Community college districts petitioned for writ of mandate challenging decision of Commission on State Mandates that funding entitlement regulations did not impose a state mandate under state constitutional provision requiring the State to reimburse local governments for state-mandated new programs or higher level of service.
The Superior Court denied petition and entered judgment. Districts appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed in part. Commissioner petitioned for review.
The Supreme Court held that funding entitlement regulations did not impose a state mandate under a legal compulsion theory.
Regulations specifying various conditions that community college districts were required to satisfy to avoid the possibility of having state aid reduced or withheld did not legally compel districts to comply, and thus regulations did not impose a state mandate under a legal compulsion theory for purposes of a local government’s constitutional right to reimbursement for a state-mandated new program or higher level of service; fact that the standards set forth in regulations, including matriculation, hiring of faculty, and selecting curriculum, related to districts’ core functions did not in itself establish that districts had a mandatory legal obligation to adopt those standards, and California Community Colleges Chancellor had discretion to pursue remedial measures for any noncompliance.