HomeMy WebLinkAboutS2- Counil Office Cl' l OF SAN BERNARD' 10 - REQU"IT FOR COUNCIL ANON
From: Councilwoman Esther R. Estrada Subject: City Attorney Opinion
Dept: Council office
Date: March 16, 1988
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
I
I
�I
Recommended motion:
To discuss opinion rendered on March 15, 1988 to Councilwoman
Pope-Ludlam regarding legal fees representation and Black History
Parade incident.
Signature
Contact person: Councilwoman Esther R. Estrada Phone: 5268
Supporting data attached: Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source:
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262 Agenda Item No. �°�--
�tilz'��D
�• I
S'
k
CI BERNARDINO P. O. BOX 1 31 2 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92401
ON T H'�- � �RALPH H.H. PRINCE June 2 . 1972
CITY ATTORNEY
f
Hon. *Mayor and Ccrmon Council
City Hall
Re: "Mayor and City Council , Powers of
File Ao. 10 . 22
; ULSTIO .`4S
You have requested an opinion concerning the powers of the Mayor
and the powers of the City Council and specifically:
(1) .whether a Councilman has implied powers individually
beyond the collective powers of the legislative body; and
( 2) wiletl.er tl e *Mayor and the City Council -lust be responsive
to one another; and
(3) .,het.er the Ilayor can. issue an order :without the approval
Of t City Council :which impedes the activities of a councilman or
.�tituants ; and
( 4) -whether the '^aycr has broad authority frcm the phrase ,
"genera'_ zupary lion" over u @party e:tS anJ officers ; and
(5) whether the 'Iaycr can excr:.ise eTergcncy powers Wit::ou t
approval of the City Council un:cr Section 50 of the Chartcr; and
(� )
whether tl.e .idyOY' Cdi: �' �^?�:t cLCtivl-t S Jr ii:JcStl'a
4itiio,iL tae con3C17,L k.,J the City CQUn 11 In accordance 'w i til
16j and lOJ of tl'le C:larter.
I
'Ile SU.):riltCeu qudst-lon slave i�een rep.lrased :Jlth an of 7rt
retai r the same general meani,.ngs as seemed to be indicate.!.
?0'J. ?,?AYOR A;, D. COMAO',I COUNCIL -2- June 2 , 1972
AIJALYS IS
Tl-..?SP_ Yu esti_cns T•7i_ll be analyzed '.n the order presented in the
fore--J_n;: -^araora-,h 7.7ithout other enumeration than the ass; -;ned
numbers.
(1) A review of the -e.neral. --oviS i ons of the Charter (her2i n-
after, -all references to sections r°f^r to the Charter unless otner-
Wi.se in.li_cated) indicate that tine leZislati.ve body of the City of
San 3ernardino is usually referred to as the and Common Council.
T some instances , the phrases, "Cite Co,zncil" , "Common Council" and
"Council" are used. For instance , Section 30 vests the le7islative
mower of the City in the Com:on •Counci_l consistin- of seven members
but Section 40 , rhich ,nec'_fically delineates the powers conferred
refers to the T.ayor and Cornon Council. A reasonable construction
of the use of these phrases is that the leislative body, the
Common Council , exercises its no,7ers by adopting ordinances , resolu-
tions and orders at public meetir.zs with the 'Iayor presiding at
such meet;nTs ; and, the Mayor, at such meetings , in the case of
orders , or liter, in the case of ordinances and resolutions , has
the power to exercise his disapproval. _
The Charter does not expressly confer any individual Dower to a
councilman. It would be unreasonable to imply the vesting of any
spec iLi_c :o--7cr in one councilman because (1) the Council acts �en-
Arall,, under Sections 30 and 31 by the majority will of its member-
ship; and, (2) it can only act at a duly noticed or called public
meetin_; -,7ith a quorum in attendance under the provisions of Sections
54954 and 54955 of the Government Code.
As earl:; as 1362 the California Su^rame Court ruled that .
"T^dividual :aemhers of the Com-ion 71ouncil �,7ere not invested by the
charter ,'it h, any po-•ler to i*ipreve the C;t,,7 property, and any direc-
tions ven or contracts -'lade by them upon the subject, :lad the
sa7-e and no -seater validity than 1_ke directions riven and like
contracts ,ade by any other residents of the city ."
Nor can the City Council dele7ata its power7 conferred h,r provisions
of tine Charter to one or more of its *�WTMber^
T.- - -_Tvolving the dz n,^_t.on o f public n,o-, _ s ,
the
Californ;_a. Supreme
Court =r Kni-nt V. Cit7 of Eureka (1390J) 123 Cal.
192 , 55 P. 769 , -luotcd r. .� on s 'lun-�clpa_ orporstions :tt
"7C t`..inj: the true doctrine iS correctly stated by "Ir.
Dillon, at section 96 : 'Tn.. principle is ; 1 lain ona
that the n 1 -� rc trusts devolved y l --7 or
,.ha � the�.. _.u'� _c .:.,-ae_ � or 4_.t�� _, .;y ,.,..
- �d` by it •7 en - ,gin^.er as ;_t
o be
_.�a1 cls. :end in :�u � _
,7,;c -,n--.+ cannot br, to -_th-_ .,_ lit
V 0 0
riO'_d. '"A`'OR AND CO..-!"O'l COUNCIL -3- June 2 , 1972
F- fteen years after i+s rulinz in Kn;_`,ht, the Supreme Court of
California reiteratively ruled in TTar, v Ci.t'r and County of San
Francisco et al . (1913)' 165 Cal. 5 , 13i 2945 297:
"The powers of control , vested in the board of trustees .
undoubtedly require the exercise of judgment and discretion.
Insofar as the nroosed use is public, these Dowers necessarily
devolve upon some officer or board of the municipality, and
under the well-settled rule, powers of this character cannot
be delegated. Scolla- v. Count- of Butte 67 Cal. 249 , 7
Pac. 661; Holle°,, v. �)rar,;-e, 106 Ca_. 420 , 39 Pac. 790; KniZht
v. Sure:. a, 123 Cal. 192 , 55 Pac. 7('9 .11
Nevertheless , under the broad ,o-,Ters of the Mayor and Common Council
to establish policy and procedures for the operation of the business
of the municipality, create positions , establish additional duties of
officers and adopt regulations governing the conduct of cite depart-
-nents , the legislative body has the greatest amount of power and
aut:zority in government, provided the exercise of such powers does
not conflict with other provisions of the Charter or preempting
state law. 71.1oreover, we do not intend to imply that a councilman,
as a cit-7 officer, does not possess the general power granted to city
officers as a class or that he may p not exercise appropriate riate delegated
_ P P
Dowers.
(2 ) The Mayor and City Council must '.')e responsive to one
another only n those ?.r. eas T7here the Charter, ordinances State 1,-7
y > >
or other r°_Zulatio^.s 7andats an act by the one in response to conduct
by the other. The failure to act by one where the law imposes a duty
to act Cannot be Used to impede the -erfor-ance of the power or duty
of +-h- other. A -mit of TMandamus could be filed or some other
appropriate course of cf_�i eial action could be utilized to compel
per - --an. s or to avoid the failure to act. The sa:;,e reasor._ng :aoula
apply to any del berate interference by one ..7ith the la:aful Lxcrcisa
of po--ers by the ot:.`r.
(3) The question concernin-; ;:hether the "ayor can issue orders
tc officers that impede t'Le zct_vities cf a councilman cannot ee
answered in the broad con+e ,` .r. .%,h- ^�'� J;..t s 1 fra e d o r _;^ +ha a`�^�tra.^
t.
