COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA MONDAY, APRIL 17, …Apr 17, 1978 · Senator EARLY presented to the Chair SB 1436, entitled: An Act authorizing and directing the Department of General

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

14tginhtliut AJnurunl MONDAY, APRIL 17, 1978

Session of 1978 162nd of the General Assembly Vol. 1, No. 23

SENATE MONDAY, April 17, 1978.

SENATE COMMITTEE APPOINTED PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION, SERIAL NO. 57

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. As President pro tempore of the Senate of Pennsylvania, I hereby appoint the following

The PRESIDENT pro tempore (Martin L. Murray) in the Senators to serve as members of the Special Senate Committee Chair.

established by Senate Resolution, Serial No. 57:

The Senate met at 1:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.

The gentleman from Allegheny, Senator Zemprelli, Chair

PRAYER man; the gentleman from Schuylkill, Senator Gurzenda; the lady from Northampton, Senator Reibman; the gentleman

The Chaplain, The Reverend MELVIN FLOYD, Director of from Montgomery, Senator Holl; and the gentleman from Neighborhood Crusades, Incorporated, Philadelphia, offered Blair, Senator Jubelirer. the following prayer:

Let us pray: Eternal God, we bow before You in this humble recognition

that You are God and besides You, there is none other. We pause to thank You for health, life and strength. We thank You for our homes, our children and our families.

We thank You for our Nation, our President and the Congress. We thank You for the State of Pennsylvania and all its elected officials. We thank You for this Senate, for each and every Member.

We would ask that You would continue to guide and lead them in their thoughts and their actions. Give them a special measure of Thy wisdom to make and discern those right decis10ns.

Continue to guide and lead us by Thy Spirit. These and all other blessings we ask in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair wishes to thank Reverend Floyd who is the guest this week of Senator McCormack.

JOURNAL APPROVED

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SECRETARY The SECRETARY. Immediately upon the declaration of the

recess today, the Committee on Education will meet in Room 188. They will be considering House Bill No. 2103.

BILLS INTRODUCED AND REFERRED Senator EARLY presented to the Chair SB 1436, entitled:

An Act authorizing and directing the Department of General Services, with the approval of the Governor, to grant an easement and right-of-way to James and Betty Ryan concerning certain riverbed land in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

Which was committed to the Committee on State Government.

Senators EARLY, ROSS, LYNCH, LEWIS and SCHAEFER presented to the Chair SB 1437, entitled:

An Act amending the act of June 1, 1945 (P. L. 1242, No. 428), entitled "State Highway Law," further providing for repair of potholes on State highways in cities, boroughs, towns and townships.

Which was committed to the Committee on Transportation.

Senators EARLY, MESSINGER, ROSS, LEWIS and The PRESIDENT pro tempore. A quorum of the Senate being SCHAEFER presented to the Chair SB 1438, entitled:

present, the Clerk will read the Journal of the preceding Ses-SIOn.

The Clerk proceeded to read the Journal of the preceding Session, when, on motion of Senator MESSINGER, further reading was dispensed with, and the Journal was approved.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE Senator MESSINGER asked and obtained leave of absence

for Senator SWEENEY, for today's Session, because of illness.

A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, further providing for classification of property for tax purposes.

Which was committed to the Committee on Constitutional Changes and Federal Relations.

Senators EARLY and MESSINGER presented to the Chair SB 1439, entitled:

An Act amending the act of June 1, 1945 (P. L. 1242, No. 428), entitled "State Highway Law," authorizing the emergen-

384 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-SENATE April 17,

cy repair of State highways by municipalities and providing for reimbursement.

Which was committed to the Committee on Transportation.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

WEEKLY ADJOURNMENT

Senator MESSINGER offered the following resolution, which was read, considered and adopted:

ln the Senate, April 17, 1978.

RESOLVED, (the House of Representatives concurring), That when the Senate adjourns this week it reconvene on Monday, May 22, 1978 unless sooner recalled by the President Pro Tempore, and when the House of Representatives adjourns this week it reconvene on Monday, May 22, 1978 unless sooner recalled by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Ordered, That the Clerk present the same to the House of Representatives for concurrence.

SENATE RESOLUTION

REQUESTING CONGRESS TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM FEDERAL HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

FOR HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE DURING WINTER OF 1977-1978

Senators MESSINGER and BELL offered the following resolution (Serial No. 97), which was read and referred to the Committee on Rules and Executive Nominations:

ln the Senate, April 17, 1978.

WHEREAS, The highways in the Commonwealth are marred by innumerable potholes which make traveling hazardous; and

WHEREAS, The Commonwealth is unable to cope with the costs of repair because all funds haa been depleted in plowing and installing skid controls on the interstate system and the Federal primary system during the record snowfall that plagued the Commonwealth this winter; and

WHEREAS, The residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pay a substantial Federal tax on gasoline; therefore be it

RESOLVED, That the Senate of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requests the Congress of the United States to appropriate funds to the Commonwealth from the Federal Highway Trust Fund as reimbursement for the funds spent on highway maintenance during the winter of 1977-1978 and to enable the Commonwealth to repair the potholes in the interstate highways, and be it further

RESOLVED, That the funds received will be used to repair potholes, and be it further

RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution be transmitt~d to the presiding officer of each House of Congress of the United States and to each Senator and Representative from Pennsylvania in the Congress of the United States.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Senator EARLY. Mr. President, I rise to a question of parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The gentleman from Allegheny, Senator Early, will state it.

Senator EARLY. Mr. President, can you tell me the Rule of the Senate applicable in the event someone must leave for a meeting? I have a meeting scheduled this evening and I must

return to my District. Is it permissible that I leave my votes with my Leader?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is a legislative leave, Senator. There would be no objection.

RECESS

Senator MESSINGER. Mr. President, at this time I request a recess of the Senate for the purpose of a Democratic caucus to begin promptly at 2:00 p.m., with the expectation of returning to the floor at 4:00 p.m. I would remind the members of the Committee on Education that there will be a meeting shortly of that committee.

Senator STAUFFER. Mr. President, the Republican Members will caucus at 1:30 p.m. in the Minority Caucus Room. I would remind the Members of the caucus that the designee for Turnpike Commissioner, Mr. Rowan, will be in our caucus for his interview at 1:30 p.m. I would ask all Members to please come promptly so that we may finish our work and be back on the floor at 4:00 p.m.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. This Senate will stand in recess until 4:00 p.m.

AFTER RECESS

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of recess having elapsed, the Senate will be in order.

COMMUNICATION FROM THE GOVERNOR

NOMINATION BY THE GOVERNOR REFERRED TO COMMITTEE

The Secretary to the Governor being introduced, presented communication in writing from His Excellency, the Governor of the Commonwealth, which was read as follows, and referred to the Committee on Rules and Executive Nominations:

JUDGE, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, BLAIR COUNTY

April t 7, 1978.

To the Honorable, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

ln conformity with law, I have the honor hereby to nominate for the advice and consent of the Senate Eugene J. Ianuzzi, Esquire, 907 Pleasant Valley Boulevard, Altoona 16602, Blair County, Thirtieth Senatorial District, for appointment as Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of the Twenty-fourth Judicial District of Pennsylvania, composed of the County of Blair, to serve until the first Monday of January, 1980, vice Honorable Robert C. Haberstroh, resigned.

MILTON J. SHAPP.

BILLS SIGNED

The President pro tempore (Martin L. Murray) in the presence of the Senate signed the following bills:

HB 1106and 1107.

1978. LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-SENATE 385

GUEST OF SENATOR THOMAS J. McCORMACK PRESENTED TO SENATE

Senator McCORMACK. Mr. President, I have a guest with me today from the City of Philadelphia, a young third-year student from the Philadelphia College of Textiles and Science. He is a very close personal friend and a neighbor of mine. I would like to introduce him to my colleagues at this time, Mr. Michael Goodz.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate is honored to greet the guest of Senator McCormack. If Mr. Goodz would please rise, the Senate will extend its usual warm welcome to him.

(Applause.)

SB 693, TOGETHER WITH GOVERNOR'S ITEM VETO MESSAGE, TAKEN FROM THE TABLE

SB 693 (Pr. No. 1556) - Without objection, Senator SMITH called from the table SB 693, together with the Governor's item veto message.

The Clerk read the Governor's message as follows:

April 4, 1978.

To the Honorable, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

I have the honor to inform you that I have this day approved and signed Senate Bill No. 693, Printer's No. 1556, entitled "A Supplement to the act of (P. L. , No. ), entitled 'Federal Revenue Sharing Trust Fund Supplement to the General Appropriation Act of 1977,' itemizing appropriations required from the Federal Revenue Sharing Trust Fund for the proper operations of the several departments of the Commonwealth authorized to spend Federal Revenue Sharing Trust Fund moneys," except as to the following items:

To the Department of Health

For grants to county departments of health and to municipalities for environmental health under the act of August 24, 1951 (P. L. 1304, No. 315), known as the "Local Health Ad-ministration Law" ........................... 3,421,000

IL JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Miscellaneous

For the payment to the counties in reimbursement of the direct costs incurred by the counties in the administration and operation of all courts and for offices of justices and judges of the Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth Courts in the county of their residence. Costs incurred by the counties in the administration and operation of all courts means costs as reported to the Department of Community Affairs in the county's annual financial report forms under the heading (a) "Judicial,'' but confined to the subheading: (160) courts, excluding capital outlay. If a city coterminous with a county does not report on the Department of Community Affairs' form, its figures from the same subheading, set forth in the department forms, shall be used: Provided, That such payments shall be made to the county treasurer and in cities of the first class coterminous with counties of the first class to the city treasurer: And, provided further, That in the event the amount herein appropriated is not sufficient to reimburse all such costs, payments shall be made to the counties in the proportion which the costs of each county bears to the total costs of all counties during the most recently completed fiscal year:

And provided further, that in making allocations and payments hereunder, the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania

shall, except for county offices of justices and judges of the Supreme, Superior and Commonwealth Courts, exclude all costs which are not properly reportable under the heading herein-above specified ............................. Z4,000,000

These items are not approved. The taxes enacted by the General Assembly in December, 1977 were insufficient to meet all program needs of the Commonwealth. Serious underfunding of various programs has resulted, including (among others) Cash Assistance Payments which is short $40 million of the amount needed to make payments to eligible recipients to June 30, 1978.

