Preview
1 CURTIS DAVIS (SBN 323353)
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
2 449 Broadway St.
El Centro, CA 92243
3 ELECTRONICALLY
Telephone: (760) 353-0220
Facsimile: (760) 353-8026 F I L E D
4 Superior Court of California,
cdavis@crla.org County of San Francisco
5 CYNTHIA L. RICE (SBN 87630) 11/16/2020
JODIE SMITH (SBN 299225) Clerk of the Court
BY: SANDRA SCHIRO
6 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. Deputy Clerk
1430 Franklin Street, Suite 103
7 Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 267-0762
8 Facsimile: (510) 267-0763
crice@crla.org
9 jsmith@crla.org
10 DEBORAH ESCOBEDO (SBN 89093)
LAWYERS’COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS-SF
11 31 Steuart St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94105-1243
12 Telephone: (415) 543-9444
Facsimile: (415) 543-0296
13 descobedo@lccrsf.org
14 Attorneys for the Plaintiff/Petitioner
(Additional Counsel on the Following Page)
15
16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
17
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
18
19 MILAGROS AZUCENA WENDZ
Case No. CPF-20-517067
20 Plaintiff/Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
vs. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
21
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER’S MOTION
22 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOR ENTRY OF WRIT OF MANDATE
EDUCATION, TONY THURMOND, in his
23 official capacity as STATE Hearing Date: January 5, 2021
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC Time: 9:30 a.m.
24 INSTRUCTION; DOES 1 THROUGH 30, Dept.: 302
inclusive; Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman
25
Defendants/Respondents. Petition filed: March 26, 2020
26 Trial date: None set
27
28
1
Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067
1 REBECCA BUCKLEY-STEIN (SBN 310366)
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
2 601 High Street, Suite C
Delano, CA 93215
3 Telephone: (661) 725-4350
Facsimile: (661) 725-1062
4
rbuckleystein@crla.org
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Petitioner
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................................................................2
2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .........................................................................................................5
3
I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................10
4
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS .....................................................................................................11
5
III. ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................................................12
6
A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW ....................................................................................................12
7
8 B. THE REGULATIONS EXCEED THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY GRANTED
TO RESPONDENTS AND THEREFORE VIOLATE GOV.CODE, § 11342.1 ....................13
9
1. The Legislature Entrusted Migrant Parents With The Power to Decide Who
10 May Serve on the RPACs. ........................................................................................................13
11 2. The Regulations Wrest that Power From Migrant Parents By Restricting the
Composition of the RPACs and Giving Power to Remove Members to County
12
Superintendents.. .......................................................................................................................14
13
3. The Legislature Expressly Limited the Regulatory Authority of the SSPI... .....................15
14
4. The Legislative History Make Clear that the Grant of Regulatory Authority
15 to the SSPI is Limited... ............................................................................................................16
16 C. THE REGULATIONS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE MEA AND
VIOLATE GOV. CODE, § 11342.2........................................................................................18
17
1. Subdivisions Imposing Membership Criteria Are in Direct Conflict with the
18
Statutory Language Are Void and Must be Rescinded..............................................................18
19
2. The Regulations Impose Control Over the Makeup and Operation of the
20 RPACs That is Not Sanctioned by the Statute and is Inconsistent with the
Purpose of the MEA.…………………………….........................……………….....................21
21
3. Section 1202 Improperly Restricts RPACs From Providing Advice on
22 Improving Parent Engagement ................................................................................................. 22
23 D. THE REGULATIONS ARE NOT REASONABLY NECESSARY TO
24 EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE. ..........................................................23
25 E. SECTION 12011(a) PROHIBITING ALTERNATES WAS A SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGE TO THE ORIGINALLY NOTICED REGULATIONS AND WAS
26 ADOPTED WITHOUT THE FULL NOTICE AND COMMENT PERIODS
REQUIRED UNDER GOV. CODE, § 11346.8, SUBD. (c). ....................................................25
27
28
3
Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067
1 F. THE REGULATIONS ARE INVALID BECAUSE CDE FAILED TO
CONSIDER REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES IN VIOLATION OF GOV.
2 CODE, §§ 11346.2, SUBD. (b)(4) AND 11346.9, SUBD. (a)(4). ..........................................27
3 G. WRIT OF MANDATE SHOULD BE GRANTED DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO RESCIND THE REGULATIONS. .......................................................28
4
IV. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................29
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page(s)
3 California Cases
4 Assoc. for Retarded Citizens v. Dept. of Developmental Serv. (1985)
38 Cal. 3d 384 ........................................................................................................12, 13, 15, 22
5
Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley
6
(2015) 60 Cal. 4th 1086 ...........................................................................................................12
7
Cabral v. State Bd. of Control
8 (1980) 112 Cal. App. 3d 1012 .................................................................................................19
9 California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank
(1990) 51 Cal.3d 1 ...................................................................................................................13
10
California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist.,
11
supra, 14 Cal. 4th 627 ........................................................................................................15, 16
12
California Welfare Rights Organization v. Brian
13 (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 237 ..............................................................................................................28
14 Citizens to Save California v. California Fair Political Practices Com.
(2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 736 ......................................................................................12, 18, 20
15
City of San Jose v. Dep’t of Health Servs.
16 (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 35 ........................................................................................................16
17
Clean Air Constituency v. State Air Resources Bd.,
18 supra, 11 Cal. 3d 801 ...............................................................................................................13
19 Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency
(2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98 ..............................................................................................12, 13
20
Day v. City of Fontana
21 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 268 ..............................................................................................................14
22 Fipke v. California Horse Racing Board (2020)
23 Cal. App. LEXIS 929 ...............................................................................................................15
24 Flora Crane Service, Inc. v. Ross
(1964) 61 Cal. 2d 199 ..............................................................................................................29
25
Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV
26 (1991) 52 Cal. 3d 1142 ............................................................................................................16
27 Imperial Merchant Services, Inc. v. Hun
28 (2009) 47 Cal. 4th 381 .......................................................................................................15, 16
5
Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067
1 Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc.
(2012) 53 Cal. 4th 1244 ...........................................................................................................16
2
L.A. Taxpayers Alliance v. Fair Political Practice Comm.
