STAFF REPORT REGARDING INVESTIGATION GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION AND PROPOSED FINDINGS AND REVOCATION OF A. PHILLIP RANDOLPH LEADERSHIP ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL (Education Code section 47607(c))
STAFF REPORT REGARDING INVESTIGATION GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION AND PROPOSED FINDINGS AND REVOCATION OF A. PHILLIP RANDOLPH LEADERSHIP ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL (Education Code section 47607(c)) TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. Preamble...1 II. Legal Authority Regarding Revocation...2 III. Investigation and Notice to Cure or Face Revocation...2 IV. District Staff Findings and Recommendations Regarding Revocation and Cure...4 A. Randolph Committed a Material Violation of the Conditions, Standards or Procedures Set Forth in the Charter...4 Issue 1: Issue 2: Issue 3: Failure to comply with WASC accreditation requirements of the Charter Employee qualifications did not meet the Charter requirements or the requirements of state law Failure to maintain a safe environment B. Randolph Engaged in Fiscal Mismanagement...7 Issue 4: Issue 5: Issue 6: Randolph has engaged in fiscal mismanagement Randolph employees and board members have engaged in fiscal mismanagement by engaging in conflict of interest/self dealing Randolph employees and board members misappropriated funds C. Randolph Violated Provisions of Law...12 Issue 7: Randolph employees and board members have engaged in conflict of interest/self dealing in violation of law
Issue 8: Issue 9: Issue 10: Randolph s lay off of staff and requirement that they work on a volunteer basis is a violation of labor laws Randolph has failed to provide properly credentialed teachers in core subjects Randolph has failed to meet the requisite instructional minutes/days V. Conclusion...14 EXHIBITS A. Phillip Randolph Leadership Academy Charter.............................. Exhibit A District Notice to Cure dated 5/2/06......................................... Exhibit B Randolph Response to Notice to Cure dated 5/4/06............................. Exhibit C Letter from Randolph Staff................................................ Exhibit D District Correspondence dated 5/24/06....................................... Exhibit E Report of Wendell Bass, Principal on Special Assignment....................... Exhibit F Randolph Correspondence dated 6/5/06......................................Exhibit G District Notice of Intent to Seek Revocation...................................Exhibit H Summary of District Internal Audit of A. Phillip Randolph Leadership Academy......Exhibit I
STAFF REPORT REGARDING INVESTIGATION GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION AND PROPOSED FINDINGS AND REVOCATION OF A. PHILLIP RANDOLPH LEADERSHIP ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL (Education Code section 47607(c)) I. PREAMBLE California s charter school legislation, first adopted in the early 1990's, was enacted to create opportunities for innovation and expanded school choice. The Charter Schools Act of 1992 was designed to facilitate these goals by exempting charter schools from many of the state laws governing public schools. Although charter schools are exempt from many of the laws governing school districts; in return for that exemption, the Education Code holds them to a high standard: they must live up to all of the promises they make to school districts, parents, community members, and especially children, concerning pupil instruction, community/parent involvement and fiscal accountability. School districts which grant charters have a legal obligation to make sure that charter schools deliver what they promise to deliver, meet all requirements of law, and spend the public s money responsibly. If a school district believes that a charter school is not living up to its promises, it must take timely action in order to put the charter school on notice and provide the charter school with a reasonable opportunity to cure alleged violations. In the case where the situation poses an imminent threat to the health and safety of the students, no such notice is required before taking action to revoke the charter. A. Phillip Randolph Leadership Academy Charter School ( Randolph ) submitted its Application for Approval of the Petition for A. Phillip Randolph Leadership Academy Charter School ( Charter attached hereto as Exhibit A). On July 24, 2004, the San Diego Unified School District ( District ) approved and granted the Charter and thereby authorized the sponsorship of Randolph based upon the information contained within the Charter. Randolph started functioning as a charter school beginning in the 2005-2006 school year. Beginning in or about the spring of 2006, District staff learned information concerning very serious issues of fiscal mismanagement, potential conflicts of interest, instructional minutes and other concerns with Randolph s operations. As discussed more fully below, the District initiated an investigation, notified Randolph of the grounds for revocation, notified Randolph of the intent to revoke absent cure, participated in communications with Randolph, continued to receive and review information regarding Randolph, and invited Randolph to respond to the issues presented in the Notice to Cure. (Exhibit B.) An audit was conducted by the District to which Randolph was invited to respond. Randolph declined to review or comment upon the veracity of the facts supporting the audit findings upon advice of its legal counsel. Page 1 of 15
II. LEGAL AUTHORITY REGARDING REVOCATION Pursuant to Education Code section 47607, subdivision (c), the District, or the State Board of Education, may revoke the charter if the authority finds that the charter school did any of the following: (1) Committed a material violation of any of the conditions, standards or procedures set forth in the charter; (2) Failed to meet or pursue any of the pupil outcomes identified in the charter; (3) Failed to meet generally accepted accounting principles, or engaged in fiscal mismanagement; or, (4) Violated any provision of law. (Ed. Code, 47607, subd.(c).) Prior to revocation, the authority that granted the charter shall notify the charter public school of any violation of this section and give the school a reasonable opportunity to cure the violation, unless the authority determines, in writing, that the violation constitutes a severe and imminent threat to the health and safety of the pupils. (Ed. Code, 47607, subd.(d).) III. INVESTIGATION AND NOTICE TO CURE OR FACE REVOCATION Beginning in or about the spring of 2006, District staff received information regarding very serious issues of financial mismanagement. This information led to the initiation of an investigation as to whether Randolph was operating in compliance with its Charter and state law. The investigation was primarily conducted by District staff with assistance from outside legal counsel. The District s investigation revealed that Randolph was materially out of compliance with both its Charter and state law as follows: 1) Failure to comply with WASC accreditation requirement of the Charter; 2) Employee qualifications did not meet the Charter requirements or the requirements of state law; 3) Failure to maintain a safe environment; 4) Randolph engaged in fiscal mismanagement; 5) Randolph employees and board members have engaged in fiscal mismanagement by engaging in conflict of interest/self dealing; 6) Randolph employees and board members misappropriated funds; Page 2 of 15
7) Randolph has violated conflict of interest laws; 8) Randolph lay off of staff and requirement that they work on a volunteer basis in a violation of labor laws; 9) Randolph has failed to employ properly credentialed teachers; and, 10) Randolph has failed to meet the requisite instructional minutes/days. On May 2, 2006, Randolph was advised that it had materially violated provisions of the Charter in violation of Education Code section 47607(c)(1); had engaged in fiscal mismanagement in violation of Education Code section 47607(c)(3); and, had violated the laws applicable to charter schools in violation of Education Code section 47607(c)(4), thereby compelling the District to consider revocation of the Charter. ( Notice to Cure attached as Exhibit B.) Upon further review and investigation, the District also determined that Randolph engaged in additional conduct subjecting it to revocation under section 47607(c). On May 4, 2006, Randolph responded to the District s Notice to Cure informing the District that all staff was to be immediately laid off and that all required labor would be provided on volunteer basis to allow the school to continue to operate despite the lack of any funding. (Exhibit C.) The District thereafter received correspondence from the Randolph staff informing the District that the staff has not agreed to serve on a volunteer basis. (Exhibit D.) On May 24, 2006, the District responded to Randolph s May 4, 2006 correspondence and informed Randolph of the District s concern for the health and safety of the students. (Exhibit E.) The District requested Wendell Bass, Principal on Special Assignment, monitor Randolph to evaluate its operations and the health and safety of the students. Based upon information provided by Wendell Bass who monitored the school s activities on site, the District was informed that on May 23 and 24, 2006 only two of the five teachers reported to work and on May 25, 2006 only three of the five teachers reported to work. (See Report of Wendell Bass attached as Exhibit F.) Randolph s failure to employ staff to teach and supervise students is a material violation of the charter and constitutes a severe and imminent threat to the health and safety of the charter school students within the meaning of Education Code section 47607(d). On June 2, 2006, Randolph informed the District that it was closing effective June 5, 2006 despite having failed to meet the requisite instructional days/minutes. (Exhibit G.) The District notified Randolph on June 22, 2006, of its intention to seek revocation and its determination that continued operation of the Randolph program posed a severe and imminent threat to the health and safety of the students. (Exhibit H.) The District s Internal Audit Department conducted a review of financial activity and certain operations of Randolph. The review included evaluation of payroll records, attendance reporting, accounts payable transactions, and reconciliation of external bank accounts maintained by the Randolph at the California Bank and Trust. The auditor Page 3 of 15
