Van De Kamp, 061584 CAAGO, AGO 84-302

Docket Nº:AGO 84-302
Case Date:June 15, 1984
Court:California
 
FREE EXCERPT
JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP Attorney General
ANTHONY S. DA VIGO Deputy Attorney General
AGO 84-302
No. 84-302
California Attorney General Opinion
Office of the Attorney General State of California
June 15, 1984
         THE HONORABLE WILLIAM S. BRINER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, has requested an opinion on the following question:          Is the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission required to review and comment, or to review and approve, proposed expenditures for grants to cities, counties, and special districts and for cooperative agreements with federal agencies?          CONCLUSION          The Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission is required to review and approve proposed expenditures for grants to cities, counties, and special districts and for cooperative agreements with federal agencies if and only to the extent that they are capital outlay expenditures.          ANALYSIS          There is in the Department of Parks and Recreation ("department," post) the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission ("commission," post). (§ 5090.15.)[1] The commission is required to establish policies for the guidance of the director of the department and for its Division of Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation regarding all aspects of the State Vehicular Recreation Area and Trail System and the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Program. (§ 5090.23.) The division is responsible for the implementation of the policies of the commission (§ 5090.33, subd. (a)), the implementation of all aspects of the program (§ 5090.32, subd. (d)), and for the management of the Off-Highway Vehicle Fund created under subdivision (b) of section 38225 of the Vehicle Code (§ 5090.32, subd. (c)). With respect to that fund, section 5090.24 provides:
"The commission shall have the following particular duties and responsibilities: "...................... "(d) Review and comment annually to the director on the proposed budget of expenditures from the fund. "(e) Review and approve all capital outlay expenditures from the fund proposed for inclusion in the budget. "......................"
(Emphases added.)          A portion of the monies in the continuously appropriated fund (§ 5090.61, subd. (a)) are allocated for grants to cities, counties, and districts (§ 5090.50) and for expenditure pursuant to cooperative agreements with federal agencies for joint undertakings (§ 5090.55). The inquiry presented is whether the commission is required to review and comment, or to review and approve, proposed expenditures for grants to cities, counties, and special districts and for cooperative agreements with federal agencies. Specifically, is a proposed expenditure from the fund subject to approval by the commission?          We begin with the interpretive precept that the various parts of a statute must be harmonized and construed in the context of the statutory framework as a whole. (Evans v. City of Anaheim (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 853, 856; 66 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 17, 23-24 (1983).) Section 5090.24, subdivision (d), supra, is unambiguous. The commission is required to comment to the director on the proposed budget of expenditures from the fund, in its entirety. This is an annual duty of the commission conjoining the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP