Bill on School Control Called Illegal

A bill intended to allow Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to take over the Los Angeles Unified School District would violate the California Constitution, the state legislative counsel’s office has concluded.

The opinion was a blow to the bill’s supporters, who were hoping that the mayor would quickly fulfill his campaign pledge to take control of the public schools. But supporters Monday minimized the opinion’s effect, saying lawyers could be expected to disagree over a proposal that would radically reorganize how the struggling school system was run.

“Certainly this bill is based on sound legal principles -- admittedly none of which have been tested,” said the bill’s author, Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles). “When you dream big ... you’re going to get people saying you can’t do it. But this is about saying, ‘I believe that we can. I believe that there’s a way.’ ”

In the opinion, Deputy Legislative Counsel Mira A. Macias said the Legislature lacked the power to tinker with the district’s board.

She said that power rested with the city government, because the City Charter spells out how board members are chosen.

The bill is set for a hearing Wednesday morning in the Senate Education Committee. It would allow the Los Angeles mayor to appoint the district’s superintendent and seven members to an expanded, nine-member school board after determining that the district was in a state of “educational failure.”

The remaining two board members would be appointed by a panel of officials from the county and other cities that are part of the district.

During the spring mayoral campaign, Villaraigosa told voters that the mayor should have “ultimate control and oversight” over the school district. But since taking office, he has said that he wants to try other reforms first. And he has criticized Romero for introducing her bill without building a consensus for it.

The five-page opinion from the nonpartisan legislative counsel’s office was sent Thursday to Sen. Jack Scott (D-Altadena), the Education Committee chairman, who had asked the office’s lawyers to review the bill’s constitutionality.

Christopher Cabaldon, president of EdVoice, an advocacy group that sponsored the proposal, said he still had high hopes for the bill. He said former Assemblyman Darrell S. Steinberg, an attorney, weighed the same legal questions on behalf of EdVoice and found that the Legislature has the authority to grant such powers to the mayor.

Steinberg’s analysis said the issues raised by the bill were “largely untested” in California courts. But he argued that the courts probably would find that the health of the 742,000-student district was of statewide concern, which could give the state more power to decide on school board matters.

Villaraigosa was on vacation Monday, and his office declined to comment. L.A. Unified school board member David Tokofsky, who opposes the bill, said he was pleased, but not surprised, by the legislative counsel’s opinion.

The bill, he said, “is based on politics, inconsistency on accountability and really a lack of familiarity with education. And therefore I’m proud to say ... that the legislative counsel has also opined that, besides those things, it’s illegal.”

Romero said she was frustrated by Villaraigosa’s lack of support for her bill. She said she drafted it “in direct response” to Villaraigosa’s campaign promises.

Last week, Romero implored Villaraigosa to take a stand on the bill. “Mr. Mayor, I respectfully request an answer,” Romero wrote to the mayor. “Where do you stand on the bill? Time is of the essence.”

Because Romero introduced the bill after the deadline for new legislation by using an “urgency clause,” the bill would require a two-thirds vote to pass the Senate, said Nicole Winger, a Romero spokeswoman.