communicated with Randolph personnel and requested the Randolph to review the audit to confirm the veracity of the factual basis of the audit. Upon advice of its counsel, the Randolph declined to comment on the audit. (Summary of Review attached Exhibit G.) During the cure period, the District s investigation of Randolph continued in an effort to determine whether it would be compelled under the Charter Schools Act to revoke Randolph s Charter for violation of the Charter and California law. In addition to communication with Randolph, the District s investigation included receipt, review and analysis of information and documentation as well as observation of the school by the District staff. Randolph was required to demonstrate cure of all issues raised in the Notice to Cure. On May 4, 2006, Randolph submitted its Response to the Notice to Cure. (Exhibit C.) On June 22, 2006, Randolph was informed that the District s Board would consider revocation of the Randolph Charter at its July 11, 2006 meeting. IV. DISTRICT STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING REVOCATION AND CURE Below please find: 1) a statement of each issue raised in the notice to cure or face revocation; 2) a summary of the District s position as to each issue; 3) a summary of Randolph s response to the District s position as to each issue; 4) a statement of the District s reply to Randolph s position on each issue; and, 5) District staff s recommendation regarding cure and revocation. A. Randolph Committed Material Violations of the Conditions, Standards or Procedures Set Forth in the Charter ISSUE 1: Randolph Failed to Comply with the WASC Accreditation Process before Enrolling High School Students DISTRICT SUMMARY: Pursuant to Element 1 of the Charter, Randolph is obligated to seek WASC accreditation in conjunction with enrollment of high school students. Randolph has enrolled high school students without initiating the WASC accreditation process. This has significant repercussions for these students. Colleges and universities do not accept high school credits obtained from an unaccredited school. Failure to comply with this obligation is a material violation of the Charter. RANDOLPH SUMMARY: Randolph did not offer an explanation as to its failure to comply with WASC accreditation as required by Element 1 of the Charter. Instead, it proposed to cure the violation by submitting payment for the WASC accreditation process and by seeking to modify its charter to eliminate the WASC accreditation requirement. Page 4 of 15
DISTRICT REPLY: RECOMMENDATION: Randolph did not offer cure for this failure nor can this failure be cured by future accreditation in that the current students do not have the benefit of a WASC accreditation for their credits. The proposal to eliminate the accreditation requirement emphasizes the lack of understanding of the importance of this requirement and the implications for the high school students Randolph serves. It is a material violation of the Charter to fail to comply with accreditation requirements before enrolling high school students. District staff recommends a finding that Randolph has materially violated its Charter by its failure to comply with WASC accreditation requirements and has failed to demonstrate cure. ISSUE 2: Employee Qualifications Do Not Meet the Charter Requirements or the Requirements of State Law DISTRICT SUMMARY: Pursuant to Element 5 of the Charter and state law, Randolph is required to employ properly credentialed teachers for its core, college preparatory courses and is further required to comply with No Child Left Behind s highly qualified teacher requirements. Only one of Randolph s five teachers is credentialed. The failure to staff the program with credentialed teachers is not only a violation of statute (Ed. Code, 47605(l)) but calls into question the charter school s apportionment as having properly credentialed teachers is a condition of apportionment. (CDE Legal Opinion, June 30, 2003, Teacher Credentialing Issues In Charter Schools.) RANDOLPH SUMMARY: Randolph does not dispute that only one of its five teachers is properly credentialed. DISTRICT REPLY: RECOMMENDATION: Randolph has failed to demonstrate that is staff is properly credentialed as required by the Charter and state law. It is a material violation of the Charter and state law to fail to comply with the requirements for properly credentialed teachers. District staff recommends a finding that Randolph has materially violated its Charter by its failure to comply with credential requirements and has failed to demonstrate cure. Page 5 of 15
