Summary of DAC et. al. vs. LAUSD et. al. L.A.S.C. Case No. BC474879. For at least about the past 30 years, parents of children receiving supplemental educational benefits under Title I (20 U.S.C. §6301 et. seq.) from the Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) have organized in a district-wide organization known as the District Compensatory Education Advisory Committee (“DAC”), as well as various subcommittees of parents and community members throughout the school district. The DAC represents about 1.2 million parents and, under its Bylaws, has one elected position for every 5000 students, i.e. over 120 positions for over 600,000 students. It has operated continuously during the past three decades. The DAC’s Bylaws, officers and members are voted and elected by parents, and the DAC operates as any other unincorporated association in California. A copy of the Bylaws is attached as Exhibit A to plaintiffs’ complaint. Throughout the decades, LAUSD has been required under the Title I federal law, as a pre-condition for receiving the Title I funding from the federal and state governments, to “agree” with parents in writing for “involvement” of the parents. (20 U.S.C. §6318(a)(2)). The written agreement which has existed for decades, and continues to exist through the present time, is entitled the “Title I Parent Involvement Policy” (“TIPIP”). The most recent agreement of the TIPIP was accepted by the parents, by and through their DAC, on April 21, 2006, and by the LAUSD Board of Education on April 25, 2006, and has been in place without changes since that time. A copy is attached as Exhibit B to plaintiffs’ complaint. On about August 11, 2011, John E. Deasy, Ph.D., announced in writing that LAUSD had abolished the DAC and repudiated the TIPIP, and that LAUSD was replacing the DAC and the TIPIP with a new parent involvement policy entitled “Parents As Equal Partners” (“PAEP”) without any agreement of the DAC. Although Dr. Deasy’s August 11th announcement stated that LAUSD’s Board of Education had voted to replace the DAC and TIPIP, he later retracted that statement on September 6, 2011 and wrote that such action was being taken by him under unspecified authority he has as superintendent. The PAEP does not include a district-wide parent organization; it sets “term limits” for parents in unspecified involvement henceforth and, without exaggeration, demands that parents simply ‘implement’ the PAEP, period. Needless to say, the PAEP has been rejected by the DAC. A purported “task force” which worked on the concept of the PAEP in January and February of 2011 had 48 members. Based on records available to the DAC, only one person out of the 48 member “task force” was a parent of children enrolled in LAUSD receiving supplemental benefits under Title I. It is unknown whether that parent actually supported any part of the PAEP. In other words, the PAEP is nothing more than a cliché and a sham. The DAC believes that Dr. Deasy’s unilateral attack against the DAC and the Title I parents is the culmination of several years of complaints by parents that LAUSD has failed to perform its obligations for parent involvement under the TIPIP. Dr. Deasy takes the position that he alone determines parent involvement throughout the school district, and that the TIPIP is not enforceable. In the present case, the DAC seeks declaratory relief against LAUSD that it can sue to enforce the TIPIP. In the alternative, parent officers of the DAC are suing to enforce the TIPIP as a class action. The DAC argues that parents have the right under the 1st Amendment to collectively organize and to assemble, and that neither Dr. Deasy nor the LAUSD Board of Education can dictate such organization and assembly to parents. The lawsuit also seeks injunctive relief. The lawsuit alleges that LAUSD holds the Title I funding as a trustee, and that the trust for both parents and their children has accumulated in the total amount of about $2.5 billion. The DAC and its parent officers seek equitable relief for an accounting and restitution of Title I funding, as well as damages under the federal civil rights law, 42 U.S.C. §1983. There is no statutory authority for the action taken by Dr. Deasy. On the contrary, the authority is uniform that an unincorporated association such as the DAC may sue to enforce a written agreement such as the TIPIP. Indeed, not even Dr. Deasy’s employers’ Board of Education has publicly voted to take the unilateral action which he has chosen. The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was enacted to outlaw the very type of attack in which Dr. Deasy is presently engaged. The DAC believes that Dr. Deasy’s unilateral attempt to dismantle the district-wide parent organization which has existed for 30 years has no serious chance of success. Moreover, it greatly jeopardizes LAUSD’s receipt of almost $500 million in funding under Title I because such funding is pre- conditioned on the TIPIP, which Dr. Deasy has repudiated without approval from Congress. LAUSD should immediately abandon the course which Dr. Deasy is steering against the parents. Unilateral imposition of the PAEP patently violates the 1st Amendment, Title I and the TIPIP. If LAUSD does not abandon Dr. Deasy’s course, then the DAC and the parents have no alternative except to seek adjudication in court as set forth in plaintiffs’ complaint. Counsel for plaintiffs is Los Angeles attorney, Robert A. Brown, Esq. A website will soon be available for on-going information about the lawsuit and contact information for counsel and DAC officers.