Functioning of boards & commissions in LA, p. 32 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 32 of 146 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
30
"why the charter should be defeated."1
Although Los Angeles had no history of bossism the
charter opponents cited this possible result as a key part
of their campaign. The American scene itself, however, was
then replete with such instances and an unknowing public
2
might accept such charges at face value.
The combined opposition described above was sufficient
to cause rejection of the charter at the election of June
6, 1916. Results were: Yes 23,544; No 30,850. The alternative proposal for a city manager fared even worse: Yes
17,143; No 30,379.3
The 1925 Charter
Despite the adverse action of the voters in 1916 the
need for a new charter remained. Continued growth of the
area made more acute the problems faced by executives in
the operation of the city's business. While the outmoded
document of 1889 had few supporters a major obstacle lay in
front of any new charter proposal. This was the need to
secure sufficient reconciliation of opposing views on major
issues to insure acceptance of the enactment.
Ibid., May 14, 1916.
2Lincoln Steffens, The Shame of the Cities (New York
Hill and Wang, 1957) Original copyright 1904.
3
Record of Election Returns, City of Los Angeles,
Vol. I, 1916 p. 378. Again no demagraphic studies exist
to aid the student seeking a more detailed explanation for
the rejection of both the plans offered to the voters.
Object Description
| Title | Legal research regarding the history of the Los Angeles charter, 1830-1966 (2b of 3) |
| Description | Marvin Abrahams. Functioning of boards and commissions in the Los Angeles city government. Los Angeles, California: University of California, Los Angeles (Ph.D., Political science), 1967. 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 | 1830; 1835; 1844; 1850/1863; 1869; 1870/1890; 1898; 1900/1908; 1910/1934; 1937/1966 |
| Creator | Abrahams, Marvin |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of California, Los Angeles |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California, USA |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California |
| Date issued | 1967 |
| Type | texts |
| Format | 146 p. |
| Format (aat) | doctoral dissertations |
| 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 5, item 2 |
| 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-box21-05-02 |
Description
| Title | Functioning of boards & commissions in LA, p. 32 |
| Format (imt) | image/tiff |
| Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
| Full text | 30 "why the charter should be defeated."1 Although Los Angeles had no history of bossism the charter opponents cited this possible result as a key part of their campaign. The American scene itself, however, was then replete with such instances and an unknowing public 2 might accept such charges at face value. The combined opposition described above was sufficient to cause rejection of the charter at the election of June 6, 1916. Results were: Yes 23,544; No 30,850. The alternative proposal for a city manager fared even worse: Yes 17,143; No 30,379.3 The 1925 Charter Despite the adverse action of the voters in 1916 the need for a new charter remained. Continued growth of the area made more acute the problems faced by executives in the operation of the city's business. While the outmoded document of 1889 had few supporters a major obstacle lay in front of any new charter proposal. This was the need to secure sufficient reconciliation of opposing views on major issues to insure acceptance of the enactment. Ibid., May 14, 1916. 2Lincoln Steffens, The Shame of the Cities (New York Hill and Wang, 1957) Original copyright 1904. 3 Record of Election Returns, City of Los Angeles, Vol. I, 1916 p. 378. Again no demagraphic studies exist to aid the student seeking a more detailed explanation for the rejection of both the plans offered to the voters. |
| Filename | indep-box21-05-02~032.tif |
| Archival file | Volume67/indep-box21-05-02~032.tif |