3 (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 1214 ..................................................................................................28
4 Light v. State Water Resources Control Bd.
(2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 1463 ................................................................................................23
5
6 Manjares v. Newton
(1966) 64 Cal. 2d 365 ..............................................................................................................29
7
Morris v. Williams
8 (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 733 ........................................................................................................13, 21
9 Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.
(2007) 40 Cal. 4th 1094 ...........................................................................................................16
10
11 Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com.
(1990) 50 Cal. 3d 370 ..............................................................................................................20
12
O'Grady v. Superior Court
13 (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1423 ................................................................................................15
14 Ont. Cmty. Found. v. State Bd. of Equalization
(1980) 35 Cal. 3d 811 ..............................................................................................................19
15
People v. Rizo
16
(2000) 22 Cal.4th 681 ..............................................................................................................14
17
Pulaski v. Occupational Safety & Health Stds. Bd.
18 (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 1315 ..................................................................................................19
19 Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Reimel
(1968) 69 Cal. 2d 172 ..............................................................................................................12
20
Sims v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
21 (2013) 216 Cal. App. 4th 1059 ....................................................................................13, 27, 28
22
State Bd. of Education v. Honig
23 (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 720 ....................................................................................................15
24 Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Helliker
(2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 1135 ................................................................................................26
25
California Statutes
26
Code of Civil Procedure section 1086 ...........................................................................................29
27
28 Ed. Code, §§ 54440, et seq. ...........................................................................................................18
6
Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067
1 Ed. Code, § 54440, subd. (a)....................................................................................................10, 19
2 Ed. Code, § 54440, subd. (b) .........................................................................................................21
3
Ed. Code, § 54441....................................................................................................................15, 19
4
5 Ed. Code, § 54441, subd. (a)....................................................................................................19, 20
6
Ed. Code, § 54442, subd. (f) ..........................................................................................................21
7
Ed. Code, § 54443.1, subd (f) ........................................................................................................21
8
9 Ed. Code, § 54444..........................................................................................................................18
10
Ed. Code, § 54444.1.......................................................................................................................15
11
12 Ed. Code, § 54444.2.........................................................................................15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22
13 Ed. Code, § 54444.2, subd. (a).......................................................................................................22
14
Ed. Code, § 54444.2, subd. (a)(1) ................................................................................15, 16, 20, 25
15
16 Ed. Code, § 54444.2, subd. (a)(1)(A) .................................................................................... passim
17 Ed. Code, § 54444.2, subd. (a)(1)(B).................................................................................14, 19, 20
18
Ed. Code, § 54444.4, subd (b)(1) ...................................................................................................20
19
20 Ed. Code, § 54444.4.......................................................................................................................22
21
Gov. Code, § 11346.2, subd.(b)(4) ................................................................................................28
22
Gov. Code, § 11340.9, subd. (f) .....................................................................................................26
23
24 Gov. Code, § 11342.1 ..............................................................................................................12, 13
25
Gov. Code, § 11342.2 ........................................................................................................12, 13, 18
26
Gov. Code, § 11346, subd. (a) .......................................................................................................13
27
28 Gov. Code, § 11346.2 ....................................................................................................................27
7
Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067
1 Gov. Code, § 11346.2(b)(5)(A)[sic] ..............................................................................................27
2 Gov. Code, § 11346.2, subd. (b)(4) ..........................................................................................27,28
3
Gov. Code, § 11346.5 ....................................................................................................................25
4
5 Gov. Code, § 11346.8, subd. (c) ....................................................................................................25
6
Gov. Code, § 11346.9, subd. (a)(3)..........................................................................................22, 25
7
Gov. Code, § 11346.9, subd. (a)(4)..........................................................................................27, 28
8
9 Gov. Code, § 11347.3 ....................................................................................................................27
10
Gov. Code, § 11350, subd. (a) .......................................................................................................13
11
12 Gov. Code, § 11374 .......................................................................................................................12
13 Migrant Education Act........................................................................................................... passim
14
California Regulations
15
16 1 CCR § 40.....................................................................................................................................26
17 5 CCR § 12010...............................................................................................................................21
18
5 CCR § 12010, subd. (a).........................................................................................................14, 25
19
20 5 CCR § 12010, subd. (b)(1) ....................................................................................................14, 18
21
5 CCR § 12010, subd. (b)(4) ..........................................................................................................14
22
5 CCR § 12011.........................................................................................................................21, 26
23
24 5 CCR § 12011, subd. (a).........................................................................................................14, 21
25
5 CCR § 12011, subd. (b) ..............................................................................................................19
26
5 CCR § 12012...............................................................................................................................21
27
28 5 CCR § 12013...............................................................................................................................21
8
Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067
1 5 CCR § 12013, subd. (a)...............................................................................................................14
2 5 CCR § 12013, subd. (a)(7) ..........................................................................................................14
3
5 CCR § 12014...............................................................................................................................21
4
5 5 CCR § 12014, subd. (a)...............................................................................................................14
6
5 CCR § 12014, subd. (b) ..............................................................................................................14
7
5 CCR § 12014, subd. (c).........................................................................................................14, 19
8
9 5 CCR § 12015...................................................................................................................14, 15, 21
10
5 CCR § 12016...............................................................................................................................21
11
12 5 CCR § 12017...............................................................................................................................21
13 5 CCR § 12019, subd. (c)(1) ..........................................................................................................21
14
5 CCR § 12019, subd. (d) ..............................................................................................................20
15
16 5 CCR § 12021.........................................................................................................................22, 23
17 5 CCR § 12021, subd. (a)..........................................................................................................21,22
18
Federal Statutes
19
20 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. ................................................................................................................10
21
20 U.S.C. § 6391 et seq..................................................................................................................10
22
20 U.S.C. § 6394(c) .......................................................................................................................20
23
24 20 U.S.C. § 6394(c)(3) ...................................................................................................................10
25
20 U.S.C. §§ 6394(c)(3)(A)-(B) ....................................................................................................21
26
20 U.S.C. § 6394(c)(3)(B) .............................................................................................................20
27
28 20 U.S.C. § 6396(a)(1)(B)(ii) ............................................................................................10, 21, 22
9
Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067
1 I. INTRODUCTION
Both Congress and the California State Legislature have long understood that poverty of
2
migrant farm workers is a cycle repeated for generations that profoundly impacts the educational
3
status of their children. “[Migrant] children, from among the least affluent segments of American
4
society, tend to move frequently, attend school irregularly, and suffer health problems and language
5 barriers. This results in many becoming early school dropouts, poorly prepared to enter the
6 workforce or for academic success and upward social mobility.” (Ed. Code, § 54440, subd. (a).)
