2024 Annual Report



Dear Members:

California schools are currently facing a rash of issues that are as wide-ranging in scope as they are significant in effect. CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance (ELA) is, and has always been, at the vanguard of defending the interests of California’s school districts and county offices of education (COEs) before state and federal courts, state agencies and the Legislature. This critical ELA function would have been impossible without your support, and we thank you. This report offers a summary of the important work that the ELA has completed in the past 12 months.

The ELA has continued to provide a unique but essential statewide perspective in a variety of legal cases impacting school districts and COEs. For example, in The Legislature of California v. Weber (Hiltachk), a California Supreme Court case, the ELA filed an amicus brief supporting the Legislature’s successful challenge to the placement of a controversial initiative measure — the Taxpayer Protection Act (TPA) — on the November 2024 ballot. The Court found that the TPA could not be placed on the ballot because it proposed extensive and unconstitutional revisions to California’s basic governmental framework, many of which would have negatively impacted California’s school districts and COEs.

Additionally, in O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, the ELA’s positions detailed in an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court were proven correct when the Court vacated a Ninth Circuit decision that was adverse to the defendant school board members. The decision created a new, more restrictive, two-part test that aligned with the ELA’s arguments to define when a board member’s use of a private social media account might constitute state action for purposes of determining a First Amendment violation. The Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for application of the new test to the facts of the case. The new test appropriately acknowledges that public officials are also private citizens with their own individual constitutional rights.

In addition to the ELA’s work detailed above, I announced an exciting ELA benefit at the 2023 Annual Education Conference. ELA members may now request funding from the ELA, subject to a cap, to finance litigation of statewide importance in state or federal courts to which they are a party.

With its statewide membership and focus on issues with statewide impact, the ELA is in a unique position to advance and defend the interests of public education and, with your support, stands ready to do so in the coming year.

If you have any questions about the ELA or its benefits, please contact ELA staff at (800) 266-3382 or legal@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 Staff

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Requirements
Childhood Sexual Abuse Claims AB 218 Lookback Provisions
Charter School Contractual Issues
State and Local Governance
Charter School Petition Appeals
Discrimination/Protected Employment Classes Under PERB
Salary Schedule Placement of Certificated Employees
Special Education — Standard for FAPE
First Amendment

Members with whom
the ELA worked directly In 2024*

* The ELA is involved in three additional cases filed for the benefit of all California school districts and county offices of education, which are not featured on this map.

What is the
Education Legal Alliance?

CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance (ELA) 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 issues 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.

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.

Steering
Committee

Albert Gonzalez, Chair
CSBA President
Santa Clara USD

Bettye Lusk
CSBA President-elect
Monterey Peninsula USD

Vernon M. Billy
CSBA CEO & Executive Director

Renee Nash
CSBA Director, Region 4
Eureka Union SD

Tanya Ortiz Franklin
CSBA Director, Region 21
Los Angeles USD

Lan Nguyen
Delegate, Region 15
Garden Grove USD

Gayle Garbolino-Mojica
County Superintendent
Placer COE

Moises Aguirre
Superintendent
Sweetwater Union HSD

Dr. Gabriela Mafi
Superintendent
Garden Grove USD

Derek Garcia
Superintendent
Roseville City SD

Dr. Steve Ladd
Consultant

Robert Manwaring
Consultant

Advisory
Committee

CSBA
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

Kristin D. Lindgren-Bruzzone
Deputy General Counsel

Ethan Retan
Deputy General Counsel

Bode Owoyele
Associate General Counsel

Dana Scott
Associate General Counsel

Anita Ceballos
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

CSBA
Staff

Kristin D. Lindgren-Bruzzone
Deputy General Counsel

Ethan Retan,
Deputy General Counsel

Bode Owoyele
Associate General Counsel

Dana Scott
Associate General Counsel

Anita Ceballos
Paralegal

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REQUIREMENTS

Santa Rita Unified School District v. City of Salinas (Rexford Title, Inc. et al) – California Supreme Court (Case No. S281912)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Santa Rita Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

This case relates to the obligation of land developers and permitting agencies to properly consider environmental impacts on schools and their surrounding communities and the need to expand or adjust school facilities to address such impacts. The decision reached by the appellate court exacerbated a situation in which school districts are already on the short end of a deal because it created a new hurdle for school districts to clear when seeking support from local agencies and developers to include school facility concerns as a point of emphasis in the land use and planning process.

Read Full Article

CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE CLAIMS AB 218 LOOKBACK PROVISIONS

West Contra Costa Unified School District v. The Superior Court of Contra Costa County – California Court of Appeal, First District (Case No. A169314)

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

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

Assembly Bill 218 (2019) was enacted with a “lookback provision” that, between January 2020 and December 2022, allowed alleged victims of childhood sexual abuse from any time period before Jan. 1, 2009, to file suit for money damages against public agencies, including school districts and county offices of education, without having to comply with the Government Torts Claim Act. Based on this retroactive expansion, many districts up and down the state were sued for childhood sexual abuse claims dating back years and even decades before 2009, and are now working to challenge and somehow defend against oftentimes very old claims and the broad power that AB 218 has provided to plaintiffs.

