BOARD CALLS FOR NEW BIDS ON BELMONT.

Byline: Beth Barrett and Harrison Sheppard Staff Writers

Los Angeles Unified school board members in a closed-door meeting Tuesday voted 4-3 to seek bids for completing the abandoned Belmont Learning Center and opening the nation's costliest - and most controversial - school.

The board, which voted 5-2 to abandon the $17 million project 11 months ago as too environmentally risky, also directed Superintendent Roy Romer to seek offers to see whether the property could be sold outright.

The meeting was held under an agenda item that referred to a lawsuit pending over Belmont and despite a complaint from the Daily News that such a ruse violated the state's open meeting law.

District Attorney Steve Cooley's office said it would review the matter.

Under pressure from Romer and Mayor Richard Riordan, whose financial backing helped the reform board win election 18 months ago, board members said in interviews that they narrowly agreed to take bids from private companies on whether the school could be completed and opened. The board had abandoned the project in the belief that potentially explosive and toxic gases leaking from century-old oil wells posed too great a risk for it to be used as a school.

Two reform members, President Genethia Hayes and Caprice Young, supported reopening the Belmont issue, saying they were skeptical but felt the need to back Romer, who like Riordan, has argued that the issue needs to be resolved. Vickie Castro and Mike Lansing also voted with the majority.

``Clearly today the direction changed,'' said Valley board member Julie Korenstein, who said the property should be sold.

``I don't care what people say, it does open a Pandora's box, it does open that site for a school, when a school should never open on that site with all the contamination.''

Board members passed up an opportunity earlier in the closed meeting to sell the 35 acres outright on a motion by member Valerie Fields. Only Korenstein and board member David Tokofsky joined with Fields in voting to sell the land.

Hayes said she viewed her vote as a courtesy to Romer, not a change of position. She said the board still left open the option to sell the land and that she doesn't want a school built there.

``I gave the superintendent my word to support him and it would be like kicking him in the teeth'' to vote for the sale outright, Hayes said.

Young said she voted with the majority, because Romer convinced her it would help put the issue to rest but that she nonetheless still believes that private interest in building the school will never materialize.

``I don't think there's any hope that anyone can come forward with (a proposal) under which it can be built safely,'' Young said.

Romer wants the bid packages out by Feb. 1, with a return date 90 days later and an anticipated board decision by mid-June. Prospective developers would also have to submit an indemnification plan to free the district from future liability.

``I personally want it to be used as a school, if it can be made safe,'' Romer said.

Castro, who has been the leading proponent of the school, said she was relieved.

``Romer finally stepped up to the plate,'' she said.

LAUSD spokeswoman Stephanie Brady said the matter was decided in closed session on the advice of the district and board counsel.

Board Counsel Richard Sheehan said the session on Belmont was proper, but declined to provide a legal justification.

Jim Ewert, counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, said the board's action appeared to be a clear violation of the Brown Act that requires all closed-session topics be clearly posted in advance.

Instead, the only Belmont item on the agenda was a pending legal malpractice lawsuit against the downtown law firm, O'Melveny & Myers and partner David Cartwright, which claims failure to undertake prudent environmental due diligence, among other allegations. The firm and Cartwright have denied any wrongdoing.

Ewert, however, said the board's discussion regarding the future of Belmont under cover of pending litigation would not be permissible under the most ``tortured'' interpretation of the act.

``That kind of thing is precisely what the Brown Act prohibits,'' he said. ``It's one of the most egregious violations of the Brown Act I've run across in my five years.''

Clifford Klein, head deputy in the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, said he would review the case to decide whether an investigation is warranted.

There are civil penalties that could force the board to rescind its action and revisit the issue in a public forum, Ewert said.