The Governor signed Assembly Bill 340 (“AB 340”) on September 12, 2012, and the new law will bring changes to California’s public retirement systems. AB 340, formerly known as the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013, applies to public retirement systems, with the exception of the University of California system and charter cities and counties. The major changes mandated by AB 1340 are set out below. However, this bill is highly technical and contains multiple ambiguities.
Read our Legal Alert for a general update. Specific questions regarding the impact of the new legislation should be addressed on a case by case basis.
Meghan Covert Russell
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Legislative Update: Principal Evaluations, Public Contract Bidding, Design-Build Contracts, API Scores, and Charter Schools
KMTG will be issuing a series of updates, as part of our Legal Alerts, on new legislation signed by Governor Brown. All laws become effective January 1, 2013, unless otherwise stated. Below is a brief summary of SB 1292, AB 1565, SB 1509, SB 1458 and SB 1290.
The Legislature declared in passing AB 1292 that governing Boards should “establish a uniform system of evaluations to guide principal growth and to improve principal performance while raising pupil achievement.” SB 1292 is voluntary and districts are not bound to use these SB 1292 provisions. SB 1292 adds sections 44670 and 44671 to the Education Code regarding evaluation of new principals and provide guidelines and suggested standards for evaluations.
AB 1565 requires prospective bidders for construction contracts for public school districts to complete a prequalification questionnaire and financial statement for projects of one million dollars or more. AB 1565 adds section 20111.6 to the Public Contract Code and the new law will apply to projects that receive funding from the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 or any funds from a future school bond. Section 20111.6 will not apply to school districts with an average daily attendance of less than 2,500. The new law will only apply to contracts awarded on or after January 1, 2014.
Current law provides that until January 1, 2014, a governing Board for a school district or community college may enter into a design-build contract for the design and construction of a facility, if statutory-specified requirements are met. SB 1509 extends the authority for governing boards of school districts and community colleges to enter into design-build contracts until January 1, 2020. Additionally, SB 1509 specifically provides that “it is the intent of the Legislature that design-build procurement does not replace or eliminate public bidding.”
SB 1458 alters the method by which the Academic Performance Index (API) is calculated. SB 1458 eliminates the requirement that API scores be used to measure the progress of specified schools and rank all public schools for the purpose of the High Achieving/Improving Schools Program. SB 1458 also changes the requirement that standardized testing account for at least 60% of the API to no more than 60% starting in 2016.
SB 1290 requires county offices of education or school districts which approve charter schools to take into account subgroup growth when renewing a charter. SB 1290 adds the requirement that “‘[p]upil outcomes shall include outcomes that address increases in pupil academic achievement both school-wide and for all groups of pupils served by the charter school,” which “means a numerically significant pupil subgroup . . . served by the charter school.”
Legal Alerts are available on our website, or if you are interested in receiving email notification of our Legal Alerts, please email us at kmtgalerts@kmtg.com
Meghan Covert Russell
The Legislature declared in passing AB 1292 that governing Boards should “establish a uniform system of evaluations to guide principal growth and to improve principal performance while raising pupil achievement.” SB 1292 is voluntary and districts are not bound to use these SB 1292 provisions. SB 1292 adds sections 44670 and 44671 to the Education Code regarding evaluation of new principals and provide guidelines and suggested standards for evaluations.
AB 1565 requires prospective bidders for construction contracts for public school districts to complete a prequalification questionnaire and financial statement for projects of one million dollars or more. AB 1565 adds section 20111.6 to the Public Contract Code and the new law will apply to projects that receive funding from the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 or any funds from a future school bond. Section 20111.6 will not apply to school districts with an average daily attendance of less than 2,500. The new law will only apply to contracts awarded on or after January 1, 2014.
Current law provides that until January 1, 2014, a governing Board for a school district or community college may enter into a design-build contract for the design and construction of a facility, if statutory-specified requirements are met. SB 1509 extends the authority for governing boards of school districts and community colleges to enter into design-build contracts until January 1, 2020. Additionally, SB 1509 specifically provides that “it is the intent of the Legislature that design-build procurement does not replace or eliminate public bidding.”
SB 1458 alters the method by which the Academic Performance Index (API) is calculated. SB 1458 eliminates the requirement that API scores be used to measure the progress of specified schools and rank all public schools for the purpose of the High Achieving/Improving Schools Program. SB 1458 also changes the requirement that standardized testing account for at least 60% of the API to no more than 60% starting in 2016.
SB 1290 requires county offices of education or school districts which approve charter schools to take into account subgroup growth when renewing a charter. SB 1290 adds the requirement that “‘[p]upil outcomes shall include outcomes that address increases in pupil academic achievement both school-wide and for all groups of pupils served by the charter school,” which “means a numerically significant pupil subgroup . . . served by the charter school.”
Legal Alerts are available on our website, or if you are interested in receiving email notification of our Legal Alerts, please email us at kmtgalerts@kmtg.com
Meghan Covert Russell
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
It's Election Season: Inform, Don't Advocate
It's hard to escape the blitz of TV commercials and the barrage of signs along sidewalks and the highway. It's election season. So what should school officials remember? Inform, don't advocate.
