08.23.09: AB 844 Background Information
By David Walrath
Summary
Assembly Bill 844 (Villines) would provide school districts with limited flexibility for existing state mandated programs and would create a streamlined reimbursement process for new mandates.
Problem
The current state mandate process to reimburse schools is broken. In California School Boards Association vs. The State of California, the San Diego Superior Court found:
“Since 2001-02, the State has been only nominally funding certain state mandated school programs and ‘deferring’ payment of the balance. Deferral means that, although no significant state funding is provided, the school districts are not excused from implementing the new programs. The amount of unpaid funds that would otherwise compensate the school districts for these programs is considered by the state to be an obligation or debt to be satisfied at some unspecified future time. The result is that school districts are required to perform an increasing number of mandated activities even though no money is provided. (Exh. 12, p. E-76)
“The total amount of school district mandates that have been unfunded or subject to deferred funding, including statutory interest that is owed to school districts is over $1 billion.
“The Legislature’s failure to include a mandate in the first instance, or by nominally funding $1,000, defeats the school districts’ right to a remedy. The Legislature has conditioned the districts’ remedy on certain procedural prerequisites and then specifically declined to allow these prerequisites to take place, diluting the remedy to the point of non-existence. In essence, these practices have forced districts to involuntarily provide programs or services without reimbursement in contravention of the State Constitution.
“The Court finds that by deferring payments and not deleting the funding from the Budget, the Legislature has effectively circumvented school districts and county offices of education from exercising their statutory remedy regarding test claims for deleted items whose venue is in the Sacramento Superior Court. (§ 17612(c).) Accordingly, the plaintiffs have no adequate available legal remedy but for this writ of mandate. [Code of Civil Procedure §1085]
“The Court further finds the State’s practice of deferring payment for state mandated programs is an unreasonable and unconstitutional restriction on the school districts and the county offices of education’s constitutional rights under article XIII B, section 6 of the California Constitution. The State has improperly shifted the costs for the state mandated programs from the State to the school districts and county offices of education. This practice requires the school districts and county offices of education to continue to provide state mandate programs and services while deferring payment for those services to some unknown future date well beyond the one year period of time contemplated in the Government Code. This could not have been the intent of the California voters when approving Proposition 4 in 1979 when enacting article XIII (B) of the California Constitution.”
While funding fully mandated costs was anticipated when voters enacted Article XIII B Section 6 in the State Constitution, schools have not received annual full funded mandate reimbursement for most of the past decade.
State funding for schools is inadequate to maintain current program funding levels and there is no expectation that current funding deficits will be restored within the next three to five years. Therefore, funding for mandate reimbursement either might not occur or could result in continuing deficits and cuts.
Mandate reimbursement is included in the Proposition 98 guarantee. Districts can receive a greater share of the guarantee if the district can claim greater mandate claim amounts than are claimed by other districts. This leads to shifting Proposition 98 funds based on a district’s claiming skills. Because small school districts do not have as many staff as larger districts, the current claiming and reimbursement process results in the small districts receiving disproportionately less Proposition 98 guarantee funding and the other districts disproportionately more of the guarantee.
AB 844 Provisions
Current Mandates on Schools
- AB 844 would direct the Legislative Analyst to review all current mandates. The Analyst would report to the Legislature on whether the mandate should be repealed, amended or continued in current form.
- AB 844 would allow school districts greater flexibility for current mandates the Commission on State Mandates identifies as not affecting pupil health and safety. This flexibility would be for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 fiscal year. The flexibility would be if the district does not claim for reimbursement for the mandated activity, the district would not have to perform the mandated activity.
- AB 844 makes no changes to the current law claiming and reimbursement process for current mandates.
New Mandates on Schools
For mandates operative January 1, 2010 and thereafter, AB 844 would:
- Require the Commission on State Mandates to determine if a statute is a mandate within six months of the statute’s enactment.
- Require the Commission to develop a reasonable cost reimbursement methodology for all new mandates within a year.
- Require the Commission to develop claiming instructions and notify the Governor of the statewide costs based on the reasonable cost reimbursement methodology.
- States legislative intent that new mandates delay mandate operative dates by one year. This intent is to provide the Commission time to meet its requirements.
Current and New School Mandates
- AB 844 declares that none of its provisions affect the legal rights of school districts to seek relief in the courts.
- Option for Reasonable Cost Reimbursement
