BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 360
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 360 (Brownley)
As Amended July 12, 2011
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |50-27|(May 19, 2011) |SENATE: |25-11|(July 14, |
| | | | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
SUMMARY : Requires charter schools to comply with the same conflict
of interest requirements as school districts, commencing July 1,
2012.
The Senate amendments :
1)Specify that a person who provides a loan to a charter school due
to a school fiscal emergency, or who leases, or signs a guarantor
agreement relative to the lease of, real property to be occupied
by a charter school, is not disqualified because of that loan,
lease, or guarantor agreement from also serving as a member of the
governing body of the charter school or being an employee of the
charter school; declare these instances as remote interests for
purposes of the Government Code; and, specify that a member of the
governing body of a charter school who is a lessor or guarantor
shall abstain from voting on, or influencing or attempting to
influence another member of the governing body regarding, all
matters affecting the real property lease agreement or loan.
2)Specify a member of the governing body of a charter school shall
abstain from voting on, or influencing or attempting to influence
another member of the governing body regarding all matters
uniquely affecting his or her own employment and personnel matters
that uniquely affect a member's relative.
3)Delete the provision specifying for purposes of the Political
Reform Act (PRA), the jurisdiction of a charter school shall be
the county or counties in which the school's facility or
facilities are located; the jurisdiction for a nonclassroom based
charter school that does not have a facility shall be the physical
boundaries of the county or counties where at least 10% of the
pupils who are enrolled in the school reside or, if at least 10%
of the pupils do not reside in a single county, the county in
AB 360
Page 2
which the greatest number of pupils who are enrolled in the school
reside.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar to
the version passed by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative
Counsel.
COMMENTS : This bill requires charter school governing board members
to comply with substantially similar conflict of interest policies
by which school district governing board members currently abide.
Recent news reports of charter school board members engaging in
inappropriate financial mismanagement have highlighted the need for
charter school conflict of interest laws to be clarified.
Currently, these investigations can take many months to resolve
partly due to the fact that charter school governing board members
and designated employees do not consistently file an annual
statement of economic interest, which makes public any potential
conflicts of interest that individual may have in their official
capacity. While charter schools are given more autonomy than public
schools, their governing boards have authority over public funds to
be used for the educational benefit of their students. Charter
school governing boards should be held to the same conflict of
interest standards as school district governing boards.
This bill requires charter school boards to file statements of
economic interest according to the Political Reform Act; specifies
that charter school board members may not be financially interested
in any decision made by the board; requires charter schools to
comply with the California Public Records Act; and, requires charter
school boards to abide by the Brown Act or the Bagley-Keene Open
Meetings Act. The bill also expressly authorizes charter school
employees to serve on a charter school governing board.
The Brown Act: The Brown Act governs meetings conducted by local
legislative bodies, such as boards of supervisors, city councils,
and school boards. The Brown Act represents the Legislature's
determination of how the balance should be struck between public
access to meetings of multi-member public bodies and the need for
confidential candor, debate, and information gathering.
California Public Records Act (CPRA): The CPRA was enacted in 1968
and according to the Attorney General, in enacting the CPRA, the
Legislature stated that access to information concerning the conduct
AB 360
Page 3
of the public's business is a fundamental and necessary right for
every person in the state. Cases interpreting the CPRA also have
emphasized that its primary purpose is to give the public an
opportunity to monitor the functioning of their government.
Government Code Section 1090: Government Code Section 1090 states
that Members of the Legislature, state, county, district, judicial
district, and city officers or employees shall not be financially
interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity,
or by any body or board of which they are members. In a 1983
opinion the Attorney General stated, "Section 1090 of the Government
Code codifies the common law prohibition and the general policy of
this state against public officials having a personal interest in
contracts they make in their official capacities. Mindful of the
ancient adage, that 'no man can serve two masters,' the section was
enacted to ensure that public officials 'making' official contracts
not be distracted by personal financial gain from exercising
absolute loyalty and undivided allegiance to the best interest of
the entity which they serve."
Political Reform Act: The Fair Political Practices Commission
(FPPC) was created by the Political Reform Act of 1974, a ballot
initiative passed by California voters as Proposition 9. The FPPC
provides written and oral advice to public agencies and officials;
conducts seminars and training sessions; develops forms, manuals and
instructions; and, receives and files statements of economic
interests from many state and local officials. The FPPC
investigates alleged violations of the Political Reform Act, imposes
penalties when appropriate, and assists state and local agencies in
developing and enforcing conflict-of-interest codes. School board
members are required to comply with the PRA, and in so, must file a
statement of economic interest, annually.
Previous legislation: AB 572 (Brownley) of 2010 was substantially
similar to this bill and was vetoed by the Governor.
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN:
0001722
AB 360
Page 4