incompatible offices doctrine in California

2007Chapman v. Rapsey, supra , 16 Cal.2d at p. 644 ; see 3 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed. 2001) § 1267, p. 367.) Here, we may first note that a director of the Authority clearly holds a "public office" for purposes of the incompatible offices rule.

2007Chapman v. Rapsey , supra , 16 Cal.2d, supra , at pp. 639-640; People v. Milk Producers Assn. (1923) 60 Cal.App. 439 , 444 ; 81 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 304 , 305 (1998).) We have previously determined that the directors of a variety of public water agencies are officers for purposes of the incompatible offices doctrine.

2019Code, § 1099, subd. (a) (offices are not incompatible where “simultaneous holding of the particular offices is compelled or expressly authorized by law”); 90 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 24 , 26-28 (2007). 25 American Canyon Fire Protection Dist. v. County of Napa (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 100, 104 , quoting McClain v. County of Alameda (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 73, 79 . 26 90 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at p. 28; see, e.g., American Canyon Fire Protection Dist. v. County of Napa, supra, 141 Cal.App.3d at pp. 102-106 (incompatible offices rule 5 18-304 that where a state statute expressly permits a member of one l

1998(American Canyon Fire Protection Dist. v. County of Napa (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 100 ; McLain v. County of Alameda (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 73 ; 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 748 , 750 (1980).) Does the Education Code allow application of the incompatible offices doctrine in the present circumstances?

2007The directors constitute the policymaking body of the Authority, exercising judgment and discretion in carrying out their responsibilities and the "sovereign powers of government." (See Stout v. Democratic County Central Com. (1952) 40 Cal.2d 91 , 94 ; People ex rel.

2004(See Stout v. Democratic County Central Com. (1952) 40 Cal.2d 91 , 94 ; 76 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 244 , 245-249 (1993).) Relators make three additional contentions that may be summarily dismissed.

2004(Neigel v. Superior Court (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 373 , 378-379 ; 83 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 246 , 247 (2000); 78 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 362 , 363-368 (1995).) Here, we find that forfeiture of the first office is not required since a standby officer does not hold a public office for purposes of the common law prohibition.

1995(See 76 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 157 , 161 (1993); 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 710 , supra.) However, holding public office for purposes of the incompatible offices doctrine requires further analysis as set forth in Neigel v. Superior Court (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 373 .

2025(See City of Orange v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 45, 52 .) 12 We are not asked, and therefore provide no opinion on, whether other legal grounds such as the incompatible-offices doctrine could affect council members desiring to simultaneously serve as municipal library board trustees. 3 24-803 In construing Education Code section 18910, we employ established rules of statutory interpretation to determine the Legislature’s intent. 13 We begin with the statute’s words because they are generally the most reliable indicator of its intended purpose. 14 If th

2020The complaint alleged Robles had “usurped, intruded into, and unlawfully held and exercised the office of Director of the WRD in violation of [Section 1099], and continued to do so once he was sworn into the office of Mayor of the City of Carson . . . .” The complaint further alleged the two offices were incompatible under Section 1099 “because the WRD and the City of Carson have overlapping territory, duties and responsibilities, and a clash of duties is likely to arise in the exercise of both offices (Proposition 218). ( Cerritos, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1454- 1461.) 5 simultaneously.”

2007Thus, in People v. Carter (1936) 12 Cal.App.2d 105 , 110-111 , the court ruled that the incompatible offices rule did not prevent a city mayor from serving as the city's representative on the board of directors of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

2007(See 82 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 83 (1999) [city community development director]; 80 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 74 (1997) [assistant city manager]; 78 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 362 (1995) [sheriff deputy chief]; 74 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 82 (1991) [city fire division chief]; 40 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 238 (1962) [district agricultural association "coordinator-manager"]; 26 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 29 (1955) [county administrator]; see also Kirk v. Flournoy (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 553 [irrigation district assistant legal counsel]; Schaefer v. Superior Court (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 428 [Department of Employment district office administrator]

2007Chapman v. Rapsey , supra , 16 Cal.2d, supra , at pp. 639-640; People v. Milk Producers Assn. (1923) 60 Cal.App. 439 , 444 ; 81 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 304 , 305 (1998).) We have previously determined that the directors of a variety of public water agencies are officers for purposes of the incompatible offices doctrine.

2004It shall see that they faithfully perform their duties, direct prosecutions for delinquencies, and when necessary, require them to renew their official bond, make reports and present their books and accounts for inspection. ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." Due to the supervisory nature of a county supervisor's responsibilities with respect to the county assessor, district attorney, treasurer, controller, and recorder (see Dibb v. County of San Diego, supra , 8 Cal.4th at pp. 1209-1210; People v. Langdon (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 384 , 390 ), the offices in question ar

2004It shall see that they faithfully perform their duties, direct prosecutions for delinquencies, and when necessary, require them to renew their official bond, make reports and present their books and accounts for inspection. ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." Due to the supervisory nature of a county supervisor's responsibilities with respect to the county assessor, district attorney, treasurer, controller, and recorder (see Dibb v. County of San Diego, supra , 8 Cal.4th at pp. 1209-1210; People v. Langdon (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 384 , 390 ), the offices in question ar

2001Deputy Sheriffs' Assn. v. County of Santa Clara (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1471 , 1481 ; 82 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 74 , 75 (1999); 81 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 304 , 304-305 (1998).) We have previously determined that a mayor holds an "office" for purposes of the incompatible offices doctrine. ( 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 357 (1990); 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 623 (1980).) The District (Food Agr.

1999Utility Dist. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1005, 1013-1018 .) Thus, a clash of duties and loyalties for defendant may arise from the application of the City’s building and zoning ordinances to District projects, as well as from the requirement that District projects be consistent with the City’s general and specific plans. 6 99-206 would be forfeited by application of the incompatible offices doctrine.