BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 360|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 360
Author: Brownley (D)
Amended: 6/27/11 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 7-2, 6/22/11
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Price, Simitian,
Vargas
NOES: Blakeslee, Huff
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Vacancy
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-2, 7/5/11
AYES: Evans, Corbett, Leno
NOES: Harman, Blakeslee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 50-27, 5/19/11 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Charter schools
SOURCE : California School Boards Association
DIGEST : This bill requires a governing board of a
charter school to the same open meeting, public records
disclosure, and conflict of interest laws that govern
public schools and school districts, commencing July 1,
2012.
ANALYSIS : Existing law pertaining to charter schools:
1. Provides no specific requirement for charter school
CONTINUED
AB 360
Page
2
governing board conflict of interest policies.
2. Deems charter schools as school districts for the
purposes of receiving state education funds.
Existing law pertaining to school districts:
1. Specifies that members of the Legislature, state,
county, district, and city officers or employees shall
not be financially interested in any contract made by
them in their official capacity, or by any body or board
of which they are members.
2. Requires members of school district governing boards and
designated employees of the school district to file
statements of financial interest according to the
Political Reform Act of 1974 (PRA).
3. Requires a school district, or any board, commission or
agency thereof, or other local public agency to comply
with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act).
4. Requires a school district to comply with the California
Public Records Act (CPRA).
This bill requires charter schools to comply with the same
conflict of interest requirements as school districts,
commencing July 1, 2012. Specifically, this bill:
1. Declares charter schools are subject to all of the
following:
A. The Brown Act, except that a charter school
operated by an entity governed by the Bagley-Keene
Open Meeting Act is subject to that Act.
B. The CPRA.
C. Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) of
Chapter 1 of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government
Code.
D. The PRA.
AB 360
Page
3
2. Specifies a member of the governing body of a charter
school shall abstain from voting on all matters
affecting his/her own employment and personnel matters
that uniquely affect a member's relative; specifies a
person who is disqualified by the California
Constitution or laws of the state from holding a civil
office shall not serve on the governing body of a
charter school.
3. Specifies this bill does not prohibit an employee of a
charter school from serving as a member of the governing
body of that charter school.
4. Provides that a person who provides a loan to a charter
school due to a school fiscal emergency, or who leases,
or signs a guarantor agreement relative to the lease of,
real property to be occupied by a charter school, is not
disqualified because of that loan, lease, or guarantor
agreement from also serving as a member of the governing
body of the charter school or being an employee of the
charter school.
5. Specifies that if a charter school governing body
engages in activities that are not related to the
operation of the charter school, this bill does not make
those unrelated activities subject to the Brown Act, the
Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, or the CPRA.
6. Prohibits a meeting of the charter school governing body
to discuss items related to the charter school to also
include discussion of any item regarding an activity
that is not related to the charter school.
7. Specifies that a charter school governing body may meet
within the boundaries of the county or counties in which
one or more of the school's facilities are located
provided that proper notices pursuant to the Brown Act
and the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act are posted within
the boundaries of each of the counties in which any of
the school's facilities is located
8. Specifies a charter school may also meet in a county
contiguous to the county where one or more of the
school's facilities are located, if at least 10 percent
AB 360
Page
4
of the pupils who are enrolled in the school reside in
that contiguous county.
9. Specifies a nonclassroom based charter school that does
not have a facility may meet within the boundaries of
the county in which the greatest number of pupils who
are enrolled in the school reside.
10.Authorizes a charter school governing body to hold
closed sessions to consider a matter regarding pupil
discipline.
11.Declares that a statement of economic interest that is
filed by a designated person at a charter school after
the required deadline pursuant to the PRA shall not be
the sole basis for revocation of a charter.
12.Defines for purposes of this bill, "facility" to mean a
charter school campus, resource center, meeting space,
or satellite facility.
Comments
This bill requires charter school governing board members
to comply with substantially similar conflict of interest
policies by which school district governing board members
currently abide. Recent news reports of charter school
board members engaging in inappropriate financial
mismanagement have highlighted the need for charter school
conflict of interest laws to be clarified. Currently,
these investigations can take many months to resolve partly
due to the fact that charter school governing board members
and designated employees do not consistently file an annual
statement of economic interest, which makes public any
potential conflicts of interest that individual may have in
their official capacity. While charter schools are given
more autonomy than public schools, their governing boards
have authority over public funds to be used for the
educational benefit of their students. Charter school
governing boards should be held to the same conflict of
interest standards as school district governing boards.
This bill requires charter school boards to file statements
of economic interest according to the PRA; specifies that
AB 360
Page
5
charter school board members may not be financially
interested in any decision made by the board; requires
charter schools to comply with the PRA; and, requires
charter school boards to abide by the Brown Act or the
Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act. The bill also expressly
authorizes charter school employees to serve on a charter
school governing board.
