by Paul R. Spitzzeri
Diana Mangioglu is the city treasurer of Los Angeles and the Office of Finance webpage states that she “serves as the banker, investor, and custodian of public funds for the City of Los Angeles” managing a cash management operation of more than $50 billion yearly, while, since the beginning of the century, the investment portfolio has more than tripled to some $10 billion, with about 10% in annual returns.
When the City was formed in spring 1850, prior to California statehood, Francisco Figueroa secured election as the first treasurer, though he resigned after not quite three months in office. His successor was F.P.F. Temple, who took office at the end of September and served until early May 1852, at which time he took a seat on the first Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Later, after his Temple and Workman bank failed, Temple assumed the office of Los Angeles County Treasurer, serving a single term, albeit with a deputy handling the day-to-day operations, from 1876 to 1878.
The funds in the city treasury were modest, to say the least, and, when James J. Mellus took office in late 1874, he accepted a remarkable offer from Temple in which the Temple and Workman bank would pay 7% interest on the City’s $23,000 deposited in the institution. When the bank collapsed, however, the municipality lost that money, which led to Mellus being removed from office in March 1876.
About a quarter century later, as the 20th century dawned, William H. Workman, won election as city treasurer and ended up being reelected twice, serving from 1901-1907, and, remarkably, was the only Democrat to hold major office in the Angel City for most of that period. Workman, who migrated in 1854 to Los Angeles with his family when fifteen years old to join his uncle, William of the Rancho La Puente, was a member of that party when it dominated Angel City politics into the 1880s.
In late 1886, he was elected mayor as Los Angeles was in the fevered ferment of the great Boom of the Eighties, which peaked during his two year term through December 1888, by which time, however, the inevitable bust was under way. During the following decade, he served on the city Park Commission and followed this with his last political position as city treasurer. This certainly would not fly today, but Workman appointed his son, [Andrew] Boyle, to be his deputy and the younger Workman went on to be a three-term member of the City Council, most of the time as president, from 1919-1921 and 1923-1927, and an unsuccessful candidate for mayor.
A prior post here, focused on a photo of the Workmans and other in the treasurer’s office, provided some info on those three terms served by William H., but we’re going to take the opportunity here to go into some granular detail about his service during the year 1903, with a 22 April receipt issued by his department as the featured artifact from the Museum’s collection for this post. It’s a rather mundane document, recording the receipt of $30.00 from Todd Ford for a sewer connection to a lot on Ford’s subdivision on Jefferson Boulevard between San Pedro and Trinity streets, in what is now an industrial section of town.
What we’ll do, though, is look at some of the notable business conducted by the office during the year, with most of the media attention concerning municipal bonds issued for important public works projects. These included an outfall sewer to carry waste into the Pacific where the Hyperion treatment plant is next to Los Angeles International Airport; a storm water drain system; and for the new Los Angeles Polytechnic High School.
Also of note during 1903 are occasional reports of the state of the treasury, the paying out of monies to cover the city’s obligations, tax collection proceeds and others. An early reference came in the Los Angeles Express of 13 March under the heading of “Condition of City Funds” and which observed that the prior month’s report from Workman showed that February started with just shy of $700,000, though $166,000 was paid out while $94,000 was received, leaving about $627,000 in the coffers.
About a quarter of that came from the Pacific Electric Railway streetcar company, owned by Henry E. Huntington and which deposited the funds from a freight-hauling franchise, which was vetoed by Mayor Meredith P. Snyder, but sustained by the City Council. There was a slight cash balance of a bit under $2,000, though the auditor stated that there was $25,000 deficit because of “the non-presentation of demands allowed by the council.”
Two months later, the paper published a summary of the April monthly report, including the balance of about $719,000. The increase was due to a cash infusion of $316,000, added to the existing balance of some $625,000, while payouts involved $223,000. The funds paid in by the PERY remained, moreover, because Snyder refused to ratify the franchise and, it was added, Huntington was awaiting legal action because Superior Court Judge Olin Wellborn ruled against the franchise, though an appeal was made to the state Supreme Court.
Periodically, the papers would address the demands paid by Workman’s office, so the 29 April edition of the Los Angeles Times noted two large expenditures, with one of $72,000 going to an iron foundry and pipe concern for the water department, while another for some $24,000 went to the contractor working on improvements to Temple Street west of Bunker Hill Avenue. Both of these payments reflected the phenomenal growth underway in the Angel City during the first years of the new century.
