Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District

Board of Trustees Meeting

April 22, 2008

 

Agenda Item:  New Business – Item #9

 

Discussion of Oath of Office Issue Raised by Indio on April 14, 2008

 

Background:

 

On April 14, 2008, during the public comment section of the meeting, representatives from the City of Indio asserted that the Board was not properly seated because the Board members had not filed an oath of office.

 

Ms. Jenson indicated at that meeting that she would investigate the matter and report back to the Board at this meeting. 

 

Under the California Constitution, all public officers and employees are required to take an oath of office prior to exercising their official duties, unless specifically excluded by another state statute or law. (Cal. Const. Art. XX, § 3 [“Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation”]; See also Cal. Gov. Code § 1360 [requiring all public officers to take the oath of office]; Cal. Gov. Code § 3102 [requiring all disaster employees to take the oath of office].)  Thereafter, the public officer or employee’s oath must be filed with the appropriate body within the time proscribed by statute.  (Cal. Gov. Code § 1192; Cal. Gov. Code § 1363.)

 

In the current situation, there is no provision that excludes members of the Board of Trustees of the Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control District from the oath of office requirement.  (See Health & Saf. Code § 2000 et. seq.)

 

For this reason, any Trustees who have not already taken and filed an oath are requested to do so prior to the April 22, 2008 Board meeting.

 

If the public officer or employee fails to take the oath, or fails to file it within the time and manner proscribed, the office is considered vacant.  (Cal. Gov. Code § 1770, subd. (i) [“An office becomes vacant upon the happening of any of the following events before the expiration of the term . . . (i) his or her refusal or neglect to file his or her required oath . . . within the time prescribed.”])

 

It is not entirely clear what prescribed time period would be applicable.  Some time periods are as short as 10 days.  Because of the lapse of time that has occurred between the appointments and the filing of the oaths, we are recommending that each of the Trustees who were not recently reappointed request that their appointing agency take a formal action to reappoint, and that the Trustee, assuming they are reappointed, promptly take and file a new oath of office.

 

Based upon advice they had previously received, Mr. Duran and the other Trustees had not taken or filed an oath of office.  As to Mr. Duran, this left his office technically vacant, which permitted the City of Indio to fill the seat.  Mr. Gilbert has filed an oath of office and will be seated on the Board.

 

Rutan & Tucker is currently looking into the impact of the lack of oath on past actions, and assessing the best mechanism to cure any issue with their validity.  The recommended course of action will be presented at the Board’s regular meeting on May 13, 2008.