Transcripts of meetings, 1977-1981, v. 3. Article III

STATE OF GEORGIA SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION
Transcripts of Meetings 1977-1981

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
GEORGE BUSBEE GOVERNOR CHAIRMAN
ZELL MILLER LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
THOMAS B. MURPHY SPEAKER. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ROBERT H. JORDAN CHIEF JUSTICE. SUPREME COURT
J. KELLEY QUILLIAN CHIEF JUDGE. COURT OF APPEALS
MICHAEL J. BOWERS ATTORNEY GENERAL
MARCUS B. CALHOUN SENIOR JUDGE. SUPERIOR COURTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON
CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION
ROOM 23H 47 TRINITY AVENUE ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30334
404/656-7158

COMMITTEES MEMBERS:
AL HOLLOWAY SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
JACK CONNELL SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
ROY E. BARNES CHAIRMAN. SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
WAYNE SNOW. JR. CHAIRMAN. HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
FRANK H. EDWARDS SPECIAL COUNSEL
J. ROBIN HARRIS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MELVIN B. HILL JR. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

MEETINGS HELD ON CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION

COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE III

COMMITTEE
Full Committee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Subcommittee Full Committee Subcommittee Subcommittee Full Committee Subcommittee Full Committee

DATE
September 17, 1979 September 27, 1979 October 1, 1979 October 2, 1979 October 5, 1979 October 11, 1979 October 12, 1979 October 18, 1979 October 19, 1979 October 22, 1979 October 29, 1979 November 6, 1979 November 7, 1979 November 15, 1979 November 20, 1979 November 29, 1979

# OF PAGES
19 126
74 138
36 128 183 140 177 125
71 86 69 139 99 94

STATE OF GEORGIA
COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE III of the
CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA

Room 337-B State Capitol Atlanta, Georgia
Monday, September 17, 1979 10:00 a.m.

BHANDENBl iHG &. I L\STY

,>UI<l'\/II']C RI<!)()RT!:\!C

'-

~"~'~':~ ~'J(J: .~( ="~CE~ J 3715 COLONIAL I R/\IL. /)( Jl!CLA'>V ILLF. (,HJRCIA 30135

AR:' l_)I_:P_OSI 'ION'

'112 0482
':'

IN

__

PRESENT WERE:
HAROLD G. CLARKE, Chairman MRS. FLORENCE BRENT SEN. M. PARKS BROWN FRANK S. CHEATHAM, JR. DALE CLARK REP. J. C. DAUGHERTY, SR. GLENN W. ELLARD HAMILTON MCWHORTER, JR. ZELL MILLER DR. GEORGE PARTHEMOS DR. CHARLES PYLES MS. BARBARA RYSTROM TIMMOTHY J. SWEENEY SEN. JAMES TYSINGER ROBERT WALLING REP. ROY LAMBERT
"\ /

PAGE 2

-PR-O- -C -E -E -D-IN- -G -S
CHAIRMAN CLARKE: The Committee will come to order. Let me welcome all of you here and tell you that I look forward to working with each of you.
I can assure you that this is not an effort that has been approached frivolously by the powers that be. It is one that has been taken very seriously and the best evidence of that, I think, is the quality of the Committee that has been named. The quality is such that it pretty well explains the naming of the chairman, a Committee like this doesn't even need a chairman, so it didn't matter the lack of quality in the chair.
I am delighted this morning that we do have the Chairman and a very able Chairman of the Select Committee, which is running the whole show with regard to the revision of the Constitution of the State of Georgia and who has as great a knowledge of how to go about revising this Constitution as anybody I can think of, and that's Robin Harris. Robin has been nice enough to be with us this morning and to share with us some of the background activities that have led up to the point of us getting underway with our work.
So thank you for coming, Robin, if you would say something to the Committee.
MR. HARRIS: You don't need to thank me for coming. You are here to do a job that many of us think is necessary for

i'

4

this State.

The Select Committee on Constitutional Revision is

a statutory corr~ittee, whose existence expires by the terms

of the Act on June 30, 1982. The Select Committee is composed

of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker, the Chief

Justice, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, the Attorney

General and some others. And they selected you, I did not.

You were chosen by the Select Committee to be asked to serve

on this particular Article Committee.

There are seven Article Committees that will under-

take to produce eight Articles. Two have already been done,

Articles II and X. They were put on the ballot in '78, there

was no opposition to them, everybody thought they were fine,

therefore, noboby promoted them and they went down the drain

with the 36 general and 81 local amendments that were spread

about on the various ballots. This caused some thought.

The Select Committee has set the schedule. They

would like to have six articles introduced at the 1980 session

of the General Assembly, Articles I, II, III, IV, V and X, with

the other four to be submitted to the next General Assembly

in hopes they will get on the ballot in '82.

This Article is one of those that the Select Committee

would like to have introduced at the '80 session of the General

Assembly to go on the ballot in 1980, which means you have got

a tough task because you now have about slightly over two

-, months to get a document together. It is hoped that you can

have a final draft of the proposed Legislative Article by

December 7, so that it can be submitted to the Select Committee

for their approval or consideration no later than December the

17th, and then be put in legislative form and introduced at

(, the 1980 session of the General Assembly.

7

The Select Committee has authorized a staff, knowing

full well that I couldn't do the job and so I have been

l) i fortunate in locating and enticing Melvin Hill away from the

II) Institute of Law and Government in Athens, to serve as the

'" /

I
>

'I

-.
C'.

Assistant Executive Director,

full time, with an office in the

':

w

\..' basement of the Health Building, where on a pretty day, he can

c-
7
look out his window and see the ankles of everyone walking
"-.'

past. But that keeps his attention to the job. He'll have a

few things to add. He has counsel to assist him and to assist

you and we want to give you all the help that you need in order

to do the job for us and for the people of this State.

It is my hope that the document that is ultimately

produced is one that is devoid of all the legislative junk that _\1 now exists in the Constitution, is a document that a reasonably

intelligent person could pick up and read and determine

basically his rights vis-a-vis the State. And if you can help

in accomplishing that goal it will be appreciated by me and I ~-1 think would be of great benefit to the people in the State of

Georgia.

,~,'~\:IJ:~J
,~
'( )

'\:
6
And that's all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hill, I t.hink -- if you would permit him to add a few things
CHAIFl1AN CLl\RKE: Glad to. Thank you, :F~obin, and again thank you for coming and being with us.
1 believe everybody on the Comrr,ittee knows everybody else. A.t. the same time, it might be good for l.;S just. to let it be known who we are. I'm Harold Clarke, I didn't start off by sayin9 that. And I started just to go around the room and introduce everybody because I think I do recognize all of you, but I have four children and occasionally when I start introducing them, I get their names confused. So what I'm going to really ask you to do is start here with Jim, and if you would, just stand up and say who you are so everybody in the room will know.
SENATOR TYSINGER: I'm Jim Tysinger, State Senator from Dekalb County.
MR. MCWHORTER: I'm Hamilton McWhorter, Jr., I'm secretary of the Senate.
HR. CLl\RK: Dale Clark of the Atlanta area. i1R. S~iEENEY: Tim Sweeney, also of Atlanta. MR. WALLING: Bob Walling, Dekalb County. MR. MILLER: Zell Miller from Young Harris. CIUURMAN CLARKE: Over here please. MRS. BRENT: Florence Brent from Dalton. JUDGE CHEATHAM: Frank Cheatham, Savannah.

7

MS. RYSTROM: Barbara Rystrom, Athens.

DR. PARTHEMOS: George Parthemos, Athens, University

of Georgia.

DR. PYLES: Chuck Pyles, Georgia State University.

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: J. C. Daugherty,

Representative from Fulton County.

SENATOR BROWN: Parks Brown, member of the Senate

from Hartwell.

CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Thank you.

1' I_''

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Chairman

CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Yes, sir.

' ':;,

,
\

(''l.

L;

,<"(1\1/.'.\'",,,--c~-'-n-,-,';>

MR. MCWHORTER: Could I convey to you and the Committee that Senator Loyce Turner said he couldn't be here

today, will attend in the future and Senator Al Holloway had

'I planned to come until seven 0' clock this morning, he came up

with a bad toothache and he's at the dentist.

1) The --

CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Oh, well, I can sympathize with him.

MR. MCWHORTER: His secretary, Mrs. Allen, will

take notes for him.

CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Fine. It has already been mentioned

by Robin that Melvin Hill, Mel Hill, as he is known -- will be

known to all of you, is heading up the staff for the revision

of the Constitution. I am happy that he's with us -- with the

group and I'm happy that he is here at the meeting this

morning.

j\

,

\

8

Come on in, Jack. Glenn Ellard, the Clerk of the

House. We just went through and named everybody here, so

we're happy to have you.

MR. ELLARD: Thank you, I'm sorry lim late.

CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Fine, corne on up anywhere you can

find a chair.

At any rate, I'd like at this time to calIon Mel

to give you some of the mechanical workings of what we are

going to be doing and then we'll get back into the organiza-

tion of the committee.

MR. HILL: Thank you, Mr. Clarke.

I have prepared a brief memo for you, which I would

like to pass around, which introduces the staff. In addition

to myself, we are fortunate to have Vickie Greenberg, Vickie

if you would stand up -- Vickie Greenberg and Michael Henry,

two young attorneys in our office who will be working with all

of the committees and subcommittees on this process. Our

telephone number and whatnot is in this memo which I am going

to pass around to you. We have made arrangements for the

use of a credit card telephone number, so that you can all talk

to one another between meetings, if you're not in Atlanta here

and you need to use long distance, we have a credit card

telephone number. Please feel free to calIon us, we're here

to help coordinate and facilitate this whole process.

In terms of your reimbursement, I have begun to

circulate a sheet, a committee roster, and if you would for

this first time put your social security number and your total

mileage, in other words, the round trip mileage. Then that

will allow us to reimburse you. Those of you who are already

employed by the State of Georgia in the university System or

whatnot, our understanding is that you will be reimbursed for

your expenses through your own home agencies. But the rest

will be entitled to a per diem as well as their expenses,

If.

mileage expenses and whatnot. So if you have any questions,

.

please call us whenever you have a problem.

CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Also working with the Committee

,.) will be Frank Edwards from the Office of Legislative Counsel,

a person who is well known to all of you, I'm sure. Stand up,

Frank. As well as Frank, also Cyndy Nonidez, who is with the

Office of Legislative Counsel, too. Stand up Cyndy. And I'm I' sure nobody here knows Charlie Tidwell, he's a newcomer to the

Capitol but he's the Governor's legal aide, and I'm being

facetious when I say that, and we appreciate you being here,

Charlie.

I don't know much I can say about what might be done

to the Legislative Article of the Constitution by this

Committee, except to say that we do have grave responsibility

in treating a matter that involves the rights and privileges

of all the people of Georgia, as well as treating an Article

that has a great deal to do with the efficiency of the ope:t"ation of our government.
There are a lot of ways I suppose you could approach a subject of this sort. It occurs to me that the best way is to attempt to break it down into smaller segments. I think I wrote a letter to each of you and in that letter I tried to break it down into categories. Since that time, I have had some second thoughts and I sort of suspect we'll have third thoughts and fourth thoughts and on down the line as we go along. It occurs to me that perhaps that would be too many subject matters and too many subcommittees. As a consequence, I have come to the conclusion that we ought to start by taking the present Article Inof the Constitution and attempting to divide it into three parts and having three subcommittees to work on these partS. The first of them would be the Organization, Structure and Procedure of the General Assembly having to do with the membership, the term of office, the various organizational and structural matters I" and then the means by which it carries out its business. The second has to do with very broad powers of the Constitution -rather the General Assembly, legislative branch, and finally then one section having to with more specific powers being part.icularly the power of appropriation and the power of -."1 regulation of insurance companies.
So I am asking that we divide into three subcommittees

.1
jO
>'f,;.;';.::" \1,;',-1 \ \i.l' ,(.SJ"~'\ "
Ii

11

and I have prepared a list of the subcommittees, which I

would like to -- would you mind handing these out for me

please?

MS. GREENBERG: Sure.

CHAIRMAN CLARKE:

to spread around among the

membership of the committee. We have already heard from Robin the time limitation
under which we are operating, that the Select Committee and the Governor's Office have asked that we have our work completed by December the 17th?
MR. HARRIS: Seventh. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Seventh. That's Pearl Harbor Day, that ought to be easy to remember. So we do not have a great deal of time, we don't have a lot of time to lose. Several of you in here are lawyers and those of you who are, I know don't mind that sort of thing because it's so hard for most of us lawyers to get to work until we've got a deadline anyway. And I think that we can meet the deadline. I hope that if we attempt to meet it, and I'm sure that we will, that we meet it with a view toward turning out a good product. I would not want us to corne back with a product that was sloppy because of any time limitations. So I do urge all of you to move quickly on the job at hand. I am suggesting that each subconwittee prepare a draft of sections dealing with the subject matters listed on the

p. ,\ (',['' 12

subcommittee appointments, and that this draft be completed by October 24th and that it be in the hands of Mr. Hillis office

at that time in order that it can be distribut.ed on that day,

be put in the mail on that day to all member:s of Ute full

Committee.

I am suggesting also that the full Com.'lIi ttee then

reconvene on October 28 in order to begin reviewing the drafts

which have been prepared by the subconunittees.

I want the members of the subcommittees to know that \t,1 I not only am willing to meet with the subconunittees as they

tackle their problems, I am anxious to do so, and I want to

be in close touch with you and work with you as actively as I

can.

JUDGE CHEATHAM: Harold, the 28th is a Sunday.

CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Well I didn't mean the 28th then,

the 29th, ! should have looked at my notes. Thank you, Frank.

I would also hope that we would involve members,

interested members of the public and various segments of the :'! public in approaching the task that we have before us. I .'{} particularly think it would be necessary and important at

some point that we have a meeting at which we will invite

every member of the General Assembly to be present. I think

that we ought to supply each member of the General Assembly

with a draft of what we have done up to that point prior to

the meeting, so we can solicit from each one of them suggestions

and guidance and advice as to where we're going. It would be

useless for us to come up with an Article that was not

acceptable to the majority or in fact to a two-thirds majority

of both the House and the Senate. So we need to look toward

what has to be done there.

We also need to look toward what is acceptable with

the public. I ask also that the meetings of the subcommittees

be held here in the Capitol. I think that that is important

in that it makes the public realize then that it is a public

function. I ask that they all be held in open and that notice

I
<

'I

of the meetings be available to anybody who would like to come.

This could be a factor that could be valuable to us as time

goes on.

I don't know of anything else that we need to take

up within the full Committee unless somebody else has a

comment or a suggestion they would like to make.

After calling for suggestions or comments, I would

ask that each subcommittee get together for a few minutes ,<, in order that you can decide among yourselves what sort of

meeting schedules you might want to plan.

MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Yes, Mel.

MR. HILL: We have a couple of things you might

wish to take with you. We have copies of the Constitution,

the compact latest version of the Constitution for you, as well:

P\f;i 14

as materials that were prepared by the former staff of the Select Committee, giving information on what other states have in their Legislative Article, so that -- this information was available when we walked into the office and we are happy to distl'ib1.lte i-t to you and we hope it is of some ass~stance. If you will just help yourselves to one of each of those over on that table as you leave. Thank you.

Ii!
~-;,\!i,)"
{(.-I,> .j'\\, ,"'''''"
\ ,'_ u::...... . \"'".,._".-~,." .

CHAIRMl\N CLARKE: Yes, sir. DR. PARTHEMOS: Mr. Chairman, as for the meetings of the sUbcommittees, we shall meet here at the Capitol, at what ~oom? will we make arrangements, will arrangements be made for us for that? CHAIRMAN CLARKE: I think it would be best to coordinate all meetings through Mr. Hill's office. He will be happy to get the notices out to the subcommittees.

DR. PARTHEMOS: Public notices as well?

CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Ye s MR. HILL: Yes.

MR. WALLING: Harold.

"

CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Yes.

MR. WALLING: Are members of the staff going to be

assigned to the subcommittees, like Vickie to one, Michael to

another?

MR. HILL: Yes. MR. WALLING: Has that decision been made yet or is

PAGE 15
that yet to be made? CHAIRMAN CLARKE: That is yet to be made and I
think can be made between the staff and the subcommittee chairmen. And incidentally, Roy Lambert just walked in. We're happy to have you with us, Roy.
REPRESENTATIVE LAMBERT: Thank you, Harold, sorry I'm late.
DR. PARTHEMOS: Mr. Chairman, may I ask, what kind of records should the subcommittees keep? Is that an appropriate question?
CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Yes, it is an appropriate question. I think that -- I don't think that we would be in a position of having a verbatim transcript taken of every meeting. If we did, the transcribing of all that would be really unnecessary. While it might give some valuable background to somebody looking at it in later years, it would be, I think, too cumbersome. I would suggest that a staff member make good notes of the discussion, the subject matters discussed and the actions taken.
DR. PARTHEMOS: Motions, actual motions. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Yes, And perhaps some notation of discussion of subjects even though they may not have been acted upon. DR. PARTHEMOS: And will a staff member be assigned to help us in that regard?

, \'" 16 CHAIRMAN CLARKE: I'm sure we can work that out. We'll be in touch with Mr. Hill to do it. Ms. Rystrom, yes? M"i:). RYS'IjROM: I'm a bit curious about the mandate of the Committee. Is the design of the Select Conunittee that this be a tidying up and eliminating of extraneous material only, or are substantive changes appropriate if we deem them? MR. HARRIS: Oh, certainly. However you can agree. But in any event, let's get the junk out. And Mr. Hill, when the subcommittee chairmen contact him to arrange for a meeting room, he will also arrange for the court reporter. Everything will be taken down. I don1t know if you have ever read the proceedings of the 1944 Commission that was chaired by the then Governor Arnall, it's a two-volume work, fascinating reading. It is a verbatim transcript of everything that took place in the development of what became the Constitution in 1945. It is not a widely read document, set of books, but it is intended that whatever you do will produce a history that will be available to persons for whatever value it will have to them as they look back to see how this Constitution evolved. So we will be doing that. CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Are there any other questions? Bob? MR. WALLING: Again, as chairman of a subcommittee,

PAGE 17

you can tell that, when will the staff be ready to brief --

and I think it is going to take this -- us on what is being

done in other states, what our options are, what falls within

the purview of the kind of thing that Robin is talking about,

what is more basic. And we are going to have to lean heavily

on the staff for that, are we not?

CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Yes. Mel will --

MR. WALLING: Can we begin when we meet the

subcommittees this morning or

!U

CHAIRMAN CLARKE: I don't know that you will get

that far this morning, but I think that is going to address

itself to each subcommittee as to how far you want to move

today, and then you're going to have to talk to Mel about how

prepared they are to get into all of these things on this

very day.

I,

MR. WALLING: They will be available for each

subcommittee this morning I take it, to meet with us and

talk about that?

MR. HILL: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CLARKE: Any other questions? Frank?

MR. EDWARDS: I just hope that -- I assume Mel will

take care of this, so that these three subcommittees don't

all meet at the same time, stagger their meetings.

CHAIRMAN CLAffi<E: That would be important to me too,

if I'm going to try to be at all the subcommittee meetings. It

,~?\/l{,1,
;':('bS) '''''''0
loJ

might be well for some subcommittees, if it could be planned, for instance, one to meet in the morning and one to meet in the afternoon. But that a:]ain will be a matter that will be decided by the individual subcommittees with a view toward not overlapping in order not to put a burden on the staff.
Any other questions or comments? Roy, I'll hand you one when we get out of here, a list of the subcommittees. If there are no further comments or questions, then I am going to adjourn this meeting and ask the various subcommittees just to get together in a corner or wherever they might desire and I'll sort of float from one to the other and visit with you. (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m. on Monday, September 17, 1979.)

~!

C E R T I F I CAT E

PAGE 19

I, Peggy J. Warren, CVR-CM, CCR No. A-171, do ,-~ hereby certify that the foregoing 18 pages of transcript
represent a true and accurate record of the events which (, transpired at the time and place set out above.

!(,
.I

INDEX Committee to Revise Article III Full Committee Meeting Held on Sept. 17, 1979

FULL COMMITTEE MEETING 9-17-79 (Procedural)

Proceedings. pp.3-6 Set-up: Subcommittees. pp. 10-11 Public and General Assembly participation.

pp. 12-13

STATE OF GEORGIA

COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE III of the
CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA
Subcommittee on Organization, Structure and Procedure of the General Assembly

Room 40l-A

State Capitol

Atlanta, Georgia

ii
Thursday, September 27, 1979

10:00 a.m.

I

I

--------------------J I

BRANDENBUI{G & HASTY

I

I

<..,C11:i\; III-\(: REPORTING

:

371 '> COLONIAL IRAIL, f)OL!CLA\ VILlE,' CHlRCJA lU13'>

942-()4R2

DEPOSITIONS - ARBITRAl IONS - COi\:VI:N1IO,\;\ CONFERLNCLS

'---

J

PRESENT WERE:

"

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

DR. GEORGE PARTHEMOS, CHAIRMAN REPRESENTATIVE J. C. DAUGHERTY MR. GLENN W. ELLARD MR. HAMILTON MCWHORTER, JR. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ZELL MILLER SPEAKER THOMAS B. MURPHY SENATOR JAMES W. TYSINGER MR. HAROLD G. CLARKE
7
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL:

MR. FRANK H. EDWARDS

::; I'

MS. CYNTHIA NONIDEZ

10

SELECT COMMITTEE STAFF:

MELVIN HILL

EXECUTIVE COUNSEL:

CHARLES TIDWELL

'0 ~
r

1" ,.'~, c., ",

'0
J () :l
'a"
'l

1

I7

ff
..:c

I :-,

2J

PRO C E E DIN G S

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It is ten o'clock and time for

us to convene. J. C. and Lieutenant Governor Miller are still

.1 not with us. Shall we proceed or shall we wait? Does anybody

know whether or not they're going to be here? I haven't

received any word.

MR. MCWHORTER: The Lieutenant Governor's office

called my office yesterday afternoon and wanted to ask about

the time and the length. He was told 10:30 -- ten o'clock

J (~ and he left the impression, although I didn't talk to him

i I ;- personally, that he definitely would be here.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Have you heard anything from

J. C. -- Mr. Daugherty?

't

MR. McmIORTER: I haven't heard from him. Have you,

i "Frank?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mel, have you heard anything?

MR. HILL: I haven't heard, no.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You know, what you might be

!'J doing is go ahead and distribute this draft that we worked on.

i(j

MR. HILL: I have distributed it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Does everybody have it?

MR. HILL: Yes.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Maybe you can be glancing over i this draft that Mel and I worked up last Friday at a meeting

in Athens, which we did at the suggestion of the members of the

: \\

4

subcommittee at our last meeting last Thursday. You might

be wanting to read over that. This will be our main item,

main point of departure for discussion this morning. And

maybe in the meantime, our other two members might show up.

(Brief pause.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think we have waited long

enough. I think Mel there has distributed to you -- I hope

each of you have a copy now of this. This is a first rough

draft that Mel and I got together for about three hours last

Friday morning, which we hope faithfully incorporates some of

the suggestions made by the subcommittee at its meeting last

I.
I'~S'V-i-tA~\
: (c~j) >-"~~""'"

\ ',,-
'-

"
,t-tI

Thursday. This is the first opportunity that I have had to see it and so I have not had an opportunity to review it in detail. But we thought that the idea was that this would be

the main point of departure for our discussion at this

particular time. I think that we probably addressed ourselves
,'\
to the various issues that were brought up at our meeting last

Thursday and I hope we have incorporated what we thought was

something of the consensus of the subcommittee.

At this particular time, it would seem to me that

the most appropriate way for us to proceed will be just simply
)"
to consider each paragraph of each section and then I would like

for Mel to comment as we go along as to what changes this

draft reflects over the current Constitution, the provisions in

the Constitution.

", \. (,'1<, 5

Paragraph I of Article III, Section I retains the

present provisions of the present Constitution. No changes

have been made there.

Is that not correct, Mel?

MR. HILL: Right, yes.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: No changes. So we saw no need

to make any revision in Paragraph I. It just simply defines

the legislative power, vesting it in the General Assembly.

Now Section II does represent -- there are some

i"1 changes made in Section II. There are some blanks there that

;'we thought that we would raise for discussion at the meeting

this morning.

There was some reorganization of Section II. The

I ': composition of both houses of the legislature were put in

) separate parts of Paragraph I and we consolidated provisions

I', with respect to apportionment in one section. In that way,

we thought that we could simply simplify, reduce some of the

wording of the Constitution, and simplify the provisions

somewhat.

'"

So at this particular time, I think we should now

review in detail that part of the draft, Paragraph I, Composition

of the General Assembly. Senate. "The Senate shall consist

of not less than (50) and not more than (56) members, as

determined by the General Assembly, and Senators shall be

elected from single-member districts."

6

As you can see, that varies from the present. We

put the actual minimum and maximum numbers in parenthesis

because we thought that should be a matter a discussion of

the subcornrni t tee to recommend to the full cOIruni t tee. There

was some mention at the last meeting that some discussion had

been held at previous times about lowering the minimum number,

which presently is 54.

So gentlemen, I invite your co~nents on that score,

q on that provision.

MR. MCWHORTER: Is there a need for a minimum?

II

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: There is no need for a minimum.

" Many of them simply set a maximum. This is another point, in

case of both. You can have the provision that the Senate shall

..; consist of not more than 56 members and leave it at that,

leaving the minimum simply open. This would leave it flexible

j (, and open to the discretion of the General Assembly. And the

same could be said of the House as far as that's concerned.

There is no need for a minimum.

MR. HILL: Now last time, the thought was that

'n whichever way you decide to do it, it should be the same for

both. You know, that was the main issue in these provisions.

If it is going to be a maximum for the Senate, it probablY

should be -- I mean a minimum for the Senate and a minimum for

the House, it should be the same for each rather than have a

range in one and only a maximum in the other.

PAGE 7

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: So this is one of the matters

for determination now at this particular time by the sub-

committee, whether or not you want to specify a minimum and

maximum or simply specify a maximum.

I think you will find both practices pretty

t> generally followed in many of your state constitutions.

7

SPEAKER MURPHY: Do they not just generally do

8 any states not just specify the number of senators?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Some specify the actual number,

10 leaving no discretion, as far as that's concerned. That's

"z

11 ~~ right too.

o

w"-

J2 ~:

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'll be quite candid with you,

\(\Y('S~~V.'~=JJ..\)if~~~ ~,~ when this thing gets to the floor of the House, I'm going to

~--,///

I

-/ 14 ~ push hard to specify for 180 House members, just fix that.

'.;l

r

15 '~I'll be quite candid with you.

,?

"::>

1(, 'i w

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let me simply say, Mr. Speaker,

o
z



I' ~ I see no problem in that myself. I'm not -- although there

has been talk about size and reduction and all, I see no

]9 problem in the present size and so -- this was just simply

brought here for discussion if there was some discussion of it.

21

MR. MCWHORTER: Some states --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Personally, as far as the

present size of the General Assembly, as I say, I see no

problem with it. But reduction of number has been, from time
I
2' to time, broached. You people know of that better than I do, I

8 ''3vppose.
MIL cr,~RKE: Well reduction has been f~irly subs tan <>

"h.=. I ~ to:! ("h+:, ;l,S fa.l:" as the House is concerned i..TP CT,r.q~J('F.: When 1: ca.me here there t.rprp, ?ot:;.

;05 to HW- Qr" V0U'\re had substantial reduction in thp, House ~p M('tv1'-U'lRTER: Severa 1 states have nut a set number
"'VPrl in thE" last century and still stick to ito Some of them I! put a maximum. a few put a minimum. More put a maximum.
Several nave even put a set number even in the last centure and

i.!

MR. CLARKE: Well of course, we need to remember too

j:': ': t~b;e Unttee.-' States Constitution has a set number for both the

Rouse and the Senate.
1 -,
('H~TRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well it specifies a number for

{he Be"'-Ia1:e hut it leaves it up to the Congress to determine

t:he F>iz ... 'f the House. You see, on that, so --

r..rQ. (T,,nRKE: It I S set at 435.

i t -i'1S+- .c: ; mn 1" -- and of course, membership in the House has variA~ ~a~ ~~ 4 1 5 in 1920 and I guess the Congr~sBi~"?l Reapportin1"\ment Act of 1929 said it was permanent, but up until that t:im'i"-. i t ",r~s changed. It went to 437 \\1hen Alaska and Ha\'laii.

9
I' carne in and then it dropped back down to 435 after that.

But it coe~ leave it up to both houses. You had that deadlock

in 1920 when the House wanted to raise it to 470, the Senate

did not go along. They deadlocked and as a result, no

reapportionment occurred at that time, and that, of course,

prompted the enactment of the Congressional Reapportionment

Act of 1929, which provides for an automatic system of re-

apportionment which set a so-called permanent number of the

House at 435.

i\'
c"
?
11 Doctor?

MR. MCWHORTER: But that's statutory, isn't it,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: So that's statutory. The present

i number is statutory, and, of course, that can be changed, but

under the Constitution, both houses do have the authority.

But this is a matter which I think -- for us to
.'j
1(; :~ consider at this time, whether or not we want to specify the [J actual number, make it Constitutional, thereby not changing it

by statute, or whether you want to leave a range or whether

you simply want to specify a maximum. These seem to be our

three choices.

MR. HILL: Mr. Speaker, would you also feel that

should be done with the Senate as well, or not?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't have an awful lot of
,1
experience in the Senate. I know very little about that. I

would frankly think that both bodies, in my personal opinion,

,\ ( , 10

should be fixed at a number of Senators and a number of House

members that can serve and there could never be any conflict

between the two bodi.es introducing bills to reduce this one

increase that one. Just put. it in the Const.itution where it I,c".,

fixed and everybody knows what it is.

What do you think; Jim?

SENATOR TYSINGER: I see no conflict there. except.

! would lean toward what Hamilton said, just set a maximum and

then -- it's going to take both bodies to make a change, but

]lI it would reduce -- you're right, it will reduce conflict.

iI

SPEAKER MURPHY: It will reduce conflict and it will

,~

reduce discussion every time we have a reapportionment.

SENATOR TYSINGER: But in candor, I just think that

there will be a number of Senators who will want to introduce

legislation, as I said before, that for them to support this

)

1(,

co Z
o

t heX'e

would

have

to

be

some

flexib~. l~.ty.

That's getting it

I J ~ through the Senate I think this time.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The Lieutenant Governor has just III arrived. Let me bring him up to date.

We are considering the issue of the size and we

have identified several alternatives: One, you can specify

and fix the size of either or both houses in the Constitution,

thereby not leaving it up to statutory determination. You

could specify a minimum and maximum for either one or both of

the houses, or two, you can specify a maximum. Three, I mean.

11

So these are the three alternatives that have been broached

concerning the size at this time, and so the subcommittee

simply put this in -- or rather Mel and I simply put this in

this draft just simply as a point of departure for discussion.

I have indicated my own personal feeling that I see

I no problem in size, as far as that's concerned.

SPEAKER MURPHY: What I said, Governor, is when this

thing gets to the floor of the House of Representatives, I

intend to push as hard as I can that the Constitution fix the
10
size of the House at 180 members period. Where there can't be l.'
7
1'
II I,~.- any conflict, where your folks couldn't introduce something to
r~"
I think it ought to be the same on us

where we couldn't do nothing to just embarrass each other.

i l ,'w
f-

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think there is one item that

we need to consider too, and that is, of course, the prospect
,:tl
for further growth in population of the State of Georgia, and

the necessity I think for having an adequate size, adequate

membership in both houses to adequately represent the State,
,.
I'
the people of the State. I don't know that this necessarily
.21 I
bears on this, but I think it is something we might keep in

mind. I have no population projections, but the ones that I

have seen indicate significant growth.

MR. MCWHORTER: We're the fourteenth or fifteenth

largest state, the House is the fourth largest House and the

Senate is the fourth largest, about the same.

12
L'r. GOVERNOR MILLER: I'm not inclined to be for any

reduction in the size of either house.

CHAIRMAN PARTHENOS: Then the question I think then

t is, should we fix t,he number or should we fix a max~IClum or a

minimum. We can make a tentative decision. Our t"!ope is t.hat

whatever we do here and before we submit our report to the

full committee, we 1 11 meditate, we'll reflect on what we have

done, and come back and consider it once again, whatever we do.

So at this particular time, the Chair will entertain

JC a~y motion concerning this.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I move that the size of the Senate

" ~e fixed at 56 and the size of the House be fixed at 180.

('~~ F;>

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I second it.

14 ,,..

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion has been made that

<h

1:

15 ~the size of the Senate be fixed in the Constitution at 56 and

"':":>
Il' r~:o the size of the House at 180. The motion has been seconded.

oz

17 ~ Is tnere any further discussion? Is there any further

discussion of the motion?

(No response.)

20

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are you ready for the question?

As many as are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the motion

13

[1 is carried. So Mel, I hope that you will take note of that
i:
2 now, that's the decision of the committee.

,

Yes, sir.

-t

SENATOR TYSINGER: We do not address ourselves in

~ this and perhaps in some other area to the question that these

6 districts shall be equal in size. That's required I think by

I Federal law now.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Right.

(j

SENATOR TYSINGER: In other Constitutions that we were

10 given as examples, they do make that comment.

! l 1r:.:.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right. Some of them

('>

c_

w

r.r: specify that the districts be composed of compact, contiguous

territory of equal population, or something of this nature. So

jl ;: that is -- that can be fixed in the Constitution, it can be
';f
r
l~ Co fixed by statute, it can be whatever you want. In some \'1 it'
instances it is specified in the Constitution and in other
o
<1
~ instances it is put in by statute. But I think it is a point

well taken at this time.

Yes, sir, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I would say that this document

should be as brief and to the point as it can; due to the fact

that the Federal Government and the Federal Courts have

already taken care of that part of it, I don't really think we

need to be encumbered with any additional language. We need to

keep it just as brief as we can.

~.\, 14

CHAI~lliN PARTHEMOS: I think that is true. The

standards of fair districting have been established by the

Courts. You really have no --

MR. CLARKE: George, you've got the phrase ~n

Paragraph II, "ay necessaryh, which

(,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That takes care of that. That'

why we changed ~t that way, because that takes care of any

., legal point.

'j

SENA'l'OR TYSINGER: That's in the present Constitution.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I would also say, Doctor, that as

II J:ar as the House is concerned, "The members shall be elected

:' ,) from single-member districts. II We now have in excess of fifty

,~Yl:l~"

,_

\~ltj) );~_..!'''.- ,'j multi-member districts and I did not favor, even though I ha've

'<::=:.~~~/;'

had an awful lot of fun with my good friend Bill Lee down in

]S '0 Clayton, I do not favor cutting up counties any more than we
,.e
: i ' have to. There in Clayton County, they have four districts,

1) e t,hez:'e I s three of them live in about five blocks of each other,

and I just cannot personally support a provision in the 1'-1 Constitution requiring single member districts. I think it has

~o be th~t way in your body, Senator, but I just cannot SUppOL

,.
t

that as far as the House is concerned

CHAI~~ PARTHEMOS: You mean the point of having

House menl1j(~rs elected from single member districts?

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, sir, I cannot support that.

'<

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I think the Court is going to

1'.\(;1-: 15

take care of that though, one way or the other.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is what I was wondering.

SPEAKER MURPHY: They allowed us to do it last time,

4 Governor, provided that it was fairly done. For instance, I

can understand -- I could understand not cutting Clayton

County up but it's a little difficult for me to understand

three like Louie and Billy and Charlie in that thing that's

~ nearly as big as a Congressional District up there. That's

a little difficult for me to understand, but sometimes when

lU you've got the situation we've got in the House, you nearly

11 ~ bout got to go to multi-member districts to come out with a
n
;' <i fair and equal reapportionment. Cobb County is in one heck of
/~~::I\}(J",
;' ((LJ; )r"""'" " a mess. As you know, they've got part of Paulding County
'",-_.. _//,.'/
:) ~~ with three members in it and then they've got some countywide ,
;', ;~ in Cobb County. Sometimes it's just not that easy to
,.
reapportion unless you have that flexibility.

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, Frank.

1!

MR. EDWARDS: Mel might have somebody looking at that.

I've got two young men in my office looking at that same

amendment, going back and checking all the cases. My

recollection is -- I frankly haven't looked at them in a good

while, hadn't thought of the latest case -- my recollection is

that I don't believe we have a Supreme Court decision that

says you have to do it, but I think we've got a definite thing

16 ! ' ~ '. \ , i ~~O~ ~h ~~str~ct Court that they're going to require it if they have anything to do with it. I'm not positive, but. :m any evex.. i:., what.: I wanted to say is we're looking ial.-o it <..o.nQ ~o.~~g l.c.::.c,.u.ch as to where the law presently stanJ;; .... ,;;, i;;;ch-'l~ c- .. , the Disc:cicts. tou might have had somebody look 0.":' \....6 ... 1.1 already, i1.ei., l'm not sure.

il/iR. ElJWARDS: Within a week or two we'11 1Lvpcf'u.11i

have enough ~mere we can give something to you.

10

MR. HILL: The problem with changing -- as soon as

II you (mange any of the election requirements, then the Justice
n
) ., Depa:ctment has to approve them and if~~eytre going to hold it

hostage fm:." s~ngle member districts -- is this something that

we can determine, you know, before we submit this to the

MR. EDWARDS: I'm not sure, it depends on who is
II, ~ :z halldling the stuff in the Justice Department, that has a lot
c,;
<
17 ? to do w.1th ~t, personalities up there.

S~EAKER MURPHY: We have been able to get approval

on om~ change in advance. I would not agree to let it come 2U up un:ti 1 they got an approval from the Justice Department

'1 they did approve the one change that was made, in advance,

:I.:': ;;''l.. wa~ maae, they would approve i t .

M~. HI~L: But this isn't a change, that might be a

way out of it, this isn't a change exactly.

SPEAKER MURPHY: This what we're doing here would be

PACE 17
a drastic change from the way out Constitution reads now. MR. HILL: This would be, but to leave it as is would
3 not be. SENATOR TYSINGER: Well, can we just hold that in
abeyance until -CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We can defer any action on that
or again, the Chair will entertain any motion. It seems that the two choices would be to specifically provide for single member districts or leave it as it is, in which case it would read, I gather, "The House of Representatives shall consist
S ii of 180 (I would suggest) Representatives apportioned among
(1 C,;.
,~representative districts of the state." SPEAKER MURPHY: I couldn't beat that. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It would seem to me that those
" are your two choices with respect to the composition of the
I" ? House, and so, as I say the Chair will entertain a motion to
~ change it or simply to defer action on it until we have some report on the legal questions involved. SPEAKER MURPHY: I move that we adopt the language
-'q that you just proposed as far as the House is concerned. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You heard the motion. Is the
motion seconded? MR. ELLARD: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Now is
there any further discussion of the motion? You understand the

II" '
L . \. l. i

18

motion th"'m is to change this draft so as to read: "The

Hou~e of Representatives shall consist of 180 Representatives

anocr.ti(':\,,d a1"'ong representative districts of the state."

SENATOR TYSINGER: Will this be reopened in case

there i,e something that Frank's group finds that. wouldn't

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I would think that at any time

before this committee submits its report that we can reopen

''U1 V - 10

MR. CLARKE: The motion that Torn made certainly

J I "would not rule out or preclude single member districts, it would not require it. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right. It wouldn't fix

them in the Constitution.

<t
I
15.,
.I.,.'J.

MR. CLARKE: So if the Justice Department did require

':)

1(,

~ o

it!

you'd

have

no

trouble

living

with

it.

,

.C
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It simply does not fix it in the

l'i Constitution and it could be fixed by statute, specified in

statute subsequent to this, as far as that goes. So it
If)
dOeF!'I 1 +- ,...J.le out single member districts.
)1
Yes. Frank?

MR. EDWARDS: What was your language?

.,.

, '

CBAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think I said "The House of

Representatives shall consist of 180 Representatives apportioned

among representative districts of the state."

That would simply delete that section.

19 --,,

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think what that would do,

3 Senator, is the General Assembly could then make it multi-

member or single member as they want to.
I'
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: They could either do it in a

districting act or they could simply specify in an act that

there shall be single member

SPEAKER MURPHY: I anticipate, Senator, at least 45

,j
hours of fillibuster --

1(1

SENATOR TYSINGER: I think you're being a little

L
II '; conservative there. (">

1~) :~

SPEAKER MURPHY: And I really don't want to fact that

j'\'"\ ..-\,?'YfJ-1
/>-r"-

"

r---- \I.'\(~-,

,i )j

(1ItTlf ')

:~; with

a

great

deal

of

anticipation.

\ '""~"..._-,-_-.-~-~~./_,/,///1I ;
ii

MR. HILL: This was moved by the Speaker and seconded

i,e ';, by Mr. Ellard.

~-:)
1h cr

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

You have the motion.

Is there

"any further discussion?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are you ready for the question?

.,,(j As many as are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

,:.1

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.
),
(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the motion

is carried.

MR. MCWHORTER: That makes us have to go back to the

Senate one now to try to conform the language, doesn't it?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: No, not necessarily, because

you're really providing for -- unless you want to change, of

course

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I think the language ought to

7 I be the same for both houses.

('

MR. MCWHORTER: Maybe the same, but I don't know if

I) you want to -- maybe that apportion part of it, I don't know if

10 you want to leave it the same in there or not.

,

II

,"
-,

SENATOR TYSINGER: I'd be in favor of leaving it in

n

(~~\)r~''!.'" [~talking ,~:9-YlJ..d
\ '--~/

. .":there because we're having multi-member Senate districts, you're about one tremendous territory.

'--.

14

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I agree.

J5 ,)

MR. MCWHORTER: Oh, I agree with it, but I was just

j" ~talking about the language. I agree with it.

I

J) "

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think really you've got the

IE two -- I don1t see any necessity for conformity.

J9

MR. MCWHORTER: What about the word "apportionment",

20 you'd have to conform, that's all I was talking about.

--",

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We take up the matter, the

question of apportionment in a separate paragraph and maybe we

can look at it.

2i

Well, gentlemen, is there anything further to consider

in (a) and (b)?

PACE 21

SENATOR TYSINGER: In other words, you're saying up

- i there, lIapportioned by the General Assembly."
,I
MR. MCWHORTER: I don't mean get into the next one, but

-4 ! conform it to apportion among the population so that it's the

same wording although you don't change single in one of them.

I don't have any strong feelings about that.

SPEAKER MURPHY: May I ask a question, Doctor?

."

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, sir.

SPEAKER MURPHY: There has never been a multi-member

IU Senate District has there?

"z

!! t

MR. MCWHORTER: Not in the last three or four

o

o

,~~~\1t.1'\'

I - :~<. Constitutions.
l;.

(~(~..;.:.J)\-"''-'''' ;~

SPEAKER MURPHY:

\, "'. ~// ;':,.-r

Could there be one?

MR. MCWHORTER: Sure, if you put it in the Constitution

~ there could, yeah.

1'. 1

MR. EDWARDS: You could do it just like the House.

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: The more I think about it, I

don't want the same language, I think we'd better keep the

1'.;
single member districts.

"

"

MR. MCWHORTER: I didn't mean that, I meant the word

"apportioned", I was just referring to "apportioned".

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I agree with you, Zelle

-'

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: You could have them running in

:1 the whole Congressional District that way.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: True. I think there should be

~,' .:\ \

22

'!
! i di~t~nctivn also between the Senate and the House on this.

MR. HILL: So the language will remain the same?

CHAI~V~N PARTHEMOS: Remain the same unless there is

-- ~t there are no further considerations of Paragraphs (a)

and (b), subparagraphs {a} and (b) , let's move to consider:
.' Paragraph II, Apportionment, which if I may read it states
that;

s,

"'I'ne General Assembly shall have the power to

'}

create, (the draft says reorganize, but seems like

III

I thuught maybe rearrange might have been a better

word there, Mel

"The General Assembly shall

o
u

have the power to create, (and if I might suggest)

rearrange and change Senate and House Districts as

it deems necessary and proper. The apportionment

r.

l~,

of the Senate and of the House of Representatives

~} ~;;.
1{l 1
0.,

shall be changed by the General Assembly as

!/ "

necessary after each United States decennial

J!)

census. it

I)

This is, of course, to vest the authority to actually

;[1 draft the districts, to draw the boundaries in the General

2: ASS~(IDly. Would anybody like to comment on that? Mel, would

you h~ve .'- what we do here is we simply consolidate. In the

current Const1tution these things are put in separate sections

'f and I think there is a good bit of unnecessary repetition. So

this simply consolidates the matter of apportionment in one

I '"\ (l''l,' 23
Ii 11 paragraph and thereby reduces somewhat the wording of the

Constitution.

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman?

4

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, Frank?

MR. EDWARDS: Are you going to talk about the language

changes now or just go ahead and get the substantive?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Maybe if we just take the

substantive, because I think that we're going to need to make

u some little editorial and language changes, Frank, once we get

/,~:'}YIt<r

](J our basic decisions made.

"7

I: ;: [::.

SENATOR TYSINGER: I go back to this question about

"

-

I. :;! the language on the districts. In the last reapportionment,

~'l~_)/\-"''''''' :~ there was some very vindictive action taken on the part of the
--~~_>i
I,' F; Senate. Some of the Senate Districts would not meet the test "J:
l- :'~ of contiguous and compact and it was done specifically, and I

i'1

(;",
i,would

like

to,

if we

could draft

some

language

that would

avoid

'"'
o

that

in

the

future.

I'

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: In other words, Senator -- let

i"J me see if I understand. You would like to put standards of

districting such as --

"_ J

SENATOR TYSINGER: Yes, sir. Anything that we can do

to avoid what we went through

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Contiguity, compactness and equal .:.} population. I think these are the three basic standards. I

think they can be placed here in Paragraph II and you thereby

24

fix them in the Constitution.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Why should that not be by statute

though?

,:1

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It could be done by statute.

s

SPEAKER MURPHY: If we're really, sincerely trying to

() keep our basic document down.

SENATOR TYSINGER: I agree with the simplicity. We

did have that problem and I am speaking as an individual, in

'70, and it was done in a very vindictive manner.

]1.1

MR. MCWHORTER: I'd like to say this. If it could be

: done by statute, and it certainly can, in the same act in which )

1 -~
r../(~.~,;;6?i~Y)J~-.~:."}5f!'~".""

~"' you
,.

did

it, you could repeal that statute. SPEAKER MURPHY: Well on the other

hand,

Doctor,

you

\"~~~;~-,,,/!

i4 need some sort of latitude. Of course, I hope we can change it

"I ," ;~ in the House this year on these Congressional districts and 16 ~'0 things. You remember what we did in the Seventh District to

1"7 ';C allow Torn Mitchell to continue to serve as a Highway Board

member. We've got the tail of a dog up in there to get him.

19 And if we do this in these districts, we ought to do that with

the rest too and we're liable to cut a lot of folks out of .? l office. Now if that's what you want to do, it suits me, but

I think you ought to be aware of what you're fixing to get into.

)"

~j

SENATOR TYSINGER: There's always problems with that

.>+ question. You raise a valid point to take care of some, but I

J, just personally

we can do it by statute if that will hold up,

25

but I just -- we did have one dickens of a problem that caused

a lot of bitterness.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I didn't remember it, I --

SENATOR TYSINGER: I'm talking about from the Senate

side.

')

MR. MCWHORTER: The statute is not going to hold up

to give clout to do that, you need to repeal the statute at
" 1 the same time.
l;
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Change the statute. The statute ill doesn't make it as permanent as the Constitution, that's
,,
ji ~ certain, of course, but here again, it's a point well taken.

If I might suggest

SENATOR TYSINGER: Well I'd like to hold that in It ~ abeyance and maybe we can look into it a little bit more, maybe

o how others have done it and maybe come up with a suggestion
.'
1/: J.
?o:, of some other kind.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Some Constitutions do contain it.

Ix

SPEAKER MURPHY: What is your suggested language?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I was going to suggest that
-'I';
~nd this is just right off the top of my head -- if such a

provision be included, it be inserted in Paragraph II so as

to read:

"The General Assembly shall have the power to

create, rearrange and change Senate and House

Districts as it deems necessary and proper, except

26

that all Districts shall be composed of compact

and contiguous territory and of substantially

" 'i

equal population "

<

Or something to that effect, you would put it right

there. You would just in a matter of another clause or phrase,

state it right there. Something to that effect. We could

polish the language just a little bit. In other words, this

would limit the power of the General Assembly in establishing

(\ these districts, that they must be composed of compact, contig-
10 uous ~- districts must be compact and contiguous and of nearly
l."j
11 Cas equal population as possible, or substantially equal popula:1

MR. MCWHORTER: If we did that, we couldn't have

;:another Parker's stand then, could we?
" .1;

15 .)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: In other words, I think that

II, {iwould be the shortest, simplest way to put it into that.

z

'I

[7 "

SENATOR TYSINGER: Could we just hold that and come

18!back with maybe some suggested language? I'd like to look into

that one point a little bit more.

20

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let me ask you this. When Mel

and I meet again tomorrow morning to prepare a draft for our

consideration next week, may we bring some suggested alterna-

tive language?

MR. MCWHORTER: Those words are in lots of other

Constitutions.

L\GE 27
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Sir? MR. MCWHORTER: Those words are in numerous 1 Constitutions. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, they are. As I say -MR. MCWHORTER: Compact and contiguous. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: They are in a number of state constitutions. At one time they were incorporated in Federal x legislation and made applicable to Congressional Districts. I think the Congressional Reapportionment Act of 1842 had the requirement of compactness and contiguity and so it has
\,':'
z
11 ~ they were left out in a later Reapportionment Act. MR. EDWARDS: You might have a Federal law on reapportionment before we get around to that. MR. MCWHORTER: Sure might. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: But right now, I don't believe
..,
If> 2that it does apply in terms of the characteristic of compactness. Q Shall we then defer any decision on that then?
1'',.-' Apparently the consensus is that we defer any dedSion on 1') : including any provision concerning standards of districting in ':;0 the Constitution. In which case, we would simply defer then --
would it be the proper thing to defer any motion on Paragraph II, that we will return to it, or shall we just maybe make a " tentative
SPEAKER MURPHY: Wouldn't it be better to adopt it -CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Adopt it as is, subject to

1':\(

28

"Ii
i Senator Tysinger's right to come back and make suggested

changes.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Do you so move, Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I so move.

SENATOR TYSINGER: I second it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You heard the motion. Is the

7 motion seconded?

SENATOR TYSINGER: I'll second it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Any

10 further discussion?

(No response.)

i)

w

12 3

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are you ready for the question?

(~)r"""" ~ ~/

As many as are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

14

(Ayes. )

o(
r
] 5 ,~
t?
'"
16 ~
'G"

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no. (No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the

IS motion is carried.

19

SPEAKER MURPHY: Before we leave that, Doctor, I'd

20 like to tell Senator Tysinger I really have no objectbn to that.

21 The question in my mind is whether we ought to debate as to

whether or not we want to put it in the Constitution or whether

we want to try to do it by statute. That's simply the question

24 I in my mind.

2'\

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, sir. We' 11 turn now to

PACE 29

Paragraph III. Mel, does this incorporate any change other

2 than the blanks, from the current provision?

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, uh-huh.

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: You're making both houses the

() same.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes. As far as this --

.'<

SENATOR TYSINGER: This question of days down here

is what I have circled. That now says they have to be within ]11 the district for at least a year, doesn't it?

11 '
'o"

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Right.

n

'"

SENATOR TYSINGER: I see nothing wrong with that

,..

MR. HILL: Well this, now I would say that this

"(

L' ;~ language came from the 1970 proposed Constitution that passed

:~)

I, '

,~)

z
Q

t

h

e

House

at

that

time,

and they had had a ninety day require-

<:(
1- 'r"oment, and that's where that came from.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well first of all to try to
'(I
~imaybe put this thing in proper perspective. This paragraph 20 simply then presumes the same qualifications for members of 2J both houses and then it leaves those qualifications up now to

be determined -- a recommendation on those qualifications by

this subcommittee.

So I think the first decision that this paragraph

raises is, should there be the same qualifications for membership

30

in both houses.

Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I make a motion

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, sir.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I move that we fill in the first

blank, "shall be at least 21 years of age, shall have been

citizens of this State for at least two years . " and been

"a resident of the territory . within the district . for one

') i year."

10

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You heard the motion that the

l.'
Z
II ~ blanks regarding qualifications in Paragraph III read: o 0...

@\ "12 :
(~~d))! cum.,. ~

14 )_

'~
c~
15 .:..,t,

0:

::>

16

r.o Z

0

..... sha11 be at least 21 years of age, shall have been citizens of this State for at least two years, and shall have been residents of the territory embraced within the district from which elected for at least one year."

col
17 ci

Is the motion seconded?

18 ji

MR. ELLARD: Yes, sir.

19

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Now is

20 there any discussion on the motion?

21

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if I have

)1
any strong feelings but some twelve or fourteen states have it
,'
the same r some of them no age limit, some 21, some 26. Most 24 states though have it 21 and 25, at least thirty odd do. So

I think the question presents itself whether it should be a

31

distinction or not.

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I don't have any strong feelings

on it either. I think I am inclined that they should both be

4 the same. The only question that I might raise -- philosophi-

cally, I think that if a person is a voter in this State and he

t) can get elected -- and if he can get elected -- that he might

ought to be able to serve, if he can get elected. I don't

, think you're going to have many 18 and 19 year olds elected.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Some have reduced in their

1(1 Constitution the thing to 18.

I; 4',
1 I ,--
"0
n

MR. CLARKE: I want to raise the age to 40.

1~' u

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I just have a little bit of a

(~~'~Y~.:!:)(d') (~~!!!..o ~ problem there. Like I say, no big problem, I can easily vote

\;:::::::_<

It ,_I for this, but if a person is 18 and can vote, and he's got

)') ,; sense enough to vote for somebody, then -- but he I s got to wait <?
1() ~ till he's 21 to be able to serve. D CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This does move a step in that

j, I direction in that it --

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I'm not for having the Senate

25 and the House 21. I think we ought to have them equal.

:I

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'll vote for the Senate either way

1) you want it on the age on that, except I don't want them under

21 in the House, if there's any way we can keep from it.

~ -,,

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: Well they just aren~ going to

be elected, not many of them.

:',\Ci: 32

MR. MCWHORTER; That gets into the philosophy, are we going to change the age on the Governor and Lieutenant I Governor and all those people.
SPEAKER MURPHY; I base my decision on that, Mr.

) McWhorter, on myself when I was 18, 19, 20. I would not want () me in the House of Representatives when I was that age.

l:

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: Well how about L. E. Adams

R when he was 21.

'I

MR. CLARKE: I just mentioned L.E. to the Clerk.

10

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I don't have any strong

"z

11 ~~ feelings on it.

..o
r ,

!") ;::.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

I rather like this myself, I

~ think it is a step, you're reducing 25 to 21 in the Senate and

SPEAKER MURPHY: I will say this though, Doctor,

15 :~ that if somebody submits this issue to the United States Courts

J() :o3 on th~ 18 year old, we may very well be in a heap of trouble,
";7
<l
17 ~ we may very well be in a heap of trouble.

Ix

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I just think the electorate,

19 the voters of the State, would probably take care of it, as far

20 if they would elect an 18 year old or not.

21

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You're basically leaving it up

to the electorate to set the --
, :;
LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: Hamilton is wanting to push

it up instead of down, I know what he's -MR. MCWHORTER: No, I've got mixed emotions as to 21

IIITIi and 25, I really do.

P\(;E 33
I don't have any strong feelings.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I was in that same shape, Doctor,

3 when we voted for the 21 year old to 18 year old majority.

4 The present Governor of Georgia and I sat side by side and

listened to that three or four hour debate. He asked me how I

was going to vote, I said I don't know, I really and truly, for

once in my life, want somebody to convince me one way or the

other. When we got through and -- we sat side by side for

() ! nearly four hours -- and he asked me how I was going to vote, I

10 said I was going to vote against it and he said I am too and

t?

Z

II ~~ he asked me why. I said you tell me why first and he said no,

o

'C

,0

(\,~~,-'19.V-E~.lj.:.I/.)~0)~.r)-"-'!~~: "->~~"-I ybuotu

tell me. And I told -- you know, I spent

him, which is my 19,20 and

neither here nor there, 21st birthdays in the

~._---- )4 ~ south Pacific in World War II and when they sent me back to

<l I
IS ~Hawaii, I couldn't even buy beer in town, but folks could shoot
:'")
1() ~~:') at me, you know. But I still think 21 is the proper age, so

-~
I' 3 I 'm going to stick to my motion.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is there any further question on

! ') : the motion? You understand the motion. Are you ready for the

2P question?

21

As many as are in favor of the motion, signify by

saying aye.

(Ayes.)

,-

. -t

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion has it and is

; passed. Paragraph III.

MR. MCWHORTER: May I ask one question please?

4

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, sir.

MR. MCWHORTER: Frank, we always put in there II c itizen

(, of the United States II, is that necessary, you have to be a

citizen of the United States before you can be a citizen of

k Georgia?

<.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think that's pretty standard.

10

MR. MCWHORTER: I know it's in lots of them.

'...~
l.
II i

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think it ought to be in there

~although we have dual citizenship, a person can't be a citizen

i
~of a state without being a citizen of the United States.
~

r

Okay. Paragraph IV deals with the question of

t;:,

~
:.c

15 ~eligibility, which is --

t-')

16 z. w Crl

MR. HILL: Presently in Section V.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Presently in Section V. We

IX ithought that it might logically, since it relates more closely

to the question of qualifications for membership, we thought

that it might more logically fit at this particular point in

2j the Constitution than where it was in Paragraph VII

SENATOR TYSINGER: Is the language the same?

MR. HILL: Essentially.

2-1

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

in Section V. It's essentially

the same language, is it not, Mel?

MR. HILL: Yes, uh-huh.

MR. MCWHORTER: I'd like to raise a question, Mr.

Chai~man, about maybe rewording it or looking at it very

4 carefully because what about Reserve Officers and so forth.

, We have some problems arise now on that, don't we Frank?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let's look exactly. The

present reading, the present says:

"NO person holding a military commissbn, or

C)

other appointment, or office, having any emolument,

j()

or compensation aftnexed thereto, under this State,

or the United States . "

This specifies:

"No person on active duty with any branch of

.- ! 4 :_
])
~-."
-,...:~
Ii ~
u,,
1" ,",

the Armed Forces ... and no person holding any civil appointment or office having any emolument or compensation ... except members of the National Guard or Reserve shall have a seat in either

Ii'

house."

1.'j

SENATOR TYSINGER: Just a question, but a lot of

,'i those orders I know when they are cut say "temporary active

duty" as opposed to active duty.

MR. MCWHORTER: It's active duty.

SENATOR TYSINGER: The language could be -- as it is
.., , now, if you went on two weeks active duty, you'd just have to be

\ ,:[ 36

MR. EDWARDS: I think this came from the 1970 thing,

-' 'i didn't it, Mel? I don't recall why that was changed -- I have

no recollection of it.

-+

MR. MCWHORTER: We're talking about something that

could incriminate a member too.

6

SENATOR TYSINGER: If you use the words "on permanent

active duty", it might answer that question there, because --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right.

()

MR. MCWHORTER: Or exempt reserve, or something like

10 that.

c:

z

11 ~;

SENATOR TYSINGER: When you go on temporary active

c

,o.

~duty, you're classified reserve, but I think you lose the

it's called TDY, if I remember, temporary duty.

:~ And so "permanent active duty" could answer that language.
<
T
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Or you might could put it -- I

1() n~:: think that's right. You might possibly put it there in the

~

17

""
"Cf 'exception clause,

"except members

of

the National

Guard or

IS '. Reserve Armed Forces "

19

MR. MCWHORTER: We get into another point, the honesty

20 in government law, whether he's committing a crime when he

2J : takes it under that. The question is whether you want to pay

22 i them. Do you want to pay them twice or not? We've got some

23 other statutes on the books that would incriminate them.

24

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'm not so sure we shouldn't go further

2~ than that, any person holding a county or city office should be

PAGE 37

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: You make the motion, I'll

_' ! second it.

MR. MCWHORTER: He said city or county

MR. EDWARDS: We've got a statute --

h ',

SPEAKER MURPHY: That would eliminate me because I'm

a county attorney.

MR. EDWARDS: I don't have any suggestions for this

~ 11 language. This has always been a troublesome section for us

10 but I don't have any specific suggestion. I think we ought to

"z
11 ~take a long look at this thing. o "-

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think Senator Tysinger, I

(/~~~~"1~~\~,,,._n

~
,,-
S:don't

know

if

a

word

like

"permanent"

or

"regular

active

duty"

..'

1-~ ,'>."-,_

MR. CLARKE: George, I sort of prefer the idea that

1
\) ~you mentioned about having an exception because it's a lot

":;)
]6 ~easier to define temporary than it is to define permanent. -o,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right. I would simply

perhaps take care of it with an appropriate and as

19 direct exception clause, excepting people --

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Chairman, is it the will of the

committee that you be paid twice for the same time? For

instance, if you're on -- you'd be paid for being a member of

the General Assembly and also while you're on Reserve duty or
I
-.. National Guard duty.

SENATOR TYSINGER: It'd be hard to define that thing.

38

MR. MCWHORTER: Well, we've got an act, if you're

2 paid under National Guard or Reserve, no problem. Reserve is

3 Federal funds, National Guard is both, is it not? I'm not

4 sure.

VOICE: A percentage is Federal funds.

MR. MCWHORTER: Most of the money comes from Uncle

7 Sam though.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yeah.

9 ,i

MR. MCWHORTER: And paid by the State. So he'd be

10 guilty of a crime right there still under the '59 Act, wouldn't

"7.
II ~they, Frank? This thing needs a lot of clarification. o [ ...

(O\~~ ~ ~jors, 12 ,:

SPEAKER MURPHY We've got lots of members of the

~J;;

'~. House who are Captains,

Colonels in the National Guard.

~.

14 ~I don't know who pays their salaries. My wife wouldn't even

.(

I
I ~ ;:let me join inactive reserve when I got out of the Navy.

c.

~)

If) ~ wo

MR. EDWARDS: We should get Virlyn on this. He's

.~

17 g":;a big National Guard -- Reserve man.

18
'i

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: In other words, we're going to

i

19 then, as I gather -- the general feeling is that we need to

20 : take care of that exception, members of the National Guard or 21 Reserve who are on temporary active duty. Shall perhaps we

maybe bring back at our next meeting some suggested exceptions
,-
'clause on that to include that, and not try to resolve it right

.;-1

'
I

h

e

r

e

.?

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: Yes.

PAGE 39

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay, so that we may move on.

The second sentence there says, "No Senator or

Representative shall be elected by the General Assembly or

appointed by the Governor to any office or appointment having

5 any emolument annexed thereto, during the time for which such

[ person shall have been elected, unless the Senator or

Representative shall first resign the seat to which elected;

but during the term for which elected, no Senator or Representa-

9 ! tive shall be appointed to any civil office which is created

III during such term."

';J

Z

Ii,

That's essentially the wording of the present

17 ;~ Constitution,

,.::.,'20YljA

~

- \ '- 'bJ) / /~
II '---,

,,~~1\\I

r-~'---- ('UllIfllt,""

l~'

MR.

is it HILL:

not, Mel? Yes.

'.~:-_...--..~;.//
.,

]i ,
v,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

Do you see any problem with that?

is 0

MR. EDWARDS: I suppose you need something like that.

'""
._ rc 1 t' L
w Co

SPEAKER MURPHY: Why?

MR. EDWARDS: Here again, it always raises problems,

what is civil office, what is emolument, full time, part time. JI That's the reason I say we ought to take a hard look at this

whole paragraph.

MR. MCWHORTER: Whole paragraph.

MR. EDWARDS: Well of course, we can always come back

to it, but instead of trying to solve all these problems

this morning on this paragraph.

MR. MCWHORTER: It's rough.

!i
MR. EDWARDS: This has been troublesome ever since

I've been here.

MR. MCWHORTER: Some states say "substantial

I emolument". I don't know what substantially is either.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't see why you haven't straigh-

I, tened it out in the 25 years you've been here.

MR. EDWARDS: You wouldn't pass it for me.

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's a good answer, I'll accept

'J ,that.

10

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You've got two basic disqualifi-

11 8oations here and we're considering the second one now. I
0'
~think the question is, do we retain it or do we change it. Is
c
.':...,.) that not right?
SENATOR TYSINGER: I think Frank brought up a point,

15 ~why don't we defer this whole paragraph until next time and

'.?
'".Cl

11> ~~ let various members look at it in more detail.

C\
,7

17 ;

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: All right. Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Why don't we defer Paragraph IV

1'1 in its entirety until the next meeting and all of us bring

>1 . back any suggested language that we would recommend for that

!i paragraph.

))

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is this agreeable with everyone

then that we defer and that we give it thought and return at

),-1 the next meeting with some suggestions?

MR. CLARKE: Seems to me too you ought to bear in

l'.\CE 41

try to bear in mind, what is the reason for it. The

only conceivable reasons I can arrive at in my mind; one is

conflicts of interest and two, have a General

where the people can be present. Somebody on active

duty overseas obviously couldn't be. I don't think you need to

6

going any further than that just for the sheer joy of doing

7 it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I would say under this provision

(, iyou've got now if you had a National Guard unit called into

]0 active duty, those folks are immediately disqualified to serve
cz?
11 Sin the General Assembly. o w.. w MR. CLARKE: It sounds that way, yeah.

SPEAKER MURPHY: We'd lose 15 or 20 good folks.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This clearly is a matter that we
.~
:r
I' :~need to give further thought and reflection on, and so we'll
,"n
1" ~bring it back and have it on the agenda of the next meeting. o ? '<
!' ~So Mel, I hope you will take note of that.

Paragraph V, tiThe members of the Senate and House of

Representatives shall be elected by the qualified electors of
:0 their respective districts for a term of two years. 'f

It separates out -- it moves that paragraph from its

present location in Section V, Paragraph I and the wording is ,, J also changed.

SPEAKER MURPHY: There is a reason, Doctor, for that

language being in there, " . fixed by law for the convening of

42
the General Assembly the next year " There is a reason for it.
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I gathered that there was a reason for it, to specify the term a little bit more precisely, I gather.
SPEAKER MURPHY: It depends on what the term two years really means, don't it Harold?
MR. CLARKE: Yes. SPEAKER MURPHY: I think they ought to continue in office until the first day of the convening of that next regular
'.,;.1
'z.
I don't think that -MR. MCWHORTER: I do too, make it different from -"until your successor is elected and qualified" like the rest :~ of them.
r
MR. EDWARDS: They can't hold over. MR. MCWHORTER: They can't hold over. SPEAKER MURPHY: I tell you another reason I say that, Doctor. There is going to be a lot of discussion. I'm sure [9 . the Lieutenant Governor has heard what I'm fixing to say, about 20 the General Assembly actually taking office December first and 'I going till December the next year where they could get on the budget, you know, a month in advance, to go, when the General
,I '
Assembly convenes in January to have a month -- you follow what I'm talking about?
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, sir.

PAGE 43

SPEAKER MURPHY: There's going to be some discussion

of that. It has been submitted to me and I didn't like it to

, start with but the more I think about it, the better I like it.

4 I hate to admit that to you, Frank, but the more I think about

it, the more I do like it. MR. EDWARDS: Ham brought that up at the last meeting

I believe, didn't you, Ham?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well I wasn't going to say it come

q from the Senate, I was going to try to give you credit for it

JU but if it has to go there, I guess I'll have to do it.

11 ~

o

a.

w

1.2
(/~/\'.~9-b'-{J"~"d\'\1),(..n,~.":

a:.
'~!.
z:~

~ t



MR. MCWHORTER: We'll disclaim it if you'll vote for CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are you suggesting then, Mr.

"'-.:.~ / / /

i

[1 t; Speaker, that we retain the present language which is indicated

<l To
I' ~there in Paragraph I, Section V? I think it logically, perhaps

(;~
~)
16 nn~-: more appropriately goes in the locatbn that we have here, the .,
]' ~ new draft.

i .')

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well what I'm suggesting, I think is

19 that we might ought to say, "The term shall go from December

20 November 30 or December 1, whatever it is, to such a fixed time .. 11

I think that's what I'm suggesting.

MR. MCWHORTER: Could I make a suggestion? We might

want to hold it in abeyance until we get the one on the meetings

and then make them conform.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It sort of relates to the matter

of annual sessions.

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: Let's wait, that's a good

suggestion.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: All right, we'll defer then that

5 and consider it in conjunction with our consideration of

(, sessions of the General Assembly.

Section III, we have designated "Officers of the

General Assembly", and in this draft we tried to simplify the

language, to improve on the present provisions. I think the

J() present Constitution probably contains more concerning the

lJ

5<z.:.J
Office

of

President

Pro

Tempore

of

any

Constitution

I

know of.

~ So we did try to simplify that and to reduce the amount devoted

,-

o7-
to

the

officers.

or,

Also, Paragraph I specifies that the Lieutenant

15 ~~ Governor shall be the President of the Senate, which the
.,C:,
16 ~ present Constitution does not specify in Section IV. It does
z.-.
17 i later on, I think in Article V. So we saw no need for having

it specified in one place and not in the other place and so 19 forth. We thought it would be clearer and more straightibrward

20 and more direct if we simply specified.

21

So it just simply states, "The presiding officer of

the Senate shall be the Lieutenant Governor, who shall be

styled the President of the Senate. A President Pro Tempore

shall be elected by the Senate from among its members. The

President Pro Tempore shall serve as President in the absence

!'i\CE 45

of the President and shall become President in case of the

death, resignation or permanent disability of the President

or whenever the President shall succeed to the executive power.

-I In the event the President Pro Tempore becomes President, the

Senate shall elect a new President Pro Tempore."

Now I gave a lot of thought to that and tried to

simplify it and make it as straightforward and yet cover all

the necessary points, as possible.

<.

Yes, Mr. Speaker?

!Ii

SPEAKER MURPHY: I need to ask the Lieutenant

" Governor a question, if I can. e-

"t~l\r,<C'\ \
:, \(;L.;)))('""o :~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, sir. SPEAKER MURPHY: Somewhere along the line, I believe

t ~ ~: y'all have decided in the Senate that you have no right to
-j
!~ "vote in case of a tie, or something of that nature. Is that

l fJ

,.,I
1",

correct?

T

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER:

That's right.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Can you tell me where y'all came J ') up with that?

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: We had it in the rule and we

just took it out of the rule.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Rules of Procedure.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Don't you think that you, as

President of the Senate, ought to be able to vote in the event

you have 28 on each side, one way or the other?

46

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: One of the reasons that we

took it out is because it was my understanding that since I was

not a member of the Senate, there was serious Constitutional

questions on whether I had the right to vote.

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's the reason I brought it up.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think it's true the Constitution

should have to specify it.

MR. MCWHORTER: I was going to ask another division ') to do that. I think we -- I've got a note -- I think we III strongly ought to give him a right to break a tie. We need to

I! "decide what to let him -- can he make a Constitutional majority?

~~JJ-VJ.t,;, 1,' ~'Most states give him the right to break a tie, but there's
(~:~)r'-~"."~"" ~ a Kentucky case that went to Appellate Court that said where
<:.,</ l~ ~ you've already said it takes a majority of those elected, if
~,

"there's 28 and he makes the majority, I don't there's any

C)
16 ~~ quest~ on it's a violation of the Constitution.

/

, -- <

I

Now Frank might want to address himself to that.

MR. EDWARDS: Well, of course, I think the Lieutenant
!I)
Governor is absolutely right. I don't think the Lieutenant

Governor has ever had any right to vote, break a tie, make

Constitutional majority. Of course, up until, I believe, maybe

-- I don't recall whether George T. --

MR. MCWHORTER: They dropped it one year, last year.

MR. EDWARDS: Up until then they all voted.

MR. MCWHORTER: The reason it was left in the rule book

47

is the President of the Senate, in '45 they left the rule the

2 same when they changed the Lieutenant Governor, they did not

change it until he came into office.

j

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You could easily take care of

that in that provision.

MR. MCWHORTER: I think it should be taken care of

someway.

i'

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: In the sense that you could say

I.) "except in case of a tie vote in the Senate, the Lieutenant

III Governor shall . "

,. , Lz? I
I (~

MR. MCWHORTER:

I think that presents a question.

l' I l: favor what you say, but I think to propound the question, if

Uyou want to go any further than just the tie vote. You see,

<., the tie vote could apply to a bill -- the wording of it is

1" .~ very important.

c;:
"

il,

SPEAKER MURPHY: I have no objection to him having

f-_~

.
u.
. the same vote and rights as the presiding officer of the House

has, and that is, I can vote in case of ties, I can vote in ]9 I order to make a tie in order to defeat a piece of legislation

or -- I've got no objection to that, but I just thought it

should be specified what he can do. He ought not to stand up

there like a knot on a log -- I don't mean to say you do --

I don't think he ought to have to stand up there like a knot on

a log and let his body not make a decision because they're

equally divided.

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I'm inclined to agree with

you, and we did not remove that because we didn't necessarily

want to take that responsibility, it's because of the

4 Constitutionality of it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right.

MR. EDWARDS: I know in the '63 revision, I believe

I wasn't that when Peter Zack Geer was Lieutenant Governor?

MR. MCWHORTER: We did it definitely when that '69

o that never was submitted.

Ju

MR. EDWARDS: I forget exactly, I don't remember

zI.'C
11 (whether we did it to break a tie and to make a majority or just
()

J 2 __ break a tie.

MR. MCWHORTER: Just break a tie. Now you've got to

;.,- be real careful, Frank . Let me propound a question to you.
-<
J) ~We have provisions that say no bill shall pass unless it

10 ;:: receives a majority of all those elected to that body. If Q
<:
17 Syou let him make that constitutional majority, you've got to

go back and change that, is that correct?

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, now you'd have to get the language

20, straight.

21

MR. MCWHORTER: Both places together. So you need to

decide how far you want to go.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't solve problems, Ham, I

just bring them up.

MR. MCWHORTER: You're good on that.

PAGE 49

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The issue then, gentlemen,

seems to be the extent of the voting authority of the Lieutenant

Governor, whether he should vote only in case of a tie or .,,. whether he should vote in cases additional to that. I think

if we would consider that and if the subcommittee would give us

(, some direction, then Mel and I will come back with some

appropriate language for you to consider at our next meeting.

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: Go ahead, Mr. Speaker.

'I

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's what I wanted to know, I want

j U to know your feelings.

!I .j--.":

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I move that this group that's

C

:t.

,:going to try to work on this language come as close as possible

t; to tracking the voting of the presiding officer of the House.
cO
SPEAKER MURPHY: Suits me, I've got no problems

! '" with that.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Second?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Second.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You heard the motion, the motion

)'j is seconded. Is there any further discussion?

Mel, did you get that now so that we can try to _, i come back with some language.

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: And where we'll have to make

some necessary changes if we do this.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right, in two places.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Two places.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'll tell you when it gets fun now,

Zell, is when you get 89 votes for and 88 votes against and

3 you cast that 89th vote against. That's when it's tough to

~ spit it out.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is there any further discussion

6 of the motion?

7

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are you ready for the question?

9 As many as are in favor of -- excuse me, Ham.

]0

MR. MCWHORTER: You're not going to take the whole

lry

]] tZ paragraph?

o

"-

12 '~"

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: No, this is just simply giving

(~ ~~e'~f ~~ c~

~~
'7

instruction

to

go

back

and

include

appropriate

wording

to

14 ,:carry that into effect and we'll report that at our next ~~ <l r
]5 "> meeting.

16 3'''"""

So. Are you ready for the question? As many as are

az

<l
17 ~ln favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

18

(Ayes. )

]9

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

20

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is carried.

Now if we may just consider

MR. EDWARDS:' Mr. Chairman.

24 ,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: J.C., good to see you.

Yes, Frank?

l':\C I~ 51

MR. EDWARDS: Cindy just found this '64 thing.

It says, "The presiding officer of the Senate shall

~ be styled the President of the Senate. The President of the

Senate shall have no vote except (a) when the Senate shall be

~ equally divided on an issue, (b) when only one additional vote

() i shall be required for a Constitutional majority and (c) in

Senate conunittees as prescribed by the Senate rules."

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. Could Mel get a copy of

<} that?

JU

MR. HILL: We have a copy.

2'.
!; !-

MR. MCWHORTER: Now Frank, I don't know if the Senate

('

u rules -- Senate rules might not be necessary now.

SPEAKER MURPHY: The only thing you need to add to

11 that then is he can vote in order to make a tie to defeat an

i'_ issue. That's the only other right I have.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mel, you need to get a copy of

l' ;;", the House Rules, to get the power of the Speaker in this

respect.

MR. EDWARDS: Legally speaking, I don't think the

:1.\ rules would say you couldn't vote on anything.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right.

MR. EDWARDS: From a strictly legal viewpoint. I

know what you're talking about.

MR. MCWHORTER: We had the same provision in the

Senate rules when another Senator is presiding.

52

SPEAKER MURPHY: Now wait a minute, you fellows done

quit legislating and gone to meddling now. Y'all just hush, heah.

MR. EDWARDS: The reason I bring that up is I'm not

sure that you want to give the Lieutenant Governor all the 5 voting power that the presiding officer of the House has.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We've already voted on it.

I'm glad to welcome Mr. Daugherty.

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: I'm sorry to be late, but

q
all hell breaks loose every now and then in my office.

10

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

('

)1 ~ Paragraph I.

We're considering Section III,

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think that you have the draft

II f that we have prepared.

ii

So let's move then, gentlemen, to consider the

I h ~)
a provision concerning the President Pro Tempore. We have tried
"

to simplify that and I'd like to get the reaction also of the

Lieutenant Governor when he returns, on that.

19

SPEAKER MURPHY: You might need to be very careful

2U about your language now, Doctor, when you go to make this

.'J proposed draft because when a member of the Senate is elevated

to the office of President, he is elected by that body and

he would have full voting rights and I don't think you could

take them away from him. It's going to be complicated when you

go to drawing this language.

PAGE 53

MR. MCWHORTER: We've got a provision in our Senate

, rules, but in looking at it, that's real important. I've

j got a question for Frank Edwards.

";

Didn't you have a little brief on when the Speaker --

, elevation to the Speakership from Pro Tern?

MR. EDWARDS: But the point there was we didn't have

the language for the Speaker and Speaker Pro Tern that we had

,") at that time for the President and the President Pro Tern.

()

MR. MCWHORTER: That's the point I'm making here.

JO

MR. EDWARDS: But since then, the part about the

lz?
il ~Speaker Pro Tern has been added, since this all came up.

o
w,

::r.:

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right. But you realize in

Constitution, they're different.

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, that's correct.

'.[

.,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mr. Speaker, would it -- if we

jlJ ~ specify there that in If case of the death, resignation or a
~:.
1"-; ~~; permanent disability of the President or whenever the President

JK shall succeed to the executive power, that the President Pro

'9 Tern shall become acting President." Would that take care --

~\I; that would leave him with his full privileges and perquisites

~j as a Senator. It means that he does not have to relinquish them.

MR. MCWHORTER: I wonder if you don't have to have a

discretion -- have to have a difference when he succeeded due

to resignation or death, assuming the Governorship, and when

he's incapacitated. We've got a statute on that now, haven't we,

Frank? Do you see a difference between when he assumes one

1 of the positions when there is a death or resignation or moving

.~ up from one when he's actually incapacitated? One might be

4 he assumes the office and becomes it, the other would be acting.

MR. EDWARDS: That's -- this present Constitution

on temporary disability just as a matter of information,

7 George, this language that was put in there, you might want to

~ talk to Al Holloway about that. This language was put in there

9 i1 exactly as it is at his direction. I don't know that it's

10 particularly better than anything else proposed but you might

zc:J
II c~want to talk to him about it. I know this is specifically

~~

].: ~ what he wanted.

/~'}JY~\

~

(\~t~('~""'" ~,

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well what's liable to happen to you

..........._-----

1~ ~ if you aren't real careful, you'll have two conflicting

J5 ,0 Constitutional provisions about what the President of the .?
''"J
16 ~Senate could do, even though he's an elected member of the Senate o . <
17 ~when elevated to that position. You could throw in doubt every

piece of legislation that he voted on and open it up to

19 constitutional challenges if you aren't careful.

20

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't think you're bothered too

21 much -- ies a question whether you shouldn't put, when you give

11 I the Lieutenant Governor the right to do certain kinds of votes,

say "the Lieutenant Governor when he's acting as President of

24 \the Senate", and make a discretion from the regular privilege.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Now you're getting to it.

r--- . _.- PAGE 55
2 ::-;::o:::~:::reC:::d:g::n b:::~d:::::t::' Whe:'

3 II we're talking about the L~eutenant Gover~or acting as President

4 I, of the Senate, when there s another Pres~dent of the Senate.
Ii
5 IIIi We could easily have a President of the Senate anytime if he

il
b !i were to step up to executive and so forth
ji

7 ;:1i

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Right.

,I

" Ii

MR. MCWHORTER: Resignation -- maybe a distinction

"
q II right there, when you give him a right to vote when the

10 Lieutenant Governor in his capacity as President, give him that
"z
11 ~ right, rather than just using the word "President", or something1.
e . .1needs to made. o 0. w 12 ~There's several ways you could make the discretion, but it
be

14 ;>-,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Shall we then go back and review

"4:

r

15 ~this in light of this discussion and come back to you with

":'>"

16 '~" some additbnal wording and in the meantime maybe Mel or I can

o

Z

<l

17 ~get in touch with Al Holloway.

18

MR. MCWHORTER: And Frank also.

19

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: And Frank also, yes, on the

20 matter.

21

Then we'll move on then and consider --

22

MR. TIDWELL: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, sir.

24

MR. TIDWELL: May I intrude? We have other Article

committees at work and there's some overlap here on Articles IV

j J . I , /-. ~ ~.' . A, i..'

56

and V. 'They will meet shortly about the Lieutenant Governor

and Governor, and I'm sure that that subcommittee would like to

nave tne sense of this subcommittee on -- is the Lieutenant

1 GoV'ernor a member of the Executive Branch or is he a member

5 of the Legislative Branch or do you want to express that?

h They1re going to have to wrestle with that problem and they'd

like to know how you feelabout it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: He ought to remain a part of the

~ Executive Branch and just give him that particular Constitutional

III right to vote in case of a t,ie. I don't think there's any

~,
z
11 z~ question about that. o :1.. MR. MCWHORTER:

That becomes a real question.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: He's not an elected member of

},+ , the Legislative Branch, it seems to me.

MR. MCWHORTER: That makes a difference in the right
=>
1(J ~ to break a tie and the right to make a Constitutional majority, w z <l
17 g doesn't it?

HI

SENATOR TYSINGER: What happens in the case of the

1'1 Vice President of the United States, can he --

20

MR. MCWHORTER: It's in th~ Constitution, he can break

21 a tie.

SENATOR TYSINGER: Can he break a tie?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, only in case of a tie

..'4

MR. MCWHORTER: In case of a tie, in the Constitution,

~~it's a casting vote in parliamentary procedure. That's all he

can do.

PAGE 57
...-.. - ._-_._----------;

2

SENATOR TYSINGER: How about to make a tie, can he

3 also make a tie?

4

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: No.

5

MR. MCWHORTER: No, he cannot make a tie. He's not

6 a member of the body.

7

SENATOR TYSINGER: That's why I was saying he could

8 break a tie, but making a tie is what I was asking.

9

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: He's not considered a member of

10 the Senate, he doesn't participate or serve on any of the

"z II ~ Senate committees --

,',u

!2 :

/';50W~,)

~

!\(~',(._L....~..,/,/~ /J('''-''1~'4'o

~
I

MR. MCWHORTER: Doesn't appoint them. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: He doesn't appoint. He merely

~ presides -- most of the time he doesn't do that, but he votes

r

15

.~
" only

in

case

of

a

tie.

':"J

16 'z" a~

-- MR. TIDWELL: Then is it correct for me to

'l:

~

17 'c", for Mel and myself to report to that committee that you

IS
consider the Lieutenant Governor an Executive Officer rather

19
than a Legislative Officer, this committee does?

20 ;
SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes, sir.

"I

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I would think so, it certainly

22
would be my feeling. You see he's elected, I think not in

23
the legislative --

2+
MR. MCWHORTER: I feel like the provision for him

.~ ~

j

'vo
'L~__

t

i

n

g

,

should

be

in Article

I I I ,_

not

inconsistent with

~~X~~~~9

,,

.'"

58

in that one, but it raises a question about making a

! Constitutional majority.

MR. TIDWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Frank.

MR. EDWARDS: I was just going to reply to Ham. I

think as far as that goes, it could raise a question on either

one of them, Ham, whether he votes to break a tie or otherwise

because you've got to specifically provide for either one of

them.

JO

MR. MCWHORTER: I agree with that, once you put it

"7
] I , in, you're clear, but I mean raised as a philosophy. No,

\(rd; .,.1:
/~7'6Y_._!~)"A\);'~"

OJ uh-huh, I don't think it does legally, ,~. in the Constitution, it's done.

no.

\ ---\:"'"--

/ /,
/,/

Once you put it

1f

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We will come back then with

15 .J some revised wording on that and try to take care of this

:;.

1(I

r:
..., problem.

/

17 -;

Shall we consider then Paragraph II of Article III

I~ concerning the Speaker, and Mr. Speaker, we certainly want

J'i your reactions. I don't know, Mel if there are any changes

here. There's a deletion of the manner of election

21

MR. HILL: There's some reorganization, remember,

George, a little reorganization here -- no, no.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I've got nothing wrong with that.

CHAIR..\1AN PARTHEMOS: Okay.

MR. EDWARDS: In looking back at the paragraph on the

PAGE 59

President and and President Pro Tem, I don't know whether you

want to have them both exactly the same, but like on the

Speaker it says, "A Speaker Pro Tempore shall be elected by

4 the House of Representatives from among its members, and the

5 Speaker Pro Tempore shall act in case of the death, resignation,

I, or disability of the Speaker or in the event of the Speaker's

succession to the executive power."

Mr. Speaker, what do you think, should we put in there

"shall become the Speaker", and if you do, do you want to add

iii the word "permanent" before "disability". That's what you've

<:J 7.
I; ~ got with the President Pro Tem.

o

I'

"'"
,C

MR. MCWHORTER: That's my point, there ought to be a

,.

~distinction whether he's incapacitated, he acts, and if he
\;'

I I ,I becomes higher office then he resigns and he could become the
,.
:.. .~ Speaker.

MR. EDWARDS: That's the point I'm making.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think we discussed that, Mel

" and I. I think, if I remember, our feeling was that the House

elects the Speaker and that if such a vacancy occurs, that he

'. I then becomes acting Speaker and you have a new election.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's something that needs to be

clarified.

SPEAKER MURPHY: We didn't anticipate that when we

passed our statute after George ~died. It was our anticipation

if something happened to me, ever who the Speaker Pro Tern was

"

60

: becomes Speaker.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: He would then in effect become

-- assume the office and would not become acting?

MR. EDWARDS: It could be either way --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It could be either way. I

(J think we'd better --

MR. EDWARDS: I wanted to raise the point so we could

think about it.

t)

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think he ought to become Speaker

]U and the House would elect a Speaker Pro Tern at the next meeting.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Then I think in that case, we'd

]~ ,. better make some changes on this, Mr. Speaker. I don't think

/~?Y1ifZ\

.:

(&~) )r"~'''''o :'; that this would --

~.:~~/

; -; I,"

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, it wouldn't do it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It wouldn't incorporate that

":':J : (1
,~.
"',

MR. EDWARDS: That's correct.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't think any guy ought to take

Ii) this job in the middle of the year and do it the rest of the

14 year, which is nearly a full time job, and not be compensated

accordingly and have the advantages that go with it.

21

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mr. Speaker, in that case, it

would seem to me the wording should read then, " .. the Speaker

Pro Tern shall serve as Speaker in the absence of the Speaker

and shall become Speaker in case of . "

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think, "A Speaker Pro Tern shall be

61 elected by the House of Representatives from among its members,

and the Speaker Pro Tern shall become become the Speaker in case

of the death, resignation or disability of the Speaker or in

4 the event of the Speaker's succession to the executive power."

with all the rights that go with it, whatever it is.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well if he becomes Speaker, he

gets all rights and perquisites that go with it.

MR. MCWHORTER: What about temporary disability of

the Speaker? You see what I mean?

MR. EDWARDS: I think you ought to put "permanent".

'.)

7

MR. MCWHORTER: Permanent and maybe provide --

MR. EDWARDS: I think we ought to think about the

"temporary. George and Mel are going to think about the temporary
\~
1.1 stuff in connection with the President Pro Tern and they could

,do the same thing with the Speaker Pro Tem.
r'J

1, }..:

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I was going to simply say that I

.'),

think the -- I get the feeling then that your desire is to

j( have this Speaker Pro Tern actually become Speaker in case of

II) vacancy by death, resignation --

SPEAKER MURPHY: That was certainly the felling of the

House when George L died.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Then I think we should specify " , would it be sufficient then in other cases simply to put that

he shall serve,in the absence of the Speaker he shall serve as

Speaker, not become, and shall become Speaker in Case of death

1'.' ....1~. 1'

62

MR. MCWHORTER: Rather than "in the absence", how

about "temporary disability", or consider those words.
;:
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well, would you put then, "in

~ case of absence or temporary disability ... "

SPEAKER MURPHY: Now wait a minute, wait a minute.

Y'all don't want to get us in the position here that they got

in in Kentucky and California. Every time I leave the State

is the Speaker Pro Tern starts appointing interim committees and

') all that sort of stuff now.

'()

MR. MCWHORTER: Absence is not a good word.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I don't like to put even that

as far as the temporary disability is concerned. I think it's

assumed that the Speaker Pro Tempore, by definition is a

speaker for the time being. You know, this is what it is.

MR. HILL: "And the Speaker Pro Tern shall preside
"
:)
If, '" in the absence of the Speaker and become ---

1

:.;.(

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well, can't the Speaker designate

II', : someone to preside?

19

SPEAKER MURPHY: I can, but --

MR. MCWHORTER: Not unless he's there though, can he?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If you step down from the chair,

" . can't you designate?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I can designate anybody I want to.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Designate anybody you want to.

SPEAKER MURPHY: But I always use the Speaker l?ro Tern

63

if he's 'there.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is my point, you see.

NormaD, the Speaker can designate anyone he wants to when he

steps down and is going to be absent for awhile, he doesn't

have to designate the Speaker Pro Tern.

",

MR. CLARKE: George, I wonder if the very name itself

, doesn't take care of that problem, and then use the language

that the Speaker mentioned just a moment ago --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is certainly my feeling too,

!II because otherwise we're just going to complicate this thing,
\"
z.
!; :~ and introduce a lot of complications.

I'

MR. CLARKE: I think the phrase pro tempore means

Djust exactly --

1+

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Pro tempore by definition is

~:'Speaker for the time being, and I think it would take care --

i' I .' think if we left it to the suggestion of the Speaker, just

to simply specify, fix in the Constitution that"the Speaker
,C
.I:) Pro Tern shall become Speaker in case of the death, resignation

or disability of the Speaker or in the event of the Speaker's

',succession to the executive power."

MR. MCWHORTER: He doesn't really go to executive

power, only for sixty days. You automatically come back there,

don't you?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't know.

MR. MCWHORTER: Isn't that right, Frank?

64

MR. TIDWELL: He assumes the executive power until

, a special election.

MR. MCWHORTER: Which is the sixty day deal.

MR. TIDWELL: I think it's until the next general

election.

MR. MCWHORTER: Until the next general election?

MR. TIDWELL: Yes, sir.

CHAI~J PARTHEMOS: Let me tell you, that would have

to be clarified also in the appropriate the revision. I

iii think that would be something you would have to clarify.

1J

It would seem that would be something that would

, address itself to the a~propriate subcommittee dealing with

~; that.
I:

SPEAKER MURPHY: Don't that thing go through the

-<
l':G" overnor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State and then me?

.,

It>

MR. MCWHORTER: Huh-uh, you're third.

"7

17 '""

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It goes directly to you from the

IX Lieutenant Governor.

II.)

MR. EDWARDS: This says, "In case of the death,

2(i resignation or disability of both the Governor and Lieutenant

?i Governor, the Speaker of the House shall exercise the executive

power until the removal of the disability or the election and

qualifiation of a Governor in a special election which will be

held within sixty days from the date on which the Speaker of

the House . "

PAGE 65

SPEAKER MURPHY: What happens to him as presiding

officer in the House during that time?

MR. EDWARDS: That's a good question.

MR. MCWHORTER: You come back after the so-called

'i sixty days.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: What subcommittee is reviewing

that section?

MR. TIDWELL: We've got a subcommittee of that

Article.

10

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is that Article V?

;

,'
'. I

MR. MCWHORTER: That's why I want to get into two

, ) ,different categories, a guy becoming Speaker or President of the

~senate and the guy just taking your place for the so-called

il ;~sixty odd days.

MR. HILL: Well maybe then this --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I would just simply delete --

~why don't we then just simply delete that phrase, " or in the

event of the Speaker's succession to the executive power." Just

simply delete that.

MR. MCWHORTER: I could see that.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Just simply delete it, I think

that would --

MR. HILL: Okay.

SPEAKER MURPHY: That sure needs to be straightened out,

though in redoing this Constitution.

1\ j

66

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It needs to be straightened out.

MR. MCWHORTER: You could take the sixty days and

SPEAKER MURPHY: It'd be nice to be Governor and

! Speaker too, things would be in pretty good shape then.

MR. MCWHORTER: You could call a special session once

(, a week.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Do I get then the sense of

this subcommittee that on Paragraph II, we shall then, unless

somebody wants to make a specific motion that we shall change

IU that so that " the Speaker Pro Tern becomes Speaker in case

11 L of the death, resignation or disability of the Speaker."

MR. HILL: "permanent disability."

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: "Permanent disability", and then

:: delete the remainder. Shall we have a motion on that to make

1< i) such amendments to that, to amend it to read as we have

",c o
it, 3 indicated.

n

~

'1

Ii ':';

SPEAKER MURPHY: The amendment would be then that

IF ! you would just strike the word "act" and in lieu thereof

19 "bcomes Speaker", is that right?

:.\1

MR. HILL: That's right.

21

SPEAKER MURPHY: I so move .

,.',

MR. HILL: Add "permanent" disability".

SPEAKER MURPHY: "Permanent" disability.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have the motion then that

Paragraph II be amended to read as indicated, "A speaker Pro

67

Tempore shall be elected by the House of Reprsentatives from

among its members, and the Speaker Pro Tempore shall become

Speaker in case of the death, resignation or permanent

disability of the Speaker."

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's the way we intended it.

MR. MCWHORTER: Would it be any desirability then

. I don't want to confuse it -- going back and making another

one possibly to comply --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion has been made. Is

10 the motion seconded?

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: I second it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded.

MR. HILL: Who was the motion made by?
/"
SPEAKER MURPHY: I made the motion.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is there any further discussion

OJ
1" {,of the motion?
'.
n

{No response.}

IS

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are you ready for the question?

,') .As many as are in favor, signify by saying aye.

::1)

(Ayes. )

)!

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the motion

is carried.

In Paragraph III, we simply brought together and

68

consolidated in one brief paragraph the provision concerning

Other Officers of the Two Houses. The present one has a title

Officers of the Two Houses, and this, I think, is a little

more accurate description in simply saying Other Officers.

"The other officers of the two Houses shall be a Secretary of

h the Senate and a Clerk of the House of Representatives, and

such other assistants as may be provided for by each House."

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't see anything wrong with that.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I move we approve it.

10

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion to approve.

,(

SENATOR TYSINGER: I second it.

()

,,

!

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Any discussion?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: As many as are in favor of the

l ~ "motion, signify by saying aye.

It,

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

10

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it. We come now
~)(1
ito Section IV dealing with Organization and Procedure.

Paragraph I now brings up the question of "Meeting, Time Limit,

and Adjournment of the session. Ham, this is one that you --

MR. MCWHORTER: I've got my attorney with me now, so

let him talk for me.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let me simply say the first

['ACE 69

sentence there was to replace the first part of Paragraph III

of Section IV. We thought by simply stating and specifying

"The General ~.ssembly shall be a continuous body during the

term for which the members thereof are elected." really would

have the same meaning as the provision there now which is

stated a little more, I think, complicated, longer -- a

, lengthier statement. The intention there was, in other words, ',,' I to -- let's see, Mel, that was to replace that section

concerning the life of a General Assembly.

IU

MR. HILL: Right, and again this was the language

u 7
I; ;~ used in the 1970 proposal that passed the House and it seemed

! ., ~ to be -- seems to say the same thing as this language.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It says the same thing, as I I) 'say, gentlemen, if you look in the middle of Paragraph III,
;~ "The Senate and the House of Representatives shall organize
1.:(
; each odd-numbered year and shall be a different General Assembly

, for each two year period. All business pending in the Senate

or the House of Representatives at the time of adjournment of
11
any regular session may be considered at any regular session
il
as if there had been no adjournment."

Now this, Mel, as I understand it, really says the

same thing.
_.l
MR. HILL: That's my understanding
.+
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: In other words, this is a

provision that says that the life of a General Assembly is for --

70

it's a continuous body, the General Assembly does not die at

the end of the session, it has a life --

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think the only thing we need to

discuss about Paragraph I before we get into subparagraph (a)

~nd the others is how many days a session ought to go and I'm I, perfectly happy with 40 myself. Anybody not happy with 40?

Is anybody not happy with 40 days?

9 10
J 1 ~ with it.

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Speaker SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes, Ham. MR. MCWHORTER: I'm not happy with it nor unhappy I wonder if the Constitution though shouldn't look to

~ the future a little more and give a little broader -- nobody

~ knows what 20, 30, 40 years is going to do. I wonder if we

~ shouldn't set some limits, as provided by law in the previous
~
[, ~; General Assembly, unless both houses want to change it, you

16 z
::; wouldn't change it.
;~

17 ::

SPEAKER MURPHY:

We can come back in special session

[I':
any time we need to now. I know what's liable to happen if you

,t)
: get to where this thing could be extended and all that sort of

~\(i
stuff. I believe if you want this thing adopted by the people,

.l 'l I
yon'd better have the days in there, myself, don't you, Frank?

),
MR. EDWARDS: Well I think it depends on what we do

about that organization session that you and Ham are talking

about, convening in December for one day.

MR. MCWHORTER: Of course, I agree with you about what

71

the people thing, I don't think the people think we have too

long a session last year. I think if we spelled it out when

we were going to start and when we were going to end, they

j never would have objected to it, because we have the shortest
session in the united States. r.m not saying extend it more

I than that.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well what I'm saying, Ham, and I'm

saying it as sincerely as I know how to say it. I believe

very sincerely and very strongly in a citizenry legislature, 10 I really believe that. If you extend that time much longer

Ii :,. than 40 days, you're going to get it where professional folks
!., ~:':'
'like me and J.C. and businessmen like the Senator there can

longer serve in the General Assembly.

It

MR. MCWHORTER: I feel that strongly too.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I just think it needs to be tied down.

~Now later on as time goes by, the Constitution ought to be

amended and the people ought to realize it, but as it now stands I', I've got some serious reservations about putting it where you

can change the length of the session by statute. I think it

ought to be in the Constitution.

2i

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mr. Speaker, does not the actual

. ., requirements of the -- on the General Assembly, pretty much

dictate its work period? I mean, what I'm trying to say is

whether or not you say specify 40, 50 or 60 days, there's a

certain amount of work. Will it alter the length of time

I \, J' 72

SPEAKER MURPHY: I disagree with the statement,

Doctor, to start with that there's a certain amount of work.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well I mean the realities of

't the issues.

5

SPEAKER MURPHY: Frankly, I think if the session was

11 30 days we could do what we had to do. A lot of this business

that don't need to betaken up and debated and put on the books

I' would just not be taken up. But you are correct to the extent

,) that the 40 days does dictate what you can take up.

10

MR. MCWHORTER: Could I ask you a question, Mr.

II ~Speaker -- excuse me, you want to say something?
"

.:. L

,)

1~'f2-Yf(4\'

\i (~,V.(",\~\ ', ~"P :~

MR. EDWARDS: No, go ahead. MR. MCWHORTER: How would you feel about

1i ; we talked about December, I think that's not quite

even when if you

is ;~ said the General Assembly shall meet a certain date and shall

jl ~not have over 40 legislative days --

I'

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'm willing to make that 41 days

] \'' to take care of that one day in December you're talking about.

MR. MCWHORTER: Forty-one legislative days and shall

20 ,meet on such days as prescribed by the General Assembly in

,'l the previous term or something, spell it out ahead of time.

Do you think that would help anything?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Corne over that once more, slowly

now, you sort of lost me along the first turn.

MR. MCWHORTER: Don't let the General -- tie down the

J...'"\(''E' 73

days by law, let the Constitution provide, "shall not have over 41 legislative days, and the time of meeting shall

be prescribed by law in the previous term," or something of

that nature. Therefore, every two years you could say for the next two years when you're going to meet, or you want it more

fluid than that. SPEAKER MURPHY: I want it to meet on the second

Monday in January. SENATOR TYSINGER: I think that's got to be tied down.

II,!

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't mean the start --

\1

MR. EDWARDS: What Ham is talking about is where

,, .' you can adjourn till a later day, put some limitation on that.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't think there's any way you

It ,;can tell what you're going to have to do till you get to the

,~place where you got to do it. Do you, Governor? LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: No. The thing that I wish we

could somehow prevent, and I don't know how to do it -- I'm not for extending the days either if we can find a way to save some lost motion there in the beginning, and this idea of having a meeting day in December may very well be the way to do it. The thing I wish we could get away from someway or other is the projection that sometimes we leave with the public that

we manipulate -- that we really don't follow what we have, but that we manipulate it by recesses and adjourning. I don't think that leaves a good taste in their mouth. We all understand it,

,

~. :

74

I'm not sure they do. And I don't know how to go about that.

SPEAKER MURPHY: We ain't stopped the clock in a

I long time, Doctor.

-l

MR. MCWHORTER: I sure agree with your philosophy.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I agree

SPEAKER MURPHY: I've read it backwards a time or

two, have that thing in a mirror where I was looking at it

backwards a time or two.

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: If we could say -- if having ]U this one-day meeting in December and we could get some things

started and everything, I think we could save an awful lot

of lost motion the first few weeks that we meet and do it

. within 40 days.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well, Governor, I think you're 1:; going to find out to some extent how that works this year

because our appropriation committee is going to meet in early

December. We don't care whether we've got the executive

budget or not, we're going to start our hearing and we're going

j9 to get this show on the road.

211

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I'm all for it.

21

SENATOR TYSINGER: What if we used the words

"legislative days" instead of just "days" and then it's

understood that that's not necessarily calendar days

.:..j

MR. Ma~HORTER: We've nearly got it like that now,

.,<
yes --

75

SPEAKER MURPHY: Here's the problem you've got with

, that, Senator, you don't have it because you go home every

night.

SENATOR TYSINGER: That's right.

SPEAKER MURPHY: These guys from Savannah, Brunswick,

they're paying for the motel rooms over that weekend and

they're paying what $20.00 a day for that, forty bucks they

pay for that room that they ain't in it and you're cutting out

their per diem. It don't bother me that much, but what I'm iU so dedicated to is not getting this General Assembly where only
..
: a rich fellow or a fellow who makes a lot of money can serve.
(' I,
SENATOR TYSINGER: I agree with you on that.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'm just dedicated to that.

i.

MR. MCWHORTER: That could be worked out by what you

l; '~pay them, couldn't it?

II

SPEAKER MURPHY: That brings on another, sure enough,

keg of worms there. But I think that's a very important thing,

don't you, J.C.?
;:/
REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: The only thing that bothers

me about it is the same thing that bothers the Lieutenant

Governor, the sessions that we take, I think there's some

confusions in the minds of the public. We say we're going to

meet 40 days and then have these two or three day recesses

and do it this week three days and next week three days and

stretch it from the 9th day of January until March the 24th.

:'\\, 76

Obviously that's more than 40 days from the time that we

convened until the time that we adjourn sine die, and that's the

only thing that raises a question in my mind, and I agree that

we'll get whatever work -- like lawyers, Mr. Speaker, they

meet the deadlines they have to meet and they usually don't
,. start meeting them until they know they've got to meet them.
'i' So the legislature would, pretty much the same way. We know

we've got a 40-day period to act in. It's what it induces in

the minds it just seems like a myth, the 40-day thing just

1(1 seems like a myth to the public, I think, and it is a myth

I' as a matter of fact

.)

i~

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'm willing to go this far, J.e.,

,; say continue in session for a period no longer than 60 days

~ in the aggregate each year, and strike that "By concurrent

LS ;:, resolution " If we don't do it in sixty days, it's allover

II c'.~..' w.ith t j)

I'm willing to do that. REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY:

That comes closer to what

we actually do in reality. I like that.

SENATOR TYSINGER: But then wouldn't we make it sixty

days though?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Huh? ".
SENATOR TYSINGER: Would we make it sixty days?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well we make it longer than that

anyhow, but you couldn't make it any longer than sixty days

if you don't have that resolution to adjourn, you're really

77

facing some sure enough deadlines then, you've got no stopgap

in case something happens.

MR. EDWARDS: Give me your idea one more time.

Let me see what you said. You mean sixty straight days?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I say I'm willing to do it, but I

don't think it's a good idea.

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: You don't mean sixty

straight days.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Sixty straight days and when that's

l(J over, that's it.

1!

SENATOR TYSINGER: When that bell rings, you go home.

1 ..

SPEAKER MURPHY: Just like three o'clock in school,

,-
:z.; when the bell rings, it's allover-with

.i~

MR. EDWARDS: I tell you what, I'd go with that.

MR. MCWHORTER: I would go say four days a week for

1/

~ten weeks, anything like that, and let it be over.
".',

)" "

SPEAKER MURPHY: We sure are taking some chances.

J."\ What are you going to do when you do that, you're going to

1) have three times as many extra sessions than you ever had

before. There's no doubt in my mind, but that's the only way

to correct what the public thinks is that way, but then you're

really going to add some more criticism on it after you get

two or three special sessions.

MR. MCWHORTER: I thought you would do what you had

to do though.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Sometimes the Senate has been known

to get stubborn.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This was the point I was making

in the beginning, the actual requirements on the General

Assembly dictated the length.

Well, gentlemen, I don't know if we have developed

any consensus on this point or not.

MR. EDWARDS: This is always a right contentious

') section here.

III
I,,:~
I
I:

MR. MCWHORTER: It takes time. SPEAKER MURPHY: I'll tell you what, I'm going to

u move, if you will recognize me, Doctor.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The chair recognizes the Speaker.

SPEAKER MURPHY: On a temporary basis, I move that

l' 0we fill in the blank with 40 days and approve Paragraph I I';' i.;" ,down to sub-section (a) and then we can -- after we get into ;:)
I' '; this other stuff, we can corne back.

SENATOR TYSINGER: And address that question.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have then a motion to specify

::'0 40 days in the space indicated there, and that we approve

Paragraph I down to subparagraph (a). Is the motion seconded?

., I

SENATOR TYSINGER: I second it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Is ,I there any further discussion?

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: The only problem I have in voting

I'ACE 79

for that -- I wouldn't have any problem in voting for it if I

knew that we were going to have that one day to get things

started in December.

SENATOR TYSINGER: Well it's subject to reconsideration.

MR. MCWHORTER: I was going to make the amendment that

that include it now.

SPEAKER MURPHY: The reason I made that motion on

this basis is I want Ham to have time to develop his idea and

when we come back I'm susceptible to it, I'm not saying I'm

10 going for it, but I am right now leaning in that direction.
\;
i: :> We've got to have the approval of -- isn't he going to need
! ' :,: the approval of the Executive Department because what we'd

:' like for him to do on that day is give us his budget.

1j
,

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: Right.

"

MR. MCWHORTER: Let's discuss it --

SPEAKER MURPHY: Now when a new Governor is elected,
"
he's in one heck of a mess because he's been elected two

weeks and he ain't had no time to do nothing. That's the problem

I have with it as I look down the line, I see the problems

that can develop.

SENATOR TYSINGER: He's still got problems in four

more weeks.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well Charlie might want to address

himself to that.

MR. MCWHORTER: Charlie, you know what we're talking

80 about?

MR. TIDWELL: Yes, sir.

SPEAKER MURPHY: We're delighted to see that you do,

we're not sure we do.

MR. EDWARDS: Just as a matter of a little picky

(, point, how about let's make this (a), (b) and (c) instead --

-; if you're going to have three paragraphs you ought to have (a)

x up there.

{)
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay, weill change the format,

10 is that all right?

z

1i

MR. EDWARDS:

(a), (b) and (c) , so we won't be

" confused.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c).

Yes, Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER MURPHY: We've approved that -- no, we ain't

,.~

1()

;: n

voted

yet.

I

1'7 e:'
MR. MCWHORTER: Does the motion include (a), (b) and

Iii

(c) ?

19

SPEAKER MURPHY: Just (a).

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is there any further discussion 2I of the motion to approve Section IV, subparagraph (a),

specifying the 40 days in the space indicated. The motion .' has been moved and seconded, we've discussed it. Is there

any further discussion?

MR. MCWHORTER: Just as to days, we're not going to

PAGE 81

talk about December now, are we?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: No. This is as it's presently --

Lt. Governor?

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: Did I look kind of quizical?

I can't vote for it with the December thing in there.

h

MR. MCWHORTER: I didn't know if they had taken it

up now. I can't either. I didn't know if we wanted to discuss

;. it now.

<)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This does nail down the 40 days

10 so if we approve it we can still come back and --

,

z

! 1 t

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I wouldn't be for just 40

o
,,:.
'0
:' :; days if we don't have that other in there.

"
1-

CHAIRMAN l?ARTHEMOS: Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER MURPHY: You've got to go back to Paragraph

J" ,; V of Section II if you're going to start changing this thing, I';
i; gGovernor, because you're going to have to change that term of D -, ;~ two years from a time to a time.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right.

:'./

SPEAKER MURPHY: We deferred that, you see.

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: Why can't we defer this until

.21 i we get that other language too?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well of course, we can come back --

excuse me, Doctor, we can come back and add another day to it.

I think we've agreed to everything except the number of days,

.. 'J basically, have we not?

I\

82

,,.

CHAIRMAN. PARTHEMOS: We can corne back and make it 41

days.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'm inclined in that direction, but

I do think we ought to talk to the Executive Branch about it before

5 we get in a heated debate with them on the floor of the House

6 and Senate about this.

j

I

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I agree with that.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Frank?

C)

MR. EDWARDS: This is not on that particular thing,

10 but there's one more point since we're going to corne back to

'-?

Z.

II " this, I might just throw out for the people to think about.

o

"

(i?\~~V~.\., L' r;c'!'!'!'!.o :::, That that' s last sentence in paragraph I (a) .

It says, "By

. ~~))J

" concurrent resolution, the General Assembly --

_. \ ,~-"

'",//

SPEAKER MURPHY: We ain't got there yet. We ain't

l' ~voted on (a) yet.

MR. EDWARDS: All right, vote on that and then I'll

make my point.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay, then are we ready?

