Why shouldn’t the owner of the companies who default on paying back the bank loans not treated the same way as the farmers?

In April this year, Karamjeet Singh, a farmer from village Nandgarh Kotra in Bathinda district in Punjab, was arrested after his cheque of Rs 4.34-lakh bounced, reports Indian Express. Still in jail, he is amongst hundreds of farmers who have been sent to jail for bounced cheques deposited for repayment.

Credit policy has two faces. One for the rich, and another for the poor. Let’s first take a look at the credit policy for farmers. The Punjab Agricultural Development Bank has served legal notice to 12,625 farmers threatening to sell their farm land to recover an outstanding due of Rs 229.80-crore, at a time when the Kolkata bench of the National Company Law Tribunal has allowed just one defaulting company – Adhunik Metaliks Ltd (AML) – to walk away with 92 per cent ‘haircut’. While the undated and signed bounced cheques is a common way to haul up defaulting farmers for non-payment of farm credit, I wonder why a similar strategy is not followed in case of corporate loans.     

Take another example. Two months back, Monnet Ispat & Energy got a ‘haircut’ of 78 per cent; the company had an outstanding debt of Rs 11,014-crore. Under the insolvency proceedings, the lenders will get only Rs 2,457-crore. The remaining amount of Rs 8,557-crore of bad debt will be written-off. The haircut, which in reality is nothing short of a waiver, comes at a time when a 34-year-old farmer, Sukhpal Singh of Mansa region in Punjab, committed suicide for an outstanding loan of Rs lakh drawn from a cooperative bank. In contrast, while the marginal farmer was unable to face the humiliation that comes with indebtedness and ended his life, we don’t see any change in the lifestyle of the owners of these defaulting companies. In fact, they feel recharged after being divested of the financial burden they were reeling under. It’s a new life offered to them on a platter.

This is how the banking system works. When it comes to industries, it looks at every opportunity to strike-off as much of the defaulting amount as possible. AML defaulted to the tune of Rs 5,370-crore, and under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) it has been allowed to walk away after a settlement was reached with the UK-based Liberty House Group for Rs 410-crore. In other words, the company gets a write-off or call it a ‘haircut’ for Rs 4,960-crore. I don’t think it is even fair to call it a ‘haircut’ as it is nothing short a complete head shave!

Compare this with the Rs 229.80-crore outstanding loan pending against 12, 625 Punjab farmers that the Punjab Agricultural Development Bank is trying to recover. It is not even a sizeable fraction of the huge amount written-off for just one industrial house. Call it a settlement to affect a resolution plan for the companies declared bankrupt; the economic jargon actually is an attempt to hide what in reality is more than a write-off. By selling off a loss making unit the promoter walks out free from what would otherwise be a life-long indebtedness. Almost the entire debt is eventually borne by the tax payers. This is what Noam Chomsky calls it as ‘tough love – tough for the poor and love for the rich’.      

The former Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanian had in fact said that writing-off of corporate loans leads to economic growth. If this is true, I don’t understand why waiving farm loan does not lead to economic growth. After all, both the farmer as well as the industry takes loans from the same banks. How then can the write-off of corporate bad loans lead to economic growth whereas farm loan waivers lead to moral hazard? Why should farmers be therefore despised for seeking loan waiver? In fact, Arundhati Bhattacharya, the former chairperson of the State Bank of India had blamed farm loan waivers for leading to credit indiscipline. The Reserve Bank of India governor Urjit Patel had found farm loan waivers as a moral hazard upsetting the national balance sheet.

Although the Punjab Agricultural Development Bank has denied of any real intention of putting the land of 12,625 farmers for public auction saying that the legal notice is just a threat, the fact remains that as many as 71,432 farmers are under scanner for having defaulted the bank to the tune of Rs 1,363.87-crore.  Sooner or later, all these farmers will receive legal notices if they fail to pay up. In fact, many of them have already landed in jail. Similarly in Haryana, just to illustrate, a farmer who had failed to pay back a loan of Rs 6-lakh taken for laying a pipeline for irrigation was ordered by the district court to pay a fine of Rs 9.83-lakh and undergo a 2 year jail term.   

On the other hand, the ‘haircut’ allowed to AML means the banks will not be able to recover this huge amount. According to media reports, some of the other not so-high profile companies allowed ‘haircut’ includes: Jyoti Structures 85 per cent; Alok Industries 83 per cent; Amtek Auto 72 per cent; Electrosteel Steels 60 per cent and Bhushan Steels 37 per cent. Among other outstanding cases listed by the Insolvency and Banking Board of India, Synergies Dooray Automotive Ltd got a ‘haircut’ of 94. 27 per cent as a result of which financial companies are able to recover only Rs 54-crore from an outstanding amount of Rs 972.15-crore.

