Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees

Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees
December 15, 2015
5:30 PM
Lucerne Valley Unified School District Board Room
8560 Aliento Road
Lucerne Valley, CA 92356
All Board Actions and Discussions are recorded. Individuals who require special
accommodation, including but not limited to an American sign language interpreter,
accessible seating, or documentation in accessible formats, should contact the
Superintendent or designee at least two days before the meeting date.
Public documents relating to Open Session Agenda Items are available for review
by the public at the Lucerne Valley Unified School District Office located at 8560
Aliento Road, Lucerne Valley, California.
Public Comment
Members of the public may address the board during Public Participation on any
item of interest that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board. Members
of the public may also address the board on any agenda item before or during the
board's consideration of the item. Per government code 54954.2, no action or
discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda,
except that members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to
statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony
rights.
A.
Call to Order
A.1. Pledge of Allegiance
A.2. Adoption of Agenda
A.3. Reorganization of the Board of Trustees - The Board of Trustees,
as required by Education Code 35002, 35143, and 4005 will elect
officers and representatives.
B. Consent Action Items - It is recommended that the Board of Trustees
consider approving a number of Agenda Items as a Consent list. Consent
items are routine in nature, and can be enacted in one motion without
further discussion. This procedure conserves meeting time for a full
discussion of significant issues.
B.1. Approval of Minutes - BE IT RESOLVED that the Minutes of the
Special Meeting of November 18, 2015 be approved as submitted
B.2. Ratify Field Trip Request
B.3. Approve Conference/Workshop Request
B.4. Approve Personnel Items
B.5. Approve Warrants and District Orders, Batches 0123-0144A
C.
Items Moved From Consent for Discussion and Action
D. Communications - Public Comment On Items Not Appearing On The
Agenda
E.
Public Comment On Closed Session Items
F.
Closed Session
F.1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION per GC
54957, Title: Superintendent
G.
Reconvene To Open Session
H.
Report Out Action Taken During Closed Session
I.
Presentations
I.1. California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress
(CAASPP) Report - Ms. Suzette Davis, Ms. Patty Courtney and Ms.
Mary Eller will give a report on CAASPP.
J.
Information/Discussion
J.1. Enrollment
J.2. Weekly Cash Balance
J.3. Budget Summary Report
J.4. It's A Gas To Go To Class
K. Board, Superintendent and Administrator Reports - Board Members,
the Superintendent, and/or Site Administrators may wish to discuss
events and activities not on the agenda or to request future agenda items.
L.
Discussion/Action Items
L.1. Approve the First Interim Report for Lucerne Valley Unified
School District
L.2. Approve the First Interim Report for Sky Mountain Charter
School
L.3. Consider request of Superintendent Suzette Davis to pay costs of
defense she has incurred to date as a result of the claims of Dawn
Turnbull: Government Code section 825(a)
L.4. Approve the revised Classified Salary Schedule which reflects
the new California Minimum Wage (for substitutes).
L.5. Approve School Claims Authorized Signatures
L.6. Approve Board Bylaw 9320 to move the Board Meetings from the
2nd Wednesday of each month to the 2nd Thursday of each month.
M.
Adjournment
A.3. Reorganization of the Board of Trustees - The Board of
Trustees, as required by Education Code 35002, 35143, and 4005 will
elect officers and representatives.
Attachments:
Board Reorganization Info
B. Consent Action Items - It is recommended that the Board of Trustees consider
approving a number of Agenda Items as a Consent list. Consent items are routine
in nature, and can be enacted in one motion without further discussion. This
procedure conserves meeting time for a full discussion of significant issues.
B.1. Approval of Minutes - BE IT RESOLVED that the Minutes of the
Special Meeting of November 18, 2015 be approved as submitted
Attachments:
Nov 18, 2015 Special Mtg Minutes
Minutes of the Special Meeting
of the Board of Trustees
November 18, 2015
5:30 PM
Lucerne Valley Unified School District Board Room
8560 Aliento Road
Lucerne Valley, CA 92356
Attendance Taken at 5:30 PM:
Present:
Joanne Collingham
Patricia Courtney
Tom Courtney
Suzette Davis
Mary Eller
Carmen Fox
Jim Harvey
Leslie Milligan
Absent:
Dawn Turnbull
A.
Call to Order
Minutes:
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Board President Jim Harvey
A.1. Pledge of Allegiance
Minutes:
Mr. Jim Harvey led the Pledge of Allegiance
A.2. Adoption of Agenda
Minutes:
The Agenda for this Special Meeting was approved as presented.
1
Motion Passed: Passed with a motion by Joanne Collingham and a
second by Tom Courtney.
Yes Joanne Collingham
Yes Tom Courtney
Yes Carmen Fox
Yes Jim Harvey
Absent
Dawn Turnbull
B.
Consent Action Items - It is recommended that the Board of
Trustees consider approving a number of Agenda Items as a Consent
list. Consent items are routine in nature, and can be enacted in one
motion without further discussion. This procedure conserves meeting
time for a full discussion of significant issues.
Motion Passed: The Board approved Items 1-5 as part of the consent agenda
Passed with a motion by Tom Courtney and a second by Carmen Fox.
Yes Joanne Collingham
Yes Tom Courtney
Yes Carmen Fox
Yes Jim Harvey
Absent
Dawn Turnbull
B.1. Approval of Minutes - BE IT RESOLVED that the Minutes of
the Special Meeting of October 29, 2015 be approved as submitted.
Motion Passed: Passed with a motion by Tom Courtney and a second by
Carmen Fox.
Yes Joanne Collingham
Yes Tom Courtney
Yes Carmen Fox
Yes Jim Harvey
Absent
Dawn Turnbull
B.2. Ratify Inter-District Transfers
Minutes:
The Board ratified the following 2015-16 Inter-District Transfers:
Four students from Lucerne Valley Unified School District (LVES) to
Apple Valley Unified School District (High Desert Premier Academy).
Reason: Bullying
2
Two students from Lucerne Valley Unified School District to Apple Valley
Unified School District (Sandia Academy). Reason: To complete current
year after moving to another attendance area.
Motion Passed: Passed with a motion by Tom Courtney and a second by
Carmen Fox.
Yes Joanne Collingham
Yes Tom Courtney
Yes Carmen Fox
Yes Jim Harvey
Absent
Dawn Turnbull
B.3. Ratify Conference/Workshop Requests
Minutes:
The Board ratified the following conference/workshop requests:
November 6-7, 2015 - CMC Math Conference South in Palm Springs
attended by Chris Pennington.
November 12, 2015 - Transition Planning For All Students in Victorville
attended by Tyler Warnock.
Motion Passed: Passed with a motion by Tom Courtney and a second by
Carmen Fox.
Yes Joanne Collingham
Yes Tom Courtney
Yes Carmen Fox
Yes Jim Harvey
Absent
Dawn Turnbull
B.4. Approve Personnel Items
Minutes:
1. The Board approved the following stipends for Lucerne Valley High
School:
Brandon Barkley, Volleyball Assistant, 3 Units, $600
Earl Johnson, Volleyball Coach, 9 Units, $1,800
Julie Mitchell, Volleyball Coverage, 4 Units, $800
Stephen Warnock, Volleyball conditioning/CrossFit, 3 Units, $600
Joey Hagen, Assistant Football, 8 Units, $1,600
Chris Klinger, Head Football, 12 Units, $2,400
Robert Walls, Assistant Football, 10 Units, $2,000
3
William Ramsey, 9 Units, $1,800
Motion Passed: Passed with a motion by Tom Courtney and a second by
Carmen Fox.
Yes Joanne Collingham
Yes Tom Courtney
Yes Carmen Fox
Yes Jim Harvey
Absent
Dawn Turnbull
B.5. Warrants and District Orders - The Board of Trustees is
requested to approve Batches 116-122
Motion Passed: Passed with a motion by Tom Courtney and a second by
Carmen Fox.
Yes Joanne Collingham
Yes Tom Courtney
Yes Carmen Fox
Yes Jim Harvey
Absent
Dawn Turnbull
C.
Items Moved From Consent for Discussion and Action
Minutes:
There were no items moved from Consent for Discussion and Action.
D.
Communications - Public Comment On Items Not Appearing On
The Agenda
Minutes:
There was no public comment at this time.
E.
Public Comment On Closed Session Items
Minutes:
There was no public comment on Closed Session Items
F.
Closed Session
Minutes:
The Board adjourned to closed session at 7:12 p.m.
F.1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION per GC
54957, Title: Superintendent
4
G.
Reconvene To Open Session
Minutes:
The Board reconvened to open session at 8:25 p.m.
H.
Report Out Action Taken During Closed Session
Minutes:
There was no action taken during closed session.
I.
Presentations
I.1. Lucerne Valley Middle School ASB - Student Korrina Medina
will give an update on Lucerne Valley Middle School.
Minutes:
Lucerne Valley Middle School Students Korrina Medina, Matthew
Redding and Vanessa Silva reported on the following for Lucerne Valley
Middle School:
Clippers Game
Roller Skating
October Dance
Fund Raiser
Red Ribbon Week
2nd Annual Community Day
Scare Crow Contest
Leadership Camp
I.2. Lucerne Valley High School ASB and FFA - Student Madison
Redding will give an update on Lucerne Valley High School ASB
and FFA.
Minutes:
Student Madison Redding was not present to give an update on Lucerne
Valley High School and FFA.
