Tuesday, April 28, 2015


by email from the office of the superintendent

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Dear Employee:

We all know that MiSiS was not working when I returned to LAUSD in October 2014. On Day One, I appointed new project leaders who took immediate action to ensure we were more attentive to schools’ needs. It is my understanding that the system has improved. However, that is just my perception. I need to know more about your perceptions.

Please take a moment to respond to a few questions about your experiences using MiSiS. This short online survey takes only a couple of minutes to complete, and the information provided will help us understand the impact of our changes and the areas we need to focus on most. To guarantee the validity of the information collected, you will be asked to log in with your LAUSD account; rest assured, your name will not be linked to your individual responses. The survey will close at 11:59 p.m. on Monday, May 4.

Take the Survey Now

I will share the results of this survey in the coming weeks so you can learn what employees across the District are saying about MiSiS. I look forward to hearing from each and every one of you.

Thank you,

Ramon C. Cortines


Office of the Superintendent

Los Angeles Unified School District

●● The survey is behind a firewall, accessible only be District employees. Here is what it looks like:



Electronic Form

Your Experience with MiSiS

Page 1 of 1


For each question below, select the option that best aligns to your experience using MiSiS. There are no right or wrong answers. Your name will not be linked in any way to your responses.


Overall, how well is MiSiS currently working for your school?


Not Working at All  Mostly Not Working  Mostly Working  Working Very Well 



How well is MiSiS working at your school for each of the following areas?


Not Working at All

Mostly Not Working

Mostly Working

Working Very Well

I Don't Know



English Learners




Grades/Report Cards


Master Scheduling


Grade Book



Since October 2014, how much has MiSiS improved at your school?


It's Gotten Worse  Not Improved at All  Improved a Little  Improved a Lot 



Since October 2014, how much has MiSiS improved in each of the following areas?


It's Gotten Worse

Not Improved at All

Improved a Little

Improved a Lot

I Don't Know



English Learners




Grades/Report Cards


Master Scheduling


Grade Book



What do you LIKE most about MiSiS?



What do you DISLIKE most about MiSiS?




Monday, April 27, 2015


Save The Arts

More info/Buy Tickets: http://www.savethearts.net/benefit.html


Education is the civil rights issue of our time. Come join us in our efforts to save the arts in education and give our children the well-rounded educational experience that they need and deserve if they're to compete in the 21st century.
It costs just $25.00 or $50.00 for Premier Seating (rows 1-15) to ensure that one LAUSD student receives Dance, Visual Arts, Theatre, or Music.

Buy a ticket or donate to our event and save the arts for a child.

If you would like to contribute more, please e-mail us at helpsavethearts@gmail.com and we'll let you know how you can help!

Woman Who Should Be Famous: Suzanne Nichols


Over the years, Katie has had the chance to interview some very famous women, but it’s been the ordinary women doing extraordinary things that have really touched her. These are the women in your community who might not be big names, but they’re making a big difference. Today, we are pleased to introduce you to Suzanne Nichols, a drama teacher, who has raised more than $20,000 to save arts education for public schools in Los Angeles.
Learn more


Montage Hotels whole foods le spa starbucks Artstix.net 24th Street Theatre


The Save The Arts Benefit will be held at:

the Historic Cocoanut Grove
701 S. Catalina Street
Parking is on 8th Street, near the corner of 8th and Catalina Street.

Date:  May 16th, 2015

Tickets:  $25.00 / $50.00 for Premier Seating (rows 1-15)

Time: 5:00pm - 9:30pm
Benefit Highlights:
• Grammy nominated Jazz vocalist Barbara Morrison

• An amazing art auction with art work by Nicola Lamb, Michael Blasi, Deborah Krall, Katherine Ng, Lorien Eck, Bradley Greer, and many more

• Artwork by the students of New Open World Academy, Los Angeles High School of the Arts, and the School for the Visual Arts and Humanities. 

• Dr. Daanee Touchstone

Items for Auction:

• Free Swim Lessons from Lenny Krayzelberg Swim Academy. Link
• Free Water Yoga Lessons from Lenny Krayzelberg Swim Academy.
• Gift Certificate for a one hour massage at the Hotel Sofitel Los Angeles. Link

• Two One Month Memberships to UpDog Fitness - starting bid for each item $50.00. Link
• Signed book and cd by actor John Lithgow

Click here to view Artwork for auction


By Valerie Strauss  in The Answer Sheet/Washington Post | http://wapo.st/1DEGNVM

(AP Photo/Brad Barket, File)

April 23   ::  This is one of those videos that make you want to laugh and cry at the same time. I you didn’t watch it, take a few minutes, and if you did see it, watch it again and see what you missed amid the layers of deep analysis for which “The Daily Show” is known.

Jon Stewart on Wednesday night made the inevitable comparison between the former teachers and administrators in Atlanta who were sentenced for cheating on standardized tests — a few for as much as seven years — with Wall Street denizens who in 2008 connived in a way that nearly brought down the country’s financial system. Only one was sentenced to 12 months in jail.

The Atlanta convictions, of racketeering and other crimes in a standardized test-cheating scandal, were believed to be the worst of a wave of test cheating in nearly 40 states and Washington, D.C. — not by students but by teachers and administrators who were under pressure to meet certain score goals at the risk of sanction if they failed.

The case stemmed from a 2013 indictment by a grand jury of Beverly Hall, the now-deceased Atlanta schools superintendent, and 34 teachers, principals and others. Twelve teachers eventually went to trial; one was acquitted of all charges and the 11 others were all convicted of racketeering — under a law used against the Gambino organized-crime family — plus a variety of other charges. Prosecutors alleged that Hall had run a “corrupt” organization that used test scores to financially reward and punish teachers. Hall passed away earlier this year.

The judge in Atlanta is said to be reconsidering his harshest sentences.

Stewart compares the cases and finds a surprising number of similarities — except the sentences.

Here it is:

Valerie Strauss covers education and runs The Answer Sheet blog.


from EdHealth, an online newsletter produced by EdSource with support from The California Endowment  | by email


April 27, 2015  ::  Despite an outpouring of opposition from hundreds of parents who traveled to Sacramento to testify against the measure, a proposed state law seeking to ensure that more California school children are vaccinated is proceeding through the Legislature. Senate Bill 277, co-authored by state Sen. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, and state Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, is scheduled to be heard by the state Senate Committee on the Judiciary on Tuesday, April 28.

