APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT: Be afraid, be very afraid!

Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary

    Senator Kevin Murray, Chairman

                           1381 (Nunez)

          Hearing Date:  8/14/06          Amended: 8/8/06

          Consultant:  Bob Franzoia       Policy Vote: Ed  7-2

          _________________________________________________________________ 

          ____

          BILL SUMMARY: AB 1381, to be known as the Gloria Romero  

          Educational Reform Act of 2006, relating to the governance of  

          the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), would do the  

          following:  

          1) Revise the authority and duties of the Board of Education  

          (BOE) inspector general.

          2) Create a Council of Mayors (COM) comprised of mayors from  

          each city within the attendance boundaries of LAUSD, who elect  

          to participate, and each member of the Los Angeles Board of  

          Supervisors whose district overlaps the attendance boundaries.

          3) Require the mayors' act by majority of the weighted vote of    

          the total membership of the COM and provide that the appointment  

          of the district superintendent shall be ratified by the COM.  

          4) Permit the district superintendent of the LAUSD to request,  

          after a public hearing, that the State Board of Education (SBE)  

          waive all or part of the Education Code, except as specified  

          (generally authority of a governing board to seek waivers and  

          personnel contracts for classified employees), and would deem  

          the waiver granted for two years, if the SBE fails to take  

          action on the request by its second regular meeting, or 60 days  

          after, receipt of the request, whichever comes first.

          5) Authorize the superintendent to make employment decisions  

          related to all certificated and classified management personnel  

          of his or her office and to assign principals. 

          6) Authorize the BOE to employ a pool of administrative staff to  

          serve all members of the board, require staff to report to the  

          board as a whole, and prohibit an individual member of the board  

          from employing individual staff.  

          7) Require the superintendent to make all employment decisions  

          for all nonrepresented LAUSD personnel.  

          8) Require the superintendent to develop and manage a facilities  

          program for the LAUSD.

          9) Require the LAUSD and the COM conduct, by 1/1/2008, the first  

          periodic comprehensive, identification, mapping, and assessment  

          of available services for children and require the LAUSD and the  

          COM identify private resources to conduct the assessment.

          10) Grant the superintendent authority to negotiate and execute  

          contracts, except collective bargaining contracts, on behalf of  

          the LAUSD, and report all executed contracts to the LAUSD BOE.

          11) Authorize the COM to create a committee of parents of  

          students in the LAUSD to provide input on the education related  

          matters considered by the COM and on the effective delivery of  

          services.  The LAUSD would be required to assist the COM in  

          conducting outreach to parents in creating such a committee. 

          12) Require the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, in partnership  

          with the LAUSD, to, as part of a demonstration project, have  

          oversight over three clusters of the lowest-performing schools  

          in different geographic areas with the City of Los Angeles.

          13) Specify the purposes of the demonstration project, and  

          require all authority exercised by the LAUSD board and the  

          superintendent with respect to the schools in

                                   - 1 -

          Page 2

          AB 1381 (Nunez)

          the demonstration project to be transferred to the partnership,  

          as   specified.

          14) Require the Legislative Analyst to contract for an evaluator  

          to conduct an interim evaluation of the effectiveness of  

          specified LAUSD programs to be completed by 1/1/2008, and  

          conduct a final evaluation by 1/1/2011.

          15) Provide the article shall remain in effect until 1/1/2011.

          _________________________________________________________________ 

          ____

 Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

           Major Provisions         2006-07      2007-08       2008-09     Fund

 State mandates

           - COM support         Unknown new program or higher  

          levelGeneral

                                 of service

          - LAUSD/COM parent     Unknown, potentially significant  

          costs,General

            outreach             potentially on going

          - LAUSD/COM services   Unknown, potentially major cost one  

          timePrivate/

            assessment           by 1/1/2008 (cost pressure to the  

          extentGeneral

                                 private funds are not secured)

          - Facilities program   Unknown, potentially major costs  

          ongoing General

                                                 (see staff comments)

          - community partnership            Estimated $360  

          annuallyGeneral

            program

          - community partnershipPotential mandate to LAUSD for  

          admin-General

            administration       istrative support of partnership schools

          LAO assessment oversight       $125 annually through 1/1/2011    

          General*

                  assessment contract         $200         $400  $400    

          General       

          * Proposition 140        

          _________________________________________________________________ 

          ____

          STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the  

          Suspense File.

          The optional inspector general would have access to all  

          contracts and contracting processes in order to enable review  

          for violations of law or conflicts of interest and shall report  

          quarterly to the BOE regarding any findings.  These reports  

          would be provided to the COM.  Because the LAUSD has the option  

          of appointing an inspector general, any requirements placed on  

          the position by the bill would not be a new program or higher  

          level of service and thus not reimbursable.

          It is unclear if the bill limits or otherwise defines the duties  

          of affected local entities as they relate to this bill.  This  

          leaves numerous, and potentially very costly, decisions with

                                   - 2 -

          Page 3

          AB 1381 (Nunez)

          the Commission on State Mandates.  For example, given that most  

          mayors are likely not familiar with the operations of a school  

          district, mayors may seek advisors to help them make informed  

          decisions relating to their duties on the COM.  (The same may  

          apply to members of the LA County Board of Supervisors.)  These  

          duties would include ratification of a superintendent, budget  

          approval, and review of the SARC.   How the Commission on State  

          Mandates would interpret the scope of the mandate, and a request  

          for reimbursement, is unknown. 

          The bill fragments lines of responsibilities such that it is  

          unclear who parents with concerns about the education of their  

          children are to contact.  For residents of the City of Los  

          Angeles, will they be able to contact the mayor with their  

          concerns.  For non Los Angeles residents, is it their mayor who  

          does not have authority to hire the superintendent?  Is it the  

          BOE which would have its authority limited by the bill?  The  

          only concession is that the bill provides that the COM, in the  

          course of conducting its duties, may create a committee of  

          parents in the LAUSD, to provide input on the education related  

          matters considered by the COM.  The bill requires the district  

          to assist the COM in conducting outreach to parents in the  

          creation of that committee.  At best, this committee enables  

          parents to contact other parents.  Staff recommends the  

          committee consider amending the bill as follows:

          Education Code 35911 (h) is added to read:

                        (h)  The district superintendent shall establish  

          an Office of Parent Communication which may be staffed by an  

          ombudsperson or similar employee.  The office shall assure that  

          the district complies with the processes for receiving and  

          addressing parent complaints set forth in Section 35186 and  

          shall assure that the district complies with the requirements  

          regarding parent information and the rights of parents to  

          participate in the education of their children set forth in  

          Section 51101.  The office shall regularly report to the  

          district superintendent and to the board regarding the  

          district's compliance with those sections.

          Education Code 35931(a) (3) is added to read:

                        (3)  The full-time district employee specified in  

          paragraph (2) shall perform the functions of the Office of  

          Parent Communication set forth in subdivision (h) of Section  

          35911 for the cluster of schools to which he or she is assigned.

          Staff notes any proposal to maintain parental access creates a  

          potentially costly mandate.

          The bill requires the superintendent to develop and manage a  

          facilities program for the LAUSD.  The program may include, but  

          not be limited to, the development of a strategic plan regarding  

          facilities for the LAUSD and the management of all phases of  

          construction of school facilities of the district.  (Staff notes  

          it is unknown if it is the intent of the author to create a new  

          program with new authority or transfer existing authority.)   

          This requirement raised two concerns.  First, it creates a  

          potentially open ended

                                   - 3 -

            Page 4

          AB 1381 (Nunez) 

          mandate whose costs may only be determined at some later date by  

          the Commission on State Mandates.  Second, it is not clear if  

          the BOE continues to maintain its current authority e.g., to  

          place school construction bonds on the ballot, to impose  

          developer fees, to locate schools, etc.  Staff recommends the  

          committee decide how to address these conflicts.  If the  

          committee decides the superintendent is the appropriate entity  

          to manage a facilities program, some limits should be imposed in  

          order to prevent the potential for a major mandate claim in  

          future years.  At the same time, the committee should decide  

          what authority will be retained by the BOE and what authority  

          will be provided to the superintendent.

          Staff recommends a general amendment to clarify that where the  

          bill does not specify a transfer of duties or responsibilities,

         all powers shall remain with the BOE. 

          The bill provides that the COM is subject to the Brown Act and  

          the Political Reform Act.  Staff recommends the bill be amended  

          to add the Public Records Act.

          In addition, the administrative costs of the Mayor's community  

          partnership program also could be a reimbursable mandate as it  

          establishes a parallel administrative structure for managing the  

          low-performing schools. Since the bill requires the transfer of  

          all authority of the BOE and superintendent to the partnership    

          (except for collective bargaining) which is headed by the Mayor,  

          it's not clear whether these mandated costs could be paid with  

          Proposition 98 funds.  The bill does state that the schools in  

          the partnership would be funded "with existing resources," which  

          is interpreted to mean the schools remain eligible for  

          Proposition 98 funds.  Staff recommends the bill be amended to  

          clarify that the partnership would be recognized as a local  

          educational agency for the purposes of Proposition 98 and that  

          all costs of the partnership be funded from existing resources.

          It is unclear how the partnership, a  

          "district-within-a-district" will co-exist with the LAUSD.  For  

          example, who will have responsibility for maintenance?  Who will  

          have responsibility for staff development, curriculum decisions,  

          collecting and submitting data, providing the accounting and  

          other fiscal accountability duties of the district, and so  

          forth?  As noted in the Fiscal Impact, creation of the  

          partnership could create new Proposition 98 mandates for LAUSD,  

          separate from those of the partnership, because of the need to  

          work with this new "district" in determining  

          roles/responsibilities and the ongoing management partnership.

          The bill requires the LAO   to contract for an evaluator to  

          develop a progress report on the implementation of the specified  

          programs to be completed by 1/1/2008, conduct a final evaluation  

          by 1/1/2011, and report to the Legislature with recommendations.  

            Oversight of an evaluation of this scope would likely require  

          a full time staff person.  To evaluate the reforms, it would be  

          important to understand how the governance changes led to the  

          program changes underlying any changes in outcomes or processes. 

           Thus, it would be best to have an evaluator on board early in  

          the reform process, requiring funding in 2006-07.  Given that  

          the LAO spent $1 million over three years to evaluate charter  

          schools, this evaluation would be at least as expensive.  It is  

          possible, however,

                                   - 4 -

          Page 5

          AB 1381 (Nunez)

          given the timing of the next district superintendent's contract  

          as noted above, initial change may not occur until 1/1/2010.   

          Staff recommends the bill be amended to let a contract and  

          conduct the evaluation only upon selection of the superintendent  

          by the COM. Additionally, staff recommends the bill be amended  

          to require the SDE be the contracting entity.  The SDE has an 

          evaluation division that has successfully contracted for  

          significant studies of special education, Proposition 227, and  

          school accountability, among others.  An advisory committee with  

          the LAO and the Department of Finance would provide legislative  

          and fiscal oversight.