BILL ANALYSIS
AB 572
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 572 (Brownley)
As Amended September 2, 2009
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |51-29|(May 28, 2009) |SENATE: |21-14|(August 24, |
| | | | | |2010) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
SUMMARY : Requires, commencing July 1, 2011, charter schools to
comply with the same conflict of interest requirements as school
districts by specifying that charter schools are subject to the
Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act), the California Public Records
Act (CPRA); Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) of Chapter
1 of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code; and, the
Political Reform Act of 1974 (PRA).
The Senate amendments :
1)Specify that charter schools are subject to the Brown Act,
except that a charter school operated by an entity governed by
the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (BKOMA) is subject to the
BKOMA, regardless of the authorizing entity.
2)Clarify that an individual may serve as a member of a charter
school governing body and be employed in a separate position
at that charter school despite Government Code 1090.
3)Specify that if a charter school governing body engages in
activities that are not related to the operation of the
charter school, this bill does not make those unrelated
activities subject to the Brown Act, the BKOMA, or the CPRA;
and, prohibit a meeting of the charter school governing body
to discuss items related to the charter school to also include
discussion of any item regarding an activity that is not
related to the charter school.
4)Specify that a charter school governing body may meet within
the boundaries of the county or counties in which one or more
of the school's facilities are located provided that proper
notices pursuant to the Brown Act and the BKOMA are posted
within the boundaries of each of the counties in which any of
AB 572
Page 2
the school's facilities is located; a charter school may also
meet in a county contiguous to the county where one or more of
the school's facilities are located, if at least 10% of the
pupils who are enrolled in the school reside in that
contiguous county; and, a nonclassroom based charter school
that does not have a facility may meet within the boundaries
of the county in which the greatest number of pupils who are
enrolled in the school reside.
5)Authorize a charter school governing body to hold closed
sessions to consider a matter regarding pupil discipline as
described in Education Code Section 48912.
6)Specify for purposes of the PRA, the jurisdiction of a charter
school shall be the county or counties in which the school's
facility or facilities are located; the jurisdiction for a
nonclassroom based charter school that does not have a
facility shall be the physical boundaries of the county or
counties where at least 10% of the pupils who are enrolled in
the school reside or, if at least 10% of the pupils do not
reside in a single county, the county in which the greatest
number of pupils who are enrolled in the school reside.
7)Declare that a statement of economic interest that is filed by
a designated person at a charter school after the required
deadline pursuant to the PRA shall not be the sole basis for
revocation of a charter pursuant to Education Code Section
47607.
8)Define for purposes of this measure, "facility" to mean a
charter school campus, resource center, meeting space, or
satellite facility.
9)Declare this measure to become operative on July 1, 2011.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantively similar
to the version approved by the Senate.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill requires charter school governing board
members to comply with the same conflict of interest policies by
which school district governing board members currently abide.
Recent news reports of charter school board members engaging in
inappropriate financial mismanagement have highlighted the need
AB 572
Page 3
for charter school conflict of interest laws to be clarified.
While charter schools are given more autonomy than public
schools, their governing boards have authority over public funds
to be used for the educational benefit of their students.
Charter school governing boards should be held to the same
standards as school district governing boards. This bill
requires charter school boards to file statements of economic
interest according to the PRA; specifies that charter school
board members may not be financially interested in any decision
made by the board; requires charter schools to comply with the
CPRA; and, requires charter school boards to abide by the Brown
Act or the BKOMA.
The Brown Act governs meetings conducted by local legislative
bodies, such as boards of supervisors, city councils, and school
boards. The Brown Act requires meetings of the board to be
publicly noticed 72 hours before their meetings, among other
requirements.
The CPRA was enacted in 1968 and according to the Attorney
General, in enacting the CRPA, the Legislature stated that
access to information concerning the conduct of the public's
business is a fundamental and necessary right for every person
in the state.
Government Code Section 1090 states that members of the
Legislature, state, county, district, judicial district, and
city officers or employees shall not be financially interested
in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by
any body or board of which they are members. In a 1983 opinion
the Attorney General stated, "Section 1090 of the Government
Code codifies the common law prohibition and the general policy
of this state against public officials having a personal
interest in contracts they make in their official capacities.
Mindful of the ancient adage, that 'no man can serve two
masters,' the section was enacted to ensure that public
officials 'making' official contracts not be distracted by
personal financial gain from exercising absolute loyalty and
undivided allegiance to the best interest of the entity which
they serve."
The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) was created by
the PRA of 1974. The FPPC receives and files statements of
economic interests from many state and local officials,
AB 572
Page 4
investigates alleged violations of the PRA, imposes penalties
when appropriate, and assists state and local agencies in
developing and enforcing conflict-of-interest codes. School
districts are required to comply with the PRA, and in so, school
district governing board members and designated employees must
file a statement of economic interest, annually.
Supporters of the bill, including the California School Boards
Association, the Association of California School
Administrators, the California Association of School Business
Officials, the California State PTA, the California Federation
of Teachers, Orange County Department of Education, San
Francisco Unified School District, and Antioch Unified School
District, argue this measure will strengthen efforts to end
financial abuse of public funds in charter schools and provide
transparency into the operations of the many charter schools
that are providing quality educational options for parents and
students.
The California Teachers Association (CTA) supports the bill and
believes that all charter school governing boards should be free
of conflicts of interest in the operation of charter schools and
that the Brown Act and the CPRA should apply to the operation of
these schools. There is a role for charter schools in
California's education system. That role should be performed to
at least the same high standards of integrity, transparency and
openness required of traditional public schools.
The California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) opposes the
bill and argues, "CCSA supports applying appropriate conflict of
interest provisions to charter schools, including transparency
and recusal by board members with a financial interest in a
board decision. In fact, most charter schools are nonprofit
corporations and must abide by the Corporations Code that
includes conflict of interest provisions. We believe that AB
572's directive that charter schools comply with Government Code
Section 87100 et seq applies an inappropriate conflict of
interest scheme to charter schools."
Statute governing corporations authorizes up to 49% of people
serving on the board of any corporation to be financially
interested in the decisions made by the board. Advocates of
charter schools contend they should abide by conflict of
interest provisions related to corporations, not school
districts, because some charter schools are operated by
AB 572
Page 5
non-profit corporations. The Assembly should consider whether
it is appropriate to allow public funded charter schools to have
board members be financially interested in the decisions they
make.
Previous legislation: AB 2115 (Mullin) of 2008, required
charter schools to adopt and comply with a conflict of interest
policy that requires its governing board members to abide by the
same conflict of interest requirements as local education agency
(LEA) governing board members. The bill was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger with the following message: "Not only would this
bill create state mandated costs for charter schools to comply
with its provisions, the measure runs counter to the intent of
charter schools, which were created to be free from many of the
laws governing schools districts."
AB 1197 (Wiggins) of 2004, specified that individuals who govern
charter schools shall file statements of economic interest under
the PRA. The bill failed passage on the Senate Floor.
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN:
0003072