Republicans For Rational Reform

2010-11-05T18:15:00.000-07:00

As in the past, this election cycle saw several Republicans who are holding elected offices endorse and support Democrat Candidates over the Republican Nominees.As individuals, they well within their right to do so, but I believe there are or should be consequences to their actions.

When these individuals were running for office and re-election they often went to Republican Groups, using their Party affiliation to garner support, funding, volunteers and votes from Republicans.The Party By laws are clear and it is time they are enforced.My proposal for the State and County Republican leadership would be a ban on these elected office holders from speaking at Republican Meetings.

What do you think?

2006-10-10T16:38:00.000-07:00

The Unmitigated Gall: Mayor Villaraigosa Criticizes The Board Of Education For Not Being “Transparent.”

By Donna Connolly

“Without transparency, there can be no accountability”, says Mayor Villaraigosa in his plea to supporters on his Excellence in LA Schools website–a statement that forces one to reexamine what it means to be “transparent.”

If to be transparent means to draft a bill in the State Legislature that usurps the authority a locally elected body and places it into the hands of a 26-member council and sell it to the public as a means to “cut the bureaucracy, increase accountability, [and] provide a central role for our city leaders”, then we have either redefined the definition of transparent or revealed the inadequate education of a few of our legislatures. I think they have confused the definition of transparent with its antonyms “unclear, ambiguous and vague.”

In a radio interview, Gloria Romero claims that critics of AB 1381 are ‘babbling on about power grab” and insists that AB 1381 is not a grab for power. In her words, the bill is an “opportunity …to turn around achievement and to boost the quality of education in LA Unified.”

If AB 1381 is not a “power grab” than how do you explain the instantaneous power the mayor of Los Angeles was given the morning Gov. Schwarzennegar signed the bill into law? Did he just eat too much spinach? And if it is an opportunity to boost the quality of education, then why doesn’t this bill explain how a 26 member Council of Mayors will be more effective at doing that, then a 6 member elected school board?

I agree with the mayor on one issue in this debate and that is that without transparency, there can be no accountability-but the burden of transparency falls on those responsible for bringing this bill to the fore. It is their responsibility to explain to the voters how commandeering their constitutional right is in the best interest of their children.

2006-09-30T16:23:00.000-07:00

AB 1381 – Harmony or Havoc

Now that Governor Schwarzenegger has given AB 1381 his signature of approval and everyone has left the photo op, and clarity has returned to the eyes of those blinded by all the flash bulbs, what happens next?

The bill–due to go into effect on January 1, 2007¬–will give the “Council of Mayors” hiring authority over the Superintendent and gives authority for hiring and awarding construction contracts to that Superintendent in addition to other powers.

The question on everyone’s lips now is; “Who will be the next LAUSD Superintendent? Since Roy Romer is anxious to step down from the position the LAUSD Board of Education is feverishly searching for his replacement. Amid chaos? It appears so. The Board of Education–currently possessing hiring authority for the next three months–is, according to Mayor Villaraigosa, withholding information about candidates vying for the position. The Board claims their decision is to protect those candidates who wish for their application to remain confidential–and with 26 mayors receiving the information it would be difficult if not impossible to respect their wishes. The mayor’s office in response has accused the Board of using “obstructionist tactics.”

Oh, to be a fly on that wall. I can only imagine how quickly the Board would like to hire someone to replace Roy Romer and retain some of their authority–if for no other reason than to avoid Jackie Goldberg getting the position. I wonder if her resume has made it into the stack of applicants, yet. Maybe they’re busy checking her references.

“Let’s see, previous employment: Assemblywoman. Hmmm, that sounds familiar. References? Here we go: Antonio Villaraigosa and Fabian Nunez. Hmmm! Those names sound familiar.”

For us regular citizens, if you don’t like what your elected officials are doing–you can go to the polls and vote them out of office. But it appears–in California anyway–If you are a politician, the process is different. Instead of going to the polls or soliciting the voters, you draft a bill shifting authority from one elected body to another, place pertinent decision making into the hands of one individual and empower a third party with the hiring and firing of that individual. Now you have successfully constrained the elected body with whom you disagree and placed authority into the hands of your cohorts. WOW! And to top if off, you get a governor in a re-election year to sign the bill by promising photo ops with inner city teachers and community leaders and you have successfully circumvented the entire electoral process. Congratulations Mayor Villaraigosa and Fabian Nunez on staining us with your own brand of Democracy.

2006-09-19T14:46:00.000-07:00

The Governor of California has ignored the people who placed their confidence in the democratic process and voted for the board members of the Los Angeles Unified School District.

It does not matter if you supported the outcome of the vote, the process was one which has been fought for throughout the history of our country. The price paid by so many Americans can not be dismissed.

The backroom dealings of the Mayor, Union and Legislature are a disgrace. Now that the Governor has signed onto this trampling of our rights as Americans, we look to the LAUSD Board and Superintendent to act on our behalf and proceed with legal action to protect our rights as Voters.

AB1381 signed into law at the expense of our rights and in violation to the State Constitution, is a clear example of the willingness of our Mayor to only obey laws which serve only his agenda.

His election and first year in office are a testament to his true nature and character.

2006-09-07T12:01:00.000-07:00

Mayor Alan Autry
City of Fresno

August 28, 2006

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
City of Los Angeles
200 North Spring Street, Room 303
Los Angeles, CA 90012
VIA FACSIMILE 2133-978-0656

Dear Antonio:
I have tried unsuccessfully to reach you regarding your education reform bill. I'm left with only one conclusion, that you felt the needed votes had been arranged and there was no need to return my call.

I can't tell you how disappointed I am. As you know, I supported your efforts for reform and crossed many of my fellow Republicans to do so. I did so with peace in my heart because I believed you genuinely cared about the welfare of all the children in California, many of whom live in the most impoverished region in the country – Fresno, California. It hurts me badly to think you were apparently playing a political game for Los Angeles and Los Angeles only.

The bill that passed the Senate today could have easily contained the intent language for Fresno that Senator Denham had fought for. All you and Fabian had to do was support it. It would have cost you and the speaker nothing. But you didn't. It has become painfully obvious to me that you do not believe the kids in Fresno are of equal value to the kids of L.A. I think they're all equally important and precious to this state.

