The opinion elaborates that this conclusion is true despite the fact that a COE is not technically the “employer” of the charter school employees because statutory language otherwise categorizes the COE as the direct report completing the contributions on behalf of charter schools. Similarly, COEs are designated in statute to report administrative information monthly. The opinion recognizes that county offices may have “limited ability to supervise [a] charter school’s administrative practices,” thereby making accurate reporting of required information and completion of contributions difficult but maintains that that is a legislative issue to be resolved through new law rather than judicial or attorney general opinion.
While COEs may be on the hook for errors made by charter schools they are not directly involved with, there are nonetheless processes and remedies available to them for review of assessments made and recovery of funds lost. The answer to question two — if the answer to question one is yes, does the county office of education, through its superintendent of schools, have an administrative remedy for contesting the assessment of a penalty the superintendent believes to be incorrect? — describes that an appeal with an administrative hearing is available to any intermediary COE acting on behalf of a charter school that has penalties assessed against it for incorrect contributions or reporting. And while it may seem that a COE is disadvantaged in an appeals process because it may lack the information and resources to prepare a strong argument for itself, the answer to question three — if the answer to question one is yes, does Education Code Section 23012 authorize the county superintendent of schools to recover funds used to pay the assessment or penalty from the funds allotted to the charter school? — provides the needed leverage for a charter school to cooperate with the COE in the hearing process. Specifically, COEs are authorized to recover the cost of any penalties against them from the charter school that made the errors in reporting or contributions. This ability to recover funds from an errant charter school creates an “apparent financial incentive for the charter school to provide relevant information, evidence, and explanations, and to otherwise cooperate with” COEs.
The letter goes on to explain that RAs are permitted for hire by schools in even more limited situations, specifically when there is a need for “extra help.” Extra help is not explicitly defined in the letter, but the code sections referenced (Government Code sections 7522.56, 21224 and 21229) allow for RA employment in emergency situations and when the RA has “special skills.” This interpretation of law by CalPERS may be a departure from what many LEAs are familiar with or have relied on in the past when hiring RAs. LEAs with concerns or seeking more information should contact legal counsel.
The letter concludes with a series of steps to follow when hiring RAs. RAs should not be considered a permanent solution to an employment need because they are limited in the time that they can fill a role. Additionally, an RA may only be hired after the individual is retired, has separated from all CalPERS-covered employment and has waited the required time period.
This article is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Should you have questions about how this topic affects your district or COE, please contact CSBA’s Legal Services at legalservices@csba.org or (916) 669-1551.