Council OKs School Board Redistricting : Education: Lawmakers end stalemate with 9-5 vote to adopt plan backed by civil rights groups. Proponents say remap will boost Latino representation.

The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday concluded a rancorous and suspenseful debate by voting 9 to 5 to adopt a school board redistricting plan that has been backed by civil rights groups as a way to boost Latino representation and comply with federal law.

The action broke a two-week deadlock over plans for reapportioning the school board seats under the 1990 census and brought the council full circle to where it was two weeks ago when it tentatively adopted the same plan but could not finalize it on a second vote.

The stalemate was broken when City Councilmen Zev Yaroslavsky and Marvin Braude, two lawmakers who represent parts of the San Fernando Valley but whose political bases are on the Westside, changed their votes.

Two hours later, Mayor Tom Bradley signed the ordinance.

Under the plan, championed by Councilman Richard Alatorre, two Latino-dominated board seats will be created, one more than exists now.

“They finally did the right thing,” school board President Leticia Quezada said. The board had voted 6 to 1 Monday to back the same plan.

The plan “gives Latinos a long-awaited second voice” in a school district in which Latinos compose 43% of the population and 64% of the students, said Quezada, the first Latina to head the seven-member school board.

Under the Alatorre plan, the San Fernando Valley will be represented by four board seats. But only one seat, represented by Roberta Weintraub, is to be solely in the Valley.

Julie Korenstein, the Valley’s other board member, will be forced under the new ordinance to run against fellow board member Mark Slavkin in next year’s elections for a seat that will stretch from Porter Ranch to Westchester.

The remap debate became an agonizing political odyssey after San Fernando Valley activists intervened at the 11th hour to fight final enactment of the Alatorre plan, claiming that it weakens the Valley’s representation on the board and fragments the east Valley’s growing minority community.

Dissidents claimed that the Alatorre plan will fragment the east Valley’s black and Latino population and result in Eastside-based Latinos, such as Quezada, dominating them. Under the adopted plan, Quezada, an Alatorre political ally, will represent a Latino-majority district stretching from Boyle Heights to Sylmar.

Even after Tuesday’s vote, disappointed Valley activists, including Latinos, African-Americans, parents and business groups, vowed to file a lawsuit challenging the plan.

“Absolutely we’ll sue,” said Cecelia Mansfield, a vice president of the 31st District Parent-Teachers Student Assn., a Valley-based group that has formed the backbone of the opposition to the Alatorre plan.

Also promising to sue was Linda Jones, president of the San Fernando Valley chapter of the Black American Political Assn. of California, and Tony Alcala, a Latino parent activist. “We don’t want imported leadership,” Jones told the council.

As an alternative, Valley activists backed a plan sponsored by Councilwoman Joy Picus. The Picus plan, like the existing system, calls for two board seats to be located wholly in the Valley. It also proposed creating two Latino-dominated seats, both outside the Valley.

The council’s legal advisers in executive session Monday said they believed that the Picus plan, like the Alatorre plan, would be defensible in court.

However, it was also disclosed by Yaroslavsky that the city’s attorneys believed that the Alatorre plan would be easier to defend.

Since June 23, when the Alatorre plan was tentatively adopted on a 9-6 vote, attempts to finalize the adoption of this plan have been repeatedly stalemated.

Even on Tuesday, the initial votes were 7 to 7 for the Alatorre plan and 7 to 7 for the Picus alternative.

Missing from the equation has been the council’s 15th member, Council President John Ferraro, who has been sidelined by open-heart surgery since the June 23 vote. Ferraro had voted for the Alatorre plan on the first vote.

In Ferraro’s absence, the key to the stalemate has been Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, who initially voted for the Alatorre plan.

However, Yaroslavsky moved to support the Picus plan, claiming he believed that it was fair to Latinos and protected the Valley.

But on Tuesday, Yaroslavsky and Braude switched their votes to put the Alatorre plan over the top.

Yaroslavsky changed sides after Councilman Joel Wachs, a Valley lawmaker, proposed adoption of yet a third plan, one backed by a coalition of Latino organizations.

Claiming it was obvious that the Picus plan could not muster the eight votes needed to win, Wachs said the so-called Latino coalition plan was an acceptable compromise for the Valley.