Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is poised on the verge of another major political triumph, the complex yet partial takeover of the sprawling LA Unified School District. But just four years ago, he was marching with the farmworkers up the dusty Central Valley, helping them in their quest to get then Governor Gray Davis to sign an arbitration bill, and wondering what his future might hold.
Now, should trailing Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides fail in his lifelong quest to become governor, having to unseat Villaraigosa’s friend, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former Assembly speaker and current LA mayor — engaging here on Univision’s influential Voz y Voto show with hosts Pablo Espinoza and Xochitl Arellano in this NWN video – would become the most likely Democratic frontrunner for 2010. In the event that former Governor Jerry Brown does not seek the post at twice the age at which he was first elected governor, which it is not unlikely that he will not. (See this story on the influence of Voz y Voto.)
Schwarzenegger is one of the biggest backers of Villaraigosa’s move on the LA area schools. The LA mayor’s bill passed the state Senate yesterday and today is slated today for a hearing in the Assembly Education Committee and a likely Assembly floor vote. The mayor’s close ally, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, will present the bill before the committee first thing this morning, joined by Villaraigosa.
This marks the second day in a row for Villaraigosa in the Capitol this week. Coming to Sacramento is something of an old home week for Villaraigosa, the first successful speaker of the term limits era. Of course, many of the faces are new, as he acknowledges.
But with the support of Nunez, Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero (author of his bill), Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, and Governor Schwarzenegger, the result is nearly foreordained.
What will the first Latino mayor of Los Angeles since the Californios days get? Well, it is a mixed bag, not necessarily something that a potential governor is looking for.
He gains close to a veto power over the superintendency of the LA Unified School District, which sprawls across dozens of smaller cities in LA County. And he gains the largest share of the vote in a council of mayors which oversees the district’s budget. He also gains what looks like direct control over a few very troubled high schools, and the dozens of schools which feed those high schools.
But he must share power with the elected school board — long dominated by local pols who owe their elections to teachers unions, as is the case with a great many school boards around California — and work with the teachers union on curriculum and other matters.
While this seems to diffuse responsibility, in reality it does not. For Villaraigosa is seen as having a triumph over entrenched bureaucracy. While having to compromise throughout with entrenched interests.
Yet his stature as the first successful Assembly speaker of the term limits era — i.e., the first speaker worthy of the name following the legendary Willie Brown — indicates that he has the ability to make lemonade out of lemons.
It is an ability that will stand this impressive politician — wondering just four years ago whether he should make a bid for the LA City Council, launch a think tank, or fade away from politics altogether — in very good stead as he continues to move ahead.
Read 
| Comments (0) |
“In the event that former Governor Jerry Brown does not seek the post at twice the age at which he was first elected governor, which it is not unlikely that he will not.”
Why do you say he will not seek to become Governor? Do you think he will run for Senate again?
The impending triumph that Antonio Villaraigosa really wants is to be Governor in 2010 so he will support Schwarzenegger instead of Angelides. (Strike 1)
Fabian Nunez wants to be the next Major of Los Angeles so he will also support Schwarzenegger instead of Angelides. (Strike 2)
Angelides just lost his attack dog, Mulholland. (Strike 3)
Game’s over.
I’ve known Jerry Brown since I was in school — hint, not college — and this is my impression.
That said, things can emerge, as the saying goes.
Westly and Angelides both feared Brown’s possible entry into this year’s governor’s race, knowing it would mean game over for both their candidacies.
I totally agree with what Villaraigosa said in the video. lol
Mayor Villaraigosa is very impressive.
With all the impressive people the Democrats have, Mayor Villaraigosa, Mayor Newsom, Gov. Brown, and Controller Westly, how were the Democrats so unfortunate as to end up with Mr. Angelides as their standardbearer?
So is it not unlikely that he will not seek the Presidency for the 4th time?
Come on folks, let’s focus on the important fact that the mayoral control provisions of Villargosa’s bill are UNCONSTITUTIONAL (shouting intended). The remaining provisions build union power, but they would never take on this level of media interest. This is another one of the cynical plays that dominate the Capitol. Get everyone excited about something that will never happen and gain political points in the process. The Mayor and the Governor will still look like they care about education long after a court has made the obvious unconstitutional ruling.
Jerry Brown for Governor? Where’s the volunteer list? Please let me be first. Please!
This bill, this fight, that the Mayor has led on behalf of LA Unified school kids is an act of enormous “moral responsibility” by a a true leader, a true man of action. The heart of this legislation is “Article 4. The Los Angeles Mayor’s Community Partnership for School Excellence”, i.e., the “clusters” of schools that will act as a pilot project for school reforms. The “clusters” will allow the Mayor, educators and parents to create and implement an action plan to rescue mostly minority children from low income families presently held captive in the lowest-performing schools. I always saw this issue of changing of school governance in LA Unified from the time I began first posting about this subject Feb or March as a HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE…BECAUSE ,THAT IS WHAT IT IS. Parents will be empowered by this legislation, by his passion, by his taking political risks on their behalf …and now they will truly understand that they can take control of school boards and help him…and the first thing I believe they will do is elect new board members that embrace the Mayor’s vision.
