Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-10-07

Il. Unde~ general rules OF parlia-
mentary law. in the absence Of n spe-
cial rule OF the Police Board rcgulat-
ing the procedure. but considering it's
long custom in such matters above
stated. were the actions of the Police
Board taken at the said meeting of
September 30. other than those pertain
ing to the charges against the accused
policeman. legal or illegal?
~. II such actions were illegal. did
such policemen whose terms expired
October | automatically drop from tho
force, or are they such officers as by tho
state Constitution are directed TO con-
tinue to discharge the duties Of their
offices after their terms of service have
expired until their SUCCESSORS have
qualifed?"
RULES THAT ACTION
OF BOARD WAS ILLEGAL
beg TO make the following response
in the order in which the questions
are asked:
!. ! hold that the action taken by
the Police Board at their meeting held
on September 30. 1915, other than the
action which was taken in pursuance
Of the call made for said special meet
ing. viz: for the consideration of
charges of INVESTIGATION against "A mem
Der of the police force. were illegally
taken. and. therefore. void and of no
effect whatever.
Mr. Dillon. in section 533 OF his work
on Municipal Corporations. Vol. II, in
discussing the question Of notice OF
special meetings. how given saws:
"if the meeting be a special one. the
general rule is. unless modified by the
charter or statute or valid ordinance
(Which in this case would he some rule
or regulation adopted by the Board
OF Police Commissioners that notice
is necessary and must hc personally
served if practicable, upon every mem
Der entitled to he present. so that each
one may be afforded an opportunity 10
participate and vote"
And in section 535 concerning tho
character OF the notice. says:
Where tho meeting is a special one
the body called can only act upon mat
ters of which notice has been given
to the members. while II is competent
in either case "a regular or a special
meeting) TO adjourn. the adjourned
meeting is in both cases limited equal
l. with the first meeting, TO the speci-
fed matters"
Citing many cases which need not he
quoted. but which fully sustain tho
learned author.
CITES AUTHORITY
ON SPECIAL MEETINGS
Mr.. Tiedeman, in his work on Mu-
nicipal Corporations, in section %,
SAYS:
when special meeting is held. the
business transacted must he exclusively
that named in the call; and any act OF
the meeting, wholly outside of tho spe-
cial purpose of the meeting, is void"
Citing ST. Louis vs. Williams 90 Mo.
s4s and Burgen VS.. Clarkson, / Hal
stead On. j., 353 1854. In the last cited
case the court referring to tho vote
taken at the special meeting said:
We are OF opinion that this vote
being wholly beside the special purpose
of the meeting, as stated in the reso-
luton Of the Council and the public
notice. was void" t.--,.,
While the English cases are unani-
nous in sustaining this holding, there
is some conflict OF authority in the
States OF the Union. but the great
weight of authority sustains the doc
trine which places a limitation upon a
municipal deliberative body in the
transaction of business at special
meeting. so that no business can legal
u be transacted not stated in the call
for the special meeting.
In making this holding, am not UNI
mindful OF the facts stated in your
communication. that:
ITO the best of my (your) knowl-
edge and belief. the Police Board ha
never adopted any formal parliament
AIRY rules of procedure. save in very
few particulars. and they have no
formal rule 10 govern the question Of
what business may he brought before
special meeting other than that
named in the notice therefor; but. by
long CUSTOM il has been the habit OF
the board to hear and determine any
business that any member or the secre-
tary brought before the meeting"
BOARD FAILE DTO COMPLY
WITH MANDATE OF CHARTER
II is clear to me that the fact that
the board has failed to comply with
the mandate OF the charter. which pro-
vides that the board shall adopt rules
and regulations for the government
thereof"-that Is. of their meetings,
and their continued violation Of the
fundamental principle recognized by
the foregoing authorities could not
legaliEe their action in taking action
at their meeting OF the Goth ult., OF
Wnlcn no notice hau peen given.
The reason for the ruling made above
is so patent that it need not be en-
larGed upon, yet ii is SO we'll stated in
the case OF Burger VS.. Clarkson, at
page 364. that ] beg to insert what is
there said:
The injurious consequences which
might result from establishing the
principle that the Common Council may
no MI m ica
for our purpose. which perhaps. being
obviously necessary or advisable. they
may be induced to remain at home, and
the assembly thus convened may i'm
pose a tax for another and altogether
q distinct purpose, are so manifest as
to require no illustration. II is not
sufficient answer to this to say that the
Common Council were not obliged to
specify the objects OF the meeting In
their summons or notice: we think
however, that this ought always to be