2021 Annual Report

Dear Member:

Since 1992, CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance (ELA) has been the pre-eminent legal advocate for California’s public schools, initiating litigation and providing amicus support on issues of statewide importance. The ELA has protected billions of dollars in K-12 General Fund revenue and mandate payments owed to schools, and consistently defended the governance role of boards.

This past year, the ELA continued to effectively protect and promote the interests of its member school districts and county offices of education before the courts.

In July, CSBA and the ELA filed a lawsuit against the California State Controller, aiming to capture nearly $1 billion in Proposition 98 funding that was lost due to improper calculation of property taxes owed to school districts from five California counties, pertaining to California’s Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). This improper calculation by the counties results in schools not receiving approximately $283 million in funding for 2019–20, $298 million for 2020–21, and $315.9 million for 2021–22.

Throughout the year, the ELA also filed numerous amicus briefs in support of school district and county board of education governance teams. These cases included Brennon B. v. West Contra Costa Unified School District (protecting LEAs against paying treble damages and attorney’s fees under the misapplication of the Unruh Act); Davis v. Fresno Unified School District (aiming to protect school funding by providing clarity and certainty to LEAs using lease-leaseback contracts); and Coast Community College District v. Commission on State Mandates and San Diego Unified School District v. State of California (recovering and protecting funding owed to LEAs to cover spending mandated by the state).

In addition, while CSBA’s Legal Department continued its ongoing support and guidance to members on a wide range of legal matters, including the complex issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic, governing board meetings and reopening schools, we also launched a new District and County Office of Education Legal Services program to provide direct legal advice and representation to our members.

The ELA will continue to support the interests of public schools and governance teams on issues that have a statewide impact. Thank you for your continued support for the ELA and its ongoing role as the legal defender of California’s public schools.

If you have any question about the ELA or its benefits, please contact ELA staff at (800) 266-3382 or legalservices@csba.org.

Sincerely,

Vernon M. Billy
CEO & Executive Director,
California School Boards Association

Contents

What is the Education Legal Alliance?

Steering Committee

Advisory Committee

CSBA’s Staff

Current Activities

School funding — Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF)

Collective bargaining — Privileged communications

Unfunded state mandates

Reimbursement of mandates

Disability-based discrimination — Claims under Unruh Act

Special education — Procedural violations

Special education — Attorney’s fees

Immigration and k-12 education — Revised public charge rule

First Amendment

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (daca)

Fair Political Practices Commission regulation

Facility funding — Lease-leaseback contracts

Charter schools — Proposition 39

Developer fees

Members with whom the ELA worked directly with in 2021*

*There are five other cases the ELA is involved in that are on behalf of all California school districts and county offices of education.

We fight better when we stand together

What is the Education Legal Alliance?

CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance is a consortium of school districts, county offices of education, and Regional Occupational Centers/Programs that voluntarily joined together in 1992 to create a powerful force to pursue and defend a broad spectrum of statewide public education interests before state and federal courts, state agencies, and the Legislature. The ELA initiates and supports legal activities in areas of statewide significance to all California schools. Working with school attorneys, the efforts of the ELA have proven highly effective in protecting the interests of schools and the students they serve. Potential matters are reviewed and approved by a broad-based steering committee of board members, superintendents, and education leaders. There is also a legal advisory committee of noted school law attorneys to help provide legal analysis and recommendations to the steering committee.

The ELA is funded exclusively by contributions from its members, who are also members of CSBA.

“In working with the ELA recently on an Amicus Brief in a case that impacts the liability of school districts, we had the opportunity to witness first-hand the professionalism, experience, and tenacity that the ELA staff brings to the table. We really appreciated the opportunity to team up with the ELA to address this important issue to our shared educational members.”

— Mike Pott,
Chair, Legal Affairs Committee, California Association of Joint Powers Authorities

CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance is a consortium of school districts, county offices of education, and Regional Occupational Centers/Programs that voluntarily joined together in 1992 to create a powerful force to pursue and defend a broad spectrum of statewide public education interests before state and federal courts, state agencies, and the Legislature. The ELA initiates and supports legal activities in areas of statewide significance to all California schools. Working with school attorneys, the efforts of the ELA have proven highly effective in protecting the interests of schools and the students they serve. Potential matters are reviewed and approved by a broad-based steering committee of board members, superintendents, and education leaders. There is also a legal advisory committee of noted school law attorneys to help provide legal analysis and recommendations to the steering committee.

The ELA is funded exclusively by contributions from its members, who are also members of CSBA.

“In working with the ELA recently on an Amicus Brief in a case that impacts the liability of school districts, we had the opportunity to witness first-hand the professionalism, experience, and tenacity that the ELA staff brings to the table. We really appreciated the opportunity to team up with the ELA to address this important issue to our shared educational members.”

— Mike Pott,
Chair, Legal Affairs Committee, California
Association of Joint Powers Authorities

What are the benefits of membership in the Education Legal Alliance?

The ELA files amicus briefs and letters in court to support its members on legal issues of statewide importance.
The ELA initiates litigation on various issues of statewide importance and often looks to its members to serve as co-plaintiffs in those cases.
The ELA weighs in on legislation that impacts its members on issues of statewide importance.

