LAUSD Would Perplex E.T.

If a political scientist from a distant galaxy had been hovering, invisible, over Los Angeles these last few months, he would have to be confused.

The extraterrestrial would notice that by most measures the Los Angeles city government seems to be humming along fairly well. Public safety is a prime concern of the citizenry, and the first order of business for City Hall. Crime has been cut in half over the past five years, and economic times are good.

Education is the other great concern, and in this area our visitor would find Los Angeles wanting. Test scores are so abysmal that Mayor Riordan, normally the city’s cheerleader-in-chief, has described the school district as “evil and criminal” and announced plans to field a slate of candidates against four incumbent board members in April. Our visiting scholar would understand that the mayor is using what English-speaking Earthlings call a “bully pulpit.” (He might agree with board member David Tokofsky that “less bully and more pulpit” is in order.)

At any rate, our E.T. PhD would examine the big picture and conclude that we are pathetic fools. Why are these beings so preoccupied with reforming city government when it’s the school system that is much more troubled? Why all the sound and fury over charter reform and secession? Why not devote this time and energy to fixing the schools?

*

It is perversely funny to compare the amount of attention being focused on the two huge democratic institutions. The dueling charter reform commissions are roiling the waters with talk of both expanding the size of the City Council and adding another layer of representative government in the form of as-yet ill-defined “neighborhood councils.” Civic big shots and career bureaucrats have joined the heated debate.

But at least there is consensus on one point: The council districts are now much too large, and the solution is to expand the council--perhaps to 21, perhaps to more. Smaller council districts, the reasoning goes, would make the council members that much more responsive and accountable to their constituents. It is all quite logical.

But now let’s compare the City Council, which has 15 members, to the Los Angeles Unified School District board, with seven. The typical council member represents an area with a population of about 260,000. Each school board member represents an area that exceeds 600,000 population.

Julie Korenstein, the only board member whose area is entirely within the San Fernando Valley, ticks off some other facts: The LAUSD is much larger than the city--encompassing all or part of 27 cities and unincorporated areas. The district’s annual budget is $6.4 billion--more than $2 billion higher than the city’s. It has 65,000 full-time employees--about double that of the city. The K-12 population is 690,000. Each trustee oversees more than 100 campuses.

School board members say they typically work 40 to 60 hours per week but are paid part-time salaries--$24,000 a year, about $7,000 less than a first-year teacher. City Council members, meanwhile, earn $107,000. Council members, moreover, have sizable office budgets that enable them to hire about 20 deputies, assistants, secretaries. The typical school board member has one field deputy and one administrative aide (the fancy term for secretary).

There is another important difference in how these two democratic institutions relate to the public. When John and Jane Angeleno vote in a city election, they don’t just cast ballots for one member on a 15-person panel but also for four citywide offices: mayor, city attorney, city controller and city clerk. Their votes count that much more. In a school board election, each voter selects one-seventh of the system’s leadership.

Now that seems likely to change--but only marginally. One of the quirky facts of civic life in Los Angeles is that City Hall has certain limited powers over the democratic structure of the LAUSD, and so the dueling charter reform commissions--one elected, one appointed--are thinking about how to restructure the school board when not trying to define just what they mean by “neighborhood council.”

This is yet another example of how the city of Los Angeles is the big dog of regional politics. L.A.’s Department of Water and Power owns an aqueduct, and is the biggest landowner in Kern County. L.A. controls airports in Ontario and Palmdale. And L.A.’s charter reform commissions are tinkering with the school system’s democratic functions, while those other 26 cities and unincorporated areas in the system have no voice in the process.

I use the term “tinkering” because that seems to be the only thing on the table. A three-member education subcommittee of the elected commission is meeting today. The discussion is expected to focus on expanding the school board--from seven members to nine, 11 or 13. They are debating district versus at-large elections, the process of redistricting and how much trustees should be paid.

The sentiment to break up the massive LAUSD has always been greater, more genuine and more legitimate than the sentiment to break up the city. Riordan, using his bully pulpit, talks of “revolution” and campaigns to dump the current board. Oh, there must be seven (or nine, 11 or 13) people who could do a better job than the current board. But isn’t more radical reform in order?

*

Exactly what would be the best solution is hard to say, but our E.T. PhD would be wondering why the creative thinking applied to municipal reform isn’t applied to the schools.

Any school district breakup would have to conform to a law written by Sen. Tom Hayden to ensure diversity. To meet this standard, school breakup petitions continue to circulate in the Valley that envision a north Valley and south Valley district breaking away from the LAUSD. This is an awkward split, however, that doesn’t conform well to existing attendance patterns.

But what if, instead, the school system were to adopt another approach? Valley civic activist David Fleming, seeking a compromise between the push for a larger City Council and the creation of neighborhood councils, proposed a borough system of 15 “quasi-cities,” each with an elected panel and a member belonging to the citywide council. Why not seven (or nine, or 11 or 13) “quasi-districts” that correspond to more logical community boundaries and have their own elected “quasi-boards”?

They would have a certain amount of autonomy and the district would function more as a federation of smaller agencies. Why, you might even bump into a quasi-trustee or two at a football game.

Not that it will ever happen. Makes too much sense.

*

Scott Harris’ column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Readers may write to him at The Times’ Valley Edition, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth 91311, or via e-mail at scott.harris@latimes.com. Please include a phone number.