Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-08-28
was killing time burposely and would
result In criticism from many sources.
THINKS CITIZEN MEMBERS
ltEFLECT ASSOCIATIONS, ATTITUDE

was killing time burposely and would
result In criticism from many sources.
THINKS CITIZEN MEMBERS
ltEF'bECT ASSOCIATIONS ATTITUDE
III VIC undertake to walt for civic
bodies to express themselves we will
never get through" said Mr.. Ratclire.
! All over the city associations have
| taken up tho study of charter reform.
To give them all a hearing before we
undertake the work ourselves will
| mean delay of weeks and perhaps
months.
I'm the creation of a citizens COM
mittee to advise with the Council menu
bers. it was purposed to give represent
tation to the citizenship at large and
these clifton mem bers, | am sure, can
be depended upon to reflect the scnti-
| ment of the association from which We
are urged to hear. Let this committee
decide now whether II will retain tho
the civic organizations just as we'll. and
with just as much profit. later
Councilman Peters suggested All an
amendment to Mr. lIaddon's motion that
the date OF the next meeting be fixed
for September 49, Mr. Haddon accepted
motion was put'and adopted. In the
absence OF vote In the negative tho
motion was declared TO have carried
unanimously.
SWEEPING CHANGES REQUIRE
VOTE OF PEOPLE. SAYS ANDERSON
Tho meeting WAS called to order in
the Council Chamber at s:l5 o'clock.
Clerk A. II. Mcdowell read a lengthy
opinion from Assistant City Attorney
Anderson defining his views as to what
would be regarded as an amendment to
tho present form OF government, and
what would be considered a new form
entirely.
Information on these points was re-
quested by Charles V. Meredith at the
last meeting of the committee. The
distinction was OF the first importance
since n new form of government could.
under the recent act of the General
Assembly. be put into effect only after
.n:nts to the prcsent form, however.
could be authorized by the legislature
upon the request OF the Council. with
out reference TO tn. people.
Colonel Anderson held ;hat an
/ amendment would be any change that
the General Assembly could authorize
without deviating from the provisions
as to city governments contained in
the Constitution. Such amendments.
hn said, could redistribute the eSecu-
tive Or administrative functions, but
could make no change Of the organic
structure created by the Constitution.
THINKS COUNCIL. COULD
SUMMIT MINOR AMENDMENTS
The modification Of the organic
structure by the abolition. for example,
Of the Council or Mayor. Colonel An
derson held, could not be authorized
by the General Assembly except under
the recent act describing the manner
I'm which cities OF over $4,000 inhabi-
tants may change their forms ~ gov
eminent. Such changes. the act pre-
scribes, must be approved by the
voters. The abolition OF the Council
and Mayors. ONCE. Colonel Anderson
held, WOULD constitute a change OF
government and would require the APP
proval OF the electorate.
Chairman Jones here asked Colonel
Anderson IL, under the opinion just
rendered. the Council would have the
right to submit to the people for their
approval amendments which tho Cen
eral Assembly may authorize without
their assent.
That. AS you are aware. raises a
legal point about which lawyers differ
bitterly" replied Colonel Anderson.
RAISES POINT ABOUT
WHICH LAWYERS DIFFER
81 would hold. subject TO the right TO
change my views after giving the
matter fuller study. that there would
be nothing improper in the Council
submitting such amendments to the
The action OF the voters on such
amendments would not be binding. The
Council would have the right to re-
commend them to the Legislature
should the people disapprove.
The legal effect of allowing the
people to vote on legislation which the
Council has full power to enact alone
may be open to question. The SAME
point exactly arose recently in the
submission of the enabling act to the
voters OF the State. There arose the
question of the Legislatures abdicatihR