According to the latest data, over Rs 3-lakh crore worth of loans belonging to 70-80 companies has now been referred for ‘hair-cut. These are loans which have not been paid for 180 days. This includes Rs 1.74-lakh crore of 34 power companies. According to a High Power Committee set up by the Gujarat government, three power projects of Tata, Adani and Essar carrying a cumulative debt of Rs 22,000 crore will get a haircut of more than Rs 10,000-crore. What is interesting here is that in case of big defaulters, the entire government and banking machinery become hyper active to bail out the companies. But in case of agriculture, the same banking system seeks exemplary punishment, including jail term. I have never seen a jail term being prescribed for a corporate defaulter.

In an article entitled Reform that Isn’t in Indian Express former Cabinet Minister Kapil Sibal rightly sums it up saying: “Recovery through the IBC process in the steel sector will be about 35 per cent of the loans advanced and in the power sector, only 15 per cent of the loans advanced. This is a scandal in itself. Even the beneficiaries will raise loans from banks to pay for acquisitions.”

The question that needs to be asked is why aren’t the defaulting companies being allowed to go bust? Why is the entire effort to bail out the companies that have failed to perform? At the same time, why shouldn’t the owner of these companies who default on paying back the bank loans not treated the same way as the farmers? First, why should the RBI not disclose the names of defaulting companies to begin with? Secondly, why shouldn’t the corporate bigwigs be made to cool their heels in jail? #        

Haircuts are good, Farm loan defaults are bad -- the two-faced treatment of waivers. The Wire. Oct 1, 2018. https://thewire.in/political-economy/farm-loan-defaults-waivers-india

READ MORE - Why shouldn’t the owner of the companies who default on paying back the bank loans not treated the same way as the farmers?

Farmers are a victim of inefficient markets

For over 40 years now tomato prices have remained frozen -- Pic from web

Consider this. For nearly 40 years now, the average price Indian farmers are getting for tomato in 2018 is not much different from what they were getting in 1978. Adjusted for inflation, the price of tomato remains almost the same, perhaps a little less. Reports of angry farmers dumping tomato onto the streets for failure to get a price that covers even the cost of cultivation have donned the media space for the past two consecutive years. As far as I can recall, reports of farmers feeding tomato to cattle or throwing it on the streets used to appear frequently in the newspaper even way back in the early 1980s.

In the absence of a truly national market, with restrictions on movement and open participation of traders, one can certainly say that an efficient market for agricultural commodities is still not a reality in India. Even if only 6 per cent farmers get the benefit of Minimum Support Price (MSP), which means the remaining 94 per cent are dependent on markets, the low prices of farm commodities are not a reflection of market efficiency. In that case let’s look at farm prices in the US, which is still the world’s most advanced (and one of the largest in terms of market prices) economy in the world. US markets are competitive, bigger players operate with relative ease, and where futures trading dominate thereby allowing for what is called as price discovery.

Writing on his blog, an American farmer, Mike Callicrate, says that the price at which his father sold corn some 44 years back, on Dec 2, 1974, was $3.58 per bushel (equal to 25.40kg). In January 2018, he sold corn at $ 3.56, down two cents from what he earned 44 years ago. In a tweet, another Canadian farmer, Philip Shaw, who farms in Ontario province, quotes the corn price on September 12, 2018 at $3.52 per bushel, which means another fall of 4 cents from what was traded in January this year. In the words of Mike: “The farmer who planted his first field of corn in 1974 can expect the same prices for his corn as he retires.”

If markets were so efficient, I don’t see any reason for the completely distorting price signals. If for 44 years, the markets fail to discover the real corn price that a farmer needs to get, it is quite obvious that the markets are far from efficient. After all, as the American farmer said, all the while the prices of seed, land, equipment, fertilizer, and fuel have grown exponentially but the output price remains the same. Nothing can be more painful.

Dr Robert Johannson, Chief Economist of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), while addressing the 2018 Agricultural Economic and Outlook Foreign Trade Forum in Mar 2018 stated explicitly: “Real farm prices, when indexed for inflation, have fallen sharply since 1960.”Yes, you heard it right. This is happening in America. No wonder, to meet the market’s inability to pay the farmer the rightful price, the US provides an average of $ 50,000 per year as subsidy support to every farmer.

In India, a recent OECD study has conclusively stated that farm prices remained frozen for the past two decades. Farmers have been deliberately paid 15 per cent less all these years to keep food inflation under control. In the absence of any corresponding subsidy or direct farm income support, Indian farmers have been very conveniently left in the lurch. Hit by rising input prices, declining public investments in agriculture, and the increasing price volatility, farmers are the victims of an inefficient market. Yet, the dominant economic thinking is that the best way to address agrarian distress is to further liberate the markets, which will provide the right price signals. What is however not being acknowledged is that even in the US markets have failed to prop up agriculture.

As the kharif harvest season begins, prices of moong, urad, groundnut, bajra and jowar are already ruling much below the MSP. Take the case of moong. Against the procurement price of Rs 6,975 per quintal, the prevailing prices in the past week in Madhya Pradesh mandis hover between Rs 3,900 to Rs 4,400 per quintal. In Maharashtra, the best price offered is Rs 4,900 per quintal. In case of urad, against the MSP of Rs 5,600 per quintal, what the farmers have been able realise in Maharashtra mandis is anything between Rs 3,900 to Rs 4,200 per quintal. This is the beginning of the season and I wonder what will be the prices when the arrivals peak. But going by the past two years experience, when prices of pulses fell by 20 to 40 per cent in mandis across the country, there is hardly any expectation of prices going up this year.

At a time when markets have failed miserably to pull out farmers from perpetual indebtedness, the launch of Pradhan Mantri Annadata Aay Sanrakshan Abhiyan (PM-AASHA) has to be seen as an acknowledgement of the fact that farmers need a guaranteed income. The thinking behind assuring farm incomes alone is a significant step forward in bridging the great income divide that prevails in agriculture vis a vis other sectors of the economy. As part of the PM-AASHA initiative, the government will in reality push three schemes, including the continuation of the existing price support scheme, and expanding the price deficiency payments scheme as tried out in Madhya Pradesh. The third scheme, and which needs critical evaluation, is to allow on a pilot basis private players in procurement operations, to begin with in oilseeds.

After announcing a higher MSP, even if it is much below what farmer unions have been demanding, the promise to buy 25 per cent of the entire marketable surplus can only be implemented successfully if an adequate market infrastructure is laid out. Against the requirement of 42,000 APMC mandisat 5 km radius, India only has about 7,600 mandis. While the mandi network has to be expanded, what is also needed is an appropriate financial back up to meet the price support. The budgetary provision of Rs 15,053-crore that has been set aside for the next two years is far too low. If India Inc can be provided with an economic stimulus package of Rs 1,86,000-crore in 2008, and which has still not been withdrawn, I see no reason why a similar package by way of procurement prices cannot be announced for agriculture to begin with. #

Lack of mandis, funds may blunt PM-ASHAA. The Tribune. Sept 18, 2018.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/lack-of-mandis-funds-may-blunt-pm-aasha/654517.html 

READ MORE - Farmers are a victim of inefficient markets

2018 CIF Sports Transfer Rule- First Sit Out Period Now Fifty Percent Of Season

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

The California Interscholastic Federation (CIF), which governs all high school sports, has yet again changed the time a student must sit out of a sport [Sit Out Period (SOP)] when transferring for the first time without a family move.  This rule should apply until August 2019 when they may or may not change it again.

CIF is a problem child for many California high schoolers, as they can be very strict and can stop a student's ability to participate in varsity level sports, often without all the facts.  One common issue is when a student transfers schools their first time, but their family does not move.  If this student does not transfer based on a discipline matter and have not transferred in high school before (ensuring they generally won't play for a year), they will face a limited varsity SOP at the new school for any sport where they participated at their former school.  

Previously, CIF had specific sit out dates for various sports.  However, as of today, CIF has implemented a 50% (plus one day if the season days is an odd number of days) sit out rule.  The amended rule, in bylaw 207 B(5)b(ix) states in part:

The Sit-Out Period will be 50% of the total number days in that particular season of sport. The number of days in a season is determined by each Section in accordance with their first allowable competition date through the final regular season competition date. If total number of days in a season is an odd number, then the Sit Out Period would be 50% plus one additional day. 

This means if a season went 120 days, the student could not participate for 60 of the 120 days. If it was 121 days, the student would sit out 61 days.

Additionally, if a student played in the same sport at the prior school during the same school year they transferred, they would not be able to play at all that year.  Other various rules apply as well.

CIF is the bane of many parents lives, and will usually strictly apply rules with few options for appealing SOPs imposed except under certain limited bases.  Parents beware when moving your sports-playing students.

Best,

Michelle Ball

Education Law Attorney 

LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL 

717 K Street, Suite 228 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: 916-444-9064 

Email:help@edlaw4students.com 

Fax: 916-444-1209

Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Blog: http://edlaw4students.blogspot.com/

Twitter: http://twitter.com/michelleaball

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/EdLaw4Students

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-Office-of-Michelle-Ball/191273330901857

[please like my office on Facebook, subscribe via twitter and email, and check out my videos on Youtube!]

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

READ MORE - 2018 CIF Sports Transfer Rule- First Sit Out Period Now Fifty Percent Of Season

The Importance Of The Chronic Illness Form When Your Child Is Sick

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

Life may seem rosy for most California public school kids as they can attend school and are there for most of the material, homework, tests and other school activities.  However, if you find your child is missing a lot of school due to a long term illness and attendance is becoming an issue, completion of a "Chronic Illness Verification  Form" may help protect your child, as well as you, from truancy and other issues.

