School Breakup Bill May Miss Target

Legislation that would give residents of two proposed San Fernando Valley school districts more of a chance to comment might not even apply to the current breakaway effort if secessionists are successful in wrapping up their petition drive by year’s end.

On Wednesday the Assembly approved a bill by Assemblyman Tony Cardenas (D-Sylmar) that would increase the number of public hearings mandated before the creation of new school districts in the state.

Leaders of the current petition drive seeking to carve two Valley districts out of the massive Los Angeles Unified School District said Thursday they expect to finish before any new legislation could go into effect next year.

Current law requires the Los Angeles County Committee on School District Organization, which must review any petition to create a new district, hold only one public hearing in the proposed district. It’s up to the committee whether to hold more.

The Cardenas bill, approved on a 43-25 vote, would require at least one public hearing for every 15,000 students in a proposed district, up to a maximum of four hearings per district.

Under a breakup plan proposed by the group FREE (Finally Restoring Excellence to Education), the Valley would be divided into one northern district with about 100,000 students and a southern district with about 90,000 students. Under the Cardenas measure, that would mean at least eight required hearings.

Cardenas said Thursday that his constituents, complaining of confusion on the positions put forth by both sides of the breakup issue, had asked for more opportunities to get information and give input.

“We’re talking about hearings that will effect children in this community for generations to come,” Cardenas said. “One thing I wanted to make sure of is that people would have a better opportunity to participate.”

In fact, the co-chairwoman of FREE, Stephanie Carter, said she has no real beef with the Cardenas bill.

“I personally don’t have a problem with more hearings, I really don’t,” Carter said. “As long as they don’t impede the process.”

*

Former Valley Republican Assemblywoman Paula Boland, one of the founders of the secessionist movement, was unfamiliar with the Cardenas bill but said even if it passes and is signed into law, the group remains undaunted.

“The school breakup will happen,” said Boland, whose legislation enabled the breakup drive to move forward. “It’s going to happen. This just makes it harder and more expensive.”

Cardenas said his bill does not change the existing time frame for petition review.

But FREE’s executive director, Scott Wilk, said he feared that what appears to be a plan aimed at enlightening the public is really an effort to drive up the cost and give opponents more opportunities to take shots at the breakup plan.

Commenting on the legal fire power available to the Los Angeles Unified School District, Wilk said, “It’s a David and Goliath thing. They [the LAUSD] are going to be at every hearing gunning for bear.”

The cost of having pro-breakup experts at each hearing, he said, “drives up the petitioners’ costs and [the additional hearings] create a greater target for when you get to litigation.”

But Wilk, who also is an aide to Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge), said his group may be out of reach of the proposed new law, which goes next to a state Senate committee. If approved by the full Senate and signed by Gov. Pete Wilson, the measure would not take effect until Jan. 1.

Wilk declined to disclose how many signatures have been collected to date, but said, “We’ll be at the [state Board of Eduction] before this ever becomes enacted.” He said the group plans to reveal the number of signatures soon.

Once it completes its review process, the county committee makes a recommendation to the state Board of Education on whether the secession bid should be approved.

A spokeswoman for the county Committee on School District Organization said in the only other case similar to the proposed Valley secession, one involving formation of the Lomita Unified School District, the committee in 1986 recommended approval but the state said no. That case is pending before the state.