Minutes 02/06/1960 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

At a special meeting of the City Council, held on February 6th, 1960, at 9:30 B. W, Baker, A. C. Bartlett, W.R. Breedlove, n.B. Seward, R, Irvine Smith, George R. Walker, H. E; Weiseman, ~.P. Johnson.,Jr., City Manager, and J;S; ~Livesay, Jr., City Attorney. The following call for the meeting was read: '~You are ~requested to attend a special meeting of the City Council, in the Council Cham- ber, at 9:30 A.M., on February 6th, 1960 · : either 1) or ~) tO consider on first reading "AN ORDINANCE.REQUESTIN6 T~AT THE GENERAL~ ASSEMBLY A~.END CHAPTER I, Section 4 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY:.~0F PORTS~UT~IN TNE ~uNNER 'I'~L~REIN DESCRIBED" so as to abolish Council- manic [~rimaries. to consider the following resolution: 'Be it Resolved by the Council of the City of Portsmouth, Virginia, that., there.be:submitted to a vote of the electors of the City of Portsmouth, at an election to be held on the day o~ .. - , t960, the question set forth-in the petition of Louis R. Keller and othersf filed with the~City Clerk on the ~dth day of January, 1960, namely: "S~ould the ordinance, presented by ~ayor Baker, and rejected by a majority of the Council of the-City of-~Portsmou, th on the Zqth day of December, 1~59, providing for the elimination of Councilmanic primaries, b~ adopted~' And be it further resolved that the Elec.toral Board:of the City be, and they are henehy, directed to m~ke %he necessary arrangements for the elec- tion .and take ~he sense of the qualified 9oter~ of the City on the question as set forth in said petition.' By Order of the P~esident." 60-28 - The following report from the City Attorney was read: "At a special meeting of the Council, held on January 29th, 1960, the petition of Louis H. Keller and others, with respec~ to-elimination of couneilnmnic ~rimaries, presented to the City Clerk on January ~8, 1960, was referred to me for determination~ of its sufficiency. Within the framework of Chapter X of the City Charter, the Council as a body is con- cerned only-with the formofthe ~etition; the ~umber of signers-and the manner of its execution. Although the form of the petition and the manuer of its execution leave something t6 be desired, I nevertheless believe that the petition is sufficient from those points. The Charter requires that the petition be signed by not less than fifteen per cen~em o~ the ~umber~of persons voting for governor in thelas~ preceding gubernatorial election. According to figures furnished to me this percentage equals 1,Zql. The petitioh purports to contain the signa- tures of 1,809 -qaalified~voters ~and isthemefore~entitl~d und&r~he Cha~t~ to the presumption that it has been signed by the required number of qualified voters. In the past, it has been customary for the person checking the petition for the Council to also report hew many of the siE~ms a~e qualified voters. ~To do so in this case has been impossible within the manpower and time ~lim~ations~mBosed.for the' reasons hereinbelow stated. Within the last several~ weeks, the General R~gistrar received the listings of regis- tered voters within the territory anne~ed~en ~anuary-1, 1968-~ Because~mest.of these listings are separated as to white and colored, and for each voting precinct annexed, there are 13 lists which would have to be searched for a given name subscribed-to*'the petition. . ' The situation as to checking;for .pay-merit of the'~ast three years' poll ta~ is eom - plicated by the fact that the County Treasurer will not be able to certify the names of poll taxpayers as re - quired under the amlexation decree for ~t least-another month.- ~ecau~e of the requirements of the Constitution and general election la~s of the ~State,~this certified-listing is e~ential to the determination of who is qualified voter in the annexed areas, When received, this listing will probably be composed of eight all~habeti- cal l~istings as to magisterial district, race and sex, thereby further compounding the difficulties of determin- ing qualifications of the names on the petition. ~ithout attempting to give an,opinion as~to.~the legal question of whetkerany of the annexed voters can be considered ss qualified voters of the City prior to receipt of certified poll ~ax listings from the county treasurer, I wish to point out that the City Clerk could not perform the function of mailing copies of the proposed ordinance~ etc.~ as specified in Section 3 of Chapter X of the Charter, re each qualified voEer 'five days prior to the election until'the poll tax listings are available to her. From information now available to me, I can not see how any assurance can be given that the envelopes for this mailing can be pre p~red prior ~to May, and if ~th~ Co~mcil decides ~o-call an electi6n ut~R'~he:question presented by the petition, I caution against calling it sooner." The following statement was made b~ ~r. Bartlett: "A;review of-'the~mstt~r that is the subject of today's special meeting, will reveal the following facts: '~ .... ~ .., The Nayor and ~resident of the Council brought to his Council a proposed amendment to the Charter of the City~'of:Portsmouth, and proposed that'the'Council-go'On record as opposing Councilmanic primaries. He made theft~ proposal 'at a ~conference held with the elected members of the State Legislature. The Council, a~ that time,_did not agree, and his proposal that the legislators be instructed was defeated by a substantial majority vote. Then, the ~President of the Connci~, to whom the'wishes of the majority apparently mean little .or nothiag~ drew or hsd drawn, an ordinance that would accomplish his purpose and ignore~the will of the Council. That ordinance was defeated and the Council refused to favorably consider the matter. The President of the Council then had prepared several hundred blank petitions, az City expense, and placed them in the hands of persons agreeable to his proposal, and we now have before the