Wednesday, November 30, 2011
California School Boards Association & KMTG Update
Tomorrow, Dec. 1, is the kick-off of the 2011 Annual Education Conference of the California School Boards Association (CSBA). Kronick Moskovitz has been proud to partner with CSBA over the years to provide the very best in education and training for CSBA members. This year's conference is being held in San Diego and we're pleased to report that several KMTG attorneys were selected as speakers and panel participants. KMTG attorney Michelle Cannon is partnering with another speaker to conduct a workshop on the Brown Act, a comprehensive overview of everything you need to know about California's open meeting law. Roman Munoz, another KMTG attorney, is speaking on the panel entitled "Surviving Tough Negotiations As A Board" which will focus on the fact-finding process from the board perspective. And taking place in conjunction with the CSBA annual meeting is the California Council of School Attorneys and the County Counsel’s Association Joint Annual Workshop. There, KMTG attorney Diana Halpenny is presenting "Legal Issues and Updates Associated with Teacher Evaluations." If you are attending the CSBA meeting, you won't want to miss these insightful presentations by members of the KMTG Education group. If you can't make it in person, you can listen to live streaming of the General Sessions via the CSBA website. You can also follow CSBA tweets from the event on Twitter @csbaaec and can submit questions before the State of the State address by using the hash tag #csbaaec. We hope to see you there!
Monday, November 21, 2011
FCC Explores Broadband Deployment Issues
The Broadband Acceleration Initiative was announced in February with its goal to identify and reduce regulatory and other barriers to broadband deployment. The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued a Notice of Inquiry in April regarding the “Acceleration of Broadband Deployment: Expanding the Reach of Reducing the Cost of Broadband Deployment by Improving Policies Regarding Public Rights of Way and Wireless Facilities Siting WC Docket No. 11-59.”
The Notice states that increasing broadband deployment is one of the great infrastructure challenges of our time. It also notes that Congress has directed the FCC and each State commission to “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of [broadband] to all Americans” by working to “remove barriers to infrastructure investment” in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
The policies regarding the management of rights of way and siting wireless facilities, including procedures and costs, affect how long it takes and how much it costs to deploy broadband. Last year the National Broadband Plan concluded that the rates, terms, and conditions for access to rights of way significantly impact broadband deployment. School districts and other public agencies sometimes house these wireless broadband facilities on their property and therefore any changes by the FCC to rates that can be charged for siting these facilities may have an impact on these public agencies.
The FCC seeks to address the following issues which may be of interest to school districts:
· Reasonableness of charges
· Presence/absence of uniformity due to inconsistent or varying practices and rates in different jurisdictions or areas
· Other rights of way concerns
The FCC initiative may have the potential to effect how and at what cost school districts can house these facilities. Some public agencies, including school districts, have responded to the FCC’s Notice of Inquiry with their own comments and concerns over their ability to charge reasonable rent for these broadband facilities.
How does your district feel about potential FCC regulation of broadband contracts?
Meghan Covert Russell
The Notice states that increasing broadband deployment is one of the great infrastructure challenges of our time. It also notes that Congress has directed the FCC and each State commission to “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of [broadband] to all Americans” by working to “remove barriers to infrastructure investment” in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
The policies regarding the management of rights of way and siting wireless facilities, including procedures and costs, affect how long it takes and how much it costs to deploy broadband. Last year the National Broadband Plan concluded that the rates, terms, and conditions for access to rights of way significantly impact broadband deployment. School districts and other public agencies sometimes house these wireless broadband facilities on their property and therefore any changes by the FCC to rates that can be charged for siting these facilities may have an impact on these public agencies.
The FCC seeks to address the following issues which may be of interest to school districts:
· Reasonableness of charges
· Presence/absence of uniformity due to inconsistent or varying practices and rates in different jurisdictions or areas
· Other rights of way concerns
The FCC initiative may have the potential to effect how and at what cost school districts can house these facilities. Some public agencies, including school districts, have responded to the FCC’s Notice of Inquiry with their own comments and concerns over their ability to charge reasonable rent for these broadband facilities.
How does your district feel about potential FCC regulation of broadband contracts?
