09-03-34 Council Special Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

In view of the foregoing and for the protection of all city employes and taxpayers of this city I hereby -veto proposed Ordinance No, 3066. Respectfully, We R. Hinkle, Mayor. The Communication was ordered to be placed on file. ORDINANCE NO. 3066. An Ordinance Fixing the Salariea of certain City Officials and employees-,of the Municipal City of South Bend, Indiana, and Repealing all Ordinances and Parts of Ordinances in Conflict Therewith. The Ordinance was given its third reading by title, and was placed upon 4Lts passage and passed over the Mayor's Veto by the following vote: Nelson, Whiteman, Rokop,Goetz, Hull, Jaworski Altfeld, Hiss, Oakley, Grzeskowiak, Gripe and Gustin, Ayes-12, Nays 00 Ordinance adopted over the Mayor's Veto. COMMUNICATION. City of south Bend Indiana Office of the Mayor William R; Hinkle September 1, 1934. Mayor MESSAGE OF THE MAYOR TO THE COMMON COUNCIL Gentlemen: Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 3067. - This Ordinance proposes to increase the salaries of certain employes of the Board of Public 2ft Safety approximately 100 above the amounts established in the published budget of 1935, which increase is to be effective January 1, 1935. In my budget message to your honorable body I provided for a 1% increase for city employes for t] year 1935. This ordinance providing for this additional increase of 10% above the amount provide( in the budget is not fair to the balance of the city employes nor other wage and salary earners: nor taxpayers. There is no law, rule nor regulation establishing the salary rates for the group of employes whicl this ordinance favors, nor is there any obligation for any restoration to any amount formerly pail These employes' salaries like other city employes, are in harm9ny with local conditions and well above the amounts paid employes of private industry. A restoration can only be based:y upon a return to normal conditionsx among the taxpayers. They must have a restoration of ability.-to pad first. he unfairness and injustice of this ordinance could easily be the basic reason for an executive veto brut the legal question enters also. Chapter 60 of the Acts of 1933 provies that the Common Council cannot increase the budget without the approval of the Mayor.' Proposed- Ordinance No.3067 ould rewire the increase of the 1935 budget which I submitted to your body. In view of the distressed financial conditions of ldca1 taxpayersmf I absolutely refuse to agree dr approve any increase in the budget of 1935.' Chapter 95 of the 4cts of 1929rc7 specifically provides that the budget of the City cannot be raised after its publication. The budget was published on August 16th and 23d andbtherefore urd er this the Mayor and the Common Council are legally barred from approving any increase in the published budget of 1935•: hapter 233 of the Acts of 1933 changed the method of establishing city emplo�es salaries. The tate Legislature fixed the maximum salaries dor city officials and gave the right to the Common ouncil to fix the minimum with the restriction that such- aminimum should not be less than 80% of hemaximum. For all other city employes' salaries the law provides that the Mayor shall fix the aximum and the CommonbOouncil is given the right to fix the mminimum except that it shall not xceed the maximum set by the Mayor have submitted to yorur honorable body the 1935 budget in which the maximum salaries have been 'fixed, and an additional message sett forth such maximums that have been established by me for the year 2) 1935. ( See page 26