CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR INCOMPATIBILITY OF OFFICE

Home Browse Search

~ ,~ in the subject dual capacity in itself suggests the possibility of finlncial reward by reason thereof. ~?~.iestion 2. Answer: No. incompatibility? "' 26 ALR 143. `~~ ~., The California legislature .has not chosen•.to answer that question or to re,ulate the field and the restrictions concerning dual office holding are found in the constitution of the state or in the charters of the various home rule cities. As before mentioned, the Santa Ana charter does not give us any assistance in answering the rnsestion. • "The principlQ of incompatibility of offices at common law, as well as undor statutory and constitutional provisions, is well settled. For example, see Howard v. Harrington (1916) 1.14 Me. 443, L.R.A. 1917A; 211, 96.,ATL. ?69, in which the court said: 'The doctrine of the incompatibility of offices is bedded in the conmton law,~and is of great antiquity. At common law tcao o£ficcs whose functions are inconsistent are regarded as incompatible The debatable cruestion is, vJhat constitutes. Generally speaking the following four cruestions and the Znswers thereto, provide a good framework to answer the u1L•im~te question as to what incompati}~ility really amounts to. The questio:is arc as follows: 1. 7~re the two positions held by the same person both oti-ices':~ •In this instance, they obviously are. 2. Is one, office subordinate to and subject to the appointive: o~ ramoval power of the other? The answex' to the following question is no. If for example, sac were dealing with a councilman litho was appointed to the planning commission, the answer would be obviously ycat,anG it ~~ould be apparent that the offices wer© incompatibly:. 3. .1re there statutory prohibitions against the dual office holding'1 In the instant matter, no such statutory prohibition .has been found, either in the charter of the city, its cone, or in the state constitution or statutes. 4. Do the guidelines. established by the basic comrion l,:w c::tab- lishing incompatibility of public offices ez:ist' The answer. to thin question is not quite as obvious as she answers to the foregoing because just what the coiT4i~o17 ?_•-~w on the subject is, is more subject to debate and interpre~~~ion. The leading California case on the subject is People c~_: rcl 'Chapman v. Ftapsey 16 Cal. 2d G36. It was ther© sta~:.cd, "~::o offices aro said to be incompatible when the holder ~,:.rno~ in evc;ry instance discharge the duties of esclz. +nco:npu;.iaility arises, therefore, from the nature of the duties of •ci~e oiiices, when tlicre is an inconsistency in the functions of the t>>o, where the functions of the two are inherently inconsi~t~.^.~ o~• repugnant, as where antagonism would result in the atte.apt; :.sy one p~:rson to discharge the duties of both offices, or :•:aere . 45