_' _ issues -,,ould revolve around �th_r t�: activity �_..'."::.b1.t�.d or
of t,-e "ayor or L,,z Common Council l _-A. .�
1 our.,. ,
`�cr � � t� �, I^.-� �^esolutlon
.us a_ adop dr. _ y , ,
+� ri.�r -r t 1 '""1 �"� rr� -+ u�.- �r .t ..~
C a a _o Y J ' . c j Al 1V 1 1J J V w att
aC t
'_V-t1'•
'4 The u 3 c of };.�v �1-�»�^.....aJ if _� .n�v �:J_ vi1 Cvc- ..1, b..v
.7.. +.. -.L-1 ^.l _ ^L_L� L • If � ft. onv r l . ur ere ..f all
and _.�. _':J _ L.Z_1CA,-7 _.. tJ� ..- �... J t.... J �...v.. .. l._
50 d r n .-r—ant y {_. •yam i..cr, -,l t^ `' -.•nr
*jQ,I, 'i V0 f- ^.:TD CC ^: CCU"CT_L -4- June 2 , 1972
lebster's New Collegia to D� ;. , 1Jnar'y' ..�.�ln`S �''1. word general as
pertaining to the 1-sole; pertair.in,; to each or all of a class ; not
specific ; not concrete ; pertaining to many persons ; not special; and
not i7reCioe. C31ifOT-pia `:.'orris Phrases and ,�atilmS cites four CdSeS
Which daflne the +Joni general Me
as an] n� uniVersai
1 , not Dar ticular-
ized; rertainiia, to a v;aole class ; �elun ino to a w Tole, not apart;ID
not specific. its antonyms are specific, precise and
special. The publication further cites two California district
court Of aDDeals cases which defines the phrase "general superinten-
dent" as a person w cse invested authority is a general discretionary
noJer cf direction and control of an integrated department of his
e;riployer' s business and the phrase "general ^�anaer of a corporation"
as one who has zeneral control and direction of the business of the
cor. Yorati_on as distinguished from one -,aho has the management only of
a particular branch of the business .
Thus , both the co;xmon usage and the legal use of. the word "general"
indicate ±hat the supervision of the '?ayor over departments and
officers is universal and not particularized as it pertains to the
class of all departments and officers , except councilmen. The
Charter does not grant the Mayor specific supervision over all
"employees" who are not officers . �Jo*Jever2 since he does have super-
vision over all departments and since all dnoart'^ents are supervised
y cfficerp , in effect does exercise control over all departments
throu,h his supervision over all officers .
An offcor is one -1,7ho holds an office . An officer and an employee
should be distinguished. "T_t is the work to be cerformed or the
d'u't y_s to one may biz: azsi-ned that dater-ii-es his status as an
'offs cep' or n 'Amnloyeo1 ." . .n•; vs. Farr (1924)59 Cal. App. 239 ,
2332 230 P. 2¢7 ; C .avez vs . Sorague Cal. SgD . 2d 1912
2 Cal. t'^ 3 . Fstr3C13 VSy T idG'1:7� T " a '?:.Oe Co^�anT Of North
61 •J
(1258) 153 Cal. pp .. , P. 2d, state t
. at both
ee�°`c4L-d and aYpcinted officialo usually have duties and responsibi-
1�t� c3 from thosa of a mnera employea and the tarn "offlccr."
z Often used as synonymous 'pith t'••'c '•rord "Official" . The care held
that -a ?ollc2ivan was a Dubllc Off?cer. Ho-never, the Sl:premc Court
in Davis v. Kendrick (1059) 341 P 2d 573 later held, in overrulin'- a
r-porte case, that a rol-ir-c man •.7as not an officer A:ith:i_n the meaning
of a charter Drovision relatiiib to t^e f? ling of claiJ:ls. The court
in Humnbe-rt ,,-.- Castro
Vail e Prc+,^ct ior Dist..
(1963) 29
Cal _ 1 tr _ 1 , _5 thc
?V1S 10'1 o authority on ::..ether fire::len
� ^^ 1 ')f f; --ors l;i the f 011oc':lno language
appears to be a di vision of authori t - c t:.
�m --- -7 from tha difforenc s i: the
�u ati or:, st�•..m�n�; appa, n
C t; _a�.�tors :.�11� .: :re_ und�� _e. _n L:.- _as .
�y. •t-- f T G n (1 n13) l 30 Cal. .'J^. 22It 20
'�asc:. Cl , o� ..cos �ng..les .y_ � � _ ., •-
r !
U 7 1 a: a-1� ± _ � . - y t � r �1�1; n f f; v
d 8Y, :o d;n7 ? 3 -? .. 1� n o --
und'�cr t'!e _q Anon "'"tarter, and Jac;c,ZOn `v. •i .1'?' (�-Q'�l ) !
lE
52 Cal. 7o. 259 , 199 P. 822. that un ar t :e San
l°vO c tartar a fireman '.7as ? Dui;llc'Office_r :=!.nd nc-t an
HON. �A.YO_°. A.1\11^ Co",ION C^TJ"CIL -5- June 2 , 1972
in the sense that he is in service under a contract of hire .
(Page 263 , 198 °. ?age 324) ."
Stewart v. :ayes (1327) 84 Cal. App. 312 , 257 P 917 and Cleveland v.