Truancy laws in California can be very heavy handed and allow punishment for a student with 3 unexcused absences and/or who misses more than 30 minutes in a day without valid excuse (Ed §48260).  Although most schools allow students to miss 3 days without a doctor's note, and only parent verification of illness, the fourth day means a mandated visit to a doctor just to get a note.  If the parent does not get this note for that day and days following, the student may be stuck with an unexcused absence.  Three of these unexcused sick days (days beyond what the school allows a parent to excuse) without a doctor's note may may mean the student is labelled a "truant."  

What happens if the child has an illness which keeps them out for a week at a time, and a doctor visit won't alter this (as it is a chronic condition such as cancer, heart condition, debilitating stomach or pain issues, etc.)?  The parent is still forced to drag their child to a waiting room to see a medical person, and must incur a bill for the office visit just to confirm the child is ill and receives an excused absence.  This is even the case  if the parent already knows their child is sick from illness, but must just stay out a fourth, fifth, etc. day of school in a row prior to being able to return to school.

Schools may not tell parents, but when a student has issues where they physically cannot attend school frequently, which are medically documented, the parent has options other than dragging their child to the doctor on the fourth day of any absence.  These options are not always communicated to families by schools.  

One great option for parents is to have their doctor complete a "Chronic Illness Verification Form,"  (link to form which opens a Word document). This form gives the parent the ability to excuse their child beyond the 3 days the schools normally allow.  The preface in the form states:

"The Chronic Illness Form allows parents to excuse absences due to a specific medical condition with the same authority as a medical professional." 

It may be best to ask for the school's form as a first step, but a parent does not have to wait to get this form from their school.  Rather, parents can take this form directly to their child's doctor.   

Once this form is completed by the medical professional, it is returned to the school, which may verify the form came from the physician.  Thereafter, the parent may excuse their child for medical reasons for an extended time period without having to go to the doctor.  Work missed should be able to be made up and truancy issues will hopefully not be pursued (fingers crossed as some districts try to pursue truancy for "excessive excused" absences).

Other options for help with this type of situation are Home Hospital Instruction (HHI), as well as setting up a Section 504 Plan, or even an IEP (Individualized Education Program).  However, while those may be pending or even not pursued by the parent, this form can help a parent deal with a student who just cannot go to school due to their illness.  It allows an already stressed parent to breathe a large sigh of relief that even though their child is very ill, at least a doctor's visit is not needed every fourth day to avoid truancy at school.    

Best,

Michelle Ball

Education Law Attorney 

LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL 

717 K Street, Suite 228 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: 916-444-9064 

Email:help@edlaw4students.com 

Fax: 916-444-1209

Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Blog: http://edlaw4students.blogspot.com/

Twitter: http://twitter.com/michelleaball

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/EdLaw4Students

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-Office-of-Michelle-Ball/191273330901857

[please like my office on Facebook, subscribe via twitter and email, and check out my videos on Youtube!]

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

READ MORE - The Importance Of The Chronic Illness Form When Your Child Is Sick

Searches Of Underclothing At School Are Illegal

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

Most parents will never have much involvement with the drama of school expulsions, heavy allegations against their kids, nor the shock of hearing their child had something improper at school hidden in their pocket.  Occasionally, however, there are horror stories involving searches by school officials looking for alleged contraband which go way too far.

In the infamous case Safford v. Redding, the United States Supreme Court found a school strip search of an Arizona eighth grader in violation of the student's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.  The Court in Safford, however,  left some questions open for Arizona, such as whether a strip search could proceed with a specific allegation of a dangerous object being in e.g. underwear.  However, California had already answered this question prior to Safford, strictly prohibiting searches of private places and underwear. 

California Education Code section 49050 states:

No school employee shall conduct a search that involves:

(a) Conducting a body cavity search of a pupil manually or with an instrument.

(b) Removing or arranging any or all of the clothing of a pupil to permit a visual inspection of the underclothing, breast, buttocks, or genitalia of the pupil.

This means that school employees can't lift a girls shirt to see if she has a joint in her bra.  They can't pull down a boys pants to see if he has a pipe, nor lift a girl's skirt to see if she has a weapon hidden.  Such searches are illegal and flat prohibited in California.

Only a handful of times since 1994 have I personally met parents with stories of searches gone wild,  where a student was made to take off articles of clothing or things were moved to reveal underwear.  Often these situations are hard to prove, hard on the kids testifying, and school predators may get away with their wrongful conduct.  This is because there is a bias in our society against youths and their believability.  Schools and adults, when faced with an adult versus child situation, usually believe the adult.  Predators know this which is why kids are the easiest targets.  Who will believe Tim, who said I pulled his pants down to check his underwear?  Not many will, and maybe not even his parents.  And how do you prove it?  It is a tough situation in every regard.

