|
~o~ncil~such petitions bearing, according ~o public i~formation, LS09.sig~atures. That petition, if legally
<br />sufficient, compels the Council to do ether of two things: To adopt the ordinance that they consider unde-
<br />sirable and unwise; or~ to submit it to the citizens of Portsmouth in rbferendum form, and let the people
<br />decide.
<br /> This review may ~eem superfluqus To some of.you, but it brings us up to the ~
<br /> point where we now stand, and explains to some degree, what I wi~ to now say..
<br /> If consistency is indeed a jewel; and if (as has been truthfully said) incon-
<br /> sistency is appalling; then, the-President of the Conncil is withouf jewels, a~d the people of the City of
<br /> Portsmouth must stand appalled.
<br /> It has been but a short time since Mr. Baker, because it then suited his politi-
<br /> cal wishes, demanded that a councilmanic primary be held,[ and that the Democratic Committee actively support
<br /> the democratic nomzuees, who were then favored by Mr. Baker. Now, it is ~olitically expedient for Mr. Baker
<br /> Eo take the other side, or he thinks it is so, and he says - let's do away with all councilmanic ~rimar~es.
<br /> In fact, his proposal would make it illegal for any party nominee, whether Democrat, Republican or other, 5o be
<br /> on a councilmanic ballot.
<br /> Councilman Walker, who joins Mr. ~aker in this matter, holds his present position
<br /> because of the support of the Democratic p~rry, and he was elected to this Council as a Democratic nominee.
<br /> When he accepted that support and assistance, it was apparently agreeable with him to hold a primary.
<br /> Mr. Baker, if the press-is correc~,-haS, within the last few days, qualified
<br /> himself; plaD~ to be a candidate; and wants the Democratic party to name him as the party candidate for a seat
<br /> on the Council~ He wants the DemQc.rats of Portsmouth to name him party ~ominee~in the June Councilmanic
<br /> election. There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from:these ~actions: Whatever is seemingly ~o the
<br /> personal political advantage of Mr. Baker, at the moment, [hat will he do. If it means the destruction of the
<br /> democratic orgs~ization in Portsmouth, he will ~ttempt. to destroy it~ If he can personally use the Democratic
<br /> party right up to 'the moment of destruction, he,~ill so use it. Such irresponsible acts tend to cause question
<br /> as to his suDtability for membership on a council Composed of men who should serve with the idea of doing what
<br /> is best for Portsmouth, without considering or trying for personal polilie~l advancement.
<br /> This morning, we are faced with a petition, signed by many people. I still feel
<br /> that, for good reasons previously stated, we still need councilmanic primaries in Portsmouth; and I feel that
<br /> a great majority of people in Portsmouth are in a~re~ment with {hat% But I, as one councilman, am willing to
<br /> let the people decide. By goin~ to a referendum, we can do so. Thus, Mr. ~resident, whether the petition is
<br /> or is not legally adequate, if that many citizens.of our enlarged-City want the people to decide the question
<br /> by referendum, I say let's do so. But, let's do so a~ a time when the people of Portsmouth can give the matter
<br /> undivided attention and considered judgment, removed from the heat of personal political campaigns. WITHOUT
<br /> CHANGING nry Dositio~ as ~o primaries, I offer the following resolution, and move its adoption:
<br />
<br /> Be it Resolved bY the Council of tke City of Portsmouth, Virginia,
<br /> that there be submitted to a vote of the electors of the City of
<br /> PoEtsmouth at an election to be, held on the Srd day of May, 1960,
<br /> the question set forth in ~ the petition of Louis H. Ke~fer and
<br /> others, filed with the City Clerk on the Z8th day of January, 1960,
<br /> namely:
<br />
<br /> 'Should the ordinancs, presented by Mayor Baker, and rejected
<br /> by a majori~ of the Council of the City of Portsmouth on the ZRth
<br /> day of December, I959~ providing for the elimination of Councilmanic
<br /> primaries, he adopted?'
<br />
<br />A~d be it .further resolved that ~the'Electoral Board af the City be,
<br />and they are hereby, direated to maketke necessary arrangements
<br />f.or the election and take the sense of the qualified veters of the
<br />City on the ~ues~ion as set forth in said petition."
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Walker co amend the ~otion by substituting June 14th, 1960 for
<br />May Srd, 1980~ was lost, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Bake. r, ~alker
<br />N ys. Bartlett, Breedlove, Seward, Smith, Weiseman
<br />
<br />Motion to suspend the ~utes to hear from interested persons was adopted.
<br />
<br />The=following spoke:
<br />
<br />P..E. Wnukoski
<br />L. H. ,Keller
<br />Louis Whitehead
<br />
<br />Vote~bein~ taken, Mr.. Bartlett's mo~ion was adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br />Ayes: Baker, Bartlett, Breedlove, Seward, Smith, ~alker, Weisemmn
<br />Nays: None
<br />
<br /> Motion of ~r. Smith that the Mayor beofficially censured for his conduct in
<br />the meeting, b~ the use of the word 'liar' in addressing a fellow Councilman.
<br />
<br /> The Chair ruled that the motion would be out of order without the unanimous
<br />consent, of ~he Council to place it on the 'agenda, and sta~ed that'Mr. Smith~ould have the right .~o make his
<br />m~tion at~a regular meeting of the C~t~ C~uncil. .
<br />
<br />On motion adjourned.
<br />
<br />Approved~~- ,~ ~,~~
<br /> President.
<br />
<br />City Clerk.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|