On March 9, 2009 the Appellate Court issued its decision in the California School Boards Association v. State of California case affirming in part and reversing in part the Superior Court decision on the Mandate Reimbursement Program, Open Meetings Act, and School Accountability Report Cards mandate programs.

 

The central issue for the Court was the Separation of Powers argument posed by CSBA.  The Court held that the Legislature's directive to the Commission on State Mandates to set aside and rehear the MRP, OMA, and SARC claims violated the separation of powers doctrine, therefore making the Commission's actions on these test claims void.  The Court held, "[o]nce the Commission's decisions are final, whether after judicial review or without judicial review, they are binding, just as are judicial decisions."

 

Reversal of the trial court came, not as it relates to the overall decision to reinstate these programs, but on a technical matter related to the Legislature's order to set aside a claim versus the order to reconsider a claim.  Specifically, the Court found that:

 

"There is no legally defensible basis for distinguishing between the Legislature's direction to set aside, on one hand, and to reconsider, on the other, a final determination by the Commission.  The trial court found that the direction to reconsider was merely procedural and therefore did not overstep the Legislature's bounds.  However, the effect of the direction to reconsider was to nullify the finality of specific Commission decisions.  Such a case-by-case legislative abrogation of Commission decisions violates the separation of powers doctrine.

 

"Because the Legislature had no power to direct the Commission to set aside or reconsider its test case decisions, the Commission's actions in response to that direction were unauthorized.  The Commission, itself, stated in its new decisions that it was acting to reconsider or set aside the decisions pursuant to the direction of the Legislature.

 

"Therefore, the setting aside and reconsideration of the test claims at issue here (Open Meetings Act and Brown Act Reform test claims, the Mandate Reimbursement I test claim, and the School Accountability Report Cards test claim) was unauthorized, and we direct the trial court to modify its judgment and the writ of mandate accordingly."

 

The Appellate Court remanded the Mandate Reimbursement Process II back to the Commission on State Mandates for a final decision.  The Court stated:

 

"In finding that the duties imposed by the State did not give rise to reimbursable costs in the Mandate Reimbursement Process II test claim decision, the Commission did not decide for itself whether those duties were expressly included in or necessary to implement a ballot measure.  Instead, the Commission simply cited the Legislature's declaration in Government Code section 17500 that the Legislature's intent in enacting the statutes was 'to provide for the implementation of [Proposition 4].'

 

"The Commission's conclusion that the Legislature's statement of intent resolved the matter was unjustified because legislative declarations concerning whether a state mandate exists are irrelevant to the Commission's determination of whether a state mandate exists.

 

"Applying the holding in County of Los Angeles, we conclude that the Legislature's declarations concerning its intent in enacting the state mandate reimbursement provisions are simply irrelevant to the determination of whether a state mandate exists.  We discern no conflict between this conclusion and article III, section 3.5 of the Constitution, stating that an administrative agency has no power to declare a statute unconstitutional or refuse to enforce it on that basis.  A legislative finding that a mandate exists is irrelevant to the Commission's determination and, therefore, it is unnecessary to determine whether the finding conflicts with the Constitution.  [citation omitted.]  On remand, the Commission must disregard any declarations of legislative intent and, instead, decide for itself whether a reimbursable state mandate exists."

 

The Court went into great detail concerning the additional legal issues related to the new ballot measure restriction outlined in Government Code section 17556.  Ultimately, the Court held:

 

"We are not in a position to determine whether, under our interpretation of Government Code section 17556, subdivision (f), the State is obligated to provide reimbursement with respect to the Mandate Reimbursement Process II test claim.  Because there was no case interpreting the subdivision, the Commission was required to apply it, as written.  Therefore, the Commission must have the opportunity to resolve the question first.  

"In the Mandate Reimbursement Process II test claim decision, the Commission noted that it had no authority to refuse to apply Government Code section 17556, subdivision (f), even if the subdivision was inconsistent with the Constitution.  Now that we have held that the subdivision is, in part, inconsistent with article XIII B, section 6, and must be interpreted to eliminate that inconsistency, the Commission can apply the subdivision properly."

 

While the State may choose to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court is seems unlikely the Court would entertain this case as it has little state-wide impact or new legal issues that must be addressed or clarified.

Ultimately, this decision is a huge win for school district mandate interests as it returns three long-standing mandate programs to the fray and provides needed clarity as to the Commission's position and authority.  We await final decision by the State on whether it will appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.  If there is no appeal, this case will return to the Superior Court on remand and finally to the Commission on State Mandates.  The Commission will then need to take actions consistent with the final decision and reinstate these programs.  We expect reinstatement to include reopening of filing windows for all three programs back to the date they were first set aside by the Commission.  We will keep you posted as these claims progress.

 

Congratulations to all at CSBA who worked on this case, all the mandate experts who took part in these test claims before the Commission on State Mandates, and to all school districts throughout the state - this is a big win.