The bill, which would remove the personal belief exemption to school vaccination laws, passed the state Senate Education Committee on April 22. It previously passed the state Senate Health Committee.

A small percentage of California parents refuse to have their children vaccinated and opt-out by filling out a personal belief exemption form, which must be signed by a health care provider. About 2.5 percent of California kindergarteners had a personal belief exemption on file in fall 2014. Check the EdSource Today Vaccination App to look up vaccination rates at your school.

School vaccination requirements have long been considered an efficient and cost-effective method of protecting public health, dating back at least to 1827, when Boston became the first city to require that public school students be vaccinated against smallpox, according to a 2011 report on mandatory vaccinations from the U.S. Congressional Research Service.

Senate Bill 277 was introduced after a measles outbreak began in Disneyland in Anaheim last December and infected 134 people in the state, including 57 unvaccinated individuals. On April 17, the California Department of Public Health declared the measles outbreak over because two 21-day incubation periods (42 days) had passed without a new outbreak-related infection.

During debate on the bill, Pan, a pediatrician, stated that hundreds of people around the world die every day from measles. According to the World Health Organization, the global toll is 400 deaths from measles every day.


Poll hints of political train wreck over Common Core 

by Tom Chorneau,  SI&A Cabinet Report ::  http://bit.ly/1JLkLnX

see: Last week’s 4LAKids newsletter “Driven” |  http://bit.ly/1dgFoi0

April 27, 2015  ::  (Calif.) If it was big news last week that most parents know nothing about new K-12 testing aligned to the Common Core, consider the headlines later this summer when the results come back and only a fraction of the students pass.

That’s the scenario that the California State Board of Education has been bracing for and why the Brown administration has so vigorously fought off efforts by the U.S. Department of Education to use the results for federal accountability purposes.

It’s also why the state has delayed setting the critical scoring marks that will separate the students passing the new tests from those that fail – even though most districts are already engaged in administrating the exams.

The poll, a survey of education issues conducted every year by the Public Policy Institute of California, found 55 percent of public school parents said they knew nothing about the new Common Core testing.

The finding probably didn’t surprise too many inside the education system but it does signal even more ominous developments surrounding the test results.

If most parents whose children are taking the new tests this spring know little about it, how will they – along with lawmakers, taxpayer groups and the mainstream media – react when they learn that a large, perhaps very large, percentage of kids failed.

The question then becomes: Does support for the Common Core come under pressure here in California too?

“This is going to be a very tense moment for the Common Core,” said Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of PPIC. “It’s a very tricky policy dilemma created around the fact that there’s such low awareness of the testing and of the specifics around the curriculum change.”

Ushered in under the Schwarzenegger administration and embraced by Gov. Jerry Brown, the Common Core enjoys, on some levels, widespread support among voters and parents.

A second poll, conducted by Children Now and released on April 20, found 67 percent of registered voters support the use of the Common Core standards in the public schools. The PPIC survey reported a similar finding – 57 percent of public school parents support the new standards.

Those numbers stand in stark contrast to the situation in many other states where the Common Core has become a lightning rod for partisan attacks.

Efforts to repeal the standards are being actively pushed in 19 states and are already becoming a wedge issue in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, said one reason they wanted to conduct their poll on the Common Core was to illustrate California’s standing as the national leader.

“We know the Common Core brand has been somewhat tarnished in other parts of the country,” he said. “But that isn’t the case in California where support is just off the charts.”

But what the PPIC poll appears to have discovered is a depth problem with that support.

Based on interviews with 1,706 adults – of which 501 were parents – the poll found just 8 percent of public school parents who said they knew a lot about the Common Core assessments. That number is significant even with a margin of error of plus or minus 7.7 percent.

Perhaps even more telling, 42 percent of public school parents said they expect the scores to be about the same as in the past, despite all the changes; only 6 percent said they expect the scores will be lower.

Baldassare said it is important to note that poll results going back years have shown that Californians and public school parents place a significant value on testing – and thus test results are important too.

“It doesn’t seem that people are ready for test scores that could be much lower,” he said. “You may well hear people saying, ‘Wait a minute – I thought this was going to lead to certain improvements but the test scores are going in the wrong direction. What’s going on here?’”

Lempert agreed that the test results may cause some confusion but also said he believes California officials are positioned to handle the challenge.

“There is concern about the test results – but just as California is in better shape implementing Common Core than many other states, I think we have also been preparing for exactly this issue,” he said. “I think there’s been a lot of effort to set the stage for explaining why these tests are different from the past and why the results need to be looked at differently.”

The test score issue comes as California’s school accountability system is undergoing a broad revision, as the Brown administration and state schools chief Tom Torlakson search for more achievement measures than just test scores. But the work has been stalled, at least in part, while schools undertake the first round of Common Core testing.

Federal law requires annual testing of students in grades three through eight and 11, and mandates that states report the scores to the public.

Last spring students piloted the new assessments but this year the scores will be publicly released. The Brown administration won a hard-fought waiver last year to set aside the test scores for federal accountability and is seeking similar relief this year.

Student and school performance has since the late 1990s been expressed with the Academic Performance Index – based exclusively on test scores.

With the adoption of Common Core, the old assessment system – the Standardized Testing and Reporting system, or STAR – has been replaced by the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, or CAASPP. And with the new classroom content, the new tests are measuring different indicators and require a completely new scoring matrix.

Saturday, April 25, 2015

WANT REFORM? PRINCIPALS MATTER TOO + Letters to the editor: The Importance of Good Principals


Want Reform? Principals Matter, Too

By WILL MILLER | Op-Ed Contributor to the New York Times | http://nyti.ms/1E6k2MU

Credit Thoka Maer>>

APRIL 17, 2015  ::  POLITICIANS and education reformers are fixated on the performance of teachers, but they often overlook another key ingredient for improving student achievement: principals. The problem is that great principals often don’t end up in the schools that need them most — those with poor and minority students. School districts, states and universities need to do much more to get outstanding principals into these schools.

A generation ago, good principals were efficient middle managers. They oversaw budgets, managed complicated bus schedules and delivered discipline. That started changing in the mid-1990s. Today’s principal needs to be much more focused on the quality of teaching in the classroom.