In my Budget Message of February 7, 1978, I pointed out the financial difficulties facing the Commonwealth. I said in that message, "One year ago I proposed a General Fund Tax increase of approximately $300,000,000. If this had been enacted by the General Assembly it would have provided the solid fiscal base upon which the needs of the Commonwealth could have been funded. Instead of enacting the 1 percent increase in the Sales Tax, the Legislature, 10 months later, enacted a temporary increase in personal income and corporate income taxes of $202,000,000. The General Assembly also passed new appropriations totaling over $200,000,000. Among these were $100,000,000 for school subsidy revisions, $30,000,000 for Philadelphia school subsidies, $24,000,000 for county court reimbursements and $12,000,000 for Johnstown Flood Aid. The effect of the legislative action of 1977 was to seriously under-fund ongoing Commonwealth programs. ·

"The most immediate and obvious reflections of underfunding are deficiencies in cash assistance, medical assistance, and county administration. These three items total $90,000,000 of needs for the current fiscal year which are not appropriated. To cover these needs I am recommending that $24,000,000 of Revenue Sharing Funds previously earmarked for county court costs be used to pay public assistance benefits, that additional General Fund lapses be used to cover salaries and expenses of our county public assistance offices, and that reimbursement claims for medical assistance benefits be paid from next year's appropriation. Otherwise it will be necessary to discontinue benefits to the poor, elderly and handicapped by June 1."

There are only two ways to resolve the funding needs of the Commonwealth: (1) provide the revenues necessary to continue existing programs, or (2) reduce ongoing programs to fit within existing revenues. The General Assembly did not follow the first choice so I am constitutionally bound to follow the second alternative in order to insure a balanced budget.

In addition to my constitutional duty to guarantee a balanced budget, I have a moral obligation to insure that cash assistance payments can be made to the approximately 800,000 needy Pennsylvanians who depend on cash assistance payments from the Commonwealth. With inflation and unemployment rising it is unrealistic to assume that the needs of those on public assistance will lessen between now and June 30th.

In the situation in which we find ourselves, it would be highly irresponsible to fund county court costs at the expense of the Commonwealth's most needy citizens.

The amounts disapproved today will provide the bulk of the funds needed to appropriate the requirement for cash assistance payments through the end of the fiscal year. In the absence of these deficiencies, we would be forced to terminate assistance checks the week of June 5th, thereby leaving the 800,000 needy persons without any financial support for the balance of the month of June.

It would be unconscionable to allow this to happen. Therefore, I am not approving these programs.

MILTON J. SHAPP.

RECONSIDERATION OF SB 693 THE OBJECTIONS OF THE GOVERNOR TO THE

CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING

Senator SMITH. Mr. President, in accordance with Article IV, Section 16, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, I move that the Senate proceed with the reconsideration of Senate Bill


No. 693, Printer's No. 1556, and agree to pass the same, the objections of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding.

Senator MESSINGER. Mr. President, I second the motion. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It has been moved by the

gentleman from Philadelphia, Senator Smith, seconded by the gentleman from Lehigh, Senator Messinger, that the Senate proceed to re.consider Senate Bill No. 693, Printer's No. 1556, and agree to pass the same, the objections of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding.

The vote required for this motion is two-thirds of the Senators or thirty-four votes.

On the question, Will the Senate agree to the motion?

Senator DUFFIELD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the motion. I ask the Senate to abide by the Governor's veto of this measure on the basis that all anticipations are that with the present budget for the current year we are going to need deficiency appropriations, especially in the Department of Public Welfare, to carry us through the year.

I also note here, Mr. President, the breakdown of the $24 million. I am not a Philadelphia hater. I know they have problems and usually I am very willing to go along to help.

Mr. President, knowing this would be brought up, this afternoon I had an opportunity to check with the Budget Office and ascertain that of the $24 million involved here, $14 million will go to the County of Philadelphia, $4 million will go to the County of Allegheny, a total by simple arithmetic-I do not have to take my shoes off to count that-of $18 million to two counties, leaving $6 million to be divided for court costs among the other sixty-five counties of this Commonwealth.

Coming from Fayette, Somerset and Westmoreland Counties, I cannot conscientiously vote to override this veto which would result in peanuts to my counties which I represent and would result in a windfall for two counties. I say this not being against any county. I realize with two million people in the County of Philadelphia, with twelve million people in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, they are entitled to their due share. I am not one of those Philadelphia haters. I understand their problems. However, I cannot see how any Senator from a rural county can go back and tell the citizens of his county that he voted for $18 million to go to Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties, with $6 million remaining to be divided among the -0ther sixty-five counties of the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

That is the issue here, plus the fiscal irresponsibility of it which I also checked with the Governor's Office. I was advised that, for this current year, we need money for deficiency appropriations for the Department of Public Welfare and for other departments of State government. We are going to have to come up with those appropriations before the end of June. The money just is not there.

Therefore, Mr. President, for these two reasons, I oppose the motion to override the veto of the Governor.

And the question recurring, Will the Senate agree to the motion?

The yeas and nays were taken agreeably to the provisions of the Constitution and were as follows, viz:

Andrews, Arlene, Bell, Coppersmith, Dougherty, Dwyer, Fleming, Furno, Gekas,

Corman, Duffield, Early, Hager,

YEAS-34

Gurzenda, Hankins, Holl, Hopper, Howard, Kury, Lewis, Lynch, McCormack,

McKinney, Messinger, Moore, Murray, Nolan, Noszka, O'Pake, Orlando,

NAYS-14

Hess, Jubelirer, Kelley, Kusse,

Manbeck, Mellow, Snyder,

Reibman, Romanelli, Ross, Scanlon, Schaefer, Smith, Stauffer, Zemprelli,

Stapleton, Stout, Tilghman,

A constitutional two-thirds majority of all the Senators having voted "aye," the question was determined in the affirmative, the objections of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding.

Ordered, That the Clerk present said bill to the House of Representatives for concurrence.

CALENDAR

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE

REPORT ADOPTED

HB 825 (Pr. No. 2469) Senator MESSINGER. Mr. President, I move that the Senate adopt the Report of Committee of Conference on House Bill No. 825, entitled:

An Act amending the act of July 9, 1976 (P. L. 586, No. 142), entitled "An Act amending Titles 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure), 15 (Corporations and Unincorporated Associations), 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 71 (State Government) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes; adding revised, codified and compiled provisions relating to judiciary and judicial procedure, including certain judicially enforceable rights, duties, immunities and liabilities and separately enacting certain related provisions of law," making revisions, corrections and additions relating to judiciary and judicial procedure, including certain judicially enforceable rights, duties, immunities and liabilities, adding certain provisions of existing law to and making conforming and editorial changes in certain provisions of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, fixing the general effective date of the act as supplemented hereby and repealing certain acts and parts of acts supplied by the act as supplemented hereby or by other acts or otherwise obsolete.


Senator O'P AKE. Mr. President, I want to rise briefly to urge my colleagues to adopt this Conference Committee Report.

In 1976 this Legislature enacted the Judicial Code which brought together in one place all the laws of Pennsylvania dealing with the judiciary. That Judicial Code, however, for the most part, does not become effective until this bill, House Bill No. 825, is passed.

House Bill No. 825 would repeal approximately 1,500 statutes which the Judicial Code supplanted. Some of those stat·


utes date back to 1705. In addition, House Bill No. 825 amends some existing law, mostly made necessary because of enactment of the Judicial Code or because of changes in the law since enactment of the code in 1976.

Also, this bill picks up two acts already enacted this Session, one amending the juvenile act and the other dealing with the right of prosecutors to demand jury trials to protect them from unintentional repeal and to mesh them into the code.

Aside from the importance of consolidating a large group of statutes in Pennsylvania, Mr. President-and I do not intend to address all 430 pages, which is what this bill consists of-the legislation also speaks to another matter of growing concern in Pennsylvania, the conduct of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

This bill, Mr. President, I would like to point out, would place a number of restrictions and checks on the Supreme Court and if I may briefly cite some of them for you:

First of all-and this matter arose at Friday's hearing of the Committee on Appropriations-the subject of the Supreme Court's proprietary or contingency fund. This has been a matter of much discussion lately, highlighted, of course, recently by the Philadelphia Inquirer's very fine series on the subject. Under this proposal the Supreme Court's proprietary or contingency fund would be eliminated iil the future. In the past, the Supreme Court has kept for its own use all fees, which they have set, collected for filing matters before that court. The court, to this date, has never made public how it has spent such funds.

Second, Mr. President, for the first time in Pennsylvania history, this bill would require that all rule-making meetings by that court be open to the public. As you know, and as the public and the law enforcement people of this Commonwealth are painfully aware, the Supreme Court very often, under its rulemaking function, has actually acted on substantive law. For example, the Supreme Court, in its wisdom, decided that our trial courts had only 180 days from the time of arrest before that criminal defendant had to be tried. As a result of the burden this has placed on police, district attorneys and the court system, countless criminal defendants have been set free because they have not been able to meet that 180-day rule. In addition, there is the six-hour rule which means the arrested defendant must be brought to arraignment within six hours of arrest. These are the kinds of substantive changes in the law the Supreme Court has accomplished through its rule-making powers. Under this proposal, those rule-making sessions would be open to the public.

Third, House Bill No. 825 changes the method for setting fees for filing papers before the courts in this Commonwealth. At present, the Supreme Court sets the fees subject to veto by this Legislature. House Bill No. 825 would provide that Legislators sit on a statewide council which will adopt fee schedules in the future.

Fourth, the bill before you, Mr. President, would also set a limit on the pay which retired judges can collect. Under House Bill No. 825 they would be able to earn no more than they could have earned in one year as an active judge. At present in Pennsylvania, retired judges may draw their retirement pension and also earn $125 per day, without limit, for every day they sit as

a visiting judge. Fifth, and this is another important feature of the bill, Mr.

President, is that it mandates an auditing agency to audit the Supreme Court and requires that this be done annually. At present in Pennsylvania, there are provisions for auditing the Supreme Court but, to my knowledge, they have never been used.

