Predictions Re Outcome of Mayor's LAUSD Lawsuit
By Walter Moore, Candidate for Mayor of Los AngelesUsing my lawyer super-powers, I predict the Court of Appeals will affirm the Superior Court's ruling that Mayor Villaraigosa's school take-over plan violates the California Constitution and the City Charter.
The comments the justices made at oral argument, as reported by the L.A. Times today, show they "get it." For better or worse, our laws are designed to insulate education from politicians who are not on the school board.
The Mayor, however, still has a shot at getting the LAUSD Board to "settle" the case: he has candidates in the School Board run-off elections in May. If they win, a majority of the newly constituted Board may decide simply to dismiss the case, and let the Mayor proceed with a statute which, by that time, one judge and three justices will have declared illegal.
Do I think they'll have the gall? No. I think once the candidates take their new offices, with the new, higher salaries voters just adopted, they won't feel dedicated enough to the Mayor to flout the law so blatantly. They may, however, use their power to benefit the Mayor indirectly, by steering construction and other contracts to campaign contributors he favors.
Oh, didn't you know? This was never about "the children." It's about control of a seven billion dollar budget. The career politicians and special interests are elbowing one another in the face to hang onto that big checkbook. Me, I'd like to see parents take control. I say let parents decide, via vouchers, whether they want to keep sending their kids to the LAUSD, or whether instead they'd like to try a private school -- you know, the kind of school the Mayor's own children attend.
Posted by Walter Moore @ 4/03/2007 07:36:00 AM
17 Comments:
i heard 19 billion. what's the real number, 7?
I heard it was kazillion.
I dedicate this video to city hall. Perfect product for Mayor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4VieMjZYfI
"I think once the candidates take their new offices, with the new, higher salaries voters just adopted"
Correct me if I'm wrong Walter, but are you referring to school board members? I know a proposal was floated, but I don't think they rec'd an increase in their p/t salaries (currently about 24k a year). (And I know teacher's rec'd a 6% increase for one year)
the total construction budget at stake is a tad over $20 billion over the course of the term.
1. LAUSD Budget
My research indicates the budget is $7.5 billion per year. The source is set forth below. Anyone got any other / better sources and figures?
http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/FLDR_LAUSD_NEWS/FLDR_PRESS_RELEASES/0607BUDGET.PDF
2. Board Member Compensation
Measure L, passed in last month's election, established a compensation committee, I believe, which will, I predict, decide that these board members, unlike corporate board members, should receive full-time compensation on a par with City Council.
Gawd, I hope you're right, Walter!
The Mayor has a figurative bitch-slap coming to him for his arrogance and distractions.
"Plans shot down," the headlines will read! This will hound AV through the next election!
to all the haters on this blog.
The Mayor will win control of the LAUSD.
Walter's analysis is actually fairly accurate, but he then throws in the voucher idea which isn't helpful.
walter -- i am under the belief that californians have voted twice on vouchers(prop 174 1992, Prop 38, 2000) -- and in both instances LA County and LA City both soundly defeated the initiatives.
Los Angeles City defeated them with over 71% and 73% of the vote. The NO vote increased by from 1992-2000.
Walter, unless you feel that just because voters made their intentions known but were without all the facts then yes continue to advocate for vouchers. but the money you would need to make a meaningful dent into the city electorate is too costly for one blog and website.
Otherwise, you are advocating a position that an overwhelming number of people oppose, the problem with that is voters who support your other platforms will be tuned out if the first thing they hear from you is your support of vouchers.
thats for free - the next will cost you.
also the mayor will have control of improving the lives of young people via lausd
Mayor wants to win for the sake of winning. As for the kids, that makes for a good sound bite....
