Presented By:
Jeff Rice, Founder/Director, APLUS+
Lisa Corr, Partner, Y,M,&C, LLC
Ben Claassen, Director, SSHS
Chris Mahurin, Director, CORE @ TCA

Resource Center Location: What You Need to Know and What You Need to Have

Resource Center Location: What You Need to Know and What You Need to Have
Why Did it Happen?
NEED FOR THE BILL According to the author (Sarah Reyes, D., Fresno), "When the Charter School Act was passed in 1992, the Legislature intended to provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and the community members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the state's existing school districts.
Except where specifically noted, charter schools are generally exempt from most laws governing school districts.
However, because charter schools lack the oversight and accountability required of other public schools, reforms are needed.“
"One case that particularly concerns me is the Gateway Academy Charter School (Gateway) in my district. The
Fresno Unified School District approved the charter with Gateway in 1998 and the school started operating in
September 1999, according to the Department of Education. However, the charter was revoked by the Fresno
Unified School District Board last month after it learned that the 600-student statewide school had accumulated a $1.3 million debt in one year, hired teachers without credentials, and employed individuals who did not pass criminal background checks. The large debt triggered many questions including how Gateway used state and federal funding and questions about its enrollment. Inquiries suggested that one of Gateway's satellites, the Silicon Valley Academy, was providing sectarian studies and charging tuition. Numerous other accounts of violations involving Gateway have been alleged over the last several months. AB 1994 provides several key common sense reforms so charter schools are more accountable to taxpayers."

Resource Center Location: What You Need to Know and What You Need to Have





Resource Center Location: What You Need to Know and What You Need to Have







Delaine Eastin/Janet Sterling Instructions to County Offices and Districts:
2002
CDE Website FAQs: 2004 and online until 2009
The Infamous Marta Reyes Letter: 2007
MY&M Legal Opinion: 2009
The Carol Barkley/CDE Opinion Revised: 2009
Adjacent County Teacher Office/Storage Facility CDE Opinion: The Robert
Tavonatti Clause: 2009
CCSESSA’s Collaborative Committee Letter and Best Practices Guidelines to
Superintendents: 2011

Resource Center Location: What You Need to Know and What You Need to Have



Resource Center Location: What You Need to Know and What You Need to Have
The First and Only Court Judge Decision Known to Date
 ANDERSON UHSD VS. SHASTA SECONDARY HIGH SCHOOL: August 26, 2013
On The Irreparable Harm Claim:
In balancing the harms to the parties if an injunction issues versus if an injunction is denied, the existence of irreparable harm to Plaintiff is necessary. CCP section 526(a)(2) lists the traditional considerations of “irreparable harm”. An inadequate legal remedy is one of them, i.e., the damages remedy is inadequate because some immeasurable harm is threatened. Relief is unlikely unless someone will be significantly hurt in a way that cannot be later repaired. People ex rel. Gow v. Mitchell Brothers’ Santa Ana Theater (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 863, 870-871.
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate why monetary damages would be inadequate to remedy any claimed loss of funds resulting from decreased student enrollment if a final decision on the merits is in Plaintiff’s favor. More importantly, Plaintiff fails to prove decreased student enrollment will result absent injunctive relief. Plaintiff merely opines that if an injunction is not issued, “it is likely that students will transfer out of the District and into SSHS.” This statement is based upon a speculative statement in the Declaration of Tim Azevedo in support of the application for injunction, as well as by assuming, without any supporting evidence, the same loss of enrollment as that which occurred from students transferring to a nearby charter school, Westwood Charter School, over the last five years.
Plaintiff has also failed to establish that irreparable harm to the community is likely. Instead, Plaintiff simply speculates and concludes that without possessing the ability to control or oversee Defendant’s operations within its district boundaries, it will somehow lose the opportunity to provide the services “required” by the community.
Plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated imminent or irreparable harm will occur absent a preliminary injunction during the time a final determination on the merits is pending. The application for preliminary injunctions is denied on this basis.

Resource Center Location: What You Need to Know and What You Need to Have
The First and Only Court Judge Decision Known to Date
 ANDERSON UHSD VS. SHASTA SECONDARY HIGH SCHOOL: August 26, 2013
On the Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits:
In light of the Court’s determination that Plaintiff has not established irreparable harm justifying preliminary relief, an analysis on the likelihood of prevailing on the merits is not necessary. However, the Court addresses the merits and finds Plaintiff has not established a likelihood of prevailing.
The Education Code neither permits nor precludes the establishment of a resource center/meeting space by a non-classroom based public charter school within the county where the charter is authorized but outside the boundaries of the school district which authorized the charter.
Education Code 47605.1(c) allows a similar resource center/meeting space in an adjacent county even when it obviously would be outside the boundaries of the school district which authorized the charter. However, that code section is silent as to whether a resource center/meeting space is allowed in county when it would be outside the boundaries of the school district which authorized the charter. The problem being addressed by the amended §47605.1 was proper oversight of charter schools. Given that proper oversight was the problem being addressed, it would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme and lead to an absurd result to interpret the statutes as disallowing such a space within the county when it is allowed in an adjacent county. The Court must “interpret legislative enactments so as to avoid absurd results.” ( People v. Torres (2013) 213
Cal.App.4th 1151, 1158.) Also, the Court must apply “reason, practicality, and common sense to the language” of the statute. (Ailanto
Properties, Inc. v. City of Half Moon Bay (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 572 at 591[“[a]lthough our review of the legislative history suffices to support our conclusion, applying ‘reason, practicality, and common sense to the language at hand’ confirms that conclusion”].)
Plaintiff has not established a likelihood of prevailing.
The application for preliminary injunction is denied. A proposed order denying the request for the preliminary injunction was submitted with the opposing papers and will be signed by the Court if the tentative ruling is adopted.

Resource Center Location: What You Need to Know and What You Need to Have







ANDERSON UHSD VS. SHASTA SECONDARY HIGH SCHOOL is not over; any additional legal outcome would be precedent-setting.
More challenges are likely as districts continue in declining enrollment and revenues
Be prepared; be vigilant; be courageous!
Don’t mess around. Get legal support.
Make sure your authorizer is on your side and is willing to stand up on your behalf!
Talk to other school directors who have faced similar challenges.
Make sure you have a large network of teachers, parents, stakeholders, elected officials, media and community members ready to go to battle in the public arena if needed.

Resource Center Location: What You Need to Know and What You Need to Have