______________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
 State of California
 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN
 Attorney General
 

OPINION : 

: No. 92-805 

of : 

: MAY 5, 1993 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN : 

Attorney General : 

: 

ANTHONY S. Da VIGO : 

Deputy Attorney General : 

: 

THE HONORABLE MICHAEL D. BRADBURY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 

COUNTY OF VENTURA, has requested an opinion on the following question: 

May a general law county contract with persons to provide the same level of services,

but at less expense, than presently performed by its civil service employees? 

CONCLUSION 

Without statutory authority, a general law county may not contract with persons to

provide the same level of services, but at less expense, than presently performed by its civil service

employees. 

ANALYSIS 

The present inquiry concerns the authority of a general law county to contract with

persons to perform services currently provided by its civil service employees, on the sole basis that

the services would be provided at less cost to the county. The civil service employees would be

replaced by those having the new contracts, with the goal being that the county would reduce its

payroll expenses. 

In accordance with the nature of the inquiry, the analysis and conclusion herein are

general, and do not consider special statutes which may relate to particular service classifications.

(See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 25358 [contracts for maintenance personnel].)1 The inquiry posits that the

county is not chartered (Cal. Const., art. II, §§ 3, 4) and has adopted a civil service system pursuant

to the County Civil Service Enabling Law (§§ 31100-31117). We conclude that the county may not 

1

All undesignated statutory references hereafter are to the Government Code. 

1. 92-805
 
 

 

 

dispense with the services of available, qualified civil service employees in favor of contract

services on the sole basis of cost savings. 

There are two principal statutes which, for our purposes, shall be considered together.

We have no occasion here to determine which of these statutes would prevail in the event that they

are deemed inconsistent in some respect. Section 31000 states: 

"The board of supervisors may contract for special services on behalf of the

following public entities: the county, any county officer or department, or any

district or court in the county. Such contracts shall be with persons specially trained,

experienced, expert and competent to perform the special services. The special

services shall consist of services, advice, education or training for such public

entities or the employees thereof. The special services shall be in financial,

economic, accounting (including the preparation and issuance of payroll checks or

warrants), engineering, legal, medical, therapeutic, administrative, architectural,

airport or building security matters, laundry services or linen services. They may

include maintenance or custodial matters if the board finds that the site is remote 

from available county employee resources and that the county's economic interests

are served by such a contract rather than by paying additional travel and subsistence

expenses to existing county employees. The board may pay from any available funds

such compensation as it deems proper for these special services. The board of 

supervisors may, by ordinance, direct the purchasing agent to enter into contracts

authorized by this section within the monetary limit specified in Section 25502.5 of

the Government Code."2 

Section 53060 provides: 

"The legislative body of any public or municipal corporation or district may

contract with and employ any persons for the furnishing to the corporation or district

special services and advice in financial, economic, accounting, engineering, legal,

or administrative matters if such persons are specially trained and experienced and

competent to perform the special services required. 

"The authority herein given to contract shall include the right of the

legislative body of the corporation or district to contract for the issuance and

preparation of payroll checks. 

"The legislative body of the corporation or district may pay from any

available funds such compensation to such persons as it deems proper for the

services rendered."3 

In interpreting sections 31000 and 53060, we observe certain fundamental

interpretive precepts. Specifically, statutes must be accorded a reasonable and common sense

construction consistent with their apparent purpose and intent, practical rather than technical in

nature, and which upon application will result in wise policy rather than mischief or absurdity; such 

2

The monetary limit specified in section 25502.5 is $100,000. 

3

The term "legislative body" as used in section 53060 includes a county board of

supervisors. (§ 53000.) 

2. 92-805
 
 

indicators should be considered as context, the object in view, the evils to be remedied, the history

of the times and of legislation on the same subject, public policy, and contemporaneous construction.

(San Diego Union v. City Council (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 947, 954; 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 424, 425

(1990).) 

It is evident that the authority to contract as provided in both sections 31000 and

53060 is expressly limited to "special services" in specified areas, and is further limited to

contractors who are specially trained, experienced, and competent to perform such services. The 

criteria for determining the nature of special services were set forth in Darley v. Ward (1982) 136

Cal.App.3d 614, 627-628: 

"Whether services are special requires a consideration of factors such as the

nature of the services, the qualifications of the person furnishing them and their

availability from public sources. (Jaynes v. Stockton (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 47, 51- 52.) Services may be special because of the outstanding skill or expertise of the

person furnishing them. (Kennedy v. Ross (1946) 28 Cal.2d 569, 574; Jaynes v. 

