Handful of Democrats Key to L.A. School Breakup Bill

A handful of Democratic Assembly members from other parts of California will probably determine the outcome of sweeping legislation to split up the Los Angeles Unified School District into at least seven smaller districts.

With the Assembly Education Committee poised to consider the controversial measure on Wednesday, these legislators--all members of the panel--are being courted by the bill’s author, Sen. David A. Roberti (D-Van Nuys), and opponents of the breakup scheme.

If Roberti can get nine votes in the committee--and he probably already has five--the breakup bill will clear its first hurdle, proceeding to another committee for review of its financial impact.

“It’s one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, issues I’m going to vote on in the committee,” said Assemblyman Tom Umberg (D-Garden Grove) who admitted that he is being pulled and tugged in both directions.

The two-term lawmaker, a former assistant U.S. attorney, cited a number of concerns that he is weighing as he makes up his mind, including whether the Roberti proposal would improve student performance, heighten racial segregation or wind up increasing school costs.

Umberg said he has discussed the matter with Roberti but so far has “not committed to either side.”

It had been expected that Roberti’s measure, which has passed the Senate, would meet a hostile reception in the Assembly and would be bottled up in the education committee.

But last Tuesday, the committee chairwoman, Assemblywoman Delaine Eastin (D-Fremont), delayed a hearing that had been scheduled for Wednesday. Eastin said she was dropping her prior opposition to the bill and would consider a school reorganization plan that might include a provision to break up the 640,000-student school system.

Roberti’s measure would set up a commission to develop a plan to break up the sprawling district into at least seven smaller districts and put the issue before Los Angeles voters in November, 1994.

In the South Bay, the district covers areas as diverse as Westchester, Carson, Gardena, San Pedro, Lomita and Wilmington. Other South Bay cities have their own school districts.

Eastin’s comments provided a shot in the arm to Roberti’s efforts to line up the votes needed for the bill in the committee, putting the spotlight on such potential swing Democrats as Umberg.

Two months ago, the five Republicans on the committee lined up solidly behind a similar breakup proposal by Assemblywoman Paula L. Boland (R-Granada Hills) but only one Democrat sided with her and the bill was rejected.

Even that one Democrat, Valerie Brown of Sonoma, said she is now undecided on Roberti’s measure. Assuming that all five GOP lawmakers remain with him, Roberti would need to pick up four Democrats to get the bill out of the 17-member committee.

William Lambert, lobbyist for the United Teachers of Los Angeles, which strongly opposes Roberti’s bill, said he has no idea what’s behind Eastin’s attempt to cobble together a compromise measure.

But he acknowledged that the outcome on the education panel, set to hear the issue on Wednesday, now is in doubt. “A lot of people haven’t made up their minds on the committee,” Lambert said.

Among those on the hot seat is Assemblywoman Dede Alpert (D-Coronado), whose daughter attended Los Angeles schools in the Westchester area 20 years ago. She is debating whether the district should be forced to decentralize its administration or follow Roberti’s lead and be split up.

“Even broken up, they could wind up with districts among the largest in the state,” Alpert said.

Alpert described the decision as “a hard one,” especially “for people who are not from Los Angeles.”

Alpert is carrying her own bill that some school reformers see as an alternative to breaking up the Los Angeles schools. Alpert’s measure, pending in the Senate, would allow more choice within public school districts, permitting open enrollment in any school in a district.

It is linked to another measure that expands the ability of students in one district to attend public schools in another district.

School reformers, especially those opposed to the school voucher initiative on the November election ballot, believe that the public school choice legislation might undercut support for the voucher measure.

Statewide elective politics could also influence the outcome of the Roberti bill as prospective candidates for higher office calculate whether their vote on the breakup bill would affect their election chances in vote-rich Los Angeles.

At least three members of the education committee are flirting with campaigns for statewide office: Eastin for state schools chief; Umberg for attorney general and Assemblywoman Gwen Moore (D-Los Angeles) for secretary of state or another office.

Los Angeles area lawmakers are urging their fence-sitting colleagues to follow their lead on the breakup bill.

Assemblywoman Diane Martinez (D-Rosemead), a committee member who represents a part of the Los Angeles district, said she hopes that her colleagues from other parts of the state follow Los Angeles lawmakers because “we’ve got a better feel” for the issue.

Martinez, a former school board member in the San Gabriel Valley who is critical of the breakup proposal, said Roberti’s measure fails to take into account that “small school districts have just as many problems as Los Angeles Unified.”

Meanwhile, two San Fernando Valley members of the Los Angeles City Council worked out a deal last Wednesday to clear the way for what will probably be a spirited council debate on the breakup issue this week.

A motion by Councilman Hal Bernson urges the council to go on record in favor of the Roberti bill in the state Legislature, which breakup proponents hope will sway some of the undecided Democrats on Eastin’s committee.

Under the deal, Los Angeles City Councilman Joel Wachs will hold a special meeting on Monday of the Arts, Health and Humanities Committee that he chairs to vote on a motion favoring dissolution of the school district.

That virtually assures that the Bernson measure will be approved on Tuesday when it is scheduled to be debated by the full council, Bernson’s staff predicted. “We believe we have eight votes,” said Francine Oschin, a Bernson aide.

Last week, the Bernson proposal foundered due to a procedural problem. Because he tried to have it considered on an emergency basis, Bernson needed 10 votes for his measure, but could muster only eight.

However, now that the measure is being routed through the committee process, the motion needs only eight votes.