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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
