Alliance sues over mandates
New lawsuit charges budget seeks to avoid paying LEAs
Published: January 11, 2011
Striking back against recent legislation that undermines the state’s obligation to pay for the programs and services it requires schools to provide, CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance last week filed what Director Richard Hamilton called a “broad constitutional challenge” against California’s mandate reimbursement process.
The lawsuit, filed Jan. 6 in Alameda County Superior Court, challenges provisions of the 2010-11 budget package that was enacted last October, including Senate Bill 870—the Budget Act itself—and Assembly Bill 1610, a so-called “trailer bill” that implements aspects of education funding.
Under the 2010-11 budget provisions, for example, a state agency such as the Department of Finance can ask the Commission on State Mandates to revisit—or “redetermine”—one of the commission’s own prior findings that a reimbursable mandate exists when there has been “a subsequent change in law.” This violates the constitutional separation of powers by undermining the commission’s independent “quasi-judicial” role, which has been upheld in previous court cases, Hamilton noted, adding, “Of course, the Legislature took self-serving liberties in defining what should be considered ‘a subsequent change in law’ under this procedure.”
Reimbursement guaranteed in constitution
Recapping more than three decades of statute and case law, the lawsuit alleges that California “has resorted to various subterfuges and artifices to avoid its reimbursement obligation.” On many occasions—often in response to Alliance legal action—courts have stricken down those tactics. New approaches in the budget legislation, however, “if accepted, would essentially allow the state to define its mandate obligations out of existence … and defeat the right of reimbursement” guaranteed in the state constitution, according to the suit.
Hamilton used Behavioral Intervention Plans, cited in the lawsuit, to explain that the 2010-11 budget package even threatens payments for mandates that had already been settled. Local educational agencies must develop BIPs for special education students who exhibit serious behavioral problems. In 2000, the commission had deemed California statutes and regulations on BIPs a reimbursable mandate requiring services beyond those required by federal law.
Nothing has occurred since then to change that. On the contrary, the Alliance negotiated a settlement for BIP reimbursement with the state Department of Finance in 2008, garnering a permanent increase of $65 million to special education funding under Assembly Bill 602’s funding model for the ongoing BIP requirements and more than $575 million for LEAs in a multiyear settlement for past claims. However, the state Legislature effectively blocked implementation of the settlement, and the 2010-11budget package is just “the latest gimmick to avoid the BIP reimbursement in its entirety,” according to Hamilton.
“The budget package declares that adopted regulations are ‘declaratory of federal law and deemed necessary to implement the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and that state regulations do not exceed federal requirements, create any separate state requirements, or result in a level of state service beyond that needed to comply with federal law and regulations,” Hamilton explained. “Thus the Legislature self-proclaims the commission was wrong and avoids a state reimbursement obligation because in its view BIP is a federal mandate for which California is not responsible.
“Then, to cap off this latest move, the Legislature put a provision in the trailer bill language that if any [BIP] activities are determined to be a reimbursable mandate, then state funding provided for in the budget’s special education appropriation ‘shall first be used to directly offset any mandated costs,’ ” Hamilton continued. This is a “shoehorn” approach of backing into another basis for the Legislature to avoid a funding responsibility for new programs—it will argue that this ‘move’ qualifies as specific funding for BIP, a statutory exception avoiding the necessity for reimbursement.
“The Legislature put in statute an age-old argument that general funding, in this case special education funding, should have been first used to offset the costs of the mandate without up-front specificity by the Legislature,” Hamilton objected. “That’s just a power play that results in using existing funding to pay for a new huge obligation the Legislature has imposed on LEAs—one that’s already been rejected when argued before.”
Graduation requirement for science
The 2010-11 budget package also jeopardizes state funding for the legislative requirement that students take two science courses in order to graduate from high school, Hamilton said. AB 1610 asserts that discretionary funding provided for teacher salaries “shall first be allocated to fund the teacher salary costs incurred to provide the courses required by the state.”
However, the Commission on State Mandates ruled in 1987 that the state must reimburse LEAs for the cost of hiring additional science teachers to fulfill the mandate. The State Controller’s Office argued LEAs could lay off teachers of non-mandated courses in order to fund the required positions, but a trial court judge rejected the argument and the decision was not appealed, Hamilton noted.
“Once again, there’s no new funding for a state requirement, just redesignated use of existing funding. The constitution imposes the obligation on the state to reimburse for new programs, and that obligation is not met by directing ”first use” of existing funding to the new program,” Hamilton said.
The state’s attorneys have 30 days from formal service of the lawsuit to respond.
“We are hopeful the new governor’s response will be different from that of the prior administration,” Hamilton commented.
Easy link: