Emma C., et al v. Eastin, et al

Filing 1715

Defendants' Amended Final Stipulation and Order on RSIP Budget and Court Monitor's Budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 re 1713 . Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 04/30/2012. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
JULIE WENG-GUTIERREZ
Senior Assistant Attorney General
LISA A. TILLMAN
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 126424
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
Department of Education

9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
14

3:96-cv-04179-TEH

EMMA C.,

15
16

Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED FINAL
STIPULATION ON RSIP BUDGET AND
COURT MONITOR’S BUDGET FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012, WITH
PROPOSED ORDER

v.

17
DELAINE EASTIN, ET AL.,

Judge:

18
Defendant.

The Honorable Thelton E.
Henderson

19
20
21
22
23

Defendants Delaine Eastin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education
(State Defendants) and Defendant Ravenswood City School District (District), collectively
Defendants, submitted a stipulation concerning the 2010-2011 RSIP budget, and the allocation of

24

the RSIP 2011-2012 budget and the Court Monitor’s budget between the Defendants on May 11,

25

2011. That filing is hereby amended to correct the April 16, 2012 payment indicated for the

26

Court Monitor’s budget from a total of $466,426 and to a total of $466,425.

27

A.

The RSIP Budget

28

The Defendants have agreed on a single year RSIP budget of $3,055,128
1
Defts. Amended Stip.RSIP and Monitor Budgets, FY 2011-12 (3:96-cv-04179-TEH)

1

(three million, fifty-five thousand, one hundred and twenty-eight dollars) for the 2011-2012 fiscal

2

year. (A copy of the agreed-upon RSIP budget 2011-2012 was attached to the initial stipulation

3

on this matter as Exhibit A.) In addition to this amount, the Court Monitor has informed the

4

parties that he has budgeted $ 399, 873 for the 2011-2012 fiscal year. (Court Docket (CD) 1618.)

5

The Defendants agree upon the following schedule:
By July 1, 2011, the State Defendants will pay 30 percent of their respective
allocated share (i.e., $38,988 or 30% of 1$129, 9591) of the Court Monitor’s
budget.

6
7
8

By July 1, 2011, the District will pay 15 percent of its respective allocated share
(i.e., $40,487 or 15% of $269,9142) of the Court Monitor’s budget.

9

By July 15, 2011, the District will pay 15 percent of its respective allocated share
(i.e., $40,487 or 15% of $269,914) of the Court Monitor’s budget.

10
11

By August 1, 2011, the State Defendants will pay 60 percent of their respective
allocated share (i.e., $595,750 or 60% of $ 992,9173) of the RSIP budget and 30
percent of their respective allocated share of the Court Monitor’s budget (i.e.
$38,988 or 30% of $129,959).

12
13
14

By August 1, 2011, the District will pay 30 percent of its respective allocated share
(i.e., $618,663 or 30% of $2,062,2114) of the RSIP budget.

15
16

By October 3, 2011, the District will pay 30 percent of its respective
allocated shares of the RSIP budget ($618,663) and the Court Monitor’s
budget (i.e., $80,974 or 30% of $269,914) (i.e., a total of $699,637).

17
18

By December 1, 2011, the State Defendants will pay 20 percent of their
respective allocated shares of the RSIP budget (i.e., $198,583 or 20% of
$992,917) and the Court Monitor’s budget ($25,992 or 20% of $129,959)
(i.e., a total of $224,575).

19
20
21

By January 16, 2012, the District will pay 20 percent of its respective
allocated shares of the RSIP budget (i.e., $412,442 or 20% of $2,062,211)
and the Court Monitor’s budget (i.e., $53,983 or 20% of $269,914) (i.e., a
total of $466,425).

22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

The State Defendants’ share of the Court Monitor’s budget is 32.5% of $399, 873, which
is $129,959.
2
The District’s share of the Court Monitor’s budget is 67.5% of $ 399,873 which is
$269,914.
3
The State Defendants’ share of the RSIP budget is 32.5% of $3,055,128, which is
$992,917.
4
The District’s share of the RSIP budget is 67.5% of $3,055,128, which is $2,062,211.
2
Defts. Amended Stip.RSIP and Monitor Budgets, FY 2011-12 (3:96-cv-04179-TEH)

1

By March 1, 2012, the State Defendants will pay 20 percent of their
respective allocated shares of the RSIP budget (i.e., $198,584 or 20% of $
992,917) and the Court Monitor’s budget ($25,992 or 20% of $129,959)
(i.e., a total of $224,575).

