Good governance cannot permit local voters to override a state decision with a local referendum. For example, in Board of Education v. Superior Court (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 578 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 839], the court held that local school boards could not put decisions of the State Board of Education to a referendum. The court stated, "It is firmly held that the acts and resolutions of administrative agencies of the state are not subject to referendum by local electors."
Thus, we conclude that Hancock was not entitled to obtain a number for an initiative petition to attempt to repeal an action of the District. Our conclusion is in accord with the holding of the court in Board of Education of the Palo Alto Unified School District v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 93 Cal.App.3d 578, 155 Cal.Rptr. 839 (1979). Article II, section 11 of the California Constitution provides that "[i]nitiative and referendum powers may be exercised by the electors of each city or county."
(See California Teachers Assn. v. Board of Education (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 738 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 429], wherein the court refused to create a constitutional right to free district-operated summer school after the summer school program had been substantially limited following the passage of Proposition 13. See also Jarvis v. Cory (1980) 28 Cal.3d 562, 573 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 11, 620 P.2d 598]; Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v. County of Sonoma (1979) 23 Cal.3d 296, 302, 310 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 903, 591 P.2d 1]; Board of Education v. Superior Court (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 578, 580 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 839] .)
[Citations.]" ( Board of Education v. Superior Court (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 578, 585.) Since a local initiative measure may not conflict with state law, a vote of the people may not be required for the sale or lease of a county hospital. (Gov. Code, § 25521.)
Id., at 179, 302 P.2d 574. Education has been characterized by several courts as "plainly a state function," and school districts have been perceived as merely agencies of the state for the local operation of the state school system. See Board of Education of the Palo Alto Unified School District v. The Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 93 Cal.App.3d 578, 155 Cal.Rptr. 839 (1979), citing, Hall v. City of Taft, 47 Cal.2d at 180-181, 302 P.2d 574; Lerner v. Los Angeles City Board of Education, 59 Cal.2d 382, 398-399, 29 Cal.Rptr. 657, 380 P.2d 97 (1963). Thus, it appears the state courts have consistently treated the public school system as a state controlled organization.
None of these provisions grant the power to enact local district initiatives. ( Board of Education v. Superior Court (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 578, 583, 155 Cal.Rptr. 839 [school district].) We do agree, however, that the Legislature has statutorily granted the power of initiative to the voters of a local water district.
The Constitution authorizes the Legislature to enact laws providing for the recall of local elected officers. (Cal. Const. art. II, § 19; Board of Education v. Superior Court (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 578, 585.) The laws governing local recall elections are contained in Elections Code section 11200 et seq.