California city government, 1948-12 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 2 of 7 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
~ANGELES PUBLIC lfBRARY BUREAU OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY SAMUEL C. MAY Director CALIFORNIA CITY GOVERNMENT By JOHN C. BOLLENS and JOHN R . McKINLEY COP. 2 December 1948 • !here is very little likelihood that ·the state legislature will add Jiig amendments to or emasculate the 1.funioipal Corporations Act. Califorltles acting through their League of Cal if'ornia Cities are vigilant end -.e in. protecting the provisions of the .Act. They are responsible for r~nt status as a modern and adequate act. · ., '· It is easier for a special interest group to secure amendment of a oi~ ·~ fl'eeholder charter than it is to ' secure change in the state legislation. l·ia thus more possibility that such a group might add damaging sections to 1'.reeholder charter • . • · i ~ drafting local charters, boards of freeholders sometimes use new te f • logy and ambiguous phrases instead of a.dopting words which have been ·aubj t ·to judicial interpr.etation. As a oonsequence, it is possible that legi difficulties will arise in determining the exact meaning and intent of oe . n sections of a freeholder charter. '. f• The ti.oo tax limit imposed upon cities ' of the sixth olass may be ~!llf~ed by a majority of the voters of such cities.l l're;fu,lder Charter Cities . : fl ' 1Fitty-seven or about one fifth of the cities in California are operating ~ locally determined charters. (Table V, .on page 39) Slightly more than S, ,000 live in charter 1 cities. These cities, which make up about nineteen peroiint ot the incorporated places in the state, contain approximately eightyon P,91"oent of the people .living within city limits. They range in population .tr~1 :oroville with 4,421 to Los Angeles with 1,805,687. Their average popula- • tio including Los Angeles which has about one third of their total, is 94 1 9. Excluding Los Angeles, the average drops to 64,338. ~· California city containing more than 3,500 people may adopt its own r by following the procedure set forth in the state oonstitution:2 An election of a board of fifteen freeholders may be called by a two-thirds vote of the city council or by a petition signed bY 15 percent of the qualified electors of the city. If a majority of the voters favor drafting a charter, the fifteen freeholder candidates receiving the greatest number of votes at the same election are given the res~onsibility of drafting a charter within a period of one year. 2£. A charter may be : fr~d by the ' city council or its representatives. . . I i. ' 1947, Ch. 1343 c~anged the vot~ng · requirement from two-thirds I Q a majority. , 2.', caht~ Const., Art. XI, Seo~ 8 3. \Three valuable aids to councilmanio pr citizen charter drafters are Model . Ci~ Charter (1941 revision) and A Guide to Charter Commissions (194~ ;:b'O published by the National Kunic~pal . League, 299 Broadway, New York 7; ·•. ~d Revising a City. Charter (19~7), by Thomas H~ Reed, distributed by the .· GovetDnental Research Association, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York 20. '.: i~ l ' ' ' . I l, TABLE V FREEHOLDER CHARTER CITIES IN CALIFORNIA First, Pr~sent Charters Alameda Albany _....-Alhambra Bakersfield Berkeley Burbank Chico ....--Compton .....-Culver City Eureka Fresno Glendale Grass Valley i--Hunti:ngton Beach i--Inglewood vt.ong Beach Los Angeles Marysville .Modesto Monterey Napa Oakland Oroville Pacific Grove Palo Alto Pasadena Petaluma Piedmont yPomona 1907, 1937 1927 1915 J 1915 1895, 1909 i. . 1927 1923 1925 ' 1947 1.895 1901, 1921 1921 : 1893, 1921 .·1937 1927 ·1907, 1921 ' 1889, 1925 1919 1911 1911, 1925 1893, 1915 1889, 1911 1933 ' 1927 1909 1901 1911 1923 1911 First, Present Charters /porterville vRedondo Beach Redwood City Richmqnd Riverside Roseville Sacramento ~linas vSan Bernardino vSan ·Buena Ventura (Ventura) San Diego s&n Franoisoo San Jose .San Leandro San Luis Obispo San Mateo San Rafael ..:-Santa Barbara S.anta Clara Santa Cruz vSanta Monica Santa Rosa Stockton v'forrarioe v'f ulare Vallejo VVisalia Watsonville I II ' ! 1927 1935 1929 1909 1907, 1929 1935 1893, 1921 1903, 1919 1905 1931, 1933 1889, 1931 1898, 1931 1897, 1915 1933 1911 1923 1913 1899, 1927 1927 1907. 1911 1907" 1947 1903, 1923 1889, 1923 1947 1923 1899, 1946 1923 1903 .·.·.· ,•' : • .>' 'l ..J, ~ : ., . . . .. '. :I I'\ . _-, , A majority vote in favor 0£ the charter is required in order ' to obtain local ratification. The charter is then submitted to the state legislature at its next session. It must acquire a majority vote in both legislative houses (no charter has yet £ailed to get legislative ratification)~ Arter local and state legislative approval, it is then filed with the secretary of state. Charter amendments may be proposed by the city council or by a petition containing signatures of fi~een percent of the city voters. They must be approved by majority vote of the · city voters and the state legislature. ~ r~eeholder · charters illustrate the doctrine 0£ home rule for cities. Brietly stated, it is the power given to cities by state constitutional provisions to frame and adopt their own cha-rte rs, · and to have supremacy in municipal affairs. The reasoning behind the doctrine of municipal home rule is .. thAt each city is a natural social and economic unit having its indi vidual problems of self govermnent. It is held that therefore citizens of in_ dividual. cities. are in a better position to decide how they shall .be governed rath.,r than having the functions and organization of city govermnent dependent upon laws passed by the state legislature.I ! 1 1 · 1 The entire subject of freehold charters and the doctrine of municipal hOJll,!3 ;r-uJ.e has received voluminous interpretations by the state courts of . California. From these many, and sometimes conflicting, ·decisions several fairlYi W'8ll settled principles can be deduced. I. ;, • T,irst, a freeholder charter when ratified by the state legislature becomes a law of the legislature. It automatically repeals any inconsistent general statutes dealing with municipal affairs of the city. ~econd, a chartered city is independent of general state laws dealing witp piunicipal affairs and it pre~ils 9ver the general laws where there is a cpnflict. It is necessary, however, that the charter have a blanket clause giving the city power over "al 1 municipal affairs except as limited by the charter.• · General state laws operate within chartered cities where there is no conflict over municipal affairs and where the law concerns a matter of .state policy. · fhird, the important question o~ "what is a municipal affair?" must be left to judicial interpretation. There has never been a clear court defini- , tio~ pf •municipal affairs" in California. This has ~cessitated se~arate court decisions as questions have arisen concerning specific municipal activities. It is a slow process of judicial inclusion and exclusion • .. Some matter s (compensation and pensions of city employees, election ani remoV.1 of municipal officers, provision for certain public utilities. prosecutions 1. But it should also. be noted that recent developments in general state law affecting sixth class !'ities haye similarly been .directed toward these objectives by providing for optional forms of government and for a r ather broad grant of power. tor violations of city' charter and municipal ordinances, opening. widening and maintenance of streets, bridge construction and repair) are thus municipal affairs. Others (organization, consolidation and annexation of territory, streets declared to be secondary highways, organization and control of school districts, disposition of fines for misdemeanors in violation of state laws) have been determined to be state affairs and not under the jurisdiction of charter cities. There are several major benefits generally accruing to a ciiU through adoption of a freehold~r-' oharter: 1. A freeholder charter gives the people of the community an opportunity to have the kind: of . government they themselves want, both as to form of organization and tun~tions to be exercised. 2. Preparing a .freeholder charter creates public interest in civic affairs because it p~acea the responsibility for community develoIEent directly in the hands of the citizens of the city. 3. It is often easier to revise and amend a freeholder charter locally than it is ~o 4ave the state legislature change the lhlnicipal Corporations Act. 4. Contrariwise. the city is not subjected to the whim of the state legislature in municip«ll affairs should the legis;tature make some undesirable changes in the Municipal Corporations Act. 5. Local government tends to be more adaptable to local conditions and · needs under a freeholder charter than it is under the ·system of uniform state legislation. 6. A charter oity may set its own tax rate 'limitation. It may leave the property tax rate ·at tl.00 per 1100 assess~d valuation as it is under the Municipal Corparations · Act or it may extend the rate beyond this limitation or choose to set none at all. This factor has influenced some large cities that required additional revenue from property taxation to adopt charters. Forms of Cit\ Government Mayor-Council The mayor-councii &ystem, oldest of the three principal forms of city government in Califolin t~ • ·consists of~ looal' elected .ohief: exeoutive {the mayor)l, a group of ts;Te 4tb fifteen membersfi e'lected .at large or from wards. and responsible for ena:d~tig . local laws (the . ootincil) and few ar many elected or appointed department iie~ds and adminis~ra~~ve boards ; i V~iatio~s existing within the t~ee majo1" j crms of ~ municipal government· are strikingly evident 1. California mayors are ·either elected by the voters or elevated to the position by a vote of the eieoted cowicil from amo~ its own membership. . ;: .~ . ,, f \·· '· . : ~. ~· . ,. 42 in the mayor-council plan. The distinction is largely determimd not by quality of personnel but through relationships existing between mayor and council. In all general law cities and many oharter cities in California, the mayor- is simply the presiding officer of the counoil. He is chosen from among the council membership by its majority vote. In such instances, the mayor has no exclusive powers of appointing administrative personnel nor does he have authority to veto acts of the council. All of these cities constitute one type of mayor-oouncil government. In addition, some charter cities which provide for the election by the people of the mayor, independent of the council, belong to this first type of mayor-council city. They generally require confirmation by the council of the mayor's appointments to administrative positions, and prohibit the mayor from vetoing acts of the council. Conversely, a number of Califqrnia charter cities concentrate substantial administrative and legislative responsibilities in the mayor, and are therefore a second major variety of mayor-council organization.l Two hundred twenty-nine of California's three hundred and four cities operate under the mayor-council system.~ This .total is composed of two hundred and eight or eighty-four percent of the general law cities, and twenty-five or forty-four ·percent of the charter cities. Commission In the · comnission form of urban looal government five commissi.oner1J are elected by popular vote. They serve as the legislature of the city, and, in addition, each of them direots · an administrative department. Sacramento was the first commission oity in the United States, adopting the form in 1863. 3 The main feature of the syst~ as· · it functioned in Sacramento was the election of three trustees, who simultaneously served together as the city's legislative body, and separately as directors of the police, fire, and water departments. A mayor and council replaced the commission system in 1893. After the plan was revived and popμlariz"d nationally through its adoption by Galveston, Texas, and Des Moines, Iowa, in the early years of the twentieth century, numerous cities in California and elsewhere experimented with the system. The idea expanded until 1917 when over ~e hundred cities in the United States were governed by commissions.. A reverse trend then got under way, and during the last thirty years there has been a steady decline, and very few adoptions. Since Vallejo 'and Santa Monica abandoned the system 1. Cities may fluctuate between these extreme~ of the mayor-.council form, depending upon the mayor's conception of 'his duties, am his' personality. 