HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESO 2377i~ ~ I~
-·-,. _,.,.-'! '' w .. -; ,.,k .. ,~ . "' •• ' ......... _ .. __ •.
L
l
R B ~ Q L Q ! 1 0 N N 0 • _g,m
OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION NO. 10 ON NOVBMBEH 4, 1952,, GENERAL
ELECTION BAI.LOT
WHEREAS, Proposition No. 10 would prohibit tbe prot'.)er and
econom1cal :.ise of public funds for obv1ou~ public purposes by the
Joint action of all of the cities and other public agencies of California; and
WHEREAS, Propos1t1on No. 10 does not prohibit the sepa~ate
expenditure of public funds to urge leg1alat1on of interest to the
City of Palo Alto but merely prevent8 the City of Palo Alto from
Joining with sister mun1c1pal1t1ea in urging the adoption of state
and federal legislation or interest to all cities or opposing the
enactment or measures which would be immediately harmful to city residents; an1
WHEREAS, Proposition No. 10, which in no way relates to
pensions, 1s advanced by pension promoter George McLain to punish
those who opposed and defeated a former McLain peneion program; and
493
WHEREAS, Proposition No. 10 does not prohibit private interests
from influencing legislation on a collective basis but only ~rohibit~
collective representation of public interests and agencies; and
W1il!REAS, Proposition No. 10 permanently destroys or severely
damages a countless number of quas1-publ1c agencies whose only
purpose 1s the advancement of good government and the public
interest, auch ae the League of California Cities, the Shorel~ne Pl~nning, District Attorneys, Irrigation Districts, Fire Chiefs,
Supervisore, School Trustees and School Administrators Assoc1at1ons,
and the California Conference or Social Workers; and
WHEREAS, Proposition No. 10 would cause the wasteful and
extravagant expenditure of public fu~ds to do individually what
now may be economically achieved jointly by cities and other public
agencies of California, including the state and its departments
and agencies;
NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of' Palo Alto DOES RESOLVE as follows:
That it 1a opposed to the adoption of Proposition No. 10
beca~se it would cause 1rntold harm to the cities of California and
their citizens; and urges the electors of the Clty of Palo Alto to
vote ~No" on Proposition No. 10 at the November 4, 1952, election.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly
introduced and passed by the Council of the City or Palo Alto at
an adjourned regular meeting held on the 8th day of October, 1952,
by the following vote:
A ES·Bishop, Blois, 9ashel, Cathcart, Drysdale, Hill, Marshall,
YE ·Mitchell, Montreuil, S11'1pscn, Wells, Wickett.
NOES: None. .
ABSENT: Bower, Gaspa.r, M1ller. ' /~ ~ ',/ -~~OIED: .· ~~ ~ ATTEST:i£4<~ / i Mayor
ty er ///
,,../
:
·~