19

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: One more comment. I'm just

::0 not for doing it -- I'm not for continuing doing it like we've

been doing it and I don't know if voting on this means that

we are or not.

MR. MCWHORTER: I'm not sure what we're voting on.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Seems to me that voting is

doing it the same way.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well I'll tell you, I'll withdraw

my motion.

MR. TIDWELL: Mr. Speaker, will the December 1 be

4 a surprise to our Governor?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I have not discussed it with him, I

b do not know whether the gentleman on my right, the distinguished

Secretary of the Georgia Senate has discussed his proposal with

him or not.

MR. TIDWELL: This is the first I've heard of it.

10

MR. MC~rnORTER: I didn't want to discuss it.

(';

z

11

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I thought it was the McWhorter-

I: Edwards idea.

MR. MCWHORTER: Frank won't claim the credit. I

J.: ;:discussed it with the Speaker and I wasn't going to discuss it
,"I
<l
]
J' )with the Governor until this committee said something, it was
"

a presumption on my part.

'-'
I

I r. J

MR. EDWARDS: That's a McWhorter-Vince Dooly

t,', amendment.

MR. MCWHORTER: Loose tooth?

.'1)

SPEAKER MURPHY: I move that we defer action on

~j Paragraph I(a) until we come to some conclusion on Paragraph

" V of Section II.

,' "

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER:

I second that.

,.'t

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion has been seconded.

Is there any further discussion of the motion?

84

(No response.)

CHAIP~ PARTHEMOS: Are you ready for the question?

As many as are in favor, signify by saying aye.

(Ayes.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Oppsed, no.

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: All of us have some question about

(b), Doctor.

MR. MCWHORTER: You better believe it, plenty.

ji

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. Then we move into

Section IV, paragraph (b).

MR. MCWHORTER: We can forget the first sentence.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I have no problem with the first

sentence.

11

MR. MCWHORTER: It's the last one.

MR. HILL: It was my understanding this is what is

in the present --

SPEAKER MURPHY: That is the present Constitution.

MR. HILL: -- presently in there, and that's the

): only reason that we carried it forward, for your consideration.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The chair will entertain any

suggestions.

MR. MCWHORTER: I talked to the '69 Commission on this

and I don't have any strong feelings. I think the intention,

PACE 85

if you'll look at the small notes in the '77 Constitution, is

on the last night if there's disagreement, the last day. And

I think it has been used different. For instance, Governor

Carter adjourned us to a definite date and might have put in

jeopardy some acts that we passed after those days. Now some

f, other states allow something like this but only after 24 hour

notice to both houses and things like that, so I just said --

if a resolution went from the Senate to the House on the third

') day of the session asking for adjournment sine die and they

J\! disagreed, then under this the Governor could just adjourn us

. and I don't think that was the intention.

~-".'- /', -!",

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think this is a direct conflict <.with other provisions in the Constitution. It says we're

going to serve 40 days. This one here just says he can adjourn

us if we can't agree on adjournment, he can adjourn us. Now

':if it's on the last day, he could come up with a time, or I

think during the session if one makes a motion for us to adjourn

for a week and the other one don't, he ought to be able to

adjourn us for a period of time, but not just adjourn us

permanent. I think you've got a direct conflict in here.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Would you suggest some change

in the provision then to specify the circumstances under which

he may adjourn?

MR. MCWHORTER: If he could adjourn to a permanent

time, you have to spell it out or you put a lots of acts in

86

jeopardy, it'd take a lot of wordage in that.

MR. EDWARDS: Do we need that sentence?

.\

MR. MCWHORTER: That's the point, I don't think we

'f need it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Wait a minute now, wait a minute.

(, Wait now, sure enough wait now. r've been here 19 years,

you've been here longer than me and you've been here longer

than me, haven't you?

(}

MR. MCWHORTER: We carne together.

] I.!

SPEAKER MURPHY: But I have seen the Governor save

,:; 7.
it ~ us from special sessions on two occasions I know by adjourning

"us when we couldn't agree, and it puts a lot of heat on him,
,
~ but I've seen him save us from special sessions on two occasions

l~ ~ because of that sentence. I think that sentence ought to be

1~ oj changed and say he can adjourn us for a period of five days, 10
10 ~ ten days, not to exceed ten days, something like that. I think
.o,
J I' ": that ought to be changed, but I've seen him save us some

IK i horrible mistakes when both sides got bullheaded and wouldn't

J C) do nothing. I've seen him save us from some horrible mistakes.

I'

MR. EDWARDS: You talking about when Governor Carter

21 adjourned?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Governor Busbee adjourned us too,

you know, for five days because we couldn't agree on nothing.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Would you say then, Mr. Speaker,

something to the effect that the 1I Governor may adjourn either

PAGE 87
or both of them for a period of no longer than five days." SPEAKER MURPHY: I frankly think that they ought to
strike the "either". CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: " .. the Governor may adjourn SPEAKER MURPHY: " . the General Assembly CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: " for a period SPEAKER MURPHY: " for a period not to exceed -CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: " . not to exceed five days." SPEAKER MURPHY: I'm inclined to say as much as ten
if days. What do you think, Frank? MR. MCWHORTER: Without the "disagreement" on there,
or what? SPEAKER MURPHY: And that's restricting it to a
. question of adjournment only. MR. EDWARDS: I guess philosophically I would prefer
not to have it at all, to be perfectly honest with you. SPEAKER MURPHY: Well if I were going on theory and
philosophy, I would agree with you too, but I've seen him save us -- seen the Governor save us from special sessions on two occasions and I just don't want to give up that vehicle. You know what I'm talking about, Jack.
MR. TIDWELL: May I make one suggestion before I go? The Governor has called me. You want to say when there is a disagreement, that has bothered us all, it would be helpful to say, "When there is a disagreement. . " and then --

88

MR. MCWHORTER: That's the point I was making.

MR. TIDWELL: It would be helpful.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well that's never bothered me,

Charlie. If we send a resolution to the Senate to adjourn

from Friday till Monday and they vote it down, we have

C' disagreed.

MR. TIDWELL: A lot of times they just don't act on

it.

,,;:1

MR. MCWHORTER: But if you don't put "disagreement"

iU in here, he could adjourn us at any time.

MR. TIDWELL: The Senate, when -- I believe when j' Governor Carter -- I don't believe they ever took it up, did

I. they? They didn't take the resolution up.

MR. EDWARDS: It was a weird situati.on, I remember

~that. I don't think legally he could have done what he did.

1(, ,t.' (:'

SPEAKER MURPHY: There wasn't any disagreement

I~ ~until they had refused the resolution.

j',

MR. TIDWELL: With an economy of words, I think you

! ,) could put that to rest. You know, the Executive Counsel might

:!J think one thing, the Legislative Counsel might another, the

..'! Attorney General might another --

SPEAKER MURPHY: If y'all got in that shape, we'd go

out and hire some lawyers
.,+ MR. TIDWELL: And then he might think something else,

see. And you don't want to have the Governor adjourning unless

89 because of the implication on what happens to that legislation that's passed thereafter.
Thank you. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, thank you, Charlie. SPEAKER MURPHY: That's simple to do. "In case of the adoption of a resolution to adjourn by either House and the other's failure to act or failure to pass that resolution, the Governor may adjourn." It'd be that simple. That ain't no big problem. MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Speaker, let me ask you one thing. What's failure? If you're on a big bill and you wait two hours, is that failure? SPEAKER MURPHY: Failure to act on that date, on the date sent to them. That's easy to handle, that ain't no . problem. MR. EDWARDS: Suppose something happens in either house and the Governor gets together with the House or the Governor gets together with the Senate and says well this is the worst session I ever saw and you pass a resolution and send it over there on the second day of the session and they disagree. Do you want the Governor to be able to adjourn you on the second day of the session? SPEAKER MURPHY: We can put in "within the last ten days of the session" if you want to, as far as I'm concerned. MR. EDWARDS: We ought to be real clear.

90

SPEAKER MURPHY: I just don't want to give up the

tool to keep out of the traps that the Governor has got us out

of twice in my memory.

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Speaker -- could I ask the

Speaker a question?

I,

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'm going to be quite candid and

, frank -- turn that dadblamed thing off a minute.

(Discussion off the record.)

",

MR. MCWHORTER: If you put that in the Constitution,

you'd have to put in a lot of words, like if the other house
l'
II I hadn't agreed to it by a certain time, within a period, or

otherwise we've still got a little ambiguity there.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well I believe me and you can draw

the language to handle that, Mr. Secretary.

MR. MCWHORTER: You reckon we could pass it through

]c, (' thi s group?

MR. EDWARDS: Maybe we could defer this and come

-I" ) back next time with some language.

1')

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mr. Speaker, would you and the

":1 Secretary of the Senate draw up such language for consideration

of this subcommittee?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I will be happy to quote "collaborate"

with my colleague from across the hall.

MR. MCWHORTER: It's okay what you said.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Whatever you think's fair.

PACE 91
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mel, if you would then contact Ham and have it ready for us. If that's the case then, we shall defer further consideration of this subparaph until such time.
We'll turn now to paragraph (c), which I think incorporates the existing provision. Does it not, Mel?
MR. MCWHORTER: I've got an objection to that. I'm talking a lots. We've got an inconsistency and there's another place -- I have it somewhere -- in which it says both houses. This says both houses and one says just the Senate. For instance, on the last day, in an impeachment the House wouldn't have any proceedings. Let the House stay is okay with me, but they need to do away with the conflict.
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We do not have sectbn VI. MR. MCWHORTER: Article V, I think, Section II. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Impeachments, that's been "assigned to another subcommittee. MR. MCWHORTER: Excuse me. Article V says the General Assembly stays, in one place says the Senate. I just think we need to clarify it. I don't have any strong feelings. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You need to coordinate on that to be sure that all the provisions consistent. MR. MCWHORTER: I don't know what your feeling is about it. MR. EDWARDS: You're talking about this thing over in Article V, Section II, on page 32 of the Constitution about

92

the Governor calling a special session?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Article V? I ain't got that book.

MR. MCWHORTER: Of course, the Article V might just

./ refer to special sessions, I've forgotten .

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It does provide n that such

" extraordinary self-convened session shall be limited to a

period of 30 days, unless at the expiration of said period,

there shall be pending an impeachment trial .... u

MR. MCWHORTER: Anyway, I think you need to decide

;" whether both houses or one house stays, and I don't have any
: , feeling about it.

SVj)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think then, Mel, that we should

i :r:\~~:;'~~~:/4:{/1,r>'"~''''D 0really coordinate with the subcommittee dealing with Article

,I ~'. v, Section II there on the impeachment provision.

MR. MCWHORTER: I think maybe we need expression from it, : two presiding officers, what they thirk, whether one or both

stays here or what.

MR. HILL: Well, I think the reason for this language I') though is that the Senate is the one that's trying the case

and actually the House could be allowed to leave, and you know,

that's only during impeachment, so -- but I'll pass this on

to this subcommittee that's working on this section.

MR. MCWHORTER: I know you have improved on it, but .:1 if you want this, and I don't say the House wants it, but if

you wanted to let the House leave instead of saying n may adjourn n ,

PACE 93

I think you could say "shall stand adjourned", you see.

MR. EDWARDS: It's possible just to move this

paragraph over to that other one.

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's right.

MR. MCWHORTER: I just think you need to decide what

you want to do.

Mr. Speaker, what do you think? Do you think y'all

ought to stay or not?

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, I don't think we ought to stay.

\1

MR. MCWHORTER: Well then, I think in both places

;.you should put, "The House stands adjourned."

SENATOR TYSINGER: Why can't you just put it all in

.one place.

SPEAKER MURPHY: We would vote the Articles of

Impeachment and then y'all would try it.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right. There'd be nothing

else left to do.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The House does prosecute in the

trial, appoints a cOlrumittee, I believe.

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: The House, I think,

establishes the Articles

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: And then appoints a committee.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right, but by the same token

that doesrlt mean the whole House.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: T hat doesn't mean the whole House.

94
MR. MCWHORTER: I don't have any strong feeling, I just think it needs to be adjudicated.
REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: That's a point, the House does originate or initiate the Articles of Impeachment and passes it on to the Senate. I'm not real sure whether the work of the House Judiciary Committee -- that's the committee that normally deals with that, is over at that point, and if you adjourn the whole House, that means that the body that originated or initiated the Articles of Impeachment would be iO gone and even if they were needed for whatever purpose.
MR. MCWHORTER: I don't know of any other purpose once you've started --
REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: Like the Grand Jury, j j - when the Grand Jury's work. is over and you pass it on to the
. Court, the Grand Jury is through. MR. MCWHORTER: I don't have any strong feeling at
all except it ought to be adjudicated, that's all I'm saying. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Part of the process though, J.C.,
as I understand it would be that the House would, either through some committee or the House would designate managers to prosecute the case in the Senate. Whether or not that would require the House to remain in session, I don't know.
REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: The problem would be .,-t whether or not the parties that were designated would have any
standing if they were a member of the House once the House was

95

adjourned in total.

MR. MCWHORTER: Yeah, for their whole term they

would, as long as they're elected, wouldn't they, Frank? They'd

.( be members.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This does not require the House

" to adjourn, it simply says it may adjourn.

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: Of course, they wouldn't

have any power to act on anything, the prosecutor doesn't act,

I) he simply deals with procedural matters.

11,;

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Frank?

,~.,

z

!, ,-

MR. EDWARDS: I was going to suggest, I assume that

"

.2 the subcommittee that's got impeachment is going to be looking
~

....- into several problems. Why couldn't we just put it altogether

"

,, .,

MR. MCWHORTER: Let them have it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Consolidate them all into one

, section. Let's then instruct Mel to carry this over to them if 1) ~') it's all right with the members of this subcommittee, to refer
this whole matter concerning impeachment to the subcommittee

dealing with that

.\1

Harold, which subcommittee is dealing with this?

Do you know?

MR. CLARKE: I believe Sweeney, Tim Sweeney.

CrffiIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, Tim Sweeney. So another

subco~~ittee of our committee is dealing with this and maybe

all provisions should be consolidated into one section.

96

MR. CLARKE: They've got part of it over here, you

know, in Article V.

MR. HILL: Section II.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Certainly they should be made

consistent.

MR. EDWARDS: Maybe Mel can tell Tim Sweeney some of

the thoughts.

MR. CLARKE: They're going to meet on Monday. Is

that right, Mel? Is October first Monday?

MR. HILL: Yes.

11

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Now gentlemen, the remaining

paragraphs deal with other matters or organization and

procedure that are included in the present Section V and you

can look at these again. Mel, are there any changes in these

': from the current provisions?

MR. MCWHORTER: No, sir, I don't believe there are.

1--'

!I

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I don't believe so. But we

might look at them one at the time.

Paragraph II concerns oath. That simply retains
:u the current language.

MR. MCWHORTER: Do we need it? If we do, lots of

work needs to be done. Couldn't you put in there, " shall

take an oath prescribed by law." Frank, you take thepositi.on
,I
we can't add to it or take from it and it's not what we do.

MR. EDWARDS: I know we add stuff about communists and

PACE 97 all that stuff. I think really, from a strictly legal viewpoint, this is the only oath they would have to take, but I don't think you can add to or take away from an oath that's set out in the Constitution.
MR. MCWHORTER: What would be wrong in saying take an oath as prescribed by law?
MR. EDWARDS: That'd be all right. MR. MCMIORTER: Since the Courts seem to be in it a lot, would that be a little more fluid for the future? I !'. don't have any strong feeling but I feel like what we're doing now -MR. HILL: It's sort of traditional, you know, it's a traditional thing that the Constitution have an oath. I don't know whether that's something -MR. MCWHORTER: My only feeling is the Courts seem to be in this field a lots, plus we're adding something to it now, which I personally like. MR. EDWARDS: I've got no strong feelings, it doesn't make any difference to me, whatever. SPEAKER MURPHY: What'd you bring it up for if you don't have any strong feelings? MR. MCWHORTER: I thought maybe you did. I do feel like we ought to do it just like this and not add to it, if you're going to keep it in here. SPEAKER MURPHY: You're a great American, you know it.

98

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I move we adopt it as it is

in here.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion that it be

4 retained as it is.

~

I

VOICE: I second it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Any

further discussion?

(No response.)

')

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are you ready for the question?

10 As many as are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and Paragraph

! ~:' II is approved as is.
"

Jb 1 .u

Paragraph III concerning quorum retains the present

17 :t: provision.

MR. EDWARDS: Do we ever do that any time, a smaller

number may compel the presence of its absent members? Have

.?u we done that recently?

21

SPEAKER MURPHY: We ain't had call of the House

since I've been there. I've tried several times.

MR. MCWHORTER: I think I've seen it threatened.

MR. EDWARDS: I don't remember that.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Elmo nearly has a heart attack every

I'ACE 99

time I try it, don't he, Jack?

MR. MCWHORTER: You know, in a way, I think it's

needed though.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yeah, I do too.

5

MR. EDWARDS: In other words, if you don't have a

quorum, they can adjourn and compel -- from day to day and

compel their presence --

MR. MCWHORTER: Well y'all ought to -- this come up

in Texas recently, you remember that?

jl)

It happened back when we were in Milledgeville. I

"l
I; ~< wasn't down there .:} '.

MR. EDWARDS: Have we got a Senate or a House rule

,\;,WJ(1'.

"

(~it;)))/'c'="o :~ on that thing? It says, " compel the presence of its

<:::/. 14 ~ absent members, as each house may provide."


r
15 ,>
lO
'":'l 16 i
'C",
J

MR. MCWHORTER: We do have some rules. SENATOR TYSINGER: I move this be approved.

i -,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion to approve

II-. Paragraph III as is. Is the motion seconded?

MR. MCWHORTER: Now the word "majority", I think

20 we can leave it there but we ought to clarify it later on

.:]

SPEAKER MURPHY: I second it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Any

further discussion?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are we ready for the question?

100

, As many as are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. (Ayes. )

CHAlro'~N PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no. (No response.)

CHAIRlffiN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it. Paragraph III.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Doctor.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, sir.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I move that everybody read
l,
Paragraphs IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX and if theylve got any

objections, say so, if they donlt it's nearly dinner time.

!!

CHAI~mN PARTHEMOS: The chair will give everybody

j
'~"'fJY!i~d,,
((rL3) )r"...!""0

,~,

a few minutes to read on them as a uni t.

the

remaining

paragraphs

and

weIll

act

\,~:~- ./~/~:'

1 ',

Mel, if you have any comments on any of them, please

L' '~do so.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I haven't read them, but it's the

17

c-
0'

rest

of

it.

IS

MR. MCWHORTER: Oh.

(Brief pause.)

~'U

SPEAKER MURPHY: I have read them and I move we

2J adopt them as is.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion that we adopt

them as is. MR. MCWHORTER: I want to ask the Speaker a question. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: ~ust a second, is the motion

101

seconded?

VOICE: Yes.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded, okay.

MR. MCWHORTER: You feel like if a member of the

General Assembly has a right to be exempt from arrest, what's

the difference in during the 40 days, three days after and

during the committee meetings or something of that nature. I

mean, if you want to give him the rights, are you giving him

the rights the way you've got it worded?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well you don't give him much because

:' ;:he's exempt for arrest except for treason, felony or breach of

' .. ii t:~:J ! . "~.,'
\\~t. _ ~) ! i

the peace. The only thing he'd be exempt from, if he wrote a bad check maybe, they couldn't arrest him for that. Is that

right, J.C.?

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: I don't think this is

-much good.

MR. EDWARDS: This thing has practically no meaning

at all. We did a study on that one time and it doesn't mean

a thing.

SPEAKER MURPHY: But it ought to stay in there.
,,
MR. MCWHORTER: Some Constitutions give them the right

to be immune from attaching their property during the session,

things like that.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Now I'm for that.

MR. EDWARDS: How about forgiveness of debt?

102

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is there any further discussion

of the motion? The motion is to approve the remaining sections.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Give them time to read it, Doctor,

some of them ain't read it. Me and Jack and Ham's done read it.

MR. EDWARDS: I've got one question on Paragraph V,

where it says "The seat of a member of either house shall be

vacant upon the removal of such member's legal residence .. "

I think in the present it just says " ..moves from the District

from which he was elected .. " That's a little change, isn't

lU it?

I:

MR. HILL: I think we took this out of the '70

J

/~:;y-%,

Ii. \

IJ

( t....... ..,\ ' '-

b- "J\ J ,.,

',I 1"e-,"-,-","
,

: proposal.

Offhand, I'm not sure. SPEAKER MURPHY: I know a

case,

and you do

too,

Frank, where a Judge keeps his house and his furniture and
.f
.I', :his voting rights and his mail in that District but he's actually

(, :~ Jiving in another state and his legal residence is still here.

'You know it as well as I do. Now if you just want to make it

where if he just moves his place where he sleeps at night or

whatever, you've got to say more than his residence, I think.

MR. EDWARDS: What I was talking about was the ,') difference in the way it reads now. The way it reads now,

the present Constitution says, "The seat of a member of either

house shall be vacated on his removal from the district from

which he was elected."

MR. MCWHORTER: It's better wording.

PACE 103

MR. EDWARDS: I guess you could argue on what is

! removal. MR. MCWHORTER: Jack, isn't this what corne up in that

,t Commissioner up in Toccoa. SPEAKER MURPHY: This is better language I think. SENATOR TYSINGER: Didn't he try to get that
Constitution changed for his benefit and didn't? SPEAKER MURPHY: I tried to change it for him, I
'I think it ought to be changed myself. I think if he had earned

./"t.;~~)Y4"~1~(;J,'
\., \~ ~L:.;'.,.J /

Iii his retirement, we ought not be able to make him stay here in

Georgia. I don't think you ought to be able to make me stay

]) here if I've earned mine and I feel the same way about him.

It makes it tough on those folks who have to send orders out

11 there to get him to sign them though. But I like this one

l"better. Legal residence, I think, isn't it Mel, determined to

be where you vote, where you're registered to vote basically
:1
.:
and you've got a place that you can stay. Isn't that basically

what it has been determined to be? Isn't that right?

II

MR. HILL: Uh-huh.

MR. CLARKE: Physical presence.

MR. EDWARDS: All these things go into determining it like where he votes.

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: There's case law on what a legal residence is. That's better language I think.
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are we ready to vote on the motion?

104

Have you had enough time now to reflect on the motion?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are you ready for the question?

MR. MCWHORTER: Are we voting on as it is now or

as it is in the proposed?

I,

CHAIR.T\1AN PARTHEMOS: Paragraphs IV, V, VI, VII, VIII

and IX.

j.!,

SPEAKER MURPHY: As proposed.

fJ
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: As they are.

10

MR. HILL: As proposed.

1j
.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: As proposed in the draft .

,"\~?Y.Iiq,

1'
U

(((~)\:_"-'~"o

'~--.:-::::// Ii

MR. MCWHORTER: This compensation of members. I
.think this is in conflict with another paragraph. The way it
is now, I don't object to that. I think the way it reads is

I~ ,.~ okay.

16

SPEAKER MURPHY: Gosh no, wait a minute now. Wait

17 " a minute. You reckon there's any way that could possibly be

p;
construed that if you was in the legislature when you voted

j ')
that raise you wouldn't ever get it?

MR. MCWHORTER: That was the point I was making.

,.

",I

SPEAKER MURPHY: Paragraph VI.

MR. MCWHORTER: Instead of doing that, why not put

.' the term or something rather than the vote .

.;
MR. ED~lARDS:
,,
worded like it is now.

Those little things are the reason it's

'[I'
J,

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right.

PACE 105

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Depends on how you define the

General Assembly, a General Assembly.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I like the present language better.

MR. MCWHORTER: I do too.

{-,

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: That language could be

-
I

construed to apply or not to apply, it's a negative.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Shall we then change the motion

II to approve with the --

SPEAKER MURPHY: ,~Paragraph IX of our --

Use the original compensation,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Use the original paragraph IX

for proposed Paragraph VI.

SPF~KER MURPHY: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mel, do you get that now?

MR. HILL: Uh-huh.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is that agreeable, is that in

i '" your moti.on, Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: To substitute original Paragraph

IX for proposed Paragraph VI.

MR. MCWHORTER: By the same token, we need to look

at Paragraph IV, Section VIII, whatever it says.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Paragraph what?

MR. MCWHORTER: I think we've got it s~ewhere else

106

, in the same --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's in Section VIII.

.\

MR. MCWHORTER: That's not our paragraph, is it?

CHAIRHAN PARTHEMOS: No, but Mel might carry word

back to that committee -- that's not our Article.

MR. EmvARDS: On page 17.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right.

MR. EDWARDS: Cindy reminded me, we don't know why

, you need that paragraph IV, when you get right down to it.

III

MR. MCWHORTER: No, you don't need it.

J!

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I agree.

I, .I

MR. MCWHORTER: It ought to be out.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right.

it

Now do you see any other change? Mel, are there

I,e '~any other differences in these remaining paragraphs? I')
MR. HILL: We have removed a word from the Privilege
<~
1";" ~ of Members, we removed the word "robbery It , except for treason,

lb it seemed redundant.

MR. HILL: Page 14 of the current --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Note gentlemen, members of the

'j committee, on paragraph

MR. HILL: It was "treason, felony, larceny or breach

of peace" and we

larceny is a felony, so we just stated

.'i "treason, felony and breach of peace."

"';

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: In paragraph XII of the current

!',\I.;;< 107

Constitution on page 14 is incorporated in paragraph IX of

the draft with the exception that the term "larceny" has been

deleted in the current draft, so that it reads, " ... except for

treason, felony or breach of peace. II instead of " . for treason, felony, larceny or breach of the peace. II
SPEAKER MURPHY: Now wait just a minute. Now Mel,

I might have got too hasty taking all these things at once.

We have theft by taking, theft by deceiving, theft by force.

'!

MR. MQiHORTER: Amounts of theft would make it a

Iii felony or a misdemeanor.

}-
\\ '
1(:1 c) "

more.

MR. CLARKE: Well we don't have larceny as such any SPEAKER MURPHY: No you don't, theft by taking or

receiving

MR. HILL: No in other words, larceny is no longer an

apt term?

MR. CLARKE: No.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Larceny is not --

MR. CLARKE: You know, in the old law, you used to

have larceny of a pig, larceny of a turkey and all that sort of thing.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Theft by taking would be a breach of the peace.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Wouldn't that be covered by breach of the peace?

108 SPEAKER MURPHY: I would think so.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I would think so.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's close.

MR. EDWARDS: We did a study on this, when was it,

Cindy, about two years ago, two or three years ago. My

(. recollection is -- I'd have to refresh my memory -- but this

thing originally applied, got to where it applied to only

civil stuff and has no effect at all in reality. I'll look that

up and bring it to the next meeting.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Y'all ain't took nothing out of

II this Constitution now that allows us lawyers to continue our

cases while we're in the General Assembly, have you?

MR. MCWHORTER: Somebody said it doesn't apply in

Federal Court.

SPEAKER MURPHY: It don't. But the Federal Judges

l": up here all honor it. I think Tony is the only one that won't

honor it.

MR. MCWHORTER: All this was put in there in English

]0 common law when the King arrested them. I don't know how

;1' much you need it, how much it helps.

SPEAKER MURPHY: It helps.

MR. TIDWELL: Frank, you'd want that last sentence

in there. Are we talking about the privileges?

. -.j

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, I agree with you there

MR. TIDWELL: You want that.

109 MR. EDWARDS: Oh, yeah, you're right.
MR. MCWHORTER: Oh, that needs to stay in.
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ori question is then does "treason, felony or breach of the peace" cover all the items that you need covered or should anything be substituted for the term larceny.
SPEAKER MURPHY: Actually it covers misdemeanor under breach of peace.
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's what I was thinking. SPEAKER MURPHY: Simple battery is a breach of the \ ' peace, but it's covered. I would be subject to arrest if I whipped up on you because that's a breach of peace. The only , way I' d whip you is if I couldn't outrun you and I could get a stick big enough to hit you with. Theft by taking I think is '~ a breach of the peace. Why don't we just add the word "theft" in there, " .. except for treason, or theft .. " Just add the word "theft" in there instead of larceny. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: " . treason, felony, theft . " SPEAKER MURPHY: " . treason, felony, theft or breach of the peace . " That covers the waterfront. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Gentlemen, we have the other change then. We have the two changes now to approve Paragraphs IV through IX with these two changes; substitute the original provision in Paragraph IX to the present Paragraph VI, substitute the original provision for the proposed Paragraph VI and to add

110

the word "theft" in Paragraph IX to make it read, " . treason,

theft, felony or breach of peace .. "

The motion thus is to approve with those two changes.

Are you ready for the question then on this motion?

As many as are in favor of the motion, signify by

saying aye.

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

1,1

(No response.)

1(J

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the motion

i i is carried.

+~~1, !:

"<~i~.:)\-"!""" ---........

.,.////

" .,--",------"

That completes now what we have on the agenda for today and we have remaining to consider, to corne back now to follow your instructions and corne back with the things that

." you have suggested,to reconsider action that is deferred to

the next meeting and to consider Section VII, which is the

other section assigned to this committee to consider.

I',

MR. MCM10RTER: Mel, where did you get Paragraph XIII

in the present eonstitution, where is that incorporated in

yours?
._~ t

SPEAKER MURPHY: Paragraph XIII is what?

MR. HILL: On page 14 of the present Constitution?

MR. MCWHORTER: Page 14.

MR. HILL: Oh, that was -- remember, George, that was
\..::.
one that was omitted, the viva voce vote.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Page 14, IIAll elections by the General Assembly . 11
MR. EDWARDS: What are you talking about, Ham? MR. MCWHORTER: Look on page 14 of the present '76 Constitution, Paragraph XIII. I don't know what elections we actually have, it could cover joint sessions but I don't know that that couldn't be done by rules. I don't object to dropping it, I just -MR. HILL: We should have pointed that out. It was Ii omitted intentionally. MR. MCWHORTER: I can see why you would, but I was just asking the question. Of course, now that first part has
\'
L
. been a contentious thing about a voice vote. It's got some ramifications. SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't know what it was in there for myself. Do you, Frank? MR. EDWARDS: No. MR. MCWHORTER: It's in all the Constitutions -CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I was just thinking it could be incorporated in the rules and procedures. Excuse me, Ham. SPEAKER MURPHY: \~ere is the provision that requires us to meet to confirm the election returns -MR. MC~mORTER: That's in another act. SPEAKER MURPHY: That's what this is for, right here, isn't it?

PACE 112

MR. MCWHORTER: This has been in here since '77

2 and before.

MR. EDWARDS: That's over in V, isn't it, Tom?

MR. HILL: Section I, Paragraph III, page 30.

MR. MCWHORTER: What it means, on motion from the

h floor you could have election for Speaker by secret ballot.

"7 Remember the fight back when George L. was there. There's some

x ramifications, I don't say not leave it out.

9

The last sentence --

\0

MR. TIDWELL: Didn't we look at that when I was with

Ii : you and determined what viva voce really meant, it did not

li ~ mean literally that you speak your vote and it was in connection
(~!""" ~ with what Ham is talking about. I forget what the resolution

14 f. was.
<', .:or. ::
,"

MR. MCWHORTER: There's a Court decision that says

16 a ~':0 voting machine would take care of it, but on election for
<.z>.
17 ;; the Speaker I if somebody makes a motion by secret ballot that

18 wasn't here, you'd have to put that vote 'in, wouldn't you?

19 It's in most of the Constitutions and it has been in there

from time immemorial and what it means is on elections --

21

SPEAKER MURPHY: Of the officers of the House?

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It reads "All elections by the
,,
..~ General Assembly ... " Would that include the separate elections

or would that mean where the General Assembly convenes in joint

113

session to elect, like when they elect a Governor?

MR. MCWHORTER: Most of them are by caucus and not --

that'd be one of them, that'd be about the only one.

MR. TIDWELL: Auditor would be one.

MR. MCWHORTER: Huh?

MR. TIDWELL: Auditor would be one.

MR. MCWHORTER: I think it goes from one house

to the other on that, doesn't it?

MR. EDWARDS: It would run from one to the other.

i:1

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I'd say the Governor would be

the best example.

MR. MCWHORTER: Well they construed it in the Mouse

one time to mean the Speaker. Don't you remember something

about that. That's one reason it went to the caucus or

something.

MR. ELLARD: A caucus is not even a part of state

law.

MR. MCWHORTER: I know it, but that's one reason

someone wanted to have one, a caucus, so you'd have a secret

ballot.

MR. ELLARD: It has to be by voice vote in the House

Chamber.

MR. MCWHORTER: I think there was a Constitutional

Amendment introduced in the House way back there -- I mean since

'50 -- to allow that the Speaker be elected by secret ballot.

114 MR. ELLARD: That says voice vote, viva voce. MR. MC~'JHORTER: With the amendment, they tried to change it. MR. EDWARDS: Well, why don't ,ve try to find out something about this and come back. MR. HILL: This was omitted from the 1970 version. MR. MCWHORTER: I don't have any objection to leaving it out if it's okay with you. MR. EDWARDS: Charlie's right, we worked on that in iU '76 and we went into this and I'm like him, I don't remember exactly what we concluded. SPEAKER MURPHY: How about checking that out and letting us know. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Frank, could you check and report back to the subcommittee at the next meeting because that kind of puzzles me. Now gentlemen, what's your desire about out continuing to meet? We have Section VII to consider. Would you like to make a brief review of Section VII at this time, maybe give some instructions to Mel and myself as to what we might come back with on a draft for consideration at our next meeting? Would you like to defer any consideration of it until our next meeting? Would you like to SENATOR TYSINGER: Well we need to clean up that thing on local legislation. We discussed that last time.

l'.\CF: 115

MR. MCWHORTER: There's several things in there that

needs some cleaning up. CfffiIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think even somebody mentioned

last time that that be deleted. SENATOR TYSINGER: I'm for it. MR. EDWARDS: On the avertising?

SENATOR TYSINGER: On local legislation. MR. MCWHORTER: I want to make a suggestion that we

maybe delete -- some of us said provided by law, but we need

'. to correlate this with another -- with that local legislation

they're working on, another Article.

, 82.

MR. HILL: That Article will not be completed until

MR. MCWHORTER: Will not?

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: That's two years from now. SPEAKER MURPHY: Which one are you talking about? MR. MCWHORTER: On the local legislation. SPEAKER MURPHY: Y'all talking about something now that's one of the most important things we've got, is local

legislation. It may sound unimportant to the average citizen,

but I'm telling you a guy can come up here in a single member

district and pass local legislation and man, we can mess up

some kind of folks. And I think that thing ought to be publicized where -- myself, I'm for that. Y'all got to do some selling to me now when you start messing with local legislation

116

where everybody don't know about it.

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: Mr. Speaker, the question

they raised though was whether or not the advertising was

effective.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I can tell you it's effective in the

;, country. I don't know about in your little old legal thing

you got here, I don't expect nobody ever sees it but out in

the country when it gets in the Haralson County Tribune if

they're going to change the way of electing School Board members,

iii you better dadblamed believe --

MR. MC~'1HORTER: Mr. Chairman, you go so far as to

let them file a copy of the bill introduced back somewhere in

the county rather than just putting a little one line in there,

ij if you want a real notice. You might want to delete it or

!) o you might want to strengthen it. I'm asking that question.

1\-1

SPEAKER MURPHY: I just want to be dadblamed sure

I. the folks back home -- I think what we ought to do in Fulton J>, County now is require them to publish their notice on the ]9 front page of the Atlanta Constitution or Atlanta Journal.

SENATOR TYSINGER: The thing we want to get away

with too is those population bills which is a way you avoid it

too.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yeah, I frankly do not believe ,.,, population bills are Constitutional myself. I just think

some of these days the Courts are going to get around to that,

I ,-\( . 117

don't you, Charlie?

MR. TlmVELL: Yeah. They've ruled a goodly number

of them unconstitutional.

MR. MCWHORTER: Well any way you look at it, this

thing might need strengthening or it might need deleting or

changing. I just wonder if anybody is in agreement on exact

wording.

MR. EDWARDS: I've long been in favorcr knocking it

out and I'll tell you my reasons for it.

I"

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'm not saying I'm not in favor of

: knocking it out as long as folks back home know what's going on.
n
MR. CLARKE: Well it seems to me -- being a product

of the country like Tom, I know the folks in small towns do

read these small town newspapers.

SPEAKER MURPHY: You better believe it.

MR. CLARKE: I used to have one. And I know when I

didn't have one and was up here, they read it because they
j" knew what I was doing. But taking it to a more general 1'~1 application, it seems to me we might be making a mistake in
_.i, doing anything if we are seeking the public's acceptance of
'. this Constitutional Article, which seems to detract from the

public's opportunity to know, because we're going to subject

ourselves to some criticism if we do that and I think we

ought to think about it heavily when we deal with this particular

subject.

118

CHAIfu~N PARTHEMOS: Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER MURPHY: When you take this out also, you're

also going to get the editors and publishers of about 175

newspapers against you throughout the State of Georgia too,

when you get right down to the politics of passing it.

I.,

MR. CLARKE: When you hit in their hip pocket, that

starts to affect it.

CHAI~~N PARTHEMOS: They'll try and focus attention

on it when it comes up.

t ii

MR. MCWHORTER: You speaking as an ex-editor?

I,

MR. CLARKE: Yes.

SPEAKER MURPHY: When you go to getting in their

pocketbooks, you get their attention and they go to editorializing.
j:
They don't do it on the third page, they do it on the front page

with black borders around it where everybody sees it. I done
1f-,
seen that tried. It ain't been tried on me yet, thank the

Lord.

MR. EDWARDS: Well one of the main reasons -- well
l':j
there's two main reasons I've had for it, although I guess we

can discuss it. One thing is I don't think it's adequate to 'i do what it was intended to do. And of course as I say, I

use the example of the Fulton County, which I agree doesn't

apply to the country, but the way the ads are worded and the way

we started wording them was to say amendment to the city charter
,, of Bremen or something.

PACE 119 SPEAKER MURPHY: Rase the mayor's salary $500 a month or something like that. MR. MCWHORTER: The one in Atlanta says amend the charter of the City of Atlanta to do 100 bills under it. MR. EDWARDS: If we're asked to draw the ads, we don't draw them specifically because the Courts have gotten tight on that. Another thing, a lot of these local bills were declared unconstitutional or vetoed, a mere technicality, like a guy didn't introduce it until the 62nd day, that sort of stuff. And that to me is bad. SPEAKER MURPHY: The only thing, Frank, that I say -the only thing I can judge is by my personal experience. When you fix a local bill for me and I run the ad in the paper and
'J
the newspaper calls me up and asks me what does it do and I tell them and they put it on the front page what this bill does, you know. They explain it in pretty good detail and I expect they do that in your paper, don't they, Harold?
MR. CLARKE: They sure do. SPEAKER MURPHY: What about in your area, Jack? MR. ELLARD: Yes. SPEAKER MURPHY: Us rural folks, we get ours explained. You city folks are lucky you see, you got it on the back page of this little old, what's it's name Fulton Daily Report? y'all got it in the back page in 1/17 of an inch print that you have to have a magnifying glass to read and nobody knows

120 what y'all are doing, and don't really care I don't think, do they, J.C.?
REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: I think they just put a blanket advertisement in there that everybody uses.
MR. MCWHORTER: One line. MR. CLARKE: Well I think there is another difference too, the Fulton County delegation is covered by reporters in detail. Most anything that y'all offer, if it has any substance =j at all, the Atlanta Journal, Atlanta Constitution is going to Ii) report it. So the public gets its opportunity to know about j J that where it affects an awful lot of people. On the other hand, the person who comes over here from Haralson County or Monroe County or Habersham County, they . don't have a reporter sitting here all the time, and all they've
1':,
got it that little notice that gets in there. And as Tom says, I suspect if my representative puts one in, that Don Daniels will call him right quick and ask him what it's about and he '. ;) writes a story about it, and it gets a pretty good exposure, but I think the difference is in the fact that there is no reporter from small counties.
MR. MCWHORTER: Harold, but you also see them from little counties where they say amend the charter of the city and they maybe put in there something it will do so and so, then they come back and do just the opposite.
MR. CLARKE: I understand.

:),\(;1: 121

MR. MCWHORTER: I'm not arguing against it. I

think it needs to be in there, but if it needs to be in here,

is it sUfficient.

MR. EDWARDS: I'm not arguing either, just so the

people know what's going on.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well it sounds to me like both of

you was, to tell you the truth.

MR. EDWARDS: No, I want the people to know everything

we do ..

Cf~IRMAN PARTHEMOS: It seems to me then, rather strong

arguments have been put forward to retain this provision in

there. I don't know that we can improve on the language or not

, but certainly

MR. EDWARDS: I shall regroup and corne again.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Why don't we proceed with a

motion to retain this for the time being and maybe see if we

can improve on the wording of it somewhat.

Is there any other part of this --

SPEAKER MURPHY: I want to say something about this

'II thing -- I don't want to leave this lady doing all this talking

in that machine and the people who are going to read what she's

talking in that machine, these two guys I've been picking on,

Ham and Frank, are two of the finest people in the world. I've

been having a lot of fun with them this morning and I've been

kidding them a great deal.

122 MR. EDWARDS: Can you emphasize that? Underline that when you type this up. MR. MCWHORTER: We don't lose our jobs today. MR. CLARKE: Did you write that too for him, Frank? CHAIP~N PARTHEMOS: Okay, members of the committee, I would like your wishes -- I think we have your instructions as to what has been deferred and we'll have the Speaker and the Secretary do a report back to us next time on the, I think the provision concerning adjournment, is that not right? Frank, you'll come back and give us something on one or two , : j "7- :of the items that you're going to do, next time. We have remaining to consider Section VII and the ~provisions there. I think we have considered this matter of local legislation and there seems to be a strong argument that I' "we retain these provisions concerning local legislation. Your wishes are that we should adjourn now and re': convene SENATOR TYSINGER: Next Thursday? CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I'm afraid that there's going to 20 be a problem for next Thursday. I wonder if we could possibly !1 reconvene another day next week or ~- I think one or two of us had a problem for next Thursday morning. Tuesday morning I think I could -- I think Tuesday morning would be all right. MR. MCWHORTER: Are we talking about the same time ''; ,generally?
1 __. _

1',\('1' 123

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Same time.

MR. HILL: Would we have enough time?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think we would. Ham, you'll

have enough time to come back with some wording, with the

Speaker

MR. MCWHORTER; I'll do what he does, yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: By Tuesday, would that press you?

MR. EDWARDS: It really would, tomorrow is pretty

well tied up for me. Now Ham could stay because he's not
!.. planning on going to the football game and he could work

, , Saturday.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'm sorry I missed your other

.,meetings, Doctor, but unfortunately I have to make a living

on the side occasionally and I've been in court constantly for

the last month and a half.

MR. MCWHORTER: You're making too good a living.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Do what, sir?

.'

MR. MC~~ORTER: You're making too good a living.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'm working at it as hard as I can.

MR. EDWARDS: We could wait until the next meeting

on this. We don't have to do all of this.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think we have made good progress

and I think that we could --

MR. HILL: You want to make it for two weeks from

today or will that press us too much?

124

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: No, let's get it before then.

We could make it a week from next Tuesday, I suppose. I

wouldn't want to go much longer than that.

MR. MCWHORTER: Then the question comes, how many

more meetings are we going to get in before that deadline.

MR. CLARKE: Why don't you go ahead with Tuesday and

if Frank and Ham are not able to get it by then, you can do it

the next time.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEl1.0S: All right, so let's then -- will

1(1 Tuesday at ten o'clock --

SPEAKER MURPHY: Why don't you make it 9:30, Doctor?

,,

CHAI~~N PARTHEMOS: Okay.

SPEAKER MURPHY: That'll give me 9:30 to 1:15. I've

IJ ;1 got a 1: 30 meeting.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: So Tuesday, that would be 10 ~October 2 at 9:30. Frank, you will help us find a room?

1'7 "

MR. HILL: I'll take care of it.

CfffiIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mel will take care of that.

MR. EDWARDS: I've got a pretty good idea it can be

.:J here, but I don' t know.

:,1

SPEAKER MURPHY: Frank, they can use my conference

room any tiwe, it's available any time they want it.

MR. HILL: We'll just have to say here because they

-.t won't have a notice.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: And we'll consider as many of

i'ACF 125 the items that we have deferred today at that time, plus the i: remaining items in Section VII at that time.
Thank you very much. (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 12:45 p.m. on Thursday, September 27, 1979.)
\".1 . i
jiJ

126 C E R T I F I CAT E I, Peggy J. Warren, CVR-CM, CCR No. A-171, do 1 hereby certify that the foregoing 125 pages of transcript represent a true and accurate record of the events which (, transpired at the time and place set out above.
III II
l T
<
'.,

INDEX committee to Revise Article III Subcommittee Meeting Held on Sept. 27, 1979

SUBCOMMITTEE MEErING ON ORGANIZATION, STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 9-27-79
SECTION I: LEGISLATIVE POWER Paragraph I: Power vested in General Assembly. p. 5
SECTION II: COMPOSITION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY Paragraph I: Senate and House of Representatives. pp. 5-22 Paragraph II: Apportionment of General Assembly. pp. 22-28 Paragraph III: Qualifications of members of General Assembly.
pp. 29-34 Paragraph IV: Disqualifications. pp. 34-41 Paragraph V: Election and term of members. pp. 41-44
SECTION III: OFFICERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Paragraph I: President and President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
pp. 44-58 Paragraph II: Speaker and Speaker Pro Tempore of the House of
Representatives. pp. 58-67 Paragraph III: Other officers of the two Houses. pp. 67-68
SECTION IV: ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Paragraph I(a): Meeting, time limit, and adjournment. pp. 68-84 Paragraph I (b) : Adjournment by Governor. pp. 84-91 Paragraph I (c) : Adjournment and Impeachment Trial. pp. 91-96, 114 Paragraph II: Oath of members. pp. 96-98 Paragraph III: Quorum. pp. 98-100 Paragraphs IV-IX: pp. 100-110 Paragraph X: Elections by either house. pp. 111-114
SECTION Y: ENACTMENT OF LAWS
Paragraph IX: Advertisement of notice to introduce local legislation. pp. 115-122

------------~-._--
STATE OF GEORGIA
COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE III of the
CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA
Subcommittee on Broad Powers of the General Assembly
Room 40l-A State Capitol Atlanta, Georgia Monday, October 1, 1979 10:00 a.m.
BRANDENBURG & IIASTY
SClEi\:TlHC REPORTING 3715 COLONIAL TRAIL, DOUGLASVILLE, CFORCIA 30135
J 942-0482
DEPOSrrlONS ARI\~RAJI~):.~;()NVI.NII(~" CONIHI'''IS~ __

PRESEN'r WERE:
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
TIMOTHY J. SWEENEY, CHAIRMAN SENATOR M. PARKS BROWN REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT A. HOLMES MR. DALE CLARK DR. CHARLES B. PYLES MS. BARBARA RYSTROM MR. HAROLD CLARKE
SELECT COMMITTEE:
MELVIN HILL HICHAEL HENRY
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S OFFICE:
MS. CYNTHIA NONIDEZ
OTHERS:
HR. CHARLES TIDWELL MR. H~1ILTON MCWHORTER

, ,\:

2

i'

,.' 3

PRO C E E DIN G S CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Why don't we go ahead and get started. I thought the first thing we would do this morning is get everybody's thoughts to the extent they have had time to formulate them concerning the provisions that are subject to our responsibility and then maybe formulate some policy decisions, tentative policy decisions based on those thoughts and then adjourn to implement those decisions in a draft form for consideration at the next meeting. That way we can see how our policy decisions look in writing and revise them at that time if we think necessary, or continue with the initial approach. Does anybody have any thoughts on the impeachment article, which is the first Section of Article III which is our responsibility? MS. RYSTROM: We talked before about the vagueness about who was subject to this clause, and I assume that it would not be good Constitutional writing to include each of those offices since then if a new office were created it would have to be amended. But surely there is some way to make this language so clear that no one would wonder whether a given office was subject to impeachment by the General Assembly. CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Well, I think probably that could be encompassed the words "Officer of the State". That would

4 exclude any local, municipal or county official and encompass

a fairly broad classification of State officers.

MS. RYSTROM: And what jurisdiction they're elected

from wouldn't matter at that stage.

MR. CLARK: Do you think I should 1t;e specifically

mention members of the legislature?

CHAI&~N SWEENEY: They're subject to removal by

their own house.

DR. PYLES: If you did that you would cast the

Representat.ive in the role of a delegate where he would have

to be subject to the whims of politics. It seems to me that

every two years is often enough for the voters to get back at

them. This would remind me of the Articles of Confederation

where the people that sit as Representatives of state

government or rather as delegates could be removed at will as

long as they were -- I think that would be a dangerous thing

to do. Are members of the legislature considered as Officers

of the State of Georgia?

~ ,1 I'

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Yes.

DR. PYLES: I would be afraid to use that term.

'I

MS. RYSTROM: Or attach a clause excluding them from

it. That should go over well in the legislature too. If

there isn't another generic term that would include the

people we're talking about and exclude members of the General

Assembly.

..\ f;>;, .,\,
~ ),

5 CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Elected Executive Officers. MR. CLARKE: And of course you do have the right of impeachment, I suppose in the CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Judicial Article, that's right. MR. CLARKE: Even though they also have the Judicial Qualifications Commission. MS. RYSTROM: You said Elected Executive Officers, is that what you said? MR. CLARKE: Officers of the Executive and Judicial Departments. MS. RYSTROM: Are members of the Public Service Commission included in that? CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Yes. MR. CLARK: In reading through the so-called model Constitutions, I noticed that Kansas on impeachment had an article which I think is positive, it applies to all officers in the Constitution. That would e~brace the legislature, administrative officers -DR. PYLES: Well I think too that we would have the problem of separation of powers here, the principle of it, and I think the notion was, or is, that the Legislative Branch is going to be -- would have this as a deterrant against or vis-a-vis the Executive Branch or Judicial Branch. I think there may be other kinds of safeguards that the other two branches; that is, the Executive and the Judicial, could use

back against the Legislature.

6
I would find it di.fficult to

believe that the legislators would vote imreachment against one

of their members. I think they would go the censure or

denounce some other kind of terminology -- reprehensible or

something like that. Because there is a section there that

deals with them bein<;r the judge of elections and behavior.

CHAIR..'\'L2\.N SWEENEY: Impeach..11lent. -- to carry an

impeachment all the way through to its conclusion is a two-

house process and right now members of the General Assembly

;1' are subject to explusion by the vote of the one house. So

if a member of the House of Representatives, for example, was

had engaged in some conduct which warranted impeachment,

then the House of Representatives could expel him from the

;; House.

MR. CLARKE: ~mat you're really saying is there lS

less of a procedural hassle in expelling or defrocking a

j-' member of the General Assembly than there is an officer from

one of the other branches. Except you would also have,

1'j probably, the desire on the part of each house not to have the

other meddling in their business.

'I

CHAIRHAN SWEENEY: Plus, I don't know if it has ever

been applied, but by statute the public officers, and I don't

know if that encompasses members of the General Aseembly, are

subject to removal from office by judicial proceeding if, for

example, they are convicted of a crime, convicted of a felony,

7 remove themselves from the district from which they are elected. I don't know that that's ever been applied to a legislator. I know that we've gotten into it in the context of the initial election of a ::nember of the General .2\.ssAmbly in wh:tcn .I think the Supreme Court has said tl~t that is primarily a ma~te~ for the General Assembly to decide, whether the man is qualified to sit.
DR. PYLES: Are you referring to Julian Bond? CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Well, not so much Julian Bond, but there's a case out of Columbus and I'm trying to remember the name. MR. CLARKE: Tim, there was also a Savannah case I believe, some years ago, in the Senate, Joe Tribble and somebody I believe.
HR. CW~RKB: Seems to me some court action was filed. Ilaxi1, do you remember?
YiR. MCWIORTER: There was court action filed. But that was by action of the Senate.
MR. CLARKE: That was about 1962. CHAIRMAN S~mENEY: Do you recall the case out of Columbus I'm talking about? MR. MCWHORTER: That was one in which she was a State employee, an employee of the Board of Regents, differentiqte.

8
between that and the Board of Education, County Board of Education, said she could not.
MR. TIDWELL: But there's another case I think you're talking about where they did litigate, if I recall.
MS. RYSTROH: Mary Jane Gaylor, now in the House, I' was one of those Board of Regents situations too. I don't
think that has a bearing though on this.
DR. PYLES: She was a librarian, wasn't she, at
'/
Columbus College?
(0
MS. RYSTROM: Right.
DR. PYLES: It could be that some of our confusion might be removed if we remembered that -- I assume there is
some provision or some people thinking about putting forward
a recall provision. This might be something that would fit
somewhere, but I don't think it would fit in the impeachment
process, the possibility of voters recalling an individual.
I'
I'm not even sure that would be good government in terms of a
legislator. It might be more feasible for a Governor or maybe
1(:.
a Mayor, Executive Officer.
,'II
MS. RYSTROM: The model ordinance says -- I mean
"j
model constitution says "civil officers of the State", is that a generally accepted term that would describe who we're talking about? It didn't mean anything at all to me .
. -+
CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: I don't know that that has been
defined in Georgia.

" .. , '.,' I' 9

MR. HENRY: There is a recall provision which passed in -- was ratified in '78. I think there's a move afoot right

now to utilize that provision. MS. RYSTROM: Lots of luch to them. DR. PYLES: What kinds of officers are involved in

recall?

MS. NONIDEZ: All of them.

DR. PYLES: Including the legislators? But that

would be initiated by the people of that district?

1:\

MS. NONIDEZ: Right.

MS. RYSTROM: How about the question of which house

does what. I see that in the model Constitution it is the

reverse of the way it stands now in the Georgia Constitution.

DR. PYLES: I didn't pick that up.

MS. RYSTROM: At least I thought it did.

DR. PYLES: Yeah. Well I was looking for it but I

found --

MS. RYSTROM: Originating in the Senate and -- oh, no, I told it wrong -- yeah, the trial is in the House and the
DR. PYLES: Impeachment is in the Senate. MS. RYSTROM: As I understand it, that's the opposite of the way it is in Georgia. MR. CLARK: I really from everything that has been said, I don't see why the current impeachment article, why it doem't cover anything like that. It's not that long, it seems

10

to me that it's fairly clearly written. It gives the House

the power to bring the charges and the Senate to do the

trial and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside.

f1S. RYSTROM: It doesn't say what proportion of

either house has to --

MR. CLARK: Two-thirds.

MS. RYSTROM: Does it, oh, I'm sorry, I missed that,

yeah.

MR. CLARK: " ... without concurrence of two-thirds of

11\ the members present."

!:

MS. RYSTROM: So what proportion of the House of

Representatives has to vote?

MR. CLARK: Majority I think, is that correct?

:1

MR. CLARKE: It simply says they have the power to

1 ~.
vote and I assume that they would still require the same

l Constitutional majority that would be required for any other
j ; 0-.:
passage.

MS. RYSTROM: I would think it would be reasonable for
}(-)
a larger vote than majority to be required for something this

grave.

DR. PYLES: Well conviction does require two-thirds.

I have no problem with those numbers, I'm wondering if anyone
, ,'
quarrels with the thought that in any kind of an impeachment
,1
proceeding other than for Governor, if it would be mandatory

that the Chief Justice be the presiding officer. This provision

'\i ,;' 11

requires that he be the presiding officer at all impeachment proceedings. There is a Constitutional -- in the united States Constitution it can be any Justice unless it's the President. And I found another provision, I'm not sure where

it was, I think in one of these models -MR. CLARK: Alaska. DR. PYLES: Was it Alaska? MR. CLARK: The Supreme Court named one of the
" justices. I would think that DR. PYLES: Is that a little more -- I have no

problems with it, since we've never had this experience in

.. 'I
-'f',I .. ")'\:

' ",."

Georgia with any problem of this kind that I know of. MR. CLARK: What I read in the so-called models of
these other states and ours, the current one has pretty much

the same points in about as concise and brief a form I think

as you can get.

1,

DR. PYLES: One other thing I would like to question

)-, on this, and that is somewhere I have read that the Governor

has the authority to depart an impeachment conviction. I

believe I saw that and I'm not sure if that's proper. CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: I don't think that's appropriate,
once you have both houses of the General Assembly concur that an officer ought to --
DR. PYLES: It would be highly political if he would forgive this or pardon it.

12

I'm going to support --was that a motion you made,

Dale?

MR. CLARK: No, I was just

DR. PYLES: I was going to second it so we could get

on to some other matters unless there's a concensus that we

want to change something here.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Before we leave the section on

impeachment, Mike, are you suggesting that there are other

provisions in the Constitution that ought to be --

I

', "

MR. HENRY: Therets two more. If you'll look in

il ~., your brown books at Article V, Section II, Paragraph III -CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: What page?

MR. HENRY: I'm sorry, page 32. There's two instances

)~ ,- in there which deals with impeachment language. At paragraph

;'> ,okay, Paragraph III, the last sentence I guess it is, of

;1, course it looks like it's one entire sentence, but the last

", four lines has to do with " the General Assembly shall not

1\ exceed 70 days in length, unless at the expiration of said

!'i period there shall be pending an impeachment trial " Whether

..'..u\, that language dealing with impeachment trial should be carried

'I into the Legislative Article Section on impeachment or whether

it shouldn't. Also there is -- it's kind of unclear here because

the Senate would be trying the impeachment and yet it says

that the 1I General Assembly will be authorized to remain in

session ... " Whether that means only the body that was trying

13 the impeachment or whether it means both the House and Senate would stay in session, I have no idea. There was, in the '70 proposal, i.f you've had an opportunity to read that, one of the changes that was listed in there. Impeachment would be Article IV Article II, Section IV, Paragraphs I and II. That would be on page 9 of this '70 proposal. You'll notice when they're talking about change -- I believe it was in this one -- significant changes at the end of Section 4, Paragraph 1, labeled Impeachment, they said that "This consolidates the : ' voting of impeachment charges and the trial of impeachments in one paragraph and allows the General Assembly to provide by law for the procedure ", which is something you may want to consider. Also they have, "The House Judiciary Conunittee struck from its original proposal a sentence reading 'If an impeachment trial is pending at the end of any regular or extraordinary session, the Senate may continue in session until such trial is completed.' Apparently by floor amendment, the House added the sentence 'Such law may also provide that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside .. " that language, but apparently they tried to get this in to clear that up from "General Assembly" to "Senate" would stay in session but it was defeated on the floor, is my understanding. I don't know what -- why it was defeated. Perhaps there's a good reason that I just don't know about.
MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Chairman, if I may. This also

14

comes up in Section V of this same Article. In that version

it says only the Senate. When we were meeting the other day,

we brought the point up, the Speaker said he had no objection

d to let it be just the Senate. It's got to be correlated

between the different Articles and even the Sections within the

h Articles. I think it's important for y'all to give some notice

to it.

MR. CLARKE: Section V of Article III is where this

is.

MR. MCWHORTER: It's Section V, Paragraph III of

Ii this Article, the last sentence.

/:~;\,1/1.,1 \

1.

~~~_~_?))('-''''''

--_._ ......

.._., ~.-'

Ji

MR. HILL: Page 13. MR. MCWHORTER: I believe it'll be on page 13 . MR. HENRY: Okay. Well, in any event, this language

here in the Executive Article perhaps needs to either be

brought over into this section and cleared up or perhaps this 1,' subcommittee could make a suggestion to them that this should

be cleared up. I'm not sure what would be appropriate.

[9

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Is the subcommittee considering

,'\) Section V of Article III, are they considering any drastic

changes in the time limit on the meetings of the General

Assembly?

MR. CLARKE: No, they're not. They're wrestling .'-f with the question of whether or not there should be a one-day

meeting in December and beginning the session earlier, that would

15

change the term of a member of the General Assembly. I think

they're staying pretty close to the 40 days and possibly

adding the one day.

It seems to me on the issue that we're talking about

here, there are two things that you need to look to. First,

is that they should be consistent and I think the Parthemos

subco~nittee is interested in working with y'all in bringing

about some consistency. Mike, you mentioned why this might

have happened on the floor. I don't know why it did, but I

can see two or three reasons for it. One, I'm a little con-

11 cerned -- well, first, from a practical point of view it's

J ' ridiculous for the House to have to sit around while the Senate

"J ';

(

.I

i

I, goes through what could be a protracted trial of an

;.1 impeachment case. So from a practical point of view it's

wasteful and not the better thing to do. From a philosophical

point of view, I've got a little problem with the Senate

bringing to a conclusion a matter that has the import and the

dignity, solemnity of an impeachment trial without the whole

General Assembly being in session. And this may be getting a

little too complex, but I'm wondering if there couldn't be some

way that the House could just recess, that this could be an

exception to the time when both bodies have to be in session at

the same time, but yet have the General Assembly quote "in

session". I don't know that something as important as an

impeachment trial ought to be brought to a conclusion without

16

the whole General Assembly being able to be there when the

results are read, and that sort of thing. Maybe I'm getting

too formalistic about that, but I think it's a solemn thing.

Maybe the most practical thing though would just be

to say only one would stay.

DR. PYLES: The prosecutor, I would think, in a

; trial of this kind would be some committee from the House,

Judiciary Committee I assume.

\}

MR. CLARKE: I testified once in an impeachment

hearing almost twenty years ago -- no, over twenty years ago,

tl twenty-five years ago. They did not vote a Bill of Impeaclli~ent

and in that instance, there was a special committee of the

House, Ham Lokey was Chairman of it, they were bringing

charges against the Solicitor General. So I assume the Speaker

just appointed that committee.

t'l "/,

MS. RYSTROM: Any impeachment -- well I don't have

the right language, but the part of this that would occur in .I('' the House could be brought to an end, as you have i t right now, 19 or as we are proposing it, by the end of the session -

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: It has to be. If the impeachment, 1 which is the indictment process, is pending in the House, the

time limit expires, there's no further consideration of it.

DR. PYLES: It has to be brought de novo to another

MR. CLARKE: And it would be considered a trial

MR. HILL: Ham, what were your feelings about

1,),,,1',I'' 17

consolidating in one place all the references to impeachment?

MR. CLARKE: I think that would be the better thing

to do, but the business of adjournment -- you may have to have

a little reference to it some way in your section on adjourn-

ment. Otherwise, then what you've done, you've put your

adjournment in two sections. It's either or which, I suppose,

unless somebody sees some other way.

MS. RYSTROM: I think if it were to only be in one

place, that it belongs with the adjournment ratherthan

impeachment.

MR. CLARKE: That particular part.

I'

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Well, do you see a practical

I

,~

"

,. problem with having both houses stay in session. If they are

in session, theoretically they can take action on any matter

including the impeachment. If the House is sitting there

MR. CLARKE: Maybe a better way is to let the

House adjourn.

MR. CLARK: If the Senate has the authority, as it

conducts the trial, the House brings the charges, it's a solemn

and important thing, I haven't been through it but I would think

if you had, you'd be more impressed by it, but they're not

voting on it, why does it add dignity or strength for the House

to be in session?

MR. CLARKE: It's a subjective sort of thing in my

mind. I may be talking about something that's not important to

18

anybody but me. There is another danger to allowing both of

them to stay in session. As you say, they could transact any

business. The Senate could conceivably just drag out an

impeachment trial as a subterfuge to keep them in session when

the Constitution says --

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: I don't think with their present

pay they would do that.

MR. CLARKE: It might be easier than pulling the clock

down.

DR. PYLES: I would assume too, that all members
t: l
i 1 would be paid during this period, if they were still in session.

'-

MR. CLARKE: And that's why I said itls wasteful.

~.~"Cv- _~_('/ ,

.,

,\

((:L5) )("""" " The Speaker said he had no objection to the House being

\"-

/ i.

' . - : .. , __ ' / i

it adjourned and the Senate continuing in session until the

1:; completion of the trial.

MR. HENRY: In the next paragraph, there's also some

impeachment language. It says basically the same thing, but --

it also has some language relevant to the emergency powers in

Il) here too. If in their opinion an emergency exists in the
'),' '~
..'1 State of Georgia, it is the duty of the Governor to convene

the General Assembly and they can -- the General Assembly may

convene itself in extraordinary session, It shall be limited

to thirty days unless at the expiration of said period there

shall be pending an impeachment trial. So you have that again.

MS. RYSTROM: Where are you reading?

1'.\, .'I,.' 19
MR. HENRY: I'm sorry. It's page 32, the second part of Paragraph III.
MS. RYSTROM: Okay, thank you. MR. HENRY: The last four lines give you the impeachment language again. In the first four lines of that paragraph, it gives you a reference to the emergency situation. MR. CLARKE: My suggestion would be for y'all to decide what you think about whether or not both houses ought to be in session, mainly as a recommendation to the other committee, because I see that really as a function of the other committee, being a procedural thing, and then perhaps i " authorize your chairman and the chairman of the other committee and Mel to try to work out a way to reconcile which section this would go into and whether or not there would have to be some reference to it in each section. You're getting into some editorial work really. MR. CLARK: This one on page 13 says " the Senate may continue in session," and on page 32 it says " . the General Assembly will be authorized to remain in session." DR. PYLES: Page 14, Paragraph 6, Adjournment, would that provision cloud what we're talking about here? " shall adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other," MR. HILL: Well, this is being considered by that committee as well, and I think what Harold said sort of goes

20

to this point, they're going to have to mention impeachment

in their Article, even if it means being mentioned a couple of

places. You know, this overlap may be necessary for clarity.

MR. CLARKE: I think as a power, you folks have got

to deal with the substantive end of it -- that's your red

wagon. Maybe the procedural end insofar as whence done would

fall within the province of the other cOlnmittee.

MS. RYSTROM: This also is in the province of the

other committee, but it seems to me if it's the case that the !O Senate could act on legislation that had passed the House 11 during this period -- in other words, anything other than the

J impeachment proceeding, which

" (~'2'--;"oV)f{)(i)' ('""

MR.. CLARKE, Except for one thing, even i f the Sena te

acts it has to then be sent back to the House on a message.

If the House is not there to receive the message -- am I not

J(I
'_ right?
r.
,(

, (,

J'.'

House?

I')

MS. RYSTROM: Even if the legislation began in the MR. CLARKE: That's right.

MS. RYSTROM: It still goes back again.

MR. CLARKE: Am I not right, Ham, it still wouldn't

be official.

MR. MCWHORTER: I really don't see the point. I

think you would adjourn sine die, you've just got a quasi-legal

proceeding going on. This is the only part the Senate plays,

21 you've got a 56 jury rather than 12.
MR. CLARKE: I think they could continue in an adjourned session, whatever you might want to call it, for this specific purpose.
CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: And that's all they would " consider.
MR. CLARKE: But I think you've got to have a message going back to the House.
MS. RYSTROM: I didn't realize that. You said j(i something before about our adjourning and retiring to write,
, or something like that. Do you not want us to reach some conclusions right now about what we would like to do? CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: I think we ought to reach a conclusion on Section VI right now but before we do that, we need to make a decision on how we want the General Assembly at the end of the session, if an impeachment trial is proceeding, to handle this, whether the House would adjourn or both would stay there. MS. RYSTROM: You want motions? I would move that we request that it say the Senate only. CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Senate only. DR. PYLES: I would send that. CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: All in favor? (Ayes. ) CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Unanimous.

22

DR. PYLES: Now are we back to the Clark resolution.

I guess that was the language of the -- I'd like just a minute

if I could, I want to read what Frank Edwards had put into this.

The commentary says here that it consolidated all of it into

one paragraph and since we're interested in trying to clean up

language, I want to read that against what is presently --

it's in Section 4 here but I can't find -- oh, here it is.

MS. RYSTROM: I think they dropped the extensions If for impeachment from the adjournment section and just put that

In language in, "except as otherwise provided in this Constitution."

: I He opted to put it in the impeachment Article rather than

I' " adjournment in both places.

,,:.:;Jv11'(1 .

,/ --j\\ \/r- _. \ \/\~i.E.;~ /

Cll'ltlfl!'.'

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY:

\., //

I think the difference is the

! f 1970 draft left it to the General Assembly to establish the

procedure, whereas the present Constitution more or less sets

the procedure. I think under the present Constitution the

principle would probably be that the House would determine the

procedure that it would follow in considering impeachment and

the Senate would determine the procedure that it would follow

in trying an impeachment. This says, "The General Assembly

is hereby authorized to provide . the procedure . "

MS. RYSTROM: In the absence of such a provision,

there shall be no impeachments.

DR. PYLES: They have all powers, they can decide

to let the courts worry about it. Hope it's not a justice that's

: \{ :

23

on trial. I like the language in the original Constitution.

MR. CLARK: I do too. Anything this important should

be at least spelled out as precisely as this is spelled out

without getting into the adjournment issue.

DR. PYLES: Further, the Edwards thing does not take

into any account the penalties, limitations on penalties --

MR. HILL: It's the next paragraph.

DR. PYLES: Oh, is it? I beg your pardon, yes,

you're right.

'I!, l

MR. HENRY: I can't see -- in the '70 proposal, I

can't see any difference there where the Senate shall be on

oath or affirmation. The current Constitution also gives a

I' ~"(:r"t> provision on how the Chief Justice, if he can be disqualified.

DR. PYLES: Furthermore, the original Constitution

says that the Chief Justice shall and Edwards says "may". If .', . we went to the Edwards, I'd want to ask some questions about
Col
that.

MR. CLARK: It says, " .. concurrence of two-thirds

of the membership of the Senate." The present one says just

" . two-thirds of the members present." I don't know if that

would be of great

MS. RYSTROM: Could be.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: There's a substantial difference.

MS. RYSTROM: I would think it should be of the

membership of the Senate rather than of the members present. I

24

hadn't noticed that at all.

DR. PYLES: That provides a loophole for some people

to decide not to be there in the event, one way or the other.

MR. CLARK: Yes. On a matter of that importance, do

you think a two-thirds vote if it's that important, it seems

that a two-thirds vote would be important.

MS. RYSTROM: I think it should be a two-thirds vote

, too in the House as well .

./

HR. CLARK: Two-thirds of the membership rather than

those present?

MS. RYSTROM: Uh-huh.

DR. PYLES: I don't know, Barbara, I'd be worried about

,~ two-thirds of the House. I just think that would be -- I

--' "-..-...

1-~ suppose a person who has been impeached, that's a cloud, even

if you're acquitted later, and it might be that a simple

majority would be too easy to get. Frankly--

MS. RYSTROM: I was thinking inter-house mischief that

we occasionally see evidence of, you know, let's heat up this

potato and toss it over to the other House. And something as

significant as impeachment, it would be too bad for that to

happen. I know there isn't really evidence to suggest it, that

on an issue like that, there would be any frivolous action,

but -) .,,

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Well, let's take it section by

section and see whether we concur with the concept that's there

PACE 25

or whether we want to change it. On the power to impeach,

"The House of Representatives, by majority vote, may impeach."

Does anybody recommend a change in there?

MS. RYSTROM: I did, but since there apparently

isn't much support for the idea, I will forget it. Is that

a vote of the membership or those present? It's of the

membership, if not otherwise stated, is that correct?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: It's those present.

If
MS. RYSTROM: Okay.

1(1

MR. HILL: Did you just propose language?

MS. RYSTROM: He's just describing it.

0'

MR. HILL: Okay, this wasn't a proposal for a new

paragraph.
I.'.
CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: I take it back, it would be a

'majority, I think it would be a majority of the members, a

Constitutional majority in any event.

DR. PYLES: May I raise another question? What

about this n against all persons who shall have been . " What's the point? In that case, the House may have gone on

after Mr. Nixon. If even acquittal -- upon conviction by the

Senate still does not remove the ~bility, would be subject to indictment, trial and punishment according to any criminal laws

that might have been violated. I don't know why go after a

person who shall have been in office. In that case we could

go after maybe an Ellis Arnall or something like that.

26

MS. RYSTROM: I think that end of the sentence has

to be worked on, not only for that. I thought that was archaic

language in that it still somehow referred to people in office,

but I feel very strongly that we have to have some clearer

language there so that it will be fairly clear to the ordinary

person who reads this, who is subject to this kind of procedure.

DR. PYLES: This is highly confusing if you say

" ... shall have been in office ... " That's almost ex post facto

or something.

JU

MR. CLARK: How can you impeach somebody who's not in

office.

DR. PYLES: Yeah. Or why. We've got criminal

"provisions, law, civil law.

MR. CLARK: Any understandable background for that,

that phraseology, "shall have been"?

CHAIfu~ SWEENEY: No.

MR. TIDWELL: If you look further into what you can do,

the consequences are, he cannot hold office again. That might

shed some light on that.

DR. PYLES: That might be the rationale for it, to

preclude a man from serving again if convicted of any offense.

MR. MCWHORTER: Same felony.

MS. RYSTROM: I thought maybe what you were doing is

working through the sentence sort of half at a time and that we

could deal with the question of who does what and what proportion.

'~I \ j'

27

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: I take it, Barbara, your feeling

is that both the nature of the office that is subject to

impeachment ought to be clarified as well as taking up Dr.

Pyles suggestion, whether it ought to extend to those people

who have left office.

MS. RYSTROM: Whoever proposed "e l ec ted officials of

the Executive and Judicial Branches", that seems to me clear

enough that most people could understand it and realize who

it was talking about that was subject to this. And perhaps if

i' our feeling is that it should be only present officeholders,

then just inserting the word "present" or something like that

-,\ f,..
,(':~_5 ,

MR. HILL: Is that your feeling? I mean, I think the .language is fairly clear now and it does extend to people who

have held office before. Now a person could leave office and

two or three years later something is found out about that

person that would be serious enough to warrant an impeachment

trial so that he or she could never hold office again. I'm

not suggesting that you want to leave it in, but there may be ! i reasons for it. I don't think the language was happenstance,

I think it was intended to cover both people in office and

former officeholders.

MR. CLARK: If from an actual practical standpoint, if

a person is out of office -- impeachment is to put that person

out of office, it seems to me, and the idea if he has committed

some malfeasance or violation, that there would be criminal

28 support, this falls into court action rather than the ponderous procedure of an impeachment. I just can't see it ever corning about, even though that may be kind of shaky ground to stand on, it clutters up again and adds questions to the Constitution that is just not necessary.
MS. RYSTROM: I agree with you. MR. CLARK: I can't see impeaching somebody after he's out of office. DR. PYLES: I actually think the impeachment provision serves as a deterrent or maybe a threat against an officer, r 1 whether it will ever be carried out or not, the fact that it could be carried out is a pretty viable threat. it would seem to me to an individual before he continued to persist in whatever it was that would be heinous enough to warrant impeachment. CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Especially if he knows that it may corne up after he leaves office. MR. CLARK: I should think that the practical politics of the matter, campaigning and all, if there were malfeasance J'1 or a question of it, it would be in the public domain and his opponents, you know, would bring this out. But I don't think it's enough it's not important enough to quibble about. I don't think it's likely to come up again, so I would be opposed to leaving the wording in there, I don't think it serves any protective purpose at all. CHAI~~N SWEENEY: Well, is there a motion to drop it?

DR. PYLES: Let's be specific, drop

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Drop "shall have been ll

DR. PYLES: I so move.

+

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Is there a second?

DR. PYLES: To drop the language "shall have been".

MR. CLARK: I second it.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: All in favor?

MS. RYSTROM: I was getting convinced on the other

'.) side as this discussion went on.

iii

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Four in favor of dropping the

language.

Let's move on to Paragraph II.

MS. RYSTROM: We didn't actually settle the question

of what language describes those subjects, maybe we agreed

by concensus, but --

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: I think we all agreed that it

would run to all elected officers of the Executive or Judicial

Branches. The question is whether we need to clarify that and

I think we need probably some more research before we

determine whether or not the present language is sufficient.

DR. PYLES: Well now look, if we said " . against

all Constitutional officers . "

MR. RYSTROM: If I read that, I would assume a sheriff

was included, you know, a fairly uninformed --

DR. PYLES: He's an officer of the State.

30

MS. RYSTROM: Uh-huh.

DR. PYLES: Well if you're not in office, then you're

not an officer.

MS. RYSTROM: Oh, you're dealing with the "shall have

been" .

(,

DR. PYLES: I realize but I've been wondering if we

were going to come to this. If we specify certain kinds of

officers, then if one is out of office, you're not an officer.

I realize that's a semantic

CHAI~urn SWEENEY: Well, we have voted to strike the . I language "shall have been".

MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, I'm curi.ous as to why this

provision is being interpreted as being limited to elected J,I officials.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: I don't think it is.

MR. HILL: You would like to limit it to elected

officials?

i:,:":--

MS. RYSTROM: I just would like it to be specified.

I'm not sure that I have an opinion about who it ought to be,

but I don't think it ought to be mysterious. When you wonder
'I
whether or not that person can be impeached, we ought to be able

to look in the impeachment section of the Constitution and know.

DR. PYLES: Yes. I would think that a department

head should be subject to this kind of procedure provided that
... ..:,
the Governor or the Executive would not remove him from office.

31 CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: I think the language, "public

officer of the State" would include any elected or appointed

official, including Judicial Branches but it would not

include -- if you say "officer of the State" it would not run

down to officers of the county or municipality.

MS. RYSTROM: But it would be every officer of the

Executive Department; for example, the Public Relations

Officer?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: You have to get into a definition

ii) of what is an officer. An officer is essentially someone who

has the power to exercise the state sovereignty, to implement

the state's decisions.

DR. PYLES: I could not believe that the House of
""
Representatives in this State, the General Assembly lower house,

I; would be concerned wi.th what was going on in some county some-

where. I mean --

MS. RYSTROM: I can't either, but I --

DR. PYLES: There would be a few local people who

]1; would, but I caftnot believe that the entire body, fifty

percent

-'I

MS. RYSTROM: No, I just meant if you were, you know,

looking through this, you'd want it to be clear that juris-

dictions smaller than the entire state, those officers or

whatever are -- maybe this is just a bee in my bonnet. One of

the things that I guess I would like to see is that more of the

32

language in the Constitution be something that is intelligible

and where the limitations and so on are evident.

CHAIP~N SWEENEY: Well beyond going to language

which defines a class in terms of public officer of the state,

that excludes somebody who is not an officer but who is an

employee. It would encompass any officer of the state as

opposed to any officer of the county or municipality, but unless

you get into stringing out the language, which is not our

t.\ purpose, I don't know that you can really get into much more

clarity.

MS. RYSTROM: I hadn't even thought about the elected

thing, just to pick up what somebody said, I think "public

officer of the state" then would be sufficient.

MR. HILL: And that's as far down as you want to go.

You don't want to go to public officer or employee.

MS. RYSTROM: No, that's right.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: You want to make that in the form

of a motion?

MS. RYSTROM: Okay, I so move.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Is there a second?

-'i

DR. PYLES: Well let's see, now what is the motion?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: The motion is that the language be

clarified to reflect officers subject to impeachment are all

public officers of the state.

MR. HILL: Presently in office.

.';, ,
":'," \ .(' J,

MS. RYSTROM: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Presently in office. MR. CLARK: Do you need a second? CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Yes. MR. CLARK: I second it. CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: All in favor, raise your hands.
(Votes were cast with raised hands.) CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Opposed? I think we are now through with Paragraph I. We have a long way to go. Paragraph II. I think we have covered the first sentence. The second sentence requires that the Senators be on oath or affirmation. Is there any concern with that provision? MS. RYSTROM: If that were not there, what would be different? CHAIRMAN StiEENEY: They would not be on oath or affirmation. MS. RYSTROM: What would be the -CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: The process of the trial is iike the Senate sitting as a jury, members of the jury take an Oath that they will fairly and impartially decide the case. MS. RYSTROM: Would that not be the case even if this language weren't in this paragraph? CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: They would not take an oath to that effect, other than the general oath of office. It gives the aura

34

of the special dignity of the proceeding.

DR. PYLES: Who is the presiding justice?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Now? Or just who is

DR. PYLES: Is that a specific title?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Yes.

DR. PYLES: There is a presiding justice?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: It's generally the justice of

the Supreme Court who is second in seniority.

DR. PYLES: I see.

I'

MR. CLARK: I don't see anything wrong with Paragraph

; j II. It seems to me it meets the points of these other

Constitutions and it spells it out quite clearly.

MS. RYSTROM: I would like to scratch the last word

in the paragraph so that it's two-thirds of the members.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Well let's get by the second

sentence first. Is there any qualms -- are there any qualms

with either the second or third sentence of this paragraph,

both related to procedure and presiding officer?

(No response.)

>1

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Okay. Let's go to the third

sentence which requires that the conviction be upon two-thirds

vote of the members present as opposed to two-thirds of the

members. You have a problem with that?

MS. RYSTROM: It seems to me that -- I realize that

this gives the stay-aw~y a more powerful no vote, but I still

i \! i 35

think that it -- I don't know what -- I assume we would still

be dealing with a quorum, which I don't know what it is. What

is the smallest number?

MR. CLARKE: Simple majority.

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Chairman, if I may say something.

I don't object to the move, but I think you should consider

some other wording. As it is now two-thirds of those elected,

if you leave the word off, I think there's a little ambiguity.

I'm not suggesting which way you go, but I think if you go

!.: the other way you need to clarify it because if you say two-

I, thirds, I don't know what you mean by two-thirds. Most places

you see "of those elected" or "of those qualified".

MS. RYSTROM: "Of those elected" would be fine for me.

Assuming that the quorum applies, with two-thirds of the members

present, sixteen Senators could then suceed. Have I don't it

wrong? My mathematics is probably way off, 56, right, 56

Senators?

SENATOR BROWN: You'd have 29 for a quorum.

i'_,'

MR. MCWHORTER: It'd take twenty.

MS. RYSTROM: Okay, but that still -- whatever two-

thirds of 29 is, is still not very many, 20.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Well my concern with requiring

two-thirds of the members as opposed to two-thirds of the

members present is that the procedure is cumbersome enough, if

you permit a person, a member of the Senate to in essence vote

36

no by not being present, that's the easy way out.

MS. RYSTROM: True, I agree with you.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: That's the easy way out.

MS. RYSTROM: I just think that this is one of

those things that there should be extraordinary agreement about,

since turning someone out of office is extremely serious.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: I agree, and the charge is

extremely serious and what you're permitting is a member to

abstain, not be present and in essence not give the matter the IU consideration that it ought to be given, just stay away and

not afford it the dignity that it seems it ought to be subject to.

MS. RYSTROM: I tell you what, I'll make a motion and

we'll see if it gets a second.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Okay.

MS. RYSTROM: I move that we strike the word "present" 1(, and use -- say "elected members" or whatever language would

do that.

1K

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Is there a second?

1')

(No response.)

~t)

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Motion does for lack of a second.

Paragraph III.

MR. HILL: That takes care of Paragraph II then in

its entirety?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: That I s correct.

MR. HILL: Okay. Now one thing I would ask is do you

\\ {';,

37

think it should be titled "Trial of Impeachments", to just

kind of clarify? One is "Power to Impeach" --

DR. PYLES: Title of Paragraph II? Yes, that's

excellent. I so move, changing the title to "Trial of

Impeachments".

MS. RYSTROM: Second.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Is there a second? There is a

second. All those in favor, raise your hand.

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: All right, the motion passed.

Paragraph III relating to Judgements in Impeachments.

MS. RYSTROM: Is there a problem about the definition

of "enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit " Could you

be a bank president if you had been impeached?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: This relates to public office.

MS. RYSTROM: Public office.

DR. PYLES: Well then would it be proper to change

the word "within" to "of"?

MS. RYSTROM: Dh-huh.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Except that then limits it, given

our prior change, to -- it would permit someone who has been

impeached, for example, from the Office of Attorney General,

to be elected sheriff of a county.

MR. CLARKE: It seems to me that the word "office"

here clearly means an office of government and not an office of

38

private office.

MR. HILL: I would point out that in the '70 version

again, it added "to receive a pension therefrom". That was

another thing that they would lose and then they shortened

the language in the last clause somewhat to say that " ... no

judgement shall relieve any party from any criminal or

civil liability." instead of this " .. indictment, trial, judg-

ment, and punishment .. " I'm not sure if you prefer this

language in the '70 proposal as is.

J"

MS. RYSTROM: I would. I hadn't thought about the

1! pension, but I think it would be rather aggravating for some-

one to receive a pension who had been impeached.

DR. PYLES: Don't we have the President doing it --

well, he wasn't impeached.

MS. RYSTROM: That's rather aggravating to me, even

i~ what we've got. The language is real funny that listed --

l' I was saying before someone was comma happy in that section.

i.', The' 70 version I would think would be acceptable. That's on

page 10 in the middle of the page.

MR. CLARK: What page is that on?

DR. PYLES: Page 10.

") -~

MS. RYSTROM: Presumably the pension that this

impeached person is precluded from collecting is not necessarily

,1 t

the pension for the position that they were impeached from, the

way I would read this, it sounds to me like they aren't going to

get any state pensions.

M~. HILL: Any state pension, right. That's the way

it's worded.

MS. RYSTROM: I think that would be fine.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Would someone like to make a

motion to adopt Paragraph 2 from the '70 revision?

MR. CLARK: I so move.

DR. PYLES: Second.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: All in favor?

o
:(
i! I-
e'
('

(Votes were cast with raised hands.) CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: The motion passes. We will take

) Paragraph 2 from the 1970 -- proposed 1970 revision and use

that for our present Paragraph III.

:.

MS. RYSTROM: We talked a little bit before about

not allowing pardons, but what about additional evidence. Is

there nothing to undo an impeachment?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: No.

MS. RYSTROM: It stands regardless of what evidence

of innocence there might come along later?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: That's true.

MS. RYSTROM: That's apparently typical. I looked

in the model.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Since we've gotten by that easy

one, why don't we take another easy one.

MS. RYSTROM: Could we take a quick break or would

40 you rather that I just excused myself?
CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: We'll just take about five minutes. {A short recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Why don't we take up Militia and Emergency Powers now. My basic feeling about both of them is the concept could be greatly simplified, probably in one sentence of not more than twenty-five words, if that many_
DR. PYLES: Do you have one written out? CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: No, but I was going to suggest 1(1 I've never been involved in the process of revising a 1; Constitution before. Harold has had some experience and he suggested what we do is perhaps after this meeting take the concensus of what we have been able to discuss today and I will ).t sit down with Mel and we will come up with a working draft. I" It'll probably be a working draft on things we're not able to reach today too as well, so that we will have something to go from rather than simply going through each one of these word-byword MS. RYSTROM: If we could have it in advance of the next meeting? CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Right. Has anybody got any con~ents on the militia article other than to narrow its language -- not narrow its language but shorten its language. MR. CLARK: The militia? CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. CLARK: I just really question the need of having this in the Constitution at all. I question it and am open to argument that it should be there but it seems to me superfluous and meets no needs.
CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Mike, does your research concur with that?
MR. HENRY: As far as I know. I think my research said that it was brought into the Constitution in 1877 and prior to that we had it mentioned in other parts of the j() Constitution but never saying that there shall be a militia. Of course, in almost every Constitution it says the Governor
(~
shall be commander-in-chief of the state militia. Other than , that, this is the first, this is the 1877 version -- well,
there was one, 1868 version I think that dealt with the militia and then the language was changed to this version that we have right now, in 1877.
I know, the first sentence here of Organization of Militia, for awhile was the first sentence in the Bill of Rights section dealing with the right to bear arms. If you want to mention it, you could perhaps put it in with that or
MR. CLARKE: It seems to me, it would be so simple just to say liThe General Assembly shall have the right through legislation to provide for a state militia. 1I
MR. HENRY: That's all they're saying here anyway. MR. CLARKE: And if they don't need it, they ain't

42

got to have it.

MR. HENRY: It could possibly be put into the other

section that we're considering

MR. CLARK: Emergency Powers.

MR. HENRY: Well, General Powers.

t,

MR. CLARKE: It doesn't need to be a separate section.

DR. PYLES: No, they have all powers anyway. The

fact though that you specify and put that in, then by the fact

that someone was executing sometHhg else, someone could say

11 "

uh-huh -- if you put it in, someone might say tha't's a limitation.

I don't want to limit the General Assembly to all powers except

in those limitations that we need to put in.

MR. HENRY: This Paragraph IV rnight possibly need to I: be dealt with. It's a relatively new paragraph and I'm kind

of wary any time that I find something in here that talks

about applying the federal provisions or have mention of the
n
11 Federal Government in it, of the legal effect of taking it out.

I'd have to do more research on that.

III

DR. PYLES: On page 24?

MR. HENRY: Page 24, yes, Paragraph IV, Discipline
','
1 of the Militia. The 1877 version I believe had Paragraphs

I, II and III and the 1945 version I believe added Paragraph IV.

The '43-'44 Constitutional Revision Commission I believe just

MR. CLARKE: Mike, why couldn't you just simply say

43 liThe General Assembly is empowered to create by law a militia and to provide for its organization, regulation and disciplining of its members."
CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Federal law would supersede anyway. MR. CLARKE: That's right. You're preempted on anything they've done. If you do that, you've done it and that's it. MS. RYSTROM: Apparently the issue was just skipped completely in the 1970 proposal or am I just not finding it? MR. HENRY: It probably wasn't in the Legislative Article or it could have been deleted, the whole thing. MS. RYSTROM: I just di&'t find it and don't remember
\-' {;'
reading it and can't find it now. MR. HILL: It's not in this Article, it may be
mentioned in another Article. MR. HENRY: Bill of Rights, there's no telling. MR. CLARKE: It could even be part of the Executive
since the Governor -MR. HILL: I'll try to find it. MR. CLARKE: But I still think the one sentence like
I just mentioned would do what needs to be done. CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: I think the concensus is to
eliminate it if that's feasible and MS. RYSTROM: Get it done with one sentence if it
isn't.

44

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Yeah.

MS. RYSTROM: I would agree with that.

DR. PYLES: Was the other suggestion -- all right,

to eliminate it completely was one possibility, is that correct?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: If that's feasible and will not

,) generate problems as to the power to create it.

DR. PYLES: I'm back in Section VIII, Paragraph I. I

think that they have the power, as we state, " .. shall deem

'I necessary and proper for the welfare of the State." I don't

lU even think you have to add militia, Mr. Clarke, it seems to me

11 like it's just inherent. Do you suppose that the fact that we
,)
have taken it out, that someone could quarrel that it was just

eliminated?

I,j

MR. CLARKE: Well they could find some good

legislative intent with what's being said.

MS. RYSTROM: And you certainly could argue that

every time you include a power that is there inherently, you

weaken the notion of inherent powers and we may not be able to

help that. As long as that's so, I would think that it's

certainly better to omit anything like that if possible. I just

had the feeling that maybe it wasn't possible, not in terms of

the legalities, but the practicalities.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Well the only question at all that

I have~out the Article relates to Discipline of the Militia

and I think under normal circumstances discipline would require

i '\f;' 45
if there's going to be any sanction beyond removal from the militia or forfeiture of benefits from the militia, that it would have to be involved in a judicial trial and this Article provides court-martial. That1s the only thing that I would have any qualms about.
But I think if we can agree that that is our concensus, that -- to remove it if that's feasible; if it's not, to limit it to its most narrow or shortest statement of '" the power possible, then we can move on to the next one.
MR. CLARKE: It becomes an editorial function from . there on out.
CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Right. Is that the concensus? Okay, that is the concensus.
The next provision dealing with Emergency Powers, I have basically the same feelings about it. It relates solely to disasters caused by enemy attack and that's a rather narrow power.
DR. PYLES: Are there any contingency legislation -is it possible to have contingency legislation -- is there any contingency legislation now that in the event, that this is the procedure that will be followed? Is that set out by the General Assembly?
MR. HENRY; There's -- I tried to kind of summarize the legislation and I really didn't do it as well as I should have. I think this has to be in the Constitution because it

46

appears to me that the legislation that has been enacted

pursuant to this, in the event of an emergency, if the Governor

calls an emergency, in the section dealing with these powers

of the Governor, I believe it really cut across all three

branches of government, so absent this provision, you would

definitely have separation of powers problems because this in

effect gives him a blank check almost when he does declare an

emergency to condemn, to take land that's needed, which I

believe is a legislative function anyway. So it kind of gives

10 him these extraordinary powers which, absent this provision,

l' I don't think1he legislation would stand up. ,, J '- that though.

I'm not sure of

CHAIR~N SWEENEY: I agree that it's needed, i t

authorizes legislation which in essence overrides the

Constitution.

1/ l ;

MS. RYSTROM: How about the question

DR. PYLES: I was just going to say, in the Executive

Article, is there a provision that the Governor may call --

may declare an emergency? He has that power?

MR. HENRY: Yes.

DR. PYLES: Does it further say any other kinds of

powers that he has?

MR. HENRY: I think it does.

MR. HILL: Where is that?

MR. HENRY: I know now, in what I was talking about

1'.\ ~; L 47

earlier, page 32 of this brown book, it talks about when the II

House of Representatives and three-fifths of the members

elected to the Senate shall have certified to the Governor

of the State ... that in their opinion an emergency exists in the

affairs of the State of Georgia . and the Governor shall fail

or refuse to convene said General Assembly as aforesaid, then

and in that event (the) General Assembly may convene itself ... "

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: That's another class of emergency

though, it's not limited to enemy attack which is what we're

dealing with in ours, Section XII of Article III.

MS. RYSTROM: Do we want to limit it to enemy attack?

, Aren't we there could be, you know, a nuclear disaster.

I don't mean that I want to open it up very broadly, but the

jt potential for -- I'd say we're more likely to have an environ-

mental disaster than an enemy attack.
~~.

:1

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: We're more likely to survive an

environmental disaster.

MS. RYSTROM: That's probably true. I was thinking

of those troops in Cuba though. This does hinge on the question

of what constitutes an emergency. I mean not only what kind

of an emergency but how it gets declared. Did anybody identify

how that happens?

CI~IRMAN SWEENEY: That's to be determined by the

legislation enacted pursuant to the paragraph.

MR. HENRY: There's a definition in that legislation.

48

DR. PYLES: I'm a little interested too in this that

Mike is referring to on page 32 that if in their opinion an

emergency exists. I cannot imagine an emergency that would go

unrecognized by the Executive Officer.

MR. HILL: But this is an emergency in the affairs

of the State Government.

DR. PYLES: Right and that's why I don't like -- I

wish they would change that word "emergency" because this

crowds our emergency section that we're trying to deal with.

I think that's what Barbara is asking, what is emergency.

11

MS. RYSTROM: I am asking what is an emergency and I

J. ,I am not sure I even understand the answer to my previous question

about how the legislation will indicate what -- what is the
//
j ..! trigger?

j :>

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: The trigger is a disaster caused

by enemy attack and how that's determined is number one an

objective fact and number two a declaration by the Governor

that it has occurred.
19
DR. PYLES: What page are you on?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Page 24. That's all Section XII

deals with. It's not just any kind of an emergency but a

particular emergency caused by enemy attack.

MS. RYSTROM: Well is there an indication there that

I'm missing about the Governor's action being involved?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: No, that's part of the legislation

49
that's drafted pursuant to this Article. MS. RYSTROM: So on page 32 we've got what the
legislature does when the Governor doesn't recognize a disaster, not this kind of a disaster, any disaster and here --
CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: A money shortage would be an emergency within the meaning of the paragraph dealing with emergencies on page 32 but it would not be an emergency under Section XII, Article III.
DR. PYLES: If there were an emergency of this kind, ;'J this would not rest on the Governor to declare it, the
President would declare it. CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Yeah. DR. PYLES: An attack from without. But would this
): include -- rather than calling it Emergency Powers, to provide for some kind of line of succession. MR. HENRY; Yes it does. MS. RYSTROM: But also, that second paragraph I don't think this one is so simple after all, much more complex. CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Well, it really is simple because it deals with a specific type of emergency and it permits two types of actions as a result of that emergency, one is succession without all the rulings, special election and confirmation by the Senate, and it also permits legislation to insure continuity of government, which would not otherwise

50

be -- without all the legislative trappings of calling of

special sessions --

MS. RYSTROM: I meant t.he recognition of what is an

appropriate disaster was a little trickier, we're picturing

the bombing of a mainland Pearl Harbor or something perhaps,

but surely it could be a little more typical. We can imagine

a situation where there would be some argument about whether

we were under enemy attack, it doesn't necessarily mean

Marines go in and things like that.

10

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Well this Article leaves all that

11 to definition by statute adopted by the General Assembly.

";':~'!-,-~,

MS. RYSTROM:

;\' Ie j \\ """"" \, -;6.,),/i~------ , it sounds sort of --

I suppose there's no other way but

"

'.,----

,,

JI

MR. HILL: This was adopted as is in 1970 also.

MR. CLARKE: It was left out of the '64 draft. I jh :, wonder why, and I ought to remember why.

MS. NONIDEZ: It came in as an amendment.

L-:
MR. HENRY: Yes, '64-'65.

19

MS. NONIDEZ: It was ratified in 1964.

),
in '64.

MR. CLARKE: Okay, so that's the reason it was out

MS. NONIDEZ: That period of time, the Cold War Crisis.

MR. CLARK: Is there any reason to limit this to a

disaster caused by enemy attack? I'm thinking again, like you,

of a nuclear disaster, a holocaust of some kind, earthquake,

Ii' something that absolutely disrupted government and wiped out certain officials. You know, some real chaotic thing. Enemy attack seems to me to be limiting. The same procedures would apply and I would think hopefully that an earthquake would
~ be more likely than an enemy attack. That's a hope. MS. RYSTROM: You'll be reported as hoping for an
earthquake. MR. CLARK: I'll be reported, yes. MR. MCWHORTER: I think if anybody reads Small's
" Notes on the '77 Constitution, that was about the third one, they're still talking about civil war and the possibility of invasion. Maybe with the modern interpretation of it, we don't need that now, but at that time it could be they were worried about attack from state to state. However, the only difference in that and a calamity today is in the case of an invasion you could not get the General. Assembly together, where if you had
)7 an earthquake or something you probably COUld. That's the only difference I can interpret from reading Small's Notes and looking at the other versions of the Constitution, the differential between invasion and attack if it wasn't practical for the General Assembly to meet when they would have. Of course you've got a time limit also, as Mr. Clarke says, go through the five or six day proceedings, if you had a terrible earthquake. MR. TIDWELL: Well, don't for a minute think the State

52

is not prepared to react to a nuclear or any other disaster.

There's an emergency preparedness plan under the Civil Defense

Act that's as big as that telephone book there, that distributes

all of the responsibilities of who will react and who will

handle this and it's a pretty well -- just because it doesn't

say it in the Constitution doesn't mean that it is not there.

It is.
,
,~

MR. CLARKE: Charlie, are those things authorized

by this section though?

MR. TIDWELL: They're authorized generally by Federal

J1 > statute.

MR. CLARKE: I see.

MR. TIDWELL: That requires a Civil Defense

14 , preparedness and mobilization plan and it is updated from time

j c, '" to time. The feds have to review it and approve it.

lh

MR. CLARKE: Well, you know, the Federal Deposit

~ Insurance Corporation even requires that a bank have a plan of

that sort on file in each bank and submit it to. So I guess 19 that's probably the same.

,'f)

DR. PYLES: Well, are we then not really concerned --

"'i your manual, the manual you're talking about would not provide

for the succession of a civil officer like a Secretary of State,

would it?

MR. TIDWELL: No. There has been legislation adopted

pursuant to this I think that sets forth a line of succession.

I' \ ,1 53

It's a little bit different from what the Constitution says,

but that's only triggered in the event that we have this, and

I remember when this amendment came about. It followed the

Cuban Missile Crisis where there was a great deal of worry

that we would have an atomic holocaust where you just didn't

I) find a seat of state government any more, it'd be a big hole

"7 in the ground and all of state government would come to a

screaming halt without some sort of provision being made in

the Constitution. That's where it came from. I think folks

Ii' are not quite that worried about it now as they were then but

I think it serves some purpose in being in there, whether it's

, a laudatory purpose or not, I don't know.

I
. l(I'!:.,~,-

MS. RYSTROM: Without something in there, do you think

it would be the case that in, sayan emergency disaster caused

by enemy attack, that it would not be possible to arrange for
, ~j
the succession -- it would not be possible to have legislation
;)
which could arrange --

MR. TIDWELL: You just might not have but twenty

members of the General Assembly left.

MR. CLARKE: It seems to me

":

MS. RYSTROM: I mean is this an inherent power or

does it have --

MR. CLARKE: It seems to me one of the vital things

is contained in the second subparagraph where it deals with the

suspension of any and all Constitutional legislative rules. In

54

fact as they now stand, they've got to adopt something by a

majority of elected members. And let's suppose that there are

not that many of them then alive and they've got to act. You've

.1 got to have some Constitutional basis for the General Assembly

to come in and act.

MR. CLARK: It seems to me the emergency powers that

are picked up in this is effective and necessary. My only

question is whether it should be limited to the er.emy attack.

But if we've got the disaster covered in other ways --

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Well enemy attack is -- I think the
',J
z
! I theory is that enemy attack is going to be a long-range

,~~<~\IfZ:l."

"proposition, a natural, environmental disaster is not going to

((iE.-:j~'/\,~,,,,,, 0; be something that can't be dealt with in the normal operation

, ...._._--".
1-\ : of the State government, normal operation enhanced by the

I' emergency.

1:'1

MS. RYSTROM: Well if we feel that there must be

something in here that authorizes the legislation that we're

talking about, then the question is how minimal the entry in the

Constitution can be, I think.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: I think we're talking about

simplification of language.

DR. PYLES: Let me see if I've got something right -, .~ here. This is emergency powers and it says that in the event

'''The General Assembly . sha!l have the power and the immediate

duty (1) . " My question is has this not already been provided

55

for under the contingency -- if they've all been wiped out

or there's 20 remaining, they can't get together or they do

get together, whatever. I mean, at that point, it has already

been pre-determined by the legislature what their will was, it

seems to me to obviate them having to do anything else in case

there were no one left.

MR. CLARKE: I don't know what they --

DR. PYLES: I don't either but I assume that any

kind of succession laws that have already been passed would be

in operation.

MS. RYSTROM: A corollary of what you're saying, I

\\~ )1 if

. tt

I

,',

!

l ...

J .: think, is this is written as if in response to the emergency

~ these things are done and yet in fact the statutes are there

. 14 - already and that's in place based on this 'il ~

1t:

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: No, I think you're reading it wrong.

,
;( ~ The power of the General Assembly to provide the matters

! ' . prescribed in subparagraphs (1) and (2) is there now. Those j;' provisions do not come into effect until there is a disaster . ) caused by enemy attack.

MR. HILL: You think it would be better stated if you

just said that the General Assembly shall provide by law for

the succession of officers in an emergency and are hereby given

the authority to carry out whatever.

MR. HENRY: Would that not be covered by the necessary

and proper clause of the next paragraph, wouldn't that be necessary

56

and proper?

MR. HILL: Except that you would mandate in the

Constitution that they do it now and get ready. They have

, already done it, they've gotten ready.

MR. HENRY: They've already done it, right.

MR. HILL: But may the question you raise and Dr.

Pyles raises is a good one I think, that once you're in a

k disaster situation what are you going to do and it has already

been done, you're following statute and maybe we could just

Ii) recognize that fact in here with different wording.

:1

MS. RYSTROM: I think that would be good because in

..,.:,.sv rr ,
((;~)';\ "c'~'!""
, ."~......._._"~/';'
;,

general the wording if what the legislature is instructed or authorized to do. Maybe that's one of the things that this mini-committee you described could draft something for us.

I'

DR. PYLES: Where did I read all the material about

10 z habeas corpus, is that in your material?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Mr. Clark mentioned the possibility

J-: of expanding it to deal with other emergencies. My basic

)" feeling is that's not necessary but if we want to irqiement that

:(i power in the Constitution we need to make a decision on it.

,.
.i

DR. PYLES: You mean in this section?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Since we're dealing with Emergency

Powers, we might as well go ahead and deal with that question

now.

MR. CLARK: I think my confusion is you don't know what

57
is stipulated or provided in other parts of the Constitution. Somewhere in something I read, for instance, the Governor would have the power to move the State Capitol to someplace else from here if it were impossible to act here. Those are procedures that come out, should come out in some statement of powers. And the only thing about the enemy attack, it seemed to me that was limiting. If we're going to have an emergency that was that broad in the Constitution, it should be authorized but if you go back to the beginning, the first paragraph, the legislature would have thatpower anyway. This just simply sort of spells it out. I don't have any great -- except for simplification of language, any opposition to what's listed here except for that one limitation of enemy attack and if that's covered in other elements, as has been described here, you know, we're wrangling about something that may be unimportant.
MR. HENRY: There's a very comprehensive Civil Defense Act that is now on the books, which this legislation that I gave you a summary of is taken out of that chapter, and they were the statutes that were annotated under this section of the Constitution. Now the rest of the powers that are in " that Civil Defense Act I believe deal with disasters of the type you're talking about, maybe even Hurricane David or something like that. I don't think they needed this section right here to enact that type of legislation, but with respect to the legislation that I did summarize for you, I believe that

58

I'm not sure why it couldn't be dealt with in the necessary

and proper clause but that's neither here nor there. It was

enacted I believe pursuant to these specific powers granted to

them by this Constitutional amendment which was ratified in

'65 or '64. When this was ratified, and I think the language

(, saying "the immediate duty" is very revealing of what the

people wanted the government to do. They wanted them to enact

x legislation to provide these things right here. That has been

(, enacted and it's on the books right now. If this legislation

would fall if you did take this out or whether it could be

I, 'l conceivably construed to be a grant of power given to them in

the general powers section, I don't know. But there is, like

I say, a comprehensive Civil Defense Act and this is part of

it.

It;

MR. CLARK: I think again, the question is do we

want to simplify and eliminate and condense and make as "
I
V concise as possible, still without doing damage to either laws

that have been enacted or confusing the powers. We could take

the whole thing out if other elements of the Constitution give

the power and the legislation is already enacted.

"

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Is that a concensus of the

committee? Dr. Pyle?

DR. PYLES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Senator Brown, you agree with that?

SENATOR BROWN: Yes.

: ,\!:I' 59

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY; Now that we've gotten all the
Ii
easy ones finished, let's go to Section VIII.

My recommendation from other discussions we have had

this morning, it is the concensus of the committee that the

broad grant of legislative powers in Paragraph I ought to

remain. I suggest that we start with the limitations and the

exceptions to the limitations on powers and take the Article

backwards and start first with Gratuities.

'J

As we discussed last time, I think every subparagraph

of Paragraph XII on pages 18, 19 and 20 is either a specific

illustration of a prphibition against gratuities or is an

exception to the prohibition.

MS. RYSTROM: Would it be the case then as far as

j - you could tell that -- assuming that pattern followed -- the

j'; thing that I mentioned last time, the supposed inability of a

J" - state to waive tuition for say university employees, could be

written in as an exception to this limitation?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Yeah, it could, but

MS. RYSTROM: Is that how it would be done?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY:

I think what our purpose is,

that would have to be done as the Constitution is presently

worded, but what our purpose is, is to try to eliminate the

necessity for

MS. RYSTROM: Well that's what I really meant, is

there a way to eliminate the necessity for those specific

60 exceptbns to exceptions or is that the only way.
CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: That's the only way, other than to change the basic limitation.
MS. RYSTROM: Well, I mean could we change the basic limitation and still prevent the General Assembly from giving the assets of the State to its membership or something like that if it chose to -- I mean, I'm sure that it's a good idea to have some control on what is done with the assets of the q State and yet it seems to me that isn't probably what anyone IU had in mind. Or, as we talked about before, is it just a ,, .. question of interpretation and really somebody just needs to take it to court.
DR. PYLES: I just hate to see the Constitution of I .~ the State of Georgia cluttered with every kind of exception you
can think of, I'd like a general kind of language. Mel suggested ji, a moment ago that the General Assembly may provide for and
u
maybe just list -- well, if we started listing with exclusions i,' and inclusions, we've done damage to what I believe we decided.
MR. HENRY: You think a more extensive definition 20 of gratuity might possibly take care of some of these problems.
DR. PYLES: Gratuity shall be defined as, and then define the term.
MR. CLARKE: The ridiculousness of this gratuity section was made so clear some years ago and brought about the necessity of adding subparagraph 6. It got to the point they

61

were bringing in industrial prospects and the industrial

representatives in the Department of Industry and Trade were

having to do one of two things, they were either having to pad

their own expense account in order to pay the other fellow's

debt or they were having to come around to public utilities and

banks and what not and get a slush fund for it and either of them

was bad. This is the kind of thing that you just need to avoid

taking place. And it could very well be that a good definition

of -- and I don't think these things were gratuities, they were ; ,) inducements for economic growth of the state as opposed to

', , ~\

\ ',r~

.. '

" ,gratuities. But some real definition might solve that problem. c MR. HILL: That same department has requested that we consider as an amendment, an additional exception, that they

be allowed to make modest gifts to bona fide industrial

prospects. You can see the kind of Pandora's box would be

opened up, which is why we've got fifteen exceptions or however

many it is to this general rule.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: What kind of modest gifts are they !' talking about?

MR. CLARKE: Incidentally, I have a small industrial

plant I'd like to build around here so I can have a modest gift.

(Laughter.) I wonder if this might not be a -- based on Mike's

suggestion for a definition -- that before we really get into a

long discussion of it, we might ought not to delegate the

responsibility to somebody to draft a definition and let's

62

take a look at it and take it apart and put it back together

again once or twice and see if it works, because we may be

talking here about something we won't be dealing with later

~ on if we can accomplish it in that manner.

DR. PYLES: Incidentally, I did read the other day

I, that somebody was about to find oil, where was it Scott County,

one of the counties, some outfit is out there drilling hard

for it.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Does anyone want to put Harold's Ii' suggestion in the form of a motion that we just try to come up t; with a definition of gratuity that somehow takes account of

u what might be considered legitimate expenditures which would

otherwise be gratuities?

MR. CLARK: I would so move and

1 c,-,
SENATOR BROWN: I'll second it.

'.

['.' 7

MR. CLARK: I would extend the motion to include

all of these --

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Exceptions?

I')

MR. CLARK: -- these exceptions. This whole --

I' everything beyond Paragraph 1 .

.;

MS. RYSTROM: Well the test of any such proposal

will be how many of those exceptions are no longer necessary.

I have a feeling it's a lot easier for us to say someone should

do that than it is to come up with it.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Well, if that's the consensus I

63 will volunteer with Mel's help and Mike's help to try to come up with this definition by next week.
MR. HILL: Is anyone else on the committee interested in, you know, diving into this with us?
MR. CLARK: We're talking about just the Gratuities Paragraph XII?
CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Yes. MR. CLARK: These others present the same kind of problem to me, Paragraphs VIII, Contracts to Defeat Competition, Iu Paragraph IV, Compensation and Allowances of Elective Officials and so forth. All of this clutter, it seems to me to be clutter, and if it could be reduced, if there -- if it isn't necessary and legal minds could present something that would substitute for this and still not do great injury or damage to legislation that's already in force -CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Well I think perhaps taking up what we discussed earlier, the possibility of coming up with a working draft that we can go forward from we could take that draft and compare it to existing language in terms of whether or not it encompasses the existing language and if it does and the language in the working draft is satisfectory, move forward from thatpoint. MR. CLARK: Wherever it's necessary. CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: I think that might greatly expedite our work.

64

MR. CLARKE: On first glance, it appears that

Section VIII has a whole bunch of things in it that I would

sure hope could be weeded out. Of course, I recognize as

Bob Walling says, sometimes one man's junk is another man's

pleasure treasure -- maybe pleasure too.

(,

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Well I think, for example,

Contracts to Defeat Competition, that could clearly be provided

~ for by legislation but if we eliminate it, is the political

9 reaction going to be that the new Constitution authorizes

10 contracts to defeat competition or the same type of things
iJ t"z lotteries, for example, if that's eliminated, is the reaction
o
!) ~ going to be the same? One thing I was looking at is that the
~~~ ~ provision for Contracts to Defeat Competition is very similar

J4 to the prohibition against lotteries and the prohibition

l' against lobbying and also the provisions dealing with fraudulent
\" ,"to-
Jh :s debtors. All of those really could be dealt with by legislation
Q 7
17 without any Constitutional statement.

