clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 431   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
[Nov. 7] DEBATES 431
they could authorize additional payments
as salary, since the other provision on
salary prohibits an increase in salary being
applicable to that General Assembly.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I think
Delegate Byrnes was addressing himself to
a per diem expense beyond the 90th day.
DELEGATE BYRNES: Delegate Bam-
berger clarified my question properly. I am
referring to the salary. I was referring
directly to your point, that you barred the
per diem because of the enticement effect,
and you clarified by saying it was not the
exclusive reason, but then the thought
dawned on me that of course he could sug-
gest an additional thousand dollar salary
for the additional 30 days, and then an-
other thousand dollars for another 30
days. I am not condemning this; I think it
may well be of merit.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: They may
not do that under the prohibition that no
salary increase can take effect for that
General Assembly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions?
Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: Mr. Chair-
man, in section 3.12 it is indicated that
the presiding officer of the House of Dele-
gates and the presiding officer of the Sen-
ate may convene a session.
Would you tell me, is there any prece-
dent for that elsewhere?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: To my
knowledge, Delegate Bennett, there is no
precedent elsewhere for that particular
practice.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I do be-
lieve, however, it is part of the recommen-
dations made by the Eagleton Institute.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions? If not, thank you very
much, Delegate Gallagher.
We will proceed to a consideration sec-
tion-by-section, the first section for con-
sideration being section 3.02.
Before opening it to amendment, the
Chair calls on Delegate Hanson, as the
Speaker of the minority, to present the
minority report of LB-I. While Delegate
Hanson is coming forward to the reading
desk, the Chair would like to call to the
attention of the Committee of the Whole
that we are honored today to have in the
gallery Speaker Pro Tern Homer White, of
the House of Delegates, Delegate Lipin of
Anne Arundel County, and Senator Blair
Lee. We are delighted to have them here.
Delegate Hanson.
DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. Chairman,
I have the honor to present the Minority
Report which argues that instead of having
a bicameral General Assembly as proposed
by the Committee, that we adopt a uni-
cameral General Assembly.
Members of the minority are in agree-
ment with the other principles which
were enunciated by the Chairman: that
there should be single member districts,
that the size of the General Assembly
should be reduced, that the General As-
sembly should be given more discretion in
the determination of the length of the ses-
sion, and that it should establish by law
its own salary.
We believe that all of these reforms can
be accomplished, and that in addition, a
more effective and strengthened General
Assembly can be established if it is com-
posed of only one house.
It is the position of the minority that
the tradition of having a bicameral Gen-
eral Assembly is rooted primarily in mis-
trust of the legislature, and that contrary
to that distrust, we should establish a
strong legislative branch and assume that
it will be responsible, and that in fact, we
should organize it in such a way that its
responsibility would be enhanced.
We will be prepared to offer further
amendments if our substitute for section
3.01 is adopted to establish a one house
legislature, and to establish that one house
at 100 members.
The arguments in favor of unicameralism
are contained in our report, as are the
analyses of the presentation of the Com-
mittee. I should like to explain and review
those arguments very briefly.
First of all, we believe that unicamer-
alism would strengthen the legislative
branch of the State government. Unicam-
eral bodies, we believe, would permit more
effective relationships between the execu-
tive and the legislative branches, by per-
mitting a unification of the legislative lead-
ership.
If this Convention strengthens the execu-
tive branch and unifies it, if it strengthens


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 431   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives