California Attorney General Opinion 24-803

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

State of California

ROB BONTA

Attorney General

_______________

:

OPINION :

: No. 24-803

of :

: February 13, 2025

ROB BONTA :

Attorney General :

:

CATHERINE BIDART :

Deputy Attorney General :

The HONORABLE STEVE BENNETT, MEMBER OF THE STATE

ASSEMBLY, has requested an opinion on a question relating to municipal library boards.

QUESTION PRESENTED AND CONCLUSION

May a general law city that has expanded its city council from five to seven

members establish a seven-member municipal library board of trustees to permit all

members of the city council to serve on that board, instead of a five-member board as

specified in Education Code section 18910?

No. A general law city that has expanded its city council from five to seven

members may not establish a seven-member municipal library board of trustees because

Education Code section 18910 specifies that such a board consists of five members, and

neither that statute nor any other statute or applicable authority provides an exception.

1

24-803

BACKGROUND

Education Code section 18910 is part of the Municipal Libraries Act, which

authorizes municipal public libraries. 1 The Act “prescribe[s] a detailed scheme for the

establishment and operation of such libraries.” 2 The authority to establish a municipal

library predates the Act, which the Act acknowledges in authorizing a city to establish a

library if one has not yet been established. 3

Once established, a municipal library is operated by an appointed board of

trustees. 4 Among other things, a library board may buy books, journals, and other

publications, employ and prescribe duties of the librarian and other employees, and

administer trusts and gifts for the library. 5 The number of trustees that may serve on a

library board is the focus of our attention. Without exception, Education Code section

18910 describes the library board as “consisting of five members.” 6

We are informed that the City of Oxnard would prefer all seven of its council

members to serve simultaneously on its library board. Prior to 2018, Oxnard’s city

council consisted of five members. In 2018, the City expanded its city council to seven

members when it changed to district-based elections. 7 The City states that it was required

1

Friends of the Library of Monterey Park v. City of Monterey Park (1989) 211

Cal.App.3d 358, 362.

2

Id. at p. 369.

3

Id. at pp. 364-365; Ed. Code, § 18900 (“The common council, board of trustees, or

other legislative body of any city in the state may, and upon being requested to do so by

one-fourth of the electors of the municipal corporation in the manner provided in this

article, shall, by ordinance, establish in and for the municipality a public library if there is

none already established therein”).

4

Ed. Code, § 18910.

5

Id., §§ 18920-18922, 18926.

6

Id., § 18910; Friends of the Library of Monterey Park v. City of Monterey Park, supra,

211 Cal.App.3d at p. 379 (reciting Education Code section 18910) & fn. 1 (describing

Municipal Libraries Act provisions as “assigning management and control of such

libraries to a five-member board of library trustees whose members hold office for terms

of three years”).

7

Six members are elected by district, and a seventh elected member is the mayor. (See

City of Oxnard, City Council homepage, at https://www.oxnard.gov/city-council (as of

Feb. 12, 2025); see also City of Oxnard Ordinance No. 2934, section 2-3.5 [prescribing

district-based elections commencing with November 2018 general election], available at

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/oxnard/latest/oxnard_ca/0-0-0-65616#JD_2-3.5

(as of Feb. 12, 2025).)

2

24-803

to make such a change to resolve claims under the California Voting Rights Act. 8 That

Act prohibits the diluting or abridging of the voting rights of a protected class, and

authorizes a court to impose appropriate remedies, including district-based elections for a

violation of the Act. 9 As mentioned, the City has changed to district-based elections and

expanded its city council to seven members, but we were given no details regarding its

resolution of the Voting Rights Act claims. 10

ANALYSIS

The requestor represents the Assembly district in which Oxnard is located and

seeks our opinion on whether a general law city such as Oxnard may expand its library

board from five to seven members. 11 According to the City, some general law cities with

five council members have designated their entire council as library board trustees, but no

general law city with more than five council members has done so. As we explain below,

a general law city’s expansion of its municipal library board to more than five members

would be inconsistent with Education Code section 18910. That statute specifies a

municipal library board of trustees “consisting of five members” and provides no

exception to that requirement. 12

8

See Elec. Code, §§ 14025-14032; see also id., § 10010.

9

The Act’s key provision states that at-large (rather than district-based) elections “may

not be imposed or applied in a manner that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect

candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election, as a result of

the dilution or the abridgment of the rights of voters who are members of a protected

class.” (Elec. Code, § 14027; see also id., § 14026, subd. (d) [defining protected class].)

A violation of that provision “is established if it is shown that racially polarized voting

occurs in elections for members of the governing body . . . or in elections incorporating

other electoral choices by the voters.” (Id., § 14028.) If a court finds a violation, it “shall

implement appropriate remedies, including the imposition of district-based elections, that

are tailored to remedy the violation.” (Id., § 14029.)

10

See ante note 7.

11

Because the scope of the question extends to a general law city only, references in our

opinion to a city refer to a general law city only. A general law city derives its powers

from statutes enacted by the Legislature as opposed to a city charter. (See City of Orange

v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 45, 52.)

12

We are not asked, and therefore provide no opinion on, whether other legal grounds

such as the incompatible-offices doctrine could affect council members desiring to

simultaneously serve as municipal library board trustees.

