As I predicted the Mayors take over of LAUSD AB1381 would sail through the State Legislature. Remember from the beginning I stated our only recourse was to demand the Governor Veto the bill.
I also predicted the Superintendent was most likely be Termed Out Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg.

Prior to being passed by the full Assembly, it was passed by the Assembly Education Committee.

This is what took place during that vote. Be afraid, very afraid….

Earlier Tuesday, the Assembly Education Committee passed the bill, AB 1381 by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles), on a 7-2 vote, with chair Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles) recusing herself after announcing that she was a candidate to become the next superintendent of L.A. Unified.

"I'm going to recuse myself out of an abundance of caution," Goldberg said before the committee vote. "I've checked — there is no legal conflict of interest, but I think there's an ethical conflict of interest in choosing between the two sides on this."

Now we are right back to where we were when I began this campaign to alert grassroots Republicans. Our only recourse is with the Governor.

So there is no time to lose. Go the www.vetonow.com and let the Governor know where you stand.

Given all that has taken place with the Governor in the last 24 hours, we are rapidly reaching a point of decision making. What that decision will be for you, is between you and your God, conscience and family.

Please see our web site up dates and the current Newsletter.

David Hernandez

Mayor Flexes Muscle With School Board
With passage of the bill to increase his role in the district virtually certain, Villaraigosa threatens to fire any superintendent hired without his OK.
By Nancy Vogel and Duke Helfand
Times Staff Writers

August 29, 2006

SACRAMENTO — With legislative passage of his bid for greater control of the Los Angeles Unified School District all but certain, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa warned the school board Monday against hiring a superintendent without his approval, saying that he would fire anyone who wasn't a "change agent."

A bill to give Villaraigosa and other mayors within the vast school district the power to veto the school board's selection of a superintendent passed the state Senate, 23 to 14, on Monday, with all Los Angeles Democrats in support. The bill could pass the Assembly as soon as today, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he will sign it.

The legislation, however, wouldn't take effect before January, months after the Board of Education plans to replace retiring Supt. Roy Romer.

"I wouldn't have a qualm in the world — if I believed that this superintendent wasn't the appropriate person to lead this district — to fire that person," Villaraigosa said.

"This district knows full well that there is support for this legislation," he said. "The idea that they would just thumb their nose at the Legislature, give somebody a five- or six-year contract — I would like to believe they would not do that. That would be my hope. Under these circumstances, I wouldn't give a superintendent a contract without involving the mayor and the Council of Mayors."

District officials shot back that their superintendent search would continue, with candidates probably winnowed to three or five by mid-September. Board President Marlene Canter said the superintendent would have job security without having to worry about Villaraigosa.

"There is no way he can fire the superintendent," she said.

Romer added: "The mayor doesn't have the right to fire. The mayor has to right to ratify, and this decision will be made before January…. But I don't think that's the real issue. Any new superintendent that is chosen, I think, will want to be a cooperative person with every source of interest in this city, including the mayor." Romer also said the legislation, should it become law, would "undoubtedly" be challenged in court — an outcome Villaraigosa said he expected.

Canter and Romer said they had not given up hope of defeating Villaraigosa. They stayed in Sacramento on Monday to lobby key Assembly members. If unsuccessful they are expected to meet soon to discuss a lawsuit.

"This fight is not over," Romer said. "We believe the Assembly has the opportunity to reach down and do what's right by kids."

The mayor's plan faces a raft of opponents beyond the district, including the powerful California School Boards Assn., the California State PTA and factions within the Los Angeles teachers union.

The mayor and his aides later tried to soften his comments, saying that he could not single-handedly fire a superintendent but instead would work to build support for a replacement if necessary.

And the mayor acknowledged the hard feelings created by his district takeover campaign, saying he would reach out to critics to help make the law work.

"The real work begins now," he said. "The work of building consensus. The work of healing. Battles like this create divisions, polarize [people] sometimes unfortunately. My responsibility is going to be to bring people together. It's going to be to say to this city, 'Look, let's roll up our sleeves. Let's work together to make sure these schools are schools of high expectations, schools where our kids can dream.' "

Villaraigosa campaigned for mayor on a platform of improving schools, and he has made greater control of the nearly 730,000-student L.A. Unified a centerpiece of his year-old administration.

He originally sought complete control of the district but scaled back his ambition in the face of opposition from teachers unions.