Regardless, I wanted to put out there and remind students and parents that schools MAY NOT search them internally, nor extend any search for contraband to underwear, bras, or private places.

Stories that I hear once in a while of the overstepping which can occur would shock most parents.  They are occasional at best, but still something to know about and discuss with your kids.  If something untoward occurs, it should be jumped on immediately with appropriate reports and complaints filed.

Best,

Michelle Ball

Education Law Attorney 

LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL 

717 K Street, Suite 228 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: 916-444-9064 

Email:help@edlaw4students.com 

Fax: 916-444-1209

Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Blog: http://edlaw4students.blogspot.com/

Twitter: http://twitter.com/michelleaball

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/EdLaw4Students

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-Office-of-Michelle-Ball/191273330901857

[please like my office on Facebook, subscribe via twitter and email, and check out my videos on Youtube!]

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

For more information, see also: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1753&context=lawfaculty

READ MORE - Searches Of Underclothing At School Are Illegal

Student Electronic Posts Online (In Public Or Private Groups, Chats, And Texts) Are Not Really Private And May Bring Punishment

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

Students frequently post things online, make snarky comments to friends, and feel protected posting in "private" online forums, such as Snapchat, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or otherwise.  However, these posts can come back to haunt them when they are called in and suspended or placed up for expulsion.  Even great kids can post something wrong sometime--and "get away with it," but how long can their luck last?  For some- the answer is not long enough.

In recent months, I have seen more and more kids up for expulsion or suspension for posts or comments in electronic media.  This is really disturbing as some of the things I see students being punished for really do not support school discipline.  Schools also seem to now be lumping student groups together for punishment, rather than looking at individual culpability.  Staff are choosing to punish all student members of a private group where posts were made regardless of whether they actually committed a suspendable or expellable act themselves.  This is disturbing to say the least, for students and families across California.

So, I thought a review would be helpful so parents can review this with their kids prior to it being "too late."

The California Education Code now extends jurisdiction for student acts far beyond the school doors and the school day.  This really began in full force when the bullying discipline rules were developed, as outlined in section 48900(r).  These rules allow punishment for bullying activities, including "electronic acts."  This punishment may be okay if the traditional rules of jurisdiction applied limiting schools in the scope of their punishment to student acts going from/to school, at school or school events, etc. which has previously been a limiting factor.

However, the legislature now allows electronic acts to support school punishment for bullying, intimidation, harassment, etc and define "electronic act" (Ed 48900(r)(2)(a)) as: 

"“Electronic act” means the creation or transmission originated on or off the schoolsite, by means of an electronic device, including, but not limited to, a telephone, wireless telephone, or other wireless communication device, computer, or pager, of a communication..." [underline added]

Well, this has opened the floodgates to jurisdiction, as now schools can reach internet or phone posts at home, on weekends, or any other time posted.  This coupled with schools labeling all negative comments on line as "bullying," "intimidation" or "harassment," when they are negative about a group, person, or school staff member, even if private or only told to a small group of students, has resulted in a boom of student punishments.  Parents, who have never before encountered the school discipline machine are being called and told that what their child did online was bullying and they are out.  With the limited investigations being performed, this can be fast and terrifying for student and parent alike.

Some examples of what schools are punishing students for nowadays  (some valid, some invalid) include:

1)  Posts involving criticism of students or staff.
2)  Posts discussing acts that are hypothetical (e.g. harming a student with no real intent).
3)  Jokes or funny pictures.
4)  Posts with weapons and/or threatening someone.
5)  Comments about racial groups, disabled students, or just students in general whether actually bullying them or not
6)  Comments about the opposite sex and sexual matters
7)  Anything the school sees as "negative" and can squeeze into the bullying, harassment, intimidation, etc. category
8)  So many other things----

Schools will also use any data gleaned to develop "reasonable suspicion" to then investigate a student for e.g. drug sales, or other inappropriate activities.

Parents of kids who made an offhand comment on a private chat,or otherwise, are now faced with their children being suspended or even expelled for their comments or jokes.  The executioner- the school- doesn't really care about First Amendment rights, but rather care about getting any perceived threat out so they can cover themselves.

These rules and their application to everything people say on line if comments somehow relate to the school setting or someone who is involved with the schools, chills free speech.  I imagine someday, some large civil rights group may try to challenge the application of these policies to try to limit them, but for now, we are faced with having to stop our kids from posting anything that anyone under the sun could misinterpret as offensive, harassing, bullying, intimidating, inappropriate, discussing race, sexual relations, or otherwise being interpreted as wrong.  How are kids to do this?  It can be tough to not make a 5 second offhand comment online which later someone says was inappropriate.

