I\u2019d like to clarify an issue related to CLC\u2019s conversion to a 501(c)3 not-for-profit corporation.<\/p>\n
When people talk about \u201cCLC\u201d they frequently blur the line between what I\u2019ll call \u201cCLC the school\u201d and \u201cCLC the entity that operates the school\u201d. That\u2019s been particularly easy to do historically because there wasn\u2019t much, if any, practical difference between the two entities. \u201cCLC the entity that operates the school\u201d didn\u2019t exist as a legal entity. Which was fine so far as charter school law was concerned \u2013 there\u2019s no requirement that a charter petition be filed by a legal entity. Charter petitions can be \u2013 and in the early days many were \u2013 simply filed by a group of like-minded individuals who want to set up a school and can demonstrate they meet the requirements set forth in the law.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
With the transition to having a true legal entity \u2013 the 501(c)3 corporation \u2013 be the operator the situation becomes a little different. There\u2019s nothing wrong with a not-for-profit corporation being the operator of a charter school. Indeed, most new charter schools are set up that way.<\/p>\n
But the 501(c)3 entity is not the same whatever-you-want-to-call-it entity that filed CLC\u2019s original and renewed charter petitions. And under California law, whenever there\u2019s a \u201cmaterial change\u201d in a charter school\u2019s situation, a new charter petition has to be submitted, reviewed and approved.<\/p>\n
What does this mean? Simply that there\u2019s likely to be one more step along the road to having CLC-the-501(c)3 become the operator of CLC-the-school: approval of a new charter.<\/p>\n
Why do I say likely? The three parties to the change \u2013 the original petitioner (CLC-whatever-you-want-to-call-it), the new petitioner (CLC-the-501(c)3) and the chartering agency, in this case the San Carlos Board of Trustees \u2013 might chose to treat the change as a minor amendment. That would sidestep the charter drafting\/submission\/review\/approval cycle.<\/p>\n
But, personally, I don\u2019t think that\u2019s the way to go. District counsel made an important point about the change in a meeting I was in (not a Board meeting, by the way) that is germane to this discussion. While there is no \u201ccharter material change enforcement agency\u201d which runs around ensuring the law is followed properly, counsel could not imagine how any judge in the state would not see changing the operator of a charter school as a material change. Given the depth of experience our local counsel has with charter school law, I found that pretty compelling.<\/p>\n
Separate from the legal argument, I also think it\u2019s best to follow established protocol as closely as possible in these kinds of things, even if one were to decide there\u2019s some flexibility available. Cutting corners has a way of coming back to haunt you.<\/p>\n
That said, the Board hasn\u2019t, so far as I\u2019m aware, taken a position on the matter. But if it does decide to view this shift as a material change, then I suspect a new\/revised charter petition will need to be prepared and filed. That could, of course, involve a pretty simple editing job, merely incorporating references to CLC-the-501(c)3. But it could be more involved, if either the CLC community or the Board wants to see some additional tweaks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I\u2019d like to clarify an issue related to CLC\u2019s conversion to a 501(c)3 not-for-profit corporation. When people talk about \u201cCLC\u201d they frequently blur the line between what I\u2019ll call \u201cCLC the school\u201d and \u201cCLC the entity that operates the school\u201d. … Continue reading