|
32!
<br />
<br />Februarv 26. 1963
<br />
<br />and read:
<br />
<br />63-12 - The following ordinance, approved on first reading at last meeting, was taken up
<br />
<br />AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1961,
<br />BY ADDING THERETO A NEW SECTION NUMBERED 9-13.1, REQUIRING ALL NEW OR
<br />ADDITIONAL ELECTRIC WIRING INSTALLATIONS WITHIN THE FIRE DISTRICTS TO
<br />BE NiETAL RACEWAYS OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE MEANS.
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Barnes, the ordinance was adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Smith, Barnes, Dillon, Eastes, Knight, Leery.
<br />Nays: None.
<br />
<br /> 63-33 - An appropriation of $132,223.35 for Riddick Weaver Cafetorium, approved on first
<br />reading at last meeting, was taken up.
<br />
<br />On motion o.f Mr, Knight, the appropriation was approved and
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Smith, Barnes, Dillon, Eastes, Knight, Leery.
<br /> Nays: None.
<br />
<br />by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> 63-34 - An appropriation of $60,870.95 for a cafeteria at Robert E. Lee School, approved
<br />on first V~ading at last meeting, wss taken up.
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Eastes, the appropriation .was approved and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Smith, Barnes, Dillon, Eastes, Knight, Leary.
<br />Nays: No~ .
<br />
<br />up and read:
<br />
<br /> 63-11 - The following ordinance, approved on first reading at last meeting, was taken
<br />
<br />"AN ORDINANCE TO ~MEND SECTIONS 60 AND 61 OF ARTICLE II OF THE LICENSE TAX
<br /> ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, 1960, IMPOSING A LICENSE TAX ON NON-
<br /> LOCAL PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE CLEANING, PRESSING, DYEING AN~ LAUNDRY BUSINESS,
<br /> SO ~S TO EXEMPT SUCH PERSON FROM SUCH LICENSE-TAX WHER~ THE:SAME PRIVILEGE
<br /> IS EXTENDED BY ADJOINING CITIES TO PORTSMOUTH PERSONS ENGAGED IN SUCH BUSINESS."
<br />
<br />On motion of Mr. Barnes, the ordinance was adopted and by the:following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Smith, Barnes, Dillon, Eastes, Knight, Leafy.
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br />NEW BUSINESS
<br />
<br /> 63-47 - Application of F. E. Spicer for appointment as Justice of Peace was read, and on
<br />motion of Mr. Knight, referred to a conference of Council.
<br />
<br /> 63-4~ - Application of Thomas M. Bennett for appointment as Justice of Peace for Monroe
<br />Ward was read, and on motion of Mr. Dillon, referred to a conference of Council.
<br />
<br /> 64-49 - Report of inspection of' the lockup of thD City of Portsmouth by the Department of
<br />Welfare aud Institutibns was presented and on motion of Mr. Barnes, received as information.
<br />
<br /> 63~50 - Report of' inspection of the City Jail by the Department of Welfare and Institutions
<br />was presented, and on motion of Mr. Knight, received as information.
<br />
<br /> 63-51 - The following communication from Westhaven Park Civic League was presented and on
<br />motion of Mr. Dillon, received as information:
<br />
<br /> "In a letter to the Council, under the date of January 18, 1963, this League expressed the
<br />view that election of Mayor R. Irvine Smith to the Southeastern Virginia Regional Planning Commission was
<br />prohibited by the Portsmouth City Charter. At this date we are not cognizant of any official response by the
<br />Council.
<br /> We are aware of no recorded evidence of Council's concurrence in the text of Mr. Smith's
<br />personal statement which he read into the record on January 22, 1963. In this statement we find very little
<br />beyond a personal tirade directed against an officer of a civic group. The content of this statemen~ served only
<br />~o diffuse and obscure the basic issue of eligibility of Portsmouth City Councilmen to any office filled by the
<br />Portsmouth City Council. Nothing was settled by this statement.
<br /> While Mr. Smith is at the crux of this matter, we have mo interest in Mr. Smith as an
<br />individual, Neither ere we concerned with any alleged precedent by any of Mr. Smith's predecessors. Nor are we
<br />concerned with or, have any desire to extend Portsmouth City Charter jurisdiction to any other commission member
<br />elected by any other political sub-division. All these are superfluous to the basic issue.
<br /> We are concerned with one thing and one thing only. That is, DOES THE PORTSMOI[TH CITY
<br />CHARTER APPLY TO PORTSMOUTH CITY COUNCILMEN OR DOESN'T IT?
<br /> The opinion of the City Attorney, concurred in by the Attorney General as evidenced by the
<br />attached copy of his letter dated November 14, 1963, and bearing his signature, leaves no doubt that Mr. Smith's
<br />election to the Southeastern Virginia Regional Planning Commission is contrary to the provisions of the Portsmouth
<br />City Charter. Any other conclusion would be an absurd rationalization that the Charter does not mean what it says
<br />or, that some Portsmouth citizens are cloaked with special immunity to it's intents and purposes. The language of
<br />the Charter is clear and specific on the subject. The City Attorney, as his duties prescribe, rendered an opinion
<br />based on the precise wording of the Charter. This opinion was supported by the Attorney General. Both agreed
<br />that a Portsmouth City Councilman could not be s member of this planning commission. We believe these facts are
<br />sufficient to establish reasonable presumption of error in this election.
<br />
<br /> It is of more than passing interest that the Portsmouth members of the commission, of
<br />which Mr. Smith is one, decry the alleged deviation from principle in the approaching aomination of the commission
<br />chairman. These political acrobatics sre indeed strange when, in fac~, the election which enables Mr. Smith to
<br />now join in objecting to the reported nomination, was an improper election in itself.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|