Minutes 1955 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

.± ,0 "1. Attorney General of the State of California Opinion NS3904, dated February 19, 1942, states in part, 'School authorities are not empowered to appoint or employ traffic officers or to create such offices, nor have they been authorized to enforce traffic laws at crossings near schools.' 2. Referring to the same Attorney General's opinion, District Attorney General's opinion, District Attorney Louis B. Dematteis of San Mateo County issued the following opinion No. 53 -69, dated July 22, 1953: 'with the above Attorney General's opinion in this office concurs. It is our opinion that aside from the creation of Junior Safety Patrols, a s rcol district is not empowered i employ school crossing guards to enforce the traffic laws. It is noted, however, that such service may legally be furnished by City Councils or County Boards of Supervisors. Where such service is not provided by re_ular full -time members of the police agency of the city or county, section 770 of the Vehicle Code specifically provides that a city may pay the compensation of such guards from t he Traffic Safety Fund, Councilman Britschgi moved that the communication be made a matter of record and filed, sconded by Councilman Jones. City Attorney Currie then read a communication dated September 1, 1953, directed to the County Superintendent of Schools from the District Attorney's office regarding school crossing guards and related questions. nThis is, in response to your request for our views on the question set out below, which have been presented to the Board of Tustees of the Redwood City Elementary School by the City Attorney of Redwood City, at the direction of the Mayor of that municipality. The questions referred to, and our opinions thereon are considered in the order in which they were presented in the City Attorney's letter of August 5, 1953. 1. "Can the school district enter into an agreement whereby it would share the cost of maintaining school crossing guards within the corporate limits of Redwood City, in the form of the agreement heretofore submitted to the district by the City Manager of the City of Redwood City ?" Answer: No. As we advised you in our opinion No. 53 -69, dated July 22, 1953, it is our opinion that the governing board of a school district is not authorized to employ persons to enforce the traffic laws at crossings near the schools of the district. We there pointed out that in that regard our opinion was concurred in by the Attorney General of the State of California and expressed in his opinion No. NS 3904. What the governing board of the school district may not do directly it may not do indirectly; thus, in our opinion lack of power to employ crossing guards necessarily implies a lack of authority to share the expense of the salaries of such guards. 2. "Can the school district provide safe conduct for pupils across the streets adjacent to schools in the City of Redwood City ?" Answer: Yes. Authority for providing such safe conduct for pupils is expressly given governing boards of school district by Section 16430 et seq. of the Education Code, which sections provide for the establishment of school Safety Patrols by such boards. This is the only attention, and necessarily implies that to be the sole authority of governing board for providing such service. 3. Can the school district pay to the City of Redwood City, the cost of assistance rendered to them by the City of Redwood City, in the school Safety Patrol Program ?" Answer: Yes, such payment may be made for cooperation of such City, at the request of the governing board of the school district, in the " establishment, supervision and control of a school safety patrol to such extent as may be agreed upon ". Section 16137 of the Education Code provides that school district governing boards are authorized to expend funds for the purpose of carrying out the school safety patrol program. Thus, to the extent the Redwood City'School District may agree with that City for cooperation in the establishment, supervision and control of the school safety patrol program, as is provided by Section 1 of the Education Code, the governing board of the district may expend its funds. L}.. "Can the school district provide an adult person to supervise the school safety patrol members in assisting safe conduct for pupils on streets adjacent to school grounds in the City of Redwood City ?" Answer: Yes. Section 16431 of the - ducation Code provides that providing such a supervisor is mandatory. That section provides, in part: The members of the patrol in every case shall be under the direct spervision and control of a qualified employee of the district designated by the board, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.