I

C'
"

MR. HILL: I'll tell the Article I committee that

19 !I you're willing to take those three sections.

20

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Leave out lobbying and lotteries.

21

Well, again let me make the suggestion that Mel and

22 I come up with a working draft and we start from there next time.

DR. PYLES: What you plan to do then is define

gratuities --

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Well essentially what I would like

65

to do is take all of Section VIII and see if we can come up with a better statement of the subject matter that in it and

the next time around we can go through it, compare it to the existing Constitution and also look at it intrinsically to determine whether or not it covers everything that ought to be covered, leaves out everything that ought to be left out.
"
DR. PYLES: Well now we've agreed that Paragraph I is the way we're going to leave it. Then we jumped to Paragraph XII and what you're suggesting is really to take everything

in Section VIII exclusive of Paragraph I and try to, among

i . other things, define gratuities and come up with some kind of

a draft with which to work.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Right.

::

MR. TIDWELL: Tim, I mention this as a problem since

Paragraph I is sort of universally accepted as kind of the way I ' it has always been and I think most of us would agree that
we thought that's what our Constitution said but the Mangelli case dealing with a local option sales tax, without reversing all of those myriad of decisions that says you can do whatever the General Assembly can do whatever it wishes so long as it is not prohibited by the Constitution, has said no you can't, you must look to the Constitution --
CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: To determine the power. MR. TIDWELL: To determine the power, and now they granted were dealing with a taxation case and they may say -- I

.,

66

don't know what they're going to say, but this is the place to

deal with that problem, it's not anywhere else that I can tell

in the Constitution, and if that should be left alone, well be

it to leave it along, but if it is something that is somewhat

of a drastic departure from the way Constitutional scholars

have looked at our Constitution and if the Supreme Court means

what it has said, then something needs to be done.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Maybe we can enhance Paragraph I,

expand its thrust a little bit.

[0

MR. MCWHORTER: Tim, you ought to give some thought

!111

t o )".
r~~

deleting

Paragraph

IV because

the modern version

is

taken

,}

j .! care of in Section V.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: I think, you know, Paragraph IV,

", as we discussed last time, is left over from a period when
!
\~ ::, that wasn't the power of the General Assembly. r;:
MR. MCWHORTER: It's back over in Section V, Paragraph

17 ~ IX, is the modern version of it. That's incorrect, isn't that

11\ : right?

19

MS. NONIDEZ: Yes, sir.

20

MR. MCWHORTER: You could just eliminate it, I think.

21

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Right.

22

MR. MCWHORTER: I mean, I'm not suggesting that you

-" "

do it.

MS. RYSTROM: I didn't follow that. I thought maybe

if I paused a moment it would sink in, but --

MR. MCWHORTER: Turn back and look at Section V,

Paragraph IX in the same Article.

MR. HILL: Page 14.

MS. RYSTROM: Thank you. I'm sorry, now say what

you said again, now that I am finally on page 14.

MR. MCWHORTER: Are you on Paragraph IX, Section V.

MS. RYSTROM: Compensation and Allowances.

MR. MCWHORTER: That one is correct, you don't need

them both and the first one is correct. I believe that was a
I,
'74 amendment.

MS. RYSTROM: I see what you mean, all right.

'<t
"1\
:(s-J i

MR. CLARKE: Of course, the one in Section VIII deals with all constitutional officers where the one in Section

,j
V only deals with members of the General Assembly, Ham, I

1 :,
believe.

MR. MCWHORTER: That is possible too. That Constitu-

tional amendment though as originally drawn -- that's an

interpretation you need to make, because as the Constitutional

amendment was originally drawn it applied to all of them and

they eliminated it down and made it just members of the General

Assen~ly. So there's a question whether you need it.

MR. CLARKE: Well the two ought to be looked at

together

MR. MCWHORTER: Got to be worked together anyhow.

That wouldn't have to be in Section V, you could put that one

68 over in Section VIII.

MR. TIDWELL: I think the Constitution used to

provide salaries, say for the Governor, I think it was $10,000

and that provision that you're talking about now that says they

can provide -- has been the authority of course to change. I

think Justices of the Supreme Court were $2,000. Didn't you

eliminate all that, Cindy?

MS. NONIDEZ: Yes.

'!

MR. MCWHORTER: They were all spelled out.

1\)

MR. TIDWELL: The need for it may not be there but

! 1 it was a rather effective tool because without it the Justices

of the Supreme Court would be making $2,400 a year.

MR. HENRY: The '70 proposal in this section on

Compensation and Allowances of Elective Officials, I believe,

I~ ; changed that language to say in effect what Section VIII,

.. Paragraph IV did, that you could not change it during the term

of office. So perhaps the '70 proposal with Section V, Paragraph

IX could be put together to extend to both General Assembly

members and

MR. CLARKE: There needs to be some communication

with the Parthemos subcommittee of course in doing that.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Well, if that is our task, I can

see at least going into next week before we meet again. I

am not available probably on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of

next week.

,\', ,. 69

DR. PYLES: Next week is the 8th?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Right.

DR. PYLES: I'm out the 9th, 10th, 11th and half a

day the 12th.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: The 12th is a Friday?

DR. PYLES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Is Friday afternoon too inconven-

ient with everybody?

MR. TIDWELL: You better see what Moses and Solomon

i' are doing to help you draft that gratuities, see if they can

be available.

MR. CLARKE: I thought that was who we had.

. ' - ~I';I /

(Laughter. ) MR. TIDWELL: Pretty near, but those other two

gentlemen could give a little more credibility than Tim, just

j, a little more.

MR. CLARK: Friday afternoon would be acceptable.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Mr. Holmes said he could meet on

; :' Friday afternoon. Senator, are you available for the 12th

on the afternoon?

SENATOR BROWN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Twelve thirty sound like a good time?

MR. HILL: Twelve thirty?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: We'll have a lot to cover, and

we'll need to get started.

70

DR. PYLES: That might be wise to meet then.

MR. HILL: Yeah, that way we can extend into Saturday

morning.

DR. PYLES: Yeah, or Sunday or whatever.

MR. CLARKE: Can we get through in time to ride with

LSU over to Athens?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Is anybody going to Athens?

MS. RYSTROM: I hadn't thought about that.

u

MR. CLARKE: I hadn't wanted to think about it,

iii frankly.

MR. HILL: How 'bout them Dogs.

MR. CLARK: Are we making some headway?

CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Well, we've gotten three Articles ;-1 done -- three sections.

DR. PYLES: I do, I feel like we have.

'-<,

l ' ':(:

,I

::'

MR. CLARK: Do you? DR. PYLES: The more we do --

MR. HILL: You're doing fine.

MR. CLARKE: I think you're getting the good ones --

I think you've got a good impression of what the sense of the

group is as to what the general makeup of the product ought to

be and that's important and I think it is an impossibility for

even this many people to get down to doing an editorial job.
-I
DR. PYLES: Let me ask this, what -- I was not

inattentive when you gave your time frame for the overall

71 i /.'
committee but to what extent will there be a final reconciliation of any conflicts that we don't get worked out with other -with the Parthemos committee?
MR. CLARKE: Well what we're hoping to do, we'll have some time. We're hoping to get the reports back from the committees on the 24th, which is shoving us pretty close. Then we're thinking in terms of the full committee meeting on the 29th and starting work then. Well that gives us then until December the 7th to put our report in to our bosses and --
DR. PYLES: You're talking about of November or ,, did you say earlier, October.
CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Our committee report is due the 24th of October.
MR. CLARKE: And then we'll all get together as a I ,~ group and have an opportunity to try to work out the II inconsistencies. And of course in the meantime there's one
good thing in that connection too, Mel is here and knows~ut the what each of the subcommittees is doing. I'm going to try to be present at every subcommittee meeting. There may be sometimes -- I may have a problem next Friday, but I'm going to try.
MS. RYSTROM: You know, in terms of preparing us for the big struggle when the subcommittee reports are put together, I assume that the substantive changes, especially, will still be eligible for argument and discussion.

72

MR. CLARKE: Oh, sure.

MS. RYSTROM: If we can in any way know what the

thinking is of the other committees perhaps, just to be sort

of ready with our own thinking at that time, that would be

useful.

MR. CLARKE: Well of course --

MS. RYSTROM: I realize there won't be actual reports.

MR. CLARKE: Now we're hoping on the 24th for every n s~bcommittee to have a draft ready and all of those drafts will 1"" be mailed to every member of the full committee and all of us 11 will have an opportunity then to look at what the others have

done and have a perfect right to add to or subtract from or

modify. And of course I do think that we need to involve other ).1 people, since this is the legislative article we need to IS \'. invite every member of the General Assembly to meet with us

on at least one occasion and invite their comments and possibly

some opportunity for a public hearing. That's something we can

discuss when we get all together.

:I

MS. RYSTROM: Tim, will you and Mel be working this

afternoon on the gratuities?

CHAIRMAN SvVEENEY: No.

MS. RYSTROM: Mel, do you return to Athens during
,,
the week or are you here

MR. HILL: No, I'm here permanently for two or three

years.

i',\( i 73 DR. PYLES: Are we adjourned? CHAIRMAN SWEENEY: Yes. (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 12:11 p.m. on Monday, October 1, 1979.)
'.~ \

74 C E R T I F I CAT E

I, Peggy J. Warren, CVR-CM, CCR No. A-171, do hereby certify that the foregoing 73 pages of transcript represent a true and accurate record of the events which transpired at the time and place set out above.

t~1)~--;9. ,(/i.

//)',

1

.:0: y.?uuVt-">....______

Peggy J. arrent CVR-CM, CCP A-17l

1J

.' !

INDEX Committee to Revise Article III Subcommittee Meeting Held on Oct. 1, 1979

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON BROAD POWERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 10-1-79
SECTION IV: ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Paragraph VI: Salaries. pp. 63-68
SECTION VI: EXERCISE OF POWERS Paragraph 11(1-4): Specific powers. pp. 40-58 Paragraph VI: Gratuities. pp. 59-63
SECTION VII: IMPEACHMENTS Paragraph I: Power to impeach. pp. 3-33 Paragraph II: Trial of impeachments. pp. 33-36 Paragraph III: Judgements in impeachment. pp. 36-39

STATE OF GEORGIA
COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE III of the
CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA
Subcommittee on Organization, Structure and Procedure of General Assembly
Room 401-A State Capitol Atlanta, Georgia Tuesday, October 2, 1979 9:30 a.m.
,,( IH-..;m!C ({FPOR rJi'!C
;i,,' ;If\ I I RAIL. J)()LJCLA~VILLl, (,h>RCll\ ~oln
1 !i

PRESENT WERE:

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

GEORGE PARTHEMOS, CHAIRMAN

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ZELL MILLER

4

REPRESENTATIVE J. C. DAUGHERTY

MR. GLENN ELLARD

SPEAKER THOMAS MURPHY

SENATOR JAMES TYSINGER

MR. HAMILTON MCWHORTER

SELECT COMMITTEE:

MELVIN HILL

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S OFFICE:

1')
z\.7 l.l t-'
:/

FRANK EDWARDS MS. CYNTHIA NONIDEZ
OTHERS:

CHARLES TIDWELL HAROLD CLARKE BOB GIACOMINI
11 i-I

J S ."
t, I E~
I ~.
1-' J'

i'i

('ACE 2

PAGE 3

PRO C E E DIN G S

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Members of the conunittee, I should

like to call the meeting to order. I understand the Lieutenant

Governor will be here in just a few moments and that will make

5 everyone present except Mr. Daugherty, and I hope that he will

6 soon come.

I should like to suggest that this morning, we might

x go back and review and go over the action that we took at our

'I last meeting, before we proceed to consider the items in

](; Section VII, that we are supposed to review. Would that be a
Q
Z
, logical way to approach this morning, to go back and review
(;.
and to look again at those matters that we had deferred and

then move on to new ground once we complete that.

If that's all right then, I think Frank has passed

( ; out to you the -- a draft of what -- incorporates what we did

<,"

;:)

! ,',

a t r;;
7-

our

last

session and what

you

instructed

Mel

and

I

to

do.

C"'~\

! : And' so I think maybe if we could review that, to look at it,

I , to see that it is in order and to take what actions is

!(1 necessary on items that had been deferred.

.'\ )

As I look back and according to my notes, we retained

i Paragraph I -- I mean Section I, Paragraph I.

Section II incorporates the changes that we agreed on

at our last meeting. Let's look at that to be sure that that

is consistent with what we decided on at the last meeting,

Section II, Paragraph I, which concerns the Composition of the

4
General Assembly. Look at that language. The parentheses

there in Paragraph II is an item that no decision has been

made on, has been made on that particular item, whether or not

,1 you want to consider that at this particular time or not, I'll

leave it up to your good judgement. That is the part included

in the parentheses there,"except that such districts shall be

composed of compact and contiguous territory and be of

substantially equal population."

Jim, I think --

11/

SENATOR TYSINGER: This is the one that I wanted to

:t,
Ii address. I would like to see incorporated -- I don't think it

does any violence to the -- what they're trying to do, but I

think it would help us to avoid the problem we had in 1970.

I think that language would -- at least, those of us in the

:.l
IS ,) Senate

I don't think y'all had that problem in the House but

,0
1G g we did in the Senate. And I think that we should just say that c. " 'i
I7 L they shall be compact and contiguous, that's all it says.

MR. MCWHORTER: Most of the other Constitutions says

19 something like that.

20

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Most of them incorporate a

21 similar provision. Presently, as I understand it, the require-

ments of fair districting under your Supreme Court decisions

require substantially equal population but do not include the

24 qualities of contiguity and compactness. I don't know just 25 what ~mplications that might have for districting, what districts

might not be considered compact, I think they're all contiguous.

But it would be a matter, I think, perhaps of jUdicial

interpretation as to just what is compactness but it is

4

SENATOR TYSINGER: That was language used in others.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right, it is similar

h language and I'm not speaking against the idea, Jim. I'm

merely trying to indicate -- I see no problem because they do

~ incorporate -- it does incorporate fair standards of districting

o which are used now in most instances.

10

SPEAKER MURPHY: Can I make a language change --

,0

Ii ~z. suggestion, I mean, sir?

."1

G

"',-'

; i w:
'.'

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

~

Yes, sir, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER MURPHY: It would appear to me that instead

i1 '. of saying that "except" down there, you should say "The ~ ..

.,;

15

T G

General

Assembly may

create,

arrange

and

change

Senate

and

'"'.1:
llo :~ House districts in such compact and contiguous territory and

c, z

1/ ~ of substantially equal population as it deems necessary and

\ proper. " That just gets it in one clear

19

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Would you go back over that now?

2U

SENATOR TYSINGER: A little bit more slowly so we can

'i get it down.

-,-,

SPEAKER MURPHY: "The General Assembly may create,

rearrange and change Senate and House districts in such compact

and contiguous territory and substantial equal population as it

deems necessary. II

MR. CLARKE: How about "with substantially equal

population .. "

3

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's fine. I'm just trying to get

4 it where there's no exception, where it's just one clear,

5 concise statement.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: With such -- "as it deems

7 I necessary and proper."

SPEAKER MURPHY: " with such compact and contiguous o territory of substantially.. " Is that what you said, Harold?

]0

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: " of substantially equal

,?
z
liS population .. " " may create, rearrange and change Senate o c,..

~ and House districts of compact and contiguous territory with

3substantially equal population as it deems necessary and
,i
;- proper. "

! 'i .~

SPEAKER MURPHY: I've got no objection to "of".

<9

(Y.

'~,J

16 ~ I just never have liked the term "except".

oz

<t

1 i ;,;

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: "Except" or "provided, however",

I would agree. I think that's an improvement, Mr. Speaker. So

I') the chair will now entertain a motion on that subject, since we

.'() did not approve it the last time.

2i

SPEAKER MURPHY: I so move.

')"

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have the motion then that this

language be incorporated into Paragraph II of Section II. Is

the motion seconded?

SENATOR TYSINGER: I second it.

;,>"'. \".'.t.'~ 7

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Is

there any further discussion?

(No response.)

-I

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are you ready for the question?

, As many as are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

(,

(Ayes. )

7

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the motion

](} is carried.

t..?

1i ,t, (~
(\

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman.

j~: ~:)

/>,:..:'&..Y.1.-C\l\\ -~.~.~ ,'".

\. \,.. J.t..:.-J/ I)

~

\,"- .///

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, sir. MR. EDWARDS: As I understood it from the last meeting,

) ,j (:: we're going to get a chance to go over and look at all the



L' " language before we submit this, right?

,;~
[()

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Frank, yes, everything that

,~

<0

Z.

i we're doing now is going to come up for a final review. I

I', would hope that every member of the committee would take this

lY back once we arrive at an initial draft, review it, reflect on

,'{I it very carefully and come back with one final review. So

we'll have an opportunity to act on this again before we

refer it to the full committee.

MR. EDWARDS: I was just thinking aboutm the first 21 sentence it says, " ... create, rearrange and change ... "We might

knock out one of those words, and the last sentence says, ".. the

8

Hose . shall be changed " You know, it might not be :2 consistent, little stuff like that.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well, I would hope you would be 4 ' giving that some attention, Frank, and come back so that we

will put it in good style before we submit it to the Chairman

of our committee as our report. So we will come back, Frank.

Thatls a good point and I hope that in the meantime you will

:~ be giving it some thought and study as we move along.

9'

MR. MCWHORTER: That motion didnlt include the last

!O sentence, did it?

:? Z
1] ~!

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

We had already adopted the last

sentence.

MR. MCWHORTER: Ild like to ask a question about it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS : Okay.

MR. MCWHORTER: I think Ilm directing this to Frank.

C)
16 I ~;.0 have no objection to it, but "The apportionment . of the

I

17

'""
.f>

Senate

shall

be

changed as

necessary

after

each census. "

1:, , Now could you read that to mean you couldn't change it at any

19 other times? Of course, I know if we get a court decision,

21) , that's enough to change it, but now we have changed them, minor

21 changes, the Speaker knows, during a ten year period. How

you interpret that -- is it desirable to have that right? I'm " ., just asking the question.

MR. EDWARDS: Thatls a good point. I hadn't thought

of that point

I I'TI

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: My interpretation would be that

1 IIIi the General Assembly has the authority to do it at any time,

3 but that it's sort of morally mandatory or legally mandatory

4 for it to look at it and do it after each decennial census.

5 This does not preclude it's doing it at other times, it makes

h it necessary that it do it if necessary

7

MR. EDWARDS: Another point. You know, we've got

k this off year census now that we might want to be sure and take

() a look at. We're going to have one, say in '80, '85, '90.

10 We want to make certain we get that straightened out too, we

'z-?
11 ~ don't want to be messing around -- I've got somebody looking at

<)

~,

J2

'" :

that

Federal

law.

Congress exempted themselves from a five-year

b5V ~ r" 1~~Y1i.1

~

I((
\~,<::;

r

""'"

dea1, but in doing that you could say by implication that they'

J.+ ;:i say~ ng everybody else ought to.

'<

:t

15 '~I

MR. CLARKE: Reading the paragraph as a whole, it

10 r~<1 seems to me that you've got one permissive grant of authority ".'.
"j
1i:<, to the General Assembly and one mandatory.

16

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's exactly the way

]9

MR. CLARKE: It says, "The General Assembly may create,

20 rearrange, change " and then it says they shall do it, so

21 it seems to me that's exactly what you're wanting to do there.

12 !I

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Must do it, this is the way I --

MR. MCWHORTER: I really don't know what we want to

do, but I'd like to make sure it's understood.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is the way that I understand

!' \ i ,,'
10 it. Of course, this specifies the decennial census, every ten

years.

MR. CLARKE: That's the mandatory one, the other one

~ in between would --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The other would be discretionary,

() in the authority.

7

Any other question then about Paragraphs I and II?

~

Zell, I don't know whether or not you were here --

QI



I

SENATOR TYSINGER: Are you going to look into that,

10 Frank, that language?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We did incorporate in Paragraph

II a provision setting forth standards of compactness and

contiguity.

Any further discussion of Paragraph II?

J 5 .~

(No response.)

l'J

il:

OJ

16 ~
ow

If not, I don't think there is anything hanging,

z

17 ~ pending for Paragraph III.

1~

Paragraph IV, we did wrestle with the question of

19 disqualification and we had here a suggested -- and I have

20 !: given it further thought since I met with Mel, but we did

21 change the heading of that paragraph, did we not, Mel? We

specified "Disqualifications." as opposed to "Eligibility",

and I think that is pretty much the standard entitlement of

such sections in others. Then we separated the two groups

who are disqualified, but the -- that language appears to me to

i ;"

_~_.

~

.

~_ . _

I)AGE 11

1I1: be considerably
\;

a good bit -- quite verbose, and since

2 i meeting with Mel I have scratched down something else, which I

ii

-' i"' think achieves the same purpose in a more concise form, that

.~ I'd kind of like for you to consider or to -- I think it could

5 itself be improved upon, but the object here is to disqualify

h certain people from holding office as a legislator, and the

7 alternative language that I was going to suggest, Mel, for

Is those two paragraphs, and try to achieve the same purpose was

9 something to this effect -- I don't know whether this is

10 entirely satisfactory but I'd like your reaction, and that is

z<.:

11 ~ language on this order: "No Senator or Representative may hold

o

'u".

'v

: ~ ;' any other office or position having any emolument or

~/\!(~b"~\\)"lr""om,!! ~~ compensation annexed thereto under the united States, this

' "...--~-,// / ,j

i"

1-1 ~ state, or any other state. This section shall not apply to "

-",:
:t
! 's c~ Then that would take care of members of the militia or ,~ r:x,:
]0 3persons on temporary active duty. o

And it would seem to me that this would take care of

the persons that we are seeking to disqualify here in much

1':1 longer language. Or it could conceivably read something to

211 ,this effect, that "No Senator or Representative may hold any

}I I other office or position of profit " and then you could put

Mr. Speaker, you might not like this, this would use the "except"

again, " except members of the militia or the reserves "

rather than having another section which simply says that this

section shall not apply to members of the militia, the -- or

12

persons on temporary active duty.

SPEAKER MURPHY: The reason I, Doctor, don't like ,~ the term "except U is that in 31 years of practicing law, I
I' ,
have found through the years that the courts have an awful difficult time determining exactly what the word "exceptU means.

t,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I would agree. I think it

7 would be much clearer and to the point. So the language then

5-'. see, would you not think that this does not accomplish the same
l) purpose, "No Senator or Representative may hold any other office
1'1 or position having any emolument or compensation annexed thereto
,
Ii ~,-, under the United States, this state or any other state. This
:l. or
Now in this particular I'm a

little doubtful about the words -- "This section shall not

:~ apply to members of the militia " I think the term "militia"

JS \7 perhaps is used most often than the term UNaticnal Guard", is

it) '3 it not? Cl I
<1
1'/ ~

MR. HILL: That's being changed by the other group.

It>

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It's being changed? Are they

1f) using "National Guard"?

MR. HILL: They're trying to get away from using
,1
"militia".
,)
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. Well, I don't know, but

"This section shall not apply to members of the National Guard, .f the reserve or persons on temporary active duty." I think that

even the latter is not necessary because if they are a member of

PAGE 13

11~~e-~~se~;~s-,

--

- - - ~-

~-

~

even if they

--
are

on

temporary

active

duty,

they' rJ

I
1 I still members of the reserve. And I think that that would

3 accomplish the same thing in about one-third of the language

4 used there.

5!

MR. MCWHORTER: I've got one question. I'm sorry.

b It's to Frank Edwards again. How would that leave us on people

7 getting commissions from the State, State Court Judges and

x things like that, they're not paid by the State, but get

9 commissions -- some people get -- you get back to that old

10 commission thing that's been a bugaboo, hasn't it?

t..?

7.

11 t-

MR. EDWARDS: Uh-huh.

C~

o

l:J~

J ~~ "~'

MR. MCWHORTER: You see what I mean, Mr. Chairman?

1"',:;:',:v~-[,li'1\

~

(~.u;;.)))r'~"!!~' ~ There are certain people that get commissions from the State,

\,.:,==-.:/'i i4 ~ not paid by the State. I don't know if it's considered -- I

<: :r
15 .:, don't think it's considered a State Office, but it's a gray
'.)
'::">
16 c~o area there. o

17 ''"""

SENATOR TYSINGER: You mean commission to serve on a

IS commission?

III

MR. MCWHORTER: No, lots of people get commissions

2U

MR. CLARKE: Probate Judge, Clerk of Court, all those

:'1 are commissioned by the Governor.

n

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Harold, maybe you might explain

.7.3 I: this to me again.

MR. CLARKE: A commission is issued by the Governor

to the Clerk of every Superior Court, to the Probate Judge, sayimg

PAGE 14

1 rr~~a~th:ey are duly installed in that particular office. I've II
2 II never read the exact words on it. I really don't think it has

i'

3 1Ii\ any effect on what we're saying.

I'I'
4 I'

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: They do not -- now do they

II

il

I receive compensation?
5

6I

MR. CLARKE: No.

7

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: In other words, that would

8 disqualify -- that would take care of this.

9

MR. CLARKE: I don't know of any of them who have any

10 compensation.

lz?

11 ~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If they do not receive

o

0..

w

~"~~. i compensati::: ::::~::t :::~:en::l::::c:~::m:tate compensation?

14 ~ f-

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes.

<

J:

15 ~

SENATOR TYSINGER: How about someone who would be

":':">

10 3appointed to some of the national committees, the President

a

z

17 ~ could appoint them to one for a short period of time and they

18 won't draw anything except their expenses.

19

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I don't think that would apply.

20 I don't think this would apply to them, Jim. I don't think

21 that would be considered compensation.

22

MR. EDWARDS: That"s always been a thorn too, about

what is compermtion.

24

SENATOR TYSINGER: The Revenue people get us on it.

25

MR. MCWHORTER: Somebody said they were going to take

IL __ ._.

~

.... _..

..---- -------.

PAGE 15

care of it, I just don't know.

2

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: For my part, I don't believe

3 that would be considered compensation, because it's not

4 anything that one is profiting financially by, he's merely having

5 his expenses paid.

MR. HILL: Is that an emolument?

7

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I doubt it. I don't really

think you even need the word 'emolument" in there.

y

MR. CLARKE: I'd like to have some.

JO

MR. EDWARDS: I bought a dollars worth the other day.

(~)y~\

"z
11 ..
"()

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

'':;'"

,~

12 ~ how precise we can be anyway.

Here again, I don't know just

(~~;J))r'-'~"'!D ~

MR. MCWHORTER: It's hard to write.

\,----- /'

1-+ ,_
~

CHAI RMAN PARTHEMOS : Because

<:

I

MR. EDWARDS: George, you want us to copy what you

'-'

'L

->

! () ~' have written out?

n

.'



I! ""

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If you don't mind, I'd like you

18 to consider it because I think that one of our aims should be

19 to try to reduce the content and to make it as concise as

we possibly can and at the same time retain clarity. Shall I 21 repeat it again?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Let me have this lady out here run -'" -> us a copy of that where we can look at it.

MR. CLARKE: Have you got it written out where we can

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I can -- I could dictate it to

PAGE 16
r r - - - - - - - - - - ------------------ -----------_._.-.---------------- ------ -----,
I
somebody.

2

SPEAKER MURPHY: She can photostat it on that thing

3 up there, I think.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: She'd have to type it. I've

just got it roughed out in pencil.

MR. MCWHORTER: It might be sufficient. Those

7 commissions have always been a gray area.

MR. CLARKE: I don't know why the Governor issues

commissions to all those folks.

10

MR. MCWHORTER: Some provision of law

Czl

11 ~

MR. CLARKE; I'll tell you why a lot of them or

.oQ...

12 ~ some of them are constitutional offices.

@ ' ~"-". ~

MR. MCWHORTER: Secretary of State is one. Sure,

14 ~~ they're constitutional offices, under the Constitution.

'<

:J:

15 ~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: And let me also point out,

"'::">

<Xl
16 3 members of the committee, that in that section we did -- if

Q
z

-<t

17 ~ you would go back to the original Constitution, I should point

18 out that we did delete -- this does not the last c'lause

19 " during the term for which elected no Senator or

20 Representative shall be appointed to any civil office which

21 (is) created during such term. "

22

There was some question about this disqualifying

23 a member forever from serving in an office which was created
Ii
24 II during the time that the member served in the legislature.

25 III-! I'd like to get your reaction to that. I don't know that

lL

_

PAGE 17

n-

I i'Il really serves

if this is what you want to do, then of

I:

, ii course that's another matter.

MR. HILL: It's in the draft in parentheses.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is it in the draft in parenthese$?

5 I didn't notice it there. But my own feeling is that I

b don't know that that should be in there.

7

MR. CLARKE: Well isn't that a fairly recent

provision in the Constitution? I think I remember when we

9 passed that and I think the whole idea was that somebody might

10 go out and create a new Superior Court Judgeship or State Court

11 ~ Judgeship, whatever, for the purpose of getting themselves

~

/!~Nl~\ 12 ~~" appointed to it. I don't know that the danger of that is very

( \(fGJ) )r'!!~'.'."'-" ~ great.

.. / \~-.'-_..--.._.--/.,-<>~

14

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think the principle is this,

1-'

0> x

15 1,0_' should a member of the legislature be permanently disqualified
'._",

],,; from holding any office that was created by the legislature

(0)

] 7 ~" during the time that they sat in the legislature?

MR. MCWHORTER: I like this language.

MR. CLARKE: I don't think that was intended. It was

C(} , only intended during the course of that term, when it was created.

MR. MCWHORTER: If it does it last week, you would not

penalize him but that one week. I like that language better

than the other.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS : Let's see, where do you have

_:" this oh, yeah. So I think there is -- I think that we need

,. 18

to consider that, whether or not we want to retain that or not.

SENATOR TYSINGER: Well it had enough political

.' power to get through at one time and the people voted on it.

It was something that was added to the Constitution. Whether

we need it or not, I den't know of any case where we might

need it, but there must have been a case that caused that to

come up.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I was wondering if it was a

specific case that prompted this.

10

~)
z
11 ... '< n

12 v
(~)~',.~

ones?

MR. MCWHORTER: There have been numerous ones. SENATOR TYSINGER: You said there has been numerous
MR. MCWHORTER: Sure there has, not in which you

14

>-
'-

would

enforce

it

but which kept

them

from

doing

it.

Vl

t

MR. HILL: Is it intended to be an absolute prohibi-

-:)

In ~ tion on that person

z

<-l
17 ;

SPEAKER MURPHY:

Not ever holding

18

SENATOR TYSINGER: Not ever, no.

19

MR. MCWHORTER: Just for that term.

20

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This, I think, would be

2i interpreted to mean that he would be disqualified. I can see

22 for that term.

.".:.-' I

SENATOR TySINGER:

24 elected 11

"during the term for which

25 11
L

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: ..... during the term for which
~ .- -._ .

r ..-..-::- .. . e~~:~ed--=-;:a~:r

PAGE 19

2I

MR. EDWARDS: The only difference would be he would

3 IIII be knocked out for -- say if it was created during the

II

4 Ii second session of the term, he'd just be knocked out for one

Ii

5 I'ii year.

b II

MR. MCWHORTER: Exactly right.

MR. EDWARDS: But I don't know whether it's
8 !I necessary, that's just a matter of policy --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right.

10

SPEAKER MURPHY: This is adding more stringent

tI

.
rr;

language

to

it.

n

MR. EDWARDS: That's correct, that's what I'm

talking about, just however you feel about it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: All you got to do is resign and
!) ~ he can be appointed, and that's the way it ought to be.
r.:.'
MR. MCWHORTER: That's the way it is now.

SENATOR TYSINGER: He's giving his place up to be

appointed.

19

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's right.

:'l;

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right, this is the point.

'j

MR. MCWHORTER: But we're barring it if he helped

create it, if it's a job already created he can resign, but

if it's created by an act of that term, he can't, right, under .".-+ this?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yeah, under this, it's during the

PAGE 20

--- - -

__ __ -_. ._--_ . .. .._. _--~---~

II ~erm-;- you d~~~~- ;;~~t- till the term was out. I don't

2 I think that's good law. It doesn't make a whole lot of

3 I difference. Tell you why it don't make a whole lot of sense,

I

4 I we wouldn't have had Ben Fortson -- no, it wasn't created

I:

5

II I

during

his

term.

Ii

We have several judges that we wouldn't have

6 III had. II

7 II

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well I think you could even

R

II I

argue

that

in

many

instances

you

might

be

disqualifying

on

9 lone hand one of the most qualified persons to hold the office,

10 and then on the other hand, I think the Governor has to take

"z
1] ~ the responsibility -- or whoever is the appointing authority

o
c..

12

~ u

for

it.

So I'm rather inclined to feel that it --

~~ r~~ ~

MR. CLARKE: I think that it does more harm than

14 >- whatever value it has. i;;

<t :r

J5 ,~

MR. MCWHORTER: If you add a judge to a circuit, if

Cl

:">-

16 ~ he's a member of the General Assembly, he couldn't be appointed

Q
z

-'l
17 ~ till the term was up.

18

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's correct, till the term in

19 which the General Assembly was elected.

20

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right.

21

SPEAKER MURPHY: We had that in my circuit this time.

MR. MCWHORTER: Do you want it? I'm like Frank

SPEAKER MURPHY: Of course I wasn't interested in

24 being a judge at all -- still ain't, don't make enough money to

25 suit me but I couldn't have been appointed unless I resigned

21

'i

ii
I,

under

this,

I

couldn't have

been appointed period.

Of course,

I wouldn't make a good judge, I'd be the first one to freely

and voluntarily admit that.

MR. EDWARDS: Well, while we're on that, I was just

looking at the first part of that about IINo Senator or

n Representative shall be elected by the General Assembly 11

Who do we elect, who does the General Assembly elect?

:-; I'

SENATOR TYSINGER: Highway Board.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Auditor.

!O

MR. EDWARDS: That's not the whole General Assembly,

li that's just a caucus.

), CHlflfifO l.
',;;

MR. MCWHORTER: Huh-uh, that's just a caucus. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: A caucus, but I mean the

,', auditor would be --

MR. MCWHORTER: We don't elect the auditor by the
) .';' whole , we do by house by house, he's the only one.

MR. EDWARDS: We put it back and forth.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Had some difficulty coming to some 1I) concurrence on that too.

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, so they really don't elect

anybody, they don't even elect the State auditor now.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I hope this other language might

embody the principle that we want to in this concerning

disqualification.

I'd like for us maybe to come to some consensus or

22

decision on that item that we were discussing, try to keep a

') focus on that for a minute to see whether or not you want to

retain that or delete it.

MR. MCWHORTER: I might give you food for thought

along with what Frank's saying. Instead of saying "No

Senator or Representative shall be elected by the General

Assembly .. " say It shall be elected or appointed .. " and

leave out the appointing agency, if you really want to keep

,) , it in there. If -- I don't know if you want it, but if.

!U

SENATOR TYSINGER: But this would prevent any future

z
: 1 General Assemblies from creating a position to which they

could elect someone.

MR. EDWARDS: Well that goes back to how many

restrictions you're going to put on the General Assembly.

Ii

SPEAKER MURPHY: I just like it like it is, if he

In resigns he can be appointed. I just like it better that way. D

\7

MR. EDWARDS: Leaving out the last sentence, you're

'," talking about?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes.

:!li

MR. MCWHORTER: You mean not like it is by law now.

MR. CLARKE: By law now you can't do it until the end

of the term.

),

MR. EDWARDS: If it's created during the term.

SPEAKER MURPHY: If it's created, that's right.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let me pass this around.

23

MR. EDWARDS: George, I'm not sure I got that little

thing down at the bottom, at the very bottom of your part.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yeah. He's got everything here.

I don't know if this language we can always change it.

Let's see if it accomplishes the same -- I think what we might

n focus on here is what are we seeking to do. We are seeking to

') render ineligible persons who hold any other office in the

State or with the United States or with another state, with

the exception of members of the National Guard, persons in the

I;) Armed Forces reserve and people on temporary active duty. Is

Ii ~'this what we're seeking to do? Is this what we want to do? ()

1-'

MR. EDWARDS: I think that's corning pretty close.

MR. MCWHORTER: That last sentence does that part

.:.:'.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: And then, of course, this other

matter that we've skipped over now is this additional dis-
n:'
j () i~' qualification that we talked about in this parentheses, is

.' another matter.

SENATOR TYSINGER: This will be a substitution of

subparagraph (a)?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This will be a substitution of

both, except, as I say now, the part in partntheses that we were

discussing earlier, I think we might make some separate 'decision

on that. Yes, Harold?

I

,.. -t

MR. CLARKE: As to the statement you just had typed

'L~
'up, does the Constitution allow the State of Georgia to have a

24

militia which could conceivably be on active duty? If it , did, then that last statement down here, " military forces

of the United States " might ought to say " .. or the militia

4 of the State of Georgia " in the event of some strange reason

, , like a calamity, emergency that the Governor --

h

SENATOR TYSINGER: Also, can't they federalize them,

7 like they had in Arkansas?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, they can be nationalized at

q ; any time, they are under the superior authority.

10

MR. CLARKE: That would be covered by " military

C' Z.
] I forces of the United States . "

12 d

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That would render them ineli--

/~?-v~\

(~\d))r-='"'''' I mean if they should be, they'd be part of the United States.

'~.~//
jt

MR. CLARKE: I don't know, but I'm just thinking that

15 o might ought to be an exception if it's a possibility. '.?

J (, ;~

SPEAKER MURPHY: Could be temporary service in the

c

17 ~" State of Georgia like where they activated them down at Augusta

I,,, that time.

19

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Just saying " . on temporary

.111 ' active duty II

.~ 1

SENATOR TYSINGER: " .. in the military forces . "

1 " period.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yeah, " military forces ... "

period.

MR. CLARKE: Why don't we leave out " . of the United

2

rI ~l-- .------- --------------------------------- - -----------------P--A-G--E----2-5-----1

States " I agree.

'

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS, Yeah, period.

I:

3I

MR. MCWHORTER: If you leave out "United States,

4 \'I you could get: into some foreign armies.

5

SENATOR TYSINGER: I beg your pardon?

6I

MR. MCWHORTER: If you leave out "United States,

7 III' you could get in some foreign armies.

8 II

SPEAKER MURPHY: Then he'd give up his citizenship

I:

9 III and he wouldn't be eligible to serve to any elected office.

10

SENATOR TYSINGER: Do you give up your citizenship?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes, sir.

CHAI RMAN PARTHEMOS: What 's that?

MR. EDWARDS: What if you're on annual leave --

SENATOR TYSINGER: If you joined the French Foreign

15 ~; Legion

c:: :',

!{J .,icr)
o

MR. EDWARDS:

.,

17 ,w-' United States?

Can you get on annual leave from the

18

SENATOR TYSINGER: There was one guy going around

19 :!i' making speeches that went to Rhodesia.

2U

MR. EDWARDS: Who was that?

'I

SENATOR TYSINGER: I'll give you a hint.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Traditionally serving in the

Armed Forces of a foreign country entails automatic loss of
,'4
American citizenship, which would disqualify.
"1o,;
Members of the committee, may we decide on that other

26
issue first? And that is the point raised in the parthenses

part of the draft, " but during the term for which elected . "

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well just to get a vote on it, I

,.I move we strike the parentheses.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion that that section

6 in the parentheses of the longer draft be stricken, deleted.

Is the motion seconded?

MR. ELLARD: I'll second it.

".,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Is there

JD any further discussion? Do you understand the motion? The

: I motion, in other words, would simply leave it that any Senator

or Representative who may be appointed to any other office must

resign that office. It does not disqualify a member from an

office created during the term, other than the fact that he

I' must resign, as I understand it. Is there any further dis-

cussion of this motion to delete that section? I'll give you
"
1/ '~ a moment to reflect on it additina11y

11:'

SPEAKER MURPHY: It's very simple, if you adopt the

]9 motion a member could resign and be appointed to a judge or

20 anything else that was created. If it's not adopted, he

2, couldn't be appointed until his term expired. It's just

22 whichever way you want it. It don't make a heck of a lot of

2J difference to me, let's just vote on it and move on

.'.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are you ready for the question?

25 As many as are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

P Ai;!' 27

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the motion

is carried and that section is deleted. Mel, make a note of that.

(,

Now, let's go back and consider this -- whether or

7 not we want to retain the wording on disqualification in

Paragraph IV or whether or not we want to consider this shorter

Y .' statement, which in my opinion achieves the same purpose in

II! about less than half the language.

i'

MR. MCWHORTER: I've got a dumb question -- excuse me,

MR. TIDWELL: As I read your short one here, I don't

is that what you want to do? If hets a member of the National

I) ~Guard and if he were also a Senator, then he could hold a
u.
III ~ position with the United States or with another state. I
.,
~dontt think thatts what you want to do, is it?

t ,\\'

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: First of all, letts try and

[9 understand what it presumes to do. I think the idea here was

to allow members of the National Guard -- yes, Harold.
, 'j
MR. CLARKE: Charlie is right. I think that you

ought to have language there something to the effect, "This

section shall not preclude the holding the serving as a

member of the National Guard, the armed forces reserve or

serving on temporary active duty in the military forces."

28

Because if you do it this way, if you hold any of those

things, you can hold anything else you want to because it

_\ wouldn't apply to you.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Would you say that again now,

Harold?

MR. CLARKE: Let me see if I can remember it.

"This section shall not preclude the serving as a member of

K the National Guard, the armed forces reserve or serving on

<) temporary active duty in the military forces."

!U

MR. MCWHORTER: Now you want to make temporary apply

'! " to all of them, don't you?

MR. EDWARDS: Is that the point you're talking

MR. TIDWELL: You see, the way it's written here, as
, ..
<1.
[
is >long as somebody is a member of the National Guard, you c" x
if, ~ exempt him from the whole section. L. '7 MR. CLARKE: That's right.
MR. TIDWELL: Then you would permit a member of the
!') : General Assembly to hold another office in the United States -!
MR. CLARKE: He could be Governor and be a member of
.'1 the General Assembly if he was a member of the National Guard.
MR. MCWHORTER: The intention of this is temporary
" " duty only, isn't it? That's not the way it's written.
MR. CLARKE: I believe if we changed it around the way
~~ we're talking about that would correct it.

!'ACE 29

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The idea, in other words, was

to allow, was not to disqualify member of the National Guard

who are otherwise qualified. I see. Let's consider that to

.~ be sure that we can get in here what we need. "No Senator or

Representative may hold any other office or position having

o any emolument or compensation annexed thereto under the United

7 States or any other state " You could say that this

disqualification shall not apply. Would that -- in other

words --

IU

SENATOR TYSINGER: I think the word he used was

1)


(~'

" s hall

not

preclude ",

was

that

the

word?

/,:;_':;'/11<1.

,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Now what you want to do is

ViftL~'J'\),\)r"~:'''<' :~ you don't want to disqualify these people. Is this what

, . . / . //

MR. CLARKE: You don't want to disqualify them by

I..', :~ reason of them serving in this particular capacity, but you

li, 3, don't want the fact of their serving in that capacity to open

the door for them to serve in other ways and not be disquali-

fied.

MR. MCWHORTER: On temporary duty too.

MR. EDWARDS: If I gather what you're trying to do ?i is say "Membership in the National Guard, the Armed Forces

Reserve or persons on temporary active duty shall not be deemed

to be an office or position having any emolument or compensation.

annexed thereto." That's what you're trying to say.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yeah.

30

MR. CLARKE: That's good.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Shall we put that in there then?

MR. EDWARDS: That might be a little wordy, but

j

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It's still an improvement over

) what -- yes, Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Just change that language, "This

section shall not preclude members of the National Guard, the

Armed Forces Reserve or persons on temporary active duty in

the military forces from serving in the General Assembly."

10

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

"7
i I Let me read it now

Good.

That does the same thing.

MR. MCWHORTER: I'm worried whether that word

"temporary" goes back to the first phrase or not. Supposed to

be temporary, isn't it?

MR. CLARKE: Well, they can still serve in the

National Guard.

MR. MCWHORTER: Well now I don't know, you can have

a permanent job, you know, $20,000 a year in the National j'j Guard in this state, full time.

SENATOR TYSINGER: That's in a civil capacity.

JI

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That would be holding another

office.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's holding another office.

SENATOR TYSINGER: That's holding another office

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: But I mean, I think he would be

disqualified by the first sentence.

MR. EDWARDS: We need to get a military expert.

-'

MR. MCWHORTER: I just want the word "temporary" to

~ reflect all of it.

MR. CLARKE: Really, what you're saying rather than

(, temporary there is part time. For instance, I see what you're

saying, the Adjutant General could serve as a member of the

x General Assembly under the language we've got here.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right, and that's not the

to intention of it I don't think.

l~.
z
11 t:I.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Where is the existing Constitution.

Let's see what it says about that.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I would certainly think that

11 ~, the Adjutant General would be deemed to be holding an office,

"
J (: "j another office. Cl 1.<
~-,

Ii

SPEAKER MURPHY: He's paid by the Federal government .

.,

I"

MR. MCWHORTER: We could put an exception in here.

I~
\('

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I would think that he would be

1'-/ disqualified by the first sentence.

MR. CLARKE: That may be taking it a step far but

for instance, down at Forsyth we've got a National Guard Armory

with six or seven full time people.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right.

SENATOR TYSINGER: Yeah, but those full time people

then are not paid as National Guard members, they're~id under

some other compensation.

MR. MCWHORTER: Some of them are paid under the

,i National Guard.

SENATOR TYSINGER: Yeah, but they're paid -- they're

~ full time employees then.

MR. MCWlIORTER: That's right.

",

I'

MR. CLARKE: I think it's going to take some court

g interpretation at some point.

SENATOR TYSINGER: They're not in their capacity as

10 a member of the Guard. For example, up at Calhoun, the

] i caretaker of that was also a First Sergeant but theMo were

not -- he was not a First Sergeant and that automatically made

him caretaker.

MR. MCWHORTER: I'd go back to Harold's thing on the

I; '0 Adjutant General or Colonel or something. "This section shall
t[;',
1<) not apply to members of the National Guard, the Armed Forces

Reserve ... " If you make the word "temporary" apply to the 10 whole sentence, fine, but I'm not sure the word "temporary"

i9 applies to them the way it's written

.~u

MR. CLARKE: Well of course, a member of the National

Guard -- I think there's a difference in part time, temporary

and full time too, because they may be permanent members of the

National Guard but only working with them on a part time basis.

SENATOR TYSINGER: Temporary active duty, TDY.

.... MR. MCWHORTER: But we said "This section

" , the

33

first part of the sentence doesn't apply to them because we

said "This section shall not apply...... to certain people.

MR. EDWARDS: You better get somebody over here from

4 the Adjutant General -- I don't know enough about the military

to say what's wrong and what's right.

h

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think that the sentiment, the

gist of what we're -- we want to do is I think clear to

everybody. I wonder if we could simply go ahead and act on

this and come back with some perhaps more appropriate language 10 at a later time, so that we can move on and let us wrestle with , ! this again.

Might I have a motion on this thing?

SENATOR TYSINGER: I move that it be adopted as

ij amended by the Speaker.

"' 1(,
~"
.:(
":,
,:::"
1() ~ d

MR. MCWHORTER: You mean just that sentence? CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I would read it as this, "No

i '. ,~ Senator or Representative may hold any other office or position

having any emolument or compensation annexed thereto under the I 'j United States, tHS state or any other state. This section ,:0 shall not preclude members of the National Guard, the Armed

Forces Reserve or persons on temporary active duty in the
-to)
military forces from serving in the General Assembly."

MR. MCWHORTER: That brings up another qustion. I'm

talking too much but when you say hold office, if he's paid

locally but holds office under the state with a state commission,

34
aren't we right back to what we talked about, commissions?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well we had that same situation that

~ I presented itself to us, you know, when we had Ted Hudson serving

4 as a Health Officer down in his county but the money was paid to the county and the county paid him and that did not dis-

qualify him from serving in the General Assembly.

"/

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't know what that language says.

My grammar is not good enough -- when he's holding office under

'-) the State and paid locally, whether it means he's paid by the

J() State. It couldn't mean he's holding office under the State.
~
1J L He'd be paid another way. The Speaker give a concrete case.

MR. EDWARDS: Well it hasn't been interpreted that

way heretofore because that part is the same as in the present

Constitution. So we have had Mayors and county officers holding

1( .. office in the General Assembly -- I mean being members of the

ii, ~. General Assembly, so it has never been interpreted that way in

;-:,,

17

.;' L

the

past.

1'\..'\

MR. MCWHORTER: That's not bothering me, Frank.

19 What's bothering me is somebody that gets a commission from the

20 State.

21

SPEAKER MURPHY: What's bothering Ham is somebody that

'1 is on active duty in the National Guard, I think, full time

'; like the Generals and the Captains, like Judy's husband,

, Captain Swanner, you know, he's on full time duty out there,

he's paid for full time duty. Ham's worried about --

"
t

.\I'J'
f" "

35

MR. MCWHORTER: I'm worried about that, but I've

forgotten that, I'm talking about the first sentence now.

There's some other people --

MR. CLARKE: We're not really wanting to deal with

all the language now but I wonder if something of this sense

G might not be what we're talking about. I know you don't like

provided, however, and I don't either, but just for the sake

;..., of getting something with the sense of it, listen to this.

"Provided however, members of the National Guard or Armed

\0 Forced Reserve serving on a part time basis, or serving on
\.'i I.
I J temporary duty shall not be disqualified from service in the
()
(;
General Assembly."

MR. EDWARDS: Well that wouJd take care -- are you

1I

-

1 t-

talking about maybe some county officer?

MR. MCWHORTER: I'm talking about some people we
'''l
it" call county officer that might be took to be a state officer,

gets a commission from the state. Then who is he?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: A commission but not receiving 1: compensation? There would be many peqie who would be

commissioned but not receiving compensation.

MR. MCWHORTER: If you tell me this thing grammatically

says that then I'll forget about it. " emolument or

compensation annexed thereto ... " It don't say where he

gets his compensation definitely, does it? If you interpret

it that way then my objection is --

36

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yeah, my feeling would be there

are many instances when people may hold a commission but there

is no compensation annexed thereto. I've served on a

commission for which there was no compensation annexed thereto.

I don't think that it would --

!J

MR. MCWHORTER: What about a State Court Judge, Mr.

Speaker, who is he?

MR. TIDWELL: He's commissioned by the Governor.

')

M~. MCWHORTER: Huh?

If)

MR. TIDWELL: The Governor commissions all the Judges

" and all county officers.

i'
/ \', f. i7>(.-,-er-;,'_V~.~};:.:.~j))(!~w,'O

SPEAKER MURPHY: But he's paid by the county, but they're paid by the county.

MR. TIDWELL: That's right.

MR. MCWHORTER: Right.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think the compensation factor, \; '"i, Ham, might would --

MR. MCWHORTER: If it means that, then my objection

l' is not well put .

.:(1

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I would suggest that we act on

;1 this general provision and that the language be reviewed by

Frank and Mel and myself to maybe corne up with some more

appropriate language. Would this be all right, gentlemen, so

., .

,
~

we can move on?

SENATOR TYSINGER: I move that this be --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion then that this

be adopted, with that understanding. Is the motion seconded?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I second it.

--f

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Any

further discussion?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are you ready for the question?

As many as are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

(Ayes. )

,, ,,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

'1

(No response.)

-)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is carried.

Okay, that's -- paragraph V, we still have to consider

in conjunction with the provision concerning the sessions of

i '.; the General Assembly.
~~
So let's move on to Section III now and Paragraph I.

Now here, I think that under your instructions at the last

meeting, this draft makes some suggestion concerning provisions

of voting by the presiding President of the Senate. I think

the idea was that -- Mel, you might want to say a word about

this -- that we track the powers of the Speaker in this regard

and incorporate them with respect to the President of the

Senate, which, of course, does result in rather lengthy language.

MR. HILL: We took the charge literally and put in

here exactly what the present voting rights of the Speaker are

38

from the rules of the House and it is subject to your

amendment, but we didn't really editorially do anything to

this. This comes exactly from the present provisions on the

vote of the Speaker and the sense of the group last time was

that the Lieutenant Governor should have the identical -- that

" we should track the Speaker's voting rights for the Lieutenant

Governor.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't think you've done that

though.

III

MR. MCWHORTER: We've got some interesting we've

- 1 'got to change another section if we do it like this, it

says " majority of those elected .. "

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I'd like to raise the question

,1 i '~

as to whether or not --

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yeah, you have -- I take it back, iu ~you have, there's something here that I didn't see.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: -- as to whether or not we wish

to specify in detail in the Constitution. I mean I agree with

the principle of the President of the Senate having the vote,

but we don't specify, let's say for example, the powers of the

Speaker in this regard.

SPEAKER MURPHY: You know, he's right.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think this does result into

putting into the Constitution perhaps provisions that should be

included in the rules.

39 I' \ 1'1,'
,',I,

SPEAKER MURPHY: What you're saying, isn't it,

Doctor, we ought to just put in there "The President of the

Senate shall have such voting rights as the Senate shall give

,.~

him. II

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mr. Speaker, I scratched out

(, something on that and if I may read it to you. "The President

shall have no vote except when the Senate shall be equally

divided and at such other times as provided by the rules of

the Senate."

MR. MCWHORTER: That won't give him a vote -- that

i J won't give him the vote y'all are talking about, I'll assure

~ you because the Constitution says it takes a majority of those

~" elected to pass a bill. Isn't that right?

.I

MR. EDWARDS: Uh-huh.

SPEAKER MURPHY: But the Constitution also says he'll

ii' :t have a right to vote, that's giving him the right to vote.

!i

MR. MCWHORTER: Well, you've got a point there too,

I see.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is giving him the right to

vote.

In some sense I tracked the U. S. Constitution

concerning the Vice President except with the provision " .. and

at such other times as provided by the rules of the Senate."

The Constitution gives him the right to vote in case there is

a tie vote and then allows the rules of the Senate to determine

the other times.

40

MR. EDWARDS: Zell, is this what you --

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: That's what I want, I just

don't know about the best language to get at it. I think

that's what we wanted to get at last week whenever we were

talking about it.

'\

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think the Senate would give you

the right to vote if they had the authority to do it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Right.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think what we need to address

j;) here is giving the Senate the authority to give you the right
i"
J i 'to vote.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's what the rules one time did.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mr. Speaker, your language is

; a little briefer, it simply authorized the Senate to determine

1S "

SPEAKER MURPHY: I would just simply say "The

"

~)

liJ

rQ
~ President

of

the

Senate

shall

have

the

right

to

vote

in

such

.... "l' ~" instances as the Senate may

"

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: " . allow "?

SPEAKER MURPHY: " by its rules provide."

1('

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. Let's get that language

then. "The President shall have "

MR. HILL: " shall have the right to vote at such

times as provided by the rules of the Senate."

SPEAKER MURPHY: " in such instances as provided by

'C the rules of the Senate."

Ir
I II

MR. MCWHORTER: Repeat that.

I'ACE 41

SPEAKER MURPHY: Cindy's an old English teacher, she

can dress everything up.

MR. TIDWELL: Ham, does that take care of your

problems with that majority thing?

MR. MCWHORTER: We're going to hit that another place.

MR. TIDWELL: You can make some reference to that so

it is clear that notwithstanding that provision or something.

9

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well, this would be taken care

III of by the rules of the Senate. I think that it would be a ,"
11 ~I matter for the Senate to determine.

MR. MCWHORTER: Charlie, we've got to do that when

we come to that.

q

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's right. When we come to that,

~;,

<t

T

I' ~ we'll need to address that.

1(' i

MR. MCWHORTER: We'll need to address that definitely.

>~

c~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is something that I think

~ more properly belongs in the rules of the house concerned.

I" Mel, would you repeat that? Mr. Speaker, do you put that in

the form of a motion?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion.

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I second it.

, '.,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Mel,

would you repeat the motion so that everybody will --

42

MR. HILL: "The President of the Senate shall have

') the right to vote in such instances as provided by the rules

of the Senate." " which may be provided by the rules of the

. Senate."

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. The motion is seconded.

Any further discussion of the motion?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are you ready for the

question? As many as are in favor of the motion, signify by

10 saying aye.

J:

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)

J4 >

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the motion

</,

is carried.

o

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman?

Z

1

J7
J'

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, Frank.

MR. EDWARDS: I know we made some reference to this ]0 last time, but in the first sentence there, "The presiding )0 officer of the Senate shall be the Lieutenant Governor, who ') shall be styled the President of the Senate."
l'
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay.

., .

MR. EDWARDS: That's different from what we have now

, where it says "The presiding officer of the Senate shall be

styled the President of the Senate." Of course over in the

PA.GE 43

other Article

MR. MCWHORTER: Article V.

MR. EDWARDS: -- it takes care of that. Is that

t the reason we did it? I don't recall, 1 1 m just trying to

, refresh my memory. Is that the reason we took --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I don't know that there was any

7 particular reason, just to specify that the Lieutenant Governor

is President of the Senate.

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: I don't know what their reason

lOis, but I like this language.

C?

Z

1( I-

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I like this language too. I

o
'c

u~

i.~ ~ think this language is -- does specify. I like this. You

,-

:~ know you specify it in one part but not in the other part and

i+ Go I think that here you are dealing with the house itself, you're
-t
T
:.; ;'; dealing with the Senate, you're dealing with the body and
I', ~ you're specifying who is the presiding officer. You I re dealing
I
<t
] 7 ;;; with the presiding officers of the Senate and the House.

You see any problem with it, Frank?

1'1

MR. EDWARDS: No, the only thing that carne to my

mind, I don't think it's a valid point, in fact I wouldn't

have thought of it if I hadnlt just read the existing Constitu-

tion. I had forgotten how that read, but if the President Pro

Tern carne in -- of course, I assume that's covered in (b).

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS; That's right.

SENATOR TYSINGER; Well, they have other people

44

presiding too besides the President and the Pro Tem.

MR. MCWHORTER: Well as far as the vote, we've got

, a provision for that because we cover that in the rules like

the Speaker does and we've got a right to do that because

they're a member of the body.

MR. EDWARDS: I wasn't talking about the vote.

MR. MCWHORTER: You weren't thinking about that.

MR. EDWARDS: Huh-uh. Well, that's all right, just

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay, we'll come back and we

can reflect on these things again unless the members decide to

1 1 ~ make any changes now .. )

, -,

(~~)r"~" i,,- u

If not, let's move on to subparagraph (b) of

Paragraph I of Section III. I think a problem arose last

'<::.::.//.
J4 ~ time concerning what happens to the President Pro Tempore when

J) :~ a vacancy occurs in the Office of President. Does he lose all
~'
,,,~.)
J() ~ perquisites and privileges once he succeeds and becomes
;[
I} ~ President? I think the question was raised as to whether or

not he should or how could we state this so as to prevent that

19 from happening. Ham?

20

MR. MCWHORTER: I raised the question before and I'd

like not to reiterate but just askthe question again. Do we ,,
have two categories like the President Pro Tem and the Speaker,

is there a difference between assuming the office? If it does,

.'.1 then I'd like to see them named Governor, Lieutenant -- President

or Speaker. Upon death or resignation, but where there's a

45

temporary incapacity, then I see a difference. In my feeble

mind, I want to separate the two.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Now in the case of the Speaker,

I think the decision was clear last time that the Speaker Pro

Tem -- and I think it is reflected in this draft -- becomes

Speaker in the case of death, resignation or permanent

disability. But I think there was some question concerning

whether the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, if he actually <.) becomes Speaker, then he relinquishes -- or does he relinquish 10 his seat in the Senate with all of the rights attached to the

~ office.
?

Here again, I leave it up to your good judgment. I

~ d o n ' t ,'~ 1'11~flU)

,. ..1

have

any

thoughts

other

than

to

say

I

think we

need

to

11 ; determine what we want to do. Does the President Pro Tempore

J c,

,j
.'="">

simply

become

acting

President,

thereby retaining

all

full

1{J

~
t,}

rights

and

perquisites

of

the

office

of

Senator,

or

then

does

I'" ,,; he become

Jg

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't think you could make him a

four-year man if he --

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't think so either.

SENATOR TYSINGER: I think he's acting.
1 -,
MR. EDWARDS: No, that came up --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: So this is the language that we

used here. Let's look at the language. If you would, look at

the language and see, interpret what it -- Zell, I don't know --

46

MR. MCWHORTER: I have no objection to the language

if you're only trying to cover what would happen -- the

presiding officer would either have to permanently b~come

something, but if this is supposed to cover the temporary

thing if he's incapacitated, then I do raise a question.

Maybe it's not supposed to do that.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well, I thought that there was a

i; general feeling that if he is temporary -- this is the point,

<) Ham?

]U

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right.

J 1

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: -- he then becomes acting.

L.'

MR. MCWHORTER: If he's permanent, then he assumes

the job and the title.

J..~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Not under this -- well it depends

j'j

<)
<J

on whether or not

you

say

"The President

Pro

Tempore

shall

1(' ,:~z:."-~.J act as President ... " or " ... shall become ..... ", it depends upon

Ii ;;; what you think is your judgment on that.

IS

SPEAKER MURPHY: What is the law now in the event

1') the Lieutenant Governor should die or resign about electing

'I)
another Lieutenant Governor?

MR. MCWHORTER: You don't elect a Lieutenant

Governor. The President Pro Tern becomes President of the
, ,'
Senate.
."
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The Office of Lieutenant
~~ ! Governor itself becomes vacant.

47 .1', I) \ ('"
I"

MR. EDWARDS: That's right.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: -- becomes vacant and succession

proceeds down to the Speaker of the House.

4

MR. MCWHORTER: Until the next general election.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The office becomes vacant until

the next general election and succession goes down to the

Speaker and then the question is whether you have the President

Pro Tern whether he is actually President Pro Tern but not

4 Lieutenant Governor, or simply acting

1U

SPEAKER MURPHY: All right, all right, you could say

~'J
;....
i I ~~ "The President Pro Tern shall become President in case of the
(,
~)

j 2 ~~, death, resignation or disability until a new President is

;';\..:;,:~!\i)(".,..-..1t,,

,

((~L)))fc"""" ;: elected. nil a new Lieutenant Governor is elected n or

whatever it is. You've just got to cut it off during the

. i c; ,," term the Senator was elected, I think is what you f re saying

"..

!,J

I h ""

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You might say " until the

c

"

"
;'i

next

general

election when

II

or let's see, it could be

i' at the --

j 'J

MR. HILL: But then would he lose his voting rights?

.:u

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: n unti1 the office of Lieutenant

'j Governor is filled."

MR. MCWHORTER: He'd be gone anyway at the end of

that term.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yeah, but he might be gone --

it might be in the middle of a term.

48

J I,

MR. HILL: Will he lose his voting rights? See now

his voting rights as a member is one thing and his voting

rights as the President of the Senate is going to be another

thing and so it'd be less, probably, as President of the

Senate, than it would be as a member. He may only have the

right to vote in case of a tie.

SPEAKER MURPHY: What happens now if he --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That should be a matter for the

rules of the Senate.

SPEAKER MURPHY: He's sort of a hybrid animal, ain't

n he.
"'-

2!

c!:

((c'6.-.~))(~'''' ~ ~9'l1iA1
\~~~J

"

SENATOR TYSINGER:

voting rights as a Senator.

I don't think he should lose his

J.+

MR. HILL: That's one of the reasons to say "acing

15 :~ as President . " /.:

SENATOR TYSINGER: That's why I liked that.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, but, Jim, does not the

J1\ rules of the house concerned define voting rights of the

19 presiding officer? That's what we just said in the previous,

20 \ you see.
~l j i

MR. HILL:

But they could define them less than he

has.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: They could define them any way

they wanted. He presides, they define.

MR. EDWARDS: Well this says that he -- "There shall

1, '-,-'. (',":, 49

be a Lieutenant Governor who shall be elected at the same time,

for the same term, and in the same manner as the Governor."

, Then here's what it says about the Governor. "In case of the

death, resignation or disability of the Governor or the

Governor elect the Lieutenant Governor shall exercise the

executive power and receive the compensation of the Governor

until the next general election at which a successor to the

.><) I Governor shall be elected for the unexpired term. n

SPEAKER MURPHY: Does he go back to Lieutenant

Governor then?

to
" l 1 r~
r~"

MR. MCWHORTER:

would.

Yes, if it's the first two years, he

MR. TIDWELL: Unless he runs for

Jl
.:

MR. EDWARDS: If he runs, he has to resign .

~.

"co

MR. MCWHORTER: He has to resign if he runs.

i ,,
(j

MR. EDWARDS: That's right. It says, "If the

, <. 7u
J ,~-l Lieutenant Governor shall become a candidate for the unexpired

I" term of the Governor, he shall thereby resign his office of

I
Lieutenant Governor effective upon the qualification for

"l,l)
Governor-elect for the unexpired term, and his successor for

j
" the unexpired term shall be elected in such election." So

you would have election for Lieutenant Governor at the same

time.

SPEAKER MURPHY: All we need to do is synchronize

this and he will serve as President until the Lieutenant

,i

50

Governor's office is filled.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Right. That's what I would --

I think that would settle it.

MR. CLARKE: Meanwhile the President is serving

really in the same capacity in his body that the Speaker

h serves in his body.

7

SPEAKER MURPHY: I thought you was a doctor of

~ language, Dr. Edwards, where you could fix this language up.

{)

MR. EDWARDS: It worries me though.

10

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Frank, would you come up with

It ~ some language for that?

o
~.

u;

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well, let me ask this question here.

We need to fix it now and I think the Lieutenant Governor would

agree with me, fix it where the Senate could fix it or

"'0r, something, that if the President Pro Tempore becomes President
u.
of the Senate due to the President going up to the Governor's
'"Co office, he ought to be able to draw the salary of the President

if he's going to do all them functions, oughtn't he?

MR. MCWHORTER: One draft one time had that in there.

MR. EDWARDS: In fact, that's in the present ': Constitution.

MR. MCWHORTER: It's in there now .

..... -~,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well couldn't that be also done

'of, by law? Do you have to have it in the Constitution?

MR. EDWARDS: No, you wouldn't have to.

SENATOR TYSINGER: I think the law would be a better

place to put it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think the law would be a

4 better place, because if we leave it up to the General Assembly

they can fix compensation.

i

MR. HILL: Well if he becomes President and you

intend for him to retain his voting rights, I think that has

to be specified, I mean his voting rights as a Senator, so

that they couldn't be diluted by Senate rule or whatever.

!()

MR. MCWHORTER: You could change that by saying

\9 J
II ~; II shall become presiding officer with the title of President . ' o w.

That would leave his rights.

MR. HILL: That was what we hoped this would do,
i I r that~ what George had in mind when he said act as President.
"
;~ We might not have done it well, but it was felt that he would

;~ just preside.

MR. MCWHORTER: You could say Il become presiding

officer with the title of President 11

1'1

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: And yet at the sarne time we

have allowed the President to vote in such instances as the '! rules may allow and it would seem to me that you simply put in

the rules that in case

MR. MCWHORTER: Well that's exactly the way it is

now when he presides.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Here again, I don't think it's

52

necessary to put it in the Constitution.

MR. TIDWELL: One thing you don't want to do though,

.' I imag ine, is not let the President Pro Tern become -- by

~ some quirk, become Lieutenant Governor.

MR. MCWHORTER: Exactly, you couldn't do it.

'1

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: He can't unless you really

7 specify. He does not. I mean, unless you specify that he

~ becomes Lieutenant Governor.

<) ,

MR. TIDWELL: The way the language is now where you

10 say the presiding officer is the President and the President

Ii ,. is the Lieutenant Governor, you don't want some convoluted

..,

j' ~ interpretation to get him to be Lieutenant Governor .

/ .':' ;Jij()I,'\ (((W

\rc!.,!!!,-,~

~.
W

MR. EDWARDS: That's sort of what I had in mind

- '~C-//J ....... _--'

:;:

1.4 ~ with that first sentence, I mentioned awhile ago.

:r
MR. MCWHORTER: Let me ask a question. AII--

)

It, ,~

SPEAKER MURPHY: There has to be some difference

Q

7:

17 ~"" between the Speaker's language and the Lieutenant Governor's

lS because the Speaker is elected every two years and the

1') Lieutenant Governor every four years. It's basically that

.:1) simple. You've just got to make provisions for it.

MR. MCWHORTER: What about all these acts making

22 the Lieutenant Governor and/or the President -- all of them

say Lieutenant Governor on these boards?

MR. EDWARDS: No, they don't.

MR. MCWHORTER: All of them don't, that's what I

PAGE 53

thought, some say President.

2

MR. EDWARDS: I know we used to have some that said

Lieutenant Governor, President of the Senate, so-and-so,

4. something like that.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I see your point, Frank.

b

SENATOR TYSINGER: Maybe we should let that be

7 reworked and bring it up next time.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Frank, do you have the gist of

') what now, in this paragraph (b), that maybe we can come forth

JO with some

] I ,.
'o"

MR. EDWARDS: Let us see if we can work on something.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay.

MR. HILL: But the consensus of the group is that he

f should retain his voting rights as a rull member of the Senate,
"'! 1
~ is that the consensus of the group?

")
1(., ~
Q
.~

MR. EDWARDS: I think that's just what the Speaker

17 ""'"" does.

Ix

LT. GOVERNOR MILLER: Could Frank and Hamilton and I

I') have a little -- let us work on this a little bit.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Members of the committee, if it

is the prerogative of the chair, I'm going to ask Frank and Zell

and Ham to suggest specific language for that, that we can

. consider at our next meeting.

.,. -.<+

SPEAKER MURPHY: That suits me.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is that all right?

54

SENATOR TYSINGER: Fine.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let's move on then. Mr.

3 Speaker, we would like your reaction to Paragraph II.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Nothing wrong with that, that's

) basically

CfmIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We adopted that last time, so

it needs no further action.

XI

Paragraph III we adopted last time and unless there

') are any suggestions it needs no further action at this time.

10

Which brings us to Section IV and we adopted this

11 c< provision with the idea that we would come back and reconsider c

((id})r-S!!!!'!!~ ~~ I~~~
r

1 ~',
,.

'.J it in

light of the desirability of having

some kind of pro-

,-

vision for a split session or something. So you might want

\~/

l,~ [~ to give this some thought, some consideration at this time.

<

Paragraph I of Section IV concerning sessions. Did
\ ~i if
Jt> :~ we have somebody to propose -- Frank, was somebody --
7.
~
MR. EDWARDS: Well, if you will recall, you know,

18 we moved this thing up from Thursday to Tuesday and we had

1q some stuff to do and we just haven't had the time.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Fine. Does anybody have any "c I further thoughts on the provisions defining the sessions of

the General Assembly?

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't know if we have ever come to ,. ~. ,~ any opiribn in this committee as to what we want. You know we

suggested that we have an organization date, but I don't know if

55

we agreed on it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: What section are we on, I don't

want to get ahead of myself here?

4

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We're on Paragraph I of Section

') IV.

MR. EDWARDS: Page 3.

7

SPEAKER MURPHY: Paragraph I, Section (a) is what

we're on?

9

MR. MCWHORTER: I propose that we give thought to

10 that meeting at an early day in December, first Monday, first

J I ',Monday -- first Tuesday after the first Monday, something of ('
J., ~ that nature for one day organization.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Could that be provided by law
,,
.j or ::: should that be in the Constitution?

t_'

MR. MCWHORTER: Well it could be provided by law if

"

it,

(;.1
~; you make

the

whole

thing

fluid.

n

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well the first thing you do, you've

got to change the date of the taking of office.

1'j

MR. MCWHORTER: Taking office.

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's the first thing. You've got

a lot of changes to make if you start doing that.

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Start doing that.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't think it'd be that hard to '-- do if we could ever work out a plan that the Governor would be

56

acceptable to. I don't know whether Charlie talked to him or

not about it last time.

MR. TIDWELL: He's aware of that now and thinking

4 about it. He didn't jump off the wall.

MR. EDWARDS: Did he butt his head against the wall?

MR. MCWHORTER: There's all kinds of ramifications.

7 Number one, you meet at an early date for organization and

then how much further do you go.

f)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mr. Speaker, what are your

]D thoughts concerning the provision that provides that regular

sessions be on the second Monday in January of each year. Do

1:2 c, you think the date should be specified in the Constitution?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes, sir, I do.

,,\
I
i', :~ seat.
0" ) ;.::
Ii) .'_
'I"

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: J. C., come on in and take a SPEAKER MURPHY: We're going to fine you $42 for

being late.

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: Well all right.

J,)

SPEAKER MURPHY: Frank don't like this proposed

20 language that me and Hamilton come up with for (b) but I

'I thought it sounded pretty good.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I was going to ask, we were

supposed to have the Murphy-McWhorter amendment, were we not?

MR. EDWARDS: Ham said he didn't want to claim any

credit for that, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER MURPHY: You don't like this, Ham? You

agreed to it, Hamilton.

MR. MCWHORTER: Huh?

SPEAKER MURPHY: You agreed to it.

MR. MCWHORTER: Subject to amendment maybe.

t; ,

SPEAKER MURPHY: What kind of amendment?

MR. MCWHORTER: When you get ready, I'd like to talk :" to you about it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: J. C., we're on Section IV,

]0 Paragraph I(a) concerning sessions.

',1 Z
1J ,
{'i
()

SPEAKER MURPHY: You don't like my language?

('.

y

MR. MCWHORTER: I want to ask some questions.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Fire away.

!,J
MR. EDWARDS: I think the Speaker has gone up to

I:' ;~ paragraph (b) now.

! (, z

~
ro

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Oh, has he?

!

"c:

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think paragraph (a) is fine unless

we come up with something

I')

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

~,\
.\> ',paragraph (b) on adjournment.

Okay, then we'll move on to

MR. EDWARDS: I think paragraph (a) is going to

require a little thought.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS; Okay. Frank, I hope you'll give

it, you and your people will give it some thought and come

up with something.

58

MR. EDWARDS: I've got all the thinking I can do,

George.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Just add this to it.

Mr. Speaker, would you give us your suggestion for

') ~ paragraph (b)?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Ham don't like what me and him drew

up.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well I think it's too late now

l) for Ham to --

10

MR. MCWHORTER: I've got to ask a question.

jI

SPEAKER MURPHY: Did you make some copies of this?

MR. MCWHORTER: The first question is --

MR. EDWARDS: I made some.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Do we have copies of this?

T

15 .,

MR. EDWARDS: No, I'm sorry we don't. Yeah, I've

h I":::, ~got one or two here that we can use. o 7..,
II ;~ down to the Chairman.

Let me just pass that

SPEAKER MURPHY: I've got one.

SENATOR TYSINGER: Have you got one?

SPEAKER MURPHY: All I did was change in his

)"
.1

typing there the word "submitted" to "transmitted" in the

next to the last sentence where it says "submitted", I changed

) I it to "transmitted."

MR. MCWHORTER: Number one, Mr. Speaker, if I may ask,

, then you don't make provision for adjournment sine die like you

59

could now?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't want him to have that right,

3 ' do you?

4

MR. MCWHORTER: I'm just asking that question.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Do you?

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't have any strong feeling.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I do, some very strong feeling about

it.

MR. EDWARDS: I don't want him to have any.

J()

MR. MCWHORTER: The next question, Mr. Speaker, nIn

"z
Ji (the event either house after the third day of the session (I'll

/~~-<.',;;:,1~;-,f)J~\\

"

J.~

'"
:: go with

that part)

adopts

a

resolution

to

adjourn

for

a

!~

(~~,::.c1))J~"'o f.~ specified period of time and the other house does not adopt

11 ; such resolution by the end of the legislative day in which .,
T.
15 ,) such resolution was submitted . If I.:

1(, -'.tJ~ 'f")

SPEAKER MURPHY: " transmitted ......

MR. MCWHORTER: Huh?

SPEAKER MURPHY; We changed to "transmitted".

IS!

MR. MCWHORTER: All right, now suppose that was done

>2U one minute before the Senate adjourns or the Senate -- I wonder

'I if time wouldn't be better than adjournment. In other words,

what's the possibility of doing it five minutes before midnight?

I know after a lapsed time

SPEAKER MURPHY: We can't transmit it to you unless

you accept it, can we?

60

MR. MCWHORTER: Suppose we amend it, where would

2 that leave us, that's another question. We got to accept it

~ verbatim or could we amend it? See, if we amended it, you could

say we hadn't accepted it. I'm not arguing with the philosophy,

5 I'm just asking some questions about what could be done on it.

h Would there be a real adjudication as to when there was dis-

7 agreement?

SPEAKER MURPHY: It would be a matter for the

Governor to decide then, whether or not we was in disagreement,

JO wouldn't it?

MR. MCWHORTER: Would you interpret -- all right, if
(~
,
~ you sent one over there and five minutes later we amended it
1-
to an hour later and sent it back. If you accepted it --

SPEAKER MURPHY: What we would do, we would handle it

j:; ~; right quick. We'd just disagree with you and then we'd be in
.",'
II, ::, disagreement. We haven't adopted it, see, and then the Co
I"' :.c Governor could adjourn us. That's what you ought to do. If

y'all sent us one and we amended it, y'all disagree with us

and the Governor would adjourn us.

MR. MCWHORTER: I just think we're putting something

?! in the Constitution that's not quite definite.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well, what have we got now that's

definite.

,'4

MR. MCWHORTER: Nothing. The intention was it was

...... ~., sine die only, originally.

PACE 61

SPEAKER MURPHY: I like the idea of the Governor

being able to adjourn us for a period of days. I like it. MR. TIDWELL: Ham, if you had some language that if the
~ resolution of adjournment by a certain day hadn't been adopted

~ by both houses, wouldn't that take care of it?

MR. MCWHORTER: I really think it would, uh-huh.

7

MR. TIDWELL: See, they could send it back to you,

Mr. Speaker and you might amend it, it might go several times,

q I wouldn't worry about that.

lO

MR. MCWHORTER: If there hadn't been a final agreement

\ ..,

1: ~ within a certain period of time. o

;} "~~'

MR. TIDWELL: By a certain date. If the resolution

"

:'f~ hadn't been adopted, then it triggers the power of the Governor.

j.l . You see what I'm talking about there?

MR. EDWARDS: Well I think it1s one of those things that

1!> ~ needs to be given a little more thought too, really.

,

"'-1.
:.:, Speaker

and

Ham

and

I'll

be

glad

to

help

--.

Get the

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't see any major disagreement

1(1 . with what we want to do, but just how to do it.

MR. TIDWELL: It has always bothered me when there's

.~ J a disagreement and I think that's getting close to it. Then

you take into consideration what you say where you can amend it ,..., ., and they might agree to it or they might want to amend it

SPEAKER MURPHY: As a mater of practicality we never

have anything of that nature in the 19 years I've been here.

62
MR. TIDWELL: I can see y'all getting -- you

wanting to adjourn for ten days and the Senate wanting to

adjourn for five and then there'd be some compromise.

MR. MCWHORTER: Frank, you've drawn an amendment four

~ or five times an hour, adjournment resolution?

MR. EDWARDS: On the hours and so forth?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'm nat talking about that, we're

k talking about adjournment for

MR. MCWHORTER: But we've drawn them for recess too,

1(1 difference an time and length of recesses.

11

MR. TIDWELL: You remember this last session, y'all

j:2 :, were wanting to --

/7~V:J'~d~r --_., ,'~, \ / ! \''',''_,It~

. ".",,,"

SPEAKER MURPHY:

We're talking about one thing and

\~--/ '
,-~ J4 y'all talking about another. On the last night we amend it

jS almost hourly as to the hour but when you get down to two,

h " three, four, five days before we adjourn, it has always been

the issue of adjourning or not adjourning. Ain't that right,

iii Jake?

19

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: Yes.

20

MR. EDWARDS: Here again, you're talking about for

_'i a specific period of time.

MR. TIDWELL: There has been issues where the House

wanted to recess for one -- I'm talking about recess now --

whatever you do when you're trying to set days and the Senate

wants more days or less days. I remember that y'all quite

63

frequently disagree and finally do agree.

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, the two times that the Governor --

Governor Carter adjourned us once and Governor Busbee adjourned

us once. I don't remember -- I think Ernie might have done

5 it once.

MR. MCWHORTER: Ernie did it on sine die.

7

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think he might have done it done,

~ but Governor Carter adjourned us once and Governor Busbee

'l adjourned us once. I think on both occasions, as I recall it,

10 the Senate sent us a resolution to recess and we would not
<? 7.
II ~ adopt it. We rejected it and the Governor recessed us or "0,
~
12 ~adjourned us or what the devil ever it is that he does to us

j-
gfor three, four, five days, something like that.

,0

i
~ Cindy?
,.,
t -:r
] 5 ,.

MS. NONIDEZ: Yes.

Didn't he,

MR. EDWARDS: I think Governor Carter did it for

17 :: what, one day.

MR. MCWHORTER: Yeah, one day.

It}

MR. EDWARDS: Wasn~ that where part of the Senate --

.'i)

MR. MCWHORTER: He knocked off

". '1 '1 Friday to Monday and we had one day left.

he adjourned from

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, that's right.

MR. MCWHORTER: And they asked you for an opinion on

"
,3

the legality and you never did render an opinion.

MR. EDWARDS: That's right because I didn't know.

64

SPEAKER MURPHY; That's what we're trying to avoid

now, we're trying to avoid that where you would know next time.

l,

MR. EDWARDS: That's exactly right.

4

SPEAKER MURPHY: We're trying to give you a liberal

legal education in one sentence.

I'

MR. EDWARDS: Well--

7

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mr. Speaker, does this intend to

~ delete the first sentence in the current

l)

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, no, no.

10

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This goes beyond? In other

II Swords, so this would come right after the first sentence I

SPEAKER MURPHY: Frank and I have a different Frank don't think the Governor ought to be able to
l'i :~adjourn us ever, I do. I think that if we have a disagreement 1(, ;, he might on many instances save us from having a special session
"z
17 ~by adjourning us for a period of two or three days till tempers
cool off and people get to talking reasonably. I feel very )9 strongly about that. As a matter of fact, I've seen it happen 20 twice, avoid special sessions, by the Governor doing it and I
just think we need that kind of power. I feel that way now but when we send a resolution and they send a resolution to 2~ 'adjourn and we don't want it, it makes me mad as the devil, but I'm thinking reasonably and rationally now, I hope.
MR. EDWARDS: Well these things, it seems to me,

65

sometimes get to be a two-edged sword. Normally the Governor

, gets with the Senate or the Governor gets with the House,

3 generally speaking.

4

MR. MCWHORTER: He's going to team up with one of

') I them.

h

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I wonder if we may adopt some

language here subject to further review and further study in

x order to get off --

9

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well, I move we adopt this language

10 that Mr. McWhorter and I have SUbmitted.

"z
il ,-
=-:
() Cc
'") a: I~. U
/~~Yl:Z1'\
:;: l\~~~:~~-~",,.:~\j\l,!-"-"-"-"-. ::

MR. EDWARDS: This is McWhorter-Murphy, M & M MR. MCWHORTER: I think you better put Murphy first. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion that we adopt

II ~; this language which would replace, as I gather, Mr. Speaker,

-t

~

15

the .~ t'-,;:,;;.::

part

in

the

present

beginning

"In case

of

disagreement. "

16 ~This language would replace that, is that correct? o

7.

4

17 ~

SPEAKER MURPHY: My basis for that motion, it may not

[8 be no better than what we have but it sure ain't no worse.

I')

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have the motion, is the motion

:~() seconded?

,1

MR. MCWHORTER: Can I amend it?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let's get a seconding first.

MR. ELLARD: I second it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Now any

discussion?

66

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Speaker, would you be agreeable, -, I and I don't know exactly what to put in there, instead of

putting " . by the end of the legislative day...... , which could

~ only be one minute. See, I don't know when is the end of the

) legislative day. You might send it to the Senate

SPEAKER MURPHY: All right, put it this way. " . suc h

resolution by the end of the next legislative day after such

Ii resolution was transmitted to the other body."

MR. MCWHORTER: Oh, I could go with that.

10

SPEAKER MURPHY: All right, do it.

1 1 >:t:, :J

MR. MCWHORTER: All right, on amendments

II

l,:

JJ. U

SPEAKER MURPHY: Of course, if you ain't got but one

1.'.
,.

~day left, you're in a heck of a mess.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's the point.

<t

I

15 "I'

SPEAKER MURPHY: You're in a heck of a mess if you

<L

10 !ain't got but one day left.

MR. MCWHORTER: I could go with that but I thought

lK :maybe you wanted to cut it shorter than that.

19 ,

SPEAKER MURPHY: But you're in a heck of a mess if

20 you ain't got but one day left.

:?l

MR. MCWHORTER: That don't work for that.

22

MR. EDWARDS: Well as I gather, this was going to be

, j ., adopted, Mr. Chairman, for --

MR. MCWHORTER: Temporary.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right, this is a temporary

PACE 67

adoption, Frank, we're going to have to come back and look at

) it and review this. And at the same time, I hope that members

3 of the committee will give it further thought and see how it

4 might be resolved in the best way. But now

5

MR. MCWHORTER: If both houses do not adopt --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Do you want to make any amendment

7 to it or do you want to accept it like it is for further

S i review?
i
I
9

MR. MCWHORTER: lid just like to say if both houses

10 adopt it by the end of the next legislative day. I could see

u
:z

:. I .-. we could possibly come back in lieu of that next legislative oC<

"-
': '~" day cut the time down.

/f/"V?-b~~\

,

~ Ul \ (c.

r-'-"-""'"

\ //1

v

'~.. _' - -'".--/ /

SPEAKER MURPHY: Let's leave it like this and come

.

14 , back and try to come up with language that everybody can agree

l~ to.

1 (,

'L,
l

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. We have the motion. Is

the motion seconded?

MR. ELLARD': Yes.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS; You've heard the discussion.

21J ! Are you ready for the question? As many as are in favor of the

" motion signify by saying aye.

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Oppo sed, no.

(No response,)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it a,nd the motion

68

is carried.

I think that paragraph (c), Mel, did we not say that

we were going to refer that to the other committee.

MR. HILL: Oh, I wanted to report that the other

committee that is working on impeachment was, you know,

h i informed that ycusuggested it go over to their committee and

they felt that it should remain here. The sense of that

x committee was that one house should be able to adjourn, the

9 I House should be able to adjourn while the Senate continues in

10 an impeachment trial. That was the sense of that committee and

U
I
! 1 '" they sent it back to you. They felt that it should be mentioned n

1.2 here because it relates to adjournment and extending the

(~/~, ,~~~,

"
. ': session and that, you know, wille there may be some overlap, it

J4 :: was still a necessary reference to leave in. So -- the main
I
15 ~ problem with this, if you remember, was that there was
16 ~:~~ inconsistency in some of the provisions on this. In one case G z it says the General Assembly may continue and the other it says

18 the House may adjourn and the Senate may continue, and so

19 the question is whether -- to bring about some consistency.

20 I

MR. MCWHORTER: This suit you, Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yeah.

MR. MCWHORTER: It looks good to me.

, .,,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. We'll just retain that

then.

MR. HILL: With "shall" as opposed to "may".

I.'. \ I'.J'' 69

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Paragraph II, we retained,

2 Oath of Members. We retained the section on Quorum, the

Rules of procedure, Vacancies. We again retained the current

.~ , provision concerning Compensation and allowances.

MR. MCWHORTER: Let me ask a question right there.

Mel, you know more than I do. There's another provision in a

later section about compensation of state officials, so to

tS

I
I

speak,or state employees maybe.

What was the -- what did they

9 decide, they want to leave two different ones or combine them

10 together? You could drop this one out and put it over there

z")

i i " the same wordage except the General Assembly shall not increase

()

1-. .

'c'

/~9Vffd\

J2

~~ ~

their

pay

during

the

term

elected.

'j'\ /~.

'i "".'''"" ::

I\\,\b. /I/1"

u

MR. HILL: The language would be the same and at the

'/

J4 moment they intend to have two separate sections, but that's

) '. still pending in that other committee. They may come back to

1(, 7 you with a suggestion later. !..i

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay, Paragraph VII, Election,

I ~i returns, we retained the current language. The same is

11) tX'ue with Paragraph VIII. Paragraph IX we did insert the term

"theft" and we considered the terms there concerning the "- ! immunity of members from arrest.

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, when you get through, I'd ,c.'l like to comment on that paragX'aph.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: All right. This is open to

discussion now at this time, this particular --

70

MR. EDWARDS: You'll recall last time I mentioned

2 that we had done some study on that particular provision for a

3 member of the General Assembly two or three years ago, and

4 my recollection is that at the time he asked us, coincidentally

) about a week later I saw a squib from Oklahoma where that

b Supreme Court had ruled on it and I sent out and got a copy ,,../ of that decision. I asked Terry McKenzie to do a memorandum

on it and I thought I'd pass this out. It's a little too

lengthy to mess with today, but the people could read it maybe

10 between now and the next meeting, just take a look at it and

II c.; see what we came up with.
/)
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is concerning Paragraph IX,

provision there?

MR. EDWARDS: Correct. The Oklahoma case is attached
:r
I.' ~: to the back of Terry's memorandum.

1() ;~ w

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

"



17

'"
en

propose

at

this

time?

You don't have any change to

18

MR. EDWARDS: No, I'd just rather wait and let y'all

19 look at it and if that suits you come back next meeting.

20

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Chairman, you know, appropos to

this, if this is worth anything it ought to be extended to the

committee meetings -- if it's of any value anyway. We can talk

about it later of course.

MR. HILL: Should be sent to the full committee?

MR. MCWHORTER: To committee meetings. In other words,

I'AGE 71

not just for the forty days. Like some states say, five days

before the session and five afte~ I think if it's of any

J value, it ought to apply to committee meetings or something

like that -- if it's of any value.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You have the committee meetings

6 in there in this draft.

7

MR. HILL: Yes, the present draft has committees

mentioned in paragraph IX. That was tentatively approved last

9 time about leaving committees in. You see Paragraph IX?

10

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes.

(J
:z

\ I ;: c<

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is there any thoughts on this

o

,"

.

J 2 ,; paragraph at this particular time? Shall we defer action

(/t\,,:((:./b;.'--<:>jY.1R~)A:J',r\)!'.='!"

~">.
,., until

we've

read

Frank's

--

'..~~:../ /

I

14 ,.
~,~

SPEAKER MURPHY: Do we have anywhere else in our

1~ :~ Consti tution -- is this the only place we have in our

Ib gConstitution about not liable to answer for anything spoken
?
I" ~j on the floor of either house, Frank?

L" ,

MR. EDWARDS: Yes, sir. This part adds committee,

iJ this draft, this particular draft right here does.

20 ::,

SPEAKER MURPHY:

.,
J what I've got.

I darned sure don't want to lose

11

SENATOR TYSINGER: No, sir

., ;

MR. EDWARDS: That's different from the first part

"1
~~of

that

paragraph.

MR. MCWHORTER: This is the only place I know of.

72
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This would probably be the only

~ place it would be appropriate.

MR. MCWHORTER: Frank, could we add to that "words

cj spoken in Cobb County."

SPEAKER MURPHY: Add what?

SENATOR TYSINGER: " . words spoken in Cobb County."

, I told him I was glad to know some of these wealthy people

MR. EDWARDS: I tell you, Jim, at the rate we're

9 II going out in DeKalb, we might stick DeKalb in there too.

10

SENATOR TYSINGER: I better watch what I say out in

11 lz' DeKalb about everything.
'n"
c.

12 ~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well, gentlemen, shall we move

@ ' ~ _..~ ~on then and come back to this after we have had an opportunity

14 >- to look at Frank's memo on that? t;:

15 .1,

Let's move to Paragraph X. There was --

:.?
we

C~

a [6 zfT.

MR. EDWARDS: Charlie, do you remember what we did

z

<0:
17 ~ on Viva Voce, I didn't have a chance to check it out.

MR. TIDWELL: I think I remember.

Ii)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Frank, somebody was supposed to

20 give us

MR. EDWARDS: Here again, we just haven't had a

22 chance. Charlie says he thinks he remembers what conclusion

23 we reached on it.

MR. TIDWELL: I think we concluded that it meant that

2\ . it simply wasn't a secret vote.

I'ACF 73

MR. MCWHORTER: Exactly right.

MR. TIDWELL: It didn't have to be done by voice, but

that it was not secret, it was recorded.

4

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Recorded vote.

MR. MCWHORTER: There is a case in this country in

which they interpret the electric roll call system would fulfill

7 the requirements.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right.

9

MR. MCWHORTER: And it's in most of the Constitutions.

10

MR. HILL: And as a matter of fact, one of the

"z 11 ~ provisions that the other committee is working on is on when
(;
c~
~'" will a roll call be required and so, that may take care of the
"r
~ problem and we can drop this section.

MR. MCWHORTER: I didn't know you had another, what

J < c, section is that?

C)

c<

16 ~"

MR. HILL:

"
l' :;; and nays are taken.

What section is the roll call?

When ayes

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We're going to consider that.

lY

MR. MCWHORTER: We're going to get to that one.

,'0

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We're going to get to that in just

~' j a few minutes.

1 ~,
MR. HILL: Oh, that's your committee.

MR. MCWHORTER: The one that was working with him,

that's what puzzled me.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Right. Shall we move on then and

74

look at that in conjunction with that.

MR. MCWHORTER: Mel, you work with so many sections,

you forget which one you're working on.

1

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Shall we move on then and come

~ I back? Let's move on to the new does everybody have a copy

0 now of, let's see, what section is this?

7

MR. EDWARDS: VII I guess, isn't it?

k

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It's the current Section VII.

