Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-04179/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-04179-76/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

EDMUND G. BROWN JR. 

Attorney General of California 

LISA A. TILLMAN 

Deputy Attorney General 

State Bar No. 126424 

1300 I Street, Suite 125 

P.O. Box 944255 

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 

Telephone: (916) 327-7872 

Fax: (916) 324-5567 

E-mail: LIsa.Tillman@doj.ca.gov 

Attorneys for Defendants Delaine Eastin, 

Superintendent of Public Instruction, 

Department of E'ducation 

EMMA C., 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

v. 

3:96-cv-04179-TEH 

Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' FINAL 

STIPULATION ON RSIP BUDGET 

AND COURT MONITOR'S 

BUDGET 

17 DELAINE EASTIN, ET AL., " Judge: The Honorable Thelton E. 

Henderson 

18 

19 

Defendant. 

20 Defendants Delaine Eastin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Department -

21 of Education (State Defendants) and Defendant Ravenswood City School District 

22 (District), collectively Defendants, respectfully submit the following final 

23 stipulation concerning the 2010-2011 RSIP budget, and the allocation of the RSIP 

24 2010-2011 budget and the Court Monitor's budget between the Defendants. 

25A.The RSIP Budget 

26 The Defendants have agreed on a single year RSIP budget of$3,200,591 

27 "(three million, two hundred thousand, five hundred ninety-one dollars) for the 

28 2010-2011 fiscal year. A copy of the agreed-upon RSIP budget 2010-2011 is 

1. 

Final RSIP Budget 2010-2011 Stipulation (Emma C. v. Eastin, USDC Northern 3 :96-cv-04179-TEH) 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1539 Filed 06/28/10 Page 1 of 15
1 attached to this joint submission as Exhibit A .. In addition to this amount, the 

2 Court Monitor has informed the parties that he has budgeted $393,234 for the 2010-

3 2011 fiscal year. (Court Docket (CD) 1490.) 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 . 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

. 22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 . 

The Defendants agree upon the following schedule: 

• By July 1, 2010, the State Defendants will pay 30 percent of their 

respective allocated share (i.e., $41,289.57 or 30% of$137,631.901

) of 

the Court Monitor's budget. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

By July 1, 2010, the District will pay 15 percent of its respective . 2 

allocated share (i.e., $38,340.32 or 15% of$255,602.10 ) of the Court 

Monitor's budget. .. 

(. 

By July 15, 2010, the District will pay 15 percent of its respective 

allocated share (i.e., $38,340.32 or 15% of$255,602.10) of the Court 

Monitor's budget. 

By August 2,2010, the State Defendants will pay 30percent of their 

respective allocated share (i.e., $336,062.06 or 30% of $1, 120,206.853

) 

of the RSIP budget. 

By August 2, 2010, the District will pay 30 percent of its respective 

allocated share (i.e., $624,115.25 or 30% of $2,080,384.15 4

) of the 

RSIP budget. 

By August 15, 2010, the State Defendants will pay 30 percent of 

their respective allocated shares of the RSIP bud.zet . ($336,062;06) and the Court Monitor's budget ($~1,289.57) (i.e., 

a total of $377,351.63). . 

By October 1, 2010, the District will pay 30 percent of its 

respective allocated shares of the RSIP Dudget ($624,115.25) and 

the Court Monitor's budget (i.e., $76,680.63 or 30% of 

$255,602.10) (i.e., a total of $700,795.88). 

By December 1,2010, the State Defendants will pay 20 percent of their respective allocated shares of the RSIP budget (i.e., ----~------------

1 The State Defendants' share of the Court Monitor's budget is 35% of$393,234 which is 

$137,631.90. 

2 The District's share of the Court Monitor's budget is 65% of$393,234 which is 

$255,602.10. 

3 The State Defendants' share ofthe RSIP budget is 35% of $3,200,591 which is 

$1,120,206.85. 

. 4 The District's share ofthe RSIP budget 

... 

is 65% of$3,200,591 which is $2,080,384.15. 

2 

. Final RSIP Budget 2010-2011 Stipulation (Emma C. v. Eastin, USDC Northem 3 :96-cv-04179-TEH) 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1539 Filed 06/28/10 Page 2 of 15
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

• 

• 

• 

$224,041.37 or 20% of$1,120,206.85) and the Court Monitor's 

budget ($27,526.38 or 20% of$137,631.90) (i.e., a total of 

$251,567.75). 

