|
tioned in response to your question earlier
today, Delegate Hardwicke. An example is
the Regional Planning Council of the City
of Baltimore.
An agency like that would not be in-
cluded in "authority" or "regional govern-
ment" and I would not think that it should
have the power to tax, even if it had
representatives of the people elected to
serve as its governing board.
I think Delegate Case's amendment does
clarify this because it is conceivable that
you would have a single purpose unit
which people would refer to as an "author-
ity" that might have popularly elected rep-
resentatives, and, therefore should have the
power to tax.
There are many other things within this
definition of multi-county governmental
units which we have had no contact until
now, but which might be created sometime
in the future. I think there is a legitimate
reason for making the distinction which
would be made if this clarifying amend-
ment is adopted.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Chabot to speak in opposi-
tion to the amendment.
DELEGATE CHABOT. I had a question
to Delegate Case, if he would yield.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case, do
you yield to a question?
DELEGATE CASE: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: I wanted toln-
quire, is it your intention that the lan-
guage that would be added by your amend-
ment, the "unless" clause, would constitute
an exception only to the last clause that
appears in the Committee Report, and not
to the entire sentence that ends with that
clause?
DELEGATE CASE: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: We would then
have, beginning at the bottom of line 50
and continuing through line 7 of page 5, a
setting forth of power, with an exception
on lines 7 and 8, and then the added lan-
guage is an exception to that exception?
DELEGATE CASE: This is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any further dis-
cussion?
Delegate Clagett.
|
DELEGATE CLAGETT: I would like to
be most brief in adding these remarks to
those that I have heretofore made in oppo-
sition to these intergovernmental authorities
being given the tax power. The additional
remarks are, I do not like intergovernmental
authorities, in any event. They are a neces-
sity in order to provide a degree of flexi-
bility insofar as governmental administra-
tion is concerned. However, during the
years of the Commission work, we heard
testimony from one expert after another,
telling us that a proliferation of intergov-
ernmental authorities was one of the worst
kinds of problems in neighboring states,
such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New
York, and elsewhere. It was considered far
more preferable to go in the direction of a
regional government, whether it be popu-
larly elected or some other type of re-
gional government, rather than in the di-
rection of intergovernmental authorities.
What we are doing here is strengthen-
ing the intergovernmental authority as a
unit of government and avoiding the day
when we might have something that is far
more preferable, far more clearcut, far
more directly related to multi-purpose
functions than there intergovernmental
units, which, true, may be multi-purpose,
but usually are employed for single
purposes.
To avoid that proliferation, to avoid
that strengthening, to avoid that increased
use of intergovernmental units, I strongly
urge we not give them any additional
power.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are we ready for
the questions?
The question arises on adoption of
Amendment No. 10. A vote Aye is a vote
in favor of the adoption of Amendment 10.
A vote No is a vote against. Cast your
votes.
Have all delegates voted? Does any dele-
gate desire to change his vote?
Have all delegates now voted? Does any
delegate desire to change his vote? The
Clerk will record the vote.
There being 44 votes in the affirmative
and 77 in the negative, the motion is lost,
and the amendment fails.
Are there any further amendment to
section 7.11?
Are there any amendment to section
7.12?
Are there any amendment to section
8.06?
|