Take Clayborn Knight, principal of Nesbit Elementary School in Tucker, Ga., where more than 90 percent of his 2,100 students live in poverty. Mr. Knight arrives by 6 a.m. to form his game plan for the day and handle administrative matters so he can help teachers improve instruction during the rest of the day. He roams from classroom to classroom to observe teachers, give them informal feedback and present model lessons.

Dewey Hensley, the former principal of the J. B. Atkinson Academy for Excellence in Teaching and Learning in Louisville, Ky., where nearly all of the roughly 400 students were living in poverty, used data to get teachers to own their students’ performance. He lined a wall in the staff room with photos of teachers and color-coded charts showing whether their students were at grade level, below grade level or significantly below grade level. Once one of Kentucky’s lowest performers, his school doubled its proficiency in reading, math and writing.

Kimberly Washington, principal of Hyattsville Middle School in Hyattsville, Md., zeroed in on behavior that interrupted teaching and learning — students who were hanging out in the halls and coming late to class. She instituted uniforms, got extra help for misbehaving students and celebrated students’ accomplishments at rallies. Creating a positive culture helped cut suspensions by 90 percent from one year to the next.

Without strong principals like these, student achievement won’t improve. My organization, the Wallace Foundation, has spent a decade and a half working with states and districts nationwide, including the districts where these exemplary public school principals operate.

We also commission research on school leadership. In the largest of these studies, covering 180 schools in nine states, researchers from the University of Minnesota and the University of Toronto concluded, “We have not found a single case of a school improving its student achievement record in the absence of talented leadership.”

We need a bigger pool of outstanding principal candidates; we need to get them into the schools with the greatest challenges; and we need to support them on the job. Right now, that’s not happening in enough communities.

Most principals start out as teachers. They typically earn master’s degrees in educational administration, but many university principal training programs are “inadequate to poor,” according to a study by Arthur Levine, the former president of Teachers College at Columbia University. Would-be principals take classes in general management, school laws and administrative requirements, with little emphasis on how to improve teaching and student learning. The head of the University Council for Educational Administration estimates that only 200 out of the 500 university preparation programs for principals are effective.

New principals are often thrown into these tough jobs to sink or swim with little assistance from their districts, prompting many to quit before they can turn things around. On average, principals nationwide stay at a school about three to four years. That’s less than the five to seven years recommended by the Minnesota-Toronto researchers who conducted our study of school leadership.

It’s hard to think of another profession where so little attention is paid to leadership. Organizations like the military, corporations and universities invest heavily in their leaders. If we’re going to do this in public education, a lot has to change.

In Congress, lawmakers debating reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act need to make principals a priority. Currently only 4 percent of federal dollars for improving educator performance is spent cultivating principals. Federal policy should fund improved training and mentoring for principals and require the equitable distribution of effective principals to schools with the greatest needs.

States should be much tougher about which university principal training programs get accredited and about principal licensing requirements.

University programs should selectively admit outstanding candidates who really want to become principals, not teachers looking for a credential to get a pay raise. The University of Illinois at Chicago, which has participated in our foundation’s meetings, has made its curriculum for principals much more challenging. It carefully screens applicants, who get hands-on experience during a full-year internship, as well as three years of on-the-job coaching by former principals. U.I.C. reports that schools led by these principals outperform comparable public schools in Chicago on measures ranging from keeping freshmen on track for graduation to standardized test scores to actual graduation rates.

School districts need to groom many more outstanding school leaders, in part by making sure they get proper training, but also by matching principals’ strengths with schools’ needs. It should become routine to provide new principals with mentors for several years.

Great teachers are essential but not enough. They need to be led and developed by great principals. As the federal government, states and local districts work to turn around schools, we need to figure out how to get more people with the right training and support to take on one of the hardest jobs in America.

Will Miller is the president of the Wallace Foundation.


The Importance of Good Principals

letters to the editor of the new york times | http://nyti.ms/1byxkZw

APRIL 23, 2015


<<Credit Daniel Lima

To the Editor:

Re “Want Reform? Principals Matter, Too,” by Will Miller (Op-Ed, April 17):

Regarding school principals, as a 30-year veteran of New Haven public high school teaching, I’ve “seen ’em come and seen ’em go.” I fully agree with Mr. Miller’s emphasis on reforming the building of leadership and putting more focus on recruiting, developing and retaining strong principals. But I would urge inclusion of three more steps toward this reform:

1. Define clear leadership traits, expectations and a performance rubric for principals.

2. Give parents and faculty a voice in the selection of principals. One of the first challenges a new principal faces is gaining trust with stakeholders. Knowing that their representatives were part of the candidate screening process helps historically distrustful faculty and parent groups share responsibility for school leadership success.

3. Grant principals the primary say in selection and retention of her or his leadership team.

Want reform? Expand career advancement opportunities for great teachers, along with identifying and mentoring great vice principals and principals.


Branford, Conn.

To the Editor:

“Want Reform? Principals Matter, Too” was on target. The job of a principal has changed dramatically in the last 15 years in terms of responsibilities, accountability and work hours.

And yet, despite this relatively new focus on the principal as the instructional leader rather than as a building manager, the education-government complex continues to focus on teachers with a dearth of funding for principal training.

The bipartisan Senate proposal to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act would improve the recruitment, preparation and retention of school leaders in high-need schools. The bill allows states to reserve up to 3 percent of Title II funds for principal training. Both my organization, the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators, and our national union, the American Federation of School Administrators, support this bill.

My organization has also been at the forefront of preparing the next cohort of school leaders through our Executive Leadership Institute. Years ago, we recognized that the “system” was failing to help school leaders as their duties expanded. The institute helps fill that void through workshops, yearlong programs and individual mentoring.


President, Council of School

Supervisors and Administrators

New York

To the Editor:

I am very pleased to see the deficiencies of school principals finally receiving some attention. If more teacher performance reviews were conducted by competent administrators, there would be far less demand to evaluate teachers by student test scores, and far fewer inadequate teachers granted tenure.

In my experience as a teacher, too many principals are appointed to their positions based on nepotism and social connections. Many applicants seek administrative positions not for higher pay, but to escape the classroom, where their limited skills make teaching too challenging, too stressful and too unsatisfying.

Their idea of educational leadership consists of parroting back whatever “new” idea they heard about at the latest administrative conference. They play favorites, and reward their favorite teachers with the students most likely to succeed. They care far more about classroom discipline than genuine learning, so a quiet classroom full of children filling in the blanks on “dittos” of scant educational value is considered preferable to a more boisterous room where intellectual adventure is taking place.

Best of luck to Will Miller and his organization, the Wallace Foundation. Better principals will help new teachers achieve mastery, reduce teacher turnover and build the kinds of schools our children need and deserve.


Shirley, N.Y.

Friday, April 24, 2015



by JCM | The following is from California Dept of Eds federal update e-mail from advocates Brustein & Manasevit on federal issues

24 APRIL 2015 :: With Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) saying he wants to put legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) on the Senate floor before the Memorial Day recess, lawmakers are positioning themselves to offer amendments on a number of controversial issues.

Several amendments submitted during Committee markup of the Every Child Achieves Act (ECAA) were ultimately withdrawn by their sponsors in favor of floor consideration, including an amendment from Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) which would create a Title I “portability” option. This option would allow States to set up systems in which funds are allocated to districts and then to schools – including charters and private schools – based on their population of Title I-eligible students. There is a similar provision in the House’s ESEA reauthorization bill (which is still awaiting a final vote), but Congressional Democrats and President Obama have spoken out against it.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) offered an amendment regarding data which she also withdrew with the intention of reintroducing during debate on the floor. Her amendment would require cross-tabulation of student assessment data across various reporting categories. While cross-tabulated data does provide more information for teachers, principals, and analysts, it represents a significantly increased burden for data reporting.

A version of the Student Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination because of a student’s actual or perceived gender or sexual orientation, was offered as an amendment in Committee by Senator Al Franken (D-MN). Franken also quickly withdrew this amendment with the intention of reintroducing it on the floor. And both Franken and Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) say they will bring up amendments on bullying – an issue that failed to gain traction during markup – in floor debate.

But not all the potential floor amendments come from Committee members. Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) introduced legislation on Tuesday which would roll back some of the current testing requirements under ESEA, making such tests a requirement only once in elementary school, once in middle school, and once in high school. Tester has said that he plans to raise that legislation as an amendment during debate on the ECAA.

While some of these amendments will be offered during floor debate with the blessing of Alexander and Committee Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA), others threaten to slow down consideration of the bill or even stall it entirely. As the Title I portability provision in the House bill was mentioned in President Obama’s veto threat, Scott’s portability amendment could prove to be a poison pill for the Senate bill – and Senators will have to consider these kinds of implications carefully if they wish to see the President sign a reauthorization bill into law.

  • Resources: Lyndsey Layton, “Sen. Jon Tester Seeks to End Annual Standardized Testing,” The Washington Post, April 21, 2015 | http://wapo.st/1z235EA

AALA explains it all for you: LAUSD AND UTLA REACH A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT …but what about “Me too?”

smf 2cents


The administrators’ weekly newsletter puts the proposed new contract between UTLA and LAUSD into pretty fair perspective with the least amount of drama.

from the Associated Administrators of Los Angeles Weekly Update | Week of April 27, 2015 | http://bit.ly/1FkqXV4

23 APRIL 2015  ::  The Los Angeles Unified School District and United Teachers Los Angeles reached a tentative agreement in contract negotiations on Friday, April 17, 2015.

The agreement must be approved by both the LAUSD Board of Education and the UTLA membership.

●●smf: The Board approved the deal unanimously on Tuesday. UTLA rank+file vote between May 1 – 7.  If ratified, the Board of Education will ratify at their meeting on May 12.

The parties agreed on a three-year, $607 million dollar contract that includes a multitiered evaluation system, summer school, reduced class sizes in 8th and 9th grade English/Language Arts and mathematics classes, increased counseling services and a multiyear salary structure.

The agreement was reached after seven months of sometimes contentious negotiations and a declaration of impasse, initiated by UTLA, which led to mediation and a successful agreement. Both sides expressed pleasure that an agreement had been reached.
A 10.36 percent salary increase covering several years is part of the agreement. Details may be found in the second bullet below.
According to the District’s press release, the following are the key components of the agreement: 

  • A 3-year agreement covering 2014-2017 with limited reopeners in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 which includes a salary reopener. 
  • A 4% on-schedule salary increase effective July 1, 2014; a 2% on-schedule salary increase effective January 1, 2015; a 2% on-schedule salary increase effective July 1, 2015, and a 2% on-schedule salary increase effective January 1, 2016. 
  • A 3-level final evaluation system, which will allow for additional flexibilities through the CORE Waiver.
  • Additionally, a joint committee will be created with the certificated bargaining units to help with the development of the improvements to the teacher evaluation system. 
  • $13 million for class size reduction to English Language Arts and Math in grades 8-9.
  • An additional $13 million will be provided to increase secondary school counseling services. 
  • Continued protections for the District for budgetary uncertainties. 
  • A class size committee to explore options and strategies for further reducing class sizes. 
  • A more efficient grievance processing system that requires informal discussion prior to the filing of a grievance. 
  • Additional leave options to promote wellness among employees. 
  • Greater collaboration with UTLA in the assignment process. 
  • Substitutes will be provided additional rights to a meeting with representation.



AALA members are aware of the “me too” clause in the contractual agreements between AALA ( and other bargaining units)  and LAUSD that allows a union the opportunity to reopen salary negotiations should the Board approve a higher raise for another union. In light of the agreement with UTLA, Dr. Judith Perez, AALA President, sent the following communication to Vivian Ekchian, LAUSD Chief Labor Negotiator:

Consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the District and AALA dated June 27, 2014, I am requesting that the District schedule negotiations with AALA.

On page 2 of the aforementioned MOU the following is noted “…should the Board of Education approve a higher general percentage increase on the base salary table for another group of employees, AALA will receive comparable treatment.”

AALA is interested in quickly addressing and resolving the “me too” clause matter on behalf of our membership.

Members should be advised that before any negotiations between AALA and the District can begin, the ratification of the District’s agreement with UTLA must take place. According to staff in the Office of Labor Relations, UTLA members will vote on the proposed agreement between May 1 – 7. Votes will be tallied and announced on May 8, 2015. If ratified, the Board of Education will consider it for adoption at their meeting on May 12, 2015, and since all Board Members have voiced support for the agreement, we assume it will pass. Once adopted, AALA can initiate the formal negotiation process with the District which should result in administrators being offered a salary agreement that is on par with their colleagues in UTLA.

