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)
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?