L.A. School Chief’s Job Extended : Education: Board does not exercise an option to terminate Anton’s contract.

Los Angeles Unified School District Supt. Bill Anton, whose brief tenure has fallen during one of the worst financial crises to strike the district in years, has had his contract extended another year, according to officials.

During a closed-door session held in late January, the Los Angeles school board decided not to exercise an option to terminate Anton’s contract before a Feb. 1 deadline, thereby automatically extending it through June 30, 1993.

“The fact the board took no action to end the contract is a statement by the board that Bill Anton is the best person to be superintendent of the school district,” said board member Leticia Quezada.

But Helen Bernstein, president of United Teacher-Los Angeles, questioned the decision, which came just before district officials publicly disclosed on Jan. 27 a midyear deficit of as much as $150 million. Outside auditors this week identified some possible causes of the budget shortfall and urged the school board to press for a fuller explanation.

“I had assumed, falsely I suppose, that you don’t extend any contract in the management area until you finish an investigation (on) accountability,” said Bernstein. “I’m not implying Anton is responsible. But even if Anton is not responsible . . . I would have thought he would have said hold off until we figure out what happened.”

District officials said the decision was made in a private session because it was a personnel matter. The state’s Brown Act requires elected officials to hold public meetings except in limited circumstances, involving discussion of personnel, litigation and collective bargaining. The contract extension was disclosed in a Daily News article Thursday.

Quezada said that Anton has done an excellent job in the face of the district’s fiscal problems. “I think it’s a credit to Anton we’ve been able to maintain stability in the face of huge setbacks,” she said. “I believe many of the so-called crises we’re facing today have to do with a majority of board members willing to expose the district to financial instability.”

Anton, who was appointed superintendent in 1990, was given a two-year contract that provided he would automatically continue in the job for a third year at his base salary of $164,555 if neither he nor the board gave notice to the contrary by Feb. 1, 1992.

The superintendent, along with other district employees, took a 3% pay cut this school year, along with a five-day unpaid furlough, to help close a $275-million budget gap. Anton also volunteered to take another reduction in salary that, combined with the mandatory pay cut and furlough, added up to a 10%, or more than $16,000, reduction. He currently earns $148,100.

Bernstein said she had not seen a copy of the contract but said it appeared that Anton had “been guaranteed his higher salary. . . . I don’t think that’s fair.”

Teachers accepted a contract last December stating that their salaries would be restored to the 1990-91 level starting in July. It also said there would be repayment of their 3% pay cut with interest by 1995. But Bernstein said that, pending future negotiations, there is no guarantee they will get what was agreed to. Richard Mason, the district’s chief counsel, said that although Anton’s contract reflects the base salary upon which he was hired, his salary--like the teachers’--will ultimately depend on the state of the district’s finances.