Report 2012-103 Recommendation Responses
Report 2012-103: Los Angeles Unified School District: It Could Do More to Improve Its Handling of Child Abuse Allegations (Release Date: November 2012)
Recommendation for Legislative Action
The Legislature should consider establishing a mechanism to monitor classified employees who have separated from a school district by dismissal, resignation, or settlement during the course of an investigation for misconduct involving students, similar to the oversight provided by the commission for certificated employees. If such a mechanism existed, school districts throughout the State could be notified before hiring these classified employees.
Description of Legislative Action
N/A
- Legislative Action Current As-of: February 2014
California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Legislation Proposed But Not Enacted
Assembly Bill 375 (Buchanan, 2013), if enacted, would have revised various procedures related to the dismissal or suspension of a permanent employee of a school district, including authorizing a notice of dismissal or suspension to be given at any time of year. The bill would have required, in a dismissal or suspension hearing against a permanent employee for unprofessional conduct or unsatisfactory performance, if a hearing is requested by the employee, that the hearing be commenced within 6 months of the employees request, and be completed by a closing of the record within 7 months from the date of the employees request. The bill was vetoed by the Governor.
Senate Bill 160 (Lara, 2013), if enacted, would require a school district or charter school to notify the State Department of Education when a classified employee is dismissed, suspended, or terminated from employment as a result of misconduct against a child. The bill would require the department, upon request by a school district or charter school, to provide that information only for the purposes of verifying previous employment of a classified employee. The bill would require that information to be kept confidential and would require the department to remove the information upon proof of acquittal or factual innocence.