68 . A STUDY OF THE CITY CHARIER
Public Works were other features of the charter that received censure in
the study. In sum, the clumsy, complex organization should give way to
a new system which is more responsive to local needs, simple in structure,
and definite and positive in fixing responsibility.
Because of the lack of success of several past efforts to revise the charter
substantially through submission of a package of proposed amendments,
the study concluded that an attempt to acquire a modern charter should
again be made, but this time energies should be directed to obtaining a new
charter.
The report discussed the rwo methods of obtaining a new charter. If
the method is used by which the Council has a new charter drawn up by
a group it appoints (it is unlikely that the Council would choose to undertake the task itself), the Council, if it wishes, can seek the advice of the
Mayor in selecting the members of the committee, choose a highly representative group of individuals, and submit to the city voters the charter
that the committee prepares. Moreover, unlike an elected board of freeholders, an appointed charter committee is not faced with a state constitutional time limit of one year in completing its assignment, although the
Council can, of course, impose a deadline. But whenever this appointed
committee method of drawing up a new charter is utilized, there is always
the question of whether the Council will submit the charter as proposed
by the Charter committee or whether it will, the study said, "undertake
to incorporate into the proposed document numerous changes based on
personal interest and strictly sectional desires. The sad experience of the
results of the work of Mayor Bowron's Charter Revision Committee of
1940 at the hands of the Council then in office immediately comes to
mind!'28
Under the committee method, there is the strong probability that the
voters would ultimately be asked, the study noted, to vote on a charter
acceptable to the Council but not necessarily in agreement with the best
interests of the community, since most legislative bodies are interested in
obtaining and retaining power.
Through use of the method requiring the election of a board of freeholders, the reporr urged, a new charter can be submitted directly to the
voters without going through the Council. Thus, elected freeholders, who
must define the powers of the Council as well as of other officials, can act
freely and independently in preparing a new charter without fear of hav-
albid., p.
CHARIER REFORM EFFORTS 69
ing the Council subsequently undo their work. However, the report
warned, electing a charter board does impose the difficult task of selecting
a truly well-balanced, representative group.
The Government Research study closed with the statement that this
organization planned to call a meeting of interested citizens, city officials,
and representatives of civic groups to get a movement for a new charter
started. However, no action by the City Council or widespread citizen
support on behalf of the proposal immediately followed.
A Charter Draft
In October, 1947, Mayor Bowron announced that representatives of
various civic groups were drawing up a proposed new charter. He expected- there would be a year of discussion about the new plan before it
would be shaped into final form. He felt it would be ready for submission
to the voters at the municipal election of 1949.30 Although a full draft of
the charter, which was a brief document of forty six double-spaced typed
pages, was prepared by February 15, 1948, the proposal did not proceed
to the stage of release to the public.
1 he charter reform movement, which had involved efforts advocating
comprehensive change during much of the decade, then shifted its focus.
It concentrated on a very specific, but important phase of city government, with the city underwriting the cost of the study.
The Griffenhagen Survey
In late December, 1948, the city contracted with Griffenhagen and
Associates, a management consultant firm, to make a survey of the Department of Public Works. Its report was submitted to the Council on
March 29, I949-31
The Griffenhagen report pointed to two important weaknesses in the
organization of the Department of Public Works: the absence of a single
department head and the separate delegation of authority and responsibility to the City Engineer and to the Secretary of the Board of Public
3"Los Angeles Times, October 17, 1947. Actually, under existing state constitutional provisions, this charter draft could have gone befoie the votets only if first an elected board of
freeholders, a Council-appointed charter committee, or the Council acting as charter frainers
had accepted the draft as its proposed charter.
3lGrirTenhagen and Associates, Report on the Organization of the Department of Public
II orks, City of Los Angeles, Chicago, March 29, 1949.