sr-032877-cao opinionRLK5DT0:jak 3-2$-77
CITY ATTORNEY UPIIdION
Opinion No. 77-29, March 28, 1977
SUBJECT: Application of City Elections Code to
Board of Education Election
REQUESTED BY: Fair Elections Practices Commission
OPINION BY: Richard L. Knickerbocker, City Attorney
Dennis T Omoto, Deputy City Attorney
QUESTION PRESENTED
Generally, is a reasonable interpretation of
relevant provisions of the current California Education
Code*that the noncoterminous boundaries of the City of
Santa c4onica and the Santa rQonica Unified School District
d.o not prevent the application of the City's Election Code
to an election of such District's Board of Educa~.ti.on?
CONChLJS ION
Yes. As a broad proposition, a reasonable
construction of pertinent sections of the
Education Code is that the noncoterminous
City of Santa P4onica and the Santa Monica
District do not, of themse].f, negate the
Elections Code of the City to an election
Education of said District.
-1-
.present California
boundaries of the
Uni:[ied School
application of the
of the Board of
~~
-,~~
ANALYSIS
Elections Code of the City of Santa Monica
On September 10, 1.974, the City Council of the
City of Santa Monica adopted the Elections Code of the City
of Santa Monica - Section 11000 et seq. of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code - hereinafter sometimes referred to as "City
E1~ctions Code." Significant features of said City Elections
Code include, inter alia, provisions relative"to the dates
for the filing of campaign statements, limitations and
prohibitions on contributions and the regulation of printed
literature. See Section 11208, Section 11209, and Section
11211 of the Santa Monica Municipal. Code.
The "candidates" encompassed within the City
Elections Code and the "elections" governed therein, are
clearly delineated in the following municipal code sections,
which provide in relevant part that:
"'Candidate' means an individual
who is listed on .the ballot or who has
qualified to have write-in votes on such
person's behalf counted by election
officials for the nomination for election
to the Santa Monica City Council, Santa
PAonica Unified School District Board of
Education, or Santa Monica Community
College Board of Trustees, ." (Emphasis added)
Section"11202A of the Santa :Monica
Municipal Code.
-2-
"'Election' means any geheral,
special, or recall election held to
elect or remove a member of the Santa
Monica City Council, the Santa Monica
Unified School District Board of
Education, or the Board of Trustees
of the Santa Monica Community College ."
(Emphasis added).
Section 11202F of the Santa Monica
Municipal.Code.
Before examining the jurisdictional issue, the
foregoing ordinance sections demonstrate, by their express
terms, that an election to elect or remove a member of the
Santa Monica Unified School District Board of Education or
the Board of Trustees of the Santa Monica Community College,
and candidates. thereto, were intended subjects of governance
under the City Elections Code.
History of the Santa. Monica Unified School District
One component of an eclectic approach in resolving
the legal issues pertaining to the City Elections Code
inextricably involves the historical context within which
such issues must be framed
Even though the records of the .Office of the County
of Los Angeles Superintendent of Schools and the Administrative
Offices of the Santa tdonica Unified School District are some-
what imperfect at .best; the:hereafter discussed information.
-3-
has been extracted from two secondary materials.
A predecessor in interest of the Santa nionica
Unified School District was the'Santa Monica School District
the formation of which has been described by one autizor
as follows:
"The Santa Monica School District
was organized as a political unit of the
state in 1875, eleven years before
the town was first incorporated. The
school district originally included
the vast stretch of galleys, plains,
and mountains, embracing La Ballona
Rancho on the southwest and the Malibu
Rancho on the northwest and everything
in between. Out of this broad domain
numerous other school districts were
formed from time to time, and it has
only been in recent years that the
geographical boundaries of the Santa
Monica School District have been reduced
to the area of the city, with the
addition still of a stretch of twenty-
- six miles of seashore and mountains
lying between Tbpanga Canyon and the
Ventura County Line, ."
D. Cleland, A History of the Santa
Monica City Schools, February, 1.952.
