180 million to 190 million people, a far dif-
ferent scope of problem than affects a legis-
lative body meeting here in Annapolis. The
second answer is the Congress undoubtedly
needs some legislative reform in the ad-
ministrative procedures it has. The last re-
form that has taken place in the Congress
occurred back in 1947. There are too many
committees in both branches of the Con-
gress. This is not a matter we can do any-
thing about here in this Convention.
One of the ironies, it has always seemed
to me, in those that argue that a legis-
lature should be restricted as far as its
time is concerned is that this argument
generally is coming from people who are
concerned at the same time with the great
size and scope of activities of the federal
government. They see nothing inconsistent
with this.
I think Dr. Bard has pointed out that
what we are dealing with here is really a
kind of rational approach to the problem
so state legislators should have and will
have time to work out final solutions to the
problems on a state level and not have the
federal government move in ahead of the
time when they have opportunity to study
whether these problems can be handled on
a state basis.
I think it is interesting to look at other
states and what they are doing in this area
because here again we find a trend that has
developed. As recently as World War 1I all
the states except four were meeting on a
basis of once every two years. Since that
time twenty-one states have changed their
procedure so they meet only on a once a
year basis.
The next statistic that has some rele-
vancy is that twenty-six of the fifty states
explicitly limit the length of one or two
regular sessions in the biennium. But if
you look at the twenty-six states you will
find that seventeen of them meet on a once
every two year basis. Four of the remain-
ing states meet on the second year only to
handle budget problems.
A point has been made in this discus-
sion with respect to the handling of the
budget. I think Delegate Sherbow pointed
out that his Committee is coming in with a
recommendation of the Legislative Branch
Committee and will meet collectively with
the members of that Committee. We are
unanimous, I think, in the fact that the
budget shall be handled on a timely basis;
so there will be no power in the legislature
to let this budget go beyond the time when
an executive budget must be determined. |
The question has been raised about
salary. I think the concern here is whether
there is something implicit in this amend-
ment if it is adopted, that the salary will
increase, or should be increased. I would
say this, there is no intention on the part
of the sponsors of the Minority Report that
that salary should be changed beyond what
it is, that is $8,000. Of course, this group
will have to meet on it.
Therefore, of course, the legislature can
set its own salary as it should, but it will
not apply to the legislature that sanctions
a change in the salary.
The conclusion of the Minority Report
really rests on its first sentence. It states
the principal reason for permitting the
General Assembly to set its own session
length is a fundamental belief in the ability
and integrity of the legislature to set its
own schedule.
We talked here of increasing the prestige
of the legislature. We talked about increas-
ing the visibility. How are we to determine
here in this Convention what the problems
are to be that will come before a legisla-
ture? That group ought to determine its
own schedule depending on the problems
that come before it. We are not asking for
a longer session. We are not asking for a
shorter session. All we are asking is to let
the legislative group that has to deal with
the problems coming up in any year set
its own schedule for handling those prob-
lems.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, ladies and gentlemen of the Commit-
tee of the Whole, I rise to oppose the
amendment. It is true as Mr. Gleason has
said that this particular subject matter
was probably the cause of the fiercest divi-
sion that we encountered in the Committee
on the Legislative Branch. As a matter of
fact, although from time to time we had
violent discussion in connection with other
subject matters, I do not remember a time
when we reached the kind of deadlock that
we did on this particular subject.
What the Committee has done, as you
may see, is to recommend that the Consti-
tution provide a regular session of 90 days
with the provision that by a majority vote,
the regular session may be extended up to
30 days and by a further provision, that by
a 3/5ths vote, an additional 30 days may be
allowed, thereby in all recommending the
machinery constitutionally whereby the
regular session could extend as long as 150
days. |