Antonio, since I have been in office, writing this has been one of the most difficult things I have done because I truly do respect you. But answer me truthfully, if the shoe was on the other foot and you were the Mayor of Fresno with some of the lowest test scores and highest dropout rates in the state, would you say and do nothing? Would you stay silent after watching a similar reform for Fresno summarily and egotistically dismissed by the Legislature and along with it, the hopes and dreams of thousands of our most needy children? We both know the answer to both of these questions – no.
City Hall • 2600 Fresno Street • Fresno, California 93721-3600
-------end page one -------

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
August 28, 2006
Page 2

Since we don't have the capacity for intimidation here in the Valley that you and Speaker Nunez wield at the State level, I guess all I can say is shame on you, brother. But this I vow to you and the Speaker – I will do everything I can to expose this action for just what it is, political deal making at its worst that puts the desire for power over the well being of our most disadvantaged children.
Sincerely,

/s/Alan Autry
Mayor

cc: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Speaker Nunez
Senator Denham
Senator Florez
Senate Education Committee
Assembly Education Committee

You tell them Buba!

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

2006-09-06T14:29:00.000-07:00

Oath of Office administered to Board Members upon their assumption of office.

I, ___________
do solemnly swear
that I will support and defend
the Constitution of the United States
and the Constitution of the State of California
against all enemies, foreign and domestic
that I will bear true faith and allegiance
to the Constitution of the United States
and the Constitution of the State of California
that I take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion;
and that I will faithfully discharge
the duties upon which I am about to enter.

Given the oath of office taken by the LAUSD Board Members, they have no choice but to file suit if AB1381 is signed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

The Mayor has demonstrated his willingness to pick and chose which laws he is willing to enforce and which rights he is willing to respect. Those who support this bill may not feel it important to uphold and protect the constitutional rights of the people, but thank God we have a School Board and Superintendent who will.

2006-08-29T21:58:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-29T16:27:00.000-07:00

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."

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

2006-08-28T13:26:00.000-07:00

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.

2006-08-27T11:06:00.000-07:00

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
______________________________________________________________

2006-08-25T13:55:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-22T11:10:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-21T16:57:00.000-07:00

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..

2006-08-21T14:46:00.000-07:00

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.

2006-08-14T10:48:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-08T16:01:00.000-07:00

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.

2006-08-08T14:53:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-02T09:41:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-29T10:29:00.000-07:00

Assemblymember Keith S. Richman, MD
Senator George Runner

Public Informational Hearing

Governance of the Los Angeles Unified School District

August 1, 2006

To better inform San Fernando Valley residents and hear public comments, Assemblymember Keith S. Richman, MD and Senator George Runner are hosting a public information hearing on education issues and to hear the proposal by the Mayor of Los Angeles for governance of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The hearing will be from 5:30 to 8:00 PM on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 at Granada Hills Charter High School located at 10535 Zelzah Avenue, Granada Hills, CA 91344.

The public meeting will give the San Fernando Valley community an opportunity to learn more about the proposal for governance of LAUSD (Assembly Bill 1381) and share their views with their elected officials. LAUSD Superintendent Roy Romer will give a presentation and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has been invited to attend.

We know community leaders, concerned parents, LAUSD teachers and education advocates will want have their voices heard on this vital subject. This hearing was scheduled after the Assembly Education Committee canceled their plan to hold a hearing in the San Fernando Valley.

See you there!

David Hernandez
Chairman, Republicans for Rational Reform
www.vetonow.com

2006-07-28T14:38:00.000-07:00

Republicans must not remain on the side lines in the struggle for control of LAUSD.

Even though they may be tempted to sit back and observe, with I might add, a slight sense of glee, Republicans have a duty to their community to take an active role in the power struggle taking place for the fate of the 770,000 children in LAUSD. After all those children are not Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Peace & Freedom, Libertarians or any other party affiliation, they are kids.

The prominent groups and political figures engaged in this battle, have in the past and most likely in the future, are opposed to many positions held by Republicans. But as an American, this can not be an excuse to avoid the responsibility of standing up for the community in which I reside.

As a community advocate, I have appeared in front of the LAUSD Board and the Superintendent Roy Romer in opposition to actions they were about to take. I am the first one and sometimes the loudest voice to oppose a Board decision.

The short comings of the current system are not in question in the effort to oppose AB1381. The effort to pressure California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to Veto AB1381is focused on the attempt by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to take control of the district . A move which has only addressed the shift of power, not a solution to the current challenges.

The Mayor who left the California State Assembly as Speaker, has called on his friends in the Assembly to draft a bill which would circumvent the vote of the people who elected the Board Members of LAUSD. The bill which has been rushed out of the State Senate Education Committee will begin working its way to the desk of the governor in a matter of weeks.

Lets us look at the accomplishments of the man who wants to control a budget larger than that of the City of Los Angeles. When Villaraigosa left the Assembly the State had gone from a surplus to a multi billion dollar deficit.

From the assembly he returned to Los Angeles, running for City Council District 14. The district was in much need of support. His pledge to the residents of CD14 was that if elected he would complete his four year term and bring reform to the community. Within two years he was already leaving to run for Mayor, leaving the district behind.

The Mayor brings to his aid the former president of LAUSD Jose Huizaer. Where was Mr Huizar on reforming LAUSD when he was president of the board? Why would he be in a better position to reform the district as a City council member (CD14) put in office by Mayor Villaraigosa, than as President of the Board?

The Mayor has also brought another former Los Angeles political figure to his aid, Assemblywomen Jackie Goldberg. Ms. Goldberg who was also a LAUSD Board member and City Council member.

So before you say I am being too personal in pointing out the Mayors track record and that of his supporters, remember, that Mayor has only addressed the issue of control. His track record and that of his advisors are critical when speaking of who will be in charge.

The text of AB1381 can be found at our web site www.vetonow.com. You can also read the “fine print”.

Some of my objections to the bill include the authority given to the Superintendent to appoint the principal of a school within the district. If the superintendent can appoint one, she can appoint all!

The bill would limit the authority to contract with private parties in areas held by “represented employees”. So no matter how much is saved, Union, only spoken here.

The Superintendent can request the state board waive all or part of any section of the Education Code and would deem the waiver granted for two years if the state board fail to take action.