9 Does everybody have a copy of this? Mel, you have this as

10 Section V, is this the --

l1

Z

I I II~

MR. HILL: It's Section VII of the present, it'll be

0

"-

~~~ 12 "~' Section V of the proposed.

~ r~~ ~.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

I

I

It's section VII of the present.

I"I ~~' Is everybody now ready to consider Section VII? The first


:r
15 ~paragraph there consolidates -- the first paragraph in your
.'",
]iJ 3draft consolidates the first two paragraphs in the current o .c
17 ~ Constitution.

18

Mel, you want to comment on that?

19

MR. HILL: It's the same provision, just consolidated

20 and restated in one paragraph and it follows the suggestion of

the 1970 proposal.

))

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It seems to me to simply state

a little bit more concisely those two paragraphs. Yes, Ham?

MR. MCWHORTER: I would like to delete the words "imm-

ediately after adjournment", just leave them out because we're

75

If in a computer operation now and we do what we call a composite.
II

'!\

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Just simply put "Each house

i

shall keep and publish "

MR. MCWHORTER: I'll give you the reason. Because if

) we ever drop it, like some other states, we might have to go to

b a daily one, I hope we never do, but we might.

7

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: In other words, your suggestion

5<, is it should read, "Each house shall keep and publish a

journal of its proceedings. Such journals shall be the official

10 records of the proceedings of each house and shall be preserved

'z" j I ~ in the office of the Secretary of State."
o
o~

12 ~~

SPEAKER MURPHY: Don't you want to keep the words

,~'iJYIZ<'J\

u_

/ , f , '1.\\, 1\ ,(lb ) ,

\
I;

_'~,,"!O

l~-;- " after

its

adjournment ,"

Ham?

Leave out the word

-,- I I!

v,

\ ,",-_-/.1/

>.,

","

]4 t "immediately", but keep --

:<r

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Strike out the word "immediately"

"'::":>

II> ~ then, Mr. Speaker.

oz.

<:

i' ~

MR. MCWHORTER: I could certainly buy that and hope

[Owe could stick to it. Yes, sir, I think that'd be an improvement

19 over what we say.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. Are there any further
,
-'I I thoughts on this? I don't think it --

MR. MCWHORTER: Iid like to bring up also the

question, it was put in there for a reason and I don't know what

-- I _.'-1'

all it is, "There shall be no other record there ......

It's in

.~( ! the old one but not in this one.

76

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Not in the current -- oh, yes,

it's in the current.

MR. MCWHORTER: I'm not sure I think it ought to

,1 stay in there, but I want to ask the question of Frank or

5 maybe Charlie. We get into the problem, lawyers hitting us

() every day about legislative intent, what happened on the floor,

7 people come up with part recordings and all those things.

What is the official?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well, Ham --

MR. MCWHORTER: You might use some other words.

II ~. ro<

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Suppose you just simply added

'""

~ the word"official", "Each house shall keep and publish after

,..

~ it's adjournment an official journal." Wouldn't that take care

I
;~ of it?

15 ~

SPEAKER MURPHY: It says right here "shall be the

:,-.1

IG

~official
o

record . "

7..,.

17 :; record . "

" . such journal shall be the official

lK

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, you've got that.

jCJ

MR. MCWHORTER: I'm questioning "no other record".

20

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: There may be other records that

individuals may keep, but they would not be the official

;) record.

O'

)

SPEAKER MURPHY,: This says it's the official record.

SENATOR TYSINGER: The other one says, " but there 25 shall be no other official record " in the existing Constitution.

77

II'

I II'II,

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think that'd be an invasion of

, ,IIIiI everybody's right to privacy, whatever you want to say -- it

I

, II ain't privacy, but their right to make a recording of it if

4 they want it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right. You know, the

interesting thing, the men in Philadelphia at the 1787

Constitutional Convention, the best and the most authentic

record of that was the record that Mr. Madison kept and not

the official record of the Convention.

ICJ

MR. EDWARDS: Ham, do you know what that stems from?

C'l Z
Ii, oIY.
o.

MR. MCWHORTER: I think they thought it would be a

(~~cj)\~""H'O ~ ~SY!(.1

i2 ~ conflict

I don't remember exactly, Small's Notes did have

\,>----- ///

a notation, a conflict of somebody else keeping a record and

'- .. '

14

~ which would be the one for the courts. In other words, if you

. ::

I

1';

g e t ,'l
C?

in

dispute

of what

actually

happened,

you

get

into

'c"c>

Ib

~
w
o

legislative

intent

then.

MR. CLARKE: Well if you're saying this is the Ji' official one, that would solve that.
!Ii
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It seems to me that takes care

20 i of it

'.1

MR. TIDWELL: Well, it does and it doesn't. The court

will look at what is offered on legislative intent and will

accept it sometimes and reject it at other times.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't think this af;fects legis-

lative intent. This is only the official record of what the

78

House and the Senate done on that particular day. That don't

, have nothing to do with intent, I don't think. It's evidence

! of it, but there can be other evidence of it certainly.

MR. TIDWELL: That's what I'm talking about.

SPEAKER MURPHY: No question about that.

MR. TIDWELL: Well, in trying to establish -- what

7 I' they will accept as being legislative intent.

':

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It seems to me it would be

9 redundant, here you are stating it's official, to say anything

IU else would simply be redundant.

11 :l,.?:. ex .-(}

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think that's an improvement myself,

"v

J2 ':' tremendous improvement. Don't you, Cindy? Cindy, I want to

~/r):J!!~~',>!!"". ~~ know what my English teacher says now.

'-

J4 i:

MR. CLARKE: As a sort of a compromise thing,

<,

I~) suppose you add either the word "sole" or "only" immediately ':) (;r;. ::)
:11 :5 before the word "official".

17

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: " .. shall be the sole, official ... "

18 okay. Does everybody go along with that?

]9

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't think you need the word "sole",

)(1 but I don't think it hurts.

21

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is there any further discussion

of this paragraph? If not, the chair will entertain a motion

on this paragraph.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I move we adopt it.

SENATOR TYSINGER: Second.

t I'fI

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion to adopt and

II
.2 II the motion is seconded. Any further discussion? As many as

.3 are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye

4

(Ayes. )

5 i'

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

6

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the motion

is carried.

l)

Paragraph II --

MR. HILL: Paragraph III, Paragraph IV --

l? Z.
IJ ,-r.:: C"

SPEAKER MURPHY: We need to make a little change in

MR. HILL: They're what we have right now, so you

I

tmay want to change them.

:r_

J5 '"

SPEAKER MURPHY:

But there needs to be a little

J6 ,~" change in it. There where the comma is, we need to strike the o

17 ; next part of that sentence.

JK

You agree with that, don't you Ham?

!9 .'

MR. MCWHORTER: It'd make it mighty easy on me

.?n

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let's just take them one at the

, 1 time so that we can be sure that we know what we're voting on

.)"'1
,instead of as a lump unless you think otherwise.

Paragraph II. Do I have a motion?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Move we adopt it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Frank?

i l 'o.,'

80

MR. EDWARDS: I was just going to say I don't know

2 whether this is good or bad, but the possibility of moving

3 I that over to the appropriations provision. In one draft,

4 somewhere, Cindy, we did that I recall. It doesn't make any

~ difference to me one way or the other, but that's not all just

(I appropriations, of course, it has to do with revenue bills,

'7 so --

C'.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's what I was going to say,

') it does have to do with revenue bills, as well as appropriations,

10 which are two different things.

''i
, J 1 Z.. (~ 0 ;:;

MR. EDWARDS:

17 v difference.

Like I say, it doesn't make that much

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is so traditional and it's

such a basic principle of American government and Constitutional
~:.
r
\5 ,~ theory, I'd like to see it just singled out and specified in Ii> '"~""' the Constitution.
Cl L
MR. EDWARDS: That's fine with me.

IS

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It's a fundamental principle.

1<)

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think the overall Select Committee

20 after all these Articles are got together, are going to have

21 to get together and make some decisions on that.

MR. EDWARDS: Oh, no doubt.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This goes back to political

':4 theory during the Revolution and I've just -- of course, it

.:\ doesn't make any difference. We can put it in here and then

l:

..

_

If
t ii come back.

I'AGE 81

.)

MR. EDWARDS: 1 1 m not making any proposal

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Do we have a motion? Mr.

4 Speaker, did you move?

5

SPEAKER MURPHY: I move that we adopt Paragraph II.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is the motion seconded?

SENATOR TYSINGER: Second.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Is

C) there any further discussion?

\0

(No response.)

i ] l-
t>:

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: As many as are in favor of the

()

"

~ motion, signify by saying aye.

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS : Opposed I no.

1', c;

(No response.)

1() rz,.'
w
n
7

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

is carried.

The ayes have it and the motion

Paragraph III.

I"

MR. HILL: No change.

~lJ I

MR. MCWHORTER: I want to question the completeness

of it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I had a question about it too.
,-.,
Go ahead, Ham.

MR. MCWHORTER: Frank?

MR. EDWARDS: Uft-huh.

82

MR. MCWHORTER: With the Code revision going on and

different things, do you think it would be wise or unwise to

! add some words to allow -- like we codify a whole title or do

I a whole revision. Some other states have some additional words

5 on appropriation bills and code revision or something like that.

() Talking about one subject matter. I wonder if this is complete

, enough.

MR. EDWARDS: Well, Terry and I had discussed that q i and I have asked Terry -- you know, he's doing the Code

to revision, in charge of it, and I have asked him to look at this
v! Z
I] ~ not just this but everything, and see what he thinks we'll need

!\/~r~_-~7/~Y/~/)/"\).r.E!

12
.!~'.'!-"

~
:
f:
,,,,

to put in and he's going to get together and we'll come

do up

that with

and he and something.

I

are

going

to

14 ;.

MR. MCWHORTER: Well, one further question then.

15 ~ How would that apply to appropriations also?

:':">

16 l~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is my point that I was

-J
I 7 '"t< go ing to make.

IS

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Speaker, you see what I mean?

19 When you talk about one subject matter, we pass things --

20

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I gave some thought to that and

21 I was going to raise the same two questions.

)'\

Frank, I scratched out just a rough thing here for

the consideration of the members if it would be appropriate for 24 ~me to give. In the first place, I think that the term "law"

shouldn't be "law", it should be "No bill " Once it's passed

83

it is law.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: And I might suggest something

{ like this, because I think this is pretty common in most

Constitutions. Something to the effect that IIEvery bill,

except bills for appropriations and bills for the codification

revision or rearrangement of existing laws, shall be confined

g to one subject. II Something like this for consideration, and

<} then we can change it.

10

SPEAKER MURPHY: Go over that once more, Doctor.

\'"

,'.

1i

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: IIEvery bill, except bills for

+'.j"!.f(1. J-' ~ appropriations and bills for the codification, revision or

"\-(;/~, :)\\ .''''''''0 ~!:;:...,/:~/)

(
l)

rearrangement

of

existing

laws,

shall

be

confied

to

one

14 - subject. II It confies to one subj ect all but appropriation

j, ;:' bills and codification bills.

MR. EDWARDS: Well I think we need to give it some
<1
t.r
thought. Frankly, that might be a little broad.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Might be a little broad?
I I}
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah.

MR. MCWHORTER: When we do a whole new title like

the criminal code for instance.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is what I was thinking of.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I've never -- y'all have lost me on

appropriations, where you think it's more than one subject

matter.

84

MR. MCWHORTER: Well, we're only talking about

appropriations when we put some language in there. It's a

question whether you can put language and all that stuff in

there.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Language on how the appropriation

will be used is all we put in there, it's still talking about

appropriations.

MR. EDWARDS: I'll have to go along with the

Speaker. The appropriations part doesn't worry me as much as

[il some of the other. Of course, we've got that covered in the

appropriations section.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You've got that covered?

MR. MCWHORTER: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let's just leave this then up

l~ to Frank. We'll leave it up to you to come back with any

I, I was just going to suggest that we delete the word "law" and

17 substitute the word "bill" to be consistent and of course to

be accurate too.

1',1

MR. EDWARDS: Before we leave today, if you'll give

Ii me a copy of what you have there and then we'll look at that.

.'.1

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. Shall we move on then

with that and defer action on this until Frank reports to us

on it.

Paragraph IV. Mel, do you have any --

MR. HILL: That's identical.

85
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is a transfer of the current paragraph XII and it's identical, is it?
MR. HILL: Yes. SPEAKER MURPHY: Now wait just a minute. Let's think about that just a minute. We're adopting a new Code, Frank, that's going to be the official Code, why should we not and everything's going to be in the Code in the future with a section added to it, right? MR. EDWARDS: Hopefully. SPEAKER MURPHY: Why should we not be able to repeal it by Section number? MR. MCWHORTER: I'll tell you why historically they put that in there, because it doesn't give the general public reading the bill notice of it, so to speak. I'm not arguing :~with you, I see what you mean. See, some states like North 't, Carolina come close to doing what you're doing, but the reason for it historically is it just doesn't give a person notice 1' of what they're doing. That's all. SPEAKER MURPHY: Well actually it works right the reverse of that. If you put all that language in there about what it is, you confuse them folks and they don't know what the devil you're doing. MR. MCWHORTER: That's right. MR. HILL: This kind of goes back to that thing we're talking about, what is the original record, what is the official

P \!, 86

record, and it's the law that passed so by having them refer

2 back to that law as opposed to the Code, as they have been

.3 finding out in Code revision, Harrison Company sometimes

didn't do a very good job of taking the law and putting it

in the Code, so that the law itself -- you know, just a couple

of exceptions -- but by referring to the Code section, that

assumes that that is the official version.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Mel, what you're saying is this

meeting is not exempt from prosecution or suit now, areft't

10 you?
z
MR. EDWARDS: Well actually the fact that we are
<')
i 2 r.~ doing a new Code wouldn't have any particular effect on this

because now -- when we amended the '33 Code theoretically

we could say we just amend by the section number. That analogy

1" ::: would be still the same when we get the new one. I knmv what

you're talking about but --

17

SPEAKER MURPHY: I certainly hope that any laws that

" we pass will have a reference to the Code Section in it though.

MR. EDWARDS: Well if we get it, that's what we intend

to do. I mean we're going to have to do some more things, the

General Assembly is going to have to go along with that. In

other words, these people bringing in outside bills and that

sort of thing, they're all going to have to be drafted uniformly '.J really. But this section, I frankly -- this has got so much

law behind it, I almost hesitate to change it, to be perfectly

87

honest with you. There are so many cases involved and we've

got the law all settled. I just sort of hate to think about

changing it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Stirring it up again.

MR. EDWARDS: You see what I'm talking about?

SPEAKER MURPHY: All except that one sentence.

MR. EDWARDS: What, hesitate to change it?

SPEAKER MURPHY: The law's all settled.

'i

MR. EDWARDS: Oh. (Laughter.)

MR. MCWHORTER: If you want to hold the final draft

: until you and Terry discuss that
,',
MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, on the one subject matter and

:, all that stuff.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You want to hold this then?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'm inclined to agree with you that

~, ~~} we maybe ought not to mess with that section.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Why don't we have a motion on

it then.

MR. TIDWELL: That's one area, Frank, that Terry's

going to have to look at extremely -- this is the one right

here, because you're going to change the method of the way you

draft bills when you pull it out of the computer and the old

case law may prohibit you from doing that unless you address

that issue right here, you know. Heretofore the way bills have

been drafted, they do show exactly where the change is and

88

you're probably not going to do that, you're going to say

Code Section so and so is amended to read as follows.

MR. EDWARDS: Well you can still say Code Section so

and so relating to such and such.

MR. TIDWELL: Well, it says as well as the alteration

to be made. See what I'm talking about?

SPEAKER MURPHY: What I'm thinking about, Frank,
basically is if we eliminated all that junk from it, Jack and
.)
Ham, we would cut our journals by at least a third, maybe a lU half. Wotikln't we?

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes, sir.

SPEAKER MURPHY: See what I mean, Jake?

MR. EDWARDS: Well let me get Terry and look at the

14 " whole thing and then come back with something on that.

J"

MR. MCWHORTER: Adopt it subject to that.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. We have a hold then on

Paragraph IV.

Paragraph V simply retains the present provision,

doesn't it, Mel?

MR. EDWARDS: That's the one you were talking about

Ham, on the Lieutenant Governor, right?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes, sir, that's got to be --

MR. MCWHORTER: No, the one before that -- oh, yes --

no, that's not the one, Frank, it'll be one later.

SPEAKER MURPHY: This one does too, Hamilton. It says

I' \'.L 89

" . members elected to each house of the General Assembly "

MR. MCWHORTER: Oh, I was reading the old one instead

of the new one, excuse me, gentlemen. Yes, this is the one.

J I was looking at the one in the old one, I'm sorry.

SPEAKER MURPHY: " s hall receive a majority of the

h votes of the persons eligible to vote " is what you need.

You can't leave it like it was if you're going to make the

Lieutenant Governor eligible to vote.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right. And I raise another

]I) question under the old one, Mr. Speaker, since you preside.

t, f- "No bill shall become a law unless it receives a majority of

<, the votes of all the members elected II Now does that mean

.,::;:qvJtl,

((;Jl::.-J'))r'~-":""o '; 91 or how many does that mean, when you lve got two or three

\'-" _../.,~/:'

~;

"' ,.. "

14 vacancies? You get my point?

I'

SPEAKER MURPHY: I know what you mean. As far as

~ ;;

l{)

~~
,

I'm

concerned,

if I

had a vacancy,

if

I

had three vacancies,

if I was down to 175, it'd be a majority of them 175, is what

it would mean to me.

1'/

MR. MCWHORTER: " e l ec ted and qualified ", or

" e l ected and sitting ", something like that. We could put

2\ some words provided in the Constitution for something like that.

In other words, you see how that could become pertinent?

SPEAKER MURPHY: What it would mean to me, if we had

170 members, it would mean to me 85, 86 votes.

MR. MCWHORTER: Eight-six members.

90

SPEAKER MURPHY: That 's what it'd mean to me.

Wouldn't it you, Jack?

MR. ELLARD: Yeah, I believe so.

SPEAKER MURPHY: If we had five vacancies, it'd mean

those, that's what it said, if the English language means what

it says.

MR. EDWARDS: That has come up before on vacancies,

you still have to have the majority of 180 people, however many ') we had at that time.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Of whatever was there serving.

. ]; C

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: Yeah, elected and serving.

r)

(~~2)r""~ ~ I,,~ :~
c~~,,-

MR. MCWHORTER: Pennsylvania says it requires a

majority of elected members -- one state I remember seeing one

+ time, not recently, had some wordage when interpreted would make

1') ,) it definitely like the Speaker wants to interpret this. I'm c:<

l
i

," worried this one would be 91, but you would want it to be a

1)
. majority of those who are legally sitting, wouldn't you?

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's the way I would construe it

myself. If I had five vacancies or six vacancies and had 174

I."
members, I would say 88 votes would pass a bill

.' i

MR. EDWARDS: You mean on this language here?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yeah.

MR. EDWARDS: We wrote an opinion on that. I don't

remember whether you were speaker or not.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I wasn't because I would have

I, I :\, ".. ' i

91

disagreed with you very vehemently.

MR. EDWARDS: We said members elected regardless of

, vacancies.

MR. MCWHORTER: I'm afraid that's what the courts

" meant.

7 Frank.

SPEAKER MURPHY: That ain't what the language says,

MR. EDWARDS: It says, " unless it shall receive a

') majority of votes of all the members elected to each house of

]() the General Assembly "

j! t-

o

'"

I~ u:

\.'.,

~)

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's what it says. MR. CLARKE: But if there is not a member in that

SPEAKER MURPHY: He ain't elected.

MR. CLARKE:

he ain't a member.

1-7 ,:::c. 'member.

MR. ELLARD: If he's dead, he ain't elected or a

MR. TIDWELL: I believe you'd get some arguments and
I',
;disagreements with the Speaker on that.

MR. ELLARD: There is a difference.

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: If he's elected, even if
., -,
he isn't serving, it says the majority of those elected.

SPEAKER MURPHY: But you ain't got one elected.

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: No, you said vacancies.

I assume he was elected and had qualified to serve.

92

MR. CLARKE: I guess if it's going to be that way,

) : it ought to be "then serving".

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: Or "elected and serving".

.l

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think it ought to be 91 votes but

I don't think that's what it says.

MR. HILL: How about "of the membership of each house".

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: The fact that you've got

a vacancy

SPEAKER MURPHY: That don't help none either.

\0

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: The fact that you've got

a vacancy doesn't mean that he wasn't elected.

MR. TIDWELL: This would be the place to fix it if

got a Speaker that says he thinks it means that.

MR. MCWHORTER: Let me ask you this. Suppose you

] <; ;; put some wording "majority of all members to which each house

is entitled under the Constitution".

SPEAKER MURPHY: I got no problem with that.

jV
_"~I

MR. HILL: We've specified the number of the House

J') members, so we could even say 91, we could even specify 91

votes in the House and whatever it is in the Senate, specify,

since we locked in the number of the Senators.

MR. MCWHORTER: I see you could, but then you would

have to change both --

11

SENATOR TYSINGER: It might change later.

MR. MCWHORTER: What about that wording "to which each

t' \!,l, 93

house is entitled under the Constitution."

SPEAKER MURPHY: Wait a minute. "No bill shall

) become law unless it shall receive a majority of the votes of

'i the authorized members of authorized members of each house . II

instead of "elected members". " unless it received a majority

h of the votes of the authorized members to each house of the

General Assembly .. " That would make it awful plain then,

wouldn't it?

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Speaker, listen to this. "... a

10 majority of all the members to which each house is entitled

] 1 ~~ under the Constitution. II o

SPEAKER MURPHY: Either way. " . s hall receive a

/~:;,V!(1,

")\ ;\"!/\~i
\'\.

l-"

-

'

i

I/\)l'r

-'~'lII..,l..'.I'O

f
:' majority

of

the

votes

of

all

the

authorized

membership

of

each

,',

-/

J4 F, house of the General Assembly ...... , whatever, it suits me,

.:

]" :~ whatever you say suits me.

i 6 r~~\

MR. CLARKE: Torn, I worry a little about the word

(",

co " authorized" because you can think of that in terms of being

vested with authority and if there's a vacancy, then you might

I') say well there's nobody there vested with authority and so --

,'0

SPEAKER MURPHY: What did you say, Hamilton?

'I

MR. MCWHORTER: I had I believe " .. a majority of

all the members to which each house is entitled under the

Constitution . 11 Now that would be 91, wouldn't you say, Frank?

MR. EDWARDS: Uh-huh.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I like that. "No bill shall become

I"

94

law unless it shall receive a majority of the votes of all the

2 members to which each house is entitled under the Constitution."

,
.)

MR. MCWHORTER: I hate to be bringing things up, but

,j now the Lieutenant Governor part comes in there.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well it would be authorized by the

Constitution, if the Senate rules authorize it, it'd still be

authorized by the Constitution.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's a ticklish thing, it's not

9 in any other Constitution or the Supreme Court like that. They

10 give him a casting vote, but don't give him --

,

z.

J 1 ,.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: They don't make him a member.

MR. MCWHORTER: Don't give him that constitutional

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It doesn't make him a member. I

1" ~~ think if you use the word "members" there'd be a question then.

"-',

!() ~ w

MR. CLARKE: I believe you're going to have to add

"-l,'

] 7 ;; another sentence.

MR. MCWHORTER: Going to have to do something.

19 i

MR. CLARKE: Tying it by reference some way to the

20 other section.

MR. TIDWELL: Just reference that other section. Then

everybody would know --

MR. MCWHORTER: As provided for.

SENATOR TYSINGER: n except as provided for by

Section.. "

95

1i

MR. TIDWELL: It's hard to say whether that would do

1 it, but if you'll reference it --

MR. EDWARDS: If any other provision of this Constitution

to the contrary notwithstanding."

MR. MCWHORTER: That's a sticky one.

MR. EDWARDS: I think you're going to have to work

7 on that.

r\

SENATOR TYSINGER: Y'all going to have a lot of work

9 , between now and next Thursday.

1(1

MR. MCWHORTER: It's not in any other Constitution.

MR. EDWARDS: Ham, you can't go down to the Ole Miss
o
"
r.~
'c game, you've got to stay here and work on this stuff. ,.
MR. CLARKE: I was depending on Ham doing my work
J ~ down there at Ole Miss.

,)

MR. MCWHORTER: I'll do a better job down there.

<

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:
(-,)-
-f
1,' :" to Mr. Edwards?

Shall we then refer this one

I',I ; else.

MR. EDWARDS: How about referring it to somebody

MR. MCWHORTER: Cindy wants that one.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We'll let Mr. Edwards refer it

to Cindy or shall we try to resolve it here.

SENATOR TYSINGER: I think we better get some

language.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If we try to resolve it here, the

96

question being the vote in the Senate.

MR. EDWARDS: Let's bring Mr. McWhorter

3

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't have the answer to that one.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Let Mr. McWhorter rewrite this one

for us since it's the Senate we're worried about.

,.

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you, I don't

know how to.

:"

Ii

SPEAKER MURPHY: Aw, come on, Ham, a good lawyer like

'i you, you can sit down in a week or two and come up with

10 something.

:;.::
11

MR. MCWHORTER:

I really don't know how to.

12 u

SPEAKER MURPHY: Use all that research staff y'all got

."

~;: over there.

f-

(Laughter. )

1":

1S .)

MR. MCWHORTER: You're putting the problem with the

I h a'J. Governor back together here in a way. All the Constitutions
..,
17 ~I've ever seen and the Federal Constitution give him a casting

vote, the right to break a tie, but none of them give him the

]9 iright to make a constitutional majority, that I know of. Do

2l.l they, Cindy?

'j

SPEAKER MURPHY: The simple way to do this thing would

,' be to take the Lieutenant Governor out of the Executive Branch

and make him a member of the Legislative Branch

.'4

MR. MCWHORTER: You might be doing it when you do this.

25 You're putting him in both, you're making him fish and fowl both

97

if you do this.

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, we're making him a high bred. 3 I didn't say hybrid now, I said high bred.

MR. EDWARDS: As opposed to rye bread.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Let's just all of us work on some-

6 thing on that then. Me and Ham will come up with something.

7

MR. EDWARDS: Y'all can work it out just like you

k , did that other thing.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If that's the case then, let's

J() move on to Paragraph VI. Is there any change in that, Mel?

:I , r.: ':; .'."L

MR. HILL: Yes. THS combines the ayes and nays

~2)~~!1.'1

~~ provision.

(((iLj))r~!''''-''-' ~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This consolidates Paragraphs

\~ .....-//'/

'."

Ii
,~V and VI currently?

i}
, 1(, u::
()

MR. HILL: Yes. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Members of the committee,

I' "'"~ Paragrpah VI of your draft consolidates Paragraphs V and VI

I',
of the current Constitution, Section VII, and Mel, does it effect

] (,
: any change?

MR. HILL: No.
"}. -I
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think this was really taken --
was this taken from the '70 draft?

MR. HILL: Yes it was. There's no substantive change '.+
intended.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Now wait a minute. Now here's the

98

time for us to do something about this thing legally, that

we've been doing for years.

MR. MCWHORTER: We've already done something about it.

" i Let's see what you got.

SPEAKER MURPHY: What have you done about it?

(,

MR. MCWHORTER: We said five members and Mr. Edwards

I rules us out of order for awhile and then reluctantly said we

could do it, that we're not taking away from the right to do

it. Wasn't that what you finally sao?

10

SPEAKER MURPHY: What are you talking about? You've lost

1] me now.
1-)
I ..

MR. MCWHORTER: Which one are you talking about?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Paragraph VI.

MR. HILL: Of the new one.

1:

1~ '.~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Of the new draft, Paragraph VI,

ii' ~ Ham, right up here at the top of the page.

I

i - : <l ."Yo-

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes, sir, that's what I'm referring to.

18

SENATOR TYSINGER: Yeah, we say five members can make

J0 : a roll call vote in the Senate.

MR. EDWARDS: When did I say that?

-(".l

MR. MCWHORTER: I've got it in writing.

MR. EDWARDS: You've got it in writing?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I've got no problem with Paragraph
)1
.~.. t VI, I've got no problem there. Paragraph VII was the one

where I thought -- I've got no problem with Paragraph VI.

l'\Cl<; 99
11
'I
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. Paragraph VI then really

just incorporates the present provision.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Because 99 percent of the time when

any House member calls for a roll call vote, we're going to

5 have it anyhow.

MR. MCWHORTER: Frank, you don't say we couldn't put

! in the rules anything less than that, as long as we don't put

1 more. You still agree to that, don't you? You see what I

') mean?

10

MR. EDWARDS: I'll talk to you about it later. I

11 c~.; don't remember the first time.

/~?V.lJ,1\

" i'
lj

MR. MCWHORTER: I feel very strongly if anybody wants

,. ' / " \ \ \

I

l"- _ ) to adopt \<~iI~>~/r (

~

l 1 C'''lIfIIO

u

the rule

saying

three or

five,

they ought to be

able

;,~ ; to do it. If they want to adopt a rule saying two-thirds it'd
'::
] '0 ;; be in violation.

MR. EDWARDS: I know what you're saying.

SPEAKER MURPHY: There ain't no way you can adopt a

rule that is in conflict with a constitutional provision thou~

Ham, no way you can do that.

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't think it's in conflict with it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: It is in conflict with it.

MR. MCWHORTER: If you say five members, since it's

less than

SPEAKER MURPHY: Constitution says one-fifth.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right.

100

SPEAKER MURPHY: One-fifth of 56 is eleven and a

half and that fits the Senate.

3

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If the rule is in conflict with

4 the eonstitution --

5

MR. MCWHORTER: If you want to be strict like that,

one over would be more and it wouldn't be --

(Laughter. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay, then, any change in

C) , Paragraph VI? Anyone wish to propose any change?

11)

SENATOR TYSINGER: Couldn't we just do that by the

o

7

11 ~ rules of each body?

f)

"w

(~U))(~'-''''!E ;: ~~,

12 '"

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think that you ought to have

"

something in the Constitution where you could require them to

"::..:-.:-~//
11 _ do it. I think that's good myself.

MR. MCWHORTER: In some Constitutions it has
k';
1() o~ requirements on the final passage of bills and so forth. I
-,.
don't know if you want to do that or not. We got something in

IS our rules like that.

19

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't see nothing wrong with

20 Paragraph VI

.' !

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Do we have a motion to approve it?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think I've made every motion but

one this morning. I want somebody else to make one once in awhile.

MR. MCWHORTER: We're making a note.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Somebody else make the motion?

101

MR. ELLARD: I'll move that we approve it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion to retain

; Paragraph VI, to approve as is. Is the motion seconded?

,~

SPEAKER MURPHY: You Senators want to have any input

into this Commission here? Don't you want to make a second?

t\ I

SENATOR TYSINGER: I'll second it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Is

there any further discussion?

(No response.)

]0

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: As many as are in favor of the

'?"
1i ~; motion, signify by saying aye. o

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)

,')

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and Paragraph

ft:
c::;
j i, , VI i~r.r. is approved.

1': ,--r"

Paragraph VII, Bills to be read.

SPEAKER MURPHY: There's the one that I think we

ought to have some discussion about now.

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes, sir.

SPEAKER MURPHY: liThe third reading of general

bills and resolutions shall be in their entirety. II Now I

think by unanimous vote you ought to be able to waive that ,'c+ 'because what we do is we recess, we let them go to lunch and we

leave the freshmen sitting up there and they read five minutes

T- ------ ------

102

1 Ii: and then the journal shows it was all read and it's just

2 I' well it's time to do something about that.

I

3i

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Speaker, suppose we had a

4 provision, I don't mean exactly but in philosophy, that if

5 you read a bill three times by title only unless so many

6 people required on the third reading it be read in its entirety.

7 i Now I said so many, five or 175. You name it. But designate
I,
is i on each three readings it should be read by title only unless
9 I the presiding officer or so many members or a percentage of them

10 required its total reading on the third reading or something

Cz1
I! ~ 1ike that.

.()
~

w

1) '"

SPEAKER MURPHY:

(@~)J ~,'~ ,,,.:.:, of the General Assembly.

It sure would expedite the business

J4 f-

MR. MCWHORTER: Required -- how about something

":t:
15 o like that, title unless -- I personally would like to say ~, '"--'
16 3presiding officer demanded it or so many members, I'm not saying oz
17 ~5 or 175, percentage or something. I'd want to put it more

liS than one or two because some sorehead might make you read them.

19

SPEAKER MURPHY: You could say, " but the third

I'

I

20 reading of general bills and resolutions shall be in its
,
21 I entirety provided one-third of the membership of the body

so requests ......

SENATOR TYSINGER: One-third?

MR. HILL: In other words, the presumption would be

2~ it is not read.

103

MR. MCWHORTER: Now I don't want to let them use it

2 for a filibuster. You've got a possibility of a filibuster.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I find nothing wrong with a third

of the House members, sixty folks want that thing read and slow

it down, I've got nothing wrong witft that.

I'

MR. MCWHORTER: I'll go with it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I've got nothing wrong with it.

SENATOR TYSINGER: The only thing I'd like -- a

9 third, what are we talking about, 19, wouldn't it be?

HI

MR. MCWHORTER: Nineteen exactly, a third of those

<J Z
[1 :~elected. I'd go for that. See, this was put in there in 1877, ()

\1.1

'-)

:,;

/~:'W>-I:t4,

,- '! there wasn't a typewriter and not too many printing presses.
,

9 \/ (I('i_t;;-:.~)\)\/1----- :tlUI'IU'l l How about i t Frank, you got any objection to it?

"\\,

,/ /,'

.~.,.""",- -",' //..'

MR. EDWARDS: No, I was just going to say the reason

1" ;~ it's in there in the first place is like Ham said and one more
':c:
l() ~(;;1 reason, I think probably what Jim's thinking of, to keep
I.
17 "~ somebody from calling something up right quick.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's the reason I want to put at

least the title in there.

.~) j yeah.

MR. EDWARDS: Well that's what I'm talking about,

MR. MCWHORTER: In one sense, Mr. Speaker, I nearly

'bout want to put discretion of one third or demand of the :-1 presiding officer, if for any reason he wanted to, but I still
don't want to fight about it.

104

MR. EDWARDS: Jim, I know what you're talking about.

.).

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't think that ought to be in

there. The presiding officer ought to have the right to direct

"! the entire thing to be read if he thought it was important.

MR. EDWARDS: I know the point you're thinking about,

(, I don~ think that would slow it down much any more the way

they're read anyway.

MR. MCWHORTER: Jim, you wanted majority rather than --

MR. EDWARDS: No, he wants a lower number.

10

MR. MCWHORTER: A lower number. Lower number would

~J
Z
J J ~ allow a filibuster, I'll tell you that.
()
(~
'"
SENATOR TYSINGER: You mean just to read it?

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes, sir. Wouldn't it, Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER MURPHY: A hundred, hundred twenty page bill.

i ' .;

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes, sir, it'd allow a filibuster.

1(, ~(~ Our rules in both houses have been designed a long time to
/. <t
~preclude that. Jack, you think that's correct?

1;';

MR. ELLARD: (Nodding head affirmatively.)

]<J

MR. MCWHORTER: You can filibuster one the last day --

20

SPEAKER MURPHY: You want a fourth, is that what you

.' I want?
,1

SENATOR TYSINGER: Well a third, I'd rather have it

a lower number

.'0\

SPEAKER MURPHY: That'd be fourteen members for you.

I've got no problem with that.

11 ~~---~~---

_.. ... - - ~ - - - - - - - - - _ . _ - - - _ . _ _--~~---~~

ii

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't

think

it's

going

PAGE 105 to happen,

2 but theoretically it would allow a filibuster.

3

SENATOR TYSINGER: Normally by courtesy if you want

4 to ask one, they'll go ahead with you, but I'd like to have

5 that.

6

SPEAKER MURPHY: That'd be 45 members in the House.

7

MR. MCWHORTER: They could filibuster it the last day

x on appropriation bills, a big long bill.

,

')

SENATOR TYSINGER: It's no different than we've got nw.

10

MR. EDWARDS: Appropriation bill is going to be read

almost, you know. You do that when you explain it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Oh, u-huh.

MR. MCWHORTER: I had no comment on that.

! 1 ,>.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Uh-huh. What about that, Jake,

'<

I
t" <:J huh? We go through it section-by-section explaining it

'.:J

i6 '~"" section-by-section.

oz

< 17 :;;

MR. MCWHORTER: Jack reads it all, you just don't

I~ listen, Mr. Speaker, I think.

19

SPEAKER MURPHY: What I want to do is get this

20 thing where if they ever call me to say was this bill read in

21 its entirety and all that, that it's got me in a mess because

22 II can't remember what we've done, whether we sped-read it. , The

journal shows it was read, you know, and if they put me up

there and I have to swear, I'd just have to say I don't know.

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Speaker, we could leave it like

PAGE 106 1 i it is and Jack can furnish you notes on which one was read in

its entirety.

3

MR. ELLARD: I couldn't do that either during the

'-I session.

SPEAKER MURPHY: It could be a tremendous source of

l, embarrassment for me and Jack.

7

MR. MCWHORTER: I think it is too.

t:

SPEAKER MURPHY: It would be a tremendous source of

() embarrassment, wouldn't it, Jack?

10

MR. ELLARD: You're right.

z

1 ! ".. c;

MR. MCWHORTER: I still propose it be read by title

"'-

SPEAKER MURPHY: Turn that dadblamed thing off, son

15 ,0
."-:J
:J
16 z<Xl ''> Cl :z. "':
17 ~: co

MR. ELLARD: Let's put in something. SPEAKER MURPHY: Let's do something, yeah. MR. MCWHORTER: Let's put it in they will read it

Ix ; all three times by title only

19

SPEAKER MURPHY: Do I get to edit that thing? Lord

20 a Mercy.

21

MR. MCWHORTER: With the exception of when a certain

22 number or the presiding officer demanded otherwise, and I'm

not saying what number.

MR. HILL: The '69 Conunission had proposed it "at

: the
tL~_~

desire

o._f___a___m__a_jority

of

the

quorum,

.t-h-- _e.__..

_..,t._-_h.__.i_r-d~~-r-e-a--d-i~n-

g would' .----~_._~

PAGE 107

-

---~

-

----~-

- -~-

.__ . __ ._~----._---_._~--,

~~~-~y -:;t-~~- o:~y. -,~--~o-~~e""~~esumPtion was it would be read

2 \i unless they requested it be read by title only.

:i

3 Ii

MR. MCWHORTER: I want it the other way, put the

ii

4 Ii burden on them.

5

SENATOR TYSINGER: Let's do it and go down to a

6 ! fourth then.

-; I
i

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay, shall we propose some

language then?

9

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not pushing my

10 demand to allow the presiding officer, but I think it has some

SPEAKER MURPHY: Wait just a minute, let me write

14 .,.
i-

MR. HILL: Well, we could just say, add another

'<

I

15 ~. sentence to the last one. "At the desire of one-fourth of

'"::0 16 ~3 either House, the third reading of any general bill or

L
.~
17 ~ resolution shall be in its entirety."

[(I

SPEAKER MURPHY: I like it this way a little better.

I ()
, r.et I s try this. " but upon the third reading, one-fourth

20 of the membership or the presiding officer may require the

21 reading of general bills and resolutions in their entirety."
,",
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: One-fourth of the total

membership --

.>+

MR. MCWHORTER: Let's put, could we suggest instead

of "total", "one-fourth of those voting" or "one-fourth of thos~

elected ll , either one you want. You see what I mean, just to

2 tie it down, doesn't make any difference to me.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: One-fourth of the membership

assuming a quorum.

SPEAKER MURPHY: One-fourth of the authorized

') membership, how about that?

"7

MR. MCWHORTER: Which would be about 45 in your house.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yeah, that's right. " . but upon

9 I the third reading, one fourth of the authorized membership
1(; or the presiding officer may require the reading of general .7"-
11 ~ bills and resolutions in their entirety." "
MR. MCWHORTER: That's an improvement on what we've

<
1:
15
''C"")
i,t:
16 7. w 0 7-

" 1
l

7

SPEAKER MURPHY: What do you think of that, Frank? MR. EDWARDS: That's fine. SPEAKER MURPHY: What about it, Jake? REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: It's all right. I've got

IS something that's slightly shorter than that. It starts right

J<) there where it says "shall be by title only except where

20 ordered by the presiding officer or on demand of one-fourth

21 of the authorized membership." That's slightly shorter. It

7)
says the same thing. You're saying, Mr. Speaker --

23

SPEAKER MURPHY: I've got no problem with it myself,

-~-I just so i t --

-,c

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: It just says by title only

rr---------_-- .------- --_... ------ -.

l'AGE 109

1 Ii except where ordered. That's in line with the language that

Ii
2 i! you normally use anyway.
I

.3

MR. MCWHORTER: Would you use the word "ordered" or

4 "demanded", we've got order lots of places.

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: I'd say where ordered.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right, that's a better word.

7

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: Ordered by the presiding

officer or demanded by one-fourth of the authorized members.

9

MR. EDWARDS: Well of course up there in the preceding

10 paragraph it's got desire of one-fifth of the members.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I just said may require.

MR. EDWARDS: Either one.

SENATOR TYSINGER: Put the language parallel with

other language.

J S ,:,
"1

MR. EDWARDS: Well when the whole thing through we

16 ''~"""' have to go through and make it consistent all the way through.

z

<

J 7 :;;

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: What language shall we use then,

gentlemen?

19 !

SPEAKER MURPHY: What did you say now, J. C., read

yours as you've got it.

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: Okay. Start there at
,-,
" . be by title only except where ordered by the presiding
..',J officer or desired by one-fourth of the authorized membership."
24
SPEAKER MURPHY: I ain't found what you've said yet.

MR. MCWHORTER: Or at the request of one-fourth, any

P."..(:E 110

way you want it.

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: Well I changed it because

3 you're using "desired" up there in another one.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right.

.<J

CHAImiAN PARTHEMOS: Read the whole thing, would you,

6 J.C., so we can know exactly.

7

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: Okay. " . except--

8

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Read from the beginning, the

') ; whole --

J()

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: Okay. "The title of

I]

I" X

every

bill

and

every

resolution

intended

to

have

the

effect

;)

'::.

~

@ S ~sv \

12

~

of

law

shall

be

read

three

times

and

on

three

separate

days

C~ ! CU"''!!'. in each house before such bill or resolution shall be voted

_____ /

v,

14 :i upon, but the third reading of general bills and resolutions
,

r

15 ,b shall be by title only except where ordered by the presiding

-"
]6 ~'" officer or desired by one-fourth of the authorized membership."

z

-<:

17 'i;

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well, you see, you've ordered title

18 only up at the beginning and you're ordering it again.

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: Well it says --

20

MR. EDWARDS: Well, I think Mel's got an idea of

21 what we're talking about here.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: What about this way, J.C.?

" shall be in their entirety where ordered or when ordered

by the presiding officer or requested by one-fourth of the 25 membership. "

PAGE III

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: That would vary it enough

2

distinguish it from the language in the first paragraph, fir$t

3 line.

4!

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Would that do it? liThe third

reading of general bills shall be in their entirety when

6 ordered "

7

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Speaker, any danger of at ten

8 minutes to twelve you ordering a 100 page bill be read in

9 its entirety?

10

SPEAKER MURPHY: Oh, heck yes.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mel, does that do it?

MR. HILL: I think so, " when ordered by the

presiding officer .. "

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: " when ordered by the

15 ~~ presiding officer or requested by one-fourth of the membership. II

':">

16 ~

MR. HILL: Or "desired", could we use?

o z

<

17 ~

SPEAKER MURPHY: When we have long bills, I always

IX i! require them to be read in their entirety.

19

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: J.C., does that

20

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: Yeah, that clears it.

21

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That clears it up and then we

can come back and look at it again.

SENATOR TYSINGER: Then I move its adoption.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion that this be
-, =,
moved as amended by adding at the end of the sentence " be

l'

, ,\ ... '

.
,

'
~

I'
1. ~

112

read in their entirety when ordered by the presiding officer

requested by one-fourth of the membership in either house."

:1 Is the motion seconded?

4I

SPEAKER MURPHY: I like the word "ordered" by one-

S fourth of the membership better than I do "requested".

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: All right, use the word

7 "ordered".

8

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: That was the language I

had, ordered.

10

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: All right, weIll use the word

'z,'
"ordered". We have the motion. Is the motion seconded?

SPEAKER MUPRHY: I second it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Any

further discussion of the motion?

15 ~

(No response.)

''':'

':":>

16 ~ ,~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: As many as are in favor of the

Czl

<:

17 :ii motion signify by saying aye.

(Ayes. )

J9

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

20

(No response.)

21

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the motion

'J ) carries.

We move to Paragraph VIII now, which brings the

question of local legislation. This draft simply puts it into

the area of statute. Frank, I think you were supposed to

,
'-L.-..----_~_.~

._._. _

that one for us.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think this thing ought to be added

3 i a little bit to it. "The General Assembly shall provide by

4 IIi law for the advertisement of notice and passage ......

"J

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: ..... advertisement of notice and

6 .1 passage . ", " of notice to introduce and pas sage ", Mr.

Speaker?

C)
10 back --
'z.-' 11
:.:

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yeah. SENATOR TYSINGER: You mean you're going to come
MR. EDWARDS: Now wait a minute.

MR. MCWHORTER: What have we just done about reading

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is advertisement now for

15 ~ local legislation.

'"::J

16 ~

SENATOR TYSINGER:

z

<.;

i j ~~ and say that it was passed?

We have to come back if it passes Is that what you mean?

IX

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, what we have done in the House,

1'1 we've changed the way of doing local bills up there, we

20 print a local calendar and just present the title and read the

21 titles.

MR. EDWARDS: Well, but that wouldn't have anything -"-' actually to do with advertisement. That's a separate thing 24 what you're talking about, right? The way you're going to pass

on it.

114 u, ;'\(. ',"J',

MR. MCWHORTER: We need to work on it.

2

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yeah.

3

MR. EDWARDS: If we're going to do it, why don't we

4 stick that in another little paragraph instead of tying it

5 in with advertisement.

6

SPEAKER MURPHY: All right.

7

MR. MCWHORTER: What we're getting into, I've always

S wanted to get into, is some type of consent calendar. That is

1) a consent calendar.

10

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, that's what he's talking about.

CJ

Z

;1 ~ o~~

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yeah. Why don't we just break this

"-

"'

@". . . ~J2 : thing up, Frank, Advertisement of notice to introduce local legislation and passage of local legislation and put "The

14

)0.
'I;-;

General

Assembly

shall

provide

by

law

for

the

advertisement

1:

15 ..,.!;) of notice to introduce local and special bills and also

.>: ::>
16 ~ passage of local bills."

Czl
<.:
1'7 ~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Also passage of local bills.

18

SPEAKER MURPHY: Local or special bills.

19

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Local legislation.

20

MR. EDWARDS: Read it again, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Up there it says Advertisement of 22 notice to introduce local legislation, put a comma, and passage 23 of local legislation up there in the title. Then liThe General 24 Assembly shall provide by law for the advertisement of notice

to introduce local or special bills and for passage of local

l'AC;E 115

special bills. n MR. MCWHORTER: Now we have to come back to Paragraph

and put "general bills" rather than "bills" then, wouldn't

4 we, if we did that, definitely. Frank, you see what I mean

by that?

MR. EDWARDS: Yes. SPEAKER MURPHY: Well all you'd have to say is n

every general bill and every general resolution .. " is all

9 you'd have to add, is the word "general n before bill and

ILl resolution.

~.
1 i ,..
:'
,....'
~
J .~
'-'

SENATOR TYSINGER: Right. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Any further thoughts on

Paragraph VIII?

i-

(No response.)

'-
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If not, do I hear a motion?

" i ,'j 7
,)
I

SPEAKER MURPHY:

1"1 thinks about it.

I just want to know what Frank

i ,".

MR. EDWARDS: I'm not sure that the way you've got it

1'j worded, I'm trying not to get it where the passage will be

tied in with advertisement, is what I'm thinking about. SENATOR TYSINGER: What you're talking about is

putting a new paragraph in there and saying "For passage of

local legislation"?

., ,

,,';

MR. EDWARDS: Something like that.

MR. MCWHORTER: Frank, actually, to me, if you put it

1',:\,;[ 116

in the Constitution and allow them to make an exception rather

2 than -- if you didn't direct them and they didn't do it, you

3 wouldn't have any way to pass them. I can look at it, allow

4 them to make an exception to VII maybe, but otherwise --

5

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, that might --

SPEAKER MURPHY: Why couldn't we just say, Frank,

liThe General Assembly shall provide by law for the advertise-

ment and passage of local and special bills. II Couldn't we just

say it that way?

10

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: Mr. Chairman, what does

. 11

1-'
lY:,;

advertisement

have

to

do

with

passage,

that's

really --

~

~ '}

;..

1 ..... '.J

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well if you ain't got your advertise-

ment on it you can't pass it, J.C., that's basically what it

has to do with it.

:5 ,~

SENATOR TYSINGER: You want to put something in

~~,

'"::J

16

~
w

there

that

--

r:~

2

17 g<

SPEAKER MURPHY: All I'm trying to say is we ought

to get it to where we could authorize, we could provide

J9 the General Assembly by statute could provide for local

20 , legislation.

21

REPRESENTATIVE DAUGHERTY: What I'm saying is it's

got to be advertised before it's introduced, I thought --

SPEAKER MURPHY: Why couldn't we do this, J.C., 24 liThe General Assembly shall provide by law for the passage of

local legislation." We could require what advertisements we

PAGE 117

to then. Couldn't we, Charlie?

2

MR. TIDWELL: Yes, sir. It seems that that might be

3 -- also it might be construed that you could go beyond that

4 and local bills would be read once or something like that.

5

MR. MCWHORTER: Make an exception.

MR. TIDWELL: If that's what you want to do, but I

7 think the argument might be made that with that language you

can do that.

9

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well I don't see a heck of a lot

)() wrong with that myself.

(.' 7.
11 i::. ~
()

MR. MCWHORTER: I want to do something like that but

~

r~'?-Y.I]~1'\ I.: t:0: I wonder if we don't need to spell it out in a definite sentence

((.',\ (-..'' .'~ _j. '/\,)1\.:, .".._"-'"-'-,

r 2,
~

though.

, - __ . _r-'

j /; ..
",n
<:;

MR. EDWARDS: Either that or I'm inclined to think,

1:

'<: L

~ Mr.

Speaker,

the

part

about

passage

would

be

--

if

you

want

to

'".."
1(, 1~1.l put it in with another paragraph -- would better go in

r.

]e ~'Paragraph VII, the one we just talked about.

MR. MCWHORTER: Right. As an exception to the top

1'1 , part.

20

MR. EDWARDS: That or either a separate paragraph

.)1' as opposed to putting it in with advertisement.

MR. TIDWELL: Maybe it might also be construed that

a different vote could be specified.

SENATOR TYSINGER: Why don't you just put a title

that says "Local legislation" and then go down and spell it

118

,out? Just have Paragraph VIII and say "Local legislation",

~ (1) It shall be advertised and (2)

3

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't might an (a) and (b).

4

MR. EDWARDS: Let me ask you this. Do you think

5 that what the House is doing now is in violation of this, by

o having a consent calendar?

7

MR. MCWHORTER: Well we do it too.

s

MR. EDWARDS: Don't you think you might could do that

') without putting anything in here about it?

10

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes. The only thing that bothers me

II

...
0'

about

exceptions,

Frank,

is we said each one would be read by

()

:>.

~.~V~
(~~/\);~. ~ '\,_--.-.-'

12 ~ its title. Now if we go back and put the word Ifgeneralll then "

o

we have to prescribe --

"

14 ,

SENATOR TYSINGER: Just say "Local legislation and

~

1:

1, ~ have two paragraphs.

y.

:>

16 ~

MR. EDWARDS: What I'm talking about, just leave it

Cl

Z

<:

17 :; like it is right now. Do we have to put anything in the

JS , Constitution to do what the House and the Senate is now doing,

19 i is what I'm talking about.

20

MR. MCWHORTER: Well no, but we'd be in violation

like Jack, you listen to this because I might be in error

we'd be in technical violation the way we are now by not

reading them because we direct in this VII that we read the 24 title, and we don't go that far. We don't read the title,

you don't read the whole title. Isn't that about right, Mr.

-- ".--- ----------- ------- ---------- -- - - - - - ------- -- ------------ -
Speaker?

PAGE 119

2

MR. EDWARDS: That's true.

-'

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yeah, which I think is a violation

~ of the Constitution.

5

MR. EDWARDS: That's--

(l

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's the reason I'm just trying to

; say we ought to fix it where the General Assembly could fix

b how we pass local legislation.

MR. MCWHORTER: Then, I nearly 'bout want to say we

10 provide for consent calendar on local legislation or something

I. ~ of that nature. o

~

r/~~C~~~~r\~'.12E

~
:~

general

SPEAKER MURPHY: statute, Ham?

Why couldn't we do that by just a

14 ~

MR. MCWHORTER: You can as long as it's not in

<f I:
15 ~ violation of what you put in here, but if you put some

'L :J
10 ~ requisite in here, then you cannot provide for local legislaa Z
l~ ~" tion if it's in violation of something in the Constitution.

SPEAKER MURPHY: If you put in there "The General

Assembly shall provide by law for the passage of local

legislation." how could it be in violation if it tells us to 2) provide by law.

MR. EDWARDS: But what Charlie says, under that

language, I think you could say that y'all have to have twenty
,1
'-r people to vote on local bills. You say that might not be too

wrong, I mean we have less than that sometimes as a practical

l' \ ( ,1: 120

matter, but I mean theoretically you could do that. If you

said passage, passage covers everything, not just consent

3 calendars, is what I"m trying to say.

4

MR. MCWHORTER: No bill has effect of law -- local

5 I legislation has effect of law -- shall pass unless the majority

6 of those elected , so forth.

MR. EDWARDS: I think to get the consent calendar,

8 we need to tie it down a little more narrow than just saying

q "passage", I think --

10

MR. MCWHORTER: We don't want to affect the legality

11

,..
0:

of any local

legislation.

':J

>.

@ . .",. ~12 ~"'

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is not the real issue here the

procedure by which local legislation is passed?

14 ,.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Exactly.

15 ,',
."

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If that's it, why can't you

:':">

16

~ 'a"

just

simply

specify

that,

something

to

the

effect

that,

Z

17 ~'" "Procedures for the passage of local legislation shall be

specified by law." And that would then --

19

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's what I said, "The General

20 Assembly shall provide by law for passage of local legislation." I

21

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We could specify Ifprocedureslf

22 and that would, I think

MR. EDWARDS: To me that doesn't change my point.

24

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It doesn't alter though the

25 application of the other Constitutional provisions, it just

rr--------- --

PACE 121

:~ simply specifies the General Assembly shall have the authority i

2 to establish the procedure by which local legislation is

3 passed.

4

MR. MCWHORTER: I think we've got a meeting of the

minds, but not of the language.

(,

MR. TIDWELL: You could reference the ones you

; wanted to apply, it had to be read three times --

M~. EDWARDS: I think as far as I'm concerned, we I) could say local bills only had to be read once. That wouldn't

bother me, you know, from a practical viewpoint. If that's

11 ~ the way you want it, we could put that in.

o

"-

;.:;..'3-\'4_;,

12 "~'

SENATOR TYSINGER: Can we just have one paragraph

l(\It"~_0--,"j,)\)r'~!'!~'!~ ~ and say "Local legislation" and then put it in there, it'd

- \,,"--..-_-._~.- .-//
i,,1 ). just be a simple title.


l:

15 .~

MR. EDWARDS: If that's what we want that's fine

with me. "
, " ,." :::1'

MR. MCWHORTER:

Frank, your point is unless we

spell it out --

I')

SPEAKER MURPHY: Really, I hate to be so dumb, but

20 I never have really understood your point, Frank.

MR. EDWARDS: Well, when you say "The General " Assembly shall provide by law for the passage of local bills." .:)._') Right, that's what you said? All right, passage to me means .:-\ more than just what you're thinking about. I think your main

point is consent calendar. Passage means how many people vote

PACE 122

on it, how many times it's read, the whole -- passage includes

the whole gamut of things, to my way of thinking. I didn't

I think that was what you were really concerned with. Do you

4 see what I'm talking about?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Frank, would this language

resolve the matter at all? "The General Assembly shall, by law,

7 specify the procedures for the passage of local legislation."

This restricts it to the procedures and it seems like to me 9 I this is the crux of the problem. This does not allow the 10 General Assembly to change the vote requirements.

0;

MR. MCWHORTER: Whatcbout that thing, "no bill having

C'

il

0'

(~\ ,,-~ I12 x the effect of law", there's got to be an exception to that,

".' \,~=-~--")J

hasn't there? It has the effect of law although it's local. ,

'-

14

;. ~

My

only

interest

is

to

see

that

we

don't

endanger

constitution-

::r

15 ~ ality of any local legislation. We all agree we want some,'z.,

16 ~.., thing like a consent calendar, don't we? C\ Z <
17 ~ we're both doing now.

That's about what

1/\

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well, we could put another paragraph

19 : in and say "The General Assembly may provide by law for a

20 i local calendar of local and special bills."

2i

MR. EDWARDS: If that's the one point you're

interested in, I think that would be the way to do it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Say that again, Mr. Speaker.

24

MR. EDWARDS: But do you see what I was going at

25 before?

PAGE 123

SPEAKER MURPHY: She's going to have to read it back

2 to me.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: "The General Assembly shall

4 provide by law "

SPEAKER MURPHY: What'd I say, sweetheart?

6

MR. EDWARDS: For local calendars, for local bill

calendars, Ham?

MR. MCWHORTER: I guess maybe

,)
SPEAKER MURPHY: She can tell us if you'll let her.

10
'T"-
I l 1---
"';:'
,,' 12 :

(The reporter read back the language as follows:
"The General Assembly may provide by law for a

local calendar of local and special bills.")

MR. HILL: This would replace th~ advertisement

':

I

1 C :~ requirement then?

,,:

:>
3 lh

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

No, no.

"I

<

I1

J;(.

MR. EDWARDS: That's separate.

i ~~

MR. MCWHORTER: You see you make an exception to

1'} paragraph VII. You agree on that, don't you, Frank?

:1)

SPEAKER MURPHY: It would be between VIII and IX

;
" and IX would then be X and so on, by renumbering the remaining

)
paragraphs accordingly, isn't that what we say?

23
MR. EDWARDS: The Clerk of the House shall renumber

L','-t
all --

) .:;;

-"

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Do I have a motion then to

i'.

124

SPEAKER MURPHY: We need to adopt Paragraph VIII.

I move we adopt Paragraph VIII.

3

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I was going to say to adopt

4 Paragraph VIII and then to consider the proposed new Paragraph

5 IX.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I move we adopt Paragraph VIII.

7

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion to adopt

Paragraph VIII, is the motion seconded?

MR. ELLARD: I second it.

10

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: As many as are in favor of

]1

>-
'"'-';')

the

motion

signify

by

saying

aye.

12 ~"'
er""~ I "~ > :;, < T 15 ,~

(Ayes. ) CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Oppo sed, no.
(No response.) CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the

-'
16 "~' motion is carried.

'l.
'~
q ;;:

SPEAKER MURPHY;

I move we adopt the paragraph that

18 this lady has read back to us as Paragraph IX and the other

paragraphs be renumbered accordingly.

2U

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay, you heard the motion.

Is the motion seconded?

SENATOR TYSINGER: I second it .

.:~3

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. As

many as are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

(Ayes. )

- ~----~----
1 11
"
il
2 I;
Ii,

PAGE 125
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no. (No response.)
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the

4 motion is adopted.

5

MR. TIDWELL: Is it the sense of this committee that

o i in adopting that paragraph that then all the other Constitu-

7 tional requirements which relate to bills in general will

b apply to also local bills?

MR. MCWHORTER: I think we've got to study it and

1.0 to go back and take that into consideration. That's the

11 ~ part that bothers me. ::> '-

((::J))f""'~ ~ rea~ " 12,

SPEAKER MURPHY I think if you just left it like

it is, you' d have to

local hi11s three times.

<-..::~//

i4 I
,.. '<"'
r
15 ~ votes?

MR. TIDWELL: And it would require a majority of 91

"':
~
16 ~ w Cl '1:

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes.

MR. TIDWELL: 1 1 m trying to help somebody thatls

1>< going to be a Constitutional scholar and is going to read this

and see what was meant.

20

SPEAKER MURPHY: It still would require 91 votes and

21 it would have to be read three times, but it would allow us

to provide for a consent calendar to be submitted to the 23 membership.

MR. HILL: Did we amend Paragraph VII to say "every ~:' ,general bill" and "every general resolution" or are we leaving

I , - "-_._~~-----'---'-'-"--~---'-'---"-'-'.'-- . - - - - - - - - _..-
that alone?

126

,
L

MR. MCWHORTER: We need to -- we've got to make an

j exception to it some way.

4

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't think we need the word

5 i "general" up there before it now.

MR. HILL: Okay. So it's as we passed it originally.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Right.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. Shall we look now at

9 Paragraph IX, which becomes Paragraph X, Acts signed. That's

10 just your current language, is it not, Mel?

2:

1!

MR. HILL: Yes, uh-huh. These two provisions were

o

@;,:,i.0~ just separated. Paragraph X is now XI.

MR. EDWARDS: Right.

-

14;

....

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Acts signed and rejected

~

J:

15 .~) bills separates the two matters in your Paragraph X of the

\9

'":::J

Ii)

''z".
~

current

Constitution.

0

,7

~
"to"

MR. MCWHORTER: That's okay.

H,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We just separated them because

19 ' we thought they were two different matters and they should be

20 separated.

21

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Speaker, when you're talking about

rejected bills, does it give y'all any problems --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: May we just act first, Ham, .:>+ i on Paragraph X -- Paragraph IX which becomes Paragraph X. So

may we just adopt that paragraph?

PA.GE 127

SPEAKER MURPHY: I move we adopt it.

2

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

"I
3 motion seconded?

We have a motion.

Is the

MR. ELLARD: I second it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. As

(i many as are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)

iU

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it.

..:1

!'

Paragraph X, Acts signed is adopted.

.,

t' ~,

Now we move to Paragraph XI, Rejected bills. I

,,_.:..~-!//i'~<1,

u.

/,/ ,~, \

'

\\- ,//; (1(,0 .;"'--'

11

-''.!2''''"'':~'

think

that

incorporates

the

same

language

--

the

same

require-

!i',_ ment as the present Constitution. Do you have any?

MR. MCWHORTER: There comes a problem and I don't
:)
1" ~: know if I want to change it about the sameness. You introduce
L
<:
;: a bill with a few words different, what is the same and the

word "proposed", somebody has interpreted, which I don't, that

I'i a bill introduced in the Senate and one in the House and you

~(I defeat the one in the Senate, the Senate bill and the House

bill comes over there. It hasn't been proposed over --

) ~,

MR. EDWARDS: Ham, there is a little change on the

~'.) same. The present Constitution says " the same or any other

title .. ", this s<:lYs " .. same or similar form .. " That's a

little broader.

--_.- - --- .. _._

.

I'},( ;i: 128

MR. HILL: This is from the '70 proposal.

2

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

MR. MCWHORTER: Which one do you like best, Frank?

4

MR. EDWARDS: Well,neither one of them are perfect,

5 let's face it. You could argue about what is a similar form,

b you know. Up here you could argue about the same or any other

7 title. What does any other title mean, you know. You could

get into arguments on either one of them. I'm not sure that

there's a perfect solution to it.

10

MR. MCWHORTER: I really think it puts the burden on

I! the presiding officer to rule and of course it's subject to o appeal from there.

SPEAKER MURPHY: What our present law does is that

~ it puts an awful burden on a member who has a bill he wants

1:
15 ~: to bring up again, to look up -- to look for one of our bills
;;J
16 ~ coming through that he can add it to as an amendment. Don't C1 L <l
j 7 ~ it, J.C. Rudolph Johnson flyspecked every bill we had for

that thing.

19

MR. EDWARDS: I think the philosophy of this is good.

20 I It keeps a guy from introducing a bill every day, you know.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Would you want to go further with

that and say by bill or amendment?

23

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't know. I see what you're

talking about.

SPEAKER MURPHY: We get around it in the House by

PAGE 129

adding an amendments.

SENATOR TYSINGER: We do too.

MR. EDWARDS: Has this ever happened? Have we had

4 a two-thirds rejection? You have?

MR. MCWHORTER: Oh, yes. It has come up in the

Senate.

MR. EDWARDS: It has?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I never have had it come up since q I've been here.

10

MR. EDWARDS: I didn't rmeember it. What did you do,

Ham, just have a vote or what?
o,.
MR. MCWHORTER: We voted to let them do it one time

and turned them down once and just told him he'd have to have

:. it and he said he wasn't going to proceed with it. Several

1'; ~: times we have told them they would have to have a two-thirds

.)~

J6

'"
~lXt

vote

and

they

said

they

weren't

going

to

proceed

with

it.

~l

l:

J 7 ,,..

MR. EDWARDS: I didn't know it had ever come up

j ~ really. Well, I don't know.

! ')

MR. MCWHORTER: I have no objection to the way it

20 is. I think it's a little burden on the presiding officer, but , - there's a lots of them on him, isn't there, Mr. Speaker?

'1

SPEAKER MURPHY: Oh, it's easy to handle, out of

,,

an abundance of precaution we're going to let the whole House

.''+ decide. It's easy to handle, it ain't no problem, is it, Jack?

2~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Why don't we go ahead and act on

V\( E 130

it and we'll all review this matter.

SENATOR TYSINGER: I move we approve it.

3

CHAIRMAN ~ARTHEMOS: We have a motion to approve. Is

4 the motion seconded?

5

SPEAKER MURPHY: I second it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Any

further discussion?

8

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: As many as are in favor of

10 the motion, signify by saying aye.

-,

z

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the

is carried.

:;,

16 ~

Finally, Paragraph XII, which concerns the veto

Q

I'

7~
:i:

authorJ.. ty,

and

Mel,

you

might

wish

to

say

something

about

that.

] -~

MR. HILL: Okay, at the present time these provisions

19 relating to the veto power are not in this section, they're 20 ,'not in this part of the Constitution. They're over in another 21 committee.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This was actually brought over

23 then from another section.

,_) -r

MR. HILL: Now, you know, there's no provisions on

25 that here because we would need your consent to consider this.

PAGE 131 rr------ -. - ..----.----- -~---.- _--- .--
il But both George and I felt that this should probably be here,
II
, i that this committee would be a natural committee to work on :1
3 Iiii it and, you know, it's kind of up to you, if you're willing to

.+ db,e in. That's another big section that you don't have as

5 your responsibility formally, but it's something that would

b be a natural next thing for you.

7

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think it's relevant, it really

goes with the enactment of law.

SENATOR TYSINGER: I do too.

iO

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It is most often found in this

t" Z

jj

1-"
~:

part

of

the

Constitution.

(J

0w

1 _) ~;

SENATOR TYSINGER:

'C

I think it should be there.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think it ought to be there too.

I
]4 0 What about you, Charlie?

<: :t:

.~

MR. TIDWELL: I think functionally that's more

,~

'::">

1(i

~~
,~

logical

for

it

to

be

here

than

in

the

Executive

Article.

,:I

-.:

(

1 7 '6

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think we ought to take it up,

." . but at the next meeting.

19

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yeah, but the question is I

20 think too, Mr. Speaker, I don't know really that we are

authorized to take it up at this particular time, because we

~)
. have been assigned

23

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think we ought to request

authority to take it up.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: So I think we need to ask -- we

PAGE 132

1

~ con::~-:-~it~ the-~-~~irman n:ed t;

--- __ ..- .,._--~_.

- - - ~- ---~----_.-

. - ---

-

--'~'----~--'--'-~----'--

of the committee, who is not

2 i[ presently here.
Ii

3 II

MR. EDWARDS:

Ii

ii

4 !I this first.

You better check with Culver Kidd on

SENATOR TYSINGER: I was going to say that's

6

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: But let me ask, I think it would

7 II be appropriate for the committee to instruct the chairman and il
8 III' the staff assistant here, director, to ask the chairman of the
II
9 II committee if we should consider this.

10

MR. HILL: I'll be in touch with him, you see, and I

'z-'

II ~can't imagine his objectingb your work. If his committee is

e -~ ~.,o "'-

~~v

p- '~" interested then I would suggest that they work with us and,

you know, we' 11 work together and invite them to the meeting

14 ~if they're interested in taking part in this. I don't think
<:r
15 ~there's going to be a problem. Most committees are more than '~"
16 '~" happy to have some other committee take their assignments
z
17 ~< from them.

18

MR. MCWHORTER: I've got one other thing that ought

19 to come here, maybe.

20

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay, so if we leave it like

21 that then we will ask the chairman of our committee to allow
,.,
'this subcommittee to consider that matter for inclusion in

23 Section VII.

24

MR. MCWHORTER: I just want to offer one thing as

25 food for thought and you can think about it till you come again.

L-_

- - - - ---~~---~------- --- ---.-

-- - -~-

PAGE 133

About the passage of legislation that's not to analogous to

:: some others, such as maybe say no law shall be passed except

.l a bill and no bill shall so be amended or substituted in

4 either house to change the original purpose. Now what I'm

5 talking about is --

(;

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, no, we can't have that.

7

MR. MCWHORTER: Think about it.

iI

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Shouldn't it be a matter of

9 rules.

10

MR. MCWHORTER: I mean where you put some apples,

'z-'
you have a bill -- well I'll give you an example of it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'll give you an example, when we

send -- y'all send one over there to us and we sent you a

I- different one back and the Lieutenant Governor ruled it wasn't
v,
<
'r:

I:" .~ germane and we told him that his commission was going out of u.x:

;,

16

"z'
,~

effect

if

he

didn't

rule

it

germane

and

he

reversed

his

a

Z.

<

17

<X
'"

position

and

ruled

it

germane.

JX

MR. MCWHORTER: No he didn't, he sent it to a

19 conference committee and the conference committee came back wit~

20 ii! it germane.

21

MR. EDWARDS:

Did you get that down?

22 I,

THE REPORTER: Yes.

23

SPEAKER MURPHY: I remember the illustration very well.

24

MR. MCWHORTER: You're going to leave it just like it

is?

P.H F 134

SPEAKER MURPHY: I do think we ought to have a

prohibition in this Constitution about population acts.

3

SENATOR TYSINGER: I do too.

4

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes, sir.

5

SPEAKER MURPHY: I do think that.

SENATOR TYSINGER: How do the other states direct

7 that question?

8

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mr. Speaker, this would be the

9 ! appropriate place to consider it, would it not?

10

MR. EDWARDS: Bob Smalley's committee is taking it

u
;[
j I :~:: up in one respect.
o-,,.

But I think this is the logical place.

12 :
(~ , ~~~ ~J" CI UT"". ,~~

SENATOR TYSINGER: It comes under this provision. MR. MCWHORTER: Some other states divide counties

14 6: and cities by population and let you pass general law as to



r

15 ob that group or something.

',.':"'

:::>

16 .~..,
o

MS. NONIDEZ: Yeah, classification

z



17 ~

SPEAKER MURPHY: I just don't think we ought to do

18 I, that. I've never passed one I don't think.

19 1

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Shall we ask somebody then to

20 come forth with a proposal to that effect for consideration

by this committee at the next meeting?
..,-,
SPEAKER MURPHY: I'd like to have a proposal 23 prohibiting the adoption or passage, introduction or whatever 24 it takes to stop population acts.
MR. MCWHORTER: Maybe we ought to coordinate and see

_._ _. ,..._---. -~...

....

----.-- .~-_._-._---_. . . _-------

what they've done in that other --

PAGE 135

MR. HILL: They haven't -- they will not be meeting -~

..'

MR. EDWARDS: See, they're going to be way -- they're

not going to have another meeting till spring.

SENATOR TYSINGER: We'll have ours passed and

they'll

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I was going to ask, would it 8, be then, Mel, may I ask you to come and bring a proposal for

us to consider on this for our next meeting.

II)

MR. EDWARDS: Charlie can do that, he'S the expert on

Ii >~- that, aren't you, Charlie?

"-

"'

,~v~

12 ::

MR. TIDWELL: Well there's a good guide that you

(~~~~~~ ~ can look at on how we treated with prohibiting population bills

" ~"._-~,./,-,//

14

r ~;;

on

that

feature

dealing

with

Amendment

19

powers.

:<x::

J 5 ,,:, :',.1":

MR. EDWARDS: Yeah.

;>

;'l~

. ;", I ': z.1.

MR. TIDWELL: Mel, I'll get with you about that and

17

<:
"'>: show

you

how

it

was

done.

MR. HILL: Okay.
J'J
MR. TIDWELL: Provide a point of departure.
20
MR. HILL: Okay.
21
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is there any further matter

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to you and
23
Ham about something aside from this for just one second.
24
SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't want to fool with McWhorter

no more, he backs out when

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is there any other matter to

2 come before the committee at this particular time, other than,

3 of course, to determine the time of our next meeting? If not,

4 I'd like some suggestions about the time for our next meeting.

MR. EDWARDS: Sometime in 1980, if we're going to

11 have to look up all the stuff.

~7

I

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: How about, maybe to allow some

K time, a week from this Thursday. That would allow us some time

9 to try to consolidate what we have done and come back with

10 some of these proposals. And I would hope, members of the
C)
Z
II ~ committee, that everybody would study very carefully the o
and have yet to resolve because

perhaps we can resolve most of

<

r

15 .:>
,x"

SPEAKER MURPHY: Doctor, are you talking about

::>

H) ~ Thursday, the 11th?

oz

<:

17 ~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That would be Thursday, the

1~ 11th.

19

SPEAKER MURPHY: At what time, sir?

20

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: 9:30 or 10. I have to drive

21 over from Athens, I don't want to meet any sooner than 9:30.

)) 'But 9:3Q'or 10.

SPEAKER MURPHY: 9:30 would suit me. I have to drive 24 over from Waco.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: So let's then set 9:30, Thursday

PAGE 137

I

II
I'

the 11th.

-.1

MR . EDWARDS: How about 10, I have to drive from

') i DeKalb. It takes me longer to get here than y' all.

4

MR. MCWHORTER: You can come over by MARTA bus.

.'>

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let me point out, in Sunday's

paper, I saw some little perhaps some of you saw it --

notice about the meeting of some of the other subcommittees

.'3 Did any of you see that?

')

MR. EDWARDS: In Sunday's paper?

10
..,....

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: But no reference to ours

II ~,.

MR. HILL: There was a special request by the Bill

~
2 1) Q:
!~~~,- of Rights committee that they have broader publicity than has

\I\fl(!. ~,),)\r\\~~!.".

z


been

requested

by

the

other

committees,

so

""'" ',-~-.-:'-,/ /

14 .,..

SPEAKER MURPHY: Broader publicity?

<
1:
15 ~l

'~)

.>:

::>

! 6 'z"'

'~"
z:

,. 1-,

<
'~l

MR. HILL: Broader pUblicity, yes. SPEAKER MURPHY: They can have ours. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If there are no further matters,

i tl we stand adjourned until next Thursday at 9:30, the 11th.
[9
(Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at approximately

20 12:17 p.m.)

., ,
~,)

j',\\;," 138
C E R T I F I CAT E
2
I, PEGGY J. WARREN, CVR-CM, CCR No. A-171, do hereby certify that the foregoing 137 pages of transcript represent a true and accurate record of the events which transpired at the time and place set out above.

s
lJ
10
'.!J Z
[1 ,.
'o"
"y-,
e;:~ \4 ,>-~ 1: 15 ,-~ I;) u: :::> j() "Z' ',", .::> z <"' 17 ''"" 18 I
19
20
21
22
23

CCR A-17l

I
~---~~--_._--------_.-

INDEX Committee to Revise Article III Subcommittee Meeting Held on Oct. 2, 1979

j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
J

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON ORGANIZATION, STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 10-2-79

SECTION I: LEGISLATIVE POWER Paragraph I: Power vested in General Assembly.

p. 3

SECTION II: COMPOSITION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY Paragraphs I & II: Senate and House of Representatives, and Apportion-
ment of General Assembly. pp. 3-10 Paragraph III: Qualifications of members of General Assembly. p. 10 Paragraph IV: Disqualifications. pp. 10-37 Paragraph V: Election and term of members. p. 37

SECTION III: Paragraph I:

OFFICERS -OF-TH-E GENERAL ASSEMBLY
President and President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

pp. 37-5:

Paragraph II: Speaker and Speaker Pro Tempore of the House of Representatives. p. 54

Paragraph III: Other officers of the two Houses. p. 54

SECTION IV: ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Paragraph I: Meeting, time limit, and adjournment. pp. 54-69 Paragraphs II-VIII: (Adopted) p. 69 Paragraph IX: Privilege of members. pp. 69-72 Paragraph X: Election by either House. pp. 72-74

SECTION Y: ENACTMENT -OF -LAW-S
Paragraph I: Journals and laws.

pp. 74-79

Paragraph II: Bills for revenue. pp.79-81

Paragraph III: One subject matter expressed. pp. 81-84

Paragraph IV: Statutes and sections of Code, how amended. pp. 84-88

Paragraph V: Majority of members to pass bill. pp. 88-97

Paragraph VI: When roll-call vote taken. pp. 97-101

Subcommittee Meeting on Urganizatiun, Structure, etc. 10-2-79 Page 2

Paragraph VII: Reading of general bills. pp. 101-112
Paragraph VIII: Procedure for considering local legislation. pp. 112-124
Paragraph IX: Advertisement of notice to introduce local legislation. pp. 124-126
Paragraph X: Acts signed. pp. 126-127
Paragraph XII: Rejected bills. pp. 127-130,
Paragraph XIII: Approval, veto, and override of veto of bills and resolutions. pp. 130-133

SECTION VI: EXERCISE OF POWERS Paragraph IV(b): Population bill.

pp. 134-135

1-------------MEE:ING OF SUB-COMMITTEE
SPECIAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS (SECTIONS IX AND X) October 5, 1979

MEMBERS PRESENT

JUDGE ROBERT H. WALLING, CHAIRMAN

JUDGE FRANK CHEATHAM

SENATOR AL110LLOWAY

REPRESENTATIVE HERBERT JONES, JR.

REPRESENTATIVE E. ROY LAMBERT

SENATOR LOYCE W. TURNER

-

MEMBERS ABSENT MRS. FLORENCE BRENT

OTHERS PRESENT

CHARLES TIDWELL

JOHN KEYS

HAROLD CLARK

CANTER BROWN

MRS. DOYLE

LOIS NOIDEZ

VICKEY GREEN

CLARK STEVENS

PETE HACKNEY
BlV\NDENBUHG & IIASTY SCIENTIHC REPORTI0IC j-[\ (ULllNlr\L TRAIL, DOUCLASVILLE, CU)RCIA 3(1))
942-0482

j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
J

2
PRO C E E DIN G S CHAIRMAN WALLING: Let's go ahead with Section IX while Cindy is getting additional copies of the Appropriations Section.
Vickey has passed out to you the single page, one paragraph, which would replace existing Section IX, relating to Insurance Regulations.
I think it would be well to take a look at the existing Section IX before we turn to the draft, and you have that in your package.
All right. Section IX now, contains six paragraphs which the draft is before you if it's adopted by the sub-committee; that draft would replace those six paragraphs with a single paragraph.
Taking a look at those six paragraphs, paragraph 1 relates to security deposits--deposit of securities of the guaranteed fund against loss relating to fire insurance companies. That same concept is repeated down in two or three other paragraphs within the section, one dealing with life insurance companies, and one dealing with casua1ity insurance companies, I believe. All those have been combined into one.
This was at the suggestion of Johnny Caldwell, the Comptroller General, so, that's one reason for a major saving in verbage, the three paragraphs can be combined into one.
Paragraph 2, the thrust of it is that the insurance companies have to make annual reports, or the General Assembly

3 shall compel the insurance companies to make annual reports.
That has been omitted from the draft. The reason being that the point made by the Comptroller General that the critical thing is going to be the content of those reports, not the reports themselves, and that's already governed by State law and by regulation~ so, the constitutional language and the language there, really is not constitutional language and does not accomplish any purpose.
I give this to you, of course, we can decide what we want to do about it, but that's the thinking behind striking paragraph 2, which does not appear in the new draft.
Paragraph 3, again, is like paragraph 1, it relates to the deposit of securities.
Paragraph 4, says, when the securities have been deposited, then the Comptroller General may issue the license to do business in Georgia provided other requirements of the law havE: been met.
That paragraph has been retained in the new draft but it appears as the last sentence. The new draft, the first sentence says, deposit securities; the second sentence says, when that requirement has been met, the Comptroller General may issue the license if all the other requirements of State law are met.
Now, it turns out; this is something, I've read the Georgia constitution a lot over a period of a long n.umber of

4

years, and I was really not quite aware of this, I'm sure

others in the room were; but, the only provision in the con-

stitution in which we regulate insurance here is in the legis-

lative article. This is the insurance regulations section of

the Georgia constitution" We don't do as other States do, you

establish the office, give it a title, and then deal with the

substitutive power; this is the only constitutional provision

where insurance is regulated, and it comes under the legislative

article.

We asked the question of the Comptroller General

as to whether or not it should be a separate section or not;

his thought was the best thing to do is to keep it here, and

rightly, I think, keep the title there, Insurance Regulation,

so that it can be indexed and people can find it, but it's the

only provision for insurance regulation, so that's the reason

we deal with it here.

Paragraph 5, dealing with security deposits, again

is a repeat of paragraph 1, but applied to some particular type

of insurance company, I forget which; but, the same concept, all

pooled together again in that single first sentence of the new

draft.

All right. Paragraph 6 is different, it deals with

the workmen's compensation trust fund, which is an ear-marking.

The draft excludes that. That has to be retained in the con-

stitution, we presume at the present time, though it may be

5
members of the committee, or the staff may have some additional thoughts on that; but, assuming it's going to be continued in the constitution, the thought is that that perhaps ought to be pulled over to the appropriations sections, since logically, it deals with an exception to the no ear-marking, which the appropriations section deals with.
The exception being motor fuel taxes and then the Workn~ns Compensation Trust Fund.
So, paragraph 6, would be excluded from the insurance regulation draft.
All right. Are there any questions with regard to the structure then, of the existing and how it relates to the new draft.
SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Mr. Chairman, I see, perhaps the necessity or reason for the language in the proposed draft having to do with deposits. It would seem to me after the first sentence, and there may be a reason to putting, the Comptroller General shall issue; but, it would seem to me that a simple sentence that even I can understand as a layman, "the general assembly shall by general law provide for the regulation and management of insurance".
Now, we don't make that statement in here anywhere in the new draft, and that would leave all regulations as statutory controls.
CHAIRMAN WALLING: Then, Senator Holloway, you would

6
strike paragraph 1, and replace it with the language you just quoted?
SENATOR HOLLOWAY: No. I would take the draft and adopt the first sentence and then add "the General Assembly, shall by general law, provide for the regulation and management of insurance."
(Discussion between sub-committee members.) CHAIRMAN WALLING: All right. The title will also have to be adjusted, would it not, broaden the title "Regulation of Insurors" not the big title at the top, but paragraph 1, "Regulation of Insurors; Deposit of Securities; Issuance of License". MR. CLARK: I agree with All, I sure do like simplicity and it seems to me that's the basic thing we're seeking in trying to revise this consititution.
I wonder if it would not be simpler to have three short paragraphs of one sentence each; the first one saying that the General Assembly has the authority and shall enact laws to regulate insurors doing business in the state.
The second one, providing for the issuance providing for the deposit of securities, very simply.
And, the third one providing for the issuance of the licenses.
Wouldn't that be easier to follow for somebody reading it the first time, rather than long sentences?

7
(Discussion among sub-committee members.) CHAIRMAN WALLING: Harold Clark has made a suggestion which seems to me to have some merit, and it really picks up on what you had said at the beginning, Al, and puts it out front, that we deal with the;question of the broad powers of the General Assembly in a first and separate paragraph, which is going to make it simpler and it seems to me, gives some dignity, and makes a point, AI, that you and Judge Cheatum are talking about, that powers overriding power, no matter what the Comptroller General does under these particular sections we're dealing with in "B" and "C".
So, Harold, would you make a motion with regard to MR. CLARK: Well, not being a member of this sub-committee, perhaps it would be better for somebody else. CHAIRMAN WALLING: All right. What do members of the committee thing of the suggestion, subparagraph a, whatever the language, The General Assembly shall, by general law, provide for the regulation and management of insurors, or insurance company, whatever it is, as subparagraph a, then we'll deal with what we have in thi.s draft as a subparagraph b, or c, or whatever? (Discussion between sub-committee members.) RBPRESENTATIVR JONES: Mr. Chairman, I would so move. CHAIRMAN WALLING: Representativp. Jones so moves. SENATOR TURNER: I second it.

8
CHAIRMAN WALLING: There is a second. All right. Let's be sure we've got the language
down. My understanding is that the prefered term is "insurors" rather than "insurance companies", is that correct~ therefore, the first sentence would read, sub-paragraph a: "The General Assembly shall, by general law, provide for the regulation and managment of insurors doing business in this State."
There is a motion and a second in regard to subparagraph a.
Any discussion? (Discussion among sub-committee members.) CHAIRMAN WALLING: All right. Do you all understand the text there, proposed for sub-paragraph ai are you ready for the question~ all those in favor say, aye~ all those opposedi then subsection a, is adopted.
What's the pleasure of the committee now with regard to the remainder of section 1, the draft paragraph 1?
MR. CLARK: May I make another suggestion as a non-member of the sub~cornmittee. If that would be paragraph 1, why not take the first sentence of the present paragraph 1, as paragraph 2, providing for the deposit of securities.
CHAIm1AN WALLING: All right. This would be rather than sub-paragraph a, it would be paragraph 1, we just adopted. If there is no objection, we'll let that be the
SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I second that motion.

9
CHAIRMAN WALLING: All riqht. Senat.or Hollo"'Jay so moves. The first sentence of the draft would be paragraph 2, ~s written now, that's the motion, is it not; the motion is that paragraph 2, read: "Provision shall be made by la'W to require insurors doing business in the State, to deposit with the State appropriate securities in an amount specified by law to secure the people of the State against loss".
(Discussion among sub-committee members.) SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Did you use the word, general law, or just, law? CHAIRHAN WALLING: Well, this uses the word, law; we've dropped the word, general, here, which raises the question as to why we drop it here and we keep it in paragraph 1; Charlie? MR. TIDWELL: Mr. Chairman, in the other committees, they are not terriby terrified with this lack of the use of, general. They are saying, as provided by law, and I think there is some virtue in remaining consistent. As you know when you address a subject by, general law, then you foreclose the possibility of it being treated by local law, by the constitution.
Now, if it causes a great deal of consternation here, I don't see any problem with it, but none of the other committees are wrestling with it as a great problem.
CHAIRMAN WALLING: But, it seems to me we ought to be consistent. Is there any objection to going back to paragraph 1, ann striking the word, general, so it would be consistent

10
with just using the word, law, both in paragraph 1, and paragraph 2?
(Discussion among sub-committee members.) JUDGE CHEATU~1: I do think in the interests of uniformity of wording throughout the entire revision of the const.itution that this concern ought to be made apparent to the committee-to the full committee, and that some decision should be made at that level as to whether or not the words, general, should be used throughout the constitution when it's needed--when it's intended, excuse me, and put it in if it is, and leave it out if it isn't, otherwise, we'll be putting in, general, here~ then the other section of the constitution might say, law, and then the State Supreme Court might say, well, the General Assembly by saying, general law here, and saying law there, might mean that you could have a local act there, and you can't have one here.
So, I think it ought to be uniform, whatever we do. And, it ought to be -- we ought to adopt that wording after those who research these things agree it's appropriate.
(Discussion among sub-committee members.) CHAI~1AN WALLING: The present constitution -- section-article, does not contain the reference, general~ it's just by, law~ so, can we do what Charlie Tidwell has suggested then, and strike the word, general.
Is there any objection to striking the word, general,

11 from paragraph 1, which we've just adopted; if not, then we'll strike the word, general.
All right. On to paragraph 2. Is there a motion here, we adopt paragraph 2, and this will be separate and apart from that last sentence?
(Discussion among sub-committee members.) We do have a motion to second; any further dis-
cussion in regard to paragraph 2? (Discussion among sub-committee members.) MS. GREEN: May I propose a statement regarding the
first sentence, paragraph 1; liThe General Assembly shall by law provide for the regulation and management of insurors. Insurors shall deposit with the State, securities specified by law to secure the people of the State against 10ss."
MR. BR0NN: I think you could do that, but one of the things, again, just to eliminate a couple of words; technically, the General Assembly cannot provide by law, it's the General Assembly with the Governor provides by law, unless he vetos and we override. I don't think you've lost anything just to use the language, "provisions shall be made by law for". Once again, it's a little bit larger process of just having the General Assembly do it, you could save yourself a couple of words.
CHAIRMAN WALLING: That's back to paragraph 1, now. Was there any desire on the part of the committee to make that

12
change in paragraph 1. SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I think we should. I move we recon-
sider our action. CHAIRMAN WALLING: All right. Canter, let's have that
in slow motion. Provisions shall be made by law? MR. BROvm: Yes, sir. Provisions shall be made by law
for the regulation and management of insurors. (Discussion between sub-committee members.) MS. DOYLE: May I just say that, I too, am a lay person
and in reading this it would be more clear to me if we retain the C~neral Assembly shall, because I understand what that process is, but I'm thinking of the average person reading, provision shall be made by law; I would not know as easily that that would mean that the General Assembly shall pass legislation to enact such and such.
CHAIRM~~ WALLING: All right. Can we have some discussion from the committee members with regard to the comment Ms. Doyle has made?
(Discussion between sub-committee members.) CHAIRMAN WALLING: I think we need a motion, Ms. Doyl"" to take this approach--to reconsider and take this approach, rather than the one we previously adopted so we can bring this to a conclusion.
Do you so move? MS. DOYLE: I move that we retain the words, the General

13 Assembly.
CHAIRMAN WALLING: Just the concept will be fine; we'll work out the language.
Ms. Doyle so moves; is there a second? SENATOR TURNER: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN WALLING: There is a second. All right, any discussion with regard to whether we adopt that approach or not?
All right. All those in favor of the motion say, aye.
That's three in favor; all those opposed; three opposed, and I would vote in opposition also. So, the motion is defeated.
All right. That leaves paragraph 1, in tact, does it not, with the reference to the General Assembly.
Now, we're back to paragraph two, provision shall be made by law.
(Discussion between the sub-committee members.) CHAIRMAN WALLING: Representative Jones has made the suggestion that we use the word, all; would this do it: "Provision shall be made by law to require all insurors to deposit with the State appropriate securities in an amount specified by law to secure the people of tfte State against loss." JUDGE CHEATUM: Well, may I make a suggestion, why not just say, all insurors shall deposit with the State, appropriate securities in amount specified by law to secure the people of

14 the State against loss.
CHAIID1AN WALLING: That's a good direct approach, and gets rid of the provisions and --
All right. Judge Cheatum, let's have that in slow motion now?
JUDGE CHEATUM: All right. All insurors shall deposit with the State appropriate securities in amount specified by law to secure the people of the State against loss.
CHAIRMAN: All right. Now, the devi1's advocate; are we giving the insurance copany more lee-way, is the only thing going to be specified by law, that is the C~nera1 Assembly and the Governor regulate, would be the amount, or is it also the kinds of securities; are we dropping something there that we need to keep, I'm not sure.
(Discussion between sub-committee members.) MR. CLARK: Let me throw out something for discussion.
Suppose you had the first paragraph that we've already adopted as a broad grant of authority to the General Assembly to enact laws, to regulate the insurance agency and requires them to do so--insurance businesses. Then, suppose you have a second paragraph that simply says: The Comptroller General shall serve as ex-officio insurance commissioner and shall administer the regulation of insurors as provided by law.
CHAIRMAN WALLING: Now, that's a good way to approach it then.

15
MR. CLARK: Just leave all this other stuff out and it g:'N you the right to enact as much as the General Assembly
feals C!ffiIRMAN WALLING: All right. We would drop then -- what
you are suggesting, Harold, is that deal with that last -- omit the first sentence in the draft, go to the second sentence and let that be paragraph 2, of our new draft.
MR. CLARK: And, that's the end of it. (Discussion between sub-committee members.) MR. TIDWELL: Let me worry just a little about the use of the term lIex- officio insurance commissioner". That would be the first time that sort of phrase is injected in the constitution. The Comptroller General is the Comptroller General~ in Article 5, where you list the constitutional officers, he's the Comptroller General.
I think he is ex-officio insurance commissioner by statute, and the other Article on Article 5, has under consideration a proposal to change his name to simply, insurance commissioner.
There's a feeling that nobody knows what the Comptroller General is--the general public, and it's not descriptive of what he does~ everything he did as a Comptroller General is now being removed and about all he does is regulate insurance and some other things~ so they may not do this.
I would suggest that you might just consider, if

16
you're going to give him the constitutional authority to regulate insurance, that you just talk about him as the Comptroller General, and leave that ex-officio insurance commissioner off, because that \'lill be a new constitutional appel13tj0~'.,
CHAIRMAN WALLING: We don't have to deal with that question of title, though, in this sub-committee. We can call him Comptroller General, and indeed I think we ought to, and i.f it's going to be dealt with, it be dealt with somewhere else by other sub-committees in the overall committee.
Would that be the preference of this committee, just stick with the word, Comptroller General?
(Discussion between sub-committee members.) All right. Is there any objection then, to striking
in our paragraph 2, whatever it comes out, ex-officio insurance commissioner.
All right. The thrust of what we're saying is then, that whatever these laws are that are enacted by the General Assembly, with the help of the man on the second floor that they are going to be administered by the Comptroller General, and insurance licenses are going to be issued by the Comptroller General.
That's a good way--a clean way of structuring. {ve're on to something here now. Now, what is the exact language Al?
SENATOR HOLLOWAY: How about making it so brief to simply say, the Comptroller General shall administer the laws regulating

17
insurors. Insurance license shall be issued by the Comptroller General as required by law.
CHAIRMAN WALLING: All right. Insurance license shall be issued by the Comptroller General as required by law; which is the law we've talked about in paragraph one, but this is focused on insurance license. That's the text. Is there a motion?
JUDGE CHEATHAM.: I so move. CHAIRMAN WALLING: Second? SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Seconded. CHAIRMAN WALLING: Any discussion? All in favor say, aye; all opposed, no.
Then we adopt paragraph two. ,
All right. The title, is it the preference of the committee to keep the title--the bror.'l.d title, Insurance Regulation, and that's what we've done; we talk about insurors, but to the layman, insurance regulation is a good word, isn't it?
SENATOR HOLLOWAY: I move that we -- it be adopted subsequent to the removal of paragraph 6, which we've got to do yet.
CHAIRMAN WALLING: All right. The proposal is to strike paragraph 6, and move it over to the appropriations section, AI?
SENATOR HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN WALLING: Paragraph 6, dealing with the workmen's compensation trust fund. Is there a second?

18

And, is there any discussion?

All those in favor say aye; opposed; motion adopted.

There is a motion to adopt Section 9, which will

read as follows: Insurance Regulation. Paragraph 1.

The General Assembly shall, by law, provide for the

regulation and management of insurors.

Paragraph 2. Insurance licenseE shall be issued by

the Comptroller General as required by law.

(Discussion between sub-committee members.)

CHAIRMAN WALLING: Let me read it once again, so

we'll be sure that our transcript correctly reflects what we

plan to do.

The motion is that Section 9, dealing with insurance

regulation be adopted as as follows:

Paragraph 1, Regulation of Insurors. Provision

shall be made bv law for the regulation and management of

insurors.

Paragraph 2, Issuance of Licenses. Insurance

licenses shall be issued by the Comptroller General as required

by law.

That is the motion, there is a second; any discus-

sion? All those in favor say, aye; all those opposed; then the

Section is adopted.

Now, we get to appropriations.

We should have in front of us the draft and the

19
existing constitution, the staff draft, and also the proposal that was made by Mrs. Brent: which Mrs. Doyle will be presenting with regard to the appropriation section.
If we talk in a general way about the changes made in the staff draft without getting down to the particulars, just the concepts, and then maybe picking up Mrs. Brent's draft as to what the general thrust of that is, then we can move back into the particular paragraphs with some overall understanding.
On big change made in the staff draft, again without going into the exact mechanics is, that contrary to the existing provision which provides for a general appropriations bill and amendments, and then something also called supplemental appropriations bill f the staff draft provides general appropriations~ appropriations by enactment of the general appropriations bill, and amendments thereto, keeping all those limitations about the fiscal year, annual and all of that, a year by year basis and everything corning to an end at the end of the year.
That everything is done by appropriations bill and amendments to it, and don't attempt to draw a distinction between supplemental appropriations and -- a supplemental appropriation bill and amendment to the general appropriations bill~ it's all done by amendments.
That substitively it makes no difference, that's what we'd be -- whether in fact it does or does not. And, then also on a policy standpoint, the assumption is that it's probably

20 desirable that if appropriation bill come in, it not be a separate bill, that it fit within the general appropriations act, that is, amend the appropriations act in whatever way it does. It keeps going back to that approprirations act of that year, and not stand separate and apart; which means the building over here, which was a separate appropriations bill which was done by a separate piece of legislation, could be done by an amendment to the appropriations act.
Does that make any change, really, on how the House and Senate are going to function, if that kind of problem comes up again in the future. We need to be reassured that it does or does not. The staff draft suggests that it does not.
That's one big conceptual difference made. (Discussion between sub-committee members.)
MR. HACKNEY: Since 1969, we've been using an amended general appropriations bill; I might mention the reason. In '68, we were -- we wanted to change the revenue estimate at mid-year, and we didn't have much appropriate -- unappropriated surplus, we wanted to change the revenue estimate and we consulted with some people in the Attorney General's office at that time, who told us that we could not use a supplementary bill for this purpose. We'd always use supplementary bills every year, and they said you can't use a supplementary bill except if your fund source is either unappropriated surplus or you're increasing taxes, in essence.

21 so, we said, gee, that's real rough, because we know we're going to have all this extra revenue coming in this year, look at the collection reports and they said, sure we believe you and all that, but you can't do it with a supplementary, you must use amended: so, we converted it at that time to amended general. We have, though, retained sporatic use of the supplementary appropriations vehicle--device, in emergency type situations. For example, we had a contract that we needed to let, bids had been open and we needed our front end money quick: we couldn't wait for the amended general to go through, so, we put together a hastily drawn supplementary bill; we got it in and out in record time. The Governor signed it and The most recent use, was this most recent session: as you know, it takes five days to get a bill through the House and Senate, if you're luc~y, that's the minimum time--five days: we had less than five days when it was discovered in our 40 days session, we had less than five days when it was discovered that the General Assembly needed over a million bucks from having a deficit for the year that just ended. Now, it was not the General Assembly's fault, it was the Secretary of State's fault--or his people, for not having apprised Mr. Bond that he had already spent over a million dollars out of 400,000, which is not easy to do. So, at that time, fortunately, we had, as we've been

22 doing for several years, we've had two little, what I call, dummy bills, the chairman lets me introd\:.::'", them, a~d that's what they are for, is just such contingencies as this. ~ve pass one out of the house, we make it for a dollar for those of you who are not familiar with it--we make it for a buck, and appropriate the carrier, the corrections department or somebody, to get the House to pass it out, and get it over the the Senate and the Senate hangs on to it -- for emergency use only, and all it takes is one day with one of these critters, you see, we can do it for either year--all it takes is one day.
The reason we use two, one is for the current year, the other one is for the coming year just in case -- you know, -- we haven't always taken 40 days to get an appropriations bill out, every now and then we get it out on the 37th day.
What I'm saying is, an emergency could have come up for example, affecting next year, it could have been just as easy, something we couldn't wait for, so we ''Ie' ve got two every year that we introduce.
Now, what we'ra being told now, is that we could accomplish the same thing by simply introducing two dummy amendments to the bill--to the existing bill, and whatever the corning one is, I suppose, that we could i.ntroduce two dummy amendments. I understand nothing about the technology here, or the techniques, I'm not going to attempt to speak--I accept your word for it.

23 There is another thing I'd like to point out to you before you do away with supplementary appropriations bills, and it's this. I didn't bring it up before, because, frankly, I wanted to get my thoughts in order and talk with our distinguished legislative counsel first, and I have now had an opportunity to do that. He didn't say, yea, or na, he just sort of listened, so I'm not attempting to quote him here. I wish you'd consider the phrases that are used in this constii:ution; when they speak in the constitution in paragraph Sb, when they speak of general appropriations bills, they say that the fund source can be unappropriated surplus, plus revenues from existing sources--existing revenue sources. Now, does that mean a new tax that you all wanted to pass? I don't know. When they speak of supplementaries, they say, unappropriated surplus plus a new tax layed and collected and paid and so forth. Now, although we agree that the collective part probably needs to be kicked out, there's some sort of implication there that you've got to pass the tax, get the money in before it can be spent or something, rather than -- I'm not attempting to address that. The constitution appears to me to say that the general al,propriations act is the device for appropriating existing revenues, money that's coming in from taxes on existing statute--covered by existing statute, and that the supplementary

24
is the device for using new taxes. Now, if you go back and look at what happened in
the 1964, session, Governor Sanders was Governor~ he had some tax changes which he appropriated by supp1errentary appropriation~ and it was not just for the current fiscal year. Some of it was there, but some of it was for the following fiscal year; but, still he used the supplementary device.
If you skip over a little period of time there, and let's go to the first session that Jimmy Carter was Governor. Jimmy Carter had a budget document, thickest one I ever saw in my life, and he broke -- he had a bunch of tax increases requested of the General Assemb1y~ but, he introduced two bills, he introduced one bill for the existing sources, and then he introduced another bill for the new ones.
Now, when it got to the General Assembly, the General Assembly said, by and large, look, we don't want to go with all these tax increases, they went with a few of them, cigarettes, he took them up four cents instead of the two cents he was recommending.
But, we never used his supplementary bill. I thiru< we're the ones who dropped the ball; I should have said something about it and didn't, and we wound up appropriating that money through the general appropriations act even though it had not been -- it was not from existing revenue sources as contemplated at the time he put his budget together--at the time you all

25
convened. So, what I'm suggesting here, is it appears to me
that the constitution at the present time, envisions that the General Assembly will put together a budget, and I think this is very important, that the General Assembly will put together an appropriations bill from existing revenue sources, and then will decide what it was that didn't get funded that was so confounded important that it's worth passing a tax increase for.
Now, I recall in the period between Governor Sanders and Governor Carter, there was more than one attempt to raise taxes rather healthily; I helped write that particular budget document since I was working in the executive branch as the time, and we lumped all of the money into one bill and said, look, fellows, you've got to reaise 200,14.2 million dollars in order to fund this bill.
Now, when it got to the House, and subsequently the Senate--when it got to the Hause the gentleman who is now Governor, as \.,e11 as Sloppy Floyd and a mmlber of other people, protested very, very vigorously, as you probably reca111--very vigorously, and said that that's not what the consitution says, the constitution says that you're supposed to have this sort of thing in a supplementary bill.
Now, were they right? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, I have no idea whether they were right or wrong; but, it damn sure worked and kept us from having a tax increase; and that is

26
my concern here. (Discussion between sub-committee members.) MR. TIDWELL: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question
where perhaps I won't continue to be as nervous as I'm getting to be here.
What are your plans, are you going to meet once or twice before you submit your report the the full committee so that whatever is done here today or something can really be fly-specked, because I -- we're talking about the life-blood of State government here, and I know of one person who would be very much interested in looking and having fully analyzed what is going on here. Are you going to do that, or is this it?
CHAIRMAN WALLING: Well, I guess we're going to have to have another meeting with regard to the appropriations section anyway, though we have adopted the insurance section, though even there, my thought is that these are recommendations we're making to the parent committee, which will then either adopt, modify, or do whatever it wants to in it's wisdom, that is the larger committee, which we're all a part.
So, there's several places at which this can be fly-specked.
MR. TIDWELL: I understand that, but, I was just wondering if you had, you know, if you said, well, we're goiHg to meet next week or something.
CHAIRMAN WALLING: I think we're going to have to decide

27

as a committee, but it seems to me that probably this discussion

indicates, and the subject of this, we're going to have to meet

again, that this staff draft is going to take even more work

than the staff draft of the insurance section did.

But, I do think we can move it on out, not cross

every "T" and dot every "i" here. There are some things, it

seems to me we won't want to say.

We don't really know, we can't resolve her-e, for

example, motor fuel tax1 I think this sub-committee could spend

hours, and whatever we do is not going to really make that much

difference, we'll just pass that on up the line.

I think at least one more meeting. The first thing, it seems to me, is for us as a com-

mittee to understand why the constitution is the way it is, and

what the proposals are, and I think we've accomplished that with

regard to the insurance section, and we do need to do that with

regard to appropriations~ and, I think it's going to take a

couple of times with regard to appropriations.

The staff draft adopts the approach that was taken

in the 1970 constitution--the proposed 1970 constitution~ it's

never got on tile ballot, so, it's been around almost 10 years.

I'm not sure I understood all that Pete said in the

sense~ does it really make any difference, are we talking about

only

~)sycho1ogy or does it -- by taking this approach--this

simr 1ified approach, do we take away a tool that the General

28
Assembly needs, or is it simply psychology. I'm not sure -- I don't know the answer to that.
(Discussion between the sub-committee members.) REPRESENTATIVE LAMBERT: I have a letter here from Joe Frank Harris that I'd like to read.
Dear Roy: I'm sorry that I won't be able to attend your sub-committee meeting on the afternoon of October the 5th, because of a prior committment; however, I will give you my response to needed changes of Article III, Section 10, entitled, Appropriations. First of all, I am skeptical of any changes in this section because we know it is working and has worked well over the years. I feel we have good budget laws in Georgia.
I do have some personal ideas concerning setting the revenue estimate, spending surplus, and direct allocations of funds of sub-paragraph b. I know that my views could not meet the political reality.
But, for this reason, I don't feel they are worth the time and trouble that could be incurred. There could be a more broad use of revenue from motor fuel taxes; as you know there are certain functions that motor fuel taxes cannot be used for within the Departme.nt of Transportation budget. I personally feel that they should be used for any transportation related activity.
CHAIRMAN WALLING: Well, when I first read this, and I think our sub-committee meeting the first time, my inclination

'.\iT

29

was the same as Joe's, that it's been worked out, and we really

can't do very much with it; but, looking at the 1970 draft,

which the staff is reiterating, there are things that can be

done with it, so, it seems to me we -- for the time being, we

need to put that suggestion aside, we may come back to it.

We'll just adopt it as is. If so, I think we as a sub-committee

have got to be prepared to explain to our parent committee and

also to Mr. Harris as why we prefer that course.

Let's go ahead then with the staff draft. Maybe

the best thing to do is togo with the staff draft, and then

come back with the Brent draft later on. MRS. DOYLE: May I just say here that Mrs. Brent

and I discussed this and she said that she had recalled your

stating, Mr. Chairman, that it would be good if someone could

take this and put it into language that was more clear, and also

retaining the legality of it, and she met with a professor of

english and a doctor of political science, and a doctor of

American history, who is an authority on constitutional law"

Doctor John L. Hutchenson, and they came up with this proposed

changes.

CHAIRMAN WALLING: We'll want to review that, but it may

-

be -- let's understand the staff draft first--the changes and then we "can -- we won't adopt anything now, we're still discuss-

ing it so we can understand what we have before us for considera-

tion.

30
CHAIID1AN WALLING: Let's start. Paragraph 1, reenacts restates existing constitution provision.
Paragraph 2--o1d paragraph 2, required the recording of their yea's and nay's, that has been ommitted.
(Discussion between sub-committee members.) It seems to be the concensus of the committee to
keep the substance of paragraph one, that we suggest to the select committee that it be moved elsewhere. We can come back and vote at our next meeting, we can decide what the votes are.
Moving on down to paragraph 2, which is existing paragraph 3; in substance it's the same except with regard to the type references, the general appropriation bill and amendments anticipating the removal of supplemental appropriations bill, which we talked about and we won't deal with again here. But, that difference appears here.
MR. BROWN: There is on additional substative change there. I don't want to guarantee that's all; my involvement with this was just to kind of editora11y review the first draft; but, I did suggest removal of language specifiying what the State's fiscal year is. It didn't seem to me there would be any need at all for that in the constitution; and, the State may well find itself -- I don't want to get into substative argument here by whether they will, but the Federal Government I has a fiscal year of October the 1st, to September thr 30th, and it could be that at some point in the future the General

Assembly and the Governor might want to adopt the sarne fiscal year, and it just didn't seem to me as though there was any compelling reason they should be prohibited from doing that.
(Discussion between sub-committee members.) CHAIRMAN WALLING: All right. A, B, and C, are exactly the same as in the existing constitution, except that sentence relating to the fiscal year has been eliminated from sub-section BJ in other words the existing constitution would have a second sentence in sub-sec~ion B, which relates to fiscal year.
Now, Senator Holloway concurs with the suggestion of the draft; any feeling from the committee otherwise?
Canter, it might be well to put that in writing, so we can pass that along as the reason for striking that sentence, and we'll go along with you on that.
All right. Subsection D, is new in form, but not in substance.
Subsection D, is actually a separate paragraph, and the draft here suggests it's really part of paragraph 2, there need not be a separate paragraph.
The thrust of the long separate paragraph in the existing constitution says the general appropriations bill should embrace nothing except appropriations fixed by previous laws, the ordinary expenses, etc. All that language which is actually picked up as to what you can appropriate for, up above, in Sub-section B; the assumption is that sub-section B, says you

32
appropriate the funds necessary to meet the expenses of the State for the next fiscal year.
That's the purposes, and we don't need to come back and repeat it when we say, embrace only appropriations.
(Discussion between sub-committee members.) MR. TIDWELL: The only comment I'd like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the Attorney General, in his opinions, understands what that paragraph 4 means, on the questions that he's been asked. Now, some of the questions around the table, I don't know that he's been asked, perhaps he ought not be asked.
But, I'm uncomfortable with changing anything because he so clearly understands what that first phrase now means, down through that column there1 and we probably could make it a little bit better than it reads.
But, he doesn't have any problems now, he doesn't even have to read what it says, he knows what it means, and when he's asked he'll say what it means.
I think we Ought to maintain that clarity. CHAIRMAN WALLING: Are you talking about the phrase "fixed by previous" or more than that, Charlie? MR. TIDWELL: The general appropriation bill shall embrace nothing except appropriations fixed by previous laws. Those are the opinions that I'm familiar with. CHAIRMAN WALLING: All right. There's another suggestion. (Discussion between sub-committee members.)

33
ClrAIRMAN WALLING: Is there any objection then to adding the phrase "fixed by previous law"; at least tentatively, we'll have a vote and have an opportuni.ty to amend this if anyone so desires at our next meeting.
So, we'll leave it "fixed by previous law" in our tentative draft.
Moving on down to paragraph 3. Paragraph 3, is old paragraph 5.
r,1R. CLARK: My reconunendation is that we keep the exact language.
CHAIRMAN WALLING: Can we do this then, it's the concensus of the conunittee that we will keep the existing language with regard to the appropriation of Federal funds, which says it is hereby in effect, continually appropriated, and not take the approach that it may be appropriated.
(Discussion between sub-conunittee members.) CHAIRMAN WALLING: Your recommendation is that we keep the exact language then, Clark.
The concensus of the conunittee is that the draft is coming back for reconsideration at the next meeting, picking up these changes we're talking about, will restore the existing language, and then there will still be opportunity to pursue appropriate motions and votes.
All right. Sub-section D, back to paragraph 3, subsection B. That, in substance, is the same as existing language,

34 except the reference to the General Assembly has been taken out: It says, "funds shall not be appropriated".
So, do we want to -- it's getting late now, do we want to deal with that detail about form; let us rev~ew that back home before we meet; we'll get a new draft out to you--a clean draft, and you can see the changes there.
(Discussion between sub-committee members.) Sub-section C. each appropriation shall be for a
specific sum. That's in the constitution now, in substance, except it's stated a little more fully.
We'll go with that, again open for discussion at out next meeting.
We have not discussed the matter of the supplemental appropriations bill; that's been taken out entirely, we'll corne back to that at our next meeting.
All right allocation of motor fuel taxes. What are the thoughts of the committee members with regard to that. Can we be productive in wrestling with that, as that's such a huge subject matter until we just simply pass that to the parent committee asking that they put it on its agenda.
What are the thoughts of the commitee members about taking no action one way or another on this, and refer it to the parent committee. My thoughts are whatever we do, and it could take considerable time discussing it here, as we're merely a sub-committee, it would have to be redone on further up the

35
line; we might as well pass it on. MR. CLARK: I would'like for each of the sub-committees
to come back to the full committee with a recommendation, be it ever ~o strong, or ever so weak on whatever issues you're
dealing with; and, you may just want ~~ ~rbitrarily want to pick the present provision or the suggested provision, and put it in there and then everybody on t~is sub-committee as well as the other members of the full committee reserve their right to change their mind to argue either side they want to when the time comes.
I would like for some recommendation on each of the issues to be thrown to the full committee, if at all possible.
CHAIRMAN: Well, it seems to me though, that if we are going to deal with it in fairness to all members of the committee, that we ought to have some discussion back and forth, and that's going to take some time. I'm asking tj~e committee as a practical matter, do we want to spend the hour or two it's going to take to have a good, open discussion, and then everybody make an informed judgment as to how they are going to vote on it.
Well, let's leave that question open and we'll deal with this, if we deal with it, we'll decide as a committee when we next meet then; that is, no further discussion today. Is that agreeable to everyone.
The subject, Injury Trust Fund, we've picked up from the insurance regulation section. It's brought in here, it's

36
changed in form now, but not in substance. Again, we'll want to compare that, and we'll have
the draft back home between now and the next meeting. All right. What's the preference of the committee;
we've been going about -- almost three hours. Is that enough for this session, and we will adjourn and corne back -- we have a meeting scheduled for October 19th.
(Discussion between the sub-committee members.) We'll try to get the new draft to you during next
week, hopefully, by the middle of the week, the draft which incorporates smooth copy on the insurance section, an~ ~hen the new draft on appropriations incorporating what seems to be the concensus of the committee with the understanding we're still going to vote on that, and anybody who wants to change any text can do so by -- attempt to do so by motion.
So, we'll adjourn to reconvene at 2:00 o'clock on the 22nd of October.
(Whereupon, at 12:50 P.M. the meeting was adjourned.)
-000-

INDEX Committee to Revise Article III Subcommittee Meeting Held on Oct. 5, 1979

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON SPECIAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS 10-5-79
SECTION VIII: INSURANCE REGULATION Proceedings. pp. 3-7 Paragraphs I: Regulation of insurance, and
II: Issuance of licenses. pp. 8-18
SECTION IX: APPROPRIATIONS Discussion to adopt as is. pp. 18-29 Paragraph I: Public money, how drawn. p. 30 Paragraph II: Preparation, submission, and enactments of general appropriations
bill. pp. 30-33 Paragraph III: General appropriations bill. pp. 33-34

STATE OF GEORGIA
COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE III of the
CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA
Subcommittee on Organization, Structure and Procedure of the General Assembly
Room 40l-A State Capitol Atlanta, Georgia Thursday, October 11, 1979 9:30 a.m.
BRANDENBlJ HG & HASTY
SCIENTIFIC REPORTINC 3715 COLONIAL TRAIL, DOUGLASVILLE, GEORCIA 30135
942-0482 DEPOSITIONS - ARBITRATIONS - COi\:VI<'';T!Oi\S - CONFERENCES

PRESENT WERE:

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

DR. GEORGE PARTHEMOS, CHAIRMAN MR. HAMILTON MCWHORTER SPEAKER THOMAS MURPHY MR. GLENN ELLARD MR. HAROLD CLARKE SENATOR JAMES TYSINGER

SELECT COMMITTEE STAFF:

MR. MELVIN HILL

()
tU
Cl 2.
I, "
:)

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL:
MR. FRANK EDWARDS DR. CYNTHIA NONIDEZ
OTHERS:
MR. CfUffiLES TIDWELL MR. EDWIN JACKSON

; 5 l,~

I'

.~.

,'J i.

.J

is

211

PA{~E 2

r---- ~-------~ .--.----------.

... __ . ~.

_._--_._~

---~_._----------,

I

!

PROCEEDING~

I :2 I

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think we now have a quorum

'I

-' and I'll call the meeting to order and we will begin our

.:1- official business.

5

As the first item of business this morning, I. think

6 perhaps it might be appropriate for us to consider this letter

7 from Mr. Harris that I received, I think it was yesterday

X morning, and I note that copies were sent to several people

<} here. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you received your copy.

lO He shows you as 'having received a copy, and Frank, I believe

c1

Z

II J. you as having received, and Mel, you. Ham, I don't believe

;)

"-

- - ""-'
.J

you

and

Jack.

So let's

have you seen a copy of it, Jack?

;::

-- 7-
...i,l.1 It pertains to the matter of the

appointing the President

"

of the Senate, the Lieutenant Governor, the power of voting

15 ~ in the Senate in Paragraph I, Section III of our draft.

,;L
:,

lb ',"l..,

Would it be -- I think perhaps it would be appropriate

G

l:

<

17

~
" for

us

to

consider

that at

this

time.

Shall we consider it

,
! '\ or shall we defer until the Lieutenant Governor is here? I

IU understand that he will not be here this morning.

20

SPEAKER MURPHY: I would suggest, Doctor, that it

21 ought to be deferred until he has an opportunity to be heard on

,0..0.. it because he wants that authority and I would hate to do .:3 anything

),

_4

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think it is only fair, since

.25 I just understood that he would not be here this morning, and

4
. _ - -_....- I--r-------~----
perhaps it is only proper that we wait until he is here to

2 discuss that matter. So with your consent we will move on

and leave that to the agenda of another meeting.

Now it seems to me the best thing for us to do is

to take the latest draft that Mel has sent to us. I think

all of you received copies a few days ago. As we look over 7 this draft and consider the matters that still need to be

resolved in this draft, so I think we might simply go through
()
this draft again section by section and come to the matters
](J that still remain to be resolved and consider them in order.
,.'J L
If there are no objections to that procedure, I will proceed

accordingly.

It seems that Section II, Paragraph II, there 1S

~ still a minor matter there to be resolved in that. Mr. Speaker,

<: r

" :; while you were out we were just informally discussing that

t.l:

::>

16

..'l":
c:

and

it

seemed

that

the

problem

there

was

to

sort

of

polish

r

1, '1I u.": up that language, or refine that language somewhat in accord-

lX ance with your objection to the word "except" and I think most

i9 of us agree with you on that. We simply suggested that that

20 be changed so that it read as follows, liThe General Assembly

I-', may create, rearrange, and change Senate and House districts
,,
as it deems necessary and proper; (anq such districts shall be

composed of compact and contiguous territory and be of

substantially equal population." In other words, delete the

words "except that" and sUbstitute either a semicolon after the

r~~~~~:~':':~~Ub~;~tu~:--~;~ .._.. .. - ~-_._

_ ~ ~----------

word "and". And we

PAGE 5
.- ~-------'-------,
retain the same

ii Ii
2 meaning and refine the language a little bit in that way and
II

3 :i:i delete the words "except that".

4

Jack had suggested that we just use a semicolon or

5 a period. The alternative to that would be to use the word

b "and"

7

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't see why we don't just put

~~ a period there and strike "except that" and put a capital "s"

') on such.

to

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: All right, we'll do it that way

11 ~ then. Is that agreeable with everybody? I don't think it's ,:,

1~ ~ necessary for us to formally vote on that.

((~~~Wf(:"h

"

\

\~

,""; \ r"-"-",!.!n'

r._:-); );

"

(No response.)

\~-:-: .. '/

Is that agreeable?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If so, we'll move on.

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, sir.

MR. MCWHORTER: On Paragraph I, it suits me fine but

you might have to reconsider it if we adopt the language on

the Lieutenant Governor like we had it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Paragraph I?

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes, but I don't think we should

look at it now. We possibly could take -- have to reconsider

that if we adopt the present language on the Lieutenant

Governor voting.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay, we'll let's just come back

I',\(;L: 6

then.

'J

MR. HILL: I have another point to bring out. I

was speaking to Robin Harris about this proposal and he saw

4 that we have locked in the numbers and he wanted the

committee to consider saying "not more than" in both places

for the reason that if the numbers don't quite fit as well

with 180 as they do with 179, once we get all the numbers

r; together, then he felt you should have the flexibility to be

lJ able to adjust one or two here or there.

]1)

SPEAKER MURPHY: I thought of that same thing, but I

J1 - will not agree to "not more than", I will say "not less than"

but not "not more than". I will not agree to "not more than".

"Not less than 180", I'll agree to that.

,-"

MR. HILL: Well I don't think he was pushing one

<':

r.

J5 .~ way or the other, he just meant some flexibility.

l~J

..r.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'm going to insist there be at

least 180 of us. I have no objection to "not less than 180" Ii) but I sure ain't going to agree to "not more than" because 19 then it could come down to 100, you know. Of course, the 20 larger counties have been trying to do that to us for years,

you know. I just personally will not agree to it.

MR. HILL: Well, he was just saying that by locking _,.,' the number in, you have no flexibility. I'm sure he would

approve "not less than" as well.

SPEAKER MURPHY: What flexibility do you nee~ when

PAGE 7

you've got 180 votes to divide among five million folks, there

.2 ain't no more flexibility than that I wouldn't think, the

way we've got it now. Is there, Hamilton?

MR. MCWHORTER: No. I can see what Robin's talking

5 about but if you're not coming below 180, that's it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think the House is going to vote

7 that way pretty strongly. Don't you, Jack?

MR. ELLARD: Yes I do.

')

MR. HILL: I think he pointed out because of the

!() county population and that by keeping the territory in that

11 ~ particular -o,. SPEAKER MURPHY:

I have no objection to saying

" .. s ha1l consist of not less than 180 Representatives . ",

but I'm not going to agree to "not more than". Whatever they

I)

~} ,)

want

to

do

with

the

Senate,

I'm willing to go with that,

',1:..

Ih

"1,
Z whatever

they want

to

do.

C

,~

l"

,r.
;n

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I don't see too much difference

in just leaving it like it is and putting "not less than", as Ii far as that's concerned because I don't think there's any .2U likelihood --

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well the only thing if it says

"not less than" you could go to 181, 182, 183. That's the

" only difference.
,;
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think I'd rather just stay at
",
180.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Suits me, I've got no problems

2 either way.

3

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: What do you think about it, Jim?

4 You have any thoughts on it, Frank?

5

MR. EDWARDS: Excuse me, I was talking

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Do y'all have any thoughts on

specifying --

x

SENATOR TYSINGER: This has got to be a document

q both houses are going to agree on. I think the Speaker raised

10 the point how they feel --
;,:,

11 .. :> 0.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yeah, I'd like to get Harold's

opinion on that. I know he just walked in.

MR. CLARKE: I give the best opinions on things I

don't know anything about anyway.
<:
1:
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well, we value your judgment.

l'n

! !)

l
e,

Mel

has

raised

a

point

here

--

I

believe

you

said Mel

that

<-

I

-,
!

"-
:::.l

Mr.

Harris

suggested

that

the

committee

reconsider

specifying

I >~ the exact number of Representatives and Senators and putting

1<.)
in there, "not more than".

20

MR. HILL: Or "not less than".

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Normally what you would have is
,-, not less than a certain number and not more than a certain

number. This is a pretty common -- you could say not less

than 180 nor more than 190. I think normally I would prefer

it that way than to have one figure and say "not more than".

PAGE 9

SPEAKER MURPHY: What Robin said was he wanted to 2 say " . consist of not more than 180 members .. " where he -' said it would give flexibility in case of county lines, but

4 of course, the problem with that is they could reduce the

5 size down to 100 under that language. And I just personally

6 will not agree to that. Now I have no objection to putting

7 in there "The House of Representatives shall consist of not

less than 180 members " where it can't go under that, but

9 that's as far as I'm willing to go.

iO

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: How about, Mr. Speaker, "not

11

~
'oC">.

less

than

180

nor

more

than

190".

Ii ~"'

SPEAKER MURPHY: I really don't see any reason to

put an upper limit on it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If you want some flexibility.

15 .~
,-"

SPEAKER MURPHY: I've been here when it came from

.,:,:

j(,

,:>"
I.
~

205

to

190

and

190

to

180.

I don't want to be here when it

a

z:

<

J7

,;z-: ,:.;,

goes

under

180.

! >.;

MR. CLARKE: Mr. Chairman, I really don't have an

opinion on it. I did not know -- I have not talked to Robin :J() and didn't know that this was going to be a real issue. I ".- j thought we had pretty well resolved it at 180.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I would kind of prefer to leave

it like it is and then if the full committee and the others

want to change it, they can do it.

MR. MCWHORTER: I think we ought to leave it like it

PAl,;; 10

is because I know we're going to get an amendment on the floor

of the Senate saying "not more than 56" or something like that.

} But the House could still stay 180. I don't, see any reason

4 to change it at this time.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Suits me.

MR. CLARKE: Since that is the consensus of this

subcommittee, I don't know of any reason for the subcommittee x to vote other than the way it felt it ought to.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I say let some other body then

10 revise and they can resolve it if they want to, but as far

11 ~ as -- I'm comfortable with this. ?

"' I:.'

'J

(~,~,:~-)'f1l!-\4J:\1., -ClO-T"".

,..
3

If

not,

Jim, do you or Frank have any thoughts about then let's just leave it like it is and report

it? it and

ILf _, see what the full committee thinks about it.

-<

1:

15 ",
':J

Let's move on then to another

so we have taken

:':">

l{) ~~ care of that now, Section II, Paragraph I, and Paragraph II.

1'.
<
17 ': Let's look at IV.

Jx

MR. MCWHORTER: I want to make a comment on III if

19 I may.

20

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Paragraph III, I thought that

we had --

MR. MCWHORTER: I'm not sure but~ on line 29, " . shall

have been resident of the territory embraced ", I would

say look at the words "legal residents" there or eliminate it.

I think we've got a conflict there. I think if you look over

PAGE 11

in Section V, I believe it is, it has that word "legal

resident". Yes, on page 4, line 18, " such member's legal

residence ... " Now I'm not suggesting either one, I would

4 suggest that they be consistent.

SPEAKER MURPHY: What line?

h

MR. MCWHORTER: Line 18 on page 4.

7

SENATOR TYSINGER: Which other one?

8

MR. MCWHORTER: What's that?

SENATOR TYSINGER: Which one are we looking at?

!f)

MR. MCWHORTER: On page 1, line 29, which says

~~

11

;." 0:.:

"resident"

and on

18 of

4 it

says

"legal

residence".

I

".,-

12 :c-:" think I like the word "legal" but I don't know. I don't know

,..

z

~ what "resident" means.

[4 ,...

MR. JACKSON: We, in the Executive Article, have

<: r.

come across it because in one provision it says Constitutional

~;

.j

1(l

'~l
2
,~
a

officers

shall

have

citizenship

or

citizen

of

the

state

and

z:

"/

,
;-,

in another place

resident.

We are doing a research on what

the terms "resident", "citizen", "legal domicile", "legal

Jl) residence" means. We'll have this in a week if you want to

20 defer.

21

MR. MCWHORTER: There could be a hundred volumes on

it too on what a legal resident or a resident is.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Would it help if we

MR. MCWHORTER: We can skip it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let me just suggest this

PAGE
12

language because I don't see any necessity for that language

" territory embraced within.. ". That sound superfluous

3 to me. If it would simply read " . and shall have resided in

4 the district from which elected for at least one year. II

5

MR. MCWHORTER: The courts have defined legal

6 residence, I know it's very complicated based on the facts.

7 If you just say residence or resided, you can reside in several

8 places.

