If a Big-Wig Can’t Get the City of Los Angeles to Do Anything, Then Who Can? Why Would Residents Invest Their Lives Trying to do Any Projects With the City of Los Angeles? Sink Holes Become a Menace and Benches and Trails a Bureaucratic Nightmare

Diana L. Chapman

Several years back, I was talking to a remarkably high-ranking city official in the overly-beefed up, top administration of Los Angeles Recreation and Parks, and was disheartened by his story.

His service club, he explained, had raised about $45,000 to revamp an ailing city park trail and had initially been eager to get it off the ground. But after a tremendous amount of haggling, phone calls, loop holes—and a million and one reasons the city didn’t want the overhaul – the project collapsed – and never did get launched. Mind you, this guy was a top gun and was unable to make this gift to the residents happen.

Sadly, citizens and their families probably would have loved to tread upon a refurbished trail.

Not long after, in my own community of San Pedro, I learned that a project to clean up and refurbish our ancient Peck Park pool came with $1 million agreement to revamp the seasonal pool and turn it to a year-round facility.

The only trouble: the city failed to budget the pool with a year round staff, so immediate problems ensued once it opened. No one had put the longer days and hours in the budget!

Now, there are sinkholes. Big, ugly, scary sinkholes eating up city fire trucks and breaking pipelines, flooding neighborhoods. We had one several years ago in San Pedro that was so ugly, it swallowed a friend of a friend’s car, along with the driver and her son. By some miracle, the two were not injured. And for some reason, city officials and other jurisdictions couldn’t determine who caused the sinkhole.

So I ask, how can we avoid these issues? It seems to me – and I’m horrible with money and not too much of a planner myself – but aren’t we all paying the big bucks for someone up there in those towers who does this exact thing? Isn’t it the city staff’s job to inform the city of failing pipe lines, get projects in place to repair aging water systems before it’s too late, clean up pools that are desperately in need of overhaul and other problematic troubles with aging systems across the board?

It seems there should be prioritization of all these issues before things start to descend into calamity, which lately we’ve seen a lot of. And now we have this: BongHwan Kim, the general manager of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, writing an article that City Watch was wrong about the status of Neighborhood Council roll over funds.

“I instructed my staff to place a temporary hold on roll-over balances,” Kim wrote. “This was necessary so that we could confirm accurate remaining balances from prior years. This is the problem: I inherited a financial management system which lacked adequate checks and balances. One key weakness of the system is that annual reconciliations were never done – from its inception.”

So the city apparently handed out thousands of dollars to the councils without clarifying instructions – as how to watch over that money – since its inception, which apparently may lead now to some $100,000 worth of embezzlement charges of some neighborhood council members.

Since we all know embezzlement seems part of human equation for those tempted by the funds, typically “checks and balances” are in place before funds are doled out.

Somehow, “common sense” doesn’t seem to be part of the Los Angeles City Dictionary. There’s too much politics involved to let the rational, pragmatic or visionary attempts gain a foothold in the city’s system. Then there are the unions. And the officials we are paying ghastly amounts of money for the art of saying no to the public’s ideas.

In addition, we pay City Council members about $179,000-a-year, which is truly appalling because I still can’t figure out how they really help us. Let’s see: Was it Councilwoman Janice Hahn’s latest approval to support an incoming 7-11 store on 19^th Street and Pacific Avenue in San Pedro – the one the residents vehemently protested as not only not necessary, but would generate trouble for the neighborhoods in the wee hours of the night? Janice still went for the business – even though our Neighborhood Councils supported the residents’ concerns.

Perhaps we should pay our Neighborhood council members as we get much better representation – at least in our neck of the hood – out of our honest Neighborhood Councils.

After our pool opened, and a group of citizens’ accomplished this, lower level city staffers from all over came up and asked how we did it? They were amazed and praised us because all such proposals in the past had been beaten down.

“Well,” I asked, “if you see the pool you are working at is falling apart, isn’t it your job to have a bigger vision and help the city get it prioritized as a project for a future overhaul.”

They looked at me in shock. “No,” one staff member explained, who was actually a manager. “We’re not allowed to be visionary about things. It has to come from the community.”

