D.C. City Council has given preliminary approval to Mayor Adrian Fenty’s takeover
The Washington, D.C. City Council has given preliminary approval to Mayor Adrian Fenty’s takeover of D.C. schools. Prior to the 9-2 vote, the mayor and council hammered out some significant changes. The mayor agreed to modify his proposal to create an independent construction authority, with a board and chief executive appointed by him. Instead, the new entity would be a city agency under mayoral control, with a director who could not be fired by the mayor without cause and without council approval. Mr. Fenty had previously agreed to an even larger departure when he announced in January that the council would have the authority to rescind the mayor's control over the schools if he did not show "sufficient progress in education" within five years. Critics quickly voiced disappointment. School board member Jeff Smith announced he would resign April 19. "I think the city council made it clear today that the Board of Education wasn't part of its vision for education reform in the city," he said. Under the plan the school board would still be elected, with its authority curtailed, and the superintendent of schools would report directly to the mayor. School board president Robert C. Bobb has indicated he plans to stay on the board, even though his role will be diminished. "Now that the council has acted, it's time for leaders in the District to sit down, roll up our sleeves, and work together ... with the interests of the children of the District front and center," he says. If the takeover is approved in a final council vote in the coming weeks, it will be sent to the U.S. Congress. The timing of the final council vote is being challenged in D.C. court by one of the candidates for the council seat vacated by Mr. Fenty when he assumed his current office. The suit seeks to prevent the council from voting on the takeover plan until the special education is held to fill the vacant seat and that of Vincent Gray, who surrendered his seat when he become council chairman. Although the court has rejected the request for a temporary injunction, it has scheduled a hearing this week on a motion for a preliminary injunction. The council also rejected an amendment by the two dissenting council members that called for holding a public referendum on the takeover.
Meanwhile, a California law that would give Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa substantial authority over L.A.'s schools has come under stiff scrutiny from justices of a state appellate panel who will rule on whether it is constitutional. After a trial court struck down the law, citing a state constitutional prohibition against transferring authority over schools to entities outside the school system, the mayor and his supporters appealed. During a recent appeals court hearing, the mayor's attorneys argued that the state legislature has broad authority over education, including the right to invest the mayor with the power to run L.A. schools. The justices asked pointed questions about that reasoning. "So that is the premise of your argument?" asked Justice Joan Dempsey Klein. "That because the Legislature says the mayor is part of the public school system, he is part of it?" Justice Patti S. Kitching took up that point: "Is there any limit? If the mayor is part of the school system, can the Department of Transportation be made part of it?" Daniel P. Collins, one of the attorneys representing the mayor, defended the law, pointing out that he expected the Legislature to act reasonably. He also noted that mayors in other states have gained authority over local schools without legal problems. "I understand that," responded Justice Kitching, "but they don't have the constitutional provisions that we do." Throughout the hearing Mr. Collins argued vigorously that the law, which would strip significant authority from the school board, is legal because neither the state's constitution nor the Los Angeles City Charter prohibits the legislature from redefining duties granted to elected school boards. His co-counsel Susan Leach, representing state government agencies, also pointed out that "[t]he school board will still be elected, and they will still have important and essential duties." But the justices did not concede the point. "Governing boards control school districts, according to the Constitution," said Justice H. Walter Croskey. "It seems to me that is a limitation I have trouble understanding how you get by." Justice Klein asked that the issue of voter rights be addressed: "The [city's] charter provides that the people of Los Angeles elect a school board," she said. "Speak to me about the elimination of the right of the people to have a voice in this new structure."
The justices had far fewer questions for attorneys representing the school district and its legal allies, which include the California School Boards Association and the League of Women Voters. They often cited constitutional provisions that buttressed the school district's arguments before its own attorneys could do so. L.A. Unified School District general counsel Kevin Reed expressed cautious optimism and praised the justices for having done "their homework." On the other hand, Thomas Saenz, the mayor's top legal advisor, expressed disappointment over the appellate court’s focus. "There was no discussion about the rights of kids," he says. "There was no discussion about the rights of parents. There was more focus in the courtroom on the rights of school boards." Despite the aggressive questioning, the court gave no direct indication about its upcoming decision. It could uphold all, part, or none of the law. A decision is expected within a few weeks. Although the losing side most likely will appeal to the California Supreme Court, that court has no obligation to hear the case. Mr. Saenz notes that even if even if the mayor prevails, he probably will not be able to assert authority over schools until next year because of the litigation.
Washington Post
By Nikita Stewart & Theola Labbe
[Full story]
Los Angeles Times
By Howard Blume & Joel Rubin
[Full story]
[Editor’s Note: Background on both takeover moves is available below. USA TODAY reviews the increased interest mayors are showing nationwide in taking control of schools, the most recent example being in Albuquerque. At the final link, education historian Diane Ravitch of New York University takes issue with some of the assertions made in the USA TODAY article and with some aspects of mayoral takeovers generally, citing examples arising from New York City school system’s lack of any school board, appointed or elected.]
[NSBA School Law pages on D.C. mayoral takeover]
[NSBA School Law pages on Los Angeles mayoral takeover]
USA TODAY
By Martha T. More
[Full story]
[Ravitch on mayoral takeovers]