VACCINE LEGISLATION PROPERLY PUTS PUBLIC HEALTH ABOVE PERSONAL BELIEFS: Vaccinations shouldn't be an issue. Get them or get out of school. Don't jeopardize other kids

California legislators shouldn't let misguided parents sway them against vaccinations bill

Vaccine legislation properly puts public health above personal beliefs

George Skelton / Capitol Journal | LA Times | http://t.co/c2jGHbB3o3

Vaccination bill

<< Opponents of SB 277, which would end the "personal beliefs" exemption, attend the Senate Education Committee meeting where the panel approved the bill. (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

23 APRIL 2015  ::  Ask most rational people what their No. 1 priority is and, I suspect, they would answer good health.

Love, friends, money, freedom, a good education, a productive life — they're all right up there. But none outranks health.

So it's pathetic that more legislators aren't fully embracing a bill that essentially would tell parents: Vaccinate your kids against infectious diseases or they won't be allowed in school where they could jeopardize the health of other children.

The bill's only exception: Parents whose children have a medical condition — a weak immune system caused by leukemia, for example — that might not tolerate a vaccination. They can get a doctor's note and be excused from the shots.

You parents who won't permit vaccinations because of a personal belief, well, you're free to practice that belief any way you'd like — as long as it doesn't threaten other people's kids.

Americans do have freedom of religion — but not the freedom to jeopardize the health of other Americans.

That's the way it should be, anyway, and how a bill struggling through the Legislature would make it in California.

The measure, SB 277, finally cleared the Senate Education Committee on Wednesday on its second try. A week earlier, it stalled when committee members worried that it would deny unvaccinated children their education rights.

The bill would eliminate "personal belief" as a legal excuse for refusing to have children vaccinated before they enter school.

Under compromise amendments — which semi-satisfied legislators, but not the bill's opponents — unvaccinated children would have broader options for education besides single-family home-schooling. They could join other families in creating a private home-school. Or they could use existing independent study programs run by local school districts.

The bill still must clear two more committees. If passed by the Senate, it would face a tough fight in the Assembly.

Gov. Jerry Brown is sending signals he'd be inclined to sign the bill.

"The governor believes that vaccinations are profoundly important and a major public health benefit," says Brown's chief spokesman, Evan Westrup. "And any bill that reaches his desk will be closely considered."

The bill is jointly authored by Sens. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), a pediatrician, and Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), a former school board president whose father had polio as a child.

Tianna Hazard, of Oakland, wipes tears from her eyes as she and her daughter, Livi, 9 months, leave a Senate committee hearing on the vaccine bill. (Rich Pedroncelli, AP)>>

Besides polio, kids are required, before entering school or child care, to be immunized for such communicable diseases as diphtheria, measles, mumps, whooping cough, chickenpox and hepatitis B.

But California has the "personal belief" exemption that increasingly has resulted in parents refusing to inoculate their children. Besides a religious belief, many are scared that vaccinations can cause other ailments.

Many mistakenly believe, for example, that a measles shot can lead to autism — a discredited theory promoted in 1998 by a lying researcher. His study later was retracted by the journal that published it. And many studies since have shown there is no link between vaccinations and autism.

Statewide, the immunization rate for kindergartners is roughly 90%, according to the state public health department. But in some mountain counties — Humboldt, Mariposa, Nevada, Tuolumne — it's down into the 70s. And in some pockets, it's in the 50s, a place ripe for disease spreading. The rate has been gradually declining in recent years.

Experts say that low vaccination rates fueled the measles outbreak that started at Disneyland in December, sickening 157 people and inspiring the legislation.

"Each year we're adding to the number of unvaccinated," Pan says. "If it gets low enough, that's when disease is able to spread. Because so many people haven't experienced these diseases, they don't know how serious they are."

Relatively few people today remember the frightening polio epidemics before the Salk vaccine was introduced in 1955. There hasn't been a case of paralytic polio in the United States since 1997. Credit polio shots. But the disease continues to ravage people in 10 countries. So it still can be transmitted to unvaccinated Americans by foreigners.

During the Senate Education Committee's fiery hearing last week — attended by hundreds of angry parents — a polio survivor told about being stricken at age 7. She urged passage of the bill, speaking in a voice apparently weakened by respiratory problems.

Later, she was mocked on Facebook by two opponents of the bill. "Lisa" referred to "the hysterical polio survivor" and added: "Poor woman needs emotional therapy." "Annika" responded: "Polio was really DDT poisoning."

Polio has been around thousands of years; DDT about 80.

"The level of vitriol [over the bill] is the highest of any I've experienced," Pan told me. He and Allen both have received death threats from opponents who claim they have a parental right to not vaccinate their kids.

OK. But we also should have a right to keep them away from other school kids.

In 1951, before there was a vaccine, more than 10,000 Americans were afflicted with paralytic polio. I was one. My strong single mom guided me through the ordeal. She was a saint.

But if there had been a polio vaccine that she had prevented me from receiving, I never would have forgiven her.

Parents who won't allow their children to be vaccinated are — let's put it politely — misguided. That's their problem — and their kids'.

The Legislature should gather enough courage to make sure it's not also everyone else's problem.

Tuesday, April 21, 2015


in the Blue Room, next door to the Board Room | 333 South Beaudry | bring your lunch




LA Unified board calls meeting to approve contract offered to teachers

by Vanessa Romo in LA School Report |  http://bit.ly/1DaAuI4

Alex Caputo-Pearl, president of UTLA

Alex Caputo-Pearl, president of UTLA

April 20, 2015 3:02 pm  ::  The Los Angeles Unified school board is meeting [Tuesday] afternoon in private to vote on approving the contract agreement negotiated with the 35,000-member teachers union, UTLA, that gives district teachers a 10.4 percent raise over two years.

What that translates to in dollars is a work in progress. Tom Waldman, the district spokesman, told LA School Report today that the district’s chief financial officer, Megan Reilly, is developing a breakdown of the costs in tiome for tomorrow’s meeting.

The closed session had not been on the scheduled but was quickly arranged to put the deal before the seven board members for a vote.

Reilly has spent the last several months warning the board to observe fiscal restraint. She has has told the members that any raise above the district’s earlier offer of 5 percent would put the district at risk of financial ruin.

