BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 680
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 680 (Block)
As Amended August 25, 2011
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(May 23, 2011) |SENATE: |32-5 |(August 30, |
| | | | | |2011) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: HIGHER ED.
SUMMARY : Authorizes a school district or a county office of
education (COE), in consultation with law enforcement officials,
to choose not to have its schoolsite council develop and write
those portions of its comprehensive school safety plan that
include tactical responses to criminal incidents that may result
in death or serious bodily injury at the schoolsite and
authorizes, instead, school district and COE administrators to
write those portions of the school safety plan.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill,
and instead:
1)Authorize the portions of a school safety plan that include
tactical responses to criminal incidents to be developed by
administrators of the school district or COE in consultation
with law enforcement officials and with a representative of an
exclusive bargaining unit of employees of that school district
or COE, if he or she chooses to participate.
2)Authorize the school district or COE to elect not to disclose
those portions of the comprehensive school safety plan that
include tactical responses to criminal incidents.
3)Define "tactical responses to criminal incidents" as steps
taken to safeguard pupils and staff, to secure the affected
school premises, and to apprehend the criminal perpetrator or
perpetrators.
4)Specify that nothing in this bill precludes the governing
board of a school district or COE from conferring in a closed
session with law enforcement officials pursuant to Government
Code Section 54957 to approve a tactical response plan.
AB 680
Page 2
Provides that any vote to approve the tactical response plan
shall be announced in open session following the closed
session.
5)Specify that nothing in this bill shall be construed to reduce
or eliminate the requirements in Education Code Section 32282,
which specifies the components required to be included in the
school safety plan.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill established provisions
governing the number of members, the election of members, and
the reapportionment of trustee areas for the Grossmont-Cuyamaca
Community College District governing board.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : Existing law requires each school district or COE to
be responsible for the development of all comprehensive school
safety plans for all the schools in its jurisdiction. Existing
law further identifies a schoolsite council, or a school safety
planning committee comprised of specified members, as the entity
to develop and write a school safety plan that includes
processes, procedures, and policies to ensure student and staff
safety at a schoolsite. Existing law also requires the
schoolsite council or school safety planning committee to hold a
public meeting at the schoolsite in order to allow members of
the public the opportunity to express an opinion about the
school safety plan prior to adopting the plan.
Existing law requires the comprehensive school safety plan to
include an assessment of the current status of school crime
committed on school campuses and at school-related functions
and identification of appropriate strategies and programs that
will provide or maintain a high level of school safety and
address the school's procedures for complying with existing
laws related to school safety, including child abuse reporting
procedures; disaster procedures; an earthquake emergency
procedure system; policies regarding pupils who commit
specified acts that would lead to suspension or expulsion;
procedures to notify teachers of dangerous pupils; a
discrimination and harassment policy; the provisions of any
schoolwide dress code; procedures for safe ingress and egress
of pupils, parents, and school employees to and from school; a
safe and orderly environment conducive to learning; rules and
procedures on school discipline; and hate crime reporting
AB 680
Page 3
procedures.
This bill authorizes a school district or COE to, in
consultation with law enforcement officials, choose not to have
its schoolsite council develop and write the portions of the
comprehensive school safety plan that include tactical responses
to criminal incidents that may result in death or serious bodily
injury at the schoolsite. The bill authorizes, but does not
require, school district or COE administrators, in consultation
with law enforcement officials and with a representative of an
exclusive bargaining unit of employees of the school district or
COE, to develop the tactical responses to criminal incidents
components of the school safety plan. The bill further
authorizes a school district or COE to elect not to disclose the
tactical responses to criminal incidents and specifies that
nothing precludes the governing board of a school district or
COE from approving the tactical response plan in closed session.
According to the author, "The requirement for schools to adopt a
school safety plan was originally established as a way for
districts to plan and respond to emergencies and catastrophes
such as earthquakes and fires. Over the years, given the rise
in school violence incidents, the content of safety plans has
changed dramatically. They now encompass sensitive tactical
response strategies to deadly attacks. For instance, school
safety plans may now include placard communication codes that
assist school staff in quickly communicating with law
enforcement SWAT teams. They also include certain exit
strategies given the nature of an attack or threat. In these
instances, if the information falls into the hands of the wrong
persons, the safety of children staff and visitors is
compromised."
The sponsor, San Diego Unified School District, cites as an
example, an incident in 2004 whereby U.S. authorities arrested a
man in Iraq with a computer disk containing a public report
downloaded from the U.S. Department of Education Web site on
crisis planning that included school safety plans developed by
the San Diego Unified School District. While there was no
threat as a result of the incident, school and law enforcement
officials fear that someone may use information gleaned from the
school safety plan to carry out an attack at a schoolsite.
Current law requires any materials provided to a schoolsite
AB 680
Page 4
council to be made available to any member of the public who
requests the materials pursuant to the California Public Records
Act. By authorizing school districts and COEs to allow
administrators rather than schoolsite councils to develop the
tactical response plans and by authorizing districts and COEs to
not disclose the plans to the public, this bill may keep the
information from being subject to the Public Records Act. The
Public Records Act allows an agency to withhold disclosing any
record if, on the facts of the particular case, the public
interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs
the public interest served by disclosure of the record. A
tactical plan that is adopted in closed session by a governing
board is also protected from the Public Records Act. This bill,
however, does not require a governing board to adopt the
tactical plan.
The bill does not specify whether nondisclosure of the tactical
plans include nondisclosure to schoolsite staff. The sponsor
states that it is presumed that staff will be trained as
necessary and appropriate on the contents of the tactical
response plan. Language in the bill also clarifies that nothing
shall be construed to eliminate or reduce the required
components of the school safety plan.
This bill was substantially amended in the Senate and has not
been heard in an Assembly policy committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0002282