Proposition BB

Proposition BB, the bond measure slated to provide $2.4 billion to refurbish and rebuild many of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s decaying schools, failed in November to garner the needed two-thirds vote. Instead, the measure lost by about one percentage point, its downfall mainly due to a lack of support from San Fernando Valley voters, specifically those in City Council districts represented by Laura Chick, Joel Wachs and Hal Bernson. In each of those districts--3, 2, and 12, respectively--less than 58% of voters supported the measure. (The greatest support for BB came from voters in South and East Los Angeles.)

Now, as backers of the proposition prepare for its second go-round in the April 8 election, they are changing their strategy and hitting hard in specific communities, with workers stationed locally rather than in a distant downtown office. Two representatives of the organization Angelenos for Better Classrooms have canvassed the Valley for the past three months with the pro-Proposition BB message, trying to woo skeptics and gain support.

The Times spoke with organizers of the bond movement and with Valley voters about the local strategy and their feelings about the bond measure, as well as the school board’s handling of finances and education in the LAUSD.

* * *

SUE BURNSIDE, consultant hired to organize pro-Proposition BB campaign’s field operation

Last time, an out-of-town consultant was brought in to run a local campaign. Although he’d won a lot of bonds for other school districts . . . his strategy didn’t work well with Los Angeles voters in November. . . . We lost by a slim margin, and I think the element missing was field organizers.

[This time] we have two field organizers in the Valley. . . . They’re the crux of our local work.

They’re the ones who are visiting all the schools and going to all the meetings to discuss Prop. BB. They get people to talk about it. We call it “talkability,” which means people are talking about it all the time--or we hope they are.

We have precinct walking going on also. Usually that’s our secondary attempt. Our main focus is the phones. If you’re a community group we’ll use that approach.

Plus, our Valley program is really focused around women. We’re reaching them through PTA and community meetings and school-site organizing and through our phone banks.

Also, the teachers union [United Teachers Los Angeles] has a program for employees that is in support of the bond. UTLA just wasn’t on board the last time, the way they are for the April election.

The Valley clearly has the districts that have been poor [supporters] for us in the past. They’re severely conservative folks who traditionally don’t support bonds. We’ve done a lot more persuasive mailings targeted toward people in the Valley this time.

We’ve gone to over 250 events, from Democratic clubs to parent-teacher meetings to community meetings. We’ve done more community contacting in the last month than the whole campaign did last time.

We’re not giving up on anybody. We have a group of people we know is going to vote. And we have a group that may vote. We’re targeting them differently. But we want the results to be the same.

*

LEE ALPERT, chair, 12th District City Council Citizens Advisory Council.

People in the community have problems with issues that are going to take money out of our pockets. We want to make sure [it’s] going to things that are positive and making a difference.

I think a major issue is that L.A. Unified hasn’t earned people’s respect.

We don’t see things happening in the schools out here in the Valley. We still don’t have sufficient air-conditioning in Valley schools, and the Valley is one of the hottest places in L.A.

So is the L.A. Unified School District going to tell us in the Valley that if this BB bond passes, they’re going to put these air conditioners in the Valley? I don’t think so. The problems will continue to exist, and it’s not very pleasant.

Why would we want our homeowners to be burdened with some tax issue for some bond that’s going to bring little to our schools. I think that’s the major reluctance; that this bond puts the onus on single-family dwellers. Homeowners--particularly the post-Prop. 13 homeowners--are going to bear the brunt of [the taxes from the bond].

We homeowners have been pounded with taxes. . . . And there are homeowners who just don’t want to be hit with taxes anymore, especially by a school district that is spending millions of dollars that people perceive are being wasted. . . .

Yes, we need more money for our educational system, but the big question is whether it’s going to the right place.

*

ERIC NASARENKO, spokesman, Angelenos for Better Classrooms, a coalition of PTAs, unions and business groups supporting Proposition BB

The measure is important because it will fund basic repairs to every neighborhood school districtwide--crucial repairs to help children learn, such as installing wires to hook up schools to computers and making sure the roofs don’t leak so they can work in an environment that is safe.

The money to fix the schools will allow the students to take pride in their campuses and be in an atmosphere where the electrical wiring works, the plumbing is not corroding and the playground is not cracked, but smooth.

It’s a fair question to ask if the board would be responsible with the money from the bond. The response to that is the district did something truly extraordinary and that is to appoint a nine-person body to . . . oversee how the money is used. This group is empowered to report to the public on how the money is being spent.

The board basically is allowing this outside body to scrutinize it to be sure the money is going to the schools and not to a bureaucrat. Plus, the members of the group bring a level of expertise that this [school] district just would not have. . . . So we’re looking at a lot of top-notch people who’ll be reviewing where the money goes.

*

SHIRLEY SVORNY, economics professor, Cal State Northridge, and resident of Northridge

The proposition kind of lets the school district off the hook for not using its money the right way. . . . The idea that they have to have an oversight committee speaks volumes about the district and it’s inability to handle money.

It’s a hard call [on whether to vote for the bond] because I don’t want the schools in the Valley to go without air-conditioning, but the school district hasn’t proven itself responsible in dealing with money. . . .

It’s not that I want the schools to stay the way they are. I’m just not willing to reward them with funds to keep the system the way it is . . . when they have the potential to change it and it’s not happening. . . . My kids are in private schools, but it’s not that I wish they couldn’t go to a public school.

I teach some of the students who come out of Los Angeles city schools. I get them when they come to CSUN and they can’t write. . . . They’re not prepared for college. Across the board, faculty are concerned about the inability of students to deal with college-level learning.

I think that the schools need to be more autonomous. They need to organize so that they meet the needs of the community, and parents need to have choice.

I would break up the city and the school district at the same time. That’s one solution. . . . They’ve really put us between a rock and a hard place [with this bond]. They’re basically saying, “You won’t get air-conditioning for these kids unless you approve this.” And because they’ve set it up this way [with an oversight committee] they’re saying, “We promise someone is going to watch us.” That’s pathetic.

*

JEFF HORTON, president, Los Angeles Unified School Board

We’ve got to pass [a bond]; there is no alternative. A state bond won’t be enough.

Without this [local] bond the schools will continue to deteriorate. Emergency repairs will still have to be made. To make what would be an increasing number of emergency repairs, we’ll have to dig into the general operating fund that covers salaries, etc.

Students respond to their environment. And the message sent by a deteriorating facility is that learning is not an important activity.

I think most adults can appreciate it if they think about their workplace. If the place where they work is crummy [it] doesn’t inspire them to do their best job. Well, it’s the same for students.

You don’t have to work in a palace, but if the place is crummy it takes away from the seriousness of the effort. It’s just natural.

*

WALTER PRINCE, director, Northridge Chamber of Commerce

I don’t want [the bond] to pass and I don’t know anybody who does.

Like most government agencies, the school district is not efficient and I don’t trust them. I’d rather see [school district officials] use what they have efficiently and then ask for more when they’ve proved themselves and when they show it’s really needed.

But I’d also rather wait until school [district] breakup is complete and then see what districts need what kind of money.

I’ve got a real problem with the information the district is putting out. . . . They’re not spending wisely and with the impending breakup, why put out this money?

Do I feel sorry for the schools? Yes. Do I sympathize with them? Yes. Does it mean I want to throw money at them? No. I wouldn’t throw a dime at them.

I think in an area like Northridge, where people are perhaps a little wiser to what’s going on, [the bond] doesn’t really convince anyone.