City government for the future, p. 44 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 44 of 253 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
THE CITY AS A DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTION
nd referring requests for information or assistance on
.y governmental matter regardless of jurisdiction. (See
.action 2.41.) The Commission proposes that the city
provide the service of having one office where any citizen
could get information and an accurate referral in order to
solve a public service problem.
The "responsible city" concept has many other applications which are not specified in the proposed charter. As
an example, the city no longer provides health services to
its residents. This function is now performed by the county government, and there is reason for concern that the
health services provided in the city are not up to par. The
Commission recommends that action be taken by the city
to monitor, on an ongoing basis, the level of health services provided city residents. This could be done by an
officer appointed by the Mayor or established in some
other way. The point is the city should take as a responsibility the task of assuring that the services being provided
(and paid for by) city residents are satisfactory.
31
Ethical Conduct
The proposed charter defines and requires disclosure of
conflicts of interest on the part of any city official or employee and prohibits actions involving a financial interest. (See
sections 11.01-11.03.) The Board of Referred Powers, provided in the current charter, is retained to act for any official
who must disqualify himself from participating in a decision
because of a conflict of interest. (See section 11.04.) Other
suggested provisions require elected officers and candidates
to disclose all campaign contributions and prohibit the use
of city information by city officials for their own financial
gain. (See sections 11.05 and 11.10.) A willful violation
of any charter provision by an elected official constitutes
misconduct and is punishable by removal from office. The
Council will prescribe penalties for violations by appointed officers and employees. (See section 11.11.) The
Council is required to adopt by ordinance, a code of conduct for city officers and employees to implement and
supplement the charter provisions. (See section 11.12.)
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR
CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Citizen confidence in their governmental institutions
and public officials is vital in a system of representative
government Provisions to guide the ethical conduct of city
officials and employees are appropriate charter content,
Jt the present charter is weak in this area.
The proposed charter contains a separate article (Article 11) that establishes guidelines for the conduct of city
officers and employees. These provisions will promote
public trust and increase the accountability of city officials
and employees.
Critics of measures to limit misconduct claim that morality cannot be legislated. They argue that laws of this
type can be easily circumvented and therefore are of little
value. The critics, however, offer no positive measures,
and the concern of the general public about official conduct continues to grow. The Citizens Committee on Zoning Practices and Procedures recommended specific provisions of this type, and the Charter Commission concurs
with some of its proposals.
In the Commission's judgment the provisions in the
proposed charter are necessary to guide official conduct
and to restore and maintain public confidence. The citizens of Los Angeles have a right to expect their city
officials to avoid using the powers of public office for personal gain or to provide preferential treatment for a privileged few. The city charter is the most appropriate place
for safeguards against such abuses.
The Commission has not attempted to draft detailed
and intricate proscriptions on official behavior. The proposed provisions set standards, prohibit certain clearly
undesirable activities, and constitute a starting point for
jture city legislation.
Responsibilities of Elected Officials
While most of the provisions on the conduct of officers
are related to ethical conduct, some establish performance
requirements. The proposed charter designates the offices
of Mayor, City Attorney, and City Councilmen as full-
time positions. (See section 11.07.) In addition, elected
officers will not be permitted to be absent from the city for
extended periods of time without being subject to possible
forfeiture of their office. (See sections 11.08 and 11.09.)
Council Interference in Administrative Activities
One of the problems created by the present charter is
the extensive involvement of the City Council in administrative activities. The proposed charter attacks this problem by clarifying the authority and responsibilities of the
executive and legislative branches. (See Chapter 3.) In
addition, in Article 11 on the conduct of officers and employees, there is a provision which prohibits direct Council
interference in the administration of city departments. Responsibility for direction and control of departments is
vested in the heads of departments, and departmental
matters are to be dealt with by councilmen only through
the Mayor or his designated representative. This provision
does not limit the right of the Council to investigate the
official activities of any office or department of the city.
(See section 11.06.)