In a presentation to the board on March 11, she reported that LA Unified is facing a budget deficit of $113 million for the 2015-16 academic year. The district also issued 609 possible lay-off notices for next year for a savings of nearly $51 million.

Further, the board sent an interim report to the Los Angeles County of Board of Education last month, saying that based on current projections LA Unified may not be able to meet its financial obligations. That report, which projected a deficit and recommended millions of dollars in cuts left blank a section which projected any additional costs for future labor agreements. (See here).

To further complicate matters, Superintendent Ray Cortines has not yet presented his draft budget — typically offered in early April, nor has Gov. Jerry Brown presented his revised budget, usually made public in May, that could bring the district $2 million more dollars than it is expecting. In short, board members may be asked to approve the contract with the teachers without knowing exactly how the district will pay for it.

The deal completed late Friday night still needs to be ratified by teachers, and it remains unclear when that will happen. A statement on the UTLA website says only, “Voting on the TA will take place at school sites soon.”

If agreement by union members follows an approving board vote tomorrow, the deal goes back to the board for final approval.

In addition to a 10 percent salary increase over two years, the district agreed to spend an additional $26 million to hire more teachers and counselors. But that budget falls way short of funding UTLA’s earlier demands of hiring 5,000 additional school employees including teachers, nurses, librarians, and counselors.

The new deal leaves out other long-standing UTLA demands that were fundamental to the “Schools LA Students Deserve” campaign, including:

  • A $1,000 stipend for all members for instructional and support materials, which district officials estimated would cost $33.1 million
  • Compensation for professional development time paid at members’ hourly rate, projected at $12.8 million
  • Additional nurses, psychologists, secondary counselors, college counselors, librarians, and other student support services, which the district ballparked at $285.5 million

LA Unified leaves itself open to additional cost increases from other unions with which it has recently negotiated new contract deals.

At least two other of the district’s labor partners have so-called “me too” contacts, which means their members are entitled to get the same increases the teachers get. They include the Associated Administrators of Los Angeles, a union with two bargaining units — one for the district’s 2,500 principals and assistant principals and the other for a group of 250 employees who serve in such positions as transportation directors and food service managers.

“The amount of compensation and the timelines are different from ours, and it will take some time for the district to propose a ‘me too’ for us,” said Dan Isaacs, administrator for AALA. “But our ‘me too’ clause with the district is solid. We’ll do an analysis to see what’s in the best interest of our members, and I’m sure the district will be fair with us.”

A group affiliated with the teamsters — cafeteria managers, office managers and plant managers — also have the “me too” deal.

The district’s service employees union, SEIU Local 99, which represents about 35,000 workers, opted out of its “me too” clause earlier this year when members approved a contract raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour for its lowest paid employees by 2015.

Among the non-monetary compromises reached between the district and the teachers with the help of a mediator is a new teacher evaluation system that would rate teachers on a three-tier system. It replaces a two-tier system, which prevented the district from being in compliance with the CORE Waiver, a federal funding program that could add $171 million over three years to district coffers.

Board member Steve Zimmer said he fully anticipates that board members will vote to approve the contract, which brings the teachers their first contract in eight years.

“We are going to hear from the superintendent and I anticipate he will have the full support of the board moving forward,” Zimmer told LA School Report.

Zimmer added that “the salary agreement is the definition of compromise.”

“It is the maximum we could do at this moment to show the most respect that we could possibly show in monetary terms for our teachers,” he said.

Board President Richard Vladovic was also optimistic.

“There’s nothing more valuable than our youth – and the people that are at our schools helping them day in and day out, are worth every penny,” he wrote in a statement. “I encourage my colleagues to vote yes with me on this much deserved agreement.”


Meeting Agenda



3 stories+1 cartoon +2¢+: “VOTERIA”: Pseudo Political Science, taken to an illogical extreme

AN ELECTION DAY LOTTERY DEMEANS THE VALUE OF VOTING: A nonprofit voter group has a plan to turn around traditionally abysmal turnout for a key election to the Los Angeles Board of Education …it's going to pay one lucky voter $25,000

“Gonzalez said his group has concluded that handing out a $25,000 cash prize is legal in California but would violate federal law  …what part of ‘violates federal law’ is so hard to understand?

Venture capitalist/Alliance Charter Schools board co-chair Antony Ressler, on the District 1 LAUSD School Board Election:  “10000 votes for School board race... Crazy that we have a publicly elected school board... This is NOT what democracy is supposed to be.   No one in LA cares    TR”  - e-mail to Jamie Alter Lynton on Jun 5, 2014, at 10:04 PM | WikiLeaks Sony Hack #126221


smf 2cents I am racking my brain and Googling like mad – and I haven’t found it yet: There was an absurdity by The Firesign Theater back in the sixties that followed the prompt: “Knowing that wrong thought creates electrical resistance, it seemed possible….”

The following is like that: Let’s muck about with the democratic process and make it better: What could possibly go wron9?

Nonprofit hopes $25,000 prize lures L.A. schools' District 5 voters

By Howard Blume | LA Times | http://lat.ms/1G3f5Tn

Voting prize

Low voter turnout is an ongoing problem. But a nonprofit thinks a $25,000 prize drawing could be a solution. (Bob Chamberlin, Los Angeles Times)

20 April 2015  ::  Those who cast ballots in the race for District 5 in the May 19 election will be entered in a drawing.

The idea is the brainchild of Southwest Voter Registration Education Project.

"This is an experiment, a nontraditional out-of-the-box strategy" because "participation has gotten so bad," said Antonio Gonzalez, president of the organization, which focuses on increasing voter turnout, especially within the Latino community.

The March primary for the school board drew marginal voter interest in a citywide election that also failed to attract much interest.

Three board races are going to a May runoff. Southwest Voter Registration is especially interested in District 5, because about 57% of registered voters there are Latino.

Challenger Ref Rodriguez finished first against incumbent Bennett Kayser, who is seeking a second term.

Voter turnout was just under 12% in the area, which includes Los Feliz and Silver Lake as well as an economically diverse range of Latino neighborhoods, including the cities of southeastern L.A. County.

The most notable dividing point between Kayser and Rodriguez is over independently managed charter schools, which are exempt from some rules that govern traditional campuses.

Kayser has tried to limit their growth; Rodriguez co-founded one of the largest charter organizations, People Uplifting Communities.

