Date: 1984-06-27
Speaker: CLAUDE L. REEVES (democrat)
Chamber: S

Superintendent of Schools. Los Angeles City Board of Education. Los Angeles 12 CA. DEAR MR. REEVES: Your letter of July 28. 1955 points out two respects in which a recent opinion of the Attorney General is in conflict with previous opinions rendered by the County Counsel and asks our review of the matter. The Attorney Generals opinion is No. 53174 dated June 10. 1955 (25 Opinfons California Attorney General 309). relative to the use of school property by religious groups. You ask particularly about that portion of the opinion which holds that there Is no legal authorization for shortterm leases of school property for periods of a few hours for religious and other purposes and that portion of the opinion which holds that school property may be used for meetings of voluntary student religious organizations if there is no endorsement of such organizations by school authorities and no interference with the regular school program. We have reviewed our previous opinions on the subject and hereby reaffirm them because we believe that they correctly indicate the law. As to the shortterm leases of school property. the Attorney Generals opinion States: "3. Lease of school auditorium. This third question concerns a proposal that a high school auditorium and stage be leased to a. religious organization. for evening use only. during a total period of one week. pursuant to Sections 1860118614 of the Education Code. These code sections have in the past been interpreted by this office as limited to situations where school property is not needed at all for school purposes: they are not authority for temporary leases of a few hours each day. We do not reach. therefore. the question whether or not such leases may be made to a religious organization." (emphasis added) For more than thirty years the opinions of this office have held that a school district may lease school property for religious uses at the fair rental value if the property is not at the time needed for school purposes. Probably the earliest opinion to this effect was addressed to the County Superintendent of Schools under date of May 4. 1921. Other opinions to the same effect are: June 2. 1926 to Montebello. May 25. 1936. to San Gabriel. August 3. 1937. to Baldwin Park.. July 8. 1938. to Alhambra. March 23. 1938. to Beverly Hills. May 21. 1940 to San Gabriel. March 24. 1950. to El Camino College. May 12. 1952 to Long Beach. and January 28. 1953 to Centinela Valley. Quote from our May 12. 1952 opinion: " I * However. it has long been the opinion of this office that under the general power to lease school property which is not needed for school purposes. a governing board may lease for revenue to the highest bidder whether the latter be a church or any other person or organization. * * *" The Attorney Generals opinion states that Education Code Sections 18601 and following have in the past been interpreted by the Attorney Generals office as limited to situations where school property is "not needed at all for school purposes." Wk beilieve this interpretation to be too narrow. If a school auditorium is not needed for school purposes on Sunday there would appear to be no reason why it may not be leased after competitive bidding to a religious or other organization seeking its use for a few hours on Sunday. There is nothing in the leasing sections themselves which requires such a restricted Interpretation. As a Statter of fact. the Legislature In the Civic Center provisions )f the Education Code has adequately indicated the legislative intention that the school premises are available for certain community purposes which will not Interfere with the normal school use. Furthermore. we believe that such a restricted interpretation Is contrary to the express wording of Section 18601. That section authorizes the school board to sell or lease any real property belonging to the school district "which is not or will not at the time of delivery of title or possession be needed for school classroom buildings by the district owning it." This language does not require the board to find that the real property will never be needed for school classroom purposes. but merely that it will not be so needed at the time the lease commences. This point Is borne out when we consider the legislative history of these leasing provisions. Prior to 1929. real property could only be leased if no public school was being maintained upon it. (Section 1617V% of Political Code added by Stats. 1917. Chapter 785) As enacted into the School Code in 1929 as Section 6.190. the section was materially changed by making it read as it now does. The test is whether the property is needed for clasroom purposes when the lease commences. In the second point under consideration. the Attorney Generals opinion holds that so far as constitutional prohibitions against the use of public property for religious purposes are concerned. arrangements could be worked out whereby students might properly hold voluntary religious meetings on snool property outside regular school hours. We have reviewed and reaffirm our previous opinions which are to the effect that such groups may not meet on school property. unless they lease it. either during or after regular school hours. (See our opintons of June 22. 1953 to Los Angeles and of September 29. 1952 to Long Beach). The basis of our opinions Is the constitutional prohibition against aiding a sectarian purpose (Art. IV. Sec. 30 and Art. IX. Sec. 8. California Constitution) and complete lack of authority for the use of school property for religious purposes. It should be noted that our conclusions in this opinion are consistent with the fact that the legislature has provided for released time for religious Instruction in Section 8286. Education Code. and that a principal feature of such instruction is that it shall be held away from school property. Very truly yours.