sr-cao opinion-032379Az~, ; ,+,
CITY ATTORL7EY OPINION ~.l =~, ~`r~{l
Opinion Ido. 79-66 March 23, 1979 ~. ~,,;,
SUBJECT: Eligibility of School Employees and their
Relatives or Spouses to run for the Santa
Monica School Board
REQUESTED BY: Joyce Snider, City Clerk
OPINION BY: Stephen Shane Stark, Assistant City Attorney
QUESTION PRESENTED
Are employees of the Santa Monica Unified School
District, such as teachers, teacher`s aides;. and gard:ener~,.or
their relatives or spouses, eligible to run for election to the
Unified School District Board of Education?
OPINION
School employees and their spouses may run for election
to the School Board, but probably must resign from their employ-
ment in order to serve. Relatives of employees may run and
serve if elected.
The conclusion that a School District employee may not
serve on the Board of Education is based on Section 35233 of the
Education Code which provides:
"No member of a governing board of any
school district shall be interested in
any contract made by the board n:whieh
he is a member:"
e
To similar effect is Government Code Section 1126(a):
"A local agency, officer or employee shall not
engage in any employment activity or enterprise
for compensation cahich is inconsistent, incom-
patible, in conflict with, or inimical to his
7
w t __
~x
duties as a local agency officer or
employee or with the duties, functions
or responsibilities of h9.s appointing
power or the agency by which he is
employed."
It is clear that school district employees have con-
tractual relationships with the school district, and that the
spouses of employees have a direct financial interest in such
contracts. PQOreover, as was stated in Haskins y. State 51.6 P.
2d 1171,` (V7yo 1973) :' _ -
". an employee carrying out a
function of the Board of Education
which he serves is continually under
the jurisdiction and authority of
the Board, is hired by that Board
and may be fired by it, and is con-
stantly subject to its .supervision,
. in all good faith and without
thought of personal gain, the teachers'
goals and aims in performance of his
teaching duties may be at variance
with the resources of his district
and the general stahdards of the
community."
All of the cases which have been found dealing with
the subject appear to have held or recognized that a school
teacher does not have a right to serve as a member of the school
board, or similar body, which governs the school district in
which the school teacher is employed. See annotation:: "Teacher
as Member of School Board" 70 A.L,R,. 3d'1188,_Visotcky vc Gar-
field 113 N.J. Super 263, 273 A. 2d 597 (1971); Haskins v. State
516 P. 2d 1171 {iVyo: 1973); Ferguson v, True 66 I[y.. 255 18
(1867); Clifford v. School Commi tee of Linn, 275 Mass. 258, 175
N.E. 634 (1931).
-2-
The Attorney General of this state has ruled that
since the spouse of a teacher has a direct and indirect pe-
cuniary interest in the contract between the teacher and the
Board,. he cannot legally serve as a governing board member in a
school district where his wife is a tenured teacher. 21 Op. Atty.
Gen. 2.28. This opinion is fundamentally based on the joint or
community property rights of husband and wife.
The same principle that bars the spouse of a school dis-
trict employee from serving on the Board, may serve to invalidate
a contract for the employment of a minor child of a school board
member, 5 Cp. Atty. Gen. 6, since the earnings of a minor child
under control of its parents belongs to its parents. However, if
the earnings of an employed relative are the separate property of
a relative, that person may run fer and serve on the school board.
This principle has been applied in a ruling that a school district
was nct prevented from employing an adult daughter of a member of
its governing board, notwithstanding that she lived with her
father and shared living expenses with him.._
The conflict of interest provisions of the Education
Code that prevent-the service on a school board of a board em-
ployee or his or her spouse do not constitute a bar to that person's
running for office. Rather, the conflict of interest rule seems
to compel the resignation from employment of the board member or
spouse upon installation to office.
APPROVED:
~ STEPHE,J SHANE STARf:,
~ )" ' Assistant City Attorney
~ ~.Z
RICHARD L:'~I.iICKERBOCKER,~
City Attorney
-3-
CI^tY ATTORNEY OPITdION
Opinion No. 79-67 bSarch 23, 1979
SUBJECT: Charter Amendment Petition Procedures
REQUESTED BY: Joyce-Snider, City Qlerk
OPINION BY: Stephen Shane Starlc, Assistant City Attorney
ITdTRODUCTIOTd
This opinion confirms oral advice given to the City
Clerk about the procedure for qualifying a petition for a
Charter Amendment as a proposal to be submitted to the voters
at a municipal election, The opinion is rendered in the con-
text of Proposition "A", the Rent Control Charter Initiative
to be submitted to the voters at the April 10, 1979 General
Municipal Election, The deadline for submitting registered
voters signatures caas January 5, 1979; 5,037 signatures were
necessary for qualifications. The proponents of the measure
submitted about 10,000 signatures on December 27, 1978.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. P4ay signatures submitted after the formal sub-
mission of the petition on December 27, 1978, but before the
deadline of January 5, 1978 be accepted for filing by the Clerk
and included in the County verification process?
2. T4ay the circulator of a Charter Amendment petition
circulate for additional signatures if the County Registrar finds
the petition to have an insufficient number of registered voters'
jai
STEPHEN SHANE STARK,
Assistant City Attorney
APPROVED:
ity Attorney
-3-