Page 3
Court of Appeal:
City May Not Strip Elected Officer of Duties by Ordinance
Opinion Says Oxnard’s Actions to Reduce Authority of Treasurer Amounted to ‘Un-Electing’ of Candidate
By Kimber Cooley, Associate Editor
Div. Six of this district’s Court of Appeal held yesterday that actions by the City of Oxnard to strip its elected treasurer of certain duties—and substantially reduce his compensation—impermissibly undermined the statutory authority provided to the office under the Government Code.
“A city treasurer deprived of the office’s duties is tantamount to no treasurer,” Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert said in an unpublished opinion. “The City may not through legerdemain un-elect the office of city treasurer and defeat the choice of the voters.”
Justices Kenneth Yegan and Hernaldo J. Baltodano joined in the opinion.
Inappropriate Comments
The dispute arose after the municipality placed Treasurer Phillip Molina on administrative leave in October 2019 following an 83-page investigative report looking into allegations that Molina made inappropriate comments toward female employees, such as suggesting that they go home and cook for their husbands and wondering if they would give him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation if he suffered a heart attack.
During a May 2020 City Council meeting, Oxnard leaders voted to strip Molina of the bulk of his responsibilities by passing a series of resolutions and ordinances. They also shifted Molina’s 19-member staff to a newly created department and reduced his salary from a range of $114,656.88 to $157,652.98 to a fixed $20,418.08, equal to the remuneration of city council members.
At the meeting, Molina accused City Manager Alex Nguyen of running the city like a “dictator.”
Voters re-elected Molina as treasurer in November 2020. In January 2022, Molina filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the city’s actions.
Ventura Superior Court Judge Mark S. Borrell denied Molina’s petition, finding no conflict between the resolutions and the statutes governing the role of treasurer.
General Law City
In his opinion reversing that denial, Gilbert noted that Oxnard is a “general law” city, having only those powers expressly given to it by the Legislature, and “[a] local ordinance in conflict with state law is void.” Government Code §41005 provides that “[t]he City treasurer shall perform duties relative to the collection of city taxes and license fees as are prescribed by ordinance.”
The parties dispute what the phrase “as are prescribed by ordinance” modifies—the city arguing it gives it the power to prescribe the treasurer’s duties and Molina asserting that it applies only to “city taxes and license fees.”
The presiding justice opined:
“The best guide to the meaning of section 41005 is its words. It does not say ‘the city treasurer shall perform duties…unless otherwise prescribed by ordinance.’ It simply says, the duties relative to the collection of taxes and fees prescribed by the ordinance shall be performed by the treasurer. Nothing in section 41005 authorizes an ordinance transferring duties relative to the collection of taxes and fees to the assistant treasurer.”
He pointed out that §34004 provides that a duty imposed on a city official may be transferred to another officer “charged by applicable general law” with “duties of the same character.” However, he remarked that “[a]n assistant treasurer is not charged by applicable general law with any duty of the same character as license fee and tax collection.”
Reporting Duty
Molina also challenges the transferring of his reporting duties under §41004—providing that “at least once each month, the city treasurer shall submit to the city clerk a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances”—to the director of finance.
Agreeing with the petitioner, Gilbert wrote:
“Section 41004 places the duty to provide a written report and accounting on the treasurer, not the director of finance. Again the City relies on section 34004 authorizing a transfer of the treasurer’s duties….The City points to no applicable general law that charges the director of finance with duties of the same character as the treasurer’s…duty under section 41004.”
He continued:
“A report on the City finances by a treasurer who is directly answerable to the voters is not the same as a report by the director of finance who is answerable to other city officials. The treasurer is independent and can provide a check on other city officials, including the City counsel and the director of finance.”
Deletion of Duties
Gilbert reasoned that the deletion of certain duties from a list of responsibilities belonging to the treasurer is without legal effect, saying:
“The duties mandated by state law remain notwithstanding their deletion by the ordinance. For example, one of the duties deleted by the ordinance is to ‘[p]erform such duties relative to the collection of City taxes and license fees as are prescribed by ordinance.’ That is a duty mandated by section 41005. The deletion of that duty by ordinance does not nullify the statutory duty to collect city taxes and license fees.”
Finding that the actions by the city to strip authority from the elected treasurer were unfounded, the jurist declared:
“The Government Code calls for an elected treasurer. Molina was duly elected. The ordinances as a whole have the intent and effect of removing Molina from his office. For this reason, we reverse. All the challenged ordinances are void and Molina’s duties as treasurer are restored. Molina’s salary is restored to its previous compensation, including restoration of compensation withheld pending resolution of this case.”
The case is Molina v. Nguyen, B327286.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company