Now, that’s a double-edged blade and a half. Because if it comes from the community, you can bet there are mid-managers well versed in the art of saying no, which is what the answer was for our antiquated pool for ten years.

Park advisory boards and Neighborhood councils, for god sakes, have to do battle to do things as silly as adding a park bench – being paid for out of Neighborhood council funds!

This has led me to conclude one thing: the city of Los Angeles, starting with its mid-managers and up, remains its own worst enemy. Imagine all the wonders we might have for ourselves and our children – if revised trails and park benches – didn’t have to go through endless turmoil and rigors – even when the money is right at the city’s fingertips.

Oh, how much sweeter L.A. life could be.

If a Big-Wig Can’t Get the City of Los Angeles to Do Anything, Then Who Can? Why Would Residents Invest Their Lives Trying to do Any Projects With the City of Los Angeles? Sink Holes Become a Menace and Benches and Trails a Bureaucratic Nightmare

Diana L. Chapman

Several years back, I was talking to a remarkably high-ranking city official in the overly-beefed up, top administration of Los Angeles Recreation and Parks, and was disheartened by his story.

His service club, he explained, had raised about $45,000 to revamp an ailing city park trail and had initially been eager to get it off the ground. But after a tremendous amount of haggling, phone calls, loop holes—and a million and one reasons the city didn’t want the overhaul – the project collapsed – and never did get launched. Mind you, this guy was a top gun and was unable to make this gift to the residents happen.

Sadly, citizens and their families probably would have loved to tread upon a refurbished trail.

Not long after, in my own community of San Pedro, I learned that a project to clean up and refurbish our ancient Peck Park pool came with $1 million agreement to revamp the seasonal pool and turn it to a year-round facility.

The only trouble: the city failed to budget the pool with a year round staff, so immediate problems ensued once it opened. No one had put the longer days and hours in the budget!

Now, there are sinkholes. Big, ugly, scary sinkholes eating up city fire trucks and breaking pipelines, flooding neighborhoods. We had one several years ago in San Pedro that was so ugly, it swallowed a friend of a friend’s car, along with the driver and her son. By some miracle, the two were not injured. And for some reason, city officials and other jurisdictions couldn’t determine who caused the sinkhole.

So I ask, how can we avoid these issues? It seems to me – and I’m horrible with money and not too much of a planner myself – but aren’t we all paying the big bucks for someone up there in those towers who does this exact thing? Isn’t it the city staff’s job to inform the city of failing pipe lines, get projects in place to repair aging water systems before it’s too late, clean up pools that are desperately in need of overhaul and other problematic troubles with aging systems across the board?

It seems there should be prioritization of all these issues before things start to descend into calamity, which lately we’ve seen a lot of. And now we have this: BongHwan Kim, the general manager of the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, writing an article that City Watch was wrong about the status of Neighborhood Council roll over funds.

“I instructed my staff to place a temporary hold on roll-over balances,” Kim wrote. “This was necessary so that we could confirm accurate remaining balances from prior years. This is the problem: I inherited a financial management system which lacked adequate checks and balances. One key weakness of the system is that annual reconciliations were never done – from its inception.”

So the city apparently handed out thousands of dollars to the councils without clarifying instructions – as how to watch over that money – since its inception, which apparently may lead now to some $100,000 worth of embezzlement charges of some neighborhood council members.

Since we all know embezzlement seems part of human equation for those tempted by the funds, typically “checks and balances” are in place before funds are doled out.

Somehow, “common sense” doesn’t seem to be part of the Los Angeles City Dictionary. There’s too much politics involved to let the rational, pragmatic or visionary attempts gain a foothold in the city’s system. Then there are the unions. And the officials we are paying ghastly amounts of money for the art of saying no to the public’s ideas.

In addition, we pay City Council members about $179,000-a-year, which is truly appalling because I still can’t figure out how they really help us. Let’s see: Was it Councilwoman Janice Hahn’s latest approval to support an incoming 7-11 store on 19^th Street and Pacific Avenue in San Pedro – the one the residents vehemently protested as not only not necessary, but would generate trouble for the neighborhoods in the wee hours of the night? Janice still went for the business – even though our Neighborhood Councils supported the residents’ concerns.

Perhaps we should pay our Neighborhood council members as we get much better representation – at least in our neck of the hood – out of our honest Neighborhood Councils.

After our pool opened, and a group of citizens’ accomplished this, lower level city staffers from all over came up and asked how we did it? They were amazed and praised us because all such proposals in the past had been beaten down.

“Well,” I asked, “if you see the pool you are working at is falling apart, isn’t it your job to have a bigger vision and help the city get it prioritized as a project for a future overhaul.”

They looked at me in shock. “No,” one staff member explained, who was actually a manager. “We’re not allowed to be visionary about things. It has to come from the community.”

Now, that’s a double-edged blade and a half. Because if it comes from the community, you can bet there are mid-managers well versed in the art of saying no, which is what the answer was for our antiquated pool for ten years.

Park advisory boards and Neighborhood councils, for god sakes, have to do battle to do things as silly as adding a park bench – being paid for out of Neighborhood council funds!

This has led me to conclude one thing: the city of Los Angeles, starting with its mid-managers and up, remains its own worst enemy. Imagine all the wonders we might have for ourselves and our children – if revised trails and park benches – didn’t have to go through endless turmoil and rigors – even when the money is right at the city’s fingertips.

Oh, how much sweeter L.A. life could be.

FALL IS HERE! SCHOOL'S BACK IN SESSION; A NEW PRINCIPAL HAS COME TO SAN PEDRO HIGH AND HALLOWEEN'S AROUND THE CORNER; WHAT'S NOT TO ENJOY?

Dear Readers: Please read the review below written by a nine-year-old student of KiDazzle Art Studios. Currently, KiDazzle offers after school programs and art classes.

Nine-year-old Reviews a Summer at KiDazzle Art Studios and What She Thought of It; By Far, Making an Entire City Out of Sticks Was One of the Coolest and Favored Projects

By Keli Mezin

My name is Keli Mezin. I am 9 years old and I go to the Harbor Math and Science Magnet.

One of my most favorite summer activities was going to KiDazzle. Mike and May, the owners, are so nice and helpful. I felt so safe there. It is really fun. When I went I there last summer, I built several wood stick projects. As a matter of fact, an entire city!!

If you like to paint, they have an area where you could paint or draw anything you want. I used crayons or paint. Or, I could go and play games in a separate room. Now that is really fun.

If you are into jewelry then you could make necklaces, bracelets or even glue some beads to some wood to make a picture frame. You could learn how to sew a puppet or even a stuffed animal.

If you stay until 12:00-3:00 you could go on a field trip. This was nice because I could burn off creative energy. We went either to the park or the city farm behind Home Depot. At the farm you could see horses, a big pig, or even goats. They gave us a carrot to feed the goats. I had so much fun feeding them!

You could go fishing for crabs on some days. It was so exciting when you caught a huge crab. The most I’ve caught there was about 59 crabs.

When you go to the park you can go on the swings and climb all over. Sometimes we played Frisbee at the park. I had a big blast playing Frisbee.
If you are interested in KiDazzle for your kids, they would have an excellent time. And, they could meet some new friends like I did.

KiDazzle, 1931 N. Gaffey Street, Suite F. To reach director May Schlie, the number is 310-832-2777. For more information, visit www.kidazzleartstudios.com. The program provides after school programs, summer camp, art classes and fun nights on Friday evenings.

Los Angeles Unified Superintendent Ramon Cortines Defends the District's Action to Pave the Way for Charters and Non-Profits; All Students, He Says, Including Those With Special Needs Will Receive an Education Under This Plan

By Diana L. Chapman

I’d like to say I found comfort in the words of Los Angeles Schools Superintendent Ramon Cortines, but I’m still finding this issue of putting a third of the district’s campuses up for grabs to non-profits and charters difficult to embrace.

That being said, and knowing perhaps it’s time to move on, I asked the superintendent of the nation’s second largest school district, to respond to the worries over a controversial Los Angeles Unified School district decision approved this month.

The action – agreed to on a 6-1 school board vote -- allows non-profit organizations and charter schools to go after 50 new campuses that will be constructed by 2012 – and for the same entities to consider the takeover of LAUSD’s failing schools.