And, one large rule to remember here: NO ELECTRONIC POST, PICTURE, OR PRIVATE GROUP IS REALLY PRIVATE.  If a student posts something privately and one other student or parent reports it- it is no longer private.  Even in Snapchat where supposedly pictures are gone forever- people take screenshots of negative posts and turn them in to the schools frequently.  

Parents, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, and I don't agree with the long arm of the schools now in place.  However, for now, parents, please discuss this speech-chilling situation with your kids and advise them to be cautious in what they post, and perhaps, to ask themselves  prior to posting or joining a group where inappropriate comments are made: "If my school principal saw this post/group what would he/she say?"


Best,

Michelle Ball

Education Law Attorney 

LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL 

717 K Street, Suite 228 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: 916-444-9064 

Email:help@edlaw4students.com 

Fax: 916-444-1209

Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Blog: http://edlaw4students.blogspot.com/

Twitter: http://twitter.com/michelleaball

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/EdLaw4Students

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-Office-of-Michelle-Ball/191273330901857

[please like my office on Facebook, subscribe via twitter and email, and check out my videos on Youtube!]

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

READ MORE - Student Electronic Posts Online (In Public Or Private Groups, Chats, And Texts) Are Not Really Private And May Bring Punishment

When is School Expulsion Mandatory in California Public Schools?

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

School expulsion is NOT something any parent wants their child to endure.  To be removed entirely from a school district to have to attend a "bad" school is not a fun process.  A permanent mark is placed on the student's record which may come up later in life, including when completing college applications.  As such, it is good to know WHEN an expulsion is MANDATORY for a school district. In other words, when does a school district have no choice but to recommend expulsion and thereafter expel a student?

In California there are only five categories where a public school student MUST be expelled.  Please see Education Code §48915(c) for more specifics:

1)  Possessing, selling or furnishing a firearm.
2)  Brandishing a knife at another person.
3)  Unlawfully selling a controlled substance.
4)  Committing or attempting to commit a sexual assault or committing a sexual battery.
5)  Possession of an explosive.

These are the Big 5 offenses.  IF a district can prove at the expulsion hearing (to a panel of school district employees) that one of these occurred, they are legally obligated to expel the student.  

If a student is expelled under §48915(c), the only attendance option (unless negotiated otherwise) is to attend a county community school, juvenile court school or community day school (see §48915.2), which are environments most parents would prefer to avoid. 

How long an expulsion under §48915(c) will continue will depend on the hearing outcome, and/or the negotiations prior to hearing.  The legal maximum an expulsion under §48915(c) may continue is a full calendar year (unless there is a breach of the rehabilitation plan during expulsion which will extend the expulsion). The minimum is not delineated in code, but would likely be 1 semester and/or what a parent negotiates. 

It IS possible to shorten the one year expulsion mandate and negotiate and/or receive a lesser time period, or even a different type of expulsion (e.g. suspended expulsion rather than full expulsion), but whether this is possible will depend on the student, the district and the school board.  Parents will best be served by thoroughly understanding the ramifications of any expulsion and all potential outcomes, and perhaps seeing if they can negotiate a more positive outcome, prior to moving to hearing.
Best,

Michelle Ball

Education Law Attorney 

LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL 

717 K Street, Suite 228 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: 916-444-9064 

Email:help@edlaw4students.com 

Fax: 916-444-1209

Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Blog: http://edlaw4students.blogspot.com/

Twitter: http://twitter.com/michelleaball

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/EdLaw4Students

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-Office-of-Michelle-Ball/191273330901857

[please like my office on Facebook, subscribe via twitter and email, and check out my videos on Youtube!]

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

originally published 1/7/11, updated 9/19/17

READ MORE - When is School Expulsion Mandatory in California Public Schools?

Appealing A Bad OCR Decision On Alleged School Discrimination

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

Have you filed a complaint alleging discrimination or improper retaliation with the United States Department of Education (USDOE) and their Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and received a negative ruling?  Did they say the clear wrongful acts (to you) were not really bad or not really discriminatory?  If so, you may have an appeal right if you act fast.

Per the USDOE website, within 60 days of the date of the letter issued by OCR, an appeal must be filed with the "Director of the Enforcement Office (Office Director)."  

The bases for appeal listed are:

AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING

1)  Factual information was incomplete, and/or

2)  Factual analysis was not correct, and/or

3)  Wrong legal standard was applied 

AND

a)  The outcome would be changed due to #1-3 above.

