_________________________ 

 

________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
 

State of California
 

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP
 

Attorney General
 

:
 

OPINION : No. 85-907
 

:
 

of : MARCH 14, 1986 

:
 

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP :
 

Attorney General :
 

:
 

RONALD M. WEISKOPF :
 

Deputy Attorney General :
 

:
 

THE HONORABLE ERNEST L. KONNYU, MEMBER OF THE 

CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY, has requested an opinion on the following question: 

May the city council of a general law city specify the location of the office 

where the elected treasurer conducts city business? 

CONCLUSION 

A city council of a general law city may specify the location where the 

elected city treasurer conducts city business. 

ANALYSIS 

Section 36501 of the Government Code provides for the government of a 

general law city to be vested in a five member city council, a city clerk, a city treasurer, a 

chief of police, a fire chief, and such subordinate officers or employees as are provided 

1
 

85-907
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

for by law. (Gov. Code, § 36500.)1 Section 36505 requires the city council to appoint the 

chief of police and permits it to appoint a city attorney, a superintendent of streets, a civil 

engineer, and "such other subordinate officers or employees as it deems necessary" (§ 

36505; see also § 36501) which appointive officers and employees hold office "during 

the pleasure of the city council." (§ 36506; Chambers v. City of Sunnyvale (1942) 56 

Cal.App.2d 438, 441; but see Ball v. City Council (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 136, 141, and 

Healdsburg Police Officers Assn. v. City of Healdsburg (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 444, 450.) 

Needless to say, city councilpersons are elected. (§ 36503; cf. § 36508.) 

Generally speaking, so too are the city clerk and city treasurer (§ 36503; cf. §§ 36502, 

36508, 36509), but the city council may submit to the electorate the question of whether 

these positions should be appointive (§§ 36508, 36509) and thereafter held at the pleasure 

of the city council (§ 36510) rather than for fixed terms (§§ 35442, 35443, 36503). (See 

generally 67 Ops.Cal.Atty. Gen. 405, 408-409 (1984).) Whether they are appointed or 

elected however, the compensation of the city clerk and the city treasurer of a general law 

city is fixed by the city council by resolution or ordinance. (Compare §§ 36506 & 37100 

with § 36517.) 

The duties of a city treasurer of a general law city are specified by statute: 

he is to "receive and safely keep all money coming into his hands as treasurer" (§ 41001); 

he must perform such duties relative to the collection of city taxes and license fees as 

may be prescribed by ordinance (§ 41005); he must comply with all the laws governing 

deposit and securing of public funds and the handling of trust funds in his possession 

(§ 41002); he must pay out money only on warrants signed by legally designated persons 

(§ 41003); and he must at least monthly submit a written report and accounting of all 

receipts, disbursements, and fund balances to the city clerk - the accounting officer of a 

general law city who maintains records of its financial condition (§§ 40802, 40804; but 

see § 40805.5), and the city council (§ 41004; cf. § 34000, defining "legislative body"). 

The treasurer may appoint deputies (§ 41006) who hold office at his pleasure and receive 

such compensation as is provided by the city council. (§ 41007.) 

We are asked whether a city council may require the elected treasurer to 

perform these statutory duties at a particular place, as for example at the city hall. We 

conclude that it may. 

In 43 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 119 (1964) we were essentially asked the same 

question with respect to the city council's authority vis-a-vis the elected city clerk and 

answered it affirmatively. Although we acknowledged the want of express statutory 

authority for a city council of a general law city to regulate the working hours and the 

1 All section references herein are to the Government Code. 

2 

85-907
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

place of work of an elected city clerk (43 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at 119), we felt such 

authority to be inferentially granted by sections 34000 (city council is the legislative body 

of a city), 37100 (it may pass ordinances not in conflict with general law) and 37112 (it 

may perform all acts necessary or proper in order to carry out its governing duties). (43 

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at 119.) Thus, we said, "An ordinance passed by a city council 

governing the . . . place of work of an elected city clerk would . . . initially be presumed 

valid." (Ibid.) 

That initial conclusion was strengthened by reference to section 40812 

which states that "[the city clerk] shall perform such additional duties as are prescribed 

by ordinance." "If a city council may add to the statutory duties of a city clerk" we said, 

"it is difficult to perceive why the city council could not by ordinance say where and 

when these duties are to be carried out, or at least frame the duties in such language that 

by their nature they could only be carried out at certain times and places." (43 

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at 120.) Finally we pointed to section 36517 (which enables a 

city council to fix the city clerk's compensation as well as the city treasurer's) and said 

that since there was no limit on the salary-making authority contained therein, "the 

council could adopt an ordinance prescribing a salary for the city clerk payable on an 

"hours-worked-in-office" basis or perhaps otherwise conditioning receipt of salary upon 

the number of hours worked at a specific location." (43 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at 

120.) 

There is no cogent reason why the foregoing rationale and conclusion 

should not apply to the elected city treasurer. The general ordinance making powers of 

the city council set forth in sections 37100 and 37112 are equally forceful; its ability to 

prescribe additional duties for the city clerk which are cited (§ 40812) finds parallel in its 

ability to prescribe by ordinance duties relative to the collection of taxes and license fees 

for the treasurer to perform (§ 41005); and its authority to prescribe the treasurer's 

compensation derives from the same source as its ability to prescribe the city clerk's. 

(§ 36517.) Furthermore, in the municipal scheme of things, the Legislature has treated the 

city treasurer and the city clerk alike: both are part of the government of a general law 

city (§ 36501(b)(c)), both are normally elected with provision made for their being 

appointed (§§ 36508, 36509), and both are required to file bonds as public officers. 