"If overall turnout is higher, it's hard to say what the effect would be," said Dan Chang, who directs a political action committee that has endorsed Rodriguez. "If there is higher turnout among Latinos, the conventional wisdom is that Ref Rodriguez will do better — a Latino candidate with a Latino surname."

Both campaigns pushed hard to win the Latino vote in the bitter, high-cost primary and said they are doing so again.

Gonzalez's nonpartisan group hasn't endorsed either candidate. And his lottery strategy could increase turnout among all ethnicities.

He calls the idea "voteria," a play on the Spanish term "loterĂ­a," for lottery.

In its current form, the area's voting boundaries were carved out with the idea of increasing Latino representation in a school system that is more than 70% Latino.

That hasn't happened.

Kayser is white, and that seat has had white board members for 16 of the last 20 years.

The nonprofit has never before given out money but has tried other incentives. To increase turnout in the 2004 presidential race, it held drawings to give away a new car in each of four states: New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada and Arizona. To enter, a voter had to recruit four others.

Gonzalez said his group has concluded that handing out a $25,000 cash prize is legal in California but would violate federal law. The plan is to publicize the contest through traditional media and social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat.

Other recent projects have included phone banking to turn out Latinas in the 14th City Council District who voted rarely or inconsistently, and regional training sessions for Latinos considering a run for office.

The nonprofit has teamed with Earth Day Network and the NAACP to launch a nationwide effort to mobilize a million voters over the issue of climate change.


Idea of an L.A. Voteria is gaining currency

Idea of an L.A. Voteria is gaining currency


Steve Lopez: Los Angeles Times | http://lat.ms/1J6rpsb


Low turnout

Ellen Kotheimer of Venice votes by herself in June at the Los Angeles County Lifeguard station in Venice. (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times)

19 Aug 2014   ::  The city Ethics Commission has proposed a cash prize lottery for those who cast ballots

Bob Stern, an ethics expert, says a cash lottery for voting is an experiment worth trying

The proposal to enter L.A. voters into a cash prize lottery, for the sake of increasing turnout, is easy to attack on numerous fronts.

My first reaction to last week's recommendation by the L.A. City Ethics Commission?


Or maybe it wasn't horror so much as anger that anyone would come up with such a sad little gimmick. Throughout history, people have sacrificed their lives for the right to vote, and now we have to offer jackpots to shake people out of their laziness and apathy?

"How DUMB!!!" one reader posted on the story by my colleague David Zahniser.

"Really???!!!" said another.

The lower the turnout the easier it is to manipulate and control the messages to individual voters. - Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount Center for the Study of Los Angeles

Aside from the problem of turning a civic duty into a commercial gambit, there's the obvious problem of attracting voters who don't know a councilman from a crossing guard. So I called Nathan Hochman, the ethics commission president, to hear his justification for a lottery.

"We are in a crisis," said Hochman, citing a steep decline in turnout for local elections between 2001 and 2013, when about 75% of the city's registered voters skipped the election won by Mayor Eric Garcetti.

"In a representative democracy, you want everybody to have a piece of ownership about their city government," Hochman said. And when too few people take part, "the system fails."

A commission formed by Garcetti and council President Herb Wesson had already looked at fixes, including the aligning of low-turnout local elections with higher-turnout state and national elections in even-numbered years. Another recommendation was for extended voting times, in which voters might have more places to cast ballots and several days to do so.VOTERIA-DEMOCRATS-websale[1]

Those are fine ideas, Hochman said, but it'll take years to implement them. The commission wanted to try something in the interim, on a trial basis.

He said commissioners considered the 90% turnouts in Australia, where residents are fined $20 if they don't vote. But commissioners preferred carrots over sticks, and the idea of a prize drawing came up.

cartoon by Lalo Alcaraz>

Nobody would be paid to vote. But by voting, regardless of how you vote, you might get lucky.

Hochman said roughly $65 million was spent on L.A. city elections in 2013 when you count independent expenditures and $10 million in matching funds from the city. So if you took just 1% of the $10 million in matching funds, Hochman said, or $100,000, you could probably boost engagement and turnout by randomly awarding four $25,000 prizes, or 10 $10,000 prizes, or any such combination.

Hochman began to turn me around, just a little, with that argument. If it's acceptable to spend the obscene amount of $65 million — much of it to extort and misinform with negative attacks — why is it unacceptable to spend a tiny fraction of that amount to get more people involved?

As we all know, there are lots of reasons people don't vote. They're lazy, or turned off by candidates or campaigns, or they don't believe their vote can make a difference in a city that can't trim a tree but every half-century. Or, understandably, they don't know the difference between the state controller and treasurer, or they can't figure out how anyone can be expected to know one judicial candidate from another.

But regardless, is powerball politics the best way to shake up the system?

I called local government watchdog Bob Stern, who favors several reforms, and was surprised by his take on the lottery idea. It's got pros and cons, he said, "but I like the idea of it as an experiment. Let's try it. Clearly it would increase turnout."

I had expected him to argue that cash prizes would invite too many know-nothings into the process, but he saw it differently.

"I agree with Hochman that people would pay more attention to it," Stern said, "and be more educated than they are now. And that's a good thing."

Wesson told me Tuesday that he's noncommittal but fascinated, pending legal review of a lottery. He said he wants to hear what neighborhood councils think, and also what non-voters have to say about why they don't vote, and whether a lottery would make a difference.

Fernando Guerra, who directs the Loyola Marymount Center for the Study of Los Angeles and headed the election reform commission formed by Garcetti and Wesson, said there are two main reasons turnout in local elections has dropped nationally.

First, the initial fights for African American and Latino representation among elected officials have already been waged. Second, the domination of Democrats and demise of Republicans has further decreased tension and drama.

"There's no magic wand" to address the problem, Guerra said, but he believes a lottery comes closer than anything. And he already has a name for it.


That's not bad. And Guerra said that rather than use city money for prizes, which would raise political and legal issues, he'd like to see nonprofits put up the cash as an experimental investment in greater civic participation.

It's a myth, Guerra said, that everyone who already votes is well-informed. Greater participation, he argued, will lead to more awareness of local issues and possibly undermine special-interest forces that now determine outcomes.

"The lower the turnout," he argued, "the easier it is to manipulate and control the messages to individual voters."

