Fair Educ. Santa Barbara v. Santa Barbara Unified Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 15 December 2021
• Docket Number: 2d Civ. No. B309248
• Citation: 287 Cal.Rptr.3d 641,72 Cal.App.5th 884
• Parties: FAIR EDUCATION SANTA BARBARA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

72 Cal.App.5th 884

287 Cal.Rptr.3d 641

FAIR EDUCATION SANTA BARBARA, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents.

2d Civ. No. B309248

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, California.

Filed December 15, 2021

Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae, Eric P. Early and Peter D. Scott, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Griffith & Thornburgh, Craig Price, Santa Barbara, and Austin S. Payne for Defendants and Respondents Santa Barbara Unified School District and Cary Matsuoka.

Kirkland & Ellis, Allison W. Buchner, Los Angeles; Perkins Coie, Sarah E. Piepmeier, Elise Edlin, May Eaton, San Francisco, and Andrew Taylor Ohlert, San Francisco, for Defendant and Respondent Just Communities Central Coast, Inc.

TANGEMAN, J.

Fair Education Santa Barbara, Inc. (FESB) appeals from the judgment after the trial court denied its petition for writ of mandate ( Code of Civ. Proc.,¹ § 1085 ), seeking to invalidate two one-year contracts between respondents Santa Barbara Unified School District/former-Superintendent Cary Matsuoka (collectively SBUSD) and Just Communities Central Coast, Inc. (JCCC). We affirm.²

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

FESB is a coalition of residents and taxpayers in Santa Barbara County. SBUSD is a public school district in Santa Barbara County. JCCC is an organization that provides anti-bias training and educational programs to school districts and other organizations. JCCC has worked with SBUSD on various training programs since 2005. In 2013, an evaluation of JCCC's programs revealed that it made a "measurable contribution to Latino [s]tudent [a]chievement" within SBUSD.

JCCC provides anti-bias training for educators which focuses on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The main purpose of the anti-bias training is to "eradicate the persistent educational achievement gap among minority students." JCCC facilitators have specialized training and knowledge of the local community and culture. JCCC draws upon research from a variety of fields and from leading authorities in diversity education. The facilitators are required to participate in 60 hours of training (or its equivalent) and participate in an additional eight to 12 hours of specialized training for the educator program. Most trainers have a bachelor's or master's degree, and some are former educators. Many trainers live in and/or have worked locally and have attended SBUSD schools or have worked for them. JCCC's program has been used in other local school districts, governmental entities, and non-profit organizations.

With a goal to close educational performance gaps and eliminate institutional biases, SBUSD elected to provide diversity, equity, and inclusion training to its teachers and staff, and made such training available to students and parents. JCCC had a variety of programs. One program was designed to help SBUSD educators "develop a cultural proficiency and equity lens" and another program was designed to help educators create a culturally relevant curriculum. JCCC also had programs to help SBUSD "develop a larger number of skilled interpreters" and "ensure key district personnel understand and implement best practices for working with interpreters." JCCC also provided student and parent programs on inclusion and equity training. In addition, JCCC offered "customized professional development" services and ongoing coaching to SBUSD staff. According to former Superintendent Matsuoka and SBUSD's board of directors, no SBUSD staff members or other public resources were available to provide comparable training to its educators, students, and parents.

In October 2018, SBUSD approved a one-year contract for the 2018-2019 school year with JCCC for anti-bias training services. In May 2019, SBUSD approved another one-year contract for the 2019-2020 school year with JCCC. Both contracts were approved without public bidding.

FESB petitioned for a writ of mandate against SBUSD and JCCC, alleging that the contracts were void because they were not subject to public bidding pursuant to Public Contract Code section 20111.

The trial court denied the petition. It found that SBUSD's decision to contract with JCCC was a "quasi-legislative" act that was subject to a "deferential standard under which the Court looks only to whether the FESB has met its burden of establishing that SBUSD's action was arbitrary, capricious or entirely lacking in evidentiary support."

