Our California city expanded its council from five to seven members. Can we now seat the entire seven-member council as the library board?

Plain-English summary

Assemblymember Steve Bennett asked the AG a clean statutory question on behalf of the City of Oxnard. Oxnard is a general law city, meaning its powers come from state statutes rather than its own home-rule charter. To resolve California Voting Rights Act claims, Oxnard switched to district-based elections in 2018 and grew its city council from five to seven members. The City wanted to seat all seven councilmembers on the municipal library board of trustees, replacing what would otherwise be a five-member appointed board.

The AG said no. Education Code section 18910, the part of the Municipal Libraries Act that creates the board of trustees, says the public library "shall be managed by a board of library trustees, consisting of five members." That number is a hard cap. There is no exception for cities with larger councils, and no companion statute lets the council vote itself onto the board en bloc beyond five seats. Because section 18910 is the more specific statute, it beats the general statutes (Government Code sections 36501 and 34871) that allow general-law city councils to grow to up to nine members.

The opinion's reasoning is straightforward statutory interpretation: the words are unambiguous, courts cannot rewrite them to fit a city's preferred structure, and the Legislature has used substantively the same five-member rule continuously since 1901. If Oxnard or any other expanded-council city wants its full council to also serve as the library board, the path is a statutory amendment in Sacramento, not a local ordinance.

What this means for you

General law city councils with more than five members

The opinion holds that Education Code section 18910 specifies a municipal library board "consisting of five members" and provides no exception for cities with expanded councils. The AG also cited Friends of the Library of Monterey Park v. City of Monterey Park (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 358 for the proposition that a city council may not abolish its library board and assume control of the library.

Library directors and library trustees

The opinion concludes that the five-member structure in section 18910 has been in effect since 1976 with nearly identical language existing elsewhere since 1901, and that "[t]he statute makes no exception for a city with a council composed of more than five members." The opinion does not address governance practices beyond the statutory size question.

City attorneys advising on California Voting Rights Act remedies

The opinion notes that "nothing in the Voting Rights Act mentions expanding appointed, non-elected bodies, such as a library board," and that the Government Code statutes authorizing city councils with more than five members are silent on library boards.

Charter city officials

The opinion expressly states in footnote 11 that "references in our opinion to a city refer to a general law city only." The opinion does not address charter cities or the structure of municipal libraries in charter cities.

Background and statutory framework

The Municipal Libraries Act, codified at Education Code sections 18900 et seq., authorizes general law cities to establish, manage, and fund municipal public libraries. Section 18900 lets the city legislative body establish a public library, by ordinance, on its own motion or on petition by a quarter of the electorate. Section 18910 then specifies the management structure: a five-member board of library trustees appointed by the mayor or other executive head with the consent of the legislative body. Sections 18920 through 18926 give the board authority to buy materials, employ staff, and administer trusts and gifts.

Oxnard's request was driven by California Voting Rights Act litigation under Elections Code sections 14025 through 14032. The Act prohibits at-large electoral systems that dilute or abridge the voting rights of a protected class, with district-based elections as a typical court-ordered remedy. Oxnard's transition to seven district-based council seats followed that path. But the Voting Rights Act addresses elected representation, not the size of appointed bodies, and the AG declined to read it as authorizing library board expansion.

Government Code section 36501 sets a floor of "at least five members" for general law city councils, and section 34871 caps elected-by-district councils at nine members. Those statutes deliberately let councils grow. Their silence on library boards is not a drafting oversight that the AG could fill in; the more specific Municipal Libraries Act controls (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46, 68-69).

The 1989 Friends of the Library of Monterey Park decision is the closest authority on point. The Court of Appeal there held that a city council could not abolish its library board and assume control of the library, because the Municipal Libraries Act is the more specific statute on library governance and overrides general statutes giving cities authority over recreational facilities and utilities. The AG used that same canon to dispose of Oxnard's question: more specific provisions on library board size beat more general provisions on council composition.

Common questions

Can the city just designate five councilmembers as the library board? The opinion does not directly address that. Practically, councils have done it: Education Code section 18910 does not bar council members from being trustees; it caps the trustee count at five. So a council with seven members could appoint five of itself, leaving two off the library board. Whether this is a good idea (incompatibility-of-offices, conflict of interest, time commitment) is a separate question the AG explicitly did not reach (footnote 12).

What if the city has a charter rather than being a general law city? This opinion does not apply. The AG limited the question to general law cities. Charter cities have broader home-rule authority over municipal affairs and may be able to vary library board structure under their charters.

Could the Legislature change this?
Yes. Section 18910 is a statute, not a constitutional provision. A bill amending it to permit larger boards in cities with expanded councils, or to allow city-by-city flexibility, would resolve the issue. The AG's last word was that this is the Legislature's call, not the AG's.

What about a city that wants a smaller library board, say three trustees? The same reasoning bars that. Section 18910 prescribes "five members" with no flexibility either way.

Does this affect counties or special districts?
No. The Municipal Libraries Act governs municipal libraries operated by cities. County free libraries are governed by Education Code section 19100 et seq., a different statutory scheme.

Citations

• Education Code section 18910 (five-member library board of trustees)
• Education Code section 18900 (city authority to establish a public library)
• Government Code section 36501 (general law city council size floor)
• Government Code section 34871 (cap on elected-by-district council seats)
• Elections Code sections 14025-14032 (California Voting Rights Act)
• Friends of the Library of Monterey Park v. City of Monterey Park (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 358 (cities cannot abolish library board; Municipal Libraries Act is the more specific statute)

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.ca.gov/opinions/yearly-index
• Original PDF: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/24-803_0.pdf

Original opinion text

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of California
ROB BONTA
Attorney General
___
OPINION
of
ROB BONTA
Attorney General
CATHERINE BIDART
Deputy Attorney General

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 24-803
February 13, 2025

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 Friends of the Library of Monterey Park v. City of Monterey Park (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 358, 362.

1

2

Id. at p. 369.

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”). 3

4

Ed. Code, § 18910.

5

Id., §§ 18920-18922, 18926.

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”).

6

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).) 7

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.

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.)

9

10

See ante note 7.

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.) 11

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. 12

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.

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). 17

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.) 18

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

Kleitman v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 324, 334, quoting Frazier v. City of Richmond (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1491, 1496. 19

Ennabe v. Manosa (2014) 58 Cal.4th 697, 719, quoting In re Jennings (2004) 34 Cal.4th 254, 265. 20

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. 21

22

Ed. Code, § 18910.

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”). 23

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.

Friends of the Library of Monterey Park v. City of Monterey Park, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at pp. 364, 380. 25

26

Id. at pp. 369-371, 381.

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.) 27

6

24-803