Sixth, I would also like to point out finally, Mr. President, that House Bill No. 825 places a number of restrictions on the Supreme Court to prevent that court from usurping the functions of county commissioners, especially wjth regard to financial burdens imposed on the counties throughout the Commonwealth.

For the reasons mentioned, Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of adopting the Conference Committee Report on House Bill No. 825.

Senator ANDREWS. Mr. President, I agree with the tliings mentioned by the gentleman from Berks, Senator O'Pake. I would like to point out though that he did not speak on the majority of the pages of this bill. There are 265 pages of repealers of Acts of Assembly in this bill. Between 1,200 and 1,500 Acts of Assembly are being repealed. I do not believe anyone in this Senate or anyone in the Legislature knows what we are doing when we vote on this bill.

We passed this bill originally in the form of Senate Bill No. 767 several months ago and at that time I interrogated the gentleman and mentioned that we were repealing the new Juvenile Code. Apparently someone agreed with that and they inserted a Juvenile Code in this bill.

I would suggest that we are voting in the dark when we vote on this bill. There is not a Member on this floor who has any idea what those 265 pages of repealers are and I do not believe it would be in the best interest of the people we represent to pass this legislation when we do not, in fact, know what the legislation does. For that reason, I would urge that the Members of the Senate consider these remarks and consider what we are really doing here today.

Senator O'PAKE. Mr. President, with respect to the objection of the gentleman from Lawrence, Senator Andrews, I do not believe we will ever be completely familiar with every bill we pass.

The point is that this Conference Committee Report was signed in December so that the gentleman, or anyone else who was concerned, had more than four months to research the many pages of repealers. The staff of the Committee on Judiciary has done that research. I have asked them to check carefully into whether or not we are doing anything which has a hidden controversy that the Members would not be aware of and I am assured that these repealers do not have any of those hidden problems.

Therefore, after four months of study, the time has come for this Senate to do something one way or the other and I feel that we ought to concur in this well thought out document. If there are problems discovered later on, we, in our wisdom, I am sure, can focus on those problems and address them at that time.

Senator BELL. Mr. President, I am absolutely astonished when I hear the gentleman from Berks, Senator O'Pake, get up


and use the Supreme Court for a whipping boy to justify the implementation of a Judicial Code that was passed in 1975 when the Supreme Court was the hero of many of the people who are now using it as a whipping boy.

While he was talking I looked for some of the things he said this bill would do. Now, I will throw the turkey at him.

Why, Mr. President, does this bill in front of us exempt from judicial execution moneys payable under the State Employees' Retirement Code?

Senator KELLEY. Mr. President, the gentleman from Berks, Senator O'Pake, may be absolutely correct in saying there is nothing in the repealers that is of any substance. However, I feel one of the items he called to our attention, that the court has been practicing substantive rule-making, is in direct conflict with the inherent powers of the General Assembly of this Commonwealth. Instead of opening up the rule-making process dealing with the substantive nature of the court, we should prohibit it rather than condone it. On that basis alone, Mr. President, I will vote in the negative.

Senator DOUGHERTY. Mr. President, I also rise to oppose the passage of this bill. We understand that the Committee of Conference withdrew the mandatory sentencing provision for the use of a weapon in the commission of a crime. Many of us feel this is an important ingredient we have been trying to pass through this Senate for a number of years. I understand it was in the bill when it went to Conference Committee and it was withdrawn in Conference Committee. We believe-and I am speaking for a number of Senators on this side of the aisle-that mandatory sentencing is essential where a weapon has been used in the commission of a crime. We feel if this bill is defeated, perhaps the Conference Committee will reinsert it. Perhaps the gentleman from Berks, Senator O'Pake, will en

lighten me. Senator O'P AKE. Mr. President, as the gentleman from

Philadelphia, Senator Dougherty, well recalls, the Conference Committee Report on the mandatory sentencing bill was defeated by this Body in the last Session. However, I also was quite concerned that that was deleted from the Conference Committee Report.

I will have ready for introduction, within a very brief period of time, a bill which I feel is a rational approach to the very controversial question of mandatory sentencing. I would invite cosponsorship of anybody who is interested. I can assure the Senate it will be a priority of the Committee on Judiciary which I

now chair. Senator BELL. Mr. President, I had hoped that I woke up

somebody in this Chamber. Apparently, I did not. Therefore, I

will repeat it. I will serve notice on the Members of this Body right now. If

they vote for this bill, on page 382, Section 8124, they will enact into law that the State Employees' Retirement Code benefits will be exempt from taxation, attachment and assignment of funds. What I am asking is: When the Members vote for this, are they in favor of protecting those people who are now in jail or might be going to jail? This vote will be on record. I am putting the gentleman on record and I hope the press is awake enough to know that what I am saying is in this bill.


(During the calling of the roll, the following occurred:) The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The only thing in order, Sena

tor O'Pake, is the roll call at this moment. Senator O'PAKE. Mr. President, please proceed with the roll

call. I will make a statement afterwards allaying the fears of the gentleman from Delaware, Senator Bell.

Senator KELLEY. Mr. President, may I ask unanimous consent to suspend the Rules on the calling of the roll?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is out of order in his request to suspend the Rules on a roll call.


Arlene, Coppersmith, Duffield, Furno, Gekas, Gurzenda, Hager, Hankins,

Andrews, Bell, Corman, Dougherty, Dwyer,

YEAS-29

Holl, Hopper, Kury, Lewis, Lynch, McCormack, McKinney,

Messinger, Murray, Nolan, Noszka, O'Pake, Orlando, Reibman,

NAYS-19

Early, Fleming, Hess, Howard, Jubelirer,

Kelley, Kusse, Manbeck, Mellow, Moore,

Romanelli, Ross, Scanlon, Schaefer, Smith, Stout, Zemprelli,

Snyder, Stapleton, Stauffer, Tilghman,

A constitutional majority of all the Senators having voted "aye," the question was determined in the affirmative.

Ordered, That the Clerk inform the House of Representatives accordingly.

PERMISSION TO ADDRESS SENATE

Senator O'P AKE asked and obtained unanimous consent to address the Senate.

Senator O'P AKE. Mr. President, after the very profound question raised by my distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Bell, I had the staff do some legal research. They have advised me as follows:

Section 4103 on page 382 does not change existing law one iota. It merely recodifies what is the law, namely, you cannot attach while in the hands of the Retirement Board any money being held there on behalf of the employee. Once the benefits are in the hands of the employee, of course, this does nothing to affect that part of the law. What the gentleman was concerned about must properly be addressed in a reexamination of the Insurance Code which is found in Title 40 of Purdons so that we all know what the problem is. This section of the law does not speak to that problem. It is money being held by the Retirement Board.

Once the money is in the hands of the employee or former employee, it, of course, is subject to attachment.


PERMISSION TO ADDRESS SENATE

Senator BELL asked and obtained unanimous consent to address the Senate.

Senator BELL. Mr. President, I do not concur with the gentleman from Berks and if he is right, those of the Members who voted for this principle reaffirmed a principle which is bad.

BILL WlllCH HOUSE HAS NONCONCURRED IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

SENATE INSISTS UPON ITS AMENDMENTS NON CONCURRED IN BY THE HOUSE TO HB 858

HB 858 (Pr. No. 2636)- Senator MESSINGER. Mr. President, I move that the Senate do insist upon its amendments to House Bill No. 858, and that a Committee of Conference on the part of the Senate be appointed.

The motion was agreed to. Ordered, That the Clerk inform the House of Representatives

accordingly.

BILLS ON CONCURRENCE IN HOUSE AMENDMENTS

BILL OVER IN ORDER

SB 1001 Without objection, the bill was passed over in its order at the request of Senator MESSINGER.

SEN ATE CONCURS IN HOUSE AMENDMENTS


Andrews, Arlene, Bell, Coppersmith, Corman, Dougherty, Duffield, Dwyer, Early, Fleming, Furno, Gekas,

Gurzenda, Hager, Hankins, Hess, Holl, Hopper, Howard, Jubelirer, Kelley, Kury, Kusse, Lewis,

YEAS-48

Lynch, Manbeck, McCormack, McKinney, Mellow, Messinger, Moore, Murray, Nolan, Noszka, O'Pake, Orlando,

NAYS-0

Reibman, Romanelli, Ross, Scanlon, Schaefer, Smith, Snyder, Stapleton, Stauffer, Stout, Tilghman, Zemprelli,



FINAL PASSAGE CALENDAR

NONPREFERRED APPROPRIATION BILLS ON FINAL PASSAGE

HB 1271 (Pr. No. 1494)- On the question, Shall the bill pass finally?

SB 1106 (Pr. No. 1780) Senator MESSINGER. Mr. Presi- The yeas and nays were taken agreeably to the provisions of dent, I move that the Senate do concur in the amendments the Constitution and were as follows, viz: made by the House to Senate Bill No. 1106.





YEAS-48


NAYS-0




SB 1304 (Pr. No. 1791)-Senator MESSINGER. Mr. President, I move that the Senate do concur in the amendments made by the House to Senate Bill No. 1304.


YEAS-44

Arlene, Gurzenda, Lynch, Reibman, Bell, Hager, Manbeck, Romanelli, Coppersmith, Hankins, McCormack, Ross, Corman, Hess, McKinney, Scanlon, Dougherty, Holl, Messinger, Schaefer, Duffield, Hopper, Moore, Smith, Dwyer, Howard, Murray, Snyder, Early, Jubelirer, Nolan, Stauffer, Fleming, Kury, Noszka, Stout, Furno, Kusse, O'Pake, Tilghman, Gekas, Lewis, Orlando, Zemprelli,

NAYS-4

Andrews, Kelley, Mellow, Stapleton,

A constitutional two-thirds majority of all the Senators having voted "aye," the question was determined in the affirmative.

Ordered, That the Clerk return said bill to the House of Representatives with information that the Senate has passed the same without amendments.

HB 1277 (Pr. No. 1500)- On the question, Shall the bill pass finally?


