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

Filing 2189

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE RSIP BUDGET FOR FY 2016-17 Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 5/31/2016. re 2186 Proposed Order filed by Ravenswood City Elementary School District (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 JOHN C. BEIERS County Counsel (SBN 144282) BY: AIMEE ARMSBY, DEPUTY (SBN 226967) San Mateo Office of County Counsel Hall of Justice and Records 400 County Center, 6th Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (650) 363-4768 Facsimile: (650) 363-4034 Email: aarmsby@smcgov.org Attorneys for Defendant Ravenswood City School District and Related Defendants 8 9 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California ISMAEL A. CASTRO Supervising Deputy Attorney General R. MATTHEW WISE (SBN 238485) DARRELL SPENCE (SBN 248011 KARLI EISENBERG (SBN 281923) Deputy Attorneys General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Telephone: (916) 323-8549 Fax: (916) 324-5567 E-mails: Matthew.Wise@doj.ca.gov Karli.Eisenberg@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants Delaine Eastin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, the State Board of Education, and the California Department of Education 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 _____________________________________________ EMMA C., et al., Case No. C-96-4179 TEH 16 17 18 19 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE RSIP BUDGET FOR FY 2016-17 vs. DELAINE EASTIN, et al. Judge: The Honorable Thelton E. Henderson Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants Ravenswood City School District and related defendants (“District”) and Delaine Eastin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department of Education and related defendants (“CDE”), (collectively “Defendants”) hereby submit for approval the following 2016-17 budget deposit schedule and stipulation to budget oversight measures. I. The RSIP Budget for FY 2016-17 The RSIP budget, not including indirect costs, is $2,535,946.00 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17. Including indirect costs at the designated rate of 6.41%, the total RSIP budget for FY2016-17 is Case No. C-96-4179 TEH DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE RSIP BUDGET FOR FY 2016-17 1 2 3 $2,698,500.14. The budget, organized by object code, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Court Monitor has submitted a proposed 2016-17 budget of $295,290. Court Docket (CD) No. 2172. 4 5 II. Allocation of the FY2016-17 RSIP Budget between the District and CDE Defendants agree to allocate responsibility for the FY2016-17 RSIP budget eighty-two and a half 6 percent (82.5%) to the District and seventeen and a half percent (17.5%) to CDE. The District and the 7 CDE agree that the percentages set forth above may change pursuant to the issuance of a Court Order 8 determining that certain RSIP expenditures are no longer supported or needed to implement the RSIP, or 9 that the respective duties of the parties have changed during the course of FY 2015-16, or pursuant to a 10 Court Order authorizing additional RSIP expenditures for FY 2015-16, or upon such other grounds as 11 determined by the Court. 12 13 III. Allocation of the FY2016-17 Court Monitor’s Budget between the District and CDE With regard to the FY 2016-17 Court Monitor’s budget, Defendants seek direction from the Court 14 as to a process for arriving at an allocation percentage for purposes of making deposits and 15 disbursements for FY2016-17. In connection with the FY 2015-16 Court Monitor’s budget, the Court 16 obtained an estimate from the Court Monitor of 52.53% to the District and 47.47% to CDE, which 17 percentage Defendants then incorporated into the budget stipulation and payment schedule. CD Nos. 18 2064, 2065. The Court implemented a process for “truing up” the allocation based on actual time spent 19 by the Monitor, at some time following the close of FY2015-16 on June 30, 2016. Id. 20 It is anticipated that the allocation for FY2016-17 will be different from the allocation predicted 21 by the Court Monitor for FY2015-16. Defendants would be amenable to following the same process for 22 allocating the Court Monitor’s budget as is in place for the current fiscal year, i.e., obtaining preliminary 23 allocation percentages from the Court Monitor’s best estimate and applying that allocation for purposes 24 of the deposit and disbursement schedule for FY2016-17, with a process for reconciling the amounts paid 25 with the actual allocation of the Court Monitor’s time between RSIP-related and statewide-monitoring- 26 related matters based on his actual time records after the close of the 2016-17 fiscal year. 27 28 IV. Schedule of Deposits to the