Imperial Valley press., 1944-10-31
THREE PROPOSALS AFFECT
LEGISLATURE, OFFICIALS

Propositions three, six ard seven and
ten which will appear on the November
ballot have to do with the legislature and
with the salaries of elective officers.
Three of the four call for expenditures
under direction of the legislature. The
fourth touches on a change to annual
sessions of the states lawmaking body.
We hope all the voters have familiariZ-
ed themselves with these propositions. To
vote inteligenty that is necessary.
The Post-Press Newspapers, following
the urge given for study of the entire
dozen proposals, have reached cOnclu-
sons as to why some should be carried
and others defeated at the polls
We believe Proposition Three should
be enacted. 1t calls for an amendment to
the constitution by adding Section 22 to
Article Five And, incidentally, we believe
the voters should be fully aware of which
of the proposals are in the form of
amendments and which initiative laws.
Three gives the Legislature the right
to fix salaries of elective state officials
II removes this act from the constitution.
The present salary limits were fixed,
constitutionally in 1908 Every other in
tarest in the state has changed with
the growth of the state from the 1908
population to its now 7,5O0,OOO.
1--WE believe. for two reasons, that this
change should be made next month First,
it is time for readjustments. Thirty-siX
years have seen the state as a business
concern grow and with this growth come
added duties and compensation should
keep pace Second, it is our belief that
regulation of salaries is purely prero-
gative of the legislature. The argument
that the lawmaking body might be in
fluenced" isn't enough to call for this
proposals defeat.
The legislature is empowered to guide
the state in many greater financial ana
political matters. If it goes wrong, the
electors have the cule-name new legis-
lators.
Proposition Seven, we believe, should
be supported. largely because of the same
conditions affecting Number Three. Good
lawmakers should have compensation in
the way of accrued expenses while at
tending the peoples business. lncompet-
ent lawmakers should not be permitted
to stay long to draw either salary or eX-
penSeS.
On Number Ten, we believe 1t to be
unwise practice to increase officials sal
aries during a term. In this instance, the
terms relatively are short and the chang
inp living expenses do not enter so strong
" into the picture. Furthermore, the
elected officer has a contract to be ful-
filled with the people-agreement when
seeking the office to conduct its affairs
at a tfen stipulated salary. In addition
q number of the offices named IN TINS
proposal are subject to salary increases
through action of boards for supervisors.
Number Six, changing to annual ses-
sions of the legislature, no session TO De
for more than 60 days
On this we say vote no. And IN reach-
ing this conclusion, we are not overlook
ing strong arguments favorlng the
change.
We believe the present system of hold
ing sessions every two years has worked
we'll. The proposed change would DO
away with the thirty-day "breather pc
riod''. To us, this is wrong move.
UNIQUE. the recess system has worked out
pretty largely as intended. We agree
that it has slipped up at times and that
there have been times when the second
session has been forced to continue too
long Also we are cognizant of the logic
in the stated view that legislators pur-
posely plan it that way-we would INSIST
that the bills be introduced in full at the
fhirtv-day session and not by title only.
But on the whole we can not agree
that il is difficult to set biennial bud
oct or that any inconvenience is worked
DuyU NAV