3.04.
As I understand it, it simply means that
each senate district shall have one senator.
I have several questions. |
