Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-04179/USCOURTS-cand-3_96-cv-04179-221/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

1 

2 

3 

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EMMA C., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DELAINE EASTIN, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 96-cv-04179-TEH 

ORDER ON FY 2015-2016 BUDGET 

 

Defendants Ravenswood City School District (“District”) and the California 

Department of Education (“CDE”) are at an impasse on the appropriate allocation of the 

proposed budget for FY 2015-2016, which begins on July 1. The Court must now 

intervene. To this end, the Court received opening and responsive briefs from both 

Defendants, as well as a responsive brief from Plaintiffs. Oral argument was heard on 

June 15, 2015. After consultation with the Court Monitor, and a full consideration of the 

Parties’ written and oral arguments, the Court ORDERS the FY 2015-2016 Budget as 

provided below. 

BACKGROUND 

 On Mach 4, 2015, the Court set the schedule for the allocation process for FY 2015-

2016. Budget Allocation Order (Docket No. 2026). Defendants were encouraged to agree 

upon an equitable allocation of the RSIP and Monitor’s budgets in light of previous 

guidance from the Court. As in years past, Defendants were informed that a failure to 

reach agreement on the budget would result in the Court’s intervention to effect “an 

equitable allocation.” Id. at 1. Pursuant to the Budget Allocation Order, the District and 

the Court Monitor submitted proposed budgets on April 17, 2015. (Docket Nos. 2038-39). 

Defendants unsuccessfully engaged in a meet and confer process, after which they 

informed the Court Monitor of their inability to reach an agreement. After a similarly 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 2064 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

2 

1 

2 

3 

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 

unsuccessful mediation process led by the Court Monitor, Defendants filed opening briefs 

on their budget positions on May 22, 2015, with responses and a hearing held thereafter. 

(Docket Nos. 2047-48, 2051, 2059-60). 

DISCUSSION 

 Defendants are in disagreement on three issues. First, Defendants disagree whether 

the Ravenswood Self Improvement Plan (“RSIP”) budget should be allocated separately 

from the Monitor’s budget. Second, they disagree on the appropriate allocation of the 

RSIP and Monitor’s budgets between Defendants. Third and finally, they disagree on the 

appropriate coverage level for backfilled services under the RSIP budget. The Court 

addresses each of these issues in turn. 

I. Disaggregation of the RSIP and Monitor’s Budgets 

 The RSIP budget and the Monitor’s budget have historically constituted one annual 

budget. This year, however, the District argues that the RSIP and Monitor’s budgets 

should be disaggregated, with the costs of each budget allocated separately. The District 

correctly points out that, in recent years, an increasing portion of the Monitor’s services 

have focused on the statewide monitoring system - an issue for which the District bears no 

financial responsibility under the First Amended Consent Decree (“FACD”). Nonetheless, 

the District has paid an increasing share of the collective budget each year. To rectify this 

fundamental unfairness, the District proposes that the cost of the Monitor’s budget be 

allocated differently from the costs associated with RSIP implementation, with the 

allocation of the Monitor’s costs reflecting the Monitor’s allocation of services between 

RSIP-related and state-related assignments. CDE responds that disaggregation should not 

be ordered because this has not been the budgetary practice in the past. The Court agrees 

with the District and adopts its disaggregated approach to the FY 2015-16 budget. 

 In addition to the Court’s interest in the fair and equitable allocation of budgetary 

expenses, disaggregation is the necessary result of this Court’s July 2, 2014 Order, which 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 2064 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

3 

1 

2 

3 

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 

provided that “CDE shall be responsible for the costs associated with the development and 

oversight of the corrective action plan, including any consultants hired by the Monitor.” 

See July 2, 2014 Order at 13 (Docket No. 1958). Consequently, the Court ORDERS that 

the costs of the RSIP and Monitor’s budgets will be allocated separately. 

II. Allocation of the RSIP Budget 

 In the first year that the RSIP was put into effect, FY 2003-2004, the Court ordered 

that CDE bear 75% and the District bear 25% of the costs associated with RSIP 

implementation. In the following years, CDE’s portion of the budget decreased by 2.5% to 

5% each year,1

 except between the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 fiscal years, during which 

the allocation percentages remained the same. This annual decrease in CDE’s budgetary 

responsibility is in keeping with the principle that the cost of RSIP implementation should 

increasingly shift to the District to ensure that improvements in the District’s provision of a 

free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) are financially sustainable at the close of 

the case. Based on the historical trend, CDE argues that its allocation of the budget should 

decrease this year to between 15% and 20%. State’s Br. at 7 (Docket. 2047). 

 Conversely, the District argues that the RSIP budget allocation should remain the 

same as last year, with CDE bearing 22.5% of the cost and the District bearing 77.5%. 

District’s Br. at 7 (Docket No. 2048). The District’s argument for maintaining the current 

budget allocation is that it has made marked improvement in recent years, and that as the 

District approaches full RSIP compliance it should not be starved of necessary funds. 

