Honig, School Board Still at Odds After Talks

Although State Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig and the State Board of Education tried Thursday to put a good face on efforts to sort out how much authority each should have over California educational policy, the two sides still seemed far apart on key issues.

“I think we did make progress,” Honig told the board’s policy and planning committee about several meetings in recent weeks. He said he was hopeful that final agreement could be reached when the board next meets in January.

Said Howard L. Dickstein, special counsel to the board, “While agreement was not reached, there was movement by the superintendent that I consider significant.”

However, the 35-minute discussion that followed brought out at least two important issues on which there is still substantial disagreement:

* How much the 11-member board should be involved in reviewing budget decisions made by Honig and other Department of Education administrators.

* What the board’s role should be in appointing and evaluating top officials in the department.

A Dickstein “memo of understanding” that has served as a basis for the negotiations would give board members significantly increased authority both in preparing the annual education budget and in making sure the funds are spent properly.

For instance, the board would have to approve all personal service contracts of more than $20,000 and changes in the budget involving expenditures of more than $10,000.

Honig called these provisions “getting into the day-by-day administration of the department” and claimed they were “taken off the table” and will remain under his control.

But Dickstein disagreed, saying: “The scope of these discussions is comprehensive. Every issue that is in that memo is being discussed.”

Honig later suggested to reporters that he and the board might submit separate budgets in the future and the governor and Legislature could decide which to consider.

The Dickstein memo also proposes that the board approve high-level Department of Education appointments and review the employees’ performance annually. Additionally, it calls on Honig to appoint a deputy superintendent and three associate superintendents, positions that are called for in the state Constitution but have been left vacant during his eight years in office.

Instead of making these appointments, which are for four-year terms, Honig has used another process to hire top aides whose terms are indefinite.

The superintendent indicated Thursday that he would not agree to adopt the procedure set out in the Dickstein memo.

The principal issue between the superintendent and the board is how involved the board, made up of part-time appointees of the governor, should be in managing the 1,400-employee department.

Honig said he is willing to grant the board “policy review” but would continue to resist what he called “day-by-day micro-management.”

But what the superintendent sees as “micro-management” is a crucial part of what some board members are seeking.

“I think it’s absolutely essential that the board have control over program mix, dollar mix and any promiscuous movement of money from one program to another,” Board President Joseph D. Carrabino said.

So far, board members have not succeeded even in obtaining office space and telephones.

When Carrabino raised that issue, Honig said that was “one of the items in the discussion” and should be part of a final “package.”