Service Employees International Union v. County of Sonoma

conditions and restrictions imposed by the legislative body on the expenditure or encumbrance of the budgetary funds appropriated to the commission. The commission shall adopt personnel rules and regulations applicable to all its employees. Such rules shall contain procedures affecting conflicts of interest, use of funds, personnel procedures on hiring and firing including removal of personnel for inefficiency, neglect of duties, or misconduct in office. Such rules and regulations shall be a public record.

“(b) A commission may contract with the Department of Housing and Community Development or any other agency or entity for the furnishing by the department, agency, or entity of any necessary staff services associated with or required and which could be performed by the staff of a commission.” (Italics added.)

In interpreting sections 34144 and 34145, we observe certain fundamental interpretive precepts. We begin with the principle that “ ‘[t]he objective of statutory construction is to determine the intent of the enacting body so that the law may receive the interpretation that best effectuates that intent. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] To ascertain that intent, ‘we turn first to the words of the statute, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] The statute’s every word and clause should be given effect so that no part or provision is rendered meaningless or inoperative. [Citations.] A statute is not to be read in isolation, but construed in context and ‘ “with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part so that all may be harmonized and have effect. [Citations.]” ’ [Citation.] ‘If the statutory language is unambiguous, “we presume the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute governs.” [Citations.]’ [Citations.]” (Koszdin v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 480 , 488 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 494 ].)

In enacting these provisions, the Legislature’s intent is clear. It enacted broad provisions, enabling the Commission to “hire, employ, or contract for staff, contractors, and consultants” (§ 34145) and authorizing the Commission to contract with “any other agency or entity for the furnishing ... of any necessary staff services” (§ 34144, subd. (b)). What these words are plainly intended to do is give the Commission free rein in contracting for the services in question, regardless of whether the employees performing these services come from the public or private sector. If the Legislature had intended to prohibit the Commission from contracting with the private sector in the performance of its duties, it could have easily accomplished this result by using restrictive terminology. It did not do so.

Despite this manifest intent, SEIU attempts to give the language in section 34145 a different meaning by asserting that section 34145 “is simply a grant

of authority to the [Commission] to pay for services” and “cannot be interpreted as granting the [Commission] the authority to contract with private entities.” However, SEIU’s interpretation of section 34145 not only ignores the statute’s language authorizing the Commission to “hire, employ, or contract for staff, contractors, and consultants,” it also would lead to an absurd result. (Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 278 , 290 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 661 , 165 P.3d 462 ] [statutory interpretation must avoid absurd results the Legislature would not have intended].) It is absurd to believe that the Legislature would authorize payment to “staff, contractors, and consultants” if, at the same time, they could not be lawfully hired. In the end, SEIU is unable to escape the unambiguous wording of section 34145 which, standing alone, demonstrates that the Commission was entitled to enter into the contract challenged in this appeal. When there is but one intent evident from the statutory words, the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the language governs. (People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000) 23 Cal.4th 183 , 192 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 463 , 999 P.2d 686 ].)

Nevertheless, SEIU directs us to language in section 34144, subdivision (b), granting the Commission authority to contract with “the Department of Housing and Community Development or any other agency or entity for the furnishing by the department, agency, or entity of any necessary staff services.” (Italics added.) In doing so, SEIU argues that the word “public” is implied and necessary to qualify the words “agency” and “entity” as used in section 34144, subdivision (b), so that the terms must be interpreted to include only public agencies and public entities.

Specifically, SEIU argues the term “agency” as used in section 34144, subdivision (b), actually means a “redevelopment agency” because that is how it is defined in section 33003. However, we note section 33003 is part of the Community Redevelopment Law (§ 33000 et seq.), which is separate and distinct from the sections applicable here that pertain to a community development commission (§ 34100 et seq.). The sections governing the Commission contain no similar definition of “agency.” But SEIU’s attempt to link the definition of “agency” to a public redevelopment agency sets up its argument that the term “entity” as used in section 34144, subdivision (b) “must be interpreted to only include other public entities similar to the Department of Housing and Community Development and redevelopment agencies that are engaged in the business of housing development.” Construing these provisions in the manner advocated by SEIU would be unreasonable.

The words “agency or entity” in section 34144, subdivision (b), are inclusive of public and private agencies and entities because the statute

Commission may contract in the private sector for the provision of housing inspection services. Had the Legislature intended to restrict the Commission’s authority to contract out for services that have historically been performed by public employees, it could easily have imposed such a restriction in describing the Commission’s contract-making authority. It did not do so, and we will not imply such a restriction.