ISSUE 3: Failure to Maintain a Safe Environment: DISTRICT SUMMARY: Pursuant to Element 6 of the Charter and state law, Randolph is required to maintain a safe environment at the charter school. On May 4, 2006, Randolph responded to the District s Notice to Cure informing the District that all staff was to be immediately laid off and that all required labor would be provided on a volunteer basis to allow the school to continue to operate despite the lack of any funding. The District received correspondence from the Randolph staff informing the District that the staff had not agreed to serve on a volunteer basis. Wendall Bass report further informed the District that on May 23 and 24, 2006, only two of the five teachers reported to work and on May 25, 2006, only three of the five teachers reported to work. Substitute teachers were not provided for teachers that were absent the three days of observations. This resulted in students being grouped together by high school and 7 th and 8 th grade. No real regard was given to the course the student had for that period. Eleven high school students were given work by one of the teachers and left in a classroom without adult supervision. The teacher went next door to teach another group of students. Students entered and exited class at will, sometimes without the teacher knowing they had left. Parents picked up students well before the day ended. (See Exhibit F.) Randolph s failure to employ staff to teach and supervise students is a material violation of the charter and constitutes a severe and imminent threat to the health and safety of the charter school students within the meaning of Education Code section 47607(d). This provision of the charter also requires that each credentialed employee must provide fingerprints and be cleared by the Department of Justice as a condition of hire. However, Randolph has not documentation to demonstrate that its has complied with the requisite clearances for all staff. RANDOLPH SUMMARY: Randolph acknowledges that it laid off its staff and that its teachers did not all attend work after the lay off. Randolph did not provide any information to demonstrate the requisite clearances for staff. Page 6 of 15
DISTRICT REPLY: RECOMMENDATION: Randolph has offered no information to demonstrate the requisite ability to properly supervise the students or to demonstrate that its staff has received the requisite clearances. It is a material violation of the Charter to fail to comply with all health and safety obligations and ensure proper documentation of instructional staff. It is a violation of the Charter to fail to maintain a safe environment for the charter school students. The District staff recommends a finding that Randolph failed to comply with health and safety requirements and to maintain a safe environment and has failed to demonstrate cure and that the conduct poses a severe and imminent threat to the health and safety of the students. B. Randolph Engaged in Fiscal Mismanagement ISSUE 4: Randolph Engaged In Fiscal Mismanagement DISTRICT SUMMARY: Randolph is unable to make its payroll or fund health benefits for its staff. Additionally, Randolph owes the State approximately $8,065 for over-apportionment of ADA funding, plus an additional $17,000 for closing early. Randolph closed with only 166 days instead of the required 175 days, was short yearly minutes, consistently ignored the District s public accounting recommendations and agreements and did not follow the calendar and bell times submitted and signed by the principal. In addition, Randolph owes the District $46,000 in repayment of a loan made by the District to assist Randolph with its cash flow. The $46,000 was due, with interest, in June 2006. Randolph also owes the District approximately $41,000 for Fees and Services. Information currently available to the District reflects that the school s ADA fell 14.64 from P-1 to P-2 with a student attendance rate of only 80.44%. The result of Randolph s failure to maintain student attendance has significant financial consequences and Randolph has failed to engage in sound fiscal practices meeting its funding limitations. It is the duty of the District to take expeditious action to revoke a charter upon discovery of serious fiscal mismanagement. The District understands that Randolph has engaged in very serious acts of fiscal mismanagement Page 7 of 15
