BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1101
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
1101 (Bonilla)
As Amended July 1, 2015
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | 74-0 | (May 22, |SENATE: |35-0 | (July 13, 2015) |
| | |2015) | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
SUMMARY: Requires a school district that elects to undertake an
investigation to determine whether a pupil meets residency
requirements to adopt a policy regarding the investigation of a
pupil before investigating any pupils. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the policy to do the following:
a) Identify the circumstances upon which the school
district may initiate an investigation, which shall, at a
minimum, require the school district employee to be able to
identify specific, articulable facts supporting the belief
that the parent or legal guardian of the pupil has provided
false or unreliable evidence of residency.
AB 1101
Page 2
b) Describe the investigatory methods that may be used by
the school district in the conduct of the investigation,
including whether the district will be employing the
services of a private investigator.
c) Require the school district to make reasonable efforts
to determine whether the pupil resides in the school
district before hiring a private investigator.
d) Prohibit the surreptitious photographing or
video-recording of pupils who are being investigated.
Defines "surreptitious photographing or video-recording" as
the covert collection of photographic or videographic
images of person or places subject to an investigation.
Specifies that for purposes of this bill, the collection of
images is not covert if the technology is used in open and
public view.
e) Require employees and contractors of the school district
engaged in the investigation to identify themselves
truthfully as such to individuals contacted or interviewed
during the course of the investigation.
f) Provide a process whereby the determination of a school
district as to whether a pupil meets the residency
requirements for school attendance in the school district
may be appealed, and specify the basis for that
determination. Specifies that if an appeal is made, the
burden shall be on the appealing party to show why the
decision of the school district should be overruled.
2)Requires the policy required pursuant to this bill to be
adopted at a public meeting of the governing board of the
school district.
The Senate amendments add the provisions requiring a school
AB 1101
Page 3
district to make reasonable efforts to determine whether the
pupil resides in the school district and prohibiting the
video-recording of pupils who are being investigated. The
amendments also establish a definition for "surreptitious
photographing or video-recording."
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS: Under current law, compulsory education begins at age
six until age 18. Any person subject to compulsory education
found away from home without a valid excuse for not attending
school can be arrested by school officials or peace or probation
officers. A pupil is required to attend school in the district
in which the residency of either the parent or legal guardian is
located. Documentation of residency includes property tax
payment receipts; rental property contract, lease, or payment
receipts; utility service contract, statement, or payment
receipts; pay stubs; voter registration; correspondence from a
government agency; or declaration of residency executed by the
parent or legal guardian. If an employee of a school district
reasonably believes that the parent or legal guardian of a pupil
has provided false or unreliable evidence of residency, the
school district is authorized to make reasonable efforts to
determine whether the pupil meets residency requirements.
What does this bill do? This bill requires a school district
that elects to investigate a pupil's residency to adopt a policy
regarding such investigations. This bill requires the policy to
be adopted at a governing board meeting and to contain specified
requirements, including indicating whether the district will be
employing the services of a private investigator, prohibiting
the photographing and video-recording of pupils, requiring
employees and contractors to identify themselves truthfully, and
establishing an appeals process. Amendments adopted in the
Senate require a school district to make reasonable efforts to
determine whether the pupil resides in the school district prior
to hiring a private investigator and prohibit the
video-recording of pupils.
AB 1101
Page 4
Purpose of this bill. The author states, "Schools should have
tools available to investigate residency issues, but we need to
ensure safeguards are in place to protect those students being
investigated especially elementary school-aged children." The
author cites, as an example, a Contra Costa Times report of the
investigatory tactics undertaken by investigators hired by the
Orinda Union School District to investigate a seven-year-old
girl the school district disenrolled last fall. According to
the article, the investigator told the mother of the child named
Vivian and neighbors at the family's old neighborhood that he
was a car insurance investigator. The school district later
reversed the decision to remove the child from the school
district when it learned that the mother was a live-in nanny for
a couple residing in the Orinda Union School District that was
her primary residence. The little girl was in the other
neighborhood spending time with her great-grandmother, who was
ill. The article reports that hiring investigators to
investigate residency issues is not uncommon, especially for
smaller school districts that are unable to dedicate staff for
this purpose. Investigators interviewed in the article
acknowledge that they do hide their identity in hopes that
people will "rat the kids out" unwittingly.
Current law simply says that a school district may make
"reasonable efforts" to determine a pupil's residency. The law
does not specify how that is to be done. It is unclear how many
districts hire private investigators to conduct residency
checks.
Arguments in support. The author states, "AB 1101 protects
student safety and privacy by requiring school boards to adopt a
policy when a private investigator is hired to conduct an
investigation to determine whether a student resides within the
school district boundaries. AB 1101 protects children, like
Vivian, from questionable investigatory techniques such as lying
to family members and neighbors and taking surreptitious photos
of young students. This bill creates more transparency and
disclosure in student residency investigations and provides for
due process in challenging a student's home residency."
AB 1101
Page 5
Arguments in opposition. The California School Boards
Association states that this bill "enables those looking to
evade a school district's efforts to implement statutory
residency criteria by requiring governing boards to adopt board
policies containing details about the procedures and parameters
of these investigations. The requirement that districts'
identify specific, articulable facts' supporting their findings
could force districts to compromise the confidentiality of those
who provide information in connection to investigations. The
latter would have a detrimental effect on the willingness of
school district employees and community members to provide true
and accurate information to investigators."
Analysis Prepared by:
Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN:
0001196