Did a Louisiana charter school's troubled first operator bar approval of a different nonprofit's charter?

Plain-English summary

The Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education had provisionally approved a charter for a nonprofit operating school sites in Hammond and Baton Rouge. After the Hammond site was investigated for possible legal violations, the board suspended approval and began revocation proceedings. The Baton Rouge administrator formed a different nonprofit with a different board and sought a separate charter, which received provisional approval subject to conditions.

The board asked whether that sequence created a legal conflict. In 2000, the attorney general's office said no conflict had arisen: the board was revoking one corporation's charter while entering a new one with a different corporation. The opinion also said neither the Baton Rouge administrator nor the new board members had caused the proposed revocation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Charter school authorizers at the time

The office did not see a legal conflict between revoking the original operator's provisional charter and approving a separate charter for a different nonprofit on these facts. It did not decide whether every condition for the new charter had been fulfilled.

Charter school operators at the time

The opinion's conclusion turned on the two corporations being different and on the absence of any action by the Baton Rouge administrator or the new board members causing the proposed revocation.

Common questions

Q: Could the board provisionally approve the new charter while revoking the old one?
A: The opinion found no legal conflict in the arrangement described to it: one corporation's charter faced revocation while a different corporation had a new, conditional charter.

Q: Had the attorney general determined that the old operator violated the law?
A: No. The opinion described an investigation at the Hammond site and the board's revocation process, but did not decide whether the suspected violations occurred.

Q: Was the new charter's approval unconditional?
A: No. The opinion said the board's provisional approval depended on several conditions, one of which was an attorney general's opinion resolving the potential conflict.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion identified LSA-R. S. 17:3983 in its heading and described the two provisional charter decisions. Its reasoning was factual and narrow: the applications belonged to different corporations, and the proposed revocation was not attributed to the Baton Rouge administrator or the new corporation's board.

Citations and references

• LSA-R. S. 17:3983 (statute identified in the opinion's heading)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/00-0342

Original opinion text

September 12, 2000
OPINION NO. 00-342

97 – SCHOOLS & SCHOOL DISTRICTS – Proprietary,
Ms. Weegie Peabody
Contracts, etc.
Executive Director
LSA-R. S. 17:3983
Louisiana State Board of Elementary No conflict has is apparent as a result of approval of the charter school issue. and Secondary Education
P. O. Box 94064
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9064

Dear Ms. Peabody:

You have requested an Attorney General’s Opinion concerning a matter relating to charter schools. Your request has been assigned to me for a response.

Your question relates to a charter school contract. You state that an application to operate a charter school was submitted to the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) by a non-profit corporation to operate as the Education 2000 Charter School. The application submitted proposed operating in two separate sites: one in Hammond and one in Baton Rouge. BESE gave provisional approval to the charter, subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions. The Hammond site opened in September of 1999. The Baton Rouge site planned to open in August of 2000.

The administrator of the Baton Rouge school was also on the Board of Directors of the corporation. In February of 2000, a new Board of Directors was appointed, without the Baton Rouge administrator. About the same time, the Hammond site was investigated for possible violations of law. BESE currently has suspended its provisional approval of the charter and is in the process of revoking provisional approval.

The administrator of the Baton Rouge school formed a new non-profit corporation with a different Board of Directors and submitted a separate application to operate a charter school. BESE granted the charter provisional approval, contingent upon a number of conditions. One of those conditions being an attorney general’s opinion “resolving any conflict” due to the above factual situation.

As a matter of law, no conflict has arisen. BESE is in the process of revoking one charter with a corporation, and has entered into a new charter with a different corporation. Moreover, the proposed revocation is not the result of any action taken by the administrator of the Baton Rouge charter school, or of any member of the new Board of Directors.

Page 2

Ms. Weegie Peabody
Executive Director
OPINION No. 00-342
Page 2

I trust the above responds to your request.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
ATTORNEY GENERAL

By:_________
JAMES C. HRDLICKA
Assistant Attorney General

RPI/JCH:lrs

Page 3

OPINION No. 00-342

97 – SCHOOLS & SCHOOL DISTRICTS – Proprietary, Contracts, etc.

LSA-R. S. 17:3983

No conflict has is apparent as a result of approval of the charter school issue.

Ms. Weegie Peabody
Executive Director
Louisiana State Board of Elementary
and Secondary Education
P. O. Box 94064
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9064

DATE RECEIVED:
JAMES C. HRDLICKA
DATE RELEASED: September 12, 2000 Assistant Attorney General