as demonstrated by, among other things, $33,426.00 in payments to board members and/or personnel without any documentation as to how the funds were spent; payments made to personal account of a board member; payments made to the principal and a substitute teacher that were not included in W-2 reporting to the IRS and California Franchise Tax Board; failure to pay past due invoices, failure to make payroll, failure to fund benefits and failure to undertake federal income tax withholding payments. Additional expenditures of $107,967.54 were paid from two checking accounts without any record for these expenditures. Randolph made a loan to a board member in the amount of $24,799.44. (Exhibit G.) Both Randolph staff and Board members have taken liberties with public funds in violation of the fiduciary fiscal responsibilities and California law which amounts to fiscal mismanagement within the meaning of Education Code section 47607. The violations of state law will be discussed in Section C, below. These issues, together with the issues of conflict of interest and self dealing, demonstrate serious fiscal mismanagement. RANDOLPH SUMMARY: Acknowledging its lack of funds, Randolph proposed to cure the fiscal mismanagement by operating with an all volunteer staff. Randolph wrote to the District on May 4, 2006, representing that its staff was willing to operate as volunteers. Randolph also proposed to cut costs by foregoing contractual fees and by working out a deal with the landlord to forego rent for the remainder of the year. Randolph was given the opportunity to review and confirm the veracity of the District s audit but declined upon advice of legal counsel. DISTRICT REPLY: Not only does the proposed arrangement to operate with an all volunteer staff fail to comply with statutory law and the Randolph Charter, the Randolph staff informed the District that they were not agreeable to working on a volunteer basis. Randolph did not refute the various issues of fiscal mismanagement, the inability to make payment for payroll, benefits, insurance and federal income tax, and the District received no further response from Randolph regarding the specified self dealing, and fiscal mismanagement. Page 8 of 15
RECOMMENDATION: The District recommends a finding that Randolph, its staff and Board have engaged in serious fiscal mismanagement, and self dealing in violation of the Charter Schools Act and state law and failed to demonstrate cure. ISSUE 5: Randolph Employees and Board Members Have Engaged in Conflict of Interest/Self Dealing DISTRICT SUMMARY: Randolph employees have entered into financial transactions with the Charter School in violation of : (a) the conflict of interest provisions of the Political Reform Act; (b) Government Code section 1090 prohibition on entering into contracts in which a conflict of interest may exist; and, (c) the self dealing provisions of the Corporations Code. The laws relating to conflict of interest are concerned with avoiding even the appearance of impropriety and assuring government of the public officer s undivided and uncompromised allegiance. (People v. Honig (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 289.) Both Government Code section 1090 and the Political Reform Act apply to both employees of public agencies as well as officers (see Cal.Code Regs., tit.2, 18700, subd. (a); Gov. Code, 1090), and proscribes mere participation in decision making which includes negotiating, advising, researching, investigating, and preparing reports or analyses associated with any particular course of action to be taken by a public body (see Cal.Code Regs., tit.2, 18700, subd. (c); People v. Sobel (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 1046.) Moreover, Corporations Code section 5233 prohibits self dealing transactions where the corporation is a party and one of its directors has a direct financial interest. In violation of Government Code section 1090, two Randolph Board members and its business manager allowed Randolph to make contracts totaling $122,400 and purchase services totaling $3,530 from organizations in which they had a personal financial interest. Engaging in such conduct is both a violation of law and fiscally irresponsible. RANDOLPH SUMMARY: Randolph was given the opportunity to review and confirm the veracity of the District s audit but declined upon advice of legal counsel. Page 9 of 15
DISTRICT REPLY: RECOMMENDATION: Randolph has failed to refute that its staff and Board have violated the laws prohibiting conflict of interest and self dealing. The District recommends a finding that Randolph, its staff and Board have engaged in serious fiscal mismanagement, and self dealing in violation of the Charter Schools Act and state law and that Randolph has failed to demonstrate cure. ISSUE 6: Randolph Employees and Board Members Misappropriated Funds DISTRICT SUMMARY: Pursuant to California Penal Code section 424: (a) Each officer of this state, or of any county, city, town, or district of this state, and every other person charged with the receipt, safekeeping, transfer, or disbursement of public moneys, who either: 1. Without authority of law, appropriates the same, or any portion thereof, to his or her own use, or to the use of another; or, 2. Loans the same or any portion thereof; makes any profit out of, or uses the same for any purpose