Thank you Governor, sign the bill. The San Fernando Valley is going to revive its secession movement after the election. Mayor Antonio in 2010?Highly doubtful. None of us in the San Fernando Valley embrace the Mayor’s vision on this issue. It is frought with legal barriers that we the people will have to pay for and we will not succeed. Read the bill. The parts that will cut by any court decision leaves only the portion that strengthens the teachers union.
I agree with Kandy Kid. When AV caved and allowed the entire bill to be invalidated if even one portion of it fails in court (which I fully agree with) – that doomed the entire endeavor. And yet the Times never even mentioned that change in the bill on its website all day yesterday – and then today only barely mentioned it in paragraph 30.
And now even you did not even mention that inconvenient fact.
“UNCONSTITUTIONAL ” ??????As Senator Gloria Romero so forcefully and eloquently pointed out yesterday in her defense of this BOGUS charge… THIS IS THE SAME ARGUMENT THAT OPPONENTS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS TRIED TO WAGE….
Bill, I got this e-mail blast from the California League of Conservation this morning, regarding the Global Warming bill
‘Voters Your input today can help strengthen this bill. Governor Schwarzenegger is asking the legislature to include provisions that make it easier for polluters to avoid complying with emission caps’.
Bill, do you know what the provisions are that Arnold wants the legislature to put in the bill? I know you are following this closely.
Dan, who are the Republicans going to run in 2010 (assuming an Arnold win)? McClintock?
The Republican bench is so thin, they are forced to talk about the Democratic bench.
Barbara, please read Article IX, Section 6 of the California Constitution:
The Public School System shall include all kindergarten schools,
elementary schools, secondary schools, technical schools, and state
colleges, established in accordance with law and, in addition, the
school districts and the other agencies authorized to maintain them.
No school or college or any other part of the Public School System
shall be, directly or indirectly, transferred from the Public School
System or placed under the jurisdiction of any authority other than
one included within the Public School System.
Until November 1946, municipalities were allowed to establish public schools and that authority, contained in the first sentence, was removed by CTA-sponsored Proposition 3. Therefore the legal argument is pretty simple: The power was in and the voters took it out. So it is out. The Mayor is trying to indirectly transfer a portion of the Public School System to municipal control, specifically prohibited by the second sentence.
Antonio’s lawyers have known this all along, but they agreed to play along like good soldiers.
We are are in an “untested area” legally…for you to call it unconstitutional at this point and time is DISINFORMATION.
Susan Abato claims “The San Fernando Valley is going to revive its secession movement after the election.”
Why? After all the effort to put it on the ballot in 2002 the campaign by the proponents was so disjointed I was left wondering did they think the election was a formality. My impression was a group-think mentality had convinced them the world at large thought as their small circle did (cheered on by the Daily News). Instead it barely got a majority in the Valley and failed in the rest of the city. And changing demographics in the Valley don’t favor sucess if it is placed on the ballot again (hint–Ms. Abato doesn’t speak for everyone on the north side of the Cahunega Pass when she declares “None of us in the San Fernando Valley…”).
Heck, Valley Vote is in disarray, as symbolized by their website that is only partly built: http://www.valleyvote.org
As to the LAUSD bill – frankly, if the anti-forces (which includes efforts paid for with a lot of tax dollars being spent by the LAUSD school board) get the courts to delcare the bill unconstitutional, that is a win for Antonio. He can say he fought the good fight and the entrenched forces wouldn’t let go of their strangle hold. And instead of being embroiled in the snakepit that education has become he can then forge forward with the subway extension and other initiatives of the sort he campaigned on.
Forgive me, Barbara. I am not against the bill but fear it will sap the Mayor when we need him for so many other issues.
Barbara,
Are you saying that Leg Counsel under the dome are spreading disinformation? Cuz they have the opinion that the bill is unconstitutional.
Do you guys think that Westly will run again? what are the chances? could he win?
Omar, ask Dan Nguyen. He seems to know who the Democrats will run.
Also, Cedillo is doing the governor a huge favor by ramming the driver’s license bill through the legislature. An Arnold veto will alllow him to shore up any wavering Republicans and reach out to moderates. It’s a gift!
Like Clinton, he can appear to be the brake against a partisan legislative body. Very clever.
Expect the veto sometime after Sept. 16, but not before.
