Charter Study Group, memo, [1990], to Bradley |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 3 of 6 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
• • 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
Object Description
Title | Los Angeles City document index, (part 2 of 2) |
Description | Los Angeles City document index, (part 2 of 2). 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. |
Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California |
Type | texts |
Format | 89 p. |
Format (aat) |
amendments (administrative records) correspondence covers (gathered matter components) lists (document genres) memorandums proposals 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 8 |
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-box21-08 |
Description
Title | Charter Study Group, memo, [1990], to Bradley |
Description | Section 6: Charter Study Group, memorandum, [1990], to Tom Bradley and members of the City Council, re Recommendations regarding activities of the ad hoc commission on charter reform. |
Coverage date | [1990] |
Creator | Charter Study Group |
Contributor | Bradley, Tom, recipient |
Date created | [1990] |
Type | texts |
Format | 7 p. |
Format (aat) | memorandums |
Format (imt) | application/pdf |
Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
Series | Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe |
File | Los Angeles City document index |
Box and folder | box 21, folder 8, item 3 |
Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
Full text | • • 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 |
Filename | indep-box21-08-03.pdf |
Archival file | Volume66/indep-box21-08-03.pdf |