BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 709 (Gipson) - Charter schools.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: June 1, 2015 |Policy Vote: ED. 5 - 2, JUD. 5 |
| | - 1 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 17, 2015 |Consultant: Jillian Kissee |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: This bill requires charter schools to be subject to
open meeting requirements, the California Public Records Act,
the state's primary conflict-of-interest provisions, and the
Political Reform Act of 1974.
Fiscal
Impact:
Mandate: Unknown, potentially significant reimbursable state
mandate costs for school districts and county offices of
education due to increased oversight responsibilities. If
determined to be a mandate, this would create pressure to
increase the K-12 Mandate Block Grant. See staff comments.
(Proposition 98)
Costs to charter schools: Unknown, potentially significant
local costs to the extent charter schools do not already
comply with the four areas of law. Charter schools have been
AB 709 (Gipson) Page 1 of
?
determined to be ineligible to submit claims for mandate
reimbursements.
Background: According to the California Department of Education's website,
a charter school is a public school usually created by a group
of teachers, parents and community leaders or a community-based
organization, and it is usually sponsored by an existing local
public school board or county board of education. The school's
specific goals and operating procedures are detailed in a
charter, or agreement, between the sponsoring board and charter
organizers. Unless specifically noted in law, a charter school
is generally exempt from most laws governing school districts.
Existing law requires state and local agencies to conduct
business in meetings that are open to the public: 1) The Brown
Act requires meetings of a local agency's board of directors to
be open to the public. (Government Code § 54950 et seq.) 2) The
Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act requires meetings of state bodies
to be open to the public. (GC § 11120)
The California Public Records Act declares that the public has a
right to access information that concerns the people's business
and provides that public records shall be available for
inspection, except as provided by an express provision of law.
(GC § 6250 and § 6253)
Existing law prohibits members of the Legislature, state,
county, district, judicial district, and city officers or
employees from being financially interested in any contract made
by them in their official capacity, or by anybody or board of
which they are members. (Government Code § 1090 et seq.) The
Political Reform Act of 1974 requires public officials to carry
out their duties in an unbiased manner, free from influence by
outside interests, and to follow regulations during elections,
as defined.
The Political Reform Act also requires government agencies to
adopt a conflict-of-interest code that requires designated
employees of the agency to file an annual statement of economic
interest disclosing any investments, business positions,
interests in real property, or sources of income that may be
AB 709 (Gipson) Page 2 of
?
affected materially by a decision made, or participated in, by
the designated employee by virtue of his or her position. (GC §
81000 et seq.)
Proposed Law:
This bill requires charter schools to be subject to all of the
following:
The Ralph M. Brown Act, except for charter schools
operated by an entity governed by the Bagley-Keene Open
Meeting Act which are subject to this act instead.
The California Public Records Act.
The state's primary conflict-of-interest provisions.
The Political Reform Act of 1974.
This bill provides that an employee of a charter school is not
disqualified because he or she also serves as a member of the
governing body of the charter school. It requires that such
member must abstain from voting on, or influencing or attempting
to influence another member of the governing body concerning
matters affecting his or her employment.
Related
Legislation: SB 1317 (Huff, 2014) proposed to require that
charter schools be subject to a variety of the same open
meeting, conflict-of-interest and disclosure laws as school
districts, including the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act), the
California Public Records Act, and the Political Reform Act of
1974. SB 1317 failed passage in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
AB 913 (Chau, 2014) was substantially similar to this bill and
proposed to subject charter schools to a variety of the same
open meetings, conflict-of-interest, and disclosure laws. AB 913
was vetoed by the Governor.
AB 360 (Brownley, 2011), similar to this bill, required charter
schools to comply with the same conflict-of-interest
requirements as school district governing board members. AB 360
AB 709 (Gipson) Page 3 of
?
died on the Assembly inactive file on concurrence.
AB 572 (Brownley, 2010), also similar to this bill, would have
required charter schools to comply with the Brown Act, the
California Public Records Act, and the Political Reform Act. AB
572 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
Staff
Comments: Unlike local government entities, charter schools are
ineligible for state mandate reimbursements through the
traditional claiming process (they do receive funding through
the K-12 mandate block grant). Thus, workload and costs related
to compliance with this bill's requirements are not considered
direct state costs (though charter schools primarily receive
state funding for their operations). Staff notes that through
approval of Proposition 30, the Open Meetings mandate was
eliminated. Also, a recent ruling by the Commission on State
Mandates eliminated the California Public Records mandate due to
passage of Proposition 42. Therefore, school districts will no
longer receive reimbursement for these activities.
This bill will likely increase workload for charter authorizers
to train staff in the relevant laws; increases the scope of
oversight authorizers must provide, and could increase costs
related to responding to disputes, revocations, and renewals of
petitions in conflict with these laws.
These additional oversight activities will add unknown, but
potentially significant, costs if they are found to be a
reimbursable state mandate and create cost pressures to increase
funding provided through the mandates block grant to reflect the
new mandate. The existing Charter Schools I-III mandates
reimburse authorizers for reviewing proposed charters, holding
associated public hearings, and monitoring charter schools after
approval. The Charter Schools IV mandate includes additional
oversight activities, including authorizing county offices of
education that review proposed countywide charter schools to
claim reimbursement for the activities associated with this
review.
Likewise, this bill expands the scope of oversight required by
AB 709 (Gipson) Page 4 of
?
charter authorizers and may be found to be a reimbursable state
mandate. Costs attributed to these activities would depend on a
number of factors, such as how many schools are within the
authorizer's jurisdiction and how much staff time is invested in
these assessments. Assuming an additional 5 hours annually of
monitoring for a school administrator to ensure compliance with
the four areas of law required by this bill for each charter
school, costs could run in the hundreds of thousands statewide.
-- END --