9

SPEAKER MURPHY: I agree with Hamilton that it ought

10 to be "legal resident" or "res ident" one of the two.

:;,.')

z

11 ...
,x
o

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let me suggest then that we

"-

(~W))r~!!~ /~~V~,

12 ~~~ have it read, " .. s hall have been a legal resident of the district from which elected for at least one year."

~'

14 ,....

MR. MCWHORTER: I do think after they come up, we

r<
15 ~ might want to reconsider it.

':"'

16 ~o

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Members of the committee, if we

z -.:
17 a~: use the language and substitute this language for the present

I~ language, that is to say, " .. s hall have been a legal resident- ... "
1')
SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't think you need that, whatever

20 that thing is, a pronoun or definitive --

21

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I was using the singular, " .. and

shall have been legal residents of the districts from which

elected .. "

24

SPEAKER MURPHY: Split infinitive or particle or

something like that?

SENATOR TYSINGER: Particle--

PAGE 13
.._- -- ---~-~ --------,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: " and shall have been legal

, residents of the district from which elected for at least one

J year." Do you understand the suggested language? It should

5 read then " shall have been citizens of this state for at

least two years and shall have been legal residents of the

district from which elected for at least one year." Is

there agreement on that language?

')

MR. EDWARDS: I was trying to think why we used that

10 language "territory". My vague recollection is that when we

11 ~ apportioned before, we created some new districts which went o uo,.

..::.:

((;;.:.~0(!~""~ ~ ~SY...fjd

12 v~ into effect which had not been in effect for a year. The people ran who had lived in that territory for more than a

',~.,. -::./'

14 ;:. year. So the argument. came up as to whether when you create

1"

1" .~, a district that is only in effect for maybe six or eight months,

".0-

J0

~f
u.
a

theoretically

that

district

had

not

existed

for

a

year

but

:z:



p ~ the territory

:c:

MR. MCWHORTER: It happened in Columbus, didn't it?

19

MR. EDWARDS: That's one, there were several of them.

But the territory itself had been there, of course, for a long
':'1 time. It's my recollection that's why that phrase was used.
1)
Do you recall that, Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I remember the discussion.

MR. EDWARDS: I think that's why that particular

language was used.

14

SPEAKER MURPHY: What we did is we changed the

2 districts, this district was 100. In this reapportionment we

.~ added -- the line came in and we added this. He hadn't been a

4 member of that district and everything but the territory 5 embraced in it, he had been. It's basically that simple.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: He then becomes a resident of

the new district but has not had the two years. Well this

is typically what happens, of course.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think we had better leave " ... terri-
10 tory embraced within the district .... "
"7
MR. EDWARDS: That might be a little strain of a

gnat but I think that's why it's that way.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well if that's your desire

we'll leave it like it is and just make it. "legal residents".

1:, "'

SPEAKER MURPHY: " . of the territory embraced

within . " I think that's
o
1
17 .<,.
SENATOR TYSINGER:

I remember that.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I remember it too and I had
19 forgotten it. That would have came up in that district of
20 Randy Phillips', you know when he took that slice of Muscogee
21 County.
))
SENATOR TYSINGER: Bob Bell would have been, because

he was -- the district numbers changed and that was a new

district.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It's not unusual for people to

PAGE 15

gerrymandered out of a district in reapportionment.

SPEAKER MURPHY: It is not unusual for them to be

3 " gerrymandered in any district.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let's move on then if we agree

) to that, to the subject then of Paragraph IV, Disqualifications.

(,

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, if I might make one

7 other statement on that. Cindy and I talked to Virlyn

"() Slaton about doing some work on this and he is in the process

') of getting in touch with Mitchell House, who is a Judge

10 Advocate -- any way he's been doing this sort of stuff for
,~)
1'.
\! ...,"::,::.} twenty something years according to virlyn and is a real
expert in the state on armed services. As soon as he gets in

touch with him, he'll get Mitchell to get some language to

14

..
~"

look

at.

I just personally don't know enough about it to

'.."t

r

15 :~ say what should be in there and what should not be .

.,.

! (, "f"

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Il m not particularly pleased

I,);:
t,

with

the

way

we

presently

state

it.

I thing that we can

formulate better -- in a better fashion than this. But you

1<) think, Frank, we should defer until Virlyn comes up with

20 something?

.2 !

MR. EDWARDS: Some people here might know about it.

Ed was in the reserve, he might know about it. I just

personally don't know enough about it and I just asked Virlyn

to take a look at it and see what he could come up with, and

he said yesterday he was trying to get in touch with him.

i'AI;], 16

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't believe the present language

2 is what the committee wants.

-'

MR. ELLARD: Mr. Chairman, I've thought a little bit

about this, and I don't know whether it's any better or not

but you could say

(,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let's have it, Jack.

7

MR. ELLARD: Put a period after the word "house"

on line 51.

9

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: What is that now?

1()

MR. ELLARD: A period after the word "house" on

2.
] i line 51 and delete " .. except that .. " and make it read ::1

;?,?y!z~\ j 2 '~" "This disqualification shall not apply to members of the
'; ~~~'\0?)Y~'~~ National Guard or Reserve Armed Forces." Delete "or to

-._,----/

persons" and just make it read "Reserve Armed Forces on

15 .~ temporary active duty with the National Guard or any branch
I.l:;
16 ~.:; of the armed services of the United States."

MR. MCWHORTER: Repeat that.

]X

MR. ELLARD: Okay. Just read after the period on

19 line 3 --

2U

MR. MCWHORTER: I understand that.

21

MR. ELLARD: "This disqualification shall not apply

to members of the National Guard or Reserve Armed Forces on

temporary active duty with the National Guard or any branch 24 of the armed services of the united States." The only reason

I added the National Guard again is the Augusta situation see

PAGE 17

where the Guard was called out there. This reads presently

2 I think it's got to be on temporary duty with any branch of

the armed forces and that would not be true when we called

4 up the Guard in Augusta. Remember that, years ago?

5

MR. MCWHORTER: Well you're still making it that

you can serve in the National Guard full time on active duty

7 and still be a member of the General Assembly.

MR. ELLARD: No, this says on temporary active duty.

9

MR. EDWARDS: He's striking out "or to persons".

10

MR. MCWHORTER: Okay, that's great.

MR. ELLARD: I think it would suffice personally.

I'm a retired reservist myself and I don't profess to be an

expert but --

MR. CLARKE: It seems to me there's one problem still
1', ~ that we have to cope with and that's the one Charlie Tidwell
L
;1
II) .~ brought us last time, that we' re saying "This disqualification
1.
]7 ,;:
- shall not apply " then that also means anybody who is in the

National Guard could serve in the legislature and have another

state office because we're saying the whole paragraph wouldn't 20 apply to anybody who is in the National Guard.

MR. ELLARD: No, only temporary active duty. ,'
MR. CLARKE: But if they are on temporary active

duty at any time, these other things wouldn't apply. I

think you've got to show that that relates only to the National

Guard disqualification or the armed forces disqualification and

18 not to any disqualification by reason of being an employee of

2 the Department of Agriculture or something like that.

-)

MR. ELLARD: That's the reason I took out "or to

cl persons".

MR. CLARKE: But if you say this whole disqualification

h won't apply, then that means that nothing in the whole para-

graph would apply to those people who are on temporary active

duty with the National Guard or the armed services.

See, right over here it says, "holding any civil

10 appointment or any office having any emolument or compensation

U 7
II annexed thereto under the united States .... " It then says o

"'

(~~))r~ ~ ,'...?-Y4:!'

12

:
,::

"This

disqualification

would

not

apply

to

members

of

the

National Guard ... " Well that comes back to these civil

~.::./,

14 r appointments as well, so you're saying if somebody is in the

,~
1:
15 .~ National Guard, they wouldn't be disqualified to be in the

":>

16

~ "c'

General

Assembly

even

if

they

held some other

civil

appointment.

Z.

'".

'J''."'' ir")t:l

MR. EDWARDS: That's right.

IS

MR. CLARKE: That being the case, you've opened the

door to something you don't want to open.

20

MR. MCWHORTER: You might want to leave out the

21 United States army part in the front part and put in the last

somewhere.

MR. CLARKE: That's right, it's not in the proper

place.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think most often they are

PAGE 19

separated, if I recall most Constitutions that I have read,

) Harold, it simply says -- they refer to civil appointments

MR. CLARKE: You might ought to have a paragraph

f with two subsections or something of that sort to have

5 them distinct from one another.

(l

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You could just simply -- actually

7 Harold, take the part dealing with the armed forces and simply

8 put it in a separate sentence entirely and let it hang by'

q itself.

10

SPEAKER MURPHY: I tell you, we're really stretching

1I

'",:!-
,-'

on

that,

you're

really

stretching that over

a

barn when

you

() :>.

. : start trying to say that this disqualification wouldn't apply
<~,?\'IL. j
(:tL,-J:)('!'"'''' ~ to a fellow working for the Agriculture Department being in

'~"-
'-

// /

> the National Guard too, that's really stretching that over the

r,

"1:
I~ ~ barn.

,'...'l

::>

l() '{1
.~

MR. CLARKE: But that's what it's really saying,

C,

Z

Tom.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't follow that.

I)

HR. EDWARDS: It says "No person on active duty with

20 any branch of the armed forces of the United States ...... then

this is the one, no iI person holding any civil appointment

or office having any emolument or compensation annexed thereto

....,~

under the United States, this state, or any other state shall have a seat in either house, except this disqualification shall

not apply to any member of the National Guard or Reserve Armed

F.v;r 20

Forces on temporary active duty." What that means is that

2 nothing in the preceding part of this paragraph applies to

those people. They could have a seat in either house and they

4 could also have an office having an emolument annexed thereto

) in the United States if you say this disqualification does not

h apply. The disqualification is the whole paragraph. That's

what Harold is talking about.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't think so.

(j

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Does this language take care

!II of that, remove that ambiguity, if we specify precisely those

It who, for whom it would not work disqualification, if you change

that "except that this disqualification". If it read something

along this line "Provided that appointments in the National
let > Guard or Reserve Armed Forces .... ", I'm trying to say that
;/'
-: r
IS ~ these groups -- that this provision will not work disqualifica'.J .~ co' tion for membership for these groups within the meaning of

this section and specify for these groups that this provision

will not work disqualification.

MR. EDWARDS: I think what Harold's point is, is that JJ these groups not be denied a seat in either house, that's the

whole point.

,"
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yeah.

,,

~.'

MR. EDWARDS: But he couldn't at the same time have

another office and serve in the General Assembly. The

disqualification only really means that they wouldn't be

rr----- ,---- ". -_. - _. _---

--~-,

----~.

---0.'--------------

PAGE 21

I'ii disqualified from having a seat in either house.

II

,I

2 !I

MR. CLARKE: .You. could say something to this effect,

Ii

II

J 'i and I don't like the "provided, however", but sometimes you

4 can't avoid them. "Provided, however, that the fact of a

5 person serving on temporary duty with any branch of the armed

6 forces or the National Guard or Reserve Armed Forces shall

7 not disqualify "

x

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: " shall not work disqualifica-

9 .' tion for membership, within the meaning of this section."

10

MR. TIDWELL: Why not state it positively, "A member

of the General Assembly may serve on active duty "

MR. CLARKE: " without being disqualified "

MR. TIDWELL: Wouldn't that do it?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If you put it that way, it would

1S .~:,' provide that members may serve in the National Guard without

'O"J

1()

~
w 0,

disqualification

within

the

meaning

of

this

section.

Z

<

17 :~

MR. CLARKE: Temporary duty.

13

SPEAKER MURPHY: Then you're going to get it beat

I'} by the people because they think that allows the General

20 Assembly members to do something nobody else cando.

21

MR. EDWARDS: I think if we get to the language on

Tl
-- I don't know what temporary active duty is, does that apply?

_.' ~I ...

MR. CLARKE: Out of the first six months

SENATOR TYSINGER: Temporary active duty is defined

such that you do not transfer stations, you can't take residence

I, e\ It'I'", 22

up, you automatically get per diem and that sort of thing.

MR. CLARKE: But one of the things that concerns

3 me, I hate to draft a provision in the Constitution that is

4 going to be subject to interpretation based on some rule or

5 regulation framed by somebody else perhaps at some other time.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's a good statement.

MR. CLARKE: We may be authorizing the armed forces

and the National Guard and the Reserve to define what our

() I sections of the Constitution say, and I don't like that.

MR. EDWARDS: That's a good point.

Ii

MR. CLARKE: I just think the Constitution of the

l

~

State of Georgia is bigger than that.

MR. EDWARDS: Well it continues to be one of the

most troublesome sections in this whole thing. It always

,p
<'

1:

15 ,~ has been.

l . . .

:":.-1

1( 'z"' C

SPEAKER MURPHY: Let me throw this out and see if

<

I1

I>:
'.u

this

will

work.

"This disqualification shall not apply to

IX members of the General Assembly who are on temporary active

19 duty with the National Guard or the Reserve Armed Forces."

.~ll

MR. TIDWELL: That still does the same thing.

2!

MR. CLARKE: Couldn't you say "The military

22 disqualification cited herein shall not apply to them."

_,.,'

MR. JACKSON: What you suggest is if you have a

.~~ six year obligation, only four months of that is in the

2" category of temporary active duty, the other five and a half

PAGE 23

years you're a member of the National Guard but you're not

) on temporary active duty, you're just meeting your monthly

.\ drills. So any intent that members of the National Guard and

+ Reserves during this six year commitment could serve in the

) General Assembly --

SENATOR TYSINGER: Temporary active duty doesn't

, ! mean that. Temporary active duty is when you go to summer

x camp for two weeks, your orders are cut and they're marked

9 TDY, or if you went to a service school, then that's temporary

I() duty, or if you were called up for service schools, two weeks

-.,,:J

II

z.
.

active

duty

or

possibly

if

you

were

called

up

for

some

"('.

a.

12 "~' conference some place. Those are TDY's, temporary active

(~::5!lf"'~' ~ duty. It is not when you join the reserve and you've got so

..

14 0. many years to be active and not active. It's only when you

~

1"

1:
,~

are

called

up.

When you're called up, then you t re paid by

.:;,

l(,

ce,
z

the

United

States

Army

and

you

get

all

of

the

benefits

and

17 " housing allowance and everything else during that period

1:< of time.

1')

MR. HILL: I would agree with the person that suggest~d

~() we should have a separate statement about the military. nNo

21 person on active duty with any branch of the armed forces of

the United States shall have a seat in either house. This

disqualification . " in one section and then "No person

..'-+ holding any civil appointment or office having any emolument

... shall have a seat in either house." And then third, this

24

thing about the other one, but at least we can put all the

military language in one place.

3

MR. CLARKE: I don't think the military language

4 ought to be mixed up with the civil.

5

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well this is what I suggested

initially, that we separate it into different sections and let

7 it hang off by itself.

MR. EDWARDS: Why don't we let Mel come up with

something.

1()
:,.".l
II >: at.
12 ;;.;

MR. MCWHORTER: It ought to be deferred and looked MR. HILL: I can talk to Virlyn.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Can I say one more thing and then

14 ~ I'll hush. "This disqualification shall not apply to members

-(
I:
15 ~ by virtue of their service in the National Guard or Reserve

~;,:

;;J

16

,~:
cz.

Armed

Forces

on

temporary

active

duty."

j 7 "~"-

MR. HILL: I didn't get all of that, could you

j x repeat it?

19

SPEAKER MURPHY: "This disqualification shall not

20 apply to members by virtue of their service in the National

)'
.';. Guard or Reserve Armed Forces on temporary duty with the

2.2 National Guard or the armed forces." That says by virtue of

their service in the National Guard only or the armed services.

Don't it?

MR. HILL: Is this " on temporary active duty . "

supposed to apply to National Guard as well as Reserve

Armed Forces? " by virtue of their service in the National

Guard on temporary active duty ... " or by virtue of their

service in the National Guard they can be in the National Guard

and serve no matter whether full time or temporary but

(I Reserve is limited to temporary.

7

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes.

MR. HILL: Okay.

l)

SPEAKER MURPHY: It don't make any difference to me,

Ii) y'all come up with something.

l? 7
II
'o"
o.
, -, "';)~
1..~ W move on.

CHAI~J PARTHEMOS: All right, gentlemen, let's We are referring this paragraph on disqualification

to Mel to rewrite with the idea of separating out the military

! .~

,--
:;;

disqualification

in a

separate paragraph and the

same with

"J:

J ) '~ the disqualification by which one holds a civil appointment.

:>
() ,"~ Is everyone in agreement with that? Mel will come back with

I' :~: a proposed revision of that statement for our next meeting.

Paragraph (b) we adopted last time. I don't think

there was any further question about that but you might want 2U to review it briefly. This has to be with disqualifying a 21 Senator or Representative from holding any office elected by

the General Assembly or appointed by the Governor during his _,.'' term. I think we discussed that last time and I think there

was general agreement.

MR. HILL: We omitted the last part.

)'.\C1: 26

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We omitted the last part. If

2 there are no further --

MS. NONIDEZ: Mr. Chairman, I know last time when

we brought up this paragraph, we did delete that last phrase, 5 that proviso, "provided, however, that during the term for which

he was elected, no Senator or Representative shall be appointed

to any civil office which has been created during such term,"

and I just flagged that for maybe a second period of discussion l) because -- just to call your attention to the fact that you 10 may have some reaction to deleting that language on the part 11 of the general public. If they were to look at this and say,

as I think they could given the deletion, now the General

Assembly is in the posture of indeed creating positions to

,~ which their members can then simply resign their seat and fill
T
IS ~ the appointment or receive the appointment. I don't know,
0-
~
IU ~ that troubles me a little bit. I just want to, I guess, be

certain that the committee, subcommittee, really wants to

Ix remove that proviso.

I')

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Anyone have any opinion on that?

20 We discussed that, but of course everything we have done is

open for further discussion.
1,
MR. MCWHORTER: It doesn't make any difference to me
1,
what language you put in there but I certainly agree with

Cindy that that might be something for Common Cause.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think the thing is to understand

l'A(~E 27

what we want to do. Do we want to disqualify a member of the

General Assembly from holding any office created during his

3 term, that that member has served. Is this not what we are

really -- the issue I just want to clarify the issue so

) that we'll know.

MR. HILL: Did this provision come in here, does

anyone know, because of something that happened historically?

I mean, was this a problem and this is why this is in here?

t)

MR. MCWHORTER: It's been in here a long time and

10 it's in most other Constitutions in some form, not all of them.

11 :;: Some of them use the word "term" or "period" or different o o. "~"' things, but you can find it in most of them, not in all of

them. Why I can't answer that.

MR. TIDWELL: My understanding of why it's there is
1:
1.~ to prevent getting a buddy fixed up and that's what I think , ~I Il' :;., "1' L Cindy is worried about. It hasn't happened -- well of course 0 l.
j 7 .,.{:.,: it hasn't happened in our lifetime because this has been in
,.. here, but that might create enough stir to really get some
1,I opposition to whatever else good is done in here.

2U

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well it's a two-edged sword. It

,
; might delay the creation of an office for a period of two

years because a certain person might not be eligible for it,

for something that might be needed. It's a two-edged sword.

I suggest we leave it and let the big committee go over it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You will recall last time we

cited certain things that we would be disqualifying, perhaps

~ maybe among the most qualified for a position and secondly,

3 resigning a seat is not a light matter, in order to accept

,lone doesn't lightly resign a seat I would suppose, in the

S Senate or in the House.

MR. TIDWELL: You automatically disqualify all members

of the General Assembly from any new judgeship, that's the

I' worst thing I see like it is now, because there is some good

q talent for judgeship. That doesn't determine how you create

]0 a judgeship anymore, it's very scientifically studied and
...;1 2
]!, the JUdicial Council makes their recommendation and you just

]' ~ don't create a judgeship.

(,.~:-,;~?Y~4:t~~~, ~~
\~::::~>/

SPEAKER MURPHY: I wish you hadn't said that. I

1:1 think you ought to face four winds and apologize myself.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: What are the wishes of the

6 members of the committee? Do the members of the committee
co r
",,'
l' ~, wish to discuss this or act on this or shall we --

i". U

SPEAKER MURPHY: Cindy, what kind of flag did you

put by it, a state flag, a national flag or a Confederate

20 flag, which did you put by it. I'd like to leave it like it

,:, is myself.

11

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The U. S. Constitution has it

like this, a person can resign from the Senate and accept a

position.

MR. CLARKE: I realize the public sometimes simply

1'.V;E 29

hold of funny issues, but I don't see anything so

2 dangerous about it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Has this been an issue? Has

4 this been a matter of abuse?

MR. CLARKE: No, not to my knowledge. Jack and I

(, were whispering back and forth a moment ago, it sort of seems

to me this provision may have come into the Constitution

x within the last twenty years, I may be wrong.

<)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: There may have been a specific

10 case.
~ l.
II '"

MR. MCWHORTER: The '77 Constitution --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Shall we move on then? The

chair will entertain any wishes of the members of the committee.

j :1- '" Whatever we do is subj ect to further review, we can always

<:
I
15 ::: come back, but unless there is some desire on the part of the

"-,

"
I

committee to

change

this,

weill move on

since we have a

lot to

do. Welve got a short deadline ahead of us.
;,..;
Paragraph V, for the time being I see no need to I') act on this until we resolve the matter of sessions of the

General Assembly .

.2I

Frank?

1)

MR. EDWARDS: Is this where we're going to talk about

the

legislature?

MR. MCWHORTER: 1 1 m for it.

MR. EDWARDS: We agreed to wait till the Speaker got

i'AC; 30

here to talk about that, didn't we?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We decided to defer action on

3 Paragraph I, Section III until the Lieutenant Governor is here,

4 so subparagraph (a) of Paragraph I of Section III, so let's

5 move then to subparagraph (b).

()

MR. MCWHORTER: I've got an objection on that, Mr.

I Chairman.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, sir, H~n.

MR. MCWHORTER: It says "The President Pro Tempore

J() shall act as President . II, I think it ought to be "become i
11 President" because we use the word "become" later on and I

12 ~ think he should become President on the permanent disability.

(~~ .~0r~"E ,~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Much of our discussion centered

\'',~-=-=j=-// )

14 ~ around that, just what was the President Pro Tem, does he

A
r" l~ ~ actually become President if a vacancy occurs in the office
v
.:. ::>
16 ~ or does he act. o,

MR. MCWHORTER: My objection comes to the word

1"c' because later on we do use the word "become ll , although if you

19 do use the word IIbecome ll , I still see a problem with the

20 temporary disability. If you notice on line 31 you use the

.!J word "become II. ,,
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Right. I think that lI ac t as ll

was put in parentheses there because it needed further

24 decision on the part of the subcommittee. Was that not right,

,~:; Mel?

MR. HILL: Yes.

PAGE 31
_._--, -------------------- .. -----------~-----_.---~~~_

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We had deferred any

SPEAKER MURPHY: Let me ask a question. He could only

become President during the length of time for which he was

elected, two years.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Is all he could become President

x for. Is the salary of the Lieutenant Governor fixed as

9 Lieutenant Governor or as President of the Senate?

10

MR. EDWARDS: What was that, Mr. Speaker?

MR. MCWHORTER: I didn't understand you.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Is the salary of the Lieutenant

Governor fixed as Lieutenant Governor or as President of the

Ij :- Senate?
<-
1:

MR. MCWHORTER: Lieutenant Governor.

SPEAKER MURPHY: So he would still remain to draw 17 :; his $7200 a year. I feel sorry for that poor fellow.

MR. MCWHORTER: Well I really think, in the other

Article, Article V, they ought to make him Governor, not 2u acting Governor if he's going to go for an appreciable time.

However, I do see a difference where it applies to some

temporary disability rather than permanent. But if he
., ,,
resigns or dies, then I think the Lieutenant Governor should
-'-~ become Governor, but that would be in Article V.

,,-------_._----------- ---------_. __ ._-_... ---- ---
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

1';\\;];; 32
Mr. Speaker, as far as the

salary matter is concerned, the General Assembly, by law, could

3 provide for a salary for the President Pro Tempore should he

4 become President of the Senate, could it not? I mean since

5 the Constitution leaves it up to the -- the compensation is a

matter of law. That part could be rectified by law, could it 7 ' not? Don't you think, Harold?

MR. CLARKE: Yeah.

MR. MCWHORTER: He's making the point the way I

10 understood it, I'm not sure, that if the Lieutenant Governor

z

@;. IIJ

-.
o'"

becomes

Lieutenant Governor acting

as Governor,

he

draws

the

a.

" '~""

salary of Lieutenant Governor rather than Governor.

MR. EDWARDS: I thought he was talking about President

-

14 ~' Pro Tem becomes Lieutenant Governor.

~

r"

IS .~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That is a matter for law to

a determine.

2.

<

17 ~

SPEAKER MURPHY: What I'm talking about is what Frank

18 said, if the President Pro Tem became President of the Senate,

19 he would not draw the Lieutenant Governor's salary under present

20 law.

2j

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Present law, that's right,

) I unless the law was changed, he would draw the same salary.

MR. EDWARDS: In the present Constitution, my 24 recollection is if he becomes President he draws the same

salary as the Speaker.
' - ' - - - - - - - - ------~--_.~

PAGE 33

MS. NONIDEZ: That's correct.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is that in the Constitution, Frank?

MR. EDWARDS: It says "When a President Pro

Tempore becomes President of the Senate as provided in this

Paragraph, such President shall receive the same compensation

and allowances as the Speaker of the House of Representatives."

MR. JACKSON: You could take care of that by statute

or rule or housekeeping resolution rather than putting it in

!O the Constitution. Or does it need to be in the Constitution?

~)

11

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You could take care of that by

.U

,,~~)\r.ftzr j2 ~ statute. The Constitution authorizes the General Assembly to

(:\~il~~Y)\,!~m"D ~ fix compensatbn for members of the General Assembly.

"'> // \ "

,Ii

SPEAKER MURPHY: How do you get around the Constitu-

J i~, tional provision that you can't increase the salary during the
]i) ~ term for which he is elected?
l.
MR. EDWARDS: That's another point to be involved,

iE if he becomes President. There's all sorts of problems with 19 this thing, there really is. That's involved in the Lieutenant 20 Governor voting too.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Do I have a suggestion on it,

Paragraph (b)?

),

",:,.'l

MR. HILL: You know, just to sort of summarize why

"act as" is there, is because it seemed to be the consensus

last time, and maybe we're going to change our minds, that he

-.-.. - - - - . - -. -.---.. ----- r-------------"-~-"----

34

I'
Ii

should not

become,

actually become President,

just perform

I'

2

I':I
II

the duties

of the

President and not

succeed

to

his

salary or

3

\1 I'i,

any other

perquisites

or the

vote or

any other

thing

that

the

I'

4 President would have, to just act, preside over the Senate.

i!

!i

5 !:

SENATOR TYSINGER: Also, would somebody be elected

6 ,I to his place if he becomes President?

7 I,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Would he resign, you mean, his

8 seat in the Senate?

MR. MCWHORTER: A member can become President without

10 resigning his seat, he's not becoming Lieutenant Governor. I

"z
II ~ really think the word -- I don't want to go back to Paragraph :> .>.
(@ @) :12 "~' I, but I think the word "Lieutenant Governor" should be O:-;:cJu"j-"-'.-;:y;, stricken from Paragraph I and say "Presiding Officer of the
'/

14 ,. Senate so forth. You make the Lieutenant Governor President

VI

1:

15 .:> and also

o.,,:l

:':">

16 ~ "C'l

MR. EDWARDS: Did somebody tell us that that Article

7-

<l

17 :::; is striking the sentence that says the Lieutenant Governor

18 should be President of the Senate?

19

MR. TIDWELL: No.

MR. EDWARDS: They're keeping that in there?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I thought we were going to

defer the

23

MR. MCWHORTER: I know, I just made that mention.

24 :

MR. TIDWELL: Let me back up, Frank. They have

25 under consideration the issue of whether there's 'going to be a

l'A/;F 35

Lieutenant Governor.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: They do have that under

J consideration.

4

MR. MCWHORTER: I think you need to strike the

') words "Lieutenant Governor" up there. I'm not talking about

h (a), but in relation to (b) and just say President. Then if

7 th~make him President in Article V, then he's still

SENATOR TYSINGER: In other words, just knock out

"There shall be a Lieutenant Governor who "

liJ

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't agree with that. I think

.J L
11 we've got to have it in there. "The presiding officer . shall (. o.

b e , 1::"
1.. 'J

the

Lieutenant

Governor,

who

shall

be .... "

I think that's

good.

14 ,..

MR. MCWHORTER: Well it's in Article V that the

V>

L

!" .,,~, Lieutenant Governor shall be President of the Senate.

.L

::>

I (, ~~

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't want to take no chances

l.

)7 ~ that we come up with a President of the Senate and a Lieutenant

11-: I Governor.

19

MR. EDWARDS: That's one thing, these two Articles

20 have got to be coordinated.

21

SPEAKER MURPHY: I like it just like it is.

22

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Cindy, did you have a comment

23 you wanted to make on this?

24

MS. NONIDEZ: Yes, sir, I just wanted to note that

I

!
25 the language as is "act as" is in parentheses basically because I

- --

I - _.~~----_.,_._---------

we're still struggling with this whole question, as I recall,

of the voting powers of the President of the Senate, and until

3 you really resolve that question, then we were left in really

+ a quandry as to what happens to the voting powers of the

5 President Pro Tempore given his becoming or acting as President

of the Senate. What sort of posture, what kind of animal does

this make him? Does he still have all the voting powers that

x he would have as a member of the Senate or what? I'm not

'J certain that we can really address this paragraph (b) until

10 we resolve that whole question of the President of the Senate.
(I
7
MR. MCWHORTER: I agree with that.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is it then the wishes of the

subcommittee that we defer this until the Lieutenant Governor

is with us so that we can discuss this whole matter and resolve
<.
r
]) ~ both of theseissues at the same time? If that is so, let's
:;,
16 ~'" move on. t)

Paragraph II, I believe we had agreed on the present

HI provision. Is there any question concerning Paragraph II,

I'i concerning the Speaker and Speaker Pro Tern?

.~()

MR. EDWARDS: The Speaker might want to make a

comment on this, it's not necessary of course that the

President Pro Tem and the Speaker Pro Tem be consistent. They -".' probably might not be, but for one thing, this is just a

matter of language, the last sentence over here in the President

Pro Tem says "In the event the President Pro Tempore becomes
--_.--~---- -----------_. --~~------

PAGE 37

President, the Senate shall elect a new President Pro Tem. 1I

2 You might want to think about just adding a sentence in the

3 I Speaker Pro Tern to say the same thing. It might be they

4 would automatically elect one anyway.

s

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It would seem to me that a

() vacancy would be and they would automatically go ahead and

7 " elect one, it would seem to me, Frank, I don't know.

MR. EDWARDS: Then you could just leave that sentence

<) out of the President Pro Tern thing.

10

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: A vacancy occurs and you

1I ",0' simply -- the House would proceed to fill the vacancy.
'0
eL

I ,)

1:

,'

j.c..

~I

~/e~/:>v~-~')-')j(/\~\,'~'~'E-

'=
'~~~

MR. EDWARDS: It might not be completely consistent. SPEAKER MURPHY: You carry that thing one step

"........ ------'

.
14 ~ further though, Mr. Edwards, when you put it in there that

<

1:

15 ':> the President Pro Tempore becomes President of the Senate and :~

:>

. Hi

~
cw,

then

you

elect

a

President

Pro

Tempore

and

then

the

next

<
I -: :i year there is an election for Lieutenant Governor and you

elect a Lieutenant Governor, you've still got a President and 19 I President Pro Tempore and you've got a mess when it comes time

20 to elect officers

.21

MR. MCWHORTER: He'd be gone then.

SPEAKER MURPHY: They would be gone but you'd have

two fellows that would be running. You'd have a built in

race there. Frankly, if I was in Jack Connell's shoes, if

I was in the President of the Senate's shoes, I don't think it

. _ . , - - - - - - fT-~----- .--~._--------~--,
would make any difference in the House, but in the Senate side,

2 I wouldn't want the President Pro Tern elected, I'd want the

3 President to be able to designate somebody to preside in his

4 place, I wouldn't want another one elected because it would be

5 building me up opposition.

MR. EDWARDS: I agree from a practical viewpoint,

7 that's correct.

MR. MCWHORTER: We ought to have a provision in the

rules to do that.

tU

SENATOR TYSINGER: Yeah, we can do that. Just strike

11 ~ out the last phrase there.

