U.S. Reviews State’s Role in Compton

Lawyers from the U.S. Justice Department are reviewing California’s 1993 takeover of the Compton school district to determine whether state officials jeopardized the voting rights of city residents when they reduced the powers of the local school board and later tried to block the appointment of a new board trustee.

Federal officials from the Justice Department’s civil rights division have requested copies of reports on the district’s academic and financial troubles as well as documents outlining the reasons the state reduced the local school board to an advisory panel and installed a state-appointed administrator to run day-to-day operations.

“We’re gathering information to see what, if any, action we could take,” said Justice Department spokesman Myron Marlin.

A provision of the federal Voting Rights Act, the landmark civil rights legislation born of the march on Selma, Ala., in 1965, bars states from taking actions that affect the voting powers of racial minorities. That law, according the Justice Department’s interpretation, applies to state takeovers of school districts because of the resulting loss of power among locally elected trustees. Depending on the outcome of its review, the Justice Department could sue the state, negotiate a settlement to limit state authority over Compton schools, or do nothing.

State Education Department officials said they had not received notification of the Justice Department’s involvement and declined to comment Tuesday.

School board President Saul E. Lankster praised the Justice Department, saying he hoped it would “stop [state Supt. of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin] from denying our community and its citizens their rights under the Constitution.”

A Justice Department spokesman cautioned that the review is preliminary and acknowledged that attorneys are entering uncertain legal territory. The section of the Voting Rights Act that provided a legal basis for the Justice Department’s other inquiries into school district takeovers only applies to specific states and counties and does not include Los Angeles County.

In addition, the department’s authority to review school district takeovers is being challenged in court. Last June, Texas education officials filed a lawsuit arguing that they should be exempt from the federal review requirement, in part because school district takeovers do not have a “direct relation” to voting rights. The lawsuit, still unresolved, came after the Texas Education Agency announced plans to install a management team to run the troubled Wilmer-Hutchins school district in south Dallas.

California education officials took over Compton Unified in 1993 when the 28,000-student district discovered that it could not meet its payroll. The Legislature voted to loan the district $20 million, and as a condition of the initial loan, the State Department of Education appointed an administrator with broad powers to oversee everything from the curriculum to the personnel department. The seven-member school board has continued to meet, but no longer has power to make policy.

L’Tanya Butler, an attorney who recently represented three Compton school trustees who sued the State Department of Education in an unsuccessful attempt to regain control, said state officials “crossed the line” when they nullified the authority of the district’s elected board. “Part of the problem with the state takeover is that there are no rules. We don’t know when they’re going to leave. It’d be wonderful if the Justice Department came in and found a way to overturn the takeover, but at the very least they may set out some rules. I think it’s very encouraging.”

Three new Compton school board members were elected in 1993. In November 1994, the board voted to fill a seat vacated by Lynn Dymally, who was removed from the panel after she failed to attend several board meetings. The board dismissed the candidate who received the top rating of a screening committee and instead selected Lankster, a Compton flower shop owner.

But Eastin rejected his appointment, saying he was unfit for the job. Lankster had served on the board from 1977 to 1981 but was convicted in 1985 of falsifying traffic school diplomas. The seat remained vacant until the November 1995 election, when he was elected.

Lankster, now president of the board, contends that Eastin reduced the power of Compton voters.

“The people who appointed me were elected,” he said. “It’s not up to Delaine Eastin to decide who is fit to serve in my community.”

State officials now face another decision on how to fill a seat left vacant by the death of board member Sam Littleton in January. Lankster and other board members want to appoint a replacement.

But Randolph E. Ward, the state’s administrator in Compton, said through a spokesperson that the seat will be kept open until the November election.