Let’s Talk - Lozano Smith Podcast

When it comes to school and community college district projects, correctly classifying work as “maintenance” or “construction” can make or break your bidding and contracting process. In this episode, Lozano Smith attorneys Arne Sandberg and Andrea Olivarez join host Sloan Simmons to unpack the key distinctions between these two categories, how they impact contract structure and bidding requirements, and what your team needs to know about competitive thresholds and UPCCAA procedures. Whether you’re drafting a contract or preparing to go out to bid, this discussion offers essential guidance to ensure compliance and clarity.

Show Notes & References

1:32 – Determining if a project is maintenance or construction

4:06 – Bidding process for maintenance and public projects

4:48 – Categorizing repair work as maintenance versus construction

8:27 – Impact on contracts

8:58: – “Required Work” and “Potential Work” contract language

11:55 – Unique bidding procedures for maintenance projects

13:11 – UPCCAA and informal bidding procedures

14:42 – Formal competitive bidding

15:50 – Key takeaways

 

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

In this episode, host Michelle Cannon engages with Lozano Smith Litigation Practice Group Co-Chair Sloan Simmons and Student Practice Group Co-Chair Kyle Raney to discuss the current state of the law in California under Mirabelli v. Bonta and Mahmoud v. Taylor.  The discussion reviews developments and what is anticipated in the courts through the conclusion of 2026 in relation to these cases and parallel litigation, and covers best practices and policy options for school officials due to the current status of the law.

Show Notes & References

1:34 – Case background: Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) 606 U.S. 522 (Client News Brief 28 – July 2025)

10:24 – Advice for local education agencies (LEAs) on how to respond to overly broad opt-out requests

11:18 – Status of Mozert and Peloza cases (Mozert v. Hawkins County Bd. of Ed. (6th Cir. 1987) 827 F.2d 1058; Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 1994) 37 F.3d 517)

12:25 – California Department of Education (CDE) guidance on Mahmoud

12:38 – Case background: Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026) 607 U.S. 492 (Client New Brief 9 – March 2026)

16:28 – Regino vs. Blake (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2026) 2026 WL 121667 (now pending on appeal before Ninth Circuit)

20:36 – Litigation before Ninth Circuit on Assembly Bill (AB) 1955; Chino Valley Unified School District, et al. v. Newsom, et al., Ninth Circuit Case No. 25-3686; City of Huntington Beach et al. v. State of California, Court of Appeals Case No. 26-25

21:44 – Background on AB 1955 (Client New Brief 8 – March 2026)

30:52 – Takeaways for LEAs on pending litigation cases

32:26 – Recommendations for updating LEA policies and practices

34:51 – More takeaways for LEAs and staff

 

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

 

Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Public employees and officials have the right to participate in political activity, but important restrictions apply when personal advocacy intersects with public employment and agency resources. In this episode, host Michelle Cannon connects with Lozano Smith attorneys Scott Cross and Gail Zurek to discuss how public employees and officials can distinguish between permissible private political activity and conduct performed in an official capacity. The conversation explores campaign activity during work and personal time, the use of agency facilities and resources, political forums and campaign materials, and the rules governing uniforms, agency logos, and equipment. The discussion also examines how public agencies may provide neutral information about ballot measures without engaging in advocacy, along with restrictions involving campaign solicitations, political benefits, and the Levine Act.

Show Notes & References

1:23 – Public employees and the right to participate in political activity

2:27 – Differentiating between personal (private) activities vs. official (public) activities

4:01 – Prohibited use of agency resources for campaign purposes (Government Code section 8314)

4:23 – Examples of agency resources

6:22 – The importance of where the political activity is taking place (public forums versus limited-public forums)

10:08 – Considerations around public agencies hosting political forums and remaining viewpoint neutral

12:00 – Distributing campaign materials on sidewalks in front of school grounds

14:59 – Prohibition on participation in campaign event while wearing their agency uniform (Government Code section 3206)

15:48 – Rules for teachers displaying campaign materials in the classroom

19:44 – Ballot measures on local agency issues

20:45 – Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206 and Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1

21:51 – Solicitation of campaign contributions (Government Code section 3205)

23:11 – Offering benefits in exchange for political support (Government Code section 3204)

24:07 – The Levine Act (Government Code section 84308)

 

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

 

Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

California’s SB 848 introduces significant new requirements for educational agencies related to ensuring the safety of students. In this episode, host Michelle Cannon connects with Lozano Smith attorneys Carolyn Gemma and Brianna Ramos to discuss the background behind these new requirements and what educational agencies need to know as implementation continues. The conversation explores key changes, including new legal obligations regarding employment screening, comprehensive safety plans, mandated reports, and employee trainings. The discussion provides practical insights to help educational agencies understand the law’s various effective dates and take steps to maintain compliance moving forward.

Show Notes & References

1:22 – Background information on Senate Bill (SB) 848

1:45 – Multiple effective dates that educational agencies should know about

4:05 – Employment screening process since January 1, 2026

4:33 – Assembly Bill (AB) 2534 and screening process for certificated job applicants

6:35 – Egregious misconduct under the law

8:16 – Repercussions for hiring educational agencies who do not comply with the required screening process

9:02 – What if a former educational agency does not respond to a hiring agency’s inquiry?

10:34 – Disclosure requirements for former employer agencies regarding past employee egregious misconduct

13:07 – California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) statewide database

14:52 – Requirements related to professional boundaries

16:24 – Requirement regarding comprehensive school safety plans

18:28 – Who is considered a mandated reporter under SB 848

19:15 – Volunteers under Penal Code definition

19:45 – Contractors

20:26 – New training requirements for mandated reporters

23:34 – CDE/California Department of Social Services training model for compliance with SB 848

24:02 – Next steps for educational agencies going forward to keep up to date with compliance

 

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

 

Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

California’s AB 126 introduces significant changes to charter school oversight and authorizer responsibilities. In this episode, host Sloan Simmons connects with Lozano Smith’s Charter Practice Group Co-Chairs, Ed Sklar and Erin Hamor, to discuss the background behind these reforms and what they mean for charter schools and authorizers. The conversation explores key changes, including expanded oversight requirements, enhanced fiscal monitoring obligations, fraud reporting responsibilities, and further clarifications to California’s Charter Schools Act. The discussion provides practical insights to help authorizers prepare through policy updates, strengthened protocols, and improved documentation practices.

Show Notes & References

1:22 – Background on Assembly Bill (AB) 126 and the implementation of increased oversight for charter schools

1:55 – A3 Charter Schools

5:52 – Moratorium on online non-classroom-based charter schools

7:33 – Oversight requirements now in place for charter authorizers

11:40 – Financial impact on school districts overseeing charter schools

13:12 – Looking ahead to July 1, 2027

17:08 – Auditing obligations for authorizers

18:14 – Other significant trailer bill provisions

19:18 – The erosion of the “mega waiver”

20:17 – Looking ahead to practical concerns and impacts on authorizers

 

For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

 

Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.