PROPOSAL MAY GET FUNDS FOR LAUSD.

Byline: Greg Gittrich Staff Writer

Warned that state legislators plan to withhold $300 million in state funds for new Los Angeles schools, the chairman of the Proposition BB Citizens Oversight Committee offered Monday to monitor the spending to avoid the funding crisis.

In a letter to authorities in charge of dispersing state bond money for new schools, Steve Soboroff said the BB oversight committee could ensure the money is spent wisely despite widespread mistrust of LAUSD officials.

School officials had considered the funding a sure thing, but opposition has mounted since a Daily News story explained how a little-known provision in the Proposition 1A bond issue would allow the Los Angeles Unified School District to receive money for sites without the normal environmental review.

School board President Genethia Hayes said if state lawmakers want the district to establish a citizens oversight committee as a condition for receiving funding, the school board would take a close look at the idea.

``I don't think we would be opposed to anything that regains the public's trust,'' she said.

``The public doesn't trust the district right now. We know that. We've not only got to regain the public's trust, but the state legislators' trust as well,'' she said.

Legislators have threatened to withhold money from the LAUSD for new schools until environmental reviews are done.

``Frankly, L.A. Unified's track record is not too good,'' said Assemblyman Scott Wildman, D-Glendale, a member of the state allocation board who is pushing to deny the district's request.

The allocation board is expected to meet Wednesday to consider whether to grant the LAUSD $300 million to build 44 new schools.

Soboroff, a candidate for mayor, said his committee's oversight would help overcome the state board's ``lack of trust in the LAUSD process,'' resulting from a series of construction snafus including the pollution-plagued Belmont Learning Center.

In turn, Soboroff asked the state to guarantee the district a substantial chunk of the bond money available to build schools: $1.4 billion from Proposition 1A and the $9.2 billion school facilities bond measure. He also requested the state modify funding guidelines in Proposition 1A that ``work to the disadvantage of urban school districts.''

``The school district should do anything required to get its fair share of this bond measure,'' Soboroff said. ``Everyone in the city is paying state taxes to build these schools. We don't want that money to be used overwhelmingly to build schools (outside Los Angeles).''

Proposition 1A earmarks $6.7 billion to build classrooms for kindergarten through 12th grade. The funding is available on a first-come, first-served basis, and in order to be eligible, districts must identify sites and document environmental conditions on the properties.

The LAUSD has failed to apply for any of the bond money except for seeking funds under the little-known provision.

The provision allocates $700 million to reduce class size without prior environmental or other review, and the LAUSD is one of only two districts applying for the money.

Wildman acknowledged Soboroff and the Proposition BB oversight committee has had some success in speeding repair projects funded by the local bond measure. However, he asserted their oversight does not measure up to the necessary state monitoring.

Wildman pointed out some members of the Proposition BB committee favored using local bond money to build Belmont, a $200 million project mired in problems because officials failed to complete adequate environmental reviews.

``The idea of abrogating any state oversight is not something I would look favorably on,'' Wildman said.

``The district didn't submit any applications during the first round of funding and now they want this money with no strings attached.''

LAUSD state building program coordinator Lyle Smoot said there is nothing devious about a request for money to build 44 schools to ease congestion.

``The provision is not a loophole at all,'' Smoot said. ``It was in the law and is very clearly stated. I'm very concerned we won't get this apportionment even though it complies with all the rules (in the bond measure).''

Staff Writer Michael Coit contributed to this story.