7 Federal1 and State legislation address the unique needs of Migrant children and direct that programs
be developed and approved in a manner that requires Migrant parent involvement, recognizing their
8
fundamental role in addressing the educational deficits of their children. (20 U.S.C. §
9
6396(a)(1)(B)(ii).) In 2018–19, 78,947 youth were identified as migratory youth in California and
10
one out of every three migrant students in the United States lives in California. 2
11 California’s Migrant Education Act (“MEA”), complies with federal parent participation
12 mandates in part by establishing Regional Parent Advisory Councils (“RPACs”) in each of its
13 administrative regions. 3 (Ed. Code, § 54444.2, subd. (a)(1)(A).) Those provisions specifically vest
14 in migrant parents the sole authority to decide the composition of their RPACs. RPACs have
operated in this manner for nearly 40 years pursuant to statutory provisions established by the State
15
Legislature and without the necessity for corresponding regulations.
16
Respondents have—for the first time—issued regulations regarding the RPAC composition.
17 While characterized as promoting parental participation, the regulations, in fact, strip Migrant
18 parents of their statutory authority by imposing rigid eligibility requirements for election to the
19 RPAC; dramatically reducing the number of members for many Regions; eliminating the use of
20 alternates; and narrowly defining who parents may nominate as “community” representatives. The
regulations effect profound changes to the local control Migrant parents have exercised, with the
21
blessing of the Legislature, since 1981.
22
23 1
The U. S. Department of Education provides grants to states for Migrant children. (20 U.S.C. §§
24 6301 et seq. and 6391 et seq.) As a grant condition, states must consult with Migrant parents in the
planning and operation of migrant programs. (20 U.S.C. § 6394(c)(3).) States must identify and
25 address the unique needs of migratory children in accordance with a comprehensive state plan, which
must be developed with the parents of migratory children. (20 U.S.C. § 6396(a)(1)(B)(ii).)
26 2
See, California Department of Education’s website at
https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/me/mt/overview.asp.
27 3
The Migrant Education Act was added in 1976. (Enacted Stats 1976 ch 1010 § 2) California
28 established migrant regions for administering the program in 1981 and, at that time, established the
RPACs. (Added Stats 1981 ch 942 § 8.)
10
Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067
Petitioner brings this motion for entry of a writ of mandate directing Defendant/Respondent
1
TONY THURMOND, in his official capacity as STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC
2
INSTRUCTION (“SSPI”) to rescind the regulations relating to the RPAC in their entirety; and
3
directing that SSPI and Defendant/Respondent CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
4 (“CDE”) take no action to enforce those regulations. Petitioner challenges these regulations on the
5 grounds that the SSPI and the CDE (“Respondents”) lack the authority to regulate the composition
6 of the RPACs, and exceeded their limited authority as to other regulations; that the challenged
regulations are inconsistent with the statute and are not reasonably necessary to effectuate the
7
purpose of the statute; and that the Respondents otherwise failed to substantially comply with various
8
notice and procedural requirements of the California Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”),
9
rendering the regulations void in their entirety.
10 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
11 The Notice of Proposed Action on Regulations was published in the California Regulatory
12 Notice Register on November 30, 2018.4 The Initial Statement of Reasons made clear that the
13 Proposed Regulations were to “address the governance of PACs at the regional level, known as
Regional Parent Advisory Committees (RPACs).” (AR, p. 49.)
14
In response to the proposed regulations, counsel for Petitioner submitted written objections
15
that the Regulations exceeded Respondents’ authority, undermined Migrant parents’ “sole authority”
16 to determine the composition of their RPACs and raised other inconsistencies with the MEA and the
17 APA. (AR, pp. 107-115; 171-191; 221-237; 263-297.) Comments were also submitted by parents
18 and Migrant RPACs from around the state (AR, pp. 89-103; 117-167; 217) and by the Director of
19 Migrant Region 3. (AR, pp. 61-85.)
Respondents revised the Proposed Regulations on two occasions. On July 22, 2019,
20
Respondents issued a “15-Day Notice of Modifications to Text of Proposed Regulations Regarding
21
Regional Parent Advisory Council” which included the following substantive modifications:
22
expanding the number of parent members from 10 to 15 and prohibiting RPACs from allowing
23 alternates to serve when a member is unavailable, even if that unavailability is due to migratory
24 work. Although these modifications were substantive, Respondents provided only a 15-day
25 comment period. (AR, pp. 193-215.) On September 23, 2019, CDE issued a “Second 15-Day
Notice of Modifications to Text of Proposed Regulations Regarding Regional Parent Advisory
26
27 4
See, the Administrative Record (“AR”) lodged with the Court and accompanying this motion. The
28 California Regulatory Notice Register, the Proposed Regulations and the Initial Statement of
Reasons are found at AR, pp. 33-60.
11
Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067
Councils” that allowed up to, but no more than, 15 parent members and moved a provision to a
1
new subdivision. (Id. at 239-261.)
2
Despite the comments in opposition, Respondents adopted the regulations and submitted
3
them to the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) on or about November 13, 2019. The OAL
4 approved the Regulations on December 24, 2019 and they went into effect April 1, 2020.
5 III. ARGUMENT
6 A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
7 Initially, the reviewing court must determine whether the regulatory agency has the authority
8 to issue the regulation in question. The APA mandates that “[e]ach regulation adopted, to be
9 effective, shall be within the scope of authority conferred and in accordance with standards
prescribed by other provisions of law.” (Gov. Code, § 11342.1.) The court must “first determine
10
whether the regulation lies within the scope of authority conferred.” (Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Reimel
11
(1968) 69 Cal. 2d 172, 175, citing Morris v. Williams (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 733, 748-749 [construing
12
Gov. Code, § 11374, predecessor to Gov. Code, § 11342.1].) “[I]f the court concludes that the
13 administrative action transgresses the agency’s statutory authority, it need not proceed to review the
14 action for abuse of discretion; in such a case, there is simply no discretion to abuse.”