A similar, but less explicit prohibition against Council involvement in administrative matters is contained in section
34 of the present charter. Such provisions are also found
in the charters of other large cities. The basic purpose of
such a provision is to prevent confusion in city adminis-
Object Description
| Title | City government for the future, 1969-07 |
| Description | Section 2: City government for the future: report of the Los Angeles City Charter Commission. Los Angeles, California: Los Angeles City Hall, 1969 July. 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. |
| Coverage date | 1809; 1850/1974; 1984 |
| Publisher (of the original version) | Los Angeles City Hall |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California, USA |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California |
| Date issued | 1969-07 |
| Type | texts |
| Format | 253 p. |
| Format (aat) | reports |
| 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 | Los Angeles City document index |
| Box and folder | box 21, folder 7, item 3 |
| 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-box21-07-03 |
Description
| Title | City government for the future, p. 44 |
| 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 | THE CITY AS A DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTION nd referring requests for information or assistance on .y governmental matter regardless of jurisdiction. (See .action 2.41.) The Commission proposes that the city provide the service of having one office where any citizen could get information and an accurate referral in order to solve a public service problem. The "responsible city" concept has many other applications which are not specified in the proposed charter. As an example, the city no longer provides health services to its residents. This function is now performed by the county government, and there is reason for concern that the health services provided in the city are not up to par. The Commission recommends that action be taken by the city to monitor, on an ongoing basis, the level of health services provided city residents. This could be done by an officer appointed by the Mayor or established in some other way. The point is the city should take as a responsibility the task of assuring that the services being provided (and paid for by) city residents are satisfactory. 31 Ethical Conduct The proposed charter defines and requires disclosure of conflicts of interest on the part of any city official or employee and prohibits actions involving a financial interest. (See sections 11.01-11.03.) The Board of Referred Powers, provided in the current charter, is retained to act for any official who must disqualify himself from participating in a decision because of a conflict of interest. (See section 11.04.) Other suggested provisions require elected officers and candidates to disclose all campaign contributions and prohibit the use of city information by city officials for their own financial gain. (See sections 11.05 and 11.10.) A willful violation of any charter provision by an elected official constitutes misconduct and is punishable by removal from office. The Council will prescribe penalties for violations by appointed officers and employees. (See section 11.11.) The Council is required to adopt by ordinance, a code of conduct for city officers and employees to implement and supplement the charter provisions. (See section 11.12.) STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES Citizen confidence in their governmental institutions and public officials is vital in a system of representative government Provisions to guide the ethical conduct of city officials and employees are appropriate charter content, Jt the present charter is weak in this area. The proposed charter contains a separate article (Article 11) that establishes guidelines for the conduct of city officers and employees. These provisions will promote public trust and increase the accountability of city officials and employees. Critics of measures to limit misconduct claim that morality cannot be legislated. They argue that laws of this type can be easily circumvented and therefore are of little value. The critics, however, offer no positive measures, and the concern of the general public about official conduct continues to grow. The Citizens Committee on Zoning Practices and Procedures recommended specific provisions of this type, and the Charter Commission concurs with some of its proposals. In the Commission's judgment the provisions in the proposed charter are necessary to guide official conduct and to restore and maintain public confidence. The citizens of Los Angeles have a right to expect their city officials to avoid using the powers of public office for personal gain or to provide preferential treatment for a privileged few. The city charter is the most appropriate place for safeguards against such abuses. The Commission has not attempted to draft detailed and intricate proscriptions on official behavior. The proposed provisions set standards, prohibit certain clearly undesirable activities, and constitute a starting point for jture city legislation. Responsibilities of Elected Officials While most of the provisions on the conduct of officers are related to ethical conduct, some establish performance requirements. The proposed charter designates the offices of Mayor, City Attorney, and City Councilmen as full- time positions. (See section 11.07.) In addition, elected officers will not be permitted to be absent from the city for extended periods of time without being subject to possible forfeiture of their office. (See sections 11.08 and 11.09.) Council Interference in Administrative Activities One of the problems created by the present charter is the extensive involvement of the City Council in administrative activities. The proposed charter attacks this problem by clarifying the authority and responsibilities of the executive and legislative branches. (See Chapter 3.) In addition, in Article 11 on the conduct of officers and employees, there is a provision which prohibits direct Council interference in the administration of city departments. Responsibility for direction and control of departments is vested in the heads of departments, and departmental matters are to be dealt with by councilmen only through the Mayor or his designated representative. This provision does not limit the right of the Council to investigate the official activities of any office or department of the city. (See section 11.06.) A similar, but less explicit prohibition against Council involvement in administrative matters is contained in section 34 of the present charter. Such provisions are also found in the charters of other large cities. The basic purpose of such a provision is to prevent confusion in city adminis- |
| Filename | indep-box21-07-03~044.tif |
| Archival file | Volume68/indep-box21-07-03~044.tif |