-4-
According to the above source of authority, it is
interesting to note that ~oortions of the 2dalibu Rancho
constituted part of the original school district as far
back as 1875.
After said Santa P4onica School District was formed
on December 6, 1875, the nave was changed to the Santa
Monica City School District between-the time of the incorporation
of the City of Santa Monica and December 4, 1896. See Office
of the County of Los Angeles Superintendent of Schools, .History
of School District Organization in Los Angeles County (3d Rev.
Ed. 1976)[hereinafter cited as History of School District
Organization].
Excluding a number of additions and reductions from
the Santa Monica. City School District, the next significant
event occurred when the Santa Monica Unified School District
was formed, effective July 1, 1953, by a unification of the
Santa Monica City School District and the Santa Monica High
School District. History of School District Organization, supra
at 46. (Annexed hereto, marked Exhibit "A," and incorporated
herein by reference is a photo§tatic copy of a map contained
in History of School District Organization, supra at 84,
which map depicts the present boundaries of the Santa Monica
Unified School District).
Subsequently, on July 1, 1970, the Santa Monica
Community College District was formed under a procedure
authorized by the State Legislature of California, thereby
-5-
separating the college from the unified program. History
of School District Organization, su ra at 66. The territory
of the Santa Monica Community College District is outlined
on a map reproduced from the History of School District
Organization, supra at 85; a copy of said map is annexed
hereto as Exhibit "B," and incorporated herein.
As a result of the entire evolutionary process,
the area configuration of the. Santa Monica Unified School
District and the Santa Monica Community College District are
identical, and both Districts .are operated. by governing
boards of the same membership
History of School District
Organization, supra at 66.
Therefore, in vie?~; of the corr¢non membershi.n o. the
governing boards of bath Districts, and the ei;uivalent
territorial limits of said Districts, the hereinafter analysis
will direct attention to the Santa :^cnica Unified School
District and its Board of Education only for purposes o`
sim~clicity and convenience.
State Education Code --- lilections Under Lavas of 2espective Cities
As set forth in tt~e discussion hereinabove, and
visually-demonstrated on Lhe maps attached. hereto as Exhibit
"A" and Exhibit "B," the boundaries of the City of ;ant.:
Monica and t're Santa Monica Un.~fied School District are
noncoter-_ninous, videlicet, the School District is com:~riccd
of the city limits of the City of Santa Monica plus a rEgion
of ap~,roximately 26 miles of seashore and mountains ;n the
Malibu v~_cinity.
-e-
Thus, notwithstandinc the explicit references in
the City Elections Code to board of education elections
and candidates, any determination as to the sc,,z~e and effect
oz" said Citz~ Elections Code would be uaralogistic in the
least, and incomplete at best, unless need is given to a
possible jurisdictional issue. .lamely, the quarrelsome
concern is whether the Santa iionica Unified School District,
which includes the City of Santa Monica as only a.portion
thereof, is required to conduct an .election for its F.oard
of Education pursuant to the laias adopted by said charter cite
One step to-Nards a successful denouement of -this
matter is to study relevant sections of the statutory scheme
foi boards of education as codified in Section 1201 et sea.
of the Education Code, which is Chapter 5.
Sn regard to elections of boards of eczucatio::, one
state statute which argua'~~1y provides a com;:~lete anse„.er to
tiie jurisdictional questiori herein states as follo?as:
"Boards: of education are electec:
in cities under the provisions of the
laws governing the -respective cities,
except as otherwise provided in this.
chapter." (Emphasis addec'u).
Section 1221 of the Education, Code.
Taking into account the use of the word "_laws"
in the aforementioned code. section Uy the State Legislature
rather than "ci~arter" or some other term, ii. is likely that
--7-
only a fallacious reasoner would not r~~~ach the unavoidable
conclusion-that the City Elections Code is a "law" under
said Education Code section.
In addition, the hereinabove code section can
be found in Chapter 5 of the Education Code, and review of
said Chapter does not disclose any provisions directly or
specifically superseding the City Elections Code.
