HomeMy WebLinkAboutSLOJX CHARTER 1911
CHARTER CITY SAN LUIS OBISPO
Joseph A. Carotenuti
While the first attempt to promote San Luis Obispo as a charter city (1907)
met with voter disapproval, there were those who knew determination had
its own rewards. Since the earlier proposed charter has not been found
except for its Table of Contents, comparison with the second version is not
possible but it is likely the same issues predominated the deliberations and
formation of the new charter.
Here’s the story.
Again, fifteen Freeholders were elected on April 11, 1910. The issue quickly
became which fifteen to place on the ballot as “factions” demanded
representation. Some even considered abandoning the idea to become a
“fifth class” city.
By State law, freeholders were required to be residents and voters in the
community for at least five years. The more difficult issue was who would
represent the special interest groups identified as the Merchant’s
Association, Chamber of Commerce, and Municipal League. In a joint
meeting, a slate of candidates was chosen for election. In effect, those
elected become the local founding fathers.
Only three of the original Freeholders served on the new group:
• Warren M. John, the new postmaster, with no affiliation with a faction
was chosen chairman of the group. His wife, Callie, would become
the longest serving City Clerk (1913-1941).
• Dr. William M. Stover (a Chamber of Commerce representative) was
twice elected mayor (1915-1919).
• Louis F. Sinsheimer – representing the Merchant’s Association -
would become the longest serving Mayor in the City’s history (1919-
1939).
Additionally, the Daily Telegram emphasized some of the benefits of
regulation by a charter “not obtainable under any of the ‘class’ designations”
for communities: no sudden rises in taxes, clear provisions as to street work,
procedures for obtaining park sites, holding the water works “forever,”
removing “faithless” public officials, procedures for the “people” to initiate
legislation, public “say’ as to the granting of a public utility franchise,
abolishing useless offices, and competitive bidding for public works. High
expectations and results were again demanded of the Freeholders.
The Charter was completed on July 8 – within the statutory 90 days for
formulation – and accepted by the Council the next day with an election
scheduled for early September. Undoubtedly, some provisions, if not most,
replicated the first charter. If adopted, the new charter would transform the
operations of the community. Proposed changes began at the top.
The Mayor’s role as chief executive officer also required a yearly report on
city affairs, employing a “competent” accountant to examine financial
transactions, and supervision of the public utilities….especially water. Each
of the four councilmen became a Commissioner: Public Health and Safety,
Supplies, Public Works, and Revenue and Finance expected to exercise
“active management and control” of his department. No issue could be
decided if a department’s Commissioner was not present. Some 56 specific
“powers” were reserved to the elected officials.
Bureaucracy was addressed as “useless offices” needed to be abolished as
well as consolidated. The Charter specifically addressed the creation of staff
positions most notably adding a police chief with the proviso (among many)
that any fee collected be sent to the treasurer. Library trustees served without
compensation.
As detailed by the newspaper, city taxes needed to be “limited” and
prevented from any “sudden raise in the rate as was done a few months ago.”
The result in the charter was a calendar for preliminary and draft budgets
starting four months before a final levy. The rate not to exceed 85 cents per
$100 assess valuation did not include a school budget and bonded
indebtedness. The annual Tax Levy varied but hovered around $2.25.
As the community was spreading geographically, streets, sidewalks, sewage,
and water came to dominate city business and budgets requiring
“provisions.” A major proposal was to consolidate duties of the city
engineer as “superintendent” for streets and water. Public work contracts
were awarded to the lowest bidder warned against collusion between council
members or among bidders.
Some stipulation was required to permit the people to have legislation voted
upon and not petition “trustees as rulers” to do so. Residents needed the
means to influence government beyond voting for candidates. Articles XIII
and XIV provided the citizenry with initiative and referendum procedures.
Article XII specified recall procedures for the removal of “faithless” elected
officials. Anyone elected had three months before the voters could start a
petition of recall.
Expectations ran high as – if adopted – the charter of 17 Articles and 110
Sections would transform the operations and character of the community. A
simple majority vote was needed to pass the new Charter.
The choice was clear: a charter city had more command of its municipal
destiny than a community controlled by the authorities in Sacramento.
On September 12, 1910, the people voted and the City began a fresh career.
Of the 821 voters, 65% approved the charter. The former mission settlement
for 84 years, then town for 20 years and with only 35 years experience as a
city was now starting a new municipal chapter.
The next step was to send the approved charter to the Secretary of State a
few days before Christmas. Both the Senate and Assembly ratified the
Charter on January 16 and February 17, 1911 respectively.
Another election was required on the first Monday in May with subsequent
elections being held in April beginning in 1913. In the meanwhile, the
officials – both elected and appointed – remained in office.
On Monday, May 15, 1911, the first Charter City Council convened with
Mayor Archibald McAlister, four council members (including two carryover
officials) and most appointed personnel continuing to serve the community.
One hundred years later, after some 50 elections and twenty mayors along
with various amendments, we remain a Charter City.