Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill Friday, pushed hard by the California Teachers Association, that would have required charter schools to comply with the state’s open meetings, public records and conflict of interest laws.

Brown’s rejection of Assembly Bill 709, authored by Mike Gipson, D-Carson, was expected. Brown vetoed an almost identical bill two years ago, and, as a Senate Education Committee analysis noted, the bill “does not include any substantive changes that seek to address” the issues Brown raised then.

In his veto message on Friday, the deadline for acting on hundreds of bills, Brown quoted from his 2014 veto letter: “While I support transparency, this bill goes further than simply addressing issues of potential conflicts of interest and goes too far in prescribing how these boards must operate.”

“That’s still my view,” Brown concluded. A longtime advocate and, as governor, protector of charters, Brown started two charter schools in Oakland before his re-election as governor in 2010.

The California School Boards Association, the Association of California School Administrators  and other school management groups supported the bill, but the CTA made it a high-profile campaign as part of its escalating opposition to charter schools. On a new website, Kids Not Profits, it highlighted incidents of mismanagement and fraud by charter schools and their administrators, as well as discriminatory admission policies by some charters that violated the state charter school law. Gipson’s bill would extend vital requirements for accountability and transparency to charter schools, it argued.

CTA President Eric Heins expressed disappointment on Friday. “It is unfortunate that given all the reports showing fraud, waste, mismanagement and unequal access to students, Governor Brown would veto such important legislation that simply required the same standards of accountability and transparency that apply to all neighborhood public schools.”

All but a handful of the state’s 1,200 charter schools are run by nonprofit boards of directors. Although they are not required by statute, California Charter Schools Association President Jed Wallace said that “95 percent” of charters already comply with the state’s open meeting laws – the Brown Act and the Bagley-Keene Act – and with the requirements of the California Public Records Act to make public documents accessible. They do so voluntarily, or their authorizers – school districts and county offices of education – require them to in granting or renewing a charter.

The association did press for one change, which the CTA opposed, to permit telephonic meetings by charter organizations with schools in multiple locations, Wallace said. It would be impossible for those organizations to comply without creating separate boards of directors at each location, he said. A failure to make this accommodation, he said, could jeopardize the operation of some of the best-known, successful operators, he said. Aspire Public Schools, Alliance for College-Ready Schools and KIPP are among the state’s charter management organizations.

But Brown’s and the association’s primary objection was over what they characterized as a poor fit of superimposing Government Code 1090, the state’s primary conflict-of-interest law applying to school districts and other government bodies, onto charter schools. The law prohibits public officials from personal financial gain and an interest in contracts they approve in their official capacity. They must recuse themselves from any role in making the decisions and are potentially subject to criminal penalties if they don’t. Legal liability could also extend to other board members with no financial gain, attorneys have argued.

Wallace called Code 1090 “a very complicated and convoluted law” that was intended to prevent abuses by government officials in agencies with expansive authority to raise taxes and pursue eminent domain not applicable to charter schools. School districts that are antagonistic to charters “could use Code 1090 like a bludgeon,” he said.

Wallace said that charters already must adhere to the state’s corporation laws for nonprofits, which impose similar conflict-of-interest prohibitions – except that the penalties are civil, not criminal. Charges of fraud and self-enrichment against charter founders and administrators all reflect a failure of enforcement and oversight, not a legal loophole, he said.

Examples of high-profile financial abuse are the $3.8 million that former American Indian Model Schools in Oakland paid its leader and founder Ben Chavis for buildings he leased and the $3 million in high-interest loans and fees that the founder of the now-defunct FAME charter in Fremont approved for relatives.

In a current case of financial abuse, Los Angeles Unified has threatened to close El Camino Real Charter High School in Woodland Hills in part because of the principal’s unauthorized extensive personal spending on a school credit card. And the state Department of Education has asked the state controller to audit California Virtual Academies, a chain of nonprofit online schools, for possible conflicts of interest between the schools and the for-profit company K12, Inc., that appoints CAVA boards of trustees and contracts to run the schools.

The Legislature has failed in nearly every year since 2010 to pass a law extending the public records, open meetings and conflicts of interest laws to charters. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a version in 2010, and now Brown has vetoed two bills. A version authored by Sen. Bob Huff, R-San Dimas, in 2014, backed by the charter schools association, failed to make it out of the Senate.

Support independent journalism

If this article helped keep you informed and engaged with California education, would you consider supporting the nonprofit organization that brought it to you?

EdSource is participating in NewsMatch, a campaign to keep independent, nonprofit journalism strong. A gift to EdSource now means your donation will be matched, dollar for dollar, up to $1,000 per donation through the end of 2018. That means double the support for the reporters, editors and data specialists who brought you this story. Please make a contribution today.

Share Article

Comments (3)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * *

Comments Policy

The goal of the comments section on EdSource is to facilitate thoughtful conversation about content published on our website. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

  1. CarolineSF 2 years ago2 years ago

    Gov. Brown's comments before he founded Oakland School for the Arts and Oakland Military Institute, vs. after years of experience with them, revealed quite a change in attitude, so it wasn't necessarily clear before his veto that he would go all out for protecting charters from scrutiny and accountability. I attended a San Francisco event promoting charter schools in (I believe) late 2001 at which he spoke about his plans to start OSA and OMI … Read More

    Gov. Brown’s comments before he founded Oakland School for the Arts and Oakland Military Institute, vs. after years of experience with them, revealed quite a change in attitude, so it wasn’t necessarily clear before his veto that he would go all out for protecting charters from scrutiny and accountability. I attended a San Francisco event promoting charter schools in (I believe) late 2001 at which he spoke about his plans to start OSA and OMI (he was still Oakland mayor at that time). In that speech, his attitude came across as belligerent — we’ll show those stupid teachers and public schools how it’s done. (Those were not his words; that’s my interpretation of his attitude.) Years later, when he ran for governor, his attitude had changed — after years in which OSA and OMI struggled desperately and never would have survived without his intense involvement, including massive fundraising. His new attitude was that now he understood what it took to run a school — if he didn’t use the words “I’ve been humbled,” he certainly conveyed that.

    Oakland School for the Arts screens applicants openly and by design, as it’s an audition arts school. Oakland Military Institute de facto screens, picks and chooses applicants, as is well known in the community — but not openly or officially. Most, if not all, charters would collapse if they couldn’t screen applicants, either actively or by imposing hurdles in the admissions process. That presumably has something to do with Brown’s comprehension that transparency and accountability would do severe harm to the charter sector by revealing its covert practices.

    Replies

    • Don 2 years ago2 years ago

      You mentioned Brown's two Oakland charter schools, one of which, the arts school, openly screens students. Again, I must remind you that your own children attended a school that openly screens applicants. You also claimed the other charter school, the military academy, screens applicants, though you provided no explanation. Even if you're right about these two schools, that doesn't mean all 1230 screen applicants. You went on to claim without explanation that "most, if … Read More

      You mentioned Brown’s two Oakland charter schools, one of which, the arts school, openly screens students. Again, I must remind you that your own children attended a school that openly screens applicants. You also claimed the other charter school, the military academy, screens applicants, though you provided no explanation. Even if you’re right about these two schools, that doesn’t mean all 1230 screen applicants. You went on to claim without explanation that “most, if not all,” charters screen, saying that the charter sector would collapse if the schools couldn’t screen. I’ll point out you make this claim repeatedly, yet every year more and more school boards trustees approve more and more charter schools. So what do you know they don’t and why do you suppose they approve charters when the alleged cherrypicking is so ruinous to the rest of public education, as you have maintained for years?

  2. Roger Grotewold 2 years ago2 years ago

    It is interesting that the California School Boards Association, the Association of California School Administrators and the California Teachers Association are on the same side of Assembly Bill 709. I know that they often take opposite sides on many different things. It would seem like this would be such an important issue, that they would find some agreement. I’m sure glad that they agreed on this. It is kind of self-explanatory why Jerry Brown … Read More

    It is interesting that the California School Boards Association, the Association of California School Administrators and the California Teachers Association are on the same side of Assembly Bill 709. I know that they often take opposite sides on many different things. It would seem like this would be such an important issue, that they would find some agreement.
    I’m sure glad that they agreed on this. It is kind of self-explanatory why Jerry Brown likes charter schools, knowing that he had been the founder of two of them before becoming Governor. I like the idea that local school boards, where the charter schools are accepted, have the authority to make some common sense guidelines for them. It just seems that too much freedom for the charters, without some outside guidance, will erode the public school system in California. That would not be a good result, in my judgment.