|
I would not think this would be a fair
interpretation of the words that you used.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Cardin.
DELEGATE CARDIN: Would it be pos-
sible to change "may" in line 42 to "shall,"
to make certain that the people could peti-
tion to referendum?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: If you do change
the "may" to "shall"; you intend to require
a referendum for the creation of a popu-
larly elected representative regional gov-
ernment. The answer is that the Committee
is very strongly opposed to requiring the
legislature to do so, because it might very
well be a very simple matter, and there-
fore should be left to the legislature to de-
cide whether or not to refer such a law.
This does not affect your problem.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser, if
the Chair might interject, it seems to me
that perhaps you still missed the point of
Delegate Cardin's question. The provision
she is talking about is the provision that
gives a citizen the right to initiate a refer-
endum. I understood you to say that your
Committee was recommending here, not a
provision for citizen referendum, but a pro-
vision for referendum to be provided by
the General Assembly.
DELEGATE MOSER: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is not that the an-
swer to the question she asks, then?
DELEGATE MOSER: I think it is. I
thought at one point I had said that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Cardin.
DELEGATE CARDIN: We will get to
that later. I have one other question that
I would like to ask: In section 7.01 you
have, "For the purpose of this Constitu-
tion, 'county' shall include Baltimore City."
Do I take it, for example, in reference
again to our referendum section which was
adopted, we need not mention Baltimore
City separately? Would this cover every
section of the constitution?
DELEGATE MOSER: It is intended to
do so. This is a matter for Style and Draft-
ing.
I would say that you do not have to
worry about the use of the term "county",
that it would be deemed to include Balti-
more City wherever it is used in the con-
stitution.
|
DELEGATE CARDIN: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boileau.
DELEGATE BOILEAU: Chairman
Moser, as I understand the 1954 adoption
of Article XI E of the Constitution, the
Dillon Rule was substantially reversed as
far as the municipalities are concerned.
Through the use of the words "existing
powers" that Delegate Adkins alluded to
earlier, is this reversal maintained in the
proposed draft of the Committee?
DELEGATE MOSER: The intention,
subject always to change by the legisla-
ture, is to retain for municipalities exactly
what they have before the new constitu-
tion is adopted. If that includes a reversal
of the Dillon Rule — I do not know whether
it does or not — but if it does, then this is
retained.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boileau.
DELEGATE BOILEAU: If it does in-
clude a reversal of the Dillon Rule, you are
effectively reversing the Dillon Rule across
the board for all local governing units, Bal-
timore City, counties, and maintaining it
for municipalities, if it includes munici-
palities.
DELEGATE MOSER: I cannot say spe-
cifically that that is the intention of the
Committee. I can only say if such were the
case, then such is the case now.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boileau.
DELEGATE BOILEAU: I am not ask-
ing intention, but in fact the effect.
DELEGATE MOSER: I cannot answer
that with respect to municipalities. What
we intend to do is to continue the powers
of municipalities unchanged, but subject
to change by the General Assembly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser, as
I understand Delegate Boileau's second
question, he was not asking about munici-
palities.
DELEGATE BOILEAU: The second
question would include all of them. I un-
derstand there was a conditional answer
given to the first question, and I realize
there would have to be a conditional an-
swer given to the second question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is the Dillon Rule
reversed as to counties or as to multi-
county authorities?
DELEGATE MOSER: The answer with
respect to counties is yes. With respect to
|
