above the present payroll and per diem
costs, so that actually the reduction, either
at 40-80 or 35-105 at $8,000 salary does
not have a significant impact on the in-
crease of salaries for the members of the
General Assembly.
I felt the Committee of the Whole should
have these figures before it so that it could
debate, perhaps with more information at
hand on any of the amendments that might
come before us today. In so doing, I simply
state that 35-105, which is the committee
recommendation, would appear to allow
full committee operation on the House level
and the Senate level as well.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
Delegate Sherbow?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Mr. Chair-
man, I speak in opposition to the amend-
ment.
Nobody knows what is the ideal size of
a family and we will never know what is
the ideal, perfect size of the General As-
sembly. I think our eyes ought to be fo-
cused, not on what experience shows took
place years ago, but what is happening
now with the new picture created by the
one-man, one-vote principle.
There has been a tremendous change in
the General Assembly, not only in what it
has done, but in public approval of what it
has done and is doing.
Leadership, a new breed of leadership, is
springing up out of this kind of a change.
If we get this General Assembly too far
away from the people, we will have lost
too much. Whether the ideal size of the
Senate should be 35 or 40, I think is getting
down to a point where you cannot ever
really tell, but when you cut the House
below a figure of 105, your touch with the
people begins to go.
This is a State that runs the gamut of
every conceivable type of population, of
every conceivable type of industry, agri-
culture, business and commerce. The people
who live in this State have a right to feel
that there is some form of communication
with their representatives in Annapolis. If
we cut it too low, we break those ties.
If we take it too high, it makes it im-
possible to function, but somewhere be-
tween those figures is the right one. I think,
based on tradition, based on experience,
based on the kind of world we are moving
into in this State, that this Committee has |
hit it pretty close to being right, and 35-
105 is about what is best for the people. It
may not be best for those who may decide
to run; they must accommodate themselves
to the office they seek. What is best for the
people of Maryland, I think, is the 35-105
ratio. 1 oppose the amendment and I hope
the ratio as proposed by the Committee
will carry.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Pullen?
DELEGATE PULLEN: Mr. Chairman,
I should like to state—
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second. I
should have asked if you rise to speak in
favor of or against the amendment.
DELEGATE PULLEN: Against.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett,
are you speaking in favor of the amend-
ment?
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman,
whether the two-member family or a four-
member family is the perfect size of a
family, I agree will be debated ad infinitum,
but I rise in support of this motion and in
opposition to the observations made by
Delegate Sherbow on this basis, really by
way of suggestion to the members of the
Committee of the Whole, that what we are
really trying to do is find an effective sepa-
ration, not necessarily a divorce, although
there will be times when that phrase will
be used, but an effective separation between
the local government area and the area of
responsibility of the General Assembly.
It seems to me that as we move in the
direction of the 40-80 and away from the
local arena into the arena of responsibility
of this Assembly, there must necessarily be
a severing of certain cords and lines of
direction, and that works both ways, from
the people to the members of the Assembly
and from the Assembly back to the people.
I suggest to you that the geographic
limitations of this small State are such
that you will never effectively divorce the
relationship between the General Assembly
and its members and the people whom they
represent.
It is merely a matter of reorientation of
thinking, and the expectation which we
have in accomplishing that reorientation,
that the General Assembly will assume its
responsibility on a statewide, throughout
the state level, and that the local govern-
ments will assume their responsibility in
the local area.
There is no reason to fear from that that |