2. For information about speoif'.ic cities_; see California. Secretary of State, Rosters Public Officials of California (First 1948 Revision), P• 108-180- 3. Cal. Stats. 1863, p. 415 . . ... /- ~ / in 1947 in favor of the oouncil-manager form, /Fres~o is the only oharter oity in California operating aa a oommission city.1- - -- Although their :major officers are listed in the official state roster as mayors and councilmen, .aq leaa populous general 1la• cities .in California are functioning under a :modified commission plan. In such instanoea, the five oounoilm.en, generally at their initial meeting after the looal election, decide whioh of them shall be mayor and specify what city functions, most usually publio works, finance, and police and fire, shall be allooated to specific counoil members. Councilmen in sixth class oitiea have absolutely no power except when acting at a :meeti.Jlg of the city council. As a legislative body, they haTe ponra conferred upon them by law. .la individual councilmen, they have absolutely no power. They are not department heads and any purported exervise of administratin authority is illegally aasumad. anl. . ..ia wholly without atatutory authority • . Sinoe 1947, sixth claaa cities (whioh includes all general law cities with only two exoeptions) can use either the mayor-counoil or council-manager form of government, but are unable to adopt the commission system. Because their mayors and counoilm.en are part-time departmental advisors rather than full-time administrators, ~ small California cities will probably continue to use the :modified commission formo Howenr, many heavily populated California cities which have abandoned the plan did ao because of a canmon, serious defect--diftusion of administrative responsibility among five commissionerso The abaenoe of~ single, unifying executive .usually meant little coordination ot city activities, much duplication of effort, and frequent friction between department heads who were not elected upon the basis of their qualifications to be directors of oity administrative departments. Large cities in California have turned away from the camnission form in favor of the council-manager and mayor-oouncil aystema. Council-llanager The council-manager torm of city government, frequently termed the chief contribution of the United States to municipal administration, contains sev-eral major identif'ying oharacteristioss · lo The elected city council determines all municipal policies not set forth in the city charter or the state general laws, enacts local ordinances, votes appropriations, and appoints and may remove a chief administrator, the city manager. 2. Heither the mayor, who is usually appointed by the council from among ita 01lll :members, nor the oouncil interferes with the adm.inistratiTe l. Section 6 ot the :rreano oity charter states that •Bxoept aa othenriae expressly provided in this charter, the legiala-tive power of the oity and general adminiatratiTe control of the city gonrmaent ••• . shall be wated in a City Commiaaion ••. • ~amposed of the Commissioner or Public Safety and Welfare and ex-offioio llayor, the Commissioner ot Finance, the Commissioner of Public Works, and two ••• Legislative Commissioners • 43 I :-."! .~· J <I turiotiona of the manager. The council deals with administration only through the city manager, and these administrative functions are never delegated to oounoil committees or members. . ~ .' The city manager's authority must be commensurate with his responsi-bilities as head of the city's administration. He generally has most, or all, ot the following dutiess ' .. (a) (b) (c) (d) ~ .. (e) (f) {g) (h) To see that all laws and ordinances are enforced. To exercise control over all departments and in acccrdance with civil service regulations appoint, supervise, and remove department heads and subordinate employees ·_of the city. ·To make such recommendations to the council concerning the affair~ of the oity as may seem to him desirable. To keep the counoil advised of the financial condition and future needs of the city. To prepare and submit to the council the annual bu"tlget. To prepare and submit such reports as may be required by that body. To keep the public informed, through reports to the oounoil, regarding the operations of the oity govermnent. To perform suoh other duties as may be prescribed by charter, state law, or council ordinance or resolution.l The.management functions most frequently vested in California city man-agers · are i · {a) preparation of budget for current operations; \ (b) conduct of administrative planning; {c) preparation of budget for capital improvements; (d) control of e:xpenditures; {e) coordination and direction of operations; (f) appointment and removal of personnel; and (g) representation of city in discussion of administrative and policy questions relating to intergovernmental relations.2 · Through appointment of city managers or chief administrative officers, ·seventy-seven cities in California have centralized part or all of their administrative management in one person. (See Table VI, page 4~)3 This trend l. International City Managers' Association, Recent Council-Manager Developme~ ts and Directory of Council-Manager Cities (April 1948), P• 3 2. ~ichard Graves, "council-Manager Govermnent in California Cities,• Western ~ity 23 :28, June 1947. Early council-manager developments in this state are recounted in R. M. Dorton, •The City Manager Plan in Califcrnia• (unpu? lished M.A. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1925) 3. Forty-nine of these cities are approved as council-manager cities Qr' the International City :Managers' Association. Prior to 1947, the office of city manager could be filled in general law cities only by vote of the people. The council of a general law city could, however, enact an ordinance providing for a chief administrative officer whose powers were limited to making budget, personnel, and purchasing recommendations, ·subject to councilmanic ra~ification, and to coordinating departmental aotivities. Since 19~..,- it has been possible for general law city councils to enact ordinances establishing the council-manager form of government. Cal. Stats. 1947,Ch.614 · .'l .· TABLE VI CALIFORNIA CITIES APPOINTING CITY MANAGERS OR CHIEF ADllINISTRATIVE OFFICERS t. ., I ~ Charter Cities Alameda (1917) Alhambra (1916) Bakersfield (1915) Berkeley (1923) Burbank ( 1927) Chico (1923) Compton (1925) Culver City Glendale (1914) Inglewood Long Beach 1921 on erey 1925 lan Oroville Pacific Grove (1927) Pasadena (1921) Petaltnna (1947) Porterville (1927) Redwood City (1929) Richmond (1920) Sacramento (1921) Salinas (1936) San Buena Ventura (Ventura) (1933) San Diego (1932) San Francisco San Jose (1916) San Leandro (1928) San Mateo (1923) Santa Monica (1947) Santa Rosa (1923) Stockton (1923} Torrance Tulare (1923) Vallejo (1947) Visalia (1923} General Law Cities Antioch Auburn ( 1948) Avalon (1947) Chula Vista Claremont, (1948) Coalinga Coronado (1920) Covina Delano (1946) El Cerrito El Monte Escondido Fillmore (1918) Glendora Hawthorne (1948) Hayward (1947) Hillsborough (1928) Lindsay Lodi Manhattan Beach Martinet Menlo Park (1947) Merced Mill Valley (1942) Monterey Park Na ti onal City Newport Beach Oceanside Ontario (1944) Oxnard (1947) Palm Springs (1941) Pittsburg (1919) Redding (1946) Redlands · · Reedley San Carlos San Gabriel South Pasadena (1920) Ukiah Upland (1930) West Covina wo·odland (1948) Note: Cities followed by year are in the International City Kanagers' Assooiation directory of approved council-manager cities (International City Managers' Association, Municipal Year Book 1948 (1948). p. 493-4). Approval is not based on professional qualifications of individual city managers but upon the degree of responsibility given to them by city oounoils. The years lis~ed are those in which the council-manager plan was originally put into effect. · . F . . . :: · · . . ."> 46 i is the •most significant reoent development in California city government. It is being fostered by the intensification and multiplioation of problems oonfronting counoilmen in rapidly growing cities. These local legislators, partioularly those in ·general law cities who oan be expected to devote only a limited portion of their time to oity business, feel compelled to delegate administrative planning and duties to a professional administrator hired by and directly responsible to them. he three methods of obtaining the oounoil-manager plan in California have f+l been used. They are: (1) inclusion in the locally drawn charter; {2) adoption through ordinance approved by majority vote of the council; and (3) ratification by majority vote of the local residents of ordinance aubmi tted by a council majority {referendum ordinan oe 'j-. When the oounoilmanager system is based on a charter provision or referendUlll ordinance, a2 vote Qf the people is required to abolish the office of the oity manager. It ia muoh more vulnerable to the possibility of being abandoned due to irrelevant or hasty action when it is founded solely on a oounoil ordinance, repealable at any time by a bare majority of the oity oounoil. l l I Ii 1. The tirst and third methods, respectively, are exclusively available to charter and general law cities. Details relating to the various methods of adopting the council-manager plan. and provisions limiting its application. are contained in Deering's General Laws, Act 5233. 2. This in no way affects the council's power of appointment and removal of a specific c~ty manager, a power basic to the plan itself. ' - . I CHAPTER 4. UNINCORPORATED URBAN .AREAS AND METHODS OF ACQUIRING PUBLIC SERVICES There are 894 unincorporated areas in California which possess place names.l This is almost three times the number of incorporated cities. They range in population from 25 to 42,000. Some are independent rural tr~ding centers, but many border incorporated cities of which they are econonuoally and socially a part. Thirty2two of them are more populous than the average sixth class California city. Particularly since the l930's there has been a decided growth of areas immediately beyond city limits largely at the expense of cities. During the depression years these areas provided temporary relief from relatively high city rents, and from increased city property tax burdens. Availability of mass transportation facilities was until recent years significant in determining the direction of residential developments. Improvement and greater use of automobiles and roads have greatly reduced this importance, and have substantially enlarged the area in which people oan live and still work within the oity. Better private transportation means and more paved highways, both more intensively used, are playing major roles in the growth of unincorporated areas.3 Builders are attracted to urban fringe areas because of the existence of many tracts of land of'ten easily acquired at prices lOYer than those generally asked for vacant land within the oity.4 Other attractions to private builders are elimination of the oost of tearing down old structures, and absence of stringent building and zoning controls. 1. California. Seor~t~ of State, Roster: Public Officials of California (First 1948 revision), p. 181-186 2. The average population of California sixth class cities is 5,033. The five largest unincorporated areas, all in Los Angeles County, are: East Los Angeles (42,000), .Belvedere Gardens (38,000), Bellflower (34,500), Altadena (32,000), and Bell Gardens (30,000). A thorough treatment of the status of local governmental services in the unincorporated sectors of Los Angeles County is f'cund in Haynes Foundation, Los Angele~ County as an .Agency of Municipal Government; by George W. Bemis and Nancy Basche (1947). ' " ,] 3. Richard Andrews, 11El.ements in the Urban-Fringe Pattern, 11 Journal of Land and Public Utility ~s&onomios 181173-4, Kay 1942 . 4. In many cities a ' la~ge "peroentage of the area is vacant land. In twentytwo cities in the Ub1ted States, ranging in' population from 50,000 to 4,000,000, the average percentage of vacant area is 44.7. One reason so much land is vacant--a factor significant to the growth of unincorporated fringe areas--is the high asking prioe, based upon exagge~ated hope of future use. U.S. National -Housing Agency, Land Assembly for Urban Redevelopment {Deoembe~ 1945), p. 6 47