15 (Assoc. for Retarded Citizens v. Dept. of Developmental Serv. (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 384, 391.)
Agency authority is further limited by Gov. Code, § 11342.2, which provides that
16
“[w]henever by the express or implied terms of any statute a state agency has authority to adopt
17
regulations to implement, interpret, make specific or otherwise carry out the provisions of the statute,
18
no regulation adopted is valid or effective unless [1] consistent and not in conflict with the statute
19 and [2] reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.”
20 “Under the first prong of this [section 11342.2] standard, the judiciary independently reviews
21 the administrative regulation for consistency with controlling law. The question is whether the
regulation alters or amends the governing statute or case law, or enlarges or impairs its scope. In
22
short, the question is whether the regulation is within the scope of the authority conferred; if it is
23
not, it is void.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.
24
App. 4th 98, 108 [disapproved on other grounds in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley
25 (2015) 60 Cal. 4th 1086, 1109, note 3].) The question of whether the regulation is within the scope
26 of authority granted to the promulgating agency is a legal question for the court, and the agency’s
27 view on that issue is entitled to no deference. (Citizens to Save California v. California Fair Political
28 Practices Com. (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 736, 747.) “Administrative regulations that alter or amend
12
Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067
the statute or enlarge or impair its scope are void and courts not only may, but it is their obligation
1
to strike down such regulations.” (Morris v. Williams (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 733, 748. See also,
2
California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1, 11.)
3
“[T]the second prong of this [section 11342.2] standard, reasonable necessity, generally
4 does implicate the agency's expertise; therefore, it receives a much more deferential standard of
5 review.” (Communities for a Better Environment, supra, 103 Cal. App. 4th 98 at 109.) However,
6 that deference is not unlimited, nor is the discretion of the agency. (Id.) Regulations that do not
effectuate and are not consistent with the legislative goals exceed the scope of authority and are
7
invalid. (Clean Air Constituency v. State Air Resources Bd., supra, 11 Cal. 3d 801 at 816. See also,
8
Assoc. for Retarded Citizens v. Dept. of Developmental Serv., supra, 38 Cal. 3d 384 at 391.)
9
Finally, a regulation “may be declared to be invalid for a substantial failure to comply with
10 [the APA].” (Gov. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) No deference is granted to the agency’s self
11 determination that all procedures were followed, and the fact that the OAL certified the regulations
12 is not dispositive of any underlying procedural issue. (Sims v. Department of Corrections &
13 Rehabilitation (2013) 216 Cal. App. 4th 1059, 1074-1077.) The APA establishes the “basic
minimum procedural requirements for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of administrative
14
regulations” established under the APA. (Gov. Code, § 11346, subd. (a).) Meaningful public
15
participation can only take place when there is actual compliance with those requirements. These
16 basic minimums include timely publication of a statement of the purpose, the rationale of the
17 agency's determination that the regulations are necessary to carry out that purpose, the information
18 or documents the agency relied upon in proposing the regulation, alternatives to the proposed
19 regulation the agency considered reasonable, and the basis or bases upon which the agency rejected
those alternatives. (Sims v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, supra, 216 Cal. App. 4th
20
1059 at 1073-1074.)
21
B. THE REGULATIONS EXCEED THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY GRANTED TO
22 RESPONDENTS AND THEREFORE VIOLATE GOV. CODE, § 11342.1.
23 1. The Legislature Entrusted Migrant Parents With The Power to Decide Who May
Serve on the RPACs.
24
The Legislature vested decisions about the RPAC composition with Migrant parents.
25 The composition of the council shall be determined by the parents at a general
26 meeting to which all parents of pupils enrolled in the migrant program shall be
invited. Parents shall be informed, in a language they understand, that the parents
27 have the sole authority to decide on the composition of the council.
28 (Ed. Code, § 54444.2, subd. (a)(1)(A), emphasis added.)
13
Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067
1
When determining the scope of regulatory authority granted to an agency. The court first
2 looks to the express language of the statute defining the scope of the agency’s power, giving the
3 words their usual and ordinary meaning, viewed in the context of the statute as a whole and the
4 overall statutory scheme. (People v. Rizo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 681, 685.) “If the terms of the statute are
unambiguous, we [the courts] presume the lawmakers meant what they said, and the plain meaning
5
of the language governs.” (Day v. City of Fontana (2001) 25 Cal.4th 268, 272.)
6
The Legislature, in plain language, granted Migrant parents, not the SSPI or CDE, the “sole
7
authority” to decide the composition 5 of the RPAC. The statute includes limited, but express,
8 eligibility requirements, viz, that members be “knowledgeable of the needs of migrant children and
9 that “[a]t least two-thirds of the members” of each RPAC be the parents of migrant children.” (§
10 54444.2, subd. (a)(1)(A)and (B).) No other limits are placed on the parents’ sole authority. Nor does
11 the statutory scheme otherwise grant the SSPI or CDE the power to modify the parents’ sole
authority.
12
2. The Regulations Wrest that Power From Migrant Parents By Restricting the
13 Composition of the RPACs and Giving Power to Remove Members to County
Superintendents.
14
15 In direct contravention of this Legislative grant of authority, Respondents have seized the
power to dictate the composition of the RPAC by stripping itaway from the parents of Migrant
16
children and imposing their view of who should serve. The following restrictions to RPACs are
17
imposed by the regulations: restricting RPAC member eligibility (5 CCR §12010, subd. (a));
18 limiting the number of members and prohibiting alternates (5 CCR § 12011, subd. (a)); disqualifying
19 certain members by imposing term limits (5 CCR §§ 12010, subd. (b)(4); 12014, subd. (a) and 12014,
20 subd. (b)); narrowly defining who parents may nominate as community members (5 CCR § 12010,
21 subd. (b)(1)); granting unauthorized authority to operating agencies and County Superintendents
regarding the disqualification and removal of RPAC members (5 CCR §§ 12013, subd. (a)(7) and
22
12015); disqualifying an otherwise eligible parent member who, due to their migratory status, resides
23
for more than six months in a distr
Preview
1 CURTIS DAVIS (SBN 323353) CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. 2 449 Broadway St. El Centro, CA 92243 3 ELECTRONICALLY Telephone: (760) 353-0220 Facsimile: (760) 353-8026 F I L E D 4 Superior Court of California, cdavis@crla.org County of San Francisco 5 CYNTHIA L. RICE (SBN 87630) 11/16/2020 JODIE SMITH (SBN 299225) Clerk of the Court BY: SANDRA SCHIRO 6 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. Deputy Clerk 1430 Franklin Street, Suite 103 7 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 267-0762 8 Facsimile: (510) 267-0763 crice@crla.org 9 jsmith@crla.org 10 DEBORAH ESCOBEDO (SBN 89093) LAWYERS’COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS-SF 11 31 Steuart St., Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105-1243 12 Telephone: (415) 543-9444 Facsimile: (415) 543-0296 13 descobedo@lccrsf.org 14 Attorneys for the Plaintiff/Petitioner (Additional Counsel on the Following Page) 15 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 17 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 18 19 MILAGROS AZUCENA WENDZ Case No. CPF-20-517067 20 Plaintiff/Petitioner, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND vs. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 21 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER’S MOTION 22 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOR ENTRY OF WRIT OF MANDATE EDUCATION, TONY THURMOND, in his 23 official capacity as STATE Hearing Date: January 5, 2021 SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC Time: 9:30 a.m. 24 INSTRUCTION; DOES 1 THROUGH 30, Dept.: 302 inclusive; Judge: Hon. Ethan P. Schulman 25 Defendants/Respondents. Petition filed: March 26, 2020 26 Trial date: None set 27 28 1 Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067 1 REBECCA BUCKLEY-STEIN (SBN 310366) CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. 2 601 High Street, Suite C Delano, CA 93215 3 Telephone: (661) 725-4350 Facsimile: (661) 725-1062 4 rbuckleystein@crla.org 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Petitioner 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................................................................2 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .........................................................................................................5 3 I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................10 4 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS .....................................................................................................11 5 III. ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................................................12 6 A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW ....................................................................................................12 7 8 B. THE REGULATIONS EXCEED THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY GRANTED TO RESPONDENTS AND THEREFORE VIOLATE GOV.CODE, § 11342.1 ....................13 9 1. The Legislature Entrusted Migrant Parents With The Power to Decide Who 10 May Serve on the RPACs. ........................................................................................................13 11 2. The Regulations Wrest that Power From Migrant Parents By Restricting the Composition of the RPACs and Giving Power to Remove Members to County 12 Superintendents.. .......................................................................................................................14 13 3. The Legislature Expressly Limited the Regulatory Authority of the SSPI... .....................15 14 4. The Legislative History Make Clear that the Grant of Regulatory Authority 15 to the SSPI is Limited... ............................................................................................................16 16 C. THE REGULATIONS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE MEA AND VIOLATE GOV. CODE, § 11342.2........................................................................................18 17 1. Subdivisions Imposing Membership Criteria Are in Direct Conflict with the 18 Statutory Language Are Void and Must be Rescinded..............................................................18 19 2. The Regulations Impose Control Over the Makeup and Operation of the 20 RPACs That is Not Sanctioned by the Statute and is Inconsistent with the Purpose of the MEA.…………………………….........................……………….....................21 21 3. Section 1202 Improperly Restricts RPACs From Providing Advice on 22 Improving Parent Engagement ................................................................................................. 22 23 D. THE REGULATIONS ARE NOT REASONABLY NECESSARY TO 24 EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE. ..........................................................23 25 E. SECTION 12011(a) PROHIBITING ALTERNATES WAS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE ORIGINALLY NOTICED REGULATIONS AND WAS 26 ADOPTED WITHOUT THE FULL NOTICE AND COMMENT PERIODS REQUIRED UNDER GOV. CODE, § 11346.8, SUBD. (c). ....................................................25 27 28 3 Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067 1 F. THE REGULATIONS ARE INVALID BECAUSE CDE FAILED TO CONSIDER REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES IN VIOLATION OF GOV. 2 CODE, §§ 11346.2, SUBD. (b)(4) AND 11346.9, SUBD. (a)(4). ..........................................27 3 G. WRIT OF MANDATE SHOULD BE GRANTED DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RESCIND THE REGULATIONS. .......................................................28 4 IV. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................29 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 California Cases 4 Assoc. for Retarded Citizens v. Dept. of Developmental Serv. (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 384 ........................................................................................................12, 13, 15, 22 5 Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley 6 (2015) 60 Cal. 4th 1086 ...........................................................................................................12 7 Cabral v. State Bd. of Control 8 (1980) 112 Cal. App. 3d 1012 .................................................................................................19 9 California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1 ...................................................................................................................13 10 California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified School Dist., 11 supra, 14 Cal. 4th 627 ........................................................................................................15, 16 12 California Welfare Rights Organization v. Brian 13 (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 237 ..............................................................................................................28 14 Citizens to Save California v. California Fair Political Practices Com. (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 736 ......................................................................................12, 18, 20 15 City of San Jose v. Dep’t of Health Servs. 