CSBA Budget Update: Analysis of Trailer Bill AB 114
By:
Analysis from CSBA's Governmental Relations Department
Published: June 30, 2011
The 100-page education trailer bill (AB 114) arrived on the Senate floor late Tuesday night and was immediately taken up for a vote. The version of the bill that was voted on was never heard in any committee, nor was it made available for public review and comment. Two especially troubling provisions -- relating to AB 1200 fiscal controls and certificated employee layoffs -- were described in CSBA's budget summary that was released on Wednesday.
Regarding the AB 1200 fiscal control requirements, AB 114 added the following language to Education Code Section 42127(a)(1):
(A) For the 2011-12 fiscal year, notwithstanding any of the standards and criteria adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 33127, each school district budget shall project the same level of revenue per unit of average daily attendance as it received in the 2010-11 fiscal year and shall maintain staffing and program levels commensurate with that level.
(B) For the 2011-12 fiscal year, the school district shall not be required to demonstrate that it is able to meet its financial obligations for the two subsequent fiscal years.
In other words, districts are being told to pretend that there is no possibility of a midyear budget cut, even though another bill in the budget package -- AB 121 -- clearly specifies that schools would be cut by nearly $2 billion if revenues come in below estimates. Parallel language applies to county office of education budgets.
And AB 114 also added this language to Section 42127(d):
For the 2011-12 fiscal year, notwithstanding any of the standards and criteria adopted by the state board pursuant to Section 33127, the county superintendent, as a condition on [sic] approval of a school district budget, shall not require a school district to project a lower level of revenue per unit of average daily attendance than it received in the 2010-11 fiscal year nor require the school district to demonstrate that it is able to meet its financial obligations for the two subsequent fiscal years.
While this provision applies to the criteria that county superintendents may (and may not) use in evaluating school district budgets, it does not prevent school districts from using these criteria on their own. In other words, a district can self-police and continue to take the next two fiscal years into account if it chooses.
However, the provisions added in paragraphs (A) and (B) above present problems with respect to staffing decisions made for the 2011-12 fiscal year. Does this mean that districts that laid off teachers in anticipation of a budget cut will now have to call them back? That seems to be the intent, but the answer may lie in how the word, "commensurate," is defined. This will take some careful legal analysis.
Yet another problematic provision of AB 114 is the one-year suspension of the August 15 teacher layoff window. Of course, given the other provisions of this bill, this may be moot. But it is another intrusion into the ability of school districts to manage their own resources.
If midyear budget cuts are realized, AB 114 severely restricts the ability of school districts to deal with them. The programs and services provided by classified employees and other non-teaching staff will take the full brunt of cuts, if districts are unable to negotiate a shorter school year with teachers. But these programs have already been hard hit by prior year budget cuts. Consequently, midyear cuts, coupled with statutory restrictions on how they may manage them, could drive more districts to financial insolvency. Ironically, this would result in those districts being "taken over" by the very state that forced their insolvency.
The question now is whether cleanup legislation can change these provisions. This would take a very loud and sustained outcry from board members and school administrators to be successful.
For more information, please contact CSBA's Governmental Relations department at (800) 266-3382.