Preview
KEITH YAMANAKA, State Bar. No. 78971
General Counsel
VIRGINIA JO DUNLAP, State Bar No. 142221
Assistant General Counsel
TERRI A. McFARLAND, State Bar No. 182968 ELECTRONICALLY
Deputy General Counsel F I L E D
California Department of Education Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
1430 N Street, Suite 5319
Sacramento, California 95814 12/23/2020
Telephone: 916-319-0860 Clerk of the Court
Facsimile: 916-319-0155 BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE
Deputy Clerk
tmcfarland cde. ca.gov
Attorneys for California Department of Education and Tony Thurmond
(Defendant is a Public Entity and Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Gov. Code g 6703)
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
12
13 MILAGROS AZUCENA WENDZ ) Case No. CPF-20-517067
)
14 Plaintiff/Petitioner, ) REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
) SUPPORT OF
TO PETITIONER'S MOTION
RESPONDENTS'PPOSITION
15 V. )
) FOR ENTRY OF WRIT OF MANDATE;
16 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; ) DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF
TONY THURMOND, in his official capacity as )
17 STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC ) Hearing Date: January 22, 2021
INSTRUCTION; DOES I THROUGH 30, ) Time: 9:30 a.m.
18 inclusive, ) Dept.: 302
) Judge; Hon. Ethan P. Schulman
19 Defendants/Respondents )
) Petition filed: March 26, 2020
20 ) Trial date: None set
21 Respondents Tony Thurmond and California Department of Education request that the Court
22 take judicial notice of the following documents pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 452 and 453:
23 1. Correspondence from the United States Department of Education, Office of Migrant
24 Education, to Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, California Deparhnent of
25 Education, dated September 30, 2011, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1.
26 2. Correspondence from the United States Department of Education, Office of Migrant
27 Education, to Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, California Department of
28 Education, dated July 3, 2013, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2.
Case No. CPF-20-517067 Request for Judicial Notice ISO Opp.
to Petitioner's Motion for Writ
3. Notice of Entry of Judgtnent Denying Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate, in
Perea, et nl. v. Torlakson, et al.,Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG14742500, of which an
endorsed filed copy dated March 3, 2016, is attached as Exhibit 3.
Matters that the Court may take judicial notice of are identified in Evidence Code section 452.
Judicially noticeable matters include official acts of the executive departments of the United States, and
records of any court of this state. (Evidence Code section 452 (c) and (d).)
According to Evidence Code section 453, a court "shall take judicial notice of any matter
specified in Section 452 if a party requests it" when each adverse party is given sufficient notice to
meet the request and the requesting party provides the Court with sufficient information to take judicial
10 notice. (Evidence Code section 453.) Petitioner has been given sufficient notice to meet this request as
shown by the declaration below in support of this request. Exhibits I and 2 are information for this
12 Court to consider, as they show the interplay between federal and state law regarding Migrant
13 Education, specifically the federal monitoring of the acts of the state agency, to include rulemaking
14 which is the subject matter of petitioner's instant challenge. Exhibit 3 is a judgtnent which denied a
15 previous challenge to respondents'ulemaking in related Migrant Education.
16 Dated: December g, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
17 w2- KEITH YAMANAKA
General Counsel
18 VIRGINIA JO DUNLAP
Assistant General Counsel
19
20
By:
21 TERRI A. McFARLAND
Deputy General Counsel
22 Attorneys for California Department
of Education and Tony Thunnond
23
24 DECLARATION OF TERRI A. McFARLAND IN SUPPORT OF
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
25
26 I, Terri A. McFarland, declare and depose as follows:
27 l. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am employed
Case No. CPF-20-517067 Request for Judicial Notice ISO Opp.
to Petitioner's Motion for Writ
by the California Department of Education. In this capacity, I serve as counsel for the respondents in
this matter.
2. Attached as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of correspondence from the United States
Department of Education, Office of Migrant Education, to Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of
Public Instruction, California Department of Education, dated September 30, 2011. Petitioner was
provided a copy of this correspondence on or about September 29, 2020, in a production of documents
transmitted via email link, as indicated in Exhibit E to Cynthia L. Rice's Declaration in Support of
Petitioner's Request for Judicial Notice, November 18, 2020. This document was also included in the
Administrative Record for the matter fully described below in paragraph 4.
10 3. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a time and correct copy of correspondence from the United States
Department of Education, Office of Migrant Education, to Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of
12 Public Instruction, California Department of Education, dated July 3, 2013. Counsel for petitioner was
13 served a copy of this correspondence previously, on or about August 26, 2015, in the matter fully
14 described below in paragraph 4.
15 4. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct endorsed copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment
16 Denying Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate, in Perea, et al. v. Torlal son, er ril., Alameda
17 County Superior Court Case No. RG14742500, dated March 3, 2016. Counsel for petitioner in the
18 instant matter was also counsel in the Pereri case.
19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of mia that the foregoing is
Calif
20 true and correct, and based on my personal knowledge. Executed this'ay of December, 2020, in
21 Sacramento, Californi, in the County of Sacramento.
22
23 By:
TERRI A. McFARLAND
24 Deputy General Counsel
Attorneys for California Department
25 of Education and Tony Thurmond
26
27
Case No. CPF-20-517067 Request for Judicial Notice ISO Opp.
