Prоposed relator JEFFREY CARR applies to this office for leave to sue JACLYN LABARBERA in quo warranto to remove her from her public office on the Anderson Union High School District Board of Trustees.
No. 26-401
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL State of California
June 25, 2026
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ROB BONTA, Attorney General; HEATHER THOMAS, Deputy Attorney General
Proposed relator JEFFREY CARR applies to this office for leave to sue JACLYN LABARBERA in quo warranto to remove her from her public office on the Anderson Union High School District Board of Trustees. The application asserts that LaBarbera, while serving in that position, assumed a second and incompatible public office as a member of the Shasta County Board of Education, in violation of
We conclude there is a substantial legal issue regarding whether LaBarbera is simultaneously hоlding incompatible public offices. Consequently, and because the public interest will be served by allowing the proposed quo warranto action to proceed, the application for leave to sue is GRANTED.
The Anderson Union High School District (School District) comprises six schools serving approximately 1,500 students in Shasta County.1 The School District is governed by a five-member board of elеcted trustees.2
The School District falls within the jurisdiction of the Shasta County Board of Education. Created by the Education Code, the seven-member Board of Education “provides leadership and citizen input for county educational programs and services operated by the Shasta County Office of Education.”3 The Board of Education serves as the governing board for the Shasta County Officе of Education; it “works with the County Superintendent of Schools to establish the direction and priorities for the County Office.”4 The Shasta County Office of Education, led by the County Superintendent, “ensures that all Shasta County school districts are fiscally responsible, providing financial oversight, accounting and payroll services.”5 The Office “also provides teacher, administrator, and instructional support services,” as well as “direct services to students,” such as special education and after school programs.6
Jaclyn LaBarbera is currently serving on both the Anderson Union High School District Board of Trustees (School District Board) and the Shasta County Board of
The applicant here, Jeffrey Carr, asserts that LaBarbera is simultaneously serving in two offices that are legally incompatible under
ANALYSIS
Quo warranto is a civil action used, among other purposes, to challenge an incumbent public official’s right or eligibility to hold a given public office.11 This form of action is codified in
1. Availability of Quo Warranto Remedy
2. Substantial Issue Regarding Incompatibility
We next examine whether there is a substantial issue of law or fact as to the incompatibility of the two public offices in question.
To find that two offices are incompatible based on a significant clash of duties or loyalties, a conflict need not have actually occurred; it is enough that a conflict may occur in the regular operation of the statutory plan.18 Nor is it necessary for a clash of duties or loyalties to occur in all or in the greater part of the official functions.19 Indeed, “[o]nly one potential significant clash of duties or loyalties is necessary to make offices incompatible.”20 When two offices are deemed incompatible, the conflicted officeholder may not escape the effects of the doctrine by choosing not “‘to perform one of the incompatible roles. The doctrine was designed to avoid the necessity for that choice.’”21
We have previously found positions on various boаrds of education to be incompatible offices where, like here, their jurisdictions overlap.22 For example, we concluded that membership on both a county board of education and a charter school district board would present several significant clashes of duties or loyalties.23 A county board of education, we explained, “interacts with all charter schools undеr its jurisdiction through a general public oversight role. Responsibility for charter school oversight within a county is shared among the county board of education, the county office of education, and the county superintendent.”24 The “county superintendent is charged with monitoring and investigating charter schools within the county,” while a county board of education sets the superintendent’s salary and approves the superintendent’s budget.25 We concluded that, “through its own powers and because it controls the budget (and in
For similar reasons, there is at least a substantial question whether a person serving simultaneously on the County Board of Education and the School District Board could face a significant clash of duties or loyalties. Similar to charter schools, oversight of county school districts is shared among the county board of education, the county office of educatiоn, and the county superintendent.27 Shasta County’s Superintendent is the chief executive officer of the County Office of Education, as well as the professional advisor to the County Board of Education.28 A county superintendent directly oversees “the fiscal and academic affairs of school districts,” and has the authority “to audit the expenditures and internal controls of school districts . . . , cоnduct studies related to future school conditions and needs, enter into specified contracts, and employ certificated and classified county school personnel.”29 The county superintendent also coordinates educational programs across school districts and can provide services directly to school districts.30
The county board of education, in turn, is the govеrning body of the county office of education.31 The board of education adopts rules governing the administration of the county office of education, approves its budget, and, in some circumstances, appoints the superintendent.32 We foresee several potentially significant clashes of duties and loyalties through the county board of education’s relationships with the county office of education and the county superintendent. As mentioned above, a county superintendent
Significantly, each example in the previous paragraph explicitly requires consent of the county board of education.37 This presents “the possibility of ‘clashing duties or loyalties’ should one individual serve on” both the county board of education and a school district board.38 In deciding how to allocate resources to individual districts or among multiple districts in the county, a member of the county board of education who also serves on a school district board could face conflicting loyalties if the interests of the county and the district diverged. In these and other situations, “a dual officeholder elected to represent the best interests of both” entities could face a disqualifying conflict.39
Further conflicts could arise here because the County Board of Education acts as the appellate body for challenges to a school district expulsion decision or a district’s denial of a student’s request to transfer schools.40 The Board of Education’s authоrity in this area raises a substantial question under
LaBarbera further argues that no prior Attorney General opinion or judicial decision has ever held these offices to be incompatible, and that no actual conflict has arisen during the time she has served in both offices. But
“[O]nly one significant clash of duties and loyalties is required to render offices incompatible.”46 Because we foresee several potential significant clashes of duties and loyalties here, we conclude there is a substantial issue of law or fact thаt warrants judicial resolution.
3. Public Interest in Favor of Authorizing Suit
We further conclude that it is in the public interest for this matter to be resolved through a quo warranto suit.47 We generally view the need for judicial resolution of a substantial question of fact or law as a sufficient “public purpose” to warrant granting leave to sue, absent countervailing circumstances such as pending litigation.48
LaBarbera argues that granting leave to sue would not be in the public interest for three reasons. First, because her term on the School District Board ends later this year, she contends that granting the application would be costly, would “serve no public purpose and would instead disrupt ongoing educational governance.”49 We disagree.
Second, LaBarbera contends that allowing the application to go forward would “have significant statewide implications” because school district trustees also sit on the county board of education in counties that have only a singlе school district.51 It is true that in single-district counties, the Education Code expressly requires the school district’s governing board to also serve as the county board of education.52 However, as noted above,
Finally, LaBarbera argues the application appears to be “motivated by personal or political considerations rather than a genuine concern for the public interest.”54 Ordinarily, we do not attempt to assess the motivation of individual relators.55 Our quo warranto regulations state that “any person” may file an аpplication.56 And in “deciding whether to grant or deny leave to sue, we focus upon the public interest as our paramount concern.”57 Here, allowing the proposed quo warranto action to proceed will serve the public interest in ensuring that public officials avoid conflicting loyalties in performing their public duties.
Accordingly, the application for leave to sue in quo warranto is GRANTED.