Legal counsel and board members discussed state changes to charter‑authorization rules and potential consequences for local denials at the July 9, 2025 informal meeting.

Dennison summarized the core change: during a school district's term of a waivers program (referred to in the meeting as a "Swiss waiver"), if the district denies two charter applications that the state later approves, the district may be presumed to be a non‑pro charter authorizer and could face suspension or loss of waiver status during a future waiver cycle. He said that suspension could last up to three years and that districts would have to demonstrate they meet state expectations to restore waiver benefits.

Why it matters: Dennison and board members said the shift moves emphasis from front‑end denial to back‑end performance: the state appears to be favoring initial access and then using performance metrics and accountability to determine a charter’s continued existence. The presenter noted that charter approvals also now bring state startup funding (Dennison cited a $250,000 allocation for the first three years for newly approved charters).

Board discussion and practical implications: Board member Mister Kaczmar argued for making local denials defensible with objective, state‑aligned criteria: "I'll take fake local control and unfunded mandates for a thousand dollars," he said in a broader comment about state direction, and he recommended strengthening the district’s evaluative instrument so denials are founded on objective grounds such as financial and facility plans rather than subjective preferences. Board members also discussed the 20‑day obligation to provide the basis for a denial and the heavy lift of producing school‑by‑school reports to show capacity and alternative school options within the district when a denial is appealed to the state.

Contract and legal exposure: Dennison said the state’s posture leaves little flexibility to adopt contract terms that differ materially from state expectations and that the district’s ability to negotiate charter contracts may be constrained in practice. Several board members urged aligning local evaluation and contract language with state standards to avoid having a denial overturned on procedural grounds.

Next steps: The district will continue to align its charter evaluation tools and consider contract language changes, recognizing the time and staff resources required to produce defensible denial documentation and to respond to state appeals.