o

0-

w

~~~ ~ ;.:;.~~

12 ~
>-

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yeah, and I think that 's

. probably the prevailing practice also, Mr. Speaker, that it's

14 ~ not filled in the Senate. '0

T

1) .:>

MR. MCWHORTER: If you go back to the rules, they

'.:J

~

C'

HI

"'l
7

control

one

time

and

don't

control

the

next.

,:'

L

17

;~
,~

SENATOR TYSINGER: I move we strike that on page 2,

Ib line 32

J9

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion that the

20 last sentence on page 2 --

-) ,,

SENATOR TYSINGER: Phrase.

._l_~.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I m sorry, Jim?

,

.).

SENATOR TYSINGER; It'd be a phrase, wouldn't it?

04
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The last two lines?

25

SENATOR TYSINGER: Right.

PAC,E 39

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It would be the last sentence.

"In the event the President Pro Tempore becomes President,

3 the Senate shall elect a new President Pro Tempore." Is that

4 it?

SENATOR TYSINGER: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You heard the motion that that

7 part be deleted. Is the motion seconded?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Second.

')

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Is

IU there any further discussion of the motion?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are you ready for the question?

As many as are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

(Ayes. )

]5 ~
'":"''
it! ':':', 1 w I:'l z: <:: :l.' \:.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no. (No response.)
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the

J" motion is carried, and that sentence is deleted from Paragraph

II.

MR. MCWHORTER: But we're still going back to (b)?

MR. HILL: Oh, yeah.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Otherwise we will take no

further action on (b) at this time but will wait until the

Lieutenant Governor is present to reconsider that.

Is there any further discussion of Paragraph II?

L\(;L' 40

MR. HILL: Mr. Chairman, because Frank had brought

2 it up that the present Constitution does provide for the

3 compensation of the Speaker Pro Tern in the event he succeeds

4 to the Speaker's position, do you feel that we should retain

'\ that--

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, I don't, I think when he becomes

Speaker it automatically takes care of that.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I agree to that. I don't think

l) it's necessary.

to

MR. EDWARDS: That's only in the President Pro Tern,

11 - that doesn't apply to the Speaker.

Q,.

12 ~
@r~'~

MR. HILL: I'm sorry, okay. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is there any further discussion of

14 ~ Paragraph III? I think that we all agreed on that.

-<
t.
1'\ ."
',-:L'

Let's move on then to Section IV, Paragraph I.

16 ~ We still held this open for further study, subparagraph (a) Q z ~< of Paragraph I, concerning sessions of the General Assembly.

Jk While we adopted this provision that's in here, we agreed that I') we might corne back.

20

SPEAKER MURPHY: If somebody would corne up with

,
.:.1 some concrete proposal .

,)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: With some concrete proposal

".,:. ..) concerning this. Ham, I think you --

MR. MCWHORTER: I thought we were going to hear some

advice from the Governor.

PAGE 41

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Charlie, do you have anything

2 to offer the subcommittee on this matter?

MR. TIDWELL: The Governor hasn't reacted to it one

4 way or the other violently. I think he probably would like to

5 ' have y'all's thinking. I have talked with Clark about it.

() Clark has a little problem with it in that he feels that extra

7 month that this would eliminate hampers Dr. Thomason in his

R revenue projections. That's the month there that gives him a

9 pretty good key in his revenue forecasting. Now that's not to \0 say--

11 ,.

MR. MCWHORTER: Well he's going to change that three

"o

~ times during each session anyway.
u.

MR. TIDWELL: That's just some of the practical

14 ,. things that the bureaucrats see. He's operating on a

"1:
i'; .~, posity of information anyway and it eliminates one more month,

,~,

It:

:J,'
1:
cwo

but

that's

about

the

only

reaction

that

I

know of to this.

2.

<f

,j,~
'"

The

Governor

really

hasn't

thought

that

strongly

about

it.

He

!~ knows that this is before you and I think he's just trying to

19 I wait to see how it develops. He did say that he wanted to ~) talk to Clark about it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: So he has nothing really at this particular time.

MR. TIDWELL: No.

') i _'r

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Does any other member of the

subcolnmittee have anything to propose concerning this paragraph?

42

SPEAKER MURPHY: I suggest we have Mr. McWhorter

draft a proposal of what he is suggesting, to put it in black

3 and white and bring it to us and let us look at it. Other

4 than that, this would stand as it is.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Ham, would you accept that charge?

MR. MCWHORTER: I wanted to wait until the Governor 7 and the Speaker and others had comments. Yes, I'll be glad to.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You think you could do that for

us in time, Ham, for the next meeting so that we can get some

10 final action on this?

JI

MR. MC~VHORTER: Yes, sir.

I'
(~ ~~)r~~' ~" this?
~~.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Frank, you have any thoughts on

14 '"

MR. EDWARDS: No.

~
<
r.

1S ...')
'"0.)'
:0

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. Subparagraph (b). Ham,

1()

~l
"7,

you

had

had

some

earlier

thoughts

on

this.

C

,

I 7 ,.l: ,:n

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes. The speaker and myself had a

J :-\ little authorship which we were very keen about.

II)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I gather y'all came to a

20 meeting of the minds.

~i

MR. MCWHORTER: I'm not positive about that.

,

.. -

MR. EDWARDS: The Speaker agreed to knock out that

last sentence, it'd be all right.

2-1

MR. MCWHORTER: I can see two or three ways to do it.

The Speaker intimated or said very strongly I think that he

PACE 43 [1----
1 il wasn't interested in sine die as much as he was a definite

time in the last ten days or after the thirtieth day. So

taking what the Speaker and myself did before, we could

either change that -- I object to that because I think that it's

too indefinite when you get a disagreement. I drafted up

(, something on it to work with, to use, it's somewhat copied

7 , after some other states, not entirely. If the Speaker objects

to the principle of it, we don't need to go any further.

q

(Mr. McWhorter handed a document to

10

the committee members.)

1..:'
1
I'm not suggesting this exact language. I'm giving

you this with brackets where you can substitute words. It's

my idea, Mr. Speaker, if you would like the Governor to

t ~I .)... adjourn the two houses if they couldn't agree in the last ten ,n -<.': r.
15 ~ days, for a definite period.

I.).;
::>
l(J ~

SPEAKER MURPHY: I can see already one thing in this

17~; that we couldn't live with and that's the twenty-four hour

ji< notice.

1'1

MR. MCWHORTER: All right, I just put that in there

..'0

SPEAKER MURPHY: We might have one day left, you

, ._J know, if you get twenty-four hours notice, our day is gone.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's one thing I think you could 23 amend down to hours or anything you wanted to. I just put

that in there as something to start with.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'm glad you didn't put my name up

44 on that one like you did the other one.

MR. MCWHORTER: I didn't put mine on it either.

~ The original one, the only trouble is, suppose one house

4 amended it. We could take this, use this to work with but

5 somewhere you've got to put if the House sent the Senate one

() and set a certain time and the Senate amended it and sent it

back with another time, when is there a disagreement. We can

~ spell it out but it would be a little wordy.

')

SPEAKER MURPHY: That can be handled right easy.

10

MR. MCWHORTER: You wouldn't ever want him to adjourn

us unless there was disagreement though, would you?

SPEAKER MURPHY: No. "In the event either house,

after the thirtieth day of any session, adopted a resolution

to adjourn for a specified period of time and the other house

15 .:, does not adopt such resolution unamended by the end of the

':J u-.

:;)

l()

~
~

legislative

day,"then

you

have

disagreement.

C,

2

l ' ~"

MR. EDWARDS: You're talking here about adjournment

18 to a day certain, right?

MR. MCWHORTER: That's what he said the other day.

20

MR. EDWARDS: That's all we're talking about.

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's right. Because the law

adjourns us in forty days sine die anyhow.

.'-'

MR. MCWHORTER: Right.

MR. EDWARDS: That's true.

25

SPEAKER MURPHY; There ain't no chance of us coming

- - - - - __ _ ,,-,

- - - - - - - - - - - _ . ._----,_.. ------ .._--------_._._....

PAGE 45

here and staying, staying, staying. MR. MCWHORTER: The only reason you have it in the

Constitution was for the last night.

..j

MR. EDWARDS: That's one thing that scared me about

:) the present thing. Theoretically, literally, the Governor

() could adjourn you sine die under what we've got now. That's

7 what really worries me.

g

SENATOR TYSINGER: You mean in the present

l) Constitution?

10

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's right.

,? 7.
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right.

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's what we're trying to avoid.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Right, that's the point.

MR. MCWHORTER: Both these so-called drafts leave

out the sine die part.

,',9:

;:,

1() ~ ,~ o-z:

SPEAKER MURPHY:

Is there such a word as "unamended"?

)' ~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Unamended?

I~

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes.

19

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes there is.

20

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well I'm just checking with you

21 English scholars, I ain't one. "In the event either house,

22 after the thirtieth day of any session, adopts a resolution

to adjourn for a specified period of time and the other house

1, ~ r

does not adopt such resolution unamended by the end of the

legislative day on which said resolution is transmitted, the

I , Governor may adjourn both houses for a period of time not to

::. exceed ten days. II I don't see a thing wrong with that.

3

MR. MC~VHORTER: If that's what you want.

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, you say what you want.

MR. MCWHORTER: I'm not going to have a vote later on,

() you are. I just think we need some meeting of the minds on

7 something that would be practical. In other words, I don't

b know how much right you want to give the Governor. You say

lJ lIunamended", what that means is any time one house wants --

10 any time the Governor, if it gets through one house and they

11

"7
~

send

it

over,

if they don't do something about it before

that

'-
j") u day's over, then he can.
~(~)f~'" ~ SPEAKER MUPRHY:
----'---~/// 14 ~ what George did.

That's what Carter did and that's

<;

1.

15 .~

MR. TIDWELL: It kind of puts the initiating house

.;>

I::::
=J

16 : in the catbird seat I guess, under your proposal, Mr. Speaker

c

I.

~.
l' :; because presumably they wouldn't do that unless the Governor

l~ was going to adjourn them.

! !)

MR. EDWARDS: On the only adjournments we have ever

20 had it has always been the Governor and one branch, either

2, the Governor is with the Senate or he's with the House.

MR. TIDWELL: What if you had both houses adopt it

.,
~_..

'

on the same day, an adjournment resolution, and both of them

say a different day, under your proposal, what would you do?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Then he can adjourn us.

PAGE 47

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mr. Speaker, what's the

procedure, does not one house send a resolution to the other

3 I~ house?
4
5

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes. MR. MCWHORTER: They quite often amend it too and

o send it back.

7

SPEAKER MURPHY: No question about that, it'd be a

8 double disagreement. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mr. Speaker, is there any

10 procedure for either house notifying the Governor that a
,.;,
z
II disagreement exists, certifies, or is this just a

SPEAKER MURPHY: No.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It is just assumed that he --

SPEAKER MURPHY: It's just a matter that the House

,~

~

I:

15 .~ is wanting to adjourn and notifies him that the other disagrees '"";;,

16

'z".
u,

with

them.

W

2

" J7

~
co

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It does notify him?

Jk

MR. EDWARDS: He takes gubernatorial notice in

19 : effect.

20

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's what I was just wondering,

does he take gubernatorial notice --

MR. MCWHORTER: Now this --

,'

.:,.'\

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: In some instances a Constitution

specifies that if such disagreement is certified then that's

when he has the authority. He doesn't have it until one house

I).\(.~r~
48

certifies that a disagreement exists.

2

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Chairman, for a period of some

3 50 or 60 years, it never happened until the 1962 session,

4 i Governor Vandiver adjourned on the last night of the session

5 and then the next time it was done -- Governor Carter was the

o first one to ever adjourn to a definite date.

7

SPEAKER MURPHY: Then Governor Busbee adjourned us

8 to a definite date.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: What I was trying to get at

10 though, the Governor cannot or would not adjourn until after

II he received some certification from one or the other house that

j2
(~e~~r\"-~

a disagreement exists. MR. MCWHORTER:

No, sir.

14 >
~
:<c 15 ,~

MR. TIDWELL: He does just want Frank said -CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is what I was wondering.

:J

16

~
a~

This

is

what

I

was

asking

Mr.

Speaker.

2

17 < 1:1::

MR. JACKSON: Would you give each house a chance to

18 insist on their position or is a disagreement when one house

19 disagrees?

20

SENATOR TYSINGER: They could hold it and not bring

21 i t up too.

SPEAKER MURPHY: If they adopt it on the day it was

transmitted to them.

24

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right.

SENATOR TYSINGER: Then they can't hold it.

MR. MCWHORTER:

PA(;E49
._.~ ---.---i

If you amend it and send it back,

!

2 the minute you amend it and send it back, then it comes under

3 this.

4

SPEAKER MURPHY: There is a disagreement because it

5 I: says unamended. MR. MCWHORTER: And I'm not arguing with that, if

7 that's what you want.

8

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well it would do the same thing to

9 y'all, y'all could send one to us or us to y'all.

10

MR. MCWHORTER: Suppose they cross? Well that

II ~ wouldn't make any difference because the time means nothing,

o

o.

l,~ ~" he's got a right to say when then, doesn't he, Frank?

(,~~f~'L~r" :~

MR. EDWARDS: It's just going to mean whoever the

'-..... / '
.---- 14 ~ Governor is in with on thisparticular occasion, whether he's

r<
15 ~ in with the House or the Senate. That's what it amounts to.

16 ~

'o"
z: <
1"] 0-:

j,

"

MR. MCWHORTER: Exactly. SENATOR TYSINGER: I see nothing wrong with it.

Ix

MR. EDWARDS: Depends on which one you're in.

MR. TIDWELL: I think you need to fix it so everybody

20 knows what happens and I don't think anybody knows under the 21 present language.
),
SPEAKER MURPHY: Don't you think they can tell under

this language?

24

MR. TIDWELL: Yes, sir.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Mr. McWhorter and I, I thought, drew

50

a beautiful piece of --

2

MR. MCWHORTER: This word unamended --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are we ready to act? Mr.

4 Speaker, do you wish to offer something at this time?

SPEAKER MURPHY: In Section IV, Paragraph I(b), I

move that we strike line 28 from the words "in case" through

"ten days" and insert in lieu thereof the following language:

"In the event either house, after the thirtieth

day of any session, adopts a resolution to adjourn

10
\.'l Z
It ,-
'C">
"-
12 :
~~ ("~~ ,'

for a specified period of time and the other house does not adopt such resolution unamended by the end of the legislative day on which such resolution was transmitted to it, the Governor may adjourn

14 ,.
-<"-:

both houses for a period not to exceed ten days."

I

15 .:.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You heard the motion, is the

::>

16

l~
~

motion

seconded?

"1".

<:

17 :i;

MR. JACKSON:

Could I make a comment?

IS

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let's get a second.

19

SENATOR TYSINGER: I second it.

20

MR. JACKSON: We're considering in the Executive

21 Article the special and extraordinary sessions which can go

for 70 days and according to what we did last night we may

23 take out any limits on them. Do you want to make this any

24 regular session in the first line, so that --

1'\

MR. MCWHORTER: Well I was fixing to ask the same

~------

---------_._-------~-------~---_._--

---- -

_.__ _--_._ .. --

.. ._--_.~

-..

--~----~--_

_-

!I question, if we want it to apply --
II

PAGE 51

SPEAKER MURPHY: Let me ask this question, does

3 on a special session, if he calls a special session can't he

adjourn us under the Constitution as it is?

5

MR. MCWHORTER: Not any dllIerent from what he can now,

6 no. It wouldn't apply till the thirtieth day. That's the

7 reason I was going to ask the same question, whether you want

g it regular session or any session.

MR. JACKSON: If you convene yourself in a special

10 seesion you can only stay in session thirty days

c>

7-

11 ,.:

MR. MCl~ORTER: Thirty days, so you wouldn't need it

o'"

"'-

~

12 ~ under this, this wouldn't apply to the extra sessions since

.."".. ! 1~(I.16~..,S-_;dV~\1JI~ it's only thirty days anyhow.

~--

14 >-

MR. JACKSON: But if the Governor calls it, it's

~-

'r<

15 ~l seventy.

".':">

J6 a~

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right.

,z-

1~ ;:

SPEAKER MURPHY: All right. "In the event either

Hi house after the thirtieth day of any regular session ", how

19 about that.

20

MR. MCWHORTER: That suits me fine, Mr. Speaker, if

21 that's what you want. You're not going to give him any right

whatsoever in an extra session.

23

SPEAKER MURPHY: Because there ain't no limitation on,

24 the period of time, other than seventy days. I really see

nothing wrong with just leaving it any session myself, I reallyi

_.~--~-~--_ .. -

- _ _. _-_ _ _ ---_._---_._._----~-----~-_.- .--~----_._.-.-.

_,---_ .. __..

I
.._ - _ . _ . _ - - _ . _ - - - - - - - - - _ . _.._-~

PAGE 52
~ don't, but I'm trying to corne up with something to conform

2 I with what

3 ii

MR. MCWHORTER: Well I can see some merit because

i
suppose there's a disagreement on the sixty-fourth day of an

5 extra session. That could happen, or the 31st or the 39th.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I really think it ought to be any

7 ' session myself, I really do.

MR. EDWARDS: One thing that complicates it on

q :1 extra sessions is the General Assembly doesn't have the right 10 to adjourn say to April or something as they do now in the

11

,..
,':":-J

Constitution

for

a

regular

session.

I don't know whether that

w

~r,]2 ~
/~s~

would

complicate

it

or

not.

MR. MCWHORTER: The ten day thing could make it end

14 ,>..- up on sixty days rather than seventy.

v,

<:

1:

"' 15 CI

MR. EDWARDS: I don't know, of course, as y'all know

.c.r,.

16

'z"
,~

I'm

not

in

favor

of

any

of

it

as

far

as

that

goes.

I would

0z

<

17 'm" just like to strike the last sentence but that's neither here

Ix nor there. I'm not sure whether it ought to be regular or

lq special.

20

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think it ought to be any session

21 myself and I have expressed my feeling why I am in favor of

22 it so many times that there's no reason for me to encumber the

23 i record any further.

24

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion then is to leave it -~i

25
J

MR. MCWHORTER: I want to ask a question of th e Speaker.

__ _ ~

~___

-----------

----------

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

l'A(;E 53

--. ~~-~--~-----~--~--~~--_._------

---I

Mel, do we have the motion down I

now as a matter of record?

3

MR. HILL: Yes.

4

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Ham?

5

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Speaker, this suits me like it is

() but let me ask you one question. Do you see any merit or

7 possible merit of putting an escape clause in here where if

they agreed on that legislative day, if they sent you back one

amended and you agreed to the amendment, would that prevail?

10

SPEAKER MURPHY: No reason to put it in there because,

II Q) it says on the day transmitted. If they send one amended and

::>

~

~,

~sv~ 12 ~.~. we agreed to it, that eliminates it anyway. If I send them one

(/~'}=--?-~--r<"!!~~'!,~'~

~
$. and

they

amend

it

and

we

agree

to

it

or

they

send

me

one

and

'-~--

14 ~I we agree to it, that ends it, before the day is over with

V>
<l J:

15 :~ anyway. There ain't no disagreement.

,,: ::>
II; o~

MR. TIDWELL: I thought under your language that the

z

<;
17 ~minute they amended it, the Governor right then could

Ix

MR. MCWHORTER: Has the right.

It}

SPEAKER MURPHY: But it says " unamended by the

20 end of the legislative day .. ", Charlie.

21

MR. MCWHORTER: But if we sent you back one amended

and y'all agreed to it --

SPEAKER MURPHY: Then we have adjourned ourselves,

it don't corne into play. ),
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right.

PACE 54

MR. MCWHORTER: I'm not sure, you're talking about

2 at a future time. You could adopt a resolution for a future 3 time.

4

MR. EDWARDS: Read your thing one more time, Mr.

5 Speaker.

6

SPEAKER MURPHY: In the event either house, after

7 the thirtieth day of any session, adopts a resolution to

8 I adjourn for a specified period of time and the other house
9 does not adopt such resolution unamended by the end of the
10 legislative day on which such resolution was transmitted to
"z
it, the Governor may adjourn both houses for a period of time

not to exceed ten days." Now if we send one to the Senate and

they amend it and send it back to us and we adopt it, we've

14

>-
r-'

adjournedmrselves,

this

don't

come

into

play.

15 .::.

MR. MCWHORTER: We might do it for a future time

::>

1(,

.~..
c

though,

couldn't

you,

Frank

z

<:

p :;; day.

On a certain day to a certain

]8

SPEAKER MURPHY:

;i
19 ii ourselves, Hamilton.

If we agree to it, we've adjourned

20

MR. MCWHORTER: I agree with you but I think that

21 day could elapse to allow him to get into it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: It says by the end of the legislative

day. If we don't agree to something by then, if we stick to

our resolution and don't agree to anything --

L

.

MR. MCWHORTER: This don't say if we agree to somethi~g,

~

~

~

~

.

~_~

.

~-------------- ------- ----------~- - - - - - - - - - - ---------~------ --- -

PAGF~ 55
------------- -~-------------------:

this says if the second house doesn't adopt it unamended.

SPEAKER MURPHY: By the end of the day, then he can

J adjourn us. But if we agree on a resolution adjourning us,

4 we ain't there for him to adjourn, we're done adjourned.

5

MR. MCWHORTER: I wonder whether we shouldn't put

6 ! that in here.

7

MR. TIDWELL: I think what I gather Ham is saying,

g suppose you adopt the amendment to adjourn on a Monday and

Y you're calling for the adjournment to be on Friday, and the

!O Senate amends it and says Thursday and you agree to it and
1":1 Z
I J ;: the Governor says ah-hah, you haven't done what you said and
()
-.-
there's a disagreement. I adjourn you for ten days today. I

think that's what Ham --

MR. MCWHORTER: Exactly. I feel that strongly.
<0-':
1
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I'm concerned here just about
i.,:,
-~
:7J
]6 3 a 'Xl matter of procedure and that is the determination of who e, -z:
17 ~ determines whether disagreement exists. In some instances

I";

I
there is a phrase that says "and either house certifies such

It} disagreement", that's when the adjournment by the

.'0

SPEAKER MURPHY: I can fix his thing by two words.

" .. such resolution unamended by the end of the legislative

,) day on which such adjournment

" .. of the adjournment

23 legislative day ", one word will do it.

MR. MCWHORTER: Do that again. My only interest is

to get the ambiguity out of it. It's your intention, Mr. Speak~r,
l. _ _~ __ .. _. . _

!'\CE 56

if they can get together during the day, that's it.

2d

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's right. Why would we send

3 you a legislative thing to adjourn a week from now if we

4 wasn't in agreement, Ham?

5

MR. MCWHORTER: I would even think during the day

6 if you send one over there at 11 o'clock in the morning and we

7 amend it, the minute we amend it at two minutes after ten, the ,q Governor could adjourn us for anything up to ten days. But ') if we changed the time and sent it back to you and you agreed 10 to it within an hour, that's the will of the General Assembly, ]] ~ so to speak.
o
SPEAKER MURPHY: " .. by the end of the legislative day on which adjournment was to be had -- on which adjournment

was called for ... "

MR MCWHORTER: Look at the last sentence on this one.

;0

i I) .~.. o

SPEAKER MURPHY: Let's see about this, Ham. " .. and

Z

<'

17 ~ the other house does not adopt such resolution unamended by

]B the end of the legislative day on which adjournment was called

]9 for, the Governor may adjourn both houses for a period of .

20 ten days."

2]

MR. MCWHORTER: Read that over one more time.

SPEAKER MURPHY: " . and the other house does not

adopt such resolution unamended by the end of the legislative 24 day on which adjournment was called for (you can add in such
25 resolution if you want to) the Governor may adjourn "
L~~~~

___ ._._ _.PA(:'E__' ~:J.l. _

MR. MCWHORTER: How about leaving it like it is

and saying something like "any agreement reached within that

day by both houses shall prevail", or something like that.

4

SPEAKER MURPHY: I really don't see why you need

5 that, Ham.

MR. EDWARDS: You're still saying though, unamended,

7 Mr. Speaker, and that's what worries me.

8

SPEAKER MURPHY: That don't worry me.

MR. MCWHORTER: I think means he could do it a minute;

10 after we slap an amendment on it.

z"-"

11

SPEAKER MURPHY: NO, sir, unamended by the end

MR. TIDWELL: What about "without amendment not

agreed to by the originating house." Does that solve

~;; everything? "1:

,I

MR. MCWHORTER: Something like that might work.

.:

:J

16 ~ ~, a

MR. TIDWELL: " without amendment agreed to by

z

<

c.::

L~:J the originating house "

SPEAKER MURPHY: That still doesn't cure Hamilton's
19
thing if we agree today, if we're going to adjourn next Monday

you've got a week, that still don't cure his, he could adjourn
). ..... ! I
us today under that language.

"

MR. MCWHORTER: I still agree with it like you've got

23
it now and add on to it probably something, " any agreement

within that legislative day by both houses as to time would

prevail ... " I'm not saying that exact language but something

of that nature. What it meant, that gives him::t right to

2 adjourn at the end of the day but if you agree on something

3 before the day is over that would prevail. Frank, would

4 that probably accomplish what he really wants?

5

MR. EDWARDS: I'm going to have to see sometHhg.

6

MR. MCWHORTER: Yeah, I think we might

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: May we act on the motion as

8 presented, subject to revision of this at a later meeting?

9 I've got the feeling that we're going to be considering this

10 one for awhile tocome.

J"
11 ,-

MR. MCWHORTER:

I beQeve there's a meeting of the

~ 12 ~ minds, Mr. Chairman, it's just a question of language.

~ "-,,. ;

SPEAKER MURPHY: Wait just a minute.

14 >-

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is why I feel that perhaps

r
<
r

15 ~ we can find some language to agree on.

'":r.
:::J

J6 3

SPEAKER MURPHY: What is the matter with this,

cz

<
17 ~; Hamilton? "In the event either house, after the thirtieth day

IS I' of any session, adopts a resolution to adjourn for a specified

19 period of time and the other house does not adopt such

~?O ,resolution unamended by the end of the legislative day on

21 which adjournment was called for in said resolution, the

Governor may adjourn both houses for a period not to exceed

ten days." If we pass one on Monday to adjourn on Friday 24 I and y'all haven't adopted it by Friday that's the day adjournme~t

is called for, he could adjourn us.

PAGE 59

MR. MCWHORTER: That's all right except it wouldn't

2 allow any

-'

MR. EDWARDS: Play between the two houses.

4

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't understand that, I don't

~ i understand that at all. If you send me a resolution over there!

() to say we're going to adjourn Friday at 2 o'clock and I send

7 you back one saying no, we're going to adjourn Friday at

8 1 o'clock and you accept it and adopt it, we've adjourned

9 ' Friday at 1 o'clock. It's only when we disagree.

10

MR. MCWHORTER: You leave the word unamended in there,

'7".
1; and also

SPEAKER MURPHY: Do you see what I'm talking about,

Charlie?

MR. TIDWELL: Yes, sir. I see their point too, Mr.

r

15

.:>
,"o
;.,

Speaker.

It's that when you say "unamended" that disturbs me

1()

:~
a z

and

I

guess

I'm

like

Frank,

I

have

to

really

see

what we're

17 ~ talking about here to pass on it, but I think what everybody

JK wants to preclude is an amendment that might be agreed to by

19 the other house that would trigger the authority of the

20 Governor to adjourn, you don't want that.

21

MR. MCWHORTER: I still think that qualifying with

22 a short sentence might work.

SPEAKER MURPHY: All right, wait a minute. Maybe I can cure that. Wait a minute, wait just a minute. Wait just a minute, Charlie, listen to this. "In the event either house,

after the thirtieth day of any session, adopts a resolution to

2 adjourn for a specified period of time and said resolution is

3 not adopted by both houses by the end of the legislative day

4 on which adjournment was called for in said resolution, the

5 Governor may adjourn ... " Now what's wrong with that?

(;

MR. MCWHORTER: That might do it.

7

MR. HILL: Mr. Speaker, could you repeat that?

8

SPEAKER MURPHY: Let me write it down here. God

9 Almighty, I can't talk and write at the same time. Don't you

10 put that in there, I'll kick you.

I.:>

Z
11 ,..

Try this on for size now. "In the even either house,

'o"

"-

~

12 ~ after the thirtieth day of any session, adopts a resolution to

(~~') ..~ ~J--"",,"~' adjourn for a specified period of time and said resolution is

14 >_ not adopted by both houses by the end of the legislative day
:;,

<1.
r

15 .0 on which adjournment was called for in said resolution, the

CJ

':">
16 3 Governor may adjourn both houses for a period not to exceed ten

Czl

17

<
:;;

days."

18

MR. MCWHORTER: I think that's all right except if it

19 gets in there one minute before adjournment, how would you do it.

20

SPEAKER MURPHY: Wetl have adjournment, he'd adjourn

21 us. You can't cover everything in the world, ain't no way.

22

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I was just wondering what would

23 be the actual thing that would trigger the Governor's power

to adjourn.

Do the members of the subcommittee accept now the

changes in the resolution?

PAGE 61
'----'-.,----.~_--_-------I

SPEAKER MURPHY: You got that down?

3

MR. MCWHORTER: I still want you to read it.

I

4

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well get your pen ready. You got

'; that one right there?

6

MR. MCWHORTER: Yeah.

7

SPEAKER MURPHY: All right, IIIn the event either

S house, after the thirtieth day of any session, adopts a resolution

') to adjourn for a specified period of time and (all right now

10 strike the rest of it, that line there) said resolution (start

'.:J l.'
I i '.. writing)
,.:'r,:
: , "" '-'

said resolution is not adopted by both houses

(now

c :>
jI, ~ both houses for a period not to exceed ten days. II ':' 1 MR. MCWHORTER: I like it but I've got one exception
to it, I'm sorry. In the day on which the resolution is 19 adopted -- by the end of the legislative day called for in
the resolution, suppose you were to call for it after we " adjourned?
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mr. Speaker, would it be better
to say " .. may adjourn the General Assembly 11 rather than
"both houses".
MR. MCWHORTER: Like you said a minute ago, if they

J':\(;1: 62

did it at five o'clock after we adjourned for the day --

2

MR. EDWARDS: You mean on the day it's called for,

3 if it's called for Friday?

4

MR. MCWHORTER: Yeah. If they're in session past

5 two o'clock and we're out of session.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Which would not be unusual.

7

MR. MCWHORTER: We do our work with dispatch.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You have the change --

9

SPEAKER MURPHY: You're getting as bad as some of

10 them Senators over there, Mr. Secretary. You notice I said,

z<~

11 oo~r Senator, some of them, I didn't say you.

"-

~@r~'12 '~"

MR. MCWHORTER: Senator Tysinger told me to come up

here today and be the so-and-so, and not him.

14 ;
!;;

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have the motion now, the

:<r

15

<o.'rJ

changes

in the motiOn.

Do members of the subcommittee now --

::>

16 .~..

SPEAKER MURPHY: Wait just a minute, I think I can

Q

Z

<
17 ~ cure that for you.

18

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Speaker, suppose we leave it like!

19 it is and

20

SPEAKER MURPHY: Wait just a minute while I've got

21 I it on my dadblamed mind.

MR. MCWHORTER: I think we could use the original

23 language and just end it up by saying any agreement reached

24 during a certain period of time between the houses would

p r e v a i l . _.'...,'-

I

SPEAKER MURPHY:

PAGE 63

--_._._ --_ ... ... _.---_.,--~._--

~-_ .. ,_._.~------_._--_._-------.......-,

by n the end of the ......

MR. MCWHORTER: n legislative day "

3

SPEAKER MURPHY: Wait -- (Pause.) I don't know,

that's going to take some more, Ham, when I start fooling with

5 what I did it changes something else. It's going to take

6 something else.

7

MR. MCWHORTER: We can adopt some words later.

MR. TIDWELL: If y'all can agree what you want to

') do --
]0

CHAIRMAN PARTH~10S: Like I say, we can go ahead and

11

,...
,y-

adopt

this

and

come

back

and

refine

the

language.

o

1~: ~:

SPEAKER MURPHY: I thought really that's what we was

;\) ...::."!)Y..lt,j
(&~~~ ~~~'"~'-~ ~ paying you and Jack and Frank for, I didn't realize that's

'" -~..-...,_---,~-"-"_/~//

j

MR. MCWHORTER: We're overpaid obviously, aren't we.

15 ~: I believe you can word it like you did and qualify it with

u;

OJ

:;0

J(J

3 an
a

agreement

in

a

certain

time,

then

that would

prevail.

7

<

i7 ~

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't know. That can be cured but:

it's going to take me awhile.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Why don't we act on this and then 20 we can come back --
,.
SPEAKER MURPHY: In the first place it's hard for me

to conceive of what Ham's conceiving of. The House of " \ Representatives adopting a resolution to adjourn knowing the

Senate was out of session, it's just hard for me to conceive

of that. It wouldn't be hard for me to conceive of them doing ~t.

1),\(; t.: 64

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Speaker, it wouldn't be hard for

me to conceive of you doing that, but we don't think you're

3 i going to be Speaker but 30 more years.

SPEAKER MURPHY: It's hard for me to conceive of the

5 House doing it, is what I said.

MR, MCWHORTER: Oh.

7

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Members of the committee, are

8 you ready for the question on the motion as presented?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Let me ask Charlie a question.

10 Charlie, how could there be any disagreement ever construed if

a resolution to adjourn was adopted by one house when the

other one wasn't in session and hasn't had a chance to vote?

MR. MCWHORTER: There's lots of ways you could do it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is why, Charles, I was

15 ~ asking about this thing on certification, this would trigger

,::.;

::J

Jh

~
",O"l

the

action

by

the

Governor,

it would make

it

clear.

'-
17 ~'"

MR. TIDWELL: You're just saying there's no dis-

agreement then.

19

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's right, the other one hasn't

20 voted on it.

MR. TIDWELL: It hasn't been transmitted, you don't

22 i transmit it when they're not there.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well I'll try to add something to

that. I think I know how to do it but I want to sit down and

write it.

PAGE 65

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS; Let's act on this, members of

the subcommittee, and consider it again at our next session.

I think everyone understands the gist of the motion and what we

4 are seeking to achieve here.

'i i'

Are you ready for the question on the motion? Is

'I

there any further discussion?

"1

SPEAKER MURPHY: What are we voting on now?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We're voting on your last motion.

SPEAKER MURPHY: The language that I read.

10

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The language that you read the

last time.

MR. HILL: Just to get something down to work on.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: In other words, at least the

motion will give us a point of departure for further work on

l'i ~ the matter, and further discussion.

. 16 ,~ a

Are you ready for the question? As many as are in

Z

<:

t'l,' "I favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

(Ayes. )

l<)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed?

!(,

(No response.)

_I

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the motion

is carried. And I would hope that those of you who are most

interested in this motion would get together before our next

meeting and come up with some new language.

'"

Shall we move on them from subparagraph (b) to

subparagraph (c)? Is there any question on subparagraph (c)?

2 Mel, do you have any question on that?

MR. HILL: This was put back in, as I mentioned last

4 time, this was a reference to what happens in the event of an

5 impeachment trial. The House adjourns and the Senate remains

6 I in session.

7

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. Shall we move on then to

R Paragraph II. TIs there any question about -- yes?

9

MR. JACKSON: Since this oath over in the Executive

10 Article is not the complete oath that they are given, in the

,"

z

II >: Executive Article, we provided "shall take such oath as

:>

:>.

"'

12 : provided by law."

((~(;'~)9)~~~"'-~~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: What's that, Ham?

~/

.J>

14 ;
,-

MR. MCWHORTER: I agree with that 100%. We put an

V>

<1
r

IS .0 oath in here and there's some other law on the books and if

CJ

'=">

.1()

~ cw:

we

write

an oath

in here

would

be

foolish

the

way

I

look at

it.


17 ~ Frank, we talked about this. There's law on it, why put the

I k oath in the Constitution. What we do is we give them this

plus something else, don't we, Mr. Speaker, and you can't add

20 to this legally.

2]

MR. EDWARDS: I think legally speaking, this is all

') you can give, but they do otherwise. Either way doesn't make 23 any difference to me, but I agree if we can take out something

out of the Constitution, we ought to try to do it.

CHAIRMAN P~.RTHEMOS: I agree.

MR. EDWARDS:

PAGE67

~-----~---~- ~- ----~-~--

- ~- ----------~

We haven't taken out a hell of a lot.

2

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Ed, you're saying that the

.3 ': other simply says "shall take a!l oath as prescribed by law."

MR. JACKSON: Such oath or an oath provided by law.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Here in other words, this would

6 simply -- if we had a similar provision, it would simply say

that n before taking the seat to which elected, shall take

~ an oath or affirmation provided by law."

')

What are the wishes of the subcommittee on that?

SENATOR TYSINGER: I move that Paragraph II on page

IJ ~: 4, following -- on the third line, following " or affirmation

;)

>.

12 "~' ", the phrase " as prescribed by law."

(I(~J(>d-)~\~'1. ~~ the rest of it, of that paragraph.

-\"'--"-~'~~-,~./-/)1./

'"

And then strike

I; .
-

MR. JACKSON: You would also strike "following" on

.,0

L
15 '3 line 3, wouldn't you? .",:

Cl l
1I' ';i too.

SENATOR TYSINGER: Yeah, you'd have to strike that

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: n shall take an oath or

!) I affirmation as prescribed by law. II

Senator Tysinger, is the motion then that it should

read "Each Senator and Representative, before taking his or her,

seat, shall take the oath or affirmation prescribed by law."

SENATOR TYSINGER: That'd be fine.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is that your motion?

SENATOR TYSINGER: Yes, sir.

['\(~E 68

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You heard the motion. Is the motion seconded?

3

MR. ELLARD: I'll second it.

CI~IRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is there any discussion of the

5 motion?

o

(No response.)

7

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are you ready for the question?

As many as are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

9I

(Ayes. )

10

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

,~

2.

I! ) ..

(No response.)

o

@;'..!"~ CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the motion
is carried.

-

14 ~

~ /'
<:
1.:

Mel, you've got that motion?

''.."",

MR. HILL: Uh-huh.

16 ~ w

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Paragraph III, Quorum. Is

a

2

-<

17 ~ there any comment on that?

1""

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes, sir, I move that we go back t-

19 the old language.

20

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion that in

Paragraph III, pertaining to Quorum, that we revert to the

old language and delete this. Is that the motion?

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes, sir.

24

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You heard the motion. To get

25 it on the floor, is there a second?

PAGE 69

SENATOR TYSINGER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Now is 3 there any discussion? MR. MCWHORTER: I think this is impossible. You ) look at every rule of parliament, Congress, every legislative G body in the world, if you had it like this you would never get

7 through the day. If they set any limit, I don't care if they

set five or six, the purpose of this is when you get less than

9 a quorum, is to move on. In the old language, it's the same

10 language in thousands of Constitutions, rules of Parliament,
,-'
7.
everywhere else. You see what I mean, Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER MURPHY: What's the difference?

MR. MCWHORTER: Radical difference. You said each

house could set a smaller number. Suppose they said 18 or 20
<
!.
15 .:. or 50? If they weren't there, how do you end the legislative

OJ
j 6 I~ day? c, l
! 7 :,l.'

SENATOR TYSINGER: We hold the day open sometimes

j;': just to receive bills when everybody is gone.

Il)

MR. MCWHORTER: I think you would find this all the

way through from the 17th Century without exception in the

2i United States
.J '
MR. HILL: I still don't understand the change,

Hamilton. - I mean, there was no intention to change it.

2--t

MR. MCWHORTER: What you do is say each house can

provide for a smaller number.

!' I;E 70

MR. JACKSON: Th~'s what it says here.

MR. MCWHORTER: But I don't think you end up that

3 way. The way you've got this thing, you could say they could 4 set a number and this refers back to a quorum. Less than a

S quorum can always adjourn, can't they, Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Dh-huh.

7

MR. MCWHORTER: Like this, you're going to let

8 somebody set a quorum, an arbitrary quorum. I think the

present language ought to stay.

10

MR. HILL: Well there was no change intended and I'm

not sure that the, you know -- it certainly wasn't -- I

imagine this language that came out of the '70 proposal was intended to say the same thing, but if you don't think it says

the same thing, we can straighten it out.

<
I
1~ ,~

MR. MCWHORTER: I'm sure in my mind it does not. I

:.:t

1()

~ c,

think this last sentence,

H but a

smaller number may

z

17

~ Lt'

adjourn

from

day

to

day

as

each

house

may

provide."

Hi

MR. HILL: The other one says each house may provide

I') a smaller number and may adjourn from day to day ana compel

20 the presence of its members. I think it does say the same 21 thing.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It's almost exactly the same -,., number of words, so that there's no improvement in terms
24 of shortening.

What's the feeling of the subcommittee on Paragraph III

,.- _

-

---~-~.-

concerning the quorum.

PAGE 71

_--

- - - - - - ... - -----.. ..l --------~--

I
We have a motion that has been seconded!

, that we revert to the original language, the language in the

present Constitution. Is there any feeling on this? Frank,

.1 do you have any thoughts on this?

MR. EDWARDS: No.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Do you see any -- Harold, do

you have anything?

x
.1
l) that.

MR. CLARKE: I was talking with Jack and I missed

10

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I said we have the motion of Ham's

'~l
1:
! 1 6. that we -- on Paragraph III concerning quorum, that we revert .:> .1.

12 : to the original language in the present Constitution.

(/(7("L';~\J;1iI.')\r~~'~"o:~

MR. CLARKE: I don't have any feeling either way, I

"', . -

.., .t.t" ,.. think they say the same thing .
~ ~
<1 '1:
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It's exactly the same number of

words, we're not effecting any reduction in words. Jack, do
(,:"
you have any thoughts on this?

MR. ELLARD: No. Only for the purpose of trying to

get a little language out, what would be wrong in saying that

each house may adjourn from day to day to compel the

"-'-, attendance. You can't transact any business anyway without
,,
a quorum, all you could do is adjourn.

23

SENATOR TYSINGER: That's what that language does,

isn't it?

MR. MCWHORTER: Jack, I didn't hear the last thing.

MR. ELLARD: Just strike out

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: " .. may provide for a smaller

number .... "

MR. ELLARD: And say they may adjourn from day to

day. If you think it's worthwhile. You canlt de any business

anyway.

"

MR. MCWHORTER: You can adjourn, that's historically

K one thing you can do. It's in every Constitution I've ever

seen and the reason for that is --

Je,

SPEAKER MURPHY: I see the difference now.

MR. MCWHORTER: Huh?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I see the difference now. We'd have

to have a rule to adjourn.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I was going to say, is there a

15 ~: rule, Mr. Speaker, that sets a number that may adjourn,

,:;'

16 ~ smaller than a quorum?

wz,

<:

17
"

SPEAKER MURPHY:

That is our rule, the Constitutional

ix provision is our rule. I agree that we ought to go back to the

19 previous language.

,2()

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is there any other thought on

2i the motion, any other discussion of the motion?

(No response.)

-,)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEHOS: Are you ready for the question?

You understand the motion, to revert back to the language in

the current Constitution. As many as are in favor of the

PAGE 73

motion, signify by saying aye. (Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

J

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and so with

respect then to Paragraph III, we revert back to the language

of the present Constitution.

;...;

We'll move on to Paragraph IV, Rules of procedure.

" "Each house shall determine its rules of procedure." Is there

10 any thoughts on Paragraph IV?

'7.'

I I ."

MR. EDWARDS: I ought to know, is that in the

"~l

j' .1 present Constitution?

MR. HILL: Yes it is.

{
,r
1<;
""j
.'
':':l
; ') Z
'::1

MR. EDWARDS: iihere is it, I can't find it? MR. HILL: It's in the second half of a sentence MR. CLARKE: Isn't that an inherent right of each

ii ; house anyway? I wonder whether it's necessary to even have in

\;, there.

1)

MR. MCWHORTER: Most Constitutions have it in there .

.:;u

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I would think that any organiza-

tion would, I don't know but it's pretty standard to have it in the Constitution.

SPEAKER MURPHY: All the lawsuits we've got pending .: I by the Commonest Cause and all them sort of programs, we ought
to have it in there.

1',\(,L 74

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think -- as I say, it's

standard. Moreover, some Harold -- I was going to raise one

question on this, some you will find provisions to the effect

that the two houses may adopt joint rules on matters which --

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, I'd rather just leave it like

it is.
7

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Leave it like it is. Are there

joint rules, Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER MURPHY: We have joint rules for a joint

10 session.

11 j-'-' <:> "-

MR. MCWHORTER: They were in the rule book but we

~~ 1..~ ~)~ didn't put them back in the last two years.

(((~,~r~ ~
' ---- '... //)/ ..,...~.......-// . . ' 14 ,.
.,",.

SPEAKER MURPHY: No joint rules now. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If there are no suggestions for

1"

<:> ,-'

any

change

in

this,

we'll move

on

to

Paragraph

V.

r.),;

;:J

16 ~ ::l
z

Yes, Frank?

<

17 C

MR. EDWARDS; Let me just see where it is.

I haven't

Ix
been able to find it yet.

19
MR. MCWHORTER: It's not in there like that.

21
),
,.
. 1
had --

MR. HILL: I thought that it was. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It's not in a separate paragraph. MR. HILL: It was at the end of a sentence that we

MR. MCWHORTER: Ours was one that didn't have it, most

all of them do.

PAGE 75

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Most Constitutions have it.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think ours has got it too. It

specifically provides in there somewhere that --

"

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I do think it's good to

separate it out into a separate section.

MR. HILL: I go back and forth between the '70 and

this one. It may have been in the '70 and then we brought

it forward.
1f1
SPEAKER MURPHY: Well I think it's a good idea Ii whether it tis or it taint.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I agree with you.

If there are no motions to change Paragraph -- Frank,i

~ do you have any?

MR. EDWARDS: No, I just

,,
1 ',; t w ':1 I'

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You still want to find it.

MR. EDWARDS: I just didn't see it, but one point I

: \,.
".\
did want to bring up, and I don't know that this is a valid

point, is whether the members of this subcommittee think that

a statute ought to be superior to a rule. In other words, " we pass a law saying something shall be done such and such a

way. Would that be superior to a rule of the House?

SPEAKER MURPHY: No question about that because

that's a law made by both bodies.

MR. EDWARDS: That's the way I feel, but -- and I've

been meaning to get down and look into it

the Sunshine

case to my recollection, that's what they

I don't know if

it was the Sunshine case, it might have been some other case.

': Do you recall?

MR. MCWHORTER: I can't cite it, but they said

something about it.

7

MR. TIDWELL: What they said was that the rule was

x superior to this.

q

MR. MCWHORTER: That's what they said.

]0
.:J
1I

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Said what? MR. EDWARDS: Is that in the Sunshine case, Charlie?

MR. TIDWELL: Yes.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That the rule was superior to

14 ~ the Constitution?

<

j ~ ,",

SPEAKER MURPHY:

They got to be joking.

16 ~ ~ c.:

MR. TIDWELL: They backed off a little bit but that

<.
]: ~. was the position that Tim Sweeney argued before the Supreme

II:> Court and i t is in their opinion.

19

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I'd like to read that.

20

MR. EDWARDS: That's the reason -- I just brought it

2i up because Ham and I just mentioned this on a passing occasion

)-,
about that. We always expressed the view that a statute ought

to be superior to a rule

.-~ <.+

MR. MCWHORTER: And the Constitution to the statute,

in that order.

SPEAKER MURpHY:

That's

right,

there

PAGE 77
-~----- _.._ - - -- ------l
i
ain't no questio~

in my mind about that.

MR. EDWARDS: Let me get that Sunshine case and

4 bring it.

MR. TIDWELL: Theyput out a first and then they

G backed a little bit off because Bob Hall said the General

Assembly can't have a rule that's superior to the Constitution

that has a majority effect and then they backed off a little

but but they still say I think in there -- there's something

10 in there that indicates that possibility.

,,:1

7.

11

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's about the silliest thing I've

/',~;''v--'{-'<!

;0".1

1.2

".
u

ever

heard

of.

:::

/ (:. . "\\ \) co.,,"," ,:;

\\\IEJ/,I"

u

MR. MCWHORTER:

Frank's question is maybe we ought

' __"

_.J :'/" ,

1'1 .~ to give thought to putting something in the Constitution on it.

"

15 ,~

MR. EDWARDS: Exactly. It's something for us to

J" ~ think about between now and the next meeting
.'

7 i

,"1

SENATOR TYSINGER: Make a statement to that effect.

Ii'.

MR. EDWARDS: Of course, we've got over here in, you

know, what's law, "The laws of general operation in force in

this state." It says "As the Supreme law: The Constitution of,

the United States, the laws of the United States in pursuance
,,
thereof and all treaties ... " and all that stuff. Then

"Second this Constitution." And "Third .. In subordination

to the foregoing: All laws now of force in this state, not ""', inconsistent with this Constitutional shall remain of force until

the same are modified or repealed by the General Assembly."

That's not exactly what we're tal~g about but anyway I'll

.' bring that case .

4

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. Well, Frank, could you

5 come back with maybe some proposal for us on this?

MR. EDWARDS: All right, if you decide it's needed.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The rule should be consistent.

K Okay, well let's move on then and leave it like that and

o , I'd like to read that case with their opinion. I won't

IV believe it until I read it.

MR. TIDWELL: That was a narrow issue that the rule

J: ~ of the House was that they could have executive sessions and

/~)Y~\

,_

((eli;;;)) )r'~'-" ~ the argument was that the inherent power of the General

\,~~~~JJ

1.', ~ Assembly prescribed that all procedures was protected by the

. I:'", Constitution and where a statute conflicted with it or even

J.

:;;,

,~

10 ? other provisions of the Constitution -.:, z.

<
[7 ~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: All right, then are there any

suggestions or reactions to Paragraph V, VI or VII? We agreed

to these versions the last time. Ed?

2u

MR. JACKSON: One comment, on line 16, the phrase

"by law for filling vacancies" refers to statute. Article V,

Section III already provides in the Constitution for this. It

says whenever there is any vacancy in the House or the Senate,

the Governor shall call a special election. So if you say "by

law", what I'm saying is the Constitution is a higher authority.

PAGE 79 The Constitution already provides what happens if there's a

vacancy.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: In the General Assembly.

MR. JACKSON: Right.

5

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is that in the proposal for

MR. TIDWELL: Mel, is that new? I was concerned about
I
7 the same thing.

MR. HILL: It wasn't called vacancies before, it

~ was called "Effective removal of a member from his district,

jU was the title of it before and it really just stated --

MR. JACKSON: You could just drop that sentence
'>:>.
,~
1.: ~ because it's provided in Article V, Section III.

MR. EDWARDS: Where is it, Ed?

" "'.

J4 ~ ,-

MR. JACKSON: Article V, Paragraph III.

<
t:

Ie i.'
:.:l

SPEAKER MURPHY: Instead of dropping it, I'd say

.":.'

I J

(

:::J
'~., as filled by other provisions of this Constitution.

0,,

1'l ,y

MR. EDWARDS: Article V, what section is it?

!~

MR. JACKSON: Section III, the first sentence.

19

MR. EDWARDS: Section III?

20

MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry, Paragraph III, the Section

21 is

it's under Governor's power and duties.

)'
MR. HILL: Article V

.:~J

MR. TIDWELL: Page 32.

24

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The first sentence in Paragraph

m.

1'.\',;1: 80

MR. HCWHORTER: Paragraph III.

2

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: What are your wishes then, shall

3 we delete that first sentence from Paragraph V?

4

MR. JACKSON: The Speaker suggests putting

5

l-lR. TIDWELL: The provision in the Executive Article

(, is not all inclusive because it gives the Governor -- he

doesn't have to call the election if there's not going to be

a session of the General Assembly, and that's by statute. In

fact, he doesn't call it unless there is going to be --

SPEAKER MURPHY: Why don't you just say "shall be

,1

7.

11 ~ filled as provided by this Constitution and by law" and be

e)""' ~o 1:2 ~ done with it. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

Okay"

Mr" Speaker, do you so

--

14.: move?

~

'..7
:':"1
16 ~
aw
Z
<i
J7 :7 then.

SPEAKER MURPHY: If it suits everybody, it suits me. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: All right, we'll just change it "When a vacancy occurs in the General Assembly, it

shall be filled as provided by this Constitution and by law. 1I

MR. MCWHORTER: Would "otherwise" be wise in there

20 or not, "otherwise provided" .

.21

SPEAKER MURPHY: "as otherwise provided by this

Constitution and by law."

MR. TIDWELL: The Executive provision really doesn't

say how a vacancy is filled, it just says the Governor issues

a writ to do it. Then there's a statutory provision on when

PAGE 81

it's done, bow it's done.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It would seem to me then the

,1 Speaker's suggestion would take care of the matter. So if everybody is in agreement, we'll have that read ". as provided

by this Constitution and by law."

f,

HR. HILL: " . or by law. II

MR. EDWARDS: Cindy wants to knock out on line 19,

the words "or she".

:)

MR. MCWHORTER: Why do we have to have that? I

think she's joking, but I'm not.

MS. NONIDEZ: I'm not joking either.

12 ~

MR. MCWHORTER: If we do that everywhere, we'd have

extra pages.

1,~
~

SPEAKER MURPHY: What?

<
t:

MR. MCWHORTER: Put he or she.

"

!~

:'Xl
,..:.\

MR. JACKSON: Actually you could take the "he or

(.:

.1 7 :: she was" and just put lithe district from which elected".

I>,

SPEAKER MURPHY: liThe seat of a member of either

, ,'(\
house shall be vacant upon the removal of such member's legal

2U residence from the district from which elected. II Yeah, I've

got no problem with that. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay, all right, we agree on
.. 3 that. Paragraph VI. Do we have any comments on Paragraph VI,

any suggestions? This is the same language, isn't it, Mel? MR. MCWHORTER: We've got it in another place on

everybody, it should be combined.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: How about Paragraph VIII, that's

3 the same as in the current Constitution too, I believe.

4

MR. HILL: VII and VIII are the same.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Paragraph IX, if I recall we

() made one or two changes.

7

MR. EDWARDS: That was the one I don't know if the

x members have had an opportunity to read that thing, that

Pennsylvania case on privilege. We passed it out at the last

10 meeting, the Pennsylvania case -- not Pennsylvania -- in

j I ;; any event

o

:>.

12 ~"'
@r~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think we added the word -MR. EDWARDS: It was Oklahoma, not Pennsylvania.

,--~

14 >-
~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right, it was Oklahoma.

r<

15 ,~

MR. EDWARDS: The effect was that this paragraph

':J

:':">'

lu '~"' right now, according to those decisions doesn't really mean

c

z:

<

17 ~ anything. It started out originally applying only to civil

lR arrest and that's what the Oklahoma Supreme Court held and that

19 case went up to the Supreme Court, in my recollection. I'm

10 getting Pennsylvania mixed up in there. In any event, this

it said this section doesn't mean anything.
,)
MR. MCWHORTER: When ymsay this section, Frank,

you're not speaking of the last sentence, are you?

MR. EDWARDS: No, just the part about

just the

first part. I think somebody thought last time it didn't hurt

PAGE 83

to keep it in.

2

SPEAKER MURPHY: It don't hurt to keep it in, let's

J leave it there.

MR. JACKSON: I have a question on the last sentence

) because committees are now increasingly meeting between

G sessions and the inference in the first part of this paragraphs

is during sessions. Do you want to make it clear that a

;.; legislator is protected during a committee in the interim?

,)

MR. MCWHORTER: I made that point last time and

10 they didn't seem to think too much of it since it wasn't worth

u
!I Cz much anyway. I feel if you're going to give him any rights, if o >.

JJ ~~ you can't give it for committee meetings you ought not to put

,\.,.:":'U(,/

~

(((d\)I!'~~"~'~D. ~ it in. You know what I mean, Mr. Speaker?

\ \,

/'//

.;~

"",,'-~

,/

) ,1 "

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yeah. I think it would mean that

I'"

"'"
;:

l~ ~ if the first section -- sentence means anything

....'J

r""n"

() 2:
~,

SENATOR TYSINGER: We say committee meetings, don't

:,

~, :~; we?

MR. MCWHORTER: The '70 version

Ii)

CHAIR~ PARTHEMOS: You could separate it into

,~l,) separate paragraphs.

,.

,_J

MR. MCvffiORTER: Lots of states even have so many days

before and after or any committee meetings. In other words,

if he comes up interim meeting it wouldn't apply.

MR. EDWARDS: That's what I was wondering. Do

some of the others, Ham, do you recall --

j'\:, 84

SPEAKER l\1URPHY: Well wait, "No member shall be

2 liable to answer in any other place for anything spoken in

3 either house or in any committee meeting of either house

4 during the session or during the interim."

5

MR. HCWHORTER: I don't know if you can say "in the

interim", that might not be a co~~ittee meeting.

7

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well just add !tat any time" at the

8 end of it there.

9

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't care if that's what you want.

10

SPEAKER MURPHY: "No member shall be liable to answer

in any other~ace for anything spoken in either house or any

committee of either house at any time."

MR. JACKSON: I think twenty years down the road

~ unless the legi$lature goes to a longer session, you're going
,
.r

J) ~ to have more committee action in the interim and you've got

c
::1

16

a ~
,~

chance

to

protect

these

people

now.

C,

2-

<

MR. MCWHORTER: Frank says it doesn't do any good

lk but they might pull the Constitution out and read it to a

19 patrolman, it might flip him.

:w

MR. EDWARDS: The last sentence does have meaning.

MR. MCWHORTER: Oh, yeah, you better bet it does,

lots of it.

MR. HILL: I wanted to point out something, Mr.

Chairman, now that we have added "misdemeanor", theft is

covered, it's either a felony or misdemeanor, so I'm not sure.

PAr;g 85

Mr. Speaker, do you feel we need theft mentioned if

we have both felony and misdemeanor in there?

3

SPEAKER MURPHY: No.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Shall we delete "theft" then

5 and have "treason, felony or misdemeanor"? MR. JACKSON: You do want to include traffic offense

'i i thought. SPEAKER MURPHY: What did we put "misdemeanor" in

'} there for?

l()

MR. HILL: That breach of the peace, it used to say

11 0

~~

, -,

/r?-{~~\>

l ' ~f
1

,I I\'({,J11." -.-:) , Ii!2~~";!"',_

\, ',_'-..
'-

/.'

''''1

14

breach of the peace. It seemed that it was trying to get at
crimes and there's only two kinds of crimes, felony and
misdemeanor and it covers SPEAKER MURPHY: It surely doesn't say anything when

(
l~ ,': you say "felony and misdemeanor".

.":J

I j;

,f.1
l

,~

.~\

7

MR. MCWHORTER: It doesn't mean anything then, you

'i C1: can throw i t avay.

SPEAKER MURPHY: A traffic offense is a misdemeanor.

j(.i

MR. MCWHORTER: When you put misdemeanor in there,

we got too many words --

,,,'.

SPEAKER MURPHY: If I'm doing 60 miles an hour, I've

committed a misdemeanor.

MR. MCWHORTER: When you put misdemeanor in there

there's no point putting it in there with misdemeanor.

MR. EDWARDS: You should say the General Assembly

86 i" t".'. i." .1

members shall be free from arrest.

SPEAKER MURPHY: You want to add the Legislative

~ Counsel to that?

MR. EDWARDS: No, I enjoy going to jail every once

in awhile.

MR. MCWHORTER: Brings you back to earth, doesn't it.

'7

MR. EDWARDS: Just to be in there with my own people.

SPEAKER MURPHY: " .. except for treason, theft or

other -- felony or theft ... " I really don't think you ought ]0 to put misdemeanor on there. All these folks coming back on

I' Sunday night have to go to jail for speeding they're in a heap

~)~"' ~12 ,. of trouble.

...

MR. MCWHORTER:

~---_/

lt
1_ the sentence?

If you put misdemeanor, what good is

-,';

SPEAKER MURPHY: It ain't worth a flip.

'x: ::>

Ih ~
(.:l

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: What's your desire then as to

Z

<

'"1

':t.

:-:::,1 how i t should read?

MR. HILL: Did you like breach of the peace, that

language?

20

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Most Constitutins have treason,

21 felony or breach of peace. It had larceny I think in our

original, so we deleted larceny.

SPEAKER MURPHY: What do you want to put, treason,

felony or breach of peace? I've got no problem with that.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think that's the best language.

PAGE 87

Does everybody agree to that then?

Now I don't know what we did with the last sentence

3 though. Several of you had some problems with the last sentence

4 but we never did do anything about it. Do you want to have

S it read that "No member shall be liable to answer in any other

(, place for anything spoken in either house or in any committee

meeting of either house."

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't see anything wrong with it.

I want that much.

to

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think it ought to be -- there

uz

JI ;;; ought to be something, " for anything spoken in either

/~';:-\li.._:l',

o
>.
i ~). r: house or in any committee meeting of either house." ~:

:' ((",I :<1',)"'\ ) _'-'~'~.~.O. z:

"".

I

'J

\. " ........... ~<.//

')

CHAIRMAN PARTHF~OS: Yes, any meeting of either house.

MR. EDWARDS: Didn't you want to add "at any time"?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well any committee meeting would

seem to me to cover it.

MR. MCWHORTER: When you say in any committee of

either house like it is --

jJ

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I say in any committee meeting

.W of either house and that would seem to cover it.

21

MR. JACKSON: Do you have some joint special interim

committees?

MR. MCWHORTER: That'd be a committee.

SPEAKER MURPHY: It'd still be a committee of the

house, yeah. Committee meeting is what it ought to be.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is that then the agreement

that we have it read committee meetings of either house, any

3 cemmittee meetings.

Okay, let's move on then to Paragraph X. Somebody

raised some question about this. You were supposed to come

back with a suggestion about this.

MR. MCWHORTER: No, sir. Well, I did raise a

question about, I asked the Speaker if they wanted to leave it

in there, whether they wanted it by voice or eliminated. The I" reason it's in there was so there would be no secret ballots.

CHAIPMAN PARTHEMOS: Frank, did we agree --

MR. EDWARDS: Well right now, Cindy and I were

talking about it and we can't figure out whether the way it's : ._~ worded right now, what meaning i t has. We don't know of any

elections held by the General Assembly and in the last sentence

! f , . it says " .. when the Senate and the House unite for the

'.

f -;

,
, ~)

purpose

of

election ......

if the General Assembly as such

doesn't have an election Jack, you think the General

Assembly has an election as the General Assembly?

MR. ELLARD: The state audit is the only one.
l'
SPEAKER MURPHY: That's a nomination and election.

Why don't we say "All elections by either body of the General

Assembly shall be .... "

MR. EDWARDS: If you want to do that fine. I mean

the way it's worded now, to me it doesn't have any meaning.

SPEAKER MURPHY:

PAGE 89
- -_._--~----_._-- ----- -------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
flAIl elections by either body of

~ the General Assembly ... ", that's just by either body of.

_i

MR. JACKSON: Would this include voting on the

4 Transportation Board?

5

MR. HILL: Either house?

MR. MCWHORTER: That's in caucus.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's just in caucus.

SPEAKER MURPHY: flBy either body of the General

<) Assembly ...... , add that right there. We do hold elections

10 for Election Board members in the House.

u

"-

II ;::

MR. JACKSON: What about officers in the House?

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's by voice too.

MR. HILL: and 'I the vote shall appear on the

['t

>
,.

journal

of

each

house."

<

1:

l'i

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: And then delete --

~-.:""'

Ii,)

~

~,

MR. ELLARD: This says " .. on the Journal of the

,':1

l

<:

i 1 :~ House of Representatives ......

, .,

lu

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The way I understand it now,

Il) we have it reading ItAII elections by either body of the

,:tu General Assembly shall be viva voce, and the vote shall appear

..'1 on the journal of each house of the General Assembly. It

22 And then delete the last sentence.

SPEAKER MURPHY: It ought to be " on the respective

hournals of each house."

1;

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right, " on the

90

respective journals of each house."

Does everybody agree with that change?

3

(No response.)

I assume that everybody agrees, so let's move to
Section v.

(,

MR. HILL: The last sentence was deleted?

7

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Deleted. So we move to

x Section V.

SPEAKER MURPHY: What sentence was deleted?

10
.,

MR. HILL: It says "All elections by either body

~-.

II

...
:.~

of

the

General

Assembly

shall

be

viva

voce,

and the vote shall

:>

appear on the respective journals of each house."

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well now I think what they're

,. talking about in that last sentence is when we meet down there

15 ~ to confirm the elections of the Governor and stuff and count

.~
::>
16 ~ the ballots.

z
<:
17 ~

MR. EDWARDS: That's another Constitutional law.

18 You're Chairman of that, but see, the General Assembly doesn't

1LJ meet any more.

20

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well what did we meet down there

when we elected the -- when we counted all them votes for

))
Governor and then we elected somebody. Have we changed it
_,.'. since then?

24

MR. EDWARDS: You mean when Lester Maddox was

2S elected? That's been changed since then.

u

. --

SPEAKER MURPHY:

So

we

don't

PAGE 91

-~'-

... ~-_

,._-----~-_._.

--.. ---~~---.----.""

,

!

need this.

MR. EDWARDS: No, sir.

SPEAKER MURPHY: All right.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay, Section V, Paragraph I, s Journals and Acts. We agreed on this wording at our last

, meeting. We also agreed to retain Paragraph II as is.

MR. MCWHORTER: I thought we said "revenue bills

originating in the Senate."

l)

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, what I sai.d was we ought to

. 10 strike that language after -- on line 32 after "Representatives"
,.,

1j

-.::':
>.

and

put

a

period

there.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think he said, Ham, that all

revenue bills shall originate and end in the House.

-

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, I didn't say and end, I just

r

IS " said they couldn't propose amendments in the Senate.

1() ::.1
,,~

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman?

17

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes?

MR. EDWARDS: We had a little staff meeting yesterday,

not on the Constitution but to discuss some stuff and Kenneth 20 Brown, who is working with the Taxation Committee, raised a

point that with your permission he's going to write out some

language on this particular "Bills for revenue". It won't

have any effect on what you're talking about, Mr. Speaker.

We've always had some problems with what revenue it's talking

about, local revenue, state revenue, different things like that.

Hopefully Kenneth will have something I can bring to the next

meeting just for y'all to look at.

3

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Good, we'll be looking forward

4 to receiving it, Frank.

5

We'll move on to Paragraph III. Now Frank, I believe

G you were going to discuss this. That's on the one subject

7 matter limitation.

MR. EDWARDS: I'll have to confess, I'm just not

prepared to discuss it today.

ttl

CHAI~~ PARTHEMOS: Okay.

MR. EDWARDS: I haven't really had time to get

together with Terry McKenzie to see what effect it would have,

but we are looking at that and we could very conceivably have

it changed, because for one thing, we've got a whole flock of

<

r

15 ,~ population acts we're going to have to do something with.

'"'":;J

16

~
~,

The

possibility,

instead of

having

to

deal with

each one

;2\

z

<

17 .~ separately, you might want to lump them all together somewhere.

1,>;

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: See if you can get your

19 fellows on it so we can have it next meeting.

20

MR . MCWHORTER: I feel we need to have some addition

to this though, it will not stand by itself.
71
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think we need to change it l

yes.
74
25

Well let's wait and get that from Frank's group. MR. EDWARDS: Same thing on Paragraph IV.

PAGE 93

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Same thing there, right.

They're both tied together.

MR. EDWARDS: Right.

-I

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. Now Paragraph V.

"

MR. HILL: This was waiting for us to decide about

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Lieutenant Governor. So

really we can just lump this in with that on the Lieutenant

S Governor.

9

MR. MCWHORTER: We agreed to that other change in

10 wording there to say "elected".

I.'

7-

11

MR. HILL: Yes, we made that change.

L' _I

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Paragraph VI.

MR. JACKSON: I've got a question. The Senate, was

)-,

r
;;:

there

a

policy

at

one

time

that

if

five

members

requested

I"

15 :~ this __.

C:.':
.. '
lu :;
~,
':..'

MR. MCWHORTER: We discuss it, we don't think that's

)/ '" contradictory. I think the Senate is going to keep that five.

I think the committee thought it wasn't contradictory, that I) we had a right to adopt a rule for less but we couldn't do it 20 more. Is that right, Frank?

MR. EDWARDS: I'm not sure, I --

MR. MCWHORTER: We talked about it last week, didn't
,.
--' we, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CLARKE: The presiding officer can call for i.t

anyway.

94
MR. EDWARDS: Regardless of how many.

MR. JACKSON: There is a fewer number as provided

3 for by each --

4

MR. MCWHORTER: You see, any time one-fifth wants

~ to get it, we're not changing it to say five, that's less than

6 ! one-fifth of the quorum, so I don't see anything contradictory.

'7 If there's any ambiguity I think we ought to clarify it, but

S I don't think there is.

MR. JACKSON: What if a Senator raised a question

10 that one-fifth of the members did not vote to have a roll call

vote. ."o.-.
12 v
~

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think it ought to be in there that

the presiding officer has got the right to order it myself, I

really think that ought to be in there.

<

l S .~
to <.< ":i

HR. MCWHORTER: F~ankf we discussed this question when

iC, }; we did it. This says any time one-fifth wants to get it, if

":z.
<
17 ~ you said more it would be a violation of the Constitution, but

p. if you say less, I don't think it's in violation of the

[9 Constitution.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Where are we at, are we on VI?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think it ought to read "In either

house, at the desire of one-fifth of the members present or 24 upon the call of the presiding officer ... " I think it ought

to be spelled out that the presiding officer can call a roll call

l'Ac;E 95

vote. I just think that ought to be spelled out.

MR. HILL: " upon the order .. "?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Or when ordered by the presiding;

4 officer?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Or when ordered by the presiding

6 officer.

-;

MR. MCWHORTER: If we do that, we've got to go

H further because the Senate's got a rule on V. I think the

()! way it is, any rule -- well you got a point there too.

:0

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: "In either house, at the desire

II o~ of one-fifth of the members present or when ordered by the

.,,::;""

1. 2 ~~
~i /'~"k_':+~:b~>-c>\~-~3:i)\/). /r, ~=J ~~I'

presiding

officer, a roll MR. MCWHORTER:

call vote " You don't have

that

in

your

rules

J4

~.
.-

like

we

do,

do

you?



I

J) ,~ ..:0.:'

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yeah .

16 ~" ",'

MR. TIDWELL: Would it add anything to say at least

1. <
17 ~ one-fifth so nobody could ever say --

MR. EDWARDS: That's just what I was thinking, I 1'/ think really that's what that thing really intends.

21 say it .
.., ,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think that's the way we should MR. MCWHORTER: Me to.

MR. JACKSON: At least a fifth?

MR. CLARKE: Yes. If you put at least --

MR. MCWHORTER: Five is less than one-fifth.

MR. EDWARDS: In either house at the desire of at

2 least one-fifth of the members, you couldn't have it less

3 than one-fifth.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You couldn't have it less.

5

MR MCWHORTER: Oh, I didn't know you were putting

b that in, I agree with you there.

7

MR. EDWARDS: That was his suggestion.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That would go against your rule.

MR. MCWHORTER: I didn't understand the words.

1(1

MR. EDWARDS: Well I don't know, Mr. Speaker knows

i!:~~\

JI :; more about this than I do, Ham maybe. What if you said
')
i.
"i'" In either house. at the des ire 0 f the number of members

(~~~r' ~ provided for by the rules of that house .. "

= 14 ....

MR. MCWHORTER: I like it better

<

1:

J5 ~

SPEAKER MURPHY: I like it better one-fifth myself,

_0

~,;

:>

,~
J6 ~ at least one fifth. I think it ought to spell out in the

z"

c:

17 ~ Constitution. You could say at the desire of one-fifth or

a lesser nwnber if provided by the rules.

19

MR. EDWARDS: That might do it right there. That'd

20 take care of the House and the Senate.

21

MR. JACKSON: What about your provision, at the

discretion of the presiding officer?

SPEAKER MURPHY: That~ still in there, I still want

it in there.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: "In either house, at the desire of

PAGE 97 one-fifth or a lesser number if so provided by the rules, of

the members present or when ordered by the presiding officer,

a roll call. ... " Is that then, gentlemen, the way we want it

4 to read? Do we need a motion on this?

MR. TIDWELL: Did you want to put the "at least" in

(i there?

CHAIRMAN PARTHKMOS: Yes, that's what I meant.

MR. TIDWELL: I didn't hear you read it.

q

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. " .. at the desire of

10 at least one-fifth "

""'-
I: c:
(,).

SPEAKER MURPHY: Now is that in conflict within

i ~ :; itself, Frank, "at least one-fifth or upon lesser number .. "

((:,v~~) ~ \<' ,-_.~~/ /r"='. '~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMQS: " or a lesser number if so

i\ .- provided by the rules . "

r.

1< .1


,;.;

SPEAKER MURPHY: " of either house .. "

c,
I .D
n I.
:....l
a z
17 "

MR. EDWARDS: No, I don't think it is. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I don't think it is.

I think

! ~ it's clear.

MR. JACKSON: You might say "unless" instead of "or", 2tJ "unless a lesser number be provided by the house rules . "

MR. EDWARDS: I think you've got the sense --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: "In either house, at the desire

of at least one-fifth... "

SPEAKER MURPIIT: I've got no problem with it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. You understand -- does

('\1,1, 98

everybody understand?

2

All right, let's move on to Paragraph VII. We did

3 change this the last time and we agreed on the present version.

4

MR. JACKSON: Did you grapple with the question of

5 just putting the bill, would constitute a reading of the bill,

whether that would satisfy the reading of the bill?

MR. MCWHORTER: No we didn't because we got it just

read the title unless one-fourth of the members request. I

like the one-fourth but I will make the point that one-fourth

would allow a filibuster if they wanted it.

1i

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well as the law now requires it

1.2

(((~) r~c'E ~ ~V~
"'--_/ /

.'c:' we've got to re ad i t arlyhow. ;::
MR. MCWHORTER: We made a step forward and I don't

J4 ~ object to the one-fourth, that suits me fine, but it would

<:

1:

J') ,~

,', allow a filibuster.

i:

:0

It, '7".

a

SPEAKER MURPHY: Let's just make a first down this

L

~

J 7 .';i

time instead of a touchdown.

[K
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay, if there are no changes

19
in that, shall we move on to Paragraph VIII, consent calendar.

20
There was some question raised about this last time.

MR. MCWHORTER: I feel like we should discuss -- we're

talking about local legislation, but I don't know if we want

to close the door on a consent calendar on general legislation.

I just ask the question, not that I have any strong feelings

about it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: What is a special bill or
resolution? MR. MCWHORTER: Well it's one with local application.
,
MR. EDWARDS: It's ambiguous really. There's not any clear definition as to what it is.
MR. MCWHORTER: tihatthey meant, if you go back and look historically, it means apply to one -- like, who was it, Vincent Hamm, where they called those special where you shall cj not do something on Sunday. He made exceptions to hunting on 1U SWlday in two counties I believe. Would you call that a
,,
J: ~~ special?
'. . 1
MR. EDWARDS: He did that on a population basis I

MR. JACKSON: Historically they use the term 1, -:' special or pricate and at one time the General Assembly granted,

tl " divorces, granted -- did things that wouldn I t be classified 1~; LJ.l local government but they did dq something that was special,

private to a person, grant a franchise. In fact, the General

Assembly authorized you to practice law individually one time ~o I and that would be a special private act. But I researched

this and I can't find any court definition in the last 100

years on what a special bill and I think the term

)

, .'

SENATOR TYSINGER: Let's knock it out then.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It's not in the present
lC
Constitution.

}'._\ ( ,\

100

SPEAKER MURPHY: Wait, may I say just one thing

.2 please. "The General Assembly may provide by law for a

3 consent calendar of local and privileged resolutions."

4

MR. MCWHORTER: Instead of saying privileged

5

SPEAKER MURPHY: " ... local bills and resolutions."

6 I think we'd better just leave it " .. local bills and

" resolutions."

X

MR. MCWHORTER: How about instead of putting " .

l) local bills and resolutions.", not have the effect of law

!O or something like that.

I ! -L ,'"J.: ':"'

SPEAKER MURPHY: rrhey do have the effect of law.

(k~)\..".!~~~-' ~ ~~

J2 ~~ When I raise my county commissioner's salary from $18,000 to
$24,000 you better believe it has the effect of law.

\"--_//J

--,'

, [4:>-

MR. MCWHORTER: ~"le I re referring to resolutions only.

r,

<'(

L

1~ ~ You say special bills and resolutions, resolution could be a

'i:

,:::l

ct.

16 1a Constitutional amendment.

z

i,

<; r>:
:';'1

MR. JACKSON: How about " ... l oca l bills and

11" resolutions, or other matters not having the effect of law."

tl)

MR. MCWHORTER: Maybe I dDn't understand the gra~nar

20 of the thing. " . provide by law for a consent calendar for ;~,' local and special bills and resolutions."

"

SPEAKER MURPHY: We do have local resolutions, local

;
Constitutional amendments.

MR. MCWHORTER: You mean and special and local

resolutions, the local refers to resolutions.

SPEAKER MURPHY:

PAGE 101

_.. _---. __.._._.- . _._ .. .. _~--_

_.~._-~-------_._--_

..-..,

!

I think we ought to just stike

the words"or special" and leave it "consent calendar for local

I bills and resolutions." I think that's what it ought to read.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay, does everyone agree to

that?

MR. HILL: I just point out that in Article XI there

7 is mention of local and private acts as one of the three

categories of laws we have, local and private acts.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't know what a private act is.

1'1

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If everybody agrees, weill --

.z.J:

];

SPEAKER MURPHY: Why don't we just say "local bills

o,.

i2:; and local resolutions" where there won't be no doubt about it

?.
2: whatsoever.

MR. MCWtIORTER: I might be wrong about that, but I

~ don't want the resolutions to hang and not be --

;to ;:-.1
j (; '~'
l.'J

SPEAKER MURPHY: I want to satisfy my ticky brother

) ;;; of the Senate. He is my good friend and I admire him tremendou~ly.

MR. MCWHORTER: I could be wrong --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Ham, does that satisfy you,

'I because that's what we want to do.

~I

MR. MCWHORTER: I think it might be putting too

,-")
. many words but I'm just asking the question, whether the

resolution could be construed not to be local.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Hels my buddy.

MR. JACKSON: How about a bill or resolution with

j'\ ,(, 102

local application.

2

MR. MCWHORTER: It'd be better if you put it at

3 the end of it.

4

MR. EDWARDS: You intend for that to apply to local

5 Constitutional amendments?

6

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes. That's the reason I said

7 "local bills and local resolutions". You could say "local

S Constitutional--

MR. MCWHORTER: Wait now, we've got a conflict on

10 it, Constitutional amendments.
:...? I.
MR. EDWARDS: It worries me about that, we've got

this provision where this Board determines whether --

SPEAKER MURPHY: Don't y'all mess this thing up

14 r where y'all get us where we have to read local Constitutional



r

l~ amendments, that's all I don't want y'all to do.

.,,;j
~

..:'

]i) ~ w

MR. MCWHORTER: You don't have to read them but

c

T

<

17 ~ you got to have a roll call on them.

10

MR. EDWARDS: Don't you handle them all at one time

19 anyway?

:0

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes.

2i

MR. MCWHORTER: We can have a roll call.

MR. TIDWELL: A consent calendar is not a roll call,

that's what you're trying to get away from.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's exactly what I'm trying to do.

When you amend the Constitution you've got some requisites even

PAGE 103

if it's local or general.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I sure hope after \ve qet throtwh

3 rewriting this Constitution that local Constitutional amend-

4 I ments are few and far between.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Shall we agree then on the

G wording suggested, "local bills and local resolutions" or do

7 you want some other?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I like his language of "local

q bills and resolutions having local application."

1'.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: " having local application."

:;':1
7:
SPEAKER MURPHY: ..... of bills and resolutions having

MR. TIDWELL: That still doesn't solve it because

resolutions and local Constitutional amendments will have
< r.
15 ~ local application.

~

i{, -"

SPEAKER MURPHY: But you still have a special calendar

-

where you can vote on your local Constitutional amendments

by machine but you could still have a calendar --

MR. MCWHORTER: Wouldn't be consent though, we've .'1: got the word consent in there.

SPEAKER MURPHY: 1I provide by law . " for these

local calendars. This just says we can have them. Can't we

provide by law for local Constitutional amendments?

MR. MCWHORTER: If you knocked out resolutions, you

wouldn't be hurting anything except Constitutional amendments,

104 is that right, because there are no local resolutions, are

2 there? Are there any local resolutions?

3

MR. EDWARDS: As opposed to local Constitutional

4 amendments?

5

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes. Are there any local resolutsions?

That's what I posed earlier.

7

MR. HILL: What about when yalcommend somebody,

what's that?

MR. MCWHORTER: That's not local.

In

MR. EDWARDS: That's privileged.

Ii

MR. MCWHORTER: I asked that, I'm not sure, I don't

know of any local resolutions, do you, Jack, except
J
Constitutional amendments?

MR. ELLARD: I don't think of any, Ham.

MR. TIDWELL: To knock resolutions out seems to be

.:>
IG ~ a little bit better. ~ c,

17 ~;

MR. MCWHORTER:

If we leave it like it is, leave

l~ that word in there --

19

MR. EDWARDS: Let me ask you and Jack something.

2() Is consent calendar, is that something that's definite?

MR. MCWHORTER: No, no, we don't have -- local

legislation amounts to a consent calendar. Will you agree,

'-'3 Jack?

2.+

MR. ELLARD: Yes.

MR. EDWARDS: The effect of it --

PAGE 105

MR. MCWHORTER: But we do not have a provision for

) it.

3

MR. EDWARDS: What I'm getting at, is that a

4 phrase that we need to put in the Constitution? Just putting

5 I consent calendar in the Constitution sort of worries me.

y'all know better what you're talking about.

7

MR. MCWHORTER: Well the Speaker said he wanted

8 something on local legislation to allow us to do it a little

different maybe and that's the reason --

10

MR. EDWARDS: What I was asking Ham and Jack is,

if the phrase consent calendar is something definite or a

phrase that we ought to put in the Constitution. 'Theoretically

I know what a consent calendar is, people agree you just stick

,... it on there and nobody objects to it, but that's sort of a

'~

r

15 16

.:>
'..':z:-"".:>.'
az

nebulous term seems to me. I just wonder whether we ought to put it in the Constitution. I don't have any other



17 c'"o suggestions.

18

SPEAKER MURPHY: What we've started doing is we

19 make up a local calendar and vote on it all at one time.

20

MR. EDWARDS: Right.

21

MR. MCWHORTER: And its effect is a consent

22 calendar, but I share your --

23

MR. ELLARD: Would it be better if you just took out

24 the word "consent".

25

MR. EDWARDS: That might be better.

," _ _.

. ~__.

~ ---------------------------------------

1

1;\(;: 106

SENATOR TYSINGER: Just call it a local calendar?

MR. EDWARDS; Just call it a calendar.

SPEAKER MURPHY: "The General Assembly may provide

4 by law for a calendar of local bills and local resolutions."

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't think we need the word

(, "calendar", how about "for passage of" rather than "calendar",

how about that?

MR. EDWARDS: That's when you get into knocking out

the three readings and all that stuff. We talked about that

10 last time.

c'
Z
11 ...
'"

MR. MCWHORTER:

That's right.

I don't know.

Your apprehension is well taken, I'll tell you that.

MR. JACKSON: We can check to see if there are any

local resolutions except for Constitutional amendments. It

15 ~ seems like I've seen one or two. But if you want to defer ,: :;,
16 3 that question about resolutions, we could check to see if the ':'1

legislature does pass local resolutions.

[ii

MR. MCWHORTER: How are you going to check?

MR. JACKSON: There's an index in the back of the

20 each session's laws.

21

MR. MCWHORTER: You'd have to go all the way back.

I don't believe there has been any in modern times, I don't

say there couldn't have been.

What could you accomplish

by approving it, what could you do by resolution?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well, we approved the Panama Canal

'T _ . - - -...- _._~- - ..... - ... - --- ------.---------.------.---
by resolution.

------_ ..- - - - - - - -

_ .._-----

PAGE
_.. _------

_

.

_

-1-

-0-

-7_

.

_

-

,

MR. TIDWELL: Yes, sir, you could have a resolution

3 that proposed to raise the salary of the Sheriff of Bacon

4 County. If it passed then that would be a local resolution.

5

MR. MCWHORTER: You could put it in a bill as well.

6 I never understood what you put in a resolution and what you

put in a bill.

MR. JACKSON: Don't you have some joint study

') committees or city-county study committees by resolution?

IU

MR. MCWHORTER: We do, but they're not

SPEAKER MURPHY: Why don't we just say -- strike the

J -: :.; word "consent" there and put II local calendar" and say "The

;.~1. " ( !ll.

;:

' :(';) r!~I.1l0. ~-;General Assembly may provide by law for a calendar of

t

e :

~. local

legislation."

How about that, Frank?

<:

1:

15 ,.1

MR. EDWARDS:

-"

"~

It> ~ we've got.

e-

7.

I like that a lot better than what

,1 ':i;

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I do too. I like that. I find

no problem with that, so shall we accept that language.

I';

SPEAKER MURPHY: " of local legislation." That's

:0 all we're going to say, we ain't going to say bills or

,.
" resolutions, we're just going to say "The General Assembly

may provide by law for a calendar of local legislation." How

about that, Frank?

MR. EDWARDS: Well I'm getting picky now. I've been

hanging around Ham quite a bit these last few weeks.

108 MR. CLARKE: That's sort of bad on both of you,

3

SPEAKER MURPHY: What are you blushing about, Ham?

4I

MR. MCWHORTER: That was rough.

5

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Frank, can you look at it

MR. EDWARDS: As I say, this is sort of picky,

7 legislation normally means something that's passed. When we

..~ use the term we normally say proposed legislation. That might

<) be a little p.cky.

10

SPEAKER MURPHY: All right, let me -- wait a minute.

11

~
>:

"The

General

Assembly

may

provide

by

law

for

a

consider local

2

w

(~)r=' ~ SV

12 ~ legislation. "

\~/J

~' pick?

How about that?

Does that take care of your

14 .,. ....
,n <.

MR. EDWARDS: I'll think of something else.

r

15 Q '-:'

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That ought to take care of it,

.:(
,

j(,

.3 Mr.
a

Speaker,

so

with

that we'll

move

on

to

Paragraph

IX.

z

,-> r. l:I

I

"L

MR. JACKSON: I've got the same question on local

or special bills. Should we do the same thing there?

19

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, we just said liThe General

20 Assembly may provide by law for a calendar to consider local

legislation."

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right, that's the way we

have it.

24

MR. JACKSON: No, I'm saying in the next paragraph

now, which says " . introduce local or special bills."

PAGE 109

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's just in the law, that's the

: law now, we've still got to have that.

MR. JACKSON: You want to drop the "special" since

4 we don't have special bills? MR. EDWARDS: We could strike out "or special".

SPEAKER MURPHY: All right, strike "or special."

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Paragraph IX we delete "or

R special". Everyone agrees? We move on to Paragraph X.

SPEAKER MURPIIT: That's been the law from the

10 beginning of time.

CJ

Z.

)1

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: And then we'll move on to

12 J Paragraph XI. I think these were just --

MR. MCWHORTER: We never have found out what a

rejected bill is, but I don't know how you can improve it.


r
,,~j
1(, '~'"" either.
Co)
1

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't know how to improve that

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mel, that's current usage, isn't

lK < it?

MR. HILL: Yes.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: All right, Paragraph XIII now is

21 our final item. It involves transferring the provision for the

1 ~. veto to this section of the Constitution from Article V.

',. !

Charles, do you have any thoughts or comments on

that one?

MR. TIDWELL: Where are we now?

:.~(; i': 110

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: On Paragraph XII, which does

2 not -- there is no -- this is simply transferring the veto

provisions from the present location in Article V to here.

4

MR. MCWHORTER: I want to make one comment.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: First of all, should we transfer

~ that from Article V?

I think the general consensus the last time was that

we should.

MR. JACKSON: Last night, the Executive l',rticle, the JO Governor's powers considered this and we recommend leaving a Ii statement that the Governor shall have the power to veto bills,

but then spelling out the provisions in the legislative article.

MR. HILL: In other words, leaving in the Executive

,~; Article under Governor's powers a reference to a veto power
<' t:
l' ~ and have all the specifics in here.
,~:

II

MR. TIDWELL: Where did y ' all meet last night, did

,', ,., a:
.:.:\ you meet somewhere that you could run off from me?

meet in Augusta?

MR. JACKSON: At some airport.

MR. HILL: In a dark room.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think there ought to be a " provision in this veto thing, Charlie, and I have felt this for

years and years and years, that there ought to be a provision

that both bodies of the General Assembly want the Governor to

act on a bill while they're in session, they could by joint

PAGE III

resolution send it down to him, and if he didn't act on it

2 within ten days, it would stand, or something like that.

3

MR. MCWHORTER: I never thought the five days was

4 realistic.

5

SPEAKER MURPHY: I just think that during the session!

6 -- you know, we've run up on these things that we need to know'

7 what he's going to do and we ought to be able to -- joint,

both houses have some kind of majority, two-third, whatever
9 you want, ought to be able to send it to him within five days
10 and if he didn't act on it within -- I mean send it to him
""Z
II ,r,-, and if he didn't act on it in such a time it would become 0 w
1-' '"

MR. EDWARDS: Are you raising the point because the

i~ ~~ custom is ~o wait until the Governor calls for it?

"'r.

15 ,~

MR. MCWHORTER: That's what we do now.

MR. EDWARDS: I've always thought, and I'm not sure

whether Charlie still agrees with me or not, I've always

thought if the General Assembly passed a bill and they sent

it down to the Governor, that's it.

MR. MCWHORTER: Five days starts and I think five

days is too short.

SPEAKER MURPHY: But you got to get somebody down

there to sign for it and that's the problem. There's always

a question of proving you presented it.

MR. EDWARDS: Then you get into all the rigamarole.

112

If Jack takes a bill down there from the Clerk's Office, a

House bill that has been passed by both, takes it down there, 3 takes you with him, takes me with him, takes somebody else
,
't with him

MR. MCWHORTER: Wouldn't believe you, take somebody

b else.

MR. EDWARDS: It1s a matter of proof. You have

transmitted that bill to the Governor.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I've been trying to get rid of the
!O theory and get down to the actuality of it though. I remember
.1 7.
J j -. once with Governor Carter, we wanted him to act on a bill (~
badly, you know, when your Governor was with us, he wanted him

to act on it badly, they wouldn't accept it and there wasn't

~ a dadblamed thing we could do about it except go to court,
r:
1:
15 :~ you know.

J6 .f"...

MR. TIDWELL: Just from my own now, I'm not speaking

"L

<

17 ;i for the Governor, I think something like you are doing is

going to ward off some confrontations at some future time.

We've got it worked out now, you just don't send them, you 20 know, and that's fine but we do need to have it just very 2J limited application.

SPEAl(ER MURPHY: I agree.

"J.''

MR. TIDWELL: You know, we just can't handle them.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I understand that.

MR. TIDWELL: When y'all want something bad enough, to

some procedure --

PA--G--E-----1-1--3---1

SPEAKER MURPHY: To give us the right to override

.' his veto if he vetoes it like we did with Governor Carter, as

4 you know.

5

MR. TIDWELL: Like we say I'm going to throw the

(, bill down in the middle of the floor and it's going to lay

there forever. You know, that's the way we handle it now, we

k ' say we won't sign for it. So something might could b e worked

4 out to prevent that sort of confrontation from taking place.

10

SENATOR TYSINGER: Why don't we just have some

(J
1: '~- language drafted out to accomplish that.
:=>
.,':L
MR. HILL: There was some effort to do this in 1970.

I send each of you a copy of what they had done. Now I'm

not sure how much of this you would want to, you know, use,
",-

~5 ~ if any of it, but they did try to address this very problem ,_'J
"::> 10 ~I:", in 1970. So that might be a good place to start to look at it.
~l
z

1J. "I

i.,

MR. MCWHORTER: I remember the discussion on it, but

;~ I don't remember the final outcome of it. I feel like we're

1'1 in no-man' s land today.

2U

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Shall we ask then that a draft

.2l be fornlulated for consideration at our next meeting?

SENATOR TYSINGER: I so move.

,;

MR. MCWHORTER: Let me ask one other question while

we're here. The last sentence in that paragraph. I never

understood it. I know the reason for it, but I still don't

P, .\"\ \J," 114

know if I follow it, that you can't override one fourth year.

The reason for it is because he's not here to defent itself,

but if it's a bad veto, it's a bad veto.

SPEAKER MURPHY: That is the reason that I want some

special application to send the bill down, where if we feel

like he's going to veto something, if the General Assembly

feels two-thirds strongly enough about, we could get it down

to him and get it into law, that one man couldn't block the
q
will of the majority of the people of Georgia for twelve months.

MR. MCWHORTER: Charlie, do you think y'all got any

11

-
"':)

strong

feelings

about

that

last

sentence?

"-

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think, Charlie, a perfect example

of that would be some of the things that went on in Tennessee

14 : with that Governor up there.

<;

J:

15 C)
'X".

MR. TIDWELL: Since we're going to work and we're

::J

.16 ~~ maybe going to give up something here and you're going to have

to listen to all of this, it sounds like heresy. You. knmv, IX now the Governor can't veto Constitutional resolutions, and
j'i
I don't think that there's any chance of ever changing that

but let me point out one danger and that's local

'!

SPEAKER MURPHY: Therets nothing wrong with that as

far as I'm concerned.
,_)..'..
MR. TIDWELL: That's local Constitutional amendments.

Now let me tell you why I'm suggesting this. There is going
.~s
to come a day in this state if we continue to have local

PAGE 115

Constitutional amendments that every member of the General

Assembly is going to beg and wish that the Governor had the

authority to veto local Constitutional amendments because of .:,! the way they're handled. You don't know what's in a local

Constitutional amendment. In the last session, let me give

you an example, Ham knows this very well, there were a series

of local Constitutional amendments that authorized some local

jurisdictions to have a veto power over whether there would be

a hazardous waste disposal site located in that county. It

\,,1

was a hot political issue, they wanted it, it passed the House

'~.:'

1i

'-
~'"

and

got

in

the Senate before anybody knew what had happened.

4.1

12 ~; The implications of that were that if one Senator hadn't

agreed -- and it took a certain amount of courage, and also

\t ~ he wanted some other things -- he stopped that. If those -: T
15 ~~ had passed, there's no question but the local people would

::>

i. (~

"I) "I

~,
a

have

ratified

it

and

what

it

would

have

meant

to

the

state

is

<
17 i:
that we would, have been out of the one-stop permitting business.

The federal government would have come in and regulated that

type of thing and it would have brought to a halt the ability
20
of this very attractive thing that the Governor can sell

industry that Leonard Ledbetter is the only person you have to

see to get permitted here. This Governor and past Governors,

you know how he handles local bills, it doesn't make any

difference what is in there, if the legislators want him to

116

signs it and I think that's the way it ought to be done. I

think that any other Governor on a local Constitutional

amendment is going to feel the say way unless that local

4 Constitutional amendment has statewide implications, which

5 those did, and they were going to -- but they were about to

get on the Senate calendar and be voted on as a local

Constitutional amendment not affecting anybody.

I'll make one other statement. Even when you know

9 them and identify them, we thought we probably could explain

10 those on the floor if we had gotten into that position, but

1j sometimes you have these very, very long local Constitutional

,';0'~\ L~ ~ amendments and the insertion of one sentence can put in there

((~tJ) )~~_D ~ something that has statewide application and if the board that

\\->~~-.-:;/'j

'~

J.+ ,_ deals on these don't rule that it has to be voted on statewide ,r,

15 ~ it's going to pass and it's going to ruin us.

:,

16 i..,

I think I have made my case, but I know it's a change

C\

2.

<

17 ~: from what has always been the way, but someday you're going to

1R wish that a Governor could stop it if you pass one and not

19 know what you have passed.

20

MR. MCWHORTER: That local Constitutional amendment

21 gave a municipality down in one county some rights in another

))
county.
23

SPEAKER MURPHY: We passed some Constitutional

amendments -- to back up what you say -- two years ago that

gave the City of Atlantasome tax exemptions or something, I

PAGE 117 --------_._-- ----., don't know what it was but Marcus and them caught it. We

passed something to reverse that.

MR. TIDWELL: Those were local bills, they're

4 population bills, we didn't know they were in there.

5

MR. MC\~ORTER: That was tax on fuel.

MR. TIDWELL: It exempted their retirement system

benefits from the income tax and that has been corrected.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I knew something came up. These

Fulton County folks slipped something over on us.

10

SENATOR TYSINGER: Had a race track in there one

II

,-
0:

time,

didn't they?

Cl

"-

j' ~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

Mel, you can then consult with

Charles, the Speaker and others and prepare a draft for us

for consideration at our next meeting.

IS
',',.t.:

MR. MCWHORTER: I'm asking about that last sentence.

;:)

In ~OX> Charlie, you know what it does? Look at the last sentence on

CI
z.

~

17 :ii page 8 starting with "Provided, however .. "

18

CHAI&~ PARTHEMOS: Page 8?

19

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: "Provided, however .. "

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes.

-"

,.~ .t.

MR. TIDWELL: I think that's what it's there for

because the Governor --

MR. MCWHORTER: Won't be here to defend it.

MR. TIDWELL: Oppose that override.

!';\I;I-: 118

MR. MCWHORTER: I know the reason for it.

2

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is it in the current?

MR. TIDWELL: Yes.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Shall we then consider that in

) the draft, Ham, when we come up and consider the whole thing?

(, I don~ know that the subcommittee is prepared to take any

7 action on the veto provision at this particular time. MR. TIDWELL: That's just something you don't want

considered at all? If it is I'll just drop it.

10 "1:
! leit.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I've got no problems about considering

MR. TIDWELL: It's a definite infringement on what

has always been done before and I don't think any Governor

~ wants to do that except when --

n
<: 1:

J 5 .:>

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'm going to tell you, it's a heck

"0:
:l

i ..1
16 I- of a shock when the Governor's legal aide calls you and tells

e:.

Z
<
1 ; '"'rJ you that they have vetoed a local bill, a heck of a shock. I've

18 done had that happen to me once, heck of a shock. No reason

19 but he just didn't like it.

20

MR. TIDWELL: That was a long time ago though,

21 wasn't it?

22

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes, sir.

2.\

MR. TIDWELL: When I first came here the Governor

:'4 actually had someone looking at local bills and he was passing

on the wisdom of them but that day is gone.

------- ----- - -- --- -- -- ------ - - -

PAGE 119
------ - ------ ----------------------- - - - - - - - - ,

You know, we -- I tell you the way we handle it now,

2 we get all -- we hear from the local folks and of course that's

3 the local folks that want you to veto it because the members

4 of the General Assembly, the county commissioners suggested it.

5 We tell the Governor what they said, why they said it and he

o says what does the delegation want to do and I say they want

7 you to sign it and he says give me the bill and he signs it.

8 I think that's the way Governor Maddox did it.

9!

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I'd like to suggest that we

10 consider this as the first item on the agenda at our next

II ~ meeting. I think it will probably occupy a good bit of our :J
"'')~
.~~ time, since we have now decided to incorporate this into ours .
<. Mel, I hope you will have a draft that can be disseminated

I

~ among the members before. Frank?

<-: 1:

MR. EDWARDS: I was going to say this is a real long

"

'"::J

16 ~:0 section. It'd be nice if we could cut out a lot of it but to

Lz'

<:

''7
I'

d o ~:
'"

all

the

stuff

we've

been

talking

about

it might

have

to

ba

Ix a long one, I don't know. But I was hoping at one point we

IY could just chop out a whole bunch of it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I'm beginning to feel doubtful 2J as to how_ much we're going to be able to cut out of it, Frank.

MR. JACKSON: I'd like to raise for the committee,

at least for consideration, and this is something we talked

about last night, Mel. Some teachers teach Georgia government 2-' by having their kids read this Constitution, that's Georgia
_ _ .1

120 I' \( 'I'
. ' !',

government. This phrase "the revision of all bills", I know

historically that's what the veto is but revision means to

3 change and it doesn't change. I would suggest or at least

4 offer that you might consider that "The Governor shall. have

5 the power to veto all bills .... " I think it's a lot more

h understandable to kids.

7

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is something for Mel to

~ consider then.

l)

MR. CLARKE: Grown kids too.

10

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is there any further business

,;1 7,
11 : for this meeting? Mr. Speaker, do you --

~~

~

12 ~:

SPEAKER MURPHY:

~

~,

(((C)'0 ~~'~o ~ on this thing --

'~~;J)

v

I have had this thing redrafted

14 ,
>,n

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's on the matter of

<

T.

1,' .~ adjournment?

(2)

:':">

16 3

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yeah.

;, <:
17 ~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That would be Section IV,

subparagraph (b) of Paragraph I.

19

(Speaker Murphy handed a document to

2U

the members of the committee.)

21

SPEAKER MURPHY: Here's another one, I'm just

putting a couple of commas on here. Has everybody got one now?

(Brief pause.)

24

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'm waiting for the next tick now.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I'm sure there'll be one.

PAGE 121

MR. TIDWELL: I think I've got it, "adcptx" rather

2 than "adopiS'.

3

SPEAKER MURPHY: She couldn't read my writing I

" guess.

5

MR. TIDWELL:

'I

6 out of the way.

That's the tickiest of all the ticks

!

SPEAKER MURPHY: She couldn't read my writing,

x believe it or not, I've got it, it says adopt right there. I

9 ain't going to take blame for that.

10

By gosh if that don't spell it out, I don't believe

Can you beat that, Cindy?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is what we approved.

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, sir, I added "after being

14 .. submitted".

"

1:
15 ~,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

"after being submitted", yes.

::}

1() ~ a~ ,

SPEAKER MURPHY: I added that to it to take care of

1" :ii that --

IS

MR. MCWHORTER: That takes care of the objection that;

19 you could do it without the other house knowing about it.

20

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's right. I'm trying to take

21 care of your objections as fast as you raise them, Ham.

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't have but one left, Mr.

23 Speaker.

24

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well tell me what it is.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's the time that you do it one

PAC;: 122

minute before the

2

SPEAKER MURPHY: Aw, come on now, Ham, that's even

3 too ticky for the Senate.

4

MR. TIDWELL: There you just wouldn't adjourn, would

5 you, Ham? If they sent you an adjournment resolution and

you had to deal with it you would stay in session till you

could say well we're not going to accept it. They could send

it to you one minute beforehand, but if you have a light house

you'd just have to go out and find some Senators and bring

10 them in, or would you? Wouldn't that be the way

1I l-
,X
::>

MR. MCWHORTER: If it's submitted, if it's just a

~, i 2 :;: message over there and the message is to less than a quorum,
~r"" ~ of course, that part doesn't bother me, less than a quorum,

14 but it couldn't the way it's worded.

U

SPEAKER MURPHY: You understand, don't you, Hamilton,

;).:

.0>

16 c'u that this is a two-way street. You could send it to me that

l"

17 '" way too.

18

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes, sir.

19

SPEAKER MURPHY; The Senate does, don't you.

MR. MCWHORTER: I think it ought be a two-way street. 21 I think Frank said it pretty well, it's one house and the 22 , Governor against the other.

MR. HILL: If it originates in the House, it's not
24 submitted to the House, is it?
2:)
SPEAKER MURPHY: I tried to take care of his amendments

to it and everything else.

PAGE
-- -- -~-----

1--2-3----,

I

MR. MCWHORTER: There was too many for you.

SPEAKER MURPHY: You did have some numerous ticks.

:+

Frank, what's your objection?

MR. EDWARDS: I was just trying to think of another

h thing for submitted, you couldn't say acted upon because if

you said that, that would mean the house to which it was

k transmitted could just hold it and you never would get anything.

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's right.

10

MR. TIDWELL: That's right. What does it actually

t 11 mean, does it really mean the transmission of a message in a

12:>-,-'

\ ,- 'VR

bill,

('Y~~'<{
\(~,.,rh,-- J~\)i)),c-..-",,-'o

;'.,'

is

that what you're SPEAKER MURPHY:

talking about? To him.

~:=-:/ '/ ..

:', >-<

MR. MCWHORTER: I think submitted would mean the

'<

1~ .~. message, if you ask me, wouldn't it?

.c<

::>

16 ~ ~ I"':' z:

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's right.

17

<
,~

MR. TIDWELL: If they're not there, you can't submit

it, that's right.

1':

SPEAKER MURPHY: That is correct.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a new version then of

this --

SPEAKER MURPHY: If Ham wants to wait till next time

to --

MR. MCWHORTER: No, there's no reason to as far as

I'm concerned.

)'.\\;1: 124

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Shall we then act on this,

Mr. Speaker? Do you want to move the adoption of this?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'll move it and you second it. ...I I move it.

MR. MCw~ORTER: I second i t .

Ct~IRMAN PARTHEMOS: You heard the motion and the

motion has been seconded. Are you ready for the questi::m? As

many as are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

(Ayes. )
In
CHAIRI~ PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.
1,
(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the

motion is carried.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Frank voted no, he wants to be on

] , ,~,
,"' the record.
'"')'

MR. EDWARDS:

i -, .<:;.

MR. CLARKE:

I don't have a vote, I just talk. This has truly become the Murphy-

McWhorter section.
i'-I
MR. EDWARDS: The Speaker is never going to let you
20
get out of that second, he's got you now. "
MR. MCWHORTER: He usually has me.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is there any further business

to come before the committee.

Before we adjourn, I should like for us to establish

a time for our next meeting, but I think it is important that

PAGE 125

we meet at a time when the Lieutenant Governor can meet with

us.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I withdraw my objection to ten

o'clock meetings since I was late this morning.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That.' s all right.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I got caught in my law office and

I just had to walk out on some folks after awhile, I said I've

got to go, I can't see nobody else.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's all right, I almost

I() got caught in the traffic this morning.
,J

i(
:,

Shall we meet one day ne~t week? We are beginning

:'l".:

,) to press hard on our deadline and Harold is here and I have

1:
.' asked him for some little reprieve

MR. EDWARDS: ; :..:, :~l' for next Thursday.

We already had one originally scheduled

SENATOR TYSINGER: I had next Tuesday and Thursday

marked.
l \' "

CHAI~~N PARTHEMOS: I can meet next Thursday or

Tuesday -- Tuesday or Thursday of next week.
,!
SPEAKER MURPHY: I can't meet next Tuesday.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I would hope that we can arrange

for the Lieutenant Governor to meet with us.

Members of the committee, in order to help expedite
_-i
our work, I would hope that between now and our next meeting

we will all try to find time to give special thought to two, it

i'

126

seems to me, major provisions for us to act on, and that is the

veto plus the status of the Lieutenant Governor and the matter

of the President Pro Tempore. If we can get those three issues

4 resolved, I think we can move then quickly to complete our

~ work and submit our report to the full comnlittee.

SENATOR TYSINGER: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact

that the Lieutenant Governor might not be here next Thursday,

let's just submit it to him and he can send us his comments

9 down.
Ii)

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's the only day next week I'm

going to be able to meet, Thursday.

CHAIR}ffiN PARTHEMOS: Next Thursday, 9:30 or 10?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Whatever you say, Doctor.

.-.--

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I can be here at 9:30.

1""

SPEAKER MURPHY: Whatever you say, you've been at

my pleasure for two weeks, I'm going to be at yours now.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well 9:30 will be all right.

I' Nine thirty next Thursday.

I'}

MR. MCWHORTER: What date of the month is that?

::.1

MR. HILL: The 18th.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I have just learned that the

Lieutenant Governor cannot meet next Thursday with us.

SENATOR TYSINGER: But can he go ahead and give us

his comments and we can go ahead and act.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Could we ask that he give us

. -.-------.- rr---.---.-.-~----. -.---~----.-

il his written comments and reactions to

Ii

2 :i

SPEAKER MURPHY: To Robin Harris.

PAGE 127

! CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Ask if he could prepare some

4 comments for us in reaction to Mr. Harris' letter. I would

hope then that we can take care of the veto matter and the

other matters and hopefully we'll get some response from the

7 Lieutenant Governor on this, to take care of this.

8

If we could do that, Harold, we can move ahead and

perhaps corne close to meeting our deadline.

10

MR. CLARKE: Well let's see where we are and if

11 ,: it comes out that we've got to do something else, we'll do

o

a-

u,

,~?Y11~~

]2 ~ what we have to.
u.

:i<~i/(:""i"I~:'-"-/.\)'\Ii~r~/"~;~ :zu:.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Next week after our meeting

}1 ~ we'll take stock and see just where we are and what remains

<
.::

I) ~ to be done so that maybe we can for completion of our work.

,:);
:.

16 Q~

MR. EDWARDS: Does that mean Ham can't go to LSU?

:z.

<

17 '1

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I'm sorry but Ham really should

]~ stay horne next weekend.

19

MR. CLARKE: I'm going to call you and tell you

20 about it after it's over.

_)"I

(Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at

))
12:52 p.m.)

23

C E R T I F I CAT E

1i:.\. ~ Ii.'

128

I, Peggy J. Warren, eVR-CM, CCR No. A-l?l, do 4 hereby certify that the foregoing 127 pages of transcript
represent a true and accurate record of the events which transpired at the time and place set out above.

()
10
':.
L
i; ~.
'r (.'I a,

,, "
IX
))
. '. ~ ,',l

INDEX Committee to Revise Article III Subcommittee Meeting Held On Oct. 11, 1979

I
j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ORGANIZATION, STRUCTURE, AND PROCEDURE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 10-11-79

SECTION II: COMPOSITION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY Paragraph I: Senate and House of Representatives. pp. 5-10 Paragraph II: Apportionment of General Assembly. pp. 4-5 Paragraph III: Qualifications of members of General Assembly. Paragraph IV: Disqualifications. pp. 15-29 Paragraph V: Election and term of members. p. 29

pp. 10-15

SECTION III: OFFICERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Paragraph I(b): President Pro Tempore of ~he Senate. pp. 30-36 Paragraph II: Speaker and Speaker Pro Tempore of the House of Representa-
tives. pp. 36-40
Paragraph III: Other officers of the two Houses. p. 40

SECTION IV: ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Paragraph I: Meeting, time limit, and adjournment. pp. 40-66, 120-124 Paragraph II: Oath of members. pp. 66-68 Paragraph III: Quorum. pp. 68-73 Paragraph IV:' Rules of procedure; employees; interim committees. pp. 73-78 Paragraph V: Vacancies. pp. 78-81 Paragraph VI: Salaries. pp. 81-82 Paragraph VII: Election and returns; disorderly conduct. p. 82 Paragraph VIII: Contempts, how punished. p. 82 Paragraph IX: Privilege of members. pp. 82-88 Paragraph X: Elections by either House. pp. 88-91

SECTION V: ENACTMENT OF LAWS Paragraph I: Journals and laws.

p. 91

Subcommittee on Organization, Structure, etc. 10- 11- 7 9 Page 2
Paragraph II: Bills for revenue. pp. 91-92 Paragraph I I I: One subject matter expressed. p. 92 Paragraph IV: Statutes and sections of Code, how amended. p. 92 Paragraph V: Majority of members to pass bill. p. 93 Paragraph VI: When roll-call vote taken. pp. 93-97 Paragraph VII: Reading of general bills. p. 98 Paragraph VIII: Procedure for considering local legislation. pp. 98-108 Paragraph IX: Advertisement of notice to introduce local legislation.
pp. 108-109 Paragraph X: Acts signed. p. 109 Paragraph XII: Rejected bills. p. 109 Paragraph XIII: Approval, veto, and override of veto of bills and
resolutions. pp. 109-120

BEFORE THE LEGISLATIVE ARTICLE COMMITTEE ARTICLE III
"DROAD POWERS" SUBCOHHITTEE

The transcript of the proceedings heard before MR. TIMOTHY J. SHEENEY, Subcommittee Chainnan, commencing at 12:30 o'clock p.m., Friday, October 12, 1979, in Room 401-A, State Capitol Building, Atlanta Georgia.
-000-

I I
---_._.-----I

BHANDENBlJl{(; & I lAST)'

\ULN 1lfIC K.I;PURTINC

I

3715 COLONL'L 11("/1, I)()ll(,L!\\VILlI', CH)RCIA jOU~

I
I

<)-12-0482

DEPOSITIONS - ARI)IIRAIIUNS . CONVLNTlONS - CONFERENCES

I

i

L-



_

_ _ _J

j
j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

2 SU13COlv1HI'l'TE rmUDERS PRESENT:
MR. TIMOTHY J. SWEENEY, Chairman SENATOR H. I'ARKS URChiN HR. DALE CLARK DR. CHARLES B. PYLES
as. BARBA,RA RysrrROM
OTHERS PRESENT: HR. HAROLD G. CLARKE, Committee Chairman HS. VICKIE GRBENBERG rm. HICBAEL HENRY
1m. M};;LVIH HILL
1'1S. CYH'l'IlIA NONIDEZ HR. CHAIU,ES 'l'IDHELL
-000-

I
j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j
J

.L

3

PRO C E E 0 I N G S CHAIRf'.1AN SHEEin.;y:
Why don't we get started and take up the easiest things first? Go back to the impeachments article, which is on tile last page of the draft that I've run. I think that's ...,hat we talked about last time, except when I was going through it, I saw from other state constitutions a provision that's contained in brackets in the language that I have suggested. I didn't know whether you all wanted to think about adding that or not, which \-/Quld permit the General Assembly to sUbject other public officers to impeachment. HS. RYSTROH.:
A jurisdiction smaller than the entire State?
HR. CLARKE:
Those offices exist because the General Assembly -'l'nE ClIAIlU1l\N:
Creates them.
rom. CLAlUm:
creates them, and if the General ASSE'.mbly has the right to create them, they might also have the responsibility to regulate to some extent. now, you may run into sowe problems with, for instance, the municipal a~sociations, some people in that sort of thing. THI~ CHAlmli\U:

Yes. HR. CLARKE:
Charlie, do you foreseE, any practical problems when you get down to talking about passaqe in the General AssemLly and ratification, broadening that in that way? HR. rrID\vELL:
I wouldn't think so, Harold. Ohere is that language? I can't see it.
'rIlI; Ctu\IRHAN:
'rhe next to last page. Hr. Clark, do you have any thoughts on that? HR. CLARK:
I \'lOul<i support it simply because ir,1peachment, (wen the idea of impeachment would result only from something very drastic and obviously drastic, and if you didn't have a vehicle for it in a municipality or if a city council didn't have impeachment or if the people themselves had no recourse, this is necessary or useful.
THI..: CllAIlU1AN:
Senator?
SEll. BROHN:
It suits me fine. DR. PYLE~:
Does this mean that the General Assembly could by law include a variety of other pc-apIa or take them out?

5
THE CIIAIHHAN: Sure. Yes, it does.
DR. PYLES: Is there anyone already under the law to whom this
would apply? 'lI'HE ClIAIRHAN:
No. \"/ell, the present Constitution simply deals with MS. f<.YS'rROH:
It says, "All persons who shall have been or may be in office." It's so vague. HR. CLAIm:
An illustration "/Quld be a sheriff.
THE Clu"\.IIU'lAH:
Sure. I don't think we've ever had a construction of the first paragraph of Section 6 to determine to whom it: does extend.
MS. RYSTHOM:
I don't like the idea of extending it or extending the possibility, offering the possibility of extending it:. It just seems to me that it isn't necessary. HR. HILL:
Plus -- I'm sorry.
HS. HYS?ROH:
I was goineJ to say if they ever got the recall law

6 straightened out, then that. will always be an option for any elected officer as I understand it, and that would be a more reasonable thing, and just the opportunities for the Legislature to put a category in because so and so has been in the news in one way or another, I don't see any impeachments actually occurring, but we're talking not only about attempting to impeach someone, but also then the legislation including people in the category of
impeachables, and it just doesn't seem to me \'lise. MR. HILL:
I was going to mention about the recall provisions as well and then to say, you know, the strong hone rule tradition we have in the State as well as strong local interests in the local officials. I think the local people would prefer to have it handled locally, and I think to extend this with this addition and open the door to sheriffs or city or county managers or officers of city and COWlty government, I think this really might open up a lot of problems you really don't want to do.
Now, I had another question. He had nore or less agreed to say, "Any Executive or Judicial" as opposed to "Any public office.r." You liked the specificity of "Execucive or Judicial" better. IviS. RYSTROH:
I did, but I wrote do\~ so many different things,

and someone suggested another one, and I would scratch out the one I had. I think the last one we had talked about was "elected officers of the Executive and Judicial Branches." Isn't that the way we talked? Is that what you put? DR. PYLES:
I think that would conform more nearly to the intent of why we have impeachment in terms of just a check and balance, and I think that's why we wanted to leava any censure or whatever in the Legislature, to 't.hat body to handle it in its own affairs. THE CILl\IRHAH:
Well, is it the consensus that we should leave out the matter in brackets? HS. RYSTROM:
You've got really conflicting opinions. HR. TIDHELL:
It might open up a door to shirk local responsibility. That's a hot political issue on whether he should be removed from office. They would try and get the General Assembly to handle it through impeachment. It's probably not worthy of their consideration when there are other adequate remedies. DR. PYLBS:
Let me ask a question. As a technical matter, is a

8
sheriff considered in the Judiciary Branch as a law enforcement officer? THE CHAIRHAH:
He's somewhat anomo1ous. lIe's a county officer. DR. PYLES:
Yeah. THE CHAIRHAH:
And if you had to classify county officers, I'd say he would be an Executive Officer and not Judicial. DR. PYLES:
Hell, in that case he may already be covered. Executive Officers.
MR. TIDWELL:
lie's an officer \'1hen he's serving papers. THE CHAIRI1AN:
He has a mixed function, you know. DR. PYLES:
Yeah. THE CHAIRHAN:
He serves the court, but he also has law enforcement powers.
MR. CLARK:
He opens court.
1:'1S. RYSTRO!-1:
It [.light be really instructive to go through a list

(,j

9

of categories of office holders, whatever, and ask ourselves \lhether they are included or not and how do we feel about it. MR. DALE:
District attorneys? THE CHAIRMAN:
District attorney is a State officer. DR. PYLES:
He is? The District attorney? THE ClIAIID1AN:
Yeah. I think the latest decision, he is a member of the Judicial Branch. MR. CLARKE:
Is that right? THE CHAIRMAN:
Isn't that right? Coming out of Augusta? MR. CLARKE:
I'm not sure. THE CHAlmiAN:
He has mixed functions too. MR. CLARKE:
He certainly is subject to impeachment proceedings under the current Constitution because I have seen one of those.

10 THE CHAlffiiAN:
Have you? MR. CLARKE:
Yeah. THE CHAI RMAN :
Essentially what you're talking about with all state elected officers, Governor, Public Service Commission, secretary of State, Attorney General, Comptroller General, all the State Judicial officers, which goes all the way down to everybody except the ordinary. I'm not sure the Ordinary is considered a State officer. MR. CLARKE:
I think he's a county officer. THE CHAIRMAN:
Yeah. County officer. And then all the department heads. MR. DALE:
Well, people like sheriffs and district attorneys are covered? MR. CLARKE:
No. Sheriffs would not be covered, but district attorneys would. District attorneys are employed by the State. They're elected locally, but they're employed by the State. They're paid by the State, with some local

supplements in certain instances. They're there for the purpose of acting in a State Court, Superior Court of course is a State Court, to prosecute and whatever, the State laws. So they are clearly State officers. SEN. BROWU:
That doesn't include State Court Judges. They're not paid by the State. They're paid by the District. MR. CLARKE:
I think a lot of that might depend on what they end up doing with the Judicial Article of the Constitution really, but State Court Judges, even though they're paid by the county, are part of the State Judicial System in that they try State offenses on the criminal end and try cases involving State law.
\
MR. CLARK: Well, tell me this. In the absence, are there any
elected officialS,. county or city level that are unimpeachable now under the present laws or Constitution, except for the recall, which is a heavy, cumbersome type of thing? MR. CLARKE:
As I understand it, all of the local officials are immune from impeachment by the General Assembly at the present time. Isn't that right? MR. CLARK:

12 By the General Assembly?
MR. CLARKE:
They cannot be impeached.
MS. RYSTROM:
Tim said it really hasn't been tested. MR. HILL:
I think that's the understanding, that they're not, but, you know, you could read this so broadly that maybe so. MR. TIDWELL:
The literal language says anybody that's in office.
MR. CLARK:
And such other public officers as may be subject to impeachment by law is a very broad statement, but it seems to me in the absence of any other article for impeachment, it should be covered somewhere. That's my own basic argument of keeping it simple and narrow as we can.
MS. RYSTROH:
\'le have the recall law. It's just it's under a good bit of discussion right now because it looks like it's not only hard to use, as everyone thought it is, but even harder, because of the voter registration list problem, but it isn't a~ if it doesn't exist. We're not talking about any categories that don't fall under

13 that, under recall. assuming we had an approved recall or understandable one, are we? HR. CLARK:
Well, I see just in certain conversations, I see recall and impeachment as two things a long way apart because recall can have to do entirely with political reasons. You don't agree with what the officer is doing, so you try to recall him. But impeachment is seeking to convict somebody of wrongdoing and removing him for that reason. I don't know that they're the same thing. MS. RYSTOOH:
It's certainly not inconceivable though for impeachment charges to be brought against somebody for political reasons. HR. CLARKE:
Oh, sure. MR. HILL:
Maybe this is why it's not real clarified to where it is, you know. Mabe if we just said, "Against all public officers of this State" and then let the -- we're sure under this language it does cover Executive and
I
Judicial. We're not sure about these other people, but sometimes clarity can be --
HS. RYSTROH:
I was arguing before for clarity so that if I got

14 mad at someone and wanted to know whether I could call someone up and say, "This guy has got to be impeached," that I could look in the Constitution and determine whether or not that office -- not that that was likely was subject to impeachment. Perhaps though that's not such a good argument. MR. CLARK:
I guess my basio feeling is that impeachment would be such a drastic move that it would be in response to a real malfeasance or violation of some kind and there ought to be some instrument in our law or Constitution that provides for the impeachment of a local officer. Except for recall, there's no home rule remedy for this. So that's why I support the statement in the brackets. THE CHAIRMAN:
Vnlat my thought was, suppose -- and I don't want to step on anybody's toes, but suppose you have a situation like Long County,Ludowici, where in essence the system gets so infected with corruption a recall just wouldn't work, and nobody is going to initiate it because they're afraid of the power structure, and we had that type of situation, which in essence isolates that county from the rest of the State, and there's nothing we can do about it. MS. RYSTROU:

I was concentrating more or less on accomplised impeaclunents. I still don't know how to use those words. And more about the possibility of many proposals that -- I mean maybe it's not that harmful to have that possibility, but I don't think any of us would expect to see very many people brought, impeachment charges brought against very many people. We would be hard to get even the votes we're talking about, but I somehow can picture just a heck of a lot of proposals. I mean it would be a wonderful way to make a very well heard statement about somebody, to propose that they be impeached, but I'm wavering, so if I'm the only one with that feeling, then I can back off.
MR. HENRY:
I think maybe you might consider also not the practical application of this section, but the deterrent that it serves to people who would otherwise be corrupt or attempt to be corrupt.
MR. HILL:
With this language we throw the ball to the General Assembly. It would not say that local officials are subject to impeachment. They would have to take action to make it such. ~)o we may not have accomplished -- if you want to allow it, we may not have accomplished it by this, but at least you've authorized the General Assembly

16 to do so if they so choose. HS. RYSTROH:
They might be very unwilling to do so in view of the home rule sentiment you described. HR. CLARKE:
Philosophically I'd still have to sort of restate what I did a moment ago, that if the General Assembly is going to create offices and then not have any right. to regulate them, that presents sort of an incongruous situation. DR. PYLES:
If the General Assembly created them, however, then would they not be considered officers of the State?
MR. CLARKE:
No. DR. PYLES:
They would not?
MR. CLARKE:
I don't think so. They created the office of Bayor of Ludowici, and I don't think you could say -HR. HILL:
of course they do have the power to revoke Ludowici's charter.
MR. CLARKE:
Yeah.

17
MR. HILL: And there goes the office of Mayor. So the General
Assembly does have the right to abolish local government. DH. PYLES:
It could abolish Atlanta. MR. CLARK:
And sometimes -MR. CLARKE:
Charlie has been down that road. HR. HILL:
And Tim, in the other Committees when there's been a disagreement, theY just had to have a motion and a second. TIlE CIIAIRHAN:
That's what I was going to ask for. Is there a motion? MR. CLARK:
I move that the bracket statement be included. THE CHAIRMAN:
Is there a second? (lJo response)
The motion dies for lack of second. DR. PYLES:
Do you need a motion to phrase it a different way, positive, or does it pass then as it is without the

18 brackets? THE CHAIRMAU:
\'lhat's your concept? DR. PYLES:
I was just going to move that we pass it or approve it without the brackets. THE CHAIRMAN:
No. I think we've already done that. DR. PYLES:
Okay. Okay. MR. HILL:
And it should say, "The House of Representatives shall have the sole power." DR. PYLES:
Yeah. ."Shall" is not in there. MR. HILL:
" -- to vote impeachment charges against any Executive." Should it say "all Executive or Judicial Officers of this State"? An editorial. DR. PYLES:
vlould they interpret II all" to mean that they would have to do it all at the same time? THE CHAIRHAN:
The other thing we discussed at the last meeting was the emergency powers. Tha~ was in paragraph three.

19 MR. HENRY:
Tim? TIlE CHAIRMAN:
Yeah? One of the other editorial changes we have and I'm going to leave this to Mel as to whether the matter in brackets at the end of paragraph two of impeachments ought to go here. MR. CLARKE:
I think we have pretty well decided that's in the other. MR. HILL:
That's moved in the other. 11R. CLAHKE:
So it will be treated in the same way, but it will just be in the other section. MR. HENRY:
I think in this you took paragraph three from the 170 proposal.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Right. MR. HENRY:
Yes. THE CllAI Rl'1AN :
The other article we considered last time was the emergency powers, which is now paragraph three. The one

20
thing I wasn't sure whether we resolved it last time around relates to the matter in brackets, "or environmental catastrophe," whether we dealt with that last time sufficiently to get it resolved on whether we wanted to include that language or leave it out.
MR. CLARK:
I'm in favor of leaving it in.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Leaving it in.
MS. RYSTROH:
Somebody said last time that if we omitted it that it would still -- there were all sorts of emergency powers that came into play and that's sort of an emergency. Is that not right? Not a nuclear disaster or something. I can't remember whether we felt that by leaving it in, there were additional things. THE CHAI Rl-1AN :
Well, State government would operate differently under that type of emergency, but it would not have the power to recall the members of the General Assembly to session.
MS. m!'SWROM:
And that would be the case if we did not include this?
TIlE CHAIRHAN:

21 Yes. 1-1S. RYSTROM: In that case, I agree with Dale. THE CHAIRMAN: I'll make Dale's comment a motion and yours a second. Is there any discussion? MR. HILL: Could you rostate the motion again? THE CHAIRMAN: To include the matter in brackets. MR. HILL: Environmental catastrophe? MR. CLARK: Yes. DR. PYLES: Where is that? MR. HILL: That is on the second page under paragraph III. MR. TIDWELL: What's envisioned by that? What is an environmental catastrophe?
MR. CLARK:
Earthquake is what I was talking about, what first came to mind. MR. TIDWELL:

22 Is that an environmental catastrophe? MS. RYSTROM : Natural catastrophe I suppose it is rather than environmental catastrophe. I was thinking of nuclear power plants. MR. CLAro<E: Hell, it would be catastrophic to our environment. It depends on the way you look at it, the phrase. MR. TIDWELL: When you say environmental catastrophe, what I was thinking of was some hazardous waste. SEN. HROvlN: Like Three Mile Island. DR. PYLES: May I ask a question? Paragraph III, the very top, about the fourth line, "shall have the present power." What does "present" mean? THE CHAIRMAN: Hell, last time we were discussing this article, there was some concern as to whether or not the existing language articulated the concept. What this article does is give the General Assembly the present power to enact a law to take care of a future contingency rather than the language relating to the General Assembly acting in the event that contingency occurred, you know. It's

23 power to enact such legislation would only occur upon that contingency, a natural catastrophe occurring. So that "present power and duty," those words were added to convey tile. idea that the time to enact the statute is now, not later. DR. PYLES:
I guess I was reading it as though it meant the present inherent powers. They have all powers that are not excluded.
MR. HILL:
If we just -- I'm sorry. MR. CLARKE:
I was just going to ask, Charlie, what we presently have in the way of legislation and valid policies for dealing with problems arising from natural or unnatural catastrophes.
HR. ,TIDWELL:
They are fairly comprehensive. I haven't read them all because they're about that thick. MR. CLARKE:
But are they adequate to handle our problems?
MR. Tlm'lELL:
Our civil defense. That's what we have to promulgate them under, the civil defense provisions pf State and federal law, and they have to be approved by the Feds, and

24
they have been approved, and so they attempt to deal with all contingencies and assign various responsibilities to State agencies to react and take over and operate communication systems when the telephone company is unable to, and my understanding is that it's fairly complete.
MR. CLARKE:
I have a little problem in my mind of granting these rights to, for instance, suspend all constitutional legislative rules and so on, unless you've got a catastrophe that's absolutely state-wide, and it seems to me that most environmental catastrophes are. Natural catastrophes would be localized, and if somehow or another the State government of Georgia could function without having to suspend all of the constitutional restraints that may be on it -- and I think they should be suspended very cautiously.
MR. CLARK:
What instigates or what implements the laws, the comprehensive laws that are on the books?
MR. TIDWELL:
The Governor declares them.
MR. CLARK:
Under constitutional authority?
THE CHAIRMAN:

Yeah.
MR. CLARK:
Then do we need this at all? THE CHAI,RMAN:
Well, the only situation in which You need this is, as Harold says, if the catastrophe is of such significance that you cannot call the General Assembly into session, and that's a fairly huge environmental or natural catastrophe that would prevent you from calling the majority of the members of the General Assembly into session.
MR. CLARK:
My confusion I think is is it constitutional authority for the Governor to invoke all of these laws? If he has it, if the Governor inherently has it, why do we need any of the emergency powers in the Constitution? THE CHAIRHAU:
Well, see, even in the natural disaster situation, the Governor cannot suspend the Constitution. I mean he has to operate within the framework of the law, and if, for example, he wanted to call the General Assembly into session, he would still have to have a majority show up in order to act, but it doesn't preclude him from doing certain things during the course of the emergency.
MR. CLARK:.

26
But he does this only under enemy attack? THE CllAI RMAN :
This relates, this provision relates solely to enemy attack, and it authorizes the General Assembly to provide for the suspension of the Constitution as it relates to enacting legislation. t-1R. TIDWELL:
My answer, that the Governor triggered this, was to the civil defense disasters, not to this. I haven't read our present statutes. Probably -- I don't know what triggers it. Mike, you looked at it.
HR. HENRY:
There are certain definitions in there that if -MR. TIDWELL:
These things happen.
MR. HENRY:
If it comeetrue, then the Governor can exercise his powers that are granted in the legislation, pursuant to this. It would seem to me that the environmental catastrophe would, like you said, be covered under the civil Defense Act. That was my impression. I could foresee maybe something, an environmental catastrophe here on the hill when the Legislature was in session where it just, you know, destroyed the Capitol while everybody was in here or something, where you might need

27
something like that, but I would think that would be covered under the Civil Defense Act. MR. CLARK:
Did I move that we adopt it? THE CHAIRMAN:
Yes, you did. MR. CLARK:
It was seconded?
'I'llE CllAIR1'Wi:
Yes. MR. CLARK:
I reverse my position on this whole thing and the form of this. If it isn't needed, don't put it in. Don't put any words in that aren't needed, or, you know, if it's covered someplace else, don't burden the Constitution with it. THE CHAIRMAN:
It's hard for me to foresee, as Harold said, a natural disaster that's going to require the suspension of the Constitution. That's essentially what we're talking about. DR. PYLES:
ar. Chairman, may I offer an amendment? THI: CHAI ill-1AU :
Sure.

28 DR. PYLES:
I move we strike the \'lords "have the present power and duty to" and in paragraph one just state that they shall provide by law. Does that not suggest the language we're using here that refers to the phrasing in terms of the contingency powers of the Legislature? Does not "shall" connote that they're mandated to do it, which they have done? I offer that as an amendment. Dale, to your motion. MR. TIm'lELL:
That word "present" may have been in there because, if I r~aember the present constitutional provision, they were attempting to breathe validity into something that they had already done. If I remember it right, they ratified what supposedly had been done already by statute. That may have some significance on why they used that "present. " I don't know. MS. RYSTROM:
I think the drafters put t~at in. What it presently says is, "shall have the power and the immediate duty," and you felt means "present"? MR. CLARKE:
I've got a little problem with the structure of the thing too. If you just read it as it is now, "shall have the present power and duty to provide by law: to

provide for the manner." That doesn't exactly make sense. THE CHAI RHAN :
No. That ought to be -- that "t-o_provide for" ought to be stricken. MR. HILL:
Or "to provide by law: (1) The manner in which -(2) The prompt and temporary succession, and (3) Such other matters" and then it would be consistent.
MS. RYSTROM:
Something that maybe was said and I lost somewhere, Mike, did you say, for example, that there has been legislation created which would, for example, deal with the matters described in the third paragraph? MR. HENRY:
They're within the Civil Defense Acts. There are provisions in there dealing with the legislation relating to this here. I think that "shall have the present power and immediate duty," which was in the other one, they were trying to impress upon the Legislature, the people who ratified the amendment, that we want something now because of the situation that existed at that time, and then after -- now that that's law, you would think that you could merely say, "Shall provide by law." DR. PYLES:

30
That's my thinking. MR. HENRY:
I think they were just trying to impress the emergency they wanted, they wanted this right now. THE CHAIRMAN:
Hhile we're on the same subject, the subparagraph one is not in the existing Constitution, but we discussed how it was to be declared, to determine how an emergency was to be declared, and this just adds that the General Assembly shall by statute provide how the emergency is to be declared. DR. PYLES:
There is nothing in the Executive Article dealing with emergencies, that he has an inherent power to declare? THE CHAIRMAN:
I don't think so. MR. CLARKE:
If the General Assembly is going to be authorized to do these other things, doesn't it just naturally follow that they're going to have the authority to say when
those things should be done? Again, r'm just looking at
sort of an economy of words. I don't have any objection to it. THE CHAIRMAN:

31 I think that in the comment to the amendment of this section we can make it clear that that's considered already in there now for any future construction of it.
HS. RYSTROM:
I think you're saying something different from the Governor having the right. DR. PYLES:
Then maybe provide for the President or surviving Executive officers or C~vernor by succession. HR. CLAlU<:E :
What this is saying is that the General Assembly may provide for the manner in which the emergency shall be declared. Well, if they're going to have the right to do these certain things in the event of an emergency, then certainly they must have the right to say whether or not an emergency exists, and I'm just saying I don't really think number one is necessary. HR. HILL:
But I wouldn't say who is going to say it. I think there is a need for some procedure. HR. CLARKE:
I think the General Assembly can say it. THE CHAIR11AH:
Hhat I think Harold is saying- is it's implicit in
it.

32 HR. CLARKE:
Yeah. But I don't have any big, feeling about it, except putting in some brevity. I guess our first issue is whether or not to leave the "or Gllvironmcntal catastrophe." \'ihy don't you take a vote on that and see what the Co~nittee thinks? TILL CHAIRr1AN:
He have a motion on the floor to include it. MR. CLiHU, :
Let me just restate my question. Hy understanding is you feel it's covered elsewhere. THE CHAIRHAH:
The pm'ler to deal with environmental catastrophes without: suspending the Constitution is already covered, but the power to suspend the Constitution is not provided for in the event of a natural disaster. DR. PYLES:
Do you suppose by any chance, would somebody construe a riot as a disaster to such an extent that Constitutional liberties and rights would be suspended? Now, I would be very concerned about that. THE ClIAIRl1AN:
No. This only relates to enemy attack. DR. PYLES:
An enemy attack?

THE CHAIH.HAN: Yeah.
MS. RYSTROM:
Or environmental -DR. PYLES:
That's why I'm asking. By any chance could you use the words "environmental" -- well, I was thinking about civil disturbances, insurrection, that kind of thing.
THE elIAl RMAN :
I don't think so. DR. PYLES:
You wouldn't want the right of habeas corpus in those kinds of things suspended.
THE ClllI.IHHAN:
I'm not sure if this authorizes the suspension of that.
MR. CLARKE:
No. This only deals with the suspension of all constitutional legislative rules. DR. PYLES:
Legislative rules, yeah.
MR. CLARKE:
And for example, reading a bill on three days and a constitutional majority for enacting an act. DR. PYLES:

34 I have no problem with that. THE CHAIRMAN: No problem with the motion? DR. PYLES: Envirollillental -- well, I did have just in tenns of language. If Dale would accept the amendment I offered, that's the only thing. I didn't know whether he was agreeable to that. MS. RYSTROM: I was wondering if we could take those two issues separately. Wouldn't it be a lot easier? DR. PYLES: Yeah. That's what I didn't know, procedurally how to get it in for economy of time. ~lS. RYSTROM: I'm just getting confused. I'd rather, if we could, just deal with them separately, not that I know still what I think about environmental catastrophe, but throwing in the question of whether we want to talk about present power and duty is more than I can deal with at one. time. Tim, I want to try to see if I understood correctly what you had said. The only reason we would want to include "environmental catastrophe," since it's generally already taken care of, is if we believe that we can