.Arlene, Ben, Coppersmith,

Hankins, Hopper, Howard,

YEAS-37

McKinney, Messinger, Moore,

Ross, Scanlon, Smith,


Corman, Dougherty, Duffield, Fleming, Fumo, Gekas, Hager,

Andrews, Early, Gurzenda,

Jubelirer, Kury, Lewis, Lynch, Manbeck, McCormack,

Murray, Nolan, Noszka, O'Pake, Reibman, Romanelli,

NAYS-10

Hess, Holl, Kelley,

Kusse, Mellow,

Snyder, Stapleton, Stauffer, Stout, Tilghman, Zemprelli,

Orlando, Schaefer,

A constitutional two-thirds majority of all the Senators having voted "aye," the question was determined in the affirmative.

Ordered, That the Clerk return said bill to the House of Representatives with information that the Senate has passed the same without amendments.

TIDRD CONSIDERATION CALENDAR

BILLS REREPORTED FROM COMMITTEE AS AMENDED ON THIRD CONSIDERATION AND FINAL PASSAGE

BB 3 (Pr. No. 3008)- Considered the third time and agreed to,

And the amendments made thereto having been printed as required by the Constitution,

On the question, Shall the bill pass finally?




YEAS-48


NAYS-0



Ordered, That the Clerk return said bill to the House of Representatives with information that the Senate has passed the same with amendments in which concurrence of the House is requested.

BB 539 (Pr. No. 3009) - Considered the third time and agreed to,



The yeas and nays were taken agreeably to the provisions of

the Constitution and were as follows, viz:



YEAS-48


NAYS-0



Ordered, That the Clerk return said bill to the House of Representatives with information that the Senate has passed the same with amendments in which concurrence of the House is requested.

BILL ON THIRD CONSIDERATION AND FINAL PASSAGE

HB 76 (Pr. No. 3011) - Considered the third time and agreed to,




YEAS-46

Andrews, Hager, McCormack, Romanelli, Arlene, Hankins, McKinney, Ross, Bell, Hess, Mellow, Scanlon, Coppersmith, Holl, Messinger, Schaefer, Corman, Hopper, Moore, Smith, Dougherty, Howard, Murray, Snyder, Dwyer, Jubelirer, Nolan, Stapleton, Early, Kury, Noszka, Stauffer, Fleming, Kusse, O'Pake, Stout, Furno, Lewis, Orlando, Tilghman, Gekas, Lynch, Reibman, Ze.mprelli, Gurzenda, Manbeck,

NAYS-2

Duffield, Kelley,


Ordered, That the Clerk return said bill to the House of Representatives with information that the Senate has passed the same with amendments in which concurrence of the House is .requested.

BILL OVER IN ORDER

SB 720 - Without objection, the bill was passed over in its order at the request of Senator MESSINGER.


BILL ON THIRD CONSIDERATION AMENDED

SB 721 (Pr, No. 765)- Considered the third time,

On the question, Will the Senate agree to the bill on third consideration? Senator JUBELIRER, by unanimous consent, offered the fol·

lowing amendment:

Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 5), page 3, line 12, by inserting after "township": : Provided, That such payments shall terminate at such time as the injured officer shall become eligible for regular pension benefits by reason of age or years of service

On the question, Will the Senate agree to the amendment?

Senator JUBELIRER. Mr. President, for the benefit of the Members, this amendment provides that in the event a police officer shall become eligible for either his regular pension bene· fits, by reason of either his age or years of service, the pay· ments paid as a result of the nonservice connected disability shall terminate.

Senator HAGER. Mr. President, I have serious reservations about the entire bill. I am tempted to vote for the amendment and then against the bill.

It seems to me what we are really saying is that an em· ployee of a municipality who goes out and gets hurt playing touch football, doing something which has absolutely nothing to do with his employment, the taxpayers of that community are going to be stuck with him on a pension.

Senator JUBELIRER. Mr. President, if the gentleman wants to argue the merits of the bill after the amendment goes in, I believe that would be proper. However, that is not what the amendment deals with. The gentleman is arguing the merits of the bill. I understand his concern but that is not what the amendment says. The amendment, in effect, should lessen the gentleman's concern for just what he is arguing against.

Senator HAGER. Mr. President, if the gentleman would allow me to finish my argument, perhaps he would see that my argument is germane.

My point is that all this amendment does is put off a very bad idea for, I believe, 180 days, which, so far as I am concerned, might sweeten it enough to have some people vote for a very bad bill.

Mr. President, I would ask everyone to vote "no" on the amendment and "no" on the bill. Let us get rid of the thing. I do not see how we can ask the taxpayers, whether under an ameliorated version or under some tougher version, to support the bill.

Senator LEWIS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. I agree with the comments of the gentleman from Blair, Senator Jubelirer, that this is a desirable addition to the bill.

Senator HAGER. Mr. President, I see I was arguing against the second of the amendments which the gentleman from Blair, Senator Jubelirer, is about to offer and that is not the amendment before us.

This amendment says that whether or not we come up with

such payments for him, they would terminate at the time his regular pension benefits would apply. So I withdraw my objec· tions to the amendment.

Senator JUBELIRER. Mr. President, what the amendment does is take away the double dip and perhaps we could all agree to that.

And the question recurring, Will the Senate agree to the amendment? It was agreed to.

On the question, Will the Senate agree to the bill on third consideration, as

amended? Senator JUBELIRER, by unanimous consent, offered the fol·

lowing amendment:

Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 5), page 3, line 12, by inserting after "township.": Any payment of pensions for permanent injuries not incurred in service shall begin one hundred eighty days from the date of the injury.

On the question, Will the Senate agree to the amendment?

Senator JUBELIRER. Mr. President, I believe the amend· ment is self-explanatory. It means that the nonservice-connected disability payment by the township will not have to be paid until some six months after the injury to give the township the opportunity to make provisions for this. I believe it stabilizes the situation. In my discussions with township officials I believe they would indicate support for the particular amendment. This is the amendment the gentleman from Lycoming, Senator Hager, might have been referring to when I introduced the other amendment.

Senator HAGER. Mr. President, may I merely ask the Members of the Senate who were obviously paying full attention to everything that was going on in the last debate just apply those arguments which I made against the wrong amendment? This is the right amendment.

Senator BELL. Mr. President, there are two sides to this argument. The gentleman from Blair, Senator Jubelirer, spoke for certain municipalities; I am going to speak for the policemen.

You know if the "may" bill passes and a township or borough has an agreement with police officers that they pay for nonservice-connected injuries resulting in disability; you know you could starve to death in six months and that is what 180 days is.

Senator NOLAN. Mr. President, I desire to interrogate the gentleman from Blair, Senator Jubelirer.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Blair, Senator J ubelirer, permit himself to be interrogated?

Senator JUBELIRER. I will, Mr. President. Senator NOLAN. Mr. President, would the benefits be retro·

active, after 180 days, to the first day of injury? Senator JUBELIRER. No, Mr. President. However, I believe

Social Security benefits can be collected at the appropriate time. He would not, as the gentleman from Delaware, Senator Bell, said, starve to death. However, it would not be retroac-


tive, Mr. President. Senator NOLAN. Mr. President, I would then say to my col

leagues if, after 180 days, the benefits are not retroactive, this is a very poor amendment and should be defeated.

Senator LEWIS. Mr. President, the concern the gentleman from Allegheny, Senator Nolan, is expressing is one that I voiced in discussions about the proposed amendment with the representatives from the boroughs association and the police officers' associations.

The feeling was that we should try and make these disability benefits as similar as possible to the Social Security disability benefits and, in the first instance, the six month delayed implementation does do that.

There was concern about how someone would provide for his needs and the needs .of his family during that period. It was pointed out to us, in most instances, the policemen have the right to accumulate sick leave that occurs across the years and these benefits would, in fact, be payable during that period of time.

So the feeling is-and the amendment, as I understand, is agreed to by the policemen's groups-there would not be that big break when a disabled policeman would be getting no benefits but instead he would be compensated under his sick leave plan which has already been in force. This new provision would then take effect and kick in at the same time as the Social Security disability benefits.

For those reasons, Mr. President, I again rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Blair, Senator Jubelirer.

Senator JUBELIRER. Mr. President, I believe the gentleman from Bucks, Senator Lewis, has explained the amendment quite well. I might just say, Mr. President, some years ago I had the opportunity of representing the Fraternal Order of Police in my own area prior to being elected to the Senate.

I recall very well, Mr. President, that this was a negotiating item under Act 111, the binding arbitration for police and firemen.

I also remember, Mr. President, the problems that the Fraternal Order of Police had in negotiating such an item. What this does, it is a "may" provision giving the boroughs and townships the opportunity or the authority to negotiate, or giving boards of arbitration the authority to set down, for the first time, nonservice-connected disability.

Therefore, in answer to the gentleman from Allegheny, Senator Nolan, as the gentleman from Bucks, Senator Lewis, has set forth, I do believe, Mr. President and Members of the Senate, it is a step forward for the members of the police force. I also believe it is a fair way to deal with the townships and boroughs on a basis such as this. It does become negotiable and they can negotiate it and if they cannot negotiate it, it becomes authorized for boards of arbitration under Act 111 in binding arbitration for police and firefighters where a board of arbitra~ tion could so direct.

Senator BELL. Mr. President, just this morning at a meeting of the Committee on Local Government, we were told there are some police departments that do not have Social Security. I question how many police departments, one and two-man po-

lice forces-these are not the cities, this law just applies to boroughs and townships-can accumulate six months' sick leave.

No, I am getting a different message from the' policemen. I am getting a message like the gentleman from Allegheny, Senator Nolan, that these benefits, if they are going to accrue, should accrue when the injury occurs. This is a matter of negotiation between the various muuicipalities and the respective police departments and they can either put this in or take it out. If all the Fraternal Order of Police people in the District of the gentleman from Bucks, Senator Lewis, believe in a 180-day delay when they negotiate their contracts they can have it. The people in my District, the policemen, want the benefits when they are hurt.

Senator DOUGHERTY. Mr. President, I rise to concur in the comments of the gentleman from Delaware, Senator Bell. I believe you are asking an awful lot when you ask a police officer to wait six months before he picks up his disability. If the gentleman from Bucks, Senator Lewis, feels six months is reasonable with sick pay and the like, that has not been my experience.

