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 '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 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 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 ;' 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 /,~:'}YIti 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 ~~"-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 ."-,_ 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 meeting. 16 3'''""" So. Are you ready for the question? As many as are az -, 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 1(J ~ to break a tie and the right to make a Constitutional majority, w z 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 '"~''''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. '....______ 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.'~ 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, "'::"> ~ 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;; - 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, ~;, ~ 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 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 <) <) 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 :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. 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 -- : 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 - : ~/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 -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 /. . 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 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. . 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 . @ . .",. ~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 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 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. : ;'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 !" .,,~, 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. 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 > ~ : "- 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> 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':\(;1: 62 did it at five o'clock after we adjourned for the day -- 2 MR. EDWARDS: You mean on the day it's called for, 3 if it's called for Friday? 4 MR. MCWHORTER: Yeah. If they're in session past 5 two o'clock and we're out of session. SPEAKER MURPHY: Which would not be unusual. 7 MR. MCWHORTER: We do our work with dispatch. CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: You have the change -- 9 SPEAKER MURPHY: You're getting as bad as some of 10 them Senators over there, Mr. Secretary. You notice I said, z<~ 11 oo~r Senator, some of them, I didn't say you. "- ~@r~'12 '~" MR. MCWHORTER: Senator Tysinger told me to come up here today and be the so-and-so, and not him. 14 ; !;; CHAIRMAN PARTHEMOS: We have the motion now, the : 16 .~.. SPEAKER MURPHY: Wait just a minute, I think I can Q Z < 17 ~ cure that for you. 18 MR. MCWHORTER: Mr. Speaker, suppose we leave it like! 19 it is and 20 SPEAKER MURPHY: Wait just a minute while I've got 21 I it on my dadblamed mind. MR. MCWHORTER: I think we could use the original 23 language and just end it up by saying any agreement reached 24 during a certain period of time between the houses would p r e v a i l . _.'...,'- I SPEAKER MURPHY: PAGE 63 --_._._ --_ ... ... _.---_.,--~._-- ~-_ .. ,_._.~------_._--_._-------.......-, by n the end of the ...... MR. MCWHORTER: n legislative day " 3 SPEAKER MURPHY: Wait -- (Pause.) I don't know, that's going to take some more, Ham, when I start fooling with 5 what I did it changes something else. It's going to take 6 something else. 7 MR. MCWHORTER: We can adopt some words later. MR. TIDWELL: If y'all can agree what you want to ') do -- ]0 CHAIRMAN PARTH~10S: Like I say, we can go ahead and 11 ,... ,y- adopt this and come back and refine the language. o 1~: ~: SPEAKER MURPHY: I thought really that's what we was ;\) ...::."!)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--'{-':>. ,~ 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 , 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 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- 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 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. -~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 -- SPEAI1URPHY: 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 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' 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 .