Municipal & county government secion of Town Hall, p. 23 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 23 of 109 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
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,
Object Description
Title | Legal research regarding the history of the Los Angeles charter, 1850-1963 (3b of 3) |
Description | Municipal and county government section of Town Hall. A study of the Los Angeles City Charter: a report. Los Angeles, California: Town Hall, Biltmore Hotel, 1963 December. 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; 1887/1889; 1898; 1900; 1902; 1903; 1911/1916; 1918/1920; 1923/1963 |
Creator | Town Hall, Biltmore Hotel. Municipal and County Government Section |
Publisher (of the original version) | Town Hall, Biltmore; Anderson, Ritchie and Simon, printer; The Ward Ritchie Press |
Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California, USA |
Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California |
Date issued | 1963-12 |
Type | texts |
Format | 109 p. |
Format (aat) | books |
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 6, 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-box21-06-02 |
Description
Title | Municipal & county government secion of Town Hall, p. 23 |
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 | 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, |
Filename | indep-box21-06-02~023.tif |
Archival file | Volume68/indep-box21-06-02~023.tif |