Illustration of a diverse group of people dressed in blue

Steering
Committee

Dr. Susan Heredia, Chair
CSBA President
Natomas USD

Vernon M. Billy
CSBA CEO & Executive Director

Leighton Anderson
CSBA Delegate, Region 24
Whittier Union HSD

Susan Henry
Delegate-at-Large, Region 15
Huntington Beach Union HSD

Dana Dean
Regional County Delegate, Region 3
Solano COE

Mary Jane Burke
County Superintendent
Marin COE

Dr. Heather Olsen
Superintendent
Pacifica SD

Dr. Sandra Lyon
Past Superintendent
Palm Springs USD

Dr. Kevin Skelly
Superintendent
San Mateo Union HSD

Paul Gothold
County Superintendent
San Diego COE

Robert Manwaring
Consultant

Advisory
Committee

CSBA’s
Staff

Mike Smith, Chair
Lozano Smith

Spencer Covert
Parker & Covert LLP

Sue Ann Salmon Evans
Dannis Woliver Kelley

Peter K. Fagen
Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP

Paul Loya
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya,
Ruud & Romo

Jeffrey Riel
Orange County
Department of Education

Teresa Stinson
Sacramento County
Office of Education

Robert Tuerck
Chief Legal Counsel

Keith Bray
General Counsel &
Chief of Staff

Kristin D. Lindgren
CSBA
Deputy General Counsel

Mike Ambrose
CSBA
Associate General Counsel

Alex Worthy
CSBA
Senior Legal Services Attorney

Anita Ceballos
CSBA
Paralegal

Advisory
Committee

Mike Smith, Chair
Lozano Smith

Spencer Covert
Parker & Covert LLP

Sue Ann Salmon Evans
Dannis Woliver Kelley

Peter K. Fagen
Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP

Paul Loya
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya,
Ruud & Romo

Jeffrey Riel
Orange County
Department of Education

Teresa Stinson
Sacramento County
Office of Education

CSBA’s
Staff

Robert Tuerck
Chief Legal Counsel

Keith Bray
General Counsel &
Chief of Staff

Kristin D. Lindgren
CSBA
Deputy General Counsel

Mike Ambrose
CSBA
Associate General Counsel

Alex Worthy
CSBA
Senior Legal Services Attorney

Anita Ceballos
CSBA
Paralegal

Current
Activities

SCHOOL FUNDING — EDUCATION REVENUE AUGMENTATION FUND (ERAF)

CSBA v. Betty Yee – California Superior Court, County of Sacramento (Case No. A157026)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Filed on behalf of all California school districts and county offices of education

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

The Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (“ERAF”) was created by the Legislature in 1992 to relieve pressure on the General Fund while meeting the constitutional minimum funding guarantee for K-14 education. The ERAF statute redirects a portion of property taxes statewide from cities, counties and special districts to local school districts and community college districts, reducing the demands on the state’s General Fund. The current exclusion of charter school average daily attendance (“ADA”) from ERAF calculations in five counties (Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara) will result in an estimated statewide loss of nearly $1 billion dollars to Proposition 98 funding (the primary funding source for most California schools) over a three-year period and the ongoing miscalculation following erroneous guidance from the State Controller Betty Yee (“SCO”) will result in untold future losses for California schools.

Read Full Article

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING — PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS

Los Angeles Unified School District, et al. v. Los Angeles County Superior Court – California Court of Appeal, Second District (Case No. B311248)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Los Angeles Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

Allowing courts to compel disclosure of confidential, internal communications of governing boards regarding the collective bargaining process would impact a board’s ability to maintain a negotiation position that is favorable to the district and the board’s obligation to protect public funds.

Read Full Article

Unfunded State Mandates

San Diego Unified School District, et al. v. State of California – California Court of Appeal, Third District (Case No. C090477)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: San Diego Unified School District; San Jose Unified School District; Clovis Unified School District; Grossmont Union High School District; Newport-Mesa Unified School District; Poway Unified School District; Castro Valley Unified School District; East Side Union High School District; and Fullerton Joint Union High School District.

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

The mandate requirement in the California Constitution requires the State to pay for any programs that it imposes on local governments, including school districts. Districts rely on this reimbursement, and the obligation to pay for mandated programs helps keep a check on state programs mandated on local governments. The state’s attempt to chip away at the mandates reimbursement system and transfer the financial burden of state-mandated programs to districts harms school districts that have followed the mandate reimbursement procedure and are legitimately anticipating the additional funding. If allowed to stand, the lower court’s decision would permit the state to retroactively eliminate outstanding reimbursement obligations due to the school districts for mandates that existed prior to the enactment of the statutes in question.

Read Full Article

Reimbursement of Mandates

Coast Community College District, et al. v. Commission on State Mandates, et al – California Supreme Court (Case No. S262663)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Filed on behalf of all California school districts and county offices of education

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

School district budgets are affected by determinations of the Commission of State Mandates regarding whether the state has legally or practically compelled the district to implement a new program or higher level of service (thus creating a mandate). The Supreme Court’s decision in this case may modify or reinforce existing law and will likely influence the Commission on State Mandates and lower courts in determining when the state has legally or practically compelled a new reimbursable program or higher level of service to school districts and other local agencies.