In June, Villaraigosa negotiated a closed-door deal with the leaders of United Teachers Los Angeles and the California Teachers Assn., angering district officials and rank-and-file teachers who thought that they had been shut out of negotiations.

The original deal gave teachers significant authority to shape classroom instruction, but those provisions were not included in the legislation, which gives teachers flexibility to carry out a curriculum set by the school board. The current bill, which cannot be amended in the Assembly, would give Villaraigosa direct control over three troubled high schools and the elementary and middle schools that feed them. It also would shift some contracting and budget authority from the school board to the superintendent.

And it would create a "council of mayors" with the power to veto the school board's choice of superintendent. Villaraigosa would hold sway over the council, where power would be divided proportionally, based on population, among the mayors of Los Angeles and 26 other cities.

To win over Democrats who represent southeast Los Angeles County cities such as South Gate and Huntington Park, Villaraigosa agreed earlier this month to amend the bill so that the Los Angeles mayor must get the support of some other mayors to veto the choice of superintendent. Villaraigosa would control 80% of the vote on the council of mayors, but ratification by the council of mayors would require a 90% vote.

Many lawmakers expressed concern that the provision giving the Los Angeles mayor control over how several dozen schools operate is unconstitutional — an opinion reinforced by a Legislative Counsel review published last week. The state Constitution bans the transfer of any part of the public school system to any other jurisdiction that isn't part of the public school system.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles), the bill's author, attempted to address that concern by giving a role to the Los Angeles County Office of Education. The mayor's lawyers also argue that the Legislature has the power to transfer authority over schools.

Many Democrats expressed concerns about the bill but said they would give Villaraigosa — a former Assembly speaker and possible future governor — the benefit of the doubt. Passage of the bill is a top priority for Nuñez, a good friend of Villaraigosa, and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) has also rallied support.

Sen. Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento), who voted for the bill, called it "one of the most politically leveraged bills I have ever seen." Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster), who called himself a "reluctant" vote in favor of the bill, said, "There are a lot of bills up here that people may not like, but at the end of the day, they say, what's in it for me if I buck leadership?"

The bill passed with two votes to spare in the 40-member Senate.

Two of the Senate's 25 Democrats voted against the bill: Sen. Jackie Speier of Hillsborough and Sen. Dean Florez of Shafter, who has been battling with Los Angeles over the dumping of sludge in his district. Two other Democrats — Liz Figueroa of Fremont and Michael Machado of Linden — abstained.

Speier called the bill, AB 1381, flawed.

"What we are saying is that because it's not working in LAUSD, then we need to put more power into the superintendent — the CEO — and the mayor," she said. "Well, the public thinks that we don't work too well. Does that mean the solution is to put more power into the hands of the governor? That's basically what we're saying here."

To garner votes from Republicans Runner and Sen. Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield, Nuñez on Friday amended the bill to remove a "severability" clause that would have allowed portions of the law to remain in effect even if other sections were struck down by a court. Runner pushed for the clause's removal because, he said, he did not want parts of the bill that were concessions to unions to remain if Villaraigosa's powers were limited by a court.

The bill goes to the Assembly Education Committee today for a hearing, then on to the Assembly floor. Eight of the 11 members of the Education Committee are Democrats. Nuñez predicted that it would pass.

The Assembly must act before Friday, when the Legislature adjourns for the year.

*

(INFOBOX BELOW)

How they voted

State senators whose districts are in Los Angeles County weighed in on the L.A. Unified bill. All except three are Democrats.

YES

Richard Alarcon (D-Sun Valley)

"I don't think even Mayor Villaraigosa would say this is a perfect model. What it is is an effort to tell the kids that we care."

Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey)

"The upsides are greater than the downsides."

Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles)

"I took a vote that I believe is in the best interest of the students in my district."

Martha Escutia (D-Whittier)

"We no longer can afford an educational system where less than half of the students succeed."

Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica)

"I support this because I love the Los Angeles Unified School District."

Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach)

"I applaud the mayor for being a champion for change."

Kevin Murray (D-Culver City)

"If you have a kid in Los Angeles city school district, you cannot afford to wait for 1% improvement or 2% improvement or 3% improvement."

Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles),

a coauthor of the legislation

"Education is the civil rights issue of the 21st century."

George Runner (R-Lancaster)

"But let's not forget what the goal should be — helping parents have control over what happens in their child's classroom."

Jack Scott (D-Altadena)

"Mayor Villaraigosa has listened to our concerns, modified his bill and now has the opportunity to create meaningful change."