Su Court 1342) 52 Cal. ":on. 2d 530 , 126 P 2d 622 held respec-
tively t,:�at a City Superinten-ent of Schools and Superintendent of a
County Par- and Hospital :sere not officers.
Charter Sections 13C and ';ui,sect_on Second thereof as amended in 1924,
and Sections 184 and 135 grant control and management of the Police
and Fire Departments to the ":ayor and Common Council. Section 186 ,
as a.en :8u i:, 1355, rcf, rS to the exercise Of file powers and control
over tiles,:-- d--partments vest--- _n. t le ayor an"' Co_:�mon Council by the
charter. Sac-Lions 33 a;l:.i 52 , file lattar as amended in 1924,
at i t ill:loil, art:=dz' io �:Oil�i �.i W-. tit JE'�:ti0i1S 180 , 134 and 135.
>7G:vCVCt', -ec L-Ons l"u , lv r a,l�i 13 J al E: ;uv"L'e si ecif is 1n nature and
r•
uzl�.ned%e .izilll ce cdi'cizS 'v`i C�I1"i roi. ve;leraily, file more SpeClilC
p.c v151O116 Colltroi o v, r jnconQist2n t geIleral provis-ions . Code of
Civil roceuura Ccticll u59 . Later lass generally prevail over
earlier conilictinb laws, However, statutes dealing witli the same
suh,ject :Tiat -er must be c^n-trued tcgether in li-ht of each other so
as to harmoni 7.e them if possible. Peo-Dle v. _,-rb1-(1960) 177 CA 2d
625 , 2 dal 3-?tr 491. In Our op'_n?_on, consi eri.n:, th?t the powers Of
the ''Ta,rOr' q.nd Co-i.S?on Council are -oer+,=0r+*_ eo at puI--,11 c meetin-s a.nd the
orn° Ball; , the
*))Tiov - of t'-.-- r
7cc±. ,ns
-,., v,,,.,..nc;1 --1. The ',43;'cr and C^*n*^�n Council can estab-
!i,a+; Ac am reTulati r1r c for tia}� +,.,o and the 'I�ayor,
;n
+ ynC., OFv;Ct�„n 7.�, ±h� r;+J, r..,znC _l +, ^an enforce the rec-ula-
t (-_n-� . On t-e other hand, the "a- nd Co'^mcn Counci_1 can enforce
its 0-'^ »nrit.l;v'° iantS at il011_c 'T1O°-t;.n'rS.
( 1 ) C':,arter Section 50 -'rAntz c-rtaln T-,orgers to the `layor. He
!la ' ?�{�r�; �� -ich T)o-?erq '.11t}^(?l.lf ±h,� ?^ �Y+r�cr�1 Of the City Council,
lxcert ,men ~'a-n-o%ral ^f the C;_ty Council_ 4 _ reYu_red by the Charter or ,
a. n „ r -,7 n empti ng
for e:�a�^�1 n , under ,r^-*`a n(?F? .o. 31 R , , � o C_n 'zee or b� _ re
state la°,a.
(6 ) The question concern;-n- :-^.ether the "a,- or can direct
activities or invest'Lat._nns of 1';lr' Police -)enartment without the
consent of the City Counc'1 ha.s been partially rev2ewed in Item (4) .
enerally, the '' ayor ma-d' dIr'�vt � 1
u-h activL; °s �r Invest=Zations
wit 4 7 i t% conf'_nes` of t or rc-ulati_cn^ °ctablished by t-e
�'D::1' on, Council -ink a�7 set fz)-rth 1n sections 57
n ^f +h`.n r- �» For ;n�t�nnp
the rt?�'^� n'i Common rO'1, ,;l
and 5 2 _. . l_._ t o_ -
�r
-rte ?C+4 •• CC-1-1 n; t f ^O':d'1ct ln`I. _cClen:.
' ,..i °ct to Ci` il Servi cn
^? '7i' ± _ r n "11l°s �v� =t
Drov.Lcions of the C._.=-,.rt r •'. r'-'• :`n Ian or could only tair_ action
for n-a l z;_ -r, no -�'or+,1anca �- �'_l;� a�?�:�i�` a olce-
^ in
?T h�, �u '_'1�_'lt, .�._. �_., :i' _.?r
J
t 2V
City In_strator
C; tv ��l o`+l.