Thaddeus Buczko, state auditor since 1964, however, congratulated the bill's authors on the inclusion of county contracts. "I am particularly supportive of the fact that the commission will be empowered to look at all contracts, not only at the level of state government but also at county government." he said.

In testifying for the adoption of the bill in its present form, Johnston urged the retention of the subpoena provision. He argued the commission would be nothing more than a "joke" without the authority to summon those individuals who have information pertinent to the investigation. The subpoena power would also invest the commission with the rights to obtain relevant information from other branches in the government currently pursuing their own investigations.

Bellotti, who would either serve on the commission or designate a subordinate to the position, told the committee he would not comply with the stipulation if the information requested applied to pending prosecutions. He seemed to be questioning the principle of accountability between branches of the government when he said, "Legislative demands for information about pending cases jeopardize successful prosecution and interfere with an executive function in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers."

The question of immunity encountered opposition even among committee members. Some members said that transactual immunity is perhaps too broad a power with which to equip the commission. The attorney general and various committee members recommended a policy of "use immunity"--immunity with regard to specifics--as a substitute for the across-the-board "transactual immunity." Bellotti encouraged the committee to specifically delinate within the bill the circumstances under which the power of immunity would be used. Without such an amendment, he said, "the special commission poses a direct threat to effective prosecutorial efforts."

The bill's provision allowing the commission to make direct presentments to grand juries brought additional references to the doctrine of separation of powers from Bellotti. He insisted the power of prosecution remain with the executive branch. The majority of the committee members, all lawyers, seemed to agree. State Rep. Roland Orlandi, one of the committee members, said the particular provision is "out of the question," as it is unconstitutional. Card attributed the misunderstanding of the provision to a mistake in the bill's language. He spoke of the drafters' intention, saying "The commission as it is outlined here is not intended to be a prosecutor." He added he hoped the committee would reword the bill, removing the commission's power to direct presentment.

A lunch recess and an afternoon session at which any citizen could testify followed the morning's official testimony. Gone were the cameras, gone were the staff aides, gone were even a majority of the committee members. The members who did return bore their task of listening to the public with an uninterested air. The citizens' words--some yelling about the coming of anarchy, others of the negligence of the representatives, one suggesting the requirements for membership on the commission exclude lobbyists--fell on seemingly deaf ears.

All in all, the hearing on Thursday epitomized the problems not only of state government but of all levels of government. The citizens' apathy, which stems from government corruption, is compounded by the attitude of their representatives involved in the in-house clean up. The citizens' increasing frustration was best expressed by a man, who in his words, "pulled myself out of the gutter" and in his testimony threatened the committee with the coming of anarchy.

Johnston testified that the allegations of political payoffs and corruption have damaged the people's confidence in their government. "I believe," he said, "that an independent investigation of these charges is the only possible way we can restore that confidence." Judging from the Judiciary committee's performance, the effort is none too soon in coming.