Wednesday, September 14, 2016

New requirements on public meetings, notices and records :: SI&A Cabinet Report

New requirements on public meetings, notices and records :: SI&A Cabinet Report :: The Essential Resource for Superintendents and the Cabinet:

New requirements on public meetings, notices and records


(Calif.) Legislation signed late last week will require school districts to provide new notice to property owners about parcel taxes, and give new flexibility in posting public meeting information and responding to records requests.
AB 2257 by Assemblyman Brian Maienschein, R-San Diego, will allow local government agencies–including school districts–to fulfill existing public meeting notification requirements using the Internet beginning in January, 2019.
The author noted in a statement earlier this summer, that the Ralph M. Brown Act was originally adopted in 1953 and needs to be updated to account for the many changes in technology. AB 2257, among other things, will better ensure that public meeting notices will be posted in a consistent, visible location on an agency’s homepage.
The bill makes clear that the online meeting notice must provide a prominent, direct link to the current agenda. Local officials must be careful that the agenda be posted in an open format that meets all of the following requirements:
  • Retrievable, downloadable, indexable and electronically searchable by commonly used Internet search applications;
  •  Platform independent and machine readable; and
  • Available to the public free of charge and without any restriction that would impede the reuse or redistribution of the agenda.
AB 2476 by Assemblyman Tom Daly, D-Anaheim, will require local government agencies–school districts included–to provide non-resident property owners notice about a coming parcel tax vote within 30 days of a measure being placed on the ballot.
The legislation, the author said in a statement, provides more fairness to the process where an out-of-area landowner can potentially face a significant tax increase in the case of an apartment building.
“One East Bay city has a parcel tax of $96 for single-family residential parcels and $72 per multi-family residential parcel,” he said. “If a building has, for example, 100 multi-family units that translates to a parcel tax of over seven thousand dollars. Property owners deserve to know whether they may be facing such a tax.”
The new notices must, among other things, have enough detail to allow each property owner to calculate the amount of the tax to be levied against the owner's property. The method and frequency for collecting the proposed parcel tax must be described and the duration of time the parcel tax will be imposed, as well as the date of the election.
Finally, AB 2853 by Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Glendale, gives local government agencies more flexibility when it comes to responding to requests made under the California Public Records Act. Specifically this bill would allow an agency to simply post a response to a records request to its website.
Gatto explained in a statement that his bill seeks to close a loop-hole in the public records law that some private companies have exploited in recent years. He said that school districts especially have been targeted by companies that make record requests for detailed student demographic and academic information sometimes going back years–and then selling the information to data brokers who in turn use the information for marketing purposes.
Under existing law, government agencies are required to respond to public records requests within ten days and make a reasonable effort to otherwise make the information available “promptly.”
Gatto said his bill will allow local agencies the option of using their homepage as the distribution point, making the process more efficient and cost-effective.
“This bill would simply authorize a public agency to direct a requested to those online records, rather than physically retrieving the records and making disclosure determinations for each new request,” he said. “This solution would also be easier for most requesters, though perhaps not satisfactory to private businesses seeking someone to assemble marketable information.”New requirements on public meetings, notices and records :: SI&A Cabinet Report :: The Essential Resource for Superintendents and the Cabinet:
Image result for AB-709 Charter schools.


A&A: The Brown Act and Charter Schools

The Brown Act and Charter Schools
Q: A local public charter school has elected eight people to their Board of Directors this year. This is a public charter school. It is also a 501.c.3 non-profit corporation. The board of directors is self-selecting, self-electing.
Each time a person was elected to the board, either as an interim officer (Treasurer) or as a new board member, the process was listed under Action Items on the Agenda. The word “election” has never been used. The Action Item that resulted in a board member being elected is always listed this way: “Nominations Committee recommendation”
At times, the Secretary even records the number of votes in favor or against, but still, no mention of an election.
Is it legal to hold all these elections, without having listed them as elections?
A: The first issue that needs to be addressed is whether the charter school you refer to is subject to the Brown Act.  Below are some of the factors you might want to look at to determine whether it is.  However, even if the meetings of the charter school’s board of directors are governed by the Brown Act, the Brown Act does not address the organization or composition of legislative bodies nor does it address the election/nomination of its members, and I am not aware of any other California statutes that might apply.  Such organizational issues are typically governed by the internal rules of the governing body itself.  You might want to ask the board for a copy of its bylaws to see if they address the specific issue of director elections.
Applicability of Brown Act to Public Charter Schools:
Whether a charter school is subject to the Brown Act depends on whether the school was “created by” an elected legislative body–or receives funds from a government agency and whose governing body includes a member of the legislative body–for the purposes of the Brown Act.
A body that governs a private (often non-profit) entity may be subject to the Brown Act if it is “created by” an elected legislative body to perform governmental functions, or receive funds from a local agency and has a member appointed by the local agency.  The applicable provision of the Brown Act is Government Code section 54952(c), which defines “legislative body” to mean, among other things:
(c) (1) A board, commission, committee, or other multimember body that governs a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity that either:
(A) Is created by the elected legislative body in order to exercise authority that may lawfully be delegated by the elected governing body to a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity.
(B) Receives funds from a local agency and the membership of whose governing body includes a member of the legislative body of the local agency appointed to that governing body as a full voting member by the legislative body of the local agency.
(2) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), no board, commission, committee, or other multimember body that governs a private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity that receives funds from a local agency and, as of February 9, 1996, has a member of the legislative body of the local agency as a full voting member of the governing body of that private corporation, limited liability company, or other entity shall be relieved from the public meeting requirements
of this chapter by virtue of a change in status of the full voting member to a nonvoting member.
You should be able to determine whether the public charter school is receiving funding from a local agency (for instance, by the school district) by reviewing its financial statements.  You should be able to determine if a local agency has the right to appoint a member of the board of directors by reviewing the charter school’s bylaws and/or articles of incorporation.  (The articles of incorporation, if they exist, are also available from the California Secretary of State.)  If both of those conditions exist, the public charter school is subject to the Brown Act and subject to its open meetings requirements.
As to whether the public charter school was “created by” an elected legislative body, this can be more difficult to determine.  California case law indicates that, for example, if a city creates a special local assessment district, collects assessments from local property owners, and provides by ordinance that the programs paid for with those funds
will be governed by a non-profit association, the non-profit corporation set up to govern those programs will be subject to the Brown Act.  (This example comes from a case called Epstein v. Hollywood Entertainment District II Business Improvement Dist., 87 Cal. App. 4th 862 (2001).) You should look for some kind of direct involvement by the city or another local government agency, such as the school district, in the creation of the charter school, such as an ordinance that calls for its creation.  In addition, the articles of incorporation and/or bylaws of the charter school may provide evidence that the city, or other government entity, was responsible for its creation.https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2009/06/aa-the-brown-act-and-charter-schools/

LATEST NEWS AND COMMENT FROM EDUCATION

LATEST NEWS AND COMMENT FROM EDUCATION
EduBloggers

Latest News and Comment from Education