to Petitioner's Motion for Writ
EXHIBlT I
~d'or N&"
~,
UNITED S"'ATES DEPAICTMEI&rT DF EDUCATION
OI F')CC OFFsl iVEN'taint aiisl: SECONDART Ef&UCAT)ON
'i&ui&H Oi
SEP 3 Q 2II
I.lonorahlc Ti&ni 'I'orlakson
Superintendent of Public Instruction
California Dc pal LITN:lli0I I'ilcatioil
1430 I4 Street
Sacriimcnto, Cali'foinia 96814
Dear Superintendent 'I'orlakson:
Ih&S II'iC'I'ln'&So&itsliniiuigS based on ti'le tert cLccl ciesk
n&onitcnringi i''&evV OI thc M)gi'sill
Education. Pro iram (MEI'I in California!'coded under the Title IiI'atN C of'the Elementary ancl
Secondary L'ducation Act of 1965. Cs amcndc 'y the I4O Chilcl Lc.f'1 I3ehinciAct of 2001. Our
targeted rcvlcvv ul'citilin pl'ograin op'rations divas on.lillv
cc&!'&ciuctccl 13-14, 2011i by Frances
Moran. IvIEI'roiiiam C)flic;er tor CalilbTiia. and Patriciii Mcyertholc.'n, ivl'EP Ciroup I.ctidcri of
the C)flice oi'ii&rani Educ ation (D&&)IE) at the!I.S. DepartIT&cnt of gclucalion,
I'hc enclosed report slin)I&lan'&7CS Ilficinc'S,
tl'&C illltl recon)1)lendatiotts
COJTCCI&VC iictiC&iiS, cll'hc
Federal rcvievv tern&i I least'.note that thc Ilrst three Iindin!&s corresponcl to special conditions
imposccl on the State's 2011 MEP gram, iJ&d the schcdirle for corrective actions in this
monitoring rcporl supcrscd' lhc scl in the grant a&vard
ecli! Ic c!Etlined documentation. Most
responses are,requirecl on or before iyec;ember i5,2011i escepi as specified oL'hcrv"isc. Yc&ur
respcn&se shoulcl bc. as specific as possihl encl should include supporling clocumcntaLion as
required. Please send an electronic copy of thc response to Lisa,l&cnnigcryii)ecl,uov and mail a
bar&1 c: opyin:
l.,isaR..I(an&iree. Ed.D.
Dircctcir. L)fiicc ol Migriin! Ecluciuion
()I'liceof I:,lemeiitary ancl Secondary Lducation
ki,S. Dcparm oi'Isducation,
c:i', Roo&n .I'.."17
400 Ivlarvlancl A enue.
DC 2020 i-6136
S',L's'asi&inuton.
Superiulendenf 'I'um Torlul son -Page"
We 1VOuld tO espreSS Oul
lil'C: ClppreC(aticn to ycu ctnrl yolfr Staff fOr the aSSiatanCe giVen tO the
OME reviclv tcclll'I
In pf'4 for
f1clf'lng and conductmg& the targeted clcslcn10&'I'Itoi'lng I'evil.'lv.
We
lOOk fol IV'c&f'll
IO V'Oui'itle Ic Part D. Miuranl
u Con'llnueCI Coojaef BEVe retatlonahip Vvill'I Vou 'calli
EcluclttlclnPl'of'I'BOIs&Bff. lf you hllve "&rile clucstions regarding the cncloscd report., please free lo
c onutcl Frances Moran by telephone ai 2C2-2{35-28O5 or by e-mail at (lances.moranfcf'feei.gc&v.
gincelety,
"/ &
r('g,;&
y a„,n
j'i "
L.ISBR. ECI.D.
lt.cn11&ireZc
Director
() fftce 0'l
Mfgl'Bnl Education
cc: Ms. Dubol'al'IV,IR. glgfnan (by C-I'liul!I
Mf, Phil Lllfontaine'(by c-ntaft)
Dr. Bric&ItDenleno (by e-mail)
TllE'ALI i&El'ORT TO
RORIVI I A DEPARTIVJZNT OF Et}I)CAT! Or
Tarn&cled l)esk Moniim.iu«kevie!v
Title I,Part C. Mi&arant Kclucation I'ro ram
This reporl contains lhe findings of tile Off!ce of Migranl Eclucaiion's (OME's) targeted clesk
review of the Tiile 1, Pari. C h'li rani Eclucation Progrrurl (MEP! in Cali'lornia. The
moniiorin
rc'vIc'\v was con&ILIctecl via WebEx on July 13-14& 2011, by Frances Moran, OME PI'ogi'anl
Officer for the California MEP an&iOM GI'oup Leerier Pail'icia Meyertholen. The inl'orl'nation
was obiainecl by examining '.he State's Consolidated Slate Applicaiion and oiher
in this report
clocumenis submitted by the C&lifornia Deparutnent ol'Education (CDE) as Iequestecl by OME,
This desi& monitorin review was targe1ed ",o seven areas ol'concern, inclucling three that formed
the basis for special conditions imposed by tile Departnlent on CDE's 2011 MEP grant. A copy
monitoring review agencia ancl 2011 MEP grant conditions are attached for
of the t;Irgeiecl desk
yoLO'oi'Ivcnicncc.
The findings and recommendations in tins report I&re organizecl as follows:
1. Overview
11. 'Areas of'Noncompliance and Requir d Corrective Actions
B&CSL!sc oiu'.ILIIy 13-14, 2011, I'cview was iai'geted to knovvn or suspecied areas of non-
compliance, we have inclucled conlments or. noteworthy areas:uld recommenclaiions wiihin
sections I and 11 rather than in separa1e sections.
CDF's cooperation ir. conducting this targetecl dcsl& nlonitol'Ing rcvk:w &an&i
OME appreciaies
io give special th&ulks io DIL BI'Ian CCI'Iicno, MEP SIale DII'!'CL01',fol'1'ganizingihc
would live
that OME requested. OME also would like to thimk Gloria Guzman-Walker,
presentations
Devine, Pl"ak'ash Chafld, Marcos
.Iucly Delgado, .Iacinio Sahlzal'aficcis Ratnliez
Mai'sha
Miriulcla, Franl& Ur'.'b=, and .Ior' Gal for the cledication and sl&ill with which ihey
SIOIch!".z,Ralph
macle their presentations, ancl to Gh&ria Storer for her prompi response to OME's request for
clociuilenas.
I Ob'ERVIEW
oi'he
I'heMEI'is
of Lhe
Chile!
ssss
Lcfi
200.)00
(EDG&AR.)
thc Basic Siaie Grani
ElemenLary ancl
Behincl
Cocle of Fecleral
-
and
103.
the
Re«ulaiions (34
porLions ol'Lhe
General
PrograIn
Secondary Ec! I;cation
Aci of 2001.
aurhorizecl
Aop!icable pro
CFR);lari 200,
Education Department
Eciucaiion PI'ovisions Aci
in sections
Aci (ESEAJ of
ram
!96S,
jsia 200.g I
—
C&cneral
1301-130!)
regulations are
as amcnciecl
('ound
200,8!) and
in
of'Title,
in
Administrative
(GEPA) also apply.
by the
volume
34 CFR
I'ari
No
34
C
Reguhitions
The purpose of'Lhe IvlEP is to assist States Lc:
Support high-quality &and con1prehensivc educational programs I'or migratory children to
help retluce, Ihe educational dis;options anti other problems that result from repealed
O'I0vc".s',
2. Ensure Lhat. migralory children 1vho move among the States are not penalized in any
manner by disparities among the States incurriculum, graduation requirements, and Staie
academic content anti sLudcnt Bcaden1ic achievement standards;
3. I nsurc that migratory childreis are provided with appropriate educational services
(including suPPortive servicesj thar. address their sPec!cflncccfs Il'I
&1coordhlatcd anti
efficient manner;
Ensure Ihat migratory children receive f'ull anti appropri&ite opportunities Io meet the
4.