1:02pm,
Tell the mayor he has control of improving kids lives AS MAYOR. Tell him to watch "The Wizard of Oz". That guy behind the curtain (Eli Broad/Richard Riorend) sent the confused lion on that terrible journey down the yellow brick road (AB 1381/School Board takeover because like the lion, he thought what he needed was "just outside his reach" (because that coward Wizard of Oz, played by Eli Broad) sent you to do HIS dirty work -- and after the terrible journey/botched takeover attempt, Zuma Dogg reminds you --- you already have what it takes, inside you Antonio from the mean streets of East L.A. -- YOU'RE MAYOR, Y'ALL...AND IF YOU CAN'T HELP THE KIDS AS MAYOR -- AND FEEL YOU NEED CONTROL OF THE CONSTRUCTION BUDGET TO DO IT (The only thing you REALLY get out of AB 1381 -- show me the plan for improving the system, please) -- PLEASE STEP DOWN AS MAYOR AND LET ZUMA DOGG TAKE OVER. HE WILL IMMEDIATELY START IMPROVING THE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AS MAYOR, AND ANTONIO CAN RUN FOR SCHOOL BOARD.
Big ZD,
Methods For Managment of Quality & Productivity
This mayor is only interested in improving his political career. You can see through him like cellophane.
1:37 nailed it.
Walter is Villaraigosa's new daddy!
Bend over Sycophantonio!!!
Yeah, yeah: AV gets porked.
ok. Who am I ?
I was born on October 6, 1947, I served in the United States Army during the Vietnam War. Back home, I was dismissed from my 'second in command' job after I told a journalist that my goal was to take my boss' job.
I am a computer systems expert, well, I take other organizations' systems and I introduce them here. I left my previous job in 1996 after alleged personal conflicts with an elected official with whom I work.
I wrote my memoirs already and it was named a New York Times Notable Book of the Year even though subsequently the theory behind my success has been questioned.
My employer's website lists me as a frequent lecturer, writer, and commentator, which means I'm away from my paid employment a lot.
It also lists me as a community advocate however things in my book tend to contradict that.
I'm currently in some conflict with associates of my present employer.
I'm an expert in counter terrorism, umm, well, I'm really just an expert at taking an intelligence system and installing it somewhere, where they don't already have one.
I'm constantly pitching new book proposals to publishers.
I married a female attorney who was a TV star. My second wife is also a female attorney TV star.
I'm establishing a National Terrorism Training Center so I can organize the whole country.
Oh, and I'm up for re-appointment as your Chief of Police in Los Angeles.
Here's the rub...
Bratton's appointment by Mayor of Los Angeles James Hahn as the LAPD's 54th Chief of Police in October 2002 was the catalyst that kept voters away from Hahn and allowed Villaraigosa to fall in as Mayor. Of Course Villaraigosa wants Bratton to be reappointed, he was chief last time when AV won, right?
So, now the voters however have seen what happens when they don't vote, and if Janice Hahn were to run for Mayor, they'd swamp her with votes. but if you want to lose Villaraigosa, you have to lose Bratton first.
here's how:
The bio on Bratton at LAPD says "..develop stragies to reduce gang violence...", however if you see all the distractions above, its no wonder that gang violence is reportedly up 15%.
He's way too busy developing strategies for all these other things: book deals, terror combat training, systems for terror combat, the speaker's tour, media appearances.
We're all left here while he's away, stuck paying money for studies which say pay more for more studies.
Where's the police chief who will just focus on local crime in Los Angeles? Let's find him, and then get him. He's probably not too hard to find. Just use the William Bratton technique except look for the guy second in command, who isn't all over the media.
and Bratton isn't bad at what he does, and he's had a great and distinguished career, I just don't think its what Los Angeles needs any more, and its time to move on.
No hard feelings, but things change.
That voters have rejected a measure once does not mean they will do so given a second chance. Voters rejected Villaraigosa for mayor the first time he ran, and accepted him the second time.
Are there vested interests that will pour a fortune into opposing vouchers? Of course! Does that mean the rest of us should simply give up, and let special interests prevail over the public interest? Of course not. "Leadership" does not mean being timid.
walter,
voters have voted twice against this.
Oh well then, if it's twice in the 50 years since vouchers were first proposed, then forget it.
So, guys, when did "winning" become a bad thing?
Considering that someof the bloggers on this site are among the biggest losers in LA, maybe "winning" has been re-defined.
Winning isn't everything; it's the ONLY thing.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home