Object Description
Title | Legal research regarding the history of the Los Angeles charter, 1850-1991 (1 of 3) |
Description | Legal research regarding the history of the Los Angeles charter, 1850-1991 (1 of 3). PART OF A SERIES: A critical component of the Commission's investigation centered on the idea that governance of the LAPD was shared between the Office of the Chief of Police, an administrative body, and the Board of Police Commissioners, a citizen body. To better understand the dynamic between these two entities, the staff of Heller, Ehrman, White, & McAuliffe researched the history of the Los Angeles City Charter, focusing primarily on its provisions regarding the distribution of power and the structure and organization of the LAPD. Included in the series are reproductions of reports, dissertations, article clippings, excerpts from city documents, and charter amendments related to the charter's conception and development over time. The series also includes several summaries of expert witness interviews regarding the effectiveness of this structure. |
Geographic subject (city or populated place) | Los Angeles |
Geographic subject (county) | Los Angeles |
Geographic subject (state) | California |
Geographic subject (country) | USA |
Coverage date | 1850/1932; 1991-06-06 |
Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California |
Date created | 1991; 1991-06-06; 1991-06-21 |
Date issued | 1948-12; 1951-01; 1967; 1985-03 |
Type |
texts images |
Format | 219 p. |
Format (aat) |
articles chapters (layout features) charts (graphic documents) memorandums reports |
Format (imt) | application/pdf |
Language | English |
Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
Part of collection | Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, 1991 |
Series | Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe |
File | Legal research regarding the history of the Los Angeles charter |
Box and folder | box 21, folder 4 |
Provenance | The collection was given to the University of Southern California on July 31, 1991. |
Rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ All requests for permission to publish or quote from manuscripts must be submitted in writing to the Manuscripts Librarian. Permission for publication is given on behalf of Special Collections as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder, which must also be obtained. |
Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
Repository name | USC Libraries Special Collections |
Repository address | Doheny Memorial Library, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189 |
Repository email | specol@dots.usc.edu |
Filename | indep-box21-04 |
Description
Title | California city government, 1948-12 |
Description | John C. Bollens and John R. McKinley. California city government. Berkeley, California: Bureau of Public Administration (Samuel C. May, director), University of California, Berkeley, 1948 December. Pages 38-47. |
Geographic subject (state) | California |
Geographic subject (country) | USA |
Creator |
Bollens, John C. McKinley, John R. |
Contributor | May, Samuel C., director |
Publisher (of the original version) | University of California, Berkeley. Bureau of Public Administration |
Place of publication (of the original version) | Berkeley, California, USA |
Date issued | 1948-12 |
Type | texts |
Format | 6 p. |
Format (aat) | chapters (layout features) |
Format (imt) | application/pdf |
Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
Series | Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe |
File | Legal research regarding the history of the Los Angeles charter |
Box and folder | box 21, folder 4, item 2 |
Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
Full text | ~ANGELES PUBLIC lfBRARY BUREAU OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY SAMUEL C. MAY Director CALIFORNIA CITY GOVERNMENT By JOHN C. BOLLENS and JOHN R . McKINLEY COP. 2 December 1948 • !here is very little likelihood that ·the state legislature will add Jiig amendments to or emasculate the 1.funioipal Corporations Act. Califorltles acting through their League of Cal if'ornia Cities are vigilant end -.e in. protecting the provisions of the .Act. They are responsible for r~nt status as a modern and adequate act. · ., '· It is easier for a special interest group to secure amendment of a oi~ ·~ fl'eeholder charter than it is to ' secure change in the state legislation. l·ia thus more possibility that such a group might add damaging sections to 1'.reeholder charter • . • · i ~ drafting local charters, boards of freeholders sometimes use new te f • logy and ambiguous phrases instead of a.dopting words which have been ·aubj t ·to judicial interpr.etation. As a oonsequence, it is possible that legi difficulties will arise in determining the exact meaning and intent of oe . n sections of a freeholder charter. '. f• The ti.oo tax limit imposed upon cities ' of the sixth olass may be ~!llf~ed by a majority of the voters of such cities.l l're;fu,lder Charter Cities . : fl ' 1Fitty-seven or about one fifth of the cities in California are operating ~ locally determined charters. (Table V, .on page 39) Slightly more than S, ,000 live in charter 1 cities. These cities, which make up about nineteen peroiint ot the incorporated places in the state, contain approximately eightyon P,91"oent of the people .living within city limits. They range in population .tr~1 :oroville with 4,421 to Los Angeles with 1,805,687. Their average popula- • tio including Los Angeles which has about one third of their total, is 94 1 9. Excluding Los Angeles, the average drops