Same Challenging St&ate aeademiC COntent and Student aCademiC aohieVCIL1ent Standarda
children
L11ciL Bll are expected to n1cct;
5 Dt:sign programs to help migratory children overcome ettucational disrupLion, cultural
Roti IRngLiagc b'cu'I'tct's
socIRI IsolRLIon& 'I'Ious hcRlth-!'cl&ttccl pfoblci11s an(1 otllcifclctoi's
that inhibit the ability of nligfant chilclren to do well in school, anti Lo them
pi'cpcli'e lo
SuCCeSSful tr&OTSitiOn 10 POSt-SeCOndary eduCaticn Or CinPIOyment;
c'incl
make &a
t5, Ensure migratory children benefit from State and local sysLemic reforms,
M EP funds are to be used to carry out these purposes by establishing and improving programs of
agency (SEA) grcuitee or
education for migratory children either directly by the State educational
SEA's subgrants to local operating agencies /LOAs). The MEP isthe only Title 1,
through the
that operated and administered by an SEA to meet the special educational
ESEA program is
needs of migrant children statewide.
Calif'ornia ivli rant Istlucation Pro„ram
The California Slate Boarcl of E&hication (State Board) is CDE's overning and policy-mal&in
The Stale Board seLs f(-12 educagon policy in tf1c areas of&standards, instructional
hotly.
'Iccouiltiibiiity.It. Riso adopts textbooks I'orgrades Ic'-8, adopts
'clsscssnlt,nL,
niiticl'ittls, Rnci
inlpICnlent. It'giSILLLiof1,:tnd !13S Butlloi'Ity LQ gi'cu1t WatVCIS 0f
I'!1CSIBLC ECILIC&ation
I'I gLIIRIIOOSLo
SBE's mt mbers are Bppointetl by the Oovernor. See htt1//www elle ccl uov/bc/,
Cotle, The 11
of I'ublic Instruction and Director ofc
CDE is headetl by Tom Torlaf son& the State Superintendent
this is an electeci position. The IVlEP is housed in the fvligrant,
Education (State SupcrinLcndentj;
IVIEI'tale
Intli;in,ctncl
Director.
director is Phil
Ctltzictlltull,
MIIEO is
Educatiott Olciicc (MIIIEO), which
lntci'Isaltonctl
Laf'ontuine.
Lt:al'ning cv
pill'( ol'the
English
is n1anugetl
Lemner 8'urriculum
'I"he E1glish Learn'r 8. Curriculum Suppoit
Accotu'ttcfoilit'v Br&Boch heatled by
by
Support
Dr. Centeno,
Division is
the
Division, whose
part of'the
Deputy Superintendent Deborah BAI-I.
&I
'In
&&ITI
ol'hc California Ecfucation Code govern the SLaic IVIEP in conf'orrnily
Sections 54440-54445
54442. Ihc Siate Boarrl is required Lo adopt
vvith lrcdcral requit'ements. Uncler Etlucat.ion Code SS
a State master plan for services to chil;lrci
i!!igl'«!11 that inclucles insiruciional iiciiviiies; health
encl in-service
welf&ll'i'. Sc:i'vices; f&re-service «lid prof'ession«l and non-prof'ession&d education;
supportive services; child clevelopment aci'ivities; and the active involvement of pal'ellis,
teachels, allcl community representatives. Section 54444.1(a) provides in
th&iit implementing the
SliiLe miisier plan lhe State Superiniencleni shall establish the "service region;il sysien!" «s ihe
delivery of services 1o migrant children. ]n so doing, section 54444
primary method for ihe
to oontraci. !vfth
'&Iilihorlzc",s I'he State Stlpel'il!ielldent county superintendents of school or local
educational agencies (L'EAs) to supp'.y se&n&ices to migrani chilclren residing within specifiecl
&
eographical regions; CDE may «lso direcily fund LEAs uncler this re&'ional system. Accorcling
io Stale law, the responsibililies of the various pariies involved in the delivery of services io
chilclren niust be sei forth in a "legaliy binding contract*'o!own as a "service
migrani
ag&reemettt." Education Code Ss 54444.1(c).
] 4 county offices
CDE's curren1 service regional sysiein is comprised of 23 regions that include
of education and 9 direct funded districts (LEAs). These 23 regions serve migratory chilclren
eill'ollecl
ii!&ippl'oxllllaiely oi!e-half of'the State's public schools in 568 of the 1,059 LEAs in the
Si&ite. CDE uses four service delivery models under this system:
Ceniralized Region Model - Region 'is responsible ior al] funds slid provides all services
I)
io several districts;
2) Direcl Fundecl Districts Model - Region is a single district (LEA);
3) Districl Reimbursement Modei'- Region funds districts (LEAs), which provide services
for
through district service a'greemen'~ (DSAs); district is responsible for funds and
providing services;
4) Mixed Model- Region provides services to scale districts {as in Centralized Region
(Under]his model a region ntay also
Model) and reimburses other districts using DSAs.
a consortium
fili!cf of smail districts that elect one clistrict to serve as their fiscal agent alicf
provide services through ti!e consoriitiit!.} The Mixed Mode] is the most common model
for1he 14 regions heacled by count offices of'education.
CDE subgrants MEP funds to iis regions tiirough the regional application review process.
fcegions clisiribuie DSAs to clistric!s wit]1 liligi'al!1 popill&itions ancl'ipprOve DSAs (using
checklist providecl by CDE) in lime for the Legion to submit itsregional application and DSAs
(inclucling bucfgets) io CDE by Iv]ay 31 each year, CDE uses this process to provide
ancl monitoring, coordination, and 1echnical assist artcc I'oits 23 regions.
administra1ive ovei sight
(and with CDE) through ihe
Regional clireciors coorclinate anii collaborate with one anothet
Itegion'ilDirectors Council (discuss&.d further befc!w in lincling ]13).