3

24-803

In construing Education Code section 18910, we employ established rules of

statutory interpretation to determine the Legislature’s intent. 13 We begin with the

statute’s words because they are generally the most reliable indicator of its intended

purpose. 14 If the relevant words are subject to more than one reasonable interpretation,

we consider extrinsic sources including the statute’s purpose, legislative history, and

public policy. 15

Education Code section 18910 states:

The public library shall be managed by a board of library trustees,

consisting of five members, to be appointed by the mayor, president of the

board of trustees, or other executive head of the municipality, with the

consent of the legislative body of the municipality.[16]

The relevant words are clear and unambiguous. The statute prescribes an

appointed board of trustees “consisting of five members.” The statute makes no

exception for a city with a council composed of more than five members. And we have

found no exception in any other statute that would allow a general law city to establish a

municipal library board having more than the five board members specified. For

instance, nothing in the Voting Rights Act mentions expanding appointed, non-elected

bodies, such as a library board. 17 And the Government Code statutes that authorize city

councils to consist of more than five members do not provide that other bodies (such as a

municipal library board) may likewise do so. 18 Those statutes are silent on library

boards, and nothing in them supports the notion that a city may expand its library board

beyond five members.

Under the rules of statutory construction, we may not “rewrite the law, add to it

what has been omitted, omit from it what has been inserted, give it an effect beyond that

gathered from the plain and direct import of the terms used, or read into it an exception,

13

Prang v. Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Bd. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1152, 1170.

14

Ibid.

15

Ibid.

16

Ed. Code, § 18910, italics added.

17

Cf. Elec. Code, § 14029 (if a court finds a violation, it “shall implement appropriate

remedies, including the imposition of district-based elections, that are tailored to remedy

the violation”); see also id., §§ 14025-14032 (California Voting Rights Act).

18

For example, one statute provides that a city council of a general law city has “at least

five members.” (Gov. Code, § 36501.) And another statute authorizes a maximum of

nine city council members elected by or from districts. (Id., § 34871.)

4

24-803

qualification, or modification that will nullify a clear provision . . . .’” 19 And “[w]here

the words of the statute are clear, we may not add to or alter them to accomplish a

purpose that does not appear on the face of the statute or from its legislative history.” 20

The language in Education Code section 18910 referring to the library board as

“consisting of five members” is clear on its face, and the legislative history could add no

further clarity. The statute has been in effect since 1976 with nearly identical language

existing elsewhere since 1901. 21 It is thus apparent that the Legislature’s longstanding

intent has been for municipal library boards to consist of five members.

The City nonetheless suggests that the library board should be expanded to include

all seven council members because the city council “is best situated to perform the

essential functions of the board.” But the Legislature has not adopted that policy

judgment. The Municipal Libraries Act does not require the library board to include any

city council members, let alone all of them. Nor does it otherwise suggest any

connection between the membership of the two bodies. What the Legislature did require

is that municipal library boards “consist[] of five members.” 22 If it was an oversight not

to authorize city councils and library boards to have an equal number of members that

exceeds five, it is up to the Legislature to address, not us. 23

While our research disclosed no court decisions on the exact issue before us, the

reasoning in a 1989 Court of Appeal case further supports our conclusion that a city may

not establish a library board with more than the five members specified in the Municipal

Libraries Act. 24 In that decision, the court determined that a city council may not abolish

19

Kleitman v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 324, 334, quoting Frazier v. City of

Richmond (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1491, 1496.

Ennabe v. Manosa (2014) 58 Cal.4th 697, 719, quoting In re Jennings (2004) 34

20

Cal.4th 254, 265.

21

Stats. 1976, ch. 1010, § 2 (enacting Education Code section 18910); Stats. 1959, ch. 2,

§ 27351, p. 1461 (enacting former Education Code section 27351); Stats. 1943, ch. 71,

§ 22212, p. 738 (enacting former Education Code section 22212); 1938 Gen. Laws, Act

2749, §§ 1-3; Stats. 1909 ch. 481, §§ 1-3; Stats. 1901, ch. 170, p. 558, §§ 1-3.

22

Ed. Code, § 18910.

23

See Weber v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 342, 364

(“We express no view about whether the statutory language, thus applied, ideally

balances the competing concerns or represents the soundest public policy. Such is not

our responsibility or our province”).

24

As noted above, the Municipal Libraries Act includes Education Code section 18910.

5

24-803

its library board and assume control of the library. 25 The court rejected a city’s claim that

it could do so under statutes unrelated to the Municipal Libraries Act, including one that

confers general authority on a city to own and operate utilities, services, and recreational

facilities—including libraries. 26 The court examined the competing statutes, which were

located in different codes, and concluded that the Municipal Libraries Act prevailed as

the more specific statute. 27 The situation here is similar: The Municipal Libraries Act is

the more specific statute concerning the size of library boards. Any competing statutes

do not even pertain to libraries. We therefore reject the notion that a city council may

establish a library board with more members than the Act authorizes so that all members

of a city council, which expanded under unrelated statutes located in different codes, may

serve on the board, or for any other reason.

25

Friends of the Library of Monterey Park v. City of Monterey Park, supra, 211

Cal.App.3d at pp. 364, 380.

26

Id. at pp. 369-371, 381.

27

Ibid. This follows “the usual interpretive rule that ‘more specific provisions take

precedence over more general ones.’” (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers,

LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46, 68-69, quoting Lopez v. Sony Electronics, Inc. (2018) 5

Cal.5th 627, 634.)

6

24-803