to 64,338. ~· California city containing more than 3,500 people may adopt its own r by following the procedure set forth in the state oonstitution:2 An election of a board of fifteen freeholders may be called by a two-thirds vote of the city council or by a petition signed bY 15 percent of the qualified electors of the city. If a majority of the voters favor drafting a charter, the fifteen freeholder candidates receiving the greatest number of votes at the same election are given the res~onsibility of drafting a charter within a period of one year. 2£. A charter may be : fr~d by the ' city council or its representatives. . . I i. ' 1947, Ch. 1343 c~anged the vot~ng · requirement from two-thirds I Q a majority. , 2.', caht~ Const., Art. XI, Seo~ 8 3. \Three valuable aids to councilmanio pr citizen charter drafters are Model . Ci~ Charter (1941 revision) and A Guide to Charter Commissions (194~ ;:b'O published by the National Kunic~pal . League, 299 Broadway, New York 7; ·•. ~d Revising a City. Charter (19~7), by Thomas H~ Reed, distributed by the .· GovetDnental Research Association, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York 20. '.: i~ l ' ' ' . I l, TABLE V FREEHOLDER CHARTER CITIES IN CALIFORNIA First, Pr~sent Charters Alameda Albany _....-Alhambra Bakersfield Berkeley Burbank Chico ....--Compton .....-Culver City Eureka Fresno Glendale Grass Valley i--Hunti:ngton Beach i--Inglewood vt.ong Beach Los Angeles Marysville .Modesto Monterey Napa Oakland Oroville Pacific Grove Palo Alto Pasadena Petaluma Piedmont yPomona 1907, 1937 1927 1915 J 1915 1895, 1909 i. . 1927 1923 1925 ' 1947 1.895 1901, 1921 1921 : 1893, 1921 .·1937 1927 ·1907, 1921 ' 1889, 1925 1919 1911 1911, 1925 1893, 1915 1889, 1911 1933 ' 1927 1909 1901 1911 1923 1911 First, Present Charters /porterville vRedondo Beach Redwood City Richmqnd Riverside Roseville Sacramento ~linas vSan Bernardino vSan ·Buena Ventura (Ventura) San Diego s&n Franoisoo San Jose .San Leandro San Luis Obispo San Mateo San Rafael ..:-Santa Barbara S.anta Clara Santa Cruz vSanta Monica Santa Rosa Stockton v'forrarioe v'f ulare Vallejo VVisalia Watsonville I II ' ! 1927 1935 1929 1909 1907, 1929 1935 1893, 1921 1903, 1919 1905 1931, 1933 1889, 1931 1898, 1931 1897, 1915 1933 1911 1923 1913 1899, 1927 1927 1907. 1911 1907" 1947 1903, 1923 1889, 1923 1947 1923 1899, 1946 1923 1903 .·.·.· ,•' : • .>' 'l ..J, ~ : ., . . . .. '. :I I'\ . _-, , A majority vote in favor 0£ the charter is required in order ' to obtain local ratification. The charter is then submitted to the state legislature at its next session. It must acquire a majority vote in both legislative houses (no charter has yet £ailed to get legislative ratification)~ Arter local and state legislative approval, it is then filed with the secretary of state. Charter amendments may be proposed by the city council or by a petition containing signatures of fi~een percent of the city voters. They must be approved by majority vote of the · city voters and the state legislature. ~ r~eeholder · charters illustrate the doctrine 0£ home rule for cities. Brietly stated, it is the power given to cities by state constitutional provisions to frame and adopt their own cha-rte rs, · and to have supremacy in municipal affairs. The reasoning behind the doctrine of municipal home rule is .. thAt each city is a natural social and economic unit having its indi vidual problems of self govermnent. It is held that therefore citizens of in_ dividual. cities. are in a better position to decide how they shall .be governed rath.,r than having the functions and organization of city govermnent dependent upon laws passed by the state legislature.I ! 1 1 · 1 The entire subject of freehold charters and the doctrine of municipal hOJll,!3 ;r-uJ.e has received voluminous interpretations by the state courts of . California. From these many, and sometimes conflicting, ·decisions several fairlYi W'8ll settled principles can be deduced. I. ;, • T,irst, a freeholder charter when ratified by the state legislature becomes a law of the legislature. It automatically repeals any inconsistent general statutes dealing with municipal affairs of the city. ~econd, a chartered city is independent of general state laws dealing witp piunicipal affairs and it pre~ils 9ver the general laws where there is a cpnflict. It is necessary, however, that the charter have a blanket clause giving the city power over "al 1 municipal affairs except as limited by the charter.• · General state laws operate within chartered cities where there is no conflict over municipal affairs and where the law concerns a matter of .state policy. · fhird, the important question o~ "what is a municipal affair?" must be left to judicial interpretation. There has never been a clear court defini- , tio~ pf •municipal affairs" in California. This has ~cessitated se~arate court decisions as questions have arisen concerning specific municipal activities. It is a slow process of judicial inclusion and exclusion • .. Some matter s (compensation and pensions of city employees, election ani remoV.1 of municipal officers, provision for certain public utilities. prosecutions 1. But it should also. be noted that recent developments in general state law affecting sixth class !'ities haye similarly been .directed toward these objectives by providing for optional forms of government and for a r ather broad grant of power. tor violations of city' charter and municipal ordinances, opening. widening and maintenance of streets, bridge construction and repair) are thus municipal affairs. Others (organization, consolidation and annexation of territory, streets declared to be secondary highways, organization and control of school districts, disposition of fines for misdemeanors in violation of state laws) have been determined to be state affairs and not under the jurisdiction of charter cities. There are several major benefits generally accruing to a ciiU through adoption of a freehold~r-' oharter: 1. A freeholder charter gives the people of the community an opportunity to have the kind: of . government they themselves want, both as to form of organization and tun~tions to be exercised. 