Accorcling LoCDE, Calif'ornia's toia! K-12 enrolln cnt I'r 2010-11 was 6 2]7,]13 siuclcnis, over
hal'(ol'which (5] percent) is Hispanic. Near!y ],46!8,000 of'1he Stale's I(-] 2 students are limilecl
proficient, of which 1,242,285 speak Spanish. Calif'ornia has ihe lsr esi MEP
En lish
Il«Lloil'ivith 76&001 mi'&ratory children reportecl 'lor lhemost recent (200c)-
cl! I'of II!!alii
il!Llic I
201{1') category !chilclcounL. This is i!15 decrease
p&-i'cei'il I]rom the 2008-2009 chilcl count
I'ewer stucfents). Reasons Lha'. CDE providecl for ihe clecreiise in fv]EP enrollment
(36,713
will!high unco!pfoymeni encl high cosi o'f living in the
inclucle lhe oval'all economic doivniincn
reducccl a& ric:uliural«c1iviLy diie;c! drougiit lancl developmenii
ia!cl &inc]enhanced borcler
St&de:
con!rol. CDE stale!1 tha!. 56 pei'cen! of.'vIEP students make intrastate qualifying moves; 28
pel'cenL nlovc be!vvecn C!Ilifornia anc Mexico; and 16 percent move to or from other States.
CDE's IvlEP grant was $ 135,300«252 in.luly 2010 and SI35,022,620 in July 20 II. Accordfn !o
one pere!nit of'its annual IvlEP grant I'or
CDfps '2002 Consolidated Sta!e Appfica!;o!1, i! sets aside
administrative aciiviiies under 34 CFL{ j 2{)0.100(b}(4). hi accordance wi!h 34 CFR
eneral
an additional percent of itsannu«!! MEP foi'dministrative
g!'«Inf:
ss 200.82, CDE sets asicle
15
are
;!ctiv ilies tha! unique to the MEP, wiiich it delivers through several statewide con! I acts.
There is furiher discussion of administrative cost issues below
in f!nding ff2,
II. AREAS Oir NONCOMPI LANCE ANl) REOLJIRI:13 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
I' &AI'l«C
ltcqufremcnts: Parental involven!en". is aninteglal pru't of alf T!Lie I pl'og!'anls h!clucilng Llie
IvlEP. In order to receive a MEP grant, SEAs and their subgrantees must in1plenient p!'Cg!"!!11s,
and procedures tl'!'«Lt effec!ive'.y invoive migrant parents. In p«u'Licular, under Federal
activities,
law an SEA must I) develo'p its comprehensive State plan in GonsL!lt«it!Cnwith parent;
counc! (PACs} atthe Slate and local levels regarding progi"ul'!s
2) consult with parent advisory Is
one school year in duration hnd 3) plan and operate the fvIEP in a manner that provides
that sic
f'r the same pareiiial involvement as required in section 1118 of the ESEA. See ESEA
%5 1304(c)(3) «uld 1306(a)(1)(13)(fi); 34 CFR 5 00.84(b),
Under California Education Code c 54444.2, tfte Snste Superintendent is required to ensure
effective parenial involvement tlhrou&ihout the State iVIEP. The State Superintendent must adopt
requiring CDE and its LOAs to actively solicit parental involvement in the
rules and regulations
piano!i'ig,opei"!tion, ancf evaiuat!on of!Ls p!'ogran!s tl1!'Ough the est«ablishn1ent of a!'id coi'IsLllta!ion
local PACs. The composi!ion of the Stateand loca! PACs is determined by!he
with a State and
UnderState law, aileast Lwo-thirds 'ofthe
parents of migrant chilclren enrolled in ".he MEP.
members of& Lhe SiaLC 'and local PACs must be parents of mig&rant children.
I'n Ll hl &&S:
CDE by!etter dated Ma!ch 15, 2010, that it harl received numerous
I3acf«&round: OlvlE notif!ed
Paren! A!Ivisory
complaints concerning the governance, operations, and actions of thc Sta! e
regional an!I Sta!c
Council (SPAC) rnid allegations of sexua! assaul'L «and otlier misconduct by
chiidren. CDE advised OME on April 26, 2010, that ithad
MEP stalT relatecl to parents and
procedures to compiete i!s investigation of Lhe allegations and that it
initia!e!I rlepar! mental
fli!dings and resolu!ions, OfvlE harl u I'ollov,-up
would I'orward!o OfvlE any reports re&&a:!fina its
conversation with CDE on .Iune 20, 2010, inwhich counsel I'r CDE LIdvisecliha! SPAC bylaws
wi!h State Iavv 'u1d Liiai the Stale was adopting reuula!ions
I'orgovernance of the
do no! I:oillplv
AL Lha! Lime OfvlE pointed oi;t tha! Lhe SPAC websiic no!es that non-complian! with
ii. is
SPAC.
19, 2010, that CDE h;!Ll
SL1!c law. The Deputy Superintendent notified SPAC members on July
suspen!feel their meetfn~s af!er Aug ist 2,, 2! ',0, until CDE's investigation of!he SPAC issues
and allega! ions was conipleted.
Bnnthci'follow-LIP convcl'sa.'on '&vidl CDE nn Deccnll3cl', 2010. CDE statccl L'hai. LI.
OME hBcl
w«s Invcstlg'«lLIB&'he issues anti had contracted with an outside agency to review CDE's repori
and recommenclations, which it expec&ed 1o finish by the cnd ol'ebl'Llal')'01] . At thai time
&Bnd re& in!i»i PACs
OIVIE also discussecl iis concerns aboui the involvement of'regional clirectors
nlaiters, includin paymeni of'stipends in non-parent PAC membtus, and CDE promised
these
in
Ln
On o!'he
inclucle these
201!
March 4,
issues
24, ancl
I"'ellruary 201 I
in its February 20] I report Lo OME.
30, 201 I, OME as!cad '.he MEP State
repol'Ion Siaic «»1cl regional PAC
response fl'om CDE„on May 3 I, 20! I, OMiE noiiflecl Ihe
State
MEI'rant conditions.
rhc Dcpai'tnlcni
issues.
Director I'or an updaie
Because we sf.ill
State Superintendent
Dirc;ctnr that the operation of ihe State and region«l! PACs ilnd
requirecl report on these issues would be thc
Due 1o Lite coininuecl lack ofrespnnse from
lnlf10sed special condition P&1
Icf3olt on
n1 CDE's 201!
