|
to adopt an instrument of home rule, that
is, mandatory home rule.
Second, was whether to provide powers
to the counties through a sharing of the
State's powers, or by an express grant of
enumerated powers.
Third, was how to limit public local legis-
lation without at the same time unduly re-
stricting the General Assembly in areas
where state policy or interest requires ac-
tion affecting localities.
Fourth, was how to provide a workable
relationship between municipalities and the
county and State; and
Fifth, was what provisions should be
made for the solution of regional problems.
First, mandatory county home rule: This
is covered in section 7.03. Unlike the coun-
ties of other states, Maryland's counties
have been more than just administrative
arms of the State. Counties have exercised
extensive local policy-making and govern-
ing powers. The Committee therefore con-
cluded that county governments should be
strengthened.
At present Maryland counties are the
units best able to furnish efficiently those
local governmental services which should
be provided to larger areas.
Although in some counties, municipali-
ties furnish many local services, our in-
vestigation shows that the trend is toward
provision of most local services by the
counties.
Of course, the recommendation requires
that each county adopt a form of home rule
government that is suited to its particular
circumstances, and that will permit it to
perform functions and administer the
powers it will obtain under the new Con-
stitution.
Mandatory home rule had virtually the
unanimous support of all the witnesses who
testified and appeared before the Commit-
tee.
Second, shared powers for counties: this
is covered in recommended section 7.05. We
strongly recommend that the Constitution
also provide that the State share its powers
with the counties, except the powers de-
nied the counties by the Constitution, by
law, or by the counties' own instruments of
government.
What do we mean by "shared powers"?
There is no mystery to the phrase. We
mean just what the words say. Counties
could act freely, just as may the General
Assembly, but, and this is the big "but",
|
first, the county could not act where a law
of the General Assembly occupies the field.
For instance, the law on wills, the com-
mercial code, the landlord-tenant law, and
most of the laws in the Maryland Code.
These would preempt the field and prevent
the county from acting in a way incon-
sistent with those general laws. Second, the
county could not act if the General Assem-
bly specifically said the counties could not
act in a particular field.
For instance, the General Assembly
might wish to deny counties the right to
pass air pollution laws and require them
to follow statewide or regional standards.
The General Assembly has prohibited all
counties from permitting slot machines.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser, I
think your presentation is obviously going
to continue for some time. I think we had
better suspend.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Powers.
DELEGATE POWERS: Mr. Chairman,
I move the Committee of the Whole rise
and report to the Convention that we still
have under consideration Committee Rec-
ommendation LG-1.
THE CHAIRMAN: And have approved
Committee Recommendation GP-3?
DELEGATE POWERS: And that Com-
mittee Recommendation GP-3 has been ap-
proved, with amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Without amendment.
DELEGATE POWERS: I am sorry-
strike the "with amendment" and say "ap-
proved."
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there a second?
(The motion was duly seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: All those in favor,
signify by saying Aye; contrary, No. The
Ayes have it. It is so ordered.
(Whereupon, at 12:25 P.M., the Commit-
tee of the Whole rose, and the Convention
reconvened.)
(The mace was replaced by the Sergeant-
at-Arms.)
PLENARY SESSION
NOVEMBER 14, 1967—12:25 P.M.
PRESIDENT H. VERNON ENEY,
PRESIDING
THE PRESIDENT: The Convention will
please come to order.
|
