L.A. Schools’ Computer Network Fails to Meet Goal : Education: System cost millions, but remains flawed. Awarding of consulting contract is questioned.

In the late 1960s, Los Angeles school officials set out to build a comprehensive computer network that could track every student and teacher, every dollar and piece of equipment, from trucks to pencil sharpeners.

It was envisioned as a bold step toward 21st-Century management, one that many other big companies and government bureaucracies also were taking.

But, after spending tens of millions of dollars on computers and consultants, the Los Angeles Unified School District still does not have its computer network.

The state’s largest school district has a hodgepodge of 19 computer systems that cannot communicate with each other. Accountants reconcile important budgetary information by hand, much as clerks did at the turn of the century.

The district’s failure to establish an integrated computer network, auditors said, was a major reason the district was slow to detect a $130-million funding shortage last winter.

Much of the computer development work in recent years was performed by a politically connected consulting company that is a key participant in the Rebuild L.A. effort.

Records show that Cordoba Corp. was given a short-term $14,700 schools contract that ballooned to more than $1.4 million, although one official tried to cancel it for “non-performance.”

The contracts were awarded without competitive bidding or a survey of other qualified contractors, records and interviews show.

Officials said the arrangement was legal but conceded that the district did not follow its customary practice of seeking competitive estimates for such large contracts.

Past and present school officials acknowledge that computerization has taken far too long. “It’s probably been a frustration for whoever was superintendent,” said former Supt. Harry Handler, one of six school chiefs who has struggled with the problem.

Current Supt. William Anton said: “It’s not a matter of lack of will, it’s a matter of resources. It just didn’t seem to get on track for whatever reason.”

To finally give the school district a modern computer system, the district has borrowed about $36 million in the past four years. The district has expanded several of its older computer operations and added new systems, including ones to track teacher work histories and students who ride buses.

But it will take two to three more years--and $13 million more for equipment and staff--to get the new system in place, according to Assistant Supt. John K. Nagata, head of the computer division.

Officials say they do not know how much has been spent on the computerization effort because the expenditures are not computerized. Their estimates range from about $35 million to $100 million over the past 25 years for equipment, computer programs and consultants.

There is “no question,” Nagata said, that installation of an efficient system years ago would have resulted in substantial savings in purchases and salaries.

Computerizing a school system with a $3.8-billion budget, 800 sites and 640,000 students is not easy, experts said, but other large government entities have automated in less time and with fewer problems.

The city of Los Angeles, which also has a $3.8-billion budget, has had “nuts and bolts” financial data computerized for many years, said City Administrative Officer Keith Comrie. Some school districts, such as San Diego, computerized their administrative records, though not always without problems.

But the Los Angeles school district has run into virtually every conceivable complication.

Records and interviews show that the computer project was stymied by indecision and infighting among key administrators, the purchase of numerous incompatible computer systems, loss of staff to private industry, and a shortage of funds since passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.

“The biggest problem has been the dollars,” said Nagata, who began overseeing the project seven years ago. “I think if they (top district officials) leave me alone long enough to finish this thing, there’s a glimmer of hope we can get it back on track.”

In the late 1960s, officials recognized the need to create a comprehensive computer system that would relieve the huge paperwork burden on the district. Computer consultant Raoul Freeman volunteered and later was hired as an associate superintendent.

Over seven years, Freeman automated some personnel records, student information and other data, but those systems were rudimentary, according to officials who came later. Freeman said if he had been allowed to continue for another two years, he could have tied together accounting, budgeting, purchasing and other financial records by 1982.

“The task was much larger, I think, than anyone ever believed it was going to be,” said Henry Boas, retired deputy director of computer programs. “The original timeline . . . went by like lightning, and we still didn’t have it. Then the next deadline passed and we still didn’t have it.”

After Freeman, the program stagnated for about five years, mired in issues such as who would be in charge and whether to emphasize personal computers or mainframe computers.

Nagata, a former teacher and assistant principal, was put in charge in the mid-1980s.

By then, individual administrators independently had obtained their own computer systems--19 in all--but none could communicate with the others.

This meant that payroll records and other data used to determine the district’s financial state had to be unloaded from one computer system and processed manually by budget analysts. This is still done.

“We take our calculators and reconcile (the numbers) on a piece of paper,” said Henry Jones, assistant administrator for budgeting.

