School Takeover Plan Gets Fine-Tuning

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s school-reform team Monday unveiled its latest set of alterations designed to bulletproof pending legislation that would give the mayor substantial authority over Los Angeles public schools.

The new version addresses key criticisms, but officials with the Los Angeles Unified School District were decidedly unmoved. State lawmakers are expected to take up the bill next week in Sacramento, with school district officials still strongly opposed.

For starters, Villaraigosa’s amendments take on two points raised in a July 28 review by Gerry F. Miller, the city’s chief legislative analyst, who speculated that the bill could shift some power from the City Council to the mayor. Miller also noted that Villaraigosa’s plan could result in additional city costs and liability because it shifts responsibility for the school system to a council of mayors dominated by Villaraigosa and gives him direct authority over a subset of schools.

New language in the proposed bill, however, specifically keeps the City Council, and other affected city councils, in charge of the purse strings: “Nothing ... shall be construed to require any city to expend city resources on services to the school district.”

As for possible lawsuits: “Any liability incurred by any member of the council of mayors or [the] mayor’s community partnership ... in undertaking any of the functions described in this chapter shall be borne by the school district and not by the county of Los Angeles, or any of the cities within its boundaries.”

The last provision drew the scorn of Kevin Reed, general counsel for L.A. Unified. He called the language “a breathtaking shift of liability.”

In another section, the amendments try to sidestep the roadblock of the state Constitution, which requires California public schools to be overseen by established school systems. Assembly Bill 1381 would place the subset of schools under Villaraigosa’s personal authority within the former jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Thomas Saenz, the mayor’s legal advisor, likened the arrangement to when a school district authorizes a charter school.

Reed called the comparison invalid because, he said, charter schools submit to more oversight. He also called it a conflict of interest that Saenz is an appointed board member of the county Office of Education. A spokeswoman for the mayor’s office said Saenz would resign if the legislation becomes law.

Reed also questioned the constitutionality of the council of mayors, which would consist of Villaraigosa, representatives of the county Board of Supervisors and of 27 other cities served by L.A. Unified.

Some changes were intended to placate officials from these other cities, which now have new provisions for advising the school district and for opting out of the council of mayors entirely. But there’s no change in the council’s proportional representation, which gives Villaraigosa 80% of the vote and thus control over every decision.

“I still see the council of mayors as a net loss,” said San Fernando Councilwoman Maribel De La Torre, “especially when it comes to deciding on the budget. At least right now, our residents have a say as to who is elected to the school board to represent our needs in the school district.”

But Villaraigosa got a vote of confidence from Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles), who will have the job next week of shepherding the legislation into law.

“I think this is the right move,” Nunez said. “It gives the mayor an opportunity to have his foot in the door ... in the decision-making process at LAUSD.”

*

Times staff writer Nancy Vogel in Sacramento contributed to this report.