In connection with an invented allegation that
Section 1221 of the Education Code does not cover boards of
education governing a district which is noncoterminous with a
city, the speciality of such a contention can be adequately
.shown by an indicia of the intent of the State Legislature as
manifested in the following statute:
"Any unified school district which
is coterminous with or includes within
its boundaries a chartered city or city
and county shall be governed by the
board of education provided for ii? the
charter of the city or city and county. ."
(Emphasis added).
Section 1201 of the ~sducation Code.
Significantly,Section 1201 and Section 1221 of the
Education Code were simultaneously added to the general
statutes in 1963; a reading of the two sections together
lends credence to a viable argu:;lent that a board of education
provided for in a city charter that governs a unified school
_a_
district which includes within its boundaries a chartered
city shall be elected under the provisions of the laws
governing the respective city. By the passage of Section
12-01 of the .Education Code, the State Legislature. has seen
fit to make provision For the instance of a board of
education governing a unified school district which is
noncoterminous with a charter city, but includes the same
within its boundaries.
It so happens that Section 900 et seq, of the
Charter of the City of Santa Dlonica provides for a board of
education consisting of seven members elected from the:
school district at large. Granted,-such charter section
refers to the "Board of Education" and not the "Santa Monica
Unified School District Board of Education," but such an
issue is probably inconsequential in light of a fairly recent
decision of the Supreme Court of California. (See Santa
Barbara School District vs Superior Court, 13 Ca1.3d-315;
118 Cal.Rptr. 637 (1975), wherein the_Califorhia Supreme Court
did not find it significant that the Charter of the City of
Santa Barbara was not fully revised after four elementary
school districts were annexed to the Santa Barbara High School..
District).
wherefore, the preceding sources of authority can
be submitted as competent legal support for a contention that
the Board of Education of the Santa Monica Unified School
District governs the Santa Monica Unified School District,
which includes within its boundaries the City of Santa Monica,
-9-
and such Board is required to be elected under the provisions
of 'the City Elections Code pursuant to Section 1221 of the
Education Code.
Annexed Territory Deemed Part of City for Election Purposes
Although an excerpt from A history of the Santa
iionica Schools, quoted hereinbefore, states that portions of
the iialibu Rancho were originally part and parcel of the
Santa hIonica School District (the predecessor of the Santa
iionica Unified School District), the Seaman School District
-and the :Dexter School District were annexed, respectively, on
August ll, 1924; and'July 1, 1952.:. History of School District
Organization, supra at 46.
With regard to elections and annexed territory,
Section 1224 of the Education Code reads as :[ollows;
"LVhen outside territory has been
annexed to a city for school purposes it
shall be deemed part of the city for the
purpose of holding the general municipal
election, ."
Cases which have cited the heretofore code section
or a prior version include Santa Barbara School District vs
Superior Court, 13 Cal.3d 315, 341, 118 Cal.Rptr. 637, 657
(1975), Gerth vs Dominguez, 1 Cai.2d 239, 34 P:2d 135, 137
(1934). (cf. City of Oakland vs Oakland Unified School District,
138 Cal.App.2d 406, 291 P.2d 1001 (1956)).
-10-
Hence, the import of Section 1224 of the Education
Code is that if the Seaman School District and the Decker
School District were annexed for school purposes, they are
deemed. part of the City of Santa Monica for purposes of holding
a general municipal election, which presumably would bring
the-City Elections Code into force and effect.
Opinion of the Los An eles County Counsel
In accordance with an instruction by the Fair
Election Practices Commission to the Office of the City
.Attorney to seek an opinion of the Office of the Los Angeles
County Counsel, a request was thereby made via a written
correspondence dated March 11, 1977. (A copy of said letter
is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "C;" and incorporated
herein by this reference).
Despite a general disinclination of the Office of
the Los Angeles County Counsel to fully determine the legal
applicability of the City Elections Code, said Office stated
in a written communication dated March 18, 1977 (a copy of
which is annexed 'riereto as Exhibit "D," and incorporated herein),
that it did not believe that the noncoterm9_nous boundaries
of the City and the District mifilitated against the application
of the City -Elections-Code to .the election of the Board of
Education; said view. is more .fully stated as follows:
"[4V]e can say, as to the concern
about the noncoterminous boundaries of
-11-
the two jurisdictions, that we do not
believe that-this factor militates
against application of the Elections
Code to the School Board Election. ."
In summary, until further court rulings or legislation
provide. additional guidance, the above authorities can be'
logically construed to mean that the noncoterminous Y~oundaries
of the City of Santa Monica and the Santa Monica Unified School
District do not, of themself, prohibit the application of the
City Elections Code to an election of the District's Board of
Education.
Respect 1y submitte ,
RICHAR KNICKERBO K ,
City t orney.
/~/~~
BY': DENNIS T OMOTO,
Deputy City Attorney
APPROVED BY:
/~ % ' ~ ~
! ~~ ;(
RICHARD L. KNICKERBOCKER, -'
CITY ATTORiQEY
* The. California Education Code was reorganized, operative
April 30, 1977, but citations herein are-to .the provisions...
still in effect even though some of the section numbers
will be altered as of the above date.
-12-
GOPMAN WESI5l0[ UNION i
' b Eg5i5 OE VN ON
I
L9N[gSLEF
NU Lq KS EL 12ABE iX
FS UNION
4
WILSONq
ANTEL PE V LLEV UN ON -
lv
/h/ \ PALMOgLE I
IF JI(~~1~` E CPSigIL UNII
\6,\=/j f`7 KEPPEL UNION i
SgUGUS UNION
I
WIL IA S. NAgT UN ON
$OLEOAO - gGUq OUL[E UNION
I
5UL 4l SPfl ING.
UNION
NF WHALL -
WHIGHtW000 JOINT
SA
HAMBRA GAgRI L l^c
CITV °x^on
G4RVEY nzuc.
ALHAMOgA CITY ~ - °flzN
c ~~ - ~ elExo ~ RO- MEAD MONTEI t
~c ~1. }yam ~ w_ 'ma MOU AIN
r
VALL
~~ z ,nn n xox cn - rv • u.. X0 1 W
i,
LIN
ra
.xcUE ~ l n E3 ~ ~° ~ EL MONTE UNION ~
LE NO% \x Wim N n ,r ~ ~.
w
WIS RUa NAW ORNE e"uz uix,
LA DALE -~c I
CENTINELA VALLEY UNION mAMpl TTAN "^
eEAC' ITY
~.c
HER q ne ei°v WHITTIER UNION NITTIER
- BEACN\F\ V anx CITY
PEOONOOB A HCIiY
I
~~~ LOS IETO EAST
WHITTIEa
CITY
SOUTH qAV UNION TTLE SO TH
ELEMENTARY, HIGH SCHOOL AND UNIFIED DISTRICTS A E Irv W nea
Los Angeles County
Reproduced From HISTORY OF SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION,
supra at 84.
4
I
i
-84-
I ' ,z
:rHI~IT A
is
i:i
t
j
SiNTA MONICP CC D.
~r ~~p
~.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICTS
Los Angeles County
Reproduced £rom HISTORY OF SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION,
supra at 85.
-85-
1 ~
~~
CALIrOPNIA
OFPIC[ OF Tn ii CITI' ATT06N13Y
CITS' HALL EXUrook 3-9975
John. H. Larson,
County Counsel
Office of the CounCy Counsel
500 b9est Temple Street, Rm. 548
Los Angeles, California 90012 •
r1~ ~;1C1~
March 11, 1977
71ttn: James bl_ Briggs,
Schools Division Chief
Re: Elections Cocie of the City of Santa :Monica
i
Dear. i•1r. Briggs:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation nn aarch 11,
1977, Please be advised that the fair L'lecti.ons Practices
Commission of the City of Santa i~]onica, at .its meeting of
I°iarcii 9, 197 ;,respectfully requested an opinion from your
office as to wix:ther the move referenced P,lections Code
is legally applicable to elections pertaining to the Santa
Plonica Unified School District Board of Education and the
Board of Trustees of the Santa Monica Community College.
