|
THE PRESIDENT: Committee Recom-
mendation EB-1 is referred to the Commit-
tee of the Whole.
I call your attention to the fact that
there is accompanying this recommendation,
Committee Memorandum EB-1. I believe
the Recommendation is printed and dis-
tributed, but the Memorandum has not been
printed. It will be printed later.
I also call to your attention that this
differs from Committee Report EB-1 that
you received several days ago. Committee
Report EB-1 dealt with certain matters not
to be included in the Constitution. Com-
mittee Recommendation EB-1 deals with
matters to be included in the Constitution.
Are there any other reports of commit-
tees?
(There was no response.)
Are there any other motions?
(There was no response.)
The Chair recognizes Delegate Powers.
DELEGATE POWERS: Mr. President,
I move the Convention resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole for the pur-
pose of consideration of orders of the day,
in accordance with debate control and limi-
tations set forth in Debate Schedule No. 3
previously adopted, and Debate Schedule
No. 4, now on the desks of all the delegates.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a second?
(The motion was duly seconded.)
THE PRESIDENT: The question arises
on the motion to adopt Debate Schedule No.
4, and for the Convention to resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole for fur-
ther consideration of general orders of the
day under Debate Schedules 3 and 4. All
those in favor, signify by saying Aye;
contrary, No. The Ayes have it. It is so
ordered.
(Whereupon, at 2:07 P.M., the Conven-
tion resolved itself into the Committee of
the Whole.)
(The mace was removed by the Sergeant-
at-Arms.)
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
NOVEMBER 14, 1967—2:07 P.M.
PRESIDENT H. VERNON ENEY,
PRESIDING
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Moser, Chairman of the
|
Committee on Local Government to con-
tinue presentation of Committee Recom-
mendation LG-1.
Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: Mr. Chairman,
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee of
the Whole:
Just before the luncheon break I de-
scribed what we mean by shared powers
for counties. I indicated that what it means
is simply this: that counties would be able
to act freely as may the General Assembly,
but the county could not act where a law
of the General Assembly occupies the field,
as, for instance, a general law such as the
uniform commercial code.
Second, that the county could not act if
the General Assembly stated that counties
generally could not act in the particular
area, for instance, gambling.
This leaves to the counties all the purely
local matters, such as salaries of county
officials, county roads, and power to meet
local emergencies such as those created by
snow storms, and hurricanes.
The Committee Recommendation rejected
the express powers approach as being un-
duly restrictive on the rights of counties to
deal with local matters. It would thus re-
verse the Dillon Rule, which holds that
local units of government may exercise only
such powers as have been expressly granted
by the state or which must necessarily be
implied from the express grant.
The shared powers approach permits
freedom to solve local problems at the local
level. The General Assembly would no
longer have the burden of making specific
grants of power each time a county wished
to enter a new area of activity.
It avoids the difficulty inherent in the
express powers approach in that it recog-
nizes that no permanent line can be drawn
in advance between those functions which
ought to be performed at the state level and
those which are purely local.
Nevertheless, and I stress this as strongly
as I can, the power of the General Assem-
bly to set general policy in local matters
remains absolutely supreme. At any time,
it can withdraw powers from counties in
order to perform any function on a state-
wide basis, or in order to reallocate powers
to other units of government for more
effective provision of services.
The third major problem area is limita-
tion of local legislation, which is handled
|