Read Full Article

Disability-Based Discrimination — Claims Under Unruh Act

Brennon B. v. West Contra Costa Unified School District – California Supreme Court (Case No. S266254)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: West Contra Costa Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

Application of the Unruh Act to school districts and county offices of education could open up local educational agencies (“LEAs”) to increased liability and the potential recovery of excessive treble damages and attorney’s fees against the LEA, thereby creating greater financial risk for already underfunded public schools.

Read Full Article

Special Education — Procedural Violations

D.O. v. Escondido Union School District – Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (Case No. 19–56043)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Escondido Union School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

While school districts must provide a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) to eligible students, this case provides an opportunity to clarify what happens when there is a procedural violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) and the violation itself does not necessarily result in the denial of an educational benefit or opportunity. If the court finds that a procedural violation of IDEA alone equates to a denial of FAPE, it could expose LEAs to increased liability and further complicate their ability to meet the educational needs of students with disabilities.

Read Full Article

Special Education — Attorney’s Fees

Gordon v. Los Angeles Unified School District – Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (Case No. 19–55806)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Los Angeles Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

With limited budgets, school districts must rely on courts to set reasonable reimbursement rates for attorneys when districts end up in litigation. Large attorney’s fee awards in special education cases reduce school district general funds that would better be spent serving students.

Read Full Article

Immigration and K-12 Education — Revised Public Charge Rule

State of California, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al. Case No. 19-17213 – Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Filed on behalf of all California school districts and county offices of education

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

The revised public charge rule may deter families from seeking assistances under affected programs (SNAP, Medicaid, housing vouchers, etc.) and under programs that are not directly affected, out of fear or misinformation, to the detriment of K-12 students. This would place an additional burden on schools, as children of immigrant families potentially become increasingly reliant on school-based health, nutrition, and other services.

Read Full Article

First Amendment

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District — Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (Case No. 20-35222)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Filed on behalf of all California school districts and county offices of education

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

As public entities, pursuant to the First Amendment and the principal of separation between church and state, school districts and county offices are charged with regulating speech and conduct that endorses religion within the schools. Local educational agencies (“LEAs”) should have the authority to establish reasonable restrictions on speech directed at students within the school context, and enforce their board policies, without fear of violating constitutional rights.

Read Full Article

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (and related cases) – U.S. Supreme Court (Case No. 18-587)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Filed on behalf of all California school districts and county offices of education

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

Public schools in California are obligated to educate any and all students who enroll, regardless of immigration status. It was reported that uncertainty over Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) had a “chilling effect” and discouraged some undocumented students from attending schools. Diminished attendance jeopardizes the ability of schools to prepare all students for the demands of the 21st century and success in college, career, and civic life. Additionally, ending DACA would exacerbate teacher shortages throughout the state, and would negatively affect the educational opportunities of students throughout California.

Read Full Article

Fair Political Practices Commission Regulation

California State Association of Counties & CSBA v. Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”) – Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. BS174653)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Filed on behalf of all California school districts and county offices of education

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

FPPC enforcement of the regulations at issue will impact school boards as they consider whether to place measures on their local ballots and provide informational communications about the measures. As communication mediums change for public agencies, it is important to ensure that school districts can continue to provide information about important ballot measures to the community.

Read Full Article

Facility Funding — Lease-Leaseback Contracts

Davis v. Fresno Unified School District (Davis II) – California Supreme Court (Case No. S266344)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Fresno Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

To complete school construction projects, school districts can choose from a variety of project delivery methods, including lease-leaseback agreements. School districts rely on being able to validate the contracts and have certainty in their legality. The appellate court ruling in Davis II creates uncertainty and risk for school districts that use the lease-leaseback method around the use of validation proceedings. The resulting uncertainty calls the continued viability of lease-leaseback agreements into question.

Read Full Article

Charter Schools – Proposition 39

Mt. Diablo Unified School District v. Clayton Valley Charter High School, et al. – California Court of Appeal, First District (Case No. A158195)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Mt. Diablo Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

School districts must be able to rely on relevant regulations and assess appropriate fees for facilities costs under Proposition 39. School districts could benefit from greater certainty to the process of assigning and charging a pro-rata share of district facilities costs to charter schools.

Read Full Article

Developer Fees

CP V Walnut v. Fremont Unified School District – California Court of Appeal, First District (Case No. A157722)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Fremont Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

Developer fees paid by property owners and developers to mitigate the impacts of new construction are a common source of funding to pay for local school district facility needs. There are three levels of developer fees, and Level 2 fees and Level 3 fees may be assessed when a school district meets certain statutory requirements. Placing restrictions on school districts’ authority to assess developer fees beyond those restrictions contemplated in legislation would hamper districts’ ability to meet the specific school facility needs.

Read Full Article

California School Boards Association
(800) 266-3382 | (916) 371-4691
www.csba.org

Return to Cover