16 (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 35 ........................................................................................................16 17 Clean Air Constituency v. State Air Resources Bd., 18 supra, 11 Cal. 3d 801 ...............................................................................................................13 19 Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98 ..............................................................................................12, 13 20 Day v. City of Fontana 21 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 268 ..............................................................................................................14 22 Fipke v. California Horse Racing Board (2020) 23 Cal. App. LEXIS 929 ...............................................................................................................15 24 Flora Crane Service, Inc. v. Ross (1964) 61 Cal. 2d 199 ..............................................................................................................29 25 Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV 26 (1991) 52 Cal. 3d 1142 ............................................................................................................16 27 Imperial Merchant Services, Inc. v. Hun 28 (2009) 47 Cal. 4th 381 .......................................................................................................15, 16 5 Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067 1 Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc. (2012) 53 Cal. 4th 1244 ...........................................................................................................16 2 L.A. Taxpayers Alliance v. Fair Political Practice Comm. 3 (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 1214 ..................................................................................................28 4 Light v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 1463 ................................................................................................23 5 6 Manjares v. Newton (1966) 64 Cal. 2d 365 ..............................................................................................................29 7 Morris v. Williams 8 (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 733 ........................................................................................................13, 21 9 Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 1094 ...........................................................................................................16 10 11 Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. v. Public Utilities Com. (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 370 ..............................................................................................................20 12 O'Grady v. Superior Court 13 (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1423 ................................................................................................15 14 Ont. Cmty. Found. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1980) 35 Cal. 3d 811 ..............................................................................................................19 15 People v. Rizo 16 (2000) 22 Cal.4th 681 ..............................................................................................................14 17 Pulaski v. Occupational Safety & Health Stds. Bd. 18 (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 1315 ..................................................................................................19 19 Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Reimel (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 172 ..............................................................................................................12 20 Sims v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation 21 (2013) 216 Cal. App. 4th 1059 ....................................................................................13, 27, 28 22 State Bd. of Education v. Honig 23 (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 720 ....................................................................................................15 24 Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Helliker (2006) 138 Cal. App. 4th 1135 ................................................................................................26 25 California Statutes 26 Code of Civil Procedure section 1086 ...........................................................................................29 27 28 Ed. Code, §§ 54440, et seq. ...........................................................................................................18 6 Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067 1 Ed. Code, § 54440, subd. (a)....................................................................................................10, 19 2 Ed. Code, § 54440, subd. (b) .........................................................................................................21 3 Ed. Code, § 54441....................................................................................................................15, 19 4 5 Ed. Code, § 54441, subd. (a)....................................................................................................19, 20 6 Ed. Code, § 54442, subd. (f) ..........................................................................................................21 7 Ed. Code, § 54443.1, subd (f) ........................................................................................................21 8 9 Ed. Code, § 54444..........................................................................................................................18 10 Ed. Code, § 54444.1.......................................................................................................................15 11 12 Ed. Code, § 54444.2.........................................................................................15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22 13 Ed. Code, § 54444.2, subd. (a).......................................................................................................22 14 Ed. Code, § 54444.2, subd. (a)(1) ................................................................................15, 16, 20, 25 15 16 Ed. Code, § 54444.2, subd. (a)(1)(A) .................................................................................... passim 17 Ed. Code, § 54444.2, subd. (a)(1)(B).................................................................................14, 19, 20 18 Ed. Code, § 54444.4, subd (b)(1) ...................................................................................................20 19 20 Ed. Code, § 54444.4.......................................................................................................................22 21 Gov. Code, § 11346.2, subd.(b)(4) ................................................................................................28 22 Gov. Code, § 11340.9, subd. (f) .....................................................................................................26 23 24 Gov. Code, § 11342.1 ..............................................................................................................12, 13 25 Gov. Code, § 11342.2 ........................................................................................................12, 13, 18 26 Gov. Code, § 11346, subd. (a) .......................................................................................................13 27 28 Gov. Code, § 11346.2 ....................................................................................................................27 7 Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067 1 Gov. Code, § 11346.2(b)(5)(A)[sic] ..............................................................................................27 2 Gov. Code, § 11346.2, subd. (b)(4) ..........................................................................................27,28 3 Gov. Code, § 11346.5 ....................................................................................................................25 4 5 Gov. Code, § 11346.8, subd. (c) ....................................................................................................25 6 Gov. Code, § 11346.9, subd. (a)(3)..........................................................................................22, 25 7 Gov. Code, § 11346.9, subd. (a)(4)..........................................................................................27, 28 8 9 Gov. Code, § 11347.3 ....................................................................................................................27 10 Gov. Code, § 11350, subd. (a) .......................................................................................................13 11 12 Gov. Code, § 11374 .......................................................................................................................12 13 Migrant Education Act........................................................................................................... passim 14 California Regulations 15 16 1 CCR § 40.....................................................................................................................................26 17 5 CCR § 12010...............................................................................................................................21 18 5 CCR § 12010, subd. (a).........................................................................................................14, 25 19 20 5 CCR § 12010, subd. (b)(1) ....................................................................................................14, 18 21 5 CCR § 12010, subd. (b)(4) ..........................................................................................................14 22 5 CCR § 12011.........................................................................................................................21, 