Court Given that the allocation of the Court Monitor’s budget is currently still in flux, Defendants have Case No. C-96-4179 TEH 2 DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE RSIP BUDGET FOR FY 2016-17 1 agreed on a schedule for deposits as set forth below. For the Court Monitor’s budget, the schedule 2 indicates only percentages of each defendant’s allocation percentage (to be determined), without 3 specifying dollar amounts. Upon direction from the Court, Defendants will file an amended stipulated 4 schedule specifying the amounts to be paid. Accordingly, the Defendants agree upon the following 5 schedule: 6 • By July 15, 2016, the CDE will pay 30 percent of their allocated share of the Court 7 Monitor’s budget (precise amount to be determined). 8 • 9 of the Court Monitor’s budget (precise amount to be determined). By July 15, 2016, the District will pay 30 percent of its respective allocated share 10 • By August 5, 2016, the CDE will pay 60 percent of their respective allocated share (i.e., 11 $283,342.52 or 60% of $472,237.52) of the RSIP budget and 30 percent of their respective 12 allocated share of the Court Monitor’s budget (precise amount to be determined). 13 • 14 $667,878.79 or 30% of $2,226,262.62) of the RSIP budget 15 • 16 the RSIP budget (i.e., $667,878.79 or 30% of $2,226,262.62) and the Court Monitor’s budget 17 (precise amount to be determined). 18 • 19 the RSIP budget (i.e., $94,447.50 or 20% of $472,237.52) and the Court Monitor’s budget 20 (precise amount to be determined). 21 • 22 shares of the RSIP budget (i.e., $445,252.52 or 20% of $2,226,262.62) and the Court Monitor’s 23 budget (precise amount to be determined). 24 • 25 RSIP budget (i.e., $94,447.50 or 20% of $472,237.52) and the Court Monitor’s budget (precise 26 amount to be determined). 27 • 28 the RSIP budget (i.e., $445,252.52 or 20% of $2,226,262.62) and the Court Monitor’s budget By August 5, 2016, the District will pay 30 percent of its respective allocated share (i.e., By October 3, 2016, the District will pay 30 percent of its respective allocated shares of By December 1, 2016, the CDE will pay 20 percent of their respective allocated shares of By January 16, 2017, the District will pay 20 percent of its respective allocated By March 1, 2017, the CDE will pay 20 percent of their respective allocated shares of the By April 14, 2017, the District will pay 20 percent of its respective allocated shares of Case No. C-96-4179 TEH 3 DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE RSIP BUDGET FOR FY 2016-17 1 (precise amount to be determined). 2 V. Redirection of Funds The District and CDE agree that there will be no redirection of funds from the RSIP budget to any 3 other District budget except by order of Court. In order to maintain the line-by-line and overall RSIP 4 budget amounts stated in this stipulation, the District and CDE agree that there will be no redirection of 5 funds between the individual lines of this RSIP budget, unless the District provides CDE with written 6 notice of its intent to redirect funds at least 15 calendar days before the proposed redirection and any of 7 the provisions stated in the below subsections apply. By entering this stipulation, Defendants do not 8 waive their right to pursue any legal remedies available under the applicable rules of the federal court. 9 a. Definition: As used in this stipulation, redirection of funds within the RSIP will refer to 10 the funds being taken from a line item as “source line item” and being used as additional funds for 11 another line item as “recipient line item”. 12 b. Magnitude: The District must indicate in its written notice of intent the magnitude of the 13 proposed redirection in terms of a dollar amount, as well as the percentage of the source line item funds 14 being taken and in terms of the percentage of recipient line item funds being augmented. 15 c. Procedures for Redirection: 16 17 (1) No Written Stipulation1 Necessary: Where a single redirection involves an amount equal to 5% or less of the source line item funds or 18 the recipient line item funds for FY 2016-17, then no written stipulation between the District and CDE is 19 necessary to accomplish the redirection. Should three or more redirections involving individual amounts 20 equal to 5% or less of a specific source line item or a specific recipient line item for FY 2016-17 occur, 21 then any subsequent redirections of such line item funds must be accomplished in accordance with the 22 "mandatory process" set forth below at (2). 23 (2) Mandatory Process for Written Stipulation and/or Court Order: 24 i. Where the redirection involves more than 5% of the source line item funds 25 or the recipient line item funds for FY 2016-17, then the District must seek a written 26 27 28 Case No. C-96-4179 TEH 4 DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE RSIP BUDGET FOR FY 2016-17 1 stipulation with CDE to accomplish the redirection. 2 ii. If the District and CDE are unable to reach a written stipulation concerning 3 the redirection of funds exceeding 5% of the source line item funds or the recipient line 4 item funds for FY 2016-17, then the District and CDE shall engage in a meet-and-confer 5 process, with the facilitation and/or mediation of the Court's monitor, if so requested by 6 the District or CDE, to reach a written stipulation on such redirection. 7 iii. Absent a written stipulation, the District may seek Court authorization for 8 redirection of fund in an amount exceeding 5% of the source line item funds or the 9 recipient line item funds for FY 2016-17 upon briefing and hearing conducted under the 10 11 12 applicable rules of the federal court. VI. Changes in RSIP Budget The District shall notify CDE if its overall budget and/or any particular line items of the 13 District’s budget is reduced during FY 2016-17, including but not limited to as a result of staff furloughs, 14 layoffs, freezes on scheduled salary increases, net salary savings from vacant positions, reduction in 15 school days, such that the actual amount needed to fund any stipulated RSIP function or the overall RSIP 16 budget is reduced. The District shall notify CDE of such reduction or freeze by letter to the CDE’s 17 counsel within 30 days of the action so that the District and CDE may reach a stipulation on the amount 18 of any deposited RSIP funds to be returned or credited, and, if requested by either the District or CDE, 19 engage in a meet-and-confer process, with the facilitation and/or mediation of the Court’s Monitor, to 20 reach a stipulation. Absent a stipulation between the District and CDE, any return or credit of deposited 21 RSIP funds shall be determined by the Court upon briefing and hearing conducted under applicable rules 22 of the federal court. Nothing in this stipulation constitutes a waiver by the District of its right to file a 23 motion with the Court seeking additional contribution from CDE and/or for an overall increase in the 24 RSIP budget due to extraordinary circumstances. 25 26 27 (continued …) 1 As used in the context of the redirection of budget amounts, “stipulation” shall not require court involvement, and may be accomplished through email. 28 Case No. C-96-4179 TEH 5 DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE RSIP BUDGET FOR FY 2016-17 1 VII. Periodic Invoices 2 The District and CDE further agree that the District shall submit periodic invoices corresponding to 3 available funds and in accordance with the schedule agreed upon in Section B, above, for payment into 4 the Court registry, to the Court Monitor reflecting the funding necessary to implement the First Amended 5 Consent Decree and RSIP. 6 The District and CDE further agree that copies of any and all invoices, and any supporting 7 documents provided by the District to the Court Monitor shall also be provided at the same time to the 8 CDE. 9 The District and CDE further agree that they shall meet and confer, upon the request of either party 10 received within 30 days after the submission of the invoices to the Court Monitor, regarding the invoices 11 or other documents provided to the Court Monitor. The parties request that the Court Monitor be 12 instructed to maintain an accounting of all such invoices and forward them to the Court for immediate 13 payment. 14 IIX. Line Item Accounting 15 The District and CDE further agree that on a monthly basis, beginning August 1, 2016, the District 16 will provide CDE with a line item report of budget expenditures. Upon receipt of CDE’s written request, 17 the District will provide backup documentation, in the form of and not limited to invoices and 18 expenditure reports, supporting the RSIP expenditures within 14 days, unless an extension is agreed upon 19 in writing by the parties’ representatives. 20 21 22 23 IX. Audits of RSIP Service and Expenditure Records The District and CDE further agree that CDE may perform additional audits of RSIP records under two circumstances: 24 (1) First, CDE may perform additional audits of RSIP records if so authorized by Court Order. 25 (2) Second, and in the alternative, CDE may conduct additional audits upon 30 days’ notice to 26 the District and the Court Monitor that CDE have reliable evidence of misuse or misappropriation of 27 RSIP funds and intend to conduct an additional audit of RSIP records to determine if misuse or 28 misappropriation of RSIP monies has in fact occurred. Where CDE provides notice of their intent to Case No. C-96-4179 TEH 6 DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE RSIP BUDGET FOR FY 2016-17 1 conduct an audit on such basis, the parties shall meet and confer, upon the District’s request, to 2 discuss disclosure of any or all of the evidence of misuse or misappropriation of RSIP funds upon which 3 CDE relies. Nothing in this stipulation shall prevent the District from seeking the Court’s intervention. 