LAUSD Board.jpgFacing a $468 million budgetary shortfall by 2021-22, LAUSD officials are now seeking a $610 property parcel tax to raise approximately $500 million annually. But given the two-thirds majority vote that would be required in November voting this year or in November 2020 to pass such a parcel tax, it is doubtful whether such a parcel tax would pass voter muster.

Having once been a history teacher for LAUSD, before they fired me for being a whistle blower who reported they were fixing grades and attendance, let me see if I can give you a little short LAUSD history lesson about how LAUSD's endemic financial corruption should hopefully motivate you to get out to the polls and vote AGAINST any such parcel tax, because of LAUSD's clear record showing this endemically corrupt entity more concerned with the well being of its vendors and entrenched overpaid bureaucracy than it is with the education of the predominantly minority students that have the misfortune of being continually socially promoted through LAUSD's longstanding corruption without receiving even basic academic skills in this yet segregated public school system that literally makes no attempt to educate them.

As Edmund Burke once said, "Those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it." So let's review just a few of the many factors that have lead to the projected $468 million budgetary shortfall at LAUSD, while also examining the factors of LAUSD's endemic corruption that make such a shortfall only the tip of the budgetary iceberg that I believe will ultimately bankrupt LAUSD in the not too distant future with or without this parcel tax.

1. Charter schools- LAUSD has been hemorrhaging Average Daily Attendance monies and other funds coming from the State and federal government as more and more students are being funneled into charter schools, which ironically are no better and often worst than LAUSD. With fixed expenses that are not significantly lessened by the loss of these students, this is a major factor pushing LAUSD into bankruptcy. That and the fact that the majority of the LAUSD Board were put in by the well funded charter lobby to assure nothing is done at LAUSD to challenge charters.

2. Agreed vendors- Theoretically, the only reason to have a school district the size of LAUSD, which is the second largest school district in the country, has to do with something called the economics of scale. What this means is a larger business entity buying greater amounts of goods and services should be able to get a better price. But at LAUSD- and from what I hear at L.A. Country as well- LAUSD not only doesn't get a better price, it gets a more expensive price, because it can only buy from its "agreed vendors" of goods and service. Roughly translated into something like the purchase of an Ipad, you as an individual could actually go into Fry's Electronics and buy the same Ipad for hundreds of dollars less than what LAUSD is paying to its "agreed vendors" in this fisically capture system. And the same is true for all the goods and services it buys. In the final analysis, LAUSD's size doesn't get it a better price, but has only succeeded in making it next to impossible to hold anybody responsible for illegal colusive behavior in an LAUSD administrative culture that promotes you in direct relationship to your ability to go along with anything its entrenched corrupt leadership decides- legal or otherwise.

3. Belmont and JFK Learning Center- Belmont was built on an irremediable toxic waste oil field site where the off-gasing made its safe use as a school impossible...unless as one expert said, "You would have to build the buildings 16 feet off the ground." Beverly Hills High School had only one oil well next to the track field and years later after exposure, those students- now adults- who were exposed to the oil well's toxins are coming down with cancer and other diseases attributable to their exposure. But ex-Mayor Riordan was brought in and bailed out mega law firm O'Melveny and Myers, which had an undisclosed conflict of interest in representing both LAUSD and the contractor of the Belmont site. Riordan populated the Belmont site with mostly Latino children in a bogus claim that there was now no millions in damages to LAUSD from building on this toxic site as alleged in the law suit against O'Melveny, since the school was now filled with students.

Short of a parcel tax, I would be happy to show LAUSD how it could save far more than $500 million by implementing some common sense programs. Here's one possible short term solution, followed by two longer term solutions:

1. How much money would LAUSD save in school maintenance and upkeep costs, if students were required to clean the campus and rooms after themselves?

2. And if the vibrant Industrial Arts program that once existed at LAUSD was reinstituted, how much electrical, plumbing, and other construction trades could students be educated to do for themselves at a fraction of the present cost, so that they could maintain their own school, while learning a trade?

3. And finally, if students were educated in a timely manner, how much money presently being spent in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems could be returned to public education. It costs far less to educate a student than to incarcerate them.


07 2018

1 Comment

Greetings Leonard Isenberg,

Great hearing from you again. I actually saw your article on Steve Franks website. Like it very much.I wonder how much money was spent to clean up the toxic waste sites after schools were built on them? Was there no EIR done before any construction? How much money has been paid in medical settlements?


Lady Cage-Barile
(323) 251-5682
July 12, 2018

Leave a comment