Minutes 11/11/1969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Article V begins the portion of the Charter dealing with the administration of the affairs of the City Government. Since the City Manager is the chief executive officer and administrator of the City Government, he is covered by Article V. The provisions for this Article primarily clarify and amplify the provision of the existing City L%arter. Artic~le VI deals with a number of other officers of the City ~d provides that tine City Treasurer and the Commissioner of the Revenue shall be subject to the supervision of the City Manager in connection with tine collection of City taxes. ~q~s Charter in no way will impinge upon the ~nthority of State officials over the City Treasurer or the Commissioner of the Revenue with regards to State matters. The only other new provision will authorize the City Sergeant to accept the payment of fines and costs of a person con- fined in his custody. This will enable the City Sergeant to release prisioners over the weeken hwo have been confined~because they were unable to apy their fine at the time of their appearance in court, but have been able to raise the money after they~h~ve been placed in his custody. Article VII deals with the Department of Law and is virtually identical with the provisions of the existing ~arter. ^rticle VIII concerns the School Board and its funds and is the same as in the present Charter. Article IX concerns the municipal court system and contains little cJ~ange from the present Charter except that it provides that there shall be one municipal court and that the judge of that court may divide the busi- ness of the court into police, traffic, and civil divisions and assign the work between such judges as may be appointed to the benc~n of that court. This will allow smater flexibility in handling the work of the court if there should be such an increase that it is beyond the capacity of one judge to handle it. q~ae provision of the present Charter providing that the judges of the courts not of record may exchange benches in cases of conflicts is retained. The Commission was of the opinion that the citizens of Portsmouth should have the power to compel the City Council to adopt necessary ordinances and to prevent the enactment of capricious ordinances by that body. To this end, the Com~nission has retained in its proposal provisions that authorize the enactment and repeal of ordinances at the behest of the people through the initiative and referendum processes. Through the initiative process the people can either conpel the enactment of m~ ordinance by the Council or secure its passage by direct vote of the electorate. Through the referendum process the people are ~e~ to either comple the C~uncil to repeal an offensive ordinance or to secure its repeal through a vote of the people. Except for a change in the number of signatures ~equired on a petition, these provisions are similar to those contained in the present Charter. ~ne Commission was of the opinion that the provisions of the general law relating to removal from office are adequate, and therefore, the recall provisions of the present Charter were not included in the Commission's proposal. The final article in the proposed Charter, Nmmber XI, is a customary "grandfather" clause and severability clause that are standard with city charters everywhere. We have omitted from the proposed Charter one main provision of the present Charter; that is the Civil Service Commission. It was our opinion that the existing Civi~ Service system created a privileged group of employees and therefore, was unfair to the majority of the employees of the City. It was also noted that the re~prt 6~ the P~lic Administrative Service recommended the creation of a personnel department with uniform procedures for all em4p. loyees. The Commission was of the opinion that any necessary Civil Service §ystem could be adequately provided for by the Council by ordinance, and it was not necessary for any such provision to be placed in the City Q~arter. As directed by the City Council, we submit herewith our final report whimh proposes a new Charter for t~he City of Portsmouth. Your Commission members found their work both informative and interesting and were pleased at the confidence you showed by selecting them for this important task." Motion of Mr. Tu~ar that the Charter be ~ received as presented by the Charter Study Commission and re- ferred to a conference of Council, was adopted, without dissenting vote. Motion of Mr. Eastes that the Charter Study Commission be officially dissolved, with the thanks of the Council and the people of Portsmouth for the work they have done in preparing the report, and that each member of the Commission be for~,;arded a letter expressing the gratitude of the Council. Motion of Mr. Johnson that the date for the public hearing on the Charter be set for December 9, 1969 was adopted, without dissenting vote. 69-349 - Leo Shocklin, Chairman, Portsmouth RedevelOPment and Housing Authority, presented "A Comprehensiw Neighborhood Report" covering Mount Hermon Area and Park View. L. Cleaves Manning spoke in approval of the report made by the Housing ~thority. Motion of Mr. Turner that the report as presented, be received from the Portsmouth Redevelopment and Housing Authority and that it be referred to a conference of Council for study and action, as ex!?editiously as possible~ was adopted, ~ithout dissenting vote. - 69-349-a - The City Manager made an official report on the action taken by Mr. Fred Beazley in donating $350,000.00 toward Portsmouth's new health center. ,orr s Motion of Mr. King that a resolution expressing the gratitude of the Council and the City of Portsmouth to Mr. Beazley, be prepared for presentation to the Comncil, was adopted, without dissenting vote. from City Manager - 69-350 - "I submit the attached ordinance m~d recommend it be placed on first reading. This appropriates $3,474.96 to allow the City of Portsmouth to increase its contribution to the Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission. The Southeastern Planning District Commission at its last meeting recommended that the contribution being made to the Commission by the participating political ~.ubdlvision s be based on 12¢ per c~nita rather than the 10~ per capita assessment. This assessment also is to be based on the 1968 estimated population. There is appropriated in our current budget $11,790 which was earmarked for the Southeastern Virginia Regional Planning Commission, the organization that preceded the Southeastern Virginia Planning District Com- mission. This apprpriation in the budget was based on a 10~ per capita contribution and a population figure 6f 114,778 peiple. It is therefore necessary for the City to appropriate $5,474.96 in order for the City to