|
October 8th, 1948.
<br />
<br />there were present:
<br />
<br />At a regular meeting of the City Council, held on October 8th, 1946,
<br />
<br />Leslie T. Fox, George Lo Grimes, Arthu~ Po Henderson, J~ues N.
<br />Howard, Frank D. Lawrence, Eo Robie Stu~tevant~ C. E. ~¢arr~,
<br />Ho Earl Weiseman, Pea~le J. Wilson, Arthur S. Owens, City Nanager
<br />~ud R. C. Barclay, City Attorney.
<br />
<br /> Minutes of regula~ meeting held September 26th and adjourned reg~zla~
<br />meeting of September ~0th, were read and ~pproved.
<br />
<br />'The following letter and resolution were read and ordered filed:
<br />
<br /> ~Enclosed you. w ill find a copy of a d~aft dravTn up by members of Local
<br />Union ~980, I~B.E.W., A.Fo of L., an orge~uization that consists of better than ~30 mercers,
<br />a percentage of these members resides in the City o f Portsmouth.
<br /> This d~af~ was made at a regular meeting of this Local, after motion
<br />was made and seconded, and is in the records of this Local. The said d~aft will be made public
<br />by release to the press.
<br /> ~e of this Local felt it best for ou_~ members interest that we t~e
<br />this action 9pposing the Portsmouth Bond Issue. VCe also feel that ~e are helping the citizens
<br />of Portsmouth b~ this action.
<br /> Zours t~uly,
<br />
<br />Price, Rec. Sec., Local Union B-980,I.BoE.W.~
<br />
<br />~UNIOE GOES ON RECORD AGAI~_{ST T~ PROPOSED ~,~ICiPAL
<br />ELECTRIC PLA~ - OPPOSES THE B0~h~D ISSUE
<br />
<br /> Local Union B-980 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical
<br />Worker~, A.F. of L., after he~cing both sides of the bone issue proposed
<br />fo~ a duplicate nr~nicipally-om~ed electric system and service, has gone on
<br />record opposing the proposal.
<br /> The resolution passed said, ~'Resolved that Local Union B-980,
<br />I.B~E.~., A.Fo of L., go on record as being opposed to the Portsmouth bond
<br />issue and favoring participation% n the fight to defeat it."
<br /> This action was taken on~y after hes~ing both sides of the
<br />controversy. At one meeting they had hea_~d Er. Klauder, the City's enginee~
<br />f~om Philadelphia and City Eanager Arthur S. Owens argue for the pro~ect.
<br />At a subsequent meeting they heard Forrest Uo .~oss present facts in opposi~
<br />tion. Con~ent of the leaders was to the effect that the evidence presented
<br />by Ross was so overwhelmingly convincin~ compared with the generalities of
<br />Klaude~ %hat we could make no decision other than to oppose it.
<br /> In She_light of the fact there is no question but that the
<br />proposal is ~LUSound and not in the best interests of labor er of Portsmouth
<br />citizens.
<br /> E. E. Price, Rec. Sec.,
<br /> Local Union B 980, IoBoE.W.~
<br />
<br />The. following resolution was read and ordered filed:
<br />
<br />"VCMMREAS, ~ualified voters of the Cit~ of ?e~tsmouth,
<br />Virginia, on November 5th, 19&6, will vote on a Bond
<br />issue to b e used toward a ~zicipal-owned power and dis-
<br />tributing pl~t of electric c~rent.
<br />~S, we have a coherent ~st~ibuting system at
<br />co~able ~ate with the Eastern SeaWard. The oresent
<br />system is so dssi~ed that the p~obability o f ~ent fail-
<br />
<br /> ~.S, Statistics f~shed ~ v~ious departments of
<br />the United States G0ver~ent show that m~cipal power
<br />pl~ts c~not complete on a low cost base with co~ercial
<br />power p~oducers, ~d that ~l p l~uts can not g ene~ate
<br />the~ current at ~&te establi~ed by co~merciaZ complies.
<br />~P~S, if we have a m~cip~ power pl~t, we do not
<br />have a co~ission to set ~&tes, and the State of Virginia
<br />by Act of the 19&6 %esisla~re has ~de it p~ohibitive fo~
<br />Lair Unions to ~ep2esent thei~ ~ployees, and i f ~ em -
<br />ployee is disch~ged, he c~ not be ~e-e~loyed fop one
<br />~S, the~e is p2oposed legisls~re in the United States
<br />Con~ess to tax m~uicip~ powe~ pl~t and ~st~i~tion systems.
<br />~e City o f Portsmouth wo~d lose p~esent taxes if we had
<br />N~uicipal Plant.
<br />~R~S, ~eco~ds sho~ that m~cipal-operated public s ervice
<br />pro~ects are not a saving to the co~6n man ~t to hi~ detri-
<br />ment,. ~e have one Public Project that is operated at a ~eat
<br />profit and to the detriment of ~e co~ity.
<br />%~0RE, Be it Resolved that Loc~ 922 of the inte~ztion~
<br />Union of Operating Engineers ~e not in favor o~ the City of
<br />Portsmouth operating a competitive or exclusive electrical
<br />districting and ~&ctu~i~ system ~d ask that the members
<br />of org~uized l&bo~ vote agai~t this Bond issue. Be it f~the2
<br />resolved that copy of this resolution be spread on ou~ minutes
<br />~d a co~%~ittee be ~pointed to p~esent & copy to the City o f
<br />
<br />
<br />
|