BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1213|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1213
Author: Walters (R)
Amended: 4/30/12
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 5/8/12
AYES: Evans, Harman, Blakeslee, Corbett, Leno
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : Charter schools: legal claims and actions
SOURCE : California Charter Schools Association
Advocates
DIGEST : This bill requires the California Law Revision
Commission (CLRC), by January 15, 2013, to submit to the
Legislature its analysis of the legal and policy
implications of treating a charter school as a public
entity for the purposes of claims and actions brought
against public entities officers and employees as
specified.
ANALYSIS : Existing law authorizes the CLRC to study
topics approved by concurrent resolution of the
Legislature. (Government Code (GOV) Section 8293)
Existing law, the California Government Tort Claims Act
(Act), governs the tort liability and immunity of, and
claims and actions against, public entities and their
CONTINUED
SB 1213
Page
2
officers and employees. A public entity is not liable for
an injury, except as otherwise provided by statute. (GOV
Sections 810-996.6 et seq.)
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 (ED) Code Section
47600 et seq.)
Existing law provides that a charter school may operate as,
or be operated by, a nonprofit public benefit corporation.
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. (ED Section 47604)
Existing law provides that a charter school, including a
charter school organized pursuant to ED Section 47604, may
be considered a public agency for the purpose of being
eligible for membership in a joint powers agreement for
risk-pooling. (GOV Section 6528)
This bill provides that the CLRC shall submit its analysis
of the legal and policy implications of treating a charter
school as a public entity for the purposes of the Act.
This bill makes a finding and declaration that the CLRC,
pursuant to Resolution Chapter 90 of the Statutes of 2009,
is analyzing the legal and policy implications of treating
a charter school as a public entity for the purposes of the
Act.
Background
The Act (GOV Sections 810-996.6) was intended to abolish
all common law or judicially declared forms of liability
CONTINUED
SB 1213
Page
3
for public entities, except for such liability as may be
required by the state or federal constitutions. (See GOV
Section 815, Legislative Committee Comments.) In the
absence of a constitutional requirement, public entities
may be held liable for tortious injury only if a statute is
found declaring them to be liable. (GOV Section 815.)
Moreover, under GOV Section 815(b), the immunity provisions
of the Act will generally prevail over any liabilities
established by statute. Essentially, sovereign immunity is
the rule in California; governmental liability is limited
to exceptions specifically set forth by statute. (See
Zuniga v. Housing Authority (1995), 41 Cal.App.4th 82, 92;
See also Wright v. State of California (2004) 122
Cal.App.4th 659, 671)
Also under California law, 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. (AB 101
(Steinberg), Chapter 14, Statutes of 2000) 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 joint powers mechanism can be used
for any governmental function that a single government
agency may lawfully perform.
In Courtney Knapp v. Palisades Charter High School (2007)
146 Cal.App.4th 708, a plaintiff visiting student sued
Palisades Charter High School, and others, alleging that
she had been sexually harassed and suffered emotional
distress as a result of that harassment. The appellate
court held that, as an alleged nonprofit public benefit
corporation, the charter school was not a public entity
under the Act, and therefore could not avail itself of the
governmental immunity provisions of the Act. Both the
California Supreme Court (2007 Cal. LEXIS 3086) and the
United States Supreme Court (552 U.S. 888) denied petitions
to review the case.
In 2009, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed ACR
49 (Evans), Resolution Chapter 98, Statutes of 2009, which,
among other things, authorized the CLRC to study the
CONTINUED
SB 1213
Page
4
implications of treating charter schools as public entities
pursuant to the Act. This report is anticipated to be
released in June 2012.
This bill, sponsored by the California Charter Schools
Association Advocates (CCSA Advocates), is intended to be a
vehicle to codify a compromise among stakeholders that will
balance the concerns of protecting access to the legal
system with a degree of protection for charter schools,
based upon the CLRC's report.
Prior Legislation
SB 108 (Walters, 2009) would have prohibited 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. The bill passed the Senate, was referred to the
Assembly Judiciary Committee where it died.
ACR 49 (Evans), Resolution Chapter 98, Statutes of 2009.
AB 1868 (Walters, 2008) would have required the CLRC to
submit a report to the Legislature, on or before March 1,
2009, that would include a description of the policy
purposes of existing statute concerning government tort
liability and the possible consequences of adding charter
schools to the list of public agencies covered by those
statutes. The bill would also have prohibited the CLRC
from making any recommendation on whether charter schools
should be treated as a public entity for the purposes of
government tort liability. The bill was held in Senate
Appropriations Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/21/12)
California Charter Schools Association Advocates (source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
�The] California Law Revision Commission was asked to
prepare a report analyzing the implications of treating
CONTINUED
SB 1213
Page
5
charter schools as a public entity pursuant to the
Government �Tort] Claims Act �TCA]. That report is
nearly complete; currently awaiting final consideration
by the committee members, likely at its June 2012
meeting. In 2007, the California Second District Court
of Appeal, in Courtney Knapp v. Palisades Charter High
School, concluded that charter schools are not public
agencies for purposes of the TCA (Government Code Section
810 et seq.) The court's decision in Knapp has had
immediate practical ramifications, which has led to the
loss of real dollars used to educate our students. The
primary source of charter school revenue is ADA �average
daily attendance], which means that any damage awards
that are not covered by insurance come out of the
classroom. . . . CCSA Advocates is seeking movement of
SB 1213 in order to have a vehicle in place to adopt
language that comports with the recommendations of the
CLRC when those are released this year.
The sponsor is in discussions with the Consumer Attorneys
of California �CAOC] who are interested in protecting
access to the legal system. CCSA Advocates are also
interesting in finding a balance that satisfies CAOC's
concerns while providing a degree of protection for
charter schools.
RJG/DLW:kc 5/22/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED