Opinion ID: 2548249
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proceedings under Government Code section 17500 et seq.

Text: Procedures governing the constitutional requirement of reimbursement under article XIII B, section 6, are set forth in Government Code section 17500 et seq. The Commission on State Mandates (Commission) (Gov.Code, § 17525) is charged with the responsibility of hearing and deciding, subject to judicial review by an administrative writ of mandate, claims for reimbursement made by local governments or school districts. (Gov.Code, § 17551.) Government Code section 17561, subdivision (a), provides that the state shall reimburse each ... school district for all `costs mandated by the state,' as defined in section 17514. Government Code section 17514, in turn, defines costs mandated by the state to mean, in relevant part, any increased costs which a ... school district is required to incur ... as a result of any statute ... which mandates a new program or higher level of service of an existing program within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. Finally, Government Code section 17556 sets forth circumstances in which there shall be no reimbursement, including, under subdivision (c), circumstances in which [t]he statute or executive order implemented a federal law or regulation and resulted in costs mandated by the federal government, unless the statute or executive order mandates costs which exceed the mandate in that federal law or regulation. In March 1994, the District filed a test claim with the Commission, asserting entitlement to reimbursement for the costs of hearings provided with respect to both categories of cases described above  that is, those hearings triggered by mandatory expulsion recommendations, and those hearings resulting from discretionary expulsion recommendations. (See Gov.Code, § 17521; Kinlaw v. State of California (1991) 54 Cal.3d 326, 331-333, 285 Cal. Rptr. 66, 814 P.2d 1308.) [10] The District sought reimbursement for costs incurred between July 1, 1993, and June 30, 1994, under statutes effective through the latter date. In August 1998, after holding hearings on the District's claim (as amended in April 1995, to reflect legislation that became effective in 1994), the Commission issued a Corrected Statement of Decision in which it determined that Education Code section 48915's requirement of suspension and a mandatory recommendation of expulsion for firearm possession constituted a new program or higher level of service, and found that because costs related to some of the resulting hearing provisions set forth in Education Code section 48918 (primarily various notice, right of inspection, and recording provisions) exceeded the requirements of federal due process, those additional hearing costs constituted reimbursable state-mandated costs. [11] As to the vast majority of the remaining hearing procedures triggered by Education Code section 48915's requirement of suspension and a mandatory recommendation of expulsion for firearm possession  for example, procedures governing such matters as the hearing itself and the board's decision; a statement of facts and charges; notice of the right to representation by counsel; written findings; recording of the hearing; and the making of a record of the expulsion  the Commission found that those procedures were enacted to comply with federal due process requirements, and hence fell within the exception set forth in Government Code section 17556, subdivision (c), and did not impose a reimbursable state mandate. The Commission further found that with respect to Education Code section 48915's discretionary expulsions, there was no right to reimbursement for costs incurred in holding expulsion hearings, because such expulsions do not constitute a new program or higher level of service, and in any event such expulsions are not mandated by the state, but instead represent a choice by the principal and the school board. In October 1999, the District brought this proceeding for an administrative writ of mandate challenging the Commission's decision. The trial court issued a writ commanding the Commission to render a new decision finding (i) all costs associated with hearings triggered by compulsory suspensions and mandatory expulsion recommendations are reimbursable, and (ii) hearing costs associated with discretionary expulsions are reimbursable to the limited extent that required hearing procedures exceed federal due process mandates. The Commission (defendant) and the Department of Finance (real party in interest, hereafter Department) appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment rendered by the trial court.