My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR INCOMPATIBILITY OF OFFICE
Clerk
>
Minutes
>
Legal Opinions
>
1972-2010 Opinions
>
CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR INCOMPATIBILITY OF OFFICE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 1:31:23 PM
Creation date
7/20/2010 11:53:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legal Opinions
Description
CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR INCOMPATIBILITY OF OFFICE
Date
9/5/1972
Agency
City Council
Notes
OPINION 72-21
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />2. Is one office subordinate to and subject to the appointive or removal <br />.power of the other? The answer is no, since the City Council is not <br />subordinate. nor subject to the appointive or removal power of the Trustees <br />of the Junior College District and vice versa. <br />3. Are there statutory provisions against the dual office holding? There <br />is nothing contained in the State Constitution, State Code, Santa Ana <br />City Charter, nor theā¢Santa Ana Municipal Code, that prohibits simul- <br />taneous holding of the office of City Councilman of the City of Santa <br />Ana and Trustee of a Junior College District. 48 Ons Attv Gen 141. <br />4. Do the guidelines established by the basic common law establish an <br />incompatibility of public offices exist? If the offices of City Council- <br />man of the City of Santa Ana and Trustee of the local Junior College <br />District are to be found incompatible they would have to be found in- <br />compatible under the tests as stated in this item number 4. Z'he test <br />is a subjective one and is dependent upon the facts of each individual <br />case. <br />In turtlior discussing the tact sot out in item number 4 above it should <br />loo noL-oc1 ghat thorn are sevoral situations where a college district and <br />a City Council may engage in direct relationships or may contract with <br />each other. <br />For instance: <br />1) Under the Education Code contracts between the school district and <br />,~ the city are authorized for establishing, improving or maintaining <br />recreational facilities. Education Code ~ 16655. <br />2) Boards of Trustees may enter into arrangements with the city making <br />the college library a branch of the city library. Education Code 7205. <br />3) College districts may sell, exchange, grant, or quit claim real <br />property to any city. Education Code 16201. <br />4) Districts are further authorized to dedicate public utility easements <br />and street and highway right of ways to cities. .Education Code ~ 16251. <br />5) Districts are .also allowed to contract with cities for the services <br />of City Health Officers. Education Code Section 11703. <br />6) In eminent domain proceedings, either public body can condemn property <br />of the other where a superior use can be shown. Code of Civil Procedure <br />~ 1240 (3) . <br />7) In the establishment of a city master plan, the city may chart the <br />location of future schools. Gov. Code §65303(8). <br />It is apparent that a Councilman would perform all the functions listed <br />in items 1-7 above whereas a Planning Commissioner would perform only <br />the function listed in Item 7 above, and then only in an advisory <br />capacity. A Councilman on the other hand would be performing Item 7 <br />in a legislative capacity. <br />4 2 `' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.