2. Preparing a .freeholder charter creates public interest in civic affairs because it p~acea the responsibility for community develoIEent directly in the hands of the citizens of the city. 3. It is often easier to revise and amend a freeholder charter locally than it is ~o 4ave the state legislature change the lhlnicipal Corporations Act. 4. Contrariwise. the city is not subjected to the whim of the state legislature in municip«ll affairs should the legis;tature make some undesirable changes in the Municipal Corporations Act. 5. Local government tends to be more adaptable to local conditions and · needs under a freeholder charter than it is under the ·system of uniform state legislation. 6. A charter oity may set its own tax rate 'limitation. It may leave the property tax rate ·at tl.00 per 1100 assess~d valuation as it is under the Municipal Corparations · Act or it may extend the rate beyond this limitation or choose to set none at all. This factor has influenced some large cities that required additional revenue from property taxation to adopt charters. Forms of Cit\ Government Mayor-Council The mayor-councii &ystem, oldest of the three principal forms of city government in Califolin t~ • ·consists of~ looal' elected .ohief: exeoutive {the mayor)l, a group of ts;Te 4tb fifteen membersfi e'lected .at large or from wards. and responsible for ena:d~tig . local laws (the . ootincil) and few ar many elected or appointed department iie~ds and adminis~ra~~ve boards ; i V~iatio~s existing within the t~ee majo1" j crms of ~ municipal government· are strikingly evident 1. California mayors are ·either elected by the voters or elevated to the position by a vote of the eieoted cowicil from amo~ its own membership. . ;: .~ . ,, f \·· '· . : ~. ~· . ,. 42 in the mayor-council plan. The distinction is largely determimd not by quality of personnel but through relationships existing between mayor and council. In all general law cities and many oharter cities in California, the mayor- is simply the presiding officer of the counoil. He is chosen from among the council membership by its majority vote. In such instances, the mayor has no exclusive powers of appointing administrative personnel nor does he have authority to veto acts of the council. All of these cities constitute one type of mayor-oouncil government. In addition, some charter cities which provide for the election by the people of the mayor, independent of the council, belong to this first type of mayor-council city. They generally require confirmation by the council of the mayor's appointments to administrative positions, and prohibit the mayor from vetoing acts of the council. Conversely, a number of Califqrnia charter cities concentrate substantial administrative and legislative responsibilities in the mayor, and are therefore a second major variety of mayor-council organization.l Two hundred twenty-nine of California's three hundred and four cities operate under the mayor-council system.~ This .total is composed of two hundred and eight or eighty-four percent of the general law cities, and twenty-five or forty-four ·percent of the charter cities. Commission In the · comnission form of urban looal government five commissi.oner1J are elected by popular vote. They serve as the legislature of the city, and, in addition, each of them direots · an administrative department. Sacramento was the first commission oity in the United States, adopting the form in 1863. 3 The main feature of the syst~ as· · it functioned in Sacramento was the election of three trustees, who simultaneously served together as the city's legislative body, and separately as directors of the police, fire, and water departments. A mayor and council replaced the commission system in 1893. After the plan was revived and popμlariz"d nationally through its adoption by Galveston, Texas, and Des Moines, Iowa, in the early years of the twentieth century, numerous cities in California and elsewhere experimented with the system. The idea expanded until 1917 when over ~e hundred cities in the United States were governed by commissions.. A reverse trend then got under way, and during the last thirty years there has been a steady decline, and very few adoptions. Since Vallejo 'and Santa Monica abandoned the system 1. Cities may fluctuate between these extreme~ of the mayor-.council form, depending upon the mayor's conception of 'his duties, am his' personality. 2. For information about speoif'.ic cities_; see California. Secretary of State, Rosters Public Officials of California (First 1948 Revision), P• 108-180- 3. Cal. Stats. 1863, p. 415 . . ... /- ~ / in 1947 in favor of the oouncil-manager form, /Fres~o is the only oharter oity in California operating aa a oommission city.1- - -- Although their :major officers are listed in the official state roster as mayors and councilmen, .aq leaa populous general 1la• cities .in California are functioning under a :modified commission plan. In such instanoea, the five oounoilm.en, generally at their initial meeting after the looal election, decide whioh of them shall be mayor and specify what city functions, most usually publio works, finance, and police and fire, shall be allooated to specific counoil members. Councilmen in sixth class oitiea have absolutely no power except when acting at a :meeti.Jlg of the city council. As a legislative body, they haTe ponra conferred upon them by law. .la individual councilmen, they have absolutely no power. They are not department heads and any purported exervise of administratin authority is illegally aasumad. anl. . ..ia wholly without atatutory authority • . Sinoe 1947, sixth claaa cities (whioh includes all general law cities with only two exoeptions) can use either the mayor-counoil or council-manager form of government, but are unable to adopt the commission system. Because their mayors and counoilm.en are part-time departmental advisors rather than full-time administrators, ~ small California cities will probably continue to use the :modified commission formo Howenr, many heavily populated California cities