2
3

By April 16, 2012, the District will pay 20 percent of its respective allocated
shares of the RSIP budget (i.e., $412,442 or 20% of $2,062,211) and the
Court Monitor’s budget (i.e., $53,983 or 20% of $269,914) (i.e., a total of
$466,425).

4
5
6
7

B.

8

The District and State Defendants have agreed that responsibility for the RSIP and Court

9
10
11

The Allocation between the District and the State Defendants

Monitor’s budgets will be allocated sixty-seven and one half percent (67.5%) to the District and
thirty-two and one half percent (32.5%) to the State Defendants for the 2011-2012 fiscal year.
The District and the State Defendants request that the Court issue an order to approve the

12

RSIP budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year and to implement the allocation and schedule

13

described herein.

14

The District and the State Defendants further agree that the percentage or contribution

15

amounts set forth above may change pursuant to the issuance of a Court Order determining that

16

certain RSIP expenditures are no longer supported or needed to implement the RSIP, or that the

17

respective duties of the parties have changed during the course of the 2011-2012 budget year, or

18

pursuant to a Court Order authorizing additional RSIP expenditures for fiscal year 2011-2012.

19

C.

20

The District and State Defendants have obtained an agreement on the total RSIP budget

21

amount as well as the composition and costs of the individual line item amounts necessary for

22

these parties to address RSIP compliance as of May 6, 2011.

Redirection of Funds

23

1. In order to maintain the line-by-line and overall RSIP budget amounts stated in this

24

stipulation, the District and State Defendants agree that there will be no redirection of funds from

25

the RSIP budget to any other District budget.

26

2. In order to maintain the line-by-line and overall RSIP budget amounts stated in this

27

stipulation, the District and State Defendants agree that there will be no redirection of funds

28

between the individual lines of this RSIP budget, unless the District provides counsel for the State
3
Defts. Amended Stip.RSIP and Monitor Budgets, FY 2011-12 (3:96-cv-04179-TEH)

1

Defendants with written notice of its intent to redirect funds at least 15 calendar days before the

2

proposed redirection and any of the provisions stated in the below subsections apply. By entering

3

this stipulation, the State Defendants do not waive their right to pursue any legal remedies

4

available under the applicable rules of the federal court.

5

a. Definition: As used in this stipulation, redirection of funds within the RSIP will refer to

6

the funds being taken from a line item ("source line item") and being used as additional funds for

7

another line item ("recipient line item").

8

b. Magnitude: The District must indicate in its written notice of intent the magnitude of the

9

proposed redirection in terms of a dollar amount, as well as the percentage of the source line item

10
11

funds being taken and in terms of the percentage of recipient line item funds being augmented.
c. Procedures for Redirection:

12

(1) No Written Stipulation Necessary:
Where a single redirection involves an amount equal to 5% or less of the source line item

13
14

funds or the recipient line item funds for FY 2011-12, then no written stipulation between the

15

District and State Defendants is necessary to accomplish the redirection. Should three or more

16

redirections involving individual amounts equal to 5% or less of a specific source line item or a

17

specific recipient line item for fiscal year 2011-12 occur, then any subsequent redirections of such

18

line item funds must be accomplished in accordance with the "mandatory process" set forth below

19

at (2).

20
21

(2) Mandatory Process for Written Stipulation and/or Court Order:
i. Where the redirection involves more than 5% of the source line item funds or the

22

recipient line item funds for FY 2011-12, then the District must seek a written stipulation with the

23

State Defendants to accomplish the redirection.

