Austin Beutner, the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, has a long history in business and apparently thought he could run the school system with the same secrecy that he ran his businesses. He thought he was the boss, and the boss was in charge and could do as he pleased. But no, the board told him, he can’t. He is their employee, not their master.

Even board members who were supposedly his supporters, the ones who voted to appoint an unqualified person to run the nation’s second largest school district, pressured Beutner to explain what he was doing, whom he was paying, and what he learned from his high-priced consultants.

The board, in short, told him they expected transparency, not secrecy.

Howard Blume writes in the Los Angeles Times:

L.A. schools Supt. Austin Beutner works for the Board of Education, but some board members say they need to know more about where he intends to take the nation’s second-largest school system.

Board member Scott Schmerelson put his concerns on the table at Tuesday’s meeting in a resolution that ultimately led the board to informally rebuke the schools chief for his lack of transparency.

Beutner took his medicine, pledging “100%” cooperation in providing the board with information in the future. He said Schmerelson could expect to see reports from district consultants paid to work on a reform effort within days.

In other action Tuesday, the board rejected a proposal to give schools full control over which teachers they hire. And a board majority chose to name a school after a veteran administrator whose long meritorious service was marred by his role in allowing an employee accused of sexual misconduct to return to an L.A. Unified campus.

Schmerelson took Beutner to task for not providing the contracts and the work done by consultants who have been advising him on the plan he is developing to restructure the district.

Beutner has said that his overarching goal is to bring decision-making and resources closer to schools to better serve students and cut costs. But so far he has shied away publicly from specifics.

The Times in November obtained information, that Beutner was considering a plan to divide the school system into about 32 networks of schools that would have substantial independence but that also would be held accountable for improving student achievement.

Beutner has been getting advice on his plan from an assortment of outside consultants paid by private donations managed by the California Community Foundation. Because of that arrangement, his staff initially did not provide The Times either the consultants’ contracts or the work they’ve produced.

Schmerelson first asked for that information in early October — and Beutner pledged at a Nov. 13 board meeting that he would provide the materials. But he did not follow through.

Ultimately, Schmerelson put a resolution on Tuesday’s agenda to require Beutner to supply the documents. On Thursday, the district gave more than 100 pages of contracts to board members and The Times.

These documents lay out proposals for an annual school rating system and for networks of schools that choose which services to purchase from the central office. They do not make clear to what extent the networks could go outside the district to shop for key services such as food, student transportation and hiring.

On Tuesday, Schmerelson thanked Beutner for providing the contracts but reiterated his demand to see the consultants’ work.

“The secrecy has got to stop,” Schmerelson said. “It’s an affront to me and to the constituents I represent.

“I remain incredulous,” he added, “that it took four months and a formal resolution to get you to disclose these documents.”