4 X. Assumption of Special Education Services 5 Should any LEA assume legal and/or financial responsibility for providing special education 6 services at any school(s) within the District during the 2016-2017 fiscal year, the Defendants agree to 7 meet and confer, as defined by Local Rule 1-5(n), concerning any RSIP budget issues that may arise 8 from the assumption, including and not limited to: (1) the LEA’s financial responsibility for RSIP 9 compliance, (2) the modification of the stipulated RSIP budget to reflect the LEA’s assumed role and 10 responsibilities for the delivery of special education services in lieu of the District’s delivery, as funded 11 under this RSIP budget, and (3) the reversion of RSIP funds to CDE as a result of special education 12 services being delivered by the LEA. 13 The Court Monitor may be included in this meet and confer process upon the request of either 14 Defendant. Should the Defendants be unable to reach agreement with regard to these matters, the 15 District or CDE may petition the Court for modification of the stipulated RSIP budget for fiscal year 16 2014-2015 upon briefing and hearing conducted under the applicable rules of the federal court. 17 18 XI. Deposit of Funds into the Court Registry 19 The indicated funds from CDE and the District will be deposited into the Court’s registry for 20 disbursement to the Court Monitor and to the District for RSIP purposes. 21 VI. CONCLUSION 22 Defendants hereby submit this joint stipulation and respectfully request that this Court approve 23 and order the agreed upon relief as set forth herein. 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: May 20, 2016 JOHN C. BEIERS, COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF SAN MATEO By: /s/ Aimee B. Armsby Aimee B. Armsby Case No. C-96-4179 TEH 7 DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE RSIP BUDGET FOR FY 2016-17 Deputy County Counsel Attorneys for Ravenswood City School District and Related Defendants. 1 2 3 4 Dated: May 20, 2016 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 5 By: 6 7 8 /s/ Karli Eisenberg Karli Eisenberg Attorneys for Defendants Delaine Eastin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Board of Education and the California Department of Education 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [PROPOSED] ORDER The Court has reviewed the parties’ Joint Stipulation regarding the 2016-17 RSIP and Court Monitor’s Budget. For good cause shown, the parties’ request to approve the agreements contained herein and order the parties’ Joint Stipulation concerning the 2016-17 RSIP and Court Monitor’s Budget as set forth herein is GRANTED. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 21 5/31/2016 Dated: _______________________ ______________________________________ THE HON. THELTON E. HENDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. C-96-4179 TEH 8 DEFENDANTS’ STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE RSIP BUDGET FOR FY 2016-17 Ravenswood City School District RSIP BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017 5/6/2016 Certificated Positions Object Object Description 1110 Teachers Sal - Reg 1215 Psychologist Sal - Reg 1315 Superintendent Sal - Reg 1320 Assist Supt. Sal - Reg 1330 Directors Sal - Reg 1335 Coordinators Sal - Reg 1960 Special Ed. - Stipends Total Certificated Salaries Classified Positions 2410 Clerical/Other Off.Salary 2425 Clerical/Other Off.Sal - OT 2440 Clerical/Other Off.Sal - Hrly 2920 Other Classified Sal - Reg 2925 Other Classified Sal - OT Total Classified Salaries $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 355,171 286,857 38,763 138,108 48,059 603,816 79,000 1,549,774 $ 224,813 500 500 31,572 250 257,635 3000 Benefits $ 596,576 4210 4310 4316 4330 Total 4000 Books Instructional Materials Office and Other Supplies Printing $ $ $ $ $ 5,000 5,000 5210 5215 5220 5227 5228 5614 5630 5801 5802 5807 5818 5819 5920 Mileage Parent/Student Conf/Trng Staff Conferences Workshop/Inservice/Trng Recruitment Rental Lease Equipment Maintenance of Equipment Consultant Scvs-Cert Prfsnl/Sonslt Svcs-Clas U.S. District Court Tuition Non Public Agencies Postage $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 500 800 63,380 3,000 $ $ $ 57,281 2,000 5000 Totals Subtotal RSIP Budget 7310 Dir Supt/Indr Cost Chgs (6.41%) Grand Total w/indirect CDE Share District Share $ $ $ 126,961 2,535,946 162,554 $2,698,500.14 17.5% 82.5% $472,237.52 $2,226,262.62

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?