“ I appreciate you raising your concerns and pushing all of us to think about the intended and unintended consequences of the Board’s decision on Tuesday,” the superintendent wrote last week, responding directly to each concern. “I encourage all of us to continue this dialogue so that we develop a quality process for all of our students. I want to assure you this process is not a giveaway of schools, but rather an opportunity for us to work together to ensure we are developing and implementing instructional plans that serve all of our students.”

In a nutshell, it seems the superintendent isn’t at all concerned about this decision –which he helped steer-- because he has several beliefs under his educational hat that I have yet to absorb:

--Charters are public schools and are, in fact, under LAUSD’s jurisdiction. In other words, they belong to LAUSD.

--The resolution allows the superintendent to spell out more rules and regulations that the charters and non-profits would have to follow that didn’t exist prior to the action, giving the board more controls.

--The Los Angeles unified school board will screen proposals and determine which organization should operate the school, which could still remain with LAUSD .

In addition, he addressed one of the most primary concerns for me: who would care for special education students, from the developmentally disabled to speech impediments to juvenile delinquents – who legally must be served by the district?

The process, he wrote, allows the district to “put criteria in to ensure we serve all of our students.”

“We will not approve plans that cannot serve the student population of the new or program improvement 3+ schools (failing schools). Per the resolution, “the student composition at each new school must be reflective of the student composition at the schools it is intended to relieve (in terms of demographics, including but not limited to race/ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, English Learners, Standard English Learners, Special Education, foster care placement), with ongoing review mechanisms in place to ensure retention and student composition at each school continues to reflect that of the overall school community.

“Just to clarify your last point,” Cortines wrote, “all students are under the purview of LAUSD, even if they attend a charter. We work with our charter partners to ensure special education students receive the support services they require.”

Another issue was the one of parent involvement – which will now be part of the application process to obtain any LAUSD school. Parents will have to be included under this scenario, he said, and will part of the process.

“Finally, all of our schools, traditional, pilot, magnet, charter, etc. are the responsibility of the Superintendent and Board of Education. We are accountable to ensuring the quality of all of the schools.”

The bulk of the decision-making will rest in the hands of Cortines, a seemingly able top administrator whose navigated the political turmoil of the district rather even-handedly.

But as writer Danny Weil, whose authored a book about charter schools, pointed out, there are issues that loom no one even thought of before. For instance, he wanted to know, who will own the buildings, who will pay for the upkeep of the operations and will the charters pay to use the facilities?

David Kooper, chief of staff for school board member Richard Vladovic, explained the district will continue to own the campuses, but the upkeep, leasing rate and other issues will be negotiated.

Each charter will have the agreement for five years, with two site visits from Los Angeles officials, twice a year, Kooper explained.

I rarely have received emails enthusiastic about this plan. But last week I received two.

“As someone who has researched and written about the LAUSD for over a decade I have

to say that this is the right direction for this oversized and academically challenged

district,” wrote David Coffin, who is running for 51st Assembly District. “Since 1997

over a quarter of a million high school students have dropped out of the district.

Evidence of this was in a study I wrote back in 2007 called “Where have all the

Seniors Gone?”

Another reader, Steve Kupfer, emailed: “I believe that this  

experiment is ultimately a response to a problem that seems to

have had no answer under traditional jurisdiction. I'm eager to see how  

student achievement- the true gauge of its success- is impacted.

“I could not agree with you more that it is the role of parents and

family that play a critical role in our public school system, but I

also believe that it's time to give alternative means a chance, and

the desperation felt in the state of California has brought that

alternative upon us quickly given the state of the increasing budget

deficits in schools.”

OK, so I’m a hold out. It takes me a long time to come to grips with what

makes sense too so many people. I just feel uneasy, but then change makes

most of us uncomfortable.

A special education teacher seems to feel the same way. 

“I work with the two student constituencies that you listed as likely  

to be left out by the charters, the special education population.  I  

have been asking what will happen to the students with disabilities  

and delinquency issues. Everyone says not to worry,” she wrote. “Yet I worry.”

LAUSD's REVOLUTIONARY REFORM PASSED THIS WEEK: COULD IT WIND UP A DISASTER?

By Diana L. Chapman

I predict disaster.

And lawsuits.

At a contentious Los Angeles Unified School Board meeting Tuesday, I believe an old grizzly escaped out of the bag when the board voted 6-1 to approve a resolution – allowing organizations outside the district, charters or non-profits, to compete for 50 new schools and scores of struggling campuses in the district.