I believe in the instances where we deal with people on Social Security disability; there is a great hardship placed upon people who are trying to get disability under Social Security and the delay in that implementation is unfavorable.

I just believe it is inconceivable that we would ask people who are on disability to wait six months before they can pick up their funds.

Senator LEWIS. Mr. President, I believe it is reasonable to substantially improve upon the system as it currently exists with regard to pensions for policemen, especially disabilities arising from nonservice-connected sources, because, at the present time, they have no such benefits.

The fact of the matter is, if we do not exercise reasonable judgment and discretion, which is what I believe the amendment speaks to, we are not going to solve the problem. It is nice and it is desirable to go for the brass ring and I set out to do that when I sponsored this bill. However, I also became very clearly aware of substantial opposition that mounted because of some of the cost factors which would be imposed.

I, too, believe that our ultimate objective ought to be to implement these benefits from the first day of a disability. However, I hope I am pragmatic enough to understand that there are occasions when you must compromise if you are going to give your proposal any reasonable prospect for passage. That is the purpose which I think is achieved by the amendment. I believe that our muuicipalities, in many instances, will withdraw their opposition to this proposal and in those instances where they do not totally withdraw the opposition, they will substantially diminish the fervor with which they will oppose this proposal.

I believe we have the need to provide these benefits for our police officers and it is a crying one. I would rather see that they are taken care of from the six-month period than have no change at all, which is what I am afraid will occur if we do not accept the amendment.

And the question recurring, Will the Senate agree to the amendment?



Andrews, Coppersmith, Corman, Early, F1eming, Gurzenda, Hager,

Arlene, Bell, Dougherty, Duffield, Dwyer,

Hess, Hopper, Howard, Jubelirer, Kelley, Kury, Kusse,

Furno, Gekas, Hankins, Holl, Lynch,

YEAS-27

Lewis, Manbeck, McKinney, Messinger, Moore, Reibman, Ross,

NAYS-20

McCormack, Mellow, Murray, Nolan, Noszka,

Schaefer, Smith, Snyder, Stauffer, Stout, Zemprelli,

Orlando, Romanelli, Scanlon, Stapleton, Tilghman,

So the question was determined in the affirmative, and the amendment was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senate Bill No. 721 will go over, as amended.

BILLS OVER IN ORDER

SB 722, 723 and 724 - Without objection, the bills were passed over in their order at the request of Senator MESSINGER.


HB 799 (Pr. No. 2979)- Considered the third time,

On the question, Will the Senate agree to the bill on third consideration?

MOTION TO REVERT TO PRIOR PRINTER'S NUMBER

Senator ROMANELLI. Mr. President, I move that House Bill No. 799 revert to the form it was in under Printer's No. 2737.


Senator CORMAN. Mr. President, I object to reverting to the prior printer's number. The bill as it stands now provides for uniformity among local governments and authorities for their authority to purchase without bidding. I feel to revert and go to something which is not uniform would be improper.

Senator ROMANELLI. Mr. President, I might agree with what the gentleman says under normal circumstances, however, this is a unique situation. This deals with the Pittsburgh Convention Center. It will be two years before this bill will be implemented and we will be into the furnishing of the Convention Center.

Red tape will be created by the additional $500. I really do not see this bill as a problem. I believe they should all be raised to $2,500, not just this one. Sometime I would support a bill raising all nonbid contracts to $2,500. This will eliminate a lot of red tape for the people trying to house and furnish the Convention Center when it is completed.

The Commonwealth has $30 million invested in this Convention Center and the sooner it is operable the better off we "'.ill be, taxwise, for both the City and the Commonwealth.

Mr. President, I would urge a reversion to the prior printer's number.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Edward P. Zemprelli) in the Chair.


(During the calling of the roll, the following occurred:) Senator ANDREWS. Mr. President, having voted under a

misapprehension, I would like to change my vote from "aye" to "no."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The gentleman will be so recorded.


Arlene, Hankins, Duffield, Kelley, Early, Lynch, Furno, McKinney, Gurzenda, Murray,

Andrews, Gekas, Bell, Hager, Coppersmith, Hess, Corman, Holl, Dougherty, Hopper, Dwyer, Howard, F1eming, Jubelirer,

YEAS-18

Noszka, Romanelli, Ross, Scanlon,

NAYS-28

Kury, Kusse, Lewis, Manbeck, Mellow, Messinger, Moore,

Schaefer, Smith, Stout, Zemprelli,

Nolan, Orlando, Reibman, Snyder, Stapleton, Stauffer, Tilghman,

So the question was determined in the negative, and the motion was defeated.

And the question recurring, Will the Senate agree to the bill on third consideration? It was agreed to. And the amendments made thereto having been printed as

required by the Constitution?


The yeas and nays were taken agreeably to the provisions of the·Constitution and were as follows, viz:

YEAS-46

Andrews, Hankins, McCormack, Romanelli, Arlene, Hess, McKinney, Ross, Coppersmith, Holl, Mellow, Scanlon, Corman, Hopper, Messinger, Schaefer, Duffield, Howard, Moore, Smith, Dwyer, Jubelirer, Murray, Snyder, Early, Kelley, Nolan, Stapleton, F1eming, Kury, Noszka, Stauffer, Furno, Kusse, O'Pake, Stout, Gekas, Lewis, Orlando, Tilghman, Gurzenda, Lynch, Reibman, Zemprelli, Hager, Manbeck,

NAYS-2

Bell, Dougherty,


A constitutional majority of all the Senators having voted

"aye," the question was determined in the affirmative. Ordered, That the Clerk return said bill to the House of

Representatives with information that the Senate has passed the same with amendments in which the concurrence of the House is requested.

BILLS OVER IN ORDER

SB 1025, 1026 and 1027 - Without objection, the bills were

passed over in their order at the request of Senator MESSINGER.


SB 1040 (Pr. No. 17ll3) - Considered the third time and

agreed to, And the amendments made thereto having been printed as

required by the Constitution,


The yeas and nays were taken agreeably to the provisions of

the Constitution and were as follows, viz:

Andrews, Arlene, Bell, Coppersmith, Corman, Dougherty, Duffield, Dwyer, Early, F1eming, Furno, Gekas,


YEAS-48


NAYS-0


A constitutional majority of all the Senators having voted

"aye," the question was determined in the affirmative.

Ordered, That the Clerk present said bill to the House of

Representatives for concurrence.

BILLS OVER IN ORDER

SB 1151 - Without objection, the bill was passed over in its

order at the request of Senator MESSINGER.

SB 1311 (Pr. No. 1637)-Considered the third time,

On the question, Will the Senate agree to the bill on third consideration?

AMENDMENTSOFFFERED

Senator CORMAN, by unanimous consent, offered the following amendments:

Amend Sec. 2 (Sec. 1207), page 2,. line 1, by inserting brackets before and after "shall" and inserting immediately thereafter: when requested by the county

board of elections Amend Sec. 2 (Sec. 1207), page 2, line 5, by insert

ing brackets before and after "shall" and inserting

immediately thereafter: when requested by the county

board of elections

On the question, Will the Senate agree to the amendments?

Senator CORMAN. Mr. President, the purpose of these amendments is to try to save the local government some money. They provide from "shall"' to "may" for the county

boards of elections to have a constable in each precinct. The law currently provides that in every election polling

place there shall be a constable. I say to the Members that in every county in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania there is

not a constable on duty in every polling place. As the cost is

ever increasing to provide payment for these people, I feel it is

only appropriate that we make this a "may" bill so that consta

bles will not eventually insist upon being there to provide a service which is not really necessary. It is not a protection for

the peoplE) because the people have the right of poll watchers

and the people have the right to have other people appointed there. If there is a difficulty in an election district, the county

then may have a constable serve. It is an unnecessary additional feature which has been in the bill for some years and has not been abided by anyway.

In one particular county, the County of Allegheny, it is esti

mated by the County Commissioners Association it would save

them approximately $120,000 to $130,000 per year if these

amendments would pass. Senator DUFFIELD. Mr. President, I desire to interrogate

the gentleman from Centre, Senator Corman. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the gentleman from Centre,

Senator Corman, permit himself to be interrogated?

Senator CORMAN. I will, Mr. President. Senator DUFFIELD. Mr. President, may I ask the gentleman

what the present law is? Do we have to have constables at every poll and do we pay them?

Senator CORMAN. Yes, Mr. President. The law now provides

that there should be a constable in each polling place and it pro

vides for payment. However, most polling places do not have a

constable and, therefore, they are not paid. Senator DUFFIELD. Mr. President, I could not hear the gen

tleman's answer. Could we please have some order? The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am sure the issue before us is

important to every constable in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I would hope that we would give the Senators addressing

themselves to the amendments the courtesy of listening to the

arguments before them. Senator DUFFIELD. Mr. President, I did not hear most of his

answer. That is why I asked for order. Senator CORMAN. Mr. President, the law currently provides

that there shall be a constable on duty in each polling place

throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It does not

happen in fact. Therefore, these amendments merely make legal what is currently happening.

Senator DUFFIELD. My second question, Mr. President:

Would the gentleman advise me what his amendments do? Senator CORMAN. Mr. President, my amendments say that

the board of elections may provide for a constable in an election


polling place if, in fact, they feel one is necessary, rather than leaving it the way it has been all these years where they shall provide for one when, I submit to the gentleman, the largest percentage of the polling places do not have a constable present on election day.

Senator DUFFIELD. In other words, Mr. President, the gentleman's amendments are looking to the practical side of the matter and will correct that situation?

Senator CORMAN. That is correct, Mr. President. As we increase the salaries for election boards, eventually the price will be high enough that people will be insisting that they be able to serve as a constable.

As I used the example, these amendments would save Allegheny County somewhere between $120,000 and $130,000 per year.

Senator DUFFIELD. Mr. President, I am going to have to agree with these amendments because every election I go to all our polling places and some of our townships have as many as eight precincts. The reason for my interrogation was that I did not know we had to have a constable at the polling place. I am sure we do not have that many constables where we could provide for a constable at each polling place. Offhand, I am thinking of a township in my District which has ten different precincts. They would have to go into the bars and other places and deputize people in order to have a constable at each one of those polling places. We might get some more political workers as was just mentioned by the gentleman from Lackawanna, Senator Mellow.

