|
October 27~ i970
<br />
<br /> "A RESOLUTION URGING THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH TO VOTE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL
<br /> A~ND~NTS IN THE GENERAL ELBCTION ON NOVEMBER S, 1970.
<br /> WHEREAS, certain Constitutional Amendments have been placed on the ballot for the ~n~Rl election of
<br />November 2, 1970; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, such Constitutional Amendments are proposed in order to broadly revise the Constitution of
<br />the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
<br />
<br /> NHNREAS, it is felt that such Constitutional Amendments are necessary and desirable to reform and modern-
<br /> ize the government of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
<br />
<br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Portsmouth that it hereby strongly urges
<br /> that the voters of the City of Portsmouth vote "YES" for the Constitutional Amendments on November S, 1970."
<br />
<br /> Substitute motion of Mr. Johnson to approve the following resolution was adopted and by the following
<br /> vote:
<br />
<br /> "A RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO THE REFERENDUM ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDFMNTS AT THE GENERAL
<br /> ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 3, 1970
<br />
<br /> ~fl4EREAS, certain Constitutional Amendments have been placed on the ballot for the general election of
<br />November 3, 1970; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, such Constitutional Amendments are proposed in order to broadly revise the Constitution of
<br />the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, it is felt that the main body of such Constitutional Amendments are necessary and desirable
<br />to reform and modernize the government of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
<br />
<br /> WHEREAS, it is felt that Proposals No. $ and 4 are desirable because they will broaden the financial
<br />powers of the state and thereby enable the state to assist the cities in resolving their financial problems.
<br />
<br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BEFIT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia, that it hereby urges
<br />that the voters of the City of Portsmouth vote '~fes" for ~posal No. 1, pertaining to the main body of the
<br />Constitutional Amendments.
<br />
<br /> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council recommends that the voters vote "Yes" for Proposals No. 3 and 4,
<br />pertaining to the financial powers of the state.
<br />
<br /> BE IT FURTHER RESOLVRD that the Council leaves to the conscience of the voters h~ to vote with respect
<br />to Proposal No. 2, pertaining to lotteries."
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Johnson, King, Smith (R), Turner, Barnes
<br /> Nays: Holley
<br />
<br /> 70-4?7 - The following letter from the Churchland Interfaith Council, Rev. Martin T. Young, Chairman,
<br />was read:
<br />
<br /> "The Churchland Interfaith Council would like to thank you for hearing and considering at your September
<br />8th meeting our request for the covering of an unusnally large drainage ditch in the Twin Pines -- Merrifields
<br />area. It was obvious at the meeting that the city had done its homework -- that you were prepared with pic-
<br />tures and statistics to discuss our request. We are pleased with your decision to continue the subject of open[
<br />drainage ditches on the Council's agenda, and. are hopeful that you will find, in the near future, the finan'cial[
<br />means for resolving the problem.
<br />
<br /> Thanks again for hearing us. We will be ~.atching with interest the various antions taken at your meeting$~"
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. ;King, received as information.
<br />
<br />7~-478 - The rollicking letter from ~{rs. Helen Hampton Jones was read:
<br />
<br /> "I am at a loss to explain the inclasion of an item in your m~nutes of the September 29 Council meeting
<br />which did not come before the Council in that meeting.
<br />
<br /> The minutes read at your meeting of October 15 indicated that a letter from Samuel Hucks expressing a
<br />desire robe heard regarding the police department was received and read at your meeting of September 29,
<br />minutes further indicated that Mr. Hucks was not present when called upon to speak.
<br />
<br />The
<br />
<br /> Having been present at that meeting (of September 29), and also having checked with several others who
<br />were present~ news media included, and .also having checked your ~printed agenda for that night, I am unable
<br />to verify the authenticity of this item as a valid part of thepublic record of that meeting.
<br />
<br /> I am aware, of course, that Mr. Hucks did indeed submit such a letter. H~ever, I must object ~o its
<br />inclusion as a p~rt of file record of thatmeeting because it was not presented during that public meeting.
<br />
<br />It:~is my request, therefore, that this item be ~tricken .from the minutes, of that meeting."
<br />
<br /> The Mayor explained that the letter from Samuel Hucks which was delivered to the City Clerk between
<br />four and five o'clock on September 29, 1970, was read at the Council meeting on that evening. It did not
<br />appear on the written agenda, as it was delivered after the agenda had been completed. Mr. Hucks did not
<br />appear to speak. ;-
<br />
<br />The Mayor asked if any action should be taken, or if there were any comments.
<br />
<br />The concensus was that no action was necessary,
<br />
<br />
<br />
|