Education Code section 7054 prohibits the use of district funds, services, supplies or equipment for the purpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate. Below are some do's and don'ts for this election season.
Do's for Election Season:
Meghan Covert Russell
Education Code section 7054 prohibits the use of district funds, services, supplies or equipment for the purpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate. Below are some do's and don'ts for this election season.
Do's for Election Season:
- A board member may engage in political activity as a private citizen, as long as it doesn't involve the use of public funds. Board members may indicate their titles when urging support for a ballot measure, but should make clear that his/her title is for identification purposes only.
- A board member may attend a citizens group at the request of a group to discuss the reasons why the governing board of the district called an election to submit to the voters of the district a proposition for the issuance of bonds and for purposes of responding to inquiries from the citizens group.
- The board may adopt a resolution in support or in opposition of a legislative proposal at a regular meeting where the public is given the opportunity to express its views. The language must be “simple, measured, and informative” and may not “urge” members of the public to take any action in support or opposition to the measure.
- A school district may provide informational materials to the public regarding a ballot measure but must ensure that any such materials are purely informational utilizing objective facts which are consistent with the normal communication the district uses to address other topics.
- School districts may make a school forum available to the public to discuss a ballot measure or issue so long as the forum is made available to all sides on an equitable basis. If the district chooses to make a facility available to one group, then all groups and sides must be given the opportunity to appear.
- No campaign support or contributions may be sought on school property during school hours.
- No political activities on school property may be conducted during school hours.
- No school equipment may be used for the reproduction of campaign materials.
- No school supplies or funds may be used for campaign materials which support or oppose a particular candidate.
- No campaign materials may be posted on school property.
- No campaign materials may be disseminated through district mail services or placed in staff mailboxes.
- Students may not be used to write, address, or distribute campaign materials.
- No campaigning for a particular candidate may take place during a school board meeting.
Meghan Covert Russell
Monday, October 15, 2012
Legislative Update: School Fees, Layoff Notice, Bullying, and Student Discipline
KMTG will be issuing a series of updates, as part of our Legal Alerts, on new legislation signed by Governor Brown. All laws become effective January 1, 2013, unless otherwise stated. Below is a brief summary of AB 1575, AB 1908, AB 1732, and AB 1729.
AB 1575 prohibits public school students from being required to pay a fee for participation in an educational activity. The new law applies to all public schools, including charter and alternative schools. All supplies, materials, and equipment that a pupil needs to participate in educational activities must be provided free of charge. However, the new law provides that it should not be interpreted to prohibit a school from soliciting voluntary donations, voluntary participation in fundraising activities, or from providing prizes or recognition to students for voluntarily participating in fundraising activities.
AB 1908 extends the period of time in which notice must be given before a classified employee may be subject to layoff, amending Education Code section 45117 and section 8801. AB 1908 requires that a school district or community college district give a classified employee written notice of not less than 60 days before the layoff date if the termination date of any specially funded program is other than June 30. AB 1908 further provides that, if a layoff is the result of a bona fide reduction or elimination of the service being performed by any department, the school district or community college district must give classified employees subject to layoff for lack of work notice not less than 60 days prior to the effective date of layoff.
AB 1732 clarifies the definition of what constitutes bullying by means of an electronic act, and includes posting on a burn page or impersonating another student. Additionally, AB 1732 specifically provides that “an electronic act shall not constitute pervasive conduct solely on the basis that it has been transmitted on the Internet or is currently posted on the Internet.”
AB 1729 gives school administrators more flexibility in disciplining students, including alternatives to suspension or expulsion that are age appropriate and aimed at correcting the specific behavior. Suspension for first time offenses is still allowed under Section 48900(a) through (e), without first attempting other means of correction. However, Section 48900.5 is amended to eliminate language that allows administrators to suspend students for first time offenses under Section 48900(f) through (r) based on a finding that the student causes a danger to persons or property or threatens to disrupt the instructional process. Section 48900.5 will now permit suspension for first time offenses under Section 48900(f) through (r) if “the pupil’s presence causes a danger to persons.”
Legal Alerts are available on our website, or if you are interested in receiving email notification of our Legal Alerts, please email us at kmtgalerts@kmtg.com
Meghan Covert Russell
AB 1575 prohibits public school students from being required to pay a fee for participation in an educational activity. The new law applies to all public schools, including charter and alternative schools. All supplies, materials, and equipment that a pupil needs to participate in educational activities must be provided free of charge. However, the new law provides that it should not be interpreted to prohibit a school from soliciting voluntary donations, voluntary participation in fundraising activities, or from providing prizes or recognition to students for voluntarily participating in fundraising activities.
AB 1908 extends the period of time in which notice must be given before a classified employee may be subject to layoff, amending Education Code section 45117 and section 8801. AB 1908 requires that a school district or community college district give a classified employee written notice of not less than 60 days before the layoff date if the termination date of any specially funded program is other than June 30. AB 1908 further provides that, if a layoff is the result of a bona fide reduction or elimination of the service being performed by any department, the school district or community college district must give classified employees subject to layoff for lack of work notice not less than 60 days prior to the effective date of layoff.