Barbara, I haven’t studied this closely but the Constitutional text the Kid cites does seem to raise a very genuine constitutional doubt, and can’t be dismissed as “disinformation.” Yes, Leg Counsel has been wrong before, but this seems a very legitimate question albeit not one with a definitive answer.
http://www.dailynews.com/ci_4217280
However, the bill includes a lot of work-around language that purports to reserve core powers unto the District and Superintendent, and that the council of mayors and partnership shall “function as agencies authorized to maintain public schools, similar to a school district or county office of education” and “are, therefore, a part of the public school system of the state in performing the duties established in this chapter within the meaning of Section 6 of Article IX of the California Constitution.”
Those features seem specifically intended to fend off a “facial” attack on the bill, and may succeed at that stage. The real question is how this stuff actually gets applied over the next year or so and whether the factual record laid after implementation shows those to be just words, or real limitations on the ability of the Council and Parnership to control the schools in any meaningful way.
Mitchell, I don’t know what a pro-Angelides lobby is claiming regarding Schwarzenegger and the global warming bill. They didn’t send their blast email to me, they sent it to you.
Kandy Kid you sound like the hack that is the general counsel for the LAUSD. Every who opposes the mayor’s plan should focus their anger at the handsomely paid consulants (Darry Sragrow and Glenn Gritzner of the Sonnenschein law firm) who were supposed to provide political advice. Add to that list the incompentent General Counsel of the LAUSD who was always two weeks behind in attacking the mayor’s plan and only did so what the Legislative Counsel weighed in.
The bottom line is that the Mayor lambasted this minor leaguers. end of story.
Sorry Armondo, the end of the story is the Governor, the Speaker and the Mayor all get to look like they are doing something for education and in truth they are doing nothing. But there will certainly be a well-attended signing ceremony that the Governor’s folks will turn into a commercial. These high priests of cynacism have no shame.
In regard to the Leg Counsel, they are the Legislature’s lawyer and the office’s legal opinion holds a great deal of weight…in saying that…it is the office’s “considered opinion”…they are NOT the definitive body for deciding whether something is constitutional or non -constitutional….the courts are…I have not read the “legislative draft” or the office’s legal opinion …and I doubt if anyone here has either…I would be careful about quoting press reports …they were dissing the bill even before it appeared in print for them to analyze..I say again,…Even IF, this bill is challenged, no one can say now with any authority how decision would come down.
Further, this is groundbreaking legislation, this is a landmark bill …is there controversy? …yes!…are there going to be power plays?, people resistant to change?, yes!…
Are the good schools in Brentwood, Beverly Hills, Sherman Oaks going to be compromised in any way by this bill…NO.!..will a lot of minority kids in trapped failing schools year after year after year …finally get the attention, the innovation and resources they need to improve?…. YES!…This is the Jackie Speir argument of yesterday …she went on and on …isn’t it terrible what we are doing to the school boards! Guess what? …this bill is about the helping kids…it is not about the adults who earn their keep maintaining the status quo.
This will pass, the dust will settle, saner, wiser voices will prevail and the Mayor will be given the opportunity to work his magic not only on LA Unified , but on the City of Los Angeles as a whole…
Dana:Forgive me, Barbara. I am not against the bill but fear it will sap the Mayor when we need him for so many other issues.
Dana, He has enormous energy, appears to be enormously inclusive…he is guided by a moral compass..he has a clear understanding that his obligation is to all of LA .. And, He will be able to achieve a lot more for both of our major concerns if the transportation and education bonds pass!..
Bill, you are calling the CLCV a ‘Angelides lobby’? They are non-partisan and have a scorecard that rates elected leaders based on their votes. They endorse candidates based on their past votes or stances, and in an interview process. I dont think its fair to call them a ‘Angelides lobby’.
As for the changes, I just recieved a ‘complimentary copy’ of The sacramento Union. Never heard of it, but in a front page article in this paper, it states that ‘under his changes, rules could be delayed if there is any economic harm, the technology to reduce greenhouse gasses is not available, or the environment might be harmed’.
Yes, they are a pro-Angelides lobby. They endorsed in the primary, campaigned for him, had their leaders appear at his events, etc.
If there are Republcians on the CLCV board I am not aware of them.
We’ve been through this before.
Just as I would call the California Chamber of Commerce a pro-Schwarzenegger lobby.
You know, there is something about a mindset.
Barbara points out in re Mayor Villaraigosa “will be able to achieve a lot more for both of our major concerns if the transportation and education bonds pass!.”
Agreed. I just wish the campaign to advocate these measures was more visible. Yesterday the Rebuild California Coalition left me a message regarding the endorsement of 1A and 1B by Southern California Transit Advocates and requesting contact information. I hope once the legislature adjourns ads and press events around the state will start to advocate for the bonds. George Skelton yesterday had some interesting comments on the not-yet-visible bond campaign: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap28aug28,1,7661828.column
Dana:I just wish the campaign to advocate these measures was more visible
I assume they are waiting till after Labor Day but I agree, let’s get going with a campaign for ALLl the bonds!…Today, at the CA Majority Report there are articles on legislation and the take over of the House by the Dems!…so maybe that is a sign the DEMs are beginning to refocus their time and energy from Phil’s campaign to the really important issues at hand…which includes passage of all the bonds.
