Oxnard council implements Court of Appeal ruling on treasurer; shifts some collection and payment duties

The Oxnard City Council on Tuesday adopted staff recommendations to implement a recent Court of Appeal ruling and a subsequent writ of mandate that restored some statutory duties to the city treasurer while authorizing the city to reassign specific administrative functions.

The council voted 6–1 to approve staff’s recommended ordinance language and administrative steps to comply with the court’s directive. Under the action, the city will restore certain statutory reporting duties to the elected city treasurer while transferring specified collector and payment‑processing functions as permitted by the court’s decision.

Why it matters: The vote implements a judicial ruling that overturned earlier city ordinances and resolutions that the court found unlawfully removed duties from an elected official. Council members and staff said their action follows the court’s instructions while addressing operational concerns raised by staff and by an earlier internal investigation.

Background and court findings The council’s vote follows a multi‑year dispute that began after city management removed administrative duties from Treasurer Philip Molina following an internal investigation by an outside investigator. The investigator’s report, which the city relied upon, documented allegations about workplace communications and conduct by the treasurer and raised concerns about the treasurer’s role supervising staff.

Molina sued the city to restore his duties. A trial court ruled for the city, but the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and issued a writ of mandate restoring statutory duties to the elected treasurer. The appellate opinion said the legislature vests certain functions in an elected treasurer and warned that the city could not use local ordinances to circumvent the voters’ choice.

What the council approved The council accepted staff’s recommendation to implement the court’s judgment by:

- Restoring the treasurer’s statutory reporting duty (Government Code §41001–41005 referenced in staff materials) that requires a regular written accounting of receipts, disbursements and fund balances; and - Transferring specific collector duties and the procedure for payment of warrants to an alternative administrative structure permitted by the court, including assigning collection duties to the police chief and specifying that the assistant city treasurer handle payment procedures and related administrative processing, consistent with the court’s order and applicable state law.

Staff and legal rationale City staff explained that the Court of Appeal allowed particular administrative transfers — notably the collector function and an alternative procedure for paying warrants — while restoring the treasurer’s statutory accounting responsibility. City attorneys advised council members that the ordinance language before the council implements precisely the narrow changes the court authorized and that staff must follow the judgment and writ of mandate.

Statements from parties Treasurer Philip Molina told the council he had been unable to perform his duties since the court case began and asked council members to restore his staff, budget and office resources so he could prepare the statutorily mandated reports and supervise associated operations. His counsel, Michael Walker, said in the chamber that the litigation had been litigated and the treasurer prevailed at the appellate level.

City attorneys and staff urged a narrower approach for operational reasons. The City Attorney told the council, “There is no way that I could recommend anything to you that would put Mr. Molina back into the role of a department head or management or manager, supervisor of city staff,” citing the internal investigative findings and the city’s duty to protect staff and operations.

Council deliberation and vote Council members debated the tension between respecting the voters’ choice of an elected official and protecting staff and municipal operations. Supporters of staff’s approach said it followed the appellate court precisely and addressed workplace safety and operational continuity. Councilmember John Starr opposed the measure and said the voters had elected the treasurer and the city should restore his staff and resources; Starr was the sole vote against the ordinance.

Next steps and implementation Staff was directed to return on a schedule consistent with the court’s timetable — including the city’s forthcoming return on the writ — to confirm how the ordinance will be implemented in practice, and to provide the treasurer with the accounting information the court requires. The city attorney and finance staff will coordinate to prepare the modified payment procedures and to ensure the treasurer receives the required monthly reports in a format consistent with statutory requirements.

Authorities cited Staff referenced the appellate decision, the judgment and writ of mandate (issued and effective Jan. 29), and specific Government Code provisions cited in the court’s opinion and staff report (noted in staff materials as Government Code §41001–41005 and other sections discussed in the hearing).

What was not resolved Council members left intact the court’s direction that certain administrative functions may be reassigned; the vote did not restore the treasurer’s prior supervisory authority over internal staff. Council members asked staff to return with additional implementation details and to ensure the treasurer will receive the accounting reports he needs to comply with statutory reporting requirements.