Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 17:20 — 24.4MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

Hosts Joshua Whiteside and Sloan Simmons are back to discuss the latest litigation development related to a school district’s student COVID-19 vaccination mandate and the rapidly changing guidance and directives related to student and staff mask requirements, including CDPH’s recent announcement that face masks are no longer legally required indoors at K-12 schools after March 11, 2022.

Show Notes & References

• 0:26 – Episode 51 Student Vaccines and Student Masks – Latest Developments
• 1:14 – San Diego Unified School District federal court vaccine litigation; John Doe, et al., Applicants v. San Diego Unified School District, et al.
• 4:28 – Student mask mandate update
• 5:01 – February 25, 2022 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) new guidance
• 7:48 – California Department of Public Health (CDPH) February 28, 2022 announcement
• 8:30 – February 28, 2022 Governor Executive Order N-5-22
• 8:59 – Emergency temporary standards (Cal. Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 3205)
• 9:56 – CDPH K-12 School Guidance (unchanged)
• 11:05 – Public transit and school buses
• 12:44 – CDPH Schools FAQ

 

Lozano Smith’s COVID-19 Resources can be found here.

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 26:21 — 36.8MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

Host Sloan Simmons joins partners and Lozano Smith Labor and Employment Co-Practice Group Leaders Michelle Cannon and Gabriela Flowers to discuss several important school district labor and employment deadlines that fall on March 15.  This brief but information packed episode includes discussion on various types of release from employment as well as layoffs.  Additionally, this year, for the first time ever, classified layoffs are subject to the same deadline.

Show Notes & References

• 1:13 – Non-reelection of second year probationary certificated employees
• 2:10 – March 15th deadlines
• 3:28 – First year probationary employees
• 3:34 – Education Code section 44929.21
• 4:21 – Release and reassignment notices for administrators (Ed. Code section 44951)
• 7:20 – Certificated layoff process
• 8:49 – Ed. code sections 44955 and 44949
• 9:00 – Bumping rights
• 10:00 – Chronology of layoffs
• 14:35 – Classified layoff process
• 16:53 – Bumping language and collective bargaining agreements (CBAs)
• 17:53 – Definition of permanency for classified employee layoffs
• 18:40 – AB 438 impacts
• 21:48 – CBAs and classified layoffs

 

Lozano Smith’s COVID-19 Resources can be found here.

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 34:29 — 47.9MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

Host Joshua Whiteside joins Lozano Smith partner Sloan Simmons to discuss the present status of student COVID-19 vaccination and student masks requirements, including the status of State directives on point and the results of litigation in these areas.

Show Notes & References

• 0:48 – California Department of Public Health (CDPH) February 15, 2022 announcement and upcoming CDPH February 28, 2022 announcement
• 3:26 – Student vaccine mandate status
• 5:35 – SB 871 and personal exemptions
• 7:45 – Locally adopted vaccine mandates examples
• 8:36 – Los Angeles USD local mandate and legislation
• 9:20 – Education Code section 35160
• 11:37 – San Diego USD local mandate
• 15:05 – State court San Diego case and Let Them Choose litigation
• 19:00 – San Diego USD appeal and stay from Court of Appeal
• 22:01 – Mask mandate status
• 22:33 – State Public Health officer order (June 11, 2021)
• 23:28 – CDPH Guidance
• 24:02 – Health and Safety Code section 120175 and legal authority
• 24:37 – Superior Court case in San Diego and Let Them Breathe litigation

 

Lozano Smith’s COVID-19 Resources can be found here.

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 43:27 — 60.2MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

Host Sloan Simmons joins Lozano Smith partner Arne Sandberg to discuss modular buildings for California school districts, including the basics about modular buildings, procurement alternatives, and new legal developments impacting this area of school construction.

Show Notes & References

• 1:24 – Modular buildings
• 2:05 – Modular component buildings vs. modular portables
• 4:55 – Issue of permanent vs. temporary
• 6:10 – Modular component building examples
• 7:15 – Popularity and cost-efficiency
• 8:16 – Building plans (standard or unique designs)
• 9:10 – Competitive bidding and modular buildings
• 10:33 – Delivery methods (competitive bidding, lease-leaseback, design-build)
• 13:30 – Architect involvement
• 14:31 – Lease-leaseback method
• 15:16 – Davis v. Fresno Unified School Dist. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 261
• 18:16 – Lease-leaseback scoring and rating system
• 19:29 – Design-build vs. lease-leaseback
• 21:03 – Piggybacking
• 22:10 – Division of the State Architect (DSA)
• 22:13 – Office of Public School Construction (OPSC)
• 22:54 – Public Construction Code section 20118
• 24:52 – Vendor involvement in piggybacking
• 26:30 – Modulars and personal property
• 26:43 – Attorney General opinion: 89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 1 (#05-405, January 24, 2006)
• 28:50 – Report of the Executive Officer, State Allocation Board Meeting, December 8, 2004
• 30:55 – OPSC e-mail to school districts and county offices of education (July 2021)
• 31:55 – Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH)
• 33:48 – Permanent vs. temporary foundations for modular portables
• 40:25 – Critical takeaways

 

Lozano Smith’s COVID-19 Resources can be found here.

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 29:16 — 40.7MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

Host Joshua Whiteside joins Lozano Smith attorney Ruth Mendyk to discuss updates and new obligations facing educational agencies now and during the second half of the 2021-22 school year. This discussion includes a review of important legislation from the Fall 2021 legislative session.

Show Notes & References

• 2:30 – Education Code 48205 – Excused absences
• 2:50 – Senate Bill (SB) 14 (urgency) – Excused absences for mental or behavioral health
• 6:46 – Assembly Bill (AB) 516 – Excused absences for cultural ceremonies and events
• 9:13 – SB 254 – September 11^th remembrance exercises and observations
• 11:24 – AB 27 (urgency) – Website posting requirement for liaison and related homeless information
• 12:11 – SB 400 – Housing questionnaire and rights/resources for homeless students
• 14:26 – AB 132 – Ensure student completion of FAFSA form (Free Application for Federal Student Aid), alternate form, or opt-out
• 17:25 – AB 104 – Grade change requests, student retention, and exemptions from graduation requirements
• 20:54 – AB 101 – Ethnic studies

 

Lozano Smith’s COVID-19 Resources can be found here.

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 26:16 — 36.5MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

Following COVID-19 school closures during the 2019-2020 school year, many school districts are faced with making determinations regarding potential compensatory education for their special education student populations.  Host Sloan Simmons discusses the concept of compensatory education and school closures with Lozano Smith special education experts Marcy Gutierrez and Collen Villarreal, including important factors for districts to consider on this subject and the latest OAH rulings on point.

Show Notes & References

• 2:29 – FAPE obligation and distance learning
• 3:11 – Bd. of Ed. v. Rowley (1982) 458 U.S. 176; Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1 (2017) 580 U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 988
• 3:51 – Cal. Exec. Order N-26-20 (March 13, 2020)
• 8:35 – Compensatory education overview
• 10:17 – Equitable factors
• 15:50 – Anaheim Elementary School District v. Student (2020), OAH Case No. 2020090678
• 19:20 – Questions and Answers on Providing Services to Children with Disabilities During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak (March 12, 2020)

 

Lozano Smith’s COVID-19 Resources can be found here.

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:04:00 — 88.4MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

For the first time since 2007, the United States Supreme Court has weighed-in on student free speech rights under the First Amendment. In Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the high court addressed for the first time the parameters and limits for schools’ regulation of student off-campus speech. In this episode, Lozano Smith student speech experts Mike Smith and Sloan Simmons break down the Supreme Court’s decision and its implications for California school districts.

Show Notes & References

• 1:58 – Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) 393 U.S. 503
• 4:00 – Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) 478 U.S. 675
• 5:58 – Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al. (1988) 484 U.S. 260
• 8:05 – Statutory framework in Education Code (Ed. Code §§ 48907, 48950)  
  
• 9:34 – Morse v. Frederick (2007) 551 U.S. 393
• 11:58 – Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (June 23, 2021) 594 U.S. ___
• 19:56 – School district limitations on regulating off-campus speech
• 24:35 – Types of behavior subject to regulation under B.L.
• 33:02 – Impact of B.L. in California
• 39:27 – Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995) 515 U.S. 646
• 40:43 – T.V. v. Smith-Green Community School Corporation (N.D. Ind. 2011) 807 F.Supp.2d 767
  
• 43:31 – J.C. ex rel. R.C. v. Beverly Hills Unified School District (C.D. Cal. 2010) 711 F.Supp.2d 1094 (Client News Brief 53 – December 2009)
  