The bill will require the administrative staff of the LAUSD board be employed by the district not the board. Who will the staff be accountable to, the board or those who can fire and hire them?

The bill creates a “Council of Mayors” who will hire the Superintendent and over see the district but the authority given to each is determined by the population of their city. The term used in the bill is “weighted vote”. Of the cities within the LAUSD district who would you say is the Mayor with the number one “weighted vote”?

The mayors do not have to participate they will be authorized to appoint a representative who will be involved in everything form choosing a Superintendent to choosing school sites.

Republicans have a duty to engage and we must do it now.

David Hernandez
Chairman,
Republicans for Rational Reform

2006-07-24T21:14:00.000-07:00

An open letter to all parent leaders in LA:

A LITTLE BACKGROUND: In case no one noticed, the Mayor of Los Angeles is attempting to take over LAUSD; he sees that as a fitting and proper role for big city mayors.

• Both PTA Districts in LA, 10th & 31st, representing 60,000 PTA members, have studied the Mayor's proposal and the implementing legislation - AB 1381 - and have taken an OPPOSED position.

• California State PTA has similarly taken an OPPOSED position - although this is a local issue the changes are being directed from Sacramento - and CAPTA sees distinct statewide implications. Details follow in the Leg Alert Section.

At Mayor Villaraigosa's Town Hall Meeting in Westwood last Thursday evening charter school advocate and would-be parent's union founder Steve Barr – speaking for the Mayor's Plan, chose to attack PTA – characterizing the organization and its meetings as – and I think I've got this right: "monthly fights and shouting matches".

I've been to more than my share of PTA meetings, I've seen some where honest disagreements have broken out – democracy is like that.

But Steve, your child will never know a child with Polio. That's because PTA fought in the 1950's.

You have seatbelts in your car because PTA fought in the '60's. Your child rides in safety in a car seat because PTA fought in the '70's. The federal government is engaged in Public Education because PTA fought. PTA fought for those Title One funds your Green Dot Schools receive. Poor children get free and reduced price school lunches and there are kindergartens in public schools because PTA fought. School Zones and Child Labor Laws and Parental Involvement ….and those infuriating safety caps on medicine bottles because we fought.

Week before last Governor Schwarzenegger recognized PTA's advocacy for the Arts, Music and Physical Education in California at an event at Hamilton High School …and came though with nearly a billion dollars in funding for those programs.

And yes: Bake sales and after school programs and the Fall Carnival. All from those monthly fights from those meddlesome moms and dads.

Steve, there already is an independent parent's union - and it has grass roots locals at school sites, it has councils, districts and state organizations in every state. It has a national office. It has six million volunteer dues-paying members nationally; one million in California, 60,000 in LA.
It is PTA ...and we are not just punch and cookies. Join the fight.

Scott Folsom, President • Los Angeles 10thDistrict PTSA • pta10thdistrict@aol.com

2006-07-10T21:25:00.000-07:00

Eldon Quick

Bulletin Editor Hollywood Hilltoppers RWF

3rd Vice President Southern California Republican Women & Men.

2312 Cheremoya Ave.

Los Angeles, CA 90068

July 10, 2006

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA. 95814

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,

The contents of AB 1381 were recently brought to my attention. I have now read the bill. I strongly urge you to veto this bill when it arrives at your desk.

This bill is not good for the LAUSD. While the LAUSD has many problems, AB 1381 will not help and in fact will only make matters worse.

Sincerly,

Eldon Quick

2006-07-05T16:12:00.000-07:00

July 5, 2006

Office of the Governor

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor of California
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

I am writing you today in response to your letter dated March 21, 2006, regarding your unwillingness to support the effort to preserve the original Los Angeles County Seal.

In that letter, addressed to Ms. Sandra Needs, Executive Director, Committee to Support the Los Angeles County Seal Ordinance, you stated,

“Decision-making authority for the matter you describe rests entirely with your County Board of Supervisors. Although I value your perspective, I am committed to honoring the role and responsibility of these locally-elected officials.”

And the letter was signed “Sincerely, Arnold Schwarzenegger.”

Given your response to Ms. Needs’ request for support of the LA County Seal Ordinance, I must question your readiness to involve the Governor’s Office with the matter affecting our Los Angeles School Board and those “locally-elected officials.” I am referring of course to your assertion (according to the Daily News) that you intend to sign AB1381 permitting Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa’s bid to take over the LAUSD Board of Education.

We, Republicans for Rational Reform, urge you to honor your commitment to locally-elected officials and veto AB1381 when it arrives on your desk. This is a matter to be decided by the voters of Los Angeles County not legislators and union leaders in Sacramento.

Please do not set a precedent you will not be able to reverse.

Respectfully,

David Hernandez, Chairman
Republicans for Rational Reform

2006-07-03T14:39:00.000-07:00

AB1381 Council of Mayors:

In exercising any of the duties described in this chapter, the council of mayors shall act by a majority of the weighted vote of the total membership of the council. The weighted vote of each member of the council of mayors is equal to the proportion of the population of the LAUSD that are residents of the city of the individual member, or unincorporated area of the county for any member of the county board of supervisors, to the total population of residents of the LAUSD.

In other words, Mayor Villaraigosa is in charge!

2006-07-03T14:30:00.000-07:00

Here is AB1381 as it came out of the California State Senate Education Committee.

BILL NUMBER: AB 1381 AMENDED
BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 26, 2006
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 24, 2006
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 4, 2006
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 2, 2005

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Nunez
( Principal coauthors:
Assembly Members Frommer and Wyland
)
( Principal coauthors:
Senators Perata and Romero )

FEBRUARY 22, 2005

An act to amend Sections 51795, 51796, 51797, and 51798
of, and to add Section 51796.5 to, the Education Code, and to amend
Section 40507 of the Public Resources Code, relating to school
gardens. 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.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 1381, as amended, Nunez School instructional gardens:
pupil nutrition. School district governance: Los
Angeles Unified School District.

(1) Existing law authorizes the Inspector General of the Los
Angeles Unified School District to conduct specified audits,
investigations, and related activities.

This bill would require the inspector general be appointed by the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education and that all employment decisions related to the inspector general would be managed by the board in a manner consistent with any existing contracts under which the inspector general is employed.

