They say that history does not repeat, but it does rhyme. A Yahoo News story on Aug. 9 reported that the California 2nd District Appeal’s court sided with the Oxnard treasurer when it found that “city actions had largely stripped him of his role.” The article said the decision was unanimous and the latest in a yearlong conflict between the treasurer and the city of Oxnard. It was also reported that the case may not yet be over, as the city plans to appeal to the California Supreme Court.
The city had stripped the treasurer of most of his duties and reduced his pay to an amount similar to what councilmembers were paid—a significant reduction. What did the justices say?
The ruling stated that “a city treasurer deprived of the office’s duties is tantamount to no treasurer,” with the presiding justice adding, “the city may not through legerdemain un-elect the office of city treasurer and defeat the choice of the voters.” The court restored the duties and pay of the treasurer and awarded him court costs. If this all sounds familiar, it is because the city of Laguna Beach has started down a similar road.
But it’s not too late for a course correction. Rather than having attorneys rack up fees to find a legal theory that will produce a desired outcome, the council can work with the voters to persuade them to support their plans and voice their agreement at the ballot box. The latter will not only produce enormous goodwill with the residents, but it will also likely be more cost-effective in the long run. In the meantime, it would make sense to assign the oversight of the investment outsourcing arrangement to the treasurer—not just for legal reasons but because the treasurer is the only staff member with the requisite knowledge, skills, and ability to do the job.
Sita Helms, South Laguna Beach
