BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 108|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 108
Author: Walters (R)
Amended: 6/1/09
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 4/28/09
AYES: Corbett, Harman, Florez, Leno, Walters
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 12-0, 5/26/09
AYES: Kehoe, Cox, Corbett, Denham, DeSaulnier, Hancock,
Leno, Runner, Walters, Wolk, Wyland, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Oropeza
SUBJECT : Charter schools: government tort claims
SOURCE : California Charter School Association
DIGEST : This bill provides that no joint powers
authority for risk-pooling shall refuse to admit to
membership or provide coverage to a charter school,
including a charter school organized pursuant to Education
Code Section 47604, or a school district which operates a
charter school, solely on the basis that it operates as a
charter school.
ANALYSIS : A Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is a
government-regulated public entity formed by two or more
public agencies, such as state, cities, counties, and
school districts. JPAs pool their assets to promote risk
management and pay claims against member entities. The
CONTINUED
SB 108
Page
2
joint powers mechanism can be used for any governmental
function that a single government agency may lawfully
perform. The Legislature enacted AB 101 (Steinberg),
Chapter 14, Statutes of 2000, which provides that a charter
school, including a charter school operated by or as a
nonprofit corporation, may be considered a public agency
eligible for membership in a joint powers agreement for
risk-pooling.
In Courtney Knapp v. Palisades Charter High School (2007)
146 Cal.App.4th 708, a plaintiff visiting student sued
Palisades Charter High School, among other parties,
alleging that she had been sexually harassed, and suffered
emotional distress as a result. The trial court entered
summary judgment for the defendants, on the ground that the
student failed to comply with and was not excused from
meeting the claim presentation requirements of the
California Tort Claims Act (TCA). The trial court's
judgment was reversed on appeal. The appellate court
concluded that, as an alleged nonprofit public benefit
corporation, the charter school was not a public entity
under the TCA, and therefore could not avail itself of the
governmental immunity provisions of the TCA.
According to the sponsor of this bill, the California
Charter Schools Association, the Knapp decision has made it
more difficult for charter schools to gain access to JPAs.
This bill seeks to remedy this problem by prohibiting a JPA
for school district insurance risk pooling from denying
access by a charter school on the sole basis that it is a
charter school.
Existing law, the Charter Schools Act of 1992, specifies
that a charter school is deemed to be a school district for
purposes of statutory provisions regarding appointments
from the State School Fund, allowances for transportation,
and state lottery funds and provisions of the California
Constitution regarding the calculation of the minimum
amount of funding for the support of school districts and
community college districts. (Education Code Section 47600
et seq.)
Existing law provides that a charter school may operate as,
or be operated by, a nonprofit public benefit corporation.
SB 108
Page
3
A chartering authority that grants a charter to be operated
by, or as, a nonprofit public benefit corporation, is
exempt from liability for the debts or obligations of the
charter school, or for claims arising from the performance
of acts, errors, or omissions by the charter school, if the
authority has complied with all oversight responsibilities
required by law. (Education Code Section 47604.)
Existing law provides that a charter school, including a
charter school organized pursuant to Education Code Section
47604, may be considered a public agency for the purpose of
being eligible for membership in a joint powers agreement
for risk-pooling. (Government Code Section 6528.)
This bill provides that no joint powers authority for
risk-pooling shall refuse to admit to membership or provide
coverage to a charter school, including a charter school
organized pursuant to Education Code Section 47604, or a
school district which operates a charter school, solely on
the basis that it operates as a charter school. The bill
provides that a joint powers authority for risk-pooling may
set the price for coverage for a charter school or a school
district that operates a charters school at a level that is
commensurate with the increased risk involved.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11
2011-12 Fund
Risk Pools $500 to $1,000,
annually General*
*Counts toward meeting the Proposition 98 minimum funding
guarantee
Under the California Tort Claims Act, public entities are
immune from common law or judicially declared forms of tort
liability, except for what is required otherwise by state
SB 108
Page
4
or federal law. The statute defines "public entities" as
the "State, the Regents of the University of California, a
county, a city, district, public authority, public agency,
and any other political subdivision or public corporation
in the state."
This bill is, in part, a response to an appellate court
decision, Courtney Knapp v. Palisades Charter High School .
The Knapp case concerns a situation in which a student
visiting the campus of the Palisades Charter High School
alleges that she was sexually harassed. The appellate
court opined that charter schools are independent legal
entities apart from the authorizing entity, and thus do not
meet the definition of "public entity" for the purposes of
the California Tort Claims Act. Proponents of the measure
that access to risk pools is of increased importance in
light of the Knapp decision.
As the bill requires risk pools to admit charter schools,
Legislative Counsel has flagged the bill as a mandate. As
charter schools do not have the same broad immunity from
tort liability as other public entities, their required
inclusion in the risk pool may lead to increased costs for
other pool members. These costs may be reimbursable by the
state. Costs per pupil for school districts in a risk pool
are roughly $30 per pupil and approximately 90 percent of
districts belong to JPAs for this purpose. Assuming per
pupil costs for charter schools would be 10 percent higher;
this bill could lead to potential mandate costs of $500,000
to $1 million, annually.
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/1/09)
California Charter Schools Association (source)
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The sponsor of this bill, the
California Charter Schools Association, states that the
Knapp decision has left charter schools unprotected in many
circumstances. The sponsor further states, "JPAs that
provide insurance risk pooling are denying charter schools
access to the JPA. Many charter schools are forced to seek
commercial insurance which writes less comprehensive
SB 108
Page
5
coverage than the school district JPA provides. For
example, commercial insurers typically do not cover defense
costs for writs, injunctive relief and other claims seeking
compliance with legal proceedings or defense and indemnity
for damages caused by inverse condemnation. As amended, SB
108 would take a step toward restoring some of that
protection by prohibiting the JPAs from denying access to a
charter school."
RJG:do 6/1/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****