Since 1987, the district has been trying to upgrade the existing systems and mesh the project into a single network. To date, about 60% of the individual systems have been expanded and made more efficient, but a shortage of money has kept some from being fully utilized:

* The transportation system is about 60% complete, but there is little money for staff to put the remaining data into the system.

* A system that would give school administrators and teachers data about students--including languages spoken in the home and scores on statewide tests--cannot be fully used because schools need more computers and hundreds of employees must be trained.

This means that in elementary schools, attendance records are maintained on paper. If there is a shortage of books, principals and teachers must call around the city to find surplus texts, rather than check the computer.

Much of the new computer work was done by Cordoba Corp., a controversial Los Angeles firm now overseeing the awarding of more than $24 million in riot-related demolition contracts.

Cordoba, which was incorporated in 1979, is owned by George L. Pla, who donated $7,200 to school board members between 1983 and 1990--including more than $4,500 to former member Larry Gonzalez and $1,500 to President Leticia Quezada. Pla has run political campaigns for Eastside Democrats such as City Councilman Richard Alatorre, Reps. Matthew G. Martinez of Monterey Park and Esteban E. Torres of Pico Rivera and state Sen. Art Torres of Los Angeles.

In 1989, rival firms complained when other legislators allegedly interceded on behalf of Pla as he successfully sought a state Public Utilities Commission contract to screen minority firms. Three years earlier, Southern California Rapid Transit District board members questioned whether Alatorre helped Pla’s firm get an RTD lobbying contract.

Pla says he has never used his political relationships to gain a competitive edge.

How Pla obtained the school contracts is unclear.

Initially, Pla said his company won the first contract in 1986 after a formal bidding process. “RFP (request for proposal), proposal, interview, scoring and then there is selection,” he said. “You’ll find that to be the case in every situation in the public sector.”

But, according to records and interviews, Cordoba was the only firm considered for what became $1.4 million in contracts.

Pla said he was contacted by former Associate Supt. Jerry Halverson, who had “heard about our capabilities and wanted to talk to me about the needs that they had.”

Later, Pla said he was the one who initiated the contact with Halverson. “I wanted to introduce him to my firm,” he said.

District records indicate that Halverson arranged what he said was an unusual luncheon for a few Cordoba and school officials at the Los Angeles Athletic Club on Aug. 1, 1985. At the time, the district had just begun planning to modernize the computer system for its transportation division.

Halverson said Pla was a stranger to him and he could not remember who asked him to arrange the meeting. “The only thing I can think of . . . is I was asked by someone in authority to bring the parties together,” he said.

Halverson and other district officials said they did nothing to help Cordoba, but several months later the firm got a $14,700 contract.

Based on its performance, Cordoba received a new $600,000 contract in 1988 that rose to $1.4 million, Nagata said. The firm expanded transportation, payroll and student information systems and made them compatible.

California law allows government agencies to bypass competitive or negotiated bidding procedures to obtain specialized services, such as legal work.

The school district awards about 1,000 special service contracts each year. According to its usual practice, the district at a minimum checks the prices and qualifications of more than one contractor when it appears that the work will grow into a long-term project involving hundreds of thousands of dollars, said Rich Mason, the school district’s legal adviser. He said it is “the responsible, prudent thing to do.”

Cordoba was an exception, but Mason said district officials acted in a responsible manner.

The attorney said Cordoba had performed well on its initial schools contract and on a computer contract for RTD. He said the school board awarded the $600,000 contract in a public meeting.

Records and tape recordings, however, show that the board approved the contract without public discussion.

School officials said Cordoba was hired on the strength of its resident computer expert. But the expert left the company midway through the schools contracts--and in 1990, Boas tried to cancel the contract “for failure to perform.”

Nagata overruled Boas. The problem was resolved, Nagata said, when Cordoba assigned a new computer expert to the district.

Cordoba experts provided new software for district transportation, student information and payroll computers and made the systems compatible. Pla said his company’s performance was consistently high. “If we didn’t (do good work), we wouldn’t be around,” he said.

The fifth and final “continuation” of the Cordoba contract ended June 30, and the contract was not renewed.

The next phase of the project includes commercially available computer programs modified to meet the district’s needs, Nagata said.

As a result of The Times inquiries, Nagata said, the district will solicit proposals from a variety of companies for any computer consulting services.

Anton said the computer project is “so urgently needed” that it should be protected from budget cuts. “In the long run,” he said, “it’s going to save us.”

Times staff writer Sandy Banks contributed to this report.