By Bryan Martin, Senior Associate
Fresno Office
and Chet Quaide, Partner
Pleasanton Office
A number of bills pending in the California Legislature reflect action by student advocates to reform approaches to student discipline that many believe lack common sense and fairness.
This push for “educational equity” and a more “thoughtful response to student misconduct” stems from studies indicating that exclusionary discipline is largely ineffective at increasing school safety or improving the behavior of disciplined students. Advocates also point to studies indicating that students of color are disproportionately referred for discipline: for example, it is reported that African American students are two times more likely than their Caucasian peers to be suspended.
The subject bills generally aim to modify existing student discipline policies and practices that are viewed as rigid or reactionary so that administrators have greater discretion in certain discipline scenarios, and to motivate educators to act proactively with a focus on prevention.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Friday, July 13, 2012
May A Public Entity Reject An Unbalanced Bid?
By Joe Rossini, Senior Associate
and Hugh Lee, Partner
Cerritos Office
Recently, a number of the Firm’s local public entity clients have contacted us with questions regarding the issue of “unbalanced bids.” These clients generally want to know when they should reject an unbalanced bid and the guidelines for evaluating unbalanced bids. There is little California legal authority on the subject. Typically, in the absence of California authority, this state’s courts will look to both federal procurement laws and regulations, and decisions by courts in other states.
Section 15.814, 48 Code of Federal Regulations, defines a “mathematically unbalanced” bid as a bid “based on prices which are significantly less than cost for some contract line items and significantly overstated in relation to cost for others.” A bidder will typically submit an unbalanced bid with either or both of two goals: 1) To manipulate the bidding process in its favor to win award of the contract, even though the public entity would ultimately pay a higher total price for the goods or services; and 2) To improve their cash flow by front loading a bid’s payment schedule.
and Hugh Lee, Partner
Cerritos Office
Recently, a number of the Firm’s local public entity clients have contacted us with questions regarding the issue of “unbalanced bids.” These clients generally want to know when they should reject an unbalanced bid and the guidelines for evaluating unbalanced bids. There is little California legal authority on the subject. Typically, in the absence of California authority, this state’s courts will look to both federal procurement laws and regulations, and decisions by courts in other states.
Section 15.814, 48 Code of Federal Regulations, defines a “mathematically unbalanced” bid as a bid “based on prices which are significantly less than cost for some contract line items and significantly overstated in relation to cost for others.” A bidder will typically submit an unbalanced bid with either or both of two goals: 1) To manipulate the bidding process in its favor to win award of the contract, even though the public entity would ultimately pay a higher total price for the goods or services; and 2) To improve their cash flow by front loading a bid’s payment schedule.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Pending Legislation Could Limit Access to Individuals’ Social Media Accounts by Employers, Colleges, and Universities
By Elizabeth Hearey, Senior Counsel
and Chet Quaide, Partner
Pleasanton Office
As an investigative device, some employers, colleges, and universities have been asking employees, applicants for employment, and students for passwords to their social media accounts. Others have asked employees to sit down with managers to review their social media content or fully print out their social media pages. The practice remains a hot topic in the news because social media accounts, such as Facebook and Twitter, often contain highly personal information which individuals want to keep out of the eye of employers or school officials. Will these investigative practices be allowed to continue in California?
Recently, there has been a push to pass both federal and state laws to deny access to private information on social network accounts. If SB 1349 and AB 1844 pass, California will be among the first states to deny employers and postsecondary educational institutions access to these accounts.
and Chet Quaide, Partner
Pleasanton Office
As an investigative device, some employers, colleges, and universities have been asking employees, applicants for employment, and students for passwords to their social media accounts. Others have asked employees to sit down with managers to review their social media content or fully print out their social media pages. The practice remains a hot topic in the news because social media accounts, such as Facebook and Twitter, often contain highly personal information which individuals want to keep out of the eye of employers or school officials. Will these investigative practices be allowed to continue in California?