26 23 24 5 CCR § 12011, subd. (a).........................................................................................................14, 21 25 5 CCR § 12011, subd. (b) ..............................................................................................................19 26 5 CCR § 12012...............................................................................................................................21 27 28 5 CCR § 12013...............................................................................................................................21 8 Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067 1 5 CCR § 12013, subd. (a)...............................................................................................................14 2 5 CCR § 12013, subd. (a)(7) ..........................................................................................................14 3 5 CCR § 12014...............................................................................................................................21 4 5 5 CCR § 12014, subd. (a)...............................................................................................................14 6 5 CCR § 12014, subd. (b) ..............................................................................................................14 7 5 CCR § 12014, subd. (c).........................................................................................................14, 19 8 9 5 CCR § 12015...................................................................................................................14, 15, 21 10 5 CCR § 12016...............................................................................................................................21 11 12 5 CCR § 12017...............................................................................................................................21 13 5 CCR § 12019, subd. (c)(1) ..........................................................................................................21 14 5 CCR § 12019, subd. (d) ..............................................................................................................20 15 16 5 CCR § 12021.........................................................................................................................22, 23 17 5 CCR § 12021, subd. (a)..........................................................................................................21,22 18 Federal Statutes 19 20 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. ................................................................................................................10 21 20 U.S.C. § 6391 et seq..................................................................................................................10 22 20 U.S.C. § 6394(c) .......................................................................................................................20 23 24 20 U.S.C. § 6394(c)(3) ...................................................................................................................10 25 20 U.S.C. §§ 6394(c)(3)(A)-(B) ....................................................................................................21 26 20 U.S.C. § 6394(c)(3)(B) .............................................................................................................20 27 28 20 U.S.C. § 6396(a)(1)(B)(ii) ............................................................................................10, 21, 22 9 Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067 1 I. INTRODUCTION Both Congress and the California State Legislature have long understood that poverty of 2 migrant farm workers is a cycle repeated for generations that profoundly impacts the educational 3 status of their children. “[Migrant] children, from among the least affluent segments of American 4 society, tend to move frequently, attend school irregularly, and suffer health problems and language 5 barriers. This results in many becoming early school dropouts, poorly prepared to enter the 6 workforce or for academic success and upward social mobility.” (Ed. Code, § 54440, subd. (a).) 7 Federal1 and State legislation address the unique needs of Migrant children and direct that programs be developed and approved in a manner that requires Migrant parent involvement, recognizing their 8 fundamental role in addressing the educational deficits of their children. (20 U.S.C. § 9 6396(a)(1)(B)(ii).) In 2018–19, 78,947 youth were identified as migratory youth in California and 10 one out of every three migrant students in the United States lives in California. 2 11 California’s Migrant Education Act (“MEA”), complies with federal parent participation 12 mandates in part by establishing Regional Parent Advisory Councils (“RPACs”) in each of its 13 administrative regions. 3 (Ed. Code, § 54444.2, subd. (a)(1)(A).) Those provisions specifically vest 14 in migrant parents the sole authority to decide the composition of their RPACs. RPACs have operated in this manner for nearly 40 years pursuant to statutory provisions established by the State 15 Legislature and without the necessity for corresponding regulations. 16 Respondents have—for the first time—issued regulations regarding the RPAC composition. 17 While characterized as promoting parental participation, the regulations, in fact, strip Migrant 18 parents of their statutory authority by imposing rigid eligibility requirements for election to the 19 RPAC; dramatically reducing the number of members for many Regions; eliminating the use of 20 alternates; and narrowly defining who parents may nominate as “community” representatives. The regulations effect profound changes to the local control Migrant parents have exercised, with the 21 blessing of the Legislature, since 1981. 22 23 1 The U. S. Department of Education provides grants to states for Migrant children. (20 U.S.C. §§ 24 6301 et seq. and 6391 et seq.) As a grant condition, states must consult with Migrant parents in the planning and operation of migrant programs. (20 U.S.C. § 6394(c)(3).) States must identify and 25 address the unique needs of migratory children in accordance with a comprehensive state plan, which must be developed with the parents of migratory children. (20 U.S.C. § 6396(a)(1)(B)(ii).) 26 2 See, California Department of Education’s website at https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/me/mt/overview.asp. 27 3 The Migrant Education Act was added in 1976. (Enacted Stats 1976 ch 1010 § 2) California 28 established migrant regions for administering the program in 1981 and, at that time, established the RPACs. (Added Stats 1981 ch 942 § 8.) 10 Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067 Petitioner brings this motion for entry of a writ of mandate directing Defendant/Respondent 1 TONY THURMOND, in his official capacity as STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC 2 INSTRUCTION (“SSPI”) to rescind the regulations relating to the RPAC in their entirety; and 3 directing that SSPI and Defendant/Respondent CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 (“CDE”) take no action to enforce those regulations. Petitioner challenges these regulations on the 5 grounds that the SSPI and the CDE (“Respondents”) lack the authority to regulate the composition 6 of the RPACs, and exceeded their limited authority as to other regulations; that the challenged regulations are inconsistent with the statute and are not reasonably necessary to effectuate the 7 purpose of the statute; and that the Respondents otherwise failed to substantially comply with various 8 notice and procedural requirements of the California Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 9 rendering the regulations void in their entirety. 10 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 11 The Notice of Proposed Action on Regulations was published in the California Regulatory 12 Notice Register on November 30, 2018.4 The Initial Statement of Reasons made clear that the 13 Proposed Regulations were to “address the governance of PACs at the regional level, known as Regional Parent Advisory Committees (RPACs).” (AR, p. 49.) 14 In response to the proposed regulations, counsel for Petitioner submitted written objections 15 that the Regulations exceeded Respondents’ authority, undermined Migrant parents’ “sole authority” 16 to determine the composition of their RPACs and raised other inconsistencies with the MEA and the 17 APA. (AR, pp. 107-115; 171-191; 221-237; 263-297.) Comments were also submitted by parents 18 and Migrant RPACs from around the state (AR, pp. 89-103; 117-167; 217) and by the Director of 19 Migrant Region 3. (AR, pp. 61-85.) Respondents revised the Proposed Regulations on two occasions. On July 22, 2019, 20 Respondents issued a “15-Day Notice of Modifications to Text of Proposed Regulations Regarding 21 Regional Parent Advisory Council” which included the following substantive modifications: 22 expanding the number of parent members from 10 to 15 and prohibiting RPACs from allowing 23 alternates to serve when a member is unavailable, even if that unavailability is due to migratory 24 work. Although these modifications were substantive, Respondents provided only a 15-day 25 comment period. (AR, pp. 193-215.) On September 23, 2019, CDE issued a “Second 15-Day Notice of Modifications to Text of Proposed Regulations Regarding Regional Parent Advisory 26 27 4 See, the Administrative Record (“AR”) lodged with the Court and accompanying this motion. The 28 California Regulatory Notice Register, the Proposed Regulations and the Initial Statement of Reasons are found at AR, pp. 33-60. 