BILL CLEARS WAY FOR LAUSD CHANGE; BOUND BY NEWLY SIGNED LAW, SACRAMENTO CAN'T INTERFERE WITH THE QUEST TO REORGANIZE DISTRICT.

Byline: Robert M. Hertzberg and David W. Fleming

TIME was when the Los Angeles Unified School District was a lot like the weather; everyone talked about it but nobody could do anything about it.

Just over a week ago, things changed. Gov. Pete Wilson signed Assembly Bill 281. (The bill was written by Assemblyman Robert M. Hertzberg in collaboration with David W. Fleming.)

The new law removes the stranglehold Sacramento has exercised over the governance of the LAUSD for the past 20 years. To understand the background of this fundamental change in the relation of the state and Los Angles Unified School District, a short history lesson is in order.

In the mid-1970s, a movement was begun to break up LAUSD. Sound familiar?

In response to pressure from LAUSD's bureaucracy, the state stepped in to block the breakup effort. It enacted legislation that locked in the membership of the school board at seven and decreed how they were to be elected, thereby removing jurisdiction over school governance from our City Charter - in other words, from the people of Los Angeles.

Newly enacted AB 281 has removed these mandates and now allows the City Charter to once again exercise jurisdiction over such matters. After all, the LAUSD was created by the City Charter. A new City Charter, approved by the people, can now be the venue for the reformation of LAUSD's governance.

For starters, either or both of the two City Charter commissions (one appointed by the City Council, the other elected by the people) could restructure LAUSD in any one of several ways. For instance:

They could choose to enlarge the size of the school board to provide for as many members as there are school clusters throughout the district (a cluster being a collection of schools anchored around a high school, which is fed by two or more junior high schools which, in turn, are fed by several elementary schools).

By breaking up board representation into smaller areas within the district, such as school clusters, this reconfiguration could encourage parents, teachers and principals (the three ingredients of the LEARN concept) to run for the board. Board representation from school sites could result in governance of LAUSD by more of the parties directly involved in educating children, namely those at the school sites.

Or another alternative: The commissions could choose to increase the size of the school board to 15 members, equaling the current number of City Council districts. They could draw the election districts so they somewhat overlap the current council district boundaries, while being careful not to split up existing communities. Unfortunately, some of the council districts bisect communities.

A realignment of this kind could foster a closer relationship between elected city officials and school board members since each would represent much of the same constituency. This, in turn, may lead to greater city utilization of school facilities for the delivery of city services and programs. It would also encourage city officials and the school district to consider each other's interests and needs when making development, zoning and other decisions. And a closer relationship between the two bodies might be beneficial in elevating the importance of school board elections which, unfortunately, have become the poor stepchildren of our electoral process.

In short, charter reform could enable city government and the LAUSD to become working partners in the all-important missions of educating our children and delivering needed city services.

Or they might organize LAUSD around some new structure of city government based on the creation of community councils, as publicly advocated by many of those elected to the citizen's charter commission.

Whatever the outcome of LAUSD restructuring, the important point is that we have enabled the debate to be brought into the charter reform process and ultimately to the people of Los Angeles. And in that debate every participant in the educational process - parents, teachers, principals, administrators, LEARN, LEAP, etc., together with the public at large - should share ideas with and provide counsel to both charter commissions.

As Mayor Richard Riordan stated in his inaugural address recently, ``Some say that education is not in the city government's purview. Others will argue that schools are somebody else's business. I disagree. Schools are everyone's business. We have a moral obligation to act.''

AB 281 has now given all of us the opportunity to act.