I.3. Installation Art Presentation - Ms. Jill Marshall
Minutes:
Ms. Jill Marshall and Students Sara Smith and Sophia Sanchez gave a
presentation to the Board regarding the Installation Art Project.
J.
Information/Discussion
5
J.1. Enrollment
J.2. Weekly Cash Balance
J.3. Budget Summary
J.4. SBCSS Williams Site Visit Reports for Lucerne Valley
Elementary School, Lucerne Valley Middle School and Lucerne
Valley High School.
J.5. Response letter from LVUSD Legal Counsel Law Offices of
Margaret A. Chidester & Associates to Law Office of Robert D.
Conaway regarding communications with Trustee Turnbull
K.
Board, Superintendent and Administrator Reports - Board
Members, the Superintendent, and/or Site Administrators may wish to
discuss events and activities not on the agenda or to request future
agenda items.
Minutes:
Ms. Patty Courtney reported on the following for Lucerne Valley Middle/High
School:
FFA National Convention
FFA Fair Projects
FFA Greenhand Degree
SB County Fair - High School Madness
Gas To Go To Class
PSAT's
Football
Volleyball
Upcoming Winter Sports
Winter Music & Art Festival on December 7
Middle School Basketball
Ms. Mary Eller reported on the following for Lucerne Valley Elementary School:
Math Conference
Numbers Talk Conference
PBIS
Illuminate Benchmark Testing
Ride In The Rocks
Elective Classes
Christmas Programs on December 8, 9 and 10
6
Ms. Suzette Davis thanked everyone for their support over the past month. She
also reported on the following:
Gas To Go To Class
Curriculum Instruction Assessment Group
Working on Board Member E-Mail Issues
LCAP/LCFF Workshop
ACSA Small School District Board
Ms. Jodi Collingham reported on her attendance at the Red Ribbon event at the
elementary school and the upcoming Roadrunner Christmas Party and Toy Run.
Ms. Carmen reported on her attendance at the Fall Festival and the Red Ribbon
event at the elementary school.
Mr. Tom Courtney reported he would be attending the CSBA Delegate Assembly
and Conference in San Diego in December.
Mr. Jim Harvey reported he would also be attending the CSBA Conference and a
Small School District function.
L.
Discussion/Action Items
L.1. Approve Board Resolution 1516-07 Temporary Borrowing
Between Funds of the School District
Motion Passed: Passed with a motion by Tom Courtney and a second by
Joanne Collingham.
Yes Joanne Collingham
Yes Tom Courtney
Yes Carmen Fox
Yes Jim Harvey
Absent
Dawn Turnbull
L.2. CSBA Delegate Assembly Call For Nominations - The Board of
Trustees is requested to select and approve nominations for the
CSBA Region 16-B Delegate Assembly
Minutes:
The Board nominated the following people for the CSBA Delegate
Assembly:
Cathline Fort – (Etiwanda ESD)
Caryn Payzant (Alta Loma ESD)
7
Barbara Schneider (Helendale SD)
Donna West (Redlands USD)
Mark A. Sumpter (San Bernardino COE)
Motion Passed: Passed with a motion by Tom Courtney and a second by
Joanne Collingham.
Yes Joanne Collingham
Yes Tom Courtney
Yes Carmen Fox
Yes Jim Harvey
Absent
Dawn Turnbull
L.3. Approve the Job Description for Maintenance and Operations
HUB Coordinator
Motion Passed: Passed with a motion by Tom Courtney and a second by
Carmen Fox.
Yes Joanne Collingham
Yes Tom Courtney
Yes Carmen Fox
Yes Jim Harvey
Absent
Dawn Turnbull
L.4. Approve Board Resolution 13/14-08 for Naomi Oyadomari to
teach Social Science for Grades 7 and 8 per Education Code
Section 44256(b).
Motion Passed: Passed with a motion by Joanne Collingham and a
second by Carmen Fox.
Yes Joanne Collingham
Yes Tom Courtney
Yes Carmen Fox
Yes Jim Harvey
Absent
Dawn Turnbull
L.5. Approve Board Resolution 15/16-09 for Naomi Oyadomari to
teach English for Grades 7 and 8 per Education Code Section
44256(b).
Motion Passed: Passed with a motion by Joanne Collingham and a
second by Carmen Fox.
Yes Joanne Collingham
Yes Tom Courtney
Yes Carmen Fox
8
Yes Jim Harvey
Absent
Dawn Turnbull
L.6. Approve Board Resolution 15/16-10 for Cynthia McDonough to
teach English for Grades 7 and 8 per Education Code Section
44256(b).
Motion Passed: Passed with a motion by Joanne Collingham and a
second by Carmen Fox.
Yes Joanne Collingham
Yes Tom Courtney
Yes Carmen Fox
Yes Jim Harvey
Absent
Dawn Turnbull
L.7. Approve Board Resolution 15/16-11 for Matthew Roehl to
teach Math for Grades 7 and 8 per Education Code Section
44256(b).
Motion Passed: Passed with a motion by Joanne Collingham and a
second by Carmen Fox.
Yes Joanne Collingham
Yes Tom Courtney
Yes Carmen Fox
Yes Jim Harvey
Absent
Dawn Turnbull
L.8. Approve Board Resolution 15/16-12 for Matthew Roehl to
teach Science for Grades 7 and 8, per Education Code Section
44256(b).
Motion Passed: Passed with a motion by Joanne Collingham and a
second by Carmen Fox.
Yes Joanne Collingham
Yes Tom Courtney
Yes Carmen Fox
Yes Jim Harvey
Absent
Dawn Turnbull
L.9. Email from Trustee Dawn Turnbull dated November 10, 2015
referencing medical leave and requesting correction of record.
Minutes:
There was no action taken on this item.
9
M.
Adjournment
Minutes:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m.
Motion Passed: Passed with a motion by Carmen Fox and a second by Joanne
Collingham.
Yes Joanne Collingham
Yes Tom Courtney
Yes Carmen Fox
Yes Jim Harvey
Absent
Dawn Turnbull
_____________________________________
Carmen Fox, Board Clerk
10
B.2. Ratify Field Trip Request
Rationale:
The Board of Trustees is requested to ratify the following field trip request:
December 4, 2015 - Lucerne Valley Elementary School 3rd Grade Students
to the Living Desert in Palm Desert.
Attachments:
Field Trip
B.3. Approve Conference/Workshop Request
Rationale:
The Board of Trustees is requested to approve the following
conference/workshop request:
March 23-26, 2016 - 2016 California Association for Bilingual Education
(CABE) Bridging Multiple Worlds for Local and Global Success to be
attended by Nicole Childs.
Attachments:
Conf Request
B.4. Approve Personnel Items
Rationale:
Classified
1. Ratify acceptance of the resignation of Kevin Hatfield, Custodian, effective
November 30, 2015.
Other
2. Approve the following Lucerne Valley Middle/High School Stipends:
Naomi Oyadomari - LVMS ASB Advisor, 7 Units, $1,400
Troy Van Bavel - AG Advisor, 14 Units, $2,800
Kelli Papiernik - Yearbook, 7 Units, $1,400
Nancy Spillman - Hospitality Advisor, 2 Units, $400
Brigham Welch - Music Advisor, 10 Units, $2,000
Anna Marie Garcia - 12th Grade Advisor, 10 Units, $2,000
Anna Marie Garcia - LVHS ASB Advisor, 7 Units, $1,400
Nancy Spillman - ROP Coordinator, $2,500
Cynthia McDonough, CTI Reflective Coach, $4,000
Attachments:
K.Hatfield Resignation
B.5. Approve Warrants and District Orders, Batches 0123-0144A
Attachments:
Warrants & District Orders
C. Items Moved From Consent for Discussion and Action
F. Closed Session
F.1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
per GC 54957, Title: Superintendent
I. Presentations
I.1. California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress
(CAASPP) Report - Ms. Suzette Davis, Ms. Patty Courtney and Ms. Mary
Eller will give a report on CAASPP.
J. Information/Discussion
J.1. Enrollment
Attachments:
Enrollment Graph
November Enrollment
Lucerne Valley Unified School District
2015-2016 Enrollment
Report Date: November 2015 FINAL
11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15
2015/16
61
53
55
48
Kindergarten:
Barnes
Fuller
38
18
20
0
67
53
56
50
1st Grade:
Chicca-Wilding
Deisler
Miller
Zyskowsksi
51
23
7
1
20
45
67
49
52
2nd Grade:
Chicca-Wilding
Deisler
Garibay
Hirschhorn
45
1
13
19
12
63
45
64
50
3rd Grade:
Byrd
Hall
Hirschhorn
Miller
55
23
23
6
3
62
69
45
59
4th Grade
Childs
Hirschhorn
Miller
Pennington
52
23
1
3
25
70
61
70
48
5th Grade:
Pearson
Pedersen
Raschke
65
28
31
6
67
69
62
60
435
417
401
367
6th Grade
Lane
Paddack
Raschke
11/12 12/13
13/14
14/15
2015/16
119
51
68
113
66
47
117
58
59
110
58
52
LVMS:
7th grade:
8th grade:
110
55
55
246
61
72
68
45
246
73
58
61
54
224
56
67
56
45
228
64
53
60
51
LVHS:
9th grade:
10th grade:
11th grade:
12th grade:
215
53
55
51
56
22
0
0
0
2
7
7
6
20
0
0
0
0
3
8
9
21
0
0
0
5
4
5
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
MVHS:
6th grade
7th grade
8th grade
9th grade
10th grade
11th grade
12th grade
14
0
0
0
4
0
6
4
Ind. Study
9
4
5
10
4
6
10
2
8
7
2
5
CDS:
Gr. 5-8
Gr. 9-12
3
1
2
Home Hospital:
0
41
17
22
2
347
831
806
773
717
Total
LVES
LVMS
LVHS
MVHS
Ind. Study
Com Day Sch. 5-8
Com Day Sch. 9-12
Home Hosp.