CDE's
State «Loci I'egioral PAC issues, as described above,
on the status
h;Ld received
and the MEP
failure
Bul3Jcct of this targeted desk review.
no
tn subntit the
CDE on these issues,
MEP grant, which required
on or before
CD'E
August
Lo slll3nlllfts
internal investigations of
15, 20! ] .CDE was required to include a summary of fnldings for its
and regional MEP staff, ancl a corrective action plan that addresses
the
allegations against State
requirements applicable io
problems identified and ensures compliance with all State Bncl Federal
the operation of'State «usd regional PACs.
Sepiember 15, 20] 1«and every three months thereafter (i.e.,
Preview
KEITH YAMANAKA, State Bar. No. 78971 General Counsel VIRGINIA JO DUNLAP, State Bar No. 142221 Assistant General Counsel TERRI A. McFARLAND, State Bar No. 182968 ELECTRONICALLY Deputy General Counsel F I L E D California Department of Education Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 1430 N Street, Suite 5319 Sacramento, California 95814 12/23/2020 Telephone: 916-319-0860 Clerk of the Court Facsimile: 916-319-0155 BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE Deputy Clerk tmcfarland cde. ca.gov Attorneys for California Department of Education and Tony Thurmond (Defendant is a Public Entity and Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Gov. Code g 6703) 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 12 13 MILAGROS AZUCENA WENDZ ) Case No. CPF-20-517067 ) 14 Plaintiff/Petitioner, ) REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN ) SUPPORT OF TO PETITIONER'S MOTION RESPONDENTS'PPOSITION 15 V. ) ) FOR ENTRY OF WRIT OF MANDATE; 16 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; ) DECLARATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF TONY THURMOND, in his official capacity as ) 17 STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC ) Hearing Date: January 22, 2021 INSTRUCTION; DOES I THROUGH 30, ) Time: 9:30 a.m. 18 inclusive, ) Dept.: 302 ) Judge; Hon. Ethan P. Schulman 19 Defendants/Respondents ) ) Petition filed: March 26, 2020 20 ) Trial date: None set 21 Respondents Tony Thurmond and California Department of Education request that the Court 22 take judicial notice of the following documents pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 452 and 453: 23 1. Correspondence from the United States Department of Education, Office of Migrant 24 Education, to Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, California Deparhnent of 25 Education, dated September 30, 2011, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1. 26 2. Correspondence from the United States Department of Education, Office of Migrant 27 Education, to Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, California Department of 28 Education, dated July 3, 2013, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2. Case No. CPF-20-517067 Request for Judicial Notice ISO Opp. to Petitioner's Motion for Writ 3. Notice of Entry of Judgtnent Denying Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate, in Perea, et nl. v. Torlakson, et al.,Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG14742500, of which an endorsed filed copy dated March 3, 2016, is attached as Exhibit 3. Matters that the Court may take judicial notice of are identified in Evidence Code section 452. Judicially noticeable matters include official acts of the executive departments of the United States, and records of any court of this state. (Evidence Code section 452 (c) and (d).) According to Evidence Code section 453, a court "shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it" when each adverse party is given sufficient notice to meet the request and the requesting party provides the Court with sufficient information to take judicial 10 notice. (Evidence Code section 453.) Petitioner has been given sufficient notice to meet this request as shown by the declaration below in support of this request. Exhibits I and 2 are information for this 12 Court to consider, as they show the interplay between federal and state law regarding Migrant 13 Education, specifically the federal monitoring of the acts of the state agency, to include rulemaking 14 which is the subject matter of petitioner's instant challenge. Exhibit 3 is a judgtnent which denied a 15 previous challenge to respondents'ulemaking in related Migrant Education. 16 Dated: December g, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 17 w2- KEITH YAMANAKA General Counsel 18 VIRGINIA JO DUNLAP Assistant General Counsel 19 20 By: 21 TERRI A. McFARLAND Deputy General Counsel 22 Attorneys for California Department of Education and Tony Thunnond 23 24 DECLARATION OF TERRI A. McFARLAND IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 25 26 I, Terri A. McFarland, declare and depose as follows: 27 l. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am employed Case No. CPF-20-517067 Request for Judicial Notice ISO Opp. to Petitioner's Motion for Writ by the California Department of Education. In this capacity, I serve as counsel for the respondents in this matter. 2. Attached as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of correspondence from the United States Department of Education, Office of Migrant Education, to Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, California Department of Education, dated September 30, 2011. Petitioner was provided a copy of this correspondence on or about September 29, 2020, in a production of documents transmitted via email link, as indicated in Exhibit E to Cynthia L. Rice's Declaration in Support of Petitioner's Request for Judicial Notice, November 18, 2020. This document was also included in the Administrative Record for the matter fully described below in paragraph 4. 10 3. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a time and correct copy of correspondence from the United States Department of Education, Office of Migrant Education, to Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of 12 Public Instruction, California Department of Education, dated July 3, 2013. Counsel for petitioner was 13 served a copy of this correspondence previously, on or about August 26, 2015, in the matter fully 14 described below in paragraph 4. 