Los Angeles herald., 1909-10-30
SECOND UTILITY
LAW IS VETOED
"BUT LITTLE BETTER THAN A
FARCE" SAYS MAYOR
ALEXANDER AGAIN PUTS MATTER
UP TO COUNCIL
Although Vote Was Seven to Two, It
Is Not Believed Ordinance
viii Be Passed Over
Protest

"But little better than a farce is the
stinging rebuke Mayor Alexander gives
the public utilities ordinance passed py
the CITY council last week in his veto
of the measure which he filed with the
city clerk yesterday evening.
This is the second veto the mayor
has given a public utilities ordnance
passed by the council and in addlLloll
to the faults he found with the nrst
one he finds other Just as serious with
the second. -,
Although the vote for the public utll-
tiles ordinance in the council was seven
to two, 1t is doubtful If seven votes
can be marshaled to pass 1t over the
executive negative when 1t comes be-
fore the council next Tuesday. Presl-
dent Pease voted in the affirmative but
he was far from satisfied with the or
dinance, and now that the mayor has
pointed out the glaring faults in the
ordinance it is not likely President
Pease will vote to pass it over his veto
It requires seven votes to pass the or
dinance without the mayors approval.
The message was as follows:
The honorable, the city council: L
return herewith without my ap-
proval an ordinance creating de-
partment of public utilities passed
by your honorable body october w.
for the following reasons:
This ordinance is an amended
form of the one sent me two weeks
ago bearing the same title. The
amendments have so improved the
original that 1t might be given Sc
rious consideration as a compro-
mise between what the people de-
sire and what the utility corpora
tions are willing to allow, if 1t were
not for two facts, viz:
ID That you have completely null
lifted the usefulness of your ordi-
nance by the size and arrangement
of the appropriation, and (2) that
the recent filing of a petition in
initiative for an ordinance on this
same subject will enable the peo-
pie to express their wishes in the
matter, and any ordinance voted
by them would repeal and super
sede your ordinance.
You appropriate the sum of $4,000
for your commissioners, $4,000 OF
which is to be paid to them indl-
Vidually and $2400 to a secretary.
What the situation calls for is
technical work Qargely detail and
field work. of engineers, account
ants, inspectors, etc, and for all this
and maintaining an office, publish
ing a large annual report, etc., you
allow but $500. This makes the
whole proposition but little better
than a farce. True, you provide
that three of your commissioners
are to be professional men, and
these are to get $1,000 each; but
cannot see that lawyer is needed,
and little could be expected from
an expert engineer or accountant
for $1,000 per year. And why are
your technical commissioners to be
paid no more than the non-techni-
cal? Evidently all are paid as
commissioners; hence whatever
technical services they render will
be largely gratutous. A more un-
businesslike arrangement could
hardly be devised.
This ordinance, like the one vetoed
two weeks ago, contains the same
extraordinary feature of appoint
ment, whereby your honorable
body, within one month of the end
of your term, appoints majority
of the commission over the heads of
your successors, to July l, 1912. This
is most irregular proceeding,
unique. I believe, in the history of
municipal legislation.
The ordinance contains other
faults and omits a number of neces-
sary provisions, but the points I
have mentioned are more than suf-
ficient, 1 believe, to justify my re-
fusal to assist in making it law.
1 would respectfully suggest that,
under the circumstances, it would
be far wiser to leave the whole is
sue for the people to act upon at
the coming city election.
Respectfully submitted,
GEORGE ALEXANDER,
Mayor.