The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1918-02-21
DR.. Anderson Explains Civic
Association Point of View

r~onoss TO give the citizens after ask
i,ry them TO wait two o. three years?
The commission form of government
will be the great result, they say. OF
heir movement. But II may be we'll
to notice that the commission form
~ government would mean merely
the retention of the administrative
hoard and giving to II the legislative
mowers Of the council. So the ad-
rfristretive board offers the city Of
Richmond the privilege OF retaining
-heir services on the present basis
and at the present salaries for two or
three years, and the promise OF re
tanning them with increased powers
for the indefinite future. What a
I7nd Of promise for the city!
Now NAV say that the Civic as
eocfatinn has never opposed the go
called petition or the method of sc
curing municipal reform which It
,-ouIs bring about by charter COM
mission. As matter of fact with
ont ovr efforts there would. IN all
r~Shabillty. have been no charter
cov,rnivsion law applicable tn Rich
,, 3nd. though the present law IN not
N all respects what we proposed. At
the sarle time. we must earn eetfy dts
Scnt from the statement that we ever
tried - raise the required petition
end failed We have made no efrort
whatever in that direction. Wa must
confess however, that the admins
,ratfre board. paid So. 900 each by the
city Win m army Of errioyes Rfwp
0rtS by the city. has something of ar
advantage Of citizens busy about many
important business affairs when II
comes 20 raising petition in which
I'D IA T. =
But we hav~ never opposed the eS-
called city hail petition We wifi TATE
action on the different stages of pro
cedure nece-sftated by this petition
when the time for action comes
Neither do we believe that ire pro
gram Of reform proposed by the cttv
council iE perfect or complete But
Nc believe this program. certainly n
the extent that II recommends tire
abolition Of the administrative board
IN in ftne with the irrm ediste demands
and needs os our citizens. as wall as IN
Ifns with the recon NJ endatfons OF IN
excelled expert advice. And we 40
earnestly protest against q bclaTeTi
petition being USED to defeat the IN
sistent demands Of citizens for i'm
mediate relief from the incubus o.
this administrative board. Az bona
iHe HpVN iOT CHHItST CTHHWps, SnS Pc
titIon movement is one thing; ss p
mems Of delay. cause OF expense,
rrd a benefit 70 five men at the ex
r~rse Of 100 900 men. women and
children for two or three years. II e
entirely a different and an unfair
scheme
All the personal shuwe snowered
urcn the Civic association ana tire
executive secretary in particular. and
also unon the bureau OF municipal re-
search can be ignored. But the out
star ding facts should he bIazonsd
forth-~-thnt tire sober Judgment Of thu
c'tirens OF Richmond. including the
! Civic association, OF the bureau OF
municipal research and Of the coun-
! Gil OF Richmond ~ unanimous vote In
one house and OF four to one in The
other. IL that the administrative board
should he abolished and abolished az
the earliest opportunity and that no
helated petition sponsored by inter
ested parties should stand In the way.
| The petition should serve the purpose
for which II was permitted IN the law
as a positive method OF reform and
not a. negative scheme for delay.
And the charter amendments propos-
cd by the council should follow the
course always followed by such pro-
poSals-without any serious attention
to the absurd argument, that for mere
charter changes the whole complex
machinery of petition, commission
and election must be used
q. r ANDERSON