By January 17, 2011, the District will pay 20 percent of its . respective allocated shares of the RSIPbudget (i.e., $416,076.83 

or 20% of $2,080,384.15) and the Court Monitor's budget (i.e., $51,120.42 or 20% of$255,602.10) (i.e., a total of$467,197.25). 

By March 1,2011, the State Defendants will pay 20 percent of 

their respectIve allocated shares of the RSIP budget (I.e., $224,041.37 or 20% of$1,120,206.85) and the Court Monitor's 

budget ($27,526.38 or 20% of$137,631.90) (i.e., a total of 

$251,567.75). 

By April 15, 2011, the District will_pay 20 percent of its . respective allocated shares of the RSIP budget (i.e., $416,076.83 

or 20% of$2,080 384.15) and the Court Monitor's budget (i.e., $51,120.42 or 20% of$255,602.10) (i.e., a total of$467,197.25). 

12 B. The Allocation between the District and the State Defendants 

13 The District and State Defendants have agreed that responsibility for the RSIP 

14 and Court Monitor's budgets will be allocated sixty-five percent (65%) to the 

15 District and thirty-five percent (35%) to the State Defendants for the 2010-2011 

16 fiscal year. 

17 The District and the State Defendants request that the Court issue an order to 

18 approve the RSIP budget for the 2010-2011· fiscal year and to implement the 

19 allocation and schedule described herein. 

20 The District and the State Defendants further agree that the percentage or 

21 contribution amounts set forth abpve may change pursuant to the issuance of a 

22 Court Order determining that certain RSIP expenditures are no longer supported or 

23 needed to implement the RSIP, or that the respective duties of the parties have 

24 changed during the course of the 2010-2011 budget year, or pursuant to a Court 

25 Order authorizing additional RSIP expenditures for fiscal year 2010-2011. 

26 C. Redirection of Funds 

27 The District and State Defendants have obtained an agreement on the total 

28 RSIP budget amount as well as the composition and costs of the individual line 

3 

Final RSIP Budget 2010-2011 Stipulation (Emma C. v. Eastin, USDC Northern 3:96-cv-04179-TEH) 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1539 Filed 06/28/10 Page 3 of 15
1 item amounts necessary for these parties to address RSIP compliance as of June 11, 

2 2010. 

3 1. In order to maintain the line-by-line and overall RSIP budget amounts 

4 stated in this stipulation, the District and State Defendants agree that there will be 

5 no redirection of funds from the RSIP budget to any other District budget. 

6 2. In order to maintain the line':by-line and overall RSIP budget amounts 

7 stated in this stipulation, the D"istrict and State Defendants agree that there will be 

8 no redirection of funds between the individual lines of this RSIP budget, unless the 

9 District provides counsel for the State Defendants with written notice of its intent to 

10 redirect funds at least i 5 calendar days before the proposed redirection and ariy of ~.) . 

11 the provisions stated in the below subsections apply. By entering this stipulation, 

12 . the State Defendants do not waive their right to pursue any legal remedies available 

13 under the applicable rules ·of the federal court. 

. 14 a. Definition: As used in this stipulation, redirection of funds within the 

15 RSIP will refer to the funds being taken from a line item ("source line item") and 

16 being used as additional funds for another line item ("recipient line item"). 

17 b. Magnitude: The District must indicate in its written notice of intent the 

18 magnitude of the proposed redirection in terms of a dollar amount, as well as 

19 . the percentage of the source line item funds being taken and in terms of the 

20 . percentage of recipient line item funds being augmented. 

21 c. Procedures for Redirection: 

22 

23 

(1) No Written Stipulation Necessary: 

24 Where a single redirection involves an amount equal to 5% or less of the 

25 source line item funds or the recipient line item funds for FY 2010-11, then no 

26 written stipUlation between the District and Sta~e Defendants is necessary to 

27 accomplish the redirection. Should three or more redirections involving individual 

28 amounts equal to 5% or less of a specific source line item or a specific recipient line 

4 

Final RSIP Budget 2010-2011 Stipulation (Emma C. v. Eastin, USDC Northern 3:96-cv-04179-TEH) 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1539 Filed 06/28/10 Page 4 of 15
1 item for fiscal year 2010-11 occur, then any subsequent redirections of such line 

2 item funds must be accomplished in accordance with the "mandatory process" set 

3 forth below at (2). 