The appeal must be filed timely, and if it isn't, the parent/student/claimant, must show a good reason the appeal was filed late, which is defined as:

"1.  the complainant was unable to submit the appeal within the 60-day timeframe because of illness or other incapacitating circumstances and the appeal was filed within 30 days after the period of illness or incapacitation ended; or
2  unique circumstances generated by agency action have adversely affected the complainant." (per USDOE/OCR)

The decision will be forwarded to the parent/student/claimant in writing after review.

So, if you are piping mad about an OCR ruling against you or your child, appeal of that decision may be an option, but must be pursued timely and with adequate proof.

Best,

Michelle Ball

Education Law Attorney 

LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL 

717 K Street, Suite 228 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: 916-444-9064 

Email:help@edlaw4students.com 

Fax: 916-444-1209

Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Blog: http://edlaw4students.blogspot.com/

Twitter: http://twitter.com/michelleaball

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/EdLaw4Students

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-Office-of-Michelle-Ball/191273330901857

[please like my office on Facebook, subscribe via twitter and email, and check out my videos on Youtube!]

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

READ MORE - Appealing A Bad OCR Decision On Alleged School Discrimination

Schools Have An Obligation To Provide Translated Documents

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

California is a diverse state, with many different cultures, nationalities and languages being spoken.  Residents' children, regardless of language spoken by students or their parents, have the right to attend California public schools.  Still, while non-English speaking students may attend classes (e.g. Spanish/English transition classes) which help them transition to English, their parents may remain non-English speakers.  How do they stay informed about their child's school progress, development, and any issues which might arise?

Education Code §48985  mandates that documents be translated for non-English speaking parents if pupils speak a language other than English and total more than 15% of a school's population:

"(a) If 15 percent or more of the pupils enrolled in a public school that provides instruction in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, speak a single primary language other than English, as determined from the census data submitted to the department pursuant to Section 52164 in the preceding year, all notices, reports, statements, or records sent to the parent or guardian of any such pupil by the school or school district shall, in addition to being written in English, be written in the primary language, and may be responded to either in English or the primary language."

If pupils speaking a language other than English total more than 15% of a school's population, documents must be sent to their family in English and their native language (e.g. Spanish, Cantonese, Arabic, Hmong, Russian or other language depending on the population of the school).  Such documents should include report cards, testing notices, policies, enrollment paperwork, discipline notices and many other communications to the students' families.

Education Code §51101.1 further addresses the rights of parents to translated documents

"(a) A parent or guardian’s lack of English fluency does not preclude a parent or guardian from exercising the rights guaranteed under this chapter. A school district shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that all parents and guardians of pupils who speak a language other than English are properly notified in English and in their home language, pursuant to Section 48985, of the rights and opportunities available to them pursuant to this section.

(b) Parents and guardians of English learners are entitled to participate in the education of their children pursuant to Section 51101 and as follows

...

(2) To be given any required written notification, under any applicable law, in English and the pupil’s home language pursuant to Section 48985."

I have seen non-English speaking parents' rights breached via school district failure to provide translated documents.  This has included improperly translated expulsion hearing documents, suspension forms, report cards, and other legally mandated documents.  This prevents the non-English speaking parents from being able to read and understand the documents they receive and lessens their ability to participate in their children's education.

If you know someone who is not an English speaker, be sure they know their rights to translated educational documents pursuant to state law.  We all benefit if parents are engaged in their kids' education.

Best,

Michelle Ball

Education Law Attorney 

LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL 

717 K Street, Suite 228 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: 916-444-9064 

Email:help@edlaw4students.com 

Fax: 916-444-1209

Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Blog: http://edlaw4students.blogspot.com/

Twitter: http://twitter.com/michelleaball

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/EdLaw4Students

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-Office-of-Michelle-Ball/191273330901857

[please like my office on Facebook, subscribe via twitter and email, and check out my videos on Youtube!]

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

READ MORE - Schools Have An Obligation To Provide Translated Documents

Cats and Dogs Released From Public Colleges: The Obligation To Allow Adoption After The Experiment Is Over

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

Did you know that cats and dogs are used as test subjects in colleges and universities?  People often think of rats, mice and primates as animals used in research, but typical "pets" are sadly also used (see graphic article on cat experimentation in colleges).  What happens to the animals if they are still well AFTER a public college is through with them?  Are they euthanized or do they have to be placed in new homes?  It depends on their condition.

Per California Education Code §66017.7, animals which are "suitable for adoption" after the school is through with them, do not have to be put to death.  Rather, they are to be placed up for adoption by the college or given to an adoption agency to place.

This section states in part:

"(a) A public postsecondary educational institution or independent institution of higher education, or employee or student thereof, that confines dogs or cats for the purposes set forth in Section 1650 of the Health and Safety Code, if the institution assesses the health of an animal and determines, after the completion of any testing or research, that the animal is suitable for adoption, the animal’s destruction is not required, and the animal is no longer needed, and if the institution’s existing procedures for adopting the animal do not result in an adoption, shall offer the dogs or cats to an animal adoption organization or animal rescue organization for adoption prior to euthanizing those animals. A public postsecondary educational institution or independent institution of higher education that is required to offer dogs or cats to an animal adoption organization or animal rescue organization under this section may enter into an agreement with an animal adoption organization or animal rescue organization for the implementation of this section."