Therefore, Mr. President, from the interrogation I have had with the gentleman-I see the gentleman from Philadelphia, Senator Dougherty, is standing. Perhaps they need constables in Philadelphia-we do not have them in Fayette County; I do not ever recall seeing them there. If it is a mandatory requirement of the law, I believe I will vote in favor of these amendments.

Senator DOUGHERTY. Mr. President, I have to express deep apprehension that the gentleman from Fayette, Senator Duffield, would infer that the City of Phildelphia would need constables at our polling places.

In the eight years I have worked as an election day worker, I have never seen a constable at any of the polling places in my Senatorial District. Quite frankly, if I had known we were supposed to have them, it would have been a great patronage windfall because we could have appointed them all. As I understand it, if the constable is not there the judge of elections may appoint two people to serve as constables for the day and they are paid $45 per day under the bill we are debating here. That is great. That will revitalize the Republican Party in the city.

Mr. President, I would join in supporting the amendments of the gentleman from Centre, Senator Corman. What the gentleman wants to do is leave it up to the county board of elections as to whether or not they need constables. I feel that is the right way to go. To mandate constables for polling places where they are not needed is simply a waste of the taxpayers' money. However, if the Members do not agree, that is more jobs for me.

Senator ROMANELLI. Mr. President, it is rather ludicrous to say we can mandate them when we do not need them. When are

we ever going to need them? We do not appoint 1,500 policemen in the City of Pittsburgh saying, "Well, we should cut them in half because we have not had a problem in two weeks and next week we might have a riot." They are an election officer; they are necessary. They keep the order of those polling places and if these people have not been running their polling places properly, we have been running ours properly in the City of Pittsburgh. They are all manned with a constable. I think it should be mandatory and I feel they should be adequately paid.

Senator McKINNEY. Mr. President, I note that I am the prime sponsor of this bill. However, we do not have constables in Philadelphia. I do not know who asked me to sponsor this bill for them but maybe it would be a good idea if they are going to be paid $45. Two constables for each division in Philadelphia with 366 divisions would be a lot of clout. Maybe it is a good idea to bring them back to Philadelphia.

Senator BELL. Mr. President, maybe the gentleman from Allegheny, Senator Romanelli, can send some to the gentleman from Philadelphia, Senator McKinney.

Senator TILGHMAN. Mr. President, I do not have any words to say on this but I think you should know, historically, one of the most dangerous voting areas in the country was in East St. Louis along the river banks. In those days they needed con· stables and one of the most famous constables in one of those polling places was "Sonny" Liston.

Senator SMITH. Mr. President, I desire to interrogate the gentleman from Centre, Senator Corman.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the gentleman from Centre, Senator Corman, permit himself to be interrogated?

Senator CORMAN. I will, Mr. President. Senator SMITH. Mr. President, can the gentleman tell us

what the present law is dealing with constables? What is the law today?

Senator CORMAN. Mr. President, the present law, today, requires that a constable be present in each polling place.

Senator SMITH. Does that include cities of the first class, Mr. President?

Senator CORMAN. Mr. President, I believe that to be true. Senator SMITH. Mr. President, do I understand then that the

Senator is saying that it is a "may" bill, that the county commissioners may?

Senator CORMAN. Mr. President, that is what my amend· ments would provide. They do not totally eliminate constables. They may be provided in those precincts where the county board of elections feels there is a necessity to have a constable.

Senator SMITH. Mr. President, would the gentleman from Centre, Senator Corman, withdraw his amendments and let the bill go over so we can find the citation and find out what the present law really is?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Corman, a request has been made of you by Senator Smith to withdraw your amend· ments and have the bill go over.

Senator CORMAN. Certainly, Mr. President, I will agree to that.

Senator SMITH. l\'.lr. President, the only reason is that we want to cite the law and establish what the law really is today.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do I understand, Senator Cor-


man, that you have withdrawn your amendments?

AMENDMENTS WITHDRAWN

Senator CORMAN. Mr. President, if the bill will be put over

to examine the amendments, I will withdraw them, yes. I will be happy to withdraw the amendments.

Senator STAUFFER. Mr. President, I believe I can answer the question of the gentleman from Philadelphia, Senator Smith, if you wish to move the bill today. The present law provides where constables are available, there is one on duty on election day.

Senator SMITH. Mr. President, I ask that the bill go over. The gentleman is speaking about 1,786 divisions in the City of Philadelphia. It really becomes a cost factor and we would like to look into the actual law and what the cost would be in Philadelphia.

REQUEST FOR BILL OVER IN ORDER

Senator MESSINGER. Mr. President, I request that Senate Bill No. 1311 go over in its order.

The PRE..'3IDING OFFICER. The Chair hears no objection, the bill will go over in its order.

BILLS OVER IN ORDER

SB 329, HB 338, SB 374, HB 418, SB 578, HB 817, SB 916, 996, 1008 and 1140 Without objection, the bills were passed over in their order at the request of Senator MESSINGER.

BILL ON SECOND CONSIDERATION

HB 1190 (Pr. No. 3014) Considered the second time and agreed to,

Ordered, To be transcribed for a third consideration.

BILLS OVER IN ORDER

SB 1199, HB 1238, SB 1255, 1257, 1270, 1273, 1308 and 1326 Without objection, the bills were passed over in their order at the request of Senator MESSINGER.


SB 1340 (Pr. No. 1783) - Considered the second time and agreed to,


BILL OVER IN ORDER TEMPORARILY

BILL RECOMMITTED SB 1341 - Without objection, the bill was passed over in its

SB 1312 (Pr. No. 1638) _Upon motion of Senator MES- order temporarily at the request of Senator MESSINGER.

SINGER, and agreed to, the bill was recommitted to the Com· BILLS OVER IN ORDER mittee on Labor and Industry.

PERMISSION GRANTED COMMITTEE TO MEET DURING SESSION

SB 1364, 1368, 1369, 1378 and HB 1391 - Without objection, the bills were passed over in their order at the request of Senator MESSINGER.

BILLS ON SECOND CONSIDERATION

Senator McKINNEY. Mr. President, I announce a meeting of HB 1507 (Pr. No. 1807) and HB 1566 (Pr. No. 1884) -

the Committee on State Government, to be held immediately, Considered the second time and agreed to, during which time the Senate can proceed with its business. Ordered, To be transcribed for a third consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There being no objection, the

Committee on State Government will proceed with its meeting.

CONSIDERATION OF CALENDAR RESUMED

SECOND CONSIDERATION CALENDAR

PREFERRED APPROPRIATION BILL ON SECOND CONSIDERATION

HB 2246 (Pr. No. 3068) Considered the second time and

agreed to,

BILL OVER IN ORDER

HB 1579 - Without objection, the bill was passed over in its order at the request of Senator MESSINGER.


HB 1649 (Pr. No. 3035) - Considered the second time and agreed to,


BILLS OVER IN OffiDER


BILLS OVER IN ORDER

HB 1731 and 1802 - Without objection, the bills were . passed over in their order at the request of Senator MESSING

ER. SB 86, 87, HB 147 and 217 - Without objection, the bills

were passed over in their order at the request of Senator MES

SINGER.


S~ 283 (Pr. No. 285) - Considered the second time and agreed to,



HB 1805 (Pr. No. 2436) - Considered the second time and agreed to,


BILLS OVER IN ORDER

HB 1851, 1856, 1858 and 1939 - Without objection, the


bills were passed over in their order at the request of Senator MESSINGER.

Will the Senate agree to the amendment? It was agreed to.

BILL ON SECOND CONSIDERATION On the question, HB 2030 {Pr. No. 2692) _Considered the second time and Will the Senate agree to the bill on second consideration, as

amended? agreed to, Ordered, To be transcribed for a third consideration.

BILL ON SECOND CONSIDERATION AMENDED

HB 2043 (Pr. No. 3010)-The bill was considered.

On the question, Will the Senate agree to the bill on second consideration? Senator MESSINGER, on behalf of Senator SMITH, offered

the following amendments and, if agreed to, asked that the bill be considered for the second time:

Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 2), page 9, line 3, by striking out "985,000" and inserting: 1,040,000

Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 2), page 40, by inserting between lines 21 and 22:

(5) "Law Enforcement Assistance -State Discretionary - Judicial Training Center of Pennsylvania" - For provision of in-state training of members of the judiciary and other court related per-sonnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [122,000]

On the question, Will the Senate agree to the amendments? They were agreed to.

On the question,

136,000

Will the Senate agree to the bill on second consideration, as amended?

It was agreed to. Ordered, To be transcribed for a third consideration.

BILLS ON SECOND CONSIDERATION

HB 2046 (Pr. No. 2571) and HB 2192 (Pr. No. 2921) Considered the second time and agreed to,


SB 1341 CALLED UP

SB 1341 (Pr. No. 1680)- Without objection, the bill, which previously went over in its order temporarily, was called up, from page 10 of the Second Consideration Calendar by Senator MESSINGER.

BILL ON SECOND CONSIDERATION AMENDED

SB 1341(Pr.No.1680)-The bill was considered.

On the question, Will the Senate agree to the bill on second consideration? Senator MESSINGER, on behalf of Senator ORLANDO, of-

fered the following amendment and, if agreed to, asked that the bill be considered for the second time:

Amend Sec. 1 (Sec. 1532), page 2, line 17, by inserting after "who": pleads no defense or pleads guilty or

On the question,

It was agreed to. Ordered, To be transcribed for a third consideration.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE SUBMITTED AND LAID ON THE TABLE

Senator ROSS submitted the Report of Committee of Conference on HB 72, which was laid on the table.

REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES Senator REIBMAN, from the Committee on Education, re

ported, as committed, HB 2103. Senator O'PAKE, from the Committee on Judiciary, report

ed, as amended, SB 1148 and HB 1205. Senator LEWIS, from the Committee on Local Government,

rereported, as committed, SB 330; reported, as committed, SB 261, 1228, HB 1069, 1070 and 1071.

CONGRATULATORY RESOLUTIONS The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the follow

ing resolutions, which were read, considered and adopted: Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Mr. and Mrs.

