The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-07-26

AhcfS Gfc SoiIe uiitNfFbNES IA thN
names and powers given these sew
eral bodies of the respective cities.
But Tor our purposes We need only
notice the main fact that each of then,
has two bodies instead of single
/ commission board. In each OF them,
what is called the corporate powers"
that is the Legislative and admins
tratve powers. are lodged in what
may DE called, for general descrip-
, ton, n commission while, what
may be called the council, whose
members are elected from the sew
eral wards. have very limited powers.
Those powers are confined to the right
OF vetoing any franchise or license
granted. or ordinance passed. by the
commission board. the right to de-
mana or the commission any specifi-
cations, maps, contracts. papers. etc.
etc, affecting the city's interests and
the power to remove upon charges
heard any member of the commits
sion.
IL would. therefore. appear that in
al charters, under the commission
form. both legislative and admins
trative powers are given TO single
| body.
We have seen from the provisions
above noticed from our State con-
stitution that, not only must We have
| city council but that that body has
solely and exclusively the Legislative
| powers OF the city. II follows, there
fore, that the most that can now be
done is to cresEe department, which
shall have control over the admin
! istrative features OF the city govern
ment.
Whether this separation of the
legislative and administrative powers
Is wise or not, the fact is. that at
| present they can not he lodged in one
body, unless they are allowed to re-
main In the city council
! a city council, as required in this
| State. liz far from a commission form
/ OF government. While the numerical
| size Of both branches of the city
council can be reduced. under the
power above mentioned, as given by
| the constitution. yet the members
4 would have to be elected by wards.
| while under the commission form
! of government the members are
elected by the voters of the entire
! city. Nor could the members of the
I two branches of the city council sit
as joint body. as they are mem
| bers OF separate and distinct bodies,
which are expected to act separate
/ ~.
Therefore the mere reduction of
the members, comprising the two
I tidiitlsS, NOhfd MOI lft<fhC LstE Aol III
( approach what liz called the commits
son plan.
The nearest approach which we can
now make to that plan Is by retaining
| the city council with It's Legislative
| powers and it's constitutional power
to grant franchises, and at the same
time establishing an administrative
department and transferring from the
council and it's committees all the ad-
ministration powers. including therein
the expenditures of all money the APP
pointment or election and control of
all administrative officers, the control
OF the city property. and the several
departme Of the city government.
II is to say the least question OF
some doubt, whether such separation
Of legislative and administrative pow
ers is not the wiser course.
The arguments for the single small
body are
LIST. What is known as the short
ballot"
I'd. The concentration in a few
persons of all responsibilities SO that
the blame of failure or improper man
agement can be more easily placed
The theory of the short ballot is
! that where there are only few per-
! sons to be elected. the voters will
P"S AA'A Y atbNilAoh ~ tue tIdi a11SS j
, and abilities of those to be elected
than they would if there were many
persons to be voted for.
| do not think that this theory
would in the case of this city be iu-
: juriously disregarded by our having
both city council and a board OF
administration. BY constitutional
provision above noticed the mayor
and the members OF the city council
/ cannot be elected at the same time
with the other city officers, among
} whom would be the members of the
suggested board of administration
4 Should the number of the members of
$ each branch OF the city council he
t considerably reduced. as they should
1 be. the theory of the short ballot
= would have fun play. so far az ii
e applies to the city council.
. Nor do | think that the theory
r would be materially affected in the
: election of the members of a board
e OF administration. 1t Ii true that
i there gre certain city officers which
: the G6FisfGtc.tsUs requires shah De
q elected by the people But they are
$ not many In number And the char
: aeter Of their duties are such that
: their election would not be apt To
prevent any intelligent man from
g easily making his selection for the
very important hoard OF administra
ton. Under the present charter most
: OF the heads OF the city departments
: are elected by the city council. I'm
= der the plan here under discussion
a most. If not all. OF them could and
should be elected by the board OF
administration.
4 Nor do ! think that the plan her.
suggested IL in actual opposition te
Z the second argument above stated
n viz: That 1t Is desirable to concentrate
f In few all the primary responsibili-
f ties OF government.
. I do not think that that theory
: should be regarded as applicable
;. whore the responsibilities are not cog
y nate, but are Of manifestly diverse
natures. 1t would rather appear &c
a be true that. where tho Responsible
: ties are clearly distinct In their char.
n acter, ii would he wiser to so sepa-
8 rate them. so that those, bearing tne
O responsibilities. could concentrate
q their attention upon one class or an
other, and not have their attention d.
n verted first upon one and then upon
. another. il In their natures they are
:, unrelated.
= few Illustrations viii show this-
= There Is no similarity between the
responsibility for levying a tax and
, that Of spending the money raised BY
= the tax between enacting a building
code and having the requiem 4ilts CT
. the code duly observed. between en-
q acting traffic ordinance and see
q fhxa f,,IJ,