Municipal & county government secion of Town Hall, p. 32 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 32 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 ...
64 A STUDY OF THE CITY CHARTER of representative citizens and to serve as its chairman. The committee's task was to study the revenue problems confronting the city and submit its suggestions and recommendations to the Mayor and the Council. Although the responsibility of the citizens' tax committee related to city finance, it is significant that the first section of findings and recommendations in its final report, issued in March, 1944, is devoted to the city charter." Because the Mayor's appointment and removal of commissioners are subject to Council consent, the report pointed out, the Mayor maintains only an indirect control over the commission-headed departments. Also, the report continued, the charter charges the Mayor with the duty of exercising a careful supervision over all city affairs, but the Mayor lacks the power to carry out this obligation because of the wide dispersion of authority under the charter. Government by many commissions, the committee said, is recognized as an expensive and relatively inefficient type of organization. It then went on to quote from notes prepared for it by the California Taxpayers' Association: Although the cost of boards, commissions, and other chief administrative personnel may not be considered large in relation to total municipal expenditures, it amounts to a substantial sum. . . . Cities which do not have board organization have only the expenditure for the head of the department, and the double administrative entity is not supported. Before a policy can be put into effect in the City of Los Angeles, it must follow a tortuous path through the executive, legislative, and administrative bodies. Unless a complete spirit of harmony and cooperation prevails, decisions arc likely to be delayed and action slow. It is usually difficult to fix responsibility for action. The appropriation of money for expenditures is the responsibility of the Council and the Mayor, but the spending of money is performed largely by boards which are beholden neither to the Council nor the Mayor. . . . Each city department tends to become a separate organization doing work in its own way and not always recognizing that it is part of a larger government having a common purpose.** According to opinions expressed to the committee by both officials and laymen, the report stated, the existing charter is not a satisfactory instrument of government; under the charter authority and controls are diffused, actions delayed, and operations expensive. The committee concluded that 23Report of the Los Angeles Citizens' Tax Connnittee, Los Angeles, March 17, 1944, pp. 12-14. **lbiJ., p. 13. CHARIER REFORM EFFORTS 65 one of the principal means of bringing about greater economy and effectiveness in city government would be the adoption of a new city charter, constructed to meet the needs of a modern, growing city. The committee therefore recommended the election of a board of freeholders at the next regular or special city election to revise and streamline the charter to provide a more simplified form of government with direct lines of authority and responsibility. More Council Defeats On October 20, 1944, about seven months after the publication of the tax committee study, the Council's Charter and Administrative Code Committee recommended the submission to the voters at the May, 1945, election of the question of electing a board of freeholders to draft a new charter. "A complete revision at this time seems desirable!' the Council committee noted." The Council, however, defeated adoption of the recommendation on November 20 by an eighr-to-five vote. On the same day, the Los Angeles Taxpayers' Association suggested that the Council request its Personnel Committee and Mayor Bowron to select fifteen persons to constitute a charter revision committee. It would prepare, with the aid of experts, a revised charter for presentation to the voters at next year's May election. More than three months later, in March, 1945, the Personnel Committee recommended that the communication be received and filed because it already had been given consideration. Thus ended another attempt to get major charter reform under way. The Jacobs Report Recommendations for comprehensive changes in the charter soon reappeared and again, as in the recent instance of the Los Angeles Citizens' Tax Committee, they were made in a study sponsored by the city government. In July, 1945, J. L. Jacobs and Company, consultants in public administration and finance, presented a report composed of recommendations for coordinating and simplifying the city government.2" These recommendations were a by-product of a personnel classification and pay plan study which the Jacobs firm had completed for the city a few months earlier and which had enabled the consultants to analyze the administrates Angeles City Council File No. 18,568. ^Administrative Coordination and Simplification of Los Angeles Municipal Governmental Machinery, J. L. Jacobs and Company, Chicago, July 16, 1945.
