Backers Launch TV Ad to Boost Sagging Hopes

The campaign for an initiative to restrict school district administrative spending has finally gotten off the ground with a television commercial airing statewide in the week before the primary election.

But the push to win voter approval for Proposition 223 comes weeks after the opposition began its own television campaign and after a new Times poll found voter support for the initiative eroding.

The ballot measure, known as the “95-5” initiative, would force school districts to limit spending on certain administrative costs to no more than 5% of their budgets. The rest--the “95” portion--would be spent mainly on teachers’ salaries and other on-campus expenses.

The measure is considered the first attempt in the nation to enact such a mandate by voter initiative.

Proponents argue that Proposition 223 would raise money for actual classroom spending without raising taxes, while critics say that it would hamstring hundreds of school districts with an unworkable one-size-fits-all budget formula.

Many analysts, however, say that the potential impact of the measure is unclear and would be a matter for accountants and lawyers to interpret.

A Los Angeles Times poll conducted in mid-May found that the initiative is now in a statistical tie among likely voters--40% favor it, 38% are opposed--after having held a large lead. In April, the measure led by 55%-26% among likely voters.

But that was before the opposition launched its TV advertisements during the second week in May. One charges that the initiative would create a “costly bureaucracy”; another says that it would siphon money to Los Angeles schools from elsewhere in the state.

The spokesman for the pro-223 forces, Tyrone Vahedi, acknowledged that the other side has benefited from an early start in the all-important TV commercial war. He said the opposition, including groups representing school boards and superintendents statewide, has also held an edge in grass-roots organizing.

“When you have 20,000 [school] administrators getting daily pressure to tell anyone they can that Proposition 223 hurts small school districts, I don’t know that there’s a way to counter that,” Vahedi said.

Vahedi, who also is a candidate for the State Board of Equalization, still predicts victory for the initiative, but he acknowledged that it will “most definitely” be a tough battle to get the attention of undecided voters in the last days before the election.

The new Yes on 223 commercial argues, according to a typed script: “For too long, too much money has been wasted on school administrators. . . . Proposition 223 puts the money where the kids are.” Vahedi said it first aired Monday.

Vahedi said the “yes” campaign will spend about $900,000 on its TV campaign. The opposition said its TV budget will total about $1.7 million.

People on both sides of Proposition 223 say that they have been surprised by the lack of intensity in the pro-223 campaign.

“It’s been almost invisible,” said Bob Wells, the assistant executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, one of the initiative’s top opponents.

A spokesman for United Teachers-Los Angeles was similarly baffled. The union, which represents Los Angeles Unified School District teachers, helped fund a petition drive to qualify the ballot measure.

“I don’t get it. I just don’t get it. We really busted our butts gathering the signatures,” said Steve Blazak, UTLA communications director. “Now, it’s like, where are we?”