LAUSD BILL CALLED UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL REPEATS OPINION AFTER TEXT AMENDMENT.

Byline: HARRISON SHEPPARD Staff Writer

SACRAMENTO -- On the eve of a key vote on Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's school-takeover plan, a new state legal opinion issued Monday reaffirmed that the proposal appears to be unconstitutional even after it was amended to address legal concerns.

The opinion from state Legislative Counsel Diane Boyer-Vine echoes a review she issued earlier this summer finding that the Legislature does not have the legal authority to give a mayor control over a school district.

``I think it's pretty clear that the current language is unconstitutional,'' said Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, an opponent of the bill who requested the new opinion.

``But I think further than that, it makes the argument as to why any language will be unconstitutional. I think that's the hurdle the mayor has to deal with.''

After Boyer-Vine's office issued that earlier opinion on July 17, Villaraigosa and bill author Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, amended the bill to address concerns raised by her and by the city's legislative analyst.

Those amendments included giving the county superintendent of education authority to approve Villaraigosa's proposal for a new mayor-controlled community partnership to directly oversee the lowest-performing schools.

The idea behind that amendment was to allow existing educational agencies to have the ultimate authority, similar to a concept used in the law allowing charter schools, which successfully withstood constitutional doubts.

Runner had requested that the Legislative Counsel's Office review the new language. The opinion she issued Monday, signed by deputy counsel Gerardo Partida, was nearly identical to the previous document.

The opinion notes that no court has addressed the question, but case law and a reading of the state constitution lead to the conclusion that the constitution ``would be construed by a court to prohibit the Legislature from transferring by statute authority or control over educational functions currently performed by a school district to the mayor of a charter city.''

But Villaraigosa and his allies remain undeterred.

Thomas Saenz, the mayor's legal counsel, noted that the legislative counsel's review is just one opinion, and that the office has been wrong on other bills in the past. The Legislature is free to ignore that opinion and allow the courts to decide the matter, he said.

``It is our view that even without the county superintendent provision, with due respect, the opinion is wrong and the law would be upheld,'' Saenz said.

``We added the county superintendent piece just as an additional protection against a legal challenge.''

The opinion was issued as Villaraigosa returned to Sacramento again to try to round up votes for his proposal, which is expected to come to a Senate floor vote this week. Los Angeles Unified School District board President Marlene Canter also returned to Sacramento, her 13th trip, to lobby against the bill.

``Whenever it goes on the Senate floor, my hope is that it moves as quickly as possible,'' Villaraigosa said. ``I imagine there will be a vigorous debate.''

Canter said in speaking to legislators one of the common concerns was about the constitutionality of the bill.

She also thinks the effort will interfere with progress the district has made in improving test scores and other academic measures.

``The last thing you want is a mess,'' Canter said. ``And this has the potential of being one. And that's not what the kids of L.A. need. I continue to think that there are better ways to go about doing this.''

harrison.sheppard(at)dailynews.com

[phone]