Functioning of boards & commissions in LA, p. 49 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 49 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 ...
47
same time one that is certainly not radical,
will be the new charter attempt to standardize
the different city departments such as the
Library, Park Department and institutions of a
like character. In line with this plan the appointment of a general manger for each...1
Approval came too from the Times which cited several
beneficial changes in the new charter; namely that it was
specific where the old document was vague, that it would
fix responsibility for the administration of the city's
business, and that council now became solely a legislative
body and could not interfere with, nor usurp administrative
authority. Adoption was urged since Los Angeles needed the
improved governmental conditions promised by the new charter which would also provide for the solution of growth
2
problems now lacking in the existing document.
Conclusion. An attempt can now be made to answer the
question, how did Los Angeles acquire its present board
system?
There are at least three facets to the answer. First
the matter of tradition must be considered. The board had
been the method of managing departments up to 1923, and
many saw no reason for a change. For various reasons the
movement to abandon the ability of the city to call upon
its ablest residents for service led them to place their
trust in the "democratic unpaid boards." They further
1Ibid., Nov. 18, 1923.
2Los Angeles Times, May 3, 1924.
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. 49 |
| 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 | 47 same time one that is certainly not radical, will be the new charter attempt to standardize the different city departments such as the Library, Park Department and institutions of a like character. In line with this plan the appointment of a general manger for each...1 Approval came too from the Times which cited several beneficial changes in the new charter; namely that it was specific where the old document was vague, that it would fix responsibility for the administration of the city's business, and that council now became solely a legislative body and could not interfere with, nor usurp administrative authority. Adoption was urged since Los Angeles needed the improved governmental conditions promised by the new charter which would also provide for the solution of growth 2 problems now lacking in the existing document. Conclusion. An attempt can now be made to answer the question, how did Los Angeles acquire its present board system? There are at least three facets to the answer. First the matter of tradition must be considered. The board had been the method of managing departments up to 1923, and many saw no reason for a change. For various reasons the movement to abandon the ability of the city to call upon its ablest residents for service led them to place their trust in the "democratic unpaid boards." They further 1Ibid., Nov. 18, 1923. 2Los Angeles Times, May 3, 1924. |
| Filename | indep-box21-05-02~049.tif |
| Archival file | Volume67/indep-box21-05-02~049.tif |