Recently, there has been a push to pass both federal and state laws to deny access to private information on social network accounts. If SB 1349 and AB 1844 pass, California will be among the first states to deny employers and postsecondary educational institutions access to these accounts.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Special Education Students in Advanced Placement Classes
By Geneva Englebrecht, Associate
and Constance Taylor, Partner
Cerritos Office
and Constance Taylor, Partner
Cerritos Office
When a student is in an accelerated program for gifted and talented students, it is important to remember that qualification for advanced placement (“AP”) does not mean the student may not also qualify for special education or be identifiable as a person with a disability. When the topic of special education students in AP classes arises, there are two frequently asked questions that we will explore, below.
(1) When a parent requests a special education assessment of a student who is struggling in honors or AP classes, must the District assess, or can the District recommend that the student return to his or her general education non-AP classes?
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) requires a local educational agency (“LEA”) to assess all areas of suspected disability and conduct an individualized education program (“IEP”) meeting within 60 days of receiving parental consent for the assessment. (Cal. Educ. Code §§ 56302, 56302.1(a).) When a gifted student’s parent requests a special education assessment, the District should employ assessment procedures in accordance with the IDEA. It is essential, especially when working with a gifted student, to be mindful not only of any academic deficits, or lack thereof, but to consider whether the student has a physical or mental impairment that may cause the student to require special education.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Certificated Employee is Entitled to Attorney Fees in Dismissal Process if Accusation is Withdrawn Following Initial Decision to Proceed to Hearing
By Paul McGlocklin, Associate
Riverside Office
and Mark Bresee, Partner
Irvine Office
In another blow to California school employers, a Court of Appeal has ruled that in a certificated dismissal or suspension proceeding, the employee is entitled to an award of expenses and attorney’s fees if the district withdraws its accusation against the employee after deciding to proceed to hearing, but before the hearing starts. The ruling clarifies that where an accusation is withdrawn it necessarily follows that the Commission on Professional Competence rule that the employee “should not be dismissed or suspended” within the meaning of Education Code section 44944(c)(1). Such a ruling entitles the employee to all expenses incurred defending against the accusation, including attorney’s fees.
In Boliou v. Stockton Unified School District the Governing Board of the Stockton Unified School District initiated dismissal proceedings against David Boliou, a classroom teacher who allegedly used duct tape to cover a talkative student’s mouth. In response to the charges filed against him, Boliou demanded a hearing pursuant to Education Code section 44943. Rather than drop the charges, the Governing Board decided to proceed and set a hearing before a Commission on Professional Competence as provided in Education Code section 44944. Following a number of unfavorable pre-hearing rulings, the Governing Board voted to dismiss the accusation one week before the hearing. The Commission on Professional Competence allowed the dismissal, but Boliou objected on the grounds that he was entitled to a ruling that he should not be dismissed (thus entitling him to expenses and attorney’s fees under Education Code section 44944(e)(2)). The Commission on Professional Competence declined to do so, stating instead that the accusation simply be dismissed.
Riverside Office
and Mark Bresee, Partner
Irvine Office
In another blow to California school employers, a Court of Appeal has ruled that in a certificated dismissal or suspension proceeding, the employee is entitled to an award of expenses and attorney’s fees if the district withdraws its accusation against the employee after deciding to proceed to hearing, but before the hearing starts. The ruling clarifies that where an accusation is withdrawn it necessarily follows that the Commission on Professional Competence rule that the employee “should not be dismissed or suspended” within the meaning of Education Code section 44944(c)(1). Such a ruling entitles the employee to all expenses incurred defending against the accusation, including attorney’s fees.
In Boliou v. Stockton Unified School District the Governing Board of the Stockton Unified School District initiated dismissal proceedings against David Boliou, a classroom teacher who allegedly used duct tape to cover a talkative student’s mouth. In response to the charges filed against him, Boliou demanded a hearing pursuant to Education Code section 44943. Rather than drop the charges, the Governing Board decided to proceed and set a hearing before a Commission on Professional Competence as provided in Education Code section 44944. Following a number of unfavorable pre-hearing rulings, the Governing Board voted to dismiss the accusation one week before the hearing. The Commission on Professional Competence allowed the dismissal, but Boliou objected on the grounds that he was entitled to a ruling that he should not be dismissed (thus entitling him to expenses and attorney’s fees under Education Code section 44944(e)(2)). The Commission on Professional Competence declined to do so, stating instead that the accusation simply be dismissed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)