Laserfiche WebLink
rd <br /> 395 <br /> Novmnber 14,1993 <br /> The4ovladoneIf cttol 25'-7 Article II(Amendment <br /> 35),Section 25,5,o£Article III(Amendment 31), <br /> Asection -ofArticle <br /> ec XIV,ISection 8 of Article xa <br /> and <br /> eteye£ vlax3 (Amendment S2 'insofar <br /> asha inconsistent herewith <br /> are hereby repealed." <br /> Since' f the City of <br /> - - specifies <br /> that==e <br /> Pe as may memo the 'Couneil( Article I of the <br /> w charter'of <br /> theCity <br /> i y of Everett) a1 a he only haft power o <br /> h P h- 1 NYb .ridden by � <br /> q d he Cisty.£ ty Coancil( d f the f <br /> dn de en s ) considered not i h fixes <br /> (See AGO 9 8 561.-. light <br /> esevaso(d AGO 19)3 96914o.36,lary, e h y Councilg lysate the mayor's <br /> nevi S utogetherAmendment 59 h <br /> vF o 1 construing <br /> increased during nisoffice be 1 .P <br /> 3 5 a t 9e wardeeX o Amendment election p or the c h d tion <br /> rwst Ever ing his term of office. (See 9 after h 1 '.c <br /> sed s, Finally,it should be noted that both-Amendment 5Aad 57 w <br /> approved by the v e general'electtons, Amendment 54 <br /> 5 wasAmeso <br /> oeapo <br /> approved inthe November 1968 statewide election and <br /> 5 was approved in the November 1972statewide election, <br /> ( IrosteionitioNaonitectvnly, <br /> .19)3. <br /> I. Initiative applicable only to s 1973 salary <br /> the very language'o ropositian N the proposition <br /> Prplies only to they 1973 salary. following phrase in the <br /> op an:clear orth-thi nt so o ak he <br /> 'May f the City' f 8 ett`s 1973 salary is d t a 5.58 <br /> i01111111 langusoistiattithe.proposition. All he ether language f <br /> propositionthe of how t statement is to be <br /> implmeted,ea.eas byaam d e:226-73,Section 2A, <br /> ol:benb that Na <br /> ' On:1009111On applies to the. effect Mayor's973 salary,i.e.the salary in <br /> 973 <br /> 2. Salaries cannot be rolled sack <br /> 1ff IBMs, dr principle Washington law.N t statutes <br /> •oeellonvo^ affecting'v construed asoperating <br /> Nye-so op , prospectively onlyretrospectively(Seammock v <br /> ap,is 11 4 Wn 2 4(195)a ex el Pike v Bellingham,a 1.83 Ween- <br /> ...flare,' 439 119251. <br /> The case of State en rel Pike vs.Bellingham, <br /> Ilaspecific' roll city <br /> nolr.2go ad employees' <br /> oatt Initiative <br /> u -the the v itiative does n t haretroactive applies <br /> 11 San (See also 4 0551111in,Municipal Corptirations Sec.12.1969 <br /> bnd 6 municipal corpora. 537(c). Finally,the <br /> S nigh l.lc2tiy be aft 7 be a property right. <br /> of (see "City, 178 '288 S..85(19261, <br /> lightin these legal principles,,the proposition <br /> e'7'' cannot appliedtime of <br /> its passage,retroactively to the <br /> lary k mayor A 1 yc dvn 19)3 <br />