(2) Existing law requires every school district to be under the
control of a board of school trustees or a board of education.
Existing law requires any unified school district which is
coterminous with or includes within its boundaries a chartered city
or city and county to be governed by the board of education provided for in the charter of the city or city and county. Existing law authorizes the governing board of any school district employing 8 or more teachers to employ a district superintendent for one or more schools and to define the duties of the superintendent.

Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district or a county board of education, on a districtwide or countywide basis or on behalf of one or more of its schools or programs, after a public hearing on the matter, to request the State Board of Education to waive all or part of any provision of the Education Code or any
regulation adopted by the state board that implements a provision of that code, except for specified provisions. Existing law requires that a properly submitted waiver request be deemed granted and approved for one year, commencing the first day of the following month, if the state board fails to take action on the request by its second regular meeting after the receipt of the request.

Existing law, the California Constitution, requires the state board to adopt instructional materials for grades 1 to 8, inclusive.
Existing statutory law requires the governing board of a school district to adopt instructional materials for use in the high schools under its control. Existing law requires the state board to adopt content standards in defined curricula, as specified.

Existing law requires the governing board of each school district to develop and cause to be implemented for each school in the school district a School Accountability Report Card.

This bill would permit the Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District to request, after a public hearing, that the state board waive all or part of any section of the Education Code, except as specified, and would deem the waiver granted for two years,
commencing the first day of the following month, if the state board fails to take action on the request by its second regular meeting after, or 60 days after, receipt of the request, whichever is sooner.

The bill would require a request for a waiver to include specified written statements if the exclusive representative of employees responds with its position on the proposed waiver within 2 weeks of its receipt of the request from the district superintendent.

This bill would authorize the district superintendent to appoint and dismiss the personnel of his or her office, and to appoint and dismiss a principal of a school within the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) after consultation with parents of pupils enrolled at the school to which the principal is assigned, community leaders, and school site personnel, subject to ratification by the LAUSD Board of Education. The bill would limit the authority of the district superintendent by requiring that those employment decisions be in conformance with applicable collective bargaining agreements and contracts and in a manner that is consistent with other specified provisions.

This bill would grant the district superintendent authority over the fiscal operations of the LAUSD, including, but not limited to, the negotiation and execution of contracts, subject to all other requirements of law. The bill would limit the authority of the district superintendent to contract with private parties regarding the personal services that, as of January 1, 2007, are provided by represented employees of the LAUSD, as specified. The bill would authorize the district superintendent to make decisions regarding litigation involving the LAUSD, and, for purposes of this authority, would exempt the LAUSD from the provision regarding the electors of a school district being able to petition to vote on a settlement, as specified.

The bill would limit the authority of the district superintendent by requiring that any decisions impacting the employment rights of LAUSD employees not conflict with specified provisions regarding employment.

This bill would require the district superintendent to annually present a proposed budget for the LAUSD for the succeeding fiscal year to the council of mayors established by this bill at a public meeting in May of each year for its review and comment prior to the adoption of the budget by the LAUSD board. The bill would grant the LAUSD board the authority to provide the final approval of any revenue and expenditure allocations at the object level and to approve any budget revisions that would result in a change in revenue or object level expenditure allocations, but would limit the authority of the LAUSD board and the council of mayors to budgetary matters no more specific than the object level. The bill would require the district superintendent to be responsible for fiscal reporting requirements to the county board of education, the State Department of Education, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

This bill would require the administrative staff of the LAUSD to be employed by the district and not by individual LAUSD board members. The bill would grant the LAUSD board the power to make employment decisions related to the staff that are not inconsistent with any collective bargaining agreement or contract. The bill would require the district superintendent to manage all LAUSD personnel other than the staff of the LAUSD board, except the inspector general of the LAUSD.

This bill would require the district superintendent and board, when selecting curriculum and instructional materials, to ensure that teachers and certificated staff have an authentic and central role; a majority of curriculum committee participants are classroom teachers; basic instructional materials for kindergarten and grades 1 to 8, inclusive, are state board adopted materials; basic
instructional materials for grades 9 to 12, inclusive, are aligned to state content standards, if content standards exist for the applicable subjects; and there is a wide selection of supplemental instructional materials that are consistent with the needs of pupils and available for use at school sites.

This bill requires the district superintendent to develop and manage a facilities program for the LAUSD, as specified. The bill requires the council of mayors to advise the district superintendent regarding the facilities program pursuant to specified authority, but requires that the district superintendent retain all decision making power regarding the facilities program. The bill expresses the intent of the Legislature that the district superintendent take over and be responsible for all district-level, rather than school-level, requirements related to facilities, and that the LAUSD, through the district superintendent, remain subject to all laws regarding the review and approval of decisions of the district by state agencies regarding school facilities of the district. The bill provides that any eminent domain proceedings related to school facilities of the LAUSD require approval by the LAUSD board.

This bill would establish the council of mayors, composed of certain city mayors and county board of supervisors within the boundaries of the LAUSD. The bill would authorize the council of mayors to select a representative and have that representative participate in all aspects of the selection and evaluation by the LAUSD board of the district superintendent, as provided; would require the appointment, contract term, contract renewal, or involuntary removal of the district superintendent to be ratified by the council of mayors; and would require the district superintendent to provide, as specified, each School Accountability Report Card for each school of the district to the council of mayors on an annual basis for review and comment. The bill would also require the council of mayors to have certain roles, including, among others, oversight over the creation, coordination, support, and completion of joint-use projects involving the LAUSD and providing local governmental input in the development of school construction strategic plans and determining school site locations for the district.

This bill would require the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, in partnership with the LAUSD, parent and community leaders and organizations, and school personnel and employee organizations, to, as part of a demonstration project, have oversight over three clusters of the lowest-performing schools in different geographic areas within the City of Los Angeles. The bill would require each cluster to include a high school that is ranked in decile 1 of the
Academic Performance Index and its feeder middle and elementary schools. The bill would require the high schools for each cluster to be selected by the Los Angeles Mayor and the district superintendent within specified timelines, and would require the Superintendent of Public Instruction to make that selection if the selection is not made within the deadline. The bill would specify the purposes of the
demonstration project. The bill would require all authority exercised by the LAUSD board and the district superintendent with respect to the schools in the demonstration project to be transferred to the partnership, except as specified. The bill would provide that the schools in the demonstration project continue to exist as district schools and continue to be funded with existing resources and private donations.