C. Government Code Section 53060—“Special Services”

Next, SEIU points to Government Code section 53060 as an impediment to the Commission’s outsourcing of housing inspection services. That section provides, in pertinent part: “The legislative body of any public or municipal corporation or district may contract with and employ any persons for the furnishing to the corporation or district special services and advice in financial, economic, accounting, engineering, legal, or administrative matters if such persons are specially trained and experienced and competent to perform the special services required.”

It is undisputed Government Code section 53060 applies to public corporations, such as the Commission. (See § 34110.) Consequently, SEIU insists the Commission’s ability to contract is governed by Government Code section 53060 and is expressly limited to “special services” in specified areas, and is further limited to contractors who are specially trained, experienced, and competent to perform such services. ,

The criteria for determining the nature of special services were set forth in Darley v. Ward (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 614 [ 186 Cal.Rptr. 434 ]: “Whether services are special requires a consideration of factors süch as the nature of the services, the qualifications of the person furnishing them and their availability from public sources. [Citation.] Services may be special because of the outstanding skill or expertise of the person furnishing them. [Citations.] Whether services are special is a question of fact. [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 627-628.)

We need not speculate whether a court would find that housing inspection is a “special servicef]” under Government Code section 53060. Government Code section 53060 is a general statute, applicable to “any public or municipal corporation or district”—a wide variety of public entities, whereas Health and Safety Code sections 34144 and 34145 are special statutes, applicable only to community development commissions formed under the Health and Safety Code. Ordinary principles of statutory interpretation point to the conclusion that Health and Safety Code sections 34144 and 34145, the more specific provisions, control over Government Code section 53060, the general statute. “ ‘It is well settled . . . that a general

provision is controlled by one that is special, the latter being treated as an exception to the former. A specific provision relating to a particular subject will govern in respect to that subject, as against a general provision, although the latter, standing alone, would be broad enough to include the subject to which the more particular provision relates.’ [Citation.]” (San Francisco Taxpayers Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1992) 2 Cal.4th 571 , 577 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 , 828 P.2d 147 ], followed in Miller v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 883 , 895 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 986 P.2d 170 ].)

Nothing in Health and Safety Code sections 34144 and 34145, the statutes governing the Commission’s authority to contract for housing inspection services, suggest that the “special services” limitation of Government Code section 53060 is incorporated into these statutes, or otherwise limits the scope of these statutes.

D. Improper Delegation of Authority

SEIU also asserts the contracts entered into with Sterling are void because the Commission “had no authority to enter into such contracts.” SEIU’s argument, as we understand it, is the Commission “was created by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, and the [Board] cannot delegate to the [Commission] powers or authority which the [Board] itself does not possess.” Specifically, “because the [Board] does not have the authority to contract out services to a private entity unless such services are deemed special services pursuant to [Government] Code [section] 31000 [(the county analogue to Gov. Code, § 53060)], the Board cannot delegate such power to the Commission.”

In mating this argument, SEIU relies on People ex rel. Benwell v. Foutz (1945) 27 Cal.2d 1 [ 162 P.2d 1 ] (Foutz).) Foutz concerned a conflict between a provision of the state Constitution and an enacted statute. Former article VI, section 9 of the Constitution at that time stated the Legislature had no power to grant leaves of absence to a judicial officer. (Foutz, at p. 3.) Subsequently, the Legislature adopted statutes that prohibited certain officials, including justices of the peace, from absenting themselves from the state without obtaining a leave of absence from the board of supervisors or else risk vacating their offices. (Ibid.) A county board of supervisors declared the office of a justice of the peace vacant under these provisions, and the ousted justice sought to regain his seat. (Id. at p. 2.)

The Foutz court determined the Legislature had no power to authorize a board of supervisors to grant leaves of absence to judicial officers because “that field is covered by the Constitution.” (Foutz, supra, 27 Cal.2d at p. 1) The court reasoned, “[s]ince the Legislature cannot delegate a power that it does not possess, a county board of supervisors has no power to grant leaves of absence to judicial officers.” (Id. at p. 5.)

Our case bears no resemblance to Foutz. Foutz involved the right of legislative bodies to legislate in contravention of a constitutional provision. The Foutz decision rested upon the unremarkable proposition that the Legislature cannot delegate to a subordinate body authority to do something that is beyond its own power. In this case, we perceive no invalid delegation of authority by the Board. Even though the Commission was originally created by the Board, the Commission’s powers, duties and scope of authority are not delegated but instead, are fixed and circumscribed by the Legislature. In contrast to Foutz, there is no argument made in this dispute that the Legislature did not have the authority to define the contractual rights of public agencies, such as the Commission. As such, there was no improper delegation of power.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal to the Commission. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(2).)

Reardon, J., and Rivera, J., concurred.