AMENDMENTS TO LAUSD BILL ARE INTRODUCED.

Byline: NAUSH BOGHOSSIAN Staff Writer

The latest revisions to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's proposed school-reform legislation show a mayor reaching out to neighboring cities by strengthening their role in the district, amendments released Monday revealed.

In addition to giving the 27 mayors greater input on joint-use projects, L.A. Unified's budget and school-site selection as well as the option to withdraw from the council of mayors, the changes primarily strengthened the bill's constitutionality -- an issue that has come into question by the state legislative counsel and the city's legislative analyst, said Thomas Saenz, the mayor's chief counsel.

The revised legislation, Assembly Bill 1381, which will undergo further amendments in coming weeks, will be submitted today, Saenz said.

The revisions were mainly clarifications and an attempt to respond to concerns raised by parents, interest groups and legislators, he said.

``We have done as much as we can possibly do to guard against a successful challenge under the state constitution,'' Saenz said.

The amendments bring checks and balances in the contracting process to ensure that the superintendent's office doesn't have unfettered authority in that area, he added, while shifting the school board away from contracts instead of education policies.

And, the amendments clarify and enhance the access and input opportunities for the other cities and for the Board of Supervisors, Saenz noted.

But in an afternoon press conference Los Angeles Unified School District officials held to respond to the revision, General Counsel Kevin Reed railed against the changes, criticizing Villaraigosa for drafting the bill in a ``backroom'' without any input from the LAUSD, scrambling to create legal cover to protect himself in case he is sued, and creating a proposal that wouldn't create a ``true philosophical change'' in how education is delivered in the city.

``The bill continues to be about structure, control and a major shift of power from an elected Board of Education to an elected mayor who does not represent the entire jurisdiction of (the LAUSD),'' Reed said. ``This subject is too important, this issue is too complicated, for this legislation to be pulled together in a matter of a couple of weeks in backrooms in Sacramento. It's a conversation that needs to take place in L.A. that the LAUSD needs to be a part of, and we hope to be a part of.''

Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, the author of what is now called the Gloria Romero Educational Reform Act of 2006, said those who say it's a backroom deal don't understand the legislative process.

``A bill is in discussions, something moves forward, you put it in print,'' she said. ``But right away you begin the process of making a bill better. That's called the amendment process.''

AB 1381 would shift authority from the school board to the superintendent, give the mayor a significant role in the district, and give school sites greater control over budget, instruction and curriculum.

The bill includes a new section that would not impose liability or financial responsibility for the district on the city of Los Angeles, in direct response to a report by the city's legislative analyst who recommended that the City Council oppose the bill unless language was added protecting their interests.

City Chief Legislative Analyst Gerry Miller said he had been unable to review the changes, but that it appeared to address his concern of potential city liability.

In addition to financial liability, Miller had voiced reservations about vesting so much power in the superintendent's office regarding where new schools will be built -- a similar concern voiced by representatives of neighboring cities who send children to the LAUSD.

``We will want to see exactly what the mayor is proposing to determine its potential impact on the city,'' Miller said.

Reed called the shifting of liability an ``unprecedented'' move and a ``breathtaking'' part of the bill that is, in his opinion, the most significant amendment.

``It is a shocking bifurcation of authority and responsibility in which the council of mayors and this mayoral partnership will have all the authority to operate the schools and yet they will have none of the responsibility for operating these schools,'' he said.

In arguably the most significant amendment, defining and strengthening the role of the council of mayors, the mayor appears to be attempting to appease officials from cities who send students to the LAUSD, who have generally been skeptical of his plan.

West Hollywood Councilman Jeff Prang, who has led the opposition from independent cities, said the mayor's proposals sounded promising, but might not go far enough.

``We don't object to school reform, but we want more of a say in how it will affect our children,'' Prang said.

Other changes appear to be an attempt to mollify organized labor in the state, shoring up tenure laws and not touching collective bargaining.

For example, former language calling for reducing district ``bureaucracy'' would be amended to ``management bureaucracy'' so as not to allow room for resorting first to cutting clerical staffers. Also, if the school board wanted to contract out services currently handled by the district staff, a provision called for giving ample notice to the unions.

A.J. Duffy, president of United Teachers Los Angeles, said he would closely examine the mayor's proposals and is also working to develop his own amendments to please union members.

``Some of my folks are concerned about the enhanced powers of a superintendent, and we will be looking at that,'' he said, adding that ``giving the inspector general a specific contract could ease some of those concerns.''

In a new provision, the district's inspector general would work under a three-year contract, to be removed from the position only with just cause, and would have full access to the contracting process. The inspector general currently serves at the discretion of the board.

Reed said the inspector general's role would in fact reduce accountability and the transparency of the business operations of the district.

``What I see the bill trying to do is insert the inspector general into a role in lieu of actual public scrutiny and actual public meetings held by the actual elected Board of Education by shifting contracting authority to the superintendent and away from the board,'' Reed said. ``The bill would attempt to greater empower the inspector general to review contracts that are entered into, and we think that's a lousy substitute for actual public involvement.''

Other amendments include clarifying that the board still has the authority to select curriculum and instructional materials, but individual school sites would plan how to implement it and would have control over selecting supplemental materials.

Also, the board would become primarily a policy body, and its staff would be ``significantly'' reduced to reflect their proposed diminished authority, Saenz said.

An amendment to give the county superintendent of education authority to approve or veto the mayor's partnership for lowest-performing schools was added to address constitutional questions about transferring school district authority to the mayor, Romero said. She doesn't expect county superintendents to exercise their authority to veto the partnership.

Reed said the county superintendent's role could lead to a conflict of interest because the position is appointed by the county Board of Supervisors, which also appoints the county Board of Education -- of which Saenz, an author of the bill, is a member.

AB 1381 will face a short time frame to be approved for a Jan. 1 implementation, with the Senate appropriations committee scheduled to hold hearings next Monday.

Staff Writers Rick Orlov and Harrison Sheppard contributed to this report.

naush.boghossian(at)dailynews.com

[phone]