11 Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067 Councils” that allowed up to, but no more than, 15 parent members and moved a provision to a 1 new subdivision. (Id. at 239-261.) 2 Despite the comments in opposition, Respondents adopted the regulations and submitted 3 them to the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) on or about November 13, 2019. The OAL 4 approved the Regulations on December 24, 2019 and they went into effect April 1, 2020. 5 III. ARGUMENT 6 A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW 7 Initially, the reviewing court must determine whether the regulatory agency has the authority 8 to issue the regulation in question. The APA mandates that “[e]ach regulation adopted, to be 9 effective, shall be within the scope of authority conferred and in accordance with standards prescribed by other provisions of law.” (Gov. Code, § 11342.1.) The court must “first determine 10 whether the regulation lies within the scope of authority conferred.” (Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Reimel 11 (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 172, 175, citing Morris v. Williams (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 733, 748-749 [construing 12 Gov. Code, § 11374, predecessor to Gov. Code, § 11342.1].) “[I]f the court concludes that the 13 administrative action transgresses the agency’s statutory authority, it need not proceed to review the 14 action for abuse of discretion; in such a case, there is simply no discretion to abuse.” 15 (Assoc. for Retarded Citizens v. Dept. of Developmental Serv. (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 384, 391.) Agency authority is further limited by Gov. Code, § 11342.2, which provides that 16 “[w]henever by the express or implied terms of any statute a state agency has authority to adopt 17 regulations to implement, interpret, make specific or otherwise carry out the provisions of the statute, 18 no regulation adopted is valid or effective unless [1] consistent and not in conflict with the statute 19 and [2] reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.” 20 “Under the first prong of this [section 11342.2] standard, the judiciary independently reviews 21 the administrative regulation for consistency with controlling law. The question is whether the regulation alters or amends the governing statute or case law, or enlarges or impairs its scope. In 22 short, the question is whether the regulation is within the scope of the authority conferred; if it is 23 not, it is void.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. 24 App. 4th 98, 108 [disapproved on other grounds in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley 25 (2015) 60 Cal. 4th 1086, 1109, note 3].) The question of whether the regulation is within the scope 26 of authority granted to the promulgating agency is a legal question for the court, and the agency’s 27 view on that issue is entitled to no deference. (Citizens to Save California v. California Fair Political 28 Practices Com. (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 736, 747.) “Administrative regulations that alter or amend 12 Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067 the statute or enlarge or impair its scope are void and courts not only may, but it is their obligation 1 to strike down such regulations.” (Morris v. Williams (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 733, 748. See also, 2 California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1, 11.) 3 “[T]the second prong of this [section 11342.2] standard, reasonable necessity, generally 4 does implicate the agency's expertise; therefore, it receives a much more deferential standard of 5 review.” (Communities for a Better Environment, supra, 103 Cal. App. 4th 98 at 109.) However, 6 that deference is not unlimited, nor is the discretion of the agency. (Id.) Regulations that do not effectuate and are not consistent with the legislative goals exceed the scope of authority and are 7 invalid. (Clean Air Constituency v. State Air Resources Bd., supra, 11 Cal. 3d 801 at 816. See also, 8 Assoc. for Retarded Citizens v. Dept. of Developmental Serv., supra, 38 Cal. 3d 384 at 391.) 9 Finally, a regulation “may be declared to be invalid for a substantial failure to comply with 10 [the APA].” (Gov. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) No deference is granted to the agency’s self 11 determination that all procedures were followed, and the fact that the OAL certified the regulations 12 is not dispositive of any underlying procedural issue. (Sims v. Department of Corrections & 13 Rehabilitation (2013) 216 Cal. App. 4th 1059, 1074-1077.) The APA establishes the “basic minimum procedural requirements for the adoption, amendment, or repeal of administrative 14 regulations” established under the APA. (Gov. Code, § 11346, subd. (a).) Meaningful public 15 participation can only take place when there is actual compliance with those requirements. These 16 basic minimums include timely publication of a statement of the purpose, the rationale of the 17 agency's determination that the regulations are necessary to carry out that purpose, the information 18 or documents the agency relied upon in proposing the regulation, alternatives to the proposed 19 regulation the agency considered reasonable, and the basis or bases upon which the agency rejected those alternatives. (Sims v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, supra, 216 Cal. App. 4th 20 1059 at 1073-1074.) 21 B. THE REGULATIONS EXCEED THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY GRANTED TO 22 RESPONDENTS AND THEREFORE VIOLATE GOV. CODE, § 11342.1. 23 1. The Legislature Entrusted Migrant Parents With The Power to Decide Who May Serve on the RPACs. 24 The Legislature vested decisions about the RPAC composition with Migrant parents. 25 The composition of the council shall be determined by the parents at a general 26 meeting to which all parents of pupils enrolled in the migrant program shall be invited. Parents shall be informed, in a language they understand, that the parents 27 have the sole authority to decide on the composition of the council. 28 (Ed. Code, § 54444.2, subd. (a)(1)(A), emphasis added.) 13 Memo of Ps&As ISO Pltff/Pet’s Motion for Entry of Writ of Mandate Case No. CPF-20-517067 1 When determining the scope of regulatory authority granted to an agency. The court first 2 looks to the express language of the statute defining the scope of the agency’s power, giving the 3 words their usual and ordinary meaning, viewed in the context of the statute as a whole and the 4 overall statutory scheme. (People v. Rizo (2000) 22 Cal.4th 681, 685.) “If the terms of the statute are unambiguous, we [the courts] presume the lawmakers meant what they said, and the plain meaning 5 of the language governs.” (Day v. City of Fontana (2001) 25 Cal.4th 268, 272.) 6 The Legislature, in plain language, granted Migrant parents, not the SSPI or CDE, the “sole 7 authority” to decide the composition 5 of the RPAC. The statute includes limited, but express, 8 eligibility requirements, viz, that members be “knowledgeable of the needs of migrant children and 9 that “[a]t least two-thirds of the members” of each RPAC be the parents of migrant children.” (§ 10 54444.2, subd. (a)(1)(A)and (B).) No other limits are placed on the parents’ sole authority. Nor does 11 the statutory scheme otherwise grant the SSPI or CDE the power to modify the parents’ sole authority. 12 2. The Regulations Wrest that Power From Migrant Parents By Restricting the 13 Composition of the RPACs and Giving Power to Remove Members to County Superintendents. 14 15 In direct contravention of this Legislative grant of authority, Respondents have seized the power to dictate the composition of the RPAC by stripping itaway from the parents of Migrant 16 children and imposing their view of who should serve. The following restrictions to RPACs are 17 imposed by the regulations: restricting RPAC member eligibility (5 CCR §12010, subd. (a)); 18 limiting the number of members and prohibiting alternates (5 CCR § 12011, subd. (a)); disqualifying 19 certain members by imposing term limits (5 CCR §§ 12010, subd. (b)(4); 12014, subd. (a) and 12014, 20 subd. (b)); narrowly defining who parents may nominate as community members (5 CCR § 12010, 21 subd. (b)(1)); granting unauthorized authority to operating agencies and County Superintendents regarding the disqualification and removal of RPAC members (5 CCR §§ 12013, subd. (a)(7) and 22 12015); disqualifying an otherwise eligible parent member who, due to their migratory status, resides 23 for more than six months in a distr