BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
AB 622 (Campos) - Charter School Petitions
Amended: April 15, 2013 Policy Vote: Education 8-1
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: August 12, 2013
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 622 requires a proposed or existing charter
school and its authorizer to post on their websites a copy of
the summary of the petition, the initial petition, renewal
petition, and any substantive revisions to the petition
submitted to the charter school authorizer within 5 days of the
date of submission.
Fiscal Impact:
Mandate: Potentially significant reimbursable new state
mandate on school districts and county offices of education
(COEs).
Background: Existing law authorizes anyone to develop,
circulate, and submit a petition to establish a charter school.
Existing law requires charter developers to collect certain
signatures in support of the petition and requires petitions to
include a prominent statement that a signature means that the
person signing has a meaningful interest in teaching in or
having his or her children attend the school. (Education Code �
47605)
Existing law further requires the governing board of a school
district that receives a charter school petition to review the
petition, and to follow a specified process to approve or deny
the charter. (EC � 47605)
Proposed Law: AB 622 provides that if the petitioners of a
proposed charter school maintain a website for the proposed or
an existing charter school, the petitioners shall post on the
proposed or existing charter school's website a copy of the
summary of the petition and a copy of the initial petition,
renewal petition, or appeal petition, and any substantive
AB 622 (Campos)
Page 1
revisions to the petition submitted to the charter school
authorizer that contain all the information required to be part
of the petition for the establishment of a charter school,
within five days from the date of submission. This bill also
requires a charter school authorizer to post on its website all
of the following:
1) A summary of the petition and a copy of the initial
petition, renewal petition, or appeal petition submitted
for the establishment of a charter school that is submitted
to the charter school authorizer for approval, renewal, or
appeal within 5 days from the date of submission.
2) Any substantive revisions of the petition submitted for
initial approval or renewal, within five days from the date
of submission.
3) A summary of the charter school petition and the full
charter school petition for each charter school it has
authorized.
Staff Comments: The fiscal impact of this requirement on charter
schools and charter petitioners will likely be minor. If,
however, their compliance with the requirement is disputed
during a charter petition or renewal hearing, it could result in
significant additional workload to prove compliance. This
bill's requirements on charter schools and petitioners can have
a ripple effect on the authorizers (school districts and COEs)
who have to enforce, or at least address, compliance with the
new requirement.
The local costs incurred by existing charter schools have been
deemed by the Commission on State Mandates to not be
reimbursable state mandates because charter schools choose to
form and operate. Similarly, groups attempting to establish new
charter schools would bear these costs themselves. School
districts and COEs, which are required to consider petitions
they receive, however, would be eligible for reimbursement of
the costs that this legislation's website posting requirements
imposed on them. Any school district or COE that may receive a
new charter proposal in the future would have to take on new
activities in anticipation of receiving charter proposals,
whether or not it ever does. Associated costs across school
districts can be aggregated in a mandate claim.
AB 622 (Campos)
Page 2
The primary fiscal impact on the state will be from this bill's
requirement on school districts and COEs. It is likely that some
school districts and COEs will have little difficulty
implementing its provision, while others will require (by actual
need or by interpretation of the requirements) substantial work
and significant expense. The fiscal impact on the state, in
turn, will be determined by the extent to which authorizers that
do incur significant new costs file successful mandate claims
seeking state reimbursement. If half of the approximately 1,000
school districts sought reimbursement for the minimum claim of
$1,000, statewide costs would exceed $500,000 Proposition 98
General Fund.