The Brown Act . The Brown Act governs meetings conducted by
local legislative bodies, such as boards of supervisors,
city councils, and school boards. The Brown Act represents
the Legislature's determination of how the balance should
be struck between public access to meetings of multi-member
public bodies and the need for confidential candor, debate,
and information gathering.
CPRA . The CPRA was enacted in 1968 and according to the
Attorney General, in enacting the CRPA, the Legislature
stated that access to information concerning the conduct of
the public's business is a fundamental and necessary right
for every person in the state. Cases interpreting the CRPA
also have emphasized that its primary purpose is to give
the public an opportunity to monitor the functioning of
their government.
Government Code 1090 . Government Code 1090 states that
members of the Legislature, state, county, district,
judicial district, and city officers or employees shall not
be financially interested in any contract made by them in
their official capacity, or by any body or board of which
they are members. In a 1983 opinion the Attorney General
stated, "Section 1090 of the Government Code codifies the
common law prohibition and the general policy of this state
against public officials having a personal interest in
contracts they make in their official capacities. Mindful
of the ancient adage, that 'no man can serve two masters,'
the section was enacted to ensure that public officials
'making' official contracts not be distracted by personal
financial gain from exercising absolute loyalty and
undivided allegiance to the best interest of the entity
which they serve."
PRA . The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) was
created by the PRA, a ballot initiative passed by
AB 360
Page
6
California voters as Proposition 9. The FPPC provides
written and oral advice to public agencies and officials;
conducts seminars and training sessions; develops forms,
manuals and instructions; and receives and files statements
of economic interests from many state and local officials.
The FPPC investigates alleged violations of the PRA,
imposes penalties when appropriate, and assists state and
local agencies in developing and enforcing
conflict-of-interest codes. School board members are
required to comply with the PRA, and in so, must file a
statement of economic interest, annually.
Prior Legislation
AB 572 (Brownley), 2009-10 Session, was substantially
similar to this bill. Passed the Senate with a vote of
21-14 on August 24, 2010. The bill was subsequently vetoed
by then-Governor Schwarzenegger. His veto message read, in
pertinent part:
"Charter school educators have proven that poverty is not
destiny for students that attend public schools in
California. Repeatedly, charter schools with high
proportions of disadvantaged students are among the
highest performing public schools in California. Any
attempt to regulate charter schools with incoherent and
inconsistent cross-reference to other statutes is simply
misguided. Parents do not need renewed faith in charter
schools as suggested in this bill. On the contrary,
teams of thousands of parents in California have children
on waiting lists to attend a public charter school.
Legislation expressing findings and intent to provide
'greater autonomy to charter schools' may be well
intended at first glance. A careful reading of the bill
reveals that the proposed changes apply new and
contradictory requirements, which would put hundreds of
schools immediately out of compliance, making it obvious
that it is simply another veiled attempt to discourage
competition and stifle efforts to aid the expansion of
charter schools."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
AB 360
Page
7
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/7/11)
California School Boards Association (source)
California Charter Schools Association
California Federation of Teachers - AFT, AFL-CIO
California Newspaper Publishers Association
California School Employees Association
California Teachers Association
Californians Aware
Californians Together
Classical Academies
K-12
Kern County Superintendent of Schools
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Los Angeles Unified School District
Public Advocates
Riverside County School Superintendents Association
San Francisco Unified School District
Santa Clara County Office of Education
United Teachers Los Angeles
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/7/11)
California Business for Education Excellence
Charter School Development Center
EdVoice
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The California School Boards
Association, the sponsor of this bill, writes:
"Unfortunately, fiscal management is a common reason for
the closure of charter schools. The most egregious
abuses have occurred when charter school board members
have benefitted financially from decisions made by their
own board. Charter schools are public schools, and as
such, should do business in an open, transparent manner,
free of conflicts of interest."
Proponents assert that requiring charter schools to comply
with the more stringent standard under the Government Code
is necessary in order to protect the public from financial
mismanagement of taxpayer money, and the students from an
unstable learning environment.
AB 360
Page
8
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : EdVoice and California Business
for Education Excellence, opponents of this bill, argue
that it will subject a "philanthropic board member" to "a
felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison and
disqualification from holding any office" for providing a
no-interest or low-interest start-up loan or facility to
help the charter school. In response, the author argues
that the exemption for loans created under this bill
includes start-up loans. In the event the charter school
has not received federal or state funding prior to the
school opening, the board can declare a fiscal emergency in
order to receive start-up loan funding.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 50-27, 5/19/11
AYES: Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,
Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles
Calderon, Campos, Carter, Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng,
Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon,
Hall, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso,
Huffman, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell,
Monning, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino,
Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams,
Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly,
Fletcher, Beth Gaines, Garrick, Grove, Hagman, Halderman,
Harkey, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller,
Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, Smyth,
Valadao, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Cedillo, Gorell
CPM:kc 7/7/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****