That certainly remains to be seen. But we have just witnessed a pitifully low turnout of 8% in a school board election, and Guerra predicts a paltry 15% turnout in city elections next April. That could double or triple, he suggested, if the lottery were in place and prizes evenly divided across city districts.

I still have misgivings. But I have to admit it'd be interesting to find out if he's right.


Editorial: Vote, and win $25,000: It's a losing idea

By The Times Editorial | http://lat.ms/1E6sugA

Voting in Los Angeles

A voter marks his ballot at a South L.A. polling location on election day last November. (Christina House / For The Times)

21 April 2015  ::  Frustrated by the appallingly low turnout in local elections, the nonprofit Southwest Voter Registration Education Project is planning a cash lottery — or voteria — to get voters to the polls for the Los Angeles Board of Education District 5 race. Anyone who legitimately casts a ballot in the May 19 contest between incumbent Bennett Kayser and challenger Ref Rodriguez will be automatically entered into the drawing. After the election is certified, the group will randomly select one person from the voting pool.

The winner gets $25,000. The losers are the people who still believe in the integrity of the democratic process.

This gimmick perverts the motivation to vote. It demeans the value of voting. And it's the most superficial pseudo-solution to a very real problem in Los Angeles, which is the pervasive civic malaise that prevents so many eligible voters from feeling truly engaged. In fact, the voteria only underscores the cynical view that people don't care about their local government anymore and the only way to get them to vote is to bribe them.

When the Los Angeles Ethics Commission floated a similar lottery proposal last year, The Times called it one of the worst ideas put forward in a long time. But even that was better than the voteria. Why? Because at least a city-sponsored contest would be clearly non-ideological and not aimed at influencing one particular election. The Southwest Voter Registration Education Project is a well-meaning organization with a long history of working to increase voter participation in the Latino community — but what if this cash prize ends up being advertised more heavily in the Latino community in District 5? What if it brings out more Latinos than, say, African Americans? Is it fair that one demographic has more of a financial incentive to vote? What if in the next school board election an African American group decides it should pay voters even more to turn out? Or a Republican group? Or the teachers union or a charter school group? This is a troubling precedent that could easily devolve into an arms race among interest groups trying to get out their votes to influence an election.

Yes, low turnout is bad. It allows the few to make decisions for the many, and that undermines the integrity of our representative democracy. Angelenos were so concerned about low turnout that they voted in March to move local elections to June and November of even-numbered years to coincide with gubernatorial and presidential elections. That is a meaningful reform that should boost turnout simply by capturing local voters who show up for higher-profile elections. Groups like the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project are right to look for innovative ways to engage voters. But dangling money in front of polling places is not the way to do it.



●● Someone else’s 2¢A 4LAKids reader with a JD degree (it takes all kinds!) writes : Don't quote me here, I'm just musing:

So they snaked past the Ca Election Code because they aren't explicitly urging the voting for one candidate over another (although they are quoted as saying they want to encourage Latino voter participation and Dan Chang muses over the effect of a Spanish surname):

18521.  A person shall not directly or through any other person
receive, agree, or contract for, before, during or after an election,
any money, gift, loan, or other valuable consideration, office,
place, or employment for himself or any other person because he or
any other person:
(a) Voted, agreed to vote, refrained from voting, or agreed to
refrain from voting for any particular person or measure.
(b) Remained away from the polls.
(c) Refrained or agreed to refrain from voting.
(d) Induced any other person to:
(1) Remain away from the polls.
(2) Refrain from voting.
(3) Vote or refrain from voting for any particular person or
Any person violating this section is punishable by imprisonment
pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for 16
months or two or three years.

And a lottery isn't illegal if you don't have to pay to participate, see CA Penal Code section

319.  A lottery is any scheme for the disposal or distribution of
property by chance, among persons who have paid or promised to pay
any valuable consideration for the chance of obtaining such property
or a portion of it, or for any share or any interest in such
property, upon any agreement, understanding, or expectation that it
is to be distributed or disposed of by lot or chance, whether called
a lottery, raffle, or gift enterprise, or by whatever name the same
may be known.

But what about the good, old-fashioned law against slot machines in California?  Isn't this scheme converting every voter machine in District 5 into a "mechanical device, upon the result of action of which money or other valuable thing is staked or hazarded..." and therefore subjecting every person who permits the placement of such a voter machine in place under her control to potential prosecutions for a violation of Penal Code section 330a?

330a.  (a) Every person, who has in his or her possession or under
his or her control, either as owner, lessee, agent, employee,
mortgagee, or otherwise, or who permits to be placed, maintained, or
kept in any room, space, inclosure, or building owned, leased, or
occupied by him or her, or under his or her management or control,
any slot or card machine, contrivance, appliance or mechanical
device, upon the result of action of which money or other valuable
thing is staked or hazarded, and which is operated, or played, by
placing or depositing therein any coins, checks, slugs, balls, or
other articles or device, or in any other manner and by means
whereof, or as a result of the operation of which any merchandise,
money, representative or articles of value, checks, or tokens,
redeemable in or exchangeable for money or any other thing of value,
is won or lost, or taken from or obtained from the machine, when the
result of action or operation of the machine, contrivance, appliance,
or mechanical device is dependent upon hazard or chance, and every
person, who has in his or her possession or under his or her control,
either as owner, lessee, agent, employee, mortgagee, or otherwise,
or who permits to be placed, maintained, or kept in any room, space,
inclosure, or building owned, leased, or occupied by him or her, or
under his or her management or control, any card dice, or any dice
having more than six faces or bases each, upon the result of action
of which any money or other valuable thing is staked or hazarded, or
as a result of the operation of which any merchandise, money,
representative or article of value, check or token, redeemable in or
exchangeable for money or any other thing of value, is won or lost or
taken, when the result of action or operation of the dice is
dependent upon hazard or chance, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) A first violation of this section shall be punishable by a
fine of not less than five hundred dollars ($500) nor more than one
thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(c) A second offense shall be punishable by a fine of not less
than one thousand dollars ($1,000) nor more than ten thousand dollars
($10,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six
months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(d) A third or subsequent offense shall be punishable by a fine of
not less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) nor more than
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), or by imprisonment in a
county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and
(e) If the offense involved more than one machine or more than one
location, an additional fine of not less than one thousand dollars
($1,000) nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) shall be
imposed per machine and per location.

A stretch, maybe, but enough for someone/some organization to seek an injunction?