which have abandoned the plan did ao because of a canmon, serious defect--diftusion of administrative responsibility among five commissionerso The abaenoe of~ single, unifying executive .usually meant little coordination ot city activities, much duplication of effort, and frequent friction between department heads who were not elected upon the basis of their qualifications to be directors of oity administrative departments. Large cities in California have turned away from the camnission form in favor of the council-manager and mayor-oouncil aystema. Council-llanager The council-manager torm of city government, frequently termed the chief contribution of the United States to municipal administration, contains sev-eral major identif'ying oharacteristioss · lo The elected city council determines all municipal policies not set forth in the city charter or the state general laws, enacts local ordinances, votes appropriations, and appoints and may remove a chief administrator, the city manager. 2. Heither the mayor, who is usually appointed by the council from among ita 01lll :members, nor the oouncil interferes with the adm.inistratiTe l. Section 6 ot the :rreano oity charter states that •Bxoept aa othenriae expressly provided in this charter, the legiala-tive power of the oity and general adminiatratiTe control of the city gonrmaent ••• . shall be wated in a City Commiaaion ••. • ~amposed of the Commissioner or Public Safety and Welfare and ex-offioio llayor, the Commissioner ot Finance, the Commissioner of Public Works, and two ••• Legislative Commissioners • 43 I :-."! .~· J 46 i is the •most significant reoent development in California city government. It is being fostered by the intensification and multiplioation of problems oonfronting counoilmen in rapidly growing cities. These local legislators, partioularly those in ·general law cities who oan be expected to devote only a limited portion of their time to oity business, feel compelled to delegate administrative planning and duties to a professional administrator hired by and directly responsible to them. he three methods of obtaining the oounoil-manager plan in California have f+l been used. They are: (1) inclusion in the locally drawn charter; {2) adoption through ordinance approved by majority vote of the council; and (3) ratification by majority vote of the local residents of ordinance aubmi tted by a council majority {referendum ordinan oe 'j-. When the oounoilmanager system is based on a charter provision or referendUlll ordinance, a2 vote Qf the people is required to abolish the office of the oity manager. It ia muoh more vulnerable to the possibility of being abandoned due to irrelevant or hasty action when it is founded solely on a oounoil ordinance, repealable at any time by a bare majority of the oity oounoil. l l I Ii 1. The tirst and third methods, respectively, are exclusively available to charter and general law cities. Details relating to the various methods of adopting the council-manager plan. and provisions limiting its application. are contained in Deering's General Laws, Act 5233. 2. This in no way affects the council's power of appointment and removal of a specific c~ty manager, a power basic to the plan itself. ' - . I CHAPTER 4. UNINCORPORATED URBAN .AREAS AND METHODS OF ACQUIRING PUBLIC SERVICES There are 894 unincorporated areas in California which possess place names.l This is almost three times the number of incorporated cities. They range in population from 25 to 42,000. Some are independent rural tr~ding centers, but many border incorporated cities of which they are econonuoally and socially a part. Thirty2two of them are more populous than the average sixth class California city. Particularly since the l930's there has been a decided growth of areas immediately beyond city limits largely at the expense of cities. During the depression years these areas provided temporary relief from relatively high city rents, and from increased city property tax burdens. Availability of mass transportation facilities was until recent years significant in determining the direction of residential developments. Improvement and greater use of automobiles and roads have greatly reduced this importance, and have substantially enlarged the area in which people oan live and still work within the oity. Better private transportation means and more paved highways, both more intensively used, are playing major roles in the growth of unincorporated areas.3 Builders are attracted to urban fringe areas because of the existence of many tracts of land of'ten easily acquired at prices lOYer than those generally asked for vacant land within the oity.4 Other attractions to private builders are elimination of the oost of tearing down old structures, and absence of stringent building and zoning controls. 1. California. Seor~t~ of State, Roster: Public Officials of California (First 1948 revision), p. 181-186 2. The average population of California sixth class cities is 5,033. The five largest unincorporated areas, all in Los Angeles County, are: East Los Angeles (42,000), .Belvedere Gardens (38,000), Bellflower (34,500), Altadena (32,000), and Bell Gardens (30,000). A thorough treatment of the status of local governmental services in the unincorporated sectors of Los Angeles County is f'cund in Haynes Foundation, Los Angele~ County as an .Agency of Municipal Government; by George W. Bemis and Nancy Basche (1947). ' " ,] 3. Richard Andrews, 11El.ements in the Urban-Fringe Pattern, 11 Journal of Land and Public Utility ~s&onomios 181173-4, Kay 1942 . 4. In many cities a ' la~ge "peroentage of the area is vacant land. In twentytwo cities in the Ub1ted States, ranging in' population from 50,000 to 4,000,000, the average percentage of vacant area is 44.7. One reason so much land is vacant--a factor significant to the growth of unincorporated fringe areas--is the high asking prioe, based upon exagge~ated hope of future use. U.S. National -Housing Agency, Land Assembly for Urban Redevelopment {Deoembe~ 1945), p. 6 47 |
Filename | indep-box21-04-02.pdf |
Archival file | Volume66/indep-box21-04-02.pdf |