BB PANEL CRITICAL OF LAUSD.

Byline: Greg Gittrich Staff Writer

Raising questions about the use of Proposition BB money, members of the bond oversight committee complained Wednesday that Los Angeles Unified's top leaders do not consult them on critical policy decisions.

``We'd like to not be a hindsight committee; we'd like be an oversight committee,'' said Steve Soboroff, chairman of the citizens panel.

The complaints arose during a contentious meeting between the oversight committee and Howard Miller, chief operating officer of the Los Angeles Unified School District. It was the second such face-off between them in two months.

Among the issues the oversight panel criticized were the district's construction management agreement with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, its application process for federal technology money, its handling of toxic tests at school sites, its management of a landscaping program and its use of bond money at a failed school construction project in South Gate.

The panel also objected to the school board's recent decision to have LAUSD investigator Don Mullinax audit Proposition BB projects. Soboroff, a Los Angeles city mayoral candidate, said the $250,000 probe would duplicate the committee's own audit.

The oversight committee's complaints, if not addressed, could have far-reaching ramifications since its members are required to approve the use of funds from the $2.4 billion bond measure. The district is relying on that money to finance part of its school building program and to match as much as $431 million in federal funds for computer technology in classrooms.

Addressing the school board's recent agreement with the Army, the oversight committee unanimously passed a resolution Wednesday that calls for the pact to be rewritten.

The panel charged that the agreement, which calls for the Army to help manage LAUSD's building program, can be amended without review, pays the Army in advance and was approved without adequate discussion.

Miller said he was not interested in arguing with the panel. At several points in the meeting, he said: ``I come in peace.''

He told the panel he would provide them with a detailed account of the Army's work for the district in March. At that time, the panel could release bond money if it agreed the work had been done well and at a competitive price, Miller said.

That scenario did not sit well with members of the panel who had expected to speak with Army officials Wednesday.

``You're saying you're going to do it and we can pay for it if we want,'' Soboroff said. ``Why not use us, instead of doing it your way and then coming to us?''

The most relentless criticism came from oversight panel member David Abel, who complained about Miller's policy direction and the district's ability to communicate with the public.

Abel likened Miller to Dom Shambra, the former district official held most responsible for the $175 million Belmont Learning Center fiasco.

Miller dismissed the comparison as ``a cheap shot'' from a hostile committee member.