Meghan Covert Russell
Friday, November 18, 2011
ACLU Resumes Student Fees Lawsuit
The American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) has resumed its lawsuit against the State after Governor Brown vetoed AB 165. The suit alleges that the State failed to enforce the constitutional ban on student fees. The suit had been placed on hold while AB 165, which would have codified the ban on charging fees and implemented strict enforcement mechanisms, was pending. With the Governor’s October 8 veto of the bill, the ACLU has refocused its efforts on resolving this issue in court.
Meghan Covert Russell
Meghan Covert Russell
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Suit Filed Against LAUSD Seeks to Enforce Requirements of the Stull Act for Teacher Evaluations
Parents of children in the Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD” or “District”), backed by the advocacy group EdVoice, filed suit in the Los Angeles Superior Court on October 31, 2011 seeking to compel the District to abide by Education Code section 44660 et seq., commonly known as the Stull Act.
The Stull Act was enacted in 1971 and requires teachers to be evaluated relative to students’ progress towards locally determined standards. In 1999 the Stull Act was expanded to require evaluation of teachers relative to students’ progress towards state adopted academic content standards as measured by state assessments.
The suit alleges that the District never obeyed the Stull Act’s mandate; it alleges that certificated employee unions, “in collusion with the District’s governing boards and superintendents . . . made it impossible for the District to lawfully evaluate certificated personnel and indentify and require specific corrective action to retain, transfer, suspend, or dismiss unsatisfactory personnel based, in part, on evidence which demonstrates whether or not students are learning.” The suit further states that “the adults’ collective employment and political interests are turning the childrens’ opportunity to learn and their fundamental right to basic educational equality in the public schools on its head.”
Hearing on the suit is scheduled for November 21.
The complaint can be accessed here.
Meghan Covert Russell
The Stull Act was enacted in 1971 and requires teachers to be evaluated relative to students’ progress towards locally determined standards. In 1999 the Stull Act was expanded to require evaluation of teachers relative to students’ progress towards state adopted academic content standards as measured by state assessments.
The suit alleges that the District never obeyed the Stull Act’s mandate; it alleges that certificated employee unions, “in collusion with the District’s governing boards and superintendents . . . made it impossible for the District to lawfully evaluate certificated personnel and indentify and require specific corrective action to retain, transfer, suspend, or dismiss unsatisfactory personnel based, in part, on evidence which demonstrates whether or not students are learning.” The suit further states that “the adults’ collective employment and political interests are turning the childrens’ opportunity to learn and their fundamental right to basic educational equality in the public schools on its head.”
Hearing on the suit is scheduled for November 21.
The complaint can be accessed here.
Meghan Covert Russell
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
School Districts and Community College Districts May Oversee the Liquidation of Redevelopment Agencies
California school districts and community college districts may soon be taking on a new responsibility – overseeing the liquidation of redevelopment agencies within their boundaries.
This new responsibility is the result of legislation adopted June which would eliminate all of the state’s redevelopment agencies (AB 1X 26), and a second bill which would allow redevelopment agencies to remain in existence if their host cities and counties make a “voluntary” payment for the benefit of the state (AB 1X 27). After the redevelopment agencies are eliminated, their share of property taxes would flow to other local agencies, including school districts and community college districts.
The legislation sets up a seven member oversight board which would supervise the dismantling of the redevelopment agencies. Representatives of school districts and community college districts would each have a seat on the oversight board.
Before the elimination of the redevelopment agencies took effect, however, a lawsuit was filed by the California Redevelopment Association to halt the new laws. The California Supreme Court accepted the case and issued a stay of the effectiveness of the new laws.
The Supreme Court held oral arguments on the case on November 10, and it appeared from the justices’ questions that they were prepared to uphold the bill that would eliminate the redevelopment agencies. It was less clear whether the justices would also uphold the companion legislation that would allow redevelopment agencies to make the voluntary payments and be reinstated. The Court’s decision is expected by January 15, and could be issued before the end of the year.
If the decision results in some or all redevelopment agencies going out of business, the oversight boards will need to quickly be formed and begin their supervision of the liquidation process. The oversight boards will direct redevelopment agencies to dispose of all of their assets and properties, and to terminate unnecessary contracts. Existing bonds and long-term contracts will remain in place, however. The oversight board will have the power to approve all major decisions by redevelopment agencies, such as bond restructuring, property sales, and the establishment of the list of contracts that will continue to be honored.
