The San Francisco call., 1905-06-03
MAYOR VETOES
SCHOOL BILL
Says That 1t Is Trespass
by Supervisors on Power
of Public Works Board
RECOMMENDS A REMEDY
Suggests That Proper Pro-
ceeding Is to Amend a
Section of City Charter

Mayor Schmitz yesterday sent to the
Board OF Supervisors a formal notice OF
his veto Of a bin providing for the au-
shorization Of expenditures from the pub
lie building fund. The Mayor cites eight
reasons why he disapproves Of the bill,
the first five being its alleged contraven-
. non 10 sections OF the City Charter. The
following is the text of the letter:
The Board OF uperv1sors-GentIemen L
hereby return without my approval. disappreve
and hereby veto biii No. 1896. providing the
manner in which expenditures may be an-
.herized from the several accounts eonstitut.
fng the public building fund of the city ana
county of san Francisco for the construction
- OF buildings ana for the payment Of the cost
. - such construction from such fund" and
specify my objections thereto as follows:
J. The proposed ordinance Is clearly in
direct confravention Of the provisions of sec
tor 10 chapter l. article VI OF the charter,
which are IS follows;
IAN examinations plans and estimates re-
ouired BY the Supervisors in connection with
any public improvements or utilities shall be
made by the Board Of Public Works and II
shall. when requested 70 DO so. furnish in
formation and data for the use Of the Super
t'sors-''
The proposed ordinance attempts to confer
Upon a non-offcial jury of award consist
l1e Of six members 10 BE- appointed by the
Board Of Supervisors and to serve during the
pleasure OF the Beard OF Supervisors. the
f'ovre-s granted and the duties imposed by the
cbarter upon the Board Of Public Works.
IL Il is in direct contravention Of the pro-
that Il assumes 70 provide for the appoint
uent by the Beard Of Supervisors Of archi-
tects. The power 70 appoint whom sI,,i is ny the
charter vested in the Board OF Public Works.
.- Il violates section and subdivisions 3
and Of section Of chapter 1. article VI
ct the charter IN that il provides for the ap-
eminent by the Board OF Supervisors. Of
an assistant inspector" this being a clear
invasion into he sphere Of duties Of the Board
of Public Works set forth in the charter
BUREAU OF ARCHITECTURE
III The Board Of Public Works has among
rs existing departments a bureau OF archi-
lecture sstabhshe6 for many years ard under
tll- Supervision OF salaried architect This
bureau or division Of architecture has hereto
fore been recognized and provided for by the
and in the budget Of appropriations for the
next fiscal year the sum Of SlS,SOo IS allowed
Tor that division.
and willing 70 supervise the construction OF
public buildings. and the allowance OF PEI
cent OF the cost of such buildings 10 a
-s-.--fsIlv appointed architect OF the Board Of
SUuerH isors Is not only contrary to law aid
a reflection upon the capacity. ability or IN
O. gritty Of the City Architect. but IS also a
. lt5 -berata waste Of the peoples money On
4 sinc.e school building costing S12O. 900 such
srtc-aI architects fees would amount TO $1,000
and The salary OF the asslsisnt inspeetor p,
n. he aproiuted for each building by the
B0ard of Supervisors would. II the ouisolIg in5g
required tUc years 10 complete. consume StovO
.nore ~ the taXpayers money TO say noth-
'rr ~ the further sum OF $500 OF the people 8
Money provided by section Il cf the proposed
rr5tnsncp 10 be generously given away 10
--s,.ccesSfnl competitors for the plans OF every
t1icing 10 be erected and for plans never to
I dissppreve this proposed and unnecessary
cxtravagance Of expenditure and assign tne
same as one Of my objections TO the proposed
~ So far ar school buildings are con
eerned. the proposed ordinance ls m oirect
-,lnfiict with sections and OF chapter o
article VII of the charter. which provide that
plans therefor must be furnished ny the Boare
~ public Works and the construction tnereoi
must be under the direction OF said board and
-cf no one else.
EXTENT or UsURPATIoN.
Y The proposed ordinance is also clearly
in violation of section IL chapter ] OF article
II of the charter IN that Il embraces many
matters not expressed in its ute, among
Others to-wit. the establishment Of a system
OF securing plans BY the Board Of Supervisors
the appointment 0f architects by the Board OF
Sr1re-Z-isor-s the apuoiutYnent OF inspectors by
the Board Of supervisors the payment Of ar
chitecturaI prizes by the Board of Supervisors
Tor plans not used in the construction OF
II Not only would the proposed ordinance
- an Illegal usurpation Of the powers and
duties Of the Board Of Works but the carrying
out thereof would cause great delay IN tne
Instruction Of many much needed buildings
-liA tAe 1gS- -. nl4o1N e---1-- -,r4-,
PAYERS OF san Francisco are aireacy paying
reavv interest for money even now lying iole
- ne city treasury-the proceeds Of the city
bonds already sold and available Tor the pur-
noses for which the bonds were voted.
VII The object desired 10 be accomplished
81 this ordinance can IN my opinion oe
alone can be overturned the provisions Of the
charter placing upon the Board OF Pubic
Works the duties. responsibilities and o6hga-
tions which your honorable board by this or
dsnance seeks to assume.
VII an also Of the opinion that unless
the plans for public buildings are furnished by
the Board OF Works grave question may arise
as the legality OF any payments for con-
st-lction done under plans otherwise obtained
II il be desirable 70 secure plans by COM
petition, and I am free TO say that I per
e0naIly favor such competition. let the same
lfn+il the charter shall be amended be under
the direction and supervision Of the Board or
devolve this power and duty under the cfty's
organic law Respectfully submitted
2 E SCHMITZ, Mayor.