This bill would require the Legislative Analyst to contract for an evaluator to conduct an interim evaluation of the effectiveness of the specified LAUSD programs to be completed on or before January 1,2009; conduct a final evaluation to be completed by January 1, 2011; and report to the Legislature and the Governor on the final evaluation, including recommendations to continue, modify, or terminate the programs, by January 1, 2011, based upon the results in meeting specified measurements of the effectiveness of the programs based on a comparison of the LAUSD and its component schools and pupils in 2006 relative to the time of the evaluation of the LAUSD and its component schools and pupils. The bill would require the evaluation to include, but not be limited to, whether schools participating in the Los Angeles Mayor's Community Partnership for School Excellence, other schools in the LAUSD, and the LAUSD as a whole accomplished, and, in specified instances, to what degree they accomplished, specific goals.

This bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2013.

To the extent this bill would impose additional duties on officials of local agencies and local educational agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3) This bill would declare that, due to special circumstances applicable to the LAUSD, a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution, and the enactment of a special statute is therefore necessary.

(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1) Existing law establishes the Instructional School Gardens
Program for the promotion, creation, and support of instructional
school gardens by eligible educational agencies, as defined. Existing
law requires that the program be administered by the State
Department of Education through the allocation of one-time grants and
technical assistance to applicant eligible education agencies.
Existing law authorizes the department to consult with the Integrated
Waste Management Board and public institutions of higher education,
regarding curriculum development and evaluation of any program
established pursuant to the Instructional School Gardens Program.

This bill instead would require the Integrated Waste Management
Board to administer the program, in consultation with the State
Department of Education, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and
the State Department of Health Services. This bill would align the
program with the statewide environmental education program and would
include an agricultural education component in the program. This bill
would provide that educational agencies interested in participating
in the Instructional School Gardens Program apply to the board for
funding. This bill authorizes the board to establish an advisory
group involving other agencies and groups with expertise in
instructional school gardens, to provide technical assistance,
resources, in-kind support, site visits, and other related forms of
support.

This bill would require educational agencies applying for funding
to provide the goals and objectives for their instructional school
garden and a plan detailing how they plan to meet the goals and
objectives. This bill would limit the use of funding for the program
to costs directly related to implementing the instructional school
garden and would prohibit the use of more than 5% of the funding
awarded for administrative costs.
(2) Existing law requires the Integrated Waste Management Board to
give preferential consideration during its annual discretionary
grant funding process to providing an appropriate level of funding to
the program.
This bill instead would establish the Instructional School Garden
Account within the State Treasury and would permit the board to
expend money from the account upon appropriation by the Legislature.
This bill would allow the board to accept and receive funding and
other contributions from federal, state, and local sources as well as
from public and private organizations and individuals. This bill
would permit proceeds from court judgments that have been designated
for instructional programs or instructional school gardens to be
included within the account. This bill also would authorize the board
to accept nonmonetary contributions. This bill would require the
transfer of $100,000 each year for 5 years from the Integrated Waste
Management Account into the Instructional School Garden Account.

(3) Existing law provides that the program will be implemented
only if funds are available for it.
This bill would specify that the funding necessary for
implementation is the funding received by the board and included
within the Instructional School Garden Account.
(4) Existing law requires the board to file annual progress
reports with the Legislature regarding specified programs that the
board undertakes, including, but not limited to, the public education
program.
This bill would add a report on the status and effectiveness of
the Instructional School Gardens Program to the required reports.

This bill would also delete an obsolete reference and would make
other, nonsubstantive changes.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no yes .

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 35400 of the
Education Code is amended to read:

35400. (a) The Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education shall appoint an inspector general and shall make any employment decisions related to the inspector general, except to the extent that a decision violates the terms of the employment contract under which the inspector general is employed as of January 1, 2007.

(a)
(b) The inspector general of the Los Angeles
Unified School District's Inspector General of the Office
of the Inspector General District is authorized
to conduct audits and investigations. The inspector general may subpoena witnesses, administer oaths or affirmations, take testimony, and compel the production of all information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data and documentary evidence deemed material and relevant and that reasonably relate to
the inquiry or investigation undertaken by the inspector general when he or she has a reasonable suspicion that a law, regulation, rule, or district policy has been violated or is being violated. For purposes of this section, "reasonable suspicion" means that the circumstances known or apparent to the inspector general include specific and articulable facts causing him or her to suspect that a
material violation of law, regulation, rule, or district policy hasoccurred or is occurring, and that the facts would cause a reasonable officer in a like position to suspect that a material violation of a law, regulation, rule, or district bulletin policy has occurred or is occurring.
(b)
(c) Subpoenas shall be served in the manner provided by
law for service of summons. Any subpoena issued pursuant to this section may be subject to challenge pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1985) of Title 3 of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(c)
(d) For purposes of this section, Sections 11184,
11185, 11186, 11187, 11188, 11189, 11190, and 11191 of the Government Code shall apply to the subpoenaing of witnesses and documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data and documentary evidence as if the investigation was being conducted by a state department head, except that the applicable court for resolving motions to compel or motions to quash shall be the Superior
Court for the County of Los Angeles.
(d)
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, any
person who, after the administration of an oath or affirmation pursuant to this section, states or affirms as true any material matter that he or she knows to be false is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed six months or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment for the first offense. Any subsequent
violation shall be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(e)
(f) The inspector general shall submit an interim
report to the Legislature by July 1, 2000, annual interim reports by July 1 of each succeeding year, and a final cumulative report by December 1, 2014, on all of the following:
(1) The use and effectiveness of the subpoena power authorized by this section in the successful completion of the inspector general's duties.
(2) Any use of the subpoena power in which the issued subpoena was quashed, including the basis for the court's order.
(3) Any referral to the local district attorney
or the Attorney General where if the
district attorney or Attorney General declined to investigate the
matter further or declined to prosecute.
(f)
(g) This article shall remain in effect only until
January 1, 2015, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2015, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 2. Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 35900)
is added to Part 21 of the Education Code , to
read:
CHAPTER 5. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
ADMINISTRATION

Article 1. General Provisions

35900. (a) The Legislature finds and declares both of the
following:
(1) As the largest school district in California and an urbanb district with high numbers of pupils from historically disadvantaged groups, the Los Angeles Unified School District has unique challenges and resources that require and deserve special attention to ensure that all pupils are given the opportunity to reach their full potential.

