Oxnard council adopts staff plan on city treasurer duties after court ruling; unions and residents voice concern

After a five‑year legal fight that reached the Court of Appeal, the Oxnard City Council on Feb. 18 adopted staff‑recommended ordinance changes that transfer several operational duties tied to the city treasurer’s office to other city officials and managers.

The action followed an appellate ruling that found some previously adopted city ordinances went too far and effectively unelected the treasurer. The court’s judgment restored Molina’s status as the elected city treasurer but — and this is key — the same appellate opinion and the judgment also made explicit which duties the city could lawfully reassign by ordinance. City staff presented a narrow package of changes that reflected the court’s direction: shifting the city’s collector duties and certain warrant‑payment procedures to other officials (staff recommended the city’s police chief for collector responsibilities and an assistant city treasurer/finance staff signature arrangement for warrant payments), while leaving Molina with statutorily mandated functions such as preparing the monthly treasurer’s report.

Staff described the changes as a direct implementation of the appellate decision’s narrow authorization. The city attorney explained the council has authority to revise how warrant payment and collection duties are administered so long as the city preserves the treasurer’s statutory role. Council discussion centered on two tensions: the legal instruction from the appellate court and workplace conduct findings detailed in an independent investigation into the treasurer’s behavior.

The investigative report (prepared by an outside investigator and reviewed during litigation) accused the treasurer of repeated inappropriate comments about employees’ appearance and conduct that violated the city’s harassment and workplace conduct policies; it also described instances where the treasurer pressed staff for access to documents and raised safety and personnel concerns. City staff and the city manager argued those findings — together with a late‑filed letter from the treasurer’s attorney and significant public comment — make it impossible to restore the treasurer’s prior administrative role over staff. Several unions and staff representatives in the meeting materials urged council to prevent the treasurer from supervising staff because employees said they felt unsafe or intimidated.

The treasurer, Philip Molina, and his counsel disputed elements of the investigators’ summary and urged the council to restore his full administrative authority. “The Court of Appeal ordered: ‘Molina's duties as treasurer are restored,’” said Molina’s lawyer during public comment, arguing the voters had twice re‑elected him since the controversy and that the council should return the staff, budget and access he had before the 2020 ordinance changes. Molina also described his credentials as a certified public accountant and said he needed access to source documents, timesheets, daily cash reports and investment records to prepare the statutorily required monthly report.

Councilmembers debated whether restoring the treasurer’s former supervisory role over staff would expose city personnel to unacceptable risk; several council members and union representatives cited employees’ fear and urged continued limits on his administrative duties. The city attorney and city manager said staff had sought to follow the Court of Appeal’s guidance and had prepared a narrow set of ordinance changes that implement what the judgment allowed while protecting staff.

After debate, council rejected a motion to immediately restore the treasurer’s full staff, budget and access (vote 1–6) and then adopted staff’s recommendation to implement the limited statutory changes authorized by the judgment and writ of mandate (the ordinance changes were approved by a 6–1 vote). Councilmembers who voted for the staff proposal said it was legally required and designed to protect staff; those opposed argued the voters’ choice should be respected and expressed concern that an unelected manager should not exercise the treasurer’s functions.

What’s next: staff will return with the implementing ordinance language and execute the procedural transfers required by the Court of Appeal’s judgment. The treasurer and his counsel retain the right to contest specific compliance steps in the court process; the judgment calls for a return on the writ and the parties may litigate compliance issues before the trial court if they cannot resolve them administratively.

Context: The underlying dispute dates to 2016–2020 when the city manager and council altered the treasurer’s administrative authority and budget; that action led to litigation after complaints from employees and an independent investigation. The Court of Appeal ruled that some of the earlier council action went too far while also making clear the council could reassign specific ministerial duties by ordinance. The Feb. 18 vote implements that narrower approach while leaving in place limits on the treasurer’s supervisory authority, according to staff and the legal opinion.