*Adult Ed. & Pregnant Minor are not part of general fund enrollment total.
TOTAL
689
347
110
215
14
1
2
0
689
LUCERNE VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - ENROLLMENT HISTORY
Aug
704
704
794
2015-16
2014-15
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
Sept
711
708
788
789
832
Oct.
701
711
772
796
843
Nov.
689
717
773
806
831
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
March
April
May
728
770
803
832
738
773
796
831
727
783
800
817
736
775
789
814
737
757
775
805
741
753
777
807
June
Average
775
797
725
774
791
821
5 YEAR ENROLLMENT HISTORY
900
850
ENROLLMENT
800
2015-16
750
2014-15
2013-14
700
2012-13
2011-12
650
600
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
J.2. Weekly Cash Balance
J.3. Budget Summary Report
Attachments:
Budget Summary
J.4. It's A Gas To Go To Class
Attachments:
It's A Gas To Go To Class
Celebration of Education in the High Desert
January 2016
Golden Ticket Meeting
Celebration of Education
in the High Desert
Semester 1 Perfect Attendance Cut-Off: December 18, 2015
Teacher Event: Friday, January 22, 2016 from 5pm-7:30pm
Student Event: Saturday, January 23, 2016 from 12pm-3pm
**NEW LOCATION** Oak Hills High School - 7625 Cataba Rd, Oak Hills, CA 92344
Teacher Event:
-All Eligible Teachers Invited
-Primarily Indoors
-Approx. 50-75 Prizes Given Away
-One BRAND NEW FIAT 500X Given Away
Student Event:
-800 Eligible Students Invited*
-Combination Indoors and Outdoors
-Approx. 75-100 Prizes Given Away
-One BRAND NEW RAM 1500 Given Away
*Maximum of 800 Students will be
invited to attend the “CoE”
-Golden Tickets will be distributed
to the schools
-The number of Golden Tickets
each school received is directly
related to the percentage of
students they have eligible from
the total number of eligible
students
-i.e.: If School A has 14% of
the total number of eligible
students, then School A will
receive 14% of the 800
Golden Tickets
800 Golden Tickets
Who?
Why?
When?
How?
Student Program Only.
It’s a Gas to Go to Class has grown larger than expected and has now
created a great challenge of adapting the Celebration of Education.
The 800 Golden Tickets concept will be used in January 2016 and
also in April 2016.
Each school site will be responsible for hosting their own “Golden
Ticket Lottery” event on or before January 15, 2016.
-This can be an assembly, a lunch, a random drawing…
-KEEP IN MIND: Not every eligible student will receive a Golden Ticket, so it
is best to try to give them out to students who plan to attend.
-No substitutions will be awarded after January 18, 2016.
-Lost or Stolen Golden Tickets will not be replaced.
-It’s a Gas will collect the students’ names and ticket numbers on January 18,
2016 to create the registration logs for the Celebration of Education.
Golden Ticket Stats and Distribution
School
Adelanto HS
Apple Valley HS
Barstow HS
Cobalt IMS
Granite Hills HS
Lucerne Valley HS
Hesperia HS
Oak Hills HS
Rim of the World HS
Serrano HS
Silver Valley HS
Silverado HS
Sultana HS
University Prep
Victor Valley HS
Totals:
Enrolled
Eligible
Students
Students
% Eligible % of Tickets # of Tickets
1696
102
6.01%
2.57%
21
2190
188
8.58%
4.74%
38
1404
356 25.36%
8.98%
72
368
234 63.59%
5.90%
47
1297
153 11.80%
3.86%
31
217
103 47.47%
2.60%
21
2026
504 24.88%
12.71%
102
2373
715 30.13%
18.03%
144
1144
326 28.50%
8.22%
66
2230
162
7.26%
4.08%
33
369
78 21.14%
1.97%
16
2205
234 10.61%
5.90%
47
1960
62
3.16%
1.56%
13
714
369 51.68%
9.30%
74
1874
380 20.28%
9.58%
77
22067
3966
18%
100.00%
800
Golden Ticket Stats and Distribution
Total
Eligible
Teachers
Teachers
% Eligible
District
Adelanto ESD
344
31
9.01%
Apple Valley USD
590
204 34.58%
Barstow USD
265
91 34.34%
Helendale USD
46
9 19.57%
Hesperia USD
967
244 25.23%
Lucerne Valley USD
43
14 32.56%
Rim of the World USD
181
39 21.55%
SBC Superintendent of Schools 128
42 32.81%
Silver Valley USD
145
47 32.41%
Snowline JUSD
377
88 23.34%
Victor Elementary SD
508
163 32.09%
Victor Valley UHSD
428
131 30.61%
Totals:
4022
1103
27%
Questions?
Comments?
K. Board, Superintendent and Administrator Reports Board Members, the Superintendent, and/or Site
Administrators may wish to discuss events and activities
not on the agenda or to request future agenda items.
L. Discussion/Action Items
L.1. Approve the First Interim Report for Lucerne Valley Unified
School District
Attachments:
LVUSD First Interim
L.2. Approve the First Interim Report for Sky Mountain Charter
School
Attachments:
SMCS First Interim
L.3. Consider request of Superintendent Suzette Davis to pay costs
of defense she has incurred to date as a result of the claims of Dawn
Turnbull: Government Code section 825(a)
Attachments:
GC 825
Page 1
1 of 100 DOCUMENTS
DEERING'S CALIFORNIA CODES ANNOTATED
Copyright (c) 2015 by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.
a member of the LexisNexis Group.
All rights reserved.
*** This document is current for urgency legislation through Chapter 807 of the ***
2015 Legislative Session, approved October 11, 2015.
GOVERNMENT CODE
Title 1. General
Division 3.6. Public Liability
Part 2. Liability of Public Entities and Public Employees
Chapter 1. General Provisions Relating to Liability
Article 4. Indemnification of Public Employees
GO TO CALIFORNIA CODES ARCHIVE DIRECTORY
Cal Gov Code § 825 (2015)
§ 825. Duty of public entity to pay judgment, compromise, or settlement
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, if an employee or former employee of a public entity requests the
public entity to defend him or her against any claim or action against him or her for an injury arising out of an act or
omission occurring within the scope of his or her employment as an employee of the public entity and the request is
made in writing not less than 10 days before the day of trial, and the employee or former employee reasonably cooperates in good faith in the defense of the claim or action, the public entity shall pay any judgment based thereon or any
compromise or settlement of the claim or action to which the public entity has agreed.
If the public entity conducts the defense of an employee or former employee against any claim or action with his
or her reasonable good-faith cooperation, the public entity shall pay any judgment based thereon or any compromise or
settlement of the claim or action to which the public entity has agreed. However, where the public entity conducted the
defense pursuant to an agreement with the employee or former employee reserving the rights of the public entity not to
pay the judgment, compromise, or settlement until it is established that the injury arose out of an act or omission occurring within the scope of his or her employment as an employee of the public entity, the public entity is required to pay
the judgment, compromise, or settlement only if it is established that the injury arose out of an act or omission occurring
in the scope of his or her employment as an employee of the public entity.
Nothing in this section authorizes a public entity to pay that part of a claim or judgment that is for punitive or exemplary damages.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) or any other provision of law, a public entity is authorized to pay that part of a
judgment that is for punitive or exemplary damages if the governing body of that public entity, acting in its sole discretion except in cases involving an entity of the state government, finds all of the following:
(1) The judgment is based on an act or omission of an employee or former employee acting within the course and
scope of his or her employment as an employee of the public entity.
(2) At the time of the act giving rise to the liability, the employee or former employee acted, or failed to act, in
good faith, without actual malice and in the apparent best interests of the public entity.
Page 2
Cal Gov Code § 825
(3) Payment of the claim or judgment would be in the best interests of the public entity.
As used in this subdivision with respect to an entity of state government, "a decision of the governing body"
means the approval of the Legislature for payment of that part of a judgment that is for punitive damages or exemplary
damages, upon recommendation of the appointing power of the employee or former employee, based upon the finding
by the Legislature and the appointing authority of the existence of the three conditions for payment of a punitive or exemplary damages claim. The provisions of subdivision (a) of Section 965.6 shall apply to the payment of any claim
pursuant to this subdivision.
The discovery of the assets of a public entity and the introduction of evidence of the assets of a public entity shall
not be permitted in an action in which it is alleged that a public employee is liable for punitive or exemplary damages.
The possibility that a public entity may pay that part of a judgment that is for punitive damages shall not be disclosed in any trial in which it is alleged that a public employee is liable for punitive or exemplary damages, and that
disclosure shall be grounds for a mistrial.
(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), if the provisions of this section are in conflict with the provisions of a
memorandum of understanding reached pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 3500) of Division 4 of Title
1, the memorandum of understanding shall be controlling without further legislative action, except that if those provisions of a memorandum of understanding require the expenditure of funds, the provisions shall not become effective
unless approved by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act.
(d) The subject of payment of punitive damages pursuant to this section or any other provision of law shall not be a
subject of meet and confer under the provisions of Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 3500) of Division 4 of Title 1,
or pursuant to any other law or authority.
(e) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of Section 818 prohibiting the award of punitive damages
against a public entity. This section shall not be construed as a waiver of a public entity's immunity from liability for
punitive damages under Section 1981, 1983, or 1985 of Title 42 of the United States Code.
(f)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a public entity shall not pay a judgment, compromise, or settlement arising from a claim or action against an elected official, if the claim or action is based on conduct by the elected official by
way of tortiously intervening or attempting to intervene in, or by way of tortiously influencing or attempting to influence the outcome of, any judicial action or proceeding for the benefit of a particular party by contacting the trial judge
or any commissioner, court-appointed arbitrator, court-appointed mediator, or court-appointed special referee assigned
to the matter, or the court clerk, bailiff, or marshal after an action has been filed, unless he or she was counsel of record
acting lawfully within the scope of his or her employment on behalf of that party. Notwithstanding Section 825.6, if a
public entity conducted the defense of an elected official against such a claim or action and the elected official is found
liable by the trier of fact, the court shall order the elected official to pay to the public entity the cost of that defense.
(2) If an elected official is held liable for monetary damages in the action, the plaintiff shall first seek recovery of
the judgment against the assets of the elected official. If the elected official's assets are insufficient to satisfy the total
judgment, as determined by the court, the public entity may pay the deficiency if the public entity is authorized by law
to pay that judgment.
(3) To the extent the public entity pays any portion of the judgment or is entitled to reimbursement of defense
costs pursuant to paragraph (1), the public entity shall pursue all available creditor's remedies against the elected official, including garnishment, until that party has fully reimbursed the public entity.
(4) This subdivision shall not apply to any criminal or civil enforcement action brought in the name of the people
of the State of California by an elected district attorney, city attorney, or attorney general.
HISTORY:
Added Stats 1963 ch 1681 § 1. Amended Stats 1972 ch 1352 § 1; Stats 1979 ch 1072 § 47, effective September 28,
1979; Stats 1985 ch 1373 § 1; Stats 1994 ch 794 § 1 (AB 2467); Stats 1995 ch 799 § 1 (AB 1361).
NOTES:
Page 3
Cal Gov Code § 825
Amendments:
1972 Amendment:
Added (1) "and the employee or former employee reasonably cooperates in good faith in the defense of the claim or
action," before "the public entity" in the first paragraph; and (2) "with his reasonable good faith cooperation" after
"claim or action" in the second paragraph.
1979 Amendment:
Added the fourth paragraph.
1985 Amendment:
(1) Added subdivision designations (a) and (c); (2) substituted "that" for "such" and for "as" in the last paragraph of
subd (a); (3) added subd (b); (4) amended subd (c) by (a) adding "Except as provided in subdivision (d)," at the beginning; and (b) substituting "Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 3500)" for "Chapter 12 (commencing with Section
3560)"; and (5) added subds (d) and (e).
1994 Amendment:
In addition to making technical changes, added (1) "Except as otherwise provided in this section," at the beginning
of subd (a); and (2) subd (f).
1995 Amendment:
In addition to making technical changes, added (1) added "except in cases involving an entity of the state government," in the introductory clause of subd (b); and (2) added the second paragraph of subd (b).
Legislative Committee Comments:
1963 Addition
The sections in this article require public entities to pay claims and judgments against public employees that arise
out of their public employment where the public entity has been tendered the defense. However, if the public entity provides the defense pursuant to a reservation of rights, it is required to pay a judgment, compromise or settlement only if
the plaintiff establishes that the employee was in the scope of his employment at the time the claim against him arose.
Cross References:
Conflicting memorandum of understanding relating to higher education employment relations controlling: Gov C §
3572.5.
Page 4
Cal Gov Code § 825
Collateral References:
Cal. Forms Pleading & Practice (Matthew Bender(R)) ch 113 "Civil Rights: The Post-Civil War Civil Rights Statutes".
Cal. Forms Pleading & Practice (Matthew Bender(R)) ch 177 "Damages".
Cal. Forms Pleading & Practice (Matthew Bender(R)) ch 464 "Public Entities And Officers: California Tort
Claims Act".
Cal. Points & Authorities (Matthew Bender(R)) ch 100A "Employer And Employee: Respondeat Superior," §
100A.37.
Cal. Points & Authorities (Matthew Bender(R)) ch 115 "Indemnity And Contribution," § 115.07.
Cal. Points & Authorities (Matthew Bender(R)) ch 120 "Insurance," § 120.83.
Matthew Bender (R) Practice Guide: Cal. Trial and Post Trial Civil Procedure § 22.05.
Cal. Ins. Law & Practice (Matthew Bender(R)), ch 50, Automobile Insurance § 50.13.
Cal. Torts (Matthew Bender(R)), § 31.06.
Cal. Torts (Matthew Bender(R)), § 54.08.
Cal. Torts (Matthew Bender(R)), § 60.42.
Cal. Torts (Matthew Bender(R)), § 60.44.
Cal. Torts (Matthew Bender(R)), § 60.69.
Cal. Torts (Matthew Bender(R)), § 60.69.1.
Cal. Torts (Matthew Bender(R)), § 60.69.2.
Cal. Torts (Matthew Bender(R)), § 61.16.
Cal. Torts (Matthew Bender(R)), § 61.47.
Cal. Torts (Matthew Bender(R)), § 62.06.
Cal. Torts (Matthew Bender(R)), § 72.48.
Cal. Torts (Matthew Bender(R)), § 74.21.
2 Witkin Cal. Evidence (4th ed) Discovery § 17.
5 Witkin Summary (10th ed) Torts §§ 91, 166, 331, 347, 352, 375, 376, 377, 378, 380.
6 Witkin Summary (10th ed) Torts § 1580.
Cal Jur 3d (Rev) District and Municipal Attorneys § 2, Government Tort Liability §§ 9, 81, 137, 138.
Rutter Cal Prac Guide, Personal Injury §§ 3:256.2 et seq., 6:166.
Law Review Articles:
No employer liability for sexual harassment under respondeat superior. 25 Consumer Attys Forum No. 10, p. 30.
Liability of public employees. 4 Land Use & Environ Forum No. 3 (Summer 1995) p. 159.
Review of Selected 1985 Legislation. 17 Pacific LJ 794.
Who's accountable for punitive damages: government employees or the elected officials who cover for them under
Cal Gov Code 825(b)? 3 San Diego Justice Journal 517.
Page 5
Cal Gov Code § 825
Scaling the welfare bureaucracy: Expanding concepts of governmental employee liability. 21 UCLA LR 624.
Analysis of the constitutionality of California's scheme for suing the government in tort. 8 USF LR 611.
Police misconduct suits in California: The duty to defend; the duty to indemnify; and whether there is a duty to
provide separate counsel under California Government Code § 825. 8 Whittier LR 1041.
Attorney General's Opinions:
Duty of governing board of school district to procure inspection of school buildings constructed prior to 1933; personal liability of board members; right of board member to indemnification. 47 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 163.
Cases in which State will defend action brought against member or employee of Board of Occupational Safety and
Health Standards Board; extent of State's obligation to pay judgment for damages rendered against public entity's officer
or employee for injury arising out of action or omission occurring within scope of his employment. 57 Ops. Cal. Atty.
Gen. 358.
Retired judge sitting by assignment (1) is entitled to defense provided by public entity under provisions of Government Code §§ 995-996.6, (2) may be represented under the provisions of Government Code § 27647 if he is sitting
as a judge of the Superior, municipal, or justice court, (3) is entitled to indemnification under the provisions of Government Code §§ 825-825.6 for plaintiff's attorney fees and costs awarded in an action under the Federal Civil Rights Act,
and (4) is provided defense and indemnification by the state and county. 68 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 127.
Person appointed as referee to hear and determine discovery motions and paid by parties is not statutorily entitled to
defense and indemnification by county against claims or actions seeking monetary damages in connection with performance of duties as referee. 72 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 94.
Annotations:
Payment of attorneys' services in defending action brought against officials individually as within power or obligation of public body. 47 ALR 5th 553.
Hierarchy Notes:
Gov Code Note
Tit. 1, Div. 3.6 Note
Tit. 1, Div. 3.6, Pt. 2 Note
Tit. 1, Div. 3.6, Pt. 2, Ch. 1 Note
Tit. 1, Div. 3.6, Pt. 2, Ch. 1, Art. 4 Note
NOTES OF DECISIONS 1. Generally 1.5. Applicability 2. Specific Public Employees: Generally 3. Specific Public
Employees: Police Officers
1. Generally
Reason for rule permitting municipal corporation to indemnify its police officers against liability for acts done
within scope of their employment and to defend them is that a policeman's duty is performed for public's benefit, and
public is directly concerned in protecting officer from hazards that attend discharge of his official duties. Sinclair v.
Arnebergh (1964, Cal App 2d Dist) 224 Cal App 2d 595, 36 Cal Rptr 810, 1964 Cal App LEXIS 1508.
Under § 854.8 subd (d), public entity cannot be directly sued to enforce its liability for negligence; that subdivision
refers to §§ 825-825.6, providing procedure for public entities to pay judgments against their employees licensed in
Page 6
Cal Gov Code § 825
healing arts; thus, remedies available against public entity under Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist. (1961) 55 Cal 2d
211, 11 Cal Rptr 89, 359 P2d 457, 1961 Cal LEXIS 204 are limited by such legislation. County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal 2d 839, 44 Cal Rptr 796, 402 P2d 868, 1965 Cal LEXIS 301.
Gov C § 950.6, providing that suit against a public employee charged with causing injury while acting within the
scope of his employment must be brought within six months after a claim for such injury has been rejected or deemed
rejected by the employing public entity, is not unconstitutional as an arbitrary or unreasonable classification in violation
of the due process and equal protection clauses; but a reasonable basis for setting up claims procedures and providing
that the statute of limitations for suit against the employee coincides with the limitation period for suits against the employing public entity is indicated where, by statute, the employing entity is generally liable for damage or injury caused
(Gov C § 815.2), although not named as a party litigant in the suit, is generally required to provide for the employee's
defense (Gov C § 995), and is liable to pay any judgment had without a right to indemnification from the employee
(Gov C §§ 825 et seq.). Rogers v. Centrone (1968, Cal App 2d Dist) 261 Cal App 2d 361, 67 Cal Rptr 909, 1968 Cal
App LEXIS 1754.
In California, statutes or ordinances which condition the right to sue the sovereign upon timely filing of claims and
actions are more than procedural requirements. They are elements of the plaintiff's cause of action and conditions precedent to the maintenance of the action. When the action is against the public employee rather than the public entity such
statutes are given the same effect. Willis v. Reddin (1969, 9th Cir Cal) 418 F2d 702, 1969 US App LEXIS 10110.
The collateral source rule, that an injured party's compensation from a source wholly independent of the tortfeasor
should not be deducted from damages otherwise collectible from him, is not simply punitive in nature, and the rule applies to governmental entities, as well as to all other tortfeasors. Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist.
(1970) 2 Cal 3d 1, 84 Cal Rptr 173, 465 P2d 61, 1970 Cal LEXIS 250, 77 ALR3d 398.
The indemnification provisions of Gov C § 825, permitting indemnification of an employee by public employer for
damages arising out of any claim or action against the employee, are applicable whether the action against the employee
is grounded on the State Tort Claims Act or on the Federal Civil Rights Act (42 USCS § 1983). Williams v. Horvath
(1976) 16 Cal 3d 834, 129 Cal Rptr 453, 548 P2d 1125, 1976 Cal LEXIS 263.
The State of California did not have a duty to indemnify the estate of a deceased employee under Gov C § 825,
which creates a duty of indemnification to public employees generally, with respect to a wrongful death action against
the deceased employee's estate, where the wrongful death action was brought by the widow and children of a deceased
coemployee in accord with the provisions of the workers' compensation law, Lab C § 3601, subd. (a)(2), which permits
suits against a fellow employee for injury or death resulting from intoxication. Pursuant to Gov C § 814.2, which provides that the statutes relating to the liability of public entities and public employees shall not be construed to impliedly
repeal any provision of the workers' compensation laws, if the state had no duty under the workers' compensation laws
to indemnify the estate of the deceased worker, Gov C § 825 would not impose any such duty. Western Pioneer Ins. Co.
v. Estate of Taira (1982, Cal App 5th Dist) 136 Cal App 3d 174, 185 Cal Rptr 887, 1982 Cal App LEXIS 2002, superseded by statute as stated in Interinsurance Exchange v. Spectrum Investment Corp. (1989, Cal App 2d Dist) 209 Cal
App 3d 1243, 258 Cal Rptr 43, 1989 Cal App LEXIS 398, superseded by statute as stated in Alderson v. Insurance Co.
of North America (1990, Cal App 2d Dist) 223 Cal App 3d 397, 273 Cal Rptr 7, 1990 Cal App LEXIS 948.
In an action by a schoolteacher's insurer that settled a personal injury claim against the teacher arising out of an automobile accident caused by the teacher acting within the scope of her employment, against the employer school district's insurer to recover the amount of the policy limit settlement paid by plaintiff, the trial court properly granted summary judgment for defendant, where the school district was an additional insured under the teacher's policy (Ins C §
11580), and where the teacher's policy was primary and the school district's was excess (Ins C § 11580.9, subd. (d)).
Those statutes did not conflict with Gov C § 825 (duty of public entity to pay judgment against employee) or Ed C §
1017, subd. (a)(2) (requiring a school district to insure against liability caused by employee). Government Employees
Ins. Co. v. Gibraltar Casualty Co. (1986, Cal App 2d Dist) 184 Cal App 3d 163, 229 Cal Rptr 57, 1986 Cal App LEXIS
1902.
In an action by former employees of the county marshal's department for wrongful employment practices, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of civil rights under 42 USCS § 1983, the trial court erred in granting an order striking plaintiffs' allegations pertaining to punitive damages on the ground that the immunity set forth in
Gov C § 818, prohibited an award of punitive damages against defendant public employees. That section prohibits a
claim of punitive damages against a public entity but not against individual public employees. Further, Gov C § 825, by
authorizing some public entities in certain instances to pay that part of a judgment against an employee that is for puni-
Page 7
Cal Gov Code § 825
tive damages expressly recognizes that individual public employees may be held liable for such damages. Gov C §
820.2 (providing immunity for discretionary acts of a public employee), does prohibit the recovery of punitive damages
against public employees, but only because it provides a complete defense to the entire cause of action where established. Runyon v. Superior Court (1986, Cal App 4th Dist) 187 Cal App 3d 878, 232 Cal Rptr 101, 1986 Cal App LEXIS
2307.
In a personal injury action against a county housing authority and others, the trial court, after finding that a settlement agreement between the housing authority and plaintiff was in good faith, erroneously dismissed a cross-complaint
for statutory indemnity filed by individual defendants against the housing authority. The cause of action for public employee indemnity under Gov C § 825, was not barred by CCP § 877.6, subd. (c), since it was not a claim for equitable
comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.
An indemnity claim against a codefendant based on express contract or on statute survives a good faith settlement under
CCP § 877.6; by specifying equitable comparative indemnity, the Legislature showed an intention to exclude contractual and statutory indemnity. If a public entity could avoid its obligations under Gov C § 825, by simply settling with a
claimant, the very purpose of the statute would be thwarted. Kantor v. Housing Authority (1992, Cal App 5th Dist) 8
Cal App 4th 424, 10 Cal Rptr 2d 695, 1992 Cal App LEXIS 941.
In an action against a city seeking payment of a stipulated judgment between a city police officer and persons injured by an alleged wrongful shooting by the officer, the trial court properly sustained the city's demurrer. Gov C § 825,
requiring a public entity to pay a judgment against a public employee acting within the scope of his or her employment,
was not applicable, since the city had declined to provide a defense for the police officer. The language of § 825 clearly
indicates it is applicable only if the public entity provides a defense for the employee. Moreover, the introductory phrase
of the second paragraph in Gov C § 825, subd. (a), reads as a restatement of the first paragraph, and it explicitly provides that the public entity must provide the defense in order for the section to be applicable. Rivas v. City of Kerman
(1992, Cal App 5th Dist) 10 Cal App 4th 1110, 13 Cal Rptr 2d 147, 1992 Cal App LEXIS 1284.
Public policy considerations support limitation of Gov C § 825, requiring a public entity to pay judgments against
public employees for liabilities incurred within the scope of their employment, to situations in which the employee was
defended by the public entity. If the statute were interpreted to include situations wherein the public entity declined an
employee's request for defense, the public entity would have no protection against an employee's stipulated judgment
and would be required to pay such a judgment in full even though the issues of whether the employee acted with fraud
or malice or whether he or she was acting within the scope of his or her employment had never been determined. The
public entity could not even contest the amount of damages to which the employee and the victim agreed. Rivas v. City
of Kerman (1992, Cal App 5th Dist) 10 Cal App 4th 1110, 13 Cal Rptr 2d 147, 1992 Cal App LEXIS 1284.
As used in Gov C § 825 et seq. (indemnification of public employees), and Gov C § 995 et seq. (defense of public
employees), the phrase "scope of his employment" is intended to make applicable the general principles that courts use
to determine whether the particular kind of conduct is to be considered within the scope of employment in cases involving actions by third persons against an employer for the torts of his or her employee. Farmers Ins. Group v. County
of Santa Clara (1995) 11 Cal 4th 992, 47 Cal Rptr 2d 478, 906 P2d 440, 1995 Cal LEXIS 6796.
Because a public entity providing an employee's defense under Gov C § 825(a) assumes the liability for any resulting settlement or judgment, qualifications regarding the entity's right to control the settlement do not undermine its
strong incentive to provide an effective defense. DeGrassi v. City of Glendora (2000, 9th Cir Cal) 207 F3d 636, 2000
US App LEXIS 4270.
Because plaintiffs alleged a lack of good faith compliance by city officials with Gov C § 825(b) in their action arising from the death of two individuals, the court could not decide the issue of qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss;
dismissal was not appropriate on a fact-based issue until evidence of good faith or lack thereof was presented to the
court. Figueroa v. Gates (2000, CD Cal) 120 F Supp 2d 917, 2000 US Dist LEXIS 19130.
County employee, a counselor, could seek indemnification from the county for a stipulated judgment in a sexual
harassment suit against him, where the county had refused to provide a defense on the ground that the employee was not
acting within scope of his employment. Therefore, the alleged victim, to whom the employee assigned his rights in the
stipulated judgment, could also pursue indemnification, and the county's demurrer should have been overruled. Johnson
v. County of Fresno (2003, Cal App 5th Dist) 111 Cal App 4th 1087, 4 Cal Rptr 3d 475, 2003 Cal App LEXIS 1371,
review denied, (2003, Cal) 2003 Cal LEXIS 9885.
Page 8
Cal Gov Code § 825
Argument of city officials that they would face possible personal liability for monetary damages under state or federal law for following the current marriage statutes and declining to issue marriage licenses or register marriage certificates in contravention of those statutes, if the statutes subsequently were determined to be unconstitutional, lacked merit
because Gov C § 820.6 provided them with protection from liability. Even if the officials were to be sued in their personal capacity for actions taken pursuant to statute and in the scope of their employment, under Gov C § 825, they were
entitled to have their public employer provide a defense and pay any judgment entered in such an action, whether the
action was based on a state law claim or a claim under the federal civil rights statutes. Lockyer v. City and County of
San Francisco (2004) 33 Cal 4th 1055, 17 Cal Rptr 3d 225, 95 P3d 459, 2004 Cal LEXIS 7238.
1.5. Applicability
In an action brought by the California Attorney General against a charter city's officials that challenged the officials' excessive salaries and sought reimbursement for the city, the Attorney General's compliance with the California
Tort Claims Act was not required because the action was brought on behalf of the city. It would turn the Act on its head
to even suggest that the city was required to file a claim with itself before bringing suit against its employees for acting
outside the scope of their employment. People ex rel. Harris v. Rizzo (2013, 2d Dist) 214 Cal App 4th 921, 154 Cal
Rptr 3d 443, 2013 Cal App LEXIS 216.
2. Specific Public Employees: Generally
Placing of mental patient in soft restraints or using of bedrails are steps in administering course of treatment, not in
deciding whether to treat her, and hospital employees of public entity can be held liable for negligence in such administrations and public entity must pay any judgment against them according to prescribed procedure. County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal 2d 839, 44 Cal Rptr 796, 402 P2d 868, 1965 Cal LEXIS 301.
Where the employee of a school district, driving his own car during the scope of his employment, injured a third
party and the district refused the employee's written request that the district defend him in the third party's suit against
him, and where the third party's suits against the employee and the district were by stipulation of all parties in open
court settled for $115,000, the district was obligated to pay the full $115,000 plus the employee's defense expenses.
Such obligation arose from Gov C §§ 815.2, subd (a), 825, and 995, relating, respectively, to a public entity's tort liability for injury caused by an employee, its obligation to pay any settlement of a suit arising therefrom, and its duty to defend the employee. Oxnard Union High Sch. Dist. v. Teachers Ins. Co. (1971, Cal App 2d Dist) 20 Cal App 3d 842, 99
Cal Rptr 478, 1971 Cal App LEXIS 1225.
The insurer of the Regents of the University of California was not entitled to contribution from the insurer of a
physician employed by the Regents as to the costs of defending and settling a malpractice action arising out of the physician's employment, where the physician's policy contained no provision extending coverage to an employer. Under
Gov C §§ 825, 825.4, the primary liability for the expenses of defense of a public employee and for amounts paid in
settlement of claims arising out of his activities in the course and scope of his employment lies with the public entity,
with the employee generally not being liable to indemnify the entity, and, under Gov C § 996, the defense of an employee may be provided through the purchase of insurance. Pacific Indem. Co. v. American Mut. Ins. Co. (1972, Cal
App 1st Dist) 28 Cal App 3d 983, 105 Cal Rptr 295, 1972 Cal App LEXIS 813.
The Director of the State Department of Parks and Recreation could be held personally liable for repayment of public funds allegedly improperly expended on his authorization in promoting passage of a bond issue, assuming establishment of the improper expenditure, only if the director had failed to exercise due care in permitting the expenditure.
While there is no specific statutory provision governing the liability of public officials for the type of improper expenditure alleged, the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act, though not directly applicable, reflect a general state
policy to limit a public employee's personal financial responsibility for errors committed in the course of his public employment and indicate that even public officials are not always subject to a rule of strict liability. Stanson v. Mott (1976)
17 Cal 3d 206, 130 Cal Rptr 697, 551 P2d 1, 1976 Cal LEXIS 290.
City council member was not entitled to control the settlement of a slander action defended by the city, which provided a defense to the council member on a conditional basis after the member made accusatory comments about a
property owner during a council meeting. DeGrassi v. City of Glendora (2000, 9th Cir Cal) 207 F3d 636, 2000 US App
LEXIS 4270.
City council members were dismissed from an action alleging that their policy of indemnifying police officers for
punitive damage awards in civil rights actions violated plaintiff's civil rights; the council had qualified immunity be-
Page 9
Cal Gov Code § 825
cause they had the authority, under Gov C § 825(b), to indemnify punitive damage awards against public employees.
Hernandez v. Gates (2000, CD Cal) 100 F Supp 2d 1209, 2000 US Dist LEXIS 10098.
A municipality's payment of punitive damages under Gov C 825(b) does not violate federal law; it may have the
salutary purpose of assuring that civil rights plaintiffs can collect their judgments. Indemnifying punitive damage
awards has never been judicially determined as violating constitutional rights by encouraging police officers to use excessive force. A city council does not violate federal civil rights law if it indemnifies officers against punitive damage
awards on a discretionary, case by case basis, and complies in good faith with the requirements of Gov C 825(b).
(Summary judgment for city councilmembers: affirmed, in action by daughter of man killed by police while robbing
restaurant.) Trevino v. Gates (1996, 9th Cir Cal) 99 F3d 911, 1996 US App LEXIS 28299, cert. denied, (1997) 520 US
1117, 137 L Ed 2d 330, 117 S Ct 1249, 1997 US LEXIS 1676, cert. denied, (1997, U.S.) 117 S. Ct. 1249, aff'd, Trevino
v. City of Los Angeles (1998, 9th Cir. Cal.) 145 F.3d 1341, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 19979.
Terminated municipal utility district employee's request for exemplary damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress were struck because exemplary damages are not as a matter of law recoverable against a public entity.
Trevino v. Lassen Mun. Util. Dist. (2008, ED Cal) 2008 US Dist LEXIS 9621.
Trial court properly dismissed qui tam plaintiffs' lawsuit against public school district employees under the California False Claims Act (CFCA), Gov C § 12650 et seq., that sought to recover funds on behalf of the State of California
because the employees were not proper defendants under CFCA for acts taken in their official capacity; the suit against
the employees was tantamount to a suit against the district itself, and the legislature did not intend to allow a plaintiff to
circumvent its intent to exempt public entities from CFCA liability simply through a pleading device. State of California ex rel. Dockstader v. Hamby (2008, 4th Dist) 162 Cal App 4th 480, 75 Cal Rptr 3d 567, 2008 Cal App LEXIS 617.
Employees of a public agency, acting in the course and scope of their employment, and solely on the agency's behalf, are not proper defendants under the California False Claims Act (CFCA), Gov C § 12650 et seq. The California
Supreme Court previously determined that the legislature did not intend a public school district to be a "person" subject
to suit under CFCA because of the devastating impact such lawsuits would have upon education in the state, and because Gov C § § 825 requires a government agency, on timely request, to defend and indemnify a public employee
against claims arising out of an act or omission occurring within the scope of his or her employment, a suit against employees is tantamount to a suit against the agency itself. State of California ex rel. Dockstader v. Hamby (2008, 4th
Dist) 162 Cal App 4th 480, 75 Cal Rptr 3d 567, 2008 Cal App LEXIS 617.
Prisoner who brought a civil rights action was not entitled to sanctions for spoliation of evidence because the spoliation motion was not timely, the prisoner did not show that the corrections officer had control over the videotape and
the package list, and imposing sanctions on the officer for the action of his employer would threaten the integrity of the
judicial system. Emery v. Harris (2014, ED Cal) 2014 US Dist LEXIS 22666.
3. Specific Public Employees: Police Officers
Term "employee" in this section and §§ 995, 995.2, 995.4, includes a "policeman." Sinclair v. Arnebergh (1964,
Cal App 2d Dist) 224 Cal App 2d 595, 36 Cal Rptr 810, 1964 Cal App LEXIS 1508.
Municipal corporation has discretionary power to indemnify its police officers against liability for acts done within
scope of their employment, to defend them, and to appropriate funds for expense of such defense. Sinclair v. Arnebergh
(1964, Cal App 2d Dist) 224 Cal App 2d 595, 36 Cal Rptr 810, 1964 Cal App LEXIS 1508.
On appeal from judgment of dismissal after general demurrer was sustained to taxpayer's complaint that city attorney's representation of city policemen in civil tort actions is ultra vires and that injunction should issue enjoining such
representation, appellate court is not required to accept allegations of complaint as true; such representation is authorized by this section and, §§ 995, 995.2, 995.4, and former § 2001, and presumptions that official duty has been regularly
performed, that requests for representation were made and that police officers represented were acting within scope of
their employment are justified. Sinclair v. Arnebergh (1964, Cal App 2d Dist) 224 Cal App 2d 595, 36 Cal Rptr 810,
1964 Cal App LEXIS 1508.
When a policeman is sued for unlawful arrest, the public entity employing the policeman is obliged, upon his request, to defend him or at least to pay any judgment against him or to indemnify him. MacDonald v. Musick (1970, 9th
Cir Cal) 425 F2d 373, 1970 US App LEXIS 9708, cert. denied, (1970) 400 US 852, 91 S Ct 54, 27 L Ed 2d 90, 1970 US
LEXIS 1215.
Page 10
Cal Gov Code § 825
Action against city police chief, under Federal Civil Rights Act, was not barred by provisions of this section,
among others of the California Tort Claims Act; the applicable statute of limitations was CCP § 338 subd 1, governing
actions on liability created by statute, other than penalty or forfeiture. Ney v. California (1971, 9th Cir Cal) 439 F2d
1285, 1971 US App LEXIS 11153.
In an action by a sheriff's officer for indemnification for attorney fees paid by the officer in a successful taxpayers'
suit against him for misuse of public funds for political purposes (Gov C § 3206), the officer was not entitled to indemnity as a matter of law, where his improper actions were not within the scope of his employment within the meaning of
the indemnity statutes (Gov C §§ 825, 825.2, subd. (b)). Because the underlying litigation established the officer's misuse of public funds, a wrong against the public itself, it would confound general principles of equity to shift the burden
of attorney fees awarded against the officer back to the public by way of indemnity from the county. Tenwolde v. County of San Diego (1993, Cal App 4th Dist) 14 Cal App 4th 1083, 17 Cal Rptr 2d 789, 1993 Cal App LEXIS 342, review
denied, (1993, Cal) 1993 Cal LEXIS 3156.
Local legislators are not entitled to qualified immunity if they implement their state-created power to indemnify police officers from punitive damage awards in bad faith. Navarro v. Block (2001, 9th Cir Cal) 250 F3d 729, 2001 US App
LEXIS 8874.
On appeal from an award of punitive damages against two officers for their retaliatory actions against a citizen, the
reviewing court reduced the awards from $3 million and $1 million to $35,000 and $20,000 in order to satisfy the proper purposes of punitive damages and avoid the officers' financial devastation. Because the jury's findings reflected that
the officers did not act in good faith, it was unlikely that the legislature could properly have authorized a reimbursement
for the punitive damages under Gov C § 825. Grassilli v. Barr (2006, Cal App 4th Dist) 142 Cal App 4th 1260, 48 Cal
Rptr 3d 715, 2006 Cal App LEXIS 1384, modified and reh'g denied, (2006) 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1605, review denied,
Grassilli (Steven) v. Barr (Richard) (2006) 2006 Cal. LEXIS 15347.
Arrestee could not proceed with 42 USCS § 1983 action against an officer's estate under Prob C § 550 or Prob C §
552 because he did not show that he could recover damages on his excessive force claim from any insurance policy;
assuming that the city had insurance, there was no evidence that anyone had requested that the city defend and indemnify the officer under Gov C § 825(a), and there was no authority suggesting that arrestee could bypass the requirement
that the officer or his heirs request defense and indemnification from the city before it was required to indemnify and/or
provide insurance coverage to him or his estate. Pelayo v. City of Downey (2008, CD Cal) 570 F Supp 2d 1183, 2008
US Dist LEXIS 73005.
Claim against a city police chief in his individual capacity was not discharged in the city's bankruptcy because of
the operation of this section because indemnification of the officer was neither automatic nor mandatory. V. W. v. City
of Vallejo (2013, ED Cal) 2013 US Dist LEXIS 109145.
L.4. Approve the revised Classified Salary Schedule which reflects
the new California Minimum Wage (for substitutes).
Attachments:
Classified Salary Schedule
Lucerne Valley Unified School District
2015-16 Classified Salary Schedule
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Range 1
10.53
10.90
11.28
11.67
12.08
12.51
12.94
13.40
13.87
14.35
14.85
15.37
15.91
16.47
10.97
11.35
11.75
12.16
12.58
13.03
13.48
13.95
14.44
14.95
15.47
16.01
16.57
17.15
11.42
11.82
12.24
12.66
13.11
13.57
14.04
14.53
15.04
15.57
16.11
16.68
17.26
17.86
11.90
12.31
12.74
13.19
13.65
14.13
14.62
15.14
15.66
16.21
16.78
17.37
17.98
18.61
12.39
12.82
13.27
13.74
14.22
14.72
15.23
15.76
16.32
16.89
17.48
18.09
18.72
19.38
12.90
13.36
13.82
14.31
14.81
15.33
15.86
16.42
16.99
17.59
18.20
18.84
19.50
20.18
13.44
13.91
14.40
14.90
15.42
15.96
16.52
17.10
17.70
18.32
18.96
19.62
20.31
21.02
14.00
14.49
14.99
15.52
16.06
16.62
17.21
17.81
18.43
19.08
19.74
20.44
21.15
21.89
14.58
15.09
15.62
16.16
16.73
17.31
17.92
18.55
19.20
19.87
20.56
21.28
22.03
22.80
15.18
15.71
16.26
16.83
17.42
18.03
18.66
19.32
19.99
20.69
21.42
22.17
22.94
23.75
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Food Service
Range
Instructional Assistant
Range
Warehouse
Food Service Worker I
1
Instructional Aide
3
Warehouse/Delivery
Food Service Worker II
4
Bi-Lingual Instruct Aide
4
Driver
Food Service Worker Lead
8
Library/Media
Clerical/Secretarial
Library Technician
Office Clerk I
2
Office Clerk II
3
Campus Security
7
Campus Security
Office Clerk III
3
11
School Secretary
11
Technology
Alt Ed Assistant
11
Technology Assistant
10
SIS Technician
10
Tech Specialist
12
Campus Aide
1
Cafeteria Aide
3
11 th - 12th Years will have an additional 3% added to step 10
13th - 14th Years will have an additional 2.5% added to the 12th year
15th and beyond will have an additional 2% added each year after.
Substitutes
HRLY
Sub Range 1-5
10.00
Sub Range 6-12
11.00
Range
Maintenance
Maintenance Worker I G
Classified Management
6
Office Manager
13
Custodian II
8
Operations Assistant
14
Transportation
Dispatcher
3
Bus Driver
9
Mechanic
12
NOTE: The District agrees to the professional growth of the employee related to salary adjustments, with the District having final approval. Each 20 quarter units will allow an
employee to move one range on the salary schedule at their present step. Maximum units allowed is 60 units. Classes taken prior to this agreement may be used for increase in the
(Range 3C is also Range 6)
11
Custodian I
Professional Growth
range at the discretion of the District.
Range
8
Custodial
5
Student Records Tech
Aides
Service Increment Will Be As Follows
L.5. Approve School Claims Authorized Signatures
Rationale:
The Board of Trustees is requested to approve the following School Claims
Authorized Signature Forms:
1. County Form No. 2: Board Delegation - Authorized Agent Status
2. County Form No. 2C: Secure I.D. Token
3. County Form No. 4 Board Delegation Termination Thereof
Attachments:
Signature Forms
L.6. Approve Board Bylaw 9320 to move the Board Meetings from
the 2nd Wednesday of each month to the 2nd Thursday of each
month.
Attachments:
BB 9320
Lucerne Valley USD
BB 9320(a)
Board Bylaw
Meetings And Notices
Board Bylaws
Meetings of the Board of Education are conducted for the purpose of accomplishing district
business. In accordance with state open meeting laws (Brown Act), the Board shall hold its
meetings in public and shall conduct closed sessions during such meetings only as authorized by
law. To encourage community involvement in the schools, Board meetings shall provide
opportunities for questions and comments by members of the public. All meetings shall be
conducted in accordance with law and the Board's bylaws, policies, and administrative
regulations.
(cf. 9321 - Closed Session Purposes and Agendas)
(cf. 9321.1 - Closed Session Actions and Reports)
(cf. 9322 - Agenda/Meeting Materials)
(cf. 9323 - Meeting Conduct)
A Board meeting exists whenever a majority of Board members gather at the same time and
place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the
Board or district. (Government Code 54952.2)
A majority of the Board shall not, outside of an authorized meeting, use a series of
communications of any kind, directly or through intermediaries, to discuss, deliberate, or take
action on any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board. However, an
employee or district official may engage in separate conversations with Board members in
order to answer questions or provide information regarding an item within the subject matter
jurisdiction of the Board, as long as that employee or district official does not communicate the
comments or position of any Board members to other Board members. (Government Code
54952.2)
(cf. 9012 - Board Member Electronic Communications)
In order to help ensure the participation of individuals with disabilities at Board meetings, the
Superintendent or designee shall provide appropriate disability-related accommodations or
modifications upon request in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
(Government Code 54953.2, 54954.1)
Meetings and Notices
BB 9320(b)
Regular Meetings
The Board shall hold one regular meeting each month. Regular meetings shall be held at 5:30
p.m. on the second Thursday of each month. The meetings may be held at various locations
within the District. A 12-month meeting calendar listing those locations will be approved and
publicized annually.
At least 72 hours prior to a regular meeting, the agenda shall be posted at one or more
locations freely accessible to members of the public and on the district's Internet web site.
(Government Code 54954.2)
(cf. 1113 - District and School Web Sites)
Whenever agenda materials relating to an open session of a regular meeting are distributed to
the Board less than 72 hours before the meeting, the Superintendent or designee shall make
the materials available for public inspection at a public office or location designated for that
purpose. (Government Code 54957.5)
(cf. 1340 - Access to District Records)
Special Meetings
Special meetings of the Board may be called at any time by the presiding officer or a majority of
the Board members. However, a special meeting shall not be called regarding the salary, salary
schedule, or other compensation of the Superintendent, assistant superintendent, or other
management employee as described in Government Code 3511.1. (Government Code 54956)
(cf. 2121 - Superintendent's Contract)
Written notice of special meetings shall be delivered personally or by any other means to all
Board members and the local media who have requested such notice in writing. The notice
also shall be posted on the district's Internet web site. The notice shall be received at least 24
hours before the time of the meeting. The notice shall also be posted at least 24 hours before
the meeting in a location freely accessible to the public. The notice shall specify the time and
place of the meeting and the business to be transacted or discussed. No other business shall be
considered at this meeting. (Education Code 35144; Government Code 54956)
Any Board member may waive the 24-hour written notice requirement prior to the time of the
meeting by filing a written waiver of notice with the clerk or secretary of the Board or by being
present at the meeting at the time it convenes. (Government Code 54956)
Every notice of a special meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to
directly address the Board concerning any item that has been described in the meeting notice,
before or during the item's consideration. (Government Code 54954.3)
Meetings and Notices
BB 9320(c)
Emergency Meetings
In the case of an emergency situation for which prompt action is necessary due to the
disruption or threatened disruption of public facilities, the Board may hold an emergency
meeting without complying with the 24-hour notice and/or 24-hour posting requirement for
special meetings pursuant to Government Code 54956. The Board shall comply with all other
requirements for special meetings during an emergency meeting. (Government Code 54956.5)
An emergency situation means either of the following: (Government Code 54956.5)
1.