anticipate an environmental catastrophe that would interfere with the functioning of the Legislature. THE C1Il\I HHAN :
That's sUbstantially correct. MS. RYSTROM:
Then as you said, it would almost have to occur right here at the Capitol when the Legislature is in session to come into play.
!VIR. HElmy:
You would think so. MR. CLARKE:
Right. DR. PYLES:
Mr. Chairman, in that case I withdraw my amendment. Then we'll proceed with what I've talked about so we can separate the items and get a decision. MS. RYS'rROM:
I don't ~ind voting on the amendment as it is, but I think I'm not going to support the amendment despite the fact I seconded it. It's my right to change my mind. 'fHE ClU\IRNAU:
Hhy don't we take a vote? All in favor of the motion? MR. HILL:
The motion is to include "environmental catastrophe"?

36 THE CHAI RI1AN :
Yes. (Showing 0 f hands)
All opposed? (Showing of hands)
The motion fails. The language "shall have the present power and duty to provide by law," I don't have any qualms at all with simply providing "The General Assembly shall provide by la\'J." That's just an editorial change. DR. PYLES:
That is my motion, to make it formal. MS. RYSTROH:
Hy seconds are dangerous, but I'll second the motion.
MR. CLARKE:
Bless your heart. We saved a few words. DR. PYLES:
If we whittle away at it, we may get rid of it all. THE ClIAIill1l\.N:
All in favor? (Showing of hands)
The motion passes. The next one on paragraph one, is there a motion on that? DR. PYLES:

37 I offer a uotion so \'1e can dispense with it one way or t:.he other, to delete paragraph one. TIU; CII1\IHHAN: All right. Is there a second? MS. RYSTRO~1: Second. TIlE CII1\IRr1lm: All right. 1\11 in favor, raise their hands? (Showing of hands) The motion passes. MR. HILL: So paragraph one is not there? DR. PYLES: Delete. THE CHAIRMAN: Subparagraph one of Paragraph III. MS. RYSTROH: Right. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. How, let's take up what I have next, what I ~hink is the most difficult section, and that relates to gratuities, and it is my considered judgment that it's impossible to define gratuities in such a manner as to have any rationality to it. Paragraph VIII now deals with gratuities, essentially

38 a pWlt, and it provides that gratuitie;s may not be adopted unless it's ratified by the people in a referendUr.t, and essentially what we're takinq out, the problem -- we're leaving in the prohibition against gratuities, but we're taking out the matter of providing for exceptions in the Constitution, but still require it to go to the people for a vote, which is not going to clean up the ballot all that substantially, but at least it cleans out the Constitution, and we can say that we have followed Hr. Harris' suggestion. HR. HILL:
Hr. Chairman, this was sort of -- the three of us came up with this idea about conditioning approval on a referendum, but there's another possibility, and I don't know if we talked about this before or not, but that wO\lld be to condition it on a higher majority, two-thirds, three-quarters, Whatever of the General Assembly in order to have a law passed, and then at least you get away from having to have the people vote on each one of these.
So I guess there are two options. TilE CHAIRMAN:
Right.
HR. HENRY:
I think one material change you made in there miqht

,I

39

help eliminate some of the exceptions that we'll have to pass either by higher majority or the referendum, and that's the fact that you put "except pursuant to a general law serving the public purpose." I don't think there is anything in there about a public purpose. I think that's how the courts either say it's a gratuity or not, and I think this would give them broader or more room to construe the language in order to find a public

purpose. I mean I think they would be able to find it in more instances since it's specifically spelled out than they would since there's nothing in the present Constitution. MR. TIDWELL:
I think I remember you arguing to us, Tim, that

everything the General Assembly does is in the public purpose. THE CHAIRMAN:
I think I have argued that. MR. TIDWBLL:

But they don't enact or pass a law unless it is. THE CHAIRMAN:
Essentially, you know, what we're trying to deal with I think are two different concepts. Number one, I think it is probably imposed by the federal Constitution ~hat inherently I don't think anybody wants their tax

40 dollars taken for the personal benefit of somebody else. I think that's inherent in the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and everything there is inherent in this Constitution on due process and eminent domain, but you're dealing with a little bit broader context. You can have a very broad concept of what is a public purpose, which would authorize some of the things that are in here now. MR. CLARKE:
\vhat does this do to us? For instance, on the industry and trade provision of meals, lodging, whatever for industrial prospects, whatever that may be? In order to reinstitute now, we've got to go back and submit that to the people again? THE CHAIRMAU:
No. I contemplate that at the time it was submitted, there would be some language in the submission which would preserve the existing provisions as authority for the General Assembly to do that. MR. CLARKE:
Well, how are we going to do that then? THE CHAIRHAN:
Just say that the General Assembly has authority to implement paragraphs three through twelve. MR. CLARKE:

i

41

I do hate to see a Constitution with references

to some other docUment. No one knows what it means.

MS. RYSTROli:

Ha're going to have that problem with what to do

with what's already in there, regardless of the solutions we corne up with for the gratuities.

HR. CLARKE:

Hell, I think that one, for instance, is needed.

It's something you've got to have.

MS. RYS'rROH.:

And it's not part of what we're opposed to.

HR. CLARKI:.::

That's right.

MS. Hysrl'ROM:

We're opposed to gratuities.

MR. CLARKE:

And yet there is always the possibility that if that

had to be submitted to the people, that the people might

say, "Heck, I don't believe I want my tax dollars going

for that purpose."

MR. HILL:

Well, you know, in one of the other Article

Committees on Constitutional Boards and Authorities

there is discussion about having some of these boards

continue as statutory rather than as constitutional, and

4.2
there will have to Le a provision as to those that. are being carried forward, that they're being carried forward and what's here now shall continue and the statutory chahgeS will be in the General Assembly. There will have to be such a statement to the General Assembly and approval of that Article, and I foresaw we hTould have that same kind of thing here, that all those gratuities, all those provisions now are authorized by law or by the Constitution are continued until changes herein provided.
I agree with you ideally it would he nice if we could just kind of omit them all, but our choices are either to have two more pages of listing them all or to just say that they're all carried forward, and then they can be changed by the General Assembly pursuant to this new authorization. MR. CLARKE:
Yeah. There may not be any other solution. DR. PYLES:
Well, I think we've got to be very careful. This is just a caveat, that whatever we do I would hope that the General Assembly would accept it, and the concern is I do not \'1ant the people to vote this thing down just on this basis, to say, "Aha, we'll throw out the wIloie thing because we don't like that." I guess I'm saying as long

43
as the people feel like they have the ultimate say although I agree with Mel, if we could put it two-thirds in there or three-fifths or something like that, that might be enough to satisfy the voters.
MS. RYSTROr--l:
What we're doing is creating sort of a quasiconstitutional amendment. If you took this paragraph as it is, not only does that do what we've seen on the ballot, but it means it can be quite a long time until such a thing can be settled, since we're talking about only those ballots the constitutional amendments could go on. THE CllAI Rr1AN :
Or in the general election.
MS. RYSTROH:
I thought Tim CHAI Rl'1AN :
The next general election after passage. MR. HILL:
Charlie, has it ever been done to your knowledge? Has any general law ever been conditioned upon approval of the people to your knowledge?
MR. TlmmLL:
No. I don't believe it has. The Sales Tax Act had a referendum on it.

44
MR. CLARKE: No. They had the straw vote on it first.
MR. TID\vELL: They had the straw vote.
!1R. CLARKE: And it lost, and they came back and adopted it.
MR. TIDWELL: But that's the only one that I can remember, the
sales tax state-wide. MR. CLARKE:
The nearest thing -- this is not a state-wide thing, but you know the provision for changing the means of selecting members of a Board of Education has to be voted on by the people within the school district. If you had members who were elected by a grand jury and you wanted to change it to elected by the people, there has to be a vote. MR. TIDWELL:
Well, that's still a local act. Is it the sense of this Committee that the present posture of the Constitution has to be changed at all? Your Subcommittee
.,
Chairman has said it defies his intellect to properly define gratuities, and if he can't do it, I don't know anybody else who can. This has I think served the State. This provision has served the State well in the past.

,[ 45
It's prohibited some mischief that I think will otherwise corne about without it being in there, and it does seem somewhat absurd that the people had to vote to allow industry and trade to buy meals, but by the same token, they just limit it to meals and not anything else. Now, they are wanting to give some sort of small gifts, but there again, I wonder if it's worthy of a constitutional amendment, but where does it stop? MS. RYSTROH:
Well, I really like your approach. THE CHAIRMAN:
Punting. MS. RYSTROM:
Right. But I think it's a very good one, and we aren't really -- the semi-critical thing I was saying about this being quasi-constitutional amendments, assuming we accepted this, there is no sense comparing that to not dealing with it at all. It's either deal with it as a constitutional amendment or that way. We really don't have a third option between those two choices. I think your proposal is rather attractive. MR. HILI.:
..
I just thought of a third, another possibility, and this might be too cumbersome to work out, but that would be to give the voters the right of petition, a certain

46 number of people to have a referendum, but it could get very cumbersome. MS. RYSTROf.1:
If you think of what's happening with recall petitions right now, just picture that. HR. HILL:
Yeah.
!'-is. RYSTROH:
And I don't 'know that a larger majority of the General Assembly would be quite, anywhere near as convincing as -- that would be several steps down from the present situation wherein we amend the Constitution. That would be a greater distance than this one, \V'hich we aren't quite amending the Constitution, although we almost are, as "see attached list."
MR. HENRY:
Let me just kind of throw this wrench into the works. r'm not certain about this, but you might havg a problem \<Jith the separation 'of powers. If you give the people power to pass in effect general law, which is a legislative power to make law -THE CHAIRHAN:
Well, if it's in the Constitution, you don't have any problem. MR. HILL:

47 Because that, you know, separation of power clause provides in the beginning, "Except as otherwise provided, the separation of powers shall remain intact." MS. RYSTROH: I was trying to remember one of the reasons that one of the proposed revised Articles failed. I gathered from comaents I heard that the issue was about retirement and, you know, something, one of the cleaning-up operations had OInitted something a lot of people thought should stay in. I was even at a League of Women Voters meeting where somebody had an issue that was fifteen years old for the League, but someone said, "~'lell, they removed that issue," and 50 I was looking at Paragraph IX, some Paragraph IX, the last one in the existing Constitution and trying to follow that train of thought through and think what the people that thought that before would think about it. THE CHAIRHAN: \lell, I think if they thought it was being knocked out, there would be some concern. MS. RYSTROH: The grandfathering1 THE CHAIRHAIJ: That all of these are preserved. MS. RYSTROM;

48
But they will have that problem anytime we remove any stipulation whatsoever. f1R. CLARKE:
~~hat you've got is six exceptions apparently. Seven. THE CHAIRMAN:
Seven. MR. CLARKE:
Seven exceptions. And going back to Charlie's line of thought, in the 34 years since 1945, they've changed it seven times I suppose, which maybe is not as bad as some of the things in the Constitution. MR. TIDWELL:
I was commenting before we started, when I was employed elsewhere, during a session of the General Assembly that a week did not go by that I wasn't requested to draft some bill where I said, "Well, we'll do that, but it's going to require a constitutional amendment. That's a gratuity in violation of the provision," and that sort of ended it, but I guarantee you it will not end it under this provision. THE CHAIRMAH:
In other words, we'll be flooded with legislation on the ballot? HR. TIDHELL:
(Nods affirmatively) He' va had referendums in

counties where the electorate was required to pass on the question of whether a $25 a month raise should be given to the sheriff. THE CHAIRMAN:
That's a problem. It really wouldn't clean up the ballot at all. If Charlie is correct, it would probably be flooding the ballot.
MS. RYS'l'R0l1:
Except if I were a legislator, I don't know why I would feel any differently about proposing a referendum, a state-wide referendum, and if I went about amending the Constitution, in fact the electorate is going to be the same.
MR. CLARKE:
Well, you still have to have a two-thirds majority in the lbuse and the Senate in order to do it. MS. RYSTROH:
Well, ~1elvin, you were talking about a larger majority. Were you suggesting that we go through with the referendum process or that was a substitute for the referendum process?
MR. HILL:
originally I thought of it as a substitute. THE CllA I RHI-u~ :
We have to have the same constitutional -- I mean a

50 simple majority for a constitutional amendment in this provision as well as a referendum requirement. MR. TIDWELL:
I don't think that that would be amenable. MR. CLARKE:
I think what you've got -MR. TIDWELL:
And if a good bill is going to pass, generally your bills pass overwhelmingly. You don't have that close of a vote on an issue. They're either going to be defeated or passed overwhelmingly on this section. MR. CLARKE:
It could very \'/ell be that you could take what you've got here and do it in about half the words in there. I think paragraphs one and two or sections one and two of Paragraph XII could be easily made into one sentence, and then you say,"Except as provided below, blah, blah, blah," and then just one, two, three belmv, A, B, C. DR. PYLES:
Which would still retain what Charlie was talking about. MR. CLARKE:
Yeah. Now, what that would do of course would mean that if you wanted to change it at any time, given any

other gratuities, you would have to amend the Constitution, but on the other hand, if in 34 years we've only done it seven times.
DR. PYLES:
How nany times has it been tried? Do you have any idea on that?
MR. CLARKE:
I have no idea. Charlie might.
MR. 'rIDWELL:
No, I wouldn't.
THE CllAl RMAN :
I think it's a lot.
MR. CLARKE:
\-vhat?
THE ClIAI RMAN :
I think it's a lot. I can recall about two things coming up on every ballot.
l'iR. TIDWELL:
A lot of tirnas you would have a question whether you should put your particular amendment under the gratuities sections. THE CHAIRHAN:
Yes.
MR. Tlm-lELL:
Or under the purposes for which taxes can be levied,

52 and you have a prime example probably stated in one of those, number nine, that probably ought to be over in the taxation article rather than here, because that's really DR. PYLES:
It's not a gratuity. MR. TIm'lELL:
It's not conceptually what we think of as a gratuity when we provide a health insurance plan for teachers. THE CHAI Rl1AN :
When you look at some of the words on page 51, from 55 through 58 MR. CLARKE:
Mel and I decided there is at least one improvement we can make to this Constitution. There are two section nines in P.:lragraph VII. I think I can figure that out. MR. TIDWELL:
I think we should debate that. ~lR. CLARK:
I am assuming that this gratuities paragraph here
eliminates these or will these be picked up? THE CHAIRMAN:
Yes. They would be picked up and essentially retained.

I

53

MR. CLARK: For instance, this one, paragraph three, about
$250,000 for the first oil \olell in the State strikes me as being absolutely ridiculous. It's a token nothing in oil production today and to carry this over in the Constitution we're presenting for adoption by the General Assembly, you know, it just perpetuates an absurdity. \ihy can't that kind of thing be eliminated in our proposal? THE CHAIRMAN:
Yeah. Hell, that was my thought, to take the garbage out, but to retain the same requirements. MS. RYSTROM:
This is from the last time. I can't identify how many of those would have been amendments to this section, but I think a lot of them, you know. We just didn't get very many passed. MR. CLARKE:
If we were to try to pick up some of that, that could obviously come out of this section because grants to counties is certainly not gratuities. That may be something that needs to be somewhere else in the powers. MR. HIL,L:
Hhat's the purpose of a grant to a county? For what purpose?

54 MR. CLARKE:
Mlere you've got land.
MR. HILL:
20,000 acres of land that they're giving over, right?
MR. CLARKE:
No. No. This is where there's 20,000 acres of land in the county belonging to the State. Then the state, by reason of that being removed from the tax rolls, the State can make grants to the county to substitute for the impact that it had on the revenue in the county I suppose.
MS. RYSTROM:
I remember that coming up once.
MR. CLARKE:
Has that Chattahoochee County?
MR. TIDWELL:
Ware County
.MR. CLARKE:
Ware County, yeah. The swamp.
MR. TIDWELL:
The swamps.
THE CHAIRMAN:
There are four on this ballot.
DR. PYLES:

i'.\IL

55

Where in here does it state under the new proposed gratuities that what is already here would be retained?
THr~ CHAIRHAl~:
It doesn't. DR. PYLES:
It does not state that? THE CHAIRl1AN:
No. DR. PYLES:
So therefore, the General Assembly -MR. HILL:
It doesn't say it just yet. It will before we finally approve it. Is that right? THI..: CHAIRMAN:
Yes. DR. PYLI..:S:
I see what you're trying to do. is get the general sense here. MR. HILL:
Yes. Right.
MR. CLARKE:
Hell, isn't the basic qustion that we've got to decide first before you get into any of the words, how difficult do we want to make it for the General Assembly to grant gratuities? Do we want to make it difficult

56 enough to require an amendment to the Constitution or somewhere down the line? And that's a basic thing. How much of a danger exists? MR. CLARK:
You know, everybody is so cynical now about everything. They say in everything there's a danger, and yet I think anybody can -- on number six that you have to have a constitutional ~nendrnent on industry and trade to buy lunch for somebody, you know, that's abhorrent I think to have something that specific in a State Constitution. Certainly I think it should be covered by statute or departmental regulations or something. I don't knO\v how to harmonize it \'1i th that and the oil well thing. It seems to me it's just -THE CHAImiAN:
Ridiculous. l-1R. CLARK:
-- kind of ridiculous. DR. PYLES:
Yes. !R. CLARK:
hlhy can't we in some way get rid of that? DR. PYLES:
I agree with you, Dale. That's kind of demeaning to the Constitution. To me it's demeaning.

57
MR. CLARK: ~'1ell, it's because of this line-drawing. you know.
The Department of Industry and Trade wants to give gifts, wants to be able to give gifts to these industrial prospects, and you know they're talking about modest gifts, but you know, what's modest to one person may seem like a real treasure chest to somebody else. MR. HILL:
Going back to what Charlie said -MR. HENRY:
I think if you can get the courts to construe public purpose a little bit broader, then you can take in number six and probably some other ones. MS. RYSTROH:
Your commentary about eminent domain sounded like construing public purpose was, you know, something that worked pretty well, if I understood your comments.
HR. HENRY:
\lell, that's for condemning land though. It's not granting gratuities.
MS. RYSTR0l1:
I understand, but if it's possible to say this condemnation of land is not for a public purpose and that one is, presumably the same could be said about gratuities.

58 HR. HENRY:
Unfortunately I think the courts will construe a grant of public money most strictly against the grantee, the person who receives it, rather than saying a broad construction of the public purpose.
HS. RYSTROM:
You mean if such grants were made as we were describing, they might not be allowed? I was picturing it the other way.
MR. HENRY:
I would imagine -- I'm not sure -- that they tried to do this before and then they needed the constitutional amendment to do it.
MR. CLARKE:
Are you talking of the Industry and Trade thing?
MR. HENRY:
Yeah.
MR. CLARKE:
I was real familiar with that because I was Chairman of the Industry Committee at that time, and I believe, Charlie, you worked with us, and we went through a long interim committee deal, and they had some fine young men down in that department who just were having to scratch and scratch any way they could to carry these folks out to lunch or anything else, and what the State

59 Auditor -- I think for awhile they were putting it on the expense accounts, and the State Auditor came along and said, "No, you can't do that. That's a gratuity. You could pay for your own lunch, but you can't pay for anybody else's." So then the public utilities and the banks and other similar agencies got together a fund that they made available, and a lot of folks said, "Hell, this is not right." MR. CLARK:
That's not the right way to go. MR. CLARKE:
To have to deal with a slush fund for special interest groups and so on. So that was the reason this finally had to be. MR. CLARK:
How do other State. Constitutions do it? THE CHAIRHAH:
They do one of two things or one of three things. Either they don't mention it at all, or they mention it and require a higher majority to pass it, or they mention it, prohibit it and contain the exceptions. MR. CLARK:
Hhat was the third one? THE CllAIRHAN:
Ju~t like this. They prohibit gratuities and have

60 the exceptions to it, or they require a higher majority of the General Assemly to enact a gratuity, or they don't mention it at all.
'rhat exampel you gave about Industry and Trade, that didn't go to court. That was just upon the judgment of the State Auditor? MR. CLARKE:
State Auditor. MS. RYSTROM:
It seems to me a lot of times that's a problem. It seems like a crazy judgment to me. It's not a gratuity, it is an expense. THE CHAIRlvJAN:
It also came up through the Attorney General. MS. RYSTROH:
\'1ell, the Attorney General obviously makes mistakes. I wonder if what we're doing is the kind of thing where you strengthen the laws. They're not getting obeyed, so you pass stiffer penalties, as if that was going to make the sheriff go out and arrest the people \'lith the barking dog or whatever and are throwing stuff in the Constitution because apparently somebody has been unwilling to take some; of these, many someones have been unwilling to take the issues to court. Haybe the courts would have a judgment that I would agree with about gratuities. That's

61 certainly a wonderful way to clutter up something like a Constitution, is to immediately decide that we must state the grandest action necessary in order to deal with what we want. MR. HILL:
You think people would be willing to let the courts make that determination? DR. PYLES:
I'm inclined to let the Legislature make that determination. MR. CLARK:
I am too. I am too. DR. PYLES:
And then if the man doesn't do what we think, then we get him at the next election I guess. That's what I would think. He would be there for --
HR. CLARl~:
The remedy is the ballot box.
1-1S. RYSTROH:
Well, it doesn't quite work here. THE CHAIRMAN:
Yes. The horse is already out of the barn. DR. PYLES:
Yeah, it is.
MR. CLARl<:

62 Instead of establishing these by a referendum or a constitutional amendment to the people. That's an
. awful heavy way of handling. governmental functions it
seems to me. DR. PYLES:
Let's see if I know where we arE1. I f we adopted this, then what we could expect is to have a drafting committee pick up some kind of language, clean this up and combine them. THE CHAIRMAN:
Or simply at the end, at the end of this proposal, when it went with a separate article for ratification r whatever the concept is now. Will Article III go by itself? MR. CLARKE:
That's my understanding. Is that your understanding, Charlie? MR. TlmvELL:
Right. THE CHAIRMAN:
At the end of the resolution proposing a new Article III, there will be a provision which would state that all of the exceptions to Paragraph XII are retained until modified or repealed in the courts with this new paragraph.

63 DR. PYLES:
And then would it be possible to add that -- you wouldn't say "in the future," but language that would suggest that the Legislation then by law could make any further provisions? THE CHAIRMAN:
He could do that. DR. PYLES:
\'lould it pass the voters? Would the newspapers jump allover it and say, "We're opening another Pandora's box"? THE CHAIRMAN:
That's hard to say. My prediction is it will, but I'm not a politician. DR. PYLES:
It will what? Open it? THE CHAI RMAN :
Open up a lot of opposition. MR. CLARKE:
I think you're right. DR. PYLES:
That would worry me, but still I would very much think that the Legislature ought to be able to handle this without having to go back every time the price of a lunch rises from 2.50 to five to ten or 25 or whatever.

64 MR. TIDVlELL:
If the people of the State were willing to trust these sorts of decisions to the General Assembly, this whole document would be about 12 or 13 pages long. Everything in here is a limitation on the powers of the General Assembly almost other than just procedural detail. MS. RYSTROH:
\qould it be meaningful for us to go through these exceptions that are there and look to seo how acceptable we could make them so that we could evaluate these two or three courses that we're talking about? I mean at least some of us are talking about in effect going with what we've got now, but so it looks a littl~ better or a little shorter. That whole paragraph th'ree about that $250,000, would it not be possible to reduce that to something like "The General Assembly is empowered to create legislation to reward the first bringer of oil"? THE CHAIRMAN:
Oh, yeah. MR. CLARK:
vii th the pressure on the production of oil now, God knows if there's any oil anyplace, they're going to be after it. HR. CLARKE:
I frankly, if I had my druthers, would say the heck

65 with that oil. MS. RYSTROH:
Okay. 'fhat wouldn't be any great loss.
:-m. HENRY:
Well, the way I look at this, that's an offer, and I believe someone has accepted that offer. HR. CLARKE:
I don't think the pnes that are already working at it, but as far as any, just to stay solid about it, as far as anything in the future is concerned -f-1R. liEN RY :
I think you could reduce the words, but I think you would still have to -- in case he didn't find oil, cDuld you then revoke that offer? I'm not sure. DR. PYLES:
Well, could the General Assembly not do that? If approved, any such law may be repealed by the General Assembly in the same manner as other laws. It seems to me the way this is worded, this new section, that if the voters approved a new gratuity of some kind, the Legislature could then come. back and take it a,.,ay. HR. CLARK:
That's the way I view it.
DR. PYT...ES:
Hhich really may be the way to do it. Th~ Legislature

66 could just then clean these out. HR. TIDHELL:
The present language has sometimes helpod members of the General Assembly. I don't mean to say that ":::hey're always trying to raid this, but the people corne with all sorts of wild ideas, wanting something, and it's very convenient for Sen. Brown sometimes to say, "They told me in the legal office I couldn't do that." MS. RYSTROH:
Do they ever say that when the.y haven't told you that? SEll. BROWN:
A lot of times. MR. TIDWELL:
And without that, there is tremendous pressure on them. You know, "I voted ,for you. I elected you. This is a good idea. Now, I want you to go up there and pass that." MR. CLARKE:
One other great concern I have is that this is an emotional type thing to a lot of folks, the business of giving away the people's money, and the word "gratuity" with public funds is something that stirs up a lot of problems, and irregardlessof what W~ do with this Constitution, whether we improve it or butcher it up,

67
we're not going to make any difference at all unless the people who ratify it -DR. PYLES:
That:'s right. That's my concern.
r1R. CLARKE:
And if we end up watering it down too much and getting it too noat, we may end up beating the whole thing, and that does worry me right much, and I have sat here and sort of wavered back and forth, but my inclination right now is to take this thing and redraft it, and I think by doing that it can be cut to about half of its length really as I said earlier. Paragraphs one and two could certainly be in one sentence and then just list the exceptions with possibly some of them not being in there. Personally I would leave out the oil well thing. Haybe somebody else might not, but I think the one dealing with grants to counties, I really do~'t see that as a gratuity, and maybe it ought to be somewhere else in order to accomplish it. The one that deals with the insurance plan for the retired school teachers,it seems to me that's an additional compensation to somebody who has performed a service. I don't know that that's a gratuity.
MR. CLARK:
What section is that?

68 MR. CLARKE:
That's the section number nine. I don't know. He've got two number nines, but it's over on the next page. MR. CLARK:
Yes. I see it. MR. CLARKE:
I don't see that as a gratuity. I think that's additional compensation for services rendered. THE CHAIID-1AN:
It is because of paragraph two. I think my reaction
would be even without paragraph two, paragraph nine would be a gratuity because in essence what you're doing is distributing public funds for no consideration in return. MR. CLARKE:
Yes. You're right. So maybe that has to be in there. The one about the grant to counties, maybe it has to be someplace, but I'm not sure this is the appropriate place for it.
MS. RYSTROM:
What I was proposing was let's play with that, see if we can do that. Then when we saw it that. way, we could perhaps make a better judgment about the mor~ radical proposal, because now we're kind of talking about apples and oranges, and we certainly sort of don't like

69 either one, and only in one case do we have a concrete proposal.
Paragraph six, the Industry and Trade one, for example, doesn't even say that the General Assembly is authorized to do those things. It has right there in the Constitution what is allowed. The others at least seem to be based upon authorizing them to violate the restriction otherwise. That sounds really -- that certainly is legislation in the Constitution, but if those things could be fixed so they seem more acceptable as material in a Constitution, then maybe we would feel differently. Maybe some of us who don't want that stuff in there would feel a little differently about it, but I would like to see us right now put aside the alternate proposal until we could sort of look at it either way. Then we could then not only evaluate how we liked it, but how we thought the General Assembly and the electorate would feel about it, which means just another great big drafting job for certain selected persons. THE CHAIRJ1AN:
You know I don't think that's too difficult, because a lot of this language is just obviously surplus, and I think it was probably put in there to enhance th~ political aspects of passage.
MR. CLARKE:

70
That's exactly right. MR. TIDWELL:
I would argue the case for it. MR. CLARKE:
What we used to call a speaking demurrer.
MS. RYSTROM:
Is there anything that could possibly be done about that by the way? M.R. TIDrlELL:
\That's that?
MS. RYSTROM:
The business about inserting language in constitutional amendments that really amounts to the arguments. If on the ballot there is sort of a mandatOr}' argument section, then it seems to me if I were drafting such legislation that I could leave some of it out. You know, maybe it is one of the things that we really should be talking about. Hhen we talk about our crazy-quilt Constitution, it's the rhetoric that's in it. THE CHAIRMAN:
I think you would generate a lot of uncertainty
about whether something would be passed because if you
had a constitutional requirement as to how a proposal to amend the Constitution had to be stated, I think you
....
would generate a lot of litigation as to whether or not 1 ...

71 was properly stated. MR. TIDvffiLL:
You can tell the questions that are drafted "by staff and the questions that are drafted by the proponent~. of the amendment. I can.
MR. CLARKE:
You've had some slight experience. HR. CLARK:
Is there a concensus among us that any gratuity or any proposal, that it ought to be submitted to the people after the Legislature has approved it, or is there a choice here of requiring a two-thirds vote as approval without requiring it to go to the people? THE CHAIRMAH:
Now it takes both two-thirds and approvaL .HR. CLARK:
I guess the concensus is that if we eliminated this going to the people and relied upon the good sense of the General Assembly by a two-thirds vote, not to squander the people's money or be taken in by vested interests and so forth, that this would bring down the wrath of the people on the whole proposaL THE CHAIRHAN:
I don't know whether it would or not, but that would be a concern. That would be -- if somebody wanted to

72 defeat the Constitution, that would be an argument. DR. PYLES:
Or upgrading to three-fourths, 75 percent? HE. CLARI~:
It seems to me the issues here, that question and the other side of it, is unburdening tho people from making these decisions that we think our elected officials are elected to make. I would argue for the latter, to keep it from being submitted to the people, but my batting average is not very high. HR. HILL:
I think probably most of the people here would maybe personally agree with you. It's just really the question of whether this is going to create a real red flag to the
people out in the State and now, you know, we have to be
fair. The attitude of most of the Committees working on it they should come out with the best proposal possible and political considerations are for other people to worry with, you know, although it's never totally ignored at any level, but you know, that's another thought. If it.'s not proposed here, it will probably never be proposed. If you have a good change, something you think would be better for the State, it has many, many steps to go through before it's going to be finall}' submitted to the people.

73 MR. CLARK:
How do you feel about the three-fourths requirement? Do you think that's an improvement or do you think it should be -DR. PYLES:
\'1011, obviously three-fourths would be more difficult than two-thirds, on the one hand, and despite the low opinion that people may have of legislators, to raise it to three- fourths might help the.m real i ze that that's more difficult to obtain than t\vo-thirds. I have a very high regard for the General Assembly, but that's not universally shared. I keep trying to say I just want to fly in the face of people who have the highest of distrust. \ve have academes that are rotten apples too, but it seems to me that the General Assembly could deal without the voters. I don't know how to sell that to the newspapers and t)ll'; people that Hi 11 jump on it, if it gets that far in the process. As Mel said, there's many other stopping points before we get that far along. HR. CL1I.RK:
At the moment there is a great public concern .about t.hese lengthy, lengthy amendInents every general election, dntl I think it's possibly saleable. I think it would lJring out the poople \..ho are going to attack the proposed chans"s, but I still think we need t.o make the. decision

74 on the basis of what's right, not what's politically attractive.
DR. PYLES:
Let me pose -- let me ask a question. Is there anything going on in one of the other Committees in terms of changing the terms of the General Assembly? MR. HILL:
No.
MS. RYSTROH:
No? Darn. MR. CLARKE:
Life tenure?
MS. RYSTROM:
Now, I remember which Committee \'las workinq on that proposal. HR. CLARKE:
Not to all of them, only to those who.have been annointed.
MS. RYSTROM.:
I imagine so. DR. PYLES:
By thought was if the General Assembly or the Committee were to come out and say, "Let's change the ter.ms to four years or six years" and the General Assembly let that go out, in my mind that would be a minus and in

75 the voters' minds, but if you keep the terms relatively as they are, it seems to me that that would aid in improving people's thinking about the General Assembly. I guess I'm struggling with structural things.
MR. CLARKE:
Let me make a suggestion. Let's have a referendum here. It seems to me that we're dealing with three different possibilities; the as is with some editorial clean-up, the one that Tim has or something sir'1ilar to it with a referendum approach, and then the t.hird thing \lOuld be a higher required .majority in each house. Hhy don't we just sort of poll you folks on the Subcommittee and see which of those three. possibilities seeM to be more attractive to you. tiS. RYSTROH:
Well, I'll plunge in to say about the as is cleaned up or t:he alternate proposal, I really -- like I say, I certainly would like to see the cleaned up version and know more about it, because I didn'~ get this in advance and wasn't able to think. Not that I completely mistrust the Legislature, but I would oppose, you know, raising the majorit:y requirement to t.wo-thirds, to just leaving such decisions in the Legislature, not on the grounds of the difficulty of passing such a change, but just the basic issue as well.

76 MR. HILL:
You believe the referendum should be made under any circumntances? NS. RYSTROH:
Yes. I \lOuld like to see categories of authorizations to the General Assembly. I haven't any proposal because I haven't looked at it that way, but you know, rather than things as specific as they are here, it sc:ns to me that we might say there should be no gratuities except that the General Assembly is authorized to make gratuities to bring in the first oil well, you know, that kind of thing, something much more generalized, and leave them the question of whether it's one in one of those categories. ?hat would be left to the General Assembly, and then I suppose the courts if anyonp. wanted to take it, but in terms of just allowing the Legislature to do what has previously been done by constitutional amendment, even though with the two-thirds or even three-quarters vote, I think I would oppose it. HR. CLARK:
I would take it off the ballot, and to make it saleable, to increase the vote to three-fourths. THE CHAIIUlAN:
Dr. Pyles? DR. PYLES:

\,

77

I agree with Dale. I would not be inclined to

continue to refer this to the public.

1'HL CHAIRHl\H:

Senator?

SEN. BROHH:

It suits me fine.

TIll: ClIAIHHAN:

I am inclined to go with the referendum of some

sort. It's just my innate fiscal conservatism.

DR. PYLES:

Hell, you're on good solid ground to refer those

kinds of things to the people. I think of course somebody

has yot to face the pratical political thing of getting

this thing ratified anyway in November of 1980, and if

it wouldn't pass with what we're talking about, we would

have to be practical.

HR. CLARK:

How- did our stra\1l vote come out?

THE CllAIRrtt"\U:

I think we have a majority in favor of the higher

majority and letting the General Assembly do it. If

tha-c's the \lay you want to proceed, would somebody like

to make a motion?

HR. HILL:

./"\1 though I do think in fairness to the full

78
Conunit:.tOt:;', which is going to have to rnally decide this question and probably it's going to be just as close in that COI.Uai ttee, gE.tting through the discussion, "Ie probab1:' should look at some new lan<Juago for this, so we have anot.her counter-proposal ready.
THE ClIAIl~HAN:
Let me come up ",ith, like Barbara suggested --
MR. CLARKE:
I like what Barbara said about getting this thing down to some broader generalities as to the exceptions, and then you might, by doing that, avoid some of the constitutional amendments to the proposal, because those exceptions could embrace certain worthwhile gratuities and avoid the necessity for the amendment, and I think it would be good to draft both of then. Baybe I think what we've got right now is a sense is what the feeling of the Subcommittee is, but perhaps after the Subcommittee looks at the product, there might be different feelings. Maybe the Subcommittee should make no final decisions this afternoon. THE CHAIRI1AN:
Yes. Since we're talking a}~ut three alternatives, either taking it out of the Constitution, but leavinq t:.he subject to a referendum, putting it in the.General Assembly with a higher majority required, or clarifying

79 the existing language in terms of broad categories. ~fuy don't \/e just work on that? MS. HY sri' RON:
I think that's extra good for the whole Committee because what tends to happen I think with Subcommittee reports is you have to relive the whole thing allover again anyway. If there are sort of obvious alternatives, then we could just facilitate that reliving procedure with alternatives that we worked out.
SEN. BUm'lN:
You would be surprised at how many of the voters won't read those things and don't know anything about them, but either vote for thp~ or against them. You would just be surprised at the people. MR. CLARK:
Will vote no in anger.
SEN. BROUN:
Yos. HR. CLARK:
Or just futility.
SEN. BRmm:
If they don't understand them and don't know what it's about, maybe they shouldn't be voting on them. You would be surprised at the people that do that f
MR. CLAHK:

80 Yet many of the same people. who are critical of having to vote on constitutional amendments are ulso the people who are going out and sayinq they want public iniciative. I'm not sure there's much difference in the two. 'rUE CHAIRMAN: No, there is not. SEN. BROHN: It passed the Senate, but I didn't vote for it. HS. RYSTROH: It's got to be stopped at the petition stage. THE CHAIRHAN: How that we've got the gratuities out of the \vay I why don't we go to Paragraph I? MR. CLARK: In the revision, will we be dealing \'V'ith things like three and six? THE CHAIRHAN: I think the proposal would be well, let's just take the language there and see if we can come up with a classification rather than the specific language that's here. In other states they've done that. They talk in terms of classifications. so it's not qoinq to be that difficult in trying to retain each of the concepts that's in the Constitution now. Then if "vie qet down to the next

,

81

session and we decide we want to strike out, for example,

the oil well provision, we can strike that out.

Paragraph I is almost exactly the sane as the

existing constitutional provision itself. It is phrased

in terms of "The General Assembly shall have the power

to make all laws not inconsistent with this Constitution,"

and the word "they" in the last clause has been changed

to "it."

NS. RYSTROH:

Hhat's better about "not inconsistent"?

THE CHl\IRHAN:

Hell, it's grammatically consistent with the words

"and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United

States." In terms of consistency with the Const.itution, as Charlie suggested at the last mp.eting, the suggestion

that you must find something alonq the same lines to

authorize the language is all.

filS. HYSTROH:

Okay.

THE CJLAIH11AH:

This says you can do anything that's not prohibited

by the Constitution. MS. RYf;l'ROH:

OJ~ay

NR. Helmy:

82 Do you want to add something in there to the effect of "and any laws inconsistent ;-lith it, the Judiciary shall have the duty to declare t.hem so," so in effect taking that provision out of ~rticle I? THE CHAIRHAN: I don't know. Harold, what do you ":hink about, that? I thought by this paragraph eight of section two of Article I could be eliminated. MR. CLARKE: Let me turn it around so I can get my tri-focals looking at it right. I'm looking catty-cornered with the lines. MR. HENRY: It's on page -THE CHAIRMAN: 7. HR. HENRY: 7, paragraph eight. Hhat act void. MS. RYSTROH: And they're dropping that. Is that what you're saying? THE CHAIRMAH: I don't know. MR. HENRY: I don't know. He told them tha+: \Ve would perhaps

! 83
take that a\<lay from them. DR. PYLES:
Why is Paragraph I repeating in essence what is in l\rticle III, Section 1 where it states the legislative power? I guess what I'm reacting to is why do we have to keep g01ng back again and sayinq the legislative power shall be in the Legislature?
r.l.'HE ClIAIRl1AN:
Hell DR. PYLES:
To me legislative power is pO\<ler. I don't know. THE CHAIRHAN:
Other state constitutions have left it exactly as you suggested, just defining where the legislative power resides. DR. PYLES:
Yeah. Well, maybe we ought to leave it in now, but I guess what I'm concerned about is falling between the legs of the stool when this Conunittee and something else keeps repeating the phrases that could be combined or whatever. HR. CLAIU~:
What are we referring to? DR. PYLES:
\'le1l, I'm referring to --

84 HR. CLARK:
Section 8 of Paragraph I. Hhat's the other one? DR. PYLES:
Page 11, Section 1, Paragraph I, Powers Vested. of course I realize I is dealing with the fact that we're going to have a two house Legislature, and this one picks up and says a little more narrowly or generally what the Legislature can do in exercising that power. MS. RYSTROH:
And that is an introductory paragraph too. I think it kind of eases you into that section. DR. PYLES:
Yeah. THE CHAIRHAN:
I don't know that Paragraph 7 of Section 2, Article I, page 7 really needs to be in the Constitution at all.
That's implicitly JUdicial authority.
MS. RYSTROM:
Yeah. HR. CLARKE:
I just sort of have got an idea that the Judiciary is going to accept that authority whether it's granted by the Constitution or not. MR. HENRY:
I just would exercise caution in that when Article

'I.
~ ..0.

85

I, when we go to them and say that we have incorporated

this into the Legislative Article and they say, "Okay,

let me see it," they might say, "Hell, you don't have

anything in there about the Judiciary declaring them so"

or you might can argue that that's inherent in the

JUdicial Article, that the Judiciary shall declare laws

inconsistent as such. I would agree with you that it's

implicit in the Judicial Article.

MS. RYSTROM:

Is there something in the Judicial ~rticle that

clearly vests it?

THE CHAI ffilAN :

No. It just says, "The Judicial power of the

State," which has historically been interpret.ed to

include the power to determine whether an Act of the

General Assembly is inconsistent with the Constitution.

MS. RYSTROH:

It seems to be silly to have it in the First and

Third Article where it doesn't belong and not have it in

the Judicial Article, where I would say it did belong.

HR. HENRY:

I beliEve Chief Justice Marshall made that point in

1789 or something.
\
DR. PYLES:

Hhat caso was that? Are you talking ahout the

86
Marbury case? MR. HENRY:
Yes. DR. PYLES:
It was 1803. When you said -- I guess it was in reference to the JUdiciary Act of 1789. Okay. 1 'thought you said the case was in 1789. THE ClIAI RHAU :
What do you think, flel? Leave i~: out? MR. HILL:
I defer to the academicians. MR. TIDWELL:
It gives lawyers something to cite when they're declared unconstitutional. HR. CLARKE:
Oh, Lord, don't take anything away frOI,) us that we can cite. MR. TImmLI:
It really feels good when you write opinions and things. You can find a lot of stuff that way.
M.R. CLARKI::
Yes, sir. MR. 'l'IlJ\-lELL:
It's a pretty short statemtmt. You ",ouldn' t save too many words if you took it out.

:.\(.~

87

MR. CLARKE: Sometimes that's all the law I can find.

MS. RYSTROl1:
So are we concluding it should be in the Legislative Article? MR. TlmvELL:
I think maybe if you say it once in the whole Constitution, it might be enough.

MS. RYSTRQt.1:
So it's okay in Article I? MR. HILL:
He'll leave it in Article I then. THE CHAIRMAN:
Yes. MR. HILL:
Okay. We'll tell them they've got it back. THE CHAIRHAN:
Unless there are any comments on Paragraph I, we'll go to Paragraph II. Paragraph II is a collection of specific powers listed in various sections. Paragraph I is Paragraph III-A here at the top of page 17, and it's verbatlia. Paragraph II is Paragraph IX at the bottom of page. 17, the top of page 18.

MS. RYSTROH:
I don't understand exactly the responsibilities of

88 this Committee and the Subcommittee on the specific powers. I mean how are we determining that these are general powers and those that are specific? THE CHAIRMAU:
We're not.
MS. RYSTROH:
We're not? THE CHAIRHAN:
No.
MS. RYSTROH:
Okay. THE CHAIRMAN:
It's just for editorial classification.
MS. RYSTROM:
Are they dealing \-lith the same issues, the other Subcommittee? MR. CLARKE:
No. Now, there are a couple of them. For instance, one on the insurance companies, Hel, does that really need to be treated both here and in the section on insurance? MR. HILL:
No. I don't think -- I thought the intention, Tim's intention was to pull it over so that wr: could omit it in the other place, but I don't think we can omit it in the

;'V;E 89
other place, given our meetings we've had with the Insurance Commissioner and what not. I think we will have a separate section, unless the full Committee changes it, on insurance regulation. THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay. MR. HILL:
\'le have one sentence now, don't we? MS. GREENBERG:
I have a proposal. It's two sentences long, but the feeling was that they should keep it as a separate section in order to appease the Comptroller General. MR. HILL:
It helps people find insurance regulation. MS. GREENBERG:
Everything is stricken until you get to the second page. We've adopted new language. r-IR. CLARK:
That looks good. DR. PYLES:
Yes. Doesn't it? MR. CLARKE:
I don't know why we need all these things, because they're saying up here that you can make all these laws, and then we're saying again that you can do it.

90 MR. TIDWELL:
\vell, you need number one.
MR. CLARKE:
Oh, yeah. Number one, certainly.
THE CHAIRMAN:
I don't think you need number two. That's my reaction.
MR. TIDWELL:
Well, your counties and municipalities would say you need that exception.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Yeah.
MR. TID\"1ELL:
You would have a hell of a fight on your hands i.f you didn't put that in.
MR. CLARKE:
Yeah.
THE CHAI RlvlAN :
I think you need the exception.
MR. CLARKE:
You need the restraint, but not the grant.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Yeah.
MR. CLARKE:
That's what it amounts to, and all this stuff about

: \,:1-: 91
in order to comply with federal law, that's another one of these arguments within the Constitution for its own benefit. MR. HILL:
We have looked at this though a little more in Section 5 about in order to comply with federal law and those subsections, and it's because of the zoning power problem, you know. Zoning is now with local government exclusively unless the General Assembly is given authority in an area. So we feel like it would certainly be and because Michael and I have talked about this and Subsection (a) is really a grant of the right to exercise or defining as a pUblic purpose, removing outdoor advertising. So it kind of takes away from the court the right to say that that's not a public purpose. So that kind of has to be there. MR. CLARKE:
Do you reckon we could make that a little tougher between now and my November term of court? MR. CLARK:
llut again I found that all that about junkyards and all is repugnant as part of a St.ate Constitution. MR. HILL:
It's just trash, isn't it? MR. CLARK:

92 Just trash.
MS. RYSTR011:
tf'hat we need is higher language. We don't want to say "junkyards." He want some term to make it sound like it belongs in the Constitution.
MR. TIDWELL:
Trash is Tom Moreland's treasure. THE CHAIRHAN:
The introductory language on Paragraph 5 is I think more than an introduction. It's the only reason they have the power, is to comply with federal law, and I don't think you could rationally argue that if they didn't have this power to comply with federal law, they couldn't exercise it.
MS. RYSTROH:
I don't understand that, Tim. If you just take off what it says ahove (a) ~-
TIlE CHAIRHAN:
It expands the power.
MS. RYSTROH:
Oh, it's what falls below that and an:yt~j.ng else that's required to comply with it? THE CHAI RI4AN :
No. No. vlhat I'm saying is if you drop the introductory language, you expand the power. Right now

i'.iT 93
the power exists.only to comply with federal law. HS. RYSTROH:
Oh, I see. MR. CLARKE:
It's a limitation on'it. MS. RYSTROM:
I suppose that's a power that never would have been granted without that necessity. THE ClIAIRHAN:
Right. HS. RYSTROM:
I would say it was a power they should have, whether it's there.
MR. CLARKE:
If it had not been for Lady Bird, we would never have gotten it. THE CHAIRl,1AU:
That's right. HR. HILL:
And we had a question on (d), Tim, Subsection (d). THE CIIAIRMAN:
Yes. (q) should be a separate paragraph if it's going to stay in the Constitution. HR. HILL:
Hell, we wondered why. t'Je haven't been able to

94
talk to someone who can give us a final answer on this about why there is a specific authorization to receive federal funds for transportation, when you know the State of Georgia receives federal money from the federal government all the time. THE CHAIRHAN:
I'm not sure it's that so much as it is the last three lines, "to exercise the powers of taxation and provide for the expenditure of public funds in connection therewith." Transportation, railroads, huses, terminals, waterways, airports and port facilities. HR. HENRY:
It's like for matching grants. THE CHAIRMAN:
Ye~l. I think the thought at the time was the General Assembly's power did not extend to providing public monies for the railroads and buses and waterways.
MS. RYSTROM:
None of that is an argument for leaving it in though. THE CHAIRMAN:
No. I agree. If we're trying to state that that power exists, then let's examine it, and this really deals more with, to some extent deals with Article VII when we get into the purposes of taxation, and Paragraph

it: 95 6 does. MR. TID\'lELL:
Tim, where did that come from in here? HR. HILL:
The Transportation Board. MR. HENRY:
Article IV, the last one. THE CHAIRMAN:
Dealing with intermodal transportation. MS. RYSTROH:
We just went shopping through the whole Constitution looking for this stuff. THE CHAIRMAN:
That's right, but that wasn't my idea, that specific provision. I did look for others, but that specific provision was not. MR. TIDWELL:
Hell, that's a rather recent addition'to the Constitution, if I remember correctly, and I think it was necessary. You couldn't do this without it. MS. RYSTROH:
It's one of those Attorney General judgments too? THE CHAIRHAN:
I'm not so sure. There are court cases that talk about that. I think that's why it was in.

96 MR. TI Dl'ffiLL :
I don't think there was any question about it, that the Constitution needed to be nmended to permit these activities. MS. RYSTROM:
Does it follow then that it needs to retain such a statement? HR. Tlm-lELL:
I think so. If you take it out, then -MS. RYSTROM:
I thought maybe you thought the climate was so different. MR. TIDWELL:
No. If it had been there for 40 years, but I think it's only been added in the last four or six years, if I remember correctly. Can you remember, Cindy? MS. NONIDEZ:
Yeah. In fact I'm thinking it came in in '76 as one of the amendments at that time. MR. TIDHELL:
It's brand new. MS. NONIDEZ:
I did have one thought about it in the treatment, and I realize this is another Subcommittee, but it's the SUbCOITmlittee dealing with appropriations, dealing with

,J' 97 the exception in (b) on page 23, the special exemption there given, you know, the motor fuel tax. They're doing some work there on the language there, and I'm wondering if there might be any thought to considering this provision as it fits in there to the whole question there of appropriating or allocating a particular tax, but here we're talking abo~t, you know, disbursement of funds and so forth, if we might. TIlE CIU\.IRHAN:
Hell, my sense of where it logically goes is in Article VII in the purposes of taxation. I don't think it really ought to go in Article III. HS. NOHIDEZ:
Okay.
THE CIUl.IRMALJ:
Hhere is Article VII? MR. HILL:
It's not going to be done for two years yet. So that's a problem. Is it better in Article III? Hell, is it better in appropriations or what we're working on in appropriations is better here? Is that \vhat you're saying? HS. NONIDEZ:
Yeah. Right. HR. HILL:

98

Or maybe pull it over into the powers of the

General Assembly.

HS. NONIDEZ: I don't have any strong feeling.

MR. HILL:

v/e can leave it here for the tim being.

THE ClIAI RIilAN :

Yeah. Hhat my feeling is is that exce.pt for the

exception dealing \vith the power to regulate: the county

or municipal public utilities, that we don't need the

existinq Paragraph 2 of my draft.

DR. PYLES:

I didn't understand that. He dont~: need \vhat?

'l'HE CHAIilliAN:

Paragraph 2 of my draft.

MR. HILL:

"
nut we do need the exception.

THE CHAImw~:

Right.

HR. HILL:

As to cities or counties.

THE CHAIRHAN:

Uh-huh.

MR. HILL:

And we need Hrnnber 1 because 0 f zoning.

\ "",1'i_I_'1

99

THE CHAIRMAN:

Yeah.

HR. HILL:

We need Number 5 because of zoning and kind of

zoning too for Number 1.
r.1S. RYSTROH:

That 5{b), where did that come from?

MR. HILL:

That carne from Article IV, Section 8 on the State

Transportation Board. It was kind of a misplaced

section before. Right now it's in the State Transportation

Board section and merely relates to a power of the

General Assembly.

MS. RYSTROH:

I see. So you have just sort of rewritten it. It

does say "may zone property."

MR. HILL:

It's word for word out of that.

MS. RYSTROH.:

Huh?

MR. HILL:

It's word for word out of that.

HS. RYSTROM:

The significant part of that is allowing or

regulating the advertising signs, not the commer~ial or

100 industrial purposes I should think. THE CHAIRHAH:
Well, they don't have the power to zone outside the State right-of-way. MS. RYSTROH:
Hell, I don't see why they should have the power to zone within it except in terms of what is designated here. The reason was about the signs, right, and the junkyards? THE CHAIRMAN:
Hithin their right-of-way means what the State owns and who has the power to do it. MS. RYSTROH:
Well, this says adjacent. Yeah. They don't mean within the right-of-way, do they? THE CHAIRMAN:
No. They mean adjacent to it, outsi.de the right-ofway. MS. RYSTROH:
I would say that the right to decide whether it's commercial or industrial or something else should be retained by the locality, but that's another issue I guess. MR. HENRY:
I think the ffderal act requires it.

101 HR. TIDWELL:
We had to do this.
MS. NOlHDEZ:
Yes.
!'1S. RYSTROH:
Because I know a lot of funny stuff has happened about the zoning in various places along the highways, you know. They get zoning designations for signs at the point and all that. DR. PYLES:
Some people cut tr~es. THE CHAIRMAH:
And my Paragraph 6 is a combination of Paragraph 4 on 17 and paragraph 9 on 14.
MS. RYSTROM:
So, Tim, you're sort of proposing that Paragraph 2
begin the way this one does, but include Number I?
THE ellAI Rl1AN :
Right.
MS. RYSTRON:
Part of Number 2? THE CHAIRMAN:
Well, essentially r~~ove Number 2. It's a limitation, not a specific power.
H5. RY5TROM:

102 All right. Then we decided -THE CHAIRMAN: To delete Number 3. NS. RYSTROH: Okay. And delete 4, right? toiR. HILL: No, no. It would stay. MS. RYSTROM: All right. Right. THE CHAIRHAN: Leave 5. MS. RYSTROH: Leave it? TIlE CHAIRMAU: Yeah. MS. RYSTROH: All of it? THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe we can come up with some language to modify it. MR. HENRY: Like you stated earlier, if (d) doesn't fit in THE CHAIRMAll: (d) needs to be a separate paragraph. MR. CLARKE: Looking at Number 4, the phrase "non-judicial

;\ 103 discipline," I think I know what you're getting at. There was some mention of court martials. TIlE CllAIID1AN:
Right. MR. CLARKE:
And so on. Does that really say that? Isn't a court martial military adjudicatory of some sort and isn't it really non-civil judicial as opposed to nonjudicial? 1 don't know that much about military things. TIlE CHAIRHl\N:
There is an inherent due process involved in a court martial concept I think. MR. CLARKE:
But you think the phrase "non-judicial" describes court martials, is what I'm getting at, or is it a judic~al proceeding of some sort? THE CIIAIRHAN:
I don't know. lm. HILL:
Well, review for me again. I forgot what our reasoning here was, but. if we just. said, "To provide for the necessary and proper organization and maintenance of a militia and to provide for the. discipline and punishment of the members thereof," vlhat kind of box vlOuld that open up?

104 THE CHAIRHAN:
An interpretation that would leave the discipline and punishment to the Judicial Article, that they would lX1tain their right to a judicial trial. ME. CLARK.:
vlell, doesn't the implication of creating a militia imply the operation of the power of punishment, assignnsnt and evorything else? MR. CLARKE:
I doubt that. HR. CLARK:
You have to have it there to punish? MR. CLARKE:
Otherwise they have the right to be tri~"d by a jury of their peers in a regular court of law I guess. The old section says they have the authority to provide for trial by courts maltial and non-judicial punishment pf members of the militia. So in my recollection, what little bit I ever knew of military law, it's that you've got different levels of courts martial, the summary court and then the general court and what not. I don't know. HR. TID\1ELL:
Your discipline, the Company Commander has the authority at the lowest level to take his pay and confine

",1

105

him, and then it goes on up to a s\unmary, special and

then general court martial.

HR. CLARKE:

I don't have any pro~lem with it. I just wondered

if the non-judicial discipline --

MR. TIDWELL:

The existing language says "courts martial and

non-judicial."

I'm. ~!.,Aru\E:

Yeah. That's what it says.

MR. TlmmLL:

That perhaps ought to be in there.
t-m. CLAHKE:

I don't knm-.r whether it's needed or not.

THE CHAIRMAN:

Well, it doesn't add that many words . We can just

say, "To provide for the trial by courts martial and

non-judicial punishment of the members thereof."

HR. CLliRKE:

I was asking the question, not by way of criticism,

~ut for information.

HR. TIDH'ELL:

since we don't know any more a}~ut it than we do,

I think that Tim's suggestion is well taken.

DR. PYLES:

106 Hhy are the words "necessary and proper" there? THE CHAIRMAN: Hell, it just encompaSSES all the concepts of existing Section 11. MR. HILL: In other words, you think if we strike those words -DR. PYLES: It would just seem to me "to provide for the organization and maintenance." I think that's all that's necessary and proper. THE CIll-\.IRHAlJ: Okay. You could probably strike "organization and maintenance." MS. RYSTROM: Yes. That was fun. MR. HILL: He're catching up. DR. PYLES: We're going to whack it. MS. RYSTROH: Well, I hate to let on that I still don't get on about the discipline, but what if you did say that here you're saying if you didn't say anything about the discipline, that anyone whom you wanted to discipline could claim that

r: 107 MR. CI.ARKE:
He would be tried in a regular court of law. NS. RYSTROH:
Okay. So you're saying these people in the militia do not have that right; they're to be tried only in this --
THE CHAIRMAN:
Courts martial. l-1S. RYSTROM:
courts martial. Did we come up with what was the alternate language or the approved language?
'fHE CHAIRHAN:
"To provide for the trial by courts martial and non-judicial punishment of the members thereof." MS. RYST ROH:
vfuat does non-judicial punishment mean?
MR. 'rIDWELL:
That's a Company Commander. MS. RYSTROM:
Oh, all right. So there's two separate categories. Courts martial is a separate kind of discipline? MR. TIDWELL:
Right. In the military they have different levels of authority to impose punishment. MR. HENRY:

108 Are you striking the '''ord "discipl ine. " You're saying, "courts martial and non-judicial -THE CHAIR11AH: Punishment. Yeah. We're strikin9 the word "discipline." Just taking the language out of it. MS. RYSTROr-I: And we're leaving in the words "when not in federal service" or not? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. CLARKE: Since Barbara mentions that, is that necessary? Because we obviously can't do anything about it when they're in federal service. THE CHAIRMAN: Ho. I don't think it's necessary. MR. CLARKE: Hhy don't we strike it?
MR. Hm~RY:
I don't know. That's recent. There might be a reason, you know, in the same vein as this intermodal funds and stuff such as that that are in there. I'll check into the history of the amendment and find out if it was prior legislation. MR. CLARKE:

109 I'm not offended by it being there. I just wondered about its necessity. t1S. GIU~];;NI3ERG: Isn't that a jurisdictional problem, the fact that courts martial wouldn't have jurisdiction over a non a person in the military who is in federal service? So this is allowing the General Assembly to transfer jurisdiction to the military courts. MR. CLARKE: Hhat we're saying is once they become federalized, that any acts or statutes we may have providing for their trial and punishment would be pre-ernpted by the federal law anyway. HR. TlmmLL: What are we talking about when we talk about a militia? THE CHAIRHAN: National Guard, isn't it? MR. CLARKE: I suppose. HR. TIDHELL: Isn't that the militia when the Governor calls the National Guard in?
THE CW\.IrulAN:
Yes.

110
MR. TImvELL : That -:'hen is the militia.
MR. CLARK:
I'm glad you asked that question, because I was simply wondering, and I wasn't going to ask. HR. HENRY:
I believe they kind of flip-flop in between State Militia and the National Guard. There's a code section that t.hick on everything you ever \vanted to know about the militia.
t-1S. NONIDE Z:
Charlie, Virlyn was looking at this the other day. In that title defining militia, there are some strange animals that are brought into the mili,tia. It's no"::. just the National Guard. It has some retired people, but it.'s all defined in that section. MR. TIDWELL:
But it's a viable entity.
1'1S. NONIDEZ:
Yeah. They're for real. MR. TIDHELL:
It's not one of those things like the Hinutemen now?
HS. NONIDEZ:
Right. MR. TIm-JELL:

<,
111 Like at Concord or anything else. HR. CLARKE: During World War II, they also had a thing they called the Home Guard, composed mainly of folks who were maybe a little older than the military age or had some physical problem, and they would have drills. ~1R. HENRY: I think they are in that legislation still. HR. CLARKE: Really they're in there. These folks were. MS. GREEHBERG: Could you clarify this Number 4 by putting it "To provide for a State Militia" so that there's no confusion with the federal system? THE CIIAIRHAH: I really don't know that thats needed. That's essentially what we're talking about. HR. CLARKE:
In view of Paragraph I, well, I guess it is too,
particularly the non-judicial discipline and the courts martial. That's the thing you have to have a constitutional provision about. I started to say that maybe it was not nocessary at all, in view of paragraph I, but I suppose it is. THE ClIAIRHAlJ:

112 There is a limitation at the top of page 24 in the booklet that I did not include. I don't know whether it needs to be in there. or not. This is another one of those gratuity provisions. !1R. CLARK: I should think it would be a common sense implication. THE CHAI RHAN : Paragraph 5, which has been pulled and is nm.., Paragraph 3, which has been pulled from Article IV. MR. CLARK: 'rha outdoor advertising?
THE CHAII~:
Yes. I don't think we can do anything with it other than narrow the language, and I don't know whether we need to do that. MR. CLARK:
Again, if there's any way to do it, it seems it just makes so many specifics and burdens. Is there something inherent in the Constitution that would prevent the Legislature from doing this in Paragraph I, the GEmeral Powers? THE CHAIRMAN:
'I'hat was a thought at the time. 'rhe zoning power doesn't exist. The power to pay money for advertising

',' 113 signs does not exist under the Constitution. MR. CLARK:
He couldn't say under 5 that the General Assembly shall have the power to comply with federal law, providing for the control of outdoor advertising, and just end it there without spelling out all of those? HR. TIDWELL:
I would think there, Dale, you would have to consult real closely with the Highway Department attorneys and get their blessings on this. This has been a ~horn in the side of the State for years, and I think they have finally got it fixed to their satisfaction, and it does seem to go on to some length to cover a fairly simple concept. Hithout their acquiescence in it, I would be afraid of it. \Vhat do you think? THE CIIAIRHAN:
That's my thinking. MR. CLARK:
Do you suppose we could get acquiescence or some suggestions from the attorneys of the Transportation Department that would narrow this all dO\m into a few sentences and cover it to their satisfaction?
HR. Tlmll:;LL:
You could ask them.
HR. HILL:

114 I could ask them. I promised Tim if we go t.O the Attorney General's office -- do they have spparate counsel? HR. TIDWELL: Marion (',ordon. MR. HENRY: I think you're going to have to go through the Attorney General because I attempted to talk to him one day.
r1R. CLARKE:
'1'0 Harion? MR. HENRY:
Yes. HR. CLARKI:;:
r've attempted to catch hiM toc. He'll give you a long rundown on that.
'I'HE ClIAl IU1AN :
You know, outside the problem of going to the Attorney General, I just think this ar~a has been qoing through a lot of long, drawn out litigation on a constitutional amendment to come up \'1ith this lanquage. MR. TIDVlELL:
He've had one t.hat \'las thrown out.
TIm CIll'!.I RIlAN :
Right.

,~.

115

1-1R. TID~lELL: An amendment to the Constitution that was
unconstitutional or something. So it's an agonized, cUlmination of an agonizing process. MR. CLARK:
Well, I recognize all the background that we don't know about, but it seems to me if you grant a constitutional provision, if it specifically grants the General Assembly the powers to enact laws that will comply with the federal law providing for control of outdoor advertising and junkyards, you know, it just grants it. It ought to cover that stuff, and it's a non-lawyer view, but if those lawyers were to agree to it, I think it sure would shorten this and take out an awful lot of specifics that I think we still ought to pursue and try to get this into very simple language. MR. TImmLL:
It's well worth it to look at because they may very well say, you know, we can shorten that.
Tin, going back on your discipline of the militia, I see you've cut it down a good bit, and I don't see any change that you made when you say, when you leave out "they shall be disciplined in accordance with the Constitution of the United States and Acts of the General Assembly and directives of the Governor in his capacity

116 of Commander-in-Chief." If you leave that out, what was your -thinking there?
'l'HE ClIAIIU-mN: Just where the Constitution and laws of the United
States would automatically apply. HR. 'l'IDVTELL:
Right. I understand that. I know why you left that out. THE CHAIRMAN:
Act.s of the General Assembly, tha~ would automatically apply, anu directives of the Governor, if he's got the authority under an l\.ct of the General Assembly, that. would automatically apply.
HR. TIO\~LL:
Hell, what if they didn't give it to hin. HR. HILL:
It's given to him under the EXC.'.cutive Article as a power of the Governor. lIe shall be the Commander-inChief of the military forces of the State. It specifically states that in Article V.
HR. 'l'IOHLLL:
I understand that, but here it says that h6 will be disciplined according to directives of the Governor as Comnanuer-in-Chief, and I'm not baing critical of what you've: done. I just want to make sun; that I

\(;\' 117 understand that it hasn't changed anything. It appears -chat it has, \.'hereas the Constitution gives the Governor -che right 1:0 provide directives for discipline, and now that's being taken away, and since we don't much have a mili1:ia that's operative, but in the even that 've did, generals do all sorts of things. When I was in the army, they could do all sorts of things about providing and issuing general orders in areas, and it's not a real big prob1mn, I don't reckon, but it appears to be it is a substantive change, whereas the others, when you took -chom out, are not, or do you agree with what I'm saying?
THL: CIIAIRl1AN:
Hell, I was just thinking about it. MR. IlEURY:
Hhat if on the duties and powers of Governor, you pu't. IIrrhe Governor shall be Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy of the State and of the militia" and something about they shall be under his direction? HR. rrrD\iELL:
Yeah. I think they are, Hike. This is strictly lirnit:ed to discipline of the members of the militia under his directive, and he might Hot ever ,.,ant to do that, but. if this comes out, there may be a need for it is wlw.l:. I'la saying sometime in th, future. THE CHAIRl'uuJ:

118 Yeah.
MS. RYSTROM:
If he's Commander-in-Chief of the militia, that doesn't automatically follow that thp discipline \lould be at his directive, or am I just out of it somC'Vlhere in here? HR. HILL:
It would not automatically follow I don't thin}: because the General Assembly is given the power to provide for a militia and provide for the manner in which
HR. TIDHLI...L:
They \vould have the exclusi.ve discipline. HR. HILL:
Haybe \ve could just add something, "Not inconsistent with the Governor's directives." THE CIIAIRHAN:
I'm speaking without any knmvledge, but trying to surmise \vhether or not, you know, t.he. Governor as Commander-in-Chief has certain inherent powers to give directives. What this tries to say -- well, I'm trying to articulate the concept. I agree wit.h }UU it's probably best to keep some of it in there relating to it., just because of that confusion. I 'ldould just think if you had inherent powers as Cormnander-in-Chief t.o give

cGrtain directives, then that would include -MR. TIDHLLL:
Discipline.
THl; ChAI RNAlJ :
disciplinary powers, and he wouldn't have the power -- those would certainly be inherent powers, but. he wouldn't have the power to go beyond t.hose inherent powers unless the General Assembly gave him authority. HR. HILL:
Uhat if we added a phrase at the end to say, "To provide for the trial by courts martial and the nonjudicial punishment of the members thereof, not inconsistE:nt \lith the directives of the Governor in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of th'e militia"? MH. 'I'ID\'lELL:
\;1ell, that may go too far. That may show that the Governor is the whole cheese, and I don't think that that \'o/Ould be what we would want. 've have it Hhere the (;eneral Assembly speaks to it, but that would be it, but also \'ihere they do not speak to it, then the Governor could provide for directives. THl~ CHAIRl'1J\.lJ:
Okay. How about "to provide for a militia and to provide in accordance with law and directives of the Governor"?

120 MR. TIDHELL:
Something like that. THE CHAIRr1i1N:
I didn't see the necessity for the language relating to rules of evidence and all of elate MR. Tlm-JELL:
,Ho. What they're talking about there is a State uniform court of military justice, just like the federal uniforIil code of military justice. THL CIIAIRl1AN:
Okay. vfe' 11 just have to see what \Ie can do about the Federal-Aid Highway Systems requirement and narrow that language, and \ve get dmm t.o compensation and allowances. That is an attempt, usinq the existinq concep'Cs of the provisions in Paragraph 4 at the top of page 17 and Paragraph 9 on page 14 -MR. CLARK:
Paragraph 4. Hhat was the other one? THE CHAI RHlU..j :
Paragraph 9 on page 14. HS. RYSTROIvl:
vIe1 1 , it certainly makes sense to put those tHO together. MR. CLARK:
I think so too.

THI..: CHAIRMAN: 1\11 right. Unless there is any --
DR. PYLES: \'lell, wait a minute now. t'lhat you're saying is
that a pay increase or decrease could be voted by the General Assenilily to take effect before the end of someone's t;.srm? TIlL ClIAI RHAN :
Right. MR. CLARK:
Ho. HR. HILI.:
Just the opposite.
MR. CLARK:
The opposite. MR. HILL:
The opposite. It cannot take effect. I'1R. TIDVffiLL:
For everybody else except members of the General Assembly, which at present is the way it's done nO\'I. Mmnbers of the General Assembly are the only ones who cannot reap the benefit of what they enact during their tenure. OR. PYLl:S:
During their term. All right.

122 THE CHAIRHAN:
We can go to Paragraph IV, which is a page over, Powers I~t to be Limited, and in there I tried to combine Paragraphs 2 and 3.
!'Is. RYSTROH:
That business about having the power to abridge its powers, does that come from somewhere or did you construct that? THl:.: CllAI RHAN :
That specific language? MS. RYSTRON:
Uh-huh. 'l'HE CHAI RMAN :
No. That's my language. MS. RYS'l'ROH:
It sounds like -THE CHAIRHAN:
l'.nd the reason it says, "The exercise of 'the right of eminent domain shall never be abridged or the exercise of the police power of the State shall never be abridged" comes again from constitutional doctrine established back in the 1800's, that for example, if the General Assembly created a corporation, that that in essence:> was a contract between the State and thE corporation, and if the State decided that its police pmV'ers ouqht to

123 operate in a way that was inconsistent with the charter of that corporation, that i,t couldn't make it operate as against that corporation; the same \"ith taxation.
MR. 'l'IDHBLL:
But the concept is in the present Constitution, is it not, 'rim?
THE CHAI ro1AN : Yeah.
I1R. CLl\ RK : I just don't understand why it would be necessary
to not have the power to abridge it_s powers. Does it have the power now to do that? I mean without stating that, \-,ould it? THL CHAIRHAN:
Yeah, it does. Unless you get into limitations, it does have the power to abridge its m'1n powers.
MR. CLl~RK:
\~lat do you mean by that? TIlL C1IAIilliAN:
Well, adopting a law in such a way that in essence a contract is formed between the State and somebody else, and once a contract is entered into, the contract cannot be abridged b~ the State.
MS. HYf.iTROH:
Houldn't. that law be unconstitutional?

124 THE CIIAIRHAN:
Hhy? MS. RYSTROM:
Because -- let's see. MR. CLAIU~:
This would make it urconstitutional? MS. R'iSU'ROH:
You're saying now it wouldn't.. I don't knmv. I saw sonething clearly there that faded away from me real fast. HR. TIDWELL:
~le' va had sor,le old tax exemptions t.hat wera qranted to the railroad that used -to be right over here, and those tax exemptions are in existence to this day despite considerable effort to try and do away with the>FI. SEN. BROHN:
It's been to tho Supreme Court several times. MR. TID'iiELL:
Mid the court said no, that that was an absolute right of the railroad t.o enjoy those tax exemptions. MR CLAru-~ :
I see. It was just the po\'ler to abridge. I think it was the language. I'm not objectinq to it. MR. TIDlVELL:
You don't understand it?

rm. CLARK:
I don't understand it.
MR. 'l'IDWELL:
I'm not sure that I do either. DR. PYLES:
Does this mean that they would not have the power to delegate?
THE ClIAIIDlAli:
Ho. DR. PYLES:
It does not mean that.
NS. RYS'l'ROH:
I don't undorstand \'lh<m you say, "The General Assembly shall not have the pm'ler to abridge its pO\l7ers under this Constitution nor shall the exercise of such powers." Is that the powers that it doesn't have the right to abridge? TIlL Clll\IRHAN:
!Jo. The powers of the General AsseMbly. 1'15. RYS'J.'ROH:
That's what I meant though. Something is troublinq about the powers. HR. HILL:
Hl'll, you understand right now we have Paragraph 2, the right of eminent domain, and P3ragraph 3, police

126 power, and this is just an effort to consolidate those two in one place, and they Here supposedly saying the same thing. You know, this language may need some \'lOrk I but that.' s the intent here. MR. CLARK:
You I'1ight say, "Nor shall the exercisH 0 f its powers," referring back. MR. TIDWELL:
\'Jhat literally does "abridge" mean, Tim? To surrender them? What's the concept? THE CHAIRHAN:
To surrender, to permit their future exercise. MS. RYSTROM:
I thought it was in ordinary language, non-legalistic it would mean limit I think. An abridged dictionary is one that has omissions because it's been shortened. That's what I assumed you meant here, but I thought that fit \'lith what we are trying to say here. MR. HENRY:
Would it also take into consideration -- I'm not sure alJout this -- that the General Assembly could not bind a follm'ling session? THE CHAIRNAN:
Right. MS. RYSTROH:

127 Unless the Supreme Court decided the other way. Haybe I better back up. Maybe I'm not understanding something here. Tim, do you feel that what you have written here would prevent another Georgia Railroad situation from happening? THE CHAIRHAU: (Nods affirmatively) MS. RYSTROM: That's the point. HR. CLARKE: What he's saying here is the General Assembly could not conmlit some act, perform some function that would have the effect of preventing it from carrying out its powers in the future, the powers being those which are granted to it otherwise in the Constitution, particularly as relates to eminent domain anq police powers. MS. RYSTROM: There must be some inconsistency in there on the Supreme Court decisions then on the Georgia Railroad. MR. CLARKE: At the time that was entered into, you did not have this provision. That's the reason this provision is in there. MS. RYSTROH: Presumably they thought the Georgia Railroad freedom

128 from taxation forever, and they would also have said that one General Assembly could bind all General Assemblies to hold open meetings, and they decided that the other way around, didn't they? Isn't that a logical conclusion? Well, all right. That sounds fine. HR. CLARK:
And I would assume that "abridge" is a t~ord that's been kicked around the courts and they understand it and so let's leave it.
~1R. CLARKE: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Well, if you can think of a layman's term ~o
convey the same meaning -MR. HILL:
You don't want to say, "Bind future sessions." I think the reason it's hard to understand is it's kind of referring to two groups of people, the General Assembly , now and the General Assembly ten, 15, 20 years from now, but it's all one word, the General Assembly, so maybe if there was some way we could Gtate it so that it comes across with what we're trying to say. MS. RYSTROM:
Hell, I don't see why we have to try to get the

F\GE 129
issue of their ability to bind future General Assemblies here. That was established by the Supreme Court on the existing Constitution. Would there be anything in this that would make it assume that one General Assembly, without amending the Constitution, could bind a future General Assembly? TIlL: CHAIRHAN:
I'm sorry. What's the question? I was trying to think of words. MR. TID\oJELL:
I don't think we have to address that issue. MS. RYSTROM:
That's what I mean. lIe said it.
MR. HENRY:
I think I may have confused you more by bringing it up than anything else. MS. RYSTROl1:
You didn't confuse me I don't think, but I just don't see why it needs to be in here. MR. HENRY:
Well, it's not specifically in there. HS. RYSTROH:
\Ve1l now, somebody said do "'Ie want to put that in. MR. HILL:
I was thinking of that as language that might be

130 better than this to explain what He're trying to say, but I don't think it ,.,ill be. It rai.ses more questions. r18. GREENBERG:
Are you expanding Paragraphs 2 and 3 or are you just ~rying to combine 2 and 3 in Paragraph IV? THE CHAIRr1AN:
Combine. Combine. M8. GREENBERG:
Because it seems like you're talking about all powers in your revised paragraph IV, \ihereas if you 're just limiting yoursElf to 2 and 3, 'ihy not just say, "The exercise of the right of eminent domain and of the police power of the State shall never be abridged," period. THE CHAIRMAU:
Yes. Well, taxation is also a similar prohibition in Article VII. MS. GREENBERG:
Okay. And taxation.
THE ClIAI m1AN : Yeah. If you want to limit yourself to encompassing
only those three concepts. MR. BILL:
It would make it a lot easier to read. THE CHAIRMAN:
Yeah. I agree.

PAGE 131
MR. TIDWELL: But it probably not accomplishing the original
purpose that you had when you drafted it. Right now it speaks only to abridgment of eminent domain, taxation and police power, and you ~nt to say everything, they can't give up anything. That's a pretty good concept maybe. THE CHAIRMAN:
Yeah. Police power probably encompasses everything. HR. HILL:
Haybe the exercise of the powers of the General Assembly shall not be abridged, nor shall the exercise of these powers -- then if we stated it, "The exercise of the powers of the General Assembly shall never be abridged." THB CHAIRMAN:
Let me see if I can come up with some editorial language for this section. Okay. I suggest we skip Paragraph V for a minute and go to Paragraph VI.
Paragraph VI contains part of Paragraph 5 and Paragraph 6 on page 17, and the date. is the date of ratification of the Constitution of 1945. That's where that comes from.
MR. CLARKE:
The corporations granted prior to that time are limited

,\

132

to 35 years?

THE CHAI Rr-lAN :
I think that's right.
l-1R. CLARKI::
Hhat's that? THE CHAI Rl'-1AN :
I think that's right.

MR. CLARKE:
If they were and we're getting ready for this thing to be ratified in 1980, 35 years would have just

expired then, as far as I know, and the other corporate code was changed, what, four or five years ago. All of them are limited to 35 years' life.

THE CHAIRMAN:
Well, before that we also have the General Assembly chartered corporations such as Georgia Railroad.

MR. CLARKE:
They may be perpetual. I don't know~ THE CHAIRMAN:
I think they are. MS. NONIDEZ:
That one is. THE CHAIRMAN:
All right.

MR. CLARKE:

'IAGE 133 Okay. THE CHAIRHAN: That's why that's in there I think. We're hoping to catch them one day. Is there any other corporation in the same position as the Georgia Railroad? MR. TIDWELL: I don't know of one, Tim. There could very well be, but I don't know of one. THE CHAIRHAH: Harold, let me ask you a question. I left out any reference to the Secretary of State or to specific types of corporations. Is that going to generate any problem?
MR. CLARKE:
I don't think so. I don't think so. MS. RYSTROM:
If somebody asked me to explain Paragraph 2, I would have to pass completely. Haybe nobody will ever ask me, but it would be embarassing. Could you restate
]". t:.?.
THE CHAIRMAN: r'm not sure if I can tell you the reasons for the
prohibition against remission of a forfeiture, but the basics -MS. RYSTROM:

134
I don't even know what that means. See, r don't
know what remission of a forfeiture is. THE CHAIRHAN:
It means to revive the charter.
MS. RYSTROM:
Revive? THl; CHAIRHAN:
Yes. If the charter had been forfeited prior to the ratification of the Constitution of 1945, the General Assembly cannot revive it without subjecting the Constitution to the limitations we have just been talking about.
MR. RYSTROM:
Okay. Thank you. THE CHAIRHAN:
Specifically the General Assembly could not revive it and thereby enter into a new contract which precluded the General Assembly from exercising its right of eminent domain or police power. That's where all this comes from. DR. PYLES:
Is there any reason then to have it in there still? 'fHE CliAIRMAH:
Yeah. DR. PYLES:

J AGE 135
There is.
1'1R. CLARK:
That's obscure to the general public, and it's obscure to me and thee. HS. RYSTROM:
Heavens no! I understand it perfectly.
DR. PYLES:
Ask her to explain it.
:-m CLl\lU~ :
I just wonder. You say it's in there for a purpose and you think it's necessary, but this whole area, if we could put it in language that some student or somebody else could pick it up in the State Constitution, reading it, you know, "Hhat does that mean? \"lhy is that there?" THE CHAIRHAU:
Hell, that's why it's there.
11S. RYSTROH:
What if we just changed the language so at least if you read through it, you could tell how many negatives there were and that kind of thing. That was part of my problem. It said the forfeiture shall not be reversed.
HR. HILL:
Revived.

136
MS. RYSTROH:
Or revived. No. I don't knmv wha-t it means t.O revive a forfeiture. THE ClIAIRHAN:
That's what I thought in the first instance, b'IJt I said, "Hell, suppose Georgia Railroad Banking Company has done something to cause a for.fei turfl of its charter and we don't know about it yet?" See?
f.1S. RYSTROH:
No. What you're talking about would be altered if we said "reversed" instead of "remitted"? THE CHAIRHAN:
Or "the charter shall not be revi vade II
HS. RYSTROH:
Weil, I mean I would understand that you can't reverse a forfeiture, but I didn't understand you can't remit a forfeiture, because I think of remitting as paying or something like that. I wouldn't want to try to define it. 1-1R. CLARK:
This is targeted toward a problem, isn't it? THE CHAIRHAN:
(Hods affirmatively)
MS. RYSTROH:
And I wasn't trying to change the problem.

P\(;E 137 HR. CLARK:
But I mean it's targeted towards a specific historic lJroblem. TIlE CHAIRHAN:
Yes. !VIR. CLARK:
That wouldn't apply to Hississippi, wouldn't apply to Minnesota. It applies to Georgia, right? THE CHAIRHAN:
(Hods affinnatively) I think, well, I guess Dartmouth College is still around under a state charter which is an original contract theory case. I don't know . other states would have the same problem. MR. CLARK:
They would? THE ClIAIRHAN:
Yes. MR. CLARK:
I thought we were talking about the Georgia Railroad here. THE CHAI RMAN :
That's specifically what this is addressed to. It's also designed to take care of all the corporations that existed prior to 1945, whether they were General Assembly chartered or not.

138 MR. CLARK:
Mld they would have to come under the provisions of this Constitution? THE CHAI Rl1AN :
Right. 1-1R. CLARIm:
If they forfeited their charter and then attempted to breathe life back into the corporation through a remittance or revival or what have you -1-1R. CLARK :
You suppose there's any way of putting that in just layman language or does it ~equire the legal terminology? DR. PYLES:
I would think when a corporation remits a charter or goes out of business it's a dead issue; it's dead. MR. CLARKE:
Well, as I understand it, the time lapses -- I may be wrong on my recollection, but for instance, there are certain requirements on corporations and if you don't comply with those requirements, after a period of what, two years or I believe it is something like that, then your charter or now articles of incorporation could be revoked. DR. PYLES:
Or it could be revoked by the Secretary of State.

PAc;E 139
loiR. CLARKE: How, there could be a period of hiatus in there in
which you're in default or have a forfeiture to some extent, but ara not completely out of the picture. DR. PYLES:
Yeah. I see it now.
MR. CLARICE:
And subject to being revived, and I say all that without any real knowledge at all about what we're talking about, and I'm probably not very accurate. HS. RYSTROH:
l~d then the last sentence in 2 --
TUB CHAIRMAN:
The last sentence of 2? MS. RYSTROH:
I don't mean that. I mean the end of the first sentence in 2, "except under the condition that such corporation shall thereafter hold its charter subject to the provisions of this Constitution." Then \-lhen we go back to Paragraph IV --
'I'HE ClU~Im1AN:
Yeah. NS. RYSTROH:
Hell, maybe it doesn't matter whether people could read this and understand it. I wasn't objecting to the

140 purpose at all, but just -MR. CLARK:
I'm not objecting to the purpose.
HR. HILL: If \{e \'lould say, "1'.11 corporations, no matter when
chartered, shall hold or all corporations shall hold their charter subject to this Constitution," that would not solve out problem? THE CHAIRMAN:
Because they tried one time before. MR. HILL:
Somebody took my idea and lost. MS. RYSTROH:
I thought the best idea was to insist that they improve the passenger service. HR. CLARK:
Hhat' s a novation? THE CHAIRNAN:
Creates a new contract. MR. CLARKE:
From the beginning so to speak. MR. TIDVlELL:
That's good lawyer language. MS. RYSTROH:
They don't want us to understand it.

PAGE 141
MR. CLARKE:
A novation is if you have an existing contract and you're making a certain change in it, and it. may simply be an amendment to the contract, and everything then relates back to the beginning time of that contract. \llien you have a novation, there is in effect a cancellation of that contract and a new relationship between the contracting parties with their rights being derived from the new relationship rather than the old.
MS. RYSTROM:
One"thinq, it will give us a chance to show off in the future when we explain it.
THE CIIAlIU-1AN:
You want to try remittance of a forfeiture?
MR. CLARK:
I'm going to duck and dodge if that ever comes.
MR. TIDl'JI::LL:
I want Channel 5 to do an editorial on that.
MR. CLARK:
Yeah.
MR. CLARKE:
I'm afraid I don't want to see it.
MR. CLARK:
I don't want to write it. HR. CLARKE:

142 r'll have to digress for j'ust a moment. I'll have to dig out one of the cutest things I ever saw. There's a little old lady down in my hometown who is just a bright, bright person. She occasionally writos a little colman for the local newspaper, and I had done a long power of attorney for her, and she devoted her colunn one day to this power of attorney, and it's one of the most comical things you've ever seen, and I'll try to bring it along, because she was poking good natured fun at me for all the legalese that ended up in the thing that I probably got out of a form book anyway.
MR. CLARK:
Nell, novation is a good constitutional word.
MR. CLARKE:
There is very clear understanding of what novation means. THE CHAIRMAN:
I've left out any reference to dealing with the corporations to the Secretary of State or to specific types of corporation. I just didn't see the need to have that in the Constitution. MR. TIDWELL:
Unless the Secretary of State would have any objection to it, I thought it ought to be the way you have done it. The General Assembly ought to have the

PAGE 143 authority to give it to Johnny Caldwell if they want to at some time in the future. MS. RYSTROI1:
Don't say that. Then the Secretary of State will have- opjections. THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay. Let's go to Paragraph VII. MR. HILL:
So Paragraph VI is pretty much approved as is? THE CHAIRMAN:
I think so. Everybody wishes we could clarify Subparagraph 2 a little bit, and II11 try to work on that, but I donlt know if we're going to get that accomplished.
Paragraph VII is a combination of two provisions in the section we're dealing with, with Paragraph 8 at the bottom of page 17 and Paragraph 10 on 18, and two provisions from Article I, Section 2, one dealing with lotteries on the bottom of page 7 and one. dealing with lobbying on the top of page 8, and essentially all these provisions seem to me, if we're trying to classify these thing~, all these provisions dealt \",rith things that people wanted to outlaw in the Constitution and not let the General Assembly authorize them and not let the courts ever say they were not against public policy, and

144 Subparagraph (a) is almost the identical language we've got now. (b) is substantially what the existing language is, and in (b) I didn't SSE the need to use any of the words on the sale of lottery tickets. It seems to me the sale of lottery tickets is part of a lottery, and (c) HR. CLARK:
Let me ask you about these kids coming around with Little League baseball tickets on a color television set. THE CHAIRHAN:
That's a lottery. l-1R. CLARK:
Should that be prohibited? THE CHAIRHAU:
Yes, it is. MR. TIm-JELL:
Crime. When you buy it and ~len he sells it. MR. CLARK:
Is that a crime? MR. TIDWELL:
Yes, sir. MR. CLARK:
Nobody knows that. SEN. BROWH:
I knew it.

t'i',GE 145
MR. CLARK: These Little League tickets on color television
sets and record players? MR. HILL:
cn radios. MR. CLARK:
And you bUy them because they're kids, and it's prohibited?
'I'HI.: CllAI Rl1AH :
That's right. l-m. CLARK:
Is it.really? UH. TImJELL:
(Hods affinnatively) Not being facetious, it's a crime. MR. CLARI~:
It's a lottery? MR. TIDl'mLL:
In fact it's a rather serious crime.
MS. RYS'fROH:
Loads of prosecutions.
HR. CL}\RI~:
Should that be? r'm getting off the track here.
DR. PYLES:
Here comes an editorial. I can hear it nO\-l.

146
MR. CLARK:
Hell, if it's illegal, then raise the question. Nobody has ever raised the question. I know the bingo with the bingo background. HR. 'l'IDWELL:
You would have to have a pretty involved exception to this term "lotteries" to do what you want to le.galize those Little Leaguers.
MR. CLARK:
Hell, I \vasn' t looking for legal izat.ion, but I assumed it was exempt and non-profit. TIlE CHAIRMAN:
There are a lot of things that go on that are just not touched, like a lot of the grocery store cont.ests are lotteries. DR. PYLES:
Hhat about a McDonald's? THE CHAIRMAN:
Or I1cDonald's, that's a lottery. MR. HILL:
Well now, this brings up a point. In Article I, the Coramittee working on Article I \vherc: this originally was or is now recommended that this be deleted completely, not just from their Article, but from the whole Constitution, this prohibition on lotteries.

147 MR. CLARK:
Well, we've come through this bingo thing.
THE CHAIRMAN:
That was a hassle. That was a hassle.
MR. CLi\RK:
Yeah. I sure would -- you know, it would be damaging something that has just been aCcomplished almost on the bingo thing.
THE CHAIRHAN:
And the argument is if you don't have it in there, they can allow pari-mutual betting and anything you want 9an go. HR. HILL:
I'm just reporting on the Committee.
MR. TIDWELL:
They did have a good bit of debate' HR. HILL:
No, not really. ~fuen they heard you were taking it, they didn't discuss it too much. They said" "In fact \ve don't think it belong s in there," and somebody moved and seconded it. They didn't really talk about it.
THE CHAIRMAN:
So when they heard we were taking it --
MR. CLARK:
In the Constitution and all?

148
HR. HILL: They thought it should be omitted completely from
the Constitution. Hell, there were three things over there, lobbying, the next thing you're getting to, lotteries, and the third one -- let's see. \'lhat vlaS the third one? TEl' CHAIRMAN:
Concealment of debts. f-1R. HILL:
Concealment of debts. They thought all three of those really didn't belong in it and should just be omitted from the Constitution completely. THE CHAIRl'1AN:
I did pick up the thing about concealment of property, but I don't know that it really adds anything. It doesn' t ou"tlaw anything. It just means that the General Assembly -- it authorizes the General Assembly to deal with it, what they have the inherent power to do anyway. MR. HILL:
So you did omit that one? THE CHAIRNAN:
Yes. I did omit it. MR. HILL:
And you restated lobbying?

p~GE

149

THE CHAIRMAN:

Yeah.

HR. TIm-JELL:

Hhere is that in the Bill of Rights?

.HR. HILL:

Bill of Rights, page 8, top of the page.

l-'lS. GREENBERG:

Is lObbying defined?

THE CHAIRMAN:

No.

MS. GREENBERG:

I thought lobbying was done all the time.

THE CHAIRMAN:

Yes, it is.

MS. GREEHBERG:

All those parties during the session.

MR. TID\VELL:

It's defined so that a legitimate lobbying has not

fallen under this constitutional prohibition.

MS. RYSTROM:

Unless you're arguing something for lobby

disclosure, in which case it turns out it's illegal

anyway. So how could it be legal to disclose it? The

word "lobby" is used.

THE CHAI ID1AN :

150 I avoiqed the word "lobby." I just talked about the improper solicitation. DR. PYLES: Where is the one on debt? MR. HILL: Concealment of fraud. DR. PYLES: Oh, it's under fraud. I got you. This is the one you think does not belong? HR. HILL: Right. MS. GREENBERG: So you think it should be left to the Legislature also to define "improper solicitation"?
'lIHE CI-lAI'Rl1AN:
Right. MS. RYSTROM:
And under fraud on the concealment of property, that's not a category in which they are not allowed to I mean it's a different kind of a bird altogether. THE CHAIRHAN:
Yeah. It doesn't outla\v anythinq. MS. RYSTROH:
Right. THE CllAI RHJll~ :

PAGE 151 It just authorizes the General Assembly to deal with it, which they have an inherent power to do. I would like to take out lotteries. I don't think it belongs in the Constitution.
DR. PYLES:
I agree. THE CHAIRMAN:
There would just be screams if you did that.
MR. CLARK:
I was just thinking, if you could put some exemption in it.
MR. HILL:
For the children? NR. CLARK:
Hhat we think of as innocent.
HR. TIOV1ELL:
It's fairly well handled statutori11y, so that if you did remove it, if that should be your wisdom, you don't open up the doors for anything, so that if you want to get it out, I think you can do it. THE CIIAIRHAN:
But on thl' other hand, the only effect this would have is if somebody \mnted to get their money back for the ticket they paid, they can get it back.
HR. CLARI(:

152 How is it handled statutorily? MR. TIm'V'ELL: It's a crime to try and influence -MR. CLARK: ~ve' re talking about lottery. He' re talkinq about the lottery. MR. TIDHBLL: Lottery? Oh, excuse me. I thought you were talking about lobbying. MR. CLARK: He're back on the lotteries. MR. TIDWELL: 110. I think you would have a terrible problem if you tried to do that. There are a lot of commercial gambling activities that fall in this category of lottery. DR. PYLES: Like betting on football games. ','t MR. TID\vELL: Hell, a lot of professional type gambling activities are classified as lotteries. THE CHAIRl-1AN: Hell, the way this is worded, the Constitution doesn't make it crime. The Constitution declares that it's against public policy, so that if somebody bought a ticket

PAGE 153 from a Little League baseball raffle or lottery, the only effect this would have would be to let them get their r~ney back, but it wouldn't let the General Assembly authorize, specifically authorize that raffle. HR. HILL:
Is there now a crime called or that covers lotteries? So that I mean would the same argument apply, irrespective of the political dimension of it? Hould the same argument apply that there is now a criminal law to prohibit the sale of lottery tickets as well as the lobbying thing and that if we could get a copy of that, we could get a hold of that law that makes it a crime to do this? Would that answer the people that are going to want this in the Constitution? THE CHAIRHAN:
I don't think so. MS. RYSTROH:
No, because that law could be changed if the Constitution doesn't prohibit it and you think it is a mortal sin.
MR. TIDHELL:
I don't know how upset the people would get if you did that, but I suspect that they \'lOuld get very upset.
MR. CLARK:
If you took it out? If you took it out?

154

I,m. TIDHELL:

Yes.

MR. CLARK:

lvell, the bingo needs to stay in. I mean \Ve 're

familiar with that because of the recent problems.

HS. RYSTROM:

~'ye can't go through that again.

DR. PYLES:

You say these people would be upset, but we're all

part of the infra-structure that supports it by buying

these tickets.

MR. TIDWELL:

I think the people that \vould get upset \vould not

be the people that buy that Little League lottery. It's

the people against pari-mutual betting and gambling in

general.

DR. PYLES:

I got you.

HR. TIDHELL:

,",

Under the existing structure of the General

Assembly, they couldn't legalize it. They've gone

completely on record that. it is illegal, but they \lIould

see all sorts of evil there I'm afraid.

THE CHAIRMAN:

l~re you saying you thought we could use the word

"lobbying" instead of "improper solicitation"?
MR. TIDWELL:
Hell, you may have said it better here, but until a few years ago, they did have a statute that said that lobbying is a crime. DR. PYLES:
Yeah. They sure did. I remember that. HR. 'l'ID\'lELL:
And they didn't go in any more, and then the General Assembly came in and said except that when you do this and thus and so and that and so and that's not lobbying, that's all right.
HS. RYSTROH:
\rIlly is it necessary? MR. TIDHELL:
So it's better this way I would think, because lobbying is a real generic term. It includes a lot of ac-civities, and what you're saying is "improper solicitation," that's the bad lobbying.
I1S. RYSTROH:
Hhy do we have to make it unconstitutional to pass legislation which would allow bank robbery or fraud or something like that? Hhy is that there? of course there Vlould be laws against improper solicitation and no n6C",d to say that you can't pass lmvs \;hich allm;

'"

156

improper sOlicitation. Do you feel like it needs to be

in t.hcre? THE CHAI roW-J :

Ho. It doesn't need to be in there.

1'1S. RYSTROH:

Imd I don't think there is a constit.uency that

wants to see lobbying or anything like t,hat. I mean I

don't think this is like the bingo or lottery situation where there is a large group of people that \vould be

among the uprising if it was eliminated, but I'd love to

see it out unless someone likes it in.

'l'HE CHAIRMAN:

As a logical proposition it doesn't need to be in

there. It's just that if it's not in there, then

the political reaction is, "You took it out, and you're

going to let them lobby."

MS. RYSTRON:

Well, we want them to lobby. We let them lobby

right now.

HR. TIDNELL:

I \vould think ':.hat the public \vould not react --

THE CILiURHAN:

The same way.

MR. TIDWELL: the same way as on the lottery. Parks, do you

r:F 157
think so? SEN. BROHH:
No. MR. TIDHELL:
And the Article II'revision which dealt with the election franchise, there was a provision in there that said that the sale of alcoholic beverages is prohibited on election day, and so they decided, well, they do sell them now; we'll take it out, but the drys will really get upset, and there wasn't a word, not a word said about it.
rm. CLARKE:
Of course it was defeated, but not for that reason. HS. RYSTROH:
Not for that reason. HR. CLARKE:
I think this is very much the same. Nobody will care. Uobody will get real upset about that. HS RYST RON:
Let's strike it. THE CllAIRl1AN:
Is that a motion? MS. RYSTROH:
Yes.

158 THE CHAIRHAN:
Second? HR. CLARK:
Yes. THE ClIAIRHAN:
All in favor of striking Subparagraph (c), vote aye. (Showing of hands)
It's unanimous. Okay. Paragraph (d) comes from Paragraph 10 on page 18, and I really don't know if that's needed in the Constitution or not. MS. GREENBERG:
Is that covered under 8, Paragraph VIII, gratuities? THE CHAIRMAN:
No. This relates to Georgia Power giving a rebate to a large supplier, for example, or to a railroad giving a rebate on shipping charges. MR. HILL:
Is this part of the criminal law? Do you know? This prohibition? THE CHAIRHAN:
Well, it's inherent in the concept of the public utilities that they have to charge everybody the same thing. They're not supposed to give rebates, but it's part of the common law, and it just puts the common law

in the Constitution. l\lR. CLARK:
tlould the common law hold if it was not in the Constitution? TIn.: CHAIRNAN:
tvell, the General Assembly could authorize rebates. That's why it's in the Constitution. If this prohibition were not there, the General Assembly could authorize Georgia Power to give rebates. HR. CLARK:
But it would take an Act of the General Assembly to authorize tilis rebate? THE CllAI JU.1AU :
Or if it authorized the Public Service Commission to set rates, then the Public Service Commission could authorize rebates in the rates in any case. MR. CLARK:
It seems superfluous, doesn't it? THE CHAI ID-IAN :
Yes. That's my reaction.
MS. RYSTRON:
I think so too. All the Public Service Commission needs to do is set rates for volumes and so on and they've got. the equivalent of rebates anyway. HR. CLARK:

160 I wonder if striking this \-lould not. bring any public THE CHAIRHAN: Do you think anybody knows about this provision?
l-IR. TIDWELL:
Ho. SEN. BRO\vN:
I don't. MS. RYSTROH:
Move we remove it. HR. CLARK:
I second.
THE CHAI RMAU :
All in favor? (Showing of ,hands)
Unanimous. All right. One provision of the Constitution in our section that I did not include is also on page 18, Paragraph 11, dealing '-lith street. railways.
HS. RYSTROH:
Don't you wish we had some?
THB CHAI Rl-IAN :
I don't know whether it's needed, Cha.rlice. I think that went out with the street car days. MR. CLARK:

:'t\,;F 161
What does it mean "without the consent of the proper authorities'l? THE CHAI rolAN :
Without the consent of the city. MS. RYSTR0l4:
In other words, it separates street railways from the other modes of transportation? THE CHAIRHAN:
(Nods affirmatively)
MR. HILL:'
So let's say if you had a MARTA rail line through the City of Atlanta, the City of Atlanta 'vould have to agree before they could do it? THE CHAIRMAN:
(Nods affirmatively) MS. RYSTROH:
And yet that would not be the case with a rail line that wasn't like MARTA. HR. CLARK:
Does the General Assembly now authorize that kind of construction? THE CHAIRNAN:
Hot that I know of. I don't think there has been a street passenger railway in the State.
MR. TID\vELL:

162

I wonder what is meant by a street passenger

railway.

MR. CLARK:

\fuuld that cover things likA rapid transit in

Savannah or some other city?

THE CHAIRHAN:

Yeah. I think it would cover a rapid transit system. It says the General Assembly couldn't put. it. in

Savannah unless the City of Savannah \'lanted it.

MS. RYSTROM:

Which they wouldil't likely do anyway since th6Y

want Savannah to pay for it.

THE CHAIRHAH:

I think it also probably deals -- and I haven't done

any historical research on it, but it also probably deals

with private street passenger railway service. In

other words, if Atlanta Transit, for example, got a

"

charter from the General Assembly to operate a transit

system, a railway transit system inside t.he City of

Atlanta

MR. CLARK: You felt this was not necessary. You eliminated it?

THE CHAI illIAN :

Yeah. I did not include it, but I wanted to bring

it up so you could decide whether that's what you wanted

l':\CE 163
to do. HS. RYSTROM:
I am curious on why you just arranged this Paragraph VII the \vay you did. The title "Limitation Against Permitting Certain Activities" is clear t.o me. Then it's sort of strange to me at any rate to see it declared it unlawful and void and then another paragraph, which causes you to look upwards and say you cannot do this. Could not Paragraph 2 -THE CHAIRMAN~
Start there? HS. RYSTROH:
h'here you have Paragraph 1, couldn't that be Paragraph 2? THE CHAIRHAN:
Yeah. MS. RYSTROH:
I was just sort of wanting to move that there, and you don't have the need to say, "The following matters and activities are herGby declared unlawful and void." If "''1e say, "The Gene.ral Assembly shall not have the power to authorize any of the following" -THE CHAIHMAN:
Hight. MS. RYSTROH:

164 That would in effect substitute for this. MR. CLARK: Yes.
MS. RYSTROH:
And you would say "the following" instead of ilthe. foregoing. " MR. CLARK:
I see. Put 2 at the head of this. THE CHAIRHAN:
All right. Let's go back to Paragraph V. which is from Paragraph 7 on page 7, and I was going to suggest a change in that language, but I think I'm going to withdraw my suggestion. So on the fourth line of my Paragraph V, strike the words "or may be" so that it reads, "No special law shall be enacted in any case for which provision has been made by general law." And then I added, "No special law relating to private persons shall be enacted," which is designed to prohibit the General Assembly from granting divorces or changing the names of illegitimate children or any of those other matters.
MS. RYSTROH:
There are every year just a slew of such things, are there not? I don't knO\v about divorces and stuff like this.

PAGE 165
DR. PYLES: Private bills.
HS. RYSTROM: Yeah. I never know what those are, but there are
bunches of them. THE CHAIRMAN:
They are all compensation bills, which is something we haven't talked about at all. HR. TIm'lELL:
Yeah. They are perhaps not only suspect from this provision, but gratuities. THE CHAIRMAN:
I was reading the other day where it said the State grants compensation to someone and the State was liable, that sovereign immunity did not exist. It was not a gratuity; it was a recognition of a morale obligation. MR. HILL:
Does this prohibition cover recognizances as well? THE CHAIRMAN:
No. The way I dealt with recognizances is essential~Y the State cannot forgive a debt, you know, remit or relieve the forfeiture of a recognizance. MR. HILL:
It cannot by virtue of something in our section or just by virtue

166 THE CHAI ffi.1AN :
\vell, it is in the gratuities provision. The gratuities provision says that the C~neral Assembly shall not have the power to grant any donation or gratuity in favor of or forgive any debt or obligation owing to the State. MR. HILL:
Okay. THE CHAIRHAU:
I thought that would take care of the corporate reco91izances. MR. TIDHELL:
Apparently the General Assembly used to do a good bit of that. THE eilAI RHAN :
It was primarily on bail bonds.
MR. TIm'lELL:
That's right. I think it was pretty common practice to do that years ago. MS. RYSTROH:
Are you touching, ''1hen you say "laws a f a general nature," getting into those population bills?
THE CllAIPJ'1AN:
Yeah. Yeah. That's why I struck the vvords "or may be," because I don I t think we're competent to deal v,i th

!'AGE 167
any type of changes. It's really a complex field.
HS. RYSTROM:
Are any of the Committees?'
[IR. TILMELL:
Mel is. Hel is going to solve the problem.
MR. HILL:
There is no Committee that's been assigned to work on that particular issue.
r1S. RYSTRm1:
. And it just doesn't naturally fallon the responsibility of --
MR. HILL:
Of your Committee?
l-1S. RYSTROH:
Of any. I was looking for some other Committee.
MR. TlmiELL:
Ho.
tom. HILL:
It's over in Article XI, and I guess the Select Committee may set up a special committee.. Have they thought much about that?
HR. Tlm1ELL:
I thought you were inst.ruc'ted by the Speaker's Committee to come up with language that would prohibit population bills.

THE CHAI R11AN : Absolut.ely prohibit?
MR. TIDl'1ELL: Uh-huh.
HR. HILL: No.
HR. TIDHEI.L: You don't remembor t.hat?
HR. HILL: 110. Yesterday you mean?
!'iR. TIDWELL: You remember it, Cindy?
HS. NONIDEZ: I remember the discussion. I sure do.
HR. TIDWELL: And I told you, I suggested you look somewhere in
the Cons-citution for a beginning. MS. NONIDEZ:
That's right.
MR. TIDWELL:
You've forgotten your charge? Hhich Committee am I talking about? HS. NONIDEZ:
You're talking about the SubcoI'1I!littee on Organization Procedure, the Subconunittee.

PAGE 169 HR. HILL:
And the Speaker requested that we come up with a prohibition of population bills?
MR. TImvELL:
A prohibition.
MS. RYSTROM:
And a way to grandfather all the ones that did exist?
MR. TID\'lELL:
, Hell, he didn't deal with that.
MR. RYST"lOM:
But an awful lot of stuff would tumble if those were no longer operable. HR. TIDHELL:
You would leave those on I'm sure.
MS. RYSTROM:
Can you get to that this afternoon, Mel? HR. HILL:
I think I thought he was kidding.
HR. TIDHELL:
No. lIe was dead serious I think. Was he not, Cindy?
filS. ~mNIDEZ:
I think Frank is trying to work on this too, because this particular provision of Article I has been

j'

170

giving us problems.

SErlo BROWN:

After the census, a lot of thc: counties will have

to have the local bills repealed because their population

changed. He had to do this last -time.

THE CHAIRHAN:

Counties come in and go out and they don't even know

it.

SEN. BRmIN:

That's right.

MS. RYSTROH:

That means when you won a prize bocause you're the

thousandth or millionth customer, i t ahvays se~ms to me

that that one person that came in or left that plunged

the community into a different category had a lot of

power, but does somebody really go around to make sure

that --

SEN. BROWN':

The Council usually keeps up with that and usually

advises the members of that area that they're coming under

this law, and they want a local bill to take them out

or something.

MR. TIDWELL:

There are a lot of counties that routinely do most

of their local bills that way. They kind of take it upon

/'),.(;F

171

themselves to make sure that they do that, but there are

many obscure ones out there.

1-15. GREENBERG:

Isn't Article IX dealing with that?

~1R. HILL:

Article IX ought to take a lot of it.

~1S. GREENBERG:

There is a memo I thought from Judy Adams. HR. HILL:

Talking about that?

MS. GREEUBERG:

That talked about that to the Article IX Committee

members on special population acts.

MR. HILL:

I'm glad you pointed this out to me, Charlie.

MR. TIDWELL:

He may forget it too, but this was two meetings ago,

not the last one. Two meetings ago.

.'

MR. HILL:

And I think I thought he was kd.dding. Actual1y"he

sort of said it and laughed, and I just went about my

business, bu~ you're right. It's'not funny.

HS. RYSTROl1:

Has it your feeling that. the language that you have

here would prohibit completely any such or is a population

],

172

act sonething THE CHAIRl1AN:

A population act is considered, if it's open-ended,

which means that counties can move through it, depending

on their population, and the population is related to the

purpose of the legislation, it's considered a general

law.

MS. RYSTROH:

So we haven' t done an awful lot by doing this?

THE CHAIRMAN:

No.

HR. TIDi'JELL:

That's just a restatement of the present law that

permits them, if they're done properly, to meet that

criteria. Tim just said it.

THE CHAIRHAN:

Host of them don't. but that's really a local

government issue.

MR.' HILL:

\'lell, yes and no. Do you think there should be

something that we should actually submit as part of

I mean if we're going to put this in here, we could

add some language right here about population statutes.

HR. TImmLL: It came up in the other Committee under the ~nactment

P.l.CE 173
of laws, and it dealt with local legislation, and it was their policy decision that population acts ought to be prohibited by this Constitution.
!-IS. RYSTROH:
Population acts are a way of getting around the need for agreement in the local delegation to request local legislation?
HR. HILL:
The advertising. requirement, mainly the advertising requirement.
SEN. BROUN:
That's true, because you have to advertise in the local papers so many weeks that you're going to introduce local legislation, and if you use a population act, you don't have to say anything about it.
MR. TIDWELL:
Three things. Mainly it's this one right here, this provision right here where you can deal with essentially a local law what you want to do, and that's why most of them are drafted, to get around this very provision that we're talking ahout here. Each of them have their own rationale of why, but legally that's why most of them are drafted, to get around this prohihition.
MS. RYST ROB:
I was just curious about other states. Are there

,,
174 prohibitions against legislation that only affects by names, say, certain counties or cities in other sta~e constitutions? THE CHAIRlIJAN:
I think other states -- correct me i. f I'm \vrong, but otller states divide cities up into classes, class one through class five, and the classes arc set by population, and then you deal with that particular class, without dealing with everybody, but you've got to deal with everybody within that class~ MS. RYSTROH:
So it makes it harder. He' re doing the same thing, but we're defining classes more narrowly? THE CHAIRHAN:
(Nods affirmatively) HR. TIDWELL:
A lot of other states don't have local legislation, period. They just don't have local bills. They do everything the way Tim said. MR. HILL:
Well, would you be willing to have the population prohibition put into your section right here? THE CHAIR11AN:
I'd love to please the Speaker. MR. HILL:

I'AGE 175 This would be the place for it I think. If we're ever going to tackle it, we might as well as tackle it here so we can work on language for the next meeting t.o add to it. MS. RYSTROM: nut if we prohibit it, what are we saying then? That, you know, you can prohibit it, then how about the problem that that technique is designed to address? Haybe not the advertising. 1'1R. TIDHELL: You would do it so that if there is a legitimate relationship between population and subject matter, that you can operate. That's where it becomes real difficult to do what Mel has got to do, but I lost my train of thought. There are some good population bills that are perfectly constitutional. Host of them are not, because it. doesn't meet that one criteria, and that's that the subject matter of the legislation is related to population. MS. RYSTROB: So when we talk about eliminating population laws, . it's eliminating those that don't meet that criteria? MR. TID\'lELL: It's a classical population act that deals with just one county or one municipality.

176
MS. RYSTROM:

Well, I think it would just be fun to get into this,

even if we aren't able to solve it.

THE CHAIIU-IAU:

\fuy don't you delegate it, Mel?

MS. :RYSTROMI

Oh, no.

MR. TIm'ffiLL:

Vvhen you' va got the Speaker of the House saying he

wants to get rid of it, you've got some pretty big

horses pulling that wagon.

HR. HILL:

,.

l ...~""",..

Well, there's already an effort to limit this to

some extent in the 1972 amendment to local government

powers where i t gives cities and countiE'.s broad power in

15 functional areas, and it says that the General

Assembly can enact, can act in these lL1 areas or 15, but

if they do so by population, it has to be where it's

nIDre cllan a certain number or less than a certain number,

but they can't haVE a range, you know, and so there was

some effort in that language to address this problem,

and that ~.1ay be the kind of thing we Play track here, but

I would like to sec classification at ll.::ast for cities

and cowlties aut.horized in the Consti"t.ution so that the:' could deal viith this, but I think I made ment.ion of that

PAGE 177
co thl:! Speaker, and he doesn't fsel ,they should be allowed to do that. HR. TIm-JELL:
He've got real good bills now, like the sheriff's minimum salary, and I don't think he wants to prohibit that in that broad, across the board prohibition that he Has talking about. I think \"hen he thinks about it, he'll say he wants to permit that sort of thing, and that sort of a task is really difficult. MR. CLARK:
\1ell, there has to be an avenue for local legislation in the State, doesn't there, but what you're saying is there still would be the methodology for chat:?
SEN. BH.mm:
011, yes. You would advertise for three or four \IEeks . HR. CLJI.RI~:
nut for the legislation, you i\7ould haVE; to do the advnrtising that's required. You could not do it as general legislation by population restrictions. HR. TIDi'lLI.L:
That's right, and to get around this, what the Gm1eral Assembly addresses on a state-wide basis, this is tho policy, and you don't provide a rl6chanisra for a

178 local jurisdiction to vary that general policy through the subterfuge of a population bill. 'I'ha.t.:. I s the real evil of those bills. MR. CLARK:
It seems to me one of the basic big things that all of these Committees should be addressing I mean it's a thing the Constitution seems to me to need clarifying, but does that fall onto this Committee, this Subcommittee? THE CHAIm1AN:
He're the general powers. ~tR. HILL: '
Powers of the General Assembly, this is \vhere, it goes right here. HR. CLARl(:
Could the classification, which I gather is a progressive good thing, is that possible to put for this Subcommittee? ''I MR. HILL:
I think it 'would be part of this very topic here, the laws of a general nature, how would the laws of the State wor;k, you know, and I think it would fit here about as well as anywhere. TIlE CHAIRl'V\N:
Hell, thOSE; states have called population bills

PAGE 179 special law and said that no special law can be enacted .....here a general law may cover the same thing. MS. RYSTROH:
And you really have a sentence that says that in here.
THt: CIIl\I rulAN :
Yeah. But. Georgia's definition of a Georgia law is not totally consistent with other states. Haybe that's part of the solution, ~~l, on the special laws so we can geta consistent definition of general law, special law and local law. 1vlS. NONIDEZ:
Because, Tim, in the other subcommittee again, they have noted just this very problem with that term "special law." TIll: CHAIRl1AN:
Yeah. HS. HOiUD:CZ:
And you're either talking about general legislation or local.
HR. Tlm'lELL:
Eliminating the phrase "special law" so everybody knows what you're talking about. MS. NOHIDEZ:
Exactly.

180 HR. HILL:
vlell, this would also fit in Article XI ,,,,here it really sets forth what the law of the State is. The
is supreme law the Consti tution, then tIle. general 1a\'/,
the.n the local acts of legislation. You could also say it here, but I think it fits where W8 are, and it's probably something we should tackle; you know, the full Committee, the Select Conunittee, the General Assembly could decide not to put that on the ballot at this tirlc. HR. CLARKe
And it \vould be a general law or local la\'1, but no special laws. That would be the target. THE CHAIRHAN:
Yeah. MR. TIDVJELL:
l1y conception of how you have to handle that, about the easiest way is just flat prohibit thG General Assembly from adopting a bill that uses population as a classification for its application when it applies to only one, two, three, whatever number you want to take, jurisdictions. Then that's what you're after, is to get after ~lat, really what is a local bill, and leave all the other legitimate areas of classification, and I think if you <lid that, you would solve 99 pE';rcen-: of the problem. You would still have some bills where t\'1O or

l'AGE 181 ~hree counties would get together at the upper end or the lower end and maybe have some legislation that just applied to them, but it's when thoy just apply to one county or one municipality that you're really -- that's the evil. HS. RYSTROH:
\vould that fly in the General Assembly, that 'kind of refoIT.l?
HR. 'l'ID\lJ..;LL:
I don't know.
SEU. 13 ROHH :
You can't ever tell.
MR. TIDWELL:
Hhen the Speaker of the House has said he wants done
NS. RYSTROH:
But of course you said he may not have meant quite -MR. TIUHI:LL:
Well, I think he moant what we have said here, but that's a very effective tool by some, membors of t.ll: General I~ssembly, and he may have more trouble than he thinks, but it ...laS gene.ral agreement in that. Committee .:hac that: ought to be done, and that's ",here you've got "Clls Lieutenant. Gov(\rnor on that Committee, tne Speaker, the Clerk of the House, the Secretary of the State.

182
SEN. BROVm:
Host of the population bills originate in t.he House, not all of them, but most of then. HR. TIDWELL:
Host of them. HS. RYSTROI1:
Hell, if nothing else, it would be helpful to clarify what is wanted by the big guns on that Subcommittee I should think so that vlQ. don't go in the \"rong, you know, direction that doesn't stand a chancp. of beinq accomplished. If we're going to do something quixot.ic, we might \lant to know tbat \..e' re doing something quixotic. MR. ri'IDHELL:
I just believe that the Speaker has reference to those instances I'm talking about, not the complet.e prohibition. THE CHAI ffi.lAN :
Okay. We'll set our meeting for next Friday at the same time and place. HR. HILL:
Did we set it yet? Are we setting it now? THE CHAIRl-1AN:
He already outvoted you. MR. HILL:
Oh.

PACE 183 THE ClIAIill1AN:
All right. MR. HILL:
Hhat tir.le are you setting it for? THI..: CHAIRHAN:
12:30. MR. HILL:
12:30 next Friday. Is that the 19th?
THl~ CHAIRHAN:
That's correct. (Uhereupon, the above-entitled matter was concluded.)
-000-
C E R T I F I CAT E
G 1~ 0 R G I A
CLARKI:: COUNTY I hereby certify that the above and foregoing was
taken down, as stated in the caption, and the statements and discussion thereto was reduced to typewriting by me personally; that the foregoing pages 1 through 183, inclusive, represent a true, correct and complete transcription of the statements at said hearing.
(SEAL)
Notary :'ubtir, :.."t;:org!',,:: ,ta1f ;.'1
My C"lT,mi"ion up;,..' lIIne 19._ ,9b~

INDEX Committee to Revise Article III Subcommittee Meeting Held on Oct. 12, 1979

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING 10-12-79
SECTION IV: ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Paragraph VI: Salaries. pp. 120-121
SECTION VI: EXERCISE OF POWERS Paragraph I: General powers. pp. 80-87 Paragraph II: Specific powers. pp. 19-37, 87-120 Paragraph III: Powers not be be abridged. pp. 122-131 Paragraph IV: Limitations on special legislation. pp. 164-182 Paragraph V: Specific limitations. pp. 131-164 Paragraph VI: Gratuities. pp. 37-80
SECTION VII: IMPEACHMENTS Paragraph I: Power to impeach. pp. 3-19

STATE OF GEORGIA
COMMITTEE TO REVISE ARTICLE III
of the
CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA
Subcommittee on Organization, Structure and Procedure of the General Assembly
Room 40l-A State Capitol Atlanta, Georgia Thursday, October 18, 1979 9:30 a.m.
BRANDENBURG & HASTY
SCIENTIFIC REPORTING 3715 COLONIAL TRAIL, DOUGLASVILLE, GEORGIA 30135
942-0482 DEPOSITIONS - ARgITRATIONS - CONVENTIONS - CONFERENCES

PRESEWf WERE:

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

GEORGE PARTHEMOS, Ca~IRMAN MR. HAROLD CLARKE SENATOR JAMES TYSINGER MR. GLENN ELLARD SPEAKER THOMAS MURPHY MR. HAMILTON MCWHORTER
f,
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL:
7
MR. FRANK EDWARDS MS. CYNTHIA NONIDEZ

SELECT COMMITTEE STAFF:

il)

MR. MELVIN HILL

OTHERS:

j.' ~
n
<
r

MR. CHARLES TIDWELL MR. EDWIN JACKSON MR. ROBERT GIACOMINI

",

l'i\C!<: 2

_..''

PAGE 3

PRO C E E DIN G S

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It's time for us to convene,

so I'd like to call the meeting to order and proceed with the

,j business at hand.

At the last meeting, I think we agreed that we would

consider as the first item of business this morning the 7 matter of the veto, and I think all of you have before you

a draft of a proposal that I understand was prepared by Mel

and Charlie. Is that not right?

1:1
('J
< I] >-

HR. HILL: Yes. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think it might we well just

to take a few minutes to look at the proposal and I invite any

u comments from Mel or Charlie in explanation of whatever changes

j:t : that this proposal might make to the present provisions. I ,-

see one or two changes, which I might just simply point out

'",
i c:~ .Z~ to you.
<

One, it gives the Governor the power to veto proposed

amendments of the Constitution which are not general, there on I '-I I page 2, item (g). And in item (a) I think it allows two-thirds,

of the membership of each house to request that the Governor
;;
act on a bill while the General Assembly is in session, is

that not right, Mel?

., '

---'

HR. HILL: Yes.

MR. MCWHORTER: Changed five days to ten, too.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Changed the five days to ten. So

there are several changes in there, but I think perhaps it 2 would be well if you would just take a look at it first and 3 then we will take it up for discussion.

MR. HILL: I'd like to say to begin with, this came

to a large extent from the 1970 proposal and it had in the () 1970 proposal the authority of the General Assembly to require

-- order the sending up of the bill prior to the or during

the session so the Governor would have to act on it during

the session by a vote of, I think it was, a majority of each

Jt;
house at that time. That was one of the changes. It did not

1I I-
{.) have in 1970 this provision about the -- vetoing local
.L

,1

u".

~ \r~)) r~'!~ /1~
\"---~/.>"/

~ amendments, but this was brought up last time as being a

0
'~,'

potential

problem.

'-.-

14.~ ,..

MR. MCWHORTER: Overriding the veto the fourth year,

1".

15 ~~
~ is that in here?

::;J

i (I :~

Cl

MR. HILL: That's not in here. Well the Speaker

Z

<:

17 ." and the President of the Senate could call the General Assembly

18
back into session for -- you know, within forty days. That's
19
not in here, that wasn't in the '70 proposal.
20
MR. MCWHORTER: I don't like it, I'm glad it's not.
21
I didn't see it, that's the reason I asked the question.

MR. TIDWELL: You're talking about in the last year?

I believe it's out, isn't it?
.'.1.
MR. HILL: Yes.

L,.

_

MR. TIDWELL: I really didn't draft this, Mel did.

PAC? 5

I'm looking at it for the first time also. Mel and I talked

together about it and I thought he ought to draft it.

3

MR. MCWHORTER: Mel, there was a provision for the

4 effective date, that was changed. The original one was at

the time the last house took action. This you made it that

it can provide for.

MR. HILL: This was the '70 language as well.

That's another chang~ in (h). Presently it's the last house,

'\ whenever that is.

10

MR. MCWHORTER: I see a little merit in letting it

stay without having another law but I don't have any strong

',J~_j

~

1""

X ,I

feelings

about it.

Do you, Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I wasn't really listening to you,

I'm still trying to wake up.

MR. MCWHORTER: Now if you override a veto, say it's a

Senate bill, we override it and send it immediately to y'all.

If y'all vote to override it, the minute -- as of that time it

becomes effective, under present law. The '70 version and

this says the effective date shall be provided by law. You

see the difference?

"~l

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes, I see the difference.

MR. MCWHORTER: I sort of like the way it is but I

don't have any strong feelings about it. You've got to have

another law on it.
I'
SPEAKER MURPHY: I sort of like the way it is too.

MR. MCWHORTER: The bill has been pending, usually,

for nearly a year, nine months, before we get around to it .

.3

MR. CLARKE: What would happen if you introduced a

bill to provide by law the effective date of the bill which

-- on which the veto had been overriden and the bill providing

1\ the effective date didn't pass?

MR. MCWHORTER: You got a point.

MR. CLARKE: You never did get it passed.

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't see any reason --

MR. CLARKE: Now that's awfully unlikely, but -_.

MR. MCWHORTER: It's so simple. Now I can see that

(~)r=l1:_ ,~ you might need a time to become cognizant, but that bill has been in existence if it passed both houses for nine months.

~_/j/

~.

-,-,.-/

I'l >, ,-

MR. CLARKE: Oh, what this means is one general

<'(

15 .~ bill that would apply to all vetoes .

.L OJ
16 ~

MR. MCvffiORTER: Yes, I think that's what it means.

MR. HILL: I'm not sure why they changed it in '70 Ix really. It might have had something to do with the fact that

now the General Assembly could act during the session but

I'm not sure.

MR. CLARKE: I think one thing it would do is give
., more flexibility to the General Assembly. If they wanted to

provide by general law that all bills upon which vetoes were

overriden would be effective thirty days

MR. MCWHORTER: Ten days, like that. I can see the

PAGE 7
other side of the coin, because it would give the public a little more notice that it's becoming law. I can see the othe~i

, side of the coin, but I don't know how to weigh it. However,

~~ that bill has been passed for nine months, but I don't think

the public is cognizant of those things. I wonder, if it

(, wouldn't be too burdensome, if y'all couldn't say it takes

place immediately upon the second house or ten days after,

something like that and not have to go through another law.

MR. CLARKE: What about this, unless otherwise

provided by law". That would give the General Assembly some

I:

L
~opportunity to do it otherwise if there was a real reason to

1._ '}:
do so, sort of like your July 1 thing, unless provided other-

wise.

MR. TIDWELL: Except, you might want it to take
<
,r I
place very far in the future, you know, a year --

MR. CLARKE: That's an automatic thing unless you --

MR. MCWHORTER: Now you realize that bill has probably

got a provision in it, isn't that right, Frank? If there's ,, 1 ' nothing in it, it's supposed to take effect the July before

you take it up in January. If it has an effective date, the

odds are ten to 1 it's before that January. Isn't that

usually true, Frank?

MR. EDWARDS: Uh-huh.

MR. MC\iHORTER: Of course, I'm one that don't believe

in putting too much in the Constitution.

SPEAKER MURPHY: You'd never believe it to hear you

1 talk.

:.m. MCWHORTER: 'rhat's what I thought, after that.

4

SPEAKER MURPHY: Oh, Hamilton's m~ buddy.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: What are yom: wishes? Shall we

h consider this paragraph by paragraph or some other way?

MR. EDWAEDS: For my money I'B sort of dense, it's

x hard for me to absorb something like this.

MR. MCWHORTER: I can't absorb every facet of it.

1U

MR. EDWARDS: I see some things in here that sort

tI

-
::s:

of concern me and I

was hoping that this was one thing --

I

J 2 .~ don't have any suggestions right now, George ._- I was hoping

this was one thing we might shorten some.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I would certainly hope we could.

<
T
1S ':~ ;;:-.:";

l1R. EDWARDS: It's a shame to put this much in the

16

'<, 1 'c.,'

Constitution

on

something

that

rarely

happens.

It's important

1

J,

~:
'"

but

--

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I can't recall seeing as lengthy

19 a provision concerning veto in any Constitution as this. I

]U hope we might be able --

21

MR. EDWARDS: We might have to put all the detail.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We're not making too much -1-', progress with achieving more brevity in the Constitution.

I think that's something thatpeople would like to see.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Let me ask a question here, Doctor.

1',\C;1: 9

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, sir.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Will a Constitutional provision to

, the effect that the General Assembly may override the

Governor's veto by a tWo-thirds vote of each house, with a

further provision that the General Assembly shall provide the

machinery for that vote, would that do it?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: liThe General Assembly may

by law provide for . "

!U but --
11

SPEAKER MURPHY: You got to clean that language up, MR. MCWHORTER: It's been done in Congress more or

less like that.

-"'

MR. EDWARDS: I thought of something like that. I'd

say the one problem with that, the only reason we put this here

j ( , is there is going to be a conflict between the Governor and

the General Assembly. That's the only reason we have some-

thing like this. But theoretically, suppose we put what

you're talking about, Mr. Speaker, the Genral Assembly passed

a law and the Governor vetoed it every time it passed. On

the other hand, if you thought about putting provisions in
,.
;" the other laws saing the General Assembly shall pass a law

which shall not be subject to the Governor's veto, then the
,, .> General Assembly could go along and put anything they wanted to.
,,
.... -,
I would like -- that's sort of what I had in mind, but there's

a couple of ittle pitfalls to it.

i' I" 10

SPEAKER MURPHY; Well, could you put -,- come up

with a provision like that and then put a provision for

passing the machinery to override and then it would eliminate

itself from the Constitution, that languagerafter it was done.

) This is really, our Constitution like it is now, and this is

too, is just giving the machinery, every little minute detail.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes.

SPEAKER MURPHY: How it's to be done.

"

MR. MCWHORTER: But it's froze in there, might not

III want to change it, too hard to change.

MR. TIDWELL: The reason it is in such detail, why

J again any changes that are being proposed in such detail, is

that by necessity, I think, the legislative branch has to , I... look at maintaining that delicate balance between the powers,

the executive branch does the same, and so ~lithout inadvertently
JI) ~l letting that balance tip one way or the other, you try and ~., 1" e .:" " maintain it with such detail and it may be of such a sensitive

nature trying to balance those two interests or those two 19 branches of government that it warrants going into this detail.

While all of us want to shorten it, I'm sure the legislative 21 branch wouldn't want to shorten it at the expense of losing

any of their prerogatives and neither would the executive.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well what I'm saying, Charlie, is

you provide a Constitutional provision that takes two-thirds

majority of both houses to override a Governor's veto, you have

protected all of his basic rights. The only thing that you

have where -- leaving with the General Assembly to provide

the machinery, the only thing you would have not protected by

" that language, as can see it, is that the General Assembly

could give itself the right to send the bills down to the

Governor and give him so much time to act on them and then have

themselves a right to override his veto. That's the only thing

you're taking May from him and I think we're going to do that

in this Constitution anyway, just to tell you the truth. Don't

you, Frank? I think all of us are tired of that. We haven't
cl
7:
]1, had any problem with the present Governor, but I served under

,~

J:

,I two Governors we had a heck of a lot of problems with. We

haven't had any problems with Governor Busbee about that.

,"
"

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mr. Speaker, trying to identify

1~ ,,'',, the different kinds of circumstances yOll face in such

'-'
I:, " instances; one, the General Assembly passes a bill, it is

transmitted to the Governor, the General Assembly is still in

session and the Governor has so much time to act on the bill. ] . He has such much time --
,1:J
MR. MCWHORTER: Didn't have enough previously.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: He can sign it, itbecomes law,

or if a certain period of time expires and it becomes law

without his signature if the General Assembly remains in

session. Second, if he doesn't sign it, he vetoes it, he

has so much time within which to return it to the house of

its origin, to the General Assembly, in which case the

General Assembly acts either to sustain or to override the

3 veto. The third situation, it is transmitted to the Governor

4 and the General Assembly in the meantime adjourns, so you .5 then define the situation that occurs there. It seems to me

these are the three kinds of circumstances that we have to 7 provide for in the Constitution.

SPEAF~R MURPHY: Well we don't have any problem

with the overriding the veto, Doctor, except in the second

10 year of all of our terms. That's when we have the problem.

1! ~ If we wanted to override it in the second year of our term, we

(01....,""~ ~ v

12 "~' could do it( if we wanted to do it in the fourth year -- I

~Jv, mean for

the third year,

but at the end of mv :l

second year each

14 : time we have no way to override a Governor's veto .

.-..:: T
I S ,~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That would be a fourth

16

i
"'z"':

contingency

that

we

should

I'm trying to really identify

<

17 ~ the types of circumstances which we should provide for in the

IS ,: Constitution.

lSi I

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Chairman, could I say something

20 along that line? I hope I'm talking in practicalities, I don't

21 know if I am or not. Jim, you correct me if I'm wrong. I

feel like whatever you put in here, and I don't know how the 23 Speaker feels about it, that the Senate, because they have
24
done it before, is going to propose a one-day veto system.

They've done it before, they seem to be uptight about it. I

PACE 13
see merit in it. You can take it for what it's worth, I don~ know how far it would go in the House but I feel, judging: in. the past, that the Senate definitely will propose it. You
know what I mean? SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes, sir, I know what you mean. MR. MCWHORTER: I don't know how y'all feel about it. SPEAKER MURPHY: Well of course there is an
additional thing to what I said awhile ago, there may be something we were so interested in getting passed that we ill would want to send it down during the session because it
,I
" :> \vould not have any effect if i.t waited over till the next
.,
year to override the veto. MR. MCWHORTER: It's a cold turkey the next year. SPEAKER MURPHY: That may very well be the solution,
, ; ~
is to have a one-day call back or extend to such length of time as necessary to consider all these.
MR. MCHHORTER: Some states have one day and just stay there till they get through and it has worked pretty
i 'j
well.
MR. TIDWELL: The House rejected that proposal this very last session. They did not go along with a Constitutional amendmen1: passed by the Senate for an automatic one day
-'
session.
SPEAKER MURPHY: I know why we rejected it, it wasn't because of the issue itself, it was because we knew we

14 were fixing to rewrite the constitution and we didn't want

, any more Constitutional amendments. rIve been very instrumental

3 in holding every dadbla.med one of them any 1I1a1' I could.

4

MR. TIDWELL: Well, Mr. Speaker, we did have a

5 Constitutional amendment though on this subject and it was

h defeated. The House amended that and provided a mechanism

for calling a special session to o'Jerride that was submitted

to the people and defeated.

9

SPEAKER MURPHY: That was time before last.

10

MR. TIDWELL: That was in '78, yes. I didn't mean

II ~ this last time. ~: "' SPEAKER MURPHY:

We have passed very fe"., Consti tu-

tional amendments in the last two years.

MR. MCWHORTER: For the reason we wanted to wait

lS" .'.1
'~ "
16 l::::t L ~ C.,.!

till --

SPEAKER MURPHY: We wanted to wait until the

Constitution is rewritten, is what we wanted to do.

MR. MCWHORTER: Actually, though when you wait

19 nine months or ten months from the veto to pass another bill,

20 itls sort of a cold turkey by then.

21

SENATOR TYSINGER: How many states have that one

day?

23

MR. MCWHORTER: South Carolina has got it, several

.:1 of them, quite a few do. 1 1 m not objecting to two days or

25 three days or somethhg like that.

l'.-\GE 15

SPEAKER MURPHY: The only problem with that is if

, you have a mandatory day, in most instances you're going to

have a mandatory waste of a day because there's just very few

times you're going to override a Governor's veto.

MR. MCWHORTER: I feel like if you have it, you

(, would have a provision that you would not come back for that

day until you had a certificate or something from so many

x members of each house. If there wasn't any possibility, you

l) wouldn't come back.

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's one thing I sure don't want
'..>
I
Ji to get in the posture of writing in the Constitution, a

1
1

,)

procedure

for

MR. MCWHORTER: No, say provided by law.

:.,;

MR. HILL: In '70, it said upon the call of the

1:

': Speaker and the President of the Senate.

MR. MC~nIORTER: That's good enough. They wouldn't

call it unless they thought they had a reasonable chance to

do it.

MR. TIDWELL: Most bills that are vetoed by

Governors, in my twenty years of experience, have not been

bills that have overwhelming interest by the members of the

General Assembly. Generally those issues have been resolved,

whatever differences the Governor might have, the General .'.j Assembly might have with the Governor's proposal, there's a

compromise and then they are passed and then they're going to

be signed, so that most of the vetoes are in areas where a

small group of legislators have a general interest in it, and

3 it's just not an overwhelming need to have a special session

4 to do that.

5

MR. MCWHORTER: Well I don't think one out of a

(, hundred since I've been observing would have been overriden

hardly, but I still think maybe there ought to be an escape

valve.

9

SENATOR TYSINGER: Yes, we're not writing for what

10 has happened in the past, we're writing for what might happen

in the future too.
~
'u
MR. TImiELL:

I understand that but generally things

pretty well proceed along the way that they always have.

That's just the legislative process and that's generally what

:r:

1<:

'0 'D

occurs

and

it's

probably what

is

going

to

happen

in

the

fore-

,~

'-'

16

'z"
u.
:~

seeable

future.

, I -, :,,~'

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't think you ought to set up a

Ik
day unless it is triggered, like Mel said, it wouldn't come

19
unless there is reason to come. As far as I'm concerned, it

20
could be the presiding officer, anything, but I still think

).
Li
putting it to the next year, ten months later, is just too
.., )
late. Well to begin with, it could be anothl~r term and you
,;
wouldn't even have the people who are cognizant of the

:-1
legislation. Half the time it would be, wouldn't it, Mr.

--"1':",

Speaker?

PAGE 17

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well you know, under the Constitutidn now there is no provision for overriding the Governor's veto at the end of our term.

MR. MCWHORTER: I know that.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Has anybody looked at any other

state's Constitution in regard to this?

SENATOR TYSINGER: There's a summary.

MR. MCtVRORTER: I looked at forty.

MR. HILL: I'm not sure how they selected these

lu things.

I:

MR. MCWHORTER: Several of them do have another

" day, Hr. Speaker, so many days in the future, but most of

~ them have a provision that it wouldn't be called unless there

1..1 " was enough momentum to want it.
<: x
SPEAKER MURPHY: Well I can see some faults with
>1
.r:,
,"
~ that provision y'all had in the '70 one, have a special day

at the call of the presiding officer because I've seen the
time when the two presiding officers in this state couldn't agree on what time it was, just as a matter of being antagonistic 2U towards each other.
)!
MR. MCWHORTER: Well now the two that has been sent
over by the Senate, Culver Kidd was the author of one, I
believe in both of them -- I didn't think either one was well written.

There are many states that have provisions for

,"

overriding it before the next -- of course, some states it 2 doesn't apply; Pennsylvania, Illinois, just like Congress,

because they're in session all the time practically.

Like New Jersey, they don't meet but one day a week,

but they meet fifty weeks, so it doesn't present a problem in

lots of them.

-,

;

SPEAKER MURPHY: That'd be a poor way to run a

railroad, wouldn't it, one day a week for fifty weeks.

MR. MCWHORTER: Everybody is lJ>lithin fifty minutes

10 of the Capitol in New Jersey, where they live. They claim one

-.:..~

1]

'-
'o"

member

in

one

house

has

got

over

an

hour's

drive.

Now I'm

i~
1Z not saying it's a good system, it wouldn't work in other

(~,:.~ \~:J))J--:~ \\, CUT""O ::; states.

".~-~:~,//

14 >-
'.'1
<;

SPEAKER MURPHY: It sounds like you're saying itls

J:

15 ,:;
':'-."1' a good system.

}(l ~ owz

MR. MCWHORTER: t-vell it is for them.

17 ~"

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well I'm sorry, I intended to do

18
some work on this, Doctor, but I didn't leave the courtroom

19
yesterday afternoon until after five o'clock and it has been 2U
that way constantly. I just didn't have a chance to do

21
anything but it looks like we ought to be able to come up

with something that would be very brief and very effective.

MR. HILL: I'd be happy to work with you on it 1'I.,":
_,'I
you want us to just set up a time and then you and I can try

to reduce it down.

I ' 19 II \ I '
l.'\,",

SENATOR TYSINGER: That'd be the best thing, just

: get together and --

SPEAKER MURPHY: The problem is I'm going to be in

" Savannah next Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday -- I'm going to

be gone all next week and I'm going to be gone all the next

" week.

MR. MCWHORTER: Let me ask a question. They made one ", move in what I think is the right direction on this, it could

be done for all of it, I doubt it. The five days wasn't iO facing reality, it wasn't enough time, if you make it ten

or fifteen -- of course, if you make it too many days you
I"
,I gobble up our so-called forty days, it's so short. Most states

have longer sessions, so to speak, but that could be one

" answer. I mean five days is not enough time to consider a
c' 1:

'C) bill, whether to veto it or not, lengthening that would be one

":>

"

"{'
~

step in the right direction.

,;..:

,~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: In other words, Mr. Speaker,

i"
you wish us to consider then a provision for --

SPEAKER MURPHY: Oh, I have no objection to going
,1U
through this one article by article.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: -- providing for a method of

overriding or acting upon a veto after the legislature has --

after that session presumably has expired, or that particular

legislature.

SPEAKER 1'1URPHY: Well there ought to be some way a

20

veto could be considered after the General Assembly has

adjourned and the Governor has the bills, before waiting till

the next session comes. There ought to be some way it could

be done. There's no way in the world you can say that's ecpaJ.

di\zision of the power, we have no way --. two of the four years

the Governor is here in his term, we have no way to override

a veto. There's just no '!flay that can be equal, no way yon

can say that's equal.

Charlie used to would have said that before thc\.t

physiological change and osmosis that takes place when you

go from the third floor to the second floor. It. happen<;

though, don't it, Charlie?

MR. TIDWELL: Well, Mr. Speaker, there's continuity

in the General Assembly, it's virtually the same General

Assembly that next year, there's very little turnover. But

you're talking about concepts and that is true, but generally

ninety percent of the legislative body will be the same.

HR. r1CWHORTER: We had a forty something percent

turnover four years ago. I personally feel -- and nctso

much the present Governor

just not to veto, overriding it

out if you wait ten months.

CHAIRMAN PARTHE.MOS: Could ..ve possi.bly consider or

make the other aspects of the veto -- I have just roughed

something out here to try to identify the actual matters at

issue, the things that we have to decide. Something to the

21
T effect that "When a bill or resolution intended to have the

.2 effect of law has passed the General Assembly, such bills or

3 resolutions are transmitted to the Governor and if the

General Assembly is in session such bills or resolutions shall

become law if the Governor either signs or fails to veto withiti

I, a specified period of time." That takes care of the first,

say ten days or fifteen days of presentation to the Governor.

"If the Governor does not approve or veto, he shall return

the bill or resolution to the house of origin within a

\1) certain specified number of days and if the two houses then
-.'l
1; pass, with a two-thirds majority, such bills or resolutions
~)
u
l' shall become law." So that would take care of the second,
,~_':'.._Y!.f~i "-
__ '(l'~\> ,\I\ ':,:.;:.,j/j) C!~!''''~ ~',~ this would define the second aspect of the veto matter. Then
\ "" ./,!