Stockton, supra, 193 Cal.App.2d at p. 52.) Whether services are special is a question 

of fact. (California Sch. Employees Assn. v. Sunnyvale Elementary Sch. Dist (1973)

36 Cal.App.3d 46, 61; Jaynes v. Stockton, supra, 193 Cal.App.2d at p. 53.)" 

As indicated in Darley, whether the services in question may be classified as "special

services" is ultimately a question of fact. (See 71 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 266, 272 (1988).) It has been 

held, for example, that hospital management (Darley v. Ward, supra, 136 Cal.App.3d 614), research

and development (California Sch. Employees Assn. v. Sunnyvale Elementary Sch. Dist (1973) 36

Cal.App.3d 46), and special counsel as prosecutor where the city attorney had not been vested with

prosecutorial powers (Montgomery v. Superior Court (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 657; compare Jaynes 

v. Stockton (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 47), constitute special services. 

Nothing in the cited statutes suggests that a county may contract for services without

regard to the "special services" limitation, solely on the basis of cost savings. We note in this regard

that in the Legislature's grant of a particular power, "`"there is an implied negative; an implication

that no other than the expressly granted power passes by the grant; that it is to be exercised only in

the prescribed mode . . . ."'" (Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 190, 196; see 71

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 266, 274-275 (1988).) 

Moreover, when the Legislature has intended to grant authority to contract for the

performance of services on the basis of cost savings, it has expressly so provided. In 73 

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 95, 97-100 (1990), we set forth at length the provisions of section 19130

pertaining to contracts for state services. Subdivision (a) of section 19130 allows the contracting

of "personal services" to achieve cost savings but only if numerous specific conditions are followed.

It is not to be reasonably contended, therefore, that a county may exercise such power in the absence

of a grant of authority and in the absence of any specified conditions. 

Finally, we note that since the Legislature has already granted the contracting

authority in question to state agencies (§ 19130), it may easily so provide for counties and other

local governments. Even though, for example, the state's civil service system is constitutionally

protected (Cal. Const., art. VII, § 1), the Court of Appeal in California State Employees' Assn. v. 

State of California (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 840, had little difficulty in upholding the validity of

section 19130's "cost savings" provisions against constitutional challenge. The court stated: 

"Decisional law interprets article VII as a restriction on the `contracting out'

of state activities or tasks to the private sector. [Citations.] The restriction does not 

3. 92-805
 
 

arise from the express language of article VII. [Citation.] `Rather, it emanates from 

an implicit necessity for protecting the policy of the organic civil service mandate

against dissolution and destruction.' [Citation.] 

". . . . . . . . 

"The purposes of article VII as disclosed in the ballot argument of its

predecessor, former article XXIV, are not in conflict with subdivision (a) of section

19130. The constitutional provisions relating to the civil service were adopted in

part `to promote efficiency and economy in state government.' A statute dealing with

the civil service which has cost savings as an object is hardly in conflict with notions

of governmental efficiency and economy. 

". . . . . . . . 

"Moreover, as we have seen, an established exception to the mandate of civil

service exists where the nature of the services in question is such they cannot be

performed `adequately or competently or satisfactorily' by employees selected

through civil service. [Citations.] Without attempting to endow the quoted words

with definitive content, under a constitutional scheme which commends efficiency

and economy it is reasonable to postulate that at some point a service which is more

costly when performed under civil service than when contracted out may on that

account be one which cannot be performed satisfactorily, adequately or competently. 

". . . . . . . . 

"We are not at liberty to remove from the Legislature the very discretion

vested in it when the voters adopted first article XXIV and later article VII. The 

history of those articles demonstrates the voters wished to adopt a civil service

system free from the whims of political partisanship and appointment. The voters 

did not intend, however, to impose upon the state a civil service system which

eschews all considerations of fiscal responsibility and economy in favor of an

infinitely expanding public payroll. Rather, the Legislature was entrusted to consider

various alternatives with regard to civil service administration. In devising such

alternatives, the Legislature may not ignore the purposes behind the constitutional

civil service system; neither, however, must it abdicate fiscal responsibility and

forego opportunities to realize substantial savings to the taxpayers. The goals of

maintaining the civil service must be balanced with the goal of a fiscally responsible 

state government. In subdivision (a) of section 19130, the Legislature has

harmonized a viable civil service as a central policy aim. [Citation.]" (Id., at pp.

844-853; fn. omitted.) 

Here, we determine only that the Legislature has not acted to grant counties the same

authority possessed by state agencies. Inasmuch as the present inquiry is predicated upon the

assumption that the services in question are currently being performed by civil service employees,4 

4

In the absence of any suggestions to the contrary, we assume for purposes of this analysis that

such services are performed adequately, competently, and satisfactorily. The sole concern presented

is whether the services may be contracted outside the civil service system on the basis of cost

savings alone. 

4. 92-805
 
we find that these are not "special services" under the express and limited terms of sections 31000

and 53060. 

It is concluded that without statutory authority, a general law county may not enter

into a contract with persons to provide the same level of services, but at less expense, than presently

performed by its civil service employees. 

* * * * * 

5. 92-805