A photostatic copy of the Cit~~'s L].ections Core, Section
11000 et se:Z_ of i_he Santa Monica I~lunicipal Code, is enclosed
herein for your review.
One L~articular area of bonrcrn is that the boundaries
of the Santa Monica Uni.fie.d School District extends beyond -the
city limits of the City of- Santa Monica, thereby, raising
jurisdictional issues.
/(/~~..
CITY Oh
In vi.ec:~ of the upcoming election on April 17,1977,
it would be appreciate<t is you could transmit the rcouested
opinion on or .before 1~iarcil 22; 1977.
Please cfonoc hcsiCate to contract the undersigned
for any further information or .assistance.
r SHir IT C
~-
__ -
~~hn 11. Larsen,
Cowzty Counsel
Attn: i`]r. 13rigds
,arch 11, 1977
Page 2.
'!'h.~n}; ,you for your courtesy and cooYerCion in
regard to this maCter.
Very truly yours,
R:CCiI,~.RU I,. KJICICERBOCKER~
City .1Ctorncy
i~Y: i)~;tdiiIS T lJi:`J~i'O,
Deputy City Attorne}'
$I;IC:DTO:jk
i:nclosure, Santa P7oni_ca rl.c.ctions CocJa.
COUNTY OF .LOS ANGELES
'
a~, .
+V I~ ~ F
m
OFFICE OF THE.000NTY COUNSEL
l
~6P r
~
~
~ 64B HALL OF ADMINISTRATION
~
~ ~
~'
-
~'9 J. LOS ANGELES,CA LIFO RNIA 90012
~`°~ March 18, 1977
JOHN H. LARSO N, couNrr couNSC~
(213) 974-1807
~.
v :P r
„
r is -
~
r
Mr. Dennis T. Omoto y
Deputy City A ttorney _
~ ~ o
City of Santa Monica z z
City Aall a v ~
Santa Monica, California 90401 .-~
~ .
Re: Elections Code of the City of
Santa Monica
Dear Mr. Omoto:
Thank you for sending a copy of Article XI
of'the Elections Code of your City, which conCains
provisions pertaining to the election of members of
the governing board of the Santa Monica Unified School
District and the Santa Monica Community College District.
You indicated that the Fair Elections Practices Com-
mission of the City of Santa Monica has requested an
opinion from this office as to whether the Elections
Gode is legally applicable to such governing board
member elections. You also indicate one particular
area of concern is that the boundaries of the Santa
Monica Unified School District extend beyond the city
limits of the City of-Santa Monica, thereby raising
jurisdictional issues.
Although we appreciate the courtesy of the
Fair Elections Practices Commission of the City of
Santa Monica in affording this office an opportunity
tb express its views on this matter, it is believed
that we should respectfully decline to do so because
the matter of interpreting the City Elections Code and
its legal applicability to such candidates (who, as
candidates, are not clients of this office) to a city
commission is -not properly a function to be performed
by this office.
E~'FiInI' ~;
-2-
However, as a matter of professional courtesy
extended by one public law office to another, we can
.say, as to the concern about the noncoterminus boundaries
of the two jurisdictions, that we do not believe tha t
this factor militates against application of the
Elections- Code to the school board election. See,
for example, Gerth v. Dominguez (1934) 1 Ca1.2d 239,
and City of Oakland v. Oaklandd Unified School District
(1956) 138 Cal, pp.2d 0 .
Thank you for affording us the opportunity
to express our views.
Very truly yours,
JOHN H. CARSON
County Counsel
`~ `L/
`i-1u-U '
By „ !,
/J!t ES W. BRIGGS
f~Division Chief
Schools Division
J[dB: hi
//~~C ~/
G
EXHIBIT D