"'--._---_. ~.'
Ii the other is the matter that if the legislature has adjourned

~, itA bill shall become law if signed by the Governor within a

!'

"
l

specified

period

of

time

after

adjournment."

Thirty days or

1 ~i whatever, usually a longer time. If the Governor then vetoes

such bill after adjour~~ent, this then would be the other

matter. It seems to me that we could wrap all of those things

together in some reasonable state and take care of what I '1 conceive to be four aspects of the veto that we need to

provide for in the Constitution. Does that reduce the -- bring

it into some sha~per focus as to what we need to do?

MR. HILL: Do you think we need specificity about

the calling up of bills during the session, which is what we

i had in the '70 proposal.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It seems to me when you allow

a certain period of time that

4

MR. TIDWELL: The danger of that is that you

the system as it is now works pretty good, but I know what

the legislature is talking about. They want to be able, if 7 there is a bill that they want the Governor to commit on before

they go home, they want to have a mechanism to get it down

there, but if you provide a mechanism that you flood him with
1U every bill and if they start doing that, you may have a
,:,
! 1 o Governor in the future that says every bill you send to me

I'm going to veto, to try and stop it, because he's got other

things that he's got to be concerned about during the General

,- Assembly other than approving bills and to stop that he may

<:

1:

.".,, say I'll veto every one you send to me Then what sort of a

,;<

,"'~

2 :>

you

know,

government

is

in

chaos

then.

There may be a lot

,\"7 '

<
<>:
o f .X'

those

bills

that

the

Governor

really wants

to

sign,

but

he wants to study them, to see the implications of them, to
19
have the people indeed of the state let him know what they
2U
want him to do so far as the executive revision of the bills,

and he doesn't have time to do that. So the present system is

good for the present Governor and it seems, you know, the
".\
General Assembly has not. to my knowledge attempted to send a

bill to him that he hasn't asked for.

MR. MCWHORTER; Charlie, by the same token, couldn't

23
he then say don't send any bills ever, you might want an

exception for the bills until after the session and then give

him thirty or forty days to decide on all of then, then come

back thirty or forty days after that with a veto session.

That would accomplish the same thing.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Not send him any bills until after

the session?

MR. MCWHORTER: Well you're doing the same thing,

he can hold them all back if he doesn't want them.

I',;

MR. TIDWELL: A lot of them he wants them and you

I i _~: warlt hi.m to have t.hern.
:,'

i ,_

SPE.~KER MURPHY:

7-
_, appropriations --

You've got to have, supplementary

MR. MCWHORTER: You have to have an escape, but

what they do now, they take all the local bills and hold them

~

J ,~

l
'"

until

the

last

three

days

--

not

now,

but

they

have

in

the

past to make them all vote right and then there's a flood the

last three days and there's no way to get them down there, is 11..1 there, Jack? That's historical, it hasn't been done as much

recently, want to sign my local bills before I go home next

week, and it just tears up the whole process.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Of course, if you follow the

pattern of the U. S. Constitution, the President has ten

days, the bills are transmitted and the President has ten

days wi.thin which t.o act. If he signs them, if he doesn't sign

24
them, they automatically become law in ten days. Of course, he has a pocket veto after Congress has adjourned, if he

doesn't sign them, that's a pocket veto and that's an

absolute veto. He does have that. Most of them I think

specify a period of ten to fifteen days when the legislature

is still in session. You find a great variety I think of

7 provisions concerning if the legislature in the meantime

,', adj ourns

,}

MR. r'1CHHORTER: He doesn't have as many bills

!O because it's spread out over a period of a year.

J1

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Oh, that's right. You have

Congress in session practically all the time and there it's

different.

MR. TIDWELL: At the federal level there's so much

IS ,~ difference, a bill doesn't get to the floor of Congress until
,
J(, '~ it has been in there about a year anyway. They have extensive

'subcommittee hearings. The President pretty well knows what

he's going to do on a bill before it ever gets to him unless

there is extensive amendments in that conference bill, but 20 generally there they are well known and he is in a position -,)' to approve or veto.

SENATOR TYSINGER: Are you saying there would be

an objection even with the two-thirds vote for the Governor to

act in ten days or a certain period of time while we're in

session?

;'AGE 25 MR. TIDWELL: Well, that's changing your present situation and, as I say, I think both of us are going to watch .' to see if that tips the balance. If that tips it one way here .( then the executive might want it tipped a little on the other

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Charlie, a fifteen day period,

that wouldn't help take care -- if the Governor had fifteen

x days in which to act?

MR. TIDWELL: Well the days I don't believe are that
.
I U disturbing as the concept, ten or fifteen I don't think would

"L.
1J tip it one way or the other
..

I\

~

MR. MCWHORTER: Seventy five percent of the bills

,-'\rEJjC!!:'.,,'!O ,~ are passed in the last fifteen days, aren't they? Over half

of them.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well this happens in Congress

~" too and it gives the President a good opportunity to use the
".~
., pocket veto.

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, no, not in our house.

MR. MCWHORTER: Gets through both houses, clears

both houses.

MR. HILL: Fifteen days only gives you twenty five

days then in order to get all the work done you want to send.

CHAI~mN PARTHEMOS: I can see the problem, unless

you want to give the Governor a pocket veto, give him an

absolute veto.

26

MR. TIDWELL: The pocket veto concept, the virtue

of that I have never seen. Most Governors want to either

approve or veto, they don't, by their inaction, allow something

1 to be killed or approved. '1' hey want. to 90 on line saying 1:

approve it or I veto it and I think that's the way it ought to

be.

CHAIRHAN PAR'I'HEMOS: I don't care for the pocket

~: veto either.

o

MR. r.1.CWHORTER: I agree with that. I never understood

tl) why a Governor would let it become law without signing it or

1 1 c, vetoing it because I think he gets hit from three sides instead

~

(\(~)/r-~'"!"D~, I~S~\

I.' ~: of one that way.
".
SPEAKER MURPHY:

~'-Jell we ain't making a heck of a

'~=:/'
14

lot of progress sitting here.

1:-> "

CHAIIDiAN PARTHEMOS: Does this bear 'lpon thE.~ matter

of the length of the session?

I"

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, I don't think so.

MR. HILL: Mr. Speaker, would you like Frank and I

)9
to work on shortening this to try to get in the major things?

.:0

SPEAKER MURPHY: I wouldn't want it much longer.

.' )c'l

CHJl.IRJ."1AN PARTHEMOS: What are your wishes then on

this matter? Shall we send it back for further study in

another draft? I think we ought to get some guidelines, I

think we ought to get some guidelines. I tried to identify

four aspects of the issues involved to try to help us.

27

SPEAKER MURPHY: I've been sitting here thinking

about it ever since I said it, as a matter of fact I have

thought about it through the years. I understand Frank's

problem with it that we might possibly never be able to get

it to work.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I'm afraid to leave it by law.

M~. TID~r.ELL: If you do that, you're going to have

an awful lot of confrontation.

'I

SPEAKER MURPHY: What he says though, there's a

possibility the Governor might veto everything

.;

MR. ELLARD: That's a possibility.

, . 1

MR. EDWARDS: It might not always be true but that's

".{,

"..L.c.,,I\j\/;";~"~,I, ~.'..!',lh:'~. ~ a possibility. If you put some reasonable -- the Governor

.J ,;"

l'-.t
" might say okay, that's all right -- I think it would depend

l'

on the statute.

SPEAKER MURPHY: It'd be a problem of osmosis we'd I I "oJ just have to combat at the time.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Here again, as I say, I think

if we're going to make any progress on this matter we've got

to at least outline some guidelines. What do we want to put

in the Constitution? The Constitution I think snould cover

the fundamentals, lay down the fundamental requirements .
... l
MR. MCWHORTER: Can I make a suggestion? It's not
,'.j
a good one, but let's tell you or tell Mel how we feel about

the different facets of it by vote or something. We've got

another committee and a Select Con~ittee to go through, we've

got to get the ball rolling some way, so we might vote that

we want a one~day session or we don't, we might want this

.j provision or we don't. Give him something. There's no point

in him doing drafting on something that everybody is against

already. There's too much work in it.

MR. HILL: One of the first question is do you want

it specified in these provisions in the Constitution about

what happens during the session in terms of the bills coming

up?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think you're going to have to.

..SVl( ,
~ /-:~

L: -' I think you're going to have to specify what happens to a bill ..

,i.~",::;;;;J)\-"".!!~"P

-- \ ,,~...

./ //

~
.')

once

it

is

passed,

duly

authenticated by

the

proper officials

" '- ----~

in both houses --

r

MR. HILL: How it goes over to the Governor.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: What happens then, is it ,, " transmitted to the Governor automatically or does it do you
.I1.".I
want then on the request of the Governor or do you then make
I 'j
a provision that the Governor must consider it if agreed to by

two-thirds or something. Then you have to make a provision
21
as to what happens if the Governor disapproves or vetoes,

both when the legislature is in session and after the

legislature has adjourned. These are the issues. I think the

issues to me are quite clear as to what needs to be resolved,

but the matter is do we have any guidelines.

PAGE 29

Charlie, I had a question on the other matter of the

Governor vetoing proposed amendments which are not general.

-' My main 'Juestion is all resolutions proposing amendments to the

Constitution must be passed by two-thirds vote. It would seem

to me that you then have the vote to override the veto. It has

i' passed by the necessary two-thirds. I was wondering does that

give any

SPEAKER MURPHY: You would be amazed.

MR. TIDWELL: The two-thirds vote is given perfunctorily.

!i

MR. CLARKE: Furthermore, even if that wasn't true,

.!

i:

l j.
,;

the

influence

of

the

Governor's

veto

would

bear

heavily

on

the

'~)

~,

11

~ J

votes

of

some

people

.,') j i_'_J~"'.. ;e!, Z.
"J
"

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I would have thought m~ybe the

Governor's veto would be felt beforehand.

SPEAKER MURPHY: No question about that.

'0

it', (
"'

MR. MCWHORTER: Charlie, let me ask you this

MR. TIDWELL: The only reason that we are arguing

\ " that that ought to be in it is that inadvertently a local 1"; amendment is passed, the Governor will, if he can identify a

local amendment that is deleterious to the state, try and do 2i something about it, but because of the way local Constitutional

amendments are treated there may be some obscure provision in

a local amendment that has that effect that no one can see.

ClffiIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I see the problem, I was just

raising a question about the -- since the two-thirds vote is

3Q

necessary to pass initially -- some Constitutions differentiate,

some Constitutions require three-fourths vote on some matters

and two-thirds on others.

MR. TIDWELL: The two-thirds is fine, because I l 1l1

sure when the Governor did veto on a local amendment, he would

do it only when he knew that his position would be supported.

f-1R. MCWHORTER: By the saT11e token, would 'oNe accomplish

the same thing, which lots of states do, some states say you

cannot submit to the people a Constitutional amendment until

it passes two sessions and some of them say in two different

II terms. Isn't that correct?

1.'

MS. NONIDEZ: I believe so.

MR. MCWHORTER: I agree on local Constitutional

" amendments they just pass on anything, they let the people

r
1( down there decide, they never vote against them in the Senate .

.:I:

1(, ~"' ".

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well this was just another

incidental --

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well I have seen a few voted

1'1 against in the House.

20

MR. MCWHORTER: A few.

21

SENATOR TYSINGER: We've had a few in the Senate.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well can somebody move us off

center on this matter of the veto? I think to make any
-". . ~
progress if we send it back to have another draft, we really

ought to get some sort of guidelines.

PAGE 31
MR. CLARKE: Aren't we talking about just two possibilities; one just finding a means of shortening this, and then the other thing is the question of whether or not you're going to remove or add some additional power to the S legislative branch. Those are the two things that you're really talking about and it could very well be that by doing one, you do the other. I'd sort of like to know just exactly what it is that the legislative branch is looking for.
MR. MCWHORTER: I could see a compromise and give the Governor the .right to call a bill, so to speak, and then give the General Assembly the right to have a veto session. Ofcourse, I don't know if we're talking about compromise, ,\) .C!~"'" " we're just talking about --
MR. HILL: In other words, it would only go up if the Governor called for it?
MR. MCWHORTER: I don't believe any other state has anything like that.
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: And that's not really required in the present provisions of the Constitution. It's an informal kind of a situation.
MR. TIDWELL: It's a practical thing, but the Constitution doesn't say that.
SPEAKER MURPHY: Wait a minute, wait a minute -MR. MCWHORTER: No, I agree it says the reverse. SPEAKER MURPHY: Why can't we fix t.his Constitutional

.. "

.'

'

,,

32

provision to provide that the General Assembly rnay override

a veto of the Governor by two-thirds vote and also have it 3 provided in the Constitution that the General Assembly shall
provide by law the manner in which bills are sent to the
5 Governor and the manner in which vetoes are done. Then you've got him as well as he's got you. It's a two-way street '....hen

you go that way now.

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, we could figure out

some way to shorten it, I'd be willing.

SENATOR TYSINGER: I would too, I'd like to shorten

11 it.

I" ,,4:YJr,';1\.

SPEAKER MURPHY: You've got him, he's got to get

V(b~~:)(~~~'d'" ~ the bills down to him and he's got to get it vetoed. You've

",.'

~ .... ~ /

if got it both ways. I just believe you can sit down and figure

that out myself.

HR. MCWHORTER: liell if you make a mistake in the la\'l,

you could change, if it's in the Constitution it's a lots

JI'-, harder to change. I hope it's going to be harder to change.

19

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well generally it would be, I

don't think there'd be any question. You've got then another

issue and that is the procedure by which, the actual procedure,

Mel, that is to be followed with respect to t.he transmitting

of bills and resolutions to the Governor once passed by the

General Assembly. MR. MCWHORTER: You're not going to find any help in

PACE 33
any other state, Mel, because all the rest of them send them down within a period of time.
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: They pretty much do it
automatically. MR. MCvniORTER: Some do have a day's session CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I know that, within a certain
period of time they go. SPEAKER MURPHY: If you're going to provide the
method for transmitting the bills and the method of enacting iii vetoes by general statute, what we could do is we could
. : .,":
) pass a statute at the same time we pass this Constitutional ,, .. I " amendment to take effect upon that Constitutional amendment
.J being adopted by the people. You see what I mean? It can be
)i
licked, it can be licked. MR. TIDWELL: Mr. Speaker, when you provide that
such sensitive and fundamental balances between the legislative
Ii .,;
,: and executive be handled through legislation and outside of the Constitution, I'm not talking about looking at it from an executive standpoint or a legislative standpoint, I believe
)i\
. ,1;
that it is dangerous for government to create that situation
when there is a possibility that you might have some Governor
in the future that would be willing on that point to give all the prerogatives away and let the General Assembly run roughshod over how bills are handled by the executive and then that
is not good government, I don't think, for one branch or the

,,

"i'.'

34

other to be able to dominate the other.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I agree with that totally but. I
,
,J can't conceive of any weak-kneed Casper Milktoast getting

in the Governor's office like that.

MR. TID\~LL: We have had Governors who didn't pay

too much attention to what the legislature was doing.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well to mel Charli.e, it may very

well mean that we're going to wind up with something' like this

u
but to me a two-page section, article on veto l how a veto IS

1d going to be accomplished l is ridiculous.

U 7.

J: -,.
"

MR. TIDWELL: Just to make a comment on that, we

have long detailed provisions about appropriations process

that probably you won't find in any other Constitution but

- these are

'J::
Ie:

SPEAKER MURPHY:

I hope you don't find that in this

ji' one after we get through with it.

MR. TIDWELL: Here again, all the interests that

have to look at it l they have to look after their interests.
11)
SPEAKER MURPHY: The main reason all these provisions 2U are in the Constitution it's been tradition in Georgia, really

a basis of the General Assembly trying to chip away at the
," massive power that the executive branch has, basically is what
,. ,,
it has been. You know that as well as I do.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I'm not so sure we're really

getting to the focus of this thing. It seems to me if we can

'I

PAC;E 35
,~-
clearly define the issues that we want to resolve -- I'm not

so sure that we really are clear on that even. I think we

need to do this before we can make any progress.

It seems to me that the fundamental provision should

be in the Constitution. I think even this two pages could be h reduced considerably even -- but

MR. CLARKE: Wouldn't it be possible to reduce the

length of this without changing the sense or meaning of it?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes you can.

MR. CLARKE: After you have done that, aren't you
'7"-
11 ~, down then to the issue of what points in this are unacceptable

l~ "

_,:.: .'8~h

to whom and what points are just required by the other side.

('(\>(",..;.j-~ ). <';/r/-:'~!"'o ~ If we can do that and take those points one at the time and

I,)
- battle them out and try to find some resolution for them.

j,
MR. MCWHORTER: We're talking about a mechanism for

"J\
l
~ sending bills to him and a mechanism for vetoing.

MR. CLARKE: That's right.

MR. HILL: And this question of the extra session,
i" '
whether you're going to have an extra session.

MR. MCWHORTER: That would corne in the mechanism for

vetoing, yes, sir.

SENATOR TYSINGER: I agree with Hamilton, that's an

issue that's going to be raised by the Senate.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This would be in other words to

react to a veto after the Gene.r_a~~_Ass~mbl has adjourned.

i' 'd 36

MR. MCWHORTER: Charlie, I don't expect an answer,

2 you speak for the Governor, I don't know if you know how he

3 feels or what, do you think he is violently against a one or

1 I two or three day session for overriding a veto when the session

was asked for by the presiding officer? I know we wouldn't

want to call them for one day just to talk, but if you think

7 what would be the difference, is there a fundamental difference?

MR. TInNELL: You're not going to have an aut.omatic

'.) session now?

II)

MR. MCWHORTER: I wouldn't ever have an aut.oroatic

because there might not be but two votes against a veto. As

we both know, most of those bills are vetoed because he finds

an error in them or this or that or something. The author

requests some vetoes. I would really think, viewing on the )" 15 ,~ past, you wouldn't have a session but once out of ten years.

10 L

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: On the national average, you

have less than eight percent overriden.

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't believe it would be that 19 high in this state because the majority of them are for

errors or

~)j'

MR. TIDWELL: Well let me make this statement. The

Governor is in the catbird seat now on vetoes and overrides,

is he not? And once you get in the catbird seat, you don't
.24
want to get out.

MR. MCWHORTER: This has proven to be true.

!'AGF 37
MR. TIDWELL: But that's not to say that there couldn't be some give and take on all of this on an issue like that.
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think here again, if that's ~ the wishes -- if that's what you want -- here again it's just
simply another one of the issues, if the legislature has adjourned, bills shall become law if signed by a Governor within a specified period. If the Governor then should veto these, then you can make some provision whereby a special session shall be called for the purpose of considering those 1i - vetoed bills. Then the question is, what would be the J procedure whereby such sessions would be called.
MR. TImvELL: I think that what we need to do is this concept that Mel has drafted half way addresses those ~ points then have a proposal on special sessions and we'll see,
r;: .
~ you know, we'll just have to see what we'll see. SPEAKER MURPHY: Can we start through this thing
and go through it paragraph-by-paragraph and just talk just ::j a minute.
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is what I had suggested earlier.
SPEAKER MURPHY: For instance, somebody tell me, in subparagraph (a), "All bills and all resolutions intended to have the effect of law which have been passed by the General Assembly ... " Why do you have to have 11 intended to have the

32

i , effect of law which have been passed by t.he General Assembly .... If

Why can't you just say "All bills and all resolutions shall

become law or shall be submitted for ratification if the

'-i Governor approves ... " Why do you have to have all. that stuff

in there?

MR. MCWHORTER: Well the reason for it -- I do~'t

say you've got to have it

so ~any resolutions, the present

Constitution says he has the right to veto or approve any

1', resolution that passed both houses even if it's privileged,

10 praising somebody. That's the reason.
,.
1; ',', got to have it in there.

I still don't see you've

SPEAKER MURPHY: I see no reason at all for the

wordd "intended to have the effect of Im-7 vlhich have been 14 . passed by the General Assembly". I just see no reason --

'."

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think a lot of these words

"

16

~i co

can be edited out,

Mr.

Speaker.

I was just going through my

l

own one here and I think a lot of words can be edited out

without altering the meaning.

MR. HILL~ Hamilton has a good point though, you 20 know, there are resolutions that are not intended to have the

effect of law and you're going to give the Governor veto over

))
those and you don't want to.

".. '.')

MR. MCWHORTER: He's got it no~ and I'm not sure

he wants it or ought to have it.

l"1R. HILL: Oh, you want him to have it over all of

39
them

MR. MCWHORTER: No, I don't know --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You could have some resolutions

4 that are just expressions of sentiment by one house.

SPEAKER MURPHY: There's nothing wrong with him

i. having the right to veto it.

MR. CLARKE: If the Governor vetoed it he would

~ express his opinion and the General Assembly would express its.

9

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I agree.

IU

MR. TIDWELL: Well they just simply don't send them

-~,
1.
Ito: to him now and they --

SPEAKER MURPHY: We don't send privileged resolutions

to him.

MR. TIDvmLL: You don't send anything to us unless
<~
<:'
r.
15 ~ it is read three times. !

.:0'

t~l

I! :l,.

CHAIRMAN PARTH&~OS: Unless it is read three times.

MR. TIDWELL: Sometimes the House will read them

once and the Senate will read them three times.

19

SPEAKER MURPHY: All right, now I have said that,

let me read just a little bit further. " s hall become law

or shall be submitted for ratification if the Governor

approves or fails to veto tl~ same within ten days, excluding

Sundays, from the date any such bill or resolution is

transmitted to the Governor unless the General Assembly

adjourns sine die . Il , now what do we need that business " .. or

adjourns for more than forty days, excluding Sundays, prior to the expiration of said ten days." because the Constitution provides that we can't adjourn for more than ten days anyhow.
CHAIRMAN PARTHEHOS: Mr. Speaker, even before, I had a question on this business of " .. shall be submitted for ratification .... ", that implies the Governor can veto a resolution.
MR. HILL: That was added as a complement to (g) over here on vetoing local Constitutional amendments. Now if III you decide that he should not have the ri-.:rht t.o veto local , i Constitut.ional amendments, then that "submitted for ratification"

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, this says "All bills and

I~ all resolutions .. "

1':;

SPEAKER MURPHY: Tell me what the purpose is for

j(, " or adjourns for more than forty days, excluding Sundays,

prior to the expiration of said ten days."

MR. TID~lELL: Can I t you adjourn now for fifty

1" days if you want to, to a day certain?

]0

MR. MCWHORTER: Several hundred days.

"

MR. TIDWELL: rrhat's to take care of the situation

,)
where you leave up here and then you want the Governor to go
, ,,
on and act.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well I believe I can reword that.

This language "During the sessions of the General Assembly no

41

bill or resolution shall be transmitted to the Governor after

passage except upon the request of the Governor or the

Governor's designee or upon order of two-thirds of the

membership of each house." You could change that to say

"All bills shall be transmitted to the Governor upon his

i, request or upon two-thirds of the membership . ", you could

:: cut that language by two thirds. MR. TIDWELL: You don't have to have the Governor's

designee in there.

!i)

SPEAKER MURPHY: "All bills shall be transmitted to

1: ~ the Governor upon his request -" MR. HILL: You would have to say during the session

because in the one case you're talking about what happens at

] /1.
- that. time and in the other case you're talking about what

<
~

15 J happens after the session.
,.,;,,;

I ~'l r~l

,~
~"'

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well we're going to get to that in

a minute. We've just got to take it one step at a time. We'll ! ~) I get to that in a minute. You can put a provision, after the
1. ",
session the Governor shall have forty days or whatever it is

to approve or veto them.
11
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Right.

SPEAKER MURPHY: You can --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Do we want to make any distinct-
.i
ion here in this provision with bills and resolutions? The

current Constitution makes no reference to resolutions, it

simply refers to bills and most of your state constitutions

simply

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes, we do have resolutions that

are not Constitutional amendments that the Governor has to

approve, the sale of property and stuff.

CHAIRMAN PARTHRMOS: I am aware of that, but that

would simply be considered a bill I believe. The present, as

I say, makes no distinction, it just simply apparently

embraces them all under the term "bill".

10

MR. TIDWELL: Of course, I think you need resolution

,~l

I;" to make it clear what you're talking about. :-j

j.

.~':>.v.lt.".

u

(((~j))I~!'!2 '~J

\':--- __' / /

c,

""---~--"'"

there,

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think resolution ought to be in I've got no problem with that.
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well I was just noticing the

present Constitution does not mention resolution.

MR. TIDWELL: That's right, but somewhere it does.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Not in the veto section.

18

MR. TIDWELL: It's talking about bills and

]) resolutions intended to have the effect of law.

20

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes, that's right.

)i
MR. TIDWELL: Not in the veto, but over in

MR. MCWHORTER: It says each shall have the right
,, "
to approve any bill or resolution but it takes the concurrence 24 of both houses

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: In Paragraph VI where it defines

PACE 43
the veto power, that's in Paragraph VII, it moves resolutions into a separate section, it deals with that in a separate section.
MR. MCWHORTER: Look at Article V, Section III, Paragraph VII.
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That~s what I say, it puts it -MR. MOvHORTER: Another place. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It puts it in another place, you have Paragraph VI that deals with the veto per se and then paragraph VII then defines how he handles resolutions, II in a separate paragraph.
L'"
~,
MR. HILL: These were combined for purposes of this ',J(~-"'''~'''L: draft and ,there isn't a separate, you know
".'
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Seems to me it may be clearer to have it in a separate section.
MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question and raise a point? First the question, are you combining this Paragraph VII, "Every vote, resolution, or order . ", is that being combined in this new section?
MR. HILL: That.'s my unclerstanding. MR. JACKSON: I'm going to have to leave, so let me go ahead and raise this point that I'm concerned about. ,.1.:) There's a movement in eongress, it has been there for the last fifteen years and it is also occurring in state legislatures around the country, to allow the administrative branch to

44
"
propose action or rules or regulations, subject to the

disapproval of each house or both houses, and this disapproval

,~ takes form in a resolution.

CHAI~.N PARTHEMOS: Legislative veto.

MR. JACKSON: Legislative veto, exactly. The question

c is would this legislative veto be subject to the Governor's

veto. Now we have in the administrative rules, the law that

was passed two years ago, you provide that it is unless two--

,(' thirds sustain a vote to disallow that ruler in which event

jll it is not allowed. My question is this, do you want to omit

It or extend the veto to these resolutions, the legislative veto

resolutions?

MR. MCWHORTER: Well like it is now, it's extended

to it in one sense of the word, if you keep this language in

15 " Paragraph VII like it is. I don! t know if VII was ever meant
16 ~" to do exactly what it has done. Under this, if you pass a
{',
<
1: resolution praising John Smith and condolence upon his death,

I~ you've got one reading in each house, it goes to the Governor,

1') right, Jack?

20

MR. ELLARD: Yes.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Under the present Constitution

)'", any such resolution that goes to the Governor must come from

both houses, must have the concurrence of both, under the

present Constitution.

MR. MCWHORTER: But we have condolences jointly or

PAGE 45

just praise somebody, a good county commissioner, 1 1m sorry

Mr. John Smith has died, but we send it through both houses

) nwnerous times and under this it goes to the Governor. He

" don't want it either, does he.

MR. JACKSON: This was adopted in 1789 directly from

fJ the U. S. Constitution, the wording is exactly the same, it

later added, it doesn't extend to a Constitutional amendment

or to the adjournment. It has never been challenged in a

Georgia court and I can't find any state court, but it is up

and there are several law articles which are really looking at

"
I! ,- the impact of this on the legislative veto. And also that :cJ

i~

): ~

law,

we have a

law which I

think this would probably hold up

l
~: as Constitutional, that says if two-thirds in each house

shall pass this resolution disapproving this agency rule,

the Governor cannot veto that. This would seem to go against j u that.

MR. MCWHORTER: It wouldn't be in violation since

it's a Constitutional provision though .
. 'j
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This would probably supersede ..'1 a number of existing laws, if adopted, whatever is finally

adopted, it will probably supersede a number of existing

laws.

Mr. Speaker, youlre suggesting we move through this,

are there any further comments on -,-

MR. MCWHORTER: I want to make one suggestion, I think

46 when you try to revise it, you ought to keep this paragraph in

2 mind and maybe coordinate it with Article V group.

MR. HILL: Article V is not working on this, this

-f is here. It isn't going to be in Article V. Everything from

Article V is moved over here.

MR. MC:vHORTER: Then it should be considered in the

redraft.

MR. HILL: Oh, sure, there was no intention to drop

anything.

I \".,

CHAIR~N PARTHEMOS: with respect to that first

[I let me raise a question as to whether or not we should
,'~J.
-,
'1'
consolidate the provisions with respect to the veto of bills

and the veto of resolutions in the same or should we separate

l~ ; out and have a section, another paragraph just dealing with
"

;~ resolutions since there are so many different kinds of

:0-

1() ~
,~ resolutions?

z

, - :<:r:.

11 ;;.;,

MR. CLARKE: Well one way -- I'm sorry I was out for

Jx a few minutes -- but on the second page (g), where you are

limiting the things that the Governor can veto, you can just 20 add one more thing there and define in some way these

privileged resolutions or whatever they are.

MR. MCliHORTER: If you try to define it, you get into

more --

MR. CLARKE: Or you could simply say "or resolutions

which do not have the effect of law."

PA(~E 47

MR. HILL: You see that's why this says resolutions

2 intended to have the effect of law, because we did away with all the other, that's the reason. You don't want any bill or resolution to go up, you know, it has to have been passed and this is just stating that. So I don't know that
h that's excess verbage in that first sentence.

MR. MC~iHORTER: Charlie, that presents another

~ problem. Do you think he wants to have a right to veto some } resolution that doesn't have the effect of law?

!O

MR. TIDWELL: I can't imagine why a Governor would

c'

II

?_:.
>:

want to do that.

::'

:, ... >0 "

MR. CLARKE:

All he wouid be doing -- it would have

no effect anyway, he's telling the legislature he doesn't

.~ agree with it and making a public statement

15 .r..,

MR. MC~rnORTER: That's about all it is, you're

.:::
CO>
,l:
right. 1() ,1...., ,:

i

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I don't think it makes that

:,
i

much difference, it's an expression of sentiment that is made

j I) anyhow.

MR. MCWHORTER:, We set up joint committees that way, and so forth.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Either house can adopt a

resolution expressing sentiment on some matter

.l

MR. JACKSON: In a lot of states a joint resolution

which requires both houses and does have the effect of law, and

then a concurrent resolution which is both houses but does

not have the effect of law.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: 'l'hat's trJe, that's a :nattel~

4 of Congress, that's true in the Congress.

5

MR. MC~~{ORTER: That's true in several, many states.

MR. JACKSON: He don't have that in this state

'7

though.

CHAIRMAN PARTlillMOS: They make a distinction between

a joint resolut.ion which has the effect of law the same an a

10 bill, and a concurring resolution which doesn't, concurring

11 - resolution does not go to the president, joint resolution does.

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't know the difference between

a resolution and a bill myself.

CHAIRMP.N PARTHEMOS: That's right, there's no --

J) you can abolish that distinction. Normally, proposals to amend

10 the Constitution are generally considered resolutions, they're

j' not bills simply because

IS

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right.

j')

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It doesn't have the same status,

.~() it has a different status than a bill.

_"I

MR. HILL: I didn't really feel at liberty to amend

this very much personally because it had passed the House and
,, I felt it must have been there for a reason, so that's one of
.'-I the --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This right here passed?

PAGE 49 MR. HILL: It looks like it's excess verbage but

then when you start looking at it, you know, it clears up.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think a few items here and

4 there can be edited and reduced some, Mel.

~

Again, we seem to be in a dilemma over this matter of

(- the veto. I wish somebody could show us a way out.

MR. TIDWELL: You know, I think whatever you're

going to do we're never going to be able to come into this .J committee and look at something at first blush and say that's

lU
;."
t;

great.

MR. MC\iHORTER: I agree.

MR. TIDWELL: We need to have it -- I would like to

have it and do a little conferring and then carefully draw

'. whatever amendments I thought ought to be to it and so that

'"
I :) ,,i,, we don't have to sit here and react to something that somebody "'

I (1 ,'L'."", comes up with which I can't understand unless I sit down --

Cl

"<;

17
"

."

I'm dull,

I have to think about it a long time.

j :-;

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is a matter of vital

1\) importance I think in the Constitution and I think it should

receive the consideration that it deserves. But should we

refer it then to a group of this subcommittee to come back

with another draft.

MR. MCWHORTER: I'll make a motion that you let the

.' .j Speaker and Mel and Executive Counsel work on it.

'-

MR. TIDWELL: I don't think y'all ought to put me

\., '\

50

on it to tell you the truth.

"

MR. MCWHORTER: You could work as an advisor.

3

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Charlie, this is a matter of

the Governor's powers.

MR. TIDWELL: ' I ' l l be glad to look at it, but ',-That

I'm talking about is --

'7

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Could you react to it?

MR. TIDWELL: Oh, sure. I'd love to work with you,

9 I just don't think I ought to be drafting it for this

10 subcommittee.
~)
z
MR. MCWHORTER:

Hy time is not valuable, but I

think it is wasteful to come back with something either the

Governor or the Speaker or so forth just can't accept.

l~ ,,-.

MR. HILL: Maybe Frank and I or somebody in that

15

0
"

office

should try

to work up

something and

then present

it

~

16 ~ ~,

to each of them.

Cl

z:

<

17 ;;;

MR. TIDWELL: That'd be good, if we could have that,

IS then we can go see what we can do with it.

MR. MCWHORTER: Mel, you have a right to consult
, 20
with them any time you --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: In the meantime, does any of

"

us have any thoughts -- I'm going to give some thought to this.

1,
MR. HILL: How about you and I do it?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let me just -- I'll just send

.,..'

to you a suggested -- something that I suggest that you consider.

PAGE 51

~laybe each of us could. I'll just draft something, if for no other reason maybe to suggest some style and format and you and Frank can corne up with something.
MR. HILL: Prank will be out of town, maybe you and ~ I should try to do it.
MR. EDWARDS: Get together with Ham Saturday

afternoon.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: During half time. How about

with Cindy, you and Cindy can do it and I'll send you some-

[li

thing.

HR. HILL: Okay.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Then before you come back to

us, Mel, give the Speaker and Charlie an opportunity to react

to it. How about that?

MH. HILL: That's fine. Now Hr. Chairman, we are

running into a time problem. The meeting of this full

cowaittee is Honday, the 29th and by next Wednesday we're to

have whatever our proposal is ready to be sent to all of the

members of the full co~~ittee. Now we can simply put in the

present language of the veto power and put "For further study"

and just indicate to the full committee that we're not yet
., ,
ready to make a recommendation on that since we haven't

really been able to agree.on it yet. But we either have to ..'. ~ meet by next Hednesday again or we will not have a draft

for the full cmnmittee meeting, is kind of the posture we're in.

52

MR. CLARKE: Well I think that leaves us 'N'ith two

choices; one, either to -- if we're not able to do all of the

:1 things we need to do, send out an incomplete report which is

, not a real bad thing to do, or to move the date back some for

the date of the meeting of the full comn',ittee and the date

for making the reports to everybody. fmel I'm sort of open

for suggestions on that. My real concern is that ultimate

deadline of ;)ecember 7, because I can see there is goinq to

be a lot of discussion when the full con~ittee gets together

10 and I think we are going to need to invite the COlID;tents of

1i every member of the General Assembly to vlhat we come up with

,)
I .~

in this draft, and of course the Governor's office which is

being kept abreast as we go along by their very able counsel.

ClffiIlli~N PARTHEMOS: Mel, if we can get this new

i; draft -- I'll send you some suggestions -- and then once you

have consulted with the Speaker and with CharJ.ie, send a

copy to each member of this committee as soon as you can and

we might then consent to having that incorporated in our

I"

report.

2U

MR. HILL: You know, unless we move that meetinlJ,

21 we have to send everything next Wednesday in order for them

to get it in time for the meeting the followin9 Monday. So,

you know, I don't think it's possible for us to get this to

.-t everybody and their reactions by next Wednesday. Time

doesn't per:mit that.

CHAI&~N PARTHEMOS:

1'."\(;1<
53 Then shall we -- do I have a

motion that this be referred to Mel and Cindy and Ham, who

will then do another draft and consult with the Speaker and

,! 'Vlith Charlie before they bring back another proposal to this

subcommittee. And in the meantime, any of us may send our

suggestions in to Mel, and I'll probably get you some over the

weekend.

Do we need a motion or shall we just pursue that

course? Is there any disagreement with that?

It;
..J
, , I.:
L
~l

(No response.)

,,"e Vlelllet l s do it that waYr so

can move on. I

should like next for us to consider again the unresolved matter

of the role o~ the President of the Senate and if we might now

move to that issue. This is in Sectbn III.

After some thought to this matter, I am almost

disposed to propose that we maybe revert back to the original
r:.t
a provision of the Constitution concerning the President of the

Senate. It seems like we're running into a lot of complica-

tions if we give him a vote in the Senate.
'i l
MR. CLARKE: I agree with that, George, 1 1 m concerned

about us fooling around too much with the philosophy of the

separation of powers and having half fish and half fowl in

state government.

CHAIRMfu~ PARTHEMOS: I think that we have considered

it and I think we have determined that there are a number of

54 complications that are presented by that pr;)posal and --- is

the subcommi t.tee willing to consider that we simply g':J bad,

and incorporate the present language.

MR. MC~VHORTER: Let me say this r if Y I all decide not

to go back I want somebody else to draft

because my

mentali ty wouldn't tell me hm" to do it.. I wouldn't know hOVJ.

SPEAKER LvrURPHY: You 'rJant to go back to where he

don't have the right to vote at all?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Hake him presiding officer with

no -- in the present provision he has no riJht to vote.

,

;'

j;

:~

SPEAKER i'IURPHY: Couldn't we at lt~a,st sa;: the

President of the Senate shall have the rigllt to vote in case

of ties?

CH1URMAN PARTHEMOS: Does that not then thrml YOl~

1.:

;

up 'N'ith the problem of the Constitutional 'najority?

HR. MCWHORTER: Vle11 you would have to make an
,..t:
exception.
1 \..'
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Or make the exception. YO\]

would have to make the exception that in such instances, then

that provision of course does not apply.

Mr. Speaker, I would go along with that as long as

we can handle that problem.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Let me ask this question. In the

next section down there, you're going to make the President

Pro Tern the President of the Senate in the case of the death

PAGE 55

of the Lieutenant Governor, aren't you?

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right. We've got a provision

3 I' for that, he's a member of the Senate.

4

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: In which case he retains all

rights and privileges of a member of the Senate.

6

MR. CLARKE: Sure.

7

MR. MCWHORTER: We've got the same wording in our

rule which is just like you, exactly the same provision.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think y'all ought to discuss

lu this with the Lieutenant Governor.
',,:)

Ii
3...,.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well this is what we -- I

certainly would like to get the Lieutenant Governor's input

into this but we're encountering so many problems it seems

14 _
,;, with the proposal that we've been considering.
~

MR. HILL: I want to report that the committee

::,

1(, r~, l

u
"'

working on Article V is in the process of considering the

17 r
whole question of the Lieutenant Governor as being the

presiding officer of the Senate because there's a lot of

thought in that committee that he's an executive officer and
2U
perhaps should be an executive officer and the Senate should

elect its own presiding officer. That's what's being

considered by this other committee.

SPEAKER MURPHY: We ain't going to buy that in the

House, I'll tell you that, I don't believe we will, do you,

Jack?

MR. ELLARD: I doubt it.

SPEAKER r1URPHY: If you take him off as being the

presiding officer of the Senate, you ain't got no reason to

have a Lieutenant Governor.

CHAIRMAN PJI.RTHEMOS: I think that would raise that

question, too. I agree.

The question is it seems to me then, do we, as far

as this subcoffi.17littee, I think the consensus seems to be that

the Lieutenant Governor remain as presiding officer, Pr.esident

of the Senate, but the question then is does he have a vote.

Ii And if he should have a vote in case of a tie, then it woull1

,J seem to me we would have to make some provision with respect

to --

i .~

MR. CLARKE: Constitutional majority.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

Constitutional majority,

,U suspending that. So why don't we see if we can't draw the

focus of our discussion on that issue and then maybe we can

propose something to them and get the Lieutenant Governor's

reaction to it.

MR. MCWHORTER: What you're saying, Mr. Chairman,.

give him -- break a tie on procedural matters, so to speak.

Now how about amendments and so forth. In other words

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well you would give him .-- he

shall have no vote except in case of a tier I would imagine

this would mean every vote in the Senate, not just on procedural

PAGE 57

matters.

MR. MCWHORTER: Ain't no question, if you said

period, you'd be right.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: And that in such instances,
s you've got to then make the provision with respect to the

requirement of Constitutional majority if he's not an elected

7 member of the Senate. If you get a 28-28 vote in the Senate,

you don't have a Constitutional majority if he votes to

9 break that tie.

10

MR. MCWHORTER: Right.

II Ci

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

"-

12 : of elected membership.

You still won't have a majority

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right, if you don't go back

j ,~

;.-
v",

and change that section,

there's a conflict.

<:

15 "
'.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You'd have to put a provision

:':>"

16 :~ in there, except in cases where the Lieutenant Governor votes

Cl

z:

<;

17 ~, in case of a tie.

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right, very cumbersome way

to do it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: So it seems to me that this is

have I defined that issue? Because I think this is what
j)
we need to decide. It seems to me it's rather clear cut that
,' " you can give him the right to vote in case of a tie, but at

the same time you're going to have to change that provision

with respect to the requirement of Constitutional majority in

those cases where he does vote. MR. MCHHORTEl{: 'l'he U. S. Constitution does exactl::,'
that, period, but it doesn't then go back and define what it takes to pass that bill.
CHAIRI\1AN PAR'l'HEI-'IOS: Well i t. sr~ts no requirement for Constitutional majority, just a majority of the qU0rt~.
HR. ~CHHORTEl\: 'I'ha.t's right. CH1\.ImlAN PAR'l'HEMOS: In the U. S. Senate, and it does make a provision for him to vob'? in case of a tie, bu'_ you don't have that problem in the U. S. Senate. SPEAKBH MURPHY: That' s one of the few probleins we don't have in the U. S. Senate then. CHAI:?J1AN PARTHEMOS; But again: I think .. - this to
\., '. '--
me is a problem that we can solve, it's not all that difficult,
).
it's just. a matter of what we want to do. You can leave hLn
i,
as he is, as the presiding officer and PresiClent of the ;]fmate, without a vote or as President of the Senate with a vote in case of a tie. It seems to me that really those are the two alternatives.
Excuse me, Ham. MR. MCWHORTER: I meant to talk to the Lieutena.nt Governor but he has been busy and away and I haven't <Jot to talk to him and all I can say is he would be reasonable about any fair proposal, I know, but I can't say how he finally feels about it. He might have some strong feeling about it.

59 ca~Iro1AN PARTHEMOS: I think i t ' s goin0 to be

difficult to do as we had originally thought, to track the

vowers of the Speaker of the House with respect to the President

of the Senate, the Lieutenant Governor.

HR. CLARKE: Hell they're not the same.

CHAIRt,IAN PARTHEMOS: They're two different roles,

there's no question, they're two different offices.

Do you think that these are our two alternatives

with respect to that issue? If so, then it seems to me that iii we have to consider one of these two alternatives and then

we can of course get --

SPEAKER MURPHY; It suits me to go back to the

original provision. The Lieutenant Governor is the one y'all

got to sellon that, I was just trying to agree with him.

,,

;,

I'm such an agreeable fellow.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well I think we have given the

matter I think very serious consideration and we have

encountered certain difficult problems t.hat it gives us.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I thought it miqht make the

operation of the Senate a little better.

MR. MCWHORTER: I didn't know it could be improved

on. I thought you told me that.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Sir?

MR. CLARKE: A whole bunch of them called me off

and said they sure would appreciate your helpful suggestions

60

to make it run better.

",e MR. MCvlHORTER: ~'iell where are we going if

do

, that, Charlie? Since you have been involved ill it some.

CHAIRMAN PAHTHEMOS: tlhat is your opinion on it .. do

you have any opinion on this?

I1R. MCI,iHORTER: Where would that leave him on those

Boards. We said he's a fowl but we said he's been flying

around all the time.

iJ

SPEAKER HURPHY: You said he was a fish but he had

l(

been flying around.

j:

MR. MCWHORTER: Any way you want to put it. You

,,

J

say he's a member o~ the executive but you're qoing to let.

him vote in that, how about being on the Boards then in

that case?

MR. EDWARDS: Well I thouqht -_.

r1R. I10'1HORTI~R: If you do that,

MR. EDWARDS: I thought we were going to leave it

like it is.

i'

MR. MCvlHORTER: Oh 1 there's no problem then.

MR. CLARKE: Wouldn't it be best -_. I seem to pick

up some sentiment for leaving it like it is, to do that and

then somebody in the meantime before we send out the draft,

get together with the Lieutenant Governor and chat with him

some about it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Do I hear such a motion? That we

PAGE 61 refer it back to Mel to prepare a draft leaving the office as

it is, but then to consult with the Lieutenant Governor.

MR. HILL: Well now if he objects, I'm not sure where

we are.

ca~IRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well we'll come back and

reconsider it.

MR. HILL: But then what do we senj to the committee,

o see? We have to know by next Wednesday, you won't have a

chance to

!U

CHArmiAN PARTHEMOS: We can put again the notation

that this is still under consideration.

MR. HILL: Okay, ":F'or further study".

CHAIRI1AN PARTHEMOS: Still under consideration, and

then if the Lieutenant Governor -- 'lie' 11 consider any suggest-

i' ions he may make, in another ~eeting.

MR. TIDWELL: Didn't the Lieutenant Governor, when

J he was here at that meeting, say that it was sort. of a matter

of indifference to him?

J)

SENATOR TYSINGER: He said definitely he wanted the

power to break a tie.

SPEAKER MURPHY: He wanted the same power the

Speaker's office had.

MR. TrD~iELL: Did he?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Without reservation, equivocation

or malnutrition.

HR. TIDWELL: Then what do you want to consult wi:h him for, he has already said it, so what are you going to do?
CHI\I.2J.'v!..AN PARTHEHOS: vvell I think we simply have to indicate that there are very serious complicati::ms in trying to accomodate that in the Constitution.
HR. 1~m1ARDS: 1:'. lot. of things ha'le happened sil,;:e the last meeting, that the Lieutenant Governor has become involved in, he might have changed his mind on it.
CHAIHMAN PAR'l.'HEMOS: But I think we've really -::Jot a little problem if we try to do this in the Constitution. I think we could handle --
SPE.'\KER MURPHY: Let me put it t.his way I' in view of y'all's feelings I bow to the wisdom of the Secretary of the Senate and Senator Tysinger.
MR. HCVlHORTER: Don't do that. \'1e want to ho 1d that for another time, don't we?
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think we ought to have a motion. I think the chair would like a motion on this.
!(,
SENATOR TYSINGER: I so move. SPEAKER MURPHY: What do you move, Senator? SEl-JA'I'OR TYSINGER: That we go back to the original. SPEAKER MURPHY: Go back to the original Constitution? SENATOR TYSINGER: Yes. SPEAKER MURPHY: You second it, Mr. Secretary? You're the people that's involved.

"

,....

~

,~~ r.', '.' "

'-.J

MR. MCWHORTER: YouTe the one that made the other proposal.
SPEAKER MURPHY: I was going along with the Lieutenant Governor.
You've got to tell the Senate how to operate, Jack. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion made by the Senator. Is the motion seconded? SPEAKER MURPHY: What about it, Mr. Clarke? MR. CLARKE: I'nl not a member of the subcommittee. I'd be glad to second it if I were. MR HILL: You're a member of all the committees. MR. CLARKE: Well to get something on the record, I second it. CHAI~~ PARTHEMOS: And the motion is seconded. Is there any further discussion?
(No response.) CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are you ready for the question? As many as are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
(Ayes.) CH.'1\.IRMAN PARTHEMOS: Oppo sed, no.
(No response.) CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and -SPEAKER MU?2HY: I believe there were four ayes and two abstained. Is that right. Jack? CHAIR~W.N PARTHEMOS: I think it is still the under-

:\" ' i 64

standing of the subcommittee that Mel will take this up with

the Lieutenant Governor and explain to him some of the

problems that we have encountered with respect to this and

f corne back with his reactions. Is that not right that you will

do this?

II

MH.. HILL: Is someone close -.- I y!wa.n, I'll be glad

to talk to him, but does someone see hi;n and uould someone

on the committee be 'Io1illin'j to speak to hi:n?

MR. MCV1HORTER: I'll be glad to 90 with you. He's

nice to talk to, he's no problem.

CHAIRIv",AN PARTHEIvlOS: It would be well for the two of

.,.~~Y..1),;A

you to go together. He might have some suggestions that rnight

(t\~}:.;;5;)(c'~"'" ,I help us resolve the matter in another way. Okay.

\<,~._~~//

MR TIDWELL: Could I ask Mr. Speaker a question?

Would it be your instruction to the Article V committee that

it is your sentiment of your House that if there is going to

be a Lieutenant Governor at all, he's going to remain as the

presiding officer? You just don't think your House is going

to go to anything other than that?

SPEAKER MURPHY: No.

MR. TIDWELL: So that's your instructions to that

group?

SPEAKER j\IURPHY: That ain't 'JI'.l.l".:'L''' instructions, that's

what I --

MR. TIDWELL: That's your feeling.

PACE 65

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's my feeling about what the

House would do.

MR. HILL: They're trying to think of some kind of

executive power they could give the office so that he would

have a legitimate role to play, but purely executive role.

But they're having trouble finding sonething.

CF~IRMAN PARTHEMOS: Now these are the two matter.s

that I had given priority for our consideration today and

since we have taken action on those, should we go back now

and maybe review the draft as it presently stands. Mel,

would you want to maybe give us a sUlTL1Uary of this draft and

see just hov; we now stand? I think it would be well if we

"
I

kind

of

took

stock

right

now

to

see

what

we

have

done

and

what remains to be done so we can draw the work of this

subco~nittee to a conclusion and make our report to the

full co:nmi ttee as completely as we can before the next full

committee meeting.

MR. CLARKE: I think it would be good too, by the
,)
time when we get our draft to go out, perhaps to send with it

or ;.:>erhaps to wait and have it to present at the time of the

meeting of the full committee, to have some sort of paper

saying these are the things that have been changed.

CHAIRHAN PARTHEMOS: Right.

MR. CLARKE: This is what we have done with the

thing.

\. -

G\,

CIIAIRl.'1AN PAR'I'HEMOS: Yes, you could do that in one

of two ways. You could either single them out or you coeld

just juxtapose the original with the new and then point out

the changes.

Mel, it seems to me that on page 1, the matt.er that

still remains to be finally resolved is Paragraph IV concerninq

Disqualifications.

MR. HILL: Right. Now the only thing I did there

was separate the military disqualification from the civil

disqualification, put them in separate para9raphs.
,-'1
still not sure if we have said it correctly.

l\.nd I! ,,'

i'
. ?-:'Yli.~ \

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If we might, let';.:; consider

,(:Co::.:Y )r-'-~"~"" ~. that for just a moment. If all the members will just look

over that, Paragraph IV of Section II concerning the matter of ,5 ~ Disqualifications.

MR. CLARKE: I think you've done. it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I like this draft much better

and I think probably this --

j"

MR. Cr~RKE: It's a great improvement

.'IJ

CHA.IRMAN PARTHEMOS: 'rhis is a great improvement.

I think that helps, I think this is much clearer.

MR. CLI\RKE: And I think (c) is an improvement from

a substantive point of view.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I've got no problem with that myself.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: All right. I'd like to have a

1

PACT. 67

motion that we just adopt this version of the paragraph.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I so move. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion, is the motion

seconded? SENATOR TYSINGER: I second it. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Is

there any discussion? Yes, Frank? MR. EDWARDS: This is the first time I've read this.

Paragraph (b) says " office having any emolument or iU compensation annexed thereto . " and then in (c) you just
-. say "emolument". I don't know whether --

.J

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let me tell you, on that

...

,,----. ~'. \

';flUjfIlO

....

particular point, as far as I

understand emolument. is any

;'

form of profit, gain -- emolument probably is a little

" broader term than compensation, it includes compensation.

,(.

MR. CLAP~E: If that's the case, why don't we mark

out "or compensation" in (b) and save two words.

CHAIRHAN PARTHEMOS: I think you could save two

words simply by deleting that.

MR. HCWIIORTER: Some other state constitutions have it like that, just emolument.
CHAIffi4AN PARTHEMOS: Just emolument because that's

a broader -- emolument includes pay too, any kind of gain. Is that alJreeable with everybody?
SPEAKER MURPHY: I'm glad to find out what it means,

,
! 63

I never have known.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You want to get: a dictionary?

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, sir r I just said I was glad to find out what it meant.

CHAIR'I1AN FARTHEMOS: Yeah, that's ~vhat it :-oeans 1 it
means any form of profit, gain or anythins like this. So

with that change --

MR. TIDWELL: It doesn't embrace the concept of

reimbursement I don't believe. Is that your understanding?

CHhIR1\1AN PARTHEMOS: That is expense reimbursement.

)!

It wouldn't prevent that.

HR. TIDWELL: It's got to be profit.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right, it's got to be
!
profit. i-Vith that change then, is there any further
1 ~:
discussbn?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTIIEMOS: Are you ready for the question?

As many as are in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: rrhe ayes have it and so we

have that one taken care of.

The other, Mel, it seems to me now is meeting and

time limit on page 3, Paragraph I of Section IV.

PAGE 69

SPEAKER MURPHY: How about Paragraph V, sir?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I'm sorry?

MR. HILL: Paragraph V, we're still waiting for

4

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's in conjunction with

5 Paragraph I of Section III, we can't solve that one until

we do this one.

7

Are there any further thoughts then on the matter

of meeting, time limit and adjournment? This is a new draft.

'l

MR. HILL: No, no, wait a second. Is this a new

!O draft? Cindy, do you remember whether this Section IV

,~~,
z:

li 5 I think this is the same -- Hamilton, did you draft this?

.:,.

,..:.,'?lyIt:.l,'~ 11';" Ham and Frank I think were going to work on a change about

,..'\(. \U.~.~.b..j.\')),1\jr"-. m"" .

'3
u
'r.

this

one

day

in

December.

-~"

.//

--

,
1.1 ~

MR. MCWHORTER: I drafted one but after seeing how

this first draft was discussed this morning, I'm not going to

risk it I don't think.

I did draft one, I talked to Charlie some and I

don't know if it has any potentiality or anytHng. This is

one I drafted two ways.

(Mr. McWhorter distributed a document

to the committee members.)

SPEAKER MURPHY: If you'll take that gem clip off

and hand them down here --

MR. MCWHORTER: All right, we'll do it.

This is a rough draft. Frank, when we're discussing this, I

2- ~-' : \ ( j

70

think there's something else we need to discuss. The

possibility or the problem we face in any adjournments like

committee meetings and so forth. What I mean by this, when

'l we adjourn for a break where the committee can meet and make

a report, we've been telling them to meet and do all you want

to, but corne back on the first day and formalize it. Now

that looks like there ought to be a better way to do it. Jack 1

you know what I mean, don't you?

MR. ELLARD: Yes.

MR. MCw~ORTER: The first draft I did said for

Ii

I :I:

the purpose of organization,

but since it's one day,

I

don't

::'1

c.v~ l! '-

..:.."'_ AI

".

(\/\Y ,(::l".-:/_;~,)":':-\~\r~""

.
'.'
o'

J'I .'
'.
r
15 0

::.r;;
.::J
~ t~ "~ ,

know if there's any use to put that or not . SPEAKER MURPHY: Ham, I think the best thing to do
is for you to submit this to the full committee and let them decide. This thing would get us in a mess in the House having to elect a Speaker and all that on that one day.

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Speaker, if you're against it,

1", we might as well drop it right now. I don't mean it that ;vay,

:q
but I mean if you really think it that strong because I've

2U got another draft where you just meet every other year in

December. In fact, if you don't get some of the other
-, - ~
provisions to go along with it, there's no point in doing it

except every other year .

.':-t

SPEAKER MURPHY: I could find no fault with the

second year of our term, meeting that first day in December, but

PAGE 71

I'm looking for a purpose for it in the second year. Can you

find a purpose?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mr. Speaker, cannot that matter

be taken care of by law, where the General Assembly by law

provides for a --

SPEAKER MURPHY: No, sir, we'd have to have a

special session for that one day, under the Constitutional

provision now. Wouldn't we, Charlie?

'.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I mean if you made a provision

il! in this Constitution allowing the General Assembly to provide

Ii ,- by law for meeting days. The General Assembly shall meet

in regular session in January or otherwise as provided by law.

Which means that every other year, the General Assembly can

.' provide by law for that one day or two day session.

I' .
l,!1

HR. HILL:

"

;t

z ",

Assembly

shall

meet

This draft before you states "The General on the second Monday in January of

each year, or otherwise as provided by law . 11

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right, we put that in,

that's new. That would give the General Assembly this

flexibility to, by law, whenever

HR. CLARKE: That would give you a right on your

mid-term sessions to meet one day in December, if there is any

advantage to it.

CHAlru~ PARTHEMOS: Yes, if --

MR. CLARKE,: I can I t really see where there's any

72 advantage to it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This would simply allow it in

j

case--

MR. MCWHORTER: There's no advanta.ge -- I can see

some advantages to it, but I don't know if they will fly, so (. to speak. Number one, if you're not going to get the

Governor's budget that knocks out most of it. Number two,

it could be used in several other ways to make the General

" Assembly more effectively use the first few days of the

!O session.
11 ..
.")

SPEAKER MURPHY:

If the Governor, Ham, ever decided

v he wanted to give us the budget in December

MR. MCWHORTER: There wouldn't be any session to

14
r

1{)

'-' '~l

,.
,"
17 x

receive it. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You could convene in special
session, could you not? SPEAKER MURPHY: The problem is you're never going

to be able to force the Governor into giving us the budget
1)
on a certain day if he don't want to, and I think he ought to

have that right, really.

MR. TIDWELL: The two proposals that Ham has drafted,

if I have read them correctly, -- that's up to y'all, but if

you do have something where it creates the situation where he's

got to submit the budget in December, then the Governor has

thought about it more than he has before and I think he has a

PAGE 73

great deal of reservation about it. He just doesn't feel

like he can agree to it at all under any circumstances for that

newly elected Governor. He just thinks it's terribly unfair

for him. That very first year, in effect, the budget would

be prepared by the outgoing governor. It would be, there's

no question but it would be. It would be physically impossible

for the new Governor to have it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: He wouldn't even be in office

unless you changed that.

MR. TIDWELL: The incumbent Governor would be sUbmitting

the budget.

. >

SPEAKER MURPHY: I agree with that

MR. TIDtiELL: But if the General Assembly should

like to meet in December to organize, that's just something

that doesn't affect the Governor.

SPEAKER MURPHY: If that's all we're going to do, I

can't see any advantage to it.

f1R. HCW-HORTER: I don't see any point in me moving

it, I don't think I'd ever get a second on that.

, CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It would seem that might be the

way it is. So that means that we continue at least for the

time being with the present draft unless there are any --

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR1VU{ PARTHEMOS: Yes, Frank.

MR. EDWARDS: Could I just ask members of the

j 1

" ... t

"14

subcommi ttee, and particularly -- I've talked to J"ack and Ham

about it, I'm not sure if I ever talked to the Speaker about

it, how they feel about carry-over legislation. How do you

1 feel about that, Mr. Speaker?

MR. MCWHORTER: I'll tell you how I feel about it,

t but that don't make no difference.

SPEAKER HURPHY: ~'iell it does Nake a difference.

8 Tell us how you feel.

<l

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: From one session to the otheL'.

!()

MR. EDWARDS: In other words, a t~.lO-year term carry

! t forward.

,l

MR. MCWHORTER: Several states have had it and

abolished it.

I'

SPEAKER MURPHY: Carrying over from one session

i' to the other?

il)

CHAIP~AN PARTHEMOS: Carrying over from session to

session or term to term?

j-')

MR. MCWHORTER: Session to session r you can't go

j',1 from term to term.

2(;

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You can't go from term to term.

MR. EDWARDS: We carry it from the first session
,,
of the term to the second session.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It doesn't die.

MR. EDWARDS: It doesn't die.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I like carrying it from session to

/'\CI< 75

session myself.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's pretty much a standard

procedure as far as I know.

MR. CLARKE: One of the big advantages of it, there

may be some complicated piece of legislation that you want to

hold over just for the purpose of interim study.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Particularly with the session

being forty days. Do you see some problems with it, Frank,

Ham?

iil
MR. EDWARDS: No, there's no legal problem or any-

iI

thing like that.

~)'\

< o:;T"tO '...1

:.... :'

): pass.

MR. MCWHORTER: Less than eight percent of them CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Less than eight percent of your

carry-over legislation passes? That's interesting.

MR. MCWHORTER: Over the past twelve years.

MR. EDWARDS: The only reason I brought it up. I
jI ,.'-.,!
have talked to Jack and Ham just generally and we did a

little study on it years and years ago and Ham sort of

indicated one of the things I'm talking about. It has been

our observation that practically all of the important

legislation that is passed is passed at the session at which
,.,.1
it was introduced. As Harold said, there are on occasions

there might be some piece of legislation to carry forward, I'm

not denying that, I'm just saying that -- there are advantages

76

and disadvantages. I was just sort of trying to see how

people felt about it.

MR. MC~TIIORTER: Of that eight per.cent, most of them

pass with amendments or sUbstitutions, really a substitution:

a practically new bill when it passes.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: lfuat' s the volume tha.t' s

carried over?

MR. EDWARDS: Quite a bit is carried over.
(;
HR. MCWHORTER: It's heavy.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: A heavy volume is carried over

from session to session?

';;'\'1:; /~> -~1t....1\

!. i.".'\\ \)

r '. -"- - \

'.\,'J,c=-~:-,J..>.)~.;'/

C.!": .."

., ~

MR. MCWHORTER: Over half of the general bills but not local bills.
MR. TIDWELL: It creates a logistical problem in

the Clerk's office and the Secretary's office by remembering
;,
.~. their status.

MR. MCvVHORTER: Well one thing it does, it costs a

lot, I don't know about problems, but the cost is high because

what really happens, those that carryover and pass end up,
:I
Jack, correct me if I'm wrong, end up mainly substitutes.

It's a new bill.

CHAIRlMN PARTHEMOS: Vlhat would be the reaction of

the two houses to that?

MR. EDWARDS: That's what I was just saying, I don't

think I've ever talked to the Speaker, I just wondered what his

r--
] i'Ii reactJ.on was.

., i11

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

PAGE 77--'''''--_._',
I
What would be the reaction of

'{ the members of the House and of the Senate, would you think,

..j to a proposal which would
I ,I

I

0

MR. EDWARDS: I really don't know, I just threw it

6 out to -- more for my own curiosity than anything else.

7

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think the Senate and the House

8 would want to keep it and I'll tell you why. Because every

member of that body, one time or another, who has been there

10 two or three terms, has had a piece of legislation that he

introduced to carry home, he wanted to carryover to the next

session, to tell the folks we'll get it tended to at the

next session, or give him a year to work on it, something of

that nature. I just think it would be hard to

] 5 ~~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Frank, how much legislation is

'"'"::J

]1, .'z"., introduced, let's say, late in the session or midway? In

!..

t

,,

J I

"<.:

other words,

there

would be no

point --

it would reduce

the

j S amount of legislation introduced it would seem to me, if they

19 couldn't carryover and I was wondering how much is actually

20 introduced?

2!

MR. MCWHORTER: I'll make one statement, less since

-"- Mac Barber left.

~~3

SPEAKER MURPHY: It would not make the legislation

2.1 less I don't' think .

._>

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It wouldn't make the legislation

78

less? Okay, then that's the point.

SPEAKER MURPHY: If it was ended at the end of the

3 session, they would just have it redrafted and introduce it

again the next time. I think that's what they woua do.

ClffiIRMAN PARTHEMOS: So it wouldn't have any impact

on that.

SPEZ\KER MURPHY: I've never been a very prolific

introducer myself.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: In other words, it would not

restrict the right of a member in effect to introduce

legislation. If it doesn't do that --

SPEAKER MURPHY: Would you not get into that, Frank,

that if you provided it died at the end of the session that

things that were defeated -- well, they can be reintroduced

1:'::' ~" again anyway.

'.W.

. r'"n
J to 2
r

MR. EDWARDS:

That just applies to each annual

session, if it was defeated the first time.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I can't see anything to be gai.ned

by it myself.

MR. EDWARDS: Well that's all right, I just wanted

to see what the reaction was, that's all.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Do you, Jack?

MR. ELLARD: The only problem it presents to us is

the filing. You run out of files, but we do something to take

care of them.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well if there is no further

2 discussion of that, shall we look at Item (b) of Paragraph I

on adjournment?

-1

MR. HILL: This was the Speaker's suggested change.

MR. MCWHORTER: Which section are we on?

MR. HILL: Section IV, Paragraph I, page 3.

CHAIR!"1AJ.~ PARTHEMOS: Page 3, Ham.

MR. HILL: Paragraph I (b). The second sentence

was the Speaker's suggestion in the last meeting.

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's as near as I can write it

out. If Ham will find another tick, I'll try though.

; -'

MR. MCWHORTER: I ain't going to fight that no more.

i I want to pose a question. I don't know if this is the

, proper place, to somebody, mainly to Frank.

CHAI~~N PARTHEMOS: I think that's pretty much --

MR. MCWHORTER: Like I said a minute ago, about

committee meetings during these breaks and so forth. Is there

any better way we could do that? You know what I mean by that?

In other words, when we break for a week or two days or three

days, we've got to have a special resolution to pay certain

people, but committee meetings during breaks

MR. EDWARDS: You mean to act on legislation?

MR. MCWHORTER: Yes.

MR. EDWARDS: And file reports as opposed to waiting

until you reconvene?

j '
,\\

so

MR. MCwlfORTER: Well we've got so many open meetings,

we meet durinq the breaks and we come up for two minutes 011

3 the Monday we come back and formalize somet.hing and everybody

~ runs around they didn't meet, they didn't do that. I mean I

don't think legally it's doing anything to the legislation

but it sure is causing a furor. Is there any way during that

period that we can say the co~~ittee can legally meet and come

to conclusions although the report is not filed until -'- I'm q not sure y'all know what we're really discussing. Harold,

what happens, during the break the committees continue to 1; - meet, but officially they cannot.
':1
SPEAKER MURPHY: ]\..11 you have to add in Paragraph I

is "during any such adjournment committees may meet and act.

on legislation", that's all you'd have to add, wouldn't you

L
Frank?

ie,

1 \)

1

MR. EDWARDS: Something along that line.

MR. MCWHORTER: Do you think we need something or
.,
not? Maybe I'm proposing something we don't need.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I never have thought that during an

interim or recess, I never have thought they had to meet when

we come back, I always thought it was good but Frank and them

always said no. of course, they're good lawyl?rs and I'm just

an old country lawyer.

MR. EDWARDS: That's right.

SPEAlillR MURPHY: I never have thought -- I always

PAGE 81

thought what they did in the interim between the recess

MR. MCWHORTER: You see, you're not in session

though.

MR. EDWARDS: That has always been my point, you're

not in session.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Why don't we just put "during such

adjournment the committees may meet and act on legislation".

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: And conduct official business.

MR. EDWARDS: Do you want that?

MR. MCWHORTER: That's the question I asked, do you l! ~. want it?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Do you have to have specific

J Constitutional authorization for interim committees to meet

n when the legislature is not in session?

MR. CLARKE: What he's talking about is actually

;~

-:,:J

16

l C\

voting

on

whether

or

not

to

pass

a

bill

or

a

resolution

and

1,' ,~.' making a report back.

MR. MCWHORTER: An interim committee only reports
1)
back, they take no official action, isn't that right, they

report back to the respective houses.

MR. EDWARDS: That's right .
..., "
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well, then shall we put such a

provision to cover that?

SPEAKER HURPHY: Well no \-1.1 there is a division as to whether they want them to meet or not.

MR. CLARKE: Is it that much of a problem for them

when they quit meeting, the first day they come back ratify

what they have done during the interim and sign the report?

SPEAKER MURPHY: At one time they had a problem

where a committee adopted some stuff and they come back on

Monday and they couldn't get it voted.

CHAIR!v".AN PARTHEMOS: This is what I was raising I do

they not have the authority to do what they have to do now

MR. f1CWHORTER: It didn't used to be a problem.

10

MR. CLARKE: It seems that's putting a provision

i I in the Constitution to do what is being done now.
I
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I'm rather inclined to agree

with Harold here that I really think that that's not a problem

of sufficient \17eight to put into the Constitution since they

~

]5

~ <:J

could

simply

do

what

needs

to

be

done

now.

".:;,

Jr,: "7
0,

MR. CLARKE: They can then go t_hrough the formality

,L (
1 ~", of ratifying it in a quick meeting when they get back.

j

v
"

SPEAKER MURPHY: I was just trying to think what. that

!'} committee was that met and passed the thing and met on Mnday

2U to confirm it and one or two votes --

21

MR. CLARKE: Had switched?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yeah.

MR. MCWHORTEE: Its a problem.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If Paragraph (b) then --

MR. HILL: No change then?

PACE 83

MR. TIDWELL: I've got one thing to bring up on

this --

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Subparagraph (b)?

I "-1

t-1R. TIDtvELL: That's right.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Another tickist.

MR. TIDWELL: You've got it just right, everybody

knows it's clear when the Governor acts and I'm going to

raise this one point on the ten days, and it doesn't make any

difference to us. When you're going to invoke this provision

is when you don't have time to work something out, you've got

1J to have a cooling off period here for the House and the Senate

''.:

;';<0'" (,.;.

/

"'\ \

(. . ", \ \

! \('.2.-0.. I
,\

i'., to get together on an issue. Sometimes probably five days is
2~ fine and ten days is fine, but you'll have some other
:1 ~ problems where there has to be something happen and so is
<:. t.
ten days enough. That's the only point. Ten days is fine

with me but sometimes I'm sure you're going to find ten days

probably isn't enough.

SPEAKER ~URPHY: Well all I can do is go by my

experience, it has always been more than ample so far

.J

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Would there be any objection

'. to fifteen?

MR. TIDWELL: If it's not the last day, you don't

have any problems. You come back in and if ten days hasn't

been enough, he goes for another ten, but if you just have

saved one day, then you've got a problem. If you don't have

!,", \.~
a relatively short time you're not IJoing te -- you've got to have some sort of
SPEAKER MURPHY: You've got to have some heat. on them to get it done. I think t.en days is enough myself. If you go to putting it longer than that --
HR. 'l'IDWELL: I don't have any SPEAKER HURPHY: You're keeping the heat on fcilks t:o reach some sort of agreement, is what you're try.ing to do. The
'I
longer you give them to do it., the longer they're going to take. ME. 'l'IDWELL: I agree with that, I was just making
if you were waiting for the results of some t~der(ll grant to come down before you could decide whether you could something like that. Ten days is fine.
SPEAKER MURPHY: Well if you were waiting on a ~ special grant and you just had one day and the ten days
;,
wasn't enough, the Governor would just have to reconvene in a special session. I think ten days is fine.
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Well since there doesn't seem
1i
to be any strong feelings on that matter, is there any ot.her question concerning Paragraph (b)?
MR. EDWARDS: I had one tick. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We've got another tick, that's three ticks we've had. SPEAKER MURPHY: Tick, tick, tick. MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, when you say " are not

I).. (;L 85

adopted by both houses by the end of the legislative day on

which adjournment was called for . ", do you mean, say the

House introduced a resolution to adjourn on Wednesday, the

18th. Is that the day you're talking, about, or say the Senate

comes along and amends it and says Thursday the 19th.

SPEAKER MURPHY: If the House passes one today to

adjourn tomorrow and sends it to the Senate and they amend it

and send it back to us and we don't accept it, then we have

disagreed. I think that's pretty -

MR. CLARKE: I think too, another answer to that,

-,

I.

j1
y

Frank, is that if it was going to be according to the amendment

.,'t;.:?-,,t~.~,'.,

I' J it would say, in such resolution as amenaed, but where you
0'

(:\~L)}r'~"'''~. just say in such resolution, doesn't that mean the original

, /:j

resolution?

I~

MR. EDWARDS: That's what I wanted to be sure, if

.(: { that's what the Speaker means.

SPEAKER MURPHY: We can adopt their amendment and

we have agreed. If we don't adopt it we have still disagreed.

MR. TID~iELL: For the record what we're talking about

is the resolution as it passed the originating house.

CHAIRMfu~ PARTHEMOS: That's right the original

resolution.

SPEAKER MURPHY: If they amend it and send it back

to us to adjourn at a different time and we adopt it, the

problem ain't there anyhow. We didn't disagree.

86

CHAlru-1AN PARTHEHOS: I read it that way.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Y'all are testing all of my country

~ lawyer skills on that one little old short sentence.

CHAIR}ffiN PARTHEMOS: Well I think you reduced it

pretty well there from what we originally had.

I'

MR. f-1CWHOR'l'ER: Hasn't your little town got a little

citified recently?

SPEIU(ER MURPHY: No.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You made it. about as concise

as I think it can be made.

-' i, ,I

SPEAKER MURPHY: I live at. Route 2, Naco, Georgia.

CHAIRMAN PARTIIEMOS: I should likE"~ to have a

resolution then on Para~raph (b), we can leave Paragraph (a)

for further study but paragraph (b), since this is new I
< 1
should like a resolution.
'.'.1
SPEAKER MURPHY: I move we adopt, it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion, is the

motion seconded?

19

MR. MCWHORTER: I second it.

20

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Any

further discussion then of Paragraph (b)?

(No response.)

CI~IRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are you ready for the question?

,<

<'t

Frank, you got another tick?

MR. EDWARDS: No, I'm through ticking.

CHAI~~~ PARTHEMOS: You're through ticking.

Are you ready for the question? As many as are

in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

(Ayes. )

CHAIR~~N PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and Paragraph

(b) is adopted. There is no change in Paragraph (c), is the~

,)

Mel?

iO

MR. HILL: No. Now is Paragraph (a) still for

1i consideration?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Paragraph (a) --

MR. HILL: So we can't really change Paragraph V of

the previous one yet either.

L
(.:.' .,r:
-':1
1c ;~:

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: No. MR. HILL: Are you still debating this or --

CHAI~~ PARTHEMOS: Unless you want to act on

Paragraph (a) like it is. I don't know that I overlooked it,

it seemed that there was --

~J

SPEAKER MURPHY: I move we adopt Paragraph (a).

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion to adopt

Paragraph (a), is the motion seconded?

SPEAKER MURPHY: About the meeting time. That's

the one Ham's wanting to get us a day in Decp~ber.

MR. ELLARD: I'll second it.

88

CHAIR}~N PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Now

any further discussion on Paragraph (a)?

(No response.)

-I

CHAIRMAN Pl~R'I'HEMOS: Are you re"ldy for the question?

As many as are in favor of the motion, signify by sayinq aye.

(Ayes. )

CHAIR~~N PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(Ho response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the motion

is carried.

'..)
Z
l" '
:..}

SPEAKER MURPHY:

Now I will say this, Mr. Chairman,

that I expect to sit down with Mr. McWhorter and Mr. Edwards

after this thing is adopted before we get it in the General

: Assembly and I expect us to talk at great length about this
<: r
]') 'cl thing and see if we can come up with something that can be
:>
16 ~ submitted to both houses at any time.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I should like to endorse that

1.8 idea. I hope that y'all will give this your consideration.

i9

SPEAKER MURPHY: Is that fair enough, Hamilton?

MR. MC~VHORTER: Well it depends on what conditions,
,. at Brennan's at dawn or where?

SPEP.KER MURPHY: I tell you what weill dO r we'll meet

,' ) in the Lieutenant Governor's office on Friday at noon.

,.. '.'~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Mel, is there anything else to

) .;.,
consider other than

PAGE 89

MR. HILL: Paragraph V, we've got to go back now and --

CHAI~~ PARTHEMOS: Oh, yes, we'll go back now.

We'll revert back now to page 2, Paragraph V of Section II.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I move we adopt it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion to adopt

() Paragraph V.

7

SPEAKER MURPHY: Section II.

1-:

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Is the motion seconded?

(}
IVlR. HILL: Oh, wait, before we go too far. There

10 was a specification of the first day they should meet in

li :. here originally~ and that's why we were waiting to change it .:-'

"?\~f(~

,..

"\

. 12 "~' In other words, I think we have to add something in here about .-

,I" r'il'~;'..,"-l)))~~ ~1.: the first time they take office. That's not here now. We

i .J .-..,, were waiting to see what it would be

<:

, .L
.~

MR. CLARKE: It's in the present Constitution

:'

:J ;1:'
1U 'z.,: ~ ,

MR. MCWHORTER: It's in the present one.

:.

"

MR. HILL: Oh, in other words, should we add the

present language then into Paragraph V to specify.

1)

MR. MCWHORTER: We've got to do something.

C}ffiIro~N PARTHEMOS: What you're really doing here --

SPEAI<ER MURPHY: ~ihat does it say now?

ViR. HILL: It says "The first election for members ......

well no, wait

IvlR. EDWARDS: It says "'l'he members of the General

Assembly shall be elected for two years, and shall serve until

l \ ( ,: 90 the time fixed by law for the convening of the General

Assembly in the year following the second year of such

member's term of office." It's on page 13, Paragraph I of

~ Section V. Is that what you're talking about?

MR. MCWHORTER: Something like that. must be in

there.

MR. HILL: Thatls right.

MR. EDWARDS: It might be worded better than that

for all I know. Thatls just what it presently says.

1,"

JI.'

CHAIR~mN PARTHEMOS: I think that we can find

II .. appropriate language for that to specify the time on which they :'

I) ~;'Yf{':J ..

assume office, Mel.

J\ ('!(' .. ),~.~"" z

MR. HILL:

'"

/

Shall we just Why don't you just add this second clause

into this paragraph.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We can edit it as necessary.

,'I t
,,::l
~
".
"

MR. MCWHORTER: You better put a date in there. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Take the present provision and

incorporate it into this. Should we not use "The members of I') the General Assembly .... " and reduce the munber of words there.

It's not necessary to separate Senate and House there, is it.

MR. HILL: Right.
,) Cr~IRMAN PARTHEMOS: And then incorporate the present

provision and then later we can review it and see if we want

to make any editorial changes, stylistic changes.

We then have a motion that we adopt this Paragraph V,

PAGE 91
'.,--
incorporating the present provisions with respect to the time

in which members assume office. Is that understood? Is the

mot.ion seconded?

SENATOR TYSINGER: I'll second it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Is

there any further discussion?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: As many as are in favor of the

motion, signify by saying aye.

'I

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the motion

~ is carried.

We'll come back to page 4. Did we have any action
":,"'
,. pending on Paragraph IV, Rules of procedure?

MR. HILL: Yes. Well, I was going to ask Frank if

we found out whether rules supersede statutes.

MR. EDWARDS: I made copies, you know, I told you

about that Sunshine case, Charlie and I were talking about.

I can show you very briefly and you can just look at them.

MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Ch~an, I want to revert to

Paragraph III or would I mess you all up?

CHAI~~ PAF.THEMOS: On quorum?

MR. HILL: We put the original language back in.

MR. HCWHORTER: I want to talk about that some more. ) I'm red faced about it, I made a mistake.
MR. ED\-vARDS: If y'all will look on page 411 of ~ this decision, that's the place to start, starting in the <, first full paragraph where it says "Historically . ", j Ui:jt I, read from there, that'll show you what we're talking about.
Particularly the third paragraph which starts "We do not ~~ believe ......
SPEAKER :-1URPHY: "He do not believe it can reasonably be argued that the House or Senate cannot pass an internal j I operating rule for its own procedures that is in conflict with a statute formerly enacted."
MR. EDWARDS: That's the point Charlie and I were talking about.
SPEAKER MUI~HY: They just say we cannot pass one !(1 that is in conflict with the law.
MR. MC\VHORTER: You can't argue that. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It's a double negative that J,) comes out in the affirmative. When you use a double negative like that it really comes out as an affirmative and it means that you can. MR. EDWARDS: Then on the next page is is the Torn Ingram and Bob Hall's dissent to that particular portion of it, page 412, that short paragraph where they concur specially. SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't read it that way. y'all are

93 ! putting some English
MR. CLARKE: We think what it is saying is it cannot be argue4 reasonably argued, that the House and the Senate 4 are restricted from passing internal rules for their own procedures in conflict with
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Previous legislation. MR. CLARKE: So you can't argue that yes they can do it. SPEAKER MURPHY: That ain't what they meant though. MR. MCWHORTER: Yes it is.
'~'
MR. EDWARDS: Yes it is. Read the dissent. SPEAKER MURPHY: I read the dissent. MR. EDWARDS: All right. SPEAKER MURPHY: Well that's dumb if that's what they meant. MR. EDWARDS: Well that's exactly what they meant. MR. MCWHORTER: I thought you wanted that right. SPEAKER MURPHY: What did you say, Mr. -MR. MCWHORTER: I thought you told me you wanted that right. SPEAKER MUP~HY: vfuat right? If you'll recall, we specifically exempted the General Assembly when we sent it to you folks over in the Senate and y'all in all wisdom took it off, if you recall.
\ ~.
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It would seem to me that the

I\
94.
General Assembly can adopt any rule that is simply not in

~ conflict with the Constitution.

HR. MCWHORTER: Or the law, has been the old thin'.."

,I Consti tutional la\'l and so forth.

MR. HILL: But you see, if we put a provision in

(. here, and that's why we have "delete" as a possibility, if

we put a provision"Each house shall determine its rules of

~ procedure." we may give that Constitutional status.

'i

MR. MCNHORTER: Right, I'll grant you that, yes, sir.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't belie\re that. tve 've got~

Ii ~. to have some provision in there that we can set our own rules.
J,
MR. HILL: I don't think it's specified now. ~here's

nothing in the Constitution now. It's kind of inherent.

1"., ,.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It's not in there now, but it

; S is pretty standard in most Constitutions.

i (, "z.
,.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I believe it ought to be in there.

MR. MCWHORTER: At least 35 out of 50 have got it

I;,

in there.

19 '

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I'd say 40 or 45.

::u

MR. CLARKE: Let me ask you this question, and

direct it also to Frank, by having that provision in there.

could that not be used as a basis for doing what you were

talking about with the committees during recess?

MR. MCWHORTER: There's a possibil it}'.

MR. Cr~RKE: If you've got a right to set your

"-,;'h~'1
.~"
'.,',(\;:.:...),

95 rules and there's nothing in the Constitution otherwise that

says a committee must act on a bill before the full House

can consider it.

SPEAKER I>1URPHY: Why can I t we say, Harold, "Each

house shall determine its rules of procedure, which shall not

o conflict with this Constitution~"

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right.

MR. MCWHORTER: Whoa. We don't have that because

'I the law is what they're talking about, it's not the

It, Constitution, we're talking about the law.

I!

MR. EDWARDS: I thought the consensus of this

J committee at the last meeting was that they didn't want the

rule to supersede the statute.

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's right.

MR. EDWARDS: All right, now the problem then is

;,t,;

,I;

SPEAKER MURPHY: "Each house shall determine its

Z

rules of procedure which shall not conflict with other laws

,"

of this state."

MR. MCWHORTER: If you want to go that far.

MR. HILL: n, unless otherwise provided by this

Constitution or by la\'1."

SPEAKER MURPHY: That would take care of it.

MR. MCWHORTBR: You want that?

MR. TIDWELL: You're giving up something.

MR. MCtf.HORTER: You're giving up something.

" 1.

96

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't think we ought to be able

to pass a rule in the House that's in conflict with a law

that's passed

MR. MCWHORTER: The way I've always understood the

law, that's what they taught me in law school, I was there a
,.
long time ago.

SPEAKER r,1URPHY: I don' t remember what they ta'..lght

me in law school.

MR. HILL: This would make the Sunshine law applicable

then, probably.

MR. 'l'IDWELL: No.

,~,?y~,,;,

..

;\,\,'~~.=~3/\r)--"""""... ,:

1,~

MR. MR. Constitution,

HILL: " .. unless other wise provided . ', okay. EDWARDS: Philosophically I have always thought statute and then rules and I cannot agree with

this opinion on that particular point. That wasn't necessarily
" "
;.1
.Cr
" the decision in this case, but nevertheless they said it and

I philosophically disagree.

MR. MCWHORTER: The decision would have been the same
1',1
irrespective. 2U
MR. EDWARDS: Right.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think I'm inclined to agree.

SPEAKER MURPHY: What did you put in there, Mel, . .'
" unless . ll what?

MR. HILL: It unless otherwise provided by thS

Constitution or by law."

PAGE 97

SPEAKER MURPHY: Wait a minute now. That won't

work now, no. No, that won't work at all.

HR. CLARKE: Well I don I t believe that that provision

says that a rule is superior to law.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't either.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think what Frank is saying

is that the court said that.

MR. CLARKE: But the court didn't have that to go

,/

on.

lU

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: They didn't have that to go on.

'2..' The court did it without anything in the Constitution.

MR. TIDWELL: It's an inherent right is what they

say.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I think the court would say

j 5 ::: that even if you had no provi sion in here, each house has

the inherent power to set its own rules. I don't think there's

any question about that. Isn't that right, Charlie?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Let's just leave that like it is.

MR. EDWARDS: "Each house shall determine its rules

.,)() of procedure. 1I

':

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I'd leave it like that.

MR. HILL: And leave it in?

MR. EDWARDS: Well, all right.

SPEAKER MURPHY: What's your suggestion?

MR. EDWARDS: What I was trying to do is not

9 ,a-,

necessarily change the Constitution but change the court,

because they have decided in this case that a rule can

supersede the statute. That's what they held, the majority

held that. I think that's the point we've got to contend

with.

MR. ELLARD: If that is ever broU<Jht up again,

it'll be overruled.

MR. EDWARDS: You can't guarantee that though. I

never would have thought they would rule this way in the first

place.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: They would have ruled either

,\~Y1t:!\

c'

//_-_.-~\ \.

,-

\\td/(-=-"!""O '::

",::_~-: /

way whether this was in here or not. MR. EDWARDS: Oh, yes, -MR. MCI\THORTER: I never would

have dreamed they

would say it.
T;
"
MR. CLARKE:

I never would either.

CHAIRI'iAN PARTHEMOS: That' S 'an interesting decision.

MR. EDWARDS: It is.
11'
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It really is, Frank, I'm going

to save this one and go back and read it carefully.

Well, what are your wishes? You have made your

point, Frank.

MR. EDWARDS: I just wanted to confirm what we

talked about last week. I don't think half the people believed

they wrote such a decision.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I didn't believe it, I told

you I wanted to see it, I wanted to read it, at the time.

I think it would be interesting to research to see just what

has been the legal status of rules of legislative bodies,

you know. I don't know that anything

MR. HILL: How about this. " . such rules shall be

subject to this Constitution and to law."

MR. MCWHORTER: Well that would be doing the same

thing, if you want to do it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I don't want to take no dadblamed

chance.

MR. EDWARDS: On what?

MR. MCWHORTER: Of losing your power or straightening

it out?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Let's just leave it like it is.

MR. EDWARDS: You mean, "Each house shall determine

its rules of procedure."

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yes, sir

.I

MR. EDWARDS: Personally, I don't think that adds

anything. I think you've got that authority now. To me the

only point to decide is whether you want to put something in

here to specify, in view of the court decision, that the rules

should be subservient to statute.

SPEAKER MURPHY: If that ever comes up to that issue,

that wasn't an issue really.

100

MR. EDWARDS: I grant you that, but they didn't

have to say that.

MR. MCw"1iORTER: They told us what five might sa:y again though.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I wonde~' if they -- I just

don't believe they gave proper consideration to that particular

point.

MR. TIDWELL: To the contrary; they knew exactly

what they were doing.

',II

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: 'I'hey knew what they were doiuq,

- Charlie?

MR. TIDWELL: Yes they did. I did not argue the

case before the Supreme Court, it was argued by Tim Sweeney,

but that was the main thrust of the argument that even if this

convoluted logic that was urged by the Corrunon Cause, that it.

made it apply to the General Assembly that a rule of the House

was superior to that statute.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: What was this issue in the case?

MR. TIDWELL: Whether the language of the Sunshine

Law was broad enough to include the General Assembly, and it

wasn't, and that was one argument, and the other is even if it

did, that the House and the Senate could adopt a rule that was

in conflict with that law.

CHAIRlf~ PARTHEMOS: Well that puts i t in perspective,

I see now what the issue is.

PAGE ~~OJ~ ,

MR. MCliHORTER: Charlie, how did you interpret that?
,)
2 I thought it put the Senate, I mean the House and Senate, it

didn't say which one of those, did it, between the House and

the Senate?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: They didn't challenge the

I) particular -- the validity of the particular provision of the

rules.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I still think this provision ought

to be in there.

MR TIDWELL: They argued that a rule of the House

(J
7.
II, authorized executive sessions.
:.).

"j ' ,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

\/'~~(~~)'~(VlcN.;!.)!-'''_''~ ;~ motion on the matter.

The chair will entertain any

SPEAKER MURPHY: I move we leave it in there just

like it's written.
,,.I'::;
.

,,:,

; (j

.,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS:

There is a motion that we leave

~
,y
it just as it is presently written. Is the motion seconded?

MR. ELLARD: I'll second it.

J)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Is

there any further discussion?

(No response.)

CHAIRI'IAN PARTHEHOS: As many as are in favor of the

motion, signify by saying aye.

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

1J2 (No response.)

CHAIRJ.'vIAN PARTHEMOS: 'l'he ayes have it and the motion

.' is carried . HR. EDWARDS: I've got one more comment to make.

5 That worries me some.

CHAI~lM~ PARTHEMOS: Anything we do is subject to

further reconsideration.

MR. MCvlliORTER: Mr. Chairman, all we have done is

knock out those two dissents. Isn't that right, Frank?

.~ I ,

MR. EDWARDS: Of course, they're not over there now

i J either.

MR. TIDWELL: One is gone and the other is getting

I think to do other than what the motion is

perhaps lays the ground for some mischief, I think that's

J. what the Speaker is worried about. If I were in the legis-

]b ;' lative branch, I'd be worried about that too.

l

17

SPEAKER MURPHY: Bad mischief.

MR. CLARKE: If somebody saw fit to file an injunction

ill or whatever --

2U

SPEAKER MURPHY: I think this needs to stay in

.:; there.

22

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: All right. Then let's turn

to page 5

MR. HILL: Now, wait, wait. I wanted to mention ::~ I that Compensation and allowances, there is a provision about

l'AGE 103 deleting this because it has been stated over in Article III, , in the legislative powers.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You mean it is adequately

covered in another section?

MR. HILL: It's exactly covered.

CHAI~1AN PARTHEMOS: Let's not repeat it then.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Whoa, wait a minute.

MR. HILL: Article III, Powers of the General Assembly.

In our proposed draft of another subcommittee.

:()

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It's in the section under

1: General Assembly.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Wait, wait, wait now. I think we

: ought to leave it here and when the Select Committee or whatever

l~ gets together, they'll have to coordinate these two.

Ii

MR. CLARKE: No, it's part of this same committee,

i (, Torn, but just a different subcommittee of this same committee.

I"'

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's what I say, when the full

committee gets together they'll have to coordinate these two I, things. 'i'~e want to be darned sure it stays in there.

,I

MR. MCWHORTER: Well they know it's in the other one.

Let me ask you this ._-

SPEAKER MURPHY: vfuere is the proper place to put it?

J.'.lR. HILL: Well it seemed to be a power of the

General Assembly, power to prescribe -- well, there's another

provision over about executive officers, where the General

104

Assembly is authorized to prescribe the compensation of

executive officers and we have just added it to that, so

compensation is handled in one place, un<1er a iJower of the

General Assembly.

SPEAKER MURPHY: All right, it suits me to delete it.

MR. NCtVHORTER: Let me ask you this. lire we talking

about two places or three places? One place is for executive

officers but the difference is --

MR. HILL: That's right, that's right.

);,)

MR. MCvlHORTER: You're going to write it all

together?
:'
MR. HILL: That's right, it's all put together.

SENA'rOR TYSINGER: This is goino to be deleted then.

MR. EDWARDS: I've got one point I want to raise

on that. l-\.s I understand it, Tim Sweeney'~, conu:nittee has
I!,;
'" I, combined Section VIII r Paragraph IV, which reads "The General
1
,C Assembly may, at any time, provide by law other and
j\.,
different compensation or allowances for all of the elective

officers provided for in this Constitution." He have always

contended that that one paragraph we could delete. The

General Assembly can do that without it being in the

Constitution. So if you take this one out and put it over

there and knock it out, you've got to corne back and put it

in over here again. I think what the Speaker is talking about

is probably just leave it in both places and when the full

;'ACE 105

committee gets together, let them decide whether they're going

to knock out this part in this other subcommittee altogether

or not. That'd be one small way to shorten the Constitution.

The only reason for putting this one in really would be to

say you can't change it during the term, that's the only

reason for putting that in.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yours is an argument for

leaving it in here then.

SPEAKER MURPHY: What he's saying, Professor, is

to leave it in here and when the full committee gets together
~,
z
~ let them knock it out one place or the other.
:>

i .'. ~

CHAIRMA:."'1 PARTHEMOS: You know, that seems reasonable

to me at this particular time.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Frank does say a few reasonable

'" things.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: So then, in which case --

MR. MCWHORTER: You better mark that down, f'rank.

CHAI~~ PARTHEMOS: I think I should like to have

a motion then that we retain this provision as is and not

delete it from this section.

HR. r1CvffiORTER: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to

Paragraph III.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Shall we act on this one first?

,.

_~~r

MR. MCv/dORTER: After you get through with this.

CHAlfu\1AN PARTHEMOS: Do I have a motion?

10E

SPEAKER HURPHY: Hake a motion.

MR. MCWHORTER: I move it.

CHAIRHAN PARTHFJ10S: We have a !l1otion then that:. this

be retained and not deleted. Is the motion seconded?

SPEAKER MURPHY: I second it.

CH.i\IRI1AN P I\RTHEHOS : The motion is seconded. I~;

there any further discussion of the motion?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: As many as are in favor of the

motion, signify by saying aye.

,

I'

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN Pl,RTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the

motion is carried. Thank you, Frank, for that.

Now, you have a matter to bring up.
~ -I
~R. HCWHORTER: I have a red face to ask y'all -~
I;'
CHJI.IRMAN PARTHENOS: You I ve got a red face matter

to bring up.

MR. MCWHORTER: On Paragraph IlIon Quorum, the

provision before you says each house may provide for a
",
smaller number to adjourn from day to day and compel the
,~~ .-.'
presence of its members as each house may provide. I objected

to that and I still do, but the present language, I want to

ask a question about it. If you read the present language in

PACl; 107

the present draft, "A majority of each house shall constitute a quorum to transact business ...... No problem, semi-colon, " ... but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and ,! compel the presence of its absent members .. ", no problem with that. " . as each house may provide." If you mean that () to refer back to adjourn from day to day, then I say it's

wrong. That part is meant to refer to the compelling the

presence of the absent members, and not from day to day. You
cannot provide for a lesser number. So I suggest either you
!O put aperiod -- if y'all say "as each house may provide"
~.,
II refers to that, then we need to go back and put a period or

-' else put in some more words. Do you see what I mean?

,
C'''';)lll'n "
-Ii

CHAIill4AN PARTHEMOS: Just a matter of clarifying.

MR. MCWHORTER: One way to clarify it is by putting
1_
after "absent members" , "in such manner and under such
, ~l ," penalties as each house may provide" Mel, do you see what

i~
L-

I

mean?

You cannot let it refer to a smaller number, it only

refers to compelling its absent members.

1'1

SPEAKER MURPHY: Well why do we need that "as each

house may provide" aI1ow? MR. MCyVHORTER: Well you might need something about
how you compel the absent members.

,,
,.-t
way .
..:.'"'\

SPEAKER MURPHY: All right, let's just put it this HR. MCWHORTER: If you put after "absent members",

lOG

"in such manner and under such penalties as each house may

provide", it would clear it up, or else you could probably

go back and put a period in and cut the sentence off.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Could you say "Each }lOuse may

provide a smaller nlli~ber may adjourn from day to day and

(, compel the presence of its absent members!;?

MR. MCWHORTER: That's okay. fly only problem is

"as each house may provide", if it doesn't refer back to

adjournment then it's okay.

j\

SPEAKER MURPHY: Just put up there "Each house may

i..:J

I; ~ provide that a smaller number may adjourn from day to day .,)

,c.,V/t

12 ,.' and compel the attendance of its absent members."

I"";O"--~'_
0\\ :., I'<i~\:.~~_~)r'~~""'" Z

HR. MCmORTER: ~lell all we need to put in there --

i .~ we need to put some other procedure in there.

SPEAKER MURPHY: \Alhat I'm trying to do is eliminate Ii your problem, Hamilton. Why can't we take this right here

MR. MCWHORTER: That would eliminate my problem

j' one hundred percent.

I')

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Put a period after "business".

MR. HILL: Right.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: And then put "Each house may .,"\
provide that a smaller --

MR. HILL: " . smaller number may adjourn from day

.',J to day and compel the presence of its absent members."

25

MR. MCWHORTER: Then you're going to knock this out?

PAGE 109

SPEAKER MURPHY: It goes right up he~ Ham.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's right.

SPEAKER MURPHY: "Each house may provide that a

I smaller number may adjourn from day to day and compel the

presence of its absent members."

Ii

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes.

MR. EDWARDS: What if we put a semicolon after the

last "day", a If smaller number may adjourn from day to

day i IT

MR. MCWHORTER: Right, I think that would do it.

MR. EDt-lARDS: You've got a semicolon after "business",

you've got a semicolon after "day".

MR. MCWHORTER: That'd do it.

'.:'

MR. EDWARDS: That would make that "each house

.::> t.t:

7 may provide" only apply to compelling the presence of its

" absent members.

CHAI~~N PARTHEMOS: You still would have to have a i') period there after "business", Frank, you have two semicolons.

MR. HILL: That's okay if that's what you want to

do.

MR. EDWARDS: Have two semicolons.

MR. MCWHORTER: Then "as each house may provide"would

only apply to absent members.

MR. HILL: Right.

110

11R. CLARKE: I think it would read better with a

period.

MR. HILL: Just put a semicolon after IIday" and

4 then it'll be all right.

SPEAKER MURPHY: "A majority of each house shall

,) consti tute a quorum to transact business; ....... to

MR. HILL: Right. but 1I a smaller number may

E adjourn from day to day; and compel the presence of its 9 absent members, as each house may provide. II That only refers

back to the compel the presence of its absent members.

MR. CLARKE: Mel, let me suggest to you, I just

hate to see a sentence with two semicolons. Hhy not put a

period after "business" and then say "A smaller number .... ",

~ and just have one semicolon. Two semicolon sentences just

15 ~ look strange to me. ;:;

"':"-J

1() ~ aw

MR. MCWHORTER: Say "However, a smaller number .... ",

z.

<:

p ~. would you change the IIbut ll to "however ll or not?

MR. CLARKE: You don't need to, just say "A smaller i9 number .... "

MR. Ma~ORTER: Oh, excuse me, that's great.

MR. CLARKE: You have saved one word.

I)
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: It just reads much better.

, . ''

MH. HILL: I think this is what we proposed the

I'
first time.

MR. MCWHORTER: No, the first time you had that up

ahead of it, you see.

l' /1. \;r; I I I

MR. CLARKE: What you've got now, Frank, is "A

J majority of each house shall constitute a quorum to transact

business. A smaller number may adjourn from day to day; and

compel "

MS. NONIDEZ: 1I each house may provide ... "

MR. CLARKE: Yeah. " . and each house may compel

the presence of its absent members, as each house may ... "

Well, no, you don't need that now.

in
,J
I',

else.

MR. MC~VHORTER: I don't see where you need anything

MR. CLARKE: I didn't write it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: " . and each house may compel the

presence of its absent members." Right? I never was very j< good in enunciation, punctuation and grammafication.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Do we have a motion mapprove

the new reading?

MR. EDWARDS: Could I just hear it one more lick?

MS. NONIDEZ: I think I have it. "A majority of

each house shall constitute a quorum to transact business.

A smaller number may adjourn from day to day; and each house

may compel the presence of its absent members."

!1R. MCWHORTER: That tiMe you left something out but

I don't know if it's necessary. You say they can do it, you

don't say how they can provide it, but I don't see any objection

\ {J

IlL

to it.

SPEAKER HURPHY: It don't say that a smaller number

can compel the presence either now.

M.R. MCWHORTER: Yeah, you got a point there.

MR. EDH'ARDS; Good point.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I done got ticky n,;)w.

N.R. r-10vHOR'l'ER: lvhoa, whoa, that's the way it is

in every constitution, a smaller number can compel.

SPEAKER MURPHY: This T,,'ay you I ve l}.ot i t now, it don't

\1;

., say a smaller number can do it

z

!!

MR. MCvlHORTER: You're right.

MR. EmU~RDS; Shall we try it one more lick?

How about "A smaller number may adjourn from day to day an.:
14
a smaller number may compel the tJresence of its absent members f

as each house may provide."

1() I:
:.1

MR. MCWHORTER: I like that.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Now wait a minute, why do you need

"and a smaller number", why don't you just say _.-
1')
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: " . and may compel ... "
.:0
SPEAKER MURPHY: "A smaller number may adjourn from

day to day and compel the presence of its absent members."

MR. CLARKE: Period. And leave out the lias each

house may provide".

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's all you really need, you

don't need that semi that she was talking about either. "A

113
majority of each house shall constitute a quorum to transact

1 business. A smaller number may adjourn from day to day and

compel the presence of its absent members." Ain't nothing

wrong with that, is there?

MR. EDWARDS: That might do it there.

/)

MR. HILL: It's implied.

MR. MCWHORTER: As long as you don't let them change

'J that smaller number, that's the only point I was making.

'-I

SPEAKER MURPHY: This would say "l'. majority of

]1) each house shall constitute a quorum to transact business."
"
1:
Jl x That's what it's going to take. "A smaller number may
C>
-",-
I.' ~ adjourn from day to day and compel the presence of its absent

members. II That's all they can do is adjourn from day to day.

-

n

,. ~

,5

t: ,'.,

MR. CLARKE: I guess that's about as clear -MR. MC~1HORTER: It's worded that way in some other

:f ,
.r.
1() 1. constitutions.
~

MR. CLARKE: That's concise.

CHAIR1'1AN PARTHEMOS: Do we have a motion to adopt

!d that language?

,..
~ '- I

MR. MCWHORTER: I so move.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The motion is made, is the

motion seconded?

SENATOR 7YSINGER: I second it.

CHAI&~N PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Is there

any further discussion of the motion?

11<1

(No response.)

",

CHAIRM1'...N P1\.RTHEMOS: As many as are in favor of the

motion signify by saying aye.

-1

(Ayes. )

CHAIRtvlAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(NO response.)

CHAIR.l1AN Pl\.f{THE~IOS; The ayes have i t and the

~ motion is carried.

o

So we come now, it seems to me to page 5, paragrap~

IU II. We've got two alternative versions of that provision.

Ii

\ ""I 1

(\~'It'.'/'siyL-/"4.:,~,-,.<-\.'1-'.,'\.. j\ ,-e"-"-"',,.

\

/ I,'

~-,--~.. -../ / ,

'--...-'

i '-l

HR. HILL: 'J.'his was prepared by Sanford Brown, this alternative.
MR. EDWARDS: Charlie, look at these two because you have been involved in this over the years, these two

i( , alternatives on Paragraph II.

:>

1(\ ~

SPEAKER MURPHY: "All bills for raising- state

.:'}
z

<

1 -r 1,

~ .:J

revenue,

or appropriating money,

shall originate in the House

j", of Representatives, but the Senate may propose amendments as

in other bills." That's all you need, isn't it? Why do you 20 have to concur?

MR. EDWARDS: In fact; I was going to suggest we

could put a period after "Representatives". "~\11 bills for

raising state revenue, or appropriating money, shall
-, ,
, ~ originate in the House of Representatives." That's the place

it has to move through.

i,

When you say originate that tells where it moves

through.

Then you've got that alternative down in the next

.( one.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I agree with you, all you need is

I} "All bills for raising state funds, or appropriating money,

shall originate in the House of Representatives." That's all

you need.

MR. EDWARDS: Read that next paragraph, Mr. Speaker;

IU and see what you think of that.

SPEAKER MURPHY: "All bills appropriating money

')

o.

",

".);

and all bills relating to the imposition, rate or application

of a state tax shall originate in the House of Representatives. 1I

I)

MR. EDWARDS: If I might, ~r. Chairman, just make a

'S:,
0; :J
! ':; ,'11
'.c.l
I
'.
"

comment because

on why we did this. Charlie, I think would have some thoughts on this,
we have discussed this pver the years. There has

always been some problem as to just what a revenue bill was:

where you just change a little procedure by the revenue

department or what. Generally we have not thought that that

kind of stuff had to be introduced in the House, it's only

where you had something to do with tax or something, something

along that line. There has always been a little ambiguity

involved and I'm not sure either one of these is the complete

answer, but that's the whole thing. Charlie, how about

116

refreshing my memory on some other things. Of course, the

part about state revenue, we've had thinqs in the pa.st whether it

applied to local revenue and that sort of stuff and my

4 recollection is we always held it did not apply to local

revenue bills, right, Charlie? Do you ~~nember what we did?

~R. TlmVELL: I I 11 have to go bac:: and search

memory.

MR. EDWARDS: 'l'here has always been some problem with

this thing.

](1

MR. TIDWELL: I think we said if it pertained to givinsr

,. i 1 the authority to a locality to impose the tax and it did not

actually impose the tax, then it wouldn't apply, but if it

perhaps were a local bill that actually imposed the tax

MR. EDWARDS: Did we hold that way?

MR. TIDWELL: I can't. remember, :Frank, what ---

MR. MOiHORTER: Well in practicality, they have been

,l -.

introduced in the Senate.

CHAIfu~N PARTHEMOS: I have some problem with putting 1') the word "state" in there. I think you could very well raise

a problem as to just what is any state revenue bill. You

could have a revenue bill that could affect portions of the

state that would then not be subject to originating in the

House.

MR. MCWHORTER; F~yway that would come under a

violation of the --

PAGE 117

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I would think that all revenue , ~, bills should originate in the House. That's a basic principle'

~ , of American government.

MR. MCWHORTER: Well if you do that, then you're

talking about local bills.

()

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I would include local bills.

7

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't care.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: All revenue bills I believe

should originate in the House.

MR. CLARKE: I agree with George. Historically, the

c,

z

11

,oe>'

idea has

been

that members of

the House

are

supposed to be

~

I} :, closer to the electorate than the members of the smaller body,

and that they ought to be the ones who originate taxaction,

14 .,,r~, whether it has to do wi th local taxes or s tate taxes.

T

15 .~

SPEAKER MURPHY: Can we rewrite this thing to say

=.
It ~ "All tax increase bills shall originate in the Senate, all

1 7 ii reduction .. "

MR. MCWHORTER: You might be like Calhoun back there,
you might not want it. Isn't that right, Jim?
SENATOR TYSINGER: We don't want that one.
MR. EDWARDS: There is certainly no argument about
,)
revenue bills being introduced in the House. I'm just trying
to bring some clarification to it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I can see the point. MR. EDWARDS: There may be ten other ways to do it

118 other than one of these, I don't know. I just wanted to raise

the point.

CHAI~Vlli PARTHEMOS: I think i t may create some

c! other problems.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Really I like it better for all

" revenue raising bills for cities, counties, state and all to be introduced in the House.

MR. MCWHORTER: I don't see anything wrong with it.

Raising them and giving them authority to raise, that's

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: A different matter.

MR MCWHORTER: -- the difference that Charlie is

, making.

MR. TIDWELL: I think the courts have spoken on that.

i,1

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's ~lit in half.

CHAIR..?t1A.N PARTHEMOS: 1'hey make a distinction?

MR. TIDWELL:
1 <: r-::
within the --

That's not a bill for raising revenue

It always is a problem for the advisors to the ]': members of the General Assembly to tell them whether they can

introduce a particular type revenue bill, and I think

consistently when I was with Frank it was always resolved " very, very conservatively. When in doubt we're going to tell

you that you ought to put it over in -- you ought not to do it,

Senator, but it's very hard to tell sometimes and you have to

be honest and say if you go on and put it in the Senate, maybe

it'll be all right.

PAGE 119 Most of the time -- I don't know of any

bill of any significance that passed that way. I think there

were Senators that went ahead and introduced a bill because

,~ they had a point to make, but it never went anywhere.

(,

MR. MCWHORTER: Well I've seen one pass the Senate

but not go any further, but most of them have been withdrawn.

Let me ask a question. That word "raising", that

court decision says lowering and raising is sufficient to

') take care of that, isn't it?

MR. TIDWELL:

'1":

1:
x

MR. EDWARDS:

::>

"

J.,~ ~ feeling on the point.

u.

Right. Either way, I don't have any strong

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: What are the feelings of the

! 1 ,,- subcommittee on this then.

"

't:

15 ,~
."

MR. EDWARDS: That's what we still tell them. If

":.:;l

I (,

~
C

there's

any

doubt

at

all,

we

say do

it

in

the

House,

there's

I

I -; ," no point in taking a chance on it.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Mr. Chairman, I move that we take :J Paragraph II, above the alternative, and say "All bills for

raising (strike the word state) revenue, or appropriating

money, shall originate in the House of Representatives."

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Delete the ramainder.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Strike the word "state" and "but

the Senate may propose, or concur in amendments, as in other

bills." That's just a matter -- everybody knows they're going

to do that.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's as concise as you can

make it. We have a motion then that Paragraph II read as

~ indicated. "All bills for raising revenue, or appropriating

money, shall originate in the House of Representatives." Is

(, the motion seconded?

SENATOR TYSINGER: I second it.

'I

motion?

1i,:

i".
l'

CHAII~vrn PARTHEMOS: Any further discussion of the
(No response.) CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: As many as are in favor of the

motion, signify by saying aye.

~.-'
1:

(Ayes. ) CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

':1
:'1
1{, ,-n
o 1

(No response.) CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and the motion

is carried.

, ;,.'

1'-'

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman.

19

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Yes, Frank.

2U

MR. EDWARDS: Just one more thing on this point. The

reason this came up is we were working with the Tax Reform

commission and somehow I think from that Commission that this

came --

MS. NONIDEZ: Yes, sir.

MR. EDWARDS: That Commission raised the point. So

PAGE 121

with your permission, I will tell him they can get together,

, if they have some other specific language. It doesn't make

that much difference to me. They may clarify it a little bit.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Be pleased for you to do that.

S

Let's move next to the matter of, I think the

t> signature of the Governor on page 7.

MR. HILL: No, page 6, Paragraphs III and IV, we

R haven't come to any

'I

MR. MCWHORTER: Especially that III.

:u

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Oh, I'm sorry.

"z_.

MR. EDWARDS: That was one that Terry hasn't come

"o

", L: " up with his suggestion on that, t-1r. Chairman.

...\~1\}1..4"

~.

{,. (. .:i.eJ \,/;\ rC-U1:-fl-"~'~:.1 ' fess up.

I'll have to

i,."l f , .
~
.;
JS ~"
.,
J i. ~:
"1
~
:.:
,~

right

SENATOR TYSINGER: Let's just let it go like it is now
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Leave it until we get that. MR MCWHORTER: But there's got to be some kind of

change.

,)

MR. CLARKE: We can explain to the full committee

the reasons for that.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Okay. Let's move to Paragraph

IV -- well, they go together.

Let's look then --

,..

MR. HILL: Okay, on the roll call vote taken, we

had some -- this is the final language, I'd like you to read it.

This is what we agreed to last time on When roll-call vote is

taken, " .. when ordered by the presiding officer or at the

desire of one-fifth of the members present or a lesser nTh~ber

if so provided by the rules of either house, a roll-call ...

shall be taken .... "

SPEAKER MURPHY: There's nothing wrong with tha~. I

move we adopt it.

'.

MS. NONIDEZ: Mr. Chairman.

CHAlfu~N PARTHEMOS: Yes, Cindy.

10

MS. NONIDEZ: The subcommittee that Tim Sweeney is

1 i chairing has asked this committee to also incorporate at. 1. this point in this paragraph the provision that is currently

on page 21 of the Constitution that deals with yeas and nays on

appropriation. "No bill or resolution appropriating money
J.
~: shall become a law unless, upon its passarJ8, the yeas and
c".:.,
J{) ~1:l nays in each house, are recorded."

CHAIRJI1AN PARTHEMOS: To consolidate that i.nto this?

MS. NONIDEZ: We didn't get that direction really
II.)
until last week, on Friday.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Does everyone understand in

the proposal that we consolidate that into this? Then do we

have a motion that this be approved with that change?

MR. MCWHORTER: I so move.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion, is the motion

seconded?

l'AGE 123

SENATOR TYSINGER: I second it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: As many as are in favor of

.\ the motion, signify by saying aye.

SPEAKER MURPHY: Wait, wait -- let me get ticky.

MR. MCWHORTER: The city lawyer is coming out.

()

SPEAKER MURPHY: Y'all go to talking about this

7 if this thing was to get construed that I've got to take

roll call votes on every amendment and every section of that

thing --

10

MR. MCWHORTER: No, sir, it don't say that. It

'.J Z

. ! to says one-fifth of your members.
:..

J" IX

j -.

u

MR. EDWARDS: You talking about the point Cindy

made?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Yeah. MR. EDWARDS: Here's what it says now, this is

in the present Constitution. "No bill or resolution

appropriating money shall become a law unless, upon its

passage, the yeas and nays in each house, are recorded."
,(.
SPEAKER MURPHY: Oh, okay, I've got no problem with
.,
'I that. I was just trying to listen and read at the same time
)1
and I didn't hear that "upon its passage".

MR. CLARKE: This is just the logical place for it to be rather than over in the other place.

CHAIRMAN PAR'I'HEMOS: Just transferring that. Is there any further discussion?

;'"" 121

SPEAKER HURPHY: There really ain t t. no reason for it to be in there.

CHAIR~ffiN PARTHEMOS: Frank?

MR. EDWARDS: I just had one more ticky point. On

this Paragraph V here where it says "No bill shall become (, law ... "

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I tell you, Frank, I thought

,;.' that we might take care of this one and I was going to come

,)
back to that.

](1
i~
II

MR. EDWARDS: Oh, all right. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Shall we -- we have a motion

. e,v~ i'.; then and a second to adopt Paragraph VI, wi t:h the
(~~~F'!": consolidation of the yea and nay provision. Are you ready
\'~-=~> 14 for the question? As many as are in favor of the motion,
<
1.-
15 ~ signify by saying aye.

c.
1
<::
17 ~;

(Ayes. ) CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)
I)
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it. Let's go

now to Paragraph V concerning Majority of members to pass 21 bill.

MR. EDWARDS: This is a ticky point and probably

not even valid, but it's something you had bder keep in mind,
-"'I,' it says " .. all members to which each house is entitled under

the Constitution ... " If we later on come back and provide you

125 .. -1
i
can put the number in either one house or the other, not more '

than, not less than, if you don't specify the exact number,

3 you might ought to think about maybe changing this wording

just a little bit.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: ~fuat is your suggested change?

MR. EDWARDS~ I don't have a suggestion. It's fine

as it is.

SPEAKER MURPHY: It'd still be a majority of the

ones entitled unless you change the official rule and we

\0 fix it at so many, it would still be a majority
.,

.7.

11
~",..

MR. EDWARDS: I was going to say if we interpret

1~~ ~ this to say "entitled under the Constitution", if that means

also pursuant to the Constitution you're okay. Just forget

i4 :~ a baut ~ ' t.

<

1:

l5 ~l

MR. MCWHORTER: I see your point, you say'you're

:;

',".

i:'.

I (\

1: w

entitled

to

as

many

as

56

and

not

more

and

you

come

back

and

7.
<
" make it 54.

1:.~,

MR. EDWARDS: Something like that. Anyway, we can

1') get to that later, it's okay. Let's just withdraw that.

:.:.;

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Are we ready to act on this one?

.,. i

SPEAKER MURPHY: I move we adopt it

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion to adopt. Is

the motion seconded?

24

MR. ELLARD: I second it.

CHAI~~ PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. Any

126

discussion?

MR. HILL: The only reason this was for study was

because of the Lieutenant Governor.

't

CHAIRl'1AN PARTHEHOS: Right and since we've made a

decision on that -- are you ready for the question? As many

as are in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

(Ayes. )

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)

If",

j,

CHAI~~N PARTHEMOS: The motion carries. One final

"

," t

"
~

item to consider this morning and that is Paragraph XI on

c,

1'-'

::
u.

page 7 -- no,

let's see,

we had the local calendar thing.

We adopted this the last time.

J4 ,r..

MR. HILL: This is just for a final look.

r:

l:

is ~

SPEAKER MURPHY: I move we approve it.

u;

:OJ

16 ~

"co'

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have a motion to approve, is

Z

<

17 ~ the motion seconded?

SENATOR TYSINGER: I second it.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Any further discussion?
20
(No response.)

CHAlro~N PARTHEMOS: As many as are in favor of the

motion, signify by saying aye.

(Ayes. )

CHAI~~ PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)

n---' Ii

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it.

I)A(a,~ 127

Paragraph XI.

MR. HILL: This was a provision that we had left out

of the Constitution, out of this proposal, because we thought

it was going to be going into another place, over in the

Legislative Arti~le, but it isn't, so we put it back here and

this is exactly the language we have now.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The same language.

MR. HILL: Yeah, it's exactly the same.

iO

MR. MCWHORTER: Which paragraph is that?

, 7.
1 .
MR. HILL: XI, page 7, paragraph XI.

", ::r;
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I just thought it was the same

language that we presently had.

'1

MR. HILL: Then it would depend -- this would be

IS ., changed if you would decide the Governor should be able to .<

veto local constitutional amendments. If you give the

~ Governor that right, then you would have to say " .. submit

constitutional amendments which are general or a new

Constitution ", but we haven't really resolved that

question yet.
)1
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Do we need to act on this one

then now? It's the same thing as on page 16.

MR. HILL: Oh, I know why -- this last clause,

" and in case of prolongation of a session of the General

Assembly." We're not real sure what that means and I think

1

t '.

it can be struck but we're not sure, so -- can anyone think of --

MR. MC\VHORTER: Which was that.?

MR. HILL: The last clause.

4

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You have no way to prolong a

session, you see.

h

HR. HILL: That's the point, we don't know whel:e

that came in, why it is there.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You have no provisions for the

prolongation of a session in the Constitution.

]U
-:.."
L
I: c'; C,

MR. EDWARDS: I don't know of any case where CHAIRMAN PARrrHEMOS: I think we could delete that.

MR. MCWHORTER: I think it might have grown out of

that, actually when you have an impeachment, but that's not

I,! ,..
0- a session.
~
<
r

I ", ,~

MR. HILL: No.

II, y

w

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You've already covered that.

<

17 ~

MR. MCWHORTER: That's right. lrfuat I mean though,

I" that's prolonging the sessions, not legal, it's not.

J')
MR. CLARKE: As the Constitution now stands it might

20
be because both houses are staying in session. The way we've

got it, only the Senate would remain in session.

MR. MCWHORTER: In the old Constitution it had it
,,
. . . . . .j
both ways.

MR. TIDWELL: Do you think it had to do with

adjournment, that that's what they meant? The Governor couldn't

PAGE 129

veto an adjournment resolution. If it is, you could just say

') " .. and in case of a resolution of adjournment."

MR. MCWHORTER: Mel, which line is that?

MR. HILL: Line 17 on page 7, 17 and 18.

MR. TIDWELL: I don't think anybody seriously

questions that the Governor can't do that.

MR CLARKE: It wouldn't do him much good to veto

~ it anyway, if he vetoed it to attempt to keep them up here ) and they decided they weren't going to do anything, he

'(l wouldn't accomplish anything.

;1

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You're transferring something

.,
: from Section VII to Section v.

MR. MCWHORTER: How about prolonging it by calling

i , an extra session right after adjournment.

! =.. '~l 1(- ~ljJ
:',\ .r

MR. CLARKE: 'l'hat' s not prolonging it. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's another session. MR. MCWHORTER: They've got provisions to prolong

them in some states.

I,}

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: But there's none in this one

2u though.

MR. MCtVRORTER: I know it.

CHAlr~~N PARTHEMOS: I think it probably ought to

be deleted .

f

MR. MCWHORTER: Me to.

SENATOR TYSINGER: I move it be deleted.

~ :\ C 130

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: There's a motion to delete

that and l' in case of prolongation of a session ... ", is

the motion seconded?

SPEAKER MURPHY: Second.

CHAIID1AN PARTHEMOS: The motion is seconded. l>..'11

discussion?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: As many as are in favor of

I)
the motion, signify by saying aye.

J i)

(Ayes. )

II

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Opposed, no.

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The ayes have it and that is ;t deleted. And we're also transferring that from Sectbn VII

to Section V.

<
j'" .:::

MR. HILL: In this draft it appears in Section V.
CHAIR~N PARTHEMOS: I think that probably -- I

think we might conclude our session today with exceptbn of

deciding now when we shall meet the next time, unless there .2U are any other matters to be brought up. Frank?

MR. EDWARDS: I just looked at Paragraph XI and

I'm not sure whether this is all covered somewhere else. I

was just thinking about deleting the whole paragraph. I

haven't gone through the rest of the Articles to determine

whether that's necessary, but

."".:
! /' ~\ \~~, . !

PAGE 131

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: The one that we just --

2

MR. EDWARDS: The one you just did. I'm not sure,

the thought just occurred to me and I'm not sure 1 1 m right .

.~ I I m probably wrong, but

MR. TIDWELL: Frank, when I was going through the () Constitution to see what was in and what was out, I noticed

that that was left out, so then I started reading, wondering ~ what it meant, the implications of it, and I was going to

raise the question what lay behind why it was left out. I

HI didn't have any strong feelings about it, you know, I was going

.,
"

to profit by somebody saying why did you take it out but I

'"

". ~" see it is put back in now and I don't know why you took it

,.

MR. EDWARDS: Probably ought to do some more looking ~ to see that these points are all covered.
MR. CLARKE: If it's not necessary, we ought to get it out.
CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Thatls right, it should be deleted.
Okay, is there any other matter? I think we made pretty good progress today. I guess our most outstanding unresolved matter is the matter of the veto and I hope that we can resolve that at our next meeting.
The question is now when shall we meet again? MR. MCmrORTER: Not on any Saturday afternoon, Mr.

132 Chairman.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Next week I'n in pretty good

shape but the following week I'm going to be in a little bit

of troutie. I've got a pretty cong'ested schedule.

MR. TIDWELL: Why don't you wait and set it after

the full meeting?
-;
MR. HII/L: Hhat about meeting at nine 0' clock tlw

morning of the full meeting. That meeting is at ten o'clock.

SPEAKER MURPHY: When is the full meeting?

MR. HILL: The 29th at ten o'clock.

: 1 f-
~J'

CHAIR~Vlli PARTHEMOS:

l ' ~.
J that I suppose.

We'll be getting a notice on

MR. HILL: If we met, you know, an hour ahead of

J c,
. time
<
I
1.s '~\
.,.".'
il) (~
i

CHAIm~N PARTHEMOS: What day is the 29th? MR. HILL: Monday.

SPEAKER IvIURPHY: Ten o'clock is the full Constitutional
is
Committee meeting?

1 .. l./
MR. HILL: Yeah, on Article III.

CHAIRMAN PARTH~10S: Mel, I doubt seriously if we're going to acco~ish much before that.

MR. HILL: Well I was just talking about the veto

provision .
.'i
CHAIID1AN PARTHEMOS: I think we're going to need more

time than that. I don't believe that we -- I just don't believe

PACE 133

we'll resolve that in a matter of sixty minutes.

MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, are we supposed now to

I just turn in to the full committee what we now propose?

4

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: What we presently have, the

present status of what we have. We'll get copies of it. Mel,

you'll send us copies?

MR. HILL: Uh-huh.

MR. EDWARDS: And then say to the full committee that

it is still under consideration.

lU

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Still under consideration and

",

7-

1: oL, no final recommendation on that particular point will come

MR. HILL: For purposes of the 'draft we send to them,

14 I think I should just put in the present veto provision rather
c
t:

15 Q than any veto provisions that I should draft, because the
~~

]()

L,
~::..

committee

will

not

have

been

able

to

look

at

them.

I think just

'1

'J'), to say that's still under consideration by this co~~ittee.

I ;~

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: What are your thoughts on that?

! ')
For purposes of our report to the full committee, shall we

~( J just simply put in there that this is still under consideration
,
by this committee, or put the present provisions or you can

put the draft that we had here today. ~ihat are your feelings

on that? Does it make any difference?

MR. MCWHORTER: We haven't quite drafted one today.

CI~IRMAN PARTHEMOS: I'm talking about the one that we

,1

If /

134

considered.

MR. HILL: I don't want to put that one in today,

we didn't go through it all the way. I'd hate to put that in.

I think the safest thing would be to put in what we have now

with a reference that we are still considering it.

(,

CHAIP~1AN PARTHEMOS: Is there any objection to that?

All right, let I s do it that way then. 'fhen we tolill -- shall

we set a time after the next meeting to meet now or shall we q wait and set that --

10

MR. HILL: Everybody is here today so maybe --

11 ~. :r;

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: My own situation is that I

will not be able to meet from November 1, that's a Thursday,

I can meet before November I or after November 3.

-

MR. EDWARDS:

~
<;

'I:

I',

,',
(D

Hallowe'en?

Would it be appropos if we met on

:::,

I() '2"
'C"

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That's Wednesday, October 31.

7,

<

]7

C'
j1~

Tuesday,

October 30,

I

can meet.

) ,~:

SPEAKER MURPHY: I will not be available 30, 31 or

the first. I will not be able

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: That knocks out that whole week
21 of October 30. ,,
r.1R. HILL: Unless we would want to meet after the
~) .)
full committee meeting. I just feel that everybody will be

here that day, the 29th.

MR. TIDWEIU Is about the only thing you have open

the veto?

P_A_ _G._E 135 - - --_.- ._---_ .. __._-- ... ----- -_. .. .....-_ ..-_ .. - ' ..-,

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: This is the major item, Charlie,

that's the remaining item for us to consider.

MR. EDWARDS: George, the stuff we adopted here, are 5 we considering that as final action by this subcommittee?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: I would like to say that once

we make it seems to me that the major item that is yet
o(' unresolved is the matter of the veto or unless something
i'
I) arises with the matter of the President of the Senate. Then

I would like for us to review very carefully, before we make

our final report, to the committee, one session to come back

and just simply reflect over what we have done and then make

our final.

Harold?

1~) ,~)
'';:J

MR. CLARKE: What I sort of had in mind for this

"::>

.; h :.0
a next meeting of the full committee would be for the three

t.

1,' ~ subcommittee chairmen to each make a report on what their

J' c. ,
subcommittees have done and what the import of it is, what

II
the results of it, and then ask the full committee for

reactions to what we have done in order to allow us then to go

"- back and take another look. After we have taken one more

look -- that's buying a little time for us is what it's doing

after we have taken one more look, then throw the whole thing

in to the full committee for approval by the full committee

and for comments from all members of the General Assembly.

P A'.'~ 136

MR. MCWHORTER: Could I ask you a question? This

morning I received a copy of the subcon~ittee that Tim

, Sweeney is chairman of, what they are doing

4

MR. CLARKE: They're not through, by any means.

5i

MR. MCWHORTER: But could the whole committee get

(, the others before -- I mean, you know, getting it cold

MR. HILL: We're going to send them out.

MR. CLARKE: That's what we're talking~out, we're

attempting to get all these out next Wednesday.

1,
C1 Z

MR. MCWHORTER: That answers my question. MR. CLARKE: So every member of the committee will

get a report from every subcolrumittee by Friday, Thursday or

Friday.

MR. HILL: Drafts and is possible the analysis of

15 ~;:; what the changes are, but that will depend.

~"

J6 '7". ~, a

MR. CLARKE: I don't anticipate the full committee

I

<~

I7

n:
1:1

making any determinations.

CHAlffi~N PARTHEMOS: If we can get some idea of the

sequence of things from here on out. We'll have the full

committee

MR. CLARKE: This is what I have in mind, and y'nll ),
give me some suggestions if I'm wrong, and particularly Mel,
_1 .'' you can tell me what some of the other co~~ittees are doing.

I had in mind going back to the full committee with some

report from this committee, asking -- from each of the

PACE 137

subcommittees -- asking for comments and suggestions, then

going back at least for one more meeting of all the

subcommittees to consider whatever recommendations might ,; have been made, to finalize the report of the subcommittees

and then come back to the full committee with it, invite

comments from all members of the General Assembly and possibly 7 : from the public. I don't know how many meetings of the

j~ full committee might be required, it just depends on the

direction that things take. Does anybody have any thoughts

10 of any ways it might be accomplished? What about it, Mel?

l? 7.
11 ,-
()

MR. HILL: The other committee -- Article IV and V --

1': :"".' did this, they met the second time as a full committee to

go over the drafts of the subcommittees, give them some
1 .~
J".' suggestions and then sent it back to the subcommittees. I
,, !
! .j ~'~' think that's -- they will need to have a final look but this
"
. :n
1(, a" committee will have about two weeks to look over its final T
version and then have another meeting of the full committee

in mid-November.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Let me ask you this. We could

still meet, even though we may not have time to incorporate

in our tentative report any action that we might take on the

veto. I can meet with the subcommittee one day next week, we

can simply consider this matter of the veto even though we
2i
may not get that into the report to the full committee, we

think a meeting next week --

MR. HILL: Are you free any day next week?

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: What I'm trying -- this should

in no way, Mel, prevent you and Cindy and Ham getting together

on the veto and then consulting with the Speaker and with

Charlie.

SPEAKER MURPHY: I'll be in Savannah Monday, Tuesday

and Wednesday. I will be here Thursday, I've got a bond and

finance commission meeting at ten o'clock, which will not

i " last long and I've got a speech at three o'clock at the

.', Ramada Inn and I've got a speech at 6:30 on Conyers that ~ night, so -- I've got something, I can't read what it is, at

nine o'clock on Friday morning the 26th. I canlt do it then. ! -~ I can't read what it is, 1 1 m in bad shape. I just hope I

~, told the girl downstairs where she can tell me.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Right now, if we can take care ! ~! ~ of that veto provision, this subcommittee will be in good

shape.

19

MR. MCWHORTER; Mel, your 29th meeting is the only

20 one you've got set as of today?

21

MR. HILL; Yes.

MR. CLARKE: Everything else we've got open.

-, ''

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If we try to have a meeting

next week, will it give you enough time, Mel, to work out

something on that veto provision by then? There would be no

139 point in our meeting until you have been able to work some-

thing out on that, or shall we wait until after the full

committee meeting? Okay, the consensus seems to be that we

should wait until after the full committee meeting, and in

which case, we would meet some time after November 3. Shall

h we set a specific time after November 3? That's on a Saturday~

7 It would be the week of November 5, Monday is the 5th, isn't

it?

'\

HR. HILL: Yes.

1U

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Shall we meet then on Tuesday,

II the 6th at 9:30?

SPEAKER MURPHY: That's fine.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: Tuesday the 6th at 9:30. Mel,

I sure hope we can have something on that veto power by then.

1~

MR. HILL: Oh, we'll have something by then.

"
1(1 r,c

MR. MCWHORTER: You're not promising it'll fly,

Z

,~ you're promising to 11ave something.

Jx

MR. HILL: Yes.

CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: If there is no further

business, we stand adjourned.

21

(Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 12:50 p.m.)

140 C E R T I F I CAT E

3

I, Peggy J. Warren, CVR-CM, ccn No. A-17l, do

hereby certify that the foregoing 139 pages of transcript

represent a true and accurate record of the events which

transpired at the time and place set out above.

7

,)
I ""

,,,

'"::0
1 i.l;
b1

C

z

l -,

<
"

),

INDEX Committee to Revise Article III Subcommittee Meeting Held on Oct. 18, 1979

SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON ORGANIZATION, STRUCTURE, AND PROCEDURE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 10-18-79
SECTION ll: COMPOSITION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Paragraph IV: Disqualifications. pp. 66-68 Paragraph V: Election and term of members. pp. 89-91
SECTION III: OFFICERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Paragraph I: President and President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
pp. 53-65
SECTION IV: ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Paragraph I: Meeting, time limit, and adjournment. pp. 68-88 Paragraph III: Quorum. pp. 106-114 Paragraph IV: Rules of procedure; employees; interim committees.
pp. 91-102 Paragraph VI: Salaries. pp. 102-106
SECTION Y: ENACTMENT OF LAWS
Paragraph II: Bills for revenue. pp. 114-121 Paragraph III: One 'subject matter expressed. p. 121 Paragraph V: Majority of members to pass bill. pp. 124-127 Paragraph VI: When roll-call vote taken. pp. 121-124 Paragraph XI: Signature of Governor. pp. 127-130 Paragraph XIII: Approval, veto, and override of veto of bills and
resolutions. pp. 3-53, 132-134

.