(2) The freedom to deviate from the strictures of generally applicable education statutes and regulations while maintaining the constant commitment to fairness and equity, and to increasing achievement among all pupils regardless of background, is central to the success of quality schools in California and is appropriate, as a
concept, for the unique circumstances of the Los Angeles Unified School District.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the Los Angeles Unified School District achieve the following pupil learning expectations through the enactment of this chapter:
(1) Significantly improved pupil learning based on the academic standards of the state, graduation requirements, and other standards for assessing the achievement of pupils.
(2) Significantly improved graduation rates and significantly
reduced dropout rates.
(3) A reduction in the academic achievement gap between Latino, African-American, White, and Asian pupils so that all pupils are attaining similar, acceptable levels of academic achievement.
(4) Parent satisfaction with the schools that their children attend.
(5) English language learner success.
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature that the schools and administration of the Los Angeles Unified School District ensure that:
(1) All schools are clean and safe places for pupils and school staff.
(2) Each pupil has a qualified teacher who has had appropriate professional development for the one or more grades and subjects that he or she teaches.
(3) Each school has a principal who has had high quality
professional development to improve his or her ability as an educational leader to assist in improving teaching and learning at the school to which he or she is assigned, in building strong educational teams, and in promoting parental involvement and community relations.
(4) There is transparency in the fiscal affairs of the schools and the school district.
(5) Teachers and parents are full partners in the decisions that affect schools.
(6) The district is decentralized to reduce bureaucracy and transfer resources to schools and classrooms.
(7) Class sizes are at or below statewide averages for the corresponding grade levels.
(8) The school community is held accountable for the achievement of the goals described in this section.
(d) It is further the intent of the Legislature that, in
performing the school-related duties set forth in this chapter, the council of mayors described in Section 35920 and the partnership described in Section 35931, which includes the Mayor of the City ofLos Angeles, function as local educational agencies authorized tomaintain public schools, similar to a school district or county office of education. The council of mayors and the partnership are, therefore, a part of the public school system of the state in performing the duties established in this chapter within the meaning of Section 6 of Article IX of the California Constitution.

35901. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings, unless the context in which they appear clearly requires otherwise:
(a) "Board" means the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education.
(b) "District superintendent" means the Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District.
(c) "LAUSD" means the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Article 2. Operational Flexibility

35910. (a) Notwithstanding Section 33050, the district
superintendent, on a districtwide basis or on behalf of one or more of the schools or programs of the LAUSD, after a public hearing on the matter, may request the state board to waive all or part of any section of this code or any regulation adopted by the state board that implements a provision of this code, except that a waiver of the provisions specified in subdivisions (a), (b), and (c) of Section 33050, or of any law that cannot constitutionally be waived, shall not be requested or granted.
(b) A request for a waiver made pursuant to this section shall include the written statement required pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 33050 if the exclusive representative of employees specified in that section responds with its position on any proposed waiver within two weeks of its receipt of a request from the district superintendent.

(c) If the state board does not approve or deny a waiver request submitted by the district superintendent pursuant to this section by the completion of the second regular meeting of the state board after, or within 60 days of, receiving the request, whichever date is sooner, the request shall be deemed approved for two years, commencing the first day of the following month.

35911. (a) The district superintendent shall have the authority to appoint and dismiss the personnel of the Office of Superintendent of the LAUSD.
(b) The district superintendent shall have the authority to appoint and dismiss a principal of a school within the LAUSD after consultation with community leaders, schoolsite personnel, and parents of pupils enrolled at the school to which the principal is assigned. However, the appointment or dismissal of a principal pursuant to this subdivision is subject to ratification by the board.

(c) Employment actions made by the district superintendent pursuant to this section shall conform with any collective bargaining agreements or contracts under which an employee is employed.

(d) The intent of the Legislature in enacting this section is to transfer the responsibility for the applicable employment decisions from the board to the district superintendent, except as specified.
This section does not alter Part 25 (commencing with Section 44000)of the Education Code or Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540)of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, except to the extent that the authority over the applicable employment decisions is expressly transferred to the district superintendent.

35912. (a) (1) The district superintendent shall have the authority over the fiscal operations of the LAUSD, including, but not limited to, the negotiation and execution of contracts. For purposes of negotiating and executing contracts, the district superintendent is subject to the otherwise applicable requirements of law, including statutory or regulatory competitive bidding procedures and best contracting practices.

(2) A decision by the district superintendent to contract with aprivate individual or business entity for personal services that, as of January 1, 2007, are provided by represented employees of the LAUSD shall comply with Section 45103.1.

(b) The district superintendent shall have the authority to make decisions regarding litigation involving the LAUSD, including, but not limited to, nonmonetary settlements involving injunctive relief related to matters within the responsibility of the district superintendent. For purposes of this authority, Section 35190 does not apply to the LAUSD.
(c) The intent of the Legislature in enacting this section is to transfer the responsibility for fiscal operations from the board to the district superintendent. This section does not alter the requirements related to the employment rights of any district employees pursuant to Part 25 (commencing with Section 44000) of the Education Code or Chapter 10.7 (commencing with Section 3540) of
Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or any applicable collective bargaining agreement or contract. This section does not alter any law regarding the procedures for school districts to
execute or amend contracts.

