Quo Warranto 101 -- or what can be done about José Castañeda

Salinas councilman José Castañeda has made it abundantly clear -- if not by his words, by his actions -- that he has no intention of stepping down from his post at the Alisal Union School District, no matter how many columns The Californian writes on the issue.

So the only thing that's going to make him step down -- maybe -- is legal action. And the California Attorney General Office, in its infinite wisdom, spells it out how in its website. It's a bit hard to find, so I'm going to make it easy for you.

First, let me tell you that the Attorney General's office also has made it abundantly clear that it's a conflict of interest to hold the two offices that Castañeda is holding right now. And to follow on Castañeda's example (he loves to quote government code and scriptures) here's where you can find all of this.

California Government Code Section 1099 reads:

(a) A public officer, including, but not limited to, an appointed or elected member of a governmental board, commission, committee, or other body, SHALL NOT simultaneously hold two public offices that are incompatible.

Conflict of Interest manual, Chapter XII -- The prohibition against holding incompatible offices

Section E, reads:

Functions: The incompatible offices prohibition does not require proof of an actual clash between the two offices in the context of a particular decision. It is enough that there is the potential for a significant clash between the two offices at some point in the future.

In the same section, further down:

Following are additional citations to opinions where the holding of two offices by a single person created an incompatibility:

city council member and county planning commissioner (63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 607(1980));
city council member and school district trustee (73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 354 (1990));

And here comes the meaty part:

SECTION F.
Penalties and Enforcement

Where a public official holds incompatible offices, section 1099 provides for an automatic vacating of the first office. (That is, in case said elected official is acting ethically and vacates it him or herself)

The appropriate mechanism for enforcing the vacating of the office is a suit in quo warranto under Code of Civil Procedure section 803.

Disqualification or abstention from those decisions where an actual clash of the two offices occurs is not an available remedy under section 1099 or common law. However, notwithstanding the legal forfeiture, the person remains in the first position as a de facto member until he or she actually resigns or is removed from office by a quo warranto action or other lawsuit.

There you have it. Either Castañeda resigns, or he's removed by a quo warranto action (which can only be brought by the Attorney General, on behalf of a regular citizen) or another lawsuit.

(You can find the entire manual here or here)

I spoke with a representative of the California Attorney General's office on Tuesday, and she told me her office has no records of anybody requesting a quo warranto take place. She also told me the Attorney General's office could take up the case on behalf of an organization, such as the League of Women Voters.

But so far, nada. Which means, José Castañeda could remain in both his incompatible seats for a very very long time.