MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF WRIT PETITION 1

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT P. BAKER ROBERT P. BAKER (SBN 75748)c/o Glickfeld, Fields & Jacobson9401 Wilshire BoulevardSuite 525Telephone: (310) 550-7222Facsimile: (310) 550-6222Attorneys for PetitionersSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESCENTRAL DISTRICTCHERYL SHAPIRO, et al,Petitioners,vs.LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOLDISTRICT., et al.Respondents.)))))))))))))CASE NO.:MEMORANDUM OF POINTS ANDAUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF:1) STAY OR ALTERNATIVE WRIT; AND2) VERIFIED WRIT PETITIONALSO REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEESAND COSTS EXCEEDING $30,000.[CCP, Secs. 1085, 1094.5, 1021.5 etc.]Date: July 13, 2009Time 8:30 amPlace: Department 85Petition filed: July 9, 2009

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF WRIT PETITION 2

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Petitioners submit the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of their WritPetition, Request for Stay or Alternative Writ, and Request for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

This case seeks review of the approval on July 1, 2009 of the Board of Education of the LosAngeles Unified School District (“Board”) to convert Birmingham High School to a charter school. The approval, following a so-called public hearing on June 18, 2009, constituted a failure by the Board to exercise its ministerial duty to deny the conversion Petition. The approval wasalso in excess of the Board’s jurisdiction in that it lacked the power to review the petition, anabuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious in that: a) it acted on

ex parte

evidence received from proponents the night before the vote and 12 days AFTER the hearing, as well as b) theconstituency of the Board changed AFTER the hearing with two members being added who didnot participate in the hearing; and a failure to exercise the ministerial duty of the Board to rejectthe conversion.The basis for the Writ Petition is four fold. First, the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the petition because before submission to the Board the petition had not BY A PROPER PROCESS been signed by 50% of the permanent status teachers of Birmingham High- the only vote thatmatters under Cal. Educ. Code, Sec. 47605. The defects in the petition signing process werenumerous. The election fraud included intimidation and harassment of teachers; retaliation; lack of secret ballot; inflation of the electorate with ineligible voters; reporting of false results to theBoard by the Charter Division of the Board (Division”); and prevention of assembly anddistribution of information by charter opponents. Lacking the proper acquisition of signatures by50% of the permanent status teachers, the Board lacked any power to review the conversionPetition.Second, the conversion petition clearly demonstrated a manifest inability to implement the proposed educational program because the proposed charter school is insolvent-a fact that the proponents hid by distributing a false and fraudulent one page budget summary until after the

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF WRIT PETITION 3

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728teachers voted. Later, a line item budget was released. It began to be clear at this point that the proposed school was insolvent. It prompted some to withdraw their signatures, but the Divisionrefused to allow this. The budget continued to change materially as the Division confronted petitioners with their insolvency. Later assumptions abandoned a commitment to health benefits,signaled a plan to fire current teachers and replace them with younger employees, relied uponoutsourcing almost every service, etc.- things for which no teacher had voted. But, the financialissues revealed by the budget were deeper. There was a $5,000,000 line of credit assumed butnever demonstrated. There was an accounting error that falsely inflated year end income by$2,500,000; the $1,500,000 legally required reserve was not accounted for; state lottery incomewas assumed in year one but cannot be delivered until year two; and there is no budget for a CFO(who is needed). In short, this school will be millions in the red in year one and every year after that. The fact that the Board could not figure this out speaks to the rushed manner in which theagenda was pursued, or perhaps something worse is at play.Third, there was no plan whatsoever proposed to achieve racial balance. Element 7 of the petitionrelies on the Magnet School on campus to assist in achieving racial balance. However, theMagnet School has opted out of the charter and for that reason the Division ordered the proponents to remove all reliance upon it from their proposal. They failed to do so as regardsracial balance as such would be fatal.Lacking any finances or plan for racial balance, the petition failed miserably to meet two of thecriteria of Education Code, Sec. 47605 for approval of charter schools. As a matter of law, therewas only one vote possible for the Board- rejection of the charter conversion.Fourth, there were also defects in the hearing that deprived opponents of a “fair trial.”Specifically, the Charter School Division of the Board admitted for six months that the petitionwas defective and kept postponing the vote. Among the defects were the failure to show solvencyand racial balance. A public hearing was held on June 18, 2009. There was zero support among