35913. (a) The district superintendent annually shall present a proposed budget for the LAUSD for the succeeding fiscal year at a public meeting of the council of mayors established pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 35920) to be held in May of each year.
(b) The council of mayors shall have an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed budget prior to the consideration and adoption of the budget by the board.
(c) The board shall have the final approval of any revenue and expenditure allocations at the object-level, which includes categories of expenditures, but not the individual line item level of expenditures proposed within those categories. The board shall approve any revisions of the budget that would result in a change of revenue or proposed object-level expenditure. The board or the
council of mayors shall not revise proposed expenditures that are more specific than object-level expenditures, including, but not limited to, line-item level of expenditures.
(d) The district superintendent is responsible for performing fiscal reporting requirements to the county office of education, the department, and Superintendent.
35914. (a) The board shall employ administrative staff that serves the board. Individual members of the board shall not employ administrative staff. The board shall have the power to make the employment decisions related to the staff, except to the extent that it would violate the terms of any applicable collective bargaining agreement or contract under which the staff are employed.
(b) The district superintendent shall manage all personnel of the LAUSD other than the administrative staff of the board, except that the board shall retain the power to appoint and to make other employment decisions related to the inspector general of the LAUSD pursuant to Section 35400.
35915. (a) The district superintendent and board, when selecting curriculum and instructional materials, shall ensure that:

(1) Teachers and certificated staff have an authentic and central
role.
(2) A majority of curriculum committee participants are classroom teachers.
(3) Basic instructional materials for kindergarten and grades 1 to 8, inclusive, are state board adopted materials.
(4) Basic instructional materials for grades 9 to 12, inclusive, are aligned to state content standards, if content standards exist for the applicable subjects.
(5) There is a wide selection of supplemental instructional materials that are consistent with the needs of pupils and available for use at schoolsites.
(b) The board shall retain its authority to establish the requirements for graduation from high school pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 51225.3.
35916. (a) (1) The district superintendent shall develop and manage a facilities program for the LAUSD. This program may include, but not be limited to, the development of a strategic plan regarding facilities for the LAUSD and the management of all phases of construction of school facilities of the district.
(2) The council of mayors established pursuant to Section 35920 shall advise the district superintendent regarding the facilities program pursuant to the authority granted to the council under subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 35923. However, notwithstanding that authority, the district superintendent shall retain all decision making power regarding the facilities program.
(3) The LAUSD, through the district superintendent, is subject to all laws regarding the review and approval of decisions of the district by state agencies regarding school facilities of the district.
(b) Eminent domain proceedings related to school facilities of the district require the approval of the board.

Article 3. Council of Mayors

35920. (a) The council of mayors is hereby established and shall be comprised of the mayors of each city any part of which is located within the attendance boundaries of the LAUSD and each member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors whose supervisorial district includes any unincorporated portion of the county that is located within the attendance boundaries of the LAUSD.
(b) In exercising any of the duties described in this chapter, the council of mayors shall act by a majority of the weighted vote of the total membership of the council. The weighted vote of each member of the council of mayors is equal to the proportion of the population of the LAUSD that are residents of the city of the individual member, or unincorporated area of the county for any member of the county board of supervisors, to the total population of residents of the LAUSD.

35921. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the council of mayors may select a representative to participate in all aspects of the selection and evaluation by board of the district superintendent, including, but not limited to, the search for potential candidates and the setting of compensation. This right includes access, by the representative of the council of mayors, to closed session meetings of the board in which any of these matters
regarding the selection and evaluation of the district superintendent are to be discussed.
(b) The appointment, contract term, contract renewal, or removal of the district superintendent shall be ratified by the council of mayors. If the council of mayors fails to act within 30 days of the submission of one of these actions by the board, the action shall be deemed ratified.
(c) The council of mayors and its representative shall comply with all legal requirements applicable to the board and its members concerning the matters set forth in this subdivision, including, but not limited to, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code) and the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Title 9 (commencing with Section 81000) of the Government Code).
35922. The district superintendent shall provide each School Accountability Report Card required by Section 35256 for each school of the LAUSD to the council of mayors on an annual basis for review and comment. Each School Accountability Report Card shall be provided to the council of mayors at least two weeks before the report cardis released to the public.

35923. The council of mayors shall have all of the following roles:
(a) Oversight over an expanded and transparent process for creating, coordinating, supporting, and completing joint-use projects that involve the LAUSD.
(b) Providing local governmental input in the development of school construction strategic plans and determining the location of school sites for the LAUSD.
(c) In cooperation with the LAUSD, conducting and reviewing an asset management audit to ensure greater coordination in the delivery of local governmental services for children and families within the LAUSD and between local governmental and LAUSD public safety departments.

Article 4. The Los Angeles Mayor's Community Partnership for
School Excellence

35930. This article shall be known, and may be cited, as "The Los Angeles Mayor's Community Partnership for School Excellence."
35931. (a) The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, in partnership with the LAUSD, parent and community leaders and organizations, and school personnel and employee organizations, shall, as part of a demonstration project, have oversight over three clusters of the lowest-performing schools in different geographic areas within the LAUSD. Each cluster shall include a high school that is ranked in
decile 1 on the Academic Performance Index, pursuant to Section 52056, and its feeder middle and elementary schools.
(b) The high schools for each cluster shall be selected by the mayor and the district superintendent, and shall take into account the academic status of each school and the interests of the school community. If the mayor and the district superintendent do not agree on the high school for the first cluster on or before February 1,2007, for the second cluster on or before March 1, 2007, and for the
third cluster on or before April 1, 2007, the Superintendent shall select the high school for the cluster within 30 days of the applicable deadline. These deadlines are maximum time periods, but all parties shall act with diligence to permit achievement of the objective of each cluster joining the demonstration project in the 2007-08 school year.

(c) The purpose of the demonstration project is as follows:
(1) To achieve all of the following pupil learning expectations:
(A) Significantly improved pupil learning based on the academic standards of the state, graduation requirements, and other standards that may be developed by the partnership described in subdivision(a).
(B) Significantly improved graduation rates and significantly reduced dropout rates.
(C) A reduction in the academic achievement gap between Latino, African-American, White, and Asian pupils, so that all pupils are attaining similar, acceptable levels of academic achievement.
(D) Parent satisfaction with the schools that their children attend.
(E) English language learner success.
(2) To achieve all of the following school expectations:
(A) All schools are clean and safe places for pupils and school staff.
(B) Each pupil has a qualified teacher who has had appropriate professional development for the grade or grades and subject or subjects that he or she teaches.
(C) Each school has a principal who has had high quality
professional development to improve his or her ability as an educational leader to assist in improving teaching and learning, in building strong educational teams, and in promoting parental involvement and community relations.
(D) Transparency in the fiscal affairs of the operations of each school.
(E) Teachers and parents are full partners in the decisions that affect the schools.
(F) The school community is held accountable for the achievement of the goals described in this section.
35932. (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, and except for the authority to negotiate collective bargaining agreements, all authority exercised by the board and the district superintendent with respect to the schools in the demonstration project shall be transferred to the partnership described in subdivision (a) of Section 35931, which is directed by the mayor. In a manner consistent with districtwide collective bargaining agreements, the partnership shall seek waivers from the state board
and authority to operate the schools in the demonstration project with maximum flexibility and efficiency.
(b) The schools in the demonstration project shall continue to exist as district schools and shall not be deemed to be charter schools.
(c) The schools in the demonstration project shall continue to be funded with existing resources, including appropriate average daily attendance revenue and categorical funding generated by, or granted based on, the pupils in the schools in each cluster, and private donations.