not authorized by law; or, 3. Knowingly keeps any false account, or makes any false entry or erasure in any account of or relating to the same; or, 4. Fraudulently alters, falsifies, conceals, destroys, or obliterates any account;... Is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, and is disqualified from holding any office in this state. Randolph administrators and board members did appropriate public moneys, without compliance with state law, to their own use. In order to obtain public funds for personal use, Randolph employees and board members have taken funds as reimbursement but have failed to provide any back up documentation to substantiate the taking of these public funds or accurately reflect in the accounting records the true purpose of such funds. [S]alaries are public moneys within the meaning of section 424, and... one who authorizes the illegal payment of salaries has violated that section. (People v. Battin (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 635, 650.) Such funds and an additional $146,755.06 was taken out of Randolph accounts for reimbursement without maintaining, or supplying to the District, any invoices or other backup documentation to support such payments. Public funds were also diverted to Page 10 of 15
personal means to pay for a personal loan in the sum of $24,799.44. In total, $171,554.50 was misappropriated by certain members of the Randolph board and staff. Statutes relating to misappropriation of public funds by public officers were enacted to safeguard the public treasury and ensure public confidence in the state's use of its funds. The safekeeping of public moneys has, from the first, been safeguarded and hedged in by legislation most strict and severe in its exactitudes. It has continuously been the policy of the law that the custodians of public moneys or funds should hold and keep them inviolate and use or disburse them only in strict compliance with the law. (People v. Dillon (1926) 199 Cal. 1, 12, 248 P. 230.) Those who either retain custody of public funds or are authorized to direct the expenditure of such funds bear a peculiar and very grave public responsibility, and... courts and legislatures, mindful of the need to protect the public treasury, have traditionally imposed stringent standards upon such officials. (See, e.g., Pen.Code, 424; People v. Dillon (1926) 199 Cal. 1, 12-15 (248 P. 230); Bird v. McGoldrick (1938) 277 N.Y. 492 (14 N.E.2d 805, 806-807, 116 A.L.R. 1059) (Lehman, J.).) (Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206, 225, 551 P.2d 1.) The acts of Randolph administrators and board members in taking public funds to pay for personal expenses and for otherwise obtaining personal benefit is a violation of law. RANDOLPH RESPONSE: DISTRICT REPLY: RECOMMENDATION: Randolph declined to review and/or comment upon the factual veracity of the District s financial audit upon advice of its legal counsel. Randolph has misappropriated public funds in violation of law. The District recommends a finding that Randolph, its staff and Board have engaged in serious fiscal mismanagement, misappropriation and self dealing in violation of the Charter Schools Act and state law and that Randolph has failed to demonstrate cure. Page 11 of 15
C. Randolph Has Violated Provisions of Law ISSUE 7: Randolph Employees and Board Members Have Engaged in Conflict of Interest/Self Dealing in Violation of Law DISTRICT SUMMARY: See Issue 4. RANDOLPH SUMMARY: See Issue 4. DISTRICT REPLY: See Issue 4. RECOMMENDATION: The District recommends a finding that Randolph, its staff and Board have engaged in serious fiscal mismanagement, and self dealing in violation of the Charter Schools Act and state law and that Randolph has failed to demonstrate cure. ISSUE 8: Randolph s Lay Off of Staff and Requirement That Staff Work on a Volunteer Basis Is a Violation of Labor Laws DISTRICT SUMMARY: Randolph is unable to make its payroll or fund health benefits for its staff. Acknowledging its lack of funds, Randolph proposed to cure the fiscal mismanagement by operating with an all volunteer staff. Randolph wrote to the District on May 4, 2006, representing that its staff was willing to operate as volunteers. The proposed arrangement fails to comply with statutory law and the Randolph charter, and the Randolph staff has informed the District that they are not agreeable to working on a volunteer basis. (Exhibit D.) RANDOLPH SUMMARY: Randolph does not refute the violation of wage and hour labor laws. DISTRICT REPLY: RECOMMENDATION: Randolph does not refute the violation of wage and hour labor laws The District recommends a finding that Randolph has violated various provisions of labor law by requiring staff to work on a volunteer basis and has failed to demonstrate cure. Page 12 of 15