In a nutshell, Los Angeles Unified will have to compete to run its own schools, which some people are calling the “privatization of public schools.”

I call it more than that. I call it a give-away.

Only one school board member opposed it, Maugeritte LaMotte, who asked some serious questions that this resolution does not answer; The actual “the devils in the details” will come from School Superintendent Ramon Cortines.

Proponents are calling this “school choices” for families. Now, I will say this upfront, David Kooper, chief of staff for Board Member Richard Vladovic, has tried pretty much everything to convince me this is a good thing – and has had a hard time at it.

He’s debated with me repeatedly that this is exactly what the district needs to buck up and do the hard-core work necessary to take care of kids in the district. The competition, he says, will force the district to just get better – where the test scores have been dismal and dropout rate has ranged as high as 50 percent.

But it leaves my mind boggled. The district – yes, it’s been trouble-plagued as the second largest in the nation – but that’s because we, as a society, believe it should take over the mom, dad, cousin, aunt, uncle role – and become the family.

That’s next-to-impossible – and while I agree, yes, the district could do so much better, what I saw yesterday was a divorce. And I will be surprised if it’s not an ugly one at that. We all know who pays the most in divorces – the kids.

Unfortunately, board member Steve Zimmer, a teacher and counselor on the board, voted for the proposal, saying even though he had concerns, he needed to keep a voice in the process to protect those who truly care about kids. LaMotte, on the other hand, said she was still a member of the board, would voice her opinion – and voted forcefully against the decision.

At least LaMotte voted for what she believed.

Kooper keeps pointing out that this allows Cortines to add more restrictions and requests and contends this gives the district a better way to get a handle on the flourishing charter movement and some controls they wouldn’t have otherwise. Maybe he’s right. Actually, I hope to God he is.

But I still can’t get over the fact that it puts about a third of the district’s schools up for grabs.

What I don’t believe the public really understands is that while choices are good, the charters and non-profits will likely proliferate (currently they are running just like Los Angeles schools – a mixed bag of good and bad) and not have the intense state regulations the district faces, which makes me even more nervous.

Besides, Kooper said, the school board will get the chance to look at each and every proposal – and decide which best suits the school, adding more controls.

But I still have fears.

I will spell them out and maybe Cortines can respond to some of these:

-- For one: I want to know what will happen to all the children who are emotionally disturbed, physically handicapped, have speech impediments or any learning disabilities and such – because any private organization, charter or non-profit, that can show that they don’t have the resources to help those students are off the hook.

--For two: who is going to take care of those children who are delinquent juveniles and will test the system to extremes? Charters can toss them out, and they wind up at the public schools.

--For three: over the years, I’ve seen various organizations take over the parklands of Los Angeles, saying they will pay for the upkeep. They do - - and then they have control over who uses it. For example, in San Pedro, the Boy Scouts took over some Los Angeles port property, tucked right on a harbor inlet. They pay some ridiculous fee like $1 a year lease – and guess who does not get to use it: Most of the children in San Pedro. In fact, the white elephant building sits there unused on a daily basis – because a non-profit literally holds the keys to its doors.

--For four: parents who think they are in the picture might want to think again. While legally, parents can push their way into public schools, that can be next-to- impossible at a charter who doesn’t want parents there. Thus, charters can operate with their own rules and initiatives, not really accountable to anyone but their own board.

--For five: what happens when charters fire teachers – like Celerity Nascent charters did – when two junior high teachers decided to instruct about the hanging of 14-yearold Emmett Till, an African-American boy who was hanged in 1955 for whistling at a white woman. The lessons were part of Black History month. Or for instance, charter’s that decide to teach only in Spanish, even though this America. The answer: nothing.

And that’s where the whole issue falls into a giant black hole for me. Hopefully, I’m 100 percent wrong and the approving board is right. The resolution didn’t take up any of these questions.

People keep saying that the district is not accountable. But now that hundreds of schools will be privately operated on public funds, we might learn what “not accountable” really means.

Instead of having a spider under the same umbrella we can run checks on – using district policy whether its good or not – we will have hundreds of baby spiders running all over the place.

And those spiders, I fear, will remain unchecked and unaccountable, virtually to anyone.