English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In 2007, amid concerns that cash-out refunding bonds were legally unsound and might violate state law, State Senator Joseph Simitian submitted five questions to the California Attorney General addressing the legality of cash-out refunding bonds. Of particular interest is Question 5, which asks whether a school district may sell refunding bonds to a joint powers authority with an above-market interest rate. The Attorney General opined that such a financing arrangement would violate the state constitution because it results in new, non-voter approved local government debt. This Comment is a critique of the Attorney General’s answer to Question 5 that focuses on, inter alia, a problematic assumption, dicta cited as precedent, and a substance-over-form argument that does not conform with existing case law.

Why the Joint Powers Authority Refunding Bond Model Works: A Critique of the Attorney General’s Claim of Unconstitutionality