Nell Soto (D-Pomona)

"If we don't try to do something, then shame on us."

Edward Vincent (D-Inglewood)

"We've got to make a change in L.A., that's a fact."

NO

Sen. Bob Margett (R-Arcadia)

"It's a usurping of power from the duly elected [school board]…. That really bothers me."

Tom McClintock

(R-Thousand Oaks)

"I don't see how this bill improves the situation. In fact, it may actually cause further deterioration."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eminent Domain Comes to LAUSD

The City of Los Angeles is filled with many incredible communities. Some however have, by design, been forced into a state of tragic blight. To the un-informed, it may appear only as a case of neglect on the part of politicians. But the truth is, this is no mistake. Once a community is defined as Blighted, it becomes a treasure box for the Politicians, the Community Redevelopment Agency, Developers and Special Interests.

The Los Angeles Unified School District has been subject to the same political sabotage. Before you file this idea in the circular file or classify it as an X-File, hear me out.

LAUSD has about 770,000 students. Of that number the majority are Hispanic. Of the number of Hispanic students, the number of students who are children of people who entered the United States Illegally is quite large. The age range for those entering illegally is some where between 18 and 38. The exact age range for child bearing. Get the picture?

Stop, don’t go there. This is not going to be a rant about illegal immigration, it is going to be a fact based observation on circumstance which contribute to the current challenges faced by LAUSD.

And yes I know there are not going to be any numbers or static’s to show how many of those children have parents who are illiterate in Spanish let alone English. This is by design as well. No facts to dispel is always a safe place for politicians.

LAUSD is given the task to teach and teach who ever arrives at their door step. It does not matter what language skills, economic level, health status they have. It does not matter if they have to also work to bring income into the family home. It does not matter where they live or how. It does not matter if they have to leave school to move where the parents go to find work. They must provide an education.

This society has become so sensitive to even consider immigration as a factor in the success rate of the district. Now comes Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa who wants to take charge of LAUSD. He is supported by a State Legislature which has done nothing but encourage the mass migration of uneducated and illiterate families into the LAUSD system. Hard working yes, but these people have been neglected and abused by their country of origin. That is why they are here! Opportunity…

These politicians have by their actions, encouraged, promoted and fostered the current condition of LAUSD. Now as in the case of the blighted neighborhoods, want to step in and reap the rewards of their efforts.

In order to accommodate the unlimited number of children arriving on the school house door step, many more schools will need to be built, more books and more of everything else that must be purchased at top dollar to service the ever expanding student population.

Dear Senator Runner:

When I went to college I majored in Political Science – an interesting background for a career in the film business; political scientists connect different dots than film majors. My PS paid off when I started getting involved in education at my daughter's elementary school – the political dynamic at a local school is palpable – teachers, parents, administration, community, downtown and you folks in Sacramento dance a dance first choreographed by Machiavelli.

AB 1381 brings the ballet to its illogical conclusion – many new dancers come to the chorus line – and I think it's time we close the book on this terpsichorean metaphor and this sorry legislation!

I have appreciated our dialog on AB 1381. Your viewpoint doesn't agree with mine but our conclusions to date have concurred:

· This is a bad piece of legislation, compromised into unworkability. It goes too far and not far enough all at once!

· This is a matter that needs to be decided by the parents, voters and taxpayers in LAUSD.

· And on the face of it is patently unconstitutional.

Rumors abound – from whence I'm typically clueless - that you and other Republicans have been turned; that another backroom deal will bring you to support the bill.

Please say it ain't so!

I know you support LAUSD breakup as an option – I'm not an enthusiastic about that – but I return to our common ground: Whatever decision is reached needs to be reached here in LA!

If a referendum is in the works let's have it sooner rather than later, with all options on the table. I see no advantage for the kids of LAUSD in a halfhearted and court-challenged unconstitutional run at mayoral control followed by a later referendum on breakup. I believe the voters would support continuing LAUSD's current direction with some of the changes suggested by the Presidents' Joint Commission on LAUSD Governance.

Let's give them that chance. Sooner, not later.

Thank you and onward!


smf
______________________________________________________________

LAUSD takeover bill stalls
Vote on Villaraigosa plan likely to take place Monday

BY HARRISON SHEPPARD, Sacramento Bureau

LA Daily News SACRAMENTO - Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's school-takeover legislation hit a wall of resistance Thursday and supporters called off a Senate vote as they scrambled to muster support.

