United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER RE: REASSESSMENT OF MONITOR’S BUDGET
ALLOCATION FY 2015-2016
THELTON E. HENDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On June
18, 2015, the Court provided an estimated allocation of the
Monitor’s budget for Fiscal Year (“FY”)
2015-2016 between the District and CDE (collectively
“Defendants”). Docket Nos. 2064, 2065. The fiscal
year has concluded, and the Court has reviewed the
Monitor’s monthly timesheets to determine the actual
expenditure of time and services between District-related and
State-related matters. Of the approximately 697 overall hours
of work reflected in the Monitor’s timesheets,
approximately 123 hours were spent on “general”
items, [1] approximately 352 hours were spent on
District-related items, [2]and approximately 222 hours were spent
on State-related items.[3]
Considering
the actual time expended on each category of tasks, and
remaining consistent with the long-standing principle that
CDE must share a portion (20% for FY 2015-2016) of the costs
for District-related expenses, the reassessed allocation of
the Monitor’s budget is as follows:
MONITOR'S
BUDGET REALLOCATION FY 2015-2016
BUDGET ITEM
|
AMOUNT
|
ALLOCATION
|
DISTRICT
|
CDE
|
OFFICE EXPENSES
|
$83, 035.92
|
$33, 214.37 (40%)
|
$49, 821.55 (60%)
|
CONSULTANTS
|
|
|
|
District-related
|
$79, 800.00
|
$63, 840.00 (80%)
|
$L5, 960.00 (20%)
|
State-related
|
$1, 004.58 $0.00 (0%)
|
$1, 004.58(100%)
|
|
Total
|
$80, 804.58
|
$63, 840.00
|
$16, 964.58
|
PARENT ADVOCACY
|
$74, 000.00
|
$59, 200.00 (80%)
|
$14, 800.00 (20%)
|
MONITOR'S SALARY
|
|
|
|
General
|
$19, 216.88
|
$7, 686.75 (40%)
|
$11, 530.13(60%)
|
District-related
|
$55, 007.82
|
$44, 006.26 (80%)
|
$11, 001.56(20%)
|
State-related
|
$34, 815.94
|
$0.00 (0%)
|
$34, 815.94(100%)
|
Total
|
$109, 040.64
|
$51, 693.01
|
$57, 347.63
|
BUDGET TOTALS
|
$346, 881.14
|
$207, 947.38
|
$138, 933.76
|
Given
the unpredictability of the Emma C. litigation at
the present time, the task of predicting the Monitor's
budget is extremely difficult. With that in mind, the Comt
previously directed the Monitor to hold over any remaining
funds available at the end of Fiscal Yeai" 2015-2016 in
order to minimize the possibility of a mid-year budget
modification request. However, the Monitor concludes - and
the Court agrees - that such a holdover is unnecessary at
this time.
The FY
2015-2016 numbers ended up such that the Monitor's
estimates as to the budgets for both Defendants were above
the actual time expended. As to the District, the
Monitor's estimated budget totaled $214, 706.80, while
the actual expenditure totaled $207, 947.38. Therefore, the
District is owed $6, 759.42. As to CDE, the Monitor's
estimated budget totaled $194, 060.20, while the actual
expenditure totaled $138, 933.76. Therefore, CDE is owed $55,
126.44.
The
Court, after consulting with the Monitor, has determined that
the best course of action is to reduce the Defendants’
upcoming deposits for FY 2016-2017 in accordance with the
amount owed to each Defendant. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the Defendants meet and confer with the Monitor
via telephone to discuss the details of such reduction no
later than Thursday, July 21, 2016.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
---------
Notes:
[1] “General” tasks include:
financial management; timesheets; supervision of office
staff; budget preparation and allocations; meetings regarding
office issues; etc.
[2] District-related tasks include: CD
6.1.8 resume review, interviews, and memoranda; meetings
regarding the RSIP, District staffing and general issues;
review of SST, behavioral and attendance data; MTSS meetings;
review and analysis of RSIP data; report writing (including
concluding report); updating the Court on the status of the
RSIP; meet-and-confers regarding the RSIP; meetings/phone
calls with counsel; etc.
[3] State-related tasks include: reviewing
and reporting on CDE’s complaint resolution; review of
compensatory education reports; review of Court documents;
assisting Court with internal memoranda; creation of CAP
database; review and analysis of CAP submissions and
Plaintiffs’ comments; writing CAP ...