• •
6
TO:
FROM:
Mayor Tom Bradley
Honorable Members of the City Council
Charter Study Group
Recommendations Regarding Activities of the Ad Hoc
Commission on Charter Reform
In accordance with the request of the Mayor and City Council
in Council File 90-0707, the Charter Study Group has prepared its
recommendations related to the activities of the Ad Hoc Commission
on Charter Reform. As specified in the Mayor and Council action,
these recommendations include: a scope of work for a Charter
revision study; a timetable for completion of such an effort; and
preliminary staffing and budget requirements.
In developing these recommendations, the members of the
Charter Study Group held several meetings in City Hall. City
staff provided the group with material generated as a result of
previous Charter revision studies. This material included the
results of two major studies: "City Government For the Future,"
the July 1969 Report of the Los Angeles City Charter Commission
(Chai red by Dr. Henry Reining, Jr. ) , and "A Study of The Los
Angeles City Charter," a December 1963 report of the Municipal and
County Government Section of Town Hall. In addition, the City
Clerk prepared a listing of the various ballot proposals - both
successful and unsuccessful - which were submitted to City voters
during the last fifteen years, and a summary of the proposed
Charter amendments currently under review in the various Council
committees.
In addition, the CAO, on behalf of the Charter Study Group,
circulated a memo to all department General Managers and the
Bureau Directors in the Public Works Department inviting their
suggestions for Charter changes. All responses were reviewed by
the study group. While most of the suggestions involved the more
technical provisions of the Charter and understandably related to
the specific department responding, there were some comments which
related to broader policy issues.
SCOPE OF WORK
In order to insure that the Commission is given the
flexibility to take an objective, unbiased view of the Charter and
the need for change, we are not proposing a strictly defined scope
of work. We feel that the material contained in the previous
Charter studies, previous ballot proposals, the list of items now .
pending, as well as the individual technical changes suggested by
the general managers, provide a clear overview of the issues
2
involved. We would suggest, however, that the City's direction
to the Commission specificall¥ request findings and
recommendations in the following areas and issues:
*
*
*
*
*
The relationship between the Mayor and Council and the
distribution of their separate and shared powers and
responsibilities, including the appointment and removal of
City commissioners. In which direction should the balance
of power tilt -- to the Mayor or the City Council? Should
the executive or administrative power of the Mayor be
increased? Should the Counci 1 have the power to remove a
City commissioner without the consent of the Mayor?
The role of appointed commissions -- part-time or full-time,
advisory or controlling in the administration of the
affairs of City departments. Should the commission system
be retained? Ha~ it ceased to be an effective component of
municipal government in Los Angeles? Is it reasonable to
expect that a part-time appointed citizen commission will be
able to manage a City department as large and complex as the
Airport, Harbor, Police, Fire, or Water and Power? Does a
fill-time commission, like the Board of Public Works, provide
a more effective management structure than one in which a
general manager is the head of a department? Is there a
single, consistent role appropriate for a City commission,
i.e. should each be advisory only, mainiy advisory with
specific limited powers, or the head of its respective
department?
The degree of independence from control by the Mayor and
Council which is now provided certain City departments.
Should any of the City departments be al lowed to enjoy a
special status providing them with an extraordinary degree of
independence from the elected City officers? Are there some
decisions over which a department should have absolute
authority or should their final decision always be subject to
review or concurrence by directly-elected City officers?
The method of selecting, retaining and removing the top
management in the departments of City government.
Should all general managers and bureau heads serve at the
will of and be subject to removal without a showing of cause
by the elected Mayor and/or Council? Is some form of
protection necessary to prevent abuse and political
patronage? Should general managers and bureau heads be
appointed for specific terms subject to reappointment once
the terms expire?
The degree of public access to City government and the
offices and individuals who manage it. Should the size of
the Council be expanded? Would this increase accountability?
Should term limits be imposed on elective office in Los
Angeles?
*
*
3
The respective roles of the electorate in establishing the
laws for this City by adoption and amendment of a City
Charter, as compared to the power of the Mayor and the
Council to legislate by ordinance. Is the Charter overly
detailed, containing provisions which are of no real interest
to the voters and over which it is more appropriate for the
Mayor and Counci 1 to determine by ordinance? Does the
Charter provide an appropriate body of law imposing necessary
restrictions on the Mayor and Council which only the public
should be allowed to change?
The need for technical changes to delete obsolete provisions
and the possibility of streamlining and reducing the length
of the Charter by eliminating any redundancy or obsolete
provisions.
The Charter Study Group wants to emphasize that by listing
these above issues, and referencing the work done by previous
studies, we are in no way suggesting that the Commission be
limited in the scope of their Charter review.
STAFFING -----
There are inherent difficulties associated with making either
major structural or specific technical changes to a document as
complicated and involved as the Los Angeles City Charter. In
considering the allocation of appropriate staff to this task, the
study group considered two separate questions: where will the
staff support come from and how many staff will be necessary.
