Los Angeles herald., 1909-10-09
MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
ASKS FOR REVISION
CIVIC BODY WANTS CHANGE
MADE IN UTILITY LAWS
CITY ORGANIZATION Brings to Attention
of City Council Differences In
Ordinances Proposed by Lat
ter and by League

Although the ordinance providing 1or
the creation of public utilities COM
mission which was presented to the
council last Tuesday by City Attorney
Hewitt has most of the features OF the
ordinance drafted and presented by the
Municipal league. there are seVeral
points of difference. The Municipal
league yesterday filed communication
calling the attention of the council 10
these differences. This communication
follows:
ITO the Honorable City Council OF
Los Angeles: Gentlemen-The Mu-
nicipal league begs to call your atten-
ton to the following essential points OF
difference between the public utllltles
ordinance which we have been urging
your honorable body to pass and the
one on the same subject prepared py
the city attorney in accordance with
your instructions.
I'm enumerating the powers and du-
ties of the commission your ordinance
omits entirely the provision when
empowers them to pass on all pro-
posed franchises before they are grant
ed. Our ordinance fixes ten-day limit
during which the franchise is before
the commission to be recommended OF
disapproved, as the investigation may
determine. We regard this provision
as essential to the public interest. Al
the present time all spur tracks Tor
railways are reported upon by the
board of public works, but there Is no
technical or expert authority to assist
the council in deciding upon other
forms of utility franchise.
Provisions for Salary
your ordinance provides a salary OF
$2400 a year for secretary Ours
leaves all salary questions open for the
commission to decide. The mere re-
porting of meetings could be done, Tor
example, by the Office stenographer'
and the official secretaryshlp could De
held by an engineer or accountant OF
other technical employe of the board,
with much better economy than win
fixed salary for secretary. We reel
that it is a mistake to make the ordl-
nance rigid on that point.
your ordinance provides Tor nVe
commissioners as against our three,
and gives them a salary of $1,000
apiece, or $4,000 all together, where ours
provides no salary at all. Yours pro-
vides for one of the commissioners to
be an engineer, one an accountant and
one a lawyer. Having fixed the salary
of all at $1,000 the TWO clLlzeHS 5St
Just the same pay as the professional
men for expert services, and having
once fixed the salary of the latter you
can allow them no more except by
amending the ordinance from time 10
time. thousand dollars a year VIII
not go far toward employing the kind
of professional help that is needed, ana
vet that sum, or even less, can be used
to advantage If work is done by the
piece. Your arrangement, we contend,
is not so economical nor so practlcal
as the one we propose. You eXhaust
$7400 of the total appropriation Of $4,000
without going far toward the kind or
technical help that the work VIII re-
quire Our ordinance leaves these mat
ters to the discretion of the commits
sloners, the latter being citizens VINO
will give a reasonable amount OF their
time free of charge to the city, just as
other commissions do now.
Would Give Mayor Appointive Power
your plan calls for the appointment
of the commissioners by council, ours
by the mayor. True. in this instance
you have courteously asked the adVlce
of the commercial bodies and the
league. but we recognize that act as
extra-legal. AS all the other commits
sions of the city are, under the charter,
appointed by the mayor and confirmed
by council, we have followed the prece-
dent so plainly indicated. The mere