While the Court recognizes the budgetary constraints faced by the District as outlined in 

the District’s opening brief, it declines to jeopardize the sustainable provision of FAPE by 

artificially propping up the District in the final months of the RSIP. Put another way, if the 

District cannot maintain its recent level of success and achieve full compliance under its 

current financial constraints, the Court is deeply concerned about the District’s ability to 

 

1

 In the last decade, CDE’s allocation of the budget has been: 50%, 45%, 40%, 40%, 35%, 

31.5%, 30%, 25%, and 22.5%. State’s Br. at 7. 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 2064 Filed 06/18/15 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

4 

1 

2 

3 

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 

provide FAPE when the Court is no longer requiring the state to provide special funding. 

The Court is not interested in the illusion of FAPE for the sake of a speedier resolution to 

this case. In accordance with established principles, the Court ORDERS that CDE bear 

20% of the cost and the District bear 80% of the cost of the RSIP budget. 

III. Allocation of the Monitor’s Budget 

 As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the prospective nature of budgets 

makes it difficult to assess the appropriate allocation of the Monitor’s budget for the 

coming year. The District’s position is that CDE should pay 75% of the Monitor’s budget, 

based upon its expectation of the Monitor’s expenditure of services toward state-specific 

issues. The Court agrees that the Monitor’s budget should be allocated based upon an 

expected expenditure of the Monitor’s services, but finds the District’s proposed allocation 

untenable. In consultation with the Monitor and based upon best estimates, the Court 

ORDERS the allocation of the Monitor’s budget as follows: 

Budget Items CDE District 

 Allocation Amount Allocation Amount 

Office $86,767 50% $43,383.50 50% $43,383.50

Consultants $108,000 25% $27,000 75% $81,000

Parent Advocacy $74,000 20% $14,800 80% $59,200

Monitor’s Salary $140,000 50% $70,000 50% $70,000

Budget Totals $408,767 37.96% $155,183.50 62.04% $253,583.50

 

 In order to provide for the accurate allocation of the costs associated with the 

Monitor’s budget, the Court will undertake a budget reconciliation process near the close 

of the 2015-2016 fiscal year. In order to implement this reconciliation, the Court has 

instructed the Monitor to submit to the Court monthly timesheets accounting for his work 

and that of his consultants. These timesheets will delineate the expenditure of services 

between RSIP-related and state-related matters. As part of the reconciliation process, the 

Court will review the Monitor’s timesheets and retrospectively assess the actual allocation 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 2064 Filed 06/18/15 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

5 

1 

2 

3 

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 

of the Monitor’s services.2 Defendants will be ordered to compensate each other 

accordingly through adjustments to the following year’s budget. 

IV. RSIP Budget’s Coverage of Backfilled Services 

 Finally, the Court must address the appropriate coverage rate for “missed minutes.” 

The District requests that the RSIP budget include 100% coverage for backfilling the 

delivery of services and making up “missed minutes.” This portion of the budget deals 

with the use of independent contractors to ensure that RSIP-required services are not 

missed. For example, when an employed Speech and Language Pathologist (SLP) is 

called upon to attend an Individualized Education Program meeting, it might conflict with 

scheduled SLP sessions. At these times, independently contracted SLPs are paid to step in 

and provide previously scheduled services for students. The timely provision of services is 

tracked by RSIP section 12.1.3. The District notes that it has achieved substantial 

improvement in this area in recent years, in large part due to its use of these independent 

contractors. Further, the District argues that the need for these contracted services will 

decrease after the completion of the RSIP, as the District will not be under the same 

pressure to so immediately make up missed minutes. 

 CDE’s position is that the RSIP budget should only provide 10% coverage for 

backfilling the delivery of services and making up “missed minutes.” CDE argues that the 

delivery of timely services is not covered at 100%, so covering “missed minutes” at 100% 

provides a disincentive to deliver timely services. The Court rejects this moral hazard 

argument, as the District has little incentive to risk noncompliance under the RSIP by 

intentionally missing minutes just so that it can pay slightly less for the provision of a 

small portion of its services. This is especially true as the District already bears 77.5% of 

the cost of these contractors, even under 100% RSIP coverage. The associated risks and 

 

2

 Defendants are not entitled to the details of these timesheets because the Monitor is an 

agent and extension of the Court. However, during the reconciliation process, the Parties 

will be informed of the overall number of hours and nature of services expended. 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 2064 Filed 06/18/15 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

6 

1 

2 

3 

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 

rewards therefore make CDE’s argument implausible. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS 

that missed minutes and backfilled services be covered at 100% under the RSIP budget for 

FY 2015-2016. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court hereby ORDERS the FY 2015-2016 Budget and budgetary allocation as 

provided above. In consultation with the Court Monitor, Defendants shall develop and file 

with the Court a deposit schedule modeled on last year’s schedule. In light of the 

impending commencement of the new fiscal year on July 1, the schedule must be filed on 

or before June 25, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 06/18/15 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:96-cv-04179-VC Document 2064 Filed 06/18/15 Page 6 of 6