Read Full Article

CHARTER SCHOOL CONTRACTUAL ISSUES

Orange County School of the Arts v. Santa Ana USD – California Court of Appeal, Second District (Case No. B332826)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Santa Ana Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

Generally, under the Charter Schools Act of 1992, as amended, a charter school may be established upon the granting of a petition by a local school governing board or county board of education (the charter authorizer), based on criteria specified in law. When granted, a charter school must be operated in accordance with law and the provisions of its charter. Within this procedural scheme, questions have arisen as to whether a charter (1) creates contractual obligations that are enforceable against the charter authorizer (school governing or county board) or (2) is akin to local legislation in the same vein as a city ordinance that may be binding on the authorizer. In addition, may the terms of a charter petition override a requirement of law?

Read Full Article

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNANCE

Legislature of the State of California v. Weber (16 Cal.5th 237) – California Supreme Court (Case No. S281977)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: All California school districts and county offices of education

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

In this case, the California Legislature, and others, sued to block an initiative measure —the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) — from being placed on the November 2024 ballot. The TPA would have made significant changes to the California Constitution that would have greatly disrupted the ability of the Legislature, as well as state and local agencies, including all local educational agencies, to collect taxes, fees or payments. It would also have greatly increased the administrative and oversight requirements of LEAs’ boards and administrations.

Read Full Article

CHARTER SCHOOL PETITION APPEALS

California School Boards Association’s Education Legal Alliance v. State Board of Education – California Court of Appeal, Third District (Case No. C099069)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Napa Valley Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

The reform of the appeals process for charter school petitions that have been denied by school district and county office governing boards and sent to the State Board of Education (SBE) was a key part of Assembly Bill 1505 (2019). The SBE failed to comply with several of the AB 1505 reforms when it reversed the denials of the Mayacamas Charter Middle School (MCMS) petition by the Napa Valley Unified School District (NVUSD) and the Napa County Board of Education (NCBOE) in September 2022. As a result of this decision by the SBE, local governing boards that are charged with the authority to approve or deny charter school petitions, and oversee those that are approved, will find it difficult to follow the reforms in AB 1505 unless the SBE’s action that misinterpreted and misapplied those reforms is reversed by the court.

Read Full Article

DISCRIMINATION/PROTECTED EMPLOYMENT CLASSES UNDER PERB

Visalia USD v. Public Employment Relations Board – California Court of Appeal, Fifth District (Case No. F084032)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Visalia Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

This case challenged a decision of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) finding that employees are deemed part of a protected class simply by virtue of holding union office. Employees protected for holding union office are insulated from discipline even if the reason for the discipline is unrelated to a protected union activity. This insulation makes it difficult for local educational agencies to manage their personnel and programs.

Read Full Article

SALARY SCHEDULE PLACEMENT OF CERTIFICATED EMPLOYEES

George v. Susanville Elementary School District – California Court of Appeal, Third District (Case No. C098772)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Susanville Elementary School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

This case implicates two statewide issues: 1) the ability of local educational agencies to bargain the type and level of experience for which they will give years-of-service credit on the salary schedule under Education Code section 45028; and 2) the obligation of LEAs to provide years-of-service credit on the salary schedule for teachers who resign as permanent employees and are rehired and are entitled to the rights under Education Code section 44931.

Read Full Article

SPECIAL EDUCATION — STANDARD FOR FAPE

A.O. v. Los Angeles Unified School District – Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (Case Nos. 22-55204, 22-55226); U.S. District Court, Central District (Case No. 2:21-cv-00757-ODW-PD)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Los Angeles Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

This matter involves the application of the standard for determining whether a local educational agency’s offer of services to a special education student is reasonably designed to offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to meet their individual needs in the least restrictive environment (LRE). This standard has been developed through U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In this case, regarding the placement of a 3-year-old deaf and hard-of-hearing student, both the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and the federal district court applied an incorrect standard, in which they compared Los Angeles USD’s (District) program to a program at a private nonpublic school and determined that the nonpublic school’s program was “better” than the district’s program. If this standard were to be utilized moving forward, it would place a heavy burden on LEAs to provide the best possible program for special education students, rather than a program reasonably designed to offer a FAPE.

Read Full Article

FIRST AMENDMENT

O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier – United States Supreme Court (Case No. 22-324)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: All California school districts and county offices of education

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

This case implicates two statewide issues: 1) Whether a school board member who uses a private social media account that is not supported, funded, directed or used with the involvement of their local educational agency (LEA) to communicate with members of the public on LEA issues is a governmental actor, and is subject to First Amendment restrictions, if they block members of the public from their social media accounts; and 2) If the answer to question number 1 is yes, what regulations may board members impose on their private social media accounts that allow them to avoid members of the public creating disruption in their social media accounts, including disruption that may prevent other members of the public from interacting with the board members? This case raises the important issue of whether school board members have the right to speak as private citizens on their private social media and whether those rights include the ability to block disruptive users from their social media pages.

Read Full Article

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

Return to Cover