School Board OKs Zacarias’ Contract Extension

In the last session of the Los Angeles school board for three lame-duck members, Supt. Ruben Zacarias’ contract was extended for one year Monday, a few weeks before a new majority will take their seats on the board.

The extension had drawn criticism as an attempt to thwart incoming board members, who are perceived as wanting to get rid of the superintendent as part of a district overhaul.

But to avoid a rocky start with the newcomers, Zacarias invited them to evaluate his performance in six months.

“If the new board is not satisfied in January, if the board members feel they cannot support me,” he said, “then I’ll waive my fourth year and any benefits or compensation rights” guaranteed in the contract.

“But the contract cuts both ways,” he added. “If I find by January that the district’s educational agenda has become secondary to political agendas, then I’ll take the initiative to terminate my term as superintendent.”

The proposal to extend Zacarias’ $188,000-a-year contract beyond the July 2000 expiration received five affirmative votes. David Tokofsky, who had been under intense pressure from incumbents to support the proposal, abstained. Board member Valerie Fields voted against it.

A few hours before the vote, Fields issued an emotional objection to the motion, calling it “revengeful and unnecessary.”

“This is an exercise of raw power by three lame-duck board members who are mad at the voters they represent,” said Fields, whose comments drew boos and catcalls from an audience of mostly Zacarias supporters. “Their last gasp is a divisive move, which characterizes much of what they’ve done over the years.”

Board members Barbara Boudreaux, George Kiriyama and Jeff Horton lost recent reelection bids and will end their terms June 30.

Fields chastised Kiriyama for having crafted the motion, given that the contract would have been automatically renewed for one year in January if the board approved of Zacarias’ performance.

“This extension did not need to be voted on,” Fields said. “But I don’t think there will be long-term consequences. We’re opening a new chapter. We’ll be writing a new history.”

Nonetheless, the debate had spilled over into the communities served by the Los Angeles Unified School District, eliciting strong support for Zacarias among Latinos, who make up 70% of the city’s students, and triggering allegations of racial politics being waged on his behalf.

It also focused attention on board members who had been waffling on the issue, as well as on Mayor Richard Riordan, who raised about $2 million for the newly elected members’ campaigns. Many of Zacarias’ supporters believe that the mayor and the candidates he backed have a secret plan to dump Zacarias.

The mayor, who denied the existence of a plot, had generally kind words for the superintendent’s performance, and said he had discussed the contract extension with him Tuesday.

“He called me up about an hour ago,” Riordan said, adding that Zacarias’ comments to him led the mayor to believe that he would “conduct himself in a very statesmanlike manner.”

Riordan would not elaborate.

The debate over the contract now threatens to dominate the newcomers’ first major item of business when they meet in July--electing a new president to head the seven-member panel.

So far, three candidates have expressed an interest in the position: incumbent President Victoria M. Castro, a longtime supporter of Zacarias; newcomer Genethia Hayes, executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and Tokofsky, whose campaign received significant financial support from the mayor.

Given that the new members are not likely to give Castro another year in charge, the race is likely to be between Tokofsky and Hayes, who has made a career of conflict resolution but has no day-to-day experience in district affairs.

Tokofsky’s abstention from voting on Zacarias’ contract surprised few observers, given that some Latino community leaders had warned that a vote against the motion could prompt public displays of disapproval, even a recall election.

“This issue was just alienating and angering large numbers of folks,” Tokofsky said. “It also was hurting Zacarias and the institution, and the chances of building a family with the new board members.”

That argument failed to impress Gina Alonso, chairwoman of United Communities, a multicultural coalition.

“We’re upset with David’s abstention--it’s a ‘no’ vote as far as we’re concerned,” she said. “You’re either with God or the devil; you can’t be in limbo on this one.”

The board’s current battle has renewed calls for improved governance among board members as they wrestle with a series of enormous challenges--among them the implementation of the anti-bilingual education law, Proposition 227, and the end of social promotion--and try to shepherd reforms.

“We need accountability--and real peace . . . and the board has to lead us there,” said Priscilla Wohlstetter, professor of education and director of the Center on Educational Governance at USC.

Mike Roos, head of the nonprofit reform organization Los Angeles Educational Alliance for Restructuring Now (LEARN), called for “major restructuring of the board process.”

“I hope to see fewer, more focused meetings, and continuous achievement in every place in the district where there are black holes,” he said. “We also should look at enhancing teacher training and recruitment, as well as issues of principal leadership. And we have to make the permanent staff work a little harder.”

Hayes would not argue with that.

“I just want to get to talk to and get to know the superintendent as a new board member,” Hayes said. “I also expect to see all of us working together. That’s the campaign I ran on. I’m not changing now.”