AB 1732 clarifies the definition of what constitutes bullying by means of an electronic act, and includes posting on a burn page or impersonating another student. Additionally, AB 1732 specifically provides that “an electronic act shall not constitute pervasive conduct solely on the basis that it has been transmitted on the Internet or is currently posted on the Internet.”
AB 1729 gives school administrators more flexibility in disciplining students, including alternatives to suspension or expulsion that are age appropriate and aimed at correcting the specific behavior. Suspension for first time offenses is still allowed under Section 48900(a) through (e), without first attempting other means of correction. However, Section 48900.5 is amended to eliminate language that allows administrators to suspend students for first time offenses under Section 48900(f) through (r) based on a finding that the student causes a danger to persons or property or threatens to disrupt the instructional process. Section 48900.5 will now permit suspension for first time offenses under Section 48900(f) through (r) if “the pupil’s presence causes a danger to persons.”
Legal Alerts are available on our website, or if you are interested in receiving email notification of our Legal Alerts, please email us at kmtgalerts@kmtg.com
Meghan Covert Russell
Friday, October 12, 2012
Potential District Liability for Negligence of Supervisory Employees
The California Supreme Court concluded that a public school district may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of its administrative and supervisory employees for hiring, supervising and retaining an employee who sexually harassed and abused a student. (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District, 53 Cal.4th 861 (2012).) This liability also potentially extends to individual administrators.
Pursuant to the Court’s decision, school administrators have an ongoing duty to appropriately hire, train and supervise their employees. Administrators who are aware of any claims of employee misconduct must promptly address charges of misconduct through a thorough and well-documented investigation and take appropriate disciplinary measures. Otherwise, there is a possibility of liability for both the employing district, and individual administrators.
For more information please read the Legal Alert.
Meghan Covert Russell
Pursuant to the Court’s decision, school administrators have an ongoing duty to appropriately hire, train and supervise their employees. Administrators who are aware of any claims of employee misconduct must promptly address charges of misconduct through a thorough and well-documented investigation and take appropriate disciplinary measures. Otherwise, there is a possibility of liability for both the employing district, and individual administrators.
For more information please read the Legal Alert.
Meghan Covert Russell
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Deciding When to Allow Members of the Public to Place Items on the School Board Meeting Agenda
A California appellate court has ruled that a school board did not abuse its discretion when it refused to place an item on its agenda where the proposed item did not directly relate to school district business. The court held the school district had discretion to refuse an item proposed by a parent to change an activity at a middle school from one promoting anti-bullying awareness for gay, bisexual, lesbian and transgender students to an “all inclusive anti-bullying day.” (Mooney v. Garcia (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 6 Dist., June 26, 2012).
The Education Code allows members of the public to place an item on the governing board’s agenda where that item is directly related to district business. However, school districts do retain discretion to determine whether that item is “directly related to school district business” within the meaning of the Education Code. If the Governing Board determines that the agenda item is not directly related to school district business, then the district may refuse to allow the item to be placed on that meeting’s agenda.
For more information please see our Legal Alert.
Meghan Covert Russell
The Education Code allows members of the public to place an item on the governing board’s agenda where that item is directly related to district business. However, school districts do retain discretion to determine whether that item is “directly related to school district business” within the meaning of the Education Code. If the Governing Board determines that the agenda item is not directly related to school district business, then the district may refuse to allow the item to be placed on that meeting’s agenda.
For more information please see our Legal Alert.
Meghan Covert Russell
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Extra Password Protection For Employees and College Students Thanks to AB 1844 and SB 1349
Two bills were recently chaptered that provide employees and college students protection from the prying eyes of employers and college admissions.
Both AB 1844 (employers) and SB 1349 (colleges) prohibit requiring employees or students to (1) disclose their usernames or passwords for accessing personal social media, (2) access their personal social media in the presence of the employer or college’s representative, or (3) divulge any social media information.
Under both bills, social media is defined “as an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.”
AB 1844 does not prohibit an employer from asking an employee to divulge personal social media that is relevant to an investigation of employee misconduct or violation of applicable laws and regulations.
SB 1349 does not affect the rights or obligations of a college to protect against and investigate alleged student misconduct or violation of applicable laws and regulations or to take any adverse actions against a student or prospective student or student group for any lawful reason.
For more information, please see our Legal Alert.
Meghan Covert Russell
Both AB 1844 (employers) and SB 1349 (colleges) prohibit requiring employees or students to (1) disclose their usernames or passwords for accessing personal social media, (2) access their personal social media in the presence of the employer or college’s representative, or (3) divulge any social media information.
Under both bills, social media is defined “as an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.”
AB 1844 does not prohibit an employer from asking an employee to divulge personal social media that is relevant to an investigation of employee misconduct or violation of applicable laws and regulations.
SB 1349 does not affect the rights or obligations of a college to protect against and investigate alleged student misconduct or violation of applicable laws and regulations or to take any adverse actions against a student or prospective student or student group for any lawful reason.
For more information, please see our Legal Alert.
Meghan Covert Russell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)