BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1866
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 25, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 1866 (Smyth) - As Amended: April 18, 2012
SUBJECT : School employees: sex offenses: policy on parental
notification.
SUMMARY : Requires the governing board of a school district to
develop and adopt a policy relating to the manner in which the
parents or guardians of the pupils of the school district may be
notified, if at all, if an employee of the school district is
alleged to have committed a sex offense. Specifically this bill
makes Legislative findings and declarations that:
1)It would be important for the governing board of a school
district, when consulting with law enforcement agencies in
developing such a policy, to develop the policy in a manner
that does not compromise ongoing law enforcement
investigations.
2)At times, and in order to preserve the presumption of
innocence, it may be necessary for a school district to deny
the parents or guardians of the pupils of the school district
access to the name, grade level, or other personally
identifying information of an employee of the school district
alleged to have committed a sex offense.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Defines "sex offense" for purposes of suspending and
dismissing school employees. (Education Code 44010)
2)Specifies that when a principal or his or her designee
verifies through local law enforcement officials that a report
has been filed of the occurrence of a violent crime on the
schoolsite of an elementary or secondary school at which he or
she is the principal, the principal or the principal's
designee may send to each pupil's parent or legal guardian and
each school employee a written notice of the occurrence and
general nature of the crime. If the principal or his or her
designee chooses to send the written notice, the Legislature
encourages the notice be sent no later than the end of
business on the second regular work day after the
AB 1866
Page 2
verification. If, at the time of verification, local law
enforcement officials determine that notification of the
violent crime would hinder an ongoing investigation, the
notification shall be made within a reasonable period of time,
to be determined by the local law enforcement agency and the
school district. Specifies that nothing in this authorization
shall create any liability in a school district or its
employees for complying. (Education Code 32281)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill requires a school district to adopt a
policy relating to the manner in which the parents may be
notified, if at all, if an employee of the school district is
alleged to have committed a sex offense.
According to the author, the incidents in Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD) represent a significant misstep in
communication between the school district, law enforcement and
parents, as the school district failed to promptly notify
parents of incidents of teacher misconduct on campus at
Miramonte Elementary School. When evidence indicated that a
teacher, Mark Berndt, allegedly committed 23 lewd acts with
students, LAUSD removed him from the classroom. He was placed on
compulsory leave and was allowed 30 days to petition his
removal. Berndt chose to appeal, and in response LAUSD offered
Berndt a $40,000 settlement to drop the appeal. Berndt also
elected to officially resign during the appeals process.
Currently school districts have the discretion to decide when to
notify parents of campus incidents involving students. If an
employee is charged with committing a sex offense, current law
requires removal from campus by placing the employee on
compulsory leave. However, school districts are not required to
have parental notification plans. The absence of a plan, or
policy, allows for delayed notification at the expense student
health and safety. Noting that the absence of a plan had a
negative impact on the school, staff, students and parents,
LAUSD has implemented a 72-hour notification policy. This local
effort is the appropriate response to the need for an outlined
policy, but this is an issue of such elevated importance that
all California's school districts should act to create
notification plans. The main purpose of the bill is to ensure
that school districts adopt a policy relating to the manner in
which parents may be notified of cases of sexual misconduct by a
district employee. When these cases occur, the community should
AB 1866
Page 3
know what to expect (and what not to expect). As LAUSD
demonstrates, the balance between pupil safety, public
notification and employee privacy can be struck on a
community-by-community level.
LAUSD's Notification Policy : On April 9, 2012, LAUSD adopted a
new policy for the notification of parents at schools where
there is alleged employee misconduct. The policy provides for
the school principal to notify parents by mail or by phone
within 72 hours, provided that law enforcement has indicated
that such notification will not hinder the on-going
investigation. In such cases where the misconduct is alleged,
parents are to be notified that an anonymous employee has been
removed from the campus pending further investigation. In cases
where an arrest has been made, parents are to be notified that a
particular employee (identified by name) has been arrested for a
specific offense and that the employee has been removed from the
school. This bill seeks to require all school districts to
adopt a policy describing when parents should be notified, and
not notified, in such circumstances. The committee should
consider whether it is appropriate to notify parents that an
employee has been accused of misconduct and whether requiring
all school districts to adopt a policy on this topic may violate
the privacy of some school employees who are wrongly accused.
Further, LAUSD's notification policy includes all child abuse,
not just sex offenses. This bill only requires districts to
establish a policy for allegations of sexual offenses. The
committee should consider whether this policy should be
broadened to all child abuse.
Small Schools/Districts : Is it appropriate to notify the
parents at a small school of such misconduct, if the
notification (even anonymously) makes it obvious which teacher
has been accused of misconduct? The committee should consider
the unique situation small schools and small school districts
are in when considering whether to require districts to adopt
policies.
School District Liability : Current law specifies that when a
violent crime is committed on a school ground, the principal may
notify the parents at the school of the incident, if it would
not hinder an ongoing law enforcement investigation. Current
law also specifies that nothing shall create any liability for a
school district or its employees for complying with this local
AB 1866
Page 4
notification requirement. The committee should consider whether
it is appropriate to provide the same type of liability
protection to employees and the district for the parental
notification policy outlined in this bill.
Local Bargaining Unit Involvement : The bill encourages school
districts to develop a parental notification policy in
collaboration with local law enforcement. The bill is silent
with regard to involvement of the local school district employee
bargaining units. Since these policies directly affect
employees and their local reputation, the committee should
consider whether it is appropriate to require school districts
to negotiate their parental notification policy with the local
bargaining units.
Arguments in Opposition : The California Teachers Association
(CTA) opposes the bill and argues, "This bill is unnecessary. As
is evident in the Los Angeles Unified School District, school
boards already have the ability to adopt these kinds of
policies. CTA believes personnel policies and procedures should
be written and developed cooperatively by local associations and
their local boards of education or appropriate governing bodies.
Cooperative review for improvement of the personnel policies and
procedures should be accomplished through the negotiations
process. While LAUSD's policy indicates that the name of the
school employee must not be used in their parental notification
policy, the likelihood is that the community will be able to
determine who the subject of the letter is. Rumor mills are
alive and well in front of every campus after school. Mandating
this kind of policy is to institutionalize gossip. If there is
nothing to report, then nothing should be reported. To put out
such limited information is irresponsible, and will lead to
exaggerated stories that are blown out of proportion. CTA
believes with regards to these types of sensitive personnel
issues, privacy be maintained stringently with access by the
member and with limited access by those with supervisory
responsibility for the member and only for matters covered by
the contract or California law. Mere allegations or complaints
may be erroneous, should not be given any credibility, and have
the potential to permanently damage someone's professional
reputation."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 1866
Page 5
Support
None on file.
Opposition
California Teachers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087