1952-2020WHEREAS, there will be presented for consideration of the voters a prow
posal to prohibit appropriation or expenditure of public funds by an initiative
constitutional amendment, and
WHEREAS, if Proposition No. 10 on the November ballot is not defeated, the
following action must necessarily take place;
RESOLUTION NO. 2020
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM OPPOSING PROPOSITION NO. 10 ON TIE
NOVEMBER BALLOT.
1. The collective voice of the cities of California will no longer be heard
in Sacramento.
2. The collective influence of cities in state affairs will disappear.
3. The collective influence of California Cities in national governmental
affairs will disappear.
4. The Cities of California would not be present to safeguard and protect the
people from vicious legislation and legislation which would be adverse
to the best interest of residents of towns_and cities of California.
5. The Cities would not benefit from the collective thinking and planning
required in carrying out the objectives of legislation beneficial to the
Cities in California.
6. This vicious legislation would prohibit the County Board of Supervisors
from effecting legislation of benefit to the people of all the Counties
in California.
7. It would be unconstitutional for any city or other governmental agency
in California to pay any money to any association or organization which
attempts to influence federal, state or local legislation, and
WHEREAS, at the last session of the legislature more than eight hundred
bills affecting cities were introduced. The League of California Cities was
instrumental in seeing that only those bills which were of benefit to the citizens
of the cities were finally passed. This requires coordination and collective efforts
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Anaheim
3'o on record as being opposed to Proposition TTo. 10, and urge the defeat of this
measure.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of Anaheim urge the
residents of Anaheim to vote NO upon Proposition No. 10.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Governing Body of this city consider this
_proposed amendment as detrimental to all the people of the City of Anaheim, of the
aunty of Orange and of the State of California.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was signed and approved by me this 23rd day of
3eptember, 1952.
mayor of t e City of Anaheim
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1 1 COUNTY OF ORANGE ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
CITY OF ANAHEIM
204 E. CENTER ST.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
13
14 AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim approved and signed
said resolution on the day of $eptember 19_.__
15 id li h
2 y
16
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the City
17 of Anaheim this .23rd.. -day of September
18 j
191
20
21 (SEAL)
I, CHARLES E. GRIFFITH, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a Rezt
meeting of the City Council of the City of Anaheim, held on the 25rd day of September i9.5Z,
by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Wieser, Heying, Boney and Van Wagoner.
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None.
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Pearson.
Pro Tem
City Clerk o f the 4 f Anaheim.