Kimura v. Roberts

California Court of Appeal Feb 6, 1979 No. Civ. 17001Published

Before: Regan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a city council may properly remove a planning commissioner at its pleasure to avoid an actual or apparent conflict of interest arising from the commissioner's marriage to a city council member with review authority over the commission's decisions.

Issues

Whether the removal of a planning commissioner due to a conflict of interest arising from her marriage to a city council member violates constitutional rights.
Whether the city council's action in removing the commissioner was arbitrary or capricious under Government Code section 800.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The law is clear that a planning commissioner serving at the pleasure of the appointing power may be terminated for any reason, without cause, notice or a hearing so long as the reason for removal is not an unconstitutional one.”

“In our view there is no doubt that either an actual bias or conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof, would or could at times be present.”

“On the other hand, the finding of the mayor and the city council that an actual or implied conflict of interest existed, is eminently rational, practical and legally sound in light of the record.”

Opinion

REGAN, Acting P. J.

These are appeals from a judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the City Council of Woodland to reinstate Marcia Kimura to her former position as a member of the

[873]

Planning Commission of the City of Woodland. The city council appeals from that portion of the judgment granting the peremptory writ of mandate. Kimura cross-appeals from that portion of the judgment denying her prayer for attorney’s fees.

The facts are not in dispute, and judgment was entered as a matter of law upon Kimura’s motion for summary judgment, after the trial court found there were no triable issues of fact.

Kimura was in her second four-year term as a member of the Planning Commission of the City of Woodland when her husband (to whom she had been married prior to any service on the commission) was elected to the Woodland City Council in March 1976. At the meeting of the council on June 21, 1976, Harold Roberts, Mayor of Woodland and member of the council, presented a motion to remove Kimura from her office. The mayor stated specifically that his motion was pursuant to the code of the City of Woodland and was based on “moral conflict of interest rather than a legal conflict of interest.”

The mayor later explained by declaration in this action that the quoted phrase “had reference to the appearance of bias which resulted from the marital relationship.”

The council at its June 21, 1976, meeting by a three to two vote recorded in the minutes “approved the removal of Marcia Kimura as a member of the Planning Commission effective immediately.”

Kimura contended successfully before the trial court that her removal from office pursuant to Ordinance No. 549 violated her constitutional rights to be married and to hold public office simultaneously.

On appeal, the city takes the position, as it did at trial, that the existence of the marital status between Kimura and the newly elected councilman is a matter in which there is a compelling public interest as the decisions of the planning commission on zoning and the like are subject to review by the city council. The city points to the conflict of interest which might exist, or which might give the appearance to the public of existing, in a situation where the official decisions of a wife were officially reviewable by her husband. The city also points out that Kimura

Kimura v. Roberts

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief