The Superior Court of California has ruled that while it has always been the case that mandates added by the voters through a ballot measure are not reimbursable, the Legislature’s attempt in AB 138 (2005) to add mandates imposed by the Legislature under the guise of being "necessary to implement" or "reasonably within the scope of" an expressly stated voter approved mandate, was unconstitutional. Thus, under AB 138 mandates added by legislation – in programs such as the School Accountability Report Card, the Mandate Reimbursement Process, and certain Brown Act requirements – would not be reimbursable either.

"AB 138 clearly was part of an overall state strategy to avoid reimbursing local governments, including school districts, for the cost of implementing mandated state programs," said Dr. Kathy Kinley, president of CSBA. "For that reason, we are very gratified by the Superior Court’s decision."

The court also agreed with CSBA’s contention that the state could not retroactively avoid paying for mandates by changing the law after the Commission on State  Mandates had found that the mandates were reimbursable, finding that the Legislature’s attempt to dictate to the Commission is a violation of the separate powers doctrine. Local governments rely on the Commission’s decisions regarding the extent of the reimbursements that would eventually be received from the state.

"This decision is a great victory for California public schools," said Scott P. Plotkin, executive director of CSBA. "We are hopeful that this decision will help convince state lawmakers that accountability and funding really do go hand-in-hand."

The suit against AB 138 was filed by CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance, joined by Sweetwater Union High School District, the City of Newport Beach, Fresno County, and Los Angeles County.

The Superior Court of California has ruled that while it has always been the case that mandates added by the voters through a ballot measure are not reimbursable, the Legislature’s attempt in AB 138 (2005) to add mandates imposed by the Legislature under the guise of being "necessary to implement" or "reasonably within the scope of" an expressly stated voter approved mandate, was unconstitutional. Thus, under AB 138 mandates added by legislation – in programs such as the School Accountability Report Card, the Mandate Reimbursement Process, and certain Brown Act requirements – would not be reimbursable either.

"AB 138 clearly was part of an overall state strategy to avoid reimbursing local governments, including school districts, for the cost of implementing mandated state programs," said Dr. Kathy Kinley, president of CSBA. "For that reason, we are very gratified by the Superior Court’s decision."

The court also agreed with CSBA’s contention that the state could not retroactively avoid paying for mandates by changing the law after the Commission on State  Mandates had found that the mandates were reimbursable, finding that the Legislature’s attempt to dictate to the Commission is a violation of the separate powers doctrine. Local governments rely on the Commission’s decisions regarding the extent of the reimbursements that would eventually be received from the state.

"This decision is a great victory for California public schools," said Scott P. Plotkin, executive director of CSBA. "We are hopeful that this decision will help convince state lawmakers that accountability and funding really do go hand-in-hand."

The suit against AB 138 was filed by CSBA’s Education Legal Alliance, joined by Sweetwater Union High School District, the City of Newport Beach, Fresno County, and Los Angeles County.