22-30.5-107.5. Dispute resolution - governing policy provisions - appeal.
Statute text
(1) Except as otherwise provided in section 22-30.5-108, any disputes that may arise between a charter school and its chartering school district concerning governing policy provisions of the school's charter contract shall be resolved pursuant to this section.
(2) (a) A charter school or its chartering school district may initiate a resolution to any dispute concerning a governing policy provision of the school's charter contract by providing reasonable written notice to the other party of an intent to invoke this section. Such notice shall include, at a minimum, a brief description of the matter in dispute and the scope of the disagreement between the parties.
(b) Within thirty days after receipt of the written notice described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (2), the charter school and the school district shall agree to use any form of alternative dispute resolution to resolve the dispute, including but not limited to any of the forms described in the "Dispute Resolution Act", part 3 of article 22 of title 13, C.R.S.; except that any form chosen by the parties shall result in final written findings by a neutral third party within one hundred twenty days after receipt of such written notice.
(c) The neutral third party shall apportion all costs reasonably related to the mutually agreed upon dispute resolution process.
(3) (a) A charter school and its chartering school district may agree to be bound by the written findings of the neutral third party resulting from any alternative dispute resolution entered into pursuant to subsection (1) of this section. In such case, such findings shall be final and not subject to appeal.
(b) If the parties do not agree to be bound by such written findings of the neutral third party, the parties may appeal such findings to the state board. A party who wishes to appeal such findings shall provide the state board and the other party with a notice of appeal within thirty days after the release of such findings, and the notice of appeal shall contain a brief description of the grounds for appeal. The state board may consider said written findings or other relevant materials in reaching its decision and may, on its own motion, conduct, after sufficient notice, a de novo review of and hearing on the underlying matter.
(4) The state board shall:
(a) Issue its decision on the written findings of the neutral third party resulting from any alternative dispute resolution entered into pursuant to subsection (1) of this section within sixty days after receipt of the notice of appeal; or
(b) Make its own findings within sixty days after making its own motion for a de novo review and hearing described in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section.
(5) If the state board, after motion by one of the parties and sufficient notice and hearing, finds that either of the parties to an alternative dispute resolution process held pursuant to this section has failed to participate in good faith in such process or has refused to comply with the decision reached after agreeing to be bound by the result of such process, the state board shall resolve the dispute in favor of the aggrieved party.
(6) Any decision by the state board pursuant to this section shall be final and not subject to appeal.
History
Source: L. 99: Entire section added, p. 1255, 3, effective June 2. L. 2002: Entire section R&RE, p. 1001, 1, effective June 1.
Annotations
Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 1999 act enacting this section, see section 1 of chapter 302, Session Laws of Colorado 1999.
Annotations
ANNOTATION
Annotations
Annotator's note. The following annotations include a case decided under this section as it existed prior to its 2002 repeal and reenactment.
By adding this section, the general assembly established the processes for settling governing policy contract disputes, as well as explicitly establishing the situations in which the state board of education had appellate review. Acad. of Charter Schs. v. Adams Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 12, 32 P.3d 456 (Colo. 2001).
The enactment of this section served as a retroactive change to the Charter Schools Act. Because the section authorizes an aggrieved party to seek appellate review from the state board of education, and because the state board's decision is not subject to review, plaintiff lacked standing to pursue its governing policy claims. Acad. of Charter Schs. v. Adams Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 12, 32 P.3d 456 (Colo. 2001).
Because charter schools and school districts fall within the province of the political subdivision doctrine, the plaintiff charter school, as the subordinate agency, did not have standing to sue the defendant school district, a superior agency. The dispute must be resolved instead within the executive branch. Dolores Huerta Prep. High v. Colo. State Bd. of Educ., 215 P.3d 1229 (Colo. App. 2009).
Governing policy provisions of a charter school contract are not subject to judicial review. Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the provision of its charter contract that addressed long-term facility support through various funding sources, and the court found this to fall under the category of a governing policy, thus not subject to judicial review. Dolores Huerta Prep. High v. Colo. State Bd. of Educ., 215 P.3d 1229 (Colo. App. 2009).