Minutes 11/11/1969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

At a regular meeting of the City Council, held on November 11, 1969~ there were present: Jack P. Barnes, George D. Eastes, James W. Holley, gurrell R. Johnson, Isaac W. King, R. ~rvine Smith, Raymond Turner, A. P. Johnson, Jr., City Manager and M. A. Kerb, Jr., City Attorney. T~he meeting was opened with prayer by Mr. King. ?4inutes of regular meeting held on Oc~cob~r 28, 1969,~were read and a~rpved~' 69-348 - The following report from the Grafter Study Commission was presented by A. C. Bartlett, Chairman: "You appointed the Portsmouth Charter Commission a little over a year ago to study the Portsmouth City Charter and to make such recommendations to the Council in connection therewith as the Commission should deem advisable. The Commission first spent about three months studying the present Charter of the City. The re- sult of this study was to conclude that there was much in the present Charter that was unnecessary, because it was repetitious of what was in the general law. ~ne Commission also cDnctuded that the present Charter in many respects was not consistent and logical in the arrangement of its various sections. As a resul~ of its study of the present ~arter, the Commission concluded that it should draft a new basic document for the government ~f the City of Portsmouth. With this in mind, the Commission held a public hearing on January 21, 1969, to receive any suggestions that the public might have with regard to matters that should be incorporated in the new Cio/ ~1arter. Regrettably, only two persons appeared to speak before the Commission 0nly two major proposals were put forward by these speakers: One suggested that the Mayor should be elected Separately from the other council~e~ a~d d~rectly by the people. ~ne other speaker proposed that %he City return to the ward system of electing its councilmen. The Commission considered bo~ of these~pposals, and determ, ined that the present system of letting the councilmen choose their own leader was the best way to select a Mayor and that the election of councilmen from wards was not in the best interest of the over-all development of the City since councilmen elected from wards take a more provincial point of view of all matters before them. Another important consideration in connection with this last proposal was the question of the proper application of the one-man, one-vote rule in connection with award system mud all of the problems that would be incident to meeting the constitutional requirement established by the Supreme Court. Therefore, with no suggestions from the citizens of Portsmouth that the Commission found acceptable, it pro~eeded to draft a new Charter entirely on its own. The Commission determined that first there should be a logical: arrangement to all of the provisiDns of the new Charter; that like matters should be grouped in articles dealing with one broad subject if possible. The Commission then labored long and hard over the next eight montlis to draft what it hoped would be the best and most modern Charter in Virginia. Every effort was made to make this the very best Charter in Virginia. Every effort was made to make this the very best Charter that the City of ~ortsmouth has everf~hhd¢.and a document tha? will last at least as long as the present Charter. The result of the Commission's efforts were laid before the public in September of this year, and a public hearing was held thereon on October 21, 1969. At this p~elic hearing, there were only three speakers, and the entire hearing lasted only gbout twenty-five minutes. .The main points presented by the three speaklers were these: (1) ~nat councilmen should continue to be elected as t~ey are at present for four year terms; (2) That the Mayor and Vice-Mayor should continue to be elected as at present for two year terms; (3) ~uat councilmen should be elected in non-partisan mUnicipal elections without any primary preceding them; (4) That a Civil Service systiem for the protection of the police officers and fire fighters should be established by the Charter. ~le Commission gave ~nese proposals very capful consideration. As a result thereof~ the Commission submits herewith its proposed Cqarter for the City of Portsmouth. Although the proposed Charter submitted herewith contains many changes and improvements over the existing Charter, most of these are of a very minor nature and need no explanation. However, the Commission feels that it should ex- plain why certain things have been changed, placedin, or omitted from its proposal as compared to the present Charter. Article I contains a general statement of incorporation of the City and a statement of the sources of the boundaries of the City. These are required by law to be in every ~arter and contain nothing new of importance from the stand point of powers of the City or its officials. Article II is concerned with the various powers of the City and brings together in one place all of such powers. The ohanges cp~ta~ed ~n t~s article are largely a clarification or amplification of the powers granted to the City by its present Charter. Article III brings together in one place all of the Charter provisions dealing with t~he City Council, in- cluding the-nomination and eledtion of councilmen; powers and duties of the Council, and the res%fictions on ~ts procedures. Most of this article is copied directly from the present Charter. ~e Commission did consider having the councilmen elected for six-year terms without any ri~t of re-election, but it became eminently clear that the citizens of Portsmouth did not want this provision and were satisfied with the present four-year terms with the right of an incumbant to succeed himself. The major c2~an~er~rom the present Charter is in Section 5.02 which provides that councilmen shall be nominated in accordance with th~ provisions of general law. There is one variation from the general law in that the councilmanic election is placed on the second Tuesday in May with the primary to take place on the ='~ ~z~st Tuesday ~n March. This was done in order to avoid a conflict with the general law requiring primaries for Statm and Federal offices to be held on the second Tuesday in July. Since the Citer of Portsmouth uses voting machines, and the law requires voting machines to be sealed for thirty days after the election, under the present arrangement it might be possible that voting machines used in a mu~nic~pal election in June would not be available for a state primary election to be held in July. Furthermore, some councilmen have rtnn into the problem of failing to file their campaign reports within the thirty day period, and therefore, were ineligible to hold office during the first week or so of their term which commenced on July 1. With the municipal election held in May, these problems are avoided without unduly prolonging a "lame duck" period for defeated colnncilmen. The Commission also sought to resolve the problem of who should preside over the organizational ~meefin~s~bf the City Council by providing that the City kttorney should perfor~ this function until a Mayor and a Vice-F~ayor shall have been elected. He would also perform the same service where it is necessary to elect a mayor pro-ten~ore for any given council meeting. Another problem which has plagued the Cit' government is a question as to whether matters pending before the City Council died with each change of the council Qr whether they remained vital until acted upon. This has been resolved by stating that the council is a continuing body and that pending matters continue to retain their vitality~ even though the organization of a new cot~ncil may intervene between the introduction and final approval of an ordinance or resolution. Since the City Clerkiis the only officer of the City Council,. Article IV setting forth the appointment and duties of City Clerk is placed immediately following the article dealing with the City Council.