24

ii. If the District and State Defendants are unable to reach a written stipulation

25

concerning the redirection of funds exceeding 5% of the source line item funds or the recipient

26

line item funds for fiscal year 2011-12, then the District and State Defendants shall engage in a

27

meet-and-confer process, with the facilitation and/or mediation of the Court's monitor, if so

28

requested by the District or State Defendants, to reach a written stipulation on such redirection.
4
Defts. Amended Stip.RSIP and Monitor Budgets, FY 2011-12 (3:96-cv-04179-TEH)

1

iii. Absent a written stipulation, the District may seek Court authorization for redirection

2

of funds in an amount exceeding 5% of the source line item funds or the recipient line item funds

3

for fiscal year 2011-12 upon briefing and hearing conducted under the applicable rules of the

4

federal court.

5

D.

Changes in District Budget

6

The District shall notify the State Defendants if its overall budget and/or any particular line

7

items of the District’s budget is reduced during fiscal year 2011-12, as a result of and not limited

8

to staff furloughs, layoffs, freezes on scheduled salary increases, net salary savings from vacant

9

positions, reduction in school days, such that the actual amount needed to fund any stipulated

10

RSIP budget item or the overall RSIP budget is reduced. The District must notify the State

11

Defendants of that reduction or freeze by letter to the State Defendants’ counsel within 30 days of

12

the action so that the District and the State Defendants may reach a stipulation on the amount of

13

any deposited RSIP funds to be returned or credited, and, if requested by either the District or the

14

State Defendants, engage in a meet-and-confer process, with the facilitation and/or mediation of

15

the Court’s Monitor, to reach a stipulation. Absent a stipulation between the District and State

16

Defendants, the sought return or crediting of deposited RSIP funds may be determined by the

17

Court upon briefing and hearing conducted under applicable rules of the federal court.

18

Nothing in this stipulation constitutes a waiver by the District of its right to file a motion

19

with the Court seeking additional contribution from the State Defendants for an overall increase

20

in the RSIP budget due to extraordinary circumstances.

21

E.

22

As of July 2011, the District will require, as a provision of its contracts with compensatory

23

education service providers for services under the December 20, 2007 Order (Court Docket (CD)

24

1157), that the contractor provide a statement (such as a spreadsheet) to CDE and to the District,

25

at the same time, indicating (1) the SEIS student identification numbers of the students receiving

26

services, (2) the types of services provided to each student, (3) the number of minutes of service

27

provided and (4) the invoice numbers and amounts for rendered services for each student to

28

enable tracking of the rendered services and funds by student. Should a contractor not be

Invoices on Compensatory Education Services

5
Defts. Amended Stip.RSIP and Monitor Budgets, FY 2011-12 (3:96-cv-04179-TEH)

1

amenable to this provision, then the District will provide to the California Department of

2

Education (CDE) the invoices and indicate (1) the SEIS student identification numbers of the

3

students receiving services, (2) the types of services provided to each student, and (3) the number

4

of minutes provided for the rendered services. The District will provide a copy of the invoices to

5

CDE at the same time they are provided by the District to the Court Monitor.

6

As of July 2011, the District will indicate on the submitted invoices for products in lieu of

7

compensatory education services the SEIS student identification numbers of the students

8

receiving the products. The District will provide a copy of the invoices to CDE at the same time

9

they are provided by the District to the Court Monitor.

10

As of July 2011, the District will provide on a monthly basis to CDE a statement indicating

11

(1) the names of the students receiving compensatory education services from District employees,

12

including and not limited to teachers, (2) the types of services provided to each student, (3) the

13

number of minutes provided to each student for each service provided to that student in that

14

month, and (4) the amount paid to the employee for performing the compensatory education

15

service to the extent the employee is paid in excess of his or her standard salary for performing

16

such services.

17

F.

18

The District and the State Defendants further agree that the District shall submit quarterly

19

invoices, in accordance with the same schedule agreed upon for payment into the Court registry,

20

to the Court Monitor reflecting the funding necessary to implement the First Amended Consent

21

Decree and RSIP.

Quarterly Invoices

22

The District and the State Defendants further agree that copies of any and all invoices, and

23

any supporting documents provided by the District to the Court Monitor shall also be provided at

24

the same time to the CDE.

25

The District and the State Defendants further agree that they shall meet and confer, upon

26

the request of either party received within 30 days after the submission of the quarterly invoices

27

to the Court Monitor, regarding the invoices or other documents provided to the Court Monitor.