4 

(2) Mandatory Process for Written Stipulation and/or Court Order: - 5 

6 i. Where the redirection involves more than 5% of the source line item 

7 funds or the recipient line item funds for FY 2010-11, then the District must seek a 

8 written stipulation with the State Defendants to accomplish the redirection. 

9 ii. If the District and State Defendants are unable to reach a written 

10 stipulation concerning the redirection of funds exceeding 5% of the source line 

11 item funds or the recipient line item funds for fiscal year 2010-11, then the District 

12 and State Defendants shall engage in a meet-and-confer process, with the 

13 facilitation and/or mediation of the Court's monitor, if so requested by the District 

14 or State Defendants, to reach a written stipulation on such redirection. 

15 iii. Absent a written stipulation, the District may seek Court authorization 

16 for redirection of funds in an amount exceeding 5% of the source line item. 

17 funds or the recipient line item funds for fiscal year 2010-11 upon briefing and 

18 hearing conducted u;nder the applicable rules of the federal court. 

19 

20 

D. Changes in District Budget 

21 The District shall notify the State Defendants if its overall budget and/or any 

22 particular line items of the District's budget is reduced- during fiscal year 2010-11, 

23 as a result of and not limited to staff furloughs, layoffs, freezes on scheduled salary 

24 increases, net salary savings from vacant positions, reduction in school days, such 

25 that the actual amount needed to fund any stipulated RSIP budget item or the 

26 overall RSIP budget is reduced. The District must notify the State Defendants of 

27 that reduction or freeze by letter to the State Defendants' counsel within 30 days of 

28 the action so that the District and the State Defendants may reach a stipulation on 

5 

Final RSIP Budget 2010-2011 Stipulation (Emma C. v. Eastin, USDC Northern 3 :96-cv-04179-TEH) 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1539 Filed 06/28/10 Page 5 of 15
1 the amount of any deposited RSIP funds to be returned or credited, and, if requested 

2 by either the District or the State Defendants, engage in a meet-and-confer process, 

3 with the facilitation and/or mediation of the Court's Monitor, to reach a stipulation. 

4 Absent a stipulation between the District and State Defendants, the sought return or 

5 crediting of deposited RSIP funds may be determined by the Court upon briefing 

6 and hearing conducted under applicable rules of the federal court. 

7 Nothing in this stipulation constitutes a waiver by the District of its right to 

8 file a motion with the Court seeking additional contribution from the State 

9 Defendants for an overall increase in the RSIP budget due to extraordinary 

10 circumstances. 

11 E. Invoices on Compensatory Education Services 

12 As of July 2010, the District will require, as a provision of its contracts with 

13 compensatory education service providers for services under the December 20, 

14 2007 Order (Court Docket (CD) 1157), that the contractor provide a statement 

15 (such as a spreadsheet) to CDE.and to the District, at the same time, indicating (1) 

16 the SEIS student identification numbers of the students receiving services, (2) the 

17 types of services provided to each student, (3) the number of minutes of service 

18 provided and (4) the invoice numbers and amounts for rendered services for each 

19 student to enable tracking of the rendered services and funds by student. Should a 

20 contractor notbe amenable to this provision, then the District will provide to the 

21 California Department of Education (CDE) the invoices and indicate (1) the SEIS 

22 student identification numbers of the students receiving services, (2) the types of 

23 services provided to each student, and (3) the number of minutes provided for the 

24 rendered services. The District will provide 'a copy of the invoices to CDE at the. 

25 same time'they are provided by the District to the Court Monitor. 

26 As of July 2010, the District will indicate on the submitted invoices for 

27 products in lieu of compensatory education services the SEIS student identification 

28 numbers of the students receiving the products. The District will provide a copy of 

6 

Final RSIP Budget 2010-2011 Stipulation (Emma C. v, Eastin, USDC Northern 3 :96-cv-04179-TEH) 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1539 Filed 06/28/10 Page 6 of 15
1 the invoices to CDE at the same time they are provided by the District to the Court 

2 Monitor. 

3 As of July 2010, the District will provide on a monthly basis to CDE a 

4 statement indicating (1) the names of the students· receiving compensatory 

5 education services from District employees, including and not limited to teachers, 

6 (2) the types of services provided to each student, (3) the number of minutes 

7 provided to each student for each service provided to that student in that month, and 

8 ( 4) the amount paid to the employee for performing the compensatory education 

9 service to the extent the employee is paid in excess of his or her standard salary for 

10 performing such services. 