Critics seized on the delay as a sign of faltering support while the mayor's backers downplayed the situation as nothing more than some lawmakers needing more time to digest the controversial legislation.

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, admitted he could not muster enough votes to get the bill out of his house, saying several Democratic members had voiced questions or concerns. But he predicted that the votes would be lined up by Monday and it would win approval and move back to the Assembly for final passage.
"It was not ready," Perata said. "(Several legislators) had general questions with the bill and they wanted to get some answers. Rather than keeping everybody here until midnight, which would have no purpose, we'll just take it up Monday."
Most, if not all, Republicans are expected to vote against the bill, meaning it will most likely need 21 of the 25 Democrats to pass the Senate on a simple majority. If it passes the Senate, it will still need to go through the Assembly before the legislative session ends next Thursday. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he will sign the legislation if it reaches his desk.

Several Democratic members said their main concern was that they had not had time to read the bill. Although there have been several public hearings and extensive media coverage, the bill was printed in its final form only Wednesday. They also said they had not had a chance to fully discuss the bill in a Democratic caucus meeting.
Opponents said the delay appeared to be a sign of weakness, and an indication that the bill was being rushed through the Legislature under significant political pressure without a thorough vetting.

"I don't know that the members have had a chance to read it or understand it," said Los Angeles Unified School District board President Marlene Canter. "And there's so much political pressure on them, it's become just a political conversation."

Sen. Dean Florez, D-Bakersfield, plans to vote against the bill. Florez said many of his fellow Democrats have felt pressure from Democratic leadership to support the bill against their better judgment, and some are hoping not to anger the influential and popular Villaraigosa, who is seen as a future gubernatorial candidate.

"It's like `American Idol' politics," Florez said. "Everybody's being moved by who our favorite contestant is. I don't think we should vote on this just because we want to be somebody's friend."

He opposes the bill, he said, because he does not believe it will help LAUSD students and it doesn't have adequate educational or funding plans. He also thinks it will set a bad precedent for other mayors seeking similar powers.

Florez also noted that Fresno Mayor Alan Autry, a Republican, asked the Legislature for similar control over his schools a year ago, and was quickly rejected. He said if it was any mayor except Villaraigosa, especially a Republican, the proposal would already have been been shot down.

The legislation, Assembly Bill 1381 co-authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nu¤ez, D-Los Angeles, and Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, would create a council of mayors that would ratify the hiring of an LAUSD superintendent.

The bill would also create a mayor's community partnership to oversee the lowest-performing schools in the district. It would also strengthen the superintendent while decreasing the school board's role in the daily management of the district.
Romero said she already believes she has the 21 votes she needs.
"Some members wanted to have some extra time to read it, but those would be votes that would be gravy to the roll call," Romero said. "But as far as the votes that we need to move this out, they are there, they're solid."

Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, has been working to rally Republican opposition and predicted that no GOP members would support it in the Senate. Runner has been particularly critical of a provision in the bill called a "severability clause" under which if a court strikes down one portion, the rest remains standing.

Runner argues that the provision would leave in place the least desirable elements of the bill that were the results of compromises with the teachers unions. He had been negotiating with the bill's authors to try to remove that clause, but when those talks failed, he moved to insert an "inseverability clause."

Several Republicans who were undecided or considering supporting the bill now appear to have moved into the opposition column. Sen. Chuck Poochigian, R-Fresno, had abstained from voting on the bill in the Senate Appropriations Committee because he had not made up his mind. But Thursday he said he was leaning against it.
"I have tried to be open-minded in this whole process, and that accounts for my forbearance in the last committee," Poochigian said. "I wanted to work through it and get a better feel for how it would work. It seems the more we learn, the more questions are raised."
It was the second time in recent months that the mayor's plan has been in danger.
In June, under an aggressive onslaught of lobbying by union and school board opponents, Nu¤ez was so concerned that he called the mayor and urged him to return to Sacramento to prop up the effort. Villaraigosa's staff quickly put together a trip and he met with lawmakers. He salvaged his effort, but only by abandoning his bid for full control of the LAUSD. Instead, he cut a deal with the teachers unions that would give him greater say, but that falls short of the reform he had sought for the nation's second-largest school district.

Also Thursday, at Los Angeles City Hall, two small groups of parents on opposite sides of the issue staged competing marches.