Article 5. Program Evaluation

35940. (a) The Legislative Analyst shall contract for an evaluator to perform all of the following:
(1) Conduct an interim evaluation of the effectiveness of the programs authorized under this chapter to be completed on or before January 1, 2009.
(2) Conduct a final evaluation to be completed by January 1, 2011.
(3) Report to the Legislature and the Governor on the final evaluation completed pursuant to paragraph (2) and, in that report, make recommendations to continue, modify, or terminate the programs by January 1, 2011, based upon the results in meeting the measurements described in subdivision (b).
(b) The evaluation of the effectiveness of the programs shall be based on a comparison of the LAUSD and its component schools and pupils in 2006 relative to the time of the evaluation of the LAUSD and its component schools and pupils. The evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
(1) Whether schools participating in the Los Angeles Mayor's Community Partnership for School Excellence, other schools in the LAUSD, and the LAUSD as a whole accomplished the following:
(A) Significantly improved pupil learning based on the academic standards of the state, graduation requirements, and other standards for assessing the achievement of pupils.
(B) Significantly improved graduation rates and significantly reduced dropout rates.
(C) Reduced the academic achievement gap between Latino,
African-American, White, and Asian pupils, so that all pupils are attaining similar, acceptable levels of academic achievement.
(D) Provided parent satisfaction with the schools that their children attend.
(E) Ensured English language learner success.
(2) Whether schools participating in the Los Angeles Mayor's Community Partnership for School Excellence, other schools in the LAUSD, and the LAUSD as a whole accomplished, and to what degree they accomplished, the following:
(A) Made all schools clean and safe places for pupils and school staff.
(B) Ensured that each pupil has a qualified teacher who has had appropriate professional development for the one or more grades and subjects that he or she teaches.
(C) Ensured that each school has a principal who has had high quality professional development to improve his or her ability as an educational leader to assist in improving teaching and learning at the school to which he or she is assigned, in building strong educational teams, and in promoting parental involvement and community relations.
(D) Ensured transparency in the fiscal affairs of the schools and district.
(E) Made teachers and parents full partners in the decisions that affect schools.
(F) Decentralized the district to reduce bureaucracy and to transfer resources to schools and classrooms.
(G) Ensured that class sizes are at or below statewide averages for the corresponding grade levels.
(H) Ensured that the district and schools are able to attract and retain quality teachers.
(I) Held the school community segments accountable for the achievement of the above-described goals.

Article 6. Repeal

35950. This chapter shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2013, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2013, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that a
special law is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances that have resulted in the Los Angeles Unified School District facing more serious challenges to the achievement of pupils and schools than most other school districts.
SEC. 4. If the Commission on State Mandates
determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state,reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costsshall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) ofDivision 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. All matteromitted in this version of the bill appears in the bill as amended in Assembly, January 24, 2006 (JR11)

2006-06-30T22:08:00.000-07:00

June 27, 2006

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor of California
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

With both the California State Assembly and Senate controlled by liberals, the Governor's veto–his constitutional power and duty to protect Californians from dangerous legislation–is the only hope left for the men, women and families of California. But this power is useless if the willingness is not there. The people of Los Angeles County need your help.

The actions of Mayor Villaraigosa, the California Legislature and the leaders of the teachers’ union supporting the mayor's efforts to take over Los Angeles Unified School District, would result in legislation designed to take away control of the duly elected school board thus thwarting the electoral process. This legislation needs to be overturned, i.e., vetoed.

Governor Schwarzenegger, we the people of Los Angeles County ask that you exercise your right and duty and veto AB1381. We ask that you announce that any legislation which circumvents the rights and votes of the people will be VETOED.

Please do not let this become an issue of your re-election campaign (such as the one created by Gray Davis when he signed the drivers’ license bill for illegal aliens).

Please do not allow this Mayoral takeover to take place. Please do not turn me and other Republican voters away.

On a personal note: one of the most exciting nights in my political career was spending it with you on the evening of the recall election when you were elected Governor. Every hour sacrificed away from my family, business and friends was worth it.

Sincerely

David Hernandez
Two-time Republican Nominee US House of Representatives, District 28
Board member Republican Party of Los Angeles County
Chairman, Committee to Support the Los Angeles County Seal
Former Chairman, Greater Los Angeles Republican National Hispanic Assembly
2006 Candidate Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Valley Vote Board
Republican Jewish Coalition
Economic Alliance of San Fernando Valley
Volunteer- Elect Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003(in which a 40-line telephone bank in Panorama City was set up to contact Hispanic decline-to-state voters to support Arnold)

2006-06-29T13:14:00.000-07:00

Subject: Help Mayor Villaraigosa Improve LA Schools?

Dear Senator:

I am writing to urge you to NOT support AB1381 which would give authority to the Mayor of Los Angeles to take over the school board of the LAUSD. The school board is a duly elected body and if they are not doing their job efficiently and with the best interest of the students in mind, then they should be removed from their elected positions.

This bill thwarts the election process and undermines the value--and more importantly, the voice of all Californians--those with children in LAUSD and those without.

WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? Didn't we just defeat a bill giving the Governor too much power over state spending? And now we want to put the education of our children into the hands of "mayoral boards" with the mayor at the helm?

Doesn't this bill just set up more bureaucracy?

And what kind of a deal did he make with UTLA and the CTA? Why and since when are teachers' unions being consulted on issues regarding the "education" of students? Isn't their first loyalty to teachers? Shouldn't we be consulting parents and teachers and the rest of the citizens of Los Angeles (taxpayers) who have a real stake in and interest in the quality of education in their community?

I urge you to please vote "NO" on AB1381 and put this issue back where it belongs in the hands of the citizens of Los Angeles County and the elected members of the LAUSD Board of Education.

Sincerely,

Donna C.