- Published on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 01:00
- Written by Traci Newell - Staff Writerfirstname.lastname@example.org
Bullis Charter School and Los Altos School District attorneys appeared in court again last week, with the charter school legal team urging the judge to dismiss the district’s cross-complaint.
The charter school argues that the district’s 2012-2013 facilities offer failed to meet the threshold of “reasonably equivalent,” as mandated by Proposition 39, approved by California voters in 2000.
The district filed a cross-complaint requesting the court to rule on whether it is required to provide Bullis Charter School with any facilities – or fewer of them – based on the charter school’s practices, which they claim are not in line with the intent of Proposition 39.
In arguments heard last week, charter school lawyer Arturo Gonzales claimed that the court should not have jurisdiction in the cross-complaint because the school district did not “exhaust administrative remedies.”
The charter school contends that district officials should pursue their objections with the cross-complaint through the school’s chartering agency, the Santa Clara County Board of Education.
School district officials counter that they are not required to present a case involving a facilities dispute to the county board.
“It’s a facilities issue, not a request to change their practices,” wrote district board President Doug Smith in an email to the Town Crier. “Bullis Charter School doesn’t file their first facilities complaint with the county. They go to the courts because the county has no jurisdiction over a facilities dispute. Same is true for us.”
In a tentative ruling published March 4, Judge Carol Overton, the Santa Clara County Superior Court judge recently assigned to the case, denied the charter school’s motions and the school district’s request for monetary sanctions regarding the motions.
“(The cross-motion) calls on the court to interpret the law as it relates to the Los Altos School District, not to determine whether Bullis has violated its charter,” said Overton in her tentative ruling.
Overton does not have a deadline set for the final ruling.