BILL ANALYSIS
AB 442
Page 1
Date of Hearing: 4/23/2003
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Jackie Goldberg, Chair
AB 442 (Richman) - As Introduced: February 14, 2003
SUBJECT : School district budget summary and disclosure.
SUMMARY : Requires that specified information be included in a
summary of school district annual budgets and expenditure
reports. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that, beginning with the 2005-06 fiscal year, each
school district budget must include a summary of the complete
budget plan and itemized statement that is required by current
law.
2)Requires each school district to make the summary available to
the public, and, at a minimum, distribute it at public
hearings.
3)Specifies that the summary shall include, but not be limited
to, all of the following information:
a) Itemized detail of the actual expenditures for the
immediate prior fiscal year and proposed current year
expenditures on salaries, benefits, incentive bonuses,
expenses, or other forms of remuneration paid to:
certificated staff, including administrators, pupil
services personnel, and teachers; and classified staff,
including paraprofessionals, office workers, clerical
employees, and others.
b) The actual expenditures in the immediate prior fiscal
year, proposed current year expenditures, and the
percentage of any increase or decrease budgeted for the
current fiscal year, segregated by type of credential, for
salaries and benefits paid to employees assigned to
classrooms within the school district.
c) The number and percentage of classroom teachers who are
fully credentialed and employed by the district for the
immediate prior and the current fiscal years.
d) The average total expenditure for a credentialed teacher
AB 442
Page 2
and a noncredentialed teacher, based on salaries and
benefit packages, and the average amount spent for
compensation of the 10 percent of the credentialed teachers
who earn the most and the 10 percent who earn the least.
e) The number and percentage of classroom teachers employed
by the district for the immediate prior and current fiscal
years who are serving without full credentials, including
holders of emergency credentials, university interns,
district interns, and preinterns.
f) The total expenditures for facility maintenance, new
construction and modernization for the immediate prior and
current fiscal years, including the number of completed new
facility projects.
g) The average class size by grade levels.
h) The average noncapital operating expenses per pupil and
class for the immediate prior fiscal year and proposed
current year average noncapital expenditures per pupil.
i) The actual expenditures in the immediate prior fiscal
year and proposed current year expenditures for books and
supplies, including the total cost of textbooks per pupil,
and the total cost of textbooks per class.
j) The actual expenditures in the immediate prior fiscal
year and proposed current year expenditures for
instructional materials, excluding textbooks, per pupil and
the total cost of instructional materials per class.
aa) Total district revenue and expenditures and average
district revenue and expenditures per pupil.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires the governing board of a school district to approve
an annual statement of all receipts and expenditures of the
district for the preceding fiscal year and to file the
statement with the county superintendent of schools.
2)Requires a school district to prepare a budget showing a
complete plan and itemized statement of all proposed
expenditures and of all estimated revenues for the ensuing
AB 442
Page 3
fiscal year, together with a comparison of revenues and
expenditures for the existing fiscal year. Requires the board
to hold a public hearing on the district's proposed budget.
3)Requires the governing board of a school district to issue a
school accountability report card annually which must include,
among other things, the estimated expenditures per pupil and
types of services funded, the quality and currency of
textbooks and other instructional materials, the total number
of the school's fully credentialed teachers, and the number of
teachers relying on emergency credentials.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown, but potentially significant, costs
resulting from a new state-mandated local program.
COMMENTS :
Legislative History. This bill is similar to a bill carried by
the author last year, AB 2512, held in Assembly Appropriations.
Does this bill impose a new local program mandated by the State?
The author's staff indicate that, unlike AB 2512, there should
be no costs associated with this bill because the existing
budget staff in school districts should be able to absorb the
workload associated with preparing the summary information
required by AB 442 as part of their normal budget preparation
process.
However, even if the information being required by this bill is
currently voluntarily compiled by school district staff, if the
state mandates that the information be compiled then the state
is obligated to provide the resources needed by each school
district to comply with that requirement. The report mandated
by this bill is likely to result in a mandated cost claim,
which, if approved, would require the State to fund its costs.
Arguments in support . According to the author, "This bill
provides for a transparent disclosure of how school districts
spend their funds in a way the average person can understand.
It will require school districts to develop a summary of their
budget, comparing the amount of funds spent on instruction,
administration and overhead from the past year to the proposed
budget year in an uncomplicated executive summary of the budget.
"The overall goal of the bill is to help keep parents and the
AB 442
Page 4
public informed about the school year budget process, helping to
achieve greater accountability for school spending."
Supporters of the bill, the California Federation of Teachers
and the United Teachers of Los Angeles, indicate that
traditional school district budgets are difficult for the
layperson to understand quickly, and cannot be easily compared
to prior year actual spending. This bill "benefit(s) the public
who have a right to know in easily understood terms what a
school district proposes to do with public monies."
Arguments in opposition . According to the opposition, the Los
Angeles County Office of Education, "AB 442 is a
well-intentioned, but unnecessary piece of legislation. This
bill is similar to AB 2512, which failed to pass last year. It
would impose an additional and unnecessary requirement upon
local school administrators."
"This year's version requires the local governing board to
provide to the public a summary of their budget plan, which
includes specific information on prior and planned expenditures.
"Any benefits of this 'executive summary' are clearly outweighed
by the costs in time and resources required to meet this
unfunded state mandate. Particularly, at a time when state
revenues are in a deficit and local agencies are struggling to
deal with shrinking funding, we should not impose additional
administrative requirements on school administrators.
"Existing law already ensures that financial reporting
requirements are already in place. District and county office
budgets are already available to state officials and to the
public."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
United Teachers of Los Angeles (Sponsor)
California Federation of Teachers
Opposition
The Los Angeles County Office of Education
AB 442
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by : Michael Ricketts / ED. / (916) 319-2087