Staff Writers Rick Orlov and Naush Boghossian contributed to this report.
harrison.sheppard@dailynews.com
(916) 446-6723

LAUSD bill called unconstitutional
State legislative counsel repeats opinion after text amendment
BY HARRISON SHEPPARD, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

SACRAMENTO - On the eve of a key vote on Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's school-takeover plan, a new state legal opinion issued Monday reaffirmed that the proposal appears to be unconstitutional even after it was amended to address legal concerns.
The opinion from state Legislative Counsel Diane Boyer-Vine echoes a review she issued earlier this summer finding that the Legislature does not have the legal authority to give a mayor control over a school district.

"I think it's pretty clear that the current language is unconstitutional," said Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, an opponent of the bill who requested the new opinion.

"But I think further than that, it makes the argument as to why any language will be unconstitutional. I think that's the hurdle the mayor has to deal with."

After Boyer-Vine's office issued that earlier opinion on July 17, Villaraigosa and bill author Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, D-Los Angeles, amended the bill to address concerns raised by her and by the city's legislative analyst.

Those amendments included giving the county superintendent of education authority to approve Villaraigosa's proposal for a new mayor-controlled community partnership to directly oversee the lowest-performing schools.

The idea behind that amendment was to allow existing educational agencies to have the ultimate authority, similar to a concept used in the law allowing charter schools, which successfully withstood constitutional doubts.

Runner had requested that the Legislative Counsel's Office review the new language. The opinion she issued Monday, signed by deputy counsel Gerardo Partida, was nearly identical to the previous document.

The opinion notes that no court has addressed the question, but case law and a reading of the state constitution lead to the conclusion that the constitution "would be construed by a court to prohibit the Legislature from transferring by statute authority or control over educational functions currently performed by a school district to the mayor of a charter city."

But Villaraigosa and his allies remain undeterred.

Thomas Saenz, the mayor's legal counsel, noted that the legislative counsel's review is just one opinion, and that the office has been wrong on other bills in the past. The Legislature is free to ignore that opinion and allow the courts to decide the matter, he said.

"It is our view that even without the county superintendent provision, with due respect, the opinion is wrong and the law would be upheld," Saenz said.

"We added the county superintendent piece just as an additional protection against a legal challenge."

The opinion was issued as Villaraigosa returned to Sacramento again to try to round up votes for his proposal, which is expected to come to a Senate floor vote this week. Los Angeles Unified School District board President Marlene Canter also returned to Sacramento, her 13th trip, to lobby against the bill.

"Whenever it goes on the Senate floor, my hope is that it moves as quickly as possible," Villaraigosa said. "I imagine there will be a vigorous debate."

Canter said in speaking to legislators one of the common concerns was about the constitutionality of the bill.

She also thinks the effort will interfere with progress the district has made in improving test scores and other academic measures.

"The last thing you want is a mess," Canter said. "And this has the potential of being one. And that's not what the kids of L.A. need. I continue to think that there are better ways to go about doing this."

harrison.sheppard@dailynews.com

(916) 446-6723

VETO NOW
WEEKLY UPDATE
WWW.VETONOW.COM
Let Governor Schwarzenegger know how you feel about AB1381


Your Republican Leaders are weighing in on the LAUSD Mayoral Takeover.

In response to my alert about Termed Out Assemblywomen Jackie Goldberg having her sights on the LAUSD Superintendent position, Assembly Keith Richman’s response is listed below…

David,

I have been concerned about this from the beginning.

Keith Richman,

Assemblyman Bob Huff posted the following comment in his newsletter today…

As the legislative session enters its final weeks, there are a number of significant issues facing the Legislature.

AB 1381 - Los Angeles Unified School District Governance

AB 1381 (Nunez) is the proposal that would give the Mayor of Los Angeles control over the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). I do not support this proposal. I don't believe it is the answer to the district's problems. I am a co-author of Senator George Runner's and Assembly Member Keith Richman's bill to break-up the LAUSD into smaller districts. Smaller districts will allow for more local control and will allow board members to be more responsive to the needs of students in their district.

AB 1381 is currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

At the California Republican Party Convention in Los Angeles this weekend I was pleased to address the members of the California Republican Assembly. I requested their endorsement of the effort to call on the Governor to Veto AB1381.

By unanimous vote, the CRA Endorsed the Veto of AB1381.

At the convention I held a meeting with the following Republican State Assembly Candidates, all of whom have endorsed the Veto of AB1381.