A couple of weeks later, the paper briefly remarked that the treasury expended $110,000 brought in from an electric railway franchise along 6th Street and that “Mr. Workman says that a large amount of the money paid out last week was for [the] labor account.” Moreover, the treasurer was clearly proud to note that “the city does not have any floating indebtedness, which is the first time this could be said since last July.”
Early July brought new reports of funds remitted by the treasury, with the Times of the 3rd remarking that “City Treasurer Workman has been besieged by schoolmarms, firemen, policemen and general city employes [sic] during the last few days.” Payment on bonds was also due, so about $90,000 left the treasury in just the first two days of the month. The Los Angeles Record of the same day observed that, despite these hefty transfers, “yet the city is not broke.”
A little over a month later, the Record of 8 August quoted Workman on another big set of expenditures:
Paid out, in gold coin, in four days, $100,000!
A fortune, you say; yes, but it’s all gone for city expenses.
And in four days . . .
This is something fearful.
Something must be done.
Why, the drain on the treasury is something fierce. As I say, in four days with current expenses we have already paid out over $100,000.
The paper added that “Treasurer Workman’s hair is standing on end” as he exclaimed that this run of payouts “is the biggest yet!” For street sprinkling, the amount was $12,000 “and kick after kick on top of it,” so that, instead of the entire 1902 expenditure of $64,000, that expense could end up for the current year to be north of $180,000.
The 2 September issue of the Record exclaimed, “money, money, nothing but money” as large sums were “going like water, and still the cry is ‘more.'” In one day, $30,000 “in solid American gold pieces”, left the office with another forty grand following the next day, while another large amount was expected the third day. That street sprinkling bill against caused Workman consternation as he told the paper the totals were $13,000 each of the last two months and it was under $5,000 a year ago and then bemoaned, “I never saw money melt as it does these days. It makes my hair stand on end.”
The paper’s edition of 10 October reported that “Workman Hands Out Big Bunch Of Money,” with Wells Fargo Express Company handed $50,000 as the annual remittal for the $2 million issuance of water bonds, while coupons for a like amount in interest on other municipal bonds were also cashed.
The Express of 6 November addressed Workman’s October report with the title of “Large Sum In Treasury” and observed that the end of the month left over $860,000 in the coffers, while that Huntington-paid amount for the streetcar franchise remained “pending the result of litigation.” Of concern, however, was that the water revenue fund was at just over $17,000 because “expenditures by the [city water] department,” which took control of municipal delivery a half-decade before from a private company after its 30-year agreement ended, “[were] keeping up close to the receipts.” It was noted, though, the rates paid the interest and matured installments on the bonds used to buy the system.
The 2 December issue of the Times reported on tax collection with some $844,000 collected out of $1.416 million “charged against the Tax Collector” when the first half of taxes were determined to be delinquent and “this is considered a good showing.” With the fiscal year having just ended, the paper continued, “the books of City Treasurer Workman showed the largest balance in the history of the city” at $1.419 million.
There are a couple of notable tangential treasury tidbits mentioned in the press. The 5 June edition of the Express reported that “City Treasurer Workman is to have a new safe” because, with the massive growth in the Angel City and the corresponding increase in the office’s business, “the strong box expressly built for use in the city vaults is too small to hold the treasure of the municipality.” Seeking a little levity in the situation, the paper added that “‘Uncle Billy,'” this being Workman’s nickname among his fellow Angelenos, “does not like to keep the surplus in his socks.”
The Times of 22 September found more humor in what was otherwise a department generally devoid of such light heartedness when it commented that an elderly lady approached Boyle Workman as she entered the office and asked “is this Treasurer Shaw’s office.” The deputy told her it was that of Treasurer Workman and her reply was “well, maybe he’ll do” as she fished out a news article stating that Shaw was prepared to loan banks $40 million on city bonds.
Apropos of which, the unidentified woman told Boyle “we’ve got a lot of bad sewers out on our street, and they’re a regular nuisance, and I thought if I saw the treasurer . . .” Sewage disposal was an enormously important issue as late 19th and early 20th centuries America underwent massive growth, but, especially, in its urban environments, but the citizen “did not understand why the deputy tried so hard to restrain a smile until informed that Treasurer Shaw is the Secretary of the United States Treasury, and has no immediate supervision over Los Angeles sewers.” No doubt, she thought the explanation stank.
The rest of the media’s attention, when it came to the operations of the Treasurer’s office, concerned the vital issue of those municipal bonds and, again, the phenomenal expansion of the Angel City required more of these at increasingly larger sums. So, we’ll return tomorrow with part two of this post dealing with Treasurer Workman’s handling of this matter, especially as complications arose on several fronts during the course of the year. Be sure to check back in with us then.