By "CA Gov't Code 53260-1" I was referring to CA Gov't Code 53260 and 53261, and those do indeed exist.
A: Yes, they do. I was merely trying to clarify the appropriate code section, so that we are on the same page.
The code you cite, however, does not appear in the CA Govt Code I am looking at. It goes from 3516.5 to 3517. Are you referring to the long list of codes in 3517.6 and 3517.61?
A: You're quite correct. Seems that I'm not immune to a typographical error, either. My apologies -- it should be Govt. Codd Sections 3517.6 and 3517.61.
Also, my question is about teachers. I am not a superintendent. It's true that all of the specific language (other than "employee") in 53260 appears to refer only to superintendents/ supervisors (people who negotiate their own contracts directly with district), my school is attempting to apply it to teachers/ collective bargaining unit members as well.
A: Although a school district board is an autonomous agency, outside of the regulation by a city or county, Govt. Code 53260 does not restrict itself only to local agencies controlled by cities and counties. The entire Division of the Govt. Code, commencing with Section 53000, is not restricted so as to prohibit application to a contract with a certificated teaching employee. Ed. Code 44800 et seq. provides comprehensive rules for application to certificated employees, but says nothing about settlement contracts. On balance, were there a section in the Ed. Code which conflicted with Govt. Code 53260, I would say that a court would almost certainly rule that the Ed. Code is preemptive -- but as there is not, I see no obstacle to the application of Section 53260 to any local agency employee -- including a certificated teacher. And, as previously mentioned, the Govt. Code does not expressly subordinate Section 53260 to a collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, once again, Section 53260 controls.
Also, although 53260 states that "All contracts of employment between an employee and a local agency employer shall include a provision" about the settlement cap, my contract contains no such provision. Would the cap still apply, even if it was meant for teachers, if the contract contains no such provision?
A: Section 53260(a) applies to all employees without limitation. Subd. (b) applies to supervisors/superintendents. The failure to include the cap, in my view, would mean that it does not apply to your circumstances, because by not including the cap, the district waives its provision -- being that the district is supposed to know and apply this law -- so, it must also know that by violating the law, it ought not be entitled to enforce its provisions against a counter-party in a contract negotiation.
Note: I have carefully researched California case law concerning Section 53260, and there is no case interpreting the section of law. Consequently, it's ripe for a court interpretation -- so, while I'm effectively "judging" your questions as if I were sitting on the bench of the Superior Court, I cannot promise that my interpretation will be confirmed by a currently sitting Superior Court judge.
This situation is wide open for litigation.
Hope this helps.