COSTLY DEFEAT FOR LAUSD MORE THAN $350,000 SPENT IN BID TO DEFEAT MAYOR.

Byline: HARRISON SHEPPARD Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO -- Los Angeles Unified has spent more than $350,000 in taxpayer money in its unsuccessful bid to defeat Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's school-takeover legislation, documents obtained by the Daily News show.

The expenses include lobbying and consulting contracts, nearly $10,000 to bus hundreds of parents to Sacramento, and thousands of dollars to house school board members in pricey hotel rooms. They also include more than $2,000 for T-shirts for supporters and hundreds of dollars to fly parents opposed to mayoral takeover in from New York and San Francisco.

The district previously had estimated it had spent $250,000 in its efforts, but the receipts and invoices indicate it will be significantly higher as the district continues to process the most recent claims and makes payments on its longer-term contracts.

For his part, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa spent about $11,000 in taxpayer funds on his lobbying efforts, according to his office.

The information, including invoices and receipts, was provided in response to California Public Records Act requests by the Daily News.

Most of the mayor's other expenses were paid by a political committee that had raised more than $1 million. The committee reported spending $115,000 as of June 30, according to financial disclosure statements.

``The amount of resources brought to bear on the taxpayer dime to preserve the status quo is staggering,'' said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

But LAUSD General Counsel Kevin Reed said the expenses were justified in fighting a proposal that so deeply affected the district.

The LAUSD, like Los Angeles and other local governments, routinely spends funds lobbying on matters that affect its interests.

``The reason we used public funds is the same reason we've always used public funds for decades -- to support lobbying efforts,'' Reed said. ``It's what the city does, it's what the county does.

``The difference between the mayor and us is the mayor had access to developers and others doing business with the city that he apparently felt free to call up and ask for large checks. We don't do that when they have business pending in front of us.''

Nathan James, a spokesman for the mayor's political committee, said Villaraigosa believes the district should have formed an outside committee so it would not have spent as much public money.

``It would've been very easy for them to do things similar to what the mayor did, which is open an outside committee which is required to publicly disclose its funding,'' James said. ``Instead. they used the resources of the general fund of the school district -- money that was intended, and should've gone to, educating kids.''

School board member David Tokofsky said the district didn't have enough time to establish such a committee.

``We were so far behind and chasing a speeding locomotive that there was no time in which to even set up and do something like that,'' he said.

He noted that Superintendent Roy Romer came under fire last year when he established a private nonprofit organization to fight efforts to break up the district.

That effort came under fire, however, because Romer did not initially publicly disclose he had formed the committee. He refused to disclose the sources of its donations until he faced public criticism.

Tokofsky said he believes the board should consider whether it would be appropriate to establish a legal fund that would accept contributions and help the district pursue a possible constitutional challenge to the bill.

Romer and board President Marlene Canter were on vacation this week and unavailable for comment.

But the invoices show spending included $12,000 for Canter and a staff member to make more than a dozen trips to Sacramento.

According to Reed, district officials generally stayed at the same Sacramento hotel as the mayor and his staff, the Sheraton.

The highest nightly rate paid by the mayor's staff was $302, though the rates more typically ranged between $250 and $300, according to records provided by the Mayor's Office.

The district's expenses also included consulting contracts with lobbyists, attorneys and policy specialists, including $55,000 with education consultant John Mockler and a $190,000 contract with politically connected law firm Sonnenschein Nath Rosenthal LLP.

Spending also included a $39,000 contract for communications consultant Mark Taylor, who also helped organize parent support, and a lobbying contract with Rose & Kindel that has cost about $60,000 so far this year.

In some cases, the contracts are for services that relate to other legislation in addition to the mayor's proposal, though that bill was considered the district's top priority in Sacramento this year.

The mayor's taxpayer-paid expenses were primarily for travel by Villaraigosa and various staff members to Sacramento on six occasions.

City funds were not used to hire lobbyists, consultants or other service contracts for this legislation, according to mayor's spokeswoman Janelle Erickson. Instead, those services were paid for by the committee.

The city does employ full-time staffers based in Sacramento who do lobbying and other legislative work on a variety of issues including this one.

And unlike the district's expense sheets, the mayor and his staff did not ask for meal reimbursements or per diems from city funds, Erickson said. They also minimized ground transportation costs by getting rides from staffers based in Sacramento.

James said the mayor's committee paid the expenses for four town halls held on his proposal in L.A., including equipment rental and buses for some attendees; transportation and lodging for about 150 parents who traveled to Sacramento for a legislative hearing; and staff costs for James and others who worked with the committee.

Although the committee's main job was accomplished when the bill passed the Legislature, it will remain active in case the measure ends up in court.

Critics say the district spent too much public money fighting the measure with gimmicks like bringing parents to pack committee hearings and paying for board members to travel so often when the district has lobbyists already working in Sacramento on its behalf.

Sen. Gloria Romero, a co-author of the mayor's measure, said she didn't think the district should have spent funds to organize a parent campaign.

``This was a campaign -- make no doubt about it,'' said Romero, D-Los Angeles.

``It was the production of a campaign to get parents and students, without complete information about the merits of this bill, to be their representatives to lobby against this bill. I don't think that was right.''

But Scott Folsom, president of the 10th District Parent Teacher Student Association, an opponent of the mayor's legislation, said it was appropriate for the district to pay for parents to travel to Sacramento because they did not have the same chance to voice their opinions to legislators in L.A.

``Not only was it completely correct, it was actually the district's responsibility to do that,'' Folsom said. ``The bad thing was it happened in Sacramento, not here.

``The T-shirts -- that may have been slightly over the top. But at the same time, I've got to say the other side also spent an awful lot of money. They always outnumbered us in busing.''

harrison.sheppard(at)dailynews.com

[phone]

CAPTION(S):

box

Box:

Priceless

SOURCE: Los Angeles Unified School District and Mayor's Office

Daily News