The Odor Isn’t Reform

On Sept. 22, 1999, newly elected L.A. School Board President Genethia Hayes stood before the state board that allocates state funds for school facilities. In her request for approval of state funds to build 49 new schools, Hayes promised that the district’s newly appointed facilities division chief, Howard Miller, would follow the normal chain of command and report to the superintendent.

This was a critical point because what led to the Belmont Learning Complex fiasco was a “planning and development” team laden with consultants who did not face the scrutiny of the chain of command and who effectively bypassed normal review. The State Allocations Board approved $287 million for the Los Angeles Unified School District, based on Hayes’ commitment to have Miller handle facilities only and follow the normal chain of command.

Last week, Hayes, along with school board members Valerie Fields, Mike Lansing and Caprice Young, broke that commitment and threw the district into chaos. Now there can be no debate whether the Los Angeles Unified School District is in crisis. Nowhere is the crisis more evident than at the school board level.

At the urging of Barry Groveman, an environmental attorney who leads the school safety team, the board voted to expand Miller’s role to include control of the entire district. It was a hostile takeover hatched behind closed doors in Groveman’s Century City law offices. Board members took the action, ignoring laws governing public notice and public comment and state regulations regarding qualifications and line of authority.

These developments raise serious doubts about the real agenda of “reform-minded” board members. There is a rapidly increasing chorus of observers who believe that this is an effort to place a $7.5-billion public agency in the hands of private consultants. It appears that for some, the district has become a game of money and politics while the future of L.A.’s schoolchildren sits in limbo.

Groveman’s involvement is most troubling. As an announced candidate for district attorney, it would appear that Groveman is willing to throw the school district into chaos to advance his political ambitions.

The irony is that the school safety team that Groveman heads up was established by Supt. Ruben Zacarias as a proactive means to review past and future environmental safety at school sites. Instead of focusing on reviewing these sites and helping find solutions, Groveman has busied himself persuading the new board members to destabilize the school district by stripping Zacarias of his day-to-day authority. Meanwhile, identifying a solution for the future of the Belmont Learning Complex for which Groveman was supposedly hired is no closer to resolution despite his approximately $1 million in fees.

My opposition to the board actions is not about race or ethnic politics. I oppose the board’s action because it does not pass the smell test. Why not evaluate the superintendent honestly? If they choose to replace Zacarias, why not conduct a nationwide search? Why has a board majority placed the day-to-day operation of the district in the hands of Miller, a lawyer who has no experience educating children? If the new board wants to change the district management structure, why not allow for public input? Should not district parents have input as to how the district is run? Isn’t that what reform is all about?

The board’s actions last week promise a period of serious instability, not reform. The best step for the board of education is to immediately rescind Tuesday’s action and fulfill the commitments it made to the State Allocations Board. Anything less would compel newly emboldened district critics in the state Legislature to introduce legislation that would either break up the district or place it in receivership.

At a time when the LAUSD has fewer and fewer friends in Sacramento, the school board’s actions Tuesday have made my job as a district advocate much more difficult.