|
dicated would follow, and I would think
that as thus interpreted the two sections,
4.18 and 4.19, without the temporary sec-
tion, would enable the legislature to pro-
ceed by law under section 4.18.
At the same time, the governor could, if
the legislature did not proceed by law,
proceed by executive order under section
4.19 and that is what I understood Dele-
gate Sickles was inquiring about.
Delegate Maurer.
DELEGATE MAURER: With that in-
terpretation, I will proceed with Amend-
ment No. 16.
THE CHAIRMAN: Let me make sure
the Chair understands it.
Did the Chair correctly state that, Dele-
gate Morgan?
DELEGATE MORGAN: The Chair did
correctly state it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman,
I am confused because of the provision on
line 34 of section 4.19, where it says where
these changes require the force of law, does
this mean we are going to say constitu-
tionally that the change requires the force
of law and then adopt a procedure and say
that it is not law?
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: Well, I think
we can make it quite clear by inserting
after "by law" in line 39 on page 6 the
words "enacted by the General Assembly".
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that
goes to Delegate Case's question, Delegate
Morgan.
Maybe the Chair can ask another ques-
tion. I am not sure that this is what Dele-
gate Case had in mind or what the Com-
mittee had in mind.
Do you contemplate that there could be
situations where, by law, a department of
the executive branch is so organized that
the governor has some authority to make
some changes in it without having a change
of the law or without having an executive
order?
DELEGATE MORGAN: Oh yes, for ex-
ample, suppose a principal department has
been established and the department head
sets up administratively certain adminis-
trative units within the department. There
is nothing that would prevent the governor
|
or the department head from changing
those administrative units, consolidating
them or reorganizing them without sub-
mitting any executive order to the General
Assembly because these administrative
units were set up purely administratively
to suit the convenience of the head of the
department and they were not set up by the
General Assembly. However, if you had an
organization of a principal department, if
the General Assembly described how the
principal department was to be set up and
was to have a division of this and a di-
vision of that and a division of something
else, when a change in that is thought de-
sirable by the governor, why, he is, in
effect, changing the law, and that would
require an executive order submitted to the
General Assembly because that change
would have the force of law.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case, para-
phrasing part of that, I think what Dele-
gate Morgan has said is that a change
which is either authorized by law or a
change which is not in conflict with law
would be made by the government without
an executive order of the type referred to
in section 4.19.
Does that answer your inquiry?
DELEGATE CASE: Well, it does in
part, but let us go further and take a
change that is more substantial than this
and therefore, requires law in the generic
sense.
Do I understand that this constitution
as now interpreted says in effect that
even though we are saying that a change
of this nature must be done "by law" that
nevertheless, the governor can by the ex-
ecutive order achieve this end result?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: Mr. Chairman,
I do not know exactly what the change is
that Delegate Case is referring to.
Can you give me an example?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: I am not sure my-
self. But let us start off at line 34 of sec-
tion 4.19, where these changes acquire the
force of law.
Let us suppose that you are going to
reorganize the department of budget pro-
curement into a budget department and a
procurement department. The statutes pro-
vide for the budget procurement as a single
department.
|
