Page images
PDF
EPUB

drawing, all warrants drawn on the treasury, with their number and reference to the order on the minute book, with the date, amount, on what account, and name of payee.

6. An "ordinance book,” in which must be entered all ordinances duly passed by the board.

Political Code, section 4031, did not require the keeping of "ordinance book."

Legislation by means of ordinances became more specifically applicable to supervisors by reason of the provisions of article XI, section 11, and article IV, section 25 constitution 1879, and the necessity of an ordinance book thereby became apparent.

It is not required by the act of 1883 that an ordinance shall be recorded before it goes into effect. [See Sec. 26 present act, which was the same as 26 of the act of 1883.) People v. Cole, 70 Cal. 60.

The question whether an ordinance has been passed, signed, and attested, is one of fact. The record in the ordinance book accompanied with proof of proper publication is prima facie sufficient. County of San Diego v. Siefert, 97 Cal. 599. See note under section 26, post. Meetings to be fixed by ordinance.

SEC. 22. The board of supervisors must, by ordinance, provide for the holding of regular meetings of the board at the county seat.

Political Code, section 4032, fixed the first Mondays in May, August, November and February of each year for regular meetings.

Section 22 of the act of 1883 was the same as the present section.

The county government act must be construed with reference to the laws in force at the time of its enactment and taking effect. It did not repeal the provisions of the Political Code relating to sessions of the boards of supervisors, until the board should itself.provide for the holding of such regular meetings. A reg. ular meeting (under the code) being held when the law went into effect might be continued and adjourned from day to day thereafter until its business was disposed of. Ex parte Benjamin, 65 Cal. 311; Ex parte Benninger, 64 Cal. 291.

After the adoption of the county government act of 1883, an ordinance of a board of supervisors establishing the rates of county licenses, passed at a session other than a regular session, and before the board had provided by ordinance for regular sessions, as provided by section 22 of that act, was invalid. County of San Luis Obispo, v. Hendricks, 71 Cal. 243.

The ioard of supervisors having by ordinance fixed the time for holding regular meetings, and having regularly met, could adjourn such meeting from day to day, or from time to time, until its business was completed. It is immaterial that the clerk of the board designated such adjournment as "recess." Ex parte Mirande, 73 Cal. 370.

Section 22 of the county government act of 1883 repealed section 4045 of the Political Code, and thereafter the board of supervisors had no right to fix the rate of county licenses at any other than a regular meeting, or at a special meeting regularly called for that

purpose; and an ordinance fixing such rates, passed without a regular meeting, or a special meeting regularly called for the purpose, is void. People v. Dunn, 89 Cal. 229. Special meetings.

SEC. 23. A special meeting may be ordered by a majority of the board. The order must be signed by the members calling such meeting, and must be entered in the minutes. Five days' notice of such meeting must be given by the clerk, personally or by mail, to the members not joining in the order. The order must specify the business to be transacted at such special meeting, and none other shall be transacted.

Substantially the same as section 23 of the act of 1883 and subsequent acts. The former acts read: “If at any time the business of the county requires a meeting of the board, a special meeting may be ordered," and did not contain the words “personally or by mail.”

SEC. 24. All meetings of the board must be public, and the books, records, and accounts of the board must be kept at the office of the clerk, open at all times for public inspection.

Political Code, section 4035, was the same, except that it concluded with the words “free of charge."

The same section in the acts of 1891 and 1893 likewise concluded with the words "free of charge." General permanent powers of board.

SEC. 25. The boards of supervisors, in their respective counties, shall have jurisdiction and power, under such limitations and restrictions as are prescribed by law.

Supervision of county officers.

1. To supervise the official conduct of all county officers, and officers of all districts and other subdivisions of the county charged with the assessing, collecting, safe-keeping, management, or disbursement of the public revenues; to see that they faithfully perform their duties, direct prosecutions for delinquencies, and, when necessary, require them to renew their official bonds, make reports and present their books and accounts for inspection.

See notes of decisions at the end of the section, as well as notes under the several subdivisions, and compare section 4046 Political Code.

The section generally:

In a general sense the powers conferred upon boards of supervisors are executive, leg. islative and judicial, over the fiscal and police matters of their respective counties. These powers (in California, were first vested in courts of sessions, and were conferred upon boards of supervisors by act of 1855. [Stats. p. 51.) People v. Bircham, 12 Cal. 50.

As to control of fiscal matters — claims against the county--see Eldorado County v. Elstner, 18 Cal. 144; People v. Eldorado County, 11 Cal. 171.

The law alone authorizes the creation of a debt against the county. Foster v. Coleman, 10 Cal. 278.

A contract entered into by a board of supervisors, for and on behalf of the county, signed by the chairman of the board, is the contract of the county. Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488.

Over highways. Binkett v. Supervisors, 18 Cal. 702.

Election precincts. People v. Supervisors, 10 Cal. 344.

Officers and official bonds. People v. Supervisors, 10 Cal. 344.

Franchises, ferries and bridges. Henshaw v. Butte County Supervisors, 19 Cal. 150; Fall v. Paine, 23 Cal. 302.

As a board of equalization, and as to the relations between the state and federal governments on the subject of governmental revenues and their respective powers over the same, C. P. R. R. Co. v. Supervisors Placer Co., 43 Cal. 365; People v. C. P. R. R. Co., 43 Cal. 399.

Consolidation of offices. Merrill v. Gorham, 6 Cal. 43-92; Attorney-general v. Squires, 14 Cal. 16.

Bonds of officers where offices consolidated. People v. Ross, 38 Cal. 76.

Supervisors are the guardians of the property interests of their respective counties, and in that relation they occupy a position of trust, and are bound to the same measure of good faith towards the county which is required of an ordinary trustee towards his cestui que trust, or an agent towards his principal. Andrews v. Pratt, 44 Cal. 309, approved in Wilbur v. Linde & Hough, 49 Cal. 292.

On this point see cases cited under section 45 of this act, post.

Boards of supervisors, like municipal and other tribunals of a public nature, may

« PreviousContinue »