ID-8I-W
adopted
by the
J0S5, , !$*"' *■*■
Since Its adoption the Charter has bee*
amended many times and Hi rise mora
than trebled, for it seems that Californians
are afflicted with the strange delusion that
it is proper to incorporate in our constitution and city charters legislat|on that would
more properly be enacted by the Legislature, or by ordinances.
And it is this faulty approach that has
caused the Charter's undue length.
The freeholders who drafted the Charter
adopted in 1924 were not only public-spirited citizens1 of intelligence and courage, but
they had the benefit of expert advice from
all parts of the world as to the best form of
government for the city of Los Angeles,
whose potential importance was anticipated.
But, notwithstanding the fundamental
soundness of the Charter provisions, many
officers and employees of the city, when
confronted with failure in departments and
manifest dereliction of duty on their part,
seek an alibi by charging the failure to the
provisions Sd£ the Charter, rather than acknowledge their own failure as adminis-
I trators and inept use of power conferred by
^ithe Charter.
It may be gathered from most of the
criticisms leveled at the Charter that objections are made to the American system
of checks and balances by these critics, and
that they favor vesting autocratic power in
our representatives so that they may do the
desired things without restraint; but I doubt
that the voters of this city would approve
such abdication of control as would satisfy
these critics.
.Some compare the size of our Charter
dth that of others, but unless we know
te powers granted, or withheld, by these
tfiort charters, any comparison would be
fair; but I would remind those critics that,
by a short charter they advocate vesting
itrolled power in any administrator,
t it took only a few WQcdtfEi
tnatfment to confer ai
Hitler in Germany, and upon
the Politburo in Russia, but the else of the
enactment^ did not contribute to the welfare
of the people. "     '
We had tin illustration la the early history
of Los Angeles before the adoption of the
1924 Charter, that unlimited power in any
^Smm^ * —->
The dMzena of Los Angeles were informed
by the newspapers for the first time that
a franchise for the construction and operation of a railroad down the Los Angeles
River bed to the Pacific Ocean had been
granted to the Southern Pacific Co. and it
was only alter a struggle and the mobilization of all *civic forces that this franchise
was revoked.,
This incident clearly shows that the
tribution of power may, at times, when
competent officials  are  in charge, del _
the accomplishment of a desirable objective,
but in the long run is better for the city
in order to prevent losses that might occur
from the acts of unfaithful or incompetent
officials, if vested with autocratic power.
A city charter like a State constitution
should consist of a general grant of power,
but not to the extent of granting autocratic
and uncontrolled power to any official. A
good official does not need autocratic power
hi order to perform his duty and a bad one
cannot be trusted with autocratic power.
No competent official is preve ed< by
charter provisions from performing his prescribed duties successfully if he will only
use the power conferred; and the excuses
based* on the* inhibitions of the Los Angeles
City Charter are only a convenient alibi
for incompetence,    r NATHAN NEWBT,
.' j   *;    '
wmmmm