28
6
Defts. Amended Stip.RSIP and Monitor Budgets, FY 2011-12 (3:96-cv-04179-TEH)

1

The parties request that the Court Monitor be instructed to maintain an accounting of all such

2

invoices and forward them to the Court for immediate payment.

3

G.

4

The District and the State Defendants further agree that on a quarterly basis, in accordance

Line Item Accounting

5

with the same schedule agreed upon for District payment into the Court registry beginning

6

October 3, 2011, and with a final statement due by August 31, 2012, the District will provide

7

CDE with a line item accounting of budget expenditures. Upon CDE’s written request, the

8

District will provide backup documentation, in the form of and not limited to invoices and

9

expenditure reports, supporting the RSIP expenditures so that CDE can perform a quarterly audit

10

of RSIP expenditures.

11

H.

12

The District and the State Defendants further agree that the State Defendants may perform

13
14
15
16

Audits of RSIP Service and Expenditure Records

additional audits of RSIP records under two circumstances:
(1) First, the State Defendants may perform additional audits of RSIP records if so
authorized by Court Order.
(2) Second, and in the alternative, the State Defendants may conduct additional audits upon

17

30 days notice to the District and the Court Monitor that the State Defendants have reliable

18

evidence of misuse or misappropriation of RSIP funds and intend to conduct an additional audit

19

of RSIP records to determine if misuse or misappropriation of RSIP monies has in fact

20

occurred. Where the State Defendants provide notice of their intent to conduct an audit on such

21

basis, the parties shall meet and confer, upon the District’s request, to discuss disclosure of any or

22

all of the evidence of misuse or misappropriation of RSIP funds upon which the State

23

Defendants rely. Nothing in this stipulation shall prevent the District from seeking the Court’s

24

intervention.

25

I.

26

Should any LEA assume legal and/or financial responsibility for providing special

27

education services at any school(s) within the District during the 2011-2012 fiscal year,

28

the Defendants agree to meet and confer, as defined by Local Rule 1-5(n), concerning any RSIP

Assumption of Special Education Services:

7
Defts. Amended Stip.RSIP and Monitor Budgets, FY 2011-12 (3:96-cv-04179-TEH)

1

budget issues that may arise from the assumption, including and not limited to: (1) the LEA’s

2

financial responsibility for RSIP compliance, (2) the modification of the stipulated RSIP budget

3

to reflect the LEA’s assumed role and responsibilities for the delivery of special education

4

services in lieu of the District’s delivery, as funded under this RSIP budget, and (3) the

5

reversion of RSIP funds to the State Defendants as a result of special education services being

6

delivered by the LEA.

7

The Court Monitor may be included in this meet and confer process upon the request of

8

either Defendant. Should the Defendants be unable to reach agreement with regard to these

9

matters, the District or the State Defendants may petition the Court for modification of the

10

stipulated RSIP budget for fiscal year 2011-2012 upon briefing and hearing conducted under the

11

applicable rules of the federal court.

12

Dated: April 25, 2012

13

JOHN C. BEIERS, COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
By:

14
15
16

/s/ Aimee B. Armsby
Aimee B. Armsby
Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for Ravenswood City School District

.

17
18
19
20
21

Dated: April 25, 2012

OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: /s/ Lisa Tillman
.
Lisa Tillman
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants Delaine Eastin, Superintendent of
Public Instruction, and California Department of Education

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Defts. Amended Stip.RSIP and Monitor Budgets, FY 2011-12 (3:96-cv-04179-TEH)

1
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER
This Court has reviewed the amended stipulation of Defendants Delaine Eastin,

3

Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education (State Defendants) and Defendant

4

Ravenswood City School District (District), collectively Defendants, concerning the 2010-2011

5

RSIP budget, and the allocation of the RSIP 2011-2012 budget and the Court Monitor’s budget.

6

(Court Docket, The amended stipulation corrected the April 16, 2012 payment indicated for the

7

Court Monitor’s budget from a total of $466,426 to a total of $466,425.

8
9

04/30/2012
Dated:_______________________________

By:__________________________________
United States District Court Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

SA2005104070
10867900.doc

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Defts. Amended Stip.RSIP and Monitor Budgets, FY 2011-12 (3:96-cv-04179-TEH)