The San Francisco call., 1896-03-18
A View of the Duties and Powers
of the Board of Public
Works.
BUYING COMMON UTILITIES
Ernest Mccullough Explains the Value
of the Charter Clauses Relating
to Municipal Ownership.
The following communication is self

The following communication is self
explanatory:
To the Editor of the CdH-SIR: Unfortunately
another attack on the proposed charter mas
appeared in print in the public press 1t IS an
attack on an article from the writer which
appeared in the Examiner last Sunday
In that article the statement was made that
il was not necessary for the Board OF Pubic
Works to act unanimously in recommending
estimates TO the Board of supervisors Tor the
cost OF building or purchasing water WORKS or
other public utilities. The writer stlll holds
TO that opinion for the reason stated-that is,
the Board of Public Works is only an advisory
body when the purchase OF such utilities comes
I'D for consideration. 1t is a body OF trained
men who shall assist the Board OF Supervisors
in technical matters their duties are advi-
sory the Supervisors duties are legislative.
To insist that the pubic utilities cannot De
purchased or that the Supervisors are not EN-
powered to submit the question TO q vote OF the
people without the concurrent unanimous
opinion OF the Board OF Public>Works that the
estimates are correct ana reasonable ana the
proposed action is right, makes the Board OF
Public Works portion of the Board OF super
yiSors with equal powers OF seemingly legls-
lative character.
The individual who takes the ground that
the Board OF Public Works is thus part of the
Board of Supervisors quotes section 3 OF chapter
l OF article VI, in proof OF his misststements.
portion OF said section says ''No order or res
olution shall be passed or business transacted
involving the approval OF bonds, awarding OF
contracts, appointment. OF employes, or reso-
lutions OF intention recommending work or I'M
provement, except by the concurrent vote OF
the Commissioners"
This section just quoted cannot by any
reasonable man be understood as making II
mandatory upon the Commissioners TO ap-
prove the issuance OF bonds to purchase water
works or street railways 1t merely refers to
section , OF chapter l of article VI preceding,
where 1t is stated that the Commissioners may
require employees to furnish bonds and that
said bonds must be approved by the Commits
siOners
The following section where it requires the
concurrent vote of all the Commissioners to
approve bonds might lead the ordinary man
possessing common sense to believe that the
section referred 10 the bonds OF employees
spoken OF in the preceding section. Some
very ordinary men, however, do not seem TO
possess common sense. Let us examine care
fully section OF chapter l OF article VI,
wherein the duties OF the Commissioners OF
the Board of Public Works are set forth in the
matter of municipal ownership.
The section in full reads as follows: at shall
De and is hereby made the especial duty of the
Board OF Public Works 10 prepare. at least
three months previous TO every City election,
an estima te of the value of the various street
railroads of san Francisco; the value of the
gas electric or other plants or methods for
lighting said City in all portions, both public
and private, thereof; the water works OF said
City; the telephones of said City, and all other
franchises granted and in use in such City and
County. The estimate thus made shall be the
basis upon which may be submitted to the
whether or not said electors desire to purchase
such properties, or any of them"
There is nothing in that section which states
that the Board OF Public Works shall recon-
mend the purchase or that they must act as a
unit in submitting the estimates of cost. 1t is
their duty to submit the estimates and, as the
writer before stated, the task OF making the
estimate is an immense one. In practice it
will undoubtedly be arranged between the
Commissioners that one of them shall have
that especial duty TO perform. If his esti-
An nt cT1irr rhn 1fh (0f, mic
they have the privilege of submitting ma
jority or minority report. 1t is optional with
the Supervisors to submit the question to the
people of voting upon the purchase or con-
struction of works. But ii the Supervisors do
submit the question to the people they must
do so upon the estimates submitted by the
Board OF Public Works and upon no others.
1t is not anywhere stated IN the charter that
the Board OF Public Works must unanimously
vote upon the desrability OF possessing the
works before submitting the question TO the
Supervisors or the people.
And furthermore, in reference to estimates of
cost 1t is well to remember that section 81 of
chapter 2 of article II says the estimates OF
value OF existing plants must not exceed the
cost OF duplicating such plants by eonstruc-
ton. The Board of Public Works must submit
TO the Board OF Supervisors the reasonable cost
of constructing such works and the Supervisors
submit to the people the alternative of con-
structing them or of purchasing the present
ones. II the people decide TO purchase the pres
ent works the Supervisors have the power to
condemn and purchase them at the vaIua-
tion set by the Commissioners
If the associated villainies' cannot take
better care of themselves than to draw up a
clause like that to insert in the charter they
need to be taken care of. 1t puts them where
all franchise-owning corporations should be
at the mercy of the people and in their full
power. At present the corporations seem to
own San Francisco, according to our friends
who object to the charter, but when the char
ter is adopted the corporations will be careful
not to offend the people as now frequently
happens, for it will be possible for the people
to revoke the privileges granted by the fran
chise and vote to run things themselves. If
the charter were of no use in anything else,
the clauses relating to municipal ownership
alone should make every citizen vote for it.
Yours respectfully, ERNEST MCCULLOUGH.