|
95
<br />
<br />March llth, 1958.
<br />
<br />At a regular meeting of the City Council, held on March llth, 1958, there were present:
<br />
<br /> A.C. ~artlett, B.W. Baker, W.E. Hinton, Frank L. Kirby, John E. Scott,
<br />R. trvine Smith, H. Eaml ~eiseman, I.G. Vass, City Manager, and J.S.Livesay,
<br />City Attorney.
<br />
<br />The meeting ~was. opened with prs~yer by Monsignor Govaert
<br />
<br />Minutes of previous meeting were read and approved.
<br />
<br />The following reports from the City Manager were read:
<br />
<br /> 58-71 - "In March, 1959, I will have ~reached the normal retirement age of sixty-five
<br />years, and at that time, it is my desire to retire from the position I hold with the City of Portsmouth. I am
<br />informing you now in order that you may have adequate time to select my successor."
<br />
<br />On mor~ion filed.
<br />
<br />55-72 - "I am reporting on the request from citizens concerning a change meter To be
<br />placed on the City parking lots.
<br /> I have investigated the question and I have found that the cost of such a me-
<br />ter would be ~S9~50 plus trkn~portation from the factory, plus a heav~ du~y mounting bracket to hold the change
<br />for the sum of $44.50 per set. The manufactGrers are willing to ship one or more change makers on trial. I
<br />would recommend that one change maker be ordered on a trial basis and if proven satisfactory, that two additional
<br />change makers be ordered, one to be placed on each parking lot."
<br />
<br />Motion of ~ir. Weiseman that one change meter be ordered on a trial basis, was adopted.
<br />
<br /> 58-T3 - "You have before you a copy of the Public Welfare Annual Budget for considera-
<br />tion. I recommend that it be tentatively approved and forwarded to the State l)epartmentfor their consideration
<br />and that the final approval be made in connection with the overall annual budget and that this budget be iaclud-
<br />ed in the regular City budget."
<br />
<br />Motion of Mr. Baker thatLthis matter be removed from the table, was adopted.
<br />
<br />Mr. Kirby made a motion ~o tentatively adopt the budget.
<br />
<br /> ~otion of Mr. Hinton to amend the budget by reduci~g the city's share in the amount of
<br />$~649.00 was adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Baker, Hinton, Smith, Wei seman
<br /> Nays: Bartlett, Kirby, Scout
<br />
<br />Mr. Kirby's motion, as amended, was adopted,
<br />
<br />and by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes: Bartlett, Baker, Itinton, Kirby., Scott, Smith, Weiseman
<br /> Nays: None
<br />
<br /> 58-74 - "It is in order to conside~ the report of the City Attorney on the petition
<br />presented by Martin Abraham at a prevloms meeting."
<br />
<br /> "Al the meeting of Council on Febrnar~ 25, 1958, the City Clerk and I were instructed
<br />to determine the sufficiency of the petition presented to Council at that meeting by Mr. Martin Abraham.
<br /> A careful check o~ the signatures on the petition produced the ~ollowing results:
<br /> 1. Claimed signatures ............................... 2,904
<br />
<br />~. Qualified electors
<br />3. Not registered voters .........................
<br />4. Registered vGteEs~but ~oll t~x not paid .........
<br /> 5. Signatures sot legible ........................
<br />6o Signatures challenged becau~eo£ obviously
<br /> having been ma~ by husband or wife for the
<br />
<br />.............................. 1,528
<br /> 993
<br /> 263
<br /> 34
<br />
<br />26
<br />61
<br />
<br /> The petition consists of a number of sets of individual petitions composed of what I
<br /> shall refer to as s cover sheet, one or more signature sheets, and an _affidavit sheet. Apparently the petition
<br /> was presented to seek a referendum under Chst)ter X, Section l, of the City Charter.
<br /> In my opinion the petition does not conform substantially to the requirements of the
<br /> Charter for the reasons stated below.
<br /> First of all, the Charter requires such a petition to contain a statement in not more
<br /> ~han two hundred (200) words giving the petitioners' reasons therefor. The eover sheet exceeds ~+~kis requirement;
<br />~therefore the disposition most favorable to the petitioners is to disregard it. It is apparent ~rem examination
<br /> o~ many of the individual petitions that the cover sheet~~ now attached to the signature sheets were not so at -
<br /> tached when the petition was being circulated. You will note that a large number of the signature sheets have
<br /> b6en folded~but the cover sheets attached thereto ~ave~not. Yon will al~o note that a number of the cover sheetsI
<br /> have been s~apled only once whi~eLthe signature sheets have been pierced by more than one set of staples. A good
<br /> example of this is the cove~ sneet and signature sheet numbered ~8 and 97, respectively. Because of these phys-I
<br /> ical facts and from discussions with Mr. Abraham, it appears ~h~t some of the signature sheets~were circulated
<br /> before the thought of a referendum was conceived.
<br /> . The Clla~er ~nrther requires that each signatuare sheet contain at the top thereo~
<br /> ~he petition ~hat the City Council cause to be submitted to a vote the question ~nvolved. The language set forth
<br /> at the top~ of the several signature shee~smakes nG mention of submitting any question to a vote. This being
<br /> the case, it is my opinion that the petition may not be considered to have been submitted in accordance with
<br /> Chapter X, Section l, of the City Charter. This fataLdefect reduce~, the ~etition ~o the status of a general
<br /> petition upon which the City ~ouncil is nol requi~ed to call a referendum unless it chooses to do so.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|