An emergency, which shall be defined as a work stoppage, crippling activity, or other
activity that severely impairs public health and/or safety as determined by a majority of
the members of the Board
(cf. 4141.6/4241.6 - Concerted Action/Work Stoppage)
2.
A dire emergency, which shall be defined as a crippling disaster, mass destruction,
terrorist activity, or threatened terrorist act that poses peril so immediate and
significant
that requiring the Board to provide one-hour notice before holding an
emergency meeting may endanger the public health and/or safety as determined by a
majority of
the members of the Board
(cf. 3516 - Emergencies and Disaster Preparedness Plan)
Except in the case of a dire emergency, the Board president or designee shall give notice of the
emergency meeting by telephone at least one hour before the meeting to the local media that
have requested notice of special meetings. All telephone numbers provided by the media in the
most recent request for notification must be exhausted. If telephone services are not
functioning, the notice requirement of one hour is waived and, as soon after the meeting as
possible, the Board shall notify those media representatives of the meeting and shall describe
the purpose of the meeting and any action taken by the Board. In the case of a dire emergency,
the Board president or designee shall give such notice at or near the time he/she notifies the
other members of the Board about the meeting. (Government Code 54956.5)
The minutes of the meeting, a list of persons the Board president or designee notified or
attempted to notify, a copy of the roll call vote, and any actions taken at the meeting shall be
posted for at least 10 days in a public place as soon after the meeting as possible. (Government
Code 54956.5)
Adjourned/Continued Meetings
Meetings and Notices
BB 9320(d)
A majority vote by the Board may adjourn/continue any regular or special meeting to a later
time and place that shall be specified in the order of adjournment. Less than a quorum of the
Board may adjourn such a meeting. If no Board members are present, the secretary or the clerk
may declare the meeting adjourned to a later time and shall give notice in the same manner
required for special meetings. (Government Code 54955)
Within 24 hours after the time of adjournment, a copy of the order or notice of
adjournment/continuance shall be conspicuously posted on or near the door of the place
where the meeting was held. (Government Code 54955)
Study Sessions, Retreats, Public Forums, and Discussion Meetings
The Board may occasionally convene a study session or public forum to study an issue in more
detail or to receive information from staff or feedback from members of the public.
The Board may also convene a retreat or discussion meeting to discuss Board roles and
relationships.
(cf. 2000 - Concepts and Roles)
(cf. 2111 - Superintendent Governance Standards)
(cf. 9000 - Role of the Board)
(cf. 9005 - Governance Standards)
(cf. 9400 - Board Self-Evaluation)
Public notice shall be given in accordance with law when a quorum of the Board is attending a
study session, retreat, public forum, or discussion meeting. All such meetings shall comply with
the Brown Act and shall be held in open session and within district boundaries. Action items
shall not be included on the agenda for these meetings.
Other Gatherings
Attendance by a majority of Board members at any of the following events is not subject to the
Brown Act provided that a majority of the Board members do not discuss specific district
business among themselves other than as part of the scheduled program: (Government Code
54952.2)
1.
A conference or similar public gathering open to the public that involves a discussion of
issues of general interest to the public or to school board members
2.
An open, publicized meeting organized by a person or organization other than the
district to address a topic of local community concern
3.
An open and noticed meeting of another body of the district
4.
An open and noticed meeting of a legislative body of another local agency
Meetings and Notices
BB 9320(3)
5.
A purely social or ceremonial occasion
6.
An open and noticed meeting of a standing committee of the Board, provided that the
Board members who are not members of the standing committee attend only as
observers
(cf. 9130 - Board Committees)
Individual contacts or conversations between a Board member and any other person are not
subject to the Brown Act. (Government Code 54952.2)
Location of Meetings
Meetings shall not be held in a facility that prohibits the admittance of any person on the basis
of ancestry or any characteristic listed in Government Code 11135, including, but not limited to,
religion, sex, or sexual orientation. In addition, meetings shall not be held in a facility which is
inaccessible to individuals with disabilities or where members of the public must make a
payment or purchase in order to be admitted. (Government Code 54961)
(cf. 0410 - Nondiscrimination in District Programs and Activities)
Meetings shall be held within district boundaries, except to do any of the following:
(Government Code 54954)
1.
Comply with state or federal law or court order or attend a judicial or administrative
proceeding to which the district is a party
2.
Inspect real or personal property which cannot conveniently be brought into the district,
provided that the topic of the meeting is limited to items directly related to the property
3.
Participate in meetings or discussions of multiagency significance, provided these
meetings are held within one of the other agencies' boundaries, with all participating
agencies giving the notice required by law
4.
Meet in the closest meeting facility if the district has no meeting facility within its
boundaries or if it's principal office is located outside the district
5.
Meet with elected or appointed state or federal officials when a local meeting would be
impractical, solely to discuss legislative or regulatory issues affecting the district over
which the state or federal officials have jurisdiction
6.
Meet in or near a facility owned by the district but located outside the district, provided
the meeting agenda is limited to items directly related to that facility
Meetings and Notices
BB 9320(f)
7.
Visit the office of the district's legal counsel for a closed session on pending litigation,
when doing so would reduce legal fees or costs
8.
Attend conferences on non-adversarial collective bargaining techniques
9.
Interview residents of another district regarding the Board's potential employment of an
applicant for Superintendent of the district
10.
Interview a potential employee from another district
Meetings exempted from the boundary requirements, as specified in items #1-10 above, shall
still be subject to the notice and open meeting requirements for regular and special meetings
when a quorum of the Board attends the meeting.
If a fire, flood, earthquake, or other emergency renders the regular meeting place unsafe,
meetings shall be held for the duration of the emergency at a place designated by the Board
president or designee, who shall so inform all news media who have requested notice of special
meetings by the most rapid available means of communication. (Government Code 54954)
Teleconferencing
A teleconference is a meeting of the Board in which Board members are in different locations,
connected by electronic means through audio and/or video. (Government Code 54953)
The Board may use teleconferences for all purposes in connection with any meeting within the
Board's subject matter jurisdiction. All votes taken during a teleconference meeting shall be by
roll call. (Government Code 54953)
During the teleconference, at least a quorum of the members of the Board shall participate
from locations within district boundaries. (Government Code 54953)
Agendas shall be posted at all teleconference locations and shall list all teleconference locations
whenever they are posted elsewhere. Additional teleconference locations may be provided to
the public. (Government Code 54953)
All teleconference locations shall be accessible to the public. All teleconferenced meetings shall
be conducted in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties or
the public appearing before the Board, including the right of the public to address the Board
directly at each teleconference location. (Government Code 54953)
All Board policies, administrative regulations, and bylaws shall apply equally to meetings that
are teleconferenced. The Superintendent or designee shall facilitate public participation in the
meeting at each teleconference location.
Meetings and Notices
Legal Reference:
EDUCATION CODE
35140 Time and place of meetings
35143 Annual organizational meeting, date, and notice
35144 Special meeting
35145 Public meetings
35145.5 Agenda; public participation; regulations
35146 Closed sessions
35147 Open meeting law exceptions and applications
GOVERNMENT CODE
3511.1 Local agency executives
11135 State programs and activities, discrimination
54950-54963 The Ralph M. Brown Act, especially:
54953 Meetings to be open and public; attendance
54954 Time and place of regular meetings
54954.2 Agenda posting requirements, board actions
54956 Special meetings; call; notice
54956.5 Emergency meetings
UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 42
12101-12213 Americans with Disabilities Act
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, TITLE 28
35.160 Effective communications
36.303 Auxiliary aids and services
COURT DECISIONS
Wolfe v. City of Fremont, (2006) 144 Cal.App. 544
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS
88 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 218 (2005)
84 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 181 (2001)
84 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 30 (2001)
79 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 69 (1996)
78 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 327 (1995)
Management Resources:
CSBA PUBLICATIONS
The Brown Act: School Boards and Open Meeting Laws, rev. 2009
INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
The ABCs of Open Government Laws
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES PUBLICATIONS
Open and Public IV: A Guide to the Ralph M. Brown Act, 2nd Ed., 2010
BB 9320(g)
Meetings and Notices
BB 9320(h)
WEB SITES
CSBA: http://www.csba.org
CSBA, Agenda Online:
http://www.csba.org/Services/Services/GovernanceTechnology/AgendaOnline.aspx
California Attorney General's Office: http://www.ag.ca.gov
Institute for Local Government: http://www.ca-ilg.org
League of California Cities: http://www.cacities.org
Bylaw
adopted: November 12, 2014
LUCERNE VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Lucerne Valley, California
M. Adjournment