By California Charter School Fan
Los Angeles Bond Update
We are engaged in vigorous discussions with LAUSD about a proposed bond measure they intend to put to voters in November 2008. We believe that such a bond would work only under conditions where LAUSD commits to a comprehensive charter school policy. A comprehensive charter school policy would be an integral part of an overall facilities master plan. This includes full compliance with our settlement agreement requiring LAUSD to conduct a facilities inventory that could begin immediately if the LAUSD board assigns money to complete it.
If LAUSD places a bond before the voters in November 2007, our support will be contingent on the following expectations, consistent with our desire for a comprehensive policy for charter schools:
- Fair proportion of funding for public charter schools - 10% of the total bond; we are currently discussing $320 Million of a total bond of $3.2 Billion, though we understand the District is considering total bond amounts of $3.2, $6 and even $10 Billion dollars
- Flexibility in the use of the funds (not just new construction, but modernization, loan guarantees and matching funds to innovative funding instruments - much like the flexibility that exists in the affordable housing sector and other public financing sectors).
- Good governance: need to ensure that charter dollars are spent efficiently, effectively and transparently.
While the Board intended to vote on this issue yesterday, the vote was hastily delayed last Friday until Thursday, July 31, as the Board and Administration continue to ponder the total amount of the bond and the charter portion allocated to our school projects. We have been working closely with Mayor Antonio Villarraigosa's office as well as LAUSD Board President Monica Garcia and her staff, and several other Board members to ensure we can maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of new bond funds leveraged in this election. I'm also attaching the strong editorial in support of our position from today's Los Angeles Times, cut and pasted here also for ease of readability. Please be advised that we are re-organizing our turnout for Thursday's vote, to show a strong presence at the Board meeting.
Ron Kaye is the former editor of the Los Angeles Daily News where he spent 23 years helping to make the newspaper the voice of the San Fernando Valley and fighting for a city government that serves the people and not special interests.
Twice in recent years, Los Angeles Magazine listed Kaye among the city’s most influential people, specifically in the area of politics. Kaye has been variously described in the media as the “accidental anarchist,” “the Patrick Henry of the San Fernando Valley” and a “passionate populist.” He is now committed to
carrying on his crusade for a greater Los Angeles as an ordinary citizen. Previously, Ron worked at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner,
Associated Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer and The Australian as well as papers
in Fairbanks, Alaska and Yakima, Wash. He also wrote for Newsweek magazine, The Guardian in London and the National Enquirer.
"Case closed. Four fall guys and no politicians or other public officials. It's officially not a crime in L.A. for them to do favors and take money. Pay-to-play is legal and the mayor is the greatest beneficiary traveling the country raising millions of dollars for his campaign and promising to look after the private interests of his contributors."
This is an incredible situation. Corruption rules in Los Angeles. We are no longer City of the Angels - are we? We are in a living hell for all races and we fight with each other because we do not know who to blame. My friends, blame the city government - the whole set-up, from the Mayor to the lowliest clerk in
the bureaucracy. Whew, it stinks around here.
Teddy Howell
It’s interesting to consider that in the legal profession, judges, for example, have to not only do the right thing, but they have to not “appear” to commit an “impropriety”, which is interesting. They have to keep some distance from not only doing wrong, but not even looking like they are doing wrong; they “must avoid the appearance of impropriety.” We are just talking about how it “looks” for an ethical violation to occur.
Now, moving from the legal arena to the political scene, you have guys like Fabian Nunez as one example and his buddy Tony Villaraigosa just stomping all over the idea of maintaining some ethical standards. Nunez uses non-public money to indulge himself in the good life, thinking that just because cash is not coming from a state check that it’s o.k. And he’s supposed to be smart? When the money comes to him, is he thinking that it’s like Christmas and Santa thinks he’s just such a swell guy? The “quid pro quo” or "something for something" concept must have crossed his mind; It certainly has for the “donors” and influence is already happening. His defiance upon inquiry into these activities all by itself is a red flag of sorts. Here is where I would say, “He doth protest too much.”
As for Mayor Tony V., just what is the interest that people in other states have in chipping in to the campaign war chest? Already it’s starting to smell. And then there is what the L.A. Weekly called his largest individual campaign contributor, Richard Meruelo of Meruelo Maddox Properties, very active in development locally. Being in a position to influence outcomes might be one reason to choose a particular politician as a cash recipient. Fund raising is really like the Prudential Insurance Company’s sales pitch, “Own a piece of the Rock.” And Antonio’s fierce plunge into fundraising has definitely found investors. If he’d pay such serious attention to city business it would be a different day.
At this point, I’d say it’s gone beyond the “appearance” of impropriety, but then, good thing for them both that they are not judges. And so, who is left to change this whole scheme? Could other politicians be the salvation? Maybe not. A touch of religion may reach this group and they could be overcome with the urge to apply forgiveness to these wandering lambs, thinking, “There but for the grace of god- and my frugal campaign contributors- go I.”
Politicians will always be a bad choice for anything having to do with ethical reforms. As things go, this is not something they are any good at doing. Just look at L.A.’s Proposition R. The council was so confused that they thought extending the time that they could stay in office was advancing the cause of ethics.
Woe is us.