Untitled California Attorney General Opinion

California Attorney General Reports·Decided June 6, 1990·No. 89-1204·Published

Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

State of California

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP

Attorney General

______________________________________

OPINION :

: No. 89-1204

of :

:

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP : June 6, 1990

Attorney General :

:

RODNEY O. LILYQUIST :

Deputy Attorney General :

:

______________________________________________________________________________

THE HONORABLE JESSE R. HUFF, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, has requested an opinion on the following question:

Which year is a school district's "base year" for purposes of receiving state reimbursement of voluntary desegregation costs?

CONCLUSION

A school district's "base year" for purposes of receiving state reimbursement of voluntary desegregation costs is the 1984-1985 fiscal year if the district incurred desegregation costs audited and approved by the Controller for that year. If the district initiated its desegregation program after the 1984-1985 fiscal year, its "base year" is its first fiscal year of implementing its desegregation plan.

ANALYSIS

Education Code section 422491 authorizes local school districts to submit claims to the state for the reimbursement of the costs of desegregating their schools. Subdivision (a) of section 42249 states:

"Any school district which maintains a voluntary program designed to remedy the harmful effects of racial segregation may, if the program meets the criteria of this section, present a claim for reimbursement for the costs of the program . . . ."

Section 42247 places a limit upon the amount that the state will reimburse a district each year for its desegregation costs. The limit is stated as a percentage of the costs incurred by the district during

1 All unidentified section references hereafter are to provisions of the Education Code.

1. 89-1204

a prior year commonly known as the "base year." The amount of the base year costs restricts all future annual claims to be paid by the state. Section 42247 provides:

"(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reimbursements authorized by Section . . . 42249 for desegregation costs incurred in the 1985-86 fiscal year, and each fiscal year thereafter, shall not exceed the following amounts:

".......................

(2) For desegregation programs initiated after the 1984-85 fiscal year, the amount in excess of one-fifth of the audited costs approved by the Controller for the first full year of operation, adjusted pursuant to Section 42247.2, and provided that the school district has contributed in the prior fiscal year not less than one-fifth of the audited costs approved by the Controller for that fiscal year. For purposes of this paragraph, desegregation programs initiated after the 1984-85 fiscal year shall not include expansion of desegregation activities by school districts that were reimbursed pursuant to Section 42249 for desegregation costs incurred during the 1984-85 fiscal year, except as otherwise provided by Section 42247.2.

"(3) For all other desegregation programs, the amount in excess of one-fifth of the audited desegregation costs approved by the Controller and incurred in the 1984-85 fiscal year, adjusted pursuant to Section 42247.2, and provided that the school district has contributed in the prior fiscal year not less than one-fifth of the audited costs approved by the Controller for that fiscal year.

"(b) Claims for reimbursement of desegregation program costs shall be subject to audit by the Controller to determine all or the following:

"(1) Whether the costs and programs are for purposes of desegregation or alleviation of the harmful effects of racial segregation, as provided in the plan filed by the district pursuant to Section 42247.1.

"(2) Whether the costs are increased costs which exceed the district's expenditure levels for regular educational programs.

"(3) Whether the costs are excessive or unreasonable." (Emphases added.)2

The question presented for analysis concerns the determination of a school district's base year for purposes of section 42247. Which prior year of the district is the one upon which all future reimbursement claims must be calculated? We conclude that the base year is the 1984-1985 fiscal year unless the district initiated its desegregation program thereafter, in which case the base year becomes the first fiscal year of implementing its desegregation plan.

Preliminarily, we note that "[c]laims for reimbursement of desegregation program costs shall be subject to audit by the Controller to determine . . . [w]hether the costs are excessive or unreasonable." (§ 42247, subd. (b)(3).) This statutory mandate is consistent with other legislative directives for the Controller to audit all claims prior to the payment of state funds. (See Gov. Code, §§ 925.6, 12410.) We have previously concluded that the Controller's authority to audit claims filed

2 The adjustments authorized by section 42247.2 allow increases for inflation and for increased enrollment (average daily attendance).

2. 89-1204 against the state's treasury is constitutionally based. (71 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 275 (1988).) "Money may be drawn from the Treasury only through an appropriation made by law and upon a Controller's duly drawn warrant." (Cal. Const., art. XVI, § 7; see Flournoy v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 350, 354 ["The obvious purpose of this requirement is to insure the Controller's concurrence in the expenditure of state funds"].)

If it is found that the district incurred desegregation costs for the 1984-1985 fiscal year and its claim for that year has been audited and approved by the Controller, that ends the inquiry. The state reimbursement program does not cover the "expansion of desegregation activities by school districts that were reimbursed pursuant to section 42249 for desegregation costs incurred during the 1984-85 fiscal year, except as otherwise provided by Section 42247.2." (§ 42247, subd. (a)(2).) Reading subdivision (a)(2) in light of subdivision (a)(3), we do not believe that a district may "terminate" its 1984-1985 desegregation activities and "initiate" a new program thereafter. A district that has "audited desegregation costs approved by the Controller and incurred in the 1984-85 fiscal year" (§ 42247, subd. (a)(3)) has already initiated its program by the 1984-1985 fiscal year, and "initiation" is a one-time event. The base year for the district would thus be the 1984-1985 fiscal year under subdivision (a)(3) of section 42247.

If the Controller finds that a school district did not incur desegregation costs during the 1984-1985 fiscal year, he must determine which year is the district's "first full year of operation." (§ 42247, subd. (a)(2).) This phrase could have several meanings. One interpretation would be the first twelve month period for which a school district incurs desegregation costs in initiating a program. Another would be the first school year in which a desegregation plan is being implemented, including any changes in attendance patterns. Does the term "operation" include the planning and organizational stages of a desegregation program?

In addressing this issue, we note that the Controller is to audit claims for reimbursement to determine "[w]hether the costs and programs are for purposes of desegregation or alleviation of the harmful effects of racial segregation, as provided in the plan filed by the district pursuant to Section 42247.1." (§ 42247, subd. (b)(1).) Section 42247.1 requires a district to "submit to the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Controller a copy of the district's desegregation plan . . . ." The Superintendent of Public Instruction has adopted regulations (Cal. Code of Regs., tit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion, (Cal. 1990).

Untitled California Attorney General Opinion (Untitled California Attorney General Opinion) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Jeffers
741 P.2d 1127 (California Supreme Court, 1987)
Committee of Seven Thousand v. Superior Court
754 P.2d 708 (California Supreme Court, 1988)
Flournoy v. Priest
486 P.2d 689 (California Supreme Court, 1971)
Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission
743 P.2d 1323 (California Supreme Court, 1987)