Case No 109CV144569 California superior court judgement was handed down on Friday, March 23, 2012. Linda Baxley posted it to the LASD Voices blog yesterday and gave a high-level summary of the key points. Here's my take.
There is a section of "declaratory relief" about how the 2009-10 facilities offer was not reasonably equivalent. "Declaratory relief" means there are no reparations. Insead it sets precedent that will apply to any future conflicts between the parties.
There are also 4 points upon which the judge ruled that LASD did not violate Proposition 39. Similar to the section above, no action is mandated.
The really interesting parts are the specific items the court is now requiring LASD to do for any Prop 39 facilities offers going forward. I count seven of them:
- LASD must give more acreage to BCS in order to bring its overall footprint closer to that of comparison sites.
- LASD must account for all indoor and outdoor spaces—regardless of how they are used—at the comparison sites in its analysis.
- LASD must use actual measurements of indoor and outdoor spaces at comparison sites in its analysis.
- LASD must properly amortize shared space/facilities (e.g. by comparing how much time/week BCS students have access vs. how much time/week traditional students have access).
- The multi-purpose room must be omitted from analysis. BCS bought this with their own funds.
- LASD must provide indoor space for child care facilities, an amphitheater, and possibly other specialized spaces that commonly exist at comparison sites.
- LASD must provide specific sharing details (e.g. days and times) in the facilities offer saying when exactly BCS will have access to shared facilities and for how long.
Finally, "Bullis is awarded its costs of suit" means that LASD picks up the tab for things such as filing fees; it's a small amount. As Doug Smith clarified, this does not include attorney fees. That point is still up for debate at a hearing in May.
There is nothing in there that mandates a single site. There is also nothing in there that mandates a minimum site size.
It's all good, fair and reasonable guidance. I have renewed faith in our legal system. Thank you Honorable Patricia M. Lucas. You have served the public well with this judgement.