A STUDY OF THE CITY CHARTER
board illegal. The court reasoned thar the charter drawn up by these freeholders, which would need only majority voter approval, would in effect
constitute amending the present charter, thus circumventing the stare constitutional requirement thar charter amendments had ro receive a three-
fifths vote to be adopted. (The State Constitution was amended in 1902 ro
reduce the vote necessary for approval of a charter amendmenr from
three-fifths ro a majority of those voting on the proposal.)
The Proposed Charter of 1912
Slightly more than a decade later, on May 25, 1912, the third board of
freeholders organized since 1898 was elected. It prepared a charter featuring the commission form of government. The basic idea of the commission form is that the members of the legislative body, called the
commission rather than the council, individually serve as the heads of administrative deparrments. (The present charter, in operation since 1925, is
said by some people to incorporate the commission form because of the
extensive use of boards and commissions prescribed by ir. Actually, however, it is a misnomer to apply this term to the existing charter. It provides
for rhe mayor-council form of ciry governmenr, although a very diffused
one.)
Under the proposed charter of 1912, the governing body, called the
Commission, was to consist of the Mayor and six other commissioners, all
elected at large. The Mayor was to serve as Commissioner of Public Safety
and ro assign the other commissioners to head particular departments:
Public Utilities, Public Works, Harbor and Transportation, Finance, Public Welfare, Parks and Recrearion, and Libraries. The Mayor was to ap-
poinr, subject to Commission confirmation, rhe Ciry Artorney, Public Defender, and Clerk, as well as the members of the Civil Service Commission
and the Municipal Art Board. The Controller was to be an elective official.
The proposed charrer of 1912 represented a considerable consolidation
of ciry activities. The amount of consolidation was not of the extent found
in a strong mayor-council system, but ir was substantially more than existed at this time in the Los Angeles city government. Ir placed the authority and responsibility for most city functions with a commission of seven
elected members. It virtually eliminated the already widespread use of
boards as the heads of departments.
The charter went to the electorate on December 4, 1912, and was rejected by a margin of more than two-to-one. The vote was yes, 16,586,
and no, 34,669.
CHARTER REFORM EFFORTS
47
The 1915-16 Attempt
The election of another board of freeholders emerged two and a half
years later, on June 1, 1915. The charter written by these freeholders centered on the mayor-council form. The elecred Alayor was to appoint and
remove, subject to Council approval, the single administrators who were
ro direct certain departments (Finance, Public Works, Public Safety, Public Service, Public Utilities, and Harbors) and the members of boards who
were to be in charge of others (Public Welfare, Recreation, Library,
Parks, Municipal Art, and Civil Service). In addition, the Mayor was to
appoint the Clerk. The nine councilmen were to be elected at large; the
Comptroller, City Attorney, and Prosecutor also were to be elective
officials.
Certain sections of the proposed charter generated controversy before
the freeholders finished their work. As a result, they submitted both a new
charter and four alternative provisions. The first alternative provided for
a city manager, appointed by the Council, to supervise many departments;
he was not a full-fledged city manager, however, since certain departments
were outside his authority. The second stipulated two-year instead of four-
year terms for elective officials. The third called for election of council-
men by districts. And the fourth required the election of councilmen by
proportional representation.
The election on the proposed charter and the four alternatives was held
on June 6, 1916. The charter was defeated, but by a closer tally than its
counterpart of four years before. The vote was yes, 2 3,544, and no, 30,850.
The alternative specifying district election of councilmen passed by a narrow margin (24,555 to 23,845), but, of course, it remained inoperative
because the basic document of which it was to be a part had failed. The
other three alternatives were turned down. Two of them, the city manager
and proportional representation options, lost decisively, by votes of 30,379
to 17,143 and 26,989 to 16,443, respectively. The two-year term proposal
was rejected by less than 4,000 votes (25,494 to 21,853). Interest in a new
charter subsided for a few years, but again sprang up in 192 3 in an activity
that led to adoption of the present charter.
PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF PRESENT CHARTER
The Board at Work
The board of freeholders elected on June 5, 1923, decided to write a
charter which would not contain many major deviations from the existing,