It became obvious from the outset that if City staff were to
be utilized as the primary support for the Ad Hoc Commission, the
study would in all likelihood reflect the bias which those
employees would understandably bring with them to the task.
After discussing the nature of the study, and in order to insure
that the Ad Hoc Commission is given an objective, outside
perspective, it was the conclusion of the Group that the core
staff support should not come from City staff.
The Charter Study Group believes that it will be necessary to
employ independent consultant(s) or contractor(s) to evaluate the
provisions of the current Charter, identify problem areas that
need change, evaluate the alternative means of changing the
problem areas, and then justify and support any recommended
changes.
The current Los Angeles City Charter is a very complicated
and restrictive document. The reviewers of the document must have
a comprehensive understanding of how it works or does not work in
order to evaluate the changes that they believe are appropriate.
This will require that various experts in the fields of law and
government administration and other disciplines be brought
together into a team environment under the leadership of an
executive di rector or contractor. The task is formidable and
4
would be a full time undertaking. Attempting such a task with
adminis'trative or analytical staff on temporary or intermittent
loan to the Ad Hoc Commission from existing City offices is, in
our view, neither feasible nor appropriate.
It is our best judgement that an executive director should be
hired by the Commission to supervise a small group of two or three
assistants, including support staff, and to coordinate the work of
subcontractors, other independent technicians, legal advisors, and
present findings and recommendations to the Commission, the Mayor
and the City Council.
TIMETABLE
In considering the issue of a timetable which the Commission
would be expected to follow in completing its task, the study
group feels that while some target dates should be established,
the Commission should not be unduly constrained by deadlines which
by their very nature are arbitrary. Our primary focus was
encouraging a thorough and complete Charter review.
In very general terms, we estimate that this undertaking,
once a director has been selected, will require between 18 and 36
months of work. The di rector's initial task wi 11 likely be the
selection of one or two additional, full time assistants . Their
first step should be the preparation of an overall work program,
with identified objectives and targeted goals. This should assis t
the Commission in selecting the appropriate individual
subcontractors for specific tasks.
This approach will allow the Commission to review the
Charter in a series of reports, each focusing on a general area of
study for which specific recommendations would be developed .
These recommendations, once approved by the Commission, would be
submitted to the Mayor and City Council as packages of independent
reports which could be acted on separately. This will facilitate
a phased, issue by issue review avoiding the problem created by
the submittal of a huge volume of written material at one time.
A significant problem with any major Charter revision effort
is the sizeable task of clearly communicating to the electorate
the issue(s) involved, the need for the change, and why what is
before them is the best alternative available to meet the
challenges of the future. The more complex or controversial a
change, the less likely will be its acceptance by the voters
unless there is significant support from a broad cross-section of
the community.
As a result, we feel that any major Charter changes which are
approved for the ballot should be individually presented to allow
the voters to decide each change on its own merit rather than
forcing acceptance or rejection of an entire package of unrelated
proposals. In addition, we strongly urge the Commission to seek
advice from media and other consultants in order to develop an
overall plan for submitting changes to the voters in a manner
5
which wjll provide both a clear understanding of each proposal and
the rationale offered in its support.
BUDGET
It is extremely difficult to come up with anything but a very
general estimate of the direct funding which this Charter study
will require. We feel that the Commission will have a
significant advantage in allocating resources for basic research
because of the great amount of detailed background and discussion
contained in previous Charter. studies.
Based both on our estimates in the areas of staffing and
duration of the Commission's activities, we estimate that the
direct cost of this Charter review effort could range between $1
and $2 million. This would include continuing work by the
executive director to provide the City Council and its committees
with information and assistance after the last written report is
completed and approved by the Commission. While this rough
budgetary figure anticipates that the Commission will occupy
leased off ice space, it may be possible for space to be donated
for this purpose.
Attached to the original of this report and to the Council
File are copies of the following documents reviewed by the Study
Group and which should be provided to the Ad Hoc Commission when
it begins its work:
City Government for the Future
Los Angeles City Charter Commission
July 1969
"Detailed
Committee
report."
April 1970
Report to
on Public
the Charter and
Hearings held on
"Los Angeles: Work Still to be Done"
Administrative Code
the 1969 Commission
Final Report of the Charter Revision Commission
December 1970
A Study of the Los Angeles City Charter
A Report of the Municipal and County Government Section of
Town Hall
December 1963
Departmental recommendations for Charter changes submitted in
response to Study Group inquiry
Proposed Charter amendments now pending in Council committees
Proposed Charter amendments submitted to voters, June 1976 to
June 1990
6
Respectfully submitted,
LOS ANGELES CITY CHARTER STUDY GROUP
J. Michael Carey
Executive Officer City Clerk
Robert Chase
Assistant City Administrative
Officer
Jeffrey Druyun
Legislative Analyst
John B. Emerson
Chief Deputy City Attorney
Anita Defrantz, President
Amateur Athletics Foundation
Elwood Lui
Associate Justice
Court of Appeals, Retired
Cruz Reynoso
Associate Justice Supreme Court
Retired