When the Supreme Court hands down its decision we will publish a further legal alert, which will analyze the effect of the ruling on school districts and community college districts.
Jon Goetz
This new responsibility is the result of legislation adopted June which would eliminate all of the state’s redevelopment agencies (AB 1X 26), and a second bill which would allow redevelopment agencies to remain in existence if their host cities and counties make a “voluntary” payment for the benefit of the state (AB 1X 27). After the redevelopment agencies are eliminated, their share of property taxes would flow to other local agencies, including school districts and community college districts.
The legislation sets up a seven member oversight board which would supervise the dismantling of the redevelopment agencies. Representatives of school districts and community college districts would each have a seat on the oversight board.
Before the elimination of the redevelopment agencies took effect, however, a lawsuit was filed by the California Redevelopment Association to halt the new laws. The California Supreme Court accepted the case and issued a stay of the effectiveness of the new laws.
The Supreme Court held oral arguments on the case on November 10, and it appeared from the justices’ questions that they were prepared to uphold the bill that would eliminate the redevelopment agencies. It was less clear whether the justices would also uphold the companion legislation that would allow redevelopment agencies to make the voluntary payments and be reinstated. The Court’s decision is expected by January 15, and could be issued before the end of the year.
If the decision results in some or all redevelopment agencies going out of business, the oversight boards will need to quickly be formed and begin their supervision of the liquidation process. The oversight boards will direct redevelopment agencies to dispose of all of their assets and properties, and to terminate unnecessary contracts. Existing bonds and long-term contracts will remain in place, however. The oversight board will have the power to approve all major decisions by redevelopment agencies, such as bond restructuring, property sales, and the establishment of the list of contracts that will continue to be honored.
When the Supreme Court hands down its decision we will publish a further legal alert, which will analyze the effect of the ruling on school districts and community college districts.
Jon Goetz
Facilities Offered to the Charter School Were Not Reasonably Equivalent Where District Failed to Consider Non-Classroom Space
The California Court of Appeal has held that a school district failed to comply with the requirements of Proposition 39 because the facilities it offered a charter school were not reasonably equivalent to the facilities that the district would have provided to the charter school students if they had attended a public school within the district. (Bullis Charter School v. Los Altos School District (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 6 Dist., October 27, 2011).) For more information, please see our Legal Alert.
Meghan Covert Russell
Meghan Covert Russell
Friday, November 11, 2011
Think before you post!
A New Jersey elementary school teacher was discharged from her tenured position after referring to her first grade students as “future criminals” in a Facebook post.
The administrative law judge determined that the district’s need to operate efficiently outweighed the teacher’s free speech rights. The judge also said, “In a public education setting, thoughtless words can destroy the partnership between home and school that is essential to the mission of the schools.”
For more information see the NSBA coverage here: http://legalclips.nsba.org/?p=10160
Meghan Covert Russell
The administrative law judge determined that the district’s need to operate efficiently outweighed the teacher’s free speech rights. The judge also said, “In a public education setting, thoughtless words can destroy the partnership between home and school that is essential to the mission of the schools.”
For more information see the NSBA coverage here: http://legalclips.nsba.org/?p=10160
Meghan Covert Russell
Thursday, November 10, 2011
AB 501 Expands Exclusive Representation Rights to “All Public School Employees”
AB 501 expands the definition of “employer” and “employee” under the Educational Employment Relations Act. A public school employer now includes joint powers agencies and auxiliary organizations established by the California Community Colleges. All public school employees, except those elected or appointed, and management and confidential employees, now have the right to exclusive representation. Non-classified employees, such as yard duty supervisors, who traditionally did not have representation rights, now have those rights under AB 501. For more information, please see our Legal Alert.
Meghan Covert Russell
Meghan Covert Russell
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
SB 293 Imposes Retention Cap on Public Projects
The Legislature recently passed and Governor Brown approved Senate Bill No. 293 (“SB 293”), which brings changes to the Business and Professions Code, Civil Code, and Public Contract Code. Most significantly, SB 293 reduces maximum retention amounts that can be withheld on public works projects (view KMTG's full Legal Alert).
Meghan Covert Russell
Meghan Covert Russell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)