Do readers here believe Mr. Gore and the global scientific community when they say we have a serious climate change problem on our hands? If so, how would one reconcile that believe with support for either of Props 1A or 1B, both of which perpetuate the fossil-fuel oriented transportation system that is responsible for a significant percentage of greenhouse gas emissions?
Uh, because people still drive cars and because the first Pavley bill wil cut tailpipe emissions?
They just did it Mr. Bradley!…I am watching Cal Chan and Antonio’s bill passed approx 7:20 pm!!! …there was even some applause! It was very exciting…My dog is excited to ..I explained to him I could not walk him until I saw the vote…so now I must go Toodles!
P.S. Mc Carthy just called a Reep caucus …they must be upto something!
Ah, probably they are up to dinner.
>P.S. Mc Carthy just called a Reep caucus …they must be upto something!
They went home about 20 minutes ago. They shall return tomorrow morning at 10 a.m..
Barbara,
The Gov’s office has just issued a press release about AB 1381, it reads as follows:
Governor Schwarzenegger Applauds Legislature for Approving Measure to Boost LAUSD Accountability to Students and Parents
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today issued the following statement following the Assembly approval of AB 1381 by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez:
“The students of LAUSD are winners thanks to the Legislature’s actions today. Mayor Villaraigosa stepped up with bold leadership to help our children achieve their dreams.
“This proposal challenges the status quo and makes the mayor accountable to the LAUSD students and their parents. While there are many great schools, principals and teachers in LAUSD, I cannot accept the fact that too many schools are failing our students, as evidenced by the high school dropout rate.
“I ask the Legislature to immediately send this bill to my desk so that I can sign this measure to give all LAUSD students the quality education they deserve to succeed.”
“immediately send this bill to my desk”? I was unaware it was urgency legislation. Unless it is, he’s got a month to sign it, and *when* matters not. Was a bill ever enrolled yet not sent to the Governor’s desk? (Since the Stanford/Gould railroad empire years, anyway?)
Shouldn’t he just have said, “I want my photo op dividend ASAP, while it’s hot!”
Thank You Solon! ..Good For Arnold! I just got back from my walk ..I was surprised how dark it is outside! What a day! AB1381 passed and DPA came to an agreement on salary increases for Sups and Managers in State Gov! Hooray! All is well in Sacramento tonight!
They might be responding to a new LA Times story which said Schwarz had previously said he supported the bill, making it sound like the outcome might be in some doubt.
Wibur,
Bill is not urgency. Becomes law on January 1, 2007.
Barbara,
You’re welcome.
DPA didn’t come to an agreement. Sups and Managers have no collect rights. DPA waited until all the collective bargaining agreements* had been signed and then told them what they would be getting. For the past few months word has been that DPA was going to do something special for the Sups and Managers. Feedback I’m getting from folks I know is that most don’t see this as special.
* I believe that CCPOA is still at the table. However their contract didn’t expire until the end of the 05/06 FY. The contracts referenced above all expired right after the end of 04/05 FY.
I realize that Sups and Managers have no collect rights….DPA agreed to a package is what Iwas trying to convey.. and word never drifted down to my agency that something “special” was coming …and we are a very major employer with the best management team in state gov,I might add…I will take my 3.5 percent pay increase plus a one-time payment of $1,000 with a smile…frowning causes wrinkles!
Barbara,
Sorry, didn’t read your words that way. And I again say, they didn’t agree to a package. They issued their directive.
Maybe it wasn’t to your agency, but it was to folks I know who work in the human resource field for the state.
The 3.5 and $1,000 isn’t bad and if I were still there I would probably do the same as you. My comments were based upon feedback I had from a couple people I know and who were getting feedback from folks who work for them.
Hope you enjoyed your blueberries and have a pleasant evening.
Supes and managers in several units, including mine, were expressly denied these benefits. Apparently because the supes got raises matching those their line supervisees just agreed to. Which did nothing about pre-existing compaction. Our Supervising attorneys make the same money as the seniormost “line” attorneys they supervise, with the distinguishing “bonus” that they get to be vilified and even personally sued (I’ve seen it) if they ever dare to take a personnel action against one of those equally paid supervisees, which is the exclusive province of “excludeds” and the reason for their exclusion from union participation.
“Blow up the boxes,” my a**.
Wilbur,
My hunch is that we could bore a lot of folks, piss off Mr. Bradley and find much room for agreement with this topic. Suffice to say that the state has many problems in the area of treatment of management and it’s probably something they need to deal with sooner than later.