BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 787
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
787 (Roger Hernández) - As Amended April 20, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Education |Vote:|4 - 3 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY: This bill requires a charter school operated as a
nonprofit to nominate, in the charter petition, twice the number
of people needed for their board of directors; requires the
chartering authority to appoint a majority of the members of the
board of directors for such charter schools from the nomination
list; and, prohibits a charter school from operating as a
AB 787
Page 2
for-profit corporation. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires, for a charter school that elects to operate as a
nonprofit benefit corporation, and that submits a charter
petition, charter renewal, or material revision application on
or after January 1, 2016, all of the following to apply:
a) Requires the initial chartering authority of a charter
school that elects to operate as a nonprofit public benefit
corporation to appoint a majority of the members of the
board of directors of the nonprofit public benefit
corporation from persons publicly nominated in the charter
petition, charter renewal, or material revision
application. The number of persons nominated shall be twice
the total number of members that comprise the board of
directors.
b) Authorizes the chartering authority to one member on the
board of directors, though the majority calculation
required shall not include the representative appointed by
the chartering authority.
c) Authorizes the charter school to use an election process
or community involvement process to select nominees for the
board.
AB 787
Page 3
d) Prohibits a charter school from operating as, or
operated by, a for-profit corporation.
2)Specifies that a charter petition shall contain a reasonably
comprehensive description of, if the charter school elects to
operate as, or be operated by, a nonprofit public benefit
corporation the names and background information for all
persons whom the petitioner nominates to serve on the board of
directors of that nonprofit public benefit corporation.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Proposition 98/GF state reimbursable mandated costs,
potentially in the range of $700,000 to $2 million, for school
districts and county offices of education (charter
authorizers) to review and appoint board members. This assumes
review of five to 10 board members for each of the
approximately 800 charter schools currently operating as
nonprofit public benefit corporations.
2)Ongoing General Fund administrative costs of approximately
$400,000 for the State Board of Education (SBE) to serve as a
representative on the board of directors of each nonprofit
public benefit charter school authorized by the board and to
review candidates for appointment to the charter schools
boards.
AB 787
Page 4
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the California Teachers Association,
sponsor of this bill, governance of charter schools by
nonprofit public benefit corporations is causing confusion
about whether charter school employees are public or private.
This bill seeks to clarify that charter school employees are
public employees, with the ability to participate in public
pension programs, working in schools that can receive public
tax dollars, and are covered by the state's collective
bargaining laws that apply to other public education
employees.
2)Opposition. The California Charter School Association
Advocates oppose this bill over concerns that the independence
of the charter school would be compromised. They are
concerned operating under the de facto control of the school
board that authorized the charter would reflect the interests
of the school district's central governing board, not the
community from which the charter school sprung.
3)Prior legislation. AB 1531 (Chau) of 2014 was substantially
similar to this bill and was held on the Suspense file in this
committee.
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 787
Page 5