BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1662
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 21, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 1662 (Fong) - As Introduced: February 14, 2012
SUBJECT : County boards of education: members
SUMMARY : Makes any employee of a school district eligible to
be a member of a county board of education.
EXISTING LAW prohibits an employee of a school district from
being a member of the governing board of that district and
prohibits a county superintendent of schools, any member of his
or her staff, or any employee of a school district from being a
member of the county board of education.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill would allow school district employees to
serve on county boards of education. Among other duties, county
boards of education serve as appellant bodies for decisions made
by school district governing boards regarding pupil suspensions
and expulsions and charter school proposals. Approval of the
county board of education is required for the county
superintendent of schools to make temporary transfers of funds
from the county school service fund to school districts that are
not able to meet current operating expenses. In addition,
county superintendents of schools have oversight authority over
school districts regarding the review and approval of district
budgets and compliance with equal access to instructional
materials, safe and decent school facilities, and qualified
teachers pursuant to the settlement in the case of Williams v.
California. County boards of education or members of a board
may be in a position to influence decisions made by county
superintendents, especially in counties where the board hires
the superintendent.
PRIOR LEGISLATION : Similar legislation, AB 1212 (Thompson), was
vetoed in 1999 by Governor Gray Davis. The veto message read:
This bill would violate the common law rule against
the holding of incompatible offices. The purpose of
this rule is to disallow a person from holding two or
more offices in which he or she is in a position in
AB 1662
Page 2
one office to review and approve his or her actions in
the other office, and to disallow the holding of
offices wherein his or her duties and loyalties are
incompatible. County boards of education have
jurisdiction over several areas which would present
such a conflict, such as fiscal oversight, budgeting,
and student discipline and transfer.
Moreover, I note that current law prohibits school
district employees from being elected or appointed
members of their school district governing boards.
For this reason, I cannot support this measure.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT :
Proponents argue that the prohibition against public school
employees serving on a county board of education is
unconstitutional, and they cite two court decisions to support
this position. The first is a California Supreme Court decision
in Bagley vs. Washington Township Hospital District, 65 Cal.2d
499, 501 (1966) in which the court ruled that "only a compelling
public interest can justify the imposition of restraints upon
the political activities of public employees." In the second
case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Davies vs.
Grossmont Union High School et al., 930 F.2d 1390 (1991) that a
legal settlement agreement cannot prohibit a person from running
for public office.
Although neither of these decisions deals directly with
employees on public boards, proponents argue that they establish
the ability to seek and hold public office as a fundamental
right that can only be abridged because of a compelling public
interest. The potential for conflict of interest is not
compelling, they argue, because (1) such conflicts are rare and
(2) when a conflict arises the board member can recuse himself
or herself.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION :
Opponents argue that, despite the ability of a board member to
recuse him or herself from a vote, "the county board has a
tremendous amount of oversight of school districts that could
result in compromising some of the most important work the
AB 1662
Page 3
county board conducts."
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS : Proponents of this bill argue that
potential conflicts of interest can be resolved through recusal.
However, this will not work if a majority of the county board
of education members are school district employees. Under this
bill, a majority of board members could be school district
employees and they could even be from the same district. In
such a case the board would be unable to take any action at all
where a conflict of interest is present. To prevent this, staff
recommends that the bill be amended to pertain only to employees
of school districts that are not within the jurisdiction of the
county office of education.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
California School Employees Association (Sponsor)
Service Employees International Union California
Opposition
Association of California School Administrators
Analysis Prepared by : Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087