|
further questions, we will go over to tomor-
row. I should add also if either of these
delegates has a series of questions, I would
prefer not to recognize them.
DELEGATE ARMOR: Just one, I am
referring to section 5.11 on commissioners.
Your suggestion is that they be appointed
and precsribed by law in that appointment.
Then they are going to work in the district
court.
Should one of these commissioners not
be competent with that joint responsibility,
how would you dispose of them, or eliminate
them, if they could not do their job prop-
erly?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Hopefully
since our proposal would provide for their
selection to be established by law, we would
hope it would be under some merit system.
We understand, of course, that that would
be controlled by the judge even though they
may be appointed or selected — appointed is
the correct word, in a manner prescribed
by law.
We see no problem in this area. There is
a case throughout the country. It is the
case with respect to elected clerks of court
on the superior court level. The consensus
of testimony before us has been that the
concurrence has worked extremely well and
many judges would prefer it not be aban-
doned. There is also the feeling that many
judges would prefer not to be involved in
this matter of selecting commissioners and
being responsible for rejecting certain ones
and matters of this nature.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: It is entirely
possible and in all probability the General
Assembly will provide by law for the spe-
cial courts such as tax courts or any other
kind of court that would be contemplated
within your phrase, "other courts" being
added to 5.01, is that not so?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: So long as
they remained an administrative, or quasi-
judicial or quasi-administrative agency, I
believe the legislature would continue to
do so, yes.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Under sections
5.07 and 5.09, if they become more than
quasi-judicial, could they not be provided
for and placed under either the superior
court or district court and then those
courts by the functional divisions give them
specification or name?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: They could,
but you must remember that in that event
|
the jurisdiction would have to be uniform
throughout the State. So that take a case
where you may want to have a tax court
in Baltimore City, for instance, if you made
it a functional division of the superior
court or the district court, you would also
have to extend that jurisdiction to every
other superior court and district court
throughout the State.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: The mere fact
that they have the jurisdiction would not
compel them to exercise it until it became
necessary to do so, however, would it?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: You are abso-
lutely right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Miller, do
you have a question?
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Hold it until tomor-
row. The Chair recognizes Delegate Powers.
DELEGATE POWERS: Mr. Chairman,
I move the Committee of the Whole rise
and report to the Convention that it has
not concluded its consideration of Commit-
tee Report No. JB-1.
(Whereupon, the motion was seconded.)
THE CHAIRMAN: All in favor signify
by saying Aye; contrary, No. The Ayes
have it. It is so ordered.
(Whereupon, at 6:13 o'clock P.M., the
Committee of the Whole rose, and the Con-
vention reconvened.)
(The mace was replaced by the Sergeant
at Arms.)
PLENARY SESSION
NOVEMBER 15, 1967—6:13 P.M.
PRESIDENT H. VERNON ENEY,
PRESIDING
THE PRESIDENT: The Convention will
please come to order.
On behalf of the Committee of the Whole,
the Chair reports it has had under consid-
eration Committee Recommendation JB-1,
that it still has it under consideration and
desires leave to sit again.
Will all delegates who were absent at
roll call this afternoon and desire to indi-
cate their presence do so now.
|