11 F. Quarterly Invoices 

12 The District and the State Defendants further agree that the District shall 

13 submit quarterly invoices, in accordance with the same schedule agreed upon for 

14 payment into the Court registry, to the Court Monitor reflecting the funding 

15 necessary to implement the First Amended Consent Decree and RSIP. 

16 The District and the State Defendants further agree that copies of any and all 

17 invoices, and any supporting documents provided by the District to the Court 

18 Monitor shall also be provided at the same time to the CDE. 

19 The District and the State Defendants further agree that they shall meet and 

20 confer, upon the request of either party received within 30 days after the submission 

21 of the quarterly invoices to the Court Monitor, regarding the invoices or other 

22 documents provided to the Court Monitor. The parties request that the Court 

23 Monitor be instructed to maintain an accounting of all such invoices and forward 

24 them to the Court for immediate payment. 

25 G. Line Item Accounting 

26 The District and the State Defendants further agree that on a quarterly basis, in 

27 accordance with the same schedule agreed upon for District payment into the Court 

28 registry beginning October 1, 2010, and with a final statement due by August 31, 

7 

Final RSIP Budget 2010-2011 Stipulation (Emma C. v. Eastin, USDC Northern 3:96-cv-04179-TEH) 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1539 Filed 06/28/10 Page 7 of 15
1 2011, the District will provide CDE with a line item accounting of budget 

2 expenditures. Upon CDE's written request, the District will provide backup 

3 documentation, in the form of and not limited to invoices and expenditure reports, 

4 supporting the RSIP expenditures so that CDE can perform a quarterly audit of 

5 RSIP expenditures. 

6 H. Audits of RSIP Service and Expenditure. Records 

7 The District and the State Defendants further agree that the State 

8 Defendants may perform additional audits of RSIP records under two 

9 circumstances: 

10 (1) First, the State Defendants may perform additional audits ofRSIP records 

11 if so authorized by Court Order. 

12 (2) Second, and in the alternative, the State Defendants may conduct 

13 additional audits upon 30 days notice to the District arid the Court Monitor that the 

14 State Defendants have reliable evidence ofniisuse or misappropriation of RSIP 

15 funds and intend to conduct an additional audit of RSIP records to determine if 

16 misuse or misappropriation ofRSIP monies has in fact occurred. Where the State 

17 Defendants provide notice of their intent to conduct an audit on such basis, the 

i8 patties shall meet and confer, upon the District's request, to discuss disclosure of 

19 any or all of the evidence of misuse or misappropriation ofRSIP funds upon which 

20 the State Defendants rely. Nothing in this stipulation shall prevent the District from 

21 seeking the Court's intervention. 

22 I. Assumption of Special Education Services: 

23 Should any LEA assume legal and/or financial responsibility for providing 

24 special education services at any school(s) within the District during the 2010-2011 

25 fiscal year, the Defendants agree to meet and confer, as defined by Local Rule 1-

26 5 (n), concerning any RSIP budget issues that may arise from the assumption, 

27 including and not limited to: (1) the LE~'s financial responsibility for RSIP 

28 compliance, (2) the modification of the stipulated RSIP budget to reflect the LEA's 

8 

Final RSIP Budget 2010-2011 Stipulation (Emma C. v. Eastin, USDC Northern 3:96-cv-04179-TEH) 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1539 Filed 06/28/10 Page 8 of 15
1 assumed role and responsibilities for the delivery of special education services in 

2 lieu of the District's delivery, as funded under this RSIP budget, and (3) the ' 

3 reversion of RSIP funds to the State Defendants as a result of special education 

4 services being delivered by the LEA. 