15 4. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct endorsed copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment 16 Denying Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate, in Perea, et al. v. Torlal son, er ril., Alameda 17 County Superior Court Case No. RG14742500, dated March 3, 2016. Counsel for petitioner in the 18 instant matter was also counsel in the Pereri case. 19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of mia that the foregoing is Calif 20 true and correct, and based on my personal knowledge. Executed this'ay of December, 2020, in 21 Sacramento, Californi, in the County of Sacramento. 22 23 By: TERRI A. McFARLAND 24 Deputy General Counsel Attorneys for California Department 25 of Education and Tony Thurmond 26 27 Case No. CPF-20-517067 Request for Judicial Notice ISO Opp. to Petitioner's Motion for Writ EXHIBlT I ~d'or N&" ~, UNITED S"'ATES DEPAICTMEI&rT DF EDUCATION OI F')CC OFFsl iVEN'taint aiisl: SECONDART Ef&UCAT)ON 'i&ui&H Oi SEP 3 Q 2II I.lonorahlc Ti&ni 'I'orlakson Superintendent of Public Instruction California Dc pal LITN:lli0I I'ilcatioil 1430 I4 Street Sacriimcnto, Cali'foinia 96814 Dear Superintendent 'I'orlakson: Ih&S II'iC'I'ln'&So&itsliniiuigS based on ti'le tert cLccl ciesk n&onitcnringi i''&evV OI thc M)gi'sill Education. Pro iram (MEI'I in California!'coded under the Title IiI'atN C of'the Elementary ancl Secondary L'ducation Act of 1965. Cs amcndc 'y the I4O Chilcl Lc.f'1 I3ehinciAct of 2001. Our targeted rcvlcvv ul'citilin pl'ograin op'rations divas on.lillv cc&!'&ciuctccl 13-14, 2011i by Frances Moran. IvIEI'roiiiam C)flic;er tor CalilbTiia. and Patriciii Mcyertholc.'n, ivl'EP Ciroup I.ctidcri of the C)flice oi'ii&rani Educ ation (D&&)IE) at the!I.S. DepartIT&cnt of gclucalion, I'hc enclosed report slin)I&lan'&7CS Ilficinc'S, tl'&C illltl recon)1)lendatiotts COJTCCI&VC iictiC&iiS, cll'hc Federal rcvievv tern&i I least'.note that thc Ilrst three Iindin!&s corresponcl to special conditions imposccl on the State's 2011 MEP gram, iJ&d the schcdirle for corrective actions in this monitoring rcporl supcrscd' lhc scl in the grant a&vard ecli! Ic c!Etlined documentation. Most responses are,requirecl on or before iyec;ember i5,2011i escepi as specified oL'hcrv"isc. Yc&ur respcn&se shoulcl bc. as specific as possihl encl should include supporling clocumcntaLion as required. Please send an electronic copy of thc response to Lisa,l&cnnigcryii)ecl,uov and mail a bar&1 c: opyin: l.,isaR..I(an&iree. Ed.D. Dircctcir. L)fiicc ol Migriin! Ecluciuion ()I'liceof I:,lemeiitary ancl Secondary Lducation ki,S. Dcparm oi'Isducation, c:i', Roo&n .I'.."17 400 Ivlarvlancl A enue. DC 2020 i-6136 S',L's'asi&inuton. Superiulendenf 'I'um Torlul son -Page" We 1VOuld tO espreSS Oul lil'C: ClppreC(aticn to ycu ctnrl yolfr Staff fOr the aSSiatanCe giVen tO the OME reviclv tcclll'I In pf'4 for f1clf'lng and conductmg& the targeted clcslcn10&'I'Itoi'lng I'evil.'lv. We lOOk fol IV'c&f'll IO V'Oui'itle Ic Part D. Miuranl u Con'llnueCI Coojaef BEVe retatlonahip Vvill'I Vou 'calli EcluclttlclnPl'of'I'BOIs&Bff. lf you hllve "&rile clucstions regarding the cncloscd report., please free lo c onutcl Frances Moran by telephone ai 2C2-2{35-28O5 or by e-mail at (lances.moranfcf'feei.gc&v. gincelety, "/ & r('g,;& y a„,n j'i " L.ISBR. ECI.D. lt.cn11&ireZc Director () fftce 0'l Mfgl'Bnl Education cc: Ms. Dubol'al'IV,IR. glgfnan (by C-I'liul!I Mf, Phil Lllfontaine'(by c-ntaft) Dr. Bric&ItDenleno (by e-mail) TllE'ALI i&El'ORT TO RORIVI I A DEPARTIVJZNT OF Et}I)CAT! Or Tarn&cled l)esk Moniim.iu«kevie!v Title I,Part C. Mi&arant Kclucation I'ro ram This reporl contains lhe findings of tile Off!ce of Migranl Eclucaiion's (OME's) targeted clesk review of the Tiile 1, Pari. C h'li rani Eclucation Progrrurl (MEP! in Cali'lornia. The moniiorin rc'vIc'\v was con&ILIctecl via WebEx on July 13-14& 2011, by Frances Moran, OME PI'ogi'anl Officer for the California MEP an&iOM GI'oup Leerier Pail'icia Meyertholen. The inl'orl'nation was obiainecl by examining '.he State's Consolidated Slate Applicaiion and oiher in this report clocumenis submitted by the C&lifornia Deparutnent ol'Education (CDE) as Iequestecl by OME, This desi& monitorin review was targe1ed ",o seven areas ol'concern, inclucling three that formed the basis for special conditions imposed by tile Departnlent on CDE's 2011 MEP grant. A copy monitoring review agencia ancl 2011 MEP grant conditions are attached for of the t;Irgeiecl desk yoLO'oi'Ivcnicncc. The findings and recommendations in tins report I&re organizecl as follows: 1. Overview 11. 'Areas of'Noncompliance and Requir d Corrective Actions B&CSL!sc oiu'.ILIIy 13-14, 2011, I'cview was iai'geted to knovvn or suspecied areas of non- compliance, we have inclucled conlments or. noteworthy areas:uld recommenclaiions wiihin sections I and 11 rather than in separa1e sections. CDF's cooperation ir. conducting this targetecl dcsl& nlonitol'Ing rcvk:w &an&i OME appreciaies io give special th&ulks io DIL BI'Ian CCI'Iicno, MEP SIale DII'!'CL01',fol'1'ganizingihc would live that OME requested. OME also would like to thimk Gloria Guzman-Walker, presentations Devine, Pl"ak'ash Chafld, Marcos .Iucly Delgado, .Iacinio Sahlzal'aficcis Ratnliez Mai'sha Miriulcla, Franl& Ur'.'b=, and .Ior' Gal for the cledication and sl&ill with which ihey SIOIch!".z,Ralph macle their presentations, ancl to Gh&ria Storer for her prompi response to OME's request for clociuilenas. I Ob'ERVIEW oi'he I'heMEI'is of Lhe Chile! ssss Lcfi 200.)00 (EDG&AR.) thc Basic Siaie Grani ElemenLary ancl Behincl Cocle of Fecleral - and 103. the Re«ulaiions (34 porLions ol'Lhe General PrograIn Secondary Ec! I;cation Aci of 2001. aurhorizecl Aop!icable pro CFR);lari 200, Education Department Eciucaiion PI'ovisions Aci in sections Aci (ESEAJ of ram !96S, jsia 200.g I — C&cneral 1301-130!) regulations are as amcnciecl ('ound 200,8!) and in of'Title, in Administrative (GEPA) also apply. by the volume 34 CFR I'ari No 34 C Reguhitions The purpose of'Lhe IvlEP is to assist States Lc: Support high-quality &and con1prehensivc educational programs I'or migratory children to help retluce, Ihe educational dis;options anti other problems that result from repealed O'I0vc".s', 2. Ensure Lhat. migralory children 1vho move among the States are not penalized in any manner by disparities among the States incurriculum, graduation requirements, and Staie academic content anti sLudcnt Bcaden1ic achievement standards; 3. I nsurc that migratory childreis are provided with appropriate educational services (including suPPortive servicesj thar. address their sPec!cflncccfs Il'I &1coordhlatcd anti efficient manner; Ensure Ihat migratory children receive f'ull anti appropri&ite opportunities Io meet the 4. Same Challenging St&ate aeademiC COntent and Student aCademiC aohieVCIL1ent Standarda children L11ciL Bll are expected to n1cct; 5 Dt:sign programs to help migratory children overcome ettucational disrupLion, cultural Roti IRngLiagc b'cu'I'tct's socIRI IsolRLIon& 'I'Ious hcRlth-!'cl&ttccl pfoblci11s an(1 otllcifclctoi's that inhibit the ability of nligfant chilclren to do well in school, anti Lo them pi'cpcli'e lo SuCCeSSful tr&OTSitiOn 10 POSt-SeCOndary eduCaticn Or CinPIOyment; c'incl make &a t5, Ensure migratory children benefit from State and local sysLemic reforms, M EP funds are to be used to carry out these purposes by establishing and improving programs of agency (SEA) grcuitee or education for migratory children either directly by the State educational SEA's subgrants to local operating agencies /LOAs). The MEP isthe only Title 1, through the that operated and administered by an SEA to meet the special educational ESEA program is needs of migrant children statewide. Calif'ornia ivli rant Istlucation Pro„ram The California Slate Boarcl of E&hication (State Board) is CDE's overning and policy-mal&in The Stale Board seLs f(-12 educagon policy in tf1c areas of&standards, instructional hotly. 'Iccouiltiibiiity.It. Riso adopts textbooks I'orgrades Ic'-8, adopts 'clsscssnlt,nL, niiticl'ittls, Rnci inlpICnlent. It'giSILLLiof1,:tnd !13S Butlloi'Ity LQ gi'cu1t WatVCIS 0f I'!1CSIBLC ECILIC&ation I'I gLIIRIIOOSLo SBE's mt mbers are Bppointetl by the Oovernor. See htt1//www elle ccl uov/bc/, Cotle, The 11 of I'ublic Instruction and Director ofc CDE is headetl by Tom Torlaf son& the State Superintendent this is an electeci position. The IVlEP is housed in the fvligrant, Education (State SupcrinLcndentj; IVIEI'tale Intli;in,ctncl Director. director is Phil Ctltzictlltull, MIIEO is Educatiott Olciicc (MIIIEO), which lntci'Isaltonctl Laf'ontuine. Lt:al'ning cv pill'( ol'the English is n1anugetl Lemner 8'urriculum 'I"he E1glish Learn'r 8. Curriculum Suppoit Accotu'ttcfoilit'v Br&Boch heatled by by Support Dr. Centeno, Division is the Division, whose part of'the Deputy Superintendent Deborah BAI-I. &I 'In &&ITI ol'hc California Ecfucation Code govern the SLaic IVIEP in conf'orrnily Sections 54440-54445 54442. Ihc Siate Boarrl is required Lo adopt vvith lrcdcral requit'ements. Uncler Etlucat.ion Code SS a State master plan for services to chil;lrci i!!igl'«!11 that inclucles insiruciional iiciiviiies; health encl in-service welf&ll'i'. Sc:i'vices; f&re-service «lid prof'ession«l and non-prof'ession&d education; supportive services; child clevelopment aci'ivities; and the active involvement of pal'ellis, teachels, allcl community representatives. Section 54444.1(a) provides in th&iit implementing the SliiLe miisier plan lhe State Superiniencleni shall establish the "service region;il sysien!" «s ihe delivery of services 1o migrant children. ]n so doing, section 54444 primary method for ihe to oontraci. !vfth '&Iilihorlzc",s I'he State Stlpel'il!ielldent county superintendents of school or local educational agencies (L'EAs) to supp'.y se&n&ices to migrani chilclren residing within specifiecl & eographical regions; CDE may «lso direcily fund LEAs uncler this re&'ional system. Accorcling io Stale law, the responsibililies of the various pariies involved in the delivery of services io chilclren niust be sei forth in a "legaliy binding contract*'o!own as a "service migrani ag&reemettt." Education Code Ss 54444.1(c). ] 4 county offices CDE's curren1 service regional sysiein is comprised of 23 regions that include of education and 9 direct funded districts (LEAs). These 23 regions serve migratory chilclren eill'ollecl ii!&ippl'oxllllaiely oi!e-half of'the State's public schools in 568 of the 1,059 LEAs in the Si&ite. CDE uses four service delivery models under this system: Ceniralized Region Model - Region 'is responsible ior al] funds slid provides all services I) io several districts; 2) Direcl Fundecl Districts Model - Region is a single district (LEA); 3) Districl Reimbursement Modei'- Region funds districts (LEAs), which provide services for through district service a'greemen'~ (DSAs); district is responsible for funds and providing services; 4) Mixed Model- Region provides services to scale districts {as in Centralized Region (Under]his model a region ntay also Model) and reimburses other districts using DSAs. a consortium fili!cf of smail districts that elect one clistrict to serve as their fiscal agent alicf provide services through ti!e consoriitiit!.