Functioning of boards & commissions in LA, p. 68 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 68 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 ...
66
length. Such action shall be attested by the
signatures of the President or Vice-President,
or two members of the board, and by the signature of the secretary of the board.1
This article has been the subject of much legal debate, explanation and inspection. A group of narrow constructionists, notably general managers, claim that all
board activity must occur in the course of the official
meeting. When the meeting ends, the individual loses his
official status, as far as the department is concerned, and
becomes a private individual. On the other hand there are
advocates of the theory that an individual can make the
job a full time one with regular office hours if he so
desires. Champions of this idea are almost exclusively to
be found in a small group of past and present commissioners.
In examining both these viewpoints the City Attorney has
established guideposts in this area. When Van Griffith as
a Police Commissioner sought the right to inspect the facilities and records of the Police Department so that he could
secure information that would allow him to perform his job,
the City Attorney ruled these requests a proper exercise of
the office of commissioner. On the other hand there are
clear limits to how far a board may go in delegating authority to individual commissioners. These limits were established as a result of a board's attempt to control a recalcitrant manager. Both of these instances are described in
-^Charter, sec. 76.
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. 68 |
| 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 | 66 length. Such action shall be attested by the signatures of the President or Vice-President, or two members of the board, and by the signature of the secretary of the board.1 This article has been the subject of much legal debate, explanation and inspection. A group of narrow constructionists, notably general managers, claim that all board activity must occur in the course of the official meeting. When the meeting ends, the individual loses his official status, as far as the department is concerned, and becomes a private individual. On the other hand there are advocates of the theory that an individual can make the job a full time one with regular office hours if he so desires. Champions of this idea are almost exclusively to be found in a small group of past and present commissioners. In examining both these viewpoints the City Attorney has established guideposts in this area. When Van Griffith as a Police Commissioner sought the right to inspect the facilities and records of the Police Department so that he could secure information that would allow him to perform his job, the City Attorney ruled these requests a proper exercise of the office of commissioner. On the other hand there are clear limits to how far a board may go in delegating authority to individual commissioners. These limits were established as a result of a board's attempt to control a recalcitrant manager. Both of these instances are described in -^Charter, sec. 76. |
| Filename | indep-box21-05-02~068.tif |
| Archival file | Volume67/indep-box21-05-02~068.tif |