Arthur H. Greenawalt, Mr. and Mrs. David K. Bassler and to Mr. and Mrs. John Geiselman by Senator Hess.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to James Tucci by Senators Zemprelli and Schaefer.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Mr. and Mrs. Harold Hill, Sister Rita McDonough and to the Franklin Smedley School by Senator Dougherty.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Robert F. Jones and to Retreat State Hospital by Senator Murray.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to the Pennsylvania Court of the Catholic Daughters of America by Senator Orlando.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Mr. and Mrs. Aloysius J. Kelly and to Sister Mary Liquori Kelly by Senator Sweeney.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to the North Hills Varsity Basketball Team by Senator Early.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Mr. and Mrs. Irvin L. Luca and to Mr. and Mrs. William Rathburn by Senator Hager.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Mr. and Mrs. Floyd Heberling and to Mr. and Mrs. Frank Guyer, Sr. by Sena· tor Corman.

Congratulations of the Senate were extended to Arthur B. Sinkler by Senator Snyder.


PETITIONS AND REMONSTRANCES

Senator DUFFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to state today I have introduced a bill which would decrease the per·

sonal income tax from 2.2 per cent to 2.0 per cent. I do this on

this basis: In the hurriedly scanned-over budget we have, I find that the cost of government for General Fund purposes is escalating at its usual rate. There is approximately a $400 million increase in the budget over last year.

I voted for the increase in the income tax last year because we were in a bind and I felt it was necessary to meet the obligations of our State colleges and universities. However, when I picked up the budget this year and I saw there was $400 mil

lion in additional expenditure over last year, I feel we should give the budget more careful consideraton than it was given by the House.

Mr. President, I think the attitude is that this is an election year, let us get rid of this nemesis as long as it does not provide for any more taxes. We were given the Senate version of the budget today and the schedule is to vote on it tomorrow. From

here it will go into a Conference Committee where we have no input outside of what we might suggest to the committee.

I believe this budget needs to be looked over more carefully. If we have $400 million or a few million short of that by which we can increase spending this year, I feel it behooves us to see if there is anything in that budget which we might to able to eliminate and return to the taxpayers.

I am told that one tenth of one per cent of the budget amounts to some $67 million. If the tax bill which I have proposed is enacted, it means a saving to the taxpayers of $134 million. It still permits us to increase the State budget by $270 million which is more than a quarter of a billion dollars. I believe that can be done if we are not in a rush to push the budget through here and into a committee.

The problem I have, as I stated before, with a joint committee is: Once the committee presents its report to the floor, we who look for some savings in the budget by way of amendment, some of us who might want to add things to the budget by way of an increase, have no way to present those amendments for the determination of the whole Senate.

I do not like the budget being solved this way. In other words, the word is out. This is an election year. Let us get the damn thing before a joint committee; let them work it out and give it back to us. I do not buy that. I will not vote for it because I have not had time-and I do not believe any Senator who is not on the Committee on Appropriations has had time-to digest the present budget which has been submitted to us. There are undoubtedly changes that many Senators might want in that bud

get and I believe it should be thrashed out on the Senate floor. It is also quite different from the budget which was sent over

by the Governor. Suppose we pass this budget and suppose we pass the budget presented to us by the joint committee? Is the Governor going to blueline the $50 million in here for teachers which represents one tenth of one per cent of the budget? I have heard there is going to be a deficit this year. I have heard figures anywhere from $60 million to $100 million. How are we going to take care of that deficit and pass this budget? Therefore, Mr. President, I do not believe in speeding this thing

through just to get it to the Conference Committee. Secondly, if we have $400 million to increase the budget this

year over the spending last year, part of that should be used to benefit the taxpayers by way of a reduction in the personal income tax rather than give it to some program just because we

have the money and we do not have to enact a new tax in order to pass an inflated budget.

REPORT FROM COMMITTEE

Senator McKINNEY, by unanimous consent, from the Committee on State Government, reported, as committed, HB 1854.

POINT OF INFORMATION

Senator ROMANELLI. Mr. President, I rise to a point of information.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The gentleman from Allegheny, Senator Romanelli, will state it.

Senator ROMANELII. Mr. President, I was off the floor as a member of the Committee on State Government. I would like to know in what position the Senate as a whole now stands?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have concluded today's Calendar, Senator. We are on Unfinished Business.

We have completed Reports of Committees, Bills in Place and Resolutions.

Senator ROMANELLI. Mr. President, will there be any further roll calls?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. As far as I know, Senator, there will be no further roll calls.

PARLIAMENT ARY INQUIRY

Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, I rise to a question of parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The gentleman from Lacka

wanna, Senator Mellow, will state it. Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, could the Chair inform the

Members of the Senate of the Rules regarding an adjournment of a meeting versus a meeting that has not been adjourned, a meeting that is scheduled subject to the call of the chairman?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Chair understand that the question being posed is one of a committee meeting which has been recessed to an indefinite time?

Senator MELLOW. Yes, Mr. President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without a statement as to ape

riod of time? Senator MELLOW. Yes, Mr. President. I would like to know

how long a meeting can be recessed before it is adjourned? The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the belief of the Chair-and

this would be subject to a possible different conclusion by the Chair on closer examination of the Rules since we are guided by Mason's Rules in the Senate-that there is no specific time to which a meeting must be recessed. To state it in another way: It is an unlimited period of time and it is believed that the best practice is for an undetermined future time to which a meeting


has been recessed shall be at the request or the direction of the chairman of that committee.

Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, could we then have a situation where a meeting, from any one of our standing committees, could be called on the first legislative day of any particular calendar year, meet the requirements for a quorum, recess and then never have to meet the requirements for a quorum again for the next two years during that legislative Session?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If I understand your question properly, Senator, you are suggesting that the following situation would arise: A committee meeting was called at which there was a quorum. That committee meeting then was recessed to an indefinite time and there being no further call of the recessed meeting, no additional meeting would be held during that Session of the Legislature? Is that what I understand?

Senator MELLOW. No, Mr. President, that is not what I am suggesting at all.

The PRESIDING OFF1CER. Then, Senator, would you repeat your inquiry?

Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, I am suggesting that any one of our standing committees in the Senate could call a meeting on the first legislative day of this or any particular Session, meet the requirements as far as a quorum and as far as the proper advertising is concerned, recess that meeting and, during the course of the two-year legislative Session, that chairman may call numerous meetings. He may call them any time he pleases and yet never have to comply with the Sunshine provision and never have to comply with a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands the gen-tleman's question.

We will be at ease for a moment. (The Senate was at ease.) The PRESIDING OFF1CER. The Chair is going to render an

opinion which is .. the present Presiding Officer's opinion on the question, subject, of course, to research and, perhaps, decisions by greater minds than his.

The question you have posed has two facets: One is compliance with the Sunshine Law and the other is compliance with the Rules of the Senate.

It is conceivable, therefore, that a meeting may be recessed without any definite time to which the recessed meeting is called, provided a means to determine that time has been agreed upon at the time the recess was called.

With respect to compliance with the Sunshine Law, it is the judgment of the Chair that the Sunshine Law must be complied· with in the first instance for the original meeting which had been recessed. Therefore, the only business which would be in proper order during the recessed meeting would be those bills or that business which was properly before the original meeting or otherwise having been determined to be in compliance with the Sunshine Law as if it were an original proceeding.

Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, for a point of clarification, would the committee meeting then have to comply with the Sunshine Law if it were recessed or if it were adjourned?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. To restate, in part, what I have said: It would be the opinion of the Chair that if a recessed meeting were to consider bills that had not been advertised

originally and made known in accordance with the notice requirements of the original meeting, those bills being considered would not be in order at any recessed meeting. That is to say that a recessed meeting can take on no greater standing than the original meeting.

Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, are you telling us then that the only bills which could be discussed at a recessed meeting would be those bills which originally complied with the Sunshine Statute in the first meeting, the last adjourned meeting? Is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFF1CER. Unless, Senator, the bills which were not advertised properly for the original meeting were thereafter properly advertised to be considered at the recessed meeting.

Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, can.you tell us then if any quorum would be necessary to conduct business at that recessed meeting?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. As to a quorum being present, Senator?

Senator MELLOW. Yes, Mr. President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Again, Senator, the quorum as·

pect would be related to everything other than the Sunshine Law requirements and it is conceivable in the judgment of the Chair that the meeting would be a legal meeting if a quorum was present at the original meeting.

Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, is it possible then that at a recessed meeting action may be taken on any legislation as long as only one Senator was there to move that a bill be reported from committee?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If that meeting were properly contrived in the first instance. In other words, if it were originally set up as a proper meeting in the first instance and that bill was properly advertised and properly before the committee, it is conceivable that a recessed meeting could consider the bill even though a quorum may not have been present at the recessed meeting.

Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, as long as that bill had been previously advertised?

The PRESIDING OFF1CER. Yes, Senator. Senator MELLOW. For my own clarification, Mr. President,

what the Chair is telling us is that a committee meeting which has been in recess and the meeting is scheduled to reconvene, the bills which had been advertised originally for that meeting are the only bills that may be considered in that reconvened meeting, is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, Senator. The Chair refers the gentleman to Rule XVI, Section 16, page 16, entitled, "Quorum of Committee," which reads as follows:

"A committee or subcommittee is actually assembled only when a quorum constituting a majority of the members of that committee is present in person. A majority of the quorum of the whole committee shall be required to report any measure to the floor for action by the whole Senate. Any measure reported in violation of this Rule shall be immediately recommitted by the President when it is called to his attention by a Senator."

Senator MELLOW. Mr. President, would that have to do with a meeting whether it was an adjourned meeting or a re-


cessed meeting? Would there be any delineation? The PRESIDING OFF1CER. The Rule would apply to any

meeting, Senator. Senator MELLOW. Therefore, Mr. President, a quorum must

be present in order to report any bill from committee, is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, Senator. Senator NOLAN. Mr. President, I must disagree with the

Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have that privilege, Sena

tor. Senator NOLAN. Mr. President, when a meeting is called and

a quorum is present and the meeting is then recessed, later notice is given to the committee that the recessed meeting will reconvene to consider those bills which were not considered in the original announcement and the committee fails to show up, the quorum present at the first meeting is sufficient for the recessed meeting because it is done here everyday.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. You may be right, Senator, as to the fact that a meeting has been properly conch1ded, but the Rule of the Senate in the second sentence states: "A majority of the quorum of the whole committee shall be required to report any measure to the floor for action by the whole Senate."

Senator NOLAN. Mr. President, that does not cover the presence of a Senator at that meeting. If the chairman of that committee is armed with eight or ten proxies, he may vote those proxies and have the majority of that committee report that bill to the floor. Their bodily presence is not necessary.

The PRESIDING OF.TICER. Perhaps, Senator, we are talking about two different things.

Senator NOLAN. All right, Mr. President, let us go over it

chairman, under the Rules, to make sure that a majority or quorum is present in body because they were already present at the meeting which originally addressed itself to the twenty-five bills. As long as the committee addresses itself only to the twenty-two remaining bills, the committee is still covered under the Sunshine Act and I may vote those proxies. It happens every day in this Chamber.

Am I right or am I wrong, Mr. President? The PRESIDING OF'F1CER. It is the belief of this Chair, sub

ject to, as I have stated before, opinions by those who have had greater experience and probably a greater ability to address themselves to the problem, that if, in the first instance, any such situation would develop with respect to the operation of the Senate, a quorum would require at a meeting, whether it be recessed or whether it be an original meeting, a majority of the members of that committee present in order to constitute a meeting, then only can a meeting be properly constituted.

It would therefore follow that any reasonable interpretation of Rule XVI, "Quorum of Committee," that there would be a consistency between what constitutes a lawfully constituted meeting under the Rules of Committee as compared to the Rules of the Senate. Therefore, a recessed meeting would, of necessity, require that there be a quorum present constituting a majority of the members of that committee in person.

Senator NOLAN. Mr. President, I will tell you that you will have to be a magician to pull that one off the way meetings are being held around here.

Let me ask the Chair another question: If a committee meeting is opened and there is a quorum present and immediately upon the opening of that meeting, four of the quorum stands up and announces that they must attend another meeting and will

once again. leave their proxies, no longer does the committee have a quo-The PRESIDING OFFICER. First, we are talking about what rum under the Chair's ruling. The meeting cannot continue if

constitutes a quorum to have a proper meeting assembled. That one person on that committee, under the Chair's ruling, chalrequires, according to the Rule, a membership of a majority of lenges a quorum being present. the members of that committee in person. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not the ruling of the

Senator NOLAN. Agreed, Mr. President. Chair. The Chair would also embellish its ruling by saying that The PRESIDING OFFICER. Now then, "A majority of the once a meeting has been opened by a properly convened major

quorum of the whole committee shall be required to report any ity of the members of that committee in person, that meeting measure to the floor for action by the whole Senate." becomes a lawful meeting. Thereafter, the meeting and its offi-

At that point, Senator, once a quorum has been established, cial business may be conducted in terms of the second sentence if you are referring to proxies, proxies then, of course, are con- of the Rule wherein, "A majority of the quorum of the whole sidered as constituting that majority. That was not the way the committee shall be required to report any measure to the floor question was posed to me with respect to the use of proxies. for action by the wh~le Senate." In that event, it would also al-

Senator NOLAN. Let me put this question to you, Mr. Presi· low for necessary proxies, the proxy also meaning that the dent: As Chairman of the Committee on Aging and Youth, I ad- party would not have to be present. vertise, under the Sunshine Act, a meeting for the considera- However, once that meeting is either recessed or no longer in tion of twenty-five bills before the committee-I am the chair- existence as a meeting at that time, the Rules as to a legal meetman of that committee-we go into the bills to which we want ing must first be adhered to. to address ourselves and we consider as many as three bills; we Senator BELL. Mr. President, did I understand the Chair to are then notified that we are needed on the floor of this Senate. say that an individual member of the committee could not sugAt that time I recess that meeting. There are twenty-two bills gest the absence of a quorum such as I could do right now here to which we have not addressed ourselves. I have not set a time in the Senate? for the recessed meeting to be reconvened; I had a quorum at the original meeting and if I call that meeting a day later and only three Senators show up and I have the proxies of the remainder of the committee, it is not the responsibility of the

I, as a Senator, am attending a committee meeting, of which I am a member. I raise the question of a quorum by suggesting to the chairman the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A request to determine whether


a quorum exists or not is always in order, Senator. Senator BELL. In other words, Mr. President, if I am a mem

ber of a committee and say to the chairman, "I suggest, Mr. Chairman, the absence of a quorum." At that time, a quorum must be present, am I correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum must have been present in order to start the meeting. A quorum does not necessarily have to be physically maintained in order to continue a meeting.

Senator BELL. Right, Mr. President, but if an individual member raises the question of a quorum at any time there has to be a quorum present to continue, am I correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. I do not believe that is true. Senator BELL. Mr. President, for instance, I could suggest

the absence of a quorum right now. The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will be at ease for just a mo

ment. The Parliamentarian and the Chair have a difference in opinion. We will come up with an opinion for you.

quorum of the members. That can be presumed, nevertheless, and failing the call by a

member of that committee to challenge the quorum, one would be properly proceeding in voting proxies as long as a majority of the minimum number necessary for a quorum were there.

Mr. President, I think there has been much ado about nothing.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If I understand the gentleman's remarks, except for the use of different words, he has restated what I have said.

BILLS ON FffiST CONSIDERATION Senator MESSINGER. Mr. President, I move that the Senate

do now proceed to consideration of all bills reported from committees for the first time at today's Session.

The motion was agreed to. The bills were as follows:

(The Senate was at ease.) SB 261, 1148, 1228, HB 1069, 1070, 1071, 1205, 1854 and The PRESIDING OFFICER. I have been advised that a call 2103.

for a quorum at any time during the proceeding of a meeting may be made and if there is the absence of a physical quorum on the floor of the Senate-and I would assume it would prevail with respect to committee meetings also, there being a consistency between the operations or hopefully, there would be a consistency-then, in that event, the legal business of that committee could not continue.

However, in order to implement the Rule, a request for the call of the quorum must be made.

Senator LEWIS. Mr. President, I am afraid that a very simple issue has been complicated beyond its proper perspective. I believe that the entire matter of the discussion of constituting a quorum is adequately, simplistically and concisely set forth in Mason's Manual, Section 504, beginning on page 342. It requires, as do the Rules of the Senate, that a majority of the members of the committee be physically present before the business can lawfully progress.

Thereafter, we note in the Senate Rules that, before any item can be affirmatively acted upon, at least a majority of the quorum vote affirmatively to move the matter out. Now that may be either physically by their presence or by proxy.

However, the more important question being raised here is how long and under what circumstances the committee can continue to deliberate. I think that Mason's makes that very simply clear. You can continue as long as the business is before the committee, because the presumption is that once a quorum is constituted it will continue. Nevertheless, it is a rebuttable presumption and can be challenged by question of any member and upon that challenge, if there fails to be a majority of the members of that group physically present, regardless of the proxy circumstance, then there is no quorum and the committee business cannot continue.

Furthermore, as to recessed meetings, it is my reading again of the language, which I think is quite clear, that upon the recess of a meeting the presumption of a quorum previously made falls and the reconvening of a recessed meeting requires ab initio, as did the original meeting, the physical presence of a

And said bills having been considered for the first time, Ordered, To be laid aside for second consideration.

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE SECRETARY The following announcements were read by the Secretary of

the Senate:

SENATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1978

9:30 A.M. RULES AND EXECUTIVE to NOMINATIONS (Hearing

12:00 Noon on Senate Bill No. 1338) 11:00 A.M. JUDICIARY (to consider

Senate Bill No.1425) 11:30 A.M. EDUCATION (to consider

Senate Bills No. 1217, 1280, 1416 and House Bill No. 2103)

12:00 Noon RULES AND EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS (to consider Senate Resolutions No. 75,81,82,83,84,85, 86, 94, 96; Senate Bill No. 1338; House Bill No. 1332 and certain Executive Nominations)

Senate Majority Caucus Room

Senate Minority Caucus Room

Room 188

Rules Committee Conference Room

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 1978

9:30 A.M. Subcommittee on STATE GOVERNMENT (Public Hearing for receiving testimony regarding development of Ethics Legislation)

Senate Majority Caucus Room


10:00 AM. CONSUMER AFFAIRS (to consider House Bill No. 191)

Senate Minority Caucus Room

THURSDAY,APRIL20, 1978

9:30 AM. PUBLIC HEALTH AND Senate Majority WELFARE (Public Hear- Caucus Room ing on Senate Bills No. 1229 and 1230)

10:30 A.M. URBAN AFFAIRS AND County to

4:30P.M. HOUSlNG (Public Hearing to determine the Commonwealth's role in stimulation of urban development and rehabilitation and to review the Housing & Redevelopment Assistance Program)

FRIDAY, APRIL 21, 1978

10:30 AM. URBAN AFFAIRS AND to


Commissioner's Hearing Room, Allentown, PA.

City Council Chambers,

Wilkes-Barre, PA.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 1978

9:(')0 A.M. FlNANCE (Public Hearing Franklin to consider Senate Bills No. 889, ?90, 891 and 1271)

Institute Research Lab., Rm.104-105

Philadelphia, PA

THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 1978

10:30 A.M. URBAN AFFAIRS AND to


FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 1978

10:30 AM. URBAN AFF AffiS AND to

4:30P.M. HOUSING (Public Hearing to determine the Commonwealth's role in stimulation of urban development and rehabilitation and to review the Housing & Redevelopment Assistance Program)

City C'..ouncil Chambers, Erie, PA.

Gold Room, Allegheny

County Court House,

Pittsburgh, PA.

WEDNESDAY,MAY3, 1978

9:00 A.M. FlNANCE (Public Hearing Gold Room, Allegheny

County Court House,

Pittsburgh, PA.

on Senate Bills No. 889, 890, 891 and 1271)

ADJOURNMENT Senator MESSINGER. Mr. President, I move that the Senate

do now adjourn until Tuesday, April 18, 1978, at 1:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.

The motion was agreed to. The Senate adjourned at 7:45 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.

Documents

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA MONDAY, APRIL 17, …Apr 17, 1978 · Senator EARLY presented to the Chair SB 1436, entitled: An Act authorizing and directing the Department of General