AD 47 Jeffers Macarthur Dodge www.votedodge.com

AD 45 Samantha Allen-Newman www.sam4assembly.com

AD 45 Michael M. Agbaba www.agaba2006.com

AD 41 Tony Dolz www.dolz.com

AD40 Richard Montaine contact e-mail montaine2006@pacbell.net

AD 42 Steve Sion has already taken a position opposing the bill. contact e-mail steve.sion@sionforassembly.com

Contact these candidates and give them your time, money and help!

Now it is up to you. If you have not contacted the Governor yet, do it now. Go to www.vetonow.com and send your letter to the Governor and demand he Veto AB1381.

David Hernandez, Republicans for Rational Reform.

P.S. Please pass this on to your e-mail groups..

August 2006

It is an honor to serve as your Assembly representative. The “Huff Headlines” publication was designed to provide you with the most current information regarding the 60th Assembly District. I welcome your thoughts and suggestions. As your Assembly member, I am committed to remaining in touch with my constituents. I encourage you to visit my website.

Assemblymember
Bob Huff

Capitol Office:
State Capitol Room 5164
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 319-2060
Fax: (916) 319-2160

City of Diamond Bar Office:
23355 E. Golden Springs Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
909-860-5560
Fax: 909-860-5664


Bob's Staff

Capitol Office:

Junay Gardner Logan, Chief of Staff
Dane Wadle, Legislative Director
Faith Conley, Legislative Assistant
Kris Goldstein, Intern

City of Diamond Bar Office:

Jennifer Vitela, District Director
Jody Roberto, Field Representative
Gary L. Neely, Field Representative
Laura Kobzeff, Executive Secretary


LEGISLATIVE UPDATE


As the legislative session enters its final weeks, there are a number of significant issues facing the Legislature.

AB 1381 - Los Angeles Unified School District Governance

AB 1381 (Nunez) is the proposal that would give the Mayor of Los Angeles control over the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). I do not support this proposal. I don't believe it is the answer to the district's problems. I am a co-author of Senator George Runner's and Assembly Member Keith Richman's bill to break-up the LAUSD into smaller districts. Smaller districts will allow for more local control and will allow board members to be more responsive to the needs of students in their district.

AB 1381 is currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Apathy or Appeasement- Hereditary or Environmental


The seemingly unstoppable effort by the Mayor and Unions to wrestle control of the LAUSD from parents, teachers and elected board members, forces rank and file Republicans to take a good look at themselves and their leaders.

What do we really stand for? At what point do we say enough is enough? How far can our leaders go in selling out our values before we get the courage to stand up and say NO MORE!

I really do not know the answer and with each passing day I am more convinced, we as a party have failed in our stewardship of the values which stem from the Party of Lincoln.

AB1381 has forced us to admit just how far our Republican Leaders will go to insure their financial supporters, special interest and venture capitalist get a piece of the seven billion dollar pie.

Up until now the focus has been on the Mayor of Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa and an unnamed Superintendent. A Superintendent who for all intensive purposes will be held accountable to the Mayor.

Now my Republican brothers and sisters, we have name, face and historical voting and behavioral record for the person who could very well be that Superintendent…..Jackie Goldberg.

Please read the attached article which appeared in the press.

Now ask yourself, if this enough for you to take action? Only you can answer that question and only you can take action. If you are ready and have had enough, go to www.vetonow.com and tell the Governor, Veto AB1381 or else!

David Hernandez
Republicans for Rational Reform

Termed-out Goldberg eyes education She may apply for LAUSD superintendent, or go back to teaching BY HARRISON SHEPPARD, Sacramento Bureau
LA Daily News

SACRAMENTO - After 23 years in various elected offices representing Los Angeles, controversial and outspoken Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg will end her public career later this year, at least as an elected official.
Goldberg says she wants to return to education, and with Los Angeles Unified School District looking to pick a new superintendent by this fall, she says she's considering applying.

If not that, she says, she's thinking just as hard about returning to inner-city teaching.
"In some fashion, I want to address the achievement issue of low-income kids and literacy skills, but I'm not sure what that capacity should be," Goldberg said in a recent interview. "Maybe I should go back to being a teacher - that was my best job and my favorite job by far."

Goldberg says that while many people have approached her about applying to succeed Superintendent Roy Romer, she has had no official discussions with the district.
One thing is sure: Even if the state or the city of Los Angeles extends term limits, she doesn't plan to run for elected office again.

