L.A. Times Catches Up On LAUSD Election Game Theory
By Walter Moore, Chief Economist and Legal Analyst, L.A. Policy Institute.Regular readers may recall my "Game Theory 101" essay from last month, in which I explained how the Mayor, by directing vast amounts of money into the campaigns of "friendly" school board candidates, hopes to gain a majority on the board, which would then settle or dimiss the lawsuit regarding the recently enacted statute (A.B. 1381), which would give him formal control over several schools and the selection of the superintendent.
Today the L.A. Times (finally) caught on, and caught up, by publishing an article on the same subject.
However, the Times omitted to mention a fact that should concern voters: the Superior Court has already ruled that the newly enacted statute's delegation of school board power to the Mayor is unconstitutional. Hence, if his pawns get elected and vote to dismiss the lawsuit, they will be proceeding with a plan that has been declared illegal.
Is that the kind of lesson our mayor and school board should be teaching our students?
Posted by Walter Moore @ 3/03/2007 01:42:00 PM
10 Comments:
This is what passes for "legal analysis" on Mayor Sam these days?!?
If the school district opts to create an alternate school governance game plan for a number of its schools that is done under the aegis of the School Board and constructed to carefully follow the law, it won't be unconstitutional. The legal issue was who technically was running the show, and that part can be finessed once the School Board and the Mayor are collaborating. Duh!
Villa-lagrossa rolled craps with the legislation (so far), but he and his peeps know how to keep from making the same mistakes the second time around. That's what Cortines is there for.
Doesn't matter. LAUSD is terrible and will remain that way no matter what the mayor or his puppets want or do. But those construction contracts look mighty juicy.
And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen: a legal opinion from a graduate of the People's College of Law.
P.S. 6:21 is correct. My snide remark was directed to 4:13.
Walter,
I don't mean to correct you, but shouldn't "college of law" be in quotes?
Walter...Since the Mayor is appealling the decision, and the board is defending it again...if they dropped their defense...won't the case be over with and Antonio wins?
Just was wondering...
I would have to imagine that any stakeholder could re-initiate the lawsuit and look for a similar ruling. Parents, Teachers, Students, anyone affected could sue.
7:10 - LOL
7:55 - Exactly. That's what I explained in my previous article. The case will be over AND an unconstitutional law -- adjudicated as such by the Superior Court -- will then be implemented. Result: zero rule of law in L.A., as usual.
10:09 - Theoretically, yes. Do you have the budget to go up against the LAUSD? Plus, you'll have to overcome an issue of what's called "standing." Just being a citizen or taxpayer may not be enough. But yes, it could happen.
Meanwhile, Villaraigosa will have control of the BIG checkbook for years at a minimum as the case wends through appeals. By the time you win you case, Villaraigosa will be long gone, either as -- it pains me to say it -- governor or vice-president.
Hey Walter, 4:13 appears to have some grasp of government. You're a tow-bit, tin-horn attorney who's decided that, after failing in a vanity run for mayor, kibbitzing in punditry is more fun than being good at what you do to earn a living. Get over it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home