|
The critical issues here are two-fold:
First, to provide a maximum degree of
latitude for county government to develop,
based on the economic circumstances in
that county, the kind of fiscal package that
makes sense there to finance the programs
that the county will want to conduct under
the new grant of power made available by
this Constitution.
Second, and sometimes in conflict with
that, to provide a procedure which assures
that in developing its own tax package,
the county does not intrude upon the fiscal
stability and the fiscal requirements of the
state.
The proposal submitted by Delegate
Needle does this. It permits the county to
develop, using its own fiscal resources and
experts, the kind of program that it needs.
It permits it, in fact it encourages H, to
bring that kind of program before the Gen-
eral Assembly for review. It does not per-
mit that program to go into effect unless
the General Assembly has approved it,
thereby permitting the General Assembly
to assure itself that there will be neither a
raid on the Treasury, nor a program of
nuisance taxes.
I think it provides a better compromise
between those of us who would prefer no
restrictions on the tax powers of the coun-
ties in the Constitution and those who
would prefer that all tax power be taken
away from the counties.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson,
the majority has decreed that you have
one-quarter of a minute.
DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. Chairman,
that is probably right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I shall be
very brief. I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
While these matters were being consid-
ered by the Committee on Local Govern-
ment and other tax matters by the Com-
mittee on State Finance and Taxation, we
thought it best to have committees working
between the two groups in order to avoid
the kind of debate on intricate, complicated
matters that might follow if there were
divisions between the committees.
We sent our representatives to the Local
Government Committee to discuss this mat-
ter on taxation. We considered this propo-
sal and other variants of it, and the State
Finance and Taxation Committee, I think
with only one exception, unanimously re-
|
jected it. It was very seriously discussed
and considered.
I know nothing of cross currents. I only
know of pouring oil on troubled waters,
and this we have tried to do throughout all
of the discussions.
It had been taken up and both Commit-
tees felt it was improper. We hope the
Committee of the Whole agrees and votes
against this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there further dis-
cussion?
Are you ready for the question? The
question arises on the adoption of Amend-
ment No. 7. A vote Aye is a vote in favor
of adopting the amendment; a vote No is a
vote against. Cast your votes.
Have all delegates voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote? The clerk
will record the vote.
We seem to still be having trouble with
the tally on the board. There being 17
votes in the affirmative and 103 in the nega-
tive, the amendment is lost. The amend-
ment is rejected.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: I rise to a
point of personal privilege.
May I say that the oil that was cast
upon the troubled waters is still there.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kirkland,
your amendment is now here. We will re-
vert to a consideration of section 7.10. This
will be Amendment No. 5. The clerk will
read the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 5
to Committee Recommendation No. LG-1
by Delegate Kirkland: on page 4 strike
out all of lines 31 through 45, section 7.10
Establishment of Multi-County Govern-
mental Units.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is the amendment
seconded?
(Whereupon, the amendment was duly
seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is
moved and seconded.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Kirkland
to speak to the amendment.
DELEGATE KIRKLAND: Mr. Chair-
man, for these reasons: first, the General
|