} The Mixed Mode] is the most common model for1he 14 regions heacled by count offices of'education. CDE subgrants MEP funds to iis regions tiirough the regional application review process. fcegions clisiribuie DSAs to clistric!s wit]1 liligi'al!1 popill&itions ancl'ipprOve DSAs (using checklist providecl by CDE) in lime for the Legion to submit itsregional application and DSAs (inclucling bucfgets) io CDE by Iv]ay 31 each year, CDE uses this process to provide ancl monitoring, coordination, and 1echnical assist artcc I'oits 23 regions. administra1ive ovei sight (and with CDE) through ihe Regional clireciors coorclinate anii collaborate with one anothet Itegion'ilDirectors Council (discuss&.d further befc!w in lincling ]13). Accorcling LoCDE, Calif'ornia's toia! K-12 enrolln cnt I'r 2010-11 was 6 2]7,]13 siuclcnis, over hal'(ol'which (5] percent) is Hispanic. Near!y ],46!8,000 of'1he Stale's I(-] 2 students are limilecl proficient, of which 1,242,285 speak Spanish. Calif'ornia has ihe lsr esi MEP En lish Il«Lloil'ivith 76&001 mi'&ratory children reportecl 'lor lhemost recent (200c)- cl! I'of II!!alii il!Llic I 201{1') category !chilclcounL. This is i!15 decrease p&-i'cei'il I]rom the 2008-2009 chilcl count I'ewer stucfents). Reasons Lha'. CDE providecl for ihe clecreiise in fv]EP enrollment (36,713 will!high unco!pfoymeni encl high cosi o'f living in the inclucle lhe oval'all economic doivniincn reducccl a& ric:uliural«c1iviLy diie;c! drougiit lancl developmenii ia!cl &inc]enhanced borcler St&de: con!rol. CDE stale!1 tha!. 56 pei'cen! of.'vIEP students make intrastate qualifying moves; 28 pel'cenL nlovc be!vvecn C!Ilifornia anc Mexico; and 16 percent move to or from other States. CDE's IvlEP grant was $ 135,300«252 in.luly 2010 and SI35,022,620 in July 20 II. Accordfn !o one pere!nit of'its annual IvlEP grant I'or CDfps '2002 Consolidated Sta!e Appfica!;o!1, i! sets aside administrative aciiviiies under 34 CFL{ j 2{)0.100(b}(4). hi accordance wi!h 34 CFR eneral an additional percent of itsannu«!! MEP foi'dministrative g!'«Inf: ss 200.82, CDE sets asicle 15 are ;!ctiv ilies tha! unique to the MEP, wiiich it delivers through several statewide con! I acts. There is furiher discussion of administrative cost issues below in f!nding ff2, II. AREAS Oir NONCOMPI LANCE ANl) REOLJIRI:13 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS I' &AI'l«C ltcqufremcnts: Parental involven!en". is aninteglal pru't of alf T!Lie I pl'og!'anls h!clucilng Llie IvlEP. In order to receive a MEP grant, SEAs and their subgrantees must in1plenient p!'Cg!"!!11s, and procedures tl'!'«Lt effec!ive'.y invoive migrant parents. In p«u'Licular, under Federal activities, law an SEA must I) develo'p its comprehensive State plan in GonsL!lt«it!Cnwith parent; counc! (PACs} atthe Slate and local levels regarding progi"ul'!s 2) consult with parent advisory Is one school year in duration hnd 3) plan and operate the fvIEP in a manner that provides that sic f'r the same pareiiial involvement as required in section 1118 of the ESEA. See ESEA %5 1304(c)(3) «uld 1306(a)(1)(13)(fi); 34 CFR 5 00.84(b), Under California Education Code c 54444.2, tfte Snste Superintendent is required to ensure effective parenial involvement tlhrou&ihout the State iVIEP. The State Superintendent must adopt requiring CDE and its LOAs to actively solicit parental involvement in the rules and regulations piano!i'ig,opei"!tion, ancf evaiuat!on of!Ls p!'ogran!s tl1!'Ough the est«ablishn1ent of a!'id coi'IsLllta!ion local PACs. The composi!ion of the Stateand loca! PACs is determined by!he with a State and UnderState law, aileast Lwo-thirds 'ofthe parents of migrant chilclren enrolled in ".he MEP. members of& Lhe SiaLC 'and local PACs must be parents of mig&rant children. I'n Ll hl &&S: CDE by!etter dated Ma!ch 15, 2010, that it harl received numerous I3acf«&round: OlvlE notif!ed Paren! A!Ivisory complaints concerning the governance, operations, and actions of thc Sta! e regional an!I Sta!c Council (SPAC) rnid allegations of sexua! assaul'L «and otlier misconduct by chiidren. CDE advised OME on April 26, 2010, that ithad MEP stalT relatecl to parents and procedures to compiete i!s investigation of Lhe allegations and that it initia!e!I rlepar! mental fli!dings and resolu!ions, OfvlE harl u I'ollov,-up would I'orward!o OfvlE any reports re&&a:!fina its conversation with CDE on .Iune 20, 2010, inwhich counsel I'r CDE LIdvisecliha! SPAC bylaws wi!h State Iavv 'u1d Liiai the Stale was adopting reuula!ions I'orgovernance of the do no! I:oillplv AL Lha! Lime OfvlE pointed oi;t tha! Lhe SPAC websiic no!es that non-complian! with ii. is SPAC. 19, 2010, that CDE h;!Ll SL1!c law. The Deputy Superintendent notified SPAC members on July suspen!feel their meetfn~s af!er Aug ist 2,, 2! ',0, until CDE's investigation of!he SPAC issues and allega! ions was conipleted. Bnnthci'follow-LIP convcl'sa.'on '&vidl CDE nn Deccnll3cl', 2010. CDE statccl L'hai. LI. OME hBcl w«s Invcstlg'«lLIB&'he issues anti had contracted with an outside agency to review CDE's repori and recommenclations, which it expec&ed 1o finish by the cnd ol'ebl'Llal')'01] . At thai time &Bnd re& in!i»i PACs OIVIE also discussecl iis concerns aboui the involvement of'regional clirectors nlaiters, includin paymeni of'stipends in non-parent PAC membtus, and CDE promised these in Ln On o!'he inclucle these 201! March 4, issues 24, ancl I"'ellruary 201 I in its February 20] I report Lo OME. 30, 201 I, OME as!cad '.he MEP State repol'Ion Siaic «»1cl regional PAC response fl'om CDE„on May 3 I, 20! I, OMiE noiiflecl Ihe State MEI'rant conditions. rhc Dcpai'tnlcni issues. Director I'or an updaie Because we sf.ill State Superintendent Dirc;ctnr that the operation of ihe State and region«l! PACs ilnd requirecl report on these issues would be thc Due 1o Lite coininuecl lack ofrespnnse from lnlf10sed special condition P&1 Icf3olt on n1 CDE's 201! CDE's State «Loci I'egioral PAC issues, as described above, on the status h;Ld received and the MEP failure Bul3Jcct of this targeted desk review. no tn subntit the CDE on these issues, MEP grant, which required on or before CD'E August Lo slll3nlllfts internal investigations of 15, 20! ] .CDE was required to include a summary of fnldings for its and regional MEP staff, ancl a corrective action plan that addresses the allegations against State requirements applicable io problems identified and ensures compliance with all State Bncl Federal the operation of'State «usd regional PACs. Sepiember 15, 20] 1«and every three months thereafter (i.e.,