• 46:25 – Wynar v. Douglas County School Dist. (9th Cir. 2013) 728 F.3d 1062 (Client News Brief 59 – September 2013)
• 48:48 – C.R. v. Eugene School District 4J (9th Cir., Sept. 1, 2016) 835 F.3d 1142 (Client News Brief 65 – September 2016)
• 51:34 – Shen v. Albany Unified School District (9th Cir. 2016) 835 F.3d 1142 (Client News Brief 87 – December 2017)
  
• 55:36 – McNeil v. Sherwood School District 88J (9th Cir. 2019) 918 F.3d 700 (Client News Brief 30 – June 2019)

 

Lozano Smith’s COVID-19 Resources can be found here.

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 47:14 — 65.4MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

With the easing of COVID-19 restrictions and California’s “reopening,” host Sloan Simmons has a timely discussion with Lozano Smith Governance Co-Practice Group Leader, Anne Collins and Lozano Smith Technology and Innovation Practice Group Leader Travis Cochran regarding the state of the law and future of public meetings under the Brown Act in light of pending legislation that would continue flexibility for remote participation by local officials and the public.

Show Notes & References

• 3:19 – The Brown Act & board member telephonic/virtual participation (Government Code section 54953(b))
• 6:06 – California Executive Order 3-17-20 (March 2020)
• 10:16 – California Executive Order N-08-21 (June 2021)
• 11:32 – Masks at public meetings
• 15:25 – Meeting posting requirements
• 16:16 – Pending Assembly Bill (AB) 361
• 18:24 – Pending AB 339
• 25:11 – Public comment and participation during virtual board meetings
• 35:05 – Virtual technology issues
• 38:55 – Hybrid board meetings and flexible participation
• 45:46 – Update: California Department of Public Health Face Coverings Q&A Guidance (June 15, 2021)

 

Lozano Smith’s COVID-19 Resources can be found here.

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 40:43 — 56.4MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

Host Sloan Simmons facilitates a timely and interesting discussion with Lozano Smith Charter School Practice Group Leaders, Ed Sklar and Erin Hamor, regarding the status of charter school reform legislation and the impacts of COVID-19 on the same.

Show Notes & References

• 2:10 – Review of charter reform legislation over the last two years
• 2:31 – Assembly Bill (AB) 1505
• 3:26 – State dashboard
• 7:20 – AB 1316 and pending Education Budget Trailer Bill
• 7:36 – People v. McManus; San Diego Super. Ct. Case No. SCD266439
• 9:17 – Anticipated 3-year renewed moratorium on non-classroom based (NCB) charter schools
• 9:38 – Anticipated 2-year hiatus for charter renewals
• 11:57 – COVID-19 pandemic & NCB charter school accountability
• 13:43 – SB 98 influence on NCB charter school funding (Client News Brief 60 – July 2020)
• 15:49 – State review of NCB charter schools’ success during pandemic
• 18:04 – Pending Education Budget Trailer Bill and NCB charter school moratorium
• 19:30 – Charter school accountability components
• 25:10 – Pending Education Budget Trailer Bill and anticipated timelines on renewal moratorium
• 28:40 – Charter school location accountability
• 28:48 – AB 1507
• 33:40 – Lack of state regulation and implementation issues
• 34:44 – Charter school recruitment issues
• 36:24 – Consequences for ignoring recruitment obligations

 

Lozano Smith’s COVID-19 Resources can be found here.

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 41:48 — 57.9MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

Lozano Smith attorneys Constantine Baranoff and Daniel Maruccia join host Sloan Simmons in an informative and detailed discussion of how Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts have evolved in California with attorneys who focus on public finance and who have formed EIFDs throughout the state. They also discuss available financing structures and explore projects (including freeway overlay and flood control) which EIFDs may be used to finance.

Show Notes & References

• 5:01 – 2012 Redevelopment Agencies (RDA) dissolved
• 6:58 – EIFD (Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District)
• 13:35 – Formation of Public Finance Authority (PFA)
• 15:13 – EIFD hearings and timelines
• 19:03 – EIFD financing structures and combining the EIFD with other financing tools such as Mello-Roos
• 28:25 – EIFDs vs. RDAs
• 29:10 – Creative application of the EIFD tools in California; overview of types of projects being contemplated using EIFDs including flood control and freeway overlays
• 36:31 – Upcoming important election dates for voter approved debt

 

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.