Laserfiche WebLink
<br />R-I0-35 <br /> <br />A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE WILLIAM B. SPONG, JR. CHARTER <br />REVIEW COMMISSION AND APPOINTING MEMBERS THERETO. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Portsmouth City Charter (the "Charter") has not had a comprehensive <br />review or revision since its most recent adoption by the General Assembly of Virginia in 1970; <br />and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Charter contains some provisions which are outdated, incomplete, <br />unnecessary, or so poorly worded that it is difficult to discern their intent and meaning; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, other important provisions are omitted from the Charter; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Charter also sets forth several procedures or requirements that deserve <br />reconsideration and possible revision, because of changed circumstances and reasons of sound <br />public policy; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, under Virginia's legal system, a charter functions almost as a local <br />constitution, setting forth general guidelines defining the proper role and functioning of local <br />government; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, City Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens to <br />have a comprehensive review and revision of the Charter; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, in considering any possible revisions to the Charter, Portsmouth should be <br />guided by principles of statesmanship and good government, and the most distinguished <br />Portsmouth statesman of the modern era was the Honorable William B. Spong, Jr., United States <br />Senator, Dean of the Marshall-Wythe School of Law at the College of William and Mary, and <br />President of Old Dominion University, <br /> <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Portsmouth, <br />Virginia: <br /> <br />1. That the William B. Spong, Jr. Charter Review Commission is hereby established, <br />with a mission and membership as set forth in this resolution. <br /> <br />2. The Commission shall review the Charter and recommend changes that are believed to <br />be in the public interest. By way of example, and without limitation, recommendations could <br />include: <br /> <br />A. Repealing non-controversial provisions that are outdated, duplicate existing law, are <br />inconsistent with other laws or practices, or serve no clear purpose. <br /> <br />B. Revision of non-controversial provisions that are poorly worded, ambiguous and/or <br />confusing. <br />