Applying a deferential standard, the court found there was a "reasonable basis for SBUSD's actions in concluding that the services were not subject to the public bidding requirements ... because they constitute ‘professional services’ within the meaning of subdivision (d)" of Public Contract Code section 20111. The court also found that JCCC's services constituted "special services" under Government Code section 53060. The court also noted that "it appears likely that JCCC's unique understanding of and ability to address the issues of race and privilege in the local Santa Barbara community, as well as its customized programming designed to address the achievement gap experienced by minority students in the area by providing trainings directed not just to educators, but to students and parents as well, may well render it the only contractor capable of providing the services which SBUSD has made a policy decision to provide." "Under these circumstances, it may well be true that ‘the nature of the subject of the contract is such that competitive proposals would be unavailing or would not produce an advantage, and the advertisement for competitive bidding would thus be undesirable, impractical, or impossible.’ "

DISCUSSION

FESB contends the trial court erred when it (1) reviewed SBUSD's action under a deferential standard, (2) found that the contract met the exemption³ for "professional services" ( Pub. Contract Code, § 20111, subd. (d) ), (3) found that the contract met the exemption for "special services" ( Gov. Code, § 53060 ), and found that competitive bidding would be "undesirable, impractical, or impossible." We conclude otherwise.

Competitive Bidding Requirements

Public Contract Code section 20111 requires that the "governing board of any school district ... shall let any contracts involving an expenditure of more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)" for the purchase of equipment, materials, supplies, certain repairs, or services , "to the lowest responsible bidder ... or else reject all bids." ( Pub. Contract Code, § 20111, subd. (a)(1) and (2), italics added.) These bidding requirements "shall not apply to professional services or advice." (Id . at subd. (d), italics added.) In addition, Government Code section 53060 permits a legislative body of any public corporation or district to "contract with and employ any persons for the furnishing [of] ... special services and advice in financial, economic, accounting, engineering, legal, or administrative matters if such persons are specially trained and experienced and competent to perform the special services required." (See also California Sch. Employees Assn. v. Sunnyvale Elementary School District (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 46, 60-62, 111 Cal.Rptr. 433 ( Sunnyvale Elementary ); see also Cobb v. Pasadena City Board of Education (1955) 134 Cal.App.2d 93, 96, 285 P.2d 41 ( Cobb ) [contract for "special services" is exempt from competitive bidding requirements].)

The purpose of competitive bidding is " ‘to guard against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud and corruption; to prevent the waste of public funds; and to obtain the best economic result for the public’ [citation], and to stimulate advantageous market place competition." ( Domar Electric, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 9 Cal.4th 161, 173, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 521, 885 P.2d 934 ( Domar ).) Competitive bidding provisions are strictly construed by the courts, but will not be construed in a manner that will defeat their purpose. ( Ibid . ) Such provisions must be read " ‘in the light of the reason for their enactment, or they will be applied where they were not intended to operate and thus deny [the public entity's] authority to deal with problems in a sensible, practical way.’ [Citation.]" ( Ibid . )

Applicable Standards of Review

FESB argues the trial court erroneously applied a deferential standard of review to SBUSD's decision to enter a no-bid contract with JCCC. It argues that public contracts subject to competitive bidding receive " ‘close judicial scrutiny.’ " We conclude the trial court applied the correct standard.

"A writ of mandate may be issued by any court ... to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station." ( § 1085.) "The writ must be issued in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of law." (§ 1086.)

The trial court's standard of review in a mandamus proceeding depends upon the nature of the agency's action. Pursuant to section 1085, a court may review both an agency's "ministerial duties" and "quasi-legislative" actions. ( County of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 643, 653, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 263.) The trial court must "determine whether the agency had a ministerial duty capable of direct enforcement or a quasi-legislative duty entitled to a considerable degree of deference." ( Ibid . ) A ministerial duty is one " ‘that a public officer is required to perform in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority and without regard to his own judgment or opinion concerning such act's propriety or impropriety, when a given state of facts exists. Discretion, on the other hand, is the power conferred on public functionaries to act officially according to the dictates of their own judgment.’ [Citations.]" ( Id . at pp. 653-654, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 263.)

The " ‘appropriate level of degree of judicial scrutiny in any particular case is perhaps not susceptible of...