"On the whole, I'm very proud of my record," said Goldberg, D-Los Angeles. "I've always looked out for the underdog, which for me is the most important thing to do. The well-off and well-connected look out for themselves, and have plenty of people who look out for them."

The 61-year-old often-controversial lawmaker has served as an LAUSD board member, Los Angeles City Council member, and for the past six years as a state legislator.
During that time, she has drawn fire as she gained a reputation as an unabashed champion for ultra-liberal causes, styling herself as an advocate for homosexuals, the working poor and education in low-income communities.

She has fought for measures to ban American Indian school mascots, shorten school textbooks, lengthen the school year for low-performing schools and protect transgenders' rights in the workplace.

But her stances have drawn ire from conservatives, who say her beliefs represent political correctness and liberalism to the extreme.


Former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan clashed with then-Councilwoman Goldberg often, and at one point declared she "should be ashamed of herself" for making what he felt were untrue statements about him and his proposal for business tax reform.
Today, Riordan has softened his view somewhat.
"Personally, we got along," Riordan said. "We were just ideologically (on) very opposite sides of a lot of things.

"But on constituent matters in her district, she had a strong staff, and our two staffs worked well together. She hugged me on my last day as mayor."
Still, he sees Goldberg as an uncompromising ideologue.

"You just couldn't get her to accept something less than 100 percent of her ideology."
Mike Spence, president of the conservative grass-roots group California Republican Assembly, called Goldberg a "socialist" who wants to micromanage people's lives and is "wrong on almost everything."

"She's been a committed and articulate advocate for everything we oppose," Spence said. "I wish there were more people on our side that were as dedicated as she was to advancing her agenda."

Steve Frank, publisher of a conservative political newsletter, said if Goldberg does apply to be LAUSD superintendent, "I think it's a perfect match - a failed legislator with a failed system being controlled by a failed city."
As a legislator, Frank said, Goldberg was a "radical leftist" who has stood for more taxes and less freedom.

"Any opportunities to raise fees or business taxes, she voted for them. Anything to harm the businesses in her community and the whole city, she voted for it. She does not believe in the free market. She believes in the government market."

Los Angeles City Controller Laura Chick, a liberal who served with Goldberg for almost eight years on the City Council, said she considered Goldberg a friend and an ally.
"She was passionate about the issues that she believed in. She was a very effective fighter for them. She was extremely forthright in my dealings with her, which is hard to find in politics. There wasn't a lot of subterfuge and doubletalk. It was, say it as it is."
As a legislator, Goldberg said she has had 39 bills signed into law, including domestic partnership rights, water recycling and relief for school overcrowding.

In 2003, Goldberg was among a group of Democrats caught in an open-microphone gaffe talking about political strategies to possibly hold up the state budget vote in order to convince voters to support a proposal to lower the voting threshold for budgets.

They talked about creating a crisis to draw public attention, and noted that the timing was better because it was not an election year.
The group was having what they thought was a private discussion in a committee room, but a microphone was left on, allowing the press and many others in the Capitol to hear them plotting strategy.
When she was informed that the microphone was on, she was heard exclaiming "Oh, s--" before the sound was cut. Republicans distributed a transcript of the remarks.
Today, Goldberg says she doesn't regret that discussion at all. She said her words were misinterpreted.

"They made it sound like I was trying to make up a crisis. When you're $17 billion short, ladies and gentlemen, you're in a crisis. I don't retract the statement I made at all."
Goldberg, the City Council's first openly gay member, has been with her partner Sharon Stricker for nearly 27 years. Stricker is executive director of a nonprofit organization that runs arts and literacy after-school programs in Los Angeles middle schools.

The two, who live in Echo Park, participated in a marriage ceremony last year when San Francisco was allowing gay marriages before the courts halted the practice. They have one adopted son, who is now married and living in San Diego.

Goldberg says she enjoyed the nonpartisan politics of the City Council and the school board more than the partisan atmosphere in Sacramento.

"When I first got here, the Republicans were the meanest bunch of people I ever worked with in politics," Goldberg says. "I mean mean-spirited, not just philosophical differences. It was like, find a way to make it a personal attack if you can. ... That's gotten a little better. But it's still about winning points and not solving problems.

"I'm happy with what I've accomplished. ... I feel that I have made it clear to people you can be in office and still have your integrity intact.
"So I leave quite happy. And I'm happy to leave."

harrison.sheppard@dailynews.com
(916) 446-6723

CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : A.B. No. 1381
AUTHOR(S) : Nunez (Principal coauthor: Frommer) (Principal
coauthors: Perata and Romero).
TOPIC : School district governance: Los Angeles Unified School
District.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 08/07/2006


TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 08/07/2006
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer
to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.). Read second
time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS

TITLE : An act to amend Section 35400 of, and to add and repeal
Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 35900) of Part 21 of,
the Education Code, relating to school district
governance.

Republicans for Rational Reform
www.vetonow.com


Notice of Public Meeting and Rally

To Oppose AB1381


Stop Mayor Villaraigosa’s take over of LAUSD

Sacred Heart High School
2111 Griffin Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90031

Protest/Picket @5:30pm
Town Hall Meeting @6:30pm

For more information:

Go to www.vetonow.com

David Hernandez, Chairman

Republicans for Rational Reform

PO Box 3245

North Hollywood, CA 91609

Expecting Something And Getting Nothing
by Samantha Allen-Newman


My name is Samantha Allen-Newman, and I am the proud parent of an LAUSD student. I am also a candidate for State Assembly, seeking to represent the 45th Assembly District as Jackie Goldberg is leaving office due to term limits.

I was in attendance at the only Assembly Education Committee hearing held in Los Angeles, and it was what transpired in the Irving Middle School auditorium that prompted me to write this article.

To begin, I have certain expectations when it comes to the people who represent me and my interests. I have to give credit to Ms. Goldberg for holding an Education Committee hearing in the district she represents. She has met the burden of my expectations, and I publically wish to thank her for that.

I also have certain expectations when it comes to the public school system that my child is a student in. I expect that decisions regarding the school district are made in the best interests of my child. While I realize that LAUSD falls short of many expectations, I still hold the school district accountable for taking some responsibility to meet those expectations. Considering the number of parents like myself who attended the Education Committee hearing, it appears that LAUSD has met some of those expectations. There is still work to be done, but at least work has started and the remaining expectations will be met.

However, I was not expecting some of what I witnessed at that hearing. As a candidate, I know that you, the voters, expect me to actively listen to what you have to stay. That means listening to everybody, and staying as late as necessary to do so. I also know that if elected, you, the voters, become my employer. You have an expectation that I will take you and your concerns seriously. After all, you pay my salary.

I was expecting the Mayor of Los Angeles to take the comments of you, the voters, seriously. I was also expecting the Speaker of the Assembly to do the same thing. I was expecting both of them to stay and listen for the duration. After all, we pay their salary.

Both men failed to meet my expectations. They didn't stay to listen to what I had to say, or what you had to say. They left the auditorium before public comment began. I expected something from them in return for what they take from my wallet. I expected their time, their attention and the courtesy of concern. I got nothing. Was I wrong to expect something from someone whose salary is paid with my taxes? No. Were they wrong to leave? Yes.

If it had been me up on that stage, would I have taken your expectations of me as a public official seriously? Absolutely, and I would not have left the auditorium until the very last one of you said what you came to say. For the record, since my opponent is endorsed by both men and the teacher's union, you would expect that he would show up to cheer on the team. As expected, he too failed to show up. To do otherwise runs counter to the expectation I have of him.

I may only be a candidate, but I'm also a product of the public school system here in California both before and after Proposition 13. The teachers and administrators expect some acknowledgement for the hard work they have done over the last several years. As a mom, I acknowledge them. As a candidate, I applaud them. All those who work for and with LAUSD both inside and outside of the classroom have the expectation that they too should be recognized for the contributions to the measured progress that the school district has made. As a mom, I thank them. As a candidate, I salute them.

We all know that the school district needs some fixing. It's to be expected. However, the plan put together in Sacramento is not the right plan for right now. How do those whose ranks I seek to join expect those whose ranks I am a part of to support them when they don't listen to what we have to say? You can't listen if you leave the building. I expect you to listen to me. I pay your salary.

What can we as LAUSD parents expect? If this bill does not pass, expect another attempt to pass it with a crop of new folks in the Senate and Assembly who don't know what to expect. One of those new folks just might be me. And if you expect me to take you and this issue seriously, you're expectations are well placed. After all, you will be paying my salary. The least I can do is live up to your expectations.

And if you want to get the attention of those who don't give it, do something totally unexpected. Elect an LAUSD parent to represent LAUSD parents...and expect to be heard for a change. www.sam4assembly.com