|
I think that it would be a step backward
to put this inflexibility into the new Con-
stitution that we are drafting, and I re-
spectfully request the Committee of the
Whole to vote No on the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Fornos.
DELEGATE FORNOS: Is a question in
order for the Chairman of the Local Gov-
ernment Committee on this amendment?
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me find out first
if anyone desires to speak in favor.
DELEGATE FORNOS: It is related to
that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second. Dele-
gate Pullen.
DELEGATE PULLEN: Mr. Chairman,
I think I can speak in favor of this for the
following reasons: I think it would solve
all the consequences of the principle and
avoid the consequences by denying the
principle.
I think we are dealing here with some-
thing that supposedly is a local matter
when in reality it is a state matter. If a
problem is of such consequence that the
state legislature has to recognize a differ-
ent agency, then I think it becomes a func-
tion of the State and should be removed
from the local government. Therefore, I
think that if we are going to set up a new
form of government, such as this contem-
plates, the people ought to have a right to
take part in it. I think it transcends the
local siuation as expressed by the Commit-
tee.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Moser, do
you yield to a question from Delegate
Fornos?
DELEGATE MOSER: I yield, Mr.
Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fornos.
DELEGATE FORNOS: Delegate Moser,
the two most vivid examples of regional
government in North America, I believe,
are Dade County and Toronto. Would you
not think that those were model regional
governments?
DELEGATE MOSER: I would not, say
that they are models, Delegate Fornos.
Some people call them regional govern-
ments, yes.
DELEGATE FORNOS: I think we are
playing on words. Both of those metro-
politan governments were overwhelmingly
|
established by the vote of the people who
were to be part of the regional government,
and they were not rejected when they were
placed on the referenda. When Dade County
and the City of Miami voted to give up most
of the City's municipal rule to the Dade
County government, the people of that City
voted overwhelmingly for the proposal.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you going to
ask a question of Delegate Moser, Delegate
Fornos?
DELEGATE FORNOS: Since he chose
to make debate out of it, I just retorted.
THE CHAIRMAN: Either ask your
question or indicate whether you wish to
speak on the question.
DELEGATE FORNOS: I wish to speak
in favor of the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me see if any-
one desires to speak in opposition. Delegate
Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman,
I would like to suggest in opposition to the
amendment that the protection of the
boundaries of the counties is preserved in
section 7.02, where it specifically provides
that no law altering the boundaries of a
county shall become effective until sub-
mitted to the voters of each county affected
and approved by a majority of those voting
oh the question in each such county. There-
fore, the integrity of the boundaries of
counties is preserved by that section.
Likewise, with respect to this suggested
amendment, I point out to you that with
respect to the Washington Suburban Sani-
tary Commission, or the National Capital
Park and Planning Commission, both multi-
county units, a change of the areas of
either of those two units would fall within
the amendment as suggested by Delegate
Sybert, and would have to go through this
cumbersome, laborious, time-consuming and
completely unnecessary referendum proce-
dure.
I, therefore, suggest to you that as Dele-
gate Moser, our Chairman, has stated, some
degree of trust ought to be placed in the
General Assembly to provide adequately
and properly and it should not be ham-
strung or shackled by unnecessary restric-
tions.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes
Delegate Fornos to speak in favor of the
amendment.
DELEGATE FORNOS: Mr. Chairman,
fellow delegates, it disturbs me that there
|
