SB 559 Proposes to Shift Certificated Layoff Timelines

The March 15 deadline is upon California school districts to issue written notices to certificated employees who will be subject to a layoff. 

Right in line with the deadline comes a new bill that proposes to shift the timeline for certificated layoffs to later in the year to better align with budget requirements.  Of course this is not the first bill of this type and there have been several attempts in the recent years to streamline and revamp the layoff process.

SB 559 seeks to shift the March 15 layoff notice date to June 1 and the May 15 notice of termination to August 1.  The findings of SB 559 explain why lawmakers have repeatedly sought to shift the layoff timelines:

Existing law requires school districts to issue preliminary reduction in force notices by March 15 and final reduction in force notices by May 15 of each year. As a result of this existing law and in order to guarantee that it will remain fiscally solvent, school districts have relied on the January budget proposed by the Governor to determine the number of layoff notices that it must give to its employees. This results in thousands of teachers receiving notices that are later rescinded when more accurate information is available in May when the proposed budget is revised and later when the annual Budget Act is enacted.  According to the Legislative Analyst Office, this practice unnecessarily costs taxpayers $706 per teacher, amounting to millions of dollars annually that could be spent in the classroom and employing teachers. Given the evidence that the existing statutory deadlines hurt schools across the State of California, it will be more productive for the schools, pupils, and teachers if the deadlines for giving notice to certificated employees that the school district may terminate their services are extended by two and one-half months.

KMTG will continue to track the progress of this bill and issue updates as developments occur.

Meghan Covert Russell

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

March Comes in Like a Lion ... And Remains a Bear

As the old idiom goes, "March comes in like a lion and out like a lamb."  Unfortunately for many California school districts, March also goes out like a lion as they are dealing with the statutorily prescribed timeline for teacher layoffs. 

March 15, as we know too well, is the date by which teachers must receive initial notification that they may be laid off -- often called a "pink slip."  And as we also know too well, this date does not align with the State's budget timeline.  '

The State's Legislative Analyst Office ("LAO") recently issued a review of the teacher layoff process and its recommendations.  The review addresses several provisions of the layoff process, including the timeline, hearing process, selection criteria, and state involvement.  Among the LAO's numerous recommendations include: changing the deadline for initial notification from March 15 to June 1 and final layoffs from May 15 to August 1; moving from an automatic hearing to a "streamlined alternate process"; exploring alternatives to seniority-based layoffs; and consider expanding locally negotiated options. 

Do you agree with the LAO's suggestions?  What other remedies would you suggest?

See here for a complete look at the LAO's findings and recommendations.

Meghan Covert Russell

Appellate Court Case Significantly Impacts The Classification And Release Of Categorical Employees

From KMTG's most recent education Legal Alert:

In Stockton Teachers Association v. Stockton Unified School District (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 3 Dist., March 1, 2012), the third district court of appeal addressed whether categorically funded employees hired pursuant to Education Code section 44909 may be treated as temporary employees or whether they must be classified as probationary employees.  The court determined that except in very limited circumstances employees must be treated as probationary employees and may only be released as temporary employees if they are terminated at the expiration of a categorically funded program.

In light of this decision, districts are urged to review their classification of categorical employees immediately and to discuss the impact of this case with legal counsel.  If a district’s classification of temporary employees does not meet the standards described in the Stockton Teachers’ Association case, it may be necessary to take action, such as potential status changes and non reelections or layoff notices for categorical employees converted to probationary status.  This is especially important for any districts or county offices that have issued or are considering issuing notices of layoff to certificated employees before March 15th this year.

For more in depth discussion of this case and it's implications, read the full text of KMTG's Legal Alert.

Meghan Covert Russell