ISSUE 9: Randolph Has Failed to Provide Properly Credentialed Teachers in Core Subjects DISTRICT SUMMARY: The District has learned that only one of Randolph s five teachers is credentialed. The failure to staff the program with credentialed teachers is not only a violation of statute (Ed. Code, 47605(l)) but calls into question the charter school s apportionment as having properly credentialed teachers is a condition of apportionment. (See, CDE Legal Opinion, June 30, 2003, Teacher Credentialing Issues In Charter Schools.) The failure to employ qualified staff is a material violation of the Charter and a violation of state law. Education Code section 47605, subdivision (l) states: Teachers in charter schools shall be required to hold a Commission on Teacher Credentialing certificate, permit, or other document equivalent to that which a teacher in other public schools would be required to hold. These documents shall be maintained on file at the charter school and shall be subject to periodic inspection by the chartering authority. It is the intent of the Legislature that charter schools be given flexibility with regard to noncore, noncollege preparatory courses. RANDOLPH SUMMARY: Randolph does not dispute that its staff is not properly credentialed. DISTRICT REPLY: RECOMMENDATION: Randolph s failure to have properly credentialed teachers for the core subjects is a violation of state law and also amounts to fiscal mismanagement in light of the financial penalties that attach to the failure to have properly credentialed teachers. The District recommends a finding that Randolph has failed to employ properly credentialed teachers in violation of state law and that Randolph has failed to demonstrate cure. ISSUE 10: Randolph Has Failed to Meet the Requisite Instructional Minutes/Days DISTRICT SUMMARY: On June 2, 2006, Randolph informed the District that it was closing effective June 5, 2006, despite having failed to meet the requisite instructional days/minutes in violation of Education Code sections 47612.5 and 46201. (Exhibit G.) The school closed nine days short of the required 175 days Page 13 of 15
and was also short the annual required minutes for charter schools. An attendance audit was completed in February which determined that Randolph did not have sufficient instructional minutes and the school agreed to comply with the recommendations by extending the school day of the high school students. Despite its agreement to comply, Randolph closed nine days early and, as reflected in the report of Wendell Bass (Exhibit F), Randolph was not providing instruction for the entire school day. Failure to provide the required instructional minutes is a violation of state law. RANDOLPH SUMMARY: Randolph has not addressed its failure to provide students with the requisite instructional days/minutes. DISTRICT REPLY: RECOMMENDATION: Randolph has not disputed its failure to provide students the requisite instructional days/minutes despite the significant consequences for students. The District recommends a finding that Randolph has failed to provide the requisite instructional days/minutes in violation of state law and that Randolph has failed to demonstrate cure. V. CONCLUSION The District sought to work with Randolph towards a successful program. However, Randolph has violated its charter, the state law and the trust of the District as well as failed in it critical responsibilities to the students it serves. The District s oversight responsibilities require that it ensure the safeguarding of public funds and take action to correct fiscal mismanagement. A chartering agency has a responsibility to take action where it has notice of a pattern or series of fiscally irresponsible actions and pursuant to Education Code section 47604(c), a chartering agency may be subject to liability for failure to prevent further injuries by expeditious revocation of the charter. The chartering authority is also charged with revoking a charter when the charter school fails to comply with its charter and with law. The failure of Randolph to employ an administration knowledgeable in the laws governing charter schools has led to very serious violations of the Charter and state law. There is no information to demonstrate that director or the board now understand the laws governing the school or is otherwise qualified to ensure compliance with the Charter and state law. Randolph has further demonstrated an inability to conduct an educational program to support its students and has demonstrated an inability to ensure a safe environment for the students. It is the District staff s recommendation that the Charter for Randolph Academy Charter School be revoked. Page 14 of 15
The District staff has conducted a thorough investigation of the facts and issues raised in the Notice of Intent of Cure. The District staff submits that Randolph has materially violated the Charter, has failed to meet generally accepted accounting principles and engaged in fiscal mismanagement, and has violated various provisions of law thereby compelling the District to revoke the Charter. The District staff recommends revocation of the Randolph Academy Charter School charter effective July 12, 2006. Page 15 of 15