Minutes 09/29/1959 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

September 29th, 1959 "WHEREAS, within the past two year's the homes of many hundreds of our Cali- fornia citizens have been seized under the power of eminent domain and then resold at a loss'.to the taxpayer to private interest~ at their great financial gain, and WHEREAS, allo~ing the power of eminent domain to be used for the purpose of taking property from one private person for the use of other private persons for private purposes is contrary to the basic right of full ownership of private proper~y, and WHEREA~, both historically and actually the right to remain secure in ownership of one's home is the basic right underlying all other f~eedoms ~f our American Republic, and a threat to all rights of Americans, and WHEREAS, such activities have beBn carried out under color of certain State and'Feder'al iSgisl~tio~ ~nd certain state court 'decfsions~which can be altered only by appropriate .legislation in our State and National Legislatures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The American Legion, Department of Call - fornia, opposes in principle the seizing of private property by public agencies unde¥ the col~r~O~ eminent dom~i~ for resale to private persons, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED' that this convention urge that suc~ misuse of the power of eminent domain be curtailed by appropriate legislation in the State Legislature and by appropriate amendment~ to existing ~aws by the Congress of the United States. The above resGlution was ~dopted hy t~e American Legion, Department of California, zn regular convention assembled in Hollywood, Cal., June 25th-28th, 1959." Vote being taken on ~r. Weiseman's motion, the resolution from the Kiwanis Club was received as information, and by the following vote: Ayes: Baker, Bartlett, Breedlove, Smith, Walker, Weiseman Nays: None 59-262 - The following letter from Patrick A. Higginbotham, 527 High-St., was read: "May I be allowed to bring to your attention that on January 4, 1958, I took a Civil Service exam for the Police Department and was gzven a percentage of seventy one point seven and placed on the sew eligible list. After the list was established there were twelve names on it mine being on the bottom. All men ~n this list were hired with the exception of me~ then this list being no ~more than four months old was abolished. I went to the commission and ask why? The~ informed me that they were in their rights by Rule #15 (or in the judgment of the commission the list is low enough the want or holding of a new examina- tion) and then ~r. ~uphey said unless Mr. Warren had me appointed before the list expired I would be out of luck I then went ~o see Mr. Warren about employment; he informed me that he had no openings and could no~ hire me. Eh6rtly before this~ ~r. Warren had fired a man and he had not been replaced. ~fter this list was abolished a new one came out and all the men on it were hired in sight of three months. Z~ the Commisszon or ~r. Warren had ~egitimate reason to keep me off the force, I would have been notified by-the Co~issibn that they were withdrawing my name because of such a reason. I have no explanation fo~ being ~skipped other than no' openings. ! Now I would like toknow-this- Nopsi. Why I was ~ot appointed? No. 2. Will I be. if nscessary allowed ~o take another exam. No. 3. Why t shouldtake another exam (the one I took is not 2 yrs. old) No. 4. If I take a new exam will I be accepted? I have used every other way I k~ow ~o see fairness zn my case and I am hoping the Cotkucil will take proper steps to see that I am informed about this matter." Notion of Mr. Breedtove that this be received as information and filed, was adopted. The City Manager stated that he had answered the letter, giving the information re - quested. 59-263 - The following letter from Marian E. Tuttle~was read: Reference to a pay rai~se for the blue collar ci. ty employees, t-hat has been under discussion since Septem-be~, 1958-, we would like to make our request-known~to you at this time. 1. Request that al,1 blue collar city employees that are presently receiving -$4,000.00 per- year and less be granted a pay raise of- 14-9 per hr., this includes the supervisors of said- employees. 9~. Request that this increase be retroactive ~o July 1, 1959 as the City Manager - ~ promised and ~greed to. 3. geques-t that the maximtum pay for said employees be changed from 20 years to tO years, as-the-ordinance now states ~the maximtum is 9-0 years. 4. Request that all pay adjustments be~automatic Your kind and favors, bls consideration on th~se important matters will be appreciated.' Notion of Mr. Bartlett To refer to the City Nanager for investigation and reconLmen- Council meeting, was adopted. dation at the next Motion of Mr. Smith to suspend the rules-to hear from interested persons, was 'adopted! Mr. Tuttis spoke. Mr. Breedlove and Mr. BartleTt rose ro a point o~ order and expressed objection to the Council being questioned ~ublicly about a matter that is being studied and stated there is no ordinance be- fore the body atL~his time, The Manager was requested ~o arrange a conference on ~ his matter, with Mr. Turtle.