5 The Court Monitor may be included in this meet and confer process upon the 

6 request of either Defendant. Should the Defendants be unable to reach agreement 

7 with regard to these matters, the District or the State Defendants may petition the 

8 Court for modification of the stipulated RSIP budget for fiscal year 2010-

9 2011 upon briefing and hearing conducted under the applicable rules of the federal 

10 . court. 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Dated: June 22, 2010 

Dated: June 22, 2010 

SA2005104070 

10584638,doc 

COUNTY COUNSEL OF THE COUNTY OF SAN 

MATEO 

By: /s/ 

Kathryn E. Meola 

Deputy County Counsel· 

Attorneys for Ravenswood City School District 

OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY 

GENERAL 

By: /s/ 

Lisa Tillman 

Deputy Attorney General 

Attorneys for Defendants Delaine Eastin, 

Superintendent of Public Instruction, and California 

Department of Education 

9 

Final RSIP Budget 2010-2011 Stipulation (Emma C v, Eastin, USDC Northern 3:96-cv-04179-TEH) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

06/25/10

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1539 Filed 06/28/10 Page 9 of 15
EXHIBIT A 

I 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1539 Filed 06/28/10 Page 10 of 15
THE STATE'S FINAL RSIP 2010-11 BUDGET PROPOSAL 

RSIP ITEM AMOUNTS 

1110 322,776 

Teacher Salaries (Reg) 

1140 60,933 

Teacher Salaries (Hrly) 

1215 231,241 

Psychologist (Reg) (RSIP will include 75% of bilingual psychologists' salaries) 

1315 34,000 

Sup't Salary 

1320 110,400 

Ass't Sup't Salary (Per 0.80 FTE) 

1330 39,849 

Director's Salary 

1335 635,839 

Coordinator Salaries 

1960 115,000 

Special Ed Stipend 

1970 SST stipend 30,000· 

2140 49,000 

Instructional Aides, Hrly 

, 

2310 0 

Mgm't Salaries· 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1539 Filed 06/28/10 Page 11 of 15
2340 0 

Mgm't Salaries Hrly 

2410 276,682 

. Clerical/other office salaries 

2425 , 8,000 

Clerical/other office OT 

2440 10,000 

Clerical and Office salary 

2920 69,544 

Other Classified, reg, OT 

2925 0 

Other classified, OT 

2940 0 

Other Classified, hourly 

3000 485,707 

Benefits . (Per 75% Psychologists' salaries and reduced HE hours in 

/ 

RSIP positions) 

4110 0 

Textbooks .. 4210 0 

Reference Books 

4310 26,182 

Instructional Materials 

4316 5,635 

Office and Other Supplies 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1539 Filed 06/28/10 Page 12 of 15
4330 1,545 I 

Printing 

4370 0 

Gasoline 

4400 4,545 

Noncapitalized equipment 

5210 2,727 

Mileage 

5215 5,864 

Parent/student conf/training 

5220 6,873 

Staff conferences 

5227 23,636 

Workshop/lnservice/Train 

5228 36,364 , 

Recruitment 

5310 1,600 

Dues and membership (Per 0.80 FTE) 

5614 5,245 

Rentals and Leases 

5630 ,4,545 

Maintenance of Equipment 

5751 11

318 

Food service 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1539 Filed 06/28/10 Page 13 of 15
5752 n/a 

Special Ed students in CDC -

. 5801 301,100 

, 

Consultant Services, Cert. 

5802 49,364 

Professional!Consultant-cias 

5812 4,177 

Advertising 

5818 27,273 

Tuition 

5819 24,943 

Non public agencies 

5820 (formerly 5920) 5,000 

Other admin exp 

5912 1,091 

Cellular phone (Per 0.80 FTE) 

5920 3,138 

Postage 

2. Indirect Costs 

The State Defendants understand the District accepts the recently 

published indirect costs of 5.94%, so that 5.94% rate is incorporated in this 

. counter-proposal. 

3. Total RSIP Budget Under the Counter-Proposal. 

Under this counter-proposal, the RSIP budget (excluding the Court 

Monitor's projected 2010-2011 budget and the indirect costs of 5.94%) is 

$3,021,136. 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1539 Filed 06/28/10 Page 14 of 15
Once the indir.ect costs of 5.94% are included, the counter-proposal 

indicates an R SIP budget (excluding the Court Monitor's projected 2010-11 

budget) of $3,200,591. In other words: 

RSIP budget subtotal: $3;021,136 

With indirect costs at 5.94% rate of $179A55: $3,200,591 

With Monitor's budget of $393,234: $3,593,825 

Applying the 65% to 35% allocation, the State Defendants' total 

contribution tothe RSIP and Court Monitor's budgets is: $1,257,839. 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 1539 Filed 06/28/10 Page 15 of 15