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. 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 | 64 A STUDY OF THE CITY CHARTER of representative citizens and to serve as its chairman. The committee's task was to study the revenue problems confronting the city and submit its suggestions and recommendations to the Mayor and the Council. Although the responsibility of the citizens' tax committee related to city finance, it is significant that the first section of findings and recommendations in its final report, issued in March, 1944, is devoted to the city charter." Because the Mayor's appointment and removal of commissioners are subject to Council consent, the report pointed out, the Mayor maintains only an indirect control over the commission-headed departments. Also, the report continued, the charter charges the Mayor with the duty of exercising a careful supervision over all city affairs, but the Mayor lacks the power to carry out this obligation because of the wide dispersion of authority under the charter. Government by many commissions, the committee said, is recognized as an expensive and relatively inefficient type of organization. It then went on to quote from notes prepared for it by the California Taxpayers' Association: Although the cost of boards, commissions, and other chief administrative personnel may not be considered large in relation to total municipal expenditures, it amounts to a substantial sum. . . . Cities which do not have board organization have only the expenditure for the head of the department, and the double administrative entity is not supported. Before a policy can be put into effect in the City of Los Angeles, it must follow a tortuous path through the executive, legislative, and administrative bodies. Unless a complete spirit of harmony and cooperation prevails, decisions arc likely to be delayed and action slow. It is usually difficult to fix responsibility for action. The appropriation of money for expenditures is the responsibility of the Council and the Mayor, but the spending of money is performed largely by boards which are beholden neither to the Council nor the Mayor. . . . Each city department tends to become a separate organization doing work in its own way and not always recognizing that it is part of a larger government having a common purpose.** According to opinions expressed to the committee by both officials and laymen, the report stated, the existing charter is not a satisfactory instrument of government; under the charter authority and controls are diffused, actions delayed, and operations expensive. The committee concluded that 23Report of the Los Angeles Citizens' Tax Connnittee, Los Angeles, March 17, 1944, pp. 12-14. **lbiJ., p. 13. CHARIER REFORM EFFORTS 65 one of the principal means of bringing about greater economy and effectiveness in city government would be the adoption of a new city charter, constructed to meet the needs of a modern, growing city. The committee therefore recommended the election of a board of freeholders at the next regular or special city election to revise and streamline the charter to provide a more simplified form of government with direct lines of authority and responsibility. More Council Defeats On October 20, 1944, about seven months after the publication of the tax committee study, the Council's Charter and Administrative Code Committee recommended the submission to the voters at the May, 1945, election of the question of electing a board of freeholders to draft a new charter. "A complete revision at this time seems desirable!' the Council committee noted." The Council, however, defeated adoption of the recommendation on November 20 by an eighr-to-five vote. On the same day, the Los Angeles Taxpayers' Association suggested that the Council request its Personnel Committee and Mayor Bowron to select fifteen persons to constitute a charter revision committee. It would prepare, with the aid of experts, a revised charter for presentation to the voters at next year's May election. More than three months later, in March, 1945, the Personnel Committee recommended that the communication be received and filed because it already had been given consideration. Thus ended another attempt to get major charter reform under way. The Jacobs Report Recommendations for comprehensive changes in the charter soon reappeared and again, as in the recent instance of the Los Angeles Citizens' Tax Committee, they were made in a study sponsored by the city government. In July, 1945, J. L. Jacobs and Company, consultants in public administration and finance, presented a report composed of recommendations for coordinating and simplifying the city government.2" These recommendations were a by-product of a personnel classification and pay plan study which the Jacobs firm had completed for the city a few months earlier and which had enabled the consultants to analyze the administrates Angeles City Council File No. 18,568. ^Administrative Coordination and Simplification of Los Angeles Municipal Governmental Machinery, J. L. Jacobs and Company, Chicago, July 16, 1945. |
Filename | indep-box21-06-02~032.tif |
Archival file | Volume68/indep-box21-06-02~032.tif |