BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2278
AUTHOR: Swanson
INTRODUCED: February 24, 2012
FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: June 13, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : School districts: state administrators.
SUMMARY
This bill permits a school district with a state-appointed
administrator to annually evaluate that administrator and
requires the evaluation to be submitted to the Governor,
the Legislature, the Superintendent of Public Instruction
(SPI), and the County Office Fiscal Crisis and Management
Assistance Team (FCMAT).
BACKGROUND
Existing law establishes a process for state oversight and
financial assistance for schools in financial trouble, and
authorizes the governing board of a school district that
determines that its revenues are insufficient to meet its
current year obligations to request an emergency
apportionment (loan) from the state through the SPI.
Further, existing law, requires that acceptance of an
emergency apportionment (loan) constitutes agreement by the
school district to specified conditions, including the
following:
The SPI assumes all the legal rights, duties, and
powers of the governing board of the district.
An audit, for the fiscal year in which the
emergency apportionments are disbursed and each year
thereafter, is to be conducted of the books and
accounts of the district, in lieu of the required
annual school district audit; this audit may be
conducted by the State Controller's Office (SCO), or
an auditor selected by the school district and
approved by the SCO.
AB 2278
Page 2
The SPI may appoint an administrator to act on
behalf of the SPI. The school district governing board
becomes advisory only.
All costs of the administrator and other related
oversight and monitoring activities are borne by the
district.
The authority of the SPI and the state-appointed
administrator continues until specified conditions
have been met, including SPI determination that future
compliance with recovery plans is probable.
(Education Code § 41320, et. seq.)
ANALYSIS
This bill permits a school district with a state-appointed
administrator to annually evaluate that administrator, and
requires any such evaluation to be submitted to the
Governor, the Legislature, the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI), and the County Office Fiscal Crisis and
Management Assistance Team (FCMAT).
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, this
measure will ensure that a local school district
governing boards have the opportunity to give feedback
on the performance of an appointed state administrator
when the school district is under state receivership.
The school district governing board, despite its loss
of legal authority, is still responsible to the
community and remains involved in the school district.
2) Additional background on appointed administrators . As
previously stated, the SPI may appoint an
administrator to act on his/her behalf. The
administrator serves under the direction and
supervision of the SPI until terminated by the SPI at
his or her discretion and after consulting with the
county superintendent of schools. The administrator
is authorized to do all of the following:
a) Implement substantial changes in the fiscal
policies and practices of the district.
AB 2278
Page 3
b) Revise the educational programs of the
district to reflect realistic income projections
and pupil performance relative to state
standards.
c) Encourage all members of the school
community to accept a fair share of the burden of
the fiscal recovery.
d) Consult with the district's governing board,
the exclusive representatives of its employees,
parents, and the community.
e) Consult with and seek recommendations from
the SPI, FCMAT, and the county superintendent of
schools.
f) Enter into agreements on behalf of the
district, subject to the approval of the SPI, and
change any existing district rules, regulations,
policies, or practices as necessary for the
effective implementation of the district's
recovery plans.
The authority of the SPI and the state-appointed
administrator continues until specified conditions
have been met, including SPI determination that future
compliance with recovery plans is probable. The
authority of the SPI and administrator continue until
all of the following occur:
a) The administrator determines, after one year
has elapsed since the district accepted the
emergency loan, that future compliance by the
district with the recovery plans is probable.
b) The SPI has approved all specified recovery
plans and has completed at least two reports
identifying the district's progress in
implementing the plans.
c) The administrator certifies that all
necessary collective bargaining agreements have
been negotiated and ratified and that they are
consistent with the terms of the recovery plans.
AB 2278
Page 4
d) The district has completed all reports
required by the SPI and the administrator.
e) The SPI determines that future compliance by
the district with the recovery plans is probable.
1) Is an evaluation of a state administrator truly
necessary? The necessity of accepting an emergency
apportionment and therefore, the appointment of a
state administrator generally is the result of poor
local district leadership and decision making and
ineffective governance, typically over multiple years.
If not corrected, past management decisions can lead
to cash insolvency and the need for state intervention
in order to ensure a school district is able to
maintain an educational program. Therefore, it is not
entirely clear why a governance body that may have led
to the fiscal distress of a school district is in the
best position to evaluate an appointed administrator
brought in for the sole purpose of restoring the
financial solvency and maintaining the educational
program of the district.
Should the committee wish to move this measure
forward, staff recommends amendments as follows:
a) Provide that the evaluation is advisory
only.
b) Provide that an annual advisory evaluation
can happen only after one complete fiscal year
has elapsed following the qualifying school
districts' acceptance of an emergency
apportionment.
c) An advisory evaluation should focus on a
state administrator's effectiveness in leading
the district toward fiscal recovery and improved
academic achievement. Evaluation criteria shall
be agreed upon by the governing board and
administrator prior to the evaluation and shall
include, but not be limited to, goals and
standards consistent with Education Code section
41327.1. The evaluation shall provide
commendations in areas of strength and
AB 2278
Page 5
achievement; provide recommendations for
improving effectiveness in areas of concern and
performance.
d) A technical amendment in paragraph (e) (1)
(A), strike out "loan" and insert: "emergency
apportionment"
SUPPORT
California School Boards Association
California Teachers Association
OPPOSITION
None on file.