This does not prevent experimentation, but forces adoption after the tests are through and prevents the unnecessary killing of healthy cats and dogs.  If a public college or university is done with a dog or cat, and there is no reason the pet MUST be killed, the school is required to offer the cat or dog to an adoption agency to place if the college cannot find the animal a new home.

All creatures have an urge to survive and this law at least, is something.  Maybe these animals can find a home where tummy rubs, not needles, are used to stimulate them.

Later in the above code, it is indicated that such requirements do not apply to animals listed in Food and Agriculture Code 17006 which references animals that are ill and may not be healed or newborn animals who were "impounded without their mothers." 

I have gotten all my pets from local adoption groups and love every one of them.  I don't think any of my animals were experimented on.  Hopefully college-discarded cats and dogs will find loving homes when released from our local universities, maybe even with you.

Best,

Michelle Ball

Education Law Attorney 

LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL 

717 K Street, Suite 228 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: 916-444-9064 

Email:help@edlaw4students.com 

Fax: 916-444-1209

Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Blog: http://edlaw4students.blogspot.com/

Twitter: http://twitter.com/michelleaball

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/EdLaw4Students

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-Office-of-Michelle-Ball/191273330901857

[please like my office on Facebook, subscribe via twitter and email, and check out my videos on Youtube!]

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

READ MORE - Cats and Dogs Released From Public Colleges: The Obligation To Allow Adoption After The Experiment Is Over

Cyber Sexual Bullying: One More Reason To Boot Your Kids Out Of School

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

  

Cyber sexual bullying is now a suspendable or expellable offense in California schools.  Bullying already is an expellable offense, but apparently the legislature did not think "bullying" alone was broad enough.  As such, the legislature chose to add a new offense to the ever growing list of things a student may do wrong.  Now students may not bully and also use or reference sexually explicit electronic communications, which are covered by this new subcategory of bullying.

California Education Code §48900(r)(2)(iii) states:

"...“cyber sexual bullying” means the dissemination of, or the solicitation or incitement to disseminate, a photograph or other visual recording by a pupil to another pupil or to school personnel by means of an electronic act that has or can be reasonably predicted to have one or more of the effects described in [the Bullying section]. A photograph or other visual recording, as described above, shall include the depiction of a nude, semi-nude, or sexually explicit photograph or other visual recording of a minor where the minor is identifiable from the photograph, visual recording, or other electronic act.

(II) For purposes of this clause, “cyber sexual bullying” does not include a depiction, portrayal, or image that has any serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific value or that involves athletic events or school-sanctioned activities." [bracketed material added]

An act of cyber sexual bullying must be "bullying" and also sexual in nature as defined above.  

It is interesting that "incitement to disseminate" is an offense covered under this subsection.  This could mean a student who did not send or take an improper picture, but rather only "incited" someone to send or take it, could also potentially be guilty of an offense.  This sexual bullying can involve "sexting," where nude photographs of students are shared, presumably by others who are not authorized to share them.  

When Governor Brown signed this into law, a press release explained:

"Sexual bullying is a form of bullying commonly facing teenagers.  It is a behavior that can include harassing an individual or others through comments and actions that are sexual in nature. Furthermore, sexual bullying can occur in person or online.  The act of sexting, where sexual, nude or semi-nude images are exchanged electronically, has become a recent occurrence in the lives of young people, and can be a major form of sexual bullying, or cyber sexual bullying.  Approximately 20 percent of teenage boys and girls have sent a sext message, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics." 

In recent years, the long arm of the schools frequently attempts to reach acts outside school grounds, activities and hours, particularly with bullying.  It used to be that acts on the weekend stayed on the weekend.  However, if matters come into the school and cause a bullying environment, even if not intended to do so, it is possible the schools may try to punish the offending student(s) regardless of where the offending act(s) occurred.  Students beware.

Best,

Michelle Ball

Education Law Attorney 

LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL 

717 K Street, Suite 228 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: 916-444-9064 

Email:help@edlaw4students.com 

Fax: 916-444-1209

Website: http://www.edlaw4students.com/

Blog: http://edlaw4students.blogspot.com/

Twitter: http://twitter.com/michelleaball

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/EdLaw4Students

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Law-Office-of-Michelle-Ball/191273330901857

[please like my office on Facebook, subscribe via twitter and email, and check out my videos on Youtube!]

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

READ MORE - Cyber Sexual Bullying: One More Reason To Boot Your Kids Out Of School