(§ 36518.) In addition, the duties of the two offices are complementary. The city 

treasurer and city clerk handle the financial affairs of the city together: the treasurer 

receives (§§ 41003, 36522) and pays out (§ 41003; Draper v. Grant (1949) 91 

Cal.App.2d 566, 570) city monies and the city clerk, as city accounting officer (§§ 40802, 

40804), audits his or her so doing (§§ 41004, 36522; McConoughey v. Jackson (1894) 

101 Cal. 265, 269; see also § 37203). Since their positions are similarly established and 

their municipal duties interrelated, we see no reason to treat them differently. 

3 

85-907
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

Nevertheless, it has been suggested that our earlier conclusion should not 

be made applicable to an elected treasurer because, unlike the elected clerk, he does not 

deal with the public but rather with financial institutions and accordingly there is no need 

for him to have an office in a public building. We reject the suggestion. Aside from the 

technicality that financial institutions may be considered as much a part of "the public" as 

are individual citizens (cf. 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 286, 288-290 (1985), we do not accept 

the premise that a city treasurer would not have occasion to deal with the latter. Any 

holder of a city warrant would be just as entitled to present it and have it paid at the 

treasurer's office as at a financial institution, and the treasurer's duties with respect to the 

collection of city taxes and license fees (§ 41005) would see contact with individual 

citizens at the treasurer's office. As far as setting the location of that office is concerned, 

the convenience of the public should take precedence over the convenience of the public 

officer with whom it deals. As we concluded before: 

"It should be remembered that cities perform many services which 

cannot satisfactorily be confined to a general time schedule, as such 

services are based upon reasons of public necessity. There would appear to 

be merit in allowing the city council of each city to determine and prescribe 

for the various offices of the particular city the place and hours of operation 

which would best serve the public. Cf. 33 Ops.Cal. Atty.Gen. 37, 39 

(1959)." (43 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at 120.) 

Accordingly we conclude that our 1964 opinion is apropos and that a city council of a 

general law city may prescribe the place for the elected city treasurer to conduct official 

business. 

Although a city council of a general law city has a good deal of power over 

its city treasurer -- setting his/her compensation (§ 36515), prescribing in part his/her 

duties (§ 41005), and saying where the place shall be where the treasurer's conduct of the 

city's fiscal affairs shall be performed, still the office of treasurer is one established by 

state statute and the actions a city council can take in its regard are not without limit. 

The California Constitution has granted general power to cities to make and 

enforce within their limits all local, police and other ordinances that are not in conflict 

with general laws (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 2; cf. id., § 7 and Gov. Code, § 37100), and has 

required the Legislature to provide appropriate powers thereto (id., art. XI, § 2). (68 

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 175, 178, supra.) The Legislature has answered its constitutional 

charge and has created a general design of municipal government (Gov. Code, tits. 4, 5) 

and as part of that scheme, it has created the independent office of city treasurer with 

important duties to safeguard the financial condition of a municipality. Needless to say, a 

general law city cannot act to destroy that independent office. (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 2; 

4
 

85-907
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

Gov. Code, § 37100; 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 175, 178, supra.) For example, although it 

has power to fix the compensation for the office (§ 36517), it can not refuse to fix it, nor 

can it fix it so low, that no competent person would deign to serve. (Butler v. Williams 

(1929) 207 Cal. 732, 736; De Merritt v. Weldon (1908) 154 Cal. 545, 549, 551; Mitchell 

v. Walker (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 239, 243.) As was said in De Merritt v. Weldon, supra, 

154 Cal. at 549: 

"[W]here the state legislature has seen fit to determine by lawful act 

that a municipality shall have a certain designated officer to perform duties 

specified in the act, who shall be paid for his services a compensation, 

which compensation shall be fixed by the legislative body of the town, -- in 

this case the board of trustees, -- such legislative body of the town may not 

effectually provide that there shall be no compensation at all, or practically 

destroy the office by fixing the compensation at so low a figure that no one 

will discharge the duties thereof for the compensation fixed. Such a 

provision by the trustees would appear to be in conflict with the act of the 

state legislature, and therefore void." (Accord Butler v. Williams, supra; 

Mitchell v. Walker, supra.) 

And just as a city council may not effectively destroy a municipal office by 

setting its compensation so low that no one would serve to discharge its duties, so too 

may it not emasculate the Legislature's design for municipal government by depriving an 

officer adequate quarters and indispensable help and equipment with which his or her 

statutorily set duties might be carried out. (Cf. Hicks v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 69 

Cal.App.3d 228, 240-242, 244.) Instead, a city council is required to provide for 

appropriate quarters and such help and equipment as is essential for the effective 

functioning of the office in question. As with the question of compensation, however, the 

question of exactly what quarters, help and equipment are needed for the functioning of a 

municipal office is a matter for a city council to decide in its budgetary process, and 

where its discretion is exercised fairly and in good faith it will not be second guessed. 

(Cf. De Merritt v. Weldon, supra, 154 Cal. at 551; Mitchell v. Walker, supra, 140 

Cal.App.2d at 243; Hicks v. Board of Supervisors, supra, at 234, 235. 

With this in mind then, with respect to the specific inquiry posed we 

conclude it to be within the authority of a city council of a general law city to prescribe 

the location of the office where the elected city treasurer conducts his/her official 

business. 

***** 

5 

85-907